When First Impressions Get It Wrong: Creating Workplaces Where Neurodivergent Employees Can Thrive

russellsmichalak

1 minute ago

10 min read

First impressions matter in the workplace. Within minutes of meeting someone, we begin forming judgments about their confidence, competence, professionalism, and ability to work with others. Eye contact, conversational ease, enthusiasm, and confident self-presentation are often interpreted as signs of a promising employee. Conversely, someone who avoids eye contact, struggles with small talk, speaks bluntly, or takes longer to respond may be perceived as disengaged, difficult, or lacking confidence.

But what if our first impressions reveal more about our expectations than the abilities of the person we are evaluating?

For neurodivergent individuals, including people with autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), dyslexia, and other cognitive differences, conventional expectations about workplace behavior can create barriers before they have an opportunity to demonstrate their capabilities. These differences do not manifest uniformly, and neurodivergent employees bring varied strengths, experiences, and support needs to their workplaces. Yet organizational cultures frequently reward particular styles of communication and social interaction, sometimes confusing familiarity with competence.

These expectations are also shaped by gender. Behaviors interpreted as confidence or seriousness in one person may be perceived as coldness, arrogance, or disengagement in another. When gendered expectations intersect with neurodivergence, seemingly ordinary judgments about professionalism can become especially consequential.

The challenge for leaders is not simply to become more aware of neurodiversity. It is to reconsider how workplace judgments are formed, reinforced, and translated into decisions about hiring, performance, and professional advancement. Creating workplaces where neurodivergent employees can thrive requires moving beyond how engagement appears toward evaluating what individuals actually contribute.

First Impressions Before the First Day: The Virtual Interview

For many job applicants, the first meaningful interaction with a prospective employer occurs during a virtual interview. Platforms such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams allow organizations to interview candidates across geographic distances, but they also introduce opportunities for subjective judgments. Within minutes, interviewers may begin evaluating a candidate's enthusiasm, confidence, professionalism, and perceived fit based on facial expressions, eye contact, posture, and conversational style.

Consider a candidate who appears bored or disengaged during a first-round interview. They rarely smile, look away from the camera, pause before answering questions, or maintain a relatively neutral facial expression. Interviewers may interpret these behaviors as evidence that the candidate lacks enthusiasm for the position or would struggle to work collaboratively with colleagues.

Yet these impressions may reveal little about the candidate's qualifications, preparation, or actual interest in the job.

For some neurodivergent candidates, managing facial expressions, interpreting social cues, maintaining camera-facing eye contact, and responding immediately to unfamiliar questions can require substantial cognitive effort. A candidate may be concentrating intensely on the substance of a question while appearing distracted or uninterested. Others may communicate more effectively when given time to organize their thoughts or when expectations are made explicit.

Research on first impressions of autistic adults illustrates the consequences of these assumptions. Sasson and colleagues (2017) found that neurotypical observers formed less favorable first impressions of autistic individuals based on brief exposure to their social presentation. These impressions also influenced observers' willingness to engage socially. Although the study did not examine employment interviews directly, its findings raise important questions about how quickly interpersonal judgments can form independently of the substance of what someone communicates.

The consequences are particularly significant during first-round interviews because employers are often deciding whom to advance rather than making final hiring decisions. A candidate who appears animated, personable, and enthusiastic may progress to the next stage, while an equally or more qualified candidate whose presentation is less socially conventional may be eliminated.

In these situations, organizations risk selecting for interview performance rather than the knowledge, judgment, and capabilities required for the position.

Are interviewers evaluating a candidate's ability to perform the job, or their ability to create a favorable impression during a brief social interaction?

When Gender Shapes First Impressions

The problem becomes more complicated when we recognize that expectations about professional behavior are not gender-neutral. The same facial expressions, communication styles, and interpersonal behaviors can be interpreted differently depending on an employee's perceived gender.

Women often encounter expectations to appear warm, approachable, enthusiastic, and socially responsive, while men may receive greater recognition for displays of confidence, assertiveness, and authority. Research on gender stereotypes and leadership demonstrates how judgments of competence and interpersonal behavior can be shaped by expectations associated with gender (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman & Okimoto, 2007).

During a first-round Zoom interview, these differences may become particularly visible. A woman who maintains a neutral facial expression, speaks directly, or does not smile frequently may be perceived as unfriendly, disinterested, or difficult to work with. A man displaying similar behaviors may be interpreted as serious, reserved, or analytical. These judgments are not universal, but they illustrate how the meaning assigned to behavior can depend on who is being evaluated.

For neurodivergent applicants, gendered expectations may compound existing barriers. An autistic woman who communicates directly or displays limited facial expressions may be judged against both conventional standards of professional engagement and expectations of feminine warmth. A neurodivergent man may encounter different assumptions about confidence, social competence, or emotional expression. Nonbinary and gender-nonconforming applicants may face additional pressures when their presentation does not align with interviewers' expectations.

These overlapping expectations matter because first impressions are rarely recognized as subjective interpretations. Interviewers may believe they are making objective assessments when describing candidates as enthusiastic, awkward, personable, or lacking confidence. Yet such descriptions can reflect assumptions about how professionals are supposed to look, sound, and behave.

The central concern is not that every first impression is wrong. It is that organizations may give subjective impressions the authority of objective evidence without examining the expectations that produced them.

When Appearance Becomes Evidence of Engagement

The same assumptions that influence hiring can continue after an employee joins an organization. Virtual meetings provide a particularly visible example.

During Zoom or Microsoft Teams meetings, employees are often evaluated not only by what they contribute but also by how they appear on screen. Someone who smiles, nods, maintains eye contact, and responds quickly may be perceived as engaged. Another employee who appears bored, looks away, rarely changes facial expressions, or remains quiet may be interpreted as distracted, unmotivated, or uninterested.

Yet appearing engaged and being engaged are not necessarily the same thing.

For some neurodivergent employees, sustained visual attention, managing facial expressions, processing simultaneous audio and visual information, and responding immediately to questions may require considerable cognitive effort. An employee may listen more effectively while looking away, taking notes, moving, or keeping their camera off. Others may prefer to process information before contributing rather than responding spontaneously.

These differences do not mean that visible behavior is never relevant. Employees can genuinely be disengaged, and supervisors have legitimate reasons to address participation or performance concerns. The difficulty arises when a supervisor treats an employee's appearance as sufficient evidence of their internal state.

An employee who appears bored may understand the discussion thoroughly and complete every assigned responsibility. Another who smiles and nods throughout a meeting may contribute relatively little. Neither possibility can be established through appearance alone.

This distinction also applies to gender. Expectations about smiling, attentiveness, and interpersonal warmth may influence whose behavior is interpreted as appropriate. A neutral facial expression may be viewed as professionalism in one employee and as an attitude problem in another.

The issue is therefore not simply whether employees appear engaged. It is how supervisors determine what engagement means and whether their judgments are grounded in evidence.

When organizations confuse the performance of attentiveness with meaningful participation, they risk rewarding appearances rather than contributions.

How First Impressions Become Lasting Barriers

First impressions do not necessarily disappear as professional relationships develop. They can influence how subsequent behavior is interpreted, which opportunities employees receive, and how supervisors assess professional potential.

An employee initially perceived as confident and personable may be encouraged to pursue leadership opportunities, represent the organization, or participate in professional development. Someone perceived as awkward, difficult, or disengaged may receive fewer opportunities to demonstrate similar capabilities.

Over time, these differences can reinforce the original judgments. A supervisor who expects an employee to struggle with communication may interpret ordinary interactions as confirmation of that expectation. Meanwhile, evidence that contradicts the initial impression may receive less attention.

For neurodivergent employees, these dynamics can create pressure to mask natural behaviors or devote additional effort to meeting unwritten social expectations. Instead of concentrating primarily on their work, employees may feel compelled to monitor their facial expressions, adjust their communication styles, or demonstrate enthusiasm in ways that do not come naturally.

The consequences extend beyond individual discomfort. When access to mentorship, challenging assignments, and advancement depends partly on subjective judgments about personality or professionalism, organizations may overlook capable employees.

This is particularly concerning because supervisors possess institutional authority. Their interpretations can become performance feedback, influence promotion decisions, or shape an employee's professional reputation.

A comment such as "does not appear engaged" may sound like an observation, but it contains an interpretation. Without evidence connecting the behavior to actual performance, the statement risks transforming a subjective impression into an organizational judgment.

The same problem that begins during a first-round interview can therefore continue throughout an employee's career: people are evaluated not only on what they do, but on how convincingly they display the behaviors others associate with competence and commitment.

Moving from First Impressions to Fairer Practices

Recognizing these patterns is important, but awareness alone does not change organizational behavior. Leaders need practical approaches that reduce the influence of subjective impressions while maintaining meaningful expectations for performance and accountability.

1. Structure First-Round Interviews Around Job-Related Evidence

Organizations should establish consistent interview questions and evaluation criteria before meeting candidates. Rather than relying on general impressions of enthusiasm, confidence, or cultural fit, interviewers should identify the knowledge, skills, and behaviors necessary for successful performance.

Where appropriate, candidates should have opportunities to demonstrate relevant capabilities through work samples, structured scenarios, or examples of previous accomplishments.

Interviewers can also provide information about the interview format in advance, allow reasonable processing time, and explain how candidates may request accessible arrangements. These practices can improve fairness without requiring applicants to disclose neurodivergence.

2. Distinguish Communication Effectiveness from Communication Style

Communication is essential in most workplaces, but effective communication does not require everyone to use the same interpersonal style.

A candidate who pauses before answering may be thoughtful rather than uncertain. An employee who communicates directly may be clear rather than rude. Someone who contributes through written follow-up may be as collaborative as a colleague who speaks frequently during meetings.

Supervisors should evaluate whether communication accomplishes its professional purpose rather than whether it conforms to familiar social expectations.

3. Reconsider What Engagement Looks Like in Virtual Meetings

Organizations should avoid treating camera use, facial expressions, or constant verbal participation as universal measures of attentiveness.

Meeting agendas distributed in advance, opportunities to contribute through chat, written follow-up, and flexibility around camera use can help employees participate effectively. When video participation is necessary for a specific task, leaders should explain why rather than assuming that visible presence always demonstrates engagement.

The relevant question is not whether an employee looked interested throughout a meeting, but whether they understood the discussion, contributed appropriately, and fulfilled their responsibilities.

4. Make Professional Expectations Explicit

Vague expectations about professionalism can create opportunities for bias. Terms such as positive attitude, good fit, enthusiasm, and professional presence may mean different things to different supervisors.

Organizations should define expectations through observable, job-related behaviors. Rather than telling an employee to appear more engaged, a supervisor might clarify expectations for meeting preparation, timely communication, collaboration, or completion of assigned work.

Specific feedback gives employees a meaningful opportunity to respond and improve. It also encourages supervisors to distinguish between actual performance concerns and personal preferences.

5. Examine How Gender Influences Evaluations

Hiring committees and supervisors should consider whether they interpret similar behaviors differently depending on an individual's gender.

Would a neutral facial expression be described as serious in one candidate but unfriendly in another? Is direct communication interpreted as confidence or aggression? Are some employees expected to demonstrate more warmth, enthusiasm, or emotional responsiveness than others?

These questions should become part of reflective hiring and supervisory practices, not exercises in assigning blame. The purpose is to identify where expectations may be inconsistent and replace them with clearer, more equitable standards.

6. Allow Professional Judgments to Evolve

Perhaps the most important change is recognizing that first impressions should remain provisional.

Supervisors should create opportunities for employees to demonstrate their abilities in different contexts and over time. Regular feedback, clear expectations, varied forms of participation, and attention to actual contributions can help prevent initial assumptions from becoming permanent labels.

This approach does not require leaders to ignore genuine performance problems. It requires them to investigate concerns carefully and remain willing to revise their judgments when evidence challenges an initial impression.

Inclusive Leadership Is Not About Lowering Standards

Creating workplaces where neurodivergent employees can thrive does not mean abandoning professional expectations or overlooking performance concerns. It means becoming more precise about what those expectations are intended to measure.

If a position requires effective communication, organizations should assess whether employees communicate necessary information accurately, respectfully, and in ways that support their work. If collaboration is essential, employees should be evaluated on their ability to contribute to shared responsibilities and outcomes.

These are legitimate professional standards. Smiling frequently, maintaining constant eye contact, or appearing animated during a Zoom meeting are not necessarily reliable substitutes for them.

The distinction matters because inclusive practices can strengthen rather than weaken accountability. Explicit expectations, structured evaluation, and evidence-based feedback provide clearer standards for everyone.

They also encourage organizational learning. When supervisors recognize that their assumptions about professionalism may exclude capable employees, they have an opportunity to improve how their organizations recruit, support, and develop talent.

The responsibility for inclusion should not rest exclusively with neurodivergent employees adapting to existing workplace norms. Organizations must also examine whether those norms serve legitimate professional purposes or simply reproduce familiar expectations about behavior.

Giving Employees the Opportunity to Be Known

First impressions are unavoidable. We interpret social interactions quickly, often without recognizing the assumptions informing our judgments. The leadership challenge is not to eliminate first impressions but to prevent them from becoming unquestioned conclusions.

For a neurodivergent candidate, appearing bored during a first-round Zoom interview should not automatically outweigh evidence of professional ability. For an employee, looking away during a meeting should not be treated as proof of disengagement. And for workers of different genders, the same behaviors should not carry different professional consequences simply because they challenge expectations about warmth, confidence, or authority.

These examples share a common problem: organizations sometimes mistake how people appear for what they are capable of contributing.

Creating inclusive workplaces requires more than encouraging individuals to make better first impressions. It requires changing how employers interpret behavior, assess competence, and recognize professional potential.

The most effective leaders understand that their initial perceptions may be incomplete. They establish clear expectations, seek evidence before drawing conclusions, and remain open to discovering capabilities that were not immediately apparent.

A first impression may begin a professional relationship, but it should never become the final measure of someone's potential.