I have seen better strategies for ordering paperclips than I have seen for addressing conflict and preventing or resolving toxic workplace cultures.
David Liddle
Neurodivergence – a simplified explanation
For purposes of our discussion we can work with neurodiversity as a term, coined by sociologist Judy Singer in 1998, that refers to the natural variation in human brain function and behaviour, and where we recognize important differences in cognition, neurological conditions and learning as part of everyday human behaviour. It recognizes that conditions such as autism, ADHD, dyslexia and a few others are not inherently “disordered”, but that this represent different ways of thinking, processing, experiencing and being in the world.
The challenge stated briefly
In March 2025 Forbes ran an article raising concerns about the “erasure” of neurodivergent employees from the American workplace, given the Trump administration’s approach to so-called “DEI hires” and other statements about workplace diversity. A rise in Scottish cases of neurodivergent workplace conflict claims is an example of how globally some employers remain uncertain about the place of neurodivergence in the modern workplace.
While the skilled and experienced conflict practitioner will recognize instances of neurodiversity involved in a particular conflict, much of that at present gets dealt with using existing conflict management tools. Strategies such as effective listening, a comprehensive differentiation phase and skilful communication during all phases of the process are helpful in addressing some of the conflict questions arising from neurodiversity in conflicts, but these are not, in most instances, purpose-built conflict tools, and in any general application there lies the risk of a loss of nuance or subtlety that can harm one or more of the parties, or adversely affect any resolution. Maybe of equal importance, it does not make effective use of the contributions that a specialized recognition of neurodiversity in conflict can bring to the field.
The premise of the article
Neurodiversity is of course recognized and managed in most high-level conflict management programs and strategies, and most senior practitioners will have made some provision for this aspect in their work. I argue however that: (i) Where neurodiversity is recognized in most modern conflict work it is still done nearly as an afterthought, without sufficiently technical and focused knowledge and experience, and that this creates a very real risk, whether of harm or of underperformance, for all involved; and that (ii) in addition to an overt risk management debate, excluding or minimizing the input and potential of neurodiversity as it relates to conflict work deprives conflict management itself of access to several unique and important contributions from neurodiversity, and that this should be remedied by focused research and field work, and that conflict practitioners should purposefully expand their practices through study and inclusion of these contributions.
Areas of collaboration
From these premises flow a clear benefit to both fields from increased, focused collaboration in research and field work.
Premise 1: areas of risk or underperformance My own unstructured work with neurodiversity in conflict has shown me the extent to which misunderstanding, misdiagnosis of conflict causes, and a range of other conflict dynamics involving neurodiversity in conflict can add significant risks and potential harm to otherwise already complex conflicts. This is particularly the case in workplace conflicts, with its sustained pressures and the requirement of ongoing healthy relationships.
From a neurotypical perspective, an insistence on thorough fact-checking, risk adversity or the need for a quiet, stable working environment, to name but a few examples of actual instances, can at times appear to be unreasonable, fussy or obstructive, especially when deadlines and profit margins start playing a role in assessments. Strong and well-established company cultures with wonderful, time-tested traditions can run up against conduct or demands that may appear to be disrespectful or dismissive of those traditions.
Conversely, a neurotypical insistence on option generation and debate may be rejected as rude or insensitive by a neurodivergent colleague, with harmful consequences for interpersonal relationships, team performance and productivity. Managerial feedback or criticism may be regarded as hostile or counterproductive by the recipient thereof, leading to further miscommunication. Any such single conflict cause may, in the cauldron of a competitive workplace environment, very soon lead to additional conflict causes based on the unresolved initial trigger. Both the assessment of such neurodivergent conduct, and the responses thereto by colleagues or management, can be meaningfully lacking, incomplete or simply wrong if they are assessed as being indicative of a lack of co-operation, team spirit, or being unnecessarily confrontational or selfish.
Misdiagnosis of the conflict question, as always, gets us to the wrong answer rather quickly. The consequences in the workplace need little further elaboration. By the nature of unresolved conflicts in ongoing working relationships, a bad start also becomes increasingly more difficult to resolve, with harmful but difficult to detect secondary conflict outcomes taking root in that workplace, with symptoms such as suppressed resentment, poor work attendance, decreased productivity, the forming of polarized power silos, gossip and disrespect towards people and processes becoming the order of the day, and which by then may be rather difficult to link to its origin.
Premise 2: access to valuable new contributions
The risks and poor conflict outcomes resorting under Premise 1 would in themselves already be more than compelling reason to address the challenge effectively and urgently. But that negative focus alone should not blind us to the exciting and inspiring benefits that an increased awareness of and effective integration of neurodivergence in conflict work, especially in the workplace, can bring to all involved.
Commencing with an advanced knowledge and experience of workplace conflict itself as a foundation and point of departure, and then including the conflict lessons and practices contributed via neurodivergence will add, as a few examples, the benefits of a range of diverse perspectives in problem assessment and option creating, and normal team challenges around innovation and problem-solving can only benefit from changing the focus from conflict creation events to solution-generating potential. People who excel at working skills such as hyper-focus, pattern-recognition and other typical neurodivergent contributions can only add greatly to workplace and team outcomes in the modern workplace. In time, and with this increased skill-level and understanding at management level, this will start to create superior teams and team performance. We can already see the pioneer work being done in this regard by employers such as Microsoft and JP Morgan.
Suggested synthesis
The effective and responsible management of the risks inherent in Premise 1, and the application and integration of the far-reaching benefits mentioned in Premise 2 can all be achieved with a minimal expansion of an employer’s existing conflict skills and competencies programs, such as middle to senior management coaching, and the upgrading of existing workplace codes and processes. While the risks and rewards are very real, as our brief assessment has shown, the synthesis to set this right as far as conflict competent leadership and workplace conflict is concerned, brings the very real potential for rewards and benefits to all involved, which of course is a more constructive and positive reason for the proper implementation of these philosophies, cultures and processes than mere risk management.
Conclusion
This article very briefly sets out the foundation for further debate and work to be done on fully understanding and integrating neurodivergence into existing workplace conflict and performance systems and cultures. This should extend to an inclusive workplace culture, at all relevant levels, and of course also relevant hiring practices. If this is implemented correctly the workplace should see a meaningful reduction in unfounded bias, misconceptions, misunderstandings and preventable workplace conflicts and performance challenges.
The case for such implementation is compelling, and urgent, even if reduced to a commercial and productivity consideration. Once this interplay between risk management and potential is truly understood and woven into the fabric of the workplace, and even if simply understood as a commercial discussion, working with neurodivergent staff is not a patronising concession, but the correct application of an asset and a requirement of optimizing the modern workforce to the benefit of all concerned.
Summary of main sources, references and suggested reading
1. Neurodivergence in the workplace: Challenges, tribunals, and how employers can help | MFMac - the modern-day Scottish experience, focusing on the increase in workplace conflict referrals involving neurodivergent related disputes
2. A comprehensive survey of relevant literature on these various aspects of neurodivergence and conflict in the workplace can be found at Neurodivergence and the Workplace: A Systematic Review of the Literature - Obed Vargas-Salas, Juan Carlos Alcazar-Gonzales, Fernando Alberto Fernández-Fernández, Fredy Nicolás Molina-Rodríguez, Renato Paredes-Velazo, Marleny Lucy Carcausto-Zea, 2025
3. Relevant articles for your general negotiation and conflict work, and their source material, can be found at www.conflict-conversations.co.za
(Andre Vlok can be contacted at andre@conflict1.co.za for any further information.)
(c) Andre Vlok
May 2025