Common Challenges Faced by Neurodivergent Employees (part 1 of 4)

Neurodivergent individuals face many different challenges in the workforce. Documenting them all would be the work of several books, but we can share a brief overview of them here.

It’s perhaps easiest to address in terms of diagnoses or conditions, but given the historical discrimination, stigmatization, and prejudice associated with many of these, we’ll instead address in terms of areas of neurological function.  This has the added benefit of considering traits that are often otherwise ignored due to the lack of traditional diagnostic terminology.

Sensory Differences

Sensory processing involves how our nervous system receives, interprets, and responds to information from our environment through our senses. While most workplaces are designed for individuals with typical sensory processing, many people experience the world at the edges of the sensory spectrum: either being hypersensitive (over-responsive) or hyposensitive (under-responsive) to various stimuli. This neurological difference fundamentally shapes how individuals interact with their physical environment and can significantly impact workplace experiences.

For hypersensitive individuals, the traditional interview process can create immediate challenges. The bright fluorescent lighting common in interview rooms may trigger discomfort or even pain, while background office noise such as phones ringing, conversations, and HVAC systems often make it difficult to concentrate on the interviewer's questions. Group interview settings can be particularly overwhelming, with multiple voices and social dynamics creating a sensory overload that masks the candidate's true capabilities. Job applicants with hypersensitivity may appear uncomfortable, distracted, or anxious during interviews, which are unfortunately behaviors that hiring managers often misinterpret as disinterest or poor cultural fit rather than recognizing them as sensory processing differences. Additionally, handshakes and other physical contact that are standard in professional greetings can be challenging for those with tactile sensitivities.

Conversely, hyposensitive individuals may struggle in different ways during the hiring process. They might miss subtle social cues or nonverbal feedback from interviewers due to decreased sensitivity to facial expressions or tones of voice. In assessment centers or skill tests, they may appear disengaged or unresponsive when they actually just require stronger sensory input to register and process information fully.

Once hired, performance management systems often fail to account for sensory processing differences as well. Traditional evaluation methods frequently penalize hypersensitive employees who may need accommodations for open-office environments or sensory-heavy meetings. Some managers evaluate "team player" qualities based on participation in noisy team lunches, after-work gatherings, or open collaboration sessions, without realizing that these activities can be extremely uncomfortable or even painful for those with sensory sensitivities.

For hyposensitive individuals, management practices that rely on subtle feedback or nuanced direction may be ineffective. These employees might miss implied expectations, leading to performance issues that could be avoided with more direct communication approaches. Moreover, traditional professional development opportunities (eg, conferences, workshops) generally fail to accommodate sensory needs, which can limit the career advancement for individuals at either end of the sensory spectrum.

The modern workplace itself often presents significant barriers for those with sensory differences. Open-plan offices that are designed to promote collaboration (and generally fail to do so), can be disastrous for hypersensitive individuals who face constant auditory and visual distractions. The lack of control over environmental factors like temperature, air flow, and ambient noise creates ongoing stress, leading to decreased productivity and burnout.

Even seemingly minor environmental elements can become major impediments to productivity for those who are hypersensitive. Overhead fluorescent lighting can cause headaches and visual discomfort, while perfumes, cleaning products, and other scents may trigger physical symptoms like nausea. The sounds of colleagues typing, eating, or conversing can make concentration impossible without noise-canceling headphones or similar accommodations.

Hyposensitive individuals face different but equally challenging workplace barriers. Standard office equipment and setups may not provide enough sensory feedback for optimal functioning. Without sufficient sensory input, these individuals may appear disengaged or unmotivated when they're actually experiencing an under-stimulating environment that doesn't meet their neurological needs.

The shift to remote and hybrid work has created new possibilities for sensory accommodation, allowing greater control over personal environments, but can also create new pitfalls to avoid. Video calls introduce new sensory challenges, from screen brightness to managing audio inputs and interpreting virtual communication cues. 

Communication Differences

Communication differences encompass how individuals perceive, interpret, and respond to social signals and cues in their environment. This neurological function exists on a spectrum from high sensitivity (strong social intuition) to low sensitivity (difficulty understanding social dynamics). These differences fundamentally shape workplace interactions, affecting everything from team collaboration to career advancement opportunities.

Traditional hiring practices often screen out qualified candidates with communication differences, particularly those with low social sensitivity. Unstructured interviews that rely heavily on rapport-building and social navigation can be especially challenging, especially when hiring managers misinterpret direct communication styles or lack of small talk as rudeness or poor cultural fit, rather than recognizing them as communication differences. Job descriptions that emphasize "excellent communication skills" without specifying what this means create barriers for those with communication differences; there are indeed many forms of communication. Vague requirements like these often translate to managers requiring neurotypical communication patterns rather than actually gauging a candidate’s effectiveness at conveying information. Additionally, the ambiguity of interview questions like "Tell me about yourself" or "What's your greatest weakness?" can disadvantage those who struggle with implied expectations and social conventions.

Candidates with high social sensitivity face different challenges. Their heightened awareness of social dynamics can lead to overthinking interview responses or becoming overwhelmed by perceiving subtle negative reactions from interviewers. Group interviews or panel interviews may be particularly difficult as they must process multiple social signals simultaneously.

Once employed, performance evaluation systems frequently penalize communication differences without measuring actual job performance. Annual reviews may assess "teamwork" and "communication skills" based on neurotypical social norms rather than work output or effectiveness. Some managers perceive employees with low social sensitivity as uncooperative or difficult when they miss subtle hints or implied requests. Workplace cultures that rely on unwritten rules and implicit expectations create constant stress. Furthermore, office politics and the need to "read between the lines" in communications can be particularly challenging

For employees who are socially sensitive, indirect feedback or conflict avoidance from managers can create anxiety and confusion. These individuals may spend excessive energy trying to interpret vague signals or unspoken expectations rather than focusing on their work. Additionally, mandatory team-building activities that center around social interaction can be draining for those at either end of the communication spectrum.

Career advancement often depends on networking and relationship-building skills that disadvantage employees with communication differences: for instance, promotion decisions frequently consider "leadership presence" or "executive communication", which are subjective measures that typically favor neurotypical communication styles. This creates a ceiling effect where skilled employees with communication differences are passed over for leadership roles despite their capabilities.

The physical and social workplace environment presents additional barriers for those with communication differences. Open office layouts force constant social interaction without the opportunity to recharge, which can be exhausting for individuals across the communication spectrum. Digital communication tools like Slack or Teams, without clear norms and expectations, can create confusion for those who struggle with social interpretation. Video calls eliminate some nonverbal cues while amplifying others, changing the social navigation landscape. Text-based communication removes tone and expression entirely, which may benefit those with low social sensitivity, but may also create new ambiguities.

Attention Regulation Differences

Attention regulation refers to the ability to sustain focus on relevant tasks while filtering out distractions. This neurological function exists on a spectrum from highly focused attention (intense concentration) to diffuse attention (easily distracted but often aware of many elements simultaneously). These differences significantly impact how individuals engage with work tasks, manage time, and navigate workplace environments. Moreover, attention regulation can vary with environment and task: an individual with exceptionally focused attention in one set of circumstances may experience very diffuse attention in other situations.

The hiring process often screens out qualified candidates with attention regulation differences. For those with diffuse attention patterns, lengthy application forms with repetitive fields create unnecessary barriers. Similarly, timed assessments or multi-step application processes without clear progress indicators can disadvantage candidates who have difficulty maintaining sustained focus. During interviews, candidates with highly focused attention may excel at technical questions but struggle when interviewers suddenly switch topics or use unstructured formats. Conversely, those with more diffuse attention might appear distracted or disorganized in traditional interview settings, even when their attention style would be advantageous for certain roles requiring multi-tasking or environmental awareness.

Many hiring processes also include lengthy waits in reception areas with multiple distractions (eg, conversations, notifications, visual stimuli), creating an attention regulation challenge (with a concomitant toll on energy and ability to regulate focus) before the interview even begins. Additionally, interview questions about "attention to detail" or "ability to multitask" often reflect neurotypical expectations rather than evaluating actual job capability.

Performance management systems frequently fail to account for different attention regulation styles. Traditional time-tracking and productivity metrics may penalize employees with diffuse attention who work in bursts of productivity rather than sustained, linear progress. Meanwhile, employees with intensely focused attention may be interrupted frequently in collaborative environments, disrupting their deep work and reducing their effectiveness. 

Managers often misinterpret attention differences as performance issues. An employee who hyperfocuses may be seen as inflexible or unresponsive when they're actually deeply engaged in their work. Similarly, an employee with diffuse attention might be labeled as "careless", “lazy”, or "disorganized" when they're processing information in a different, but equally valid, way. Expectations that individuals adhere to a traditional 8-hour workday are particularly challenging for those at either end of the spectrum: intense, sustained focus may be completely exhausting, making it difficult for those with highly focused attention to perform at all the next day, while those with diffuse attention often operate best in short “bursts” of focus that rarely can be sustained all day.

Career development paths typically favor those with attention styles that match organizational norms. Employees with different attention regulation patterns may be passed over for promotions or high-visibility projects due to perceptions about their work style, dedication, or work ethic, rather than their actual capabilities or results. This creates artificial ceilings that limit career growth based on neurological differences rather than performance.

Modern workplace environments often create significant challenges for individuals across the attention regulation spectrum. Open office plans with constant visual and auditory distractions can be particularly difficult for those with diffuse attention. The lack of barriers between workspaces means interruptions are frequent and unpredictable, making it difficult to establish effective work rhythms. Digital environments present their own attention challenges. The expectation of immediate responses to messages, emails, and notifications creates constant task-switching demands that can be especially disruptive for those with focused attention styles. Meanwhile, collaboration tools without clear protocols can overwhelm those with diffuse attention through information overload.

Meeting structures also frequently fail to accommodate attention differences. Long meetings without breaks, visual aids, or engagement strategies can be particularly challenging. The expectation that all participants maintain the same level of visible attention throughout meetings disadvantages those whose attention naturally fluctuates or who process information differently.

This is part 1 of 4 - we’ll go through several more neurological functions and their challenges in the next two parts, then wrap up with a discussion of the unique situations faced by individuals who experience two or more of these extremes, and what managers can do to help support them, in part four.