Many managers struggle with neurodiversity adjustments

A concerning survey from VinciWorks reveals that over a third (35%) of HR and compliance professionals believe managers are lacking the necessary confidence to discuss reasonable adjustments for neurodivergent employees. The survey, which engaged 495 workplace professionals, indicates a worrying disconnect between perceived neurodiversity friendliness and actual organisational support. While only 6.5% of respondents reported managers as very confident in these critical discussions, almost one in seven individuals in the UK are said to be neurodivergent. The implications of this confidence gap could have major repercussions for workforce morale and inclusivity.

At the same time, analysis from Irwin Mitchell highlights that claims of neurodiversity discrimination in employment tribunals have skyrocketed by 95% over the last five years, marking an alarming new trend. There were 517 cases recorded in the past year, significantly up from 265 in 2020, with conditions such as autism and ADHD being the most frequently cited. The average cost to defend a single case now stands at £8,500, not accounting for settlements or awards, escalating the stakes for employers who may not be adequately prepared.

In a revealing contradiction, 57% of survey respondents feel that their organisation is neurodiversity friendly, yet more than a quarter expressed uncertainty regarding this self-assessment. Over one in seven outright disagreed with that statement. This discrepancy is highlighted by the fact that 31% of participants identified a lack of staff awareness as the primary barrier to effectively supporting neurodivergent colleagues, while 22% singled out confidence among managers. Nick Henderson-Mayo, Head of Compliance at VinciWorks, emphasised that organisations need compelling evidence to support their claims of being neurodiversity-friendly: “With the Employment Rights Act putting more power in the hands of workers, firms should be prepared to show a tribunal how supporting neurodiversity in principle aligns with practice.”

Moreover, training for managers appears sorely lacking. Fewer than 40% of organisations have conducted any neurodiversity training, and of those, only 21% have integrated it into ongoing training programmes. With 38% of the workforce indicating a desire for such training, the gap in preparation is clear. “What changes behaviour is repeated exposure, practice and the confidence that comes from knowing what effective support for neurodivergent staff looks like,” Henderson-Mayo stated.

The barriers are multifaceted. Almost a third cited a lack of awareness as a significant barrier, while time and budget constraints also emerged as factors, cited by approximately 16% of respondents. Unclear policies and a negative workplace culture further complicated the issue. “A policy is useless on its own. It has to be backed up by strong and regular communication,” Henderson-Mayo noted.

The legal landscape is shifting as well. Recent tribunal cases, such as Duncan v Fujitsu, underline how easily an employer can be found liable for failing to make reasonable adjustments. The Employment Rights Act is poised to further complicate matters by reducing the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims and extending the timeframe to bring forward a tribunal claim. It could mean greater scrutiny in cases related to neurodiversity. Henderson-Mayo concluded, “Where neurodiversity forms part of the claim, employers will be expected to evidence that support worked in practice, not just on paper.”