Part 2 of 3: Neurodiversity at Work

TL;DR

• The “business case” for neurodiversity, the argument that including neurodivergent employees benefits organizational performance, is a common and sometimes useful tool, but it has serious limitations.
• Relying on it exclusively can backfire; neurodiversity doesn’t always produce measurable performance gains, it can alienate the very people it claims to include, and it risks reducing neurodivergent employees to their perceived utility.
• A more robust and ethical framework draws on universal design principles, building workplaces that work for everyone, not just accommodating individuals after the fact.
• Intersectionality matters here too; the benefits and risks of the business case are not evenly distributed across neurodivergent employees with different intersecting identities

If you have spent any time in DEI spaces over the last decade, you have heard some version of the business case. For neurodiversity, it tends to sound like this; neurodivergent employees bring unique cognitive strengths: pattern recognition, hyperfocus, creative problem-solving, attention to detail, that give organizations a competitive edge. Hire them, include them, and your bottom line benefits.

It is a compelling argument. It is also, on its own, insufficient, and in some cases actively counterproductive.

This is not an argument against including neurodivergent employees. It is an argument for doing so on better grounds, with better frameworks, and with a clearer understanding of what genuine inclusion actually requires.

What the Business Case Gets Right

To be fair to the business case, it works as a persuasion tool. Silver et al. (2023) acknowledge that the business case can be a useful mechanism for bringing hesitant decision-makers to the table. For organizations where the conversation about neurodiversity hasn’t started yet, framing inclusion in terms of organizational performance gives leaders a familiar, financially legible reason to engage.

And there is real evidence that neurodivergent employees contribute meaningfully to organizational outcomes. LeFevre-Levy and colleagues (2023) document the growing body of research showing that neurotypical workers can offer distinct contributions, particularly in rules that have become increasingly specialized as the nature of the work evolves. The business case draws on this evidence, and it isn’t fabricating it.

The problem is not that the business case is wrong. The problem is what happens when it becomes the primary, or the only, justification for inclusion.

Three Ways the Business Case Backfires

Silver et al. (2023) identify three specific limitations of relying exclusively on the business case for neurodiversity. Each one is worth examining carefully.

• Neurodiversity Doesn’t Always Produce Performance Gains

The business case implicitly promises that including neurodivergent employees will improve organizational outcomes. But this is not reliably true across all roles, all contexts, or all neurodivergent individuals.

Neurodivergent employees, like all employees, vary enormously in their skills, strengths, and areas of difficulty. The idea that autism reliably produces exceptional pattern recognition, or that ADHD reliably produces creative thinking, is a generalization that does not hold at the individual level. When inclusion is justified primarily on the grounds of performance benefit, organizations that don’t see the expected gains have a built-in reason to disengage, and the employees caught in that logic have their inclusion held hostage to a promise they never made.

• Neurodivergent Employees May Be Put Off by Organizations That Frame Inclusion as a Business Imperative

This is perhaps the most underappreciated limitation of the business case. Silver et al. (2023) highlight research suggesting that neurodivergent people may actually be dissuaded from joining organizations that view their inclusion primarily in terms of what they can produce.

Think about what the business case communicates to a neurodivergent person reading an organizational diversity statement: we want you here because of what your brain can do for us. That is a transactional relationship, not an inclusive one. For people who have spent years navigating workplaces that were not designed for them; often masking, often exhausted, often underestimated, an organization that leads with “your difference is our competitive advantage” is not necessarily a reassuring signal.

Genuine inclusion communicates something different; you belong here because you are a person, full stop.

• The “Superpowered” Narrative Others and Commodifies Neurodivergent People

The business case for neurodiversity frequently relies on what has become a recognizable narrative; the neurodivergent employee as uniquely gifted, differently abled in ways that border on superhuman. The autistic data analyst who sees patterns no one else can see. The ADHD entrepreneur whose hyperfocus drives innovation.

Silver et al. (2023) identify this as a form of othering, one that, despite its positive framing, can actually undermine inclusion. When neurodivergent employees are positioned as a special category of high performer, it sets up unrealistic expectations, creates pressure to perform in ways that confirm the stereotype, and leaves no room for the full range of human variability. It also, critically, says nothing about the neurodivergent employees who don’t fit the superpower narrative, those who need genuine support, whose challenges are more visible than their strengths, or whose profile doesn’t map onto the roles organizations have designated as “neurodiversity friendly.”

Commodifying difference is not the same as including it.

The Intersectionality Problem

The limitations of the business case are not evenly distributed. Calvard et al. (2024) point out that the benefits and risks of organizational diversity frameworks play out differently depending on the full complexity of an employee’s identity.

Neurodivergent employees who also belong to racially marginalized groups, for example, are less likely to be perceived through the “cognitive strengths” lens that underpins the business case. Research on racial bias in performance perception is well established; the same behaviours and work products are evaluated differently depending on the race of the person producing them. A business case built on the premise that neurodivergent employees are high-value contributors will not operate equally for a neurodivergent Black employee and a neurodivergent white employee in the same organization.

Gender intersects similarly. Autistic women, for instance, are often diagnosed later, or not at all, because diagnostic criteria have historically been developed based on autistic male presentations. The masking that many autistic women engage in to navigate social expectations means their neurodivergence is frequently invisible to colleagues and managers. A business case that relies on visible, recognized difference cannot reliably extend its benefits to people whose difference has been systematically rendered invisible.

Any serious approach to neurodiversity in the workplace has to grapple with these intersecting inequalities, not paper over them with a performance-based rationale.

A Better Framework: Universal Design

So if the business case is insufficient, what replaces it, or more precisely, what complements and grounds it?

Silver et al. (2023) propose universal design as a more robust framework. Originally developed in architecture and product design, universal design is built on the principle that environments and systems should be created from the outset to be accessible to the widest possible range of people, not retrofitted after the fact for specific individuals.

Applied to the workplace, this means designing jobs, environments, communication norms, and performance expectations in ways that do not assume a single neurological standard. It means asking not “how do we accommodate this employee’s disability?” but “how do we build a workplace that works for the full range of human neurological variation?”

The implications of this shift are significant. Universal design is proactive rather than reactive. It does not depend on disclosure; a critical point, given that many neurodivergent employees choose not to disclose for fear of stigma or discrimination. It benefits neurodivergent and neurotypical employees alike: clear communication norms, flexible sensory environments, and reduced cognitive load in workplace design improve working conditions for everyone, not just those with a formal diagnosis.

And crucially, it shifts the locus of responsibility. Under an accommodation model, the neurodivergent employee is responsible for identifying themselves, requesting support, and navigating a system that treats their needs as exceptional. Under a universal design model, the organization is responsible for building inclusive systems from the start. That is a fundamentally different relationship, and a far more honest expression of what inclusion actually means.

What This Looks Like in Practice

Universal design in the workplace is not abstract. It includes things like:

• Flexible work arrangements: remote work, flexible hours, and asynchronous communication options that reduce the sensory and social demands of traditional office environments

• Clear, structured communication: written summaries of meetings, explicit instructions, and reduced reliance on unspoken social norms

• Sensory-considerate environments: attention to lighting, sound, and spatial design that reduces overload for neurodivergent employees (and, research shows, improves concentration for everyone)

• Transparent processes: clear criteria for hiring, promotion, and performance evaluation that do not disproportionately reward neurotypical social-performance

The next post in this series examines the evidence behind physical workplace adjustments specifically: what the research says works, where the gaps are, and what organizations can do right now.

The Takeaway for Organizations

The business case for neurodiversity is not something to discard. It can open doors, shift mindsets, and give financially-focused leaders a reason to engage with conversations they might otherwise avoid. Use it as a starting point.

But build on it with something more durable. Universal design principles offer a framework that is ethically sounder, practically more effective, and more likely to create the conditions in which neurodivergent employees, across the full diversity of their identities and experiences, can actually thrive.

Because the goal of inclusion is not to extract value from difference. It is to build organizations where difference does not cost people anything in the first place.

If you are thinking about how to move from performative neurodiversity commitments to structural change in your organization, I would welcome that conversation. You can reach me through the contact page or book directly through my scheduling link.

References

Calvard, T., Gottardello, D., & Song, J-W. (2024). Neurodiversity and intersectionality in the workplace: A narrative review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.70024 

LeFevre-Levy, R., Melso-Silimon, A., Harmata, R., Hulett, A. L., & Carter, N. T. (2023). Neurodiversity in the workplace: Considering neuroatypicality as a form of diversity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.86

Silver, E. R., Nittrouer, C. L., and Hebl, M. R.. (2023). Beyond the business case: Universally designing the workplace for neurodiversity and inclusion.  Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16(1), 45-49. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.99