The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Conceived and designed the experiments: TL CF. Performed the experiments: TL CF. Analyzed the data: TL CF RC KH. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: TL CF RC KH. Wrote the paper: TL CF RC KH.
The aim of this study was to discover how individuals with autism succeed in entering the job market. We therefore sought to identify expected and occurred barriers, keeping them from taking up and staying in employment as well as to identify the solutions used to overcome these barriers. Sixty-six employed individuals with autism–17 of them with autism-specific employment–participated in an online survey. Results showed a variety of possible barriers. Individuals in autism-specific employment named formality problems–problems with organizational and practical process-related aspects of the job entry–most frequently while individuals in non-autism-specific employment mentioned social problems–obstacles concerning communication and human interaction–most. In terms of solutions, both groups used their own resources as much as external help, but differed in their specific strategies. In addition, correlations of an autism-specific employment with general and occupational self-efficacy as well as life and job satisfaction were examined. Possible implications of the results are discussed with regard to problem solving behavior and the use of strengths.
Autism, from its first mention in the 1940s [
According to the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V), individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (autism) show repetitive behavioral patterns and impairment in communication skills from early childhood on [
Prevalence for Autism Spectrum Condition varies, but it is currently best estimated at 74 out of 10,000 children [
There is no all-embracing statistic as to how many individuals with autism are currently employed. So far, studies have usually assessed employment only in specific groups [
However, research on reasons for the overall low employment rates or success stories of individuals with autism has been limited until now. To our knowledge, no study has been conducted that takes into consideration the ways in which the individuals overcame the barriers they encountered.
A possible explanation for the low employment rate could be barriers during job search, job application, or employment. Based on the outcome of their interviews, Müller, Schuler [
Several forms of employment for individuals with autism have been established. Frequently studied on different levels are competitive employment (regular job without support, non-autism-specific employment), supported employment (competitive employment with support by the employer or an agency, autism-specific employment) and sheltered workshops (long-term placement for individuals with disabilities; see [
Focusing on strengths instead of weaknesses is the central idea of the concept of positive psychology [
In research on people’s behavior towards overcoming job barriers (e.g.[
In neurotypical adults–those who show no divergence in neurological development viz. without autism [
We assume that an autism-specific employment creates a more supportive environment than a non-autism-specific employment. As a result, this support may lead to higher self-efficacy because such employees are supported to experience mastery and receive verbal persuasion, both of which are important sources of self-efficacy [
Life satisfaction is a concept closely associated with subjective well-being [
Overall job satisfaction, as a measure of work-related subjective well-being, evaluates one’s job affectively [
We assume that an autism-specific employment creates a better person-organization and person-environment fit than a non-autism-specific employment. As a result, this fit may lead to a higher life and job satisfaction [
Participants in this study were recruited through autism community forums and through internal communication of the survey in an autism-specific company. Selection criteria for this study were as follows: (1) a formal diagnosis of autism and a score of ≥6 on the Autism Spectrum Quotient Test with 10 items (AQ-10) [
Participants in this study were 66 German individuals with autism (females: 36; males: 29; other: 1).
The participants’ age ranged from 22 to 55 (Mage = 35.96; SDage = 10.22). All participants were employed and their mean for organizational tenure was 4.68 years (SD = 6.55 years). Forty-nine of them were in non-autism-specific employment (females: 36; males: 12; other: 1) and 17 in autism-specific employment (all male). An overview of the occupational fields of all participants can be found in
Classification according to KldB 2010 code | N | % |
---|---|---|
Agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry, and horticulture | 1 | 1.5 |
Production of raw materials | 3 | 4.5 |
Construction, architecture, surveying, and building technology | 2 | 3 |
Natural sciences, geography and computer science | 25 | 38 |
Transportation, logistics, protection and security | 2 | 3 |
Commercial services, retail, sales and distribution, hotels and tourism | 7 | 10.5 |
Business organization, accounting, law and administration | 9 | 13.5 |
Health care, social affairs, and education | 12 | 18 |
Humanities, social sciences, and economic sciences, media, art, culture and design | 5 | 8 |
The survey was administered in German. Participation in this study was completely voluntary including informed consent. All individuals participated via an online survey they could take at a time of their liking. They were informed that their data was obtained and analyzed anonymously and that they could interrupt or stop the survey at any time.
We created a qualitative questionnaire with a total of 28 open-formatted questions. We constructed these questions forming eight thematic blocks about topics that might influence the employment process of individuals with autism. Some of these topics had been introduced previously in interviews with autistic students and adults with work experience [
In each thematic block we asked individuals (1) what problems they expected regarding the particular topic, (2) which problems actually occurred and (3), if applicable, how they had solved these problems. Distinguishing the most important problems from the most frequent ones is fundamental for possible practical implications. Therefore, we asked participants to identify the three problems, which seemed most important to them, naming the most crucial first. An English version of the questionnaire can be found in
Responses were analyzed using inductive category formation in QCAmap by Mayring [
Answers were rated as irrelevant / not codable (1) when they were not comprehensible, e.g. contained only special characters like a question mark or an incomplete word sequence and (2) when they did not contain a response to the question, e.g. did not contain a barrier or a solution, respectively. The irrelevant answers in expected barriers (4%), occurred barriers (2%) and solutions (17%) were excluded from further analysis.
We collected data regarding age, gender (“male”, “female”, and “other” in order to include individuals that did not see themselves in one of the dichotomous categories), current employment, and the tenure in the current job. The current employment was encoded into fields of occupation in accordance with the”Classification of occupations” (Klassifikation der Berufe, [
General self-efficacy was assessed using the General Self-Efficacy Scale developed by Schwarzer and Jerusalem [
Occupational self-efficacy was measured using the Occupational Self-efficacy Scale [
Life satisfaction was measured with a German translation of the Satisfaction with Life Scale [
Job satisfaction was measured with a German translation of three items proposed by Judge, Boudreau [
In addition to the questionnaires, participants completed the following control items:
My quality of life has improved since entering my current employment. (improvement item)
A job is important for my quality of life. (job importance item)
I can use and hone my strengths in my current employment. (strengths item)
Participants assessed their agreement with these statements on a five-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 = “
Due to the small sample size we decided to use Bayesian data analysis instead of traditional frequentist analysis for more reliable results [
In our qualitative content analysis we found three main categories of barriers: social, formality, and job demand problems. Social problems include any obstacle concerning communication and human interaction. Formality problems sum up problems with organizational and practical process-related aspects of the job entry. Job demand problems describe difficulties with meeting specific requirements of an employment.
Regarding solutions, we found two main categories: self-solution and external help. Self-solutions sum up different coping strategies of the individual. Solutions with external help include all approaches where the individual sought support.
Tables
General category | Sub-category | Definition | Response example |
---|---|---|---|
Social problems | colleagues | Interaction with colleagues | „working in a team“ |
communication | General communication; non-personal communication in application process | „misunderstandings in social communication“ | |
customers | Interaction with customers | „clients complained about too little contact” | |
handling the diagnosis | Problems regarding autism-typical behavior and its handling | „prejudices against severe disabilities“ | |
interview | Communication problems in job interviews | „job interviews (unsecure manner, wrong responses to questions)“ | |
mobbing | Mobbing, verbal and physical attacks | „animosities, mobbing, physical violence“ | |
supervisors | Interaction with supervisors | „missing / insufficient personal contact with […] supervisors“ | |
other | Other social situations | „christmas parties, birthdays, etc.“ | |
Formality problems | agencies | External organizations: authorities, non-profit associations, civil service | „no help from the job center“ |
application process | Finding matching job vacancies; creating applications | „mean effort of 7h for one cover letter“ | |
equipment and environment | Work setting and sensory influences with concrete cause | „placement into an open plan office“ | |
work routine | Plans and working structures defined externally; hierarchy | „unclear work instructions“ | |
qualification | Professional suitability; CV | „rejection because of missing job experience“ | |
support | Orientation period and contact person | „not enough guidance” | |
other | Other formal requirements | „age, gender“ | |
Job demand problems | cognitive | Skills; capabilities | „I cannot or barely multitask“ |
stress & psychosomatic | Stress and its emotional and physical consequences | „loneliness, dejectedness, headache, backache“ | |
time-related | Mismatch between personal rhythm and work rhythm | „feeling of no leisure time left because of commuting“ | |
other | Other job demands | „moving into a new city“ |
General category | Sub-category | Definition | Response example |
---|---|---|---|
Self-solutions | acceptance | Showing strength in perseverance | „with a lot of patience“ |
avoidance / resignation | Escaping from / giving up on a situation and suffering from it | „I suffered and held my tongue“ | |
communication | Approaching colleagues or superiors proactively | „Asking further questions until everything is clear“ | |
compensation | Using strengths to compensate | „strengths in other areas“ | |
concealment of diagnosis | Hiding diagnosis; lying about it | „lying with general requirements (flexibility, resilience etc.)“ | |
information about diagnosis | Making the diagnosis an open issue | „I told my supervisor of my diagnosis. He took it well.“ | |
practice / qualification | Intellectual solution in form of trouble-shooting and seeking more information | „application training“ | |
other | Self-solution not otherwise specifiable; compromise; independency; luck | „self-employed, with home office“ | |
External help | external institutions | External organizations: authorities, non-profit associations, civil service | „usage of integrational service“ |
private environment | Family, friends, acquaintances | „my parents helped me“ | |
work environment | Colleagues, superiors | „reduction of working time“ | |
other | Help from others, not otherwise specified | „I had support“ |
Participants gave a total of 242 answers to the question which barriers they expected before entering the job market. For individuals in non-autism-specific employment the most frequent problem fell into the category of social problems of communication (15%), followed by the formality problems of equipment and environment (12%), work routines (10%), application process (10%), and qualification (8%) (see
Question type | General category | Sub-category | N | % | N | % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Barriers | Expected barriers | Occurred barriers | ||||
Social problems | colleagues | 14 | 7 | 19 | 7 | |
communication | 28 | 15 | 43 | 15 | ||
customers | 8 | 4 | 10 | 3 | ||
handling the diagnosis | 9 | 5 | 14 | 5 | ||
interview | 12 | 6 | 14 | 5 | ||
mobbing | 2 | 1 | 11 | 4 | ||
supervisors | 3 | 2 | 8 | 3 | ||
other | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | ||
Formality problems | agencies | 5 | 3 | 6 | 2 | |
application process | 18 | 10 | 21 | 7 | ||
equipment and environment | 23 | 12 | 47 | 16 | ||
qualification | 15 | 8 | 6 | 2 | ||
support | 5 | 3 | 10 | 3 | ||
work routine | 19 | 10 | 38 | 13 | ||
other | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1 | ||
Job demand problems | cognitive | 10 | 5 | 15 | 5 | |
stress & psychosomatic | 8 | 4 | 19 | 7 | ||
time-related | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||
other | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | ||
Used solutions | ||||||
Solutions | Self-solution | acceptance | 27 | 13 | ||
avoidance / resignation | 27 | 13 | ||||
communication | 18 | 9 | ||||
compensation | 4 | 2 | ||||
concealment of diagnosis | 4 | 2 | ||||
information about diagnosis | 9 | 4 | ||||
practice / qualification | 19 | 9 | ||||
other | 27 | 13 | ||||
External help | external institutions | 14 | 7 | |||
private environment | 3 | 1 | ||||
work environment | 46 | 22 | ||||
other | 8 | 4 |
No autism-specific job | Autism-specific job | |
---|---|---|
Expected problems | ||
Social problems | 35% | 22% |
Formality problems | 44% | 50% |
Job demand problems | 21% | 27% |
Occurred problems | ||
Social problems | 35% | 15% |
Formality problems | 44% | 66% |
Job demand problems | 21% | 19% |
Solutions | ||
Self-solution | 51% | 52% |
External help | 49% | 48% |
Question type | General category | Sub-category | N | % | N | % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Barriers | Expected barriers | Occurred barriers | ||||
Social problems | colleagues | 1 | 2 | 6 | 9 | |
communication | 6 | 11 | 4 | 6 | ||
customers | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | ||
handling the diagnosis | 3 | 6 | 2 | 3 | ||
interview | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | ||
mobbing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
supervisors | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | ||
others | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | ||
Formality problems | agencies | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | |
application process | 4 | 8 | 11 | 16 | ||
equipment and environment | 5 | 9 | 12 | 18 | ||
qualification | 12 | 23 | 7 | 10 | ||
support | 1 | 2 | 7 | 10 | ||
work routine | 5 | 9 | 8 | 12 | ||
others | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
Job demand problems | cognitive | 5 | 9 | 4 | 6 | |
stress & psychosomatic | 3 | 6 | 2 | 3 | ||
time-related | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
others | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||
Used solutions | ||||||
Solutions | Self-solution | acceptance | 12 | 21 | ||
avoidance / resignation | 0 | 0 | ||||
communication | 13 | 23 | ||||
compensation | 2 | 4 | ||||
concealment of diagnosis | 0 | 0 | ||||
information about diagnosis | 1 | 2 | ||||
practice / qualification | 7 | 12 | ||||
other | 2 | 4 | ||||
External help | external institutions | 2 | 4 | |||
private environment | 4 | 7 | ||||
work environment | 10 | 18 | ||||
other | 4 | 7 |
Participants named 357 barriers they encountered. The formality problem of equipment and environment was the most common one for individuals without (16%, see
For individuals in non-autism-specific employment the expectations and the occurrence of problems showed the same ratio of general categories (see
NASE | ASE | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
N | % | N | % | |
Occurrence of expected problems | ||||
The expected problems occurred. | 106 | 72 | 27 | 59 |
The expected problems did not occur. | 41 | 28 | 19 | 41 |
Solution of occurred problems | ||||
The occurred problems were solved. | 129 | 55 | 33 | 61 |
The occurred problems were not solved. | 105 | 45 | 21 | 39 |
In total, 263 solutions were named. The most frequent solution in individuals in non-autism-specific employment was external help from the work environment (22%, see
Participants in non-autism-specific jobs rated the social problems as most important to them (43%), followed by formality problems (30%), and job demand problems (27%). These general categories had the same order in the second priority participants rated (50%, 37% and 13%, respectively). Yet in the third priority, formality problems were named most frequently (70%), followed by job demand problems (20%), and then social problems (10%).
Participants in autism-specific employment, however, put higher emphasis on formality problems (60%) than on social problems (40%) in the first priority. In the second priority, this ratio changes to 48% / 52%. Job demand problems are only mentioned as a third priority and are the most frequently named (48%) before formality problems (28%) and social problems (24%).
Results for mean values and standard deviance as well as all bivariate correlations can be found in
male | female | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(1) Gender | N = 29 | N = 36 | ||||||||||
NASE | ASE | |||||||||||
(2) Employment group | N = 49 | N = 17 | - |
1 | ||||||||
(3) Tenure | 4.76 | 6.52 | .07 | -.25 | 1 | |||||||
[-.22;.35] | [-.49;25] | |||||||||||
(4) GSE | 2.22 | 0.58 | -.20 | .28 | -.06 | 1 | ||||||
[-.42;.05] | [.01;.52] | [-.31;.20] | ||||||||||
(5) OSE | 2.32 | 0.67 | -.29 | .24 | .01 | .83 | 1 | |||||
[-.51;.05] | [.01;.47] | [-.24;27] | [.73;.89] | |||||||||
(6) LS | 2.65 | 1.07 | -.09 | .07 | .17 | .44 | .45 | 1 | ||||
[-.35;.14] | [-.17;.32] | [-.10;.42] | [.22;.62] | [.24;.64] | ||||||||
(7) JS |
0.00 | 0.88 | .02 | .00 | .10 | .30 | .38 | .65 | 1 | |||
[-.23;.26] | [-.25;.24] | [-.17;.36] | [.06;.52] | [.16;.58] | [.49;.78] | |||||||
(8) improvement | 3.41 | 1.35 | -.09 | .08 | .01 | .33 | .32 | .38 | .61 | 1 | ||
[-.34;.16] | [-.17;.32] | [-.26;27] | [.09;.54] | [.10;.53] | [.16;.58] | [.44;.76] | ||||||
(9) job importance | 4.11 | 1.23 | -.17 | .18 | -.01 | .41 | .42 | .35 | .23 | .34 | 1 | |
[-.41;.08] | [-.06;43] | [-.28;26] | [.18;.61] | [.20;.62] | [.12;.55] | [-.02;.45] | [.09;.56] | |||||
(10) strengths | 3.39 | 1.40 | -.13 | .16 | .09 | .45 | .48 | .62 | .81 | .60 | .29 | 1 |
[-.37;.11] | [-.08;.39] | [-.17;.35] | [.24;64] | [.27;.66] | [.45;.76] | [.72;.90] | [.42;.75] | [.05;.51] |
a = standardized z-score,
b = left out of data-analysis due to one employment group being an all-male-group.
General self-efficacy was correlated with the employment group (
Correlations of all control items with general self-efficacy, occupational self-efficacy, life satisfaction, job satisfaction, and the other control items were moderate to strong. The strengths item, asking whether personal strengths are used in current employment, showed the highest correlations, namely with general self-efficacy (
The main purpose of this study was to discover successful ways of entering the job market for individuals with autism by identifying barriers they may have faced and solutions they may have used to overcome them. We thereby also sought to examine positive work-related variables that could be of importance in the employment process.
In the first step of our study we identified a wide range of barriers that individuals with autism expected and encountered. Some of them, like filling out job applications, job search, communication and interaction with supervisors had also been reported by Müller, Schuler [
The higher frequency of social problems in non-autism-specific employment and of formality problems in autism-specific employment suggests a difference in the nature of the barriers individuals with autism encounter when entering the job market. The two groups did not just differ in the number of certain problems that occurred but also in how they rated their importance. Individuals with non-autism-specific employment rated social problems as more important than formality problems while the contrary occurred with individuals with autism-specific employment. In that regard, the most frequent problems were also seen as the most important ones. However, even though individuals in autism-specific employment faced more job demand than social problems, they rated job demand problems as less important. This is relevant because it shows that in practice, social problems should not be neglected when they are less frequent.
Our findings suggest that individuals in different types of employment face qualitatively different barriers. Hagner and Cooney [
Regarding solutions, we found different patterns in the two study groups that might provide further ideas for this approach. Individuals in autism-specific employment tended to solve occurring problems less with resignation and more with acceptance, communication, and practice or further qualification. This is interesting because impairment in communication is a core symptom of Autism Spectrum Condition [
Communication, as well as the self-solutions acceptance and practice/qualification, matches the description of active coping given by Carver, Scheier [
The second part of our study focused on positive correlates of employment and the type of employment in individuals with autism. Concerning the relation of employment groups with general and occupational self-efficacy, our results showed small correlations and medium effects between autism-specific employment and general and occupational self-efficacy.
These differences in self-efficacies between individuals with and without autism-specific employment could have been found for several reasons. A possible explanation might be that self-efficacy is an effect resulting from employment in an autism-specific company. Its system of on-the-job support might create a protected environment in which employees are fostered and experience mastery. It has been suggested that self-efficacy is influenced by past experiences of mastering a situation and external appraisal [
Furthermore, one could hypothesize that job demands in the autism-specific company, located in the IT sector, were particularly high, thus attracting only individuals already seeing themselves as very self-efficient. At the same time, the autism-specific company aims at employing individuals with autism based on their strengths while being a regular competitive business. When their selection procedures are highly demanding and based on testing for relevant strengths, it is possible that the selected employees are those with highest cognitive capacities and also highest self-efficacies.
Our finding of a correlation between occupational self-efficacy and gender could serve as another explanation for the group differences, since only males were in autism-specific employment. This distribution over the groups might be due to a generally higher interest in STEM subjects and jobs in males reported for neurotypical adults [
However, the implications of the gender distribution for our findings have to be discussed. There have been reports of higher general self-efficacy in neurotypical males compared to females, but these effects were small or statistically not significant [
For the higher occupational self-efficacy in individuals in autism-specific employment we argue that the occupational field of this group as well as the gender might be responsible because neurotypical males show higher task-specific self-efficacy in tasks involving IT and computers [
In our comparison of qualitative and quantitative results we saw that self-efficacy could also be linked to coping behavior. Jex, Bliese [
However, even though our results indicated that participants in autism-specific employment showed higher general self-efficacy than those in non-autism-specific employment, it is still important to note that general self-efficacy is more than one standard deviation below the mean of neurotypical adults [M = 29.59, SD = 5.29, N = 18,000, based on the dataset of [
Factors influencing self-efficacy may be within individuals’ control or outside of it [
As stated earlier, mastery of past experiences and external appraisal are potential antecedents of self-efficacy [
General self-efficacy’s positive relation with job performance [
While our results showed moderate to strong correlations of life and job satisfaction with general and occupational self-efficacy, respectively, employment groups only differed in both self-efficacies, but not in satisfaction. We argue that this is due to the high amount of problems in both groups, leading to a similar level of satisfaction. At the same time, even though the employment groups reported different types of occurred problems (i.e. more social or formality problems), their life and job satisfaction did not differ. Thus, quality of barriers may not influence satisfaction measures. What might influence satisfaction measures is one’s personal evaluation of whether a job is important for one’s quality of life (job importance item). We found that participants who evaluated their job as important for their quality of life had higher life satisfaction but not job satisfaction. Emphasizing a job when evaluating quality of life may sensitize individuals with autism and trigger demands towards their job. Further research is needed to address possible implications of this finding on the employment of individuals with autism.
In sum, the two groups of individuals with and without autism-specific employment showed differences in quality of occurred barriers, quality of coping strategies, levels of general and occupational self-efficacy, but not in life or job satisfaction. Based on these findings we proposed a more customized approach to successfully employ individuals with autism. Employment should be based on their needs and their resources. Our results should encourage individuals with autism, employers and support workers alike to focus on strengths and solutions instead of deficits. While we find it important to address specific problems and barriers that occur, we think that strengths should be identified and fostered at the same time. This is crucial to our approach of positive organizational psychology and could not only facilitate concrete problem solving, but also enhance self-efficacy.
However, before designing practical applications, the next aim must be to investigate barriers and solutions quantitatively in order to assess their relations to coping strategies, self-efficacies as well as life and job satisfaction. We are positive that the present study is one step towards a better understanding of possible employment and well-being for individuals with autism.
The results of this study should be interpreted with the following limitations in mind. First, the participants were recruited and participated online. Therefore, the study may have only reached certain individuals and lack generalizability. According to Gosling, Vazire [
The male/female ratio in the study was 0.8:1. This is contrary to the male/female ratio in the overall population of individuals with autism, currently estimated as 4.4:1 [
The participants in the non-autism-specific employment sample were not diagnosed by means of a singular diagnostic method. Instead, they were asked to provide information about their autism diagnosis. Because of the strong variation within the diagnostic process, we had to rely upon the participants' self-reported data of an existing diagnosis.
This study is in accordance with the APA ethical principles regarding research with human participants. This study does not involve any conflict of ethics, since no clinical intervention was performed. Neither were blood or tissue samples taken for study purposes.
Participants were informed before participating that their responses would be treated confidentially and anonymously and that all data would be analyzed in a generalized manner so that no conclusions could be drawn about individual persons. The participants were informed that they would give their consent by proceeding past the welcome page of the online survey. This procedure is in accordance with the Freie Universität Berlin ethics committee’s guidelines. There was no contact between researchers and participants. Participation in this study was completely voluntary. This study was approved by the ethics committee of Freie Universität Berlin ID 101/2015.
(DOCX)
(XLSX)