As part of Dyslexia Awareness Week (5th – 11th October 2026), Nat Hawley, a UK workplace-neuroinclusion consultant who combines lived experience of dyslexia, dyspraxia and autism with an MSc in Applied Neuroscience and practical work, explores why workplace support should not depend on having a neurodivergent diagnosis, and how employers can design more accessible ways of working for everyone.
Workers should not have to prove a diagnosis before everyday work systems become usable. Yet many people only receive clear instructions, predictable communication or flexibility after they disclose personal information and ask for formal adjustments. That leaves people waiting for an assessment, without access to one, or who simply don’t feel safe disclosing with a difficult choice: struggle quietly or reveal more than they want to.
I know this tension both personally and professionally. I am dyslexic, dyspraxic and autistic. My consultancy work focuses on the ordinary systems that shape whether different minds can do good work: recruitment, onboarding, line management, adjustments, retention, progression and workplace design. The recurring lesson is simple. Support works better when accessibility is built into how work is organised, not held back until someone can produce the right label.
The hidden cost of having to ask for reasonable adjustments
Disclosure is often treated as a straightforward administrative step. In reality, it can involve uncertainty about how a manager will react, who will see the information, whether the person will be judged differently and whether anything useful will change. Even when a conversation goes well, the employee may need to repeat it after a restructure, a new manager or a move to another project.
The burden is not limited to a single meeting. Someone may spend weeks compensating for inaccessible documents, unclear priorities, rapid verbal instructions or constant task switching before they decide that asking for help is worth the risk. Strong performance can hide that effort. A manager sees the finished work, but not the extra checking, late-night catching up or cognitive fatigue required to produce it.
Diagnosis-dependent support also excludes people unevenly. Assessment can be expensive, slow or unavailable. Some people recognise a pattern in themselves without having formal documentation. Others have a diagnosis but do not want it to become workplace currency. If practical help is restricted to people who can repeatedly prove their need, access depends as much on resources and confidence as it does on the barrier itself.
Design the work before demanding neurodivergent diagnosis disclosure
Employers do not need to know every employee’s medical history to remove common sources of friction. Many useful changes are simply good management. Written priorities after a conversation help people who process information differently and colleagues juggling several tasks. Short, ordered instructions reduce ambiguity. Advance notice of changes gives people time to re-plan. Predictable check-ins make it easier to raise a problem early, before it becomes a crisis.
Choice of format matters too. Some people understand a task best through a short written brief; others benefit from an example, a diagram or a quick conversation followed by notes. Offering more than one route does not lower standards. It improves the chance that the standard is understood. The same principle applies to meetings: an agenda beforehand, clear decisions afterwards and permission to contribute in writing can widen participation without identifying anyone as different.
This is support before disclosure. It does not replace individual adjustments, specialist equipment or an employer’s legal responsibilities. It creates a more usable baseline, so fewer people must reveal private information merely to obtain clarity, consistency and a reasonable way to work.
Read: From Binman To Boardroom: How I Unleashed My Neurodivergent Talent
Respond to barriers rather than testing identities
When someone does ask for help, the first question should be what is getting in the way, not whether their paperwork is persuasive enough. A barrier-focused conversation is practical: which tasks are difficult, when does the difficulty arise, what has helped before and what small change could be tried now? The answers may point to clearer deadlines, reduced interruptions for focused work, assistive technology, a different communication channel or a more structured handover.
Managers also need permission to offer low-risk interim support while a formal process is running. Waiting for perfect evidence can leave a person struggling for months. A trial adjustment with an agreed review date is often more informative than a long debate about assumptions. It shows whether the change helps and gives both sides something concrete to discuss.
Make support survive organisational change
An adjustment is only useful if it continues to exist. Too many arrangements depend on the memory or goodwill of one manager. When that person moves on, the employee is expected to explain everything again. Employers can reduce this repeat-disclosure burden by recording agreed adjustments appropriately, limiting access to those who need to know and reviewing the arrangement when the role changes.
The record should not become a static list filed away after onboarding. It should identify what the adjustment is meant to achieve, who is responsible for putting it in place and when it will be reviewed. If a system, workload or reporting line changes, the organisation should check whether the support still works. Continuity is part of inclusion.
What managers can do to create a truly neuroinclusive workplace
- Write down the team’s current priorities, owners and deadlines in one accessible place.
- Send short written summaries after conversations where work is assigned or changed.
- Give people a choice between at least two reasonable ways to receive instructions or contribute.
- Ask in one-to-ones what creates unnecessary friction, without requiring a diagnosis as the entry ticket.
- Check that existing adjustments are still active and have not quietly lapsed after a change of manager or project.
These steps cost little or nothing. More importantly, they move responsibility away from the individual having to explain and prove themselves repeatedly. They make access part of the job’s design.
Read: Why Employers Shouldn’t Fear Hiring People With A Learning Disability
Inclusion should not begin with a confession
Disclosure can still be valuable. It may open the door to tailored adjustments, legal protection and a more honest working relationship. But it should be a choice made in a context of trust, not the price of understandable instructions or considerate management.
A genuinely neuroinclusive workplace does not wait to discover who is dyslexic, dyspraxic, autistic or otherwise neurodivergent before improving how work happens. It treats clarity, flexibility and follow-through as normal. That approach will not remove every barrier, but it makes the workplace safer to navigate for people who disclose, people who do not and people who are still working out what they need.
Share your neuroinclusive workplace experiences
What has your experience been of accessing and navigating the workplace as a neurodivergent person? Have you had to disclose a diagnosis to access support, or have you found an employer that makes adjustments without requiring you to explain or prove your needs?
If you are a current employer, what are you doing to make your workplace more accessible and supportive for neurodivergent employees? We’d also like to hear about approaches that are working, as well as the challenges you are still trying to address.
Share your experiences and examples with us either in the comments box, on social media or contact us to share your personal story. Your insights could help build a clearer picture of what neuroinclusive workplaces look like in practice.