The Manager Lottery
When neuroinclusion depends on the confidence and goodwill of one line manager, the organisation does not yet have an inclusive system.
Reading Time: 3 minutes
Author – John Harrington
Two employees can work for the same organisation, under the same policies, and have entirely different experiences of neuroinclusion.
One has a manager who communicates expectations clearly, gives useful preparation time and treats an adjustment request as an ordinary management conversation. The other has a manager who prefers people to ‘use their initiative’, delivers feedback without examples and regards flexibility as a favour.
The first employee may thrive. The second may be labelled difficult, unreliable or not quite senior enough. The difference is sometimes described as the ‘manager lottery’.
Recent survey findings suggest the problem remains widespread. Forty per cent of employers in one study believed line managers lacked the skills and confidence to support neurodivergent staff, while 45% said neuroinclusion was difficult to put into practice. Another poll found that half had not trained managers on disability discrimination.
Training matters - but it cannot carry the whole system
The proposed revised Acas Code on disciplinary and grievance procedures makes this particularly timely. The draft explicitly reminds employers that investigatory meetings, informal conversations and formal processes may need to be adapted for disabled workers. It also encourages consideration of training, support and adjustments before concerns escalate.
At the same time, UK government guidance confirms that the normal Employment Tribunal claim limit will increase from three to six months on 1 October 2026. This does not create new neurodiversity rights, but it increases the practical exposure attached to badly handled disability, adjustment and performance cases.
However, even excellent training will fail if the manager returns to an organisation whose systems contradict what they have learned.
When performance problems are design problems
A missed deadline may reflect poor planning. It may also reflect three managers changing priorities without recording which task has been displaced. A supposedly defensive response may be misconduct. It may also be the result of unexpected criticism delivered in an unstructured meeting without examples or preparation. Repeated mistakes may indicate a capability gap. They may equally indicate that essential instructions exist only in a fast-moving message thread.
This does not remove accountability or lower standards. It makes the route to meeting standards clearer and the assessment of performance more accurate.
From manager discretion to cognitive governance
- Important expectations and changes are confirmed in writing.
- Performance concerns are supported by specific examples and clear required outcomes.
- Employees receive appropriate preparation time before consequential conversations.
- Adjustments are recorded and survive a change of manager.
- Performance processes test whether workload, clarity or work design contributed before escalating.
- Managers have a clear route to specialist advice instead of improvising alone.
These practices help neurodivergent employees, but their value is not confined to a disclosed group. They improve fairness, decision quality and operational consistency across the organisation.
Before capability becomes disciplinary
Three questions provide a simple starting point:
- Were the expectations explicit and stable?
- Did the employee have an accessible opportunity to understand and respond?
- Could an unmet adjustment, training need or feature of the work system be contributing?
A neuroinclusive organisation still needs capable managers. It simply does not leave those managers to compensate for ambiguity, inconsistency and poor process through personal goodwill.
Good management should not be a matter of luck.
"Thanks for visiting the Refocus blog…" 
