Why generic neurodiversity training doesn't work for L&D teams
If you lead a Learning and Development function, you've probably sat through a neurodiversity webinar at some point. Maybe you've commissioned one. And you've almost certainly noticed something: it didn't really speak to your work.
The slides were about recruitment. Or manager conversations. Or reasonable adjustments in a 1:1 context. All useful. But nothing that helps you answer the question your team is actually wrestling with: how do we design and deliver training that works for the range of people in our organisiations?
Most neurodiversity consultancies don't work in L&D
I've spent years working alongside L&D teams, and this is the pattern I see again and again. The neurodiversity consultancy space has grown fast over the last few years, which is a good thing.
But if you look at what most providers actually offer, the bulk of it sits with HR. Attracting neurodivergent talent. Writing better job ads. Coaching managers through disclosure conversations. Shaping policy.
That work matters. It's just not what L&D teams need.
L&D sits in a different part of the organisation and does a different job. Your team is making hundreds of design decisions every week: how to structure a session, how to write group task instructions, how long to leave for processing, how to handle participation in a room where some people will never raise a hand. Each of those decisions either opens the training up or closes it down.
A manager-focused neurodiversity workshop won't help your team make those decisions any better.
Where I see the gap show up
Having worked inside this problem for a while, there are a few predictable places the mismatch surfaces.
The pacing of your programmes: Cognitive load, working memory, and processing differences are different from everyone and all shape how much a learner can take in before the session stops working for them. I rarely see awareness training go near this.
How facilitation gets designed: "Discuss this in your groups" is a sentence that excludes people. So is a vague "any questions?" Structured participation is a skill, and most generic neurodiversity training never gets into it.
The materials themselves: Font choices, layout density, instruction clarity, slide pacing - these are learning design decisions. A neurodiversity consultancy that works with HR probably isn't looking at your slide decks. Your L&D team is building them every day.
What I think L&D teams actually need
The honest answer is specialist knowledge, embedded in the people doing the work.
Not a one-off session on what ADHD is. Not a policy document. Not a set of "top tips for inclusive meetings" that don't translate into a training context. Your designers and facilitators need the same depth of thinking about neuroinclusion that they bring to any other part of their craft - pedagogy, learning theory, facilitation skills.
For me, that means three things working together. A framework for making design decisions at the point of design, rather than retrofitting adjustments later. Practical tools that work in the actual delivery contexts your team operates in - virtual, hybrid, in-person, asynchronous. And ongoing support, because this is a practice, not a training course you complete and tick off.
Why I built Neurocolours
I built Neurocolours because the support L&D teams need didn't exist anywhere else. My background is in training design, not HR policy, and that shapes everything I build.
Neurocolours is the training design ecosystem I've developed for L&D teams and the trainers inside them. It equips your designers and facilitators with a neuroinclusive design method, the tools to apply it, and the ongoing support to embed it across a team rather than relying on one enthusiastic individual.
If you're responsible for training in your organisation, Neurocolours is the system you need
Yours neuroinclusively, Sascha
