[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.