The Systemic Failure of Work: Why Employment Gaps Aren't an Individual Problem
When someone struggles to find or keep a job, the conversation almost always defaults to deficit: What did they do wrong? Did they try hard enough? Are they the right fit?
I want to start with a moment I’ve experienced, and maybe you have too.
It’s that moment when you’ve poured hours of effort into a role, only to find yourself hitting a frustrating wall, not because the work is too hard, but because the way the office operates, the way meetings are run, or the way feedback is delivered simply doesn’t align with how your brain works. The effort required to keep up with the system becomes more exhausting than the job itself.
When I experienced that, I was tempted to blame myself. We are all taught that if we just "try harder," "be more organised," or "fit in," success will follow.
But the persistent challenge I (and so many others) face isn't a lack of effort or skill. The real gap is in the rigid, outdated structure of employment itself. Unemployment and underemployment today are fundamentally a failure of systems, not a failure of individuals.
1. The Myth of the "Standard" Candidate
For decades, employment has been optimized for the "neurotypical-compliant" worker: someone who performs well in high-pressure behavioural interviews, thrives in open-plan offices, communicates primarily through verbal meetings, and follows a linear career progression.
As our 2025 Neuroinclusion Whitepaper highlights, this approach actively filters out the very talent organisations now desperately need.
The Interview Trap: A high-pressure, unstructured interview does not measure competence; it measures performance under stress and social conformity. This immediately screens out individuals (particularly many neurodivergent people) who possess exceptional skills but struggle with social performance. We are losing talent because we assess the wrong thing.
The Rigidity of Roles: Most job descriptions are static lists of duties. They fail to account for the "spiky profile" where an individual has a few areas of immense strength alongside a few areas of genuine challenge. Instead of redesigning the environment to leverage the strength, the person is rejected for the challenge.
2. The Cost of Inflexible Workplace Design
Even when talented individuals are hired, the physical and cultural environment is often a recipe for burnout and attrition. The problem isn't the employee's ability to work; it's the workplace's ability to support them.
The Sensory Barrier: Open-plan offices and constant digital noise are an everyday reality. For those with sensory processing differences, this is not a mild distraction—it's a cognitive barrier that depletes mental energy and forces "masking," which directly leads to burnout (a key finding in our research). An employee isn't struggling because they are "weak"; they are struggling because the environment is physically hostile to their cognitive needs.
The Manager-as-Gatekeeper: As we noted in our research, the manager-employee relationship is the primary determinant of inclusion success. If line managers lack the mandatory, specific training to confidently handle disclosure, arrange adjustments, or spot signs of over-masking, the system fails. The employee who leaves didn't fail; the organisation failed to equip their manager to support them.
3. The Need for Systemic Redesign
Shifting the burden from the individual to the system requires a fundamental change in how we define and organise work. This is no longer a conversation about "reasonable adjustments" (a reactive fix) but about Universal Workplace Design (a proactive standard).
Recruitment must become 'Skills-First':
We must ditch behavioural interviews in favour of practical work-sample tasks or structured work trials that assess actual, verifiable ability. When we stop trying to assess who a candidate is and start assessing what they can do, the talent pool suddenly expands.
Management must be empowered:
Training must be mandatory, specific, and focused on applied skills: how to conduct a sensitive, person-centered conversation, how to audit a desk for sensory comfort, and how to use Strengths-Based Feedback to focus on an individual’s unique competencies, not their neurological differences.
The persistent gaps in employment are not evidence that people are unwilling or unable to work. They are a glaring indictment of the system's unwillingness to adapt, diversify, and truly leverage the full spectrum of human capability available to it.
The future of the workforce depends on dismantling these systemic barriers and building a workplace designed not just for the few, but for everyone.
