University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Understanding the gaps for neurotypical managers to support college-educated autistic employees across industries

(USC Thesis Other)

Understanding the gaps for neurotypical managers to support college-educated autistic employees across industries

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Understanding the Gaps for Neurotypical Managers to Support College-Educated Autistic Employees Across Industries Angela Kristine Nelson Rossier School of Education University of Southern California A dissertation submitted to the faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education December 2023 © Copyright by Angela Kristine Nelson 2023 All Rights Reserved The Committee for Angela Kristine Nelson certifies the approval of this Dissertation Monique Datta Theresa Haskins Maria Ott, Committee Chair Rossier School of Education University of Southern California 2023 iv Abstract This study applies Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis framework to examine the underrepresentation of college-educated autistic adults in the workplace. The purpose of this study was to understand the knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers that exist for neurotypical managers to support the success of college-educated autistic employees. Using a purposeful sampling procedure, 12 managers with limited knowledge or training related to autism participated in a 14-question interview. Responses were transcribed and coded, and key themes emerged that identified significant gaps. Findings from this study suggest managers have a basic understanding of autism but lack skills and confidence to support an autistic employee, rely heavily on human resources (HR) when in doubt, and prioritize culture fit and skills that can be challenging for autistic individuals, such as teamwork and effective communication. While managers appear more positive and open about managing a potential autistic employee than the literature suggests, the study confirms implicit bias and misinformation are prominent. The managers recognize opportunities to create initiatives that bolster support for autistic employees, and organization size and culture are key facilitating factors. Recommendations include organizations empowering HR to lead autism initiatives, training managers to effectively support autistic employees, surveying levels of psychological safety and sense of belonging, integrating a disability focus in inclusion initiatives, enhancing mentorship programs, and improving visibility of organizational supports for autistic individuals. With a growing prevalence of autism, a cohort of college-educated individuals ready to work, and industries in need of employees, this study brings awareness to the role managers and organizations play in the underrepresentation of autistic adults in the workplace. v Acknowledgments My doctoral journey has been immensely fulfilling and enjoyable. It has also been one of the most intense periods of my life. I accumulated a great deal of knowledge and a valuable network of amazing people along the way. One unanticipated learning is that a doctoral program is far less about intellect and far more about persistence and stamina. A doctoral program is a marathon, and it cannot be navigated alone. With sincere gratitude, I would like to thank my dissertation committee for the feedback and precious time they provided me. Thank you, Dr. Maria Ott, for your steady encouragement and thoughtful conversations. I appreciate how much interest you took in my topic and your dedication to review my work, even late into the night and on the weekends. Thank you, Dr. Monique Datta, for your thorough review and valuable feedback on my writing. I appreciate you encouraging me to think deeper, and to craft a study that will add novel insights to research and practice. Thank you, Dr. Theresa Haskins, for the passion you share with me about autism in the workplace. You are a wealth of information on this topic, and I appreciate the meetings and email exchanges we shared as you enthusiastically helped me brainstorm my topic. I would also like to thank my friends and colleagues, who became my biggest cheerleaders. The encouraging words and excitement you shared with me was heartwarming and helped me to persist, month after month. I look forward to sharing my findings with you so we can begin to disseminate vital information about autism at work. Lastly, I would like to thank my family. Brian, with both of us working full-time, raising two energetic daughters, and managing all of life’s logistics, you were such a stable partner to me. You helped me brainstorm my dissertation topic, shared in my delight as I submitted my papers, and never complained when I asked you to take on whole weekends of childcare duties alone. Lily vi and Rosie, I know there were many times when you wanted me to play but I had to finish writing a paper or reading an article. You were so patient with me and showered me with love anyway. There will be many games of Clue, Connect Four, Sorry, and Hide and Seek coming your way! Mom and my mother-in-law, Debbie, you both took on more than just childcare duties. You spent quality time with my children, so I did not have to feel guilty for spending hours in front of my computer and away from them. I appreciated your words of praise and support. Thank you all for the love and encouragement. I am excited to spend more time with you now that this chapter of my life has come to a close. vii Table of Contents Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................... v List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix List of Figures................................................................................................................................. x Chapter One: Overview of the Study.............................................................................................. 1 Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 1 Statement of the Problem.................................................................................................... 3 Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 3 Significance of the Study.................................................................................................... 5 Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 6 Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 7 Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .......................................................................................... 9 Autism................................................................................................................................. 9 Historical Influences of Employment Barriers................................................................. 10 Employment Outcomes for Autistic Employees............................................................... 13 Evolution of Employment Support................................................................................... 17 Gap Analysis Theoretical Framework .............................................................................. 23 Conceptual Framework..................................................................................................... 34 Summary........................................................................................................................... 38 Chapter Three: Methodology........................................................................................................ 40 Research Questions........................................................................................................... 40 Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 40 Research Setting................................................................................................................ 42 The Reseacher................................................................................................................... 42 viii Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 44 Credibility and Trustworthiness........................................................................................ 47 Ethics................................................................................................................................. 48 Chapter Four: Findings................................................................................................................. 50 Participants........................................................................................................................ 50 Findings for Research Question 1..................................................................................... 51 Findings for Research Question 2..................................................................................... 59 Findings for Research Question 3..................................................................................... 68 Summary........................................................................................................................... 77 Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 80 Findings............................................................................................................................. 80 Recommendations for Practice ......................................................................................... 83 Limitations and Delimitations........................................................................................... 92 Future Research ................................................................................................................ 92 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 93 References..................................................................................................................................... 95 Appendix A: Interview Protocol................................................................................................. 113 Appendix B: Information Sheet for Exempt Research ............................................................... 116 ix List of Tables Table 1: Data Sources 41 Table 2: Participant Characteristics 51 Table 3: Research Question 1 Findings 58 Table 4: Research Question 2 Findings 67 Table 5: Research Question 3 Findings 76 Table 6: Overview of Recommendations 91 x List of Figures Figure 1: Conceptual Framework of How Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational 38 Influences Interact in the Role of a Manager 1 Chapter One: Overview of the Study The underrepresentation of college-educated autistic individuals in the workplace is a pervasive and longitudinal problem. Both high rates of unemployment and underemployment within this population permeate across work industries (Baldwin et al., 2014; Bernick & Vismara, 2021; Coleman & Adams, 2018). Autistic adults have the highest unemployment rates over their peers across all disability categories (Remington & Pellicano, 2019; Roux et al., 2015). While Whittenburg et al. (2019) explain that college improves employment outcomes for autistic individuals, they consistently work fewer hours and make lower wages than their peers, an outcome spanning across countries and industries. Baldwin et al. (2014) interviewed 130 autistic individuals. The researchers demonstrated that while 86% of participants obtained postsecondary education compared to 57% of the general public, 46% were considered overqualified for their positions and only 6% held managerial positions compared to 21% and 13% of the general population respectively (Baldwin et al., 2014). Additionally, Taylor et al. (2015) observed that only three of their 31 college-educated autistic participants were working in their chosen fields of study and the remaining were working in positions for which they were overqualified. This unemployment and underemployment create a significant problem for this growing population and, thus, forms the foundation for this study. Background of the Problem While an abundance of literature exists on autism, the research on improving autistic individuals’ outcomes in the workplace is still in its infancy. The consensus across prior research is that the individuals’ deficits are driving this problem (Bury et al., 2020; Vincent, 2020) and only recently are researchers beginning to tie poor workforce outcomes to stereotypes and manager attitudes and knowledge gaps (Annabi & Locke, 2019). Employers often have biases 2 and misconceptions that hiring autistic individuals will increase supervision and accommodation costs, training time, and safety issues, and reduce productivity and attendance, all leading to hiring reluctancy (Bezyak et al., 2021; Ju et al., 2013; Solomon, 2020). Compounding the misconceptions and bias, organizations lack empirically validated diversity training programs to emphasize disability awareness and acceptance and to address these attitudes (Phillips et al., 2016). The existing training yields mixed results, such as persistent implicit bias against autistic individuals post-training (Jones et al., 2021). Therefore, significant barriers exist for autistic employees from multiple angles that warrant examination and intervention. Both individuals and groups of inclusive organizations have and continue to address this problem of underrepresentation. As part of her doctoral dissertation research, Haskins (2019) reviewed organizations with targeted autism-at-work programs that successfully place and support autistic individuals in competitive employment opportunities. These organizations work with external partners to ensure smooth transitions to employment, train managers to implement accommodations, and employ inclusive interviewing and hiring practices, among other strategies (Haskins, 2019). However, organizations with intentionally inclusive employment practices and specific hiring goals for autistic employees remain in the minority (Dreaver, 2020). Furthermore, only about 60 organizations exist within what is known as the Neurodiversity @ Work Roundtable to date, a group of organizations with hiring programs aimed at bringing in neurodiverse talent (Disability:In, n.d). While these organizations employ promising practices and are gaining media attention, they estimate only filling about 1,000 positions across organizations since their launch in 2017 (Bernick, 2022). On an individual level, Ju et al. (2013) reported that managers with prior experience managing people with disabilities such as autism demonstrate more favorable attitudes toward employing someone with a disability. However, 3 these experiences have not resulted in widespread culture change. Statement of the Problem Organizations are not structured to successfully support autistic employees. Researchers acknowledge the dearth of literature on autism and overall neurodiversity with an organizational lens (Doyle & McDowall, 2021; Dreaver, 2020; Rashid et al., 2017; Whelpley et al., 2021). What requires further examination are the organizational factors needed to make autism representation sustainable and mainstream, what characteristics neurotypical managers without former training or experience with autism need to support autistic employees, and why more people with autism are not employed despite available accommodation resources (Job Accommodation Network, n.d.). Managers are one of the most pivotal drivers of employee satisfaction, longevity, and performance (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999) and, thus, this study aims to contribute needed research on managers’ roles in addressing this problem outside of the autism-specific programs previously studied by Haskins (2019). Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to understand the knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers that exist for neurotypical managers to support college-educated autistic individuals successfully in the workplace. A secondary purpose is to understand why these barriers persist despite documented accommodations, resources, and strategies that have proven efficacious in supporting autistic individuals in the workplace. The following questions guide the study: 1. What are the manager knowledge gaps that contribute to the underrepresentation of college-educated autistic individuals in the workplace across industries? 2. What are the manager motivational gaps that contribute to the underrepresentation of 4 college-educated autistic individuals in the workplace across industries? 3. What organizational barriers exist that contribute to the underrepresentation of college-educated autistic individuals in the workplace across industries? This study utilized the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework. The gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) explains how performance problems are attributed to gaps in knowledge (e.g., skills or awareness), motivation (e.g., self-efficacy), and organizational influences (e.g., misalignment of the culture or policies to the organizational objectives). This framework is ideal for examining the problem of the underrepresentation of college-educated autistic individuals in the workplace because it places the onus on those supporting these individuals as opposed to casting blame on the individuals themselves, which has historically been the case for the autistic community (Vincent, 2020). Buckingham and Coffman (1999) described managers as the catalysts for their employees’ careers, and, therefore, their management performance driven by knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps is central to this study. The methodology used in this study was a qualitative design. This design focuses on understanding the experiences of individuals and the meaning they attribute to those experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This approach aligns with the study purpose aimed at understanding what obstacles and gaps exist for neurotypical managers to support college-educated autistic employees successfully and what meaning these managers assign to these gaps. A case study, using semi-structured interviews on Zoom, was conducted to balance gathering specific information from each participant with the flexibility to both respond to, and explore, ideas further (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Neurotypical managers without specific autism training or lived experiences with autistic individuals were selected across various organizations and 5 geographic locations to study their experiences. This maximum variation of managers allowed for interindustry exploration of existing gaps, assisting with transferability. Significance of the Study This problem of underrepresentation of college-educated autistic individuals in the workplace is important to address not only for the individuals themselves but for organizations and governments. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2023) document the current prevalence of autism as 1:36, whereas just 20 years ago, it was 1:150, suggesting a significant increase over a short time. Countries outside the United States have also observed this increase in incidence, making this a global issue (McConkey, 2020; Qiu et al., 2020). Based on these data, more eligible autistic individuals will attempt to enter the workforce in the coming years. Barriers to employment for a growing population will impact government budgets more significantly if not examined. The majority of governmental autism costs are for adult services. It is estimated that the United States spent about $223 billion in 2020 and will spend $1.36 trillion by the year 2040, annually, on autism (Blaxill et al., 2022). Placing a more significant focus on enabling these individuals to work and contribute to the economy has widespread financial implications. Employment for autistic individuals goes beyond governmental impacts to the organizational and individual levels. Gaining and maintaining successful employment not only affords autistic individuals opportunities to secure their own income but also bolsters self-worth, confidence, social connections (Baldwin et al., 2014; Hurley-Hanson et al., 2020), and protective factors against mental health risks such as suicidality (Lai et al., 2017). Research finds that autistic individuals bring high rates of productivity, attention to detail, loyalty, honesty, efficiency, consistency, motivation, and attendance to the workplace, countering many 6 misconceptions (Aichner, 2021; Baldwin et al., 2014; Jacob et al., 2015; Scott et al., 2017). Desires to fulfill commitments to corporate social responsibility also positively correlate to employing autistic individuals (L. Chesney, personal communication, September 22, 2022). People with disabilities, including those who are autistic, account for about 15% of the population, making it the largest minority group in the world (World Health Organization, 2021). Therefore, addressing the problem of underrepresentation of college-educated autistic individuals has significant, global implications from a private to governmental level. Definition of Terms This section provides a list of key terms related to the study to facilitate an understanding of context, population, and approach. Accommodation refers to an opportunity for a qualified employee to enjoy equal opportunity through modification or adjustment to a job or work environment (The Job Accommodation Network, n.d.). Autistic refers to a person diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, which is characterized by skill deficits in the areas of social-emotional reciprocity, nonverbal communicative behavior, and building and maintaining relationships. Restricted, repetitive behavior patterns such as stereotypic motor movements, insistence on sameness, fixated interests, or sensitivities to stimuli are also observed (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). While “a person with autism” is considered person-first language, “autistic” is identity-first language and embraced by many in the autism community at this time (Taboas et al., 2023). College-educated refers to a person with at least an associate degree from a postsecondary institution. Job coach refers to an individual who supports the searching, attainment, and retention of 7 a job for a person with a disability like autism and serves as an intermediary between this person and their employer once hired (DiFrancesco et al., 2021). Neurodiversity refers to individual differences in the brain are that considered normal variations across the human population (Shaw et al., 2021); the inclusion of people or a group with different types of brain functioning (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). This term is currently evolving. Neurotypical refers to not being diagnosed with a developmental disability; exhibiting or characteristic of typical neurological development (Merriam-Webster, n.d.); non-disabled (McLeod et al., 2019). Underemployed refers to working fewer hours than one’s capacity or performing work for which one is overqualified (Baldwin et al., 2014). Underrepresentation refers to high rates of unemployment and underemployment (Bury et al., 2021). Organization of the Study This dissertation is comprised of five chapters highlighting the underrepresentation of college-educated autistic adults in the workplace. Chapter One introduces the study, context, and background on the problem of practice, the purpose and importance of studying this problem, research questions, an overview of the methodology and theoretical framework, and key terms. Chapter Two introduces a comprehensive review of the literature on autism in the workplace, historical challenges and attempts towards solutions, the role of managers in supporting autistic individuals, and their gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Chapter Two also examines the conceptual framework and introduces a visual depiction of the framework as it relates to components of this problem of practice. Chapter Three introduces the 8 methodology, specifically the research questions, study design and setting, recruitment approach, interview protocol, and data approach. This chapter also discusses credibility, trustworthiness, ethics, and a discussion of my positionality. Chapter Four presents the study findings related to each research question and associated assertions. Chapter Five discusses the findings, study limitations and delimitations, and recommendations for practice and future research. 9 Chapter Two: Review of the Literature This literature review begins with an introduction to autism spectrum disorder (see autistic in Definition of Terms), covering the common characteristics and current research findings from studies on autism in the adult population. The topics of unemployment, underemployment, the lack of job longevity, and low wages make up the section on employment outcomes for autistic employees. Social communication and behavioral challenges of autistic employees frame the historical influences of employment barriers. The evolution of employment support section reviews the concepts of vocational rehabilitation, job coaching, established workplace accommodations, and autism-at-work programs. The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model frames the remainder of the literature review. Specifically discussed are declarative and procedural knowledge gaps for neurotypical managers. Neurotypical manager gaps in self-efficacy and expectancy-value are two identified concepts for motivation. Gaps in organizational influences such cultural models and settings, training, and approaches to leadership complete the Clark and Estes gap analysis overview. The literature review ends with an overview of the conceptual framework underpinning the study, a graphic depiction of the framework, and a summary of the main research ideas. Autism Autism is a developmental disability characterized by unique behavioral traits. Though autistic individuals are all different, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2022) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2022), a diagnosis is given when an individual displays a set number of stereotypic behaviors. These behaviors are within the areas of social communication and interactional skills (e.g., delayed speech, not responding to name, not engaging in pretend play or interactional play 10 with others, etc.) as well as restrictive or repetitive behaviors and interests (e.g., lining up items, extreme upset when routines are changed, intense interests, rocking body or flapping hands, etc.). Researchers are actively studying causes for autism, and current identified factors are environment, biologic, and genetic (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2022). Maenner et al. (2021) outlined that one in 44 children in the United States were diagnosed with autism, which again adjusted to one in 36 in 2023 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2023), a growing prevalence that is reassessed every two years in a large, national study. Maenner et al. (2021) further reported that autism is observed in all racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups. Autism is more than four times more likely to affect boys than girls. The authors published that 35.2% of the autistic children in the study have an intellectual quotient (IQ) score of less than or equal to 70 (i.e., an intellectual disability), meaning nearly two-thirds of the autistic children do not have an intellectual disability. Due to the nature of autism being a developmental disability, it is lifelong and pervasive but can range from overtly apparent to undetectable by another person. Historical Influences of Employment Barriers Historically, researchers attributed employment barriers solely on autistic individuals. More specifically, studies highlight autistic employees’ skill and behavioral deficits as the key drivers of their underrepresentation within organizations (Bury et al., 2020; Vincent, 2020). It was not until recent years that researchers looked at both internal (i.e., attributed to the individual) and external (i.e., organizational) factors (Anderson et al., 2021). Accounts from managers and colleagues as well as from the employees themselves drove the early research about the challenging internal factors at work. 11 Employee Challenges: Social Communication Socialization challenges, a hallmark of autism, drive much of the literature on autistic individuals’ workplace underrepresentation. One common area of focus has been on the autistic employees’ social communication and workplace relationship building challenges through their own report (Bury et al., 2020; Carpenter, 1992; Sperry & Mesibov, 2005). Anne Carpenter, a woman with what she refers to as “high functioning autism,” recalls being fired from her job after one month for interrupting her supervisor several times to ask for help, conversing with colleagues at the wrong time, not being sure how to navigate social situations, among other social infractions (Carpenter, 1992). In an international, open-ended narrative survey, Bury et al. (2020) determined social challenges and subsequent resolutions (e.g., educational strategies aimed at changing autistic individuals’ behavior) were often tied to the internal or personal factors of the autistic employees, not the organization. For example, an autistic employee reported not knowing how to interact with colleagues on their birthdays, so they stood in a corner during birthday parties. McKnight-Lizotte (2018) interviewed six autistic college graduates, all of whom mentioned anxiety during interviews attributed to the verbal and non-verbal components. One individual further stated feeling disturbed when colleagues would not explicitly follow all organizational policies, which resulted in colleagues no longer speaking to her. All three of the speakers on the Neurodiversity Career panel at Stanford’s 2022 Neurodiversity Summit recounted emphasizing their work products and skills as their method for securing employment to compensate for difficulties with the social intricacies of interviewing (Chesney et al., 2022). Managers and colleagues have also documented autistic employees’ socialization challenges. Examples include difficulties navigating non-verbal communication, unwritten 12 conversation rules, interpreting speech too literally, being socially immature and naïve, and misreading when to socialize (Hagner & Cooney, 2005; Hedley et al., 2018; Wing, 1989). Hedley et al. (2018) held focus groups with nine autistic trainees, seven with post-secondary education, working as software test analysts in an employment program, and 13 of their colleagues and support staff. The researchers documented that while the autistic trainees reported they were most challenged with computer network problems, time management, and maintaining attention, a main concern their colleagues and support staff observed was social difficulties. Specific social incidents interpreted by colleagues included the trainees being too frank, blunt, or rude, and not following normative or expected social behavior, such as walking in front of others waiting for an elevator and walking in ahead of them. Such social challenges have played a significant role in autistic individuals’ poor employment outcomes. Employee Challenges: Behavior Another characteristic of autism historically tied to employment barriers that parallels social communication is autistic employee behavior issues. Insistence on following strict routines, sensory sensitivities, tantrums or outbursts, and inflexibility include some the documented behavioral challenges in the workplace (Burt et al.,1991; Chen et al. 2015; Scott et al. 2017). In one of the few examinations of autism in the workplace at the time, Burt et al. (1991) studied a 4-month training program for autistic adults unable to secure employment due to their behavior. One of their participants, a 26-year-old female with above average intelligence, displayed poor hygiene, tantrums, and various inappropriate interactions with colleagues. She required teaching through modeling, role-playing, and various behavior modification techniques to reduce behavior challenges and secure employment. Multiple participants in McKnightLizotte’s (2018) study of autistic employees reported yelling at customers in their workplace. For 13 example, one college-educated participant recalled becoming upset at a customer because they reached for a grocery item that was in a tote used to carry items to shelves before it was placed on the shelf. His boss wrote him up for the incident. Hendricks (2010) proposed that behavior challenges of autistic employees were considered less tolerable and more unacceptable to colleagues and managers than challenges with job-related tasks, more often leading to terminations and furthering poor employment outcomes. Employment Outcomes for Autistic Employees Employment outcomes for autistic individuals, both for those who secure employment and who do not, are poor. Bernick and Vismara (2021) posit that while there have been improvements to education, housing, and mental health for autistic individuals, advancements in employment have barely progressed since the early 1990’s. Unemployment, underemployment, short tenures, and low wages make up prominent challenges autistic employees face. Unemployment Unemployment rates among autistic individuals are remarkably high. Within the last decade, researchers reviewed these high unemployment rates of autistic adults across categories such as age and education level (Bernick & Vismara, 2021; Coleman & Adams, 2018; Ohl et al., 2017; Phillips et al., 2016; Roux et al., 2013; Shattuck et al., 2012). Coleman and Adams (2018) published that the unemployment rate of 172 autistic individuals examined across Arizona was ten times higher than the national rate for all Americans (40% to 4%) as reported by the Labor Bureau of Statistics (2021b). Roux et al. (2013) noted the 620 autistic adults in their study had unemployment rates 30% higher than their peers with other disabilities. In a similar comparison study, Shattuck et al. (2012) exhibited that only about half of autistic high school graduates were employed six months post-graduation compared with 68.9% of people with intellectual 14 disabilities, 86% of people with speech and language delays, and 93.8% of people with learning disabilities. Two years later, Roux et al. (2015) reported that 58% of autistic adults have ever worked between high school and their early 20’s. Unemployment among autistic adults is not only higher than neurotypical adults but their peers with intellectual disabilities, speech and language delays, and learning disabilities as well. Research shows mixed results when examining the intersection between level of education and employment of autistic adults. While some researchers posit post-secondary education does improve employment outcomes for autistic adults, their unemployment rates continue to be higher than their neurotypical peers (Kaya et al., 2018; Migliore et al., 2012; Ohl et al., 2017; Whittenburg et al., 2019). Ohl et al. (2017) highlighted unemployment rates of 254 autistic participants without intellectual disabilities, most with college educations, to be lower than the aforementioned studies, at 38.6%. Of the only 34 participants in the study without college educations, however, their unemployment rates were about equal to those in the 4-year college degree group, at 38% to 39%, respectively. Not only is unemployment a problem, but underemployment is also particularly salient within the college-educated cohort of autistic employees. Underemployment Underemployment affects many autistic individuals who are able to move past the hiring phase. Underemployment, defined as working less than full-time involuntarily, working fulltime but not for a livable wage, performing work for which one is overqualified, and receiving a lower status based on their background (Ohl et al., 2017) is a significant and pervasive employment issue within the autism community (Baldwin et al., 2014; Bernick & Vismara, 2021; Chen et al., 2015; Migliore et al., 2012a; McKnight-Lizotte, 2018; Ohl et al., 2017; Phillips et al., 2016; 15 Roux et al., 2013; Shattuck et al., 2012; Taylor et al., 2015; Whittenburg et al., 2019). Several studies documented their participants were overqualified for their roles at work (Baldwin et al., 2014; McKnight-Lizotte, 2018; Taylor et al., 2015). McKnight- Lizotte (2018) interviewed an autistic individual with a bachelor’s degree in computer science. He reported the only job he could find was a grocery store bagger. Other participants, who held degrees in drafting, zoology, and computer support, worked in jobs at a thrift shop, doing data entry, and as a dishwasher, respectively. Baldwin et al. (2014) stated that out of their 130 autistic participants, of whom the majority were college-educated, 46% were overqualified for their jobs. This rate was more than twice the rate for the general population. In addition to overqualifications, autistic employees often work fewer hours than their neurotypical peers. Taylor et al. (2015) examined hours worked by their 73 autistic participants and noted that 16.4% of participants worked more than 10 hours per week and 9.6% worked more than 30 hours per week. This rate starkly contrasts from the 80% of employed Americans who work full time, or at least 35 hours per week (Labor Bureau of Statistics, 2021a). Of the 172 autistic participants in Coleman and Adam’s (2018) study, they worked an average of 25 hours per week, and all employees working below 40 hours per week desired to work more. Whittenburg et al. (2019) documented their 1,029 autistic participants with college education worked an average of 19.1 hours per week, the most hours out of all the education levels but still lagging behind their neurotypical peers. Working fewer hours than their peers, particularly when they desire more hours but cannot secure them, is a significant problem for autistic employees’ earning potential. Lack of Job Longevity and Low Wages Many employees with autism who can secure employment have challenges maintaining 16 it. Taylor et al. (2015) were the first researchers to study autistic individuals without an intellectual disability longitudinally from an employment and college perspective. They showed that while over two-thirds of the 73 participants were engaged in either college or competitive employment at some point during the study, only 25% were consistently engaged. Additionally, about 58% of the college-educated participants were minimally employed or unemployed for a period of time following their graduation. McKnight’s (2018) interviews with autistic college graduates further these findings. One female respondent with a bachelor’s degree in English stated her job history since college was sporadic, both in duration and work setting, with none of her jobs requiring a degree. Another male respondent reported he lost his job quickly at a grocery store due to challenges with socialization and had to return to school to get a master’s degree in computer science to secure another job. This stop-and-start to employment makes it challenging to establish momentum, hurts opportunities for advancement, and impacts income levels for autistic individuals. For the autistic individuals who can secure employment, low wages are a pervasive issue across education levels and compared with peers. Roux et al. (2013) compared earnings of autistic young adults to adults with other disabilities. They reported that autistic employees earned an average of $8.10 per hour, lower than their peers with learning disabilities by 28%, emotional disturbances by 32%, and speech and language delays by 33%. Migliore and Zalewska (2012) observed that 42% of autistic employees earned less than the federal minimum wage. In a related study, Migliore et al. (2012) posited post-secondary education was among the most significant predictors of better earnings for autistic individuals. Despite this finding, Whittenburg et al. (2019) outlined that at an average of $10.40 per hour for college-educated autistic adults, albeit higher than the range of $8.65 to $8.88 per hour for less-educated autistic employees, the 17 rate was still not enough to lift them above the poverty line. While college improves outcomes for autistic adults, significant barriers remain across various aspects of their employment. Evolution of Employment Support Historically poor employment outcomes for college-educated individuals are driving current efforts with mixed results. Some initiatives require internal organizational support, while others involve external entities in collaboration with the organizations employing autistic individuals. All initiatives, however, require managers’ direct or indirect input and participation. Vocational Rehabilitation Vocational Rehabilitation (VR), a well-known, state and federally-funded program that supports people with disabilities to prepare and engage in competitive employment, contributes mixed employment results for autistic individuals. VR participation positively correlates to securing jobs for many autistic employees, particularly when they access specific aspects of the program (Burgess & Cimera, 2016; Ditchman et al., 2018; Kaya et al., 2016; Kaya et al., 2018; Rast et al., 2020). Job readiness training, on-the-job supports and training, job placement, and vocational counseling are elements that lead to the most positive outcomes for autistic employees (Ditchman et al., 2018; Kaya et al., 2016; Kaya et al., 2018). Building on research that college attendance improves employment outcomes for autistic adults (Migliore et al., 2012; Whittenburg et al., 2019), Rast et al. (2020) examined VR records of 12,073 young autistic adults to assess how VR contributes to college supports. While the authors highlighted autistic adults received less VR training in college than other disabilities (18% compared to 32% respectively), those who did receive training while in college were more likely to receive a job upon exiting their VR program. Autistic employees have experienced success with VR support spanning across a wide spectrum of contexts and settings. 18 Despite the success autistic individuals have with VR, widespread criticisms and weaknesses exist. Negative results include, but are not limited to, the large variability in services across states as well as results that do not yield significant improvements in wages, hours worked, types of jobs worked, and overall employment rate (Alverson & Yamamoto, 2018; Roux et al., 2013; Roux et al., 2015). Alverson and Yamamoto (2018) demonstrated that the highest rate of autistic adults utilizing VR and becoming employed was 42.3% in the year 2007. Roux et al. (2013) documented a higher rate, at 60%, but acknowledged that most adults who receive VR services and work are still living below the poverty line. Additionally, Roux et al. (2015) theorized that some states perform better in their success with job placement while others have a significant lack of funds and must prioritize who receives VR services despite being eligible. VR can provide a plethora of support for autistic individuals seeking employment, but the results are inconsistent depending on the location and types of services sought by the individual. Job Coaching As with VR services, job coaching provides an additive component to employment support for autistic employees. DiFrancesco et al. (2021) explained job coaching as supporting the searching, attainment, and retention of a job for a person with a disability like autism. Job coaches often serve as an intermediary between the autistic employee and the employer. Both autistic employees and their managers report satisfaction with the services job coaches can provide within organizations (Black et al., 2020; Di Francesco et al., 2021; Martin et al., 2022; Nicholas et al., 2018). Di Francesco et al. surveyed nine employee-manager-job coach triads and reported 100% of the employees and managers would recommend job coaching services to others. More than half of the managers in the study reported they likely would not have hired the autistic employee without the job coaching support. Only 11% of the managers reported they 19 would have been capable to hire and integrate the autistic employee without job coaching support. Martin et al. (2022) builds upon this research and suggests job coaches are key facilitators between employees and managers at every juncture of employment. Job coaches play an integral role in connecting organizations and their autistic employees. Despite the satisfaction levels among both employees and employers towards job coaching, drawbacks exist. Two salient drawbacks in the literature include job coaches reporting not receiving adequate levels of training as well the notion that organizations are too reliant on job coaches (Kim, 2022; Nicholas et al., 2019; Towery et al., 2014). For example, Kim (2022) published that job coaches were unsure what training resources were available and where to access them. The author further reported that job coaches need more support from the organization and leaders themselves to embrace autism awareness and build capacity for natural support. Nicholas et al. (2019) highlighted that some employers would only hire a person with autism if they had special funding and someone such as a job coach to supervise them. Coleman and Adams (2018) recommend peer mentors partially replace job coaches to address these concerns. They further argue that mentors are already present at work, know the environment and job requirements, and do not have to waste time driving to visit clients. Mentorship has robust support in the literature among other populations such as women and people of color (Durbin et al., 2020; Chow, 2021), but this model is not as prevalent as job coaches in the autism community. While job coaches offer a promising avenue for employment and retention of autistic employees, the coaches’ training deficits and impacts on employer capacity building complicate this type of employment support. Established Accommodations Workplace accommodations provide opportunities for autistic employees to access their 20 jobs in ways that suit their needs. Additionally, accommodations are useful for autistic employees to be more productive and allow them to succeed within their organization (Rashid et al., 2018; Seagraves, 2021; Tomczak, 2022). Rashid et al. (2018) explained accommodations exist in many forms and relieve stress and challenges for autistic employees. The Job Accommodation Network (n.d.), a service of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Disability Employment Policy, defines accommodations as an opportunity for a qualified employee to enjoy equal opportunity through modification or adjustment to a job or work environment. These changes can include job restructuring, modifying work equipment, changing tests or training materials, or job reassignment. Tomczak (2022) highlighted a variety of effective accommodations used in organizations to support autistic employees. Using non-verbal communication such as online forums or email, following verbal instructions with written forms including charts, tables, and visual schedules to enhance understanding, and offering to-do lists, shared calendars, headphones, and relaxation rooms mitigate challenges with executive functioning, sensory needs, and communication. Accommodations create a workplace and environment that sets employees up for success. Despite the successful identification of accommodations and employment policies dictating their use, access barriers exist within the workplace for autistic employees. Employees face a combination of challenges when determining whether to ask for accommodations. Some challenges include organizational hesitancy around the perception of extra costs and fear of other employees seeing accommodations as unfair treatment, as well as employee hesitancy to disclose a diagnosis in order to access accommodations for fear of discrimination (Baldwin et al., 2014; Bezyak et al., 2021; Johnson & Joshi, 2014; Maroto & Pettinicchio, 2015; Ohl et al., 2017; Patton, 2019). Baldwin et al. (2014) showed that 72% of their 130 autistic participants were not 21 receiving accommodations at work. Ohl et al. (2017) published similar results. Scott et al. (2017) exhibited that despite organizational concerns about external costs associated with employing autistic employees, they did not incur costs above those associated with any new employee. Accommodations are often free or no more than $500 (Job Accommodation Network, n.d.). Additionally, accommodations are usually implemented through Human Resources (HR) yet a minority group that is largely missing from HR literature is the autism population (Johnson et al., 2020). Thus, not only are there barriers in perceptions and hesitancy, which restrict autistic employees from accessing accommodations, but the professionals tasked with implementing accommodations lack awareness and training about autism. Initiatives Select organizations have taken note of both the high underrepresentation rate of autistic employees and the benefits they bring to the workplace. They have created hiring programs, collectives, and cohorts of like-minded organizations to meet goals around improving the employability of autistic individuals (Austin & Pisano, 2017; Haskins, 2019; Microsoft News Center, 2022; Scheiner, 2020). One such program, the Neurodiversity @ Work Employer Roundtable, currently consists of approximately 60 organizations that aim to decrease job barriers and increase neurodiversity hiring (Disability:In, n.d.; Microsoft News Center, 2022). Austin and Pisano (2017) described this new practice as organizations teaming up with social partners such as Vocational Rehabilitation (VR), using non-traditional or non-interview methods to assess candidates, providing training for colleagues and managers, and setting up an ecosystem of support around the employee. Whelplay and May (2022) substantiated these organizations’ practices in their research. They suggested that increasing manager training and acceptance, and adapting interviews, such as deprioritizing eye contact or other social intricacies, 22 can make the strengths of the autistic candidates more on par with neurotypical candidates. These organizations have set goals and gained positive media coverage for their endeavors toward inclusivity thus far. Prior to employers expanding their focus to include neurodiversity as part of targeted diversity programs, organizations came together to create autism-at-work programs. These organizations aimed to address employment issues associated with autistic individuals (Che, 2016). In her 2019 doctoral research, Haskins (2019) examined organizations implementing autism-at-work programs to identify effective practices that contribute to improved employment outcomes for individuals on the autism spectrum. Using semi-structured interviews, Haskins found that managers of autistic employees played a pivotal role in shaping these outcomes. The findings demonstrate that managing autistic employees not only enhances the leadership capabilities of these managers but also underscores their commitment to fostering equity among team members. Whether or not managers had prior experience with autism, they recognized the value and potential of their autistic employees and actively supported the strategies within the autism employment programs. These programs have shown promising results, addressing gaps that traditional programs, such as vocational rehabilitation (VR) or job coaching, often cannot. While new initiatives within the last decade show promise, they are not influencing widespread changes across organizations. Such programs with intentional inclusive employment practices and hiring goals remain the minority (Dreaver, 2020). Of the participating members of the Neurodiversity @ Work Employer Roundtable, it is estimated they have only filled a collective 1,000 positions since their inception in 2017 (Bernick, 2022). Austin and Pisano (2017) stated while neurodiverse talent brings a multitude of benefits, the work of managers will 23 be harder, not only from a day-to-day managerial perspective, but also due to the implementation of alternative hiring practices, which can take up to two-to-six weeks to evaluate candidates. Scheiner (2020) reported that these organizations’ aim to collaborate with social partners may be more complicated than originally thought because many autistic individuals, especially those who are college-educated, do not register with VR. Nonregistration means many of the most eligible candidates are not identified. Scheiner further documented one organization’s highly publicized 2013 goal was to have autistic employees make up 1% of their organization by 2020. They hired 160 out of the intended 700 individuals by January 1, 2020. Despite the small-scale success and emerging promising practices within select organizations, the underrepresentation of autistic individuals within organizations persists and further attention to this topic is warranted. Gap Analysis Theoretical Framework Due to the significance and pervasiveness of underrepresentation of college-educated autistic individuals in the workplace, paired with the lack of widespread success of past and present employment supports, this study focused on workplace managers as readily available change agents. Clark and Estes (2008) described the keys to success in a new world economy as the increase of knowledge, skills, and motivation, and focusing them on the goals of the organization. Specifically, the gap analysis framework from Clark and Estes can guide the examination of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps (KMO) that exist among managers. The authors further explained that performance issues exist when an individual does not know how to do something or understand the purpose of the task, they lack confidence in their ability to complete a task, or the organization lacks policies, procedures, or material resources. The following sections are comprised of the documented gaps in manager knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences to support an autistic employee. Specifically, the 24 sections examine managers’ lack of understanding of autism and how to implement individualized supports, existing stigma and bias, and the perceived impact autistic employees have on the organizations, cultural components, current training and resources, and leadership approaches. Knowledge Gaps The first component of the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework is knowledge. Krathwohl (2002) explained knowledge as a four-dimension taxonomy comprised of factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive components. Factual, or declarative, knowledge is the basic terminology, details, and elements that one must possess to be acquainted with a subject. Procedural knowledge makes up the interrelationships among basic concepts such as categories, theories, generalizations, models, and classifications. Procedural knowledge is understanding how to do something and when to use specific procedures. Metacognitive knowledge, or selfknowledge, is the understanding of cognition and awareness of one’s own cognition (Krathwohl, 2002). This study focuses on declarative and procedural knowledge. Declarative Knowledge Organizational managers lack declarative knowledge about autism. This lack of basic understanding contributes to autistic employees’ underrepresentation and negative work outcomes (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Austin & Pisano, 2017; Baldwin et al., 2014; Black et al., 2020; Hedley et al., 2018; Kim, 2022; Lopez & Keenan, 2014; Whelpley et al., 2021). Kim (2022) studied perspectives of job coaches working with autistic employees. The job coaches reported one of the hardest parts of their jobs was managing the lack of knowledge about autism from both managers and neurotypical employees. Lopez and Keenan (2014) surveyed 46 autistic employees and 78.5% reported their manager’s lack of understanding and failure to make 25 reasonable accommodations were the biggest barriers to their employment. Hedley et al. (2018) led focus groups with nine autistic employees enrolled in a three-year training program, their family members, support staff, and colleagues. The authors posited that better understanding of autism and positive attitudes towards the disability within the work groups led to more successful employment outcomes for the autistic employees. Understanding the fundamentals of autism is essential for managers to support autistic employees at work. Manager attitudes and bias play a significant role in the employment outcomes of their autistic direct reports. Managers’ bias-driven failure to hire, promote, and retain autistic employees, and underestimation of capabilities, are main external factors contributing to the underrepresentation of autistic employees at work (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Austin & Pisano, 2017; Bezyak et al., 2021; Black et al., 2020; Gerhardt et al., 2014; Johnson & Joshi, 2014; Ju et al., 2013; Maroto & Pettinicchino, 2015; Whelpley & May, 2022). Black et al. (2020) conducted a multi-informant, international survey of 246 autistic employees and their families, service providers, employers, and researchers in the field of autism. The autistic employees reported stigma is the biggest challenge they face when finding work. Johnson and Joshi (2014) discussed how this stigma and bias against autism contributes to a reluctance from autistic employees to disclose their disability. Nondisclosure has significant consequences for the employee because it restricts their ability to receive helpful job accommodations. Maroto and Pettinicchino (2015) further posit that this bias is both explicit and implicit and poses significant barriers for autistic employees. Procedural Knowledge Building on the gap of manager declarative knowledge of autism, and often resulting from this gap, many managers do not know how to successfully support autistic employees. This 26 gap of procedural knowledge impacts implementing accommodations, adjusting the environment, communicating effectively, and realistic expectations of the employees’ performance (Austin & Pisano, 2017; Deiner et al., 2020; Lopez & Keenan, 2014; Nicholas et al., 2019; Remington & Pellicano, 2019; Wong et al., 2021). Deiner et al. (2020) conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 autistic employees and 10 managers. They noted that managers did not know how to communicate and interact with their autistic employees effectively. This lack of procedural knowledge led to manager avoidant behavior towards their autistic employees. Other managers focused solely on adjusting the physical environment such as reducing noise and changing lighting, but not on reducing social demands or adjusting communication. Managers admitted to assuming accommodations were one-time events rather than ongoing assistance, which restricted the support their autistic employees need. Unrealistic or inaccurate expectations resulted in either giving work that was too advanced or infantilizing the employees (Deiner et al., 2020). Guidance and direction on how to work with autistic employees within most organizations is not readily available. Wong et al. (2021) suggested there is a lack of sustainable strategies and manager models that address issues such as the retention of autistic employees. Bowman (2020) also acknowledged a lack of general research about how managers can help autistic employees and suggested managers consider providing clear communication (e.g., direct instructions, checking for understanding, etc.), learning about autism, individualizing job functions, and creating an accepting and inclusive work environment. Austin and Pisano (2017) discussed the consequences of stress, anxiety, and lower productivity for autistic employees when their managers do not know how to implement environmental adjustments to their workplaces. Nicholas et al. (2019) further proposed that managers need to progress from 27 awareness to acceptance and action but, without knowing how to act or provide support, this transition remains challenging. Motivation Gaps The second component of the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework is motivation. Clark and Estes suggest that while knowledge informs individuals about how to do something, motivation gets individuals moving, keeps them moving, and dictates how much effort to exert. The authors believed cultural stereotypes impact one’s motivation to perform, which has implications for managers and their hiring of autistic employees. Concepts within motivation include self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982), expectancy-value (Atkinson, 1964), and goal orientation (Dweck, 1986). Self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982) refers to one’s belief in their ability to successfully complete a task. Expectancy-value (Atkinson, 1964) refers to one’s assumption about whether they can do a task (expectancy) and want to do a task (value). Goal orientation (Dweck, 1986) refers to how and why individuals strive to accomplish tasks, such as for mastery or performance purposes. This study focuses on self-efficacy and expectancy-value. Self-Efficacy Self-efficacy explains how effective managers feel they would be at supporting an autistic employee at work. Though not an absolute, a higher level of self-efficacy is often correlated to higher motivation (Bandura, 1982). This concept can apply to managers’ level of self-efficacy to supervise an autistic employee and thus their subsequent motivation to hire them. Nicholas et al. (2019) observed only 30.6% of the 36 managers surveyed felt confident in their ability to interview and hire an autistic individual. Self-efficacy is negatively impacted when declarative and procedural knowledge around supporting an autistic employee is low among managers (Austin & Pisano, 2017; Deiner et al., 2020; Lopez & Keenan, 2014; Nicholas et al., 28 2019; Remington & Pellicano, 2019; Wong et al., 2021). The employment of autistic individuals hinges closely on the self-efficacy of their managers. Manager self-efficacy and attitudes are malleable. For example, both managerial selfefficacy and attitudes can increase once given the opportunity to hire and train autistic employees (Ju et al., 2013; Nardick, 2019; Nicholas et al., 2019; Rashid et al., 2017; Scott et al., 2017). These authors also reported that when managers could support autistic employees, they saw high levels of productivity, engagement, and dependability, and low levels of absenteeism and turnover among these employees. This prior positive experience confronts misconceptions and bias of the unknown (Ju et al., 2013). This experience may also mitigate concerns or fear of failure, which are connected to levels of motivation and avoidance (Henry et al., 2021). Employing an autistic individual, gaining subsequent self-efficacy to successfully support them, and seeing positive outcomes and overall value as a result is gaining more visibility in the employment literature. Expectancy-Value Expectancy-value plays a key role in managers’ willingness to hire and invest in autistic employees. One source of value is utility value, meaning one will be motivated if they see an activity or task has value for them either now or in the future (Eccles et al., 1983). Research demonstrates managers believe hiring autistic employees will result in added work for them and negative consequences for their organization (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Austin & Pisano, 2017; Bezyak et al., 2021; Hedley et al., 2018; Ju et al., 2013; Solomon, 2020). Bezyak et al. (2021) studied leaders’ attitudes toward autistic employees. They highlighted negative attitudes towards people with disabilities such as autism were related to both a reluctance to hire them and less effort and commitment to recruiting them. Austin and Pisano (2017) suggested a similar concept 29 that a manager’s relationship with an autistic employee and their willingness to hire them is influenced by beliefs that autistic employees will create more work for managers. This assumption that autistic employees require more employer effort and motivation than they are worth severely limits their opportunities for employment. Managers make negative assumptions about autistic individuals at work. Specifically, managers assume autistic employees would cause them more work and complications for the organizations (Bezyak et al., 2021; Hedley et al., 2018; Ju et al., 2013; Solomon, 2020). One common concern of managers is that autistic employees incur more costs through supervision and accommodations (Bezyak et al., 2021; Solomon, 2020). Other concerns center around whether their social and interactional skills challenges will be problematic for the organization (Hedley et al., 2018; Ju et al., 2013). Worries of productivity, safety, attendance, punctuality, appearance (Ju et al., 2013), time they will take to learn new tasks, and how colleagues will feel about working with someone who is autistic (Bezyak et al., 2021) contribute to overall skepticism towards the value autistic employees bring. These assumptions and biases also call into question levels of psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999; O’Donovan & McAuliffe, 2020) and sense of belonging (Waller, 2020) for autistic employees. These attitudes, mostly from managers who have not employed an autistic employee before, put autistic employees at a significant employment deficit. Organizational Gaps The third component of the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework consists of organizational influences. That is, a cause in performance gaps can be attributed to a lack of effective and efficient processes and material resources (Clark & Estes, 2008). Organizational influences may include cultural settings and models (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001), training, 30 resources, communication, and leadership. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) described a cultural setting as a situation that involves two or more individuals that come together to accomplish a task. This setting manifests as a visible and observable representation of culture. The authors outlined a cultural model as an invisible, unconscious, shared understanding of how the world works or ought to work. A model can include values, beliefs, and attitudes. This study focuses on cultural models and settings, training, and leadership. Cultural Models and Settings The explicit artifacts and implicit cultural values of an organization greatly influence employee representation. Negative attitudes and beliefs about autism are pervasive within the workforce and impact employment outcomes for autistic individuals (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Bezyak et al., 2021; Black et al., 2020; Gerhardt et al., 2014; Ju et al., 2013; Maroto & Pettinicchio, 2015). Anderson et al. (2021) interviewed 12 autistic adults and 28 parents on aspirations and obstacles of employment. The authors reported employment limitations for autistic individuals often connect to larger systems and external factors beyond the individual, such as prejudice and organizational inflexibility. One interviewee stated a store manager’s response to his request for a job was, “We do not just hire for little niches” (Anderson et al., 2021, p. 96). Deiner et al. (2020) posit that cultural belief systems, that is, the cultural models, about autism need be changed through coaching of employers about autism. The authors theorize this could impact the entire macrosystem at work. Cultural models around autism can have a marked impact on cultural settings within organizations. Policies and practices about autism hiring and overall inclusion are closely tied back to the values and beliefs of the managers and leaders (Anderson et al., 2021; AratenBergman, 2016; Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2018; Gould et al., 2015; 31 Maroto & Pettinicchino, 2015). Gould et al. (2015) suggest attitudes about autism influence organizational culture and policies and can facilitate or hinder the inclusion of autistic individuals. Araten-Bergman (2016) states that while managers might express intentions to hire a person with a disability, that does not necessarily result in them following through on that intention. That is, documented diversity hiring initiatives and goals, and values aligned with inclusivity, are more predictive of hiring a person with a disability than words alone. Furthermore, Maroto and Pettinicchino (2015) pointed out that policies such as Title VII have flaws, but they have helped reduce organizational sex and race discrimination. The authors suggested anti-discrimination policies regarding disabilities. However, there are more considerable hurdles when it comes to changing attitudes about people with disabilities. For example, inequality researchers often omit disability status as an option for stratification and instead, focus on race, class, and gender. Cultural models and settings are influenced by people and if bias and discrimination exist within the organizations, they are often reflected in the culture. Training Employee training plays a substantial role in onboarding employees and ongoing professional development. The addition of mandatory trainings for topics such as sexual harassment and diversity within organizations are firmly established but there is still a dearth of empirically validated diversity trainings that focus on disability (Phillips et al., 2016). The literature is clear that there is a gap in knowledge about autism that training could help fill (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Austin & Pisano, 2017; Baldwin et al., 2014; Black et al., 2020; Hedley et al., 2018; Kim, 2022; Lopez & Keenan, 2014). Kim et al. (2022) further recommend that an increase in knowledge about autism and interactions with autistic individuals is needed, 32 especially to address bias and intolerance towards autistic individuals. Despite the ongoing gap in organizational training to elevate managers’ knowledge and capacity to support autistic employees, promising ideas exist. Tomczak (2022) proposed trainings focusing on promoting inclusion, tolerance, and awareness can impact positive cultural change. The author predicted such training can foster positive changes in neurotypical employees’ attitudes and they can therefore influence the dynamics at the organization. Training efforts focusing on bias have emerged in recent years (Cox & Devine, 2019; Jones et al., 2021). Jones et al. (2021) surveyed 238 non-autistic individuals who completed autism acceptance training. While they reported more positive impressions of autistic people, higher expectations of their abilities, lower levels of stigma, and lower rates of misconceptions than the control group, their implicit bias remained unchanged. Cox and Devine (2019), however, documented promising results across several randomized-controlled studies with their prejudice habitbreaking intervention. They liken unintentional bias to a bad habit and demonstrate how awareness, concern, and motivation to address vulnerability to these biases over time can result in positive, long-standing effects. Training, despite needing more focus and attention within the autism space, has promising beginnings. Leadership Leaders have the ability to significantly impact an employee’s overall work experience. Buckingham and Coffman (1999) suggested managers are some of the most influential facilitators of an employee’s longevity, performance, and workplace satisfaction. While much research exists on management and leadership theories, the application of these theories to supporting autistic employees is minimal (Bowman, 2020; Hurley-Hanson et al., 2020). Randel et al. (2018) offered the leadership approach of inclusive leadership, which emphasizes the 33 importance and value of organizational diversity, such as neurodiversity, as a promising framework. The authors described inclusive leadership as a set of behaviors that support an employee’s feelings of belonging through support and fair decision-making and emphasizing their uniqueness at the organization. Parr and Hunter (2014) examined established leadership theories, such as transformational and authentic leadership, in the context of managers supervising autistic employees. The authors suggested authentic leadership, which is tied to honesty, respect, and individualization of the job, correlated with higher job satisfaction and lower intentions to leave the organization from autistic employees. Additionally, the authors reported mixed results from transformational leadership, which ties to encouraging employees to change, grow, and innovate. This approach led to increased anxiety and negative work outcomes for some autistic employees, whereas others saw decreased anxiety and positive work outcomes. While there does not appear to be one superior leadership approach that suits the needs of all autistic employees, the literature suggests leadership has an impact on employee attitude and performance (Parr & Hunter, 2014). While one superior, universal leadership theory to support autism in the workplace is not identified, this topic is garnering attention. Specific helpful aspects of the manager-employee relationship are starting to emerge in the literature (Bowman, 2020; Frazier et al., 2017; Martin et al., 2022; Parr & Hunter, 2014). Martin et al. (2022) wrote nine case histories from interviews with autistic employees, their managers, and job coaches. They proposed the relationship quality between the manager and employee facilitated both the employment outcomes and socialization of the autistic employee. Job coaches facilitated a mutual understanding between the managers and autistic employees, thus playing an active role in hiring, onboarding, training, and other aspects of employment. Bowman (2020) ties four key behaviors of managers to success in 34 supervising autistic employees. These behaviors include facilitating a culture of acceptance for neurodiversity, possessing or willingness to pursue knowledge about autism, individualizing work to suit needs and abilities, and demonstrating clear and direct communication. The author highlighted individual behaviors and reinforces Parr and Hunter’s (2014) conclusions about the limitations of a single leadership theory. Bowman posits that transformational leadership’s focus on social and communication skills, paired with emotional motivation are inappropriate due to many autistic individuals’ challenges in these areas. While more research on leadership approaches when managing autistic individuals is needed, specific manager behaviors and relationship quality levels show promising indicators of success. Conceptual Framework Theoretical and conceptual frameworks, though related, provide necessary and unique foundations for research. Grant and Osanloo (2014) explain a theoretical framework as a starting place from which to construct knowledge derived from existing theory and serves to structure the purpose of a study, the problem, significance, and research questions. The authors liken a theoretical framework to a “blueprint” for a study. Grant and Osanloo explain a conceptual framework as to how the research problem can be explored and the relationship among the variables in the study. Miles and Huberman (1994) similarly explain how the conceptual framework is a system of concepts, assumptions, and beliefs that support the study and highlight relationships among the constructs. This study used the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework as the foundational theory. This theory states how performance issues are attributed to gaps in one’s knowledge, motivation, or surrounding organizational influences. The gap analysis framework applies to the problem of the underrepresentation of college-educated autistic individuals in the workplace by 35 examining gaps managers possess to successfully support autistic employees. More specifically, the literature suggests much of this underrepresentation can be attributed to gaps in manager knowledge, motivation, and the organizational influences in which they operate. Several interconnected core concepts make up this study’s conceptual framework. The concept of knowledge includes both declarative and procedural knowledge. Regarding declarative knowledge, managers lack a basic understanding of autism, including the stereotypic skill and behavioral challenges, which impact their ability to support autistic employees (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Austin & Pisano, 2017; Baldwin et al., 2014; Black et al., 2020; Hedley et al., 2018; Kim, 2022; Lopez & Keenan, 2014; Whelpley et al., 2021). Furthermore, this lack of knowledge drives manager bias that negatively impacts their hiring and support for autistic individuals (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Austin & Pisano, 2017; Bezyak et al., 2021; Black et al., 2020; Gerhardt et al., 2014; Johnson & Joshi, 2014; Ju et al., 2013; Maroto & Pettinicchino, 2015). Procedural knowledge contributes to the manager’s ability to know how to support an autistic employee. Specifically, managers do not know how to implement accommodations, adjust the environment, communicate effectively with autistic employees, or what realistic expectations to work from (Austin & Pisano, 2017; Deiner et al., 2020; Lopez & Keenan, 2014; Nicholas et al., 2019; Remington & Pellicano, 2019; Wong et al., 2021). This gap in declarative and procedural knowledge is a foundational contributor to the problem of underrepresentation of college-educated autistic individuals at work. The concept of motivation is broken down into self-efficacy and expectancy-value. Regarding self-efficacy, managers are not confident in their ability to successfully support autistic employees at work (Austin & Pisano, 2017; Deiner et al., 2020; Lopez & Keenan, 2014; Nicholas et al., 2019; Remington & Pellicano, 2019; Wong et al., 2021). Their lack of 36 confidence negatively impacts their hiring of autistic employees. When they do employ an autistic employee, however, their overall attitude and confidence increase (Ju et al., 2013; Nardick, 2019; Nicholas et al., 2019; Rashid et al., 2017; Scott et al., 2017). Regarding expectancy-value, this study focuses explicitly on utility value, that is, whether hiring an autistic individual would be of value to the organization. Managers feel having an autistic employee would be additional work for them by way of extra costs, time spent on training, and perceived negative reactions among other colleagues (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Austin & Pisano, 2017; Bezyak et al., 2021; Hedley et al., 2018; Ju et al., 2013; Solomon, 2020). These impacts on manager motivation are external factors, outside the control of autistic individuals, and reduce their employment prospects significantly. The concept of organizational influences consists of cultural models and settings, training, and leadership approaches. Regarding cultural models and settings, these overt and covert concepts set the stage for the level of organizational inclusivity. Negative attitudes towards people with autism shape harmful cultural models within the workplace (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Bezyak et al., 2021; Black et al., 2020; Gerhardt et al., 2014; Ju et al., 2013; Maroto & Pettinicchio, 2015). These attitudes drive cultural settings and, specifically, the lack of policies or procedures to support autism and reduce discrimination (Anderson et al., 2021; Araten-Bergman, 2016; Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2018; Gould et al., 2015; Maroto & Pettinicchino, 2015). From a training perspective, though some promising training approaches exist, the lack of empirically supported training programs within organizations contributes to the gap in manager knowledge and awareness about autism (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Austin & Pisano, 2017; Baldwin et al., 2014; Black et al., 2020; Hedley et al., 2018; Kim, 2022; Lopez & Keenan, 2014). While much is known about leadership in general, 37 one specific leadership model that works best for managing autistic employees has not been identified in the research (Bowman, 2020; Hurley-Hanson et al., 2020). Instead, the literature suggests managers embrace a collection of individual behaviors such as clear communication and facilitation of an inclusive workplace (Bowman, 2020). Organizational influences lay the groundwork for the level of inclusivity both an organization and its employees demonstrate. Figure 1 illustrates how each of the aforementioned concepts relates to one another. Manager self-efficacy is closely related to their knowledge and understanding of autism. Without this knowledge, managers are not confident in their abilities to support an autistic employee. Without a culture of inclusivity, it is unlikely that training and acquisition of knowledge, and the subsequent feelings of self-efficacy, will be fostered or pursued. Without knowledge of the underrepresentation of autism at work and the motivation to address this underrepresentation, it is unlikely that cultural settings to address bias and discrimination will be created. Each of these concepts hinge on each other to positively impact the problem of the underrepresentation of college-educated autistic employees at work. 38 Figure 1 Conceptual Framework of How Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences Interact in the Role of a Manager Summary This literature review highlights the status of and contributing factors to employment barriers for college-educated autistic individuals. Internal factors within autistic individuals themselves, such as social communication and behavioral challenges are first highlighted. This section reinforces these internal factors as the historical contributing influences to employment barriers. Unemployment, underemployment, lack of job longevity, and low wages make up the section expanding on the current negative employment outcomes autistic individuals face. Vocational rehabilitation, job coaching, provision of workplace accommodations, and recent autism hiring initiatives exist to make a positive impact on employment outcomes, and each has mixed results in the literature. The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework forms the 39 basis for the study and serves as the theoretical framework. The conceptual framework expands this theoretical framework and highlights the relationships among the concepts. Specifically, manager gaps in declarative and procedural knowledge, self-efficacy and expectancy-value, cultural models, cultural settings, training, and established leadership approaches lay the foundation for what this research study examined. 40 Chapter Three: Methodology This chapter provides an overview of the methodology used to understand the knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers that exist for neurotypical managers to successfully support college-educated autistic individuals in the workplace. The initial section reintroduces the research questions, followed by an explanation of interviews as the main source of data. The next section discusses a rationale for studying participants across industries rather than one specific research setting. The section highlighting “The Researcher” explores my positionality, bias, and assumptions, and the plans to mitigate these issues. A discussion of the participants, instrumentation, data collection procedures, and data analysis follows. The chapter ends with an overview of strategies to promote credibility, trustworthiness, and ethics. Research Questions The three research questions that underpin the study are as follows: 1. What are the manager knowledge gaps that contribute to the underrepresentation of college-educated autistic individuals in the workplace across industries? 2. What are the manager motivational gaps that contribute to the underrepresentation of college-educated autistic individuals in the workplace across industries? 3. What organizational barriers exist that contribute to the underrepresentation of college-educated autistic individuals in the workplace across industries? Overview of Design This study used the qualitative method of semi-structured interviews to explore the gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences for managers to successfully support autistic employees at work. Semi-structured interviews provided flexibility to change the order of questions and ask follow-up questions for clarity and depth while remaining focused on 41 gathering information on the same concepts across all participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). A qualitative approach lends itself to this study more so than a quantitative approach because it allowed for deeper exploration into the participants’ meaning making and why they feel a certain way about this topic and the potential gaps that exist for them (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). The study explored the gaps, what the gaps mean, and why they exist to better drive associated recommendations. Table 1 Data Sources Research questions Method RQ1: What are the manager knowledge gaps that contribute to the underrepresentation of collegeeducated autistic individuals in the workplace across industries? Interview RQ2: What are the manager motivational gaps that contribute to the underrepresentation of collegeeducated autistic individuals in the workplace across industries? Interview RQ3: What organizational barriers exist that contribute to the underrepresentation of college-educated autistic individuals in the workplace across industries? Interview 42 Research Setting Rather than taking place within a specific organization or setting, this study examined perspectives from managers across various organizations and industries. The underrepresentation of autistic individuals pervades across most work settings. Thus, maximum variation and a rich, thick description from participants promote transferability and potential for readers to make connections to and implement recommendations within their own settings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). To assess gaps for managers, participants were specifically untrained about autism and without prior experience supporting autistic employees. However, they had experience as managers. This attribute combination provided insights into how their levels of knowledge and motivation differed when considering an autistic employee as compared to a non-autistic employee and the meaning they ascribed to that difference. The Researcher A significant consideration regarding my positionality and power is that I hold many years of autism experience and interviewed people who, by design, did not have training or experience supervising autistic employees. Creswell and Creswell (2017) considered power imbalances such as this example as a potential ethical issue. While the criterion of participants not having autism experience allowed me to learn about and understand their experiences, this may have caused the participants feelings of intimidation and defensiveness. These feelings could have subsequently led to a reluctance to share to avoid what might be significant gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). I planned to implement strategies to mitigate bias or issues stemming from power imbalances. I reiterated several times, prior to and during the interview, that there are no right or wrong answers to help participants feel more at ease. Allowing the participants to review the 43 transcript, as needed, to ensure it reflects their intent, ensured accuracy and reduced my misinterpretation. Additionally, reminders of the confidentiality of the interview recording and the data collected from the discussions may have promoted more honest responses (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). Minimizing “why” questions may have both avoided responses that do not lead to substantive answers and helped reduce defensiveness (Patton, 2015). Lastly, I was mindful of attire worn during the interview. For example, if the participant worked in an industry that dictates casual clothes as opposed to a suit, I mimicked the typical dress code to be more approachable and avoid appearing intimidating or overly professional (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Another potential impact to the study related to my role is bias against the participants due to a presumed lack of interest in supporting autistic employees. I have dedicated my career to supporting autistic individuals and with the literature demonstrating a pervasive lack of manager motivation to support autistic employees at work (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Austin & Pisano, 2017; Bezyak et al., 2021; Hedley et al., 2018; Ju et al., 2013; Solomon, 2020), this assumption is important to confront. I continued to remind not only the participants but also myself about the purpose of the study. That is, to learn more about manager gaps to better understand why they exist as opposed to conducting advocacy work. As a fellow neurotypical manager, I practiced understanding and compassion for the participants lacking skills to support a population that was unfamiliar to them. I also practiced gratitude for the participants’ willingness to further this research as it aims to address this underrepresentation problem. These actions, paired with continued reflexivity and introspection about my own feelings, helped to mitigate bias against study participants (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). 44 Data Sources The primary method for data collection was through interviews with all participants. This source allowed for information gathering while participants could not be observed (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). Participants could also provide historical information, their perceptions, and reasons for their levels of knowledge and motivation to support autistic employees, and the deeper meaning behind their responses. Method: Interviews A semi-structured interview format guided this study. The following sections describe the participants, the instrumentation, the data collection procedures, and data analysis to further illustrate the study’s methodology. Sample and Population The target population for this interview project included managers who had been supervising employees for at least 5 years and currently supervise at least five direct reports. Participants had neither prior experience supervising autistic employees nor formal training on how to support an autistic employee at work. Participants did not have any close autistic family members. These criteria were appropriate for the study focus because not only did they support the discovery of manager capacity and gaps to successfully support an autistic employee, but they also reflect a significant portion of the manager population (Austin & Pisano, 2017; Deiner et al., 2020; Lopez & Keenan, 2014; Nicholas et al., 2019; Remington & Pellicano, 2019; Wong et al., 2021). This dynamic of general managerial experience but without exposure to autism provided insights into a common workplace phenomenon. The study used purposeful sampling for participant recruitment. A maximum variation sampling procedure allowed for the widest possible range of manager characteristics within the 45 selection criteria (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). This approach increases transferability to various workplaces (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Participant recruitment took place through a combination of inquiries from my diverse LinkedIn contacts and my large network of manager contacts across industries throughout the United States. My employer has partnerships with hundreds of organizations, large and small, and many without recognized or notable inclusive practices and cultures. Leveraging these contacts to request participation yielded a diverse group of managers across genders, ethnicities, industries, organization sizes, and geographic locations. This diversity aimed to provide a deeper understanding of manager gaps from different perspectives and vantage points while still suggesting possible themes and commonalities. Instrumentation A semi-structured interview protocol, or interview guide, directed the questions asked of each participant in a flexible way while still ensuring the participants responded to the same general concepts (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The guide, located in Appendix A, consists of 14 questions; one serves as an introduction and ice breaker, one closes out the interview, and 12 core questions tie directly back to the conceptual framework and research questions. The 12 questions make up three distinct sections, each with four questions corresponding to Clark and Estes’ (2008) respective knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences concepts. The interview guide consists of various open-ended question types to elicit helpful and descriptive information best. For example, devil’s advocate, ideal position, hypothetical, and interpretive questions assessed the participants’ opinions, experiences, behaviors, feelings, and knowledge about autistic employees (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Strauss et al., 1981). Probe questions were included with each of the core questions to facilitate deeper exploration into 46 participants’ answers as needed. Data Collection Participant interviews took place synchronously in my private, USC Zoom account over the course of approximately 1.5 months. Utilizing Zoom recording technology enabled me to capture the audio transcript while focusing full attention on both the participant and writing short, salient notes on key points. Recordings were deleted upon downloading transcripts for maximum security. Interviews took approximately 60 minutes to complete. I conducted the interviews remotely, from a home office, and away from others for privacy purposes. Utilizing video conferencing technology such as Zoom allowed participants to answer questions in a private and comfortable location of their choosing. Zoom also greatly increased the availability of participants by eliminating geographical barriers (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). I reiterated the confidentiality of participant responses, ensured their answers would not be shared with others, and their information would be de-identified when incorporated into the study findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). Data Analysis I analyzed the data in steps. As described in Creswell and Creswell (2017), I reviewed the transcribed and organized data to gain general meaning. Winnowing the data was important for disregarding non-relevant information and preserving the salient pieces. I used the computer software NVivo to import and code the transcripts. This coding allowed me to organize the data into themes consistent with Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework and identify relationships among them. I interpreted the themes and overall descriptions for meaning, and extracted key quotes to highlight notable thoughts, assumptions, and gaps. 47 Credibility and Trustworthiness Credibility and trustworthiness are critical components of the overall quality of a study. Lincoln and Guba (1985) refer to credibility as the extent to which qualitative data are plausible, believable, and accurate. The authors posit that trustworthiness, or rigor and confidence in the study, requires credibility, transferability (i.e., findings apply to other situations), dependability (i.e., the consistency and repeatability of the study), and confirmability (i.e., data can be tracked back to original sources). Several measures were taken, such as suggesting interviewee transcript review, a rich and descriptive data sample, saturation, maximum variation, and assessment of my reflexivity to ensure the credibility and trustworthiness of this study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Incorporating rich and descriptive data, maximum variation, and striving for saturation aimed to promote credibility and trustworthiness across various points in the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). As mentioned by Patton (2015), I selected a wide range of individuals to incorporate diversity and identify important patterns that are common across this diversity. This approach can enable more readers to relate to the findings and apply them to their own contexts. During the interviewing phase, I strived for saturation to ensure enough information to thoroughly answer the three research questions, including some discrepant or negative cases (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The findings and analysis section included direct quotes and large interview chunks as opposed to only distilled or synthesized themes. This rich and descriptive data can ensure readers can fully understand the participants’ perspectives and transfer findings to their own contexts (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). I checked in with the participants both during and after the interview process. To implement this approach during the interview, I employed my skills as a trained counselor to reiterate and reflect back what was heard to the participant. This helped ensure that what I wrote 48 after the interview was reflective of what the participant meant without interpretation or bias. Allowing participants to review the transcript after the interview for clarification and plausibility, or interviewee transcript review, served as a practice to increase the accuracy of the analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Critical self-reflection, or reflexivity, is key for responsible research practices. Reflexivity challenges a researcher’s biases, worldview, assumptions, theoretical framework, and relationship to the study topic (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Not engaging in this practice can negatively affect the study methodology as a whole. To assess reflexivity, I continuously checked in with myself, and both reflected on and documented whether participant responses touched on biases related to the problem of practice. For example, as an advocate for the autism community, I was aware of potential frustration upon hearing participants discuss not seeking training or implementing initiatives to support autistic employees at work. I was prepared for frustration to surface, especially because of the emphasis on no right or wrong answers to promote participant comfortability with sharing honest responses. Continued reminders for myself about understanding why gaps occur in managers rather than making judgments, assisted with self-reflection (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Ethics Following Rubin and Rubin’s (2012) three principles regarding research ethics with human participants, this study was respectful of the participants and did not apply pressure or harm to the participants. I did not gather any data prior to Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. Once I secured approval, I ensured participants were aware their involvement in this study was voluntary and asked their permission to record the interview and collect notes (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). I provided an Information Sheet for Exempt Research (Appendix 49 B) to the participants prior to their interviews. The sheet explicitly stated the participant was joining the study of their own volition in non-coercive language, could exit at any time, answer only the questions they desired, and my wishes to record and take data. Should the participant choose to exit, they could do so with no penalty. I verbally reiterated this information at the time of the interview (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). A significant ethical responsibility of a researcher is confidentiality of both the participant’s involvement in the study and their data (Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). I did not disclose names or key demographic information that could identify the participants. Pseudonyms distinguished among participants when describing them in the findings section. A private Zoom account housed interview transcripts with login information only known to me. I stored findings during the analysis and writing period on a personal computer with a strong password, and then deleted the findings after the study concluded. I notified the participants of these practices within the Information Sheet for Exempt Research and verbally at on the onset of the interview (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). 50 Chapter Four: Findings The aim of this study was to discover and explore the manager knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps that contribute to the underrepresentation of college-educated autistic individuals in the workplace. Both consistent themes, as well as unique responses, emerged from the participant interviews. The following sections describe the participant characteristics, their views about their organization’s commitment to inclusion, and their own perceived capacity and willingness to support employees with disabilities such as autism. The sections are organized into themes to answer the study’s research questions through the concepts of knowledge, motivation, and organization influences as described by Clark and Estes (2008). Participants Twelve managers, seven females and five males, all of whom have been supervising employees for at least 5 years, with at least five direct reports, with no formal training or knowledge of autism through workplace or family relationships, participated in interviews for this study. The minimum number of managerial experiences among the participants is 5 years, the maximum is 26 years, and the mean is 12 years. The participants represent 11 distinct work functions. The organizations vary significantly in size, with the largest employing over 200,000 individuals and the smallest employing 15 individuals. The participants represent eight states, within five different regions across the United States. The states are not linked to the participants to protect their identity. Additionally, the pronoun “they” is used occasionally instead of a pseudonym when associated with certain quotes to further protect participants’ identity. A few of the participants engaged in ableist or biased language at times, and, therefore, certain quotes were paraphrased to convey the participant’s meaning without replicating their bias. Table 2 summarizes the participants’ personal and organizational characteristics. 51 Table 2 Participant Characteristics Name Gender Years in management Work function Organization size Priya F 6 Finance 45,000 Linda F 5 Healthcare 25,000 Mai F 26 Accounting 2,000 Grant M 6 Technology 36 Bonnie F 20 Childcare 15 Randy M 15 Health/Safety 600 Mitch M 20 Entertainment 7000 Juan M 8 Technology 500 Katherine F 6 Real Estate 575 Cassandra F 13 Higher Education 200 Camille F 15 Retail 200,000 Marcus M 8 Social Media 20,000 Findings For Research Question 1: What Are the Manager Knowledge Gaps That Contribute to the Underrepresentation of College-Educated Autistic Individuals in the Workplace Across Industries? This section explores the above research question, illustrating manager declarative and procedural knowledge. The emerging themes related to manager knowledge center around their basic understanding of autism as a spectrum, assumptions about autism severity and their preferred communication styles, the usage of coaching and mentorship as a strategy to provide employee support, and the heavy reliance on Human Resources (HR) for guidance when their employees struggle. 52 Declarative Knowledge Declarative knowledge forms a foundation for managers to lead individuals successfully. This type of knowledge is the basic terminology, details, and elements that one must possess to be acquainted with a subject (Krathwohl, 2002). Due to the purposeful participation criteria, interviewed managers in this study were not expected to be well-versed on the details of autism. Rather, they are part of a large population of managers in the United States with marked gaps in training, understanding, and overall exposure to autism in the workplace (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Austin & Pisano, 2017; Baldwin et al., 2014; Black et al., 2020; Hedley et al., 2018; Kim, 2022; Lopez & Keenan, 2014; Whelpley et al., 2021). This group provided open and honest insights related to their feelings and attitudes towards prospective autistic employees, a population about whom they have limited declarative knowledge. Managers Have a Basic Understanding of Autism as a Spectrum All of the interviewed managers have both heard of autism and could offer a basic description of their perception of autism. Furthermore, most of the managers articulated autism as a spectrum or a range of abilities. They believe their perception comes mostly from places such as the news, internet, movies, and television, such as the Netflix show “Atypical.” Camille acknowledged that she had not “studied it much” but was aware autism “comes in a huge amount of different flavors.” The managers mentioned behavioral and social challenges as their main descriptors of autism. For example, Marcus explained they do not have “the normal social behaviors” and may display repetitive behaviors. Bonnie offered, “They’re not as able to focus on others. They are not as engaged with other people.” Linda shared the only engagement she has had with an autistic individual is her neighbor. She described him as not understanding subtle hints and that she needs to be very direct when she wants to end the conversation because he will 53 otherwise “kind of just stand there until he’s dismissed.” The managers were open about their overall lack of exposure and appeared very willing to attempt to describe what they knew about autism. Despite having heard of autism and knowing basic descriptors, all of the managers still possess various gaps in understanding autism. Some managers even expressed confusion and uncertainty about it. Mitch mentioned that he knows there is an extensive range of autism but feels there is a “lot of mystery about it.” Grant said his organization began to discuss concepts around neurodiversity and due to this new terminology, “it almost felt like autism was a dirty word, like you can’t say that.” He added, “Okay, like, I don’t know what to call anything basically” to convey his uncertainty with many novel words describing groups of people. One of the managers openly and honestly discussed their skepticism about autism. They offered, “I’m kind of wondering if it even exists, because it seems new to the world.” They also mentioned that their personal belief is that autism may have “been created to a certain extent by the pharmaceutical industry or we have something in the environment all of a sudden that’s causing it.” They elaborated on travels outside the United States and how they do not see autism spoken about in other countries. The managers appeared forthcoming and sincere about their uncertainty and confusion around autism. Managers Assume Autistic Individuals Are More Impacted by Their Disability Despite knowing autism is a spectrum and some managers even acknowledging autism can be associated with strong abilities, several managers assumed autistic individuals would be more impacted by their disability. In other words, they would require more support and have fewer skills than they may realistically possess. Mai’s perception of autism overall is that it is a “great challenge for those patients that have autism and the family members and caregivers of 54 autistic employees.” She further shared that she assumes autistic individuals are “mostly cared for by their parents.” Randy discussed his views on autistic individuals’ limitations and felt that when they get overly frustrated, “they can’t function when things are not going their way.” The managers’ assumptions applied to prospective employees at work as well. Bonnie offered that autistic individuals are “struggling to live in the world we have.” She further shared that at her childcare center, a person with a disability could be hired but would do lower-level tasks and need to be paired with a teacher for support. Other managers had similar sentiments, stating it may be difficult for their organization to hire autistic individuals unless it was for a specific role, such as in the “mailroom.” Katherine suggested, “They would probably need, you know, some accommodations if we were going to hire someone with autism, you know.” These perceptions may be attributed to the overall lack of exposure to a wide range of autistic individual abilities. Procedural Knowledge Procedural knowledge builds on declarative knowledge towards application. This type of knowledge is the understanding of how to do a task and when to use specific procedures (Krathwohl, 2002). As with declarative knowledge, the participants in this study were not expected to have experience supporting and managing autistic individuals, and they demonstrated marked gaps in their procedural knowledge (Austin & Pisano, 2017; Deiner et al., 2020; Lopez & Keenan, 2014; Nicholas et al., 2019; Remington & Pellicano, 2019; Wong et al., 2021). This section investigates how untrained managers go about supporting struggling employees as well as their hunches, due to their lack of direct experience, around supporting a potential autistic employee. 55 Managers Place Great Emphasis on Communication Skills When discussing a hypothetical employee who does not communicate the same way the majority of their other employees do, several managers said they would honor the preferred styles of communication of the employee. In other words, they would rely on the employee to advocate for themselves and share the communication style that they want to have with their manager. This expectation may assume a level of self-awareness from employees. For example, Marcus would ask, “Is it written? Is it email? Is it a ping? There’s so many ways to communicate and so many different people.” Juan and Grant’s responses paralleled Marcus’ closely. Grant added that he wants to know how an employee best receives feedback and praise, or if they want a “heads up” before a formal conversation. Despite expecting employees to communicate their preferred communication style, the managers seemed open and adaptive and expressed interest in getting to know their employees. Juan mentioned how he likes to spend the first few weeks getting acquainted with his employees and tells them it is “because I want to know how I should be prepared to manage you.” Interestingly, both Randy and Mai likened managing an autistic person to someone from another country with minimal English skills. Mai discussed using clarifying questions and taking time to get to know the person to navigate communication barriers. Randy believes in giving opportunities to do a task with their hands rather than discussing it. The managers seemed to value investing time in working through communication differences as nearly all expressed how important they feel communication is at work. Some of the managers, across work functions, remained firm that communication difficulties, a common challenge for autistic individuals, would be problematic at work. For example, Linda works in healthcare and explained that if an employee did not understand 56 instructions, she might not have time to provide the needed information due to the urgency of the situation. In these cases, she might need to assign a task to someone else. Additionally, she expressed concerns about patients showing discriminatory or stereotyping behavior toward an autistic employee. She discussed how some patients are particular about the race and political affiliations of their support staff and may act similarly if someone caring for them has a disability. However, she did not believe fellow employees would be discriminatory against an autistic colleague. Randy, working in the health and safety industry, discussed how employees “would absolutely have to know how to communicate” to be successful at work. Similarly, Katherine explained how they take a “white glove service approach and how you are talking to people and communicating with people is very, very important.” Katherine and Randy did, however, express how options such as reassigning the employee, training, or coaching could be implemented as a tool to mitigate communication barriers. Managers Attempt Coaching and Mentorship When Employees Struggle The Managers expressed willingness to mentor and coach struggling employees. When asked how they might manage an employee perceived as too blunt or rude by customers or colleagues, for example, the managers shared that their first reaction would be to talk with the employee, give feedback, and attempt to understand their perspective. Several managers discussed the importance of setting clear employee performance expectations. Juan explained how modeling or scripting is an approach he likes to use to coach employees. For example, if others perceived an email as too blunt, he would approach the employee and offer specific phrasing they could use in the future as an alternative so the message “lands better” with the reader. Nearly all the managers described examples of past employee struggles and the 57 utilization of performance improvement plans (PIP) as a strategy to address the struggles. Camille’s organization has multiple resources for struggling employees, including job coaches, as needed. She shared how one employee was on a PIP for close to 1 year. She explained: We went through all ends to try and make it work because, again, his desire was there. There was absolutely no question if he was trying hard enough because he absolutely was. He just didn’t have the skill that was needed to succeed in this particular position. Despite reassignment, coaching, scripting, and thorough explanation, nearly all the managers who discussed implementing PIPs for struggling employees shared the employee ultimately left their team or the organization altogether. They attributed the employee departures to a mismatch in skill or an irreconcilable lack of fit. Managers Lean Heavily on HR For Guidance Nearly all the managers expressed intent to receive guidance from HR to support a struggling employee. They seemed committed to initially trying to remedy any challenges or conflicts with an employee independently, and some managers even noted mental health programs they could refer an employee to such as the Employee Assistance Program (EAP), but quickly named HR as the main resource they would consult for guidance. Some managers also assumed an autistic employee would disclose their disability to HR and that HR would proactively notify them if someone on their team had autism. Linda mentioned, “Obviously it would be known” and similarly, Juan offered, “Hopefully HR would prep me.” The managers seemed confident their HR representatives would be able to guide them and help them navigate challenges they might potentially face with an autistic employee. A few managers reported not having an HR department due to their smaller organization size. In these cases, the managers seemed to take more of an eclectic approach to finding 58 solutions, depending on available resources. Bonnie said she has a network of other preschool directors she can reach out to for guidance and will occasionally consult with an attorney if necessary. She also stated if an employee was struggling, “I would just talk with them.” Randy noted when he was working at smaller organizations, managers would “just take care of it” the best they could. In these cases, the managers had to take more ownership and accountability in finding solutions to managing employee challenges on their own, even if they did not have the training or experience to do so. Table 3 summarizes the findings for Research Question 1. Table 3 Research Question 1 Findings Framework concept Findings Declarative knowledge Managers have a basic understanding of autism as a spectrum Declarative knowledge Managers assume autistic individuals are more impacted by their disability Procedural knowledge Managers place great emphasis on communication skills Procedural knowledge Managers attempt coaching and mentorship when employees struggle Procedural knowledge Managers lean heavily on HR for guidance 59 Findings For Research Question 2: What Are the Manager Motivational Gaps That Contribute to the Underrepresentation of College-Educated Autistic Individuals in the Workplace Across Industries? This section investigates the above research question, illustrating manager motivational concepts such as self-efficacy, mental effort, persistence, and expectancy-value. The emerging themes related to manager motivation center around their confidence levels to manage employees with disabilities, their access to resources and tools to successfully manage employees with disabilities, their willingness to change and grow their skills as managers, adaptability to various accommodation requests, and assumptions about the impacts of disabilities on their business. Self-Efficacy Self-efficacy is a key component of strong leadership. This concept explains how effective individuals feel they would be at successfully executing a task. Though not an absolute, a higher level of self-efficacy is often correlated to higher motivation (Bandura, 1982). The managers demonstrated moderate levels of self-efficacy to support employees who are generally different than themselves. However, the managers expressed hesitations and an overall lack of self-efficacy to support a prospective autistic employee (Austin & Pisano, 2017; Deiner et al., 2020; Lopez & Keenan, 2014; Nicholas et al., 2019; Remington & Pellicano, 2019; Wong et al., 2021). Managers Are “Pretty Confident” in Their Abilities to Supervise Employees Different Than Themselves The majority of the managers used the word “pretty” to describe how confident they are supervising an employee who acts, thinks, and communicates differently than themselves. Only a 60 few managers felt their confidence level was high and there were no clear patterns associating this response to consistent manager or organizational traits. Marcus referenced how his organization has “amazing resources for both the employee and the manager” that help him feel very confident to supervise someone very different than himself. Juan believes his exposure to different types of employees and their styles over the years has boosted his overall confidence levels in managing others. Other factors contributing to managers’ perceived confidence range from personal traits such as high levels of patience and understanding of others, longevity as a manager, and comfortability with both “introverts and extroverts.” Some of the managers stated they had not encountered employees who think, act, or communicate very differently than themselves, and their responses varied as a result. For example, Mitch felt that despite managing employees for a long time, not having this experience would shake his confidence if he encountered such a situation in the future. On the contrary, Katherine appeared quite confident as she discussed how she regularly coaches employees but noted that they do not come across employees that need accommodations, and, therefore, they have not seen anyone who acts, thinks, and communicates very differently than the other employees. She described how they recruit what they call an “analyst class” from Ivy League schools. Regarding these recruits’ communication skills, she explained: When people come in, they’re already really strong communicators. They’re already really good at those things. So we just haven’t had a ton of issues with that because they are, I mean, they’re going out to investors and pitching deals to them. So, we have to evaluate, you know, how you are selling things. How are you pitching things? How do you get somebody to shake your hand and invest all this money into something? And so we’re evaluating that in the process, and that’s the majority of our population. That’s a 61 pretty big requirement for what they’re doing. And so when we pull from these schools, that’s part of the, you know, something they have to be able to do. Overall, manager self-efficacy to effectively supervise an employee who differs from societal norms seems to be perceived by managers as average by most, with only a few managers feeling unconfident or greatly confident. There does not appear to be one consistent factor among the managers that influences their levels of self-efficacy. Managers Worry They Do Not Have the Ability to Successfully Support Autistic Employees While managers felt “pretty confident” to supervise employees who think, act, and communicate differently than themselves, their confidence to successfully support a prospective autistic employee specifically was far lower. Most of the managers reported the most difficult part of supporting an autistic employee might be not knowing how to help the employee be successful at their job. They were concerned they do not have the experience or ability to develop autistic employees’ skills, help them progress in their careers, and communicate with them effectively. Priya said she would wonder, “How do I interact with this person to get to know them in the best possible manner?” Camille worries that despite her organization’s rich offering of employee benefits and their best efforts, they might still be unable to effectively accommodate an employee’s needs. Similarly, Marcus’s organization provides substantial employee benefits, but he worries he may not recognize that an employee needs accommodations or he may miss an opportunity to support them. He shared: Where my head’s going right now is like, if I didn’t know someone had autism and they were struggling with something, and we weren’t able to, like, work through it, and they didn’t use the employee resources, I can imagine that scenario being pretty painful. The managers responded to questions with genuine thoughtfulness and concern, expressing their 62 perceived lack of self-efficacy to successfully support an autistic employee in the future. A few managers offered unique perspectives about perceived difficulties supporting autistic employees. For example, Mai shared a story about a past employee raising an autistic child. He would share his experiences of his family’s dinnertime, with food being thrown on the walls, and these visuals influenced Mai’s perception of autism. She said she would be anxious about unexpected behaviors or outbursts that may occur. She also expressed that due to her lack of experience, she imagines autism might be similar to someone with dementia who may engage in an “outburst of agitation and screaming and laughing.” One manager also discussed their lack of experience supporting autistic employees and how this may lead to them forming certain assumptions or biases about an employee. They offered, “Would someone disclose something as a way to have softer treatment or to potentially get out of certain things? I’m…I’m a really skeptical person.” Overall, the managers presented as forthcoming about their worries, perceived difficulties, and potential fear of failure in supporting autistic employees at work. Expectancy-Value, Mental Effort, and Persistence The concepts of expectancy-value, mental effort, and persistence play a key role in manager motivational levels. Expectancy-value, and more specifically, utility value, means one will be motivated if they see an activity or task has value for them either now or in the future (Eccles et al., 1983). The managers in this study expressed more positive outlooks and demonstrated more openness about the value autism brings to the workplace than in past research (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Austin & Pisano, 2017; Bezyak et al., 2021; Hedley et al., 2018; Ju et al., 2013; Solomon, 2020). Persistence, or continuing onward despite distractions, and mental effort, or working smarter to develop novel solutions, are additional motivational concepts that are key to workplace success (Clark & Estes, 2008). The managers were amenable to seeking 63 training when necessary to support autism at work, another more positive result compared with past research, which centers around managers’ views of autism as a burden on time, effort, and organizational logistics (Bezyak et al., 2021; Hedley et al., 2018; Ju et al., 2013; Solomon, 2020). Managers Are Open to More Training if the Need Arises All but two managers expressed openness to seeking training on supporting autistic employees at work. Generally, the managers expressed obstacles such as other mandatory trainings and time constraints but said if their leadership asked them to attend a training, they would be happy to. Several managers gave quantifiable amounts, such as “a class every year or a couple of hours, here and there” to describe what they felt was amenable to them. The managers who had more managerial experience and seniority seemed to be the most motivated and willing to dedicate time to enhancing their skills around autism. Additionally, the managers were open to putting in the extra effort to pursue training if they knew they were going to be receiving an autistic employee on their team in the near future. Mitch offered, “I think people would just be afraid without having that training, without having those tools.” He mentioned his organization is making concerted hiring efforts in the areas of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA), but there is opportunity to support these efforts further once individuals are hired. Some managers view committing efforts to training as a tool that not only impacts manager skills but also has collateral benefits such as facilitating hiring of new talent pools. Randy discussed how it has been difficult to hire new employees at his organization due to the high number of rules and regulations associated with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). He explained that finding strong talent and employees willing to follow numerous rules requires expanding to a larger population pool. He mentioned not wanting to eliminate anyone and that 64 the autism population might be a potential group to hire from. Managers Are Cautiously Optimistic About the Impact of Disabilities on Business The managers shared a combination of predictions about how someone with a disability such as autism would impact their business. Only a few managers focused solely on concerns, such as the possibility of the person taking longer to complete tasks, smaller organizations not having the infrastructure or flexibility to support disabilities due to hyperfocus on early revenue, or the need to “keep an eye on them” more so than neurotypical employees. The majority of managers had either positive outlooks or added a caveat that disabilities at work could be positive if the employees had what they needed to succeed. Camille shared, “I think as long as it’s done very well, and what I mean by that is appropriate accommodations are being made, communication is very open, I think it could work out quite well…” Randy referenced the supermarket chain, Publix, and discussed how people with disabilities can be successful and benefit the business if you can “accommodate it and adapt to it and be prepared for it.” Similarly, Katherine mentioned: I think it would broaden people’s perspectives. I mean, it’s important to see different things, see all different people work, how different people think. I just, you know, as long as they can do the job, I don’t think anybody would care. The managers were generally optimistic about the value employees with disabilities such as autism would bring to their organizations while being open about their reservations regarding possible obstacles. Some managers were solely positive about the value they perceived from employing an individual with a disability. Grant discussed how beneficial it would be for the organization “if someone is bringing their whole selves to work and they view something differently.” He shared 65 the value in having different perspectives to contribute to their strategies. He further explained that having diversity can help business because “we have to be able to mirror and understand the people we’re selling to.” Juan was equally optimistic as he remembered his former manager who has a disability. He mentioned, “She probably had some ups and downs like trying to handle the job and trying to navigate it, but she’s an example of someone who was able to get it done.” Cassandra confidently shared, “I don’t think it would impact it at all.” These responses are overall more positive and hopeful than the existing literature about autism at work. Managers Are Open to Changing Interviewing Practices The managers were overwhelmingly open to adjusting their interviewing practices to support autistic candidates. Specifically, they were amenable to deprioritizing eye contact as well as the concept of personality fit, and reinforced their positions with comments such as, “I think that’s absolutely doable,” “I would definitely be in favor of that,” and “Oh, happy to.” Several managers emphasized the importance of skills over personality in their organizations. They suggested additional measures such as asking more questions or conducting extra reference checks if they needed alternatives to better gauge an employee. Grant shared his thoughts about interviews being “brutal” and “fairly antiquated,” and how online interviews cause confusion about where to look on the screen. He empathized with candidates’ experiences and discussed how they may really need the job, which could impact their behavior and level of anxiety or eye contact. Juan explained how he “lost personality fit a while ago” and has already adjusted his interviewing practices because he believes a candidate who has done their “homework” and wants to grow with the organization is more important than their quality of eye contact or personality. He reinforced this opinion with, “I think personality fit is great, if you’re looking for a friend, you know what I mean.” 66 Three of managers expressed openness paired with reservations. Their concerns seemed to differ in origin. Linda cited her many years of doing interviews as an obstacle to change. She admitted she would need to retrain her brain and be more mindful of the words she uses. She added, “It would take a little bit for me to get used to it, but I mean, I’m fine with trying.” Marcus offered the perspective that some managers may exercise bias and worried that if employees are not maintaining some level of eye contact, a hiring manager may accuse them of cheating. That is, looking away from the camera to another screen or note for answers to technical interview questions. He shared that his personal belief, however, is that eye contact carries less weight, especially in the last few years with online interviews. Regarding personality fit, he added, “Oh, I cringe at that word.” Katherine discussed how she is open to deprioritizing eye contact and personality fit depending on the role for which someone was interviewing. She explained how these aspects would be important for roles that require “going out, shaking investors hands, you know, asking them for one billion dollars” but not as critical for internal roles where business acumen would not be as noticed or expected. These managers expressed thoughtful concerns while conveying openness to the concept of evolving their interviewing practices when appropriate. Managers Have Reservations About Accommodations All but one manager discussed the concept of accommodations with various levels of apprehension. They talked about how “it depends” on factors such as the size of the organization and the type of role. For example, several managers felt larger organizations could manage requests for accommodations because they have more individuals to fill in for someone. Linda mentioned a small team may be more impacted as others would have to “pick up the slack for that individual.” Additionally, larger organizations would hypothetically have a bigger budget to 67 commit to accommodation requests. Mai mentioned, “If it’s, you know, one or two employees, here and there” then the impact would not be as detrimental to the business. Camille has more experience with accommodation requests and shared, “It will be time-consuming for a temporary basis but it’s an investment you make for long-term success.” The concept of accommodations for people with disabilities did not appear to be particularly clear to many of the managers and warranted further explanation from me. For example, the managers initially discussed examples of time taken away from work for tasks such as breast milk pumping, leaving early for family obligations, or supports for employees with physical disabilities. Randy shared his interpretations of accommodations in terms of exposure to allergens. He explained that accommodations such as access to a respirator could be given to someone who is allergic to shellfish. None of the managers discussed or referenced common accommodations that would be requested by an employee with a developmental disability. Despite their various caveats, the managers remained open to supporting accommodations as long as the job or task was completed. Table 4 summarizes the findings for Research Question 2. Table 4 Research Question 2 Findings Framework concept Findings Self-efficacy Managers are “pretty confident” in their abilities to supervise employees different than themselves Self-efficacy Managers worry they do not have the ability to successfully support autistic employees Mental effort and persistence Managers are open to more training if the need arises Expectancy-value Managers are cautiously optimistic about the impact of disabilities on business Mental effort and persistence Managers are open to changing interviewing practices Expectancy-value Managers have reservations about accommodations 68 Findings For Research Question 3: What Organizational Barriers Exist That Contribute to the Underrepresentation of College-Educated Autistic Individuals in the Workplace Across Industries? This section examines the above research question, illustrating organizational culture and training opportunities. The emerging themes related to organizational culture and training center around managers’ varying beliefs about their organizations, the inconsistency of organizational commitment to inclusivity, the importance managers place on culture fit, the factors influencing training, the lack of disability topics within diversity initiatives, and managers’ opinions of organizational improvement opportunities. Culture The organizational influence of culture plays a key role in the inclusion of autistic employees. A cultural setting is a situation that involves two or more individuals who come together to accomplish a task. It manifests as a visible and observable representation of culture. A cultural model is an invisible, unconscious, shared understanding of how the world works or ought to work, including values, beliefs, and attitudes (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). These concepts of culture are, therefore, both overt and covert within organizations. Findings of this study show culture plays a prominent role in hiring decisions and ongoing management of employees. As suggested by Gould et al. (2015), attitudes about autism influence organizational culture and policies and can facilitate or hinder the inclusion of autistic individuals. In the case of this study, a lack of understanding or exposure to autism may also drive the culture. Managers’ Beliefs About Their Organization’s Values Vary Greatly The managers shared a wide variety of perspectives when asked what their organizations valued most about their employees. Each manager offered a unique response, such as the ability 69 to generate revenue, hit goals, timeliness, reliability, professionalism, connection to their religion, and ability to operate within chaos or lack of direction. However, the most frequent traits or behaviors reported by managers centered around flexibility, positive communication and social interactions with colleagues, commitment, and innovation. Mitch discussed how “being able to get along with others is, you know, one of those soft things that is absolutely required” and asks himself, “Do they seem like they would play well with others?” Randy shared a similar opinion with, “…their interaction, I don’t know exactly how to put it into words, but here, their culture and their interaction and how you treat people is the most important.” The managers reinforced the significance of innovation and commitment to their organizations as well. Mai discussed how both traits can lead to hard work, dedication, and people “willing to put a lot of skin in the game” for her growing organization. She was adamant that employees cannot fade into the background and instead, “We have to bring it every day.” Priya further reinforced how commitment to customers, in particular, is a key value for her organization. The managers also explained how thinking innovatively and creatively is valued and desired by their organizations. The managers discussed how their organizations make employees aware of these values, either through cultural models or settings. Randy discussed how his organization “insists upon it” through training, leading by example, and “enforcement of it, that is, for the lack of a better word.” Priya’s organization gives awards to employees who embody their values to reinforce employee behaviors. Linda’s organization values diversity and culture, and they demonstrate their values through celebrations. She provided various examples of honoring the months dedicated to groups such as women, the LGBTQ community, and the Black community, among others. The organization encourages members of the communities to share their stories. She 70 discussed how her organization maintains a dashboard to track diversity to facilitate hiring decisions. In addition to tangible tools, she shared how these values of culture and diversity are also “just sort of apparent, and what we preach every day to our employees.” The organizations utilize an array of methods to communicate what they value most to their employees. Managers Report Differing Levels of Organizational Commitment to Inclusivity The level of commitment to inclusivity is inconsistent across the managers’ collective organizations. Some of the managers were either not aware of any policies or initiatives that elevate the inclusion of employees with disabilities or explicitly stated they were not committing at this time. Grant mentioned this topic is not one he has heard during his tenure at his organization. Katherine discussed how her organization does not “formalize anything as far as inclusion.” She added that her CEO is very open that their organization operates as a meritocracy and focuses solely on finding the best person for the job. Randy and Bonnie also do not have a formal inclusion policy at their organizations. Bonnie offered that despite this lack of policy, she focuses on giving “everyone a chance.” Most managers reported their organizations are either starting to commit or have been committed to inclusivity initiatives. Still, most shared the caveat that developmental disabilities such as autism are not explicitly highlighted within initiatives. Both Juan and Mai talked about their organizations embracing inclusivity as a goal but they prioritize other categories such as race, sexuality, and gender. Cassandra oversees inclusive practices for her organization. She explained how they are geographically situated on a hill and, therefore, they conducted a campus walk to survey for accessibility concerns. They offer several accommodations for students with disabilities. She focused her descriptions on physical disabilities and when I asked about developmental disabilities, she said they did have an in-service to educate employees about 71 invisible disabilities. Regarding inclusion at his organization in general, Mitch stated, “I think they do a good job talking about it and I think we can do a much better job putting it into practice.” He further explained that one of the specific opportunities for improvement is considering disabilities into their inclusive practices. Priya mentioned they do have formal policies against discrimination, and she thinks they may offer employee resource groups to support disability communities but was not sure. She confidently mentioned, “We do not have any discrimination.” Only two managers, Camille and Linda, discussed inclusive practices explicitly elevating people with disabilities such as autism. Camille shared that her organization has a “very graceful process” when an employee has a performance issue and they disclose a disability. They do whatever they can to help the employee succeed and are even starting to look at specific interviewing practices to support neurodiversity better. Linda described their program as designed for individuals with developmental disabilities to afford them opportunities to work in the healthcare space. She further shared that they not only acknowledged Autism Acceptance Month in April but had activities to honor it. She said: …. on the first floor, we have an autism acceptance tree where you can honor someone you know with autism by writing your name or favorite quote on acceptance, inclusion, and tolerance. We also have autism acceptance education and community advocates displayed on panels across the cafeteria. Managers Rate Employee “Culture Fit” as Incredibly Important Nearly all of the managers expressed that culture fit is essential within their organization. They used phrases such as “number one,” “very high,” “it’s important,” “extremely high,” and “as high as I’ve ever seen” to express how they see culture fit integrating into hiring, orientation, 72 and ongoing employment. Marcus was the only manager who had a dissenting perspective about his organization’s stance on culture fit. He discussed how culture fit is subjective and while one hiring manager may feel a candidate embodies the organizational culture, another manager may not. Therefore, he said they place a more considerable emphasis on candidates’ and current employees’ skills. Managers See Willingness to Learn and Being a Team Player as “Good Fit.” The managers expressed a variety of examples of what makes an employee a “good culture fit.” Some examples include prioritizing customer service, doing the “right thing,” being nice, having the necessary skills, being motivated and engaged, being Christian, and embracing joy. The most common “good fit” traits or behaviors of an employee the managers shared are an openness to learn new skills and being a team player. The managers appeared eager to discuss candidates they prefer to hire. Priya described their candidate search: “We’re always looking for people who have a hunger for knowledge and are curious about stuff.” Bonnie similarly explained they look for someone who is a lifelong learner and willing to change and grow. She shared, “I feel like if they are a good fit, they are a good fit.” Regarding being a team player, Mai talked about the importance of not having “cookie cutter” employees where everyone is the same but they “want people who are open to the culture of the company.” She elaborated on wanting her employees to come together to have fun as a team, and this attitude is important to her as a leader. Juan similarly discussed how being a team player is necessary for positive dynamics. He shared how a team player is someone who can work well with other colleagues, a vital component to fitting into the organization. The willingness to both grow and connect with colleagues are key attributes managers value in their employees. 73 Managers See Poor Communication and Lack of Collaboration as “Poor Fit.” As observed with “good fit,” the managers shared an assortment of traits or behaviors they feel would make an employee or candidate a “poor fit.” Some traits or behaviors include acting in an unethical way, not wanting to spend social time with colleagues, such as playing trivia, catastrophic thinking, being disrespectful, argumentative, or aggressive, and inflexibility or inability to pivot when asked to do something differently than usual work duties. The most consistent responses, however, center around poor communication skills and not being collaborative with colleagues. The central theme for “poor fit” centers around a lack of social communication skills. Being self-centered and focusing only on personal success was a common subtheme for managers. Linda elaborated on this concept, stating how critical collaboration among her team is, especially if more than one patient in the hospital needs medical attention simultaneously. Juan and Katherine mentioned that this would be an early concern if they sensed during the interview that the candidate would not work well with others or observe that an employee is difficult to get along with. Mitch and Bonnie also highlighted reservations they have for employees who focus on themselves rather than operating collaboratively. The managers possess strong views about the importance of social and communication skills. Mitch and Randy spoke specifically about social skills. Mitch shared, “…if you were a little standoffish or a little bit more quiet or closed off, it would be more difficult, I think.” Randy felt the way someone treats a colleague is telling of how well they will fit in the organization. He spoke about emotional intelligence and how someone who “blows up at people” will be problematic. Marcus and Priya specifically discussed communication skills. Marcus said, “So, if you struggle to communicate during the job interview, that’s a prime indicator that it 74 might be a little bit hard for you to be successful in the role.” Priya talked about the intimidating nature of interviews but like Marcus, she explained that if a candidate cannot clearly explain themselves or answer the questions effectively, they may not be a good fit for her organization. Training Training to impart knowledge and skills onto managers is critical to empowering them to lead groups different than themselves. There is a gap in knowledge about autism that training could help fill for managers (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Austin & Pisano, 2017; Baldwin et al., 2014; Black et al., 2020; Hedley et al., 2018; Kim, 2022; Lopez & Keenan, 2014). This study found an overall lack of training support for managers with organizational size being a key influencing factor. Additionally, the managers, despite organizational size, felt a mention of disabilities was lacking in training and overall inclusion initiatives, and recognized the need for improvements within their organizations. Manager Training is Largely Based on Organizational Size A clear relationship emerged during the interviews between the size of the managers’ organizations and the training provided to help them support employees with disabilities. Camille, Mitch, Marcus, Linda, and Priya work for organizations with tens of thousands of employees. They consistently reported more substantial supports for managers. For example, Linda discussed her organization’s training modules such as “Building an Inclusive Environment” and the creation of their integrated disability management team. Marcus shared they have formal trainings for both employees as well as specialized trainings just for managers. One main caveat the managers shared, however, is while they recognize their organizational training opportunities, they do not see explicit content covering or highlighting disability topics. The training content tends to focus more on high-level concepts of diversity, equity, and 75 inclusion. The remaining employees, who work for much smaller organizations, reported little to no support to help them manage employees or prospective employees with disabilities. When asked, Grant held his hand up in the shape of a “zero” when stating they have no training to support this topic. He distinguished his current organization, which has 36 employees, from others he has worked at where they “hired folks like Brené Brown to come in and talk to us.” Randy very succinctly stated they have nothing in terms of training. Other managers mentioned having LinkedIn Learning, the formation of new employee resource groups to focus on disabilities, and trainings to remind them of general resources like mental health services. Still, there is no formal training dedicated to helping managers support disabilities at work. Katherine discussed how her organization does not implement training. She said, “It’s our culture that we just don’t” because she explained that “you forget about it all 2 hours later.” She described how trainees forget skills if they are not used and referenced not being able to save someone’s life despite being trained in CPR. She did state they will provide non-mandatory coaches if managers need assistance as opposed to mandatory training. Managers See Opportunities for Organizational Improvement The managers consistently praised me for seeking to understand more about this topic and expressed curiosity about it. Several managers shared how they have not thought about autism at work and this interview experience encouraged them to evaluate not only their organization’s performance with supporting disabilities but also their own. Mitch offered: No, I’m just, I’m happy that you’re doing this because I immediately just thought about where we sit with this at (organization) and what are some things that we could do better and just, you know, especially in, you know, working within certain communities and 76 making sure we’re doing better. Grant talked about how the interview experience helped him think back in his past as a manager and at the conversations he had with his colleagues that same day. He shared how new managers focus on performance management or how to run one-on-one meetings but there is not usually training or a focus on bolstering managers’ knowledge about how disabilities impact their employees’ performance. Priya asked me how many organizations have explicit policies around autism at work or supporting autistic employees because she had not encountered any and was very curious about this topic. The managers expressed genuine gratitude for the opportunity to reflect on areas of growth and improvement related to promoting disability inclusion at work. Table 5 summarizes the findings for Research Question 3. Table 5 Research Question 3 Findings Framework concept Findings Culture Managers’ beliefs about their organization’s values vary greatly Culture Managers report differing levels of organizational commitment to inclusivity Culture Managers rate employee “culture fit” as incredibly important Training Manager training is largely based on organizational size Training Managers see opportunities for organizational improvement 77 Summary This study sought to understand the gaps that exist for managers to support autistic individuals at work successfully. The managers interviewed have no formal training to support the autistic population, or autistic family members. As this lack of experience and exposure to autism exists across industries and regions in the United States, this study demonstrates a common workplace phenomenon. The study highlights both common and unique perspectives, opinions, and experiences of a sample of individuals from this large manager population. The managers demonstrated a gap in knowledge about autism and how to support autistic employees. While the managers have heard of autism and were able to list some behavioral or social traits, their understanding is elementary (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Austin & Pisano, 2017; Baldwin et al., 2014; Black et al., 2020; Hedley et al., 2018; Kim, 2022; Lopez & Keenan, 2014; Whelpley et al., 2021) and informed mainly by television or movies rather than real-life exposure. They often assumed autistic individuals have fewer skills and more challenges than they may actually have. These circumstances impact managers’ knowledge of how to best communicate with and support an autistic employee from the interview process to opportunities for advancement. Despite the knowledge gaps managers possess, they demonstrated openness and willingness to learn. They described their practices around coaching and mentorship, and they embrace these as methods they commonly use to support employees who struggle. However, they shared that struggling employees, especially those who are placed on performance improvement plans, often still leave their teams despite their best coaching efforts. Due to the unique strengths and challenges many autistic individuals face that require workplace accommodations and adjustments, manager knowledge gaps can substantially impact an autistic individual’s career trajectory. 78 The managers’ motivation levels to support autism at work were inconsistent. Most of the managers felt “pretty confident” in their ability to manage someone who thinks, acts, and communicates differently than they do. When asked about autism specifically, however, their confidence levels dropped. They were concerned about their abilities to communicate effectively and successfully help autistic employees develop their skills and their careers (Austin & Pisano, 2017; Deiner et al., 2020; Lopez & Keenan, 2014; Nicholas et al., 2019; Remington & Pellicano, 2019; Wong et al., 2021). They worried about the unknown and not having the tools to help an autistic employee reach their top potential. Most of the managers were open to improving their skills through training if their manager asked them to or if they knew an autistic employee was joining their team. They were cautiously optimistic about how an autistic employee would impact business, with minor concerns about productivity, but they felt overall positive if the employee had proper support. The managers demonstrated an openness to changing their behaviors during interviews, such as deprioritizing eye content or personality fit. They did, however, express more reservations about deploying accommodations, with “it depends” comments and concerns about productivity (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Austin & Pisano, 2017; Bezyak et al., 2021; Hedley et al., 2018; Ju et al., 2013; Solomon, 2020). Overall, the managers’ intentions seem genuine and positive. Still, their gaps in confidence and motivation for real-life implementation of supports can impact an autistic employee’s chances of being hired or effectively supported on the job. Organizational influences such as manager training and culture significantly impact the fate of autistic individuals’ employment. The managers shared various traits their organizations value most about their employees but the four that emerged as most common were flexibility, positive communication and social interactions with colleagues, commitment, and innovation. 79 While commitment and innovation are often areas of strength for employees with autism, flexibility and strong social communication skills are often challenge areas. Furthermore, the managers discussed how “culture fit” is incredibly important in their organizations, with teamwork, collaboration, and social communication skills being key determinants of “good fit.” The managers reflected on their organization’s commitment to inclusive practices for people with disabilities. The organizations are inconsistent with each other and in various stages. Most of the organizations that do have inclusivity initiatives or more substantial manager trainings do not yet explicitly highlight disabilities the same way they do gender or race (Anderson et al., 2021; Araten-Bergman, 2016; Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2018; Gould et al., 2015; Maroto & Pettinicchino, 2015). The managers were forthcoming and authentic, and demonstrated interest and enthusiasm. At the same time, they were open about their concerns and reservations about their abilities and the organizational capacity to support autistic employees at work today successfully. 80 Chapter Five: Discussion This chapter provides recommendations for practice, driven by the interview findings and supported by the literature. The chapter begins with an overall discussion of the findings from the study, how the findings align with the literature and conceptual framework, and how the findings address the problem of underrepresentation of college-educated autistic adults in the workforce. The recommendations for practice follow, with connections to specific findings from participants. Limitations and delimitations explain where the methodology or study design have constraints and purposeful omissions and boundaries of the study. Recommendations for future research follow, stemming from questions that arose during the course of the research process. Lastly, the conclusion section offers a discussion around insights and reinforces the importance of this study. Findings Both expected and unexpected findings emerged from this study that can drive meaningful recommendations for practice. Most apparent and expected were the findings around marked gaps in both manager declarative and procedural knowledge about autism and how to support autistic employees. Consistent with the literature, these gaps in declarative knowledge (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Austin & Pisano, 2017; Baldwin et al., 2014; Black et al., 2020; Hedley et al., 2018; Kim, 2022; Lopez & Keenan, 2014; Whelpley et al., 2021) as well as procedural knowledge (Austin & Pisano, 2017; Deiner et al., 2020; Lopez & Keenan, 2014; Nicholas et al., 2019; Remington & Pellicano, 2019; Wong et al., 2021) were visible with variations across all interviews. Lack of training and exposure and misinformed assumptions lead managers to have limited knowledge about autism, and they, therefore, misjudge the potential of autistic individuals. They assume autistic individuals are more impacted by their disability than they may 81 actually be, they place great importance on culture fit and skills that are often challenging for autistic individuals like teamwork and communication, and they expressed a reliance on support from HR when in doubt. A large gap for managers in both declarative and procedural knowledge about autism significantly impacts an autistic employee’s employment journey, from interviewing, onboarding, ongoing support, and opportunities for advancement. Another expected finding centers around a gap in manager motivation to support autistic employees. Managers felt “pretty confident” in supporting employees who think, act, and communicate differently than themselves but when asked specifically about autism, their confidence levels reduced dramatically. This finding is consistent with the self-efficacy literature and highlights a training need (Austin & Pisano, 2017; Deiner et al., 2020; Lopez & Keenan, 2014; Nicholas et al., 2019; Remington & Pellicano, 2019; Wong et al., 2021). Low levels of manager confidence to successfully support employees who may struggle contribute to the underrepresentation of college-educated autistic adults in the workplace. Another expected finding centers around managers’ perceptions of their organization’s commitment to neurodiversity. Larger organizations seem to have more substantial training opportunities, though even the more robust diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives have yet to fully incorporate neurodiversity. Organizations drive culture and climate, and their policies, or lack thereof, send a powerful message to employees about their commitment to hire, train, and retain individuals with disabilities (Anderson et al., 2021; Araten-Bergman, 2016; Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2018; Gould et al., 2015; Maroto & Pettinicchino, 2015). The managers were open and forthcoming about the improvements they believe would be helpful at their organizations, which would increase the representation of college-educated autistic adults in their organizations. 82 An unexpected finding centers around managers’ level of positivity and value they anticipate autistic employees would bring to their workplace. Established literature consistently highlights managers’ worries about time or cost burdens, bias, and a reluctance to hire autistic individuals in the workplace (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Austin & Pisano, 2017; Bezyak et al., 2021; Hedley et al., 2018; Ju et al., 2013; Solomon, 2020). In contrast, this study highlights managers’ willingness to hire autistic individuals with the appropriate supports. The managers are open to training and changing their own behavior, such as adjusting interviewing practices to remove obstacles like eye contact. While they remain concerned about accommodation requests and implications for the job, managers in this study are more enthusiastic towards autistic employees than the literature suggests. This sentiment can positively impact the underrepresentation of college-educated autistic adults in the workplace in the future. Another unexpected finding was a strong inclination to leverage employee mentorship. The managers discussed their tendency to mentor and guide employees when they struggle. The literature on mentorship and autism focuses mainly on the educational setting, not the workplace. This starkly contrasts the large body of literature on mentoring other populations in the workplace, such as women (Durbin et al., 2020) and people of color (Chow, 2021). Despite providing mentorship to employees, the managers reported the employees were often fired, left the organization, or transferred to a new role despite their managers’ best efforts to support them. This concept of mentorship and how it can be effective for employees with autism is essential to study, and managers could derive guidance from the current literature across other populations. Research on mentorship for autistic workers would provide valuable data to address the underrepresentation of college-educated autistic individuals in the workplace. 83 Recommendations for Practice The following section offers recommendations for practice that are driven by the literature and align with the study findings. The recommendations connect back to the research questions, which aim to understand knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps for managers to successfully support college-educated autistic adults at work. The recommendations are organized by the groups represented in this study: the organization, the managers, and the autistic workforce. Recommendation 1: Organizations Can Place a Focus on Empowering HR Professionals to Lead Autism Initiatives HR professionals are at the forefront of managing, coordinating, and implementing training and accommodations within the workplace. Successful accommodations can make a significant, positive difference in the employment trajectory of autistic individuals if implemented correctly (Rashid et al., 2018; Seagraves, 2021; Tomczak, 2022). However, Johnson et al. (2020) discuss that the topic of supporting autism in the workplace “has been ignored” by the HR development literature. The authors suggest empowering HR to take the lead in designing supports for autistic employees. Organizations can allow HR to serve as a conduit between agencies and educational systems to bring in more informed organizational structures. HR can plan and lead training and development initiatives in the workplace through partnerships with secondary and postsecondary educators, community, and state agencies that can provide the educational resources needed to train managers and supervisors. HR can facilitate mentorship and coaching programs and monitor their efficacy. Lastly, HR can facilitate training for supervisors and peers (Johnson et al., 2020). HR can take a more active role in impacting the underrepresentation of autistic employees across organizations. 84 The finding that managers rely on HR for training and assistance with struggling employees confirmed the importance of the HR role in addressing the problem of practice. The managers assumed HR professionals are trained to navigate when conflicts or challenges arise with autistic employees, though, according to Johnson et al. (2020), this is not necessarily the case. Organizations can, therefore, empower HR professionals to gain more training and understanding of how autism shows up in the workplace. Due to their role as change agents, the increased training can afford them the skills and knowledge to support managers better when approached with questions or concerns. One specific area related to specialized practices is facilitating better understanding of accommodations for managers. When asked their thoughts about potential accommodations for employees, managers interviewed for this study discussed accommodations familiar to them but not necessarily associated with the autism community (e.g., “…like if I have two moms that are pumping and they have to be gone, that’s my best thing to, like, compare it to.”). Consistent with the findings of Deiner et al. (2020), managers are unfamiliar with accommodations best suited for people with disabilities such as autism. As seen in my study, HR professionals are both change agents and the workplace contacts that managers approach for employee guidance. As such, organizations can elevate manager knowledge and motivation by focusing on HR empowerment. Recommendation 2: Organizations Can Train Managers in Effective Strategies to Support Autistic Employees Managers lack procedural and declarative knowledge about autism in the workplace. If an individual receives training at all when promoted to a manager role, that training is unlikely to include how to support individuals with disabilities such as autism (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Austin & Pisano, 2017; Baldwin et al., 2014; Black et al., 2020; Hedley et al., 2018; Kim, 2022; 85 Lopez & Keenan, 2014). Manager involvement is critical to an autistic individual’s employment success. The relationship quality between managers and employees facilitates both the employment outcomes and socialization of the autistic employee (Martin et al., 2022). Increasing manager training and their levels of acceptance for people with disabilities, as well as adapting interviews, such as deprioritizing eye contact or other social intricacies, can make the strengths of the autistic candidates more on par with neurotypical candidates (Whelplay & May, 2022). Managers play an integral role in the employment journey of autistic employees. Therefore, organizations can encourage the learning of four key manager behaviors connected to successfully supervising autistic employees. These behaviors include facilitating a culture of acceptance for neurodiversity, possessing or willingness to pursue knowledge about autism, individualizing work to suit needs and abilities, and demonstrating clear and direct communication (Bowman, 2020). Manager training can be a powerful step in addressing autistic employees’ employment trajectory. The participants in this study were forthcoming about their lack of knowledge around autism and how to support an autistic employee should one be hired for their team. The managers were receptive and positive about learning more. However, they were unlikely to pursue this training unprompted unless their organization asked them to participate. Organizations can integrate training around what autism is, common traits recognized at work, building an inclusive workplace, recognizing bias and dispelling myths about disabilities, and how to interact with individuals with varying communication styles. Training can be integrated into a learning management system similar to mandatory sexual harassment or inclusion training on gender and race. Depicting authentic individuals with autism on camera can increase understanding and create more realistic visuals. This training and exposure can help empower 86 managers and boost their levels of self-efficacy around supporting autism at work. Recommendation 3: Organizations Can Survey Employees on Levels of Psychological Safety and Sense of Belonging Both psychological safety and a sense of belonging affect the levels of comfort an employee feels within their organization. Team psychological safety, or the shared belief that interpersonal risk-taking is safe (Edmondson, 1999), can improve learning, creativity, and performance (O’Donovan & McAuliffe, 2020). A sense of belonging significantly affects emotion, cognition, performance, and sense of self in the workplace. The literature suggests organizations have a key role to play in this concept because organizational culture (Waller, 2020) and leadership styles (Randel et al., 2018) are instrumental in creating or hindering a sense of belonging. Organizations can benefit from surveying their employees anonymously about their sense of belonging and psychological safety. Additional questions about whether the employee has a disability and whether they have disclosed their disability can be particularly helpful in gauging if a difference in these concepts exists across employees with and without disabilities. These surveys can further inform organizations about their culture and drive change. The participants in this study mentioned not thinking about autism in the workplace. Not thinking about an underrepresented group at work or the barriers for underrepresented groups to enter the workforce plays a role in perpetuating this problem. The participants thanked me for bringing the concept of autism at work to their attention. They mentioned the interviews made them reflect on the topic and relate it to the inclusiveness of their organizations. Surveys about psychological safety and a sense of belonging can shed light on a problem that organizations may not realize exists among their workforce. Surveys can also help organizations gauge if they are positioned to bring employees with disabilities into a culture that feels safe and welcoming. 87 Reporting the results publicly and committing to measuring progress can help organizations keep themselves accountable for improving organizational culture. This enhanced focus on culture, safety, and belonging can positively impact the underrepresentation of autistic employees. Recommendation 4: Organizations With Formal DEIA Programs Can Consider Integrating a Neurodiversity Focus DEIA programs can play a pivotal role in elevating an organization’s attention to the underrepresentation of autistic individuals in the workplace. Policies and practices, or lack thereof, about autism hiring and overall inclusion are closely tied back to the managers’ and leaders’ values and beliefs. Their attitudes drive cultural settings that can be harmful or helpful in addressing discrimination against autistic individuals (Anderson et al., 2021; Araten-Bergman, 2016; Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2018; Gould et al., 2015; Maroto & Pettinicchino, 2015). DEIA programming has focused on race, gender, sexuality, and other populations in recent years. If DEIA leaders can include initiatives to address disabilities alongside their current programming, present on autism topics at DEIA conferences to build awareness and share successful progress with fellow DEIA officers at other organizations, managers and leaders will have more exposure to autism, and cultural models and settings may evolve. The managers interviewed for this study discussed the lack of focus their organizations have on including autistic employees. Only two of the twelve managers stated their organizations emphasize elevating the needs of people with disabilities. The remaining managers said either their organizations are doing nothing or are starting to build inclusive practices but they do not focus on disabilities. DEIA programs have a platform and a mission to promote the inclusion and equity of underrepresented groups. The responses from this study highlight apparent gaps in 88 organizational attention on autism that DEIA programs can fill and support. Recommendation 5: Managers Can Build and Encourage Mentorship Relationships Among Their Teams Mentorship is a widely researched and implemented program within organizations to support employee career growth. Mentorship opportunities are just one tool to elevate and bolster underrepresented groups at work, such as women (Durbin et al., 2020) and people of color (Chow, 2021). While most of the mentorship literature on autism focuses on school or university settings rather than workplace settings, mentorship at work can supplement or partially replace job coaches, and has promising value (Coleman & Adams, 2018). Managers can consider asking for volunteers among their teams to become mentors and coordinate with HR to gain training and guidance on how to support their autistic colleagues best. Additionally, if managers are aware of multiple autistic employees, they can consider asking the employees if they are interested in forming mentorship relationships to leverage shared experiences. Mentorship for autistic employees can provide support, extra coaching, and a workplace champion or sponsor. The managers within this study reported using mentorship frequently. This unexpected finding identifies positive potential due to the already established motivation and framework. The managers, however, spoke about mentorship in the context of helping a struggling employee and they noted that often, the employee ended up being fired, transferred, or separating from the organization. Managers can benefit from dedicating more of their time and resources to developing proactive mentorship programs for their teams that have shown to be effective in the literature for underrepresented groups (Durbin et al., 2020; Chow, 2021). Promoting support and encouragement through mentorship, as opposed to utilizing it solely when employees struggle, can strengthen autistic employees’ social skills and morale, provide guidance for career 89 advancement and troubleshooting workplace conflict, and potentially mitigate turnover. Recommendation 6: Larger Organizations Can Increase Visibility of Their Resources for Autistic Candidates and Employees Larger, forward-thinking organizations are likelier to have the capabilities, resources, and infrastructure to support autistic employees than smaller organizations. The majority of the organizations associated with the Neurodiversity @ Work Employer Roundtable are either larger in size with established programs to support underrepresented groups or specialize in working with people with disabilities (Microsoft News Center, 2022). All but one organization listed on Verywell Health’s list of 10 autism-friendly organizations have over 100,000 employees or are autism-focused businesses (Rudy, 2023). These organizations are more likely to support employee resource groups focusing on disabilities, autism hiring programs, and DEIA officers instituting initiatives for underrepresented groups. Larger organizations that do not explicitly promote autism-specific support can familiarize themselves with the research that autistic individuals bring high rates of productivity, attention to detail, loyalty, honesty, efficiency, consistency, motivation, and attendance to the workplace (Aichner, 2021; Baldwin et al., 2014; Jacob et al., 2015; Scott et al., 2017) and recognize they have the potential infrastructure to support autistic employees if they commit to it. Autistic individuals’ barriers to work are abundant. Thus, larger organizations can advertise and increase the visibility of what they can offer autistic employees not only to ease pressure and onus on autistic individuals but also to gain the advantages of employing valuable autistic talent. The managers within this study further substantiate that organization size influences potential autism supports. Five of the managers work at organizations with tens of thousands of employees. These five managers noted their organizations have substantial resources to train 90 managers. The remaining managers, who work at smaller organizations, reported little to no training or tools for managers to seek knowledge. Some of the smallest organizations seemed to be in growth mode, focused on revenue, and unequipped to accommodate employees who may require additional support. I observe the same patterns and characteristics across the organizations with which I consult. Due to the strong correlation between the manager/employee relationship and the success of autistic employees (Martin et al., 2022), autistic employees may improve their employment outlook by working for organizations that prioritize empowering their managers with training, especially if the training focuses on inclusion. These efforts are more likely found within larger, forward-thinking organizations and these organizations can explicitly advertise within the autism community to improve and streamline the job search. Table 6 offers an overview of each recommendation, related literature, and demonstration of need through quotes. 91 Table 6 Overview of Recommendations Recommendation Related literature Example of need Organizations can place more focus on empowering HR leaders to lead autism initiatives Johnson et al. (2020), Rashid et al. (2018), Seagraves (2021), Tomczak (2022) “Hopefully HR would prep me.” Organizations can train managers in effective strategies to support autistic employees Annabi and Locke (2019), Austin and Pisano (2017), Baldwin et al. (2014), Black et al. (2020), Hedley et al. (2018), Kim (2022) Lopez and Keenan (2014) “…if I didn’t know someone had autism and they were struggling with something, and we weren’t able to, like, work through it, and they didn’t use the employee resources, I can imagine that scenario being pretty painful.” Organizations can survey employees on levels of psychological safety and sense of belonging Edmondson (1999), O’Donovan and McAuliffe (2020), Randel et al. (2018), Waller (2020) “We do not have any discrimination.” Organizations with formal DEIA programs can consider integrating a neurodiversity focus Anderson et al. (2021), Araten-Bergman (2016), Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (2018), Gould et al. (2015), Maroto and Pettinicchino (2015) “We don’t formalize anything as far as inclusion.” Managers can build and encourage mentorship relationships among their teams Coleman and Adams (2018), Durbin et al. (2020), Chow (2021) “…mentor them because I want people to be successful. So that’s what I would do is try to help and see if they can improve” Larger organizations can increase visibility of their resources for autistic candidates and employees Microsoft News Center (2022) “I have really a huge privilege to be able to work for a company that is committed to inclusion in every aspect and respect.” 92 Limitations and Delimitations Limitations and delimitations exist for this study that center around the participant characteristics. One limitation of the study is the truthfulness of the participants. Robinson and Leonard (2019) describe the potential for social desirability bias, that is, participants altering their responses to appear more desirable and favorable. Interviewing participants about their potential contributions to the underrepresentation of autistic employees, along with limited rapport between participants and I, can affect the authenticity of the participants’ responses. A second limitation is the focus on manager gaps as a main contributing factor to this underrepresentation without examining other elements in the environment, the autistic individual attributes, and a combination of multiple factors. That is, other variables may play a role, but the weight and significance of these variables are unknown within this study. A main delimitation of the study is the inclusion of managers specifically who lacked training and experience supervising an autistic employee and without close family ties to autism. This was purposeful to examine similarities and differences among participants’ viewpoints from various industries and geographic areas but with the same lack of managerial experience. Common barriers emerged during interviews and provided insights into the practices or lack thereof, leading to gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that a trained and experienced manager could not provide. Regarding autism, untrained and inexperienced managers are commonplace. They can provide critical information to help make sense of how and why this problem of practice continues to pervade across this country. Future Research While autism research is plentiful, research with a lens on college-educated autistic employees and the drivers of their success is still emerging. Due to the heavy reliance on HR by 93 the interviewed managers paired with the lack of research in the HR industry around autism, future research on how HR professionals can bolster the careers of autistic employees is needed. Additionally, research on the factors that initiate an organization’s efforts to embrace neurodiversity, provide manager training to better support employees with disabilities, or institute autism initiatives is valuable. That is, what measures must be in place for an organization to be either ready or motivated to focus on employing underrepresented groups such as autistic individuals, especially if the organization is small and limited on resources? The interviewed managers appeared motivated and willing to try supporting an autistic employee but relied on their organization to address their lack of knowledge and self-efficacy. Lastly, more research on the mentorship of autistic employees in the workplace by both neurotypical allies as well as fellow autistic employees can drive insights into additional sources of employment support. Conclusion This study aimed to understand the underrepresentation of college-educated autistic adults at work through the lens of manager gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. With a consistently growing autism prevalence (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2023), paired with the pervasively high rates of unemployment and underemployment within this population (Baldwin et al., 2014; Bernick & Vismara, 2021; Chen et al., 2015; Coleman & Adams, 2018; Migliore et al., 2012a; McKnight-Lizotte, 2018; Ohl et al., 2017; Phillips et al., 2016; Roux et al., 2013; Shattuck et al., 2012; Taylor et al., 2015; Whittenburg et al., 2019), this problem of practice is hard to ignore. Autistic individuals need means to support themselves financially to lead fulfilling lives and contribute to society. The US government expects to spend $1.36 trillion by the year 2040, annually, on autism (Blaxill et al., 94 2022). This spending will continue to trend upward if organizations do not participate directly in addressing this problem. Autistic employees contribute substantially to organizations through high productivity, attention to detail, loyalty, honesty, efficiency, consistency, motivation, and attendance (Aichner, 2021; Baldwin et al., 2014; Jacob et al., 2015; Scott et al., 2017). The importance of studying this problem of practice is crucial not only for autistic individuals but for organizational reputation, growth, and profitability as well. This study demonstrates that managers want to enhance their skills and see the importance of employing individuals with disabilities. However, they do not have the training, organizational support, and confidence to succeed. The study confirms that misinformation and implicit bias exist among managers and organizations regardless of positive intent or willingness to hire autistic individuals. Managers use ableist language, often unknowingly. They value skills generally challenging for autistic employees, such as strong social communication and team collaboration. Managers are not well-versed in accommodations commonly used to support autistic employees and are hesitant about the implications of accommodations on productivity and their other employees. College-educated autistic individuals can fill critically needed roles across industries and positively impact organizations’ creativity, growth, revenue, and productivity. However, workplace culture, aside from rare, specialty programs, is not aligned to support autistic employees. Filling these manager and organizational gaps will not only solve an equity and inclusion issue but strengthen organizations’ reputation and revenue-generating talent, two positive changes that organizations cannot afford to pass up. The literature and findings are clear. Leaders who take notice of, and commit to, supporting autistic talent will blaze new trails for others to follow and drive benefits to society as a whole. 95 References Aichner, T. (2021). The economic argument for hiring people with disabilities. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00707-y Alverson, C. Y., & Yamamoto, S. H. (2018). VR employment outcomes of individuals with autism spectrum disorders: A decade in the making. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(1), 151-162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3308-9 American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787 Anderson, C., Butt, C., & Sarsony, C. (2021). Young adults on the autism spectrum and early employment-related experiences: Aspirations and obstacles. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 51(1), 88-105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-04513-4 Annabi, H. & Locke, J. (2019). A theoretical framework for investigating the context for creating employment success in information technology for individuals with autism. Journal of Management & Organization: JMO, 25(4), 499–515. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2018.79 Araten-Bergman, T. (2016). Managers’ hiring intentions and the actual hiring of qualified workers with disabilities. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(14), 1510-1530. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1128466 Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Van Nostrand. 96 Austin, R. D., & Pisano, G. P. (2017). Neurodiversity as a competitive advantage. Harvard Business Review, 95(3), 96-103. https://hbr.org/2017/05/neurodiversity-as-a-competitive-advantage Baldwin, S., Costley, D., & Warren, A. (2014). Employment activities and experiences of adults with high-functioning autism and Asperger’s disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44(10), 2440-2449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2112-z Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122 Bernick, M. (2022, February 16). Is your company inclusive of neurodivergent employees? Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2022/02/is-your-company-inclusive-ofneurodivergent-employees Bernick, M., & Vismara, L. A. (2021). The autism full employment act: The next stage of jobs for adults with autism, ADHD, and other learning and mental health differences. Simon and Schuster. Bezyak, J., Iwanaga, K., Moser, E., & Chan, F. (2021). Assessing employers’ stigmatizing attitudes toward people with disabilities: A brief report. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 54(2), 185-191. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-201129 Black, M. H., Mahdi, S., Milbourn, B., Scott, M., Gerber, A., Esposito, C., Falkmer, M., Lerner, M. D., Halladay, A., Strom, E., D'Angelo, A., Falkmer, T., Bolte, S., & Girdler, S. (2020). Multi-informant international perspectives on the facilitators and barriers to employment for autistic adults. Autism Research, 13(7), 1195-1214. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.2288 97 Blaxill, M., Rogers, T., & Nevison, C. (2022). Autism tsunami: The impact of rising prevalence on the societal cost of autism in the United States. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 52(6), 2627-2643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-05120-7 Bowman, A. D. (2020). What we know about employers’ perspectives on successfully integrating adults with autism spectrum disorders in the workplace. International Journal of Psychiatry Research, 3(1), 1-4. Buckingham, M. & Coffman, C. (1999). First break all the rules: What the world’s greatest managers do differently. Simon and Schuster. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021a). Labor force statistics from current population survey [Data set]. https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea24.htm Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021b, June). The employment situation- June 2021. (USDL-12- 1224). United States Department of Labor. Burgess, S., & Cimera, R. E. (2014). Employment outcomes of transition-aged adults with autism spectrum disorders: A state of the states report. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 119(1), 64-83. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558- 119.1.64 Burt, D. B., Fuller, S. P., & Lewis, K. R. (1991). Brief report: Competitive employment of adults with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 21(2), 237-242. Bury, S. M., Flower, R. L., Zulla, R., Nicholas, D. B., & Hedley, D. (2021). Workplace social challenges experienced by employees on the autism spectrum: An international exploratory study examining employee and supervisor perspectives. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 51(5), 1614-1627. 98 Carpenter, A. (1992). Autistic adulthood: A challenging journey. High-functioning individuals with autism, 289-294. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2022, March 28). Signs and symptoms of autism spectrum disorder. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/signs.html Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2023, April 4). Data and statistics on autism spectrum disorder. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. (2018). Neurodiversity at work. https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/fundamentals/relations/diversity/neurodiversitywork#gref Che, J. (2016, March 29). Why more companies are eager to hire people with autism. Huffington Post. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/companies-hiring-people-withautism_n_56e99cdfe4b065e2e3d82ab4 Chen, J. L., Leader, G., Sung, C., & Leahy, M. (2015). Trends in employment for individuals with autism spectrum disorder: A review of the research literature. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 2(2), 115-127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489- 014-0041-6 Chesney, L., Dalmia, M., & Russert, D. (2022, October 23). Neurodiversity Career Panel [Summit Panel]. Stanford Neurodiversity Summit, online. Chow, R. (2021). Don’t just mentor women and people of color. Sponsor them. Harvard Business Review, 30. 99 Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right performance solutions. Information Age Publishing, Inc. Coleman, D. M., & Adams, J. B. (2018). Survey of vocational experiences of adults with autism spectrum disorders, and recommendations on improving their employment. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 49(1), 67-78. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-180955 Cox, W. T., & Devine, P. G. (2019). The prejudice habit-breaking intervention: An empowerment-based confrontation approach. In Mallet, R. & Monteith, M. (Eds.), Confronting prejudice and discrimination (pp. 249-274). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2017-0-01959-6 Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications. Diener, M. L., Wright, C. A., Taylor, C., D’Astous, V., & Lasrich, L. (2020). Dual perspectives in autism spectrum disorders and employment: Toward a better fit in the workplace. Work, 67(1), 223-237. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-203268 Di Francesco, C., Murahara, F., Martin, V., Flanagan, T., & Nadig, A. (2021). The value of employment support services for adults on the autism spectrum and/or with intellectual disabilities: Employee, employer, and job coach perspectives. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 55(3), 283-296. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-211163 Disability:In. (n.d.). Neurodiversity @ work employer roundtable. https://disabilityin.org/whatwe-do/committees/neurodiversity-at-work-roundtable/ 100 Ditchman, N. M., Miller, J. L., & Easton, A. B. (2018). Vocational rehabilitation service patterns: An application of social network analysis to examine employment outcomes of transition-age individuals with autism. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 61(3), 143- 153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034355217709455 Doyle, N., & McDowall, A. (2021). Diamond in the rough? An “empty review” of research into “neurodiversity” and a road map for developing the inclusion agenda. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 41(3), 352-382. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-06- 2020-0172 Dreaver, J., Thompson, C., Girdler, S., Adolfsson, M., Black, M. H., & Falkmer, M. (2020). Success factors enabling employment for adults on the autism spectrum from employers’ perspective. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 50(5), 1657-1667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-03923-3 Durbin, S., Lopes, A., & Warren, S. (2020). Challenging male dominance through the substantive representation of women: the case of an online women’s mentoring platform. New Technology, Work and Employment, 35(2), 215-231. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12166 Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040 Eccles, J., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., & Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 75–146). Freeman. 101 Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999 Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta‐analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113-165. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183 Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist, 36(1), 45-56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5 Gerhardt, P.F., Cicero, F., & Mayville, E. (2014). Employment and Related Services for Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorders. In Volkmar, F., Reichow, B., & McPartland, J. (Eds), Adolescents and Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorders (pp. 105-119). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0506-5_6 Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). Grounded theory: The discovery of grounded theory. Sociology, 12(1), 27-49. Gould, R., Harris, S. P., Caldwell, K., Fujiura, G., Jones, R., Ojok, P., & Enriquez, K. P. (2015). Beyond the law: a review of knowledge, attitudes and perceptions in ADA employment research. Disability Studies Quarterly, 35(3). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v35i3.4935 Hagner, D., & Cooney, B. F. (2005). “I do that for everybody”: Supervising employees with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20(2), 91-97. https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576050200020501 102 Haskins, T. M. (2019). Building employers’ capacity to support competitive employment for adults with autism: A promising practice study (Publication No. 27801415) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California]. Proquest Dissertations and Theses Global. Hedley, D., Cai, R., Uljarevic, M., Wilmot, M., Spoor, J. R., Richdale, A., & Dissanayake, C. (2018). Transition to work: Perspectives from the autism spectrum. Autism, 22(5), 528- 541. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361316687697 Hendricks, D. (2010). Employment and adults with autism spectrum disorders: Challenges and strategies for success. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 32(2), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR2010-0502 Henry, M. A., Shorter, S., Charkoudian, L. K., Heemstra, J. M., Le, B., & Corwin, L. A. (2021). Quantifying fear of failure in STEM: Modifying and evaluating the Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory (PFAI) for use with STEM undergraduates. International Journal of STEM Education, 8, 1-28. Hurley-Hanson, A. E., Giannantonio, C. M., & Griffiths, A. J. (2020). The Benefits of Employing Individuals with Autism. In Autism in the Workplace (pp. 257-270). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29049-8_12 Jacob, A., Scott, M., Falkmer, M., & Falkmer, T. (2015). The costs and benefits of employing an adult with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review. PloS One, 10(10), e0139896. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139896 Job Accommodation Network. (n.d.). Employers’ practical guide to reasonable accommodations under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). https://askjan.org/publications/employers/employers-guide.cfm 103 Johnson, K. R., Ennis-Cole, D., & Bonhamgregory, M. (2020). Workplace success strategies for employees with autism spectrum disorder: A new frontier for human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 19(2), 122-151. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484320905910 Johnson, T. D., & Joshi, A. (2014). Disclosure on the spectrum: Understanding disclosure among employees on the autism spectrum. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 7(2), 278– 281. https://doi.org/10.1111/iops.12149 Jones, D. R., DeBrabander, K. M., & Sasson, N. J. (2021). Effects of autism acceptance training on explicit and implicit biases toward autism. Autism, 25(5), 1246-1261. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361320984896 Ju, S., Roberts, E., Zhang, D. (2013). Employer attitudes toward workers with disabilities: A review of research in the past decade. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 38(2),113- 123. Kaya, C., Chan, F., Rumrill, P., Hartman, E., Wehman, P., Iwanaga, K., ... & Avellone, L. (2016). Vocational rehabilitation services and competitive employment for transition-age youth with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 45(1), 73- 83. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-160812 Kaya, C., Hanley‐Maxwell, C., Chan, F., & Tansey, T. (2018). Differential vocational rehabilitation service patterns and outcomes for transition‐age youth with autism. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 31(5), 862-872. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12443 104 Kim, S. Y. (2022). Understanding Perspectives of Job Coaches of Supported Employment Programs Working with Adults with Autism. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2022.2134557 Kim, S. Y., Cheon, J. E., Gillespie-Lynch, K., & Kim, Y. (2022). Is autism stigma higher in South Korea than the United States? Examining cultural tightness, intergroup bias, and concerns about heredity as contributors to heightened autism stigma. Autism, 26(2), 460– 472. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613211029520 Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2 Lai, J. K., Rhee, E., & Nicholas, D. (2017). Suicidality in autism spectrum disorder: A commentary. Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 1(3), 190-195. https://doi-org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1007/s41252-017-0018-4 Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications. López, B., & Keenan, L. (2014). Barriers to employment in autism: Future challenges to implementing the Adult Autism Strategy. Autism Research Network, 1-17 Maenner, M.J., Shaw, K.A., Bakian, A.V., Bilder, D.A., Durkin, M.S., Esler, A., Furnier, S.M., Hallas, L., Hall-Lande, J., Hudson, A., Hughes, M.M., Patrick, M., Pierce, K., Poynter, J.N., Salinas, A., Shenouda, J., Vehorn, A., Warren, Z., Constantino, J.N., …Cogswell, M.E. (2021). Prevalence and characteristics of autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years - Autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, 11 Sites, United States, 2018. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Surveillance Summary, 70(11), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss7011a1 105 Maroto, M., & Pettinicchio, D. (2015). Twenty-five years after the ADA: Situating disability in America's system of stratification. Disability Studies Quarterly, 35(3), 1-34. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2667664 Martin, V., Flanagan, T. D., Vogus, T. J., & Chênevert, D. (2022). Sustainable employment depends on quality relationships between supervisors and their employees on the autism spectrum. Disability and Rehabilitation, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2022.2074550 Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Neurodiversity. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neurodiversity Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Neurotypical. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neurotypical Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons. Microsoft News Center. (2022, April 27). The Neurodiversity @ Work Employer Roundtable and nonprofit Disability:IN are launching the Neurodiversity Career Connector, a job search portal for neurodivergent candidates. https://news.microsoft.com/2022/04/27/theneurodiversity-work-employer-roundtable-and-nonprofit-disabilityin-are-launching-theneurodiversity-career-connector-a-job-search-portal-for-neurodivergent-candidates/ Migliore, A., Timmons, J., Butterworth, J., & Lugas, J. (2012a). Predictors of employment and postsecondary education of youth with autism. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 55(3), 176–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034355212438943 106 Migliore, A. and Zalewska, A. (2012). What Are the Employment Experiences of Youth with Autism After High School? DataNote Series, DataNote 40. University of Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book (2nd ed.). Sage. McConkey, R. (2020). The rise in the numbers of pupils identified by schools with autism spectrum disorder (ASD): A comparison of the four countries in the United Kingdom. Support For Learning, 35(2), 132-143. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12296 McKnight-Lizotte, M. (2018). Work-related communication barriers for individuals with autism: A pilot qualitative study. The Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling, 24(1), 12-26. https://doi.org/10.1017/jrc.2018.4 McLeod, J. D., Meanwell, E., & Hawbaker, A. (2019). The experiences of college students on the autism spectrum: A comparison to their neurotypical peers. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(6), 2320-2336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-03910-8 Nardick, B. (2019, December 19). How hiring disabled employees reduced turnover at my company. Fast Company. https://www.fastcompany.com/90445282/how-hiring-disabledemployees-reduced-turnover-at-my-company Nicholas, D. B., Mitchell, W., Dudley, C., Clarke, M., & Zulla, R. (2018). An ecosystem approach to employment and autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(1), 264-275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3351-6 107 Nicholas, D., Mitchell, W., Zulla, R., & Dudley, C. (2019). Perspectives of employers about hiring individuals with autism spectrum disorder: Evaluating a cohort of employers engaged in a job-readiness initiative. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 50(3), 353- 364. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-191018 Ohl, A., Grice Sheff, M., Small, S., Nguyen, J., Paskor, K., & Zanjirian, A. (2017). Predictors of employment status among adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Work, 56(2), 345-355. https://doi.org/10.3233/wor-172492 Osanloo, A., & Grant, C. (2016). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house.” Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, 4(2), 7. https://doi.org/10.5929/2014.4.2.9 O’Donovan, R., & McAuliffe, E. (2020). A systematic review exploring the content and outcomes of interventions to improve psychological safety, speaking up and voice behaviour. BMC Health Services Research, 20(1), 1-11. Parr, A. D., & Hunter, S. T. (2014). Enhancing work outcomes of employees with autism spectrum disorder through leadership: Leadership for employees with autism spectrum disorder. Autism, 18(5), 545-554. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361313483020 Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage. Patton, E. (2019). Autism, attributions and accommodations: Overcoming barriers and integrating a neurodiverse workforce. Personnel Review, 48(4), 915-934. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-04-2018-0116 108 Phillips, B. N., Deiches, J., Morrison, B., Chan, F., & Bezyak, J. L. (2016). Disability diversity training in the workplace: Systematic review and future directions. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 26(3), 264-275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-015-9612-3 Qiu, S., Lu, Y., Li, Y., Shi, J., Cui, H., Gu, Y., Li, Y., Zhong, W., Zhu, X., Cheng, Y., Liu, Y., & Qiao, Y. (2020). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorder in Asia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychiatry Research, 284, 112679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112679 Randel, A. E., Galvin, B. M., Shore, L. M., Ehrhart, K. H., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., & Kedharnath, U. (2018). Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 190-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.002 Rashid, M., Hodgetts, S., & Nicholas, D. (2017). Building employers’ capacity to support vocational opportunities for adults with developmental disabilities. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 4(2), 165-173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489- 017-0105-5 Rashid, M., Thompson-Hodgetts, S., & Nicholas, D. (2018). Building employers’ capacity to support vocational opportunities for adults with developmental disabilities: A synthesis review of grey literature. Journal on Developmental Disabilities, 23(3), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017- 3267-1 Rast, J. E., Roux, A. M., & Shattuck, P. T. (2020). Use of vocational rehabilitation supports for postsecondary education among transition-age youth on the autism spectrum. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 50(6), 2164-2173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803- 019-03972-8 109 Remington, A., & Pellicano, E. (2019). ‘Sometimes you just need someone to take a chance on you’: An internship programme for autistic graduates at Deutsche Bank, UK. Journal of Management & Organization, 25(4), 516-534. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2018.66 Robinson, S. B., & Leonard, K. F. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage Publications. Roux, A. M., Shattuck, P. T., Cooper, B. P., Anderson, K. A., Wagner, M., & Narendorf, S. C. (2013). Postsecondary employment experiences among young adults with an autism spectrum disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 52(9), 931-939. https://doi-org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1016/j.jaac.2013.05.019 Roux, Anne M., Shattuck, Paul T., Rast, Jessica E., Rava, Julianna A., and Anderson, Kristy, A. (2015). National Autism Indicators Report: Transition into Young Adulthood. Life Course Outcomes Research Program. A.J. Drexel Autism Institute. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Sage Publications. Rudy, Lisa J. (2023, June 23). 10 autism-friendly employers. Verywell Health. https://www.verywellhealth.com/top-autism-friendly-employers-4159784 Scheiner, M. (2020). Corporate neurodiversity hiring programs: Scratching the surface? Autism Spectrum News, Winter issue. https://www.autismspectrumnews.org/corporateneurodiversity-hiring-programs-scratching-the-surface/ Scott, M., Jacob, A., Hendrie, D., Parsons, R., Girdler, S., Falkmer, T., & Falkmer, M. (2017). Employers’ perception of the costs and the benefits of hiring individuals with autism spectrum disorder in open employment in Australia. PloS One, 12(5), e0177607. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177607 110 Seagraves, K. (2021). Effective Job Supports to Improve Employment Outcomes for Individuals With Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 52(2), 94-103. https://doi.org/10.1891/JARC-D-20-00017 Shattuck, P. T., Narendorf, S. C., Cooper, B., Sterzing, P. R., Wagner, M., & Taylor, J. L. (2012). Postsecondary education and employment among youth with an autism spectrum disorder. Pediatrics, 129(6), 1042-1049. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-2864 Shaw, S. C., McCowan, S., Doherty, M., Grosjean, B., & Kinnear, M. (2021). The neurodiversity concept viewed through an autistic lens. The Lancet Psychiatry, 8(8), 654-655. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(21)00247-9 Solomon, C. (2020). Autism and employment: Implications for employers and adults with ASD. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 50(11), 4209-4217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-04537-w Sperry, L. A., & Mesibov, G. B. (2005). Perceptions of social challenges of adults with autism spectrum disorder. Autism, 9(4), 362-376. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361305056077 Strauss, A., Schatzman, L., Bucher, R., & Sabshin, M. (1981). Psychiatric ideologies and institutions (2nd ed.). Wiley. Taboas, A., Doepke, K., & Zimmerman, C. (2023). Preferences for identity-first versus personfirst language in a US sample of autism stakeholders. Autism, 27(2), 565-570. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613221130845 Taylor, J. L., Henninger, N. A., & Mailick, M. R. (2015). Longitudinal patterns of employment and postsecondary education for adults with autism and average-range IQ. Autism, 19(7), 785-793. http://doi.org/10.1177/1362361315585643 111 Tomczak, M.T. (2022). How can the work environment be redesigned to enhance the well-being of individuals with autism? Employee Relations, 44(6), 1467-1484. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-12-2021-0535 Towery, D., Parsons, M. B., & Reid, D. H. (2014). Increasing Independence within adult services: A program for reducing staff completion of daily routines for consumers with developmental disabilities. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 7(2), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-014-0013-4 Vincent, J. (2020). Employability for UK university students and graduates on the autism spectrum: Mobilities and materialities. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 22(1), 12-24. https://doi.org/10.16993/sjdr.656 Waller, L. (2020). Fostering a sense of belonging in the workplace: Enhancing well-being and a positive and coherent sense of self. In Dhiman, S. (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of workplace well-being (pp. 1-27). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02470-3_83-1 Whelpley, C. E., Banks, G. C., Bochantin, J. E., & Sandoval, R. (2021). Tensions on the spectrum: An inductive investigation of employee and manager experiences of autism. Journal of Business and Psychology, 36(2), 283-297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-019-09676-1 Whelpley, C. E., & May, C. P. (2022). Seeing is Disliking: Evidence of Bias Against Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder in Traditional Job Interviews. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-022-054322 112 Whittenburg, H. N., Cimera, R. E., & Thoma, C. A. (2019). Comparing employment outcomes of young adults with autism: Does postsecondary educational experience matter? Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 32(2), 159-172. Wing, L. (1989). Autistic adults. In Diagnosis and treatment of autism (pp. 419-432). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0882-7_29 Wong, P. S., Donelly, M., Boyd, B., & Neck, P. A. (2021). Beyond Adaptations and Accommodations: Management Practice that Matters as the Key to Retention of Employees with Autism (Part 1). Review of International Comparative Management, 22(5), 636-658. World Health Organization (2021, November 24). Disability and Health. https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/disability-and-health 113 Appendix A: Interview Protocol Research Questions: RQ1. What are the manager knowledge gaps that contribute to the underrepresentation of college-educated autistic individuals in the workplace across industries? RQ2. What are the manager motivational gaps that contribute to the underrepresentation of college-educated autistic individuals in the workplace across industries? RQ3. What organizational barriers exist that contribute to the underrepresentation of collegeeducated autistic individuals in the workplace across industries? Introduction to the Interview: Hello <name> and thank you again for agreeing to participate in this interview. As a reminder, I am a doctoral student at USC and this interview today is a part of my dissertation work. I have just a couple things to mention before we get started. I want to share with you that the purpose of my study is to learn more about what managers with no formal autism training know and feel about managing an autistic employee. Also, it’s perfectly ok if you’ve never managed anyone with autism before and there are no right or wrong answers. I want you to know that I will be taking confidentiality seriously. I will be de-identifying the answers you provide me so that means the answers will not be tied back to you. Also, if you share something specific about your organization, I will make sure that it will not be identifiable and will use a pseudonym. Because your participation is voluntary, if at any time you decide you no longer want to participate in the study, you are welcome to stop. You are also welcome to skip any questions you prefer not to answer. Also, as mentioned in the information sheet, I’d really like to record this session just so I know I’m capturing your perspectives accurately. Do I still have your permission to record our interview? <wait for response> I may also jot some notes down as we talk just to make sure I catch some specifics. The transcript will be kept on my personal Zoom account that is secured with a private password that only I have access to. I will be destroying the recording after I am finished reviewing my data. I have 14 questions, though some may pop up naturally as we talk, and for that reason, I have allotted about an hour for us. Is this still doable for you? <wait for response> And, if you have additional things you want to add as we talk, please feel free to share them with me. Do you have any questions before we get started? <wait for response> Are you ready to begin? <wait for response> 114 Interview Questions Potential Probes RQ Key Concept Addressed 1a. Opener- Can you start by sharing with me what your main managerial responsibilities are at work? 1b. How long have you been working as a manager? 1c. How long have you been at your current company? • What industry do you work in (if unfamiliar with company)? • What part of the country are you located in? • How big is your company? n/a n/a 2. In your opinion, what things does your organization seem to value most about employees? • How can you tell? • What does your organization consider success? • What does success look like on your team? RQ3 Culture 3.Tell me about the level of importance you feel your organization places on hiring people to be a good “culture fit.” • Can you share an example of what would make someone a good fit? • What would make someone a poor fit? • Talk about the extent to which your organization has a “this is how we’ve always done things” mentality. RQ3 Culture 4. Tell me about a time, if ever, when you managed a person who struggled on the job and how you handled that situation. • How did you support them? • How successful do you feel you were? RQ1 Procedural knowledge 5. Tell me about your perception of autism, if anything. What factors do you feel have influenced this perception? RQ1 Declarative knowledge 6. How would you manage an employee who doesn’t communicate in the same way most of your other employees do? • What if they are considered too blunt by others? • What if they are not understanding your instructions when you give a project? RQ1 Procedural and declarative knowledge 115 7. Can you talk a little bit about your confidence around supervising someone who thinks, acts, and communicates very differently than you? Can you share any past experiences that influence your confidence? RQ2 Self-efficacy 8. Can you share your process for knowing when and where to go for help if you are not sure how to support a struggling employee. How did you come to this process? RQ1 Procedural knowledge 9. What do you think would be the most difficult aspects of supporting an employee with a disability like autism? What factors do you feel have influenced these thoughts? RQ2 Self-efficacy 10. At this point in your career, talk with me about how much time, if any, you would realistically be able to dedicate to seeking training for yourself to support employees with disabilities like autism. • What would support your involvement in training? • What barriers may you experience? RQ2 Mental effort, persistence 11a. How do you think having employees with disabilities at work would impact business? 11b. How would you feel about changing interviewing to deprioritize things like eye contact or personality fit? 11c. How do you think employees requiring several accommodations would impact business? RQ2 Expectancyvalue 12. In your opinion, describe your organization’s commitment to inclusive practices for people with disabilities. • How do you know? What could be improved or is working well? RQ3 Culture 13. Describe what your organization does to equip managers to support people with any type of disability at work. • What do you think is missing, if anything? RQ3 Training 14. Closing- Is there anything else you’d like to share about our topic today? n/a n/a Conclusion to the Interview: Ok, that was our last question of the interview. Thank you so much for taking the time to meet with me and sharing your thoughts and insights. Is it ok with you if I contact you just in case I have some follow up questions for you? <wait for response> Do you have any questions for me? <wait for response> Ok, great. Have a wonderful day. 116 Appendix B: Information Sheet for Exempt Research University of Southern California Rossier School of Education Waite Phillips Hall, 3460 Trousdale Pkwy Los Angeles, CA 90089 INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH STUDY TITLE: Understanding the Gaps for Neurotypical Managers to Support CollegeEducated Autistic Employees Across Industries PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Angela Nelson, MS FACULTY ADVISOR: Maria Ott, PhD You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to you. PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to understand the knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers that exist for neurotypical managers (i.e., without a developmental disability) to support college-educated autistic individuals successfully in the workplace. We hope to learn insights and make recommendations to organizations about their potential role in addressing employment outcomes for autistic employees. You are invited as a possible participant because you: • Have at least 5 years of managerial experience • Supervise at least five employees • Have no formal training or experience supervising an autistic employee • Have no close loved ones with autism PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT If you decide to take part, you will be asked to participate in a one-hour interview conducted over Zoom. You may be contacted after the interview has ended if clarification is needed. Audio recording and transcription will be used to ensure accuracy of your responses. You may decline to be recorded and continue with your participation. CONFIDENTIALITY The members of the research team and the University of Southern California 117 Institutional Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects. Your responses will be kept confidential. You will be given a pseudonym and your responses will not be identifiable. The recording and transcript will be kept in a private Zoom account on a private computer, both with strong passwords. You have a right to review and edit the audio recordings and transcripts. All data collected will be destroyed promptly after analysis. INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION If you have any questions about this study, please contact Angela Nelson at angelan@usc.edu or Maria Ott, PhD at mariaott@rossier.usc.edu. IRB CONTACT INFORMATION If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email irb@usc.edu. Version Date: 2/19/2023 USC IRB Information Sheet Template Version Date: 07/27/2019

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Building employers’ capacity to support competitive employment for adults with autism: a promising practice study

PDF

Communication apprehension among autistic employees

PDF

Managers’ roles in supporting employee engagement in Jewish nonprofit organizations

PDF

Promoting well-being amid a global pandemic: evaluating the impact on nonprofit employees

PDF

Secrets from the C-suite: women leaders on the bridging gap

PDF

College major decision making of autistic students

PDF

Enhancing transfer of harassment prevention training into practice

PDF

Attending to the lived experiences of behavior technicians to discover the keys to retention: an exploratory study

PDF

Multi-tiered system of support as the overarching umbrella: an improvement model using KMO gap analysis to address the problem of school districts struggling to implement MTSS

PDF

STEM industries apprenticeships: organization influences, skill gaps, and challenges facing the 21st-century workforce: an evaluation study

PDF

Examining the lack of equity in leadership opportunities for underrepresented employees in the pharmaceutical industry

PDF

The underrepresentation of Latinas as K−12 school district superintendents: an evaluation study

PDF

Negotiation strategies for women impacting the expanding gender earnings gap at midlife

PDF

A neurodiverse way to hire

PDF

Enduring in silence: understanding the intersecting challenges of women living with multiple sclerosis in the workplace

PDF

Understanding cross-cultural knowledge sharing in Ghana’s energy sector: an exploratory study

PDF

The role of higher education in bridging workforce skills gaps: an evaluation study

PDF

Workplace bullying of women leaders in the United States

PDF

Middle management’s struggle to sustain change: perspectives of the middle management team in nursing

PDF

Gender barriers towards women on the career path and within executive leadership

Asset Metadata

Creator Nelson, Angela Kristine (author)

Core Title Understanding the gaps for neurotypical managers to support college-educated autistic employees across industries

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-12

Publication Date 10/13/2023

Defense Date 09/19/2023

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag autism,autistic,College,disability,gap analysis,HR,human resources,implicit bias,KMO,knowledge,manager,Motivation,neurodivergent,neurodiversity,neurotypical,OAI-PMH Harvest,organization,underemployment,underrepresentation

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Ott, Maria (committee chair), Datta, Monique (committee member), Haskins, Theresa (committee member)

Creator Email adagost@gmail.com,angelan@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113759448

Unique identifier UC113759448

Identifier etd-NelsonAnge-12423.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-NelsonAnge-12423

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Nelson, Angela Kristine

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20231020-usctheses-batch-1102 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu