What Two Years Sitting In Hiring Rooms Taught Us About "Culture Fit
- Dr Audrey-Flore Ngomsik
- Feb 8
- 7 min read
Updated: Feb 12
We spent two years as external consultants watching companies hire managers and directors.
They paid us to improve their processes.
What we saw was a masterclass in how bias disguises itself as professional judgment.
Same credentials on paper. Wildly different outcomes in practice.
Here’s what nobody wants to admit.
Names have been changed to protect confidentiality, but the patterns are real.
The First Pattern: Ethnicity
Naomi and Corinne interviewed for the same director role. Same MBA from INSEAD. Same 15 years in finance. Same track record.
Corinne walked in. Questions on strategic vision, risk management, industry network.
Someone mentioned Verbier. Ten minutes bonding over ski resorts. The conversation flowed.
Two weeks later, offer.
Naomi walked in. Different questions appeared.
“How do you handle conflict?”
“Do you think you’ll fit with our culture?”
“Can you work with strong personalities?”
Translation: Can you deal with being the only Black woman in the room without making us uncomfortable?
She gave the same answers Corinne gave. Cited research. Showed regulatory foresight expertise.
No one mentioned Verbier. No one bonded.
Three weeks later, email. “We’ve decided to go with someone who’s a better cultural fit.”
Here’s where it gets interesting.
The job posting said they valued “diverse perspectives” and “challenging the status quo.”
Corinne’s innovation answer: “We should look at what our competitors are doing and identify best practices.”
Naomi’s innovation answer: “Your competitors are copying each other. The regulatory landscape is shifting faster than your industry is adapting. Here’s where the gaps are.”
The role’s stated priority: “Preparing the organization for regulatory changes in sustainability.”
Corinne’s experience: Traditional finance. Strong on quarterly reporting.
Naomi’s experience: Led three companies through major regulatory transitions. Has relationships with policymakers. Knows what’s coming before it hits the news.
Guess who they called a “culture fit”?
They said they wanted fresh thinking.
Corinne suggested what they’re already doing.
Naomi suggested what they’re not ready to hear.
They hired Corinne.
Six months later, they got blindsided by exactly the regulatory changes Naomi had flagged.
What does “culture fit” actually mean when the person who fits your culture can’t see the risks the outlier spotted immediately?
The Second Pattern: Ethnicity Meets Gender
Same type of organization. Different director role. Claudia and Pierre.
Same credentials. Same MBA, same experience, same track record.
Pierre mentioned golf. Three hiring managers play golf. Ten minutes talking courses.
When he spoke, they leaned in. Bold suggestion? “Strategic thinking.”
One week later, offer.
Claudia got the same questions as Noami’s before. Conflict handling. Culture fit.
We watched them glance at each other. Silent communication excluding her.
Three weeks later, same email. “Better cultural fit.”
For every 100 men promoted to management, only 58 Black women get the same shot (1).
Black women account for 1.4% of C-suite executives. White men hold 68% (1).
When there’s only one diverse candidate in the finalist pool, they have statistically zero chance of being hired (1).
The hiring committee congratulated itself on interviewing a diverse slate.
What they gave Naomi was extra hoops that don’t exist for Pierre.
Then they called it merit.
The Third Pattern: Gender Alone
Different organization. Manager position. Corinne and Pierre.
Same credentials. Same interview questions.
Jean spoke with confidence. They leaned in.
Corinne spoke with the same confidence. We watched them shift in their seats.
Jean made a bold suggestion.
“Strategic thinking.”
Corinne made the same suggestion.
“Aggressive.”
Someone asked Corinne:
“This role requires significant travel. How will you manage that?”
Jean never got that question.
Two weeks later, email.
“You’re talented, but we’re looking for someone with more executive presence.”
The double blind became clear.
They wanted “strong leadership.”
Jean was direct.
“Decisive.”
Corinne was direct.
“Difficult.”
They valued “collaborative approach.”
Jean built consensus.
“Natural leader.”
Corinne built consensus.
“Lacks authority.”
Identical CVs receive different ratings based on gender. Male candidates rated as more competent and hireable (2).
A 2025 meta-analysis of 243,202 job applications confirmed systematic discrimination against women in male-dominated fields (and also confirmed the ethnicity bias) (3).
Same words. Different reactions.
Jean’s confidence was
“executive presence.”
Corinne’s confidence was
“not quite right for the culture.”
What “Culture Fit” Actually Costs
We watched this pattern repeat for two years.
“Culture fit” is code for comfort.
Research from Northwestern’s Kellogg School found that when interviewers said they “clicked” with a candidate, they meant similar background. Same sports, same schools, same vacation spots (4).
Then they dressed it up as professional judgment.
Research shows that non white women believe executive presence is defined by conforming to white male standards (5), with 56% of non white people reporting they're held to higher standards than white colleagues in demonstrating executive presence (6).
Women receive less quality performance feedback than men. Evaluations focus on personality traits instead of specific accomplishments (7).
The “think manager, think male” phenomenon means masculine traits are associated with leadership more than feminine traits (7).
These aren’t bad people making these decisions.
They’re good people operating in a system designed to make bias look like merit.
The Real Cost
Every hiring committee we observed claimed they wanted innovation. Fresh perspectives. Someone who could help them anticipate change.
Then they hired the person who reinforced what they already thought.
Naomi told them where the regulatory risks were. They hired Corinne. Six months later, blindsided.
Corinne gave them the same strategic recommendation as Pierre. They hired Pierre. Called him visionary.
The candidates who delivered what the committees said they wanted got rejected for not fitting the culture.
The candidates who reflected the existing culture back got hired.
Then the organizations wondered why they kept making the same decisions. Missing the same risks. Getting caught off guard by changes they claimed they wanted to anticipate.
Here’s what that pattern recognition costs them.
When you reject the outlier who spots the risks comfortable insiders never see, you’re not excluding diversity.
You’re excluding your early warning system.
The invisible work isn’t just the extra prep Naomi and Corinne did before interviews.
It’s knowing they’ll do it again at the next role. And the next one. And the next one.
It’s watching less qualified candidates walk in and get assumed competent while you prove yourself despite identical credentials.
It’s being told you’re “talented” but not quite right while watching someone with your exact background get called “executive material.”
Why This Matters
We went into this work expecting to see bias. We’ve read the research. We know the data.
What surprised me was how invisible it was to the people doing it.
No one in these rooms thought they were discriminating.
They thought they were assessing culture fit.
They thought they were evaluating executive presence.
They thought they were making objective decisions about who would be best for the role.
They were wrong.
But the system is designed to make that wrongness look like rightness.
After two years of watching this play out, here’s what we know.
The game is rigged to look fair.
Organizations will keep hiring comfort and calling it competence until they’re willing to examine what “culture fit” actually means in practice.
They’ll keep missing the perspectives they claim to want.
They’ll keep getting blindsided by risks they could have anticipated.
They’ll keep congratulating themselves on their commitment to diversity while rejecting the diverse candidates who actually show up.
What does it cost to hire someone who makes you comfortable instead of someone who makes you think?
Ask the companies that got blindsided by the exact risks their rejected candidates flagged.
They’re still calling it merit.
Why We Can Help Fix This
Dr Audrey-Flore Ngomsik, our co-founder, is one of statistical anomalies these hiring committees reject.
Black woman. Physical & Analytical Chemistry PhD. Brussels Climate Committee VP. Multi board director.
We got into these rooms by asking questions other people were afraid to ask. Then we built a methodology that turns uncomfortable truths into profit increases.
For two years, we watched companies pay us to observe their hiring processes while systematically rejecting candidates who looked like Dr Ngomsik. Candidates with better qualifications. Candidates who spotted risks the “culture fits” missed.
Those same companies now wonder why they keep getting blindsided by regulatory changes, market shifts, and systemic risks.
Here’s what we learned: The pattern recognition that makes someone “not quite right for the culture” is exactly what spots the problems comfortable consensus misses.
We work with organizations that are ready to examine what “culture fit” actually costs them. Not in moral terms. In economic terms.
Because when you hire comfort over competence, you don’t just lose diverse candidates. You lose your early warning system.
Trianon Scientific Communication, has helped companies increase profits by 60-80% by redesigning strategies around economic reality instead of comfortable assumptions.
We start with the questions your organization has been avoiding. Then we build frameworks that work.
Not every company is ready for that conversation.
But the ones that are don’t stay blind to risks their competitors keep missing.
If you want to examine what your hiring patterns are actually costing you, we answer provocative questions with data, not hope.
Comments