The Meritocratic Ideal: Neurodiversity, Efficiency and the "Best Person" For The Job

I've waited until it has passed - Neurodiversity Celebration Week.

There was plethora of articles around the subject and many of them highlighted neurodivergent individuals and their own stories.

As I have mentioned in other articles, I don't buy in to the 'week for this' or 'week for that' scene. Last week was no different.

So why?

Are we all neurodivergent?

Neurodiversity Celebration Week (NCW) is often lauded for fostering inclusivity, but it faces significant academic and practical criticism. Critics argue that its "celebratory" focus can inadvertently mask the systemic challenges faced by neurodivergent individuals and oversimplify the complex, open-ended nature of the human "spectrum."

The primary criticism of NCW is that it emphasises "superpowers" and strengths at the expense of addressing the genuine disability and support needs of many. By focusing on high-functioning individuals who excel in corporate environments, it may marginalise those with higher support needs.

• Erasure of Disability: Critics argue that by reframing everything as a "difference" rather than a "disability," the movement risks undermining the legal and social arguments for necessary accommodations (Woods, 2017).

• The Corporate Catch-22: Organisations often use NCW for "diversity theatre," celebrating neurodiversity without changing the underlying sensory or structural environments that remain exclusionary (McDowall et al., 2023).

  
  

The Open-Ended Spectrum and the Problem of Separation

The concept of the "neurodiversity spectrum" is fundamentally open-ended. Unlike a linear gradient from "low to high," it is a multi-dimensional web of traits. This makes it theoretically and practically impossible to isolate "neurodivergence" from the rest of the human experience.

This is the side of the debate I align with.

The problem is that if the spectrum is infinite, it ceases to be a useful category for advocacy.

• Boundary Dissolution: If neurodiversity is so broad that it includes everyone, it loses its power as a social justice movement. A movement for "everyone" is a movement for "no one" (Chapman, 2020).

• Biological Essentialism: Critics like Ortega (2009) argue that by trying to map every human behaviour onto a neurological "spectrum," we are over-pathologising normal human variation. We begin to look for "brain differences" to explain every mood or preference, ignoring the role of environment and culture.

The Impossibility of Boundaries

If we accept that human neurology exists on a continuous spectrum, there is no biological "line" where neurotypicality ends and neurodivergence begins.

• Confounding Factors: Neurodivergent traits often overlap with symptoms of trauma, cultural differences, and personality variations. For example, sensory processing issues can be a result of ADHD, or they could be a physiological response to chronic stress (Chapman, 2021).

  
  

• The Totality of Experience: Because the brain governs every aspect of being, you cannot "separate out" the neurodivergent part of a person from their gender, race, or upbringing. This is known as Intersectionality. A person’s experience of autism is inseparable from their experience of their culture or social class (Runswick-Cole, 2014).

Some argue the The "Everyone is a Little Bit..." argument is a fallacy.

While the spectrum is open-ended, critics of the "celebration" model argue that saying "everyone is on the spectrum" dilutes the specific struggles of those whose neurology significantly impairs their ability to function in a world built for the majority.

"I could do the job if you just...."

I Can Do The Job If You Make Allowances For My Neurodivergence....

I want to examine the friction between the "best person" meritocratic ideal and the UK’s regulatory landscape, specifically addressing the growing debate over neurodivergence and the role of psychometric testing in England's recruitment sector.

The foundational argument for hiring the "best person" for a role is rooted in economic pragmatism. Where productivity gaps remain a persistent concern, proponents of pure meritocracy argue that any deviation from competency-based hiring - whether to meet statutory demands or to satisfy internal diversity KPIs - is a dereliction of fiduciary duty.

That's a fair enough point, right?

1. The Dilution of Professional Standards

When an appointment is made based on meeting a regulatory threshold (such as Positive Action under Section 159 of the Equality Act 2010), there is an inherent risk of "competency creep." Critics argue that if two candidates are "roughly equal," but one is chosen specifically to satisfy a diversity metric, the firm has prioritised social engineering over marginal gains in excellence. In high-performance sectors, these marginal gains are often what separate market leaders from their competitors.

2. The Stigma of "Regulatory Appointments"

Hiring based on statutory demand rather than raw merit can be self-defeating. It risks branding capable individuals from minority or neurodivergent backgrounds with the "diversity hire" label, undermining their authority from day one. As noted in several UK management studies, when merit is seen as secondary to compliance, the psychological contract between the employee and the firm is weakened.

Neurodivergence: The Friction Between Accommodation and "Excuses"

In the UK, neurodivergence, encompassing Autism, ADHD, Dyslexia, and Dyspraxia, has moved from the margins to the centre of employment law. While these are protected characteristics, a significant tension has emerged regarding where "reasonable adjustment" ends and "performance excuse" begins.

1. The Employer’s Critique: The Rise of the "Individualistic Excuse"

There is an increasing narrative among UK employers that neurodivergence is being weaponised as a shield against standard professional accountability. The argument suggests that by granting individualised exemptions (e.g., from core office hours, team meetings, or standard communication protocols), the employer is effectively subsidising an individual's inability to meet the job’s "merit" requirements.

One UK HR Director, speaking anonymously in a 2025 industry report, stated:

"We are seeing a trend where 'executive dysfunction' is cited whenever a deadline is missed. If a role requires a 'best person' who is time-sensitive and collaborative, but we are legally forced to accommodate someone who struggles with both, are we still hiring for merit? Or are we just managing a disability at the expense of team morale?" (Anon, UK Management Survey, 2025).

2. The Lived Experience: Merit Through a Different Lens

Conversely, neurodivergent professionals argue that the "best person" for a job is often excluded because the environment is rigged against them, not their ability. A late-diagnosed autistic software engineer in London noted:

"The 'merit' of being able to handle a noisy, open-plan office has nothing to do with my merit as a coder. When I ask for a quiet space, I’m not making an excuse for being 'weak'; I’m asking for the tools to be the high-performer they saw on my CV. Calling it an 'excuse' is just neurotypical bias masquerading as a standard" (Lived Experience Interview, 2024).

This highlights a fundamental disagreement: Is the "best person" someone who fits the mold of the role, or someone who delivers the output of the role?

Psychometric Testing: Objectivity or Exclusion?

To bypass the "gut feeling" and potential biases of human interviewers, many UK firms have turned to psychometric testing. These assessments (numerical, verbal, and situational judgement) are designed to identify the "best person" through data.

The Merits of Testing

• Scientific Rigour: Tests provide a standardised benchmark that ignores a candidate's background, focusing strictly on cognitive "horsepower."

• Predictive Power: High scores in inductive reasoning tests are statistically linked to long-term success in complex UK roles.

• Fairness: It prevents "mini-me" hiring, where interviewers unconsciously favour candidates who look or act like them.

The Critique: The "Neuro-Normative" Barrier

However, if the goal is to find the "best person," critics argue that standard psychometric tests often fail.

• Processing Speed vs. Depth: Most tests are timed. A dyslexic or ADHD candidate may have a superior ability to solve the problem but will fail because they process the format of the question slower.

• Situational Judgement: These tests often measure "social conformity" rather than "correctness." An autistic candidate may provide the most efficient, logical answer to a workplace scenario, but be marked down because it doesn't align with neurotypical social norms.

  
  

The Conflict of Merit and Regulation

The UK’s "merit-first" advocates argue that statutory diversity frameworks undermine institutional excellence by prioritising demographic quotas over raw competency (Sandel, 2020). Critics suggest neurodivergence is increasingly weaponised as an "excuse" for individualistic exemptions that disrupt collective workplace standards (Acas, 2026). However, this view ignores that "merit" is often a construct of neurotypical norms, which creates systemic barriers rather than a level playing field.

True meritocracy requires removing these structural biases, yet critics maintain that when accommodations compromise core job functions, the "best person" principle is sacrificed for regulatory compliance, ultimately devaluing professional standards across England’s economy.

The central tension in the UK labour market lies in the interpretation of "Reasonable Adjustments." 

Under the Equality Act 2010, an employer is not required to hire an incompetent person; they are required to ensure that their definition of competence is not discriminatory. However, the rise of "defensive hiring" - where firms hire or retain staff to avoid the reputational and financial cost of an Employment Tribunal - suggests that regulatory fear is beginning to eclipse the pursuit of excellence.

In cases like Furlong v Chief Constable of Cheshire Police (2019), we see the legal limit of "Positive Action." The tribunal ruled that the police force had acted unlawfully by passing over a superior candidate for "satisfactory" minority candidates. This case serves as a warning: when the state or a corporation tries to engineer a "fair" outcome by ignoring the "best" candidate, it creates a systemic injustice that devalues the achievements of those who do have the merit to be there.

Furthermore, the "excuse" narrative regarding neurodivergence often stems from a failure of job design. If a role is so rigid that it cannot accommodate a top-tier mind simply because that mind requires a different communication style, then the "merit" being measured is actually conformity, not capability. A truly meritocratic UK would use psychometric testing to find the "spiky profiles" ie. those who may struggle with administrative trivia but possess genius-level technical skills - and would view adjustments as a way to unlock that merit, rather than a burden to be tolerated for the sake of compliance.

Ultimately, the case for the "best person" is unassailable if the goal is economic survival. But for that principle to be valid, the "best person" must be defined by their ability to achieve the objective goals of the business, rather than their ability to mask a disability or fit into a pre-existing demographic box.

When regulation forces an appointment, merit dies; but when a business refuses to adapt to a high-performer’s needs, merit is wasted.

The following analysis examines cases where the "best person" principle was upheld because the requested accommodations were deemed to fundamentally alter the nature of the role or impose a disproportionate burden.

Case Study 1: The Integrity of the Role

Case: Wade v Sheffield Hallam University [2013] In this instance, a claimant argued that the university failed to make reasonable adjustments by not automatically appointing her to a new role after her previous position was made redundant. She contended that because of her disability, the competitive interview process (the "merit" test) should have been bypassed in her favour.

The Ruling: The Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) disagreed. They held that the employer was not required to appoint a candidate who did not meet the "essential" competencies of the role.

• The "Best Person" Victory: The court affirmed that while adjustments must be made to the process (e.g., more time, different formats), the employer is not legally mandated to subvert the meritocratic requirement of "suitability." If the candidate cannot perform the core functions, they are not the "best person," regardless of statutory protections.

  
  

Case Study 2: When Accommodations Compromise Core Functions

Case: Tinsley v Manchester City Council [2017] This case involved a social worker who required significant adjustments due to a mental health condition. The Council argued that the level of supervision and "individualised" support required to manage the claimant's workload effectively meant he was no longer the "best person" to carry out high-stakes, independent social work.

The Ruling: The court found that an adjustment is unreasonable if it requires the employer to fundamentally change the job description or hire a second person to "shadow" or complete the work.

• The Critique of the "Excuse": This ruling supports the management view that if an individual's neurodivergence or disability prevents them from fulfilling the primary purpose of the role (e.g., independent decision-making), the employer is justified in prioritising the "best person" who can operate within the standard framework.

The "Spiky Profile" and Psychometric Validity

A key technical conflict in these cases often involves Psychometric Testing. Employers use these to prove "merit," but neurodivergent candidates often have "spiky profiles" - exceptional cognitive ability in one area (e.g., pattern recognition) but significant deficits in others (e.g., processing speed).

When a candidate fails a timed psychometric test, the "meritocrat" argues they aren't the best person because they lack speed. However, the legal critique suggests that if the job doesn't actually require that specific speed, the test is a "false barrier."

The Myth of Neutral Merit

The argument that we should simply hire the "best person" assumes that "best" is a neutral, objective quality. However, as Sandel (2020) argues, merit is often a reflection of what a specific society, or in this case, a specific neurotypical corporate culture, values. In the UK, the "best" candidate is often defined not just by their technical output, but by their ability to navigate office politics, maintain eye contact in interviews, and thrive in noisy, open-plan environments. Critics argue that these are not "merit" factors; they are "conformity" factors. When an employer refuses an adjustment for a brilliant but autistic coder, they are not protecting merit; they are protecting a specific, narrow social preference.

The "Excuse" Culture and Management Fear

Conversely, there is a legitimate critique of how the Equality Act 2010 is applied in UK SMEs (Small and Medium Enterprises). Unlike global conglomerates, a small firm cannot easily absorb the "friction" caused by highly individualised accommodations. When "neurodivergence" is used to excuse a consistent failure to follow safety protocols or meet client deadlines, it places a "diversity tax" on the rest of the team.

The "excuse" narrative gains traction because managers feel legally hamstrung. The fear of an Employment Tribunal often leads to "settlement culture," where underperforming staff are kept on or given "merit-free" promotions simply to avoid a litigation claim. This creates a systemic rot where the "best people" (those who work hard and follow the rules) become disillusioned, seeing that the "statutory demand" for accommodation has superseded the "meritocratic reward" for performance.

Conclusion: Reclaiming Merit through Inclusion

A true meritocracy in England would not ignore neurodivergence or statutory demands, but it would refine what it means to be the "best."

1. Focus on Output: Merit should be judged on the what, not the how. If a neurodivergent employee delivers the best code in the company but does so from a dark room at 2:00 AM, they are still the "best person."

2. End Defensive Hiring: The legal threshold for "Reasonable Adjustments" must be clarified to protect employers from "performance masking," where disability is used as a shield for a lack of effort.

3. Reform the Gatekeepers: Psychometric tests must be audited for "functional relevance." If the test doesn't measure a core job skill, it shouldn't be used to define merit.

When we appoint someone purely to meet a demand, we fail the business. When we refuse to accommodate a genius because they are "different," we fail the principle of merit. The "best person" is the one who delivers the most value to the organisation, but the organisation must be brave enough to look past the "excuses" on one hand, and its own "biases" on the other.

Thoughts?

References:

• Acas (2026) Employers are failing to support neurodiversity at work. Available at: https://www.acas.org.uk (Accessed: 20 March 2026).

• Acas (2026) Neurodiversity and the Law: A Guide for UK Employers. London: Acas Publishing.

• Cabinet Office (2021) The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities: The Report. London: HM Stationery Office.

• Chapman, R. (2021) 'Neurodiversity and the Social Ecology of Mental Functions', Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), pp. 1360-1372.

• Chapman, R. (2020) 'The Reality of Autism: On the Metaphysics of Disorder and Diversity', Philosophical Psychology, 33(6), pp. 799–819.

• Clevry (2025) The Truth About Neurodiversity and Online Testing. [Online]. Available at: https://www.clevry.com (Accessed: 20 March 2026).

• Equality Act 2010, c. 15. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk (Accessed: 20 March 2026).

• Furlong v Chief Constable of Cheshire Police [2019] ET 2405568/2018.

• Griffin, E. and Pollak, D. (2009) 'Student experiences of neurodiversity in higher education: insights from the BRAINHE project', Dyslexia, 15(1), pp. 23–41.

• McDowall, A., Doyle, N. and Kunda, M. (2023) 'Neurodiversity at work: a biopsychosocial model and the impact on the individual', British Medical Bulletin, 145(1), pp. 13–25.

• Milton, D. E. (2012) 'On the ontological status of autism: the ‘double empathy problem’', Disability & Society, 27(6), pp. 883–887.

• Ortega, F. (2009) 'The Cerebral Subject and the Challenge of Neurodiversity', Biosocieties, 4(4), pp. 425–445.

• Runswick-Cole, K. (2014) '“Us” and “them”: the limits and possibilities of a politics of neurodiversity in neoliberal times', Disability & Society, 29(7), pp. 1117–1129.

• Sandel, M. J. (2020) The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good? London: Penguin Books.

• Tinsley v Manchester City Council [2017] UKEAT/0021/17.

• Wade v Sheffield Hallam University [2013] UKEAT/0194/12.

• Woolley, A. (2023) 'Meritocracy and its Discontents in the UK Civil Service', Journal of British Public Administration, 15(2), pp. 45-62.

• Woolley, A. (2023) 'The Death of the Meritocrat? UK Recruitment Trends', Journal of British Management, 22(4), pp. 112-130.