- Goal: identify the impact of uninformed employers; see how fixed routines and evaluation methods exclude diversity.
- Key Points: many barriers come from lack of knowledge, not intent; equity and real fairness mean adapting conditions; respectfully for adjustments; strict schedules and one-size-fits-all rules create stress; flexibility in time, space, and feedback helps everyone; rigid systems reduce innovation.
Introduction
Workplaces are not neutral spaces. They are structured environments shaped by assumptions, norms, and expectations that often remain implicit rather than explicitly articulated. These assumptions concern not only what tasks are performed, but also how they should be performed, at what pace, and according to which standards of visibility and communication. In many organisational contexts, these implicit norms are rarely questioned, as they are perceived as natural or self-evident components of professional life.
However, when organisational systems are designed without sufficient awareness of human diversity, they tend to reproduce rigidity. This rigidity is not necessarily the result of intentional exclusion, but rather of a lack of exposure to different cognitive styles, working rhythms, and modes of engagement. As a consequence, systems that appear efficient in abstract terms may become misaligned with the actual variability of the workforce.
This crash course examines how such rigid systems emerge, how they operate in practice, and what effects they produce on individuals and organisational dynamics.
Goal and extended analysis
The primary aim is to develop a deep understanding of how limited awareness within organisations can lead to structural rigidity, and how this rigidity influences inclusion, performance, and workplace wellbeing.
In many organisations, rigidity develops gradually rather than being explicitly designed. It often originates from practices that are initially introduced to ensure consistency, fairness, or operational efficiency. Over time, however, these practices become institutionalised and are rarely revisited in light of changing workforce needs or emerging understandings of diversity. As a result, organisational systems tend to stabilise around a narrow definition of what “effective work” looks like.
One of the most visible manifestations of this rigidity is the standardisation of time. Working hours are typically defined as fixed and universally applicable, regardless of individual differences in concentration patterns, cognitive energy cycles, or task complexity. While such standardisation simplifies coordination, it also assumes that productivity is evenly distributed across time, which is not necessarily the case in practice. Many individuals experience fluctuating levels of focus and efficiency throughout the day, and rigid scheduling does not accommodate these natural variations.
Another important dimension concerns performance evaluation systems. In many contexts, performance is assessed through indicators that prioritise immediacy, visibility, and responsiveness. While these criteria may capture certain aspects of productivity, they often fail to account for deeper forms of work, such as analytical thinking, long-term problem-solving, or creative synthesis. This can lead to a situation where the most visible work is not necessarily the most valuable, and where individuals who operate differently are systematically undervalued.
Within this framework, the absence of awareness regarding neurodiversity, cognitive diversity, and different working styles becomes a structural issue rather than an individual one. Employers may not intentionally exclude certain profiles, but the design of systems itself can produce exclusionary effects. This is particularly relevant in environments where conformity to dominant working styles is implicitly rewarded.
A key conceptual distinction in this context is between equality and equity. Equality assumes that fairness is achieved by applying identical rules to all individuals, whereas equity recognises that different individuals may require different conditions in order to achieve comparable outcomes. In rigid systems, this distinction is often not operationalised, leading to organisational environments that are formally uniform but functionally uneven.
The broader organisational impact of rigidity extends beyond individual experience. When flexibility is limited, organisations reduce their capacity to integrate diverse perspectives and problem-solving approaches. This has direct implications for innovation, as creativity often emerges from cognitive diversity and from the interaction between different ways of thinking. In this sense, rigidity does not only represent a barrier to inclusion, but also a constraint on organisational learning and adaptability.
Additional readings:
- Armstrong, D. (2010). The political anatomy of the body: Medical knowledge in autism discourse. Sociology of Health & Illness, 32(1), 1–15.
- Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN). (2017). Neurodiversity: Some Basic Terms & Definitions. ASAN Publications.
- Baron-Cohen, S. (2002). The extreme male brain theory of autism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(6), 248–254.
- Milton, D. (2012). On the ontological status of autism: The ‘double empathy problem’. Disability & Society, 27(6), 883–887.
- Pellicano, E., & den Houting, J. (2022). Annual Research Review: Shifting from “normal science” to neurodiversity in autism research. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 63(4), 381–396.
Question 1
Question 2
Question 3
Question 4
Question 5