The hidden cost of ‘fitting in’ – why neurodiversity demands a rethink of work 

For all the progress made in recent years, many workplaces are still designed around a narrow idea of what “normal” looks like. One pace of thinking. One way of communicating. A fixed, and often unchallenged, view of what professionalism should be. 

But professionalism is not a single standard. Treating it as such can be limiting. The result is not only exclusion, but inefficiency. When organisations design for sameness, they create friction for everyone, not just those who think and work differently. 

“A better understanding of neurodiversity improves the quality of work for everyone because it forces organisations to design with human variation in mind rather than around a narrow idea of a ‘normal’ employee,” says Pauline Vuyelwa Muswere-Enagbonma, Group Chief Executive at Jessamy Care Group. “When workplaces introduce clearer communication, more thoughtful management, flexible working methods and calmer sensory environments, the changes not only help neurodivergent staff; they reduce friction across the whole workforce.” 

This shift, from accommodation to design, is where the conversation is now moving. Neuroinclusion is no longer a niche initiative, but a test of organisational health. 

“Neurodiversity is present in every organisation, even when it isn’t explicit, so the focus should be less on helping people fit in, and more on re-engineering the systems people are already working in that much easier and inclusive,” adds Rebecca Perrault, DEI Leader at Magnit. “When inclusion is built into the system instead of added later, everyone benefits.” 

That benefit is not abstract. It shows up in productivity, engagement and resilience, and increasingly in competitive advantage. 

The hidden cost of “fitting in” 

Yet many employees are still working against the system, not within it. Masking, adapting behaviour to meet perceived workplace expectations, remains widespread. It is often invisible, but its impact on health, wellbeing and performance is not. 

Research from Mental Health First Aid England’s My Whole Self campaign highlights the scale of this challenge, with many employees reporting they do not feel able to bring their full selves to work. The findings point to a persistent gap between what organisations say about inclusion and what employees experience day to day. 

When individuals feel the need to edit, suppress or disguise aspects of who they are, the cost is significant, not only for their mental health, but for engagement, productivity and long-term retention. 

“Today, more than half of neurodivergent employees fear discrimination or ridicule in the workplace, which can lead individuals to mask who they are or downplay their diagnosis,” says Sarah Henson, Senior Behavioural Scientist at CoachHub. “Over time, this can result in disengagement and burnout, meaning organisations lose access to valuable perspectives and capabilities.” 

The effort involved is not trivial. It is sustained, cognitive and often exhausting. 

“Masking may help someone appear to ‘fit’ in the short term, but it often comes at a profound internal cost,” adds Muswere-Enagbonma. “Constantly monitoring tone, body language, pace, attention style or sensory reactions can create chronic strain. From a wellbeing perspective, that is a serious failure of workplace design.” 

For some, the impact is compounded by other health factors. 

“Many neurodivergent employees talk about masking. It can be exhausting for them,” says Deborah Garlick, CEO of Menopause in the Workplace. “This becomes even more challenging when other health factors are present. What once felt manageable can suddenly feel overwhelming.” 

The psychological cost of masking 

The long-term impact of masking is not simply fatigue. It is more fundamental. It cuts to identity. 

When employees feel they must consistently “perform” a version of themselves to be accepted, the workplace shifts from a space of contribution to one of self-preservation. The effort is constant: monitoring behaviour, adjusting communication, suppressing instinct. Over time, this creates chronic stress that undermines both mental health and performance. 

“The long-term impact on wellbeing is devastating because it is rooted in the erosion of identity; when an employee must consistently ‘perform’ a persona to feel safe or accepted, they experience high levels of cognitive dissonance,” says Louisa Welby-Everard, Executive Coach and founder of coaching company Stellium. 

This sustained pressure can lead to anxiety, depression and, in more acute cases, burnout. It also reshapes how work is experienced, no longer as a place to think, create and solve problems, but as an environment that feels unpredictable and, at times, unsafe. 

“When an individual spends 80% of their mental energy simply attempting to appear neurotypical, they have significantly less bandwidth for the actual creative and analytical demands of their role,” Welby-Everard adds. 

The implication for employers is clear. What appears as underperformance may in fact be overexertion, energy diverted away from the work itself and into the effort of fitting in. 

The consequences extend beyond the individual. 

“When neurodivergent employees feel they need to mask, they are often carrying two jobs at once,” says Sarah Moulton, Chief People and Transformation Officer at Argyll. “The role they were hired to do, and the constant effort of managing how they appear. That extra load can be deeply draining.” 

Perhaps most critically, masking distorts performance itself. “Leaders may see someone coping and assume they are thriving, when in reality they are depleted,” Moulton adds. 

In this sense, masking is not resilience. It is a signal that the system is misaligned. 

Where organisations are still falling short 

Despite rising awareness, many organisations remain strongest on language and weakest on systems. 

“They run awareness sessions, celebrate Neurodiversity Celebration Week and publish inclusive statements, yet still maintain recruitment processes, management habits and office environments that quietly exclude people,” says Muswere-Enagbonma. 

This disconnect is widely recognised. “Workplaces have historically been designed around a narrow definition of how people think and work,” says Henson. “Many neurodivergent individuals have struggled to fit into a workplace that is all too often designed by and for neurotypical employees.” 

In practice, this often means placing the burden on individuals to adapt, or to prove they need support. 

“A significant failure remains the reliance on formal disclosure and the ‘burden of proof’,” Muswere-Enagbonma adds, highlighting how employees can feel labelled or stigmatised before receiving basic adjustments. 

The risk is clear. Organisations celebrate neurodiversity externally while maintaining systems that quietly exclude internally. 

From awareness to action 

What sets more mature organisations apart is not intent, but execution. The most effective changes are rarely complex, but they are deliberate. 

“The biggest difference is when support for neurodivergent employees begins, and is embedded into, the recruitment process,” Welby-Everard says. “Asking candidates upfront what accommodations might help them perform at their best is an immediate signal of psychological safety.” 

Simple adjustments can have a disproportionate impact. 

“At Argyll, a couple of easy wins have made a real difference,” says Moulton. “We make all documents available in neurodivergent-friendly versions. Another easy quick win is we also offer interview questions 10 minutes in advance if candidates would find that helpful.” 

Elsewhere, organisations are rethinking the fundamentals of how work gets done, from communication norms to performance expectations. 

“Practical changes that make the biggest difference include adopting asynchronous communication as a standard, and moving toward outcome-based performance metrics,” Muswere-Enagbonma says. “By decoupling professional success from ‘social conformity’, organisations allow neurodivergent individuals to leverage their unique cognitive strengths.” 

Crucially, many of these changes benefit everyone. 

“Flexible hours, quiet spaces, preferred communication methods, clearer feedback rhythms, these adjustments are often simple, but they signal that difference is respected rather than tolerated,” Welby-Everard says. 

Rethinking leadership and potential 

A more inclusive approach also challenges how organisations define leadership itself. 

“The term ‘soft skills’ fundamentally undervalues capabilities that are critical to innovation and organisational success,” says Henson. “Neurodivergent leaders bring a 360-degree view; spotting connections, inspiring teams and pushing boundaries.” 

Her perspective is grounded in lived experience. “ADHD can mean being calm under pressure, highly creative and instinctively in tune with people and emotions,” she says. “There’s a deep empathy that comes with it. It’s time to change the conversation and recognise the strengths ADHD can bring.” 

This reframing matters, because the dominant narrative still leans towards deficit. “Too often, ADHD is framed through deficit-based narratives rather than strengths,” Henson adds. “When businesses fail to challenge misconceptions, they limit innovation and exclude perspectives that drive progress.” 

In contrast, organisations that embrace cognitive diversity are better equipped to navigate complexity. 

“Neurodiverse teams are more productive in creative problem-solving, resilient in times of change, and better equipped to tackle complex challenges,” says Perrault. “In today’s world, neuroinclusion isn’t just a nice to have, it’s an organisation’s best competitive advantage.” 

The direction of travel is clear. The question is no longer whether organisations should support neurodivergent employees, but whether they are willing to redesign the systems that shape work itself. 

“When senior leaders visibly champion neuroinclusion, it creates a culture where employees feel heard and empowered. A Harvard Business Review study, Neurodiversity as a Competitive Advantage (2017) revealed that when neurodivergent staff are in a supportive environment they can achieve 30 per cent better productivity than their neurotypical peers. But the impact extends beyond neurodivergent staff. Research consistently shows that inclusive environments improve outcomes for everyone. For example, the EY Global Neuroinclusion at Work Study 2025 found that organisations adopting neuro-inclusive practices reported higher productivity across the entire workforce, alongside stronger employee engagement and a greater sense of belonging. Other studies suggest that companies prioritising inclusive cultures can see up to two to three times higher employee engagement and significantly lower burnout and turnover,” Welby-Everard comments. 

Or, as Henson puts it: “Thriving requires more than awareness; it requires psychological safety.” 

For UK employers, the link to workplace health and wellbeing is direct. Reducing masking reduces stress. Improving clarity reduces cognitive load. Creating flexibility reduces burnout. 

And in doing so, organisations move closer to something more fundamental: work that works for everyone.