There’s a moment from a live concert that’s hard to forget. Lewis Capaldi stands on stage at Glastonbury Festival, trying to finish a song. His Tourette’s symptoms flare, and his voice falters. Then something remarkable happens. The crowd takes over. Thousands of people carry the song for him, not out of obligation, but instinct. No one stops to debate whether it’s efficient or appropriate. They simply respond. It’s collective support in its purest form.
That moment captures what inclusion is supposed to look like. Not policy or performative statements. Not even strategy decks. It’s a system where people respond to human need in real time. And yet, most workplaces are built in the opposite direction.
In a recent conversation on the Transform Your Workplace podcast, Ludmilla Praslova offered a compelling reframe. Her concept, drawn from The Canary Code, positions neurodivergent employees not as edge cases to accommodate, but as early indicators of deeper systemic issues. “If something is off in the environment,” she explained, “they will feel it first. But eventually, everyone will feel it.”
Like canaries in a coal mine, they’re the signal.
The Myth of the “Average” Employee
Most organizations are designed around a quiet assumption: that there’s such a thing as an “average” employee. The standard workday, the open office, the unwritten rules of communication and professionalism all orbit around this invisible norm. It shapes how we hire, evaluate, and promote. It even shapes how we define what “good” looks like.
The problem is, that norm doesn’t actually exist.
As Praslova points out, “We slice humans into so many pieces […] and we rarely treat people with respect to all of their complexity.” The result is a workplace that demands conformity to something that was never real to begin with. Neurodivergent employees, by definition, sit further from that constructed average. They experience friction more quickly and more intensely, but that doesn’t make them outliers in a broken system. Instead, it makes them early detectors of it.
Consider the modern office environment. Constant noise, overlapping conversations, back-to-back meetings, unpredictable interruptions. For someone with heightened sensory processing, that environment can be overwhelming. But as Praslova notes, “eventually everyone will be impacted.” The difference is simply timing.
The same pattern applies to psychological environments: incivility, unclear expectations, hidden promotion criteria. Neurodivergent employees often have higher sensitivity to injustice and ambiguity. They raise concerns earlier. If those concerns are dismissed as oversensitivity, organizations miss critical feedback about systemic flaws that will later affect everyone.
The Dangerous Comfort of the Business Case
For years, leaders have leaned on the business case for inclusion. It’s a familiar argument: diverse teams perform better, innovation increases, financial results improve. While those claims are often supported by research, Praslova challenges the underlying logic. “The business case sounds good,” she said, “but it reduces human value to business utility.”
That framing creates a subtle but powerful distortion. It suggests that people are worthy of inclusion because of what they produce, not because of who they are. It also raises the bar unevenly. Neurotypical employees are not required to demonstrate extraordinary traits to be considered valuable. But neurodivergent employees are often expected to justify their presence through exceptional skills or “special talents.”
Hire the autistic employee because they have superior pattern recognition. Hire the ADHD employee because they’re more creative. These narratives may seem positive on the surface, but they quickly become limiting. Not every autistic person has extraordinary analytical ability. Not every person with ADHD thrives in creative chaos. And even when those traits exist, they don’t define the whole person.
More importantly, this mindset can lead to exploitation. If someone is valued primarily for a perceived advantage, organizations may push that advantage to its limit, often at the expense of well-being. What begins as inclusion quietly turns into extraction.
A dignity-based approach shifts the question. Instead of asking, “What value can this person provide?” it asks, “What conditions allow this person to contribute sustainably?” That distinction is subtle yet powerful.
Designing for Humans, Not Roles
One of the most powerful ideas in Praslova’s framework is what she calls “holistic inclusion.” It’s a recognition that people are not just cognitive performers. They are physical, emotional, and social beings whose environments shape their ability to function.
“We are not brains on a stick,” she said. Yet many workplaces are designed as if we are. We assign tasks without considering sensory load. We expect focus in environments filled with distraction. We demand professionalism while ignoring the emotional context people operate in.
Holistic inclusion challenges that fragmentation. It asks leaders to consider the full human experience. What does the physical environment feel like? Is it loud, cold, overstimulating? What does the social environment communicate? Is it psychologically safe, or subtly hostile? What cognitive demands are placed on employees, and how do those interact with individual differences?
When organizations begin to address these layers, something interesting happens: the changes that support neurodivergent employees end up improving conditions for everyone.
Flexibility is a clear example. It’s often introduced as an accommodation for specific groups, but it quickly proves valuable across the workforce. Parents benefit, students benefit, and employees managing health conditions benefit. Even those without clear constraints benefit from increased autonomy and reduced friction. As Praslova puts it, “oxygen for canaries is oxygen for all.”
From Culture Fit to Culture Add
Few hiring concepts are as entrenched or as misleading as “culture fit.” On the surface, it sounds reasonable. Leaders want people who align with organizational values and can integrate smoothly into teams. In practice, however, culture fit often becomes a proxy for sameness.
“We naturally prefer people who are similar to us,” Praslova explained. That tendency is deeply human. It shows up early in life and operates largely outside conscious awareness. But when left unchecked, it leads to organizations filled with “clones,” limiting perspective and reducing adaptability.
The alternative is hiring for “culture add.” Instead of asking whether a candidate fits the existing mold, leaders ask what new perspectives, skills, or approaches they bring. Where are the gaps in our current team? What capabilities are missing? What viewpoints are underrepresented?
This shift requires more intentionality. It means moving beyond vague personality traits and focusing on actual job requirements. As Praslova notes, many job descriptions are filled with language like “high energy,” “collaborative,” or “thrives in a fast-paced environment.” These phrases often signal a preference for extroversion and can unintentionally exclude qualified candidates who would excel in the role.
A more effective approach is grounded in job analysis. What tasks need to be performed? What skills are required to perform them well? When organizations anchor hiring decisions in these questions, they open the door to a broader range of talent.
The Hidden Power of Pre-Onboarding
According to our guest, inclusion starts the moment an offer is accepted. The period between offer acceptance and the first day is often treated as administrative. Paperwork is completed, systems are set up, and then the employee arrives. But as Praslova points out, this window is an opportunity to build connection and reduce uncertainty. “People want to know what to expect,” she said.
That need is especially pronounced for individuals who experience anxiety or thrive on clarity, but it’s hardly unique to them. Most employees walk into a new role with some level of uncertainty. Will I fit in? What are the expectations? Who can I go to for help?
Simple interventions can make a significant difference. Offering an early tour. Connecting new hires with a peer before their first day. Providing clear information about what the first week will look like. These actions signal that the organization is invested in the individual’s experience, not just their output.
When done well, pre-onboarding reduces cognitive load and accelerates integration. Employees arrive not as outsiders trying to decode a new environment, but as participants who already feel a sense of belonging.
Moving Beyond Productivity Theater
In many organizations, busyness is mistaken for effectiveness. Employees who appear active, responsive, and constantly engaged are often perceived as high performers. And those who work quietly or require uninterrupted focus may be overlooked. Praslova refers to this as “productivity theater.”
When leaders reward visible activity rather than meaningful outcomes, they encourage behaviors that don’t actually drive results. Meetings multiply, communication becomes performative, and deep work is pushed to the margins.
For neurodivergent employees, this environment can be particularly challenging. Someone who needs focused time to produce high-quality work may struggle in a system that prioritizes constant availability. But again, the issue is not limited to one group. Most knowledge work requires concentration, and environments that undermine it ultimately reduce organizational performance.
The solution is deceptively simple. Define clear outcomes. Measure performance against those outcomes. Reduce reliance on proxies like visibility or perceived effort. It requires discipline, but it creates a more accurate and equitable system.
Rethinking Performance Management
Performance management often reveals the gap between intention and execution. Organizations may claim to value results, but evaluation criteria frequently drift into subjective territory.
Praslova shared the story of an HR analyst whose work was described as meticulous and high-quality. Despite that, she received negative feedback based on her behavior in meetings. She didn’t match the expected communication style, and that discrepancy overshadowed her actual performance. “We try to hammer people into a shape they’re not,” Praslova said.
This pattern is common. Leaders unconsciously evaluate employees against an internal template of what a “good employee” looks like. That template often includes personality traits, communication styles, and behavioral norms that are not essential to the role.
The consequence is twofold. Employees who deliver strong results may be penalized for not conforming to subjective expectations. At the same time, those who match the preferred style may be rewarded despite weaker outcomes.
A more effective approach separates performance from preference. What are the core responsibilities of the role? What outcomes define success? Which behaviors are essential, and which are simply familiar?
When organizations clarify these distinctions, they create space for different ways of contributing. They also reduce bias and improve the accuracy of their evaluations.
Supporting the Leaders We Don’t See
Conversations about neurodivergence in the workplace often focus on individual contributors. Less attention is given to leaders who may also be neurodivergent, sometimes without realizing it. But “there are more neurodivergent leaders than people think,” Praslova noted.
Some discover it later in life. Others choose not to disclose it due to stigma. Many have developed strategies to navigate expectations, but those strategies often come at a cost.
Leadership itself is frequently defined through a narrow lens. The ideal leader is often described as extroverted, charismatic, and highly social. While those traits can be valuable, they are not universally necessary. Different roles require different strengths. Analytical thinking, deep focus, and careful decision-making are equally critical in many contexts.
When organizations expand their definition of leadership, they unlock a broader range of capability. They also reduce the pressure on individuals to conform to a single model.
Supporting neurodivergent leaders begins with recognition, and it continues with flexibility, psychological safety, and an openness to different leadership styles. Ultimately, it strengthens the organization’s collective intelligence.
Building the Crowd That Steps In
The image of a crowd stepping in to support a struggling performer is powerful because it feels rare, but it doesn’t have to be.
Workplaces have the potential to function the same way. When systems are designed with human variability in mind, support becomes embedded rather than exceptional. Employees understand each other’s needs, and leaders respond to signals rather than dismiss them. Inclusion becomes a shared responsibility, not a specialized function.
This is where the canary metaphor comes full circle. Neurodivergent employees are not anomalies to be managed. Instead, they are indicators of how well a system is working. When they struggle, it’s not a sign to adjust the individual but a signal to examine the environment.
Organizations that pay attention to those signals gain an advantage. They identify issues earlier, they adapt more effectively, and they create conditions where a wider range of people can contribute. And in doing so, they move closer to the kind of workplace most leaders say they want, but few fully build.
It’s the kind of workplace where people don’t have to fit a mold to succeed. One where differences are not just tolerated, but understood. One where, when someone falters, others instinctively step in.
Ultimately, organizations that listen to the canaries fix problems earlier and run better because of it.
Brandon Laws is a workplace culture and leadership enthusiast, host of the Transform Your Workplace podcast, and VP of Marketing and Product at Xenium HR.