Lynn Davison 00:00
Welcome to When Autism Grows Up Strong. I'm Lynn Davison. Today we're exploring how a neurodivergent adult can find an employer that recognizes their contribution and explain what helps them do good work. My guest Nat Hawley brings the lived experience of autism, dyslexia, and dyspraxia. He has a Masters in Science in Applied Neuroscience, a wonderful TED talk, and about 10 years of work with organizations. He examines the policies, the processes, the environments, and the communication that can either reveal talent or obscure it. So we're going to use the peace practice to navigate this. In our first conversation, Nat gave me a really good, memorable shift. See neurodivergence as a difference to explore. He also challenged job seekers to understand the value they bring. So we're going to pause, empathize, align, collaborate, and experiment through his main concepts. So let's just start out with: you said organizations should see neurodivergence as a difference to utilize. What changes when an employer takes that seriously?
Nat Hawley 01:21
Okay. Well, I think first of all, when we look at as a problem to solve, I guess no one ends up particularly happy. You know, the individual feels that there are liability, someone who people have to work around, and organizations see it as this kind of burden or hindrance. Whereas when you see it as something to utilize, you stop seeing it as a kind of a, I guess, a bit of a faff, and you see it as something which you need. For me, neuro inclusion isn't a nice to have; it's an absolute necessity. Neurodiversity is the equivalent to biodiversity, and we know what happens when we don't have a variety of different plant lives, our world becomes less rich, and genuinely, the earth suffers for it. And I truly believe different minds is the exact equivalent. I also feel that you, you know, there are lots of things within the workplace which are not suitable, and while I think we should adapt them and change them because it's nice, I actually don't think that should be the primary driver. I think we should do things because it makes monetary value, it makes business sense. You know, to stay competitive, you have to be at the bleeding edge, and we have to give support and a foundation in place, not because there is anything inherently wrong with the individual, but because we haven't set our processes up to be kind of intuitive to neurodivergent minds in the first place,
Lynn Davison 02:53
and and those practices get put in place and often aren't examined. So, trying to get that frame of mind that autistic people are assets. What do they need to do, the employer? What do they need to do to recognize that? And what does the applicant need to communicate?
Nat Hawley 03:18
Well, I think it's good that you mentioned both parties here because I think it's always all the emphasis is either put on the individual or the kind of organization, and both parties, I guess, forget the part that again we aren't focusing on making, I guess, the workplace more inclusive for this one small subset of the population. We're trying to make it more inclusive for everyone, and by supporting neurodivergent people, you tend to make it better for everyone else involved. What I would always say to people is that you need like a 50-50 approach. As a neurodivergent employee or applicant, you need to know your own brain. You want to sell your strengths. What I would say to an employer is that you can't expect an individual to completely know their entire self worth and identity. That takes a lifetime to learn. So if you are both have a foundational knowledge, you know more or less how your brain works. You know how to get the best out of it. You know what has worked in the past and what hasn't worked, and the employer has a foundational knowledge on different ways of thinking and the appreciation that one size doesn't fit all. That is when you can have a proper conversation in order to figure out these questions for yourselves. I always avoid giving definitive answers because we're speaking about people here, and people are individuals. So it's much more beneficial as an employer to teach yourself to fish rather than someone to give you a fish. What I mean by that is you need to know how to get the best out of someone and what questions. You need to ask, opposed to someone giving you a cheat sheet, which you would then apply to every single person ever, which simply just would not work.
Lynn Davison 05:12
It would not work because we are so individual, and boy, that's the case in businesses and in families. So, before someone starts applying. What should they understand about? I love your term. How their brain works.
Nat Hawley 05:30
Well, I think just asking yourself simple questions. So knowing yourself, it really comes down to knowing what your top spikes are and how to sell them, and knowing what your bottom spikes are and how to level them out, and I think it's about seeing yourself as a three-dimensional person, and also knowing yourself in terms of not just what you're good at, what you're bad at, but at what times of the day do you operate at your best? What certain communication style do you find easiest to absorb information? Do you prefer working indoors, outdoors? Are you an early bird? Are you a night owl? If you know that you're you struggle in one area, what have you found that has helped in the past? I really don't like it when people come up to me and saying, Nat I can't do this, this, and this.I'm like, well, you don't sound very good, you know. I want someone who can do these things. Now, I don't care how you do these things, but you still need to be able to do that. So, for example, I'm really dyslexic. I do struggle with reading large amounts of writing. My when people ask me to read something, they're not actually asking me to read something. They're asking me to understand what is written down. So if I use a different format, like get the same output, but the way I do it works with my brain rather than against it, and I find sometimes individuals take things a little bit too literal, which means if someone says you must do it this way, that is all they see. And organizations are too rigid because we've always done it this way. There's no real reason why it needs to be done this way. This is just how we do it. So again, a 50-50 approach where both parties are trying to have a broader understanding
Lynn Davison 07:22
and more flexibility. I love that. Can you give me a workplace example?
Nat Hawley 07:28
You know, in terms of the education system, your people try. The system tries to make you be like a jack of all trades. You know, equally good at maths, okay, English, and that's why if you're in one set in one subject, you typically have to be in a similar set in the other subjects, whereas in the workplace that system doesn't exist anymore. You are not hired because you can do everything equally well. You are hired because there are some things you are better at than everyone else, and that is what you get paid for. Now that will probably equate maybe to about maybe 80% of your day-to-day role, there are still going to be 20% of your role that doesn't work for your brain. Things that kind of unavoidable. Those are the things where you need support. So what I would say is, it is up to you to be able to identify those things before it is a problem, and it is up to the employer to observe these challenges amongst their entire workforce and start implementing universal proactive design rather than retrospectively doing it. Because I often see that the tough thing with autism isn't necessarily getting a job; it's maintaining the job, and that's because they find barriers as they go along, and pointing out those barriers could undermine their position. It could make them feel like they're incompetent. It can be very timely to make adjustments. And by the time you finally have fixed all these nuts and bolts, which might take quite a long time, your self esteem is at an all-time low. The organization is quite frustrated, and they're essentially not feeling they're getting bang for their buck with you. And this is why it's so important that you begin an or you as soon as you've accepted a job offer, you are having your assessment of your space straight away, and you've also asked what adjustments have already been put in place for other workers who have similar needs to myself? And if they say nothing, that's a red flag, and maybe that's not the organization for you. And I think that's one thing, another thing that I really like to push is that getting a job isn't. It shouldn't be a luxury, as in you know, thank you, kind sir, for this job. It should be an equal thing. They need you. That's why they are hiring you, and you need them because maybe you need an income, job stability. It has to be kind of a collaborative approach. And if it's not collaborative, go to an organization that is collaborative. And if we do that, more organization. Will up their quality and realize, you know, if we do not make these adaptions proactively, the talent that we are after is going to go elsewhere, and that I believe is when they'll really start acting.
Lynn Davison 10:15
Oh, I love that! I love that. So, how how do they make these statements about here's a contribution contribution that I know I can make, and here's a tool or a condition that helps me deliver it. How how can we do that? So yeah, give me some examples.
Nat Hawley 10:44
I would say you know again, work with your brain, not against it. If communicate, if verbally communicating is your way of doing things, do it that way. If it's not, write it down. One challenge that I find a lot of people have is that being able to express how your mind works is easier said than done. You know who really knows? We have a starting point, but we don't have like an end destination. You don't need to. I'm a big fan of what um, I know it goes by many names, but I call it a workplace passport, and essentially it's a cheat sheet on how your brain works. And the important thing is this isn't just for neurodivergent people. Ideally, this should be for everyone that joins the organization. Again, do you work in? Do you like indoors? Do you like outdoors? Do you like verbal communication? Do you prefer things written up? You know how? What? What's your name? Do you have a nickname? You know, we're you know in terms of what is your interest outside of work, and the reason why you know all of these things it helps people get to know you in a very short amount of time and this is particularly useful if you've got a job where maybe you don't really get to know people on a one to one maybe your managers are always changing and moving around and it can help just I guess begin A conversation. Essentially, it's it's redesigning what diagnosis I use in education. Diagnoses are never meant to give you the full answer; they're meant to give you a starting point. Likewise, in the workplace, you need a starting point. But a medical view in a workplace isn't useful because the people who are reading these medical opinions of you, they are not trained or qualified to interpret them. And also, these reports are inherently deficit focused. They always have been. So why would you want to give an employer a list of the things that you cannot do. You want to give them a list of things to get the best out of you. So reframing, and I think you know that's why you have an additional, maybe an assessment chat passport, rather than kind of as a counterpart to your diagnosis, which I would keep separately to your talks with your GP, your family, your own personal understanding.
Lynn Davison 13:06
Yeah, yeah, because you risk all the misunderstandings that are out there. Yeah. Now let's look at what happens when a capable person and a workplace don't understand each other.
Nat Hawley 13:21
I mean, when they don't understand each other. Essentially, you're not you're not going to get a good output. You've got top down processes who see the big picture, the overall message, and then they work their way to the details. And then you've got the bottom up processes who start with the details and then branch out. And most people do not understand each other. One's up here, one's down here, and normally, let's say the person who runs the organization, typically they tend to be quite extroverted, very kind of ideas focused. So they're up here, and because they are the head honcho, the person in charge, they expect that everyone has to meet up to their level. Now, going from here to here is a consistent amount amount of masking and processing that would wear anyone out.
Editorial note: A simplified example. People may use both approaches, depending on the situation.
Lynn Davison 14:08
Yes.
Nat Hawley 14:08
That's why I think we should meet in the middle. That way, it's put accountability on both people. You appreciate people have different communication styles, but you also appreciate that if I want to get the best output from this person, I need to be able to do a way that their brain genuinely finds useful and not too fatiguing, and that's one reason why having a work a workplace passport is so useful, because you can't just expect to know every single person's communication preferences. That being said, though, we know everyone's name in our team because we know without a name it's hard to get their attention. We are starting to understand our team's pronouns because if we don't know their pronouns, again the person doesn't feel really seen, understood, or they might not connect with it. Why can't we add one more thing to the list? In terms of communication preferences, and there are going to be instances where we aren't able to do those communication processes. I'm not saying that just because someone says this is how I learn, this is how it always needs to be done. But what I'm saying is, if it can be done that way, do it that way, and if it can't be done that way, appreciate that someone's comprehension might be not as effective, so you need factor consideration.
Lynn Davison 15:32
Yeah, there's going to be a compromise.
Nat Hawley 15:33
Yeah.
Lynn Davison 15:35
a situation, and nobody wants to work in a compromised situation. All right. So, how do we distinguish a skill that someone can develop from a process that the employer needs to change then?
Nat Hawley 15:52
Sorry, can you repeat that?
Lynn Davison 15:53
Yeah. How do how do we figure out what we need to develop versus what they need to change? We the employee, they the employer.
Nat Hawley 16:04
I think we need to continuously develop every part. I don't think we should be complacent in any particular area. That being said, I think there's also the understanding that there are going to be some things that I may never be able to do as good as my peers, or not be able to do it in the same way as them. So, for instance, being dyslexic, I know if I try and read and write in the way that my peers do, I am never going to be as good as them.
Lynn Davison 16:37
Yeah.
Nat Hawley 16:36
But when I find an alternative approach to it, well, I might be able to be as good as them, or equally, I might be better. So, because I listen to audio books, because I get things re-read to me, I truly do think my comprehension tends to be better than those around me, and that only happens once I
Nat Hawley 16:58
understand
Lynn Davison 16:59
Yeah.
Nat Hawley 17:00
For an employer, I would say quite often when someone isn't gelling or they're not meeting the demands or your expectations, I would say the process that they typically go through is the wrong one. Typically, people look at individuals first. You know, we should have a one-to-one. Let's have a chat about this. I think a chat actually should come later down the list. I think first you should look at foundational elements. So, for instance, have is there enough people in the team? Like, is this job the right size for one individual, or have I not given enough of a head count? Another thing you might want to check is: is there the right resourcing? Does this person have all the tools they need in order to do this role? Then I would look at the induction. Have I actually given them an induction? Have I actually trained them? Because if I haven't done that, how can I kind of look at them as the fault? Then I would do the one-to-one and try and understand what understand the individual's perspective, and once I've done that, that's when I can give adjustments in place. Rather than assuming I know what adjustments they need, I have a conversation. Then we allow those adjustments to be implemented, and if it's not the right ones, we go back and we switch out and we try again. Yeah, and I would say only after you've done all those approaches, I think you can only make a fair a fair decision on is this genuinely the right role for the person? Do they actually have the skill set I need? If you are starting with the individual, you are going to be churning through people like there's no tomorrow. But if you focus on the resourcing and the environment and the like the systems first, you're going to get the best out of that person. But equally, you're going to be reducing frictions for the wider team and the future team as you go along.
Lynn Davison 18:56
So well said. So well said. And okay, so in the application process, then, what might the applicant misunderstand about what the manager wants, and what might the manager misunderstand about the applicant? How do we get that lined up?
Nat Hawley 19:21
You know, unspoken rules essentially. So you know, as a as a Brit and an American, we have different vocabulary, and they mean different things. Whenever someone says, you know, I forgot my pants today. Um, I don't know if you say that, but in my head, I'm thinking you're running around naked, but in your head, you're not wearing your trousers, yeah. So it's again two word. The same word can have different meanings.
Lynn Davison 19:50
Absolutely.
Nat Hawley 19:51
If that can happen in day-to-day language, well, the same thing can happen with people who are top-down processors or bottom-up processors or any other type of processor. And I think employers sometimes like to say, "Well, this is obvious. This is common sense. Everyone should know this. No, every you believe everyone should know this because you already know it. It's easy to say once you know it. You only know what you know, and I think that's why having good transparency, clear communication, and being able to confirm, but I just understand what you understood from this. Just so we're on the same page works really well. And again, from the neurodivergent person, I think you need to understand that misunderstanding in terms of another person's intention isn't an uncommon thing for you, and as such, you also need to put positions in place. While I think it would be ideal to have a great manager who understands, I think we also need to be realistic. There aren't enough of them out there at the moment.
Lynn Davison 20:56
No.
Nat Hawley 20:57
Yeah, we need to be the ones in the driver's seat. We need to be asking the probing questions. When you say that, can I just understand? Is that what you mean, or do you mind, in terms of process, do you mind how it's done, or do you want it done in a particular way? I think it would be lovely to be in a passive seat and let them tell you how it needs to be done. I just think in our current state, that's not realistic. So we have to take more accountability, not because it's the right thing to do, but because it's where we currently are as a society, and hopefully we can grow together. But we can't rely on us to grow together. We have to always be the person trying to lead it. And if both people have that mindset, then I think we genuinely grow and rise together.
Lynn Davison 21:41
Oh, absolutely. Well, you reminded me that the manager has their own way of thinking too. So, what does curiosity about what both brains look like? What what you know? How does that help? And and while you're at it, you mentioned universal design. Help me understand what both of those kind. You know, help me help the applicant understand what the manager's thinking, and then what the manager could do in terms of universal design.
Nat Hawley 22:18
I think well, that's a classic example of like double empathy. It's you know being able to understand that someone else thinks differently than you do, I think it's more than just putting yourself in someone else's shoes. Just like our skill sets, our emotions are also very specialized. So some areas are going to be really, really intense, but other areas are like going to be slightly muted? So, so I guess that is how I would see in terms of understanding in like understanding that there are some areas you're going to be really strong in. There are other areas you're going to be really weak in, and that's completely okay. But being able to communicate is what you want. Universal design is, I guess, it takes the pressure off the individual needing to make the adjustments, and it puts more emphasis on the things around us. How do we use things? For instance, you know, why are things designed the way they are? A chair is designed how a chair is designed because it's making an assumption. The assumption is we all have legs. If you do not have legs, a chair isn't going to be particularly useful, or at least in its current format. And there are everything. We also say things like, "Oh, it's a man's world. Well, what do we mean by that? Well, everything has been created from a male perspective, meaning that something just work better for males. I remember, like you know, you know, bikes were all created in a certain way, and women, you know, found it difficult to get onto them because our size differences. So we had to make adaptions. But it was always after fall.
Lynn Davison 24:00
Yes.
Nat Hawley 24:00
the same thing is true with neurodivergence, you know things are just simply not created with difference in mind. They're not very adaptable, and I I think universal design is less about making things that work just for like neurodivergent people. Like I don't want a separate bike just for me. I want a bike that can be adaptable depending how my mind works, and that way it puts less emphasis on needing it to get a diagnosis, basically asking for help and needing proof to get that help, and more emphasis on people are different, and these things can adapt and evolve with us depending on our needs and our requirements, our energy levels-you know-it can fluctuate. That's why you know sometimes if I want to stand up, my desk can rise. If I want to sit down, it can do. With my seat, sometimes I just want to be touching the thing. Other times, I can drop down again. I don't have to get a different chair. Depending on my height, I can adapt it to my needs, and that principle I think should be embedded in everything we do, not purely in appliances or physical items. Now, things don't need to benefit everyone in an equal amount of way, but the best adjustments honestly either work for everyone or they don't disadvantage anyone. An adjustment which is tailor made for one person. There are, of course, always going to be instances where that is required.
Lynn Davison 25:32
Yes.
Nat Hawley 25:32
I just don't think that should be our first line of thought. Because truthfully, while on on the hand, you know, we appreciate that we are all individuals, we also don't want to be treated like extraterrestrials. You know, we what we all are community people. I want things to be able to work for me. I want to be able to have use an adaption in a fluid way that no one second guesses me or assume that I must have some deficits that I am compensating for. I want people to see that. Oh, that is just that's preference, regardless of any other like names or labels or stigmas that could be attached to it.
Lynn Davison 26:11
Yeah, every one of those processes, like onboarding and written instructions and feedback, and sensory conditions, you know, or or the practices that they have, you know? There's a lot there that could be be considered. A lot there. Okay. So you have three screen questions during the interview that help us identify how the organization works, and so that we can compare them. Do you do you know what those are? The three screening questions.
Nat Hawley 26:47
Oh no.
Lynn Davison 26:48
Not sure, huh? What question? Okay, look, what questions should we ask to see if they if if the organization is going to be willing to adapt?
Nat Hawley 27:00
Oh, in terms of like you know, how do we find an inclusive employer, or how do we know if they are worth giving our time to?
Lynn Davison 27:07
Yes, yes.
Nat Hawley 27:09
I think it depends on what country you're in, because there's going to be different rules and you know regulations and things in place. But I'll try to be a bit more broader. I think there is no golden rule. There's no kind of like silver bullet in terms of this organization is inclusive. Honestly, I'm not even certain I've ever found a truly inclusive organization.
Lynn Davison 27:29
Yeah, good point.
Nat Hawley 27:30
But there are things you can do which are little breadcrumbs which can give you the best fighting chance. Unless you're in a company, you're not really going to know the culture,
Lynn Davison 27:41
Right.
Nat Hawley 27:41
But there are things you can do that can give you a good fighting chance. So one of them, and again, none of these I think are foolproof. I think you use them in combination with each other. I like to look at the culture. So if an organization was founded by a neurodivergent person, it's quite likely that the culture will have evolved with them, and the appreciation for an alternative approach might be higher. That's one.
Another one is, you know, have they won any kind of awards for inclusion? Now, if they have, it means that it's something that they are actively thinking about and worth considering. On the other hand, though, honestly, these awards kind of don't mean anything. I've got them coming out of the wahoo. They give them to anyone, but at least it tells you a starting conversation. In the UK, we have a scheme called Disability Confident. Maybe there's similar schemes around the place, and it's a government scheme which saying this person has vouched like Scouts Honor that we will hire people with different needs, will make adjustments. That is a really good starting place to begin a conversation. If you have no idea what companies to look for, I go on this list and I think, all right, this is a starting place. If I want to go to, I don't know, let's say a tech company, if one company is registered as a disability confident employer, and one of them isn't. I'm going to go for the one that is, with the mindset that just because someone has signed up for a scheme doesn't mean that it's a guarantee. One
Nat Hawley 29:16
One thing that I have found quite often is that in a really large organization, the higher ups will sign up to these schemes, but it doesn't filter down to every organization.
Lynn Davison 29:26
Right. Yeah.
Nat Hawley 29:29
It's hard to be. These sorts of schemes are actually much more effective to small or medium organizations. If they signed up for it, it's a higher likelihood that it's been embedded throughout the entire organization.
Lynn Davison 29:40
Yes.
Nat Hawley 29:41
Another point I would make is that if you want to go for one of the really big organizations, then how do you do it? I would look see if they've got any ERGs, employee resource groups. So quite often, large companies will have, I guess I'll call them like kind of clubs or societies, but you might have something like um you know and your. LGBT group, or you know, women's group, or you know, you know, it could be any sort of kind of marginalized community. Now, really large organizations will have a neurodiversity one. Smaller ones might just say pan disability. I don't. I think these are really good, great places to look at. Why? Because they aren't created by HR. They are employee, and tend to get a much more honest, a much more raw sense of where they are. When I see these groups, they tell me that an organization isn't perfect because these groups need to exist. What they do tell me is that they're actively trying to evolve and develop together.
Lynn Davison 30:47
Yeah, yeah.
Nat Hawley 30:48
On the other hand, though, if a smaller organization doesn't have one of these, I wouldn't see it as a red flag because you know they tend to be at bigger companies. But if a really big one doesn't have one, then maybe I would. And then, lastly, I would say being able to you know look at reviews, speak to people. I mean, if you kind of if you're able to take all of these things like a little bit here, a little bit there, I think it will give you a better direction. And from my experience, I have found that most neurodivergent job seekers care much more about culture and environmental fit than the actual particular job, and I think that is definitely something which employers will start to take notice of. So yeah, it's it's it's not easy finding an inclusive employer, and you could do all of that. But if I was to really boil it down to the core essence, I think companies aren't inclusive. I think people are, depending on the manager. So I would highly recommend that if you are starting a job, make sure that you have spoken or been interviewed by the person who's going to be line managing you, rather than just speak to the HR because HR culture to day to day kind of managing culture can be vastly different.
Lynn Davison 32:11
There can have a big gap there. Yeah. Okay. So once we find a promising fit, we need a way to tell them why we are the person that they should hire. So how do we do that? What's the strongest introduction? What would that sound like?
Nat Hawley 32:31
I say, show me, don't tell me. You know, anyone can talk the talk. A lot of people can do it really well, and a lot of them are probably lying. I mean, you know, rather than yeah, rather than seeing a different form of communication preference as again something to work around, see it as a strength because you'll get a much more authentic, much more honest portrayal of someone's abilities. I um I often do a lot of like pro bono work in schools and universities, trying to empower young people to see their strengths differently. Now, at some of these alternative provision schools, the students do not have your kind of conventional qualifications. Basically, what they get at the end of the day, an employer would have never have heard of, and that might seem like a disadvantage. I actually think it potentially puts them at a different type of advantage. So I work with students to create video CVs, and what I love about these is it disregards conventional qualifications like A, B, C, D, and it focuses more on personality. Because as someone who does employ people, I don't overly care about qualifications. Truthfully, you can teach anyone to do anything, but what you can't teach is, I guess the personality, the ethics, the morals, that kind of personal fiber. That is something that once you've got it, you've got you can't really do much with it. And I think people who have additional needs, there is this kind of rawness, this authenticity to them.
Lynn Davison 34:20
Yeah.
Nat Hawley 34:21
that is something I can work with, I can build upon that. But for those who have all the qualifications, but maybe kind of like lack that kind of a initial kind of spark, I find that really difficult to develop.
Lynn Davison 34:36
Yes.
Nat Hawley 34:37
And if you are able to show your personality, now what I will say to a lot of people who might struggle with conventional communication is a short interview that maybe 1520 minutes isn't typically going to get the best out of you.
Lynn Davison 34:53
No.
Nat Hawley 34:53
that's why having processes which might be saying a along an internship, an extended interview, a trial. Can be really beneficial, and if you are creating a video CV, I like to spend at least six weeks with the students so they get to know me. If I walked into the classroom and straight away say, "All right, we're doing a video today. Tell me why you're amazing, I'm not going to get anything out of them. I have to build, yeah, I have to build that rapport up. When I record them, I know I am getting the best version of them.
Nat Hawley 35:28
When people see those videos, they get an insight of what it could be like to work with this individual once they put the effort in to get to know them and to work with their preferences rather than against them. So you're kind of giving them like a little glimpse to the future. If you invest in this individual, this is what you can get from it, rather than an interview, which only sees how people are in that exact particular space and time.
Lynn Davison 35:55
Yes.Yes. Oh, I'm just you're just giving me all kinds of really important strategies to add to what we recommend at in inside the art of adulting, I love that. So here's I'm wondering. Okay, so can we? Can you help me with this one? Okay. Say a manager says you need to work faster. Show us how the employee could respond and how the manager could give more useful feedback.
Nat Hawley 36:36
Okay, well, first I want to define what does fast mean. You know, it could mean many different things to many different people, but I think more importantly to that, I'd be like, "Yeah, I can do that, but there's going to be a trade-off. So I have maybe it's like spoon theory. You only have so many spoons, and I can do this additional task, or I can do it quicker, but that's going to use more energy, meaning that I'm going to have less energy for another task. So, what task should I stop doing, or when? What task can I do slower as a result? And I think that puts it onto them to kind of critically think that yes, I can ask someone to go above and beyond. I can ask them to swap tasks at the last minute, but something will happen as a result of that, and I think that can help set realistic expectations. Whereas, if you just say, you know, can you, you know, work faster? You work faster. Then afterwards, you're really sleepy, and then you need to have a break. That makes you look like a bad employee. But when you've had that transparency and that honesty at the start, we're both on the same page.
Lynn Davison 37:54
I love that. That's a lot better than just saying, "Okay, I'll go fasterโ without amplifying them.
Nat Hawley 38:03
It's a bit like you know. Let's say you're on a treadmill. I can go faster on a treadmill, but I won't be able to be on that treadmill for nearly as long of a time. If I'm at like speed 10, I can probably do about five minutes. If I'm going to like one or two walking speed, I can probably be on that treadmill for like an hour. The same thing is true with work. You can do more, but at what cost? And then it's up for the manager or the employer to decide if that trade-off is worth it to them.
Lynn Davison 38:30
And I think sometimes there's an up ramp. It's like I'm at this speed now. Check me in this time, and I'll bet you I get better. And check me once I get fluid at the tasks, I can be.
Nat Hawley 38:42
I mean, again, if we're using that kind of analogy of like gym stuff, like you get stronger and it gets easier over time. But if you go straight to like that incline, it's going to be tough. But if you're gradually doing it, you will get more effective and more efficient over time.
Lynn Davison 38:57
Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. So here's what we want: a clear way to describe their contribution, a specific support request if they need it and why, and if if they need a helper in any way, they agree on that role. Like, is there a mentor that can help that I can go to in addition to you to get two perspectives. So how how can we then figure out what's our next move for someone with a degree, like someone with a degree, certifications, couple of internships, but no job offer. What would you recommend trying this week? And what should they learn from that attempt, even if it doesn't produce an interview?
Nat Hawley 39:56
Well, it's not uncommon for a lot of ND people to be very qualified. And very unemployed. And a few years ago, I, as part of Divergent Thinking, I ran a conference partnership with the University of Nottingham and the UK like Innovation Fund, and it was Diverse Minds Conference, and it was aimed at neurodivergent postdoctoral researchers in the biological sciences. So we're talking like really really educated. The conference wasn't about neurodiversity. It wasn't about biological sciences. It was about basic. Well, I say basic life skills because when you become a specialist in something, there is always going to be a trade-off because you are spending less time investing in other areas, and that I think,
Nat Hawley 40:55
yeah, I think you should acknowledge that and spend some time developing your other areas. Will you be as good as your peers? Maybe not. But if you can still upskill yourself in those areas, like life skills, cooking, communicating, sales, we should never neglect the kind of fundamentals. I knew I was never going to be in the best set in maths, but I did know that I need to at least understand the principles, so I can use additional tools to make sure I can keep up with my peers. The same writing, I knew that I was never going to be able to spell every word, but I still needed to know the foundations of language in order for me to use other tools to get the same answer but in a different format.
Lynn Davison 41:43
And you became you became such a strong speaker. I mean, your your language is so clear, and you use imagery, and it's it's organized.
Nat Hawley 41:53
Because our brain has neuroplasticity. Yes, it essentially evolves and it adapts and it grows. I also think you should, when it comes to interviews, know know your weaknesses and have an answer to them. So I love it when people say, you know, it's a cringy question, but what's your greatest weakness? That is normally when I choose to disclose my ND. I say, well, you know, I I'm actually autistic. However, I actually think that's a real asset. Yes, it means I struggle at X, you know, A, B, C, but it meant that I have found unique ways around problems such as X, Y, Z. Now, if I can use that to get the best out of my own brain, imagine what I could do in an organization for problems that you've had years and years that you've never been able to find the answer to, I've got I've done a tried and tested way of innovating around problems. You want a problem solver? I've been doing it my whole life, and I think that's a really great way of reframing something which could be seen as a deficit and actually rewire it to a strength.
Lynn Davison 43:02
Love that! I love that. Okay, all right. So that's what we're doing. We're gonna just do that. We're gonna find the employers, and we're gonna practice the way that we interview and first introduce, and then interview ourselves. All right. So let's talk about what should job seekers, employers, and invited supporters like parents take responsibility for. How do we divide that up?
Nat Hawley 43:35
I think we all need to do our our bit, and it's knowing as a parent, I have sometimes seen to be like kind of too much of a backseat driver, in my opinion. You have to allow the person to take control of their own life.
Lynn Davison 43:54
That's a fair comment. I've done it.
Nat Hawley 43:55
Yeah, yeah.
Lynn Davison 43:58
And then I learned that if I step back, the lesson gets learned and it sticks.
Nat Hawley 44:04
I mean, a lot of us have to learn the hard way. I know for myself, you know, but my mum tried to teach me loads of things, didn't retain it. I had to try. I had to fail. There is a lot of benefit in allowing people to fail. You know, learning the hard truths that this world isn't inclusive, that discrimination does exist. Does build resilience. Now, I'm not saying you know we want to get like so much resilience that we know it actually breaks us. But knowing that you know knowing how the game is, we can then learn to play it. I know that people will discriminate. I know that people will make assumptions about me before I even open my mouth. So I have made sure that I have an answer for everything. People really aren't that unique, really. If you have enough conversations, you'll realize there's patterns, and then you can play to those patterns.
Lynn Davison 45:00
Yes.
Nat Hawley 45:01
And so if you see the. World more in a bit of a like a binary a binary way play into that. A lot of the time, it's just kind of you know rinse and repeat. When you play a video game, you might be terrible at it, but each time you tweak it just a little bit, that you get better and better and better. Same thing is true when it comes to interviews, applying for roles. I think you need to always be able to critique yourself and to make those adjustments and try and find out how the game is played. Even if the game comes with an instruction manual, which a lot of people think you know life does, there's always going to be these kind of unwritten rules, these kind of silent norms, and I see it as a challenge to try and work them out. And by doing that, maybe you actually come out with an insight that someone who doesn't have the additional needs you have has never even considered, and it can be that kind of slight edge that kind of sets you apart from the crowd.
Lynn Davison 46:02
Fascinating. Okay, so just what's one piece of employment advice you would retire?
Nat Hawley 46:13
I'd probably retire the fact that we are looking for generalists, someone who could do a little bit of everything. Oh,
Lynn Davison 46:23
yeah.
Nat Hawley 46:24
We don't need to do that anymore. AI isn't a great generalist. We want people who are highly specialized in particular areas. Let's. I would also retire job descriptions that say required. Some people take that really literal.
Lynn Davison 46:40
Oh, yeah.
Nat Hawley 46:41
Are they actually required, or is it like you know? As long as they can do 80% of the role, is that enough? And can adjustments kind of pick up the other like 20% I think we need to be more honest. I'd also say when we are doing job, I know interviews or tasks, do they genuinely reflect what the role will entail, or are there barriers set up just to kind of thin out the herd to make your life easier? And I think you know by asking these questions, you'll be able to get a different type of applicant, and that different type of applicant might be the difference between you innovating something that genuinely puts you ahead of others, or makes you kind of stagnate and lose out to the competition. I will just want to caveat that, though, where I don't think that neurodivergence and innovation are the same thing, because that can put a lot of pressure on an individual. You're autistic. Where's that innovation? But what I will say is, when we give people the foundation they need to be at their best, that is when we create an environment where innovation is more likely to spring from, and that is true for neurodivergent people and neurotypical people. You know, it's not a prereq prerequisite. It's something which we increase the likelihood, and because we have spent our life fighting adversary, going uphill, we have an innate ability to be able to solve problems in a unconditional way. I never take that for granted, but we have already tons of practice in doing such things
Lynn Davison 48:23
Doesn't scare us as much. Yes. Ah. So, where can our listeners learn more about your work?
Nat Hawley 48:33
Well, if they haven't had enough of me by now, they are very welcome to go to divergentthinking.uk, and yeah, we support organizations, individuals, particularly in the workplace. So check us out. My name's Nat or Nathaniel Hawley. You're always welcome to add me on LinkedIn. Go on the website. As you can tell, I can talk for England. So always happy to have a conversation.
Lynn Davison 48:59
And and I do want to encourage people to watch your TED talk.
Nat Hawley 49:03
Yeah, check it out. I need the views. So it was a fun experience.
Lynn Davison 49:07
I bet it was. I bet it was. It was something you really prepared for. You could tell because you really, you really delivered it with impact and humor, and I loved it. It was really fun, and it wasn't that long-12 minutes. Come on, go watch it. He could use the views, right? There we go. All right. Well, let me just say again that today's conversation gives us so many practical things to do to understand our contribution, to gather evidence of the workplace fit, to communicate what helps us deliver, and to learn by experimentation because that's the only way we're going to know what really works for us, and employers can examine the practices that hide the talent, and invited supporters like parents can help our adults develop their own understanding and choices. Because that's going to give them the practice they need to. Do well when they're on their own someday. So I really appreciate you coming for this hour to talk to me, Nat. It's just been such a pleasure. I love your language. I love the way you organize and communicate your concepts. I think these are going to be really helpful to my parents and the autistic young adults that watch our videos.
Nat Hawley 50:26
I appreciate Lynn. It's been lovely.
Lynn Davison 50:27
No, it's just it's just great to know you and and maybe our paths will cross again.
Nat Hawley 50:32
Absolutely.
Lynn Davison 50:34
Be great. Thanks. Bye for now.
