An ecological systems model of employee experience in industry-led autism employment programmes

Job tasks engaged in the workplace

Most participants described employment to largely involve multiple job tasks that required ongoing coordination and personal effort to meet workplace demands. Job tasks varied and were contingent on the department/work ethos in which individuals worked. Tasks completed included integrating protocols, documenting processes, creating and monitoring automation processes, monitoring and addressing ICT security issues, developing software applications to increase ICT security, analysing data, assisting in testing computer software and systems and archiving (e.g. digitising physical documents into a computer database).

How job tasks were experienced

Half of the participants enjoyed their work tasks, but some viewed these as too easy or repetitive, as recounted by one participant:

A lot of the time there is a lot of repetition with the work, it can get very dull with that. Having moved onto the programming, some of that has been rather unfamiliar and a bit uncertain because of that. It hasn’t really been feeling like anything has been too hard. Possibly it could have been harder without getting to be a problem, but I wouldn’t really call it too easy either. (Participant 28)

The type, duration and volume of work varied depending on job task, the co-workers and the client/customer’s needs, where applicable. Participants felt work assignments often involved navigating between (1) independent and co-operative tasks, and (2) periods of slow activity to sudden intense work demand. These shifts generally were manageable for some participants due to the support of their managers as a participant highlighted:

For the most part, [supervisors] they made sure . . . to give us a workload based on – like we just do as much as we can. And . . . they gave us feedback to help us improve our work over time. But the workload was never too much because they only just got us to do what we could do which, once you get good at the job, means you’ll be doing more work. Sometimes they requested overtime from us. They never forced it on us. We had that opportunity there to work and get stuff done that way. (Participant 12)

Several participants learned to adapt, particularly during slow periods, by engaging in other tasks (e.g. reading, completing training exercises) and becoming self-reliant in doing tasks and the workflow. This included learning to manage tasks and deadlines (e.g. creating a work plan), adapting to challenges within (e.g. learning to work within teams towards deadlines) and outside (e.g. learning to complete tasks even when computer systems are down) their control and coping with personal and physical exertion and strain (e.g. learning to manage fatigue). These areas imposed varying levels of difficulty, which was sometimes mediated by support offered in the workplace.

Work environment influences work productivity

While work programmes were designed to accommodate sensory needs of the autistic employees, some participants still reported challenges with the sensory environment. For instance, some individuals stated that workspaces were noisy, had overly bright lights, felt too cool or warm, had off-putting smells and felt congested: factors that hindered their productivity and sense of well-being. Some autistic individuals adapted their workspaces through processes or resources such as headphones. Others requested adjustments such as a workspace with less noise/congestion. For a few individuals, accommodations were still being reviewed by senior administration at the time of participation.

External and internal influences on work experience

Workplace productivity was influenced by factors external to the workplace. Most participants spoke of learning to manage daily life, study responsibilities or interpersonal relationships while trying to maintain their productivity at work. Some independently learned to adapt (e.g. gaining sleep by going to bed earlier) while others received support from their managers (e.g. flexible work schedule). Work productivity was also influenced by individual and environmental assets. For instance, prior education (e.g. having a degree) or past work experience, in some cases, helped the individual navigate work tasks and manage workflows. Internal (e.g. autistic co-workers) and external (e.g. a counsellor) support was described to help balance workplace demands.

Relationships are dynamic and contingent on job task and environment

Workplace relationships were described as not fixed as participants often worked with a wide range of autistic and non-autistic co-workers, managers and support workers. However, autistic individuals described often remaining together as a supportive cohort. They conveyed multiple social tasks and relational/interactional demands, including navigating video calls, managing professional and spam emails, respecting organisational hierarchy (e.g. requesting approval for a task from a manager), having informal conversations within (e.g. remembering names) and outside the workplace (e.g. attending social gatherings) and requesting feedback from co-workers. The nature of social relationships changed as the autistic employees experienced different types of social interactions. Conversations with autistic and non-autistic co-workers were generally characterised as positive but differed in nature, purpose and focus.

Relationships with autistic co-workers

Most participants described getting along well with their autistic peers, that is, having conversation, feeling close and ‘hanging out’ within (e.g. having lunch together) and outside the workplace (e.g. going to each others’ homes):

I would say I’ve been actually amazed at how close-knit our group has become . . . I had New Year’s celebration at my place and . . . six [colleagues] were there. We’ve done escape rooms and dinners and just general stuff because we’ve actually become very close and . . . that’s amazing because you don’t always have chances like that. (Participant 27)

Many participants perceived autistic peer co-workers as sources of support (e.g. learning/teaching how to do work tasks) and described broadening their understanding of how to work with other autistic individuals. For a few participants, their strong relationship with autistic peer co-workers helped them deal with life transitions (e.g. how to live independently).

Relationships with non-autistic co-workers

Conversations with non-autistic co-workers were described as largely informal and work-related. A few participants reported deepening their relationship with non-autistic co-workers as they shared personal stories in the workplace and attended social gatherings outside the workplace.

Sharing one’s autism diagnosis was required for involvement in the two programmes, for some this was seen as a positive means to employment and support and many participants did not feel they were treated differently because of divulging their diagnosis. Some felt that disclosure, along with awareness training, developed heightened awareness about autism that facilitated relationships with non-autistic co-workers:

I feel a lot more relaxed around [non–autistic peers] now. At first, I was a bit anxious about being the new kid on the block . . . the awareness sessions and getting to know them more and disclose . . . seems to have changed pretty much for the better – our relationship with them. Not that it was bad before; it’s just that I feel more comfortable around them now. (Participant 24)

Support varies as individuals adapt to their workplace

Workplace support needs evolved and shifted as participants navigated the work environment. Received support often occurred earlier in employment, particularly as participants learned how to complete work tasks and engage with their co-workers and managers. As participants progressed in the workplace over time, support needs were less frequent, and when needed and sought/received, support generally was tailored to the individual’s specific needs. When participants moved to different areas of work within their department, support was often provided, particularly at the beginning.

Types of support

Support needs of autistic individuals varied, but included technical (e.g. learning to write an effective report), social (e.g. learning in-person and online social etiquette and requesting feedback), navigation (e.g. learning and adapting to new workplace protocols) and management/executive functioning (e.g. learning to manage stressful days) needs. Most autistic individuals generally felt supported in their workplace by their autism support worker (in one of the two programmes), a technical staff member and/or their manager. A few received external supports (e.g. a mentor, a counsellor) that were obtained prior to or during their employment. Participants characterised positive support as engagement with someone who was affirming and helpful; had autism knowledge; was encouraging, available, accommodating and understanding; and helped the individual adapt to their work environment. In contrast, inadequate or insufficient support was described as another’s lack of understanding about their needs in the workplace, and a lack of respect. While autism-focused support was valued by some, several felt that they did not specifically require autism-focused workplace support.

Influences of organisational factors

Organisational factors were described to have shaped how support was provided to, and experienced by, participants. For instance, autism support workers in the multi-site programmes were often transient and provided support to a large number of autistic employees, thus limiting their availability to focus on the individual. They also recounted how autism support workers and managers deliberated on who should be responsible for providing support to employees and how much work should be given to each employee. These deliberations, often occurring somewhat external or peripheral to the employee, reportedly had a bearing on the support received and how it was experienced by the individual.

Influence of training and support resources

Workplace support was also shaped by training and other resources offered to autistic employees and their non-autistic co-workers. Most participants felt that autism awareness training for non-autistic workers was helpful in broadening autism knowledge; however, several found these training sessions sometimes focused too heavily on clinical features or stereotypic presentations of autism. Mobile applications were also used in one of the two programmes to provide remote and individualised support to autistic employees, but scaling this tailored approach to all employees became difficult, as recalled by an individual:

The app’s a perfect example [of what was viewed as misguided scaling of an individualized approach the organisation took] an individualised approach which works, but then they want to mass produce it and then put it in an app form because it’s a cost-saving measure. It didn’t work. I wouldn’t have minded it if it was used as a supporting tool in addition to [other support], but they wanted it to be purely [as follows:] this is the app you use to support yourself in the workplace. So pretty much replacing [internal support workers] with an app was just a horrible idea. (Participant 31)

Work and autism identity

Participants’ experiences in the workplace were viewed to shape their identity as an employee and how they viewed themselves in that role. They described multiple traits that were reflective of an effective employee, including being attentive, flexible, self-motivated, and punctual, all in the aim of being productive.

For some, the disclosure of their autism diagnosis led to introspection and adjustment of their autism identity in the workplace. For others, disclosure challenged their sense of identity either due to a novel public disclosure of a diagnosis not shared with friends or grappling with categorisation under a different diagnostic label (e.g. Asperger’s vs autism). Others felt that disclosure linked their effectiveness as an employee with their autism identity in a positive way:

[The organisation] has actually found that [autistic] people [like] us . . . tend to have a higher output than generally people without it . . . having that disclosure has actually made them think, ‘oh, these people are going to be more valuable employees’. (Participant 14)

Engagement and mastery

Learning how to effectively engage in the workplace emerged from observing workplace colleagues (e.g. autistic and non-autistic co-workers, managers and support workers), being motivated to do well in the workplace and adapting over time to the nature and demands of the work and organisation. While many participants described the workplace experience as initially challenging, this experience generally improved as they learned how to navigate multiple tasks (e.g. learning to complete tasks faster, designing and implementing a work plan, learning to request support to complete a task). As participants gained mastery in their work environment and tasks through engaging in a supportive environment in which they could incrementally experience increased mastery, they viewed improvement in their sense of employment self-efficacy:

I could move into the work I’m already doing with other people now and not have a worry because I feel like I can do it independently. To begin with, I had a lot less – what do you call it – good feeling about myself . . . I had less confidence in my abilities, [and in] myself as a person, so I was scared to bring stuff up. But now I’m like, just ask. (Participant 27)

Felt sense of integration

Participants’ level of engagement and socialisation helped gain a sense of how they were perceived in the workplace as an employee. To be validated at work was largely based on participants’ perceptions of feeling integrated in the workplace. They described integration as reflective of a part of collective activities such as being included in team meetings, completing work as a team, having informal chats with co-workers and receiving support from co-workers and managers. A sense of integration reportedly was also shaped by the degree to which they related to others. It was further described as a social developmental process of learning how to be part of a team as they completed their work:

Taking like a month to go through training as part of [the] onboarding process . . ., [I] end up feeling quite integrated because . . . slowly as you keep coming in, you just start talking to that person and . . . you start feeling more integrated. Now, I feel quite comfortable and integrated . . . I kind of know [where] I am with respect to the department. (Participant 22)

Relational and environmental factors influencing integration

Relational and environmental factors played a role in shaping perceptions of integration. For instance, several participants described how work integration was facilitated by common traits (e.g. education, age) and relationships with other autistic co-workers. Physical workspaces further shaped participants’ sense of integration, as negatively exemplified by participants who attributed not feeling a part of their team to external (distant) job placements. Conversely, other participants attributed integration to co-operative work with colleagues, a supportive work culture, structural elements (e.g. work processes organised in ways that engaged the individual in a supportive way), and work/people stability. Reflecting on elements the contribute to and detract from integration, a participant commented,

When we’re working on projects we’re quite often working with people from other sections, that can be quite helpful so that’s integrated. But then we’re also contractors so that does set us apart from the public service culture. Because the public service culture [has] a strong collective identity and they foster that identity, so being a contractor does mean that we’re not quite one of the family, so to speak. (Participant 18)

Need for adaptive resources/support

Several participants felt that workplace support could be adaptive, and they highlighted the need for support. This included a responsive environment in which work tasks, social encounters and experiences are malleable and supported, as needed:

The relationships between the people within the workplace, which is where the soft skills support is important and of course . . . the tech work that you’re doing is evolving and changing, so that your needs of tech support will change . . . But it’s not just one or the other, it’s both, that’s sort of going on. (Participant 28)

Need for feedback

Workplace support included the need for clear and specific feedback such as detailed guidance to help autistic individuals understand the implications of their actions and engagement. They also described the need for support in being interdependent (e.g. encouraging self-reliance, but being available when needed), yet this support was viewed as needed in a relational and solution-focused manner. Participants highlighted the importance of others in the workplace developing rapport with them (and vice versa) to better ensure that support is commensurate with individual needs, as highlighted by the following participant:

When we first met our support staff, they didn’t really know us, we didn’t really know them so we had to understand each other [through] how they would explain stuff to us, how we’d need to explain stuff to them, and just get along . . . (Participant 13)

Need for team-oriented support

Some participants highlighted the importance of support that was offered in a team-oriented way. Given changing workplace personnel, participants emphasised that support should be offered by a variety of personnel. They recounted that support often started a one-to-one approach with a support worker or manager. But as participants adapted to the workplace, they learned to more naturalistically rely on others to help them navigate technical and social tasks. Although managers were viewed as helpful with technical support, several noted that managers also can be supportive in enhancing soft skills within the workplace.