[pvg]

You should probably re-examine whether any of these things are necessary for a fruitful professional relationship and to what extent your merger of your social and professional life excludes current and potential coworkers who are not some close variant of you and your pals.

[wieghant]

My goal wasn't to bolster a "fruitful professional relationship". She probably wouldn't have been hired if that was not the case. She excels at her work and there are no HR problems. Article focused on women feeling anti-social in the workplace. I don't think it implied being anti-social will put you in a rut. It will however deter future generations. Goal of the 'merger' was not to put her on a scale and see if she measures up to be in our "in-group". The goal was to get to know our new employee. That being said, it was clear that there is a culture divide and while the relationship is fruitful, it's not as fruitful as it could be.

[Zarath]

Seriously? Maybe the interactions just make him happy?

[pvg]

Absolutely seriously. The solution to a team member not fitting into your extra-cirricular-but-also-work clique is not tweaking your clique a little so that maybe it's a little less off-putting to the new person. It's being more mindful of the effect your clique has on others that aren't in it and maintaining a better separation between your clique and your professional life.

[Mythanar]

He should probably not. If it works for the majority of the team (which from the grandparent comments seems it does), the impetus is on candidates to fit in existing culture, not the culture to change to fit candidates.

Most effective teams are usually ones with least communication impedance. The less you have to judge your words and go through diplomacy/"re-examination" dance in routine conversations, the more time you have to do your job. That's the reason "team fit/culture fit" is such an important criteria when hiring people.

[pvg]

impetus

Maybe you mean onus? And no, it isn't because that's exactly the sort of thinking that keeps the field as non-diverse and exclusionary as it is. What you're describing isn't some sort of property of an effective team. It's one of a hostile workplace.

[Mythanar]

That's where we disagree. All effective teams are exclusionary; I've never seen an effective team chosen by lottery tickets. And effective intra-team communication is their most defining trait. In my experience, so long as diversity does not impede communication, it is a neutral trait (neither positive nor negative correlation).

[pvg]

Not having a discriminatory environment is not the same as 'chosen by lottery ticket'. And for certain classes, having it is against the law no matter whether you feel it's neutral or chaotic or whatnot.