4 ms·

Not hiring because somebody because they're not a cultural fit is fine (if for some reason you like monoculture). Determining they're not a cultural fit becaus

by goldcd 6y ago

Not hiring because somebody because they're not a cultural fit is fine (if for some reason you like monoculture). Determining they're not a cultural fit because they're black, is most definitely not. "..article published Tuesday said three Black applicants were rejected from jobs at Facebook despite having met all the qualifications." I presume Facebook mainly interviews people who've met their stated qualifications, rejects more than they accept, so I'm really not sure what the point here is. "one HR expert said "culture fit" is subjective and indicates the hiring decision is largely not based "on the candidate's ability to deliver results." Yes, cultural fit is subjective - but so are interviews. If you're using interviews to assess the candidates ability to deliver, then it all gets a bit recursive as you're only testing them on their ability to be interviewed (and you'd hope the best people, don't have much practice at taking interviews) Now I'm not for one moment saying that Facebook doesn't run regular KKK meetings around the ping-pong table - but I'm just getting a bit tired of contentless content.

antisthenes 6y ago
> Not hiring because somebody because they're not a cultural fit is fine (if for some reason you like monoculture). No, it is absolutely not fine. One's livelihood should not be determined by an ability to fit into some monocultural clique based on one hiring manager's subjective view of a culture they are not familiar with. I thought companies were trying to accomplish certain business goals, and not build cultural/ideological echo chambers (unless they build that as a product, which I guess Facebook does). > Determining they're not a cultural fit because they're black, is most definitely not. Yes, and culture is most certainly intertwined with ethnicity, or at the very least - by location. Should companies be allowed to screen candidates from, say...Vermont, or Louisiana just because it's not a protected discriminatory attribute. Sorry, people of Vermont. You're just not a great culture fit for us. I'm honestly struggling with trying to come up for any good reason to hold this opinion in the first place. > Yes, cultural fit is subjective - but so are interviews. This isn't a reason to throw out one with the other. Just because interviews are flawed is no excuse to discriminate based on culture. Not to mention there at least exist frameworks for testing skills and ability (no matter how flawed they are). There are no frameworks for testing "cultural fit", and, at least as of now, 99% of hiring managers would not be equipped to be a good judge of culture.
- goldcd 6y ago
  You misunderstood me (or I wasn't clear, sorry). When I said it was "Fine" - I didn't mean it was 'fair' or in any way a sensible thing to do. Just that you legally could if you wanted to (but it would be stupid). There is no good reason for anybody to hold this opinion.
  - antisthenes 6y ago
    You're right, I did misunderstand. In this day and age, this should be regulated and it's unfortunate that companies found a loophole to basically deny any applicant based on some arbitrary preferences.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Not hiring because somebody because they're not a cultural fit is fine While proof of violation may in some cases be difficult, because its very hard to measure the impact of one among several subjective criteria, I find it difficult to believe that there are actual “culture fit” decisions that are not disparate-impact discrimination. To wit, I do not believe that it is ever the case that “culture fit” decisions either: (1) fail to have a substantial adverse impact on one or another protected class, or (2) have such an impact but, in fact, effectively measure the minimum qualifications for successful performance of the job in question, so as to fall within the “business necessity” defense. In fact, I think the predominant purpose of “culture fit” is to provide a cover for arbitrary discrimination by hiring decisionmakers with which unlawful discrimination can be masked in a way which makes it more difficult to litigate, as a liability risk mitigation technique.
- goldcd 6y ago
  and I would partially agree with your last point. I think is used for arbitrary discrimination (unlawful or otherwise), but I'd suspect the majority of what's folded in there is just stuff that you don't want to put into official response. I've conducted interviews as a chair-filler (not my interview, not my decision, but just to chip in and discuss the victim afterwards). I have awarded negative points for: Mentioning your father's job 3 times. Continuing to draw on a whiteboard with a marker that's run out, when there were 4 others next to the pen you selected. Being rude to the receptionist. Telling me to be quiet until you'd finished drawing, when I tried to nudge you back to answering the question I actually asked. Not being able to provide any response/elaboration on a CV bullet-point. Some of these you could shape into constructive feedback, but easier to just say they "don't fit"

by goldcd 6y ago

antisthenes 6y ago

> Not hiring because somebody because they're not a cultural fit is fine (if for some reason you like monoculture). No, it is absolutely not fine. One's livelihood should not be determined by an ability to fit into some monocultural clique based on one hiring manager's subjective view of a culture they are not familiar with. I thought companies were trying to accomplish certain business goals, and not build cultural/ideological echo chambers (unless they build that as a product, which I guess Facebook does). > Determining they're not a cultural fit because they're black, is most definitely not. Yes, and culture is most certainly intertwined with ethnicity, or at the very least - by location. Should companies be allowed to screen candidates from, say...Vermont, or Louisiana just because it's not a protected discriminatory attribute. Sorry, people of Vermont. You're just not a great culture fit for us. I'm honestly struggling with trying to come up for any good reason to hold this opinion in the first place. > Yes, cultural fit is subjective - but so are interviews. This isn't a reason to throw out one with the other. Just because interviews are flawed is no excuse to discriminate based on culture. Not to mention there at least exist frameworks for testing skills and ability (no matter how flawed they are). There are no frameworks for testing "cultural fit", and, at least as of now, 99% of hiring managers would not be equipped to be a good judge of culture.

goldcd 6y ago
You misunderstood me (or I wasn't clear, sorry). When I said it was "Fine" - I didn't mean it was 'fair' or in any way a sensible thing to do. Just that you legally could if you wanted to (but it would be stupid). There is no good reason for anybody to hold this opinion.
- antisthenes 6y ago
  You're right, I did misunderstand. In this day and age, this should be regulated and it's unfortunate that companies found a loophole to basically deny any applicant based on some arbitrary preferences.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Not hiring because somebody because they're not a cultural fit is fine While proof of violation may in some cases be difficult, because its very hard to measure the impact of one among several subjective criteria, I find it difficult to believe that there are actual “culture fit” decisions that are not disparate-impact discrimination. To wit, I do not believe that it is ever the case that “culture fit” decisions either: (1) fail to have a substantial adverse impact on one or another protected class, or (2) have such an impact but, in fact, effectively measure the minimum qualifications for successful performance of the job in question, so as to fall within the “business necessity” defense. In fact, I think the predominant purpose of “culture fit” is to provide a cover for arbitrary discrimination by hiring decisionmakers with which unlawful discrimination can be masked in a way which makes it more difficult to litigate, as a liability risk mitigation technique.

goldcd 6y ago
and I would partially agree with your last point. I think is used for arbitrary discrimination (unlawful or otherwise), but I'd suspect the majority of what's folded in there is just stuff that you don't want to put into official response. I've conducted interviews as a chair-filler (not my interview, not my decision, but just to chip in and discuss the victim afterwards). I have awarded negative points for: Mentioning your father's job 3 times. Continuing to draw on a whiteboard with a marker that's run out, when there were 4 others next to the pen you selected. Being rude to the receptionist. Telling me to be quiet until you'd finished drawing, when I tried to nudge you back to answering the question I actually asked. Not being able to provide any response/elaboration on a CV bullet-point. Some of these you could shape into constructive feedback, but easier to just say they "don't fit"