5 management practices that unintentionally disadvantage neurodivergent employees

Most managers don't set out to disadvantage their employees. In fact, many of the workplace practices that create barriers for neurodivergent people are considered perfectly normal management approaches.

The problem is that we've built a lot of our expectations around how people should work, communicate and behave, rather than what they actually need to do their jobs well.

For neurodivergent employees, including those with autism, ADHD, dyslexia and other neurological differences, this can mean navigating expectations that have very little to do with their capability.

Here are five common management practices worth reconsidering.

1. Giving neurodivergent employees ambiguous instructions

"Just use your judgement."

"Get it done as soon as possible."

"Make it a bit more professional."

We've all heard these instructions, and most of us have probably given them at some point.

The problem is that they're open to interpretation. What does as soon as possible actually mean? Today? By the end of the week? Before everything else on someone's to-do list?

For some neurodivergent employees, particularly those who interpret language literally, vague instructions can create unnecessary confusion. Others may spend considerable time trying to work out what their manager wants, rather than getting on with the task.

And when the finished product doesn't meet expectations, the employee can find themselves being criticised for something that was never clearly communicated in the first place.

Managers should be clear about what they want, when they need it and what a successful outcome looks like. That doesn't mean prescribing every step of the process. It means giving people enough information to do their jobs independently.

2. Expecting neurodivergent employees to understand unwritten rules

Every workplace has its own set of unwritten rules.

When is it okay to challenge a decision? Are after-work drinks really optional? When should you ask questions, and when are you expected to figure things out yourself?

These expectations are rarely documented, but they can have a significant influence on how employees are perceived. An employee who asks questions might be considered lacking in initiative. Someone who challenges a decision might be labelled difficult, while someone who doesn't participate in social activities might be seen as disengaged.

For autistic employees in particular, navigating expectations that rely on social cues and implied meanings can be difficult. But the issue isn't necessarily that they're doing anything wrong, it's that they're being assessed against rules nobody has explained.

If an expectation is important enough to influence someone's performance assessment or career progression, it should be important enough to communicate clearly.

Managers also need to consider whether those expectations are genuinely necessary. Being sociable, agreeable or particularly skilled at navigating workplace politics doesn't make someone better at their job.

3. Providing inconsistent or subjective feedback to neurodivergent employees

"You need to be more approachable."

"Your communication style is too blunt."

"You need to work on your relationships."

Feedback like this is common, but it's also incredibly subjective. What does being more "approachable" actually involve? What specifically made a conversation too blunt? Which relationships need improving, and how is that affecting the employee's work?

Without examples or clear expectations, employees are left trying to change aspects of their personality to meet someone else's preferences. This can be particularly problematic for neurodivergent employees whose communication styles, facial expressions or social behaviours differ from what their manager considers normal.

It also creates opportunities for contradictory feedback. An employee might be encouraged to speak up more in meetings, only to be criticised for being too direct when they do. They might be told to show initiative, then accused of being difficult when they question an existing process.

Managers need to distinguish between genuine performance concerns and personal preferences. Feedback should be based on observable behaviours, specific examples and the impact on the work.

If you can't explain what someone has done wrong, why it matters and what they should do differently, it's worth reconsidering whether the feedback is appropriate in the first place.

4. Relying on unnecessary meetings

Meetings are such an established part of working life that we rarely question whether they're the best way to get something done. For some neurodivergent employees, meetings can involve processing several conversations at once, interpreting social cues, managing sensory distractions and trying to formulate responses in real time.

Some people think best when they're speaking while others need time to consider information before responding. Neither approach is inherently better, but workplaces often reward the former.

The person who speaks first or contributes most frequently can be perceived as more confident or capable, while someone who takes time to process information might be overlooked.

This is particularly relevant when meetings are used to generate ideas, solve problems or make decisions. If everyone is expected to contribute on the spot, organisations may miss valuable perspectives from employees who work better with time to prepare.

Managers should consider whether a meeting is necessary at all. Where it is, providing an agenda and relevant information beforehand gives employees an opportunity to prepare.

Allowing written contributions or feedback after the meeting can also improve the quality of the discussion. The purpose of a meeting should be to achieve an outcome, not to assess how comfortably someone performs in a group setting.

5. Enforcing inflexible working arrangements

We've become much more comfortable with flexible working arrangements in recent years, but many workplaces still associate productivity with visibility.

Being at your desk during certain hours, attending the office on particular days or being constantly available can become informal measures of commitment. For some neurodivergent employees, these expectations create barriers that have little to do with their ability to do the job.

An employee might work exceptionally well in a quiet home office but struggle to concentrate in an open-plan environment. Someone else might benefit from a later start time, fewer interruptions or the ability to structure their day around periods of focused work.

Of course, not every role can accommodate every arrangement. Some jobs have genuine operational requirements that dictate when and where work needs to happen.

But there's a difference between an operational requirement and a management preference.

Managers should be able to explain why a particular arrangement is necessary rather than relying on the fact that it's how things have always been done.

Where flexibility is possible, performance should be assessed against the quality and timeliness of the work, not how closely someone follows a preferred working pattern.

What does this mean for managers?

None of these practices will disadvantage every neurodivergent employee. Neurodivergent people have different strengths, challenges, preferences and support needs, just like everyone else. But these examples demonstrate how easily workplace expectations can become barriers when we assume everyone processes and communicates in the same way.

There are also legal considerations. Under Australian disability discrimination law, employers may be required to make reasonable adjustments for employees with disability, depending on their individual circumstances.

That makes it particularly important for managers to understand the difference between an employee who cannot meet the genuine requirements of their role, and an employee who is being disadvantaged by the way those requirements are communicated or managed.

Good management requires an understanding of what employees need to perform their roles effectively, setting clear expectations and assessing performance fairly.

Before deciding that an employee needs to change their behaviour, managers should consider whether there's something about their own approach that needs to change.