The Value of Neurodiversity

Positive momentous strides have been made for the perception and treatment of autism in the UK.  Shifting the view of autism from a pathology to a natural variation in the way that humans process information has been a cornerstone of the disability rights and neurodiversity movements. The medical model of autism needs to accommodate these movements whilst still ensuring that there is an accessible and effective diagnostic process, one which is geared towards accommodating support needs instead of producing normative behaviours. Moreover, with employment rates for autistic people at an estimated 22%, it is clear that there is much work to be done. Companies around the world are making changes to their hiring practices, including scrapping interviews in favour of more accommodating processes and changing internal perceptions of desirable qualities. Organisations, however, still need to change their consideration of reasonable adjustments to improve working environments for autistic people. Perhaps even more crucially, making and understanding the business case for neurodiversity in the workplace is crucial to encouraging this change, but that does not mean that autistic people who do not exhibit extraordinary abilities should be excluded in the process. Change can accommodate the needs of everyone. 

Cambridge academic Baron-Cohen states that “autism and Asperger’s syndrome often (perhaps invariably) involve areas of strength—such as remarkable attention to detail, the ability to focus on a small topic for long periods, and to see repeating patterns—and these human qualities are not in need of treatment.”. Neurodiversity is valuable, both in the personal and individual sense, but can also bring benefit in the professional sphere. The inclusion of neurodiversity to the wider conversation on diversity. It is crucial to forming and building truly inclusive teams, as well as encompassing a broader range of considerations when improving inclusive professional provisions.  

Mckinsey & Company have released a series of reports which encompass the business case for diversity. Their 2019 study found that “companies in the top quartile for gender diversity on executive teams were 25 percent more likely to have above-average profitability than companies in the fourth quartile - up from 21 percent in 2017 and 15 percent in 2014”. Furthermore, they found that “the greater the representation, the higher the likelihood of outperformance. Companies with more than 30 percent women executives were more likely to outperform companies where this percentage ranged from 10 to 30, and in turn these companies were more likely to outperform those with even fewer women executives, or none at all.”. The differential is substantial, at 48%. Gender diversity is not the only factor which impacts positively on company performance either. Ethnic diversity is also crucial to successful organisations - in the same study, Mckinsey & Company found that “top-quartile companies outperformed those in the fourth one by 36 percent, slightly up from 33 percent in 2017 and 35 percent in 2014”. Diverse employees with various backgrounds and thought processes bring unique expertise organisations which optimise problem solving. 

There has not yet been as much research into quantifiable benefits of neurodiversity in the workplace, though preliminary results are compelling. Research by Ruzich et al. discovered that the proportion of individuals who exhibit neurodiverse traits working in STEM is much larger than in other industries, suggesting that those with abilities such as attention to detail and hyperfocus are a beneficial, if partially untapped, talent pool for particular disciplines. The competitive advantages of neurodiversity builds on the well-documented business case for diversity in organisations. Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) have engaged in a program designed to place more neurodiverse individuals in software-testing roles at Australia’s Department of Humans Services (DHS), whilst also ensuring that workplaces accommodate individuals’ support needs. Preliminary results found that neurodiverse testing teams are 30% more productive than others.  

The Australian Defense Department is now working with HPE to develop a neurodiversity program in cybersecurity. When assessing candidates for roles, the department has discovered levels of ability that far outweigh previous expectations of individual capacity for pattern finding within complex data. 

Despite these benefits, unemployment amongst autistic people remains incommensurably high. A study by Austin and Pisano describes a candidate with a CV featuring two master’s degrees, both with honors, and demonstrable ability in mathematical ability and software development. Credentials notwithstanding, the candidate had been unemployed for two years prior due to inaccessible hiring processes. Data supplied by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in 2020 suggests that the unemployment rate amongst autistic adults in the UK is 78%, which is even lower than previous data suggests. This figure is corroborated by the aforementioned study, which suggests a similar figure of 80% for neurodiverse candidates. Moreover, when these candidates are working, they appear to often be underemployed. This is largely due to HR and recruitment processes which are “developed toward wide application across the organisation[...] there is a conflict between scalability and the goal of acquiring neurodiverse talent”.  Anka Wittenberg, the Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer for SAP, argues that if blanket processes are applied in the hiring process, the company would “miss people with autism”. The social behaviours of neurodiverse people often oppose common notions of what makes a good employee - “solid communication skills, being a team player, emotional intelligence, persuasiveness, salesperson-type personalities, the ability to network, the ability to conform to standard practices without special accommodations, and so on.”. That is not to say that neurodiverse people cannot engage in these behaviours, but in doing so they may also have to engage in masking - the processes of performing normative behaviours - which can lead to burnout and disengagement. One process which is almost universal in the hiring process, interviewing, can preclude neurodiverse people from obtaining employment which reflects their ability. Traits which are often associated with neurodiverse candidates such as not making the expected level of eye contact, entering conversational tangents, or being overly honest about their weaknesses can lead to lower scores in interviews. Specialisterne, a social innovation company, created a process called “hangouts”, comfortable gatherings usually lasting half a day, whereby neurodiverse candidates can demonstrate their abilities in casual interactions with managerial staff. Following this process, some candidates are selected for two to six weeks of further assessment and training, involving activities which are gradually scaled to become more like the typical work day. These efforts are typically government or not-for-profit funded and trainees are usually paid. 

The second problem, as described by Austin and Pisano, is the assumption that “scalable processes require absolute conformity to standardised approaches. Employees in neurodiversity programs typically need to be allowed to deviate from established practices.”. This does not mean that neurodiverse candidates are not compliant with organisational operations, but rather that managers undergo a shift from standardisation to adjusting individual work contexts. Most solutions, such as providing noise-cancelling headphones, and installing different lighting systems are inexpensive, but do require tailoring individual work settings more than is typically expected. These accommodations can be considered reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. 

The assumption of the coincidence of savant like ability - defined as an incongruent contrast to an overall disability - is problematic.The next section of this report will refer to incredible examples of neurodiverse talent now and throughout history, but it is crucial to support all neurodiverse people, whether or not they exhibit exceptional ability. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines the right to work, where everyone has the right (1) to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment, (2) the right to equal pay for equal work, without any discrimination, (3) to just and favourable remuneration, ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection, and (4) to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests. Denying any employee, or prospective employee their right to equal opportunity in the workplace is discrimination, which the Equality Act 2010 outlawed in the United Kingdom. So long as  person A can fulfil their obligations to an employer and produce work which is considered “like B’s work”, “rated as equivalent to B’s work, or”, “of equal value to B’s work”, then person A must be afforded equal opportunity. Autistic people and, more broadly, neurodiverse people are worthy of respect and dignity regardless of whether their condition affords them extraordinary commodifiable abilities.  

Examples of Exceptional Neurodiversity: