Introduction
Employment rate for individuals with autism remains lowFootnote 1
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013), which is used for clinical diagnosis, suggests that cognitively able individuals with autism (who comprise 50% of individuals with autism) score in the above average range on intelligence tests are the fastest growing subgroup of the autism population in the United States (APA, 2013; Pinder-Amaker, Reference Pinder-Amaker2013). These young adults have limited access to support and transition services, resulting in limited opportunities for engagement with the community and securing employment (Roux, Shattuck, Rast, Rava, & Anderson, Reference Roux, Shattuck, Rast, Rava and Anderson2015). Employment is core to a person’s quality of life; it not only offers a means for independent living but is also key to an individual’s ability to contribute to society and meet their need for inclusion. Employed individuals with disabilities experience a higher quality of life compared to their unemployed counterparts (Eggleton, Robertson, Ryan, & Kober, Reference Eggleton, Robertson, Ryan and Kober1999). Further, Eggleton et al. (Reference Eggleton, Robertson, Ryan and Kober1999) suggest that integrated employment that leads to earned wages, rather than sheltered employment, contributes to improved quality of life. Autism-specific studies report that employed individuals with autism experience financial as well as emotional and health benefits when compared to unemployed individuals with autism (Hurlbutt & Chalmers, Reference Hurlbutt and Chalmers2004; Wei, Wagner, Hudson, Yu, & Shattuck, Reference Wei, Wagner, Hudson, Yu and Shattuck2015).
It is difficult to estimate the unemployment rate of the autism population due to limited research and limited disclosure. Austin and Pisano (Reference Austin and Pisano2017) estimate that the unemployment rate among individuals with autism (including those with severe intellectual disabilities) is 80%. Roux, Rast, Anderson, and Shattuck (Reference Roux, Rast, Anderson and Shattuck2017) suggest that only 14% of adults with autism in the United States work for pay. Furthermore, earlier reports suggest that young adults with autism generally face many more barriers in securing and sustaining employment compared to all other groups of young adults with disabilities (Roux et al., Reference Roux, Shattuck, Rast, Rava and Anderson2015; Shattuck, Narendorf, Cooper, Sterzing, Wagner, & Taylor, Reference Shattuck, Narendorf, Cooper, Sterzing, Wagner and Taylor2012a). Taylor and Seltzer (Reference Taylor and Seltzer2011) suggest that individuals with autism who do not have intellectual disabilities are three times more likely to be unemployed than those with autism who have an intellectual disability. Even when employed, employment outcomes of individuals with autism were surprisingly significantly lower than one would expect for individuals with average or above average intellectual ability (Mazurek et al., Reference Mazurek, Shattuck, Wagner and Cooper2012). Studies attribute these outcomes to social aspects of employment, rather than task-related aspects (Hurlbutt & Chalmers, Reference Hurlbutt and Chalmers2004; Müller, Schuler, Burton, & Yates, Reference Müller, Schuler, Burton and Yates2003).
Opportunity: Employment of individuals with autism in the information technology (IT) industry
The rise in autism-specific employment programs in IT, coupled with the leanings of individuals with autism to pursue technology-related careers, suggest that the IT industry provides a unique opportunity to develop our understanding of autism employment. First, scholars from various fields recognize the proclivity of individuals with autism to pursue technology-oriented employment (Mazurek et al., Reference Mazurek, Shattuck, Wagner and Cooper2012). A recent national longitudinal study revealed that 16% of college students with autism who pursue postsecondary education (PSE) choose computer science-related fields, which is significantly higher than any other major chosen by students with autism (Wei Yu, Shattuck, McCracken, & Blackorby, Reference Wei, Yu, Shattuck, McCracken and Blackorby2013). While these studies might be limited in generalizability, they do suggest the prevalence of autism among those in IT.
Second, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of IT jobs will grow 12% between 2014 and 2024, faster than the average of all other occupations in the United States (Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], 2015). IT companies consistently find it challenging to fill IT positions due to tough global competition for talent (Bagley, Reference Bagley2014). Technology giants SAP Software Solutions, Microsoft, and most recently IBM, inspired by the initial success of the Danish IT consulting firm Specialisterne, deployed hiring and onboarding initiatives for IT workers (e.g., software developers and testers) with autism. These initiatives offer potential business benefits, including meeting the rising demand for IT workers as well as capitalizing on the unique cognitive style and talents of employees with autism, namely, systems thinking; attention to detail; high level of focus; comfort with doing repetitive tasks; and ability to visualize problems (Annabi, Sundaresan, & Zolyomi, Reference Annabi, Sundaresan and Zolyomi2017; Austin & Pisano, Reference Austin and Pisano2017; Baldwin, Costley, & Warren, Reference Baldwin, Costley and Warren2014; Morris et al., Reference Morris, Begel and Wiedermann2015). Furthermore, industry champions of such programs point to the opportunity for such programs to have a greater social impact (Bornstein, Reference Bornstein2011; Shattuck et al., Reference Shattuck, Roux, Hudson, Lounds, Maenner and Trani2012a). The growing number of autism-specific hiring programs offers meaningful employment opportunities for the growing number of IT-oriented individuals with autism.
Despite the potential of workers with autism in the IT workplace, early studies reveal that technology workers with autism experience challenges and isolation in the workplace (Annabi et al., Reference Annabi, Sundaresan and Zolyomi2017; Buescher, Cidav, Knapp, & Mandell, Reference Buescher, Cidav, Knapp and Mandell2014; Hedley et al., Reference Hedley, Cai, Uljarević, Wilmot, Spoor, Richdale and Dissanayake2018; Morris et al., Reference Morris, Begel and Wiedermann2015). These experiences often are attributed to (1) limited understanding of the talents of IT workers with autism (Annabi et al., Reference Annabi, Sundaresan and Zolyomi2017; Austin & Pisano, Reference Austin and Pisano2017) and job fit (Hedley et al., Reference Hedley, Cai, Uljarević, Wilmot, Spoor, Richdale and Dissanayake2018), (2) suboptimal environmental and task design accommodations (Hedley et al., Reference Hedley, Cai, Uljarević, Wilmot, Spoor, Richdale and Dissanayake2018; Rebholz, Russell, Coder, & Silverman, Reference Rebholz, Russell, Coder and Silverman2012), and (3) the social and behavioral disconnect between workers with autism and their neurotypical (i.e., without developmental differences) managers and coworkers (Austin & Pisano, Reference Austin and Pisano2017; Hedley et al., Reference Hedley, Cai, Uljarević, Wilmot, Spoor, Richdale and Dissanayake2018; Morris et al., Reference Morris, Begel and Wiedermann2015; Rebholz et al., Reference Rebholz, Russell, Coder and Silverman2012). This raises questions about the readiness of the IT workplace to welcome and effectively engage individuals with autism in task as well as in social processes at work.
Research gap
Autism-specific employment initiatives in IT are a new phenomenon, so no established theory is available to draw from (Morris et al., Reference Morris, Begel and Wiedermann2015). Research on autism employment focuses on preparing individuals with autism for the workplace and developing vocational training (e.g., Burke, Andersen, Bowen, Howard, & Allen, Reference Burke, Andersen, Bowen, Howard and Allen2010; Müller et al., Reference Müller, Schuler, Burton and Yates2003; Seaman & Cannella-Malone, Reference Seaman and Cannella-Malone2016) and supported employment (Keel, Mesibov, & Woods, Reference Keel, Mesibov and Woods1997; Scott, Falkmer, Girdler, & Falkmer, Reference Scott, Falkmer, Girdler and Falkmer2015). There is limited research addressing challenges and successes in the organizational setting to better support individuals with autism in the workforce (Hurlbutt & Chalmers Reference Hurlbutt and Chalmers2004; Roux et al., Reference Roux, Shattuck, Rast, Rava and Anderson2015; Wei et al., Reference Wei, Wagner, Hudson, Yu and Shattuck2015), particularly in the IT industry, where many individuals with autism work (Annabi et al., Reference Annabi, Sundaresan and Zolyomi2017). The notable changes in the IT industry (e.g., autism employment programs) provide an ideal context in which to develop a theoretical framework that will guide future large-scale empirical examination. What is learned from the IT industry has the potential to be applied to other industries in future studies. Therefore, the goal of this paper is to review the existing literature on autism employment and synthesize it into a theoretical framework to study IT workplace readiness to equitably include individuals with autism in the workplace. To this end, we ask the following research questions:
1. What opportunities and challenges do IT employees with autism face in the workplace?
2. What opportunities and challenges do neurotypical IT employees and managers face when working with employees with autism?
3. What characteristics of the organization maximize opportunities for inclusion and reduce challenges for employees with autism?
The remainder of this paper is organized into three sections. In the next section, we highlight the challenges and benefits of autism in IT by reviewing existing literature on autism employment. We then discuss the theoretical perspectives that inform our theoretical model to study autism employment programs in IT. We conclude with a discussion of expected intellectual and practical contributions of the framework.
Autism employment programs in IT
Employment of individuals with autism in the technology industry is not new (Morris et al., Reference Morris, Begel and Wiedermann2015; Rebholz et al., Reference Rebholz, Russell, Coder and Silverman2012; Silberman, Reference Silberman2015). However, attention to this population and autism-specific employment programs in prominent IT firms (e.g., SAP, Microsoft) is a relatively new and growing phenomenon in the United States (Austin & Pisano, Reference Austin and Pisano2017; Baldwin, Costley, & Warren, Reference Baldwin, Costley and Warren2014). Autism employment programs deploy various methods and practices to include individuals with autism in the workplace. Such methods include nontraditional interview processes that employ (1) relaxed and casual interactions with candidates over a period of days and (2) a hands-on skills assessment. Programs also include training and support for coworkers and managers to help them understand and appreciate the talents of their colleagues with autism. Programs are beginning to include customizable career management and development processes (Austin & Pisano, Reference Austin and Pisano2017). As with any diversity and inclusion intervention, autism employment programs secure leadership support to ensure program viability and success (Annabi & Lebovitz, Reference Annabi and Lebovitz2018). The current, more established autism employment programs remain limited in scope. During the most recent Autism Employment Summits (hosted in April 2017 and 2018), the pioneer programs, SAP and Microsoft, identified their intention to grow and the challenges they face in determining how best to sustain and scale the programs. Our goal for developing a theoretical framework to guide future empirical investigations addressed the aforementioned needs presented by pioneer programs.
There are very few studies that explore autism employment in general (Hedley et al., Reference Hedley, Uljarević, Cameron, Halder, Richdale and Dissanayake2017; Shattuck et al., Reference Shattuck, Narendorf, Cooper, Sterzing, Wagner and Taylor2012a) and even fewer that explore autism employment in IT (Annabi et al., Reference Annabi, Sundaresan and Zolyomi2017; Hedley et al., Reference Hedley, Cai, Uljarević, Wilmot, Spoor, Richdale and Dissanayake2018; Morris et al., Reference Morris, Begel and Wiedermann2015). Austin and Pisano (Reference Austin and Pisano2017) provide an anecdotal review of emerging autism employment programs in IT. Using interviews with IT employers and their employees with autism, Austin and Pisano identify the main organizational challenges and benefits and define the challenges employees with autism face broadly. Morris and colleagues (2015) surveyed employees of one IT firm to explore the benefits and challenges employees with autism and neurotypical employees experience. Similarly, Hedley et al. (Reference Hedley, Cai, Uljarević, Wilmot, Spoor, Richdale and Dissanayake2018) conducted a qualitative study of one autism employment program in IT to determine the benefits and challenges experienced by employees with autism as well as their families and coworkers. Morris and colleagues (Reference Morris, Begel and Wiedermann2015) and Hedley and colleagues (Reference Hedley, Cai, Uljarević, Wilmot, Spoor, Richdale and Dissanayake2018) are the first studies to empirically investigate and provide an account of the experiences of IT workers with autism and their colleagues. Although these studies may be limited in their generalizability due to their focus on one firm and overrepresentation of males in their samples, they provide a foundation for future work on this topic. General studies investigating employment of individuals with autism (who are of average or above average intelligence) also have been limited in scope or anecdotal (Baldwin, Costley, & Warren, Reference Baldwin, Costley and Warren2014; Hedley et al., Reference Hedley, Uljarević, Cameron, Halder, Richdale and Dissanayake2017). In their review of autism employment-related research, Hedley and colleagues (Reference Hedley, Uljarević, Cameron, Halder, Richdale and Dissanayake2017) conclude that there is limited research on the topic. They also point to the quality concerns regarding existing studies due to the small and unrepresentative samples of the studies. Therefore, our review draws on limited relevant work on autism employment, especially in IT (e.g., Austin & Pisano, Reference Austin and Pisano2017; Hedley et al., Reference Hedley, Cai, Uljarević, Wilmot, Spoor, Richdale and Dissanayake2018; Morris et al., Reference Morris, Begel and Wiedermann2015) as well as on the broader disability employment literature to inform our theorizing work.
Benefits from/catalysts for autism employment programs
Champions of autism employment programs cite the social impact as well as potential business benefits as catalysts for deploying autism employment programs (Baldwin, Costley, & Warren, Reference Baldwin, Costley and Warren2014; Morris et al., Reference Morris, Begel and Wiedermann2015). We will review the benefits and catalysts of such programs in order to understand their context.
Corporate social responsibility and create high-quality brand
Services for adults with autism, including accommodations, employment support, and lost employment, cost the United States between $175 and $196 billion each year (Buescher et al., Reference Buescher, Cidav, Knapp and Mandell2014). These economic costs pale in comparison to the intangible costs to the quality of life for unemployed talented adults with autism. Employment is core to a person’s quality of life: it not only offers a means for an independent standard of living but also is key to their ability to contribute to society and meet the need for belonging (Hurlbutt & Chalmers, Reference Hurlbutt and Chalmers2004; Müller et al., Reference Müller, Schuler, Burton and Yates2003). Firms with autism employment programs reference the social imperative of such programs and corporate social responsibility as being among the catalysts for developing these programs (Baldwin, Costley, & Warren, Reference Baldwin, Costley and Warren2014; Morris et al., Reference Morris, Begel and Wiedermann2015). In their study, Austin and Pisano (Reference Austin and Pisano2017) found that managers felt that sensitivity training focused on autism affected employees’ awareness and sensitivity toward differences in general, thereby creating a broader positive cultural change. Furthermore, organizations that are perceived to value diversity establish a high-quality employment brand that helps them attract and retain top talent (Cox & Blake, Reference Cox and Blake1991; Simard, Henderson, Gilmartin, Schiebinger, & Whitney, Reference Simard, Henderson, Gilmartin, Schiebinger and Whitney2008).
Meet the high demand for IT talent
A significant number of IT positions go unfilled each year. IT companies and scholars from various fields recognize the talents and interests of many individuals with autism to pursue technical interests (Mazurek et al., Reference Mazurek, Shattuck, Wagner and Cooper2012). In their review of current autism employment programs in IT, Austin and Pisano (Reference Austin and Pisano2017) revealed that many current autism employment program participants struggled (prior to their involvement in such programs) to find and sustain full-time employment despite their academic and technical credentials. Tapping into the unemployed or underemployed community of IT professionals with autism provides an opportunity for IT companies to meet their rising demand for IT talent (Annabi et al., Reference Annabi, Sundaresan and Zolyomi2017; Hedley et al., Reference Hedley, Cai, Uljarević, Wilmot, Spoor, Richdale and Dissanayake2018).
Enhance neurodiversity to increase productivity, quality, innovation, and profits
The benefits of well-managed diversity are well documented and accepted by most managers in the IT industry. The benefits of neurodiversity are less well known and understood but are believed to have a more specific and direct impact on productivity, quality, and innovation in IT (Annabi et al., Reference Annabi, Sundaresan and Zolyomi2017; Austin & Pisano, Reference Austin and Pisano2017). Studies of employment of individuals with autism in IT stressed the importance of this population’s unique cognitive abilities, such as attention to detail, systematic information processing, strong memory, error detection, pattern recognition, systems thinking, visualization, and orderly code production (e.g., Annabi et al, Reference Annabi, Sundaresan and Zolyomi2017; Baldwin, Costley, & Warren, Reference Baldwin, Costley and Warren2014; Morris et al., Reference Morris, Begel and Wiedermann2015). These early studies suggest that these unique and inherent cognitive capabilities make individuals with autism especially suited for a variety of roles within IT (Annabi et al., Reference Annabi, Sundaresan and Zolyomi2017; Baldwin, Costley, & Warren, Reference Baldwin, Costley and Warren2014). Austin and Pisano (Reference Austin and Pisano2017) observed tangible gains in productivity, innovation, and quality at SAP and DXC Technology which could be attributed to employees with autism. Furthermore, organizations that embrace a diverse workforce are better able to serve a larger and more diverse clientele as well as penetrate broader and more complex markets, therefore leaving them twice as likely to exceed financial performance expectations (Harris, Morello, & Raskino, Reference Harris, Morello and Raskino2007; Herring, Reference Herring2009). Lastly, Baldwin, Costley, and Warren (Reference Baldwin, Costley and Warren2014) identified general attributes that make individuals with autism especially desirable employees, including honesty, low absenteeism, efficiency, precision, and disinterest in office politics. Employees with autism also tend to have low turnover rates once they establish suitable employment (Hillier et al., Reference Hillier, Campbell, Mastriani, Izzo, Kool-Tucker, Cherry and Beversdorf2007; Scott, Falkmer, Girdler, & Falkmer, Reference Scott, Falkmer, Girdler and Falkmer2015).
Knowledge and attitudes of neurotypical employees create barriers to individuals with autism
Employment rates and outcomes for individuals with autism continue to lag behind the broader population due to individual factors (e.g., education, race, abilities), organizational factors (e.g., organizational culture and rewards structure), and environmental factors (e.g., sociocultural norms and expectations). Organizational and environmental factors are a result of neurotypicals’ knowledge and attitudes and pose challenges and barriers to successful employment for adults with autism (Maroto & Pettinicchio, Reference Maroto and Pettinicchio2015; McDougall, Wright, & Rosenbaum, Reference McDougall, Wright and Rosenbaum2010). The general public – including neurotypical IT workers – often has limited knowledge of the talents and needs of individuals with autism (Jensen et al., Reference Jensen, Martens, Nikolajsen, Skytt Gregersen, Heckmann Marx, Goldberg Frederiksen and Hansen2016). In their review of disability-related studies, Maroto and Pettinicchio (Reference Maroto and Pettinicchio2015) and Unger (Reference Unger2002) suggest that employers’ conscious and unconscious negative attitudes may present significant barriers to the employment of those with autism. Research suggests that coworker knowledge and attitudes are significant factors in influencing autism employment (Chen, Leader, Sung, & Leahy, Reference Chen, Leader, Sung and Leahy2015; Hedley et al., Reference Hedley, Cai, Uljarević, Wilmot, Spoor, Richdale and Dissanayake2018). In their study, Hedley and colleagues (Reference Hedley, Cai, Uljarević, Wilmot, Spoor, Richdale and Dissanayake2018) found that colleagues who understand autism and have a positive attitude toward it contribute to the success of employees with autism going through the training program. Misconceptions about autism may create difficulties in employer decisions to hire, promote, or retain employees with autism (Austin & Pisano, Reference Austin and Pisano2017; Gould et al., Reference Gould, Harris, Caldwell, Fujiura, Jones, Ojok and Enriquez2015). Negative attitudes about autism also may influence organizational culture and policies and either facilitate or hinder the inclusion of individuals with autism in the workplace (Gould et al., Reference Gould, Harris, Caldwell, Fujiura, Jones, Ojok and Enriquez2015). Limited knowledge of and negative attitudes toward autism manifest in several organizational and environmental barriers described below.
Legitimacy and access
Perhaps the most significant barrier individuals with autism face in the workplace is associated with recruitment and selection processes (Austin & Pisano, Reference Austin and Pisano2017). Unlike many other developmental disorders, autism, particularly in less severely impacted individuals, can be an invisible condition and not always observable to a lay person (MacDonald, 2010). The hidden quality of autism and how the condition manifests in individuals presents challenges in the workplace as coworkers and managers often do not recognize the unmet needs and talents of individuals with autism, nor do they have an explanation for idiosyncrasies in behavior. Societal notions of desirable employees and organizational processes are designed to value and emphasize social skills such as communication, emotional intelligence, and teamwork (Annabi et al., Reference Annabi, Sundaresan and Zolyomi2017; Austin & Pisano, Reference Austin and Pisano2017). Individuals with autism may have marked social communication impairments and restricted interests that affect their interpersonal interactions and ability to relate to people, making them less desirable to recruiters and managers and less likely to advance in the selection process (Hedley et al., Reference Hedley, Cai, Uljarević, Wilmot, Spoor, Richdale and Dissanayake2018). Often, individuals with autism are deemed unqualified or undesirable for jobs that they are intellectually capable of doing well (Austin & Pisano, Reference Austin and Pisano2017). Employee retention and advancement also is low among individuals with autism as many of the skills involved in retention are considered ‘soft skills’ (e.g., interpersonal interactions, time management, etc.) that are challenging for individuals with autism (Seaman & Cannella-Malone, Reference Seaman and Cannella-Malone2016).
Stereotype and stigma
There is a long history of viewing disabilities from a deficit model that affects how organizations perceive the suitability and potential productivity of individuals with disabilities, including autism, in the workplace (Maroto & Pettinicchio, Reference Maroto and Pettinicchio2015; Unger, Reference Unger2002). Research suggests that there may be a stigma associated with autism and that disclosure of an autism diagnosis in the workplace may have detrimental consequences (Johnson & Joshi, Reference Johnson and Joshi2016). In a study of vocational experiences among individuals with autism, some employees with autism reported tolerating the experience of being socially ‘different,’ while others reported ‘a certain sort of stigmatization’ (Müller et al., Reference Müller, Schuler, Burton and Yates2003). Individuals with autism may experience colleagues stereotyping their abilities and interests and continually assigning them to repetitive tasks, thereby limiting their development and advancement (Annabi et al., Reference Annabi, Sundaresan and Zolyomi2017). Furthermore, some employers associate employing a person with a disability with higher costs due to accommodations, regardless of the actual costs for the specific individual (Maroto & Pettinicchio, Reference Maroto and Pettinicchio2015; Schartz, Schartz, & Blanck, Reference Schartz, Schartz and Blanck2002).
Isolation and exclusion
Expectations of social interaction norms persist even after individuals with autism are employed. Individuals with autism often feel isolated from and have limited informal meaningful interactions and relationships with their colleagues (Austin & Pisano, Reference Austin and Pisano2017; Morris et al. Reference Morris, Begel and Wiedermann2015). Employees with autism report being ‘scorned’ by coworkers and that their social impairments often led to isolation and alienation in the workplace (Müller et al., Reference Müller, Schuler, Burton and Yates2003). This is due, in part, to a significant disconnect in interpersonal communication between employees with and without autism (Scott et al., Reference Scott, Falkmer, Girdler and Falkmer2015). One study of a small number of women with autism suggests that simple communication and social exchanges with colleagues posed significant barriers (Baldwin & Costley, Reference Baldwin and Costley2016). Furthermore, sometimes individuals with autism require environmental accommodations to manage their physical surroundings which may attract negative attention from colleagues who can view these accommodations as unfair due to limited knowledge of autism (Austin & Pisano, Reference Austin and Pisano2017).
Supervisory relationships
In their review of autism employment in IT, Austin and Pisano (Reference Austin and Pisano2017) determined that managers and leaders play an important role in including individuals with autism in their teams and setting the right tone. Related research on the employment of individuals with autism also identifies that transformational leadership styles which use abstract forms of communication, such as metaphors, may lead to challenges for individuals with autism as they cause more stress and anxiety (Parr, Hunter, & Ligon, Reference Parr, Hunter and Ligon2013). A supervisor’s relationship with a person with autism and their willingness to hire and supervise them is affected by their own belief that it would require more work on their part (Austin & Pisano, Reference Austin and Pisano2017).
Sensory environment and the nature of work
Individuals with autism often have sensory sensitivity that makes it challenging for them to perform at their best if the environment is overstimulating (Robertson & Simmons, Reference Robertson and Simmons2013). The nature of IT workplaces and requirements for travel can pose significant challenges for employees with autism. Research identified open floor plans, loud spaces, travel, and sharing personal space (e.g., hotel rooms) during business travel to be challenging, therefore requiring specific accommodations for individuals with autism that are counter to standard policies in many firms (Austin & Pisano, Reference Austin and Pisano2017; Morris et al., Reference Morris, Begel and Wiedermann2015). Furthermore, individuals with autism may have a different way of processing the social work environment than neurotypical individuals. For example, individuals with autism may prefer explicit communication and the use of literal language (Tager-Flusberg, Paul, & Lord, 2005). Using idioms, metaphors, and sarcasm may be confusing and lost in translation for individuals with autism (Happé, Reference Happé1995). Further, individuals with autism also may prefer logic-based problem-solving (Grandin, Reference Grandin1995), sameness and routinized behavior (APA, 2013), and structured environments (Mesibov & Shea, Reference Mesibov and Shea2010). The dynamic, ambiguous, fast-paced, and often critical events that are characteristic of the IT workplace (e.g., new releases, malfunctions) may present challenges to individuals with autism (Morris et al., Reference Morris, Begel and Wiedermann2015). This may be due to an executive function difficulty, generally associated with ASD (Demetriou et al., Reference Demetriou, Lampit, Quintana, Naismith, Song, Pye and Guastella2018) that may lead to difficulties in comprehension of ambiguous tasks and interpretation of instructions (Baldwin & Costley, Reference Baldwin and Costley2016). If not properly managed, these difficulties can increase stress and anxiety for individuals with autism and prevent them from completing their work effectively and efficiently (Austin & Pisano, Reference Austin and Pisano2017).
Theoretical framework
We draw on Annabi & Lebovitz’s (Reference Annabi and Lebovitz2018) organizational interventions mitigating individual barriers (OIMIB) framework and adapt it to the context of autism employment programs in IT. OIMIB was first developed in the context of gender diversity interventions in IT. It provides a holistic framework to guide the assessment of diversity and inclusion interventions (such as autism employment programs) in IT and their effects on (1) experiences of marginalized populations (those historically excluded from mainstream organizational processes and decision-making based on gender, race, ability, etc.) and (2) barriers that exist in the workplace. OIMIB is suitable for our study because it provides a holistic framework that includes individual-level constructs, intervention-level constructs (such as characteristics of autism employment programs), and organizational-level constructs and how these constructs are interrelated. The framework provides a multilevel theoretical lens through which to explore the complexity of issues around inclusion of marginalized IT workers, such as those with autism. We draw on this theoretical framework for three reasons:
1. The study of autism employment in IT is a new phenomenon and no established theory is available to draw from (Morris et al., Reference Morris, Begel and Wiedermann2015).
2. Most autism research represents neurotypical priorities and perspectives (Pellicano, Dinsmore, & Charman, Reference Pellicano, Dinsmore and Charman2014). The critical epistemological lens through which OIMIB was developed provides the necessary lens to give voice to individuals with autism and utilizes a strength model rather than a deficit model.
3. It is common in the literature to apply and extend theoretical frameworks used for one marginalized population to another with the intent to refine and extend the theory, especially when there are similarities in the experiences of the populations in question (Maroto & Pettinicchio, Reference Maroto and Pettinicchio2015).
This framework is intended to synthesize the literature in order to provide a holistic picture of the relevant factors that affect autism employment in IT. The framework may be used holistically or by isolating a specific interrelated components to empirically investigate the research questions outlined in the section on ‘Research gap.’
Our adapted OIMIB framework (illustrated in Figure 1) posits that individuals with autism experience barriers and opportunities differently based on a set of individual differences . These individual differences also influence how and whether an employee with autsim utilizes autism employment programs and whether they deploy their own coping methods to mitigate their experience of barriers and opportunities in the workplace. Organizations deploy autism employment programs in order to (1) mitigate barriers in the workplace for those with autism and (2) mitigate negative attitudes toward and improve the knowledge about autism that neurotypical employees may have. Knowledge and attitude in turn influence barriers and opportunities that exist in the workplace for people with autism. The remainder of this section elaborates on the framework components and theoretical grounding. We include some high-level propositions (adapted from Annabi & Lebovitz, Reference Annabi and Lebovitz2018 to the context of autism employment informed by our literature review) in order to demonstrate how the framework’s components may be used to investigate and potentially test the relationships between the constructs. Figure 1 illustrates the high-level constructs and the relationships between constructs relevant to autism employment. Table 1 includes the indicators of each construct that may be investigated, as suggested in the literature.
Figure 1 Organizational interventions mitigating individual barriers framework (Adapted from Annabi & Lebovitz, Reference Annabi and Lebovitz2018)
Table 1 Summary of the experiences of individuals with autism and organizational and intervention characteristics
Individual differences
A growing body of literature on diversity and inclusion interventions in IT that uses critical epistemology (e.g., Kvasny, Reference Kvasny2006; Trauth, Reference Trauth2002; Trauth & Howcroft, Reference Trauth and Howcroft2006) cautions against using sociocultural or essentialist perspectives that ignore the complexity of individual differences when studying marginalized populations. Trauth (Reference Trauth2002) posits that sociocultural influences operate on the individual level to shape individual identity in relation to IT work. This is particularly important to the study of individuals with autism due to the heterogeneity of the autism spectrum characteristics, needs, and skills (APA, 2013). This heterogeneity of symptoms spans across severity, cognitive functioning, social skills, communication, sensory sensitivity (e.g., hypo- and hyper-), and behaviors that result in markedly different workplace needs that may be challenging to address in employees with autism (Hendricks, Reference Hendricks2010). In their review of autism employment studies, Hedley and colleagues (2017) concluded that ‘the impact of individual differences’ must be considered in autism employment research.
Autism employment outcome research, for example, identified parents’ socioeconomic status and education as predictors of postsecondary education and employment outcomes (e.g., Roux et al., Reference Roux, Shattuck, Rast, Rava and Anderson2015; Shattuck, Roux, Hudson, Lounds, Maenner & Trani, Reference Shattuck, Roux, Hudson, Lounds, Maenner and Trani2012b; Wei, Christiano, Yu, Blackorby, Shattuck, P, & Newman, Reference Wei, Christiano, Yu, Blackorby, Shattuck and Newman2014). Of particular significance to the study of autism employment and worth explicit mention is that the co-occurrence of mental health symptoms, including depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation, is high among individuals with autism (Cassidy, Bradley, Robinson, Allison, McHugh, & Baron-Cohen, Reference Cassidy, Bradley, Robinson, Allison, McHugh and Baron-Cohen2014). Individuals with autism report elevated levels of stress and anxiety in the workplace which may impede job performance (Hendricks, Reference Hendricks2010; Hurlbutt & Chalmers, Reference Hurlbutt and Chalmers2004). Stress and anxiety are often due to assimilating with neurotypical colleagues (Hurlbutt & Chalmers, Reference Hurlbutt and Chalmers2004) and other times a result of increased sensory stimuli and sensitivity (Burt, Fuller, & Lewis, Reference Burt, Fuller and Lewis1991). These mental health conditions are important since they may significantly interfere with successful employment for individuals with autism (Hendricks, Reference Hendricks2010; Schaller & Yang, 2005). We include mental health condition as a personal characteristic under the individual influences construct.
The individual differences lens provides a deeper understanding of the complexities of the experiences and responses of employees with autism in IT by considering the interrelation between individual identity, individual influences, and environmental influences. The nuanced understanding of differences and similarities in experiences and responses will inform effective organizational interventions such as autism employment programs (Quesenberry & Trauth, Reference Quesenberry and Trauth2012). For these reasons, we utilize OIMIB which is grounded in individual differences theory of gender in IT (IDTGIT). For details on IDTGIT, please refer to Trauth, Quesenberry, and Huang (Reference Trauth, Quesenberry and Huang2009). The interplay between IDTGIT constructs explains why and how individuals with autism experience barriers in the IT workplace. Individual differences are represented in Figure 1 as ‘individual differences.’
Barriers and opportunities in the IT workplace
The second component, ‘Barriers and Opportunities in the IT Workplace,’ is an organizational-level construct. Societal and organizational structures create barriers to individuals with autism in the IT workplace (Annabi et al., Reference Annabi, Sundaresan and Zolyomi2017; Austin & Pisano, Reference Austin and Pisano2017). Our review in the section on ‘Knowledge and attitudes of neurotypical employees create barriers for individuals with autism’ provides a detailed review of these challenges. Consistent with IDTGIT, we argue that barriers/challenges are experienced at an individual level. Based on individual interests, characteristics, and needs, some may be affected and sensitive to certain challenges (e.g., physical structure, or dynamic nature of IT), while others will not. Our framework posits that IT employees with autism perceive workplace structures and relations differently and may experience none, some, or all the barriers identified in the literature review in section on ‘Knowledge and attitude of neurotypical employees create barriers for individuals with autism’ and summarized in Table 1. Therefore, we posit the following high-level propositions regarding the interplay between individual differences and barriers in the workplace for use in future research to empirically investigate the nature of their effects (e.g., moderating or mediating):
Proposition 1: Alignment of personal interests (e.g., professional interests) with job role reduces the number of barriers experienced (Austin & Pisano, Reference Austin and Pisano2017).
Proposition 2: An individual’s personal characteristics (e.g., hyper- or hypo-sensitivity to environmental stimulus) influence (Hendricks, Reference Hendricks2010):
(2a) the type and severity of barriers they experience.
(2b) the accommodations they seek in the workplace.
Individual coping methods
The third component of our framework, ‘individual coping methods,’ is an individual-level construct focusing on how marginalized employees exercise agency and deploy individual coping methods to respond to barriers. These range from developing informal networks, seeking informal mentors, and ignoring barriers, to more severe responses such as changing personal characteristics or leaving IT. We know very little about the coping methods employees with autism use to mitigate barriers. We suspect that not all the methods previously identified in the literaure will be suitable for employees with autism (e.g., creating informal networks). A few autism employment-related studies suggest that other coping methods include adopting a ‘change agent’ mind-set through recognizing past successes (Webster & Garvis, 2016); giving back through mentorship (Webster & Garvis, 2016); recognizing past challenges as by-products of autism rather than personal shortcomings (Hickey, Crabtree, & Stott, Reference Hickey, Crabtree and Stott2018); and using specialized interests to build careers and find community (Hickey, Crabtree, & Stott, Reference Hickey, Crabtree and Stott2018). Although these studies are limited in sample size and generalizability of the population, they suggest important dimensions to explore. We also suspect that individual differences dimensions will influence the types and extent to which individual coping methods are used. For example, masking or camouflaging, a way that individuals with autism mask their autism symptoms by mimicking social behaviors observed, may be more common in females than in males (Baldwin & Costley, Reference Baldwin and Costley2016; Lai et al., Reference Lai, Lombardo, Ruigrok, Chakrabarti, Auyeung and Szatmari2017). Our framework highlights the need to empirically explore and further define the coping methods employees with autism deploy and their effects on individual employment outcomes and well-being.
Proposition 3: Individual differences determine the types of individual coping methods individuals use and how often they use them (Hedley et al., Reference Hedley, Cai, Uljarević, Wilmot, Spoor, Richdale and Dissanayake2018).
Autism employment program
The fourth component of our framework, ‘autism employment program,’ is an intervention-level construct which includes the characteristics of autism employment programs that prevent, mitigate, and eliminate the barriers employees with autism experience in IT. Progam characteristics influence the extent to which barriers and opportunities exist as well as the extent to which they negatively or positively impact individuals with autism and the knowledge and attitudes of neurotypical employees. We organized characteristics into three categories: intervention catalysts and objectives; methods and practices deployed; and measurement processes. Program catalysts and objectives determine the organization’s commitment level and, in turn, how effectively these programs will address barriers. The catalysts influence whether, and to what extent, employees with autism utilize these interventions. Catalysts and objectives are reviewed in the section on ‘Benefits from/catalysts for autism employment programs’ and summarized in Table 1. We suggest the following propositions:
Proposition 4: Autism employment programs that focus on both social and business impact reduce barriers experienced by individuals with autism (Annabi & Lebovitz, Reference Annabi and Lebovitz2018).
Proposition 5: For organizational interventions to be effective, they must be embedded in organizational onboarding and advancement procedures and policies as well as target unconscious biases in the organization in order to (a) reduce barriers and (b) improve employment (recruitment, retention, and advancement) (Maroto & Pettinicchio, Reference Maroto and Pettinicchio2015).
Autism employment programs are new and vary in the types of methods they deploy. The diverse methods and practices deployed are directly related to a program’s effectiveness in addressing barriers and improving opportunities (Craig, Reference Craig2016). If program methods are successfully designed and deployed to address the needs of individuals with autism, barriers in the workplace will be mitigated. Furthermore, since measurement characteristics relate to how effective a program is at addressing barriers and creating accountability for the organization’s specific catalysts and goals they are important to measure (Annabi & Lebovitz, Reference Annabi and Lebovitz2018). Methods, practices, and measures were reviewed in the section on ‘Autism employment programs in IT’ and summarized in Table 1.
Proposition 6: Autism employment initiatives which contain a diverse portfolio of methods that address the diversity of individuals with autism are more likely to (Craig, Reference Craig2016):
(6a) be used by employees with autism
(6b) reduce barriers experienced by individuals with autism
(6c) improve autism employment outcomes (e.g., recruitment, retention, advancement).
Proposition 7: Autism employment programs with systematic evaluation components are more likely to reduce barriers (Annabi & Lebovitz, Reference Annabi and Lebovitz2018).
Individual coping methods
Lastly, we extend OIMIB to include the knowledge and attitudes of neurotypical employees toward autism in order to determine how best to address the barriers that exisit in the IT workplace (see section on ‘Knowledge and attitudes of neurotypical employees create barriers for individuals with autism’). Our investigation employs Ajzen’s (Reference Ajzen1991) theory of planned behavior (TPB) to guide our development and measurement of knowledge and attitudes relevant to autism. The TPB posits that intentions are the proximal determinants of behavior change. According to the TPB, intentions capture an individual’s motivation and willingness to perform a behavior and are partly driven by individual’s attitudes. We note that TPB also includes norms and self-efficacy as determinants of intentions. We focus on attitudes as this is the most proximal determinant of behavior change and is emphasized in the literature. Attitudes refer to the perceived advantages and disadvantages of exhibiting a behavior (the degree to which a person has a favorable or unfavorable evaluation of a specific behavior – in our case, the behavior of working with individuals with autism). Studies have documented the relevance of attitudes in accounting for intentions (Armitage & Conner, Reference Armitage and Conner2001; Sheppard, Hartwick, & Warshaw, Reference Sheppard, Hartwick and Warshaw1988) and demonstrated that intentions account for a considerable amount of the variation in specific behaviors (Armitage & Conner, Reference Armitage and Conner2001). Attitudes, drawn from the TPB, present malleable determinants of behavior that can be targeted to promote better inclusion of individuals with autism in the workplace. However, it is important to note that attitudes have not been examined in the IT workplace. In order to modify neurotypical IT workers’ behaviors to be more welcoming and inclusive in their interactions with coworkers with autism, we need to understand and change both their level of understanding and the attitudes they hold. We draw on the rich theoretical and empirical work of Ajzen and others to conceptualize and operationalize knowledge and attitudes in relation to autism in the context of the IT workplace (e.g., Ajzen, Reference Ajzen2004).
Proposition 8: When neurotypical employees are knowledgeable about autism, employees with autism experience fewer barriers.
Proposition 9: When neurotypical employees’ attitudes toward autism are positive, employees with autism experience fewer barriers.
The framework presented in this section defines and organizes constructs related to the barriers and opportunties IT workers with autism experience as well as the program methods and practices intended to address them. The utility of the framework lies in describing the relevant multilevel constructs and articulating the relationships among them illustrated in the aforementioned hypotheses.
Conclusion
In this paper, we refine the OIMIB theoretical framework to provide a theoretical lens through which to investigate employment and equitable inclusion of individuals with autism in the IT workplace. There is little research that addresses the inclusion of individuals with autism who have average or above average intelligence in the workforce (Roux et al. Reference Roux, Shattuck, Rast, Rava and Anderson2015; Wei et al. Reference Wei, Wagner, Hudson, Yu and Shattuck2015), particularly in the IT industry where many individuals with autism work (Annabi et al., Reference Annabi, Sundaresan and Zolyomi2017; Morris et al., Reference Morris, Begel and Wiedermann2015). This revised framework will enable empirical studies using ethnographic techniques grounded in critical epistemology that empowers IT workers with autism to tell their stories. Such studies will illuminate the challenges and successes that individuals with autism experience in the IT workplace, resulting in improved understanding of their experiences. A better understanding of the experiences of IT workers with autism will identify new lines of inquiry that will further improve the internal capacity of IT firms and the lives of IT and non-IT workers with autism. This framework guides our conceptual understanding of the ways in which neurotypical IT workers understand and view individuals with autism (knowledge and attitudes) in the workplace. Empirical findings using this framework will contribute to the extensive research on knowledge and attitudes and potentially extend theories such as TPB. Furthermore, improved understanding may lay the foundation for future research regarding employment of individuals with autism as well as broadening participation interventions (such as autism employment programs) in the IT industry and beyond.
This paper extends the OIMIB theoretical framework to include TPB knowledge and attitude constructs. Research findings will reveal the nuanced interplay between knowledge and attitudes toward autism in the context of specific organizations and programs. Developing a nuanced understanding will reveal organizational characteristics that have the most significant impact on knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. Identifying these characteristics will extend our theoretical understanding and application of TPB and OIMIB.
About the Authors
Dr. Hala Annabi is an associate professor in the Information School at the University of Washington (UW). Her research focuses on creating and maintaining inclusive learning organizations. She investigates the design, development, deployment, and assessment of distributed work, open-source software groups, and virtual communities of practice. Dr. Annabi also investigates diversity and inclusion interventions in the technology industry aimed at recruiting, retaining, and advancing women and individuals with autism. She is an experienced academic leader having cofounded Prepare for IT program for students with autism at UW and cofounded the Select Leadership Development program, and founded Women in Information Systems and the College of Business Honors Program at the Ohio University. In addition to her academic career interests, she is a partner in McGann Annabi Consulting, an independent consulting firm providing services in the areas of system strategy, diversity, and inclusion interventions and leadership development. Dr. Annabi earned her PhD in information science and technology from The Information School at Syracuse University.
Dr. Jill Locke is a research assistant professor at the University of Washington (UW) in the Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences. Dr. Locke completed her doctoral training at UCLA and postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Pennsylvania. Her research has focused on the (1) presentation of social impairment for youth with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in inclusive school settings, (2) identification of best practices for individuals with ASD, and (3) understanding of successful implementation and sustainment of evidence-based practices for individuals with ASD in community settings. Dr. Locke has widely published in scientific journals and has a number of presentations at local, national, and international professional meetings and conferences that reach a diverse audience of stakeholders, practitioners, policy makers, and researchers. Dr. Locke is the cofounder of the Mentoring, Organizational and Social Support for Autism Inclusion on Campus (MOSSAIC) program and PREP for IT program for UW students with ASD.
