What Is The Business Case For Employing Neurotypicals? – Forbes

Charlotte Valuer, Founder of the Institute of Neurodiversity, asked this rhetorical question recently in a panel. She said, “As an investor, I’ve been working on Board diversity for decades. I’ve been asked to justify the business case for more women, for racial diversity, for neurodiversity. But seriously, what is the business case for NOT seeking diversity?”

It’s a fair question. Minoritized people are frequently required to “do the work” to educate others on our worth, to justify our existence over and above our day jobs. Not only do we have to do the job well, but we need to provide a “business case” for our inclusion in decisions and at the top tables. As a neurodiversity activist and business leader, I’ve spent decades delivering talks on the rationale for including ADHD, Autism, dyslexia, dyspraxia, Tourettes at work. Why? Let’s review the business case for “neurotypicals”.

1. Neurotypicals represent the majority of the population.

Surely it is therefore right that they are in charge of the workplace? Well reviewing the evidence, there’s some serious issues right now in the world of work. Endemic talent and skills gaps, the need to pivot our business models to accommodate climate change and find a way to implement sustainable success. We’re in a cost of living crisis and many of our global enterprises now wield more power than sovereign states but they lack governance, transparency, ethics. Executive pay has ballooned whilst entry level roles in G7 nations need state subsidies to prevent hunger and homelessness. Are the neurotypicals on top of all this or do they need some strategic, left field thinking?

2. It’s easier to get along in homogenous groups

Why rock the boat and bring in people who might be challenging? Short term, this plays out. Broader diversity research suggests that there can be short term ease of communication in homogeneous teams, but longer term diversity leads to increased productivity and creativity. In order for businesses to innovate, some sort of dissonance between groups adds novelty, a welcome change from stagnation. So it might be easier, but it is not better. Difference and challenge don’t have to result in conflict, if people are curious and enthusiastic. Working on a culture where diversity is embraced might take a leadership shift, but evidence supports the long-term gain.

3. All our talent management and recruitment programs are structured for neurotypicals

So we keep hiring in our own image and keep getting more people just like us. To shift these hard coded implicit expectations out of our HR systems and protocols is like the proverbial turning an oil tanker, and this costs. But seriously if not now, when? The talent pipeline has run dry. We’ve centuries of employing leaders who cut their teeth in middle management where their success was dependent on compliance and timekeeping, whilst keeping everyone sweet. Then we expect those same people to pivot to strategy, innovation, change with a few promotions a longer to do list and maybe a couple of workshops or the odd coach. It’s not working. And if we keep doing what we’re doing, we’ll keep getting what we’re getting.

No one in any Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging role is suggesting that we need a business case for keeping the neurotypicals. Our work is aimed at proportional representation. If 51% of the world’s population are women, 51% of leadership being women simply ensures that women’s needs become baked into strategy – the cost of failure here affects car crash survival rates, the design of AI and so much more. 15-20% of the population are neurodivergent, we have genetic biological differences that perpetuate across generations, races, ethnicity and nations. The evolutionary case has made a clear mark in the sand, and what are our businesses if not microcosms of humanity at large? I think mother nature has made her point well.

Source