As a specialist in diversity, equity, and inclusion, Sofia Khaira is at the forefront of a critical shift in how we think about the workplace. She argues that true neuroinclusion isn’t about more awareness campaigns, but about fundamentally redesigning the systems our employees navigate every day. In our conversation, she explores how organizations can move beyond good intentions to build operational capabilities that embrace human variability. We discuss the practical steps leaders can take to de-risk conversations about working preferences, the hidden costs of cognitive overload, and how simple design changes can unlock performance and engagement for everyone.
The article suggests redesigning systems is more effective than more awareness training. Can you share a specific example of a company that redesigned a core process, like their learning materials, and describe the measurable impact it had on employee engagement or performance?
Absolutely, and it’s a perfect illustration of this principle. I worked with an organization that had a very sophisticated and realistic simulation for on-the-job decision-making. It was a fantastic learning tool in theory, but in practice, the sensory load was just too high for a number of employees. You had pop-up alerts, ticking clocks, multiple audio channels—it was intense. The initial thought was to just excuse certain people from it, but that creates exclusion. Instead, we redesigned the pathway. We kept the full, high-intensity simulation as ‘Route A’, but we built a ‘Route B’—a low-sensory version. It taught the exact same principles and required the same critical thinking, but we stripped away the intense visuals and sounds. The results were immediate and profound. Engagement shot up not just for neurodivergent employees, but across all learning groups. We saw more consistent learning outcomes because people could finally access the core material without fighting through a wall of sensory static.
You mention that leaders’ fear of saying the wrong thing often leads to inaction. Beyond adding questions to forms, what specific scripts or step-by-step guidance can a manager use to confidently and routinely discuss an employee’s unique working and learning preferences?
This fear is very real, and it’s the biggest source of paralysis. Leaders don’t want to intrude or get it wrong, so they do nothing, which unfortunately defaults to an exclusionary environment. The key is to take the pressure off by embedding these conversations into routine workflows, making them an expected part of good management. Instead of a single, high-stakes talk, it becomes a series of small check-ins. For a one-on-one, a manager could say, “As we kick off this new project, what’s the best way for me to share information with you? Do you prefer a detailed written brief, a quick chat to go over the highlights, or a visual mind map?” Or during onboarding, “Everyone learns a bit differently. To help you get up to speed, tell me about what formats help you focus and retain information best.” The goal is to frame it around performance and support, not diagnosis. Providing these simple, optional scripts in a manager’s toolkit turns a dreaded conversation into a simple, repeatable act of inclusion.
The piece highlights how designing for an “average learner” causes overload. Can you share an anecdote where a simple design shift, like offering a low-sensory alternative or breaking a process into smaller steps, dramatically improved learning outcomes for a diverse team?
I recall a team struggling with a new mandatory compliance training. It was a single, 60-minute video filled with dense legal text on screen, quick-paced narration, and a lot of decorative but distracting graphics. The completion rates were low, and the help desk was flooded with questions that were clearly answered in the training. People were just not absorbing it. The team lead felt her people were disengaged. We diagnosed it as a design gap. The fix was surprisingly simple. We broke the long journey into six, 10-minute modules, each with a clear objective. We removed all the unnecessary motion graphics and offered a simple, printable PDF summary of the key points for each module. That single change—offering a second format and breaking it down—transformed the outcome. People could engage with the content in short bursts and in the way that worked for them. Not only did completion rates hit 100%, but comprehension scores on the follow-up quiz increased significantly, proving it was never an engagement issue, but an overload issue.
You frame cognitive overload as an operational risk where design gaps are mistaken for capability gaps. Could you provide a real-world example of this misdiagnosis and explain how leaders can better distinguish between a system-level problem and an individual performance issue?
I saw a classic case of this with a financial analyst who was consistently making small but significant errors in his weekly reports. His manager was ready to put him on a performance improvement plan, assuming he was careless or lacked the capability for detailed work. Before they did, we took a look at the system itself. It turned out that to create this report, the analyst had to pull data from three different legacy systems, each with a completely different and unintuitive layout. The instructions were a jumble of ambiguous notes in a shared document. It was a recipe for cognitive overload and error. Instead of a PIP, we spent half a day standardizing a simpler information flow and creating a repeatable, predictable checklist for the process. His errors vanished overnight. The way for leaders to distinguish is to ask about the system first. Before you ask, “Is this person capable?” you must ask, “Is the information clear? Is the process predictable? Have we removed unnecessary complexity?” When multiple people struggle with the same task, or when an otherwise strong performer falters in one specific area, that’s almost always a flashing red light for a design gap, not a capability gap.
The article concludes that building systems around human variability is a core capability for the future. For an organization just beginning this shift, what are the first three concrete, system-level changes they should prioritize to move away from a one-size-fits-all approach?
For any organization starting this journey, my advice is to begin with small, high-impact changes that build momentum. First, I would prioritize standardizing and simplifying your information flows. Take a look at your most common documents—project kick-off templates, meeting agendas, company announcements. Strip out the jargon, remove the visual clutter, and use predictable, repeatable layouts. This is a powerful, low-cost way to immediately lower the cognitive load for everyone. Second, embed preference questions into your core management routines, especially onboarding forms and one-on-one templates. Simply adding a field that asks, “How do you learn best?” or “What work environment helps you focus?” normalizes the conversation and equips managers to support their people from day one. Finally, pilot a ‘flexible access’ approach on a single, visible initiative. Maybe it’s the next all-hands meeting. In addition to the live event, provide a concise written summary and a recording with captions available immediately after. This introduces the idea that there isn’t just one ‘right’ way to receive information, setting the stage for a much more inclusive and effective communication culture.
