Culture fit can be a perfectly valid explanation for low performance, for example:
- You are cautious and methodical but the company needs to experiment and swing wildly.
- You excel at focusing on a project but the position requires you to multitask frequently.
- Your understanding of the company's goals has become more complete and it turns you don't find them as motivating as you expected.
- You don't adapt to some general work practices re: hours, remoting, scheduling & tracking, deployment, meetings.
- Personality clash with other team members due to age, personality, lifestyle or (dare I say) some demographic factor.
However, 'culture fit' is a reason for low performance, but low performance should still be the reason why the employee is getting fired. If the company has not identified the problem and tried a recovery plan before actually firing the employee, that company has a serious HR problem.
And if performance is the issue, why even mention cultural fit during the firing? Items 1,2 and 4 are perfectly justifiable reasons for firing without invoking the "cultural fit" clause. Why not simply stick with the observations of (non-)performance rather than offering your judgements of the cause(s) of the non-performance? I can understand quitting because of reason #3, but not being fired because of it, unless it leads to poor performance. So again, fire me for poor performance, not because you believe - rightly or wrongly - that I'm not as motivated by your goals as I used to be. As long as my performance does not taper off one iota, it should not matter to you. And yes, for some people, loss of passion for company goals would lead to decreased performance. But other people might have additional motivating factors that allow them to maintain enthusiasm and continue to perform at a high level. Why should that be a problem?
Yes, I recognize that my refusal to accept that we must all have the identical motivating factors is a prime example of why I would be a poor cultural fit with many start-ups.
Exactly, that's what I mean when I say that "cultural fit" should never be considered or offered as the cause of firing. However,
> Why not simply stick with the observations of (non-)performance rather than offering your judgements of the cause(s) of the non-performance?
Because I expect any decent manager & company to at least try to (a) identify the reasons for low performance, and (b) discuss possible correction plans together with the employee. Actively identifying and correcting causes for low performance is in my opinion essential to maintain perspective on how and why your company works. This perspective is necessary to understand and strengthen the practices and pillars that increase your team's performance.
- You are cautious and methodical but the company needs to experiment and swing wildly.
- You excel at focusing on a project but the position requires you to multitask frequently.
- Your understanding of the company's goals has become more complete and it turns you don't find them as motivating as you expected.
- You don't adapt to some general work practices re: hours, remoting, scheduling & tracking, deployment, meetings.
- Personality clash with other team members due to age, personality, lifestyle or (dare I say) some demographic factor.
However, 'culture fit' is a reason for low performance, but low performance should still be the reason why the employee is getting fired. If the company has not identified the problem and tried a recovery plan before actually firing the employee, that company has a serious HR problem.