Creating inclusive workplaces requires understanding the unique needs of neurodivergent employees.
People need to feel safe enough to contribute.
But psychological safety isn't created simply by telling people, "You can speak up."
It is created by building the conditions in which people genuinely feel safe enough to ask questions, admit mistakes, challenge an idea, communicate a need, say that something isn't working, or contribute a different perspective.
For neurodivergent employees, those conditions can be particularly important.
What do we actually mean by psychological safety?
Psychological safety is not the same as feeling comfortable all the time.
It doesn't mean that everyone agrees with you, that difficult conversations are avoided, or that nobody ever makes a mistake.
It means having a shared sense that it is safe to take interpersonal risks: to ask a question, admit an error, offer an alternative view, seek clarification, or contribute an idea without expecting to be humiliated or punished for doing so.
The 2026 Neurodiversity in Business: Research Report, produced by Neurodiversity in Business and Birkbeck, University of London, identifies psychological safety as one of the four foundations of effective neuroinclusion. The report also found that psychological safety was significantly lower for neurodivergent employees than for employer representatives and neurodivergent entrepreneurs who work in teams (McDowall & Srinivasan, 2026).
The 2026 research measured psychological safety using a well-established seven-item team psychological safety measure developed by Edmondson (1999), which focuses on the extent to which people experience their team environment as safe for interpersonal risk-taking (McDowall & Srinivasan, 2026).
This is particularly relevant to neuroinclusive workplaces because contributing at work isn't only about having the knowledge, skills or ability to do a job. It is also about whether the environment makes it possible to use those capabilities.
What conditions do people need in order to feel safe enough to contribute as themselves?
Psychological safety is about more than speaking up
One of the things I often explore with clients is the difference between being allowed to speak and feeling safe enough to speak.
An organisation might have an open-door policy. A manager might genuinely say: "If you need anything, just come and talk to me." A company might have a neurodiversity network, an employee assistance programme and a reasonable adjustments process. All of those things can be valuable. But none of them automatically create psychological safety.
Imagine an employee who has previously been criticised for asking too many questions. Or someone who has learned through years of masking that asking for clarification can make them appear less capable. Perhaps they have experienced being told that they are "too sensitive", "overthinking things", "making things complicated" or "not being a team player".
Perhaps they have learned that disclosing a difficulty results in unwanted attention, assumptions about their capability or pressure to explain their neurotype.
Technically, they may be free to speak. But psychologically, speaking may not feel safe. That distinction matters.
For me, as a specialist neurodiversity coach at Reframe Neurodiversity, this finding matters because it shifts the conversation away from asking neurodivergent people to become better at coping with environments that don't work for them.
What does the 2026 research tell us?
4.15
Neurodivergent employees
Average psychological safety score for neurodivergent employees (McDowall & Srinivasan, 2026)
4.86
Entrepreneurs
Average psychological safety score for entrepreneurs who worked in teams (McDowall & Srinivasan, 2026)
4.77
Employer representatives
Average psychological safety score for employer represenatives (McDowall & Srinivasan, 2026)
The 2026 research provides a particularly important insight here. Among the groups studied, neurodivergent employees had significantly lower psychological safety than employer representatives and entrepreneurs who worked in teams.
The report also found that psychological safety was significantly associated with career satisfaction and was identified as the strongest protective factor against burnout in its 2026 analysis of neurodivergent employees (McDowall & Srinivasan, 2026).
This doesn't mean that psychological safety is the sole explanation for burnout, career satisfaction or retention. The research identifies several interacting factors, including job crafting, wellbeing, line-manager support, work design, and organisational knowledge of neurodiversity.
The report describes psychological safety as a baseline condition for neurodivergent employees being able to realise their contribution and talent (McDowall & Srinivasan, 2026). That is a very different conversation from simply asking an employee to become more resilient.
The organisational climate matters
Why might psychological safety be particularly important for neurodivergent employees?
There is no single neurodivergent experience. Autistic people, people with ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia and other neurotypes have different experiences, strengths, challenges and support needs. Many people also have more than one neurotype or disability. So I would be cautious about saying that all neurodivergent employees experience psychological safety in the same way.
However, the workplace environment can create additional cognitive, sensory, or social demands.
For example:
Processing & Attention
- processing information
- differently from colleagues
- needing additional time to formulate a response
- experiencing intense focus on particular areas of work
Sensory & Environment
- experiencing sensory overload
- finding unexpected changes particularly demanding
- finding ambiguous instructions difficult to interpret
Communication & Social
- communicating more directly
- needing clarification before starting a task
- having a strong sense of fairness or justice
- experiencing criticism or interpersonal conflict particularly intensely
- masking differences in communication or behaviour
- worrying about being perceived as difficult, incapable, or "different"
None of these automatically mean that someone will struggle at work. But when the environment is inflexible or judgemental, the cost of navigating the environment can consume capacity that could otherwise be used for the work itself.
The 2026 report recognises this broader issue, identifying cognitive load, inconsistent support and inflexible structures as contributors to the risk of burnout among neurodivergent employees (McDowall & Srinivasan, 2026).
The hidden cost of not feeling safe
When people don't feel psychologically safe, they may become less likely to ask for help. They may spend considerable energy trying to work out what is expected without asking. They may hide difficulties until they become much harder to manage. They may avoid contributing an idea because they don't want to be wrong. They may agree with a decision they believe is flawed because challenging it feels risky. They may stop disclosing when they need an adjustment. They may work significantly longer or harder than necessary to compensate for difficulties they don't feel able to discuss. And sometimes, they may simply leave.
The 2026 report found that career satisfaction was the strongest driver of lower turnover intention among neurodivergent employees, with psychological safety as one factor contributing to career satisfaction (McDowall & Srinivasan, 2026).
This is why I don't see psychological safety as simply a "wellbeing initiative". It is also a talent, retention and sustainable-performance issue.
Psychological safety isn't about lowering standards
This distinction matters for organisations. Creating psychological safety doesn't mean lowering expectations. It doesn't mean avoiding accountability. It doesn't mean agreeing with everyone. And it certainly doesn't mean that neurodivergent employees should be treated as though they are incapable of managing challenge.
In fact, psychological safety can make constructive challenge easier. A psychologically safe team can say:
- "I don't understand what we're trying to achieve here."
- "I think there is a risk we've missed."
- "I made a mistake and here's what happened."
- "I have a different perspective."
- "I need the instructions clarified before I can start."
- "That approach isn't working for me. Can we try something different?"
Those are not signs of weakness. They can signal engagement, responsibility, and effective collaboration. The challenge for organisations is creating a culture where those contributions are welcomed rather than interpreted negatively.
So what creates psychological safety?
The 2026 research recommends practical organisational action rather than treating neuroinclusion as an additional initiative. Its recommendations include fostering psychological safety through sharing learning, creating opportunities to reflect on what happened and what worked well, setting clear expectations, using inclusive meeting and communication formats, training staff in neuroinclusion and equipping line managers to support neurodivergent employees (McDowall & Srinivasan, 2026).
From my perspective as a neurodiversity coach, I would translate that into five practical conditions:
1. Clear expectations
People shouldn't have to decode what success looks like. Be clear about what needs to be done, why it matters, what
"good" looks like, deadlines and priorities, what is flexible, and what is genuinely non-negotiable. Clarity reduces unnecessary cognitive load and makes it easier for people to identify when they need help.
2. Safe communication
Think about whether your communication practices allow different people to process and respond effectively. Do all important conversations happen spontaneously in a meeting? Are people expected to answer immediately? Are instructions primarily verbal? Can employees ask questions without feeling they should already know the answer? Inclusive communication isn't about creating a special communication system for neurodivergent employees. It is about recognising that one communication style will not work equally well for everyone.
3. Permission to ask for help
One of the most powerful things a manager can communicate is: "You don't have to struggle silently before you ask for support." That message needs to be reinforced through behaviour. If an employee asks a question, how does the manager respond? If someone says they are overwhelmed, what happens next? If an employee asks for an adjustment, is the response
4. Constructive responses to mistakes 5. Managers who understand neurodiversity
If mistakes are treated as evidence of incompetence, people will naturally become more cautious about admitting them.
A psychologically safe workplace can instead ask: What happened? What did we learn? What could we change? What would help prevent this happening again? This isn't about removing accountability. It is about making learning possible.
The 2026 report specifically recommends regular "wash-ups" that capture not only what happened and what was done, but also what worked well about collaborative working (McDowall & Srinivasan, 2026).
5. Managers who understand neurodiversity
Managers don't need to be experts in every neurotype. They do, however, need enough understanding to recognise that differences in communication, attention, sensory processing, executive functioning and information processing can influence someone's experience of work. More importantly, they need to approach those differences with curiosity rather than assumption. The report identifies line managers as a pivotal lever for neuroinclusion and recommends equipping and supporting managers to continue developing good practice (McDowall & Srinivasan, 2026).
For me, that is where awareness needs to become capability.
From "Speak up" to "It's safe to speak"
There is an important difference between these two statements:
"You can speak up" and:
"We have created an environment where you can speak up, disagree, ask questions, make mistakes and ask for what you need without fearing what will happen next"
The first is an invitation. The second is a culture. And culture is created through repeated experiences.
Every interaction teaches employees something about what is safe.
- How a manager responds when someone asks for clarification.
- How a team reacts when someone challenges an idea.
- How mistakes are discussed.
- How adjustments are handled.
- How different communication styles are received.
- How much flexibility exists when someone says that the current way of working isn't sustainable.
These small moments accumulate.
What can organisations do differently?
The 2026 Neurodiversity in Business research makes an important broader argument: neuroinclusion should not be treated as something added on when an individual encounters difficulty. Instead, organisations should consider neuroinclusion as part of how they design work, communicate expectations, support people and develop talent (McDowall & Srinivasan, 2026).
That shift is one I strongly support. The goal shouldn't be to create a workplace where neurodivergent employees continually ask for exceptions. The goal is to create workplaces where individual differences can be understood, accommodated and worked with as part of normal human variation.
And when organisations do that well, the benefits don't necessarily stop with the people who identify as neurodivergent.
Clearer communication, better-designed work, psychologically safer teams, thoughtful management and opportunities to use individual strengths can create better conditions for many people.
This aligns closely with the report's concept of "neurodiversity gain": the idea that when organisations redesign systems, processes, and cultures to work better for neurodivergent people, the benefits can extend across the organisation (McDowall & Srinivasan, 2026).
A question for managers
So rather than asking:
"Does my team know they can speak up?"
I would encourage managers to ask:
"What have I done recently that shows my team it is genuinely safe to speak up?"
And then consider:
- Do people know what is expected of them?
- Can they ask questions without embarrassment?
- Can they disagree respectfully?
- Can they tell me when something isn't working?
- Do I respond constructively when someone makes a mistake?
- Do I understand that different people may communicate and process information differently?
- Do people feel able to discuss what they need to work effectively?
These questions don't require a manager to become a neurodiversity specialist. They require curiosity, self-awareness and a willingness to look at the environment as well as the individual.
How confident are your managers in creating psychologically safe teams?
This is where awareness needs to become action.
At Reframe Neurodiversity, I work with organisations, managers and neurodivergent employees to build a deeper understanding of how neurodivergence can influence the experience of work, and to translate that understanding into practical, sustainable strategies.
That can include:
- neurodiversity awareness and practical workplace training
- neuroinclusive management training
- coaching for neurodivergent employees
- coaching for managers supporting neurodivergent team members
- workplace consultancy around neuroinclusive practice
- practical strategies for communication, job design, strengths and sustainable performance
If your managers understand the importance of neuroinclusion but aren't yet confident putting it into practice, let's talk.
How confident are your managers in creating psychologically safe teams?
Research and evidence
This article draws primarily on the 2026 Neurodiversity in Business: Research Report, a co-produced research collaboration between Neurodiversity in Business and Birkbeck, University of London.
The 2026 research included 428 neurodivergent employees, 122 entrepreneurs and 55 employer representatives. The research team used a co-production approach involving community and Neurodiversity in Business members, stakeholder input, corporate roundtables and review processes. Psychological safety was measured using Edmondson's (1999) established seven-item team psychological safety measure (McDowall & Srinivasan, 2026).
The researchers note that the employee sample was weighted towards particular neurotypes and did not represent the full breadth of the UK workforce. The findings should therefore be understood as evidence from this research sample rather than universal claims about all neurodivergent people (McDowall & Srinivasan, 2026).
Acknowledgements
The 2026 research was co-produced with input from community and Neurodiversity in Business members. The research team specifically acknowledges Sara Goffe for hosting the co-production roundtables, Rob Edwards from the Neurodiversity & Entrepreneurship Association for supporting co-production and participant recruitment, and advisory board members Marcia-Brissett-Bailey, Beverley Burke and Nancy Doyle for their peer review. The report also acknowledges Sage for hosting the iterative co-production roundtables and all participants who contributed their experiences and perspectives (McDowall & Srinivasan, 2026).
The research was authored by Professor Almuth McDowall and Aishwarya Srinivasan at Birkbeck, University of London (McDowall & Srinivasan, 2026).
References
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
McDowall, A., & Srinivasan, A. (2026). Neurodiversity in business: Research report 2026: Neurodiversity gain, inclusive practice and self-employment. Birkbeck, University of London & Neurodiversity in Business.
Add comment
Comments