In recent decades, much has been written, discussed and debated about how to teach neurodivergent learners most effectively in secondary schools. Many post-secondary institutions are finally beginning to address the needs of these students, as well. Unfortunately, the corporate world is still far behind.

The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (now the Disabilities Education Act of 2004) was enacted to guarantee education for students with physical, emotional or cognitive disabilities. Since then, public schools have been required to support all learners (though how effectively, fairly and equitably that is being done is debatable). The Americans With Disabilities Act (1990) provided similar support in the employment field — though arguably more focused on supporting physical disabilities than learning differences or disabilities.

Judy Singer, an Australian sociologist, coined the term neurodiversity in her 1998 undergraduate thesis. While the word is meant to help identify brains that process data differently from societal norms, Singer wanted the term to become a form of advocacy. An inclusive label to shift the perception of those on the autism spectrum from being “disabled” to having their neurodivergence recognized as a potential strength.

As she stated in a July 2023 article in The Guardian, “I knew what I was doing … ‘neuro’ was a reference to the rise of neuroscience. ‘Diversity’ is a political term; it originated with the black American civil rights movement. ‘Biodiversity’ is really a political term, too. As a word, ‘neurodiversity’ describes the whole of humanity. But the neurodiversity movement is a political movement for people who want their human rights.”

While current estimates show somewhere between 10-20% of the global population are neurodivergent, the fact that diagnostic criteria are outdated and biased toward males leads to a four times greater diagnosis for male children than females. Therefore, the true numbers are unknown and most likely, if not significantly, higher. It also means many females are either diagnosed much later in life or are never properly diagnosed. Add to this the still all too common stigma of neurodivergence and that it is almost always an unseen disability or difference, and employees may struggle silently.

One in five employees in your workforce today is likely neurodivergent. If one in five employees used a mobility device (e.g., wheelchair, scooter, forearm crutches, etc.) you would hope that all office spaces would be modified to accommodate their needs. So, why doesn’t this apply to the learning environment? As we’ve learned in the decades since the implementation of the ADA, an inclusive, accommodating environment benefits everyone.

As learning and development (L&D) professionals, we are often programmed to create training based on criteria developed for the neurotypical. While it can seem overwhelming at first, shifting our development criteria to support neurodivergent learners can not only benefit neurotypical learners, but also improve new-hire ramp-up times, decrease employee turnover and create a more inclusive and accommodating work environment. So, where should you start?

Less “Check-the-Box” Training

In today’s fast-paced corporate environment, training is often in one of two formats: Complex content with dense wording or generic eLearnings or videos from third-party providers that aren’t specific to how employees should perform within your company.

In the complex content format, new hires may be required to read and acknowledge an overwhelming amount of multi-page standard operating procedures (SOPs) written by a technical writer or compliance person who defines processes and procedures, step-by-step instructions for each of those processes and procedures, detailed explanations of all safety protocols they must follow, documentation requirements, and how to dispose of any generated waste, etc.

Just as with the terms and conditions that accompany an update on our phones, the human tendency is to scroll to the end and hit accept without ever reading a single word. Nearly every employee, neurodivergent or not, will do the same with these dry, lengthy SOPs. While having their signature may cover the company in a legal suit, very little learning has actually occurred to eliminate those legal concerns and make the work environment safer for all.

Generic third-party content, on the other hand, may be used to explain processes and procedures, product terminology and safety — but it doesn’t account for your company and how you do things. This can make the processes and procedures unclear and confusing because, upon completion, the learner then must be told all the exceptions that don’t pertain, or aspects not covered for how they will be expected to do things at your company. Now, add neurodivergence into the mix in either of these scenarios and things get exponentially worse.

To make the new-hire experience more welcoming for everyone, consider transforming existing content into shorter, easier-to-digest pieces specific to a new hire’s roles and responsibilities within your company. For example, you could start with a quick overview video that includes clear voice over, closed captions and speed control (allowing the video to be slowed down or sped up) of the foundational, company-specific knowledge, key terminology and what the expectations of the learner will be in the coming hours, days or weeks of training on that product or service.

From there, take the learner outside of your learning management system (LMS) and into the real world with scaffolded, on-the-job training (OJT) based on their individual needs, background and experiences. Begin with the employee shadowing a subject matter expert (SME) who has been trained in supporting all learners and who creates a safe space where employees can ask questions, take notes (handwritten, on a phone/computer or via talk-to-text software) and/or record the process.

In addition to being well-trained in how to effectively train, SMEs should be empowered to determine the appropriate amount of time needed for each employee to become truly confident and competent in their role. Make simple, accessible job aids available for each process along the way and progress the training based on the complexity of the required skill and previous knowledge and experience of the employee until proficiency is reached. For some that might mean an hour of training, for others it will be longer. These differences must be fully accepted and core to the learning culture of your organization.

Less Lengthy Videos and eLearnings

Unfortunately, the tools that have made training development simpler and faster (e.g., Articulate, Captivate, Camtasia, Vyond, etc.) have also perpetuated a neurotypical format. No matter how engaging we believe these tools make our programs, both neurodivergent and neurotypical employees find sitting in front of an LMS scrolling through or watching cookie-cutter content for 20 to 60+ minutes overwhelming and exhausting.

Start with breaking the content into more manageable pieces and turning off regulators within your LMS that force everyone to complete content or watch videos in a neurotypically prescribed way (beginning to end at one set speed). Make all aspects of your training more flexible, consumable and supportive for everyone.

If these first two recommendations have caused your heart rate to increase, your palms to sweat, or alarms to go off in your head that scream, “but how will we know they have learned anything!?” the next recommendation may make you quit reading altogether — but hang in there.

Fewer Written Assessments, More Proficiency Checks

While our education system has programmed us to believe knowledge is assessed through written assessments and L&D professionals have perpetuated this within the corporate learning environment, unless there is a regulatory reason for one (e.g., ServSafe™, OSHA-10 or -30, etc.), employees should be evaluated by proficiency checks on the actual required job skills and not through written assessments.

Think about it: Training to a test doesn’t ensure any employee is competent in their role and definitely doesn’t mitigate safety risks. Even learners who pass the test may still walk into their actual work environment and mishandle dangerous chemicals, improperly process paperwork or forget important legal or regulatory requirements that place your company at risk. Instead, training to proficiency — the ability of the employee to successfully perform the required processes or procedures effectively and safely — better guarantees a highly competent employee.

Unlike written assessments that often cause anxiety in both the neurotypical and neurodivergent because of their pass/fail nature, proficiency checks allow for skill assessment throughout the training process. They help ensure those who catch on to any aspect of their job quickly get to move on and those who need more time can get more time. It can also be an excellent way for L&D professionals to assess the efficacy of the training program throughout and adjust exactly where needed without having to redo the entire program.

Done correctly, proficiency checks can be a less stressful way to determine the ability level of the employee. They become a natural aspect of a safe learning environment where mistakes (that don’t affect safety) are viewed as learning opportunities and not detrimental to an employee’s job status, and where any needed accommodations can be provided (e.g., visual and/or auditory aids, extended time to complete, etc.).

While these are just three places to start building a more inclusive learning environment for neurodivergent learners, nothing here is specifically beneficial only to the neurodivergent. Everyone can benefit from role-specific training; shorter, more consumable content and from proficiency checks in lieu of written exams. Inclusion leads to diversity within our organizations, and that diversity can lead to happier, more productive team members.