Hala Annabi, an associate professor in the University of Washington Information School, originally authored the Autism@Work Playbook in 2019 in partnership with several leading private employers with the goal of increasing employment opportunities for neurodivergent people. Today she is releasing another version, the Neurodiversity@Work Playbook Federal Edition, in tandem with Melwood, a non-profit supporting employment of neurodivergent and disabled people; and Mitre, a non-profit R&D organization. We asked her about the impetus and potential impact of this edition.

How did this version of the playbook come about?

A: The first federal initiative (The Neurodiverse Federal Workforce Pilot) started at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency in 2021 in collaboration with Mitre and Melwood. In their work, they turned to the Autism@Work Playbook we released in 2019, but the playbook wasn't contextualized in federal practices. The Neurodiverse Federal Workforce (NFW) Advisory Team started asking, “How can we contextualize this into the federal space and learn from that?” The NFW Advisory Team included SAP’s Jose Velasco from the original playbook, who asked if I would be interested in developing a playbook for the federal space. Of course, I said yes! 

How and where will this playbook be distributed?

A: This is going to be distributed initially through my research group, the University of Washington Initiative for Neurodiversity and Employment; Melwood; and Mitre. Both organizations are federal contractors. The plan is that our key collaborators who were involved in our interviews and focus groups from across various federal agencies will also distribute and link to this edition.

What's different about partnering with federal government and their contractors and producing this version?

A: I would say there were three key differences. First, I had to ride a steep learning curve about federal guidelines and policies. Even before thinking about the practices, we had to identify all the relevant rules, guidelines, mandates and directives in place that initiatives can leverage or must adhere to. 

Second, this process took a lot longer. This was partly because it takes time to convene folks from across federal agencies and get approval for interviews and focus groups, and partly because we had limited resources until Melwood’s generous support mid-2023. 

Lastly, we only had a small number of agencies that have piloted initiatives, and they were within the intelligence realm. So we had to consider actual experiences and think through and imagine how practices may have to be considered differently across types of agencies outside the intelligence realm — which have different hiring authorities. We also had to make sure our practices were most current; this is where Beyond-Impact, Neurodiversity in the Workplace, and Potentia Workforce added tremendous value helping us draw from their experience across so many in the private sector. 

What motivations are there for agencies to be neuroinclusive? 

A: First, agencies are required to provide equal employment opportunities. There are several federal directives and executive orders that require or encourage all federal agencies to strive to be a model employer that represents the diversity of the U.S. population. There are also executive orders that encourage and mechanisms that enable agencies to design inclusive practices that make it possible to identify and hire neurodivergent people to meet mission-critical roles across agencies. This is outlined in Chapter 1 of the Neurodiversity@Work Playbook, Federal Edition. 

Second, beyond mandates and directives, having a neurodiverse workforce that represents and pulls from the talents of both neurodivergent and neurotypical people is essential to meet the federal government workforce needs. There are misconceptions about what neurodiversity initiatives are and whether they are “legal” or not, considering recent rulings and the political environment surrounding DEI work. Neurodiversity initiatives are not only critical to providing equal opportunity, they are also critical to meeting the demand for and leveraging talent. Diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives are often framed heavily in the context of social impact and social justice. While that is important, the business case for why DEI work and neurodiversity work is essential to overall organizational performance and overall workplace culture and engagement is often undercommunicated, underemphasized and underestimated.

It's important to make the business case for neurodiversity in the workplace. Research suggests the cognitive diversity of your workforce leads to creativity, better problem solving, and overall productivity. Research also suggests that neuroinclusive managerial and hiring practices are also contributing to organizational effectiveness and overall employee engagement. Neurodivergent talent is just as important as any other talent group. To leverage neurodistinct talent, organizations must be intentional about providing support and flexibility, though. There is sometimes the misconception and false expectation that we are going to hire neurodivergent people who are all savants who will do things 100 times better than their neurotypical counterparts. These misconceptions are harmful and create false expectation. Neurodivergent people, like all other people, have a diversity of talents and interests AND a diversity of needs. They can be successful if the workplace is designed in ways that empower them to leverage those talents. We cannot just hire employees who may have different needs and experiences expecting them to assimilate to neuronormative expectations.

What key problem will this playbook solve?

A: We designed this playbook to empower leaders and champions of the neurodiversity movement to create neuroinclusive employment practices across federal agencies. We did our best to synthesize our learning in an emerging and dynamic area of practice. It is not perfect, and I am sure we missed or did not account for everything. Creating more opportunities for neuroinclusion will address the needs of the community and federal agencies. Here are a few challenges and opportunities we can expect to address. 

• Number one is hopefully lowering barriers to employment for neurodivergent people in federal agencies. This could have a tremendous impact on this community.   
• Number two is that the federal government workforce is getting older, and many positions remain vacant, specifically in talent areas like cybersecurity. This is one way to address the aging of the federal workforce and the talent shortage experienced by federal agencies. 
• Number three, the federal government is falling behind other nations in becoming a model employer. With 20 percent of your population being neurodivergent, you must consider being a neuroinclusive employer to reach that goal. 
• Number four, neuroinclusive practices align with broader talent management trends. The neuroinclusion framework can lead to much-needed innovation in work design and talent management practices that benefit all employees. 

The bottom line is that we hope that through this edition of the Playbook, we provide a framework for federal agencies to develop neuroinclusive practices that create employment opportunities for the neurodivergent community that has long been underserved and overlooked. Doing so also improves overall workplace productivity and culture because neuroinclusive practices are good work practices. 

What potential impact do you think this playbook could have?

A: The federal government is the largest employer in the U.S. Imagine creating effective pathways and several employment models that work. If we continue to build models and pathways within the largest employer and adapt them across all federal agencies, imagine the potential for employment opportunities. So that's one. It can open doors for employing this grossly underserved community of neurodivergent people. 

If our largest employer is neuroinclusive, this means it is actually a better place to work for everybody because neuroinclusive practices are good practices for everyone. So, isn't it our responsibility as a government to be a model employer? If your government is not the model employer, who is?