Tullius: Some time ago we talked about Gain and The Profit Motive. Lately, I’ve been thinking about that piece of corporate jargon, “not a good fit” for our organization. While I can understand the notion that a new person should agree with the purpose and goals of a company, how can we know for certain he or she is “not a good fit” unless the person is given a chance?
Marcus: It’s an interesting topic. Sometimes the phrase, “not a good fit,” is invoked to rule out someone the interviewer or hiring committee just doesn’t like, for whatever reason. The person could be the wrong color, wrong sex, wrong religion, or wrong social background, but otherwise quite qualified. Why are you raising the question now?
Tullius: Well, I remember a time when my university was selecting a new faculty member. We had the opportunity to bring in three candidates to visit the campus, and a colleague suggested that one of the preliminary phone interviewees was probably “not a good fit.” The candidate happened to be a person of color. I suggested that “fit” should be the candidate’s decision, not ours, but I didn’t offer much resistance other than that. This was not my finest moment. I should have fought harder. The committee found the “not a good fit” argument convincing and the candidate wasn’t given further consideration, despite having a skill set that most of the others didn’t have. I’ve often wondered whether that person would have been a good fit after all.
Marcus: I see. It’s a lazy argument, but broad enough to appeal to many people. You shouldn’t blame yourself. “Not a good fit” has been used for a long time, just not by that name. It’s also known as, “not one of us,” “lacks the breeding,” “lacks the credentials,” “doesn’t think like us,” “not a team player,” “probably wouldn’t like it here,” and so on. Perhaps someone in the organization needs to ask, “if a person doesn’t fit or wouldn’t like working here, is that their fault or ours? Is our organization really that demanding, like the Navy Seals, or is it because we have become so set in our ways there is no room for divergent thinking?”
Tullius: Every organization has a right to certain standards. Slackers and stoners need not apply, of course. But how can we get past this lazy argument, as you put it?
Marcus: Well, the first step is to admit it’s a lazy argument and can lead to unfair discrimination. As you implied, some discrimination is fair enough. Every organization is entitled to select good workers. No business should be expected to allow people to stand around and lean on their shovels all day. That said, sometimes an appeal to fit is just a cover for prejudice. If everyone rejected all those who are “not one of us,” the world would be a poorer place.
Tullius: Sad to say, many people do just that. And we are all the poorer for it. Segregation may not be the law of the land, but churches, schools, neighborhoods, and cities are still segregated in many ways. Gated communities are everywhere, and the homeschool movement doesn’t seem to want “those people” near “our kids.”
Marcus: That last remark may have some validity. At least it’s not entirely wrong. Sometimes we get so focused on fit that we forget to account for individuality and diversity. What if we were all the same? Even if it were possible, which it isn’t, would that really be preferable? There is an ancient analogy between how the parts of the body are different, yet still work together, and the way we as a community ought to work together, despite our differences. Paul wrote about how the eye needs the ear and the foot needs the hand, and vice-versa. Nevertheless, even churches close ranks when confronted with too much diversity. It seems to me learning to work with differences is essential to a healthy body – or a thriving organization.
Tullius: That may be. But what about people who feel threatened by those who are not like them? Isn’t the “not a good fit” argument based on fear?
Marcus: I didn’t say it wasn’t. And in a sense, it is. You weren’t sure whether your first-round candidate would be a good fit, so you suggested that it should be his choice. However, we know for certain that several people were so concerned he wouldn’t fit that they cut him off. Doesn’t that say more about them than your candidate?
Tullius: I hadn’t thought about it that way. Then, doesn’t it follow that being hesitant about immigrants, persons of color, or those who don’t conform to traditional gender expectations reveals a certain level of fear?
Marcus: If not fear, at least anxiety. Many people do not feel comfortable around those who are different. Being afraid to admit they might not be able to welcome the newcomer, they declare, “he or she is not a good fit.” Who’s the source of the bad fit then? The old hand or the new person?
Tullius: A good question. It seems to me an embarrassing question. I still don’t understand what can be done, though. Some probably aren’t a good fit – such as those who are unqualified or who are unable or unwilling to learn. How can we get past the prejudice and make a fair assessment?
Marcus: One way is by doing what we are doing now – talking about the problem. You and I are closer to making sure someone who deserves a chance gets one. We are also closer to making sure someone who is truly not a good fit isn’t imposed on an organization. I think we’ve both seen what happens when the boss’s nephew or a raging ideologue is thrust upon a group.
Tullius: Yes. It’s not ideal, pardon the word choice. Someone who does not fit can jeopardize the whole organization.
Marcus: And someone who otherwise might have been rejected can become the cornerstone.
Tullius: Hmm…that sounds Biblical. I have nothing to add.
Marcus: And that’s why we need to find those who might have something important to add, even if they don’t appear to be a good fit.
Tullius: Let’s meet again soon.
Marcus: I’m looking forward to it.
MurrayWorks 