6 ms·

To paraphrase Hanns Johst, "whenever I hear 'culture fit', I remove the safety from my Browning." Whenever I hear that someone has been fired due to culture fi

To paraphrase Hanns Johst, "whenever I hear 'culture fit', I remove the safety from my Browning." Whenever I hear that someone has been fired due to culture fit issues, when I really try to question the motivations behind it, it almost always comes down to a politically correct version of "we didn't like hanging out with him/her". It is such BS.

Swizec 13y ago
It could also be that they were simply difficult to work with. Not because they were lazy or incompetent, but just because their style didn't fit with the team. For instance, somebody who is only productive in absolute silence and prefers working from 6am to 2pm, will have a very difficult time working with somebody who needs to listen to heavy metal at full blast and likes working from 1pm to 9pm. Especially if they have to work on the same team and need to closely collaborate to get their work done.
- YuriNiyazov 13y ago
  So then which one gets fired?
  - Swizec 13y ago
    Depends. Which one fits better with the rest of the company? Is either of them so good you are willing to make everyone else put up with them?
- lmartel 13y ago
  Buy the metal guy some headphones, and schedule scrum meetings at 1:30pm. Easy!
aegiso 13y ago
> it almost always comes down to a politically correct version of "we didn't like hanging out with him/her" Startups run on morale. This is a pretty important feature of a startup employee. Even if that's what "culture fit" means that doesn't invalidate it as a reason to fire.
- greenyoda 13y ago
  Startups live or die based on their ability to quickly deliver product, and morale alone won't get your product delivered. An employee's ability to deliver results is more important than their desire to have a beer with his coworkers. I'd much sooner hire someone with competence and experience than someone who was fun to work with.
gruseom 13y ago
I don't think it's BS at all. There's no objectively correct way to build software, or a team, or a company. Personal inclination and temperament play a large role; people can be more or less compatible in those respects, and when they're less compatible and it's making the work worse, that's a poor fit.
- YuriNiyazov 13y ago
  Yes, there is. It's called "professionalism".
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
ardit33 13y ago
There are times that people don't get along well and something must be done. Jelling together is very important to performance of the team in the long run. No matter how strong team members are individually, if they don't get along their output will never be great. The product will suffer the results. A bit of team members competitiveness is ok, and perhaps good. But when it ends up divulging into fighting, back stabbing and lack of communication, the atmosphere turns toxic, and it hampers the whole team. Also, when you have engineers trying to user work time to play with their favorite framework/tool/whatever else that might not actually help other team members to get their stuff done. (usually a trait of more junior devs). But this is easily fixable. People issue are harder to fix. Few things to do: 1. Set up straight rules, and expectations for the people that are having problem fitting in. 2. Allow them to express their point of view, but also let them know that what the team expects of them. Try to see if you can accommodate their requests. Often they are ways/desires to do something in a different way, which might not be compatible with company's way of doing things. Sometimes you can learn from it, sometimes the employee's request and point of view are unrealistic or just don't fit with the company's goal. 3. Move them to a different team or setting, and see if they get along/fit better with different team dynamics. 4. Firing them is a last resort only, if nothing else works. If you let go somebody too quickly it sends a bad message to the rest of the team as well (the company looks too cut-throat). Also letting people not getting along well for too long hampers the productivity of everybody else.
dxhdr 13y ago
I agree that often "culture fit" is intended to mean "we didn't like hanging out with him/her," and yes this is complete nonsense. However I do think the phrase is valid. Culture fit encompasses all of the intangibles outside of skill and experience. Team cohesion is a very real concept and not everyone works harmoniously together. Especially in startups and small companies, one overly "negative" influence (however that's defined for your particular team) can bring down morale and productivity across the board.
enneff 13y ago
"We didn't like hanging out with them," is a perfectly valid reason to get rid of someone. You spend the majority of your life at work. As an employer it is your prerogative to employ people you want to be around. It's nobody's right to be employed at a private company. We're social creatures. When it comes to an interaction between people, do not underestimate the social angle. If it's not working on that level it's going to be hard to make it work in other ways, too.
- YuriNiyazov 13y ago
  For a very long time, I've been a very anti-union, pro-pure-capitalism individual, but it is responses like yours that really make me think it might be time for professional unions for software engineers that defend the right of an engineer not to be fired if he's 1) capable and 2) professional, but happens to not share music tastes with his manager.
  - dxhdr 13y ago
    Just an anecdote -- I've known great engineers who slowly became angry, bitter, and defeated about their jobs, bosses and coworkers. They gradually turned sour, subtly poisoning the workplace over time. When confronted, they'd lash out with the defense of "professionalism," that they're more than capable employees who are contributing just as well as anyone. Attitude and enthusiasm nitpicks are irrelevant as long as you're writing code. In short, they deserved to keep the job and could hack it because they were still "professional." The truth is, those people had given up and became toxic to everyone around them. It was time that they move on. Anyhow, whenever I hear the defense of "professionalism" I become fairly suspicious of the circumstances.
    - YuriNiyazov 13y ago
      Actually, I think that saying "but I behave professionally" is equivalent to saying "I am a great lover" or "I am a very humble person" - making such a statement is an automatic disqualification for the quality you are claiming. The point I am trying to make is that if someone says "he/she is capable and behaves professionally, but the culture fit is just not there", that's when I become fairly suspicious of the circumstances.
halostatue 13y ago
There’s one person who I’ve had as a manager before that I have told people that if this person ever comes into my management chain again, I will be leaving that company very soon (I’ve said this at more than one company). This isn’t to hold them hostage to me—I just won’t work with that person ever again. It’s also true that the wrong person can disrupt a team that was previously running smoothly. So, yes, “we didn’t like hanging out with her/him” is a perfectly legitimate reason to separate someone from a team.
jt2190 13y ago
> To paraphrase Hanns Johst... You realize that you're paraphrasing a Nazi [1], right? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Johst#Role_in_Nazi_Germany http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Johst#Role_in_Nazi_German...
- 001sky 13y ago
  Given the subject, it seems all the more authoritative. Or were you trying to make another point?
  - YuriNiyazov 13y ago
    I think his point is "you quoted a nazi. Nazis did bad things. Thus you agree with things they did. Thus you are a bad person, and your point is invalid, whatever it may be."
    - jt2190 13y ago
      No, I'm suggesting that the point could have been made without quoting Nazi doctrine. The concept that we should shoot those who hold ideas we don't agree with rather than engage in debate is exactly how we end up with horrible totalitarian regimes.
      - 001sky 13y ago
        The concept that we should shoot those who hold ideas we don't agree with rather than engage in debate And your form of argument is ad-hominem. Not exactly the moral high ground.
        jt2190 13y ago
        My point is that he weakens his (valid) argument by quoting a nazi, and I'm suggesting he edit. You're actually accusing me of making an ad hominem attack, when in fact I'm simply trying to point out that he's opening himself up to such attacks by using the quote he's using. Clearly you must agree that he's inviting such attacks, as you seem to be jumping to his defense even before such an attack has taken place.

Swizec 13y ago

It could also be that they were simply difficult to work with. Not because they were lazy or incompetent, but just because their style didn't fit with the team. For instance, somebody who is only productive in absolute silence and prefers working from 6am to 2pm, will have a very difficult time working with somebody who needs to listen to heavy metal at full blast and likes working from 1pm to 9pm. Especially if they have to work on the same team and need to closely collaborate to get their work done.

YuriNiyazov 13y ago
So then which one gets fired?
- Swizec 13y ago
  Depends. Which one fits better with the rest of the company? Is either of them so good you are willing to make everyone else put up with them?
lmartel 13y ago
Buy the metal guy some headphones, and schedule scrum meetings at 1:30pm. Easy!

aegiso 13y ago

> it almost always comes down to a politically correct version of "we didn't like hanging out with him/her" Startups run on morale. This is a pretty important feature of a startup employee. Even if that's what "culture fit" means that doesn't invalidate it as a reason to fire.

greenyoda 13y ago
Startups live or die based on their ability to quickly deliver product, and morale alone won't get your product delivered. An employee's ability to deliver results is more important than their desire to have a beer with his coworkers. I'd much sooner hire someone with competence and experience than someone who was fun to work with.

gruseom 13y ago

I don't think it's BS at all. There's no objectively correct way to build software, or a team, or a company. Personal inclination and temperament play a large role; people can be more or less compatible in those respects, and when they're less compatible and it's making the work worse, that's a poor fit.

YuriNiyazov 13y ago
Yes, there is. It's called "professionalism".
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

ardit33 13y ago

There are times that people don't get along well and something must be done. Jelling together is very important to performance of the team in the long run. No matter how strong team members are individually, if they don't get along their output will never be great. The product will suffer the results. A bit of team members competitiveness is ok, and perhaps good. But when it ends up divulging into fighting, back stabbing and lack of communication, the atmosphere turns toxic, and it hampers the whole team. Also, when you have engineers trying to user work time to play with their favorite framework/tool/whatever else that might not actually help other team members to get their stuff done. (usually a trait of more junior devs). But this is easily fixable. People issue are harder to fix. Few things to do: 1. Set up straight rules, and expectations for the people that are having problem fitting in. 2. Allow them to express their point of view, but also let them know that what the team expects of them. Try to see if you can accommodate their requests. Often they are ways/desires to do something in a different way, which might not be compatible with company's way of doing things. Sometimes you can learn from it, sometimes the employee's request and point of view are unrealistic or just don't fit with the company's goal. 3. Move them to a different team or setting, and see if they get along/fit better with different team dynamics. 4. Firing them is a last resort only, if nothing else works. If you let go somebody too quickly it sends a bad message to the rest of the team as well (the company looks too cut-throat). Also letting people not getting along well for too long hampers the productivity of everybody else.

dxhdr 13y ago

I agree that often "culture fit" is intended to mean "we didn't like hanging out with him/her," and yes this is complete nonsense. However I do think the phrase is valid. Culture fit encompasses all of the intangibles outside of skill and experience. Team cohesion is a very real concept and not everyone works harmoniously together. Especially in startups and small companies, one overly "negative" influence (however that's defined for your particular team) can bring down morale and productivity across the board.

enneff 13y ago

"We didn't like hanging out with them," is a perfectly valid reason to get rid of someone. You spend the majority of your life at work. As an employer it is your prerogative to employ people you want to be around. It's nobody's right to be employed at a private company. We're social creatures. When it comes to an interaction between people, do not underestimate the social angle. If it's not working on that level it's going to be hard to make it work in other ways, too.

YuriNiyazov 13y ago
For a very long time, I've been a very anti-union, pro-pure-capitalism individual, but it is responses like yours that really make me think it might be time for professional unions for software engineers that defend the right of an engineer not to be fired if he's 1) capable and 2) professional, but happens to not share music tastes with his manager.
- dxhdr 13y ago
  Just an anecdote -- I've known great engineers who slowly became angry, bitter, and defeated about their jobs, bosses and coworkers. They gradually turned sour, subtly poisoning the workplace over time. When confronted, they'd lash out with the defense of "professionalism," that they're more than capable employees who are contributing just as well as anyone. Attitude and enthusiasm nitpicks are irrelevant as long as you're writing code. In short, they deserved to keep the job and could hack it because they were still "professional." The truth is, those people had given up and became toxic to everyone around them. It was time that they move on. Anyhow, whenever I hear the defense of "professionalism" I become fairly suspicious of the circumstances.
  - YuriNiyazov 13y ago
    Actually, I think that saying "but I behave professionally" is equivalent to saying "I am a great lover" or "I am a very humble person" - making such a statement is an automatic disqualification for the quality you are claiming. The point I am trying to make is that if someone says "he/she is capable and behaves professionally, but the culture fit is just not there", that's when I become fairly suspicious of the circumstances.

halostatue 13y ago

There’s one person who I’ve had as a manager before that I have told people that if this person ever comes into my management chain again, I will be leaving that company very soon (I’ve said this at more than one company). This isn’t to hold them hostage to me—I just won’t work with that person ever again. It’s also true that the wrong person can disrupt a team that was previously running smoothly. So, yes, “we didn’t like hanging out with her/him” is a perfectly legitimate reason to separate someone from a team.

jt2190 13y ago

> To paraphrase Hanns Johst... You realize that you're paraphrasing a Nazi [1], right? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Johst#Role_in_Nazi_Germany http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Johst#Role_in_Nazi_German...

001sky 13y ago
Given the subject, it seems all the more authoritative. Or were you trying to make another point?
- YuriNiyazov 13y ago
  I think his point is "you quoted a nazi. Nazis did bad things. Thus you agree with things they did. Thus you are a bad person, and your point is invalid, whatever it may be."
  - jt2190 13y ago
    No, I'm suggesting that the point could have been made without quoting Nazi doctrine. The concept that we should shoot those who hold ideas we don't agree with rather than engage in debate is exactly how we end up with horrible totalitarian regimes.
    - 001sky 13y ago
      The concept that we should shoot those who hold ideas we don't agree with rather than engage in debate And your form of argument is ad-hominem. Not exactly the moral high ground.
      - jt2190 13y ago
        My point is that he weakens his (valid) argument by quoting a nazi, and I'm suggesting he edit. You're actually accusing me of making an ad hominem attack, when in fact I'm simply trying to point out that he's opening himself up to such attacks by using the quote he's using. Clearly you must agree that he's inviting such attacks, as you seem to be jumping to his defense even before such an attack has taken place.