Ergonomics for Neurodivergents: Could the future of inclusive work start with human factors science?
It’s Neurodiversity Celebration week, and I have been thinking a lot about the challenges currently faced in the workplace by neurodivergent people and the organisations they work for, not least because professionally, it is my passion.
In my ruminations these past few weeks, I had the epiphany that by almost any measure, the modern workplace is a triumph of engineering and design.
We have mechanically sophisticated adjustable chairs, all shapes sizes and functions, of dual monitors, collaborative digital platforms, productivity dashboards with the kind of accuracy tradesmen would weep at, and more bells-and-whistles coffee machines than the Italian parliament.
And yet, paradoxically, many people are still struggling to work comfortably, productively, and sustainably. Particularly neurodivergent people.
For decades, workplace ergonomics has been focused primarily on the biomechanics of injury prevention and reduction. This work has been extraordinarily valuable, helping to reduce countless cases of repetitive strain injury, neck pain and back pain across modern workplace environments.
But, and without sounding patronising, human beings are not merely biomechanical systems.
We are biopsychosocial systems with cognitive differences, sensory thresholds, executive function profiles, and emotional regulation patterns. The broader aspects of Ergonomics and Human factors science has long recognised this systemic view of work, integrating physical, cognitive, and organisational ergonomics to optimise performance and wellbeing simultaneously.
When neurodiversity enters the equation, the limits of employing purely physical ergonomics becomes starkly clear: a workstation can be perfectly adjusted for posture and still be catastrophically unsuitable for the person using it.
This is where ergonomics for neurodivergents’ begins.
The Human Factors problem hiding in plain sight
Estimates cautiously suggest that 15–20% of the population is neurodivergent, including conditions such as ADHD, autism, dyslexia and dyspraxia. In other words, roughly one in five employees, although that number is likely to be higher.
Yet most workplace design standards, from office lighting to meeting culture, assume a simplistic and narrow range of cognitive processing styles.
Open-plan offices, for example, were designed to increase collaboration. But for many neurodivergent workers they create:
- sensory overload
- attentional fragmentation
- cognitive fatigue
Bright lighting, noise, visual clutter and constant interruptions are not just “annoying”, they can create measurable reductions in concentration and working memory therefore reducing performance outcomes.
From a cognitive ergonomics perspective, this is predictable and the existing usability design framework references these along with the physical & sensory aspects of the human experience:
Neurodivergent cognition often presents as a “spiky profile”, meaning exceptional strengths in certain executive functions alongside pronounced difficulties in others. Designing work environments for only the “average” cognitive profile is therefore like designing chairs for the average body.
What the research says
Across UK academia, research is increasingly exploring the intersection of neurodiversity, work design, and wellbeing. For example:
- University of Edinburgh research is examining how neurodivergent employees experience careers and workplace wellbeing, highlighting the importance of supportive HR practices and meaningful work environments.
- University of Cambridge collaborative projects with industry have investigated how organisations can better recruit and support neurodivergent employees, emphasising the need for explicit structures and inclusive work practices.
- Other UK employment research also shows growing interest in neurodiversity management as organisations recognise its links to innovation, employee wellbeing and retention.
The message from research is consistent:
Workplace environments not neurological differences are often the primary barrier to performance.
In Ergonomic terms, this is known as system mismatch.
The traditional ergonomics model: the body as a machine
There is no doubt, biomechanical ergonomics has delivered enormous benefits.
Research supported by the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has significantly improved our understanding of musculoskeletal disorders related to posture, repetitive movement and load. Adjustable workstations, improved seating design and guidance on display screen equipment have reduced many forms of workplace injury, but concentrating on biomechanical ergonomics alone, only addresses one part of the human system.
Humans are not simply musculoskeletal structures, we are cognitive and sensory systems operating within complex organisational environments.
And this is where neurodiversity fundamentally challenges traditional workplace design.
The missing dimension: cognitive ergonomics
Cognitive ergonomics examines how mental processes such as attention, memory, perception and decision-making interact with work environments.
Research at University College London in cognitive engineering has demonstrated how poorly designed systems can overload human attention and working memory. These principles are well understood in safety-critical industries such as aviation and the NHS. Aircraft cockpits are carefully designed to minimise cognitive overload. Operating theatres are increasingly redesigned using human factors principles to reduce error.
Yet in the average office environment, cognitive ergonomics is often overlooked entirely.
Instead, we routinely create environments filled with:
- constant notifications
- open-plan noise
- visual clutter
- unpredictable interruptions
- back-to-back meetings
- Unrealistic workflows
- Changing deadlines
- Reactive management
From a cognitive ergonomics perspective, this environment is roughly equivalent to asking someone to solve a complex problem while standing in the middle of a crowded railway station. For some people, this is manageable, for others, it is exhausting.
For neurodivergent individuals, it can be overwhelming and damaging.
Neurodiversity and the modern workforce
The open-plan office: an accidental neuroscience experiment
Consider again, the open-plan office.
Originally introduced to encourage collaboration, it unintentionally became one of the largest uncontrolled human factors experiments in history.
For many neurodivergent employees, the open office combines:
- unpredictable noise
- bright lighting
- constant interruptions
- visual clutter
- lack of control over environment
For neurodivergent workers, these stimuli can trigger sensory overload, anxiety, fatigue and MSK tension reducing both comfort and productivity. From a cognitive ergonomics perspective, this makes perfect sense:
- Attention is a limited resource.
- Working memory is fragile.
- Interruptions carry cognitive switching costs.
- Cognitive load activates cortisol mechanisms in the nervous system
- A stressed nervous system activates postural tension
And some brains simply process environmental stimuli more intensely.
Design the workplace poorly, and you create a permanent cognitive traffic jam.
The ergonomics nobody talks about: Comorbidity
Another challenge rarely discussed in boardrooms is comorbidity.
Many neurodivergent individuals experience multiple overlapping conditions, including musculoskeletal pain, chronic illness, anxiety, and sensory sensitivities. From an ergonomics perspective, this creates complex interactions between biomechanical and cognitive load.
Let’s explore a few composite real-world examples:
Case Study 1: ADHD, Endometriosis and Anxiety
A senior marketing manager with ADHD who was also experiencing:
- chronic pain from endometriosis
- anxiety driven by workload unpredictability
- executive function challenges from task switching and reactive workflows.
At a tick box level ergonomics assessments, we might focus on:
- chair support
- screen height
- keyboard position
- ergonomics education and training
All important.
But the human factors risks were elsewhere.
Pain increased her cognitive load, making her less productive.
Cognitive load reduced executive control reducing the quality of the work she could produce.
Reduced executive control increased stress and anxiety, undermining her self-confidence and ability to self-manage.
The solution was not simply ergonomic furniture and hardware.
Instead a holistic, biopsychosocial approach was taken:
- structured task management tools – Trello, Microsoft Planner, strategy coaching, post it notes!
- predictable workflow scheduling- using time blocking and culture changes.
- flexible working hours during pain flare-ups- recognising evening work as flexibility and wellbeing management, not overtime and a compliance issue
- environmental noise control– noise cancelling headphones, quiet work zones, WFH options
Her result? Productivity increased and sickness absence reduced.
Sometimes the most powerful ergonomic intervention is not a chair, but a calendar and strategy coaching to use it effectively
Case Study 2: Dyslexia and Chronic Back Pain
A financial analyst presented with persistent lumbar discomfort.
Initial ergonomic assessments focused on posture and workstation configuration, but observation revealed something interesting. This gentleman frequently leaned forward and remained static while reviewing financial documents, sometimes referred to as slumping or pigeoning.
Why did he do this?
Because dyslexia made reading dense text cognitively demanding. Increased cognitive effort resulted in prolonged static posture. This posture contributed directly to musculoskeletal discomfort.
The intervention combined cognitive and biomechanical ergonomics to address the underlying causes:
- text-to-speech software
- improved document formatting
- sit-stand workstations
- scheduled movement breaks
Reducing cognitive strain and encouraged movement, which reduced back pain.
This case illustrates a simple but important point:
Cognitive strain can quickly become physical strain. A expert led ergonomics assessment will address both
Case Study 3: ADHD, Hypermobility and Headaches
Joint hypermobility is frequently reported among individuals with ADHD and related conditions. Indeed, it is one of the most commonly reported comorbidities.
This employee had been working for the organisation for about a year, but only reported issues from 8 months into her role. She increasingly experienced:
- hypermobility-related joint pain
- tension headaches
- ADHD-related attentional variability
- Increased cycles of burn out.
- Difficulty planning workflows and priorities
Tick box level ergonomics advice would focus on the workstation layout, posture and behaviours. Expert level Human Factors advice would address the hypermobility, recognising that this requires more dynamic movement than the standard recommendations.
The integrative ergonomics intervention suggested, in addition to posture and healthy ergonomics behaviours:
- movement supporting workstations
- active sitting
- task batching aligned with and encouraging attentional rhythms
- reduced screen glare to minimise headaches
- Flexible work patterns, including working remotely.
The principle here is simple:
Ergonomics should adapt to human variability, not suppress it.
Case Study 4: Autism, Sensory Processing and Eczema
An autistic software engineer struggled with concentration, fatigue and skin irritation, resulting in anxiety and absence.
The culprit identified was surprisingly mundane: the office environment.
- bright fluorescent lighting
- fabric chairs triggering eczema
- background noise from open-plan collaboration
Applying sensory and cognitive ergonomics became the focus.
Effective interventions included:
- low-glare task lighting
- alternative seating materials
- quiet working zones
- noise-cancelling equipment
Once the sensory load was reduced, anxiety reduced, skin irritation cleared and cognitive performance improved dramatically.
Case Study 5: Dyspraxia and Sciatica
A young graduate with dyspraxia, which involves motor planning differences, physical and mental fatigue, had also developed chronic sciatica.
The ergonomics risk was not only posture, but motor coordination under time pressure resulting in reduced performance.
The biopsychosocial solutions included:
- simplified workstation layouts
- reduced cable clutter and visual noise, with a desk top sensory screen.
- task sequencing tools and strategy coaching- Trello, Microsoft accessibility tools
- speech to text software
- specialist chair, electric rising desk with education on usage
- flexible working patterns and movement breaks
Sometimes ergonomics is less about furniture and more about reducing complexity in the environment.
Why senior leaders should care
This is not simply a human resource wellbeing issue, it is a performance issue. It is a bottom-line issue.
Human factors science consistently shows, through varied and experiential research, that systems designed around human capabilities and limitations improve:
- productivity
- safety
- innovation
- employee retention
In fact, some of the most innovative and high performing companies in the world such as Microsoft and SAP and the UK’s Security Services, have built neurodiversity employment programmes precisely because neurodivergent cognition often brings strengths in critical business areas such as:
- pattern recognition
- creativity
- systems thinking
- deep focus
But talent alone is not enough, and these organisations have recognised that.
Talent needs ergonomics. Talent management needs human science systems. Talent optimisation needs innovative design.
The future: Neuro-inclusive ergonomics
The next evolution of workplace design and operational management will likely be influenced by integrated ergonomics models combining:
- Biomechanical ergonomics
posture, physical load, musculoskeletal health - Cognitive ergonomics
attention, memory, workload, information processing - Sensory ergonomics
lighting, acoustics, environmental stimuli - Organisational ergonomics
workflows, policies, culture, leadership behaviour
This is precisely the interdisciplinary vision ergonomics and human factors researchers have advocated for decades. Ergonomists working with corporate entities as opposed to safety critical industries have long been nudging the discourse of wellbeing and safety towards more sustainable models away from regulatory compliance. The difference today is that neurodiversity makes this integration impossible to ignore. Perhaps it is now, through the lens of comorbidity and ever-increasing operational pressures, that existential change can meet and provide answers to the demands of complex and competing business priorities.
A final thought
If ergonomics teaches us anything, it is this: when a human struggles within a system,
the problem is rarely the human. It is usually the system design.
If roughly one in five people experience the workplace differently because of neurodivergence, then the future of sustainable business and high performing work will belong to organisations that design environments where cognitive diversity is not accommodated reluctantly or passively in siloes but engineered deliberately.
At a time when the government are asking organisations to take more responsibility for managing their employees’ sickness, employee awareness of their legal rights have increased expectations on senior leaders and technological advances have raised questions of ethics alongside performance, ergonomists fluent in providing integrative solutions across all domains could fill the fragmented gaps still plaguing human centric workforces.
After all, if we can design aircraft cockpits to accommodate complex human cognition at 1000 mph and 35,000 feet… surely we can design workspaces closer to ground that work for everyone.
References
ACAS (2025). Neurodiversity at work: bridging research, practice and policy.
Doyle, N. (2020). Neurodiversity at work: a biopsychosocial model and the impact on occupational performance. Occupational Medicine. (PMC)
Gottardello, D. (2022–2023). Neurodiversity in the workplace. University of Edinburgh Business School. (Edinburgh Research)
Osmond, G. (2023). Neurodiversity: the new frontier of workplace ergonomics. British Safety Council / Safety Management. (British Safety Council)
Rollnik-Sadowska, E., & Grabińska, V. (2024). Managing neurodiversity in workplaces: A review and future research agenda. Sustainability. (ResearchGate)
University of Cambridge ThinkLab (industry collaboration on neurodiversity employment programmes). (University of Cambridge)
Chartered Institute of Ergonomics and Human Factors (CIEHF). What is ergonomics and human factors.
Hignett, S., et al. (Loughborough University). Human factors research improving safety in healthcare systems.
Stanton, N. (University of Southampton). Human factors and system safety research.
Warwick Business School. Neurodiversity and organisational performance research.
Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Display Screen Equipment and musculoskeletal health guidance.
