Published on 12, July, 2020
Hi,
I hope this message finds everyone well.
There's a persistent niggle at work and I don't quite know what to make of it. If I try to set things out as objectively as I can, perhaps you can help me understand if this is a more serious issue than a mere 'niggle'.
I lead a technical team at an insurance company and occasionally come into contact with the most senior people in the UK business. These interactions are often supported/facilitated by formal documents in which - for example - I will be required to offer written commentary around my team's activity in its identification and management of risk. Not particularly interesting stuff so I shalln't labour the background, but, in short, I'm required to offer the company's bigwigs formal prose occasionally.
I struggle with communication. This is one of our bread-and-butter characteristics as an autistic community and for me, as far as this post is concerned, the niggle is that the above-noted documents are repeatedly called out by my manager and her manager (a member of the UK executive) as 'too complicated' or 'in need of simplification'. I dutifully re-read this material and other than around the absolute edges (e.g. the occasional question of word economy) I cannot see how to make it simpler without appearing to write for a community of children.
Is it a false analogy to imagine a manager conceiving the idea that there ought to be a minimum walking speed, with an employee in, say, a wheelchair, called out for their deviation therefrom? This person's disadvantage is obvious, whereas mine is not. That said, and for the avoidance of doubt, both my manager and her manager know I'm autistic, but perhaps neither realise that a) communication is a common source of autistic challenge, and b) calling this out when it manifests has a discriminatory flavour to it.
Does it? Is b) true? My relationship with the above-noted parties and my employer in general are strong (I've been at the company for 13 years), and perhaps that's why I'm writing. There's tension between that positivity and what I experience across a) and b) above.
Something of a brain-dump. Interested to hear people's thoughts.
KR,
MC
Bumblechunks said:the above-noted documents are repeatedly called out by my manager and her manager (a member of the UK executive) as 'too complicated' or 'in need of simplification'.
My approach is to say that simplifying them would miss essential information and you would be negligent in giving them incomplete data to work from.
If your manager insists on it being simplified then they must tell you what to ommit - ie they must take responsibility of the decision making here in case there is blowback and heads roll.
In the past I have had to do similar and they have backed down at having their neck on the chopping block.
If the upper management need a kiddies guide then ask them to produce one or two in the format / style they wany and you will imitate this going forward. Say you are not familiar with such a lowbrow approach but are willing to learn with the right teaching.
I wouldn't assume the manager understands how autism affects your communication ability and frankly it may impact your ability to keep your job if you labour the point so I would be careful in pushing it. Masking and scripting are unfortunately what is needed to survice in the corporate hellscape - that was certainly my experience.
Bumblechunks said:I cannot see how to make it simpler without appearing to write for a community of children.
What was the response when you wrote the document at this level?
Remember you are embedded in the technical detail. Managers don't generally need to know that level of technical detail in reports - they want the high level summary in an easy to understand format. They trust that you have got all the details...They just don't need to know them.
When I write documents with lots of data, I make the document a high level summary. I put the tables of data in additional documents, which are attached at the relevant places, so that, if the reader wants to know the details, they have them. But most people don't look at them.
I don't think they are being discriminatory, they are just asking for less detail. Sounds like they may have asked a few times, and may be feeling you don't listen to them? Do they have examples from other technical teams of the level that they feel is appropriate that might help you and your team pitch it better?
Their loss. You were the one who got there, on your own merit, while they seek a Yesman.
Sometimes people in senior positions try too hard to be 'with it'; due to their own insecurities, and childhood issues. I was the same, growing up. I wanted to listen to older music, as a boy, and follow kids' culture as a young man.
Perhaps this is a polite form of character assassination.
Just my thoughts.