From Policy to Practice: Supporting Neurodiversity

Gallup reports more than 50% of employees are looking to leave their current job, searching for better engagement and culture. As we consider what culture and engagement look like at our organizations, we must examine how our policies and practices contribute to building a positive culture or reinforcing an unhealthy one. Does our culture equitably serve all employees or does it, perhaps without intention, better serve those as neurotypical while leaving neurodivergent employees out?

In our joint research conducted by Western Michigan University and Haworth, we designed our study to answer this question: How do work experiences differ between employees who identify as neurotypical and those who identify as neurodivergent? With approximately 20% of the workforce experiencing neurodivergent neurotypes, like Autism Spectrum Disorder, ADHD, dyslexia, among others, understanding these differences isn't a niche concern. It's fundamental to building equitable culture and could be the key to reversing the retention challenge presently facing organizations. Designing with all employees in mind is how we reduce turnover and increase engagement.

Our findings, built from in-depth interviews with more than 25 employees who identify as neurodivergent across five countries, which informed an international survey of over 1,000 neurotypical and neurodivergent workers across 7 countries, revealed that a significant and impactful policy gap exists between these 2 groups. We dive into these differences below, concluding that anticipatory design could serve to shrink this gap.

The Hidden Policy-Practice Gap

We found no significant differences between neurotypical and neurodivergent employees when examining organizational policies that provide employees with autonomy and flexible work locations. However, there were significant differences in whether those policies were experienced as helpful. Specifically, neurodivergent employees were more likely to indicate that ability to use a flexible schedule, work remotely from home when needed, choose their workspace, and make autonomous decisions was not helpful.

This paradox surprised us. We turned to our interviews to understand why policies promoting flexibility weren't helping neurodivergent employees the same way they helped neurotypical employees. What we learned was that while these flexible policies allowed neurodivergent workers to customize their work environment and manage acute stress (many said staying home was a coping mechanism), the policies didn't address the root problem: The workplace itself was depleting. These policies helped neurodivergent employees cope with significant resource expenditures (physical, emotional, cognitive) required to engage in the work environment, but they didn't prevent that depletion. They were treating symptoms, not causes. Our findings showed that neurodivergent employee stress is significantly higher than neurotypical, which helps explain why band-aid policies feel less helpful than systemic change.

The Self-Disclosure Conundrum

Our research, both qualitative and quantitative, highlighted the risks employees felt associated with disclosing their neurodivergent status. In qualitative interviews, neurodivergent employees talked about their fear in sharing their status, whether their supervisor was currently supportive or not. This fear included impact on current and future roles within the organization and stigmatization. Survey findings also supported this lack of formal accommodation request.

This brings us to the conundrum: How do we design a space (environmentally with design and with policy design and execution) if we don’t know who needs additional support or a more distraction-free space?

The Answer: Anticipatory Design

We know that when an employee discloses a need for an accommodation, organizations meet these needs. If organizations are waiting for their employees to disclose, these accommodations are provided reactively, rather than proactively. The answer to creating a positive organizational culture for all employees lies in anticipating these needs and meeting them without documentation and disclosure. This could go a long way in reducing the depletion that neurodivergent employees report experiencing.

One evidence-based option is to offer user choice in your built environment, giving employees options beyond their assigned workstations. While our research revealed that neurodivergent employees react positively to a broad range of environmental design elements, providing restorative spaces that promote choice can be a powerful solution. Our results reinforce the need to design for variability, not uniformity. Providing a variety of spaces for individual and collective work could be the key to reducing stress, increasing performance and impacting retention.

Specifically, our findings demonstrated that focus rooms (or phone booths) were highly rated as means for neurodivergent employees to destress and engage. Further, the ability to move spaces without permission or requiring approval was critical for neurodivergent employees to utilize this option without disclosure. Creating latitude for employees to work “where their day requires” could also encourage neurodivergent employees to work in the most appropriate location for the needs of the day (including managing stress levels), rather than commuting to the office only to need permission to return home when stress becomes unmanageable.

You can take action now by reviewing your policies, examining how their use may (inadvertently) require disclosure, with an eye toward true flexibility and autonomy. You can take further action by auditing your work environment and creating spaces that allow employees privacy and control over environmental stimuli. When employees can manage their stress without leaving, you've built the foundation for the culture and engagement for which they are searching.