Verified by 
In my last post, I discussed some of the behaviors that can make the workplace difficult for those with Asperger's. In response, a reader wrote: "Some of the items on the list (such as not talking much/at all during meetings) are typical of standard introversion. Do you regard the person as having Asperger's if he has most or all of the characteristics on the list?"
The answer is absolutely not. The fact is, although I framed them in the light of Asperger's, the majority of the behaviors I listed affect others as well. This reader's comment (echoed by several others) quickly got to the heart of my overall point — inclusive practices aren't just for those who have Asperger's. Inclusion benefits us all.
A few weeks ago on my Facebook page, I asked my readers to give their thoughts on how employers can be more inclusive, a request I repeated in my last post. Reading through the responses, I was struck by how much of what was covered was basically just good management.
Take, for example, a comment from Dave, who wrote: "The best bosses give clear directions and feedback not PC rubbish. The best bosses see removing obstacles as their principal duty. Employees are to work, bosses are to remove obstacles preventing work. Makes work much more pleasurable!"
Wow! This sounds like basic management 101. His first point, about "clear directions and feedback" sounds especially familiar. Where have I heard that before? Oh yes, from former GE CEO and business guru Jack Welch, for whom candor is key. In his 2005 book, Winning, he wrote:
"I have always been a huge proponent of candor. In fact, I talked it up to GE audiences for more than twenty years ... But since retiring from GE, I have come to realize that I underestimated its rarity. In fact, I would call lack of candor the biggest dirty little secret in business ... What a huge problem it is. Lack of candor basically blocks smart ideas, fast action, and good people contributing all the stuff they've got. It's a killer."
Mr. Welch goes on to discuss the benefits of candor in all areas of business — especially in the realm of feedback. Not only should managers be direct and open, he writes, but they should create an environment where employees can be equally direct. He writes:
"To get candor, you reward it, praise it, and talk about it. You make public heroes out of people who demonstrate it. Most of all, you yourself demonstrate it in an exuberant and even exaggerated way - even when you're not the boss."
Another reader, Ann, wrote, "Allow people to show their skills rather than do an interview for a job. Assess people on their skills, not on whether they are someone's best friend or a social expert. Keep the workplace quiet for us/give us a quiet space to retreat to. Check the environment is aspie-friendly e.g. lighting not flickering. Simple things, but they add up."
The latter part of her recommendation, once again, seems basic — simple cubicle etiquette. Those on the spectrum are not the only ones who find loud sounds, oppressive smells, and flickering lights distracting, as commenters on my last post were quick to note.
People might be inclined to write dismiss her first point, calling it "special treatment"... but interestingly enough, it's a recommendation that brings to mind recent research on best practices in hiring. In their 2008 book, Sway, brothers Ori and Ram Brafman discuss research conducted by Bradley University Professor Allen Huffcutt on the effectiveness of the typical "first-date" style interview. They quote him as saying:
"Your typical 'un-structured interview' — the common ‘first date' method — ‘just doesn't go well. We have a long history of research confirming that."
They go on to explain:
"When researchers conducted a meta-analysis — a broad study incorporating data from every scientific work ever conducted in the field — they found that there's only a small correlation between first-date (unstructured) job interviews and job performance. The marks managers give job candidates have very little to do with how well those candidates actually perform on the job."
Having reviewed the ineffectiveness of traditional techniques, they go on to make a very interesting suggestion: "Interviews aren't that great as a predictive tool, because some people simply know how to sell themselves better than others. As counterintuitive as it sounds, you don't need interviews at all. Research shows that an aptitude test predicts performance just as well as a structured interview."
Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
This is a recommendation I can personally confirm. When I set out into the workplace, I recognized quickly that there were a few major barriers that I faced in finding employment. Most urgent of which were my social difficulties (or "shyness" as I called it back then), and lack of experience.
I knew that there were certain things I was good at, especially in the area of technology. But in a world where certain technologies were still relatively new (and baffling) to many, few were willing to give someone without experience a try. So, I wondered, how could I prove my abilities?
I soon realized that many staffing agencies, eager to provide the right match to their clients, supplemented typical interviews with testing. In fact, the testing often came first. So, I contacted several of the major agencies in the area and made appointments to take their standard battery of tests.
While there, they'd typically ask me questions about my skills in order to determine the areas in which to test me. In response, I would politely ask. "What other skills do your clients commonly look for? What's most in demand?" They'd tell me, then they'd ask me if I had experience in those areas.
That was my opening. I'd often respond: "No, I don't...but if you can spare the time, I'd like to take the tests anyway. I know that I pick up on these things quickly, and I think that I can prove that." I never had anyone say no. After all, it was to their benefit if I was more marketable. They recognized, as I did, that the point in these tests was not experienced, but aptitude. The first does not guarantee the second.
Their attention was piqued by my test results, and they were very enthusiastic about talking to me. The discussion became about my skills and how I had acquired them. Rather than the typical first date scenario, I found myself on the receiving end of what the Brafmans would call a "structured" or "Joe Friday" interview which, according to their cited research, is six times more effective than your standard first date interview. And is easier for someone like me to navigate. It's all about facts.
The approach served me well. In just a few years I was able to accumulate valuable experience I likely would not have otherwise. Eventually it led to full time employment in the Fortune 500. By then, I'd gained enough experience and confidence that I was much more comfortable with your typical "first date" interview format.
Wynn, another reader, wrote: "...I would say that working in places which are flexible and open minded about innovative ways of doing things make a big difference. Creative environments and people work best for me. Managers who provide a clear assignment/deadline and then trust me to ‘just do it' are the best."
This, too, resonates with me. Even going back to school days, it was creative people and environments that put me most at ease. I wonder why it is that creative people seem to be more understanding of differences. Does creativity somehow drive tolerance? Or does tolerance somehow drive innovation and creativity?
So, what drives an innovative business environment? Dorothy Leonard and Susaan Strauss tackled this very subject in the Harvard Business Review. They wrote:
"The manager successful at fostering innovation figures out how to get different approaches to grate against one another in a productive process we call creative abrasion. Such a manager understands that different people have different thinking styles: analytical or intuitive, conceptual or experiential, social or independent, logical or values driven. She deliberately designs a full spectrum of approaches and perspectives into her organization — whether that organization is a team, a work group, or an entire company — and she understands that cognitively diverse people must respect the thinking styles of others. She sets ground rules for working together to discipline the creative process. Above all, the manager who wants to encourage innovation in her organization needs to examine what she does to promote or inhibit creative abrasion."
So business environments that are successful in fostering innovation are environments where personal differences are respected? That's interesting. Could that be why such organizations are more comfortable for people like me? To what extent does this appreciation of cognitive differences drive tolerance and understanding of other differences, such as behavioral differences?
That's another interesting question.
In the end, I think the solution for many of the issues faced by those with Asperger's in the workplace boil down to good management practice, and in fact, good practices in general. And it's relatively simple.
Recognize that others are not like you. Not everyone shares your background, has the same skills and abilities, knows what you know, or experiences the world in the same way. Some people are more social, some less. Some have issues with loud noises and flashing lights, some don't. Even body language is not as universal as some would have you believe.
It's easy to dismiss requests like "Please don't use idioms, they confuse me" as requests for special treatment, if it comes from a person on the spectrum. However, this statement could be equally true for an international colleague. Understanding and accommodating differences is something that makes everyone's work life better. It's not "special treatment" — it's just good sense.
For updates, you can follow me on Facebook or Twitter. Feedback? E-mail me.
