Neurodivergent employees report poorer workplace experiences  

Neurodivergent employees continue to experience poorer wellbeing, lower psychological safety and higher levels of burnout than their colleagues, despite improvements in line manager support and career satisfaction. According to a major new report from Neurodiversity in Business (NiB) and Birkbeck, University of London, employers are at risk of losing talented neurodivergent workers. 

The third annual study introduces the concept of “neurodiversity gain”, arguing that organisations which redesign work to better support neurodivergent employees can improve outcomes for their entire workforce. 

Drawing on responses from 605 participants, including 428 neurodivergent employees, 122 entrepreneurs and 55 employer representatives, the report found that neurodivergent employees continue to report significantly lower wellbeing, work engagement and psychological safety, alongside higher burnout, than both employers and neurodivergent entrepreneurs.  

One of the report’s strongest findings is that psychological safety remains the single biggest predictor of wellbeing, career satisfaction and retention, yet researchers found little improvement since the first study in 2023. 

The research also raises fresh questions about return-to-office policies. Nearly four in ten (38 per cent) neurodivergent employees said they had been subject to a return-to-office mandate, with more than half (53 per cent) saying it had made them reconsider remaining with their employer. Researchers found such mandates reduced engagement, increased burnout and negatively affected career satisfaction.  

For the first time, the research also explored the experiences of neurodivergent entrepreneurs, self-employed workers and contractors. 

Almost half (49 per cent) said they became aware of their neurodivergence before leaving corporate employment, while 61 per cent said they would not return to traditional employment. Many cited autonomy, flexibility and the ability to create neuroaffirming working environments as key reasons for making the move, although many also reported financial uncertainty, administrative burden and unpredictable workloads.  

Professor Almuth McDowall, Professor of Organisational Psychology at Birkbeck, University of London and co-author of the report, said: “Neurodivergent talent is central to the UK’s capacity to tackle its economic inactivity crisis. If we can get work right for this diverse group, everyone benefits. We call this neurodiversity gain. Flexible and adaptive approaches are key to harness specialist talent.” 

The research suggests employers are increasingly committed to improving neuroinclusion but continue to face practical barriers. Employer representatives highlighted limited disclosure, constrained budgets, fragmented workplace adjustment processes and persistent misconceptions about the value of adjustments as key challenges. Line managers were identified as central to successful neuroinclusion but many reported receiving limited training and support.  

The report concludes that organisations should embed neuroinclusion within corporate strategy rather than treat it as a standalone diversity initiative. Recommendations include reconsidering blanket return-to-office mandates, simplifying workplace adjustment processes, providing specialist support for line managers and creating more opportunities for flexible job design. 

Dan Harris, Chair of Neurodiversity in Business, said employers are at risk of losing exceptional talent unless workplaces evolve. 

“Our programme of research makes the business case for workplaces that truly embrace neuroinclusion by embedding wellbeing and inclusion into their core strategies, policies and process.” 

For workplace wellbeing professionals, the findings reinforce the growing evidence that creating psychologically safe, flexible and inclusive workplaces is not simply a diversity objective but an important driver of workforce health, retention and organisational performance.