It's pretty hard to screen out someone that's not a culture fit without meeting with them face to face
There's only so much you can ascertain from a resume and tests
I am a hiring manager at a mid sized corporate and this is bang on.
When you’re not sure if someone’s a good cultural fit but they’re otherwise okay, you put them through to the next round so you can get a second opinion, or you ask a few more people to interview them to double check. Unfortunately the candidate will invest time in this but ultimately it’s best for both the company and the candidate to be sure about this sort of thing before asking someone to resign from their current job to take a job with you.
Edit to add: for what it’s worth OP and not to say you don’t know this, cultural fit for us isn’t about being the same demographic or having the same interests. Most of the time the people we consider bad cultural fits are people who come across like they would be difficult to work with in some way - not collaborative, not easygoing or unable to receive feedback or be flexible. Not saying that about you at all because I know nothing about you but could be worth getting a trusted friend to provide an opinion on how you present in interviews.
I think it varies across companies. Where I work there is a really strong emphasis on teamwork and collaboration so “cultural fit” is about whether you can be a net positive in a team environment. Helpful and easygoing at a minimum, never giving an impression that a task is beneath you. If I think about the people over the years I’ve had “cultural fit” doubts about they tended to be in the following categories:
1. Arrogant or over confident in their abilities, or giving the impression of not being receptive to feedback/believing their way of doing things was automatically best without discussion
2. Giving examples in their interview of negative interactions where they don’t take any accountability at all for what they could have done better - eg even if it’s 100% not your fault it’s helpful to throw in comments about ways you could have diffused a bad situation so that we can see you have awareness and accountability
3. People who came across like they’d cling feverishly to a point or to being right at the expense of relationships. Whether external or internal - I need to know you value relationships over being right.
Having passed those basic tests, I would consider someone a very good cultural fit if they’re actively looking for ways to go above and beyond, and if they’re reasonably friendly, easy to talk to - as in, if I walked into the lunch room and they were the only person in there, I wouldn’t secretly despair.
Does that help? That’s just my view, as I said, my workplace is heavily collaborative. You might get someone else saying cultural fit means being willing to pick up slack and get deals across the line.
I would also check to see if they would clash with other team members just due to personality. Sometimes you want some one to come and shake things up and other times you want them to come and fit in.
For example if we at a start of the project/initiative I want people who we good at coming in and setting the pace and thinking outside the box. If we are towards the end of the project, assuming everything is going well, we don't want people coming in wanting to re-do all the work that has been done .
>What actually is 'cultural fit'?
It's a metric equal to the length of a piece of string, which I don't mean as a fatuous remark as much as - "it depends."
Can you have a robust disagreement without it turning into long standing animosity between people? How do they engage with senior people, do they tend to blow shit up or have regard for sensitivities? Are they egocentric or a real collaborator?
That sort of thing. Innately, do you and your team warm to them in the interview process and feel you'd all get along, pull in the same direction, and have each other's backs during inevitably tough times? If yes, great. Culture fit.
As someone who hires, cultural fit for me is "can do this person do the job and not negatively impact the output and morale of the people around them?"
Even better if they are a positive in that regard
When it's a sea of white Anglo upper middle class and applicant is skilled but cultural fit is suggested for attitude fail perhaps rethink the attitudes that are being protected.
I guess it depends where you work? We would never ask someone to resign from their job and join us full time unless we had good reason to genuinely believe they would be a good long term fit. We also have a pretty intensive review process to get rid of someone even on probation so it’s not worth the drama if you’re not sure about someone.
I don't think down-voting is fair here because it's a valid question.
It depends on how badly suited the applicant was to the companies culture. If it's so bad that they can't get their work done then it's a pretty fair call to terminate their contract.
If they're not overly social with their team but otherwise complete their work and don't cause drama, then it's not really fair to terminate that contract. It's also not good for business because you would have to re-initiate a costly hiring process. The phrase "good enough" comes to mind.
There's often an decent investment into a person by the time their on-boarding is complete.
I've worked at once job that frequently fired people during probation. It was an extremely difficult and demanding job which was entirely proprietary, so no 'Googling' how to do things. There was absolutely no way we could hire based off previous experience because we were the only solution in the country. If you couldn't figure stuff out yourself then you were completely shit out of luck.
We had no choice but to hire people based on personality. Everyone was given some time to learn their way through but most accepted defeat after about a month. Anyone that passed was basically begged to stay.
Rarely seen probation get used, I have heard other managers say they did not want to get rid of them because they made the point to hire them (e.g. if I get rid of them, people will think I am shit at my job). Weird argument, I have argued to have staff to be let go in the first week as it was clear they lied in their interview of their skills. Still kept on...
I'm a tradie, so what the fuck is a "culture fit"??
To me it sounds like a "we get paid for 8 hours work but we work 10+ a day, stress out, have no work life balance and don't complain about it and we hope you can accept that working here and not complain"
Cause that makes no sense. The in person meeting means they need to take time out to meet you. If they meet you, then you fail their test/assessments then it's been a waste of their time AND your time (you have to get dressed up, maybe take time off work, travel to the interview etc). If anything, that would be a worse thing for the candidate.
Putting someone through tech tests and two interviews to fail them on cultural fit is pretty disrespectful of their time, though.
Fail them on it at the first interview, don't progress them if you are worried.
I agree, but it could be that OP let their guard down on the second interview and said or did something/s that they didn't like (pure speculation).
It also could be that it wasn't culture fit, but some unrelated reason, and they're using that as an excuse.
It’s difficult when hiring because it’s effectively like a date- both parties are presenting their best sides typically. I’m not a recruiter but I’ve hired a lot of people as manager and if you get a bad vibe when meeting someone it’s easier to just pass and hope someone better comes along. I’ve hired for need over fit before and its results in managing a constant headache basically.I think you’re right- brought OP in, got a dickhead vibe and decided to keep looking. The 3month contract would be consistent with that too I think
One of my biggest hiring mistakes was ignoring/not being aware of cultural fit.
Bit over 20 years ago we were looking for a pretty specialized technical role. I was level or two above the hiring manager so wasn't really involved in the early selection process.
At the end of the process we were down to two candidates. Candidate A was technically exceptional and was highly communicative (specially for a technical role). Candidate B was less technically competent (but still could do the job), was less communicative and asked for a lower salary.
Hiring manager was pushing for Candidate A while the team lead who they will work with was pushing for Candidate B.
Candidate A used phrases like "I don't suffer fools" & "I am exceptionally good at my job".
Main concern was that Candidate A came as way too arrogant and combative. Both managers agreed with this but I finally decided as the tie breaker to go with Candidate A as the technically better candidate, and manage him appropriately.
Well it was a disaster. Candidate A did not respect their peers, their manager and was a total tool. His general conversational mode was insult and demean. His desk was stacked with used food containers he refused to clean up. He refused to contribute to or follow the project plan because he knew better as he was the expert in his field even though he was a contributor to a much larger project.
Six months after he started he was walked out of a building by security, only one I had to do so in 40 years of management. We made grovelling offer to candidate B who stayed on the role for more than 10+ years, (long after I had left).
My lesson from that was fit in to the team is more important than their technical skills. It has served me well.
My work’s first hiring criterion is “no arseholes”. Our team has a really great and precious culture, and we’ve seen the damage a bad hire can cause. We can train for specific technical skills. We can’t train character.
We have turned down outstanding candidates who showed so much arrogance at the interview we just knew immediately they’d be a bad fit.
Yep, technical genius + arsehole = insufferable mix, disaster hire, a pain that irradiates 360 degrees, Nope. I would rather get the person who is 80-90% of the technical knowledge (which I am happy to invest time and money in bettering) and a good personality.
>You can train skills
To a degree, I still wouldn't hire someone who is an absolute disaster technically, but 80%+ is fine and I am happy to train them up and fill the gap.
>you can't train personality.
Absofuckinglutely
Honestly, if you were unsuccessful after an informal meet and greet, either you came across really poorly or they had a last minute budget pull and are using this as an excuse.
You only invite someone to an informal meeting like that as an ice breaker when the selection decision has basically already been made.
I've only ever seen these result in an unsuccessful when the candidate did something unexpectedly concerning, like being really rude to the receptionist or treating the junior team members far worse than the hiring team etc.
That's what I thought. I asked for feedback on how I presented to see of there's anything I should fix/work on. The recruiter emphasized there is nothing I could have done differently and that I just wasn't the right fit.
Quite a few years ago I was shortlisted for a government role, running a high profile but a very technical project, with some ministerial interaction.
During the interview I asked "How much of a say would the minister have in determining our technical approach?".
After a number of rounds they passed on on my application they specifically mentioned that my question was the red flag. I was very glad they passed because the question being a red flag was a red flag to me. In a previous government role (during the early Howard years) I had to keep explaining my decisions to a bunch of the minister's mates/donors so I did not want to do that again.
Some times when the employer is seeing a culture clash, there is a culture clash going to other way too.
Is the position still available? Otherwise, maybe someone who worked there offered up a friend for the position, and they pretended the "cultural fit" was the reason.
Getting a job today, is a bit like the dating scene are these days. All these tests and applications, and no one has the time or can afford to give anyone a chance or enough time.
Everyone has to be perfect on paper, present perfect and have 100% what they are looking for without being given a chance to be able to prove the 100% fit.
It's ridiculous, we think we are improving things but we're complicating matters and unfortunately are missing hidden gems.
It is soo much about calculations, graphs and matching tests that the vital and functioning have been lost in translation.
I don't work for or collaborate with these companies and I have never gone through a recruit agency for a job, only applied to one job ad. It just doesn't fit my culture. ;)
Unfortunately they are very unlikely to give you useful feedback if that feedback is about how you presented. They're not going to say "you seemed abrasive" or "you seemed too shy and quiet" or make other comments on your personality, because that's opening a can of worms for them. They're just going to say something that you can't really object to because it's so vague as to be meaningless, and something which doesn't sound like a personal criticism - something like "not the right fit".
Don't absolutely take it to heart because it really could be random, but if you want to figure out if there is a reason, the best I can think of is to ask friends if there is anything they could suggest about how you come across when first meeting someone.
This is 100% correct, the fear of discrimination means all you get is vague feedback. Back in the early 80s you would get honest feedback, you might not like it but when the 3rd or 4th person says it to you then you should be smart enough to see the trend.
Unfortunately today your left guessing and coming sometimes to conclusions about politics, gender etc and worse become disillusioned.
The cultural fit thing is another way of saying they don’t want to work with people from a different cultural background. Aka racism. I once worked with a colleague who was rejected by a firm because she was not a good cultural fit. She was from India and had superior education and experience in her field. Their loss our gain. She was a fantastic team builder and mentor. I learned so much from her because she took the time to share her experience with me even though she was in a senior and very busy role. I’ll forever be grateful for having had the privilege of working with her and for our boss not being racist and employing her. Racism like sexism and ageism is so very damaging, that’s why we must stamp it out.
There is a theory that you interview for technical fit first, not cultural fit, because otherwise you risk really liking a candidate as a cultural fit and then glossing over technical deficiencies. By ensuring the candidate can do the role first, objectively, it reduces that likelihood. For us, we embed cultural fit into the job ad and some screening before the technical interview but the big cultural fit piece is at the end before reference checking
It's frustrating, but try not to take it personally. Labeling someone as not a "culture fit" can often serve as a convenient excuse to avoid hiring them without providing a concrete, debatable reason as you have alluded to what you believe is the real reason.
Similarly, when ending a relationship, some people may resort to simply stating they're not "feeling it" without elaborating further.
It sounds like what they really want is a contractor that they can pay at the rate of an employee.
If this is true than why not advertise the role as a contract one from the jump? Plenty of people in my field would prefer to work as a contractor, even for the same pay, due to fax advantages and the freedom that comes with it
Who says cultural fit wasn't assessed all the way throughout the process? And they just noticed/observed something that wasn't a good fit in the informal meeting?
Whenever I'm applying that's how I treat the process. Every interaction with every person in the process is important and will affect the outcome.
As others have mentioned it's a lot easier to understand people and if it will be a good fit in a face to face setting.
As a non drinking Asian in my early 20s I was asked about whether I travelled. I obviously didn't and I don't know, they said I was a good "cultural" fit; whatever that means.
It's about the costs to employ someone.
Everyone wants to attract the best people. So we get everyone who has the relevant ticket, experience etc to apply.
Up to now, it only costs me a few thousand dollars. Seek ad, hr drone or maybe a bot looking through resumes. Very cheap.
Then we look for if they'll fit in the culture. This part costs us money. Interviews, placements etc. Skills and experience matter.. a bit. That's easy to put on a resume.
Attitude and drive and resilience matter a lot, but they don't fit in a resume. You have to talk to them, see them work and it's not actually about the end product of the work. It's HOW they work.
Easy example: get them to do a routine task, with maybe a twist. Like a change of scope halfway. Do they schedule regular touch points to see if they're on the right track? Some - good. Means they can take feedback, ensures their work aligns correctly, will pick up the change in scope. Too many? - very bad, can't be trusted, needs a micromanager, waste of other's time. None? - pretty bad, probably arrogant, could spend a lot of time on the wrong path, eating time when the scope change gets discovered.
We're not going to screen 1000 applicants by interviewing, placing, assigning tasks and task reviews to every applicant to see if we like the way they work.
That's just expensive.
Can't be bothered editing the above.
Each interview costs me about $3000. That's 1 hour of your time, at what... $50?
And about 3 hours of mine (1000) and the two other people on the panel (600ish each) and the HR drone had to send the rejection. We have to discuss your interview, go through our notes and argue why our why not.
Now I have to reschedule my day to day work (you know my life doesn't revolve around YOU, right?) lean on my team a bit more to pick up my slack, probably buy them a lunch to make up for the bad week they've had.
Then you get the job. On probation. Now it's like another $10k. The team lead has to train you, the it department give you a laptop, set up your account, drive access... Someone is not working because they're showing you how to turn it on and tell you your login details. Showing you where the toilets are. Telling you which manager is a bastard (me, I already know). Insurance, set up of super, tax, PAYG transfers. The whole HR thing. Sexual harassment training courses cost me like $300 each, because I need to lodge that with legal.
Cost cost cost. You think your "freebie" presentation going to my competitor is going to earn me back $20k that I spent figuring out your not a good fit? Come on bro.
You DO realise that you are the one who needs to hire someone right?
You aren't doing these people a favor by interviewing them.
It's your business, of course you should bear the costs and time.
But to progress someone through three levels to reject them for something that can be 'tested' on the first meeting?
Also, it's a lot more an 1hr of the candidates time, even if they aren't doing work for you as proof of skills.
I'd probably spend at least 2-3 hours of prep for an interview.
Culture fit is broad, where I work it means aligning to a number of ethics such as; taking ownership, or going out of your way to help another employees career or experience at the company, or disagreeing with the room full of people your in and politely debating on your theory.
Culture is not something you can read on paper and can only be assessed when meeting a person.
They don't because culture fit is just a marketing gimmick in the Private Sector. Its all about Skill, performance and productivity.
In the govt is different
What impression did you get about the culture of their company? Do you think they would have been a good fit for you or would it have been a case of bending yourself to fit in?
I just got turned down from 3 jobs in a row for no clear reason so I feel your anguish!
I suspect in my case they may have felt I was overqualified, or maybe too old. They were very young teams.
I think cultural fit is a complex thing to assess so it probably does take at least two people to observe you over the course of a couple of interviews, including seeing how you handle a task, to get a feel for how you work and how you talk about your work etc.
I know its frustrating though, and feels like you've almost been led down the garden path a bit, and to boot you are left with no real information on how you could improve your approach in future.
Your interviewers at least had the decency to tell you so. I was totally screwed over by my last job at a law firm. It was a new role, year end time, my manager was thinking about their own promotion, I would be the only male in the team. So yeah it didn’t work, I was dismissed after year end and a project, my manager got promotion, now there is no male in their team… the worst experience ever. Felt like they did this on purpose coz they needed someone for year end but didn’t want to say contracts to lose candidates.
I remember reading an ad for a job that required you to speak Mandarin.
Other jobs were not as direct but you could read between the lines.
It is illegal to advertise based on race.
I worked nearly 2 weeks as a casual for a company that I did not get the job because I did not fit the culture.
It was obvious that I did not fit the culture but appreciated the ability to get nearly 2 weeks work and a chance to learn how to use Xero.
Requiring speaking a language is not discriminatory. e.g.: if that ad is for a job at a business in an area where a lot of customers who call and/or walk in speak that language and do not speak English (or much of it), that is not discrimination.
Asking for a fluent/proficient speaker is OK, asking for a person of a certain ethnicity/specific background is not. E.g.: I have a friend who is whiter than skim milk, but speaks Mandarin as fluent as a person born and raised in China. If they exclude that person because they are not Chinese it would be discriminatory.
I am aware of that, I was just saying that - at face value - requiring a specific language spoken in a job ad is not discriminatory if there is a solid business justification, such as clientele requiring that. I am in the process of hiring someone with a specific language spoken because we have a sizeable client base that only speaks that language and very little to no English at all.
Of course. I have seen for instance clinics in ethnic areas asking for doctors, nurses and receptionists who speak the language spoken in the area because many people don’t speak English. You can see signs and billboards saying we have (insert language) speaking doctors which is their whole selling point.
With doctor and nurse shortage I would be hard pressed to think there are applicants who don’t speak the language losing out because there are more jobs than people.
But asking for a chef or a forklift driver for example that speaks a specific language would be a bit off.
You were offered a contract offer for almost the same role so I wouldn't even consider the fact that they "possibly" discriminated based on your ethnicity.
I don't have anywhere near enough detail, however at a guess they likely don't have the budget/position approved and want you to come on until the end of financial year when new budgets come into effect.
They probably can't/don't want to disclose that to manage expectations (or a manager not having right approvals etc.), so are using the generic "cultural fit". The best you can do here is ask them for more detailed feedback.
PS, being spiteful and giving material to competitor is a bad look, no matter how upset you are that they didnt offer the perm, DONT do this. There will be other jobs and opportunities.
It really can just depend on the the team/role/ company. And it’s just bad luck.
I remember hiring for a product manager role and asked how they deal with stakeholders when leading a project. They answered with “ I’m steadfastly focused on achieving the objective of the project and to ensure it’s delivered on time I make sure all stakeholders understand the task and what needs to be done”. This might be the right answer somewhere else, but what I was looking for was “I like to be pragmatic with the deliverables and problem solve solutions and find comprise so all stakeholders can be satisfied even if they don’t all get what they wanted and the project is able to be delivered on time in a way that meets the most needs”.
Neither is a bad answer, but one suits the culture of my team better
“Culture fit” is up there with “we are going ahead with other more suitable candidates” as a cop out for not giving you the job for any number of reasons that they don’t want you to know about. The budget has fallen through totally, they think they can employ someone cheaper, changes in another area mean they need to redeploy someone into it, the boss’s son’s mate’s just been given the role, etc. The longer their interview process takes, the more change there is of this happening.
I had an interview at the start of the year where the outcome was they were “moving ahead with other more suitable candidates”. Which was fine, but what they didn’t say was that they hadn’t yet found those other more suitable candidates. I knew this as soon as they advertised the role again the following week. Two months later the listing is still up there, so I guess the “more suitable candidates” haven’t applied yet. I’m pretty sure the candidate who’ll do it for the salary they now want to offer doesn’t exist (or can’t do the job).
This isnt uncommon, coming from a non ethnic, ive had this before. Its simply you didnt connect with the hiring managers or let off some aspect that was worrying to them, such as seeming entitled or uptight.
I would have taken the contract. In essence this very much could have led to a full time position, but they just want to see if the aspect they were concerned about becomes an issue.
Honestly, just from reading this post, i suspect its your personality. I understand it can be hard to focus on how you feel like you seem physically different but hiring managers couldnt give a shit about this aspect. They want effective employees, not employees just of one skin colour.
I don't think my ethnicity was the issue. I'm white (middle eastern background) and my last name, which of course features in my resume, is the most ethnic thing about me. I think if anything there might have been some classism but idk.
In hindsight I think I should have left this information out of my post. I added it in for context to see if others like me have had a similar experience. However, it seems to have given people the idea that I beleive I was discriminated against, which I don't think is true.
I wouldn't say they are more important, they are equally important. You need to pass all of the interviews to get the role. In this case the main reason you do cultural fit last is because it tends to involve more people, so you only want to do them when you are fairly certain of the candidate. In my experience I've usually assessed cultural fit during the initial hiring manager interview, and again in a dedicated cultural fit interview at the end.
Culture fit usually means two things. Someone you can have a laugh with, and literally someone who is a particular ethnic culture that they think would work well based on the colleagues or the client base. You can’t always figure that out over a virtual or phone screening, and in the latter example you can’t outright reject someone because of it.
Yes cultural fit is important. Have seen women quit because a certain ethinic males made them feel unsafe/harrassed. Even as a male I avoid eye contact with some females that try to flirt with me and even reported one lady to my manager then HR for giving me a serious stare for talking with another whom she perceived as attractive.
At my work we absolutely screen for culture fit first. Our first interview is all about assessing culture fit and allowing the candidate to ask us questions. We then do psychometric testing and a second interview where we can ask more technical questions.
Answer - I do.
15-30min informal chat with any applicants that seem good on paper before I schedule the proper stuff.
It’s good for both me and the candidate to determine mutual fit.
It's pretty hard to screen out someone that's not a culture fit without meeting with them face to face There's only so much you can ascertain from a resume and tests
I am a hiring manager at a mid sized corporate and this is bang on. When you’re not sure if someone’s a good cultural fit but they’re otherwise okay, you put them through to the next round so you can get a second opinion, or you ask a few more people to interview them to double check. Unfortunately the candidate will invest time in this but ultimately it’s best for both the company and the candidate to be sure about this sort of thing before asking someone to resign from their current job to take a job with you. Edit to add: for what it’s worth OP and not to say you don’t know this, cultural fit for us isn’t about being the same demographic or having the same interests. Most of the time the people we consider bad cultural fits are people who come across like they would be difficult to work with in some way - not collaborative, not easygoing or unable to receive feedback or be flexible. Not saying that about you at all because I know nothing about you but could be worth getting a trusted friend to provide an opinion on how you present in interviews.
[удалено]
I think it varies across companies. Where I work there is a really strong emphasis on teamwork and collaboration so “cultural fit” is about whether you can be a net positive in a team environment. Helpful and easygoing at a minimum, never giving an impression that a task is beneath you. If I think about the people over the years I’ve had “cultural fit” doubts about they tended to be in the following categories: 1. Arrogant or over confident in their abilities, or giving the impression of not being receptive to feedback/believing their way of doing things was automatically best without discussion 2. Giving examples in their interview of negative interactions where they don’t take any accountability at all for what they could have done better - eg even if it’s 100% not your fault it’s helpful to throw in comments about ways you could have diffused a bad situation so that we can see you have awareness and accountability 3. People who came across like they’d cling feverishly to a point or to being right at the expense of relationships. Whether external or internal - I need to know you value relationships over being right. Having passed those basic tests, I would consider someone a very good cultural fit if they’re actively looking for ways to go above and beyond, and if they’re reasonably friendly, easy to talk to - as in, if I walked into the lunch room and they were the only person in there, I wouldn’t secretly despair. Does that help? That’s just my view, as I said, my workplace is heavily collaborative. You might get someone else saying cultural fit means being willing to pick up slack and get deals across the line.
Mostly it's about someone's personality
I would also check to see if they would clash with other team members just due to personality. Sometimes you want some one to come and shake things up and other times you want them to come and fit in. For example if we at a start of the project/initiative I want people who we good at coming in and setting the pace and thinking outside the box. If we are towards the end of the project, assuming everything is going well, we don't want people coming in wanting to re-do all the work that has been done .
>What actually is 'cultural fit'? It's a metric equal to the length of a piece of string, which I don't mean as a fatuous remark as much as - "it depends." Can you have a robust disagreement without it turning into long standing animosity between people? How do they engage with senior people, do they tend to blow shit up or have regard for sensitivities? Are they egocentric or a real collaborator? That sort of thing. Innately, do you and your team warm to them in the interview process and feel you'd all get along, pull in the same direction, and have each other's backs during inevitably tough times? If yes, great. Culture fit.
As someone who hires, cultural fit for me is "can do this person do the job and not negatively impact the output and morale of the people around them?" Even better if they are a positive in that regard
It can be anything - from an arsehole test, to just an ick
When it's a sea of white Anglo upper middle class and applicant is skilled but cultural fit is suggested for attitude fail perhaps rethink the attitudes that are being protected.
Isn't that what the probation period is for?
I guess it depends where you work? We would never ask someone to resign from their job and join us full time unless we had good reason to genuinely believe they would be a good long term fit. We also have a pretty intensive review process to get rid of someone even on probation so it’s not worth the drama if you’re not sure about someone.
I don't think down-voting is fair here because it's a valid question. It depends on how badly suited the applicant was to the companies culture. If it's so bad that they can't get their work done then it's a pretty fair call to terminate their contract. If they're not overly social with their team but otherwise complete their work and don't cause drama, then it's not really fair to terminate that contract. It's also not good for business because you would have to re-initiate a costly hiring process. The phrase "good enough" comes to mind. There's often an decent investment into a person by the time their on-boarding is complete. I've worked at once job that frequently fired people during probation. It was an extremely difficult and demanding job which was entirely proprietary, so no 'Googling' how to do things. There was absolutely no way we could hire based off previous experience because we were the only solution in the country. If you couldn't figure stuff out yourself then you were completely shit out of luck. We had no choice but to hire people based on personality. Everyone was given some time to learn their way through but most accepted defeat after about a month. Anyone that passed was basically begged to stay.
Rarely seen probation get used, I have heard other managers say they did not want to get rid of them because they made the point to hire them (e.g. if I get rid of them, people will think I am shit at my job). Weird argument, I have argued to have staff to be let go in the first week as it was clear they lied in their interview of their skills. Still kept on...
I'm a tradie, so what the fuck is a "culture fit"?? To me it sounds like a "we get paid for 8 hours work but we work 10+ a day, stress out, have no work life balance and don't complain about it and we hope you can accept that working here and not complain"
So why not have the in-person meeting first? It's not like you haven't reviewed their resume already.
Cause that makes no sense. The in person meeting means they need to take time out to meet you. If they meet you, then you fail their test/assessments then it's been a waste of their time AND your time (you have to get dressed up, maybe take time off work, travel to the interview etc). If anything, that would be a worse thing for the candidate.
Putting someone through tech tests and two interviews to fail them on cultural fit is pretty disrespectful of their time, though. Fail them on it at the first interview, don't progress them if you are worried.
I agree, but it could be that OP let their guard down on the second interview and said or did something/s that they didn't like (pure speculation). It also could be that it wasn't culture fit, but some unrelated reason, and they're using that as an excuse.
Maybe, but OP has a point, is all I'm saying.
‘Cultural fit’ can also be a polite way of saying ‘you were good on paper, but you seem like you’d be a bit of a dick to work with’
It’s difficult when hiring because it’s effectively like a date- both parties are presenting their best sides typically. I’m not a recruiter but I’ve hired a lot of people as manager and if you get a bad vibe when meeting someone it’s easier to just pass and hope someone better comes along. I’ve hired for need over fit before and its results in managing a constant headache basically.I think you’re right- brought OP in, got a dickhead vibe and decided to keep looking. The 3month contract would be consistent with that too I think
This is how OP's post reads.
…you seem great on paper , but you’re too brown.
One of my biggest hiring mistakes was ignoring/not being aware of cultural fit. Bit over 20 years ago we were looking for a pretty specialized technical role. I was level or two above the hiring manager so wasn't really involved in the early selection process. At the end of the process we were down to two candidates. Candidate A was technically exceptional and was highly communicative (specially for a technical role). Candidate B was less technically competent (but still could do the job), was less communicative and asked for a lower salary. Hiring manager was pushing for Candidate A while the team lead who they will work with was pushing for Candidate B. Candidate A used phrases like "I don't suffer fools" & "I am exceptionally good at my job". Main concern was that Candidate A came as way too arrogant and combative. Both managers agreed with this but I finally decided as the tie breaker to go with Candidate A as the technically better candidate, and manage him appropriately. Well it was a disaster. Candidate A did not respect their peers, their manager and was a total tool. His general conversational mode was insult and demean. His desk was stacked with used food containers he refused to clean up. He refused to contribute to or follow the project plan because he knew better as he was the expert in his field even though he was a contributor to a much larger project. Six months after he started he was walked out of a building by security, only one I had to do so in 40 years of management. We made grovelling offer to candidate B who stayed on the role for more than 10+ years, (long after I had left). My lesson from that was fit in to the team is more important than their technical skills. It has served me well.
My work’s first hiring criterion is “no arseholes”. Our team has a really great and precious culture, and we’ve seen the damage a bad hire can cause. We can train for specific technical skills. We can’t train character. We have turned down outstanding candidates who showed so much arrogance at the interview we just knew immediately they’d be a bad fit.
Yep, technical genius + arsehole = insufferable mix, disaster hire, a pain that irradiates 360 degrees, Nope. I would rather get the person who is 80-90% of the technical knowledge (which I am happy to invest time and money in bettering) and a good personality.
You can train skills, you can't train personality.
>You can train skills To a degree, I still wouldn't hire someone who is an absolute disaster technically, but 80%+ is fine and I am happy to train them up and fill the gap. >you can't train personality. Absofuckinglutely
>Candidate A used phrases like "I don't suffer fools" & "I am exceptionally good at my job". Huge red flags
We all have to figure this out some time. This was mine.
Honestly, if you were unsuccessful after an informal meet and greet, either you came across really poorly or they had a last minute budget pull and are using this as an excuse. You only invite someone to an informal meeting like that as an ice breaker when the selection decision has basically already been made. I've only ever seen these result in an unsuccessful when the candidate did something unexpectedly concerning, like being really rude to the receptionist or treating the junior team members far worse than the hiring team etc.
That's what I thought. I asked for feedback on how I presented to see of there's anything I should fix/work on. The recruiter emphasized there is nothing I could have done differently and that I just wasn't the right fit.
Quite a few years ago I was shortlisted for a government role, running a high profile but a very technical project, with some ministerial interaction. During the interview I asked "How much of a say would the minister have in determining our technical approach?". After a number of rounds they passed on on my application they specifically mentioned that my question was the red flag. I was very glad they passed because the question being a red flag was a red flag to me. In a previous government role (during the early Howard years) I had to keep explaining my decisions to a bunch of the minister's mates/donors so I did not want to do that again. Some times when the employer is seeing a culture clash, there is a culture clash going to other way too.
Is the position still available? Otherwise, maybe someone who worked there offered up a friend for the position, and they pretended the "cultural fit" was the reason. Getting a job today, is a bit like the dating scene are these days. All these tests and applications, and no one has the time or can afford to give anyone a chance or enough time. Everyone has to be perfect on paper, present perfect and have 100% what they are looking for without being given a chance to be able to prove the 100% fit. It's ridiculous, we think we are improving things but we're complicating matters and unfortunately are missing hidden gems. It is soo much about calculations, graphs and matching tests that the vital and functioning have been lost in translation. I don't work for or collaborate with these companies and I have never gone through a recruit agency for a job, only applied to one job ad. It just doesn't fit my culture. ;)
Unfortunately they are very unlikely to give you useful feedback if that feedback is about how you presented. They're not going to say "you seemed abrasive" or "you seemed too shy and quiet" or make other comments on your personality, because that's opening a can of worms for them. They're just going to say something that you can't really object to because it's so vague as to be meaningless, and something which doesn't sound like a personal criticism - something like "not the right fit". Don't absolutely take it to heart because it really could be random, but if you want to figure out if there is a reason, the best I can think of is to ask friends if there is anything they could suggest about how you come across when first meeting someone.
This is 100% correct, the fear of discrimination means all you get is vague feedback. Back in the early 80s you would get honest feedback, you might not like it but when the 3rd or 4th person says it to you then you should be smart enough to see the trend. Unfortunately today your left guessing and coming sometimes to conclusions about politics, gender etc and worse become disillusioned.
The cultural fit thing is another way of saying they don’t want to work with people from a different cultural background. Aka racism. I once worked with a colleague who was rejected by a firm because she was not a good cultural fit. She was from India and had superior education and experience in her field. Their loss our gain. She was a fantastic team builder and mentor. I learned so much from her because she took the time to share her experience with me even though she was in a senior and very busy role. I’ll forever be grateful for having had the privilege of working with her and for our boss not being racist and employing her. Racism like sexism and ageism is so very damaging, that’s why we must stamp it out.
There is a theory that you interview for technical fit first, not cultural fit, because otherwise you risk really liking a candidate as a cultural fit and then glossing over technical deficiencies. By ensuring the candidate can do the role first, objectively, it reduces that likelihood. For us, we embed cultural fit into the job ad and some screening before the technical interview but the big cultural fit piece is at the end before reference checking
It's frustrating, but try not to take it personally. Labeling someone as not a "culture fit" can often serve as a convenient excuse to avoid hiring them without providing a concrete, debatable reason as you have alluded to what you believe is the real reason. Similarly, when ending a relationship, some people may resort to simply stating they're not "feeling it" without elaborating further. It sounds like what they really want is a contractor that they can pay at the rate of an employee.
If this is true than why not advertise the role as a contract one from the jump? Plenty of people in my field would prefer to work as a contractor, even for the same pay, due to fax advantages and the freedom that comes with it
Who says cultural fit wasn't assessed all the way throughout the process? And they just noticed/observed something that wasn't a good fit in the informal meeting? Whenever I'm applying that's how I treat the process. Every interaction with every person in the process is important and will affect the outcome. As others have mentioned it's a lot easier to understand people and if it will be a good fit in a face to face setting.
As a non drinking Asian in my early 20s I was asked about whether I travelled. I obviously didn't and I don't know, they said I was a good "cultural" fit; whatever that means.
It's about the costs to employ someone. Everyone wants to attract the best people. So we get everyone who has the relevant ticket, experience etc to apply. Up to now, it only costs me a few thousand dollars. Seek ad, hr drone or maybe a bot looking through resumes. Very cheap. Then we look for if they'll fit in the culture. This part costs us money. Interviews, placements etc. Skills and experience matter.. a bit. That's easy to put on a resume. Attitude and drive and resilience matter a lot, but they don't fit in a resume. You have to talk to them, see them work and it's not actually about the end product of the work. It's HOW they work. Easy example: get them to do a routine task, with maybe a twist. Like a change of scope halfway. Do they schedule regular touch points to see if they're on the right track? Some - good. Means they can take feedback, ensures their work aligns correctly, will pick up the change in scope. Too many? - very bad, can't be trusted, needs a micromanager, waste of other's time. None? - pretty bad, probably arrogant, could spend a lot of time on the wrong path, eating time when the scope change gets discovered. We're not going to screen 1000 applicants by interviewing, placing, assigning tasks and task reviews to every applicant to see if we like the way they work. That's just expensive.
Can't be bothered editing the above. Each interview costs me about $3000. That's 1 hour of your time, at what... $50? And about 3 hours of mine (1000) and the two other people on the panel (600ish each) and the HR drone had to send the rejection. We have to discuss your interview, go through our notes and argue why our why not. Now I have to reschedule my day to day work (you know my life doesn't revolve around YOU, right?) lean on my team a bit more to pick up my slack, probably buy them a lunch to make up for the bad week they've had. Then you get the job. On probation. Now it's like another $10k. The team lead has to train you, the it department give you a laptop, set up your account, drive access... Someone is not working because they're showing you how to turn it on and tell you your login details. Showing you where the toilets are. Telling you which manager is a bastard (me, I already know). Insurance, set up of super, tax, PAYG transfers. The whole HR thing. Sexual harassment training courses cost me like $300 each, because I need to lodge that with legal. Cost cost cost. You think your "freebie" presentation going to my competitor is going to earn me back $20k that I spent figuring out your not a good fit? Come on bro.
You sound like you wouldn't be a cultural fit tbh.
You DO realise that you are the one who needs to hire someone right? You aren't doing these people a favor by interviewing them. It's your business, of course you should bear the costs and time. But to progress someone through three levels to reject them for something that can be 'tested' on the first meeting? Also, it's a lot more an 1hr of the candidates time, even if they aren't doing work for you as proof of skills. I'd probably spend at least 2-3 hours of prep for an interview.
Wow, aren’t you something special I don’t have to put in an application to assess the culture of your workplace🚩
A job interview is the chance to consider whether or not you want to work there… if that’s what your future team does now they’ve done you a favour.
Culture fit is broad, where I work it means aligning to a number of ethics such as; taking ownership, or going out of your way to help another employees career or experience at the company, or disagreeing with the room full of people your in and politely debating on your theory. Culture is not something you can read on paper and can only be assessed when meeting a person.
They don't because culture fit is just a marketing gimmick in the Private Sector. Its all about Skill, performance and productivity. In the govt is different
What impression did you get about the culture of their company? Do you think they would have been a good fit for you or would it have been a case of bending yourself to fit in? I just got turned down from 3 jobs in a row for no clear reason so I feel your anguish! I suspect in my case they may have felt I was overqualified, or maybe too old. They were very young teams. I think cultural fit is a complex thing to assess so it probably does take at least two people to observe you over the course of a couple of interviews, including seeing how you handle a task, to get a feel for how you work and how you talk about your work etc. I know its frustrating though, and feels like you've almost been led down the garden path a bit, and to boot you are left with no real information on how you could improve your approach in future.
Your interviewers at least had the decency to tell you so. I was totally screwed over by my last job at a law firm. It was a new role, year end time, my manager was thinking about their own promotion, I would be the only male in the team. So yeah it didn’t work, I was dismissed after year end and a project, my manager got promotion, now there is no male in their team… the worst experience ever. Felt like they did this on purpose coz they needed someone for year end but didn’t want to say contracts to lose candidates.
I remember reading an ad for a job that required you to speak Mandarin. Other jobs were not as direct but you could read between the lines. It is illegal to advertise based on race. I worked nearly 2 weeks as a casual for a company that I did not get the job because I did not fit the culture. It was obvious that I did not fit the culture but appreciated the ability to get nearly 2 weeks work and a chance to learn how to use Xero.
Requiring speaking a language is not discriminatory. e.g.: if that ad is for a job at a business in an area where a lot of customers who call and/or walk in speak that language and do not speak English (or much of it), that is not discrimination. Asking for a fluent/proficient speaker is OK, asking for a person of a certain ethnicity/specific background is not. E.g.: I have a friend who is whiter than skim milk, but speaks Mandarin as fluent as a person born and raised in China. If they exclude that person because they are not Chinese it would be discriminatory.
You are correct, but equally some companies will abuse this as a filter to get the right ethnicity to apply.
I am aware of that, I was just saying that - at face value - requiring a specific language spoken in a job ad is not discriminatory if there is a solid business justification, such as clientele requiring that. I am in the process of hiring someone with a specific language spoken because we have a sizeable client base that only speaks that language and very little to no English at all.
I am aware of that.
You do have to prove the language is necessary for the role, though.
Of course. I have seen for instance clinics in ethnic areas asking for doctors, nurses and receptionists who speak the language spoken in the area because many people don’t speak English. You can see signs and billboards saying we have (insert language) speaking doctors which is their whole selling point. With doctor and nurse shortage I would be hard pressed to think there are applicants who don’t speak the language losing out because there are more jobs than people. But asking for a chef or a forklift driver for example that speaks a specific language would be a bit off.
My point was that requiring a language is only not discriminatory if the job tasks require that language.
You were offered a contract offer for almost the same role so I wouldn't even consider the fact that they "possibly" discriminated based on your ethnicity. I don't have anywhere near enough detail, however at a guess they likely don't have the budget/position approved and want you to come on until the end of financial year when new budgets come into effect. They probably can't/don't want to disclose that to manage expectations (or a manager not having right approvals etc.), so are using the generic "cultural fit". The best you can do here is ask them for more detailed feedback. PS, being spiteful and giving material to competitor is a bad look, no matter how upset you are that they didnt offer the perm, DONT do this. There will be other jobs and opportunities.
It really can just depend on the the team/role/ company. And it’s just bad luck. I remember hiring for a product manager role and asked how they deal with stakeholders when leading a project. They answered with “ I’m steadfastly focused on achieving the objective of the project and to ensure it’s delivered on time I make sure all stakeholders understand the task and what needs to be done”. This might be the right answer somewhere else, but what I was looking for was “I like to be pragmatic with the deliverables and problem solve solutions and find comprise so all stakeholders can be satisfied even if they don’t all get what they wanted and the project is able to be delivered on time in a way that meets the most needs”. Neither is a bad answer, but one suits the culture of my team better
“Culture fit” is up there with “we are going ahead with other more suitable candidates” as a cop out for not giving you the job for any number of reasons that they don’t want you to know about. The budget has fallen through totally, they think they can employ someone cheaper, changes in another area mean they need to redeploy someone into it, the boss’s son’s mate’s just been given the role, etc. The longer their interview process takes, the more change there is of this happening. I had an interview at the start of the year where the outcome was they were “moving ahead with other more suitable candidates”. Which was fine, but what they didn’t say was that they hadn’t yet found those other more suitable candidates. I knew this as soon as they advertised the role again the following week. Two months later the listing is still up there, so I guess the “more suitable candidates” haven’t applied yet. I’m pretty sure the candidate who’ll do it for the salary they now want to offer doesn’t exist (or can’t do the job).
This isnt uncommon, coming from a non ethnic, ive had this before. Its simply you didnt connect with the hiring managers or let off some aspect that was worrying to them, such as seeming entitled or uptight. I would have taken the contract. In essence this very much could have led to a full time position, but they just want to see if the aspect they were concerned about becomes an issue. Honestly, just from reading this post, i suspect its your personality. I understand it can be hard to focus on how you feel like you seem physically different but hiring managers couldnt give a shit about this aspect. They want effective employees, not employees just of one skin colour.
I don't think my ethnicity was the issue. I'm white (middle eastern background) and my last name, which of course features in my resume, is the most ethnic thing about me. I think if anything there might have been some classism but idk. In hindsight I think I should have left this information out of my post. I added it in for context to see if others like me have had a similar experience. However, it seems to have given people the idea that I beleive I was discriminated against, which I don't think is true.
You probably have bad body odor
I wouldn't say they are more important, they are equally important. You need to pass all of the interviews to get the role. In this case the main reason you do cultural fit last is because it tends to involve more people, so you only want to do them when you are fairly certain of the candidate. In my experience I've usually assessed cultural fit during the initial hiring manager interview, and again in a dedicated cultural fit interview at the end.
Culture fit usually means two things. Someone you can have a laugh with, and literally someone who is a particular ethnic culture that they think would work well based on the colleagues or the client base. You can’t always figure that out over a virtual or phone screening, and in the latter example you can’t outright reject someone because of it.
Ethnic culture is a bit too rich though.
Yes cultural fit is important. Have seen women quit because a certain ethinic males made them feel unsafe/harrassed. Even as a male I avoid eye contact with some females that try to flirt with me and even reported one lady to my manager then HR for giving me a serious stare for talking with another whom she perceived as attractive.
Easy there Casanova
Post didn't quite go how OP thought it would lol
At my work we absolutely screen for culture fit first. Our first interview is all about assessing culture fit and allowing the candidate to ask us questions. We then do psychometric testing and a second interview where we can ask more technical questions.
Yeah. It's literally the only thing that can be done face to face. For our communications manager, we chose the drinker, as they will need it. Haha
Answer - I do. 15-30min informal chat with any applicants that seem good on paper before I schedule the proper stuff. It’s good for both me and the candidate to determine mutual fit.
Where I work that is exactly what we do. We talk to culture in the add and the interview.