“Why do you support dyslexia?” “Would someone needing support with depression feel comfortable joining an autism support group?” These sort of questions have come up a few times since the NPAA launched back in October 2015.

There are several reasons why a support group with “autism” in its name supports conditions which, on the face of it, have little to do with autism. At the time of our launch (and still the case at the time of writing) there was no dedicated national support body for dyslexic police officers and staff, or indeed any of the other ‘invisible’ conditions we support – dyspraxia, ADHD, depression and other forms of mental illness, and so on. In theory, any police employee needing support with a disability or illness should be able to approach their Force Disability Support Network; however not all Forces have DSNs, something which the Disabled Police Association – with whom we work closely – is striving to change. Of those that do, not all are set up to cater for specific conditions, with some DSNs tending to focus on matters of policy such as provision of reasonable adjustments, medical retirement and deployability. Police personnel affected by hidden conditions may have to contend with stigma and lack of understanding along with the practical issues caused by their condition (more on this in a moment), and can find themselves sharing greater commonality with the transgender and Gypsy Roma Traveller communities than with officers and staff affected by physical disabilities.

Secondly, as we provide national support through our web forum, why not open it up to talking about other conditions too? The most popular web forums tend to cover many subjects tangential to the forum’s official purpose – for instance, the Digital Spy forum officially covers TV shows, but hosts lively debates on many other subjects linked to media and technology – computers, mobile phones, music, politics etc. (Our web forum has a folder for general chat where members can discuss pretty much anything they like.) Any police officer or member of staff needing help with any condition, whether or not they are affected by autism themselves, can register anonymously on our forum and start a discussion, all in confidence. This is an interesting mash-up of two conflicting cultures – that of the police service, which is still quite conservative, proscriptive and slow to respond to change, and online culture which tends to find its own use for things and where new ideas can spread and take hold in a matter of hours.

Although conditions such as dyslexia and dyspraxia are not on the autistic spectrum, they have much in common with autism. To varying degrees, they all affect how the brain processes information – this is one example of the advantage of neurodiversity, as Asperger syndrome and dyslexia are synonymous with the ability to think and frame problems visually. Hidden conditions are often co-morbid, meaning that people who have one condition will often have another – for instance ADHD often crops up alongside AS, and there is a known overlap between dyslexia and dyspraxia. People with AS frequently suffer from depression at some point, probably due to the constant stress of social anxiety and sensory overload. But looking at the bigger picture, all these conditions have a stigma attached to them, particularly in a policing environment. It is still far easier for a police officer to talk about taking sick leave due to a physical injury or illness than to disclose depression as the reason for not being able to work. A question we are often asked is whether disclosing AS at work is the “right” thing to do – the implication being that disclosure may cause problems around withdrawal of career opportunities and other forms of prejudicial treatment. This is not a question that should need to be asked in 2016.

We hope that specialist groups will be set up in the future to cater for dyslexia and other hidden conditions within the police service, working alongside Disability Support Networks as we have done to provide local one-on-one support. Looking further ahead, we may also consider a name-change to something that reflects our commitment to neurodiversity as a whole, if that would better serve our members. But in the meantime, we are here for anyone who needs us. Regardless of whether it’s AS, ADHD or Arctic Monkeys you want to discuss – everyone is welcome.

For anyone who missed it, there was an interesting Twitter Q&A on the 17th February organised by @WeCops and Andy Rhodes (@DCCLancs), Lancashire Constabulary DCC and National Lead for wellbeing and engagement. Three questions were posed:

• Is it police work or other issues that tip us over in terms of stress / anxiety?
• If we agree great leaders prioritise wellbeing what stops many from doing so?
• When we recruit people how do we assess their readiness for policing at a personal resilience level?

Q2. If we agree great leaders prioritise wellbeing what stops many from doing so?

Please Remember #WeCops Q2 in replies

— #WeCops (@WeCops) February 17, 2016

The second question in particular generated some debate. The overall view was that despite senior police leaders’ commitment to a service which values its staff and places importance on welfare, there is still quite a harsh culture within the ranks, which can be summed up as “shape up or ship out”. Survival of the fittest. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I’m your boss, I can stand the pressure – why can’t you? Lunch (or at least a meal break) is for wimps – and so on. As with any organisational culture, this permeates through the whole workforce, but it is largely formed by the values of its leaders.

In our last blog, we touched on the police promotion process and its tendency to reinforce what could be described as “corporate thinking”. The process also tends to favour those who are good at self-promotion – people who aren’t afraid to use “I” rather than “we”, to “big themselves up” and to come across as charming and persuasive in that all-important 40 minutes. What the promotion system isn’t as good at identifying is a genuine concern for the welfare of staff. It’s not surprising, when it’s arguably easier to score points by robustly imposing performance management measures on a struggling officer than it is to try to understand, empathise with and remedy the underlying reasons behind attendance and performance issues. In the current climate of austerity and expectation from government to achieve more with less, there is additional pressure on police managers to take a hard line on performance.

In looking at issues around stress, sickness, performance and resilience, perhaps there needs to be a fundamental change of culture within the police service – a real move towards transformational leadership, away from the transactional model that tends to dominate front-line management. We need leaders at all levels who genuinely care about the welfare of their staff. We need a culture that doesn’t stigmatise stress, depression, mental illness or just “being different”. And in order to be a truly inclusive organisation, we need to recognise and encourage these values in future leaders.

The recent announcement by the College of Policing of the introduction of “Direct Entry” – recruitment of officers to the police service at inspector and superintendent rank – has caused a fair amount of comment on Twitter, mostly negative. The concept of direct entry to senior levels of policing brings to an end the long tradition of promotion through the ranks, when every senior officer started out as a constable. The argument most commonly used against DE is that candidates will not have the benefit of years of service at constable and sergeant level, essential for a job that depends on experience and common-sense.

It was therefore interesting to see the comments of Chief Superintendent Nicola Dale, the CoP Lead for Direct Entry. In her blog on the CoP website, C/Supt. Dale talks about the advantages that DE officers might bring to the service. In questioning whether there is a business case for DE at inspector rank, she says: “Is there an evidence base to build upon? The same positive principles apply to Direct Entry inspector as superintendent – new people, new perspectives, a wider breadth of skills that can arrive directly at the rank without waiting 10 years to travel the same corporate path by which time that fresh perspective would be lost, the external skills would be rusty and there is a good chance that they would have ‘gone native’. This is about increasing our diversity but in my mind that is about diversity of thought, background and experience.”

The view that spending years climbing the police rank structure might be a bad thing – at least in terms of lacking the fresh perspective that an external DE candidate would bring – is sure to stir up some controversy. However, when considering how the police service has traditionally run its promotion processes, C/Supt. Dale might just have a point. Promotion is primarily based on a structured interview, along with exams at sergeant and inspector level. Although the process is designed to test competence at the next rank by looking at past performance, success or failure depends on being able to talk convincingly about your achievements for 40 minutes, and other factors inevitably start to come into play: personality, verbal dexterity, and the mysterious art of “interview technique”. Officers in the upper echelons of the police service are veterans of promotion boards, often having failed as many as they’ve passed. It’s easy to see that over time the process acts as a filter, straining out those who don’t conform to the corporate ideal, and reinforcing the requirement not only to “talk the talk”, but to think how the organisation expects you to think.

One phrase in particular stands out in C/Supt. Dale’s blog: “diversity of thought”. This could have almost have been lifted from the pages of Neurotribes, the new book by Wired tech writer Steve Silberman on autism and neurodiversity. Silberman’s book has been widely praised within the business and technology communities for offering a fresh perspective on autism, formerly seen only as a debilitating disorder and a barrier to living a “normal” life. The key point Silberman makes is that people with conditions such as Asperger syndrome and dyslexia are often blessed with the ability to think differently: being able to focus on details, visualise solutions to problems, spot patterns and “think outside the box” to name a few. These skills, which are typically found in Silicon Valley high-technology companies, are of value to any organisation – an idea which is just starting to gain traction in the US and UK.

From the outset, the NPAA has championed the concept of neurodiversity within the police service: recognising that officers of all ranks should be valued for their individual abilities and encouraged to develop their full potential. C/Supt. Dale might have hit the nail on the head in identifying that the police service needs leaders who can think differently; however, in proposing to bring in ‘talent’ from outside the organisation to achieve this aim, the CoP may be missing the obvious: the police service already has original, creative thinkers within its ranks who will never be at risk of “going native”. That officers with Asperger syndrome, and (to a lesser extent) dyslexia are disadvantaged by a promotion system that values a neurotypical mindset is a waste of talent – not to mention money – and is something that today’s police service can ill-afford. Fortunately things are changing for the better, with the new National Police Promotion Framework using work-based assessment as the key factor in assessing suitability for promotion. The pioneering work being done by Hampshire Constabulary on developing an ‘autism-friendly’ selection process recognises that the policing leaders of the future might be better thinkers and doers than talkers – a radical concept indeed.