Workplace Neurodiversity: Research Ignores Hiring and Inclusion

Companies are often desperate for innovation and claim to want “out-of-the-box” thinkers to solve complex problems.

Yet, their interview process requires rigid eye contact, rapid-fire social cues, and conventional small talk.

The brilliant problem-solver never gets hired because they fidgeted or paused too long. This highlights a massive disconnect in the modern workforce.

To understand this gap, a researcher conducted a systematic mapping review of 105 academic publications spanning nearly three decades.

The analysis tracked how science approaches neurodiversity—an umbrella term for cognitive variations like autism, ADHD, and dyslexia.

Using a framework of “creating, converting, and capitalizing,” the study reveals that while interest is booming, we are skipping the most vital steps.

The Missing Front Door

Think of a neurodiverse workplace as a house.

To build it, you first need a “creating” stage—the recruitment and selection practices that bring people in.

However, the review found that research into this creating stage is surprisingly scarce.

Scholars have largely ignored the “antecedents,” or the foundational leadership and programs needed to launch inclusive hiring.

We simply do not have enough data on which recruitment practices—such as sending interview questions in advance—actually work to attract talent.

Without evidence-based hiring protocols, organizations often rely on good intentions rather than effective strategy.

This creates a knowledge gap that leaves neurodiversity levels in organizations persistently low.

We are trying to fill the house without unlocking the front door.

Managing the Room, Not the People

Once an employee is hired, the focus shifts to the “converting” stage.

This involves integrating the workforce through training, accommodations, and engagement.

The review indicates that the bulk of existing literature concentrates here.

Researchers are fascinated by how managers support these employees and the challenges colleagues face.

However, this focus often treats neurodiversity as a problem to be managed rather than a natural variation to be supported.

It suggests a reactive approach.

Companies wait for a disclosure, then scramble to accommodate, rather than designing a workspace that works for everyone from day one.

The Inclusion Blind Spot

Perhaps the most startling finding involves the concept of inclusion.

Inclusion is the sense of belonging—the feeling that one’s uniqueness is valued.

It is the bridge that connects a diverse workforce to positive outcomes.

Yet, among all the empirical studies reviewed, only one focused specifically on the inclusion experiences of employees.

We are measuring productivity and management tactics, but we are failing to ask the most human question: “Do you feel like you belong?”

Without understanding inclusion, companies cannot hope to “capitalize” on the benefits of neurodiversity, such as innovation and efficiency.

The Usual Suspects

The review also highlighted a narrow focus on specific diagnoses.

When science looks at neurodiversity, it is almost exclusively looking at autism and ADHD.

Autism appeared in 44 publications and ADHD in 23, dominating the field.

Meanwhile, conditions like dyslexia, dyscalculia, and Tourette syndrome are left in the shadows.

This fragmentation means we know very little about how to support a dyslexic leader compared to an autistic software engineer.

Furthermore, the research methods are often limited.

Studies rely heavily on surveys and interviews, rarely using experiments or interventions that could prove what changes actually help.

Even more concerning, data is frequently collected from managers or mixed groups rather than centering the voices of neurominority employees themselves.

Why it matters

This research exposes a critical flaw in how we approach mental health and diversity at work.

For the general public, it explains why “diversity initiatives” often feel like empty corporate speak.

If companies don’t know how to hire neurodivergent people or make them feel included, the programs fail.

For clinicians and individuals, it validates the struggle of the job hunt.

The barriers aren’t just in your head; they are built into a system that science hasn’t yet helped to dismantle.

True inclusion requires moving beyond “managing” a diagnosis.

It requires a systemic transformation where cognitive difference is valued, not just tolerated.

Until research pivots to studying inclusive hiring and the lived experience of belonging, the doors to the workplace may remain closed for many.