Neurodiversity & Disability Inclusion

The complex nature of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) requires applying organizational psychology and data analytics to the demanding reporting required to track efforts to advance the representation of different groups within organizations. We are currently seeing an increase in the accountability of organizations for their representation of minorities and underrepresented populations. As organizational psychologists, we look toward the organization to identify the culture, climate and employment practices creating barriers to a diverse workforce. The disabled and neurodivergent are substantially missed in many organizations’ focus on DEI. Creating a culture of inclusion combined with normalized practices throughout the employee life cycle can create an environment for neurodivergent and disabled employees to thrive.

What is Neurodiversity?

An umbrella term for individuals with cognitive differences such as autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), dyslexia and dysgraphia, neurodiversity was coined by Judy Singer in 1998 [1] and has since seen widespread adoption. As Doyle (2020) explains, the “psychological definition refers to the diversity within an individual’s cognitive ability, wherein there are large, statistically-significant disparities between peaks and troughs of the profile” [2]. Neurodiversity is also a natural variation and part of human evolution [3]. Many neurodivergent conditions fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA). However, many people do not identify as disabled, creating a multifaceted approach for support within the workplace. Organizations must create an environment to support these employees.

Generally, groups that do not have representation and equal access to work fall under the DEI umbrella. Neurodivergent and disabled workers require this access, but this presents unique challenges because 96% of disabilities and 100% of neurodivergent conditions are concealable or nonvisible [4]. At the same time, self-identification, or disclosure, is required for an employer to know that a worker falls under these protected groups. There is nothing visual that will identify the individual. Instead, there must be trust between the individual and the organization for a disabled employee to feel safe self-identifying.

Grit & flow is a unique consultancy that addresses the growing need for a diversified workplace culture. It is our intent to promote inclusivity with a focus on the neurodivergent and disabled workforce.

This article examines the challenge in measuring disability, including neurodivergent conditions, when disability identity is not always present. An overview of the barriers organizations face with self-identificaiton (self-id) and disclosure as well as approaches to overcoming these barriers, are provided. We also discuss the increase in public and government requirements to report on DEI metrics, including disability inclusion and representation within organizations. Lastly, we provide examples of how grit & flow uses data analytics to measure changes in culture and mindset.

Worker Ability

The term “disability” suggests a potential impact on worker ability, raising concerns about the extent to which the disability interferes with work activities. Although stereotypes might lead to adverse performance-based inferences about other protected groups, disability by definition suggests that some mental or physical ability is challenged, focusing on a deficit model of disability [5]. Bogart et al. (2017) examine self-id in detail, finding that multiple factors play a role (severity, age, income and stigma) in how the individual identifies with the concept of disability [6].

The most substantial challenge for organizations is measuring the number of employees with a disability. Self-id campaigns are programs that actively prompt workers to disclose diversities to their organizations. The biggest challenge for organizations is empowering individuals to self-identify, but doing so ensures reporting is accurate and that the organization is demonstrating its inclusiveness of disabled employees.

Self-id and disclosure are highly dependent on psychologically safe environments. Although many organizations consider this intangible and a “feel-good” item, it has quickly become a requirement. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) recently released ISO 30415:2021– Human resource management: diversity and inclusion – establishing a new standard for accountability and responsibility for diversity and inclusion activities within the organization [7]. Additionally, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehab Act) was revised in 2014, adding Section 503, which requires government contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative action in recruiting, hiring, promotion and retention of persons with disabilities (PWD) [8]. The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) enforces the Rehab Act, which requires 7% PWD representation within these workforces to obtain government contracts. (For more information, view the U.S. Department of Labor’s website, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/section-503.)

There has also been an increase in focus on the social aspect of accountability for underrepresented groups. 

Corporate Social Responsibility

Organizations have faced pressure to report on their corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities while also engaging in practices that increase ratings of their business activities’ environmental, social and governance (ESG) outcomes. Fortunately, CSR activities can benefit organizations themselves [9], enhancing stakeholder trust and brand image. Furthermore, high ESG ratings result in greater firm valuations relative to firms without ratings [10]. Taking concrete steps toward disability inclusion is an important but often overlooked aspect of CSR strategy [11]. The pressure for companies to engage in responsible activities must be measurable, including the impact on the individuals within their organizations.

A company’s legal and social responsibility to ask about disabilities may not be a compelling enough reason for individuals to self-identify [12]. In a U.K. study, CSR reports from 253 large and multinational enterprises did not disclose relative information on diversity indicators for inclusion of PWD, indicating a lack of data [13]. Organizations must embrace practices for disabled and neurodivergent candidates and employees that provide a strengths-based support model to enable the sense of belonging and necessary accommodations for PWD to do their best work. Only through these efforts will individuals feel safe to self-id and provide data for organizations to report.

The need for the measurement of DEI activities is rapidly increasing. Business leaders expect a return-on-investment for the money and resources focusing on inclusion, and knowledge that the interventions are meeting the objectives. Focusing on neurodivergent and disabled talent creates an extended challenge for organizations. In the traditional workplace, many neurodivergent employees do not associate with having a disability, making it difficult for organizations to collect data for reporting purposes. Standards organizations are rapidly creating standards for reporting on disability within the workforce, but the challenge of identifying these individuals within the workforce is significant. To meet this challenge, grit & flow uses data analytics to plan and measure interventions designed to increase the concept of belonging so that all employees feel comfortable disclosing their neurodivergent and disability identity.

Data Analytics: Critical to DEI

Data analytics are critical to providing an accurate, current picture of an organization, but more importantly, for tracking movement of trends in focus areas like DEI. The grit & flow framework uses data to create inclusive environments, including using data analytics to prepare an organization to move toward inclusive practices within the employee life cycle and culture.

Baseline data. Before any intervention begins, a baseline is required. Human resource (HR) metrics, knowledge and acceptance surveys, and disclosure and engagement data must be gathered from an organization using existing data or through data collection. HR metrics such as time-to-hire, retention, recruitment costs and training costs help establish a baseline of the company’s brand image with candidates and the person-environment fit of placements [13]. Descriptive statistics and trend analysis on these areas provide an ongoing dashboard for the organization and lead to improved inclusive practices.

Another critical baseline to collect is the organization’s level of acceptance and knowledge of disabilities and neurodiversity. Interventions are established by using validated instruments to assess existing knowledge of neurodivergent and disabled conditions. Using this data, we determine measurable objectives of the inclusion effort, which leads to defining the interventions required to establish acceptance of these groups within organizations and encourage self-id.

Post-testing. After a set of intervals, post-tests are conducted. The initial responses establish the knowledge and acceptance level at the outset and are compared against the results of the retests at different time intervals to establish the statistical impact on the organization. The data informs an organization’s adoption of neurodivergent and disabled employees. As needed, interventions can be revised as new challenges surface.

Self-id and employee engagement data. An additional baseline that is helpful is exploring current self-id statistics and employee engagement data. This data provides insight into the current state of the organizational culture. The following is an example of how grit & flow uses data analysis before engaging in interventions for inclusive practices.

• Begin by capturing employee engagement and self-id statistics from the unit aggregated by business unit or department. The approach most used in creating inclusive practices is using a pilot area of the business, which helps create the game plan to then expand across the organization. Once collected, the data establishes the baseline, and data analysis provides a better picture of the current environment.
• This baseline helps us understand how many individuals are comfortable disclosing a disability or neurodivergent condition. Using the engagement data, we can determine where each business unit stands with engagement. We can then run a correlation to measure the relationship between self-id and engagement.
• Using these baselines, we can focus our interventions on increasing a business unit’s inclusive culture, knowledge of disabilities and neurodiversity, and employment life cycle enhancement. After a period of time, the post-test data can measure the change for the business unit that experienced the intervention. Did self-id increase? Did engagement increase? Is there a relationship between self-id and the level of engagement?

As more data is collected, we can use predictive statistics to gauge where the intervention predictions increased engagement and self-id. The predictive statistics guide how to proceed with interventions in the current business unit or expand to new business units. The ability to pivot is essential if interventions are not making the desired impact. Potential additional areas of focus include education, individual coaching, or executive support feeding into a revised implementation plan. It is important to remember that organizations must measure against themselves, not other organizations. Each organization is in a different stage of its inclusion journey and will require a tailored strategy. There is not one cookie-cutter approach to organizational inclusion.

Demand for DEI Measurement

Organizations are under scrutiny to measure their inclusion of underrepresented groups. The demand is coming from all angles of inclusiveness: CSR, ESG and DEI. To address this increased focus from a people perspective, organizations need to identify the culture, climate and employment practices creating barriers to a diverse workforce and create a psychologically safe environment for disclosing disabilities and neurodivergent conditions. The use of organizational psychology and data analytics is essential for increasing organizations’ measurement capabilities. Creating a culture of inclusion combined with normalized practices throughout the employee life cycle can foster an environment for neurodivergent and disabled current and future employees to thrive.

References

1. Singer, J., 1998, “Odd people in: The birth of community amongst people on the autism spectrum: A personal exploration of a new social movement based on neurological diversity,” University of Technology, Sydney.
2. Doyle, N., 2020, “Neurodiversity at work: A biopsychosocial model and the impact on working adults,” British Medical Bulletin, Vol. 135, No. 1, pp. 108-125, https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldaa021. 
3. Komarow, A. & Hector, B. L., 2020, “Incorporating neurodivergent individuals into diversity and inclusion initiatives,” Journal of Financial Planning, November, https://www.financialplanningassociation.org/article/journal/NOV20-incorporating-neurodivergent-individuals-diversity-and-inclusion-initiatives. 
4. World Health Organization, 2020, “Disability and health,” https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/disbility-and-health. 
5. Santuzzi, A. M. & Waltz, P. R., 2016, “Disability in the workplace,” Journal of Management, Vol. 42, No. 5, pp. 1111-1135, https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315626269. 
6. Bogart, K. R., Rottenstein, A., Lund, E. M. & Bouchard, L., 2017, “Who self-identifies as disabled? An examination of impairment and contextual predictors,” Rehabilitation Psychology, Vol. 62, No. 4, pp. 553-562, https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000132. 
7. International Organization for Standardization, 2021, “Human resource management - Diversity and inclusion,” ISO 30415:2021.
8. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehab Act). (n.d.). Retrieved January 29, 2021, from https://askearn.org/topics/laws-regulations/rehabilitation-act/. 
9. Jang, S. S., Ko, H., Chung, Y. & Woo, C., 2019, “CSR, social ties and firm performance,” Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 1310-1323, https://doi.org/10.1108/cg-02-2019-0068. 
10. Bofinger, Y., Heyden, K. J. & Rock, B., 2022, “Corporate social responsibility and market efficiency: Evidence from ESG and misvaluation measures,” Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 134, Art. no. 106322, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2021.106322. 
11. Miethlich, B. & Šlahor, Ľ., 2018, “Employment of persons with disabilities as a Corporate Social Responsibility initiative: Necessity and variants of implementation,” CBU International Conference Proceedings, Vol. 6, pp. 350-355, https://doi.org/10.12955/cbup.v6.1181. 
12. Young, M. B. & Kan, M., 2015, “Do Ask, Do Tell Encouraging Employees with Disabilities to Self-Identify,” www.conferenceboard.org. 
13. Khan, N., Korac-Kakabadse, N., Skouloudis, A. & Dimopoulos, A., 2019, “Diversity in the workplace: An overview of disability employment disclosures among UK firms,” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 170-185, https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1669. 
14. Edwards, M. R. & Edwards, K., 2019, “Predictive HR analytics: Mastering the HR metric,” 2nd ed., London: Kogan Page Limited.