One of the most common things I hear from people preparing for job interviews these days is that they did well in the interviews but were rejected because they didn't fit the culture.

Their resumes were fine, their experience was a perfect match, and they passed the practical tests, but the reason was culture fit. It's really confusing when you first hear it.

However, when you ask what exactly this is based on, companies often can't provide a clear answer. There isn't a standard criteria sheet, and most of the time, it's judged based on the interviewer's feelings, which is even more frustrating.

So today, I want to dig into what is actually hidden behind this vague expression.

There was a study conducted with 120 hiring managers asking what constitutes a good fit, and the results were somewhat disappointing.

It was mentioned that having been in a college rowing club, holding a scuba diving certification, or having dined at a Michelin restaurant were cited as evidence of a good fit.

On the other hand, answers emphasizing the importance of teamwork or a passion for customer satisfaction were not recognized as valid evidence of fit.

Just looking at these results, it becomes clear that culture fit is more about similarities in tastes and backgrounds rather than job performance.

In fact, research shows that candidates whose language habits are similar to existing employees are 33 to 53 percent more likely to be hired.

Just the fact that their tone, expression, or even the words they frequently use are similar to those of the interviewer significantly increases their chances of passing.

Ultimately, a structure is created where people who share specific schools, neighborhoods, or hobbies continue to be hired.

From the perspective of someone who appreciates a mix of diverse backgrounds, this is a frustrating point.

This isn't just a theoretical issue; there have been cases where it has escalated into legal disputes.

A Black candidate with a PhD at Facebook reported being told they needed to demonstrate more culture fit, which later became part of allegations of racial discrimination.

After this incident became known, Facebook changed its internal policies to prohibit the use of the term culture fit in interview feedback. The seriousness of the issue is evident when a single word is designated as a banned term.

The New York City Human Rights Commission has also specifically warned about this issue.

They stated that unstructured interviews or purely subjective evaluation criteria could lead to legally problematic outcomes for certain protected groups.

If the phrase "not a good fit" results in older candidates, women, or candidates of color being filtered out, the company faces legal risks.

So, this isn't just an unfair issue for candidates; it can also be a dangerous practice that could lead to lawsuits for companies.

Due to this awareness, many companies have started using the term culture add instead of culture fit in recent years.

This means they are looking to hire people who will add perspectives or backgrounds that are currently missing in the organization, rather than just fitting into the existing organizational atmosphere.

Some might say it's just a change of wording, but flipping the hiring criteria from looking for similar people to seeking those who bring something different is a significant shift in direction.

So, how can companies reduce this bias? The answer is surprisingly simple.

Research shows that structured interviews, where questions and scoring criteria are predetermined and applied equally to all candidates, are much more effective.

In fact, analyses indicate that structured interviews are nearly twice as accurate in predicting actual job performance compared to unstructured interviews.

Since scores don't fluctuate based on the interviewer's mood, condition, or preferences, this ultimately leads to fairer hiring practices.

From a job seeker's perspective, if you receive feedback that you weren't a good culture fit, I hope you don't start blaming yourself too much.

Often, when you ask specifically what part didn't fit, you won't get a clear answer, which could signal that the criteria itself was vague from the start.

In fact, if a company explains rejection reasons in such an ambiguous way, it might indicate that their hiring process is still not well organized.

If there are unusually many questions about hobbies or leisure activities during the interview and fewer job-related questions, it can provide hints about how that company judges fit.

I believe that organizations with a mix of diverse backgrounds ultimately last longer and are stronger. Therefore, I find it disappointing that the preference for similarity, wrapped in the term fit, continues to be used as a hiring criterion.

The next time you hear the term culture fit, it might be worth reflecting on whether it's really about work style or just about finding people with similar tastes.