TL;DR: On 2 October 2026 the Government's Expert Academic Panel on Neurodiversity, set up by the Department for Work and Pensions and chaired by Professor Amanda Kirby, published its final report and recommendations. The Government published its response the same day, backing the panel's central call for support based on need rather than diagnosis. Some proposals will take legislation and time. Even so, most of what the panel asks of employers does not need to wait for Parliament. A manager can start on it this week.
What the panel is, and why it matters: The Department for Work and Pensions launched this independent expert panel in January 2025 to examine how to improve the inclusion of neurodivergent people in the workplace. It builds on the 2024 Buckland Review, which focused on autism, and widens the lens to ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, developmental language disorder, dyscalculia, tic disorders and acquired conditions such as brain injury. The panel brought together leading academics in occupational psychology, disability employment, autism and neuropsychology, and reviewed the evidence submitted to it. In other words, this is not another awareness campaign. It is the Government's own expert group that sets out what the evidence shows works.
Two audiences, two sets of recommendations: The report speaks to policymakers and to employers separately. For Government, the headline proposals include a two week deadline for employers to respond to adjustment requests, mandatory disability employment and pay gap reporting, longer time limits for disability tribunal claims, more resource for Access to Work and reform of the Disability Confident scheme. Some of this is already moving. Under the Employment Rights Act, the time limit for tribunal claims rises from three months to six from October 2026. The Government has also committed to mandatory disability pay gap reporting for employers with 250 or more staff, and Access to Work is getting extra staff to tackle its backlog. The two week deadline, however, has not been agreed. The recommendations for employers, by contrast, are things any organisation can choose to do now. That is where managers should focus.
Finding one, managers lack confidence, but they do not need to be experts: The panel is blunt. It found that "line managers lack confidence and competence in managing neurodivergent people", and that there are no nationally recognised standards for training them. At the same time, it is equally clear that "managers do not need to be experts in different conditions". That second point matters. Many of the managers I work with hold back from a conversation because they worry they do not know enough about ADHD, autism or dyslexia to get it right. The report says the relationship matters more than the expertise. It found that both whether people stay, and how satisfied they are with their careers, are driven by psychological safety. Put simply, a manager who listens well and follows through will often do more good than one who has read every guide.
Finding two, start with needs, not labels: The panel recommends a needs-led approach: working out what gets in the way for this person, in this role, in this environment. Diagnosis does not predict what someone needs at work, and many adults cannot get a publicly funded assessment for conditions such as dyslexia or dyspraxia anyway. Instead of starting with the label, the report points managers towards four areas where challenges most often show up:
- Communication: speaking, understanding, and written formats.
- Planning and self-organising: including short-term memory and processing.
- Movement and coordination, including balance.
- Sensory processing: sound, light, touch and the rest of the sensory environment.
Mood, emotional regulation and fatigue sit just behind these. Therefore, a better first question than "What is your diagnosis?" is "Which parts of the work are harder than they need to be?"
Finding three, speed is part of the adjustment: According to the panel, many people with neurodivergent traits "may wait over a year to receive adjustments", may not be told why a request was refused, or may never get a reply at all. Hence, the proposed two-week response deadline. For employers, the report recommends a triage approach: implement quick, simple changes straight away and review the more complex ones over time. It also recommends measuring how long adjustments actually take. This is not a new idea in law. Timeliness and fully implementing adjustments are already part of what makes an adjustment reasonable. Nevertheless, the report shows how often organisations fall short of it. An adjustment agreed in March and delivered in November has not really been made.
Finding four, adjustments as performance optimisation: The panel suggests that framing adjustments as "performance optimisation" is more constructive than treating them as special treatment. Many of the most popular adjustments are free or low-cost, and they work best when they are tailored and agreed upon through conversation rather than picked from a list. They also need to be revisited when the role, team or environment changes. The new framing is useful, especially when explaining changes to a wider team. However, it does not replace the legal duty. Under the Equality Act 2010, the duty to make reasonable adjustments still applies, and the usual tests of cost, impact, and the nature of the role continue to determine what is reasonable.
Finding five, peer support is not a substitute for professional support: The report recommends that employers avoid using employee resource groups as a replacement for professional support. Staff networks are valuable for belonging and voice, but they should not be carrying the weight of individual support. On coaching specifically, the panel found encouraging early evidence. It also warned that quality varies, describing good practice as coaching delivered by practitioners trained to at least Level 5 and working under supervision. That is a useful benchmark when commissioning any external support.
What a manager can do this month:
- Have the conversation before you feel ready: You do not need to be an expert. Ask about the work, listen, and agree on one thing you will both try.
- Check your open requests: If anyone on your team has an adjustment request pending, find out how long it has been pending and what is holding it up.
- Split quick wins from bigger changes: Put the simple, low-cost changes in place now, and set a review date for anything that needs more time or budget.
- Diary a review: Revisit adjustments when the role, team, manager or workplace changes, not only when something goes wrong.
- Ask your support providers the hard questions: What training do your coaches hold? Are they supervised? How do they evaluate their work?
The bottom line: The panel has given employers an evidence-based picture of what good looks like. Some of it will take legislation, and that will take time. The parts that make the biggest difference to an individual employee, though, are a confident conversation, a quick response and a willingness to review, and none of them needs a change in the law.
If you are a manager or HR lead working through a situation right now, a workplace needs assessment is a practical, needs-led place to start. It looks at the person, the role and the environment together, and gives you clear recommendations you can act on.
Related reading on the NDC site:
- Manager role in workplace needs assessment: what HR leaders need to know
- Coaching for Neurodivergent Employees: What HR Leaders Should Consider
Want more of this in your inbox: Sign up to The Neurodivergent Coach newsletter for monthly, practical thinking on neurodivergent inclusion at work, no diagnosis required.
About the author: Nathan Whitbread (PCC, ILM7) is a coach, consultant and workplace needs assessor dedicated to making neuro-inclusive workplaces a reality, and a member of Cambridge Network's own coaching roster. Diagnosed with dyslexia and ADHD as an adult, he brings both lived experience and a background spanning technology and business development to his work helping neurodivergent teams thrive. Nathan is a contributor to Lens Not Label: A Conversational Guide for Working More Effectively With Neurodivergent People, sharing his experience alongside authors Claire Pedrick and Kim Witten.