When inclusion stops at competence. The invisible career barrier for neurodivergent employees. 

An employee can be well liked by colleagues, invited to social events, included in team discussions and genuinely appreciated as a person, yet still be overlooked when an important project, promotion or leadership opportunity becomes available. This is one of the more uncomfortable aspects of workplace neuroinclusion. We have become increasingly comfortable discussing awareness, acceptance and belonging, but we pay considerably less attention to how assumptions about competence influence the opportunities people are given. An organisation can have a welcoming culture and genuinely positive attitudes towards neurodiversity while continuing to make decisions about professional capability through relatively narrow expectations of how a competent employee should behave.

A recent study by Curşeu and colleagues, published in the Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance in 2026, provides an interesting starting point for examining this issue. The researchers investigated how neurodivergent individuals are perceived as potential colleagues and leaders, focusing on three dimensions: warmth, competence and social distance. The study involved 467 participants with work experience who evaluated descriptions of potential colleagues and leaders with ADHD, autism, dyslexia, intellectual giftedness or no identified neurodivergent condition. The findings suggested that individuals described as having ADHD, autism or dyslexia were generally perceived less favourably than neurotypical individuals on measures of competence and warmth, while intellectual giftedness showed a different pattern. Participants also expressed greater social distance towards people with ADHD, autism and dyslexia, particularly in leadership contexts.

Perhaps the most interesting finding was that perceived competence, rather than perceived warmth, statistically mediated the relationship between neurodivergent status and social distance. In other words, beliefs about someone's professional ability appeared to be particularly important in understanding how willing participants were to accept that person in different workplace relationships. The study assessed responses to hypothetical descriptions rather than observing actual hiring or promotion decisions, so its findings should not be interpreted as direct evidence of workplace discrimination in every setting. Nevertheless, it raises an important question about the assumptions that may operate beneath seemingly inclusive organisational cultures.

When professional competence is confused with professional behaviour

What does a competent employee look like? For many managers, the answer involves a mixture of measurable performance and less clearly defined behavioural expectations. Competent employees are often expected to communicate confidently, respond promptly, manage their time efficiently, remain organised, demonstrate consistency and appear composed under pressure. Some of these expectations are directly relevant to professional performance, but difficulties arise when the behaviours associated with competence become substitutes for evaluating competence itself. An employee who needs additional time to organise their thoughts before answering a question may be regarded as uncertain, while someone who asks for written instructions may be perceived as less independent. An individual who finds frequent interruptions difficult may be described as inflexible, whereas a colleague who responds immediately to every request may be praised for adaptability. Yet none of these observations necessarily tells us how well either employee understands their work, solves problems or contributes to organisational outcomes.

For adults with ADHD, this distinction can be particularly important because executive functioning differences may affect how professional competence is expressed. Someone may possess substantial expertise while experiencing difficulties with working memory, task initiation, prioritisation or time estimation. Their knowledge does not disappear because they struggle to organise a sequence of actions, nor does their ability to make complex decisions necessarily diminish because they require a quieter environment to concentrate. In my work as an executive function coach, I frequently encounter people who are highly knowledgeable and professionally capable but whose difficulties become most apparent in the processes surrounding their work. They may understand a problem exceptionally well while struggling to begin a routine administrative task, or develop sophisticated solutions while finding it difficult to communicate progress in the format expected by their manager. These differences create opportunities for misinterpretation, particularly when managers rely heavily on behavioural impressions rather than examining performance in context.

Workplace inequality does not always begin with an explicit refusal to hire or promote someone. It can emerge through a series of smaller decisions that appear reasonable when considered individually. A manager may avoid assigning an urgent project to an employee who has previously struggled with deadlines, while a senior colleague may decide that someone who finds meetings difficult is not ready for leadership. An employee who asks for greater clarity about expectations may be given more supervision but fewer opportunities to work independently. Sometimes these decisions reflect genuine requirements of a role or documented performance concerns, and managers have legitimate responsibilities to evaluate whether employees can undertake particular tasks. The concern is whether those evaluations distinguish between underlying capability, current performance, environmental barriers and assumptions based on a person's diagnosis or communication style.

Over time, these decisions can become self-reinforcing. Employees who are excluded from challenging work because they are assumed to be unable to manage it have fewer opportunities to demonstrate their capabilities under appropriate conditions. They may consequently acquire less experience, have fewer chances to exercise leadership and find it increasingly difficult to develop the professional track record expected for promotion. What initially appears to be a judgement about capability can therefore influence the very evidence that will later be used to justify that judgement. This is particularly relevant to the transition from being considered a valuable team member to being viewed as someone with leadership potential. Leadership is often associated with confidence, decisiveness, social fluency and the ability to manage competing demands, yet effective leadership also involves judgement, technical understanding, ethical decision-making, strategic thinking and the capacity to recognise and develop other people's contributions. When organisations rely on a narrow behavioural model of leadership, they risk overlooking individuals whose capabilities are expressed differently.

Why awareness does not necessarily change opportunity

Many organisations have invested in neurodiversity awareness training, and this is a welcome development. Understanding ADHD, autism and other forms of neurodivergence can help challenge misconceptions and encourage more supportive workplace relationships. However, improved awareness and meaningful changes in managerial decision-making are not necessarily the same thing. A 2025 study involving 880 employees at two pharmaceutical companies in Spain found high reported awareness of ADHD and autism alongside continuing misconceptions. Participants expressed generally positive attitudes towards working with neurodivergent colleagues, yet 60.6% considered their workplaces insufficiently adapted. The findings illustrate an important distinction between recognising neurodiversity as a concept and understanding how to support neurodivergent employees in everyday organisational practice.

Another study published in 2025 examined perceptions of a hypothetical autistic employee and found that greater autism knowledge was associated with more favourable evaluations of competence and social acceptability. Together, these findings suggest that education has value, but they also encourage us to consider what that education should achieve. If a manager finishes a neurodiversity workshop feeling more positive towards employees with ADHD but continues to interpret requests for clarification as evidence of limited ability, the practical consequences may remain unchanged. Similarly, learning that some individuals with ADHD demonstrate creativity or innovative thinking does not automatically mean those individuals will be trusted with complex responsibilities. Replacing negative stereotypes with positive stereotypes is not the same as learning to evaluate individual capability fairly. An effective approach needs to help managers recognise when their interpretation of behaviour may be influenced by assumptions and how to test those assumptions against relevant evidence.

There is another dimension to this issue that I find particularly important: the substantial effort some neurodivergent employees invest in concealing their difficulties because they are concerned about how their competence may be perceived. They may rehearse contributions before meetings, spend additional hours preparing for discussions, repeatedly check emails to avoid mistakes or work late to compensate for interruptions during the day. These strategies can be remarkably effective at maintaining outward performance, but they can also make the effort required to perform less visible to colleagues and managers. A person who appears calm, organised and consistently prepared may be investing considerable cognitive resources in maintaining that appearance. From the employer's perspective, everything seems to be working because the employee meets deadlines, participates in meetings and fulfils professional expectations. What remains unseen is the personal cost of sustaining that performance.

This becomes particularly complicated when an employee begins to request adjustments. A person who has previously managed without visible support may be questioned about why they suddenly require written instructions, flexible scheduling or uninterrupted work time. Yet the request may not indicate a decline in capability. It may reflect a recognition that existing compensatory strategies are no longer sustainable. A conceptual analysis published in Frontiers in Psychology in May 2026 describes several pathways through which workplace stigma can arise, including responses to diagnostic labels, invalidation of difficulties and judgements about behaviours that differ from organisational norms. This perspective reminds us that workplace stigma need not involve deliberate hostility. It can also emerge when someone's experiences are doubted or when differences in behaviour are interpreted negatively without considering the surrounding context.

Moving from positive attitudes to better management decisions

If perceived competence is an important part of workplace exclusion, then practical inclusion must involve more than improving attitudes. It needs to influence how work is allocated, how performance is evaluated and how professional potential is recognised. One useful starting point is to examine the relationship between actual job requirements and behavioural expectations. Does a particular role genuinely require an employee to respond immediately to unexpected verbal questions, or could thoughtful written responses serve the same purpose? Is physical presence in a noisy office essential to performance, or has it simply become part of the organisation's preferred working culture? Are employees being evaluated on the quality of their decisions, or on how confidently and quickly those decisions are communicated? These questions do not suggest that every workplace expectation should be removed or that performance standards should be lowered. They encourage managers to establish whether the behaviours they value are necessary for successful performance or merely familiar ways of demonstrating it.

Another important consideration is access to developmental opportunities. Employees cannot demonstrate leadership capabilities if they are consistently excluded from leadership responsibilities, nor can they develop confidence in unfamiliar tasks if managers interpret every request for clarification as evidence that they are not ready. Providing appropriate support while maintaining meaningful responsibility may offer a better test of capability than withholding opportunities because of anticipated difficulties. This requires managers to distinguish between support and overprotection. An employee may benefit from clearer priorities, regular feedback or a predictable communication structure without needing someone else to make their professional decisions. Effective support should make competence easier to demonstrate rather than reduce the employee's opportunities to exercise it.

Research presented at the 2026 Academy of Management meeting offers a further perspective. Drawing on studies of neurodivergent employees in the United States and China, researchers found that strengths-based leadership was positively associated with experiences of inclusion, with inclusive human resource management practices strengthening this relationship. Although conference findings require appropriate caution when interpreting their broader implications, they point towards an important organisational issue: inclusion is influenced not only by individual managers but also by the systems within which those managers operate. A supportive supervisor can make a considerable difference, but if recruitment, performance assessment and promotion practices continue to reward a narrow range of behavioural characteristics, individual goodwill may have limited influence.

Perhaps we also need to reconsider how workplace inclusion is evaluated. Employee surveys commonly ask whether people feel respected, supported or able to be themselves at work. These are important dimensions of workplace experience, but they do not necessarily reveal whether employees have equitable access to professional development. Organisations might therefore consider whether neurodivergent employees are receiving opportunities to lead projects and take on meaningful responsibilities, whether performance reviews are based on clearly defined outcomes and whether managers can identify the specific evidence behind concerns about professional readiness. They might also examine whether employees are given opportunities to demonstrate capability with appropriate adjustments or whether assumptions are determining which opportunities they receive.

These questions become particularly important when employees are described as having potential but not yet being ready for greater responsibility. What does readiness mean in that organisation, how is it demonstrated and are the criteria applied consistently? There will undoubtedly be situations in which an employee genuinely needs additional training, experience or support before progressing, and recognising this is part of responsible management. However, there is