Summary: New research highlights underappreciated advantages of autism in workplace settings, revealing that autistic employees are less susceptible to the bystander effect and may strengthen organizational ethics and performance.
Contrary to the classic bystander effect—where people are less likely to intervene in problematic situations when others are present—this study finds that autistic individuals are more likely to speak up when they witness misconduct or dysfunction. These findings suggest organizations can gain tangible benefits by hiring and supporting neurodivergent talent.
The research challenges deficit-focused views of autism and reframes certain social differences as strengths in professional contexts, particularly when it comes to identifying and addressing workplace problems.
Key Facts:
- Autistic employees show lower susceptibility to the bystander effect compared with neurotypical employees.
- The study was motivated by both academic and personal experience, conducted by a father–son team including Braxton Hartman, who is autistic.
- Despite these strengths, unemployment and underemployment among autistic people remain very high, with estimates reaching up to 90% for some groups.
Source: York University
Background: The bystander effect is a well-established psychological phenomenon: when more people witness wrongdoing, individual likelihood of intervening typically decreases. The new study from York University investigates whether this pattern holds for autistic employees.
The researchers found that autistic employees are less likely to be influenced by the presence of other witnesses and more likely to raise concerns about unethical or inefficient practices. Whether the issue involved overt misconduct or routine workplace errors, autistic participants were generally more willing to report problems.
“Our results show that autistic employees who would act on seeing something wrong were more likely to intervene regardless of how many people were present,” says Lorne Hartman, an instructor at the Schulich School of Business and lead author of the study. “When autistic participants chose not to intervene, they were also more likely to recognize and acknowledge social influence as the reason.”
The study was co-led by Lorne and his son, Braxton Hartman, a graduate student in the Faculty of Health who has been an advocate for autism awareness since childhood. Their personal connection to the topic helped shape a research question focused on strengths rather than deficits.
“Much of the literature treats autism through a deficit lens, emphasizing limitations,” Braxton explains. “We wanted to examine whether some differences—particularly in social influence and interaction—can be advantageous, especially when it comes to recognizing and responding to unethical or inefficient practices.”
Lorne’s background in clinical psychology and organizational ethics informed the study’s practical orientation. His earlier work showed how bystanders often fail to report wrongdoing even when they are aware of it, which can allow misconduct to continue unchecked.
“Organizations benefit when employees feel empowered to identify problems and raise concerns,” Lorne says. “People who are willing to speak up can help create safer, more transparent, and more effective workplaces.”
The study, published in the October issue of Autism Research, surveyed 67 employed adults—33 autistic and 34 neurotypical—who evaluated hypothetical workplace scenarios ranging from minor quality issues to clear unethical behavior. The researchers measured whether participants would voice concerns, how much the number of witnesses affected their decision, and how they explained their choices.
Although preliminary and based on a relatively small sample, the findings point to important implications for hiring practices and workplace inclusion. Given that unemployment and underemployment rates for autistic people remain alarmingly high—even among those with higher education—these results underscore the value of broadening how organizations view neurodiversity.
“We approached this from two angles,” Braxton says. “One goal is to help organizations become more ethical and efficient by recognizing the unique contributions of autistic employees. The other is to shift societal understanding so autistic people can access meaningful, gainful employment.”
About this autism and psychology research news
Author: Emina Gamulin
Source: York University
Contact: Emina Gamulin – York University
Image: The image is credited to Neuroscience News
Original Research: Open access. “Organizational benefits of neurodiversity: Preliminary findings on autism and the bystander effect” by Lorne Hartman et al., Autism Research
Abstract
Organizational benefits of neurodiversity: Preliminary findings on autism and the bystander effect
The bystander effect is one of the most robust findings in psychology, but prior work has not examined whether autistic individuals experience this effect to the same degree as neurotypical people. This research explores whether autistic employees are more likely to report organizational problems—inefficiencies, unethical practices, or quality concerns—and whether they are less influenced by the number of witnesses when deciding to intervene.
By drawing attention to dysfunctions, autistic employees may help organizations improve performance and cultivate a more adaptive, ethical, and high-performing culture.
In an online survey, 33 autistic and 34 nonautistic employees responded to scenarios designed to probe five questions: (1) Are autistic employees more likely to say they would voice concerns? (2) Are they less influenced by the number of witnesses? (3) If they do not voice concerns, are they more likely to acknowledge social influence as the reason? (4) Are they less likely to construct elaborate rationales to justify their decisions? (5) Do individual differences in camouflaging moderate any differences observed?
Preliminary results suggest autistic employees may indeed be less susceptible to the bystander effect and therefore more likely to identify and report inefficient or dysfunctional practices. These findings point to potential organizational advantages of neurodiversity but also call for further research to confirm and extend the results.