91��ɫ

Employees with autism may bring valuable perspectives to the workplace, but whether those capabilities are recognized can depend on the systems and environments around them, according to research by 91��ɫ-affiliated father-and-son collaborators Lorne Hartman and Braxton Hartman.

Since the Hartmans began working together, they have been driven by a question: could some traits commonly viewed as deficits associated with autism be strengths in the workplace?

Earlier studies suggest employees with autism may be more likely to identify problems in professional settings, less likely to rationalize unethical behaviour and less prone to overestimating their own abilities – traits that could influence how organizations make decisions and respond to challenges.

As awareness and diagnoses of autism have increased, the researchers say their focus has broadened.

“We are now becoming more interested in what organizations can do to make use of the capabilities employees with autism bring to the workplace,” says Lorne, a behavioural scientist formerly affiliated with the who is now with the University of Toronto.

“They need to think about whether their existing systems help or get in the way,” adds Braxton, who completed his master's in psychology at 91��ɫ in 2025. Braxton now works with The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health to develop and implement training for young adults with autism.

In in Research in Neurodiversity, they reviewed findings from psychology, neuroscience and organizational behaviour to examine how workplace environments influence whether characteristics associated with autism become strengths, challenges or sources of exclusion.

“This is particularly important when the system has been designed around assumptions about what a ‘typical’ employee looks like, how they communicate or how they should approach their work,” says Lorne.

He and his son synthesized those findings into a framework for understanding how cognitive differences interact with organizational systems.

A central theme of the paper is what researchers call person-environment fit: the idea that workplace outcomes emerge through the interaction between individual cognitive differences and the settings in which people work. Culture, communication norms, management practices and team dynamics all play a role.

The researchers argue that the same characteristic can be advantageous in one setting and challenging in another. For example, employees who question assumptions, point out inconsistencies or communicate more directly may be perceived as difficult or insufficiently collaborative, even when their observations are accurate and valuable.

Another finding outlines workplace cultures that favour conformity or implicit social norms can make employees with autism feel pressured to mask their natural communication style in order to meet expectations. While masking may help individuals navigate those environments, the researchers note it can come at a personal cost, and may also prevent employers from benefiting from the perspectives those staff members bring.

Designing for neurodiversity requires more than accommodation; it requires rethinking how organizations define professionalism, competence, communication and collaboration.

“What we've come to appreciate more strongly is how much the expression of an individual's capabilities depends on the environment,” says Braxton. “People need the resources and opportunities to put those capabilities to work.”

The paper offers a series of recommendations designed to help organizations create those opportunities and better align systems with a wider range of cognitive styles.

The recommendations aim to make workplaces less dependent on unwritten social rules and more focused on employees' actual abilities. Among other measures, the researchers call for hiring processes with greater emphasis on demonstrated skills over interview performance, clearer expectations for communication and performance, and work environments that give staff more control over factors such as noise, interruptions and other sensory demands.

They also call for workplace cultures where questioning assumptions and expressing disagreement are viewed as valuable contributions rather than disruptions.

Lorne hopes the paper will encourage employers to think about their HR structures and practices.

“Making those systems fair and equitable for employees with autism shouldn't be viewed simply as something organizations do for a relatively small group of people,” he says. “Many of the changes that make workplaces work better for employees with autism can make them work better for everyone.”

That broader message reflects one of the paper's central conclusions: cognitive differences can become strengths or barriers often depends on the settings in which they are expressed.

“Organizations have a great deal of human potential available to them, and how much of it they actually see depends in part on the environments they create,” says Braxton.

Tags: