Common Challenges Faced by Neurodivergent Employees (part 3 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 common to address these challenges in terms of diagnoses or conditions, but given the historical discrimination, stigmatization, and prejudice associated with many of these, we’ll instead address them in terms of neurological function. Everyone’s brain works a little differently, but it can be hard to identify what that actually means for them. By breaking it down into specific aspects of brain function, it can be a little easier to understand why certain challenges arise. This is part 3 of 4 - see part 1 here and part 2 here if you missed them or need a refresher!

Emotional Empathy: When You Feel Too Much (Or Not Enough)

Feeling and sharing others' emotions happens on a spectrum: from those who deeply absorb others' emotional states to those who process emotions with minimal emotional resonance. Neither way of experiencing empathy is inherently better, yet workplaces typically sometimes operate as if there's a perfect "goldilocks zone" of emotional connection.

Most organizations have built systems that penalize people for having the "wrong" empathy level. Display too much emotional connection? You're quickly labeled as "overly sensitive" or "unable to handle pressure." Show too little visible empathy? Suddenly you're "cold," "difficult," or "lacking essential people skills." The painful irony is that both types of employees often excel at their actual responsibilities; they simply experience and express emotional connections differently.

The Interview Empathy Test

In many cases, job interviews have become emotional intelligence assessments in disguise. Behavioral questions about "helping struggling colleagues" aren't just measuring job capability; they can become traps.

For highly empathic candidates, interview environments can overwhelm the senses. They might absorb the interviewer's anxiety, feel the pressure radiating from the reception area, or become distracted by subtle emotional cues that others miss entirely. At the other end of the spectrum, candidates with lower emotional empathy face equally unfair barriers. When asked questions that assume neurotypical emotional responses ("Tell me about resolving a team conflict..."), they might offer perfectly logical, effective solutions, then get rejected for not emphasizing the "emotional component" enough. Cultural “fit” becomes a catch-all for rejecting someone that didn’t “vibe” with the interviewer through the correct display of emotions.

The real problem is that hiring teams regularly make judgments based on facial expressions, eye contact, and other nonverbal cues that naturally vary across neurological differences and are generally unrelated to job performance. They screen for a very specific empathy style rather than ability to perform actual job capabilities.

The Performance Paradox

Once hired, the empathy double-bind becomes even more of an issue. Performance management systems seem to expect everyone to process emotions the same way.

High-empathy employees frequently become emotional sponges: absorbing workplace stress, sensing tensions before they erupt, and providing invaluable emotional support to colleagues. Yet this same sensitivity often leads to burnout when they're expected to maintain constant emotional labor without support. "She's so good with people," managers say, right before piling on additional emotional work. One HR director I know was constantly pulled into difficult conversations, in essence becoming a therapist for her manager and colleagues, precisely because of her empathic abilities - yet received zero recognition for this taxing emotional labor during performance reviews.

Meanwhile, employees with lower emotional empathy may get dinged for not "showing enough concern" during team crises, even when their work quality remains stellar. They're told to be "more supportive" without anyone explaining what that actually means in concrete behavioral terms. The unstated expectation that everyone should process emotions identically creates artificial barriers to advancement that have nothing to do with job performance.

The Daily Emotional Minefield

Everyday workplace interactions create constant friction for those outside the expected empathy norms. High-empathy employees navigate environments filled with emotional undercurrents that others don't perceive. What looks like a normal team meeting to most might feel like sitting in an emotional hurricane for someone who naturally absorbs others' feelings. For those with lower emotional empathy, workplace cultures that prize specific emotional expressions (for instance, positivity) create constant pressure to perform emotions rather than focus on actual work. The mental energy required to navigate these unspoken rules, such as figuring out when to nod sympathetically, modulate one’s tone of voice, or express concern, depletes cognitive resources that could otherwise drive productivity and innovation.

Communication practices only magnify these challenges. Feedback systems rarely account for different emotional processing styles. Direct criticism might devastate highly empathic individuals while vague, gentle feedback confuses those who benefit from straightforward communication. The assumption that everyone processes emotional information identically creates unnecessary barriers to effective collaboration.

Risk Tolerance: When Playing It Safe Becomes the Biggest Risk

Our comfort level with uncertainty and potential negative outcomes also varies dramatically based on our unique neurological wiring. This aspect of brain function ranges across a spectrum from high tolerance (thriving amid ambiguity and potential failure) to low tolerance (preferring certainty and predictability). Both approaches offer valuable perspectives, yet many organizations often operate as if there's only one acceptable relationship with risk.

Have you noticed how workplaces claim to value both innovation and careful analysis while actually rewarding only one approach? This can create an impossible bind for employees at either end of the risk tolerance spectrum. Those comfortable with uncertainty get labeled as "reckless" or "not detail-oriented" despite their ability to drive breakthrough innovation. Those who carefully assess potential problems before proceeding get dismissed as "resistant to change" or "lacking initiative" despite their talent for preventing costly errors.

What makes this particularly fascinating is that these differences aren't “just” psychological preferences; they're physically encoded in neural pathways. Brain imaging studies show measurable differences in regions controlling decision-making, reward processing, and emotional reactions to uncertainty between high and low risk-tolerance individuals. Too many organizations are literally demanding that people override their neurological wiring to fit workplace norms. Even worse, they’re not up front about it - candidates are ghosted and employees are left to languish despite stellar performance, without any explanation or justification.

The Hiring Risk Assessment

Some aspects of job interviews can function as disguised risk-tolerance screenings. When facing hypothetical scenarios with supposed "correct" approaches, candidates must guess whether the organization values bold experimentation or careful analysis. For instance, "Tell me about a time you took a significant risk at work..." immediately disadvantages candidates whose brains are wired for thoughtful caution. Their natural inclination toward thorough analysis before action gets misinterpreted as indecisiveness or fear rather than recognized as a valuable decision-making style.

Equally problematic, those with lower risk tolerance often find their valuable skill for identifying potential problems dismissed during interviews. A thorough analysis of potential pitfalls in case studies may be interpreted as "seeing too many problems" rather than recognized as the precise skill that could save an employer millions of dollars in avoided mistakes.

The Performance Tightrope

Performance reviews can create impossible standards by simultaneously demanding innovation and consistency: a neurological contradiction for most of us. I’ve personally worked at several organizations that loudly broadcasted "fail fast" philosophies while actually punishing experimental failures in practice.

Employees with high risk tolerance experience this disconnect acutely. They're encouraged to "think outside the box" during innovation workshops, then are criticized when their creative solutions don't follow established protocols. For risk-averse employees, the situation is equally frustrating: their crucial role in quality control and problem identification can be undervalued compared to flashier risk-taking initiatives.

The Culture of Conformity

Day-to-day workplace environments typically cater to one risk profile while creating constant friction for the other. Organizations with "move fast and break things" mantras create ongoing stress for employees whose brains are wired to spot potential problems before they occur (not to mention those who have to clean up the mess that could have been avoided!). Meanwhile, highly regulated environments frustrate innovative thinkers who see opportunities for beneficial change.

Decision-making structures rarely accommodate different risk profiles. Multi-layered approval processes create barriers for those who spot time-sensitive opportunities, while limited oversight generates anxiety for people who thrive with clear parameters. This one-size-fits-all approach to decision-making creates unnecessary tension when both approaches could complement each other perfectly. To further complicate matters, in larger organizations the approach to risk-taking that is valued may depend solely on your manager, or on her manager, creating a great deal of unpredictability and chaos as work is coordinated across multiple departments.

Temporal Orientation: When Your Brain Lives in Different Time Zones

Your natural focus across time (whether you primarily orient toward past experiences, present circumstances, or future possibilities) reflects another fascinating aspect of neurological variation. Some people naturally draw on historical patterns and precedents, others concentrate on immediate actions and tangible realities, while still others constantly envision future scenarios and potential outcomes. Each orientation brings unique strengths, yet many organizations operate as if everyone should process time identically.

Many workplaces have designed evaluation systems to systematically disadvantage candidates with time-perspectives that don’t match that of the interviewer. Too focused on learning from the past? You could be criticized as "stuck in old patterns" regardless of how valuable that historical perspective might be. Too present-focused? You'll be told you "lack strategic vision" despite your exceptional ability to solve immediate problems. Too future-oriented? You'll hear you're "unrealistic" or "don't learn from experience" despite your talent for spotting emerging opportunities. What's particularly frustrating here is that organizations desperately need all three temporal perspectives to function effectively. The irony of screening out time-diverse thinking couldn't be more clear.

The Interview Time Trap

Job interviews can create an obvious temporal bias in workplace systems. The entire process demands that candidates weave together past accomplishments, present capabilities, and future aspirations in precisely the right balance, regardless of their natural temporal orientation.

For future-focused candidates, questions demanding detailed accounts of past experiences present a genuine challenge. Their brains naturally orient toward possibilities rather than historical specifics. As a former product manager who is naturally future-focused, I had a consistent struggle with behavioral questions that asked about a past problem I solved, as my mind would immediately jump to ten ways I'd approach similar situations differently in the future. All too often the interviewer wants a linear story about what already happened, which feels like forcing my brain to work backward.

Conversely, past-oriented candidates might provide rich historical context and pattern recognition but stumble when asked hypothetical "where do you see yourself in five years" questions that future-focused interviewers expect. Their valuable ability to learn from experience gets dismissed as backward-looking rather than recognized as essential organizational wisdom.

The interview timeline itself creates additional barriers. Future-oriented candidates may grow frustrated with lengthy processes lacking clear timelines, while past-oriented candidates might feel rushed by rapid decisions that don't allow sufficient reflection. For candidates with ADHD who experience "time blindness" (difficulty sensing time passage or estimating task duration) standardized interview schedules create additional hurdles unrelated to actual job capabilities.

The Performance Calendar Conundrum

Annual performance systems expect everyone to balance past accomplishments, present performance, and future goals with equal emphasis: a temporal juggling act that feels natural to almost no one.

For past-oriented employees, forward-looking goal-setting exercises might feel disconnected from their experience-based thinking. Meanwhile, future-oriented employees often find detailed reporting on past metrics tedious compared to developing new possibilities. Career development discussions typically assume a strong future orientation without accommodating different temporal perspectives. The ubiquitous question "where do you want to be in five years" can be genuinely disorienting for present-oriented employees who excel at current mastery rather than long-range career planning. This temporal bias creates artificial advancement barriers unrelated to actual performance or potential.

The Daily Temporal Mismatch

Organizational cultures often privilege specific time orientations while creating friction for others. Fast-paced environments focused on future growth may undervalue the institutional knowledge that past-oriented employees provide. Traditional organizations might dismiss the vision and possibility-thinking that future-oriented employees bring.

Meeting structures typically reflect temporal biases as well. Agendas focusing primarily on forward planning without acknowledging historical lessons can alienate past-oriented participants. Discussions centered on historical analysis without connecting to present actions might disengage present-oriented employees. The assumption that everyone processes time identically creates unnecessary communication barriers that limit organizational effectiveness.

Project management approaches similarly reflect temporal biases. Methodologies emphasizing detailed future roadmaps may disadvantage present-oriented employees who excel at responding to immediate needs. Reactive systems without sufficient future planning create challenges for future-oriented employees who need to see broader trajectories. These temporal mismatches generate friction that has nothing to do with job capability and everything to do with neurological variation.

Abstract vs Concrete Thinking: When Different Mental Models Collide

How your brain processes, understands, and communicates information varies dramatically across a spectrum from abstract thinking (conceptual, big-picture, theoretical approaches) to concrete thinking (specific, detailed, practical approaches). This neurological function shapes everything from how you solve problems to how you communicate ideas. Both extremes (as well as every variation in the middle) are absolutely required by society and every organization, yet it’s easy to find organizations that act as if only one thinking style has value. These organizations have constructed systems that systematically advantage certain thinking styles while creating barriers for others. Most workplaces claim to value both "strategic vision" and "attention to detail" (which are generally mutually exclusive for any given person), yet their practices, evaluation systems, and advancement paths typically reward one thinking style at the expense of the other. This cognitive mismatch costs companies the innovation and problem-solving power that comes from diverse thinking styles.

The ability to grasp symbolic concepts or focus on tangible details reflects natural neurological variation, not job capability. Yet this difference impacts everything from who gets hired to who gets promoted, creating artificial barriers that have nothing to do with actual contributions.

When Your Thinking Style Determines Your Career

The interview process operates as an invisible evaluation and screening for cognitive style. For concrete thinkers, open-ended strategic questions feel frustratingly vague. When asked about their "vision for transforming the department," concrete thinkers might struggle to articulate the abstract concepts interviewers expect, despite having excellent practical implementation skills that could drive actual results.

Abstract thinkers face the opposite challenge. Their big-picture responses to specific behavioral questions might seem evasive or unfocused to concrete-thinking interviewers. When asked to "walk through a specific example," abstract thinkers naturally emphasize patterns and principles rather than step-by-step details, coming across as impractical despite their valuable conceptual skills.

This hidden bias extends to job descriptions themselves, which often include contradictory requirements like "strategic vision" alongside "attention to detail" without clarifying which thinking style is actually needed for success. This cognitive bait-and-switch screens out qualified candidates whose thinking style doesn't match hidden interviewer preferences.

Measured Against the Wrong Yardstick

Performance evaluation systems typically align with either abstract conceptual approaches or detailed concrete approaches rather than accommodating both. This one-sided design creates advancement barriers based on thinking style rather than contribution.

Abstract thinkers might receive feedback like: "He's brilliant at strategy but needs to work on execution details." This vague criticism becomes a career-limiting assessment rather than an opportunity to match responsibilities to natural strengths. Research reveals that abstract-oriented managers tend to focus on outcome controls and broader effectiveness: a valuable approach that gets misinterpreted in organizations prioritizing concrete metrics.

Meanwhile, concrete thinkers often hear they need to be "more strategic" or "see the bigger picture" when their detailed focus prevents costly implementation failures. Their practical insights may mean that they get overlooked for leadership roles despite their crucial role in turning concepts into reality. This cognitive bias creates an advancement ceiling based on thinking style rather than capability or contribution.

When Workplaces Pick Sides

Daily workplace interactions amplify the cognitive divide. Documentation requirements often favor either conceptual frameworks or detailed specifications rather than accommodating both approaches. Abstract thinkers might struggle with requirements demanding extreme specificity, while concrete thinkers find strategic discussions frustratingly vague without clear action items.

Meeting structures typically privilege specific cognitive styles as well. Strategic planning sessions may operate at a level of abstraction that makes participation difficult for concrete thinkers. Implementation meetings might focus on specifics without providing the conceptual framework abstract thinkers need for context. This mismatch creates an exhausting translation burden for those whose thinking style doesn't align with the meeting format.

The cognitive divide appears even in task assignments. Abstract thinkers excel at conceptualizing new products but may struggle with detailed specifications. Concrete thinkers implement flawlessly but might have difficulty articulating overarching patterns. These complementary strengths could drive innovation through collaboration, but instead often become points of tension in workplaces that value one thinking style over the other.

Building Neurologically Inclusive Workplaces: A Unified Approach

After exploring these four neurological functions (emotional empathy, risk tolerance, temporal orientation, and abstract/concrete thinking), as well as those discussed in prior posts, a common pattern emerges. Workplaces consistently create unnecessary barriers by designing systems that privilege specific neurological profiles while disadvantaging others. This isn't just unfair to individuals; it actively undermines organizational effectiveness by screening out complementary perspectives and abilities.

The good news? The solution isn't complicated. Creating neurologically inclusive workplaces doesn't require massive restructuring; it requires recognizing that neurological diversity drives better outcomes across every dimension of organizational performance. We’ll dive in on this topic, as well as that of intersectionality across neurological function outliers, in our final post for this series.