This article was written by Ken Leaver who comes from a product & commercial background. He has founded multiple companies and held senior product positions at SEA tech companies like Lazada and Pomelo Fashion.
Now Ken runs his own agency that helps early stage startups with content and traction called End Game.
Guest Author: Ken Leaver
Startup founders love talking about how they value ‘cultural fit’. They often brag about how they invest lots of time & effort into determining cultural fit.
And to be honest I was guilty of the same for many years.
But now my definition of ‘fit’ has completely changed. Let me explain.
When someone says they are looking for cultural ‘fit’… what are they really judging?
They’re judging whether the person has the same attitudes as they and their team do. And underneath it… they’re generally asking themselves “Do I like this person? Can I see myself working with them?”
Now analyze what is going on underneath this type of question. You’re essentially looking for people that are more similar to you and give a good impression.
And I have generally found that to be one of the leading ‘smoke screens’ that sometimes leads you to choose the wrong people if you want to put together an awesome team.
Now let’s wind it back and give some more context.
How do I define ‘fit’ now?
I define fit relatively simply these days.
Are they disciplined in following my system and can they bring results?
That is it.
I don’t care whether they are the type of person I will like. In part because I’m not even going to try to get to really know them.
We’re going to work with each other mainly by executing tasks. There will be almost no recurring meetings and no team-building events, etc.
And yet…. if they follow the system than in my experience they will really enjoy working with me and my team.
Because everything that they are asked to do will be laid out and prioritised in a very clear way.
No more getting vague instructions from your manager and then being scolded when you interpreted a bit different than what they had in their head.
Over the years I’ve had a couple of managers like that. And I want to create systems that show them for what they are… “crappy managers.”
Why is this a better way of defining ‘fit’?
I work with lots of folks that I probably have poor cultural fit with.
Meaning we might have different values, different communication styles, etc.
- A 50-year old woman that has a couple kids? Sure. Bring her on!
- A 22-year old guy that is a loner and doesn’t like interacting with others much? Give me him! I’ll make him a star!
With these folks if we actually got to know each other personally i wouldn’t be surprised if sometimes we ended up not even liking each other.
And so I don’t try to get to know them personally. Hahaha
But more importantly… I create a system that works regardless.
A system that avoids the creation of ‘cliques’ and doesn’t rely on relationships to succeed.
It’s much more fair in my view. You get a set of tasks that are clear. You do them well and on time. And if you do that better than the others, you move up.
Meanwhile everyone you need support from gives it quickly and accurately… not because you are their friend or the ‘relationship’ you developed.
Rather only because that is the process and they know that sticking to the process is instrumental to their performance.
So in a way I like to view the culture that is created in my teams as one of ‘extreme fairness’.
Why is seeking ‘cultural fit’ a smoke screen?
To me cultural fit is only a half step away from clique-type behavior. Think about it…
…you are trying to find people that ‘fit’ in with the existing group. And therefore you are defining the existing group by a set of values.
- Perhaps the team is young and likes to go out a lot together
- Or perhaps the team is really smart and came from good schools
But is the company, if it scales, likely going to need a variety of other folks that likely do not fit this archetype? YES!
For example when I was in consulting well over a decade ago you would broadly hear the ‘big 3’ described as:
- McKinsey had the really hardcore folks that could sometimes act like assholes
- BCG had the perception of having a lot of academics who were really smart, but nice people.
- Bain was known as the ‘frat boys’.
Was this true of everyone in the company? Probably not.
There were probably lots of folks in each of those companies that did not fit that bill.
And yet this perception would lead certain types of folks to apply and focus more on one company over another.
So how did that perception actually help them? I would argue it mainly worked against them.
And I, personally, see absolutely no value in that when putting together my own team.
My ‘fit’ is defined not by cultural elements… but rather by willingness to follow the system
If you work with me, then the system defines that you are going to have to work in an extremely structured, transparent and disciplined way.
It’s almost like the old assembly line way of working but applied to modern white collar type tasks and projects.
You don’t need to get along and form bonds with everyone on the assembly line to be able to do your job successfully. And this puts being successful much more within your own power.
On the flipside if you’re a person that doesn’t want to operate that way or prefers to develop lots of strong relationships which protect you… then you’re probably not going to wanna work with me.
And to be honest… i will appreciate that.
All those folks that wanna go and create politics and work intransparently can work for someone else. I actually hope that my reputation for being extremely systematic scares them away.
Because my team will operate better for it.
Parting words
When more managers start to ‘get’ this, I believe they will start to realize how it is a major ‘unlock’ in terms of creating high performing teams.
I’ve worked for some great companies in my time… BCG, Visa, Groupon, Lazada, Wayfair, etc.
There were a lot of highly talented people.
But the most collaborative and what I consider ‘best performing’ teams that I worked with… were in the last ~3 years using this system.
Why? Because tasks were always clear, what you achieved was always very clear, and everyone responded and helped each other out quickly.
Not because of their relationships or that person’s leverage in the org.
Rather only because that was the system.
