Safely Being You

 On Wednesday (13 November), I had the good fortune of being invited to a talk on managing “neurodiversity.” The talk was oragnised by The Fund Finance Association and was given by Ms. Kavita Chandradhas of Undivided Consulting.

 

 This was a timely talk in as much as the concept of “diversity” has come under challenge. Thanks to the first election of Donald Trump in 2016 and his subsequent return, people in all sorts of places have become very open and very vocal about only wanting to be in places with people who look, talk and pray like them. Hence, people are now happily asking “what’s wrong with being a racist, sexist, religious chauvinist etc?”

Suddenly “diversity” and encouraging diversity is seen as “woke” and therefore not something not to be encouraged. As America and many Western societies face incidents of social unrest between very different groups, the parts of East Asia that have experienced high economic growth, have been celebrating their “conformity” as the reason for their prosperity and social unity.

However, whilst people might be finding joy in wanting to conform, the reality is that the world, specifically work places are becoming more diverse. Businesses simply cannot afford to turn away customers because they’re “not like” the business owners nor, despite what they might like to think, turn away staff who are “not like” the owners.

Much has been said about managing racial, cultural and sexual diversity. However, very little is often said about “neurodiversity.” So, what exactly is “neurodiversity.” Well, based on the talk, neurodiversity is about one’s brain chemistry – which is often the thing that dictates our way of thinking and personality.

 

 

 

If you look at the slide that was presented, you will notice that neurodiversity does include things like AHD, which many do consider a “mental” condition, something that many HR professionals tend to shy away from.

What makes it particularly poignant is that the topic of managing “neurodiversity” doesn’t seem to have a defined set of rules – more “art than science.” The importance of “empathy was emphasized but there were no “right or wrong” answers.

For corporations this seems like a pointless task. Efficiency particularly in the age of “mass production” has been about “standardization.” Everything until recently has been about “processing” and getting people to do the work has been about getting people who can fit into the system. People who don’t “fit into” a system get thrown out.

Whilst that might have been true in the industrial age, it’s becoming less true in the post-industrial age, where an individual’s innate genius for something can be the difference between success and failure.

So, organisations need to move away from mass model HR practices and to figure out how make the most of everyone’s strengths.

Let’s start with the obvious. Forcing people to fit into an environment where they have to be something else is counterproductive. People will eventually tire of wearing the “mask” and “burn-out.” Just look at the “LGBTQ” example. This is a community that is considered “fringe” and even with the growing acceptance of LGBTQ within the main stream, many have been forced to “mask” their “real” nature to fit into the mainstream. The results are often psychologically damaging on the members of the LGBTQ community and by extension their loved ones.

Then, there’s the fact that certain people who may not “fit it” can have “genius” in many aspects that are needed to make a task successful. One only needs to watch Amadeus to understand that many of the great artist, musicians, writers, scientist and innovators were “misfits” and “odd balls.” Their genius went unnoticed and they were discarded by the mainstream. Allowing genius to be recognized was perfectly OK when economies were driven by mass production. In the post-industrial age where innovation and creativity are vital for survival, organisations and societies cannot afford to waste genius. They need to manage it.

I take the example of a former colleague, whose people skills were so bad that I once publicly told her I would do her physical damage if she spoke to me. Her dealings with colleagues, subordinates and clients were cringeworthy.

Yet, despite that, she could plough through the paper work. She was like an investigation machine. Leave her in a room with a load of files and she’d make sense of them within hours.

If I had to do it again, I would still see to it that she got hired and well compensated for her talents. Wouldn’t allow her near people but I’d happily put her on a diet of documents and get another person who had people skills to do the people aspect of the job.

Does it require effort and “cost” to tailor work environments? The answer is undoubtedly so but the outputs that would come from every individual would be more than worth it.