MASTER’S THESIS
Job opportunities for people with autism spectrum disorder:
The implications of the label ‘autism spectrum disorder’ in
job-interview practices.
A
UTHOR
S
UPERVISOR
Lauren Ebbes, BSc
Dr. H. J. Hiddinga
11833637
S
ECOND READER
Dr. E. M. Moyer
J
UNE
2019
A
MSTERDAM
U
NIVERSITY OFA
MSTERDAMF
ACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
3 Words are singularly the most powerful force available to humanity. We can choose to use this force constructively with words of encouragement, or destructively using words of despair. Words have energy and power with the ability to help, to heal, to hinder, to hurt, to harm, to humiliate and to humble. - Yehuda Berg
4
Acknowledgements
First of all, I would like to thank the people who have been important in the process of writing this thesis. The past months have been intensive and I am grateful for the help and support I received during the fieldwork and during the writing process. Obviously, I would not have been able to write this thesis without the interesting conversations with my participants. Thank you all for the insights in your lifeworld and openness about your personal experiences. Thanks as well to those people who have helped me to get in contact with my participants. I am grateful you wanted to mediate between me and possible participants. Furthermore, I would like to thank my supervisor, Anja Hiddinga, who was a great support for me in writing this thesis. Thanks for your critical reading, the many brainstorming sessions and the meetings in which I could discuss my thoughts and concerns. I really appreciate all the effort and energy you invested in my thesis project. Thanks as well to Michael Zonneveld, Esther van Batenburg, Renske Hoekstra, and Rutmer Ebbes, who found time in their own busy schedules to give feedback on my thesis. Kathryn James, thanks for commenting on my English. All of you were a great help! In this thesis I collaborated with the IMAGE research project in which the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam takes part. I chose to collaborate with IMAGE because the IMAGE project has similar research interests. This thesis is not connected to IMAGE in the sense that other researchers were involved in my research project, but I have supported IMAGE by also discussing their questionnaires with my participants, and sharing my data-sets with IMAGE. Participants were informed about the collaboration, and signed informed consent forms based on this collaboration. IMAGE will not be discussed any further, since I was researching independently.5
Summary
This research focused on the job opportunities of people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), by specifically looking at the practice of job interviews. The research aimed to identify what happens in the interaction of the job interview, and hoped to gain understanding in how the medical label “ASD” could influence the outcomes of the job interview. The research hypothesized that social norms about how a suitable job candidate is supposed to behave, will influence the recruiter in deciding who to hire. It assumed that people who behave unexpectedly and not in line with social norms, would probably experience more disqualification in the job interview. Thirteen individuals with a diagnosis of ASD and four recruiters were interviewed about their experiences with job interviews. The results of this research show that both verbal and non-verbal behavior can be experienced as unexpected, and can make a recruiter doubt the applicant’s suitability. This seemed of higher influence for possible disqualification, than was the disclosure of the ASD-label. Furthermore, this research criticizes the job interview for being a subjective practice in which too much focus lies on norm expectations, and where intuitive processes remain too important in deciding who will be hired.6
Table of contents
Introduction ... 7 Research questions ... 10 Relevance ... 11 Research methods and data collection ... 12 Theories underlying the analysis ... 14 Critical remarks ... 16 Choosing whether to disclose the ASD-label ... 17 Not disclosing the ASD-label ... 17 Disclosing the ASD-label ... 19 Disclosing the ASD-label at a later moment ... 21 Consequences of not disclosing the ASD-label ... 23 Consequences of disclosing the ASD-label ... 24 Unexpected behavior: verbal ... 26 Clarity/ vagueness ... 26 Overpreparation/ underpreparation ... 27 Structure of the job interview ... 29 Topics that were discussed ... 30 Honesty ... 31 Unexpected behavior: non-verbal ... 33 Minimizing negative impact ... 36 The recruiter’s perspective ... 38 Conclusion ... 41 Discussion ... 44 References ... 47 Appendix 1 – Interview questions ... 51 Appendix 2 – Information letter ... 57 Appendix 3 – Informed consent form ... 59 Appendix 4 – Pre-questionnaire ... 607
Introduction
Words can be powerful tools. They can uplift someone’s spirit or humiliate the other. Words allow us to communicate and connect with others. They are often necessary to explain ourselves and to express ourselves. Words can have a huge impact… when used appropriately. However, what is an appropriate use? Understanding and managing the patterns of social interaction is not necessarily self-evident for everyone. People with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are more likely to experience difficulties in social interaction and social communication. According to the definition of the NVA (a Dutch interest group for people with ASD) people with ASD process information in a different way than people who do not have ASD (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Autisme, n.d.). In practice, this can mean many things. For instance, it might mean that you are good at focusing on specific tasks and finding patterns in data. Moreover, it might just as well mean you feel overwhelmed when hearing too many noises. This thus is not a very clear description. The medical definition of ASD in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is more specifically defined. The DSM 5 states that ASD is associated with: “Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple contexts (. . .) [and] restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities” (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Examples of the deficits in social communication and social interaction are varied and they are presented as a range of possible symptoms. The American Psychiatric Association (2013) for example lists: “From abnormal social approach and failure of normal back-and-forth conversation; to reduced sharing of interests, emotions, or affect; to failure to initiate or respond to social interactions”. According to the DSM 5, ASD can also appear in a range of non-verbal symptoms, for example: “From poorly integrated verbal and nonverbal communication; to abnormalities in eye contact and body language or deficits in understanding and use of gestures: to a total lack of facial expressions and nonverbal communication” (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). ASD is not a static concept. Both medically as socially, the term changes and develops. When looking at the history of defining ASD, one finds that the term ‘autistic’ was first used to describe social withdrawal of adults with schizophrenia (Martin, 2012). The term has been used over time to describe: a children’s disorder; a spectrum disorder evolving throughout the lifetime of individuals; a disorder that was developed due to a lack of motherlove, and thus something psychological rather than something medical; a disorder with several sub-categories; and again, as a spectrum disorder (Martin, 2012). Martin describes how many studies have tried to identify a biological explanation for ASD, but that thus far no one has succeeded. According to Martin: “It is now generally understood in the scientific community that autism is not a medical issue that may be cured; rather, it is a disorder marked by display of certain social characteristics” (2012, p. 7).8 The social meaning of ASD has changed historically as well. The fact that ASD was originally connected to schizophrenia, which was negatively perceived in the public eye, created a negative image of those with the disorder (Martin, 2012). It did not really make a difference that later definitions of ASD were no longer connected to schizophrenia, since the new definitions were still derived from this original definition. The frequent changing definition and meaning of the disorder, has made everyone confused as to what ASD actually is (Martin, 2012). The theory that explains ASD as originating from a lack of motherlove put the blame of the disorder on the parents, which created many difficulties for families and led to the splitting of families. Although this theory has eventually been discredited, the continuing insecurity about the nature of the disease, due to the inability to define the biological basis of ASD, has kept the public confused (Martin, 2012). Martin writes: According to the 2011 study by Sarrett, media attention throughout the years has consistently focused on the fragmentation and imprisonment of autistic individuals, specifically autistic children. These themes have worked to introduce an additional level of mystery into the public eye, along with a sense of sadness for the fragmented human being. Undoubtedly, this media attention both creates new stereotypes and reinforces existing ones in the realm of the general public (p.13). The media representations of people with ASD as ‘fragmented’ human beings, that are somehow “less than whole”, instilled the idea that people with ASD were pitiful and in need of rescuing (Martin, 2012). Later media attention focused on the rising rates of ASD and the possibility of the ASD “epidemic” (Martin, 2012), and claims were made implicating vaccines as the major contributor of the epidemic (Grinker, 2010). In sum, over time the concept of ASD has frequently been expanded, restricted, and adapted. This made it complicated for both the medical field and the general public to give meaning to the concept. This struggle is reflected in the redefinitions of ASD that were made in the DSM over the years. Due to all the above, and the lack of information about ASD, the word ‘autism’ continues to have negative connotations in today’s society. For example, in 2014 a Dutch newspaper posted a column that addressed the use of the word ‘autism’ in a non-medical and non-scientifical context, such as “an autistic policy” or “an autistic building” (Kranenberg, 2014). Although the word ‘autism’ was never meant to describe lifeless things, everyone seemed to understand what it meant. The fact that the word can be used in this way illustrates there are stereotypical understandings of the concept of ASD that operate in society, and it indicates how much these stereotypes are internalized. A possible explanation is that stereotyping is the only way to give meaning to the phenomenon of ASD. The stereotypical ideas about ASD have become so dominant, that this seems to be the only story that is being told in relation to ASD. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie (2009) states that people have the power to represent other people in a definitive way, by constantly telling the same story about them. She calls this “a single story”. Adichie warns her audience by saying that “a single story creates
9 stereotypes and the problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue, but that they are incomplete. They [the people telling the story] make one story become the only story.” According to Adichie, a single story “robs people of indignity (. . .) [and] emphasizes how we are different rather than how we are similar.” In a way, medical labels are also single stories, because when conceptualizing a disease or disorder as something standard, distinct and discrete, one neglects the differences between people and the complexity of a disease (May, 2007; Singer & Clair, 2003). A person with a specific medical label will often get identified in accordance with the stereotypes and expectations that are connected to this label. Besides the struggles in defining ASD, social scientists complicate the situation even more by discussing the contextuality of ASD. Milton and Bracher (2013) state: “How autism manifests can vary significantly between individuals and this is socially mediated, via a process of constant interaction with changing environments” (p.62). Besides being an unclear category, ASD is thus also presented as varying in social practices. The symptoms of ASD that are encountered in daily life will vary per situation, and differ from person to person. Besides this, the way in which ASD is defined and conceptualized by others varies per person and per situation. In sum: it is very difficult to identify what can or cannot be attributed to ASD, and how different people in different situations experience ASD. In this research, I want to look at a very specific social practice: that of the job interview. Job interviews are tense and loaded events, and the outcomes will differ per person. Job applicants must prove themselves capable of the job, and must try to communicate positive traits and relevant experience in a short amount of time. All of this is in hopes of convincing the recruiter to hire them. Many factors are considered in the decision-making process. Not only are experience and knowledge important, but impression and appearance are also relevant (Nordstrom, Hall, & Bartels, 1998; Prickett, Gada-Jain, & Bernieri, 2000). Not only there are many factors at play, a lot is at stake too. The desire to get the job increases the need to impress in the conversation. Impressing, in this case, is meant twofold. Firstly, it is meant as impressing the recruiter with the abilities and skills relevant for the job. Secondly, it is meant as managing the overall impression interpreted by the recruiter. The job applicant tries to come across as a suitable candidate (Barrick, Shaffer, & DeGrassi, 2009). What is considered suitable is based on culturally defined norms. Norms, for instance, define how the conversation is expected to proceed, what clothes are considered acceptable in a job interview, and what kind of behavior is considered suitable in interaction (Goffman, 1956, 1963/2018). For job applicants with ASD, the recruiter’s conceptualizations about ASD will be important, since it influences the decision-making process. Individuals with a diagnosis of ASD are aware that there are many stereotypical ideas about ASD, and that disclosing their ASD diagnosis might lead to different treatment. They are thus faced with the dilemma of disclosing stigmatizing information, or hiding this information. When disclosing the information, they need to think about how to manage expectations and how to disprove stereotypical ideas. How do they cope with this dilemma in the case of the job interview, where managing one’s appearance is even more important than in daily life interactions?
10
Research questions
In this research, I focus on the question of how the medical label of ASD plays a role in job interviews. How do people with a diagnosis of ASD cope with the knowledge of having a stigmatized label? How do people with a diagnosis of ASD cope with the fact that their behavior might be assessed as deviant? I will also look at how the recruiter’s expectations change during the job interview, when medical labels are disclosed.11
Relevance
A yearly survey on the lifecycle of Dutch individuals with ASD showed that 46% of all participating adults (16 years or older) had a paid job (Nederlands Autisme Register, 2017). Of these respondents with a paid job, 40% felt that this job was fitting to their intelligence level (Nederlands Autisme Register, 2017). The fact that a relatively low number of people with ASD have a job was addressed in an Erasmus+ funded research initiative. The research was targeted at university students and graduates with ASD in five European countries. It focused on why individuals with ASD often drop out of university, and was aimed at improving the university’s support system for these students (Fabri, 2018). The research developed an online toolkit (Fabri & Andrews, 2016a), and identified hurdles and drivers that are affecting university students with ASD (Fabri & Andrews, 2016b). Overall, the research confirmed that students with ASD were more often left without employment after graduation than were fellow students (Fabri, 2018). It is interesting that graduates with ASD are not finding jobs, since the traits that medical science connects to ASD can be beneficial in a workplace. For instance: having a good eye for detail, looking at problems from unconventional angles, being analytical, being honest and hardworking, and having such a good focus that you might spot errors that are overlooked by others (Fabri et al., 2016; Nederlandse Vereniging voor Autisme, n.d.). Nonetheless, there is also reason to believe that ASD can make work more difficult. Researchers have identified difficulties that people with ASD encounter in the workspace: the social expectations of co-workers, unappreciated bluntness, or sensory overload, to name a few (Hurlbutt & Chalmers, 2004). Other researchers have focused on the conditions that individuals with ASD need to work successfully, like tolerant supervisors and co-workers (Müller, Schuler, Burton, & Yates, 2003). Furthermore, researchers have identified the support needed for individuals with ASD to improve employment outcomes (e.g. Hillier et al., 2007; Wilczynski, Trammell, & Clarke, 2013). A specifically developed support program which involved guidance, counseling and training of individuals with ASD for instance had a positive effect on job outcomes (Hillier et al., 2007). Even though much has been researched in relation to work and ASD, as far as I am concerned no research has focused specifically on the practice of job interviews and how these are experienced by individuals with ASD. With my research I want to add to the existing literature by providing a closer look at the interaction between applicant (with ASD) and recruiter during the job interview. Rather than looking at problems or solutions, I try to understand what happens in interaction, and how this influences the overall process of finding a job. By better understanding the processes influencing the interaction in the job interview, one might as well understand better why individuals with ASD have more difficulty finding a job.
12
Research methods and data collection
Since the focus of this research project is on social interaction, both the applicants with ASD and the recruiters were approached. To get an understanding of their individual experiences with job interviews, semi-structured interviews were designed. However, before sending out invitations, a meeting was scheduled with an expert in the field of ASD. Green and Thorogood (2004) namely advise to think through one’s own assumptions and ideas about the research subject before starting a project, so potential limitations in the research can be identified and adapted. We discussed the research in terms of achievability and we tried to identify the most appropriate design for the target group. We decided to adapt the design, since interviews do not suit those who struggle with interactions or have difficulty processing information quickly. Several alternative ways to participate in the research were selected: writing, recording (voice recording or videotaping your answers), and pseudo-interviewing (letting someone who the participant feels comfortable with ask the questions, and discussing the answers with this person while recording the conversation). Inclusion criteria were used to select participants (see figure 1). Job-applicants and recruiters needed to match all criteria, and were excluded from the research if they did not. A total of 17 participants were selected to participate in the research. Participants with ASD (n=13) were in the majority compared to the recruiters (n=4). One of the recruiters also had experience with coaching individuals with ASD. Participants were found through multiple channels, including an online forum (n=4), a job coach who works with people with ASD (n=3), a counselor for students with ASD (n=2), via personal contacts (n=8). Three of the participants participated in writing, the other 14 participated by doing an interview. The interview locations were based on the participant’s preference, and the interviews took approximately an hour. A list with interview questions was used to guide the interview and to introduce topics of interest (see appendix 1). The participants were given the option to read the interview questions in advance. When interesting additional topics came up during the conversations, there was time to elaborate and discuss these topics. After each interview, field notes were written about the interviewer’s experiences, first thoughts and striking details. The interviews were recorded. The interview recordings were transcribed verbatim and were imported in Atlas.ti for coding. Codes were derived from the data using a conventional content analysis. They were mostly descriptive, but were afterwards connected to larger overall themes whenever possible. The results in the study were processed anonymously. All names were changed into aliases. For company names, sometimes a broad description of the company sector was used to clarify the context (e.g. “a large Dutch insurance company”). In most cases however, the names, city names, and company names were replaced by an unidentifiable code, like: >name company<. The interview recordings were stored on a personal computer in a folder with additional security measures. After being uploaded in the secure folder, the audio-files were erased from the recording device.
13 All participants received an information letter about the project and signed an informed consent form (see appendix 2 and 3). Besides this, participants were asked to fill in a pre-questionnaire, in which they could indicate their preferred way of working (see appendix 4). In the pre-questionnaire the participants were offered the possibility to bring someone to the interview for mental support. The participants also got to state their preferred interview location, and could ask for a preview of the interview questions. Finally, they could indicate specific needs or preferences. The fact that this research was carried out by someone who is not diagnosed with ASD might have made some participants reluctant to collaborate. Critical research states that people with ASD often have become distrustful of researchers and their aims, because many reports about ASD have led to negative consequences for people with ASD (Milton, 2014). Rather than creating better understandings about ASD, researchers created stereotypes of people with ASD as “being ‘machine-like’, incapable of true socialisation, possessing ‘zero degrees of empathy’ or having an impairment in their ‘social brain’.” [Emphasis original] (Milton, 2014, p. 796). In this research, the aim was to try to help people with an ASD diagnosis, and better understand their experience. I have tried to be reflexive of possible stigmatizing and problematizing elements in my writing, and I regularly clarified and summarized during the interviews, to make sure I understood and represented the participants correctly. I gave participants ample time to formulate their answers, and did not reformulate my questions too quickly. Job-applicants - People with a diagnosis of ASD. - Who have experienced one or more job interviews. The job interviews may have been for voluntary work, internship position, side jobs or regular jobs. - Who can still recall how they have experienced the job interview, and what happened during the job interview. Recruiters - People whose job includes recruitment (i.e. doing job interviews). - Who have experienced one or more job interviews with job-applicants with ASD. - Who can still recall how they have experienced the job interview with the job-applicant with ASD, and what happened during the job interview. Figure 1- Inclusion criteria.
14
Theories underlying the analysis
To understand the role that the label of ASD plays in the job interview, there are some theories of relevance. The first relevant theory is sociologist Erving Goffman’s (1956) role theory. In role theory, Goffman conceives the world as a “stage” in which individuals perform a role and where identities are created and managed in social interactions. According to Goffman (1956, 1963/2018), people will try to identify others based on the first impressions they get. This identification is largely based on normative expectations, and in interaction people will try to find confirmation of their expectations. Since people’s manners are often intentional, they can thus intentionally create a certain impression of how they are as a person. People can ‘play a role’ and manage the expectations of their audience. Nevertheless, impressions are not solely based on what is said and done, but also on the unintentional signals that are given off. Since these signals are not consciously manageable, appearance and manner might clash. This can make the audience doubt their initial assessment of a person. It can “disrupt” or “spoil” someone’s identity and lead to disqualification. In the case of the job interview, appearance is highly important, and managing your appearance might help in convincing the recruiter of your suitability for the job. In an ideal situation, a job applicant gets assigned the identity of ‘suitable job candidate’ during the first contact, and manages to keep up this image during the interview. However, the job interview is not a regular “stage” where there is time to get to know each other and adjust impressions. It might be better compared to a comedy club, where there is little time to impress and entertain your audience with your bubbly personality. Managing identity is connected to a second relevant theoretical concept, which is “stigma”. Stigma was originally defined by Goffman (1963/2018) as “an attribute that is deeply discrediting”, and he proposes that a person who is stigmatized is reduced “from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one” (p. 13). Research shows that people with ASD are stigmatized throughout life and that stigmatization can lead to social isolation, reduced well-being, and (fear of) discrimination (Mazumder & Thompson-Hodgetts, 2019). In the job interview one needs to decide whether to disclose the label of ASD, even though he1 is aware that by disclosing about ASD he might disrupt the initial assessment the recruiter made about him. Rather than being perceived as a suitable job candidate, stereotypes about ASD might install worries, or might even degrade the applicant from a suitable candidate to an unsuitable candidate. When a candidate does not disclose his diagnosis, he might still be perceived as a suitable candidate, but he must play this role convincingly. In this case, intentional or unintentional signals might still disrupt the originally assigned identity. 1 The word “he”, when not used in relation to a specific person, can be read as “he or she”. The word was chosen to improve the readability of the thesis.
15 According to Goffman, the disqualification of people with a stigma mostly happens because the stigma “interferes with social expectations in a negative way” (p.13). Accordingly, when the symptoms of ASD disrupt someone’s appearance of a ‘normal’ job candidate, someone can be disqualified and rejected for the job. Social expectations, and norms around how people should be, are products of social construction, and thus “the social environment defines what is deviant and provides the context in which devaluing evaluations are expressed” (Yang et al., 2007, p. 1525). The fact that a stigmatized individual often lives in the specific social context that devalues their stigmatized attribute makes the situation more complex. The individual might have internalized the cultural assessments of their value without realizing it (Link & Phelan, 2014). Whether social norms are informal, like traditions and customs, or formal, like laws and policies, they influence the individual’s beliefs about the world, about what is right and wrong, and about life in general (Christiansen & Townsend, 2010). In turn, these beliefs also influence occupational choices and the way people decide to use their time (Christiansen & Townsend, 2010). The fact that an individual deems it important to have a job can also be connected to social norms and expectations. People are not expected to choose lifestyles that are different from social norms, and their behavior will be classified as deviant when they do (Christiansen & Townsend, 2010). In the case of unemployment, someone is devalued for not conforming to the social norm of ‘actively participating in society’. However, the same social norms that define the expectation to have a job also define stigmatized people as less suitable for a job. A person with ASD might actively try to conform to the norm of having a job, but might also be hindered by the same social norms in finding a job, because of the stigmatization of people with ASD. According to Link and Phelan (2014), there are always motives of interest for the expression of stigma. In line with Goffman’s ideas about stigma interfering with social expectations, Link and Phelan state that stigmatization is an effective way of enforcing social norms. Norms can be maintained by excluding or trying to change a stigmatized person. In subtle ways, stigma processes thus have the power to serve the interests of those who are stigmatizing. This is called “stigma power” (Link & Phelan, 2014, p. 24). Yang et al. (2007) write about “moral experience”, which refers to that what matters most for ordinary men and women, or in other words: that which is at stake for people. They state that behavior of both stigmatized and stigmatizing parties are engaged in holding onto what really matters, and warding off that which is threatening. They write: For the stigmatized, stigma compounds suffering. For the stigmatizer, stigma seems to be an effective and natural response, emergent not only as an act of self-preservation or psychological defense, but also in the existential and moral experience that one is being threatened. (. . .) Responses are not only determined by cultural imperatives, meanings, or values, but refer to a real world of practical engagements and interpersonal dangers. (Yang et al., 2007, p. 1528)
16 In summary, stigma power might be used to protect the moral experience of the stigmatizer. I hypothesize that in the case of the job interview, a recruiter might stigmatize because his moral experience is being a recruiter who makes the ‘right’ decisions for the company. The person who fits social expectations best is probably the safest choice. Consequently, I expect that the job applicants who (unknowingly) do not conform to a recruiter’s or social expectations will have more difficulty in finding a job.
Critical remarks
Although Goffman’s work has been widely used and referenced over the years, many scholars have also critiqued his work. For instance, they critique Goffman for focusing solely on how stigma is produced on the micro-level: in personal encounters (Brune, Garland-Thomson, Schweik, Titchkosky, & Love, 2014; Tyler & Slater, 2018). In this way, key questions get ‘bracketed off’, such as: “where stigmatising attitudes come from, how and by whom stigma is crafted, mediated, produced and why, [and] what social, political and economic functions stigmatisation might play in particular historical and geopolitical contexts.” (Tyler & Slater, 2018, p. 736). They feel that personal encounters are always a representation of larger political, economic and social forces, and it is a shortcoming of Goffman that he does not address these forces. In this research, the descriptions of the history of ASD and the connotations of the word, plus the remarks about social construction and stigma power, provide a more nuanced background of structural forces that play a role in the personal encounters of the job interview. Another critique of Goffman stems from the fact that he uses the perspective of normality, where stigmatized individuals are positioned as others. However, the meaning of ‘normalcy’ is never explicitly theorized (Tyler & Slater, 2018). Goffman states that the normal and the stigmatized “are not persons, but rather perspectives”, where the social regulation of belonging and participation includes some and excludes others (Tyler & Slater, 2018, para. 5). In this research, the term ‘normal’ refers to those who behave according to social expectations. In the case of the job interview a ‘normal’ job applicant behaves according to the expectations of the recruiter(s). Besides that, Goffman is criticized for not acknowledging that people have agency and are able to resist stigmatization (Brune et al., 2014; Tyler & Slater, 2018). There are many examples of situations where disability activists have resisted stigma and transformed the meaning of the disability (E.g. Emery, 2009; Kadri & Sartorius, 2005; Klawiter, 2004; Pols, 2011). I did not analyze activist movements specifically, but I realize that ASD might have obtained a different, more favorable meaning due to activism. Additionally, recruiters possibly have more knowledge about ASD. I do not claim to have identified ‘the experience of the job applicant with ASD’; rather, I present how the job interview can be experienced by people with ASD. Rather than seeing differences between people as invalidating, which Goffman was critiqued for (Tyler & Slater, 2018), differing opinions are instead highlighted.
17
Choosing whether to disclose the ASD-label
Possessing the label of ASD while knowing that stereotypes will have a large influence in encounters with others makes the job interview challenging. Participants want to be hired, and thus want to make a good impression. They are faced with the dilemma of disclosing their ASD label or not.
Not disclosing the ASD-label
Expectations about the other person play a large role in interactions, and unusual information, for instance a disclosed ASD diagnosis, will influence expectations. Individuals with ASD are aware that their diagnosis of ASD might be viewed as a less socially desirable attribute. A way of coping with this knowledge is trying to hide the diagnosis, and pretending to fit into the expected category (Carrington & Graham, 2001; Goffman, 1963/2018; Mogensen & Mason, 2015). This means presenting yourself as a regular job applicant, without an ASD diagnosis. Participants discussed several reasons for not disclosing their ASD label. The first reason for not disclosing the label was due to fear of stigmatization. One participant deliberately chose not to say anything about his ASD before starting a job in which he had to do nursing tasks for a boy with multiple disabilities. He explained: It is a boy who makes a lot of noise, it is chaotic. So, when you say you have ASD, people often think: oh, he cannot handle it. So that is why [I did not tell] ... I thought: maybe they will misunderstand. Rather than having to adjust the stereotypical ideas of this employer, the participant decided not to tell about ASD at all. A second reason for not disclosing ASD was because of fear of being rejected for the job. Participants often experienced situations where attitudes of others towards them had changed after disclosing the label. They wanted to make sure this would not happen again in the job interview. No, you should not say it, because that just gives you a disadvantage. A job interview is your first impression, and if the first impression is: "he has autism", that's minus points. The fear of being rejected also seemed to be connected to the knowledge about ASD and the cultural ideologies that participants expected to play a role in the job interview. A participant who moved to The Netherlands from a different country for instance said: I think it would depend on the company and on the country. Like if it was back home I would never tell people I am autistic because they do not know what autism is, and they would probably not hire me. (. . .) it is a disability, but they see it as something scary I guess. Very stigmatized. And I am already a woman, so it is not like I can afford any more kind of disadvantages.
18 A third reason for participants to not disclose their diagnosis was because they felt uncomfortable talking about their ASD. The reflexivity about what it means to have ASD was difficult to express in words. When they would get questions about their ASD, they felt unable to give a good answer: With the word autism being dropped... Nobody knows what it is. So they can only worry about it. When someone in a wheelchair comes in for a job interview, you know: he cannot use his legs. Period. But I am a big puzzle. When I say, "I am an autistic person." [Them:] "What is it that bothers you?" [Me:] " I do not know myself." [Them:] "What about social contact?" [Me:] "I do not know either. What do you think about me now?" So it gives a very awkward vibe. Because both of us do not know very well what to say about it and in the end you try to talk about it as little as possible, but it is included in the decision. (. . .). The one thing it leaves behind is that the employer might be worried about something he does not have to worry about. The quote shows how the category is unclear for outsiders, but also remains unclear for the person diagnosed. It implies that this ambiguity can make a precarious situation even more uncertain. A final reason for participants to not disclose their ASD was because they did not acknowledge the diagnosis or did not see it as something relevant in the job interview. Interviewer: And so far, in the interviews you did. Did you tell them that you have an ASD diagnosis? Participant: No. I do not think that it is relevant. Interviewer: No? And do you feel that your autism diagnosis is relevant in your life? Does it mean something to you? Participant: It was, it used to be a big thing. I got that label for a reason, because in primary school things did not go too well. (. . .) Yes, special education in primary school and a large part of the HAVO in special education. And then in the fourth class I went to regular. and to be honest, that is the beauty of it, then it was really "click" and then it was gone. (...) it is kind of funny. My mother said: "I think if you are going to do those tests now, they would not be sure." Yeah, "You might just get that label or you just might not." it used to be a big thing, but nowadays... No. Of course, not explicitly talking about the label of ASD does not mean the effects of ASD cannot be discussed. Many participants told me that their strategy was to circumvent the word ASD, and instead talk about the effects of the ASD in the workplace. For instance, they say that they are not comfortable in a working environment with a lot of stimuli, or that they need clear instructions and deadlines. In this way, they can discuss what support they need in the workplace, without evoking the stereotypes that would have interfered when they had named ASD as the reason for asking support. A participant said about this:
19 Participant: I will tell them that I have a very specific kind of disability that manifests itself in these ways. How I process information, and the sensitivities that I have. So that it would make sense from the very beginning. Interviewer: So you would more highlight the practicalities, or the things that you might encounter within the workspace. Participant: Yeah, because when you share your diagnosis you might bring in more awareness, but you also bring in the stigma and all the things that might not even be true.
Disclosing the ASD-label
Rather than keeping up appearances, some participants chose to disclose their label of ASD. Goffman claims that disclosure raises the chances of disqualification (1963/2018). This idea is confirmed by other researchers who show that the disclosure might make the applicant look incompetent (Von Schrader, Malzer, & Bruyère, 2014). Pearson and colleagues (2003), found that people with a disability are still seen as “risky hires” and are less likely to be invited for a job interview than identically qualified and demographically similar candidates who did not make a statement about disability (p.35). That there is a likely chance of getting disqualified after disclosing a stigmatized condition, was also reflected in the stories of the participants: When I told them about my diagnosis, almost immediately they were giving arguments why I could not do the job. This despite my beautiful résumé, which fitted the job exactly. They started to fill in: you will suffer from the hustle and bustle here (. . .). In this job, you must be flexible and with ASD that is difficult. The stereotypical ideas of the recruiter in this case were more predominant than the qualifications of the candidate. The participant did not get the opportunity to correct the stereotypical ideas. Although participants were aware of possible disqualification, some participants still felt it was better to be open about their ASD: It is better to tell him now than telling after I have been hired and that he will think: oh…! Besides preventing awkward moments after a belated disclosure, participants also preferred disclosure because it makes it easier to also discuss practicalities about work during the job interview. A participant said: You immediately make clear in the beginning: I have ASD, this and this is hard for me, could you take that into account? That way it is evident in the conversation. Examples of practicalities that participants discussed were for instance: a workspace apart from others, to minimize distraction; the possibility of a short morning meet-up to discuss
20 the planning and prioritize; or adapted work hours. Research confirms that the disclosure of a disability is necessary to gain workplace accommodations (Jans, Kaye, & Jones, 2012). Disclosure about ASD does not always have negative consequences. In fact, having a label of ASD can also be used as an advantage in finding a job (Jans et al., 2012). For example, one of the participants, together with her coach, was trying to get access to a funded job position. These funded positions were created so that people with work impairments could get into regular employment with the support they need. Other participants were not necessarily looking for funded positions, but did look for jobs in companies that have experience in working with individuals with ASD. Not all participants were enthusiastic about the prospect of working in an ‘ASD-specialized company’. One of the participants told me a story about a coach who suggested a job in a restaurant that had many employees with ASD. Expectations about her qualities were low in this job. Although she could get some working experience here, the participant did not like this suggestion. She felt that this place was not representative for future jobs, because the employers responded to every need. For example, when tired you could immediately take a break. She was afraid that a company like this, although having good intentions, would not help her develop the skills that she would need in a future job. The mindset of the individual with a label of ASD also played an important role in choosing whether to disclose. Goffman (1963/2018) notes that over time an individual with a stigmatized attribute will realize that this specific attribute is less socially desirable. He argues that this realization often leads to a situation where people wish they would not have this specific attribute: they feel ashamed. According to him, over time this situation can develop in three different ways. First, the individual can accept the general belief and conform to the idea that the attribute is indeed undesirable. This will probably lead to hiding the stigmatized label. Second, the individual can ignore the fact that he has been assigned a label. Or third, the individual can embrace the label, and accept and appreciate himself as such. He can even try to make other people see that the disqualification is unjustified. A participant believed that this third mindset was a necessary condition for success in a job interview: Now I know that with ASD it is only possible to go into a job interview once you have fully understood and processed the diagnosis yourself and that it has become "normal" in your life. Only then you will be convincing and natural. [Emphasis original] Mogensen and Mason (2015) analyzed the meaning of the ASD label amongst teenagers and found similar results. The label could be considered an advantage when the diagnosis helps people understand themselves and gain control. Additionally, researchers showed that higher self-esteem predicted better performance in job interviews and a higher rate of interview success (Hall, Jackson Gradt, Goetz, & Musu-Gillette, 2011). Other research on job interviews showed that presenting yourself in a “straightforward, disability positive manner” with a focus on how well you can do the job, is important (Jans et al., 2012). Finally, researchers found that “when group members are able to express their personal identity
21 freely rather than trying to manage disclosure, they will be able to engage in a higher level of social exchange” (Bowen & Blackmon, 2003, p. 1405). When disclosing their diagnosis of ASD, participants struggled with the amount of information they should reveal. According to Goffman (1963/2018), the basis of a lasting relationship is formed by sharing personal information. Research also shows that so called “self-disclosure”, the sharing of personal information, can help forge high-quality relationships at work (Gibson, Harari, & Marr, 2018). Nevertheless, the same research shows that sharing weaknesses in the workplace might just as well result in “diminished perceived status and consequently less influence, greater perceived conflict, less liking, and less desire for a future relationship” (p. 39). The amount of personal information that was appropriate to share was something one participant talked about specifically: I sometimes need to make sure that I do not accidentally say something that is very personal. Because that makes other people feel uncomfortable and it does not occur to me to be embarrassed about it. For example about ASD or something like that (. . .) I should not directly be too open, because people will not know how to deal with that. You must sell yourself and I tend to just say who I am, including the parts that are not that great. (. . .) I still find it very difficult to understand that I should be careful to not inadvertently give too honest a picture of myself. Besides deciding what information to share, it was also important how the information was shared. Goffman (1963/2018) discusses the so called ‘disclosure etiquette’, in which he covers how one can best disclose stigmatizing information. When following the etiquette of disclosing, the person who possesses a stigmatized attribute, will casually drop the disqualifying information during the conversation as a matter of course. By casually addressing the sensitive topic, one installs the idea that the topic is nothing to worry about. He also signals to his interlocutor that he does not expect him to be a person who upholds prejudice. However, one of my participants precisely mentioned how difficult it is to casually address a sensitive topic like ASD. According to this participant, the recruiter can help create a platform in which the disclosure etiquette can be upheld more easily: What I would like in a job interview is that the people who do the job interview, that they ask in the beginning: do you have anything to discuss? Is there anything we can help you with? (. . .) Because that makes the threshold for people with autism, ADHD, or whatever, much lower to say something like that and then to feel at ease again.
Disclosing the ASD-label at a later moment
Some participants chose to disclose the label of ASD at a later moment. For instance, after being hired for the job. In this way, the stereotypes and possible stigmatization would not hinder them in getting the job they applied for. A participant said:
I disclosed my diagnosis when I had been working for a while. I am always very afraid of people's reactions and that is why I think it is important that they already have an
22 image of me. This makes people realize that it [the ASD] does not mean that I cannot do my job properly, although it explains the things that have already been noticed. The difficulty about disclosing the label at a later moment is the precarious situation of timing. There comes a moment when the disclosure no longer feels natural. Postponing the disclosure might make the actual disclosure more difficult, because others will no longer expect such information, and might feel deceived. Research shows that disclosure of non-visible disabilities did not necessarily had negative consequences, but that the disclosure of the disability early on “elicited significantly more positive qualifications/hiring and liking ratings” (Roberts & Macan, 2006, p. 244). One participant decided to disclose his label of ASD after receiving word that he was hired. He wanted to discuss the possibilities of coaching in the workplace. However, his late disclosure led to adversity amongst his employers. It was not appreciated that I said that after [being hired]. Because they realized that they had hired someone who would surprise them with new information afterwards. Then they said: “Well, that coaching is not going to happen, you are just going to work here for 40 hours a week. We have enough guidance here and we also find the risk a bit high, so we suggest that you come here on secondment basis (. . .).” Of course, not every employer responds in the same way. Some participants received very thoughtful and helpful responses after disclosing their ASD diagnosis to their employer. Examples of thoughtful responses were expressed mostly for situations where the participant had waited with disclosing until they encountered specific problems in the workplace. They decided to disclose when they needed specific guidance or other types of support. At the first job, I disclosed after I started working. While working I noticed that I was just too chaotic to keep track of everything. I told the manager, who was a woman who handled it very well and she said: pay attention to that and to that and to that.
23
Consequences of not disclosing the ASD-label
Choosing not to disclose the label of ASD brings certain difficulties. The person in question finds himself in a situation where unwillingly having to reveal the stigmatized label, and thus risking disqualification, is always a background concern (Goffman, 1963/2018). A recruiter told me that during a job interview she asked about the school that the job applicant had been going to. She did not recognize the name of the school, although she was familiar with the schools in the area. When the job applicant explained that it was a school for special education, he also explained the reason for going to this school: because of his ASD. Although the job applicant did not intend to disclose his ASD diagnosis at first, the name of his school on his résumé revealed his ASD anyways. So, when choosing to not disclose the label, one always has to be aware of circumstances producing disclosure (Goffman, 1963/2018). New circumstances and new situations might create the need to adapt the strategies one was using before. One always has to monitor the situation for possible risks. Because of this, daily life is more exhausting and complicated for those who are keeping their diagnosis a secret (Goffman, 1963/2018). The stress associated with hiding stigmatizing information might lead to depressive symptoms or other negative psycho-emotional effects (Carrington & Graham, 2001; Mogensen & Mason, 2015). A participant described how she often felt that she could not be herself. She said: In my head, it matters a lot what other people think. And that is a shame. Because I cannot explain why I value their opinion so much. Probably because of my parents, they are just like that. They come from a culture in which their honor is very important, it is a culture of shame, so you are ashamed of yourself and above all you must behave according to social norms and values. And I probably inherited that, so to speak, but in my head it is always such a dilemma. Can I be myself or can I not be myself? Now I am myself, but when I go outside I think: where can I be myself? What would that person think and what would that person think? (. . .) I am not the same person everywhere. And probably nobody is the same person everywhere. But I think it is even more extreme for me, because I am myself very little. (. . .) I think out of fear of not being accepted, or being rejected, or…
24
Consequences of disclosing the ASD-label
Disclosing stigmatizing information might lead to disqualification, since people routinely attribute a wide range of flaws to the stigmatized (Goffman, 1963/2018, p. 16). Nonetheless, the disclosure of the stigmatizing label does not always lead to disqualification, since the response of the audience will differ per situation. Several factors influence the degree to which the individual becomes disqualified. First, awareness around the stigma plays a large role (Goffman, 1963/2018). Stereotyped images about a particular stigma will have less influence on a recruiter when he is more aware of what it means to have ASD. When a recruiter is not so knowledgeable about ASD, stereotypical images will prevail. These stereotypical ideas about ASD can have a large influence on whether the recruiter thinks the job applicant with ASD is suitable for the job. For example, a recruiter related ASD to a lack of social and communicative skills, and explained that she would probably not hire the applicant for a job in a store: Say he had applied for a job in the store, then I would have just said: "Well, I doubt if this suits you and whether I see you working here, because you have to be strong minded and also have to be able to switch quickly verbally." Stereotypical images about the communicative skills of a person with ASD did not correspond with what the recruiter thought necessary for ‘an employee in the store’. However, social and communicative skills were deemed less important for other fields of work. For example, developers, that [is a job] (. . .) in which, for example, social skills are less important. The examples confirm that the level of disqualification is connected to a recruiter’s stereotypical ideas about ASD. This connects to a second factor influencing the level of disqualification: the reach of the stigma (Goffman, 1963/2018). In some contexts it is more problematic to possess a stigmatized condition than in others. For example, the label ASD is more disqualifying when the job is one where communicative skills are deemed more important. The third factor that influences the level of disqualification is the degree of disturbance that is experienced because of the stigma (Goffman, 1963/2018). In the case of ASD, the less noticeable ASD was, the less disturbed recruiters were. After all, the less noticeable ASD was, the less urgent it was to worry about the suitability of the job candidate. This is illustrated by one of the recruiters: I guess if I hardly notice or do not notice anyone's autism in a job interview, then... Cause burn-out is something you can hide very easily. But when I have a job interview with an autistic person and I (. . .) [feel like I can] have a regular job interview with him, then there is nothing striking in his contact with others. (. . .) if [ASD] is not an obstacle in your contact with others, then it [ASD] is not a problem either.
25 The perceptibility of ASD is related to the disclosure of the label. However, during the job interview, applicants could also behave in an unexpected way. Not conforming to expectations, and thus social norms, could also disturb the interaction and lead to disqualification. With unexpected behavior, the applicant can make a recruiter doubt his original assessment of the person. By not being the ‘norm job applicant’ the recruiter expects, the recruiter might feel obliged to reassess the applicant’s social category. A job applicant could show unexpected behavior verbally or non-verbally. Although it is difficult to prove whether unexpected behavior is a result of ASD, I have tried to identify the elements which participants themselves connected to ASD.
26
Unexpected behavior: verbal
Sometimes, unexpected behavior in verbal communication led to disruption. The following themes illustrate how verbal disruption was discussed in the interviews.
Clarity/ vagueness
It is expected of a job applicant to give adequate and clear answers to the questions that are asked. Interaction of the interview becomes disturbed when a job applicant gives no answer, gives a vague answer, or gives an answer that does not answer to the question. However, as I will show in the following paragraphs, this does happen in job interviews. Verbal disruption is likely to happen in situations where the two parties in conversation either misunderstand each other or do not behave in the expected way. For the communication between the job applicant with ASD and the recruiter, the element of ‘clarity’, or the lack thereof, was a key element in many conversations about communication problems. Clarity was especially relevant in the way questions were asked. A coach of people with ASD pointed out that people with ASD experience recruiter’s questions either as “questions” or “non-questions”. Non-questions are questions that are a bit vague. For example: “tell me something about yourself.” It is not really clear what the recruiter is trying to find out by asking this question. Some people might respond to a vague question by improvising: just talking a bit in hope of saying something relevant. However, for many participants, such a non-question would be particularly stressful. Not knowing the recruiter’s intentions, and not knowing how to answer the question, makes the conversation more stressful and complex. As one participant said: Because of the tension and all the unexpected, I cannot possibly assess whether someone is being sincerely friendly or what their intentions are. It is an event where I do not seem to have control and that is full of traps and I cannot trust the other person. Besides questions, comments could also be experienced as vague. This was mostly the case if comments were not explicit. “We would like to work with you", they said. (. . .) they meant: "Welcome to the team, you are hired." But I thought: "Okay, then why are you not hiring me?” Participants also discussed that sometimes a question can come across as a clear question, but the recruiter’s intention is unclear. So they ask: what is your hobby? And then I think: "Oh, I like this and that." And then they move on: "Yes, but (. . .) why do you think those hobbies fit in well with this work?" (. . .) I do not know if that is something social, that you should understand: that is why they ask that question. Clarity was not only discussed by the participants with ASD, but it was also a topic that came up in conversations with recruiters. Recruiters sometimes do not realize that questions are27 not clear for the person they are talking to. They expect certain things to be self-evident, that are not necessarily self-evident for the job applicant with ASD. One recruiter at a school, for instance, asked at the end of a job interview whether the job applicant had any questions. This recruiter said: Then logical questions are: levels of students, lessons, how do you do this kind of thing, which countries do children come from (. . .)? And then when someone says, "What is that on the wall?" and he is talking about the board on which I schedule classes. Yes then... Vague questions or comments, and unclear intentions of questions could thus lead the job applicant to giving an unexpected answer. The interaction is disturbed because a recruiter does not realize he is unclear and the applicant does not realize he is giving an unexpected answer. Similar findings were presented by researchers who looked at the abilities of young adults with ASD to infer the thoughts and feelings of people in two types of conversations: either very structured conversations, or chaotic conversations (Ponnet, Buysse, Roeyers, & De Clercq, 2008). They found that for individuals with ASD, it was easier to mind-read when the conversation was more structured. Also, the results suggested that more concrete thoughts and feelings were easier to infer than more abstract thoughts and feelings. Abstract thoughts were those thoughts that were more incongruent with the verbalization and the direction of gaze of the observed person. In conclusion, clarity in the conversation, or the lack thereof, was of high importance for the flow of the conversation.
Overpreparation/ underpreparation
Participants stressed the ambiguity between the job interview and the actual job. They wondered why one is expected to be prepared for the workplace, and the meetings during work, but does not get handed the tools to prepare decently for the job interview. One participant said: I am not nervous because I am afraid I will not be hired, I am nervous because I do not know what to expect. Insecurities about what to expect led participants to try to create more clarity while preparing their job interviews. They did this by doing research and by scripting the conversation. Participants did online research to prepare for the job interview. Many participants used the internet to find lists with commonly asked questions, and possible answers to these questions. This helped them feel less overwhelmed when difficult questions were asked during the job interview. They had thought about them before. The moment they asked those (. . .) questions, I felt a little more confident. Only then sometimes I received the feedback: "You don't seem very open or spontaneous."28 Although the preparation of questions was meant to come across more confident in the interview, it sometimes had an adverse effect and resulted in the applicant being assessed as closed off or unspontaneous. This was because the answers came across as recited, rather than as spontaneous answers. A downfall of this coping mechanism was also that it is more stressful when the recruiters ask questions that are not prepared. Disruption of the interaction was more likely to happen when improvisation was required to answer questions. I like it when the job interviews contain the 'standard' questions, so that the structure is clear to me and my preparation is in line with the questions that are asked. Furthermore, I like it when there is not too much emphasis on the questions that I find difficult to answer and that I get the time to formulate my answers, without feeling too much pressure. [Emphasis original] Besides general information on job interviews, participants also searched the internet to find more specific information. They for instance looked for information about the company they were possibly going to work at. Participants used the website of the company to get an idea about the company’s culture: is this a very formal company, or is it more informal? When the company’s culture seemed more formal, the expectation was that the job interview would also be more traditional. Standard questions were expected. When impressions based on the company’s website pointed to a more informal culture, more improvisation was thought to be needed during the job interview. Others used the company’s website to get information about things like motivation, principles, the company’s ideology, history, and employees. They used this information to get a better understanding of whether they would fit in and also to have something to talk about during the interview. However, wrong conclusions were sometimes drawn based on the information found. The job interview was for instance more (in)formal than expected, which increased the need to improvise. This made a participant feel uncomfortable and unprepared, and disrupted the interaction. Such preparation can also lead to other kinds of problems: I do not sleep the week in advance (really, max 2 - 3 hours per night) and I am feverishly looking for EVERYTHING I can find out about the company. I am also looking for any information I can find about the person I am going to have an interview with. I MUST have seen a picture, otherwise I do not dare to go to the interview. [Emphasis original] Sleep deprivation makes an individual less focused during the job interview and can lead to unintentional interactional problems. In their preparation, informants also focused on the job description. According to participants, the description says a lot about what employers think is important and what they are looking for in a candidate. The specific phrases might reveal what is important to focus on and talk about in the job interview. One participant told about the discomfort he experienced when he had not looked thoroughly at the job description. Besides not
29 presenting yourself as a well-prepared and serious candidate, this can make the interview a lot less smooth. [I] did not really know what the job was about. They were explaining it to me and I was like: "Oh, was that in the description? Huh?" Yeah, that is not acceptable. Another way of trying to create clarity is by ‘scripting’ the conversation. Scripting is meant as ‘preparing what it is you are going to say’. Scripting happens in several forms. One can for instance prepare scripted answers to standard questions. Another possibility is preparing a pitch. A pitch can be used as a short argumentation of why the recruiter(s) should choose the applicant. Participants felt that it was nice to have formulated this argument beforehand. Scripting also happens in a more literal sense: literally writing out the conversation as a play-script. Writing down what person A says, and how person B responds. A participant explained: From "Good day..." to "Okay, see you later", I prepare the entire conversation (which never works, because the person I am talking to never asks or says the things I rehearsed). The example shows that sticking to a script is very difficult when in a spontaneous conversation. The participant expects the recruiter to say specific things, but the recruiter is not aware of an underlying script. When person A keeps trying to introduce scripted sentences, there is a significant chance that this is not in line with what person B was asking about. This will thus disrupt the flow of interaction, and probably lead to unexpected comments, answers, and questions. Some participants felt that preparation could not create more clarity during the job interview. They had experienced in former job interviews that preparation made the conversation awkward. Recruiters had told them that they did not come across as being spontaneous, and participants attributed this to their scripting and overpreparing. Therefore, they decided to improvise during future job interviews. Revealing such unpreparedness however, could have an adverse effect. One recruiter for instance said: I always find it very weird when people say, "I am keeping myself open-minded, I did not prepare for the interview." Because then I think: what do you think I have done in the past days? (. . .) [I have looked at] your résumé and…? (. . .) I have been working on this!
Structure of the job interview
Flow of communication was closely related to the structure of the job interview or the way the job interview was set up, for instance the number of recruiters that were on the
30 Often a job interview is one-on-one, but sometimes you have five people in front of you, who all want to know things. And you want to have talked to each of them. That you acknowledge that they are all there. But I often talk to one person. That is easier. It might be easier, but it is not what is expected of a job candidate. When an applicant talks to only one recruiter, he might be assessed as rude. The formality of the recruiters could also make it more difficult for participants to talk comfortably. When the recruiters would wear a suit, some of the participants would feel highly uncomfortable and unable to speak their mind. One participant said: Multiple men in suits, lined up in front of me, while I am on my own. It always makes me forget that it is a conversation between two sides that want something from each other instead of just one side that is judging me. It does not feel equal. This kind of situation creates circumstances in which many applicants with ASD feel they are unable to represent themselves in a good way and therefore fulfill expectations of ‘the normal job applicant’. One job applicant had been in a situation where the job interview was staged as a group process. She was assessed for a job during a group conversation with multiple other participants, who were all students at her university. This was highly uncomfortable for her. Everything combined was very uncomfortable. Like the whole... speaking in front of everyone and knowing that you will see these people in the university again. And kind of being very self-conscious about it. And being kind of put on the spot like that. Asked very weird questions, speaking, switching different languages is also very difficult for me.
Topics that were discussed
The topics that were discussed during the job interview were of great importance to promote oneself as a good job candidate. There was a major difference between communication about the job and the qualifications for the job, and communication about the applicant and his motivation. Since many participants did not feel comfortable with small talk, it was difficult if the focus of the job interview was on their persona and motivation. They felt more comfortable discussing relevant technical skills, qualifications, and job requirements. When a recruiter does not have substantive knowledge about the job, the selection consequently will be based more on how the candidate comes across, rather than how qualified the person is. This would increase stress for participants. As one participant explained: In general, I find it very difficult to talk to someone who does not know me. And convince them that I am the right person for a job (. . .) I think that [theoretical knowledge] is the part where I can distinguish myself from others.
