Reasonable Adjustments at Work: Practical Examples for Neurodivergent Employees

A lot of people search for reasonable adjustments at work when they are not really looking for legal theory. They want practical examples. They want to know what counts, what helps, who is responsible, and how to make support work in real life for autistic, ADHD, dyslexic, dyspraxic and other neurodivergent employees. That makes this a much stronger search target than an A–Z framing. In UK law, reasonable adjustments are changes an employer makes to remove or reduce a disadvantage related to someone’s disability, and the duty applies where a worker would otherwise be placed at a substantial disadvantage. That is the starting point from both Acas and GOV.UK. 

A person sits at a sunlit desk, engaged with their phone, surrounded by notes and reminders pinned on the wall, capturing a moment of focused productivity in a home office setting.

One of the most important misconceptions to clear up early is that support depends on diagnosis. It often does not. Acas explicitly says a worker does not need a diagnosis to be considered disabled under the Equality Act 2010 and that employers should offer support whether or not someone has a diagnosis for their neurodivergence. That matters because many neurodivergent adults are still on waiting lists, are self-identifying while exploring assessment, or have needs that are obvious long before paperwork arrives. For employers, the practical question is not “have they proved it enough?” but “what disadvantage can we reduce?” 

A useful way to think about reasonable adjustments is by category rather than alphabet. The first big category is communication adjustments. These can include written follow-up after meetings, clearer instructions, advance agendas, explicit deadlines, checklists, fewer vague phrases like “use your judgement”, and more structured feedback. These changes are often low-cost and high-impact because they reduce ambiguity. Acas lists examples such as giving instructions in writing and allowing extra processing time, while the National Autistic Society frames adjustments as agreed changes to prevent substantial disadvantage in work and work processes. 

The second category is environmental and sensory adjustments. For some neurodivergent employees, especially autistic or ADHD colleagues, the hardest part of work is not the task itself but the setting in which the task happens. Examples include noise-cancelling headphones, quieter workspaces, reduced hot-desking, adjusted lighting, options for remote work, or flexibility about where focused work is completed. Acas gives noise-cancelling headphones as an example, and NHS Employers also highlights examples of adjustments for neurodivergent staff within broader disability-inclusive workplace guidance. 

The third category is time and workflow adjustments. This is where many organisations still think too narrowly. Reasonable adjustments can include modified start times, flexible hours, longer to complete certain tasks, extra breaks, reduced unnecessary task-switching, clearer prioritisation, or changes to how work is sequenced. These adjustments are often especially relevant for ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia, where working memory, executive functioning or processing speed may be part of the picture. GOV.UK’s guidance on reasonable adjustments is clear that adjustments can include changing someone’s working arrangements or the physical features of the workplace; they are not limited to equipment. 

A fourth category is recruitment and interview adjustments. This matters because support should begin before someone is hired, not only after they are struggling in post. NHS Employers recommends making clear that applicants can ask for adjustments, training interviewers on neurodiversity awareness, and providing interview questions in advance. Older CIPD guidance similarly points to the value of asking all interviewees whether they need adjustments rather than waiting for people to volunteer information in a high-stakes setting. This is a good example of how reasonable adjustments are not just a reactive measure; they are part of inclusive process design. 

A fifth category is technology and tools. For some people that means speech-to-text, text-to-speech, mind-mapping software, spelling and grammar support, coloured overlays, digital planners or captioning. For others it may be simpler: calendar reminders, shared task boards or written templates. Acas includes assistive technology in its examples, and Access to Work may help with practical support, although GOV.UK is clear that Access to Work does not replace the employer’s own legal duty to make reasonable adjustments. That distinction is important because employers sometimes mistakenly treat Access to Work as a prerequisite for action. 

A sixth category is management and meeting adjustments. These are often overlooked because they sound less tangible than equipment, but they can be some of the most important. Examples include more regular check-ins, predictable one-to-ones, structured agendas, defined actions, alternative ways to contribute in meetings, and managers adjusting how they give feedback. This is where neuroinclusion becomes a management issue, not just a HR issue. The CIPD’s neuroinclusion guide argues for people-centred, flexible design across work, communication and meetings, which aligns strongly with this broader understanding of reasonable adjustments. 

So what makes an adjustment “reasonable”? There is no fixed list, because reasonableness depends on context: the disadvantage involved, the practicality of the change, the organisation’s resources, and whether the adjustment would actually reduce the problem. That is why checklists can help, but they are not enough on their own. The Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust resource on reasonable adjustments for autistic people at work points to a practical checklist built around five areas of workplace comfort and accessibility, which is a useful reminder that the conversation should be needs-led rather than purely diagnostic. 

It is also worth being honest about what goes wrong. Many adjustment processes fail because they are too slow, too bureaucratic, too dependent on medical proof, or too fragile to survive manager changes. Acas has separate guidance on asking for reasonable adjustments and on having a meeting about them, which shows just how often this part of employment becomes process-heavy. In practice, the strongest organisations treat adjustments as practical problem-solving: identify the barrier, agree a change, trial it, review it, and record it properly so it does not disappear when circumstances change. 

This is exactly why a practical, workplace-based approach matters more than a giant alphabetised list. An A–Z can be useful for browsing, but what employers and employees usually need is a clearer route through the issue: What is the barrier? What kind of adjustment might help? Who needs to agree it? How quickly can it be trialled? How will it be reviewed? That is the difference between information and implementation.

If you want the practical next step, Divergent Thinking’s workplace assessments are built around this kind of needs-led support, focusing on communication, workflow, assistive technology and practical recommendations rather than labels alone. You can also explore the wider Divergent Thinking website or browse the blog for more workplace-focused guidance on neuroinclusion. The real goal is not to memorise an A–Z. It is to make support easier, faster and more useful in real life.