[jasonmotylinski]

I just went through the interview process for a management role at a company in which they stressed the importance of "cultural fit." I assumed this meant I would be evaluated for my ability to work within a startup vs the traditional large enterprise companies I had been working for over the last few years.

I was caught a bit off-guard when the interview pivoted towards inclusion and diversity. I stumbled through some questions which, in hindsight, were geared around determining if I was a "brogrammer". The questions were very open-ended like: "How do you deal with diversity?" and "How do you accommodate other's working styles?"

Speaking with HR after the interview the company their definition of "cultural fit" was much broader than just work or programming style. The company is extremely interested in building a talent pool that is diverse in all ways (age, gender, ethnicity, etc...) and viewed the engineering practices as something that can be taught.

Their belief, if you invest in good people who like their jobs then they will build good products. And if those products are good then the company will make money.

[tarsinge]

> "How do you deal with diversity?" and "How do you accommodate other's working styles?"

I don't understand these kind of questions, culture shouldn't play a role as long as core values are shared (like honesty, empathy, humility...) The rest should be irrelevant in the workplace

[stagbeetle]

> I don't understand these kind of questions, culture shouldn't play a role as long as core values are shared (like honesty, empathy, humility...)

It's important to have non-toxic and morally good employees, but if you start forcing a "core value" system on subjective morality you're going to throw a wrench into the cogs.

Shared core values are better for goals and brand identity. Company culture is more leading by example, than meticulously choosing what is honest and empathetic and humble.