That’s a fancy way of saying “we hire people we like”.
It’s an approach that isn’t perfect but is good enough for many roles. We pick spouses based on that approach and it works out pretty well for most people.
You are correct, "culture fit" is not a good descriptor of what I meant.
We hire people we believe we will be able to work with. It's not a popularity contest, we evaluate problem solving, analytical thinking and communication skills, such as the ability to explain complex topics in easy terms.
I'll give you an example, usually we are interviewing people straight out of the university, but this can be applied to any candidate.
I'll start by asking the candidate to talk about his master's project. As he talks about it, I'll guide the conversation towards these topics :
-What was the problem
-How was it defined?
-How did you tackle it?
-Explain your solution
-support your decisions
-Was there a cost/benefit analysis?
-How was the problem decomposed?
This will give me an initial picture of the candidate's ability to address a problem, and is far more important to me than wether he knows "the number after F in hexadecimal" or some other nonsense.
This isn't screening for 'culture fit' though and I'd sincerely recommend avoiding referring to it as that. You're screening for strong communication skills and that's absolutely fine (and highly recommended).
Interviewing for culture fit (as you've seen in the responses to your comment) has an extremely negative stigma attached to it for good reason.
I strongly agree with this. “Culture fit” is one of those concepts that often disadvantages “others”. This is something we may not be able to avoid without putting in place safeguards (concert musicians were predominantly male until blind auditions were used - and it turned out that female musicians play just as well or better).
As I mention above this is often not a result of bad intentions, but of implicit biases that have an effect on our judgements even if we are fully aware of them and explicitly try to avoid them.
About half of all marriages fail. All the intimate relationships people have prior to marriage also don't last. So people we like has a fairly high failure rate for intimate relationships.
Having said that, it doesn't necessarily mean it was all a complete waste.
Most people don't stay in their first job, so there's that.
The two are pretty tightly linked. If you have an underemployed or unemployed couple without a support network, you pretty much have to get divorced to get social services.
I don't walk into any job interview situation expecting 30 years of bliss -- that's generally not a reality. If you stick around for 3 years that's probably a decent employment relationship depending on industry.
Many marriages, including those that ultimately fail, work pretty well for a long time. I'm not that old, and I've been married for 13 years. Is that a win?
Also, the average marriage is around 8 years, but the median is close to 40 iirc. People who get divorced trend to have issues like being young, poor, previously divorced, criminal issues or substance abuse problems. Divorce rates for couples at least 25 without those risk factors are dramatically lower -- implying that people with fewer signs of bad judgement display better judgement in picking a spouse and maintaining a relationship.
As someone who indulges in more than his fare share of young/poor/previously separated/criminal issues/substance abuse problems... I attempted to capture that in my somewhat more terse "Having said that, it doesn't necessarily mean it was all a complete waste." Thanking for expanding on that where I was laconic.
We hire people we believe we will be able to work with. It's not a popularity contest, we evaluate problem solving, analytical thinking and communication skills, such as the ability to explain complex topics in easy terms.
I'll give you an example, usually we are interviewing people straight out of the university, but this can be applied to any candidate.
I'll start by asking the candidate to talk about his master's project. As he talks about it, I'll guide the conversation towards these topics : -What was the problem -How was it defined? -How did you tackle it? -Explain your solution -support your decisions -Was there a cost/benefit analysis? -How was the problem decomposed?
This will give me an initial picture of the candidate's ability to address a problem, and is far more important to me than wether he knows "the number after F in hexadecimal" or some other nonsense.