Building for the 100%: A Blueprint for Organisations to Embrace Neurodiversity

Leadership today requires enabling the full spectrum of minds. This means constructing workplaces where the capabilities of neurodivergent individuals are amplified, not constrained.

I am fortunate to live & work with some great ally’s to the neurodivergent & accessibility limited communities. My interest in ecological psychology (the study of how the environment + person affords or constrains behaviours) and many conversations with my colleague Laura, have opened my eyes to how the choices made as leaders have afforded a narrow range of people high performance. My wife often talks about ableism not disability. How an accessible (not disabled) toilet is accessible for all and gender neutral by design. This blog is an attempt by me to share the reframing of my thinking on this subject. Please share this blog if you feel others might benefit from engaging in the conversation.

How we view human potential shapes our management approach. Within neurodiversity, there is a spectrum –at one end, the medical model and the other, the social model. Appreciating their implications allows us to build more inclusive organisations that afford higher performance to all.

The Medical Model

The medical model sees disability as inherent within a person, arising from mental, cognitive or physical deficits. It aims to diagnose conditions and provide interventions to “fix” or normalize individuals to conform with societal standards.

However, experiments like Rosenhan’s infamous pseudopatient study challenged this pathologising view, forcing change. Rosenhan had healthy volunteers with no prior history pretend they heard voices saying “thud, empty or hollow”. All eight volunteers were diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder and admitted to the hospitals. Once admitted they acted normally. None of them were detected as impostors by the staff, although some of the real patients suspected them. They stayed in the hospitals ranging from 7 to 52 days. They were discharged with their diagnoses “in remission”. They reported that they were treated with indifference, hostility or dehumanisation by the staff, and that their normal behaviours were interpreted as signs of their illness. This highlighted the unreliability and arbitrary nature of psychiatric labeling that dismissed environmental factors. It fueled reforms questioning the medical model’s legitimacy and authority in defining mental health.

This aligns with a cognitive view of behavior as stemming from internal impairments. Challenges arise when mental “programming” is defective and must be repaired. But Rosenhan’s study revealed diagnoses could stem from clinician bias rather than objective symptoms.

Critics argue this overlooks how disability is socially constructed. The medical lens discounts how inadequate accommodations and biases disable those with mental or physical differences, and how these differences are just the natural biodiversity we see everywhere else in nature. It neglects systemic barriers and stigma in limiting participation.

The Social Model

In contrast, the social model views disability as imposed by barriers within the social and physical environment (Shakespeare, 2013). Rather than forcing the individual to adapt, it aims to remove obstacles and provide support to allow diversity.

This aligns with an ecological view of behavior emerging from the person-environment interaction. Challenges stem from misfit between needs and environment. The remedy involves modifying physical, social, cultural and organisational dimensions to create inclusive contexts.

The social model separates impairment and disability. Impairment refers to differences in functioning. Disability denotes restrictions when environments fail to accommodate needs (UPIAS, 1976). The “problem” stems from disabling barriers, not bodies or minds.

Implications for Organisations

This compels examining how aspects of culture, processes, technologies and spaces might disable or disadvantage neurodivergent people or those with accessibility needs.

It pushes us to move from reactive accommodation to proactive inclusive designs. Universal design principles that enable wider participation can guide this thinking.

Adopting this mindset allows organisations to benefit from the diverse thinking neurodivergent individuals contribute. It also positions accessibility as collective responsibility rather than an individual burden.

Factors to Assess for Inclusion

- Examine cultural norms around communication, collaboration and socialising to ensure they accommodate diverse needs. Provide alternatives like messaging/email versus live meetings.

- Make workplace tech and digital systems accessible to those using assistive devices, screen readers, captions, etc.

- Offer flexible schedules and self-pacing rather than rigid deadlines that disable those needing more processing time.

- Ensure workplace spaces and equipment accommodate mobility aids, AAC devices, alternative inputs, and sensory needs.

- Build accommodation processes that maintain dignity and privacy. Embed supports into roles so the onus doesn’t fall solely on the individual.

Neurodiversity as an Advantage

Beyond accommodations, the social model challenges us to view neurodiversity as an asset. Neurodivergent people often possess heightened creativity, resilience, pattern recognition and other strengths.

It's estimated 15-20% of the workforce sits outside the neurotypical cognitive profile (Doyle, 2022). But fully utilising these different perspectives requires moving beyond accommodation to deliberately designing roles that align with and amplify neurodivergent capabilities. Environments must be reshaped to draw on the unique strengths that diversity provides.

Building True Inclusion

Adopting a social model provides an actionable pathway, but executing it requires commitment to dismantle barriers. Through collaboration and vulnerability, we can create workplaces where both neurodivergent and neurotypical people reach their full potential.

This is deeply personal, as each individual experiences neurodiversity differently. For some, differences feel like natural variations in cognition. For others, they manifest as impairments requiring accommodation. Organisations must have open dialogues around how employees identify and what support they need (Doyle, 2020).

As Lewin proposed, behavior emerges from the interaction between a person and their environment. Participation depends on both neurodiversity profiles and the organisational context. Neurodiversity is fluid, shaped by both inherent traits and changing situations (Chapman, 2020).

By focusing on aligning person-environment fit, the biopsychosocial model helps utilize the strengths of neurodivergent thinking while providing necessary supports. But this alignment requires consulting individuals and appreciating the nuances of their experiences.

Check out my colleague Laura’s Senvisible website for those looking for support in accessing in navigating the neurodivergent landscape, and my Wife, Emma’s blog on accessibility in the wine world (links in comments).

Doyle, N. (2020). Neurodiversity at work: a biopsychosocial model and the impact on working adults. British Medical Bulletin, 135, 108–125.

Doyle, N. (2022). Evaluating and supporting neurodifferences at work.

Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. McGraw-Hill.

Shakespeare, T. (2013). The social model of disability. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies reader (4th ed., pp. 214-221). Routledge.

UPIAS. (1976). Fundamental principles of disability. Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation

.