Join us now at Integrity Leaders: Community membership and learning, for new leaders, learner-managers, or first-time founders seeking clarity on their leadership style, and who have a healthy love of sci-fi (more info at the bottom!)

Listen to this week’s podcast episode, Ep.218: Discussing Neurodiversity, Neuro-inclusion, Leadership and the Future of Work, with Grant Harris, click here.

If you have ever felt frustrated by a capable person who seemed to struggle with consistency, clarity, or delivery, this week’s conversation may prompt a pause before jumping to conclusions.

This week, on Leading with Integrity, I’m joined by Grant Harris, a neuroinclusive performance strategist who works with executive leaders to reduce organisational friction by fixing processes rather than fixing people. While we begin with neurodiversity and neuro-inclusion, the conversation quickly expands into something broader: how often do leaders misdiagnose structural issues as individual shortcomings?

One of the central ideas in our discussion is that organisations tend to default to individual explanations. When someone misses expectations, appears overwhelmed, or struggles with prioritisation, the instinct is to manage the person more closely. Feedback intensifies, oversight increases, accountability is emphasised (if not actually implemented that practically).

Grant encourages leaders to slow down that reflex and look at the surrounding architecture instead. Are objectives clearly defined? Are timelines realistic? Are priorities stable? Is communication consistent and explicit?

When those elements are vague or constantly shifting, the burden falls on individuals to interpret, infer, and compensate. Some people do this naturally while others experience cognitive overload; what appears as a “capability issue” may, in fact, be a clarity issue.

Neurodiversity is often treated as a specialist topic, but in this conversation it becomes a lens through which to examine workplace assumptions. All human brains differ in how they process information, regulate attention, interpret language, and respond to ambiguity. Traditional workplace norms tend to favour a relatively narrow band of those differences.

When leaders widen their understanding of cognitive variation, they begin to see how many everyday practices rely heavily on unwritten rules. Like the meetings that depend on rapid verbal processing, the projects launched with implied rather than explicit expectations or the feedback delivered in broad generalities rather than specific behavioural terms.

What is revealing is that several of the adjustments which support neurodivergent colleagues (such as clear written follow-ups, defined outcomes, structured agendas, specific feedback) are also examples of simple, effective management. They reduce ambiguity for everyone.

Grant frequently uses the language of friction and flow, and it captures something many leaders intuitively recognise: Friction appears as repeated misunderstandings, unnecessary rework, and quiet disengagement. It’s often tolerated as part of organisational life, yet it drains time and energy.

Flow, by contrast, is not about speed or intensity, it’s about alignment. People understand what is expected, how their work contributes, and what success looks like, they’re not expending cognitive effort deciphering shifting priorities or interpreting vague directions.

Ambiguity has a cost.

While some individuals are comfortable operating within it, others find it destabilising, so when leaders treat ambiguity as a marker of agility rather than a design choice, they unintentionally privilege certain working styles over others.

Reducing friction doesn’t mean eliminating challenges but ensuring that challenges arise from meaningful work rather than preventable confusion.

Another thoughtful dimension of our discussion concerns disclosure. For many neurodivergent professionals, deciding whether to disclose aspects of how they think or process information is not straightforward. Disclosure can invite understanding, but it can also shape perceptions in limiting ways.

Ideally, workplaces should not require disclosure for someone to access clarity, structure, or reasonable flexibility. When systems are designed thoughtfully, fewer people need to explain themselves in order to succeed.

Psychological safety, therefore, is not merely about openness in conversation. It’s about structural fairness… it’s about creating an environment in which asking for clarification or requesting specific feedback is seen as a positive, not a weakness.

As organisations continue adapting to hybrid and distributed models, process design becomes even more critical. In co-located environments, informal interactions can (sometimes!) compensate for unclear systems, in remote settings those gaps widen quickly.

Leaders who rely on implicit expectations will find friction increasing.

Leaders who articulate standards clearly and align work deliberately will enable more consistent performance across diverse teams.

What this ultimately requires is humility: The way we personally prefer to work is not a universal template, maturity in leadership involves recognising that effectiveness is not measured by how well others mirror our own style, but by how well they are able to contribute within a shared framework from their own individual styles and strengths.

What stayed with me after this conversation was the reminder that integrity in leadership is not confined to values statements. It’s expressed in design decisions, it’s evident in whether our systems enable contribution or quietly exclude it.

Before assuming it’s ‘a people problem’, it’s worth examining the process. Before increasing pressure, it’s worth increasing clarity.

If you are responsible for shaping how work gets done whether as a team leader, executive, or founder I would encourage you to listen to this episode in full. It offers a perspective that’s both practical and challenging, and Grant offers some keen insights into the now of leadership as well as the future: sometimes the most effective intervention is not more management, but better design.

-

Catch the full episode here: https://smartlink.ausha.co/leading-with-integrity/ep-218-discussing-neurodiversity-neuro-inclusion-leadership-and-the-future-of-work-with-grant-harris-leadership

Or, if you prefer video, then you can watch on YouTube at: https://youtu.be/FUPm5pY2bHQ

Hope to see you again next week when I welcome back returning guest Jay Williams to chat about his leadership model based on Agreements, Accountability, and Alignment.

As always, thank you for reading, listening, and continuing to lead with integrity.

Be a Leader Not a Boss!

- David

In case you don’t know me that well, I’m David Hatch and I’m here to help new managers and first-time founders with their leadership skills, so they can become leaders not bosses, lead with integrity, and build happier, higher performing teams, more effective organisations, and, ultimately: successful businesses.

Turn away from the dark side of management! If you’re a new manager or first-time leader and you’re feeling lonely, stuck, overwhelmed, or simply ready for your next chapter in leadership, the Integrity Leaders Community offers conversations, courses, resources and support to help you grow one step at a time. If you have a healthy love of sci-fi and want to learn more about leadership, then this is the community for you! Solopreneurs also welcome. 😉

Embrace the Light Side of Leadership today, at: Integrity Leaders: Community membership and learning, for new leaders or first-time founders.