To find it ridiculous that my work is encouraging those with neurodivergence to add details of their neurodivergence to their email signatures “so colleagues can accommodate your needs?”

[SnugShaker]

I get the intention behind it but it just feels like an uncomfortable and unnecessary step. Why should employees be expected to disclose their neurodivergence in a public way, especially when it could lead to unwanted assumptions or even stigma? There’s a line between creating an inclusive environment and putting the burden of disclosure on individuals, and it seems like this might be crossing that line. Shouldn’t accommodations be handled in a more private, respectful way without having to broadcast personal information?

Yes this is obviously a bad idea, these kinds of things are usually companies wanting to appear as if they are inclusive without wanting to put in the effort to actually do something which is going to help people. I also think they're on very shaky ground trying to push people to declare their private information like that? Also neurodivergence is a vague term and many people who use it don't really know what they mean by it. People generally use it to mean just autism or just autism and ADHD, but they are far from the only conditions which affect the brain. Is someone with PTSD or an acquired brain injury or downs syndrome or Parkinson's disease or dementia or bipolar disorder etc etc etc neurodivergent? If you are not neurodivergent then within this paradigm you must be neurotypical, which is obviously not the case if you have a neurological or psychiatric condition.

I think there’s too much emphasis on self labelling these days which causes stress and anxiety. Previous place I worked wanted staff to put pronouns, he/him or she/her whatever as an email tag at the end. Why do work people need to know this? My private life is my private life. As it happens I’m a very boring middle aged married mum and most work colleagues who knew me, knew this. Anyway I didn’t add anything to my email but joked if I had to, I would put me/I as I am an individual. My dad always said the less people know about you the better and I’ve always valued this. Leave it up to the individual to decide if they wish to disclose personal details, not put pressure on people to open up.

Exactly, this is why it feels absurd. We don’t ask people to announce chronic illnesses or personal health issues in their email signatures. Neurodivergence deserves the same respect and privacy. Supporting inclusivity shouldn’t mean reducing people to labels in public-facing ways.

It is going to take years to get this bulshit out of the system. I have recently left the NHS in a senior position and it is all,the fad led by the Executive Directors who when doing a broadcast to start by stating their pronouns sometimes to encourage this rubbish about Neuro diversity as well. They have actively ignored the Supreme Court ruling and I think it takes years for changes to filter through unless pushed by a narrow interest group

This is an excellent point.

I think it’s pointless because at work I would always ask for clarification if it’s not clear, and most of us should be capable of behaving professionally at work and not being a dick about the odd misspelling etc.

Hmmm, but to play devils advocate what if my neurodivergence means I write best in long paragraphs, and find it natural to structure my emails with lots of detail instead of bullet points?

Whose wishes should take priority? is there some kind of neurodivergence top trumps system?!

It sounds like a ridiculous unworkable idea, thought up by a well-meaning EDI committee who want to do something tangible, and this is the best idea they can think of.

There’s so much muddy thinking around what neurodivergence even includes. It often gets used as shorthand for autism or ADHD but the brain doesn’t slot neatly into binary categories. And yes, pushing people to disclose personal cognitive or neurological differences (however well-meant) without proper safeguards or nuance is just asking for confusion, stigma, or worse. If workplaces actually wanted to help, they’d focus on flexible systems that accommodate everyone better, without forcing people to label themselves.

Nobody has to disclose anything they don't want to disclose and it doesn't seem as if your employer is telling anyone it's mandatory, so I don't see what the problem is. No different to wearing a hidden disability lanyard, is it? Personal choice and up to the individual to decide whether it's helpful for them or not.

This sort of thing isn't about telling anyone that they have to do this. It's just about making sure people feel they can do it if they want to. I think you're making a fuss about nothing.

Nope nope nope, I would write a complaint if I were you because this isn't on.

On the face of it I'm sure it is framed as a helpful way to accomodate people.

In reality, how is declaring your neurodivergence helpful? It doesn't indicate what each individuals needs actually are.

Not everyone with ADHD, autism or OCD has the exact same needs, even people with the same diagnoses have completely separate and differing needs.

All this is doing is branding people so others know who to avoid, and ableism is rife within workplaces, internalised or externalised.

Not everyone with a ND condition will have the experience or wisdom to realise that outing yourself will lead to negative interactions either, but an employer should be wholly aware of discrimination and be putting practices in place to prevent discrimination, which this is the complete opposite.

Medical information is also supposed to be confidential. Your employer should be working with individuals strictly confidentially, and instead is employing lazy practices so they don't have to do the leg work.

Completely agree. There’s a big difference between fostering inclusion and creating pressure to self-disclose. What starts as optional often becomes quietly expected and not everyone wants to share personal aspects of their identity in a work context. Your dad’s advice resonates, privacy isn’t secrecy and it should be respected as a valid choice.

I think utilising your suggestions would improve the quality and readability of emails generally.

The corporate workplace is undoubtedly inaccessible to many marginalised people- having been created by straight white middle aged middle class NT able bodied men just for them- but this isn’t the way to approach inclusivity.

the workplace demands a certain level of organisation- attending meetings on time, recording notes, follow up actions, delivering to timescale in the right format. What possible use could there be in telling me you struggle with some of this as your headline? Putting it in every email? What am I supposed to do with the info?

We work in an education role. No shortage of dicks happy to catch people out.

This is one thing I think AI will be really handy for, if you have access to it at work. We have Copilot and it's really good at summarising things and could format it however it works for you

I find it great for getting me started on a task, I generally don't use a lot of what it produces, but it gets me over that hump of getting going.

This is one of the things AI chatbots are really good for. Run confusing emails through with an instruction like "Simplify and summarise in bullet points".

Then carry on masking with less hassle!

I don’t know how I managed to get through my whole career without bumping into all these ND people. Everyone looks for reasons to seek special attention. So tiring.

My manager has told me (neurodiverse person) that it is seen as a stigma, evidently by her at least. So no, I wouldn’t be doing that!

It’s less about whether it’s technically mandatory and more about the culture it creates. When something is suggested by senior leadership, there’s often subtle pressure to confirm, even if it’s presented as optional. And while some people may find it helpful, others may feel exposed or labelled. Raising concerns about how well-meaning initiatives can have unintended consequences isn’t making a fuss, it’s contributing to a fuller discussion.

You know that’s quite a nasty thing to say.

What a terrible idea. There is a reason that benefits, ehcp's etc are given on a needs basis, not diagnosis. I have one child with three diagnoses and one child with just one. Guess which one has the higher needs.

I have seen email signatures for things like dyslexia spelling, don't work on Tuesdays and expect replies between 9-5 only. They are all clear and tell you what the needs of the individual are.

I would start all meetings at 59 minutes past the hour then! Malicious compliance.

Yes, exactly. Framing public discourse as a way to accommodate people ends up doing the opposite - it shortcuts the proper process of understanding individual needs and exposes staff to potential bias or discrimination. Especially in environments where ableism isn’t actively challenged, this kind of ‘optional’ visibility can feel more like quiet coercion. Accommodations should be handled confidentially, respectfully, and with care, not turned into a badge in your signature.

What a ludicrous idea. I'm not 'out' as autistic at work, I work really hard to mask it. I'd be furious to be told to tell everyone!

To be fair those are not disabilities though are they?