Removing barriers to recruitment for all (autistic) people

As we are in Autism Acceptance Week 2023, it is worth noting that despite autism awareness being better than ever, the majority of autistic people (almost 4 in 5) are not in paid employment.

In many cases, this is despite those people being able and wanting to work. Of those who are employed, many are under-employed, working part-time or in jobs that do not make use of their full potential.

While autistic people can face disadvantages throughout the employment life-cycle, traditional recruitment processes can present a particularly difficult barrier and it is something that needs addressing if these statistics are to change.

Many employers know that they need to make reasonable adjustments for disabled applicants in accordance with the Equality Act 2010, but they may not do so if an applicant themselves does not know that they are autistic, that they might benefit from adjustments and/or what those adjustments could be. This issue disproportionately affects women, people of colour and people from poorer backgrounds, who are more likely to be misdiagnosed, overlooked for diagnosis or have less access to specialist healthcare.

Whilst employers should continue to offer specific adjustments to individuals who have a diagnosed condition they disclose and who request such adjustments, there are also many good habits which employers can consider implementing across the board, even with candidates who do not disclose any disabilities. These may be particularly helpful for neurodivergent candidates and help to level the playing field for autistic people, but would ultimately benefit everyone. Some practical examples are considered below.

RELEVANT AND UNAMBIGUOUS ADVERTISING

When advertising for a job, the emphasis should only be on attributes which are truly necessary for carrying out the role in question. For example, if an employer is advertising for a role which mostly involves auditing large volumes of documents, having a general shopping list of requirements that includes requests for the candidate to have good public speaking skills or enjoy working in a team (for example) may deter applicants who would be best suited to the role (because they are able to review a large amount of documentation quickly and efficiently) but don’t feel they match the description provided (because they prefer working alone or don’t feel comfortable with public speaking).

Clarity and specificity are also very important. For example, stating a candidate must have “excellent communication skills” is ambiguous and may discourage autistic people, whereas more specific statements (e.g. that a candidate must “be able to write clearly and concisely” or “be confident and persuasive in verbal presentations”) provides potential applicants with a more accurate idea of what the employer needs in the role. This makes applicants better able to assess whether the role would suit them.

This approach is also beneficial for employers in the long run. Employers who are clear about expectations from the outset are more likely to attract suitable candidates and will be in a much better position if there is ever a dispute about whether an employee’s performance is adequate for the role.

FOCUSING ON CONTENT IN INTERVIEWS

A key feature of autism is difficulties or differences around communication. One common difference is that autistic people may not naturally present with the same body language or tone of voice as neurotypical people, which can lead to misunderstandings. For example, an employer may misinterpret an autistic candidate as being bored or unfriendly in an interview when they are actually nervous, or may mistake a lack of eye contact as a candidate being untruthful.

To help compensate for this, employers can take good notes of interviews and seek a second opinion on what all candidates have said after the interviews (based on those notes), deliberately placing less weight on non-verbal communication and “general impressions”.

Interviewers should also take care in the way they word their questions so that they are able to get the best responses from candidates in the first place. As with adverts, clarity is important, particularly with autistic candidates as they may interpret questions more literally and not realise when questions are indirectly asking them to “sell themselves”. Abstract questions should be avoided where possible. For example, rather than asking a candidate “how would your previous colleagues describe you?” it might be better to ask “what feedback have you received from colleagues in your previous role?”. Very open questions such as “tell me about yourself” should also be avoided as much as possible, or interviewers should be prepared to prompt candidates with more detailed questions if they do not feel they are getting the information they are looking for.

Ideally, interviewing managers and HR teams should receive training in neurodiversity and work with an objective scoring matrix which refers to attributes relevant to the role. It is also important for employers to build the general skills and capability of those carrying out assessments, to support them in implementing best practice. Depending on the role in question, employers may even want to consider whether an interview is necessary at all, or if it could be replaced entirely by skills-based assessments.

Ensure scoring systems don’t inadvertently screen out neurodivergence

Autistic people and most people with other neurodivergent conditions tend to have a “spiky” cognitive profile, meaning there is a much greater disparity between their strengths and weaknesses than is typical. This means that if employers are carrying out a recruitment process which tests a number of skills, neurodivergent candidates are more likely than others to do very well in some areas and very badly in others at the same time. If an employer’s scoring system favours applicants who do reasonably well in all areas over people who have exceptional strengths and weaknesses, this bias towards generalists may disproportionately affect autistic people and mean that employers miss out more generally on having teams with a diverse skill set.

Allow for preparation, or offer paid work trials where possible

It is common for recruitment processes to put people “on the spot”.  However, such practices should be avoided unless the way this is done adequately and accurately assesses candidates against a key part of the role. Candidates should be given as much detail as possible about how the recruitment process will work and who they will meet, what is expected of them and what information the employer will discuss with them.

Even with preparation time, recruitment processes by their nature tend to put candidates under artificial pressure and an individual’s performance may not reflect their true abilities. This can be particularly true of autistic candidates, who have to process much more sensory and social information when going into a new environment or meeting new people for the first time.

Offering work trials can help to mitigate against this, and employers may find that autistic candidates (and many others) shine when they have had the opportunity to get used to a new environment and have had a more realistic amount of time to get to grips with tasks or seek clarification if needed. Trial periods can also be helpful to give employers a feel for any adjustments that may be needed and how these can work in practice. Overall, work trials may also offer employers a much more accurate way of assessing whether a candidate is right for a role, although this does, of course, need to be weighed against the risk that time and money may be invested in a candidate who is ultimately deemed unsuitable for the role.

Give applicants choices

In many workplaces, employees will have some degree of day to day choice as to how exactly they carry out their work – such as deciding whether something should be discussed over the phone or by email. So why not reflect this in recruitment processes? Candidates could be given the option of whether to interview by video, phone or in person, or whether to answer certain questions in writing or in an interview, for example.

The benefits to this approach are two-fold. First, employers are more likely to see candidates at their best if they allow them to participate in the recruitment process in a way that suits them.  Second, in taking such an approach, employers would be sending the message that they are a considerate and flexible employer; qualities all candidates are likely to find attractive. This kind of flexibility can be very important for autistic people, who may need to work in particular ways to get around any difficulties they face as a result of their condition and make the most of their strengths.

Flexibility is something which should also be built into employers’ physical environments and technology wherever possible, for example having equipment which can be easily adjusted for accessibility or a mix of quiet and collaborative working spaces.

After recruitment

It goes without saying that recruitment is only the beginning and that employers should look to embed these principles of clarity, flexibility and openness into their employment practices generally. It is not the entire solution, but it will naturally help employers to develop a workplace which is not only autism-friendly but more welcoming to everyone.

In conclusion, whilst there is undoubtedly greater awareness in society of autism and the disadvantages faced by autistic people, there is still much work to be done to remove the barriers preventing so many autistic people from obtaining paid employment. Some of the simple steps considered above can go a long way in achieving this and we live in hope that they will and that the current statistics will be improved.

Catherine Bourne is an Associate in the Employment department at Kingsley Napley LLP