The Performance of Normality

 

In a previous essay, I explored the idea that social life often resembles a form of theatre, shaped by rituals, expectations, and the roles we learn to perform. Nowhere is this performance more visible, or more consequential, than within the modern workplace.

Modern workplaces increasingly present themselves as spaces that value diversity, collaboration, and individuality. Many organisations are making genuine efforts toward accessibility and inclusion, recognising that different perspectives and ways of thinking can strengthen both workplace culture and innovation. Yet alongside these positive changes, professional environments still tend to operate through long-established social expectations that are often left unspoken. Eye contact, conversational timing, emotional presentation, networking, and small talk are rarely described as formal requirements of a role, but they frequently shape how professionalism, confidence, and competence are perceived within everyday working life.

For many autistic people, navigating these expectations can involve a significant amount of conscious adaptation. Behaviours that appear effortless to others may instead require active monitoring and interpretation: analysing tone during conversations, rehearsing responses before speaking, adjusting facial expressions, or managing sensory discomfort in busy environments. In many cases this process becomes so routine that it is almost invisible externally. An employee may appear calm, sociable, and adaptable while privately expending considerable mental energy navigating the social landscape of the workplace.

This experience is often described as masking, a term used to describe the conscious or unconscious suppression of autistic traits in order to fit more comfortably within social environments. While masking can be useful in certain situations, it also raises broader questions about workplace culture and professional expectations. How much adaptation should individuals be expected to undertake, and how much responsibility should environments bear for accommodating different ways of thinking and communicating?

This essay explores the relationship between autism, masking, and modern workplace culture. In doing so, it examines how professional norms shape perceptions of competence, why adaptation can sometimes become exhausting, and what these dynamics reveal about the way success is understood within contemporary working life.

Discussions surrounding autism have traditionally been framed through the language of deficits. Difficulties with communication, social interaction, emotional regulation, or sensory processing are often presented as evidence of what autistic people struggle to do. While these challenges can be significant, this perspective risks overlooking a more fundamental question: what happens when a way of thinking that differs from the majority encounters systems designed with that majority in mind?

The concept of neurodiversity offers an alternative lens through which to view these differences. Rather than understanding neurological variation solely as a problem to be corrected, neurodiversity recognises that human minds process information, relationships, and environments in different ways. From this perspective, many challenges associated with autism emerge not simply from individual traits, but from a mismatch between those traits and the expectations of the surrounding environment.

This does not mean that autism is free from difficulty, nor that every challenge can be solved through accommodation alone. Rather, it encourages a shift in focus. Instead of asking why autistic people struggle to fit within existing structures, it asks how those structures influence the experiences of the people within them. The distinction may appear subtle, but it fundamentally changes where responsibility, understanding, and adaptation are located.

Understanding autism through this lens is particularly useful when examining workplace culture. Before considering how autistic employees navigate professional environments, it is worth recognising that concepts such as communication, professionalism, and collaboration are not universal truths. They are social expectations shaped by particular cultural norms and assumptions, many of which remain invisible until they are encountered by someone who experiences the world differently.

The challenge is not that workplaces demand adaptation. Adaptation is a natural part of professional life. Every employee learns new systems, navigates unfamiliar expectations, and adjusts their behaviour to suit different environments. The question is where adaptation ends, and something more demanding begins.

Modern workplaces are built upon countless unwritten social conventions. Some are practical, helping colleagues communicate effectively and work together towards shared goals. Others are less tangible. Confidence is often associated with verbal fluency and ease within social situations. Engagement is demonstrated through participation and visibility. Professionalism is communicated through tone, body language, and the ability to navigate informal workplace interactions. These expectations are rarely malicious, yet they are often treated as neutral standards despite reflecting a particular way of engaging with the world.

For autistic employees, this can create a subtle but persistent pressure to translate themselves into a form that feels more socially familiar to others. Communication may become more deliberate. Natural behaviours may be consciously suppressed. Social interactions that appear effortless from the outside can require significant preparation and reflection behind the scenes. Over time, this process of adjustment can become so routine that it is mistaken for authenticity. The performance succeeds precisely because it is no longer recognised as a performance.

What makes this dynamic particularly difficult to identify is that it is often interpreted as a success story. An autistic employee who learns to navigate these expectations effectively may be viewed as having overcome barriers or developed greater resilience. While these interpretations are not entirely wrong, they can overlook an important question: what exactly is being rewarded? Is it the capability itself, or the ability to align with existing expectations?

The better this performance becomes, the less visible the effort behind it appears. Colleagues see confidence, professionalism, and adaptability, while the continual process of self-monitoring remains largely hidden. Yet that effort does not disappear simply because it is unseen. Instead, it accumulates over time, shaping the experience of work in ways that are rarely acknowledged and often poorly understood.

At first glance, the hidden labour of masking may appear to be a relatively niche issue, affecting only a specific group of employees navigating a specific set of challenges. Yet the questions it raises extend far beyond autism itself. They touch upon how modern workplaces define professionalism, how organisations recognise talent, and how society decides which forms of behaviour are considered acceptable, competent, or valuable.

Professional environments are often designed around the assumption that there is a correct way to communicate, collaborate, and present oneself. These expectations can feel so familiar that they are rarely questioned. Confidence is associated with speaking comfortably in meetings. Enthusiasm is demonstrated through visible engagement. Teamwork is measured through social participation and relationship-building. While these behaviours can undoubtedly contribute to a healthy workplace, they are not the only ways in which competence, commitment, or capability can be expressed. When a narrow set of social behaviours becomes synonymous with professionalism itself, organisations risk overlooking valuable contributions that do not fit established norms.

This matters not only because it affects individuals, but because it shapes the environments in which people work. A workplace that unintentionally rewards conformity may limit the diversity of perspectives, communication styles, and problem-solving approaches available to it. Innovation often emerges from different ways of seeing the world, yet difference can be difficult to recognise when success is measured through similarity. The more closely advancement is tied to behavioural expectations, the greater the risk that talent becomes secondary to performance.

There is also a human cost. The effort required to continuously monitor behaviour, adapt communication styles, and manage social expectations consumes energy that might otherwise be directed towards meaningful work, creativity, or wellbeing. Over time, this can contribute to stress, disengagement, and burnout, not only among autistic employees but among anyone who feels pressure to suppress aspects of themselves in order to fit within a professional ideal. The experience may be particularly visible in discussions surrounding neurodiversity, but the underlying tension is a familiar one: the distance between who we are and who we feel expected to be.

Perhaps most importantly, examining masking invites a broader reconsideration of inclusion itself. If inclusion is measured solely by whether individuals can adapt successfully to existing systems, then responsibility for change rests almost entirely with those who are already navigating barriers. A more expansive understanding of inclusion asks a different question. Rather than focusing exclusively on how people can fit into workplaces, it considers how workplaces might evolve to accommodate a wider range of strengths, communication styles, and ways of thinking.

Viewed in this light, the discussion is not simply about autism. It is about the kind of professional cultures we choose to build. It is about whether diversity is understood as the presence of difference, or whether it also requires creating conditions in which difference can exist without needing to be concealed. The answer to that question shapes not only who succeeds within our workplaces, but what success itself comes to mean.

What I find most interesting about discussions surrounding autism in the workplace is how often they reveal assumptions that many people rarely think to question. Professionalism, confidence, communication, and even inclusion are frequently treated as self-evident concepts, yet each is shaped by cultural expectations that have developed over time. We inherit these expectations, learn them, and eventually begin to mistake them for universal truths. The result is that certain behaviours become so deeply associated with competence that alternative ways of thinking, communicating, or engaging with the world can appear unusual even when they are equally valid.

This is not an argument against professionalism, nor is it a suggestion that workplaces should abandon standards altogether. Every organisation requires shared expectations in order to function effectively. The challenge lies in recognising that standards are not always neutral. They reflect values, priorities, and assumptions about what successful employees look like. When those assumptions remain unexamined, it becomes easy to confuse familiarity with effectiveness, rewarding people for fitting established norms rather than considering whether those norms are serving everyone equally well.

The more I have reflected on masking, the more it has come to resemble a form of invisible labour. Unlike many workplace tasks, it rarely appears on a job description, performance review, or organisational chart. It exists largely beneath the surface, unnoticed by those who do not have to perform it. Yet it requires effort, concentration, and energy all the same. The better it is performed, the less visible it becomes. There is something deeply paradoxical about a process that succeeds by concealing the very work it requires.

Perhaps this is why conversations about neurodiversity matter. They encourage us to look beyond obvious barriers and consider the quieter ways in which environments shape behaviour. Not every obstacle is physical, formal, or intentional. Sometimes it exists within assumptions that have become so familiar they disappear from view. Examining those assumptions does not weaken workplaces; if anything, it offers an opportunity to build environments that are more thoughtful, adaptable, and responsive to the diversity of people within them.

Ultimately, I do not think the goal of inclusion should be to help people become better at hiding who they are. Adaptation will always be a part of living and working alongside others, but genuine inclusion requires movement in more than one direction. It asks individuals to understand one another while also asking systems to examine themselves. The most inclusive workplaces are not necessarily those where everyone behaves in the same way, but those where different ways of thinking and communicating can exist without being mistaken for deficiencies. In that sense, the question is not whether autistic people can succeed within modern workplaces. The more interesting question is whether modern workplaces are willing to expand their understanding of what success can look like

Enjoyed this post? Never miss out on future posts by following us

Sources & Further Reading

Books:

Silberman, S. — NeuroTribes: The Legacy of Autism and the Future of Neurodiversity

Price, D. — Unmasking Autism: Discovering the New Faces of Neurodiversity

Goffman, E. — The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life

Articles & Online Resources:

National Autistic Society — Employment and Autism

Autistica — Employment and Neurodiversity Resources

Milton, D. — The Double Empathy Problem

Hull, L. et al. — Putting on My Best Normal: Social Camouflaging in Adults with Autism Spectrum Conditions

Harvard Business Review — Neurodiversity as a Competitive Advantage