Should You Be Hiring for Cultural Fit? (Yes, but Not Like That)

Homophily is such a great word. It’s just fun to say. Plus, it has the same rhythm as “Mah Nà Mah Nà from The Muppet Show. Homophily (Do doo de-do-do). A great word, but a problematic tendency. Homophily is the sociological concept describing individuals tending to groups with similar individuals. Birds of a feather flock together.

Today we’re going to explore the realities of companies hiring for cultural fit. When done well, it can lead to increased job performance, satisfaction, and innovation. When done poorly, it can lead to (you guessed it) homophily.

IS HIRING FOR CULTURAL FIT A BAD IDEA?

A global survey of organizations found that 84% report looking for cultural fit as part of their selection process when hiring. It makes sense that you would want new hires to be well-suited to your company’s mission and business approach. Cultural fit and hiring for cultural fit are not inherently bad. It’s in the execution that bad things can happen.

Like company culture itself, cultural fit is often poorly defined or not defined at all. The criteria used when assessing an individual’s cultural fit is usually not made explicit, codified, or translated into any sort of formal hiring criteria.

Kellogg School of Business Professor Lauren Rivera’s research has found that many people hiring candidates at elite banks and service firms tend to hire people who are similar to themselves. According to Rivera, the focus tends to be, “‘Is this person a fit socially for me? How do I feel when interacting with this person?’ Rather than, ‘Is this person well-suited to our organizational mission and strategy?’”

We all have implicit biases—prejudices we are not even aware of that prevent us from judging others fairly. We tend to unconsciously lean on these implicit biases when making decisions for or against new hires. It would be great if we could be made aware of our implicit biases and stop relying on them. Unfortunately, one of our implicit biases is believing that we do not, in fact, have implicit biases. I wish I were kidding.

BUT I THOUGHT YOU SAID CULTURE WAS IMPORTANT

So, should we not be hiring for cultural fit? Not so fast. Meta-analyses of person-organization fit have found that individuals whose values are better aligned with those of their company are more productive, satisfied, and committed to their jobs. They are also less likely to leave. The problem with hiring for culture is that we’re often not using the right definition of culture.

Company-culture consultant Joshua Pearson, whom I interviewed a few weeks ago for this series, had a good way of explaining the right way to hire for person-organization fit. He said that companies should only focus on an individual’s fit vis-à-vis what he called the “first-principles aspect” of culture, i.e., the overarching tenets that define the kind of behavior you expect from the entire company. Examples of first principles would be things like “we put our egos aside,” or “we communicate with complete transparency.”  

Joshua also explained that certain processes can be put in place to make discrimination less likely. The person screening the applicants, for example, should not be the person making the final decision. Have HR screen initial applicants based on specific values, and the new hire’s potential team do a screening interview. Having more people involved at different stages can reduce the likelihood that you’re only hiring one type of person.

Another way to avoid implicit biases is to treat the hiring process as more of a science and less of an art. If you’re hiring for matching values, you need to be measuring the actual values of your team or organization. Your candidates should be measured using the same instrument. Then the two can be compared using algorithms to further minimize bias.

PROTECTING YOUR WILD WATERFOWL

I began this series by immediately falling down a research rabbit hole about how the Quaker roots of the Cadbury family led to an organization in the 1800s with a forward-thinking culture that today’s job applicants would be impressed by. While they did not have ping-pong tables and snack lounges, they did have soccer fields and employee education programs.

It only seems fitting that I fell down another research rabbit hole at the end of the series. This time, it was about IBM’s company culture and their commitment to hiring “wild ducks.” Thomas J. Watson became the general manager of the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company in 1914. By 1915, he was the president, and in 1924, the company was rebranded as International Business Machines, or IBM. From the beginning, Watson was all about hiring and supporting free thinkers and letting them do their thing.

Thomas J. Watson Jr., who took over his father’s company in 1952, continued IBM’s culture of hiring out-of-the-box thinkers. Watson Jr. called these idea spawners his “wild ducks,” and his goal was to try not to tame them. (Oh, look, a hole! I wonder where it goes.) The wild-duck analogy was based on Søren Kierkegaard’s parable of “The Wild Goose.” In the story, a wild goose befriends a group of tame geese and tries to convince them to migrate south with him. In the end, the tame geese refuse, and the wild goose decides he will stay with them. The moral? “A tame goose never becomes a wild goose but on the other hand a wild goose can certainly become a tame goose—therefore watch out!”

Why did Watson Jr. switch from goose to duck? I don’t know. I’m the kind of person who gets annoyed when people call them Canadian geese instead of Canada geese, so you can imagine my discomfort with the complete disregard for genus or species. Alas, this is a rabbit hole down which I will take you no further, lest we lose the point completely.

Birds of a feather may flock together, but Watson Jr. understood the importance of innovative thinkers in his company. They weren’t like everyone else, and he often did not make them follow the same rules as everyone else. He did not want them to conform to the “how do I feel when I’m interacting with this person” sort of culture. He recognized that, if they were to be a good fit for IBM’s values (i.e., the “is this person well-suited to our mission and strategy” kind of culture), he had to let them be authentically themselves. He needed birds of different feathers to all be part of the flock.

You cannot avoid company culture. Every company has one, whether they are intentional about it or not. It impacts nearly every facet of your organization—productivity, revenue, employee retention, customer retention, innovation. Our hope is that this series has prompted you to think critically about your own organizational culture and what you want it to become. And, whether wild or tame, always remember, there is no such thing as a Canadian goose.

Are you looking for sales training you can do on your own time? Email us at mastery@maestrogroup.co for information on our self-paced online courses.