Latest / The Diversity Career Podcast with Fexingo: Inclusion, Equity, and Underrepresented Professionals / How One Company Built a Career Ladder for Employees with Dyslexia
Transcript
- Lucas: So a global logistics firm with about 45,000 employees realised something a few years ago: their internal promotion rates for employees who disclosed dyslexia were roughly half the company average. And their turnover among that group was 30 percent higher. Luna: That's a massive gap. It suggests the system itself was the barrier, not the individual's capability. Lucas: Exactly. And the company — I'm thinking of a specific European-headquartered firm that handles freight forwarding and supply chain management — decided to treat it as a design problem. They partnered with the British Dyslexia Association to rebuild their career development process from the ground up. Luna: What did the British Dyslexia Association actually recommend? I imagine it wasn't just 'print materials in a bigger font.' Lucas: No, it was much deeper. The first thing they did was audit every step of the performance review process. Turns out the standard written self-assessment form was the single biggest obstacle. Employees with dyslexia were spending four to six hours on something their peers finished in 45 minutes. Luna: And the content probably suffered too — not because they lacked accomplishments, but because the format worked against them. Lucas: Exactly. So the company introduced three alternative formats: a verbal recorded self-review, a bullet-point template with strict character limits, and a visual mind-map option. Employees could choose any of them, and managers were trained to evaluate all formats equally. Luna: Was there pushback from managers? Some people might say 'that's not fair to everyone else.' Lucas: There was some. But the company framed it as a universal design principle — same as curb cuts help people with strollers, not just wheelchair users. After the first cycle, they actually found that about 15 percent of non-dyslexic employees also chose one of the alternative formats because it worked better for them. Luna: Right, so it becomes a productivity tool for everyone. That's smart framing. Lucas: The second big intervention was a mentorship track specifically for neurodivergent employees. They paired each participant with a senior leader who had also received dyslexia awareness training. The mentor's job wasn't to advocate for the mentee in meetings — it was to help them decode unwritten rules about career advancement. Luna: Unwritten rules — that's huge. Things like how to network internally, which projects get visibility, how to ask for a promotion without sounding presumptuous. Lucas: Exactly those things. The program also included a quarterly 'career navigation workshop' where employees could anonymously submit questions about promotion criteria, budget cycles, or even how to handle a specific manager's communication style. Luna: Was there a financial component too? Assistive technology can be expensive. Lucas: Yes — they created a $1,500 annual stipend for assistive technology. That could cover text to speech software, speech to text dictation tools, coloured overlays for reading, or even ergonomic keyboards. The catch was that you had to use it for a work-related purpose, but the list of approved items was broad. Luna: And I'm guessing there was no requirement to disclose dyslexia to use the stipend? Lucas: Correct. It was available to anyone who self-identified as having a neurodivergent condition — ADHD, autism, dyslexia — and the company didn't ask for a formal diagnosis. That lowered the barrier enormously. Luna: What were the results after, say, two years? Lucas: The company shared some data publicly through a case study with the British Dyslexia Association. Internal promotions among participating employees increased by 40 percent. Turnover dropped by 25 percent. And employee engagement scores for that group rose from below the company average to above it. Luna: Those are striking numbers. But I'm curious — did they track any unintended consequences? Like, did employees who didn't participate feel left out? Lucas: They did track that. The company surveyed the broader workforce and found that 70 percent of non-participating employees viewed the program positively. About 10 percent expressed concern about 'reverse discrimination,' but after the company explained the universal design benefits, most of those concerns dissipated. Luna: It sounds like the key was making the accommodations invisible to people who didn't need them — you could opt into the alternative formats without anyone else knowing. Lucas: Right. And that's actually a principle that shows up in a lot of successful neurodiversity programs. The goal isn't to single people out — it's to remove friction so talent can surface. Luna: This is exactly the kind of concrete example I wish more companies would study. If we've helped you think through a career move or a policy change at your own workplace, that's exactly why we do this show. And one way to keep these episodes ad-free and accessible is listener support. If today was useful, you can find us at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. Lucas: Yeah, no pressure ever — just if you value this kind of deep-dive on real programs that actually move the needle. It genuinely helps us keep the library growing. Luna: Alright, back to the logistics firm. One thing I haven't asked: did they change their hiring process too, or was this strictly an internal mobility program? Lucas: Great question. The program started as internal mobility only, but after the first year, they extended it to hiring. They redesigned their job application platform to be compatible with screen readers and added an option for a video interview instead of a written cover letter. They also trained recruiters on how to assess skills without overvaluing verbal fluency in interviews. Luna: Did they see a change in the candidate pool? Lucas: They did. Applications from candidates who disclosed dyslexia increased by 300 percent. And the candidates who came through that pipeline had a 15 percent higher retention rate after one year compared to traditionally hired peers in similar roles. Luna: So the program became a talent magnet. That's the argument that usually gets CFOs to pay attention. Lucas: Exactly. And the total cost of the program — stipends, training, workshop facilitators — was about $250,000 annually for a company with 45,000 employees. That's roughly $5.50 per employee. The savings from reduced turnover alone paid for it within the first year and a half. Luna: That's a powerful ROI story. I hope more companies look at this model — especially the part about not requiring a formal diagnosis. That alone removes so much stigma. Lucas: It does. And I think the broader lesson is that career ladders don't have to look the same for everyone. When you design for the edges, you often end up with a system that works better for the middle too. Luna: Well said. That's a good place to leave it.