[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.