Soft skills for success for job seekers with autism spectrum disorder

1.1Work-related soft skills

Work success requires an assortment of skills and social placidity. Social and communication skills, such as conversing with others, have been documented as needing improvement for individuals with ASD (Howlin & Moss, 2012; McVey et al., 2016; Sung et al., 2019). Descriptions of the core features of ASD accentuate social communication difficulties and atypical and repetitive sensory-motor behaviors (APA, 2013; Lord et al., 2018). Difficulties with expressive and receptive language for individuals with ASD often create barriers to obtaining employment.

Persons with ASD often need assistance with developing a set of social interactional skills that include social graces, interpersonal, emotional, problem-solving and adaptive skills, also known as “soft skills” (Grugulis & Vincent, 2009). Compared to “soft skills” on the job, “hard-skills” are confined to the essential functions of a particular job (Kyllonen, 2013). Soft skills correlate closely with overall job satisfaction (Kyllonen, 2013). Skill development in areas that increase job satisfaction is, therefore significant, since participation in meaningful employment is associated with improvement of overall functioning of people with disabilities (Stephens et al., 2005).

Employability is also impacted by an understanding and adherence to socially acceptable topics for informal conversation as well as the more formal aspects of job-related communication. Avoidance of certain taboo subjects such as religion, sex, and politics is important to not only interactions with co-workers, but also to employer assessment of employee self-control and management. Studies have consistently demonstrated that difficulties with soft skills and social norms in the workplace impact job-tenure (Kyllonen, 2013).

Although soft skills are critical to acquisition and retention of gainful employment for individuals with ASD, they remain lifelong challenges for individuals with ASD (Connor et al., 2020; Howlin & Moss, 2012). Researchers recommend that an important element of job preparation for individuals with ASD must include job-related “soft skills” training (Duncan & Dunifon, 2012). Connor et al. (2020) focused on work-related social skills training designed for individuals diagnosed with ASD and revealed they require additional training towards finding a job, keeping a job as well as acquiring the social skills training as a specific need by this population.

Soft skills can be acquired and therefore taught (Riggio & Tan, 2013). Once mastered, they have the potential to significantly impact the job tenure of otherwise qualified employees with ASD. Literature has reported success with group-based soft skills training for young adults with ASD, specifically the UCLA PEERS® Approach (Laugeson et al., 2015; McVey et al., 2016) and the Assistive Soft Skills and Employment Training (ASSET) work-related soft skills intervention (Sung et al., 2019). The UCLA PEERS® Approach primarily focused on social skills training related to initiating and maintaining friendships and romantic relationships/dating, however it also extends to navigating bullying in the workplace as well as conflict resolution (Laugeson et al., 2015). The feasibility of utilizing the PEERS® approach in a practice setting was not reported in Laugeson et al. (2015) and McVey et al. (2016).

The ASSET intervention focused on areas such as communication/networking, attitude, teamwork, problem-solving/critical thinking, and professionalism, while incorporating ASD-specific structured-learning approach (Sung et al., 2019). Sung et al. (2019) found acceptable feasibility for the ASSET intervention based upon based feasibility upon program demands, overall satisfaction, and responsiveness to the group process. A majority of ASSET participants reported acceptable group size and program demands (Sung et al., 2019). Clark et al. (2019) implemented an intervention (UPGRADE Your Performance) among four high school students with disabilities including one diagnosed with ASD and found improvements in soft skills, performance, self-monitoring, and skills generalization. Similarly, others have implemented group based social and vocational skills interventions and noted improvement in skills knowledge, social functioning, and job interview performance (Hillier et al., 2007; Morgan et al., 2014; Sung et al., 2019). Van Laarhoven et al. (2012) even integrated video modeling procedures, an evidence-based support for people with ASD, that showed increased independence in learning vocational tasks. The multitude of interventions and approaches are important foundations for the current study and the area of work-related soft skills for youth with ASD.

Importantly, efficacious work-related soft skills interventions are still needed for youth with ASD (Hillier et al., 2007). Additionally, among the most difficult work-related soft skills for individuals with ASD are coworker interactions (Van Laarhoven et al., 2012). The current intervention (Conversing with Others) specifically focuses on workplace social situations, such as during lunchbreaks, to help workers socialize with their peers, colloquially referred to as “small talk” or “chit chat”. This skill includes choosing topics, demonstrating interest in what others are saying (verbally and non-verbally), changing a topic, and concluding the conversation. This skill can extend beyond the workplace, however the performance environment targeted as part of this curriculum was employment-related (Lu et al., 2020; Oursler et al., 2019).

Small talk is a form of communication solely dedicated to relationship building, rather than instrumental concerns or informational exchange (Coupland et al., 1992). Although seemingly trivial, it is a necessary part of workplace success and consists of greeting co-workers (Bullis & Bach, 1991), chatting before a meeting (Mirivel & Tracy, 2005) or short conversations throughout the workday (Fayard & Weeks, 2007). Topics of conversation in the workplace may include weather, weekend plans, television, and sports (Vitukevich, 2016). While small talk lacks important content, it is a necessary part of the typical workday and allows co-workers to build social connections (Molinsky, 2013). In fact, it is a social norm for co-workers to greet each other or make small talk before meetings.

Small talk involves adept use of informal forms of social interchange (Coupland, 2003) and, in effect, brings those engaged in this communication closer together (Kendon et al., 1975). Small talk makes up 1/3 of everyday conversations (King et al., 1995) and is a normative behavior in the workplace (Holmes, 2000), but its role in employment success has been undervalued. Kyllonen (2013) asserted that the ability to use small talk is a critical component in obtaining and retaining employment. Small talk positively impacts the tone of conversations, mood, group dynamics, and feelings of belongingness (Holmes, 2003; Huang et al., 2017; Sandstrom & Dunn, 2014). Despite this, many people consider small talk to be pointless (Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002), and inadvertently isolate themselves by avoiding chit-chat (Boothby et al., 2018). Small talk at work helps workers experience positive social emotions in the workplace, and therefore increases one’s organizational citizenship and positive mood at work (Methot et al., 2021). Additionally, small talk will facilitate the acquisition of work-related natural supports. Natural supports are on-the-job, non-professional, sources of support that occur naturally in the environment. These supports may include supervisors, but most often this concept is associated with support that comes from co-workers (Institute for Community Inclusion, 2015). The acquisition of natural supports in the workplace has been established as an important part of employment success for people with disabilities (Institute for Community Inclusion, 2015). The soft skill of small talk, should therefore be a target skill in the enhancement of work-related skills training.

The current study aims to examine the feasibility of the Conversing with Others, DST approach to the skill of making conversation in the workplace for individuals with ASD. Feasibility studies are the logical first step in determining whether an intervention has the potential for in vivo application (Bowen et al., 2009). This study assessed the acceptability and the practicality of Conversing with Others with individuals with ASD including transition age youth (TAY) with ASD in the age range of 18-24. Specifically, acceptability refers to examining how the intended individual recipients, including participants and facilitators, respond to the intervention, whereas practicality explores the degree to which an intervention can be delivered within the constraints of resources, time, commitment (Bowen et al., 2009). This intervention was designed to address the vocational rehabilitation needs of individuals with a wide variety of disabilities (Lu et al., 2020). The feasibility of this intervention had not been previously established for persons with ASD.

2.1Participants

A total of 37 individuals with ASD participated in the DST small group intervention entitled Conversing with Others. Participants were recruited from three vocational rehabilitation agencies in a Northeastern state. All participants had a history of an ASD diagnosis; resided with their caregiver(s), and were able to read and write English. The 32 male and 5 female participants ranged in age from 16 to 55, had a high school education level on average, were engaged with supported employment programs, and voluntarily participated in the group intervention. One participant (2.7%) had a reported “intellectual impairment” and some reported co-occurring psychiatric (N = 13; 35.1%) and physical (N = 5; 13.5%) disabilities.

2.2Procedure

Participants were recruited from various vocational rehabilitation agencies. Eligibility was ascertained via an interview to determine the following inclusionary criteria: participants must 1) be receiving services at the agency, 2) have a prior diagnosis of ASD, Autism, Asperger’s disorder, or pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified, 3) have social limitations as reported by either the individual or a caregiver, 4) read and write in English 5) be willing to participate in a soft skills training group, and 6) be verbally communicative. Exclusionary criteria included inability to read/write/speak English. Exclusions included individuals who did not have a previous diagnosis of ASD, Asperger’s syndrome or any pervasive developmental disorder that had not otherwise been specified and did not have a minimum second-grade reading level. Individuals with ASD who were non-verbal were excluded from this study, since at this stage in its development the intervention is designed to teach verbal conversational skills. This study received approval from the University’s Institutional Review Board.

2.3Measures

Participant demographic and disability information was collected from agency records. Participants completed a questionnaire that measured their perceived readiness to engage in workplace informal conversation pre and post intervention (Oursler, n.d.). This paper and pencil questionnaire was used to elicit participant self-report of their perceptions of their conversational skill level (Oursler, n.d.). Cronbach’s Alpha for this 10-item scale was 0.56 in previous studies among 146 persons with various disabilities (Lu et al., 2020). The Cronbach’s Alpha for this scale was 0.54 in the current study among 37 participants with ASD. The validity information is unknown to this scale at this moment. The same questionnaire was used pre and post group. This 10-item survey used a five-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree”; 2 = “disagree”; 3 = “neutral”; 4 = “agree”; 5 = “strongly agree”). Some sample questions included: “My co-workers are usually interested in the same things I am interested in”; and “Part of having a good conversation is being a good listener” (See Table 2).

As an ancillary to the pre- and post- questionnaire, participants also completed a satisfaction questionnaire following completion of the group intervention. The satisfaction questionnaire requested information about various aspects of the group. Items included: (a) “The overall quality of the group was”; (b) “The instructor’s knowledge of the subject was”; (c) “I think the information I received will be helpful to me on the job” and (d) “The group held my interest”. The response options were rated on a five-point Likert scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” In addition, a final three-point Likert scale item stated, “I would recommend this group to a friend”, with options of “no”, “not sure”, and “yes.”

At times, accommodations were needed to allow the participants to complete the questionnaires effectively. If accommodations were necessary, group facilitators assessed participants’ accommodation needs for participating in groups and completing survey questionnaires and provided them accordingly. Facilitators recorded the following accommodations/modifications: (a) extra time to explain group activities, for example, for the activity of expressing interest during a conversation, participants experienced difficulty with this skill component and required some extra assistance, specifically additional examples of expressing interest or more time to describe the components of the skill; (b) reading items aloud to the group or individual; and (c) providing individualized assistance/clarification with completing the homework or survey, which included one on one instruction during group procedures and additional instructions to clarify the aim of the homework/ survey.

After each session, the group facilitators completed a standardized form that assessed group fidelity to the manual with a critical self-reflection of the session. These session notes recorded their overall impressions of the session, including both the successes and any observed issues or concerns. At group facilitation conclusion, facilitators completed a self-reflection assignment in which they shared their observations of the group and their growth as counselors-in-training. For the purpose of this study, the results of these facilitator observations were used to assess intervention feasibility and identify any future modifications to improve the overall effectiveness of the intervention.

2.4Intervention

Groups were facilitated by 8 master’s level rehabilitation counseling students participating in internships. The students had varying amounts of prior practical experience facilitating groups and completed a course in Group Methods, where they learned basic counseling communication techniques, and the theory and basics of leading a group. Approximately seventy-five percent of student were between the ages of 23 to 30 while twenty-five percent of the students were between the ages of 31 and 50. Five of the students were White, one was Asian American, one was Hispanic American, and one was African American. Two of the group facilitators were males (25%) and four were females (75%). Each student facilitated one group. In total, there were eight groups.

As per the design of the intervention, minimal training for group facilitation of the DST group was provided. Group facilitators were provided a curriculum manual for leading the group which delineated materials needed for each session. The manual included handouts and/or forms needed, and detailed and structured “how to” instructions for leading the group. The group intervention consisted of four sessions that were 60 to 90 minutes in duration and was based on the ROPES (Review, Overview, Presentation, Exercises, and Summary) approach (Cohen et al., 1985), with specified recommended time intervals for each activity within a session. Index cards and a flip chart or blackboard were used to record major points. To promote participant retention, students were encouraged to take steps to ensure participation such as reminder calls, texts, and furnishing light refreshments.

The curriculum for Conversing with Others was based upon the Boston University’s Direct Skill Teaching (DST) designed by Farkas and Anthony (2010). Direct Skills Teaching is part of the “Choose-Get-Keep” approach to assist clients with identifying desired roles of interest in their community. Skills training programs have received criticism for consigning learners to a reactive, rather than active role (Ellison et al., 2002; Shern et al., 2000). The DST approach, therefore, systematically utilizes basic educational, cognitive, and behavioral techniques to convey the knowledge needed to learn a skill, including providing a detailed lesson plan to teach component behaviors, and involving all participants in the practice and generalization of learned skills.

For this intervention, one critical skill was taught in a relatively brief time frame to facilitate success and satisfaction in a work setting. The aim was to focus on a specific skill instead of a variety of skills which may or may not be needed for success and satisfaction in the target environment. The curriculum covers the before, during, and after of conversing with others, specifically, planning for such conversations, introducing and sustaining them, and ending them. Group exercises included group discussions, brief demonstrations of the skill, completion of worksheet exercises, and role play. The appendix details the content outline for this intervention.

2.5Analysis

Prior to analytic procedures, examination of descriptive statistics and variable distribution was performed. Due to small sample size and feasibility focused research questions, nonparametric Wilcoxon signed ranked tests were used to test the simple treatment effects at each post-treatment assessment point. For open ended responses, two researchers independently reviewed open ended responses for their content, and common themes were reported.

4.1Limitations

Since this was a pilot feasibility study, there were several limitations. The group leaders were not licensed practitioners in the field, they were graduate-level counselors-in-training. The students ran the groups to fulfill an internship experience, which may not represent the same level of counseling skills of counselors working in the field. Group facilitators placed reminder calls and offered refreshments to participants to encourage participation. No fidelity measures for the intervention were used, and limit an understanding of how well the student facilitators adhered to the intervention curriculum. The measures used in the pre and post surveys on perceived conversational easiness had limited reliability and validity information. The assessment of conversational skills often requires observations by raters. In this study conversational skills were not observed of assessed in an objective manner. This study only assessed perceived easiness with conversing with others. The self-report data used for this study would not be capable of measuring actual conversational skill development. Additionally, the study did not utilize a randomized controlled design. The study design did not include a control group. Findings could also be influenced by confounding factors such as history, maturation, selection, attrition, repeated testing, regression, and not as a result of the training (Harris et al., 2006; Shadish et al., 2002; Skelly et al., 2012). Variations in quasi-experimental designs allow for stronger causal interpretations (Harris et al., 2006). Future studies should choose the best fit design that is feasible given the circumstances by including a control group. There was no long term follow along performed to understand participant retention of skills, and/or employment outcomes. Despite the identified limitations, this study supports the feasibility of the group Conversing with Others as delivered by entry level rehabilitation counselors to assist individuals with ASD who are seeking employment. Despite these limitations, the feasibility and usefulness of the group intervention was supported. Group intervention helps persons with ASD make conversations.

4.2Directions for future research

The top areas of improvement for future studies include the following:

Our study provides an option to use a brief, structured group intervention designed to help people with ASD develop conversational skills with co-workers. Previously developed interventions for soft skills training for persons with ASD involved time-intensive interventions, requiring extensive staff training. For example, Sung et al. (2019) implemented ASSET, which consisted of an eight-week long group intervention consisting of 90-minute sessions followed by an optional social hour. Similar to the current intervention, the ASSET approach utilized a group approach and focused on work-related soft skills. However, ASSET involved two facilitators, a larger time commitment, and a wider focus of training topics, while the current intervention is brief, easy to implement, and adaptable to many different populations. Implementing this type of DST based curriculum allows for counselors with minimal training to be effective and also eliminates the need to hire outside of the agency or organization or provide extensive staff training within the agency.