Neurodiversity is on the agenda – but measurement is still missing

Neurodiversity is firmly on the agenda in many Australian workplaces. Organisations are running awareness sessions, expanding employee networks, and reviewing recruitment practices.

Yet one basic question often remains unanswered: how many neurodivergent people work here?

Organisations tend to act on what they can see. If neurodiversity isn’t measured, it remains invisible in decision-making, and inclusion stays rhetorical rather than operational. Measurement shapes what organisations can credibly prioritise, resource and track over time.

As professionals who are part of the neurodivergent community and work closely with organisations building neuroinclusive practice, we see a consistent pattern. Neurodiversity is widely discussed and increasingly celebrated, yet rarely measured. For many of us, this gap reinforces a familiar message: neurodivergent experience is referenced in principle, but is still missing from the data and decisions that shape workforce strategy.

The result is continued investment in awareness without the visibility required to shift systems.

That’s why Amaze has partnered with Diversity Council Australia to produce the Neurodiversity Data at Work guide. This first-of-its-kind resource provides practical guidance for organisations seeking to collect and report baseline workforce neurodiversity data in ways that are safe, respectful and accurate.

When the data gap is a safety gap

Many organisations depend on employees voluntarily sharing information about their identity or diagnosis so that support can be offered. While this approach is often framed as supportive, it rests on a critical assumption: that people feel safe to share this information. In practice, many do not.

This hesitation is rarely abstract. It is shaped by practical and career-based considerations such as:

• How will my manager respond?
• Will this affect my career progression?
• Will my information be shared beyond my control?
• Will I still be seen as capable?

The Neurodiversity Data at Work guide draws on consultation data showing clear differences in how comfortable people feel sharing identity information at work. Those most likely to encounter misunderstanding at work are often least likely to feel safe to identify. Around 70% of Autistic respondents said they felt unsafe or hesitant about sharing with employers. Among those identifying only as ADHD, this fell to approximately 50%. For respondents with other neurotypes, it was closer to 40%. People with intersecting identities often described additional hesitation, including distrust about anonymity and concern about compounded bias.

Access to support is therefore frequently tied to perceived personal and professional risk. When requesting flexibility, environmental adjustments or communication clarity risks being treated differently, many choose not to share.

Representation and sharing diagnosis or identity are not the same. Safe, voluntary, and anonymous data collection allows organisations to understand workforce diversity without requiring individuals to carry that risk.

For this reason, employees feeling safe to share information about their neurodivergence is better understood as an outcome of inclusive practice, not the measure of it.

What representation data does – and does not – tell you

Representation data answers a foundational question: who is here? It shows whether neurodivergent employees are part of the organisation, and where they sit across teams and levels.

Once that baseline is set, it allows organisations to:

• track change over time
• identify patterns across organisational levels
• move neurodiversity inclusion from awareness to measurable action.

However, representation data alone cannot identify which workplace practices are creating barriers, or how those barriers should be addressed. The everyday systems of organisations impact neurodivergent employees differently. Across recruitment, onboarding, and day-to-day management, the same friction points tend to emerge. They are rarely intentional. Instead, they are built into default ways of working: unclear expectations, informal progression criteria, ambiguous communication norms, and performance criteria that privilege particular ways of communicating, organising work, or demonstrating capability.

Identifying where these barriers sit requires additional insight, including employee experience data, analysis of progression and retention trends, and review of everyday management practices.

When conditions are safe, representation data provides a starting point. Deeper inquiry is required to understand outcomes.

From measurement to capability

Data creates visibility. What follows depends on how organisations respond.

Knowing neurodivergent people are part of the workforce should shift inclusion into governance and operational decision-making. Without data, organisations cannot systematically redesign how work is structured and managed.

When baseline data is in place, it provides a mandate and a direction for change. Those insights can then drive:

• clearer role expectations and success criteria
• transparent progression pathways and decision-making processes
• structured flexibility in how work is organised and evaluated
• communication practices that reduce ambiguity and cognitive load
• regular review of representation data at leadership and board level
• workplace environments that minimise sensory stressors.

Neurodivergent experiences are not uniform, and needs differ across people and roles. That’s where representation data needs to be paired with ongoing workforce insight to identify structural barriers and guide systemic change. Together, they move neuroinclusion away from isolated adjustments towards work environments where inclusive ways of working are built into roles, team routines and decision-making processes.

Meaningful change requires moving beyond awareness sessions and one-off training, and examining how everyday workplace systems shape neurodivergent experience. Measurement is not the endpoint of neuroinclusion. It marks the point at which organisations must make deliberate decisions about how work is designed and managed.

The Neurodiversity Data at Work guide draws on lived-experience-led consultation and offers a practical starting point for organisations ready to establish safe baseline representation data. Real impact comes from using that visibility to redesign how work is governed, structured and experienced.