Autism and Workplace Investigations: How Credibility Bias Harms Autistic Employees
About the author: Dr Caroline Gorden is a researcher, workplace inclusion specialist, and former Reader in Criminology and Criminal Justice at Wrexham University, where she co-directed Cyfiawnder: The Social Inclusion Research Institute. She holds a PhD in Social Sciences, has published over 25 peer-reviewed works on social exclusion, criminal justice, and institutional fairness – including research on how credibility and guilt are constructed in formal processes – and since 2023 has worked as a workplace coach specialising in adults with ADHD and autism. She is a Visiting Research Associate at Wrexham University and the founder of CESI.
I want you to think back to a time when someone misunderstood you.
Maybe it was a disagreement with a colleague, a manager, or even a friend. You knew that what you said was well-meaning, but they saw and interpreted something else. Suddenly, you were on the back foot, explaining yourself, defending your intentions, trying to sound right enough to be believed.
Did you feel frustrated? Misjudged? Maybe even ashamed or embarrassed for something you didn’t do?
For many autistic employees, this isn’t a one-off experience. It’s a pattern that can repeat across workplace conversations, especially during formal processes like investigations, grievances, and disciplinaries. In these high-stakes interviews, communication differences and stress responses can be easily misinterpreted, leading to unfair judgements about intent, honesty, or behaviour.
Even when those conducting interviews have the best of intentions, the structure and setting of the interview itself can contribute to misunderstanding. Over time, this can escalate into formal complaints, procedural harm, and even legal action.
It’s Not Just What You Say — It’s How You’re Perceived
I have spent several years researching and lecturing on how formal systems construct credibility and assign guilt – first in the criminal justice system, and more recently, how these processes operate within the workplace. What I have found is that the problem doesn’t usually stem from intent, but rather, it’s about the structure and foundations of an organisation. Many workplace interviews rely heavily on assessing someone’s credibility. But credibility isn’t a neutral concept. It often gets judged based on how confident, fluent, or emotionally expressive someone seems, and not necessarily on the truth of what they’re saying.
Autistic employees may communicate in ways that don’t match those expected credibility markers. For example:
- Speaking more literally
- Pausing to process
- Showing less facial expression
- Avoiding eye contact
- Needing more time to recall events
- Not explaining what happened in a neat timeline
These behaviours are not signs of dishonesty or defiance. But without neurodiversity training and awareness, they can be misread as evasiveness, lack of remorse, or even guilt.
The System Isn’t Always Fair — Even When Intentions Are
Formal interviews – especially in the context of complaints, grievances, or disciplinaries – carry social, psychological, and power-based dynamics that shape the outcome before a word is even spoken.
Formal interviews tend to take place in what looks like an intimidating room. A formal tone is used. The expectations might be unclear. Questioning styles are used that seem to assume intent or push for certainty. These can all place a cognitive and emotional load on neurodivergent employees, making it harder for them to communicate clearly, and easier for others to misjudge their responses.
What the Research Tells Us
While much of the existing research comes from criminal justice contexts, the parallels are striking. Research on police interviewing – and my own work examining how credibility and guilt are constructed in formal processes – shows that autistic individuals are significantly more likely to be misunderstood in interview settings, not because of dishonesty, but because of a mismatch between communication style and interview structure. Those same risks exist in workplace settings. In fact, emerging employment tribunal data – which I review as part of my ongoing research into workplace inclusion – suggests a sharp rise in autism-related claims, with many centred not on what happened, but on how the process was handled. This mirrors findings from my research into how guilt and innocence are constructed in formal process – published with Bristol Policy Press – where interview structure, not evidence, often determined perceived credibility.
Why This Matters to Your Organisation
Workplace investigations are high-stakes events for everyone involved. When misunderstandings escalate into formal complaints or legal challenges, the cost is not just financial. It’s reputational, relational, and cultural.
Managers and HR professionals are often confident with physical reasonable adjustments for neurodivergent employees — like equipment or flexible hours. But adapting communication during formal interviews is less well understood, and far more critical than most realise. This isn’t about lowering standards. It’s about raising fairness. In my experience, working with autistic adults in workplace coaching since 2023, the most common failure point isn’t the outcome of an investigation – it’s the process itself.
Want to Get It Right?
In my view, the single most effective change an organisation can make is to separate the assessment of communication style from the assessment of truthfulness – they are not the same thing, and treating them as if they are is where most investigations go wrong. That’s where our CPD-certified online course comes in.
This CPD UK certified course on interviewing autistic employees is designed to support HR professionals, managers, and anyone responsible for handling workplace investigations. It’s practical, grounded in research and real-world practice, and focuses on how to structure interviews that are both inclusive and legally defensible.
You’ll learn to:
- Explain how credibility and perceptions of guilt are socially and psychologically constructed in workplace interviews.
- Recognise why autistic employees are at increased risk of misinterpretation in complaints, investigations, grievances, and disciplinaries.
- Identify questioning styles, environmental factors, and interview practices that increase the risk of misjudgement, escalation, and procedural harm.
- Apply structured and inclusive interview approaches that support clearer recall, mutual understanding, and procedural fairness.
- Reflect on the ethical and organisational responsibilities of managers and HR professionals when conducting high-stakes workplace interviews.
And yes – you’ll also receive a practical guidebook that you can refer to in real time when preparing or conducting workplace interviews.
Join the Course Today
If you want to ensure that your workplace interviews are fair, inclusive, and legally robust, this CPD-certified online course is for you.
Effective Interviewing of Autistic Employees in Investigations, Grievances, and Disciplinaries
A CPD-certified online course — available now at www.cesilearning.com
Fair processes don’t happen by accident. They happen by design.
Caroline is also the designer of the forthcoming bespoke Level 7 CMI-accredited qualification in Autism-Informed Strategic Management and Leadership Practice. Register your interest here.
