I'm pretty sure that is basically the definition of age discrimination people are facing. Its the same line given for other groups. This fascination with cultural fit which is basically group think given your examples (e.g. "I enjoy the same things my peers do, we play the same games, we watch the same things and read the same websites.") is disturbing and reminds me a bit too much of high school not business where experience and talent applied to implementation are important.
It's interesting how many red flags a company can throw up so quickly. Often before you've even finished browsing their website.
The only thing that matters is professionalism, work-ethic, and skillset (and my personal favorites, politeness and personal-space respect).
Age, race, gender, nationality should not matter in any way for hiring decisions. But then again, I fall into the "leave it be" side of human freedom and anti-discrimination efforts, rather than the "let's meddle and try fix it with reverse-effects" camp.
Here is a "diversity team" http://diversify.github.io/images/diversify-group.jpg
Beware of hypocrites abusing "diversity" for PR reasons.
> Diversify was a weekend event at Spotify in Stockholm, where 40 tech students of diverse backgrounds came together and designed, wrote code, and found new friends.
Maybe having students to this is in part pointless, but that picture is not of a group of Spotify employees working on diversity issues.
Does this non-medical phd demand to be addressed as doctor? (Yes, this happened.)
Does he or she seem willing to do his or her share of the scut work?
Is he or she a failed academic who is getting an industry job and going to be a pain about it, or is this what he or she wants to do?
How much supervision does the candidate require? Initiative? If he or she runs out of work, is he or she going to to sit there and do fuck-all until I notice or will the candidate be proactive about getting more to do?
I understand some of our code is under tested, but unlike TDD wankery, there is a real business cost to spending a bunch of time writing tests and, since those systems are either mostly finished / slowly changing, or on their way out, is this candidate going to be difficult or suck it up and deal? (Yes, this happened. See also scut work and/or the realities of living in our fallen world.)
We've made a decision to standardize on scala/java and js/some frontend package I'm not sure of. I understand this isn't react or the new hotness; does this candidate seem like he or she will throw a fit then spend two months working on a service in a language nobody else uses (yes, this happened. And he was surprised when he was terminated. There were other issues but this was the proverbial straw.)
Hygiene. This should go without saying, but apparently I am cursed. If I can smell you in an interview, we're done. (And yes, this has happened.)
One more set of edits as the bad memories come back:
You look at my two female data scientists and a female engineering peer and the one female office manager and ask why there are so many secretaries working here? Yes, this happened.
You call one of my female directs "sweetie." Yes, this happened.
We're talking on the phone and you couldn't be arsed to spend 10 minutes on our site and come up with a 1-2 sentence summary of what the company does. You can be wrong, but you must demonstrate minimal interest. And to be clear about the level of detail: if I were airbnb and you said platform to allow people to rent out their homes for short stays, that would be awesome.
Also, "sweetie", really? When I was younger (teens) I offended someone by saying "Ma'am"[1], but I'm pretty sure I would have took a swat to the head from my parents if I ever said "sweetie".
1) I'm pretty sure at this late date (20+ years ago), she was a bit ticked that I used "Ma'am" instead of "Miss" implying she was older than she was. I'm pretty sure she was between 18 and 20, and I was 15 and looked a lot older.
It looks to me like a laundry list of requirements that they wouldn't admit in polite company or want to have documented in their company records, or advertise on their website.
They wouldn't want to put off any investors with bad breath, a PhD, or a penchant for saying 'sweetie', after all.
Also, one of the items clearly advertises an objective deficiency in their working practices. It's pretty plain why they'd want to keep that under wraps.
So yea, less about culture and more about having a list of hidden requirements.
I had a feeling that somewhere along the list of "candidate must not make us put up with any of their bullshit" there would be something saying "candidate must be willing to put up with a metric ton of our bullshit".
either mostly finished / slowly changing, or on their way out
Test driven development is a practice that is most valuable on legacy code. Only doing it on new code and not old code is ass-backwards. If anything it should be the other way around.
A half assed hack job to support remaining customers will likely only end up alienating them when you inevitably break stuff they rely upon with duct tape. Alienated customers tend to drop you forever and run into a competitor's arms. YMMV but that's always been my experience.
Just a note: sometimes this is BO caused by medication. You want to avoid saying "I didn't hire you because you smell" because that may be a result of a protected characteristic. A reasonable adjustment would be that the person has a trusted friend who will tell them if they smell or not, and will shower before they get to work and will use deodorant products.
A bit less common would be "fish odor syndrome" or Trimethylaminuria. http://www.channel4embarrassingillnesses.com/conditions/fish... You probably don't want to be cruel to people who suffer from an illness that they have no control of.
Since some food and medicine can cause your pee to smell really weird it makes sense it can screw with the smell of your sweat too.
WTF is wrong with that!?!? It is polite to address someone the way they want to be addressed. I address my PhD holding colleagues as Dr. very often though none are medical doctors. I can't imagine how this is an issue for anyone ever.
But if everybody at the company is on a first-name basis but you insist on having everybody call you Dr. Smith, you're being unreasonable.
"We're on a first name basis here" is cultural, unlike the other stuff mentioned, so there's that. But its pretty bizarre.
Would you also fire them for wearing business attire instead of shorts because "this is a casual environment?"
This is what Miss Manners says:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/miss-manners-...
DEAR MISS MANNERS: My future sister-in-law just graduated with her PhD She told me to call her “doctor,” but I was always told that if you don’t work with someone directly in their field, that doesn’t apply.
Is that true? I understand it’s out of respect, but I have never addressed other persons with their PhD as “doctor.” They also put PhD at the end of their names, teach at universities and don’t go by “doctor.”
GENTLE READER: There are two attitudes that individuals and universities take toward the use of the title “doctor” for those who hold PhDs.
One is that having been earned, it should be used, not only in professional situations when needed for identification, especially in academic positions, but also socially.
The other is not to use it — not socially, but especially not in academic positions, because that level of education being assumed, it need not be expressly mentioned. As one professor (namely, Miss Manners’s Uncle Selig) once put it, “A PhD is like a nose — everyone has one. It’s only conspicuous if you don’t have one.”
Which form of snobbery is preferable, or perhaps more effective, others can decide. Obviously, your prospective sister-in-law espouses the first-named approach. And she is covered by two rules:
1. Address people as they wish to be addressed.
2. Try not to annoy your relatives unnecessarily.
i.e. it's a big fat euphemism.
Just say "no prima donnas" on your list of requirements. Most people will be able to read between the lines and know that you're looking for servility, fealty and obedience in your employees. I, for one, would be happy to screen you out based upon those words. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like me, I wouldn't like you and I wouldn't want to waste your time or mine interviewing with you. Those three words would save us both a lot of trouble.
I always refer to those who have earned an MD as 'physicians' or 'surgeons.'
Age discrimination is based on a fact you can't do anything about, your age. A company's culture is very important, a vital aspect of its identity. If you aren't open to making a change then you probably don't belong. Anyway, a lot of things people my age and older like are just the things 20 year olds liked when they were 20.
Is everyone being super-stoked about Star Wars and Breaking Bad really a vital aspect of a company's identity? Is a shared passion for ping-pong over lunchtime really an important part of a company's continued success?
In my personal experience, I've learned a huge amount from coworkers with whom I had very little in common besides the shared dedication to shipping great product.
Here's my challenge to everyone on HN - "culture fit" isn't intrinsically a bad thing, but the term is vague and encourages all kinds of intellectually dishonest cowardice.
Stop using "culture fit" and instead use specific observations. "This person has poor hygiene" is a valid observation, "This person defended some really bad code despite reasonable criticism", "This person was openly hostile to one of the interviewers", etc.
"Culture fit" is a weasel word that is vague - sometimes intentionally so - and largely useless. Specify why someone is a bad culture fit with concrete observations. And hey, sometimes when you are specific to yourself you'll find problems in your own thinking (e.g., "This person totally glazed over at the pop culture references I made." doesn't even begin to pass a sanity check, but accounts for a lot of "bad culture fit" decisions).
At this point, for me personally, nerd culture in general can go fuck itself. It's just no fun anymore now that it's more or less a job requirement.
At my present company the upper management is constantly trying to make jokes that the 20-somethings will get. That includes movie references and things which you know some of them don't really get (especially when they say "I'm told you all will find this hilarious"). It shows a willingness of those older, experienced people to adjust their presentation to the "culture" of the current employees. The overall culture of the company is still to have a lot of fun, just the jokes change a little as time goes on.
We apparently care more about Star Trek and culture fit than we do about writing maintainable code, selling product, or anything else we don't talk about much.
I now hate Star Trek (and I used to like it). :( :(
It's a really delicate balance. "culture" can mean speed. I don't know of many organizations that do this, but it's certainly possible. OTOH, that locks you into a specific worldview, and can make you blind to problems. Diverse backgrounds make organizations much more aware, but less able to communicate that information quickly.
An example is when someone picks up a new language, and they try to explain the new constructs and philosophies behind the language. It takes a long time to explain why mapcar is cool.
After all, they grew up with the series.
This is a different argument than one about age discrimination. Whatever the culture a company and its employees adopt, my point is that it isn't necessarily age discrimination if you are getting the "not a good culture fit" feedback. It's not the number of years you've been alive so much as an attitude, which is something you can change. If you're unwilling to, fine. If this makes you mad, I'm sorry. However your emotions sway you, it is still not age discrimination.
The law may not agree with you. Ever heard of disparate impact? "In United States anti-discrimination law, the theory of disparate impact holds that practices in employment, housing, or other areas may be considered discriminatory and illegal if they have a disproportionate "adverse impact" on persons in a protected class"
People over 40 are a protected class in US employment law.
Now, policies that can adversely affect a protected class are ok as long as there is a legitimate job requirement. For example, being able to lift 50 pounds may be a job requirement that adversely impacts women and the disabled but its ok as long as the job actually requires heavy lifting on a very regular basis.
Otherwise people are free to implement policies that are code for discrimination such as "able to lift 50 pounds" for a desk job.
You'd have to prove in court a legitimate job requirement. I think proving" likes ping pong and beers after work" being a businesses concern may be an uphill battle even if you call it "attitude."
Once you realize your hiring practices may exclude a protected class you really gotta do a second look over and ask yourself if it is really a business requirement. Other shops are able to ship products with more diversity and less ping pong.
The point is is that if you're targeting people who behave like you, have plenty of shared interests and reflect your own way of doing things, those people are going to end up looking a lot like you too.
I think the point that potatolicious is trying to make is that the ambiguity of "cultural fit" ends up becoming a path to hiring people who are very similar to yourself. An alternative approach would be to define explicit, concrete values that your company and team reflect, and look for hires that mirror those values instead of nebulous "cultural" fit.
And once again, with the supposed shortage of engineers, why isn't the company adapting?
Why does the image of a party of wizards that forgot to bring the fighters, clerics, and rogues come to my head?
I've seen too many folks rejected as "cultural mis-matches" not because they don't get along with everyone else, but because they have different interests outside of work. That's just silly.
If you'd like a really simplistic example of why that form of culture just doesn't matter, have a look at Adam Savage and Jamie Hineman(sic). They have never even had dinner together, yet they make for a very effective team at work.
I'd be all for the phrase "culture mis-match" being banned. If you can't properly articulate why you don't want to hire someone, then the problem is with you, not the applicant.
I really don't see why colleagues should read the same websites or play the same games! You can have a very good work relationship with someone that has a totally different lifestyle.
Although the strategy had served me well for a very long time, it just doesn't work these days. What's more important is one's ability to be resourceful - to google the quickest.
I don't mean that as a negative - some of these 25 year olds just blow my mind with how fast they can find the right code snippet that they need and integrate it using specialized IDEs. It's not that I can't do it, it's just not a skill that I have strength in. And, in a way, I doubt I can gain it.
The squeeze comes from salary and title. At the top of the pyramid, it's hard to gracefully slide down. This is a world where it's up or out.
You just have to be willing to adapt yourself to fit in with who you work with. If you aren't interested in making personal changes because you shouldn't think you need to just to earn a paycheck then well you're probably not a good culture fit. You need to make an effort. I enjoy the same things my peers do, we play the same games, we watch the same things and read the same websites. It's not fake with me. I'm not trying too hard. I'm just not getting stuck in old ways.