Hiring for Fit – Send In the Clones

The word fit according to Merriam-Webster online dictionary is “…a sudden violent attack of a disease especially when marked by convulsions or unconsciousness… an emotional reaction as in anger or frustration… in an impulsive and irregular manner.” Obviously proponents of hiring for fit are not using this definition to describe their beliefs, but several words in this definition may be applicable: unconsciousness; emotional; frustration; impulsive; irregular. Once upon a time bosses hired whomever they damn well pleased. It made no difference how the new hire impacted the existing culture and such unconscious decision making was the result of emotional choices rather than logic. Frustration of the existing workforce was the result of impulsive or irregular intervention into their environment.  Management by executive whim is not a new phenomenon.

The paradox of fit is a classic battle between status quo and moving forward towards corporate goals. The least disruptive fit for the work environment would be someone that would not stick out like a sore thumb. This path of least resistance is the reason that hiring for fit stirs up controversy and conjures up images of only hiring young, attractive, and energetic employees. But that isn’t true… that would be discrimination… or is it? Glassdoor recently selected Facebook as the #1 company to work for based on comments submitted to their website. Watching the slick self-congratulatory video about how good it is to work at Facebook there is one glaring omission: There are no “gray panther” types depicted as working in that culture of young, attractive, and energetic people. Whether or not this is wrong is a matter of opinion, but the value of age diversity is assumed to be beneficial and ageism itself is one of those borderline illegalities that usually can’t be proved.

In his book “Beauty Pays: Why Attractive People Are More Successful” Daniel Hamermesh, an economics professor at the University of Texas in Austin, discusses the benefits of being among the non-ugly employees. His research shows that attractive people are likely to earn an average of 3% to 4% more than a person with below-average looks. With the exception of actors, models, and television correspondents, looks are not usually considered bone fide occupational qualifications, but there are studies that show attractive candidates have a better chance of being hired than someone with a so-so appearance. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal Hamermesh mentions that this form of discrimination is wrong and analogous with other forms of “disability” discrimination. Unlike other disabilities, there is very little research on the characteristics that make people beautiful. Even if it could be defined beyond any question, nobody would really want the government to enforce uglyism discrimination protection.

Beyond the generally accepted criteria for hiring candidates with applicable skills and experience is that invisible and undefined characteristic that is beyond measure. When the body of 100 applicants is whittled down to a handful of finalists, the differences between them may be a subtle distinction of personality or some other esoteric characteristic. This is the first in a series of articles that will attempt to raise consciousness of the wrongness of some actions and shine a light on practices that can make hiring for fit less of a whim.

• Part 1 – Hiring for Fit – Send In the Clones (This Article)
• Part 2 – Hiring for Fit – Finding the Pattern to Match
• Part 3 – Hiring for Fit – Find and Hire Culture Matches
• Part 4 – Hiring for Fit – Remember Diversity Matters
• Part 5 – Hiring for Fit – Mismatch Insurance

Image credit: paha_l / 123RF Stock Photo