Employers are convinced they provide effective support to neurodivergent employees. Lived experiences suggest otherwise

While UK workplaces may be among the most neurodiverse-aware in the world, it seems that the old adage ‘pride comes before a fall’ continues to apply.

According to a recent report - the findings of which will undoubtedly be mirrored elsewhere in the developed world – the problem is this: the gap between employers’ confidence that they are doing a good job of supporting their neurodivergent employees and those employees’ lived experience is widening. While the gap was between 20-25 percentage points in 2025, it has now jumped to between 30-35 points.

To be more specific, the study conducted among 1,864 workers by vocational education and apprenticeship provider City & Guilds revealed that employer confidence in their own neurodiversity-readiness averages between 70%-75%. The figure rises to 78%-80% among senior leaders. But only between 32%-38% of neurodivergent employees agree that they:

• believe the organization understands the impact of their neurodivergence
• feel psychologically safe enough to disclose a diagnosis
• trust that reasonable adjustments will be made consistently.

The situation with neurodivergent women, non-binary employees, and people with co-occurring mental health conditions is even worse. Their lived experience score is between 35-40 points lower than the average employers’ confidence rating. As the Neurodiversity Index Report 2026 says:

Employers consistently rate their readiness more positively than neurodivergent employees report, with the latter describing higher unmet adjustment needs, lower psychological safety, and great exposure to microaggressions across all sectors.

As for the tech sector specifically, the report indicates that it may be performing better than the average, but it is still not as good as it thinks it is. The verdict is that while the industry is “structurally inclusive”, it is also “culturally uneven” in terms of implementation.

In other words, organizations believe they are “very neurodiversity-forward”, emphasizing innovation, flexible and remote working options. Employees also report better adjustments than the average and more flexible hours.

But a key problem is that the work involves a “high cognitive load, rapid change, and unclear expectations”. Unfortunately, such “pace, performance and productivity pressures” tend to “disproportionately impact neurodivergent staff”.

Why the gap between confidence and lived experience?

So, why are so many employers apparently so overconfident about just how inclusive their environments are? As Sara Lobkovich, the Founder of OKR coaching and strategy consultancy the Red Currant Collective and Author of ‘You Are a Strategist’, points out:

Employers believe they’re being supportive because they’re measuring their support by intent, for example, policies written or accommodations offered. But intent does not always translate to lived experience…It’s a natural human tendency to focus on activity, so employers, HR departments and leaders are executing some very good DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) programs. But activity isn’t results. Whether a program has worked or not is about how neurodivergent employees feel about it and if it’s made a difference in engagement terms, understanding how work matters, or developing a strong collaborative culture.

Another consideration, according to the City & Guilds report, is that:

Awareness is no longer the main issue – consistency and delivery are now the biggest gap…The 2026 data reveals the limits of awareness when it is not matched by system change. Policies, training, and intent are no longer enough on their own. What matters now is how work is designed, managed and experienced day-to-day.

This also goes some way to explaining why the gap between employer intentions and employees’ lived experience appears to be getting bigger. Parul Singh, who is Founder of neuro-inclusion consultancy Parallel Minds and a Representative for the United Tech and Allied Workers Union, explains:

Neurodiversity awareness in people’s personal lives and workplaces has increased significantly over recent years, but sometimes awareness can make things worse. People may have learned more but if they’re not experiencing structural change at the same rate, it often leads to higher expectations and more scrutiny.

Intersectionality and the 'proximity to power' equation

There is also the risk that higher levels of neurodiversity awareness can inadvertently increase bias or ‘othering’, points out Lobkovich:

In the past, ‘Todd’ might have been seen as a mad scientist and so any challenging behaviors were tolerated. But what troubles me now is that we’re seeing a lot of speculation about whether someone could be neurodivergent or not. The intent is to be helpful but with other forms of neurodiversity than ADHD, big biases come into play, whether they’re conscious or not, which can lead to discrimination.

Nowhere is this truer than in relation to neurodiverse women, particularly in frontline and middle management roles; non-binary people, and employees with co-occurring mental health conditions. As Lobkovich explains:

It’s about intersectionality, so those that have already experienced workplace marginalization face discrimination on multiple counts. But as people move up the organization, they gain more authority and power and so the situation lessens. Organizational power and traditional norms still play a big role in how they affect marginalized people.

Singh agrees, pointing to Rachel Cottam’s wheel of privilege, which indicates that:

It’s about proximity to power. So, workplace systems are designed around a narrow definition of an ideal worker, how they should be, look, work, communicate, lead. And the further someone is from that definition, the more challenges they’ll face. For instance, non-binary neurodiverse people reported more exposure to micro-aggressions. Biased feedback is also quite common, especially if it’s given anonymously. So, it’s death by a thousand paper cuts.

Awareness moves faster than implementation

But there are other factors too, one of which is tech companies’ widespread return to office mandates. Susan Fitzell, Speaker, Author and Founder of neurodiversity consultancy Susan Fitzell & Associates, explains:

During COVID, people started working from home and many neurodiverse people found life became easier as they didn’t have someone sitting on either side of them and could do things like adjust the lighting to suit themselves. Even when they had to return to the office for one or two days a week, it was bearable. But many employers are now forcing people back full-time, which can be a nightmare if you have ADHD or autism.

Things have also not been helped by the currently fragile economic and geo-political situation, says Singh:

Awareness may be increasing, but the pressure on budgets and resources is increasing too. In tech, it’s all about deliverables and billable hours, so the willingness to make change isn’t always there.

But even if it is, change still takes time, points out Grant Harris, Neuroinclusive Performance Strategist and Speaker at GTH Consulting LLC:

Awareness generally moves faster than execution and implementation. People are generally more comfortable talking about neuro-inclusion as it’s easier and faster than doing it. Redesigning day-to-day experiences takes time, and systems weren’t created overnight, so they won’t be redesigned overnight. While awareness is the first thing to shift, action takes time and so the gap continues to widen.

The impacts of inadequate support

So, what are the implications of this situation, in which, Singh says, many employees can only be themselves “in a way others think is fine”? In Harris’ view, there are a range of negative impacts for both employees and employers:

With neurodiverse people, you find they mask more, which leads to fatigue, a higher risk of disengagement, and burnout. This, in turn, impacts performance and retention in a system that misreads people. Because if you’re not reading people correctly, you can’t manage them correctly. So, it’s a capability issue. If people are spending most of their time navigating broken systems, the organization pays in lost time, value and talent.

Singh agrees:

There’s inevitably an impact on output. If you’re knackered and resentful, you also have a lower fuse, which can lead to tension and conflict. People become disengaged and can end up taking more sick leave, so you end up paying them not to work, which hits the bottom line.

But Lobkovich also makes the point that workplaces with purely neurotypical ways of working are often not very positive for any employees - although they inevitably tend to be particularly damaging for neurodiverse ones. As she points out:

It’s about performance being left on the table as people’s perceptions are marginalized due to their communications style or lack of social capital and the way they fit into the workplace. So, when workplaces operate according to neurotypical and especially traditional power-based norms based on who holds power and privilege, neurodiverse team members don’t just struggle. They suffer, and organizational performance suffers too.

In the second part of this examination, where are employers goinging wrong in terms of supporting their neurodiverse employees effectively, and what they can do about it?