‘Design is something employers control’: Better supporting workers with AuDHD

The barriers faced by neurodiverse employees in the workforce are often the most easily rectified, but many employers remain ignorant, one expert has explained.

The AuDHD Council of Australia was established out of its founder director and chief executive officer’s own need.

Catherine Squire, who was diagnosed with autism and ADHD as a child, found herself reaching a breaking point where her work in charity and membership organisations, which she both enjoyed and succeeded in, reached a breaking point that resulted in a psychological injury.

Recovery, she found, took a considerable amount of time – and this, she continued, is often the part that people misunderstand: “My neurology did not change, my circumstances did.”

She said: “What I take from that experience is this: AuDHD disability is very often situational. The same person, in a different environment, with different management, produces different outcomes. That is not a soft observation about culture, but more a statement about design.”

Established in February 2026, the AuDHD Council of Australia functions as a peak body and membership organisation focused on working professionals diagnosed with autism and ADHD. Noting that the body is the only one of its kind, Squire acknowledged the great work autism and ADHD organisations do, but that the council functions as a formal acknowledgement of the interaction of both conditions on employment.

Squire explained that these individuals are far more populous than one may think, likely appearing in every mid-sized organisation in the country. Further, the co-occurrence is also more common, with one meta-analysis finding a roughly 40 per cent prevalence of ADHD among autistic people.

“These are not two separate populations that occasionally intersect; the overlap is more prevalent than previously understood,” she said.

“Practically, it means a large share of the autistic people your policies were written for also have ADHD, and a large share of your ADHD staff have autistic traits. The two profiles pull in opposite directions. One seeks routine and predictability; the other struggles with monotony and under-stimulation.”

In this way, employers are held back by their own misunderstandings and misconceptions around neurodiversity, with flow-on effects for employees.

Squire explained that many organisations gate adjustments behind formal diagnosis and medical documentation, which is often a lengthy and expensive process for employees. Similarly, this requirement often precludes people least likely to have been identified as being neurodiverse, such as women.

As such, “you end up with a process that best services the people who need it least urgently”.

And despite ongoing awareness campaigns and developed understanding of psychosocial hazards, many individuals continue to fear disclosure will lead to non-preferential treatment, a lack of empathy or assistance, or even unemployment.

Squire said the data paints a stark picture.

“ABS figures put unemployment for working-age autistic people at 18.2 per cent against 3.1 per cent for people without a disability. One in five autistic people report having lost a job because of their autism. More than half of those who are unemployed and had previously worked have been out of work for three years or more,” Squire said.

And even for neurodiverse workers, their needs are often not met, despite some of the most refused accommodations being the cheapest. Flexible hours, Squire said, is often denied on the basis of fairness, rather than a genuine operational need.

In this way, Squire urged HR and employers to start with open communication to avoid assumptive thinking potentially damaging policies.

“You have a legal obligation to keep your staff psychologically safe. This is not stress management or wellbeing programming. Psychological injury is a serious injury, and its consequences can be severe and permanent,” she said.

“It warrants the seriousness you would apply to any other injury capable of ending someone’s working life.”

In addition, Squire explained that the framing of neurodivergence as a “superpower”, while good-intentioned, can mask the difficulties individuals go through and place the burden on the employee to “justify their existence by being exceptional”.

“Most people do not want to be exceptional. They want to be employed, and not exhausted,” she said.

Further, employers are urged to maintain awareness of what contemporary work health and safety law dictates. Squire explained that, since December last year, employers nationally are subject to psychosocial hazard obligations; and in NSW, approved codes of practice are also now enforceable benchmarks – where even falling short is now considered a breach.

Squire also encouraged consideration of workplace design.

She said: “Look at the recognised hazards: role ambiguity, poor change management, low job control, inadequate support. That list is almost exactly what AuDHD employees describe.”

In the same vein, simple practices that may seem like favours – such as written instructions following verbal briefings, advance notice of change, predictable scheduling, and flexible hours – are, for some, hazard controls.

While Squire said a psychological injury claim whereby an employer did not adjust for a neurodiverse employee may occur in the future, she anticipates compliance outrunning conviction.

She said: “Psychosocial regulation will do more for neurodivergent workers over the next three years than a decade of awareness campaigns achieved.”

As the national body that puts AuDHD in front of policymakers, it also remains likely the organisation will effect continued improvements for neurodiverse employees in the workforce.

Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make HR Leader a preferred news source on Google.