Opinion: Build teams for growth and innovation
Companies must move from 'Culture Fit' to 'Culture Add' ie, recruit for growth and not for harmony
By Akshita Pandey, Dr Moitrayee Das
For decades, HR practitioners and hiring managers have used “culture fit” as a premise for hiring new employees. The logic was straightforward: seek individuals who share the same values, communication norms, and attitudes as those already in the organisation so that they’ll fit in with the group naturally. On the surface, this seemed to offer harmony, cohesion, and simpler collaboration. Yet, as the nature of work has grown more dynamic, global, and diverse, the weaknesses in this thinking are becoming apparent.
What once drove harmony now imperils innovation, diversity, and inclusion. The issue is the way culture tacitly promotes sameness. In the absence of a definition of organisational culture, decisions to hire are made based on intuition, such as “Do I like this person?” or “Would I get along with them?”
Same as Them
Instead of looking at skill or potential, managers might unconsciously prefer applicants who are like them in terms of background, schooling, or interests. These biases, though subconscious, consistently put people from underrepresented groups at a disadvantage, eventually limiting the diversity of views and experience on a team.
Where teams consist of individuals who share the same thinking patterns, the same socio-cultural background, and the same socio-cultural experiences, they are likely to have cognitive uniformity. The teams might be able to sidestep conflict more readily, but they also miss out on a diverse perspective that fuels innovation and solving problems. This is where the culture adds philosophy, which becomes a game-changer.
Pluses of Culture
Culture adds changes to the recruitment focus from looking for an individual who can fit into the current mould to seeking out those who can add to and deepen the team. The focus question shifts to, “What does this individual bring that we don’t have?” Culture adds celebrates difference over conformity because it realises the unique experience, abilities, and worldview that each person brings—even if it rocks the boat—can advance an organisation.
As Miles (2024) describes, culture add is about hiring individuals who share the core mission and values of the organisation but also introduce something new, whether that’s a different skill set, an outside perspective based on life experience, or an innovative way of thinking. In this model, team-building is a force of expansion rather than duplication. Diversity is not treated as a box to be checked but as a strategic asset that creates resilience, creativity, and agility. This does not equate to removing the requirement for alignment entirely.
Creating fantastic teams is not a matter of bringing on people we like but about looking for people who challenge us, and make us better
Companies still need employees who have their purpose and values. Instead, though, of hunting for superficial indicators of fit, hiring teams are urged to search for complementary differences that add strength to the overall capability of the group. The culture adds a mindset that builds teams that are not only more diverse but also more dynamic, empathetic, and solution-focused. When individuals are hired based on what differentiates them, they feel more visible and appreciated. This feeling of belonging creates higher psychological safety, a key driver for allowing individuals to speak openly, share new perspectives, and work collaboratively.
Employees who believe they were hired due to their special offerings are more likely to remain motivated, question current assumptions, and actively contribute to team problem-solving. Miles’ (2024) research indicates that psychological safety enhances rates of retention, particularly for employees from historically marginalised groups. Culture and implementation take more than shifting job advertisement language. It demands a transformation of recruitment processes.
Reframing Declarations
Companies need to avoid vague declarations such as “should be a good cultural fit” and instead clearly state the explicit values that they cherish and the vacancies that they want to fill. For example, rather than stating, “We’re looking for someone who fits in,” job descriptions could say, “We’re looking for someone who brings new perspectives and helps us think differently.” This reframing signals that applicants are valued for their ability to contribute, not simply to blend in.
The interview process must become more intentional and structured as well. Hiring managers must be trained to recognise their own biases, distinguish between genuine alignment with the mission of the company and superficial similarities, and screen candidates on the basis of behaviours and experiences illustrating how they could contribute value. Diverse panels of interviewers, standardised assessment criteria, and behavioural interviewing questions are critical tools in minimising unconscious bias and making more equitable hiring decisions.
As Montgomery Jr (2022) observes, successful organisations in today’s rapidly evolving business world are those that are open to change, rapidly adaptive, and continually innovative. These competencies rely not only on demographic diversity but also on diversity of experience and thought. Culture add enables these capabilities by unifying individuals who test assumptions and bring new ideas.
The payoffs of culture add extend beyond short-term team dynamics. In the long run, teams constructed with this approach are more likely to foster respectful disagreement, consider many sides of an issue, and exercise empathy by working across differences. These abilities are essential not just for innovation but also for customer relations, crisis management, and leadership development.
In addition, culture add fosters fairness in the work environment. In the past, numerous candidates, most notably underrepresented groups, have been shut out based on perceived differences, even when they were well qualified. By flipping the concept of belonging to co-creation instead of conformity, culture add eliminates exclusionary behaviour and permits more individuals to envision themselves thriving in positions where they can have a tangible impact.
But to really adopt culture add, organisations need to establish what their own culture is first. That is, they need to define their values, behaviour, and purpose with honesty regarding the gaps that are present. Only then can they look for individuals who will challenge them in positive and constructive directions.
According to What are Culture Fit and Culture Add (n.d.), culture add is most effective when it helps fortify a clearly defined identity and not fill it with ambiguity. Eventually, creating fantastic teams is not a matter of bringing on people we like to hang out with or who share similarities with us. It’s about looking for people who challenge us, surprise us, and make us better. This takes discomfort, trust, and a frame shift, from similarity to contribution.
While organisations move forward in a more complex, interconnected world, hanging onto culture fit threatens to create stagnation and isolation. Those who adopt culture add, those who recruit for growth and not for harmony — are those who will lead. Rather than using the question, “Who fits in here?” it is time to use the question, “Who helps us grow?
(Akshita Pandey is an undergraduate student, and Dr Moitrayee Das is Assistant Professor of Psychology, FLAME University)
