Yes - the government-backed Buckland Review (2024) found neurodiverse teams generate more ideas and avoid groupthink, but the gain depends on inclusive recruitment and reasonable adjustments, not the diagnosis alone. The review, led by Sir Robert Buckland KC and published by the Department for Work and Pensions, is the closest thing the UK has to an authoritative business case, and it is clear that cognitive diversity is what does the work: a mix of thinking styles widens the range of ideas on the table and reduces the blind spots a homogeneous team shares.
The evidence, and what it actually says
The Buckland Review reports productivity improvements in some areas of work ranging from 45 to 145 per cent, and sets out 19 recommendations for more inclusive recruitment and retention. Treat that figure with care: it describes specific, well-matched roles, not a blanket uplift across a whole workforce. Most of the eye-catching numbers you will see elsewhere - 30 per cent more productive, vendor 1.2 to 1.4x claims, 90 per cent retention figures - are undated, often US-sourced and weakly attributed. Use the dated, government-backed evidence and attribute the rest, rather than presenting marketing statistics as settled fact.
Inclusion is the mechanism, not the label
A diagnosis on a personnel file changes nothing on its own. The performance dividend appears when the work is designed so that different minds can do their best work: clear written briefs, sensory-aware spaces, predictable change, and recruitment that does not screen out talent at the first awkward interview. Diversity without inclusion does not improve performance, and an unadjusted or hostile workplace can make it worse. The National Autistic Society makes the same point about the Buckland findings - the biggest barrier is a lack of employer understanding, so the gain is unlocked by changing your processes, not the employee.
That is also where the law sits. Many neurodivergent conditions meet the Equality Act 2010 definition of disability, which means you have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for affected staff and applicants. In practice, the performance case rests on meeting that duty well - not on the diagnosis itself.
The talent you are reaching
Neuroinclusion is also a way to reach skilled people who are currently shut out. In 2024/25 the employment rate for people whose main condition is autism was just 31.4 per cent - far below the wider picture, and one of the widest employment gaps of any group:
- Autism (main condition): 31.4% in employment (2024/25)
- All disabled people: 52.8% in employment
- Non-disabled people: 82.5% in employment
Autistic people also face the largest pay gap of any disability group, earning around a third less than non-disabled workers. That is a sizeable pool of under-used skill that inclusive recruitment can reach. For the wider picture of how many of your staff are likely affected, see how many UK employees are neurodivergent, and for why inclusion is the lever that turns difference into performance, see what neuroinclusion is and why it matters. Remember too that many neurodivergent staff are undiagnosed or have not disclosed, so the case for inclusive design does not wait on a formal label.
Where the law comes from
Related
This page is general information, not clinical or legal advice.