When “performance issues” are really communication issues — supporting neurodivergent employees and their managers

Neurodivergent people are in every workplace, in fact we're 1 in 5. Often they are analysts, creatives, engineers, clinicians, project managers, customer service staff, and leaders... so pretty much any role! Many are high performers. Many are also quietly working twice as hard just to fit the unspoken rules of work.

And this is where things often go wrong.

Not because the person is “difficult” or the manager is “uncaring” — but because:

• the employee doesn’t feel able (or safe) to advocate for what they need, and

• the employer doesn’t understand neurodivergence well enough to notice what’s happening early.

The result can be an avoidable spiral of misunderstanding leading to stress and masking leading to errors, shutdown or labels of 'attitude' which can result in formal performance management.

In many cases, what’s needed isn’t a heavier process. It’s earlier clarity, better communication, and support on both sides.

The hidden gap: advocacy + understanding

Workplaces often assume that if someone is struggling, they’ll say so clearly and early.

But neurodivergent employees may not, for very understandable reasons:

• They’ve had past experiences of being dismissed, judged, or penalised.

• They don’t know what’s “reasonable” to ask for.

• They fear being seen as less capable.

• They can’t easily pinpoint the problem — they just know they feel overwhelmed, confused, or “on edge.”

• They might interpret feedback as a sign they’re about to lose their job (even when the manager doesn’t mean it that way).

Meanwhile, managers may not recognise neurodivergent patterns because they’ve been taught to look for motivation and attitude, rather than friction in the environment.

So both parties do what they think is right — and still end up in a mess.

Let’s look at two common examples.

Example 1: The autistic employee who struggles with feedback (but is great at the job)

You might see someone who:

• produces high-quality work,

• has deep expertise,

• can be blunt or very literal,

• becomes distressed or defensive when given feedback,

• asks lots of clarifying questions (or goes quiet and withdraws),

• struggles with last-minute changes or vague expectations.

A manager might interpret this as: “Not coachable”, “oversensitive”, or “challenging.”

But often, the feedback itself is the problem — not the employee’s capability.

What might be going on under the surface:

• Feedback is too vague (“be more proactive”), so the employee can’t translate it into action.

• The message contains implied meaning (tone, hints, social inference) that’s hard to decode.

• The feedback is delivered publicly or casually, which spikes threat/anxiety.

• The employee experiences feedback as rejection, not information.

• The manager uses “softeners” (“just a quick thing…”) and the employee can’t tell how serious it is.

A small shift can prevent a big escalation.
If the manager learns to give clear, specific, behaviour-based feedback — and the employee learns how to receive and process it safely — you can preserve performance and relationships without the drama.

Example 2: The dyslexic employee who is brilliant with ideas (but keeps making mistakes)

You might see someone who:

• is highly creative and strategic,

• spots patterns others miss,

• brings energy in meetings,

• struggles with written accuracy, sequencing, or detail,

• makes “careless errors” that keep reappearing,

• avoids tasks with lots of reading/writing, or takes much longer than expected.

A manager might interpret this as: “Sloppy”, “not taking care”, or “not detail-oriented enough for the role.”

But dyslexia isn’t about intelligence or effort. It can affect working memory, processing speed, written accuracy, and fatigue — especially under pressure.

What might be going on under the surface:

• They’re using all their cognitive energy to produce the content, leaving little capacity for proofreading.

• Systems rely on memory (“make sure you always…”), not external supports.

• Deadlines force speed over accuracy.

• Tools and templates aren’t available (or they feel embarrassed to use them).

• The job design expects one person to do both idea generation and precision checking with no process.

Again: this is often a systems issue, not a character flaw.

How performance management can become a preventable outcome

Performance management processes exist for good reasons — but they’re blunt instruments for nuanced human situations.

When neurodivergent needs aren’t recognised, performance management can end up documenting the symptoms (missed details, “poor attitude”, inconsistent communication) rather than addressing the cause (unclear expectations, inaccessible processes, unmanaged overwhelm).

And here’s the painful part: once someone is in a formal process, nervous system stress tends to increase. Stress increases mistakes. Mistakes “prove” the narrative. Everyone becomes more rigid. And the cycle intensifies.

It’s not that accountability disappears. It’s that accountability works better when the person has a fair chance to succeed.

Coaching both sides: employee + manager = better outcomes

The most effective approach I see is dual coaching: support for the employee and the manager.

Because even when an employee becomes a brilliant self-advocate, they can’t change a manager’s communication style alone. And even when a manager is deeply caring, they may not know how to adapt without guidance.

Coaching the employee can help with:

• Self-advocacy scripts (clear, professional, low-emotion wording)

• Identifying what helps: structure, clarity, sensory needs, pacing, written follow-up

• Feedback processing skills:

  • asking for specific examples

  • checking understanding

  • agreeing a next step

• Building a “working preferences” document 

• Confidence: reducing shame and “I’m failing” narratives

Coaching the manager can help with:

• Understanding neurodivergence without stereotyping

• Separating performance outcome from communication style

• Giving feedback that is:

  • specific,

  • behaviour-based,

  • prioritised,

  • paired with an agreed action and timeframe

• Designing roles and workflows that reduce avoidable errors:

  • checklists

  • templates

  • peer review steps

  • clearer definitions of “done”

• Holding boundaries with compassion (this is crucial)

This keeps expectations clear and offers support that is practical rather than patronising.

What “good” can look like (and it’s not complicated)

When coaching and adjustments are done well, you tend to see:

• fewer misunderstandings,

• less defensiveness on both sides,

• better quality and consistency,

• improved trust,

• earlier course-correction (before formal processes),

• reduced manager time spent “firefighting”.

The goal isn’t special treatment. It’s equal access to doing a good job.

Closing thought

Most “difficult performance situations” involving neurodivergent staff aren’t actually about ability. They’re about translation: translating expectations into accessible steps, translating feedback into usable information, translating needs into practical support.

When we coach both the employee and the manager, we don’t just avoid negative outcomes — we create workplaces where talented people can stay, grow, and contribute without burning out

1. How can managers support an autistic employee who is defensive about feedback?

The Answer: Defensiveness is often a stress response to ambiguity. Use "Clarity without Heat": provide specific, behaviour-based feedback in writing, avoid "softeners" or hints, and agree on clear, observable metrics for success beforehand.

2. Why do dyslexic employees often face performance management processes?

The Answer: Many dyslexic individuals are high-achievers but may struggle with written accuracy or working memory under pressure. Without clear error-proofing systems like checklists or assistive tech, these "symptoms" are often mislabelled as a lack of attention to detail or effort.

3. What is the benefit of coaching both the employer and the neurodivergent employee?

The Answer: Dual coaching bridges the "Double Empathy Problem." It helps employees build self-advocacy skills and practical tools, while teaching managers how to adapt their communication and systems to reduce friction and improve retention.

4. How can a lack of employee advocacy lead to poor workplace outcomes?

The Answer: When employees don't feel safe to advocate for adjustments, they often work in a state of high stress or "masking." This leads to burnout, avoidable mistakes, and a breakdown in trust, which often triggers unnecessary formal performance management.

5. What are some reasonable adjustments for neurodivergent employees struggling with performance?

The Answer: High-impact, low-cost adjustments include providing written summaries of meetings, using structured feedback templates, offering flexible deadlines for precision-heavy tasks, and introducing error-proofing systems like peer review or checklists.