Short answer
Different communication styles at work can affect how people process information, respond to questions, express ideas and participate in conversations. Some people think aloud, while others need time to reflect before responding. Inclusive workplaces recognise these differences and provide multiple ways for employees to communicate, contribute and demonstrate their abilities.
Think about the last meeting you attended.
Who spoke the most? Who responded quickest? Who confidently jumped in with an opinion before anyone else had finished explaining the problem?
And who stayed quiet?
Now, here's a question worth asking.
Did the people who spoke most actually have the best ideas? Or were they simply the most comfortable thinking out loud?
We tend to have a fairly narrow understanding of what good communication looks like at work.
We value people who can think on their feet, confidently articulate an opinion, make eye contact, contribute spontaneously in meetings and respond quickly to unexpected questions.
We call them confident, engaged, articulate and leadership material.
Meanwhile, someone who pauses before answering, struggles to organise their thoughts verbally, looks away while listening or prefers to put their ideas in writing might be seen as hesitant, disengaged or lacking confidence.
But what if neither assessment is particularly accurate?
What if we're confusing someone's communication style with their actual ability?
This matters for everyone, but particularly for neurodivergent employees whose ways of processing, organising and communicating information may differ from what workplaces have come to expect.
And it raises an important question for employers.
Are we assessing the quality of people's contributions, or how comfortably they fit our preferred communication style?
Why do people process information at different speeds?
Let's make this practical.
Imagine you're in a meeting and someone presents a complicated new proposal.
They finish explaining it and immediately ask:
"So, what does everyone think?"
A few people respond almost instantly. They're talking through ideas, asking questions and offering opinions.
Another person says nothing.
It's tempting to assume that the quiet person has nothing to contribute.
But there's a lot we can't see.
They might be considering the implications, connecting the proposal to previous decisions, identifying potential problems or trying to work out which of several thoughts to share first.
They may need more time to organise those thoughts into a response that makes sense.
Thinking quickly and thinking deeply aren't the same thing
People process information differently, and that can influence how quickly they're able to respond.
Some people process ideas through conversation. Speaking helps them discover what they think.
Others prefer to process internally. They want to understand the information, consider the options and organise their thoughts before communicating a conclusion.
Some find visual information easier to process. Others prefer written instructions, verbal explanations or a combination.
For some neurodivergent people, understanding a question, filtering surrounding information, retrieving relevant details and translating thoughts into speech can take additional time, particularly under pressure.
This doesn't mean every neurodivergent person processes slowly. Far from it.
Some respond extremely quickly. Some think rapidly but need longer to articulate their thoughts. Others find spoken communication easy but written communication more demanding, or vice versa.
The point isn't that neurodivergent people need more time. It's that different people need different things to communicate effectively.
And when a workplace treats immediate verbal responses as the default, it can unintentionally disadvantage people who process differently.
A pause isn't a lack of understanding
Here's the bit managers often get stuck on.
Silence can feel uncomfortable.
When someone doesn't answer immediately, there's often an instinct to fill the gap, rephrase the question, move on or ask somebody else.
But doing that may interrupt the very thinking we're trying to encourage.
Sometimes, the most useful thing a manager can do after asking a question is simply give someone time to answer.
You can also say:
"There's no need to answer immediately. Have a think and come back to me."
Or:
"I'll send the details over so you can look through them before we discuss it."
These are small changes. They don't require a complicated workplace policy.
They just require us to stop assuming that everyone does their best thinking at the same speed, in the same environment or in the same format.
Are job interviews really measuring someone's ability to do the job?
Let's talk about interviews.
Because this is where some of our assumptions about communication become particularly obvious.
A candidate walks into the room.
They make eye contact, smile, exchange some small talk, respond confidently to questions and build an easy rapport with the interview panel.
We describe them as a strong communicator.
Another candidate doesn't maintain much eye contact. They pause before answering, ask for a question to be repeated and struggle to find the right words under pressure.
We might describe them as awkward, lacking confidence or not quite the right cultural fit.
But here's the problem.
Unless those behaviours are genuinely relevant to the job, what exactly have we assessed?
Eye contact isn't a measure of competence
Eye contact is one of those unwritten social expectations that can carry surprising weight.
We're often taught that good eye contact demonstrates honesty, confidence, interest and respect.
But those interpretations aren't universal.
For some autistic people, eye contact can be uncomfortable, distracting or require conscious effort. Looking away may actually help them concentrate on what's being said.
Other people may find eye contact easy, or actively use it as part of their communication.
We also need to recognise that eye contact expectations vary across cultures and individuals.
So, when an interviewer marks someone down because they don't make enough eye contact, there's a risk they're measuring conformity to a social convention rather than a skill that's relevant to the role.
The same applies to small talk, body language, tone of voice and the ability to deliver polished answers on demand.
The CIPD's Neuroinclusion at work guidance specifically warns employers against allowing unconventional body language or apparent social differences to unfairly influence recruitment decisions.
What are we actually recruiting for?
Consider someone applying for a data analyst role.
They need to interpret information accurately, identify patterns, solve problems and communicate findings clearly.
But the interview is built around spontaneous verbal questions, confident storytelling and demonstrating an immediate rapport with the panel.
A candidate who is excellent at analysing complex information but needs extra time to formulate verbal responses could perform poorly.
Meanwhile, someone who interviews brilliantly might be less effective at the actual job.
That doesn't mean interviews are useless, or that communication skills don't matter.
They absolutely can.
But employers should be specific about which communication skills the job genuinely requires.
A customer-facing role might involve responding to unexpected questions. A leadership role might require communicating difficult decisions. A technical role might require explaining complex information clearly.
Those skills can still be assessed.
The question is whether we're assessing them fairly, rather than relying on vague impressions of confidence, charisma or social ease.
How can employers make interviews more inclusive?
Practical changes include providing interview questions or themes in advance where appropriate, explaining the interview format, allowing thinking time and considering practical assessments that reflect the actual work.
Rather than asking whether somebody is a "good communicator", ask what effective communication looks like in that particular role.
And remember: giving someone the opportunity to prepare doesn't give them an unfair advantage. It may give them a fairer opportunity to demonstrate what they know.
Acas recommends giving applicants questions in advance where possible, avoiding assumptions based on body language and considering alternatives such as practical assessments.
Are meetings designed for everyone to contribute?
Now let's look at meetings.
Because many workplaces have created an interesting situation.
We bring several people into a room, introduce information they may never have seen before and expect them to understand it, evaluate it, formulate an opinion and articulate a coherent response.
Immediately.
Often while other people are talking.
And sometimes while they're also expected to take notes, monitor the conversation and work out when it's socially acceptable to interrupt.
That's quite a lot to ask.
Yet we frequently use someone's participation in that environment as evidence of their engagement, confidence and contribution.
Being put on the spot doesn't bring out everyone's best thinking
Imagine a team meeting where a manager introduces a new process.
Nobody has received the proposal beforehand.
The manager talks through it for ten minutes and then says:
"Right, let's go around the room. What does everyone think?"
Some employees will be perfectly comfortable with this.
Others will still be working through what they've heard.
Someone might have three competing thoughts but struggle to organise them into one cohesive explanation.
Someone else might have spotted a potential risk but need to revisit the details before they can explain it properly.
Another person might find it easier to make their point in writing, where they can structure their reasoning without having to simultaneously manage the demands of a group conversation.
None of these people necessarily lack an opinion.
They may simply need a different way to express it.
If the only way to contribute is to produce an immediate, coherent verbal response, we aren't creating equal opportunities to participate.
We're creating opportunities for the people who are best at that particular type of communication.
Why sending an agenda isn't always enough
It's often suggested that sending an agenda in advance makes meetings more inclusive.
It's a good start.
But an agenda that says "Project update", "New process" and "Any other business" doesn't necessarily give people enough information to prepare.
If you want meaningful contributions, consider sharing the actual questions, proposals and decisions beforehand.
For example:
"We're considering changing how customer enquiries are allocated. Here are the two options, the main constraints and the questions we'd like feedback on."
Now people have something concrete to think about.
They can read, reflect, research, discuss and prepare.
And when the meeting happens, you're far more likely to hear considered contributions rather than simply the quickest responses.
Why should people have to contribute verbally?
This is perhaps the assumption worth challenging most.
Why is the spoken contribution so often treated as the most valuable one?
An employee might have a detailed, well-reasoned response that they can communicate brilliantly in writing.
Another might find it easier to show their thinking using a diagram, example, annotated document or a few bullet points.
Someone else might prefer a one-to-one discussion because they find it difficult to track a busy group conversation.
Yet we often still expect everyone to contribute through the same live verbal format.
And then we wonder why some people don't participate.
A genuinely inclusive meeting might include opportunities to:
Share thoughts before the meeting through a document or message.
Contribute verbally during the discussion.
Use the chat function or a shared collaborative document.
Submit written ideas or questions afterwards.
Have a follow-up conversation when an issue needs more exploration.
This doesn't mean every decision has to wait indefinitely for everyone to respond.
Managers can set clear deadlines, explain when input is needed and distinguish between decisions that need an immediate response and those that would benefit from reflection.
Inclusive communication isn't about removing expectations. It's about removing unnecessary barriers to meeting them.
Different communication styles aren't necessarily communication problems
There's another important distinction.
Different doesn't automatically mean difficult.
Someone who communicates directly isn't necessarily rude.
Someone who asks several clarifying questions isn't necessarily challenging authority.
Someone who provides a lot of detail isn't necessarily being deliberately long-winded.
Someone who doesn't speak in meetings isn't necessarily uninterested.
And someone who needs instructions in writing isn't necessarily failing to listen.
These behaviours can have many explanations, and we shouldn't automatically attribute them to neurodivergence.
But they can become problems when managers interpret them through a very narrow set of expectations.
When communication preferences get mistaken for attitude
Imagine a manager asks an employee to complete a task.
The employee asks several questions:
"What does the finished version need to include?"
"Which deadline takes priority?"
"Who is making the final decision?"
The manager might interpret this as pushback or a lack of initiative.
But the employee may simply be trying to remove ambiguity so they can complete the task correctly.
Or consider someone who gives very direct feedback.
Their intention might be to identify a problem and resolve it efficiently. But the recipient may interpret their wording as abrupt.
Neither person's experience should be dismissed.
Good management involves understanding the impact of communication while also being curious about the intention behind it.
That means talking openly about what works, rather than expecting people to guess. For more on approaching these discussions, read our guide to having honest conversations about neurodiversity at work
A better question is:
"How can we make sure we're understanding each other clearly?"
Not:
"Why can't you just communicate normally?"
Does inclusive communication mean lowering workplace standards?
No.
And it's important that we don't confuse inclusive communication with avoiding difficult conversations or removing essential job requirements.
Employees still need to communicate important information, meet agreed deadlines, collaborate with colleagues and fulfil the requirements of their roles.
Managers still need to address missed work, unclear communication or behaviours that affect other people.
But there is often more than one effective way to achieve the same outcome.
For example, if a project manager needs accurate updates by Friday, does every employee need to deliver those updates verbally in a Friday morning meeting?
Or could some provide a written update beforehand?
If an employee needs to demonstrate their understanding of a process, do they have to explain it immediately in front of a group?
Or could they demonstrate the same understanding through a practical example, written explanation or scheduled discussion?
And if someone is expected to contribute ideas to a project, does that contribution have to happen during the initial meeting?
Or could they provide their feedback after reviewing the information?
The standard remains the same: accurate information, effective collaboration, timely decisions and quality work.
What's changed is the route people can take to get there.
That's the difference between reducing standards and reducing unnecessary barriers.
What should managers do to support different communication styles?
Let's make this manageable.
You don't need to completely redesign every meeting, recruitment process or communication policy tomorrow.
Start by looking at the assumptions built into the way your organisation already works.
1. Share information before asking for opinions.
Give people enough context to prepare. Include the questions you want answered, not just the meeting title.
2. Build processing time into conversations.
Don't treat a pause as something that needs rescuing. Allow reflection when an immediate decision isn't essential.
3. Offer more than one way to contribute.
Use spoken discussion, written input, shared documents and follow-up conversations where appropriate.
4. Reconsider what you're rewarding in interviews and meetings.
Focus on relevant skills, useful ideas and actual outcomes rather than eye contact, quick responses or confident presentation.
5. Ask people what helps them communicate effectively.
Make it a normal conversation for everyone, rather than something that only happens when a neurodivergent employee discloses a diagnosis.
What about reasonable adjustments?
In the UK, the Equality Act 2010 requires employers to make reasonable adjustments where a disabled person would otherwise be placed at a substantial disadvantage.
Depending on the individual and circumstances, adjustments could include additional processing time, different communication formats, clearer written instructions or changes to interview arrangements.
Not every neurodivergent person is legally disabled, and not everyone needs the same adjustments. The best approach is to consider individual barriers rather than making assumptions based on a diagnosis.
But employers don't need to wait for a legal obligation before making communication practices more accessible.
Sharing information clearly, allowing reflection and offering meaningful ways to contribute are good management practices for everyone.
How NeuroConfetti can help
Most managers aren't deliberately excluding people.
They're using the communication practices they've experienced throughout their own careers, often without ever being encouraged to question them.
But if we want neuroinclusive workplaces, managers need to recognise how different communication and processing styles show up in everyday situations.
And more importantly, they need to know what to do differently.
That's where NeuroConfetti comes in.
Our NeuroInclusion Unlocked manager training focuses on building practical confidence around communication, conversations, reasonable adjustments, performance and everyday workplace support.
Because neuroinclusion doesn't need to mean complicated processes or abandoning business expectations.
Sometimes it starts with sending the information before the meeting, allowing someone an extra moment to think, or recognising that a written contribution is just as valuable as a spoken one.
Different communication styles at work shouldn't determine whose ideas are heard, whose potential is recognised or who gets to succeed.
The goal isn't to make everyone communicate in the same way.
It's to create workplaces where different people can communicate effectively, contribute meaningfully and be judged on what they actually bring to the business.
And that feels like a much more useful definition of good communication.
FAQs
Why do some neurodivergent employees need longer to respond to questions?
Some neurodivergent employees may need additional time to process information, organise thoughts or translate their ideas into spoken words. Others may respond very quickly. Processing differences vary between individuals, so managers should avoid making assumptions and ask what communication approaches work best.
Is eye contact important in job interviews?
Eye contact shouldn't be used as a general measure of honesty, competence or engagement. Some people find eye contact uncomfortable or distracting. Interviewers should focus on skills and behaviours genuinely relevant to the role, rather than judging candidates against social expectations.
How can managers make meetings more neuroinclusive?
Managers can share meaningful information beforehand, explain what decisions are needed, allow thinking time and offer different ways to contribute. Written feedback, shared documents and follow-up discussions can be just as useful as verbal contributions during meetings.
Should employees be allowed to give written feedback instead of speaking in meetings?
Where the work allows it, yes. Written feedback can give employees time to organise their thoughts and provide more considered contributions. Managers should agree clear expectations and deadlines so different communication methods still support effective decision-making.
Does needing more processing time mean someone lacks confidence or ability?
No. The time someone needs to respond isn't a reliable measure of their intelligence, knowledge or capability. An employee may understand something thoroughly but prefer time to formulate a clear response.
Are different communication methods reasonable adjustments?
They can be. Depending on the employee's circumstances, changes such as written instructions, additional processing time or alternative meeting arrangements may be reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. Employers should consider individual needs and barriers rather than assuming that everyone requires the same support.