Inclusive communication is critical in organizations, and must take into account the fact that not all employees fit into a standard
How not to do inclusive communication
After seven years and eight months of working as a freelancer with a large international agency, 4,290 projects delivered, many compliments and thanks received (including from clients for whom the agency is an intermediary), one fine day I received this e-mail (I’ve redacted its name, I’m not going to assign blame or shortcomings, just highlight the communication style):
“After checking the quality of your work in June and sending you my comments, I finished checking a sample of the work you turned in in July.
Unfortunately, the files I checked were not up to Agency X’s quality standards. These areas have not improved much or at all:”
(follows description of the various errors found: a couple here, four there, etc. Total: 5 jobs challenged. Please remember, out of 4,290. There’s a little positive feedback as well, something like “but you did this right, keep up the good work!”. As we will see, this is called “feedback sandwich”).
This was not the first time I had received negative feedback, but in seven years and eight months, something like the fifth. But even if it had been the tenth. Or the twentieth. In the latter case it would have been a 0.466% negative feedback rate.
Now, how would a person on the autism spectrum who had only received compliments and thanks up to that point respond? I’ll give you a few options. Try to guess what my response was:
1. Thank you for the valuable feedback! I will definitely use it to improve my performance and meet the company’s requirements.
2. Damn ignorant beasts, how dare you question my work, go **** yourselves.
3. Thank you, but I will point out that 5 jobs out of 4,290 is not exactly such a percentage to conclude that my work is not up to your standards, in any case I will use it to improve.
4. First of all, excuse me, but I would like to know what is so harsh about me. Second, I would like to inform the pedantic reviewer that my choices were not dictated by ignorance, but rather by my belief that (explanation follows).
I will reveal the answer at the end of the article. Some time later I received this other e-mail:
“I am John Doe from the Quality Control department of Group X. As you know, we keep track of the feedback that comes in during the different phases of a project. Being an ISO 9001 and 17100 certified company, our goal is to always improve the quality of the services we offer, which is why I am writing to you today. I know you have been contacted by internal auditors who have offered a lot of feedback and advice on how to improve or other training opportunities. The Quality Control department works closely with internal experts, and we think their feedback is a great opportunity for improvement.
In addition, it has come to our attention that your responses to the feedback provided were not very professional, in the sense that you accused our reviewers, questioning their abilities and insulting them, instead of talking different points of view about how the work should be done. Please keep in mind that all Agency X staff are experienced and capable of performing quality work reviews in their respective jobs.
Please understand that the performance of all Agency X staff is continually evaluated by the quality control department, and we believe that this type of e-mail is essential for continuous improvement on both sides. Therefore, please consider the above feedback as an opportunity for improvement.
As an additional tool to help you improve and further develop your skills, you have Agency X’s e-learning platform for employees (link). Here you can find several modules that might interest you or serve as a review.
I fully believe that you can take corrective measures to ensure the continuous improvement of your services. However, please keep in mind that recurring problems have led to limitations in the work you are assigned, especially regarding… (job descriptions).
In addition, further problems related to unprofessional communication with our employees may lead us to reconsider our working relationship. This is not what we want, because we value our relationship and wish to continue working together. Therefore, I urge you to provide the highest quality work possible and to clarify any concerns you may have about the work immediately before final delivery.”
A professional and fair communication, isn’t it? Reading it, however, one might be led to infer that:
A) My response was #2
B) I was constantly getting negative feedback about the quality of my work, which I had always blithely ignored, ignoring their guidelines and always and consistently doing it my way
C) After seven years and eight months I still hadn’t learned how to do my job and I still needed training.
The icing on the cake was the punishment of “restricting” project availability, which, as I found out shortly afterwards, was actually a total suspension. No projects had come to me since then. There was also a threat to terminate the collaboration contract. So much for “This is not what we want, because we value our relationship and wish to continue working together”! I cannot imagine what would have happened if they had not wanted to continue working with me and had not valued our relationship. Would they have sent someone to beat me up?
Perhaps a neurotypical person would have reacted differently. After sending several emails requesting clarification and receiving only a copy-and-paste of my response to initial feedback, I reacted by requesting termination of the contract and sending this email to Mr. Doe:
“I have decided to terminate my contract with Agency X. I am tired of being treated like a number, of never knowing who to turn to for help with problems that do not relate to individual projects, of not being listened to, and of not being recognized for my expertise, experience, and quality. I am tired of being part of a shapeless, undistinguished mass of external collaborators with a bachelor’s degree, a PC and XXX software (I keep not specifying the type of work, sorry but I prefer to avoid problems) who pass admission tests that even my cat could pass. Despite having two master’s degrees, actively working for this company since 2018, and having completed 4,290 projects, I have been punished with a suspension for five negative feedbacks and for using the word “X” (I still won’t reveal it to you) in response to extreme frustration caused by cold, impersonal, and humiliating communication. I have already initiated the termination procedure, so there is no need to follow up on this matter.”
And bye. Did I behave badly? Perhaps. Was I impulsive and overly direct? Maybe.
Who lost out? Me for sure, I lost my job. But so did they. They literally took out an experienced employee with extensive knowledge and skills, an off-the-charts ability to concentrate (at peak times I worked as many as 12 hours a day), virtually unlimited availability, and an experience from, I repeat again, seven years and eight months, not counting my academic background. All because someone decided, out of the blue, that the quality of my work was no longer satisfactory. And you know what? I’m not ruling it out. I had reached the end of my rope: the competition to get projects on the platform had become untenable, fewer and fewer were appearing and disappearing in a nanosecond, I was getting more and more stressed and earning less and less. It’s possible that I was self-boycotting as an unconscious exit strategy. But to trash someone with my experience, expertise, and qualities is a big leap. I’m not saying they weren’t right. I’m just saying that, for a neurodivergent person, that kind of communication causes an explosion of anger, frustration, anxiety, and a sense of inadequacy that is practically uncontainable. Perhaps, a few years earlier, when I wasn’t under the stress of excessive competition, I would have reacted differently. Moreover, negative feedback had never had such “deadly” consequences, so I definitely didn’t expect to be cut off so drastically. In that moment, however, it was the perfect storm.
Anyway, the core of the problem is communication.
When I initially signed the contract, they also sent me a statement called Voluntary Self-Identification of Disability. The form, specifically is CC-305, in accordance with Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act.
You are asked to check one of the following three boxes:
- YES, I HAVE A DISABILITY (or have had a disability in the past)
- NO, I DO NOT HAVE A DISABILITY
- I DO NOT WISH TO ANSWER
The form also explains why this information is being requested (for equal opportunity and data collection purposes) and provides a definition of “disability” under U.S. law. For better understanding, it includes an extensive, but not exhaustive, list of examples of disabilities, which may include:
- Autism spectrum disorders
- Blindness or severe visual impairment
- Cancer (past or present)
- Deafness or severe hearing difficulties
- Diabetes
- Epilepsy
- Autoimmune disorders (e.g., lupus, fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis)
- Mental health conditions (e.g., depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, PTSD)
- Lack of limbs (partial or total)
- Mobility impairment requiring the use of supports (wheelchair, walker, etc.)
- Intellectual disability
You are not asked to specify what disability you have, only whether you have a disability.
Anyway, since I am physically well and do not have a certification for autism spectrum disorder (I discovered it after turning 40 and did not feel it was necessary), I immediately checked the box that says, “No, I do not have a disability.” I have never considered neurodivergence to be a disability, but rather a virtue and an asset. You know when someone tries to offend you by saying, “You ain’t normal”? I have always replied, “Thank you!”
And here we come to the issue of HR onboarding. Question: do you think it is enough to have a potential candidate state whether or not they have a disability? How many neurodivergent people, certified or not, will declare that they have a disability unless it is a serious issue, such as intellectual disability? Is it enough to absolve oneself of the responsibility of cold, impersonal, and demeaning communication, such as what I received? Is using standardized practices for a neurotypical population enough to avoid offending anyone? More importantly, is it enough to not make anyone feel “different”? This is just a question to understand. I never wanted different treatment. I just wanted to work and did so to the best of my ability. But then the incident occurred that caused the empty chair at Agency X.
They have many thousands of employees, both in-house and freelance, all over the world. One more or less makes no difference, no matter how good, right? Or does it? Perhaps there are many more people like me who could be treated more humanely and continue making valuable contributions to organizations. However, they can be annihilated by this kind of communication practice.
Let’s assume that they were 100% right and I was 100% wrong (which, again, I do not rule out). After the first and especially the second e-mail I felt: undervalued, frustrated, humiliated, misunderstood, unappreciated, belittled, anonymous, considered only for what I did wrong (a laughable percentage compared to what I did right), incompetent, not heard or even seen–and many other negative things. So, I’ll ask again: no matter how technically correct, is this the kind of communication with which to address an employee?
I am not saying that communication should be customized for each member of the company/organization, although perhaps that would not be so bad. Obviously in the case of large companies this is absolutely impossible, but then why not use a more friendly, understanding and open modality for everyone? Would neurotypical employees mind? I don’t think so.
But let’s come to the “teaching” part. The errors in my opinion were at least 3 and related to:
– Inclusive communication
– Mode of feedback
– Use of power
I will discuss them all in separate articles, and I will also treat other communication dynamics in organizations.
My answer was 4. Yes, the terrible insult was “pedantic.”
This article and much more will be contained in the handbook of diversity and inclusion in the workplace that I am writing. Stay tuned!