Rethinking Roles: Neurodiversity, Performance, and the Illusion of Fit

Article (Part 4 of 5):

You don’t measure a mind by how well it mirrors your own.

But that’s precisely what most performance systems still do.

We hire for “fit,” evaluate for “soft skills,” and promote based on visibility.

It’s not objectivity.

It’s calibration to a norm that wasn’t built for cognitive diversity.

Neurodivergent brilliance often comes in forms our systems weren’t built to recognize.

We undervalue someone who writes with surgical clarity but struggles with verbal small talk.

We misread the leader who builds elegant systems but skips social events.

We penalize those who work in bursts of genius, not steady hours.

We label differences as deficiencies. 

Here’s the truth: Most job descriptions are not designed—they’re recycled.

Generic roles. Static expectations. Lazy criteria.

What if we flipped it?

Design roles around strengths, not scripts.

What needs to get done—and who does it best in their own way?

Some minds thrive in chaos.

Others in control.

One goes into a zone of genius for ten hours straight.

Another needs to walk every forty-five minutes.

Why force a rhythm?

Rethink “professionalism.”

It’s not eye contact, handshake firmness, or social agility.

It’s contribution.

It’s impact.

It’s outcomes.

Performance reviews should ask: Did they elevate the work? Did they solve hard problems? Did they make us better?

Not: Do they present well on Zoom?

When we stop rewarding performative sameness, we start rewarding actual brilliance.

And that’s when teams evolve.

“Redesigning roles is not accommodation—it’s optimization.” — Mike Brewer