Cultural fit can be invisible exclusion. What if we asked about cultural add instead?

I had a client, let's call her Jane. Jane was repeatedly told she needed to “speak up in meetings” to be seen as a leader. Her team assumed her quiet demeanour meant she wasn’t engaged or lacked ideas. But Jane's processing style was different: she needed the meeting's chatter to fade and the time to process before she could fully consider her perspective and connect the dots. Once she did, her written insights were often more innovative than anything shared aloud. And it raises the question:

What are we missing when we assume people must look, sound, or communicate in one particular way to be successful?

The illusion of cultural fit

We want to foster values that align with our vision and mission or more localised team, however when this equates to assumed behaviours there is the potential this limits our culture. Whilst cultural fit can sound inclusive and what we need to perform, it can inadvertently create a mirror; a team that looks, thinks, and behaves the same. And excludes and dismisses the value of what sits outside this.

Cultural fit is a feedback loop. We hire people who already align with our culture or willing to shape shift into it, and in doing so, we never question if the culture itself is holding us back. The result? Teams that prize harmony over challenge. Teams that mistake sameness for strength. Teams that reward conformity over curiosity.

The Power of Cultural Add

What if, instead of asking, "Do they fit our culture?" we asked, "What do they add to our culture?"

Cultural add isn’t about assimilation. It’s about asking: How does this person’s perspective, strengths, or differences make us better? It’s not about lowering standards, it’s about raising the bar on the kind of culture you’re building.

Consider a team that values structure and process. They might see a creative thinker as "not a fit." But what if that disruption is exactly what they need to innovate? Or, in a team that prides itself on consensus, what if the person who challenges the status quo sparks the next big idea? And data backs this up: according to Harvard Business Review and Catalyst (2024–2025), [supported] neurodiverse teams can be up to 30% more productive than neurotypical-only teams.

What if the most valuable hires are the ones who don’t quite "fit" because they force us to grow?

The cost of fit

When we ask people to "fit in," we’re asking them to hide parts of themselves. We’re asking them to mask aspects like their communication style, work approach, or even their identity. Masking isn’t just exhausting; it’s a form of self-protection, often subconscious. But when we mask, we lose the ability to show up fully. We lose the chance to fully innovate, to connect, to show our full colour and capability, to lead with authenticity.

Frankly, that means performance and productivity. And this is happening almost everywhere: only 14% of neurodivergent employees say their workplace is psychologically safe, vs. 41% of neurotypical peers (City & Guilds Neurodiversity Index, 2025).

Instead of questioning the individual for masking or for needing to be authentic, what if we questioned why they mask? What about our culture or assumed norms feel unsafe? And what is it costing all of us by not seeing that?

Addressing this reality might mean sitting in the discomfort of learning to understand and appreciate different working or communication styles. It might mean questioning our assumed norms and reflecting on our own biases. It might mean accepting that our way isn’t the only way and that’s not a threat to our culture, but an opportunity to make it stronger.

What you can do to consider the add

1. Review hiring processes

How do you word expectations in job descriptions? Are they focused on behaviours and personality types or on clear skills and outcomes? Instead of asking, "Do they fit our culture?" try "What unique perspective can this person bring and contribute to the collective goals?"

2. Clarify values not behaviours

Cultural fit often conflates values with behaviours. Values are the why; behaviours are the how. Focus on the values like curiosity, resilience, or collaboration and be open and curious to letting people express them in their own way.

3. Reward challenge

Leaders often reward people who "fit in" who make things easy. But the best ideas often come from people who disrupt the status quo. How can you create a culture that rewards constructive debate and challenge, not just consensus?

4. Embrace the discomfort

Cultural add isn’t tidy. It’s messy. It’s uncomfortable. But it’s also where real growth happens. If your culture can’t handle difference, is it the culture you want and need? Encourage your team to do the same.

5. Prioritise safety

Build trusting relationships, normalise difference. Ask people how they work best. Believe them in their challenges. Curiosity over assumptions. Encourage communication and collaboration to see each other as all adding to the collective whole, not despite differences but because of differences. Create “onboarding” cards that allow individuals to safely communicate and normalise different ways of doing/being/strengths and challenges to support normalising differences

6. Feedback & bias

Performance reviews measure what someone delivers, not how they deliver it, unless the “how” directly impacts results. Is this a skill gap, or a style mismatch? Would we say the same if they worked in a different way? Have the curiosity to explore what assumptions are we making in our feedback. Compare feedback across teams to spot patterns of bias. If only one type of thinker or communicator is consistently rated “high,” dig deeper.

This isn’t about lowering standards. It’s about raising the bar on the kind of culture you’re building. It’s about asking: Are we building a culture that genuinely welcomes and celebrates difference, or one that rewards conformity?