Managing neurodiversity in workplaces

Judy Singer [1], a sociologist who has autism, coined the term ‘neurodiversity’ (ND) in the late 1990s, introducing the concept that some developmental disorders may represent a variation of ‘normal’. ND commonly refers to a variety of conditions including, but not limited to, autism spectrum conditions, attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD), dyslexia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia and other unspecified conditions. Is it possible that disability legislation [2], intended to benefit the employment situation of affected persons, might nevertheless have had unintended adverse consequences? In order to make important provisions such as the right to workplace adjustments, government agencies must first be able to identify eligible persons. ND is not the same thing as disability. However, for current legal [2] purposes the two are effectively interchangeable, and such conflated identifications might themselves lead to public and self-stigmatization. Santuzzi [3] suggests that intra-individual factors, including disability salience, disability strain, and environmental factors (disability stigma, ineffective social support) constitute a rationale for the making of identity management decisions. According to this author, if this is normalized, then positive changes in education and workplace attitudes could ensue. A diagnosis of ND tends to lead to categorization of ability. Legislation should therefore be amended to reflect community acceptance of ND. This could give some latitude to employers and responsible bodies in the implementation of adjustments. Individuals with these diagnoses are frequently armed with the legal ‘jargon’ of discrimination, whilst actual problems at work might result from individuals within the hierarchy having attitudes to work/study which are paternalistic, presumably conforming to existing policies. Embracement of the working methods of neurodiverse individuals is preferable to enforcement of a solution by someone in authority.