Neurodiversity at Work: Are Your Managers Mistaking Difference for Poor Performance?

An employee who avoids eye contact may be labelled rude. Someone who asks the same question repeatedly may be seen as difficult. But what if the manager has misunderstood the behaviour entirely? With new research highlighting the importance of supporting neurodivergent employees, it’s time to ask whether our managers are making assumptions that could be costing businesses valuable people.

I’ve spent many years advising employers on workplace problems, and one thing keeps striking me: how quickly we form opinions about people based on how they behave.

An employee who contributes little during meetings might be described as disengaged. Someone who needs instructions repeated may be considered inattentive. A staff member who struggles when plans change at short notice might be labelled inflexible or difficult.

Sometimes those observations reflect genuine performance or conduct concerns. But sometimes another explanation exists, and the manager hasn’t considered it.

This is particularly relevant when we consider neurodiversity in the workplace.

A report published by the Department for Work and Pensions on 2 October 2026, drawing on an independent Expert Academic Panel on Neurodiversity, has renewed attention to how employers support neurodivergent people at work.

Key messages include the need to focus on individual workplace needs rather than assuming support must start with a formal medical diagnosis.

For me, however, the most important issue is what happens long before an employee asks for an adjustment or discloses a condition.

What happens when a manager sees behaviour they don’t understand and immediately assumes the worst?

The danger of making assumptions about employees

We all make assumptions. It’s human nature.

The difficulty arises when those assumptions shape how a manager manages, assesses, or treats an employee.

Imagine a manager whose employee rarely makes eye contact during conversations. The manager might interpret this as a lack of confidence, disinterest or even disrespect.

Or consider an employee who struggles to respond immediately when asked an unexpected question in a meeting. Their manager may assume they haven’t prepared or don’t understand their work.

Then there’s the employee who seems frustrated when their routine changes, or who needs instructions presented a particular way.

It’s easy to interpret these behaviours negatively.

But neurodivergent people may communicate, process information, manage sensory input or respond to situations differently.

Neurodivergence can include autism, ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia, amongst other neurological differences.

That doesn’t mean everyone with one of these conditions will behave in a particular way. Quite the opposite.

Two people with the same diagnosis may have completely different strengths, challenges and preferences.

Managers also shouldn’t assume someone is neurodivergent simply because they display certain behaviours.

The point is that managers should be curious before they are critical.

Instead of immediately deciding someone is difficult, careless, or unwilling to cooperate, the first question should be whether the manager has missed something.

When a misunderstanding becomes a performance problem

This is where I believe employers face the real risk.

A manager notices that an employee is struggling with certain tasks.

They become frustrated because instructions don’t seem to be followed, deadlines are missed, or mistakes keep occurring.

The manager tells the employee to improve, but doesn’t explore why the difficulties are happening.

Over time, the situation escalates. Informal conversations become formal performance meetings. The employee becomes increasingly anxious or defensive, and the manager becomes convinced the problem is attitude or capability.

Eventually, the employer may consider disciplinary or capability action.

But what if the employee has been struggling because instructions are unclear, their work environment is overwhelming, or task allocation makes it hard for them to prioritise?

What if a relatively straightforward adjustment could have addressed the problem months earlier?

I’m not suggesting neurodiversity explains every workplace difficulty. Employees can underperform for many reasons, and employers are entitled to maintain reasonable standards.

But before embarking on a formal process, managers should make sure they understand the problem they’re trying to solve.

An employee who is unwilling to meet expectations is different from one who is struggling to meet them without appropriate support.

The only reliable way to start understanding that difference is to have a proper conversation.

Why managers shouldn’t wait for a formal diagnosis

One of the most useful messages from the Government’s recent report is that employers should focus on what an individual needs to work effectively, rather than waiting for a formal diagnosis.

This matters because I still encounter situations where employers believe they cannot consider workplace adjustments until an employee produces medical evidence confirming a particular condition.

That isn’t necessarily the case.

Under the Equality Act 2010, an employee does not need a formal medical diagnosis to meet the legal definition of disability.

What matters is whether they have a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

Not every neurodivergent person meets that definition, and employers are not automatically required to agree to every requested adjustment.

However, the duty to make reasonable adjustments can arise where an employer knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, that an employee has a disability and is likely to experience a relevant disadvantage.

Waiting for a formal diagnosis is therefore not necessarily a defence.

But I would encourage managers to think beyond the legal position.

If an employee explains that something about their working environment is difficult, why would we automatically refuse to explore a solution?

Imagine someone tells their manager they struggle to concentrate because of constant office interruptions.

They suspect they may have ADHD but are waiting for an assessment.

Does the manager really need to wait months for a medical appointment before considering whether the employee could work somewhere quieter for part of the day?

That adjustment may not be practical. Perhaps another arrangement would work better.

But surely it’s worth having the conversation.

We should not need a diagnosis before we start managing people thoughtfully.

Sometimes good management is the adjustment

I think one misconception about reasonable adjustments is that they must involve specialist equipment, expensive assessments, or significant changes to how a business operates.

Sometimes they do involve additional resources, and employers need to consider what is reasonable in their particular circumstances.

But many practical adjustments are surprisingly straightforward.

Consider an employee who struggles to process several verbal instructions given in quick succession.

Their manager could follow up a conversation with a short email setting out the tasks, priorities and deadlines.

Or perhaps someone finds constant interruptions make it difficult to complete detailed work. Could they agree on a period each day when they can concentrate without unnecessary disruption?

An employee who struggles with unexpected changes might benefit from advance notice wherever possible.

Others may find written agendas, clearer deadlines, regular check-ins or more structured meetings helpful.

None of these approaches necessarily involves significant expense.

And here’s something else worth considering.

Aren’t these simply examples of good management?

Clear instructions, realistic expectations, effective communication and sensible planning benefit almost everyone.

We shouldn’t assume every employee needs to work the same way to achieve the same result.

The objective should be to help people perform effectively whilst maintaining the standards the business reasonably requires.

Line managers are often the first to notice — but are they equipped to respond?

This is an area I would particularly encourage employers to consider.

Line managers usually notice changes in behaviour, recurring mistakes, difficulties with colleagues, or signs that an employee is struggling.

They’re also often the first person an employee approaches when something isn’t working.

Yet many managers have received little formal training in managing people.

They may have been promoted because they’re technically excellent, experienced or reliable. Those are valuable qualities, but they don’t automatically equip someone to handle sensitive conversations about disability, performance or workplace adjustments.

When a manager isn’t sure what to say, they may avoid the conversation altogether.

Alternatively, they may become overly formal, defensive or concerned about agreeing to something that could create difficulties for the wider team.

I can understand those concerns.

But managers don’t need to be medical experts, and they certainly shouldn’t attempt to diagnose employees.

They need to know how to listen, ask appropriate questions and recognise when to involve HR.

For example, instead of saying, “You never seem to listen when I give you instructions,” a manager could ask:

“What parts of the work are you finding difficult, and is there anything about the way we’re organising things that might be making it harder?”

That is a very different conversation.

It doesn’t excuse mistakes or remove accountability. It simply creates an opportunity to understand what might be happening.

Managers should also know when to seek further advice from HR, occupational health, or another appropriate professional.

Importantly, record any adjustments discussed, agree them where appropriate, and review them to see whether they’re working.

Good intentions are helpful, but they need to translate into action.

Supporting neurodivergent employees doesn’t mean ignoring poor performance

I want to be clear about this point because smaller employers understandably worry about it.

Supporting an employee who is neurodivergent, or who may have a disability, does not mean abandoning performance standards.

Businesses still need employees to carry out their duties, meet reasonable deadlines, follow appropriate instructions and behave professionally.

An employer can address genuine performance and conduct concerns.

However, it must also consider whether how work is organised, expectations are communicated, or performance is assessed may put a disabled employee at a disadvantage.

For example, an employee who repeatedly misses deadlines may need clearer priorities or more structured supervision.

If appropriate adjustments are introduced, the employer can then assess whether they have made a difference.

Performance may remain unsatisfactory, even after reasonable support has been provided.

Not every requested adjustment will be reasonable or workable, particularly where genuine operational constraints exist.

The key is to make decisions fairly, based on the circumstances, not assumptions.

Support and accountability are not opposites. Good management requires both.

What happens when managers get it wrong?

The consequences can be significant for both the employee and the business.

An employee who feels misunderstood may lose confidence, become anxious about coming to work or disengage from their role.

Difficulties that could have been resolved relatively easily may develop into sickness absence, grievances or deteriorating working relationships.

The business may lose someone who could have become a valuable, productive member of the team.

There is also a legal dimension.

If an employee meets the Equality Act definition of disability, an employer’s failure to consider and implement required reasonable adjustments can lead to a disability discrimination claim.

Other forms of disability discrimination may also arise, depending on the circumstances.

Unlike ordinary unfair dismissal, disability discrimination protection does not depend on an employee having completed a particular length of service.

That is especially important for employers managing employees during probation or the early stages of employment.

The Government’s Expert Academic Panel has also recommended that employers should respond to reasonable adjustment requests within two weeks.

At the time of writing, this is a recommendation rather than a statutory deadline.

Nevertheless, it reinforces an important principle: employers should address requests for support promptly rather than letting them remain unresolved.

From a commercial perspective, the argument is equally compelling.

Recruiting and training employees costs money. Replacing experienced staff takes time.

Losing someone because a manager failed to recognise that a different approach might have helped is an avoidable expense that most SMEs can ill afford.

What should employers be asking their managers?

I don’t believe every small business needs an elaborate neurodiversity programme.

But I do believe employers should be confident that their managers understand their responsibilities and know how to respond appropriately.

That starts with asking some straightforward questions.

When a manager notices that an employee is struggling, do they explore the reasons before reaching conclusions?

Do they understand that a formal diagnosis is not always necessary before workplace adjustments should be considered?

Are they confident about having sensitive conversations without making assumptions or attempting to diagnose someone?

Do they know when to involve HR, and do they record and review any agreed support?

And perhaps most importantly, do they recognise that different employees may need different approaches to achieve the same reasonable workplace standards?

These questions don’t require a large HR department or an unlimited training budget.

They are fundamental questions about how people are managed.

Final thoughts: Before you label an employee, have the conversation

The Government’s recent report is a useful reminder that neurodiversity isn’t simply a matter of medical diagnoses, specialist policies or legal obligations.

It’s also about the everyday decisions managers make.

How they interpret someone’s behaviour. How they respond when an employee struggles. Whether they ask questions or make assumptions. And whether they are prepared to consider a different approach when the usual one isn’t working.

In my experience, some of the most difficult workplace situations begin with something relatively small.

A misunderstanding goes unchallenged. A manager becomes frustrated. An employee feels unfairly criticised. Communication breaks down, and before long, what could have been a manageable issue has become a much more serious problem.

I’m not suggesting that better communication can solve every workplace difficulty, or that every request for an adjustment can be accommodated.

Employers have legitimate business needs, and we must take those into account.

But there is a considerable difference between deciding that something isn’t workable after properly considering it and dismissing the possibility without exploring it at all.

Before we label an employee difficult, careless, disengaged or underperforming, perhaps we should first ask whether we’ve really understood them.

And that starts with giving our managers the confidence to have better conversations.

At HR:4UK, we support employers with the practical challenges of managing people, including performance concerns, reasonable adjustments, sickness absence and disability-related workplace issues.

If you’re concerned your managers may struggle to recognise when an employee needs support, or you’re unsure how to balance reasonable adjustments with performance expectations, speak to an HR:4UK consultant. We’re here to help you find a fair, practical approach that works for your business.