There's plenty of research that shows that organisations composed of different people (introverted/ extroverted, men/women, ...) deliver much better results. That's why I find the contemporary cult of "the right fit" so surprising. Companies are looking for copies of employees they already have instead of employees they need.

Introverted does not equal poor social skills. You can be perfectly charming and likable and still be an introvert.

@385703 That's true, but needs to be balanced against the fact that hiring people can be extremely expensive. You don't want to hire someone for a professional position who's going to leave in 6 months.

@385703 That research covers generalized, large-scale cases, not specific small-scale ones. Having been in such work environments as a Marine infantry squad, I can assure you that 'company culture' is a real thing, and some people just don't fit. Especially with small teams, best to bring in people who will socially integrate.

@kingledion. No, it's better to create a culture that accepts and values differences. That's much more difficult than taking 5 exactly the same people of course. I once had a boss I found super difficult - and I'm sure he found me difficult too. He was loud and quite obnoxious, I'm more of a data-driven introvert. But he was a good, fair person. If you asked me for one person I learnt most from, I would need to tell you it was him. I miss working with him too. On the other hand, I'm currently working with a similar boss, who's an asshole. I will use the 1st opp. to leave.

@385703 There are plenty of companies that properly define "the right fit" that do not lose out on those gold mine employees. There just also a lot of companies that don't know how to do culture right. Many more that don't than that do.

+1 I've definitely knocked someone back, because despite being a much stronger candidate (they aced the whole interview), someone else felt like a better fit personality wise

@385703, why do you think "the right fit" means carbon copies? A right fit for my company is someone who values lifelong learning, family, working hard, and is generally easy going. To say they are carbon copies of each other is crazy. They are each individuals with very different personalities, ages, etc.

@CramerTV do you also prefer that they are detail oriented and good at seeing the big picture?

@385703 I'm with CramerTV on this. Based on my own anecdotal evidence "good fit" is not the same as "carbon copy". The last time I was involved in hiring we had two candidates that were roughly equal on paper. One had more recent experience in the primary tool, the other had much more experience in general. It came down to a fit thing where one displayed more flexibility than the other in problem solving approach. Due to communication issues between departments in my organization, someone who gets stuck on plan A isn't going to be a good fit.

@385703 The one we ended up hiring was a slight extrovert in a group of introverts, end of career in a group of late 20s to late 30s, someone who came up through a hands on wrenches role in a group that exclusively started in the office. 100% not a carbon copy.

@385703, I'm sorry you had a poor experience in interviewing. But "getting the right people on the bus" or having people be a "good fit" for the corporate culture is definitely important to a business. It does not mean they are carbon copies. I do agree with you that a diverse workforce is important and can make a company do better. Toxic relationships in the workplace are bad for business and health (since we spend so much time at work.)

@385703 I'm all for being open to different types of people, but I also much prefer to work with people I click with. If you like each other and you've similar work attitude, compatible humour that can be way more fun and motivating than if you have brilliant people that you cannot properly communicate with or that you need to always watch yourself to not step on their toes in some way. Of course, that doesn't mean you need totally equal people, and qualifications need to be good enough too. But once a certain level is there, I'd rather go for a good fit than someone slightly better on paper.

Would you employ Sheldon Cooper?

@385703 A "poor fit" in a corporate environment is usually more a reflection of the candidate than the enviroment. The people I pass on hiring for "poor fit" are usually people with strong, intransigent personalities - people who have a difficult time adapting to situation and circumstance and who would require the team to adapt to them rather than the other way around.

@DarrenBartrup-Cook. Probably not as part of my PR team. Everything is context based. There are clearly things for which Sheldon Cooper would be the ideal hire. In that case, I would hope to have the wisdom to hire him. For everything else, clearly not, but that applies to everyone. I would not hire the charming PR guy to do Sheldon's job either.

@NuclearWang 'An employee is more than their resume' is one side of the coin, the other being 'An interviewer is only human'. I fail to see why most answers here automatically assume a flawless, merit-based recruitment process

(-1) This answer fails to even contemplate the fact that some recruitment processes might be flawed instead turning to weak rationalizations of the hiring decisions this person faced as if they were necessarily sound and correct. There is ample research showing they usually aren't.