In universities, neurodivergent people often experience challenges that go unrecognised by their colleagues and leaders (Mellifont, 2021). We know a little about the experiences of neurodivergent students and staff in research or research-adjacent roles (McLennan, 2025). Attention is beginning to fall on neurodivergent leadership experiences (Doyle, 2025), but this aspect of the neurodivergent experience at work — including in universities — remains under-explored.
We are leading an InFrame Culture Catalyst project – it’s not me, it’s you – that will find out how neurodivergent people in UK universities experience leadership. We are beginning by asking neurodivergent researchers and research-adjacent staff working in UK universities about their experiences. If you consider yourself to be neurodivergent (you need not have been formally diagnosed), please consider sharing your insights and experiences with us: our research surveyis currently running. We will use what we learn from our participants to develop evidence-based resources that will equip researchers and institutional leaders to evolve practice and policy to create neuroinclusive research cultures.
A missed opportunity?
The lack of individual and institutional understanding around how neurodivergent people regard, attain, experience and perform in leadership roles is not just a problem for neurodivergent people - it is bad for their organisations, too (Ezerins, 2023; Krzeminska, 2019). Universities that don’t enable neurodivergent thinkers to thrive will harm their own performance; Research and research culture are diminished by excluding such individuals, who can contribute innovative thinking and unique problem-solving capabilities (Senthiil, 2025).
Neurodivergent people have - compared to neurotypical people - different ways of processing information and solving problems (Doyle, 2020). Like any group of people, those who are neurodivergent have diverse strengths and challenges, but there is a commonly observed pattern shared by many: each person’s own exceptional strengths - which could be, for example, in creativity, attention to detail, or pattern recognition - tend to be accompanied by areas of comparative weakness. This skills-profile ‘spikiness’ is a common trait for neurodivergent people, and differentiates them from the typically more consistent ‘across the board’ performance of neurotypical individuals.
Neurodiversity and leadership
In universities, we see environments that may create barriers for neurodivergent researchers: bright overhead lighting, increasing moves towards open-plan offices (where conversation and movement create constant distraction), meetings without agendas, or impromptu gatherings in noisy ‘social spaces’ (Riordan, 2024). Differences in emotional or attention regulation for neurodivergent people can also contribute to barriers. For many neurodivergent researchers – whether they are autistic, dyslexic, have ADHD, or have other cognitive differences – these environments could present not just discomfort but genuine barriers to doing their best work.
Sticking points go beyond the relatively obvious ones caused by our physical environments. Many talented individuals struggle in cultures that enforce an expectation of uniform excellence across all aspects of a role (it is much easier to distribute the work of a department ‘equally’ than it is to do it skilfully). This approach - caricatured slightly as one in which everyone must be equally good at writing, presenting, teaching, organising, administrating, networking, and researching - doesn't align with how neurodivergent minds (or anyone’s, really) work. The additional effort needed to compensate for an area of weakness in a skill that is essential for, say, some administrative process, will often exhaust individuals to the point where they are no longer able to reliably make use of their strengths.
These challenges can be amplified when we consider leadership pathways, which may come with significant barriers for neurodivergent staff (Roberson, 2021; Jones 2022; Doyle, 2025). But if access to leadership for neurodivergent staff is challenging, the resulting underrepresentation will mean leadership teams and their organisations are more likely to perpetuate systems that work primarily for neurotypical minds. The consequences of this extend beyond individual careers, and past a lack of inclusion and equality, too: as organisations, we lose innovative leadership approaches. A department, team or project led by someone who deeply understands different cognitive styles could structure work, collaboration, and evaluation systems to maximise everyone's contributions (Seicean,2024). Leadership that is not neuroinclusive rewards conformity to a narrower range of working styles.
A concern I have often heard is that asking different individuals on the same team to contribute in different areas or ways would be unfair. This makes the error of viewing the task of distributing work across a team as a zero-sum game: one where accommodating the needs of one person automatically disadvantages others. Leaders may also worry about perception of unfairness. To avoid this, teams need skilful leadership, that lets individuals see that their own skills and contributions complement those of their colleagues’.
On a scale of one to ten…
The challenges detailed above highlight the need for universities to move beyond awareness toward evidence-based action. But to create meaningful change, and to do it effectively, we first need to better understand the lived experiences of neurodivergent researchers navigating leadership roles and pathways. Building on the work of the many advocates and researchers who have highlighted these issues, we (Michael Cowley, Diane Gill, Claire Hobday) have begun a project as part of a team of colleagues across the Universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and St Andrews that aims to better understand the challenges faced by neurodivergent researchers (InFrame Culture Catalyst Round 1 funded projects)
Our research will specifically explore leadership experiences. Across the broader workforce, neurodivergent people are significantly underrepresented, yet they can bring valuable and different approaches to any role, including as a leader. What specific barriers to leadership do neurodivergent researchers encounter in our institutions? Our planned survey and interview work will aim to establish a clearer picture of what happens in research environments.
Some neurodivergent individuals – while still facing challenges - can nevertheless succeed in research and research-adjacent careers, even with the institutional barriers described above (many have written publicly about their experiences, e.g. here, here, here, here, here or here). Are individuals surmounting, (undermining!?), circumventing, or just not experiencing institutional barriers of the sort described above? What personal strategies might they have they developed, and could they be broadly relevant? Has targeted support has made the difference? By documenting more positive outcomes, too, we hope to learn about individual and institutional practices that work. If we can reduce barriers to leadership for those who are neurodivergent, our hope is that - with more neurodivergent leaders - universities will more quickly and more easily become more equal, more inclusive and better-performing organisations.
If you're a researcher who identifies as neurodivergent, or if you lead research teams or work in a research-adjacent role, we'd value your perspective. Our surveyis open to participants, and we will shortly be recruiting participants for more in-depth interviews from among those who respond. Your experiences – challenges and successes alike – will help build a more complete picture of how research cultures might better support cognitive diversity.