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, because having a disability (or pretending to) is a definite career advantage

… checks notes

In the UK, only about 30% of autistic adults are in employment, a significantly lower rate compared to the general population (around 82%) and other disabled groups. A substantial number of unemployed autistic people (around 77-79%) want to work, but face barriers such as a lack of employer awareness, inaccessible employment programs, and difficulties with social and communication aspects of the job interview process.

Agreed. I'm wholly sick of this 'bring your whole self to work' culture, usually interpreted as 'reveal every single private detail about yourself to colleagues, especially if it relates to your sexuality or "gender"'.

No. Sod off. Some things are private - and if, as so many organisational creeds point out, some disabilities are invisible then this alone absolves people of any obligation to discuss them. As long as the employer/HR are aware, those with a diagnosis are still protected under the Equalities Act without singing it from the rooftops, and the employer is prohibited by the Act from discussing anyone's personal circumstances with others.

With all this schtick about individual human rights, the fundamental right to privacy is being increasingly forgotten. It's a real bugbear of mine. People are not entitled to others' personal information just because they ask for it.

Consider how many threads on mumsnet stray towards headshaking about how easy it is to get a diagnosis if you pay for it and how people are boring for mentioning it and blah blah blah.
I mention my diagnosis only if I feel safe or if I feel like I need to officially for accomodations. Same as I only mention my cancer if I feel like I'm comfortable or I need to.

The issue isn’t the concept of support, it’s the method. Disclosure should remain on the individual’s terms. But when something like this comes from HR or senior leadership, it creates soft pressure. That’s not always visible to someone who feels safe or empowered to speak openly. For many people, especially those without formal diagnoses or who’ve experienced discrimination, ‘optional’ can still feel like a test. Inclusion means respecting privacy too, not everyone wants their difference to become their headline.

Very stupid idea. Almost certainly opens the employer up to claims of both direct and indirect discrimination.

This may make me seem uncaring, but I already have enough going on to worry about how many different ways my collagues want me to email them.

HR always gets the blame for these batshit ideas by people who don't know how companies work. HR don't introduce these policies and are not usually decision makers, we write and maintain them on behalf of a company who will have an SLT or board who make the decisions on what to include in it. You can only advise that it's a bad idea but they can ignore your advice. Your only option if you work in HR for a company like this is to get a new job 🤷‍♀️

As long as it's voluntary I also think it's quite good. I have a colleague whose signature says something along the lines of they struggle to process verbal info so would prefer it in an e mail with time to think it through - whereas I tend to be a pick up the phone and have a quick chat kind of person. It's encouraged me to interact with them differently which is positive for them

There are a few notes in emails where I work like this, but they just say something along the lines of 'I realise your work hours may be different to mine, please don't feel the need to respond out of hours.'
No need to mention anything about ND.

Evidently they've never paid for it.

My son is in the system for screening. I forget how much we'd have had to pay for a private diagnosis - something in the region of £8K if I remember correctly.

In our woefully underfunded LEA, diagnoses and reports for his dyslexia and dyspraxia together cost about £1500. There are some families for whom funding this would be impossible, and their children therefore go without the help and support they need. DC aced his SATs, with a 'greater depth' score in every category, but without the scribe in his exams (courtesy of the dyspraxia which makes handwriting very difficult for him) I really think he would have struggled even to achieve a pass. Likewise, a year's specialist dyslexia tuition has improved his SPAG on an almost unrecognisable level.

An ASD diagnosis wouldn't get him any further help or support, but will, in future life, protect him under the EA and for that reason - as well as the fact that he'd like to know why he responds to certain social situations in the way he does - we are sitting in the system and not forking out £Ks for an early result.

It various from authority to authority, but I can confidently say that if the headshaking Mumsnetters are making those points then they've not been in that position and have no idea what they're talking about.

I'm sorry about your cancer and wish you all the best for a good recovery 🌹

That's awful. Unless it's relevant to the job then absolutely no ones business. If as suggested upthread a person with dyslexia states this as a disclaimer relating to typos then this is helpful and maybe necessary. A person with Adhd may need movement breaks, this is of no relevance if communication is by email.

I worked over 20 years in industrial relations & know full well many of these “ideas” come directly from HR. These are then passed up to the board to be rubber stamped.

No one said neurodivergence gives people a career advantage. Quite the opposite - you’ve just outlined how many barriers exist. Which is why supportive measures need to be done thoughtfully. The concern here is about how support is structured. A culture where people feel they need to disclose (or even pretend) to be accepted isn’t inclusive. It’s performative. Real inclusion protects both privacy and choice, rather than normalising disclosure as a marker of legitimacy or struggle.

See also yellow sunflower lanyards. I get the reason beginning - but special assistance at the airport make me wear one even though I’d have thought my walking stick and wheelchair use might give a clue

I'm not suggesting you do it to blend in!

I'm suggesting you do it to show how ludicrous it is.

Why not go with the earlier poster who had a "See you next Tuesday" colleague?

😂

I work with a lot of neurodivergent people. What actually helped is making the most common adjustments standard practice for everyone. The rest you learn as you begin to work with people.

My favourite “standard adjustment” is that meeting invitations have to include an agenda of some kind. No more “can we all meet to discuss this client?” and then being surprised with an interrogation you weren’t prepared for. The person inviting now has to explain why we need to meet (client is having some issues and needs support/ client has sent this feedback/ someone new has joined the team and wants to say hi) and what they are looking to find out or solve (what support can we realistically put in place/ what processes can we improve/ can you talk everyone through the project from start to where we are so the newbie understands what’s going on). If there’s data that needs to be looked at, it has to be provided 24 hrs in advance. I’m not neurodivergent but most of the adjustments have made my worklife less stressful.

I think a lot of this is virtue signalling from companies, not about the wellbeing of staff. The previous company I worked for spent a lot of time and money on some mental health together logo to add to correspondence/emails and made a huge deal about it on our company’s Workplace website and internal emails. A month later they then made 10% of the workforce redundant and had everyone going through consultation during the Christmas period. You couldn’t make it up really.

Typical Idea from a boss who probably also wants everyone to be in the office!

Ah I see but that kind of performative protest still puts the onus on individuals to react to a flawed policy, instead of organisations being held accountable for designing inclusion well in the first place. I’d rather raise the issue directly than mock it in a way that risks reinforcing the confusion or minimising real concerns others might have.

I think it would be open to abuse from the self-diagnosed crowd demanding special treatment and being all offended and upset if someone doesn't comply with their batshittery. And also use it as an excuse to slack off.

ETA:... particularly when so many with real neurodiversity would rather keep it private, as evidenced on this thread.

As someone who has ND and diagnosed serious mental illness (bipolar disorder), I don't want to tell my colleagues because of the amount of people who don't actually know what my mental illness is, who think my ND is made up snowflakery, and who believe soap opera stereotypes. Some people think my bipolar disorder means I have a split personality, for example, or that I'll be happy one minute and sad the next, or that I'll fly into rages over nothing. I've had people believe that I shouldn't have kids because of it. And I'm supposed to broadcast this across my company? I can function just fine most of the time and will tell people on a need to know basis.

An email signature would assume there is a one-size-fits-all solution and encourages ND pre-empting (the way we sometimes plan out how conversations should go in advance, which then completely throws us when the other person says or does something that wasn't on our script, for example, or pre-empt a response and write an email specifically assuming the person will react in a specific way) which isn't helpful and sets us up for social difficulties/awkwardness. What can I say that everyone who I email needs to know? And anyway, in a large company, people with even the best of intentions will eventually get fed up of the information overload and just skim past it.

It also doesn't help those people who work internationally with certain countries at all. It's culturally taboo, for example, in China to talk about mental illness and the stigma is that you're defective. Your contacts in China receiving these emails with signatures about all your DSM acronyms will want to deal with someone they perceive to be competent. Parents in China literally take their kids out of schools if there's a rumour of an SEN child attending the school so as not to catch it. That's where they're at. They will not react well to Aspidistra's signature waxing lyrical about how she needs to only take meetings in the light of the moon due to her photosensitivity, can only wear left shoes due to sensitivities, can't wear PPE with labels, and needs a tea break every 2 hours and all site offices must be stocked with raisin milk due to her delicate digestion (and yes I'm sending myself up a bit there but this is why I don't tell people professionally, I'd rather deal with this stuff myself).

And the thing is, people can say "this is optional" but those of us with ND are more likely to take it at its face value when someone in authority encourages them to do something like this, which means that they might feel safe disclosing something and then feel betrayed or lied to when it inevitably goes wrong, which damages trust with the employer.

Ridiculous idea……I had a brain injury some years ago so I guess that puts me category……..really wouldn’t want everyone knowing at every charity committee and community project I am involved with. We share communication on a regular basis and surely signing off with my name is enough…..I don’t even declare ‘she/her’ either. I am a woman, that’s all they need to know!

I've had emails like this before from a colleague and thought it was really nice. However, to ask or expect people to declare this is awful.

I was diagnosed with ADHD 9 years ago. I don't feel there is any need or requirement for me to caveat myself to anyone and this idea of 'don't mind me I have ??' really pisses me off. I'm good at my job, that's all they need to know.

Why should employees be expected to disclose their neurodivergence in a public way, especially when it could lead to unwanted assumptions or even stigma?

True. It's like the constant insistence upon announcing 'pronouns'. I've spent half my adult life proclaiming that my sex has nothing to do with the way I do my job. I'm not about to change that now, especially when it's known that drawing attention to a category which disadvantages you - in this case being female - only adds to that disadvantage. It's very noticeable that when I sign emails 'Dr S Goose' I receive a more favourable response than if I use my obviously female given name.

There should not be pressure to advertise protected characteristics in the workplace. This alone is discriminatory, and I for one resent the pressure put on me to do so. I've also stopped filling in equal opportunties forms, especially since being involved in an interview process in which a candidate wholly unsuitable for the post - nice though he was - had been included on the shortlist without my input. It quickly became apparent that he ticked many of those equal opportunties boxes, and that this was the only reason for his inclusion as he matched none of the desirable, much less essential attributes needed for the job.

My employer has gone right through the looking glass on this, and I'm extremely weary of it by now - and probably long since earmarked as a troublemaker as I've never waved any of the conformity-signal flags they demand.

As far as 'soft pressure' goes, in an institution like this you're not necessarily aware the knives are in your back until someone gives them a twist. For that reason alone I do think it's important that people resist this.