The Hidden Legal and Reputational Risks of “Informal” Neurodiversity Support

Many organisations want to do the right thing when it comes to neurodiversity. They value flexibility, trust their managers, and aim to respond to people as individuals rather than through rigid processes.

That intention matters. In fact, it is often what creates the foundation for genuinely inclusive cultures.

However, as support for neurodivergent employees becomes more common and more visible, many HR teams are starting to notice a challenge. When support is handled informally, without shared frameworks or clear guidance, even the most well meaning approaches can begin to create uncertainty. Over time, that uncertainty can quietly turn into risk, frustration and inconsistency.

The good news is that this is not a sign that flexibility is wrong. It is usually a sign that flexibility needs better structure around it.

What informal support tends to look like in practice

In organisations without clear neuroinclusive processes, support often develops organically. Managers have conversations with employees, reasonable adjustments are agreed verbally, and HR involvement is kept deliberately light touch to avoid over complicating things.

This can feel responsive and human, particularly in the early stages. Employees appreciate being listened to and managers appreciate being trusted to make decisions.

Over time, though, patterns start to emerge. The support that neurodivergent employees get varies depending on the confidence their manager has, decisions made are rarely documented, and HR often only becomes involved when something has already escalated. What began as flexibility slowly becomes inconsistency.

Why inconsistency creates avoidable risk

The UK Equality Act does not expect organisations to treat everyone in exactly the same way. It does, however, expect decisions to be reasonable, fair and capable of being explained.

Guidance from ACAS emphasises the importance of having a clear and transparent approach to reasonable adjustments, particularly where needs are ongoing or complex.

When support is handled entirely informally, it becomes harder to demonstrate that fairness. Two people with similar needs may receive different outcomes. Managers may struggle to explain how decisions were reached. HR may have little evidence to rely on if questions are raised later.

These situations are rarely the result of poor intent. More often, they arise because there was no shared framework to guide decision making in the first place.

Supporting managers, not setting them up to fail

Managers play a central role in making neuroinclusion work day to day. They are the ones having conversations, agreeing reasonable adjustments with their employees, managing workloads and addressing performance concerns.

Without clear organisational guidance, managers can find themselves carrying a level of responsibility they were never trained for. They are expected to balance individual needs, team dynamics, fairness and legal obligations, often while under significant time pressure.

Clear frameworks do not remove a manager’s autonomy. They give managers confidence. They provide reassurance that decisions are being made in line with organisational expectations and that support is available when situations feel complex.

Reputational impact is about trust, not just claims

While legal risk often gets the most attention, reputational impact is usually what HR teams feel most acutely over time.

When support for neurodivergent employees feels inconsistent, employees notice. Trust in DEI messaging starts to weaken, not because the intent is questioned, but because the lived experience does not always match the narrative.

In contrast, organisations that are clear and consistent in how support is offered tend to build credibility. Through psychological safety employees feel safer disclosing. Managers feel more confident responding. HR teams are seen as enabling inclusion, not policing it.

“Case by case” works best when there is a shared foundation

Treating people as individuals is an important principle. The organisations that do this well are also clear about their underlying approach.

They are explicit about:

• What fairness means in their context
• How decisions should be made and reviewed
• What needs to be recorded
• When HR or occupational health should be involved

This creates a shared understanding that allows individualisation to happen within clear and supportive boundaries.

What good governance enables

Organisations that combine flexibility with structure often have:

• A clear reasonable adjustments framework
• Defined roles for managers, HR and specialist support
• Simple guidance on documentation and review
• Clear escalation routes for complex situations

Rather than slowing things down, this usually speeds them up. Managers know what to do. Employees know what to expect. HR has visibility without needing to be involved in every conversation.

Why this is a positive opportunity for HR and DEI leaders

As more employees feel able to talk openly about neurodiversity, the need for clear, confident systems becomes even more important.

This is an opportunity for HR and DEI leaders to move from reactive support to proactive design. To build approaches that protect fairness, reduce risk and strengthen trust at the same time.

When flexibility is supported by structure, neurodiversity support becomes more sustainable for everyone involved.