In Company Units

NARRATE In-CompanyTraining

The NARRATE In-Company Training aims to give operative and practical application to the W.O.R.K. theoretical and epistemological framework, in terms of:

  1. Supporting People on the Autism Spectrum (PoAS) maintaining the occupation

  2. Supporting companies (management and coworkers) establishing fruitful collaboration with PoAS employees.

The four teaching units can be seen as roadmaps to help professionals apply the NARRATE approach and mindset with their PoAS and company clients. Each unit describes how to operatively decline one of the four constructs of the W.O.R.K. framework, by suggesting several operative dimensions that can be taken into consideration while supporting PoAS in their journey to maintaining a job, and companies in their journey to relating to PoAS.  

The units in this training are the following:

    1. WE In-Company: it gives insights on how to exploit the working context in constructing a trustful collaboration with the PoAS workers. How do companies’ values and dominant narratives regarding autism affect the way the working environment relate to PoAS?

    2. OWNERSHIP In-Company: it highlights both challenges and opportunities in the complexities of the contemporary workplace for PoAS and the companies they work for. How can we enhance the quality of communication between PoAS and companies (employers and coworkers) to help all of them reach their aims and fulfil their needs? 

    3. RELATIONSHIPS In-Company: it explores how power dynamics in the workplace affect the relationship between professionals and PoAS and/or with the company employing PoAS. How can we exploit the different roles of power in the workplace to help both PoAS and companies reach their aims and fulfil their needs?

  • KNOWLEDGE In-Company: it highlights the importance of self-awareness for PoAS in the process of job retention. How can we help PoAS effectively rely on their strengths and skills for maintaining their job and facing contingencies? 

Enrichment is the keyword of this training. It does not aim to tell you the “right” way or the “hidden secret” to work with PoAS. It is not meant to speak any “truths” of sort. As a roadmap, it aims to give professionals ideas and stimuli that can be used to open their mind to new perspectives and see things from other points of view. 

For this reason, you can approach to this training in different ways.

You can decide to use all the units, following the order we used to present them – that is, starting from the first (WE) to the last unit (KNOWLEDGE). In this way you can experience the roadmap in a similar way as we conceived it, maybe considering this training as a continuation of the NARRATE Training for PoAS. 

However, you can use all the units following the order you want. Or, you can decide to use just the units, or the operative dimensions they describe, that you think can be helpful in that specific situation. 

In other words, you can develop your own path in the roadmap.

We always invite you to reflect on how to integrate and connect the ideas and topics presented in this training with the ideas and models you already apply in your work. The self-reflecting questions you will find at the end of each unit can help you on this process, as well as the exercises you will find in the NARRATE Toolbox.

DOWNLOAD

Disclaimer on Terminology

In our content, we use the term Person(s) on the Autism Spectrum (PoAS) as a respectful and inclusive way to refer to individuals who identify or are identified as being on the autism spectrum. We also use this term as an example of how language can reflect diverse narratives and perspectives, illustrating that multiple terms can exist and be valid outside of the dominant or widely accepted language.

Language is not fixed; it evolves as individuals and communities redefine and reframe their own stories. The terms used to describe those on the autism spectrum are shaped by cultural norms, historical context, and personal identity. What might be empowering or accurate for one person or group may not hold the same meaning for another. Our use of PoAS reflects our understanding that no single term can encompass the full range of experiences within the autism community.

For example, the language used to describe autism has undergone significant changes over the past few decades. In earlier years, terms like mental retardation or autistic disorder were commonly used. These terms, however, have been increasingly viewed as outdated and stigmatising, prompting the shift toward terms like intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). While ASD has become the clinical and widely accepted term in many contexts, it can be seen by some as overly medicalised and limiting in its scope. This reflects a dominant narrative that often focuses on diagnosis and pathology. As a counter to this dominant narrative, many within the autism community prefer terms that reflect a broader and more holistic understanding of the spectrum, such as autistic person or autistic individual, which emphasise identity over disorder.

Our use of PoAS acknowledges that while autism spectrum disorder is commonly used in medical and professional settings, it is not the only term, nor is it always the preferred choice within the autism community. By choosing PoAS, we aim to respect the diversity of language preferences and challenge the dominant narratives that position autism as something to be “fixed” or “cured.” This term reflects an alternative view that sees autism as a valid aspect of human diversity. We underscore that there is no single “correct” way to describe someone’s experience on the autism spectrum; each person’s narrative is personal and unique.

We also acknowledge that language is a powerful tool for challenging dominant narratives and highlighting alternative ways of understanding and representing identity. By using PoAS, we hope to show that there is room for multiple terms and that they can coexist, each carrying its own significance, context, and meaning. This aligns with our commitment to inclusivity and respect for the diverse voices within the autism community.

As the narratives surrounding autism continue to evolve, so too will the language we use.
By engaging with the voices of PoAS, we come to understand that their experiences steer the course of our dialogue, shaping a dynamic and evolving relationship between language and identity.

DOWNLOAD

We In Company

This unit is called “WE” after the first construct of the W.O.R.K. framework, as it focuses on the relationship between professionals and clients in the company context. More specifically, the unit invites professionals to reflect on how they handle this “we” that is established in the helping relationships with companies and/or PoAS employees, in the pathway of enhancing the integration processes and the professional collaboration between companies and PoAS. Consequently, the unit invites professionals to pay attention to the issue of power in their in-company work. It suggests readers should focus on how they exert power in their work by being aware of the difference between empowerment and imposition. Professionals, in fact, often exert power at an unconscious level.

This focus on power dynamics may provide professionals with new ideas to foster inclusive environments that enable the success of PoAS in the workplace and promote processes of integration and inclusion from companies.

This unit’s exploration of power dynamics in helping relationships draws significant inspiration from Welman & Bachirova’s a

Power can be used in work coaching in two ways: 

  • Imposition. This type of power leads to powerlessness, or the inability to do what one wants.

  • Influence. This type of power leads to learning new skills and using them effectively. It is power consciously used to empower, as it leads people to raise their awareness about the fact that they are free agents in the world. 

Both definitions are fundamental to the helping relationship endeavour, with the former referring to a perpetual potential and the latter arguably embodying the essence of coaching itself (ibid.). 

In this unit, we mainly focus on power as imposition. Power as influence to empower is explored in the KNOWLEDGE In-Company unit.

“Imposition” and “influence” are antithetical concepts. Fromm (1960), for example, suggests that a person with a lack of empowerment is more likely to strive for imposition.

Imposition can be everywhere. In fact, it can be exerted by both professionals and clients.

An example of imposition: A coach or team leader is tasked to improve communication skills in the workplace. The coach insists on using a specific conflict-resolution framework, believing it would be effective for any one. However the framework chosen does not match with the team’s culture. The team struggles to apply the framework and the leader starts to doubt their own ability and disengages from the coaching process. The coaching or leadership relationship takes a negative turn and neither party feels supported. By trying to apply a rigid framework and method instead of adapting to the needs damaged the trust relationship.

An example of Influence: In the same scenario a coach or team leader is tasked to improve communication skills in the workplace. Instead of using a specific framework, they ask reflective clients such as: 

  • Can you share an example of a recent communication problem? What do you think worked well in clearing things up?

  • What would a clear communication method look like for your team?

The team leader or coach identifies the needs and decides to implement weekly feedback sessions based on the input of the team. By guiding the team to discover their own solutions the coach used influence to empower rather than impose. 

As Welman & Bachkirova (ibid.) highlight, it may sound extreme to be considering power within the context of professional work for helping companies and PoAS enhance their professional relationships and collaborations. In fact, most of our readers would surely agree that this type of work is grounded on libertarian principles. However, the nature of imposition is often elusive and subtle: professionals may not be aware of how, or indeed that, they are imposing their ideas on their clients.

Every human subject, whether in a workplace, a family, or an everyday setting, finds themselves in various power relations throughout their lives. Power relations are present everywhere, forming a complex web. In fact, we can say that power is constitutive of all relationships. Power is not only an important aspect of relationships; it requires a relationship. You cannot exert power on your own; you need someone to exert it over. Some authors have even asserted that relationships themselves embody “power in flux” (Spinelli, 1994), suggesting that being in a relationship inherently places you in a position of power. Professionals, PoAS and companies themselves exist and operate inside those power relationships. 

If power is everywhere, we all exert it. But in most cases, we are not aware of it. Consequently, there are dimensions of power embedded in the context, which professionals may have become so used to working within that they lose sight of them as bindings at all. If periodically they begin to chafe, professionals may even put them down as inevitable—part of the natural order.  

Therefore, at NARRATE, we believe that by increasing professionals’ awareness of the boundary between influence and imposition, they can more creatively explore areas of legitimate influence that they may not have previously explored. 

In a practical example, a manager regularly invites colleagues for informal after-work gatherings. Believing that these events will increase team bonding, attendance is optional, but the team notices that those people that participate tend to receive more positive feedback and informal opportunities. The manager is unaware that their actions create an implicit expectation for attendance. Team members who can’t or prefer not to join feel excluded and worry it might impact their career growth, despite that there are no explicit penalties for not participating in these events. When the manager is made aware of this dynamic through a team feedback session they realise how their power, through influence rather than intention, was creating unintended pressure. 

When professionals are asked to support the inclusion and integration processes in order to support both companies and PoAS enhancing their mutual professional relationships, they take on the role of experts. In doing this, professionals apply their theoretical and practical knowledge to support their clients at their best. While they believe they work on empowering their clients; in some cases, they unconsciously act to depower them. In fact, if power, as we said earlier, is everywhere, professionals might not be so aware that the line between empowerment and imposition can be really thin, so  they risk imposing unnecessary structure on supporting sessions. This may happen for different reasons (ibid.):

  • Attachment to specific outcomes of the coaching process, so that they push clients to reach one or more of those outcomes even though they do not reflect clients’ needs and objectives. 

  • The dominant idea of professionals as all-knowing experts who know what to do to solve problems and how to do it.

  • The idea that the theoretical and practical models they apply in their everyday work are not systems of constructs and ideas but systems of truths providing real explanations of how humans behave.

Factors influencing companies’ acts of imposition

Companies can exert their imposition over professionals in different ways (ibid.):

  • The act of employment itself, with its control of access to the means of making and sustaining a livelihood, gives the employing agent considerable power over those seeking such a livelihood from them (Jackson & Carter, 2007). 

  • The company may institute a coaching or mentoring program that is closely tied to its principal goals, with specifically designed tasks itemised for attention and the deliberate exclusion of others (Klasen & Clutterbuck, 2002). 

  • The company may instigate a reporting framework to monitor activity and progress within the coaching encounter. 

  • The company is likely to allocate the space, time and facilities for the activity, with implications for the effectiveness of the work as well as the standing in which it is held. 

  • The company has power to frame the activity in terms of staff expectations, which may affect the nature and potential of the work—anything from being a high-profile addition to a program of personal development to a standard concession in a dismissal process. 

  • The company may treat the work as a discrete activity with no expectation of further effect, or it may view it as an adjunct to organisational change itself—an activity providing valuable feedback and focus for new ideas. 

  • The organisation has access to the law and professional bodies, enabling it to enforce adherence to agreements and sanction deviations. 

  • There may be a reporting mechanism back to the organisation from which the professionals came, with implications for their future employment. 

Thus considered, by working in-company professionals risk that their work becomes a tool that can be used to coerce individuals and groups to someone else’s will, a will that they have no real chance of resisting because it is dressed up in the clothes of performance, efficiency, and benefit to the organisation” or more directly impacts on whether they stay in their job (Hawkins & Smith, 2006). 

In agreement with Welman & Bachkirova (2010), we at NARRATE suggest that the way for avoiding imposition and focusing on empowerment for professionals working in in-company contexts is through raising their and their clients’ awareness about the way they exert their power. The following table represents four possible iterplays between professionals’ and clients’ awareness.

Professional’s high awareness
Low awareness of the client
Manipulative intervention
TASK: TO ENSURE CLIENT’S AWARENESS
Possible mutual satisfaction
TASK: TO ENSURE PERMISSION
High awareness of the client
Unhealthy symbiosis
Mutual manipulation
Unresolved conflicts
TASK: TO RAISE BOTH PROFESSIONAL’S AND CLIENT’S AWARENESS
Breakdown of the relationship
Self-deception of the client
TASK: TO RAISE PROFESSIONAL’S AWARENESS

Professional’s low awareness

 

Table 1: Awareness of power in in-company helping relationships (Welman & Bachkirova, 2010).

In our opinion, the most helpful situation is where both professionals and companies are aware of their role of power and how they can use it to impose or empower others. In this scenario, the critical issue becomes a question of consent—whether explicit permission by the client is given. In this case, the process may lead to mutual satisfaction and effective outcomes, as the helping relationship is based on mutual respect and on the idea that both the client and the professional are able to reconsider this arrangement at any point along the coaching path (ibid.). 

Thus considered, the question is: How to enhance both professionals’ and companies’ awareness of their power role? Considering the professional’s side, we believe that NARRATE can be a useful tool for exploring such dynamics at a personal, professional and social level and developing a critical approach to the topic.

Considering the company’s side, we think that adopting an influential and decentred approach (White, 2005) can be useful for the professional to raise the company’s awareness of the power dynamics related to their working environment. 

Figure 1. Michael White’s Model of Different Positions (Ilic, 2017).

For professionals, adopting a decentred position means avoiding the idea that they are all-knowing experts and accepting that the theoretical and practical models they apply in their everyday work are just lenses to see the world in specific ways, which do not always fit with the companies’ values and ideas. Thus, professionals need to be eager to modify such models to better encounter their clients’ desires (Semeschuk, 2022). Adopting an influential position, on the other hand, means for the professional to be able to leverage his or her own professional power at the clients’ benefit, leaving them the room to tell their story and build their own solutions.

Practically speaking, professionals establish with companies and/or PoAS conversations based on asking questions that allow clients to reflect on how to reach their goals related to the enhancement of the working context. In this way, professionals allow clients to make their own decisions and judgements, inviting them to reflect on the sense of their decisions and considering whether they are aligned to their values and principles. This does not mean professionals, at times,  must give clients more direction or advice. Sometimes, instead, they just need to ask questions that invite clients to reflect on the quality of their thoughts, decisions and actions. The practice of asking solution-oriented questions is thoroughly explored in the KNOWLEDGE In-Company unit.

This unit highlights the critical importance of understanding and handling power dynamics that are inherent in the relationships professionals establish with companies and PoAS employees. It invites professionals to raise their awareness on the issue of power dynamics, as they happen mostly on an unconscious level. 

Looking at the issue of power and how it influences their work allows professionals to more creatively explore areas of legitimate influence they may not have previously explored.

On a scale from 0 to 10, how do you believe you are aware of the power you exert while working with companies?

On a scale from 0 to 10, how do you believe you are aware of the power you exert while working with PoAS in working contexts?

How can you, as a professional or support figure, adopt a more flexible and inclusive approach to collaborating with PoAS to understand and navigate their career goals and aspirations effectively?

How can you, as a professional or support figure, adopt a more flexible and inclusive approach to collaborating with companies to understand and navigate their business values and goals effectively?

How can you raise your awareness about the power you exert in your work with PoAS and companies?

How can you enhance your communication skills to accommodate the styles and preferences of companies with the idea of promoting a more inclusive and understanding work environment?

What is the very first step you would take to enhance the company’s awareness of the imposition they exert over their employees (including PoAS employees)? 

What is the most important lesson you learnt from the content of this unit? 

Hawkins, P., & Smith, N. (2006). Coaching, mentoring and organizational consultancy. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Ilic, D. (2017). Conversation analysis of Michael White’s decentered and influential position. Doctoral dissertation. Publications of the Nova Southeastern University.

Jackson, N., & Carter, P. (2007), Rethinking organisational behaviour. London: Prentice Hall.

Semeschuk. K. (2022). The Michael White Archive: New learnings from White’s therapeutic practice in the realms of abuse and trauma. Doctoral dissertation. Publications of the University of Melbourne.

Spinelli, E. (1994). Demystifying therapy. Ross-on-Wye: PCCS Books.

Welman, P., & Bachkirova, T. (2010). ‘The issue of power in the coaching relationship’. In S. Palmer & A. McDowall (Eds.), The coaching relationship: Putting people first (pp. 139–158). London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

White, M. (2005). Children, trauma and subordinate storyline development. The International Journal of Narrative Therapy and Community Work, 3-4.

White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. London: W.W. Norton & Co.

DOWNLOAD

Ownership in-Company

In today’s dynamic work environments, the concept of ownership is increasingly recognised as a critical element for fostering engagement, motivation, and productivity. Especially within the context of supporting neurodiverse employees, including those on the autism spectrum, the unit titled “OWNERSHIP In-Company” seeks to explore the multifaceted nature of ownership within organisational cultures. This unit delves into how the understanding of ownership can impact employee experiences, enhance inclusion, and ultimately lead to better organisational outcomes by reshaping dominant narratives and empowering individuals.

In the context of NARRATE In-Company Tier training, we define “ownership” the companies’ and PoAS’ raised awareness of how organisational cultures impact how the workplace is structured. This unit explores how dominant ideas and discourses—that is, social power—impact companies’ culture and, consequently, their approach to PoAS.  It aims to give insight to raising companies’ and PoAS’ awareness of why and how the organisational culture can impact the inclusivity and integration processes involving companies and PoAS. Thanks to this raised awareness, companies have a higher chance to change their limiting narratives about themselves as organisations in the process of enhancing integration and inclusivity and take decisions that better fit their values and aims.     

Ownership in the workplace can be understood as the degree to which employees feel a sense of responsibility and accountability for their work, decisions, and contributions to the organization. According to Kahn (1990), psychological ownership entails the feeling that one’s work and workplace belong to the individual, fostering a profound sense of connection to the tasks and the organisation itself. This sense of ownership can significantly enhance employees’ engagement levels, leading to improved performance, creativity and retention.

For PoAS employees, cultivating ownership is particularly important as it can help mitigate feelings of isolation or marginalisation that may arise in less inclusive environments. When organisations prioritise the empowerment of all employees, they create a culture where everyone feels valued as active contributors.

We at NARRATE embrace the idea that the way we talk about a particular subject shapes the way we experience that subject. The way we talk about a subject is a narrative—or a discourse. Furthermore, the way we talk about a subject is influenced by wider social narratives about that subject. In other words, we can talk about a specific subject in different ways. Some narratives are prevailing, or dominant, that is, are shared by the majority of people in our social contexts; others are weaker and assume the role of counternarratives, or alternative narratives to the dominant ones. 

Dominant narratives are the spoken, written, and behavioural expectations that we all share within a cultural grouping. That makes them normative. Because norms are often out-of-awareness, this also makes these normative expectations out-of-awareness, leading to many unstated assumptions. Dominant narratives, then, are collections of expectations we take for granted. They embody socialisation by the dominant or decision-making group. Dominant narratives give us the prevailing “accepted” rules of everyday living as practiced by our decision-makers. Dominant narratives rarely include the perspective of the Other, the Dominant narratives, or dominant discourses, are frequently repeated stories that are shared in society through various social and cultural institutions Dominant narratives about what is “right” and what is “wrong”, what is “good” and what is “bad”, what is “normal” and what is “abnormal” affect every person’s life at any time. Through hetero-control (normative judgements, punishments, social blaming, etc.) and self-control, dominant discourses subjugate people to certain norms, guiding their decisions throughout life and shaping their self-perception and narrative. In the same sense, power does not only restrain and oppress a person, but at the same time configures (or constitutes) a person. 

In this regard, an example of how PoAS’ lives may be affected by the power of dominant narratives could be being labelled as “abnormal” or “pathological” as they have received a diagnosis that defines them as different from “normal” people. Such normative discourses become internalised by PoAS themselves, and they begin to define themselves as “abnormal” or “pathological”. 

Dominant narratives about autism may affect companies as well. Consequently, they may approach PoAS considering them as “abnormal” or “pathological” persons, underestimating their professional values and their social skills.

Dominant narratives shape people’s lives at every individual and group level. This includes working environments. Employees and employers, as individuals, have dominant narratives shaping their approach to work. Companies, as well, have dominant narratives shaping their organisational lives and cultures, defining the values of their brands, the workplace climate, the way they communicate to the external world, and so on.  

Employers and employees as individuals and companies can experience some dominant narratives as empowering, while others as limiting. In this sense, one of NARRATE’s aims is to give professionals insights on how to help companies (both at the individual and organisational level) and PoAS employees identify the dominant narratives affecting the way they interact—which is explored in this unit—better exploit the empowering ones and develop alternative stories from the limiting ones—which is explored in the RELATIONSHIPS In-Company and KNOWLEDGE In-Company units.

Practical examples of shifting the focus away from dominant limitation based narratives: Microsoft has a long-standing commitment to neurodiversity, and their program specifically looks for ways to highlight and build upon the talents of PoAS. Instead of focusing on the challenges autistic individuals may face in social environments, Microsoft emphasizes problem-solving and logical thinking—skills often associated with autism. Their “Neurodiversity Hiring Program” actively recruits PoAS for roles that require technical skills, and employees are provided with tailored support that allows them to flourish in an inclusive work environment.

Also Unicus, which had representatives speaking at our final conference, tries to shift the dominant story and highlights that PoAS come with cognitive abilities that provide exceptional value in the tech space. Unicus tries to highlight the differences neurodiversity can bring and positively impact work, innovation and collaboration in the tech industry. 

In the workplace, power dynamics manifest in various visible and invisible forms, exerting influence on individuals’ experiences, opportunities, and interactions. Visible power dynamics are often evident in formal structures such as hierarchical organisational charts, job titles, and decision-making processes. Leaders, managers, and supervisors hold formal authority and wield power over subordinates, shaping the distribution of resources, responsibilities, and rewards. Additionally, visible power dynamics may be reflected in policies, procedures, and performance evaluation systems that reinforce existing hierarchies and inequalities (Kuznetsova, 2016). At the same time, depending on the job, power dynamics exist between the client/supplier and the worker as well. 

On the other hand, invisible power dynamics subtly shape interpersonal relationships, communication patterns, and organisational culture. These dynamics may stem from social identities, implicit biases, and unspoken norms that privilege certain groups while marginalising others. For instance, gender, race, age, and socioeconomic status can influence perceptions of competence, credibility, and leadership potential, contributing to systemic inequalities in hiring, promotion, and professional development opportunities. Moreover, invisible power dynamics may manifest in subtle microaggressions, exclusionary behaviours, and informal networks that perpetuate privilege and disadvantage. 

First and foremost, we call on professionals to understand the visible structure of the company, the existence of the company structure (which is an extrinsic factor), and the interconnection with the company’s culture (which is an intrinsic factor). Understanding the interrelationship between the structure and the culture will provide the professional with the opportunity to understand the behaviour of the organisation’s members (more or less) (Janićijević, 2013).

With the term organisational culture, we refer to a set of shared values and norms held by employees that guide employees’ interactions with peers, management, and clients/customers (Morgan, 1998). From the NARRATE perspective, organisational culture is a set of dominant and weaker narratives that exist in the workplace. However, they may not be readily apparent to the untrained observer. In that regard, we as professionals need to realise if there is a discrepancy between what we call frontstage and backstage levels. In fact, while some companies might apparently practice inclusivity (frontstage level), in their everyday work and working contexts they actually do not (backstage level). We must consider this to gain a deeper understanding of the context in which PoAS operate and to formulate tailored strategies. 

In that regard, let us elaborate a bit more on organisational culture and on the frontstage/backstage level. First of all, Schein (2009) identifies three tiers of organisational culture:

  1. Visible Artefacts: Tangible aspects such as architecture, office layout, dress code, observable behaviours, public documents, and norms.

  2. Espoused Values: Values communicated through leaflets, documents, and policies. They represent the ideals the organisation aspires to uphold.

  3. Shared Assumptions: This level, not readily observable, forms the essence of corporate culture. Success in implementing certain values transforms them into shared assumptions, while others remain as aspirations. Identifying these shared assumptions is challenging, and employees may not be consciously aware of why they behave in certain ways.

Kuznetsova (2016) notes that the frontstage accentuates some of these three types of aspects, while the backstage suppresses others. Therefore, in organisational culture, external projections may not always correspond with internal narratives. For instance, while employers may exhibit inclusivity on the frontstage, their backstage behaviour might reveal a less welcoming culture (Ali et al., 2011; Ball et al., 2005). Thus, creating a truly inclusive culture requires not just a polished outward appearance but also genuine support and positive attitudes behind the scenes (Davis, 2005; Schur et al., 2005).

In the context of job facilitation for PoAS and companies, creating an inclusive workplace environment is crucial, not only to integrate them into the labour market but also to support them in retaining employment. This necessitates ensuring compatibility between the organisation’s professed values and its actual practices. Professionals can consider all three layers of organisational culture to find a suitable match between individuals and employers, actively addressing any invisible barriers that may hinder inclusivity in the workplace.

Organisational structure is characterised as a relatively consistent pattern of actions and interactions among members aimed at fulfilling the organisation’s objectives, whether by design or emergence. This conceptualisation of organisational structure considers purpose to be a core element of the structure (Dow, 1988).

Furthermore, organisational structure models, defined by their specific structural dimensions, guide and mould how members of an organisation carry out their tasks to achieve its objectives. Within various organisational models, decision-making, actions, and interactions among members occur in distinct ways. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the chosen organisational structure model shapes the organisation’s culture. The alignment of organisational behaviour with cultural assumptions and values may impact how strong the organisational culture is, potentially strengthening or weakening it (Janiijevi, 2013).

Simultaneously, organisational culture forms the basis for the development of organisational structure. Hence, the organisational structure model adopted within a company probably harmonises with the prevalent cultural assumptions, values, and norms. For instance, if the organisational culture emphasises unequal power distribution and centralised authority, most likely a centralised organisational structure will be preferred (Janićijević, 2013).

Imagine a software development firm where a PoAS employee is expected to attend frequent team meetings, participate in brainstorming sessions, and collaborate closely with other team members in informal settings. The employee might feel overwhelmed by the social demands of the meetings and unable to contribute in ways that feel meaningful. The company may perceive the individual as disinterested or uncooperative, and the PoAS employee may feel sidelined and incapable of demonstrating their skills, leading to a diminished sense of ownership over their work. Without accommodations such as smaller, structured meetings or more written communication options, this employee might disengage further and start to feel powerless in their role. On the other side, when companies provide tailored support, mentorship, and flexibility, PoAS employees are more likely to feel a sense of ownership over their work. These supports show that the organization values their unique strengths and is invested in their success. 

As we mentioned earlier, in the workplace, there are a variety of narratives that constitute what we should call organisational culture. We should take into account the existence of both top-down and more structured narratives (what we called visible artefacts and frontstage behaviours) and bottom-up, implicit assumptions that influence the everyday practice of the employees. We, as professionals trying to support PoAS in the open labour market, have to take into account the existing dominant and weaker narratives of the company actors regarding the company itself, how they conceive work, or how they conceive autism, when they try to address existing stigma in the workplace, improve the relationship between PoAS and their colleagues, or solve a problem or issue that comes up regarding work. Examining these narratives will enhance our comprehension of the context and assist our clients in formulating strategies tailored to the specific company environment. 

Analysis of the company’s dominant narratives can be done with management and employees to help them better understand the narratives informing their company and how they influence their relationships with PoAS employees or collaborators. Organisational culture plays a pivotal role in shaping the sense of ownership among employees. Schein (2010) suggests that culture consists of shared values, beliefs, and behaviours that influence how individuals within the organisation interact and work. In workplaces where inclusive practices are embedded in the culture, employees are more likely to feel a sense of belonging and ownership.

Dominant narratives within an organisation’s culture can promote either a sense of ownership or foster a sense of powerlessness. For instance, if organisational narratives emphasise hierarchy and compliance, employees may feel less inclined to take initiative. Conversely, organisations that celebrate innovation, collaboration, and individual contributions cultivate a culture of ownership.

To assess and reshape limiting narratives, organisations can engage in reflective practices involving all employees, allowing them to identify existing attitudes and beliefs that may hinder a sense of ownership. By creating an environment where diverse voices are acknowledged and valued, organisations can foster a culture that empowers all employees, particularly those who have historically been undervalued. The analysis of the organisational culture can consider different dimensions. 

The empowerment of autistic employees is a crucial aspect of promoting ownership in the workplace. Autistic individuals often face barriers to job satisfaction and performance due to misconceptions and stereotypes about their capabilities and contributions. According to Ezerins et al. (2024), many PoAS employees report feeling underappreciated, which can lead to disengagement and lower retention rates. Promoting ownership requires organisations to challenge these perceptions and provide supportive structures that enable autistic employees to thrive. One effective strategy involves offering training and development programs tailored to the unique strengths and challenges faced by autistic individuals. These programs can enhance skills, build confidence, and facilitate connections among employees. Additionally, mentorship programs can help autistic employees develop a sense of ownership over their career paths. By pairing them with knowledgeable mentors who understand their needs and aspirations, organisations can provide guidance and support that arouses a deeper connection to their work. This commitment to empowering autistic staff not only enhances their ownership but also positively impacts the wider organisational culture.

To effectively promote ownership within an organisation, inclusive practices must be intentionally woven into the fabric of daily operations. This includes actively involving employees in decision-making processes, fostering transparent communication, and implementing collaborative team structures (Shore et al., 2011). 

One effective practice involves establishing feedback loops where employees regularly contribute their insights and perspectives. This may include structured avenues for providing feedback on workplace policies, practices, and projects. Such participation not only fosters ownership but also demonstrates that each employee’s opinions are valued in shaping the organisation.

Workshops focused on skills development should foster a sense of ownership among participants. By involving employees in training sessions aimed at enhancing problem-solving and leadership skills, organisations can further empower staff to take charge of their roles. Through participatory training methods, employees are encouraged to engage actively, share their insights, and contribute to their development, reinforcing their sense of ownership over both their career paths and the overall work environment.

Another key aspect of promoting inclusive ownership involves recognising achievements and contributions. Employee recognition programs that celebrate diverse talents and accomplishments can significantly enhance engagement. According to Eisenberger et al. (2002), recognition reinforces employees’ feelings of ownership and belonging, leading to increased performance and job satisfaction. This can take many forms, from formal awards to informal shout-outs during team meetings. When employees feel their efforts are acknowledged, they are more likely to invest in their work and foster a sense of ownership.

It is also important for the employer to check if expectations of the PoAS are realistic. This should, just like with neurotypical employees done for each individual. Companies often form expectations of PoAS,based on dominant narratives and stereotypes, such as the belief that PoAS may struggle in high-pressure environments, lack social skills, or cannot thrive in leadership roles. However, when companies shift their focus from generalized expectations to considering the unique strengths and needs of each individual, these assumptions can be challenged. By tailoring expectations and providing the right support—such as mentorship, specialized training, or adjustments to the work environment—organizations can create more inclusive spaces where PoAS employees not only meet but exceed expectations. This personalized approach leads to more positive outcomes, empowering PoAS to take ownership of their roles, thrive in their careers, and contribute in meaningful ways to the organization’s success.

Here are two practical examples of how a company’s expectations might influence worker performance:

A tech company hires a PoAS employee but assumes that, due to the individual’s autism, they will struggle in high-pressure environments and social situations. The company places the employee in a role with minimal interaction with others and does not provide any accommodations for their specific communication or sensory needs. As a result, the employee feels undervalued and disconnected from the team, leading to disengagement, lower job satisfaction, and ultimately, resignation. The company’s rigid expectations based on dominant narratives about autism prevent the employee from reaching their full potential.

A marketing firm hires a PoAS employee and, instead of assuming limitations based on autism, takes the time to understand the individual’s strengths and challenges. The company offers tailored support, such as clear communication strategies, a flexible work schedule, and the option to work in a quieter, less stimulating environment. Additionally, the firm provides a mentor to help the employee navigate social interactions and career development. As a result, the PoAS employee feels empowered and valued, quickly excelling in their role and eventually taking on a leadership position. The company’s willingness to adjust expectations and provide personalized support fosters a sense of ownership and belonging, leading to greater job satisfaction and productivity.

The narratives that dominate an organisation can significantly influence how employees perceive their roles and responsibilities. For many autistic individuals, overcoming societal and workplace stereotypes is essential for fostering a strong sense of ownership. Common dominant narratives may position autism as a deficit or limitation rather than recognising the unique strengths that autistic individuals often possess (Singer, 1999).

Organisations must actively work to unearth and challenge these dominant narratives. A narrative therapy approach (White & Epston, 1990) encourages individuals to reframe their experiences and view them through a lens of strength and capability rather than deficit. By encouraging autistic employees to share their personal stories and challenges, organisations can help shift the narrative from one of limitation to one of growth and potential.

We hereby provide a non-exhaustive list of possible topics to cover, accompanied by possible questions to start the conversation:

    • Analysis of the company’s values:

  • What are the company’s values, and how are they expressed in the working environment? 

  • What are the values in terms of social climate within the working environment that the company promotes? 

    • Reasons guiding the company hiring PoAS:

      • Why did the company decide to hire PoAS? What benefits do they see in this?

  • How does the legislation about inclusivity and integration in the workplace influence the company’s decision to include PoAS in the workforce? 

  • How does the company interpret such legislation? Are there some limitations in this interpretation?

  • How could the inclusion of PoAS employees improve the company’s productivity?

  •  Changes in the working environment:

  • How could the workplace change once PoAS are included in the company’s workforce?

  • What do you think of the fact that the company decided to hire PoAS? What benefits do you see in this decision?

  • What aspects of your organisational culture have changed since you included PoAS in your workforce?

  • What is the greatest concern you have in establishing a working relationship with PoAS?

Leadership plays a crucial role in creating an environment that fosters ownership throughout the organization. Transformational leaders, in particular, can have a significant impact on how employees perceive their roles and responsibilities. According to Bass and Avolio (1994), transformational leadership encourages employees to transcend their self-interests for the good of the organisation and to feel a genuine connection to their work. Leaders should model the values of ownership, accountability, and inclusivity in their interactions with employees. This involves being approachable, open to feedback, and actively engaging in conversations about empowerment and growth. Leaders who take the time to understand and address the specific needs of autistic employees can create supportive environments that empower all staff members to fully engage with their work.

Additionally, training for leaders on inclusivity and neurodiversity can be pivotal. By equipping leaders with the knowledge and skills necessary to support autistic employees, organisations create a culture of understanding and advocacy that cultivates ownership. This not only enhances the work environment for neurodiverse individuals but also enriches the organisation’s collective capacity for creativity and innovation.

The NARRATE Resource Kit offers some exercises that may help professionals deepen this topic, for instance:

  • Desires and requirements for the workplace

  • Navigating your company: Understanding policies, structures, and positions

  • What do you know about the autism spectrum?

  • Working with PoAS, a guide to colleagues

The “OWNERSHIP In-Company” unit underscores the importance of fostering a culture of ownership within organisations, particularly regarding neurodiverse employees, including those on the autism spectrum. By embracing the principles of empowerment, inclusivity, and constructive narrative reframing, organisations can create a space where all employees feel a sense of connection to their work. Through active engagement, recognition of contributions, and a commitment to leadership that champions inclusivity, organisations can cultivate a strong sense of ownership among their workforce. As a result, the atmosphere of collaboration and innovation not only strengthens internal relationships but also enhances productivity and performance. When organisations equip their employees with the tools and support necessary to take ownership of their roles, they create a transformative environment that benefits individuals and the organisation as a whole. This commitment to fostering a sense of ownership will ultimately lead to a more engaged, motivated, and innovative workforce—a true competitive advantage in today’s rapidly changing business landscape.

How has this unit challenged your understanding of organisational culture and its impact on employees, particularly PoAS?

In what ways have you become more aware of the discrepancies between frontstage and backstage actions within organisations, and how can you navigate these dynamics to better support PoAS and/or companies?

As a professional or mentor, how can you actively engage with PoAS in ongoing self-assessment and reality checks to ensure realistic narratives about their careers, addressing both strengths and challenges for improved long-term outcomes?

Considering their specific working environment and climate, how can you help the organisation modify their limiting dominant narratives for improved long-term outcomes?

What is the most important lesson you learnt from the content of this unit?

Ali, M., Schur, L., & Blanck, P. (2011). What types of jobs do people with disabilities want?. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21(2), 199–210.

Ball, P., Monaco, G., Schmeling, J., Schartz, H., & Blanck, P. (2005), Disability as diversity in Fortune 100 companies, Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23 (1), 97-122.

Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1994). Improving organisational effectiveness through transformational leadership. London: Sage Publications.

Davis L. (2005). Disabilities in the workplace: Recruitment, accommodation, and retention. AAOHN journal: Official Journal of the American Association of Occupational Health Nurses, 53(7), 306–312.

Dow, G. K. (1988). Configurational and coactivational views of organizational structure. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 53-64.

Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I.L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565–573.

Ezerins, M.E., Simon, L.S., Vogus, T.J., Gabriel, A.S., Calderwood, C., & Rosen, C.C. (2024). Autism and employment: A review of the “new frontier” of diversity research. Journal of Management, 50(3), 1102-1144.

Janićijević, N. (2013). The mutual impact of organizational culture and structure. Economic Annals, 58(198), 35-60.

Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.

Kuznetsova, Y. (2016). An inclusive corporate culture: Examining the visible and invisible levels of disability inclusiveness in two large enterprises. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 18(3), 179-190.

Morgan, G. (1998). Images of organization: The executive edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Schein, E.H. (2009). The corporate culture survival guide (New and rev. ed.). San Francisco: Wiley/Jossey-Bass.

Schein, E.H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco: Wiley/Jossey-Bass.

Schur, L., Kruse, D., & Blanck, P. (2005). Corporate culture and the employment of persons with disabilities. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23, 3–20.

Shore, L.M., Randel, A.E., Chung, B.H., Dean, M.A., & Holcombe, K.M. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Personal Relationships, 64(2), 146-168.

Singer, J. (1999). ‘Why can’t you be normal for once in your life?: From a ‘Problem with No Name’ to a new category of disability’. In M. Corke & S. French (Eds.). Disability discourse. London: Open University Press.

White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. London: W.W. Norton & Co.

DOWNLOAD

Relationships in-Company

In contemporary workplaces, the significance of fostering inclusive and nurturing relationships cannot be overstated, especially for neurodiverse employees, including autistic individuals. Within this context, this unit offers a comprehensive exploration of the dynamics at play in professional relationships, emphasising how these connections can be strengthened and enriched. By integrating principles from narrative therapy and poststructuralist approaches, this chapter aims to provide insights and practical strategies for organisations seeking to enhance mutual understanding between autistic employees and their co-workers—ultimately creating a more inclusive and supportive workplace culture.

The foundation of any successful workplace lies in its relationships. Healthy professional connections among colleagues not only contribute to individual satisfaction but also enhance team performance and organisational effectiveness (Robinson & Judge, 2013). However, these relationships are frequently influenced by various factors, including power dynamics, communication styles, and organisational culture. For PoAS employees, who may face unique barriers in social interactions, understanding these dynamics is crucial for fostering healthy professional relationships. 

Power dynamics often manifest in workplaces as hierarchical structures that can stifle communication and creativity. According to Foucault (1980), power operates through societal norms and relationships, shaping interactions in ways that can marginalise certain voices (see the OWNERSHIP In-Company unit for a more thorough exploration of the concept of dominant narratives). In the context of autism, these power impositions can result in misunderstanding or exclusion, hindering collaboration and engagement. By acknowledging and challenging these dynamics, organisations can create environments that prioritise inclusivity and equity, allowing all employees, including those with autism, to thrive.

Professionals can encourage in-company participants—be they PoAS employees, colleagues and/or employers—to reflect on their personal experiences, both positive and negative. This reflective practice aligns with narrative approach principles, which suggest that storytelling can enhance self-awareness and promote growth (White & Epston, 1990). By examining their own narratives, individuals can identify recurring themes and patterns that inform their current interactions, fostering a greater understanding of how to navigate workplace relationships more effectively.

To deepen the exploration of workplace relationships and inclusivity, the use of narrative questions can be beneficial. These questions prompt employees to reflect on their experiences, frame their stories, and engage in meaningful dialogue. Examples of narrative questions include:

  • Can you share a time when you felt particularly supported by a colleague or a team? 

  • What experiences have shaped your understanding of effective teamwork?

  • How do you navigate challenges in communication with colleagues?

  • Can you describe a moment when you felt misunderstood in the workplace?

  • What changes could we make to improve our team dynamics?

Cultivating inclusivity within professional relationships requires a commitment to understanding and valuing diverse perspectives. As noted by Shore et al. (2011), inclusive organisations actively work to create environments where all employees, regardless of their background or neurodiversity, feel valued and empowered to contribute. Building trust is essential for promoting a culture of inclusivity. Trust facilitates collaboration and encourages employees to share their thoughts and ideas without fear of reprisal. According to Dirks & Ferrin (2002), trust enhances team performance and improves the overall work environment. 

We hereby present two ideas of inclusivity practices that might be implemented in the company context: 

  • Mentorship program. Example: A technology company aimed to improve the inclusion of neurodiverse employees by implementing a mentorship program. They paired seasoned employees with PoAS interns to provide guidance and support. The mentors were trained to understand autism and to foster open communication. Feedback from participants highlighted increased confidence, improved relationships, and a greater sense of belonging among autistic employees. The mentorship program not only enhanced individual experiences but also fostered a more inclusive organisational culture.

  • Encouraging feedback. Example: A mid-sized marketing firm implemented a biweekly feedback system among all employees. Each session involved team members discussing their successes, challenges, and suggestions for improvement. Over time, employees reported feeling more connected and appreciated within their teams. This feedback loop encouraged open discussions about interpersonal dynamics and led to initiatives aimed at improving team collaboration and communication styles, aligning with the diverse needs of neurodiverse employees.

Incorporating inclusive practices is not just about changing procedures; it is about reshaping the very fabric of organisational culture. As Schein (2010) argues, culture comprises shared values and beliefs that guide behaviour within an organisation. To create an inclusive culture that values neurodiversity, organisations must examine their dominant narratives and challenge those that perpetuate misunderstanding or exclusion.

Examples of narrative reframing questions

To assist organisations in reframing their narratives, leaders can use the following questions during training workshops:

  • What positive attributes do you associate with neurodiverse employees in our workplace? 

  • How can we celebrate the unique contributions of our neurodiverse team members? 

  • What stories can we share to highlight successful collaborations involving autistic individuals?

  • How does embracing neurodiversity benefit our team and organisation as a whole?

  • In what ways can we shift our narratives to create a more inclusive culture?

These narrative reframing questions encourage employees to reflect on their assumptions and consider the broader implications of inclusion. By articulating positive stories and experiences, organisations can create a more affirming and supportive workplace culture.

Exercises that may help professionals raise insights into the topic of inclusivity within the work environment are  could be:

  • Autism and cliches

  • Desires and requirements for the workplace

  • Necessary framework conditions for PoAS

In any organisational context, trust and psychological safety are paramount in fostering effective communication, collaboration, and innovation. For PoAS employees, these elements are crucial in ensuring a supportive workplace where they can thrive. 

Trust, defined as the reliance on the integrity and behaviour of colleagues, is a cornerstone of effective teamwork and collaboration (Mayer et al. 1995). Establishing trust can be particularly vital in the context of enhancing inclusivity practices within workplaces and supporting PoAS employees, as these individuals may sometimes experience challenges in social interactions or fear of misunderstanding.

Psychological safety, as defined by Edmondson (1999), allows employees to feel secure in taking interpersonal risks, such as speaking up with ideas or admitting mistakes. For autistic employees, who may encounter unique social anxieties, establishing a psychologically safe environment is crucial to their success and well-being at work.

We at NARRATE believe that trust and psychological safety can be cultivated by creating occasions of dialogue and story-sharing within the working context for all actors (PoAS employees, colleagues, employers). For instance, companies could implement regular one-on-one check-ins between managers and team members. These meetings provide opportunities for employees to express concerns and discuss challenges in a supportive environment.

 When employees feel secure in expressing their ideas without fear of criticism or retribution, they are more likely to engage fully in their roles, contribute openly, and take the risks necessary for growth. This sense of safety allows individuals to focus on their tasks with confidence, knowing their contributions are valued and their voices respected. Besides performance, psychological safety creates chances for innovation. In environments where employees are encouraged to share unconventional ideas and challenge existing norms, creativity is more common. Teams that feel safe to experiment and fail are better equipped to explore new approaches and develop ground-breaking solutions, driving progress and adaptability in the organisation.
Psychological safety cultivates resilience among staff. When employees can openly discuss challenges and seek support, they build stronger connections with their colleagues, creating a collective capacity to navigate adversity. This sense of shared trust and understanding fortifies teams, enabling them to recover quickly from setbacks and remain effective even in uncertain times. By embedding psychological safety into workplace culture, organisations not only support individual well-being but also foster a robust, innovative, and high-performing workforce.

Another idea could be organising workshops, training sessions, and awareness campaigns that educate all employees about autistic experiences. This not only promotes understanding but also helps in building trust among team members.

Furthermore, companies could encourage open dialogue. Providing structured formats for feedback and discussion can enable employees to share insights without fear. For example, using anonymous suggestion boxes or digital platforms where team members can contribute ideas and feedback privately can enhance psychological safety.

Exercises in the NARRATE Resource Kit that can help professionals start conversations about these topics could be:

  • Desires and requirements for the workplace

  • Empathetic listening

Here are some examples of initiatives that professionals could promote to help companies put these ideas into practice:

    • Transparent communication. Example: At a large technology firm, a project team consisted of both neurotypical and autistic employees. The team implemented clear communication protocols, such as using visual aids and straightforward language during meetings. This effort was vital in ensuring that all team members understood their roles and responsibilities. As a result, autistic employees reported feeling more comfortable participating in discussions, ultimately leading to enhanced collaboration and trust within the team.

  • Peer recognition programs. Example: A marketing agency adopted a peer recognition program focused on celebrating small wins and contributions from all employees, including those who are autistic. When team members recognised each other’s efforts publicly, it helped build a culture of trust. Employees began to see the value in each other’s contributions, leading to stronger relationships and more effective teamwork. This practice encouraged open lines of communication and collaboration, integral for autistic employees seeking affirmation and support in their roles.

    • Creating safe spaces for discussion. Example: In a healthcare organisation, management implemented regular “Safe Space” meetings, where staff, including PoAS employees, could share experiences related to their work environments. During these meetings, leaders encouraged open sharing of thoughts on challenges, successes, and feelings without the fear of judgment. Employees noted an increased sense of belonging following these sessions, which led to more open communications regarding roles and responsibilities.

  • Training programs focused on psychological safety. Example: A leading consulting firm that developed a training program focusing on psychological safety. During these workshops, PoAS and non-POAS employees participate in activities designed to build trust and vulnerability among team members, such as sharing personal stories or reflecting on challenging situations. The outcome is not only enhanced mutual understanding but also a deepened sense of psychological safety within teams.

Disclosure of diagnosis

An environment where PoAS perceive trust and psychological safety helps PoAS more easily disclose their diagnosis. Disclosing an autism diagnosis is a significant aspect of self-advocacy. Self-advocacy involves individuals making decisions about whether to disclose their diagnosis based on their understanding of their own needs, the dynamics of their workplace, and potential consequences. When PoAS choose to disclose their diagnosis, they are asserting their identity and asserting their right to be understood and accommodated for who they are.  PoAS can be supported in strategically navigating disclosure decisions by taking into account how co-workers and supervisors may view their diagnosis once they are aware that attitudes towards PoAS can vary depending on the job context.

As Johnson & Joshi (2014) suggested, disclosure is quite an arduous and important process. In the workplace, individuals encounter the task of effectively conveying information to those in positions of authority while also navigating interactions with colleagues without disrupting group cohesion or losing support. Determining whom to disclose to and how to do so can be intricate. For instance, interactions with supervisors, who hold authority over aspects like performance evaluation and advancement, typically involve following formal hierarchies and structured communication methods. Conversely, interactions with co-workers, who impact the day-to-day work environment, rely more on establishing personal connections and understanding their distinct traits and needs. This implies that disclosing the diagnosis to co-workers requires a stronger focus on empathetic understanding compared to disclosing it to supervisors. Because hierarchical relationships are structured, it might be easier for PoAS to talk to their bosses. But telling co-workers about their condition, which requires understanding individual differences and caring for relationships, could be harder (ibid.).

Questions to explore trust and psychological safety

To encourage reflection and deepen the understanding of trust and psychological safety within the workplace, examples of questions that can be utilised are:

  • Can you share a time when you felt comfortable voicing your ideas in a group? What contributed to that sense of safety?  

  • Think of a situation where you felt your input was undervalued. What impact did that have on your willingness to contribute in the future?  

  • What steps could we take as a team to ensure that everyone feels supported when sharing their opinions?  

  • In what ways have you observed trust within our team? Can you provide specific examples?  

  • On a scale from 0 to 10, how much would you rate the quality of the freedom of speech you perceive in this company? Are you satisfied with this rating? If you are not, how can the team help you improve the level of your satisfaction? 

This unit highlights the importance of understanding and nurturing professional relationships within organisations, particularly in supporting neurodiverse employees. By focusing on relationship dynamics, fostering authentic connections, and implementing inclusive practices, organisations can create environments where all employees feel valued, engaged, and empowered to contribute to their fullest potential. Through narrative principles, organisations can encourage storytelling and self-reflection, allowing employees to share their experiences and reshape their workplace narratives. By implementing feedback loops, building trust, and actively reframing organisational culture, the positive impacts of healthy professional relationships will resonate throughout the workplace. As organisations prioritise relational aspects in their culture, they will not only benefit autistic employees but also enhance the overall organisational climate, fostering innovation and resilience in the workforce. In the journey toward a more inclusive and understanding workplace, the focus on relationships serves as both a foundational element and a powerful catalyst for lasting change.

Dirks, K.T., & Ferrin, D.L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611-628.

Edmondson, A.C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon Books.

Johnson, R.E., & Joshi, K. (2014). The role of trust in virtual teams: An integrative model. Journal of Management, 40(1), 101-135.

Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.

Schein, E.H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco: Wiley/Jossey Bass.

White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. London: W.W. Norton & Co.

DOWNLOAD

Knowledge in-Company

Creating an inclusive environment for PoAS employees in today’s diverse workplace landscape goes beyond mere compliance; it is crucial for unlocking an organisation’s full potential. The KNOWLEDGE In-Company unit serves to elucidate how organisations can construct, share, and utilise knowledge effectively to empower all employees. By fostering a culture rooted in collaboration and respect, organisations can capitalise on the unique strengths neurodiverse individuals bring to their teams.

As recognition of neurodiversity increases, the importance of cultivating inclusive workplace cultures has grown steadily. This chapter synthesises a variety of theoretical frameworks, practical applications, and illustrative case studies designed to equip professionals with actionable strategies for enhancing inclusivity. Central to this exploration are the ideas regarding narrative practices that highlight the significance of personal narratives in understanding and supporting PoAS employees. The unit also highlights how the alignment of individual and organisational values can yield benefits for both PoAS employees and the companies they serve.

We at NARRATE believe that empowerment is a foundational principle in cultivating inclusive workplaces that allow employees to feel impactful and competent in their roles. For PoAS employees, empowerment translates into creating opportunities that leverage their unique insights and skills. Research by Spreitzer (1995) underscores that empowering environments foster meaning, competence, self-determination, and overall impact, leading to heightened job satisfaction and loyalty. 

Empowerment is significant for at least three reasons. First, it acknowledges and validates the contributions of all employees, fostering a sense of belonging that is especially important for those who may feel isolated or marginalised. Second, when organisations actively involve PoAS employees in decision-making processes, they affirm their value, consequently enhancing workplace culture. Third, empowerment fosters agency—the capacity to act independently and make choices that influence one’s environment.  By opting for a decentred but influential professional stance (see the WE In-Company unit for a more thorough exploration of this concept), professionals can create safe spaces for employees to express their abilities and insights without feeling constrained by traditional hierarchical structures. A decentred position is characterised by a not-knowing, inquisitive, and respectful attitude in which professionals do not assume that they understand the significance of clients’ problems, what is important to them, and how they should live their lives. Rather, people are invited to categorise and reflect on their experiences and to take their own stance on how they prefer to live their lives. As a result of such a position, clients may experience “personal agency and the capacity for responsible action” (White, 2007, p. 289), and they may feel empowered “to pursue what is precious to them” (p. 59). Taking a decentred position in practice refers to adopting a perspective that moves away from the traditional hierarchical structures and power dynamics.

We can also train the company’s management and/or co-workers to adopt a more decentred position towards their employees, be they PoAS or neurotypical people. Rather than taking on a position of authority, they adopt a role of coaching and mentoring, actively seeking solutions rather than providing them. This, in turn, fosters the development of a more inclusive work environment that values everyone’s contributions.  

A more decentred and yet influential professional stance in asking questions and leading the conversations is in line with an approach that promotes a strength-based exploration rather than focusing solely on deficits and celebrates competences within the context of each individual’s story. This shift in perspective fosters a positive self-perception, laying the groundwork for empowerment. 

In this sense, mentorship and peer support play a crucial role in the NARRATE approach, fostering a sense of belonging and empowerment within supportive networks. Professionals facilitate connections where individuals can share experiences, gain insights, and collectively contribute to a narrative of community and mutual growth. In essence, the professionals’ NARRATE approach creates an empowering narrative that transcends conventional career development paradigms. It is a collaborative journey that navigates challenges, celebrates strengths, and ultimately empowers PoAS to take genuine ownership of their careers.

Narrative maps of practice are essential tools for visualising the shared experiences and insights of employees. They serve as frameworks of questions for facilitating conversations, which enable employees to express their experiences constructively. These maps encompass several critical elements that aid in the knowledge-sharing process:

    • Externalising conversations: Externalising conversations allow teams to focus on the challenges faced at work without attaching blame to individuals. This practice is essential because it encourages a culture of support and understanding, enabling constructive discussions about experiences. Externalisation involves framing challenges as separate from the individual, allowing for dialogue that addresses behaviours and situations without personalisation. This separation helps to reduce stigma, promote empathy, and foster an environment of cooperation and understanding. Example questions: 

  • What specific situations have you encountered that illustrate communication challenges, and how might we approach solutions together?

  • How can our discussions about these challenges encourage a more supportive environment for everyone involved?

  • What insights can we draw from exploring these experiences that might inform our future practices?

    • Scaffolding maps: Scaffolding maps help identify existing support structures available for PoAS employees. By mapping resources such as mentorship programs, training opportunities, and communication tools, organisations can clearly discern areas for improvement. Example questions: 

  • What specific types of support have proven most beneficial in your role, and how can we expand on these? 

  • Are there resources that you feel are lacking that could enhance your workplace experience?

  • How can we collectively develop additional supports that cater to both your needs and the needs of your colleagues?

    • Collaborative maps: This practice engages teams in collaboratively creating narrative maps to express their shared experiences. Collaborative narrative mapping empowers teams to identify successful strategies and common challenges, promoting teamwork. Example questions: 

  • What lessons learnt from previous projects can help us improve our approach to teamwork in the future? 

  • How can we visually represent our team dynamics to better understand our strengths and areas for improvement?

  • What experiences highlight our successful collaborations?

    • Visualising employee experiences: Mapping out an employee’s career trajectory allows organisations to acknowledge the unique journeys of their workforce. This documentation affirms contributions and highlights the importance of personalised career support. Example questions:

  • What significant milestones in your career journey with our organisation do you consider noteworthy, and what led to those achievements?

  • How can we better acknowledge and celebrate your key accomplishments within the team?

  • What barriers have you encountered in your career path that we can address together to create a more supportive environment?

Self-advocacy is another aspect of workplace empowerment that ensures continued empowerment, motivation, and a general feeling of well-being. For PoAS, self-advocacy involves expressing their needs, preferences, and challenges to ensure they receive the necessary support and accommodations. Self-advocacy is the act of representing one’s self, one’s view, and one’s interests. This necessitates a certain level of awareness, the capacity to discern what is required or desired, and the ability to effectively communicate this. Expressions of self-advocacy might be saying “no”, asking for help, expressing confusion or lack of understanding, expressing interests, expressing preferences, and expressing dislikes, discomfort, or distress.

We at NARRATE believe that, to foster empowerment and self-advocacy, professionals should create participatory mechanisms that involve PoAS employees in shaping organisational policies. Olinger (2021a, 2021b, 2021c) focuses on the idea of describing autism using a language that is as much as possible representative of the single PoAS’ experience. By supporting preferred identity development, exploring labels and preferences, and listening to problem-saturated narratives, practitioners can ensure that the language used to describe autism accurately represents the diverse experiences and identities within the autism community: 

  • Thickening the narrative: By gathering information about a person’s experiences, skills, and knowledge related to organising and regulating their physiology, practitioners can identify self-regulation and co-regulation strategies that may help individuals manage challenges. This approach entails looking into calming or regulation techniques that an individual can use on their own (self-regulation) or with assistance from others (co-regulation).

  • Supporting preferred identity development: Olinger emphasises the importance of supporting preferred identity development. Practitioners are encouraged to explore constructions and performances of identity, particularly those associated with the notion of normality. By listening for problem-saturated or unhelpful threads of identity development, practitioners can assist individuals in navigating and challenging societal expectations.

  • Exploring labels and preferences: It is crucial to take the time to explore different labels used to describe individuals on the autism spectrum, inquire about preferences, and understand what informs these preferences. Acknowledging and supporting the ways in which individuals prefer to be identified, even if these preferences change, can contribute to their empowerment and advocacy.

  • Shifting from deficit to possibility: Olinger advocates for viewing autism through a lens of possibility and agency rather than dysfunction or deficit. By empowering individuals to inhabit their lives as active participants and ensuring they are central to their services and supports, practitioners can create an environment that fosters empowerment and self-determination.

Olinger’s self-advocacy map (2021c) can be applied with PoAS employees. It helps develop an experience-near description of autism. It focuses on asking questions about five dimensions: 

  1. Sensory perception: it is explored by asking questions about the sensitivity, acuity, and pleasing of the five senses, plus the senses of proprioception (body awareness), interoception (recognition of internal cues), and body movement.

  2. Social relationships: the person’s social profile is explored by asking questions about how they describe their communities and the social group they are part of. Example questions:

  • Who do you see as family?

  • Who do you consider a friend? What is your understanding of ‘friend’?

  • What conditions support you to be comfortable around others (e.g., number of people, environment, activity, familiarity, etc.)?

  • What conditions support them to make friends or connect with others (e.g., age, place,  interest, etc.)?

  1. Challenges: that is “things that are hard” (ibid., p. 54). Example questions:

  • Can you define what a “challenge” is to you?

  • Can you name three significant challenges you face at the workplace?

  1. Skills: that is “something the person is good at” (ibid., p. 54). Example questions:

  • What are you good at?

  • What does come easily to you?

  • In what context does this skill help you more?

    • How could you improve this skill at work? 

  • Can you provide a specific example of a challenging situation you encountered in your previous employment where a particular skill was crucial for success?

  • How did you navigate through that situation, and what skills did you rely on to overcome the challenges?

  • Reflecting on your past experiences, can you identify any recurring themes or patterns in terms of skills that you believe require further development?

  • Can you recall a success story from your work history where you effectively utilised a particular skill to achieve a positive outcome?

  • In what areas do you feel less confident or competent in your current role, and how do you think further development of those skills could increase your performance?

  • Have there been instances where feedback from colleagues or supervisors highlighted specific skills that you may need to work on? How did you respond to this feedback?

  • How do you believe enhancing certain skills could contribute to your overall professional growth and success in your career?

According to Olinger (ibid.), explorations of sensory profiles, social profiles, and skills and challenges are ways to elicit the knowledge and skills that clients hold about what is helpful for them. The information yielded from these explorations serves as the basis for promoting the PoAS’ agency and action. This description may also help the employer understand what autism means specifically for the PoAS, and what additional support might be required. Gathering this information helps give voice to PoAS employees’ experience, skills and knowledge in relation to organising and regulating one’s physiology—what educational and behavioural approaches might call for regulation or calming strategies, which may be accessed by the person alone  (self-regulation) or with support from others  (co-regulation).

Olinger suggests that processes of self-regulation and co-regulation deeply connect to self-advocacy (ibid.). That is how PoAS understand to advocate in ways that get the responses they are hoping for and avoid making a problem worse, while also understanding something about navigating the system in which these needs can be met. Consequently, Olinger’s map of practice includes questions about the way PoAS reflect on how and when to express their needs and desires within a specific social context. Example questions:

  • When do you think it would be the best moment to express your needs?

  • What is the first need you would try to explain to your colleagues?

  • If you think there is never a good moment to express your need, what can you do to change the context in a way that allows you to express your need?

We at NARRATE believe that this  proactive approach contributes significantly to fostering a more inclusive and accommodating work environment, not only for the PoAS but for all other staff in the company. Sometimes these accommodations benefit the entire work environment and increase efficiency. When a PoAS , for example, needs more clear instructions to do certain tasks, this can also alleviate uncertainty in other workers and reduce the need for additional explanations and follow-up.

You can find more examples of self-assessment in the NARRATE Resource Kit exercises, for instance:

  • Diamond ranking

  • Positive ridefinition

A contingency plan serves as a handbook for what to do in challenging situations. In the context of in-company work with PoAS, it can be developed as an individual guide and explored as a tool to help the PoAS employees as individuals. Some people with a diagnosis on the autism spectrum might experience significant distress in some working situations, which makes maintaining control much harder. In these cases, having a contingency plan allows the employer and colleagues to know what to do and who to contact if the behaviour ever happens again.  Having clear instructions on what to do in challenging situations or unexpected circumstances can reduce PoAS’ stress levels and improve their performance. In this sense, the contingency plan serves as another instrument for enhancing PoAS self-advocacy.

However, the problem with making a contingency plan is that it can easily stigmatise the PoAS in the eyes of coworkers. Stigma can arise because it can single out the PoAS, treating them differently from their neurotypical peers. Misunderstandings may arise due to a lack of understanding and awareness; not everyone will comprehend the necessity or appropriateness of a contingency plan.  So, in cases of known troublesome behaviour, coworkers and supervisors should know that the PoAS is aware that this behaviour is not appropriate and does not want it. If the behaviour happens again, it is likely that the person is experiencing something difficult and needs help. Examples of this might include loud scream, banging objects, inappropriate language usage, etc. 

Together with the PoAS, the professional and the supervisor can explore events that cause uncertainty. What do I do when the supervisor is not there and I have a question? What do I do when I disagree with my colleague or customer? What should I do when I need some time to process things?  

We suggest narrative inquiry as a way of creating a contingency plan together with the PoAS. 

We can discuss a variety of topics, not just these.  

  • Accommodating sensory needs 

  • Navigating social situations  

  • Handling unexpected changes 

  • Providing clear communication methods 

  • Addressing workplace stressors 

  • Supporting Emotional Well-being 

  • Adapting to Emergency situations 

The PoAS should address potential stressors, sensory sensitivities, and communication preferences in a safe manner. It ensures that in emergency situations, the PoAS has a plan that they can follow so that emergency situations are approached with clarity and preparedness. It outlines clear instructions and communication methods tailored to the unique needs of individuals, offering strategies for maintaining safety during unforeseen circumstances. Whether it involves sensory overload or unexpected changes, the plan equips individuals with the tools to navigate these situations safely and effectively. 

Example situations and guiding instructions for a contingency plan

What if I get sick during the workday? In case you get sick during the workday, you need to tell your superior by phoning him / her, and after that, you can leave the workplace. If you are so sick that you would need to go to the doctor, you need to book a doctor’s appointment for yourself. You can schedule a doctor’s appointment for the health services that your employer pays for if you have employer-sponsored health insurance. Otherwise, you need to visit a GP in the public health services. Rest until you get healthy. On your supervisor’s notice, you can stay home for a certain period. Ask your supervisor how long you can stay home to heal yourself without a doctor’s certificate. For a longer stay, you need to go to the doctor to get a sick leave certificate. When you are healthy again, you can go back to work. If you’ve been very sick, don’t work too hard when you return to work, and remember to rest and take breaks.    

What happens on a coffee break? A coffee break is a social break during the workday, when employees go to the social space or kitchen of the workplace and have coffee and a little snack. For example, you can hold a coffee break in the morning or in the afternoon. On the coffee break, employees have a chitchat, which means that you can talk about universal subjects like the weather, politics, sports, or something personal like your hobbies. Don’t talk for too long on your turn; instead, concentrate on listening to what everybody else has to say. You can direct your body (chest) towards the person who is speaking, smile every once in a while, and nod your head if you agree with the speaker. You can also give your opinion on the matter that everybody talks about on your turn or when everybody else is quiet. The length of a coffee break is often 5 to 10 minutes, but you must always ask your supervisor how long the coffee break at your work is. 

What will I do when some unexpected matter stops me from working? If an unexpected matter arises that prevents you from working, it is important to communicate this as quickly as possible to your supervisor. You can reach them on any designated communication channel, for example, by phone or text message, to inform them about the issue. Depending on the nature of the situation, you may need to find out whether you can resolve it independently or if you require assistance. You can also talk to your colleagues if you have questions about the situation; they might be able to help. If it’s a minor setback, try to address it efficiently to resume your tasks as soon as you can. However, if it’s a significant obstacle that impedes your work progress, seek guidance from your supervisor on how best to proceed. They can provide clarity on whether you should prioritise resolving the issue or adjust your work schedule accordingly.

What will I do when I need help? When you feel like you need any help, do not hesitate to reach out to your colleagues or your supervisor for support. Make sure to tell them specifically what you need help with and how they can help. Be receptive to suggestions or guidance offered by others, and don’t forget to thank them for their help. If you need any clarification on instructions, try to look for clarification as soon as possible to avoid any misunderstandings. Remember, asking for help is not a sign of weakness but a proactive step towards resolving challenges effectively. 

How should I behave when I’m in the same space as my work colleagues? When around coworkers, remember that you are still in a professional setting. Make sure your actions and interactions follow workplace etiquette. Practice active listening during conversations, showing genuine interest in what others have to say. Avoid dominating the conversation and let everyone speak. It might be best to avoid topics that might be sensitive or divisive—for example, politics or religion. 

How will I handle work-related disagreements with my superior? When you disagree with your boss, do so respectfully and professionally. First, make sure you fully understand your perspective and the reasons behind it. When discussing the disagreement with your supervisor, approach the conversation calmly and constructively. Express your viewpoint and provide rationale and supporting evidence when possible. Be receptive to your supervisor’s viewpoint and approach their insights with a receptive mind. Aim to find common ground or potential compromises that align with the goals of the organisation. 

Contingency planning can also be done at the company’s level. In this case, we at NARRATE believe that it should be informed by the diverse narratives of employees. This narrative-focused approach underscores the necessity of preparing for various scenarios that might impact inclusivity. By actively gathering diverse insights from employees, organisations can anticipate potential challenges and develop effective strategies to address them. The importance of incorporating narratives into planning processes cannot be overstated. Reliance on quantitative data alone may overlook essential qualitative insights that are pivotal in shaping inclusive policies. Accessing personal stories ensures that organisational strategies reflect employees’ real experiences and needs. To implement this approach effectively, professionals can conduct focus groups or surveys designed to gather valuable employee narratives regarding experiences with past changes and anticipated challenges. Questions like, “What barriers did you experience during our last transition, and how might we address those in future planning?” can provide critical insights that inform effective, inclusive strategies.

To encourage rich dialogue and exploration, organisations can utilise specific narrative questions aimed at sparking insightful conversations. These questions prompt employees to reflect on their experiences and share valuable insights, ultimately leading to actionable strategies for promoting inclusivity. These narrative questions are instrumental in fostering an open dialogue among employees. By promoting discussions that allow employees to reflect on their experiences, organisations can gain valuable insights into improving inclusivity and creating a supportive workplace. Examples of these narrative questions include:

Empowerment and agency:

  • What aspects of your work empower you, and how can we enhance that further?

  • Can you recall a time when you felt particularly confident in contributing to your team’s goals?

Identifying barriers:

  • What challenges have you faced in the workplace that you believe could be addressed?

  • How can we ensure that every voice is heard, especially those from neurodiverse backgrounds?

Team dynamics:

  • Describe a successful collaboration within your team. What factors contributed to that success?

  • How do you believe we can enhance our communication to better support each other?

  • What strategies do you think we can implement to build stronger relationships within the team?

  • What challenges have you faced in the workplace that you believe could be addressed?

  • How can we ensure that every voice is heard, especially those from neurodiverse backgrounds?

Career aspirations:

  • What goals do you have for your career, and what steps are you taking to pursue them?

  • How can the organisation better support your aspirations and professional development?

  • In what ways do you think your unique background can contribute to your career path here?

Inclusivity and support:

  • How can we cultivate an environment where everyone feels included and valued?

  • In your opinion, what are the critical elements of a truly inclusive workplace?

  • What suggestions do you have for ensuring that support systems are accessible to all employees?

Reflecting on learning:

  • Can you share a significant learning moment you’ve had at work? How did it impact you?

  • What would you have liked to know when you started your career with us, and how can we better prepare newcomers?

  • How do you perceive your learning has evolved since joining the organisation?

Cultural Understanding:

  • What does a culture of inclusivity mean to you, and how can we embody that in our daily actions?

  • How do you believe your own experiences and background enrich our workplace culture?

  • What practices should we adopt to ensure our culture remains welcoming and supportive of everyone?

To further illustrate the practical application of these principles, consider the following case studies showcasing successful implementations of inclusive practices within organisations.

Case study 1: Knowledge sharing in a global tech company. A global tech company recognised the critical importance of inclusivity for employees with autism and launched an “Inclusive Narratives” program focused on storytelling as a means of sharing knowledge and experiences. Employees were encouraged to articulate their experiences related to neurodiversity during workshops, guided by narrative questions that prompted deeper reflection. Facilitators created narrative maps highlighting common themes from shared experiences, such as the need for flexible communication styles and tailored support systems. The insights gathered informed targeted training initiatives aimed at improving team dynamics and collaboration. The results were evident; after implementing these changes, the company observed enhanced collaboration and increased morale among employees, showcasing the transformative impact of inclusive practices on workplace culture.

Case study 2: Peer mentorship in an engineering firm. An engineering firm introduced a peer mentorship program empowering non-PoAS employees to mentor their PoAS colleagues. This initiative not only enhanced mutual understanding but also cultivated a culture of respect and collaboration. Regular mentorship sessions included narrative questions that encouraged shared exploration of goals and challenges. For example, questions like, “What have you learnt about your strengths in this mentorship?” fostered an environment for open dialogue. As a result, PoAS employees reported greater confidence in their roles, feeling more comfortable sharing their ideas during team discussions. This peer mentorship model exemplifies how structured support fosters inclusivity within the organisational culture.

Implications for practice

The insights gained from these case studies highlight several actionable best practices that professionals can adopt to foster an inclusive environment for PoAS employees:

Create structured knowledge-sharing opportunities. Organisations should prioritise facilitated forums for collaborative storytelling and knowledge sharing. Empowering employees to voice their insights not only enhances the overall understanding of inclusivity but also promotes a culture of collective learning where every individual’s perspective is valued.

Implement peer mentorship programs. Establishing structured mentorship initiatives provides critical support for PoAS employees, enabling them to navigate workplace dynamics while allowing non-PoAS colleagues the opportunity to learn from diverse perspectives. This reciprocal exchange fosters empathy and strengthens community ties within the workplace.

Develop training based on employee narratives. Crafting training programs that reflect the lived experiences of employees ensures that educational materials resonate with the workforce. This approach increases the relevance and effectiveness of training initiatives focused on neurodiversity and inclusivity.

Foster a culture of continuous feedback. Regular feedback mechanisms should be established to encourage PoAS employees to express their thoughts about workforce policies and practices. This ongoing dialogue is vital for ensuring that organisations remain adaptive and responsive to the evolving needs of their workforce.

Leverage narrative maps to identify gaps and strengths. Narrative mapping serves as a practical tool for visualising employee experiences and insights. This approach helps organisations pinpoint areas in need of improvement while also highlighting existing strengths and successful initiatives that can be celebrated and built upon.

The KNOWLEDGE In-Company unit is instrumental in reshaping how organisations support their PoAS employees. By emphasising knowledge creation through collaborative storytelling, practical applications, and shared experiences, organisations can foster environments that genuinely value and support every individual. The interconnected concepts explored—including empowerment, narrative maps of practice, career construction theory, scaffolding, solution-focused conversations, and contingency planning—collectively contribute to a holistic commitment to inclusivity that promotes collaboration, dignity, and shared understanding.

Moreover, engaging openly with the stories and experiences of employees not only enhances inclusivity for PoAS individuals but also enriches the overall culture of the workplace. This commitment to recognising and incorporating diverse perspectives leads to a more innovative, empathetic, and cohesive organisational environment, ultimately benefiting everyone involved.

By implementing the strategies outlined in this unit, organisations can create an inclusive atmosphere that empowers every employee to flourish both personally and professionally. By prioritising knowledge-sharing practices at the core of organisational values, employers pave the way for a brighter and more inclusive future for all.

How can you apply the narrative questions described in the unit to better understand and articulate your own strengths and characteristics in a professional setting?

In what ways can you enhance your awareness of the challenges PoAS may face in the workplace, and how can you contribute to creating a more supportive environment?

How might you adapt the contingency plan concept discussed in the unit to address potential challenges or uncertainties in your own work environment?

What is the most important lesson you learnt from the content of this unit?

Olinger, C. (2021a). Narrative practices and autism, Part 1: Theory and engagement: Shedding ableism from therapy. International Journal of Narrative Therapy & Community Work, 2, 32-41.

Olinger, C. (2021b). Narrative practices and autism, Part 2: Expanding on understandings of autism. International Journal of Narrative Therapy & Community Work, 2, 42-49.

Olinger, C. (2021c). Narrative practices and autism, Part 3: Scaffolding practice toward identity, advocacy and communities of support. International Journal of Narrative Therapy & Community Work, 2, 50-59.

Spreitzer, G.M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.

White, M. (2007). Maps of narrative practice. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.

DOWNLOAD
DOWNLOAD In Company

FRAMEWORK

IN HOUSE

IN COMPANY

RESOURCE KIT

Back To Top