Let me tell you, though, from experience: when my wife asks "would you like to [go to some event that I clearly wouldn't really like to go to]" --- a blunt "no" is not a good answer to that question, even if it's literally true. ;)
Sometimes a manager actually wants to find someone with the right combination of skill and enthusiasm to do something. I would definitely take “would you like to?” as part of that process, with a “no” answer being completely reasonable and expected.
The manager has made a request for a task that needs completing in a gentle, nuanced way, and expects a gentle, nuanced response back. Even "Ehh. That's not the kind of thing I really enjoy doing".
We can fault this employee for not knowing how to communicate, and that’s fair. But it’s a much bigger fault with the manager for not knowing how to deal with it. After all, of the two people involved in this exchange, one of them has “deal with other people” as their entire job description, while the other one has “deal with your manager” as one job requirement among many.
Is it so hard to ask “why not?” if a simple “no” isn’t enough?
But someone who does not understand the employee's autism might leave satisfied with why the employee would not like to complete the task, but assume that the initial blunt "no" was deliberate disrespect or disregard for the manager's request... and after a series of interactions like this, come to an erroneous conclusion that the employee desired to be uncooperative or doesn't care about showing any regard for our feelings.
Understanding why helps us be empathetic and "not take it personally."
I'm probably on the spectrum the way I read that is it's the managers feelings that are the root of the problem. The manager learns to manage his/her feelings and the problem is resolved.
(Obviously, this doesn’t apply to things like targeted harassment. I’m talking about normal work discussions with troublesome replies.)
Obviously, this is hard to actually do. But it’s good to try, and management should definitely do this, especially with their subordinates.
It could also later come back to bite you with the person claiming "But you said you wanted to do that", even though you were just doing it because they were asking.
This reminds me of some party of math students. One math student (clearly not on the spectrum!) X asked another math student Y: "Do you know whether Z will come?". Y answered: "Yes, he will come, but later.", to which X answered: "I didn't want to know whether Z will come, but only whether you have the knowledge whether he will come. If I wanted to know from you whether Z will come, I would have asked you 'Will Z also come?' and in the worst case gotten the answer from you that you don't know. But this is not the question that I asked. So, you should immediatelly have concluded that I am not interested whether Z will come, but only in whether you have the knowledge about that.".
I could tell lots of such stories about such ultra-precise questions and expecting precise answers among math students.
TLDR: Communication styles differ.
Just another reason never to assume the worst and always ask for clarification if you don’t understand.
It's about communication styles. British corporate culture is particularly understated, and the US has understated moments. Other countries don't just tolerate blunt straightforwardness, they expect it.
The same applies in relationships. Some couples are direct, others are indirect, some couples haven't worked this out and are still trying to communicate with conflicting styles - which always leads to complications and understandings.
I know for a fact that people from Europe struggle with British understatement, because it's come up in a number of of independent conversations. It takes them a long time to work out what's being said because they take statements at face value, and that's completely wrong for the social context.
E.g. See examples here:
https://i2.wp.com/www.anglotopia.net/wp-content/uploads/2012...
Those are not a joke at all. This is actually how many people communicate, both personally and at work.
Of course there are other social frames. Class and context are big determinants, so generally the smaller the status/power difference and the higher the class, the more likely you are to experience understatement.
The lower the class, the larger the status difference, and the closer you get to high-stakes outcomes over power and money, the more likely the communication will involve swearing, shouting, and possibly verbal abuse - feigned and genuine.
But to work in the UK - and some US corporates - you have to be able to recognise the Understatement Frame and know how it operates, otherwise you'll be permanently confused about what people are saying.
Workplace communication should always communicate expectations, whether the language is direct or overcoded with social customs, takes 30 seconds to understand or 30 minutes in a meeting.
Guile is not always malicious. It's a normal part of some activities like negotiation.
So in instead of "Would you like to" more like "I have a situation that you'd be perfect to handle if you can pull yourself away from what you're doing for a few hours".
Professor (who has already landed a position at another school and is negotiating a faculty position for his wife): “You’re going to have to work much harder than you have at any point up until now”
Me (tired of the hot and cold and turning to face him): Ok, we’re going to be taking this one week at a time here, alright?
Third professor in the room of Russian origin who is a co-advisor: ???
Unstated messages:
Him: I’m checked out. Fuck this.
Me: I gathered. Fuck you.
Russian origin prof: WTF?
Well, yeah. But if someone answers honestly when the question was not honest, then the only mistake they made was assuming their job has a stronger work culture than it does.
My bosses have bluntly told me to bluntly refuse more forceful requests for my time than that than because I was stretching myself too thin. If someone asked if I desired work I would interpret as an inquiry if I wanted to shift my job focus.
I get it - I have a hard time assigning work without beating around the bush too - but I’m working on my communication skills so that I dont cultivate a group of yesman and can get meaningful feedback.
"Fair enough, let's go for a couple hours and if you're still not into it we can make our way out."
OR
"Oh, alright, I didn't really want to either, so let's just [send a gift | invite them for dinner next week | whatever]".
As for chores - well, they have to get done, but the protest can still be made and noted so it's not a surprise when something is done half-assed.