Although there are emerging vocational support and hiring initiatives in some organizational contexts, autistic individuals continue to face significant challenges and barriers in navigating their careers. This scoping review synthesized the existing literature to find out evidence of how autistic employees define a successful career, identifying factors influencing their career progression and career trajectories. Grounded on the misfit lens, this review proposes a framework as a foundation for future understanding and enhancing career development for autistic employees.
This review followed the PRISMA-ScR checklist for writing scoping reviews. A total of 52,786 records were screened, and 46 studies were included in the study.
We identified three major themes and five subthemes. The first theme, “Employee job fit,” explains the significance of individual compatibility with the job. The second theme, “Organizational fit,” discusses the importance of the compatibility between the individual and the organization’s practices, policies, and culture. The third theme, “Psychological safety,” describes the need to understand autism among colleagues and employers, as well as systematic inclusion and a culture of diversity where everyone can flourish.
Moving beyond a one-size-fits-all approach allows for more inclusive and sustainable workplace strategies where autistic employees can thrive. Therefore, this review explores existing literature to determine what career development means for autistic employees.
Many autistic individuals face significant challenges in navigating their careers (Siedler and Idczak-Paceś, 2021; Hayward et al., 2019b). Despite their academic capabilities, many autistic individuals are disproportionately represented in low-paying, entry-level job roles, working part-time or fewer hours than they desire, or frequently changing jobs (Harvery et al., 2021; López et al., 2021; Roux et al., 2015). Some autistic employees are concerned about unequal career opportunities, questioning whether they receive fair pay and promotions at the same rate as non-autistic peers (Davies et al., 2023). Moreover, research has yet to provide a comprehensive understanding of how career progression differs between autistic and non-autistic employees (Bruyère and Colella, 2022; Whelpley et al., 2021). Despite their potential contributions to the organization’s innovation and competitive advantage, autistic people often experience fragmented careers and uncertainty of their future of employment (Austin and Pisano, 2017; Davies et al., 2022). Also, at the organizational level, there is a lack of understanding of how to effectively support autistic employees in building sustained and meaningful careers throughout their employment journey (Ezerins et al., 2024; Wen et al., 2023). These concerns highlight the need for research to identify the factors that influenced sustained and meaningful careers for autistic employees throughout their employment journey (Ezerins et al., 2024; Raymaker et al., 2023; Hayward et al., 2020).
In response to these concerns, there is increasing discussion by management scholars on how to integrate autistic individuals in the workplace environment in terms of transition to employment, retention, and career development (Ezerins et al., 2024; Rollnik-Sadowska and Grabińska, 2024). Recognizing the growing need to address employment-related challenges faced by autistic individuals, Ezerins et al. (2024) conducted a comprehensive review of 287 studies on autism and employment, developing an integrative framework that spans the entire employment cycle, from pre-employment stages (e.g., transition, recruitment) to post-hire experiences (e.g., retention, performance, advancement). While their synthesis offers a broad overview of barriers and enablers across these phases, they found that most existing research focuses disproportionately on the early stages of employment, such as hiring and onboarding. In contrast, later stages including long-term retention, career progression, and sustained employment, remain underexplored. Ezerins et al. (2024) identify this as a significant gap and call for future research to investigate the structural and interpersonal mechanisms that support autistic individuals beyond the point of hire.
Southey et al. (2024) reviewed 32 studies exploring the perspectives of autistic adults on competitive employment. Their review covered both general workplace experiences and specific aspects such as social dynamics and support needs. The findings highlighted challenges in accessing sustainable employment, including cycles of unemployment and underemployment, and moving from one job to another without promotion or career advancement. These findings highlight a significant gap in understanding how autistic employees define and experience career success, and what supports or hinders their progression beyond entry-level roles. A prior study (Davies et al., 2024) reviewed 33 studies on career progression and highlighted the prevalence of underemployment among autistic employees. Davies et al. (2024) identified key barriers, including personal factors (e.g. gaps in education and employment history), relational factors (e.g. disclosing an autism diagnosis), and organizational factors (e.g. inadequate employment support). However, the study did not provide insight into what career development means for autistic employees, what influences career trajectories, or how they define a successful career.
In the current paper, we report a scoping review and synthesis of autism and employment literature. We explored the experiences of both autistic individuals in paid employment and non-autistic perspectives (including employers, colleagues, caregivers, etc.). This triangulation offers a more comprehensive understanding of the career development of autistic employees. We aimed to address the following research aims.
Aim 1: To understand what career development is for autistic employees.
Aim 2: To identify factors that influence autistic employees' career development and career trajectories.
The next section outlines the theoretical underpinnings, including key concepts that inform our research. We then discuss the materials and methods used in our scoping review strategy. In the Findings section, we will discuss the thematic findings. We will then propose a framework for understanding the career development of autistic employees at the organizational level, developed through the emergence of themes and interpreted using misfit. Finally, we conclude by highlighting the limitations, outlining future research directions, and suggesting practical implications.
Theoretical underpinnings
Navigating career development at work
Career development often emphasizes fostering an individual’s professional growth and progression within an organization (De Vos et al., 2020; Kaliannan et al., 2023). At the workplace, career development plays a critical role in enhancing job satisfaction, work motivation, performance, and organizational commitment (Febrian and Sani, 2023; Prayudi and Komariyah, 2023). For example, career development theories such as Trait and Factor Theory posit that career decisions should align personal characteristics with occupational requirements (Parsons, 1909). Similarly, Protean Career Theory emphasizes self-directed, intrinsically motivated careers where individuals prioritize flexibility and adaptability to pursue psychological fulfilment and success (Hall et al., 2018). In a comparable vein, the Boundaryless Career Theory describes careers that extend beyond traditional organizational boundaries, where individuals are not confined to a single employer. This theory highlights more fluid, flexible career paths, with employees navigating through various roles, industries, and organizations throughout their careers (Alok and Rajthilak, 2021). However, these theories often assume that individuals have the agency, adaptability, and workplace support necessary to achieve such alignment (Holtschlag et al., 2020; Hess, 2022; Hall et al., 2018).
For autistic employees, navigating conventional career paths can be particularly challenging (Pfeiffer et al., 2018; Bury et al., 2021; Spoor et al., 2021; Raymaker et al., 2023). For example, many autistic employees enter occupations by chance, or some accept whatever jobs were offered to them or jobs that are incompatible with their skills or interests (Hayward et al., 2018, 2019a; Hurlbutt and Chalmers, 2004). Also, some autistic employees experience fragmented careers due to gaps in employment, despite their qualifications and willingness to work (Hayward et al., 2019b). In such scenarios, their pursuit of a fulfilling career/career progression may not be successful (Coleman and Adams, 2018; Hayward et al., 2019b).
Bridging the misfit
People are naturally drawn to work environments that align with their characteristics, as this alignment helps them achieve their desired life outcomes (Kandler et al., 2024). The Person–Environment (PE) Fit framework has traditionally focused on this alignment, emphasizing the match between individual traits and environmental demands or values (De Cooman and Vleugels, 2022). However, this review shifts the focus toward the concept of misfit, an essential but often overlooked aspect of the PE Fit model, particularly in the context of autistic individuals' access to work. The concept of misfit emphasizes the importance of alignment between an individual and their work environment, including shared values, preferences, and goals (Kandler et al., 2024; Sun and Billsberry, 2024). In the general population, a positive fit fosters intrinsic motivation and a sense of belonging, which are essential for career development and meaningful work (Xu et al., 2023; Kandler et al., 2024; Vleugels et al., 2023). In contrast, misfit results in adverse outcomes such as organizational exit, social isolation, and depressive states (Sun and Billsberry, 2024; Pasca, 2023).
While workplace structures typically foster engagement and career growth for the general workforce, autistic individuals may struggle adapting into conventional workplace environments, being excluded, judged for characteristics and behaviors that do not align with neurotypical expectations (Southey et al., 2024; Cooper and Kennady, 2021; Hedley et al., 2021). These challenges can hinder their ability to seek new opportunities and achieve similar outcomes compared to the general population (Ezerins et al., 2024; Williams, 2021; Bhuiyan et al., 2022). Therefore, understanding this interaction grounded on the misfit lens offers a foundation for developing individual and organizational interventions to support autistic adults in the workplace (Bhuiyan et al., 2022).
This scoping review examines the career development of autistic employees through a misfit lens. It explores existing literature to understand how autistic individuals define career progression and identifies factors that drive career progression and trajectories. By understanding this, this review aims to provide actionable recommendations for management, Human Resource (HR) professionals, and policymakers. Ultimately, it seeks to establish a framework for organizational support, enabling autistic employees to achieve career growth.
Method
We followed the comprehensive PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (Tricco et al., 2018), following 20 mandatory checklist items. A protocol was developed in mutual agreement with the three authors. A copy of the protocol is available from the first author.
Inclusion/exclusion criteria
The scoping review included studies that reported data on autistic individuals who were either in paid employment or had previous experience in paid employment. The target population considered for inclusion was autistic individuals, either formally diagnosed or self-identified, including individuals with historical diagnostic labels such as Asperger’s syndrome or Pervasive Developmental Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS). Studies involving autistic individuals or those with developmental disabilities where autism was specified separately in relation to disability were also included. Studies were included if participants were aged 15 years of age or older; studies including younger participants were included if data for those aged 15 years and above could be separated. There were no restrictions on the age of diagnosis or self-identification of autism. Additionally, the review included studies involving autistic individuals as well as supervisors of autistic employees, job coaches of autistic employees, and support personnel such as mentors, and carers. Only empirical studies published in peer-reviewed journals in English or Sinhalese were considered, with no restrictions on study design (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods). In relation to study design, no formal synthesis or statistical analysis of the quantitative data was conducted. Instead, relevant findings were extracted and narratively interpreted to explore their contribution to the main research questions. To ensure comprehensive coverage, no publication date range was applied, allowing the inclusion of all relevant material from the earliest records to the most recent publications in the selected databases.
Interventions that focused exclusively on daily living skills or transition planning, without relevance to the post-hiring phase of the employment life cycle, were excluded from the review. Additionally, books, book chapters, essays, news articles, editorials, opinion pieces, conceptual papers (e.g. theoretical frameworks), conference proceedings, literature reviews, meta-analyses, dissertations, and thesis abstracts were excluded.
Search strategy and information sources
The databases searched in December 2023 were: CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PROQUEST, Web of Science, ERIC, SCOPUS, EBSCOhost - Business Source Complete, EMBASE, Humanities and Social Sciences collection. These were searched using the following search terms: ((autis* or ASD* or neurodiver* or Asperger* or PDD-NOS or Pervasive Developmental Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified OR “developmental disability”) AND (career* or vocation* or job* or occupation* or profession* or “worker” or “workplace” or organiation* or “employee” or “employer” or underemploy* or unemploy*)).
Titles retrieved from each database were downloaded into EndNote software. Initially, the search yielded 52,786 records. A de-duplication process was performed leaving 31,580 titles for review. After screening titles, abstracts, and full-text articles against inclusion criteria, 46 articles were included in the review. See Figure 1 for the study selection process.
The flowchart is labeled “Identification of studies via databases and registers” and shows three vertical text boxes representing three stages, arranged in a vertical series on the left. From top to bottom, these are labeled: “Identification,” “Screening,” and “Included.” In the “Identification” stage, a text box reads: “Records identified from: C I N A H L (n equals 11,713), MEDLINE (n equals 1,997), Psyc INFO (n equals 2,989), PROQUEST (n equals 9,005), Web of Science (n equals 11,879), ERIC (n equals 2,365), SCOPUS (n equals 843), E B S C O host - Business Source Complete (n equals 9,829), EMBASE (n equals 1,837), Humanities and Social Sciences Collection (n equals 329), Total databases (n equals 10), Total records (n equals 52,786).” A right-pointing arrow leads to another text box labeled: “Records removed before the screening: Duplicate records removed (n equals 21,206).” A downward-pointing arrow from the initial text box leads to the “Screening” stage with a box labeled: “Records screened for title (n equals 31,580).” A right-pointing arrow from this text box leads to another text box labeled: “Records removed for title (n equals 30,618).” A downward-pointing arrow leads to a text box labeled: “Records screened for abstract (n equals 962).” A right-pointing arrow from this text box leads to text box labeled “Records excluded (n equals 699).” The flow continues downward to a text box labeled: “Reports sought for retrieval (n equals 263).” A right-pointing arrow leads to a detailed box labeled: “Reports not retrieved (n equals 201),” with five exclusion reasons as follows: First: Autistic participants not distinguished from other participants (n equals 81); Second: Conceptual or review or commentary papers (n equals 14); Third: Did not cover autistic employees’ careers (n equals 69), The books, book chapters, essays, news articles, editorials, opinion pieces, literature reviews, and meta-analyses (n equals 12); Fourth: No paid employment or experience (n equals 11); Fifth: Other (n equals 14) (for example, full text unavailable, age cannot be separated from other participants). A downward arrow continues to a text box labeled: “Reports assessed for eligibility (n equals 62).” A right-pointing arrow from this text box leads to a text box labeled “Reports excluded,” which contains four reasons: Pre-vocational (n equals 8), Employment was not paid (n equals 1), The content is not relevant to career development (n equals 6), Participants with other severe disabilities (n equals 1). The final downward-pointing arrow leads to a text box labeled: “Reports of included studies (n equals 46)” in the “Included” stage.Study selection process following PRISMA. (Source: Authors’ work)
The flowchart is labeled “Identification of studies via databases and registers” and shows three vertical text boxes representing three stages, arranged in a vertical series on the left. From top to bottom, these are labeled: “Identification,” “Screening,” and “Included.” In the “Identification” stage, a text box reads: “Records identified from: C I N A H L (n equals 11,713), MEDLINE (n equals 1,997), Psyc INFO (n equals 2,989), PROQUEST (n equals 9,005), Web of Science (n equals 11,879), ERIC (n equals 2,365), SCOPUS (n equals 843), E B S C O host - Business Source Complete (n equals 9,829), EMBASE (n equals 1,837), Humanities and Social Sciences Collection (n equals 329), Total databases (n equals 10), Total records (n equals 52,786).” A right-pointing arrow leads to another text box labeled: “Records removed before the screening: Duplicate records removed (n equals 21,206).” A downward-pointing arrow from the initial text box leads to the “Screening” stage with a box labeled: “Records screened for title (n equals 31,580).” A right-pointing arrow from this text box leads to another text box labeled: “Records removed for title (n equals 30,618).” A downward-pointing arrow leads to a text box labeled: “Records screened for abstract (n equals 962).” A right-pointing arrow from this text box leads to text box labeled “Records excluded (n equals 699).” The flow continues downward to a text box labeled: “Reports sought for retrieval (n equals 263).” A right-pointing arrow leads to a detailed box labeled: “Reports not retrieved (n equals 201),” with five exclusion reasons as follows: First: Autistic participants not distinguished from other participants (n equals 81); Second: Conceptual or review or commentary papers (n equals 14); Third: Did not cover autistic employees’ careers (n equals 69), The books, book chapters, essays, news articles, editorials, opinion pieces, literature reviews, and meta-analyses (n equals 12); Fourth: No paid employment or experience (n equals 11); Fifth: Other (n equals 14) (for example, full text unavailable, age cannot be separated from other participants). A downward arrow continues to a text box labeled: “Reports assessed for eligibility (n equals 62).” A right-pointing arrow from this text box leads to a text box labeled “Reports excluded,” which contains four reasons: Pre-vocational (n equals 8), Employment was not paid (n equals 1), The content is not relevant to career development (n equals 6), Participants with other severe disabilities (n equals 1). The final downward-pointing arrow leads to a text box labeled: “Reports of included studies (n equals 46)” in the “Included” stage.Study selection process following PRISMA. (Source: Authors’ work)
Data extraction and synthesis
A summary of the studies is provided in the Supplementary File. Inductive thematic analysis was chosen to analyze the data, as this method prioritizes the perspectives and experiences of participants in the included studies. The process was followed by the six-step process outlined by Braun and Clarke (2020). The first author reviewed each study six times to familiarize with data; the coding and analysis were performed using Microsoft Excel, ensuring that the data were directly from participants' experiences rather than authors' interpretations. During the analysis stage, the first author independently extracted the words, phrases, sentences, or paragraphs in the studies that seem significant, interesting, or relevant to the research aims. Coding consistency was maintained using a structured coding table developed by the first author to guide data extraction and analysis. Then, the data was organized into the themes through regular discussions between the research team. Thematic validation was supported through regular discussions with the research team, which helped review and refine emerging themes collaboratively. When disagreements arose during the analysis, the research team addressed them through regular discussions and consultations, and re-reading, to ensure consensus and reduce potential bias. Finally, a thematic framework was shared with the other two authors, who participated in ongoing discussions and reviews of the scoping review process. All authors agreed upon the final thematic framework, including major themes and sub-themes.
Results
Study characteristics
The studies were conducted in various countries, primarily the USA (n = 19) (study nos. 6, 12, 16, 20, 21, 23, 28, 30, 32, 34–35,37, 40–46); Australia (n = 14) (nos. 1, 11–12, 15–17, 23–25, 29–30, 33,37–38); and the UK (n = 8) (study nos. 2, 7, 9–10, 12–13, 19, 23). Other countries included Sweden (n = 5) (study nos. 4–5, 12, 24, 30); Poland (n = 3) (study nos. 11, 14, 15); Germany (n = 3) (study nos. 12, 36, 39); Spain (n = 2) (study nos. 11, 15); and Canada (n = 3) (study no. 8, 11, 27). A single study was conducted in Turkey (study nos. 3), Israel (study nos. 22), and Taiwan (study nos. 31). Additionally, seven studies (n = 7) (study nos. 11–12, 15–16, 23–24, 30) collected data from more than one country.
Most studies were qualitative (n = 30) (study nos. 1–6, 8, 11, 13, 14–20, 23, 24–29, 31, 33, 35, 39–40, 44–45), quantitative (n = 5) (study nos. 21–22, 32, 38, 43) or mixed method (n = 11) (study nos. 7, 9–10, 12, 30, 34, 36–37, 41–42, 46). Approaches to data collection were: online/survey (n = 17), in-depth interviews (n = 6), semi-structured interviews (n = 6), case studies (n = 3), focus groups (n = 3), intervention programs (n = 6), or something else (n = 5). The studies are arranged in the supplementary file (S1) in chronological order by year of publication.
Participant characteristics
The total number of autistic individuals represented was 1,727. All the autistic participants were aged between 16 and 75 years. Studies published prior to 2012 focused primarily on younger to middle-aged adults, whereas studies from 2012 onwards include a broader range of age groups. In the included studies, an average of 44.4% (n = 768) of autistic respondents were females. Ten studies (study nos. 2, 6–7, 10, 20–21, 32–33, 38, 41) reported the participants' intersecting social identities such as nationality, race or ethnicity. Nine studies (study nos. 2, 7, 13, 23, 25, 27, 29, 38, 45) explicitly discussed the career development of autistic employees. Twenty-two studies (study nos. 1, 4, 7–9, 11, 13, 15–16, 18, 21, 23–28, 30, 33–34, 37, 41) included autistic and non-autistic participants (supervisors, carers, employers). The employment of autistic employees spanned diverse industries and was reported in 40 studies (study nos. 1–2, 4–6, 8–12, 14–16, 18–26, 28–32, 34–41, 43–46), with education, healthcare, public administration, and IT being the most common sectors. Six studies (study nos. 3, 7, 17, 27, 33, 42) focused on specific industries, i.e. Information Technology.
Thematic findings
To answer the aims of the scoping review, we identified three major themes and five sub-themes from the data across the 46 studies. The themes are categorized into three groups: job-specific, organization-specific, and factors spanning both job and organizational domains. These are illustrated in a thematic map of the themes and sub-themes in Figure 2.
The thematic map shows three vertical columns. The three columns are labeled on the top in three text boxes representing three themes, aligned in a horizontal series from left to right as follows: “Job-specific factors,” “Organization-specific factors,” and “Job and the organizational factors.” Under the “Job-specific factors” theme is a text box labeled “Major theme -1 Employee job fit,” which is followed by three connected text boxes below it, labeled as follows: Text box 1: “Sub-theme - 1.1 Ability to perform the job.” Text box 2: “Sub-theme - 1.2 Aspirations or Motivation to Pursue a Career.” Text box 3: “Sub-theme - 1.3 Opportunity for development.” Under the “Organization-specific factors” theme is a text box labeled “Major theme -2 Organizational fit.” Two connected text boxes are placed below it, labeled as follows: Text box 1: “Sub-theme - 2.1 Vocational enablers.” Text box 2: “Sub-theme - 2.2 Vocational challenges and barriers.” Under the “Job and the organizational factors” theme is a standalone text box labeled “Major theme -3 Psychological safety.”Thematic map of the major themes and subthemes. (Source: Authors’ work)
The thematic map shows three vertical columns. The three columns are labeled on the top in three text boxes representing three themes, aligned in a horizontal series from left to right as follows: “Job-specific factors,” “Organization-specific factors,” and “Job and the organizational factors.” Under the “Job-specific factors” theme is a text box labeled “Major theme -1 Employee job fit,” which is followed by three connected text boxes below it, labeled as follows: Text box 1: “Sub-theme - 1.1 Ability to perform the job.” Text box 2: “Sub-theme - 1.2 Aspirations or Motivation to Pursue a Career.” Text box 3: “Sub-theme - 1.3 Opportunity for development.” Under the “Organization-specific factors” theme is a text box labeled “Major theme -2 Organizational fit.” Two connected text boxes are placed below it, labeled as follows: Text box 1: “Sub-theme - 2.1 Vocational enablers.” Text box 2: “Sub-theme - 2.2 Vocational challenges and barriers.” Under the “Job and the organizational factors” theme is a standalone text box labeled “Major theme -3 Psychological safety.”Thematic map of the major themes and subthemes. (Source: Authors’ work)
Major theme 1: employee-job fit
The findings revealed that individual compatibility with the job is a key factor influencing the career development of autistic employees. This was reported in 41 (89.1%) of the included studies (study nos. 1–8, 10–18, 20–21, 24–40, 42–46). Compatibility involves aligning an employee’s strengths and characteristics with job requirements. It also includes the individual’s career aspirations and the growth opportunities provided by the employer. Additionally, it considers how employers perceive their productivity and suitability to meet organizational goals. In opposition, they described how a poor job fit can hinder them from career fulfillment (study nos. 22, 23, 25).
Sub-theme 1.1: ability to perform the job
In 26 studies (56.5%), autistic participants reflected on how aligning jobs with their strengths and characteristics contributes to a successful, meaningful career and organizational longevity (studies no. 2, 4–6, 8, 10, 12–14, 17, 21, 24–25, 29, 32–39, 42–43, 45–46). They also emphasized that the ability to perform the job is determined by an individual’s knowledge, skills, attitudes, and qualifications, which are crucial factors in fostering a flourishing career (studies nos. 21, 34, 36).
Another aspect of this theme is the employer’s perception and attitude of employee productivity towards organizational goals, as reported in 11 (23.9%) studies (study nos. 1, 6, 16, 18, 24, 26–28, 30, 37). Employers and other non-autistic participants report how well the employee’s personal characteristics, passion, productivity, and suitability align with job requirements and influence career development regardless of their diagnosis (study nos. 3, 5, 12, 18, 36).
Sub-theme 1.2: aspirations or motivation to pursue a career
As highlighted by participants, aspiration or motivation is another sub-theme emergent under job and employee fit, which influences career development. In 12 (26.0%) studies (study nos. 2, 7–8, 12, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 34, 37–38), autistic employees reported that their motivation or aspiration to pursue a career is primarily influenced by skill-centric and reward-centric factors. For example, autistic employees indicated that areas of interest aligned with their natural fit, such as gifted talents and passion, motivate them to pursue a fulfilling career (study no. 8). Additionally, rewards (monetary gains) or benefits (flexibility, work-life balance) associated with the role also influenced their career growth (study no. 14). Also, they highlighted challenges they encountered in their job role as an influencing factor that impacted their career aspiration or motivation (study nos. 6, 14, 21, 43).
Sub-theme 1.3: opportunity for development
As reported by autistic and non-autistic participants (e.g., employers and carers), another key factor associated with employee job fit is the opportunity for development. This was highlighted in 11 studies (23.9%) (study nos. 6, 8, 11, 15, 16, 20, 21, 26, 28, 37, 44). Opportunity for development includes finding suitable employment, enhancing skills, receiving training, and accessing career advancement opportunities (i.e. capacity building) (study nos. 1, 15, 19, 21–23). It also involves taking on evolving roles, such as supervisory positions, vertical mobility, and leadership roles (study no. 38).
Major theme 2: organizational fit
The second key factor influencing the career development of autistic employees is employee organizational fit, as reported in 41 studies (89.1%) (study no. 1–11, 13–16, 18–20, 22–30, 32–36, 37–42, 44–46). This highlights how career development is shaped by the compatibility between individual and organizational practices, policies, and culture, including enablers and challenges.
Sub-theme 2.1: vocational enablers
Autistic participants identified vocational enablers as key factors in career development. As reported in 24 studies (52.1%) (study nos. 2, 4–5, 9–10, 13, 19–20, 23–25, 27, 29, 32–33, 35–36, 38–42, 45–46), they described workplace adjustments (e.g. sensory accommodations), peer support, and supervisory understanding as crucial for career success. Additionally, they highlighted autism awareness, fair pay, and favorable working conditions as important for long-term job retention (study nos. 22, 32, 38). For example, some individuals remain in jobs not because they are satisfied with their roles but because they weigh the positives against the negatives or feel they have no other choice (study no. 22).
In 16 studies (34.7%) (study nos. 1, 3, 8–9, 11, 15–16, 18, 20, 24, 26, 28, 30, 33, 37, 44), employers and other non-autistic respondents shared their experiences of factors influencing the career advancement and long-term retention of autistic employees. Vocational enablers include various forms of support, such as third-party assistance, coaching, mentoring, specialized tools, and optimizing team dynamics to enhance overall function and interaction, including work engagement.
Sub-theme 2.2: vocational challenges and barriers
In 19 studies (41.3%), autistic employees described vocational challenges and barriers as factors related to organizational fit that influenced career development (study nos. 2, 4–5, 7–10, 13–14, 18–19, 22–23, 34–36, 38–39, 45). They highlighted the need for workplace adjustments and accommodation and the inadequate availability of assistive tools (study nos. 34, 45). For example, autistic participants often experienced disrupted career paths and were frequently dismissed due to emotional challenges and difficulties with social interactions (study no. 45).
Additionally, non-autistic respondents, such as employers, reported a limited understanding of when and how to provide necessary accommodations to autistic employees, which also influenced their career development (study nos. 6, 8, 11, 36).
Major theme 3: psychological safety
The third key factor influencing the career development of autistic employees is psychological safety. As reported in 17 studies (36.95%) (study nos. 2–5, 8, 10, 12–14, 23, 25, 29, 33–34, 36, 38, 45), many participants’ experiences and perspectives highlighted the need to foster a supportive workplace culture, embrace diversity, and promote understanding of autism among colleagues and employers.
Autistic participants frequently emphasized the importance of a psychologically safe environment that fosters a sense of belonging, ensures systematic inclusion that values individual needs, and supports growth and retention. It also encompasses an open-door culture that encourages communication, respects employees’ voices, upholds the right to work, and promotes equal opportunity in the workplace (study nos. 20, 30, 45).
Discussion
This scoping review addresses two primary research aims: (1) to understand what career development means for autistic employees and (2) to identify the factors that influence their career development. The Autistic lens is employed to illuminate the lived experiences of autistic individuals and foreground their own definitions of career development. In parallel, the misfit lens is used to examine how structural and cultural (mis)alignments shape their experiences of career progression in the workplace. Together, this supports the development of a framework that highlights the unique needs of autistic employees and existing organizational practices. Such data could inform policies and support initiatives to maximize potential and facilitate meaningful career progression for autistic employees at the workplace.
Reframing career development through the autistic lens
Career development theories traditionally emphasize adaptability, self-direction, and mobility within or across organizations (Alok and Rajthilak, 2021; Hall et al., 2018). However, for the general workforce, these models often assume a level of adaptability where all employees have equal access to support, resources, and accommodations. For autistic individuals, career development is shaped not only by skills and aspirations but also by how well their needs align with the organizational environment.
Drawing on emergent themes and the misfit lens, this review conceptualizes the career development of autistic employees as an alignment between individual attributes and environmental constraints. This articulation highlights how the misalignment between an individual and the work environment can hinder the career progression of autistic employees in the workplace. When misalignments occur, they create significant barriers to career growth, affecting not only performance but also long-term retention, job satisfaction, and career aspirations. Unlike traditional deficit-based perspectives, the misfit lens shifts focus from individual limitations to structural mismatches, demonstrating that career development for autistic employees is as much about the inclusivity of the workplace as it is about individual effort.
Our review presents a multi-level framework integrating job fit (alignment between employee and job demands), organizational fit (compatibility with workplace culture and policies and practices), and psychological safety (sense of belongingness, safe inclusion, and diversity). This framework provides a more nuanced understanding of career development, moving beyond traditional assumptions of career development theories, and emphasizing the systemic factors that support career progression for autistic employees by extending the protean career theory (Figure 3).
The framework shows four text boxes on the left arranged in a vertical series labeled with icons on the top left of each box, from top to bottom as follows: “Job Related Factors” with an icon of a briefcase, “Organisational Factors” with an icon of a document grid, “Job and Organisation Related Factors” with an icon of a heart, and “Protean Career Theory” with an icon of a compass. Each of the top three boxes has a right-pointing arrow leading to three text boxes on the right arranged in a vertical series, each also labeled with an icon on the top left. From top to bottom, these are labeled: “Employee Job Fit” with an icon of a person with a checkmark, “Employee Organisational Fit” with an icon of a two persons, and “Psychological Safety” with an icon of a shield. Three right-pointing arrows from all three of these boxes lead to a single text box in the center labeled “Misfit Lens” with an icon of an eye. A right-pointing arrow from “Protean Career Theory” and another from “Misfit Lens” lead to a text box labeled “Systematic Support” with an icon of a cog with blades. A right-pointing arrow from “Systematic Support” leads to a box labeled “Workplace Inclusivity (Inclusive and Supportive Environment),” which then connects via a final right-pointing arrow to an oval-shaped box labeled “Career Development” with an icon of a trophy.Career development framework. (Source: Authors’ work)
The framework shows four text boxes on the left arranged in a vertical series labeled with icons on the top left of each box, from top to bottom as follows: “Job Related Factors” with an icon of a briefcase, “Organisational Factors” with an icon of a document grid, “Job and Organisation Related Factors” with an icon of a heart, and “Protean Career Theory” with an icon of a compass. Each of the top three boxes has a right-pointing arrow leading to three text boxes on the right arranged in a vertical series, each also labeled with an icon on the top left. From top to bottom, these are labeled: “Employee Job Fit” with an icon of a person with a checkmark, “Employee Organisational Fit” with an icon of a two persons, and “Psychological Safety” with an icon of a shield. Three right-pointing arrows from all three of these boxes lead to a single text box in the center labeled “Misfit Lens” with an icon of an eye. A right-pointing arrow from “Protean Career Theory” and another from “Misfit Lens” lead to a text box labeled “Systematic Support” with an icon of a cog with blades. A right-pointing arrow from “Systematic Support” leads to a box labeled “Workplace Inclusivity (Inclusive and Supportive Environment),” which then connects via a final right-pointing arrow to an oval-shaped box labeled “Career Development” with an icon of a trophy.Career development framework. (Source: Authors’ work)
Organizational interventions: what works and what’s missing
The findings of our review emphasize that workplace interventions play a decisive role in shaping career development for autistic employees (Tomczak et al., 2021; Bross et al., 2020; Hedley et al., 2021). Structured communication, sensory accommodation, flexible scheduling, a sense of purpose, and supportive leadership were frequently cited as enablers of career progression (Davies et al., 2022; Cooper and Kennady, 2021; Hayward et al., 2019a). These align with our framework’s “organizational fit” domain, emphasizing how workplace culture, HR policies, and leadership influence not just access to employment but also long-term engagement and growth opportunities.
However, many existing interventions remain fragmented, reactive, and short-term. Instead of being embedded into broader organizational policies, they are often treated as special accommodation granted on an individual basis (Davies et al., 2023). This ad hoc approach places the burden on autistic employees to self-advocate for support, reinforcing workplace misfit rather than addressing systemic gaps. Employers also face challenges in implementing these measures effectively, as many lack a clear understanding of what constitutes meaningful support towards career development.
Leadership emerged as a pivotal factor in bridging misfit and fostering psychological safety. However, few studies detail how managers are equipped to lead inclusively (Dreaver et al., 2020). Our framework positions leadership as a mediating factor between organizational fit and psychological safety, where inclusive leadership directly influences employee well-being, motivation, and career development.
A key consideration in understanding inclusive leadership is the Double Empathy Problem (DEP), which positions communication difficulties between autistic and non-autistic individuals as mutual misunderstandings rather than deficits located solely within autistic people (Milton, 2012; Szechy et al., 2024). DEP reframes these challenges as relational misalignments, rooted in divergent experiences, communication styles, and social expectations. In the workplace, such misalignments may occur when managers rely on implicit social norms or unstated expectations, which may not be shared or easily interpreted by autistic employees. This underscores the critical role of leadership in not only recognizing these communication differences but also actively working to bridge them by engaging with and respecting autistic perspectives. Cultivating a relational understanding of inclusion allows organizations to move beyond individual accommodations and toward systemic change, creating environments where autistic employees can meaningfully connect, collaborate, and thrive. Training managers to recognize and address misfit is therefore essential to fostering inclusive workplaces where all employees, including those who are autistic, can succeed.
One of the most critical contributions of this review is its shift in perspective from viewing autistic employees through a lens of deficits to one that emphasizes strengths, aspirations, and fit. Many autistic employees described career satisfaction as arising when their roles aligned with their strengths, interests, and values (Nicholas and Lau, 2019; Davies et al., 2023; Kirchner and Dziobek, 2014). These accounts support the “employee-job fit” pillar of our framework. Further, a recent study by LaPoint et al. (2024) examined factors associated with job satisfaction among autistic adults, highlighting person-environment fit and social support as key contributors. These findings reinforce the themes identified in our review and underscore the importance of both structural and relational support in shaping positive workplace experiences for a broader understanding of career progression.
Beyond employee fit and organizational fit, participants stressed the importance of a psychologically safe environment, one that fosters belonging, values individual needs, and supports growth and retention (Lorenz et al., 2016; Hayward et al., 2020). For autistic individuals, this safety is a prerequisite for disclosure, participation, and recognition. However, psychological safety is often undermined by stigma, lack of awareness, and limited support, highlighting the need for systematic change at the organizational level (Vincent et al., 2024).
Creating truly inclusive workplaces requires more than offering accommodations it demands a cultural shift. Integrating inclusive design into workplace structures, from sensory-sensitive workspaces to universal communication protocols, benefits not only autistic employees but the broader workforce. In doing so, organizations shift the responsibility from the individual to the system, a move that aligns with both the misfit lens and the social model of disability, which everyone can thrive in the workplace, including autistic employees.
Limitations and future research directions
Our review identifies several key factors influencing the career development of autistic employees, highlighting both challenges and opportunities. While the existing literature provides valuable insights, gaps remain in understanding how organizational structures, policies, and workplace culture interact to shape career trajectories.
One critical gap is how autistic employees define career success. Traditional career models assume that upward mobility and adaptability are universal goals, yet autistic employees may prioritize stability, alignment with personal values, or work-life balance. Future research should explore alternative models that incorporate the perspectives of autistic individuals on career development.
Early research often emphasized barriers such as discrimination, rigid work environments, and communication challenges. However, recent studies suggest that inclusive leadership, structured career development programs, and mentorship opportunities can enhance career outcomes. These factors are interdependent, varying across industries, organizational sizes, and job roles. Future research should explore how these factors interact over time, shaping the extent to which autistic employees can navigate career pathways.
Another underexplored area is the long-term impact of organizational interventions. Many studies examine short-term accommodations, but few assess how these measures evolve over time and whether they lead to sustained career growth. Longitudinal studies and qualitative research can provide deeper insights into the effectiveness of workplace policies and their role in fostering career progression.
Leadership development also requires further study. While inclusive leadership has been identified as crucial, there is limited research on how managers can be effectively trained to support autistic employees. Future research should investigate best practices for leadership training and how managerial attitudes impact workplace inclusion.
Additionally, intersectionality remains an overlooked dimension of autistic career development. Only 10 studies reported information on nationality, gender, race, and ethnicity, with most participants being White or American. Factors such as gender, race, and socioeconomic status intersect with autism, shaping workplace experiences in complex ways (Mallipeddi and VanDaalen, 2021). Research should examine how these intersecting identities influence career trajectories and workplace fit.
This review examined the career development of autistic employees through the interaction between individual characteristics and the organizational environment. However, it is equally important to explore how they navigate long-term career growth across different life stages, including role advancement, reintegration after unemployment, and transitions between employment types. The reviewed studies do not consistently differentiate between career stages, making it difficult to assess whether autistic employees experience progression similarly to their neurotypical counterparts. Future research should establish clearer frameworks for evaluating career development and examine how autistic individuals navigate these transitions over time.
Gender remains an underexplored factor in the career development of autistic employees, despite its potential influence on aspirations, workplace experiences, and advancement. Among the 37 studies reporting gender, only one focused specifically on autistic women, who made up 44.4% of participants. This is a notable gap, as autistic women may face distinct challenges, such as caregiving responsibilities, that impact their careers. Future research should address these disparities to better understand how gender shapes career trajectories for autistic employees.
Comparative studies between autistic and neurotypical employees remain limited. Of the nine studies discussing career development, only one directly compared these groups, revealing that autistic employees identified key enablers for occupational longevity, such as collegial understanding, a supportive physical work environment, and roles with limited social interaction (Hayward et al., 2019a). However, further research is needed to explore the unique challenges autistic employees face, particularly in career progression and workplace support.
Practical implications
Despite these limitations, our findings can inform management professionals, Human Resource (HR) professionals, and policymakers, aiming to foster more inclusive and supportive workplaces for autistic employees. The misfit lens used in this review shifts attention from perceived individual deficits to systemic and environmental misalignments that impede autistic employees' career development. This perspective highlights the need for interventions that recognize diverse strengths, communication styles, and preferences across the workforce.
First, managers should develop the capacity to understand misfit and provide proactive support. Misfit can be supported through personalized development opportunities, including structured mentoring, coaching, and job crafting. When feasible, identifying internal transfers or role redesigns that better align with an employee’s strengths and values can enhance job satisfaction and retention, and career development (North, 2021).
Second, inclusive leadership is critical. Managers who are attuned to the double empathy problem, mutual communication gaps between autistic and non-autistic individuals, can help bridge relational divides and reduce misunderstanding. Leadership training should include autism awareness, communication flexibility, and strategies to build psychological safety. Inclusive leaders are better equipped to recognize latent potential and facilitate career advancement through tailored support.
Third, HR policies must evolve from reactive accommodations to proactive inclusion. Universal design principles such as flexible work arrangements, sensory-friendly environments, and clear communication protocols benefit not only autistic employees but also contribute to more adaptive, equitable workplaces overall. Embedding these supports in mainstream policy reduces the burden on individual self-advocacy and signals organizational commitment to equity.
Fourth, organizational interventions should be reviewed regularly and adjusted to reflect changing employee needs over time. Rather than relying solely on one-time accommodations, organizations should consider longitudinal career planning, regular feedback loops, and participatory approaches that invite autistic employees to share insights into what works.
Finally, fostering authenticity in the workplace can be a key driver of career development, retention, and engagement. Employees who feel pressure to mask their identities or values to “fit in” may experience long-term disconnection. Managers should encourage open dialogue, co-design career paths with employees, and consider feedback from those whose perspectives challenge the status quo. In doing so, organizations can shift from viewing misfit as a liability to seeing it as an opportunity for reform and innovation.
By embracing these implications, workplaces can better support the career development, satisfaction, and retention of autistic employees, ultimately cultivating a more inclusive and thriving organizational culture.
Conclusion
This scoping review highlights the existing evidence on career development for autistic employees and the factors influencing their career progression. By applying the misfit lens, the review underscores how current organizational structures often fail to accommodate the unique needs of autistic employees, reinforcing their exclusion from achieving meaningful career progression. Our findings emphasize the need to address these gaps through inclusive workplace strategies and targeted support mechanisms, which are essential for fostering equitable career development opportunities.
Future research should focus on career development and provide a clearer understanding of its definition for autistic individuals to inform sustainable change. Additionally, empirical validation of the proposed framework is necessary. Future studies should test and refine the model across various industries and employment settings. This knowledge will help organizations implement evidence-based strategies and policies that promote inclusive workplaces, ultimately supporting the career progression and long-term success of autistic employees.
The supplementary material for this article can be found online.
