University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Autistic people’s experiences during the employment process

(USC Thesis Other)

Autistic people’s experiences during the employment process

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Autistic People’s Experiences During the Employment Process
Lance Patrick Aja
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 2024

© Copyright by Lance Patrick Aja 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Lance Patrick Aja certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Briana Hinga
Theresa Haskins
Patricia Tobey, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
This basic qualitative study explored the employment experiences of autistic individuals by
focusing on their insights, individual differences, and the impact of workplace supports and
accommodations. Using Annabi and Locke’s (2019) organizational interventions mitigating
individual barriers (OIMIB) framework, this research provides a detailed understanding of the
barriers and opportunities that autistic individuals face in the workplace. The researcher
conducted semi-structured interviews with 13 participants who were clinically or self-diagnosed
as autistic. The findings highlight significant challenges related to traditional interview
processes, communication barriers, and workplace misunderstandings while illuminating diverse
career paths, industry interests, and coping strategies among participants. The study identifies a
critical gap in the availability and effectiveness of autism employment programs (AEPs) and
emphasizes the need for tailored workplace support. The recommendations for practice, which
focus on increasing awareness and training, implementing flexible hiring practices, developing
sensory-friendly work environments, establishing structured support systems, and fostering an
inclusive organizational culture, have the potential to significantly improve the employment
experiences of autistic individuals. By applying Kotter’s 8-step change model, organizations can
systematically implement these recommendations, creating a more inclusive and supportive
workplace for autistic employees. The study aimed to inform policy and practice, enhancing
employment outcomes for autistic individuals, and contributing to more diverse and equitable
workplaces.
Keywords: autism, employment barriers, coping methods, neurodiversity, workplace
inclusion, organizational culture

v
Dedication
To my participants. I could not have achieved this without the experiences and insights that you
all shared. Your willingness to be vulnerable and share parts of your personal journeys has not
only informed this research but has also deeply inspired me. Your voices have shaped this
dissertation, and for that, I am profoundly grateful. This is dedicated to you and the future of the
autistic community.

vi
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I want to thank my dissertation committee. My Chair, Dr. Patricia
Tobey has been a steadfast supporter and great confidant as I have traversed the dissertation
process. I will miss our meetings when we both forget what we were talking about. My
committee includes Drs. Briana Hinga and Theresa Haskins. Dr. Haskins, I want to thank you for
joining my committee. Your expertise in the field provided me with inspiration and a sense of
duty to ensure the autistic community was centered in the research. Finally, Dr. Hinga. Words
cannot express the impact that you have made on my life. Having you as my first professor in the
program let me know that I was in a safe, supportive environment with someone that is a true
champion to equity and inclusion. I would not be the person I am now, or in the future, without
your passion, empathy, and example.
I want to thank Dr. Nicole Maccalla who was instrumental to this dissertation and to my
journey. Dr. Maccalla, I was so fortunate to have you teach two of my inquiry classes in the
program. Your ability to teach concepts from experience and not just the text was invaluable to
my research. You also helped shape my interview protocol, demographics survey, and other
appendices. Thank you for presenting as yourself and being an inspiration to me.
I would like to thank my cohort. We have been through a long journey together, and it
would not have been possible without so many of you. I am forever grateful for all that you
taught me and your support over the last 3 years. I would be remiss if I did not give special
recognition to Taylor Mizuno Moore, Desyree Dixon, Julie Eydman, and Connie Green (aka the
Jamaican Bobsled Team). I will forever think about the fun that we had. I would also like to
recognize Jennifer Potter, Saida Perez, Theresa Lucas, and Louis Schenk for your support and
compassion. You all have a special place in my heart.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.................................................................................................................................iv
Dedication...............................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements................................................................................................................vi
List of Tables..........................................................................................................................x
List of Figures........................................................................................................................xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study........................................................................................1
Background of the Problem ..........................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem..............................................................................................3
Purpose of the Study.....................................................................................................4
Significance of the Study..............................................................................................5
Definition of Terms......................................................................................................5
Organization of the Study.............................................................................................8
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature...................................................................................10
Autistic Employment Historically...............................................................................10
Late Diagnosed Autism in Adults ...............................................................................11
Tenets of Autistic People’s Experiences in the Workplace........................................... 12
Barriers and Opportunities..........................................................................................14
Autism Employment Programs...................................................................................28
Individual Differences................................................................................................36
Coping Methods.........................................................................................................46
Neurotypical Knowledge and Attitudes....................................................................... 51
Manager Support........................................................................................................52
Current Trends...........................................................................................................58
Further Gaps in Research............................................................................................59

viii
Theoretical Framework...............................................................................................60
Chapter Two Summary...............................................................................................63
Chapter Three: Methodology .................................................................................................66
Research Questions....................................................................................................66
Overview of Design ...................................................................................................66
Research Setting.........................................................................................................68
The Researcher..........................................................................................................69
Data Sources..............................................................................................................70
Credibility and Trustworthiness..................................................................................73
Ethics.........................................................................................................................74
Chapter Four: Findings..........................................................................................................76
Participants................................................................................................................76
Demographics............................................................................................................77
Qualitative Findings Overview...................................................................................81
Research Question 1: Experiences and Perceptions...................................................... 82
Emotional and Practical Challenges Adult Diagnoses.................................................. 89
Summary of Research Question 1 ...............................................................................90
Research Question 2: Individual Differences............................................................... 91
Summary of Research Question 2 ...............................................................................96
Research Question 3: Workplace Supports.................................................................. 97
Summary of Research Question 3 .............................................................................101
Conclusion...............................................................................................................102
Chapter Five: Discussions and Recommendations................................................................. 103
Summary of Findings...............................................................................................103
Recommendations for Practice..................................................................................104

ix
Recommendation and Implementation Strategy Summary ......................................... 111
Introduction to the Implementation Model................................................................. 112
Limitations and Delimitations...................................................................................115
Recommendations for Future Research..................................................................... 117
Conclusion...............................................................................................................118
References..........................................................................................................................120
Appendix A: Interview Protocol...........................................................................................143
Respondent Type......................................................................................................143
Introduction to the Interview.....................................................................................143
Conclusion to the Interview......................................................................................147
Appendix B: Demographics Survey .....................................................................................148
Age..........................................................................................................................148
Gender Identity........................................................................................................148
Autism Diagnosis.....................................................................................................149
Employment Status..................................................................................................149
Education.................................................................................................................149
Living Situation .......................................................................................................150
Race/Ethnicity..........................................................................................................150
Location...................................................................................................................151
Previous Experience With Autism Employment Programs......................................... 151
Additional Support or Accommodations.................................................................... 151
Appendix C: Screening Email..............................................................................................152
Your Answers Are Confidential................................................................................153
Appendix D: Information Sheet............................................................................................154
Appendix E: Coding Table...................................................................................................156

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Data Sources............................................................................................................67
Table 2: Participant Demographics.........................................................................................77
Table A1: Interview Protocol...............................................................................................144
Appendix E: Coding Table...................................................................................................156

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Organizational Interventions Mitigating Individual Behavior Framework.................. 61
Figure 2: Themes, Subthemes, and Codes...............................................................................82
Figure 3: Kotter’s 8-Step Change Model..............................................................................113

1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
This study explored the experiences of autistic individuals during the employment
process, focusing on their insights, individual differences, and the impact of workplace supports
and accommodations. The study captured the participants’ experiences with neurotypical
knowledge and attitudes, including the influence of individuals involved in the employment
process. These firsthand experiences were analyzed to ascertain the perceived barriers and
opportunities associated with employment.
Chapter One began with the background of the problem, illustrating the size and
representation of disabled and autistic people in the workplace. The background included an
overview of the challenges faced by autistic individuals in the workplace, embedded in the
theoretical framework. The problem statement delved into the nuances of these challenges,
including what was needed for interventions to be successful. Following the problem statement
was the purpose of this study, including the research questions that focused the research. The
purpose and research questions were succeeded by the significance of performing this study.
Supervening the significance were the limitations and delimitations associated with this study.
Finally, there was a list of definitions for key terms and an outline for the overall organization of
the study.
Background of the Problem
The World Health Organization (WHO, 2011) stated that approximately 15% of the
world’s population is disabled. Only one-third of approximately 30 million Americans reported
as having a disability are working (Patton, 2019). This employment data contrasted with 80% of
disabled people that reported a desire to work (Ali et al., 2011). One segment of the disabled
population severely underrepresented in the workforce was autistic people. The Centers for

2
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2022) found that approximately 70% of the nearly six
million adults on the spectrum are unemployed or underemployed. Fifty percent of autistic
people under 25 had never worked a job for a paid wage (CDC, 2022). Estimates for the
employment rates of autistic people had been reported as low as 15% (Chen et al., 2015;
Grenawalt et al., 2020; Patton, 2019; Roux et al., 2017). Annabi and Locke (2019) surmised that
limited research and disclosure were reasons why employment rates for autistic people were
challenging to estimate.
The prevalence of autism diagnoses in adults has risen as awareness and diagnostic
criteria have evolved (Huang et al., 2020; Lilley et al., 2021). Many adults may have been
misdiagnosed or undiagnosed because of the assessment, observation schedule, or interview
method used at the time of treatment. This phenomenon has led to a “lost generation” of autistic
adults who have navigated life without the benefits of an accurate diagnosis (Lai & BaronCohen, 2015, p. 1). The impact of receiving a late diagnosis is profound, as it often provides a
framework for reinterpreting and re-explaining past experiences, reducing self-blame (Ghanouni
& Seaker, 2023). The study’s findings in Chapter Four indicated that all participants in the study
were adults when diagnosed autistic.
Many organizations sought assistance through autism employment programs (AEPs) and
similar initiatives to attract, recruit, and retain autistic individuals. However, despite the
intentions of these programs, the study’s findings in Chapter Four indicated that none of the
participants had experience with AEPs. This lack of engagement with AEPs highlighted a gap
between the existence of these programs and their utilization or awareness among autistic job
seekers. The study thus focused on the actual experiences and challenges faced by autistic
individuals in the employment process without the influence of formal employment programs.

3
Understanding these real-world experiences provided a more accurate depiction of the barriers
and opportunities faced by autistic individuals in the workforce.
Statement of the Problem
Research confirmed that autistic and other neurodiverse individuals faced overwhelming
exclusion from the workforce due to organizational hiring practices and policies (Griffiths et al.,
2019; Krzeminska et al., 2019; Saleh & Bruyère, 2018). Research also showed insufficient
support systems, structures, and pipelines for neurodiverse people, which adds to their
underrepresentation in the workplace (Dietz et al., 2020; Saleh & Bruyère, 2018). Limited
research addressed barriers and opportunities in organizational settings to support autistic people
in the workplace (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Hurlbutt & Chalmers, 2004; Roux et al., 2015; Wei et
al., 2015). Research was also limited in examining organizational practices and policies that led
to successful employment outcomes for autistic people (Griffiths et al., 2019). Employer factors
contributing to the hiring, retention, and successful employment outcomes for autistic people
were also scarce (Griffiths et al., 2019). Whelpley et al. (2021) found little research examining
autistic people in the workplace to include best practices for hiring autistic people.
Organizations sought assistance through AEPs and other programs for business, legal,
and social justice reasons. Austin and Pisano (2017) revealed that many autistic people struggled
with finding employment before involvement with an autism-focused employment program.
Although AEPs and similar programs have improved outcomes for autistic people, the
program’s effectiveness in addressing barriers and opportunities was contingent on designing
and deploying diverse methods and practices (Annabi & Locke, 2019). Attributions and shared
mental models among employees determine what someone in the workplace should be like
(Patton, 2019). Autistic people, along with other marginalized groups, could be perceived as the

4
problem, creating a cyclical condition where the people attempting to create change furthered
the exclusion of marginalized people (Patton, 2019). For employment programs to flourish,
aiding in the recruitment, hiring, and retention of autistic people, the firsthand experiences, and
voices of those with autism must be heard.
Purpose of the Study
This study aimed to examine the underrepresentation of autistic people in the workplace.
Specifically, the study examined the experiences of autistic people as they navigated the
employment process. The study used Annabi and Locke’s (2019) organizational interventions
mitigating individual barriers (OIMIB) framework. OIMIB initially focused on gender
differences, specifically women in information technology (IT) (Annabi & Lebovitz, 2018).
Annabi and Locke (2019) added the theory of planned behavior (TPB) to transform the
framework to focus on individuals with autism in IT. The study consisted of semi-structured
interviews to collect the firsthand experiences of autistic people. Comparisons and differences
among participants, and actors involved, were examined. Comparisons and differences illustrate
the complexity and nuances between the individuals, including coping methods that exist by the
participants. This perspective will bridge gaps in existing research and contribute to the limited
empirical research on hiring autistic people in the workforce.
Three research questions guided this study:
1. How do autistic people’s experiences and perceptions affect the employment process?
2. How do individual differences between autistic people affect their employment
process?
3. How do workplace supports and accommodations affect autistic people’s
employment outcomes?

5
Significance of the Study
This study aimed to further the efforts of existing research on autism. Specifically, this
research looked to fill existing gaps in research regarding the employment process (i.e.,
recruitment, interview, hiring, and onboarding) of autistic individuals. Autistic people remain
underrepresented in the workplace. Individuals with autism had higher unemployment rates “in
relation to the general population but also in comparison to adults with other disabilities”
(Tomczak, 2021, p. 196). Based on the increase in the identification of autistic people (Maenner
et al., 2021), there would be an increase in autistic people attempting to enter the workforce
(Whelpley et al., 2021). There was a corresponding rising demand in the IT sector to attract and
retain talent (Annabi & Lebovitz, 2018; Annabi & Locke, 2019). The IT sector was among the
first industries to seek neurodiverse talent. Organizations’ ever evolving need to innovate and
satisfy moral or institutional pressures could do so by diversifying their people’s skill sets and
perspectives (Loiacono & Ren, 2018).
Autistic people showed a desire to join the workforce. Autistic people could contribute to
society, earn income, independence, social inclusion, and self-efficacy had greater life
satisfaction (Howlin, 2013; Mynatt et al., 2014; Whelpley & Perrault, 2021). Employing autistic
people could also reduce the direct and indirect costs on their families, society, and government
(Howlin, 2013; Mynatt et al., 2014; Whelpley & Perrault, 2021). Finally, “organizations that can
effectively hire, integrate, and manage their autistic employees may reap long-term benefits and
gain a strategic advantage relative to those organizations that cannot” (Whelpley et al., 2021, pp.
283–284).
Definition of Terms
Adult diagnosis refers to individuals who are clinically or self-diagnosed as adults.

6
Criteria for adult diagnosis is the same as for children with added complexities. The DSM-5
states that, “Some individuals come for first diagnosis in adulthood, perhaps prompted by the
diagnosis of autism in a child in the family or a breakdown of relations at work or home” (APA,
2022, p. 56).
Attributions are “the process of inferring the causes of events or behaviors” (Cherry,
2022, para 1). Research on attribution theory showed that autistic people could face exclusion,
stress, anxiety, frustration, and bullying due to the attributions and judgments that coworkers and
managers placed on autistic people because of what was considered “unusual and consistent”
behavior (Patton, 2019, p. 920)
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) “is characterized by persistent deficits in social
communication and social interaction across multiple contexts, including deficits in social
reciprocity, nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction and skills in
developing, maintaining, and understanding relationships” (APA, 2013, p. 31).
Barriers are immaterial obstacles that impede, prevent, or block movement (MerriamWebster, n.d.). Riemenschneider et al. (2006) defined workplace barriers as “some obstacle that
impedes progress regarding an individual’s job achievement” (p. 59). Barriers were one portion
of the second component of OIMIB, positing that autistic people experienced barriers and
opportunities differently based on individual differences (Annabi & Locke, 2019).
Camouflaging referred to coping strategies used by autistic people in social situations to
make behaviors appear more socially capable (Hul et al., 2017). These strategies, which include
masking behaviors and compensation techniques, were used to prevent neurotypical people from
being able to see their social difficulties (Hul et al., 2017).
Catalysts are “innovators who can’t stop taking in information, connecting dots, and

7
changing the world—even when the world hasn’t asked for it” (Richter, 2021, para 3). Catalysts
could influence interventions’ effectiveness in addressing barriers (Annabi & Lebovitz, 2018).
Catalysts could influence how autistic people utilized AEPs, and determined the level of
commitment organizations were placing on interventions (Annabi & Lebovitz, 2018).
Identity-first language (IFL) is the current and predominant choice of self-advocates and
researchers regarding a neurodiverse person (Botha et al., 2023). An example of IFL is an
“autistic person” (Botha, et al., 2023, p. 873). This type of identification is counter to the personfirst language (PFL) example of “person with autism” (Botha, et al., 2023, p. 873), which
“perpetuates the societal view that something is wrong about the diagnosis” (Vivanti, 2020, p.
692).
Intervention is “an activity designed to change a state of affairs” (von Hellens et al.,
2012, p. 343). Diversity interventions, like AEPs, were defined by their catalysts and goals, the
methods, and practices they employed, and the measurement and assessments used to hold them
accountable (Annabi & Lebovitz, 2018).
Neurodiversity is “the variation and differences in neurological structure and function
among human beings, especially when viewed as normal and natural rather than pathological”
(Dictionary.com, n.d., para. 1). Neurodiversity also refers to atypical neurological development
(Houdek, 2022; Krzeminska et al., 2019). Neurodiverse encapsulates a variety of people that
were not considered typical or had normal neurological functioning.
Neurotypical is a term used to describe people without developmental or neurological
differences (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Austin & Pisano, 2017; Hedley et al., 2017). Neurotypical is
often used to describe people that are not autistic. The term extended to anyone considered
archetypal regarding development and their functioning.

8
Opportunities are situations or conditions advantageous for goal attainment
(Dictionary.com, n.d.). AEPs commissioned by organizations provide meaningful employment
opportunities for autistic people (Annabi & Locke, 2019).
Perceived outcomes capture the perception that people had related to interventions.
Research on women in IT has showed that perceived outcomes for interventions included visible
role models, equal pay and advancement opportunities, inclusion and support in networks,
cultural awareness, and empowerment (Annabi & Lebovitz, 2018). Perceived outcomes are the
fourth dimension of the OIMIB framework.
Self-efficacy refers to “people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute
courses of action required to attain designated types of performances” (Bandura, 1986, p. 391).
Self-efficacy and perceived outcomes or goals influenced behaviors (Mynatt et al., 2014).
Stigmas are “social phenomenon in which a person’s social identity does not fit an
expected social identity in a particular context” (Patton, 2019, p. 918). Concerning autism,
stigmas are judgments based on stereotypes and assumptions that neurotypicals place on atypical
people as being in a “socially devalued position” (Whelpley et al., 2021, p. 294).
Stimming is an abbreviation for self-stimulation (Brownlow, 2010). Stimming refers to
repeated behaviors common by autistic people that regulated their emotional or cognitive
functioning (Charlton et al., 2021). Research has showed that non-autistic people found
stimming a negative behavior (Charlton et al., 2021).
Organization of the Study
This study followed the five-chapter design. This chapter provided an overview of the
proceeding study, including definitions of key terms. This chapter sets the framework for the
impending chapters so the reader can see which lens the researcher used for the study. This

9
chapter also briefly illustrated the current climate regarding autism in the workplace, laying the
foundation for the study’s problem statement, purpose, and significance.
Chapter Two provided a review of the literature. The beginning encompassed an
overview of the history of autism, specifically focusing on adult autistic people in the workplace.
Next, the researcher examined the OIMIB framework, including its roots in the information
system’s (IS) gender theory, individual differences theory of gender and information technology
(IDTGIT), and the inclusion of the theory of planned behavior (TPB) which reshaped the
original OIMIB framework from women in IT to autistic people in IT. The majority of Chapter
Two will explained the five constructs of OIMIB: a) individual differences, (b) barriers and
opportunities in the workplace, (c) individual coping methods, (d) autism employment programs,
and (e) knowledge and attitudes of neurotypical people towards autistic people.
Chapter Three detailed the methodology of the study. It includes the selection of
participants from the target population. Chapter Three also explained the instrumentation used to
collect data for this study, including why. Next, this chapter delved into the data collection
methods using the instrumentation. Finally, the chapter covered the statistical techniques used for
data analysis.
Chapter Four begins with a description of the participants. The researcher then conveyed
the results of the findings. These results focused on the research questions from Chapter One,
with a discussion section for each one of the questions. The chapter concludes with a synthesis
and summarization of the key findings from the study.
Chapter Five begins with a discussion of the findings, with links to existing literature.
Next, the researcher discussed practical implications based on the findings and directions for
future research. The chapter concludes with a summary of the study, including final thoughts.

10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This chapter reviewed literature on the lack of representation of autistic people in the
workforce. The literature review encompasses historical aspects of the underrepresentation. The
individual tenets of the OIMIB framework will be examined. The tenets include barriers and
opportunities, autism employment programs, individual differences, coping methods, and
neurotypical knowledge and attitudes. After the literature review of the framework, the
researcher will present the individual tenets of OIMIB. After the framework for the study is
presented, the chapter will delve into the theories used to construct the framework. These
theories include IS gender theory, IDTGIT, and the addition of TPB, which adapted the original
framework from a focus on gender differences in IT to a focus on autistic people in IT. The
literature review and study use all the frameworks tenets as a basis for exploration. The study
will not be focused on the IT industry solely. The literature review will cover the current state of
autistic employment, followed by gaps in the literature that will inform the direction and
methodology of this research. The researcher used two sources: USC Libraries and Google
Scholar for collection of sources for the literature review. Keyword searches were predominantly
defined in Chapter One (i.e., adult diagnosis, autism spectrum disorder, barriers, camouflaging,
hiring, neurodiversity, opportunities, perceived outcomes, recruiting, and stigmas). Variations of
these words and others were filtered by selecting articles that were peer reviewed. Finally, the
date range for all articles was between 2010 and the present. Articles encapsulated outside this
date range were found as seminal sources or through other articles cited in this study.
Autistic Employment Historically
Autism employment historical data is not prevalent. The concept of autism is less than a
century old. The term autism was coined by Eugene Bleuler, a Swiss psychiatrist, in 1911

11
(Eastwood et al., 2022). Jean Piaget, a Swiss developmental psychologist, furthered Bleuler’s
research in the 1920s, specifically in children (Eastwood et al., 2022). It was not until
psychiatrist Leo Kanner and Hans Asperger’s work in the 1940s that autism was in the most
people’s consciousness (Baren-Cohen, 2015). Autism, like many disorders and disabilities, has
historically been viewed through a deficit lens, which shows autistic people as being a deviation
from what is considered normal (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Houdek, 2022). Autistic people and
people with other intellectual disabilities were often in asylums until the 1980s and 1990s, when
a massive, deinstitutionalized effort occurred in the United States (Bishop-Fitzpatrick et al.,
2019). Autism research mainly studies the deficits, not attributes that exist for some autistic
people. A study examining the lack of existing research on autism across a person’s lifespan
from a social work perspective showed that strengths possessed by autistic people often go
unrecognized by society because of the deficit model depicted in news media and television
(Bishop-Fitzpatrick et al., 2019). The study posited that this representation may “lead to
decreased social opportunities that further social isolation” (Bishop-Fitzpatrick et al., 2019, p.
79). A study that interviewed autistic individuals’ workplace experience yielded the need for
research that examines how stigma and discrimination have led to high unemployment rates for
autistic people (Davies et al., 2023). A study interviewing six autistic adults about their
employment experiences found all participants encountered negative experiences (Hurlbutt &
Chalmers, 2004). Participants mentioned social skills, communication, and sensory issues as
factors and stated that support and mentors along the way would have been significant.
Late Diagnosed Autism in Adults
Adults who receive an autism diagnosis later in life often report significant challenges
due to prior misdiagnoses. Studies have shown that over 60% of adults diagnosed with autism

12
reported being previousmisdiagnoses with other conditions such as schizophrenia, personality
disorders, or various mental health disorders (Crane et al., 2018; Huang et al., 2020).
Misdiagnosis often stems from the complex presentation of autistic traits, which can overlap with
symptoms of other mental health conditions, including anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder
(OCD), and depression (APA, 2022). The high rates of co-occurring mental health conditions
among autistic adults, particularly those diagnosed in mid-to-late adulthood, further complicate
the diagnostic process, contributing to prolonged periods of misunderstanding and inadequate
support (Crane et al., 2013; Leedham et al., 2020; Lilley et al., 2022).
Receiving an autism diagnosis in adulthood is often marked by mixed emotions, ranging
from relief and validation to frustration and regret over missed opportunities for prior
intervention (Ghanouni & Seaker, 2023; Lilley et al., 2023). For many adults, obtaining a
diagnosis provides a new lens through which they can reinterpret past experiences and reduce
self-blame, facilitating a more positive self-identity (Bargiela et al., 2016; Hickey et al., 2018;
Lilley et al., 2023). However, the lack of appropriate post-diagnostic support exacerbates the
challenges faced by these individuals. Nearly half of the adults diagnosed later in life report
receiving no formal support following their diagnosis. Many find that existing services are
tailored primarily for children or adults with high support needs, leaving gaps in services for
those with subtler autistic presentations (Crane et al., 2018; Huang et al., 2020). The need for a
more comprehensive understanding of the unique experiences of late-diagnosed adults is crucial
for developing effective support systems that address this population’s emotional and practical
needs (Huang et al., 2020).
Tenets of Autistic People’s Experiences in the Workplace
There are six tenets associated with the autistic people’s experience in the workplace that

13
align with the OIMIB framework. Barriers and opportunities are at opposite ends; however
human effort turn barriers into opportunities, as opportunities for some can be barriers for others.
For this reason, the first two tenets are combined. The following section will focus on
employment programs, specifically autism employment programs (AEPs) as they are the focus
of the OIMIB framework. While focusing on AEPs, a literature review on inclusion initiatives,
Autism at Work, hiring practices, accommodations, human resources (HR), support, and
advocacy will be presented. The study will focus on employment programs more generally since
specific participation in an AEP is not a requirement to participate in the study. Following AEPs,
the focus shifts to the individual differences between autistic people, as the spectrum is nonlinear. Individual difference in the literature reviewed relates to symptoms, mental health
conditions, behaviors, socioeconomics, supports, experiences, disclosure, and perceived
outcomes. After the literature on individual differences is displayed, coping methods include
camouflaging, stimming, seeking informal networks, alienation, and leaving workplaces. The
final tenet associated with autistic people’s experiences in the employment process will focus on
neurotypical (NT) knowledge and attitudes. NT knowledge and attitudes profoundly affect the
outcomes of autistic individuals in the workplace. This section will focus on manager support,
training and development, organization culture, communication, accommodations, prejudice, and
introspection. Next, the literature review will focus on current trends and research gaps.
Reviewing trends and gaps will lead to the theoretical framework used in the subsequent study.
After a brief review of the organizational interventions mitigating individual behavior (OIMIB)
framework, the three theories used to support the creation of the OIMIB framework will be
presented, including the theories used in research to support OIMIB as the framework for the
following study.

14
Barriers and Opportunities
Barriers and opportunities are symbiotic when examining the experiences and outcomes
of autistic people. Eliminating barriers increases opportunities for autistic people, just as
increasing opportunities for autistic people can reduce barriers. When examining barriers and
opportunities related to the recruitment, hiring, and retention of autistic people, it is necessary to
evaluate organizations actively searching to hire a neurodiverse workforce. Industry-level
differences, which include diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and disability
services for supporting autistic people, are essential for desired outcomes. Barriers and
opportunities exist regarding autistic people’s contributions, social expectations, and work–
family demands. Evaluating the barriers and opportunities associated with organizational,
individual, and social/familial demands is essential.
Organizations Seeking Neurodiversity
Research shows that organizations seeking neurodiverse workers are doing so for
competitive advantages, social benefits, alignment of mission, and the improvement of
organizational processes (Houdek, 2022). Removing barriers to employment within
organizations enables organizations to be reflective of the communities that they inhabit.
Organizations that want to innovate and take advantage of a largely untapped neurodiverse
workforce have an opportune time. An increase in the diagnosis of autistic people coinciding
with a reduction in available government support has enabled organizations to seek out a
population of people who want to contribute (Whelpley et al., 2021). Low unemployment rates
can be a catalyst for companies that must be creative in attracting talent. Companies have begun
recruiting and hiring autistic people because of societal benefits, including increased
independence, agency, well-being, and overall quality of life (Hedley et al., 2017). Organizations

15
seek autistic employment for strategic advantages over competitors (Austin & Pisano, 2017).
Employers’ intentions for hiring autistic people in the workplace are essential to ensure the
success of autistic people within organizations. The IT, manufacturing, and financial sectors
have been the most aggressive in hiring autistic people. Many industry-level differences pertain
to the recruitment, hiring, and retention of autistic people.
Industry Level Differences
Microsoft, Hewlett Packard, Ford, and JPMorgan Chase are a few of the companies that
have instituted human resource (HR) practices that attract neurodiverse talent (Austin & Pisano,
2017; Krzeminska et al., 2019; Saleh & Bruyère, 2018). As mentioned in the previous section,
companies have been seeking to broaden their talent pool. The initiatives to attract, hire, and
retain autistic people have predominantly come from the IT, manufacturing, and financial
industries. Microsoft, Freddie Mac, and SAP are some organizations recognized for hiring
autistic people (Grenawalt et al., 2020). Though these and other organizations have touted
initiatives towards the inclusion of autistic people, these organizations still heavily rely on thirdparty placement organizations and partnerships with inclusive organizations to find neurodiverse
talent (T. Haskins, personal communication, November 1, 2023). One of the initiatives is
removing the emphasis on interviews in favor of other methods. Prior to obtaining interviews,
autistic people have had problems with generic job descriptions that use figurative language or
the stipulation of capacities not essential to the job (Vincent & Fabri, 2022). For those who can
navigate the interview process successfully, many barriers prevent autistic people from
integrating with their colleagues. An exploratory case study was performed in Amsterdam
involving eight autistic people (Bosch et al., 2019). The semi-structured interviews yielded four
themes related to the participants being accepted and integrated into their work environments:

16
invincibility, diversity, autistic leadership, and collaboration. Companies looking to make
industry-level differences through the recruitment of autistic and other neurodivergent people
must be able to ensure people have opportunities to be successful and not hindered. When
adequately shaped and cultivated, DEI initiatives can assist industries in becoming more
inclusive.
DEI Initiatives
Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives need more than good intentions to be
successful. Like any organizational change initiative, DEI initiatives require time and effort to
reap results. DEI initiatives have become commonplace in today’s organizations. DEI initiatives
that focus on hiring autistic do so for many reasons. Unique characteristics shared among the
autistic population are one reason companies have begun actively recruiting and hiring autistic
people (Houdek, 2022). Companies seek neurodiverse talent for financial benefit (Whelpley &
Perrault, 2022). Other companies may do so for the perceived societal benefit (Whelpley et al.,
2021). Regardless of the reasons behind enabling these types of initiatives, there are steps that
research suggests can affect their outcomes. Ott et al. (2022) evaluated existing research,
determining that five factors: goals and strategies, executive sponsorships, trials, formal mentors,
and educating leaders of multinational companies can be catalysts for including autistic people in
the workplace. Goal setting, strategizing, and education are part of many change initiatives
within companies. Communication, obtaining executive sponsorship, and having smaller trials
for initiatives focused on hiring autistic people allow organizations to show priority and
meaningfulness of the initiative and allow for tweaks and corrections for widespread rollout (Ott
et al., 2022). Just as important as having an executive sponsor is providing education and training
to leadership members. Buy-in by senior leaders is essential in hiring autistic people (Austin &

17
Pisano, 2017; Patton, 2019). Tweaks and corrections throughout initiatives must also focus on
internal processes and people. Skillsets needed for future roles, training, human-resource (HR)
processes, and including neurodivergent people’s experiences and insights into the companies’
endeavors can help them thrive (Ott et al., 2022). One of the primary HR resources that allows
autistic people to provide their experiences and insights is disability services.
Disability Services
Disability services include government, public, and nonprofit services that support
disabled people. Many disability services support autistic people, including Autism Works and
the National Autistic Society. These service providers aim to provide education, training, and
support to autistic people and organizations. Many of these services provide autistic people and
organizations with the tools and knowledge needed to support autistic people in the workplace.
Early research on neurodiversity and disability services focused on the service provider and
neurodivergent people. One qualitative case study expounded on the limited research by seeking
to find best practices between a disability provider and an employer (Grenawalt et al., 2020). The
disability service provider was Autism Workforce, and the employer was a clothing
manufacturer in the Midwest called Hart Schaffner Marx (HSM). Key findings from the study
included a positive response regarding the initiative to recruit, hire, and train autistic people at
the company.
The response took time. It was only after the inclusion of autistic people at HSM that
employees and managers became most positive and supportive of the initiative. Strong support
exhibited by leadership was a factor in the positive outcomes. Finally, the training that Autism
Workforce was able to provide everyone within the organization was instrumental in the success
of the inclusion initiative. Grenawalt and colleagues (2020) research supports Ott et al. (2022)

18
research on strategies to support autistic inclusion in the workplace. One of the most important
aspects of any autistic inclusion initiative is the autistic person. Their contributions toward
themselves, their organizations, and their communities desire representation.
Autistic Peoples’ Contributions
Autistic peoples’ contributions have historically been looked at as the diagnosis itself is
through a deficit lens (Annabi & Locke, 2019). This deficit lens has misrepresented the
contributions that autistic people can make for themselves, their organizations, and their
communities (Houdek, 2022). Graetz (2010) surveyed 143 families that supported autistic
people. The participants admitted a lack of support for themselves and limited opportunities for
the autistic person relating to socialization, employment, and residential living. The study’s
limitations are that it only surveyed caregivers, not autistic people. The limitations section stated
that over 75% of the autistic people they encountered in the study had moderate to severe
intellectual impairments, expressive communication impairments, and repetitive communication.
This study’s participants were representative of a specific subgroup of the autistic community
that requires longstanding or lifelong assistance. Graetz (2010), in their findings, acknowledges
the limitations in current research and clarifies our need to remove the separation between groups
labeled as abled versus disabled. The study also listed functional diversity, which states that
people’s concept of normal needs revising, and that autistic people are not inferior to
neurotypical people. Adapting mindsets begins with examining what autistic people can
contribute. This study does not focus on this specific subgroup, it is essential to clarify
characteristics when describing autistic people holistically. Studies should acknowledge that
most employment requires skills and educational requirements that can affect autistic people’s
outcomes.

19
Self
One of the more underrated and overlooked aspects of obtaining employment is the
contributions that doing so can make for oneself. The World Health Organization (WHO)
acknowledged the difficulty in quantifying the impact of employment by itself on one’s identity,
self-esteem, and social acknowledgment (Krzeminska et al., 2019; World Bank, 2011). Saleh and
Bruyère (2018) examined existing research towards improving outcomes for people with
disabilities. They found that research lacked a view from the demand side of a supply and
demand model. They found that economic security and improving a disabled person’s talents and
skills benefit the communities in which they live (Krzeminska et al., 2019; Saleh & Bruyère,
2018; Whelpley et al., 2021). The WHO also recognizes many benefits that employing
neurodiverse people has on their lifestyle and environment. These benefits include structure,
social interaction, identity, regular activity, and performing tasks as a group towards a specified
purpose (Krzeminska et al., 2019; World Bank, 2011). More research on the outcomes of autistic
people’s employment expands on other research related to financial gains, independence, selfefficacy, and increased social inclusion (Howlin, 2013; Mynatt et al., 2014; Whelpley & Perrault,
2021). The benefits that employment has for autistic people are personal to everyone. It is also
essential to examine the benefits that autistic people provide to the organizations which employ
them.
Organizations
Autistic people present companies with opportunities to succeed. Research shows that
barriers to these opportunities often exist during the employment process. Whelpley and May’s
(2022) research on bias against autistic people during interviews found that nonverbal
communication was a barrier to obtaining employment. Their research expanded on existing

20
research by Ruth Grossman and Noah Sasson that found that neurotypical people can be quick to
make judgments of autistic people’s abilities based on how they present themselves compared to
neurotypicals. Research also capitulates to the quickness that impressions can be made based on
characteristics like speech inflection, stance, voice, and facial structure (Sasson et al., 2017;
Whelpley & May, 2022). Loiacono and Ren (2018) stated that the interview process gives the
interviewer the ability to understand a candidate’s relevant job knowledge and behavioral
performance. The assumptions that NT people make about autistic people prevent them from
seeing the strengths that they can bring to a workgroup and organization. The assumptions that
NT people, including managers have towards all disabled people has been examined. Erickson
and colleagues (2014) study of 675 HR found that intentional employment practices and policies
can significantly increase the likelihood of hiring people with disabilities. The practices included
explicit, active recruiting of disabled people with intentioned focus on including disabled people
in policy and practice construction and establishing relationships with community organizations
with the expertise and focus of the intended population (Erickson et al., 2014). A study that
included 40 autistic adults and 35 employers showed that autistic employees showed more
significant attention to detail, work quality, and work ethic (Scott et al., 2015). Using machine
learning and K-means clustering from an online survey gave credence to previous research that
shows that autistic people arrive to work timelier and show lower turnover rates dramatically
(Griffiths et al., 2019; Hurlbutt & Chalmers, 2004). Lower turnover saves organizations the time
and costs associated with people who leave. Lower turnover rates increase profit and give
organizations a strategic advantage over their competitors (Austin & Pisano, 2017; Whelpley et
al., 2021). The last aspect of contributions associated with hiring and retaining autistic people is
to be explored in their communities.

21
Community
Communities around the world inhabit autistic, neurotypical and many types of people
from all races, religions, genders, and cultures. Barriers and opportunities exist within
communities and the individual and collective mindsets within those communities. A study
conducted because of a lack of research findings regarding the difference in environmental
domains affecting autistic and neurotypical people was conducted in Taiwan (Lin, 2014).
Comprising 41 autistic adults, the quality of life between autistic and neurotypical people was
examined. The study found that autistic people scored lower in all domains (i.e., physical, and
psychological health, social relationships, and environments), suggesting that supportive social
interventions and contexts within communities can significantly affect the quality of life. (Lin,
2014). Another study that surveyed autistic adults with an employment history found that the
increased independence that comes with earning a paycheck meant they relied less on their
families, communities, and government programs (Whelpley et al., 2021). This study, along with
previous research, demonstrates the increased quality of life, well-being, and agency that autistic
people have in their communities when they are employed (Hedley et al., 2017; Hendricks, 2010;
Whelpley et al., 2021). Cultivating relationships between organizations with DEI initiatives and
community organizations that promote increased employment for autistic people increases
outcomes (Griffiths et al., 2019). Research on the opportunities for autistic adults stated:
A ‘livable community’, as defined by the US National Council on Disability (2006),
provides the following: (1) access to affordable and appropriate housing; (2) accessible,
affordable, reliable and safe transportation; (3) inclusive and accessible physical
environments; (4) opportunities to work, volunteer and further education; (5) access to
key health and support services; (6) participation in civic, cultural, social, and

22
recreational activities. As professionals strive to improve the livability of adults with
autism it is important to understand how parents and caregivers perceive these
opportunities for their family member with ASD and their perceptions of their
communities’ efforts to address the six livability goals. While no community can address
all six goals to an equal degree, it is important to determine if families feel that their
communities are aspiring to these goals. (Graetz, 2020, pp. 33–34)
Communities have social expectations that present barriers and opportunities for autistic people.
Social Expectations
As Annabi and Locke (2019) stated, environmental factors such as sociocultural norms
and expectations are one of the three factors that employment rates for autistic people are much
lower than the larger population. Bottema-Beutel et al. (2018) describe social interactions
through top-down and bottom-up constraints and processes. Top-down constraints refer to
“culturally specific expectations and frames of reference” (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2018, p. 955).
These norms of interaction, coupled with the bottom-up processes, “involve negotiating and
reconfiguring social norms within interactions” (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2018, p. 955). Social
interactions and expectations are central to autistic people’s daily lives. The outcome of
interactions and expectations play a significant role in autistic people’s access or legitimacy
versus isolation or exclusion. Annabi and Locke (2019) also point out that expectations are
continuous for autistic people, with norms persisting even after an autistic person gains
employment. This layer of expectations shows the need to examine opportunities related to
access and legitimacy and barriers regarding isolation and exclusion. After examining these
barriers and opportunities, it is essential to discuss how the sensory environment affects autistic
people’s ability to conform to social expectations.

23
Access, Legitimacy, Isolation, and Exclusion
Access and legitimacy are goals for autistic people seeking employment. Conversely,
autistic people are often isolated and excluded rather than being granted access and legitimacy
within organizations. “Companies that place great importance on diversity and inclusion may be
surprised to hear that they are not doing enough to have these initiatives positively affect
employee engagement” (Tavakoli, 2015, p. 38). By removing barriers and opportunities
provided, autistic people have a better chance of gaining employment and contributing to their
organizations. A study examined the experiences of 11 autistic women who received their
autistic diagnosis as adults (Wilson et al., 2023). The study focused on self-compassion, finding
that society’s expectations, feeling different, and unhelpful thinking styles are barriers to selfcompassion. The study suggested that autistic people are likelier to have lower self-compassion
than their non-autistic counterparts (Wilson et al., 2023). Limitations prevent generalizations
from being made within the study. As stated, the women were all diagnosed as adults. All the
participants also identified as White. Hayward et al. (2022) studied 55 autistic people, including
33 women and 22 men.
Utilizing a survey of 46 participants and a focus group of nine participants, Hayward et
al. examined the difference that gender has on the social expectations and interactions autistic
people navigate in the workplace. The study showed that both autistic men and autistic women
identified social barriers at work, including stress, social expectations, navigating interactions,
and meeting and navigating social expectations (Hayward et al., 2022). The only significant
difference between genders was that women reported meeting apparent social expectations as
being greatly important. Overall, men reported little importance on meeting social expectations
in a work setting. Seers and Hogg (2021) conducted a study involving eight autistic women. The

24
study focused on how gender roles, social expectations, and autism expression impacted
participants’ well-being. The findings showed that “social construction of gender and
stereotypical understandings of autism … have significant consequences for women’s well-being
and subjectivity” (Seers & Hogg, 2021, p. 1553). The findings also showed that all the women
reported challenges. Also stated within the study was that self-acceptance, embracing their
strengths, and developing adaptive coping methods enabled the participants to resist negative
stereotypes. The study’s findings show how the sociocultural environment, not just symptoms of
autism, affects barriers and opportunities for autistic people. Social expectations and interactions,
including workplace norms, masking, misunderstandings, and misrepresentations, can also
significantly affect an autistic person’s sensory environment.
Sensory Environments
Barriers and opportunities are more common for neurodiverse than neurotypical
individuals related to sensory environments. Sensory environments encapsulate any environment
that can affect a person’s senses, such as sight, sound, and smell. Social expectations of sensory
stimuli differ significantly among the neurodiverse and NT communities. Vincent and Fabri
(2022) performed a two-phase study that interviewed 15 autistic students and recent autistic
graduates, followed by four focus groups comprising the individuals. Participants from the study
reported multiple sensory sensitivities that preclude or hinder their outcomes, including multiple
processing of people speaking simultaneously, shiny colors, stimulating faces, difficulties with
changes in routines, and unexpected outcomes (Vincent & Fabri, 2022). The sensitivity most
often spoken by the participants related to social communication differences. This sensitivity
included repeated experiences of anxiety and emotional energy expended around social
interactions. Tomczak and Ziemiański (2023) performed a study with 140 participants (27 men

25
and 113 women), seeking answers to workplace challenges, including effective communication,
time management, stress management, and sensory sensitivities. The two questions related to
sensory sensitivities were regarding the arrangement of office space and personalization of the
workplace. The highest ratings received towards solutions were limiting overstimulation by
reducing nuisance stimuli from the environment. The findings from Tomczak and Ziemiański’s
(2023) study allowing autistic people to customize their environments related to temperature,
humidity, noise, smell, and sunlight exposure can provide support that will significantly improve
outcomes for autistic people. Sarrett (2018) also performed a two-phase study with 66 people
interviewed, followed by an online focus group for 31 participants who agreed to participate in
the second phase. Sarrett’s study was part of a more extensive study aiming to gather information
from autistic adults on their experiences and how to make those experiences more neurodiverse.
Many of the participants acknowledged receiving accommodations. These accommodations were
mainly related to academic needs. The study results showed that 31% of the participants reported
little to no attention to accommodations related to social or sensory needs (Sarrett, 2018). These
studies expand on limited research on accommodations that relate to sensory environments.
Social expectations are another factor determining outcomes for autistic and other neurodiverse
people. Another facet that correlates with barriers and opportunities for autistic people is related
to work–family demand expectations and the influence work–family demands have on autistic
people’s outcomes.
Work–Family Demand
Work–family demand relates to the conflict arising from an individual’s role in a work
and family dynamic (Riemenschneider et al., 2006). Work–family demand is not a focus of the
proceeding study. It is being explained as part of the tenet of the theoretical framework. The

26
research on work–family demand provides background information on autistic families that
relates to their future outcomes.
Research on the demand that exists between the work–family dynamic shows the
complexity and nuances involved in the barriers and opportunities associated with social
expectations for autistic people (Graetz, 2010; Horlin et al., 2014; Lien et al., 2021;
Riemenschneider et al., 2006). Social expectations of work–family dynamics, including conflict,
are demands that require investigation. Expectations and influences affect the work–family
dynamic and the barriers and opportunities associated with autistic prospering in their careers.
Examining the work–family demand expectations and influences intertwined with social
expectations is needed to complete the barriers and opportunities aspect of the autistic
employment process.
The costs associated with having a child with autism in a family have limited research
(Horlin et al., 2014). Autism Speaks (n.d.) estimates that the average annual cost of supporting
an autistic child is as much as $60,000. More recent research found that the lifetime difference in
costs for supporting an autistic person over their lifetime compared to a neurotypical person is $1
million. Autism Speaks also estimates that autistic adolescents’ medical costs are 4.1 to 6.2 times
greater than neurotypical adolescents. Ganz (2007) posited that over the lifespan of a family that
has a child with autism requiring moderate to long-term assistance, fathers were unemployed
20% of a full-time equivalent while mothers were unemployed 60%. A study in Australia
seeking to ascertain the costs of supporting an autistic child sent questionnaires to families with
at least one autistic child (Horlin et al., 2014). Five hundred twenty-one questionnaires
responded with a 15% response rate. The results showed that the average cost of supporting an
autistic child was $22,600, which is lower than the cost reported by Autism Speaks. However,

27
Autism Speaks data comes from the United States. The reported range in USD from the
Australian study was between $13,400 and $33,500 annually. Another Australian study
researching the loss of family income reported 29% of combined household income lost by
families with autistic children (Montes & Halterman, 2008). Research has estimated that
accommodations, employment support, and lost employment cost the United States between
$175 billion and $196 billion annually (Annabi & Locke, 2019).
Parents with autistic children struggle with work–family demands continuously. Families
can have any number of arrangements for working. One parent can be the breadwinner while one
stays home; both parents can work equally, or one can work full-time while the other works parttime. These decisions are often made from necessity and not always desire to be at home. A
Canadian study used secondary data from a broader study to profile 26 fathers who had an
autistic child aged 2–12 years (Lien et al., 2021). The fathers in the study were either
breadwinner, co-breadwinners, breadwinners who prioritized family, and fathers as primary
caregivers. Three themes resulting from the fathers in the study were the desire for security and
financial freedom to support the costs of raising their children; work was a source of support,
reprieve, and information; and work was a source of strain that contributed to their guilt. This
study illustrates the household conflict expounded by having an autistic child.
Graetz’s (2010) study of 143 families with autistic adults living in the household focusing
on opportunities for the autistic adults found a lack of support for the caregivers. Sixty-three
percent of the participants said they needed financial planning assistance, while 75% asked for
life-long planning assistance for their autistic adult. Graetz (2010) acknowledges in the study that
82% of participants were mothers and that most of autistic adults under care were intellectually
impaired, requiring moderate to continuous care. Parents sacrifice quality time away from the

28
household because of financial needs. Many families do not have the option to have a parent stay
home. Some households only have one caregiver. The limited research on work–family demand
shows that problems incurred by many families are compounded by those with autistic children
or adults living in the home. Social expectations of work–life balance are not standard. There is
not a one-size-fits-all option for families. Expanding our expectations to be more inclusive in our
communities can support families in greater need. Community organizations can assist autistic
families. Employment programs like autism employment programs (AEPs) are focused on the
employment of autistic individuals. AEPs can train and guide organizations and the neurotypical
people in them to attract, hire, and retain autistic talent.
Autism Employment Programs
Autism employment programs (AEPs) enable autistic people to thrive in communities
that may not understand or be aware of what autism is. AEPs and similar initiatives support
autistic people, communities, and organizations. These organizations aim to educate, train, and
support autistic people to seek, obtain, and thrive in the workplace. AEPs are not just
government, nonprofit, and community based. Many organizations such as SAP, Microsoft,
Ernst & Young, and JP Morgan Chase have developed, instituted, or partnered with AEPs
(Houdek, 2022; Krzeminska et al., 2019; Saleh & Bruyère, 2018). Limited research has
investigated autistic employment programs (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Hedley et al., 2017). The
literature review will begin with a broad focus on inclusion initiatives in the ensuing sections.
Next, Autism at Work, one of the more prominent and more common AEPs, will be covered.
The subsequent sections will focus on areas AEPs focus on when included in an employment
process. These focus areas are hiring practices, accommodations, human resources (HR),
support, and champions within the organization. The literature review will present the latest

29
findings and show the need for future research.
Inclusion Initiatives
Inclusion initiatives assist with making organizations more diverse, from the reception of
the initiatives within companies to specialized training and a continuous need for evaluation and
adaptation. Research shows that “purposeful diversity initiatives and relationships with
community organizations that promote ASD are likely effective in increasing employment for
those with ASD” (Griffiths et al., 2019, p. 19). A case study researched HSM, a clothing
company that collaborated with Autism Workforce to increase its autistic representation
(Grenawalt et al., 2020). Findings from the study showed that an initial apprehension amongst
employees was transformed into acceptance once the autistic individuals established themselves
within HSM. The significant result of the study regarded the training and support that Autism
Workforce was able to provide. Autism Workforce prepared HSM for common challenges (i.e.,
sensory environments and stimuli, social environment, and difficulty breaking routines) faced by
autistic people. It was able to address questions throughout the implementation proactively. The
results coincide with Griffiths and colleagues’ research regarding inclusion initiatives.
Inclusion initiatives come from within organizations, communities, and governments.
Saleh and Bruyère (2018) have stated a need to evaluate government interventions so that best
practices for the recruitment, hiring, and advancement of disabled people. Annabi and Lebovitz
(2018) posited that the employment program’s success is due to the program’s ability to garner
leadership support for the initiative. Annabi and Locke (2019) further stated that AEPs mitigate
barriers and negative attitudes by neurotypical employees. Mitigating barriers and negative
attitudes is done through education, training, and support. One of the more prominent
organizational run inclusion initiatives for autistic people is Autism at Work.

30
Autism at Work
Organizations like SAP have pioneered the inclusion of autistic employment, developing
Autism at Work to hire atypical people (Austin & Pisano, 2017; Grenawalt et al., 2020; Houdek,
2022; Krzeminska et al., 2019; Saleh & Bruyère, 2018). In 2013, SAP aimed to employ 1% of
their workforce with autistic people by 2020 (Saleh & Bruyère, 2018; SAP, 2023b). SAP
(2023b) states that SAP has over 105,000 employees in over 157 countries. SAP’s website says it
“has over 160 colleagues with autism in 14 countries, across 28 locations and 25+ jobs” (SAP,
2023a, para 1). SAP, along with many other organizations touting their desire to employ autistic
people has fallen short of their goal. SAP’s former chief diversity officer stated that Autism at
Work forced SAP to adjust its processes and taught leadership how to access talent going
forward (Krzeminska et al., 2019). Whelpley and Perrault (2021) synthesized research on Autism
at Work due to the varying research on positive and negative employment and performance
outcomes. The research analysis yielded two factors for consideration when analyzing the
effectiveness of Autism at Work: internal practices of the organization’s hiring firm and the
external environment in which the hiring firm operates. Whelpley and Perrault (2021)
acknowledged that the success or failure of inclusion initiatives cannot be judged solely on these
two factors. However, they found that these two factors affected the existing research on the
efficacy of Autism at Work. Delving into hiring practices within an organization can show how
willing an organization truly is to include autistic individuals.
Hiring Practices
Research shows that hiring practices, especially the interview portion, adversely affect
neurodiverse individuals (Austin & Pisano, 2017; Griffiths et al., 2016; Griffiths et al., 2020;
Whelpley & May, 2022). AEPs assist organizations with the training and support needed to

31
adjust hiring practices for autistic people. There is limited research on current practices and
benefits of recruiting autistic people (Griffiths et al., 2019; Hedley et al., 2017). K-means
clustering in association with an online survey, one study found that providing accommodations
to autistic individuals is not sufficient if attempting to hire neurodiverse people (Griffiths et al.,
2020). Griffiths and colleague’s study also states that training managers, hiring personnel, and
employees regarding autistic people coupled with needing specific employment practices for
autistic employees is needed. Whelpley et al. (2021) performed a study using written responses
from autistic people and managers that showed disclosure was the biggest hurdle to the hiring
process. Managers reported needing proper training on all facets of the hiring process related to
autistic people. Hiring managers did mention that they needed disclosure to speculate, which led
them not to give appropriate accommodations. Whelpley and May (2022) used videos and
transcripts of mock job interviews with autistic and neurotypical people to assess whether visual
and social cues affected the rater’s evaluations of the mock interviews. The results of the rater’s
evaluations on a 1–5 scale rated NT people 4.2 for the video portion and just above 3.7 for the
transcript portion.
Conversely, autistic people scored around 3.5 for the video portion and 4.0 for the
transcript version. Although a small sample size, this study provides evidence that atypical social
behaviors from autistic people adversely influence perceptions of them, leading to less favorable
outcomes (Whelpley & May, 2022). Hiring practices of autistic people would not be complete
without examining existing research related to accommodations.
Accommodations
Accommodations during the employment process are vital to autistic people’s success.
AEPs educate and assist organizations in providing autistic people with accommodations that

32
enable them to succeed. Austin and Pisano (2017) stated that environmental accommodations for
autistic people allow them to manage their physical surroundings. Research shows that when
autistic people have appropriate accommodations, they must rely on coping methods to mitigate
barriers (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Krzeminska et al., 2019). Nine autistic people participated in a
study while involved in a 3-year AEP (Griffiths et al., 2019). The study’s results noted that
environmental modifications and accommodations, including changes in lighting, allowing for
the use of headphones to reduce auditory stimuli, and flexibility of environmental adjustments,
facilitated successful outcomes for the participants. Tomczak (2021) examined opportunities for
autistic employees using digital technologies. Tomczak’s research found multiple digital
technologies that can accommodate autistic people, including electronic forms of communication
and wearable electronic systems that monitor stress. In the future, Tomczak posited that
workplaces could become truly digitized, with the ability to record human parameters so that
controllers could adjust work environments accordingly to reduce stress and distracting factors.
It is also important to note that not all autistic people require accommodations. Research has
shown that a lack of understanding regarding accommodations needed by autistic people,
coupled with assumptions that all autistic people need accommodations, leads to poor outcomes
(Griffiths et al., 2019; Whelpley et al., 2021). Accommodations during the employment process
and for autistic employees after being hired usually go through the human resources (HR)
department. Successful HR teams can significantly affect the outcomes for autistic people.
Human Resources
HR is vital in developing and executing initiatives to attract and hire neurodiverse talent
(Sumner & Brown, 2015). HR functions such as “recruitment, selection, onboarding, training,
career development, and retention” encompass the workforce strategy (Rao & Polepeddi, 2019,

33
p. 207). Through observations and video interviews, Rao and Polepeddi (2019) studied inclusivefocused companies in India to develop an HR framework to help build inclusive organizations.
The findings from Rao and Polepeddi’s research suggest that HR needs to partner with experts,
therapists, schools, and non-government organizations (NGOs) in the disabilities field.
Partnerships with AEPs provide a source for autistic talent and can provide the needed skills,
training, and development required for an organization to be inclusive. A key research finding
was that organizations “must modify the recruitment and selection policies and evaluate them
based on abilities rather than disabilities” (Rao & Polepeddi, 2019, p. 207). HR professionals
must be well-versed in the accommodations needed and demonstrate that they are fair,
reasonable, justified, and not of significant cost to the organization (Sumner & Brown, 2015).
Digital technologies can also assist HR and organizations with developing and implementing
appropriate accommodations for all people in the workplace. White (2022) critically analyzed
the development and evolution of digital HR, stating that before HR becomes business and
technology-focused, HR must always put people first. Tomczak’s (2021) research on digital
technologies suggested that digitized workplaces can be beneficial for autistic individuals,
colleagues, HR managers, employees, and organizations alike. Digital technologies can assist
when implementing inclusion initiatives within the workplace. More important than any single
initiative is that HR aligns with all activities related to developing an inclusive work environment
(Whelpley et al., 2021). Alignment requires organizational and manager support for HR and
AEPs to succeed.
Supports
Supports are needed to foster inclusive initiatives and enable AEPs and similar type
initiatives to be successful. One of the main facets of AEPs is eliciting support from managers

34
and coworkers (Austin & Pisano, 2017). Leadership support in AEPs is needed to ensure the
viability and sustainability of the program (Annabi & Lebovitz, 2018; Annabi & Locke, 2019).
The consensus of managers, supervisors, and coworkers from the study with HSM found that
strong support and unwavering commitment from the chief executive officer (CEO) played a
pivotal role in the implementation and success of autistic inclusion initiatives (Grenawalt et al.,
2020). A study in India examined disabled people’s view of the socialization process at work and
identified psychosocial support, social acceptance, and relationships as essential to integrating
disabled people within an organization (Kulkarni & Lengnick-Hall, 2011). Remington and
Pellicano (2018) studied autistic interns and their hiring managers concerning a 3-month
program at Deutsche Bank in the United Kingdom. Both pool participants were positively
apprehensive of the internship program. Autistic interns and hiring managers realize the value of
the learning experience, stating that solid support is needed. There is limited research on support
related to AEPs (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Griffiths et al., 2019). The research that does exist has
shown that managerial support in AEPs has a profound effect on the outcomes of the inclusion
initiative.
Austin and Pisano (2017) examined existing research and determined that manager and
leadership support is essential to including autistic people in the workplace. Research shows
managers have stated that participating in AEPs makes them better leaders (Annabi & Locke,
2019; Austin & Pisano, 2017; Krzeminska et al., 2019). Schein and Schein (2017) stated the
importance of managers representing organizational culture and being change agents within the
workplace as directly impactful. Research on the success of AEPs found that accessible
recruiting processes and “managers who are willing and able to support adults with autism” are
critical factors in the success of AEPs (Haskins, 2019, p. 108). Leaders within an organization

35
influence their employees’ views toward inclusion initiatives (Romualdez et al., 2021; Schein &
Schein, 2017). Loiacono and Ren (2018) examined two high-tech firms, one based in the United
States and the other based in the United Kingdom., focusing on building a neurodiverse
workforce. Regarding the United States, the following statement:
The firm has also created “safe environments” where managers can ask questions openly
without fear of reprisal. It provides training sessions on neurodiversity run by third-party
specialty firms that help facilitate and establish a safe environment where managers can
feel free to ask “uncomfortable” questions, such as how do I support someone who is
neurodiverse or who do I go to for help if I need it? This training helps to demystify the
questions and clarify solutions. The goal of the management education is to dispel wrong
assumptions and provide answers to questions that managers may initially feel awkward
asking. Being able to ask questions and get meaningful answers has helped ensure
smooth onboarding of neurodiverse employees. (Loiacono & Ren, 2018, pp. 268–269)
The U.K. firm’s leadership also stated that managers’ understanding of neurodiversity and
creating a space for open communication with their employees were able to resolve issues that
arose. More recent research found that autistic employees ‘managers’ support enabled them to be
more successful in the workplace (Whelpley et al., 2021). Manager support is vital in
implementing AEPs and autistic people in the workplace. The final piece related to the success
of AEPS is related to champions within the companies. Through these allies, true advocacy
within an organization can take hold.
Champions
Champions in inclusion initiatives include advocates and allies from the organizational,
community, and individual levels. Many multinational organizations have reformed HR practices

36
to specifically hire neurodiverse talent (Austin & Pisano, 2017). Some companies leading the
way in hiring autistic people are Ernst and Young, Ford, JP Morgan Chase, Microsoft, and SAP.
Loiacono and Ren (2018) reviewed all 39 tech firms’ websites that were part of the Fortune 500
looking for information related to neurodiversity. The search yielded multiple mentions of
diversity related to gender, ethnicity, LGTBQ+, and veterans. However, none used the word
neurodiversity. These results led Loiacono and Ren to search all 39 companies’ tweets. Only 12
of the 39 companies had used the word neurodiversity in their hashtags. Over 17% of the tweets
related to neurodiversity advocacy; over 56% mentioned recruiting neurodiverse people; and
over 18% mentioned information about developing a neurodiverse workplace ((Loiacono & Ren,
2018). Saleh and Bruyère (2018) found that private-sector advocates often examine the public
sector and governments to model their employment practices. One of the Critical aspects of
advocacy is getting the message out to the masses. Improving the employment outcomes for
autistic and disabled people is a multi-stakeholder initiative, including governments, employers,
community service providers, and advocates (Saleh & Bruyère, 2018). Governments and public
sectors can shape policy that attracts more champions for the cause of making workplaces more
inclusive. AEPs and related programs cannot be successful without understanding the individual
differences among autistic people within the community. The following section will focus on
these individual differences and the existing research related to them.
Individual Differences
Individual differences exist among all populations, including autistic people. Autistic
people’s historical classification was by their ability to function, either high or low. Clinically,
autism is classified as a neurodevelopmental disorder encompassing a wide range of
characteristics with varied levels of functioning across the spectrum (Whelpley et al., 2021).

37
Much of the existing research classifies autistic people on a functioning scale (Bishop-Fitzpatrick
et al., 2019; Griffiths et al., 2019; Patton, 2019; Whelpley et al., 2021; Whelpley & May, 2022).
Research has recently evolved to capture autistic people’s lived experiences. The inclusion of
autistic people in research, communities, and the workplace will enable autistic people to decide
how they want to be classified, both individually and collectively. The heterogeneity of autistic
people is vast, which makes it even more important to be studied (APA, 2022). Hendricks (2010)
acknowledged this heterogeneity of symptoms that range in “severity, cognitive functioning,
social skills, communication, sensory sensitivity (e.g., hypo- and hyper-), and behaviors that
result in markedly different workplace needs that may be challenging to address in employees
with autism” (Annabi & Locke, 2019, p. 509). The following section will focus on symptoms,
then move to mental health conditions, behaviors, socioeconomics, supports, experiences,
disclosure, and end with perceived outcomes. Existing research on individual differences among
autistic individuals will attempt to support the findings from the study in Chapters Four and Five.
Symptoms
The current version of the DSM-5 illustrates the complexity associated with symptoms of
autism in individuals. The DSM-5-TR states:
Autism spectrum disorder is characterized by persistent deficits in social communication
and social interaction across multiple contexts, including deficits in social reciprocity,
nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction, and skills in developing,
maintaining, and understanding relationships. In addition to the social communication
deficits, the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder requires the presence of restricted,
repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities. Because symptoms change with
development and may be masked by compensatory mechanisms, the diagnostic criteria

38
may be met based on historical information, although the current presentation must cause
significant impairment. (APA, 2022, pp. 31–32)
Houdek (2022) found neurological disorder research through deficit theoretical frameworks and
that autism symptoms are deviations from normalcy. Research also cautions against using
oversimplistic perspectives (i.e., sociocultural, essentialist) when studying autistic individuals
because of the perspective’s generalized views of group characteristics (Trauth, 2002; Trauth &
Howcroft, 2006). Previous versions of the DSM-5 classified autism as a mental disorder
classified by levels of functioning. A recent medically reviewed article explains the problems
with classifying autistic people by functioning, which assumes there is a high and a low (Rudy,
2023). Autism is a condition that can display noticeable characteristics, but if the symptoms are
comparatively mild, neurological differences may go unnoticed or subsequently disregarded.
(Krzeminska et al., 2019). Annabi and Locke (2019) found that when studying autism
employment, it is imperative to identify that the “co-occurrence of mental health symptoms,
including depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation” is higher for autistic individuals (p. 509).
Mental Health Conditions
Mental health conditions are more prevalent among autistic individuals than their NT
counterparts (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Buckley et al., 2021; Cassidy et al., 2014). Hurlbutt and
Chalmers (2004) found that autistic people report higher stress and anxiety levels in the
workplace. Eaves and Ho (2008) conducted a longitudinal study of 76 parents of autistic children
from childhood through young adulthood. With an average age of 24 years old at the time of
final data collection, 48 of the participants provided telephone interviews, with 50% reporting
they believed their child had obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Fifty percent of respondents
reported that their child had anxiety. Ten respondents mentioned their child being depressed.

39
Other conditions mentioned were bipolar disorder, Tourette’s, and conduct disorder. Nineteen
stated that their children were on medication for behavior issues. Chamak and Bonniau (2016)
performed a similar longitudinal study in France that encompassed 76 autistic adults born
between 1952 and 1990, aged 18 to 54 years old. Parents reported anxiety and depression as the
most frequent mental health conditions but also mentioned anorexia, hyperactivity, mood
disorders, and OCD. Self-reporting of the autistic individuals showed that 53% described having
anxiety or depression. Only 29% of the autistic individuals requiring little support had received
medication. Among the 45 autistic adults requiring more significant support, 29 reported anxiety
and depression, and 73% stated they were on medication. Research has found that pressures to
conform to NT expectations can intensify and mask mental health symptoms (Bottema-Beutel et
al., 2017). Previous research examining gendered experiences of autism has found that autistic
women display more mental health conditions than men (Dworzynski et al., 2012; Kreiser, 2014;
Nagib & Wilton, 2016). Mental health conditions are not as distinguishable among people as the
associated behaviors. Autistic people have individual differences in their behavior that correlate
to their outcomes.
Behaviors
Autistic people exhibit many common and unique behaviors. These behaviors often affect
autistic people’s outcomes, especially related to employment (Whelpley & May, 2022). The
expected behaviors shared among the autistic community are difficulties in social interaction,
repetitive behaviors, and difficulty with verbal and non-verbal communication (APA, 2022;
Hendricks, 2010; Maenner et al., 2021; Patton, 2019; Tomczak, 2021; Whelpley et al., 2021).
Ritualized behaviors are “intuitively recognizable by their stereotypy, rigidity, repetition, and
apparent lack of rational motivation” (Boyer & Liénard, 2006, p. 595). A review of existing

40
literature found that behaviors, such as ritualistic behaviors, create barriers to employment
(Hendricks, 2010). Research has shown that new employment approaches can invite autistic
people based on their talents rather than hindering their employment because of their behavior
and neurological differences (Nagib & Wilson, 2020). Camouflaging and stimming are also
behaviors exhibited by many autistic people. Both are coping mechanisms that allow autistic
people to present themselves as conforming to norms. Therefore, these behaviors are in the
coping methods section. Another individual difference that affects autistic people’s outcomes is
related to their socioeconomic status. Autism affects all socioeconomic groups and is an essential
factor in examining the individual differences among autistic people.
Socioeconomics
Research has shown that autistic people encompass all socioeconomic levels (BishopFitzpatrick et al., 2019). Much of the existing research on socioeconomics and autistic people
includes other factors, such as race, in the research. There are conflicting findings showing a
limited amount of research tied explicitly to socioeconomics (Bishop-Fitzpatrick et al., 2019).
Daniels and Mandell (2014) examined 42 peer-reviewed studies between 1990 and 2012, finding
that 11 examined socioeconomic status. Only two studies correlated diagnosis with higher
income and four studies where parent’s education was a contributing factor. One study examined
254 autistic adults to see predictors of employment outcomes, finding that level of education was
a significant predictor of autistic employment outcomes (Ohl et al., 2017). The research is
inconclusive because it is difficult to examine one factor attributing to the outcomes of autistic
individuals when there are numerous factors affecting outcomes (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Beatty
et al., 2018; Bishop-Fitzpatrick et al., 2019; Daniels & Mandell, 2014; Norbury & Sparks, 2012;
Pellicano, 2010).

41
Furthermore, research has shown an overrepresentation of higher socioeconomic statuses
participating in autistic outcome studies (Chamak & Bonniau, 2016). As parental education level
influences autistic outcomes, so do many other supports related to families of autistic people,
institutions focused on supporting autistic people, and the organizations that support them
through the entire employment process. The difference in these levels of support can have a
profound effect on the outcomes of autistic people.
Supports
Support for autistic people profoundly affects their employment outcomes (Annabi &
Locke, 2019; Hedley et al., 2017; Roux et al., 2015). Employed autistic people have greater
independence, quality of life, and societal contributions (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Houdek, 2022;
Krzeminska et al., 2017). Increased representation of familial, institutional, and organizational
support reduces barriers and increases opportunities for autistic people (Vincent & Fabri, 2022;
Whelpley & Perrault, 2021). Examining these supports will help show existing research on
supports and where research needs to expand in the future. Bolstering research related to support
can lead to more favorable employment outcomes for autistic people.
Familial
Families of autistic people endure various direct and indirect costs associated with having
autistic people in their families. Increasing the employment outcomes for autistic people has
mitigated these expenses (Buescher et al., 2014; Horlin et al., 2014; Whelpley & Perrault, 2021).
Familial support in existing literature relates to the financial costs and burdens of having an
autistic family member (Baldwin et al., 2014; Buescher et al., 2014; Griffiths et al., 2019; Jacob
et al., 2015). Hurley-Hanson et al. (2020) book on autism in the workplace acknowledges
financial burdens but also discusses non-financial costs that are difficult to calculate. Non-

42
financial costs include emotional and psychological costs associated with unemployment,
including income losses for autistic families. Research in the UK surveyed 16 autistic adults who
had participated in violent or offending behavior (Allen et al., 2008). Fifty percent of the
participants stated that family conflict was a precipitating factor in their offending behavior.
Vincent and Fabri’s (2022) study, including 21 semi-structured interviews with autistic students
and recent graduates, showed that 15 of the 21 participants said that families were important in
their ability to obtain employment. Participants noted that parents were especially significant in
searching for jobs, application preparation, and pre-and post-interview support (Vincent & Fabri,
2022). Increasing employment of autistic people increases their independence, which equates to
a lower reliance on families (Morath, 2019; Whelpley et al., 2021). Family support is the first
line of support that autistic people encounter. Even with family support, external support through
institutions is also needed. Institutional support comes from governments and institutions with
the power to provide services to the broader autistic community.
Institutional
Institutional support from governments and higher education institutions provides muchneeded support to enable employment outcomes for autistic people. Supports from institutions
must be thought out and relevant to individual situations. A small Swedish study interviewed
three male autistic college students three times to ascertain their everyday lives regarding
alienation and struggles (Fleischer, 2012). All three participants in the study said they needed
support for everyday life activities and not as much related to their studies. The participants were
not able to describe the support they needed. However, all three could describe the support they
received from the university that was unnecessary and sometimes counterintuitive. These results
coincide with findings from a study of 118 autistic individuals regarding college experiences.

43
The study posited that various “effective and appropriate institutional supports are needed” (Cox
et al., 2017, p. 82). Government incentives provide support to autistic people for a myriad of
reasons. From a financial aspect, government programs that enable autistic people to work,
reduce their reliance on the government and save money (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Griffiths et al.,
2019; Saleh & Bruyère et al., 2018; Whelpley & May, 2022). Tomczak (2021) stated that
government funding can make workplaces more supportive of emerging technologies. Eaves and
Ho (2008) interviewed 48 parents in a longitudinal study that showed 51% indicating they were
satisfied with government support. Limited research exists related to government support and
autistic employment. More research focuses on organizational supports, which are imperative in
the overall success of the employment experience for autistic people.
Organizational
Organizational support for including autistic people can offset the lack of support from
family, governments, and institutions or build upon the previous support provided. Researchers
have identified limited research addressing challenges and accomplishments in organizational
settings (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Griffiths et al., 2019; Hedley et al., 2017; Hurlbutt & Chalmers,
2004, Roux et al., 2015; Wei et al., 2015; Whelpley et al., 2021). Organizations can use the
limited research to model their AEPs and employment processes. A study sampling 65 autistic
individuals with employment history and 26 managers of autistic people found two themes
regarding organizational support (Whelpley et al., 2021). The first theme was wanting
participants to be treated equally during employment. The other commonality among participants
was their experiences of NT individuals’ ignorance of autism. The evolution of diagnostic
criteria for autism, conflicting theories related to the cause of autism, and increasing rates of
autism diagnosis “have undermined any effort to claim the existence of a universal

44
understanding of what is meant by the term autism” (Cox et al., 2017, p. 72). Individual
differences in organizational, familial, and institutional supports can have a profound effect on
the employment outcomes of autistic people. While examining individual differences among the
autistic population, it is necessary to examine the experiences of autistic people from an
individual level.
Experiences
The experiences of autistic individuals are as varied as they are similar and unique.
Examining the individual experiences of autistic people is essential in advancing understanding
of how this diverse community’s differences provide opportunities and reduce barriers to autistic
employment (Vincent & Fabri, 2022). Current research has shown individual differences relating
to social interactions (i.e., formal and informal), sensory sensitivities, difficulties with
unexpected outcomes, difficulties with managing change, and disclosure (Annabi & Locke,
2018; Grenawalt et al., 2020; Müller et al., 2008; Patton, 2019; Tomczak, 2021; Vincent & Fabri,
2022; Whelpley et al., 2021; Whelpley & May, 2022). Nagib and Wilton (2020) performed an
exploratory study of 252 women and 255 men who self-identified as autistic. Similarities
between genders coincide with existing research. Nagib and Wilton’s study found that job
accessibility, difficulties with the employment process, and job interviews were reported equally
among men and women. A finding from Nagib and Wilton’s study concerning gender
differences was that gender roles, family responsibilities, assumptions regarding stereotypical
jobs, and overly specific job descriptions are more substantial barriers to women. One of the
more researched aspects of individual differences among autistic people is related to disclosure.
Disclosure
Research illuminates how disclosing an autistic diagnosis can benefit or harm the

45
individual (Huws & Jones, 2008; Romualdez et al., 2021; Vincent & Fabri, 2022). Romualdez et
al. (2021) study of 24 autistic individuals involved 15 fully disclosed participants and nine
selectively disclosed participants. Reasons for not disclosing were unnecessary, not beneficial,
fear of discrimination, trustworthiness, and personal struggles with their identities. Hurlbutt and
Chalmers (2004) study of six autistic people found one participant’s trepidation to disclosing was
for fear of reprisal, while the others found disclosing beneficial. Ohl and colleagues’ (2017)
study of 254 autistic adults had over 61% employed representation and under 39% unemployed
representation. The findings showed that 63% of employed participants had disclosed to
employers while nearly 29% of unemployed autistic people had disclosed. While disclosed
participants were three times more likely to be employed, the researchers noted a need for studies
on causal mechanisms associated with disclosure (Ohl et al., 2017). Although research shows
that autistic people experience adverse reactions more immediately than NTs, non-disclosure
may also be a pivotal barrier to support (Buckley et al., 2021; Sasson et al., 2017).
Organizational supports that include inputs from autistic people professionals (i.e., AEPs,
community services, legal services) are needed to remove the stigma associated with disclosure.
One of the reasons associated with the lack of disclosure is related to perceived outcomes from
the autistic individual.
Perceived Outcomes
Perceived outcomes indicate what is essential and observable to an individual (Annabi &
Lebovitz, 2018). Patton (2019) refers to perceptions of NT people regarding autism, stating that
NT people perceive autistic individuals similarly to how autistic individuals perceive themselves,
NT people in the workplace, and how the organization and individuals in it will treat autistic
people. Assessing perceived and actual outcomes can provide insight into intervention

46
characteristics (Annabi & Lebovitz, 2018). The OIMIB framework utilized in this dissertation
posits that autistic employee’s “perceive workplace structures and relations differently and may
experience none, some, or all barriers” including stereotyping, discrimination, exclusion, poor
supervisory relationships, and sensory environment sensitivities (Annabi & Locke, 2019, p. 509).
Romualdez and colleagues research (2021) found that understanding autism, willingness to make
adaptations, and organizational culture had the most significant effect on positive outcomes for
autistic people. Nagib and Wilton’s (2020) study examining posts 714 posts (357 from autistic
men, 357 from autistic women) found that self-efficacy, past experiences, job opening
awareness, and available opportunities were directly related to whether the participant’s positive
or negative outcomes. Research has shown that two-thirds of autistic people with severe support
needs have poor outcomes (Chamak & Bonniau, 2016). The same research showed that the
severity of symptoms and required support for autistic people correlated to their outcomes.
Outcomes are also partially determined by autistic people’s ability to appear neurotypical or
‘normal’ (Houdek, 2022; Loiacono & Ren, 2018). Autistic people overwhelmingly employ
coping methods to mitigate negative experiences and reduce barriers in the workplace.
Coping Methods
Individual differences among autistic people influence whether they utilize coping
methods to lessen barriers and opportunities in the workplace (Annabi & Locke, 2019). Coping
methods employed by autistic people mask behaviors not considered ‘normal’ by NT standards.
Other coping methods, such as stimming, are used to self-regulate behaviors. Autistic people
seek informal networks and mentors to reduce isolation and conflict and ignore the behaviors of
other NT people in the workplace that can be triggering (Annabi & Locke, 2019). Alienation,
including isolation, conflict, and ignoring behaviors, is another coping method adopted by

47
autistic people in the workplace. These behaviors, if unsuccessful, have been shown to lead to a
final coping method, which is autistic people leaving the workplace. This coping method occurs
more for autistic and other neurodivergent people because they, like other marginalized groups,
are accustomed to masking and leaving pieces of themselves outside the workplace (Krzeminska
et al., 2019).
Camouflaging
Camouflaging combines compensation techniques and masking (Hull et al., 2017).
Camouflaging and masking are used interchangeably in existing research (Annabi & Locke,
2019; Romualdez et al., 2021; Sunagawa, 2023). The terms will be used synonymously in the
following review and research. U.K. researchers surveyed 197 autistic people about their
suggestions for where autism research should go (Davies et al., 2023). A theme that emerged was
the perceived necessity to mask in the workplace. The perceived necessity to mask coincides
with a study of 92 autistic adults on social camouflaging that found masking by 63 participants
(38 women, 18 men, and seven other genders), and compensation was reported by 74
participants (45 women, 22 men, and seven other genders) (Hull et al., 2017). Though the Hull
study had a significant representation of women (55), this study aligns with research that women
mask and compensate better and more frequently than men (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Dworzynski
et al., 2012; Hull et al., 2017; Lai et al., 2012; Nagib & Wilton, 2020). Romualdez and
colleague’s (2021) study did not find gender roles playing a factor in the use of camouflaging by
autistic people. A limitation of that study was the sample size, which included 12 men and 12
women. Autistic people camouflage behaviors to assimilate, connect, and avoid discrimination
and negative responses from NT people (Hull et al., 2017). As mentioned above, camouflaging
includes compensation techniques. Self-regulating behaviors, such as stimming, are another way

48
that autistic people use to assimilate in the workplace.
Self-Regulating Behaviors
Self-regulating behaviors provide autistic people with a mechanism to control behavior,
emotions, sensations, or thoughts (Kapp et al., 2019). The most common form of self-regulation,
which is also the most researched form of self-regulation, is stimming. Stimming involves
repetitive self-stimulation, such as rocking or twisting, whistling, or humming, clapping, or
cracking knuckles (Charlton et al., 2021; Roy & Strate, 2023). These are only a few selfregulating behaviors exhibited by autistic and NT people. A study utilizing an online survey
examining sensory and stimming activities of 340 adults (160 diagnosed autistic, 139 selfdiagnosed autistic, and 41 non-autistic) found that all participants reported stimming or
performing repetitive movements (Charlton et al., 2021). The study suggests that autistic and NT
perform self-regulatory behavior. All three groups of participants reported being told to stop
stimming or performing repetitive behaviors (between 78.4%–84.3%). All other responses to the
questions showed that autistic and suspected autistic people reported higher levels of sensitivity
to the behavior (91.9% and 90.6% compared to 75.6%); stimming to reduce overwhelming
inputs (86.3% and 91.4% versus 52.5%), and to be more socially accepted (76.5% and 74.6% to
40.5%). A similar study conducted interviews and focus groups with 32 autistic individuals that
echoed two themes from Charlton and colleagues’ (2021) study regarding stimming to selfregulate and become more socially accepted (Kapp et al., 2019). Whelpley and colleagues’
(2021) research found that research from the 1970s posited that stimming served no apparent
purpose. Current research has shown that performing self-regulating behaviors such as stimming
provides benefits to autistic people, such as increased concentration through the reduction of
environmental stimuli, improved motor control, and stress regulation (Charlton et al., 2021;

49
Kapp et al., 2019; Roy & Strate, 2023). Acceptance of stimming by NT people is one step in
providing autistic people with a more inclusive work environment. Another step in increasing
inclusion involves using informal mentors and networks in the workplace. Autistic people seek
informal mentors and networks as another coping method to assimilate, conform to
organizational culture norms, and hopefully advance in their careers.
Seeking Informal Mentors and Networks
Autistic people seek informal mentors and informal networks in the workplace as a
coping method to reduce and respond to barriers (Annabi & Locke, 2019). Research has
suggested that informal mentors and networks can benefit the autistic person and the mentors and
other members of the networks (Cage et al., 2018; Roberts & Birmingham, 2017; Sarrett, 2018).
A study in Canada evaluated 23 autistic college students who were taking part in an autistic
mentorship program at their University (Ames et al., 2016). Ames and colleagues’ study yielded
12 participants who responded to the year in the survey. Although a small sample size, ten of the
12 students reported that their time with their mentors was beneficial, and six reported that their
time spent in their informal networks was valuable. Another study involved interviews of nine
autistic university students and nine mentors (Roberts & Birmingham, 2017). Five themes found
from the interviews regarding the mentor/mentee relationship were the natural progression of the
relationship, a supportive mentor, the meeting process, identifying and implementing goals, and
learning together. Although also a tiny sample size, this adds to existing research on the benefits
for both a mentor and an autistic mentee. Another study interviewing ten autistic women about
their social adaptation found participants acknowledging the need for informal social networks
and the motivation participants had to relate to others (Sunagawa, 2023). Autistic people who
have minimal to no formal or informal support in their workplace may begin to isolate

50
themselves, induce conflict, or ignore the behaviors in the workplace. This alienation can
eventually lead to autistic people leaving organizations.
Alienation
Autistic people can have limited meaningful informal interactions and relationships with
coworkers, making them feel alienated (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Austin & Pisano, 2017; Morris
et al., 2015). Studies have shown that social demands, lack of understanding, and
miscommunication contribute to isolation and conflict in the workplace (Annabi & Locke, 2019;
Baldwin et al., 2014; Vincent & Fabri, 2022; Whelpley & Perrault, 2022). In Fleischer’s (2012)
study involving three autistic students involved with higher education, the participants noted that
their perception of being outsiders caused alienation. The participants also mentioned that
struggling to belong to a community contributed to their loneliness. The study did acknowledge
that autistic people do have a desire to be alone but also want to have friends and networks. The
distinction for the three participants was their ability “to control the conditions of their social
relations” (Fleischer, 2012, p. 186). The result coincides with Müller and colleagues’ (2008)
research of 18 autistic adults in which all but one of the participants mentioned feeling isolated
with a minor theme focused on the importance of alone time. Alienation in all forms can be the
catalyst that causes an autistic person to leave their job. Autistic people are more likely than their
NT peers to leave organizations due to stress and conflict, changing jobs frequently (Baldwin et
al., 2014; Griffiths et al., 2016).
Leaving the Workplace and Industries
The last coping method discussed in this literature review is leaving the workplace.
Annabi and Locke (2019), adapting the original OIMIB framework from studying women in IT,
repurposed the framework to focus on autistic people. Like the original framework, autistic

51
people, like NT women, leave the IT industry because their organizations and workgroups are
not supportive, inclusive, or equitable (Annabi & Lebovitz, 2018; Annabi & Locke, 2019). In
Davies and colleagues’ (2023) study on autistic people’s priorities for future autism research,
participants acknowledged that transitioning out of employment was challenging but common.
One participant stated, “the workplace is not designed for neurodivergent people” (Davies et al.,
2023, p. 6). Although only one participant blatantly stated this, other participants did mention the
need for research to understand workplace transitions. Vincent and Fabri (2022) noted that there
is a gap in research related to autistic people transitioning out of higher education into the
workplace. Even less research exists to examine autistic people leaving their organizations,
industries, and workforce altogether. After reviewing the literature on coping methods, the tenets
that may have the most profound effect on the outcomes of autistic people in the workplace will
follow. NT knowledge and attitudes within an organization and the willingness of NT people to
evolve their mindsets are crucial.
Neurotypical Knowledge and Attitudes
Neurotypical (NT) people make up most workplaces (Loiacono & Ren, 2018). Most of
the existing autism research is around NT perspectives and priorities (Annabi & Locke, 2019).
The OIMIB framework that Annabi and Locke created gives voice to autistic individuals and
evolves into a strength-based model since previous research centers around autism through a
deficit lens. Vincent and Fabri (2022) state that a lack of understanding of the negative attitudes
of NT people is the most complex and under-examined obstacle to autistic employment. Annabi
and Locke (2019) understand that NT knowledge attitudes must be understood before
organizations focus on educating and adapting their mindsets. Barriers encountered by autistic
and other neurodivergent people may not be as noticeable to NT people (Krzeminska et al.,

52
2019). Vincent and Fabri (2022) stated that an effective way of educating and adapting NT
people’s mindsets in the workplace involves involving autistic people, programs like AEPs, and
human resources (HR). Consequently, autistic people are often as confused about NT
knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors as NT people are about autistic people (Davies et al., 2023).
Manager support, training and development, organizational culture, communication,
accommodations, equal treatment, prejudice, and introspection reviews regarding NT knowledge
and attitudes follow.
Manager Support
“The support individuals receive from their managers may be vital to the work
experience of autistic individuals and perhaps even to the ability of autistic workers to maintain
employment after moving through the recruitment process” (Whelpley et al., 2021, p. 291).
Kulkarni and Lengnick-Hall (2011) performed a study in India on the socialization of disabled
people in the workplace. They found that psychosocial support, social acceptance, and task
assistance were the most significant workplace integration solutions. Manager support is critical
to the success AEPs and the inclusion of autistic people within the workplace (Haskins, 2019). In
Whelpley and colleagues’ (2021) study on autistic employees and manager’s experiences, two
themes emerged: general acceptance from leaders and support from leaders with job demands
being key for autistic individuals to have positive work experiences. The study also found that
manager’s direct interventions and accommodations were crucial to autistic people’s success.
Grenawalt and colleagues’ (2020) case study on autism at a clothing manufacturer that partnered
with Autism Workforce found that support from the c-suite and leadership was pivotal in the
success of the inclusion initiative. One aspect of note in the study was the equal mention of
training needed and manager support.

53
Research from managers of autistic employees has also shown that training and development for
NT managers and employees is vital for any program or intervention to be viable within an
organization (Grenawalt et al., 2020). Training and development done intentionally and with
adequate resources can catalyze any inclusion initiative in the workplace.
Training and Development
Training and development, when combined with a holistic approach to change within
organizations, have been shown to improve the efficacy of inclusion initiatives, especially
concerning autism in the workplace (Annabi & Lebovitz, 2018; Davies et al., 2023; Grenawalt et
al., 2020; Griffiths et al., 2019; Saleh & Bruyère, 2018; Tomczak, 2021; Whelpley et al., 2021).
Research has shown that training and development alone cannot provide the desired results, even
though it is often the most cited intervention process (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Austin & Pisano,
2017; Saleh & Bruyère, 2018). Hedley and colleagues (2018) longitudinal study found that AEPs
provide NT employees with knowledge, awareness, and understanding of autism. Grenawalt and
colleagues (2020) found that positive responses to the autism initiative were attributed to the
training provided by the AEP, suggesting a need for a specialist when conducting and facilitating
autism training. Conversely, research from an NT employee’s perspective shows a reluctance on
their part to provide support without the assistance of a disability specialist (Buckley et al., 2021;
Howlin et al., 2005). Griffiths and colleagues’ (2019) research posited that disability and
diversity training helps NT people understand autism better and may positively influence NT
perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs regarding autism and autistic people in the workplace. Hurlbutt
and Chalmers (2004) also found that autistic people desired that NT employees receive education
and training, especially on the differences between NT and autistic people, so that NT will find
autistic people more relatable. Recent research found the same sentiment, with the added caveat

54
that future research must evaluate the impact of the training “to ensure such education leads to
meaningful change” (Davies et al., 2023, p. 7). Training and development initiatives that increase
knowledge, understanding, and awareness of autistic and all neurodivergent people ultimately
benefit the entire organization. Organizational culture is a key to inclusion initiatives’ success,
including training and development (Loiacono & Ren, 2018).
Organizational Culture
Organizational culture can reflect the perceptions and attitudes of leaders and employees
concerning including autistic people in the workplace (Ali et al., 2011; Romualdez et al., 2021).
A study in Australia evaluated 40 autistic adults and 35 NT employees utilizing a Q method to
reduce the need for social interaction and verbal communication (Scott et al., 2015). One
viewpoint, held by 17 participants, was that understanding workplace culture and the importance
of culture in the organization were key factors when beginning a new job. Another study in
Australia surveyed 59 employers of autistic people (Scott et al., 2017). Scott and colleagues
(2017) study showed that 33 employers said that including autistic people and making them feel
a part of the team positively adapted workplace culture. Annabi and Lebovitz (2018) stated that
for interventions to be effective, “they must be embedded in organizational culture, explicit in
policy, and used by all employees (p. 1066).” Romualdez and colleagues (2021) found that
organizational culture, along with an understanding of autism and accommodations, is associated
with disclosure outcomes in the workplace. Whelpley and Perrault (2021) called for future
research on organizational culture as a predictor of autistic employment outcomes.
Organizational culture is affected by many factors, one of the most important being
communication. Communication within an organization is needed for any initiative to succeed.

55
Communication
Formal, informal, social, political, or otherwise, communication is vital in any
organization. Existing research mainly focuses on communication concerning autism through the
differences or deficits that autistic people face compared to NT people (Annabi & Locke, 2019;
Buckley et al., 2021; Grenawalt et al., 2020; Klin et al., 2007; Loiacono & Ren, 2021; Patton,
2018; Tomczak, 2021). Communication variations between autistic people vary as much as
between NTs (Hendricks, 2010). Annabi and Locke (2019) found that autistic people may prefer
explicit communication using literal language. Explicit communication and literal language may
be proper for NT people as well, which illustrates the need for all types of people to be able to
communicate across spectrums. Many programs and education focus on autistic people adopting
NT knowledge and attitudes. However, NT people are not mandated to learn how to
communicate effectively with neurodivergent people (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Grenawalt et al.,
2020; Krzeminska et al., 2019; Loiacono & Ren, 2018; Saleh & Bruyère, 2018). Communication
from all levels within an organization is essential. Communication at a manager/employee level
may not provide positive outcomes for autistic people. Loiacono and Ren’s (2018) study on
accepting autism employment found that organizational culture changes must come from leaders
communicating and demonstrating their support of the initiative. Communication is also needed
so autistic people receive accommodations and equal treatment within the workplace.
Accommodations and Equal Treatment
Research has shown that contrary to popular opinions, the potential benefits of employing
disabled people can outweigh the costs (Ali et al., 2011; Schur et al., 2014). There is a wide array
of accommodations with varying costs. Giving autistic employees quiet spaces to work or spaces
with reduced noise and light and assistance with social interactions are standard, less expensive

56
accommodations (Buckley et al., 2021). The potential benefits of hiring disabled people include
decreased turnover, increased productivity, and positive effects on employees and culture (Ali et
al., 2011; Schur et al., 2014). Research on autistic people’s experiences and the support needed
for workplace inclusion overwhelmingly reference access, accommodations, and equal treatment
(Davies et al., 2023; Whelpley et al., 2021; Whelpley & May, 2022). There has also been
research that suggests NT employees have a prejudice when it comes to providing
accommodations to autistic people (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Austin & Pisano, 2017; Griffiths et
al., 2019; Patton, 2019). Many autistic, neurodivergent, and disabled people do not want an
advantage, only equal treatment. Accommodations and equal treatment encompass all aspects of
the employment process, including job posting, recruitment, interviewing, and hiring. Autistic
people often must traverse a convoluted path to get hired, only to be precluded from fulfilling
their true potential because of a lack of access to accommodations and equal treatment.
Prejudice, which comprises discrimination, stereotypes, bias, and ignorance, encompasses NT
knowledge and attitudes within the workplace that, if addressed, can lead to successful autistic
outcomes.
Prejudice
Prejudice, discrimination, stereotypes, bias, and ignorance prohibit opportunities and
increase barriers to positive outcomes for autistic people in the workplace (Annabi & Locke,
2019; Buckley et al., 2021; Davies et al., 2023; Sassoon et al., 2017; Vincent & Fabri, 2022;
Whelpley et al., 2021). Davies and colleagues’ (2023) study found that participants’ experience
with stigma, discrimination, judgment, exploitation, and bullying led all participants to desire
research that would “drive changes that make autistic employees feel welcomed” (p. 6). These
findings were corroborated by Whelpley and colleagues (2021) study, which resulted in four

57
themes: questions about autistic people’s ability to perform, hyperfocus on a person’s autism,
ignorance from interviewers, and an inability to receive equal treatment as barriers to autistic
people obtaining employment. Whelpley and May (2022) found that disclosure predicted
improved ratings for autistic people. Conversely, Whelpley and colleagues’ (2021) research also
showed that disclosing during employment can lead to bias and stigmatized evaluations. Training
and development can reduce and eliminate prejudice, discrimination, bias, and ignorance
(Grenawalt et al., 2020). The key to converting or developing people’s awareness and knowledge
is through introspection.
Introspection
Adapting, developing, and changing one’s mind can be uncomfortable and rewarding.
Hedley and colleagues’ (2018) research found that NT colleagues’ understanding, acceptance,
and positiveness towards autism inclusion initiatives contribute to autistic people’s success in the
workplace. This finding contributes to previous research that suggests NT employees’
knowledge and attitudes toward autistic people are significant factors in autistic people’s
employment outcomes (Chen et al., 2015; Hedley et al., 2018). Grenawalt and colleagues (2020)
research found that NT employees who included autistic people in their workspaces brought
changes to themselves and the autistic employees alike, with increased morale and a more
positive organizational culture. These findings corroborate research that psychological and social
advantages for NT and autistic people in the workplace suggest that inclusive and equitable
workplaces benefit all employees (Hartnett et al., 2011). More research is needed to quantify the
benefits of including autistic people in the workplace. NT knowledge and attitudes are the final
piece of the framework in this research. Prior to delving into the OIMIB framework, it is
imperative to present current trends related to autistic people’s employment and the research

58
gaps that were found during the literature review.
Current Trends
Annabi and Locke (2019) recognized that limited research and disclosure make it
challenging to calculate employment rates for autistic people. Austin and Pisano (2017) stated
that autistic unemployment is 80%. Another report from the same year suggested that only 14%
of autistic adults receive a paid work wage (Roux et al., 2017). Many other studies also reported
high rates of unemployment (Grenawalt et al., 2020; Patton, 2019; Tomczak, 2021; Vincent &
Fabri, 2022). High unemployment rates for autistic people come at a time when there is an
increase in the number of people diagnosed with autism. Though many of the increases in
diagnoses are occurring in childhood, those without conditions preventing them from future
employment will mature into the workforce. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC, 2022) said that about one in 36 children have been diagnosed with autism (Maenner et al.,
2023). The diagnosis rate is a 22.5% increase from the data reported by the Autism and
Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network (ADDM) to the CDC just 5 years prior
(Maenner et al., 2021). A meta-analysis found a correlation between the increase of autistic
people being diagnosed with increased screening availability and diagnostic services (Dietz et
al., 2020). Boys are four times as likely to be diagnosed with autism than girls. There is no
empirical evidence to ascertain the reason for such a disparity in diagnosis between the two
sexes. Some suggest that the difference in how autism manifests in males versus females could
be a factor (Dietz et al., 2020). A study interviewing 12 male and 12 female autistic adults in the
United Kingdom stated that previous research has shown that females camouflage at a higher
rate than males, which can lend credibility to the suggested differences (Romualdez et al., 2021).
However, their study showed no difference between male and female participants’ camouflaging

59
behaviors. Empirical evidence shows that autism affects all races and socioeconomic groups
(Bishop-Fitzpatrick et al., 2019; Centers for Disease, 2022). Daniels and Mandell (2014) found
that White children and children within a higher socioeconomic received earlier autism
diagnoses. However, the 2018 CDC report stated that socioeconomic status did not consistently
correlate with autism prevalence (Maenner et al., 2021). More recent research acknowledges the
need for further investigation into race and socioeconomic status concerning autistic people
(Shenouda et al., 2023).
Further Gaps in Research
Many gaps in the literature present researchers with opportunities to expand knowledge
related to autistic people and their outcomes (Mynatt et al., 2014). Research is also needed to
identify supports, services, accommodations, and best practices that increase autistic individuals’
performance on the job (Griffiths et al., 2019; Wei et al., 2015). Houdek (2022) found no
programs or studies in public management and administration that thoroughly examine how
neurodiversity increases productivity, effectiveness, or innovation within public organizations.
“One notable gap in this area is the development of evidence-based practices for the effective
identification, measurement, and use of job-relevant psychological constructs for staffing
decisions” (McMillan et al., 2023, p. 31). Organizational diversity and neurodiversity have both
seen an increase in interest among researchers, but there needs to be more research that examines
organizational diversity and neurodiversity together (LeFevre et al., 2023). Limited research
examines the experiences of employees with autism (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Austin & Pisano,
2017; Hedley et al., 2017; Whelpley et al., 2020). Morris et al. (2015) were the first to study the
experience of autistic people who work in Information Technology (IT). Another study focused
on the experiences of autistic people engaged in employment programs (Hedley et al., 2018).

60
Annabi and Locke (2019) provided a framework for researchers to study autism employment
programs (AEPs) and similar type initiatives that prepare autistic people for the workplace.
Using the framework theorized by Annabi and Locke can provide researchers with the lens to
close the research gaps. With talent shortages growing and more career opportunities evolving,
the research gaps need filling to reduce unemployment for autistic people.
Theoretical Framework
Theoretical frameworks encapsulate research towards a defined focus of inquiry
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Theoretical frameworks approach “the explanation of human
behavior in terms of a continuous (reciprocal) interaction between cognitive, behavioral, and
environmental determinants” (Bandura, 1977, p. vii). Organizational interventions mitigating
individual behavior (OIMIB) is a holistically focused framework developed to fill a gap in
existing research regarding barriers women face in information technology (IT) and workplace
interventions enacted to challenge existing systems (Annabi & Lebovitz, 2018). Annabi and
Locke (2019) extended the existing framework (See Figure 1) to focus on barriers autistic people
face in IT. The original framework used information systems (IS) gender theory and individual
differences theory of gender and information technology (IDTGIT). IS gender theory was
formulated by summarizing the existing IS literature (Trauth, 2011). The evolution of Trauth’s
work promulgated IDTGIT. The evolving theory enables an investigation of “the individual
variations across genders as a result of the combination of personal characteristics and
environmental influences … with the focus on differences within rather than between genders”
(Trauth, 2006, p. 1156). Adding the tenets of Azjen’s theory of planned behavior (TPB) to the
framework allows researchers to include “knowledge and attitudes of neurotypical (NT)
employees toward autism” (Annabi & Locke, 2019, p. 511). Understanding NT knowledge and

61
attitudes is necessary to determine how to address barriers that autistic people face in the
workplace. The following sections will describe the tenets and research using IS gender theory,
IDTGIT, TPB, and OIMIB.
Figure 1
Organizational Interventions Mitigating Individual Barriers Framework
Note. From “A Theoretical Framework for Investigating the Context for Creating Employment
Success in Information Technology for Individuals with Autism,” by H. Annabi and J. Locke,
2019, Journal of Management & Organization, 25(4), 499–515.
(https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2018.79).

62
Information Systems Gender Theory
Trauth (2011) summarized existing information systems literature presenting
socioeconomic and political reasons as the most significant forces to address barriers to women’s
attrition in IT. Some of the expounded forces include (a) the increased demand for attracting and
retaining top talent, (b) the costs associated with employee turnover, (c) innovation, (d)financial
growth, and (e) a workforce that better reflects its customer base (Annabi & Lebovitz, 2018).
Research also highlights the need for more malleable and robust workplace interventions,
including research that evaluates the efficacy of workplace interventions (Quesenberry & Trauth,
2012; von Hellens et al., 2012). Previous research utilizing existing theories was bridged to form
the OIMIB framework. IS gender theory provided the first lens through which the OIMIB
framework developed. As such, IS gender theory can assist in interpreting findings where gender
emerges as a factor, even though some researchers have overlooked gender theory because of
previous views of it being binary (Trauth, 2013). Gender is one of many intersectionalities and is
therefore essential to include. Another theory, like Trauth’s IS gender theory, is the individual
differences theory on gender and information technology (IDTGIT). Like IS gender theory,
IDTGIT is the second theory in the original and current construction of the OIMIB framework.
Individual Differences Theory of Gender and Information Technology
Trauth’s (2002) IDTGIT has evolved as his views evolved regarding the essentialist view
of gender (English & Johns, 2016). The essentialist view posits that binaries exist in categories
like gender. Modern times have shown that gender, different than sex, is a socially constructed
category that has evolved into more fluidity with masculine and feminine roles not having to be
tied to a specific sex. The three primary constructs of IDTGIT are individual identity, individual
influences, and environmental influences (Cain, 2022; Trauth, 2006; Trauth et al., 2009).

63
Individual identity includes personal demographics and career-related items (Trauth et al., 2009).
Individual influences involve personal characteristics and influences. Environmental influences
complete the theory by including geographic location, culture, and economic and policy
influences. IDTGIT has been well-researched for reliability and validity (Cain, 2022; Cassitas
Hino & Cunh, 2021; Ratten, 2022; Ridley & Young, 2012; Suseno & Abbot, 2021). Before the
OIMIB framework adaptation to a framework for autism research, it focused on gender,
specifically women in IT, only including IS gender theory and IDTGIT. Annabi and Locke
(2019) included Azjen’s theory of planned behavior (TPB) when morphing the framework to
focus on autism since TPB is a well-established theory. Azjen (1991) posited that TPB’s
conceptual framework helped deal with the intricacies of human social behavior.
Theory of Planned Behavior
Azjen’s (1991) theory of planned behavior (TPB) includes three components to predict
and understand specific barriers under certain contexts. The components comprising Azjen’s
theory are attitudes toward behavior, subjective norms related to behavior, and perceived control
over the behavior. Perceived control over behavior was absent from the original theory. Azjen
added perceived behavioral control (PBC) to the theory because it predicts behaviors not entirely
under a person’s volition (Armitage & Conner, 2001; Azjen, 1991). Azjen’s TPB has been used
extensively in research. TPB is a valid tool for understanding behaviors across various domains
(Armitage et al., 2002; Mai & Ferreros, 2018; Werner, 2011). Research has also shown that all
three components of TPB are interrelated and, therefore, would affect predictive outcomes if
separated (Mai & Ferreros, 2018).
Chapter Two Summary
This chapter conducted a comprehensive literature review concerning the

64
underrepresentation of autistic individuals in the workforce. The historical context highlighted
how the concept of autism, introduced by Eugene Bleuler in 1911 and later expanded upon by
Jean Piaget, Leo Kanner, and Hans Asperger, has evolved (OpenAI, 2023). Historically, autism
was viewed as a deviation from the norm, often leading to societal exclusion and
institutionalization. Early research largely emphasized deficits associated with autism, rather
than recognizing the strengths and unique attributes of autistic individuals.
The literature review incorporated Annabi and Locke’s (2019) OIMIB framework, which
facilitated an exploration of the experiences of autistic individuals across the employment
process. This framework provided a holistic view, highlighting the social, organizational, and
structural barriers that contribute to the underrepresentation of autistic individuals in various
industries. The review revealed substantial research gaps, particularly in areas related to effective
supports, accommodations, and best practices for inclusive employment (Annabi & Locke, 2019;
Griffiths et al., 2019; Wei et al., 2015). Furthermore, there remains limited insight into the
nuanced experiences of autistic individuals during the employment process, especially within
specific industries like IT (Hedley et al., 2018; Morris et al., 2015).
Recent additions to the literature have highlighted the challenges faced by adults
diagnosed with autism later in life. Misdiagnosis and delayed diagnosis are common, often
resulting in inadequate support and increased barriers to employment. Many late-diagnosed
autistic adults report mixed emotions regarding their diagnosis, from relief to frustration, over
missed opportunities for early intervention (Ghanouni & Seaker, 2023; Huang et al., 2020).
These findings highlight the need for more targeted research on the unique challenges and
support needs of this population. Current services are frequently tailored to children or adults
with high support needs, leaving significant gaps in support for those diagnosed in adulthood

65
(Crane et al., 2018; Wilson et al., 2022).
The OIMIB framework offers a promising avenue for addressing these gaps, given its
integration of multiple constructs (i.e., IS gender theory, IDTGIT, and TPB) that have been
widely used in related research, providing it with significant credibility. Applying this
framework allows for a comprehensive examination of the employment experiences of autistic
individuals, enhancing the credibility and trustworthiness of future research.
Chapter Three outlines the qualitative approach of the study, including a semi-structured
interview design that captures participants’ experiences. Data collection will utilize video
conferencing via Zoom and transcription services through Otter.ai, with manual verification of
transcriptions to ensure the protection of participants’ personally identifiable information (PII) in
accordance with IRB guidelines and chair and committee recommendations.

66
Chapter Three: Methodology
Chapter Three incorporated the research design and methodology for data collection and
analysis to examine the underrepresentation of autistic people in the workplace. Specifically, the
study examined the experiences of autistic people as they navigate the employment process. The
analysis focused on the organizational interventions mitigating individual barriers (OIMIB) The
chapter began with a restatement of the research questions, followed by an overview of the
research design. Next, the chapter described the research setting, the researcher, and the data
sources utilized for the study. The final sections of the chapter focused on credibility and
trustworthiness and ethics related to the study.
Research Questions
Three research questions guided this study:
1. How do autistic people’s experiences and perceptions affect the employment process?
2. How do individual differences between autistic people affect their employment
process?
3. How do workplace supports and accommodations affect autistic people’s
employment outcomes?
Overview of Design
A basic qualitative approach was utilized for this study. Basic qualitative research is
motivated by academic interest in a phenomenon that extends existing knowledge (Merriam &
Tisdale, 2016). Basic qualitative research aimed to gain insight into a phenomenon that may
eventually inform practice (Merriam & Tisdale, 2016). Enlisting a basic qualitative approach
allowed the researcher to explore the participants’ experiences. This approach was critical to
letting the participants’ voices speak through the research. A brief survey was used for

67
demographic data only. The researcher used this data during the analysis phase to determine
whether there were any correlations or conflicts between participants. The participants were
given the survey prior to the initial interviews. The demographic survey reduced the effects of
the researcher influencing the answers to questions that could be considered personal. Qualitative
interviews and document analysis were methods employed in the study to analyze the research
questions (see Table 1).
Table 1
Data Sources
Research questions Interview Document
analysis
1. How do autistic people’s experiences and perceptions affect
the employment process? X X
2. How do individual differences between autistic people affect
their employment process? X X
3. How do workplace supports and accommodations affect
autistic people’s employment outcomes? X X

68
Qualitative interviews, also known as in-depth interviews, allowed the researcher to
obtain “in-depth information about a participant’s thoughts, beliefs, knowledge, reasoning,
motivations, and feelings” about their lived experiences (Johnson & Christensen, 2015, p. 233).
Documents pertinent and applicable to the organization and participants were reviewed to
strengthen or counter the interview results. The primary study site was virtual, utilizing Zoom
meeting rooms. Participants were also asked if they require any accommodations before the
interview. The participants for the study were people who have been clinically or self-diagnosed
in adulthood. The participants were required to be currently employed. The participants will also
have to be able to sit for an interview unassisted by a caregiver or third party. Support
requirement determination enabled participants to answer interview questions unassisted and
unbiased from a third party’s participation. Allowing participants to provide their answers
allowed for a more accurate first-person representation and explanation exhibited throughout the
interview.
Research Setting
The research setting included 13 participants. The number of participants selected related
to the goal of saturation. Charmaz (2006) formulated saturation from grounded theory, affirming
that a researcher stops collecting data when further collection provides no new insights or
evidence regarding the research questions. Creswell and Creswell (2018) denoted that sample
size depends on the study’s design. One to two participants are needed for narrative and between
20–25 for ethnography. Creswell and Creswell did not elaborate on a minimum number of
participants for basic qualitative research, which is why this research attempted saturation at
fifteen complete interviews.
Requirements for participation in the study included participants who were adults,

69
identified as autistic, and were currently employed. Research has found that self-diagnosed
autistic people struggle with employment and stigma, like diagnosed autistic people (McDonald,
2020). Lack of access to diagnostic services for some people was the reason for including selfdiagnosed individuals. Limited research on the correlation between self-diagnosed autistic
people and professionally diagnosed autism resulted in the decision not to allow self-diagnosed
autistic people in the study. Participants currently employed allowed the researcher to focus on
barriers and opportunities faced by the participants. The goal of the study was to assess barriers
and opportunities associated with the employment process for autistic people within
organizations. Implications for the replication of opportunities and the mitigation of barriers
were assessed for future replication by organizations.
The Researcher
I am a middle-class, English-speaking, White, heterosexual, autistic, cisgender man. The
researcher’s autism diagnosis came after the inception of this study. The researcher had mental
health conditions prevalent in autistic people, including anxiety, depression, and suicidal
ideation. A recently diagnosed autistic acquaintance suggested the researcher get tested based on
multiple similarities between them and the researcher. The diagnosis was essential to disclose
for the credibility and trustworthiness of the study. The researcher’s views and assumptions had
not changed because of the diagnosis. The researcher’s assumptions were that autistic people
experience barriers and biases from individuals and organizations.
The researcher had witnessed firsthand inequities towards autistic, other neurodivergent
people, and other systemically oppressed and intentionally excluded groups. It was imperative
that the researcher focused solely on the data that resulted from the study. Acknowledging biases
and assumptions was the first step to mitigating their effects on the study. To address the

70
potential for these biases to affect the study, the researcher ensured that unmanipulated
responses were present in Chapter Four. The first step was to have the open-ended questions for
the participants reviewed by the chair and committee. Open-ended questions enacted the
removal of coercive and leading language that had the potential to skew the results (Johnson &
Christensen, 2015). Verbatim and rich, thick descriptions were used to represent the participants
accurately (Merriam & Tisdale, 2016).
Data Sources
Semi-structured interviews and document analysis were the data sources for the data
collection process. Semi-structured interviews enabled the researcher to capture the employment
experiences of the participants, including their experiences utilizing AEPs or other programs for
assistance with gaining employment. The interviews also allowed participants to speak about
barriers, opportunities, coping methods, and their experiences with NT managers and employees
within their organization. Examination of the participants’ individual experiences presented
individual differences among the participants. When available, documents from the
organizations’ websites that employ the participants were collected to gather insights into the
constructs of the OIMIB framework, address the research questions, and for comparison of
reporting versus participants’ experiences. The findings from Chapter Four were also sent to the
participants for review. The review allowed participants the opportunity to ensure quotes and
other inferences to their interviews were accurately represented, reflecting their individual
experiences and insights.
Method 1
Semi-structured interviews were scheduled with participants. The researcher scheduled
interviews with participants until saturation was achieved. The interview approach (Appendix A)

71
included a list of 12 open-ended interview questions that included probe and follow-up questions
based on the participants’ responses. “This format allowed the researcher to respond to the
situation at hand, to the emerging worldview of the respondent, and new ideas on the topic”
(Merriam & Tisdale, 2016, p. 110).
Participants
Participant recruitment was conducted by a purposeful sampling method. Purposeful
sampling allowed the researcher to discover, comprehend, and gain insights into the target
population (Merriam & Tisdale, 2016). Utilizing the researcher’s personal and professional
networks for recruitment and sampling, participants were required to be adults, clinically or selfdiagnosed autistic. Criteria for participants also included that they were currently employed. The
participants had to acknowledge that they could participate in the interview without the
assistance of someone else. Lastly, the participants did not have to have used an AEP or other
program for their current employment. The researcher aimed for 15 participants. The goal was
saturation; therefore, if it took less or required more, the researcher adjusted as needed.
Instrumentation
The participants were required to complete a demographic survey (Appendix B) via
Qualtrics before the interview. The interview protocol for the proceeding research included 12
open-ended interview questions. The questions included probes and follow-up questions based
on participants’ responses. Questions centered around the experiences of participants through the
employment process. Tailored questions focused on data collection for the three research
questions were pivotal. The researcher was also an instrument for data collection. Merriam and
Tisdale (2016) stated that the researcher is the foremost data collection instrument in qualitative
research, enabling an inductive, richly descriptive environment.

72
Data Collection Procedures
The interviews were conducted virtually via the video conferencing platform Zoom. The
researcher recorded the interviews via the Zoom platform. As a secondary source of data
collection, the researcher enlisted the services of the virtual transcription service Otter.ai. Sixtyminute interviews were considered ample time for data collection. Participants could propose an
in-person or other suitable platform for the videoconferencing, as needed. The researcher also
took notes for identifying information, such as the time, date, and location (Merriam & Tisdale,
2016). Margins were left open on the right side of the page for the researcher to take pertinent
notes based on the participants’ responses.
Data Analysis
Data analysis began when the researcher screened the demographic data before the
interview began. Data analysis further took place during the interview using field notes.
Following each interview, the researcher scheduled time for downloading the Zoom and Otter.ai
transcriptions for validation and analysis. Merriam and Tisdale (2016) stated that the timing of
data analysis and integrating other tasks with the analysis distinguish qualitative research from
traditional research. A coding template (Appendix E) was used as a guide for constructing the
codebook. The coding template and codebook were constructed of open and priori coding that
aligned with the OIMIB framework and research questions. Once all the data had been collected
and analyzed, themes and subthemes were extracted for presentation in Chapter Four.
Method 2
Public documents were collected via the participant’s organization’s websites. The
researcher collected pertinent information regarding the company’s demographics, disability, and
autistic-related measurements and outcomes, including hiring and retention data. Researchers

73
utilize documents to seek meaning from the data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Document
analysis, combined with interviews and observations, allowed researchers to triangulate findings
(Merriam & Tisdale, 2016). Time, money, and available resources did not allow the researcher to
observe for a qualified triangulation. Credibility and trustworthiness were sought by available
and practical means.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Given the time, funding, and resource constraints, credibility and trustworthiness were
sought to the greatest extent possible. Credibility, along with rigorous methods, were key
components to research being credible (Patton, 2015). Merriam and Tisdale (2016) stated that
qualitative research needed to answer concerns and challenges from outsiders. Credibility was
sought using multiple methods for data collection. Peer review from the researcher’s chair and
committee also bolstered the credibility of the research. Rich, thick descriptions were utilized as
a strategy for credibility. A rich, thick description enabled transferability when presented with
detailed findings (Merriam & Tisdale, 2016).
Trustworthiness in qualitative research “derives from the researcher’s presence, the
nature of the interaction between researcher and participants, the triangulation of data, the
interpretation of perceptions, and rich, thick description” (Merriam & Tisdale, 2016, p. 191).
Trustworthiness also depended on the researcher’s credibility. Merriam and Tisdale further stated
that the researcher was ultimately responsible for presenting an ethically conducted study.
Trustworthiness was obtained utilizing the same methods for credibility (i.e., multiple data
sources, rich, thick descriptions, and peer review). Careful design of the study and rigor by the
researcher allowed for the trustworthiness of the findings. The researcher addressed ethical
concerns to ensure the most credible and trustworthy study possible.

74
Ethics
Credibility and trustworthiness, like validity and reliability in quantitative research,
depended on the researcher’s ethics (Merriam & Tisdale, 2016). Merriam and Tisdale also stated
that training, experience, and rigor determined credibility. The proceeding research first served
the autistic community. The researcher hoped this study would propel organizational changes to
create more inclusive and equitable environments. Empowering autistic people would hopefully
reap benefits for their spheres of influence (i.e., family, friends, communities). Organizations
would also benefit by incorporating programs and policies that enable them to be more inclusive
and representative of their communities. The participants in this study could have been harmed
by reviving past trauma that occurred during their lived experiences. The study was designed
based on the work of Annabi and Locke (2019). The implications were that barriers prevented
autistic people from obtaining and retaining employment.
Further implications could positively affect individuals, their communities, organizations,
and society. Participation was entirely voluntary. Enlisting participants 18 years or older, who
required little support with the ability to understand and give informed consent, was essential
(Merriam & Tisdale, 2016). Confidentiality was of the utmost importance. All data were stored
on a cloud server that used two-factor authentication (2FA). As requested, a separate, duplicate
file was made available for the chair and committee. The data were wiped of any personally
identifiable information (PII) before the file was available to peer review members. All
participants’ coded data prevented others from knowing their identity. Finally, results were
disseminated to participants to ensure fair and accurate representation. The participants’ thoughts
and feelings toward the results were included in the discussion section of the dissertation. The
final research study was disseminated through the researcher’s committee and chair for

75
subsequent processing for submission through the Rossier School of Education at the University
of Southern California.

76
Chapter Four: Findings
This study aimed to examine the experiences of autistic people during the employment
process. This study builds on existing research focused on the underrepresentation of autistic
people in the workplace. Utilizing a basic qualitative approach, 13 participants shared their
insights and experiences through semi-structured interviews. This chapter describes the results of
the interviews in research question order. Annabi and Locke’s (2019) OIMIB framework was the
foundation for the research and interview questions that focused on participant responses. The
findings expand on three main themes: Interview challenges, career paths and preferences, and
the impact of workplace support. The following research questions underpin the study’s focus:
1. How do autistic people’s experiences and perceptions affect the employment process?
2. How do individual differences between autistic people affect their employment
process?
3. How do workplace supports and accommodations affect autistic people’s
employment outcomes?
Participants
This study used purposeful sampling to select autistic working adults in various
industries. This study examined participants’ employment journeys to ascertain best practices for
including autistic people in the workplace. The researcher recruited participants through personal
and professional networks. The recruitment flyer included participation requirements,
information regarding the study, and links to a demographics survey. Data collection occurred
through open-ended, semi-structured interview questions. The researcher collected questions via
Zoom for 11 participants. In addition, two participants preferred to answer the interview
questions privately and email them to the researcher. In total, there were 13 participants. Priori

77
coding (Appendix E) informed the findings. Pseudonyms were randomly assigned to participants
to protect their anonymity. The researcher describes the participants’ locations by region, not city
or state. Additionally, the researcher generalizes any other personal information related to the
participants’ industries or organizations to protect their anonymity further.
Demographics
Table 2 provides participants’ demographic information. The table precedes the
background information on the individual participants.
Table 2
Participant Demographics
Participant Age Gender Race Location
Emma 26–33 Female White/Hispanic/Latina Midwest
Ethan 66–73 Male White/Caucasian West
Harper 26–33 Female White/Caucasian Midwest
Isabella 34–41 Female White/Caucasian West
Jack 42–49 Male White/Caucasian West
Lucas 34–41 Male White/Caucasian Midwest
Marsha 34–41 Female/queer
Black/African
American South
Morgan 42–49 Non-binary/transgender White/Caucasian South
Olivia 34–41 Female White/Caucasian South
Ryan 42–49 Male White/Caucasian Midwest
Sophia 50–57 Female White/Caucasian Midwest
Susan 34–41 Female White/Caucasian Midwest
Taylor 34–41
Non-binary/biologically
female/presents as female (always
at work)
White/Caucasian West
Note. 13 participants (pseudonyms) with age ranges, gender, race, and U.S. region locations.

78
Below is a list of participant pseudonyms with details on their roles and industries. Also
included is the participants’ age of diagnosis and education level. Finally, it is a summation of
whether they have disclosed in the workplace, accompanied by the reasons for disclosing or
withholding their diagnosis.
Emma
Emma is the lead operations specialist in the sports management and entertainment
industry. She was diagnosed with autism at 25. She possesses a bachelor’s degree and is
pursuing her master’s degree in sports management. Emma has chosen not to disclose at work
because of previous negative past experiences.
Ethan
Ethan, a defense lawyer specializing in criminal and bankruptcy law, received an autism
diagnosis at 61. He holds a Juris Doctorate. Ethan has disclosed his diagnosis at work and is very
open with colleagues about it. He believes many others in the field remain undiagnosed.
Harper
Harper is an associate director of student life in higher education. She was diagnosed as
autistic at 32 and possesses a master’s degree. She has disclosed her diagnosis at work and is
open to colleagues and students about it. She has found that disclosing has been beneficial for
educating neurotypical people about autism.
Isabella
Isabella, an executive assistant, and administrative analyst in the banking industry, was
diagnosed with autism at 39. She possesses a bachelor’s degree and plans to begin her graduate
school education. She disclosed her diagnosis at work to gain the necessary accommodations.

79
While she has found her colleagues supportive, they are primarily uninformed about autistic
people.
Jack
Jack is an information technology (IT) service desk technician. He was diagnosed as
autistic at 40 and possesses a doctoral degree. Jack has disclosed his autism at work and taken
steps to ensure workplace safety. He does so cautiously since it has cost him employment in the
past.
Lucas
Lucas, a mechanical engineer in the manufacturing industry, received an autism diagnosis
at 35. He possesses an associate degree. He has not disclosed his diagnosis at work, as he has not
found the need to do so currently. However, he is open to disclosing on a case-by-case basis.
Marsha
Marsha, an independent contractor currently working in small business development,
received an autism diagnosis at 30. She possesses a bachelor’s degree and is selectively open
about her diagnosis. Marsha advocates for resources that enable people to accommodate
themselves without disclosing their diagnosis.
Morgan
Morgan, a training and instructional designer in the healthcare industry, received an
autism diagnosis at 42. They possess a master’s degree. They have never disclosed their autism
diagnosis at work. However, they recently disclosed another condition because it affects their
ability to retain information.
Olivia
Olivia, a registered behavior technician in the behavioral science industry, received an

80
autism diagnosis at 34. She possesses a master’s degree and is applying to PhD programs. She
disclosed her autism diagnosis at work and hopes for a day when everyone receives
accommodations and support regardless of a diagnosis.
Ryan
Ryan, a product owner in the nonprofit industry, received an autism diagnosis at 42. He
possesses a bachelor’s degree. He disclosed his autism diagnosis at work and has received mixed
reactions. While he has a core group of highly supportive colleagues, he finds that most people
lack empathy and understanding of autism.
Sophia
Sophia, a clinical nurse educator in the healthcare industry, was diagnosed with autism at
55. She possesses a bachelor’s degree and is working on her master’s degree. Sophia disclosed
her autism diagnosis at work to receive accommodations. Sophia advocates for listening to all
voices and believes curiosity and understanding can enhance neurotypical support in the
workplace.
Susan
Susan, a graphic designer, and illustrator received an autism diagnosis at 38. She
possesses a bachelor’s degree. She has not disclosed her autism diagnosis at work. As a highmasking individual, she presents as neurotypical at work. Although she received
accommodations before her diagnosis, she does not feel comfortable asking for support that her
colleagues are not requesting.
Taylor
Taylor, a public records analyst in local government, received an autism diagnosis at the
age of 39. They possess a master’s degree and have disclosed their autism diagnosis at work.

81
Unlike their previous employer, their current employer has been incredibly supportive. Taylor
believes that management support and an organization’s commitment to adopting changes are
critical to the success of autistic people.
Qualitative Findings Overview
The insights and experiences of the 13 participants in this study have practical
implications for understanding the individual experiences of autistic people and for informing
best practices for fostering their inclusion and success in the workplace. Three main themes
emerged from the data collection and analysis: interview challenges, career paths and
preferences, and the impact of workplace support.
The subthemes related to interview challenges highlight difficulties with traditional
interview formats and workplace misunderstandings. Workplace misunderstandings often begin
at the hiring stage and continue throughout employment. The career paths and preferences theme
included subthemes, diversity of industry interests among the participants and their many coping
strategies to navigate their work environments. The theme, workplace support encompassed
formal accommodations and informal support systems that influence autistic individuals’
experiences as well as satisfaction in their roles. See Figure 2 for a visual representation of the
themes, subthemes, and codes presented during data analysis.

82
Figure 2
Themes, Subthemes, and Codes
Research Question 1: Experiences and Perceptions
The first research question explores how autistic individuals’ experiences and perceptions
shape their employment journeys. Participants shared personal stories about navigating a world
that often misunderstands or overlooks their needs. Autistic adults, especially those diagnosed
later in life, face unique challenges. These challenges are faced during the entire employment
processes. Many participants reported difficulties beginning with the interview. Traditional

83
interview formats often fail to accommodate their communication styles or sensory sensitivities.
As Morgan described when discussing their own business interviews:
I give the questions ahead of time because some of us don’t processes quickly. We may
have an amazing answer, but [it] might not come right away. If we have the questions
ahead of time, my thoughts gather a lot more easily if I write them instead of talking.
Morgan’s sentiment captures a recurring theme that there is a misalignment between traditional
hiring practices and the needs of autistic candidates.
Interview challenges emerged as a central theme supporting the first research question.
Ten of the 13 participants reported difficulties with interviews, emphasizing that these challenges
are not just a barrier to employment but also enable future workplace misunderstandings. For
many, the stress of masking to appear neurotypical starts at the interview process. Morgan said,
“In interviews, I often find myself pretending to be someone I’m not to fit in,” Lucas shared,
“Masking is exhausting, but it feels necessary to get through the process without being
discriminated against.”
Sensory overload compounds the pressure to conform to traditional interview
expectations. Olivia described her anxiety during face-to-face interviews: “Interviews are always
like so mysterious, right?” Meanwhile, Harper called her interview experience “horrendous, the
worst experience of my life.” For participants, the environment, unpredictable questions, and
intense enquiry standard to traditional interviews creates a sensory overload that makes it
extremely difficult to successfully navigate the experience.
Traditional Interviews
Traditional interviews, often characterized by direct face-to-face interactions with a
hiring manager or panel, were identified as the most stressful. Eight participants explicitly

84
preferred non-traditional interview formats, such as phone or virtual interviews, which allowed
them to control their environment and reduce stress. Olivia explained, “I found like most of the
process was via phone and video, and it’s a little more comfortable that way because you’re in
your home.” Marsha added: “Interviewing is a skill, and it is a skill that I often regress in. … So,
my last interview was one of the best interviews I’ve had because I prefer to be conversational.”
The participants’ experiences depict the challenges faced during traditional interviews.
For some, like Olivia and Marsha, non-traditional formats offered a more comfortable
environment for them to present their abilities and skills. Lucas had a unique way of preparing
for traditional interviews by seeking out less desired jobs for practice with the interview process:
“I go out and find a job that I don’t really care about and go do an interview with them … it kind
of gets some of the cobwebs out.”
Face-to-Face Interview Stress
Participants reported in-person interviews as the most stressful style of interviews. They
stated that the traditional interview setting does not allow them to be themselves. Olivia stated:
“You’re like, what should I do? Like, what do I do with my hands? What do I do with my face?”
Lucas described: “I have a hard time looking at people in the face and the eyes, so like judging
all that stuff. That’s part of it.” Four participants reported phone and virtual interviews as ideal
because they allowed them to control their settings. Olivia said: “I found like most of the process
was via phone and video, and it’s a little more comfortable that way because you’re in your
home.” Eight participants did not specify a preference for non-traditional interviews over inperson interviews. However, nine participants expressed a preference for interviewing and
working remotely so that they could control their environments. Olivia summarized the

85
sentiments of other participants when she said: “This process was a lot better in my opinion. And
I did like the interview on screen like, you know, it created a more comfortable thing.”
Miscommunication in Interviews
Miscommunication during interviews emerged as a significant subtheme, with eight
participants highlighting instances where their communication styles conflicted with
neurotypical interviewers. Ryan described his experience: “I interviewed twice and didn’t move
on because of communication.” Marsha echoed this frustration: “Despite what feedback I have
gotten about how I communicate; I do listen very well.” For many, these experiences reinforced
the feeling that interviews are not setup for autistic people to succeed but fail. Ethan’s
perspective expanded the miscommunication conversation: “HR people need to be trained. … If
they know somebody’s autistic, they got to interview them a little bit differently.” His experience
highlights the urgency of training interviewers to understand and adapt to the diverse ways
autistic people communicate and express themselves.
Despite these challenges, some participants also reported positive interview experiences.
Sophia shared:
Yeah, and so I really felt good about it. And I knew the person who was interviewing me,
so I felt comfortable talking to them. I never felt like it was a sure thing. I never felt like
it was just a formality to interview me to get the job, but I did feel it gave me confidence
to do it knowing that [they] had put his neck out for me.
Sophia’s experience highlights the potential for positive outcomes when interviewers create a
more understanding and supportive environment.
The participants experiences illustrate the crucial role effective communication and
understanding have in the interview process. Participants are asking for HR professionals,

86
interviewers, and others involved in the hiring process to take responsibility and make positive
changes that are beneficial to autistic and NT candidates alike.
Pressure to Mask
The pressure to mask emerged as a dominant narrative among the participants. All
participants received their autism diagnoses in adulthood, and nine described how they masked
both before and after their diagnosis. Masking makes autistic individuals appear neurotypical,
often as a strategy for social survival. Susan, for example, shared, “I am a high-masking autistic
woman who makes a mostly neurotypical first impression when meeting people. That has served
me well during interviews.” For participants, like Lucas, masking feels more of a necessity and
less as a choice when he stated: “In interviews, I often find myself pretending to be someone I’m
not to fit in. Masking is exhausting, but it feels necessary to get through the process without
being discriminated against.”
Seven participants discussed how masking not only affected their social interactions but also
their ability to perform in both interviews and on the job. The need to conform to neurotypical
standards created significant stress and fatigue, impacting their job performance.
Participants also highlighted their selectiveness in terms of masking. The extent depended
on the person they interacted with. Sophia said, “I do tend to mask very highly around some
colleagues, just because I don’t know them well enough.” The need to mask was often driven by
fear of misunderstanding or judgment, leading to a sense of confusion between autistic and
neurotypical individuals alike.
These experiences highlight the critical need for creating safe environments where
autistic individuals can feel comfortable presenting themselves authentically. When autistic
people feel safe to be themselves, it benefits both them and their colleagues by fostering clearer

87
communication and reducing misunderstandings. This is a vital aspect that needs to be
considered in any workplace or social setting.
Workplace Misunderstandings
Workplace misunderstandings were a common theme that extended beyond interviews,
into daily interactions. All participants described instances where their unique communication
styles were misinterpreted by colleagues or supervisors, often leading to confusion and
frustration. These experiences highlight the importance of understanding and accommodating
different communication styles. Sophia explained the challenge of transparency: “I’ve been very
open about my diagnosis. So, it’s not like people don’t know. … But having it and showing it are
two different things.” Similarly, Susan highlighted the need for clarity in communication, stating,
“Sending me projects and details via email would significantly lessen the burden I feel to be the
one to translate various communication styles.” These stories show the complexity of workplace
dynamics for autistic individuals. Even well-intentioned colleagues can inadvertently create
misunderstandings.
Misinterpretation of Communication Styles
All 13 participants described at least one situation where their communication styles
contrasted with those of their neurotypical colleagues and leaders. Six participants discussed how
their communication style was perceived. Ethan said: “I do know, like once I make it into the
interviews, I struggle with interviews from what I have been told as a communication
standpoint.” Jack explained,
Like, for me, in particular, one of my problems is that my sound processing being
effectively raw format. My brain can’t really prioritize conversations. Like if you have

88
three people, four people are talking 10 feet away, and somebody’s talking to me. I can’t
pull it out the dialogue.
Ryan stated, “My directness I think is both an asset and a weakness. Like I said, [they] doesn’t
necessarily like when … the majority of the people are not direct communicators.” Emma,
Isabella, and Lucas all mentioned positive experiences with communication styles that made
their employment experience much more enjoyable. Lucas discussed preferred communication
styles when he stated:
I’ve tried to communicate more through like, [Microsoft] Teams and stuff like that.
Emails, writing, you know, like I say write things out before I send them. … I’ve actually
found someone that’s about the same position that I can bounce ideas off of, and kind of
trust them like hey, does this look alright?
Misinterpretations in communication style add pressure on autistic people to conform.
Environmental distractions like lighting, sound, and temperature can all lead autistic people to
sensory overload.
Sensory Overload
Sensory overload was another critical issue reported by participants. Eleven out of 13
participants discussed the impact of sensory sensitivities on their work experiences. Isabella
described her experience with burnout: “I have realized that I tend to burnout at a job after 2–4
years and feel like I have to quit for my mental health.” Jack, who works remotely, credited his
ability to control his environment as a critical factor in his job longevity: “I got to work from
home after working in the office for 1 year. And so, I really think that’s why I’ve had such
longevity at this company is because I can control my sensory environment.” Morgan’s account
added another layer to this theme, explaining how remote work enabled them to manage sensory

89
inputs and emotional energy:
Working from home has been life changing, and that’s primarily because of sensory
processing disorder and just almost as an autistic trait, but just the empathetic I feel other
people’s moods around me so heavily, that it really helps to be alone just me and the cat.
I don’t pick up these heavy feelings of whatever they’re going through from the cat. His
brain seems to be pretty calm.
Accommodating environments or allowing people with sensory sensitivities a means of
controlling their environment enables employees to perform better.
Emotional and Practical Challenges Adult Diagnoses
The emotional landscape for adult diagnosed autistic individuals is complex and often
involves mixed emotions. Some individuals report a sense of relief and validation following their
diagnosis, while others express regret and frustration over missed opportunities for early
intervention and support (Ghanouni & Seaker, 2023; Sebastian, 2023). Many participants
described experiencing a process of re-evaluating past life experiences through the lens of their
diagnosis, which was both liberating and challenging. Sophia said:
It made all the difference in the world. Because I mean, I didn’t know. I mean, I knew I
was making myself comfortable. But I didn’t know I was accommodating my autism by
making myself comfortable. So even though I didn’t know I was autistic, I knew that I
didn’t like the big light.
This re-evaluation often fostered a stronger sense of self but also brought significant emotional
responses such as grief for the years lived without understanding or support (Bargiela et al.,
2016; Howlin & Moss, 2012; Leedham et al., 2020).

90
Participants also highlighted substantial challenges in accessing appropriate postdiagnosis support, which was frequently lacking or inadequate. Many reported that the existing
support services were often tailored for children or those with high support needs, leaving adults
diagnosed later in life without appropriate resources (Crane et al., 2018; Howlin & Moss, 2012;
Wilson et al., 2022). Harper was the only one to describe positive outcomes with post-diagnostic
care when she said, “Working with a neurodiverse affirming therapist that’s helped me
understand how my brain works and understand that it’s okay. Like, no, you’re allowed to be
human, and you need to have more self-compassion.” The ongoing struggle to fit into a world
not designed for autistic individual needs exacerbates these difficulties. The struggle often leads
to feelings of isolation and exclusion. Autistic adults frequently find themselves needing to
advocate for accommodations and understanding even after receiving a diagnosis, which can be
exhausting and disheartening (Howlin & Moss, 2012; Huang et al., 2020).
Summary of Research Question 1
The findings revealed that autistic individuals face substantial barriers during the
interview process, which they identified as a significant hindrance to obtaining employment.
The most prominent challenges include the stress and anxiety associated with traditional
interview formats, miscommunication, and the need to conform to neurotypical expectations, all
of which create a high pressure to mask autistic traits. Workplace misunderstandings that begin
at the interview stage and continue throughout employment often compound these issues,
leading to feelings of exclusion and isolation. Participants reported that employers frequently
misunderstood their communication styles, and many experienced sensory overloads in various
workplace environments. As a result, many participants prefer remote or virtual work, which
provides better control over sensory stimuli and communication methods.

91
Additionally, the findings highlight that a lack of tailored support and accommodations
often exacerbated the emotional and practical challenges faced by adult diagnosed autistic
individuals. Some participants felt relief and validation following their diagnosis, while others
experienced frustration over the lack of early intervention opportunities. These opportunities
could have mitigated challenges earlier in their careers. The desire for more supportive, sensoryfriendly work environments and clearer communication methods emerged as crucial for
improving employment experiences and outcomes for autistic adults (Ghanouni & Seaker, 2023;
Wilson et al., 2022). The following research question will focus on individual differences among
the participants.
Research Question 2: Individual Differences
The second research question of this study focused on how individual differences
between autistic participants affected their employment journeys. The central theme that
emerged during data analysis was the career paths and preferences of the participants. Two
subthemes emerged: the diversity of industry interests and coping strategies. Two additional
subthemes identified to elaborate on these themes: preferred industries and job satisfaction. After
discussing the first subtheme, the focus will shift to different coping strategies. Stress
management and seeking accommodations expand to highlight participants’ experiences and
insights about coping strategies.
Career Paths and Preferences
Career paths and preferences was the first central theme from the participants for research
question two. The first subthemes were a diversity of industry interests, which included preferred
industries and job satisfaction. The second subtheme, different coping strategies, includes stress
management techniques and accommodation seeking.

92
Each participant’s career paths and preferences were shaped by their interests, skills, and
sensory sensitivities. All 13 participants shared stories about their decisions to stay in their
chosen fields or transition to new careers following their autism diagnosis. For many, choosing a
career aligned with their strengths was crucial to job satisfaction.
Diverse Industry Interests
Industry interests among participants varied greatly. All 13 participants were employed
prior to their autism diagnosis. Participants discussed their choices for staying in the same
industry post-diagnosis or transitioning to another career based on wants and needs. Every
participant discussed job satisfaction as being important. Not all participants were currently
satisfied with all aspects of their employment. However, all participants explained aspects of the
jobs that they enjoy. Marsha, for example, thrived in consulting and contracting for 7 years: “I
still want to do it because there’s a lot that I really enjoy about it.” Her ability to control her
sensory environment and daily schedule has been key to her success.
Preferred Industries
Participants shared their preferences for specific industries that allowed them to utilize
their strengths and find meaningful work. Harper, for instance, chose to stay in higher education,
a field that provided her a stable and supportive environment. For Harper, the familiarity of the
environment and the sense of belonging to a place that understood her needs were crucial to her
career satisfaction. Other participants, like Isabella, chose to transition to a new field that better
matched their evolving interests and needs: “I just started a course to become a neurodivergent
family coach and have applied to grad school for my masters in clinical mental health
counseling. I want to focus on neurodivergent clients.” Her story demonstrates how participants
often seek careers that utilize their skills and provide personal fulfillment and purpose.

93
Morgan said that working in training within the healthcare sector was an ideal fit. They
emphasized that “Instructional design pays the bills and it’s fun.”, but their “Goal is mainly
entirely training.” Structure and clear expectations were a common theme, as many participants
expressed a preference for organizations that have clearly defined roles and incorporated a
favorable routine.
Taylor found satisfaction in an area often overlooked by others, “Most people look at
records work and they’re like, oh, no, that’s too boring. I’m like, oh, records work? Yeah, give
me more.” Taylor’s choice reflects a unique personal interest in tasks requiring focus and
consistency. This shows that job satisfaction often stems from finding work that matches a
person’s interests and strengths.
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction emerged as a critical factor in how participants evaluated their career
choices and workplace environments. Eight participants expressed contentment with their current
roles, often attributing this to supportive and non-toxic workplaces. Taylor, for example, felt
appreciated and valued at their current agency: “My current agency is really non-toxic, healthy. I
really love it, and I’m really thriving there.”
Sophia echoed similar feelings about her workplace: “I think this is a lovely place to stay
until I’m ready to retire. I’ve built a lot here and feel I have a lot to contribute.” Morgan and
Sophia’s experiences underscore the importance of feeling valued and having a sense of purpose
at work, which can significantly enhance job satisfaction.
However, job satisfaction was only universal among some participants. Susan shared her
dissatisfaction with a previous job: “The job I ultimately took seemed like a perfect fit at first,
but I soon realized that the employer had a work style and communication style that was ill-

94
fitting for someone like me.” Her experience illustrates the challenges faced by autistic
individuals when their needs are not adequately met by their employers, emphasizing the
importance of a good match between the individual and the work environment.
These diverse experiences demonstrate that while industry preferences vary widely
among autistic individuals, the common thread is the need for an environment that aligns with
their strengths, preferences, and values, leading to greater satisfaction and success in their
professional lives.
Different Coping Strategies
Participants employed a myriad of coping strategies to navigate their work environments.
All 13 participants discussed their coping methods. The main subthemes that emerged from the
data analysis referred to coping methods relating to stress management and the ability to seek
accommodations in the workplace. These strategies showcase the diverse ways autistic people
manage their work settings to enhance their productivity and well-being.
Stress Management Techniques
Previous research has shown that autistic people are stressed along with many other
unfavorable emotions as they navigate their workspaces. Stress management can improve job
performance and satisfaction. Six of the participants specifically discussed stress management.
Susan described one of her stress management techniques when she said: “I kept a stress ball at
my desk, just in case. Deep breaths, tightening and holding all muscles, followed by release …
lather, rinse, repeat.” Harper discussed using a safe space to destress when she stated: “I will go
to my boss’s office and walk in close the door and just sit behind her door and just hide.” Over
half of the participants work virtual or a hybrid work schedule. The participants elaborated on
how working remotely improves their ability by removing unneeded stressful situations. Taylor

95
discussed: “I’m just more productive at home without all the distractions of the office; without
people coming up to you with their emergency.”
Jack controlled his sensory environment by working from home, using light-blocking curtains,
and adjusting lighting to his preferences. Olivia described the advantages of working from home
when she discussed her destressing activity:
I go for a jog and like a nice distance. I might not even have any music or anything. I’m
just focusing on the breathing, running and what it like feels like and I don’t have time to
really think about anything else besides being right there, right now because I’m trying to
control my breathing.
Stress in the workplace can also be reduced by seeking accommodations.
Seeking Accommodations
Requesting accommodations significantly improved job satisfaction and performance for
some participants. Seven participants requested accommodations, such as flexible schedules or
specific meeting protocols. Susan found that adjusting her schedule helped her manage her
workload more effectively: “I come into work an hour earlier and I have up to an hour of break
time that I can take whenever I want.” Similarly, Sophia requested accommodations related to
information-sharing practices:
I have requested and gotten that if anyone needs to meet with me, I need to know the
topic of the meeting. My anxiety shoots off through the roof, especially if my manager
says hey, can uh, can I talk to you at three, you know, sends me an invitation and I don’t
know what it’s about.
However, not all participants felt comfortable seeking accommodations. Six participants
chose to self-accommodate rather than formally request adjustments. This was often due to a fear

96
of stigma or negative perceptions. Harper described her reluctance: “It was just a fear of
associating myself with needing accommodations.” Olivia discussed her angst regarding
accommodations when she said:
So, when I’m asked for additional things, it’s not a company that’s going out of their way
to be like, oh, like we have these employees that might need these things. And you know,
it’s not just like people who are autistic that need these things. It’s humans. Sometimes
humans just need like five minutes to like, do whatever.
Morgan, on the other hand, discussed not asking for accommodations because they are content
with their arrangement: “I haven’t asked for any accommodations because I work from home.
There’s a lot of flexibility with that.”
These stories underscore the diverse experiences of autistic individuals when navigating
workplace accommodations. Some participants were able to secure accommodations that helped
them thrive. Other participants hesitated to make requests due to concerns about stigma or
negative perceptions. This highlights the vital need for an inclusive workplace culture where
autistic and neurotypical employees feel safe to request the accommodations, they need to be
successful.
Summary of Research Question 2
The second research question of this study focused on how individual differences
between autistic participants affected their employment journeys. The central theme that
emerged during data analysis was career paths and preferences. Two subthemes support this
theme: diversity of industry interests and different coping strategies. Subthemes associated with
career paths and preferences were preferred industries and job satisfaction. The second subtheme
related to different coping strategies focused on stress management and seeking

97
accommodations. These themes provided insights into how participants navigated their
environments and addressed individual differences in their respective workplaces. Individual
differences among autistic people significantly influenced the participants employment journeys.
The following research question will focus on workplace supports and how those supports
affected the participant’s employment journeys.
Research Question 3: Workplace Supports
The third research question of this study focused on how workplace support and
accommodations affected the participant’s employment journeys. The central theme that
emerged during data analysis was the impact of workplace support by the participants. Two
subthemes that emerged were formal accommodations and informal supports. Two subthemes
related to formal accommodations explored are flexible working hours and remote work options.
Following the findings on formal accommodations, will be a focus on informal support.
Understanding managers and peer support were the most impactful supports that impacted the
employment journeys of participants.
Impact of Workplace Supports
The participants discussed various accommodations related to flexible work hours and
remote work options. Flexible work hours and hybrid or remote work options allow participants
to create workspaces better suited formally and informally to their wants and needs to thrive in
the workplace. The participant insights show the diverse ways participants manage their work
environments through flexible hours and remote work options to enhance their productivity and
well-being.
Formal Accommodations
All 13 participants discussed work hours and flexibility in some form. Ten participants

98
discussed asking for formal accommodations. Participant accommodations discussions ranged
from managing break times to adjusting work environments and working from home. Three
participants who had not requested formal accommodations discussed accommodating
themselves but did not feel comfortable disclosing or asking for formal accommodations in their
current workplace. Susan’s sentiment, “I have been ‘hacking’ life through undiagnosed
adolescence, teen years, and even through early parenthood. It never occurs to me to ask for
accommodations.” is indicative of many adult diagnosed individuals.
Flexible Work Hours
Flexible work hours allow autistic employees to adjust their schedules to accommodate
their preferred working method. Participants discussed flexibility in their work arrangements that
coincides with existing research on autistic people. Although uncomfortable asking for
accommodations, Lucas stated, “I’ve got a few hours of flexibility. I have to complete my day
between like six and five. So, there’s some hours that I can flex.” Emma discussed the
advantages of her current employer:
I’m with an organization now that is more supportive, as I’ve said several times. And if I
really needed to make it take a sick day, or like a mental health day, I have flexibility
with my schedule, because I work primarily remotely. And even on the days when I’m in
office, I can be flexible with my schedule. … When I’m working in home, and if I need
to, I can take some breaks throughout the day, and then work some more after the kids
are in bed or on the weekend. So, I think having that flexibility helps me manage things
better if I had to work a strictly nine to five or nine to six job. In office.
Sophia also discussed her formal accommodation when she said, “Well now I have that as my
official accommodation. I come into work an hour earlier and I have up to an hour of break time

99
that I can take whenever I want.” Flexible working hours was discussed relating to participants
that had the ability to work remotely at their current organizations.
Remote Work Options
As previously stated, seven participants discussed working virtually or on a hybrid
schedule. Nine of the participants stated their desire to work remotely. Existing research has
shown the benefits of allowing employees to work virtually when their job allows. Sophia
discussed how working remotely allows her needed flexibility when she said:
One of the nice things about working virtually, is that you can have scheduled downtime
you can be away from your computer you can put yourself on “do not disturb.” Before I
had official accommodations to do so. I would do it stealthily on the download. I would
schedule nonexistent meetings because I knew that I was going to need some transition
time when I finished this task to go to this task.
Ryan discussed the benefit of working hybrid or remotely as well when he stated, “there’s been
lots of flexibility with my work in terms of like, I was allowed to do kind of remote/hybrid
before pre pandemic and, in a role that I had.” Informal supports can provide the same
accommodations as formal accommodations.
Informal Supports
All 13 participants discussed informal support throughout their employment journeys.
Informal accommodations allow managers and employees to create a workspace that allows
everyone to be successful. Most managers and colleagues of autistic people are neurotypical.
Research shows that having a manager and peer support significantly increases employee job
satisfaction and productivity.
Understanding Managers

100
Twelve of the 13 participants have a manager or supervisor. Nine of the 12 participants
reporting to someone mentioned having support from one supervisor or another. Emma
discussed the support she had received from her manager when asked if they had been supportive
during her job search. Emma stated, “Yeah, they’ve encouraged it a lot. And anytime I need a
reference, they are happy to give a reference. And that’s a good thing because a lot of this
industry is kind of knowing people.” Ryan discussed the mixture of understanding managers
when he said:
It has been mixed. There has been one individual who’s a manager, very supportive,
providing a lot of guidance. The first one, personal opinion, is not very high of her either.
Another one that was neither hindering nor, you know, emotionally supportive, but not,
like supportive in a lot of other ways. And then currently, a great person, great individual
supports me, wants to support me, doesn’t necessarily have the tools to do stuff.
Ryan’s insights highlight that managers can also be unsupportive because of the lack of tools or
understanding they have relating to autistic people and their needs. Three participants
specifically discussed managers who needed to be more understanding and the impact that has
had on their ability to perform. When asked if she received support from her current manager,
Susan said, “No.” Jack discussed being passed over for IT supervisor positions five times and
explained the lack of manager support when he stated:
Basically, because of the way it is structured here. They’re trying to put in the people that
they want. They always do outside hires. They don’t do internal promotions. Even though
because of my qualifications, I am more qualified to be the CIO than the CIO.
Manager support and understanding can also be enhanced when autistic people have peer
support in their organizations.

101
Peer Support
Peer support research has found that it is vital to the success of autistic people in the
workplace. Eight participants discussed having support from at least one colleague.
Isabella stated, “I work with very kind and caring people.” She also said “yes” when asked if her
colleagues support her. Harper discussed the positivity she has received since disclosing to her
peers when she said:
All my coworkers have been great. [I] haven’t really had any issues. I would say my
coworkers and colleagues have been fantastic, very understanding and I think for them,
they’re probably like no one’s told me this, but in their head, I’m guessing they’re like,
oh, [Harper] makes a lot more sense now.
Jack, Ryan, and Lucas all specifically praised certain peers in their organizations for being able
to collaborate and discuss on the job. Three participants specifically discussed not having
supportive colleagues or a peer who was not supportive. As with the manager’s understanding,
Susan responded, “No” when asked if her coworkers supported her. Sophia discussed supportive
colleagues but also referred to others when she said:
There are some colleagues that I don’t work with this closely that I mask a little tighter
with. I mean I’ve been very open about my diagnosis. So, it’s not like people don’t know
that I have ADHD and autism.
Summary of Research Question 3
The third research question of this study focused on how workplace support affected the
participants’ employment journeys. The central theme that emerged during data analysis was the
impact of workplace support. Two subthemes that emerged were formal accommodations and
informal supports. These subthemes provided insights into how participants navigated their work

102
environments and managed individual differences in their employment situations. Workplace
supports, both formal and informal, including flexible work hours, remote work options,
understanding managers, and peer support, play a crucial role in improving employment
outcomes for autistic individuals in their employment situations. Workplace supports, both
formal and informal, including flexible work hours, remote work options, understanding
managers, and peer support play a crucial role in improving employment outcomes for autistic
individuals.
Conclusion
The findings from this study highlight the unique challenges and needs of autistic
individuals in the employment process. Addressing these challenges and needs through tailored
support and accommodations can enhance their work experiences and outcomes. The next
chapter will discuss these findings in the context of existing literature and provide
recommendations for practice and future research.

103
Chapter Five: Discussions and Recommendations
This study explored the employment experiences of autistic individuals. The study focused
on the participants’ unique perceptions, individual differences, and the impact of workplace
supports and accommodations. This qualitative study is grounded in Annabi and Locke’s (2019)
organizational interventions mitigating individual barriers (OIMIB) framework. The framework
provides an understanding of the employment journeys of autistic individuals. The research
focused on three guiding questions:
1. How do autistic people’s experiences and perceptions affect the employment process?
2. How do individual differences between autistic people affect their employment
process?
3. How do workplace supports and accommodations affect autistic people’s
employment outcomes?
Summary of Findings
This research revealed several key insights: Autistic individuals frequently face
communication and social barriers in the workplace. They navigate varied employment journeys
due to their individual differences, and benefit from tailored workplace supports and
accommodations. Based on these insights, the following sections provide specific operational
recommendations to create a more inclusive workplace for autistic employees. Kotter’s 8-step
change model will be used to incorporate the recommendations. Allsteps in the model will apply
to the recommendations and implementation strategy. However, individual steps in the change
model that will provide focus and determination of recommendations and implementation
strategy will be discussed prior to an explanation of the full change model.

104
RQ1: Experiences and Perceptions
The participants revealed various experiences including varied interactions to significant
challenges, especially around communication and social expectations. Participants often felt
misunderstood and undervalued, which aligns with existing literature highlighting the social and
communicative barriers autistic individuals face in the workplace (Griffiths et al., 2019; Hurlbutt
& Chalmers, 2004).
RQ2: Individual Differences
The participants’ individual differences had a profound impact on their employment
experiences. Autismtraits, comorbid conditions, and personal coping strategies were significant
factors. These factors support the literature suggesting that the heterogeneity of autism requires
personalized approaches to support (Annabi & Locke, 2019; Hendricks, 2010).
RQ3: Workplace Supports and Accommodations
Workplace support and accommodations were crucial for positive employment outcomes.
Participants stressed the importance of flexible working arrangements, sensory-friendly
environments, supportive managers, and colleagues. These findings are consistent with research
highlighting the need for tailored accommodations to improve workplace inclusivity for autistic
employees (Austin & Pisano, 2017; Vincent & Fabri, 2022).
Recommendations for Practice
The findings of this study highlight the critical need for targeted strategies to support
autistic individuals in the workplace. This section translates these insights into actionable steps.
This section outlines several recommendations for practice. These recommendations aim to
foster an inclusive and supportive work environment, mitigating barriers, and leveraging the
unique strengths of autistic employees. By implementing these practices, organizations can

105
improve employment outcomes for autistic individuals and enhance overall workplace
inclusivity.
Recommendation 1: Increase Awareness and Training
Organizations must establish a comprehensive neurodiversity training program to
improve understanding and reduce stigma related to autism and other neurodiverse conditions.
Organizations must conduct a needs assessment to determine current awareness levels and
identify employee knowledge gaps to achieve this. After identifying these gaps, organizations
can design training content in collaboration with autism and neurodiversity experts (i.e., autistic
self-advocates and professional trainers). This training should cover critical topics such as autism
awareness, diverse communication styles, and inclusive practices (Austin & Pisano, 2017;
Griffiths et al., 2019).
Leadership must make the training mandatory for all employees. This starts with senior
leadership and managers setting the tone for an inclusive workplace culture. Organizations
should conduct regular training sessions and provide annual refreshers to ensure continuous
learning and reinforcement. Using pre- and post-training surveys, feedback forms, and
assessments will enable leaders to measure the changes in attitudes and behaviors toward autistic
and other neurodiverse employees. The organization must allocate resources and budget for
professional trainers, training materials, and tools for monitoring and evaluation. They should
aim to roll out the program within 3 to 6 months.
Recommendation 1: Implementation Strategy
Implementing a neurodiverse training program will mainly involve four of the eight steps
in Kotter’s 8-step change model. Steps 1, 2, 4, and 5 specifically apply to increasing awareness
and training. Step 1 creates a sense of urgency, emphasizing the need for change to improve

106
awareness and training about autism. Step 2 builds a guiding coalition, bringing stakeholders to
form teams to support the training program. Step 4 involves communicating the vision, which
will define clear and concise communication strategies to convey the importance of awareness
and the training. Step 5, empowering broad-based action provides leaders and employees with
resources, tools, and autonomy to raise awareness and implement the training plan.
Recommendation 2: Implement Flexible Hiring Practices
Organizations must revise and adapt their hiring practices to create a more inclusive
environments and processes that accommodate the diverse needs of autistic individuals. They
should begin by auditing current hiring practices, including job descriptions, interview formats,
and selection criteria, to identify any biases or barriers. Traditional interview methods often
disadvantage autistic individuals due to differences in social communication (Griffiths et al.,
2019; Whelpley & May, 2022). Skills-based assessments and remote interviews can
accommodate different communication styles and reduce anxiety. Organizations must also
provide clear and concise information about the interview process. Hiring managers and HR
professionals who are involved in the interview process should ensure information is
communicated in advance of the interview. Receiving the information in advance is preferable to
many autistic and other neurodiverse individuals.
Training hiring managers on neuro-inclusive hiring practices are crucial to understanding
the unique strengths of autistic candidates. Training allows managers to recognize their
unconscious biases (Austin & Pisano, 2017). Organizations must periodically review the
outcomes of these adapted hiring practices, adjusting them based on feedback from autistic
candidates, hiring managers, and HR professionals. Organizations can form an internal task force
to support these changes, including external professional consultants. Consultants can assist in

107
formulating training, updating job descriptions and interview materials. Consultants can also
provide suggestions for technological investments for alternative methods. Complete the audit
and initial training within 3 months and implement revised hiring practices within 6 to 9 months
Recommendation 2: Implementation Strategy
Implementing flexible hiring practices will involve four of the eight steps in Kotter’s 8-
step change model. Steps 3, 6, 7, and 8 specifically apply to implementing flexible hiring
practices. Step 3 develops a vision and strategy that outlines the strategy for implementing these
practices, including job descriptions and alternatives to traditional interviews. Step 6 generates
short-term wins by incorporating flexible hiring practices into individual departments to show
success before larger rollouts. Step 7 involves consolidating gains so that successes and missteps
can be refined to produce lasting change. Step 8 involves anchoring new approaches in the
culture, which requires leaders and HR to incorporate policies and procedures that ensure success
over time.
Recommendation 3: Create Sensory-Friendly Work Environments
Organizations must modify workspaces to accommodate sensory sensitivities to reduce
sensory stress and enhance the comfort and productivity of autistic individuals. Organizations
should conduct a sensory audit to assess the workplace environment for potential triggers like
lighting, noise, and temperature (Tomczak & Ziemiański, 2023; Vincent & Fabri, 2022).
Organizations must gather input from autistic, neurodiverse, and neurotypical employees through
surveys and focus groups to understand their specific needs. Based on these findings, they can
implement adjustable lighting, noise-canceling headphones, quiet rooms, and flexible seating
arrangements. Providing remote work options is also essential. Many autistic employees find
remote work options highly beneficial.

108
Organizations must enact a formal policy outlining the organization’s commitment to
maintaining a sensory-friendly environment. The policy should include a process for requesting
additional accommodations. Regular check-ins with employees can help evaluate the
effectiveness of these modifications and allow for necessary changes. Organizations must
allocate resources for workplace modifications. They should seek input from accessibility
experts, maintaining ongoing feedback mechanisms. They should complete the sensory audit
within 2 months and implement modifications within 6 months. Continuous evaluations can
ensure sustained impact.
Recommendation 3: Implementation Strategy
Implementing sensory friendly work environments within an organization will also
involve four of the eight steps in Kotter’s 8-step change model. Steps 1, 4, 5, and 6 specifically
apply to creating sensory friendly work environments. Step 1, creating a sense of urgency,
highlights the benefits of incorporating these environments with increased productivity,
increased well-being, and an increase in job satisfaction. Step 4, communicating the vision,
allows leaders to use a myriad of avenues to communicate their vision such as visual aids,
workshops, and testimonials. Step 5, empowering broad-based action will encourage leaders and
employees to provide timely feedback and suggest changes or modifications. Step 6, generating
short-term wins, will enable immediate changes like providing noise cancelling headphones and
adjustable lighting to show action and success in the short-term while longer-term initiatives are
enacted.
Recommendation 4: Develop Structured Support Systems
Organizations should establish mentorship and peer support programs. These programs
provide autistic individuals with guidance, reduce feelings of isolation, and improve job

109
satisfaction and retention. Organizations should start by identifying mentors who have shown
interest in neurodiversity initiatives or have personal experience with neurodiversity (Annabi &
Locke, 2019; Remington & Pellicano, 2018). Pairing autistic employees with mentors based on
shared interests, job roles, or goals, organizations can foster meaningful connections and provide
a structured framework for mentorship discussions.
Organizations should also create peer support networks where autistic individuals can
share experiences, resources, and strategies in a safe and supportive environment. These
networks should facilitate regular virtual and in-person meetings to ensure accessibility and
engagement. Evaluating the effectiveness of mentorship and peer support programs through
participant feedback will enable organizations to make necessary adjustments. Resources needed
for this initiative include a budget, time, and a platform for the virtual meetings. Complete
program planning within 3 months, conducting mentor training and pairing within 6 months and
conducting an initial evaluation after 9 months.
Recommendation 4: Implementation Strategy
Implementing structured support systems will also involve four of eight Kotter’s 8-step
change model. Focusing on Steps 2, 3, 6, and 7 of the change model will help develop these
structured support systems. Step 2, building a guiding coalition, will allow for the creation of
comprehensive teams to design, implement, and oversee the implementation of the support
systems. Step 3, developing a vision and strategy, will clearly define what structured support
systems are needed, such as peer support groups and mentorship programs. Step 6, generating
short wins, will be succeeded through implementation of pilot programs for the mentorship
program and peer support groups to allow for measurement of the impact to ensure positive

110
results. Step 7, consolidating gains and producing more change, will also be used to elicit
feedback from the pilot programs to enhance the programs so they are scalable.
Recommendation 5: Promote Inclusive Organizational Culture
Organizations must foster a culture of inclusion that continuously evolves through regular
evaluation and adaptation. Organizations should start by integrating neurodiversity as a core
value within the organization’s mission and vision statements. This can indicate the
organizations commitment to inclusion, equity, and diversity. Organizations must also create
policies that encourage inclusivity (i.e., flexible work arrangements, open dialogue regarding
accommodations, and recognition for employees who advocate for neurodiversity). To ensure an
inclusive culture takes root:
1. Involve employees at all levels in creating and implementing these policies.
2. Establish a diversity and inclusion committee that includes autistic and other
neurodiverse individuals to provide regular feedback on workplace practices and to
suggest improvements.
3. Equip managers with the tools and training they need to support neurodiverse
employees effectively.
4. Develop metrics to monitor progress of inclusivity goals and regularly reporting on
these metrics to keep the organization accountable.
These steps will help create a sustainable, inclusive culture that supports all employees.
Recommendation 5: Implementation Strategy
Implementing the promotion of an inclusive organizational culture will focus on four of
the eight steps in Kotter’s 8-step change model. Steps 1, 5, 7, and 8 specifically apply to
promoting an inclusive organizational culture. Step 1, creating a sense of urgency, will allow

111
leaders and employees to share their stories so that trust and belongness is emphasized within the
organization. Step 5, empowering broad-based action, will encourage employees and leaders to
participate in the programs, supports, and initiatives set forth. Step 7, consolidating gains and
producing more change will be utilized by leaders and employees alike to assess progress and
adapt based on feedback and overall changing needs of the organization. Finally, Step 8,
anchoring new approaches in the culture, will ensure that diversity, equity, and inclusion is
rooted in every program, practice, and form of communication that the organization utilizes.
Recommendation and Implementation Strategy Summary
Creating an inclusive and supportive work environment for autistic and other
neurodiverse individuals requires an intentional and systematic recommendations coupled with
the proper implementation strategy. Kotter’s 8-step change model provides a structure for
implementing these strategies, emphasizing the need for building a coalition in the organization.
Doing so requires urgency, strategy, vision, communication, empowerment, and buy-in from
senior leadership. Each recommendation was aligned with specific steps of Kotter’s model to
facilitate an intentioned, holistic approach to change.
Increasing awareness and training, implementing flexible hiring practices, creating
sensory-friendly work environments, developing structured support systems, and promoting an
inclusive organizational culture can provide the foundation for an organization to be truly
diverse, equitable, and inclusive. Task forces that include all stakeholders with clearly defined
roles and responsibilities will ensure accountability and effectiveness of the implementation
strategies.
These recommendations and implementation strategies will not succeed if not prioritized
alongside other organizational commitments. Priorities must also be based on potential impact

112
and ease of implementation. Initiatives like awareness and training programs and flexible hiring
practices can be incorporated timely. This will build confidence amongst leadership and
employees and show the benefits of incorporating these changes. This confidence can be used to
tackle longer-term initiatives like creating sensory-friendly environments and structured support
systems.
The communication plan utilize in the organization must be developed so that all
employees are engaged and informed through the entire implementation strategy process and
beyond. Integrating feedback received through this communication plan will enable concerns to
be addressed, expectations to be clarified, and fostering an inclusive workplace through a shared
commitment to the strategies. Suggestions for implementing this mechanism includes surveys,
focus groups and feedback sessions.
Finally, the allocation of resources like budgets, time, and personnel needed to support
these strategies are imperative to the implementation being successful. Senior leaders, managers,
and employees must have access to the tools, training, and support needed for successful
implementation. Anchoring these strategies into an organization’s policies, procedures, mission
and vision statement, and daily routines will enable the formation of a truly equitable, inclusive,
and diverse workplace.
Introduction to the Implementation Model
Kotter’s (2003) 8-step change model provides a detailed and systematic approach to
managing organizational change. John Kotter, a leading authority on organizational change,
developed this model to emphasize the importance of building momentum and sustaining efforts
throughout the change process. By following these eight steps, organizations can effectively
implement the recommendations to enhance workplace inclusivity for autistic individuals,

113
ensuring embedded changes within the organizational culture.
Figure 3 illustrates Kotter’s (2003) 8-step change model, showing the sequential flow of
each step and how they interconnect to facilitate a comprehensive change strategy. The steps
create a sense of urgency, build a coalition of change agents, develop, and communicate a clear
vision, empower employees to act, and consolidate gains to produce more change. This
structured approach helps organizations navigate the complexities of change management,
address potential resistance, and foster a supportive environment for new practices.
Figure 3
Kotter’s (2003) 8-Step Change Model
Note. From “Kotter’s 8-step change model is a framework for implementing change in
[organizations] or any people-centered change,” by J. Freeman-Gray, 2024, Mutomorro Change
for Good, (https://mutomorro.com/kotters-8-step-change-model/).

114
Step 1: Create a Sense of Urgency
Highlight the importance of diversity and inclusion. Emphasize the benefits of
implementing the recommendations for autistic individuals and the organization. Data and case
studies will illustrate the need for immediate action (Kotter, 2003).
Step 2: Build a Guiding Coalition
Form a team of supporters for neurodiversity, including leaders, managers, and
employees passionate about driving change. This alliance will guide and support the
implementation process, ensuring that diverse perspectives are considered (Kotter, 2003).
Step 3: Develop a Vision and Strategy
Outline clear goals and strategies for inclusion. Develop a compelling vision that aligns
with the organization’s values and long-term objectives. This vision should articulate the desired
outcomes of the implementation efforts (Kotter, 2003).
Step 4: Communicate the Vision
Ensure all employees understand and support the vision. Share the vision and strategy
using multiple communication channels, providing regular updates, and encouraging feedback.
Transparent communication helps build trust and commitment (Kotter, 2003).
Step 5: Empower Broad-Based Action
Remove obstacles and enable action. Identify and address barriers hindering progress,
such as outdated policies or resistance to change. Empower employees at all levels to take
initiative and contribute to the implementation efforts (Kotter, 2003).
Step 6: Generate Short-Term Wins
Celebrate early successes to build momentum. Identify and achieve quick wins that
demonstrate the benefits of the changes. Recognizing and rewarding these early successes helps

115
maintain enthusiasm and support for the initiative (Kotter, 2003).
Step 7: Consolidate Gains and Produce More Change
Use successes to drive further change. Build on the momentum generated by short-term
wins to tackle more significant challenges and implement additional recommendations.
Continuously evaluate and refine the strategies to ensure ongoing progress (Kotter, 2003).
Step 8: Anchor New Approaches in the Culture
Incorporate new practices into the organizational culture. Integrate them into the
organization’s policies, procedures, and cultural norms to ensure that the changes are sustainable.
This integration involves ongoing training, support, and reinforcement of inclusive practices
(Kotter, 2003).
Limitations and Delimitations
There are many limitations to this study. First, this study partially fulfills the
requirements for the researcher to obtain their doctoral degree in education. This research is time
limited. There is also no funding for this research, which limits the size and scope of the study.
The sample size was also small, with 13 participants. For qualitative studies, researchers have
argued that rigor and efforts to eliminate bias, which avoids misrepresentation, are more critical
to validity (Alvarez et al., 2021). Researcher bias is present in all study aspects, including
theoretical framework selection, strategy, and design (Borim-de-Souza et al., 2020). Ratcliffe
(1983) stated that “data do not speak for themselves; there is always an interpreter or a
translator” (p. 149). To reduce the effects of researcher bias, the researcher acknowledges their
assumptions, worldview, and biases regarding social desirability, attributions, perceived
outcomes, and overemphasis of what is reported by the participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016;
Ross & Bibler Zaidl, 2019).

116
A key limitation of this study is that all participants were diagnosed with autism as adults.
This may influence the findings, as adult-diagnosed autistic individuals often have unique
experiences and perspectives compared to those diagnosed in childhood. The time of diagnosis
can greatly impact an individual’s understanding of their autistic identity, coping strategies, and
workplace experiences. The insights gained from this study may not be entirely applicable to
autistic individuals diagnosed earlier in life. Participants’ experiences reflect unique challenges
associated with late diagnosis, such as navigating employment without prior access to autismspecific supports or interventions commonly provided to those diagnosed earlier.
Additionally, external validity threats, also known as delimitations, include selection bias
and self-selection bias. The researcher initially intended to specifically sample participants who
had obtained employment through an autism employment program (AEP). However, the
participants had yet to participate in formal AEPs. This lack of participation highlights the
availability and prevalence of AEPs, suggesting that such programs are either not widely
accessible or not utilized by the participants in this study. The study, therefore, focused on the
actual experiences of autistic individuals during the employment process without the influence of
AEPs to understand the organic employment experiences and challenges faced by autistic
individuals in typical workplace settings.
The researcher set several delimitations to narrow the scope of this study. The geographic
scope of the study was limited to participants from various locations, enhancing the diversity of
experiences and introducing variability. The study aimed to capture various perspectives and
experiences by focusing on a diverse participant group. Another delimitation to the study exists
in the inferences made from the findings. The participants’ experiences do not indicate all
autistic people who have obtained employment, as the study does not include those who have

117
participated in formal AEPs. The researcher must consider this when generalizing the findings
for practical implications and future research. Finally, replication of a qualitative study is
impossible (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher could perform the study again with the
same parameters and participants, and the results would differ. To combat this phenomenon, the
researcher has provided rich, thick descriptions that contextualize the participants’ responses,
offering a deeper understanding of their experience (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Recommendations for Future Research
The findings of this study offer a comprehensive understanding of the employment
experiences of autistic individuals and highlight the critical need for further research to address
the remaining gaps. Based on the insights gained from this study, this research recommends
exploring the following areas for future studies to enhance employment outcomes for autistic
individuals. Longitudinal studies are needed to investigate the long-term impact of workplace
accommodations on employment outcomes, exploring how sustained accommodations affect job
satisfaction, performance, and career advancement over time. Additionally, future research
should explore the role of digital technologies in supporting neurodiverse employees, focusing
on how digital tools and platforms can facilitate better workplace integration and support for
autistic individuals. Another critical area of research is the effectiveness of different training
programs in reducing workplace stigma. Comparative studies can determine which training
programs most effectively change attitudes and reduce stigma toward neurodiverse employees.
Furthermore, examining the impact of inclusive hiring practices on organizational
performance is crucial. Research should investigate how inclusive hiring practices not only
benefit autistic individuals but also contribute to the overall performance and culture of
organizations. These recommendations stem from the current study’s findings and the additional

118
questions that arose during data analysis. Addressing these areas can provide deeper insights into
effective practices and policies that support autistic individuals in the workplace. Moreover,
future research should also focus on overcoming the limitations and addressing the delimitations
discussed in this study, such as expanding sample sizes and exploring varied geographic
contexts.
Conclusion
This study has provided valuable insights into the employment experiences of autistic
individuals, emphasizing the importance of tailored support, flexible hiring practices, and an
inclusive organizational culture. By examining the unique perceptions, individual differences,
and the critical role of workplace accommodations, this research offers a detailed understanding
of the barriers and opportunities faced by autistic employees.
The findings underscore the need for organizations to adopt comprehensive strategies that
promote inclusivity and support for autistic individuals. These strategies include mandatory
training for all employees on neurodiversity, implementing flexible hiring processes, and
creating sensory-friendly work environments. These practices not only enhance the workplace
experience for autistic employees but also contribute to a more diverse and innovative
organizational culture.
Inclusive employment practices for autistic individuals are critically important. As
organizations strive to create more equitable workplaces, the insights from this study provide a
roadmap for meaningful change. By implementing the recommended practices, organizations can
harness the unique strengths of autistic employees, fostering a more inclusive and productive
work environment.
This dissertation has highlighted the critical need for understanding and addressing the

119
employment challenges that autistic individuals face. Beyond merely summarizing the study, it is
essential to recognize the broader impact of these findings. The study’s importance lies in its
potential to influence policy and practice, driving significant improvements in the employment
experiences of autistic individuals. By adopting the recommended strategies, organizations can
make substantial strides towards creating workplaces that are not only inclusive but also enriched
by the diverse talents and perspectives of all employees. The journey towards inclusivity is
ongoing, but meaningful progress is within reach with informed action and commitment.

120
References
Ali, M., Schur, L., & Blanck, P. (2011). What types of jobs do people with disabilities want?
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21(2), 199–210.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-010-9266-0
Allen, D., Evans, C., Hider, A., Hawkins, S., Peckett, H., & Morgan, H. (2008). Offending
behaviour in adults with Asperger syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 38(4), 748–758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-007-0442-9
Alvarez, G., Núñez-Cortés, R., Solà, I., Sitjà-Rabert, M., Fort-Vanmeerhaeghe, A., Fernández,
C., Bonfill, X., & Urrútia, G. (2021). Sample size, study length, and inadequate controls
were the most common self-acknowledged limitations in manual therapy trials: A
methodological review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 130, 96–106.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.018
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.97808904255787
Ames, M. E., McMorris, C. A., Alli, L. N., & Bebko, J. M. (2016). Overview and evaluation of a
mentorship program for university students with ASD. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 31(1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357615583465
Annabi, H., & Lebovitz, S. (2018). Improving the retention of women in the IT workforce: An
investigation of gender diversity interventions in the USA. Information Systems Journal
(Oxford, England), 28(6), 1049–1081. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12182
Annabi, H., & Locke, J. (2019). A theoretical framework for investigating the context for

121
creating employment success in information technology for individuals with autism.
Journal of Management & Organization, 25(4), 499–515.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2018.79
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A metaanalytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471–499.
https://doi.org/10.1348/014466601164939
Armitage, C. J., Norman, P., & Conner, M. (2002). Can the theory of planned behaviour
mediate the effects of age, gender and multidimensional health locus of control? British
Journal of Health Psychology, 7(3), 299–316.
https://doi.org/10.1348/135910702760213698
Austin, R. D., & Pisano, G. P. (2017). Neurodiversity as a Competitive Advantage. Harvard
Business Review.
Autism at work (n.d.). Creating spaces for diversity to thrive: About. Retrieved December 23,
2022 from https:///www.autismatwork.org/about
Autism Speaks. (n.d.). Autism Statistics and Facts. Retrieved November 9, 2022, from
https://www.autismspeaks.org/autism-statistics-asd
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50, 179–211.
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. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

122
Prentice-Hall.
Bargiela, S., Steward, R., & Mandy, W. (2016). The experiences of late-diagnosed women with
autism spectrum conditions: An investigation of the female autism phenotype. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(10), 3281–3294.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2872-8
Baron-Cohen, S. (2015). Leo Kanner, Hans Asperger, and the discovery of autism. The Lancet
(British Edition), 386(10001), 1329–1330. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-
6736(15)00337-2
Beatty, J. E., Baldridge, D. C., Boehm, S. A., Kulkarni, M., & Colella, A. J. (2019). On the
treatment of persons with disabilities in organizations: A review and research agenda.
Human Resource Management, 58(2), 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21940
Bishop-Fitzpatrick, L., Dababnah, S., Baker-Ericzén, M. J., Smith, M. J., & Magaña, S. M.
(2019). Autism spectrum disorder and the science of social work: A grand challenge for
social work research. Social Work in Mental Health, 17(1), 73–92.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15332985.2018.1509411
Borim-de-Souza, R., Travis, E. F., Munck, L., & Galleli, B. (2020). An objective hermeneutic
approach to qualitative validation. Qualitative Research in Organizations and
Management, 15(4), 523–541. https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-08-2019-1806
Bosch, K. van den, Krzeminska, A., Song, E., Hal, L. B. E. van, Waltz, M., Ebben, H., &
Schippers, A. (2019). Nothing about us, without us: A case study of a consumer-run
organization by and for people on the autism spectrum in the Netherlands. Journal of
Management & Organization, 25(4), 464–480. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2018.54
Botha, M., Hanlon, J., & Williams, G. L. (2023). Does language matter? Identity-first versus

123
person-first language use in autism research: A response to Vivanti. Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders, 53(2), 870–878. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-
04858-w
Bottema-Beutel, K., Park, H., & Kim, S. Y. (2018). Commentary on social skills training
curricula for individuals with ASD: Social interaction, authenticity, and stigma. Journal
of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(3), 953–964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-
017-3400-1
Boyer, P., & Liénard, P. (2006). Why ritualized behavior? Precaution systems and action parsing
in developmental, pathological and cultural rituals. The Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 29(6), 595–613. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X06009332
Brownlow, C. (2010). Presenting the self: Negotiating a label of autism. Journal of Intellectual
and Developmental Disability, 35(1), 14–21.
https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250903496336
Buckley, E., Pellicano, E., & Remington, A. (2021). “The real thing I struggle with is other
people’s perceptions”: The experiences of autistic performing arts professionals and
attitudes of performing arts employers in the UK. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 51(1), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-04517-0
Buescher, Cidav, Z., Knapp, M., & Mandell, D. S. (2014). Costs of Autism Spectrum Disorders
in the United Kingdom and the United States. JAMA Pediatrics, 168(8), 721–728.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.210
Cage, E., Di Monaco, J., & Newell, V. (2018). Experiences of autism acceptance and mental
health in autistic adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(2), 473–
484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3342-7

124
Cain, C. C. (2022). Black men in IT: Overcoming Digital inequality in pursuit of career
goals. The International Journal of Diversity in Education, 22(2), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-0020/CGP/v22i02/1–12
Cassidy, S., Bradley, P., Robinson, J., Allison, C., McHugh, M., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2014).
Suicidal ideation and suicide plans or attempts in adults with Asperger’s syndrome
attending a specialist diagnostic clinic: a clinical cohort study. The Lancet.
Psychiatry, 1(2), 142–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(14)70248-2
Cassitas Hino, M., & Cunha, M. A. (2021). Female lens in urban mobility: Technology-use
behavior and individual differences. Information Technology & People, 34(4), 1370–
1397. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-05-2020-0342
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022). Autism and developmental disabilities
monitoring (ADDM) network. Retrieved October 8, 2022, from
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/index.html
Chamak, B., & Bonniau, B. (2016). Trajectories, long-term outcomes and family experiences of
76 adults with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 46(3), 1084–1095. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-015-2656-6
Charlton, R. A., Entecott, T., Belova, E., & Nwaordu, G. (2021). “It feels like holding back
something you need to say”: Autistic and non-autistic adults accounts of sensory
experiences and stimming. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 89, 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2021.101864
Charmaz. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. SAGE Publications.
Chen, J. L., Leader, G., Sung, C., & Leahy, M. (2014). Trends in employment for individuals
with autism spectrum disorder: a review of the research literature. Review Journal of

125
Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2(2), 115–227.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-014-0041-6
Cherry, K. (2022, February 15). What is attribution in social psychology?
https://www.verywellmind.com/attribution-social-psychology-2795898
Cox, B. E., Thompson, K., Anderson, A., Mintz, A., Locks, T., Morgan, L., Edelstein, J., &
Wolz, A. (2017). College experiences for students with autism spectrum disorder:
personal identity, public disclosure, and institutional support. Journal of College Student
Development, 58(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0004
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. SAGE.
Daniels, A. M., & Mandell, D. S. (2014). Explaining differences in age at autism spectrum
disorder diagnosis: A critical review. Autism: The International Journal of Research and
Practice, 18(5), 583–597. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361313480277
Davies, J., Romualdez, A. M., Malyan, D., Heasman, B., Livesey, A., Walker, A., Pellicano, E.,
& Remington, A. (2023). Autistic adults’ priorities for future autism employment
research: perspectives from the United Kingdom. Autism in Adulthood.
https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2022.0087
Dictionary.com. (n.d.). Opportunity. In Dictionary.com dictionary. Retrieved March 14,
2023, from https://www.dictionary.com/browse/opportunity
Dictionary.com. (n.d.). Neurodiversity. In Dictionary.com dictionary. Retrieved February 20,
2023, from https://www.dictionary.com/browse/neurodiversity
Dietz, P. M., Rose, C. E., McArthur, D., & Maenner, M. (2020). National and state estimates of
adults with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental

126
Disorders, 50(12), 4258–4266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-04494-4
Dworzynski, K., Ronald, A., Bolton, P., & Happé, F. (2012). How different are girls and boys
above and below the diagnostic threshold for autism spectrum disorders? Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 51(8), 788–797.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2012.05.018
Eastwood, S., Evans, B., Gaigg, S., Harbord, J., & Milton, D. (2022). Autism through cinema:
Co-creation and the unmaking of knowledge. International Journal of Qualitative Studies
in Education, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2022.2025492
Eaves, L. C., & Ho, H. H. (2008). Young adult outcome of autism spectrum disorders. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38(4), 739–747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-
007-0441-x
Erickson, W. A., Schrader, S. von, Bruyère, S. M., VanLooy, S. A., & Matteson, D. S. (2014).
Disability-Inclusive employer practices and hiring of individuals with disabilities.
Rehabilitation Research, Policy, and Education, 28(4), 309–328.
https://doi.org/10.1891/2168-6653.28.4.309
Fleischer, A. S. (2012). Alienation and struggle: Everyday student-life of three male students
with Asperger Syndrome. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research: SJDR, 14(2),
177–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/15017419.2011.558236
Ganz, M. L. (2007). The lifetime distribution of the incremental societal costs of
autism. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161(4), 343–349.
https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.161.4.343
Ghanouni, P., & Seaker, L. (2023). What does receiving autism diagnosis in adulthood look like?

127
Stakeholders’ experiences and inputs. International Journal of Mental Health
Systems, 17(1), 16–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-023-00587-6
Graetz, J. E. (2010). Autism grows up: Opportunities for adults with autism. Disability &
Society, 25(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590903363324
Grenawalt, T. A., Brinck, E. A., Kesselmayer, R. F., Phillips, B. N., Geslak, D., Strauser, D. R.,
Chan, F., & Tansey, T. N. (2020). Autism in the workforce: A case study. Journal of
Management & Organization, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.15
Griffiths, A. J., Giannantonio, C. M., Hanson, A. H., & Cardinal, D. C. (2016) Autism in the
workplace: Assessing the transition needs of young adults with autism spectrum disorder.
Journal of Business and Management, 22(1), 5–22.
https://doi.org/10.6347/JBM.201601_22(1).0001
Griffiths, A. J., Hanson, A. H., Giannantonio, C. M., Mathur, S. K., Hyde, K., & Linstead, E.
(2020). Developing employment environments where individuals with ASD thrive:
Using machine learning to explore employer policies and practices. Brain Sciences,
10(9), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10090632
Hartnett, H. P., Stuart, H., Thurman, H., Loy, B., & Batiste, L. C. (2011). Employers’
perceptions of the benefits of workplace accommodations: Reasons to hire, retain and
promote people with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 34(1), 17–23.
https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-2010-0530
Haskins, T. M. (2019). Building employers’ capacity to support competitive employment for
adults with autism: A promising practice study. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Hayward, S. M., Stokes, M. A., & McVilly, K. R. (2022). Short report: Gendered workplace

128
social interaction processes in autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 129,
104310–104310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2022.104310
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: The
International Journal of Research and Practice, 22(5), 528–541.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361316687697
Hedley, D., Uljarević, M., Cameron, L., Halder, S., Richdale, A., & Dissanayake, C. (2017).
Employment programmes and interventions targeting adults with autism spectrum
disorder: A systematic review of the literature. Autism, 21(8), 929–941.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361316661855
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/JVR-2010-0502
Horlin, C., Falkmer, M., Parsons, R., Albrecht, M. A., & Falkmer, T. (2014). The cost of autism
spectrum disorders. PloS One, 9(9), e106552–e106552.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106552
Houdek, P. (2022). Neurodiversity in (not only) public organizations: An untapped opportunity?
Administration & Society, 54(9), 1848–1871.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211069915
Howlin, P., Alcock, J., & Burkin, C. (2005). An 8 year follow-up of a specialist supported
employment service for high-ability adults with autism or Asperger syndrome. Autism:
The International Journal of Research and Practice, 9(5), 533–549.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361305057871

129
Howlin, P. (2013). Social disadvantage and exclusion: Adults with autism lag far behind in
employment prospects. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, 52(9), 897–899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2013.06.010
Howlin, P., & Moss, P. (2012). Adults with autism spectrum Disorders. Canadian Journal of
Psychiatry, 57(5), 275–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674371205700502
Huang, Y., Arnold, S. R., Foley, K.-R., & Trollor, J. N. (2020). Diagnosis of autism in
adulthood: A scoping review. Autism, 24(6), 1311–1327.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361320903128
Hull, L., Petrides, K. V., Allison, C., Smith, P., Baron-Cohen, S., Lai, M.-C., & Mandy, W.
(2017). “Putting on my best normal”: Social camouflaging in adults with autism spectrum
conditions. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47, 2519–2534.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3166-5
Hurlbutt, K., & Chalmers, L. (2004). Employment and adults with Asperger syndrome. Focus on
Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 19(4), 215–222.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576040190040301
Hurley-Hanson, A. E., Giannantonio, C. M., & Griffiths, A.-J. (2019). Autism in the workplace:
Creating positive employment and career outcomes for generation A. Springer
International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29049-8
Huws, J. C., & Jones, R. S. P. (2008). Diagnosis, disclosure, and having autism: An
interpretative phenomenological analysis of the perceptions of young people with
autism. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 33(2), 99–107.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13668250802010394
Jacob, A., Scott, M., Falkmer, M., & Falkmer, T. (2015). The costs and benefits of employing an

130
adult with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review. PloS One, 10(10), e0139896–
e0139896. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139896
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, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches. (5th ed.). SAGE.
Kapp, S. K., Steward, R., Crane, L., Elliott, D., Elphick, C., Pellicano, E., & Russell, G. (2019).
“People should be allowed to do what they like”: Autistic adults’ views and experiences
of stimming. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 23(7), 1782–
1792. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361319829628
Kotter, J. P. (2003). Leading change. In The ultimate business library. Wiley. (Original work
published 1996).
Kreiser, N. L., & White, S. W. (2014). Assessment of social anxiety in children and adolescents
with autism spectrum disorder. Clinical Psychology Science and Practice, 21(1), 18–31.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cpsp.12057
Krzeminska, A., Austin, R. D., Bruyère, S. M., & Hedley, D. (2019). The advantages and
challenges of neurodiversity employment in organizations. Journal of Management &
Organization, 25(4), 453–463. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2019.58
Kulkarni, M., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011). Socialization of people with disabilities in the
workplace. Human Resource Management, 50(4), 521–540.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20436

131
Lai, M. C., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2015). Identifying the lost generation of adults with autism
spectrum conditions. The Lancet. Psychiatry, 2(11), 1013–1027.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00277-1
Lai, M. C., Lombardo, M. V., Ruigrok, A. N. V., Chakrabarti, B., Wheelwright, S. J., Auyeung,
B., Allison, C., Bailey, A. J., Baron-Cohen, S., Bolton, P. F., Bullmore, E. T., Carrington,
S., Catani, M., Craig, M. C., Daly, E. M., Deoni, S. C., Ecker, C., Happé, F., Henty, J., …
Williams, S. C. (2012). Cognition in males and females with autism: Similarities and
differences. PloS One, 7(10), e47198–e47198.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0047198
Leedham, A., Thompson, A. R., Smith, R., & Freeth, M. (2020). ‘I was exhausted trying to
figure it out’: The experiences of females receiving an autism diagnosis in middle to late
adulthood. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 24(1), 135–146.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361319853442
LeFevre-Levy, R., Melson-Silimon, A., Harmata, R., Hulett, A. L., & Carter, N. T. (2023).
Neurodiversity in the workplace: Considering neuroatypicality as a form of
diversity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16(1), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.86
Lien, K., Lashewicz, B., Mitchell, J., & Boettcher, N. (2021). Blending traditional and nurturing
fathering: Fathers of children with autism managing work and family. Family
Relations, 70(1), 264–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12472
Lilley, R., Lawson, W., Hall, G., Mahony, J., Clapham, H., Heyworth, M., Arnold, S. R., Trollor,
J. N., Yudell, M., & Pellicano, E. (2022). ‘A way to be me’: Autobiographical reflections
of autistic adults diagnosed in mid-to-late adulthood. Autism: The International Journal

132
of Research and Practice, 26(6), 1395–1408.
https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613211050694
Lilley, R., Lawson, W., Hall, G., Mahony, J., Clapham, H., Heyworth, M., Arnold, S., Trollor, J.,
Yudell, M., & Pellicano, E. (2023). “Peas in a pod”: Oral history reflections on autistic
identity in family and community by late-diagnosed adults. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 53(3), 1146–1161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-022-05667-
z
Lin, L. Y. (2014). Quality of life of Taiwanese adults with autism spectrum disorder. PloS
One, 9(10), e109567–e109567. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109567
Loiacono, E. T., & Ren, H. (2018). Building a neurodiverse high-tech workforce. MIS Quarterly
Executive, 17(4), 263–279. https://doi.org/10.17705/2msqe.00001
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.,
DiRienzo, M., Fitzgerald, R. T., Grzybowski, A., Spivey, M. H., Pettygrove, S.,
Zahorodny, W., Ali, A., Andrews, J. G., Baroud, T., Gutierrez, J., Hewitt, A., Lee, L.,
Mopez, M., Mancilla, K. C., McArthur, D., Schwenk, Y. D., Washington, A., Williams,
S., & 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. MMWR. Surveillance Summaries, 70(11), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss7011a1
Maenner, M. J., Warren, Z., Williams, A. R., Amoakohene, E., Bakian, A. V., Bilder, D. A.,

133
Durkin, M. S., Fitzgerald, R. T., Furnier, S. M., Hughes, M. M., Ladd-Acosta, C. M.,
McArthur, D., Pas, E. T., Salinas, A., Vehorn, A., Williams, S., Esler, A., Grzybowski,
A., Hall-Lande, J., … Shaw, K. A. (2023). Prevalence and characteristics of autism
spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years—Autism and developmental disabilities
monitoring network, 11 sites, United States, 2020. MMWR. Surveillance Summaries,
72(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss7202a1
Mai, A. M., & Ferreros, A. V. (2018) Evaluating factors of autistic hiring through Azjen’s theory
of planned behavior: The HASSQAC scale. International Journal of Humanities and
Social Science, 8(8), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.30845/ijhss.v8n8p1
McDonald, T. A. M. (2020). Autism identity and the “lost generation”: Structural validation of
the autism spectrum identity scale (ASIS) and comparison of diagnosed and selfdiagnosed adults on the autism spectrum. Autism in Adulthood, 2(1), 13–23.
McMillan, J. T., Listyg, B., & Cooper, J. (2023). Neurodiversity and talent measurement:
Revisiting the basics. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16(1), 31–35.
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.96
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Barrier. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved December 10,
2022, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/barrier
Montes, G., & Halterman, J. S. (2008). Association of childhood autism spectrum disorders and
loss of family income. Pediatrics (Evanston), 121(4), e821–e826.
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007–1594
Morris, M. R., Begel, A., & Wiedermann, B. (2015). Understanding the challenges faced by

134
neurodiverse software engineering employees: Towards a more inclusive and productive
technical workforce. Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS
Conference on Computers & Accessibility, ACM, 173–184.
Müller, E., Schuler, A., & Yates, G. B. (2008). Social challenges and supports from the
perspective of individuals with Asperger syndrome and other autism spectrum
disabilities. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 12(2), 173–190.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361307086664
Mynatt, B. S., Gibbons, M. M., & Hughes, A. (2014). Career development for college students
with Asperger’s syndrome. Journal of Career Development, 41(3), 185–198.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845313507774
Nagib, W., & Wilton, R. (2020). Gender matters in career exploration and job-seeking among
adults with autism spectrum disorder: Evidence from an online community. Disability
and Rehabilitation, 42(18), 2530–2541. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2019.1573936
National Council on Disability (2006). Creating livable communities. Government Printing
Office.
Norbury, C. F., & Sparks, A. (2013). Difference or disorder? Cultural issues in understanding
neurodevelopmental disorders. Developmental Psychology, 49(1), 45–58.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027446
Ohl, A., Sheff, M. G., Small, S., Nguyen, J., Paskor, K., & Zanjirian, A. (2017). Predictors of
employment status among adults with autism spectrum disorder. Work (Reading,
Mass.), 56(2), 345–355. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-172492
OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT (Aug 3 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/chat
Ott, D. L., Russo, E., & Moeller, M. (2022). Neurodiversity, equity, and inclusion in MNCs. AIB

135
Insights, 22(3), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.46697/001c.34677
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
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage.
Pellicano, E. (2010). Individual differences in executive function and central coherence predict
developmental changes in theory of mind in autism. Developmental Psychology, 46(2),
530–544. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018287
Quesenberry, & Trauth, E. M. (2012). The (dis)placement of women in the IT workforce: An
investigation of individual career values and organisational interventions:
Information Systems Journal 22(6), 457–473. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2575.2012.00416.x
Quesenberry, J. L., Trauth, E. M., & Morgan, A. J. (2006). Understanding the “mommy tracks”:
A framework for analyzing work–family balance in the IT workforce. Information
Resources Management Journal, 19(2), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.4018/irmj.2006040103
Rao, B., & Polepeddi, J. (2019). Neurodiverse workforce: Inclusive employment as an HR
strategy. Strategic HR Review, 18(5), 204–209. https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-02-2019-
0007
Ratcliffe, J. W. (1983). Notions of validity in qualitative research methodology. Knowledge:
Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 5(2), 147–167.
Ratten, V. (2022). Digital platform usage amongst female sport technology
entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 1–24.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2022.2116678

136
Remington, A. & Pellicano, E. (2018). ‘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
Richter, M. (2021, September 15). The catalyst’s guide to creating positive change.
https://www.presidio.edu/blog/the-catalysts-guide-to-creating-positive-change/
Ridley G., & Young, J. (2012). Theoretical approaches to gender and IT: examining some
Australian evidence. Information Systems Journal, 22(5), 355–373.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2012.00413.x
Riemenschneider, C. K., Armstrong, D. J., Allen, M. W., & Reid, M. F. (2006). Barriers facing
women in the IT work force. ACM SIGMIS Database: The DATABASE for Advances in
Information Systems, 37(4), 58–78. https://doi.org/10.1145/1185335.1185345
Roberts, N., & Birmingham, E. (2017). Mentoring university students with ASD: A menteecentered approach. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47(4), 1038–1050.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2997-9
Romualdez, A. M., Walker, Z., & Remington, A. (2021). Autistic adults’ experiences of
diagnostic disclosure in the workplace: Decision-making and factors associated with
outcomes. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments, 6, 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1177/23969415211022955
Ross, P. T., & Bibler Zaidi, N. L. (2019). Limited by our limitations. Perspectives on Medical
Education, 8(4), 261–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-00530-x
Roux, A. M., Rast, J. E., Anderson, K. A., & Shattuck, (2017). National autism indicators
report: Developmental disability services and outcomes in adulthood. Life Course
Outcomes Research Program, A. J. Drexel Autism Institute, Drexel University.

137
Roux, A. M., Shattuck, P. T., Rast, J. E., Rava, J. A., & Anderson, K. A. (2015). National
autism indicators report: Transition into young adulthood. Life Course Outcomes
Research Program, A. J. Drexel Autism Institute, Drexel University.
Roy, M., & Strate, P. (2023). Autism spectrum disorders in adulthood—symptoms, diagnosis,
and treatment. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, 120(6), 87–93.
https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.m2022.0379
Rudy, L. J. (2023, March 27). What’s the difference between high- and low-functioning autism?
https://www.verywellhealth.com/high-and-low-functioning-autism260599#:~:text=The%20terms%20high-functioning%20and%20lowfunctioning%20autism%20are%20outdated,considered%20higher%20functioning%20an
d%20need%20the%20least%20support.
Saleh, M. C., & Bruyère, S. M. (2018). Leveraging employer practices in global regulatory
frameworks to improve employment outcomes for people with disabilities. Social
Inclusion, 6(1), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v6i1.1201
Sandberg, T., & Conner, M. (2008). Anticipated regret as an additional predictor in the theory of
planned behaviour: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(4), 589–
606. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466607X258704
SAP. (2023a, August, 25). Autism at Work Overview.
https://www.sap.com/assetdetail/2022/12/7ac5e873-537e-0010-bca6-
c68f7e60039b.html#:~:text=Launched%20in%202013%2C%20SAP%20became%20the
%20first%20global,across%2028%20locations%20and%20in%2025%2B%20job%20typ
es.
SAP. (2023b, August, 25). SAP Company Information.

138
https://www.sap.com/about/company.html
Sarrett, J. C. (2018). Autism and accommodations in higher education: Insights from the autism
community. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(3), 679–693.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3353-4
Sasson, N. J., Faso, D. J., Nugent, J., Lovell, S., Kennedy, D. P., & Grossman, R. B. (2017).
Neurotypical peers are less willing to interact with those with autism based on thin slices
of judgments. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 40700. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40700
Schein, E. H., & Schein, P. A. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed). John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Schur, L., Nishii, L., Adya, M., Kruse, D., Bruyère, S. M., & Blanck, P. (2014). Accommodating
employees with and without disabilities. Human Resource Management, 53(4), 593–621.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21607
Scott, M., Falkmer, M., Girdler, S., & Falkmer, T. (2015). Viewpoints on factors for successful
employment for adults with autism spectrum disorder. PloS One, 10(10), e0139281–
e0139281. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139281
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–
e0177607. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177607
Seers, K., & Hogg, R. C. (2021). “You don’t look autistic’: A qualitative exploration of women’s
experiences of being the ‘autistic other. Autism: The International Journal of Research
and Practice, 25(6), 1553–1564. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361321993722
Shenouda, J., Barrett, E., Davidow, A. L., Sidwell, K., Lescott, C., Halperin, W., Silenzio, V. M.

139
B., & Zahorodny, W. (2023). Prevalence and disparities in the detection of autism
without intellectual disability. Pediatrics (Evanston), 151(2), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2022-056594
Sumner, K. E., & Brown, T. J. (2015). The Psychologist Manager Journal, 18(2), 77–85.
https://doi.org/10.1037/mgr0000031
Sunagawa, M. (2023). How much of my true self can I show? Social adaptation in autistic
women: A qualitative study. BMC Psychology, 11(1), 144–144.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01192-5
Suseno, Y., & Abbott, L. (2021). Women entrepreneurs’ digital social innovation: Linking
gender, entrepreneurship, social innovation and information systems. Information
Systems Journal, 31(5), 717–744. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12327
Tavakoli, M. (2015). Creating a culture of inclusion to attain organizational success. Employment
Relations Today, 42(2), 37–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/ert.21497
Tomczak, M. T. (2021). Employees with autism spectrum disorders in the digitized work
environment: Perspectives for the future. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 31(4),
195–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207320919945
Tomczak, M. T., & Ziemiański, P. (2023). Autistic employees’ technology-based workplace
accommodation preferences survey—preliminary findings. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(10), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20105773
Trauth, E. M. (2002). Odd girl out: An individual differences perspective on women in the IT
profession. Information Technology & People, 15(2), 98–118.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09593840210430552

140
Trauth, E. M. (2006). Theorizing gender and information technology research. In Encyclopedia
of Gender and Information Technology (pp. 1154–1159). IGI Global.
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-815-4.ch182
Trauth, E. M. (2011). Rethinking gender and MIS for the twenty-first century. In R. D. Galliers
& W. Currie (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of management information systems: Critical
perspectives and new directions (1st ed., pp. 560–585). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199580583.003.0025
Trauth, E. M. (2013). The role of theory in gender and information systems research.
Information and Organization, 23(4), 277–293.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2013.08.003
Trauth, E. M., & Howcroft, D. (2006). Critical empirical research in IS: an example of gender
and the IT workforce. Information Technology & People (West Linn, Or.), 19(3), 272–
292. https://doi.org/10.1108/09593840610689859
Trauth, E. M., Quesenberry, J. L., & Huang, H. (2009). Retaining women in the U.S. IT
workforce: Theorizing the influence of organizational factors. European Journal of
Information Systems, 18(5), 476–497. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2009.31
Trauth, E. M., Quesenberry, J. L., & Yeo, B. (2008). Environmental influences on gender in the
IT workforce. Advances in Information Systems, 39(1), 8–32.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1341971.1341975
Vincent, J., & Fabri, M. (2022). The ecosystem of competitive employment for university
graduates with autism. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education,
69(5), 1823–1839. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1821874
Vivanti, G. (2020). Ask the editor: What is the most appropriate way to talk about individuals

141
with a diagnosis of autism? Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 50(2), 691–
693. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10803-019-04280-x
von Hellens, L., Trauth, E. M., & Fisher, J. (2012). Increasing the representation of women in
the information technology professions: Research on interventions. Information Systems
Journal, 22, 343–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2012.00412.x
Wei, X., Wagner, M., Hudson, L., Yu, J. W., & Shattuck, P. (2015). Transition to adulthood:
Employment, education, and disengagement in individuals with autism spectrum
disorders. Emerging Adulthood (Thousand Oaks, CA), 3(1), 37–45.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696814534417i
Werner, S. (2011). Assessing female students’ attitudes in gaps health and social professions
toward working with people with autism: A preliminary study. Journal of
Interprofessional Care, 25(2), 131–137. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2010.515043
Whelpley, C. E., & Perrault, E. (2021). Autism at work: How internal and external factors
influence employee outcomes and firm performance. Journal of General Management,
46(3), 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306307020961987
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, 53, 1363–1374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-22-05432-2
Wilson, R. B., Thompson, A. R., Rowse, G., Smith, R., Dugdale, A.-S., & Freeth, M. (2023).

142
Autistic women’s experiences of self-compassion after receiving their diagnosis in
adulthood. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 27(5), 1336–
1347. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613221136752
World Bank/World Health Organization (2011, December 14). World report on disability.
Retrieved from https://www.who.int/teams/noncommunicable-diseases/sensoryfunctions-disability-and-rehabilitation/world-report-on-disability
World Health Organization (2021). International statistical classification of diseases and related
health problems (11th ed.). https://icd.who.int/

143
Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Three research questions guided this study:
1. How do autistic people’s experiences and perceptions affect the employment process?
2. How do individual differences between autistic people affect their employment
process?
3. How do supports affect autistic people’s employment outcomes?
Respondent Type
Adult (18+) autistic (clinically or self-diagnosed) individuals who are currently employed
and can participate in an interview unassisted by a caregiver or third-party.
Introduction to the Interview
Thank you for taking time out of your day for this approximately 30 to 60-minute
interview. My name is Lance Aja. As a doctoral student at USC, I am interested in examining the
experiences of autistic people as they have traversed the employment process. I am interested in
individual differences of autistic people including barriers, opportunities, coping methods,
neurotypical knowledge and attitudes, and your experience with autism employment programs
(AEPs) or related programs throughout your employment journeys.
We are conducting this interview via Zoom. I will not include your name or any other
personal identifiable information (PII) in my findings. All information will be safeguarded, and I
will be the only one with access to data that includes personal information. I would like to record
you using the Otter.ai App, which enables me to turn the recording into a written transcript, so
that I may analyze your and the other participants responses.
Do you have any questions about this interview, prior to me beginning the recording?

144
Table A1
Interview Protocol
Interview questions Potential probes RQ
addressed
Key concept
addressed
1. What industry are you
currently working in?
How long have you been in
this industry?
Is this the industry you
would like to be working
in?
Do you have plans to
change industries in the
future?
RQ1
RQ2
Individual
differences
2. What is your current position
and title?
Have you received a
promotion while at your
current organization?
Has your manager
supported your
advancement goals?
Does your organization
offer any employment
programs? If so, do any of
them specifically focus on
autistic people?
RQ1
RQ2
RQ3
Individual
differences,
barriers,
opportunities
3. How has your
intersectionality and
positionality affected your
employment history?
Can you describe your
employment journey in
relation to your
intersectionality and
positionality?
Has your positionality and
intersectionality provided
you opportunities, barriers,
or both?
Were there any moments
or situations that were
especially challenging?
RQ1
RQ2
Individual
differences,
barriers,
opportunities,
NT knowledge
and attitudes

145
Interview questions Potential probes RQ
addressed
Key concept
addressed
4. What strengths or talents do
you believe you bring to the
workplace?
Can you provide specific
examples of how these
strengths have been
advantageous in your
work?
Have you received
recognition or support for
these strengths in your
workplace?
RQ1
RQ2
RQ3
Individual
differences,
coping methods,
NT knowledge &
attitudes,
barriers,
opportunities
5. Can you describe your most
recent experience during the
employment process, from
job searching to onboarding?
What type of job were you
searching for?
How did you search?
What were organizations
looking for?
How/Where did the
interview take place?
How did it go?
RQ1
RQ2
Individual
differences,
barriers,
opportunities,
coping methods
6. Have you had experience
with an autism employment
program or similar
employment program during
your employment journey?
Were there specific factors
or events that led you to
seek out or participate in
the program?
What has been your
experience with these
programs?
Did you have any initial
expectations or goals for
your participation?
RQ1
RQ2
RQ3
Individual
differences,
Barriers,
opportunities,
coping methods,
AEPs
7. Were there any resources or
support systems that you
found beneficial in
addressing individual
differences in the workplace?
Can you identify
specific resources
or individuals who
played a key role in
supporting your
individual needs?
RQ1
RQ2
RQ3
AEPs, individual
differences,
opportunities,
NT knowledge &
attitudes

146
Interview questions Potential probes RQ
addressed
Key concept
addressed
How did these
resources contribute
to your overall
work experience?
8. Can you describe any coping
method strategies that you
utilize during your
employment experiences?
Do you utilize these coping
methods outside of the
workplace?
How have your coping
method strategies
contributed to well-being
in the workplace?
RQ1
RQ2
RQ3
Coping methods,
individual
differences, NT
knowledge and
attitudes
9. Can you describe any
accommodations that you
have received during your
employment journey?
Have you always
asked for
accommodations
while seeking
employment?
Have you ever not
asked or not been
granted an
accommodation
during your
employment
experience?
RQ1
RQ2
RQ3
Coping methods,
individual
differences, NT
knowledge and
attitudes
10. How has management and
colleagues supported your
employment experience?
Does your current
manager support
you in the
workplace?
Do your colleagues
support you in the
workplace?
How could your
manager and
coworkers better
support you in the
workplace?
RQ1
RQ3
NT knowledge
and attitudes,
individual
differences,
barriers,
opportunities

147
Interview questions Potential probes RQ
addressed
Key concept
addressed
11. What supports and
accommodations would
enable you in your
employment journey?
Have you seen these
supports and
accommodations at your
company? At other
companies?
Do you believe AEPs, or
other programs could better
facilitate these supports
and accommodations?
Have supports and
accommodations
determined the industry or
field that you are employed
in, or desire to be
employed in?
RQ2
RQ3
AEPs, NT
knowledge and
attitudes,
individual
differences,
barriers,
opportunities
12. Is there anything else you
would like to share regarding
your experiences?
Any insights to improve
experiences for autistic
people?
Anything you see as being
a hindrance to the success
of autistic people?
RQ1,
RQ2, RQ3
AEPs, barriers,
coping methods,
individual
differences, NT
knowledge &
attitudes,
opportunities
Conclusion to the Interview
Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts and insights with me. I deeply appreciate
your time and candor. For credibility in my study, would you allow me to send you a copy of my
findings for you to comment on? If not, this will not affect any aspect of your answers today.
Thank you for your time.

148
Appendix B: Demographics Survey
The demographic survey asked participants 13 questions covering 10 areas: age, gender
identity, autism diagnosis, employment status, education, living situation, race/ethnicity,
location, previous experience with AEPs, and additional support and accommodations.
Age
1. What is your age?
• < 18 (end of survey)
• 18–25
• 26–33
• 34–41
• 42–49
• 50–57
• 58–65
• 66–73
• 73–80
• _____ (Other. Fill in the blank)
Gender Identity
2. How do you identify your gender? Select all that apply.
• female
• genderfluid
• gender Questioning
• male
• non-binary

149
• queer
• transgender
• Prefer to explain _____ (Fill in the blank).
Autism Diagnosis
3. Have you been clinically or self-diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD)?
• yes
• no (end of survey)
4. At what age were you diagnosed? _____ (Fill in the blank)
Employment Status
5. Are you currently employed?
• If yes, please briefly describe your current job. _____ (Other. Fill in the blank)
• If not currently employed, please provide information about your most recent
employment. _____ (Other. Fill in the blank); (end of survey)
Education
6. What level of education have you completed? Select all that apply.
• no formal education
• some primary (or elementary education)
• some secondary (or high school education)
• GED
• high school diploma
• some college (no degree)
• associate’s degree
• bachelor’s degree

150
• postgraduate or professional certification
• master’s degree
• doctoral degree (i.e., PhD, EdD, MD, DDS, JD)
7. If you are currently a student, please specify your current educational status. _____
(Fill in the blank)
Living Situation
8. What is your current living situation (e.g., living independently, with family, in a
group home)?
9. Do you have any dependents or family members you are responsible for caring for?
• Yes
• If yes, how many? _____ (Fill in the blank)
• What is your relationship to them? _____ (Fill in the blank)
• No
Race/Ethnicity
10. How do you identify your racial and ethnic background? Select all that apply. You
may report more than one group.
• Asian
• Black or African American
• Hispanic or Latino
• Middle Eastern or North African
• Native American or Alaska Native
• Native Hawai’ian or Pacific Islander
• two or more races (multiracial)

151
• White or Caucasian
• other
• Prefer not to say.
• Prefer to explain _____ (fill in the blank).
Location
11. What is your current place of residence (city, state)? _____ (Fill in the blank)
Previous Experience With Autism Employment Programs
12. Have you participated in any autism-specific employment programs (AEPs) or other
programs or initiatives that assist with the hiring of autistic people in the past?
• Yes. If yes, please briefly describe your experience with AEPs or other
initiatives. _____ (Fill in the blank)
• no
Additional Support or Accommodations
13. Have you received any additional support or accommodations related to your autism
diagnosis in educational or employment settings?
• Yes. If yes, please briefly describe your experience with these supports or
accommodations. _____ (fill in the blank).
• no

152
Appendix C: Screening Email
Dear [Participant]
My name is Lance Aja, and I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern
California, Rossier School of Education. I am studying the experiences of adult autistic
individuals as they traversed the employment process utilizing autism employment programs
(AEPs) or similar initiatives and programs.
I am seeking autistic adults (clinically or self-diagnosed) who are currently employed.
My study seeks to understand opportunities and barriers associated with the employment
process. Understanding opportunities and barriers, including individual differences of autistic
people, and their individual coping methods will allow my research to enable organizations to
include autistic individuals in the development and outcomes associated with utilizing AEPs or
similar employment programs.
You are receiving this message because you are an organization that actively seeks
autistic individuals for employment, or you are an autistic individual that is employed by one of
these organizations. I would like to ask to interview you via Zoom, so that I can give use your
personal responses to better understand the purpose of this study from your perspective.
Participation in this study is voluntary. You do not have to respond to this email if you
are not Interested. If you are interested in participating in my study, please respond with the best
day(s)/time(s) you are available for an interview. I will send you the link for a short (5–10
minute) demographic survey to be taken prior to the interview. I will send you a calendar invite
to the email address of your choosing. If you have questions regarding your participation, please
reach out to me via email or phone (below).

153
Interviews will be via Zoom (camera on or off is optional to you). I am open to discuss
all accommodations you may desire prior to the interview, so that you are provided a safe space.
Your Answers Are Confidential
No names will be used in this study. Participants will be given pseudonyms and the
findings will be provided to the participants who wish to view them.
Your time is valuable. The interview should only last between 30–60 minutes. My
contact is laja@usc.edu.
Thank you so much for your time and consideration,
Lance P. Aja
(he/him/they/them)
Doctoral student, USC, Rossier School of Education

154
Appendix D: Information Sheet
University of Southern California Information Sheet
My name is Lance Aja, and I am a student at the University of Southern California. I am
conducting a research study to examine the experiences of autistic people during the employment
process (i.e., recruitment, interview, hiring, onboarding). The name of this research study is
“Experiences of Autistic People During the Employment Process.” I am seeking your
participation in this study.
Your participation is completely voluntary, and I will address your questions or concerns
at any point before or during the study. You may be eligible to participate in this study if you
meet the following criteria:
1. You live in the United States
2. You are over 18 years old.
3. You are clinically or self-diagnosed autistic.
4. You can answer interview questions without assistance from a third party.
If you decide to participate in this study, you will be asked to do the following activities:
1. Complete and online survey for 5–10 minutes.
2. Participate in a 1:1 online interview over Zoom for 45–60 minutes.
3. Review the study findings via email for 10–15 minutes (this is optional)
I will publish the results in my dissertation. Participants will not be identified in the
results. I will take reasonable measures to protect the security of all your personal information.
All data will be de-identified prior to any publication or presentations. I may share your data, deidentified with other researchers in the future.

155
If you have any questions about this study, please contact me: Laja@usc.edu. 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.

156
Appendix E: Coding Table
Research question
Area of conceptual
framework
(a priori code)
Code
(thematic codes)
1. How do autistic people’s experiences
and perceptions affect the
employment process?
Barriers
Traditional interviews,
workplace
misunderstandings,
prejudice,
communication,
discrimination, social
expectations
Opportunities
Attention to detail,
work autonomy, unique
problem-solving skills
2. How do individual differences
between autistic people affect their
employment process?
Coping methods
Sensory tools, task
management, notetaking, environmental
control
Individual differences
Gender, autism,
masking, privilege,
barriers
3. How do supports affect autistic
people’s employment outcomes?
Autism employment
programs (AEPs)
Lack of awareness, lack
of access, potential
benefits
Non-AEP programs
Equity, inclusion,
employment, ad hoc
supports

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This basic qualitative study explored the employment experiences of autistic individuals by focusing on their insights, individual differences, and the impact of workplace supports and accommodations. Using Annabi and Locke’s (2019) organizational interventions mitigating individual barriers (OIMIB) framework, this research provides a detailed understanding of the barriers and opportunities that autistic individuals face in the workplace. The researcher conducted semi-structured interviews with 13 participants who were clinically or self-diagnosed as autistic. The findings highlight significant challenges related to traditional interview processes, communication barriers, and workplace misunderstandings while illuminating diverse career paths, industry interests, and coping strategies among participants. The study identifies a critical gap in the availability and effectiveness of autism employment programs (AEPs) and emphasizes the need for tailored workplace support. The recommendations for practice, which focus on increasing awareness and training, implementing flexible hiring practices, developing sensory-friendly work environments, establishing structured support systems, and fostering an inclusive organizational culture, have the potential to significantly improve the employment experiences of autistic individuals. By applying Kotter’s 8-step change model, organizations can systematically implement these recommendations, creating a more inclusive and supportive workplace for autistic employees. The study aimed to inform policy and practice, enhancing employment outcomes for autistic individuals, and contributing to more diverse and equitable workplaces.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Workplace neurodiverse equity

PDF

“Black” workplace belonging: an examination of the lived experiences of Black faculty sense of belonging factors in community colleges

PDF

The role of executives’ knowledge and motivation in enabling organizational supports for diversity, equity, and inclusion

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Black leaders: the unicorns of the biopharmaceutical industry

PDF

Communication apprehension among autistic employees

PDF

Knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that influence diversity in volunteers in animal-assisted interventions

PDF

The case for leader self-reflection in the workplace

PDF

The role of organizational leaders in creating sustainable diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in the workplace

PDF

The program to improve the employment prospects of autistic adults

PDF

Canaries in the mine: centering the voices of Black women DEI practitioners in a period of DEI resistance

PDF

African American officer's experiences as leaders navigating the United States Armed Service

PDF

Black disabled lives matter: barriers to employment for African Americans with a disability

PDF

White principals implementing systems of equity: analyzing knowledge, motivation, and organizational support

PDF

Promoting DEI to increase business performance: an evaluation of hiring practices

PDF

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

PDF

Workplace bullying of women leaders in the United States

PDF

Untapped workforce: employer perceptions of people with intellectual disabilities

PDF

The politicization of the trans-identity and its effects on transgender employment

Asset Metadata

Creator Aja, Lance Patrick (author)

Core Title Autistic people’s experiences during the employment process

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-12

Publication Date 09/20/2024

Defense Date 08/27/2024

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

Tag adult diagnosis,autism,coping methods,employment barriers,employment opportunities,neurodiversity,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational culture,Organizational Interventions Mitigating Individual Behavior (OIMIB),workplace inclusion

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Haskina, Theresa (committee member), Hinga, Briana (committee member)

Creator Email laja@usc.edu,lance.p.aja@boeing.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC11399B6BT

Unique identifier UC11399B6BT

Identifier etd-AjaLancePa-13535.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-AjaLancePa-13535

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Aja, Lance Patrick

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240925-usctheses-batch-1213 (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