The competence problem behind workplace bias.

Workplace discussions about neurodiversity often focus on acceptance. Employees are encouraged to be understanding, managers are reminded to use respectful language and organisations promote a culture of belonging.

These measures matter, but they may not reach the belief that shapes some of the most important workplace decisions: whether a neurodivergent person is considered competent.

Recent experimental research examined how working adults perceived hypothetical colleagues and leaders with ADHD, autism, dyslexia, intellectual giftedness or no neurodivergent condition. The researchers measured perceived warmth, perceived competence and the degree of social distance participants wanted to maintain.

For the ADHD profile, competence was especially important. Participants’ reluctance to work closely with the person was linked to lower perceptions of competence rather than simply to a lack of personal warmth.

This distinction has practical consequences. An employee may be liked by the team and still be overlooked for complex assignments, client-facing responsibilities or promotion. A manager can be friendly and supportive while privately doubting whether that employee can manage pressure, deadlines or responsibility.

ADHD characteristics can easily be misread in this way. Difficulty recalling several verbal instructions may be interpreted as a lack of knowledge. An inconsistent response to routine administrative tasks may overshadow strong performance in analysis, problem-solving or customer relationships. Asking for priorities to be clarified may be perceived as dependence rather than an attempt to direct attention effectively.

In fast-moving workplaces, visible organisation is often used as a shortcut for judging overall capability. The person with the neatest system, quickest response or calmest presentation may appear more competent, even when these qualities are not the strongest predictors of results.

The problem becomes more serious when managers are unaware of the distinction between ability and executive functioning. Knowing how to complete a task is not the same as being able to initiate it easily, remember an instruction delivered during an interruption or decide which of five competing requests should come first.

This does not mean that performance concerns should be ignored. Employees still need clear standards and accountability. However, managers need enough understanding to identify the source of a difficulty before deciding what it says about the person’s capability.

A useful managerial response might involve providing written priorities, reducing ambiguity, checking whether multiple instructions have been understood or agreeing on intermediate deadlines for a complex project. These are not reductions in professional expectations. They are ways of making expectations easier to execute.

The study cannot establish how frequently these perceptions lead to discrimination in real organisations because participants were responding to hypothetical scenarios. It does, however, show why general awareness campaigns may be insufficient. If neurodivergent employees continue to be viewed as less competent, being welcomed socially will not necessarily give them equal access to responsibility or progression.

Belonging is important. Being trusted with meaningful work is equally important.

Source

Curşeu et al. (2026), “Who belongs and who leads? Experimental evidence on bias against neurodivergent employees and leaders”, Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-06-2025-0496