Supporting neurodiversity in the travel technology sector

All of us are facing a world which, as the acronym “VUCA” says, is volatile, uncertain, complex and
ambiguous. But imagine facing that world on a day-to-day basis when your worldview
is based on diverse cognitive patterns and alternative ways of thinking – or in
the vernacular of the day, neurodiverse.

Neurodiversity has been used in academic
circles since the 1990s and, to an extent, has become a catch-all phrase to
cover any health condition which is mental rather than physical. And when the
condition is in the mind, then it can be difficult for others to recognize,
hence my preference for another term, non-apparent disabilities.

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD) and autism are among the most common conditions that fall under the
neurodiverse definition. Anxiety, depression, dyslexia, dyspraxia and post-traumatic
stress disorder are also covered. 

What does this have to do with travel tech?
More than you might first think. In short, there are plenty of neurodivergent
people out there who are smart but need different tools to succeed in business
and in the workplace.

When it comes to travel tech, we are all looking for
intelligent team members who look at and solve problems differently. That’s what product innovation is. Why would we allow talented people to
continue to slip through the net when options are available to support and
develop them?

Working out the best approach

First off, we are businesses, we need the
best people out there to work for our businesses. There is anecdotal evidence that, because of their non-linear and
distinctive thought processes, neurodiverse individuals have a talent for
programming, coding, developing, problem-solving, data analysis and more.

And there is empirical evidence that neurodiverse teams can generate a
competitive advantage for a business.

When it comes to recruitment and employment,
there are several sensitivities employers need to be aware of. The bigger
picture is revealing: workplace legislation around non-apparent disabilities is
less mature than it is for the more visible disabilities. My experience is in
the United States, but I know that many of these issues are global. 

Confidentiality and a right to privacy mean
that it can be a challenge for employers to actively target internal
initiatives designed for their neurodivergent workforce, without coming across
as discriminatory. This is compounded by the reality that there are many people
living with a non-apparent disability that has not been diagnosed or they have
elected not to disclose it to their employer.

The net result is a lack of trust between
employers and employees, and any business where this dynamic exists will
struggle to succeed in developing employees with non-apparent disabilities.

Mentoring can reset the legislative imbalance

How does this play out in practice? For the
neurodiverse community, it’s not a great picture and reflects poorly on us as a
society. A very good friend of mine, Dr. Angélica Guevara, is a
business and ethics professor at the Indiana University Kelley School of Business. She
wrote a detailed paper on the legislative difficulties – at the federal level –
faced by the neurodiverse, in society as well as the workplace, saying that
“current federal disability law fails those with non-apparent
disabilities.” 

She offered a hypothetical example of how an
employer can dismiss someone for, say, repeated lateness even if that lateness
is a result of the employee’s neurodiversity and the employee has been making
documented efforts to address the issue. Current legislation means the
employer is protected as “business necessity” overrides any discriminatory
concerns, not that any currently exist.

The legislative gap is contributing to the
lack of trust between the neurodiverse community and the business world.
However, it is possible for individual business owners to take ownership of
this situation and force change through positive and proactive measures. I
would go further and argue that employers have a responsibility to take the
lead.

Dr Guevara suggested some achievable first
steps for businesses to take. She said: “Just as people with physical
disabilities are sometimes provided with caregivers to assist with daily
functions, people with non-apparent disabilities should also be provided with
these services.”

Redefining “caregivers” in the workplace as mentors and
advocates would give neurodiverse employees and employers a formalized way to
raise workplace concerns and find mutually beneficial solutions.

Positive signs and small first steps

There are other ripples of hope. Today there
is a lot more awareness generally around employee wellbeing and mental health
in the workplace, This foundational level of engagement should be developed so
that today’s mental health advocates can be upskilled to help support employees
with non-apparent disabilities.

Currently, the cost of these initiatives
falls on the employer. Some major businesses have schemes in place, but small businesses in particular might
not have the financial resources to commit. Government support is needed, and
some governments around the globe are starting to provide incentives for
businesses to recruit, train, retain and support neurodiverse staff. But
governments could and should be doing more.

We have advanced as a society and
in business when it comes to how we treat people, but there is still a long way
to go when it comes to legislation to prevent discrimination in the workplace
based on race, gender, faith and sexual orientation. For physical and
non-apparent disabilities, the gap in status is arguably wider, and government
working with business is the most effective way to close the gap.

Government action on non-apparent disabilities
needs to start happening soon. As Dr Guevara pointed out, non-apparent
disabilities are on the rise post-pandemic as a result of lockdowns, working
from home, increased use of social media and other factors impacting our
collective mental health.

I feel strongly about this topic, for
both personal and professional reasons. Most parents of neurodiverse children
I know are concerned about how the world will treat their offspring as they
mature and enter the world of work. I want to do what I can to help.

And as the CEO of a tech-based company in the
travel industry, I want my business – and those of my peers – to welcome and
encourage the neurodiverse community to be part of our industry. We are
supposed to be championing a world which is diverse, inclusive, and broadens
horizons.  Can we say that we are doing that when there is a significant
group of the population for whom the system is falling short?