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.
