Employers often think they're communicating well, but they use 'neurotypical' standards of interacting, writes Brett Heasma

Heasman, Brett

LSE Research Online

Employers	may	discriminate	against	autism	withoutrealisingAutism	is	a	lifelong	developmental	disability	that	affects	how	people	connect	and	relate	to	others	and	also	howthey	experience	the	world	around	them.Most	non-autistic	people	are	not	aware	of	the	complex	ways	in	which	autistic	people*	experience	the	world	andare	not	adequately	prepared	for	interacting	or	working	with	autistic	people.	Autism	is	a	‘hidden’	disability,	with	noexternal	physical	signs,	and	it	encompasses	a	huge	range	of	people,	behaviours,	abilities	and	challenges	which,for	many	non-autistic	people,	takes	time	to	appreciate	and	understand.The	gap	in	public	understanding	of	autism	has	very	real	consequences	for	employment	prospects.	Only	16	percent	of	autistic	adults	are	in	full-time	work	despite	77	per	cent	of	those	unemployed	wanting	to	work.	Thisemployment	figure	has	not	changed	since	2007	and	remains	significantly	lower	than	the	average	employmentfigures	for	people	belonging	to	other	disability	categories	(47%.)	In	short,	something	is	going	seriously	wrong	inthe	workplace	for	autistic	people	to	be	so	disproportionally	unemployed.Social	world	and	impression	management	challengesThat	autistic	people	are	disadvantaged	is	not	surprising,	given	how	we	have	built	a	world	heavily	dependent	ontight	social	coordination	with	others.	Access	to	any	employment	opportunity	requires	candidates	to	navigate	thesocial	encounter	of	the	interview,	while	even	getting	to	the	stage	of	an	interview	in	the	first	place	requires	theability	to	build	social	capital	and	network	with	others.	For	people	who	have	life-long	difficulties	in	socialinteraction,	the	social	process	of	finding	employment	remains	a	considerable	obstacle.	A	lack	of	eye	contact,	or	asilence	that	lasts	too	long	can	have	very	negative	consequences	for	rapport.	Yet	autistic	people	may	give	offthese	signals	unintentionally,	which	is	why	employers	need	to	look	past	small-scale	social	cues	to	take	a	broaderperspective	on	what	is	meaningful	interaction.Relationship	challenges	and	the	‘double	empathy	problem’Building	professional	relationships	is	another	critical	issue.	I	have	worked	throughout	my	doctorate	with	a	charitythat	supports	young	autistic	adults,	and	have	seen	how	quickly	professional	and	personal	relationships	can	breakdown.LSE Business Review: Employers may discriminate against autism without realising Page 1 of 5		Date originally posted: 2017-07-31Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/07/31/employers-may-discriminate-against-autism-without-realising/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/A	recent	study	conducted	by	myself	and	Dr	Alex	Gillespie,	LSE,	has	shed	new	light	on	why	this	may	be	the	case.We	examined	family	relationships	between	autistic	adults	and	their	family	members	and	found	that	manymisunderstandings	did	not	always	originate	from	the	autistic	adult.	Family	members	were	often	incorrectly	takingthe	perspective	of	autistic	relations,	seeing	them	as	more	‘egocentrically	anchored’	in	their	own	perspective	thanthey	actually	were.	This	misunderstanding	raises	an	important	question	regarding	the	assumptions	used	by	non-autistic	people	to	evaluate	autistic	people.	It	is	evidence	of	the	‘double	empathy	problem’,	a	persisting	gap	inmutual	understanding	because	both	sides	of	a	given	autistic/non-autistic	relationship	have	different	normativeexpectations	and	assumptions	about	what	the	‘other’	thinks.Case	study	of	a	professional	autistic	relationshipI	recently	visited	a	workplace	where	a	trainee	had	been	diagnosed	with	autism	and	was	finding	that	hisrelationship	with	his	employers	was	very	difficult	to	manage.	In	particular,	he	had	very	low	self-esteem,	wasuncomfortable	with	the	constant	change	to	his	schedule,	and	did	not	like	having	to	attend	meetings	particularlybecause	it	left	him	feeling	criticised	which	would	inevitably	affect	his	other	activities	for	the	day.From	the	employer’s	perspective,	they	were	very	keen	to	show	that	they	had	been	adapting	to	his	particular	wayof	working	within	what	they	perceived	to	be	reasonable	adjustments.	However,	there	were	still	some	points	that	Ihad	to	clarify	to	the	employers	which	highlight	the	‘double	empathy	problem’	in	action.For	example,	it	emerged	that	in	meetings,	the	autistic	employee	would	often	misunderstand	what	had	been	said.In	response,	the	employer	stressed	that	they	had	no	problem	with	the	meeting	being	stopped	if	the	autisticemployee	wanted	to	ask	a	question	or	clarify	a	point	of	discussion.	Yet	this	is	a	problematic	assumption,	becausethe	autistic	employee	may	not	realise	a	misunderstanding	has	taken	place	until	much	later,	when	it	hadmanifested	into	a	problem,	and	even	if	he	did	recognise	in	the	moment	that	there	was	a	misunderstanding,	itshould	not	be	assumed	that	he	would	be	able	to	“speak	up”	instantly.Speaking	up	is	a	very	difficult	social	skill,	where	one	must	assess	the	dialogue,	look	for	moments	of	verbalinterjection,	and	give	a	non-verbal	signal	to	‘take	control	of	the	floor’	just	prior	to	speaking.	It	requires	an	acutereading	of	the	social	situation,	and	no	small	amount	of	confidence	to	perform.Another	challenge	was	the	employer	was	very	focussed	on	developing	strategies	for	the	employee	to	embraceand	work	with	‘constructive	criticism’	in	order	to	improve	the	way	in	which	the	team	worked	as	a	whole.	Isuggested	that	it	might	also	be	a	good	idea	to	run	over	the	positive	things	which	the	autistic	employee	had	done.From	the	employer’s	perspective,	this	had	not	seemed	particularly	necessary	because	many	of	the	positiveaspects	were	deemed	obvious.	However,	when	I	spoke	to	the	autistic	employee	it	was	very	clear	that	he	had	noidea	what	it	was	that	he	did	well,	and	because	of	his	low	self-esteem,	would	often	downplay	compliments.This	highlights	another	disjuncture	in	the	relationship	that	needed	to	be	addressed.	The	employer	needed	to	givemuch	more	positive	feedback,	even	on	tasks	that	seemed	obvious	and	inconsequential,	because	it	could	not	beassumed	that	the	autistic	employee	shared	the	same	level	of	certainty	about	what	was	good	or	bad	practice.These	two	examples	show	how	the	employer	believed	good	communication	was	already	in	place,	when	in	facttheir	model	of	communication	was	framed	around	‘neurotypical’	standards	of	interacting.	Undoubtedly	theemployer	was	keen	to	do	the	best	for	managing	the	professional	relationship	and	had	already	made	manyadjustments,	but	these	examples	show	how	deep-rooted	our	social	reading	of	others	is	ingrained,	and	how	muchopportunity	remains	to	improve	public	and	employer	understanding	of	autism	through	listening	to	what	autisticpeople	have	to	say.Figure	1.	Psychological	structure	of	relationships	(Heasman	and	Gillespie,	2017)LSE Business Review: Employers may discriminate against autism without realising Page 2 of 5		Date originally posted: 2017-07-31Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/07/31/employers-may-discriminate-against-autism-without-realising/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/Notes:	*	Meta-view	=	how	one	person	thinks	they	are	seen	by	the	other	person.	Misunderstandings	can	easily	persist	if	one’smeta-view	aligns	closely	with	one’s	view	on	the	other.	Source:	Heasman	and	Gillespie,	2017.*	The	author	has	chosen	to	use	the	term	‘autistic	people’	given	the	majority	preference	of	participants	he	hasworked	with	and	feedback	from	national	surveysIn	the	video	below,	Brett	Heasman	discusses	his	recently	published	paper	Perspective-taking	is	two-sided:Misunderstandings	between	people	with	Asperger’s	syndrome	and	their	family	members,	co-authored	with	AlexGillespie,	Autism	Journal,	July	2017.LSE Business Review: Employers may discriminate against autism without realising Page 3 of 5		Date originally posted: 2017-07-31Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/07/31/employers-may-discriminate-against-autism-without-realising/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/♣♣♣Notes:Autism	is	the	topic	of	the	author’s	ongoing	research	for	his	PhD	dissertation	with	LSE’s	Department	ofPsychological	and	Behavioural	Science.	The	post	gives	the	views	of	its	author,	not	the	position	of	LSE	Business	Review	or	the	London	School	ofEconomics.Featured	image	credit:	Eyes,	by	Dboybaker,	under	a	CC-BY-2.0	licenceWhen	you	leave	a	comment,	you’re	agreeing	to	our	Comment	Policy.Brett	Heasman	is	a	PhD	student	in	the	Department	of	Psychological	and	Behavioural	Science	atthe	London	School	of	Economics	(LSE),	specialising	in	public	understanding	of	autism.	Hisresearch	is	published	in	journals	including	Autism	and	Current	Opinions	in	Critical	Care.	He	hasworked	for	several	years	as	both	a	carer	and	researcher	with	autistic	people,	and	has	won	grantawards	for	collaboration	and	impact	from	the	ESRC	and	LSE	respectively.	In	2017	he	created	the‘Open	Minds’	exhibition	to	promote	autistic	voices	and	improve	public	understanding	of	autism,which	has	been	featured	in	an	article	by	The	Lancet	Neurology,	the	world’s	leading	neurologicaljournal.	Twitter:	@Brett_Heasman		LSE Business Review: Employers may discriminate against autism without realising Page 4 of 5		Date originally posted: 2017-07-31Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/07/31/employers-may-discriminate-against-autism-without-realising/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/		LSE Business Review: Employers may discriminate against autism without realising Page 5 of 5		Date originally posted: 2017-07-31Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/07/31/employers-may-discriminate-against-autism-without-realising/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/

Employers may discriminate against autism without realising

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online