I was made redundant five months ago and I still don't have a job. Why? because most recruitment processes are not neuro-inclusive...

Since sitting in a redundancy meeting and hearing the words, "we have decided to make your role redundant," I have been job hunting. Scrolling job sites. Updating my CV. Making sure my portfolio is the best it can be. I naively thought, I wouldn't have this much of a problem finding a role that feels right for me. I have way more experience than I did two years ago, my portfolio demonstrates what I can do and even includes publishing a book (how many people can say that?!) and I have a few supportive former colleagues who have read through applications, offered advice over the phone and have generally been a lovely bunch. I thought I'm in a much better position than a lot of people, despite the devastating redundancy news and was thankful for that. My profession, communications can also be done entirely remotely. As long as I have a laptop and an internet connection, I can work from anywhere. I assumed this was an advantage and would open up a pool of opportunities further afield, that perviously to remote working becoming more accepted would have been inaccessible to me. But why won't anyone employ me?

So far I have applied for 16 jobs and had five interviews. I've spent days filling out application forms, tailoring every covering letter to the job description and sharing examples to demonstrate why I have the skills, knowledge, and experience required. The one thing I want more than anything in the world is a job and to have colleagues again. I miss the morning chats, the traveling to events and keeping everyone accountable through shared to-do lists on Notion. I miss having a PDP and knowing what I have to work towards next. I miss the structure and routine a working day provides.

As I've continued my hunt for a job and a team where I can feel valued and safe in again, I've realised one of the biggest barriers I currently face is that the interview and recruitment process really isn't inclusive if you have a neurodivergent brain. So many employers have whole pages on their website dedicated to equity, diversity and inclusion, it's becoming a new buzzword for HR, yet very few actually practice what they preach. I shouldn't feel overwhelmed during an interview with an organisation whose comms suggests the opposite should happen. I shouldn't feel that I have to disclose in order to get some of my most basic needs met. One of the first conversations I have with a potential employer shouldn't be about my medical history.

Being suddenly back in the middle of job hunting, after writing a book about neurodiversity in the workplace, makes me even more determined to change this unfair and discriminatory system. I want to share with you why as a reasonably well educated white woman, I've found this process incredibly difficult and draining. So if I'm struggling, what about people with more disadvantage than me? Who is being their cheer leader? I want to highlight ways I've found recruitment processes to be unfair, exclusive and discriminatory. And the learning that organisations can do to explore more creative methods of recruitment, to ensure a fair and more compassionate experience for job seekers.

So, what barriers do I and many other neurodivergent job seekers face?

Unclear job adverts

This sounds really basic, but several jobs that I've been interviewed for had unclear adverts and job descriptions. Before you begin writing a job spec, consider what you really need and why. Can you keep it concise and to the point? I've lost count of times when I've read a job description that repeats itself by saying the same thing in a different way. Think about the skills you needs and why, don't ask for drivers unless you're recruiting for a bus driver, think about how language may be discriminatory of neurodivergent brains, "excellent interpersonal skills" - what does this mean exactly? Do you need someone with "great organisation skills" - or are you going to offer support, tools and strategies to build on the organisation needed to do the job. Think about if the job advertised can really be done in the hours you allow, is a management role really possible in three days a week? Are you trying to cram three full time jobs into one, as I've seen in communications roles, employers expect you to be great at everything. When really, expectations to be an all rounder has disadvantaged ADHD, dyspraxic, or autistic people for years through school, don't make it a barrier in the workplace too. And finally be clear about your location, if you are hybrid but have a minimum of 2-3 days in an office please say so. Don't advertise as fully remote unless you can accommodate this. And clarify what you mean by 'flexibility' - if you (for whatever reason, and if you are advertising communications roles I can't think of a reason) will not consider remote workers, please say so in the advert. In knowing these simple things, it will save neurodivergent people so much time and emotional energy writing application forms, as it helps to decide which roles will be worth applying for and to understand where your neurodivergent brain will be most included and valued. A red flag for me is when organisations who don't accept working remotely, as if they can't meet this basic need which supports how I work best, what other ways are they going to be discriminatory and demonstrate lack of inclusive practice?

Lack of clarity about the interview process

Recently I went for an interview, and was not told it was a two stage interview until the end. And that interview if I was successful would be in person in London. There was no interview process indicated on the job advert and had I known a second interview would take place in London which involves a 3.5 hour train journey and traveling on the tube in rush hour, I would have re-considered using some of my currently limited spoons to apply. In comparison, adverts that are more inclusive set out the whole interview process, sharing clearly how many stages there will be and what to expect from each stage. Good adverts will also set out dates, starting with the closing date, and then when to expect to hear if you've been shortlisted, and then a period when they plan to hold the interviews. They will also be clear about the format, whether it will be online or in person, and if there will be a presentation or task involved. This helps with processing what's next, and planning next parts of the process.

Not offering questions in advance as standard practice

I have written a lot about systemic inclusion and universal design, and how simple changes to practices and policy can have a big impact on how included and supported a neurodivergent person feels. One thing that I can speak on for days to anyone who will listen, is the importance of providing interview questions in advance to all candidates. It shouldn't be a reasonable adjustment, and you certainly shouldn't be forced into disclosure to have this basic need met. Having the questions in advance won't affect the skills or experience a candidate already has, it means that everyone has the time they need to process the question, understand what it's asking and to formulate an answer that demonstrates what they can bring to the team in the best way. Out of the five interviews I've had, one organisation provided the questions as standard practice, and I had to ask for the questions from three. One of those three hesitated giving me the questions, and suggested I could be given them 15 minutes before like other candidates to read, which really missed the point of why I might need the questions in advance of an interview (well more in advance than 15 minutes.) Until they eventually sent over the questions 12 hours before my interview time. In my most recent interview, I didn't ask for the questions. My own internalised stigma made me believe that asking for the questions previously might have been a disadvantage, and had influenced not being offered a job. I also wanted to see how I would do without the questions, for a tiny moment I wanted to be like everyone else. I didn't want something extra to be able to fit in. I didn't want people to decide that I can't do a job because I can't answer a series of questions on the spot. I am tired of having to fight for what I need all the time, and wish I could have a day when I don't need these things. A day when I'm not different. You see? Even after writing a book about inclusion, the voice at the back of your brain fuelled by internalised stigma can still lie to you. You will still fall for those lies and believe them to be true. I quickly realised why I need those questions in advance; in the interviews when they were provided I was confident, I knew what examples to use and I could speak with passion and clarity. As the question was being asked verbally, I could read it. This helps with processing and gives me time to organise my thoughts. I did not spend time trying to think of examples on the spot, whilst also trying to decode what the question is asking. I had enough time to process the information and organise my thoughts. In comparison, the time I didn't have the questions was the worst interview I've had so far during this process following redundancy. I struggled to process, and had nothing to read to help me focus. I stumbled over words, forgot what the interviewer had just said and couldn't find the best examples. I generally have a good idea if an interview had gone well, but came away from that one knowing it was terrible, and there were ways I could have been supported to be my best. I know I can do the work, my portfolio speaks to what I can do, but when your whole worth and value is being judge by how well you answer a question, can you see how many neurodivergent folk just don't stand a chance? We're being set up to fail by interview procedures that have been around for years, that aren't fit for purpose to practice true inclusion and enable more talented neurodivergent folk to join your team.

Not writing questions in the chat box to help with processing

Similar my thoughts above, writing questions in the chat box or using closed captions is an easy way to practice inclusion, and something everyone should do. Some of my interviews did do that, and being able to read something alongside listening to it verbally really helps with processing information and remembering what the interviewer just asked. Similarly, my previous line manager would also highlight key information in the chat box during meetings. It's a practice that is easy, doesn't cost anything, and can mean the difference between someone feeling overwhelmed or confident and focused.

Asking too broad questions

In a recent interview I was asked: "how do you meet requirements of the job description? The job description is massive, and as I answered I worried that I would be marked down for missing out some of the criteria. I rambled. Trying to use key words from the job spec, and find appropriate examples. Broad and open questions are not great for neurodivergent brains to both process and understand what you're really asking. If a question is too broad, I often worry that I'm speaking too much, but similarly want to be able to share enough to demonstrate I meet the requirements of the job. In your questions rather than being broad, consider how you can be more specific, so instead of "Can you tell me about yourself?" Or "What skills do you have for the job" - think about individual elements of the role and how these can used to ask scenario based questions. So, for example "Can you tell me about a time when..." Or "What methods would you follow to complete this task..." I find it easier to focus on what a question is asking when they are more specific, direct, and structured, alongside honing in on specific examples. If I am asked about a process I follow to complete a newsletter for example, I am very clearly able to describe what I do, who I speak to and why. It's a step by step process and I'm able to easily keep track of what I've said and what comes next. Similarly with questions about specific parts of the role that require examples, I am able to recognise which projects or pieces of work to mention where I demonstrate I have that skill, and I'm able to narrow down my answer because I'm now thinking about a small part of my job, rather than everything I've ever done to show I meet all of the criteria. Small steps and stages are inclusive, and results in answering interview questions in a clearer and more structured way, with less overwhelm.

Asking questions with two parts

Two part questions are challenging to both process and remember, and should not be used in any formal interview situations. When I was training as a journalist, I was taught that it's bad practice to ask two part questions, and employers should really learn this too. If you can't formulate a question to give you all of the information you need, make it into two separate questions. Once I didn't get a job because I didn't answer the second part of a question. I didn't know there was a second part. It's the interviewers responsibility to prompt to get the information they need and ask follow up questions to gather information the interviewee may have forgotten about. My short term memory often means I forget what someone has just asked me, unless it is reinforced again, I have the opportunity to play back what I think have just heard or I am able to see it written down. Similarly with verbal instructions, if you give me five things to do, I'm likely to only remember the first one or two. This isn't because I'm lazy, disinterested or unmotivated; in fact the complete opposite, it's because I have a neurodevelopmental disorder which affects the way my neurotransmitters send information to my brain, impacting concentration, focus, attention and impulsivity. I did not forget that second part of the question because I was not paying attention, believe me, I was using all of my energy to focus on your every word, in the same way my cats maintain focus on a fly. But no matter how hard we try, doesn't always mean we can do the thing. The cats don't always catch the fly, it sometimes gets away too.

Geographical inequality of hybrid roles

In a recent job interview I was informed that I would be required to spend some time every week in their office in London, and was asked if it would be a problem. It didn't mention anywhere on the advert that there was a requirement for this. And this was for a communications role that can be done anywhere. I can understand every few months attending in person staff meetings or events, but traveling to an office to do exactly the same as I would do at home, just at a different desk and with more distractions and sensory overload, just makes no sense. Roles like this exclude everyone who isn't a reasonable commute from London, and are essentially biassed against northerners. This is before even considering that being forced into regular office working is not inclusive of neurodivergent folk.

There is so much geographical inequality when job hunting, with where you live dictating your opportunities and prospects. There are many more vacancies in London and Southern England than there are in Northern regions, especially in communications, with many charities still choosing to operate big offices down south rather than in more northern or central locations. Or giving up the big fancy office completely and going completely remote. When big organisations don't consider home working as an option, they miss out on so much possible talent, alongside learning from new experiences. Geographical inequality means we're locked out of progression and better career prospects because of where we live. One question in a recent interview asked about why diversity in comms is important. They are concerned about representation of the people they support as a charity, yet they expect regular London working, which will result in less diversity and representation of people from all communities in their staff team. How does that make sense? If you're a manager or employer, please consider if you really need your employees in the office, and why you can't explore more home-working. I've worked from home for the last two years, and was able to build some really good relationships with colleagues, alongside getting things done to produce some great quality work. It is possible. There are very few opportunities in the North East as it is, please don’t make that pool smaller because we are unable to commute to you several times a week. My geography shouldn’t mean I can’t be given a chance too, especially when communications can be done anywhere without the need to be in person all of the time.

Having in person interviews and not paying for travel/accommodation

One was my recent interviews was in person, and with the benefit of hindsight I wish I'd asked if it could take place online. Everything I did in person could have been done on Zoom or Teams. I also had the added stress of traveling to a new place and making sure I get there on time. To accommodate my travel anxiety I needed to book accommodation near the venue for the night before, alongside paying my train fare. I am now left out of pocket because of these expenses, which is a lot when your income has suddenly dropped to £90 a week on jobseekers allowance. If you want to hold in person interviews, the least you can do is pay travel and accommodation. And consider if meeting in person is even necessary. Going forward I've decided not to apply for jobs that expect in person interviews, (unless it is a bus ride away), just to receive a generic rejection email two weeks later. My wellbeing is worth more than using up spoons and time traveling to meet people who aren't going to appreciate my value.

Not offering a choice of interview times

Again, something easy to implement. I've done better when I've been able to choose the interview time, as I know when my brain works best. I take ADHD medication, and I know it's most efficient morning - mid afternoon, and interviews planned during this time mean that I can be at my best to demonstrate my ability to do the job. In a recent interview, I was given a time of 4pm, which also coincides with when my meds begin to wear off. This is exactly what happened right in the middle of my interview and resulted in a meds crash, I stumbled over words, couldn't process anything or focus on what I needed to say, I also suddenly felt drained, which isn't great in the middle of a situation when your primary aim is to sell yourself. I wanted to run away from the screen because I knew I was performing badly, and could hardly say "Sorry, my medication wears off at this time and I don't know what I'm saying anymore." It was horrendous and I don't want that to ever happen again. To avoid similar situations, please offer candidates a choice of times to ensure they are able to be interviewed when they work best.

Rejecting someone on something not in the job description

This happened to me recently, and I assume, was as a result of the organisation not properly thinking through the role and the type of person the needed for their team, which resulted in them re-advertising a few weeks later. If you want experience or knowledge within a specific organisation or specialism, please make that clear. And don't reject someone based on criteria they know nothing about or put them through an interview process that includes a task and presentation, when from their application you will know that they don't have what you want. If this was made clear in the job advert, I would have never applied for the job because I know I don't have that experience, and this would again save spoons, time and energy.

Automated, generic rejection emails following interviews and not automatically providing feedback

I have had to wait days sometimes weeks to hear back from employers I've interviewed for, and often when I do hear, I receive a generic rejection email that is clearly written using AI and sent to everyone. When someone spends a lot of emotional energy applying for your job and meeting you at interview, the least you can do is send a personalised email with feedback. And not a generic email from HR, who's never even met the applicant. They may be candidates to you, but there are real people behind those application forms. Neurodivergent people particularly find rejection difficult, and constant rejections as is the norm when job hunting can be traumatic. A little bit of compassion, empathy and understanding when delivering that rejection can go a long way to support ND folk to learn from that experience, and put it into practice next time. And please don't send standard rejection emails from a HR no-reply email. I haven't been able to request feedback from one job which compounds the rejection sensitive dysphoria more.

Long interview processes with no breaks

A lot of my interviews have involved a panel, presentation and task, and ended up being over 2 hours. This is a long time to focus, especially in a high pressured situation. If I was working from home, I would get up and move around when I need to so I can maintain focus. In an interview this is not possible, unless breaks are factored into the schedule. Please consider a break during long interviews, and if some elements can be completed separately to the main interview, for example can a task be emailed prior to the interview rather than being completed on the interview day? I've always felt so much better when I've been able to complete a task beforehand.

Forcing disclosure before someone feels ready through 'reasonable adjustments' that could be standard practices

I say this a lot, but saying you offer reasonable adjustments and forcing someone to disclose before they feel ready or even meet you is not inclusion. To request a reasonable adjustment you have to say you have a disability, which can be difficult when people have experienced a lifetime of discrimination and judgements because of their differences. I feel strongly that most 'reasonable adjustments' should be offered to everyone, for example interview questions in advance, completing a test separately to the interview time, offering online interviews instead of in person, writing questions in the chat box, allowing adequate time to answer the question and prompting when needed. These are all things that cost the organisation no money, and should be provided across the board. Being neuro-inclusive means that people don't have to ask for anything different to standard practices already in an organisation.

Noisy interview environment

I can't believe I have to write this but this happened to me very recently so I thought I should share. When I turned up to an in person interview, there was building work going on in the hotel where they'd hired a room. You could argue this wasn't their fault, but on checking the hotel website myself before traveling, I could see clearly they currently had building work. The organisation would have seen this too when booking the venue. I had some time to prepare just before I went in for my interview, which was spent in sensory hell with work people clattering and banging around me. Not exactly the calming and restful environment before walking into an interview, which was made worse as the charity I was interviewing for supported disabled people. So, if you are booking external venues to meet people in person, please check it is an appropriate environment to hold an interview, and if not, consider holding online instead.

Asking people to speed up their answers when another candidate is waiting

In a recent interview, I was asked to speed up because they had to see another candidate. This made me stumble over my words and being unable to share all the examples I wanted to. It also through me a bit, and I was conscious I was being judged as saying too much. I also felt that the interviewers were now not interested in what I had to say as they were focused on the next candidate. In that environment, of course someone isn't going to perform at their best. Subsequently, my feedback highlighted things that I could have mentioned to score more points, but if I hadn't been asked to speed up, those things would have been mentioned. It certainly didn't demonstrate that I was unable to do then job.

Taking weeks to respond or not keeping people updated following interviews

Being interviewed, when your value and worth is being judged by a very specific criteria is emotionally draining, and especially when people don't get back to you or keep you updated following an interview. The most I've had to wait to receive a rejection is over two weeks, and during that time I've watched my phone like a hawk, constantly checking it and panicking if I've somehow missed a call or accidentally deleted an email. I take my phone to the shower, hold onto it in my pocket when I'm out and keep it next to me when I'm eating. If you're taking longer than expected to make a decision please keep people updated. Don't say you'll be in touch by Friday, and then take two weeks. This approach and lack of care towards the candidates emotions will only increase anxiety.

Judging your abilities solely on scoring against criteria on the job description at the interview, and not on a portfolio or other evidence

And finally, outdated interview processes mean that my abilities, talents and skills to do the job are judged on one interview with a criteria I'm scored against. Especially for ND folk or anyone who is having a bad day or going through a difficult time, this is an unfair reflection of what someone can do. In the creative industries, people often have a portfolio to show examples of their work, I also have a book to demonstrate my written ability. So far, in the period I've been unemployed, only one employer has asked for a link to my portfolio. As an employer it's important to consider alternative, or even 'out of the box' ways to ensure you get the best out of candidates and can truly understand their ability and value away from a rigid criteria. I'm fortunate that my career allows me to be able to physically show people what I can do, and I recognise for other professions this may be more difficult. But there are ways to be more creative with the recruitment process, away from a traditional interview format that doesn't always demonstrate the best of someone's abilities.

Applying for jobs when I have the experience I currently do at the age of 35, shouldn't be about jumping through this many hoops, with endless rounds of interviews, rejections that lack compassion and employers who shout about inclusion but demonstrate the opposite. I'm very careful to apply to organisations now who have a good ethos around equity, diversity and inclusion, yet everywhere I've interviewed for so far, there have been elements of the interview process that hasn't been inclusive. It's draining and degrading to be on the hunt for someone to value you again.

There are so many easy ways organisations can include neurodivergent folk throughout a recruitment process and beyond, yet from my experience so far many employers are miles away from the mark, they're singing from a completely different book on another planet.

Why do I campaign for neurodivergent inclusion in the workplace? Look no further.

#redundancy #redundancies #ADHD #neurodiversity #neurodivergence #NeurodiversityInTheWorkplace #hr#humanresources #management #PsychologicalSafety #MentalHealth #Inclusion #Diversity #Equity #wellbeing #jobloss#disability #autism #dyspraxia #PeopleandCulture #WorkplaceCulture #belonging #support #team #leadership #career#jobsearch #LineManager #SeniorManager #unemployment #jobhunting #interviews #rejections