Abstract
This dissertation examines how employers handle neurodiversity adjustments within recruitment and performance management processes, synthesising contemporary research to identify prevalent practices and persistent challenges. Through a comprehensive literature review, this study analyses the shift from conventional hiring methods towards skills-based, structured, and proactively adjusted processes designed to accommodate neurodivergent candidates. The review reveals that inclusive recruitment practices increasingly incorporate alternative assessments, interview modifications, proactive disclosure-safe messaging, and specialist partnerships with neurodivergent talent consultants. Regarding ongoing performance management, employers typically implement environmental modifications, flexible scheduling, task redesign around individual strengths, and enhanced communication protocols. However, the analysis identifies significant inconsistencies in implementation, with many organisations treating neurodiversity as an individual exception rather than embedding inclusive practices within core human resource systems. The findings highlight the effectiveness of strengths-based approaches underpinned by the ability–motivation–opportunity framework in optimising neurodivergent employee performance. This dissertation concludes that whilst progress has been made in neuroinclusive employment practices, substantial work remains to systematically integrate neurodiversity considerations throughout organisational structures and policies.
Introduction
Neurodiversity, a term coined by Australian sociologist Judy Singer in the late 1990s, refers to the natural variation in human neurological functioning, encompassing conditions such as autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, dyspraxia, and dyscalculia (Doyle, 2020). This neurodiversity paradigm represents a fundamental shift away from deficit-based medical models towards recognition that neurological differences constitute normal human variation deserving of respect and accommodation rather than correction or cure. Within employment contexts, this paradigm shift carries profound implications for how organisations design recruitment processes, manage performance, and create inclusive workplace environments.
The significance of examining neurodiversity adjustments in employment cannot be overstated. Conservative estimates suggest that between 15 and 20 per cent of the global population are neurodivergent, yet unemployment and underemployment rates among this population remain disproportionately high (Chammas and Hernandez, 2025). In the United Kingdom, autistic adults experience employment rates of approximately 22 per cent, dramatically lower than both the general population and individuals with other disabilities (Davies et al., 2023). This employment gap represents not only a significant social justice concern but also a substantial economic loss, as neurodivergent individuals frequently possess valuable cognitive abilities that remain untapped within conventional workplace structures.
Traditional recruitment and performance management processes were designed with neurotypical candidates and employees in mind, often inadvertently creating barriers for neurodivergent individuals. Conventional hiring practices emphasising unstructured interviews, social performance, and rigid assessment criteria systematically disadvantage candidates whose neurological profiles differ from the assumed norm (Khan et al., 2022). Similarly, performance management systems predicated upon assumptions of neurotypical communication styles, working patterns, and social interaction can fail to accurately capture the contributions of neurodivergent employees whilst simultaneously creating hostile or exclusionary working environments.
The legal landscape surrounding workplace disability accommodations provides an essential backdrop to this discussion. In the United Kingdom, the Equality Act 2010 places a duty upon employers to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees and job applicants, with many neurodivergent conditions qualifying as disabilities under the Act’s definition. Similarly, the Americans with Disabilities Act in the United States and equivalent legislation across European jurisdictions establish legal obligations for workplace accommodations. However, the extent to which organisations move beyond minimum legal compliance towards genuinely inclusive practices varies considerably (Rollnik-Sadowska and Grabińska, 2024).
Recent years have witnessed growing organisational interest in neurodiversity as companies increasingly recognise the competitive advantages associated with cognitively diverse workforces. Major technology companies, financial institutions, and professional services firms have established dedicated neurodiversity hiring programmes, whilst human resource professionals increasingly engage with neurodiversity concepts within diversity and inclusion strategies (Petty et al., 2025). Nevertheless, academic research reveals substantial gaps between stated intentions and actual practice, with many organisations struggling to translate neuroinclusive aspirations into systematic, embedded approaches.
This dissertation addresses a critical need for synthesised understanding of how employers currently handle neurodiversity adjustments across both recruitment and ongoing performance management processes. By examining the range of practices documented within contemporary research, identifying patterns of effective implementation, and highlighting persistent challenges, this work contributes to both academic discourse and practical guidance for organisations seeking to develop genuinely inclusive employment practices.
Aim and objectives
The primary aim of this dissertation is to critically examine and synthesise current knowledge regarding how employers handle neurodiversity adjustments within recruitment and performance management processes, identifying both prevalent practices and areas requiring further development.
To achieve this aim, the following objectives have been established:
1. To analyse the range of adjustments and modifications employers implement within recruitment processes to accommodate neurodivergent candidates, including alternative assessments, interview modifications, and proactive disclosure practices.
2. To examine the workplace accommodations and performance management approaches organisations utilise to support neurodivergent employees following recruitment, including environmental modifications, scheduling flexibility, and strengths-based evaluation frameworks.
3. To critically evaluate the theoretical frameworks, particularly the ability–motivation–opportunity model and strengths-based human resource management approaches, that underpin effective neurodiversity accommodation practices.
4. To identify gaps between documented best practices and actual organisational implementation, analysing factors that contribute to inconsistent or inadequate neurodiversity accommodation.
5. To provide evidence-based recommendations for employers seeking to develop more systematic and embedded approaches to neurodiversity within human resource systems.
Methodology
This dissertation employs a literature synthesis methodology, systematically reviewing and analysing published academic research to develop a comprehensive understanding of employer practices regarding neurodiversity adjustments. Literature synthesis represents an appropriate methodological approach when the research aim centres upon consolidating existing knowledge, identifying patterns across multiple studies, and generating integrated insights that individual studies cannot provide in isolation (Grant and Booth, 2009).
The literature search strategy utilised multiple academic databases, including Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycINFO, alongside the Consensus AI-powered research search engine. Search terms combined neurodiversity-related terminology (including neurodiversity, neurodivergent, autism, ADHD, dyslexia) with employment-related terms (recruitment, hiring, performance management, workplace adjustments, reasonable accommodations). The search was limited to peer-reviewed journal articles published in English, with particular emphasis upon research published within the past five years to ensure currency of findings given the rapidly evolving nature of organisational neurodiversity practices.
Inclusion criteria required that studies directly address employer practices, policies, or experiences relating to neurodiversity accommodation within recruitment or performance management contexts. Studies focusing exclusively upon clinical interventions, educational settings, or individual-level coping strategies without organisational dimensions were excluded. Both quantitative and qualitative research designs were included to capture the breadth of methodological approaches applied within this field.
The analysis process involved systematic extraction of key findings from included studies, organised thematically according to the dissertation’s objectives. Particular attention was paid to identifying convergent findings across multiple studies, noting methodological strengths and limitations, and recognising gaps within the existing evidence base. The theoretical frameworks employed within primary studies, notably the ability–motivation–opportunity model and strengths-based human resource management approaches, were examined to understand their application to neurodiversity accommodation contexts.
This methodological approach carries inherent limitations. Literature synthesis necessarily depends upon the quality and scope of available primary research, which in the neurodiversity employment field remains relatively nascent. Much existing research originates from specific national contexts, particularly the United Kingdom, United States, and Western European nations, potentially limiting generalisability to other cultural and legislative environments. Additionally, publication bias may result in overrepresentation of successful organisational initiatives relative to failed or inadequate approaches.
Literature review
Theoretical frameworks for understanding neurodiversity at work
Understanding employer approaches to neurodiversity adjustments requires engagement with the theoretical frameworks that inform both academic research and practical implementation. The ability–motivation–opportunity (AMO) framework, originally developed within strategic human resource management literature, has emerged as a particularly useful lens for analysing neurodiversity accommodation (Szulc et al., 2021). This framework posits that employee performance results from the interaction of abilities (skills, knowledge, and aptitudes), motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic factors driving engagement), and opportunities (organisational structures and resources enabling contribution). Applied to neurodivergent employees, the AMO framework highlights how conventional workplace structures may constrain opportunity despite high ability and motivation, suggesting that accommodation strategies should focus upon removing opportunity barriers rather than attempting to remediate perceived ability deficits.
Complementing the AMO framework, strengths-based human resource management approaches have gained traction within neurodiversity literature. Rather than conceptualising neurodivergent conditions through deficit lenses requiring correction, strengths-based approaches emphasise identifying and leveraging the distinctive cognitive capabilities frequently associated with neurodivergent profiles (Kersten et al., 2024). For autistic employees, these strengths may include exceptional pattern recognition, sustained concentration, systematic thinking, and attention to detail. For employees with ADHD, valued strengths may encompass creativity, innovative thinking, and ability to hyperfocus on engaging tasks. Strengths-based human resource management thus shifts organisational focus from minimising weaknesses towards optimising environments in which individual strengths can flourish.
The biopsychosocial model provides additional theoretical grounding for understanding workplace neurodiversity accommodation. Doyle (2020) argues that neurodivergent experiences in employment cannot be understood through biological or psychological factors alone but must incorporate analysis of social and environmental contexts. This model implies that the challenges neurodivergent employees encounter frequently arise from mismatches between individual needs and workplace environments rather than from inherent individual deficits. Accommodation strategies derived from biopsychosocial understanding therefore emphasise environmental modification and social support alongside any individual-level interventions.
Recruitment process adjustments
Contemporary research documents a gradual shift among employers from conventional, socially focused hiring practices towards skills-based, structured, and adjusted processes, though implementation remains inconsistent and frequently ad hoc. Traditional recruitment processes typically involve unstructured interviews emphasising social performance, CV screening that penalises non-linear career paths or unconventional presentation, and assessment methods favouring neurotypical communication styles (Khan et al., 2022). These conventional approaches systematically disadvantage neurodivergent candidates, whose interview performance may not accurately reflect job capabilities and whose career histories may reflect navigating inaccessible work environments rather than lack of competence or commitment.
Alternative assessment methods represent a primary domain of recruitment adjustment. Work trials, project-based tasks, and hands-on skills tests enable candidates to demonstrate job-relevant abilities in contexts more closely approximating actual work requirements than traditional interviews permit (Davies et al., 2023). Such assessments reduce reliance upon social performance and verbal self-presentation whilst providing evaluators with direct evidence of candidate capabilities. Research indicates that these alternative approaches more accurately predict actual job performance for both neurodivergent and neurotypical candidates, suggesting that neuroinclusive recruitment modifications frequently benefit all applicants.
Interview adjustments constitute another well-documented accommodation domain. Effective practices include advance sharing of interview questions, provision of clear agendas, choice of interview format between online and in-person options, sensory-considerate room arrangements, and flexible scheduling to avoid peak travel times or excessive time pressure (Chammas and Hernandez, 2025). These modifications reduce the cognitive load and sensory challenges that may impair neurodivergent candidate performance without affecting the validity of assessment for neurotypical candidates. Structured interview protocols, in which all candidates receive identical questions evaluated against predetermined criteria, both reduce bias and provide clearer expectations that benefit neurodivergent applicants.
Proactive communication regarding available adjustments represents an increasingly recognised best practice. Research by LeFevre-Levy et al. (2023) demonstrates that many neurodivergent candidates hesitate to request accommodations due to fear of stigma, discrimination, or negative evaluation. Proactive approaches involve including explicit adjustment offers within job advertisements, providing menus of possible accommodations without requiring disclosure of specific conditions, and creating disclosure-safe messaging that normalises accommodation requests. Such proactive stances shift the burden of initiating adjustment discussions from candidates to organisations, reducing barriers associated with stigma and uncertainty.
Specialist partnerships with neurodivergent talent consultants have emerged as an organisational strategy for redesigning recruitment processes. These consultancies provide expertise in identifying and removing barriers within job descriptions, screening processes, and onboarding procedures, frequently drawing upon lived experience perspectives that organisational human resource teams may lack. Research examining autism-specific talent consultancies documents their role in translating job requirements into accessible formats, coaching both candidates and hiring managers, and providing ongoing support through initial employment stages (Drader-Mazza et al., 2024).
Bias reduction strategies within recruitment increasingly incorporate both human and technological approaches. Training programmes for recruiters addressing neurodiversity awareness, unconscious bias, and disability-related stereotypes can modify evaluator behaviour and decision-making (Khan et al., 2022). Technological interventions include anonymised CV screening processes that remove names, photographs, and other potentially bias-inducing information, alongside artificial intelligence tools designed to evaluate candidates against job-relevant criteria whilst minimising irrelevant factors. George et al. (2025) examine the potential of AI systems to support neuroinclusive recruitment, noting both opportunities and risks associated with algorithmic approaches that may inadvertently encode existing biases.
Performance management and ongoing workplace adjustments
Following recruitment, organisations implement various adjustments to support neurodivergent employee performance, though many continue to rely upon informal, case-by-case solutions rather than systematically embedded approaches (Rollnik-Sadowska and Grabińska, 2024). Workplace accommodations for neurodivergent employees typically address environmental, scheduling, communication, and task-related factors, with effective approaches framing modifications through strengths-based rather than deficit-correction lenses.
Environmental modifications represent the most commonly documented workplace adjustment category. Physical workspace adaptations include reduced noise and visual distraction, access to quiet rooms or private spaces, provision of noise-cancelling headphones, lighting adjustments to reduce fluorescent flicker or glare, and flexibility in seating arrangements (Weber et al., 2022). These sensory environment modifications address the heightened sensory sensitivities many neurodivergent individuals experience, reducing cognitive load consumed by filtering environmental stimuli and enabling greater focus upon work tasks. Doyle (2020) emphasises that such modifications typically carry minimal cost whilst substantially improving working conditions for affected employees.
Schedule and location flexibility have become increasingly prominent accommodation strategies, particularly following the widespread normalisation of remote and hybrid working precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Flexible working hours enable employees to manage energy levels, medication schedules, and sensory load across the working day, whilst remote working options reduce commuting stress and provide greater control over working environments. Research by Branicki et al. (2024) demonstrates that access to flexible and homeworking practices significantly shapes employment outcomes for neurodivergent workers, improving job security and reducing underemployment. These findings suggest that pandemic-induced working pattern changes may have inadvertently created more accessible working environments for many neurodivergent employees.
Task and role design adjustments involve modifying job responsibilities to align with neurodivergent cognitive profiles. Job crafting approaches emphasise building roles around individual strengths such as pattern recognition, systematic analysis, attention to detail, or creative thinking, whilst reducing demands in areas of potential difficulty such as multitasking, social navigation, or unstructured problem-solving (Nair et al., 2025). This approach requires organisations to adopt flexible role definitions and to recognise that optimal performance may emerge from differently configured roles rather than from requiring all employees to perform identically. Gottardello et al. (2025) highlight the importance of considering intersectional factors when designing role accommodations, as neurodivergent employees from ethnic minority backgrounds may face compound stereotyping affecting role assignment and performance expectations.
Communication and management adjustments address the frequent mismatch between neurotypical communication norms embedded within workplace cultures and neurodivergent communication styles. Effective practices include providing clear written instructions, establishing predictable routines and advance notice of changes, offering explicit rather than implicit feedback, and breaking performance expectations into concrete, specific tasks (Kersten et al., 2024). Line manager training is crucial to implementing communication adjustments effectively, as immediate supervisors typically mediate the relationship between organisational policies and individual employee experiences. Research consistently identifies manager capability and attitudes as significant determinants of neurodivergent employee workplace outcomes.
Performance evaluation systems themselves require adaptation to avoid systematically disadvantaging neurodivergent employees. Conventional performance criteria frequently incorporate assumptions regarding neurotypical communication, social interaction, and working styles that may penalise neurodivergent employees regardless of their actual work output quality. Strengths-based performance management approaches align evaluation metrics and development plans with individual cognitive profiles, assessing performance against role requirements that have themselves been designed to leverage individual capabilities (Kersten et al., 2024). The AMO framework again proves useful here, suggesting that performance discussions should address whether organisations have provided appropriate opportunities for employee success rather than focusing exclusively upon individual performance outcomes.
Barriers to effective implementation
Despite growing awareness and documented best practices, research reveals substantial barriers to effective neurodiversity accommodation implementation. Many organisations treat neurodiversity adjustments as individual exceptions handled through reactive, ad hoc processes rather than embedding neuroinclusive practices within core human resource systems (Blackburn, 2023). This approach creates inconsistency across departments and managers, places excessive burden upon individual employees to request and negotiate accommodations, and fails to generate organisational learning that might improve future practice.
Disclosure dilemmas represent a fundamental barrier to accommodation access. Neurodivergent employees must typically disclose their conditions to access workplace adjustments, yet disclosure carries significant risks including stigma, discrimination, and career limitation (LeFevre-Levy et al., 2023). Research indicates that many neurodivergent employees choose not to disclose, thereby forgoing potentially beneficial accommodations to protect themselves from perceived negative consequences. Organisations that fail to create genuinely safe disclosure environments may thus systematically underestimate their neurodivergent employee populations whilst simultaneously underserving them.
Manager capability and attitudes significantly influence accommodation quality. Line managers lacking neurodiversity awareness may fail to recognise accommodation needs, implement adjustments inadequately, or create hostile environments through misunderstanding of neurodivergent behaviours and communication styles. Research identifies manager training as essential to effective implementation, yet many organisations provide limited or no such training (Khan et al., 2022).
Resource constraints and perceived costs may deter organisations from implementing comprehensive accommodation strategies, despite evidence that many effective adjustments carry minimal financial expense. Organisations may overestimate accommodation costs whilst underestimating the productivity, retention, and innovation benefits associated with inclusive practices. The tendency to conceptualise accommodations as costly exceptions rather than as standard features of flexible, accessible workplaces contributes to this perception.
Discussion
The literature synthesis reveals a field in transition, with employers increasingly recognising the importance of neurodiversity adjustments whilst struggling to move from ad hoc, reactive approaches towards systematically embedded practices. This discussion critically analyses the key findings in relation to the stated objectives, examining implications for organisational practice and academic understanding.
Regarding the first objective, the analysis demonstrates that employers implement diverse recruitment adjustments including alternative assessments, interview modifications, proactive disclosure messaging, bias reduction training, and specialist consultancy partnerships. These practices collectively represent a meaningful departure from conventional recruitment approaches that systematically disadvantaged neurodivergent candidates. However, the evidence also reveals significant inconsistency in implementation, with practices varying substantially across organisations, industries, and geographical contexts. The comparison between typical and neuroinclusive recruitment practices summarised within the literature highlights the magnitude of change required to move from standard approaches towards genuinely accessible processes. Particularly notable is the shift from reactive adjustment provision upon disclosure to proactive menus of options offered to all candidates, which addresses the disclosure barriers that prevent many neurodivergent individuals from accessing accommodations.
The second objective concerned ongoing workplace accommodations and performance management approaches. The analysis identifies environmental modifications, scheduling flexibility, task redesign, and communication adjustments as primary accommodation domains. These findings align with biopsychosocial understanding of neurodiversity, emphasising environmental and social factors rather than individual deficits. The literature strongly supports flexible and remote working options as particularly effective accommodations, with research demonstrating significant employment outcome improvements for neurodivergent workers with access to such arrangements (Branicki et al., 2024). This finding carries substantial practical implications, suggesting that workplace flexibility policies adopted for broader reasons may inadvertently create more accessible environments for neurodivergent employees.
The third objective addressed theoretical frameworks underpinning effective accommodation practices. The ability–motivation–opportunity framework emerges as a powerful lens for understanding neurodiversity accommodation, shifting focus from individual ability remediation towards removing environmental and structural opportunity barriers (Szulc et al., 2021). Strengths-based human resource management approaches complement this framework, emphasising the distinctive capabilities neurodivergent employees may contribute when appropriately supported. These theoretical orientations represent significant departures from deficit-based approaches that conceptualise neurodivergent conditions as problems requiring correction. The practical implications of adopting AMO and strengths-based frameworks include redesigning performance criteria to capture diverse contribution forms, providing managers with frameworks for identifying and leveraging individual strengths, and evaluating organisational practices in terms of opportunity provision rather than individual performance alone.
The fourth objective concerned identifying gaps between documented best practices and actual implementation. The analysis reveals that many organisations continue treating neurodiversity as an individual exception requiring case-by-case management rather than embedding inclusive practices within standard human resource systems. This gap reflects multiple factors including disclosure barriers that mask true neurodivergent employee populations, limited manager capability and training, resource perception issues, and insufficient recognition of business benefits associated with neuroinclusive approaches. The tendency towards legal compliance minimalism rather than genuine inclusion perpetuates inadequate accommodation practices. Organisations that view adjustments primarily through risk management rather than talent optimisation lenses are unlikely to develop the systematic, embedded approaches that research identifies as most effective.
The intersection of neurodiversity with other diversity dimensions warrants particular attention. Gottardello et al. (2025) demonstrate that neurodivergent employees from ethnic minority backgrounds face compound stereotyping affecting their workplace experiences and accommodation access. This intersectional perspective suggests that neurodiversity accommodation strategies must account for how neurological differences interact with other identity dimensions, avoiding one-dimensional approaches that may benefit some neurodivergent individuals whilst failing others. Future research and practice should increasingly incorporate intersectional analysis to develop more nuanced understanding of diverse neurodivergent employee experiences.
The role of artificial intelligence in neuroinclusive recruitment presents both opportunities and challenges. AI tools may reduce human bias in screening and evaluation processes, yet may also encode existing biases within algorithmic decision-making (George et al., 2025). Organisations adopting AI-assisted recruitment must carefully evaluate whether such tools support or undermine neuroinclusive objectives, recognising that technological solutions cannot substitute for cultural and systemic change.
Conclusions
This dissertation has examined how employers handle neurodiversity adjustments within recruitment and performance management processes, synthesising contemporary research to develop integrated understanding of current practices, theoretical frameworks, and implementation challenges. The analysis demonstrates that the stated objectives have been substantively achieved.
The first objective sought to analyse recruitment adjustments for neurodivergent candidates. The literature synthesis reveals that employers increasingly implement alternative assessments, interview modifications, proactive disclosure messaging, bias reduction strategies, and specialist consultancy partnerships. These practices represent meaningful progress towards accessible recruitment, though implementation remains inconsistent across organisations. The shift from reactive to proactive adjustment provision emerges as particularly significant for addressing disclosure barriers.
The second objective examined ongoing workplace accommodations and performance management approaches. Environmental modifications, scheduling flexibility, task redesign, and communication adjustments constitute primary accommodation domains. Flexible and remote working arrangements demonstrate particular effectiveness in improving neurodivergent employment outcomes, suggesting that workplace flexibility policies carry neuroinclusive benefits extending beyond their primary purposes.
The third objective evaluated theoretical frameworks underpinning effective accommodation. The ability–motivation–opportunity framework and strengths-based human resource management approaches provide powerful conceptual foundations for neuroinclusive practice, shifting focus from individual deficit remediation towards environmental opportunity provision and capability leverage.
The fourth objective identified implementation gaps, revealing that many organisations continue treating neurodiversity as an individual exception rather than embedding inclusive practices systematically. Disclosure barriers, limited manager capability, resource perceptions, and compliance minimalism contribute to this implementation gap.
The fifth objective sought evidence-based recommendations for employer practice. Based upon the synthesised evidence, organisations seeking to develop more effective neurodiversity accommodation approaches should consider adopting proactive adjustment offers that do not require disclosure, implementing structured and skills-based recruitment processes, providing comprehensive manager training, designing roles around individual strengths rather than standardised expectations, and embedding neuroinclusive considerations within core human resource systems rather than treating them as exceptional circumstances.
The significance of these findings extends beyond academic understanding to practical application. The employment gap affecting neurodivergent individuals represents both a social justice failure and an economic inefficiency. Organisations that successfully implement neuroinclusive practices may access valuable talent pools that competitors overlook, whilst neurodivergent individuals may achieve employment outcomes commensurate with their capabilities. The broader normalisation of flexible working, accelerated by pandemic-related changes, creates opportunities for embedding neuroinclusive practices within standard workplace configurations.
Future research should address several identified gaps. Longitudinal studies examining the long-term outcomes of neuroinclusive practices would strengthen the evidence base for organisational decision-making. Intersectional research incorporating how neurodiversity interacts with other diversity dimensions requires further development. Cross-cultural comparative research would enhance understanding of how different legislative, cultural, and economic contexts shape neurodiversity accommodation practices. Finally, research examining the perspectives and experiences of neurodivergent individuals themselves, rather than focusing primarily upon organisational practices, would ensure that academic discourse remains grounded in lived experience.
In conclusion, whilst employers are making meaningful progress towards neuroinclusive recruitment and performance management practices, substantial work remains to move from ad hoc, reactive approaches towards systematically embedded inclusion. The theoretical frameworks, documented practices, and implementation challenges examined within this dissertation provide foundations for both continued academic inquiry and practical organisational development in this increasingly important field.
References
Blackburn, B. (2023) ‘Managing neurodiversity in workplaces’, *Occupational Medicine*, 73(2), pp. 57-58. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqac142
Branicki, L., Brammer, S., Brosnan, M., Lazaro, A., Lattanzio, S. and Newnes, L. (2024) ‘Factors shaping the employment outcomes of neurodivergent and neurotypical people: Exploring the role of flexible and homeworking practices’, *Human Resource Management*. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22243
Chammas, C. and Hernandez, J. (2025) ‘Fostering the Neurodiversity of Employees: From the Systematic Literature Review to Managerial Proposals’, *International Journal of Training and Development*. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12376
Davies, J., Heasman, B., Livesey, A., Walker, A., Pellicano, E. and Remington, A. (2023) ‘Access to employment: A comparison of autistic, neurodivergent and neurotypical adults’ experiences of hiring processes in the United Kingdom’, *Autism*, 27(6), pp. 1746-1763. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613221145377
Doyle, N. (2020) ‘Neurodiversity at work: a biopsychosocial model and the impact on working adults’, *British Medical Bulletin*, 135(1), pp. 108-125. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldaa021
Drader-Mazza, N., Lopez-Kidwell, V., Kanwal, F., Reger, R. and Vogus, T. (2024) ‘The Double Empathy Problem and Person-Environment Fit: Mutual Understanding and Bidirectional Adjustment in Autistic Talent Acquisition’, *Human Resource Management*. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22258
George, G., Kulkarni, M. and Varghese, B. (2025) ‘AI in creating inclusive work environments for neurodiverse employees’, *Advances in Autism*. https://doi.org/10.1108/aia-05-2025-0046
Gottardello, D., Calvard, T. and Song, J. (2025) ‘When Neurodiversity and Ethnicity Combine: Intersectional Stereotyping and Workplace Experiences of Neurodivergent Ethnic Minority Employees’, *Human Resource Management*. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22286
Grant, M.J. and Booth, A. (2009) ‘A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies’, *Health Information and Libraries Journal*, 26(2), pp. 91-108.
Kersten, A., Scholz, F., Van, M., Krabbenborg, M. and Smeets, L. (2024) ‘A Strengths-Based Human Resource Management Approach to Neurodiversity: A Multi-Actor Qualitative Study’, *Human Resource Management*. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22261
Khan, M., Grabarski, M., Ali, M. and Buckmaster, S. (2022) ‘Insights into Creating and Managing an Inclusive Neurodiverse Workplace for Positive Outcomes: A Multistaged Theoretical Framework’, *Group & Organization Management*, 48(5), pp. 1339-1386. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221133583
LeFevre-Levy, R., Melson-Silimon, A., Harmata, R., Hulett, A. and Carter, N. (2023) ‘Neurodiversity in the workplace: Considering neuroatypicality as a form of diversity’, *Industrial and Organizational Psychology*, 16(1), pp. 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.86
Nair, V., Kumar, S. and Bhargava, S. (2025) ‘Mapping the lacunae between neurodivergent individuals and work organizations’, *Acta Psychologica*, 258, 105133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105133
Petty, S., Hanser, C., Williams, J. and Hamilton, L. (2025) ‘Sharing an Example of Neurodiversity Affirmative Hiring’, *Autism in Adulthood*. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2024.0134
Rollnik-Sadowska, E. and Grabińska, V. (2024) ‘Managing Neurodiversity in Workplaces: A Review and Future Research Agenda for Sustainable Human Resource Management’, *Sustainability*, 16(15), 6594. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156594
Szulc, J., Davies, J., Tomczak, M. and McGregor, F. (2021) ‘AMO perspectives on the well-being of neurodivergent human capital’, *Employee Relations: The International Journal*, 43(4), pp. 858-872. https://doi.org/10.1108/er-09-2020-0446
Weber, C., Krieger, B., Häne, E., Yarker, J. and McDowall, A. (2022) ‘Physical Workplace Adjustments to Support Neurodivergent Workers: A Systematic Review’, *Applied Psychology*, 72(3), pp. 1229-1259. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12431
