[paragpatelone]

Companies have to be very careful how they define cultural fit. If they leave it open, it can impart personal bias that are not at all beneficial to the company.

Maybe "value fit" should be used instead of cultural fit. Do your values align with the core values of the company.

The top NYTimes comment below illustrates some of the warts of a "cultural fit".

"Hiring managers who would never in a million years describe themselves or even privately consider themselves to be racist or sexist or ageist commonly use cultural-fit criteria to perpetrate racism, sexism, or agism in the workplace. I was recently in a meeting with two other managers to compare notes on a group of candidates whom we'd all just interviewed for a mid-level job. My top pick was a supremely well-qualified 45-year-old black woman who outscored all the other candidates on the skills test, was the only one to arrive on time for the interview, and was the only one who dressed professionally for the interview. It's a corporate job in Midtown. She was poised, amiable, and direct during my conversation with her, asked well-informed questions about the work and the company, and she was also the only candidate who sent a thank you letter after the interview. The other two hiring managers - both of whom, incidentally, were white women who were wearing Black Lives Matter pins - didn't think my top candidate "would be a good fit" or "feel comfortable." We hired a young white guy for the gig. He fits in the gang really well at happy hour, but his job performance is extremely poor. My two managerial colleagues have scheduled a meeting for next week to discuss what we're going to do about him. The good candidate is working for someone else now."

[defen]

I agree with the point being made, but that story sounds made up. It ticks all the boxes, in a way that real-life stories rarely do.

[mgkimsal]

" it can impart personal bias that are not at all beneficial to the company."

Beyond lip service, most people are more concerned with their own dept or team vs the entire company.

[zo1]

And this company that didn't hire the most-competent candidate: Would you say that they are now some how measurably worse-off within the market? At the very least, in relation to a potential competitor that did snag up that candidate?

[ak39]

If you're asking whether they "learnt" their lesson ... I very much doubt that cultures that entrench such biases are ever shaken up to reconsider the harmful effects (financial or otherwise) of their adopted attitudes. Don't underestimate the power of the "backfire effect" on the minds of middle-managers who don't want to be revealed as having made mistakes.

It takes a bold and courageous leader to admit mistakes in the corporate environment. Or a stupid one.

[woodman]

> If you're asking whether they "learnt" their lesson ...

I don't think that is the question. I believe the point being made was that the free market punishes this sort of behavior. You don't rely on the company's officers learning their lesson, or following the spirit of some law - you rely on market forces killing the company that passes over superior candidates.

[paragpatelone]

The competitor that his hiring the best people in terms of skills and values (values that aligned with the companies core values); given everything else is equal will be much better off.