Workplace Ideals π§
βIf you are neurodivergent, it is possible that you have never experienced a fully respectful relationship in your entire life. Here is what inclusion and respect looks like. When it is safe to do so, you can teach others how to respect you β because now you will know what it looks like.β
When Is It Safe?
Supporting accessibility in a workplace with limited institutional training on the topic requires a skilled leader to navigate effectively.
A good leader is someone who can work with you on your barriers, even without prior formal training or an institutional mandate to do so.
This matters because the conditions of a given workplace determine more than just your comfort. Research on organizational trust consistently shows that the environment shapes how ambiguity is interpreted: In high-trust environments, ambiguous behaviour tends to be read charitably, while in low-trust environments it is read defensively or with suspicion (Luhmann 1979; Kramer 1999). For neurodivergent workers, who may already face a higher baseline of misinterpretation, this distinction is not abstract, it is the difference between disclosure being met with genuine collaboration or quiet retaliation.
Amy Edmondsonβs foundational work on psychological safety in teams reinforces this: In teams where leaders actively model openness and non-judgment, individuals are far more likely to speak up about barriers without fear of professional consequence (Edmondson 1999). Leaders and colleagues who create these conditions, even informally, are assets worth identifying.
Below are signals to look for when assessing whether a leader may be safe to approach. These observations can be based on your direct experience of them, or on what trusted others report about them (Grasso, n.d.).
π’ Green Flags
These are characteristics associated with leaders who tend to create psychologically safe, high-trust environments (Edmondson 1999; Luhmann 1979; Grasso, n.d.):
- They share as much information as possible.
- They use their power mindfully and with awareness of its effects.
- They create conditions for internal motivation, rather than relying on fear or pressure.
- They seek to understand why something succeeded just as much as they seek to understand why something failed.
- They emphasize personal responsibility, including their own.
- They understand workplace politics and navigate them with discernment.
π© Red Flags
These patterns are associated with low-trust environments and leaders who may cause harm, even without intending to (Kramer 1999; Grasso, n.d.):
- They share the minimum amount of information they can get away with.
- They cause you to question your own perception of situations, also known as gaslighting.
- They are predominantly focused on understanding why something failed, without equal interest in what works.
- They navigate workplace politics as an end rather than as a tool, they are political in a self-serving way.
- They use their power thoughtlessly or impulsively.
- They rely on pressure, fear, and authority as motivational tools.
- They tolerate poor conduct from others when the outcome is productive.
- They are afraid to lose their power or status.
- They struggle to say no, and you havenβt developed the trust where they can voice their concerns openly:
- Leaders who lack healthy boundaries are more likely to over-commit.
- Over time, they may develop resentment toward the people they have agreed to help.
- When overwhelmed, they may walk back what they committed to making them unreliable allies.
- Even if they genuinely care and accept a request for reasonable adjustments, consider the long-term relational impact carefully.
They share private information about colleagues and engage in gossip, not because they are confiding in you as a safe personal friend or mentor, but because thatβs who they are.
This is a meaningful signal: if they will discuss othersβ private information with you, they may handle your private medical information with the same lack of discretion.
They struggle to regulate their emotions, including through expressions of excessive empathy.
Their self-concept depends on seeing and being seen as a good person, even if they donβt have the steadiness to follow through on what they are agreeing to. When they fall apart, they may panic that they failed someone vulnerable without institutional protection. This creates dissonance that violates their core identity as a βgood personβ.
They may blame you and use institutional baseline against you to exit the situation. They may also need to self-regulate by telling themselves and others:
βThey approached with inappropriate requests that exceeded my responsibilitiesβ βThey are difficultβ
To exit the dynamic with their self-image intact, the empath may find that itβs easier to blame you and use your access needs against you.
If youβre Autistic, itβs still going to be hard. And you likely know yourself well enough to know what you canβt rely on β which is, itself, a form of self-knowledge.
These Signals Apply Less When:
- You and the leader have built a relationship over time and genuinely invested in each other.
- You were deliberate about holding back your request until you were confident the relationship was safe.
- You have known each other long enough to have built a track record.
On Low and High-Trust Environments
Not all of the dynamics above are personal to the individual leader. Organizational research suggests that the broader environment, including how impartially institutions are perceived to function, shapes the degree to which individual actors feel safe to be transparent (Rothstein 2011; Putnam 2000). A leader who might behave well in a high-trust institution may still behave poorly in one that structurally rewards opacity or political maneuvering.
In Other Words: If the red flags feel systemic rather than individual, they may be. Your read on the situation is valid data.
References
@agrassoblog).