The Word “Disclosure” Is Part of the Problem
Why “disclosure” is the wrong frame, and how asking about adjustments builds the trust that helps people share what they need.
Last year I ran a four-part neurodiversity series with Neurobox, and episode two went deep into something that comes up in almost every conversation I have with HR professionals: how do we support neurodivergent employees once they are in the business, and how do we make it safe for them to share what they need?
Mark from Neurobox made a point early on that has genuinely changed how I think about this. He said that asking someone to disclose is asking them to take a massive risk. They have applied for a role, put real effort into the process, and now they are being asked to flag something that they do not know how you will receive, in an organisation they do not yet fully trust. Of course many people stay quiet. The wonder is that anyone shares at all.
He also made the point that he does not like the word “disclosed.” I think that is right. Disclosure sounds like something you have done wrong, like a DBS check or a declaration of interest. The shift he suggested is moving away from disclosure entirely and toward something much simpler: asking about adjustments. Not “do you have a disability?” but “is there anything we can do to support you through this process?” That question can go to everyone. It does not single anyone out and it does not require a label.
We talked about what a genuinely supportive response looks like when someone does share something with you. The answer was not complicated. Acknowledge it. Thank them for trusting you with it. Be curious about what would actually help, rather than focusing on the reason behind the request. And ask at every stage of the journey, not just once at the start, because what someone needs in the first week may be very different from what they need six months in.
There was a really useful moment in the conversation about adjustments more broadly. Mark made the point that adjustments are not favours. They are productivity tools. They exist to help people do their best work. The most commonly overlooked adjustment is also one of the simplest: giving people enough time to think before they respond. That sounds almost too basic to mention, but for someone who is dyslexic or who processes language differently, having a few extra seconds to decode a question and formulate a response can make a significant difference to the quality of what they give you.
On the culture side, we talked about how unintentional behaviours can make environments feel harder than they need to be. Last-minute changes, vague instructions, ambiguous language, misreading someone’s communication style as rudeness when actually they are just being direct: these are all things that create unnecessary friction. The example that stood out was someone receiving a brief, blunt email and assuming the sender was being difficult, when actually they were autistic and trying hard to communicate clearly and efficiently. Unconscious bias cuts in both directions.
The most powerful thing a manager can do, Mark said, is to start the conversation about how they themselves work best. Not as a neurodiversity conversation specifically, but as a ways-of-working conversation. When a manager models that kind of openness, it becomes easier for everyone else to do the same.
I found this episode really grounding, because it reminded me that inclusion is not primarily a policy question. It is a culture question. And culture is shaped by the small, daily things we do and say, more than by anything that sits in a handbook.
What has worked in your organisation when it comes to building that kind of trust? I would genuinely love to hear your thoughts.
Jacquelyn Mahoney
HR Partnerships Manager | Connecting and Supporting HR Professionals across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough