Ask HN: Is interviewing for “culture fit” illegal?
First, the question assumes that I know how to properly define the local "culture". Judging based on culture fit is asking me whether I, personally, liked the person; but whether I like a person is independent of whether they're skilled or not.
Secondly, culture fit is a double-edged sword; qualified people are turned away because they don't fit the local "culture"(even though they are more than skilled which I've had happened a few times) or terrible people slip through because they fit the parameters local "culture".
Thirdly, there's absolutely zero discussion or literature on such an hiring important criteria within organizations. It's just assumed to be a good policy. I know this because every time I try to boast a conversation about this policy I get canned responses like, "would you want to work with this guy?" or "it's like being on a date" etc.
Rather than an extended conversation of the pros and cons of such a hiring strategy. I mean I don't like plenty of personality types, but I feel I'm at least cognizant of that fact. What if the interviewer is sexist or racist and is oblivious to that fact? Women and people of different races would be filtered out based on seemingly valid justifications(they had poor english, they weren't aggressive enough, etc).
Do construction workers get hired based on culture fit? What do you think HN?
8 comments
[ 5.2 ms ] story [ 28.5 ms ] threadIt's not illegal, except if you discriminate against legally protected classes of people. For example, in the U.S., it would be illegal to say that women or blacks or Muslims or people over 40 "don't fit in to our corporate culture" because sex, race, religion and age (over 40) are among the attributes covered by non-discrimination laws. However, it's perfectly legal to not hire anyone who has blue hair or who doesn't wear a suit. Not necessarily a great idea, but it doesn't violate any laws.
"It's just assumed to be a good policy."
That's certainly not a universal assumption. Many people on HN have maintained that the ability to do a job well is much more important than "cultural fit" (and I'd agree with them). And many have observed that if companies hired solely for the ability to do a job, it would be much easier to find qualified candidates.
"it's like being on a date"
No, working with someone is not like being on a date. I'm happy to work with lots of people who I'd never go on a date with. I really don't care what my co-workers' preferences in food, music, movies or sex are.
Culture fit is supposed to turn away qualified people that otherwise would work well. If you value culture, then it's worth turning away these skilled, fine people. Valuing culture is supposed to do that. Lastly, you shouldn't hire people that are a culture fit but unskilled to grow into or do the tasks necessary. They're a bad option.
What matters to your company? When other people are not in the room guiding them, do they decide things based on what's important to the company/mission/vision? That's part of culture.
New media that might help give some guidance:
http://startupclass.samaltman.com/courses/lec10/
http://startupclass.samaltman.com/courses/lec11/
Read the readings below these videos, especially this one: http://blog.samaltman.com/how-to-hire
Have more than one interview. Try hiring them on a short side-project and see how it goes. It's hard to hide your true self after 2 weeks or so. Ask yourself this: Would you trust them with the life of your company? Would you trust them and 10 of their friends you never met with the life of your company?
AirBnB (or some other company) has the culture interview by someone not in the same role- so an engineer never decides if a prospective engineer is a culture fit for AirBnB. This abstracts from judging fit based on their specific skils.
It's not illegal because it's almost impossible to prove or enforce. That's what I've found.
I've worked for companies that were outright blatant about culture fit. I can't say too much because of fear of lawsuits or other reprisals but they were really, really bad.
I've also experienced it myself at times. We can't rely on the laws, but instead just hope to find the right companies and reward them by doing our best.
In other words, it's the first question I ask myself (and encourage my clients to ask themselves). If it's a "NO", then don't pursue that candidate. If it's a MAYBE or a YES, then move on to the next steps (having other team members meet them; skills tests etc).
I've had clients in construction, and yes - they've hired based on cultural fit. Key criteria, such as trustworthiness and willingness to communicate, don't just apply to jobs in offices.
You make a great point about how to properly define the culture of your organisation. When I help businesses define culture, it incorporates a documented vision, a small number of critical values that are also defined (not just platitudes), and a strategy paper connecting those to behaviors which can be managed (managed up and managed down). Of course, many organisations simply view their culture as a foosball table in the corner and beers on a Friday every few months.
Some core cultural values that I think all companies should share are honesty, integrity and accountability. Is the person willing to admit times that they made mistakes? Do they take ownership of these mistakes? Do they allocate credit to others when talking about their accomplishments (important for everyone, doubly so for managers)? Do they complain about former companies and coworkers? Do you feel that they blame others frequently? Are they upfront about their work history and experience? Is their resume honest - if you ask them about a project they worked on, do you find out that it's not really what they wrote? These are all cultural questions, and grounds to accept or reject a candidate on lack of culture fit for. These things should be explicitly important, and should be actively interviewed for.
Other grounds could be development philosophy or work culture. These are some examples:
- Perhaps you are in a shop that has a heavy focus on extensive unit and regression testing, and you meet an otherwise strong candidate who thinks that testing is important, but largely overrated.
- Or perhaps you're an established team, working on an established codebase, and you find a developer who largely prefers to rewrite software over maintaining it.
- Or perhaps you are in a team which has periods of high stress due to the nature of your business or organization, and you meet someone who doesn't work well under pressure.
- Perhaps the role requires someone willing to stand their ground, and you meet someone who seems like a pushover. Or perhaps the team already has some strong personalities, and you don't want to add another.
- Or you could be a company that values work-life balance, and meet someone who thrives on high pressure jobs.
- You might be a hectic new startup, and interview someone who prefers to have a clear career path, well defined tasks and meticulous tracking of issues and work (although seriously consider such a person, as they might just organize your lives)
- Or you have the reverse - someone who sees issue tracking as needless bureaucracy, in an organization that has a a fair amount of it.
However the danger is, unless it is defined, it becomes arbitrary. Realize that you are racist, you are sexist, you are ageist, and you are biased in a million unfair ways that you don't even know. Everyone is. And so having an arbitrary and undefined filter such as "culture fit" runs the risk of exposing those biases.