We hire for competence and fire for fit. That pattern plays out in organizations all the time. A candidate impresses with experience, credentials, and results. The resume checks every box, and the interviews feel strong.
Months later, the story shifts. Communication issues arise, their preferred way of working doesn’t match the actual work, and they don’t collaborate well with others.
When a leader says someone isn’t a culture fit, it often means their behavioral style clashes with the manager’s preferences or with the team members’ styles. That is not the same as poor performance.
Most terminations citing attitude or communication problems stem from expectations that were assumed rather than clearly defined.
First, we hire based on past achievements without considering how those results were achieved. Did they excel in structured environments or more flexible ones? Did they work independently or collaboratively? Were they rewarded for speed or accuracy? A top performer in one setting might struggle in another if behavioral expectations differ.
Second, we onboard for tasks, not behaviors. We provide goals and teach processes and systems. We rarely explain, “Here’s how decisions are made here. Here’s how conflict is handled. Here’s how feedback flows.” Without that clarity, people revert to what worked in previous roles. Sometimes that aligns, but often it doesn’t.
Third, we avoid giving early behavioral feedback. When someone is hired based on their resume but their natural way of operating conflicts with how the role or culture truly functions, they are set up to fail. Challenging ideas, moving quickly, or working independently may have contributed to their past success. In a different environment, those same behaviors can cause friction if expectations were never clearly communicated and feedback to redirect behaviors is not provided.
The outcome is expected. We present the issue as a personality problem, but it’s actually about misalignment.
Every workplace has unspoken rules about pace, tone, collaboration, risk tolerance, and conflict.
When those rules remain hidden, people often violate them unintentionally. As a result, we judge them for it. When someone underperforms, ask, “Is this a competence gap, a personality issue, or a clarity gap?”
Then consider… Have we clearly defined what effective collaboration looks like here? Have we outlined how urgency is prioritized, how disagreements are expressed, and how accountability is demonstrated? Or have we just assumed that smart adults will figure it out?
Smart adults will bring what worked before. If you don’t shape it, you inherit it.
In the end, people rarely fail because they cannot do the work. They fail because they operate in a system that never told them how to work together.
About Merrick Rosenberg
Merrick Rosenberg is the creator of the Eagle, Parrot, Dove, and Owl personality framework and author of Personality Intelligence: Master the Art of Being You. As an award-winning speaker and founder of Take Flight Learning, Merrick has helped hundreds of thousands of people unlock the power of personality styles to transform their communication, leadership, and relationships. He’s on a mission to make self-awareness accessible, fun, and unforgettable.
