Neurodiversity 101: Building a talent pipeline for innovation in academic and educational settings
Different types of arrows inside an odd white shape. Person drawing it with neurodiversity symbol underneath on a black background

Neurodiversity 101: Building a talent pipeline for innovation in academic and educational settings

In the past I have spoken about how to create neuroinclusuve workplaces and what we need to consider if we want to create the leaders of tomorrow. But as a cross breed- academic, researcher, and tech entrepreneur running a business, I think I can take some learning from each of these settings to discuss how we can all learn more how we can create innovative academic settings.

I have certainly had a 'squiggly career". I became a professor and then did my PhD.. not a traditional pathway. My Dad was the first person in his family ever to go to university and became a professor in Anaesthetics, and an internationally recognised leader in his field.He had to hand write his research papers as he could never type and his writing was impossible for anyone else to read! We both discussed in the past how we had been fortunate to have mentors who had provided us with opportunities and the settings to allow us to thrive.

I believe strongly that intrapreneurship is as important as entrepreneurship to drive innovation in our organisations and we need to especially consider this in educational and research settings.

"Intrapreneurship is a system within an organisation that allows employees to act like entrepreneurs by developing innovative ideas and products or services. Intrapreneurs are often self-motivated, proactive, and action-oriented, and they may think and act differently than other employees."

What stops neurodivergent academics and researchers thrive and become our next leaders?

I recently wrote about neurodiversity and leadership but wanted to focus this time more on universities and research settings.

Universities often base promotions on traditional markers of success, such as publication records, administrative leadership, and teaching evaluations. While these metrics have value, they can inadvertently exclude significant contributors, particularly those whose strengths lie outside conventional academic expectations. They can result in stifling creativity and intrapreneurship qualities.

Below are key groups of people who may be overlooked under this approach:

Who do we lose with this approach?

  1. Innovative researchers and thinkers -the next inventor of something we didn't know we needed!
  2. Specialised contributors - deep subject matter understanding
  3. Diverse thinkers who think and work differently to the 'pack'
  4. Collaborators and interdisciplinary scholars - who work across systems and can see connections others can't see ( like chess players!)
  5. Future-oriented educators - who can envision what education needs to be to develop the next generation.

As it happens these are the leaders we hear spoken about by Leinwand et al in the Harvard Business Review in 2022(https://hbr.org/2022/01/reinventing-your-leadership-team) about reinventing your leadership team.

Expanding criteria to include alternative progression paths

If we are to create a more inclusive and effective academic environment, promotion criteria should be expanded to acknowledge innovative research, technological integration, and curriculum development.

This shift would provide neurodivergent academics and other non-traditional contributors with alternative paths for advancement. It also means we need to reconsider current metrics in students as well as our people working within the organisations.

Below are some approaches to achieve this:

  1. Recognising innovation and applied research: Universities can create promotion tracks that reward innovation and practical applications of research, recognising contributions that may not result in traditional publications but have significant real-world impacts. There has been a shift in considering Knowledge Translation as a metric but this may need to be valued even more?
  2. Rewarding curriculum and teaching innovations: Institutions should value teaching excellence and curriculum innovation as much as research output, ensuring that academics who prioritise student success through innovative methods are recognised. Not everyone can or should do and be everything. In my experience in medicine not all doctors are good teachers, but some doctors are excellent.
  3. Support for diverse thinkers: Neurodivergent academics can be supported by expanding promotion criteria to include creativity in research, technological innovation, and contributions to interdisciplinary fields, ensuring that diverse thinkers are not lost in the system.

Step outside and learn..

If we look to hugely successful companies like Apple, Meta, Google, and Microsoft I wonder if we can consider what are their successful themes and see how these could be relevant to research and academic settings too and also having an added dimension which is considering this through a neuroinclusive lens. This is important as it is not an accident that Zuckerberg who has described himself as 'mildly autistic'; Bill Gates described himself having Dyslexia and ADHD; and Steve Jobs was also diagnosed with Dyslexia.These companies also have many neurodivergent people working in them including some of their leaders.

Stepping up or falling down?

The challenge comes when we are doing well we then and progress in an organisation we are expected to take on roles such as management positions that don't always fit with the skills that we has been doing well in. Ironically this was the reason someone thought we should progress. We then are expected to be good communicators ( which may have had nothing to do with our previous job), sit in long meetings( something that may be hard for some people to maintain focus) or even present to others ( when previously this was not a part of the job description or skill set at all!). This can also often mean an increasing need to mask to fit into these current structures and practices leading to an added layer of stress.

Faltering steps can sometimes result loss of confidence, lack of competence and people getting 'stuck' in the middle and not progressing and thriving to become leaders.We can e see a glass ceiling occurring (with a view from others that says 'never again' reducing the chance for others to progress). Alternatively, we can get stuck in middle management,'burn out' or quietly quit the organisation all together. This can have a damaging impact on the person and stifle their true potential. Some, if lucky, will find an entrepreneurial route to success with fewer restrictions on how, where and when to work and enable them to be their 'authentic self'.

So what do some of these organisations they do?

  • Technical expert tracks: Foc on technical leadership without people management, allowing employees to progress by contributing to technological advancements. Meta, for example, offers a distinct track for individual contributors. Employees can rise to senior-level positions focusing on product leadership, innovation, and technical contributions rather than managing people.
  • Project and product leadership: Offering opportunities to lead key projects or products, enabling significant impact without managing teams.
  • Innovation-focused roles: Encouraging neurodivergent employees to lead through innovation, emphasising creative and technical contributions over day-to-day management.

What do the companies do and how could this be translated into academic, research, training settings for neurodiversity to thrive?

1. Innovation and continuous learning:

  • Innovation: All these leading companies prioritise continuous innovation. Google is renowned for its "20% time" policy, encouraging employees to spend part of their work hours on side projects, which has led to the creation of products like Gmail and AdSense.
  • Application to research settings: They could adopt this culture of innovation by encouraging interdisciplinary projects, funding exploratory research, and creating space for researchers to experiment with bold ideas without the pressure of immediate results.

"It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit" — Harry S Truman

2. Data-driven decision making:

  • Data utilisation: Google and Meta are masters of using data to make informed decisions. They employ data at every level to optimise their products, improve user experiences, and drive business decisions. Microsoft has similarly adopted a data-centric approach across its software and cloud services.
  • Application to research settings: Research settings can enhance decision-making by incorporating more data-driven approaches in project management and resource allocation.There is a need to collect and analyse data at all stages of the employment lifecycle and consider why there is a lack of diverse talent; what representation there is at all stages including leaders and what information is missing and why...

3. Talent acquisition and development:

  • Attracting top talent: These tech giants invest heavily in attracting, retaining, and developing top talent. Microsoft’s Neurodiversity Hiring Program and Google’s extensive onboarding processes help create a workforce with diverse skill sets. Meta invests in leadership development programmes to ensure continuous talent growth.
  • Application to research settings: Academic and research institutions can learn from these practices by creating specialised programs for attracting top researchers, offering ongoing professional development opportunities, and fostering a culture that supports diversity and inclusion including mentorship programmes. Read more about Prof. Sara Rankin leading a new programme at Imperial College and the new enterprise lab teaching intrapreneurship skills and creativity.

4. Scalability and flexibility:

  • Scalability and flex: Tesla’s success lies in its ability to scale innovation, moving from niche electric vehicles to mass-market products. Google and Microsoft have also mastered scalability, particularly through cloud services like Google Cloud and Microsoft Azure, which allow them to serve millions of users globally.
  • Application to research settings: Research environments can benefit from this approach by creating scalable research frameworks. For example, successful pilot projects can be expanded to larger-scale studies, and flexible funding models can be developed to support rapid growth in emerging research areas.

5. Strategic partnerships and ecosystems:

  • Partnerships: Meta, Google, Tesla, and Microsoft all thrive by building ecosystems around their products, including partnerships with other companies, developers, and even academic institutions. For instance, Microsoft collaborates with universities for AI research, and Tesla partners with energy companies for renewable energy projects.

"Cross-boundary teaming, within and across organizations, is an increasingly popular strategy for innovation.In a growing number of cases, teams span organizational boundaries, not just functional ones, to pursue innovation".Amy Edmondson

  • Application to research settings: Universities and research institutions can enhance their impact by expanding their strategic partnerships with industry, government, and other academic entities.

6. User-centric approaches:

  • Customer focus: Google and Meta constantly iterate their products based on user feedback to enhance user satisfaction.
  • Application to research settings: We do see more published research relating to lived experience but I think we can adopt an even more user-centric approach by prioritising the impact of research on society and how research can solve real-world problems. This means including diverse populations!

Blog author

I am the CEO of Do-IT Solutions, a tech-for-good company, and a Professor in the field of Neurodiversity.

Do-IT provides web-based tools to help understand neurodiverse spiky profiles and help with wellbeing as well as undertaking training and consultancy with organizations.

I come from a very neurodivergent pathway that has found different routes to leadership positions.

*Views are all my own!

OK Bo?tjan Dolin?ek

回复
Tom Christopher

Teacher ESE / English at Pace Center for Girls

3 周

Love this

回复

re Innovation Higher Education 1980s and now: Managing innovation/intrapreneurship in Higher Education is a really complex political skill. Whereas the environment in the 1980s was challenging but not impossible, for those prepared to make the sacrifices, the reports of trying to follow one's bent and to innovate to meet the needs affecting one's discipline today are universally negative. 'Enterprise Culture' has captured the sector, managers make the decisions and funding follows those decisions. The needs these decisions meet are resource-related: more funding, fewer cuts, etc. This is a toxic ecology, for authentic innovation. Even the most outstanding figures in their field - if they can afford to - leave/get pushed. E.g. Marina Warner, Why I left the University London Review of Books https://www.lrb.co.uk 11 Sept 2014 Amanda, you are to be congratulated on your achievements, which are undeniable. What I feel is missing from most of your accounts is how natural selection, the logic of survival, operates in academic institutions. From what one hears, it's no different from any other jungle. Desmond Ryan

2). There were 4-5 interesting exceptions that proved the rule. These were the ones that grew so fast that they were impossible to keep under the control of one/a few innovators in a single department. They so neatly hit the spot of market need that they were rapidly inflated to key status and value in their industry/profession. The Helicopter Underwater Escape Training centre in Aberdeen was developed by a team in Robert Gordon's Institute of Technology. It was rewarded by such a large surge in demand that it became impossible to keep the activity in-house and it was spun out to become an independent unit, now part of a global firm. The second example was the Hazardous Cargo Handling Unit at Leith Nautical College. While being flown around the world as consultants to the global enerby companies handling LPG tankers, they were still subject to the Scottish Office's accounting rules, e.g. "Every pencil..., etc. They too were spun out and are now part of The Centre for Maritime & Industrial Safety Technology Limited, based on Heriot-Watt Campus. Managing innovation/intrapreneurship in Higher Education is a really complex political skill. Whereas the environment in the 1980s was challenging but not impossible, (to be concl.

回复

Hi Amanda, a note on innovating in universities. In 1981-84 I did some research, sponsored by the then Department of Education of the Scottish Executive, on how to increase the amount of innovation in teaching methods. I interviewed about 100 HE teachers in the non-university HE sector (all institutions are now part of universities). Re factors affecting success, the two most relevant to you were these: 1). The successful innovator kept control of the innovation, primarily to stop the innovation spilling over into the work-sphere of colleagues, who refused to take on extra burdens unless it was recognised by management. This provided a natural inhibitor to innovations - Truman's adage could be extended: "It is amazing what you can accomplish if you make sure that you do all the work AND take all the blame." Very few innovators found their careers much advanced by their innovation. And very few innovations spread (or survived) beyond the point where they were under the management of the originator. And in some cases I discovered significant innovations that college managements did not know about. 2). There were some interesting exceptions that proved the rule. (contd. in another comment.)

回复

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Prof. Amanda Kirby MBBS MRCGP PhD FCGI的更多文章

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了