“Culture fit” is a two way street (2018)
rachelbythebay.com
rachelbythebay.com
I start by reviewing how I'm being managed, I expect someone managing me to be clear in their expectations of my work product, provide resources when I have identified the need to complete jobs, can clearly articulate the problem I am expected to be solving, and can clearly articulate the criteria by which the solution will be evaluated.
Second I review my co-workers, using a three axis evaluation, can I trust what they say to be accurate/honest, can I count on them to meet their commitments, and are they willing to teach me when I don't understand something and conversely learn when their is something they do not know.
Third I review what level of support do I get to do my job. Am I provided with a workspace where I can get work done? Do have have the equipment I need to do what is being asked? Is my commute conducive to the hours required? And finally and most important, does this job allow me to balance work obligations and non-work obligations?
Fourth I review whether or not the company mission, ethics, and culture is still one that I wish to be a part of. Am I proud of the company's mission? Do I believe that the leadership will make ethical calls even if doing so would mean less profit margin? Can I relate to and am I compatible with the values that my co-workers espouse and the actions they take? (this is the "company culture" theme, is it still a company that fits me culturally)
A company that receives lower than a 3.0 rating I put on a 90 day "company improvement plan" (CIP). I bring issues to the leadership who are in a position to address the situations that I've found wanting and try to secure their commitment to change. If after 90 days they haven't been able to (if they choose not to they're done right away), then I "fire" the company and work to process my exit as expeditiously as possible.
Thanks!
And its possible to have one aspect being wonderful to compensate for another aspect which is not so great. For example the company mission might suck but you really like your manager and your co-workers.
A personal anecdote from someone I work with. "Alice" is a technical project manager at a large company. She's been with the company 8 years. While she's been in the role, expectations on her have been unclear, she's been promoted above her skill level due to bureaucratic incompetence and has been poorly mentored and led. Now she wants to leave, but how? She can't pass an interview for the other big companies in the region, and she doesn't have many growth or learning opportunities in her current position. Anywhere else is a huge pay cut. Is she happy? Nope. But digging herself out of the hole is a difficult task.
I am not disagreeing with you, but trying to communicate how the other half lives.
To address your question though, if I were mentoring Alice I would ask which is more important to her, money or happiness? I learned long ago that it is useless to argue which is more important but it instructive to know in a person which one is key.
If she thinks happiness is more important, then the advice would be to interview elsewhere for a spot where she could be happy and ignore the salary if it is sufficient to her to live on. If she thinks money is more important, then the advice would be to focus her personal development toward being able to demand the salary that she wants to be paid.
The bottom line is that its easier to put up with poor working conditions when it is simply a stepping stone toward a different (ideally less poor) place.
(While at the same time looking for another job.)
Just try to not get fired in the meantime.
At least in her situation (Seattle) the pay difference might be drastic enough that it would be a deal breaker. There's also the issue of lifestyle creep, where you now have a mortgage you can only afford with the stressful/unhappy position you have.
The only time I've stopped an interview and told them "good luck but I'm out" is when I realised they're a hot-desking joint. I mean, sure there's is a price point at which I'll hot-desk, but strangely (since hot-desking is always about saving money no matter what other bollocks they dress it in), nobody's met it.
I did notice however that one thing that isn't your list is your salary. I'm curious if that was intentional or not?
Initially of course there was a minimum to meet my goals. My target was to be able to live somewhere, cover my cost of living, pay down my debts, and save 10% of my salary in long term savings.
Then as expenses started moving from being "in the future" to being "in the past" I was able to be more flexible on salary.
It helps that I have never equated what I was paid with how much I was "worth." It also helps that I don't have a lot of innate materialism. Although the funny story there is when I went back to Los Angeles to visit my old roommate from college I was showing him a fancy laptop that I had saved up for an bought. He had a pretty crap laptop but had recently bought a nice late model Mercedes Benz. Meanwhile, I had a 10 year old car at that point. We laughed at how the two different areas of California encouraged different status symbols.
"Is it worth being paid $X to work here?"
"What is the likelihood I'll be paid $X elsewhere"
A CEO that comes in to fix a company has a similar question. "It's going to be a nightmare to turn this company around, is the pay worth it?"
On the other hand horrible managers, colleagues, or general work conditions will grind you every day, long after the effect of that pay bump wears off. Bad working conditions of any kind are far more effective at dragging your spirit down than money is effective at pulling it up.
I ask myself these questions:
1. Do I have a life outside of work? "Yes" is a good thing. But "No" is not a deal breaker.
2. Is my identity of myself too entwined in the corporation? If "yes" it's time to do things entirely unrelated to work. They're paying me to do work, not sit around and stew how unfair they're treating me after all the loyalty I've shown them.
3. Are the people there decent human beings that don't know how to manage, or are they back stabbing assholes? The former is far more forgivable than the latter. Once the culture of back-stabbing starts, you're not gong to fix it ever.
4. Are the hours you're working actually making a difference? IOW have you been told to work 60 hours a week on a project that got canceled? This one is rough, because you're not getting those hours back, nor are you going to get to get a bonus for working hard on a canceled project. At what point did it become clear things weren't working?
5. What does my job enable me to do that I couldn't do without it? Expensive hobbies or travel?
6. Is work/life balance a two way street? "Yes" awesome. Again a "No" is not necessarily a deal breaker. Many people have jobs they need to be on call for or stay late for.
7. Am I growing? Am I learning how to deal with difficult people? Or is this a wasted amount of energy?
8. How long does it take me to reset from "anger" and "frustration" to calm and productive? If I can't leave in the evening and forget about work then something's wrong.
> How long does it take me to reset from "anger" and "frustration" to calm and productive? If I can't leave in the evening and forget about work then something's wrong.
I think it's worth noting that this one really has nothing at all to do with the job. Not to trivialize it at all; it's hard work to change your mind, but it's entirely within your court to learn how to recognize and work with your mental state like this. Therapy and meditation are two useful tools for that.
I use this as a metric. I like to think I'm a reasonable person in things I ask or told to do. I've worked in places where frustration was low and people were authentic and honest.
If something is wrong I ask myself if I need to reset my expectations or is what is happening very atypical?
Feelings are intuitive, and should be used that way. If something feels not right or not good, I tend not to want to bury them, but rather explore them.
In the long term its better for me and for them that we don't have to go through the dance of 'why aren't you giving us more?' and the ultimate resolution will always be us parting ways.
I can't imagine implementing this at an IC level at a startup. (Which is where I've been mostly) I could see it at some places where you could switch teams in a big company and not deal with those same people again. (thus not having to reinterview fully) I've found that people will change their ways very rarely unless your loss would ruin them. They're much happier to lose ICs than change.
It helped that my wife was doing similar work (she was a computer programmer) and we compared notes about our jobs. Now I personally think getting married was a good choice in my life but for this conversation it was extremely valuable to have someone at a different company with whom I could be completely honest and exchange thoughts and ideas with. When my wife left Xerox for Tandem one of the books she got was called "Divorcing a Company." We both read it. I would say that book was when I stopped looking at companies being a "one way" kind of thing, either they want me or they don't.
The book's thesis was that you are in a relationship with the company you work for, it can be a good relationship, and it can be an abusive relationship. Looking at your choice to leave, and the things that keep you from leaving, as you might a divorce from a spouse, can put into perspective who is more "at fault."
I started thinking about why I was working at a company more critically at that point and then as time progressed developed a set of things that were the key factors in my job satisfaction.
To this point, "They're much happier to lose ICs than change." I agree completely. And that is why for me it was important to accept that people who won't see a reasonable request for what it is, are not worth wasting your time with. I doubt I will die thinking "I wish I had worked for an abusive boss longer" :-)
The best post in a year.
As an example, here's the link to that comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20609978
I’m mid-way through my first experience with this. Some warning flags to add for anyone wondering if it’s them or you:
- You’re beginning to wonder if it’s you that’s crazy, despite successful previous roles.
- Their conversation has moved from “we” to “I” (or “you” and “us”).
- Your number of known unknowns (usually people- or business-based) suddenly spikes for no apparent reason
- Other people become (comically) formulaic in their response to questions.
- Feedback channels are quietly shut down because they’re “not really needed/too much process/etc”
I’ve started thinking of it as “professional gaslighting”, though its motivations may not be that sinister. My main mistake was not listening to that feeling that “something is wrong”. It’s surprisingly prescient.
https://www.e-reading.club/chapter.php/73307/20/LaVey_-_The_...
"Invite your friends over to see if one of them can figure out this fucking god damned fucking time vampire."
That was the first time I heard the term "time vampire" and have been using it ever since. I don't think this tangent is fully off topic.
https://www.theonion.com/sony-releases-new-stupid-piece-of-s...
"You didn't do this assignment"
"Er, yes I did, here it is"
"Well, you didn't keep me up-to-date on it"
"Er, here are my weekly status report e-mails"
"But you know I don't read my e-mails"
Huh?
Another good one was the following: I had assigned one of my reports a task before going on vacation. During said vacation, my "manager" pulls said report from that task. Then afterwards dings me for that task not being completed.
Huh?
"We're not paying you your bonus"
"Why?"
"You have to know that yourself".
"I do not, and no, that's not how this works"
"I won't tell you"
Fortunately that was in Germany, so not just crazy, but also illegal.
Yeah, I've caught managers doing the same thing. I may have opportunity to call them on it coming up.
You can cheat around paying more than the minimum bonus by picking yearly targets (quantifiable like for sales) which are absurdly high.
I never had a bonus, so please take this as 3rd hand information.
So the employer can refuse to pay the bonus, but they have to give a valid reason. There are two levels to this: first, basic employment law, which places very hard limits on what you can do. Second, many companies (like this one) have agreements between the works council and the company, agreements that regulate these and other matters and become part of the employment contract, and are therefore also legally binding and enforceable.
In all cases, the employer has to have valid, provable performance-related reasons, these have to be communicated to the employee in a timely fashion and the employee given a chance to improve their performance.
In my case, management was so clueless that they knew none of this, they thought that bonuses were gifts they can shower on people they favour on a whim, just like a king to his subjects.
It was a bit of a rude awakening. :-)
They then tried to create a "case" retroactively, but apart from the fact that there was no case, it also wouldn't have mattered at that time.
I got hired a few years ago for a senior dev/architect/ops + engineering manager position at a ~5 person startup despite the fact that I was "a bad culture fit" because most of the staff was phds or masters level educated. At the time I found it really offensive that they'd even say that. The CEO said in the same breath "I think hiring you is the closest thing I'll get to cloning myself." Talk about mixed signals!
As it turns out, that assessment was solidly right. They were entrenched in policies and behavior that basically guaranteed a tragic failure. And because of those policies the rescue from mistakes always fell on my doorstep well past when it would be trivial to solve the problem. This created a horrifically unpredictable work environment.
All and all, it was a growth experience and I probably gave the company a year of life it wouldn't have had otherwise. I would never take another job where that was said to me though.
That is perhaps the understatement within the whole article.
The ability to push some people further than others before they tap out, results in an environment where that is the normal level of stress.
And those who can survive it, but don't want to tend to be marked out as "problems", instead of acknowledging that the insanity is temporary and everyone should/will take a break to recover instead of just burning out one person at a time, while keeping the hiring pipeline trickling in to cover that.
I hear this all the time. Yeah, that might be true in some cases, but it's also valid in quite a lot of instances (like the example you provided).
> it is categorically impossible to establish in a 45 minute interview whether a person is actually a "fit" or not
I've run/sat in on several trainwreck interviews over the years (for ad account manager roles and logistical analyst roles mostly). Here are a few examples of candidates that were perfect in every way until the interview based on culture fit:
* The guy that mentioned he only traveled to Thailand because ladyboys do it better.
* The guy that mentioned he wouldn't work with anyone that drank alcohol because it's "the retardant of the masses". Fair enough opinion. About 20% of our ad sales came from alcohol-related businesses. I asked if he would have a problem dealing with liquor businesses. He explained that wouldn't be a problem as long as they didn't ask if he drank.
* I was sitting in on an interview with the Marketing Director for an account management gig on a Monday morning. We asked the candidate if she did anything noteworthy over the weekend. She told us she went dancing with her friend "Molly" at a music festival and laughed.
* The analyst that mentioned he scrapes NSFW subreddits in his spare time and links throwaway accounts to main accounts based on comment history, similar subreddit crossover, posting times, and vernacular (his tool was pretty impressive -- it sent him an email whenever it had a hit with over 50% accuracy or something which he received during the interview).
That literally is the trashiest thing you can ever say.
I don't think I can agree with that reasoning in the context of a job interview. I wouldn't want to hear about your sex life either, but that doesn't mean you can't have one.
Same is here: I can imagine many situations where discussing the effects of drugs and your experiences of them to be interesting. But “I spend a weekend dancing with molly” sounds more like a 15-year-old just got access to sex for the first time.
Perhaps it was a wild misunderstanding or perhaps not. I'm sure we would all rather think it's a drug policy, but the reality is that the LGBTQ crowd faces discrimination severe enough that they are at increased risk of homelessness compared to the general population.
* Edit: Or perhaps she didn't really think about what she saying, then realized after the fact that she just admitted in a job interview to a same sex date, then laughed uncomfortably.
Someone who drops that in an interview is going to be having HR complaints against them within their first week.
Nor in the workplace. That's how sexual harassment happens.
If the comment was "X women do it better" it would still be inappropriate.
Ironically, the HR staff member present during the interview was a gay man himself. I guess he must be homophobic in your eyes also for discarding the application?
My non-work life is by most measures pretty unusual. But my answer during the Monday standups to "what did you do on the weekend?" is.. "Oh, not much, some housecleaning and laundry".
That sounds less like interpersonal issues and more like a tic disorder.
It's as if interviewers are lazy and guess.
It didn't help that he didn't do well on the coding question either. In the end I only mentioned the "fucks" in passing in my feedback, and disqualified him on technical merit.
But at a certain point, you need to get alignment between what work you find rewarding/fulfilling/exciting and what work a company tends to recognize and reward. This essay I think gets at the heart of it:
http://yosefk.com/blog/people-can-read-their-managers-mind.h...
If you are a programmer, which kind of organization do you think you would tend to want to work at, all things being equal: one where the organization's culture is set by people who come from programming backgrounds or sales backgrounds? It's not the same answer as if you were a salesperson. (And of course, there are programmers who probably prefer the culture at a place driven by salespeople, and vice versa. And you can start to think about why that might be.)
As an employee, what a good culture fit means is "someplace that values and rewards the things I want to be doing." As an employer, a good culture fit is someone who responds well to the incentives you have in place for them. Sometimes, cultures are just objectively bad; anywhere that judges programmers by how many lines of code they write alone is establishing perverse incentives. But sometimes cultures are not better or worse objectively, just different. Some people work better in a research culture and some people work better in a product culture, for instance. That's fine. But that's where finding out if you and an employee are a culture fit can benefit both parties, not just be an excuse to hire only people you like. It's not about beliefs, it's about what work is valued and how it's valued.
They (for a sad portion of "they") can afford crappy "fits" in terms of competence if it flatters them in one or another fashions or a person shows a willingness to throw umpteen hours into the cause. What can you afford?
I've done contracting work in between W2 jobs. In the full swing of contracting I make ~25% more money but I prefer the stability and simplistically of working a full time salary position (guaranteed two paychecks a month, better health insurance, fully clocked out by 6pm). I absolutely won't go into a full time salary position unless the company and culture is a very good fit and the pay is competitive.
If you know how to code and have something that proves you do (CS degree, work history, github etc) you should never feel stuck at one place. If a company isn't treating you with excellence you can make more money as an independent contractor.
I just had to point out in the UK to a recruiter pitching me a short term contact at straight time instead of at contract rates is taking the piss.
Eg "Part of our culture is that we are collaborative; when we discussed code reviews and the candidate said they think they are a waste of time, that raised a flag because constructive and timely code reviews is an expectation for all our our engineers" That's pretty good.
"Our culture is collaborative. This candidate didn't feel like they'd be a good fit here." That's not so good.
Have an evaluation criteria going in. Rate candidates on the the same criteria. In debriefs, use specific examples from the interview to explain why you rated them as you did. Otherwise, it's just post-hoc rationalization of a snap emotional decision.
It’s not me, darling, it’s you.
The problem is that "Culture Fit" is often undefined - rarely is it explicit enough for us to say: "Our culture is x,y,z. This person showed this behavior so it's a no".
Although one thing I will say as an interviewer is I've had to reject candidates on "Culture Fit" in the past based on things like "This candidate talks way too much and it's so disruptive and frustrating that I literally can't get through the competency part of the interview". However, there is no way I'm going to feed that back to the candidate- so often Culture Fit is used as a neutral way of rejecting someone.
One key thing though is making sure everyone on the team understands our culture, and applies is somewhat fairly.
Personally I define "culture" as following the values set by the company and the department.
At my current place what are the core culture concepts we look out for (in a nutshell):
- Valuing the delivery of functional & sustainable products over checking boxes or coming up with impressive/resume-building solutions
- Everyone is expected to support, teach, and grow one another and everyone has something they can teach.
- Valuing receiving & giving honest, direct, and valuable feedback.
Many engineers would NOT fit this culture and in some interviews that becomes very apparent. We also send our values to our interviews before we bring them on site and reiterate them strongly before giving an offer letter... Thoes who have ignored this have never lasted to 6 months due to clashes with deliverables and with other team members.
Sometimes people and companies naturally grow apart. While the OP's point that it's not always your fault is a good one, the conclusion (that if it's not your fault it must be the company's) does not follow. Sometimes it's not a fault. It's just a thing that happened.
Weird way to describe the symmetric property of equality from discrete math 201
If it sounds like some profound theorem then I assure you it’s entirely coincidental.
Reminds me of this advice as well; https://steveblank.com/2009/12/21/the-elves-leave-middle-ear...
It's the most destructive form of downsizing for the company, as the competent staff who have options jump ship and only the dregs are left hanging around.
“Culture” should be an emergent property of the people who work at the company.
What evidence do you have for this, and how do you define "homogeneous"? (Homogeneous in terms of what attributes?)
Maybe you've just been on teams where the people aren't very good at getting along with people who are different from themselves. For example, if adding a well-qualified woman to a team of men causes the team to lose productivity, that's probably a sign of immaturity in the team, not a problem with the new member.
That's why this stuff always feels hollow and twisted.
The employees of any organization develop culture in how they interact (this is the real org culture), but some organizations also try and steer towards the culture they consider 'ideal' (the false culture you allude to). This attempt is often ham-fisted, and often fails.