Which would you hire: a candidate with a lower cost, or one with a better culture fit?

My experience is that "saving" dollars by hiring someone who is not as good a fit to your organization is a myth. If the person is within your "hiring range" or even a little beyond it and represents a great fit then make the investment.
40% of newly hired or newly promoted managers fail within the first 18 months because of "fit" not technical skills.
The DOL estimates we lose $5 trillion in the U.S. economy annually because of turnover.
Alternatively organizations with high engagement outperform their competition in EVERY key performance area. Engagement starts with hiring.
People aren't a cost they are an investment....

I am not HR master or guru. I actually run an inside sales team. In this position I have participated is over 25 interviews and have had such a decision to work through in the past. In my experience, it is a relatively easy choice. You go with with the culture fit.

Having a strong team of like minded individuals is the greatest asset a company can have. People feed off of each others energy, creativity is pushed to new levels and when it comes to a deadline, everyone is more willing to put in extra time and effort because the overall culture around them supports such actions. The "culture fit" option can help to bring a new level of excellence to an already established and strong team.

Sure, you save a couple bucks with the lower cost option and everyone loves a good deal. However, I am under the school of thought that quality product requires investment. Say you want to by a pair of leather boots. Option #1 sells for 70 dollars and is mass produced in a 3rd world country. Option #2 is made by hand in the US or Europe with care and experience, but sells for 275 dollars. Yes, the first pair are cheap, but see how long they last. The second pair fit like boots you have worn for years and will be able to be passed down to your children. This goes for hiring options as well. Sure the second option is going to cost a bit more, but the benefit of have a strong team with a cohesive culture will be far more beneficial in the long run. Not to mention, your feet won't hurt as much!

Neither!!!!!
1 st what exactly is a cultural fit? is it the Yaucht club, or the Polo Club, or maybe the Golf club. Does it mean fitting in with the Young crowd or the older crowd..
America is not made up of one specific culture so why would a company limit itself to being boring, and stale. .not being able to maintain diversity through their diverse employees.. one cant find diversity by having everyone fit like a glove.. How boring

2 - Lower Cost? well sometimes we get what we pay for.. if a candidate is Great, why would he /she want to stay if one doesn't pay them what they are worth.. someone will always come along and either respect their value, or they will find someone on their own..

Strategic thinking is the wellspring of good decisions with long term veracity. Within the context of 'Return on Investment', the evaluation should be sieved by means of Life Cycle Cost: Wherein conscientious scrutiny shall be deployed in identification of acquisition cost, cost of usage, cost of maintenance and cost of disposal. On that note, regardless of how low-paid a worker may be, in the absence of proper fit the cost of usage and cost of maintenance would be driven to astronomical heights in the course of attempting to transform the worker and effect required strategic alignment in exactitude. In effect, the alluring gains at acquisition stage becomes weather-beaten and a stigma of mediocrity at an advanced stage of employment cycle. As a result, the total cost of placement shall be unwarranted and wasteful when compared to using a worker with better culture fit.

Dr Elijah Ezendu
http://advancingci.blogspot.com/
http://advancinghr.blogspot.com/

The question is incomplete and should read “Which would you hire: a candidate with a lower cost, or one with an adequate or better job suitability, i.e., had the talent demanded by the job?" If both are competent, I'd opt to hire the one with the higher job suitability provided it is much higher and not just a little bit higher. For instance, 85% is a lot higher than 70% whereas 85% is about same as 83%. Below 70% the cheap hire should not be hired.

Mark, great comments. The DOL estimate might be high but I think it is still into the trillions.

Hi Nancy ...for the most part, I come down on the side of the more-money-but-better-fit option that previous commenters also tend to advocate. But I would also challenge the notion that culture is sacrosanct. For example, perhaps the culture needs to evolve and you need people to come into the organization to help with a culture shift. So first and foremost when considering new talent and a culture fit, a company's leadership (and especially the HR group) needs to know exactly if their culture is working for them or not and then hire accordingly. Hope this helpful.

Geoff Vincent
CEO, BizCompare Inc.
http://www.bizcompare.com

HI nancy,

There's absolutely no qestion - cultural fit is significantly more important.

People with poor cultural fit are less productive, less engaged and cost more over their lifetime in management oversight, than those who are a good fit with the company.

No contest!