The author is mocking keyword stuffing, but promoting "cultural fit" as "more impactful keyword". Sorry, but replacing technical keywords with some vague buzzwords does not improve your ads.
I think the wording is a bit unfortunate. I'm sure he doesn't mean you scan resume's for keywords like team player, communication, cultural fit, etc. Instead you should focus on these skills during the interview process, more than specific technologies or previous employers.
As others have said, the article identifies a big problem in hiring. However, it doesn't give you a lot of handles to solve anything.
So what is "cultural fit" then? If one didn't wear skinny jeans and don't enjoy playing foosball, he's out of luck? "Cultural fit" is one of the most offputting keyword for me, because as far as I've seen, it has one of two negative meanings: a) there's a monoculture inside company (usually "hipsters"). b) they creating a bubble around them and do not accept any other attitude than fanatically following their idea(s) which often leads to another overhyped bullshit-that-nobody-needs.
Being a "cultural fit" just means that the person will fit in well with the process and people at a company. Whether the "culture" in question is a specific type of culture is irrelevant. If you approach it from that perspective, you're probably taking the term at face value and missing the point.
The idea being expressed here is that if you bring in a new employee, even one that has no previous experience with the technologies being used, they will perform best if they are naturally in tune with the company's ideals and methodology, and can quickly develop camaraderie with the existing crew.
On the other hand, if you hire someone that knows all the necessary tech, but is constantly at odds with how things are done, alienates their coworkers, or manages to clog up the process in other ways--in those scenarios, everyone loses.
It has nothing to do with a cultural hive mind; it's just a matter of keeping a team synchronized and efficient.
Looking for people who will work well with the existing team is understandable and probably a good thing. The problem is that you have to be vigilant to not allow this to become looking for people who are similar to your current people. It's quite possible for a reasonable goal (finding candidates who will work well with existing employees) to have negative consequences (finding candidates who only fit a certain racial, cultural or gender expectation).
*Edit: Okay, I read both of the articles, and they were fairly interesting, so thanks. I do have a pet peeve / complaint though: Both of the articles purported to link to research, but neither actually did. the first article linked to a list of slide decks and the second article linked to a summary of research. I've read enough bad summaries now that I am working on becoming a primary sources junky. Do you know of any research on this issue that's been done?
I'd probably measure it by creating a test to see if they make snarky HN comments in search of attention or for the sake of contributing to discussion.
I understand that. But in real world, you can't check that about a prospect employer during the few interviews and it usually boils down to the things I've mentioned.
At my employer, "cultural fit" refers to our culture of honesty and transparency.
Basically, if you're the kind of people who will deceive customers, throw your coworkers under the bus, etc., we don't want you here. It seems to work out well for us; we consistently win awards for both customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction, our net promoter score is industry leading, and it's incredibly common for new hires to come from employee referrals.
