4 ms·
>A rather unfortunate one, at that, as it legitimizes all sorts of bias. At best, it's an intellectually lazy way to conceptualize a whole bundle of soft skills
by ra1n85 10y ago
>A rather unfortunate one, at that, as it legitimizes all sorts of bias. At best, it's an intellectually lazy way to conceptualize a whole bundle of soft skills.
I think you're a ways off here. Culture is character (and not a "bundle of soft skills"). Some companies want candidates that value and empathize with customers. Others may want candidates that demonstrate integrity and ability to collaborate with others. Often, these values are codified as principals to work and measure by. When a candidate fails to demonstrate valued traits, or provides examples that are contrary to those values, that is "not a culture fit".
- acjohnson55 10y agoI think you and I largely agree. My point is that companies can avoid intellectual laziness by doing exactly what you just did: being clear about what specific skills and behaviors they value. Because "culture", in vernacular, does not mean what you propose. Would you agree that it broadly consists ofthe shared history and norms that bind a group together socially? That's not a bad thing in and of itself, but it does implicitly defining other people as outsiders. When you add "fit", it can become exclusionary. That's what I mean by the term legitimizing bias.