PT
EN
A few years ago I published a poll with a simple question that sparked a surprisingly rich debate:
“Hiring or not hiring someone because they are left-wing, right-wing, humanist, capitalist, or hold a particular worldview — can this be considered a Cultural Fit criterion?”
The result showed an almost perfect split among participants.
- 34% answered Yes.
- 34% answered No.
- 32% chose the humorous option “I was abducted and came back,” indicating the question was far from trivial.
What was most interesting, however, was not the vote. It was the arguments.
After following dozens of comments and reflecting on the subject over the years, my conclusion changed significantly.
The Problem Starts with the Definition of Cultural Fit
The term Cultural Fit is commonly used to describe how well a candidate fits an organization’s culture.
In practice, however, few companies manage to define this concept objectively.
It is common to find organizational values such as:
- Be amazing
- Have a spark in your eyes
- Think like an owner
- Wear the jersey
These are inspiring expressions, but extremely difficult to measure.
When a criterion cannot be observed objectively, it opens the door to personal interpretations and unconscious biases.
That is where one of the biggest risks lies.
Do Political Convictions Belong to Culture?
Some people answered yes.
The argument was that certain political positions could generate conflicts within teams and harm the organizational climate.
Under this view, avoiding certain combinations would be a way to preserve harmony.
Others defended exactly the opposite.
A company composed only of people who think alike tends to reduce cognitive diversity, limit debate, and favor less robust decisions.
There is also a third issue.
Even if someone considers political positioning relevant, it represents only a small part of a person’s identity.
Reducing a professional to a single characteristic rarely produces good hiring decisions.
The Legal Dimension
One participant drew attention to an important point.
Political orientation is considered sensitive personal data under data protection legislation, and its handling requires specific care.
Moreover, using political positioning as an explicit hiring criterion may constitute discriminatory practice.
Regardless of an organization’s convictions, selection processes need to be able to justify their decisions by competencies, experiences, observable behaviors, and fit to the responsibilities of the role.
Is There a Relationship Between Cultural Fit and Performance?
This was the reflection that most changed my way of seeing the subject.
Perhaps the true objective of a selection process is not to find someone who “matches” the company.
Perhaps it is to reduce the risk of an unsuccessful hire.
But even this has enormous limitations.
Imagine two equally competent candidates.
One is going through a family crisis.
The other is facing a serious health issue.
No interview will be able to fully predict how these circumstances will affect their adaptation.
Likewise, teams change. Leadership changes. Strategies change. The organizational context changes.
So-called “cultural fit” is not a permanent property.
It is a dynamic relationship between person, team, and moment.
Correlation Does Not Mean Causation
There is a fairly common mistake in organizations.
When a high-performing employee possesses certain personal characteristics, the impression forms that those characteristics caused the success.
This conclusion is rarely proven.
Perhaps that person performed well because:
- they found inspiring leadership;
- they were given autonomy;
- they worked on a great team;
- they had relevant prior experience;
- they were living through an excellent personal moment.
Or perhaps all of these together.
Attributing success exclusively to so-called Cultural Fit can be a classic case of confusing correlation with causation.
Hiring Resembles a Relationship
After many years working with organizational transformation and following hundreds of teams, I have come to see hiring differently.
A hire resembles a relationship very closely.
It is not enough for the candidate to like the company.
The company also needs to like the candidate.
More than that.
The people who will work daily with this professional need to build trust, respect, and collaboration over time.
There is a portion of that relationship that simply cannot be captured by interviews, behavioral tests, or group dynamics.
There will always be a human component that cannot be fully modeled.
Perhaps We Are Asking the Wrong Question
Instead of asking whether someone has Cultural Fit or not, perhaps we should ask:
- What evidence shows that our selection process works?
- What is the success rate of the hires made?
- How long does it take for a new employee to reach high performance?
- How many hires need to be redone in the first year?
- Does the process reduce biases or merely make them invisible?
These questions are far more measurable.
And above all, they allow continuous improvement of the recruitment process.
Conclusion
Today I believe that using political positioning as a Cultural Fit criterion is a dangerous path, both from an organizational and ethical standpoint.
More important than seeking people who think alike is building environments capable of turning differences into collaboration.
In the end, perhaps the true indicator of a good selection process is not how much people resemble each other.
But how much they can deliver results, learn together, and contribute to a healthy environment — regardless of their personal convictions.
What about you?
Do you still believe in Cultural Fit, or do you think it is time to talk more about Culture Add, diversity of thought, and objective evidence of performance?