Acas: Most managers lack the knowledge to support neurodivergent staff

A major survey of UK line managers by Acas has found that the majority lack sufficient knowledge to support neurodivergent employees, with implications for both workplace culture and legal compliance.

The poll of 1,650 line managers found that 59% did not have enough knowledge about how to make a reasonable adjustment for a neurodivergent employee. A further 39% said they found the conversation about adjustments difficult to have at all. Only 3% reported no barriers to making reasonable adjustments.

A separate YouGov poll of 1,000 UK employees, also commissioned by Acas, confirmed the problem from the other direction: 35% said their employer was ineffective at training managers to support neurodivergent staff, with 18% describing their employer as 'very ineffective'. Almost a third said they did not know how effective their employer was.

The disclosure problem

The most commonly cited barrier in the Acas manager survey was not cost, complexity or process. It was non-disclosure. Nearly three quarters of line managers (72%) identified neurodivergent employees not disclosing their need for a reasonable adjustment as a barrier to providing one.

Non-disclosure is not the same as an absence of need. Julie Dennis, Acas head of inclusive workplace strategy and policy, noted that employees may choose not to disclose, or may mask, due to concerns about a negative reaction at work.

'These stats show a potentially worrying lack of knowledge when it comes to supporting neurodivergent colleagues, and how to put support at the centre of workplace policies and training,' she said. 'Supporting neurodivergent staff can be simple and cost-effective, and it should be integral to any business.'

If the workplace culture is one in which managers find these conversations difficult, or in which neurodiversity awareness is low, non-disclosure is a rational response by employees who have calculated that disclosure carries more risk than benefit. The legal consequence of that calculation falls on the employer.

Under the Equality Act 2010, the duty to make reasonable adjustments is triggered by what the employer knew or ought reasonably to have known about an employee's disability, rather than by formal disclosure. An organisation in which managers lack the knowledge or confidence to recognise neurodivergent traits, or to invite conversations about support, may find that its reliance on non-disclosure as a reason for inaction carries less legal weight than it assumes.

The training gap

The Acas findings do not sit in isolation. The City & Guilds Neurodiversity Index 2025, which surveyed over 1,300 employers and employees, found that only 35% of managers had received any neurodiversity training. This is up from 28% the previous year, but still leaving the majority without any. Senior leaders fared only marginally better at 43%.

The Index noted that neuroinclusive practices arrive too late when they are only triggered by performance management conversations rather than embedded earlier in the employment lifecycle. That observation maps directly onto the Acas data. A manager who lacks basic neurodiversity awareness and finds adjustment conversations difficult is unlikely to act proactively. They are more likely to respond to visible symptoms — deteriorating performance, changed behaviour, increased absence — with processes that carry legal risk if the underlying cause is disability-related.

Brightmine research from November last year adds further context. Despite more than seven in 10 organisations reporting a rise in requests for neurodiversity support, just 5% have a standalone neurodiversity policy, with a further 42% planning to introduce one. The barriers Brightmine identified echo the Acas findings. Primarily, insufficient time or resource, limited budget and low awareness.

What the barriers data reveals

The full Acas breakdown is instructive. Cost was cited as a barrier by only 19% of respondents. Time was cited by 25%. Non-disclosure, lack of knowledge and difficulty initiating the conversation are cultural and educational, rather than financial.

That reframes where employer liability sits. An organisation that has not invested in neurodiversity training cannot credibly argue that resource constraints prevented it from meeting its legal obligations when the data shows those constraints were not the primary barrier. The primary barrier was knowledge. Knowledge is addressable.

What HR professionals should do

The practical starting point is an audit of what line managers currently know and what support structures exist. That means reviewing neurodiversity training provision. Not just whether it exists, but whether it is mandatory, up to date and evaluated for effectiveness. The City & Guilds data found that only 5% of neurodivergent respondents identified specific tools or software as the primary factor in enabling them to thrive. Most of what helps is behavioural and cultural, which means training quality matters more than budget.

Adjustment request processes deserve equal scrutiny. HR teams should assess whether the process for requesting an adjustment is clearly signposted, whether it is accessible to someone who may not identify as disabled, and whether managers know what to do when a request is made informally or indirectly. Many adjustments are never formally requested. They emerge in conversation or are implied by circumstances. Processes that only capture formal requests will miss a significant proportion of need.

Senior leadership visibility is the third lever. Internal communications, role modelling from senior leaders and active staff networks all signal that disclosure is safe — directly addressing the non-disclosure barrier that dominates the Acas data. An organisation with a visible and credible position on neurodiversity creates a different legal context from one that relies on employees to navigate the disclosure process alone.

The stakes are significant. The number of employment tribunal cases linked to neurodivergent conditions has nearly doubled since 2020. The Acas poll found that 45% of line managers cited a lack of organisational knowledge about neurodiversity as a barrier. Organisational knowledge is an HR responsibility. So, increasingly, is the legal exposure that follows when it is absent.

Subscribe for free to receive practical guidance on neurodiversity at work, delivered to your inbox