Neurodivergence in Boardrooms

Boardrooms pride themselves on diversity. Gender, ethnicity, geography, industry experience—these all get airtime in competency matrices. But what about neurodiversity? ADHD, autism, dyslexia, and other forms of different thinking are still the quiet elephant in the boardroom. They won’t show up in disclosures, yet they are almost certainly there.

Neurodivergent directors often bring the very traits boards claim to want:

• Pattern recognition: Seeing connections across data that others miss.

• Focus: Drilling down on details others gloss over.

• Courage: Asking questions no one else dares because they don’t see the “unspoken rules” as rules at all.

• Lateral thinking: Approaching strategy and risk through a lens that disrupts groupthink.

In complex, volatile environments, this can be gold. Boards facing disruption in technology, climate, or regulation can benefit from directors who think—and therefore act—differently.

But let’s not romanticize it. Neurodivergence can come with challenges in a board setting:

• Communication styles: Not everyone plays well with unspoken social cues or prefers consensus-building before speaking out.

• Processing differences: Some directors may need more time to digest board packages, or may focus obsessively on a detail that derails discussion.

• Perception risks: Boards that don’t understand these differences may label these directors as “difficult,” “abrasive,” or “not a team player.”

So how do you recognize it? You won’t find “neurodivergent” on a résumé, and directors don’t tend to disclose it in interviews. What you can do is pay attention to behaviours: candidates who think out loud in unusual ways, who challenge assumptions with blunt clarity, who zero in on details others skim past, or who seem less attuned to social choreography but razor-sharp on substance. In board dynamics, notice who consistently reframes the conversation, who resists small talk, or who asks the question that makes everyone uncomfortable—but also moves the discussion forward. These are signals of different wiring, and potentially of value.

In the end, boards are social systems. When the system isn’t designed to include, differences get pathologized rather than valued.

So the question isn’t whether you have neurodivergent directors at your table. The real question is: can your board work productively as a group with people who think and operate differently?

If the answer is no, then you don’t just have a neurodiversity problem—you have a governance problem.