With lived experience at the heart of her work, Emily helps leaders understand their responsibilities under the Equality Act, navigate reasonable adjustments with confidence, and create environments where neurodivergent people can perform at their best. She works across sectors to bridge the gap between awareness and practical leadership action.
How much do current ideas of “good leadership” rely on narrow thinking styles, and what could change if leadership was defined in a more inclusive way?
Many of the behaviours we typically associate with ‘good leadership’ have been shaped around a fairly narrow set of thinking and communication styles, which are often very aligned to neurotypical thinking styles (people that do not have a neurodivergent condition).
These include things like being quick to respond verbally, having a strong networking ability, and things like visible presence which are often interpreted as signals of leadership potential. Whilst of course these behaviours can be really valuable, they are also very closely aligned with neurotypical social norms (people that do not have a neurodivergent condition) and extroverted communication styles.
The real risk here is that someones ability to be a ‘good leader’ often aligns to how comfortable someone can perform with these behaviours and within this set of norms, instead of how effectively they can think, analyse risk, solve problems or make strategic decisions, which are all essential in leading modern organisations.
If we were to define leadership in a more inclusive way, organisations should place more emphasis on how leaders approach problems and decisions, rather than how someone presents themselves in social or organisational settings (for example how much small talk they make at the start of a leadership meeting!).
Of course, the result of this would then be more neurodivergent leaders and more diverse leadership teams, which will only help make better decisions in the long run, make teams more effective and improve the bottom line.
How can organisations redesign recruitment, promotion and leadership competency frameworks so they recognise diverse thinking styles as strengths rather than measuring everyone against the same behavioural norms?
A lot of recruitment and promotion processes are still built around fairly traditional leadership behaviours, which again tend to favour neurotypical thinking and communication styles.
For example, leadership competency frameworks often reference things like “executive presence”, “confidence”, or “influencing skills”. Realistically, this can end up meaning someone who speaks confidently in meetings, builds rapport quickly, or is comfortable navigating informal workplace dynamics.
The difficulty is that these behaviours don’t necessarily tell us how effective someone will be as a leader.
If organisations want to recognise different thinking styles as strengths, they need to shift their focus away from how leadership looks, and towards how leadership fundamentally works. This means placing more value on things like analytical thinking, strategic problem solving, technical expertise and the ability to approach challenges in new ways.
Practically, this might involve redesigning leadership assessments, so they don’t rely purely on interviews or how well someone performs in the room. Task based assessments can be really effective and much more inclusive. It could involve giving candidates case studies, written exercises or problem-solving scenarios which can give Hiring Managers a much better insight into how a potential leader would approach a complex decision.
It also requires organisations to look more closely at how leadership potential is identified internally. People who are highly visible, confident and vocal often get noticed first, but that doesn’t mean they are the only people capable of leading effectively. So by broadening how leadership capability is defined and assessed, organisations are far more likely to identify talented neurodivergent (and more diverse) individuals who may otherwise be overlooked.
What practical steps can leaders take to reduce hidden cognitive pressures, such as masking or excessive social performance, and build inclusive environments where neurodiverse talent can contribute at its full potential?
For many neurodivergent professionals this can involve what we refer to as masking, which is where they hide or conceal their neurodivergent traits to fit in. This could include things like changing how they naturally communicate or process information. This might look like forcing themselves to make eye contact, trying to think of responses quickly in meetings, or managing environments that feel overwhelming or distracting.
Individually these expectations may seem quite small, but over time they can create a significant amount of cognitive load. Instead of focusing their energy on solving problems or developing ideas, people end up spending a lot of it masking and simply trying to fit into the environment around them.
Leaders can reduce this pressure through really simple changes to how the work is structured. For example, one thing that is really effective is sharing meeting agendas in advance which allows people more time to process information and prepare their thoughts. Allowing different ways for people to contribute ideas, such as written input or follow up discussions, can also make a huge difference.
Perhaps most importantly, leaders should focus on evaluating the quality of ideas rather than how confidently or quickly they are expressed.
Creating a neuroinclusive environment isn’t about lowering expectations. It’s ultimately about ensuring talented people with heaps of potential don’t have to spend their energy adapting to systems that weren’t designed with just neurotypical people in mind and masking.
When leaders remove these barriers, organisations are much more likely to benefit from the huge range of strengths and perspectives that neurodiverse talent can bring.
Read more about Neurodiversity in Leadership: Building Organisational Strength Through Diverse Thinking