Microsoft seeks to recruit autistic workers(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Microsoft seeks to recruit autistic workers
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-32204999
48 comments
I think what Microsoft is trying to say, and what the article is doing a poor job of communicating, is that the company believes that there are some autistic people who have much to contribute to Microsoft, but they are currently disadvantaged by current hiring processes which rely so heavily upon interviews. The idea of trying to find alternative ways to assess candidates that don't rely so completely on interviews/high pressure social situations seems laudable to me, even if in this article it was poorly expressed.
"don't rely so completely on interviews/high pressure social situations seems laudable to me"
There is an obvious competitive advantage to any company that removes arbitrary and unnecessary barriers, aside from whats being discussed. If almost no jobs actually require that arbitrary barrier, the pool of applicants on the other side of the barrier will inherently have individuals better at the job than the pool who made it over the artificial meaningless barrier. Given a big pond, a small random sample of pond water will always have a smaller "biggest fish" than a larger random sample from the same pond, and if the sample size expands to the size of the whole pond, that fisherman will get the biggest possible fish.
The fact that this doesn't happen historically or currently despite the obvious financial advantage, shows that hiring and general office culture is obviously more influenced by primate dominance rituals than economic reasons. When you throw in some additional dominance rituals to compensate or rationalize away the reduced hazing rituals and membership rituals to "even things up", its going to be a hellish working environment for the folks who do get in.
Mix the above paragraph with the observation of corporate communication always indicates the opposite of what it explicitly claims. So a company that feels the need to say quality is job one actually prioritizes quality dead last after production goals and profit and pretty much everything else. Or a company that issues elaborate press releases about its diversity program invariably actually closes management ranks to all but old white men. You can handle an issue by "doing things" or you can dispose of it by "issue human interest press releases" so press releases mean it was decided nothing will actually be done. So you can assume a corporate communication of opening hiring to autistic people actually means it was completely and utterly closed to them and it'll remain that way but we'll talk nicely about it and issue press releases for the human interest spin on the news. We won't hire them but we'll talk really nicely about them instead.
So its kind of a "one step forward two steps back" story. Its actually signalling that autistic people would be better off working anywhere else. Which is a useful observation. And fitting in with the first paragraph, it means MS competitors have an inherent advantage over MS in having superior hiring policies instead of the MS strategy of instead talking about superior hiring policies.
There is an obvious competitive advantage to any company that removes arbitrary and unnecessary barriers, aside from whats being discussed. If almost no jobs actually require that arbitrary barrier, the pool of applicants on the other side of the barrier will inherently have individuals better at the job than the pool who made it over the artificial meaningless barrier. Given a big pond, a small random sample of pond water will always have a smaller "biggest fish" than a larger random sample from the same pond, and if the sample size expands to the size of the whole pond, that fisherman will get the biggest possible fish.
The fact that this doesn't happen historically or currently despite the obvious financial advantage, shows that hiring and general office culture is obviously more influenced by primate dominance rituals than economic reasons. When you throw in some additional dominance rituals to compensate or rationalize away the reduced hazing rituals and membership rituals to "even things up", its going to be a hellish working environment for the folks who do get in.
Mix the above paragraph with the observation of corporate communication always indicates the opposite of what it explicitly claims. So a company that feels the need to say quality is job one actually prioritizes quality dead last after production goals and profit and pretty much everything else. Or a company that issues elaborate press releases about its diversity program invariably actually closes management ranks to all but old white men. You can handle an issue by "doing things" or you can dispose of it by "issue human interest press releases" so press releases mean it was decided nothing will actually be done. So you can assume a corporate communication of opening hiring to autistic people actually means it was completely and utterly closed to them and it'll remain that way but we'll talk nicely about it and issue press releases for the human interest spin on the news. We won't hire them but we'll talk really nicely about them instead.
So its kind of a "one step forward two steps back" story. Its actually signalling that autistic people would be better off working anywhere else. Which is a useful observation. And fitting in with the first paragraph, it means MS competitors have an inherent advantage over MS in having superior hiring policies instead of the MS strategy of instead talking about superior hiring policies.
"corporate communication always indicates the opposite of what it explicitly claims"
Do you have evidence for this? If Apple announces that their new iWatch with features XYZ will go on sale, I expect the watch to go on sale and to have features XYZ. Similarly, if a business mentions quality, then since qualities are the "characteristics or features that someone or something has", I expect them to focus on adding features to their product and incorporating more jargon into their business processes.
Do you have evidence for this? If Apple announces that their new iWatch with features XYZ will go on sale, I expect the watch to go on sale and to have features XYZ. Similarly, if a business mentions quality, then since qualities are the "characteristics or features that someone or something has", I expect them to focus on adding features to their product and incorporating more jargon into their business processes.
I think MS is making a good move in our current society. Popular culture isn't mature enough that we all feel we should treat people well by default - we are happy to abuse autistic spectrum people because they're not clearly labelled as being a member of a disadvantaged group. We know we shouldn't abuse people for being black, handicapped, gay, female, etc. But we can still abuse people who don't "understand the unwritten rules of the workplace". So at least this may benefit people who can be labelled as autistic to get protection from that abuse and discrimination. That's going to happen at a job interview, where an otherwise qualified candidate can be discriminated against because they wouldn't be a "good fit for our team". Members of many other disadvantaged groups already get some protection from this - you can't refuse to hire someone because they're a woman and thus wouldn't be a good fit for your all-male team, but you can refuse someone for being unable to understand complex social interactions even when they aren't essential for performing the job.
It's not ideal however. Ideally we wouldn't ostracize someone for misunderstanding jokes, trying unsuccessfully to mimic the likable behavior of neurotypicals or failing to make eye contact at the right moments. But our society is still at that level of intolerance where we need some kind of labeling of disadvantaged people to help everyone else stop and think "Oh, I'm not supposed to be mean to him for that, he can't help it".
It's not ideal however. Ideally we wouldn't ostracize someone for misunderstanding jokes, trying unsuccessfully to mimic the likable behavior of neurotypicals or failing to make eye contact at the right moments. But our society is still at that level of intolerance where we need some kind of labeling of disadvantaged people to help everyone else stop and think "Oh, I'm not supposed to be mean to him for that, he can't help it".
I'm autistic and I feel disgusted by such announcement. I have worked hard, gained a PhD and that's why I'd be recruited into one of these companies.
If Microsoft could do anything, it should just understand an autistic perspective in the workplace and its often eccentric behavior.
If Microsoft could do anything, it should just understand an autistic perspective in the workplace and its often eccentric behavior.
I'm disgusted by your disgust. I wanted a PhD more than anything, but I didn't understand my disorder at the time, and I didn't have the care nor coping skills I needed to get through life on top of achieving what I wanted to in the PhD program. That was three years ago and I still cry almost every other night or so over it, but I am living a much healthier and more understood life, instead of every day being almost constant confusion and stress (on top of difficult school work, being a teaching assistant and a research assistant).
It helps when the work environment understands explicitly. I experience heightened stress and chaotic thought patterns in overtly social situations that ripple across months when the situations only last days or hours, and I need to learn to engage in them very slowly at my own pace and be comfortable.
If my former school understood this instead of having my professors call me 'aspie', maybe I would have a PhD by now. The one thing I learned from this is that I should not be forced into any situation that makes me experience distress, and I do not care if you think it's ridiculous. I have spent far too much of my life in difficult mental places, and I do not want to live like that anymore, and I won't. I don't force people around me to do graduate level math simply so they can talk to me in a language I understand.
We are not always clever and eccentric, 100% of the time. It would help if people stopped looking at us like computers and started remembering we are human too.
It helps when the work environment understands explicitly. I experience heightened stress and chaotic thought patterns in overtly social situations that ripple across months when the situations only last days or hours, and I need to learn to engage in them very slowly at my own pace and be comfortable.
If my former school understood this instead of having my professors call me 'aspie', maybe I would have a PhD by now. The one thing I learned from this is that I should not be forced into any situation that makes me experience distress, and I do not care if you think it's ridiculous. I have spent far too much of my life in difficult mental places, and I do not want to live like that anymore, and I won't. I don't force people around me to do graduate level math simply so they can talk to me in a language I understand.
We are not always clever and eccentric, 100% of the time. It would help if people stopped looking at us like computers and started remembering we are human too.
"...understand the 'unwritten rules' of the workplace..."
I guess everyone would benefit from writing them down.
I guess everyone would benefit from writing them down.
There are already a couple of companies hiring purely autistic people as they seem to be amazingly accomplished QA people.
Someone obviously didn't read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_Dark
The autism advantage (from 2012): http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/magazine/the-autism-advant...
What they said:
> "Each individual is different, some have an amazing ability to retain information, think at a level of detail and depth or excel in math or code."
What they mean:
> Each autist we're interested in is exactly the same, they have an amazing ability to be really fucking nerdy and make computers do magic shit. But they're hard to deal with, so we also need to make this a PR move.
Seriously. I'm very uncomfortable with this article. There are probably people on the autism spectrum already working at all the big tech places. Why single them out like this?
Newsflash: Not all people with autism are genius programmers. Not all genius programmers are people with autism. Treat everyone with respect. Treat everyone as an equal human being. This article doesn't seem to get that.
> "just 15% of adults with autism in the UK are in full-time employment."
No shit. That's because for every 100 individuals with autism, ~55 are considered mentally disabled (IQ<70) and only ~3 of them turn out to be geniuses (IQ>130). [1] Coupled with social challenges, this means very few individuals with autism are able to be independent into adulthood. [2]
This article irritates me.
[1]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21272389
[2]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14982237
> "Each individual is different, some have an amazing ability to retain information, think at a level of detail and depth or excel in math or code."
What they mean:
> Each autist we're interested in is exactly the same, they have an amazing ability to be really fucking nerdy and make computers do magic shit. But they're hard to deal with, so we also need to make this a PR move.
Seriously. I'm very uncomfortable with this article. There are probably people on the autism spectrum already working at all the big tech places. Why single them out like this?
Newsflash: Not all people with autism are genius programmers. Not all genius programmers are people with autism. Treat everyone with respect. Treat everyone as an equal human being. This article doesn't seem to get that.
> "just 15% of adults with autism in the UK are in full-time employment."
No shit. That's because for every 100 individuals with autism, ~55 are considered mentally disabled (IQ<70) and only ~3 of them turn out to be geniuses (IQ>130). [1] Coupled with social challenges, this means very few individuals with autism are able to be independent into adulthood. [2]
This article irritates me.
[1]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21272389
[2]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14982237
Yes, they want the people with "good autism".
It's insensitive sounding, but it's probably not that different from their hiring stance for all people. Using your numbers, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that only ~3% of neurotypical people could get a job at Microsoft, either.
Also, probably only ~3% (or less) of any other disadvantaged, disabled, or marginalized group.
But it feel like they're hiring "the right kind of <marginalized_group>", which has a repugnant history even decoupled from the severity of "common" autism.
So yeah, Microsoft should probably not have spun this as a PR opp.
Aside: there's probably a tasteless joke in there somewhere about socially-insensitive recruiting practices which target high-functioning autistic people.
It's insensitive sounding, but it's probably not that different from their hiring stance for all people. Using your numbers, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that only ~3% of neurotypical people could get a job at Microsoft, either.
Also, probably only ~3% (or less) of any other disadvantaged, disabled, or marginalized group.
But it feel like they're hiring "the right kind of <marginalized_group>", which has a repugnant history even decoupled from the severity of "common" autism.
So yeah, Microsoft should probably not have spun this as a PR opp.
Aside: there's probably a tasteless joke in there somewhere about socially-insensitive recruiting practices which target high-functioning autistic people.
I'm diagnosed as being on the autistic spectrum, with an IQ of > 140, and early in my career I worked at Microsoft.
This is a PR stunt, but I'm comfortable with it if it helps align people's optics to the idea that autistic traits can indeed be harnessed into a super valuable role in society. You'd be surprised how many people don't think that's the case.
This is a PR stunt, but I'm comfortable with it if it helps align people's optics to the idea that autistic traits can indeed be harnessed into a super valuable role in society. You'd be surprised how many people don't think that's the case.
Same, though sub-company was about to get promoted and they closed the entire office/branch, day after new years day. Ironic is it not.
That makes sense, but doesn't this get pretty uncomfortably close to supercrip thinking?
Maybe this is too much to ask but it would be nice if the choices weren't "simpleton unable to function" or "Rainman."
I know what you mean. I have a friend who is autistic and he is probably about average in intelligence.
That is a bad place to be for someone with autism as the behavioral issues means he has trouble finding work, but he can't get any government support because he isn't disabled enough.
That is a bad place to be for someone with autism as the behavioral issues means he has trouble finding work, but he can't get any government support because he isn't disabled enough.
It's unfortunate that discussions of autism make you uncomfortable. Would the world be better if Microsoft were not taking steps to accommodate autistic candidates in their hiring process?
Microsoft is already selective in their hiring process. It makes sense that they would be selective in regard to candidates with autism. What I find refreshing is their attempt to select on what matters and eliminate things like "what musical instrument do you play?" and "what is your favorite craft beer?" from their process.
Microsoft is already selective in their hiring process. It makes sense that they would be selective in regard to candidates with autism. What I find refreshing is their attempt to select on what matters and eliminate things like "what musical instrument do you play?" and "what is your favorite craft beer?" from their process.
On my company intranet is an article about us allegedly trying to do the exact same thing, and it eventually transpires that it was just world autism day so companies are throwing out the old "we're committed to equal opportunities in every way and would love to hire us some autistic people cause we're pro all the things that are _good_ and anti things that are _bad_"
As long as it doesn't negatively impact the bottom line obviously.
As long as it doesn't negatively impact the bottom line obviously.
You're putting words into someones mouth and then getting angry about it. Sounds like you should be irritated at yourself. Let's look at what was actually said:
> "Many may have strengths such as accuracy, a good eye for detail and reliability, which can benefit all sorts of businesses, not just the technology industry...."
and
> "Each individual is different, some have an amazing ability to retain information, think at a level of detail and depth or excel in math or code."
None of that indicates that anyone at Microsoft thinks all autists are the same or even that the ones they're interested in are the same. So, perhaps you should work on attaining better reading comprehension before you work yourself up into having another fight with yourself.
> "Many may have strengths such as accuracy, a good eye for detail and reliability, which can benefit all sorts of businesses, not just the technology industry...."
and
> "Each individual is different, some have an amazing ability to retain information, think at a level of detail and depth or excel in math or code."
None of that indicates that anyone at Microsoft thinks all autists are the same or even that the ones they're interested in are the same. So, perhaps you should work on attaining better reading comprehension before you work yourself up into having another fight with yourself.
Look, I think there's some subtext to their statement, and I stick with that. You are fully within your rights to disagree with me on that. I see where you are coming from and I hope you can see where I'm coming from.
I definitely feel that there is some type-casting here for people with autism. They want them to be the dorky lovable genius that they see on The Big Bang Theory every weeknight at 5:30 and 6:30. I read subtext in the article as, "Yes, these people may have social issues, but they can make up for it with their intellect, and that's our motivator!" And I disagree with that.
These people don't need to qualify themselves at all. Their social issues are not intentional. They don't need to make up for anything. An autistic person with the same qualifications and skills should be considered for employment equally with someone not facing those difficulties.
And if an autistic person isn't a genius, well then he's just an average person who becomes an HR liability for being an asshole. That's what I sense from this article. You make some good criticisms though, I shouldn't have put in the "What they actually mean" part. I'll keep it in mind as I go forward, thank you.
Closing thought: We don't make homosexual programmers qualify themselves, right? Because we can accept that it's who they are, and that it wasn't their choice. So why is autism different? Because they might offend someone? I assure you, there are many people that are offended merely by the existence of homosexuality.
I definitely feel that there is some type-casting here for people with autism. They want them to be the dorky lovable genius that they see on The Big Bang Theory every weeknight at 5:30 and 6:30. I read subtext in the article as, "Yes, these people may have social issues, but they can make up for it with their intellect, and that's our motivator!" And I disagree with that.
These people don't need to qualify themselves at all. Their social issues are not intentional. They don't need to make up for anything. An autistic person with the same qualifications and skills should be considered for employment equally with someone not facing those difficulties.
And if an autistic person isn't a genius, well then he's just an average person who becomes an HR liability for being an asshole. That's what I sense from this article. You make some good criticisms though, I shouldn't have put in the "What they actually mean" part. I'll keep it in mind as I go forward, thank you.
Closing thought: We don't make homosexual programmers qualify themselves, right? Because we can accept that it's who they are, and that it wasn't their choice. So why is autism different? Because they might offend someone? I assure you, there are many people that are offended merely by the existence of homosexuality.
What a repulsive idea.
Just hire people based on how well they can do a job. You don't have to pigeonhole people into one of your shitty mental categories and then hire them.
Just hire people based on how well they can do a job. You don't have to pigeonhole people into one of your shitty mental categories and then hire them.
I used to hold the same opinion about positive discrimination for women and ethnic minorities, but now I realize that it's necessary to overcome people's instinctive prejudice. Most companies don't hire on how well you can do the job, they hire on how well they like you, and that encompasses all their prejudices. People can't just switch off their prejudice but if they're conscious of what it is, they can at least try to look past it.
I think the point was that current hiring practices filter out many autistic people due to the behavioral testing.
Currently autistic people generally have to be good enough at social stuff to pass as "normal" in the interview. The more socially challenged don't get a chance to prove they could do the job.
Currently autistic people generally have to be good enough at social stuff to pass as "normal" in the interview. The more socially challenged don't get a chance to prove they could do the job.
So, honest question: how is this not discrimination?
Not that I feel discriminated against personally, but it seems like they'd be opening themselves up to a HUGE legal liability. You can't hire someone based on their gender identity or the color of their skin, but you can hire based on a physical difference in the brain?
Not that I feel discriminated against personally, but it seems like they'd be opening themselves up to a HUGE legal liability. You can't hire someone based on their gender identity or the color of their skin, but you can hire based on a physical difference in the brain?
Autism is, in some aspects, a handicap, so this is not much different from programmes to help e.g. blind people. Or more neutral a programme to help types of underrepresented people like women or certain races.
You could maybe qualify it as positive discrimination, but nowhere it's said that autistic people will have a higher chance of a job so it's not even really that.
You could maybe qualify it as positive discrimination, but nowhere it's said that autistic people will have a higher chance of a job so it's not even really that.
Uh, it's completely acceptable to "discriminate" against people based on factors that relate to their ability to succeed in the job. I don't think it's controversial that people's social skills or style of social interaction has a bearing on their job performance. You can argue to what extent and so on, but it's bizarre to think that it's not relevant.
"People who do not have a disability" are not a protected class, while people with disabilities are. This seems intuitive enough to me...
The problem with this statement is that you need to define "a disability." You will immediately have to deal with the problem of classifying clinical depression, for example.
You know this has already been done, and clinical depression is indeed considered a disabling condition, right? Check out the ADA and SSDI.
Yes, I'm aware of it. I was making sure that the respondant was, as it's the classic example of why you can't simply say "has a disability" as a way of classifying individuals. Plenty of people have disabilities that you cannot easily identify, let alone require them to disclose.
It is and what people consider permissible discrimination is subjective as we see here.
I've got only one issue with this article. It should be published in 2016 and state something like "After 1-year pilot program, MS announced that their recruitment process has been redesigned to prevent discrimination against autism and resulted in hiring 1000 new employees which could be otherwise rejected. It all started in 2015 with a small 10 person trial ..."
In case of a company with 128k employees, a pilot program for 10 people just isn't news-worthy.
In case of a company with 128k employees, a pilot program for 10 people just isn't news-worthy.