Author: Bob Bannister

People Don’t Resist Change — They Resist Being Changed

Bob Bannister
by Bob Bannister on

There’s a phrase that gets used a lot in change management: “people resist change.” It’s repeated in boardrooms, written into project risk registers, and used to explain why well-intentioned initiatives stall or fail. But it’s not quite right. And that small inaccuracy carries big consequences for how managers approach transformation.

The more accurate truth is this: people don’t resist change — they resist being changed.

Think about it. People choose to change jobs, move house, take up new hobbies, and reinvent themselves all the time. Change itself isn’t the problem. What triggers resistance is the feeling that change is happening to them rather than with them. That they’re the object of someone else’s plan, rather than a participant in shaping it.

The Difference Between Imposed and Co-Created

When change is imposed — even well-designed, well-intentioned change — it activates a threat response. People feel a loss of control, a loss of identity, sometimes a loss of competence. The brain registers it as a kind of bereavement. And when people feel they’re losing something, they protect what they have.

When change is co-created, something different happens. People become invested in the outcome because they helped shape it. Their ideas are visible in the solution. Their concerns were heard. The change reflects their reality, not just a strategy document written three floors above them.

The difference isn’t the change itself. It’s who’s holding the pen.

Practical Steps for Managers

So what does this look like in practice? Here are five things you can do differently the next time you’re leading or managing change.

1. Involve people before the decision is made, not after. Consultation that happens once the plan is fixed isn’t really consultation — it’s communication with extra steps. If you want genuine buy-in, bring people into the room while options are still open. Ask what’s working that you shouldn’t break. Ask what frustrations the change might solve. You’ll get better ideas, and you’ll build ownership at the same time.

2. Make the ‘why’ personal, not just organisational. “The business needs to be more efficient” doesn’t move people. “Here’s how this change will make your day-to-day easier” does. When communicating change, translate the strategic rationale into the lived experience of the people it affects. What will they be able to do that they can’t do now? What will get better for them?

3. Give people a genuine choice — even if it’s small. Autonomy is one of the most powerful motivators at work. Even when the decision has been made, ask: what can people choose for themselves within this? The timing of a transition, the way they set up a new process, who they work with during the change. Small choices matter. They signal that you see people as agents, not just recipients.

4. Create space for honest reactions. Resistance often goes underground because there’s no safe outlet for it. If people can’t voice their concerns openly, those concerns don’t disappear — they reappear as disengagement, passive non-compliance, or quiet exits. Build regular checkpoints where people can tell you what’s working and what isn’t. And when they do, respond with curiosity rather than defensiveness.

5. Acknowledge the loss — even when the change is good. Even positive change involves leaving something behind. A familiar way of working. A team structure people valued. A role that gave someone their sense of identity. Good change managers don’t gloss over this. They name it. Acknowledging that something is being lost doesn’t undermine the case for change — it builds the trust that makes change possible.

The Question Worth Asking

Here’s a useful diagnostic for any change initiative you’re currently leading or about to launch: Who are you changing — and who’s changing with you?

If you’re honest about that question, the answer will tell you a lot about the kind of resistance you’re likely to encounter — and what you need to do differently.

Change doesn’t have to feel like something that happens to people. With the right approach, it can feel like something they’re part of. That shift — from being changed to changing together — is often the difference between transformation that sticks and transformation that stalls.

If Poor Performance Has No Consequences, Neither Does Great Performance.

Bob Bannister
by Bob Bannister on

There is a quiet crisis happening in many organisations today — not one caused by a lack of talent, strategy, or ambition, but by a lack of accountability. It unfolds slowly, almost invisibly, until one day the best people on your team stop trying quite so hard. And the reason is devastatingly simple: they are watching.
They are watching what happens when someone misses targets consistently. When deadlines are ignored. When poor quality becomes the norm for certain individuals. And when the answer to all of it is… nothing. No conversation. No correction. No consequence.
What your high performers learn from this silence is a lesson you never intended to teach: effort is optional.

“If poor performance has no consequences, neither does great performance. You have simply told your team that performance does not matter.”

The Hidden Cost of Inaction

Most leaders understand — at least in principle — that poor performance must be addressed. But in practice, the conversation gets avoided. It feels uncomfortable. There are concerns about morale, about legal complexity, about being seen as harsh in a culture that prizes psychological safety.
The result is a form of institutional paralysis. Leaders hope the issue resolves itself. They re-assign work. They lower the bar without announcing it. They tell themselves the underperformer has potential or is going through a difficult time. Meanwhile, the people delivering exceptional results are absorbing extra workload, covering gaps, and being asked — implicitly — to compensate for those who are not pulling their weight.
This is not kindness. It is avoidance masquerading as compassion.

What Your Top Performers Are Actually Thinking

High performers are acutely sensitive to fairness — not in an entitled way, but in the way anyone who invests deeply in their work is sensitive to how that investment is valued. When they observe that their extra effort yields no greater recognition, no differential reward, and no visible contrast with those who coast along, they draw rational conclusions:

  • “If they keep their job doing half the work, why am I killing myself?”
  • “Management either doesn’t notice or doesn’t care.”
  • “There is no upside to going above and beyond here.”

These thoughts do not usually lead to immediate resignation. They lead to something far more damaging: gradual disengagement. Your best people begin doing just enough. The organisation’s overall performance regresses to the mean — not the best, but the tolerated.

The Culture You Build — Whether You Intend To or Not

Culture is not what you write in your values statement. Culture is what behaviour you reward, and what behaviour you tolerate. Every time poor performance goes unaddressed, you are communicating — loudly and clearly — that this is the standard. That this is what is acceptable here.
Conversely, every time great performance goes unrecognised — because recognition has been flattened into meaninglessness by being given to everyone regardless of output — you are telling your best people that distinction does not exist in your organisation.
The two dynamics are deeply connected. You cannot credibly celebrate high performance in an environment that does not address low performance. The contrast is what gives recognition its meaning.

What Accountable Leadership Actually Looks Like

Addressing performance is not about blame, fear, or heavy-handed management. Done well, it is one of the most respectful and empowering things a leader can do. It signals: I see you, I believe in the standard, and I am invested in your ability to meet it.
For leaders who want to build genuine accountability without sacrificing humanity, several principles matter. First, be clear about expectations upfront — vague standards make accountability impossible. Second, address performance early and privately, with curiosity before judgement. Third, distinguish between a capability gap and a will gap; the first calls for support, the second for clarity about consequences. Fourth, recognise great performance in ways that are specific, timely, and meaningful — not generic praise applied indiscriminately.
Most importantly: follow through. The credibility of any performance standard depends entirely on whether leaders act consistently when it is not met.

The Leadership Choice in Front of You

Every leader faces a choice. You can optimise for short-term comfort — avoiding difficult conversations, preserving a surface-level harmony — or you can optimise for a high-performance culture where people know their effort matters, great work is genuinely recognised, and standards are real.
The second path is harder. But it is the only one that retains your best people, sustains high performance, and builds an organisation others actually want to be part of.

Your high performers are watching what you do next. Make it count.

Want to build a culture where performance genuinely matters? iManage Performance helps leaders design accountability frameworks that drive results and retain top talent. Get in touch at bob.bannister@imanageperformance.com

You Wouldn’t Tell Someone to “Just See Better”: Why ADHD Needs Accommodation, Not Advice

Bob Bannister
by Bob Bannister on

“Just focus.”

“Try harder.”

“You need to concentrate better.”

If you’ve ever said these words to someone with ADHD, you’ve made the same mistake as telling someone with poor eyesight to “just see better.”

The Fundamental Misunderstanding

ADHD isn’t a motivation problem. It’s not about effort, discipline, or character. It’s a neurological difference in how the brain regulates attention, processes information, and manages executive functions.

When we frame it as a choice or a character flaw, we fundamentally misunderstand what we’re dealing with—and we miss the opportunity to actually help.

The Glasses Principle

Think about vision impairment for a moment. We don’t:
– Tell people to squint harder
– Question their commitment to seeing clearly
– Suggest they lack the willpower to focus their eyes
– Imply that needing glasses reflects poorly on their character

Instead, we provide an accommodation—glasses—that enables them to function at their full potential.

The same principle applies to ADHD and other neurological differences.

What Real Support Looks Like

Rather than asking people to overcome their neurology through sheer force of will, we need to ask: **What adjustments could unlock someone’s potential today?**

For someone with ADHD, practical accommodations might include:

  • Written follow-ups after verbal meetings to capture key actions
  • Visual task boards instead of text-heavy lists
  • Body-doubling opportunities (working alongside someone for accountability)
  • Chunked deadlines rather than single distant due dates
  • Movement breaks built into the workday
  • Noise-cancelling headphones or quiet workspace options
  • Clear priority signals when multiple tasks compete for attention

These aren’t special treatment. They’re the equivalent of glasses—tools that enable someone to demonstrate their actual capabilities.

The Cost of Misunderstanding

When we treat neurological differences as character issues:

  • We lose talented people who simply needed a different approach
  • We create unnecessary stress and anxiety
  • We damage confidence and self-belief
  • We miss out on diverse thinking styles that strengthen teams
  • We perpetuate stigma that prevents people from seeking support

The Leadership Challenge

As managers and leaders, our job isn’t to make everyone fit the same mould. It’s to create conditions where diverse talents can flourish.

This means:

1. Educating ourselves about neurological differences
2. Asking what accommodations would help, rather than assuming
3. Normalising different working styles and needs
4. Focusing on outcomes rather than rigid processes
5. Celebrating the strengths that come with neurodivergent thinking

Moving Forward

The next time you’re tempted to tell someone to “just focus,” pause and reframe:

  • What barriers might be in their way?
  • What adjustments could I offer?
  • How can I set them up for success rather than struggle?

Neurological differences aren’t deficits to overcome—they’re variations to accommodate, just like we do with vision, hearing, or mobility.

The question isn’t whether someone can focus. The question is: have we given them the right tools to show us what they’re capable of?

—

Your Turn

What adjustments have you seen unlock someone’s potential in your workplace? What simple changes could you implement this week to better support neurodivergent team members?

Let’s shift the conversation from “try harder” to “work smarter”—together.

You’re the Weather System in Your Team—What Climate Are You Creating?

Bob Bannister
by Bob Bannister on

Have you ever noticed how a team meeting can shift the moment a stressed leader walks in? The energy drops. People become guarded. Creativity stalls.

This isn’t coincidence—it’s emotional contagion, and as a leader, you’re the primary source.

You’re Always Broadcasting

Whether you realise it or not, you’re an emotional broadcaster. Your team isn’t just listening to what you say; they’re reading your tone, your body language, your energy levels. When you’re anxious, they feel uncertain. When you’re dismissive, they withdraw. When you’re genuinely enthusiastic, they lean in.

The science backs this up. Research into mirror neurons shows that humans are hardwired to pick up and reflect the emotions of those around them—especially those in positions of authority. Your stress doesn’t stay contained within you; it radiates outward and becomes their anxiety.

The Weather Metaphor

Think of your mood as the weather system in your team. Some days you bring sunshine—warmth, optimism, energy that helps ideas grow. Other days you bring thunderstorms—tension, irritability, unpredictability that makes people want to take cover.

Neither is inherently wrong. We’re all human. But the critical question is: are you aware of the weather you’re creating?

What This Means in Practice

You don’t need to be falsely positive or suppress genuine emotions. But you do need to be intentional. Before entering a team space—whether that’s a meeting, a casual conversation, or even a Slack message—pause and ask yourself: “What weather am I about to create?”

If you’re bringing a storm because you’re stressed about a deadline, acknowledge it. “I’m feeling the pressure on this project, but let’s focus our energy on solutions.” That awareness transforms potentially toxic stress into shared, purposeful intensity.

If you’re bringing sunshine, lean into it authentically. Genuine enthusiasm is contagious and becomes the energy your team needs to tackle challenges.

Your Challenge

For the next week, check your weather forecast before every team interaction. Notice what you’re broadcasting. Adjust intentionally when needed.

Your mood sets the climate. Make it one where your team can thrive.

What weather are you creating today?

From Disruption to Direction: An L&D Professional’s Reflection on 2025 (and What’s Calling Us Forward)

Bob Bannister
by Bob Bannister on

As we close the books on 2025, I find myself doing something I rarely do in December—feeling genuinely energised rather than exhausted. This year didn’t just change what we do in Learning & Development; it changed how we think about what’s possible.

Let me share what’s been inspiring me, and what I believe should inspire all of us as we step into 2026.

What 2025 Taught Us (Whether We Were Ready or Not)

1. AI Became Our Colleague, Not Our Replacement

Remember January when half our LinkedIn feeds were either prophesying the death of L&D or insisting nothing would change? Turns out, both camps were wrong.

The real story of 2025 wasn’t AI replacing L&D professionals—it was AI *amplifying* the ones willing to experiment. I’ve watched trainers who once spent three days building a scenario-based exercise now prototype five variations in an afternoon. The technology didn’t make us redundant; it freed us to do what we’re actually good at: understanding people, designing experiences, and facilitating transformation.

The lesson: The question isn’t “Will AI take my job?” It’s “Am I using AI to become the L&D professional I always wanted to be?”

2. Neurodiversity Moved from “Nice to Have” to Non-Negotiable

This might be the shift I’m most proud to have witnessed. Organisations finally grasped that inclusive learning design isn’t about accommodating difference—it’s about unlocking potential that was always there.

I’ve seen companies revolutionise their management training by simply acknowledging that brains work differently. Offering content in multiple formats, building in processing time, creating psychologically safe feedback loops—these aren’t special accommodations. They’re just good practice that happens to benefit everyone.

The lesson: Every time we design for neurodiversity, we design better learning for all learners.

3. Micro-Learning Grew Up

2025 was the year we stopped treating micro-learning like a gimmick and started treating it like architecture. The best practitioners weren’t just chunking content into five-minute modules—they were building entire learning ecosystems where each micro-moment connected to something deeper.

I’ve been working with clients who’ve transformed their leadership development by threading brief, practical touchpoints throughout the actual work experience. Not as a replacement for deeper learning, but as the connective tissue that makes that learning stick.

The lesson: Small doesn’t mean shallow. Micro-learning done well is strategic design, not content reduction.

4. Skills Took Center Stage (and We Finally Got Specific)

The skills-based conversation matured significantly this year. We moved beyond vague competency frameworks to actually mapping what good looks like in real work contexts. 

The organisations getting this right weren’t creating massive skills taxonomies—they were having honest conversations about what people actually need to do, then building learning around those specific capabilities.

The lesson: Skills-based learning only works when we’re brutally specific about what skills actually matter.

What’s Sparking My Curiosity for 2026

As I look ahead, here are the opportunities I think we should be leaning into:

1. The “Learning in the Flow of Work” Challenge

We’ve been talking about this for years, but 2026 is when we need to crack it properly. Not by creating more resources people can access “in the moment”—but by fundamentally rethinking when and how learning happens.

Try this: Pick one critical skill in your organisation. Now map the actual work situations where people need that skill. Design your learning intervention to happen *in those moments*, not in preparation for them. Partner with managers to make learning part of the work conversation, not separate from it.

2. Making Measurement Mean Something

In 2026, I’m challenging myself—and you—to measure things that actually matter. Did behaviour change? Did performance improve? Did the business outcome we cared about shift?

Try this: Before designing your next program, write down the sentence: “We’ll know this worked when…” If you can’t finish that sentence with something observable and meaningful, you’re not ready to design yet.

3. Becoming Organisational Storytellers

The best L&D professionals I know aren’t just designers or facilitators—they’re translators. They take complex business challenges and turn them into learning narratives that people can connect with and act upon.

Try this: This month, find one business challenge your organisation faces. Now write the story: What’s at stake? Who are the characters? What’s preventing success? What needs to change? Use that story as the foundation for your learning design. Watch what happens when learning feels like it matters.

4. Building the Post-Pandemic Learning Culture (For Real This Time)

We’re four years past lockdown, but many organisations are still operating in a hybrid muddle. 2026 needs to be the year we stop comparing everything to “before” and start building cultures designed for how we actually work now.

Try this: Audit your learning portfolio. How much of it still assumes everyone’s in the same room? How much assumes everyone’s remote? Neither assumption is right. Redesign your cornerstone programs to be deliberately hybrid—not as a compromise, but as an intentional design that leverages the strengths of both modalities.

The Real Work: What We Need to Demand of Ourselves

Here’s what I’ve been reflecting on personally: we can have all the technology, all the insights, all the frameworks—but if we’re not willing to challenge ourselves, we’ll just create incrementally better versions of what we’ve always done.

So here are my commitments for 2026, and I invite you to consider yours:

I will say no more often. Not every learning request is a learning problem. Sometimes the issue is communication, or process, or even strategy. Our job isn’t to design training for every gap—it’s to solve the actual problem, even when that means walking away from a training project.

I will experiment more boldly. Pilot small, learn fast, iterate constantly. The organisations that thrived in 2025 weren’t the ones with perfect programs—they were the ones willing to try, fail, learn, and try again.

I will connect learning to business reality more explicitly. Every program we design should have a clear line of sight to something the organisation cares about. If we can’t draw that line, we shouldn’t be designing.

I will advocate for the profession. L&D deserves a strategic seat at the table, but we earn that seat by proving we understand the business, speak the language of impact, and deliver results that matter.

An Invitation

As you reflect on your own 2025 and look toward 2026, I’d love to hear:

– What moment or project made you proudest this year?

– What assumption did you let go of?

– What’s one experiment you want to try in 2026?

– What support do you need from the L&D community to make it happen?

We’re in one of the most dynamic periods our profession has ever experienced. The tools are evolving, the workplace is transforming, and the expectations of what learning can achieve are higher than ever.

That’s not pressure. That’s opportunity.

Here’s to a 2026 where we design with courage, measure what matters, and remember that our real job has always been the same: helping people become capable of things they couldn’t do before.

Let’s make it remarkable.

—

What’s inspiring you as you look ahead? Share your thoughts in the comments—I’m genuinely curious what’s on your mind as we close out this year.

Bob Bannister  

iManage Performance Ltd  

Management Training Consultant | Leadership Development | Learning & Development Strategy

What to Stop Doing in 2026!

Bob Bannister
by Bob Bannister on

As we head into a new year, most management advice focuses on what to start doing. New goals, fresh initiatives, bold resolutions. Leadership books overflow with frameworks to adopt and habits to build. But sometimes the most powerful changes come not from addition, but from subtraction. From what we choose to stop.

The problem with constantly adding is that we rarely make room first. We layer new initiatives onto already overloaded schedules, pile new expectations onto stretched teams, and wonder why nothing seems to gain traction. We become managers who are perpetually busy but not necessarily effective.

So before you create your list of ambitious 2026 goals, consider creating a “stop doing” list first. Here are five management habits worth leaving behind in 2025:

Stop attending meetings you don’t need to be in

Look at your calendar honestly. How many meetings are you attending out of habit rather than necessity? How many include you “just in case” something comes up that might require your input? How many are you in simply because you’ve always been in them?

Every meeting you attend has an opportunity cost. It’s time you’re not spending building the competence of your team, thinking strategically, or doing focused work that actually requires your expertise. When you attend meetings you don’t need to be in, you’re also sending a subtle message that you don’t trust others to handle things without you.

Challenge every recurring meeting on your calendar. For each one, ask yourself: What specific decision requires my input here? What unique value do I bring? If I wasn’t in this meeting, what would actually go wrong? If you can’t articulate clear answers, you probably don’t need to be there. Delegate your seat to someone who would benefit from the exposure, or simply decline.

Stop solving problems your team should own

This is perhaps the hardest habit to break, because solving problems feels productive. Someone brings you an issue, you fix it, they leave satisfied, you feel useful. It’s a seductive cycle.

But every time you solve a problem your team should be solving, you’re creating dependency rather than building capability. You’re training people to bring you problems instead of solutions. You’re becoming a bottleneck instead of an enabler.

When someone brings you a problem, resist the immediate urge to fix it. Pause. Ask questions: “What do you think we should do?” “What options have you considered?” “What would you do if I wasn’t available?” Yes, it takes longer initially. Yes, it feels less efficient in the moment. But you’re investing in long-term capability, not short-term convenience.

The caveat, of course, is genuine emergencies or situations where someone genuinely lacks the authority or information to proceed. But be honest with yourself about how often that’s actually the case versus how often you’re simply more comfortable being the solver.

Stop checking work that doesn’t need checking

If you’ve hired competent people, given them clear expectations, and ensured they understand the required standards, your job isn’t to quality-control every piece of work they produce.

Constant checking sends a clear message: I don’t trust you. It creates bottlenecks where work piles up waiting for your approval. It prevents people from developing their own judgment about what constitutes good work. And perhaps most importantly, it trains them to do the minimum required to get past your check rather than developing genuine pride in their output.

Define the boundaries clearly. Be explicit about standards. Make sure people understand what excellence looks like in your context. Then step back and let them deliver. Save your detailed oversight for genuinely high-stakes situations, complex new challenges, or when someone is still learning.

When you do review work, focus on the outcome rather than the process. Did it achieve what was needed? If yes, does it really matter that they did it differently than you would have?

Stop avoiding difficult conversations

You know the ones. The performance issue you keep hoping will improve on its own. The team conflict you’re “monitoring” rather than addressing. The feedback you’ve softened into meaninglessness because you’re worried about how it will be received. The boundary violation you’ve let slide because it seemed easier than confronting it.

These situations don’t improve with time. They fester. They spread. They send messages to the rest of your team about what’s acceptable. And the conversation you’re avoiding today will be significantly harder and more consequential in three months when the issue has escalated.

Difficult conversations require preparation and courage, certainly. But they also require clarity and kindness, which are entirely within your control. The person deserves to know where they stand. The team deserves a manager who addresses issues rather than tolerating them. And you deserve not to carry the weight of unresolved situations.

Have the conversation. Be direct about what you’ve observed, clear about what needs to change, and supportive about how you’ll help them get there. But have it.

Stop pretending you have all the answers

There’s a myth that leadership requires certainty. That admitting you don’t know something undermines your authority or competence. This myth creates managers who bluster their way through uncertainty, who provide confident answers they’re not sure about, who close down questions rather than opening up exploration.

Your team doesn’t need you to be infallible. They need you to be honest. “I don’t know, let’s figure this out together” is often more valuable than a questionable answer delivered with false confidence. Admitting uncertainty creates space for collective problem-solving. It signals that thinking together is valued. It builds psychological safety because people see that not knowing is acceptable.

This doesn’t mean abdicating responsibility or appearing rudderless. It means being honest about the limits of your knowledge while remaining confident in your ability to navigate uncertainty. It means modelling the curiosity and learning orientation you want to see in your team.

The pattern beneath the list

Look at what these five habits have in common. They’re all about control. Attending every meeting, solving every problem, checking every output, avoiding difficult truths, projecting certainty we don’t feel. These habits feel like good management because they keep us busy and feeling needed.

But they’re actually holding us back. Real leadership often means letting go. Letting go of control, of being indispensable, of looking capable in every moment, of comfort. The paradox is that letting go of these things doesn’t make you less effective. It makes you more so.

So before you build your ambitious plans for 2026, try creating space first. What are you ready to stop doing?

What’s on your “stop doing” list for 2026? What management habit are you ready to leave behind?

Writing Job Descriptions That Attract Neurodivergent Talent

Bob Bannister
by Bob Bannister on

The war for talent is intensifying, yet many organisations inadvertently exclude excellent candidates before they even apply. Research suggests that up to 20% of the population is neurodivergent, representing a vast pool of talent with diverse skills and perspectives. Yet traditional job descriptions often create unnecessary barriers that discourage neurodivergent candidates from applying.

The good news? Small, deliberate changes to how you write job descriptions can significantly broaden your talent pool whilst improving clarity for all candidates.

The Problem with Traditional Job Descriptions

Most job descriptions have evolved through decades of copying and pasting, accumulating layers of corporate jargon, unrealistic requirements, and ambiguous language. For neurodivergent candidates—who may process information differently, take language more literally, or struggle with inferring unstated expectations—these descriptions can be particularly off-putting.

Common barriers include:

– Vague or metaphorical language (“hit the ground running”, “rockstar performer”)

– Exhaustive lists of “essential” requirements that aren’t actually essential

– Unclear prioritisation of skills and responsibilities

– Lack of specificity about working environment and expectations

– Hidden cultural assumptions about “fitting in”

Seven Principles for Inclusive Job Descriptions

1. Be Specific and Literal

Replace vague phrases with concrete information. Instead of “fast-paced environment,” describe what this actually means: “You’ll typically handle 15-20 customer enquiries per day with response times of 2-4 hours.” Rather than “excellent communication skills,” specify: “You’ll write weekly progress reports and present findings to small team meetings of 4-6 people.”

This specificity helps all candidates self-assess accurately, but it’s particularly valuable for those who struggle with ambiguous or metaphorical language.

2. Separate Essential from Desirable

Many neurodivergent candidates—particularly autistic candidates—tend to interpret requirements literally. If you list ten “essential” criteria and they only meet eight, they may not apply, even if those two criteria aren’t truly essential.

Create clear sections:

– Essential: The absolute must-haves without which someone cannot do the role

– Desirable: Skills that would be helpful but can be learned or worked around

– About you: Personal qualities that would help someone thrive (but frame these as preferences, not requirements)

3. Describe the Sensory Environment

Neurodivergent individuals often have heightened sensitivity to sensory input—noise, lighting, temperature, or visual clutter. Including environmental details helps candidates assess their own fit and signals that you understand these considerations matter.

For example:

“Our office is an open-plan space with approximately 40 people. Background noise levels are moderate. Natural light is available, and desk lighting can be adjusted individually. We provide noise-cancelling headphones and have quiet rooms available for focused work.”

4. Be Transparent About Working Patterns

Ambiguity about flexibility, structure, and routine can be a significant deterrent. Be explicit about:

– Core hours versus flexible time

– Whether the role is office-based, hybrid, or remote

– Typical meeting frequency and duration

– Whether work patterns are predictable or variable

– How much autonomy exists over daily schedule

5. Focus on Outcomes, Not Processes

Rather than prescribing exactly how work should be done, describe what needs to be achieved. “You’ll ensure all customer complaints are resolved within 48 hours” is more inclusive than “You’ll follow our established complaint resolution protocol.”

This approach accommodates different working styles and allows neurodivergent candidates to consider whether they can achieve the outcome in their own way.

6. Clarify Social Expectations

Many neurodivergent people find unwritten social rules challenging. Being upfront about social aspects of the role helps candidates make informed decisions:

Instead of: “Team player who fits our culture”

Try: “You’ll attend a 30-minute team meeting each Monday morning and collaborate on 2-3 joint projects per quarter. We have optional Friday social events.”

This transparency shows respect for different social needs whilst making expectations clear.

7. Signal Your Commitment to Inclusion

Include a genuinely welcoming statement about neurodiversity. Generic diversity statements can feel hollow, but specific commitments signal authenticity:

“We actively welcome applications from neurodivergent candidates. We’re happy to make adjustments to our recruitment process—just let us know what would help. We provide workplace adjustments including flexible working, assistive technology, and quiet workspaces.”

What This Looks Like in Practice

Let’s compare two versions of the same job requirement:

Traditional version:

“Exceptional multitasker who thrives in a dynamic, fast-paced environment with constantly shifting priorities. Must be a strong team player with excellent interpersonal skills and the ability to read the room.”

Inclusive version:

“You’ll typically manage 3-4 projects simultaneously at different stages. Priorities are reviewed weekly in team meetings, and you’ll receive 24 hours’ notice for urgent changes where possible. You’ll work independently most of the time but collaborate with the marketing team on monthly campaigns and attend fortnightly team meetings.”

The second version provides concrete information that helps neurodivergent (and all) candidates assess genuine fit whilst removing subjective jargon.

The Business Case

Creating inclusive job descriptions isn’t just ethically right—it’s strategically smart. Organisations that successfully attract neurodivergent talent often gain:

– Access to highly skilled candidates overlooked by competitors

– Employees with strong analytical, pattern recognition, and problem-solving abilities

– Increased innovation through cognitive diversity

– Improved retention as employees feel understood and valued from the outset

Moreover, clearer job descriptions reduce wasted time for everyone. Candidates self-select more accurately, reducing mismatched applications. Hiring managers have better criteria for assessment. New starters arrive with more realistic expectations.

Getting Started

You don’t need to rewrite every job description immediately. Start with your next vacancy:

1. Review your draft against the seven principles above

2. Ask someone to highlight any vague or metaphorical language

3. Add specific environmental and social information

4. Separate essential from desirable requirements ruthlessly

5. Test it with neurodivergent colleagues or consultants if possible

The goal isn’t perfection—it’s progress toward clarity, transparency, and genuine inclusion.

What small change could you make to your next job description that would make it more accessible to neurodivergent candidates? The talent you’re seeking may be just one barrier away from applying.

Interviewing Neurodiverse Candidates: How to Assess Talent You Might Be Missing

Bob Bannister
by Bob Bannister on

Your interview process is probably screening out some of your best potential hires.

Not because they lack skills or capability, but because your standard interview format—the kind that works reasonably well for neurotypical candidates—actively obscures the talents of neurodiverse applicants.

The autistic candidate who can’t maintain eye contact while thinking deeply. The person with ADHD who rambles when nervous but is brilliant at their actual job. The dyslexic applicant who stumbles over reading your case study aloud but has exceptional strategic vision.

Traditional interviews reward a specific type of social performance that has remarkably little correlation with job performance. And neurodiverse candidates—who may be autistic, have ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, or other neurological differences—often excel at the work but struggle with the performance.

If you want to hire the best talent, you need to interview differently.

Rethink What You’re Actually Assessing

Most interviews inadvertently test:

– Comfort with unstructured social interaction

– Ability to think quickly under pressure in an artificial setting

– Skill at selling yourself verbally

– Reading and responding to subtle social cues

– Presenting confident body language

For some roles, these matter. For most roles, they don’t—or at least not as much as we think they do.

What you actually need to assess is whether someone can do the job brilliantly. That requires understanding their thinking, problem-solving approach, specific capabilities, and how they work best.

The question isn’t “Can they interview well?” It’s “Can they excel in this role?”

Before the Interview: Set People Up for Success

Provide clear information in advance:

Send candidates specific details about the interview format, who they’ll meet, how long it will last, and what to expect. Include the types of questions or topics you’ll cover.

This isn’t giving away the test. It’s removing unnecessary anxiety that prevents you from seeing someone’s actual capabilities.

Many neurodiverse people perform significantly better when they can prepare and aren’t dealing with uncertainty. You want to see their best thinking, not their ability to improvise under social stress.

Offer options where possible:

“Our interview typically includes a technical discussion and a case study. Would you prefer to receive the case study in advance to review, or work through it in real-time during the interview?”

Some people think best with preparation time. Others prefer immediate engagement. Neither approach indicates better job performance—just different processing styles.

Be explicit about accommodations:

Include a simple statement in your interview invitation: “We want you to interview in a way that lets you show your best work. If there are adjustments that would be helpful—whether that’s the interview format, environment, timing, or anything else—please let us know.”

This signals that you understand people work differently and you’re open to flexibility. Many candidates won’t ask, but knowing they could makes a significant difference.

During the Interview: Focus on Substance Over Style

Lead with genuine curiosity:

Instead of “Tell me about yourself” (which many neurodiverse people find agonisingly vague), ask specific questions about their work:

– “Walk me through a project you’re particularly proud of”

– “Tell me about a complex problem you solved recently”

– “What’s the most interesting technical challenge you’ve worked on?”

These questions let people demonstrate expertise rather than perform sociability.

Give thinking time:

After asking a question, pause. Count to five in your head. Many neurodiverse people need processing time before responding, and the silence feels less awkward to you than it does to them.

If someone says “That’s a great question, let me think about that,” don’t rush to fill the silence. Let them think.

Some people might even benefit from you saying: “Take whatever time you need to think about this.”

Notice what people do well, not just what’s awkward:

A candidate might avoid eye contact, fidget, speak in a monotone, or give unexpectedly detailed answers to simple questions. None of these indicate inability to do the job well.

Instead, pay attention to:

– The quality of their thinking when discussing their field

– How they approach problems

– The depth of their expertise

– Their genuine engagement with the work itself

Ask about their working style:

“What environment helps you do your best work?”

“How do you approach learning something completely new?”

“When you’re working on a complex problem, what does your process look like?”

These questions reveal how someone actually works, which is far more relevant than how they present in an artificial interview setting.

Be direct about expectations:

Instead of “Where do you see yourself in five years?” (a question many neurodiverse people find baffling), be specific:

“This role involves [specific responsibilities]. How does that align with what you’re looking for?”

“The team works in [specific way]. How do you feel about that approach?”

Clear, concrete questions get you clear, useful answers.

Practical Skills Assessment: Show, Don’t Tell

Wherever possible, assess actual capability rather than someone’s ability to describe their capability.

Work samples and portfolios:

“Show me something you’ve built/written/designed” reveals far more than “Tell me about your skills.”

Let candidates walk you through their work. Listen to how they explain their decisions, handle constraints, and solve problems. This demonstrates thinking quality in a way that hypothetical questions never can.

Practical exercises:

If you use case studies or technical tests, consider offering them in advance. “We’d like to discuss this scenario with you. Would you prefer to receive it now and have time to prepare your thoughts, or work through it together during the interview?”

For technical roles, pair programming or working through a problem together often reveals more than whiteboard interviews. You see how someone thinks, asks questions, and collaborates.

Multiple formats:

Some people articulate their thinking better in writing than verbally. Consider including a written component—perhaps a follow-up question via email, or a brief written exercise.

This isn’t about making the process longer. It’s about creating multiple ways for talent to emerge.

Reading Differently in Interviews

Strong analytical thinking might look like:

– Very detailed, specific answers

– Asking clarifying questions before answering

– Pausing to think carefully before responding

– Identifying edge cases or potential problems

– Connecting concepts in unexpected ways

Don’t mistake thoroughness for inability to prioritise, or clarifying questions for confusion.

Genuine expertise might look like:

– Enthusiasm that overrides social polish

– Going deep into technical detail unprompted

– Using precise terminology without simplifying

– Excitement about specific aspects of the work

– Honest acknowledgment of what they don’t know

Don’t mistake passion for inability to communicate with non-experts, or precision for pedantry.

Strong problem-solving might look like:

– Unconventional approaches to standard questions

– Thinking aloud in a non-linear way

– Asking unexpected questions

– Challenging premises of the problem

– Taking time to fully understand before answering

Don’t mistake different processing styles for slow thinking, or questioning assumptions for being difficult.

What About Team Fit?

This is where managers often get tripped up. Someone seems technically capable but “wouldn’t fit the team culture.”

Examine what you actually mean by that.

If you mean “doesn’t make small talk easily” or “seems a bit awkward”—that’s about social style, not collaboration ability.

If you mean “doesn’t communicate clearly” or “seems resistant to feedback”—dig deeper. How did you assess this in a single interview? Are you sure?

Ask better questions about collaboration:

“Tell me about a time you worked on a team project. What was your role?”

“How do you prefer to receive feedback on your work?”

“When you disagree with a team decision, how do you typically handle that?”

These questions assess actual collaboration skills rather than social performance.

Consider what your team actually needs:

Sometimes “culture fit” means “people who work like we already do.” But perhaps your team would benefit from someone who thinks differently, spots patterns others miss, or brings a completely fresh perspective.

The person who asks direct questions that seem blunt might be exactly who you need to identify problems everyone else is too polite to mention.

Red Flags Versus Different Flags

Actual red flags:

– Inability to explain their work or thinking

– Lack of genuine interest in the role

– Dishonesty about experience or skills

– Disrespect toward you or others

– Unwillingness to answer reasonable questions

Different flags (not red):

– Unusual communication style

– Unexpected interview behaviour

– Asking many clarifying questions

– Needing time to process before answering

– Not making eye contact

– Appearing nervous or uncomfortable

– Giving very detailed or tangential answers

The second list describes someone who might interview differently but work brilliantly.

After the Interview: Evaluate Fairly

When comparing candidates, separate social performance from job capability.

Create a structured rubric based on actual job requirements:

– Technical skills demonstrated

– Problem-solving approach

– Depth of expertise

– Quality of thinking

– Relevant experience

– Ability to learn and adapt

Notice if your gut feeling is based on “seemed confident and personable” rather than “demonstrated strong capability.” Likability and polish predict interview success, not job success.

Discuss with your hiring team:

“What specific evidence did we see that this person can do the job well?”

Not “Did I like them?” or “Would I want to get a drink with them?” but “What concrete capabilities did they demonstrate?”

Making the Offer: Continue the Conversation

Once you’ve decided to hire someone, don’t stop thinking about how to set them up for success.

In your offer conversation, make space for practical discussion:

“We want to make sure you can do your best work here. Are there things about how you work best that would be helpful for us to know as you’re starting?”

This continues the message that you’re hiring the person, not expecting them to conform to a standard template.

The Business Case

This isn’t just about fairness—though that matters. It’s about accessing exceptional talent.

Neurodiverse people are overrepresented in fields requiring systematic thinking, pattern recognition, attention to detail, creative problem-solving, and deep focus. These are exactly the capabilities many roles require.

When companies like SAP, Microsoft, and JP Morgan have created neurodiversity hiring programs, they report that neurodiverse employees often outperform their peers in productivity, quality, and innovation.

But they only get that talent because they interview differently.

Start Simple

You don’t need to overhaul your entire hiring process immediately. Start with small changes:

– Provide interview details in advance

– Ask more specific, job-relevant questions

– Give people time to think before answering

– Assess actual work rather than just talking about work

– Evaluate based on capability, not interview polish

These adjustments help you hire better candidates generally—not just neurodiverse ones. They simply make the biggest difference for people whose talents don’t show up in traditional interview formats.

The goal isn’t to lower the bar. It’s to make sure you’re actually measuring what matters.

Because somewhere out there is the person who would be extraordinary in your role—if only you interviewed them in a way that let their strengths emerge.

Understanding Your Neurodiverse Team Member: A Practical Guide to Strengths-Based Conversations

Bob Bannister
by Bob Bannister on

You’ve had the initial conversation. Your team member has shared that they’re autistic, have ADHD, or are dyslexic. Or perhaps you’ve simply noticed they work differently and want to understand them better. Now what?

The difference between managers who unlock exceptional performance and those who inadvertently suppress it often comes down to one thing: they know how to have ongoing, practical conversations about strengths and working styles.

This isn’t about one awkward chat and then never mentioning it again. It’s about building a working relationship based on genuine understanding of how someone’s brain works—and then leveraging that knowledge to help them excel.

Moving Beyond the Diagnosis

Here’s a mistake many well-meaning managers make: someone discloses they’re dyslexic, and the manager immediately thinks “spelling difficulties, needs extra time reading.” Or they hear ADHD and think “easily distracted, needs reminders about deadlines.”

These stereotypes aren’t completely wrong, but they’re dangerously incomplete.

That dyslexic team member might struggle with dense text but have extraordinary spatial reasoning that makes them brilliant at understanding complex system architectures. The person with ADHD might lose focus in boring meetings but achieve remarkable hyperfocus on genuinely engaging problems, producing in two hours what takes others two days.

Your first job is to get curious about the actual person, not the textbook definition of their neurology.

The Strengths Discovery Conversation

Schedule a relaxed conversation—maybe over coffee, maybe during a walk, wherever they feel comfortable—and approach it as genuine discovery.

Start here:

“I’d love to understand more about how you work best. What are you naturally good at that maybe doesn’t always show up in your job description?”

This question bypasses the deficit framing entirely. You’re not asking about struggles or accommodations. You’re asking about excellence.

Listen for specifics:

– “I can hold complex systems in my head and see how all the pieces interact”

– “I notice inconsistencies in data that others miss”

– “I can generate twenty creative solutions to a problem quickly”

– “I remember conversations and details from months ago”

– “I can work on repetitive tasks without getting bored”

These aren’t vague soft skills. These are valuable, specific capabilities that you can actively deploy.

Understanding Energy and Depletion

Neurodiverse people often have spiky performance profiles. They’re exceptional in certain conditions, but can be significantly challenged in others. Understanding this isn’t about lowering expectations—it’s about strategic deployment.

Ask about energy:

“What activities or situations leave you energised versus completely drained?”

You might discover that your team member can facilitate a three-hour workshop on a technical topic without breaking stride, but a thirty-minute networking event leaves them unable to work for the rest of the day. Or that they can hyper-focus on coding for six hours straight but find fifteen-minute check-in meetings utterly exhausting.

This information is gold. It tells you how to structure their work for maximum output.

Follow up with:

“When you’re drained, what helps you recover?”

“How much recovery time do you typically need?”

Some people need twenty minutes of complete silence. Others need to move physically. Some need to work on a completely different type of task. Build this understanding into how you manage workload and schedule.

Identifying Environmental Needs

The physical and social environment has an outsized impact on neurodiverse performance. What seems like minor background annoyance to you might be completely overwhelming to them—or vice versa.

Explore sensory preferences:

“What physical environment helps you do your best thinking?”

Don’t just ask about noise. Ask about lighting, temperature, visual clutter, proximity to others, whether they prefer enclosed or open space. Ask about whether they need to move while thinking or need to be completely still.

One team member might need multiple monitors in a quiet corner with warm lighting. Another might think best in a busy coffee shop with headphones on. Another might need to pace while on calls. None of these preferences is more valid than another—they’re just different.

Ask about interruptions:

“How do you prefer to handle interruptions during focused work?”

Some people can context-switch easily. Others need uninterrupted blocks to build deep focus, and a single interruption can cost them thirty minutes of productivity. Structure their work accordingly—maybe they have focus blocks with Slack notifications off, or specific hours when they’re available for questions.

Mapping Communication Preferences

Neurodiverse people often have strong preferences about how they receive and process information. Honouring these preferences dramatically improves both comprehension and performance.

Dig into detail:

“When I need to explain something complex to you, how can I do that most effectively?”

Some people need visual diagrams. Others need written documentation they can review multiple times. Some need to talk it through verbally. Many need time to process before responding.

Ask about feedback:

“How do you prefer to receive feedback—immediate or scheduled? In writing or conversation? With specific examples or general themes?”

Many neurodiverse people strongly prefer direct, specific feedback. They find hints and implications confusing or anxiety-inducing. Others need time to process feedback privately before discussing it. Understanding this prevents miscommunication that masquerades as performance issues.

Explore meeting dynamics:

“In team meetings, what would help you contribute your best thinking?”

You might learn that someone needs questions sent in advance to prepare thoughtful responses. Or that they process better when they can contribute in writing during the meeting. Or that they need explicit permission to interrupt, because they won’t jump into fast-moving conversation naturally.

Understanding Task Initiation and Completion

Many neurodiverse people have challenges with task initiation (getting started) or task completion (finishing the last 10%) that have nothing to do with capability or motivation.

Ask exploratively:

“Are there types of tasks you find particularly hard to start, even when you know you can do them well?”

Someone might struggle to begin open-ended tasks without clear parameters but excel once they have specific boundaries. Another might find it hard to start tasks that seem boring but can engage deeply once they find an interesting angle.

Regarding completion:

“Do you find some tasks difficult to finish even when they’re nearly done?”

The person who’s brilliant at generating ideas might struggle with documentation. The detail-oriented person who produces meticulous work might get stuck perfecting when “good enough” would suffice.

Once you understand these patterns, you can structure work differently—pairing people on projects so each handles the phases they’re strongest in, or building in specific checkpoints and accountability.

Talking About Challenges Constructively

You’ll eventually need to address difficulties. But the conversation should still be collaborative and curious, not corrective.

Frame it as problem-solving:

“I’ve noticed [specific observation]. Help me understand what’s happening from your perspective.”

Maybe deadlines are being missed. Instead of assuming carelessness, explore whether the person struggles with time perception, gets paralysed by perfectionism, or didn’t understand the priority level. Then you can address the actual issue.

Maybe written communication is unclear. Before sending them to a business writing course, find out if they’re thinking faster than they type, if they’re providing context they assume others have, or if they’re trying to be polite in ways that obscure their meaning.

Ask:

“What would make this easier for you?”

“What support would help you succeed with this?”

Often, simple adjustments—clearer deadlines with milestone check-ins, templates for common communication types, permission to ask clarifying questions—resolve issues completely.

Leveraging Distinctive Strengths

Once you understand someone’s specific capabilities, actively create opportunities for them to use these strengths.

If someone has exceptional pattern recognition, involve them early in data analysis or quality assurance. If someone thinks systematically, have them design processes or document workflows. If someone generates creative solutions quickly, bring them into brainstorming sessions—but let them contribute in whatever way works for them.

Ask directly:

“Given what you’re naturally good at, where do you think you could add the most value to the team?”

People often have excellent insight into where they could contribute more effectively if given the chance. They might identify opportunities you haven’t considered.

Then make it happen:

“Let’s try that. What would you need from me to make that successful?”

This isn’t about creating special projects to keep someone busy. It’s about strategically deploying talent where it will have the most impact.

Building Psychological Safety

The most important outcome of these conversations is trust. Your team member needs to know they can be honest about what’s working and what isn’t without being seen as difficult or incapable.

Make it explicit:

“I want you to be able to tell me when something isn’t working for you, even if it seems like it should be fine. I can’t help adjust things if I don’t know.”

Then prove you mean it. When someone says “these daily stand-ups are really hard for me,” don’t dismiss it. Explore alternatives. When someone asks for something unusual, approach it with curiosity rather than skepticism.

Check in regularly:

“Is what we put in place still working for you?”

Needs change. Projects change. What worked brilliantly three months ago might not work now. Make these conversations routine, not exceptional.

The Manager’s Role

You’re not a therapist or a coach. You’re a manager whose job is to create conditions for excellent work.

For neurodiverse team members, this means understanding how their particular brain works, removing unnecessary barriers, and actively leveraging their distinctive strengths.

The conversations that enable this aren’t complicated. They’re just direct, curious, and focused on the practical reality of how work gets done.

Have them regularly. Act on what you learn. Adjust as you go.

That’s not special treatment. That’s management done well.

When you make space for people to work in ways that align with how they actually think, you don’t just help them survive—you help them become the exceptional performers they’re capable of being.

And that benefits everyone.

Having Better Conversations with Your Neurodiverse Team Members

Bob Bannister
by Bob Bannister on

You’ve probably noticed that your team member thinks differently. Maybe they’re brilliant with systems but struggle in open-plan offices. Perhaps they ask surprisingly direct questions in meetings or need written follow-ups after verbal discussions. They might have disclosed a diagnosis—autism, ADHD, dyslexia—or you’re simply aware that traditional management approaches aren’t quite landing.

Here’s the thing: that difference isn’t a problem to solve. It’s information you can use to help someone do their best work.

The most effective managers of neurodiverse talent don’t focus on “fixing” challenges. They have genuine conversations about strengths, working styles, and environmental needs. Then they make targeted adjustments that benefit everyone.

Before the Conversation: Check Your Assumptions

Most managers approach these conversations with good intentions but unhelpful frameworks. You’re not conducting an intervention. You’re not accommodating a deficit. You’re learning how a talented person’s brain works so you can create conditions for them to excel.

Neurodiversity includes autism, ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, and other neurological differences. These aren’t disorders to manage around—they’re different operating systems. Each comes with distinctive strengths: pattern recognition, creative problem-solving, hyperfocus, detail orientation, innovative thinking.

Your job is to understand the specific person in front of you, not to apply generic assumptions about their diagnosis.

Setting Up the Conversation

Pick the right moment. Don’t wait for a performance issue. Make this part of how you understand all your team members. Frame it as a routine check-in about working preferences.

Choose the right environment. Ask where they’d be most comfortable talking. Some people think better while walking. Others prefer a quiet room with an agenda sent in advance. Many neurodiverse people appreciate knowing the conversation’s purpose beforehand—no surprises.

Start with strengths. Open with genuine observations about what they do well. “I’ve noticed you’re exceptional at catching edge cases in our testing process” or “Your documentation is consistently the clearest on the team.” This isn’t flattery—it’s establishing that you see their value.

Questions That Actually Help

The best conversations are collaborative, not diagnostic. Here are questions that tend to unlock useful information:

About their strengths:
– “What kind of work gives you energy rather than draining it?”
– “When do you feel like you’re working at your best?”
– “What problems do you find easiest to solve that others seem to struggle with?”

About their environment:
– “What physical environment helps you focus?” (lighting, noise levels, space configuration).
– “Do you work better with background activity or quiet?”
– “Are there times of day when you’re more productive?”

About communication:
– “How do you prefer to receive new information—written, verbal, visual?”
– “When you’re working through a complex problem, is it helpful to talk it through or think independently first?”
– “After meetings, is there anything that would help you process what was discussed?”

About workload and expectations:
– “When you’re juggling multiple priorities, what helps you stay organised?”
– “How much heads-up time do you need before context-switching to something new?”
– “Would it be helpful to know the purpose behind tasks, or do you prefer just getting clear instructions?”

About collaboration:
– “In team settings, what helps you contribute your best thinking?”
– “Are there types of meetings or interactions that are particularly draining?”
– “How can I make it easier for you to ask for what you need?”

What You’re Listening For

Pay attention to patterns, not just individual answers. You’re building a picture of how this person works optimally.

Someone might reveal that they produce their best work between 10 PM and 2 AM, but your rigid 9-to-5 culture is forcing them into their least productive hours. Another might be spending enormous energy on open-plan office distractions, leaving less capacity for actual work. Someone else might be missing crucial context because your team communicates important decisions verbally in hallway conversations.

These aren’t accommodations you’re grudgingly making. These are barriers you’re removing so talent can emerge.

From Conversation to Action

Once you understand someone’s working style, make specific adjustments:

Environmental changes: Noise-cancelling headphones, alternative workspace options, flexible hours, modified lighting. These cost little and can transform productivity.

Communication adjustments: Written meeting agendas in advance, follow-up emails after verbal discussions, clear deadlines with purpose explained, direct feedback rather than hints.

Project alignment: Match people to work that uses their strengths. The person who thinks in systems should be designing processes. The detail-oriented person should be doing quality assurance. The creative tangential thinker should be in innovation sessions.

Team norms: Many adjustments you make for one person—clearer communication, better documentation, thoughtful meeting structures—improve things for everyone.

What About Challenges?

Of course there will be difficulties. But address them as you would with anyone: clearly, specifically, and collaboratively.

“I’ve noticed deadlines are sometimes missed. Help me understand what’s happening” is better than assuming someone doesn’t care. You might discover they’re overwhelmed by ambiguous priorities or paralysed by perfectionism. Then you can problem-solve together.

The key is separating true performance issues from stylistic differences. Someone who asks “why are we doing this?” in meetings isn’t being difficult—they’re seeking the context they need to work effectively. Someone who doesn’t make small talk isn’t rude—they might be conserving energy for actual work.

Building on Strengths

The most successful neurodiverse team members often aren’t succeeding despite their neurodiversity—they’re excelling because of it. The autistic engineer who notices the pattern no one else saw. The ADHD creative who makes unexpected connections. The dyslexic designer who thinks spatially in ways that transform user experience.

Your role is to create conditions where these strengths can flourish while removing unnecessary friction.

This might mean protecting someone’s hyperfocus time from interruptions, letting someone write reports instead of presenting them, or allowing someone to contribute to brainstorms via a shared document rather than speaking up in the room.

The Broader Shift

Here’s what’s interesting: once you start managing this way—having direct conversations about working styles, making environment adjustments, playing to strengths—you’ll probably find it improves your management of everyone.

Neurotypical team members also have preferences, optimal environments, and distinctive strengths. They’re just often better at masking discomfort and adapting to suboptimal conditions. That doesn’t mean they’re thriving.

The conversation techniques that work for neurodiverse team members—direct, curious, focused on strengths, collaborative about solutions—are simply good management. You’re just being more intentional about it.

Moving Forward

Start with curiosity. Schedule time with team members specifically to understand how they work best. Make it normal to talk about these things. Create a team culture where people can say “I need quiet to focus on this” or “Can you send that in writing?” without apology.

Then watch what happens when talented people get to work in ways that match how their brains actually function.

The goal isn’t to help neurodiverse employees fit into your existing structure. It’s to build a team environment flexible enough that everyone can contribute their best work.

That’s not accommodation. That’s just smart management.

Contact us today to learn more

We're Trusted By

100% money back guarantee if people don’t change as a result of our work with you Discuss The Training Your Team Requires

I'm Bob Bannister, owner, and trainer at iManage Performance, the specialists in training for remote workers and managers with over 20 years of experience in this sector.

As the UK has rapidly shifted towards working from home, this challenges the norms in which we work and manage We can help to fast track your remote management or team skills. Speak to us about our training options today.

call today +44 (0)1444 474247

email bob.bannister@imanageperformance.com