Breaking Barriers. Understanding the Work Experiences of Neurodivergent Employees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neurodivergent employees bring unique talents that make them valuable to many organizations. However, they also encounter distinct difficulties in the workplace related to perceived misfit for tasks, how their skills are used and evaluated, and the quality of their social interactions. Although scholars have increasingly called for more research on the work experiences of neurodivergent employees, this aspect of diversity remains relatively underexplored, making it challenging for academics and practitioners to identify actionable strategies that promote the inclusion of neurodivergent talent in the workplace. This symposium addresses this gap by bringing together leading scholars who will shed light on how neurodivergent employees experience their work, the strategies they employ to overcome challenges they face and how this influences their careers, their attitudes and their wellbeing. Using the presentations as a starting point, the symposium aims to discuss common patterns, but also interesting differences in how neurodivergent employees navigate the workplace and the support organizations can offer to enable them to thrive. Furthermore, all authors included in this symposium have made a concerted effort to use the neurodiversity lens to advance theory in organizational behavior and human resource management. Perceived Misfit in the Workplace: A Qualitative Study of Autistic and ADHD Employees Author: Joanna Szulc; Gdansk University of Technology Author: Zuzanna Staniszewska; Kozminski University in Warsaw Author: Elizabeth Follmer; University of Washington A Conceptual Model for Neuro-Masking at Work Author: Muriel Van Gompel; Author: Eline Jammaers; Hasselt University Post Diagnostic Job Crafting Challenges and Opportunities for Employees with ADHD Author: Thomas Blondel; ESCP-Europe Business School - Berlin Author: Daniela Lup; ESCP Business School Author: Kerstin Alfes; ESCP Business School Navigating ADHD in the Workplace: Proactive Work Behaviours in Employees with ADHD Author: Ivy Mai; University of Calgary Author: Samantha Young; University of Calgary Creating a neurodivergent safe space in organizations Author: Frederike Scholz; Author: Amber Kersten; Tilburg University Author: Manon Krabbenborg; Author: Luca Smeets; Author: Marianne Van Woerkom; Tilburg University
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".