This semester I had the opportunity to work with a classmate with Asperger's syndrome.
It has been a very bad experience to say the least. In meetings he screams and berates us, gets very angry and easily frustrated when things are not done the way he wants to do them, even when the rest of the group has unanimously decided to do them a certain way. One time he started watching a video in the middle of the meeting and screamed at us to shut up every time we tried to talk because he couldn't listen to his video.
My university or department has had absolutely no contact with me or any member of my group to guide us on how to work with a neurodivergent classmate, on how to make the group and project work. It has been a very tiring experience. Can anybody give me any advice on how to try to better the situation? How to make the environment better for him and my group?
(I'm on the spectrum as well) We do well with rules. If you have a concrete set of rules of conduct, give it to him, and warn him when he violates them. If he keeps screaming, watching videos during meetings, etc. then loop in HR to get him fired. Being autistic isn't an excuse to be an asshole, it just means we need help on social cues and stuff.
(Also on the spectrum) Rules might help, but the behaviour op described sounds like something much more complex. Almost as if they have experienced some trauma.
With guidance and learning we can cooperate and work well with people.
Rule #1: To reinforce group cohesion and identify who is truly "one of us" and who is an interloper, the rules are subject to change at any time without prior notice or approval.
It's funny how some of those things are just relative. I've been in a group at university where everyone else began a meeting by talking about the latest sports updates while I just waited. Nobody gave me any guidance on how to deal with sports fans as teammates. I've also been shouted at and sworn at by otherwise normal classmates. This stuff is usually treated as acceptable when the higher social status people approve of it and not acceptable when they don't.
That's an interesting point, and I agree. But the difference is, I have experience working with difficult and disrespectful people in group projects who are neurotypical. I know how to deal with them and how to resolve the issues that most commonly arise.
But in this case I have absolutely zero knowledge or experience dealing with a similar situation but with a neurodivergent person. It's a completely new thing that I've never had to deal with. That's why I'm asking for advice.
I've had similar experiences. It's exhausting. Can't treat them the same way they treat us because of power differences. We're okay as long as we're accomodating them, if we try to do things differently we get excluded. Really easy to get frustrated and adversarial in situations like these.
Someone on the team needs to be the leader (not them) and set ground rules. Be stern and direct. If they act out like that, don’t get upset and calmly ask them to either corporate or you’ll need them to leave. Ask their input often, but don’t let them steer the meetings. If they have an issue with how things are done look for a middle ground or explain why your method is the method you’re using without belittling their opinion. Be direct, don’t sugar coat things, don’t assume they will read between the lines, and try to understand that they are different than you.
I am neurodivergent and I have been on both sides of this. It’s hard for everyone involved.
From the start it seems that they felt unheard and unwanted so they are frustrated and feel stuck. Doing what I mentioned above can help repair this relationship.
Thank you for your input. I'll be more direct when issues arise and have a set of rules for conduct ready. Hopefuly you're right about repairing the relationship.
It does sound a bit like ass-perger syndrome, pardon the pun. While that condition certainly isn't fun for him, either, I think this is not just an issue with group dynamics or interpersonal issues, but rather involves self regulation and a general attitude. Even people on the spectrum can somewhat improve those.
Tell him that behaviour is unacceptable. Don’t mince your words, be explicit and direct. Loop in HR/advisor/whichever higher ups and let them know if the behaviour continues. You don’t have to tolerate yelling, berating, mid-meeting video watching from anyone.
If he’s unwilling to stop that behaviour or unwilling to try cooperate, make sure higher ups know. There’s not much you can do if he just refuses to cooperate (just like anyone else).
If he IS willing to try cooperate, asking him directly (or asking HR/advisors/etc to mediate a discussion) about what he needs to effectively cooperate/what isn’t working could help you find ways of working together. For example, if he’s feeling that his ideas aren’t being heard/discussed because he doesn’t quite know how to interject/take part in a group discussion could be alleviated by making sure to ask him for input explicitly during group discussions. Not saying that’s the case or a perfect solution, and that frustration certainly doesn’t justify unacceptable behaviour, but yeah that kind of thing might help?
Hope that gives you some ideas. Shitty group members of all stripes are a frustrating experience. Good luck!
Thank you for your advice. I agree that group dynamics are most likely very hard and can be super frustrating for him, and maybe that causes his disruptive behaviour.
It is bizarre that our society now seems to reject entirely the concept of standards. If you scream at people like a crazy person then you can't go to college, full stop. Sorry, you're severely disabled and you need help you don't belong in college. Colleges are happy to collect the government subsidized tuition I guess.
Maybe he behaves the way he does because there are no consequences? Like if he watches a video and screams at you to be silent, maybe snatch his device away? And then if he screams at you you all scream back at him. And if he gets violent trying to get his device back you get violent back (but only as much as needed to counteract his aggression).
But you probably want to plan this out with the other people in the group.
If you really want to continue working with him (as opposed to just leaving) you'll probably just have to stop being sensitive to the screaming and berating. He has a condition, you can either excuse yourself or just have a stronger personality. You can have fun with it, yell back but don't bully.
I can't leave. The groups were formed at the start of the semester by the professor so those are the groups that are going to last until the end of it. That's why I'm asking for advice on how to better deal with the situation.
Glad to see them taking the initiative to make interviews more accommodating for people on the spectrum.
As someone on the spectrum myself, I always dreaded job interviews. I would try to get as much information on what the interview would entail as well as the atmosphere and other specifics so I could mentally prepare myself beforehand and give myself a better chance to show my best side. The example they provided of performing an interview in text through a google doc rather than over the phone really hits home for me, I feel like I am much better able to communicate my ideas through written mediums than verbally.
I feel overall there is a lot of untapped talent in the neurodiverse community that is passed over due to some of these barriers in effective communication, so I'm always glad to see companies take initiatives like this.
> As someone on the spectrum myself, I always dreaded job interviews. I would try to get as much information on what the interview would entail as well as the atmosphere and other specifics so I could mentally prepare myself beforehand and give myself a better chance to show my best side
I’m on the spectrum as well and interviews are a bit of a mixed bag for me. I hate everything around it, going to a new, unknown location, not knowing exactly where you end up, meeting new people, etc.
The interviews themselves, however, are fine. I basically get to talk about my special interest with people who are presumably equally knowledgable about the subject as I am. I usually enjoy them.
As someone on the spectrum as well, I have a question, if you don't like meeting new people, how are you supposed to collaborate with others? At Google at least, we need to work with people across teams all the time. Or you are hoping for a forever-remote gig?
A friend once pinged me about how I'd handle a request from a candidate to do text-only interviewing. He was outraged. The candidate said it would be easier for them to do a better job text-only, and his first thought was "Clearly they're scamming us." I told him, my first task would be contacting HR to ask if they needed some form of accommodation, to more elegantly address the "Why are you asking us to do this" concern he had, but also that if the candidate needed a legitimate accommodation I thought it would be great of them to accommodate. My friend had never considered that there are people that might need accommodation, and that it was a good point.
The bummer is, I think, most companies just do not give a shit about accommodating anyone. If you cannot fit their mold, they'll just find someone who can. I'm hopeful that more companies will deploy interview processes to bring out the best in their candidates, rather than processes that will specifically weed out everyone but the specific archetype of person a given interview accommodates.
Person-to-person interaction is an important component of most jobs. If a candidate could not conduct a verbal conversation as part of an interview, I would have a lot of trouble fitting them on any of my teams. Siloing with independent projects is an option, but I think would only be sustainable in larger orgs.
One of HR's principal responsibilities is risk mitigation, and different/novel situations present unknown risks, so it is rational to avoid those situations. Most people are not mean (or even inconsiderate, just wary.
>there is a lot of untapped talent in the neurodiverse community
There is going to be a huge advantage for companies that realize this. Massive untapped demand for jobs that recognize different ways of getting work done.
I'm building a job board for the ADHD version of this. Not quite 100% ready but I received more interest in this than anything else I've ever built (1,300 candidate signups in 48hrs). It's to the point that I'm scrambling to supply enough jobs because they keep getting filled.
Calling it "Wildcard People" removed the gatekeeping/"medical" aspect while maintaining expectations of how these candidates end up doing their work.
After reading through some of the job descriptions, I get an impression that there's a disconnect between what job posters want and what an actual wildcard might be. Can't quite put my finger on it, but the following doesn't really feel like they're looking for someone potentially chaotic.
> Manage products from concept to design, requirements, testing, pricing, promotion, and support.
> Prioritize thousands of bugs and feature requests using a ruthless focus on both quantitative and qualitative criteria towards defined goals
> 5+ years of SaaS product management experience working within the financial sector
I get that's for a Senior position, but let's be real, they're looking for someone with specific skills in a specific domain that have been applied in a somewhat linear fashion for years. Is my impression off?
Your FAQ describes someone who might be doing a tradeshow one week, while probably not also being responsible for programming some feature, nor do they have unlimited time and energy. But those job postings read like they just want someone to be responsible for everything all the time, because everything is arbitrarily urgent, and manage it well.
I don't know quite what I'd expect to see, maybe I'm just too far gone from being in a job, but I feel like just short term contracting might be the thing to do.
Damn, I had this idea recently but failed to execute on it for some reason ;)
ADHD people, from what I've read, are some of the most chronically underemployed, including myself. I think it's been a massive uphill battle for me as someone in programming, but who burns out easily, shows up late, and has crazy gaps on their resume. I hope you find success with this and will keep an eye on it.
This is excellent! I love the branding. There's such a niche for this sort of thing. I used to feel like I didn't "fit it" at most companies, because I tend to be such a generalist and resist being typecast. I can see this as super empowering for many folks.
Thank you! Not going to lie - I got very emotional when I found out the first person got hired to be exactly who they are from my site. The most rewarding thing I've ever worked on.
Oh wow is this a trait? I had an adult ADHD diagnosis a few years ago, but not much has come of it since (still struggling with "typical" work arrangements).
In fact I just interviewed with a company today where I expressed my resistance being pigeonholed in my own words.
Speaking of being a generalist, the book "Range" by David Epstein gave me some hope.
I'm only asking because this looks like a great initiative, and it's something I care about: how do you plan to keep yourself accountable in the process?
I have seen a lot of job boards catering to various niches popping up in recently years, and they all eventually become just a regular job board that generates passive income for the creator without much curation.
That's a good question. The real answer is I don't really know.
Right now I've been able to speak directly with hiring managers/CEOs who are instantly on-board and "get it" after reading the blog post. My hope is that the clear messaging is actively driving away people who want to hire non-Wildcards. I make it clear on the Job Creation page that you will only receive applicants of a certain type. But that's just what I'm hoping happens. If it starts to drift away from that, I'll have to figure out how to vet employers better. I don't want people like me getting jobs that cause suffering.
I'd rather make 10x less money than compromise on the mission.
I was a bit worried about this too, but evidently people love it. Personally, it just describes me so perfectly and for whatever reason people agree.
ADHD is different for everyone, but basically an ADHD-friendly job is one where "maintenance" or "routine" tasks are not an expectation. I.e. keeping API documentation up-to-date every week is not a good Wildcard task. If you need someone to do that work, don't hire a Wildcard. If you need someone to do a little bit of everything (i.e. Chief of Staff type role) then it's a better fit.
Reading the definition of a wildcard on your site, I’m not sure how that workplace behavior (ie being a jack of all trades) would fit adhd people specifically.
One of the core issues with ADHD is that the things that motivate you are different to a neurotypical person:
> First, neurotypical people (those without ADHD) make decisions based on three factors: Importance, Rewards, and Consequences. (e.g. I think it's important. Someone I [love, like, fear or respect] thinks it's important. Or, there are consequences and rewards
> People with ADHD, rarely, if ever, make decisions based on these things. Dodson says (and I agree wholeheartedly), that people with ADHD make decisions based on different criteria: Interest, Challenge, Novelty, Urgency (ICNU).
That difference in motivators makes it likely that people with ADHD will constantly jump between different tasks, which over time builds up into becoming an expert at learning new things, and a broad knowledge about many things within their domain.
I'd say I'm a solid developer (at least that's what my employers have always said!), but I've always really bombed in-person/live interviews. I think it was probably a personality thing, as I'm pretty all-over-the-place when speaking in person. In text though, I can polish my thoughts before sending them!
Automattic had (and still has) an interview process that was fully text-based via a combination of Slack, p2, and GitHub, and it really worked well for me. I didn't even speak to a person (on video) until a couple weeks into starting the job!
A completely text-based interview process works great for a variety of people: neurodiverse, people with accents/ESL, fidgety people, etc. Especially for remote companies where everyone communicates using text 90%+ of the time! I'm glad it's catching on, and I hope to see it expanded to more companies.
What things are considered "neurodiverse" and what things are considered mental illness? Genuine question. A case could be made that schizophrenia or psychopathy or any other condition is simply another example of diverse neural make-ups. Where is the line drawn? If there is no line, then Google would obviously still be making a call about which types of neurodiversity they want, and which they don't. Which puts us right back to square one anyway. This is just another way for them to fit the "Diversity" buzzword into marketing material.
There is no line. But unfortunately, I think Google only wants to hire people who they can accommodate easy (easy enough for the "diversity" points).
Have awkward social skills and prefer working away from other people? If you're a good programmer Google won't care. Have trouble following any instructions whatsoever? You're probably out of luck.
Honestly I think it would be nice for people with schizophrenia and more serious conditions to get employment. Even if it's hard to get them to actually contribute something, for their own self-worth. But I doubt companies like Google will do much for those people without an external incentive.
I don't think it's just about diversity points. There's a real competitive advantage to building a workplace that can accommodate smart but different people.
My impression is that despite the perception of Google as having a very progressive and liberal culture, they are actually pretty ruthlessly capitalist and won't go out of their way to accommodate people who are ultimately detrimental. They are just being open-minded about what kinds of people they can put to use.
The line is drawn at the point that someone's mental condition would negatively impact their coworkers.
Someone slightly on the spectrum who's somewhat awkward in conversation but an otherwise great developer? Probably a pass, unless their conversational awkwardness makes communication difficult.
Someone further on the spectrum who has a meltdown if their daily routine is even slightly disrupted? Probably not a pass, unless that routine never crosses the path of a coworker.
Someone with untreated bipolar disorder who lashes out with little provocation at their coworkers? Fail.
Someone with an IQ of 80 who's literally incapable of coding, and would thus be total dead weight on the team? Fail.
As an ADHD person I tend to be suspicious of progressive sounding ideas around things like neurodiversity because they usually get tied in with attitudes that culimate in telling me I shouldn't need my medication. Even amongst the academics I know it's very popular to argue I only need my meds because of x societal factor. I'd much rather not be forced to trust society and just have my medication to deal with the problem.
There's no clear boundary but one criteria for some mental illnesses is that it causes problems for the person's life. So a high functioning autist could be perfectly healthy in a world without informal human interaction. Pedophilia is not a mental illness unless it gets you into trouble, then it is.
I'd guess the reason for targeting autism is there would be a disproportionate number of highly capable workers hidden in that group which would be missed by normal hiring practices. You wouldn't expect that from, say, schizophrenia or most other neurodiversities.
This is really difficult and quite a grey area. Just to make a point, is gender dysphoria an acceptable neural diversity, but bipolar affective disorder is not?
N=1, but I had my most successful group project ever with someone who was dealing with bipolar disorder.
The solution? He was a master communicator. He would tell me when he was having a manic streak and took on more work. When he was going back down, he communicated that and I took on more. If he started going unresponsive, I reached out and asked, and he told me where he was and what support he needed.
Now he's doing better and found the right medication, but crivens, I've been in a lot of other group projects, and I really miss him.
If the test of a person being employable is that they keep their condition to themselves, then it's mental illness. You can't ask for accommodations for mental illness, is my definition. No matter what the rules on paper.
Different workplaces have different tolerances for people who seem unstable; for instance, if someone bursts into tears, are they pressured out? It varies.
Schizophrenia has nothing to do with psychopathy, sociopathy, multiple personalities, or anything you've seen in the movies, by the way.
There is a lot of this that seems poorly thought through.
Asking for an employee's medical records is forbidden. Asking an employee to undergo a medical exam is forbidden. Asking questions about the employee's health or disabilities during the interview process is forbidden. See https://www.eeoc.gov/pre-employment-inquiries-and-medical-qu....
With all that said, what prevents anybody from saying "I don't feel comfortable taking a phone call" or "I need extra time for this" without actually being autistic? Then the disadvantage they claim to be removing hasn't actually gone anywhere.
Sure, they do benefit everyone, but you missed the point I was making. The point is that they claim it is to level a playing field, but they're not actually doing that if those accommodations are open to everybody.
Your comparison also comes off a bit disingenuous. They're talking about interview accommodations like "providing questions in advance" and "extended interview time".
If I'm good at conveying my thoughts verbally and then you take that away, now you have thus created a detrimental system for me. ADA compliance is good and bad in the sense that it helps people who need it so they can function on their own, but also is a burden on everyone else for the simple sake that in case someone who needs that benefit can use it, even though 99.9% of the time it will be used by people who don't. I mean we don't exactly see ADA compliance for parks. So short of essential buildings, I think it's unreasonably excessive.
All of those examples have real, non-trivial costs for employers though. If in order to adopt any of them I need to provide them to everybody I'll just provide the accommodations to no one
Well, for one thing it's hiring people who may not be the stereotypical "cultural fit". I've always been a massive proponent of hiring based on "cultural fit", but have recently started to realize it can get really toxic that way.
Hiring people who are good at their jobs, but may be different in a social setting can be a way of indirectly hiring people on the spectrum. If you have many extroverted employees, hiring more introverted people will inevitably lead to hiring people on the spectrum.
How do you judge this? Well, personality tests are pretty common already, they can absolutely show traits that are more common in people with autism. Also, an interview can tell you a lot about a person.
I’ve always thought “cultural fit” was an odd thing to prioritize when we have research showing that (actual) diversity is more helpful for avoiding groupthink. Especially when this term is just begging for bias to creep in.
One lesson that stuck with me was the Houston Rockets GM putting some barriers around how emotional judgments were allowed to influence decisions. Small rules like “don’t give players nicknames” or just giving less weight to personal interviews were good experiments in how to keep screenings more objective. We don’t have the granularity or measurability of new hire data as NBA offices do, but I think these concepts are still useful.
The new trend is hiring for "culture add" rather than "culture fit." In other words, not trying to determine whether a person fits in with everybody else, but trying to determine whether what they bring to the table is something new and beneficial.
My own engineering team still uses the term "culture fit," but I recently helped refine our interviewing guidelines to make it more clear what we mean:
"We are assessing the candidate's comfort level with our processes, priorities, frequency of change, etc. Assessments should never reflect an interviewer's comfort level with any candidate's culture, personal attributes, etc."
You raise good points and I am of the mind that this is a difficult problem without silver bullets.
I don't believe there is any way to create and vet a "100% bias-free guaranteed" interview process.
That said, our industry does have a reputation for being especially unwelcoming to women. It would be a shame if a candidate raised red flags and those flags went undetected or ignored in an attempt to be "inclusive".
Part of accommodating people who have a disability is introducing equity and equality into the process, and making it possible for all candidates to use those options. There might be a perception that one route is easier than another, and if that’s the case, it’s a failure on the part of the interview process.
Options provided for equality and equity are not supposed to ease requirements for a subset of people, but ensure that their evaluation doesn’t punish or discount them.
Do the accommodations as stated not make you think that cheating an interview will become very easy?
"I need extra time for my interview" and "I'm uncomfortable with a phone call" sounds like a very easy way to get third party help without anybody being the wiser.
And again, that flies in the face of their attempt to actually level the playing field.
I am not an expert on the American legal system, but it seems like that would be fraud and thus a criminal matter. Companies could report suspected cases to the authorities. This here seems to be a case from the educational system where similar issues can arise: https://www.vox.com/first-person/2019/3/14/18265874/college-...
Seriously? The charges in the admissions scandal had to do with mail fraud and bribery. Do you really think the American judicial system is going to get involved because some Google employees skipped a meeting by claiming they were Autistic?
> extended interview time, providing questions in advance, or conducting the interview in writing in a Google Doc rather than verbally on a call
Like, i dont think having these things would give an advantage to most people, so why not let them have it?
Ext time - if you're doing a test in an interview that heavily depends on time you are doing it wrong imo. Lots of people get nervous and flustered during timed tests, and its totally contrived. Yes there are deadlines at work, but they're of the form you have to get this done by next week, not you have to read this document really fast and type this thing up really fast because you only have 20 min.
Doing over google doc - i think there are a lot of people who are good at social cues who would be significantly disadvantaged by this. You just cut off a major source of info on what the interviewer is looking for, as well as preventing you from making a good impression via social means (being well spoken and funny is a major advantage in most interviews).
Knowing the questions ahead of time - yeah, that might give an advantage. Sure interviewers should never ask questions that are googleable, but having time to think about it prior to the high stakes interview would probably help a lot of people. That said,why not just do this for everyone? It probably would make the interview less contrived and more like the real job.
I suspect that you may need to actively request these as an accommodation, and I suspect a lot of these restrictions go out the window then. [1] says "When an applicant asks for an accommodation for the job interview, the employer can require medical documentation."
That also means that depending on how this is implemented, people who aren't aware of it, too shy, undiagnosed, or don't want their diagnosis on the record everywhere may not benefit from this at all. OTOH, some of the training may improve the situation in general, even when no accommodation has been requested.
It does help with the interview process. A lot of communication lies in body language and tone of voice. Taking that out of the equation, absent a good reason, is going to eliminate useful information.
Some people might exhibit behaviors that are problematic in a professional environment. To go into a hiring decision without that information would be a mistake, in my opinion.
> what prevents anybody from saying "I don't feel comfortable taking a phone call" or "I need extra time for this" without actually being autistic? Then the disadvantage they claim to be removing hasn't actually gone anywhere.
I don't see how supporting the individual needs of others is a problem in any context. At the end of the day a candidate still needs to pass the interview.
The point is to focus on their ability to do the actual work.
> With all that said, what prevents anybody from saying "I don't feel comfortable taking a phone call" or "I need extra time for this" without actually being autistic? Then the disadvantage they claim to be removing hasn't actually gone anywhere.
Nothing. A small minority of people gaming the system shouldn't necessarily mean you get rid of accommodations.
It doesn't mean you have to get rid of them, but you should probably think about what the pitfalls are and how best to address them. I have written about those elsewhere in this thread, so I won't repeat them here.
What's the problem with that? If someone has trouble with phone interviews why should a diagnosis be a barrier to being able to give the best performance they can?
"We will offer candidates in this program reasonable accommodations like extended interview time, providing questions in advance, or conducting the interview in writing in a Google Doc rather than verbally on a call."
These would great practices for any job interview, whether the interviewee is on the spectrum or not.
Providing questions in advance (behavioral at least) would make the interview process a lot better for everybody.
The possibility to answer the more involved questions in writing would also be a great plus overall.
Yeah, it would be great if those things were offered as options.
Personally, I am terrible at studying and getting assignments done, so I like that interviews are usually self-contained and relatively short. I also really appreciate the encouragement and sense of cooperation I get from doing an interview in person rather than in text, I think it makes me perform better. Obviously not as much with zoom interviews.
But I recognize my privilege here, that my brain happens to fit the current shape of interviews! It would be great if there were other types of interviews available that fit other people as well.
Aren't 'neurodiverse' people over-represented in IT/Computer Science, compared to their fraction of the population? Is trying to increase their share even further the correct way path to take?
If we're talking about the general workforce, instead of specifically tech fields, that would make sense.
A more reasonable metric to use seems to be whether a group is over/underrepresented in a company compared to the available workforce (not overall population), and I'm not sure whether neurodiverse people are overrepresented by that metric.
Since neurodiversity isn't one of the "popular" diversity/social justice topics, I suspect the main motivation here is to avoid missing applicants that are technically skilled and suitable, but may not do well in the interview process due to their neurodiversity.
What is the issue with certain groups being over or under represented? Physically fit people are over-represented in sport. Attractive people are over-represented in modelling. High IQ people are over represented in rocket science. Who cares? We need to stop sacrificing everything on the altar of diversity.
I don't really see why targeting the company is useful other than for political practicality because it's rather easy to hold entire companies accountable than some manager hiring for some specific IT role in small enough numbers its harder to not give them the benefit of the doubt. For starters, if you don't care about what job role a diverse group lands up in, does that mean it's okay if they don't get any upper level well compensated jobs so long as they're staffed in many lower paying jobs?
In regards to avoiding discrimination, and giving everybody a fair chance, I don't see a system that accomplishes this besides a lottery. The job interview is fundamentally a ritual of discrimination. The entire fixation on increasing employment for a small number of "diverse" groups is mostly driven by the political strength of said groups rather than any sort of consistent moral principles.
The idea that each category we can come up with to lump people into should be totally evenly distributed across all streams of work or else something must be wrong has always seemed weird to me.
If there is something actively preventing you from being in or sticking around in a profession you want to be a part of, I'm all for breaking down those barriers, but the idea of "over-representation" seems to go in the opposite direction. It seems aimed at keeping or kicking people out.
Yes, they're already a large share, and they hate the existing interviewing process, as well as most office environments (and the politics that go along with it).
Over represented how? From the total world population? Most definitely.
From the population that gets a CS degree? I may be biased but think neurodiverse people prefer staying at academia if they can and would like that balance to tip off a little.
These are real people with hopes and dreams. They should have every opportunity everyone else has regardless of if people think they are over-quota or whatever.
Lots of discrimination in the past was justified with the argument that a minority group was over-represented in some field. E.g. some north american universities restricting jewish applicants all the way up until the 60s.
How do you define over-represented? What's the ideal representation? Do you base it on the global population? Within the US? People with an engineering/CS degree?
Over-representation assumes that there's an objective taxonomy by which representation can be factored. I find it very amusing that no one thinks of this, and/or can't bring this 'obvious' fact to light. "Imagined Communities" is a good book on some of this, if anyone cares to read more. I suspect that there's a lot of civil religion at work, that causes these taxonomies to not immediately appear assumptive. I would guess that we'll lose these components of the civil religion, over time, as a consequence to these initiatives.
Readit News
My university or department has had absolutely no contact with me or any member of my group to guide us on how to work with a neurodivergent classmate, on how to make the group and project work. It has been a very tiring experience. Can anybody give me any advice on how to try to better the situation? How to make the environment better for him and my group?
With guidance and learning we can cooperate and work well with people.
But in this case I have absolutely zero knowledge or experience dealing with a similar situation but with a neurodivergent person. It's a completely new thing that I've never had to deal with. That's why I'm asking for advice.
I am neurodivergent and I have been on both sides of this. It’s hard for everyone involved.
From the start it seems that they felt unheard and unwanted so they are frustrated and feel stuck. Doing what I mentioned above can help repair this relationship.
Deleted Comment
If he’s unwilling to stop that behaviour or unwilling to try cooperate, make sure higher ups know. There’s not much you can do if he just refuses to cooperate (just like anyone else).
If he IS willing to try cooperate, asking him directly (or asking HR/advisors/etc to mediate a discussion) about what he needs to effectively cooperate/what isn’t working could help you find ways of working together. For example, if he’s feeling that his ideas aren’t being heard/discussed because he doesn’t quite know how to interject/take part in a group discussion could be alleviated by making sure to ask him for input explicitly during group discussions. Not saying that’s the case or a perfect solution, and that frustration certainly doesn’t justify unacceptable behaviour, but yeah that kind of thing might help?
Hope that gives you some ideas. Shitty group members of all stripes are a frustrating experience. Good luck!
Deleted Comment
But you probably want to plan this out with the other people in the group.
Dead Comment
As someone on the spectrum myself, I always dreaded job interviews. I would try to get as much information on what the interview would entail as well as the atmosphere and other specifics so I could mentally prepare myself beforehand and give myself a better chance to show my best side. The example they provided of performing an interview in text through a google doc rather than over the phone really hits home for me, I feel like I am much better able to communicate my ideas through written mediums than verbally.
I feel overall there is a lot of untapped talent in the neurodiverse community that is passed over due to some of these barriers in effective communication, so I'm always glad to see companies take initiatives like this.
I’m on the spectrum as well and interviews are a bit of a mixed bag for me. I hate everything around it, going to a new, unknown location, not knowing exactly where you end up, meeting new people, etc.
The interviews themselves, however, are fine. I basically get to talk about my special interest with people who are presumably equally knowledgable about the subject as I am. I usually enjoy them.
The bummer is, I think, most companies just do not give a shit about accommodating anyone. If you cannot fit their mold, they'll just find someone who can. I'm hopeful that more companies will deploy interview processes to bring out the best in their candidates, rather than processes that will specifically weed out everyone but the specific archetype of person a given interview accommodates.
There is going to be a huge advantage for companies that realize this. Massive untapped demand for jobs that recognize different ways of getting work done.
I wrote a blog post (https://beta.wildcardpeople.com/what-is-a-wildcard-person) about how people with ADHD tend to do work, and I'm finding random people on LinkedIn putting it right in their bio.
Calling it "Wildcard People" removed the gatekeeping/"medical" aspect while maintaining expectations of how these candidates end up doing their work.
https://beta.wildcardpeople.com/
> Manage products from concept to design, requirements, testing, pricing, promotion, and support.
> Prioritize thousands of bugs and feature requests using a ruthless focus on both quantitative and qualitative criteria towards defined goals
> 5+ years of SaaS product management experience working within the financial sector
I get that's for a Senior position, but let's be real, they're looking for someone with specific skills in a specific domain that have been applied in a somewhat linear fashion for years. Is my impression off?
Your FAQ describes someone who might be doing a tradeshow one week, while probably not also being responsible for programming some feature, nor do they have unlimited time and energy. But those job postings read like they just want someone to be responsible for everything all the time, because everything is arbitrarily urgent, and manage it well.
I don't know quite what I'd expect to see, maybe I'm just too far gone from being in a job, but I feel like just short term contracting might be the thing to do.
ADHD people, from what I've read, are some of the most chronically underemployed, including myself. I think it's been a massive uphill battle for me as someone in programming, but who burns out easily, shows up late, and has crazy gaps on their resume. I hope you find success with this and will keep an eye on it.
In fact I just interviewed with a company today where I expressed my resistance being pigeonholed in my own words.
Speaking of being a generalist, the book "Range" by David Epstein gave me some hope.
I have seen a lot of job boards catering to various niches popping up in recently years, and they all eventually become just a regular job board that generates passive income for the creator without much curation.
Right now I've been able to speak directly with hiring managers/CEOs who are instantly on-board and "get it" after reading the blog post. My hope is that the clear messaging is actively driving away people who want to hire non-Wildcards. I make it clear on the Job Creation page that you will only receive applicants of a certain type. But that's just what I'm hoping happens. If it starts to drift away from that, I'll have to figure out how to vet employers better. I don't want people like me getting jobs that cause suffering.
I'd rather make 10x less money than compromise on the mission.
Can I ask you what an Adhd-friendly job entails?
ADHD is different for everyone, but basically an ADHD-friendly job is one where "maintenance" or "routine" tasks are not an expectation. I.e. keeping API documentation up-to-date every week is not a good Wildcard task. If you need someone to do that work, don't hire a Wildcard. If you need someone to do a little bit of everything (i.e. Chief of Staff type role) then it's a better fit.
> First, neurotypical people (those without ADHD) make decisions based on three factors: Importance, Rewards, and Consequences. (e.g. I think it's important. Someone I [love, like, fear or respect] thinks it's important. Or, there are consequences and rewards
> People with ADHD, rarely, if ever, make decisions based on these things. Dodson says (and I agree wholeheartedly), that people with ADHD make decisions based on different criteria: Interest, Challenge, Novelty, Urgency (ICNU).
(https://www.oaktreecounselor.com/blog/adult-adhd-lazy)
That difference in motivators makes it likely that people with ADHD will constantly jump between different tasks, which over time builds up into becoming an expert at learning new things, and a broad knowledge about many things within their domain.
Automattic had (and still has) an interview process that was fully text-based via a combination of Slack, p2, and GitHub, and it really worked well for me. I didn't even speak to a person (on video) until a couple weeks into starting the job!
A completely text-based interview process works great for a variety of people: neurodiverse, people with accents/ESL, fidgety people, etc. Especially for remote companies where everyone communicates using text 90%+ of the time! I'm glad it's catching on, and I hope to see it expanded to more companies.
Have awkward social skills and prefer working away from other people? If you're a good programmer Google won't care. Have trouble following any instructions whatsoever? You're probably out of luck.
Honestly I think it would be nice for people with schizophrenia and more serious conditions to get employment. Even if it's hard to get them to actually contribute something, for their own self-worth. But I doubt companies like Google will do much for those people without an external incentive.
My impression is that despite the perception of Google as having a very progressive and liberal culture, they are actually pretty ruthlessly capitalist and won't go out of their way to accommodate people who are ultimately detrimental. They are just being open-minded about what kinds of people they can put to use.
Deleted Comment
Someone slightly on the spectrum who's somewhat awkward in conversation but an otherwise great developer? Probably a pass, unless their conversational awkwardness makes communication difficult.
Someone further on the spectrum who has a meltdown if their daily routine is even slightly disrupted? Probably not a pass, unless that routine never crosses the path of a coworker.
Someone with untreated bipolar disorder who lashes out with little provocation at their coworkers? Fail.
Someone with an IQ of 80 who's literally incapable of coding, and would thus be total dead weight on the team? Fail.
I actually worked with a developer who said their tested IQ was in the 80s.
I'd guess the reason for targeting autism is there would be a disproportionate number of highly capable workers hidden in that group which would be missed by normal hiring practices. You wouldn't expect that from, say, schizophrenia or most other neurodiversities.
The solution? He was a master communicator. He would tell me when he was having a manic streak and took on more work. When he was going back down, he communicated that and I took on more. If he started going unresponsive, I reached out and asked, and he told me where he was and what support he needed.
Now he's doing better and found the right medication, but crivens, I've been in a lot of other group projects, and I really miss him.
Different workplaces have different tolerances for people who seem unstable; for instance, if someone bursts into tears, are they pressured out? It varies.
Schizophrenia has nothing to do with psychopathy, sociopathy, multiple personalities, or anything you've seen in the movies, by the way.
No idea what you're talking about because obviously you can.
Asking for an employee's medical records is forbidden. Asking an employee to undergo a medical exam is forbidden. Asking questions about the employee's health or disabilities during the interview process is forbidden. See https://www.eeoc.gov/pre-employment-inquiries-and-medical-qu....
With all that said, what prevents anybody from saying "I don't feel comfortable taking a phone call" or "I need extra time for this" without actually being autistic? Then the disadvantage they claim to be removing hasn't actually gone anywhere.
Ramps instead of stairs? Necessary for wheelchairs, but good for elderly knees and people temporarily on crutches or roller scooters.
Keyboard of your choice? Necessary if you have low motor control, still good for preventing people from getting RSIs.
Interview in writing instead of via voice? Guess what: benefits Deaf people, those who are hard of hearing, and people who have difficulty speaking.
Your comparison also comes off a bit disingenuous. They're talking about interview accommodations like "providing questions in advance" and "extended interview time".
Deleted Comment
Hiring people who are good at their jobs, but may be different in a social setting can be a way of indirectly hiring people on the spectrum. If you have many extroverted employees, hiring more introverted people will inevitably lead to hiring people on the spectrum.
How do you judge this? Well, personality tests are pretty common already, they can absolutely show traits that are more common in people with autism. Also, an interview can tell you a lot about a person.
One lesson that stuck with me was the Houston Rockets GM putting some barriers around how emotional judgments were allowed to influence decisions. Small rules like “don’t give players nicknames” or just giving less weight to personal interviews were good experiments in how to keep screenings more objective. We don’t have the granularity or measurability of new hire data as NBA offices do, but I think these concepts are still useful.
My own engineering team still uses the term "culture fit," but I recently helped refine our interviewing guidelines to make it more clear what we mean:
"We are assessing the candidate's comfort level with our processes, priorities, frequency of change, etc. Assessments should never reflect an interviewer's comfort level with any candidate's culture, personal attributes, etc."
I don't believe there is any way to create and vet a "100% bias-free guaranteed" interview process.
That said, our industry does have a reputation for being especially unwelcoming to women. It would be a shame if a candidate raised red flags and those flags went undetected or ignored in an attempt to be "inclusive".
Options provided for equality and equity are not supposed to ease requirements for a subset of people, but ensure that their evaluation doesn’t punish or discount them.
"I need extra time for my interview" and "I'm uncomfortable with a phone call" sounds like a very easy way to get third party help without anybody being the wiser.
And again, that flies in the face of their attempt to actually level the playing field.
> extended interview time, providing questions in advance, or conducting the interview in writing in a Google Doc rather than verbally on a call
Like, i dont think having these things would give an advantage to most people, so why not let them have it?
Ext time - if you're doing a test in an interview that heavily depends on time you are doing it wrong imo. Lots of people get nervous and flustered during timed tests, and its totally contrived. Yes there are deadlines at work, but they're of the form you have to get this done by next week, not you have to read this document really fast and type this thing up really fast because you only have 20 min.
Doing over google doc - i think there are a lot of people who are good at social cues who would be significantly disadvantaged by this. You just cut off a major source of info on what the interviewer is looking for, as well as preventing you from making a good impression via social means (being well spoken and funny is a major advantage in most interviews).
Knowing the questions ahead of time - yeah, that might give an advantage. Sure interviewers should never ask questions that are googleable, but having time to think about it prior to the high stakes interview would probably help a lot of people. That said,why not just do this for everyone? It probably would make the interview less contrived and more like the real job.
That also means that depending on how this is implemented, people who aren't aware of it, too shy, undiagnosed, or don't want their diagnosis on the record everywhere may not benefit from this at all. OTOH, some of the training may improve the situation in general, even when no accommodation has been requested.
[1] https://askjan.org/articles/Job-Application-Interview-Stage-...
Some people might exhibit behaviors that are problematic in a professional environment. To go into a hiring decision without that information would be a mistake, in my opinion.
I don't see how supporting the individual needs of others is a problem in any context. At the end of the day a candidate still needs to pass the interview.
The point is to focus on their ability to do the actual work.
Nothing. A small minority of people gaming the system shouldn't necessarily mean you get rid of accommodations.
These would great practices for any job interview, whether the interviewee is on the spectrum or not.
Providing questions in advance (behavioral at least) would make the interview process a lot better for everybody.
The possibility to answer the more involved questions in writing would also be a great plus overall.
Personally, I am terrible at studying and getting assignments done, so I like that interviews are usually self-contained and relatively short. I also really appreciate the encouragement and sense of cooperation I get from doing an interview in person rather than in text, I think it makes me perform better. Obviously not as much with zoom interviews.
But I recognize my privilege here, that my brain happens to fit the current shape of interviews! It would be great if there were other types of interviews available that fit other people as well.
Deleted Comment
If we're talking about the general workforce, instead of specifically tech fields, that would make sense.
However, even more important would be to try to give everyone a fair chance, as opposed to trying to meet some metrics which can often lead to discrimination (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/02/590346891...).
Since neurodiversity isn't one of the "popular" diversity/social justice topics, I suspect the main motivation here is to avoid missing applicants that are technically skilled and suitable, but may not do well in the interview process due to their neurodiversity.
In regards to avoiding discrimination, and giving everybody a fair chance, I don't see a system that accomplishes this besides a lottery. The job interview is fundamentally a ritual of discrimination. The entire fixation on increasing employment for a small number of "diverse" groups is mostly driven by the political strength of said groups rather than any sort of consistent moral principles.
If there is something actively preventing you from being in or sticking around in a profession you want to be a part of, I'm all for breaking down those barriers, but the idea of "over-representation" seems to go in the opposite direction. It seems aimed at keeping or kicking people out.
From the population that gets a CS degree? I may be biased but think neurodiverse people prefer staying at academia if they can and would like that balance to tip off a little.
Lots of discrimination in the past was justified with the argument that a minority group was over-represented in some field. E.g. some north american universities restricting jewish applicants all the way up until the 60s.
Deleted Comment