Neurodiversity and the Dignity of Work
American society has a strange view of work.
In Catholic Social Teaching, work is something that allows us to be a part of God’s creative process. Pope Francis adds the following in his papal encyclical Laudato Si:
Work should be the setting for this rich personal growth, where many aspects of life enter into play: creativity, planning for the future, developing our talents, living out our values, relating to others, giving glory to God. It follows that, in the reality of today’s global society, it is essential that “we continue to prioritize the goal of access to steady employment for everyone,” no matter the limited interests of business and dubious economic reasoning.
We were created with a vocation to work…
…Work is a necessity, part of the meaning of life on this earth, a path to growth, human development and personal fulfillment. Helping the poor financially must always be a provisional solution in the face of pressing needs. The broader objective should always be to allow them a dignified life through work.
Work gives us meaning, it can help us grow personally, develop our talents and plan for the future. So work is vital to human flourishing.
So, why is it in American society in the 21st Century, work is viewed as a prize for the most talented?
Throughout my adult life, I’ve observed how work is not something where you are formed into a skilled worker. Instead, you must have all your skills ready to go. There is no interest in training an employee, they need to hit the ground running. In this environment, work becomes a prize handed out to the most talented. This is the meritocracy in action.
But we know that not everyone is ready the moment they start their job. Sometimes it takes time for people to grow into their position. In a culture where work is attained through merit, scores of people are forced to find whatever scraps they can in order to make a living.
There is a statistic that has gone around about the unemployment rate of persons with autism. The rate I’ve heard is somewhere around 85%. I’m uncertain how accurate is this picture, but I think there is some truth that the unemployment rate is high. I can’t answer for other people with autism, but I’ve always found the job market to be an uncaring place for me. The reason the unemployment rate for people who are autistic is this high is because of the kind of job market we have in America, one that is based on merit and one where professionals are valued and blue-collar positions are not.
Being on the spectrum means that I enter the job market with challenges. You learn soon enough that our society doesn’t have time to help those with neurological disabilities like autism or ADHD or dyslexia. Since those talents are easily visible or the mistakes are seen before the person, the potential employee is judged and more often than not is either not given a job or if they have a position are told to leave. In our merit-based system, if you have challenges, you are viewed as incompetent or lazy or stupid.
I’m not stupid, even if my self-esteem makes me feel that way. I have talent and skills. But when it comes to putting those talents to work in the workplace things have gone awry. I’ve tried to help my past supervisors understand my predicament and I hope for some grace and I don’t get it. Instead, I am let go for not doing a good enough job.
Most people with autism have talent, but it takes time for it to come to fore. What they need is encouragement that they are of value and that they have something to offer. It doesn’t happen by yelling at them or telling them to “step up,” as if they aren’t already doing that.
I then have to deal with the shame of having not lived up to expectations. Even though I’ve tried to make sure I don’t repeat the same mistakes. Even though I want to try harder and be better. But my autism always shines through and the mistakes happen. You live with this shame of not being a responsible partner to my husband. You live feeling that you aren’t talented, but an incompetent burden.
When you find yourself in a job where you make a mistake is that you feel you have to try harder to be a better worker. You think that way because your supervisors and coworkers think you aren’t really working that hard and just need to buck up. But the thing with autism/Aspergers, or ADHD or dyslexia is that you can’t simply work harder. Working harder doesn’t make a disability go away. The person with this kind of disability has to learn how to work with it and what they want from their employee is a little understanding; to ask questions before you start yelling.
Sometimes it takes time for someone to be at their best. Sometimes one has to work hard to get to the desired level. To get to that level means it takes time. However, time is something that is in short supply in the modern workplace. There is not a place for accommodation and training in a job market that runs according to the meritocracy.
I am working now with Vocation and Rehabilitation services from the State of Minnesota that will help with some job coaching. I’m hopeful it will allow me to find a workplace where I can grow and not feel a sense of shame or feel like a dunce.
But I think our job market must change- not just for people like me, but for everyone. We have to create an economy that is built more on seeing the worker as an apprentice, where people can learn their position, places where people can grow into their vocation. We need all of this because we need to stop seeing work as a prize, but as something that can be beneficial to the worker and society as well. If we want a society where fewer people are “on the dole” and more people are self-sufficient, then we need to see work as something that gives everyone, including people disabilities a semblance of dignity.
I know that there are things I have to do to work better with a disability. But this is a two-way street. One day, I want to come into an environment where I’m encouraged, especially when I fall short. I want to learn that I have value. I want to start a new job knowing I don’t have to have all the answers or pretend that I know everything. I want to be secure at work and not worry if this is the day that I get fired for whatever reason. Work should be a place where you come as a student ready to learn.
Several years ago, I wrote a blog post relating to how persons with autism are like dandelions. A dandelion is a flower, but most of us look at them as weeds. People with autism and other people with disabilities are dandelions. For most of my work life, I’ve always felt like a weed to others. I’ve never felt that I had talent or smarts. I’ve found it hard to feel that I have worth. I know that some of this is me changing my own attitude, but it is hard to do that when you are judged so often. You start to believe what others say about you.
But I believe that I am more than a weed. I think I have some flower in me. I know that I have skills and passions in writing. I know I have a desire to try new things and to learn new skills and my portfolio is replete with work where I learned how to write better or make better graphic design. I know I am flawed, but unbeknownst to most hiring managers and potential and past supervisors, I am also someone of great talent and determination. I wish that people could see that before looking at my faults.
Our meritocratic society believes that people with neurological disabilities are worthless weeds. Nonsense. We are flowers that can be beautiful. You just have to look at things differently.
You just need to look at me differently.
Welp, I had a staff meeting just last week where my director was saying that our team of analysts needed to step up our game. “You’re all level 3 staff. I cut my level 1 staff more slack than I do you…they are expected to make mistakes. You aren’t.” That’s why level 1 staff are heavily supervised….that’s why my group isn’t. So, yes, folk do learn on the job–or you’re not going to be around long. That’s why the pay for a junior employee is lower than someone who’s been around for 5-10 years.
I work with plenty of engineers who are a challenge to work with. I’m sure some of them are on the spectrum. They don’t think like other folks do. Of course, finance and accounting folk don’t think like other folks do either. Our Director of Buss Dev HAS to be on the spectrum–he’s like a cat on cat nip and coke. He’s not suitable for certain jobs, just like you’d not put a finance guy in technical skill job.
But I doubt that smaller business have the time and resources to train up someone…and that’s their choice if they so choose.Report
I’ve sometimes seen the obstacles face by individuals with special needs* go even farther, wherein they demonstrate they have the skills and talents and experience necessary to do the job and are essentially met with a “Yea, but still…” There often seems to be an underlying assumption that there are more needs and challenges associated with them as employees or just people. It’s really, really gross.
One time, we were evaluating an applicant for school. She was a lovely child with so much to offer. She also had physical disabilities due to birth defects that limited her mobility. She required the use of a wheel chair and braces for move throughout the school. Our building was equipped to meet these needs and she met all of our expectations for a student. In discussing her application, an administrator said (paraphrase… it’s been about 10 years), “I know she passed the assessments and her reports all check out. But I can’t help but think about the mind-body connection and how her physical needs may lead to learning needs down the line.” And this was from an EDUCATOR whose background was in SCIENCE… BIOLOGY no less! Holy crap, man. I was floored.
So while I agree with everything you offer here, having been on the other side of hiring/decision making, I also see that it can be far worse.
* Apologies if this language does not feel applicable or appropriate; this is the terminology we use in schools and I believe it remains an appropriate general term as well.Report
“demonstrate they have the skills and talents and experience necessary to do the job and are essentially met ”
It’s not just about “can they do the job”. Do they fit in? Can they function well in the culture of the organization? One of the requirements of my job is that I challenge program managers on their inputs. It’s my job to vet their estimates and push back, tactfully, on them. Someone who can’t do that shouldn’t be doing what I do. Can a candidate display critical thinking skills and act independently, while also ensuring compliance with company regulations and applicable federal law, including reporting someone for violating those rules/laws? If they can’t…..they can’t do the job.Report
Well, I would consider that among the “skills and talents”. Different jobs have different requirements with regards to “culture.” But “Do they fit in?” is often used as a way to exclude folks for reasons entirely unrelated to the job, both hard and soft skills.Report
“But “Do they fit in?” is often used as a way to exclude folks for reasons entirely unrelated to the job, both hard and soft skills.” Yes it has been, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that that aspect should be prevented 100% from being a valid criteria for not extending an offer.Report
This has changed over my career. My first real job was with a very large company, which assumed that employees would stay with them for a long time, quite possibly until retirement; it was a point of pride that they’d never had a layoff. Given that, there was encouragement (even badgering) to take courses that would increase your value to the company: self-improvement like speaking or time management, general knowledge like refinery operations, and specifics like (for my job) computer programing. On my team, which designed computer monitoring system for refineries, it was accepted that there weren’t many people who know both chemical engineering and computers, so it was necessary to hire people who knew one and teach them the other.
As the average time people stay in one job had gone down, companies have decided that it’s less rewarding for them to train people. And to some extent this is a vicious cycle — your employer showing less interest in anything beyond “What can you do for me today?” is an encouragement to keep looking for something better, as is the low bar for having layoffs.Report
As I’ve said before, company loyalty is a two way street. If a company expects employees to stick around so the company can realize a return on their investment, they need to keep employees employed and give them a path to grow.
Too many companies, big and small, held layoffs every time executive and management bonuses were in danger, and got in the habit of not promoting from within. Employees responded by not bothering to trust the employer and by jumping ship when they wanted a promotion, rather than trying to advance internally.
Which is fine, I guess, although when I hear the upper management and the C-Suite bemoan the lack of company loyalty these days and how hard it is to find good employees who can hit the ground running, I am amazed at the lack of self-awareness.Report
There was a cartoon making the rounds back in the 90’s with a CEO behind a giant desk asking “Why don’t our temporary workers have any company loyalty?”Report
How much of this is a chicken/egg problem though? Or, conversely, do we have perverse incentives that create less employer/employee relationships? Is the changing nature of tech a factor in this? Too many MBA’s and not enough ME’s in the boardrooms? Have we lost something in the use of degrees and universities to outsource our hiring practices, where we expect someone to be fully trained on the first day of work?
I don’t have an answer to any of those questions, but it would be an area for research for an enterprising soul.Report
I don’t think it’s that much of a chicken/egg problem, in that employees tend to want to be loyal to an employer (stability being highly valued by people starting families and purchasing property), whereas the MBA set has taken to treating employees as less important than shareholder value* and bonuses.
Once short term Shareholder value set the dollar value as a metric, the egg was laid by business. And let’s face it, training people costs money now, with an uncertain return on that investment, so if shareholder value is impacted in the short term by training costs, it makes sense to outsource that training.
*I know Friedman laid this stinker, but Jack Welch is the one who convinced everyone that it smelled like roses.Report
This is living memory for me, back in the late 90’s. I recall a lot of weird “manifesto” type things being written, mostly from techie type, who were realizing the new trend of super agile companies had destroyed any sense of loyalty. The general theme was, “Yes, we know you can hire and fire at a moment’s notice, but that cuts both ways.”
So in this case, it seems it really started with the companies.
I wish I had a better memory. I’m sure a lot of this is on the Wayback Machine, but I don’t remember enough to effectively search for it.Report
I sold a LOT all kinds of weird manifestos to wanna-be business types during the ’90s. And an additional metric ton of “Manage your business like Picard/Buffy/Homer/the Yankees/Gengis Kahn/The Mayflower Madam/etc” around the same time.
I think that during the ’90s, the tech sector was expanding so fast that keeping up from the business side was damn near impossible, and as a consequence, a whole lot of iffy “management” was hired. But, this was the era that if you could use a two-button mouse you could get a six-digit salary.Report
I agree the discourse was rather “fevered,” but I do think people were responding to something real. Just as we were struggling to figure out how to write software for the internet, people were figuring out how to monetize the internet, and even different people were figuring out how to invest in companies trying to monetize the internet.
I feel as if, at least for the engineers, are loyalty was often to the product more than the companies. What I mean is, we cared about the thing we built. We wanted to see our projects thrive on their own terms. Often these feelings were deep and passionate.
For example, find a former Solaris engineer. Ask them if they felt loyalty to Sun Microsystems.
The answer would likely be, yes, very much so, but that stems from the fact that Sun was passionate about Solaris.
Now, ask them what they think of Oracle.
Then duck behind a chair. Objects will be hurled at an unimaginable velocity.Report
I am going to agree with this 100%. Especially with the part about caring more about the product than the company. And not in a bad way, as I think that this is human nature. And probably holds true for the other two pillars of the industry you mentioned, marketing and finance.
But, as I am not a historian of this, it is just a guess.Report
Dennis, I didn’t realize you were spectrum until I read this. I can add you to the list of people on the spectrum I know, and I want to tell you that I enjoy and appreciate the company of every one of them. I do have a “spectrum person interpretation module” in my head, and that helps sometimes. Generally though, they are people I’m happy to spend time with, and would be happy to work with and train.
Not that that’s a possibility for you.Report