The "Cultural Fit" Dilemma

The expression “cultural fit” is universally familiar to recruiters, their clients, and many of their candidates. It’s frequently given as a determining factor in both job briefings and explanations as to why an applicant has or hasn’t been successful in their process. But what does it actually mean?

Clearly it’s a statement that the client has specific cultural objectives, and that candidates who don’t meet them aren’t likely to be hired. That aside though, it’s quite a broad term and doesn’t give too much detail on what those objectives actually are.

Herein lies the dilemma: the term “cultural fit” can be deployed in both a wholly positive and wholly negative way, depending on the uncommunicated motives behind it. On the one hand, it can be legitimate shorthand for wanting candidates who bring positivity and collegiality to their roles. On the other, it can mean rejecting someone for not being a clone of their predecessor.

It’s easy to see why the term is so popular. It’s brief, it gets to the point, and it’s somewhat sensitive to a candidate’s feelings as an alternative to rattling off a charge sheet of interview errors. What’s more, in an ecosystem where social media commentary and online reviews are a tightrope employers have no choice but to navigate, it’s an ambiguous term which substitutes for challengeable feedback.

This last point however is also the reason why it can be a problematic expression. It’s entirely reasonable, indeed responsible, for companies to have cultural objectives. Recent backlashes against abuse in the workplace are an extreme example of very necessary cultural objectives. On a lighter level, just wanting staff who work together cohesively and treat each other professionally, is a completely justifiable ambition for hiring managers. But the ambiguity of the term “cultural fit” means it can be bent to precisely the opposite ends.

At its most warped, “cultural fit” can be code for “we don’t want you unless you look and sound like us”. At a lower temperature, and hopefully more relevant to the vast bulk of employers who use it, “cultural fit” doesn’t have to be genuinely discriminatory to look potentially discriminatory. At a time when many clients are embracing the D.E.I. agenda, it’s advisable to consider how to use the term “cultural fit” in a way which supports, rather than undermines, this initiative, and that means further detail.

Regardless of a candidate's background, being told you were unsuccessful in a job process because of “cultural fit” without any further information may well be diplomatic and face-saving, but it’s also supremely unhelpful, as well as a little frustrating. Candidates need feedback so they can learn and grow, and avoid repeating mistakes. If they know they’ve maintained healthy relationships in the workplace before, they’ll be curious about what disqualified them this time around, and without more insight many will fill the information gap with their own assumptions. The likelihood of this outcome is more acute if the candidate happens to be from a background which suffers from higher levels of discrimination. Without proper, constructive feedback, the possibility that their failure is for reasons that are less than savoury will often take root, especially if it’s not the first time they’ve heard it.

Sadly there will be many such candidates who are genuine victims of discrimination, but for those who aren’t, there’s a danger they’ll conclude otherwise because “cultural fit” hasn’t been properly qualified. Where possible, clients should try to avoid letting candidates connect the dots for themselves when they could easily be told they were underprepared, too informal, or even unprofessional. It might take more time and be less pleasant, but it’s arguably better than leaving a feedback vacuum filled with worst case scenarios. And if more detailed feedback reflects poorly on the firm, perhaps it’s time to revisit the hiring criteria altogether.

It would be naïve at this point not to flag that some candidates are incapable of receiving critical feedback. They can’t process it. Some even become hostile when it’s given. Desire to avoid these situations very much fuels the default to unqualified “cultural fit” as the safest version of the truth. This is why there’s a burden of responsibility on candidates to be honest about themselves, professional at all times, and receptive to feedback when it’s given, as candidates who aren’t those things have an impact on the market which is entirely disproportionate.

There’s nothing wrong with continuing to use “cultural fit” in recruitment processes, and if it becomes best practice to avoid the term, a more nebulous equivalent will soon take its place. The important thing is to ensure it’s the beginning of the conversation, rather than the beginning, middle, and end.

If you’d like to hear more about our services or anything covered in this article, or would like to make an enquiry, you can reach out to recruit@vwa.com or click below:

Contact us