Historically, many organizations have gradually come to inclusion: this year or two, gender, another race, then sexual orientation, and maybe someday disability and age. Or maybe class. Or neurological diversity. In general, gradual inclusion extends from the power center to bring the next most “acceptable” feature. But what if someone is an old, black, visually impaired woman? Or tribal, economically deprived, autistic people? What happens to a deaf refugee fleeing religious persecution, or a person with certain characteristics that are not “currently eligible”? Gradual inclusion leaves people behind.
All talent needs to be welcomed:
- Systemic inclusion that considers interrelationships, addresses all barriers broadly, and embeds inclusion in all talent processes and decision-making mechanisms. It calls for design, well-thought-out and inclusive planning.
- Included from the margin. Creating identification systems with the most marginalized and most marginalized groups is the fastest way to include everyone. It is also necessary Participation Of the marginalized. People don’t notice the obstacles they face. Those who are affected by obstacles do not get noticed by others (or pay attention only when the problem is extreme) and are best qualified to design a work-free future.
At one point in my career, I seemed to have “crossed over” the obvious gender, class, and even xenophobia barriers I had encountered in previous jobs. And yet, for years, I was stuck, working but not getting credit. Even when a well-intentioned organization takes the initiative to promote more women in leadership, I still do not feel involved.
Looking back, I know I’ve hit the neurodegenerative lead roof, a hidden obstacle. Autistic individuals are often overlooked when comparing leadership with charisma or extreme extraversion (although research shows that in dynamic environments, introverted and calm individuals lead better than extroverts). In this case, the bias was not clear. Responsible people did not mean to exclude me or people like me. The system, like many, was set up to complete major neurotypes. Perhaps years later there will be an intervention to make the organization more welcoming of neurodiversity. But while I was eager to see, hear, and acknowledge my contributions, tweaking the system to include women did nothing for the neurodegenerative women – I was still not included and on the margins. In that, I was not alone: in the United States, 85% of autistic college graduates struggle with unemployment, but very few institutions have programs to support neuroscience or disability recruitment and success.
Since autism can be experienced as a culture, disability, or social disability, it has many psychological and physical expressions that overlap with other cultural experiences, differences, and disabilities. Thus, addressing the barriers faced by autistic individuals helps to solve the problem of gradual inclusion and creates a more inclusive environment for the talents of other marginalized groups.
Everyone benefits from the barriers that autistic people face at work
Comparisons with canaries in coal mines are often used to describe the high-risk autistic experience within an autistic culture, ranging from harmful environmental factors, intimidation to open office noise and fear to management stress. An open office can make autistic workers sick with sensory sensitivities in an hour, but most employees suffer negative health and performance consequences over time.
As another example, imagine a diversity-focused company that prides itself on being an inclusive recruitment tool for evaluating candidates for office work: a standardized interview with Rubrics, focused on specific answers and behaviors. Now imagine that one of Rubric’s criteria is “presentation”, which includes elements such as eye contact and enthusiastic speaking. Some may consider evaluating eye contact and enthusiasm fairly. Unfortunately, many autistic people will be excluded from this assessment because acute discomfort with eye contact is one of the major autism features.
However, these external “presentation” barriers do not only affect autistic people. For example, the “enthusiastic speech” assessment does not consider whether there are differences in speech or the use of communication devices – autistic or not. People with facial trauma or paralysis, visual impairment, and many other disabilities will also be unduly affected by the presentation criteria. In addition, many cultures discourage direct eye contact and have different standards for expressing enthusiasm. Finally, influencing beliefs is also ethnically biased. Detecting and removing arbitrary, non-action-related barriers makes selection better for many groups.
That’s why I call my model of creating inclusive organizations the “canary code” to build better workplaces. Before electronic carbon monoxide detectors, canaries were used to detect deadly gases in coal mines. Toxic gases first affect the canary, but everyone else eventually suffers. And healthy air benefits everyone.
I reviewed over 150 academic articles on inclusion and best practices to help with employee experience and performance. My findings match the life-experience accounts of marginalized people: job characteristics that need to include autistic talents (e.g., skill-based recruitment, transparency of processes, normalization of remote work) help all marginalized people and many employees are highly sought after.
Breaking the cycle of systemic discrimination
Access and success barriers create a self-sustaining cycle of systemic discrimination. Access barriers Limit the pipeline of marginalized people in the organization. Too many rows Success barriers (E.g., limited access to professional development, improper promotion mechanism) further restricts the representation, voice and leadership opportunities of marginalized groups. Lack of leadership representation, in turn, perpetuates access barriers. Therefore, only systemic intervention can address the cycle of discrimination. However, inclusive practices support a better future for all employees, as the exclusion mechanism perpetuates stress and frustration for all employees.
To create a system of fairness, embed the six key principles of the Canary Code throughout the talent cycle.
Participation
Involve individual employees in the work-design process – especially those who think differently or are interactively marginalized. For example, I helped rewrite the job description of a research analyst who was initially involved in dealing with frequent interruptions. This is not only optimal for any analyst because data analysis requires deep work, but it will be a big hurdle for autistic people, who pay a high psychological price for distraction. Many autistic professionals have lost their jobs because their responsibilities were changed to include excessive multitasking, they were moved to a noisy area, or they were otherwise prevented from using their power – without their input. Even when empathy is used, it is more effective to involve people to create their works than to try to design for them. Empathy is limited by equality, and those who have not experienced autistic focus may think of the obstacle as a small inconvenience, not the feeling of being hit by a baseball bat. And even in less extreme situations, participation increases morale and overall productivity.
Results
The productivity of autistic employees is partly explained by their innovative ways of working. However, innovative employees from all backgrounds are often forced to work in traditional, less efficient ways. Focusing on results rather than “professional presence”, presentationism, or work style supports both inclusion and productivity. For example, if a performance appraisal form calls to evaluate the number of phone calls made by employees, but they exceed their sales target using a well-designed email blast, what difference does it make that they did not use phone calls? Or if the manager uses asynchronous support technology to effectively integrate the hybrid team, is the lack of synchronous meetings a problem or an achievement?
Instead of evaluating style rather than substance, review your criteria for performance evaluation and promotion. Do these include references to objectively defined “potential” or “fit”? Do they include preferences for a particular work style (e.g., teamwork)? When criteria other than results are considered, the most marginalized ones are at least likely to be negatively affected by similarities and similarities with the evaluator.
Flexibility
Removing arbitrary time, space, and work-style barriers supports the employment of those who need flexibility to adjust to sensory sensitivity or sleep problems associated with autism. In addition, it can help address gaps in other opportunities, such as transportation constraints related to disability or economic loss. Expanding the flexibility to include people’s unique strengths, job skills, and work partnerships, as well as the task of providing workable part-time options and benefits for a wide range of life situations, helps to include marginalized talents. It also supports employee satisfaction and retention, for which flexibility is a highly desired benefit.
Organizational justice
Justice in the workplace is concerned with the fairness of outcomes and processes, as well as the interaction, dignity, and provision of adequate information to employees. All forms of justice affect employee morale.
Specifically, use Leventhal’s six procedural justice criteria when evaluating whether your organization is inclusive. Assessing your recruitment, promotion, and other decision-making processes, ideally with adequate participation from those not traditionally represented, will likely surface areas for improvement. Processes only:
- Applies consistently through people and time
- Are free from prejudice
- Make sure accurate information is collected and used to make decisions
- There is a mechanism to correct wrong decisions
- In accordance with the prevailing standards of ethics or morality
- Make sure the views of the various groups affected by the decision are taken into account.
Transparency and clear communication
Autistic individuals need clear organizational communication, which is often excluded from reliance on hidden messages, corporate doublespeak, and “insider” expressions with vague meanings. Cultures that lack transparency in processes and decisions present barriers to success for autistic individuals and others. Transparency, on the other hand, supports both inclusion and productivity, promotes a sense of psychological security, and drives organizational performance.
Valid tool for decision making
Individual selection, promotion, and other talent management practices exclude neurodegenerative talent, creating barriers for other marginalized groups, and talent pools of narrow organizations. Instead, the use of legitimate tools in job analysis helps ensure inclusion. For example, autistic job seekers are excluded from work because of personality-based interviews, which measure their ability to talk about someone’s skills rather than demonstrate them. This barrier of access also affects class migrants and people of humble and valuable culture. In choice, direct evaluation of the skills required for the job is more valid than asking people to appreciate their skills. In promotion, evaluation supported by examples of results helps to reduce bias.
. . .
Resolving the issue of autism exclusion at work by basically designing inclusive systems can help solve other inclusive and wellness issues, creating a better work future for job seekers and employees of all backgrounds. Ultimately, removing barriers to access and success for marginalized talent can help ensure that no one is left behind.