It does and that's what I generally understood it to mean. The problem to me is that its so vague that it serves as a blanket justification for denying someone employment based on "gut feeling" or other basically discriminatory practices. It seems like it can also include "is willing to be in the office 12 hrs a day because he has no home life". No one would actually codify this in writing, but I have a feeling these are the types of filters that fall under "culture fit".
Some will (largely correctly) say that if that's the filter they use against me then I wouldn't want to work there in the first place. The problem is that it allows these types of discrimination to feel justified because we all discuss them under the euphemism "culture fit" instead of calling them exactly what they are: blatant discrimination. Personally I think if you have a filter that you would use to disqualify someone, you should be willing to state it plainly.
Culture fit is more generally whether your personality is a mesh with everyone else's personality. It's typically a blanket over everything non-coding in an interview.
For example..
Positives:
* Person is a go getter, gets things done, doesn't get blocked
* Person is meticulous, pays careful attention to detail
* Person is a good communicator, articulating explanations eloquently
Negatives:
* Person stumbles around an incorrect solution until hints are given
* Person jumps to conclusion without considering the bigger picture (or the edge cases)
* Person doesn't seem to get it, or at least can't explain himself/herself well
---------
And this can then be inferred from the technical "coding" question, or in more traditional companies they will ask direct questions (usually known as "behavioral" questions) that focus on just those personality traits.
To give a particular example, at Amazon the "culture fit" of a candidate is how well they adhere to the company's leadership principles:
It seems like defining it as "personality is a mesh with everyone else's" is exactly the vague proclaimation I am against. While it seems reasonable on the surface, it allows for so much abuse to go unchecked.
Your amazon link seems to be a good way to define "culture fit". All companies should do this instead of keeping it vague.
Some will (largely correctly) say that if that's the filter they use against me then I wouldn't want to work there in the first place. The problem is that it allows these types of discrimination to feel justified because we all discuss them under the euphemism "culture fit" instead of calling them exactly what they are: blatant discrimination. Personally I think if you have a filter that you would use to disqualify someone, you should be willing to state it plainly.