[Aqueous]

Yes. I have a new rule with recruiters. If you are trying to recruit me, make me an offer. Otherwise, go away. You called me, not the other way around. I'm not going to jump through a bunch of your hoops to prove to you for free that I can do what you already know that I can do just by looking at my resume, looking at some of my public projects, and asking me questions in an informal, short interview. And I'm certainly not going to do that knowing that, even after the end of an extremely long and taxing process, you can still refuse to offer me a job.

What I've done should be proof enough. I don't want to jump through a bunch of arbitrary hoops so that I can get an incrementally higher paying job (maybe) and devote my life to working on someone else's vision. Gee, can I?

I already have a job, and it might be different if I didn't. But maybe not.

[Peroni]

What I've done should be proof enough.

It really isn't. It may be indicative of your technical ability however your past experience doesn't give me any indication if you'd be a good culture fit.

[BigChiefSmokem]

Isn't "cultural fit" another way to hide sexism, racism, and prejudice in the hiring process? I've seen it happen and it's a very good excuse to give to HR.

Just like in social situations you can judge anyone pretty well in the first 5 minutes of a phone conversation, see if they will "click" with your team - hell you can almost do that just by looking at their open source (how they think/design). I don't need a high school coding exam and a 2 hour panel interview to see if someone is a "cultural fit".

[jasonlotito]

> Isn't "cultural fit" another way to hide sexism, racism, and prejudice in the hiring process?

While that may be, it doesn't mean cultural fit is only used in those cases.

There is a vast difference between someone who cares about doing their job well and someone who does their job. And 'cultural fit' will be used to describe that. Are you the type of person to put in your own time to advance your knowledge, or do you require the company to pay to keep you up to speed on the latest advances. I've seen both types of people.

And the former is more valuable than the latter. And the former generally won't want to work with the latter, either. Granted, the former will cost more than the latter, as he brings more value to the table.

You can argue the merits of 'cultural fit', but it's not just a word used to hide sexism, racism, and prejudice in the hiring process. And, personally, I think it's important because I want to enjoy the people I work with.

[JackMorgan]

> There is a vast difference between someone who cares about doing their job well and someone who does their job.

I like this as a definition of cultural fit. I have worked a place where I felt like the only guy who cared about his job, and it was suffocating, similarly, I have seen the one guy who is just doing his job in a team of those to love to do their job well, and he was like a ball and chain.

Perhaps we need to stop using "cultural fit", as a replacement for "professionalism". When I think about "cultural fit", I think, "what do I like, and does this person like it too?" When I ask myself and others, "is this person a professional", I think, "do they exhibit: passion, discipline, dedication, drive, and care in their work, skills, and interactions with everyone?" I would rather tell HR, "not as professional about his craft as we like to see", than a wishy-washy, "not a good cultural fit". The first sounds like we are professionals who treat ourselves, our craft, and others with respect, the second like a frat house blackballing a pledge because he doesn't like the same beer we all do.

[dustingetz]

"no cultural fit" is a HR euphemism for either "you aren't good enough" or "you're fired" at facebook, at least according to a few HN comments. Similarly, at google, "performance improvement plan" means "we don't want to get sued, but please find a new job"

[derefr]

This definition (caring about doing your job) is a bit annoying, because it means it's sort of impossible to work at any company that looks for this, while also trying to start your own company. All my passion is reserved for my start-up; you get my professionalism, but nothing more. Why is that not enough? (This is assuming salary and no equity.)

[JackMorgan]

In my opinion, someone who does their job well and professionally is just fine to work on side-projects. Ideally, your productivity and focus stays the same as they did before your side-project.

I truly do not think it makes sense to demand every person on a job is passionate about the job they are doing. There have been many times I have had to (even at a job I normally loved) do long, boring, and fruitless work. I did not do them out of my passion for the "Mission to Save the World of Enterprise Banking", but because I am a professional who does what needs to be done and who does it to the best of my abilities.

When I said passion before, I was trying to express two things.

First, I was intending to express the attitudes that cause someone to stay abreast of their field, keeps their own saws sharp, (and ideally helps teach/inspire others to do the same), comes in and works hard, and pushes themselves and those around them to be better. Perhaps the best word for that is just professionalism.

The second concept is that I would rather be around someone who, while acting like a consummate professional, also enjoys at least some part of it. I love the fact that software development has more than I could probably ever learn, and it is a worthy challenge to seek to master its different forms. I have worked with several professionals who really do enjoy parts of the craft that I only barely tolerate, and I enjoy that about them immensely. They open to me a new worlds of appreciation for the craft. Just recently, I had to work on a few hundred legacy bugs for a few weeks in a row. They were unexpected, not caused by me, and deeply tedious. Some took hours to locate the cause. One of my coworkers really came alive doing that. He just loved the hunt and chase, like a detective working out a mystery. While I was mentally moaning and groaning after week two, he was just getting started. We talked about it for a few minutes one day, and I decided to try and see things his way. While it didn't cause me to love bugs like a fine wine, I was able to bring my attitude around from a silent scream up to mildly interested. Maybe the best word for that is having a good attitude? Enjoys some parts more than others, and keeps quiet when they don't enjoy it? I am not sure, but that whole concept I find to be important. The person who reads books about development and enjoys reading them is going to bring a wonderful attitude to the team, and can motivate others to pursue their own interests.

[jasonlotito]

I think it's fair. You are planning to leave, after all. You are actively working toward it. People hiring want to find someone they can rely on. Not someone who is striving to leave as soon as possible (from their perspective).

> Why is that not enough?

Because they can find someone with the same qualifications that will also bring that passion.

[djillionsmix]

>There is a vast difference between someone who cares about doing their job well and someone who does their job. And 'cultural fit' will be used to describe that.

There is so little of a difference between those sorts of person that they are frequently the exact same person except on different days or in different working environments.

[JackMorgan]

Oh man, I read this and get a sinking pit in my stomach. I don't care about a person's color, reproductive organs, creed or whatever, but I wonder if perhaps I care a little too much about their "similar thought process", "go out for a drink"-ness (gulp, and what does that say about age), and most nebulously, "comfort". I thankfully cannot think of a time when I turned away a candidate for any reason but pure technical skill, but one look around my current office shows a pretty age- and "cool"- homogeneous group.

Where is that line?

Looking at something dumb, like TDD. Is it okay to hire someone who doesn't "believe in TDD" when the rest of us practice strict TDD? Somehow, almost certainly based on nurture of past jobs/mentors/failures (we all like to think it is nature, pfft) all developers look at the same facts of TDD, and yet some are on this side, some are on that side. TDD is an arbitrary bar. May as well be favorite color. But, when the house painting team is 15 guys who like red and so we only paint red houses, but you like blue... Maybe they just are not a good "cultural fit". Shrug. Would that one blue person "poison" the team? On the one hand, that blue person might open us up to new opportunities, get us to start doing both kinds of houses. Maybe they just end up fighting with everyone all the time, "CAN'T YOU SEE RED IS THE BEST WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?!" And so cultural fit seems like a way of saying, "people similar enough to our average skill to not make anyone mad, and similar enough to an average of our shared backstory so as to have basically the same conclusions about the Big Issues as we do: TDD, FP/OO, Pairing, NoSQL/SQL, IDE/Editor, languages, what goes on the Big Issues list, etc.

But in all that, aren't we really just saying, "I want to hang out with people like me"?

[derefr]

> "go out for a drink"-ness (gulp, and what does that say about age)

This reminds me: I think I've yet to see a tech company where the default assumption is that you're a teetotaler. Why do y'all SV-ites insist on taking me out to consume (legal) mind-altering drugs?

[teddyh]

A useful comparison might be made with marijuana (where it is legal). It's not everyone's thing, and people should not assume it is, and instead design social events so both those who indulge and those who don't can usefully interact.

Further reading (The “Leaf blowers for stamp collectors” thread): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6373983

[JackMorgan]

I don't care what's in your drink: caffeine, alcohol, ice, fruit, water, whatever. I mean, can we sit together as humans around the ancient trust building ritual of food/drink.

[Peroni]

Isn't "cultural fit" another way to hide sexism, racism, and prejudice in the hiring process?

I'm sure that's the case in rare circumstances. The phrase 'cultural fit' is fairly common here in the UK but I agree it may be taken a bit too literally elsewhere. The cultural fit I'm referring to is attitude, work ethic, maturity, etc.

I don't need a high school coding exam and a 2 hour panel interview to see if someone is a "cultural fit".

Completely agree. I can't see how that scenario could give anyone an appropriate insight into a persons character. As explained in other comments below, a relaxed, two way conversation in a comfortable environment is one of the few ways of establishing how well a candidate would adapt to life at your company.

[kvcrawford]

I had the pleasure of interviewing (and hiring) my first two team members just this past spring. To me, "culture fit" basically meant that the interview consisted mostly of us nerding the fuck out together. That really had nothing to do with sex, race, or any other prejudices.

(FWIW, those two guys have turned out to be truly awesome developers).

[chris_mahan]

you forgot age discrimination.

[6d0debc071]

I'd guess, might be wrong, that this isn't the type of thing was what Aqueous was referring to 'know that I can do just by looking at my resume, looking at some of my public projects, and asking me questions in an informal, short interview' I'd place emphasis on the last bit there.

The trouble is that, well, I hate to be like Kant but a lot of recruiters do just seem to have conversations that are very... spanish-inquisition-y... with virtually none of your personality there.

Like, when have I ever had a joke with them? Or an interesting discussion? When has a recruiter ever asked me about the people I work with/my friends? Or spent any real time talking with me my about my hobbies?

Hard to bring your personality out when people are asking you things like - "Would you consider yourself competitive?"

There's an underlying thing there where they're trying to guess at qualities they think contribute to behaviours they want in a very structured way rather than having a real conversation. And I'm sure we both know that people are more diverse than that, you can have lots of reasons for behaving in a particular way - not all of which the other person's going to be able to guess about.

It just feels really awkward, you know? You want to know how I'll fit in with your culture, invite me out for a glass of wine or something and we'll find something to laugh about. You want to get fake-happy-happy me then stick me in a horribly formal situation.

That said, I'm sure there are recruiters that treat you as human - and the more of them that are out there the better.

[Aqueous]

Do you need another 5 hours of coding to prove that I'd be a good culture fit, or would a 30 minute - 1 hour interview and the high recommendation of my references suffice?

[Peroni]

An hour in a relatively relaxed environment over a cup of coffee is more than enough for me to work out if you would get along with our team, work well with your potential new boss, actually enjoy working for us or not and whether or not you are likely to stay loyal to our company.

[7Figures2Commas]

In a single meeting, I believe it is often easy to determine if there is likely to be no fit. Going with your gut here makes a lot of sense.

But it is completely unrealistic to believe that in a single meeting you will be able to predict with any certainty that a candidate will work well with your team, enjoy the position and remain loyal. You simply can't establish these things until a person is on the job.

If you do a good job not hiring obvious poor fits, the odds that your relationship with your new employee will be a fruitful one obviously increase, but don't fool yourself into believing that there isn't a lot of luck involved.

[incision]

>"...good culture fit."

What does that mean, how is it determined via an interview and how is it weighted against all the other factors that make up a good hire?

[ath0]

The hard part of the job isn't writing code to a detailed spec that's assigned to you. It's knowing how to ask for clarification on requirements; how to balance speed of delivery with nebulous ideas of quality (how readable is my code, how effective are my tests, how extensible); how to decide which tools are right for the job.

When I look for cultural fit, I mean: will you have productive conversations with your colleagues; have you shown yourself to be inquisitive about new things beyond what you're assigned so that you have a good understanding of what a solved problem looks like; will you force yourself to find a way around hard problems or will you quietly give up and call the problem impossible or blame someone else; are you interested in solving customer problems and iterating rapidly, or in building the most "well-engineered" solution; do you think your role in the organization is to build products or direct them.

These aren't easy questions to answer, and they do open themselves up to bias in how you evaluate candidates. I like asking about folks' CV - even though there's already a written summary - to see what parts of a problem you considered most exciting and hard; I think that's revealing. But may not work for everyone.

[Peroni]

Granted it's a bit vague. See my response here for a more detailed explanation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6417834

[mbesto]

Furthermore, how on earth am I supposed to gauge your communication skills!?

[freewheeling]

Mine is simpler: "Can I work remotely?" It seems to make them go away.

[briandear]

Totally. Remote is the only work I'll ever do. I get more done, have great collaboration using the appropriate tools and don't have to be 'social' by being subjected to pong pong games. My work environment is perfect and therefore my work quality is among the best it has ever been. Losing the 2 hour daily commute in NYC was a huge boost to my productivity and energy.

[ryguytilidie]

My god this is such an ignorant comment . Stuff like this just makes Silicon Valley look pretty disgusting honestly. If you think a list of work you've done is the only thing a company should care about than there's really not much to argue about, you're just wrong.

[Aqueous]

I guess you failed to read my comment.

Did I say it was the only thing? No. I said that the burden of proof shouldn't require three phone screens, a multi-hour (7 - 8+?) coding test, and then a 5 hour on-site interview. Companies are taking time out of people's lives to string them along on a hiring process that could last up to a month and a half, and still could result in absolutely no offer.

Second, I'm not merely referring to the list of things I've done. Like many people, I have public projects online that you can download and use, and in many cases, these projects have source trees that are publically available. Yet, most of the time, companies don't even care enough to do the background research of downloading the application and using it, or looking at the source of these applications to see if they are any good. I've submitted examples of work I've done and when I got to the on-site interview, the interviewer had no idea what I was talking about - hadn't used the application, hadn't seen the source, and in one case (where the application was actually quite popular) had never even heard of it, despite the fact that I'd mentioned it in at least two of my interviews.

Companies should be respectful of people's time. They shouldn't make the burden of proof so high that only the most desperate would ever agree to jump through these hoops knowing what they are in advance. I shouldn't have to complete a 10 hour programming test and then spend 5 hours proving to you on a white board that I can code. At what point do you say that my knowledge is general enough that I can pretty much approach and come to a meaningful solution for any problem that you can throw at me ? The combination of a short, in-person interview and a review of my work history and my references should be sufficient to get a grasp of my work skills and this vague concept of 'cultural fit' which seems to amount to, "Are you nice and respectful and a team player?"

Any thing beyond that is disrespectful to the candidate, especially if you are trying to recruit them away from another full-time position.

[7Figures2Commas]

> If you think a list of work you've done is the only thing a company should care about...

I don't think anybody reasonable is going to suggest that there's a single criteria on which a hiring decision should be made, but if you don't think that what you've accomplished should be pretty high on the list, finding candidates with an ability to create real business value is probably going to be much harder.

Who would you rather hire: a person with a track record of delivering working solutions or a person who can code on a whiteboard?