In the modern world of work, everyone is talking about the term Cultural Fit right now. This refers to the congruence between the values, attitudes and behaviors that apply and are lived in a company on the one hand, and those of potential employees on the other.
The focus is on the question: Does the applicant fit into the company?
Defining cultural fit:
The term cultural fit, which comes from personnel psychology, describes the correspondence between the existing organizational culture in a company and the desired organizational culture from the perspective of (potential) employees. There is a high level of cultural fit when employees can identify with the organizational culture, i.e. with the values, attitudes and practices practiced in the company.
Cultural Fit: More appearance than reality?
But what role does cultural fit play in modern personnel selection? Is the term primarily a buzzword with no relevant meaning and implications for the day-to-day practice of HR managers, or should testing the cultural fit between companies and applicants already be on their agenda? Meta HR Unternehmensberatung and Employour investigated this question in a joint study. The surprising result: while over 80% of the HR managers surveyed regard the cultural fit between applicants and companies as important or very important, an actual measurement of this has so far been carried out in less than 10% of personnel selection processes.
Perceived importance and actual implementation therefore appear to be in clear contrast — the reality of personnel selection in German companies therefore seems to be lagging behind changes in the labor market once again. The reason: not least a number of myths and half-knowledge circulating about the term, an often low scientific basis among existing test methods on the market, and a lack of know-how regarding the use of scientifically based methods.
We uncover myths and errors surrounding the term cultural fit and tell you recipes for success for a scientifically based cultural fit measurement!
6 myths about cultural fit
Myth 1:
Cultural fit is subjective, not scientifically measurable and is therefore in contrast to “classic” personnel selection criteria
Cultural fit usually covers “soft factors” such as expectations of leadership styles, preferences for collaboration, or overriding values such as integrity. At first glance, the concept of cultural fit therefore appears to be in contrast to more classical “hard factors” such as intelligence or ability to concentrate. However, a closer look behind the facade of this frequently used buzzword shows that there is more to the term than the applicant's mere preference for a particular office design. In particular, when cultural fit tests are scientifically based and specifically tailored to job requirements, the contrast is lower than initially assumed. This is because values and attitudes are cleanly defined and translated into concretely observable behavioral or personality dimensions (e.g. team orientation and openness to experience), which can then certainly be measured with the help of scientifically based assessment methods or psychometric mini-games.
Myth 2:
Cultural fit is a “nice to have” for employees, but plays no role in company profit
Working hours take up a great deal of our time. As a result, more and more employees want to work for a company whose values they can identify with. It is therefore hardly surprising that the concept of cultural fit is gaining particular importance as part of the New Work movement. But the benefits by no means end with those for employees. If there is a high level of cultural fit, employees and employers benefit equally. The simple reason: satisfied employees are better employees — this is proven by various studies.
A higher cultural fit also improves not only employee satisfaction, but also the relationship between employees and thus team collaboration. Other reasons to opt for Cultural Fit include faster onboarding, fewer resignations, and higher retention (employee retention)
The conclusion is: Cultural fit is more than a “nice-to-have”, but a critical competitive factor for the success of a company. Because the better employees fit into a company and can even identify with it, the more successful the company is too: in the short, medium and, above all, in the long term.
Myth 3:
Cultural fit harms diversity in companies
But wait: doesn't cultural fit automatically mean pure conformity and adherence to the status quo? Is cultural fit therefore not the opposite of diversity, i.e. the desire for greater diversity in the company, which is currently required everywhere? And isn't it always said that diversity and diversity of thought are the secret to greater success in a company? Diversity or the best fit — what now?
In fact, the arguments for the apparent contradiction between cultural fit and diversity are not entirely out of thin air — because in the search for the best cultural fit, there is definitely a risk that the idea of diversity will be trampled underfoot.
A small thought experiment:
Imagine that 20 years ago, the leaders of large, established companies (yes, we mean the “old white men” that everyone is talking about today) would only have hired employees (yes, gender-neutral language wasn't a thing yet back then) whose values and attitudes were in line with their own. Applicants who questioned established patterns of behavior in the company or brought other values with them would have been excluded from consideration — the reason: a lack of cultural fit. True to the motto: birds of a feather flock together.
Do you think we are ready today when it comes to topics such as sustainability, openness to other working time models and gender-equitable organizational cultures? Decide for yourself!
A certain degree of caution is therefore certainly appropriate here. And yet: if the cultural fit measurement is scientifically grounded and based on an empirical requirement profile with defined, clearly measurable dimensions, cultural fit and diversity do not have to be in conflict with each other. After all, it should not be values and attitudes unrelated to professional success (e.g. attitudes towards same-sex partnerships) that are measured, but rather those that systematically predict professional success and play an important role in daily collaboration (e.g. attitudes towards hierarchies and teamwork).
As a result, cultural fit is also permitted as a criterion for personnel selection under Germany's General Act on Equal Treatment (AGG). It is important that the procedures used prevent assessment errors (see unconscious bias) through objective test administration and evaluation. In addition, procedures should be reviewed regularly and continuously for potential discrimination against minorities. After all, none of us want the lack of cultural fit to be used as a new backdoor for discrimination in personnel selection.
Myth 4:
Cultural fit is only important for personnel selection
Cultural fit is not only central to the selection process, but also plays an important role as an employer branding instrument for personnel recruitment and as an employee retention tool for personnel development. This is particularly true given the increasing shift from an employer's market (open positions < candidates) to a candidate's market (open positions > candidates). Because in a job market where applicants can freely choose between potentially interesting employers, the question is increasingly coming to the fore: Does the company suit me, and can I identify with it?
Cultural fit is thus becoming one of the most important selection criteria for High Potentials. While just 20 years ago, a prestigious company, good pay and a company car were enough to attract young talent, today they expect more, not least a high level of identification with the corporate culture. For example, over half of German employees say that they have already quit their job due to discrepancies between corporate culture and their own values.
Myth 5:
A cultural fit of 100% is ideal
We are used to striving for 100% — whether in everyday working life or in partnerships. But does this also apply to cultural fit? Is a cultural fit of 100% really ideal? The answer may be surprising at first, but it is still: No. Because it is not always about identifying applicants who are 100% suited to the company. Often, even a match of 70 to 80% is closer to the ideal — there is agreement on the most important aspects, but there are still some points of friction that trigger exciting discussions.
In the same way, the goal can also be to recruit employees who complement the team and cover aspects that have not yet been covered, or only insufficiently covered, by the team. An example would be hiring a person with a strong willingness to take risks, even though the company has so far made more risk-averse decisions in order to adapt to rapid developments in dynamic markets. As Arne Arotnow put it: “Perfection comes from corners and edges.”
Myth 6:
The organizational culture applies across time, location and department
The organizational culture is often defined in the headquarters and then literally “imposed” on all organizational units. This may still work quite well in small and medium-sized companies with a few locations or in a small, up-and-coming start-up. However, it becomes more difficult when different locations and thus even national cultures (e.g. individualistic cultures such as Germany and collectivist cultures such as China) and phases of corporate maturity (e.g. development from start-up to established company) come into play. In addition, the organizational culture within the company can also differ extremely between departments. For example, good teamwork and communication may be understood and lived in a completely different way in the HR department than in the IT department. Computer scientists who actually fit in well with the lived values and attitudes within the IT department would therefore be rejected, as there may be no fit for the overarching and therefore less differentiated culture.
The problem: Even if the corporate culture no longer fits the business unit or has never even been right for it, it is maintained across locations and departments for years — no adjustments take place.
The consequence: The backward-looking and undifferentiated definition of culture paralyzes change and genuine diversity — future orientation and change fall by the wayside.
Conclusion
The analysis shows that cultural fit is not a guaranteed solution for happy employees and corporate success. Especially not when companies choose assessments that rely solely on good-sounding slogans and hip-looking processes, but for which only inadequate scientific quality criteria are available. The definition and implementation of cultural fit makes the difference. Read how this can be achieved in our article: Successful and scientifically based cultural fit measurement in three steps.
