Cultural Fitment: The Silent Killer of Organizational Growth

In the first decade of the 21st century, the idea of “Cultural Fitment [Fit]” started gaining momentum. CXOs in general started recommending the practice to their respective organizations and ensured that it being followed in principle. People’s theories around the practice and HR interventions were in full bloom for its adoption.

It continues even till now, although not as vigorous as it was.

In events after events, HR professionals & 'experts' were astutely recommending it to fellow professionals. Companies after companies incorporated it in their basic HR structure. Everyone around could be seen following the recommendations. Most of us were swept away with this 'flavor of the time'. I, as an young HR professional also fell prey to the sweeping notion without realizing its pitfalls and started designing HR interventions around the concept. It went to the extent that I could influence one of my CEOs I worked with so much that he went onto announcing that efforts in personal interviews should be made to check the fitment of the candidates for culture only and not skills. No question were asked in the company to verify functional skills, at least at his & my levels. Results were encouraging, as we both were looking at competencies & skills meant for the organization.

Fast forward, it were winters in North India; I was sitting & soaking in the bright sunlight, flipping through few chapters of my book on Genetics. Suddenly, I stopped at a chapter which was about the principles & importance of ‘Cross Breeding’ to have better progenies. For it, requires diversity. Somewhere, in the chapter there was also a mention about the Gaussian Law. It says that if a random sample is drawn from a heterogenous population, it follows a normal distribution [Bell Curve which we uncannily started hating], with two extreme ends on either side of the curve.

All at once, these concepts -  Cross Breeding, Gaussian Law and Cultural Fit, together crossed my mind and I could feel that there is something missing in the application of the concept of Cultural Fitment, the vagaries of which were undermining the growth of organizations silently.

I pounced upon my ‘Library at Home’ and started searching for more information about these concepts and in particular about Cultural Fit. There were few questions in my mind, like what were the conditions under which this practice did start? What could be the reasons of its acceptance by organizations? Who were the people who were promulgating it as a necessity for organizational survival? Going through innumerous books and research papers, I could lay my hands on  a piece of information about ‘Human’s Despising Discomfort Behavior.’

In simple words, 

'Despising discomfort' is a psychological phenomenon in humans in which the human brain wants to remain in a state of Comfort or Peace. A ‘Natural Survival Tactics’.  It does mean there is a strong aversion to situations that feel unpleasant, challenging, or outside one’s comfort zone. This includes all sorts of discomforts - physical discomfort, emotional unease, or even intellectual challenges.

Possible Reasons for Origin of Cultural Fit Practice

Going through the available content on the subject, it seemed to me that during a prolonged ‘Period of Revolt’ wherein managers and company owners were alike busy in handling continuous unrests of workers; someone in the crowd might have got the idea that if they could hire people similar to them in their thinking, perhaps it would help them in neutralizing unrests. HR practice was borne, efforts were multiplied. First, people and then organizations were made to believe that hiring people who “fit” the existing culture would ensure harmony, faster onboarding, and better collaboration.

The idea so borne in 20th century suddenly became a buzzword of 21st century and crept into HR practices. Cultural Fitment became a key hiring criterion of the decade. Everybody latched on to it, suggesting its importance & criticality for the success of organizations. Innumerous enthusiastic preachers were out in full force, prescribing it as a necessity. Followers flocked them equally. Legacies of successes were floating around. Market was full of stories, attributing all the success to the glory of the concept of ‘Cultural Fit’.

Alas, mistake was already committed.

Following the principle of Despising Discomfort, managers & HR latched to the concept & covertly started hiring people aligned with their personal values and norms, because it helped them in creating an environment in their respective functions where everyone looks, thinks, and acts the same. It validated their beliefs, reinforced their comfort zones, and unintentionally bred group thinking. Easy to manage large teams. A safe bet for managers to survive.

This was the time when People specific Competency Models started picking up. Every other organization was gazing at the ‘People Fitment’ against what, nobody was knowing. Retrospectively, matches were happening for certain ‘competencies’ which were far away from Organizational needs of certain derivatives of Purpose, Vision, & Core Values. Psychometric tests were churning out reports with unprecedented speed in almost every organization. Analogically, it was like the flour coming out of wheat grinders unstoppably. Employees were nominated to paid training programs to learn about different psychometric tools and their applications. But on the ground, new learners were applying their newly acquired knowledge to check the compatibility of candidates with truncated ‘Competency Frameworks.’ Organizations were investing in it with good intentions, but results were far from being good to them. The practice instead of proving beneficial, it in reality was undermining their long term growth prospects. Although underneath and slowly. As the practice works at the foundations of the organizations, its tremors were difficult to experience for a long time. Still today it is not easy to feel it on the Tremor Scale.

Dream to Reality

The practice that might have started to solve certain challenges of time, it went berserk in reality. Managers adopted it to make it easy to oversee people. I still remember so many instances, managers recommending firing employees because of their ‘attitude’ and not performance.

The practice of Culture Fit someway misinterpreted by the industry as a whole as “fitting in with the manager’s personal style or preferences.” This is where the concept went wrong.

Managers started unconsciously equating culture fit with whether they personally “like” the candidate or feel comfortable with their behavior. As managers were the people who were having uncontrolled power in selection process, covertly they would pick up candidates who would mirror their respective teams, even if that had little to do with the company’s actual culture. Selectins were happening based on ‘Do they behave like me?’ instead of assessing candidates for their fitment for values, purposes, and visions of the organizations.

Under the lens today, Culture Fit is brooding narcissistic tendencies in leaders, as this helps them in building a culture that mirrors their worldview and rarely challenges their ideas. Always a narcissist’s Dream!

I know few companies where so many decisions were taken either to terminate the services of the employees or hold their promotions with just one covert justification ‘their attitude is not good’ or overtly, their behaviors were not matching their organizations.

Creativity suffered the Most.

All means all, scientific principles say that an environment which is full of diversity generates creativity. Cross Breeding of ideas and thoughts convert into innovation and invention. In the age of throat-cut competition where the self-life of products and services has gone down significantly, creativity is the only safe solution for prolonged organizational life. Yes, it comes with discomfort. It comes with a routine wherein everyone has to prove his/her worth every day.

Reverse the clock to remain Relevant.

Scientifically proven, higher the level of heterogeneity, higher are the chances of cohort being creative. In organizational context, heterogeneity refers to diversity, i.e., differences in background, perspectives, skills, experiences, and ways of thinking among individuals in a group. The science on heterogeneity assists in elevating creativity in teams and organizations as

• Diverse perspectives fuel innovation: Studies in organizational psychology and management show that heterogeneous teams are more likely to generate novel ideas because they combine different viewpoints, knowledge bases, and problem-solving styles.
• Crossbreeding of ideas: When people from varied disciplines or cultures collaborate, they challenge assumptions and spark creative solutions that homogeneous groups might overlook.
• Avoiding groupthink: Homogeneous groups often fall into group thinking, where consensus overrides critical thinking. Diversity helps prevent this by introducing constructive dissent.
• Cognitive diversity: It is not just demographic diversity (race, gender, age) but also diversity in thinking styles, expertise, and personality that enhances creativity.

In all fairness, it is worth mentioning here that even in homogenous groups creativity can occur if individuals are highly skilled and deeply motivated. But it is person specific and not the group.

Creativity can only survive the onslaught of ‘Cultural Fit’ when,

-      Hiring goes beyond matching the similarity of candidates to the manager’s personal or style, which can exclude diverse perspectives.

• Teams are comprised of people who do not think and act like their respective managers; a big reason for boosting innovation.
• All employees action must align with the company values, purpose & vision. Look for people who make their managers discomfortable for the betterment of the organizations. Employee clashes is more for the organization’s mission or ethics and not to demean managers.
• And at the tactical level, it is when employees do not leave their organizations for their managers.

• Organizations having a well-defined Competency Framework. Creating a befitting Competency Framework is time consuming but once done with all sincerity, it will strengthen the very foundations of organizations.
• Look for ‘Organizational Fit’ [not culture Fit] and structural assessments which use behavioral questions tied to Organizational Capabilities rather than manager’s preferences.

Prajjo Tool and Cultural Alignment

A careful study of principles of Genetics, Human Behavior and Organizational Design, Rajesh Tripathi has developed the Competency Wheel Model – a copyright concept and Prajjo has used it for its AI-centric tool Competency Framework Creator. The tool helps organizations in avoiding the side effects of Culture Fit and keep organizations aligned with their Values, Purposes and Visions.

The ideal condition is when there is a right blend of heterogeneity with shared human values perfectly aligned with organizational purpose; and Prajjo’s copyright tool CM Model to keep you on  the path of success.