> The types of things you mention seem perfectly legitimate.
I certainly assume OP's team is well-intentioned, but I'm skeptical that hiring for uniformity of "how do you attack problems" or "how do you learn and grow" is a good idea.
My hope is that the OP meant that they test that people can attack problems, and can learn... rather than aiming for the team to do those things homogenously.
Personally I'd disassociate those things out of any umbrella assessment of "fit" and just assess them as independent skills during the broader hiring process.
Right. But the fact that you and your colleagues care that people can attack problems and can learn is what the culture is. You would be surprised, some cultures are built with a desire for 'follow the leader' mentality, and do not care if you can attack problems, as long as your willing to obey.
I certainly assume OP's team is well-intentioned, but I'm skeptical that hiring for uniformity of "how do you attack problems" or "how do you learn and grow" is a good idea.
My hope is that the OP meant that they test that people can attack problems, and can learn... rather than aiming for the team to do those things homogenously.
Personally I'd disassociate those things out of any umbrella assessment of "fit" and just assess them as independent skills during the broader hiring process.