HR-Led Co-Design for Neuroinclusion: Transforming Neuronormative Organizations Through Critical Pragmatism and Sociotechnical Systems

Listen to this article:

Abstract: Despite increased awareness of neurodiversity in contemporary workplaces, organizational responses remain fragmented, compliance-driven, and disconnected from neurodivergent lived experiences. This article examines how human resource management can catalyze systemic transformation toward neuroinclusion through co-design approaches grounded in critical pragmatism and sociotechnical systems theory. Drawing on Özbilgin et al.'s (2025) process model, we identify four core organizational challenges—legal ambiguity, stakeholder ignorance and indifference, disclosure dilemmas, and resistance to change—that perpetuate neuronormativity. We propose evidence-based HR-led interventions centering neurodivergent voices in organizational redesign, including participatory awareness-building, inclusive policy co-creation, relational support mechanisms, and embedded feedback systems. These interventions yield anticipated outcomes of enhanced recognition, realized potential, improved engagement, and reduced barriers. This article contributes to HRM scholarship by repositioning human resources as facilitators of collaborative, justice-oriented, and iterative organizational change rather than administrators of procedural compliance. Implications for practice include the necessity of participatory research, cross-contextual implementation studies, intersectional analyses, and robust evaluation of co-designed HR systems that enable meaningful transformation toward neuroinclusive workplaces.

Between 15 and 20% of the global workforce exhibits neurodivergence—cognitive, sensory, or neurological differences such as ADHD, autism, dyslexia, and related conditions (Drabble et al., 2023). Yet contemporary organisations remain fundamentally structured around neuronormativity: the assumption that neurotypical functioning represents the default, desirable, and efficient mode of working (Benson, 2023; Huijg, 2020; Russo et al., 2022). This neuronormative design renders neurodivergent individuals systematically invisible, misrecognised, or marginalised within workplace systems (Doyle & Mcdowall, 2023; Russell & Rothenberg, 2024).

Despite growing societal recognition of neurodiversity across educational, medical, and policy domains (Palmer et al., 2019), most organizational interventions fail to challenge underlying neuronormative assumptions. Instead, they focus narrowly on awareness training or disclosure protocols, remaining top-down, compliance-oriented, and unable to dismantle the deep-rooted organizational norms that privilege neurotypical modes of thinking, behaving, and communicating (Erbil et al., 2025; Hennekam et al., 2023).

The stakes extend beyond individual accommodation to encompass fundamental questions of organizational justice, innovation capacity, and workforce sustainability. Neurodivergent individuals face structural disadvantages in recruitment, retention, career progression, and workplace wellbeing (Ezerins et al., 2024). Simultaneously, organizations forfeit substantial talent and innovation potential by designing systems that exclude neurodivergent capabilities (Austin & Pisano, 2017; Krzeminska et al., 2019).

This article addresses a critical gap between symbolic gestures toward neuroinclusion and systemic transformation. While prior scholarship acknowledges the limitations of conventional inclusion strategies (Russell & Rothenberg, 2024; Doyle, 2020), few studies offer processual, participatory frameworks for redesigning organizations around neurodivergent needs and capabilities. Drawing on Özbilgin et al.'s (2025) groundbreaking process model, we examine how HR can move beyond compliance to catalyze collaborative, justice-oriented organizational change.

We proceed in five sections: first, we explore the neurodiversity landscape in contemporary organizations; second, we analyze organizational and individual consequences of neuronormative design; third, we examine evidence-based HR-led co-design interventions; fourth, we consider long-term capacity-building for neuroinclusion; finally, we synthesize actionable insights for practitioners and researchers.

The Neuroinclusion Landscape in Contemporary Organizations

Defining Neurodiversity and Neuroinclusion in Workplace Contexts

Neurodiversity describes naturally occurring variation in human neurocognitive functioning (Singer, 1999). The term encompasses conditions including autism, ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, Tourette syndrome, and other neurological differences. Importantly, neurodiversity represents a social model rather than a medical deficit framework—recognising neurological variation as human diversity rather than pathology requiring remediation (Baron-Cohen, 2017).

Neuroinclusion extends beyond neurodiversity awareness to describe organisational systems, cultures, and practices designed to recognise, value, and leverage neurodivergent capabilities (Özbilgin et al., 2025). Where diversity acknowledges difference, inclusion ensures that difference translates into genuine belonging, participation, and opportunity (Nishii, 2013). Neuroinclusion therefore requires transforming organisational structures that systematically privilege neurotypical functioning.

Neuronormativity operates as what Huijg (2020) terms a "disciplinary logic"—shaping organisational expectations around productivity, communication, and interaction in alignment with neurotypical patterns rather than as neutral standards. This neuronormative design manifests across recruitment processes favouring traditional interviews, open-plan offices assuming universal sensory tolerance, communication norms privileging spontaneous verbal interaction, and performance management systems rewarding neurotypical executive functioning (Doyle & McDowall, 2022; Nash, 2024).

State of Practice: Prevalence, Drivers, and Distribution

Research based on medical identification suggests 15-20% of the population exhibits neurodivergence (Drabble et al., 2023). However, this estimate likely understates true prevalence, given barriers to diagnosis including cost, access to specialists, gender and cultural biases in diagnostic criteria, and individuals who reject pathologising labels (Baker et al., 2020; Doyle et al., 2022).

Contemporary neurodiversity employment initiatives remain concentrated in specific sectors—particularly technology organisations with resources and infrastructure to support reasonable adjustments (Austin & Pisano, 2017; Walkowiak, 2023). These programs, while promising, represent isolated pockets rather than systemic change. Critical scholarship warns that such initiatives often serve corporate reputation management rather than genuine structural transformation (Bernick, 2023; Silver et al., 2023).

Several drivers shape organisational engagement with neuroinclusion. Legal frameworks including the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 2006), the UK Equality Act, and the US Americans with Disabilities Act establish baseline protections. However, these frameworks often fail to capture neurodivergent realities, particularly for individuals without formal diagnosis or who reject medical categorisation (Baker et al., 2020; Andreassen et al., 2024).

Business case arguments emphasise neurodivergent individuals' distinctive capabilities in pattern recognition, systematic thinking, attention to detail, and creative problem-solving (Austin & Pisano, 2017). Yet over-reliance on business case logic risks instrumentalising neurodivergent employees and reinforcing deficit narratives when individuals don't conform to savant stereotypes (Doyle & Mcdowall, 2023).

Increasingly, justice-oriented and employee voice perspectives drive neuroinclusion efforts—recognising neurodivergent individuals' fundamental rights to workplace participation, dignity, and self-determination (Bell et al., 2011; Morillas, 2023). This orientation aligns with broader movements toward employee-centric, purpose-driven organisations (Cooke, 2024).

Organizational and Individual Consequences of Neuronormativity

Organisational Performance Impacts

Neuronormative organisational design generates substantial costs across recruitment, retention, innovation, and reputational dimensions. In recruitment, organisations forfeit exceptional talent through neurotypical-biased processes. Traditional interviews disadvantage neurodivergent candidates who may struggle with unstructured social interaction, direct eye contact, or spontaneous verbal articulation yet possess outstanding technical and analytical capabilities (Patton, 2019; Erickson et al., 2014).

Retention challenges compound recruitment difficulties. Neurodivergent employees experience higher turnover driven by workplace environments misaligned with their sensory, communication, and executive functioning needs (Khan et al., 2023). The costs of turnover—including recruitment expenses, training investments, and lost institutional knowledge—substantially impact organisational performance.

Innovation capacity suffers when organisations exclude neurodivergent perspectives. Diverse cognitive approaches enhance problem-solving, creativity, and adaptability (Krzeminska et al., 2019). Neurodivergent individuals often bring distinctive capabilities in pattern recognition, systems thinking, and unconventional approaches that drive innovation. Neuronormative environments that pressure conformity to neurotypical norms therefore reduce the cognitive diversity essential for innovation (Austin & Pisano, 2017).

Reputational and employer branding consequences increasingly matter as neurodiversity awareness grows. Organisations perceived as excluding neurodivergent individuals face talent acquisition challenges, consumer backlash, and reduced employee engagement among neurotypical allies (Ali et al., 2024; Hennekam & Follmer, 2024).

Individual Wellbeing and Stakeholder Impacts

Neuronormative workplaces exact severe costs on neurodivergent individuals' wellbeing, identity, and career outcomes. Doyle et al. (2022) document how neurodivergent employees, particularly those at intersections of multiple marginalised identities, experience compounded stigma affecting disclosure decisions, workplace belonging, and psychological safety.

The "passing" phenomenon—whereby neurodivergent individuals conceal their neurodivergence to conform to neurotypical norms—generates substantial emotional labour and identity conflict (Özbilgin et al., 2023; Santuzzi & Keating, 2022). Drawing on Goffman's (1963/2009) stigma framework, researchers show how strategic identity management allows neurodivergent individuals to navigate neuronormative environments but at considerable psychological cost.

Disclosure dilemmas intensify these challenges. Many neurodivergent employees avoid disclosure due to stigma fears, anticipated career disadvantage, or lack of formal diagnosis (Doyle et al., 2022). Yet non-disclosure precludes accessing necessary accommodations, creating a double bind: disclose and risk discrimination, or conceal and forfeit support.

Performance management systems designed around neurotypical executive functioning often misrecognise neurodivergent capabilities. Traditional feedback mechanisms emphasising errors and deficits rather than strengths and learning opportunities particularly disadvantage neurodivergent employees (Kluger & Nir, 2010; Seitz & Choo, 2022).

For neurodivergent individuals at intersections of race, gender, sexuality, and other marginalised identities, workplace challenges compound. Barnett (2024) and Doyle et al. (2022) demonstrate how intersecting stigmas produce deeper concealment, reduced disclosure, and intensified workplace marginalisation.

Evidence-Based Organizational Responses: HR-Led Co-Design Interventions

Table 1: Neurodiversity Inclusion Programs and Best Practices in Organizations

Organization	Program Name	Co-Design Methods	Key Interventions	Operational Adjustments	Support Mechanisms	Reported Outcomes
Microsoft	Neurodiversity Hiring Program	Partnership with neurodivergent individuals and autism advocacy organisations.	Redesign of hiring process; replacement of traditional interviews with extended assessment academies using hands-on projects.	Redesigned workplace accommodations and structured assessment environments.	Mentorship structures and career development pathways.	Enhanced ability for candidates to demonstrate capabilities without neurotypical social barriers.
SAP	Autism at Work	Working with neurodivergent employees and autism advocacy organisations to create policies reflecting actual needs.	Inclusive policy development; modified interview processes as standard practice; proactive accommodation culture.	Flexible work arrangements; sensory-friendly workspace options; structured onboarding.	Assigned mentors for onboarding; advocacy organisation support.	Accommodations positioned as enhancing all employees' experiences; reduced reliance on 'special case' requests.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE)	Dandelion Program	Quarterly review processes where neurodivergent participants evaluate program effectiveness and co-design new initiatives.	Embedded feedback and continuous improvement systems; recruitment and retention metrics tracking.	Workspace design changes; communication protocol adjustments; career development innovations.	Regular participatory evaluation and advocacy roles for neurodivergent participants.	Metrics-driven recruitment and retention success; executive accountability for inclusion goals.
Ernst & Young (EY)	Neurodiversity Centers of Excellence	Establishment of ongoing learning communities where neurotypical and neurodivergent employees collaboratively examine challenges.	Shared inquiry and awareness-building through ongoing learning communities.	Redesign of project allocation systems, client communication protocols, and workspace configurations.	Peer community and collaborative problem-solving groups.	Translation of awareness into structural change and innovative workplace solutions.
JPMorgan Chase	Autism at Work initiative	Not in source	Relational support infrastructure; confidential channels for requesting accommodations without formal disclosure.	Confidential accommodation request channels.	Assigned neurotypical mentors with neurodiversity-affirmative training; career coaches specializing in neurodivergent development; Employee Resource Groups (ERGs).	Infrastructure for safe disclosure and targeted career development.
Auticon	Not in source	Not in source	Exclusively employing autistic IT consultants; job coaching; client mediation.	Sensory-friendly office spaces with quiet rooms; adjustable environments; flexible work arrangements.	Job coaches supporting autistic employees; client communication mediated through support staff.	Enables consultants to leverage technical strengths without neuronormative workplace demands.
Specialisterne	Not in source	Participatory evaluation and knowledge management systems documenting effective practices.	Sourcing, training, and employing autistic individuals as consultants; research partnerships.	Not in source	Specialized training; global franchise network for neuroinclusion support.	Neuroinclusion embedded as 'organisational DNA'; global scaling of neurodiversity employment model.

The Co-Design Approach: Centring Neurodivergent Voices

Co-design represents a collaborative methodology engaging diverse stakeholders—particularly neurodivergent individuals—in shaping inclusive HR interventions (Özbilgin, 2024; Zamenopoulos & Alexiou, 2018). Rather than designing for neurodivergent employees, co-design positions them as co-architects of organisational systems, policies, and practices.

The co-design approach draws legitimacy from demonstrated effectiveness in healthcare, education, and service design, where it improves system responsiveness, equity, and user satisfaction (Palmer et al., 2019; Bate & Robert, 2023). In workplace contexts, co-design addresses persistent critiques that traditional Employee Resource Groups, while important for peer support, rarely generate substantive organisational redesign or reduce stigma (Colella & Bruyère, 2011; Silver et al., 2023).

Effective co-design practices for neuroinclusion:

• Ensuring authentic neurodivergent representation in design teams, not tokenistic participation

• Compensating neurodivergent co-designers for their expertise and labour

• Providing accessible participation formats accommodating diverse communication preferences, sensory needs, and executive functioning styles

• Establishing ongoing involvement mechanisms beyond initial design phases toward co-ownership and continuous improvement

• Creating psychologically safe spaces where neurodivergent individuals can articulate needs without stigma or career risk

Microsoft's Neurodiversity Hiring Program exemplifies effective co-design. Rather than adapting traditional recruitment to "accommodate" neurodivergent candidates, Microsoft redesigned its entire hiring process through partnership with neurodivergent individuals and autism advocacy organisations. The program replaces traditional interviews with extended assessment academies where candidates demonstrate capabilities through hands-on projects, receive clear expectations and schedules, and interact with hiring managers in structured formats. Neurodivergent employees subsequently helped design workplace accommodations, mentorship structures, and career development pathways (Austin & Pisano, 2017).

Shared Inquiry and Awareness-Building

Addressing ignorance and indifference requires moving beyond surface-level training to genuine shared inquiry examining how neuronormative assumptions shape organisational systems (Özbilgin et al., 2025). This intervention combines information-gathering from neurodivergent stakeholders with collaborative learning engaging neurotypical employees, managers, and leadership.

Drawing on the sociology of strategic ignorance (McGoey, 2012), effective awareness-building distinguishes between unknowing and active disregard. Many organisations maintain plausible deniability about neurodivergent employees' needs and contributions through what Erbil et al. (2025) term "ignorance as design"—structures and practices that systematically avoid acknowledging neurodiversity.

Shared inquiry practices:

• Neurodivergent-led educational initiatives where neurodivergent employees and external advocates share lived experiences and practical knowledge

• Collaborative problem-solving workshops bringing together neurodivergent and neurotypical employees to identify barriers and co-create solutions

• Structural audits examining how recruitment, onboarding, performance management, and advancement systems privilege neurotypical functioning

• Leadership engagement requirements ensuring executives participate in learning and demonstrate accountability for neuroinclusion goals

• Ongoing dialogue mechanisms rather than one-off training events, embedding continuous learning into organisational culture

Ernst & Young's Neurodiversity Centers of Excellence demonstrate sustained awareness-building. Beyond initial training, EY established ongoing learning communities where neurotypical and neurodivergent employees collaboratively examine workplace challenges and innovations. These communities informed redesign of project allocation systems, client communication protocols, and workspace configurations—translating awareness into structural change (McDowall et al., 2023).

However, organisations must guard against over-emphasising awareness while neglecting structural and cultural transformation. As Dobbin and Kalev (2016) demonstrate, diversity training alone rarely produces lasting change without accompanying policy reform, leadership accountability, and resource allocation.

Inclusive Policy Development and Legal Interpretation

Legal ambiguity surrounding neurodivergence presents both challenges and opportunities for HR-led policy innovation (Baker et al., 2020; Moeller, 2025). Rather than defaulting to minimal compliance, progressive organisations partner with neurodivergent stakeholders to develop policies that honour both legal requirements and lived realities.

The disconnect between evolving case law and HR capacity to interpret and apply it meaningfully (Andreassen et al., 2024) necessitates collaborative policy development. Neurodivergent individuals possess crucial knowledge about which accommodations genuinely support their participation versus those that perform compliance without enabling inclusion.

Inclusive policy co-creation approaches:

• Flexible accommodation frameworks moving beyond prescribed lists toward individualised needs assessment and iterative adjustment

• Proactive accommodation cultures offering supports universally rather than requiring disclosure and formal requests

• Self-identification protocols respecting individuals who identify as neurodivergent without formal diagnosis while maintaining necessary documentation for legal protection

• Confidentiality and disclosure safeguards ensuring voluntary disclosure with protections against information misuse or stigmatisation

• Reasonable adjustment processes designed for accessibility—clear, jargon-free language; multiple communication channels; and supportive rather than gatekeeping orientation

SAP's Autism at Work program illustrates collaborative policy development. SAP worked with neurodivergent employees and autism advocacy organisations to create accommodation policies reflecting actual needs rather than assumptions. These include flexible work arrangements beyond traditional "reasonable accommodation" frameworks, modified interview processes as standard practice rather than special cases, sensory-friendly workspace options, and structured onboarding with assigned mentors. Crucially, SAP positioned these accommodations as enhancing all employees' experiences rather than special treatments for neurodivergent individuals (Krzeminska et al., 2019).

Relational Support Pathways: Navigating Disclosure and Identity

Disclosure dilemmas—whether to reveal neurodivergence, to whom, when, and how—create persistent challenges for neurodivergent employees (Santuzzi & Keating, 2022). HR-led interventions must create conditions where disclosure becomes genuinely voluntary, safe, and productive rather than risky and burdensome.

Building on research demonstrating how neurodivergent individuals engage in strategic identity management to navigate neuronormative environments (Özbilgin et al., 2023), effective support pathways recognise disclosure as relational and contextual rather than individual and static.

Relational support mechanisms:

• Multiple disclosure pathways including confidential HR channels, manager conversations, and peer support groups, with clear information about implications of each

• Psychological safety building through visible leadership commitment, anti-discrimination enforcement, and positive neurodiversity narratives

• Peer mentorship programs connecting neurodivergent employees for support, advice, and community

• Allyship training preparing neurotypical colleagues to support neurodivergent coworkers without voyeurism or saviorism

• Career advocacy ensuring disclosure doesn't limit advancement opportunities and neurodivergent employees access sponsorship and development

JPMorgan Chase's Autism at Work initiative demonstrates relational support infrastructure. The program provides assigned neurotypical mentors who receive extensive training in neurodiversity-affirmative practices, confidential channels for requesting accommodations without formal disclosure, career coaches specialising in neurodivergent employee development, and Employee Resource Groups offering peer community and advocacy (Ezerins et al., 2024).

Importantly, effective support systems recognise intersectionality. Neurodivergent individuals from racialised, LGBTQ+, or other marginalised communities face compounded disclosure challenges requiring intersectionally-informed support (Doyle et al., 2022; Barnett, 2024).

Embedded Feedback and Continuous Improvement Systems

Resistance to neuroinclusion efforts—ranging from subtle indifference to overt backlash—demands embedded feedback mechanisms ensuring interventions remain responsive and adaptive (Özbilgin et al., 2025). Rather than implementing static programs, effective organisations create continuous improvement systems.

Drawing on sociotechnical systems theory (Pasmore, 1988; Emery & Trist, 1973), sustained neuroinclusion requires jointly optimising technical systems (policies, technologies, processes) and social systems (culture, relationships, norms). Embedded feedback enables this ongoing optimisation.

Continuous improvement mechanisms:

• Regular neurodivergent employee surveys assessing workplace inclusion climate, accommodation effectiveness, and remaining barriers

• Participatory evaluation engaging neurodivergent employees in assessing intervention outcomes and recommending refinements

• Anonymous reporting channels for discrimination, inadequate accommodations, or other neuroinclusion failures

• Metrics and accountability structures tracking neuroinclusion goals across recruitment, retention, advancement, and engagement with leadership consequences for non-achievement

• Iteration and adaptation protocols building in regular review and revision of neuroinclusion strategies based on feedback and outcomes

Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) demonstrates embedded feedback systems through its Dandelion Program supporting neurodivergent employees. HPE established quarterly review processes where neurodivergent participants evaluate program effectiveness, recommend modifications, and co-design new initiatives. This feedback informed workspace design changes, communication protocol adjustments, and career development innovations. HPE also implemented recruitment and retention metrics specifically tracking neurodivergent employees with executive accountability (Khan et al., 2023).

Critical to managing resistance, organisations must anticipate and address backlash. As Foss and Klein (2023) document, neuroinclusion efforts may face criticism as "woke" or burdensome particularly when not clearly connected to organisational strategy. Effective responses include demonstrating business value, emphasising universal benefits, ensuring adequate resourcing, and maintaining leadership commitment despite resistance.

Distributed Leadership and Neurodivergent Leadership Development

Transforming neuronormativity requires not only including neurodivergent individuals as employees but supporting their emergence as organisational leaders (Ayaz et al., 2024; Özbilgin et al., 2023). Traditional leadership models privilege neurotypical communication, social interaction, and executive functioning styles, effectively excluding neurodivergent leadership potential.

Co-design approaches create opportunities for neurodivergent individuals to demonstrate and develop leadership capabilities through authentic participation rather than conformity to neurotypical leadership ideals.

Leadership development interventions:

• Broadening leadership definitions beyond neurotypical communication and social norms to recognise diverse leadership strengths

• Neurodivergent-led initiatives positioning neurodivergent employees as project leaders, change champions, and innovation drivers

• Sponsorship and advocacy ensuring neurotypical leaders actively support neurodivergent employees' advancement

• Leadership pipeline visibility tracking neurodivergent representation in management and executive roles with accountability for advancement equity

• Alternative leadership pathways creating technical, specialist, and project leadership tracks alongside traditional management hierarchies

Building Long-Term Organizational Capacity for Neuroinclusion

Psychological Contract Recalibration: From Conformity to Co-Creation

Traditional employment psychological contracts implicitly require neurodivergent employees to "pass" as neurotypical—masking their neurodivergence to approximate neurotypical functioning (Özbilgin et al., 2023). Sustainable neuroinclusion requires renegotiating psychological contracts toward mutual recognition and co-creation.

Rousseau's (2015) idiosyncratic deals (i-deals) framework offers one approach—enabling individualised work arrangements negotiated between employees and employers. For neurodivergent employees, i-deals might encompass customised work schedules, communication protocols, sensory environments, and performance expectations.

However, purely individualised approaches risk privatising neuroinclusion as personal accommodation rather than organisational transformation. More fundamentally, organisations must shift from expecting neurodivergent employees to adapt toward designing systems accommodating neurodiversity as baseline.

Psychological contract transformation practices:

• Communicating neuroinclusion as organisational value embedded in mission, strategy, and leadership messages rather than compliance obligation

• Normalising accommodation and flexibility for all employees, reducing stigma associated with needs disclosure

• Recognising neurodivergent contributions explicitly valuing distinctive capabilities neurodivergent employees bring

• Authentic belonging initiatives creating organisational cultures where neurodivergent employees can bring their full selves to work without masking

• Long-term commitment signals including sustained resource allocation, career pathway development, and leadership representation

Operational Model Redesign: Technology, Workspace, and Process Innovation

Physical and technological infrastructure profoundly shapes neuroinclusion possibilities. Traditional open-plan offices, for instance, create sensory overload for many neurodivergent individuals while fluorescent lighting, ambient noise, and interruption-driven workflows generate additional challenges (Weber et al., 2024; Nash, 2024).

Simultaneously, digital transformation creates opportunities for neuroinclusive operational models through assistive technologies, flexible work arrangements, and accessible communication platforms (Walkowiak, 2021, 2023). However, technology implementation requires neurodivergent input ensuring tools genuinely support rather than creating new barriers.

Infrastructure and technology interventions:

• Sensory-diverse workspace design including quiet zones, adjustable lighting, noise reduction, and individual control over environmental conditions

• Flexible work location policies enabling remote, hybrid, and on-site options responsive to individual needs

• Accessible communication technologies supporting diverse modalities—written, verbal, visual—rather than privileging synchronous verbal interaction

• Assistive technology provision including screen readers, organisation software, noise-cancelling equipment, and other supportive tools

• Process redesign reducing unnecessary meetings, creating structured agendas and advance materials, and allowing asynchronous participation

Importantly, Weber et al. (2024) demonstrate that workspace adjustments benefiting neurodivergent employees—managing light and noise, providing decompression spaces, reducing interruptions—enhance all employees' experiences, making workplaces more human-centred generally.

Auticon, a German consultancy exclusively employing autistic IT consultants, exemplifies operational model innovation. Auticon provides sensory-friendly office spaces with quiet rooms and adjustable environments, job coaches supporting autistic employees, flexible work arrangements, and client communication mediated through neurotypical support staff when preferred. This infrastructure enables autistic consultants to leverage their technical strengths without neuronormative workplace demands (Krzeminska et al., 2019).

Data Governance and Algorithm Stewardship: Preventing Neurodivergent Exclusion in AI-Driven HRM

Artificial intelligence increasingly shapes HRM through algorithmic recruitment screening, performance monitoring, and workforce analytics (Malik et al., 2023). However, AI systems frequently perpetuate neuronormative biases, systematically disadvantaging neurodivergent candidates and employees (Bircan & Özbilgin, 2025; Vassilopoulou et al., 2024).

Algorithmic recruitment screening may downgrade applications with employment gaps common among neurodivergent individuals or non-linear career trajectories. Performance monitoring systems may flag neurodivergent employees' different work patterns as problematic. Workforce analytics may reinforce neurotypical success profiles.

Preventing algorithmic neuronormativity requires involving neurodivergent stakeholders in AI development, deployment, and governance (Özbilgin et al., 2025).

AI governance for neuroinclusion:

• Neurodivergent participation in algorithm design ensuring neurodivergent perspectives inform AI development

• Bias auditing specific to neurodiversity examining algorithmic outputs for neuronormative assumptions and discriminatory patterns

• Transparency and explainability enabling neurodivergent employees to understand and contest algorithmic decisions affecting them

• Human oversight and appeals processes preventing fully automated decisions that may embed neuronormativity without recourse

• Continuous monitoring and adjustment regularly evaluating AI systems' impacts on neurodivergent employees and iterating based on findings

Continuous Learning Systems: Embedding Neuroinclusion in Organisational DNA

Sustaining neuroinclusion beyond initial interventions requires embedding continuous learning into organisational culture, systems, and practices (Rousseau & ten Have, 2022). Drawing on Jonsen and Özbilgin's (2013) diversity maturity framework, organisations progress from awareness to transformation through sustained learning, resource allocation, and structural integration.

Continuous learning infrastructure:

• Communities of practice bringing together neurodivergent and neurotypical employees for ongoing dialogue, knowledge sharing, and collaborative problem-solving

• Research partnerships collaborating with academic institutions to rigorously evaluate neuroinclusion interventions and contribute to evidence base

• External benchmarking and networks participating in industry and cross-sector neuroinclusion networks to learn from leading practices

• Internal knowledge management systematically capturing, sharing, and building on neuroinclusion learnings across the organisation

• Integration into core HR systems embedding neuroinclusion considerations into standard recruitment, development, performance management, and succession planning rather than treating as separate initiative

Specialisterne, founded in Denmark and now operating globally, demonstrates how neuroinclusion can become organisational DNA. Specialisterne's entire business model centres on sourcing, training, and employing autistic individuals as consultants. The organisation continuously refines its approaches through participatory evaluation, maintains extensive knowledge management systems documenting effective practices, collaborates with researchers studying neurodiversity employment, and shares its model through a global franchise network supporting other organisations' neuroinclusion efforts (Austin & Pisano, 2017).

Conclusion

Transforming neuronormative organisations toward genuine neuroinclusion demands moving beyond compliance and accommodation toward participatory redesign centring neurodivergent voices. This article has examined how HR can catalyse this transformation through co-design approaches grounded in critical pragmatism and sociotechnical systems theory.

We identified four fundamental organisational challenges perpetuating neuronormativity: legal ambiguity that disconnects regulatory frameworks from neurodivergent realities; stakeholder ignorance and strategic indifference maintaining plausible deniability about neurodivergent exclusion; disclosure dilemmas creating impossible choices between authenticity and safety; and entrenched resistance privileging neuronormative status quo. These challenges require systemic rather than piecemeal responses.

HR-led co-design interventions offer pathways toward systemic transformation. By centring neurodivergent individuals as co-architects rather than passive recipients of inclusion efforts, organisations can develop shared understanding through collaborative inquiry, create genuinely inclusive policies informed by lived experience, build relational support infrastructures enabling safe disclosure and authentic participation, and establish embedded feedback systems ensuring continuous improvement. These interventions generate meaningful outcomes: enhanced recognition of neurodivergent identities and capabilities, realisation of neurodivergent potential through inclusive design, improved engagement and retention, and reduced barriers to participation and advancement.

Long-term capacity building requires fundamental shifts in psychological contracts from conformity expectations to co-creation partnerships, operational model redesign ensuring physical and technological infrastructures support neurodiversity, algorithm stewardship preventing AI-driven HRM from perpetuating neuronormativity, and continuous learning systems embedding neuroinclusion into organisational DNA rather than treating it as temporary initiative.

Key takeaways for practitioners:

• Position HR as change catalyst, not compliance administrator: Move beyond procedural accommodation toward participatory transformation

• Centre neurodivergent voices throughout: Ensure authentic participation in diagnosis, design, and delivery—not tokenistic consultation

• Address both technical and social systems: Joint optimisation of policies, technologies, and processes with culture, relationships, and norms

• Build accountability structures: Establish metrics, leadership consequences, and resource allocation ensuring sustained commitment

• Embrace iteration and learning: Expect imperfection, gather feedback, adapt approaches, and treat neuroinclusion as ongoing practice not finished project

• Recognise intersectionality: Account for how neurodivergence intersects with race, gender, sexuality, and other identities shaping inclusion experiences

• Demonstrate universal benefits: Position neuroinclusive design as enhancing all employees' experiences rather than special treatment

The organisational case for neuroinclusion extends beyond justice imperatives—though these alone suffice—to encompass innovation, talent, and sustainability advantages. Organisations excluding neurodivergent perspectives forfeit cognitive diversity essential for complex problem-solving. Those creating genuinely inclusive environments access exceptional talent and build employer brands attracting diverse, values-aligned workers. Most fundamentally, neuroinclusive organisations demonstrate human-centred practices respecting all employees' dignity and enabling authentic participation.

The path from neuronormative organisations to neuroinclusive ones requires courage, resources, and persistence. HR professionals possess unique positioning to lead this transformation—bridging organisational systems with employee experiences, translating between strategic and operational levels, and facilitating participatory change processes. By adopting co-design approaches grounded in critical pragmatism and sociotechnical systems thinking, HR can move from perpetuating neuronormativity through ignorant design toward co-creating organisational futures where neurodiversity is genuinely valued, included, and leveraged.

References

1. Ali, M., Grabarski, M. K., & Baker, M. (2024). The influence of neurodiversity management on affective commitment and turnover intention: The role of neurodiversity awareness. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 46(3), 657–674.

2. Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (1992). On the idea of emancipation in management and organization studies. Academy of Management Review, 17(3), 432–464.

3. Andreassen, M., Goldman, G., Briggs, C., et al. (2024). Inclusive community: Accessibility and neurodiversity in classroom, industry and academia. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 Educator's Forum (pp. 1–2).

4. Austin, R. D., & Pisano, G. P. (2017). Neurodiversity as a competitive advantage. Harvard Business Review, 95(3), 96–103.

5. Ayaz, O., Ozbilgin, M. F., Samdanis, M., & Torunoğlu Tinay, D. (2024). Authenticity and atypicality in leadership: Can an atypical leader afford to be authentic? International Journal of Management Reviews, 26(2), 312–328.

6. Baker, D. L., Drapela, L. A., & Littlefield, W. (2020). Law and neurodiversity: Youth with autism and the juvenile justice systems in Canada and the United States. UBC Press.

7. Barnett, J. P. (2024). Neuroqueer frontiers: Neurodiversity, gender, and the (a)social self. Sociology Compass, 18(6), e13234.

8. Baron-Cohen, S. (2017). Editorial perspective: Neurodiversity—a revolutionary concept for autism and psychiatry. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(6), 744–747.

9. Bate, P., & Robert, G. (2023). Bringing user experience to healthcare improvement: The concepts, methods and practices of experience-based design. CRC Press.

10. Bell, M. P., Özbilgin, M. F., Beauregard, T. A., & Sürgevil, O. (2011). Voice, silence, and diversity in 21st century organizations: Strategies for inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees. Human Resource Management, 50(1), 131–146.

11. Benson, K. J. (2023). Perplexing presentations: Compulsory neuronormativity and cognitive marginalisation in social work practice with autistic mothers of autistic children. British Journal of Social Work, 53(3), 1445–1464.

12. Bernick, M. (2023, July 25). Have we taken a wrong turn in (neurodiversity) employment? Forbes.

13. Bircan, T., & Özbilgin, M. F. (2025). Unmasking inequalities of the code: Disentangling the nexus of AI and inequality. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 211, 123925.

14. Colella, A. J., & Bruyère, S. M. (2011). Disability and employment: New directions for industrial and organizational psychology. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 473–503). American Psychological Association.

15. Cooke, F. L. (2024). Sustainability and human-centred human resource management. In A research agenda for work and employment (pp. 23–40). Edward Elgar Publishing.

16. Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2016). Why diversity programs fail. Harvard Business Review, 94, 752–760.

17. Doyle, N. (2020). Neurodiversity at work: A biopsychosocial model and the impact on working adults. British Medical Bulletin, 135(1), 108–125.

18. Doyle, N., & McDowall, A. (2022). Diamond in the rough? An "empty review" of research into "neurodiversity" and a road map for developing the inclusion agenda. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 41(3), 352–382.

19. Doyle, N., & Mcdowall, A. (2023). Neurodiversity coaching: A psychological approach to supporting neurodivergent talent and career potential. Routledge.

20. Doyle, N., McDowall, A., & Waseem, U. (2022). Intersectional stigma for autistic people at work: A compound adverse impact effect on labor force participation and experiences of belonging. Autism in Adulthood, 4(4), 340–356.

21. Drabble, D., Cole, E., Hane, A. S., Sulola, L., & Cullen, J. (2023). Neurodiversity in the tech sector. Colt Technology Services.

22. Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1973). Towards a social ecology. Plenum Press.

23. Erbil, C., Özbilgin, M. F., & Gundogdu, N. (2025). Neuronormativity as ignorant design in human resource management: The case of an unsupportive national context. Human Resource Management Journal, 35(2), 454–475.

24. Erickson, K. I., Leckie, R. L., & Weinstein, A. M. (2014). Physical activity, fitness, and gray matter volume. Neurobiology of Aging, 35(Suppl. 2), S20–S28.

25. Ezerins, M. E., Simon, L. S., Vogus, T. J., Gabriel, A. S., Calderwood, C., & Rosen, C. C. (2024). Autism and employment: A review of the "new frontier" of diversity research. Journal of Management, 50(3), 1102–1144.

26. Foss, N. J., & Klein, P. G. (2023). Why do companies go woke? Academy of Management Perspectives, 37(4), 351–367.

27. Goffman, E. (1963/2009). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Simon & Schuster.

28. Hennekam, S., & Follmer, K. (2024). Neurodiversity and HRM: A practice-based review and research agenda. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 43(7), 1119–1129.

29. Hennekam, S., Richard, S., & Özbilgin, M. (2023). How social structures influence the labour market participation of individuals with mental illness: A Bourdieusian perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 60(1), 174–203.

30. Huijg, D. D. (2020). Neuronormativity in theorising agency: An argument for a critical neurodiversity approach. In Neurodiversity studies (pp. 213–217). Routledge.

31. Jonsen, K., & Özbilgin, M. (2013). Models of global diversity management. In B. M. Ferdman & B. Deane (Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (pp. 364–390). Wiley.

32. Khan, M. H., Grabarski, M. K., Ali, M., & Buckmaster, S. (2023). Insights into creating and managing an inclusive neurodiverse workplace for positive outcomes: A multistaged theoretical framework. Group & Organization Management, 48(5), 1339–1386.

33. Kluger, A. N., & Nir, D. (2010). The feedforward interview. Human Resource Management Review, 20(3), 235–246.

34. Krzeminska, A., Austin, R. D., Bruyère, S. M., & Hedley, D. (2019). The advantages and challenges of neurodiversity employment in organizations. Journal of Management and Organization, 25(4), 453–463.

35. Malik, A., Budhwar, P., & Kazmi, B. A. (2023). Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted HRM: Towards an extended strategic framework. Human Resource Management Review, 33(1), 100940.

36. McDowall, A., Doyle, N., & Kiseleva, M. (2023). Neurodiversity at work: Demand, supply and a gap analysis. University of London.

37. McGoey, L. (2012). The logic of strategic ignorance. British Journal of Sociology, 63(3), 533–576.

38. Moeller, C. M. (2025). Begging to be heard: The professional exclusion and marginalization of neurodivergent librarians [Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington].

39. Morillas, M. (2023). The terms of inclusion: How migrant professionals negotiate inclusion in organizations [Doctoral dissertation, Stockholm School of Economics].

40. Nash, L. (2024). There and back again: Neuro-diverse employees, liminality and negative capability. Work, Employment & Society, 38(1), 262–278.

41. Nishii, L. H. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1754–1774.

42. Özbilgin, M. F. (2024). Diversity: A key idea for business and society. Routledge.

43. Özbilgin, M. F., Erbil, C., & Aykut, I. (2025). Leaders as allies for equality, diversity, and inclusion: Effective and ineffective approaches to allyship as a global diversity intervention. In Research handbook on global diversity management (pp. 233–248). Edward Elgar Publishing.

44. Özbilgin, M. F., Erbil, C., Baykut, S., & Kamasak, R. (2023). Passing as resistance through a Goffmanian approach: Normalized, defensive, strategic, and instrumental passing when LGBTQ+ individuals encounter institutions. Gender, Work and Organization, 30(3), 862–880.

45. Özbilgin, M. F., Erbil, C., & Gundogdu, N. (2025). Developing artificial intelligence (AI) with equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI): Towards interdisciplinary co-design with scholars and practitioners of EDI and AI. In O. Kyriakidou & J. Vassilopoulou (Eds.), AI and diversity in a datafied world of work: Will the future of work be inclusive? (pp. 249–265). Emerald Publishing.

46. Palmer, V. J., Weavell, W., Callander, R., et al. (2019). The participatory zeitgeist: An explanatory theoretical model of change in an era of coproduction and codesign in healthcare improvement. Medical Humanities, 45(3), 247–257.

47. Pasmore, W. (1988). Designing effective organizations. Wiley & Sons.

48. Patton, E. (2019). Autism, attributions and accommodations: Overcoming barriers and integrating a neurodiverse workforce. Personnel Review, 48(4), 915–934.

49. Rousseau, D. (2015). I-deals: Idiosyncratic deals employees bargain for themselves. Routledge.

50. Rousseau, D. M., & ten Have, S. (2022). Evidence-based change management. Organizational Dynamics, 51(3), 100899.

51. Russell, C., & Rothenberg, D. (2024). Networks of support: Past, current, and future directions for community organizations supporting neuroinclusion in the workplace. In Neurodiversity and work: Employment, identity, and support networks for neurominorities (pp. 361–378). Springer.

52. Russo, E., Ott, D. L., & Moeller, M. (2022). Is there a place for neurodiversity in the talent pool? In M. Latukha (Ed.), Diversity in action (pp. 265–285). Emerald Publishing Limited.

53. Santuzzi, A. M., & Keating, R. T. (2022). Neurodiversity and the disclosure dilemma. In S. Bruyere & A. Colella (Eds.), Neurodiversity in the workplace: SIOP organizational frontiers series (pp. 124–148). Routledge.

54. Seitz, S. R., & Choo, A. L. (2022). Stuttering: Stigma and perspectives of (dis)ability in organizational communication. Human Resource Management Review, 32(4), 100875.

55. Silver, E. R., Nittrouer, C. L., & Hebl, M. R. (2023). Beyond the business case: Universally designing the workplace for neurodiversity and inclusion. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16(1), 45–49.

56. Singer, J. (1999). Why can't you be normal for once in your life? From a problem with no name to the emergence of a new category of difference. In M. Corker & S. French (Eds.), Disability discourse (pp. 59–70). Open University Press.

57. United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Treaty Series, 2515, 3.

58. Vassilopoulou, J., Kyriakidou, O., Ozbilgin, M. F., & Groutsis, D. (2024). Scientism as illusio in HR algorithms: Towards a framework for algorithmic hygiene for bias proofing. Human Resource Management Journal, 34(2), 311–325.

59. Walkowiak, E. (2021). Neurodiversity of the workforce and digital transformation: The case of inclusion of autistic workers at the workplace. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 168, 120739.

60. Walkowiak, E. (2023). Digitalization and inclusiveness of HRM practices: The example of neurodiversity initiatives. Human Resource Management Journal, 34(3), 578–598.

61. Weber, C., Krieger, B., Häne, E., Yarker, J., & McDowall, A. (2024). Physical workplace adjustments to support neurodivergent workers: A systematic review. Applied Psychology, 73(3), 910–962.

62. Zamenopoulos, T., & Alexiou, K. (2018). Co-design as collaborative research. Bristol University/AHRC Connected Communities Programme.

---

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Associate Dean and Director of HR Programs (WGU); Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD/HR/Leadership Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.

---

Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2026). HR-Led Co-Design for Neuroinclusion: Transforming Neuronormative Organizations Through Critical Pragmatism and Sociotechnical Systems. Human Capital Leadership Review, 30(1). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.30.1.4