Why organizations should bet big on neuro-inclusion (with video)
Published on 14 March 2024 • Written by Dr Lisa Colledge
Hi there.
It's great that you're interested in the article that I wrote called Why Organizations Should Bet Big On Neuro-Inclusion. What I did in that article was to build on a report that was published by Boston Consulting Group and the references in the article about how diverse leadership teams stimulate their organizations to perform better.
So, for example, the organizations with the most diverse leadership teams have 19% higher innovation revenue and 9% higher operating revenues that organizations with the least diverse leadership teams. I talked about this report from the perspective of inclusion and especially neurodiversity inclusion. And in this film, I'm going to talk through the three main points that I made in my article.
So the first point was that I think it's time that we stop investing in fragmented diversity programs.
What I mean by a diversity program is one which targets a particular group. The most common ones for organizations to target seem to be women, or people of color, sometimes women of color, but some combination of those two – and put a percentage target on those groups. So we want to have 30% women in leadership or 20% people of color in an organization, or whatever it is.
I think these kinds of programs have been really great to make everybody think about the benefits of a diverse organization, and I think it’s also very admirable that people have stepped out of their comfort zones and tried to do something different. But I think those programs are inherently unfair and it's time to do something different.
So the reasons that I say that they are unfair:
Firstly, just bringing somebody into your organization from a group, a woman or a person of color, or a woman of color, and putting them in your organization is not enough to set that person up for success. Yes, you have a tick against your percentage targets. Yes, you've got closer to where you want to go, but that person is not necessarily enabled to perform just by virtue of being in your organization. So for that reason, it's not fair.
Another reason I say it's not fair is because these programs are just inherently uninclusive. If you don't happen to be a woman or of color, then you can't participate in these programs. And I think that that's not fair. We cannot improve the inclusivity and diversity of our organizations by replacing one kind of discrimination with another. That can't be right.
And the third reason that I think that these kinds of programs are not fair, is that they're not realistic. People are very often not only one thing. They don't only identify with one dimension. Somebody might be a woman and of color, so which of the dimensions would she identify with? Somebody might be a woman and disabled, so actually identify with a dimension which is not one of the dimensions that you are representing in your strategic initiatives. So picking and choosing these dimensions don't represent also how people are, how they want to bring themselves to your organization and how they want to contribute value.
So I think that at this stage with everything that we've learned from these very admirable diversity programs, it's no longer enough. We can do better. And if you want to get those benefits that I mentioned, like improvements in innovation, revenue and improvements in operating profit, then you need to do better.
That was the first point that I made in my article.
The second point was instead of looking at diversity programs, which have percentage targets, what we should be looking at nowadays are inclusion programs. Inclusion programs aren't about percentage targets of particular groups of people. Inclusion programs are about enabling everybody to contribute their value to your organization, regardless of what that value is.
What we see in the studies now is that, especially the younger people who are starting to work in organizations nowadays want more than just a paycheck - of course, of course, money is important, but beyond money, once they earn enough, what they want is a feeling that they belong to your organization, a feeling of camaraderie with their teammates, a feeling that your organization is contributing something of value to the world and that they can contribute to that value.
In short, they want to be engaged. They're desperate to contribute what they can do to your mission. And that's exactly what you want, right? You want all of your employees, of course, to contribute as well as they possibly can to your ongoing success. So that's, that's an inclusion program, and that's quite different from a diversity program.
The Boston Consultancy Group also looked at the characteristics of the kind of programs that those companies who do much better in diverse leadership teams, and have all of the better ratings for innovation and operating revenue and so on. They do talk about mechanisms of operating those programs like, like psychological safety and that sort of thing. But really the common theme is that their programs are inclusive. It's for everybody in the organization, including white men - that kind of group that's so neglected and maligned by typical diversity programs.
Now, so what we need to do for our inclusion program is to make sure that everybody can contribute their value in a way that makes them feel seen and positive. And that doesn't really contradict that their way of being, that’s not at odds with the way that they want to work because that would be very unhealthy for them.
There are certain people who are extremely polarized in their skills and how they work. There are some people who are really original, have loads of fantastic ideas, but are really rubbish at putting a plan together and really don't want to learn how to put a plan together because they just hate it. It's boring. It's not how their brain works. On the other hand, there are people who love putting plans together, and sticking to plans and who are quite literal in interpreting plans, but they're probably not the people who are having the big ideas and, and putting concepts together in novel ways.
Just one more example: you'll have a group of people who are very inspiring in how they talk about things and can get other people to want to follow them, to want to come along with them and contribute to this brilliant opportunity that they're talking about. But they might not be very good at, digging into the data and looking for patterns and insights that the data can tell you.
So in these very, very polarized, very extreme ways of working, you can clearly see that, people have particular values, which they can contribute and you want them for your organization.
This is the basis of the improvements in the innovation revenue and so on. But you can also see that if you try to force these people to be good at everything or to work in a way that's really, really far away from how they want to work, it's going to be really unhealthy for them mentally. And they're going to start to have mental health issues and burnout. And that's also what the literature shows us.
So what we want in an inclusive organization is one in which everybody can work close to their preferred style, doing what they are really, really good at. And you need to make sure that people understand how to work together in teams. So it's the, the contribution of the team, which becomes more important than the contribution of the individual, because no one individual can do all of it.
These polarized people that I'm talking about are people who are neurodivergent. The people who are extremely creative, they tend to be people with dyslexia, people who are ADHD; the people are quite literal, and the people who are good at looking for patterns in data, they are characteristics that tend to go with autism.
Of course, not everybody is neurodivergent. There are some fantastic skills which are not naturally associated with neurodivergence, like perhaps like being very inspirational in how you communicate. That would go with a neurotypical person, but still with a style of working of their own.
What it means is that we can take inspiration from making sure that neurodivergent people can contribute to the workplace. And if we make sure that neurodivergent people can contribute, then we can be confident that everybody can contribute.
And that's why I focus on what we can learn from neurodivergent people and inclusion in order to transform our workplaces so that everybody can engage in an inclusive way and you can get those fantastic percentages jumping up in your business metrics.
So that was the second point.
The third point is a short one.
The third point is about when you can start to expect to see changes. So of course if you think about a cultural change program such as I'm talking about, inspired by neurodivergence inclusion, which will make everybody more able to contribute their brilliance, you can see we're talking about a program of a few years.
You start by looking at behavior, and then you'd move on to a phase where you were reinforcing that behavior by recognizing it in your annual evaluations and decisions about who to hire, and in any of the other business processes that you have. And finally, you’d move on to a phase where you'd really lock it in so it was sustainable by making sure it was present in your policies and, and so on.
So that's, that's a few years, but you don't have to wait for a few years until you start to see benefits. It's one of the really nice statistics in that Boston Consultancy Group report - small changes make big differences. Changing only 2% of managers, bringing in 2% managers from a different industry, people with a different mindset, a different skillset, a different way of working - a great example, if we think about a neurodivergent inclusive organization that you would have a culture that can include people who have a different way of thinking - just bringing in 2% people from a different industry is enough to give you a 1% increase in your innovation revenue.
Small change, big gain.
I'd say it is time to - even if not get going - at least explore what this could mean for your organization.
If you would like to explore, then feel free to set up some time with me. You can book time with me in my calendar on my website.
And if you just want to have a listen and see what's going on, then you can also join my community, which is called Cogitate > Activate. You can sign up there for free. And that's a community of people who are sharing very practical tips and trying them out and sharing how they got on with them, um, so that we can all get started in our own way. Hope to see you there.
Thanks for listening.
Three key take-aways
Organizations with more diverse leadership teams generate 19% higher innovation revenue and 9% higher operating profit (BCG).
Small shifts in diversity can drive measurable gains — even a 2% change in leadership composition can increase innovation revenue.
Fragmented diversity programs often fail to create real inclusion. The most effective approach focuses on enabling contribution across all employees, not targeting specific groups. Neuro-inclusion offers a practical route to achieving this at scale.
The business case for diversity is already clear
The evidence is compelling.
A Boston Consulting Group (BCG) study (see end for reference) of more than 1,700 companies found that organizations with more diverse leadership teams generate:
9% higher operating profit.
19% higher revenue from innovation.
The effect is cumulative — the more dimensions of diversity that are represented in leadership, the stronger the impact.
Even small changes make a difference. For example, increasing leadership representation by just 2% from a different industry can increase innovation revenue by 1%.
The conclusion is inescapable: leadership diversity is associated with improved performance.
But there is a gap between knowing this… and enabling that diversity to drive its full value.
Why current diversity approaches often fall short
Many organizations respond by creating multiple diversity initiatives.
Typically, this starts with gender and ethnicity, supported by employee resource groups (ERGs) covering other dimensions such as disability, sexuality, or age.
These efforts are well-intentioned — and often led by highly committed individuals.
But this approach has limitations.
1. It doesn’t enable performance
Bringing people into the organization does not guarantee they will be able to contribute fully.
Without the right conditions, diversity becomes representational — not functional.
2. It fragments effort
Different initiatives and ERGs compete for attention, funding, and leadership support.
Collaboration between them is difficult to sustain, particularly when initiatives rely on voluntary effort alongside day jobs.
3. It doesn’t reflect reality
People are not one-dimensional.
Most employees identify across multiple aspects of diversity — for example, gender, disability, anfamily context, nationality, and life experience.
Fragmented programs don’t map onto how people actually live and work.
4. It misses the commercial opportunity
The biggest missed opportunity is not inclusion itself — but performance.
Because these approaches don’t fully unlock the benefits that diversity can deliver.
What high-performing organizations do differently
BCG also identified the conditions present in organizations that benefit most from diversity:
Communication is open.
Employment practices are fair.
The environment is psychologically safe.
Inclusion is treated as a strategic priority.
Leadership is visibly and consistently involved.
Diverse employees are actively supported to succeed.
What’s striking is that none of these are specific to any one diversity dimension.
They are universally beneficial.
From diversity programs to contribution systems
The shift required is subtle but significant.
Instead of asking: How do we support specific groups?
High-performing organizations ask: How do we enable everyone to contribute their full value?
This moves inclusion from a set of initiatives, to a system of work.
Why contribution is the real goal
Across industries and demographics, employees consistently say (McKinsey, 2023) they want:
To feel valued.
To connect to purpose.
To experience belonging.
In practice, this comes down to one thing: the ability to contribute meaningfully.
To:
Add value.
Use their strengths.
See the impact of their work.
When this is not possible, engagement drops — regardless of compensation, benefits, or recognition.
Why neuro-inclusion is a powerful lever
Neuro-inclusion offers a practical way to design for universal contribution.
Neurodivergent individuals often have more pronounced or “spiky” skill profiles.
For example:
Highly creative idea generation.
Structured planning and execution.
Compelling communication and influence.
Strong pattern recognition and analytical thinking.
These differences emphasize that no single individual can excel at everything.
Performance depends on how effectively teams attract and combine complementary strengths.
When organizations design systems that enable neurodivergent individuals to contribute:
Expectations become clearer.
Collaboration becomes more intentional.
Roles become more aligned to strengths.
Different ways of thinking are actively used.
And importantly: if a system works for people at the cognitive extremes, it works better for everyone.
Neuro-Inspired Teams: a more effective model of inclusion
A neuro-inspired team approach focuses on:
Designing how work happens, not just who is present.
Enabling contribution, rather than enforcing conformity.
Skills and outcomes, rather than demographic categories.
This creates a culture where:
Differences are actively used.
Contribution is more evenly distributed.
Engagement becomes a natural outcome.
What this looks like in practice
Organizations that take this approach start to see:
Stronger execution of plans.
Broader ownership across teams.
Reduced dependency on a few individuals.
More ideas being generated and acted on.
Improved ability to anticipate and solve problems.
These are the mechanisms of including difference that drive the performance gains seen in the BCG data.
Where to start
If your organization wants to invest in inclusion but avoid fragmentation, a useful starting point is: focus on how your systems enable contribution.
Ask:
Where is ownership concentrated?
Where are different ways of thinking not being used?
Where are people under-contributing despite capability?
Then start small. Test changes in one team.
Adjust how work is structured, how decisions are made, and how contributions are recognized.
➡️ If you’re exploring how to move from fragmented initiatives to a more integrated approach, I’ve written a short case study showing how a small, practical shift in one team can create wider impact.
A strategic choice
Organizations don’t need more initiatives. They need better-designed systems.
Neuro-inclusion provides a practical way to get there — by focusing on the common ground across all diversity dimensions.
The result is not just a more inclusive workplace. It is a more effective one.
➡️ If these ideas resonate, you can explore how I approach neuro-inspired team and leadership design on the Services page.
Most organizations already have the cognitive diversity they need.
The opportunity is designing systems that allow those different ways of thinking to work together effectively.
References
McKinsey & Company (2023) The State of Organizations: Ten Shifts Transforming Organizations.
The Boston Consulting Group report referenced analyzed more than 1,700 companies across multiple industries and geographies. It measured:
Leadership diversity across dimensions such as age, career path, education, gender, industry background, and nationality.
Innovation revenue as a percentage of revenue from new products and services over three years.
Operating profit, or earnings before interest & tax (EBIT).
