When Neurodiversity Adjustments Are Seen as Perks: Rethinking Culture in FE

Across Further Education, leaders are investing time and resources into becoming more inclusive employers. Workplace needs assessments are increasing. Conversations about ADHD, autism, dyslexia and mental health are more open. Access to Work funding is better understood.

Yet an uncomfortable pattern persists beneath the surface.

Adjustments designed to level the playing field for neurodivergent colleagues are too often perceived as perks, special treatment or evidence that someone is “not pulling their weight”. In some teams, this manifests as eye rolling in meetings, sarcastic remarks about flexibility, reluctance to offer help, or subtle exclusion from projects.

In these environments, the very adjustments intended to enable performance become socially risky to use.

For FE leaders, this is not a marginal issue. It sits at the intersection of legal duty, staff wellbeing and the sector’s persistent disability employment gap. UK data shows that disabled people remain significantly less likely to be in work than non disabled peers. Within FE, where we champion opportunity for learners, our inclusion agenda lacks credibility if our own staff feel unable to use agreed support without penalty.

This is not primarily a compliance issue. It is a cultural one.

When difference meets difference

Consider.

A dyslexic member of staff begins using voice dictation software to reduce cognitive load when drafting reports. The office is small. The team works in proximity. As the tool mishears words and requires repetition, colleagues begin to comment. “It’s distracting.” “It’s annoying.” “It doesn’t make sense.” Over time, the individual stops using the software. The adjustment remains formally in place but practically abandoned.

In another setting, a staff member has an agreed adjustment not to lift heavy equipment due to a musculoskeletal condition. But informal team culture prizes physical resilience. They quietly resume lifting to avoid appearing unhelpful.

Elsewhere, an ergonomic chair sits unused in a cupboard because the employee feels embarrassed about wheeling it across an open-plan office.

Or in meetings, a colleague who needs more time to process is met with visible impatience. The adjustment may exist on paper, but the micro behaviours communicate something very different.

These are not dramatic cases of overt discrimination. They are examples of culture in action. And culture determines whether adjustments are effective or abandoned.

Ironically, in many teams, the individuals expressing frustration about someone else’s adjustments have adjustments of their own. Flexible hours for childcare. Working from home for concentration. Informal quiet time to complete strategic planning. Difference meets difference.

The challenge for leadership is not eliminating differences. It creates conditions in which multiple differences can coexist without resentment.

Psychological safety and the power gradient

To understand why neurodiversity adjustments are particularly vulnerable to backlash, it is helpful to draw on Timothy Clark’s four stages of psychological safety: inclusion safety, learner safety, contributor safety and challenger safety.[1]

Many FE organisations aspire to challenger safety. They want staff to speak up about what is not working. But psychological safety is sequential. If someone does not feel safe belonging, learning openly, or contributing without ridicule, they will not challenge unhelpful norms.

Expecting individuals at the bottom of the organisational hierarchy to “change the culture” is unrealistic. Cultural norms are shaped and reinforced by those in positions of authority.

Employment case law repeatedly demonstrates that knowledge of disability and the implementation of reasonable adjustments are scrutinised not only in policy but also in practice. The British Psychological Society’s guidance on neurodiversity and psychometric testing also reinforces that Equality Act protections may apply even before diagnosis.

Technical compliance without cultural reinforcement is fragile.

Sector contrasts: how context shapes culture.

The influence of culture becomes clearer when we compare settings across FE.

Prominent general FE colleges often have more established occupational health processes and formal workplace needs assessments. Adjustments are documented and, in some cases, funded through Access to Work. However, scale brings variability. Individual departments can develop microcultures that diverge from institutional values. An agreed adjustment may be formally approved yet subtly undermined in day-to-day interactions.

Apprenticeship providers and smaller training organisations often operate with tighter teams and greater informality. This can foster agility and strong relationships. It can also magnify scrutiny. Visible adjustments are more noticeable. Where leaders clearly communicate that adjustments are about enabling contribution, teams often adapt quickly. Where leaders tolerate dismissive commentary, toxic dynamics escalate fast.

In both contexts, the lesson is consistent. The effectiveness of adjustments depends less on documentation and more on the prevailing story about fairness.

The myth of fairness as sameness

At the heart of the “perk” narrative is a misunderstanding of fairness.

Fairness is frequently interpreted as sameness. If everyone works identical hours, uses similar tools and operates in identical ways, the system feels. Neurodiversity disrupts this illusion.

Research underscores why this matters. Adults with ADHD, for example, have significantly higher rates of suicide attempts compared to those without ADHD. Untreated stress, shame and exclusion amplify risk. Adjustments are not indulgences. They are protective factors that enable functioning and reduce harm.

Simultaneously, rising demand for ADHD coaching and support has exposed inconsistencies in standards and oversight. Public discourse around overdiagnosis or unfair advantage can seep into workplace culture, reinforcing scepticism.

The blind spot is failing to recognise that many adjustments improve systems for everyone. Agendas shared in advance. Clear role expectations. Pauses for processing. Reduced sensory overload. These are examples of universal design. When framed as performance enablers rather than concessions, resistance often diminishes.

Reviewing adjustments without blame

Another cultural tension arises when adjustments appear ineffective. Leaders may quietly conclude that someone is “not using their adjustments properly” or that the support is excessive.

A more constructive approach is a structured review. Adjustments are not static. Roles evolve. Health fluctuates. Strategies that worked six months ago may require refinement.

Workplace needs assessment models emphasise embedding and revisiting recommendations rather than filing them away. The critical factor is tone. Review must be developmental, not investigative. Without psychological safety, staff will withdraw from using support.

What leadership must do differently?

Cultural change cannot be delegated to those most affected by exclusion. It requires visible, sustained commitment from senior leaders.

Key actions for FE leadership teams include:

• Explicitly redefining fairness as equity rather than sameness.
• Embedding psychological safety training for managers.
• Positioning adjustments as performance tools that enable contribution.
• Challenging microbehaviours such as sarcasm or eye-rolling in real time.
• Building structured, psychologically safe review cycles for adjustments.
• Ensuring equality policies align with lived experience across departments.

None of these actions is a quick win. They require time, reflection and consistent messaging.

A long-term cultural commitment

The FE sector operates under sustained financial and regulatory pressure. It is tempting to treat inclusion as a project with milestones and endpoints.

But culture is not a project. It is a pattern of behaviour over time.

If neurodiversity adjustments are perceived as perks, staff will underuse them. If they are underused, leaders may conclude they are unnecessary. The cycle reinforces itself.

Breaking that cycle requires leadership courage. It requires acknowledging that resentment may surface. It requires resisting the idea that those at the bottom of the power hierarchy can transform systems on their own.

Further Education has long championed diverse pathways for learners. Extending that same depth of commitment to neurodivergent staff is not simply a legal obligation. It is a strategic imperative.

Inclusive culture is not achieved by simply writing adjustments into policy. It is achieved when using them carries no social penalty.

By Nathan Whitbread, Founder of The Neurodivergent Coach

[1] Clark, T.R. (2020) The 4 Stages of Psychological Safety: Defining the Path to Inclusion and Innovation. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.