This article first appeared on 6 March 2026 in #NDChat, my newsletter on LinkedIn.

Why understanding often matters as much as formal accommodations

The workplace conversation about neurodivergence is dominated by reasonable adjustments. But the adjustment that often matters most is one no policy can deliver.

Not being misunderstood.

This is not to dismiss the importance of adjustments. In the UK, legislation such as the Equality Act 2010 requires employers to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees, and most organisational systems designed to support neurodivergent staff are built around that requirement. The language of adjustments has become the dominant way workplaces think about neurodivergence.

From an employer’s perspective, this approach makes sense. Organisations operate within legal frameworks and risk management structures. When an employee discloses a condition such as ADHD or autism, employers need responses that are clear, consistent and capable of being implemented fairly across a workforce. Occupational Health referrals, HR procedures and reasonable adjustment plans provide a structured way of doing that.

I know this process well. Like many others, I have navigated Occupational Health referrals, HR discussions, a formal reasonable adjustment plan and support through the government’s Access to Work scheme. These frameworks exist for good reason. They provide important safeguards and practical support for employees who might otherwise struggle to navigate environments designed around normative expectations.

But adjustments are only part of the picture

Reasonable adjustments are tangible. They can be written into policy, documented by HR departments and implemented through formal systems. Interpretation is different. The way colleagues perceive behaviour, communication style or working patterns is shaped far more by culture and expectations than by policy.

Most professional environments operate with implicit norms about what competence, professionalism and leadership look like. Communication is expected to follow certain rhythms. Authority is expected to be expressed in familiar ways. Decisions are expected to be made at particular speeds and in particular styles.

When someone’s cognitive style sits outside those expectations, behaviour can easily be misinterpreted.

• Directness may be read as confrontation.

• Rapid thinking may be read as impulsiveness.

• Questioning may be read as resistance.

• Intensity may be read as instability.

None of these interpretations are inevitable. But they are familiar enough that many neurodivergent professionals recognise them immediately.

In many workplaces, the most meaningful adjustment is simply not being misunderstood

During my career I have worked as a UK headteacher and as deputy director of one of Europe’s leading international schools. Across different professional environments, I have seen how the same traits can be interpreted in very different ways.

Environment has often been the greatest aid — or the greatest barrier — to my success.

This complexity becomes particularly clear when people consider whether to disclose a diagnosis such as ADHD or autism at work.

I am often asked this question, and my response is always the same: it depends.

Disclosure is not simply a matter of honesty or courage. It is a contextual decision shaped by workplace culture, relationships and what someone hopes to achieve by sharing that information.

In my own case, I first disclosed my ADHD to my employer through the appropriate professional channels. I went through Occupational Health, engaged with HR processes and agreed a reasonable adjustment plan. I did not approach disclosure as a problem for my employer to solve, but as a way of ensuring transparency and understanding.

Only later did I begin writing publicly about my own experience of ADHD. That writing was not connected to the role I held at the time, but part of a wider conversation about neurodivergence in education and leadership.

When disclosure becomes public

Once something becomes public, however, it inevitably becomes part of how others understand you. Some opportunities may narrow while others open. In practice, the question becomes less about whether to disclose and more about where your way of thinking and working will be understood and valued.

This helps explain why reasonable adjustments dominate the conversation about neurodivergence at work. Adjustments are the aspect of difference that can be clearly defined and operationalised through organisational systems. They provide employers with a structured response and a visible demonstration that support is being provided.

Interpretation does not lend itself to the same procedural clarity.

Legal frameworks such as the Equality Act 2010 play a vital role in protecting employees and requiring reasonable adjustments. But law can regulate actions far more easily than interpretation.

Policies can change environments and processes. They cannot fully determine how behaviour is perceived in meetings, conversations and moments of professional judgement.

Final thought

Sometimes the most meaningful adjustment is not procedural at all.

It is the moment when difference is understood rather than misread.

And that may be the most important reasonable adjustment of all — the one no policy can deliver.

I work with schools and organisations exploring inclusive leadership, neurodivergence and belonging. If that feels relevant to your context, book a free call.