Neurodiversity in the workplace: Considering neuroatypicality as a form of diversity

Abstract

Estimates suggest as much as 17% of the US workforce may be neuroatypical, a term used to describe individuals whose neurological functioning is at the tail ends of the distribution of naturally occurring variation. Although the neuroatypical population has a history of under- and unemployment, their inclusion in the modern workplace (i.e., promotion of neurodiversity within organizations) is gaining recognition by scholars and organizations as an important dimension of organizational diversity. Despite this burgeoning interest in examining neuroatypicality in the context of organizational diversity, surprisingly little research has been conducted that bridges these two research areas. The literature that does exist is scattered across several different academic disciplines, largely outside of industrial-organizational psychology, and rarely examines the employment of neuroatypical workers explicitly from a diversity perspective. In this article we argue that as the nature of work evolves and jobs continue to become more specialized, neurodiversity will become an increasingly relevant dimension of organizational diversity and is likely to play a key role both in terms of individual employees’ well-being and performance outcomes, as well as organizational success.

Contextualizing cases for neuroatypical inclusion in the workplace

“…In the broader diversity literature and practice, the "business case" prioritizes benefits to the bottom line, with diversity being valuable because it financially benefits the organization (van Dijk et al, 2012). This case is fitting to use when the audience values organizational outcomes and performance.…”

“…If organizational financial performance is the primary pursuit, then organizational diversity efforts that do not clearly improve the bottom line are devalued. Thus, solely adopting the business case for diversity means that diversity may be threatened when it is not seen as profitable (van Dijk et al, 2012).…”

“…Critics of the equality case argue that it assumes that an individual's characteristics are inconsequential to business outcomes (i.e., performance; van Dijk et al, 2012). LeFevre-Levy and colleagues state that neurodiversity is "deep level, as opposed to surface level" and defined by differences in cognitive processing.…”

“…We believe that readers of the focal article by LeFevre-Levy et al (2023) would benefit from aligning neurodiversity in the workplace and broader arguments for pursuing and researching organizational diversity in industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology. Often referred to as the "case for workplace diversity," practitioners and scholars have offered various arguments in its defense.…”

Don’t tell me what to do: Neurodiversity inclusion beyond the occupational typecasting

“…

LeFevre-Levy et al (2023) identify "environmental niches," or occupation types best suited for autistic individuals and those with ADHD and dyslexia. Drawing on the existing research and popular media, LeFevre-Levy et al suggest that autistic individuals are most likely to thrive in technical fields, individuals with ADHD are well suited for entrepreneurship, and creative fields are a good match for those with dyslexia.Although extremely popular in professional and popular literatures, typecasting individuals into occupations based on specific neurodivergence is problematic.

…”