Culture Fit in Hiring

My discomfort with the idea of Culture Fit in Hiring has been percolating for a while, and I’ve tried to wrap my mind around why I struggle with it.  I think in large part it has to do with the term “Culture” in general.

In organizations, the definition can be fuzzy, and can be used to mean different things.  Officially, in Organizational Development disciplines, Culture refers to ‘how’ we do things, while Climate refers to how things ‘feel’ (when we are immersed in the organization).  But those who work in the trenches often mix these two concepts, or blend them. In addition, there is another accepted meaning for Culture that embraces the institutional history and artifacts that inform the “how” and sometimes the “why” behind the “how”.

SDiversitreeo, when hiring someone to come in to an organization I think it is almost impossible to screen for culture fit, due to that historical component.  How can anyone externally possibly know the historical references? After all, the candidate’s history has been experienced elsewhere, which presumably is why you need them…to bring their own experience and history to the table.

More importantly, when you engage a staff panel to conduct the screening interviews, you bring a group of people with their own view and their individual experiences of the internal climate and the culture, and  yet they are expected to come to a conclusion on the Fit of the candidate. I also fear that often times the word FIT overrides the definitions of Culture and even Climate, so there is a huge risk that around the table the team is screening for something else:  homogeneity. We can–and without malice–err on the side of: “someone who will be fun to hang with”, or “this person is a lot like us/me, so he/she must be a good fit”.  This flies in the face of good business/organizational strategy.

All the studies show that the best companies have great diversity of thought, approach, opinion and personalities. This is achieved through diversity of background, culture or experience–and yes race and ethnicity.  In terms of just generational diversity alone, it has been said that each generation has its blind spots, therefore a variety of age groups has a good chance of having all the blind spots covered.

Take a look at this great article by Jennifer Briggs. I love her phrase: “Hire for a homogeneity of positive mindsets and a diversity of personalities, races, nationalities, and world-cultures.”  (emphasis my own) Mindset, says Briggs is not a matter of personality, so personality tests don’t do the trick.  Clarity on the ideal mindset for your particular organization is critical. Also, she emphasizes hiring for the organization you want to be in the future, not the one you have today.  Which points to some serious training efforts if you want to use staff panels to chime in on your new hires.

What mindset is needed for your organization 3 or 5 years from now?  Think about it!




Essential Conversation

There is a very popular book that is widely utilized in organizations: “Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking when Stakes are High” by Kerry Patterson,  Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan and Al Switzler. This is a great book; we should all be reading it regularly.  In some organizations, this valuable text is required reading, and every staff person is provided a personal copy.

There are other, deeper aspects to conversation that I think also require a bit of attention. One aspect is that of  the proactive conversation, or what I call the Essential Conversations (EC). These are the conversations that establish our baselines and the shared understanding of how we are going to be in relationship. This model and term was established, in fact, in the clinical family counseling arena, and the version I use is adapted from Bob Dunham’s framework in his Generative Leadership programs (with permission).
Continue reading “Essential Conversation”