Job interviews and disclosure of Asperger's

Post Reply New Topic

I want to share my experience with disclosing Asperger's in job interviews and I want to hear about how some of my fellow Aspies have handled this issue and the success or lack thereof that you have had.

No matter how good I am at acting "normal" I never seem to make enough eye contact and I can't seem to completely avoid being a little awkward. I thought I was good at interviews after getting two awesome offers that I had to choose between. The person who made the decision for those two offers knew I had Asperger's because I told them in the interview.

Recently I went through over a dozen interviews and only succeeded in one but that success only got me to the next round of interviews and I never got an offer. I didn't succeed in all of the interviews that I didn't disclose to the interviewer that I have Asperger's. The one interview I did succeed in I disclosed to the interviewer that I have Asperger's. The other two interviews (that I failed) were final interviews that involved separate interviews with multiple people--in each one I disclosed that I had Asperger's to only one interviewer.

i mentioned once at a interview that i had aspergers, but since then i never brought it up because i dont want them to feel like i cant do a job because of it. i want them to know me for me and not for aspergers.

I have a procedure of disclosing between 6 months to a year into the job, never at the interview. If I notice that they start shunning after the disclosure happens, I exit stage left before they fire me so that my resume is clean for the next time. Also try to work twice as hard for half the pay of others, again it's the strategy once employed by women and minorities in the 1950s.

Being "crazy" is not viewed on the same playing field as being black, gay or having one leg. Maybe it is legally, but there are bona fide occupational requirement issues sometimes like if someone is viewed as creepy/dangerous. I've gotten progressively shunned from a few jobs before and this is just the on the ground reality of things.

Most employers hate ADA with a passion and don't want to hire anyone who is liable to sue them under that law. Look at how friends with cutting scars are treated, it's the same thing.

Laws exist so people have right to pursue a violation. The success rate of litigation, and successful adoption and adherence to policy indicates how serious society is about the law.

It is equally against the law for prostitutes and clients to engage. If you look at prostitution laws, 68% of women (prostitutes) charged were found guilty, while 70% of charges were stayed or withdrawn for male (clients) charged. Upon conviction, just under 40% of women were given prison sentences, while just under 40% of men convicted under the same provision were fined, and the prison sentence rate for men was just over 5%; 92% of those sentenced to prison in 2003-2004 were female. Early childhood abuse and/or neglect is the most significant predictor of prostitution, with more than 90% of those entering prostitution having suffered childhood sexual abuse. We as a nation strongly claim to be opposed to child abuse, especially sexual, but we clearly do not follow through with our actions.

Job discrimination laws (EEOC) follows a similar pattern where the outcomes are strongly biased toward the employers, especially government employers, to a very scary extent. What is becoming effective is recent anti-bullying laws, where the target can directly sue the bully or the bully's supervisor, because management enables discrimination. Employers are protected from lawsuits by acting in the target's behalf, including terminating bully and supervisor. The EEOC's 50th anniversary is 2014. Given it's extreme ineffectiveness, it might be abolished, to be replaced by what? Hopefully something that looks more like Maryland's 2012 anti-bully legislation.

I think you can expect very little support from the EEOC, so is better not to disclose.

This is an interesting thread.

My two cents are to not disclose unless you have some proof or knowledge that you will be accepted for who you are. I have been on a whole load of interviews. I do not care to be nervous for them anymore. I keep positive but I am myself... if they don't like me, they do not have to keep me. It has worked well.

I disclosed without using the term 'asperger's' on day two of the job, as I was not yet diagnosed. When I needed to, then I did the full disclosure. I did not 'take out' the negatives, but I kept the tone positive and focused on how it would help the company.

I have a template I got from a friend, so anyone can pm me if they are interested and I will share the gist of it. You will need to change some things because we will not be totally the same, but it will give you an idea.

I would never disclose. I have issues with divulging too personal things. The times when I've told casual acquaintances have just led to so much awkwardness that I've decided it casts too much negativity on me.

Before I became an autism researcher, I was a manager in an IT company. So I've conducted tons of interviews. Looking back, I can tell that I interviewed many people on the spectrum. The things they tell managers to look for in an interview (eye contact, body language, phrasing) are often things that people on the spectrum have trouble faking. And EVERYONE fakes those things. It's just that NTs are good at it. If you KNOW that you have a serious issue in these departments, it's much better just to disclose. However, keep in mind that most NTs do not understand autism.

I think that whenever you disclose, you should ALWAYS give your own definition of autism/Asperger's and give a brief description of your differences. I would also say always "Asperger's" instead of HFA or whatever else you might have because people tend to think "autism" means "ret*d" and that "ret*d" means you're not a real person.

Example: "I have Asperger's Syndrome, which is a very light form of autism. It's not a big deal- it just means that I don't make eye contact as much as most people and I might seem a little awkward at times. I'm great at organization and efficiency, but I may ask co-workers for help with more vague things like what someone else's tone of voice means."

In that example, you've shown your differences to be two big pluses (organization and efficiency) and you've changed a deficit into something that's actually also a plus (asking about tone of voice shows sensitivity and willingness to work as a team and that you don't jump to conclusions).

I would not put a label on myself during an interview, especially one with so much inconsistency, confusion, and mythology. I just would not.

Management concern about eye contact and body language stem from concerns of truthfulness. If you know you have challenges in the eye contact and body language area, be prepared with documentation or demonstrable expertise of your claims. Interviews can be stressful, so practice with friends or family members. Better yet, join Toastmasters International. Although oriented toward public speaking, it teaches business communication skills, builds self-confidence and a network.

Thanks everyone, for sharing your thoughts and experiences. I see there is a mix of opinion here. As is evident from my original post, I personally have had a lot more luck on job interviews where I disclose. Until my recent rejection after getting to the final interviews for a job that would have been really really great in so many way except for the long hours I was inspired by the success that disclosure seemed to bring. I only disclose when employers ask me about it. I have something on my resume which would pretty much require disclosure if the interviewer asks about it, lest I sound evasive. But I turn it into a positive and make it clear that Asperger's has been a challenge but I am a better person because of my experiences. Sometimes I will say that my unique way of thinking could be helpful when we need non-typical solutions.

For me, in the end it was disclosing the Asperger's that getting the job hinged on. Though this is in the public sector where they are more forgiving than the profit driven private. If I kept it to myself I think I'd still be unemployed.

This is also one of those very grey areas because people differ in ability. I think if it explains an apparent complete inability in some areas, it can only be helpful to divulge. If you can come across as relatively "normal" then you might not need to.