Neurodivergence as a Social Construct: Reimagining Workplace Inclusion
When we label brain differences as ‘disorders’, who defines what's ‘normal’? In this blog, we’ll be considering how workplace systems—not individuals—create barriers to full participation.
When we talk about neurodiversity in professional settings, the conversation too often places the burden on the individual: How can neurodivergent professionals adapt to workplace conventions? What strategies can they employ to navigate systems not designed with their thinking styles in mind? This one-sided approach subtly reinforces the notion that the individual—not the system—needs fixing.
But what if we've fundamentally misunderstood the nature of neurodivergence itself?
What if the ‘problems’ associated with autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and other neurological differences aren't inherent to the individuals who experience them—but are instead created by the collision between diverse minds and rigidly designed systems?
This is the power of examining neurodivergence through the lens of social constructionism.
“Neurological variations themselves are inherent characteristics, but whether these differences constitute ‘neurological challenges’ depends almost entirely on social context, cultural values, and environmental design.”
Understanding Neurodivergence as a Social Construct
Neurological variations themselves are inherent characteristics. Autistic people, those with ADHD, dyslexic thinkers—all have genuine differences in how their brains process information, regulate attention, or interpret sensory input.
But here's the crucial distinction: whether these differences constitute 'neurological challenges' depends almost entirely on social context, cultural values, and environmental design.
Consider these examples of social construction in action:
1. Time perception in ADHD: In workplaces with rigid schedules and punctuality requirements, different relationships with time can present challenges. However, in settings with more fluid approaches or roles valuing deep focus, these same attention patterns often become valuable strengths. The environment, not the trait itself, determines whether diverse time perception is seen as an asset or limitation.
2. Sensory processing in autism: Heightened sensory awareness becomes challenging primarily in stimulating environments like open-plan offices. In quieter settings or roles requiring acute sensory discrimination, these same differences might be recognised as specialised skills. The context, rather than the individual's sensory profile, determines whether heightened perception becomes an advantage.
3. Communication styles: Some professionals naturally favour direct, detailed communication focused on precision. While this approach may seem at odds with cultures emphasising social rapport, these same communication preferences become highly valued in contexts where accuracy is paramount. What's considered "different" in one setting may be precisely what's needed in another.
What transforms a simple neurological difference into a workplace 'barrier to performance' isn't the individual's brain—it's the rigid, socially constructed expectations that surround them.
“These expectations aren’t natural laws or universal standards, but they transform mere neurological differences into workplace access challenges by design, not by necessity.”
The Socially Constructed ‘Normal’ in Professional Spaces
Modern workplaces are built upon socially constructed ideas of ‘normalcy’ that are rarely acknowledged or questioned. These constructs appear in supposedly neutral concepts like ‘professionalism’, ‘executive presence’, or ‘culture fit’—all of which encode specific neurological styles as desirable while pathologising others.
Consider these workplace norms as social constructions rather than objective standards:
‘Professional communication’ privileges rapid verbal processing, comfort with eye contact, facial expressiveness, and neurotypical social cues—none of which correlate with competence, intelligence, or job performance.
‘Time management’ rewards neurotypical executive function patterns while penalising different styles of attention regulation that might produce equal or superior results through different paths.
‘Team player’ often translates to ‘processes social information in neurotypical ways’ rather than actual collaboration skills or contribution to group outcomes.
‘Open-office productivity’ assumes a neurotypical sensory profile that can filter background stimuli without cognitive cost—a construction that actively creates a disadvantage for those with different sensory processing.
These expectations aren't natural laws or universal standards—they're arbitrary social constructs that have calcified into systems that reward neurological conformity rather than actual performance. They transform mere neurological differences into workplace access challenges by design, not by necessity.
Deconstructing Workplace Norms: The Social Construct in Action
To see how powerfully social constructs shape neurodivergent experiences, let's examine a scenario I've encountered repeatedly in my work coaching neurodivergent professionals:
The Developer and the Daily Standup: A Case Study in Social Construction
An autistic software developer produces exceptional code through their pattern recognition abilities and attention to detail. Yet they experience significant distress during daily standup meetings—a practice so normalised that few question its structure.
Analysing this through a social construct lens reveals:
“What appeared to be an individual’s ‘performance challenge’ is exposed as an artificially restrictive communication system.”
The Constructed Nature of the ‘Problem’:
The standup format itself (verbal, synchronous, rapid-fire) is a social construction, not an objective necessity
The definition of ‘participation’ privileges specific communication styles
The expectation for consistent daily verbal performance regardless of cognitive state is arbitrary
The judgement that silence or written communication indicates disengagement is culturally constructed
Medical Model (Locating the Problem in the Individual): "This employee has a communication deficit requiring remediation." The developer must adapt through scripting, masking, and conforming to the constructed norm.
Social Construct Model (Locating the Problem in the System): "Our meeting format arbitrarily privileges certain neurological styles and creates artificial barriers for others."
When the team recognises that standups themselves are social constructs, they implement a hybrid approach with written options, asynchronous participation paths, and redefined metrics for communication that don't pathologise neurodivergent styles.
The result isn't just better for the neurodivergent developer—it improves information sharing across the team and reveals how constructed barriers were limiting everyone. What appeared to be an individual's 'performance challenge' is exposed as an artificially restrictive communication system.
The Power of Social Constructionism: Relocating the ‘Problem’
Understanding neurodivergence as a social construct represents a profound paradigm shift in how we approach workplace inclusion:
The Medical Model (which treats neurodivergence as inherent pathology):
Locates the ‘problem’ within individual brains
Frames differences as deficits requiring treatment or compensation
Places adaptation burden on already-marginalised individuals
Leaves power structures and exclusionary systems unquestioned
Accepts constructed workplace norms as objective or natural
The Social Construction Model:
Recognises that 'workplace obstacles' emerges from the interaction between minds and environments
Questions who has the power to define ‘normal’ or ‘professional’
Exposes how seemingly neutral workplace standards encode neurotypical privilege
Relocates the responsibility for change from marginalised individuals to systems and power holders
Reveals how arbitrary social constructs limit human potential and organisational effectiveness
From Individual Resilience to Systemic Deconstruction
As a neurodiversity-informed coach working with both neurodivergent professionals and organisations, I've witnessed the liberating power of shifting from "How can this person fit our constructed norm?" to "How have we constructed norms that exclude valuable minds?"
The BASICS Framework offers a revolutionary approach to workplace inclusion:
B - Beyond Awareness to Understanding: Moving past basic recognition of neurodivergent traits to strategic understanding of how different thinking styles solve specific business challenges.
A - Accommodation to Integration: Redesigning systems and workflows to naturally incorporate diverse thinking styles rather than treating neurodivergent needs as exceptions requiring special accommodations.
S - Social Construction Recognition: Understanding that while neurological differences are real lived experiences, 'functional mismatches' emerge from the interaction between minds and environments rather than being inherent to individuals.
I - Individuality Over Generalisations: Recognising and mapping individual cognitive profiles rather than relying on broad generalisations about neurotypical or neurodivergent traits.
C - Coaching Mindset to Management: Transforming leadership from directive oversight to curiosity-driven coaching that identifies and amplifies distinct strengths while creating psychological safety.
S - Systemic Resistance Navigation: Identifying and addressing the psychological resistance patterns that emerge during change processes, from both neurotypical and neurodivergent perspectives.
When we recognise neurodivergence as both an authentic expression of human diversity and a social construct, we create possibilities for workplaces that aren't merely more inclusive—but fundamentally more effective, innovative, and humane for all people, regardless of neurotype.
Ready to apply the BASICS framework to transform your organisation's approach to neurodiversity? Or need support navigating socially constructed barriers as a neurodivergent professional? Get in touch.