Universities and higher education departments should change the way they organise everyday meetings to ensure neurodivergent staff can engage effectively, experts say. The argument comes as a recent UK survey found that 51 per cent of neurodivergent employees reported they did not receive consistent and effective support to take part in their work environment.
Practical adjustments recommended
The call focuses on simple, low-cost adjustments that meeting organisers and chairs can implement immediately to improve accessibility and retain diverse voices in decision-making. Core proposals include sending agendas in advance, adhering to published timings, offering short breaks in longer sessions and allowing contributors time to prepare their remarks.
Those suggestions reflect the practical difficulties many neurodivergent people face with executive functioning and short-term memory, which can make absorbing and contributing to rapid-fire discussions challenging. Advocates say changes that help neurodivergent staff will frequently benefit all attendees by making meetings clearer and more productive.
“Agendas and timings — provide agendas in advance and stick to timings as much as possible to support neurodivergent employees to prepare.”
Why it matters for universities
Meetings form the backbone of professional life in higher education: from project planning and committee sessions to supervisions and team catch-ups. If significant numbers of staff are routinely unable to engage fully, institutions risk losing talent and narrowing the range of perspectives that inform policy and pedagogy.
Furthermore, failing to provide reasonable adjustments may expose universities to reputational and legal risks, as institutions are required under the Equality Act to make reasonable adjustments for staff with protected characteristics, which includes many forms of neurodivergence.
Simple measures with measurable effects
Practical steps set out in the guidance are intentionally straightforward and inexpensive. They include:
- Distributing detailed agendas and any background documents well before meetings;
- Allocating specific time slots for contributors and sticking to them;
- Building short breaks into longer meetings to allow time to process information;
- Using written briefs or bullet points to support verbal interventions;
- Offering alternative formats for input, such as written submissions or pre-recorded comments.
These measures acknowledge that neurodivergent staff may need additional time to absorb information and formulate responses. They also recognise that small procedural changes can prevent marginalisation of colleagues whose communication styles differ from neurotypical norms.
| Challenge | Suggested adjustment |
|---|---|
| Difficulty processing fast discussions | Provide agendas in advance and allocate time for each speaker |
| Short-term memory limitations | Allow written notes or prompts and circulate key points after the meeting |
| Need to regroup during long sessions | Schedule short breaks |
Broader cultural change required
While procedural tweaks are a starting point, advocates stress that addressing the participation gap requires wider cultural change in higher education. Chairs and managers must be willing to adapt long-standing practices, such as informal meeting dynamics or an over-reliance on impromptu verbal contributions, to ensure equitable participation.
Universities that act on these recommendations could see more inclusive deliberations and better decision-making. For neurodivergent staff, improved meeting formats may translate into fairer opportunities for career progression and greater retention — outcomes that align with institutional commitments to diversity and inclusion.
As institutions plan for the coming academic year and review post-pandemic working arrangements, embedding these straightforward adjustments into meeting protocols offers a practical route to sustaining diverse talent and expertise.
