Company: InnovateLabs (fictitious)
A startup incubator with 200 employees, supporting early-stage ventures across fintech, edtech, and consumer technology.
Background
InnovateLabs has been looking to fill a Senior Product Manager role for two months. The position sits at the intersection of technology and business strategy, requiring someone who can work closely with founders, move fast, and navigate ambiguity.
After three rounds of interviews, one candidate stood out on every technical dimension.
Arjun Khanna has twelve years of experience across two large financial services firms. His problem-solving was precise, his product thinking sound, and his answers to scenario-based questions among the strongest the panel had seen.
And then he was rejected anyway.
The feedback, shared informally among the panel, was that Arjun was “too formal,” “not fun enough,” and “probably wouldn’t gel with the team.” One interviewer noted that he seemed more comfortable with hierarchy than with InnovateLabs’ flat, fast-moving culture.
No specific behavioural concern was cited. No example was given of a value conflict or a working style that would create genuine problems. The rejection rested entirely on instinct and impression.
When HR reviewed the feedback, something felt off.
The dilemma
Should HR challenge the hiring team’s decision, pushing for a structured reassessment of what “culture fit” actually means at InnovateLabs, and whether Arjun’s rejection reflects a genuine organisational need or an unconscious preference for familiarity?
Or should HR accept culture fit as a legitimate hiring criterion and defer to the panel’s judgement, recognising that team cohesion matters and managers must own their hiring decisions?
What’s really at stake
This is a question about what organisations actually mean when they say culture.
If culture fit refers to shared values, ways of working, and a common commitment to how the organisation wants to operate, it is a legitimate and important hiring lens. If it refers to personality style, communication register, or simply whether someone reminds the panel of themselves, it is bias with a respectable name.
The problem is that both can look identical in a debrief room.
Arjun has not been rejected for poor performance, weak thinking, or a values conflict. He has been rejected because he did not “feel” like the team. In startup cultures that prize informality and energy, that instinct often carries disproportionate weight.
The risk of challenging the panel is real. If HR overrules a hiring team’s instinct and the candidate struggles to integrate, trust in HR’s judgement weakens. But the risk of not challenging it is equally serious. Organisations that repeatedly hire for comfort rather than capability build cultures that are cohesive but narrow, and increasingly resistant to the very diversity of thought that drives innovation.
The deeper question is harder to ignore: if “culture fit” cannot be defined, evidenced, or separated from personal preference, should it be allowed to end a candidacy at all?
We asked three HR leaders how they would approach this dilemma.
What HR leaders said
Adil Malia, CEO, The Firm
“If I were looking at this case, my first reaction would be to question the basis of the rejection. Culture fit is an important criterion, but it must be used as a positive framework for selecting people who can succeed, not as a vague excuse to eliminate those who appear different from the majority.
In this situation, I would challenge the hiring team’s reasoning because labels such as ‘too formal,’ ‘not fun enough,’ or ‘not one of us’ are highly subjective. These observations say more about preferences than about cultural incompatibility. A candidate should be considered a poor fit only when their values, behaviours, management style, or leadership philosophy fundamentally conflict with the organisation’s core beliefs and ways of working.
I have personally experienced cultural transition myself. After spending over two decades in multinational environments such as GE, Marks & Spencer and Coca-Cola across India and overseas, I joined a traditional Indian legacy organisation. Similar questions around cultural compatibility may very well have existed in people’s minds then. Yet adaptation happened, and I successfully worked in that environment for nearly a decade.
That is why I believe HR’s role here is not to simply accept perceptions at face value. I would ask deeper questions: will these differences genuinely prevent effectiveness? Is the candidate willing to adapt? Could the organisation itself benefit from a different perspective?
Adaptability cannot be assumed, but it can certainly be explored through meaningful conversations.
Culture fit should not become coded language for ‘people like us.’ Diversity of styles often strengthens organisations more than uniformity ever can.”
Rajorshi Ganguli, President and Global Head – HR, Alkem Laboratories
“I see this case with a degree of balance because culture fit cannot be dismissed entirely. A technically brilliant candidate can still struggle if the organisation requires a certain way of collaborating, influencing teams, or working across functions.
Suppose an organisation has a highly approachable and non-hierarchical environment. If a candidate comes across as excessively formal or deeply hierarchy-driven, there may genuinely be concerns around integration. Over time, such differences can create friction.
Therefore, I would not ignore cultural signals altogether.
However, I would not advocate for immediate rejection either. My approach would be to dig deeper and understand whether these perceived differences are cosmetic or whether they could eventually affect work outcomes. Is the candidate formal because of a previous corporate setting? Or does he genuinely operate in ways that may make collaboration difficult?
I have seen situations where organisations knowingly take calculated risks. There are instances where we sense a possible culture gap, yet still move ahead because we believe the person can adapt and succeed. There are also situations where we consciously hire people who bring different ways of thinking because the business needs change agents.
I recall a hiring decision from earlier in my career. A candidate was technically exceptional but displayed a strong sense of arrogance. The concern was not personality alone, it was whether that behaviour would affect teamwork and functioning after hiring. Such factors become important because unresolved behavioural issues can undermine even high capability.
Especially at senior levels, where leaders influence teams and shape environments, cultural alignment plays a bigger role. But context should always drive the decision.”
Rajesh Jain, CHRO, Vishvaraj
“In a case like this, I would see HR as the organisation’s balancing force. The easiest route is to accept the hiring team’s judgement; the more difficult but necessary path is to examine whether the rejection stems from evidence or instinct.
When words like ‘not fun enough’ enter hiring discussions, alarm bells should ring. Such phrases often reflect comfort zones rather than business realities. Teams naturally gravitate towards people who resemble them in style, communication, and personality. Left unchecked, this can create homogeneous workplaces that repeatedly hire the same type of individuals.
At the same time, HR cannot impose a candidate on a team if genuine concerns exist. Team acceptance matters. Therefore, I would encourage structured conversations around what exactly the organisation means by culture. If collaboration, openness, or agility are requirements, can those be assessed through examples and behaviours rather than labels?
The larger risk is not one rejected candidate. It is the possibility of building organisations where culture becomes shorthand for similarity. Innovation rarely thrives in environments where everyone thinks, behaves, and communicates the same way.”
If you were the CHRO at InnovateLabs
Do you:
- Accept the panel’s judgement and prioritise team cohesion?
- Ask the hiring team to define “culture fit” through specific behaviours before rejecting the candidate?
- Give Arjun one final conversation focused on adaptability and working style before making the decision?
Or is the deeper question this:
When organisations say “culture fit,” are they assessing values — or simply hiring people who feel familiar?
Share your perspective in the comments or on LinkedIn using #HRKathaCaseInPoint.