[7Figures2Commas]

1. Hire qualified people regardless of where they came from and what they look like. In other words, be careful about falling into the "culture fit" trap that is responsible for a lot of the "I can't find candidates" complaints at startups. Diversity is healthy, and when you don't have a homogenous workforce, you're far less likely to end up with a bunch of 20-something "go-getters" who aren't yet wise enough to understand that output (work product) matters way more than input (hours worked).

2. Be careful about perks that have social implications and/or require employees to spend non-work time at work or with co-workers. A lot of the perks startups offer today, such as catered lunches/dinners and frequent group outings, send the message that you're trying to build a family, not a company. Many people have a life outside of work and these "perks" ask/require employees to give up what should be their free time.

3. Don't ignore management. A lot of startups eschew basic management practices, mistaking management for bureaucracy. The reality, however, is that a healthy dose of competent management is one of the best ways to promote productivity and avoid time-wasting dysfunction.

[VexXtreme]

The whole "culture fit" concept is a direct result of corporate hubris. When a company mentions "culture", I don't walk, I run for my sanity.

[ryan90]

This statement couldn't be more wrong. Sure, corporations blow it out of proportion, but culture fit is so incredibly important.

[bane]

Yes please, culture fits are terrible ways to hire. You end up with lots of carbon copy version of what you wish you were.

It usually degenerates into a bunch of hip young guys with lots of hair product and eclectic playlists.

Build for diversity and you'll get surprisingly awesome skillsets on your team.

[bravo22]

I might get downvoted for a reply that essentially says "this". But I strongly agree with everything you wrote. It has been my experience as well.

[Kalium]

It's easy to denigrate, but culture fit does matter. A brilliant new hire that can't work with your current team is going to lead to problems.

[7Figures2Commas]

"Culture fit" is a nebulous term that is commonly used to justify the short-sighted practice of hiring people who look and think alike. This is inevitably detrimental in even small teams, and furthermore it doesn't scale as teams grow.

Smart companies look for professionalism, not "culture fit." True professionals can work very effectively with different kinds of people, including people who they're not likely to become friends with. Professionalism works in small teams, and it scales.

If you're finding that more than a few well-qualified candidates "can't work with your current team" it's worth considering that the problem is with your existing team, not the people you're adding to it.

[hw]

> "Culture fit" is a nebulous, oft-abused term that is commonly used to justify the short-sighted practice of hiring people who look and think alike. This is detrimental to even small teams, and it doesn't scale as teams grow.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that 'Culture fit' = hiring people who look alike. Having an maintaining a good work culture where individuals on a team gel together, much like an orchestra, is extremely important and not to be cast aside. Sure, a candidate might have a PhD from MIT and is smart, but if that individual is quiet, has difficulty working in a pair (assuming pairing is part of the culture), and is adamant about working in a silo and going hero mode, having that candidate on your team might just be disruptive.

Having said that, I do think culture fit shouldn't be the only or the veto decision when it comes to hiring. It should however be a part of the overall decision. And yes, if you're not hiring someone because they don't like Fight Club but your team does, then calling that a 'culture fit' problem is dumb. It's not about hiring people who only think alike, but hiring people who have the same / similar philosophies when it comes to doing their job.

[001sky]

"but if that individual is quiet, has difficulty working in a pair (assuming pairing is part of the culture), and is adamant about working in a silo and going hero mode, having that candidate on your team might just be disruptive."

Re-read the part about being a professional. Then you will see why this is a straw-man construction.

[woah]

Straw man. You just described someone with qualitative deficiencies (not being able to pair) as an example of poor culture fit. This is not what most people mean when they say culture fit.

[bryanlarsen]

You're right, but I suspect that "culture fit" is a lot easier to find than "professionalism", especially if you're ignoring older candidates.

[001sky]

Smart companies look for professionalism, not "culture fit." True professionals can work very effectively with different kinds of people...

-- This is an excellent comment