Rethinking ‘culture fit’ in hiring can boost innovation and diversity

Listen to this article

“My team got together recently to talk about the qualifications we’d like to see in a candidate for a new position on our team. The words “culture fit” kept coming up without a lot of description.  While I know this is important, I worry that we’re putting too much emphasis on that and not enough on the more technical qualifications and other skills we absolutely have to have. Thoughts?”

“Culture fit” has become an important buzzword in finding the right candidate for a job. Few would argue that you want to hire a candidate who will fit well into the team’s way of operating every day, sharing team members’ values, beliefs, and attitudes as well as communications and day-to-day work styles.

But as you’re thinking about the job and interviewing and evaluating candidates, what role should a candidate’s potential “fit” into your culture really have? It’s one thing to make “culture fit” a component of the evaluation of a candidate; it’s another thing to give it a significant role in the process.

“Talent acquisition teams often focus on finding candidates who align seamlessly with the company’s existing values, work style and social dynamics,” wrote Jennifer Gaster, founder and director of Heads Resourcing Group, a talent consulting firm in the UK in a LinkedIn article last year.

“On paper, this strategy might reduce potential conflicts and promote a harmonious workplace. However, the reality is that a workforce composed solely of people who think, act and behave similarly is more likely to stagnate than to innovate,” she wrote. The result, then, is “less innovation, diversity and creativity” within organizations.

Bobbie Goheen, an executive coach and founder and chief executive officer of Synthesis Management Group, an international leadership development practice in Rochester, says she would be very careful with the phrase, ‘culture fit.’

“Not because culture does not matter. It matters enormously. But too often ‘culture fit’ becomes shorthand for ‘someone we feel comfortable with’ or ‘someone who seems like us.’” she says. “This can unintentionally narrow the candidate pool and cause teams to miss people who would actually make the organization stronger.”

Indeed, studies show that diversity in teams can result in more strength and innovation and that translates to higher revenue for organizations. Research by Boston Consulting Group (BCG), for example, showed that companies with more diverse management teams have 19 percent higher revenue because of their focus on innovation.  “In a world where disruption is constant, the ability to think outside the box and approach challenges from new angles is more valuable than ever,” Gaster says.

In a piece in Forbes, author Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic agreed that, in any team or organization, there are at least some individuals who are more likely to come up with novel and useful ideas than others. These people are generally not happy with the status quo, and they haven’t been affected by institutional biases or old ways of thinking. But they make change happen.  “And it is highly unlikely that these individuals, who are often a company’s biggest change-agents, are a strong fit with their culture,” he says.

In addition – despite the popularity of the term “culture fit” — there is actually little scientific evidence that supports making it a key component in the evaluation of candidates, he says.

Goheen suggests taking a different approach to phrasing questions on “culture fit.”  A better question is, ‘What does our culture need this person to contribute?”

In your analysis, it might be helpful to think about the difference between “culture fit” and “culture contribution,” Goheen says. “Culture fit can become vague. Culture contribution is specific. “

If you think about contributing to the culture, then you can ask, “Will this person strengthen how we work together? Will they add perspective? Will they help us serve our clients, customers or community even better? Will they accelerate us in the marketplace or advance our mission in a more powerful way?”

In her work on this, Gaster agreed that this “obsession” with “cultural fit” should be reevaluated. She put it another way, suggesting a “culture add” approach.  “Ultimately, the obsession with cultural fit needs to be reevaluated. Instead of solely prioritizing conformity, talent acquisition teams should consider how a candidate’s differences could complement and enhance the existing culture.”

“A shift towards hiring for ‘cultural add’ – focusing on how candidates can contribute something new to the culture – might just be the key to fostering an environment where innovation and creativity flourish.”

It’s important not to eliminate the word “culture” from the conversation, Goheen said. Instead it’s time to “upgrade the conversation.”

To do just that, Goheen suggests separating the discussion about the job into several categories. The first, for example, would be to determine the “true technical requirements “of the role. “These are the non-negotiable skills, credentials or experiences the person must have to be successful.”

“Second, what are the leadership, professional, communication and thinking skills required? Can this person solve problems, work across functions, learn quickly, manage ambiguity and contribute to the team in a productive way?”

Then, the third, she says, is considering the “values and behaviors” that matter. “Not personality preferences. Not whether they would be fun at lunch. But observable behaviors such as integrity, accountability, curiosity, respect, follow-through, adaptability and willingness to collaborate.”

And the fourth question — one that teams often miss — is “what kind of growth will this person require of us?”

“Sometimes the best hire is not the person who makes everyone immediately comfortable. Sometimes the best hire is the person who raises the bar, challenges old assumptions, brings new insight, stretches our thinking and helps us see the market, our mission or our clients in a more relevant way.”

So, the real question, Goheen says, is not only “will they fit us?” but it is also, “Are we ready to lead someone who may stretch us?”

And that includes several key questions, she says, such as  “Can we level up our own leadership? Can we make room for a person who brings a different lens, a stronger skill set or a more future-ready way of working? Are we willing to grow and adapt because this person may take us outside our comfort zone?”

“The danger is not in caring about culture. The danger is leaving culture undefined,” Goheen says. “When culture is defined through behaviors, contribution and mission impact, it becomes a useful hiring lens.”

So go ahead and ask the team: “When we say ‘culture fit,’ what specific behaviors are we looking for?” Then you can ask: “What contribution do we need this person to make to our clients, our mission, our marketplace and our future?”
And yet another important question: “Are we prepared to grow as leaders so this person can do their best work here?”

“That shift can help you hire someone who is not only qualified for the job, but additive to the team, valuable to your clients and important to the future you are trying to build.”

Managers at Work is a monthly column exploring the issues and challenges facing managers. Contact Kathleen Driscoll with questions or comments by email at [email protected]