Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll be doing a talk on the pros and cons of hiring for company culture, and I was wondering if anyone had any good arguments against cultural fit being such an important factor in today's hiring process. The trend I see in nearly all companies is a ton of emphasis and effort placed in finding people who fit with the company's mold on personal levels. Skills, qualifications, and competence by themselves hardly seem to get you anywhere these days.
I've always personally been against the big emphasis on cultural fit hiring, because as someone who puts massive effort into buffing up my skills and qualifications, I often feel discriminated against when the guy with 5 years less experience than me gets the job instead because he fit the company culture and I didn't. I also feel it lets employers be way too picky about hires, leading to lengthy interview processes, understaffed teams, and lots of unemployed folks getting led on. These are just all my feelings though, and I'm just one guy. Feelings can hardly be used for evidence in an informative speech!
Does anyone have any good arguments of why it might be better to hire just for higher competence rather than better company fit?
One big argument I see is people won't work well together. I guess it's more important for people to be able to get along because they'll have to work with various people even if they aren't truly competent. It's easier to work with people and teach them if you like them, than it is to teach someone and work with them if you aren't interested in being work buddies.
I realized, I answered your post as to why people DO hire for cultural fit. Nowadays there's more of an emphasis on why fit is better than competency.
Yea, there are definitely lots of reasons why hiring for fit is important, but I'm really curious about the benefits of hiring for skills/competence instead.
Unless your job is highly specialized and involves hard to acquire skills such as being a surgeon, engineer, scientist, etc. most other skills can be learned if trained properly in a few months. So called people skills take a lot longer. What employers are looking for is someone who will fit the mold, toe the line, follow orders without questioning or complaining. They don't want people who stand out, have an opinion, or have quirky personalities. Also it is really hard to work with antisocial people or folks who simply lack social skills.
I am determined in my next job to keep my mouth shut, not complain, do exactly as I am told and never question my boss. Not doing these things in the past has only brought me grief and tension with employers.
Yea, there are definitely lots of reasons why hiring for fit is important, but I'm really curious about the benefits of hiring for skills/competence instead.
No benefits from hiring people who only focus on skills. Frankly, I think people like you make lousy colleagues. I speak from experience from having worked with mediocre but social people and very competent antisocial know-it-all's. What's worse is when one of you guys become a manager, because now you get to make everyone else's life miserable.
1. Hiring for skills saves you money. There's a reason why you need someone who knows how to do the job or at least has a good understanding of how to do the job. A person with even just part of the skill set is going to already have the resources to seek out the people and information they require to fulfill their duties.
2. Hiring for competency saves a company from errors. These errors can hurt the company's image, hurt their relationships with clients or vendors, or hurt their finances. If someone is competent at their position, a supervisor doesn't have to worry about keeping tabs on them to ensure they do what they're supposed to do correctly. People who are skilled/or competent at their jobs have accepted the legal obligations to perform their duties.
1. Hiring for skills saves you money. There's a reason why you need someone who knows how to do the job or at least has a good understanding of how to do the job. A person with even just part of the skill set is going to already have the resources to seek out the people and information they require to fulfill their duties.
2. Hiring for competency saves a company from errors. These errors can hurt the company's image, hurt their relationships with clients or vendors, or hurt their finances. If someone is competent at their position, a supervisor doesn't have to worry about keeping tabs on them to ensure they do what they're supposed to do correctly. People who are skilled/or competent at their jobs have accepted the legal obligations to perform their duties.
Based on the way the OP phrased the question in the subject, it looks like he's comparing hiring for:
Cultural Fit ∧ Competency ∧ Qualifications vs. ¬Cultural Fit ∧ Competency ∧ Qualifications
No benefits from hiring people who only focus on skills. Frankly, I think people like you make lousy colleagues. I speak from experience from having worked with mediocre but social people and very competent antisocial know-it-all's. What's worse is when one of you guys become a manager, because now you get to make everyone else's life miserable.
To each their own. Frankly I think working with adult children who treat work like an adult playground and are unreliable, unskilled, and incompetent are a pain in the ass to deal with.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.