Five key insights from the Neurodiversity Index Report 2026

Neurodiversity awareness in organisations has grown, but for many employees, little has changed in practice. That’s the main finding from the Neurodiversity Index Report 2026, which was recently published by the City & Guilds Foundation in collaboration with Professor Amanda Kirby.

​What explains this growing gap between neurodiversity awareness and action? And what can we do to bridge it?

Having studied the full 52-page report, there are several findings that stood out to me. In this article, I’ll guide you through them, focusing on five themes:

For each theme, I’ll offer my perspective on what the data mean, and how they align with what I’m seeing and hearing in the field.

I’ve also included actionable questions to help you reflect on where things are going well in your own organisation, and where there’s a need for improvement.

1. The neurodiversity awareness-action gap is widening

What the data shows:

Awareness is up, but it’s not translating into improved experiences:

• Employers report an increase in awareness of neurodiversity, up from 70% to 75% compared to last year.
• At the same time, neurodivergent employees say that manager capability to support has declined from 55% to 52%.
• Psychological safety is down too, from 60% to 55%, with only 32% to 38% of neurodivergent employees feeling safe to disclose.

My perspective:

Raising awareness is a necessary first step, but it’s not enough on its own. Without systemic interventions, we risk raising employee expectations while underdelivering on actual support.

What’s needed is a shift from building awareness to building competence. Managers need practical tools and the confidence to offer need-based support to each individual, irrespective of labels or diagnoses. Not as a one-off training, but as something they revisit regularly, for example during management off-sites where they can exchange experiences.

Those managerial capabilities need to be paired with accountability, because skills alone don’t automatically translate into consistent behaviors.

One way to build accountability is to embed psychological safety into performance management frameworks for managers. Just this week, I spoke to someone from an organisation where every manager receives a quarterly rating on psychological safety from their team, alongside concrete feedback. I thought it was a brilliant way of embedding neuroinclusion into the fabric of the organisation, rather than leaving it to good intentions.

Questions for reflection:

• As you think about your organisation’s efforts to become more neuroinclusive, what’s one thing that could help you move from awareness to behaviorial change?
• How could you measure the impact of those behavioral changes to track progress and give managers actionable feedback?

2. Support arrives late (if it does at all)

What the data shows:​

Getting the right workplace support for neurodivergent employees often takes longer than it should, and the bar for asking remains high:

• Around 1 in 3 neurodivergent employees only seek adjustments or accommodations once they’re already struggling.
• Fewer than 1 in 5 feel able to raise their needs during a job interview; that number drops to around 1 in 12 once an offer is on the table.
• When employees request adjustments, the process can take months, with delays of three months or more becoming more common.

My perspective:

The best time to offer support is before it’s needed.

Today, most companies handle adjustments reactively, triggered by a performance concern or a request for help when an employee is already drowning. By the time support is in place, the employee may be burned out. Recovery can be an uphill climb from that point, and it’s incredibly hard to regain trust once it’s broken.

So much of this can be prevented. By offering adjustments proactively (including during hiring and onboarding), companies can signal that neurodivergent individuals are welcome and support them throughout the employee journey.

For example, one company I recently spoke with offers new hires a “menu” of support options during onboarding, including different communication formats and assistive technology. That’s the kind of universal design I believe we should all be striving for.

Crucially, managers also need to feel they have the organisational backing to make decisions about adjustments. That clarity is often missing. I’ve seen managers who want to support team members but refer them to HR instead, because they’re unsure how much leeway they have to “make exceptions.” When HR then points back to the line manager, the employee is left in limbo. Clear roles and responsibilities help prevent unnecessary delays and ensure timely support.

Questions for reflection:

• Could you embed questions about need-based support into your hiring and onboarding, without requiring disclosure of neurodivergence?
• Do your line managers and HR teams understand their roles and responsibilities when it comes to providing reasonable adjustments? If not, how could you clarify the process for everyone involved?​

3. Support is not distributed evenly

What the data shows:

While support is lacking overall, some are affected more strongly than others

• Certain groups of neurodivergent individuals tend to receive more support, including those in professional and managerial roles, as well as white, longer-tenured, and higher-paid employees.
• Frontline and lower-status roles, women, and some minority groups are more likely to get partial or no support.
• Roughly 1 in 8 receive no support at all after disclosing or requesting help (this finding is especially troubling).

My perspective:

The structural inequality in workplace support doesn’t surprise me, but it’s disturbing nonetheless. The reality is that flexibility is often more negotiable the higher you are in the organisational hierarchy, or once you’ve “earned” it through consistently high performance.

But this creates a catch-22: in order to perform, you need support you haven’t been given yet – unless the odds are already stacked in your favor. Seen through that lens, adjustments are often a privilege that reinforces existing inequities, rather than an enabler that levels the playing field.

This is particularly problematic for those already facing systemic inequalities, including women and minority groups. The report shows they are more likely to experience microaggressions, including assumptions about competence and criticisms of communication style. This suggests there’s still a narrow and biased expectation of what “professional” behavior looks like at work.

Questions for reflection:

• Could you run a breakdown of adjustments granted across different employee groups (where possible and compliant with privacy considerations) to identify potential patterns or disparities?
• If your current neuroinclusion efforts primarily focus on office-based workers, how could you extend them to frontline roles (e.g., in shops or factories)?

​4. Older neurodivergent employees carry a hidden burden

What the data shows:

The report reveals a clear age pattern in how neurodivergent employees are impacted:

• Over half of neurodivergent employees aged 45 and over report spending many years masking or overcompensating in the workplace.
• Among those under 35, that figure drops to 30-35%.
• Older employees are also less likely to disclose their neurodivergence, citing fear of being judged as less capable, concern about career progression, and lack of trust in follow-through.

My perspective:

Many of us who are older (and I’ll count myself in that group) grew up without the language to name our differences, let alone discuss them at work. Adapting to the norm was simply how you got through your career, if you were lucky to have one.

That is now changing. Younger employees tend to be more fluent in the language of neurodiversity and mental health. In many ways, they are driving the conversation about those topics in organisations. And that’s a good thing.

At the same time, we need to ensure we don’t overlook the experiences of older neurodivergent employees. As the researchers rightly point out, organisations need an age-aware approach to neuroinclusion, which will become even more important as the workforce continues to age.

Questions for reflection:

• If you have a neurodiversity ERG and you’ve seen mostly younger colleagues join your events, how could you reach more older or late-diagnosed colleagues and make them feel safe enough to participate?
• How much of your current manager training addresses generational differences in how neurodiversity is understood and discussed?

​5. Optimism bias distorts internal perceptions of inclusion

What the data shows:

Many of the barriers neurodivergent employees face go unaddressed because they are least visible to those who hold the most power:

• White senior male leaders are more likely to report that the organisation is “neurodiversity-ready”.
• Managers closer to operational reality, especially female ones, are more likely to recognize where systems are failing neurodivergent employees.

My perspective:

It’s hard to see barriers you’ve never had to navigate yourself. That simple truth goes a long way towards explaining why those in positions of power often overestimate how neuroinclusive their organisation really is.

When you’ve always enjoyed working in a busy office (or when you have a private room), it’s easy to overlook how overwhelming open-plan offices can be for those with sensory sensitivities. And when you’re the sort of person who’s used to having back-to-back meetings, it can be hard to imagine how draining they can be for those who struggle with constant context-switching.

Alongside limited personal experience, there’s also a strong element of optimism bias at play: leaders may assume that because support exists on paper, it’s working in practice. Middle managers – especially those who’ve had to overcome barriers themselves – tend to have a more realistic picture of how employees experience the workplace day to day.

Questions for reflection:

• When you’re designing neuroinclusive processes, how can you solicit input and feedback from managers and employees at every stage?
• Could reverse mentoring (pairing neurodivergent employees with senior leaders) help increase understanding of daily challenges and barriers?

Concluding thoughts

The overall message from this research is clear:

We’ve come a long way in raising awareness of neurodiversity in organisations, and that’s something we should celebrate, but awareness alone is no longer enough. 

The next phase of progress calls for systemic action, informed by lived experience, and with different stakeholders – leaders, managers, HR/D&I teams, and ERGs – all working together. I hope this article has offered you some inspiration for where to get started in your organisation.

These efforts are most likely to succeed when we don’t treat them as a standalone diversity initiative, but as an integral part of how we manage talent and performance. It’s what today’s workforce expects. And the organisations that get it right will be best placed to attract and retain neurodivergent people – the ones who add something to your company’s culture precisely because they don’t neatly fit into it.

A huge thanks to Professor Amanda Kirby and her collaborators for this important research. You can download a free copy of the full report here.

Header photo by Egor Komarov on Unsplash.