As every CHRO knows, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) defines a “disability” as a physical or mental impairment that limits at least one major life activity.
Given that as many as 13.5 million Americans can now call themselves disabled, and there is growing awareness of the impact of discrimination against people with disabilities, there is no doubt that great strides have been made when it comes to employment inclusion and hiring for those who face hardships.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), about 21% of people with disabilities were employed in the United States in 2022, up from 19% in 2021. This is the highest percentage since 2008, when the U.S. began tracking this statistic.
But problems remain in some areas.
While 90% of Fortune 500 companies have hired applicants with physical disabilities, only 20% say they have hired people with severe mental disabilities – those characterized by clinically significant impairments in an individual’s cognition, emotional regulation, or behavior.
Mental disabilities are covered by the ADA, yet data shows that only 38.1% of adults with severe mental disabilities work full-time, compared to 61.7% of adults without disabilities.
Concerns about being able to accommodate someone with a severe mental illness, and the potential impact they may have on those around them, are often cited as reasons employers are wary of mental illness, but is this an outdated stereotype that needs to be abolished?
TLNT interviewed Aubrey Blanche, senior director of people and strategic programs at Culture Amp, which works with companies like Salesforce and Etsy to create better employee experiences for neurodiverse talent, to find out:
Q: It feels like the concept of neurodiversity is well understood now, but why isn’t mental and physical disability viewed in the same way?
A: “The battle for ‘awareness’ has certainly made progress, but there are still many steps to be taken. Just because someone is aware of ‘neurodiversity’ (often incorrectly used as a euphemism for autism) does not mean that we have uncovered or addressed the stigma associated with it. Moreover, simply being aware of neurodiversity does not address the social and organizational barriers that different neurotyped people face. There is definitely a long way to go because mental disorders have a special experience. In fact, most of the time it is invisible. Because mental disorders are not always obvious, it is often questioned whether they are ‘real’ or ‘severe’ enough to require specific support. That is why it is so important to have a mindset that literally everyone (whether neurotypical or neurodiverse) needs specific support to be successful (while neurotypical people’s needs are just met by default).”
Q: Given this, do employers still have the same concerns about hiring or accepting neurodiverse people?
A: “I think the main concerns are the same – centered around the cost of accommodations (which are often negligible) and concerns about interacting with neurologically normal people. But while there are certainly differences to consider, it’s simply foolish to think that a workplace, intentionally or not, would exclude more than 30% of people from the potential talent pool.”
Q: What is the main perception you need to overcome?
A: “I think the biggest misconception to overcome is that the workplace adjustments needed to support neurodiverse people are ‘too difficult’. In most cases, they simply define good management.
Create an intentional process and structure for employees to request what they need to be successful Be clear in writing about expectations and “definition of done” if necessary/requested Provide options for employees to participate at their own convenience (e.g. asynchronously or with camera off) Work flexibly by default, allowing employees to manage their own time and location, as long as the necessary work is completed
There are other examples, but these examples show that being neurodiverse is actually not that complicated; it just requires intention and effort (which rarely comes at a monetary cost).”
Q: You seem to be a big advocate of employee resource groups, how can these help in this regard?
A: “Employee resource groups can be extremely helpful in creating a safe work environment, but they shouldn’t be left to make the entire environment inclusive and equitable. The most important contribution of ERGs is building connection and safety. I’ve seen the most successful groups first normalize living and working with disabilities, and then act as a kind of ‘collective intelligence’ on the strategies and clarity employees need. This can help with access to formal accommodation programs, but it can also make the workplace more flexible for certain employees. For example, at Culture Amp, conversations between campers with ADHD led to group calls for collaboration. It’s a kind of virtual body doubling that helps people with executive functioning issues focus and be more productive.”
Q: Are there any “quick wins” employers can implement when hiring neurodiverse talent?
A: “The first and most powerful way organizations can show appreciation is by collecting data about disabilities and creating clear, accessible support processes. Without data, it’s impossible to know what works and what doesn’t work for people with disabilities. And without support processes, many people with disabilities may be at a disadvantage from the moment they join the company by automatically favoring people without disabilities.”
Q: Is it a new issue that employers are becoming wary of intentionally hiring neurodiverse people because it could be seen as positive discrimination?
A: “My personal view is that positive discrimination is a largely fictitious argument that stems from a willful misunderstanding of what equity means and the purpose of DEI. The idea of positive discrimination is largely one that ignores the significant and meaningful historical inequalities that exist in society and across organizations, and is based on the completely irrational idea of being hired solely on demographics, rather than skills or abilities. Interestingly, I have almost never heard anyone express concern about neurotypical people being hired solely on demographics, when statistically it is a much more common occurrence. Intentionally creating a culture and processes that are inclusive and supportive of neurodiverse people is an objectively good thing (for people, companies, etc.). Letting people know that this is true is not discrimination; it’s good marketing.”
Q: Will neurodiverse employees always struggle in the workplace if accommodations aren’t made, or do you hope attitudes will change so that working with these people isn’t seen as an “accommodation”?
A: “I believe that people whose needs are not the default will struggle in a workplace that is designed for people with different needs. That’s why I think a fundamental mindset shift is needed: talent and business leaders need to evolve who they consider to be the ‘default’ employee. At Culture Amp, we employ equitable design principles in all our talent development programs. That means we consider neurodiverse employees (and BIPOC, transgender) as the ‘default’ experience we design for. By doing this, we ensure that the most marginalized people are our top priority. But surprisingly, as we design for those cases, we also build structures that serve people from backgrounds that are typically less marginalized (e.g., white people and neurotypical people).”
Q: What are the employment prospects for neurodiverse people? Might the skills shortage lead employers to look at a different talent pool?
A: “I’m optimistic about the future. The explosion of discussion and efforts around neurodiverse inclusion suggests that there is growing pressure to create structures that consider and support the experiences of this vast population. That said, there is a huge amount of work ahead to translate that awareness and a lot of good intentions into organizational structures and accountability.”