When Difference Reveals the Design
When Difference Reveals the Design
Organisations invest heavily in neurodiversity training, yet see little lasting change. Meanwhile, qualified neurodivergent candidates remain under-hired, burn out quickly, or mask their differences to survive. The gap between awareness and inclusion reveals a fundamental misunderstanding: neurodiversity is not about individual deficits requiring charity, but about system design requiring intelligence.
Organisations that focus only on awareness miss the larger opportunity. Inclusion is not about being kind to those who think differently. It is about designing systems that perform better because they can accommodate a range of ways of thinking.
Neurotypes in Organisations
Neurodiversity reflects normal variation in human minds. It is neither a pathology to be cured nor a superpower to be celebrated. Neurodivergent experiences reveal friction points in systems: hiring processes that screen for sameness, team structures that reward one style of communication, leadership approaches that presume universal preferences.
These friction points provide valuable information. When a skilled engineer struggles with noise in an open office, the issue is not their sensitivity but the office's design. When a strategic thinker cannot process information in high-speed meetings, the problem is not their ability but the meeting's format. Organisations that treat friction as data unlock redesign opportunities. Those that treat it as failure waste both insight and talent.
Current accommodation models ask individuals to prove disability and request special treatment. This approach stigmatises difference, creates administrative friction, and positions inclusion as charity rather than system optimisation. A better approach recognises that if an adjustment helps someone work more effectively, the whole system benefits. In interdependent teams, reducing friction for one member often improves overall cohesion. The aim shifts from fixing individuals to improving collective function.
The Failure of Awareness Training
Standard neurodiversity training may shift attitudes briefly, but it rarely changes behaviour. Participants leave with goodwill but no tools. Organisations lack feedback loops and struggle to embed learning in daily operations. What follows is silence. Not resistance, but absence. People do not act because they do not know how. The pushback that does surface provides data: fear, confusion, or disengagement that must be addressed.
Who trains the trainers? Neurodiversity coaching lacks standard qualifications or shared pedagogy. Trainers may be motivated and sincere, but often lack the context to address a team's specific needs. This creates an authority gap. Outsiders are seen as unqualified. Insiders are seen as biased. In both cases, the trainer's position is fragile. Without clear frameworks, training cycles remain shallow. Trust suffers. Implementation stalls.
The employment gap for neurodivergent people results from structure, not individual failure. Recruitment processes reward conventional presentation styles. Disclosure invites stigma. Masking leads to exhaustion. These patterns are well documented. Change will take time. Diversity research suggests a five to eight year cycle. The question is not whether transformation is needed, but whether organisations will lead it or trail behind.
Neurodiversity should be tracked alongside race and gender within DEI metrics. Diagnosis rates, however, are shaped by class, culture, and gender. Many remain undiagnosed or choose not to disclose. Exclusion by omission is still exclusion. When properly integrated, neurodiverse perspectives enhance team creativity, communication, and problem-solving.
Communication Redesign
Neurodivergent people are often mislabelled as poor communicators. The problem lies in the channel, not the ability. Verbal, synchronous, and loosely structured exchanges favour certain cognitive styles. Structured, visual, and asynchronous tools improve clarity for everyone. What begins as accommodation for a few becomes optimisation for many.
Concerns about cost and adoption miss the point. Technology now enables previously "special" needs to become systematic supports. Digital tools offer structure, reduce overload, and expand communication choices. This shift marks real innovation in work design. Inclusion becomes infrastructure.
Managers often avoid difficult conversations about neurodiversity because they lack tools. Avoidance leads to shallow relationships and missed opportunities. Inclusive technology can scaffold complexity. Frameworks create clarity. Structure enables connection, rather than blocking it.
Teams are not fixed sets of personalities. They are networks of cognitive differences. Tasheva & Hillman (2019) Personal Range Overlap model provides a way to understand these dynamics. Overlap refers to shared traits across distinct neurotypes. One person may have autism, another ADHD. Both may experience sensory sensitivities. That shared ground creates a bridge.
Overlap reduces binary thinking. It helps reframe categories. Instead of "neurotypical versus neurodivergent," teams begin to see a matrix of shared and distinct capacities. This encourages empathy and collaboration. Overlap supports complementarity, where different strengths combine, and substitution, where people can support each other when challenges arise. Misaligned overlap can hinder performance. Well-configured overlap improves it. This model moves inclusion away from diagnosis and towards collective cognitive design.
Todd Rose's cockpit metaphor, introduced in The End of Average (2016), illustrates the design problem. A cockpit built for the average pilot fits no one. An adjustable cockpit fits many. Work systems should follow the same principle. Roles must flex. Tools must adapt. Coaching must respond. Adjustments requested by neurodivergent people often benefit others. This is not coincidence. It is design intelligence.
From Accommodation to Innovation
The next phase of neurodiversity work moves from awareness to structural thinking. Organisations that treat cognitive difference as insight, not problem, will create environments that work better for everyone. This shift benefits all involved. Neurodivergent employees gain fit. Neurotypical colleagues gain clarity. Teams gain resilience. Organisations gain innovation. Inclusion is not an act of goodwill. It is a function of good design. Success depends on whether organisations see inclusion as strategy or compliance. Those who choose strategy will shape the future of work.
Reference
Costas-Peñaloza, D. (2015). Understanding employee silence: Psychological safety and workplace dynamics. Journal of Organisational Behaviour Studies.
Doyle, N. (2025). Learning from Neurodivergent Leaders: Lessons for the Workplace. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Rose, T. (2016). The End of Average: How We Succeed in a World That Values Sameness. Penguin.
Tasheva, S., & Hillman, A. (2019). Integrating diversity at different levels: Multilevel diversity and inclusion frameworks. Academy of Management Annals.
[Naomi Folb] (https://www.linkedin.com/in/naomi-folb-81a8906/) has worked in neurodiversity since the 1990s, when it first emerged as a social movement. She's watched the field grow from early conversations about identity and advocacy, through new theories about how different minds work, to today's focus on practical design and skills.
Naomi founded Access Archer and researches at Copenhagen Business School. She builds evidence-based tools that help organisations use their resources better. Her work improves communication, reduces wasted effort, and makes diversity actually work in practice.
She combines behavioral science, feedback design, and procedural justice to make inclusion measurable and fair. Her tools use AI and VR to build accessibility into daily work, helping teams adapt with both precision and empathy.
Naomi aims to turn complex research into practical methods. To help leaders see neurodiversity not as a compliance issue, but as a design principle for better collaboration.