[ebiester]

I've been looking for another word for "someone who is interested in the same software engineering and organization practices as the rest of the team" without using culture fit.

I don't care what TV shows they're watching or the color of their skin, but I do care that they don't grate against testing a peer's ticket instead of thinking it's below them. I care that they are helpful as a human quality. I care that they are interested on working on a team that's highly collaborative.

There are places where I'm not a great cultural fit. If the team's culture is to take a problem, go off for months, and solve it, it's probably not for me, but I know people who would be overjoyed in that case. I know people who'd like nothing more to get a spec and deliver rather than gathering and implementing requirements based on conversations within the organization.

In some sense, that's people like me, but I was in turn hired because I fit those criteria. People who fit those criteria seem to be happy with the engineering portion of the job, and people who don't fit that criteria tend to be frustrated.

I use the word "cultural fit" but I'm not sure if there's a better term.

[toast0]

This might be 'process fit'?

Some people have a bigger need to find a good fit on this, but many of the choices are philosophical in nature and having constant battles over why so/don't we do X is not productive. (Having occasional discussions can be productive, especially if there are clear deficiencies in the current flow).

As an interviewer, I appreciate when candidates ask about our process, regardless of if they love or detest what we do, I know they're asking important questions. As a candidate who can afford to be choosy, I would ask this of interviewers, as I know from experience I'm not going to be happy if I am fighting with the process all the time.

[EliRivers]

Can you not just say "someone who is interested in the same software engineering and organization practices as the rest of the team"?

I get that it's more than two words, but it clearly expresses what you're trying to say and makes it clear you don't mean what so many others mean when they say "culture fit"; same schools, hobbies, affluence, political attitude, and so on.

That said, seems like you might benefit more from people interested in different practices; people who can bring something new to the team, rather than more of the same.

[ebiester]

There's a difference between someone who is looking through new ideas and suggesting that we try experiments to improve our quality, time to delivery, or the other things our team finds important, and someone who is irritated at the thought of writing unit tests or that they have to test a peer's code.

In other words, http://programming-motherfucker.com/ advocates are a bad fit.

[EliRivers]

someone who is looking through new ideas and suggesting that we try experiments to improve our quality, time to delivery, or the other things our team finds important

So someone who is interested in different software engineering and organization practices? Not the same software engineering and organization practices as the rest of the team?

It sounds like you don't want a culture fit so much as you have a culture in mind that doesn't fit, and you don't want that one. Different culture fine, except from a particular range of damaging cultures.

I would suggest that the very fact this thread (and others nearby) exist indicate that "culture fit" really isn't a good term, given how much extra definition is required.

[pcmaffey]

That’s a philosophical fit

[notacoward]

Maybe "methodology fit" or "workstyle fit"?

[stuntkite]

Neither of those are even close to better. Basically the same but with more letters and muddy the waters.

The only way to improve the concept, IMO, is to find the definition of the real thing you are looking for. I think the goal is exponential outcome? That's what business owners are looking for with any hire. Fit is silly, it all seems like a puzzle, but it's an ecology. You want a catalyst that challenges and unifies or someone that strengthens the existing base.

EDIT: Clarity

[ebiester]

As mentioned above, the best way to describe is that people who want a culture like http://programming-motherfucker.com/ advocates for is the wrong fit for us.

And that's the problem with fit questions - it's much easier to say what is not us rather than what is us. I like the ecology metaphor, though. Organizations as ecologies...

[notacoward]

> Neither of those are even close to better.

You just failed the "being civil" part of the interview. I think I'll let the GP judge whether those are better. At least I'm trying to help instead of just slinging stones at others' attempts.

> Exponential outcome maybe?

Seriously? You complain about "more letters" and muddying the waters then you vomit up that monstrosity?

[stuntkite]

I am really sorry you read that that way. I was not saying your contribution wasn't useful to the dialog. I was just saying that I think the category of "fit" doesn't need a different term at the front but more a rethink. I was not saying "Exponential Outcome" was a better set of words, but just my first blush at what I think the desired thing in a hire is that could be used to define new terms. I've changed my post to reflect that.

Again, sorry for making you feel like I was shitting on your contribution.

[notacoward]

> I think the category of "fit" doesn't need a different term at the front but more a rethink.

That didn't seem to be what $ancestor was asking for. It sounded like s/he was wishing for a slightly different phrase for a slightly different concept, vs. what "culture fit" usually means. Your "rethink" was not that. It was a complete shift from strategy to outcome. Is that help, or appropriation? Not for me to decide, but perhaps something to think about. It's a mistake we engineers often make, and I'm hardly innocent myself.

[stuntkite]

I literally have no idea what you are talking about.

[omginternets]

That will work until someone claims (truthfully or otherwise) that it's equivalent to what we typically call "discrimination".

"Culture Fit" is a good term. The problem is that certain firms use it disingenuously and that certain candidates are making a social issue out of it.