Designing for Divergence: A Working Draft of Systems That Work
If the first two parts of this series have illustrated anything, it’s this: forcing neurodivergent people to fit into inflexible systems comes at a high cost. So the natural follow-up — the guiding question I posed back in Part 1 — is this:
What would it look like to truly design for neurodiversity—both in education and in the workplace?
This part marks a shift — from diagnosis to design. To reflect the environments most neurodivergent people interact with daily, I’ve split this post into two sections: one for educational design and another for workplace structure. I’ll explore research-informed models that support the creation of inclusive, neurodivergent-affirming environments across both education and the workplace. From Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to trauma-informed systems, team redesign, autonomy-supportive leadership, and peer mentoring — this isn’t just theory. We’ll explore real-world implementations from the UK, US, and beyond that show how designing for divergence isn’t just possible. It’s already happening.
Designing for Divergence in Education
Universal Design for Learning (UDL): Inclusion by Design
One of the most robust frameworks for inclusive design comes from the education sector: Universal Design for Learning (UDL). It’s built on a deceptively simple premise: if you design educational experiences to be flexible and accessible from the outset, you reduce the need for retrofitting accommodations later (Rose et al., 2006).
Instead of scrambling to adjust when a student with ADHD or dyslexia struggles, UDL asks: What if we designed with variability in mind from the start?
In practice, UDL means:
Offering multiple ways to engage with content (lectures, hands-on activities, visual tools)
Allowing multiple ways to demonstrate understanding (essays, presentations, creative projects)
Presenting content through multiple representations (text, audio, diagrams, video)
For a neurodivergent student, this flexibility can be game-changing. An ADHD learner may thrive in interactive, movement-rich tasks and disengage completely during a long, static lecture. By offering options, UDL gives students a fighting chance to learn on their terms — not despite their brain, but in alignment with it.
Frolli et al. (2023) implemented a UDL-based intervention for children with ADHD and found significant improvements in foundational academic skills (reading, writing, and mathematics) compared to students taught through traditional methods. The UDL group’s performance gains suggest that when teaching is tailored to capitalise on strengths and support weaknesses — for example, using movement and game-like elements for a kinesthetic ADHD learner — students not only catch up, they thrive.
Importantly, UDL supports all learners by providing options for everyone to learn in the ways that suit them best. In higher education, some universities have adopted UDL principles into course design (Pace & Schwartz, 2020). These include offering lecture recordings to enable students to review at their own pace, breaking up large exams into smaller, spaced quizzes to reduce attention fatigue, and including active learning opportunities that help reset focus throughout long sessions.
When learning environments are built for divergence, a student pacing at the back of the classroom is not perceived as disruptive — they’re simply learning their way.
Trauma-Informed and Neurodiversity-Affirming Approaches in Education and the Workplace
Many neurodivergent individuals carry trauma from years of being misunderstood or forced to conform in damaging ways. A trauma-informed design approach acknowledges this and seeks to create environments that feel safe, empowering, and predictable — key factors that benefit people with past trauma as well as neurotypical and neurodivergent individuals alike.
In practical terms, a trauma-informed classroom or workplace cultivates an atmosphere of trust and psychological safety. The six guiding principles from SAMHSA (2014) — safety, trustworthiness and transparency, peer support, collaboration, empowerment, and cultural humility — offer a helpful lens for designing truly inclusive environments.
Safety might mean a workplace where an employee with ADHD feels safe admitting they are overwhelmed and can ask for a break without judgement. Trustworthiness and transparency could look like managers clearly communicating expectations and changes — important for individuals who find ambiguity or surprise especially distressing. Empowerment and collaboration mean involving neurodivergent individuals in designing how they work or learn — treating them as experts in their own experience.
One example of trauma-informed design in action within schools: some have replaced punitive discipline with positive behavioural supports. Rather than punishing a child for disruptive behaviour that may stem from sensory overload, schools offer calm-down corners or access to a counsellor — helping the student regulate and resolve, not repress. In workplace contexts, this same philosophy applies — fostering environments that support regulation rather than reprimand.
Designing for Divergence in the Workplace
International Models and Case Studies
Around the world, awareness of neurodiversity is leading to innovative models worth emulating:
United Kingdom: The UK has been a leader in policy-level support for neurodivergent individuals. The Access to Work programme, run by the Department for Work and Pensions, is a standout example. It funds assessments and accommodations for employees with disabilities (including neurodevelopmental conditions) and even covers specialised coaching services. Each year thousands of neurodivergent employees receive personalised support through this programme (Doyle, 2020, p.118). Additionally, many UK universities have embraced UDL and provide comprehensive disability support that includes assistive technology, study skills mentoring, and awareness training for faculty. On the corporate side, initiatives like Neurodiversity in Business (an industry-led forum) share best practices across companies, and some British firms now offer internship programmes specifically tailored for neurodivergent young adults.
United States: In the U.S., the legal framework (ADA and Section 504 for education) provides a baseline for accommodations, but the private sector is driving several neurodiversity inclusion efforts. Tech companies like Microsoft, Google, and IBM have launched neurodiversity hiring initiatives, primarily focused initially on autism, but increasingly broadening to ADHD, dyslexia, and more. Microsoft, for instance, has a Neurodiversity Hiring Programme and within the company has a thriving Neurodiversity ERG. They have adjusted their interview processes (e.g., offering hands-on coding tests instead of rapid-fire Q&A) and created sensory-friendly office spaces for these hires. The U.S. also has a burgeoning community of consultants and nonprofits (e.g., Integrate Autism Employment Advisors, NeuroLeadership Institute) that work with businesses to implement neuroinclusive practices. On the academic front, some U.S. colleges are moving toward universal design – for example, the University of Washington’s DO-IT Center promotes accessible tech and UDL strategies for instructors, and landmark institutions like Landmark College specialise entirely in neurodivergent education.
Other Contexts: In Australia, the government funded a programme called the Dandelion Programme (with DXC Technology) which trains neurodivergent individuals in IT skills and places them into tech roles with long-term support and coaching. The success of this programme (high retention and employee satisfaction) has led to its replication in other countries. In Denmark, Specialisterne (a social enterprise) has championed a model where consultancy services are delivered by teams of neurodivergent professionals, with work environments tailored to their needs (quiet spaces, clear routines, option to work part-time, etc.).
These international examples underscore that intentional design works — when you invest in creating supportive structures, neurodivergent individuals thrive and so do the outcomes: productivity, innovation, loyalty.
Peer Coaching and Mentoring – Support Networks
Another vital component of designing neurodivergent-affirming environments is building in peer support and coaching structures. Lived experience can be an invaluable guide; thus, connecting neurodivergent individuals with each other in a formal way helps normalise their experiences and accelerates knowledge-sharing of effective strategies. Peer coaching can take many forms: in schools, this might be a mentorship programme where older neurodivergent students coach younger ones on study strategies and self-advocacy. In workplaces, Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) for neurodiversity have emerged as a popular model – these are employee-led groups that provide a safe space to share experiences and also serve as consultative bodies to management on inclusion issues. For example, JPMorgan Chase’s “Autism at Work” programme not only hires neurodivergent individuals but also provides them with buddy mentors and an ERG that facilitates peer support (Austin & Pisano, 2017). The UK-based ADHD Foundation advocates for “Neurodiversity Champions” in organisations – staff trained to act as points of contact and peer supporters for neurodivergent colleagues (ADHD Foundation, 2023).
Research backs the effectiveness of coaching. A systematic review by Doyle and McDowall (2019) concluded that coaching can be a powerful workplace accommodation for neurodivergent adults, helping improve their organisational and coping skills, which in turn boosts job performance and well-being. In academic settings, a study by Prevatt and Yelland (2013) found that college students with ADHD who received regular coaching (focusing on goal-setting, time management, and study strategies) showed significant improvements in academic achievement and self-regulation compared to those who did not receive coaching. Peer coaching has the added benefit of empathy – being mentored by someone who “gets it” because they’ve walked the same path can reduce feelings of isolation and stigma. It transforms what might have been an individual struggle into a shared growth journey.
What Inclusive Environments Have in Common
Summarising the research and models explored in this piece, truly neurodivergent-affirming environments tend to share four key traits:
Proactive Design: Support is built in before someone breaks down. Movement breaks in schools or flexible hours in workplaces become standard — not exceptions.
Clarity and Consistency: Clear expectations, routine, and communication reduce cognitive load and stress. Written follow-ups, predictable workflows, and pre-warnings for change benefit everyone — but especially those with ADHD or autism.
Sensory Consideration: Quiet zones, natural light, options for movement — these elements empower individuals to regulate their environment rather than be overwhelmed by it.
Strengths-Based Culture: Neurodivergence is seen as a strategic asset, not a liability. Individuals are encouraged to work to their strengths while supported in their challenges. This isn’t just ethical — it drives innovation and performance.
In Part 4, I’ll explore one more challenge: viewing these inclusive practices not as isolated experiments or superficial changes, but part of a true systemic transformation.
How do we go from token gestures of inclusion to genuine, sustained inclusion?
I’ll explore how policies and leadership can institutionalise the changes needed for long-term success.
Let’s rewire the system.
References
ADHD Foundation. (2023). Neurodiversity in the workplace: Guide for employers. Retrieved from https://www.adhdfoundation.org.uk
Austin, R. D., & Pisano, G. P. (2017). Neurodiversity as a competitive advantage. Harvard Business Review, 95(3), 96–103.
Doyle, N. (2020). Neurodiversity at work: A biopsychosocial model and the impact on working adults. British Medical Bulletin, 135(1), 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldaa021
Doyle, N., & McDowall, A. (2019). Context matters: A systematic review of coaching as a disability accommodation. PLoS ONE, 14(8), e0219600. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219600
Frolli, A., Cerciello, F., Esposito, C., Ricci, M. C., Laccone, R. P., & Bisogni, F. (2023). Universal design for learning for children with ADHD. Children (Basel), 10(8), 1350. https://doi.org/10.3390/children10081350
Kim, H., & Stoner, C. R. (2008). Burnout and turnover intention among social workers: Effects of role stress, job autonomy and social support. Administration in Social Work, 32(3), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/03643100801922357
Prevatt, F., & Yelland, S. (2013). An empirical evaluation of ADHD coaching in college students. Journal of Attention Disorders, 17(3), 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054713480036
Rose, D. H., Meyer, A., & Gordon, D. (2006). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST.
SAMHSA. (2014). SAMHSA’s concept of trauma and guidance for a trauma-informed approach (HHS Publication No. SMA 14-4884). Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
Deloitte. (2023). Building a neuroinclusive workplace: Report. Retrieved from https://www2.deloitte.com
