TL;DR: Ask most people what a workplace needs assessment is for, and they will describe a response to a problem: a complaint, a performance concern, something that has already gone wrong. That is true, but it is only half the job. The report at the end should not just be a list of things to fix; it should be a genuine look at what this person could do next once the barriers in their way are gone.
The problem with "problem" framing: Most workplace needs assessments get requested the same way. A performance review flags something. HR raises a concern after persistent lateness or missed deadlines. A grievance lands, or someone comes back from sickness absence, and nobody is quite sure how to support them properly this time. The assessment gets treated as a kind of diagnostic for damage control, which is a legitimate use of it, often the right one. The trouble is that it quietly sets the expectation that the whole exercise is about getting someone back to baseline, not about where they could go from there.
What the assessment actually surfaces: In practice, the same conversation that identifies a barrier tends to surface a strength sitting right next to it. Someone who needs quiet, uninterrupted blocks to concentrate is often also the person capable of genuinely deep, sustained work that a constantly interrupted colleague never comes close to. Someone who struggles to hold a long verbal briefing in their head is often the person who, given it in writing, produces the sharpest analysis in the room. The adjustment removes the barrier. On its own it does not point at what that capacity could be used for next, and that second conversation gets left out of most reports entirely. We have seen it happen in practice, including with an IT security specialist with ADHD whose assessment revealed real strengths in problem-solving and creative thinking alongside a concentration barrier, and a data analyst with autism whose exceptional analytical skill sat right next to the sensory barrier the whole time.
Building the forward look into the process itself: This is why our Workplace Needs Assessment packages do not stop at the list of recommendations. Core focuses on the assessment and the practical fix: clear, documented recommendations that an organisation can act on straight away. Plus and Evolve are built around what happens after that: a manager mentoring session, individual coaching built in from the outset, and for Evolve, up to six months of ongoing coaching so the person has real support turning "the barrier is removed" into "I know what I want to do with this now." The fix and the forward look are not two different services. They are two stages of the same piece of work, and treating them as one process rather than two is where most assessments fall short.
Why this matters for the organisations asking: Effective workplace accommodations can increase productivity by up to 25% and reduce turnover by 30%, but those numbers are ceilings, not guarantees. They hold when the adjustment is treated as a foundation that an employee can build on, not a conclusion that closes the file. An assessment that stops at compliance will usually keep someone in post. An assessment that also asks what is possible next is what actually gets the return those figures describe.
If you are commissioning a workplace needs assessment because something has gone wrong, that is a perfectly good reason to start. Just do not let it be the only question the assessment answers.
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.