March 9th, 2023 - Panel Event
On March 9th, 2023, the Colorado Neurodiversity Chamber of Commerce (CNDCC) hosted their bi-monthly panel event, allowing members of their organization a platform to discuss their personal experiences and how they tackle neurodiversity in the workplace. The event was held at The Daniels Fund, an important organization in Denver that celebrates the life and success of Bill Daniels, and facilitated by one of the CNDCC's co-founder's, Tiffany Feingold.
This panel event included three amazing speakers that discussed their workplace experiences, how we can change stereotypes around neurodiversity, and how we can include a better framework for including neurodivergent individuals in corporate America.
Our first panelist was Tim Goldstein. Tim was diagnosed with autism at age 54. Since his diagnosis, he has become an Emotional Speaking Coach and assists individuals that may struggle with interpersonal relationships.
Our second panelist was Stephanie Martin, President of the College Living Experience, an organization that helps neurodivergent young adults transition to living on their own during their college years. Martin provides a unique perspective as an employer and organization that assists youths.
Third, we had Rachel Levine from Denver's Dumb Friend's League. With a background in human resources, Rachel paves the way in her own organization for more community focused practices that give people and animals a better quality of life.
The theme of today's panel event was on hiring practices and focusing on how companies can review their hiring practices to be more equitable and inclusive. Tiffany, after introductions, posed her first, of a few, question to those sitting at the front of the room:
"How much of the burden is on the interviewee, and how much is on the company? Where does the responsibility lie?"
Stephanie Martin spoke first, speaking from her own experience. She mentioned how she had posed that question to her own staff, and the answers were a 50-50 split between 'the company' and 'the interviewee'. She continued on to explain that it is a shared responsibility between the two. If hiring modern practices do not work for the neurodivergent population, then there are changes that need to be made so that these individuals still have the best opportunity to showcase their skills. By not updating the hiring process, companies are not setting their potential employees up for success, nor are they setting themselves up for success.
Rachel Levine followed up on Stephanie's point by discussing the 'Like Me' bias of interviews. This bias is often seen as people tend to want to hire people that they like, that they want to hang out with, or that are similar to the interviewer. When discussing neurodivergent individuals, this may put them at a disadvantage. If they have difficulty with certain social cues, sitting still for extended periods of time, or experience other setbacks from the interview process, they may not have the full ability to shine in the interview.
Rachel provided an example of how her team dealt with this potential bias by examining, in depth:
What are the essential functions of the role?
Does someone have the skills to complete the job?
Can someone do the functions with accommodations?
Can we train someone in the deficit areas?
Rachel mentioned that the interview process can be a long and arduous process that takes up time and resources for both the company and interviewee. Companies should want their employees, and potential employees well into the interview process to succeed.
Tim Goldstein then spoke up about his own experiences in interviews before and after his diagnosis. To quote Tim, he was "fired a lot" and went through an incredible amount of interviews. Over the course of his career, he learned quite a bit about how companies and interviewees could change their practices.
In working with companies on the hiring side, he posed a question to them, "These people were qualified for the job that they interviewed for. Why did they not get it?" Almost unanimously, the answer was "[the person] didn't show enough excitement for that position in that company". Tim mentioned that while we can't control human nature, the responsibility lies in both camps. Individuals need to make the proper effort to assimilate into company culture, and companies need to focus on if their hiring process properly assesses potential hires for the skills that a job requires.
"How much time should be spent, and what should an employer focus on when it comes to hiring?"
Rachel jumped in first with this response. Her answer, quick and to the point, was "A lot of time", which prompted several head nods from the panel and individuals around the room. She went on to describe that companies should focus on the job role and job description before starting the hiring process. She provided an example of a job at the Dumb Friends League that had issues with turnover and reliability within the position. After examining the job role, they proceeded to change certain requirements (that a high school diploma was required) which allowed for a larger pool of applicants and more choice for the hiring manager.
When looking at turnover, Rachel continued that companies should look at positions or departments with high turnover and ask the difficult questions. Who is leaving and for what reasons? Is there a correlation between race, gender, sexual orientation, or other aspects that may point to a reason why people are leaving the company. This can help to reform the interview process, interview mismatches, and assist the company with hiring practices going forward.
Stephanie continued the conversation by stating how her company saw an imbalance between how different positions at her company were outlined in the onset of a hiring process. Some positions were incredibly detailed on day-to-day practices and what would be expected from new hires, while some positions were more vague and less reflective of the actual job itself.
She pressed the crowd to think about their own workplace's practices and offered that reflection is not only beneficial, but necessary for companies that want to move forward and succeed with a diverse staff. Self awareness from companies that want to do a better job overall require this close look when reviewing their hiring practices.
Tim followed up by discussing his own experience of coaching neurodivergent individuals through various steps in the hiring process. He mentioned that often, potential applicants are often hesitant to apply to jobs that are a laundry list of qualifications. Tim stated that companies should determine, internally, what qualifications are necessary for a job versus what qualifications are on their "wishlist". There needs to be a conversation amongst hiring managers and the company about what is needed to operate at the job and what experience can assist someone when they are training or learning more about the position. "It's okay to say things you, [the company], would like, but make sure they are expressed as not being required".
At this point, questions were opened up from the audience. Of the 34 participants, several hands rose up with questions and personal anecdotes. The panelists spent the remainder of their time discussing additional comments and how it linked back to their businesses. The conversation continued, weaving between all three of the panelists as they provided answers to an evolving conversation.
The final third of the hour was dedicated to this question and answer format. After the time was finished, the panelists were thanked before moving into a more open conversational platform. The various leaders, representing over 30 businesses in the Denver metro area, gathered around, made introductions, and conversed about their own personal stories.
The CNDCC will host their next Panel Speaking Event on May 11th at The Daniels Fund. If you are a member and interested in attending, please contact our Events & Programs Manager, Lauri Murphy at lauri@cndcc.org.