As co-chair, and one of the founders of GAIN, I am really thrilled to see the progress that is being made, in the insurance and investment sectors of financial services, in willingness to understand and make significant changes to radically improve the employment prospects of neurodivergent people.
Major businesses, from Aviva to Zurich – and most letters of the alphabet in between - have, we are delighted to say, joined GAIN as Corporate members and are working hard to make the adjustments which will enable them to benefit more, from the too often untapped, or under-tapped, talents of neurodivergent people, and for those people to have the careers which their talents should enable.
It is really gratifying to see my industry sector taking the lead, when sadly, it tends only to be in the public eye when something goes wrong (a small percentage, but, as a journalist once said to me, “when did you last read a headline that said, ‘Jet lands safely at Heathrow’, Laurie?”).
So I am lucky enough to spend most of my time with people who are more and more on board with GAIN’s ambition, to make a much better match between the talent needs – and the talent gaps – of my industry and the talents and attributes of neurodivergent people.
Compared with how things were back 2 or 3 years ago, when GAIN and its mission were being conceived, the level of interest and appreciation of the issue, and the opportunities that arise from addressing it, have increased hugely. Not just in our sector, but generally. So it would be easy to think, ‘there really has been a quantum change’.
But although there is the scent of real change in the air, I don’t think it would be right to think, ‘job done’. This was brought home to me recently when, as I inevitably watch for headlines concerning neurodiversity, one popped up – from the Daily Telegraph – about an autistic NHS doctor who had won a disability discrimination claim after his boss told him, minutes after he had told her of his autism diagnosis, that needed to meet colleagues face to face, and to avoid ‘winding them up’. The tribunal found that although his boss was trying to comfort and encourage him, the severity of his condition had been ‘minimised’ and the lifelong nature of the struggles he had faced had been disregarded. After that conversation, he ended up, after a protracted period of sickness absence, leaving shortly after his return to work.
I was encouraged by the tribunal having found for him.
And then I read the comments on the article.
It provoked quite a few. In the on line edition now, there are 56 comments shown in full. Of these, 42 are critical – often strongly so – of the tribunal supporting the doctor. Only 7 were supportive, with the rest neither one thing nor the other. In the edition of the Telegraph on the day of publication, there were another batch of comments, with a similar mix.
But it wasn’t the numbers – overwhelmingly antipathetic as they are – which really struck me. It was the vitriolic nature of many of them. Here are a few:
If this doctor’s condition is so severe, how come he’s being let loose on patients?
The surgeon couldn’t talk to colleagues face to face, but was able to represent himself in court for 26 days. How did he manage that, then?
So he can’t do the job, then.
Not fit for purpose, how can he possibly do the job?
Once she knew of the diagnosis, the medical director should have immediately put him on leave and referred him to HR for assessment.
If you can’t do the job, you can’t. We need to stop pandering to this kind of crap.
A typical example of what this country has become. Too many over sensitive people chasing money.
If you can’t/don’t want to do the job, you shouldn’t get the money, more pandering to a chancer.
Total sham by an employee who can’t or won’t do the job he is paid for. No wonder the NHS is in financial trouble.
If he can’t do that, then sack him, he has no business in that job.
Those on the spectrum can be very sure of themselves.
Lots of NHS employees have found the groovy (sic) train. As it is difficult to disprove. Anyone can be dyslexic and come up with the symptoms.
Lazy, antisocial, obnoxious chancer….. Bingo! The shield and sword of the indolent, Autism – the ace card of ‘victims’ everywhere when they’re called out. Utter rubbish.
‘Mental health issues’ is the current skiver’s weapon of choice.
What a ruddy farce. The judges are on the spectrum with such decisions.
And many more………
There were some supportive comments, too:
My experience of people with his condition is that they are 100% focussed on their job, rather than 70% like the rest of us who crave social interaction.
If that is how a doctor with autism was treated by his colleagues, there doesn’t seem to be much hope for the patients.
This doctor has overcome his disability in managing to train and qualify as a doctor, well done to him. The NHS should be championing his achievement, instead they try to reduce him to just another team member.
The comments so far are shocking, in the same way I’m not bothered about people skills from a pilot….the same for a sugeon. I want competency, not niceness.
·And a few more…….
However, these were hugely outweighed by the negative reactions.
When you spend – as I am lucky enough to – most of my time with people who acknowledging neurodiversity as a given, it can be easy to believe that there is a positive shift in our collective point of view, or at least it is not far off.
Comments, like those above, are a salutary reminder that there is still a long way to go.
Laurie Edmans CBE, Founder of GAIN
