Job Applicants' Cultural Fit Can Trump Qualifications

[Caliga]

I was one asked during a job interview "who is your favourite comedian".

I'd have to answer George Carlin to that one, and if it resulted in me not getting the job then well, both parties are better off.

[Caliga]

In my experience, a lot more hiring mistakes are made when too much weight is placed on cultural fit, rather than on competency and skills.  IMO, competency cures a lot of fit problems.  That's why I never bothered with such cheesy questions when interviewing candidates.

I think the decision hierarchy for hiring should go like this:

1.  Is this individual qualified to work here (i.e. not a felon, authorized to work in this country, etc.)?
2.  Is this individual qualified to do the job they are being considered for?
3.  Is this individual the best fit for the team?

In other words, points 1 and 2 are like gates they have to be able to pass thru.  Anyone who passes through them gets evaluated against the rest as to whether they are the best fit... so I wouldn't necessarily be hiring the most qualified person, but the one who is the best fit who is qualified (and if they're also the best qualified person, then great).  You can train someone to be more proficient at something but it's harder to train them to not be an asshole or a weirdo.

[DGuller]

You can train someone to be more proficient at something but it's harder to train them to not be an asshole or a weirdo.

Some jobs more than others.

[Eddie Teach]

1.  Is this individual qualified to work here (i.e. not a felon, authorized to work in this country, etc.)?
2.  Is this individual qualified to do the job they are being considered for?
3.  Is this individual the best fit for the team?

In other words, points 1 and 2 are like gates they have to be able to pass thru.  Anyone who passes through them gets evaluated against the rest as to whether they are the best fit... so I wouldn't necessarily be hiring the most qualified person, but the one who is the best fit who is qualified (and if they're also the best qualified person, then great).  You can train someone to be more proficient at something but it's harder to train them to not be an asshole or a weirdo.

If they're not a weirdo, do they really fit on *your* team? 

[Caliga]

Being weird is relative, isn't it?

I think I mentioned that we have this IT Security Consultant working for us right now named John Jones.  I called him Martian Manhunter when I met him in person and a couple of people immediately got the joke.

I've also done the KHAAAAAAAN! thing before and everyone got that one as well.

[dps]

In my experience, a lot more hiring mistakes are made when too much weight is placed on cultural fit, rather than on competency and skills.  IMO, competency cures a lot of fit problems.  That's why I never bothered with such cheesy questions when interviewing candidates.

I think the decision hierarchy for hiring should go like this:

1.  Is this individual qualified to work here (i.e. not a felon, authorized to work in this country, etc.)?
2.  Is this individual qualified to do the job they are being considered for?
3.  Is this individual the best fit for the team?

In other words, points 1 and 2 are like gates they have to be able to pass thru.  Anyone who passes through them gets evaluated against the rest as to whether they are the best fit... so I wouldn't necessarily be hiring the most qualified person, but the one who is the best fit who is qualified (and if they're also the best qualified person, then great).  You can train someone to be more proficient at something but it's harder to train them to not be an asshole or a weirdo.

Exactly.  The point isn't to hire people who are unqualified but can get along with their co-workers;  rather, it's to pick the people from the pool of qualified applicants who can best fit in with the existing team.  It's not like most job opening don't attract plenty of qualified applicants.

And "best fit" doesn't necessarily mean someone who will be interested in socializing with their co-workers after hours, either.

[DGuller]

Exactly.  The point isn't to hire people who are unqualified but can get along with their co-workers;  rather, it's to pick the people from the pool of qualified applicants who can best fit in with the existing team.  It's not like most job opening don't attract plenty of qualified applicants.

And "best fit" doesn't necessarily mean someone who will be interested in socializing with their co-workers after hours, either.

I don't like to use the word "qualified applicants".  That implies that there is a binary threshold of competence, beyond which the excess amount doesn't enter into an equation.  When it comes to analytic jobs, at least, that IMO doesn't make sense.  Very good qualified applicants are going to make for much more productive employees than just barely qualified.

[Neil]

Numerous studies have proven that diverse workforces give companies competitive advantages in skill, employee retention, innovation, and profits: A 2009 study by University of Illinois sociologist Cedric Herring found that companies with the highest levels of racial diversity reported, on average, 15 times more sales revenue than those with less diverse staffs.

Man.  The only people more stupid and worthless than journalists are academics.  I wonder if corelation and causation are the same thing?  They are if you're a journalist or academic.

[Martinus]

The problem with a lot of today's creative industries is that extroverts have somehow convinced everybody that typical extrovert traits are a net positive for any employer and typical introvert traits are a net negative.

This is of course bullshit, as extroverts, in addition to making good first impressions and being sociable and fun to work with, are also rather bad when it comes to attention to detail, being disciplined or seeing a project to its end. Unfortunately, introverts prefer to fume quietly in their cubicles instead of trying to convince the world of this.

The fact that people in recruitment positions who invent these new recruitment processes are extroverts (i.e. it's a joke job that lazy schmoozers are attracted to) does not help.

[Martinus]

I was one asked during a job interview "who is your favourite comedian".

When I thought about it later, Rodney Dangerfield might not have been the best answer.

"Fit" was and continues to be a big factor when hiring new lawyers.  While in this profession I do agree you don't want to hire people largely incapable of human interaction, I think the focus on "fit" is to the professions detriment.

This is largely because I have worked in government for awhile now.  Hiring is much more structured.  As a result we have a... wide variety of personality types.  But you know what, whether I like the person or not has little to no bearing as far as I can tell on whether that person is a good prosecutor.

Additionally, the "fit" criterion may also be an easy smoke screen for some forms of racial, cultural, class or other forms of discrimination.

I mean, not being an asshole is one thing, but a lot about our willingness to engage in social interactions with others and the form such interactions take is determined by our culture, class, gender, views etc. And as with culturally-biased IQ tests, interview questions like "where do you spend vacations" really do not give you a lot about the candidate's personality, but tell you a lot about his social background.

It is not hard to imagine having a law firm where the "fit" simply becomes an upper middle class heterosexual white male.

[Martinus]

Isn't there a concern, as well, that some of the personal questions quoted in fact allow the interviewer to learn information about the candidate that he is prohibited from asking for directly?

I mean, an honest answer to a question about last vacation in 9 cases out of 10 would give you a pretty good idea about the candidate's marital status and whether he or she has any kids; in many cases an answer about a favorite comedian would disclose the person's political leanings, etc.

Of course people can lie or withhold the truth, but then what's the point of this charade?

[Martinus]

Ok I now read the full article and it seems to raise a lot of the same concerns I just did.

[dps]

Isn't there a concern, as well, that some of the personal questions quoted in fact allow the interviewer to learn information about the candidate that he is prohibited from asking for directly?

Sure, that's a possibility, but it's also true of questions that are more directly about the job, too.  For example, "Are you willing to relocate?" is a perfectly valid question to ask applicants for lower level management jobs, simply because a lot of those positions require people to relocate.  But if you ask someone that question, 9 times out of 10 they'll going to tell you their marital status as part of their answer.

Actually, most applicants will just volunteer their marital status without any prompting, anyway.

[Caliga]

At least in the US, there are a lot of things that you cannot legally ask an applicant on either a job application or in an interview, but it's often very easy to get them to divulge said information anyway without you directly asking for it.

[Valmy]

Additionally, the "fit" criterion may also be an easy smoke screen for some forms of racial, cultural, class or other forms of discrimination.

Well almost by definition it is cultural discrimination.

And as with culturally-biased IQ tests

For some reason a group from another culture always scores the highest on our culturally biased IQ tests