Supporting Neurodivergent Employees: It’s a Joint Responsibility
We talk a lot about the ‘what’ and the ‘why’ of neurodiversity in the workplace, but today I want to dig into the how’ - specifically, the responsibilities we share when supporting Neurodivergent (ND) employees who have Rejection Sensitivity Dysphoria.
There is often a fear that settles over leaders when they manage someone who is neurodivergent. I see it all the time. It’s the fear of ‘getting it wrong,’ of causing harm, or of triggering a reaction they don't know how to handle. This fear often leads to silence, where feedback is withheld because the leader doesn't want to upset the person.
But here is the hard truth: withholding feedback is not kind. It prevents growth, creates anxiety (because we know when something is unspoken), and ultimately fails to support the very person you are trying to protect.
The Elephant in the room: Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria (RSD)
One of the biggest drivers of this fear is Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria (RSD). For neurodivergent employees with RSD (particularly common those with ADHD or Autism), criticism can feel like a physical blow. It’s not ‘being dramatic’; it is an intense, biological emotional reaction to perceived rejection or failure.
When leaders walk on eggshells to avoid triggering neurodivergent employees with RSD, they stop managing. They stop leading. And when the performance issue eventually becomes too big to ignore, it explodes - often resulting in a ‘surprise’ performance management process that creates genuine trauma.
The Legal Landscape (The 'Have-To')
Whatever the emotional complexity, we cannot ignore the requirements. In both New Zealand and Australia, the law is clear that psychological safety is as important as physical safety.
In New Zealand: The Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 requires PCBUs to manage risks, including psychosocial hazards. The Human Rights Act 1993 mandates ‘reasonable accommodation.’
In Australia: The Work Health and Safety Act (and recent psychosocial hazard codes of practice) places a duty on employers to eliminate or minimise psychosocial risks. The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 requires ‘reasonable adjustments.’
Basically, you have a legal obligation to ensure the work environment doesn’t break people. But compliance is just the floor, not the ceiling.
The Pendulum: It's All or Nothing
People and organisations tend to respond to this pressure in a pendulum fashion.
Swing 1: ‘It’s all on the employer. The workplace must change everything for me.’
Swing 2: ‘It’s all on the employee. They need to just toughen up and fit in.’
Neither is true. It is a joint responsibility.
The ND Person’s Responsibility: We need to do the work to recognise when we are triggered. We need to understand our own nervous systems enough to know what supports us and be able to communicate that. We cannot expect others to mind-read our safety needs.
The Employer’s Responsibility: You need to set up psychologically safe frameworks. This means using trauma-informed practice - and I don't mean the superficial ‘social media wokeness’ version of it (see my other blog on this). I mean understanding that a triggered reaction is biological, not behavioural. It means allowing control for the person who has been triggered so they can regulate their nervous system.
Complicated vs. Complex: Why SOPs Aren't Enough
To understand why this is hard, we need to distinguish between complicated and complex situations.
Complicated is like changing an engine in a car. You can watch a YouTube video, have a mentor, and follow the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) step-by-step. If you follow the steps exactly, the engine will work. It is linear and predictable.
Complex is like baking bread. You can have the recipe, the ingredients, and a mentor standing right next to you, but it still might not turn out right. Why? Because the result is influenced by shifting factors- the age of the yeast, the temperature of the room, the humidity in the air. Following the steps does not guarantee success because the environment is alive.
Working with humans is a complex situation - we can have the best HR policies (our SOPs), but we must recognise that we will not always get the same result. What triggers one neurodivergent employee with RSD may not trigger another. What supports one person may actually harm another. We need to adapt our ‘recipe’ to the humidity of the room.
What We Have Control Of
Since we can't control the outcome perfectly in a complex system, we must focus on the inputs we can control:
Seeking Clarity: Use a Biodex (see my blog on Creating Clarity) or explicitly ask for feedback preferences.
Non-Violent Communication (NVC): Framing feedback on observations and needs, not judgements.
Transparency: Be clear about your processes. Uncertainty fuels anxiety.
Building Relational Trust: We need to make deposits into the ‘emotional bank account’ so that when we do have to give hard feedback (a withdrawal), the relationship can withstand the RSD hit.
Monitoring Our Own Nervous System: As leaders, if we enter a conversation dysregulated, we will co-regulate our team into stress. Calm is contagious, but so is panic.
We cannot ‘fix’ neurodivergence, nor should we try to. But by owning our shared responsibilities, we can move from walking on eggshells to building a foundation strong enough to hold the weight of honest growth.
For more information, contact Brooke on [email protected].
