274 B.H. Neely and S.T. Hunter In a Discussion on Invisible Disabilities, Let Us Not Lose Sight of Employees on the Autism Spectrum BRETT H. NEELY AND SAMUEL T. HUNTER Penn State University Acknowledging the focal article authors’ essential step forward in researching challenges related to disability in the workplace, we argue that missing from the discussion are individuals with one of the most invisible disabilities—namely, individuals with autism spectrum disorder or ASD. As such, we aim to make two primary points in this commentary. First, we extend the discussion of invisible disabilities to include socially based disorders such as ASD. Second, we briefly discuss unique issues employees with ASD pose to our field, hoping to make a compelling argument for a necessary future research agenda. Absent From the Discussion on Invisible Disabilities The focal article presents a thorough examination of the difficulties faced in addressing invisible disabilities rooted in physical impairment. Although it is admirable in this regard, there is a substantial and expanding population of employees with invisible Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Samuel T. Hunter. E-mail: samhunter@psu.edu Address: Industrial and Organizational Program Area, Penn State University, University Park, PA 16802 disabilities that also affect their social and communication abilities: individuals on the autism spectrum. Recent United States estimates suggest that approximately 1 in 88 individuals meet the diagnostic criteria for ASD, with that number being substantially higher for men (1 in 54) than women (1 in 252; CDC, 2012). To put these incidence rates in perspective, estimates on vision impairment in the United States are approximately 1 in 714. ASDs are a group of pervasive developmental disorders, characterized by impairments in social interaction, communicative ability, and the presence of stereotyped behavior patterns and restricted interests (APA, 2013). Although these characteristics typically present lifelong challenges for individuals with ASD, there is a growing understanding of their ability to excel in the workplace given the proper organizational support (Howlin, Goode, Hutton, & Rutter, 2004). Without adequate intervention and support, however, employment prospects can be discouraging and underscore the importance of targeted and tailored support systems (Howlin, 2013). As the disorder’s name suggests, there is a ‘‘spectrum’’ of symptom severity for individuals with ASD, which encompasses Employees on the autism spectrum autism and Asperger syndrome. It is important to recognize that the symptoms of the disorder vary from mild to more severe and restricting, and in some cases are only noticeable to the individuals themselves, whereas others affect an individual’s ability to participate socially in their work environment. There are some symptoms and behaviors that are commonly exhibited by individuals with autism. For example, some exhibit clearly visible behaviors such as repetitive and stereotyped use of language, whereas others may display repeated patterns of movement like rocking or head nodding (APA, 2013). However, some of the most impactful symptoms for working individuals with autism are those that are invisible to others. Individuals with autism can be sensitive to light, touch, or sound, making certain workplace conditions challenging. They may also have difficulty with specific social skills that affect them at work. This includes a preference for working alone, maintaining poor eye contact, or difficulty interpreting the affect and behavior of others (APA, 2013). These symptoms vary in severity and pervasiveness, and we must be aware of the unique difficulties and capabilities that these individuals may face in order to provide the proper support and work environment. The majority of support systems available currently focus on early intervention for children on the Autism spectrum. Fortunately, these programs are continuously improving in both accessibility and efficacy. As a result, we are seeing an increasing portion of individuals with ASD entering higher education and leading successful, independent lives as adults (Volker & Lopata, 2008). As the number of individuals with autism in the workplace increases, it is becoming necessary for organizational research to address how to properly support these employees. Organizations are encountering an influx of employees possessing unique skills and capabilities who also require individualized consideration from leaders and organizational decision makers (Parr, Hunter, 275 & Ligon, 2013). We contend that as industrial–organizational (I–O) psychologists, we are in the unique position to address research and practice questions surrounding how to properly provide a supportive work environment for employees with ASD. What Is a Reasonable Accommodation for ASD? As the focal article adeptly addresses, the ADA Amendments Act (U.S. Department of Labor, 2008) provides limited guidance as to how to protect employees with disabilities from unfair discrimination. It is certainly an appropriate step to require employers to ‘‘provide reasonable accommodations to enable qualified individuals with legally defined disabilities to perform the essential functions of a job’’ (Santuzzi, Waltz, Finkelstein, & Rupp, 2014, p. 205), yet when we critically examine this regulation, it seems to pose more questions than it answers. In the case of a physical disability, such as paraplegia, employers are required to provide accessibility accommodations (e.g., wheel chair ramps, sufficient spacious office space, etc.). We must ask ourselves, what is the analog for an employee with a social disorder such as ASD? This is an area where our field faces both a challenge and an opportunity to make a significant impact. For each issue employers face related to invisible physical disabilities (stigma and stereotypes, encouraging disclosure, relevance of the disability to performance, legislation, etc.), there are related but unique issues to address when employing individuals with ASD. By providing practitioners with guidelines regarding mechanisms and approaches that are most beneficial to engage, support, and promote productivity in employees, we can construct the foundation for evidence-driven reasonable accommodation. Underscoring the criticality of such research, recent efforts have shown that what we consider beneficial for ‘‘neurotypical’’ employees (i.e., individuals that are not on the autism spectrum) may not hold 276 true for employees with ASD. For example, recent work has examined the effect of leadership on attitudes and performance outcomes for employees with ASD (Parr et al., 2013). Findings suggest that there are certain leader behaviors, such as individualized consideration, which are beneficial for employees with ASD. However, affectively oriented leaders behaviors, such as idealized influence , increase both anxiety and intentions to leave the workplace for these employees. Thus, while charismatic and emotionally oriented behaviors such as idealized influence are predictive of a range of positive outcomes for neurotypical employees (Lowe et al., 1996) the opposite may occur for employees on the autism spectrum. Along similar lines Vogeley, Kirchner, Gawronski, van Elst, and Dziobek (2013) examined several interventions such as specialized testing and placement for employees with ASD, onsite coaching, and training of neurotypical peers as a means to support employment. Their work suggests that reasonable accommodation may extend to selection and hiring practices as well as to targeting the training of peers. On the whole, these studies and others like them (e.g., Howlin et al., 2004; Lin, Yu, & Yu, 2012) suggest that creating a workplace where employees with ASD can perform optimally is a unique challenge to employers. However, it is a challenge that we have the ability to address and which is well worth the investment of cost and effort. Encouraging and Supporting Disclosure Reaching beyond providing reasonable accommodations, it is necessary to address the establishment of an environment in which an employee with ASD feels safe to disclose their disability to their employer. Disclosure represents a critical first step in obtaining the accommodations and support necessary to encourage performance, engagement, and well being (Vogeley et al., 2013). Simply put, before employers can B.H. Neely and S.T. Hunter provide support, they must be aware of the challenges an employee faces. Despite the importance of disclosure as a means to obtain necessary supports, disclosure rates among employees with disabilities remain low (Madaus, Gerber, & Price, 2008; Parr et al., 2013). The rationale for not disclosing is quite straightforward: Employees are often afraid of the stigma and bias that can accompany being labeled as ‘‘different’’ or ‘‘strange.’’ This stigma can be even greater for employees with ASD, where stereotypes and perceptions can range from doubts about their diagnoses, to unfair expectations of savant-like capabilities (Draaisma, 2009). Pragmatically speaking, disclosure often represents a complex, emotional, and demanding social interaction for anyone—particularly for an employee who may struggle significantly with more modest forms of social exchange. Thus, the disclosure meeting itself may serve as impediment to disclosure, given the social anxiety often experienced by individuals with ASD. Much work remains to be carried out to understand how to best increase disclosure rates and ensure that employees with ASD receive appropriate support. It is clear that efforts must be targeted toward encouraging disclosure among employees with ASD, as well as providing guidance for neurotypical peers and employers who must facilitate a psychologically safe disclosure environment. Looking to the Future As interventions improve and employment opportunities increase, employees with ASD have proven to be capable, if not exceptional, in the workplace (Howlin et al., 2004). Consider acclaimed animal science scholar Temple Grandin. Diagnosed with ASD as a child, Grandin established herself as a preeminent researcher in her field and has also contributed significantly to our understanding of the challenges faced by employees with autism. Grandin has written numerous articles describing how she and other working adults with autism contribute unique Employees on the autism spectrum abilities such as enhanced visual ability (Grandin, 2009a) and specialized cognitive abilities (Grandin, 2009b). Although we must be cautious to avoid creating excessively high expectations or stereotypes based on select individuals, data suggest very high potential in employees with ASD (Howlin, Alcock, & Burkin, 2005; Howlin et al., 2004). Engaging in an active dialogue about invisible disabilities in the workplace is a compelling and challenging opportunity with far-reaching implications for research, practice, and legislation. As a field, we have an ethical and legal obligation to extend our scientific knowledge to the population of individuals with ASD in the workplace. It seems likely that any area in I–O psychology would benefit from this significant and essential undertaking. It is our hope that our brief commentary serves as an impetus toward this goal. References American Psychiatric Association (APA) (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2012). CDC estimates 1 in 88 children in United States has been identified as having an autism spectrum disorder. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov Draaisma, D. (2009). Stereotypes of autism. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences, 364(1522), 1475–1480. Grandin, T. (2009a). Visual abilities and sensory differences in a person with autism. Biological Psychiatry , 65(1), 15–16. Grandin, T. (2009b). How does visual thinking work in the mind of a person with autism? A personal account. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences, 364(1522), 1437–1442. 277 Howlin, P. (2013). Social disadvantage and exclusion: Adults with autism lag far behind in employment prospects. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , 52(9), 897–899. Howlin, P., Alcock, J., & Burkin, C. (2005). An 8 year follow-up of a specialist supported employment service for high-ability adults with autism or Asperger syndrome. Autism, 9(5), 533–549. Howlin, O., Goode, S., Hutton, J., & Rutter, M. (2004). Adult outcome for children with autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 45, 212–229. Lin, L. Y., Yu, S. N., & Yu, Y. T. (2012). A study of activities of daily living and employment in adults with autism spectrum disorders in Taiwan. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 35(2), 109–115. Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, G. K., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly , 7 , 385–425. Madaus, J. W., Gerber, P. J., & Price, L. A. (2008). Adults with learning disabilities in the workforce: Lessons for secondary transition programs. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(3), 148–153. Parr, A. D., Hunter, S. T., & Ligon, G. S. (2013). Questioning universal applicability of transformational leadership: Examining employees with autism spectrum disorder. The Leadership Quarterly , 24(4), 608–622. Santuzzi, A. M., Waltz, P. R., Finkelstein, L. M., & Rupp, D. E. (2014). Invisible disabilities: Unique challenges for employees and organizations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice , 7 (2), 204–219. U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Disability Employment Policy, Job Accommodation Network. (2008). Accommodation and compliance series: The ADA Amendments Act of 2008. Retrieved from http://askjan.org/bulletins/adaaa1.htm Vogeley, K., Kirchner, J. C., Gawronski, A., van Elst, L. T., & Dziobek, I. (2013). Toward the development of a supported employment program for individuals with high-functioning autism in Germany. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 263(2), S197–S203. Volker, M. A., & Lopata, C. (2008). Autism: A review of biological bases, assessment, & intervention. School Psychology Quarterly , 23, 258–270.