It is well-documented that similarity breeds connection. Candidates who look, act and sound different to recruiters are at an immediate disadvantage. This kind of decision-making can cut qualified candidates out of the running.
Hiring involves more than just candidates, companies, and contexts. It is an interpersonal process. A crucial component of hiring in many industries are job interviews. These interviews give the employers subjective impressions of candidates, and they often carry more weight than candidates’ resume and qualifications.
Sources of interpersonal attraction are mainly based on similarity. These similarities include tastes, experiences, hobbies, and self-presentation styles, as well as gender and race. When two people meet, they often first look for similarities in knowledge, experience, and interests. Discovering such similarities serves as a powerful emotional glue that facilitates trust and generates feelings of excitement, and bonds individuals together. There are two principle that support that similarities lead to attraction: the similarity-attraction hypothesis in psychology by Byrne 1971 and the homophily principle in sociology by Lazarsfeld and Merton in 1954.
And cultural similarities are more than just sources of liking. They serve as group membership and bases of inclusion or exclusion. During a study of hiring practices in elite banks, one bank said they wanted only lacrosse players. They said that all the managing directors play lacrosse in this bank, so this is why they were looking for a lacrosse player.
Lacrosse could be substituted for anything: a high school paper editor, a football player, or someone with straight teeth. But recruiting people that always “fit” the culture can be dangerous – especially from a diversity perspective. Hiring for cultural fit tends to favor the status quo in a company, whether it relates to race, gender, age, or hobbies. This makes it harder for anyone who doesn’t fit in the typical picture to get into sectors where they are currently under-represented.
In terms of cultural fit, white men still have an overall advantage. Almost 90% of Fortune 500 CEOs fit that demographic. Women and people of color find it much harder to get hired. In US, black people make up only 3% of executive and senior-level roles in companies with more than 100 employees. Also older people are affected. In 2021 a report from employment non-profit Generation showed that only 15% of hiring managers across seven countries saw over-45s as a good cultural fit. Extroverts are seen as a better cultural fit than introverts, since businesses have a long history of rewarding confident talkers. People with disabilities have to apply for 60% more jobs than those without. And fat people are seen as less suitable candidates.
This means that rejecting a candidate because it is not a cultural fit simply means that the company doesn’t want to make the effort to include a new person. It is easier to cite “cultural fit” in a job rejection than interrogate your own personal biases to ensure they are not clouding your judgement.
In fact, companies who rely on cultural fit end up with homogenous teams. Research shows that teams with a diverse mix of gender, races and sexual orientations are better for business. They are more likely to improve market share, develop new products and win endorsement from decision-makers. Working together is not about liking each other, but about coming together at work to be a team, to deliver something to the customers. And to do that properly, companies need people who have different perspectives. If companies only hire people that are just like them, it is unlikely that they are going to solve a problem that people just like them haven’t already solved.
