Designing for Divergence: Inclusion as Architecture, Not Accessory

In recent years, the language of inclusion has seeped into corporate mission statements, university strategic plans, and public discourse. We hear proclamations of "celebrating neurodiversity" and see companies participating in Neurodiversity Week or touting diverse hiring. Yet, many neurodivergent individuals still experience these efforts as superficial – well-meaning perhaps, but not resulting in tangible change in their day-to-day lives. Tokenism in this context refers to symbolic gestures of inclusion (like hiring one autistic person and showcasing them in a press release, or adding "ADHD" to a diversity statement) without addressing deeper structural issues.

This final part of the series tackles how to move from tokenism to true inclusion. We will discuss how most systems can fall into the trap of performative inclusion, and then outline research-backed recommendations for genuine systemic change. Key focus areas will be peer coaching models, policy reforms, and structural redesigns that ensure long-term, sustainable inclusion – not just for show, but for real.

Recognising Tokenism in Neurodiversity Initiatives

It is important to call out what tokenism looks like in the neurodiversity realm. One red flag is inclusion "lite" – efforts that increase visibility of neurodivergence without changing underlying norms or power dynamics. For example, an employer might host a lunch-and-learn about ADHD awareness (and pat themselves on the back for it), yet their HR policies still lack any provision for flexible scheduling or mental health leave. Or a college might have a disability services office that registers students with ADHD, but lecturers remain uninformed and inflexible, leading those students to drop courses at high rates.

In tokenistic scenarios, neurodivergent individuals may be invited to the table but not given a real voice. An autistic employee might be part of a diversity council, but if they raise concerns about noisy office layouts, leadership might nod politely and do nothing. The appearance of inclusion is there, but the substance is not. As Sampson (2024) notes, mere "acceptance" of neurodivergent employees – letting them be present without overt harassment – is not the same as meaningful inclusion, which involves valuing their contributions and meeting their needs.

Another hallmark of tokenism is focusing on recruitment but not retention and development. It is easier to change hiring practices than to overhaul workplace culture. As Deloitte (2023) outlines, many organisations have started pilot hiring programmes, "but hiring is just the first step". Without concurrent investment in support and career progression, those programmes will not fulfil their promise.

True inclusion asks: Are neurodivergent employees advancing in the company? Are students with learning differences graduating at the same rate as others? Are accommodations actually being used, and are they effective? If not, then what might look on paper like an inclusive system could be just an empty shell.

Commitment to Systemic Change – What Works

Research and expert consensus suggest several concrete strategies to achieve true inclusion:

1. Leadership and Policy Alignment

True inclusion starts at the top and must be woven into policy. This means leadership does not just endorse neurodiversity in principle, but actively allocates resources and sets accountability for it. For example, an organisation might include neurodiversity metrics in executive performance reviews. Policies should shift from being reactive (individual adjustments) to proactive (standard inclusive design).

In higher education, this might involve embedding UDL principles into curriculum approval processes and mandating inclusive teaching training. Richardson (2016) found that universities implementing top-down inclusive teaching policies saw improved outcomes for disabled students compared to those that relied on individual goodwill.

Governments can also incentivise businesses through tax credits or procurement preferences, tipping the scales in favour of sustained inclusion (Robertson & Neuhauser, 2020).

2. Training and Awareness Programmes (Done Right)

Many institutions roll out awareness training that ticks boxes but does not change behaviour. Effective training includes skill-building, scenario-based workshops, and reverse mentoring. For example, JPMorgan's Autism at Work programme includes mentorship between managers and autistic self-advocates – helping bridge understanding (Neurodiversity @ Work Roundtable, 2020).

Schools can bring in neurodivergent speakers or allow students to lead awareness campaigns. The goal is to make understanding neurodiversity part of the core competency of the entire organisation.

3. Peer Coaching and Support Programmes

As discussed in Part 3, coaching and peer mentoring work – and they need to be valued. Employers should formally recognise mentors' time and contribution. ERGs should receive funding and have executive sponsorship.

In academic contexts, peer tutoring or ADHD coaching groups should be built into student services. Doyle and McDowall (2019) and Prevatt and Yelland (2013) both found that coaching led to improved outcomes – making it a worthwhile institutional investment.

4. Redesigning Evaluation and Feedback Systems

Performance appraisal systems must avoid penalising neurodivergent styles. That might mean training evaluators to assess outcomes rather than methods, or revising criteria like "attention to detail" when it is not critical to the role.

IBM has brought in neurodiversity experts to audit job descriptions for unintentional bias (Hayward, 2021). In schools, UDL-aligned rubrics allow for multiple modes of demonstrating learning, while feedback for ADHD learners should be more structured and actionable.

5. Data Collection and Continuous Improvement

Organisations should treat neurodiversity inclusion as a dynamic process. This means collecting metrics: retention, promotion, accommodation usage, and satisfaction among neurodivergent individuals. Transparent review cycles, like those outlined by Robertson and Neuhauser (2020), help adjust strategy and stay accountable.

If, for example, neurodivergent employees leave within a year despite hiring increases, the data may point to deeper issues: manager attitude, lack of support, or rigid systems. Addressing those insights ensures inclusion moves from theory to practice.

Long-Term Inclusion: Culture Change Beyond Accommodations

Ultimately, true inclusion is a cultural shift. Policies set the framework, but day-to-day behaviour makes inclusion real. A neurodivergent-affirming environment normalises difference, reduces masking, and encourages open feedback.

Success looks like this: neurodivergent employees become managers; students disclose their needs without stigma; and leadership co-creates solutions with neurodivergent stakeholders.

As we said in Part 1 – many neurodivergent individuals feel like they are navigating systems without a manual. In a truly inclusive environment, the manual is co-written. Support is embedded, flexible, and responsive.

As Dr. Nick Walker reminds us, "Neurodiversity is the natural diversity of minds – and when we design our world to include that diversity, we all thrive."

Let’s rewire the system.

References

Deloitte. (2023). Neurodiversity at work: 2023 report on neuroinclusive workplaces. Deloitte Insights.

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

Hayward, B. (2021). Neurodiversity in the workplace: Diversity and inclusion next steps. Strategic HR Review, 20(2), 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-11-2020-0089

Neurodiversity @ Work Roundtable. (2020). Autism at Work Playbook. Disability:IN & SAP.

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

Richardson, J. T. E. (2016). Institutional facilitation of adult learners’ accommodations for academic work. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 29(4), 343–353.

Robertson, S. M., & Neuhauser, A. (2020). Engaging neurodiverse employees: What government agencies can learn from global practice. Public Administration Review, 80(4), 567–571. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13183

Sampson, C. (2024, June 24). We must celebrate neurodivergence, not just accept it. HR Magazine. https://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/content/features/we-must-celebrate-neurodivergence-not-just-accept-it