Why Neurodivergence at Work Is a Systems Issue, Not a Character Flaw

In this article we look at how neurodivergence at work is a systems and not a people issue.

“It should go without saying, if the person who works at your company is 100 percent proud of the brand and you give them the tools to do a good job and they are treated well, they’re going to be happy,” — Richard Branson

Ok, let’s assume that you read the previous article, What is Neurodivergence, and you now know that as much as 20% of your workforce or potential employees and colleagues are neurodivergent.

In fact, some may be very much in your face with their brand of divergence. These are people you are aware of. However, there will almost certainly be a whole bunch of people who either don’t want to expose themselves due to the justifiable fear of stigmatisation or they are completely unaware of their own issues.

That’s three clusters of people who work for you or may work for you. Each has their own distinct issues that can lead to undue suffering due to workplace setting, dynamics and relationships. 

On top of this personal suffering is the business side of things: unnecessary staff turnover, absenteeism, poor working relationships, and reduced productivity.

All of these affect your bottom line.

Neurodivergence at Work Is a Systems Issue, Not a Character Flaw

Let’s start with a simple idea based on that old Native American proverb, “Never judge a man until you have walked a mile in his moccasins.” Imagine you are neurodivergent and work feels harder than it should, that does not automatically mean you are the problem. Extrapolate from the descriptions that follow as we all have these experiences to one degree or another. Take those experiences and imagine what it would feel like to have these things going on all the time and to a more extreme level.

Imagine, for a moment, that you are usually considered a capable, thoughtful and hard-working professional, but the workplace around you seems to run on rules you were never taught. Instructions are often implied rather than stated. Priorities shift without warning. Meetings happen without agendas, decisions are made without clear follow-up, and feedback arrives in phrases that everyone else seems to understand but you have to decode. You try harder. You stay later. You make more lists. You rehearse conversations before you have them. You apologise for misunderstandings you did not mean to create. And still, the words used to describe you are not “navigating an unclear system”, but distracted, disorganised, too sensitive, too direct, not direct enough, poor at time management, resistant to change, inconsistent, difficult to manage, or not “proactive” enough.

Now imagine doing that not for one difficult week, but for years. Imagine that every time you struggle, the first assumption is that the problem sits inside you: your attitude, your resilience, your professionalism, your communication style, your effort. No one asks whether the system itself is making the work harder than it needs to be. No one asks whether expectations are visible, whether communication is clear, whether the workflow is realistic, or whether the culture rewards silent adaptation over genuine fit. That is the shift this article is asking us to make. Before we describe neurodivergent professionals as the problem, we need to look carefully at the workplace systems they are being asked to survive.

Neurodivergence at work is not an individual issue. It is a systems issue.

That distinction matters because the workplace is not neutral. Every organisation has a design, even when no one has intentionally designed it. The design is often something that evolves over time and becomes just the way things are done. Communication norms, meeting habits, deadlines, performance expectations, feedback processes, hiring practices, onboarding, policies, technology platforms and management styles all shape whether people can do their best work. When those systems are unclear, inconsistent or overloaded, they create friction. For neurodivergent employees, that friction can be exhausting.

I mean, how many companies actually sit down and design all those things from the ground up with the intent of ensuring that everyone knows the rules and is happy with them — That the rules are not exclusive or damaging to some groups?

Yes, companies develop policy documents that cover many of these things but are they designing them purely from a functional perspective rather than one of ensuring that differences are addressed, incorporated, and understood by everyone?

Many “performance problems” are actually design problems

Here is where we need to get practical.

• If someone misses a deadline because the deadline was mentioned once in a meeting but never written down, is that a personal failure or a communication failure?
• If someone seems disengaged because the meeting has no agenda, no clear purpose and no follow-up notes, is that a motivation problem or a meeting design problem? 
• If someone struggles to start a task because the task is vague, the ownership is unclear and the outcome has not been defined, is that laziness or poor workflow design?
• If someone is criticised for not “reading the room” in a workplace built on hidden social rules, is that a character flaw or an inaccessible culture?

This is not about removing personal responsibility. People still have responsibilities at work. But organisations also have responsibilities. If a workplace depends on people guessing, decoding, remembering, masking and constantly adapting, then the system is doing too much invisible harm.

Let’s face it, the meeting process described above is a waste of everyone’s time let alone those that are neurodivergent. Often, planning for neurodivergence improves the workplace for everyone. As JFK once said, “A rising tide lifts all boats.” 

Research published in Harvard Business Review reports that many executives feel overwhelmed by meetings, with average weekly meeting time rising to nearly 23 hours, and separate HBR coverage notes that around 70% of meetings can keep employees from completing their actual tasks.

The same principle applies to neuroinclusive design more broadly. When we plan for neurodivergence, we often improve the workplace for everyone: clearer agendas, written decisions, predictable workflows, better breaks, reduced interruptions and more intentional communication. Microsoft’s WorkLab research found that back-to-back virtual meetings increase stress and that short breaks improve focus and engagement, while its research on the “infinite workday” highlights how meetings and digital communication can crowd out deep-focus time.

Microsoft’s Human Factors Lab used EEG caps to measure beta wave activity—associated with stress—in the brains of meeting participants. For those given breaks, their average beta wave activity remained largely steady over time; the “coolness” of their stress levels is visualized here in blues and greens. For those deprived of breaks, their average beta wave activity rose as time passed, suggesting a buildup of stress; that increase is depicted here with colors shifting from cool to hot. The chart represents the relative difference in beta activity between break and no-break conditions at the top of each meeting (averaged across the 14 research participants)

Examples of Specific Neurodivergence at Work

ADHD can affect attention, organisation, time management, task initiation, working memory and follow-through. The National Institute of Mental Health explains that adults with ADHD may experience difficulties with attention, organisation, following through on tasks and managing daily responsibilities.

Now place that person into a workplace with unclear priorities, constant interruptions, vague deadlines, too many communication channels and no shared system for tracking decisions. The person may look inconsistent. But the system is also inconsistent.

Autism gives another example. The CDC explains that autistic people may have differences in social communication and interaction, along with different ways of learning, moving or paying attention.

Now place that person into an organisation where expectations are implied, feedback is indirect, sensory environments are ignored and unwritten rules matter more than written processes. Again, the person may be labelled as difficult, rigid or not a “culture fit”. But the culture may be the thing that needs examination.

Awareness is not enough

Awareness training can be helpful. It can reduce stigma, introduce language and help people understand that different brains exist. But awareness alone does not redesign how work gets done.

A webinar does not automatically fix your onboarding process. A lunch-and-learn does not clarify your meeting culture. A poster about neurodiversity does not make deadlines visible. A values statement does not help a manager give clearer feedback.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has produced guidance on neuroinclusion at work for people professionals and leaders, with an emphasis on practical action rather than awareness alone.

That is the direction we need to move in.

Neuroinclusion has to become practical. It has to show up in the ordinary systems of work: how instructions are given, how decisions are recorded, how priorities are set, how flexibility is handled, how feedback is delivered and how people ask for help before they are already overwhelmed.

Neurodivergent Self-advocacy cannot carry the whole burden

I care about self-advocacy. It matters. People should be able to name what helps them, ask for support and participate in decisions about their working conditions.

But we cannot build an inclusion strategy that relies only on individual self-advocacy.

That approach often asks neurodivergent employees to do the hardest work at the point when they have the least energy. They have to notice the problem, understand what they need, find the right language, decide whether it is safe to disclose, explain themselves to someone who may not understand, and then hope the response is respectful.

That is a lot.

A better approach is to design systems that reduce the need for constant individual negotiation. Some supports should become normal good practice. Written agendas. Clear deadlines. Decision notes. Flexible communication options. Sensory-aware spaces. Predictable onboarding. Manager training. Clear role expectations. Feedback that is specific and actionable.

The Job Accommodation Network lists a wide range of workplace accommodations for neurodiversity, including mentoring, frequent manager feedback, remote work with assistive technology, job restructuring, flexible breaks, policy modifications and changes for light, noise and temperature sensitivities.

Those accommodations matter. But they should also teach us something. If multiple people benefit from clearer feedback, why not make clearer feedback part of management practice? If written instructions help people follow through, why not make written instructions standard? If flexible breaks reduce overload, why not design flexibility into the workflow?

This is what NWI means by infrastructure

At NWI, when we talk about neurodivergent workforce infrastructure, we mean the systems that make work usable.

That includes communication architecture: how information moves through the organisation.

It includes workflow systems: how tasks, ownership, priorities and deadlines become visible.

It includes organisational infrastructure: policies, roles, management habits and support processes that do not depend entirely on individual heroics.

It includes measurement: checking whether changes are actually helping, rather than assuming good intentions are enough.

This is not about being nice as a branding exercise. It is not about lowering standards. It is not about treating neurodivergent employees as fragile or exceptional. It is about designing work around real human variation.

Because here is the truth: when you make work clearer, more consistent and more humane, you usually help more than one group. New starters benefit. Remote workers benefit. Managers benefit. People under stress benefit. People returning from leave benefit. Teams moving quickly benefit. Better systems have a widening effect

The shift we need in neurodivergence at work

The shift is simple, but it changes everything.

Instead of asking only, “What is wrong with this person?” we ask, “What is this system demanding?”

Instead of asking only, “Why did this employee fail to adapt?” we ask, “What parts of the work are unclear, inconsistent or unnecessarily difficult?”

Instead of waiting for people to struggle privately and then request accommodations, we ask, “What could we make clearer from the start?”

That is where real neuroinclusion begins.

The problem is rarely the person alone. Often, it is the relationship between the person and the system around them.

And if the system is part of the problem, then the system can also be part of the solution.