Contextualizing cases for neuroatypical inclusion in the workplace

Abstract

We believe that readers of the focal article by LeFevre-Levy et al. (2023) would benefit from aligning neurodiversity in the workplace and broader arguments for pursuing and researching organizational diversity in industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology. Often referred to as the “case for workplace diversity,” practitioners and scholars have offered various arguments in its defense. In this commentary, we adopt the labels from van Dijk et al. (2012) of (a) the business case, (b) the equality case, and (c) the values and virtues case to discuss the approaches for arguing why organizational diversity ought to be pursued. We briefly summarize each case and its consequences. The goal of this commentary is to connect the key points made by LeFevre-Levy et al. to each argument, clarify the values being promoted, and identify who may (and importantly may not) stand to benefit. We encourage the field to consider the implications of oversimplifying claims about neuroatypical individuals and their impact in organizations. In doing so, we hope to further contextualize the important points made by LeFevre-Levy et al.