He almost gets it right. Hiring for some abstract "best" isn't so great. Hiring for "culture fit" is practically an invitation to discriminate. OTOH, people rarely do only one thing at a company, so it's important to remember that you're hiring for a job rather than a specific task. You need to evaluate fundamental skills, including collaboration or leadership skills (and styles), not just knowledge of specific subject matter.
I have mixed feelings on culture fit becoming a bad word.
I don't disagree with your point but I think there is a danger with ignoring its value.
For example --leaving aside your views on SV startup sweatshops-- if you're in a start up, you will at some point work late hours and you will at some point go through stressful times. Sometimes the things that get you through those times is that feeling of camaraderie and actually getting on with your colleagues.
Screening on culture-fit is a good way to guard for that, and at least for me it is unwise to not associate value with that.
Now, it could be that your culture is inclusivity. But then isn't hiring for people who fit that mould still hiring for culture fit? Isn't that still creating a monoculture? Isn't discriminating against a bigot brogrammer (who may well be great at coding) still discrimination?
The problem is that "culture fit" is too broad and too vague. Often it includes things that are completely unrelated to job performance. If you want to make sure people are able/willing to work long hours, ask about that (and be aware that you're probably discriminating to some degree against people with families or health issues). If you want to know how someone will handle stress, ask about that. Not only will you be measuring actual job-related skills or qualities, but you'll also be telling the candidate something they should know about the work environment. On the other hand, hobbies and musical tastes and political views should not be part of a hiring process, and that's the kind of thing "culture fit" often seems to include.
> If you want to make sure people are able/willing to work long hours, ask about that (and be aware that you're probably discriminating to some degree against people with families or health issues).
Incidentally, discriminating on the basis of familial status or disability is illegal in various jurisdictions.
> Incidentally, discriminating on the basis of familial status or disability is illegal in various jurisdictions.
Indeed it is, and it should be, but many companies successfully use proxies to get around that. It's a lot harder to win a suit because a company demanded long hours than because they explicitly refused to hire people with families or above a certain age. I didn't mean to encourage such chicanery, which is why I already had the parenthetical comment about discrimination. My point was that if there are expectations or behaviors like this, then they should be addressed specifically instead of under a "culture fit" umbrella. Often that will make their il/legitimacy clearer, and help to prevent discrimination.
