Performance evaluation systems assess outputs, not style or behavioural conformance
NDI-hgbbzn-v1 NDR-1.0.0, NDR-1.1.0 Definition
The organisation's formal performance review and evaluation systems assess whether work accomplishes what is needed, done well — not how it is presented, communicated, or styled. Evaluation criteria do not primarily judge personality, communication manner, or subjective "fit." Examples of weak feedback that should be actively discouraged include: "be more proactive," "be more confident," and "improve your communication style." These describe manner rather than outcome, and provide no actionable direction. Neurodivergent communication and working styles should not be penalised merely for differing from a neurotypical default. This indicator is the parent of a cluster addressing specific aspects of evaluation quality: NDI-fumd3q (structured, evidence-based evaluations), NDI-g4e5z4 (structural bias checks), and NDI-v3a4ss (multi-rater review design).
Domains
- Performance Evaluation
NDT-wcjtfz
Evidence Criteria
This indicator can be assessed at up to three evidence layers. Not all layers apply to every indicator.
Inferred Observable from public sources
Look for job descriptions and review content that emphasize behavioral expectations (e.g., "collaborative communication style," "high energy," "strong presence") over outcome-based requirements. Employee reviews referencing unfair treatment related to communication style or personality rather than work quality are relevant signals. Availability of publicly-stated performance frameworks is a positive signal.
Declared Publicly stated by the organization
The organization publicly states that performance evaluation criteria are documented and outcome-based. Published performance management frameworks, rubrics, or public descriptions of review processes that specify observable output criteria rather than stylistic conformance satisfy this criterion.
Validated Independently verified
The organization submits its performance management documentation to an accredited verifier who confirms that: (1) evaluation criteria are written, (2) criteria reference observable work outputs, and (3) criteria do not include subjective style-based dimensions without objective anchors.
Citations
Supporting
- Austin, R. D., & Pisano, G. P. (2017). Neurodiversity as a competitive advantage. Harvard Business Review, 95(3), 96–103.
- Doyle, N. (2020). Neurodiversity at work: A biopsychosocial model and the impact on working adults. British Medical Bulletin, 135(1), 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldaa021
Cite this indicator
When referencing this indicator in research or reporting:
"Performance evaluation systems assess outputs, not style or behavioural conformance" (NDI-hgbbzn-v1). Neurodivergent Enablement Indicators. atypical.business. https://atypical.business/nei/indicators/NDI-hgbbzn/