The job search and hiring process can be incredibly frustrating. I am unsure if I have ever encountered someone who enjoys the traditional interview structure, regardless of whether they are neurodiverse or not. It’s a series of back-and-forth conversations with people you likely have never met before, and the stress of not knowing whether you are saying the things they want to hear. All the while, you feel pressured to appear “perfect” and to sum up your entire experience and potential in under thirty minutes. It’s truly terrifying, and this is coming from someone who is neurotypical.
As an HR professional in the world of Applied Behavior Analysis or ABA, processes such as hiring and onboarding start sticking out like a sore thumb for the barriers they can pose for all individuals, especially those who are neurodiverse. As a company that provides services for children with autism, who better to support them than behavior technicians or clinicians who have autism themselves? The issue lies in how neurodiverse staff can get hired and succeed when the initial steps toward that goal are incredibly challenging.
Having human resources staff be familiar with autism or how neurodiverse people think and experience situations differently is crucial. While there are many changes businesses can make to the actual hiring process itself, there is also a great impact when you have someone who can be mindful and accommodating throughout the hiring process, without letting their bias creep through. If a candidate is stimming or not making eye contact for the duration of an interview, it should not matter if those are not relevant to the job duties. This goes the same with the tone and formatting of responses. Sometimes a candidate with autism may give a straightforward answer that, on the surface, may seem blunt. However, having trained staff ensures that the candidate is not written off as “rude” when that is simply their communication style. Having an experienced human resources personnel who understands this and would not allow it to cloud their judgement on a candidate’s ability to be successful in the actual role goes a long way in reducing barriers to getting hired. This makes candidates feel comfortable being themselves and focus on providing the information the interviewer needs instead of being consumed with masking.
There are also more proactive and tangible changes that can be made. Let us say your hiring process involves a traditional meeting, whether virtual or in-person, to go through a standardized set of questions. The employee conducting or coordinating these interviews can offer to provide the questions ahead of time to allow for a longer processing time beforehand, and create a sense of predictability and comfort for the candidate, who now knows what they are going into. During the interview, questions can be adjusted to include more or fewer follow-ups, or to allow for more direct answers versus a more conversational dynamic, depending on how the candidate communicates best. It can be as simple as adjusting a prompt of “So tell me a little bit about you and your background” to “Please explain to me the job duties and responsibilities in your last two jobs”. There is no need to make the questions convoluted, especially when it only hinders the interviewer’s chances of getting the answers they want and adds stress to the candidate. At the end of any interview or stage, we always ensure to provide an outline of how the process looks and always reiterate the next steps. We don’t leave things open-ended. We provide specific next steps regarding the requirements we need, inform them of when they will hear back, what to do if they are selected to continue in the process, and where it will go from there. This holds the interviewer responsible for providing timely feedback, and gives structure to an often varied and anxiety-inducing process.
Think about job descriptions you have either created or read in your own job search. How often are you left debating if you think something listed is a hard-set requirement or if it may just be preferred to determine if you should even bother applying? Neurodiverse candidates may be more likely to take what is in the job descriptions as hard-set requirements. If you put “2+ years of experience in IT,” and a candidate has 1.5 years, they may not even apply, thinking they are not qualified. Employers should assess what is an absolute must-have versus what may be just nice to have, and clearly label each skill with such markings to ensure candidates are not writing themselves off before applying, and increasing the risk of employers not getting resumes of potential great fits on their desk. There should also be a conscious effort to only include essential job functions as listed skills needed. While adding in “Strong communication skills” may seem like an easy throw-in, it could cause neurodiverse candidates to worry about their abilities and hesitate to apply, even though the role may be largely independent and doesn’t rely heavily on communication. Job descriptions should be accurate, simple, and straightforward to get the right people applying.
I think it is important to note that any recommendations mentioned here would not require a full overhaul of current practices. All of them could also be applied across the board to all potential candidates. The concept of universal design applies to recruiting and onboarding just the same. Universal design is the practice of creating environments that are usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, regardless of their age, ability, or other characteristics. Each change I mentioned would benefit ALL candidates and not just those who are neurodiverse. I encourage you to dive further into other recruiting and general HR practices that can help make your company more accessible and help you hire and retain the best candidates, as there is a lot more out there! Even small adjustments can make a meaningful impact on candidate experience and show a true commitment to equity and inclusion.
