I think one of the easier changes is to have more informational sharing in an organization. Those in charge often feel psychologically safe with an informational advantage - but it's probably less useful than they feel. That mutual trust will benefit the entire organisation, and not just autistics who may need to do first-order logical inference rather than just copying what others are doing.
It was the motto of Gauss, I’m focusing on math instead of politics, career and such. By relinquishing a desire for political change and communication, all energies can be dedicated towards the breaking of new ground. It’s interpreted in a lens of letting go, not grasping for more.
I think this item from the executive summary is particularly significant:
e.13 The report notes that many of the changes employers could make that would help recruit, retain and develop autistic people would also benefit people with other types of neurodiversity and disability, and non-disabled people. Adopting a universal “inclusion by design” approach, so an autistic person need not disclose their autism to secure the support they need, could reduce the need for separate workplace adjustments and the stigma this can sometimes entail, as well as improving overall productivity and reducing costs.
This is absolutely correct (curb-cut effect) but it’s also why employers will fight it.
The reason neurodiversity is such an issue for employers is that there’s no good way to measure people for talent (everyone needs to believe they are atypically talented in order to invent in the corporate “meritocracy,” even though it’s not a real one.) So instead they run on a system of blame and shared suffering, an attrition tournament that serves no purpose but is the best a company can come up with. Autistic people need exemption to thrive, but this is something everyone else wants—to be evaluated on merit rather than suffering—but that the firm, politically, will never be able to achieve.
Autism is an exaggerated version of the human experience. In many ways we are less robotic and more intensely human, with our hyper focus and extreme sensory experiences. Although we’re only about 5 percent of the population, there is a universality about us that makes us impossible for private sector firms to accommodate. If they treat us well, they have to treat everyone well, which is something executives will never stand for.
I'm surprised to see that the report doesn't address any of the 'disability' aspects of autism.
There are people with autism who are nonverbal even as adults, who are not able to care for themselves. The challenges those people and their families face will not be addressed by any amount of awareness or affordances at work.
There is some weird tension in autism advocacy where the disability gets swept under the rug and all attention goes to people who have milder forms of the condition.
Disabled autistic people still need to be able to live with dignity and I think it bears mention in a report like this. Changes at work are only a part of addressing the issue- aid to the disabled is another essential component.
I agree that those topics are worthy of consideration, but it seems like they were outside the scope of the report.
>"The review considered five themes
What initiatives can help to raise awareness, reduce stigma and capitalise on the productivity of autistic employees
What more could be done to prepare autistic people effectively for beginning or returning to a career
How employers can adjust recruitment practices to meet the needs of autistic applicants
How employers can support autistic people already in their workforce
How employers can encourage and support autistic staff to develop and progress their career."*
You see similar stuff with Down's syndrome, where it's perhaps even more skewed than with autism. The best few percent are presented as if that's representative for all of them, but there's huge variation and many really are seriously disabled in all sorts of ways – but those aren't on the telly.
I think many disability advocates are afraid that focusing too much on the less positive aspects will lead to unfair stigmas and even discrimination. That's understandable to a degree, but obscuring reality rarely helps your own cause in the long run, so ultimately I fear it's self-defeating. I also feel it takes the piss out of the families having to deal with the not-so-cute Down's cases (i.e. >90% of them, and sets wrong unrealistic expectations.
Or simply put, instead of saying "no, they're not retarded", a much better strategy would be to say "yes, some are retarded, but that doesn't make them any less human" (or whatever the socially accepted term for "retarded" is these days).
The fact that the term autism is applied across such a massive range of outcomes is at the heart of the problem there, I believe.
Any list of "summary advice" can never ably cover that range. Effective advice for a formerly-and-sometimes-still known-as Asperger Syndrome person is indeed going to be hugely different than effective advice for a non-verbal non-independent person.
As the above paragraph implies, the world can barely even agree on names for the most basic sub-categories of autism. We've a long way to go.
Also it bears mentioning that people with milder forms of the condition have their own unique crosses to bear, e.g. imposter syndrome, having people treat you as a fraud by default "because you seem normal", and other fairly significant lifetime burdens.
I found the former situation much worse. I was accused (subtly) of basically taking it at least once.
High levels of raw intelligence can mask emotional stuff that I suspect makes a lot of the high functioning people not really that high functioning, they are just able to compensate a bit more and be less outwardly effected to their peer group.
Consider, as a parallel, the dirty looks and snide remarks someone with cardiac issues or some other invisible disability get for using a handicapped parking space when they “don’t look handicapped”.
>I was accused (subtly) of basically taking it at least once.
You meant to write "faking it" here, right?
But how was the "former situation much worse"?
Surely lumping aspergers into the same general name of "autism" (like is the case now), makes it even more likely to be accused of being a fake when saying you have autism, as you wouldn't fit the stereotype of the high support needs person they have in mind (whereas people already understood that someone with asperger will not look "outwardly effected" like that).
It’s much better because I can say to some random, say, nurse that I have autism and they a general idea. Of things that are likely to be challenging for me.
Sure, but you could say aspergers before, and they'd have an ever better idea (as autism is too wide a spectrum). And doctors and nurses at least can grasp ASD 1, 2, 3 and so on, laymen, not so much.
>There are people with autism who are nonverbal even as adults, who are not able to care for themselves. The challenges those people and their families face will not be addressed by any amount of awareness or affordances at work.
Well, this is about autistic employment though, not for high support autistic people who can't work regardless of "affordances at work".
So, it's not so much that the disability is "swept under the rug" in this case, but that this stronger disabilities are not applicable to the case.
At least in tech the context switching is killer. It burns out normal people, but if you're autistic the switching can be especially brutal. Add in autistic burnout on top of that and it's a miracle anyone can stay employed for long. Reducing things like context switching would be good for all employees.
Wow, section 7 is like I'm reading my own journal (if I kept one).
My company used to have teams work on primarily 1 main application with a couple smaller supporting apps, usually in one stack. Members of the team usually had a primary role or area of responsibility. Basically things were more structured and better defined. Even things like requirements were better defined and the integrations points were well documented.
A few years ago they started pushing multiple applications onto teams, including in multiple stacks. Roles are less defined and everyone is just expected to do everything. So you're switching between apps, tiers, and stacks constantly. In some cases they have one code based that includes multiple apps which multiple teams work on. This creates constant changes and small issues in local dev setup. They're really pushing speed and agility, which ends up with poor requirements and designs compared to the past since it's less formal and less thought through.
I went from being a high performer to being a low performer. After years of being lied to, passed over, and screwed over while being a high performer and now being told I do great work in some areas but my day to day work is too slow, I'm completely demotivated and demoralized. I have good credentials and previous coworkers have thought i was already a senior dev, yet I'll never make it to that level. I've been on multiple teams and asked for accommodations such as reduced context switching, but they can't do anything about it because of the way the work is structured. One team even told me they were surprised I stuck around for 2 years because they expected to burn people out in about 1 year. This checks out since they had more than 100% turnover in those 2 years and I was the only one left from the original team. They made a big deal about their contract with Auticon. When asked in an enterprise meeting (by someone else thankfully) what they were doing for employees with similar backgrounds it was crickets - no answer.
I honestly don't know if I can keep this job, even though it's just an early career midlevel position. It sucks to think I no longer have a career with advancement options. If I lose this job I assume I'll end up working at Walmart or something. The stress of an uncertain future and having a family to support is extreme.
>5.13 Respondents suggested that tools such as practical tests, assignments to be completed before interview and short-term attachments to the organisation would better allow autistic candidates to demonstrate the skills and aptitudes required for the job role. As one autistic respondent put it: “If someone is applying for a job as a violinist in an orchestra, they are not asked to tell the interviewer something about their achievements playing the violin: they are asked to play the violin.”
28 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 60.4 ms ] threadSeems somewhat at odds with your call for "mutual trust."
e.13 The report notes that many of the changes employers could make that would help recruit, retain and develop autistic people would also benefit people with other types of neurodiversity and disability, and non-disabled people. Adopting a universal “inclusion by design” approach, so an autistic person need not disclose their autism to secure the support they need, could reduce the need for separate workplace adjustments and the stigma this can sometimes entail, as well as improving overall productivity and reducing costs.
The reason neurodiversity is such an issue for employers is that there’s no good way to measure people for talent (everyone needs to believe they are atypically talented in order to invent in the corporate “meritocracy,” even though it’s not a real one.) So instead they run on a system of blame and shared suffering, an attrition tournament that serves no purpose but is the best a company can come up with. Autistic people need exemption to thrive, but this is something everyone else wants—to be evaluated on merit rather than suffering—but that the firm, politically, will never be able to achieve.
Autism is an exaggerated version of the human experience. In many ways we are less robotic and more intensely human, with our hyper focus and extreme sensory experiences. Although we’re only about 5 percent of the population, there is a universality about us that makes us impossible for private sector firms to accommodate. If they treat us well, they have to treat everyone well, which is something executives will never stand for.
There are people with autism who are nonverbal even as adults, who are not able to care for themselves. The challenges those people and their families face will not be addressed by any amount of awareness or affordances at work.
There is some weird tension in autism advocacy where the disability gets swept under the rug and all attention goes to people who have milder forms of the condition.
Disabled autistic people still need to be able to live with dignity and I think it bears mention in a report like this. Changes at work are only a part of addressing the issue- aid to the disabled is another essential component.
>"The review considered five themes
I think many disability advocates are afraid that focusing too much on the less positive aspects will lead to unfair stigmas and even discrimination. That's understandable to a degree, but obscuring reality rarely helps your own cause in the long run, so ultimately I fear it's self-defeating. I also feel it takes the piss out of the families having to deal with the not-so-cute Down's cases (i.e. >90% of them, and sets wrong unrealistic expectations.
Or simply put, instead of saying "no, they're not retarded", a much better strategy would be to say "yes, some are retarded, but that doesn't make them any less human" (or whatever the socially accepted term for "retarded" is these days).
A lot of things exist in the world. You can't accomplish anything if you try and focus on everything. That doesn't mean it isn't important.
Any list of "summary advice" can never ably cover that range. Effective advice for a formerly-and-sometimes-still known-as Asperger Syndrome person is indeed going to be hugely different than effective advice for a non-verbal non-independent person.
As the above paragraph implies, the world can barely even agree on names for the most basic sub-categories of autism. We've a long way to go.
Also it bears mentioning that people with milder forms of the condition have their own unique crosses to bear, e.g. imposter syndrome, having people treat you as a fraud by default "because you seem normal", and other fairly significant lifetime burdens.
High levels of raw intelligence can mask emotional stuff that I suspect makes a lot of the high functioning people not really that high functioning, they are just able to compensate a bit more and be less outwardly effected to their peer group.
Consider, as a parallel, the dirty looks and snide remarks someone with cardiac issues or some other invisible disability get for using a handicapped parking space when they “don’t look handicapped”.
You meant to write "faking it" here, right?
But how was the "former situation much worse"?
Surely lumping aspergers into the same general name of "autism" (like is the case now), makes it even more likely to be accused of being a fake when saying you have autism, as you wouldn't fit the stereotype of the high support needs person they have in mind (whereas people already understood that someone with asperger will not look "outwardly effected" like that).
Well, this is about autistic employment though, not for high support autistic people who can't work regardless of "affordances at work".
So, it's not so much that the disability is "swept under the rug" in this case, but that this stronger disabilities are not applicable to the case.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39556895
Wow, section 7 is like I'm reading my own journal (if I kept one).
A few years ago they started pushing multiple applications onto teams, including in multiple stacks. Roles are less defined and everyone is just expected to do everything. So you're switching between apps, tiers, and stacks constantly. In some cases they have one code based that includes multiple apps which multiple teams work on. This creates constant changes and small issues in local dev setup. They're really pushing speed and agility, which ends up with poor requirements and designs compared to the past since it's less formal and less thought through.
I went from being a high performer to being a low performer. After years of being lied to, passed over, and screwed over while being a high performer and now being told I do great work in some areas but my day to day work is too slow, I'm completely demotivated and demoralized. I have good credentials and previous coworkers have thought i was already a senior dev, yet I'll never make it to that level. I've been on multiple teams and asked for accommodations such as reduced context switching, but they can't do anything about it because of the way the work is structured. One team even told me they were surprised I stuck around for 2 years because they expected to burn people out in about 1 year. This checks out since they had more than 100% turnover in those 2 years and I was the only one left from the original team. They made a big deal about their contract with Auticon. When asked in an enterprise meeting (by someone else thankfully) what they were doing for employees with similar backgrounds it was crickets - no answer.
I honestly don't know if I can keep this job, even though it's just an early career midlevel position. It sucks to think I no longer have a career with advancement options. If I lose this job I assume I'll end up working at Walmart or something. The stress of an uncertain future and having a family to support is extreme.
Over the past 4 years the other 3 on my team all left.
The only position backfilled was the most junior one, doing 99% html/css/photoshop work.
We have no senior tech lead.
But the "let's change things for the sake of it", random management decisions based on fads, and so on, are extremely brutal.
>5.13 Respondents suggested that tools such as practical tests, assignments to be completed before interview and short-term attachments to the organisation would better allow autistic candidates to demonstrate the skills and aptitudes required for the job role. As one autistic respondent put it: “If someone is applying for a job as a violinist in an orchestra, they are not asked to tell the interviewer something about their achievements playing the violin: they are asked to play the violin.”