This will be controversial, but here goes. “Culture fit” is one of the most problematic frames people use in making hiring decisions. In my two decades as a recruiter, I’ve never seen it make a decision better. What I have seen over and over is that naming things as “culture fit” confers undeserved advantages to certain candidates and gives hiring managers and boards permission to act on biases they can’t actually defend based on evidence.
The fundamental issue with “culture fit” is that it is inherently unmeasurable. You cannot align it to evidence. You cannot define it in observable terms. You cannot apply it consistently across candidates. It lives entirely in the gut of whoever is doing the evaluating, which means it is by design a vehicle for personal judgment about personality quirks, irrelevant assets or other factors unrelated to someone’s actual fit for a role. This is not about culture, it’s about bias.
When a search committee member says “I just don’t think she’s the right fit,” at Edgility Search, we have learned to ask “why.” I prompt someone to restate their objection in terms of competencies, the criteria that we have decided in advance matter most for someone’s readiness for a role. Often they struggle to fit their vague feedback into an actual evidence-based frame. “Fit” gives cover to personal judgement. It sounds principled but calling something “culture fit” lets evaluators off the hook but allowing them to maintain that they are protecting the organization when they’re actually just protecting their own sense of familiarity.
Most importantly, “culture fit” is often used as a screen for affinity bias against women, people of color, LGBTQ+ individuals and others who don’t always fit the traditional leadership mold. You cannot say you’re committed to building diverse leadership and then run every finalist through a “fit” filter that is actually just calibrated to who came before. Because the filter of bias and tradition will win every time.
At Edgility Search, by ditching fit and instead focusing on evaluating candidates against tangible competencies, we have seen that we can identify the highest quality individuals that best fit our clients’ needs while also maintaining a high level of diversity in our candidate pools. Here is a piece that talks more about this success and the practices we implement to get there.
Before your search opens, define specifically what this role requires, given where your organization is right now. This is not a list of generic leadership traits or a wishlist based on a vision of a unicorn candidate (see Serena Moy’s article about unicorns here). Instead, focus on the actual skills, qualities and characteristics that this role and organization demand in this particular moment in time.
Think about the challenges this person will inherit in the first 90 days, the decisions they will need to make, the relationships they will need to build or repair. Consider what success will look like in six months or a year. Then translate those into observable, evidence-based criteria.
I’m not arguing that shared values are not important. It matters that someone is aligned to your mission and vision; it matters that they treat people well, that they have integrity, and that their core priorities align to yours. But those things can be assessed by asking candidates about them directly, by giving them scenarios, behavioral interview questions or tasks that get at those orientations and see if in their responses, they confirm they are aligned to yours.
Stop screening for “culture fit” and start screening for what the work actually requires. You may be surprised at the results.
Christina Greenberg is CEO of Edgility Search where she supports executives and boards with leader transitions, governance and evaluation. Read more on her Forbes Business Council Executive Profile.