Posted on

Hiring: It’s About Cultural Contribution, Not Cultural Fit

Been meaning to post this one for a while now.

Frankly, I am generally disgusted by the whole idea of “culture” in hiring and workplaces. I think [in the US] we have gotten too far away from understanding/acknowledging why people really work and why people really come to work and what most people really want from their jobs at the end of the day (especially since–let’s face it–the idea of “culture” in the workplace is really more about and for the benefit of the employer). And it has become a huge no-no to point out these ridiculously obvious realities and accept them for what they are without being viewed negatively or even having your job–or ability to get a job–threatened.

Still, when it all is said and done, you can do whatever you want and have whatever “culture” and “relationships” you want–no one is showing up to work and no one is doing anything for your company if you stop paying them. So, requiring a “cultural fit” or whatever and throwing that on top of the already-lengthy list of job requirements and hiring requirements just makes everything that much harder–for the person hiring and the leaders in a company and the employees and job candidates–when it still is, always was and always will be really and truly about a paycheck.

So, I would love for companies and employers to stop kidding themselves.

All of that said…if you’re going to talk about basing a work culture on mostly professionalism, innovation and/or diversity (I guess if we’re going to come up with acronyms, then I’d call my “cultural” values PID and wouldn’t want to just pay lip service to them like most companies do)…then I can get on board. They’re pretty easy values to which to fit candidates, actually, in my opinion, and they aren’t as taxing, problematic, alienating and/or unrealistic as the values the average company with a cultural ideal has. Which is probably why I struggle to tolerate any other types of cultural workplace beliefs.

This post discusses the benefits of, and the connection between, diversity and innovation in organizations.

Some gems:

…most hiring processes focus on “cultural fit” and lead to the opposite of diversity. Why? Because when we hire based on how well someone will fit in today, we tend to choose people similar to those already around us.

 

I try to choose candidates who could make a positive contribution to the future of our culture, even if they don’t feel like today’s mainstream employee. I don’t optimize for fit with our existing culture, because over time that will lead to uniformity and irrelevancy. Instead, I try to envision a future where this person’s unique point of view has shifted how we work and what we value.

 

…even more importantly, hiring for cultural contribution forces managers to think critically about their existing culture: What’s lacking? Where do we want to go? Acknowledging that our culture needn’t be static helps us have serious conversations about what we want and how the world works. Doing so helps us develop a confident awareness of what makes our culture thrive.

 

I also love this comment from Koney Hoi, who has an impressive background as a leader:

Cultural fit is just a convenient excuse to reject someone. Michael Jordan did not get along with his teammates but they won 6 championships together. Why? Agree to disagree and march together towards a common goal.

 

Hiring: It’s About Cultural Contribution, Not Cultural Fit

Posted on

Two Blatant Ways Big U.S. Companies Are Hurting Employees And Their Careers

With this one, I’ve gotta start with some quotes from the article:

When you enter the career section of Goldman Sachs, the preeminent investment bank based in downtown New York City, you’re immediately shown a montage of happy, attractive-looking employees in their early 20s, while not so subtle highlighting its homage to diversity and inclusion.

 

I suggest you visit any corporation’s career site and you’ll get the same feeling—we want younger people.

Actually–and please note, I am not “young”–I’ll give him what he’s saying about Goldman Sachs (because their career site is hilarious after reading this article)…but, honestly, when I go to the career sites of most corporations, the “feeling” I still get is they mostly want men and white people (i.e. white men, basically). At the most, “diversity” seems to mean gays and lesbians, and white women, in far too many cases–sometimes an Asian or two or some white-looking Hispanics who can only be identified as Hispanics by their surnames. Cherry picking acceptable types of diversity is not true inclusion, whether it’s age, sex/gender, race, nationality, sexual orientation and so on…but it seems like the vast majority of employers do exactly that and still expect a pat on the back.

Nevertheless, I do have to agree with this:

It’s not that [corporations] love younger people, it’s that they know they come cheaper.

This article is very interesting–I just don’t know how much of it I do agree with overall. I have been the recent graduate struggling to get a job twice–once after college, and then again after graduate school. It has seemed pretty clear to me that most employers care more about work experience than snatching up cheaper young labor, but maybe things are changing because I see more and more older people asking why don’t employers want to hire them…and I have recently worked for a company where being young seemed to be the norm.

Maybe employers don’t actually want to hire anybody?!?! I really wouldn’t doubt it.

Two Blatant Ways Big U.S. Companies Are Hurting Employees And Their Careers