“Culture Fit” is Nonsense!

Let's talk about something bothering me: the concept of "culture interviews" in tech hiring. Over my career leading engineering teams, I've seen how this well-intentioned practice doesn’t always end up providing the best results.

Asking your teams to do a “culture fit” interview isn’t a specific direction. What are we asking them to find out? Teams have interpreted this mostly correctly - how will this candidate “fit in” with our team? We ask questions about difficult situations they’ve handled, how they are viewed by their peers, and the same with their manager. In my view, we should be more direct in our expectation for a “culture interview” and most importantly update our language to interview for collaboration style or a “collaboration fit.”

What we mean when we say "culture fit" is actually "collaboration potential." We want to know how this person will work with our teams. How will they handle conflict? How will they approach problem-solving with others? These are valid and crucial questions - we just wrapped them in the wrong language.

So what should we do instead? Here's are some examples based on roles:

For engineers: Yes, do the coding tests or whiteboard sessions if that's your thing. But make sure you're evaluating problem-solving ability and technical skills, not just whether someone solves problems the same way your current team does. Ask candidates about unit testing and continuous integration; and about a difficult troubleshooting challenge and not only how they solved it but how they work with others under pressure. Find out what they think of “stand-ups” and how they show up to them. (can you add a specific question here?)

For UX/UI roles: I love asking candidates to show me five websites they don't like and why. It reveals their analytical skills and ability to articulate design decisions far better than only looking at their previous work-product or talking about their toolkit. Listen for what they like/dislike and seek to understand if they have a “customer view”. Lastly, talk about the challenges when taking feedback. Everyone has an opinion on UI/UX - how does the candidate both incorporate the feedback and maintain their own expert view on the approach?

For database roles: This requires deep expertise from the interviewer. I've seen too many surface-level technical interviews that miss evaluating crucial skills because the interviewer wasn't properly equipped. Understanding the “why” of the data is equally important as the how (it’s used) or the when (availability/timeliness). Investigate the candidate’s ability to find data insights especially when working with their peers.

For Scrum Masters: They need to be interviewed by senior leaders who can effectively evaluate their understanding of accountability. A Scrum Master's ability to facilitate collaboration is essential. Talk about how they handle teammates who underdeliver or communicate poorly. Ask them to describe a fiery conversation from a standup or other similar group interactions. How did they make room for all the opinions, encourage people to “disagree and commit”, and continue making strong progress?

For everyone: We should focus on what I call a "collaboration evaluation." This means asking questions like:

- How do you handle disagreements with teammates?

- What's your approach to working across different departments?

- How do you ensure all voices are heard in team discussions?

These questions get to the heart of what we actually need to know - can this person work effectively with others while bringing their unique perspective to the team?

There's almost nothing more important than a teammate's ability to work in a group. But that doesn't mean they need to look, think, or act like everyone else on the team. In fact, our products and solutions are better when they don't.

I've heard countless stories about "high performers with bad collaboration skills" who get hired anyway because they're "so good." If we identify this in an interview we need to determine if the candidate is ready to grow and improve their co-working behaviours. Otherwise, look for a different candidate.

Meaningful change starts with examining our basic hiring practices and the language we use. Let's stop hiding behind "culture fit" and start being clear about what we're really looking for - people who can add value to our teams through their unique perspectives and ability to work effectively with others.

What's your take? How does your organization approach hiring for strong collaborators? Do you say culture fit? Are you willing to shift "collaboration fit?