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?