If a person can add to a culture, then a person could also subtract from a culture. Getting the wrong people on the bus can be very damaging to a company. This is not to say that companies always do a good job at selecting people for addition rather than subtraction.

Any place that could be deemed a "brotopia" is likely bad at building positive culture--I know I wouldn't want to work there. But still, different people will have different effects, some of them being net positive and others net negative. And what counts as positive or negative will vary a bit from org to org. If you can call culture fit a "culture addition", a lack of culture fit may be a case of "culture subtraction".

I moved from "brotopia" to "non-brotopia" and I felt that it was a step down culturally.

Why?

Most likely because he is a brogrammer. Brogrammers like to work with other brogrammers.

And what does the word "brotopia" and "brogrammer" even mean? Is there anything to these terms except feminists being sexist and insulting?

Totally agree. However, I will say anecdotally as a people manager that great additions to a team tend to bring new ideas and perspectives while simultaneously having something (values, perspectives, etc.) that anchors them to the existing group. If somebody deviates too far from the existing team it tends to cross a threshold from productive disruption to toxic conflict.

I kind of think of this in the context of material properties and teams having their own stiffness and strength. The higher the strength, the harder it is for imposed forces (i.e. challenging new perspectives and personalities) to cause team failure. The higher the stiffness, the more resistant to changing form under imposed forces. I assume high strength is universally preferred, but stiffness is a little more complicated; a high stiffness team ensures consistency but is difficult to alter and improve upon, whereas low stiffness enhances your ability to reshape and broaden team culture but also leaves it more sensitive to changes.

I think because when we think about culture fit, what people can add is already in the equation. When a culture fit is used to DQ someone it’s because on balance they subtracted more than they added relative to other candidates.

Or, at least, the interviewers perceived that that would be the case. Perception might be out of phase with reality there -- members of sub-optimal cultures don't necessarily realize they have a problem.

(Then, I suppose, there's the further question of whether it's even possible to add to a culture that doesn't want to be added to.)

I think that's only a post hoc rationalization -- the point being that culture "fit" is also very easy to hide behind for people who are attempting to preserve a perceived consistency.

Obviously all of these are just mental abstractions, but I contend that one is easier to think about as someone who cares about diversity.

To me the whole culture fit is a circus and there to make people believe they are being virtuous, etc. It’s BS.

That said, there is some value in sharing some important core principles.

However, to me either someone can execute their responsibilities, or they can’t—but it’s dufficult to infer that from a pre-work interview.

As it is non conforming cultural fit might be someone who doesn’t drink like a fish, or someone who needs to take care of family obligations after working hours, for example.

Because we're already the Best Place To Work and we only hire The Best People, why would we possibly want to change?

Because you don't add to a team which is highly dynamic by adding a person who expects a straightforward top-down decision-making process, and the same is the case in the reverse situation. This is not about pristine or not, but simply about the average.

You do add to a team of programmers by adding a marketing person, salesperson, technical support or test person.

If that highly dynamic team is disorganized, you do add by adding more organized people - despite there being some conflicts as a result.