In addition to the costs associated with choosing to disclose an “invisible” or “concealable” identity, neurodiverse workers must also consider a unique cost of nondisclosure: masking. This commentary extends LeFevre-Levy and colleagues’ (Reference LeFevre-Levy, Melson-Silimon, Harmata, Hulett and Carter2023) focal article by identifying additional considerations for disclosure of invisible identities, incorporating existing literature on masking in the workplace, and emphasizing the risks and benefits of disclosure and masking for neurodiverse workers.
Disclosure
Disclosure for neurodivergent individuals is often a matter of voluntary or proactive disclosure. Proactive disclosure is disclosure that is worker initiated and typically occurs before any negative work-related performance issues appear (McIntosh et al., Reference McIntosh, Hyde, Bell and Yeatts2022). Neurodiverse conditions are often concealable at work, although certain symptoms or their behavioral manifestations, as well as medication side effects, can make these conditions more or less concealable (Brohan et al., Reference Brohan, Henderson, Wheat, Malcolm, Clement, Barley, Slade and Thornicroft2012). Workers with a largely concealable neurodivergent identity often face choices regarding whether and/or when to voluntary disclose (e.g., during pre-employment stages or after obtaining employment).
Ideally, disclosure comes with the benefit of receiving needed workplace accommodations. Neurodivergent individuals may experience a variety of functional barriers or limitations while attempting to perform their job, including impairments in communication or executive functioning. Difficulty with executive function is a common psychological complaint, which includes difficulties with short-term and working memory, attention regulation, planning, prioritization, organization, and time management (Doyle, Reference Doyle2020). Because self-regulation of work performance is required in many modern employment contexts (e.g., working from home), these executive function issues may be exacerbated for neurodiverse workers (Doyle, Reference Doyle2020; Doyle & McDowall, Reference Doyle and McDowall2021). Therefore, proactive disclosure may be worthwhile if it results in workers obtaining specific accommodations to counteract difficulties with executive functioning or self-regulation (e.g., scheduling flexibility, deadline extensions, job description modifications, or reductions in workload; Zafar et al., Reference Zafar, Rotenberg and Rudnick2019).
Though accommodations can be beneficial, in a survey of 500 college graduates with learning disabilities (i.e., neurodivergent workers), only 55% reported self-disclosing at work, and only 12% pursued formal accommodations (Madaus, Reference Madaus2008). This substantive incongruence between rates of disclosure and rates of accommodation seeking highlights an area ripe for future research. Namely, what prevents workers from seeking formal accommodations? Further, in practice, which formally recognized accommodations are available for neurodivergent workers? A persistent challenge is the subjectivity inherent in determining the forms and extent of accommodations that are considered “reasonable” (Harlan & Robert, Reference Harlan and Robert1998). A gap exists in understanding how organizations, HR departments, and direct supervisors navigate issues that arise specifically from supporting neurodivergent workers who choose to proactively disclose (Kalfa et al., Reference Kalfa, Branicki and Brammer2021).
One of the major risks associated with disclosure and seeking accommodations is anticipated and/or realized stigma (Kalfa et al., Reference Kalfa, Branicki and Brammer2021). Workers with concealable disabilities who choose to disclose open themselves up to potential workplace victimization, discrimination, harassment, and negative attitudes from colleagues and supervisors (Follmer & Jones, Reference Follmer and Jones2018; Jones, Reference Jones2017; Toth et al., Reference Toth, Yvon, Villotti, Lecomte, Lachance, Kirsh, Stuart, Berbiche and Corbière2021). On the other hand, workers who choose not to disclose may struggle to perform their job effectively without necessary accommodations. They also face the risk of accidentally being “outed” at work and may have to manage differences between their professional and personal (i.e., work and home) identities (for a review of concealable disability disclosure, see Ragins, Reference Ragins2008). For the neurodiverse population, workers who choose not to disclose often need to engage in more frequent and intensive masking in the workplace. This is a key issue we would like to raise that was not discussed by LeFevre-Levy and colleagues’ (2022).
Masking
Masking is when individuals use cognitive or behavioral strategies to hide their neurodivergent traits from neurotypicals and conform to conventions of neurotypical social behavior (Barkley, Reference Barkley2010; Sedgewick et al., Reference Sedgewick, Hull and Ellis2021). Other names for this phenomenon in the extant literature include “social camouflaging” or “compensation” (Mandy, Reference Mandy2019). Some examples of masking behavior include forcing oneself to make eye contact during conversation, concealing discomfort or headache when experiencing sensory overload, scripting conversations, and mimicking written or oral communication styles displayed by neurotypical colleagues (e.g., Sedgewick et al., Reference Sedgewick, Hull and Ellis2021). In a recent study, 70% of autistic adult participants reported that they consistently mask (Cage & Troxell-Whitman, Reference Cage and Troxell-Whitman2019).
Neurodiverse workers may engage in masking even after disclosure, but we argue that masking is a particularly vital piece of identity management for workers who have chosen not to disclose. Motivation for masking can be understood via social identity theory and self-categorization (Pearson & Rose, Reference Pearson and Rose2021). Broadly, social identity theory explains the factors and processes involved in developing and maintaining one’s sense of identity, including how we see ourselves as individuals and how we see ourselves as members of a group (Hogg & Terry, Reference Hogg and Terry2000; Tajfel, Reference Tajfel1982; Turner et al., Reference Turner, Turner and Giles1981). Individuals are able to emphasize or minimize parts of themselves as they evaluate and move between groups, and individuals will self-categorize into groups based on fit and accessibility. Viewed through this lens, masking enables neurodivergent workers to minimize parts of themselves believed to be “undesirable” in the workplace and to adopt behaviors that match those of their colleagues and organizations. Masking becomes a means of access to work ingroups and optimizes the fit of neurodivergent workers with such groups. The choice to engage in identity management like masking is nuanced. There are powerful mechanisms and motivations to conceal stigmatized identities, such as tailoring behavior to conform with workplace norms to appear professional (e.g., McCluney & Rabelo, Reference McCluney and Rabelo2019) and reducing the risk of psychological or even physical violence (e.g., Lidderdale et al., Reference Lidderdale, Croteau, Anderson, Tovar-Murray, Davis, Bieschke, Perez and DeBord2007). When evaluating possible identity management strategies, there is innate tension between workers’ motivation to remain unique or to “stand out” and their motivation to fit in or belong (e.g., McCluney & Rabelo, Reference McCluney and Rabelo2019; Shore et al., Reference Shore, Randel, Chung, Dean, Holcombe Ehrhart and Singh2011).
Neurodiversity in particular is understudied in applied psychology (Doyle & McDowall, Reference Doyle and McDowall2021), so the individual and organizational risks and outcomes associated with workers masking are largely unknown. For individuals with a variety of physical and mental disabilities, research has shown that identifying with that disability, rather than masking or concealing it, is linked to positive outcomes such as higher self-esteem (Chalk, Reference Chalk2015; Nario-Redmond et al., Reference Nario-Redmond, Noel and Fern2013), use of beneficial coping strategies (Nario-Redmond & Oleson, Reference Nario-Redmond and Oleson2016), better quality of life (Bogart, Reference Bogart2014), and lower depression and anxiety (Bogart, Reference Bogart2015).
Additional individual and organizational consequences can be inferred by comparing masking to several other work-related behaviors, including surface acting, impression management, and other identity management strategies. Surface acting is a form of emotion regulation that involves suppressing, amplifying, or faking emotions at work (Grandey, Reference Grandey2000). Impression management tactics include a wide range of targeted behaviors workers use to control their public work identity, especially with regard to superiors (Bolino et al., Reference Bolino, Kacmar, Turnley and Gilstrap2008; Leary & Kowalski, Reference Leary and Kowalski1990). These tactics may include using more formal language at work, dressing in a way deemed traditionally professional, or controlling what personal information is accessible by employers. Code-switching, or changing language, behaviors, or appearance to optimize the comfort of other (i.e., White) employees in exchange for desired outcomes, is an impression management tactic used by racial minority employees (e.g., McCluney et al., Reference McCluney, Durkee, Smith, Robotham and Lee2021). Last, other identity management strategies are used by historically marginalized workers to control their workplace identities in the face of stigma (Woods, Reference Woods1994). For example, for LGBTQ+ workers, these strategies include “counterfeiting,” or attempting to pass as straight; “avoidance,” or self-editing and minimization of sexual orientation cues; and “integration,” or revealing your LGBTQ+ identity and actively managing consequences if possible.
All three of these types of behaviors have been theoretically or empirically linked to resource drain (e.g., Grandey, Reference Grandey2000; Hulsheger & Schewe, Reference Hülsheger and Schewe2011; Klotz et al., Reference Klotz, He, Yam, Bolino, Wei and Houston2018; Ragins, Reference Ragins2008; Woods, Reference Woods1994). Surface acting, impression management, and identity management strategies each require time, energy, and directed effort to enact in the workplace. Surface acting and impression management in particular have been related to ego depletion (Hulsheger & Schewe, Reference Hülsheger and Schewe2011; Klotz et al., Reference Klotz, He, Yam, Bolino, Wei and Houston2018), and surface acting is also associated with markers of resource depletion like emotional exhaustion, psychological strain, and psychosomatic complaints (Hulsheger & Schewe, Reference Hülsheger and Schewe2011). Therefore, masking in the workplace may very well place neurodivergent workers at risk of resource drain and any associated deleterious effects. When compared to their neurotypical peers, neurodiverse workers likely expend more resources like time and energy throughout their workday to achieve similar individual and organizational performance outcomes. Indeed, masking has been discussed in the popular press and the limited empirical literature as damaging to well-being. For example, making research suggests efforts to fit in and act “normal” pose costs to mental health (Hull et al., Reference Hull, Petrides, Allison, Smith, Cohen, Lai and Mandy2017) and links masking with negative individual consequences such as depression, anxiety, stress, exhaustion, and decreased self-efficacy (Cook et al., Reference Cook, Hull, Crane and Mandy2021). Further, each time an individual masks and “passes” as a neurotypical person, implicit pressure to maintain that created persona and imposter phenomenon-like feelings may develop or grow with time (Londero, Reference Londero2021).
Recommendations for research and practice
To reduce the burden already placed on neurodiverse workers, we offer the following recommendations for future research and for organizations who wish to provide a supportive and inclusive work environment. First, I-O and occupational health psychology researchers should consider neurodivergent individuals an important, understudied, timely, and high-priority population for study. As mentioned in the focal article, neurodiverse workers comprise a sizeable portion of the current workforce, and neurodivergent diagnoses like ADHD, autism, and dyslexia have been on the rise for the last 2 decades (e.g., Chung et al., Reference Chung, Jiang, Paksarian, Nikolaidis, Castellanos, Merikangas and Milham2019; Diallo et al., Reference Diallo, Fombonne, Kisely, Rochette, Vasiliadis, Vanasse, Noiseux, Pelletier, Renaud, St-Laurent and Lesage2018; Montejano et al., Reference Montejano, Sasané, Hodgkins, Russo and Huse2011; Murphy et al., Reference Murphy, Wilson, Robertson, Ecker, Daly, Hammond and McAlonan2016; Vasiliadis et al., Reference Vasiliadis, Diallo, Rochette, Smith, Langille, Lin and Lesage2017). Second, masking is an important and particularly understudied construct. Foundational knowledge is needed about the frequency, intensity, and types of masking behaviors exhibited in the workplace. Given the potential costs of masking outlined within this commentary, it would also be prudent to consider additional individual and organizational consequences associated with masking.
In terms of HR and organizational policies and practices, organizations should aim to provide an inclusive and psychologically safe environment in which workers may be more comfortable disclosing their neurodiversity and minimize the extent to which workers engage in masking. For example, promoting and sustaining a diversity climate has been linked to beneficial worker outcomes (e.g., Hofhuis et al., Reference Hofhuis, Van Der Rijt and Vlug2016; Newman et al., Reference Newman, Nielsen, Smyth, Hirst and Kennedy2018). A strong diversity climate, or a climate characterized by “openness towards and appreciation of individual differences” (Hofhuis et al., Reference Hofhuis, Van Der Rijt and Vlug2016, page 1) could encourage workers to display their neurodivergent traits rather than mask them. Similarly, organizational initiatives aimed at increasing awareness, knowledge, acceptance, and inclusion, as well as decreasing stigma more generally, may reduce the necessity of masking behavior in the workplace. Workers may also benefit from seeing authentic disclosure and healthy role modeling from neurodivergent supervisors and/or executive leadership, emphasizing that the aforementioned diversity climate can “walk the walk” at all levels of the organization.
Organizations can also provide and promote a sensory-friendly environment. This could include changes such as: (a) minimizing work flow disruptions and background noise; (b) providing alternative office layouts so workers can have a choice between open work spaces, more private offices, or remote work; (c) reducing the number of overhead or fluorescent lights; (d) supplying workstation tools like monitors or tablets to manage large quantities of information; and (e) providing quiet areas for overstimulated workers to take a break. Sensory-friendly work environments may decrease instances of sensory overload and thus decrease the need to mask overstimulation. We also encourage organizations to seek and act upon feedback from their workers to better understand how their work environments could be more sensory friendly, as many of these changes could be beneficial for neurodivergent and neurotypical workers alike.
Finally, organizations can increase the availability of resources aimed to combat resource drain resulting from masking such as supervisor support. Supervisor support is a valuable work resource that buffers stress and reduces strain (e.g., Demerouti et al., Reference Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner and Schaufeli2001; Hobfoll, Reference Hobfoll1989), and supervisor support has been associated with lower emotional exhaustion (e.g., De Lange et al., Reference De Lange, Taris, Kompier, Houtman and Bongers2004; Lambert et al., Reference Lambert, Altheimer and Hogan2010) and increased organizational identification (Wiesenfeld et al., Reference Wiesenfeld, Raghuram and Garud2001). Specific and thoughtful accommodations are also a powerful means of support. As long as individuals present with different challenges, individualized accommodations to address differing needs are essential. Accommodation approaches that only focus on mitigating deficits in performance can explicitly or implicitly suggest that success is contingent upon masking neurodivergence (Shmulsky et al., Reference Shmulsky, Gobbo, Donahue and Klucken2021). To the extent that workers internalize this, they may miss out on the opportunity to incorporate their unique ways of thinking and being into a positive work identity and self-worth. Prior research on the positive correlates of disability identity (e.g., Bogart, Reference Bogart2015; Nario-Redmond et al., Reference Nario-Redmond, Noel and Fern2013) has shown that accommodations combined with identity-supportive activity may yield the best individual performance and organizational outcomes.
Conclusion
To summarize, we lack sufficient information about masking as a strategy for coping with neurodiversity in the workplace. Neurodiversity at work is understudied, and our understanding of the costs associated with worker masking is limited. We sought to highlight the concept of masking and discuss the benefits and risks associated with both disclosure and masking. Future research is needed to increase our understanding of when, how, and why masking occurs and to identify specific workplace outcomes related to masking. In the meantime, organizations can enact changes outlined here to reduce the burden placed on neurodivergent workers, work to diminish the perceived necessity of masking in the workplace, and foster more inclusive and supportive work environments for every worker.
Open access
