Neurodiversity Hiring: How Pre-Employment Tests Support Applicants With Autism

Neurodiversity, as a concept, covers a wide spectrum of neurological conditions, of which autism is just one aspect. Although often misunderstood or oversimplified by those unfamiliar with it, neurodiversity encapsulates a variety of cognitive differences, including ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, and dyscalculia. Each condition comes with unique characteristics, strengths, and challenges. Autism, in particular, raises important considerations for employers, especially when it comes to pre-employment testing.

In the realm of pre-employment testing, the conventional processes may not always align with the cognitive profiles of candidates with autism. To truly embrace the potential of neurodiverse candidates, businesses must adopt testing practices that are both inclusive and effective. This article explores the relationship between autism and pre-employment testing, focusing on the strengths of autistic individuals, the challenges they may face in traditional assessments, and how employers can adjust their practices to better accommodate neurodiverse candidates.

Despite these strengths, there are certain types of pre-employment tests that can pose significant challenges for candidates with autism. A prominent example is the situational judgement test. SJTs are designed to assess how candidates might respond to hypothetical scenarios by presenting them with a situation and asking them to choose or rate the effectiveness of different actions. While this might seem straightforward for neurotypical individuals, it can be far more challenging for those on the autism spectrum.

One of the key characteristics of autism is a tendency towards literal thinking. Hypothetical scenarios, which are the core of SJTs, can be difficult for autistic individuals to navigate. These candidates may struggle with imagining themselves in a scenario that hasn't actually happened, and may also find it challenging to choose from a list of predefined options when none of them accurately reflect what they would do in real life.

For example, a common SJT might ask a candidate, “What would you do if a customer complained about the service?” For an autistic candidate, the available options might all seem inappropriate, because their natural response would be to follow a set procedure, or because they feel that none of the options provided represent the most logical course of action. This literal thinking can lead to autistic candidates being unfairly penalised in these assessments, not because they lack the necessary skills, but because the test itself does not align with their cognitive style.

One of the most notable findings in recent research on autism is that individuals with high-functioning autism tend to excel in certain cognitive tasks, particularly in areas such as inductive reasoning and logical, non-verbal reasoning. These are skills that are highly valued in many roles, especially those that require analytical thinking, problem-solving, and attention to detail.

This makes them particularly well-suited for roles in fields such as technology, engineering, data analysis, and other sectors where logical reasoning and the ability to think in abstract terms are key.

It is crucial to understand that autism exists on a spectrum, and the strengths of one individual may not be reflective of another. Nevertheless, these cognitive advantages highlight the importance of not underestimating the potential of autistic candidates. Instead of focusing solely on perceived challenges, it is important to recognise the strengths that many autistic individuals bring to the workplace, particularly in pre-employment tests that favour logic and abstract reasoning.

To create a more inclusive recruitment process, employers need to reconsider how they design and implement pre-employment tests, particularly when dealing with neurodiverse candidates. SJTs, while useful in many contexts, may need to be adapted to account for the specific challenges faced by autistic individuals.

One adjustment that can be made is to modify the format of the situational judgement test itself. Rather than asking candidates to select an action they would take in a given scenario, employers can ask them to rate or rank the effectiveness of various actions. This change allows candidates to approach the question in a more analytical way, which aligns more closely with the strengths of many autistic individuals.

Additionally, tests should be designed to be as unambiguous as possible. The more straightforward and clear the instructions, the easier it is for autistic candidates to navigate the test. Employers should avoid open-ended questions that ask candidates “What would you do?” in favour of more structured formats that allow for clear and direct responses.

Adopting a neurodiverse approach to recruitment is not just about fairness or compliance with equality legislation—it also makes good business sense. By creating a recruitment process that is accessible to neurodiverse candidates, employers open themselves up to a wider pool of talent. Autistic individuals, in particular, often possess exceptional skills in areas like attention to detail, logical reasoning, and pattern recognition. These are qualities that can be invaluable in roles requiring technical expertise or problem-solving abilities.

In conclusion, while traditional pre-employment tests have their place, they are not always suitable for every candidate, particularly those on the autism spectrum. By embracing neurodiversity and making adjustments to the testing process, employers can ensure that they are not only complying with best practice but also gaining access to a rich pool of talent that might otherwise be overlooked. This inclusive approach benefits both the employer, by increasing employee retention and job performance, and the employee, by ensuring they have the opportunity to succeed in a role that matches their strengths.