The Real Diagnosis: Outdated Systems in a Neurodivergent World

Category: Strategy | Read time: 12 min read | Published: 2025-05-06

Are we seeing too many people diagnosed as neurodivergent, or are we finally acknowledging how outdated our environments have become? This is not a diagnostic crisis. It is a design crisis.

---

Are We Diagnosing People or Diagnosing the System?

Are we seeing too many people diagnosed as neurodivergent, or are we finally acknowledging how outdated our environments have become?

This question, raised by Professor Francesca Happe of King's College London during her recent BBC Radio 4 interview and featured in The Independent, is timely. And important.

She suggests we may have reached a point where traits once described as personality or eccentricity are increasingly being labelled as diagnosable conditions. That self-identification is rising, stigma is dropping, and people are re-evaluating their place in systems that were never designed with them in mind.

She is not wrong. In fact, her voice is very welcome, especially now, as many of us begin to ask not "what is wrong with people?" but "what needs to change in the system?"

It is a valuable conversation. One that opens the door for something deeper.

What if this is not about overdiagnosis at all? What if what we are really seeing is the cost of asking modern minds to function in systems that have not kept up with the complexity of the world we have built?

I think we are finally noticing what happens when the structure itself is out of date, and human behaviour starts to reveal the cracks.

This is not a diagnostic crisis. It is a design crisis.

The Digital Brain and the Dopamine Jackpot

Let us talk about the world we live in now.

We are operating in a 24/7, always-on, hyperstimulated reality. Smartphones, social media, AI notifications, information overload; all of it floods our brains with novelty and reward loops. The science calls it a "dopamine jackpot." Quick hits. Endless scrolling. Alerts that never stop.

And the brain, especially a developing brain, cannot tell the difference between genuine engagement and manufactured stimulation. It just knows it is firing. All the time.

This constant bombardment does not just make us distracted, it mimics dopamine dysregulation. It produces behaviours that look and feel like neurodivergence, even if the cause is environmental, not neurological. And for people who already are neurodivergent, it amplifies everything. The noise gets louder. The edges get sharper.

So yes, people are struggling. But the cause is not always internal. Sometimes it is the environment that is dysregulated.

Systems That No Longer Fit

Let us be honest about the structures we are still working within:

• Education systems designed in the 1800s
• Workplaces built around presenteeism, eye contact, small talk, and forced conformity
• Social structures that reward performance over process

We expect all minds to operate the same way; under pressure, under scrutiny, under constant digital load; and then we wonder why people burn out, opt out, or lash out.

A child who once would have thrived through movement, storytelling, hands-on learning and time outdoors is now labelled "disruptive" for not sitting still in a fluorescent-lit, rigid, test-driven classroom.

An employee who once excelled in deep, quiet work now struggles to manage five inboxes, Slack pings, live meetings, hybrid expectations, and unrelenting change; and is put on a performance improvement plan.

These are not always signs of personal challenge. They are indicators that the system is no longer fit for purpose.

So What Are We Actually Diagnosing?

If our environments are becoming harder to navigate, more cognitively demanding, emotionally complex, and operationally rigid, then what exactly are we diagnosing?

In many cases, the answer is not the individual. It is the mismatch between how a person's brain works and how systems currently function. Systems that were often designed for a different era, with different expectations and assumptions.

Most people seeking a diagnosis are not looking for a label to excuse difficulties. They are looking for understanding, clarity, and fair access to the tools and conditions that others may already take for granted.

This is where the distinction between equality and equity becomes crucial. Equality assumes everyone starts from the same place and needs the same support. Equity recognises that individuals begin with different circumstances and may require different forms of support to reach the same outcome.

They are not broken. They are highlighting where the system is no longer working for everyone, and offering insight into how it could evolve to support a wider range of minds.

The Numbers Tell the Story

• Only 30% of organisations have a clear neuroinclusion goal and strategy
• Just 46% of managers feel capable and confident to support neurodivergent individuals in the workplace
• Only 31% of autistic adults in the UK are employed, compared to 54.7% of disabled people overall
• Half (49%) of neurodivergent adults have experienced discrimination during the hiring process
• Approximately 51% of neurodivergent employees have taken time off work due to their neurodivergence, often citing insufficient workplace support

Redesign Is Not Optional Anymore

Yes, we begin with awareness. Training sessions, open conversations, lunchtime webinars; they matter. They make the invisible visible. They help people connect the dots, often for the first time. But they are not the solution. They are the start of one.

Real change happens in the design room.

Organisations spend millions on solution architects, technical leads, and transformation projects. I have been in those rooms for thirty years. I have seen the slide decks, the strategy boards, the procurement cycles. And I can tell you: the blueprint is broken before the ink is dry.

Because those rooms are too often closed. Decisions are made by a few, based on what has always worked for them. Not on how humans actually live, work, focus, regulate, or relate to one another. Not on what barriers people face. Not on what actually drives performance across a diverse workforce.

Neuroinclusion is not a compliance add-on. It is not a bolt-on feature. It is a design principle. Or at least it should be.

And yet, most design briefs never ask the right questions. They ask if a solution can scale. If it can automate. If it meets the budget and timeline. But rarely, if ever, do they ask:

• Will this enable more people to work well?
• Will this remove barriers, or build them in?
• Will this work for different minds, different paces, different ways of processing?

A New Definition of "Normal"

Professor Happe raised a critical point: when you include autism, ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, and other developmental differences, we may now be at a stage where neurodivergent self-identification outweighs so-called neurotypicality.

And that changes everything.

Because if most people no longer fit the mould those systems were built around, then the problem is not at the margins. It is at the centre.

"Normal" is not a neutral benchmark. It is a manufactured filter; one that was never designed to capture the full range of human minds. It was built to exclude difference, not include it.

So we must stop trying to 'fix' people who do not fit that frame and start redesigning the frame itself. The era of designing for the average is over.

Final Thought

If rising attrition, silent quitting, presenteeism, absenteeism, and workplace-related mental ill health are not seen as a direct threat to growth, profitability, and productivity; then we are not looking closely enough.

Because they are.

And if the only response is to publish a list of 'reasonable adjustments' in the HR handbook, we have already missed the point.

This is not about making room at the edges. It is about redesigning the core.

Neuroinclusion is not a nice-to-have, nor is it a specialist agenda. It is a strategic imperative. One that allows businesses to unlock productivity they did not know they were missing, to reduce costs they did not realise they were carrying, and to create cultures where people are not simply surviving the system, but shaping it.

This is the shift we need. From reactive compliance to proactive design. From 'adjustments' to alignment. From pathologising difference to valuing it.

Not because it is the right thing to do; but because it is the only way forward.

---

Questions Leaders Often Ask

Are diagnostic systems outdated?

Many were designed decades ago and do not fully reflect current understanding of neurodevelopmental differences. They can be a helpful starting point, but organisations should not wait for a diagnosis before offering practical support.

What can organisations do while systems catch up?

Focus on how people work rather than waiting for clinical labels. Build environments that support different thinking styles by default. Train managers to have practical, supportive conversations about working preferences.