How to explain how you think to your employer

Electra - I love the way you describe things in your post, in particular the 'words are not my first language' and different operating system  I have a daughter who I believe has Aspergers and as an NT I find it hard to work her out sometimes

Hi ByteBandit

You come over as very competent and enthusiastic about your job. I hope your boss appreciates this. The bits of the job you say are handed to someone else to finish - is this because it is not properly explained to you what is needed? I work in IT too and also find no trouble with the technical aspects of the job, its how to present myself and my work to the team and my boss that is the problem.

I get given work that is way below my competency because I appear less intelligent to NT people than I actually am. I stare too much and look blank when they ask things because i am busy processing what they just said. Words are not my first language, it must all go to the swirly visual bit of my head and out again.

Could you explain to your boss that conventional ideas of knowledge platforming do not apply to you: an NT person who cannot change a duvet cover will not develop the skills to write a computer program. You are different and a lack of competence at everyday stuff is no obstacle to your being brilliant. He wouldn't ask a Unix box to do Windows stuff, he needs to understand what operating system you are running and adjust accordingly. Perhaps he can never really understand but perhaps he can accept that its how things are.

If you have any suggestions as to how I can get taken more seriously and be given more challenging work I would welcome them.

Thanks for getting back to me on this Zara NAS.

However I think employers want to see something that backs up what an employee is explaining.

As things stand at present, the official bit, whether presented by the employee or looked up on the web, is mostly the triad of impairments.

This doesn't cover 90% of the difficulties employees might need to explain. So many employers, receiving a personalised account, are likely to say, "well I looked up autism on the NAS website, and none of what you say is supported by them, so I cannot accept what you say is a problem is reasonably down to autism".

Most of what may cause people problems - sensory overload or upsetting sensory experiences, information bottlenecks and overload, melt downs and seemingly excessive stress reactions, not being able to follow instructions properly that are given out in meetings, not responding appropriately to colleagues or seeming aloof etc etc....none of these things are corroborated by NAS factsheets.

And that's an awful lot of let down.

Also the skills NAS claim people on the spectrum have are mostly either misleading or insufficiently qualified by the down-side aspects.

It isn't simply a case of updating.

Hi Longman

Would be nice if NAS would address these concerns. Instead of trying to pretend they are not there.

Have these employer factsheets been discussed with people on the spectrum in work, and their employers?

It seems to me what is needed is to get a cross section of employers together with several groups representing various levels of autistic spectrum.

You need to find out what employers might find of value from people on the spectrum, but inform them through representatives on the spectrum.

These factsheets may not accurately reflect the workplace aspirations of people in the spectrum nor the meaningful expectations of employers.

Indeed it might be something that could be done through regional or other NAS groups, so that around the country some managers from different employers have a number of sessions with people on the spectrum in their area, so both understand each other.

There is a danger otherwise that the factsheets set people on the spectrum up to fail, and also inappropriately sell to employers what people on the spectrum might really have to offer. It is about individuals rather than stereotypes.

Tips for Interviewing people with autism.

"People with autism thrive in a structured, well-organised environment"  OK many of us need routine and structure but is that quite the same as what you are claiming?

Most employers may think they are structured and well-organised. Do people on the spectrum thrive in these environments? No they don't, they aren't, and that's one reason why many cannot get jobs.

Then we have three bullets based on the triad of impairments. I'm not sure if employers properly understand non-verbal and body language. To most people this is the psychology around imitating - assuming the same posture as the apparent boss.

Then during the interview you begin by suggesting they ask closed questions - I think you'll find these don't help. People on the spectrum can have difficulty making a connection and seeing the relevance, and may answer such questions adversely. I know what you are trying to suggest, as opposite to open questions, but closed are just as fatal.

The trouble is, in an interview, the panel is looking for attruibutes they seek. However fairly conveyed these are the questions that are often catastrophic to people on the spectrum. On the other hand, however apt it might seem as an example I'm not sure what asking how people react when interrupted helps? The answer is more likely to be counter productive. If you propose doctoring the interview to match the disability you may be missing the point.

I think more could be made of advising panels about literal reading of questions, like how did you find your last job? And advice on eye contact as that's what they look for ordinarily. But these things should have been suggested first.

And then we have managing someone with autism etc. Are the three bullets here relevant to managing someone with autism?

I don't think these employer fact sheets are doing any good at all. They are too much rooted in theory and diagnostic characteristics.

There needs to be some research on experience of the workplace. OK more than a decade ago there were a small number of stuudies observing temporary part-time jobs via Prospects.

But for some bizarre reason no-one studies the work experiences of people on the spectrum who have been in long term work. This partly hinges on the idea that if they can get a permanent job, they haven't really got autism, therefore their experiences aren't relevant.

And there is still this theory that the spectrum tails off uniformly into the general population. How much actual research has been carried out to verify this supposed uniform transition.

NAS you cannot ask Government and Local Authorities to help get people on the spectrum into employment if NAS itself doesn't have sufficient knowledge and just comes out with platitudes and stereotypes.

Oh and I've been lookuing at the employer factsheets. These really aren't helpful.

The first one - what is autism - starts with the triad of impairments - in simple terms, but is that really helpful? Then goes on to explain Pervasive Disorder - hold on the poor emplyer hasn't grasped autism yet!

Then there's the one on recruiting someone with autism - that we can offer excellent skills, but just are bugged by social skills - the triad again - communication, social interaction and routine. Its a diagnostic tool not a lifestyle!

ByteBandit has explained the problem of contradictory attributes, which I've also referred to simmilarly above. Many people on the spectrum in work have many more problems than just fitting in, though fitting in is a big factor.

NAS needs to be wary of mis-selling. Bullets cover:

high level of concentration - well maybe in special subject areas. I personally suffer from fading out and blanking, one of the reasons I got into difficulties, and this is something others report. My concentration is brilliant in the right contexts. But an employer reads this and anticipates he /she can put a person on the spectrum in any task requuiring concentration and get excellent results every time. Is that really true? If it isn't NAS, why are you pedalling this rubbish?

Reliability, conscientiousness and persistance. Yes in context. No not all the time.

Accuracy, close attention to detail and the ability to identify errors. Not talents all employers would jump at. I was good at these, and properly channelled I was useful. But badly directed I was obsessive, pedantic and too close to the detail to see perspectives, and I quickly spotted errors best covered up.

Technical ability such as IT. Where oh where does this cookie come from? Yes people on the spectrum may be good with some aspect of computers, is this a useful aspect always? - no. Sometimes its not broad enough to get a degree in computing. Where does this idea come from NAS? Because NAS keeps popping up with this myth. It is not true.

Detailed factual knowledge and an excellent memory.  Yes from personal experience and seeing others do it this is likely. But what is its application? Many employers think this is provided by computers. I'm not really sure whether employers see the point of it.

NAS, you have to research what employers in different work contexts are looking for. This profile isn't a helpful one.

I'll add another post on these.

I worked twelve years in research and development in industry. I have a problem of "gaps" - things I do not really comprehend or cannot do properly, and I inexplicably miss bits of instruction.

I lived those 12 years on the brink of dismissal most of the time (and indeed another 20 years after, teaching, with much the same problem). 

In compensation I had certain skills which I could really do well and that kept me in work.

But it does make me think that, but for having just enough trade-off skill, I could as easily have been out of a job more often than in. Which is after all the problem for many.

I've had plenty of assessments and reviews and being hauled in because of a personality defect, or persistant failings, or because someone just cannot get round there's something not quite right about me. Even getting a diagnoses didn't make things easier.

The trouble is the explanations of being on the autistic spectrum that are given out are based on the triad of impairments and theory of mind/executive function. Even NAS pushes this stuff out. Does it explain people's everyday needs and experiences? Does it help people in the workplace?

Just because only a small percentage of people on the spectrum secure long term employment, there seems to be this notion that its a minority not worth studying.

So sadly there's nothing out there to provide scientifically based evidence of what can happen, let alone offer advice that would explain it to employers.

Hi Bytebandit,

We have some factsheets for employers on our website, which may have information at the level you are looking for.  Here's a link to them:

www.autism.org.uk/employer-factsheets

If you would like to get in contact with our Employment Training Team for more advice on this, please feel free to do so.  We have added our contact details to the sticky 'Guide to work and volunteering' topic on this forum.

Zara

If you explain to him you have executive dysfunction problems that will be a start: http://www.autismspeaks.org/family-services/tool-kits/asperger-syndrome-and-high-functioning-autism-tool-kit/executive-functioni

http://www.autism.org.uk/living-with-autism/understanding-behaviour/organising-sequencing-and-prioritising.aspx

Explain to him you are great at the detail, but not great at relating it to the bigger picture and that you learn and remember better visually than you do verbally or by written instructions.

Tell him you want more complex work, but it needs to be without the responsibility of a role which requires you to understand how your work contributes to the larger "picture".

You could also say to him that your balance of talents and deficits is more extreme than an NTs.  So where you may be a relative genius with your creative ideas and IT skills, other areas suffer accordingly.  The so-called "spiky profile".