Insights into Creating and Managing an Inclusive Neurodiverse Workplace for Positive Outcomes: A Multistaged Theoretical Framework
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neurodiversity has historically been dismissed and undervalued in management and organizational studies literature. In recent times, there has been a recognition in practitioner forums about the benefits associated with neurodiversity, triggering recruitment drives to hire neurodivergent individuals. However, lack of theoretical frameworks and empirical research on workplace neurodiversity is undermining practice. We address this gap by presenting a multistage theoretical framework of managing neurodiversity premised on (a) creating a neurodiverse workplace through reconfiguring recruitment and selection; (b) fostering an inclusive workplace through careful implementation of development and engagement practices and management of perceptions of reverse discrimination; and (c) capitalizing on the benefits of an inclusive workplace, enhanced by equitable supervision, to achieve improved employee and organizational outcomes. This paper enriches the literature on managing workplace neurodiversity by offering deeper insights into barriers to employment, inclusion in the workplace, and positive outcomes of employment. Our proposed framework, derived by an integration of theories, will help managers effectively manage neurodiversity in the workplace, addressing the associated challenges. Finally, this paper lays a foundation for future research to advance knowledge on managing neurodiversity in organizations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it