Most training has a design problem

Think about the last team training you ran. Now think about who it was actually designed for.

Was the agenda sent out the night before? Were instructions given verbally, once, at speed? Did the group discussion assume everyone could think out loud on the spot? Was the slide deck a wall of text in a font designed for ants?

(I've seen all of these. Quite a lot.)

That default works fine for some people. For others, it creates invisible barriers before the session has properly started.

Around one in five people are neurodivergent. That's not a niche - that's a significant chunk of any room you're training. And yet the City & Guilds Neurodiversity Index (2025) found that only 34% of neurodivergent employees feel well supported at work, and over 70% of managers have never had any neurodiversity-specific training.

I've been working in neurodiversity for around five years. Awareness has grown. Action hasn't kept pace. This blog is about closing that gap.

When training doesn't work, we blame the wrong thing

When a session falls flat, the instinct is to look at the learners. They weren't engaged. They didn't retain the information. They struggled to participate.

We rarely question the design.

If your training relies on verbal instructions delivered once, group discussions with no structure, and slides packed with text, you've already excluded a significant portion of the room before anyone has had a chance to learn anything.

That's not a learner problem. (Sorry.)

The reasonable adjustments trap

The standard organisational response to neurodivergence is to wait for someone to disclose a need and then make reasonable adjustments. Reasonable adjustments matter. They're necessary for some people. But as the default, they have three problems.

One: They put the entire burden on the learner to self-identify, disclose, and advocate for themselves. In a training session. Often with colleagues watching. No pressure.

Two: They assume people know what adjustments to ask for. Many don't - especially people without a formal diagnosis, or those who've never been in a training environment where anyone thought to ask.

Three: They create a two-tier experience. One version of training for "everyone," and a modified version for people who raised their hand in advance.

Zurich UK (2024) found that 42% of neurodivergent adults weren't offered reasonable adjustments at interview, despite the Equality Act 2010 requiring it. If it's happening at recruitment, it's happening in training too.

Neuroinclusive design sidesteps all of this. Instead of retrofitting adjustments for individuals, you build flexibility into the training from the start. Added bonus: it's better for everyone in the room.

What neuroinclusive design actually means

Let me be clear about what it isn't.

It's not dumbing down. It's not lowering standards. It's not adding complexity. It's removing unnecessary barriers that have nothing to do with the learning objective.

A learner who can't follow a vague group discussion instruction isn't failing to learn. They're failing to navigate a design flaw.

In practice, that looks like sharing the agenda in advance and signposting clearly throughout. Writing instructions down as well as saying them aloud. Building in silence so people can process before responding. Presenting information visually and verbally. Offering more than one way to participate - written reflection, paired conversation, chat-box responses - so people can choose their way in.

None of this is radical. Most of it is just good training design, but done on purpose rather than by accident.

The business case, (briefly)

The moral argument is usually enough for me. If you need the numbers to make a case internally, here they are.

Neurodiversity-related employment tribunals in the UK have increased by 164% in the last four years. In most cases, the issue isn't malicious intent. It's inconsistent policy, a lack of manager understanding, or a failure to make adjustments.

On the opportunity side, 89% of organisations that adopted neuroinclusive practices reported better morale and engagement across the whole workforce - not just among neurodivergent employees. Clearer instructions, better structure, more ways to participate. Everyone benefits.

Awareness isn't enough

Many organisations have reached the awareness stage. They've run a lunch-and-learn. Shared an article on the intranet.

Awareness without design change doesn't move the needle. The City & Guilds Index (2025) found that 39% of employers cite lack of knowledge as the primary barrier to neuroinclusion - ahead of cost and competing priorities. The problem isn't willingness. It's practical understanding of what to actually do about slide 14.

And there's an irony here: a one-off workshop on neurodiversity awareness, delivered in a format that isn't itself neuroinclusive, 100% sends a contradictory message.

What actually moves this forward

Three things. Specialist knowledge embedded in how L&D practitioners design, not just what they know about. Practical tools that work in real delivery contexts — frameworks, checklists, design decisions you can make at the point of building the session. And ongoing support, because changing how you design and deliver training is a practice, not a revelation.

That's what I built Neurocolours for. It's a training design ecosystem for trainers and L&D teams who want to move from awareness to practice.

Yours neuroinclusively, Sascha