[customguy]

Not having clear, objective criteria enables arbitrary decisions (not against OP, I mean in general.. and in general I dislike this pattern a lot). On the extreme other end of the spectrum would be 100% objective criteria, and companies being forced to pick a random applicant that matches them. If they want only the best, they have to have high expectations, but be able to actually define them. You say "cultural fit", I say "corruption", let's blow this whole joint.

[eru]

> You say "cultural fit", I say "corruption", let's blow this whole joint.

It's not necessarily corruption. If there's no conflict between principal and agent, it's fine.

Just like when I sent my butler to go and buy a bottle of wine, he can make arbitrary choices, but that doesn't mean he's corrupt or going against my wishes. I trust his judgement, and since it's a repeated game our incentives are aligned.

[petesergeant]

All fair points and I guess I would dislike it more if it hadn’t benefitted me more. In general, if I can get face-to-face with a human then I have a huge advantage, and any barriers to getting to that point are a net negative to me.

At the start of my career I was under-credentialed, and had to rely on lax requirements to get myself in front of people. I might never have gotten anywhere if my first few employers hadn’t been willing to overlook a lack of degree or commercial (rather than open-source) experience, directly as a result of a funnel with a wide entrance.

[sneak]

It’s not corruption to simply hire the people you subjectively feel a preference for working for, instead of objective criteria. It’s not public tax funds that fuel salaries, it’s your own money. You get to spend it how you like.

Yes, many jurisdictions have outlawed arbitrary discrimination against protected classes (eg race), which is an entirely different matter, and not what we are discussing here.

[customguy]

Yeah, and it's not necessarily mobbing to only tell people you really like about your party. But where it occurs, people never admit it to themselves and justify it in such a way, so that justification is meaningless. All wars of aggression are called a defensive emergency measure. Hundreds and thousands and rarely would anyone say "we'll take this because we can and you're helpless". No matter how glaringly obvious it is, it's never admitted.

In the same way, I can acccept "cultural fit" as a summary of things a person can describe, sure. But I think more often than not it's just a thought-terminating cliché. It can also just mean "I cannot verbalize my reasons and/or don't want to admit to them".

You can say if something fits only if you either can describe both sides in sufficient detail and where it wouldn't fit, e.g. a plug and a socket. But if it's dark, you barely see anything, and just have a "hunch", then "fit" doesn't even apply. It's like telling someone you won't let them through a door because they wouldn't "fit" anyway -- okay, so let them try, if they actually won't fit you don't need to read tea leaves and gate keep based on that.

Preferring to go with a more safe and familiar and obvious candidate, fine. But don't pretend it's because the others won't "fit".

Culture, in so far as it deserves the name, shapes the people exposed to or in it, as well as the other way around. E.g. if only people who fit the culture can work at a company, no company can exist in the first place, because for there to be a culture there need to be people there. So that leaves setting the culture in stone after it grew to a certain size, and only looking for more of the same, which also isn't great, but at least still honest.

If a culture is so brittle it cannot integrate people who aren't already a product of it, that may be a legitimate choice of the company, but my assessment to find that lame is also valid.

I feel the same way about immigration troubles, tangentially. We moan because people we don't actively try to get to know don't care for our rules which we don't enforce in a confident, but respectful manner. We basically require sterile, bland input because we have no immune system worth speaking of and no way to process and refine what comes in.

[jonahx]

I agree the phrase "culture fit" is weasel-wordy, but...

> You can say if something fits only if you either can describe both sides in sufficient detail and where it wouldn't fit

Many human dynamics, including sexual attraction, love, and even just who will be fun or easy to work with, are dynamics we don't fully understand, and cannot fully specify. In all these cases "I'll know when it see it" is perfectly reasonable, and need not be hiding an untoward motive. Which is not say, ofc, that it can't be hiding such a motive. That happens too.