In a recent job interview, I was asked to complete a standardized cognitive aptitude test as part of the hiring process. From the outset, this timed, one-size-fits-all assessment felt more like an obstacle course than an opportunity to showcase my skills. Anticipating the challenges it posed, I proactively communicated to the company that this type of test could be problematic for me. I explained that, as a neurodivergent professional, a high-pressure timed quiz might not accurately reflect my true abilities or working style. This conversation was not about seeking special treatment, but about ensuring the hiring team understood that the test's format might inadvertently put me (and candidates like me) at a disadvantage – even though we could excel in the actual job.
My experience underscores a broader issue with standardized hiring assessments, particularly cognitive and psychometric tests. Companies often adopt these tests in the name of fairness and objectivity, aiming to "remove bias, measure skills and potential objectively, and give everyone an equal shot". However, the reality can be quite different. Research and anecdotal evidence have shown that neurodivergent candidates (such as those with ADHD, autism, dyslexia, etc.) often struggle with these exams, not due to a lack of talent, but because the assessments are literally not built for how their minds work. These tests tend to be designed around "typical" cognitive profiles – they're packed with strict time limits, abstract questions, and scoring systems that assume everyone processes information in the same way. If your thinking style is unconventional – for example, maybe you excel at creative pattern recognition but need a bit more time to weigh choices – a standard test might underrepresent your strengths. As a result, many neurodivergent folks who could ace the job in real life might perform poorly on a test simply because it's "not built to understand [their] strengths". This creates an unintended filter: talented candidates can be screened out early, never getting a fair chance to prove themselves in later interview stages. It's a frustrating irony that hiring tests praised for fairness can end up excluding the very diversity of thought they seek to include.
Despite these challenges, it's important to recognize that neurodivergent individuals can be exceptional employees, leaders, and collaborators. A lower score on a fast-paced quiz or an unconventional communication style in an interview does not reflect our intelligence, creativity, or leadership potential. In fact, neurodivergent professionals often bring unique strengths that are incredibly valuable in the workplace. Studies have found that diverse teams – including those with neurodivergent members – can be more productive and innovative than homogenous teams. Many autistic people, for instance, excel in pattern recognition and detail-oriented tasks, while those with ADHD might thrive in dynamic, fast-paced environments that reward hyperfocus and quick thinking. These abilities translate into real-world success. I can personally attest to this: I've worked 10+ years as a product designer, have led major projects and teams, and have consistently delivered results. My track record (and those of countless other neurodivergent professionals) proves that non-traditional thinkers are not "less capable" – often, we're excelling in spite of the gauntlet of traditional assessments, not because of them. Given the right environment, our so-called atypical traits become strengths: we can hyper-focus on solving tough problems, approach design challenges from fresh angles, and bring a level of creativity and dedication that pushes projects forward.
Biases and misconceptions in hiring
Unfortunately, standardized tests aren't the only hurdle – biases and misconceptions in professional settings can also exclude or misjudge capable people. Sometimes it's overt, like outdated stereotypes about appearance. For example, something as simple as having visible tattoos has historically triggered assumptions about professionalism or reliability. In the past, tattoos in the workplace were often associated with negative traits like deviance or lack of seriousness. I've felt this bias personally when someone casually mentioned my tattoos, changed someone's demeanor in an interview. Such snap judgments are not only unfair but increasingly misinformed – recent research shows that people barely bat an eye at tattoos now, and in some cases tattoos are even seen as a sign of creativity or credibility in creative roles.
Yet, the remnants of that stigma can linger in hiring managers' minds. Similarly, when it comes to neurodiversity, misconceptions abound. If you disclose that you're autistic, dyslexic, or have ADHD, some might (wrongly) question your ability to lead a team or handle pressure. They might confuse neurodivergence with lack of competence or assume you'll be a "difficult" colleague – all baseless stereotypes. These biases – whether about how someone looks or how their brain works – can lead employers to underestimate strong candidates or employees. Overcoming them requires awareness and education, but it's absolutely possible (and necessary) to do so.
Toward inclusive (and effective) hiring practices
The good news is that there are concrete ways to make hiring processes more inclusive without compromising on quality – in fact, these adjustments can help reveal quality candidates who might otherwise be overlooked. Employers can maintain high standards while leveling the playing field for neurodiverse talent. Here are a few strategies that can help:
- Use work sample tests or job simulations: Instead of relying solely on abstract aptitude quizzes, have candidates do actual work related to the role. For example, give a design applicant a realistic design problem to solve, or ask a developer to debug a piece of code. Work sample tests closely mirror real job tasks, so they're more relevant to the position and far less likely to disadvantage a neurodivergent person. This way, you're assessing the skills that truly matter for the job, rather than how well someone takes a generic test.
- Conduct structured interviews focused on real scenarios: Train interviewers to use a structured format where every candidate gets the same core questions, especially ones rooted in real-world situations. This reduces the chance for personal biases to creep in. The questions should emphasize problem-solving and past experience in contexts that relate to the job, rather than puzzle questions or overly abstract hypotheticals that might confuse or sideline those who think differently. Structured, consistent interviews help ensure you're comparing candidates on equal footing – and focusing on job-relevant qualities rather than who is the most charismatic or quick on the spot.
- Provide accommodations and clarity: Small adjustments can make a big difference. For instance, consider sharing interview questions or test instructions with candidates in advance to help them prepare and ease anxiety. During long hiring exercises, offer short breaks to regroup. Use clear, concrete language in your prompts and avoid ambiguous wording. These steps help neurodivergent candidates perform at their best by reducing unnecessary stress and uncertainty. Importantly, offering such accommodations doesn't give anyone an unfair advantage – it simply ensures you're measuring the person's actual skills and knowledge, not their ability to navigate surprise quizzes or sensory overload.
- Keep multiple paths to demonstrate ability: Make sure a single test or first impression isn't the only gateway. A cognitive aptitude score, for example, should be just one data point among many – not a make-or-break cutoff. Weigh it alongside the candidate's portfolio, work experience, and interview performance. And if a candidate discloses a neurodivergent condition and flags a particular assessment as problematic, be flexible. You might offer an alternative evaluation method or even bypass that test altogether as a reasonable accommodation. Remember that the goal is to find the best person for the job – and that might mean taking a slightly different route for different people to allow their strengths to shine. This flexibility ensures you don't miss out on great talent due to an arbitrary hurdle, and it sends a message that you value skills over conformity.
Embracing these inclusive hiring practices does not mean lowering the bar. If anything, it raises the quality of hires by focusing on meaningful competencies and potential. An applicant who might stumble on a timed test could, when given a fair chance, turn out to be the most creative designer on your team or the most meticulous engineer in your department. By adjusting the process to see the person behind the assessment, companies can tap into a wider talent pool and build teams that truly excel.
In my own case, despite the challenges of certain hiring filters and occasional biases, I've thrived in my career. I've spent over a decade leading design projects to success – a journey that might not have been possible if I'd been defined solely by a standardized test score or a snap judgment. This is why it's so important that we continue to challenge and refine these systems. Neurodivergent professionals are living proof that different minds fuel innovation and success. With a more inclusive approach, employers can discover capable, driven individuals who might have been overlooked – and those individuals (people like me) can continue to prove that we belong in the room, adding value and leadership just like anyone else. In the end, it's a win-win: diverse talent gets a fair shot, and companies gain skilled employees who might just bring that unique perspective needed to spark the next big breakthrough.
Sources:
- Andrew Lambert, Neurodiversity in Hiring: Why Psychometric Tests Fall Short, ADHDaptive Ltd, Dec 15, 2024
- Caitlin Collins, Embracing the Spectrum: Unlocking the Full Potential of Neurodiversity at Work, Betterworks Insights - DEI&B, May 21, 2024
- The business school at Rice University (Rice Business), How Tattooed Employees Can Make a Company Look Good, Based on research by Enrica N. Ruggs and Mikki R. Hebl, Jun 10, 2022
- Neuro Advantage, How Psychometric Tests Could Undermine Diversity in the Workplace, Oct 05, 2022
