Reasonable Adjustments at Work: Practical Examples for Employers and Managers
- Divergent Thinking
- 4 days ago
- 5 min read
Reasonable adjustments are often talked about as though they are complicated, expensive or exceptional. In practice, they are usually much simpler than that. At their core, reasonable adjustments are changes that remove or reduce a disadvantage someone would otherwise face at work because of disability.
That matters for neurodivergent employees because many barriers at work are not caused by lack of ability. They are caused by how work is designed. Unclear instructions, noisy offices, overloaded meetings, inaccessible systems, rigid processes and inconsistent management can all make work harder than it needs to be.
A good approach to reasonable adjustments is not about creating special treatment. It is about enabling people to do their jobs well.
What reasonable adjustments actually mean
In UK law, the duty to make reasonable adjustments comes from the Equality Act 2010. The key issue is whether a disabled employee or applicant is placed at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled people, and whether the employer can reasonably reduce that disadvantage.
The concept sounds legal, but in day-to-day terms it is often practical. It is about noticing where a workplace setup is creating friction and being willing to change it.
The University of York’s workplace adjustment guidance explains this well in a way many employers find easier to apply than more formal legal summaries. It focuses on conversations, practical changes and review, rather than making support feel like a highly medicalised process.
The biggest misconception: adjustments are only for major problems
Many employers still act as though adjustments are something to consider only when a situation has become serious.
That is usually too late.
Reasonable adjustments work best when they are introduced early, before stress, underperformance or conflict have built up. A small change at the right time can prevent a much bigger problem later.
For example, a neurodivergent employee might not need a major intervention. They may simply need:
clearer written instructions
fewer last-minute changes
a quieter working location
more predictable check-ins
captions on calls
better prioritisation from their manager
The Workplace Adjustment Passport developed in the Civil Service is a useful example of this practical mindset. It is designed to make conversations about support easier, clearer and more portable between roles or managers.
Why neurodivergent employees often need adjustments
Reasonable adjustments are relevant to many different disabilities, but they are especially important in neuroinclusion because the barriers are often built into everyday working methods.
For example:
an autistic employee may be disadvantaged by unclear communication, sensory overload or sudden changes
an employee with ADHD may struggle more with overloaded priorities, context switching or poorly structured meetings
a dyslexic employee may be disadvantaged by dense written material or inaccessible systems
a dyspraxic employee may need more clarity, adapted workflow or different practical arrangements
The Dyspraxia Foundation’s employment guidance is particularly useful because it highlights how often workplace challenges come from process and environment rather than from a lack of competence.
Examples of reasonable adjustments at work
The most useful way to understand adjustments is through examples.
Communication adjustments
Many employees benefit when communication becomes clearer and more explicit.
This can include:
written follow-up after meetings
agendas shared in advance
clearer deadlines and priorities
avoiding vague instructions like “just use your judgement”
giving feedback in a structured format
using bullet points or templates for recurring tasks
The British Dyslexia Association’s employer advice is especially strong on practical communication adjustments, and many of its suggestions are useful far beyond dyslexia alone.
Environmental adjustments
Sometimes the work itself is not the issue. The setting is.
Environmental adjustments might include:
quieter workspace
option to work from home for focused tasks
noise-cancelling headphones
different desk location
adjusted lighting
fewer unnecessary interruptions
The Scottish Autism guide for employers is a helpful source here because it frames autism support in practical workplace terms rather than abstract awareness language.
Time and workflow adjustments
A lot of workplace friction comes from how work is structured rather than what the work is.
Examples include:
longer time for some tasks
fewer competing priorities at once
breaking large tasks into stages
regular prioritisation meetings
more realistic deadlines
protected focus time
a more structured onboarding process
The ADHD Foundation’s workplace resources are useful for thinking about how timing, structure and prioritisation affect people with ADHD in everyday work.
Technology and tools
Some adjustments involve practical tools rather than major process changes.
This could mean:
speech-to-text software
text-to-speech tools
spellcheck and grammar support
planning software
visual task boards
screen filters
captioning tools
The AbilityNet guide to technology and workplace support is a particularly useful source here because it connects assistive technology with wider workplace accessibility.
Management adjustments
Often the most important adjustment is the manager’s approach.
This might include:
more regular one-to-ones
clearer performance discussions
more predictable support
checking understanding without being patronising
agreeing preferred ways of communicating
reviewing adjustments over time rather than treating them as fixed forever
The Business Disability Forum’s People Manager Toolkit is one of the best practical resources for this, especially for line managers who want concrete guidance rather than theory.
Reasonable does not mean identical
One of the reasons adjustment conversations go wrong is that some managers confuse fairness with sameness.
But fair treatment does not always mean giving everyone exactly the same setup. It means making sure people are not disadvantaged by avoidable barriers.
The EHRC’s employment code and guidance supports this broader principle: equal treatment is not always identical treatment if identical treatment leaves someone substantially disadvantaged.
That is an important mindset shift for employers. The goal is not to keep everything identical. It is to keep access fair.
What makes an adjustment “reasonable”?
There is no single fixed list, because reasonableness depends on context.
Factors often include:
whether the adjustment would reduce disadvantage
how practical it is
the size and resources of the organisation
the nature of the role
the likely impact on the employee and the business
This is why good conversations matter. An adjustment should not be chosen because it sounds impressive. It should be chosen because it solves a real problem.
The University of Leeds’ guidance on reasonable adjustments in employment is useful here because it shows how employers can approach this in a structured, practical way rather than treating “reasonable” as a vague judgement call.
Why adjustments often fail
Most failed adjustments do not fail because the idea was wrong. They fail because the process around them was weak.
Common problems include:
delays
lack of clarity about responsibility
over-medicalising the request
poor manager follow-through
no review date
support being agreed verbally but never embedded
the employee having to repeat themselves every time something changes
That is why structured support matters. A workplace needs assessment from Divergent Thinking can help move the conversation from vague concern to practical recommendations around communication, workflow, environment and support.
Adjustments should support performance, not sit outside it
Some employers still treat adjustments as something separate from performance, almost as though support and standards are in tension.
That is the wrong frame.
Done well, reasonable adjustments help people perform better. They reduce avoidable friction so that the employee can show their skill more consistently and sustainably.
This is one reason adjustments should be seen as part of good management and good role design, not only compliance. They are often the bridge between potential and performance.
Final thought
Reasonable adjustments at work are often far simpler and more effective than people expect. The strongest adjustments are usually not dramatic. They are practical, specific and grounded in what helps someone do their job well.
For neurodivergent employees, that can mean the difference between constant friction and sustainable success.
The most helpful question for employers is not “What are we required to do at the absolute minimum?” It is “What is making this role harder than it needs to be, and what would genuinely help?”
That is where better work begins.
If you want practical support turning that into action, Divergent Thinking, the Divergent Thinking blog, and [workplace needs assessments](https://www.divergentthinking.uk/workplace
Comments