Today’s guest article is by Megan Fuciarelli, Chief Empowerment Officer at business consulting firm US² Consulting. In it Megan shares her observations from working towards neuroinclusivity with multiple businesses.
I recently worked with a leadership team that felt they had built a truly inclusive culture. They spoke often about open dialogue, they encouraged different perspectives, and they told me they wanted people to challenge the status quo. In many ways, they were entirely sincere. However, during one of their team meetings, I noticed something subtle that suggested a slightly different story.
A team member was asking thoughtful, clarifying questions. They were not being disruptive; they were simply trying to understand the rationale behind certain decisions. Over time, a shift became visible. The pace of the meeting began to feel more rushed, and the questions started to be perceived as a source of friction in a fast-moving conversation. Eventually, the individual stopped asking questions altogether.
After the meeting, I heard some feedback that this person was “not a culture fit.”
That moment was perhaps less about the individual employee and more an opportunity to reflect on how the system itself was functioning.
A Recurring Pattern
Experiences like this are often more common than organisations realise, especially in environments that are actively striving to be inclusive.
While leaders frequently value different ways of thinking, the systems they have inherited or built over time can tend to favour one specific type of communication or processing style. This is perhaps particularly relevant when we discuss neurodiversity, as it encompasses a wide range of cognitive differences, and even within a single diagnosis, individual experiences can vary significantly.
Organisations are increasingly encouraging authenticity, which is a positive step. At the same time, many leaders are not always equipped with the tools to fully support what that authenticity looks like in a professional setting.
For example:
- Participation can often be measured by how quickly someone speaks, rather than the depth of their contribution.
- Meetings may favour verbal processors over those who require a little more time to reflect.
- Communication often relies on nuance or tone, assuming a shared interpretation that may not exist.
When someone does not naturally align with those norms, it can lead to misunderstandings, even when their capability is high. In many cases, it is less about whether someone can contribute and more about whether the environment is structured to receive how they contribute. That is where the real opportunity lies.
A Shift in Perspective
Meaningful change is often less about adding specific “accommodations” and more about asking a different type of question.
Instead of asking, “How do we support this person?” leaders might ask, “How have we designed this environment, and who does it actually serve?”
That shift moves the conversation away from individual adjustment and toward a sense of shared ownership. With the team mentioned above, we explored how their culture actually operated in practice, rather than just how it was described.
They valued curiosity, but questions sometimes disrupted the flow of fast decision-making. They wanted diverse perspectives, but were not always sure how to navigate disagreement in real time. They prioritised collaboration, but their structure leaned toward speed over reflection.
None of this was intentional; it was simply a result of unexamined habits. We made a few thoughtful adjustments to the process:
- Meeting agendas were shared in advance to allow time for processing.
- Discussion prompts were distributed early with clear expected outcomes.
- Participation was broadened to ensure it was not only those who spoke first who were heard.
- Communication norms were clarified to help reduce ambiguity.
These were not complex changes; they were simple design decisions.
The result was noticeable fairly quickly. The employee who had previously held back began contributing more consistently. They were not necessarily louder, but they spoke with more clarity and confidence. Their questions became a valued asset because they helped surface gaps that others had not considered.
Meetings became more balanced and more voices were included. Leaders began to recognise that what once looked like disengagement was often just a different way of processing information. Trust improved and, importantly, so did performance.
The capability had always been there; the environment had simply evolved to support it more effectively.
The Often Overlooked Connection
There is a strong link between neuroinclusion, psychological safety, and performance that is still being explored in many organisations.
Psychological safety is often described as a feeling, and that certainly matters. However, in practice, it is also shaped by structure. It shows up in how meetings are run, how decisions are made, and which behaviours are recognised or rewarded.
When systems only recognise one style of contribution, people naturally adjust themselves to fit. For many neurodivergent individuals, this can involve masking or filtering how they think. That effort is often invisible, and it represents energy that could be otherwise directed.
Inclusion is not just about intention; it is reflected in design. Most leaders I work with care deeply about their people and want to build strong, inclusive teams. The opportunity is not necessarily about starting from scratch, but rather evolving existing systems so they work for a broader range of individuals. Small, intentional shifts in how work is structured can make a meaningful difference.
When organisations expand how participation looks and how success is defined, they create the space for more people to contribute at a high level.
Final Thought
The challenge is rarely the individual. More often, it is the environment in which they are being asked to succeed.
It is my belief that everyone deserves to be seen, heard, welcomed, and valued. When leaders take the time to examine and design their systems with that in mind, the impact extends far beyond neuroinclusion.
When you design for a wider range of thinking, you do not dilute performance: you realise it.
