{"id":999881710,"date":"2018-05-29T15:51:00","date_gmt":"2018-05-29T15:51:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dice.npgdev.com\/?p=158151710"},"modified":"2018-05-29T15:51:00","modified_gmt":"2018-05-29T15:51:00","slug":"should-hire-culture-fit-hire-inclusion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dice.npgdev.com\/hiring\/recruitment\/should-hire-culture-fit-hire-inclusion","title":{"rendered":"Should You Hire for Culture Fit or Hire for Inclusion?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u201cDiversity is being asked to the dance. Inclusivity is being asked to<\/em> dance.\u201d This was probably the best quote we heard at our HRTX Dallas event in March<\/a>. The other one was: \u201cJust because you work in sourcing doesn\u2019t mean you\u2019re a sorcerer.\u201d Both were said in the context of a much bigger discussion around talent acquisition and the hiring process: Should you hire for \u201cfit\u201d or hire for inclusivity? On the surface, these seem to be diametrically opposed concepts. \u201cFit\u201d often refers to hiring people similar to your pre-existing team. This can create a culture of \u201csame thinking,\u201d which tends to be an enemy of growth. (It can be hard to pivot and develop new ideas when most of the team thinks the same way.) In fact, in 2017, well-known industry thought leader Lars Schmidt wrote an article for \u201cForbes,\u201d calling for \u201cthe end of culture fit,\u201d<\/a> noting:<\/p>\n

\u201cMost interviewers are more likely to hire people like themselves and discount those who are different. This type of thinking hinders diversity and leads to homogenous cultures.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Paradoxically, perhaps, Lars used the example of Facebook, which is not a place known for having great diversity. However, since Facebook moved from a hiring model rooted in the abstract \u201cfit\u201d to one based on inclusion (and implemented managerial training on unconscious bias), the numbers have improved. In July 2016, representation in senior leadership at Facebook (in the U.S.) was 3 percent Black, 3 percent Hispanic and 27 percent women. Contrast that with new senior leadership hires from 2016-2017, which were 9 percent Black, 5 percent Hispanic, and 29 percent female. So inclusion is better, right? But there\u2019s one issue: measurement. Most companies only know how to use the word \u201cinclusion.\u201d They don\u2019t know how to measure it. In business, \u201cwhat\u2019s measured is what matters.\u201d If the top decision-makers can\u2019t see the impact of inclusion on a balance sheet or in terms they understand, a push for inclusion won\u2019t make a dent. There are approaches to measuring inclusion, however,<\/a><\/u> including employee surveys designed to gauge feelings on the company\u2019s cultural progress. According to that Fast Company piece, the results of these surveys can be broken down across demographic lines \u201cto see whether members of particular groups\u2014for example, transgender employees, people with children, or Latinas\u2014are responding to particular topics differently from other groups in the organization.\u201d Such efforts, the article continued, \u201ccan help you transform \u2018inclusion\u2019 from a vague concept into something that can actually be evaluated and addressed.\u201d If you begin with your current employees, you can see how inclusive your current culture is. But how do you bring inclusivity into the hiring process? A few approaches:<\/p>\n