Abstract
Employment outcomes for autistic people in the United Kingdom (UK) remain persistently low despite increasing attention to workplace inclusion. Drawing on my positionality as an autistic doctoral student in Organisational Psychology, this perspective article examines how workplace inclusion is often approached through individually negotiated adjustments implemented within existing workplace systems and practices. While these approaches provide important forms of support, organisational conditions continue to shape participation in ways that do not fully account for differences in how autistic people think, process information, and communicate. In response, the article introduces the system-level organisational design framework (SLODF), underpinned by a neuro-cognitive trait interaction lens, as a reflexive framework for examining how organisational conditions shape workplace participation across cognitive variation. Drawing on multidisciplinary literature, the article explores how barriers emerge through interactions between neuro-cognitive traits and the organisational domains of environment, systems, people, and policy. Rather than functioning as a predictive or prescriptive model, the SLODF conceptualises workplace inclusion as an ongoing, context-sensitive organisational process. In doing so, the article contributes to broader developments within Organisational Psychology by encouraging reconsideration of workplace inclusion through organisational design and neuro-cognitive trait interaction.
Introduction
Employment outcomes for autistic people in the United Kingdom (UK) remain persistently low, with only around one third in work (Department for Work and Pensions, 2024). Despite growing attention to workplace inclusion, support for autistic employees is still commonly organised through individually negotiated adjustments [The Equality Act 2010 (UK), 2010]. While such approaches provide important forms of support, they often operate within organisational conditions underpinned by neuro-normative expectations and work environments not always aligned with differences in how autistic people think, process information, or communicate (Erbil et al., 2024; Özbilgin et al., 2025). These tensions highlight the need for approaches to workplace inclusion that prioritise functionality, wellbeing, and sustainable participation within organisational contexts (Zaks, 2024; Rollnik-Sadowska and Grabińska, 2024; Efeoğlu and Kılınçarslan, 2024).
The development of the SLODF emerged through tensions that extended beyond the original focus of my doctoral research. My doctoral journey began by exploring autistic women’s experiences of diagnosis disclosure in the workplace. However, as the study progressed, it became increasingly clear that these experiences were shaped not only by disclosure itself, but also by the wider conditions through which autistic people are studied, understood, and supported. At the same time, engagement with inclusive research methods within Organisational Psychology highlighted tensions within the field, in which dominant definitions of rigour often prioritise consistency, replicability, and generalisability (Islam and Sanderson, 2021; Chirkov, 2024) over responsiveness to cognitive variation. Questions of workplace inclusion, therefore, became increasingly connected to broader concerns about whose knowledge is recognised, legitimised, and acted upon within research and professional practice (Fricker, 2007). These assumptions also shape how autistic people are understood relationally within workplace and research contexts (Thorpe et al., 2024). Collectively, these experiences shifted my focus from understanding autistic people’s experiences of work towards exploring inclusive research and organisational design.
This perspective article draws on my positionality as an autistic doctoral student in Organisational Psychology and is grounded in the neurodiversity paradigm, whereby cognitive variation is understood as part of human diversity (Botha et al., 2024), whilst also recognising the impact of discrimination and structural ableism, whereby organisational and social systems privilege dominant assumptions of functioning, creating barriers for disabled and neurodivergent people (Walker, 2021; Lundberg and Chen, 2024). From this position, I introduce the system-level organisational design framework (SLODF), underpinned by a neuro-cognitive trait interaction lens (Dark, 2023; Dark, 2025), as a reflexive framework for examining how workplace inclusion can be strengthened through ongoing organisational evaluation and design.
Autism has been conceptualised in multiple ways across research, practice, and community contexts, including as a diagnostic category, neurotype, disability, and identity. However, diagnostic interpretations of autism, such as those reflected within the DSM–5–TR (American Psychiatric Association, 2022), continue to shape legislation, workplace support, and broader understandings of autism from a predominantly medicalised perspective. Within this framing, organisational responses to disability often focus on identifying and accommodating individual differences in relation to perceived workplace norms, rather than examining how workplace systems themselves are structured. These approaches emerge from a longer history of framing cognitive differences through treatment and normalisation-oriented practices (Silberman, 2015; Zaks, 2024). Consequently, workplace practices often remain oriented towards normative expectations surrounding communication, behavior, and participation in work (Kapp et al., 2019; Erbil et al., 2024).
These assumptions influence how support is accessed and experienced within organisational settings. Although organisations hold legislative responsibility for providing reasonable adjustments, implementation remains a challenge (Ma, 2023). Access often depends on disclosure of diagnosis, self-advocacy, and the ability to navigate organisational systems not designed for cognitive variation (Nimante et al., 2023). As a result, autistic employees frequently experience pressure to determine whether, when, and how to disclose their diagnosis (Davies et al., 2022; Romualdez et al., 2021). Support, therefore, remains uneven, shaped not only by formal policy but also by how autism, disability, and difference are interpreted across workplace contexts (Davies et al., 2025; Raymaker et al., 2022).
Collectively, these arguments highlight the need for organisations to embed accessibility within the design of work and organisational systems alongside personalised adjustments where required. For the remainder of this article, I present the SLODF as a reflexive approach to workplace inclusion and organisational design that advances three connected shifts in perspective: from diagnosis-led categorisation to neuro-cognitive trait interaction, from individual responsibility to organisational accountability, and from adjustment-led approaches to inclusive organisational design.
The system-level organisational design framework (SLODF)
The system-level organisational design framework (SLODF) is presented here as a systems-oriented approach to workplace inclusion that positions organisational context and design as central to accessibility, participation, and well-being across cognitive variation (Cooke, 2025; Dark, 2024; Bottema-Beutel, 2024). The framework responds to literature highlighting the need to address environmental and structural barriers within workplace contexts (Manning et al., 2023; Nishith et al., 2025; Kalmanovich-Cohen and Stanton, 2025), alongside autistic community calls for research to inform wider organisational change (Davies et al., 2024).
As a perspective article, literature was selected purposively to support conceptual development of the framework across Organisational Psychology, sustainable HRM, neurodiversity, autism, and disability research, prioritising sources relevant to workplace participation, organisational systems, and inclusive design, alongside socio-ecological and systems-oriented approaches (Özbilgin et al., 2025; Donald et al., 2025; Tomczak and Kulikowski, 2023). Rather than functioning as a predictive or standardised model, the SLODF is intended as a reflexive heuristic for examining how organisational conditions shape workplace engagement across cognitive variation and work settings. Applying a neuro-cognitive trait interaction lens (Dark, 2023; Dark, 2025), the framework examines how sensory processing, attention, and social communication interact with workplace environments, systems, people, and policy to shape participation within organisations.
As shown in Table 1, each domain is explored through four stages: (1) identifying the function of each domain, (2) examining points of interaction between workplace demands and neuro-cognitive traits, (3) identifying barriers and sources of friction emerging through these dynamics, and (4) considering organisational responses that reduce barriers and support participation. Together, these stages provide a structured process for examining how workplace barriers emerge and where system-level redesign opportunities may be most effective.
Table 1
| Domain | Function (1) | Interaction (2) | Barriers (3) | Design responses (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Environment | The physical and sensory aspects of work | Sensory processing × environmental demands | High sensory load affecting participation and sustained engagement | Reduce sensory load through adjustments to lighting, noise, and layout; provide low-stimulation or recovery spaces |
| Systems | Organisational processes and workflows | Attention × system demands and task structure | Increased cognitive effort may affect task initiation and transitions | Increase clarity and visibility of processes; structure tasks and expectations |
| People | Communication, relationships, and culture | Social communication × implicit relational norms | Indirect communication and mismatch in communication styles; uncertainty in interpreting intent and expectations | Use clear and direct communication; provide multiple communication formats; implement regular check-ins |
| Policy | Governance and enactment of inclusion | Policy × organisational implementation practices | Inconsistent implementation of inclusive practices | Ensure consistent and transparent implementation; provide equitable access to support |
Applying a neuro-cognitive trait interaction approach within the SLODF.
The following sections present each domain in turn, drawing on research findings to explore how interactions between neuro-cognitive traits and organisational conditions contribute to barriers to participation, and how these barriers may be minimised or overcome through inclusive organisational design.
Environment
Workplace participation is shaped, in part, by the sensory and physical conditions of the work environment, making environmental design central to accessibility and sustained engagement (Dark, 2023). Many autistic people experience variation in the processing of stimuli such as light, sound, touch, and smell (de Vries, 2021). Consequently, environmental features including open-plan offices, background noise, and fluctuating sensory conditions may interact with differences in sensory processing to influence how work is experienced (Tomczak et al., 2022). Where sensory demands become difficult to manage, particularly within high-stimulation environments, cognitive strain may increase and sustained engagement in work may become more difficult (Dark, 2023; de Vries, 2021).
These demands are not experienced uniformly across organisational contexts. Remote work, for example, may provide greater control over environmental conditions and reduce exposure to high-stimulation settings (Tomczak et al., 2022). At the same time, transitions between environments, routines, and modes of working may introduce ongoing planning and adjustment demands (Pfeiffer et al., 2024; Dark and Lauder, 2025). Over time, repeated adaptation to changing sensory and organisational conditions may contribute to fatigue, overwhelm, and difficulties sustaining engagement in work, with negative repercussions for well-being (van den Boogert et al., 2022; Morris et al., 2025). As such, sensory demands are not solely individual experiences but emerge through interactions between cognitive variation and workplace environments.
Consequently, reducing unnecessary sensory impact becomes an important consideration within organisational design. Approaches may include managing lighting, noise, and temperature, as well as providing access to natural light or low-stimulation spaces (Tomczak et al., 2022; Waisman-Nitzan et al., 2021). Such features can be understood as shared organisational resources that support broader accessibility rather than solely as individually negotiated adjustments. However, no single work environment is universally supportive. Homeworking may reduce sensory intensity while simultaneously introducing challenges relating to informal learning, isolation, or blurred work–life boundaries (Tomczak et al., 2022). These dynamics highlight the importance of flexibility over standardisation within organisational design (Brooks et al., 2024). Research on sensory-inclusive environments further suggests that accessibility is shaped not only by sensory intensity but also by predictability, spatial layout, social understanding, and opportunities for recovery (Manning et al., 2023). From a systems-oriented perspective, designing work environments that respond to sensory variation may support more consistent and meaningful participation across the workforce while shifting responsibility for inclusion from individual adaptation towards the design of workplace conditions.
Systems
Workplace systems shape how work is understood, navigated, and enacted through information flow, task sequencing, and the visibility of expectations across processes such as recruitment, onboarding, and performance management. Because these processes are embedded within everyday organisational practice, barriers may remain implicit and less visible within organisational decision-making (Dark, 2023). From a neuro-cognitive trait interaction perspective, these system-level conditions interact with cognitive variation, particularly attentional patterns associated with monotropism and inertia (Murray et al., 2005; Lawson, 2025). As such, attention may become strongly focused on specific tasks or interests (Brosnan and Camilleri, 2025). While this may support sustained focus and immersive engagement with tasks of interest, shifting attention between tasks and activities may require greater cognitive effort (Rapaport et al., 2024). Consequently, organisational processes that lack clarity, consistency, or visibility may increase the cognitive effort required to navigate competing work demands and task transitions (Dark and Lauder, 2025).
These dynamics can be observed across the employment lifecycle. Recruitment practices, for example, frequently rely on unstructured interaction and social performance, potentially disadvantaging people whose communication styles differ from dominant workplace norms (Davies et al., 2023). In contrast, more structured approaches, including transparent recruitment stages, clearly sequenced workflows, and role-aligned assessments, may improve clarity and consistency across organisational processes (Nishith et al., 2025; Dreaver et al., 2020; Diener et al., 2020). Similar patterns may extend beyond recruitment, where workplace systems that do not account for cognitive variation may unintentionally reproduce barriers by reducing predictability, accessibility, and clarity within work (Dark and Lauder, 2025). Consequently, workplace inclusion requires consideration of how organisational systems are structured and where to embed supportive expectations, processes, and guidance within workplace design. This shifts responsibility away from relying primarily on individual adaptation to existing systems.
People
Organisational communication, relationships, and workplace culture shape how participation, collaboration, and understanding occur within work settings. In many workplaces, interaction is guided by implicit workgroup norms and socially expected practices that influence how communication and expectations are expressed, interpreted, and responded to (Longmire et al., 2024). Because these norms are often embedded within organisational culture, differences in communication style may not be immediately recognised, yet they can still significantly influence how people engage with work and with one another (Dark, 2023). From this perspective, variation in social communication becomes an important consideration within workplace inclusion rather than an issue located solely within the individual.
The double empathy problem further highlights that communication differences between autistic and non-autistic people are reciprocal, emerging through mismatches in how meaning is expressed and understood (Milton, 2012; Crompton et al., 2020; Davis and Crompton, 2021). Consequently, workplace communication that relies heavily on indirect or implied meaning may require additional interpretive effort, increasing uncertainty within interaction and collaboration (Longmire et al., 2024; Dark and Lauder, 2025). These demands are often intensified within informal workplace interactions that rely on spontaneity, inference, and shared assumptions, whereas written and structured communication formats may provide greater clarity and additional processing time (Nishith et al., 2025).
Leadership approaches and team cultures further influence how these communication dynamics are interpreted and navigated, particularly where expectations remain implicit or communication relies on imprecise conventions (Longmire et al., 2024). In such contexts, autistic employees may experience pressure to adapt to dominant communication norms or conceal differences, with implications for well-being and ongoing engagement in work (Pryke-Hobbes et al., 2023). From an organisational design perspective, increasing clarity within communication and relational practices may therefore support more accessible workplace interaction. This may be supported through clearer instructions, predictable guidance, direct feedback, and the use of multiple communication formats (Waisman-Nitzan et al., 2019; Diener et al., 2020; Raymaker et al., 2022). Regular check-ins may further clarify expectations (Buckley et al., 2021), while relational supports, such as job coaching, can, in some contexts, facilitate communication between employees and managers (Martin et al., 2022).
Importantly, such practices may support not only autistic employees but also the broader workforce, including employees whose first language differs from the dominant workplace language, by strengthening accessibility and clarity within organisational communication. These approaches may also contribute to psychological safety, understood as the confidence to ask questions, seek clarification, and share ideas within workplace contexts (Edmondson, 1999; Dark, 2023). In turn, embedding inclusive communication practices within organisational systems may support more consistent and meaningful participation across diverse communication styles and workplace interactions.
Policy
Policy influences how inclusion is formalised, enacted, and sustained across organisational contexts. Unlike the other domains, policy operates less as a direct site of interaction and more as the organisational mechanism through which commitments to inclusion are articulated, coordinated, and maintained over time. Through governance structures relating to recruitment, adjustments, and flexible working practices, policy positions inclusion as an ongoing organisational responsibility linked to equity and rights (Hayward et al., 2019). In doing so, it shapes how expectations, processes, and access to support are defined and enacted across organisational settings, influencing the consistency and transparency of inclusion in practice.
Organisational climate, employees’ confidence to discuss their needs, and recognition of strengths in relation to job demands all affect whether policy results in meaningful inclusion (Waisman-Nitzan et al., 2021). As a result, inclusion is shaped not only by formal documentation but also by how organisational systems and relationships operate in practice. Employee-led groups, including Disability Employee Resource Groups, may further help employees navigate and influence policy implementation, strengthen access to organisational responses, and enable collective advocacy (Davies et al., 2022). Through these processes, policy becomes embedded within workplace practice, influencing how consistently support is accessed, interpreted, and applied across contexts.
From an organisational design perspective, policy can provide the structural conditions that align and sustain accessible environments, clearer systems, and inclusive communication practices over time. Embedding these expectations within governance processes may strengthen accountability and reduce reliance on informal or individually negotiated adjustments. In this way, policy extends beyond compliance to provide a more coordinated, equitable, and sustainable approach to workplace inclusion.
Discussion
Reliance on individualised workplace adjustments persists due to dominant medicalised framings of autism informing diagnostic, legislative, and organisational interpretations of disability and difference. Because such approaches can often be implemented within existing workplace structures, emphasis on individualised support may reduce incentives to examine or redesign broader organisational conditions. However, the examples illustrated through the SLODF demonstrate how unchanged environmental, systemic, and cultural conditions can continue to reproduce barriers to participation. Consequently, adjustment-led approaches, when unaccompanied by wider organisational change, may require autistic employees to navigate systems not designed for cognitive variation, while support remains inconsistently implemented and misaligned with processing and communication needs (Erbil et al., 2024; Raymaker et al., 2022). In response, the SLODF reframes workplace inclusion as an organisational process emerging through interactions between cognitive variation and organisational conditions, shifting responsibility for inclusion from the individual towards workplace design itself.
This perspective reflects broader neurodiversity principles that recognise cognitive variation as an expected aspect of humanity (Botha et al., 2024) and, therefore, an expected feature of the workforce. Just as workplaces increasingly recognise diversity across gender, age, ethnicity, and religion, differences in how people process information, communicate, and engage with work may also warrant greater recognition within inclusive workplace practice, including obligations relating to disability and reasonable adjustment under The Equality Act 2010 (UK) (2010). In line with system-level considerations, supporting accessibility requires recognising that cognitive variation extends beyond autistic traits to encompass broader forms of neurodivergence, alongside differences associated with stress, ageing, changing life circumstances, and fluctuating work demands. From this perspective, workplace accessibility becomes not only a matter of responding to person-specific support needs but also of organisational design, whereby inclusive systems and practices support a broader range of employees across changing contexts and capacities.
Importantly, this critique is not intended to position organisations as solely responsible for exclusionary practice. Rather, workplace systems, professional norms, and definitions of best practice have developed within wider social contexts shaped by neuro-normative assumptions and structural ableism, whereby organisational and social systems privilege dominant assumptions of functioning and participation, creating barriers for disabled and neurodivergent people (Erbil et al., 2024; Özbilgin et al., 2025; Lundberg and Chen, 2024). From this perspective, Organisational Psychology plays an important role in reconsidering how workplace inclusion and support are understood and enacted across research and practice, particularly through greater reflexivity about the dominant assumptions that shape participation and best practice (Islam and Sanderson, 2021; Chirkov, 2024).
Translating these principles into practice is likely to vary across organisational settings, occupations, and legislative environments. The SLODF is therefore most applicable in workplaces that allow examination and adaptation of organisational systems, structures, and practices. Workforce demographics, occupational demands, and intersectional factors, including age, race, gender, religion, and sexuality, may shape how neuro-cognitive traits are experienced and where redesign is most needed to support accessibility (Crenshaw, 1989; Mallipeddi and VanDaalen, 2022). Responsive organisational design therefore requires attention to the conditions through which participation occurs, drawing on empirical evidence alongside practitioner and neurodivergent insight. Accordingly, inclusive organisational design is best understood not as a universal solution, but as an ongoing organisational process shaped by workforce needs, organisational conditions, and evolving evidence.
Future development of the SLODF requires empirical exploration. Participatory approaches may be particularly valuable in identifying how barriers and points of friction emerge within day-to-day organisational practice (Dark, 2024). Longitudinal and experience-based methods, including diary approaches, could further develop understanding of how inclusion and accessibility shift beyond formal structures or retrospective accounts. Organisational case studies documenting system-level redesign may also help refine the framework by illustrating how workplace systems, practices, and policies are adapted in applied settings. Such work may further explore the extent to which barriers affecting autistic employees also shape broader workforce experiences. Examining both the successful implementation of the SLODF and ongoing challenges may support shared learning across contexts while advancing understanding of how organisational structures influence access to and workplace well-being.
Collectively, these considerations position the SLODF as a reflexive and systems-oriented approach to workplace inclusion that encourages examination of how workplace systems, environments, and expectations shape engagement across work settings. In doing so, the framework contributes to broader discussions within Organisational Psychology regarding how workplace inclusion and support are conceptualised, enacted, and sustained over time. In line with sustainable HRM perspectives centred on the common good (Cooke, 2025), such approaches may further encourage organisations to recognise the broader social, relational, and organisational benefits of designing workplaces that more effectively support cognitive variation. By shifting attention towards organisational design and neuro-cognitive trait interaction, the SLODF may support more accessible, sustainable, and equitable approaches to work for autistic people and the wider workforce.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
JD: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. I received payment of doctoral fees through a Graduate Teaching Assistant contract (2020–2023) from the School of Business, Economics, and Informatics at Birkbeck, University of London.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
American Psychiatric Association (2022). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
2
BothaM.ChapmanR.Giwa OnaiwuM.KappS. K.Stannard AshleyA.WalkerN. (2024). The neurodiversity concept was developed collectively: an overdue correction on the origins of neurodiversity theory. Autism28, 1591–1594. doi: 10.1177/13623613241237871,
3
Bottema-BeutelK. (2024). Putting autism research in social contexts. Autism28, 1597–1601. doi: 10.1177/13623613241245642,
4
BrooksS. K.HallC. E.RogersM. B.GreenbergN. (2024). Homeworking experiences of neuro-divergent workers: systematic review. Occup. Med.1–11. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqae095,
5
BrosnanM.CamilleriL. J. (2025). Neuro-affirmative support for autism, the double empathy problem and monotropism. Front. Psych.16:1538875. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1538875,
6
BuckleyE.PellicanoE.RemingtonA. (2021). “The real thing I struggle with is other people’s perceptions”: the experiences of autistic performing arts professionals and attitudes of performing arts employers in the UK. J. Autism Dev. Disord.51, 45–59. doi: 10.1007/s10803-020-04517-0,
7
ChirkovV. (2024). Statistical positivism, psychoanalysis, and the theory of sociocultural models: a review of three approaches to acculturation. Int. J. Intercult. Relat.101:102009. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2024.102009
8
CookeF. L. (2025). From strategic HRM to sustainable HRM? Exploring a common good approach through a critical reflection on existing literature. Hum. Resour. Manag.64, 1381–1399. doi: 10.1002/hrm.22318
9
CrenshawK. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. Univ. Chicago Legal Forum1989, 139–167.
10
CromptonC.HallettS.RoparD.FlynnE.Fletcher-WatsonS. (2020). ‘I never realised everybody felt as happy as I do when I am around autistic people’: a thematic analysis of autistic adults’ relationships with autistic and neurotypical friends and family. Autism24, 1438–1448. doi: 10.1177/1362361320908976,
11
DarkJ. (2023). Breaking away from past generational concepts of autism: contextualising autistic people’s experiences of employment from a neuro-trait-interaction perspective. Achieve Ability4, 9–14.
12
DarkJ. (2024). Eight principles of neuro-inclusion: an autistic perspective on innovating inclusive research methods. Front. Psychol.15, 2–6. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1326536,
13
DarkJ. (2025). Inclusion by design: a neuro-cognitive trait interaction approach to neurodivergent research. Methodol. Innov.18, 253–263. doi: 10.1177/20597991251396144
14
DarkJ.LauderK. (2025). Inclusive academia: reflections on autistic graduate teaching assistants’ experiences of learning and teaching in higher education. Neurodiversity3, 1–7. doi: 10.1177/27546330251400615
15
DaviesJ.HeasmanB.LiveseyA.WalkerA.PellicanoE.RemingtonA. (2022). Autistic adults’ views and experiences of requesting and receiving workplace adjustments in the UK. PLoS One17:e0272420. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272420,
16
DaviesJ.HeasmanB.LiveseyA.WalkerA.PellicanoE.RemingtonA. (2023). Access to employment: a comparison of autistic, neurodivergent and neurotypical adults’ experiences of hiring processes in the United Kingdom. Autism27, 1746–1763. doi: 10.1177/13623613221145377,
17
DaviesJ.MelinekR.LiveseyA.KillickE.SamE.RomualdezA. M.et al. (2025). “I did what I could to earn some money and be of use”: a qualitative exploration of autistic people’s journeys to career success and fulfilment. Autism29, 988–1004. doi: 10.1177/13623613241292177,
18
DaviesJ.RomualdezA. M.MalyanD.HeasmanB.LiveseyA.WalkerA.et al. (2024). Autistic adults’ priorities for future autism employment research: perspectives from the United Kingdom. Autism in Adulthood6, 72–85. doi: 10.1089/aut.2022.0087,
19
DavisR.CromptonC. (2021). What do new findings about social interaction in autistic adults mean for neurodevelopmental research?Perspect. Psychol. Sci.16, 649–653. doi: 10.1177/1745691620958010,
20
de VriesB. (2021). Autism and the right to a hypersensitivity-friendly workspace. Public Health Ethics14, 281–287. doi: 10.1093/phe/phab021,
21
Department for Work and Pensions. (2024). The Buckland Review of Autism Employment: Report and Recommendations. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-buckland-review-of-autismemployment-report-and-recommendations (Accessed March 2, 2026).
22
DienerM. L.WrightC. A.TaylorC.D’AstousV.LasrichL. (2020). Dual perspectives in autism spectrum disorders and employment: toward a better fit in the workplace. Work67, 223–237. doi: 10.3233/wor-203268,
23
DonaldW. E.CookE. J.MohandasN. P. (2025). Fostering an inclusive and sustainable career ecosystem: empowering neurodivergent individuals and employees to thrive. Career Dev. Int.30, 681–697. doi: 10.1108/cdi-09-2025-0490
24
DreaverJ.ThompsonC.GirdlerS.AdolfssonM.BlackM. H.FalkmerM. (2020). Success factors enabling employment for adults on the autism spectrum from employers’ perspective. J. Autism Dev. Disord.50, 1657–1667. doi: 10.1007/s10803-019-03923-3,
25
EdmondsonA. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm. Sci. Q.44, 350–383. doi: 10.2307/2666999
26
Efeoğluİ. E.KılınçarslanÖ. (2024). How do individuals with autism participate in work life? A study on inclusive employability. Equal Div Incl43, 173–187. doi: 10.1108/edi-09-2022-0254
27
ErbilC.ÖzbilginM. F.GündoğduN. (2024). Neuronormativity as ignorant design in human resource management: the case of an unsupportive national context. Hum. Resour. Manag. J.35, 454–475. doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12573,
28
FrickerM. (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. New York City, New York: Oxford University Press.
29
HaywardS. M.McVillyK. R.StokesM. A. (2019). Autism and employment: what works. Res. Autism Spectr. Disord.60, 48–58. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2019.01.006
30
IslamG.SandersonZ. (2021). Critical positions: Situating critical perspectives in work and Organizational Psychology. Organizational Psychology Review, 12, 3–34. doi: 10.1177/20413866211038044
31
Kalmanovich-CohenH.StantonS. J. (2025). Moving beyond disclosure: rethinking universal support for neurodivergent employees. Front. Psychol.16:1547877. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1547877,
32
KappS. K.StewardR.CraneL.ElliottD.ElphickC.PellicanoE.et al. (2019). ‘People should be allowed to do what they like’: autistic adults’ views and experiences of stimming. Autism23, 1782–1792. doi: 10.1177/1362361319829628,
33
LawsonW. (2025). Research by autistic researchers: an “insider’s view” into autism. The autistic way of being. Front. Psych.16:1664507. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1664507,
34
LongmireN. H.VogusT. J.ColellaA. (2024). Relational incongruence in neurodiverse workgroups: practices for cultivating autistic employee authenticity and belonging. Hum. Resour. Manag.64, 59–76. doi: 10.1002/hrm.22248,
35
LundbergD. J.ChenJ. A. (2024). Structural ableism in public health and healthcare: a definition and conceptual framework. Lancet Reg. Health30:100650. doi: 10.1016/j.lana.2023.100650,
36
MaG. (2023). Critiquing reasonable adjustment: calling for positive action to tackle disability discrimination. Disabil. Soc.39, 1346–1351. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2023.2287407,
37
MallipeddiN. V.VanDaalenR. A. (2022). Intersectionality within critical autism studies: a narrative review. Autism Adult.4, 281–289. doi: 10.1089/aut.2021.0014,
38
ManningC.WilliamsG.MacLennanK. (2023). Sensory-inclusive spaces for autistic people: we need to build the evidence base. Autism27, 1511–1515. doi: 10.1177/13623613231183541,
39
MartinV.FlanaganT. D.VogusT. J.ChênevertD. (2022). Sustainable employment depends on quality relationships between supervisors and their employees on the autism Spectrum. Disabil. Rehabil.45, 1784–1795. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2022.2074550,
40
MiltonD. E. M. (2012). On the ontological status of autism: the double empathy problem. Disabil. Soc.27, 883–887. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2012.710008
41
MorrisR.SoutheyS.PilatzkeM. (2025). Autistic-inclusive employment: a qualitative interpretive meta-synthesis. Br. J. Soc. Work.55, 1794–1815. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcaf024
42
MurrayD.LesserM.LawsonW. (2005). Attention, monotropism and the diagnostic criteria for autism. Autism9, 139–156. doi: 10.1177/1362361305051398,
43
NimanteD.LaganovskaE.OsgoodR. (2023). To tell or not to tell – disclosure of autism in the workplace. Int. J. Dev. Disabil.69, 414–423. doi: 10.1080/20473869.2023.2193489,
44
NishithS.O’BrienA.LiC.BungertL.OddisK.RiddleJ.et al. (2025). Improving autistic experiences in the workplace: key factors and actionable steps. J. Autism Dev. Disord. doi: 10.1007/s10803-025-07036-y,
45
ÖzbilginM. F.ErbilC.TekesteM.GündoğduN. (2025). HR-led co-design for neuroinclusion: a critical pragmatist and sociotechnical systems approach to transforming Neuronormative organisations. Hum. Resour. Manag. J.36, 192–204. doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.70018,
46
PfeifferB.SongW.DavidsonA.SalzerM.FeeleyC.SheaL. (2024). Transportation use and barriers for employed and unemployed autistic adults. Autism Adult.6, 241–246. doi: 10.1089/aut.2022.0069,
47
Pryke-HobbesA.DaviesJ.HeasmanB.LiveseyA.WalkerA.PellicanoE.et al. (2023). The workplace masking experiences of autistic, non-autistic, neurodivergent and neurotypical adults in the UK. PLoS One18:e0290001. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290001,
48
RapaportH.ClaphamH.AdamsJ.LawsonW.Porayska-PomstaK.PellicanoE. (2024). ‘I live in extremes’: a qualitative investigation of autistic adults’ experiences of inertial rest and motion. Autism28, 1305–1315. doi: 10.1177/13623613231198916,
49
RaymakerD. M.SharerM.MaslakJ.PowersL. E.McDonaldK. E.KappS. K.et al. (2022). “[I] don’t wanna just be like a cog in the machine”: narratives of autism and skilled employment. Autism27, 65–75. doi: 10.1177/13623613221080813,
50
Rollnik-SadowskaE.GrabińskaV. (2024). Managing neurodiversity in workplaces: a review and future research agenda for sustainable human resource management. Sustainability16:6594. doi: 10.3390/su16156594
51
RomualdezA. M.WalkerZ.RemingtonA. (2021). Autistic adults’ experiences of diagnostic disclosure in the workplace: decision-making and factors associated with outcomes. Autism Dev. Lang. Impair.6, 1–12. doi: 10.1177/23969415211022955,
52
SilbermanS. (2015). NeuroTribes: The Legacy of Autism and How to Think Smarter About People Who Think Differently. New York: George Allen & Unwin.
53
The Equality Act 2010 (UK). (2010). The Stationery Office. Available online at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents
54
ThorpeD.McKinlayM.RichardsJ.SangK.StewartM. E. (2024). The lived experience of autistic adults in employment: a systematic search and synthesis. Autism Adulth.6, 495–509. doi: 10.1089/aut.2022.0114,
55
TomczakM. T.KulikowskiK. (2023). Toward an understanding of occupational burnout among employees with autism – the job demands-resources theory perspective. Curr. Psychol.43, 1582–1594. doi: 10.1007/s12144-023-04428-0,
56
TomczakM. T.MpofuE.HutsonN. (2022). Remote work support needs of employees with autism spectrum disorder in Poland: perspectives of individuals with autism and their coworkers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health19:10982. doi: 10.3390/ijerph191710982,
57
van den BoogertF.SpaanP.SizooB.BoumanY. H.HoogendijkW. J.RozaS. J. (2022). Sensory processing, perceived stress and burnout symptoms in a working population during the COVID-19 crisis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health19:2043. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19042043,
58
Waisman-NitzanM.GalE.SchreuerN. (2019). Employers’ perspectives regarding reasonable accommodations for employees with autism spectrum disorder. J. Manag. Org.4, 481–498. doi: 10.1017/jmo.2018.59
59
Waisman-NitzanM.GalE.SchreuerN. (2021). “It’s like a ramp for a person in a wheelchair”: workplace accessibility for employees with autism. Res. Dev. Disabil.114:103959. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2021.103959
60
WalkerN. (2021). Neuroqueer Heresies: Notes on the Neurodiversity paradigm, Autistic Empowerment, and Postnormal Possibilities. Fort Worth, TX: Autonomous Press.
61
ZaksZ. (2024). Changing the medical model of disability to the normalization model of disability: clarifying the past to create a new future direction. Disabil. Soc.39, 3233–3260. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2023.2255926
Summary
Keywords
autism, neuro-cognitive trait interaction, neurodiversity, organisational design, organisational psychology, sustainable HRM, workplace inclusion
Citation
Dark J (2026) The system-level organisational design framework: a neuro-cognitive trait interaction approach to workplace inclusion for autistic people. Front. Psychol. 17:1826284. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1826284
Received
09 March 2026
Revised
15 May 2026
Accepted
18 May 2026
Published
17 June 2026
Volume
17 - 2026
Edited by
Lorne Hartman, York University, Canada
Reviewed by
Ömür Kılınçarslan, Adana Alparslan Turkes Science and Technology University, Türkiye
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Dark.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Jessica Dark, jessica@jessicadark.co.uk
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.