4 ms·
"Cultural fit" is just another form of discrimination, a currently legal alternative to racism, sexism, and other forms of illegal discrimination in the US to k
by joesmo 11y ago
"Cultural fit" is just another form of discrimination, a currently legal alternative to racism, sexism, and other forms of illegal discrimination in the US to keep the "unliked" and "unwanted" out of jobs. The author acknowledges this, yet still sees fit to add advice for using cultural fit; that weakens the article a bit, but not much.
The reality is "cultural fit" should never be used to make decisions. It is never right, either as a predictor of performance or ethically. Companies and interviewers already have an incredibly difficult time figuring out ways in which to judge qualifications, even when standard tests and procedures are available. To add in this nonsensical idea of "cultural fit," something that can't be measured, quantified, qualified, or identified, and to make that a selection criteria for applicants not only shirks the duty to hire the most qualified, but gives the company and interviewers an unchallengeable way to reject applicants, an option that otherwise would--and should--be illegal.
tldr: Cultural fit is discrimination, it cannot predict job performance or any otherwise meaningful information related to a candidate's skills and abilities, and should be illegal as its only use is to deny qualified applicants jobs they qualify for.
- MarcusVorenus 11y agoCultural fit can definitely impact performance. Imagine a luddite working for a biotechnology company, or an anarchist working for the government, or a muslim working for an atheist non-profit. These people would never find the motivation to perform better than the absolute minimum required to keep their jobs because their goals and the goals of the organization are complete opposites. They could even go as far as sabotaging the performance of others by creating a toxic work environment.
- joesmo 11y agoNot necessarily. There are plenty of Muslims who could help an atheist non profit by maintaining their professionalism. Likewise for your other examples. By assuming that they will let their beliefs sabotage their work, you're judging a whole group by the potential actions of zero or more people. That's just discrimination against people with these various beliefs without proof. By this line of reasoning you could say that Catholics should never be hired at planned parenthood because they will sabotage it. Total load of bull shit and exactly the reason "cultural fit" should be illegal. It's just plain discrimination.
- MarcusVorenus 11y agoThey can be professional all they like but if they only have money as a motivator to work at a place they hate then they'll just be poor performers. They won't have the energy to do more than the bare minimum. Motivation is just not something that you can command at will.
- wolfgke 11y ago> if they only have money as a motivator to work at a place they hate then they'll just be poor performers. They won't have the energy to do more than the bare minimum. Source?
- MarcusVorenus 11y agoCommon sense.
- joesmo 11y agoHow is that different from the majority of people who are only motivated by money to work? You're right, motivation is not something you can command at will. Nor is it something that you can detect in others or stereotype across a vast group of people as you're doing here.
- WalterSear 11y agoFunny. It's the main thing I look for when I'm interveiwing companies that I'm looking to work for.
- joesmo 11y agoNothing wrong with that. When you're interviewing, you can use any criteria you like because you're not denying people (except yourself, which is your right) jobs they're qualified for based on random, often discriminatory information.
- WalterSear 11y agoThe process of interviewing future colleagues is the same from both sides of the bench.