According to the 2026 Neurodiversity Index, published by the City & Guilds Foundation, employers report confidence levels of 70–80 per cent in their ability to support neurodivergent staff. But only 32–38 per cent of neurodivergent employees say they feel psychologically safe at work, trust that adjustments will be made or believe their organisation understands their needs.
The reason the gap persists is partly structural. Birkbeck University research estimates that around a quarter of employees in corporate settings are neurodivergent, yet 76 per cent have not disclosed their condition at work — most often because they fear being misjudged or misunderstood. Many are undiagnosed. Support systems built around formal disclosure will miss most of the people they are designed to help.
The mental health toll of masking
What happens in the meantime is that people mask. Neurodivergent employees suppress their natural traits — forcing eye contact, processing conversations in real time when that takes considerable extra effort, appearing calm in environments they find overwhelming. One US survey of 2000 people found that 81 per cent of neurodivergent employees mask at work, often daily. Masking is linked to a threefold higher risk of burnout in neurodivergent staff and is one of the leading causes of absence in this group.
That burnout, when it arrives, is rarely identified for what it is. It gets treated as a general performance or wellbeing issue. The workplace design that caused it goes unexamined. According to NeuroBridge’s 2026 State of Neurodiversity report, neurodivergent professionals are twice as likely to experience high symptoms of burnout — and more than half have already taken time off due to inadequate workplace support.
As Professor Amanda Kirby, academic lead on the 2026 Index, has observed: awareness is no longer the issue. What matters now is how work is designed, managed and experienced day to day.
A governance and legal risk for boards
Neurodiversity has often been treated as a HR concern – something managed through policy documents and awareness campaigns, without meaningful accountability at board level. That position is increasingly being challenged.
Employment tribunal cases involving neurodivergent conditions have risen 95 per cent in five years, from 265 to 517 cases annually, according to analysis of HM Courts & Tribunals Service data by Irwin Mitchell. ADHD-related claims alone have increased eightfold since 2020. The average cost of defending a single tribunal now stands at £8,500 in legal costs alone, before any settlement or award.
The legal exposure is also widening. The Employment Rights Act 2025 is extending tribunal limitation periods and removing the compensation cap, which means high earners are more likely to bring claims. As employment law firm Thrive Law notes, prevention is not just the right thing to do — it is the only commercially rational approach.
Crucially, the duty to act does not depend on formal diagnosis. Under the Equality Act 2010, if an employer knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, that someone may need support, it is expected to consider adjustments. Systems that wait for disclosure will fall short of that standard — and tribunals are examining not what a staff handbook says but what happened in practice.
The talent case is compelling
The argument for neuroinclusion is not only about risk mitigation. It is also about the quality of the talent organisations are failing to develop and retain.
Birkbeck research found that more than 80 per cent of neurodivergent employees demonstrate hyperfocus, 78 per cent show heightened creativity and 75 per cent bring innovative thinking to their roles. These are qualities that many companies identify as priorities — and can struggle to find. Neurodivergent professionals also report high proficiency in leadership, resilience and technological literacy: the capabilities most in demand as organisations navigate AI-driven transformation.
Yet only 36 per cent of UK employers currently have a neurodiversity policy, and fewer than four in ten reference neurodiversity in their DEI strategy. Where neuroinclusion exists, it tends to depend on individual champions rather than embedded practice. When those champions move on, the progress goes with them.
The most effective organisations in 2026 are those where neuroinclusion is led from the C-suite. In practice, that means three things. First, manager capability needs to be built into how leaders are trained and assessed. Only 15 per cent of UK organisations say their managers feel confident recognising neurodivergent traits, yet managers are the primary driver of whether neuroinclusion works or fails. Second, onboarding processes need to change. The first weeks in a role are when neurodivergent employees are most likely to struggle and least likely to ask for help — yet most organisations offer no structured adjustment support at that stage. Third, conversations about working preferences need to become routine from the start of employment, rather than placing the burden on individuals to disclose and explain.
Warren Partners has long embedded cognitive diversity into its executive search work, assessing candidates on underlying competencies and personal capabilities rather than conventional career paths alone. The firm’s approach reflects a growing conviction — shared by the boards it works with — that the organisations which will perform best are those that can access and nurture the full range of human thinking. In other words, neuroinclusion becomes an operating principle – part of how boards govern, how leaders are recruited and how work is designed.
