Anonymous wrote:Someone who isn't a good fit can bring down morale faster than you think, and then you lose good employees.

This is it in a nutshell.

Anonymous wrote:I worked in a start up ten years ago where we were Work Hard Play Hard.

It literally was out only mantra.

I hired four people who literally wanted to work 9-5, eat lunch at desk quick so could Leave early. They never went a single social event. Heck would not even get coffee or eat lunch co workers.

All four were nightmare fits and all four lies in interview.

That’s me. And I am the TL, when the boys wanna go party I just give them my corporate card tell them not to blow over $950 per quarter. Everyone is still employed today.

I worked in a start up ten years ago where we were Work Hard Play Hard.

It literally was out only mantra.

I hired four people who literally wanted to work 9-5, eat lunch at desk quick so could Leave early. They never went a single social event. Heck would not even get coffee or eat lunch co workers.

All four were nightmare fits and all four lies in interview.

Fit in my company’s context describes both attitude- adaptable, even tempered and reliable- and some softer work skills such as conflict management and high level organizational skills.

This fit is important. Using a different word would be fine too but it’s more than meeting the job announcement qualifications.

Fit is when they only have desks in the cubicles for people that are shorter than the manager.

Fit is also something that an employer can't use to say you aren't skilled when filling out a PERM to prove that there are no willing or skilled Americans, when they post listings for jobs that don't exist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fit is important. Morale counts because we take surveys about our workplace, and if we get awarded "Best Law Firm for Working Mothers" for example, then we can attract talent that is working moms who won't write us off assuming that we won't accommodate kids sometimes.

If there's a partner that goes through 2-3 assistants each year, that's a problem. If there's a partner who won't work with other partners, that's a problem.

I think this is the right kind of “fit”, and I’ve worked at places that use that as their definition but it’s increasingly rare.

I’ve also worked at places that defined “fit” as same age/gender/race as hiring manager or most of the team. That’s a misuse of “fit” and far more common these days.

Yes you described racial discrimination/ gender discrimination/ agism

Fit is important for team dynamics. I just switched jobs and there are several people on the team at job 1 who would not be a fit at job 2. The culture at job 1 was more causal and relaxed. It was a bigger organization and a bigger team. There are some successful team members who are good at their job, but don’t work too hard (in office from 10-4), are hard workers but quirky (and the quirk works fine), like frequent chats with coworkers, or that dress unprofessionally, have long, fake nails, and loooong hair. Job 2 is a smaller team and in a smaller org. Everyone hails from a top BigLaw firm, works 8-6, acts and dresses professionally, doesn’t waste half the day chatting. Some people could flex to both cultures, others could find success at 1 or 2 but not both.

Larlo was a nepo slacker and wouldn't have been a good fit anywere

Example of poor fit:

Our job is not rocket science, but there are a couple of times per year that are super busy. During those times, no vacations allowed, everyone working 60 hours per week (for about 3-4 weeks, 3 times per year - the rest of the year is more like 30-35 hours per week, it all works out), and like a well-olied machine, the work got done amd clients were happy.

Then the Board brought in their friend Larlo. Larlo was put in charge of the team, arrived at 10 and left at 4 every day, and spent a good chunk of every day on their phone in their car (none of us knew what he was doing, speculations ranged from job-hunting to drinking or drugs). Even during crunch time. Larlo also told clients things that weren't true, and twice threw staff members under the bus because he couldn't tell clients no.

The team tried to talk to Larlo, who went to the board and said the staff ambushed him, and then when nothing was done, we lost several excellent team members who had been with us for a long time.

The new/replacement staff aren't anywhere close to as skilled as the former staff, who wouldn't have left if the Larlo bad-fit wasn't thrown at them, or, if the bad-fit problem had been delt with when they brought up their issues with him, and with Executive leadership, and again with the Board. A dynamite team has turned into a problem team, and oh, Larlo left after about 18 months.

Larlo was not a good fit and destroyed a great team

Anonymous wrote:I am under no illusions that the corporate world is any good, but the notion of “fit” being an important component of performance or success just seems outright bogus. Isn’t this just another way to continue homogeneity? Seems like a good way to get rid of people you don’t like or don’t want around.

poor fit in IT world means you are a white American trying to fit into Indian caste. just does not work well.

Anonymous wrote:Overuse of the word “fit”. From college fit to workplace fit. Face it, you are not going to like everyone you work with. If you are finding people you don’t care for again and again, look in the mirror.

I think there are a lot of crummy people out there without skills looking for someone to scapegoat and a lot of psycho people. The people who are kind and hardworking you can work with on anything. The other people you are always on your toes because they are always up to some power play or trying to avoid so you arent noticed and become an object of their weird fixations.

Overuse of the word “fit”. From college fit to workplace fit. Face it, you are not going to like everyone you work with. If you are finding people you don’t care for again and again, look in the mirror.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fit is important. Morale counts because we take surveys about our workplace, and if we get awarded "Best Law Firm for Working Mothers" for example, then we can attract talent that is working moms who won't write us off assuming that we won't accommodate kids sometimes.

If there's a partner that goes through 2-3 assistants each year, that's a problem. If there's a partner who won't work with other partners, that's a problem.

I think this is the right kind of “fit”, and I’ve worked at places that use that as their definition but it’s increasingly rare.

I’ve also worked at places that defined “fit” as same age/gender/race as hiring manager or most of the team. That’s a misuse of “fit” and far more common these days.

Exactly. Use of "fit" could get employer in trouble in an employment law context, if those who do fit are all one color/gender/age/sexual orientation.