Neurodiversity advocacy has been systematically absorbed into corporate productivity optimization frameworks. What began as a movement for acceptance and accommodation has been repackaged as a competitive advantage strategy.
The transformation is structurally predictable and functionally complete.
The Original Value Framework
Neurodiversity advocacy emerged from a simple axiological premise: cognitive difference has inherent worth independent of economic utility.
Autistic pattern recognition, ADHD hyperfocus, dyslexic spatial reasoning—these were framed as natural variations deserving of respect and accommodation. The core value was unconditional human dignity.
This represented a direct challenge to normative productivity assumptions. Society should adapt to neurological differences, not the other way around.
The movement explicitly rejected the pathology model that reduced cognitive diversity to deficits requiring correction.
Corporate Translation Mechanisms
Predictably, corporate systems began translating neurodiversity advocacy into productivity language.
“Autism brings attention to detail.” “ADHD enables creative problem-solving.” “Dyslexia provides unique perspective.”
Notice the shift: neurological differences are now justified by their utility to existing systems rather than their inherent value.
This translation process follows standard corporate co-option patterns:
- Reframe difference as competitive advantage
- Quantify contributions through performance metrics
- Package accommodation as efficiency investment
- Market inclusion as innovation strategy
The original axiological foundation—inherent worth—gets quietly discarded.
The Productivity Optimization Trap
Modern neurodiversity initiatives operate as sophisticated talent optimization programs.
Companies identify specific neurological traits that enhance particular functions. Autistic employees get channeled into quality assurance. ADHD workers become “innovation catalysts.” Dyslexic staff handle “big picture thinking.”
This isn’t accommodation—it’s neurological resource allocation.
The individual becomes valuable only insofar as their cognitive difference serves corporate objectives. Remove the productivity benefit, and the accommodation disappears.
Consider what happens to neurodivergent employees whose traits don’t map to profitable functions. Where’s the corporate enthusiasm for autism that doesn’t enhance coding? ADHD that doesn’t fuel creativity? Dyslexia that doesn’t enable leadership?
Conditional Acceptance Architecture
The co-opted framework creates a tiered system of neurological worth.
Tier 1: High-functioning differences that boost performance
Tier 2: Manageable differences that don’t impede productivity
Tier 3: Problematic differences requiring mitigation
This hierarchy directly contradicts neurodiversity principles while claiming to implement them.
Employees quickly learn which aspects of their neurodivergence to emphasize (the productive ones) and which to suppress (the disruptive ones). Self-advocacy becomes strategic self-marketing.
The accommodation process transforms from “What do you need to thrive?” to “How can we optimize your difference?”
The Measurement Paradox
Productivity optimization requires quantification. But neurological differences resist neat categorization.
Corporate systems respond by creating artificial metrics: “innovation scores,” “detail orientation indices,” “creative output measures.”
These metrics inevitably become the new standard against which neurodivergent employees are evaluated. The tools designed for inclusion become instruments of exclusion.
Worse, the metrics often reflect neurotypical assumptions about how cognitive differences should manifest. An autistic employee who doesn’t fit the “attention to detail” stereotype faces double discrimination—both for their autism and for their failure to be autistic in the expected way.
The Accommodation Efficiency Calculation
Under productivity optimization frameworks, accommodations must demonstrate ROI.
Flexible scheduling gets approved if it increases output. Sensory modifications are implemented if they reduce errors. Communication adjustments are made if they improve collaboration.
This cost-benefit analysis fundamentally misses the point. Accommodations aren’t productivity investments—they’re basic accessibility requirements.
When accommodation becomes conditional on proven efficiency gains, it ceases to be accommodation and becomes performance management.
Elite Neurodiversity vs Universal Access
The co-option process creates an elite class of “valuable” neurodivergent individuals while abandoning broader accessibility goals.
Tech companies celebrate their autistic programmers while maintaining sensory-hostile office environments. Consulting firms promote their ADHD strategists while refusing basic schedule flexibility to other neurodivergent employees.
This selective inclusion serves corporate interests while undermining the movement’s core principles.
The message becomes clear: your neurological difference is welcome if it makes us money.
The Language Corruption
Notice how neurodiversity language has been systematically corrupted:
“Superpower” replaces “difference”
“Cognitive asset” replaces “accommodation need”
“Neuroadvantage” replaces “neurodivergence”
“Talent optimization” replaces “inclusion”
This linguistic shift reveals the underlying value transformation. Neurodivergent individuals aren’t being accepted—they’re being harvested.
The Authenticity Performance
Neurodivergent employees find themselves performing their differences for corporate benefit.
The autistic employee who has to demonstrate their “systematic thinking” in meetings. The ADHD worker who must exhibit “creative energy” on demand. The dyslexic manager who becomes the token “big picture thinker.”
This performance requirement is exhausting and dehumanizing. It reduces complex human beings to their most marketable cognitive traits.
Meanwhile, the less marketable aspects of neurodivergence—sensory overwhelm, executive dysfunction, social exhaustion—must be hidden or minimized.
The Innovation Theater
Companies showcase their neurodivergent employees as proof of their innovative culture.
“Our autistic team members drive breakthrough insights.” “ADHD employees fuel our creative engine.” “Dyslexic leaders provide unique strategic vision.”
This is inclusion theater—visible diversity that masks systemic exclusion.
The focus on exceptional neurodivergent performers obscures the lack of basic accommodations for average neurodivergent employees. A few celebrated individuals provide cover for widespread accessibility failures.
Where Value Really Lives
The co-option reveals a fundamental axiological confusion about where value resides.
Corporate frameworks locate value in output optimization. Neurodiversity advocacy locates value in human dignity.
These are irreconcilable frameworks. You cannot simultaneously treat someone as an inherently valuable human being and as a cognitive resource to be optimized.
The corporate approach inevitably corrupts the human dignity approach because it makes acceptance conditional on performance.
The Resistance Framework
Authentic neurodiversity advocacy requires rejecting productivity justifications entirely.
Accommodations should be provided because people deserve them, not because they enhance performance. Neurological differences should be respected because diversity has inherent value, not because it drives innovation.
This means advocating for the full spectrum of neurodivergent experiences—including those that don’t map to corporate benefits.
It means demanding universal accessibility rather than selective optimization.
The Structural Inevitability
This co-option wasn’t accidental—it was structurally inevitable.
Any authentically radical movement that enters corporate systems will be translated into efficiency language. That’s how corporate systems process external inputs.
The question isn’t whether neurodiversity advocacy would be co-opted, but whether advocates would recognize and resist the co-option.
Unfortunately, many advocates have embraced the productivity framework, believing it advances their cause. In reality, it undermines the axiological foundation that made the movement valuable in the first place.
True neurodiversity advocacy recognizes that human worth isn’t contingent on economic utility. The moment we accept productivity justifications for inclusion, we’ve already lost the core argument.
The choice is clear: reject the efficiency framework or watch neurodiversity become another optimization strategy.