What HR is being told about neurodiversity is wrong — and it's costing you

Written by Sharon McCormick, clinical director of The Listening Centre

After providing corporate wellbeing services in the Midlands for over 24 years, our approach is simple: meet people where they are, not where a diagnostic label says they should be.

We’ve built our reputation on person-centred practice – and everything I’m about to share comes from that foundation.

HR professionals are being set up to fail on neurodiversity. Not through any fault of their own, but because the frameworks, training, and guidance they’re being given are built on fundamentally flawed foundations.

After over two decades supporting employees and organisations, I’ve watched well-intentioned HR teams tie themselves in knots trying to ‘accommodate’ neurodivergent staff whilst simultaneously reinforcing the very systems that make work difficult for them in the first place.

The problem isn’t effort or intent – it’s the information HR has been given to work with.

The numbers demanding attention

A 2023 Deloitte Global Gen Z and Millennial Survey found that 53 per cent of Gen Z respondents self-identify as neurodivergent.

Savills workplace research reported similar figures – 59 per cent of Gen Z and 62 per cent of Millennials in their sample identified as neurodivergent, compared with 39 per cent of Gen X and just 14 per cent of Baby Boomers.

These self-identification figures sit above epidemiological estimates of neurodivergence in the general population (typically quoted at 15-20 per cent), and social media undoubtedly plays a role in amplifying neurodiversity content and identity.

But even accounting for that influence, this represents a fundamental shift. By 2030, Gen Z and Millennials will dominate the workforce. The very concept of a ‘neurotypical majority’ is becoming meaningless – which begs the question: what exactly is ‘neurotypical’ anyway?

Meanwhile, research from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) in 2024 found that whilst 72 per cent of HR professionals say their organisation is committed to neurodiversity, only 14 per cent have implemented specific neurodiversity policies. That’s a 58-percentage-point gap between intention and action.

The Institute of Leadership research (2024) revealed that 65 per cent of neurodivergent employees feel they must mask their neurological differences at work to succeed. Nearly two-thirds of your neurodivergent workforce are expending enormous cognitive energy pretending to be something they’re not, every single day.

The Birkbeck, University of London study (2023) highlighted that only 52 per cent of autistic adults in the UK are in employment, compared to 82 per cent of non-disabled people. This isn’t because autistic people lack skills or motivation – it’s because our workplaces weren’t designed with them in mind.

Where the guidance is failing HR

Having worked alongside countless HR professionals, I see the same patterns emerging. These aren’t failures of individuals – they’re failures of the systems and information HR has been given.

The diagnosis dependency myth

Many organisations have been told they need a formal diagnosis before offering adjustments. Too many organisations only provide support after diagnostic confirmation — despite ACAS guidance that workers don’t need a diagnosis to receive reasonable adjustments.

But here’s what HR often isn’t told: under the Equality Act 2010, employees do not need a formal diagnosis to request reasonable adjustments.

They need to demonstrate a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on day-to-day activities.

Self-identification can trigger the duty to make adjustments, and employment tribunals have found against employers who demanded diagnostic proof before acting. Requiring a diagnosis isn’t just unhelpful – it’s legally risky.

The one-size-fits-all toolkit approach

I’ve seen organisations create ‘neurodiversity toolkits’ that prescribe identical adjustments for everyone with ADHD, autism, dyslexia, or dyspraxia.

But two people with ADHD might have completely different experiences and needs. Neurodiversity literally means ‘neurological diversity’ – the clue is in the name. The first thing anyone should do is consult with the individual themselves: they are the expert on their own experience.

The training tick-box exercise

The CIPD’s 2024 Neuroinclusion at Work report found that only 27 per cent of organisations provide training for line managers in what neurodiversity is and its value. Even fewer – just 24 per cent – offer training on supporting neurodivergent team members. And only 19 per cent have reviewed their people management policies to make them neuro-inclusive.

Training without infrastructure doesn’t create change – it creates the illusion of change.

The fear of getting it wrong

HR professionals tell me they’re terrified of saying the wrong thing, using outdated terminology, or inadvertently discriminating. This fear leads to avoidance, which leads to the very exclusion they’re trying to prevent. Understandable – but we need to move through it.

The problem with the medical model

Here’s where the guidance HR receives is most fundamentally flawed: it’s built on a medical model that treats neurological differences as disorders requiring diagnosis and treatment.

When we talk about ‘disorders’,‘deficits’ and ‘conditions’, we position neurological differences as medical problems.

A growing movement of contemporary experts is challenging this paradigm. Dr Sami Timimi, consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist, has written extensively about how diagnostic labels serve pharmaceutical and institutional interests rather than the individuals they’re supposedly helping. 

Professor Joanna Moncrieff at UCL has challenged psychiatric diagnostic frameworks through her work in critical psychiatry. 

Dr Lucy Johnstone, consultant clinical psychologist and co-author of the Power Threat Meaning Framework published by the British Psychological Society, argues for understanding distress through context rather than diagnosis. As Johnstone puts it:‘One day we’ll all be diagnosed with a disorder, then the next day we’ll all wake up cured.’

I’m not saying diagnosis has no value – for many people, it provides validation, community, and access to support.

That’s understandable when our culture and society have ‘othered’ people who think differently. Of course people want to be validated and seen – belonging is a fundamental human need.

An important caveat

What I’m describing here applies to workplace contexts – supporting employees to thrive. This is not an argument against recognising genuine support needs where they exist.

The danger lies in both directions: over-pathologising difference where none exists, and under-recognising disability when support is genuinely required.

When ‘strengths-based’ language is misused to deny care packages or raise thresholds for vulnerable people, that’s not person-centred practice – it’s cost-cutting dressed up in compassionate clothing. Needs don’t disappear because we rename them.

But in the workplace context, think about it this way: if you make a building accessible, everyone can use it – whether they’re mobile or in a wheelchair. We don’t require people to prove their mobility impairment before installing a ramp. The ramp just makes sense.

The real question isn’t ‘What’s wrong with this person?’ It’s ‘What does this person need to thrive?’

An alternative frame: Cognitive diversity

There’s another way to think about this that sidesteps the diagnostic language entirely: cognitive diversity.

Cognitive diversity simply recognises that we all process information differently. Some people are exceptional at detailed analytical work; others excel at big-picture thinking. Some thrive with structure; others need flexibility. Some process verbally; others visually. None of these differences require a diagnosis – they’re just human variation.

Research consistently shows that cognitively diverse teams outperform homogeneous ones. Deloitte research found that diverse teams reduced risk by up to 30 per cent and increased innovation by 20 per cent. This isn’t about labelling individuals – it’s about recognising that different thinking styles strengthen teams.

I’m not suggesting we abandon the language of neurodiversity – for many people, that identity is meaningful and important.

But for HR professionals drowning in diagnostic terminology and accommodation checklists, cognitive diversity offers a more accessible entry point. It shifts the focus from ‘What’s different about this person?’ to ‘How do we build teams that think in complementary ways?’.

What actually helps

So what does good practice actually look like? After two decades of person-centred work, here’s what I’ve learned:

Start with the environment, not the individuals

Before asking employees to disclose their neurological differences, ask yourself: what would make our workplace more accessible for everyone? Flexible working patterns, quiet spaces, clear communication, reduced unnecessary meetings – these benefit all staff, not just those who identify as neurodivergent.

When you design for the margins, you improve things for the middle.

Provide ongoing support, not one-off adjustments

Needs change over time. A new project, a team restructure, a life event – all of these can shift what someone requires.

Build in regular check-ins rather than treating reasonable adjustments as a one-time transaction. Think of it as ongoing informed consent – a continuous conversation rather than a box-ticking exercise.

Have conversations, not assessments

Rather than requiring diagnostic evidence, try asking: ‘What helps you work at your best? What gets in the way?’ Many people have ideas about what would help – they’ve just never been asked. And for those who aren’t sure, that conversation itself is the starting point.

Offering a menu of possibilities – some scaffolding around what’s available – can help people identify what might work for them.

Build psychological safety first

People won’t disclose what they need if they don’t feel safe. Through our counselling work at The Listening Centre, we sometimes hear employees share things about how their brain works that their employer has no idea about.

The therapeutic space becomes the only place they feel safe to be themselves. That tells you everything about workplace psychological safety (or lack thereof).

Challenge the productivity narrative

Much neurodiversity discourse focuses on ‘superpowers’ and the business case. Research does show that diverse teams outperform homogeneous ones – and that’s worth knowing. But people don’t need to be exceptional to deserve equitable treatment. They deserve it because they’re human. The business case is a bonus, not the justification.

Get proper professional support

Organisations often expect line managers to navigate complex situations with only a two-hour awareness session under their belt. External professional support – whether through an EAP, occupational health, or specialist consultants – gives managers expert guidance when they need it.

My perspective

I’m married to someone society would label neurodivergent. I have a child society would label the same way. I work alongside colleagues and affiliate counsellors who would attract similar labels. I’m surrounded by people whose brains work differently to the supposed ‘norm’.

But I don’t see them as ‘neurodivergent’. I see them for who they are: individuals, unique people. Their lived experiences of navigating a ‘neuronormative’ world are not an illness requiring diagnosis. What’s needed is a society – and workplaces – that are inclusive rather than ableist.

At The Listening Centre, I work alongside neurodivergent affiliates and colleagues. Our approach is built on trust, flexibility, and playing to individual strengths. We find mutual solutions together. It’s not complicated – it’s just person-centred.

The bigger picture

We need to acknowledge something uncomfortable: the systems that ‘other’ people who think differently didn’t emerge from nowhere.

They’re products of a Western culture increasingly obsessed with individualism and productivity, where work is positioned as the answer to everything and there’s something ‘wrong with you’ for not coping.

This narrative has been building for decades whilst family life, community connection, and social support structures have slowly eroded.

We’ve created workplaces that demand conformity, then pathologise those who can’t or won’t conform. The irony is that all this categorisation – whilst feeling cohesive to some – ultimately facilitates more disconnection.

Neurodiversity isn’t a problem to be solved. It’s a natural variation in human cognition that has always existed and always will. The difficulties people face at work aren’t caused by their brains – they’re caused by workplaces designed exclusively for a narrow definition of ‘normal’.

Open-plan offices, back-to-back meetings, vague job descriptions, and unwritten social rules weren’t handed down from on high – they’re choices. And choices can be reconsidered.

I encourage organisations to shift from accommodation (making exceptions) to accessibility (designing for variation). The first positions certain employees as special cases requiring extra effort. The second recognises that cognitive diversity is the norm, not the exception.

Moving forward

If you’re an HR professional reading this and feeling overwhelmed, I understand. The landscape is complex, the terminology keeps shifting, and the stakes feel high.

Start small. Pick one thing from this article and try it. Have a genuine conversation with someone about what helps them work at their best. Question one ‘that’s just how we do things’ assumption. Notice who struggles with your current systems and ask why.

You don’t need to be an expert in every neurotype. You need to be genuinely curious about individual human beings and committed to removing barriers that get in their way.

Ultimately, what unites us is finding our areas of agreement and mutual understanding, rather than what separates us. That’s person-centred practice. And it works.

With thanks to colleagues in my professional network for their invaluable feedback on earlier drafts of this article.

References:

Birkbeck, University of London (2023) Autism Employment Gap Research
Bourke, J. (2016) Which Two Heads Are Better Than One? Australian Institute of Company Directors
British Psychological Society (2018) The Power Threat Meaning Framework. Johnstone, L. & Boyle, M.
CIPD (2024) Neuroinclusion at Work Report
Deloitte (2023) Global Gen Z and Millennial Survey
Deloitte (2025) Global Gen Z and Millennial Survey
Equality Act 2010, Section 6 and Section 20
Institute of Leadership (2024) Neurodiversity in the Workplace Survey
Loseby, D.L. (2021) Cognitive Diversity: Solving problems and creating competitive advantage. University of East Anglia
Savills (2024) Workplace Neurodiversity Research