6pm.
Main hall.
Diversity in Tech:
DENESH BHABUTA: Good afternoon everybody, my name is Denesh Bhabuta and I am here chairing this session, the diversity equity and inclusion session here in the RIPE 92 so welcome everybody, before we start, a couple of announcements and some housekeeping, so the first one is tonight's party and I know you will all be rathering to go there so there are no bus to the venue, you can take a cab, walk there, you can take a local bus or something
The directions are on the website for tonight's party, there will be one bus exclusively for those with mobility issues and that will be leaving the Moxi Fountain bridge at 8.45 sharp, there will be time for Q&A after each talk or discussion and if you have any questions, there's the microphone down this aisle over here and one down the other aisle, however if you are not feeling brave enough because this is a safe space and you'd rather ask a question on Meetecho, we have Ulka from RIPE NCC who is not only doing the scribing but she's also the Meetecho chair this session. That's it. Anything else? No, that's it.
So the theme I chose for this session is I want to break free. And I will take a small moment to explain why because it connects everything you are about to hear in a way that I think matters. At RIPE 91, that session focused on the D in DEI, diversity. This time we move on to E. Equity. And we are continuing with human stories. Because that is where the real conversation lives. Breaking free does not always look dramatic. Sometimes it's quieter it's a work of saying this environment does not work for me and I deserve better, it's like having a job on your own terms where the system was not built with you in mind. And finally having a name for something you have been carrying for years without knowing what it is.
So, three talks, one thread.
I will open up with You Are Not Alone as a first talk; it's about toxic workplace, the patterns, what any of us can do. Henrik Haue Pederson and Peter Madsen will follow with a different way to success, it's a story about employment, inclusion and what it actually looks like when an employer gets it right. And Rob Lister and Paul Ginsberg will close with a talk on rejection sensitivity dysphoria, something that affects more people in this room than you probably realise and it likely affects me as well.
So let us start.
So this is quite a difficult conversation or a difficult talk; it took me a long time to write this. Even though it's something that I ‑‑ we all feel familiar with, a lot of people in this room will feel familiar with this. Maybe not something that you have talked about openly, maybe not even something you have even admitted to yourself. And it's based on a short essay written by a very, very close friend of mine, actually from this industry, who gave me permission to share it via this talk. They wrote it because they had been through something that took a long time to name and they wanted other people to recognise it faster than they did.
When I read it, I recognised things I had heard from other people, across this industry, and when I shared it more widely, the response was immediate.
People saw themselves in it straightaway; that told me everything I needed to know about how common it is and how little we talk about it. The subject is toxic workplaces. And it's not the dramatic kind. It's not the shouting. It's not the obvious villian, it's the quiet kind. The kind that creeps up on you. Where meetings get cancelled and feedback disappears. Where your role shifts without explanation.
Where your ideas get ignored and then celebrated when someone else repeats them. Where blame always find the person doing the actual work. And where slowly you begin to doubt yourself. Maybe I am the difficult one. But no, you are not.
So, toxicity does not announce itself. It seeps in quietly. And the self doubt it creates is not a weakness, it's part of how the environment works, it makes you internalise what was never yours to carry. The emotional cost is real and it's cumulative. People who have been through this describe a loss of confidence that goes beyond work, it gets into how they see themselves. They even feel isolated. Even when surrounded by colleagues and friends. There's a constant low‑level exhaustion that never fully lifts and there is a fear of speaking up because people causing the harm are often respected figures in the community and speaking out feels like career suicide. Don't burn your bridges is what you get told all the time. And so people stay silent. Not because how ‑‑ not because they do not know that something is wrong, but because the cost of saying so feels too high. In an industry like ours, built on longstanding relationships, closed networks and reputations that carry enormous weight, that silence becomes a thing that protects the problem. It's not neutral. Silence is active. It gives permission. And one thing that does not get talked about enough is what happens after.
When someone leaves, or speaks out, or when something uncomfortable becomes public, the ghosting starts. People who were considered friends go quiet. Messages go unanswered. Misinformation spreads quietly through old alliances. Powerful people close ranks and others follow without ever questioning the narrative. And this is one of the harder things to sit with, but here's a reframe. The people who disappear without asking, without any curiosity or care, they were not really there to begin with. Real friends, they come to you. They ask. They listen. Their loyalty is to the truth, not to reputation or to power. Legacy loyalty protects the powerful. It does not protect the people being harmed. And if you are watching this happen to someone around you right now, please do not stay silent. You do not have to blow the whistle, just check in with them. Back up their ideas when they get ignored in a meeting. Challenge the gossip when you hear it. Be the ally you wish someone had been. Silence signals that it is acceptable. Even a quiet show of support makes a real difference.
So, what do you actually do if you are in it? Document everything: Dates, names, decisions, your responses. Not just as evidence, though it may become that, writing it down is also a way to validate your own experience when everything around you is telling you to doubt it. Talk to someone outside the organisation. And outside the situation. A friend, a mentor, anyone not embedded in the same dynamics. Silence, again, is what toxicity feeds on.
Build connections beyond the job and this corner of the industry. Those relationships will remind you of your worth when your workplace is trying to convince you otherwise.
Set boundaries. Protect your time and your energy. And know when to leave. Because leaving is not a failure, it's an act of self‑respect. No job is worth your peace, your mental health, or your dignity. If you are further along, if you have already left, if you are in recovery, healing is possible. It is not immediate, but it does happen. Reconnect with genuinely what excites you about your work. Reflect on what happened without turning the blame inward. Redefine success on your own terms, not the terms of the environment that harmed you. We need to build an industry where integrity matters more than influence. Where the most valuable asset and I genuinely believe this ‑‑ ‑ it's been on my LinkedIn profile for donkies ‑‑ it's people. If you are in it right now, you can get out. If you are watching it happen, you can stand up. And if you have survived it, healing is not only possible, it is your right.
You are not alone. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE.)
So, anything as I am chairing the session anyway, any questions? Any comments?
NIALL O'REILLY: Niall O'Reilly. Sorry, I guess I am at the front. One of the things ‑‑ I am not sure affiliation matters here, and what I am going to say has nothing to do with tolerant networks limited, but one of the problems that I have encountered is that by the time you have admitted to your self what the problem is, you are way behind in documenting what's happening and the burden of keeping the notes is unbearable.
DENESH BHABUTA: Thank you. I'd just like to say that one of the things for this talk is that actually making people aware of how it manifests, how the toxicity manifests, and just to be aware of it, so hopefully people will be aware when it's starting to happen to them or if they are going through it right now, so at that point they can start documenting.
SPEAKER: I once worked in a toxic work environment and an interesting revelation to me is that in diversity, equity, inclusion, uplifting isn't important aspect, but that also witnessed that from the other side, it was kind of centered around a quite powerful high‑placed person and those who went, yeah, along with him felt also uplifted by him, but they also started to copy some of his toxic traits and that was a fairly interesting revelation. So if you are in a toxic work environment and you see your colleagues, maybe even your friends, starting copying these toxic traits from the powerful person, that is your cue signal.
DENESH BHABUTA: Thank you.
SPEAKER: What I would like to emphasise, because this was pretty much about uplifting those suffering, but also one of my biggest fears to at some point be a person people do not tell any more when they are wrong. And that is something we have to be all way more aware of ‑‑ telling a good friend who is being an ass to fuck off and get their shit together and we all need to do that more, regardless of what the esteem of our friend and we also have to do that when we feel ourselves in a safe position to people in positions of power, if we can afford it, we should do it and if it's friends of ours, we have a duty to do it out of love for them.
DENESH BHABUTA: Thank you. Anyone else? Any comments? OK, Janos.
SPEAKER: Yes, actually listening to your talk I just realised how lucky I am because I actually never was in such a place, in such a toxic environment, but I fully understand how bad it could be and how important it is to help your friends. Thank you.
DENESH BHABUTA: Thank you. Mark.
SPEAKER: Yes. I have been in the position of knowing someone who was in a toxic work situation and recognising it myself, telling them that this is not acceptable, what they are going through, and it was really hard to convince them that it was not OK what they were going through, they had to leave because sometimes, even sometimes the hardest part is not deciding to leave, it's OK, I should leave, but where to?
DENESH BHABUTA: Yeah. OK. Thank you. OK, Rob.
SPEAKER: That was a brilliant talk, thank you for that, and I have two comments, questions, one of which is: I have worked in a place where the following happens, we all talk around the water cooler or in the pub or after work and we all agree, we know what's wrong and what we need to do to fix it and then you go into the next meeting in the office and I get up and I go, this is wrong, we should be doing this and this is wrong and all my colleagues don't want to get up and say the thing. I am not the sort of person to just let that go, I am like I will ‑‑ I am going to say there's something wrong and whether the management want to hear it or not, it's got me into trouble in the past, but I'm going to say it and it pains them sometimes to listen to me picking holes in their plan. What would you suggest for that sort of situation where you just ‑‑ everybody knows and they will all talk privately, but then you don't feel able to get the support on the record.
DENESH BHABUTA: That is quite a difficult one because it's always politics at play and I think people are scared of losing their jobs, so they won't say anything and I think a lot of ‑‑ it just perpetuates the toxicity within the workplace because people are just too scared to say anything, they know things are wrong but they won't say it and it goes on and on. And I think basically some HR departments aren't that good at this either, you may go to them and mention to them that this is what's going on, but they don't take it any further forward, they will address your issue but nobody else's, or a wider issue, and it's a difficult one. I don't have an answer to that, I think society needs to change, and I think people need to change and be a bit braver but it's difficult, it's very, very difficult.
SPEAKER: Speaking about HR departments, the next thing I was going to say was I discovered over the years HR departments are not my friends. They are there to support the company, not necessarily me.
(APPLAUSE.)
Yes and they will say all sorts of lovely nice things and try to say yes, yes, we'll get back to you and let you know, you have to sort of be a bit pushy at them and say OK, when are you going to come back, this time next week? They will basically want this problem to go away and they want to bury it so you have to get specific and get dates and this is where you are documenting things an writing things down or just send and email after every interaction, follow up with an email and following up from our conversation, this is what we agreed with, all of that counts and that's what you need to go to HR with. And someone gave the best tip ever: If you end up in that situation, you ask one question of HR they really don't want you to ask it, what is the legal basis for any of this? Because then they will be forced to go back and actually look and say OK, what, actually, is the legal basis for all of this.
DENESH BHABUTA: Thank you.
SPEAKER: Hello, I am... the CHRO of the RIPE NCC, I was already planning to stand up, but then I thought OK, now I am really doing it. First of all, how you create culture is something you really do together as a whole organisation and leadership needs to lead by example. When we talk about culture in the RIPE NCC as well, I always say we can have all these nice processes and procedures but if we stop talking to each other and talk about each other and not with each other, then we know it will go down hill very quickly. But that's not easy because giving feedback is difficult but receiving it in a constructive way is also not easy and you see a lot of, yeah, discomfort happening when people stop talking and also if that happens from a leadership perspective, the leadership gives the wrong example. So I really believe that culture you build together and a safe work environment is also something that you need to create together, and that's not easy when you have so many different personalities, cultures, backgrounds, experiences. I have my experiences, Hisham has his experience, and then together we communicate and maybe see something from a different perspective, but continually talking and trying to find a common ground, that is what works.
And just to respond a bit to the HR part, what I always find difficult is I am the CHRO of the whole organisation, so if there are two colleagues having a fight, I need to listen to both sides and that makes it sometimes difficult because I need to be neutral while both parties want me to take sides, and that's not my role. However, I also do have heard the stories about HR departments really only supporting the organisation, I hope to really set an example to support everyone within the organisation.
But I think it's a good topic to bring forward here. And yeah, that we support each other, that we look out for each other and care for each other is the way to have a healthy work environment.
DENESH BHABUTA: Thank you. We have actually run over time, so I will have to stop. OK, just go a bit over time. Then... I am the Chair, right? So before you, MAtt, Ulka, is there anyone online? Ulka Athele no.
SPEAKER: I will be fast, I was going to expand on the comment about HR departments, HR departments, I think more precisely, are there to keep the company from getting sued; sometimes that puts them in line with you, sometimes it doesn't. And that's why it's important to show up with documentation. And also document interactions with HR as much as you do with whoever the toxic issue is with.
DENESH BHABUTA: Sure. Thank you.
SPEAKER: I would like to follow up on the comment from the Chief HR person from NCC. I think one part of being good in that role also in the sense of diversity is acknowledging that one is protecting the company. Of course, it feels nicer to say, like, I am here to support everyone, but I think everyone is supported better by being honest and up front of the role of HR and making sure that the organisation itself has support channels that help people being supported independent of an entity that necessarily due to their role description that is a conflict of interest.
DENESH BHABUTA: Thank you. Just one thing, I think it's ‑‑ anyone who is going through this, the documentation side of things, this is where you need a friend, this is where you need someone to keep you grounded, rather than going emotional because the other side of, of that toxic environment will just switch off and so you need to be grounded and a good friend is definitely needed in this.
But OK. Well, oh, Cathy, I will have to close it.
SPEAKER: A really quick question, nothing to do with IOC. Should corporate organisations have, in addition to their HR, a welfare officer?
DENESH BHABUTA: I think that would help. Yeah. Thank you. OK. Well, thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk about such... (APPLAUSE.)
Yeah, it's a difficult topic I know, but it needed to be said and brought forward again because this topic did come up a few years ago.
Now, so as my talk was about what happens when environments fail people, the next talk is about what happens when they do not, when someone actually gets it right. So we have got a bit of positivity here.
So Henrik Haue Pederson is a network engineer at Norlys in Denmark, he is also a disabled person who works flexible hours, and the path so where he is today was not straightforward. The industry we work in is not always bit with people like Henrik in mind and he is going to tell you honestly what it has felt like but he is not here alone, his manager, Peter Madsen, is with him and that is what makes this talk something quite different actually, so you are not going to hear the same story ‑‑ you are actually going to hear the same story from both sides of the desk, what it took for help risk to get there and what it took for Peter to make it work. What you have to think about as a manager and what you have to be willing to do differently. There is also quiet truth in this talk that I do not want to give away and how many people in this industry are quietly navigating something similar, what that means for all of us.
So please welcome Henrik and Peter.
(APPLAUSE.)
HENRIK HAUE PEDERSON: So, in this talk is about me and how I finally managed to land my dream job at nor lis and some of the challenges that there has been on the way. First I am going to talk about my previous work experience and some of the assistance there should be be for the workplace and for the disabled person and then I will go through some of the challenges of finding and Peter will take over.
PETER MADSEN: I am going to talk about the management perspective of actually hiring a disabled person into your team, what it actually takes from your work environment, I am talking a little bit about building a safe working environment. I am also going to share some of the improvements that we still can make at Norlys in order to facilitate the disabled people and then I am going to show you some of the hidden benefits from actually hiring people with a disability in your company.
HENRIK HAUE PEDERSON: Yes, so you heard a little about me but yeah, 29 years old and a network engineer but the more interesting things is the actual package I come with, so I previously have to ‑‑ I previously had epilepsy which means I needed to take some medicine to stop my body locking up in all different types of ways but I still have cerebral Palsy which means that my right side of my body is not as steady as normal people. And I have dyslexia, which means that it's hard for me to write. And understanding stuff is not an issue. And then I have ADHD which can mean that focus can vary depending on the actual interest in the task, and it's also can be hard for me to attain that /KELGS when there's a lot of noise.
Here's the first back in 2017 I worked at LundogBendsen for a development company but that was an OK interbanking, but my department was very small and got sized down, so for a half year I basically was the only one with nobody to spare with so, yeah, after that I went to TriplelT in 2018 where it worked really well because I had an actual work body and I was seen as the extra hands to get stuff done. But then Corona hit and messed that up. So in 2020, I went to CCNA to try to get to the actual networking path, but still Corona. So in 2021 I went to Intempus which was a bad experience for me and for the company, because it was very busy. I felt that all the way, so the learning experience was not good and I feel I was sitting alone with getting too many tasks and nobody could help me with the actual getting things done.
And then I managed to get to Norlys last year in June. So some of the challenges, difficulties with this village is that the workplace should not put too much pressure on the disabled person because it's easier for them to get overwhelmed and it's also a requirement to actually be present and understandable for the workplace and assigning a work body which is not necessarily the boss, is also a great help to have a dedicated person to contact and for the person itself, it's ‑‑ it requires you to be ‑‑ share your needs and tell what ‑‑ when the limit is reached and do not hesitate to ask for help. But it's also very fine for the company to encourage that because if it's too busy ‑‑ I am, yeah, the disabled person is probably just stay silent. So finding a job, it's also avery difficult task because I am not fitting in to the 37‑hour job position and those positions are not being advertised that much when we are finding ‑‑ when trying to find a job, and there's also some additional task ‑‑ challenges of finding ‑‑ finding people to employ people with disabilities because there's extra things that need to be done and also when the... I feel I am being put last in the queue because he can't do the same thing as a normal candidate, so finding a job often requires of knowing somebody in the company to easier get employed and it's also required for the company to ‑‑ it's more work for the company to include a flex‑time with where you are part‑time because it's not the same as hiring a normal person.
And it's very good to work at Norlys because I have the freedom to look into what I actually want to look into and I am not ‑‑ there is not too much pressure on me and there is the support I need and I have good colleagues. And as part of my work, I can follow interesting networking conferences instead of having to take time off or use extra time to follow interesting things that I have. And I will hand it over to Peter.
(APPLAUSE.)
PETER MADSEN: So a little bit from the management perspective. So what you have to think about when you're looking at these applicants that come in and might not fit that 37‑hour position that you have applied for, that you have put up on the work spaces, be open minded, right. People come in all different shapes and sizes and often less than 37 hours also makes a difference in your workplace if you think a little bit about it. You have to find these tasks that are nice to have and not need to have and I know that every company have those, you just have to point them out, because this is where this work‑force is actually quite amazing. They are there for less time at your workplace often when you look at part‑time workers, but they actually have an amazing pay‑out because they are eager to contribute to society and to your workplace and show that they are actually also human beings that matters.
You have to look out for some of the local rules. In Denmark we have salary models that make it a little bit more attractive to have what we call flex‑workers into the work spaces where some of the state or the municipality actually pays some of the salary and the work then pays the rest of the salary. So there is some good salary models in Denmark and we had a talk, me and Shannon or Linda Shannon, that maybe some of the rest of the world needs to copy what we are doing to in Denmark because it actually works.
Then you have also as a manager have to watch out because some of the HR systems do not align with part‑time workers and sometimes it looks very strange when you look into scales and vacation times and all these kind of things.
Then I want to talk a little bit about building a safe work environment, this is something that has definitely helped us getting Henrik into place into our job and into our work.
So first off what we did was we built sort of a safety net where we had an agreement with a good friend of Henrik that if he saw a mood swing or heard something from Henrik about work that was not working, he would be able to reach out to me and tell me that this is not OK for Henrik. We told Henrik about this because, of course, it shouldn't be a secret that somebody takes care of him, both inside work and outside of work. But this is really something that makes it safe.
Then also as a manager, find out where you can reach out for health insurance or if there was is a counsellor involved, make sure you have those details at hand, if there's anything you can reach out to help. Then you have some basic work needs and this is where stuff actually gets a little bit interesting because when we look at Henrik, we can often ‑‑ we can see he has a disability with walking, but that is actually not his main problem. Or problem. He needs help carrying a glass of water. He needs some extra help in the canteen to get some lunch, this is small task for everybody to help with in the office and it's not been an issue to help with that. So the big issue you see on paper is not the big issue you face in every day life and it's not actually a big issue, it's very small.
So those ordinary tasks that he needs help with or anybody might need help is something that you need to think about.
Then assigning a work buddy, this is also something that we would very much love to do for Henrik, we will come back to this, but it's a good idea to assign a work buddy and I think it's a good idea to assign a work buddy for anybody new in the company.
Then you have to think about your facility facilities. You have to think about if there's an elevator, if you hire somebody in a wheelchair, how many stairs do you have if you have a disabled person. And you have to be sort of open‑minded about this when you sit at the job interview because otherwise it's not going to work.
Maybe you can move your department down to the ground floor if you want to help out with getting somebody with a disability into your team.
And then special equipment. What we did was actually just asked Henrik to pick up whatever he needed, so noise cancelling headphones, special keyboard, a mouse that works for both hands, well, he got it if he wanted it, right. So this should definitely not be an issue to find the right office equipment. And often offices also provide special chairs if needed. It is possible to find that. Work life balance, usually also includes room for health treatments and rest when you hire somebody in with a disability or a flex‑jobber or a part‑time worker. For Henrik he is off every Wednesday and he only works until 2 o'clock every day so he has the time for rest. And he has the time to go to physiotherapy to keep up with his paralysis.
Then you also need to be ready as a manager, if you are working for somebody who as disability, a might be something like ADHD, when ideas hit, they need to come out, otherwise you are not gathering on these golden sprouts that you put out Henrik sometimes. So we have the agreement that you can always write, I will always read, but I will not always answer. And this actually works very well. So if Henrik is the middle of the night gets an idea, he can write it down to me in text, he knows I have seen it, I am there and we can talk about it at a later point. Sometimes we have to also remind me that hey, you wrote something because it's hidden in more messages. But it works.
Then the line with teams and departments because you need clear instructions and expectations with your new team member that comes in that's not like everybody else and you have to limit those assignments from outside as well because it can be overwhelming, especially when you get such a talent as Henrik and people might fight over him, getting him to do stuff that he is an expert on. Just simply because he has the knowledge and the interest in stuff like the, for instance, RIPE. I am not sure we have anybody else who follows RIPE to the same level that you do. So yeah, it's quite amazing to have you in here, but it's also ‑‑ we need to shield you a little bit from some of our other departments.
So where there are some room for improvements: Limiting assignments. We have maybe sometimes limit the amount of assignments to where it becomes a boring workday and some people feel less important. For our job, for our company, we have restructure which means that there is there is a lot of task that has become very crucial tasks that need to be done right now, right here and that means we cannot assign it to somebody that is not going to be full‑time worker, so it's basically moved from a nice‑to‑have to need‑to‑have task, that's very unfortunate. At the same time we also have a lot of politics and a lot of our daily tasks right now because we need to see where it does into our reorganisation and assigning a work office buddy, I also mentioned this a little bit, our team right now in Norlys is operated over physical locations, even though Henrik is part of the team of eleven people, most of them aren't sitting in the same office as Henrik, meaning it is a challenge to find a work buddy that is there all the time to help out. So yeah. But we make it work. Sometimes, you use somebody from another team, you use me, we make it work, but it could be better.
And then of course the physical separation of our offices makes it hard to get a fuel overview of all the stakeholders that want to interact with our department which might make some things very confusing and hard to get when you cannot go directly to your stakeholders and say this is Henrik, this is your stakeholders, that is what we need to work it, you have to do it over a teams meeting or emails and it becomes a challenge. I am quickly running out of time here.
OK, so there are some hidden benefits here because when you are actually are implementing a safe work environment, you quickly find out that some of these needs are something that everybody needs. Especially in our line of work, because we are, to some degree, very special people, engineers, we are special type of breed and we all have something, strength and weaknesses, and I as a manager definitely benefit from my team a lot more if they tell me what their strength and weaknesses are and if they dare to speak up about what is actually going on, so it does not become a toxic work environment, so I can actually help them perform instead of limiting them and say, hey, this is what the company want and if you don't agree, you can go hide in a shoe box because that doesn't work for anybody, right?
And yeah, it is very valuable people that we work with, engineers are not something that is just born every day, especially not with knowledge within the company. So then building this safe works environment actually hasn't costed that much extra time once we start thinking about it. It's just collaborating with other teams. For you, yes, we needed to establish maybe one contact person,m but of course it's not everybody that needs a safety net like that, but it doesn't really take that much extra effort once you have done it once, you can easily do it twice or three times in a row, because you have those contacts to the health benefits and stuff like that. So I think this is something that should be done for every employee because it matters.
That was it.
(APPLAUSE.)
DENESH BHABUTA: Any questions? Anybody? Anything on Meetecho Ulka? No. OK. Any questions? We have Rahul coming.
SPEAKER: I just want to say, Henrik, that you are an absolute inspiration, it was a great presentation. And well done to your manager as well for keeping an eye out for you.
PETER MADSEN: Thanks. (APPLAUSE.)
DENESH BHABUTA: OK. Anybody else? No, OK. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE.) Thank you both.
So yes, that is quite inspirational and it's good to see. So anybody who is here in a high position in their own companies, if you are able to instigate change, please take that as a decent example, a very, very good example.
Our final talk today takes us somewhere that I suspect is going to be one of those where a lot of people in this room are going to say, huh, is that me too? It sounds like me. That's what I have been experiencing. Actually, I have as well. Or is that what I have been watching someone I love is going through?
So Rob Lister as many of you already know him here, has talked about ADHD before, he has built up quite a following post his last RIPE talk, about being honest, his own experience, in a way that doesn't really necessarily happen at technical conferences. And this time he is back with Paul Ginsberg, he is an ADHD coach and together they are going to talk about rejection sensitivity dysphoria and you may not have heard this term before but I think you will understand what it r describes ‑‑ the intense somewhat overwhelming emotionalonal response to the perception of criticism, that way, how it shapes us, how you communicate, how you show up and how invisible it can be to people around you. So this so this talk is about naming it, understanding it, knowing how to support your colleagues in your life who live with it.
So Rob Lister and Paul Ginsberg, please.
(Lister)
ROBERT LISTER: OK. So thanks for that, Denesh, you have said pretty much a great introduction, some of you might remember a did a talk at RIPE 88 at Krakow, it was me talking about my experiences of ADHD and going on that journey and I had an amazing response to that talk and people still contact me about it and we still talk about it. Oh yeah, this is something we definitely need to be talking about. The sort of follow‑up to that, Paul here is, he is a friend of mine, also now an ADHD coach, helping me work through some of these issues that I sort of was having with part of the ADHD, it comes as a package so I will let Paul introduce himself.
PAUL GINSBERG: I am Paul, an ADHD coach, I have got ADHD, I have got autism, I have got giftedness, I've got dyspraxia, it's a bit of a buy one get a few free situation with these things, it's typically what happens, you don't just get one, you get a few extra. I am a trustee of the Scottish ADHD coalition, we do work in Scotland helping promote and support those with ADHD and do some campaigning work on that. But also I have a tech background, I spent 15 years doing IT in particular SalesForce. I think that's enough for that one.
Credentials have been explained if not proven.
ROBERT LISTER: A little bit about my story and maybe this might be familiar to some of you. I have worked for so many places over the years and going back to toxic workplaces, some of them I might have thought of toxic, others when I think about it and when I delve deeper you kind of think is it really a toxic workplace or is this all going on in my head, am I making it toxic and it's not actually a toxic workplace? Or are my suspicions correct? Or am I going to being to too defensive or paranoid? Is my brain working against me here? Some of it is quite hard to recognise when it's happening. That journey, that I have been on with Paul about recognising what's going on here and going is this actually what's going on or are you just being paranoid or you are make really more to this than there actually is.
So maybe you have had this situation, the appraisal. Annual review. The big meeting every year. And I dread this probably more than I should every year of like, oh, no, now someone is going to go through everything in the past year and say, tell me all of my failings and what I have done wrong and this is, an anxious time, maybe you find it also an anxious time, appraisals aren't always done well and it doesn't seem to matter what they say, I always get worried about it.
What is the point of an appraisal anyway? Is it to performance manage me out? Is it to gather evidence so they can fire me next year, if I still haven't done anything? Or is it just like a review am I doing a good job. Is it a box‑ticking admin exercise?
Maybe. All of those things. But it is, it's very difficult for me to work out what's going on and I get a huge overreaction sometimes to these appraisals. So the name for this rejection sensitivity dysphoria, which Paul is going to talk about.
Cool, OK, so we are going to do an interactive experiment in a moment so you might want to get your headphones handy, but we'll come do it. But let's try this, a message comes from your boss, someone you get along with, Paul, whoever you are, can I have a word with you for a moment. So what does your gut tell you at this point? We have given you three options. There is an update about a project you are working on. That your boss wants to have a small talk talk with you about a minor matter. That somebody has gone terribly wrong and you are involved in some way. There's a poll, we'd love ‑‑ we have 30 seconds. The clock is counting down, there's a poll of one question, it takes to a Google form, we promise to delete all the answers afterwards, you don't have to sign in. But anyway you have got 20 seconds now and probably slightly less than that, we'll see what the audience here and online if you can type in the URL quickly enough would say.
If someone says: Can I have a word with you, please?
So the question is there is an up is it about a project your boss wants to have a small talk with you or something has gone terribly wrong, that's probably 30 seconds. Let's see what the results say. The results are in. From the RIPE jury and they are not showing on screen, which is unhelpful. Oh. And I am going to read out the results. OK. So 56 ‑‑ actually 14.6% say there is an update about a project you are working on.
That your boss wants to have a small talk but about a minor matter is 29.2.
But over half the audience say ‑‑ over half the audience say that something has gone terribly wrong. OK.
Like swapping between power points, the world will just eat me up and noun of you will look me in the face, so embarrassing. So anyway. For me it's always number three. That I am about to be fired, pure certainty, with a dose of existential dread, not I have just let myself down but the team down and the company as well. Possibly inconveniencing many people who were relying on whatever system I was working on and that I will never be able to work in the industry again.
Particular examples of triggering phrases, include anything nebulous that could be understood in multiple ways such as: I have arranged a meeting on Monday. Is everything okay? Colleagues tone and simply not being acknowledged can have an impact, some of you may think I am kidding about presuming the worse possible outcome but I have got a secret I will share with you in a moment. First to explain. I do love to talk about the positives of ADHD. I absolutely rave about about them and neurodivergence. Henrik's presentation was inspiring and shows many of the benefits but there does appear to be yin and yang side, apparently you don't get the positive aspects without some of the darker aspects, they are part of the same whole complete package. You don't get to choose.
And this topic rejection sensitivity dysphoria or RSD falls firmly into the darker side.
So RSD as Denesh mentioned is a strong emotional reaction to negative judgments, exclusion or criticism from others. Feeling like a failure, disproportionate to what actually occurred. And it is really common. That's the topic we are introducing today. One particular respected professional put it as high as occurring in 99% of those with ADHD, not everybody, you can't make assumptions, but a hell of a lot of people.
And it has an impact on those around us too. RSD can strike anyone, even those without ADHD, so no one should feel singled out.
OK. What's the reason for this, I can hear you cry. A common claim states that children with ADHD receives 20,000 more negative messages by the age of 10 than neuro‑typical population. It's not true and it was based on a non‑scientific guess that went viral a long time before TikTok. The number is dubious, there's robust clinical evidence that shows children with ADHD significant more criticism and correction and punitive responses than neuro‑typical children. Too much, too loud, too messy, too forgetful, too distracted, too slow, too fast. Etc.
If you are unable to sit still and concentrate, you are not fitting into the behave that 80 or 90% of your peers manage, there tends to be r consequeces and because the corrections don't work you end up missing out or developing that hypersensitivity or both.
Let's give an example from the tech world of the drip drip drip effect. For me it was when I was doing IT support; it was passwords. Someone would phone up at least once a week to reset their log‑in password. Once every few months is tolerable but the same person thought it quicker to call me than press the reset button. It was rather frustrating, small things that mount up. It gets annoying and it gets sensitive. What you can cope with once is fine but regularly without any reasonable r justification, gets really irritating.
To so imagine being told off for losing track of time, a relatively common ADHD trait, once is OK but to be told off regularly and despite your best efforts, it then becomes a source of misery, we learn coping strategies, given the appropriate supportive environment but the sensitivity, the damage will remain and then just for the joy be extended so you have got one area that's sensitive but then anything around that is a whole other story, shame, anger, panic attacks, it can be people pleasing. Or it can be avoiding situations where rejection might occur. Pretty bad unless and here's the silver lining unless we are aware of this and develop coping strategies for dealing with RSD, we'll get to those in a moment but first there's a second Agreement to be aware of. If there's one that I think that Covid taught us, is that we don't exist in isolation.
That we should all be self‑sufficient is a received piece of wisdom, except this doesn't make any sense whatsoever and here at RIPE you know that, everything from the moment you wake up relies on others. Turn the light on, well there's a factory in China that manufactured that and there's probably wind turbines fairly nearby providing the power.
Had breakfast, we'll say thanks and friendly farmers for your cereal. We don't exist as a solo venture, never have done, never will do. So, with that in mind, what can we do about our RSD as a team, because we are not alone?
The first ideal step step is to recognise this is happening, there is the quick emotional gut side to the brain which is producing messages for your consideration, but the logical side is there too, to do error‑checking and filter out some of the fluff, basically pause and do a reality check when you are getting internal alerts. Speak the result out loud or write it down and you will find your brain calming down.
And also if you spot some of your friends going down this path, help them pause and slow down and check what is happening.
We need to train the body and mind to navigate towards a healthy brain signals and how learn how to dismiss some of the noise in the brain. Breathing out or or box breathing calms down the nervous system. Shifting the narrative and helping others shift the narrative. Going from I have failed to, I have learned is also very helpful. It can even be I have learned that I am not currently good at doing this, so the next question is what can I do differently to improve if I think it's worth the effort.
But one of the biggest, I think I will ‑‑ right, one of the biggest things for me is ‑‑ oh, actually, I am going to pass to Rob. I knew that. So what's helped you, Rob?
ROBERT LISTER: Definitely some of these things. Learning to recognise what's going on, learning to recognise what's happening. It's taken me a long time to sort of finally realise and take a step back, don't click send on that email. Give yourself 20 minutes or sleep on it and go OK, if I still feel the same way about this, I will send it. But actually a lot of the time ‑‑ and I actually know I have totally read too much into this.
Yeah, time to think about it. That's definitely the thing that's helped me the most.
PAUL GINSBERG: Thank you. Lots of things but we are running out of time which is part of the issue and I am sitting with the kind of perfectionism and just holding, saying, is this good enough? And that's a conversation I have with my RSD quite often.
There are other ways, however, such as communicating your needs clearly. So here we get into some more practical steps. When I go into meetings, I train others to let me know what the meeting is about in advance so I don't overthink it. And that training can be subtle; for instance, can I have an agenda the day or two beforehand? Which is actually an example of reasonable accommodations. You are asking for something and then your employer learning how to meet you midway.
And you know what, those agendas give me time to prep and work out my thoughts, so actually the meeting probably goes better than it would have done otherwise. With my autism hat on, I ask people to be clear and direct. Then I know where I stand and I don't secondguess. This removes a lot of assumptions and the risk of misinterpretation and misunderstanding.
It's a question of practice and learning how to trust others as well as yourself, and objectively we do improve just about every single day.
It doesn't do any harm to take a moment to stop and appreciate it either. But the effort required is not just from you. I want to be clear, there's also an onus on the workplace to create conditions for psychological safety too. Rob is going to touch on those in a moment, but just to say we have included a few extra slides on this topic should you want to download the deck and learn more. There might have been a little ADHD urge to include all the details, but I understand the conference is only five days long.
ROBERT LISTER: OK, reasonable accommodations in the workplace, I won't go through all of these, but it's a question of discussing it with your workplace. It looks like different things for different people, it's very individual, situation specific; what works for me might not work for you. A good tip I heard is to present this as an experiment, just say, let's try doing this and see what works and what doesn't; if it works, great, if it doesn't work, we have learned something. It's all individual.
And also required often under law, if you tell your employer I need a reasonable accommodation, they so have to consider it. And it's just all about that and there's extra slides at the end here which go into more detail on accommodations but it's definitely worth having that conversation.
And a little bit of now sort of coming back to toxic workplaces, how do we tell if we are in a supportive environment or not? And some of the signs that I have sort of noticed are, if there is a pattern of repeated situations, gas‑lighting, a blame culture, if there is ‑‑ your employer seemed less willing to make the reasonable adjustments or they sort of dismiss it as all your problem, this is all your problem, this is nothing we can do here, it makes a problem about you, nothing to do with the workplace. That is borderline toxic. And also the RSD itself amplifies these problems, it makes the whole experience worse. So if that's happening, maybe toxic workplace. Maybe a not‑toxic workplace is actually ‑‑ there is some acknowledgment of the issue, you have the conversation, they want to be non‑judgmental about it and want to put in things for you to make reasonable adjustments that work for you; that's not a toxic work environment. Hard to differentiate sometimes when a lot of this is going on in your head, but finding out what is working and what's not working, it's a team issue, it's kind of something that everybody sort of needs to be aware of and needs to work on.
OK. So stuff that's helped me, practical help, I do like sort of doing a bit of reading and getting tips and things from other people, so I have got some links here about what's happened me.
The neurodivergent office survival playbook, I love this, it's really short and succinct and gives you brilliant ideas: This is what this looks like, this is what to do or this is what you could try. And I would highlight the bits that I thought important to me, so I got my highlighter pen and started highlighting everything and I thought I am not to be trusted with highlighters pens because ADHD people cannot do this so yeah, I end up highlighting the whole book in the end so...
But yeah, a really good guide, very short and easy to follow, it's seven pounds, but you can have a little flip through this one. And also if you want the proper manual, the ADHD field guide for adults, really nice read, it is a bit of a book, but there's nothing left out. And you could just dip into any page you want and read it, it's really actually quite comprehensive. Why does everybody hate me? I was reading that on the train on the way up here. Why does everybody hate me? And people giving me the ‑‑ yeah, all good books.
PAUL GINSBERG: I can talk to the video, there's an hour deep‑dive by the father of the person that came up with the term RSD, this is still a new topic. The person that came up with the term "rejection sensitivity dysphoria" is still alive. So we are learning so much and the awareness is great, it's actually in terms of ADHD and neurodivergency aware and, it's a good time to be alive, this gives an hour's link to a really deep dive talk on it. What else is there? We have come to the summary. Ten seconds.
RSD is really common, take a pause. Your instinct are just one data point, it takes practice to recognise RSD, it goes back to like workplace accommodations, it's an experiment, don't be afraid to try, some things won't work and some things will and asking for support actually benefits everybody, as we have already heard a couple of times today, everybody benefits, so don't be afraid to give it a try. And I think that probably ends us with the clock now going up in a rather confusing fashion, thank you very much for your time everybody.
(APPLAUSE.) Thanks to Denesh too.
DENESH BHABUTA: We have gone over time, so apologies to the fantastic AV team who are going way into their dinner time for this. I won't keep you much longer.
PAUL GINSBERG: If people have questions, Rob and I ‑‑ I am certainly happy to hang around.
DENESH BHABUTA: I am happy to take questions or comments for one or two minutes, anything?
DENESH BHABUTA: Nothing on Meetecho? OK.
SPEAKER: Thank you, Ian... again, thank you very much for this very interesting presentation. I think I learned a lot about this problem from you and actually it just reminded me of one thing which probably relates to RSD as well, it's Hanlon's razor, I tried to quote it exactly: Never attribute to malice, that which is adequately explained by stupidity. So we have to keep in mind that things may not be that bad just because we feel they are so bad. I may be wrong but.
PAUL GINSBERG: This is where it gets tricky, the world is not a simple place, 19 times out of 20, that's correct. It's the one in 20 and trying to navigate between the difference is really hard work and actually I say that ADHD people, neurodivergent people tend to be more vulnerable because when someone showed an interest in us, that's an interest and it's relatively positive thing so navigating that and understanding when that borders into toxicity or just things that people are could go with good intention that are good for newer typical people but not helpful for neurodivergent people is very, very hard to the malice versus accident versus other things, it's complicated but yeah, in principle I 100% agree.
ROBERT LISTER: It goes back to thinking about what is the simplest explanation here, have they forgotten to copy me the email? It's usually that, is it really worst case rscenario I made up in my head or most of the time it's not that.
SPEAKER: I know I don't look like it but I'm a people manager. And there's also this other side of the coin especially if you yourself might not be as normal as might be expected of a manager, teams tend to accumulate a bit close to how their managers are or I know that term, if all your friends are neurodivergent, are you the only normal one? I have some news for you, which is something to be aware of as a manager so once it's... composition and maybe having people who do have skills that can help one as a manager or the rest of the team to deal with these issues and as a manager might not be able to do it and if you do happen to build a group, team of people which are all a bit neurodivergent, it might become difficult for non‑neurodivergent people in the environment. But surprisingly the same procedures seem to help them as well.
ROBERT LISTER: Yes.
PAUL GINSBERG: Nothing to add to that. Absolutely, diversity is amazing, it works in all forms.
SPEAKER: Thank you for that. Is there one thing that employers can measure against to determine whether this is somebody being overtly sensitive versus somebody who needs help?
PAUL GINSBERG: I don't think ‑‑ well, if someone is being overt ly sensitive versus do they need help, the answer is yes. The trickiest thing, it comes back to HR is navigating and having authentic conversations and I think this is a problem with British culture versus the Netherlands where I spent seven years. When we see problems, we don't have conversations and it escalates and spirals. I haven't ‑‑ soft skills are not my strongest point, but having those conversation where you touch base with one another and say what can help you here, it's like I haven't opened the lines of communication, the alternatives are worse. That's what I would say.
DENESH BHABUTA: OK. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE.)
Thank you. So three talks, three very different stories. It's all about what happens when systems and cultures around us make it harder than it should be. So just two more minutes really.
I'd like to say something before we close and if you have heard anything here today that resonates, if you recognise yourself in any of it, do not sit with that alone. Talk to someone. Reach out. The people in this room are actually more open to that conversation than you might think. And we just spent the last, what, hour and a quarter proving it. Keep the conversations going, in the hallways, over coffee, online and that's how things actually get done. Not in sessions like this. As valuable as it is, but in the smaller moments afterwards when you continue those conversations, where someone feels safe enough to say, me too.
So thank you to Henrik, to Peter, to Rob, to Paul for their honesty and their generosity in sharing what they shared today.
(APPLAUSE.)
And thank you to all of you for being here and making this possible. So you are not alone, none of us are. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE.)
End of session.