Managing workplace neurodiversity for positive outcomes: a mapping review and research agenda

Neurodiversity refers to a range of cognitive variations in humans that have been recognized in various forms, such as autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), dyslexia and Asperger's syndrome (Armstrong, 2015; Bewley and George, 2016). Although the umbrella term neurodiversity was introduced in the 1990s (Blume, 1998; Singer, 1998), the research on its few forms has been conducted for decades (e.g. Kanner, 1943). That body of research was driven by the social justice case for its various forms and was not directly relevant to the workplace. In the 1990s, scholars started to investigate the benefits of neurodiversity for organizations (e.g. Wyld, 1996), which gave birth to the quest for a business case for neurodiversity. It worked as a catalyst for a new wave of research on neurodiversity in the workplace context. The social justice case works as a push factor – social scientists advocating equality considerations in settings such as education, which can be extended to workplaces (Singer, 1999), while the business case operates as a pull factor – business leaders advocating economic benefits of neurodiversity (Wareham and Sonne, 2008).

Unlike other forms of workplace diversity (e.g. gender and race), workplace and employment-related research on neurodiversity has only recently gained momentum. The reasons for such slow progress include a lack of recognition of neurodiversity as a form of workplace diversity (Doyle, 2020), absence of a dedicated legislation on promoting workplace neurodiversity (Rollnik-Sadowska and Grabińska, 2024), low awareness of neurodiversity among business leaders and managers (Eagle Hill Consulting, 2024), few human resource (HR) policies and practices for attaining and managing neurodiversity (Carrero et al., 2019), rare workplace profiling of neurodiversity leading to data related challenges (Ali et al., 2024a), low urgency of incorporating neurodiversity into workplace diversity (Paterson and Charles, 2021), rare disclosure of a neurodivergent condition on the part of neurodivergent (also known as neurominority) employees for the fear of stigma and discrimination (Waisman-Nitzan et al., 2021) and hesitation of employers to hire neurominorities for avoiding costs associated with training employees and supervisors (Bury et al., 2020).

The growing but fragmented state of the research on workplace neurodiversity demands a mapping review, collating and cataloging of the available evidence for fostering scholarship. A mapping review provides a comprehensive overview of a broad (neurodiversity) and complex (various forms) field, identifies gaps and guides future research (Booth et al., 2016; Grant and Booth, 2009). It is different from a scoping review, which often investigates definitions, concepts and key characteristics of a phenomenon or concept, scoping existing evidence to determine whether a systematic literature review is feasible (Grant and Booth, 2009). A scoping review focuses on what is known about a field, culminating in a narrative summary, whereas a mapping review aims at identifying gaps using visual frameworks and provides future research directions (Miake-Lye et al., 2016). The specific research questions for this review are: What non-empirical and empirical research on workplace neurodiversity exists? What has been the focus of such research and what knowledge gaps persist that require further scholarly inquiry? It identifies and maps evidence using visual summaries. An adapted theoretical framework for managing neurodiversity (Khan et al., 2023) provides high-level codes for mapping the focus of non-empirical and empirical research, including forms of neurodiversity, design, methods and research settings. It contributes to the workplace diversity and inclusion field, synthesizing evidence and highlighting the need for addressing knowledge gaps.

Managing workplace neurodiversity for positive outcomes is a complex process. Khan et al.’s (2023) framework was adapted to create a comprehensive end-to-end process model of managing neurodiversity (see Figure 1). This adapted framework, comprising creating, converting and capitalizing stages, provides a detailed set of elements of neurodiversity management that this review uses to map the current literature. The three stages help summarize the review findings.

Creating a neurodiverse workplace is the first stage in neurodiversity management. The process starts with antecedents (denoted as A in the figure) of neurodiversity recruitment and selection practices. They include leadership and neurodiversity employment programs (e.g. Drader-Mazza et al., 2024; Remington and Pellicano, 2019). The literature in this area discusses or investigates the role of leadership and employment programs (including benefits of these programs) in promoting recruitment and selection practices for neurodivergent persons. Challenges and opportunities pertaining to antecedents (B) can influence the effectiveness of antecedents (A) in determining recruitment and selection practices (C). Examples include competing demands for resources, low organizational support and lack of leadership commitment to employment programs (e.g. Lup and Canonico, 2024; Spoor et al., 2022).

The recruitment and selection practices comprise resource practices, accountability practices and accommodations (Leslie, 2019). The resource practices are neurodiversity-conscious practices, such as advertising jobs in neurodiversity magazines or on the websites of neurodiversity associations, which aim at proactive hiring of neurodivergent individuals (Austin and Pisano, 2017). The accountability practices assign responsibility to supervisors, mangers and leaders and set neurodiversity goals (Armstrong et al., 2022). Accommodations include enhancing accessibility of interview facilities, openness for restructuring jobs, allowing flexible interview schedule and modifying equipment for meeting diverse needs of neurodivergent job applicants (Waisman-Nitzan et al., 2021). Neurodiversity recruitment and selection practices signal a commitment to neurodiversity, which helps attract a pool of neurodivergent job applicants who feel valued by the organization and neurotypical job applicants who appreciate positive actions of the organization (Bergh et al., 2014; Connelly et al., 2011; Spence, 1973). The effectiveness of neurodiversity recruitment and selection practices in creating a neurodiverse workplace (E) is influenced by challenges and opportunities pertaining to recruitment and selection (D). They include sensory and cognitive stressors, communication challenges and the employer's perspective on reasonable recruitment and selection accommodations (e.g. Ezerins et al., 2024; Waisman-Nitzan et al., 2019).

Creating a neurodiverse workplace merely partially achieves the ultimate objective of achieving positive outcomes for employees and the organization. Developing and engaging practices (F) and addressing challenges and opportunities pertaining to developing and engaging practices and inclusion (G) help convert a neurodiverse workplace into a neurodiverse inclusive workplace (H). Developing and engaging practices comprise resource practices, accountability practices and accommodations (Leslie, 2019). The resource practices proactively develop and engage neurodivergent employees through additional and tailored training and mentoring (Scott et al., 2021). The accountability practices hold supervisors, managers and leaders responsible for the development and engagement of neurodivergent employees (Armstrong and Remington, 2022). Accommodations refer to tailored training and development plans, accessible training and development facilities and materials, flexible schedules and adaptive assessment (Waisman-Nitzan et al., 2021). Challenges and opportunities pertaining to developing and engaging practices and inclusion include lack of disclosure from employees, low understanding of supervisors and colleagues and fast-paced work (e.g. Ali et al., 2024a; Patton, 2019). A neurodiverse inclusive workplace ensures shared perception of belonging to the organization and the organization valuing their uniqueness (Nishii, 2013; Roberson, 2025) among neurodiverse employees (e.g. Annabi and Locke, 2019; Bölte et al., 2024; Walkowiak, 2021).

Supervisors and co-workers (I) play an extremely important role in capitalizing on an inclusive neurodiverse workforce. This literature encompasses attitudes and behaviors of supervisors and co-workers, challenges they face and support they can provide to neurodivergent employees (e.g. Ali et al., 2024a; Efeoglu and Kilincarslan, 2024; Whelpley and Woznyj, 2023). A neurodiverse inclusive workplace, with an influence of supervisors and co-workers, leads to positive behaviors, processes and outcomes (J) for employees and the organizations (e.g. Ali et al., 2024b; van Rijswijk et al., 2024b; Yu et al., 2021), as per the value-in-diversity perspective (Cox and Balke, 1991). The three stages of creating, converting and capitalizing occur in an external and organizational environment (K), including national context and technological environment (e.g. Erbil et al., 2024; Walkowiak, 2021).

Mapping reviews are different from scoping reviews, as unlike scoping reviews, which focus on the scope of knowledge, a mapping review categorizes or maps knowledge in an area to identify knowledge gaps and areas for further research (White et al., 2020). A systematic mapping review was undertaken to explore scholarly (non-empirical) and research (empirical) publications on neurodiversity in the workplace. As academic research on neurodiversity in the workplace is scarce, any peer-reviewed work in English with no date restriction was searched. The following eligibility criteria were used: Neurodiversity or any form of neurodiversity and workplace context. The exclusion criterion was neurodiversity in the non-workplace context, such as education. Given a focus on the workplace, the Business Source Elite and ABI/INFORM databases were searched in December 2024 using the search strings noted in Table 1. The Business Source Elite provides comprehensive coverage of academic journals in all disciplines of business, while ABI/INFORM is a premier business database with wide coverage of business and management journals (EBSCO, 2025; ProQuest, 2025). Using these two databases mitigated the risk of missing a key study on neurodiversity.

Figure 2 presents the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram. It indicates that of 1,370 records identified through Business Source Elite (784) and ABI/INFORM (586), 536 records were removed due to duplicate entries, leading to 834 records considered for screening against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The screening of the titles and abstract of 834 publications excluded 718 records. Subsequently, the remaining 116 publications were screened, which resulted in a final sample of 105 papers comprising 45 non-empirical publications and 60 empirical studies.

The final sample of 105 records (45 non-empirical and 60 empirical) were published between 1996 and 2024 (see Figure 3). The figure indicates a significant increase in the number of publications since 2019, especially in empirical studies, which can be partly attributed to special issues on neurodiversity from management and HR management journals.

Given the different nature of non-empirical and empirical work, the 105 sample publications were coded differently for their characteristics, mapping against the adapted neurodiversity management framework from Khan et al. (2023) presented in Figure 1. Non-empirical publications were coded for neurodiversity form(s) and framework elements (see Table 2), while empirical studies were coded for neurodiversity form(s), quant, qual or mixed, methods, industry, country, sample, sample category (neurotypical or neurodivergent or both) and framework elements (see Table 3). These codings helped to understand the different elements of the two bodies of literature and how they mapped against the adapted neurodiversity management framework.

Bubble plots are highly effective in mapping reviews for visually synthesizing and conveying complex multidimensional data, such as forms of diversity and methodological approaches mapped against a framework (Gough et al., 2017). These visual representations allow scholars to intuitively present key characteristics of the evidence and knowledge gaps, facilitating insight and interpretation for the reader (James et al., 2021). Thus, bubble plots were prepared for both non-empirical publications (see Figure 4) and empirical studies (see Figure 5), mapping their characteristics and focus (synthesis of the last columns of Tables 2 and 3) against the elements of the neurodiversity management framework from Figure 1. For instance, a synthesis of Table 2 presented in Figure 4 in the form of a bubble plot indicates that five publications (see the top bubble of the “focus” column) focused on the A element (antecedents of recruitment and selection practices) of Figure 1 framework. In other words, “A” appeared five times in the last column of Table 2, which indicates that 5 non-empirical publications (out of 45 in our final sample) discussed antecedents of recruitment and selection practices. Similarly, forms of diversity have been mapped against the elements of Figure 1 framework. Figure 5 illustrates this mapping of Table 3 elements against Figure 1 elements.

The research on neurodiversity in the workplace context gained momentum from 2019, with 10 (comprising 4 non-empirical and 6 empirical papers) published in that year, attributed to a special issue on neurodiversity in a management journal (see Figure 3). The unprecedented growth was seen in 2023 with 23 papers published in that year, followed by 34 papers in 2024. The field that started with non-empirical publications now witnesses more empirical studies than the non-empirical work despite challenges associated with collecting data. Our sample (45 non-empirical and 60 empirical) comprised 104 journal articles and one conference paper. Tables 2 and 3 indicate that commonly discussed or studied forms of neurodiversity include autism (18 non-empirical publications and 26 empirical studies), neurodiversity in general (20 non-empirical and 16 empirical) and ADHD (9 non-empirical and 14 empirical). As per Table 3, 60 empirical studies used the following designs: 32 qualitative, 23 quantitative and 5 mixed-method designs. Frequently used methods were interviews (28 studies), surveys or questionnaires (27) and focus groups (7). In total, 11 studies were conducted across industries while many others included participants from multiple industries. The most common origins of the empirical studies were UK (13), USA (13), Australia (9) and Canada (6). Data were collected as follows: from both neurotypical and neurodivergent individuals (27), neurotypical individuals (16), neurodivergent individuals (15) and other sources (2).

The bubble plot in Figure 4 shows the elements of non-empirical publications from Table 2 mapped against the neurodiversity framework from Figure 1. The size of the bubble corresponds to the number of studies. For instance, 15 studies focused on F, the developing and engaging practices (see coding in Table 2 to identify those 15 studies). The focus of non-empirical publications has been mainly on developing and engaging practices (F, 15), neurodiverse workplace (E, 14), challenges and opportunities pertaining to developing and engaging practices and inclusion (G, 13) and behaviors, processes and outcomes (J, 12). Many publications that discussed neurodiversity in general focused on developing and engaging practices (F, 9). Similar links were found: between autism and developing and engaging practices (F, 6), between autism and challenges and opportunities pertaining to developing and engaging practices and inclusion (G, 6) and between ADHD and challenges and opportunities pertaining to developing and engaging practices and inclusion (G, 4). Drawing on Figures 4 and 5, Figure 6 presents a consolidated summary of the amount and focus of research on workplace neurodiversity.

Creating stage. The creating a neurodiverse workplace stage comprises A-E elements of Figure 6. The focus of non-empirical publications was significantly greater on a neurodiverse workplace (E, 14) than recruitment and selection practices (C, 6), antecedents (A, 5), challenges and opportunities pertaining to recruitment and selection (D, 5) and challenges and opportunities pertaining to antecedents (B, 3). A greater discussion of A-D elements in non-empirical work will not only advance our knowledge but will also drive their empirical investigations.

Converting stage. This stage of managing neurodiversity comprises E-H elements of the framework. Comparatively, E (neurodiverse workplace, 14), F (developing and engaging practices, 15) and G (challenges and opportunities pertaining to developing and engaging practices and inclusion, 13) received more attention from scholars of non-empirical publications than H (neurodiverse inclusive workplace, 9). Overall, a balanced number of publications discussed these four elements, leading to some understanding of how to convert a neurodiverse workplace into a neurodiverse inclusive workplace.

Capitalizing stage. The capitalizing stage of workplace neurodiversity management comprises H-J elements. Although the focus of non-empirical publications was slightly greater on behaviors, processes and outcomes (J, 12) than neurodiverse inclusive workplace (H, 9) and supervisors and co-workers (I, 9), overall they all attracted attention from scholars.

Overall, non-empirical literature provides greater insights into the converting and capitalizing stages of neurodiversity management than the creating stage of neurodiversity management. Most Q1 publications, as per SCImago journal rankings, also pertained to creating and converting stages. The number of publications gained momentum from 2021 onwards, with an increasing focus on the same two stages.

The bubble plot in Figure 5 presents the elements of empirical studies from Table 3 mapped against the neurodiversity framework from Figure 1. The focus of empirical studies has been on behaviors, processes and outcomes (J, 21; see coding in Table 3 to identify those 21 studies), neurodiverse workplace (E, 19), developing and engaging practices (F, 19) and challenges and opportunities pertaining to developing and engaging practices and inclusion (G, 15). While most of these studies centered on general neurodiversity and autism, ADHD studies were fragmented around neurodiverse workplace (E) and behaviors, processes and outcomes (J).

A greater number of studies of neurodiverse workplace (E) used quantitative methods (13) than qualitative methods (5). Several studies of developing and engaging practices (F, 11) and challenges and opportunities pertaining to developing and engaging practices and inclusion (G, 11) used qualitative methods. Quantitative methods were common among the behaviors, processes and outcome studies. Mixed methods were rarely used. Interviews were commonly used for studies of developing and engaging practices (F, 11) and challenges and opportunities pertaining to developing engaging practices and inclusion (G, 9), while surveys were frequently used for studies of behaviors, processes and outcomes (J, 13) and neurodiverse workplace (E, 12). Focus groups, experiments and interventions were rarely used.

Many studies of behaviors, processes and outcomes (J, 7) and challenges and opportunities pertaining to developing and engaging practices and inclusion (G, 6) collected data from neurominority. Neurotypicals were frequently studied for developing and engaging practices (F, 6), challenges and opportunities pertaining to developing and engaging practices and inclusion (G, 5) and supervisors and co-workers (I, 5). Both groups were studied for neurodiverse workplace (E, 13), behaviors, processes and outcomes (J, 13) and developing and engaging practices (F, 8). Until the year 2020, only a few empirical studies were published, which focused on developing and engaging practices (F), challenges and opportunities pertaining to developing and engaging practices and inclusion (G) and behaviors, processes and outcomes (J). The years 2021–2024 witnessed a large number of studies focusing on behaviors, processes and outcomes (J, 18), neurodiverse workplace (E, 17), developing and engaging practices (F, 15) and challenges and opportunities pertaining to developing and engaging practices and inclusion (G, 11). Many of these papers were published in Q1 journals.

Creating stage. For the creating stage (A-E elements of Figure 6), the focus of empirical studies was mainly on the last element of a neurodiverse workplace (E, 19). The other four elements received little attention, especially challenges and opportunities pertaining to antecedents (B, 2), recruitment and selection practices (C, 3) and antecedents (A, 4). A lack of empirical research on A-D has caused a knowledge gap pertaining to creating a neurodiverse workplace, evidenced in low neurodiversity in organizations (Ali et al., 2024a, b).

Converting stage. The empirical literature on E-H elements of the framework was dominated by E (neurodiverse workplace, 19), F (developing and engaging practices, 19) and G (challenges and opportunities pertaining to developing and engaging practices and inclusion, 15). Only one empirical study, published in 2021, focused on inclusion (Walkowiak, 2021). Therefore, while evidence exists for how to convert a neurodiverse workplace into an inclusive workplace, little is known about the inclusion experiences of employees.

Capitalizing stage. The capitalizing stage (H-J elements) of workplace neurodiversity management received mixed empirical attention. Predominantly, the focus was on behaviors, processes and outcomes (J, 21) to possibly demonstrate a business case. Given the importance of supervisory and co-workers' support, nine empirical studies investigated it. As indicated above, little is known about inclusion experiences of a neurodiverse workplace.

Overall, empirical literature also provides greater insights into the converting and capitalizing stages of neurodiversity management (except the inclusion element) than the creating stage of neurodiversity management. Inclusion connects converting and capitalizing stages but has received little empirical attention. The number of publications (including Q1) gained momentum from 2021 onwards, with a consistent focus on converting and capitalizing stages.

The objective of this unprecedented mapping of the workplace neurodiversity literature was to ascertain the amount and focus of research, leading to identifying knowledge gaps that need to be addressed through future research. The findings indicate that the neurodiversity in the workplace field is young but growing. It started with non-empirical or conceptual discussion in the 1990s but has grown into a field increasingly dominated by empirical studies. The momentum was gained in 2019 with a special issue published by a management journal and a growing quest for a business case. Overall, the focus of empirical studies has been slightly different from the focus of non-empirical publications. While both emphasize more on post-hiring stages (converting and capitalizing), empirical studies did not pay attention to inclusion, an important dimension of managing diversity.

The findings indicate that the non-empirical literature, including Q1 publications, focused more on converting and capitalizing stages than on the creating stage. Until 2020, scholars mainly discussed workplace neurodiversity (E element from Figure 6; e.g. Harvey et al., 2011), challenges and opportunities pertaining to developing and engaging practices and inclusion (G; e.g. Patton, 2019) and supervisors and co-workers (I; e.g. Annabi and Locke, 2019). From 2021 onwards, the focus broadened to include developing and engaging practices (F; e.g. Cox et al., 2024), behavior, processes and outcomes (J; e.g. Fiori-Khayat, 2023), inclusion (H; e.g. Praslova et al., 2023), challenges and opportunities pertaining to recruitment and selection (D; e.g. Antony et al., 2024) and environment (K; e.g. Roberson et al., 2021). Overall, the focus remains on converting a neurodiverse workforce into a neurodiverse inclusive workplace and capitalizing on the benefits of neurodiversity. Most discussions of general neurodiversity, autism and ADHD centered on developing and engaging practices (F; e.g. Bölte et al., 2024) and challenges and opportunities pertaining to developing and engaging practices and inclusion (G; e.g. Ezerins et al., 2024).

The findings suggest that empirical literature, including Q1 studies, also centered more on converting (apart from inclusion) and capitalizing stages of the framework than the creating stage. Until 2020, only a few empirical studies were published, focusing mainly on developing and engaging practices (F; e.g. Mellifont, 2020), challenges and opportunities pertaining to developing and engaging practices and inclusion (G; e.g. Richards, 2012) and behavior, processes and outcomes (J; e.g. Remington and Pellicano, 2019). From 2021 onwards, the focus broadened to include workplace neurodiversity (E; e.g. Stappers and Andries, 2024), supervisors and co-workers (I; e.g. Spoor et al., 2022), challenges and opportunities pertaining to recruitment and selection (D; e.g. Wiater and Bartak, 2023) and environment (K; e.g. Erbil et al., 2024). Overall, the focus remains on converting and capitalizing stages of the framework.

Empirical investigations of general neurodiversity and autism revolved around workplace neurodiversity (E; e.g. Ali et al., 2024a), developing and engaging practices (F; e.g. Basto and Cepellos, 2023), challenges and opportunities pertaining to developing and engaging practices and inclusion (G; e.g. Priscott and Allen, 2021), supervisors and co-workers (I; e.g. Whelpley and Woznyj, 2023) and behavior, processes and outcomes (J; e.g. Brouwers et al., 2024). On the contrary, ADHD studies focused on workplace neurodiversity (E; e.g. Orhan et al., 2024) and behavior, processes and outcomes (J; e.g. Lanivich et al., 2024). Although qualitative methods were mainly used for developing and engaging practices (F; e.g. Kersten et al., 2024) and challenges and opportunities pertaining to developing and engaging practices and inclusion (G; e.g. Priscott and Allen, 2021), quantitative methods were mainly employed for behavior, processes and outcomes (J; e.g. Ali et al., 2024b) and workplace neurodiversity (E; e.g. van Rijswijk et al., 2024b). Mixed methods were rarely used (e.g. Allen et al., 2023).

Interviews and surveys were commonly used to investigate workplace neurodiversity (E; e.g. Artamoshina et al., 2023), developing and engaging practices (F; e.g. Efeoglu and Kilincarslan, 2024), challenges and opportunities pertaining to developing and engaging practices and inclusion (G; e.g. William et al., 2024), supervisors and co-workers (I; e.g. Iqbal et al., 2024) and behavior, processes and outcomes (J; e.g. McIntosh et al., 2023). The lack of use of focus groups, experiments and interventions suggests that the field centers on fundamental research questions. Although the converting stage elements used data from neurominority (neurodivergent), neurotypical or both (E, F, G; e.g. Williams et al., 2024), the capitalizing stage elements used data as follows: from neurotypical or both for the I element (e.g. Whelpley and Woznyj, 2023) and from neurominority or both for the J element (e.g. Brouwers et al., 2024).

This review might be the first mapping review of an end-to-end process of managing workplace neurodiversity comprising creating, converting and capitalizing stages. However, it is worth noting how the findings of this review compare with those of recent reviews. For instance, recent reviews indicate that the majority of literature conceptualizes diversity as a difference rather than a deficit or disorder (McLennan et al., 2025) and is overwhelmingly dominated by a focus on autism (Ogoms et al., 2025), calling for future research to focus on other less-studied forms of neurodiversity, such as dyslexia, dyspraxia and dyscalculia and intersectional identities (Doyle and McDowall, 2022). The current mapping review refines these findings by showing that the non-empirical literature's focus has been on neurodiversity in general, autism and ADHD, respectively, while empirical literature has more frequently studied autism, neurodiversity in general and ADHD, respectively. Moreover, reviews reveal that neurodivergent individuals face significant and persistent barriers in the workplace, including pervasive stigma (Turnock et al., 2022), a lack of awareness among colleagues and managers (Ezerins et al., 2024), sensory overload in open-plan offices (Weber et al., 2024), reciprocal communication and unstructured social communication (Kirkwood et al., 2025) and disclosure dilemmas (Patton, 2019). The current mapping review refines these findings by showing that the barriers and challenges pertaining to all three stages of creating, converting and capitalizing have attracted slightly more attention from empirical studies than non-empirical work. Relatively, greater knowledge exists on the barriers and challenges pertaining to supervisors, co-workers and developing and engaging practices than recruitment and selection practices.

The recent reviews chart a path forward, identifying effective support and interventions that can create a more inclusive environment. These include tailored accommodations, such as noise-canceling headphones and flexible schedules (Wen et al., 2024), strength-based management practices (Najeeb and Quadt, 2024) and structured hiring initiatives like neurodiversity talent programs (Chammas and Hernandez, 2025; Hennekam and Follmer, 2024). The current review shows that while evidence exists for the offering of developing and engaging practices, the inclusion experiences of neurodivergent employees have been substantially understudied, leading to a lack of evidence for the effectiveness of practices. Finally, recent reviews call for more rigorous, high-quality research across a wider range of neurotypes and global contexts, emphasizing that true inclusion requires a systemic, organizational-level transformation rather than placing the burden of adaptation solely on the individual (Ezerins et al., 2024; Rollnik-Sadowska and Grabińska, 2024). The current review also places inclusion at the center of managing neurodiversity while also revealing an increasing emphasis on employee and organizational behaviors, processes and outcomes along with contextual management of neurodiversity, aligning with organizational and external environments.

The focus on the converting and capitalizing stages implies that many organizations are still treating neurodiversity as a problem to be managed rather than a talent pool to be actively sourced. This reactive approach means organizations are not able to achieve a competitive advantage by failing to build robust talent pipelines specifically designed to attract neurodivergent individuals (Austin and Pisano, 2017). To address this, organizations must shift resources earlier in the employee lifecycle to the creating stage. Organizational leadership must treat neurodiversity inclusion as an integrated talent management lifecycle, not a series of disconnected initiatives. To address this, organizations need to apply a rigorous, evidence-based approach to recruitment and selection of neurodivergent individuals (Hennekam and Follmer, 2024; Pfeffer and Sutton, 2006). This involves moving beyond the ad-hoc accommodations described in the converting stage, which aligns with the principle of strategic HR management, emphasizing that HR practices must be internally consistent and aligned with long-term organizational goals (Wright and McMahan, 1992).

For managers, the strong focus on their role and developing and engaging practices underscores that their day-to-day leadership behaviors are the cornerstone of inclusion (Purcell and Hutchinson, 2007; Shore et al., 2018). Neurodivergent employees' experiences and outcomes are shaped by their interactions with supervisors and co-workers (Khan et al., 2023). Therefore, organizations must move beyond basic awareness training and equip managers with tangible skills in psychological safety, equitable task allocation and personalized management. This reliance points to the importance of leader-member exchange theory (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995), which shows that high-quality, trust-based relationships between managers and individual employees lead to greater satisfaction, performance and retention. Managers must be trained and rewarded for building these high-quality relationships with all reports, including neurodivergent individuals (Kirkwood et al., 2025).

The broadening focus to include environment and behavior, processes signals a critical evolution: sustainable neurodiversity management demands a strategic cultural transformation (Ezerins et al., 2024; Rao and Polepeddi, 2019; Rollnik-Sadowska and Grabińska, 2024). The implication for senior leadership is that capitalizing on the benefits of neurodiversity requires cultivating an entire ecosystem of psychological safety where cognitive variations are not just accommodated but valued as essential to innovation (Edmondson, 1999). The ultimate goal is to build an organization where cognitive diversity is a recognized driver of problem-solving and value creation, leading to measurable outcomes such as enhanced innovation and superior performance (Austin and Pisano, 2017).

This mapping review has identified several knowledge gaps that demand conceptual work and empirical investigations for our comprehensive understanding of workplace neurodiversity. First, while there are some discussions (e.g. Richards, 2023) and empirical investigations (e.g. Richards and Sang, 2016) of antecedents of recruitment and selection practices, there needs to be an emphasis on challenges and opportunities pertaining to antecedents (B; e.g. Spoor et al., 2022). This literature will help us translate the antecedents into neurodiversity recruitment and selection practices. The following research questions need attention: How does corporate governance empower leadership in driving neurodiversity recruitment and selection practices? What are the roles of HR infrastructure and diversity perspective in translating neurodiversity employment programs into sustainable neurodiversity recruitment and selection practices?

Second, despite the importance of recruitment and selection practices (C) in creating a neurodiverse workplace (E; e.g. Hill, 2014), there is a lack of empirical research on their role. Future research can investigate the following research questions: Which neurodiversity recruitment and selection practice bundles (resource, accountability or accommodations) are more effective in acquiring neurodiverse talent? How does their horizontal alignment amplify their effectiveness in creating a neurodiverse workplace? This body of research should also unfold the challenges and opportunities pertaining to recruitment and selection (e.g. Goldberg and Willham, 2024) as past research emphasized more subsequent elements of managing neurodiversity. A general low level of neurodiversity in our organizations can be partly attributed to a lack of evidence for the effectiveness of recruitment and selection practices (Ali et al., 2024a).

Third, despite a considerable discussion of inclusion in the non-empirical literature, there has been only one study of inclusion experiences (Walkowiak, 2021), which collected data from neurotypical employees. This is a significant knowledge gap in terms of how neurominority (neurodivergent) employees perceive uniqueness and belonging (Nishii, 2013; Roberson, 2025). Capitalizing on neurodiversity benefits is not possible without inclusion perceptions. Future work might benefit from studying: What unique challenges emerge at the intersection of neurodivergence with other marginalized identities (e.g. gender, race and age) in enhancing workplace inclusion? How does organizational culture (e.g. psychological safety, flexibility norms and error tolerance) influence inclusion experiences of neurodivergent employees? Fourth, while there has been some consideration of the environmental factors since 2021 (e.g. Sander-Williams, 2024), there needs to be additional research on external and organizational factors that can influence neurodiversity management. Research questions may include: How do external stakeholders (e.g. neurodiversity advocacy groups, investors and clients) shape employer decisions to adopt neurodiversity employment programs? How do organizational characteristics (e.g. size and industry) influence workplace neurodiversity management?

Fifth, although the research so far mainly focused on general neurodiversity, autism and ADHD (e.g. Wen et al., 2023), future research needs to study dyslexia and other forms of neurodiversity for our knowledge of a broader range of neurodiversity conditions. The ADHD empirical research has also been narrowly focused on neurodiverse workplace (E; e.g. Yu et al., 2021) and behaviors, processes and outcomes (J; e.g. Stappers and Andries, 2024). This fragmented and narrow focus has led to low understanding of how managing neurodiversity may differ for its various forms. Specific research questions may include: How do cognitive strengths associated with less-studied neurodiversity forms align with specific occupational demands, and what barriers prevent recruiters from recognizing this alignment? What factors influence disclosure decisions among employees with dyscalculia and Tourette syndrome in different career stages, and how do these decisions impact their career trajectories? Sixth, future research can benefit from using mixed-methods designs (e.g. Lup and Canonico, 2024) and less frequently used methods, such as focus groups, experiments and interventions (e.g. Comer et al., 2023). Example research questions are as follows: How does a neurodiversity-awareness training intervention impact managers' perceived ability to recognize and leverage the strengths of employees with dyslexia and dyspraxia? How do neurodivergent employees perceive well-being, and how do workspace redesigns (e.g. lighting and acoustics) affect it? Invaluable insights will be gained from collecting primary data from neurominority employees, especially for creating and converting (including inclusion perceptions) stages.

This mapping review, while comprehensive, is subject to some limitations. First, the decision to restrict the search to only two databases (Business Source Elite and ABI/INFORM), albeit well justified for their workplace focus, may have resulted in the omission of some indirectly relevant literature from other fields such as disability studies (Lefebvre et al., 2022). Second, by design, a mapping review does not critically appraise the methodological quality of the included studies (Arksey and O'Malley, 2005; Grant and Booth, 2009; Miake-Lye et al., 2016). While this review successfully cataloged the volume and focus of research, it could not assess the validity or robustness of the findings within the 105 publications. Third, the focus on peer-reviewed literature ensured quality (Chandler et al., 2019), but it might have overlooked valuable insights from grey literature, such as policy documents or industry reports, which could provide practical context to the academic findings. Fourth, the research questions did not require a systematic cataloging of the theoretical frameworks underpinning the 105 publications (Miake-Lye et al., 2016). However, this review significantly developed Khan et al.’s (2023) framework to articulate the why and proficiently mapped the what and how of existing research, presenting a valuable opportunity for future analytical reviews to focus on theories.

This mapping review has systematically collated and cataloged the burgeoning yet fragmented body of literature on workplace neurodiversity. The analysis demonstrates that current scholarship is predominantly concentrated on the latter stages of the neurodiversity management framework – converting and capitalizing – while critically neglecting the creating stage and the inclusion element, which is at the juncture of converting and capitalizing. The over-reliance on specific methodological approaches and the focus on general neurodiversity, autism and ADHD further highlight significant blind spots. Consequently, this review establishes a clear and urgent research program: to address these identified gaps by pioneering studies on inclusion mechanisms, exploring under-researched neurotypes, employing mixed-methods designs and, most importantly, centering the lived experiences and voices of neurominorities. By directing scholarly effort toward these priorities, the field can evolve from fragmented insights to a robust, evidence-based discipline that truly supports positive outcomes for both neurominority employees and the organizations they enrich.