Louise Nash: Neurodiversity and Inclusion in the workplace

Host: Welcome to a special episode of Work now and in the Tools for Thinking. Our guest today is Louise Nash, senior Lecturer in Organization Studies and Human Resource Management at the University of Essex. Louise's research investigates the workplace experiences of neurodivergent individuals. In this episode, Luis offers insight into neurodiversity and inclusion in contemporary organizations. She reflects on where good intentions fall short, how everyday routines quietly exclude, and what more thoughtful, attentive organizational practices might look like. We hope you enjoy this thoughtful and timely conversation. Additional materials are available at www.aaltouh.fi future work under podcast.

Louise Nash: To introduce myself, I, I came to academia after a career in industry, specifically financial services. And as an academic I sort of brought a lot of that past with me, really being very interested in, um, how organizations behave the way that they do and why they do, but also how it feels as an employee to, to be organized. Um, what does it feel like to be at work? That's something we all have experience of, most of us. Um, why might we feel that we belong in particular places or sectors or industries? And why do we not in others? Um, so my research is particularly focused around issues, particularly around gender and also, uh, neurodiversity and neuro inclusion.

Host: Okay, that is fascinating. We start with inclusion as a term. It's everywhere at the moment or has been for some time now, in positive and negative senses. It's everywhere in organizational talk. But when we focus on neurodiversity, what do you think organizations still tend to misunderstand most? Neurodiversity and inclusion, I mean.

Louise Nash: Sure. Uh, yeah, you're absolutely right. Meaning inclusion has become quite a loaded term recently. Uh, which is for many of us is a shame. Um, it's perhaps one of those terms that is not very specifically defined often, so people don't really know what they mean by it. Um, but in terms. I think what my research has shown in terms of neurodiversity is that we have to remember organizations need to remember that this is just a form of human variation really. It's not a problem that has to be managed, it's just a difference. Um, and I think that many organizations still do take this approach of, um, seeing it as a sort of a, ah, deficit, um, thinking what can we do to fix people's problems, um, or accommodate them, which can be great. And m. We can talk about accommodations, but not necessarily thinking that a lot of the barriers come from quite inflexible systems or the norms that we all live. Um, and I think the other thing I would probably say Is that there is this, that I've come across a lot when I've been talking to people is this feeling that neurodiversity or neurodivergence, I should say, is just one thing. It's something that everybody has the same kind of experiences or they have the same kind of needs. But obviously it's a really broad spectrum and people are very individual. Um, and what supports one person may not necessarily support another person. So it's that kind of focus on let's, let's fix this rather than redesigning the work environments in a way that makes it, um, inclusive for everyone.

Host: Yeah, I think that's a fascinating thought. And if you think about that, we're now in the middle of a, well, a disruption, kind of like uh, between industrial revolutions, like entering a new one. And one of the things my AI colleagues often talk about this, that when working with these advanced technologies, we need to do human better. And I think that this now sounds like this would go really well with that general restructuring of work and organization, work that we need to get to. But, um, if we kind of go back to the accommodations that you already mentioned, um, that we often hear about, like how organizations accommodate for these problems of people who are different in different ways, which I think is interesting. And we even have concepts like this, uh, that's kind of, I think, telling about how we think about working life. But how do you see the difference between accommodating neurodivergent employees and actually genuinely rethinking how work is organized?

Louise Nash: I think there is, um, a big, uh, problem there really, I suppose, um, because as you say, we are becoming much more aware about how individuals feel, behave, what they need, usually from a very business focused, let's increase productivity lens. But even so, it's great that we can be more open about differences now. But I think what tends to happen is that organizations see things like neuro inclusion as a bit of a compliance task. This is what we must do. We must tick this off. Uh, understandably, people have a lot of things to think about. We have to make sure we're not making any mistakes. We need to accommodate people. Um, but what tends to happen then is that you do rely on those stereotypes that I was talking about earlier, thinking that there is a sort of a, oh, everybody needs this. Everybody needs to have, I don't know, noise cancelling headphones or uh, maybe they need to, uh, have a quiet space to work in. But that may not work for everybody. So rather than having a kind of, um, a flexible system that allows people to work in the ways that suit them best. There tends to be this kind of one size fits all. And I think, personally, I think, uh, what tends to happen is there's a slight fear of losing control. Um, as we've seen with the whole hybrid work situation. It's kind of like give people a little bit but then pull back because we're not quite sure where this is going to go. And I think that can be quite worrying for neurodiverse, ah, people because they're not quite sure what's expected of them.

Host: Yeah, I think that's fascinating and I'm thinking here that this, what you're describing kind of echoes the same thing that's going on on the sort of macro level that um, I think Stanford center of Longitivity has done really interesting research on how we have viewed work as this. Kind of like that all the things that happen in your life from the perspective of your employer, they are a bug when they should be your feature. You know what I mean?

Louise Nash: Yes, yes.

Host: We've had this very dogmatic view of what is work and how we have to look at it and how it proceeds and, and, and, and what they're suggesting is a lot more modular and kind of, well, accepting, kind of like what you're saying. So that we would stop thinking that work needs to be something that fits in a certain way to everybody, that it could actually look and look different for different kinds of people. And in that ways we would actually be more productive and more innovative and all these things that we probably need to be, particularly with these machines. But I think, um, that's interesting to kind of like thinking structure that, that we can see behind these ideas and ways of approaching difference in organization. Um, absolutely. Yeah. If we then kind of based on your research and your expertise, if you look at this kind of, uh, when we talk about inclusion, it's often a very, it can be a very subjective experience, feeling of do I feel included or not. So kind of difficult like that to universalize. But what is it? What do you think? Like, what do you know based on what you've done research uh, about is that what does inclusion feel like in everyday work practices, meetings, communication, expectations? When we're taking the neurodivergent perspective, I think we've seen a lot about gender equality examples, but from the neurodivergent perspectives.

Louise Nash: Thank you. And I think that's a really, really interesting question because it is, it is a hard thing to define and as you say, it's really subjective and there can be lots of kind of, um, very small kind of micro issues that can make any of us feel sometimes that we're not included. It's part of being human, isn't it, to sometimes feel that, uh, it's not quite as comfortable as we might like. But I think having spoken to, uh, a lot of research participants, um, who've all been incredibly open about discussing, um, their own experiences, I think what people are saying is it feels inclusion to them, feels like that kind of ease that we have. It's not necessarily feeling comfortable all the time because as we know, that's pretty hard. Um, in a normal working day, probably lots of us feel uncomfortable sometimes or not particularly happy or whatever. Um, but what they are talking about to me was the absence of that sort of friction and stress that comes with constantly having to pretend you are someone else. Uh, so that could be constantly masking your particular neurodivergence. Um, so a lot of people talked about things like if they have tics, uh, that they may demonstrate. It's that constant fear of, let me try and manage this, uh, which is really tiring, obviously, or having to sort of almost translate yourself. So, um, in terms of particular examples, I think, think it would be things like, um, giving people time in meetings before they're being expected to speak. Letting people pause, talk slowly rather than kind of have to rush into things, as we all know, tends to happen in work meetings, um, issuing agendas in advance, summaries, um, afterwards, which we're now getting much more used to with AI, uh, that was something that didn't tend to happen a few years ago, but now luckily is happening. Um, even somebody said to me that what they found really easy for them was to write things down, but not necessarily speaking in front of people. So being able to do that and communicate better in that way might make the world of difference to someone. So I think those are the kind of things that people feel that they are at ease, uh, at work.

Host: Right. I think that's already great advice to anyone listening who's wondering how to, if you like, how to be more inclusive, what to change or what. Having said that, I think that we see from research when it comes to gender equality, for example, I've seen for maybe not centuries, but very long time that exclusionary practices aren't often, if you like, intentional, but they tend to be a bit more subtle and routine. Um, um, and people are not actively thinking that. Now I'm somehow excluding someone apart from certain social, maybe frictions or something like that. But other than that Organizational exclusion is often, as I said, subtle, based on routines. So what would you particularly pay attention to when it comes to sort of like everyday organizational norms? Um, what do you think would be those that you would start the critical evaluation with when you're trying to build a more inclusive organization for all kinds of people, but particularly now from the

Louise Nash: neurodiversity perspective, I think it's a sort of, um, an attitude really, towards what do we do that we all take for granted. Um, and there are those things. We come into work, most of us come into work relatively inexperienced, relatively young. And you adjust, you work out that this is a particular culture, you do things in a particular order, turn up at a particular time every day. And it's not to say we have to throw all of those things out, but as you said earlier, we're entering a new phase now where we're not all on assembly lines. Some people still are. Um, but in general, we're not all necessarily having to turn up to work, Work a few hours, doing one thing and then move to another. Work is much more fluid, much more flexible now. So I think it's about accepting that the norms that we all take for granted, um, aren't necessarily suitable for everyone. Um, an example from my research, um, I found quite moving actually, because it wasn't something that I'd ever thought about. Somebody talked to me about how they would go into the work kitchen to make a cup of coffee in the day, as we probably all do. And what feels normal to me or to many other people is that if you meet a colleague in there, you have a chat. And this particular research participant said to him that was really, really stressful because he had autism. And for him, if he went to make a cup of coffee, that's what he wanted to do, get his coffee and drink it. And having to then think, I've got to chat to someone as well, created a huge barrier for him. And that's something that probably many of us who are not autistic would never have considered. How is this making somebody else feel? So I think it's really small things like that, where we think, okay, this may not be the same for everyone, so let's just meet individuals where they want to be met and let them feel that they can express what works for them or what doesn't work for them in ways that Perhaps we couldn't 50 years ago or whenever, um, when work was much more structured. So I don't know if that makes sense. A bit of a rambling response.

Host: No, I think It's a great example, and examples are often the best way to illustrate a point. I was just wondering that. I can hear the counterpoint now coming from someone who says that. I don't think this, but someone could then say that, well, how do I know if someone doesn't want to chat in the coffee room? Uh, I guess what could in that kind of situation, if, if the other person doesn't know that the other person has autism or something else, they can then think that this. This person is rude. It can be a beginning of a friction. So I guess what would be the recommendation? What, what would be the wish from an autistic person's side that they. Well, maybe the, the first step is that other people need to know this, right? So that you have a right to somehow, um, tell or, I don't know, do you want to tell? This is it. Does it feel? Does it. I don't think anybody wants to be the special case and say that, hey, I'm the special case. I don't want you to talk to me in the coffee room. It's not nice. They don't want to do that, regardless of what it's about. So what do you think would be the practical solution to this?

Louise Nash: Oh, it's a really good question and a really good point. Absolutely. Um, I think what's come out again from this is from what a lot of people have told me, not something that I necessarily came up with, was having quiet spaces, that there may be a coffee machine. Um, but it is understood that that's where you go and you don't talk. Uh, it may be where you can go and sit and eat your lunch in private, read your book, whatever it is that you want to do. Um, that's not to say that there shouldn't also be those social spaces where those people who want to really relish having a chat with colleagues, um, as many people do, and that breaks up the day for them. So that needs to be there as well. Now, okay, I can already hear people say, well, you can't have 12 different spaces. Of course not. But you, you can accommodate having maybe, um, a quiet or silent space that people know is there if, if they need it, if they may be feeling really stressed or down or whatever. Uh, you can kind of have that recharging space where nobody is going to come and talk to you. So I think just small things like that can, can really help. Whereas, as you say, nobody wants to have to stand up one day and say, please don't talk to me.

Host: No, no, no, But I think absolutely, you're right. That and I think that I have never done research on neurodiversity. But what I see in my research has. Have seen over the years is that organizations with an open and sensitive culture often tend to be better with this. And they do offer these kinds of things like silent areas and sort of like help people navigate the social world in the work. So I think that's, that's um. A Paying more attention to the type of culture we have here. Whether it accommodates for different approaches I guess would be one concrete step. Asking the question that is this place, does it really suit the way we work these days, being the sort of starting point. But um, I think that's a great example. But I think that we often operate at work with this strange, strange idea that everybody thinks the way we do and therefore when they react we take the reaction as it was ours. And I think that's uh, a really odd thing about working life. I think we would really. It would be the good time now that we. Anyway dealing with the rupture to. To deal with this for once and for all.

Louise Nash: Yes, absolutely.

Host: Educate ourselves if you like. But um, now that we. We're. We've been touching on this change in working life. So we are, and you already said it really well, that we're working more and more in different kinds of environments. Physical in same office or digital. Like we are now working together in a digital environment. And uh, how do you think that like, do you see this in your research? That are the experiences of belonging, safety, overload? How does it change with the uh, physical versus digital? Is it. I think we've seen. What I've seen is research both that it's for some people relief and others think it's more burdening. What about your research with the neurodiversity issues? How does it.

Louise Nash: I think it's pretty much as you said. There are mixed responses as you would expect, obviously because I can't talk for a whole community.

Host: Um, no, no.

Louise Nash: But I think that in general there's been a lot of relief um, around because I, I started. The first time I started doing research into this area was uh, actually during the pandemic. And obviously we were all adjusting then to a completely different way of working. And so a lot of interviews that I was doing which would normally always have been face to face were suddenly switched to zoom or teams. And a lot of the participants I was interviewing said they really felt a lot of stress had gone from that interview process which they had been a Little bit worried about. And somebody said to me that what was amazing for them and they were talking about their work life as well as the interview with me, was that feeling that they could just literally press a button and it was over. And what they found very stressful was that point when meetings end in the workplace where everybody stands up, has a bit of a chat, how are you? All of those kind of things. And this person said that they felt very awkward. Often in those situations they didn't find small talk very easy. So actually just being able to say thank you, goodbye and switching the camera off was a huge relief. Um, which I think many of us could understand. Um, but again I think there is also the kind of the counterpoint to that of what's expected of me. Do I have to have my camera on all the time? Is that another. Am I being observed? Is anybody noticing if I'm contributing enough? And so there are all of those kind of um, nuances I suppose that, that we've all had to adjust to over the past few years.

Host: So yeah, I think that's uh, that's so interesting. Um, what do you think in terms of, or do you have any kind of view in terms of your data that how much do organizations notice this or pay attention to this or accommodate these kinds of. I think in terms of physical and digital.

Louise Nash: Yeah. As you won't be surprised to learn, I think it varies hugely. Um, there are organizations that are very neuro inclusive and by that I mean not just for neurodivergent employees, but looking at it for everyone because you don't have to be neuro or identify as neurodivergent to find some aspects of hybrid work or digital work stressful. Um, so I think that there are differences and those sort of um, organizations who as you mentioned earlier, have a very kind of inclusive and open culture tend to fare better. They are aware of not burdening people with too many calls, you know, one after the other, which, which we all find quite difficult. They may be aware that some aspects of digital work can be difficult for some people who are neurodivergent. So there's those conversations about it I suppose is better. Um, but it, yeah, like, like so many things, it varies enormously.

Host: Yeah. Um, continuing on this hybrid remote work discussion, they, as I said, and you also already illustrated, they can be inclusion friendly, um, they can make some things easier. But then there is also this ongoing discussion that actually has to do with everyone, not just neurodiverse people, uh, whether it's like um, a threat to Belonging on the whole, like these people losing touch with their team or their immediate uh, work communities, like being too much remote. So do you have a, like a view based on your research data that. Do you think that it's more of a success from the neurodiverse perspective or is it a reproduction of exclusion in a different way? If you have to. I know that you have both, you already said that. But if you. I'm kind of pushing you now in the sort of journalist style that if you have to kind of like paint the picture with the broad brush. So what would it be?

Louise Nash: I think it would be very much that it has helped, um, and that it is a, um, stress reliever for the majority of people. However, the sort of. The caveat that I would put in, you know, in good academic style there's always a. But, um, I think for some people it is too much if it's constantly remote work. There is those kind of slightly, um, slightly uncomfortable questions around am I being valued? Do I, am I supposed to turn up more? Am I still supposed to have that kind of team community spirit, doing the small talk stuff with colleagues? If I'm not doing that, am I therefore putting myself at risk? So there are some concerns around that. Uh, I spoke to somebody very recently who said that personally she found it more difficult because she wasn't. She, she didn't have the signals of, of what was expected of her so much and she felt a little bit adrift. Um, but ah, but that was a, I would say that was probably a bit of an outlier in the research. Most, most neurodivergent people I spoke to found it much more helpful that they could turn their camera off or they could work from home for two or three days if they were particularly feeling stressed. So yeah, I think that would be my conclusion to that.

Host: Mhm. Mhm. Thank you. Well done. Like you said, as researcher, you can never get anyone to say that it's this or that. Well, or maybe sometimes, but mostly not. Then that's good because it's never either or it's both. Yeah, yeah. But um, then uh, if we kind of think about managing or leading this, which is one of the, one of the big questions obviously always in organizations, how to lead, how to manage. Often, uh, in our interviews about gender equality, but I'm assuming also in your interviews regarding neurodiversity or. I don't know, I'm asking. Managers struggle with this idea of fairness. So this idea that we need to treat everyone the same and then we at the same Time need to respond to different needs. So I think um, this is something that I've always. I receive a lot of questions about this if I teach like gender equality, we talk about equity and equality and the differences here. But what do you think? Like uh, what do you think would be a useful way to rethink fairness when we talk about these issues? So that rather than being stuck in this, that if we start, oftentimes the argument is posed like this, if we start paying attention to everybody's every difference, then that's the only. I don't have time for this. This is what I hear a lot only in regards to gender equality. Nevermind if you start spreading it to sort of wider concept of diversity. So what do you think? What would be the sort of useful and workable way of um, rethinking what fairness means?

Louise Nash: Well I think to an extent you said it when you talked about the difference between equity and equality. So uh, it's not about uniformity, it's not about saying that everybody has to have exactly the same structures and routines and working environment, but that understanding that some people don't necessarily align with the existing systems so they're disadvantaged, um, before they even start doing any work. Um, so it's trying to recognize that and I absolutely appreciate that it's really difficult and I've been a manager myself and thought how am I supposed to deal with all of this when you've got a million other things to do as well? Um, so I understand that that's quite hard sometimes to do. But I think it really comes down to talking to people, letting them feel that they can open up about anything that they find particularly uncomfortable. I'm not saying that absolutely everything has to be. We have to acknowledge everything. There are some things we can't change, um, about the workplace. But you can try and see how you can make it easier for people in small ways. So it might be, as I said earlier, might be changing the way you hold meetings or making sure the agenda is sent out in advance or really small things that maybe five out of your six team members don't need but if one person does, then you're going to get a much better result from that and make that person's life a bit easier, which is even more important. So um, yeah, not easy but doable I think.

Host: Yeah. And I think that I'm suddenly thinking back. I've uh, been doing this um, interviews with top management longitudinal data set. We're now in last round. We started before COVID and um, um, this is not the, this has not focused on neurodiversity at all, but it's focused on the how work is changing and how they're rethinking it. And suddenly remember this interview, listening to you now that where one of the top managers we interviewed was kind of talking about their culture and how it's. They're working on it to, to accommodate the change. And then they said that they started talking about people they have who work on tech issues and said that there are a couple of people there who don't. They just don't want to come to social events. So I have decided that they don't have to. There was no song and dance about anything sort of like that. How, oh, this is so stressful that somebody doesn't want to do what everyone else does, but rather this kind of like accommodation. And they even mention in the interview something like, uh, everyone has their strengths and weaknesses. So sometimes I guess this is also this good old question of like having some common sense.

Louise Nash: Yeah.

Host: And uh, applying that. Although I'm against this because it's often used.

Louise Nash: Yes.

Host: Um, yeah, in a different way. But I kind of like, I remember that suddenly remembered that discussion when I was listening to you. That, that it is, it is. You can do it. You can absolutely do it. But you do need to apply some care and you actually need to see your people and then your knee. Yes, you talk to them. And this I guess is, is often the argument that people say that they don't have time for that. And then when we look at research we can see that this is the exact thing you should have time for if you want to be a good employer and therefore have happy, productive, innovative employees. Um, absolutely. Coming to the role of colleagues and teams as well, based on your research, whether you have like anecdotes, examples of like, because we can talk about policies, we can talk about training, we can talk about DEI strategies and management trainings. But what about role colleagues and uh, teams? What can they do? What kind of role they can play in making inclusion real?

Louise Nash: I think that it's really important because you can have organizations, for example, who say on paper that they are neuro inclusive. And something I've heard a lot of people say to me is, oh, it usually means that the CEO has a child who's dyslexic or something like that. And so they are really kind of, oh yeah, we understand this, we want it to be neuro friendly but it stops there and it doesn't sort of filter down. Um, or it may be that Some managers have been told they must be neuro inclusive, but again, it hasn't sort of filtered down to the people that work in these teams on a day by day basis. So I think what's come out for me in the research is that it's, it's consistency more than anything else that really matters. So it's things like, um, some things we've already mentioned, things like being able to listen to people, maybe ask them what they prefer, um, respect that people may have different ways of behaving in meetings or something like that, but it is about consistently making sure that that is part of the way that you operate so that everybody doesn't get into that state that uh, again we're all familiar with where you are so busy, so stressed that you just don't have time to worry about everyone and you just think, right, we've got to get on with this, this is what we've got to talk about. But actually stopping and thinking, if I just take a minute to check that everybody's okay with this approach, that will make life so much easier for all of us. Um, and of course it's hard to do, but I think becoming the norm to be aware of people's differences, I think is, is the only way forward really.

Host: I like the way you put it and I actually agree with you. And if we're thinking about like the basic human needs that have not changed at all in the midst of all this other change, we all have a need to be seen. So once you apply that, are you all okay with the way we proceed? To everyone? You are actually providing everyone with the feeling of being seen and therefore probably making them feel better about their work rather than having to single out anyone with differences of different kinds. Because, well, in the end of the day we're all different in different ways. But again, mystically we don't think about this when it comes to working life. We assume that, we assume that when we come to work we become the same. But um, oftentimes you see the. Or oftentimes. But one of the ways you see neurodiversity discussed nowadays, more and more normalized, I would say. But previously particularly it often was this kind of like, uh, almost like a caricature of someone autistic and therefore having superpowers of calculating some, you know, this kind of. We've seen this in films already some time ago. Now I'm wondering, do you see in your data at all of this risk of neurodiversity becoming instrumentalized, valued only when it's A, you know, a genius calculator or something like that. And if so, how should organizations resist that?

Louise Nash: I think that's, that's uh, absolutely true and something that I'm very aware of and again has come out a lot in interviews. So many people have said to me, I'm not Rain Man. I don't know if listeners remember the, the uh, Dustin Hoffman film exactly what

Host: I was referring to.

Louise Nash: Yeah, not a savant. Um, yeah, maybe some people are, but. But most people that I spoke to said I don't have a superpower, but at the same time I want to be recognized for what my neurodiversity can bring to the table. It doesn't make me exceptional, but it gives, gives me some things that mean that I process information in a different way and very speedily in some respects or whatever. So I think it's, um, it's really easy to reduce neurodiversity to a business case. And I even caught myself doing it earlier in this interview when I'd say things like, but it can m. It can be more productive if you do it this way. And you sort of think, no, it's not really about that. Um, we need to think about human dignity. These are human beings, um, all colleagues with completely varied strengths, um, and they shouldn't have to feel that they are performing uniqueness or superpowers, um, to justify being included, really. Um, yeah.

Host: And sort of like getting these strange echoes of like women coming to working life and having to prove that.

Louise Nash: Absolutely. Yeah. There are a lot of group by

Host: group, like the norm is the middle aged normal man, whatever that means. And then everyone else needs to somehow fight for this right to be included. I think it's, uh, so interesting. But anyway, that's a whole different conversation and I think that was a great answer. Thank you. But, um, if you now think that people listening to us are very likely to be organization members, maybe managers, colleagues, um, leaders, considering what to do with this, I was wondering if often we talk about that we have to start doing this and that to make things better. But based on your research and your expertise on neurodiversity and inclusion, what would you want organizations to stop doing to make things better?

Louise Nash: That's an interesting one. I think there are a number of things really, I think.

Host: Mhm.

Louise Nash: Firstly, I would probably say stop relying on disclosure as a sort of a, um, what's the word? A kind of a precondition for support. Because a lot of people don't feel comfortable disclosing, uh, they may have had very bad Experiences, uh, mhm, different organizations or somebody said to me that even just the act of disclosing brought back all sorts of awful memories from their childhoods when they were misunderstood at school and all of those kind of things. So not everybody is going to disclose or feel comfortable disclosing. So it shouldn't be that you sort of almost have to um, have a badge almost to say this is who I am. As we said earlier, it should, should be about accepting that, that there are also going to be all sorts of differences in, in a, in a group of people who are meeting and working together. Um, and um, I think stop. The other thing I would say is stop sort of saying oh, we're neurodivergent or neurodiversity aware, uh, without offering any structural change, without saying and this is what we do to show we're aware rather than just saying oh, we have a conference once a year where we get some people to speak. It's about. Well actually we've redesigned the way we do our meetings or to include everyone. Um, and I think probably the last thing I would say would be try not to overgeneralize. So try not to see neurodivergence as one sort of homogenous um, issue. That means that people react in a particular way. Because we're talking about all of us really. I think most of us would recognize that there is a spectrum. Um, for many of us we may recognize certain traits but don't feel that we necessarily identify as neurodivergent. For other people they, they do and this is a, ah, big part of who they are. So have, have a think about how different people are and that one size just doesn't fit all, which is not easy. But ah, I think that's what, that's what I would end with.

Host: I think that was a great to do list and I think that as I said it's kind of beautifully aligned with uh, having to rethink anyway with the sort of new technologies coming in and changing the way we work. So this would be a great opportunity to, to open more space for this doing the human better that my AI colleagues are so much calling for. But I actually um, have my final question or comment for you to respond to that is that basically that you are the expert here. Uh, we are not. So what did we miss? What would you like me to ask? What would you like to bring up as the sort of, in the end as a sort of central thing coming from your data that you think is not getting enough attention or should be paying attention to or whatever you. The way, whatever way you want to frame it.

Louise Nash: Um, I think actually I'm really taken with your doing the human better, um, phrase. I think that's really great. And I think it does absolutely apply to neurodiversity, just as you mentioned. It has applied to, uh, different types, types of difference that we've been used to having to accommodate, you know, women in the workplace. You know, how shocking. Um, so I think really just focusing on the fact that this is about human beings, it's about people who are probably in our families. Even if we don't identify as neurodiversion ourselves, I'm sure most of us have come across people who have maybe a slightly different way to, of responding to things or reacting to things than the norm. So whenever we do feel stressed or busy or, oh, this is something else I've got to now think about. These are human beings that are, that are part of us. Um, and we, we all benefit from having more inclusive environments where we can feel comfortable and feel at ease. Is. Isn't that what we all want, really? So I think that's. Yeah, that, that's how I would conclude.

Host: I think that's a perfect conclusion, I think. Uh, thank you so much for joining us today.

Louise Nash: Thank you.

Host: Thank you for all your thoughts. Thank you for listening. The podcast is a collaboration between all the university's Future of Work, Hankin School of Economics, the Finnish association of Work Life Research, and um, the work 2030 program.