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?

That’s a bit unfair - it’s nothing to provide an agenda before a meeting, provide discussion points in advance or provide a written summary of a verbal conversation. I’d argue these are good working practices anyway but if they help someone manage in the workplace it’s hardly “twisting yourself into a pretzel”.

I don’t think people should need to display their private information to receive support they need, I do think people need to be open to more than one way of working and recognise everyone has their own way of processing things.

I agree with PPs - sounds good in theory, terrible in practice.

I have OCD. There's a lot of pressure for OCD to be seen as neurodivergence and 'celebrated' as a different way of thinking. Sorry, don't really see very graphic intrusive images of my dead children and associated bizarre rituals as positive in any way tbh...

I do usually need some accommodations at work, however that's strictly between me and my manager at the time. I don't want anyone else to know I have OCD. I don't mind a culture where sharing disabilities and need for reasonable adjustments is all accepted and positive but not one where it is coerced. I guess it probably comes down to how voluntary your management are making this.

I'd invent a healthy issue whereby nobody should bother me unless the world is about to stop spinning.

Apologies if I'm minimising the ND problems some people face.

Absolutely, as you said, accommodations are individual and whether someone discloses is their choice. 2 staff members I supervise are ND, they understandably don't want to disclose it to the team, but there are actions from some team members which they are struggling with. So I have asked an 'expert through lived experience' for our nhs trust to come talk about 'creating a supportive work environment', which I hope will help people to think a bit more about their actions and interactions, without anyone having to disclose anything.

You’ve articulated exactly why these things aren’t as simple as ‘just disclose if you want to.’ The cultural, emotional, and professional implications are real, and the idea that ND staff will feel safe because something is labelled ‘optional’ overlooks how many of us internalise direction from authority. Your comment captures the unintended consequences so clearly, and honestly, it’s why this kind of performative inclusivity does more harm than good.

None of these things are ‘nothing’ though, are they? Each of these is more work for someone.

I do usually need some accommodations at work, however that's strictly between me and my manager at the time. I don't want anyone else to know I have OCD. I don't mind a culture where sharing disabilities and need for reasonable adjustments is all accepted and positive but not one where it is coerced. I guess it probably comes down to how voluntary your management are making this.

I agree that accommodations should remain private unless the individual chooses to make them known. Particularly given the way some people in the workplace get incredibly irate about anyone being given any kind of support or accommodation that they don’t get, and don’t actually need. People have become so “devil take the hindmost” that I can see publicising accommodations ending up in bullying, harassment and gossip or purposely ignoring those accommodations because they put someone out slightly.

So if you work in an office with 25 people and 15 of them add things to their signature how are other staff and customers/colleagues expected to remember who needs what?

And if it is mean internally only people forward emails so the details would get out so outside people have to do something about it?

It’s a minor inconvenience to support someone to function in the workplace. And really should be standard operating processes because they create clear lines of communication. Taking 5 minutes to write up action points following a conversation is hardly a difficulty especially if it means your colleague can do their job well.

Exactly, that’s one of the operational concerns. If it becomes common practice, it risks becoming overwhelming, confusing or even counterproductive, especially in large teams or client-facing roles. And forwarding emails outside the org could lead to unintended disclosure, even if the original intent was internal-only. That’s why optional disclosures need clear boundaries and robust safeguards, otherwise it becomes less about support and more about signalling, with real privacy risks for those involved.

OP, it’s clear you’re against this despite examples being given of how it can be helpful and useful.

I follow a couple of HR podcasts and the general impression seems to be that after opening their arms to ND and gender-diverse workers a few years ago, many employers are now rethinking because it has proved so expensive.

I'm all too aware of a case within my family where someone accused of bullying colleagues at work went on line, did some tests and declared themselves to be on the autistic spectrum. They blamed their poor behaviour on being, unknowingly, ND. The employer was terrified of breaking equality law and decided to pay my relative to leave.The employer was required to provide my relative with a lawyer to represent them in negotiating an exit package. He negotiated an eye-watering settlement that meant my relative was able to retire five years earlier than planned.

I can't see a way in which it won't rebound and damage ND workers. Perhaps large organisations have the capacity to accommodate everyone's needs, but smaller employers — and our economy relies on thousands of small employers — can't take the risk and will quietly discriminate against anyone ND.

Encouraging is not forcing.

I'm very open that I'm ND and would be happy to include it on my email signature. I'm pretty sure everyone knows anyway as I've written several publications for our intranet and newsletters about my own experiences with ND and how to create an inclusive workplace and communication styles between ND and NT colleagues, and also deliver workshops to teams wanting to learn more about ND.

I wasn't so open about it to begin with. If I saw a signature with ND declared in it then, I'd have thought, "Maybe it's safe for me to tell people and get the support I need."

I agree with this. It's hard enough to get work and stay employed with ND conditions as it is.

I have a diagnosis of ADHD and I am on meds for it. There is no way on gods green earth that I would be announcing my diagnosis to all and sundry!

I think it could be useful as a voluntary suggestion. The dyslexia one seems good. You don't even have to declare any diagnosis. Mine would be 'don't interrupt me when I have headphones in unless I'm on fire'. I get so much done if I have a couple of hours of interrupted time every day and then I'm happy to be chatty. On bad days when I'm scatty and struggling to stick to one task it's great if I can just listen to music and crack on.

It’s also unworkable on a practical level. Many emails that I send are not to individuals, but to a group of people.

Even if I knew because of their email signatures that Mary is dyslexic, Bob has ADHD and Cheryl has autism, what am I meant to do with that information? If I need to send a complex email, perhaps with meeting papers or presentations attached, to the three of them plus 10 other people, how do I begin to take into account or prioritise their neurodiversity?

Yanbu. Ridiculous, now it’s one more thing to tip toe around. Accommodating needs is the responsibility of the company not the colleagues. You’re there to do a job, not take on someone else’s issues!

I’m assuming this is the sort of thing they mean? Which seems reasonable. Also assuming it’s not mandatory as that would be impossible to police, so it’s more like an invitation to highlight something like the above in your signature? Or another example could be to give clear deadlines or email subjects or something like that (although surely that’s normal practice). I think having accommodations is useful (requiring quiet working areas in office is a big one) but pointless having that in an email signature!

Okie doke. Are you happy to pay more taxes so I can spend my days relaxing? I suppose you also take the same line for physical disabilities too so workplaces shouldn't be set up to accommodate people in wheelchairs for example. That's quite a lot of people who can quit their jobs now. But as long as you're paying my bills I'm OK with that. To be honest, I'm also sick of trying to communicate with the neurotypicals too and don't see why I should have to make accommodations to my style for them.

Agree it is inappropriate.

So you'd be expected to have a signature with your name, job title, department, company, email, work phone number, office location if not wfh, personal pronouns, neurodiversity and any adjustments asked for, your upcoming leave and if you are a champion say for a work group (LGBT community could be an example).

What a long list and by the time anyone reads that if they do, the content of the email could have been forgotten.

Agree with many of the replies regarding privacy and stuff.

But, what really bothers me is that it encourages other staff to accommodate everyone else’s desires.

there are a lot of chancers and CFs out there and I can see one of them saying I need to have 2 hours in the afternoon for a nap but work ins call center so can’t take any calls. Or I get anxiety being in meetings so can’t take any meetings. Now since they’ve written this, the expectation is that these “needs” will be accommodated for by colleagues.

Problem is, declaring openly who we are in private to the workplace and anyone you deal with at work, where does it stop? You’re paid to do a job, as long as that’s done to satisfaction, all good. If people wish to add anything personal to their email explaining anything, then that should obviously be accommodated, but employers are now suggesting we give them a window into our private lives including sexuality/medical diagnosis by adding it to our email tags. These things may then be used against us in time of redundancies, disagreements or if someone wants to manage an individual out of a company. My dad who said the less people know about you the better, was a defence lawyer, that advice came from his working experience.

Like when people put their medical or educational attainments after or before their name. PhD etc. instead you put ADHD, BPD etc?

At least that way I'll have letters after my name. Someone might think I'm a boffin?!

If it really is about communication, then why not put a list of all the languages you do and don't speak, and then someone can choose which language to talk to you in?

Another thought there are people who have

Name
Title
Address
Contact details
Work hours
Pronouns (shudder)
Now we are adding directions on how to communicate and other instructions

How long can we make signatures before they are longer than the email itself