Written By: Sophie Warwick.
When looking for a next hire, leaders tend to be looking beyond expertise, background, and skillset. They also want to know how this new person will fit into the existing culture. Will they mesh well with the existing team? Will their values align with corporate values? In fact, 67% of executives prioritize company culture over other key initiatives such as their organization’s strategy or operating models (Forbes Advisor, 2024).
Company culture is incredibly important, and unique to each organization. It helps to shape the attitudes and practices of teams. Culture establishes who the organization is at their core, what they’re trying to achieve, and should be a foundation for making strategic decisions.
Therefore, it comes as no surprise that we often hear hiring decisions coming down to simply whether or not the candidate was a “culture fit.” Of course, it is important that candidates align with corporate culture. However, the term “fit” implies that a candidate must fit within existing expectations of who comprises the team. In short, they must conform to the existing team mould. Inadvertently, this practice can lead to a high degree of uniformity because how we define a “culture fit” can be inherently biased.
When deciding if someone is a fit, leaders may be thinking about some of the following examples and be unaware of their corresponding biases:
“Do they ski? Lots of our team members ski in the winter.” Wealth and socioeconomic bias to favour those who have the means to afford expensive recreational sports.
“Did they study at the same University as me? We typically recruit from there.” Academic bias to favour candidates from a specific academic center that can lead to a lack of diversity in expertise, and may be inaccessible for some.
“Have they had a similar career path as me?” Similarity bias to favour those with a similar professional background.
What all of these questions are answering is, are they similar to me and my team? Unfortunately, these questions don’t relate to similarity of values. They instead focus subconsciously on superficial definitions of similarity to validate who does and doesn’t fit into the existing culture. This behaviour aggravates the similarity bias where individuals tend to see future potential in those who are similar to them, and baseline capability in those who are dissimilar to them. The result is a tendency to build a highly uniform team that lacks the performance potential of a diverse and equitable team.
So how can we achieve a thoughtful hire while still maintaining our dedication to culture? I instead prefer the term culture add. Whose voice and perspective is missing and would add to our existing culture? By thinking about adding to our culture instead, we can think about continuing to enhance culture while capitalizing on the engagement, financial, and innovation benefits of team diversity. This small shift in language can prevent leaders from continuously hiring similar talent, while still maintaining their commitment to prioritizing company culture.
For example, if I have a highly social organization with frequent events and an existing team of extraverts, I may be tempted to hire someone loud and outgoing who would match that behaviour. However, by not hiring any quieter introverts, I might be missing the value of the active listeners who are more likely to notice when a team members’ behaviour has changed and might need more support. Extraverts and introverts provide distinct yet equally important value in corporate teams, as do those who fall somewhere along the spectrum in between.
Culture add recognizes the value of diversity in successful teams and seeks to recruit complimentary skillsets and expertise avoiding the similarity trap. Additionally, it strives to enhance culture by bringing in varied experiences who still align on corporate values.
Need support in implementing equitable hiring practices? Reach out to our team of experts at The Thoughtful Co. today.
Comentários