The government’s Expert Academic Panel on Neurodiversity has called for workplace support to focus on individual needs rather than depend on a diagnosis.
For HR leaders, that raises a practical question: when an employee explains that something about their working environment is making their job difficult, what happens next?
Does the manager explore the problem and consider what could help? Or does the conversation stop until the employee can provide medical evidence?
That response can shape whether someone feels able to discuss difficulties early, or concludes that asking for support is another obstacle to overcome.
A diagnosis is not the starting line
An employee does not need a formal diagnosis to meet the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010. Equally, identifying as neurodivergent does not automatically establish that the legal definition is met. The effects on the individual remain central.
The duty to make reasonable adjustments also involves considering what the employer knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, about the disability and the disadvantage experienced.
Employers should therefore avoid treating a diagnostic report as a green light for a conversation about support when obtaining medical or occupational health advice may be useful in providing an employer with a fuller picture on which to make informed decisions and engage in meaningful discussions with neurodiverse employees. If the position is unclear, managers should seek appropriate advice where they should also ask what can reasonably be understood and addressed now.
Consider two hypothetical, but realistic, responses to the same situation:
Scenario 1: When the conversation stops at “come back with a diagnosis”
An employee tells their manager they are finding it difficult to concentrate in an open-plan office. Frequent interruptions mean tasks take longer, and they have started staying late to finish work. They explain that they are awaiting an ADHD assessment and ask whether they could use a quieter space for work requiring sustained concentration.
The manager is sympathetic but says adjustments cannot be considered until HR receives confirmation of a diagnosis.
For the purposes of this example, assume a suitable room is available and there is no obvious operational reason why it could not be trialled.
The employee continues working in the same environment. At their next review, the manager raises concerns about productivity.
The organisation could now be assessing performance without properly understanding a barrier the employee has already brought to its attention. It may also have made further disclosure less appealing: the employee explained a difficulty, but the conversation went no further.
The absence of a diagnosis does not, by itself, resolve the employer’s legal obligations. The questions should include what the employer understood, what further enquiries were appropriate and whether reasonable steps could have reduced the disadvantage.
Scenario 2: When the manager explores the barrier
In the second scenario, the manager asks which tasks are most affected, when interruptions are particularly difficult and what the employee thinks would help.
They agree to trial the quieter room for defined periods, with arrangements for urgent contact and a review after four weeks. They also agree how they will assess whether the change is helping.
The manager records the discussion and seeks HR advice about whether further assessment or support is needed.
This approach does not require the manager to determine whether the employee has ADHD. Nor does it involve making an open-ended commitment to the employee’s preferred arrangement.
It creates a way to understand the difficulty, test a proportionate response and review the outcome.
It also gives the employee a clearer message: raising a concern can lead to a constructive discussion, even where some questions remain unanswered.
Support should not depend on knowing the answer
“What would help?” is a useful question but managers should avoid making it a requirement that employees arrive with a fully developed solution.
ACAS recognises that employees may not know which adjustments would help, particularly where they are still understanding their needs and it recommends employers and employees working together to trial any adjustments and review them regularly.
A more useful conversation might explore when work becomes difficult, what happens immediately beforehand, and whether similar tasks are easier in a different setting.
Managers should ask about the work rather than speculate about a condition. They should also be clear about when they need HR, occupational health, or legal input.
This is where a manager’s confidence in addressing any potential adjustments matters most and having a manager be comfortable enough to ask sensible questions without feeling responsible for providing an answer to a clinical standard.
Scenario 3: Agreement is only part of the process
Consider a further hypothetical example. An employee is told they will receive written priorities after team meetings. Their manager does this for a fortnight, then returns to giving instructions verbally. When deadlines are missed, the employee is reminded that support has already been provided.
HR should examine whether the agreed change was consistently implemented before drawing conclusions about its effectiveness. An employer’s responsibilities can include ensuring that other people do what is needed for an adjustment to work.
That makes ownership and review essential. Record who will implement the change, when it will begin and how concerns about it should be raised. Where implementation takes time, consider what interim support is possible.
Repeatedly having to chase an agreed arrangement may itself undermine confidence in the process. An approval recorded in HR’s system offers limited reassurance if the employee’s working day remains unchanged.
Examine what employees have to do to get help
HR leaders should test the route from an employee first raising a difficulty to support actually being delivered.
Can managers distinguish between information they need to make a decision and evidence they are requesting simply because the process expects it? Can straightforward changes be explored promptly? Are unresolved requests visible, with someone responsible for progressing them?
Employers should also examine recurring requests. If several employees are asking for clearer priorities, advance meeting papers or fewer conflicting instructions, consider whether the underlying working practice needs attention.
The panel’s report advocates designing more accessible workplaces from the outset, alongside personalised support but the immediate task for organisations is to examine what happens when someone says, “I am finding this difficult.”
A constructive response doesn’t require every question to be answered at once. But listening, exploring what could reasonably help and making sure agreed support happens in practice is what’s important. A diagnosis may inform that process, but it shouldn’t be the gatekeeper to a conversation about support
You might also like:
