This informal CPD article, ’Neurodiversity Training for Managers: What Good Looks Like’ was provided by Kim To, a certified ADHD Coach and neurodiversity consultant, and founder of Own Your Flair, a coaching and training company supporting neurodivergent individuals and the organisations that work with them.
Neurodiversity training is increasingly appearing within learning and development budgets, in diversity and inclusion strategies, and on the agendas of HR teams who feel it is something their organisation should be doing. Broadly, this is likely to be a positive development. But not all training is equally effective, and some approaches can be counterproductive. This article looks at what distinguishes genuinely useful neurodiversity training from a tick-box exercise. It outlines the legal duty that underpins the topic, offers a simple framework for understanding where training fits within a wider approach, and sets out considerations that may help HR and L&D professionals evaluate providers.
Why organisations are taking this seriously now
The shift has been driven by several factors at once. Diagnostic rates for ADHD and autism are rising significantly, particularly among adults who were missed earlier in life. NHS England estimates that around 2.5 million people in England have ADHD (3), and around thirteen times as many people were waiting for an autism assessment in September 2025 as in April 2019 (2). Employment tribunal claims relating to neurodivergent conditions are also increasing, and occupational health referrals linked to ADHD and autism are rising across the sector. The human and financial costs of not managing this well are becoming harder to ignore: NHS Integrated Care Boards have spent over £512 million on private ADHD and autism assessments since 2023–24, as employers and individuals turn to the private sector to fill gaps in provision (4).
There is also evidence that many managers feel underprepared. In a 2026 survey of HR, learning and development and compliance professionals, around 35% said that managers in their organisation lacked confidence in discussing reasonable adjustments for neurodivergent employees, at a time when related tribunal claims were rising (5). This gap between rising need and manager confidence is part of what is driving demand for training.
Beyond compliance, there is a cultural shift. Many neurodivergent employees have spent years suppressing their needs and masking their differences in workplaces that were not designed for them. Increasingly, they no longer wish to mask, and instead want to bring their full capabilities to work. Organisations that are serious about retaining neurodivergent talent are recognising that investing in inclusion can be a competitive advantage rather than only a duty of care.
This is not a matter of charity. Neurodivergent people often bring notable strengths in creative thinking, pattern recognition, sustained focus and problem-solving. Organisations that build environments where those strengths can flourish stand to gain a genuine advantage.
What the Equality Act 2010 requires
Much of the workplace conversation about neurodiversity is often underpinned by a specific legal duty, and it is worth managers and HR professionals understanding it in plain terms.
Under the Equality Act 2010 (7), disability is a protected characteristic. A person is considered to have a disability if they have a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. “Substantial” means more than minor or trivial, and “long-term” generally means the effect has lasted, or is likely to last, at least 12 months.
Importantly, this is assessed by the impact on the individual, not by the diagnosis itself. Not every neurodivergent person will meet the definition, but many do — and it is the effect on day-to-day activities, rather than the label, that determines whether the Act applies.
Where it does apply, the Act places a duty on employers to make reasonable adjustments (sections 20–21) (7). In broad terms, this means taking reasonable steps to remove or reduce a disadvantage that a workplace practice, a physical feature, or a lack of support would otherwise create for a disabled person. In an employment context, the duty is generally triggered once an employer knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, that a person has a disability and is likely to be placed at a disadvantage.
What counts as “reasonable” depends on factors such as how effective the adjustment would be, its practicality and cost, and the resources available to the employer (6). Common examples include flexible working hours, providing instructions in writing, adjusting recruitment or assessment processes, a quieter workspace, assistive technology, and allowing tools such as AI notetakers.
Failing to make a reasonable adjustment, where the duty applies, can itself amount to unlawful discrimination. This is part of why manager understanding matters: a manager who addresses a performance concern before considering whether adjustments are needed may expose the organisation to legal risk, as well as handling the situation poorly on a human level (1), (8).
Equality Act 2010
What tick-box neurodiversity training looks like
Tick-box training is easy to recognise once you know the pattern. The following are common warning signs — a quick way to sense-check an approach before committing to it:
- A one-hour awareness session with no follow-up.
- No review of how adjustments are requested or approved.
- No practical guidance — managers leave unsure what to do differently.
- Awareness-level content with no legal grounding.
Any one of these on its own may seem minor. Together, they describe training that raises awareness without building capability or changing the environment around it. At worst, a one-off session can make things harder: employees may feel encouraged to disclose, only to find that nothing has actually changed.
There are understandable reasons this happens — HR teams are stretched and bandwidth is limited. Encouragingly, AI and automation are beginning to reduce some of that administrative load, which creates an opportunity to redirect capacity toward the things that make a lasting difference: proper processes, resource groups, and accommodation frameworks that work in practice (1).
A framework: the three levels of intervention
One useful way to think about neurodiversity work is as three levels of intervention, each building on the one below. Many organisations begin — and sometimes stop — at the first level, when lasting change depends on reaching the third.
Awareness is the foundation: helping people understand that neurodiversity exists and what it broadly means. Awareness activity — webinars, articles, internal campaigns — builds knowledge and signals intent, but on its own it does not change how managers behave or how the organisation operates.
Training builds capability. It equips managers with the legal grounding, practical skills and confidence to handle real situations: disclosure conversations, reasonable adjustments, and knowing when to involve HR. Training turns awareness into action, but its impact still depends on individuals choosing to apply it.
Structural change embeds inclusion into how the organisation works, so that good practice does not rely on any single manager remembering to apply it. This is the level of accommodation processes, clear policy, employee resource groups, visible leadership sponsorship and psychological safety. It is the most demanding level to reach, and the one that sustains change over time.
Training sits deliberately in the middle. It is more than awareness, but it is most effective when it is a step toward structural change rather than a substitute for it.
Considerations when evaluating neurodiversity training
For HR and L&D professionals assessing providers, the following considerations may help distinguish substantive training from awareness-level content. They are offered as factors to weigh rather than a fixed checklist - their relative importance will vary between organisations.
- Independent certification: Independent certification, such as CPD certification, indicates that the content has been reviewed against recognised standards for learning quality and structure. Learning hours from CPD-certified activity can generally be recorded by individuals as part of the ongoing professional development that many professional bodies — including the CIPD, ICF, AC and EMCC — ask of their members (9), though each body sets its own rules on what it will accept. Certification is one indicator of quality rather than a guarantee and is best considered alongside the other factors below.
- Trainer background and lived experience: Some organisations place value on trainers who bring lived experience of neurodivergence alongside professional expertise. Lived experience can shape the nuance, language and examples in ways that resonate with an audience of managers. It is one consideration among several rather than a requirement in isolation.
- Track record: A provider’s experience with comparable organisations can be a useful signal. Asking for examples of previous work — and what changed as a result — can help gauge whether training tends to translate into practical outcomes.
- Content coverage: It is worth considering whether the content addresses what managers actually need. Areas organisations often look for include an explanation of what neurodiversity is; the conditions most commonly encountered at work; the Equality Act 2010 and the duty to make reasonable adjustments; and guidance on holding disclosure and accommodation conversations. Awareness-level content with no legal grounding or practical application may be less likely to change day-to-day management.
- Interactivity: The degree of interaction can influence how far training changes behaviour. Case studies, worked examples and structured discussion tend to build manager confidence more effectively than information delivery alone, as they give managers a chance to practise conversations rather than only hear about them.
What good neurodiversity training produces
A useful test of training is not whether managers leave feeling informed, but whether they behave differently afterwards. Effective neurodiversity training might equip a manager to approach a disclosure conversation calmly, ask appropriate questions, recognise what a reasonable adjustment looks like in their team’s context, understand when to involve HR, and appreciate the legal risk of managing someone’s performance before adjustments are in place.
These are not solely “soft skill” outcomes. They are also risk-management and people-management outcomes, and both matter to organisations.
A final thought
The organisations that get the most from neurodiversity training tend to treat it not as an end point but as a starting point — the beginning of a broader commitment to psychological safety, visible leadership, sound process and genuine inclusion. Training alone rarely moves the dial; training as the foundation for structural change is what makes the difference.
We hope this article was helpful. For more information from Own Your Flair, please visit their CPD Member Directory page. Alternatively, you can go to the CPD Industry Hubs for more articles, courses and events relevant to your Continuing Professional Development requirements.
References
(1) CIPD (2024). Neurodiversity at Work: https://www.cipd.org/uk/knowledge/guides/neuroinclusion-work/
(2) GOV.UK — Independent Review into Mental Health, ADHD and Autism Services (December 2025): https://www.gov.uk/government/news/review-launched-into-mental-health-autism-and-adhd-services
(3) NHS England / ADHD UK — ADHD Incidence Data (November 2025): https://adhduk.co.uk/adhd-incidence/
(4) The Neurodiversity Directory — NHS Private Spending on ADHD and Autism Assessments, FOI Data (2026): https://neurodiversity.directory/neurodiversity-statistics/
(5) VinciWorks (2026). Neurodiversity in the Workplace: manager confidence on reasonable adjustments and tribunal claims: https://vinciworks.com/blog/neurodiversity-workplace-adjustments-survey/
(6) Equality and Human Rights Commission — Reasonable adjustments guidance: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/guidance/business/employing-people-workplace-adjustments/examples-reasonable-adjustments-practice
(7) Equality Act 2010, Sections 20–21: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/20
(8) ACAS (2023). Neurodiversity in the Workplace Guidance: https://www.acas.org.uk/reasonable-adjustments/adjustments-for-neurodiversity
(9) https://www.cipd.org/uk/learning/cpd/policy/
