So you've whittled down the applicants to two. They have similar experience, comparable skills and both would do a great job and have the track record to prove it. But which one to choose?
This is when the most insidious idea creeps in: culture-fit. While well-intentioned, culture-fit results in at best mediocrity and at worst prejudice.
The argument in favour of culture-fit is that every organization has a distinctive culture and therefore you need to employ people who would fit in with that culture. This seems at first sensible but there are some big risks with this.
Culture-fit is a bit like saying let's employ people who are just like us. Employing people with the same age, race, educational background, class, dress sense, taste in music or whatever is a recipe for disaster. What is culture-fit if it isn't about saying there is a right way to be?
This is bad for your organization because it becomes like a cult when everyone thinks pretty much the same. This breeds both arrogance and complacency and these are the first signs of an organization in decline.
The best organizations are "broad churches". They value diversity and welcome different views and perspectives as well as varied backgrounds. These organizations are more able to change and remain fully aware of the complex world we live in.
So when next faced with the dilemma above, don't choose for culture-fit. Choose for culture-challenge: which applicant will broaden our perspective as an organization?
What do you think?