How Australian workplaces can turn good intentions into real neuroinclusion

As Neurodiversity Celebration Week begins, Australian employers are being urged to move beyond awareness campaigns and start redesigning how work actually gets done, so neurodivergent staff can participate and progress on equal terms.

Diversity Council Australia (DCA) research manager Farhana Laffernis said interest in the topic has surged in recent years, but most organisations are still at the starting line when it comes to genuine neuroinclusion.

“It’s definitely one that we’ve had increasing interest in in the last few years. I think it’s maybe one of the top search terms on our website,” she said. “We get a lot of member organisations saying they want to do more on neuroinclusion but they don’t know what. The will is there – there’s just not that many employers that are actually doing something about it yet.”

That gap matters because of the sheer scale of the issue. International research suggests between 15 and 20% of the world’s population is neurodivergent. DCA CEO Catherine Hunter pointed out that, in most workplaces, this reality is almost entirely invisible.

“An estimated 15 to 20% of people are neurodivergent, yet until now, many organisations haven’t had the tools they need to understand their employees’ experiences or the barriers they face at work,” Hunter said. “Neuroinclusion isn’t about fitting people into existing systems. It’s about co‑designing workplaces that work for all minds.”

Laffernis agrees employers are only just beginning to recognise what that means in practice. She described work as “a microcosm of broader society”, reflecting rising awareness and changing attitudes about neurodiversity in the community more broadly. Yet in HR, she said, neuroinclusion remains a relatively new and often misunderstood frontier. She said that only around 11% of employers have set targets for disability or neurodiversity.

"Employers don’t really know how many of their employees are neurodivergent or what their experiences are – because we don’t ask," Laffernis added.

That is where HR has to step in. Laffernis argued that chief people officers and HR leaders have “a really key role” in shifting the focus away from “fixing” individuals and towards redesigning the systems that shape everyday working life.

“We actually think that starts with looking at systems, not just individuals,” she said. “HR can play a really critical role. There’s stuff they can be doing like reviewing common workplace practices [such as] recruitment, performance management and expectations, communication styles, workplace environments, and asking themselves whether that actually works for a diversity of communication and thinking styles.”

In recruitment, it may mean re‑writing job ads that over‑emphasise social polish, redesigning interviews so candidates aren’t judged on eye contact or small talk, or making it routine to offer adjustments without penalty.

In performance management, it can be as simple as making expectations specific and written down, rather than relying on unwritten rules and “reading between the lines”.

In the day‑to‑day workplace, it might involve tackling noisy open‑plan offices, last‑minute changes, or dense, ambiguous communication that creates unnecessary cognitive load.

Laffernis said one guiding idea is “universal design” – the concept, drawn from the United Nations, of creating spaces, systems and services that are easy to use and understand for as many people as possible. Neuroinclusive workplaces should be built on that foundation.

“Flexible work is a good example,” she explained. “It’s not specifically targeting any one group of people, but everybody can benefit from that flexibility. You’re designing workplaces in a way that benefits everyone regardless of what their specific experience is. You’re creating systems that are accessible and supportive to everybody.”

Workplaces are "a little bit more reactive” at the moment, claimed Laffernis. Responding to individual requests for adjustments rather than designing with diverse brains in mind from the outset. But she believes that has to change if organisations want to unlock the full potential of their workforce.

A key barrier remains trust. DCA’s latest research, in partnership with Amaze, found around two in three employees would feel comfortable sharing information about neurodivergence anonymously with their employer, but far fewer would choose to record that information in their HR profile. Many neurodivergent workers worry that revealing their status could lead to discrimination, stigma or stalled careers.

“Ultimately, a really important step is to build trust so that employees actually feel safe to share this information with their employer,” Laffernis said.

That trust depends not just on privacy protections, but on what happens next. “Avoid collecting neurodiversity data for the sake of having data and not using or reporting on it in a meaningful way,” Hunter added. “When data is not reported and acted upon, employees are less likely to self‑report and may become sceptical about future surveys.”

For employers that do get this right, the payoff can be significant. Amaze CEO David Tonge says many organisations have started to recognise neurodiversity “in name”, but very few can see how neurodivergent staff are actually faring.

“Neurodiversity is increasingly recognised in workplaces, but it is rarely visible in workforce data,” Tonge said. “Without that visibility, organisations cannot see where barriers sit or whether their inclusion efforts are improving outcomes. Establishing safe, voluntary ways to understand workforce neurodiversity is a critical step toward designing workplaces where neurodivergent people can participate and progress.”

That visibility, Laffernis argued, should be tied directly to action. She encourages HR leaders to start with some basic questions: How many employees identify as neurodivergent or as having cognitive differences, including those who self‑identify without a formal diagnosis? Are neurodivergent staff more likely to report exclusion, harassment or stalled career progression? Are there points in the employee lifecycle, such as recruitment, probation or performance review, where they are disproportionately likely to struggle or leave?

“What gets counted gets done,” she said. “You ask your diversity questions, you do your surveys, and that gives you the information to create the case for change. But you also need to understand what the barriers are for different groups of people, what those look like and how you can make changes that address those on a systemic level.”

Beyond data and system redesign, Laffernis said the day‑to‑day work of neuroinclusion often comes down to how leaders behave. Training managers to understand workforce diversity, have strengths‑based conversations about working styles, and respond constructively to requests for adjustments can make the difference between a culture of fear and one of psychological safety.

HR can help by normalising adjustments – talking about them openly, embedding them into standard processes, and making it clear there is no career penalty for asking. They can also provide clear, consistent communication about roles and expectations, so employees aren’t left second‑guessing what success looks like.

Underpinning all of this is the need to centre lived experience. “We don’t want to be telling people what they should do without really embedding and consulting with the people who that most directly impacts," Laffernis said.

"We’re trying to make sure this stuff becomes core business for organisations. To do that, they need to equip themselves to support their employees better – and to do that, they need to start with awareness and they need to start with capability.”

Six principles for collecting neurodiversity data

To help organisations navigate some of the legitimate fears and risks around demographic data collection, DCA and Amaze's Neurodiversity Data at Work report sets out six guiding principles:

1. Self‑identity is critical: Employers should use language, questions and response options co‑designed with people with lived experience, and recognise both self‑identification and formal diagnosis.

2. Prioritise safety and trust: Acknowledge the reality of stigma and discrimination, and be clear about how data will be used, who will see it and how it will be protected.

3. Recognise risk in collecting and not collecting data: Poor practice can erode trust, but avoiding data altogether makes it almost impossible to understand or improve neuroinclusion.

4. Ensure privacy and confidentiality: Treat identifiable neurodiversity information with the same safeguards as other sensitive health data and favour anonymous collection, especially early on.

5. Make your approach accessible: Check that survey platforms, language and layouts work for people with dyslexia, sensory differences and other cognitive needs.

6. Commit to action: Avoid the trap of “survey and forget”. Report back, benchmark, co‑design initiatives with neurodivergent staff and follow through.

As this year’s Neurodiversity Celebration Week unfolds, the message from DCA and Amaze is that the time for that shift is now. The appetite is there. The evidence is growing. And, increasingly, so are the expectations of the 15 to 20% of workers whose brains do not fit the narrow mould around which so many workplaces were built.