Indicators

An indicator describes something an organization has, does, or makes observable. Each one is a sign that a specific workplace practice is in place — or a sign that it isn’t.

NEI currently includes 26 indicators in two categories:

Standard — 13 indicators with stable, peer-reviewed criteria, suitable for formal evaluation and citation.
Under review — 13 candidate indicators with working criteria, open for community feedback. Not for formal evaluation.

Indicators are grouped by topic below. For technical specifications — indicator IDs, evidence criteria, assessment methodology — see the Indicator Reference.

Performance and evaluation

Are employees assessed on what they produce — or on how they present themselves?

Performance evaluation is one of the highest-stakes processes for neurodivergent employees. Style-based assessment, inconsistent criteria, and subjective peer review can all systematically disadvantage employees whose work quality is excellent but whose presentation is different.

Evaluation focuses on output, not style or behavioural conformance

NDI-hgbbzn — Standard

The organization’s performance review system assesses whether work accomplishes what is needed, done well — not how it is presented, communicated, or styled. Criteria like “communication style,” “interpersonal presence,” and “culture fit” are either absent from formal evaluations or defined with specific, observable anchors rather than left to evaluator interpretation.

For many neurodivergent employees, style-based assessment is the single biggest obstacle to fair recognition. Clear, output-focused criteria level the playing field.

Evaluations use structured, documented criteria and provide actionable feedback

NDI-fumd3q — Standard Promoted

The organization’s performance evaluation system uses documented criteria that employees can see before their review. Rating levels have defined standards, assessors must provide concrete examples, and ratings are reviewed for consistency across evaluators.

Subjective evaluations are particularly susceptible to bias against employees whose communication style or social behaviour differs from the evaluator’s unstated expectations. Structured criteria protect against this.

Peer and multi-rater review is structured and anchored to observable outputs

NDI-v3a4ss — Under review

Where the organization uses 360-degree or multi-rater review processes, the criteria evaluated are anchored to observable behaviours and work outputs — not stylistic, relational, or subjective qualities. Unstructured peer input that primarily captures “how someone comes across” is limited or avoided.

360-degree reviews conducted on unstructured criteria amplify bias against employees who communicate or present differently. When peers rate primarily on style, neurodivergent employees are systematically disadvantaged.

Evaluation processes include structural checks to reduce evaluator bias

NDI-g4e5z4 — Under review

The organization uses structural safeguards to reduce evaluator bias: calibration sessions, rubrics with observable anchors, documented rationale requirements. These safeguards are applied systematically — not left as optional practices.

Neurodivergent employees are disproportionately affected when evaluations rely on evaluator intuition. Structural safeguards provide a consistent floor of objectivity.

HR assessment tools are validated before use in consequential decisions

NDI-vfm7gb — Under review

When the organization uses assessments, indicators, or benchmarks related to people and performance, those tools have documented methodological validity — defined measurement procedures, reliable operationalization, and awareness of limitations. Unvalidated personality frameworks and culture-fit scores are not used in consequential hiring or evaluation contexts.

Organizations that use poorly grounded assessments create evaluation environments where the measurement tool itself is a source of bias — particularly for neurodivergent employees who may not perform well on tools designed around neurotypical norms.

Administrative processes and internal tasks

Can employees complete routine internal tasks without navigating hidden complexity?

Administrative burden — forms, approvals, expense reporting, compliance tasks — falls disproportionately on neurodivergent employees when processes are complex, underdocumented, or poorly designed. The burden is often invisible to designers who interact with these systems daily, but significant to those who encounter them irregularly.

Administrative complexity is borne by specialist functions, not front-line employees

NDI-2cdbgj — Standard Revised

Where an administrative process concerns information that is core to a specialist function — finance, HR, compliance, or procurement — the complexity of managing that information should sit primarily with that function. Software and process designs that optimize for specialist users while burdening the larger population of general employees represent a known, avoidable source of administrative load.

When expense reimbursement requires detailed categorization and multi-stage approval, it optimizes for finance — not for the employee submitting. That design is a choice, and it has a cost.

Expense reimbursement is optimised for the employee submitting, not for the finance function

NDI-ypwtie — Under review

Expense reimbursement processes are designed to minimize burden on the employee submitting — not to minimize effort for the finance team reviewing. Per-diem options, simplified submission workflows, and reduced receipt and categorization requirements are preferred where the value of the claim doesn’t justify detailed compliance overhead.

Receipt tracking and complex categorization impose disproportionate demands on working memory and executive function. Simpler processes reduce errors and anxiety for everyone.

Approval and documentation burdens are matched to the risk involved

NDI-mubms7 — Under review

The organization applies documentation and approval burdens in proportion to the actual risk and value of the action being taken. Low-stakes purchases or routine actions do not require the same compliance overhead as high-impact decisions. Blanket high-compliance requirements regardless of risk are treated as a design problem, not a safety feature.

Uniform high-compliance requirements penalize employees who struggle to sustain multi-step routines, while adding little organizational value for low-risk activities.

Deadline-driven processes include reminders and avoid hard failure states

NDI-g4gu4o — Under review

When administrative deadlines matter — benefits enrolment, compliance training, performance submissions — employees receive proactive reminders before expiry. Where possible, brief extension pathways exist for employees who miss a deadline through oversight rather than negligence.

Time-blindness and difficulty with prospective memory are common for many neurodivergent employees. Built-in reminders and grace mechanisms work for everyone without requiring anyone to ask for them.

Roles, authority, and how work arrives

Do employees know what they’re responsible for — and can work arrive without bypassing defined channels?

Unclear role boundaries, informal authority structures, and unpredictable work intake create conditions that are especially difficult for neurodivergent employees who depend on explicit structure to work effectively. The indicators in this cluster address different aspects of organizational clarity: what people are responsible for, who actually decides things, and how work legitimately enters someone’s workload.

Role responsibilities and boundaries are clearly and explicitly defined

NDI-nl3yam — Standard Revised

The organization maintains clear, written definitions of roles, responsibilities, and decision boundaries. Every employee can find out — from documentation — what they are accountable for, who they report to, and what decisions they are authorized to make. They do not have to infer their scope from conversations or office politics.

Unclear role boundaries create a constant source of anxiety and conflict. For neurodivergent employees who depend on explicit structure, written clarity is not a convenience — it is a prerequisite.

Defined work intake pathways exist and are consistently respected

NDI-iuc2r5 — Standard Promoted

There are documented pathways for how work is assigned, requested, and initiated. These pathways are respected at all levels — including by senior employees. Ad-hoc, relationship-driven requests that bypass the standard process are recognized as exceptions, not the norm.

Unstructured work intake creates unpredictable demand on attention and prioritization. Employees who depend on explicit task structures are most affected when requests arrive through unexpected channels.

Priorities are set through a defined process and communicated explicitly

NDI-ow2t74 — Standard Promoted

There are documented definitions of who holds authority to set, change, and arbitrate competing priorities at each level. When conflicting priorities arise, the resolution pathway — including who decides — is known without requiring informal navigation.

Priority conflicts that must be resolved through political positioning create high cognitive and emotional load. Employees who cannot read implicit signals to navigate these disputes are left with either paralysis or the risk of getting it wrong.

Decision authority is explicit where formal power and informal influence diverge

NDI-su335j — Standard Promoted

In areas where long-tenured individuals or high-visibility roles exercise informal influence, the organization still names the formal decision-maker explicitly. Employees do not have to infer who actually has authority through political reading of the room.

Organizations where informal power routinely overrides formal authority reward political skill and relationship capital — and systematically disadvantage employees who rely on explicit structures.

Work is not redirected by individuals without authority to do so

NDI-x77aga — Under review

The organization maintains clear definitions of role scope and inter-team boundaries that reduce unsolicited interventions — situations where individuals from outside a role’s defined scope direct, redirect, or interrupt work without authority. Escalation happens through defined channels.

Unexpected interruptions from outside defined structures are particularly disorienting for employees with ADHD and autism. Predictable role boundaries protect the conditions for sustained, focused work.

Overlapping responsibilities are actively governed and resolved

NDI-sxflss — Under review

Where two teams or functions share responsibility for an outcome, the organization explicitly defines who decides what at the overlap. Silently tolerated ambiguity — where everyone assumes someone else is accountable — is treated as an organizational problem to fix, not a permanent condition to manage around.

Ambiguous ownership disproportionately disadvantages employees who rely on explicit permission structures rather than navigating boundary disputes through informal negotiation.

Predictability and managing change

Are changes communicated clearly — and in advance?

Unexpected changes to stable routines impose significant adjustment costs on neurodivergent employees. Predictability — knowing what is coming, when it is coming, and who is responsible for communicating it — is not a preference for this population. It is a functional precondition for effective work.

Manager transitions are treated as significant environmental changes

NDI-eohpdo — Standard Revised

The organization recognizes that a change in direct manager is a substantial disruption to the working environment — equivalent in impact to a significant structural change. There is a documented handoff process, time for the employee and new manager to establish working norms, and an explicit adjustment period.

The manager relationship governs how work is assigned, how support is provided, and how performance is discussed. For neurodivergent employees who have adapted to a specific management style, an unmanaged manager change can be as disorienting as a full team restructure.

Material changes are communicated with advance notice and planning rhythms are stable

NDI-mmp2kt — Standard Promoted

When something material about an employee’s working context is about to change — role scope, reporting structure, location, significant process changes — the organization provides enough advance notice for meaningful preparation. Notice comes through defined channels, not as an informal aside. Planning cadences are documented and held to consistently.

Unexpected changes to stable routines impose significant adjustment costs on neurodivergent employees. Advance notice converts a potentially destabilizing event into a planned transition.

Physical environment and workspace

Is the physical environment designed to support concentration — and are employees’ workspaces stable?

Sensory conditions affect all employees, but their impact on neurodivergent employees is often larger and more immediate. Noise, unpredictable workspaces, and uncontrollable alert streams are not minor irritants for autistic employees or employees with ADHD — they are significant and ongoing impairments to focused work.

Workplace noise and sensory conditions are actively managed

NDI-ztoto2 — Standard Revised

The organization takes deliberate steps to manage auditory and sensory input in work environments. This might include quiet zones, acoustic treatment, policies for shared spaces, remote flexibility for focus work, or other structural measures. Employees are not expected to manage their noise exposure independently through individual accommodation requests.

Noise and sensory overload disproportionately affect autistic employees and those with ADHD. When noise is not managed organizationally, neurodivergent employees bear a cost that neurotypical colleagues may not notice.

A consistent primary workspace is available to employees who need one

NDI-w2b3yw — Standard Promoted

Employees who need a consistent, designated primary workspace to work effectively have access to one. Where fully fixed desks are not feasible, stable-enough arrangements allow employees to establish a functioning environment without daily setup overhead. Hot-desking is not treated as neutral by default.

Establishing a functional physical work environment — equipment positioning, sensory calibration, spatial orientation — is meaningful overhead for many neurodivergent employees. Hot-desking eliminates the stability that allows this to be done once and maintained.

Notification settings in workplace tools are user-configurable and supported

NDI-teuy7w — Under review

The organization’s standard tooling — communication platforms, collaboration software, monitoring systems — supports user configuration of notification settings, including audio alerts, visual notifications, frequency, and focus modes. Default settings do not force high-frequency audio interruption streams on all employees.

Unpredictable audio interruptions disrupt deep work states. Configurable notifications let employees manage their alert environment without needing organizational permission for each individual adjustment.

Workspace and location transitions are managed with advance notice

NDI-jluxp4 — Under review

When employees are required to change their desk, floor, building, or office location, they receive meaningful advance notice and time to establish the new space before productive work is expected. Involuntary, unannounced workspace moves are treated as process failures.

Physical workspace transitions disrupt sensory calibration, spatial memory, and environmental routines. Advance notice converts a destabilizing event into a planned transition with time to adapt.

Culture, hiring, and workplace fairness

What signals does the organization send — and does its conduct measure up to them?

The indicators in this cluster address how organizations signal their expectations and values, how they select people, and how they behave when things go wrong. Each has particular significance for neurodivergent employees who are evaluating whether an organization can be trusted to treat them fairly.

Culture messaging avoids narrow conformity signalling

NDI-g7i2ad — Under review

The organization’s careers pages, employer branding, leadership communications, and hiring materials do not prominently emphasize narrow behavioural conformity, intense social cohesion, or “culture fit” as a filter for belonging. They do not signal that behavioural uniformity is a prerequisite for success.

Prominent culture-fit messaging signals to neurodivergent applicants and employees that social conformity is valued over output — and is a detectable warning signal for those evaluating whether they would thrive in your organization.

Hiring practices do not systematically screen out candidates for behavioural differences

NDI-yatlql — Under review

Job descriptions, hiring processes, and employer branding do not systematically favour candidates who match a narrow behavioural or stylistic profile. Signals of bias toward sameness — homogeneous leadership, personality-heavy job descriptions, social-style screening — are monitored and addressed.

Implicit hiring bias toward behavioural conformance functions as a structural filter against neurodivergent candidates, even without any explicit discrimination.

Support and accommodations are accessible without requiring neurodivergent disclosure

NDI-rfdub6 — Standard

Coaching, mentoring, work-style support, and adjustments are available to any employee as standard — no diagnosis, no disclosure, no formal accommodation process required. Support is framed as universally valuable, not as a remediation pathway.

Many neurodivergent employees cannot or choose not to disclose. When support is gated behind disclosure, those employees go without. Universal access removes that barrier entirely.

Investigations and disciplinary processes demonstrate procedural fairness

NDI-fkbdsm — Standard Revised

When a complaint, grievance, or disciplinary matter is raised, there is a documented, consistent process. Affected employees are told what the process is, have a real opportunity to give their account, and receive a written outcome. The process is not abbreviated or applied differently based on who is involved.

Neurodivergent employees are at elevated risk of being misunderstood in conduct situations — where a communication difference may be read as hostility or defiance. A consistent, documented process protects everyone.

Observable signals from public data

These indicators are assessed from patterns in public employee reviews — Glassdoor, Blind, and similar platforms. They are inferred signals only: a statistically notable pattern in unsolicited public data. They cannot be assessed at the Declared or Validated evidence levels.

Recurring administrative burden complaints are visible in public employee reviews

NDI-qqcvqh — Under review (inferred evidence only)

Public reviews show a consistent pattern of employees describing heavy administrative burden, confusing internal processes, excessive documentation requirements, or difficulty navigating internal systems.

This pattern is a proxy signal for structural administrative complexity that disproportionately affects neurodivergent employees. It can be assessed without organizational cooperation.

For technical specifications including indicator IDs, evidence criteria, assessment methodology, and citation formats, see the Indicator Reference.