There is a growing public debate around work-life balance and the ideal number of work hours. A largely overlooked aspect of this conversation is how expectations at the workplace tend to be oriented towards the neurotypical. Standardised measures of productivity and value systemically exclude those who deviate from homogenised cognitive norms. The Indian workspace remains unwelcoming of employees whose brains function differently, compelling neurodivergent employees to adapt.
The struggles of navigating neurodivergence at the workplace stem less from being different, and more from how difference is perceived. Neurodivergent individuals, such as those having autism, ADHD or dyslexia, are routinely met with confusion and impatience, if not outright exclusion. Unlike physical disabilities, cognitive differences are often invisible. Indian society rarely discusses neurodivergence and, when it does, the focus is on ‘overcoming’ it. As a result, many neurodivergent persons, particularly in professional settings, resort to masking — suppressing natural behaviours to appear neurotypical — which is exhausting and unsustainable.
Another major barrier is the stigma surrounding stimming — self-regulatory behaviours including fidgeting or repeating words, sounds or movements for comfort or sensory input. These actions help neurodivergent individuals regulate focus and emotion, yet are viewed as absurd or unprofessional. Responses to these frequently include ridicule and judgement. The most overlooked aspect of navigating neurodivergence at the workplace is perhaps the sheer mental load of forced participation in the wholly avoidable rigmarole of suppressing one’s sense of self to meet superficial social expectations.
Sensory obstacles further make workplaces uniquely challenging for neurodivergent people to exist in. Harsh lighting, frequent movement of people and disruptive noises tend to trigger sensory overloads. Yet, simple tools for managing overstimulation, such as noise-cancelling headphones and fidget toys, are disapproved of as being indicative of a lack of focus. The long-term harm of exclusively neurotypical expectations applies not only to a select subset of employees but to organisations at large. Many neurodivergent persons have exceptionally high intelligence and the ability to be extraordinary in their roles when supported. Actively creating space for neurodivergent employees to thrive is more than just organisational kindness or fulfilment of diversity, equity, and inclusion obligations.
Rethinking organisational approaches to neurodiversity presents the opportunity to harness an often-untapped reserve of talent and innovation. Supporting, and even embracing neurodivergence may lead to more creative problem solving, task-oriented hyperfocus, enhanced aptitudes for pattern recognition and so on. Companies can thus stand to optimise performance and improve workspaces. Yet, merely exploiting the unique strengths of neurodivergent folks would be ethically unsound. Cultural shifts and inclusion are ends in themselves, with improved performance being a happy bonus. A fundamental failure of Indian workplaces is that the burden of accommodation is placed almost exclusively on those who need it. Disadvantaged persons are expected to disclose their differences, self-advocate for their needs, and request (not demand) reasonable adjustments. When accommodations such as flexible work setups are provided, they are framed as benevolence rather than the fulfilment of the minimum standards of inclusion.
As a result, promises of equal opportunity, equity and diversity remain superficial at best. Policies aimed at workplace inclusivity and DEI must be reimagined to actively embrace neurodiverse employees to create truly inclusive workspaces.