Rethinking best fit: Neurodiversity through a personality lens

By Liz Hey, Principal Psychologist

Approximately 15–20% of the global population is neurodivergent (Goldberg, 2023). And while neurodivergence is increasingly more recognised and valued, as a group, neurodivergent people remain disproportionately underemployed (McDowall et al, 2023). It is widely recognised now that diversity in an organisation represents important opportunities for different ways of thinking, creating, adapting and innovating (Austin & Pisano, 2017; Krzeminska et al, 2019). 

There are economic, business, social and moral imperatives to address the concerns of this underrepresented group, who may be missing out on jobs, development and talent management (CIPD, 2024). A key issue under discussion is if selection processes are neuroinclusive and tapping into the skill sets and behaviours which are desirable for business success (Acas, 2025).

Personality assessments are used widely in and with organisations for job selection, and personality profiling is a common method for assessing job fit (Doyle, 2024; Rothstein & Goffin, 2006). Personality is thought to be a valid predictor of successful job performance no matter the job and is widely used in selection (Barrick, & Mount, 1991; Wilmot & Ones, 2021), with research showing that Five Factor Model traits are related to work performance and leadership effectiveness (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998; Walumbwa et al. 2008).

The neurodivergent population is likely to be under-represented in working population data due to the fact that a large proportion of neurodivergent people are not in employment, much less in leadership positions (McDowall et al, 2023). Bias is therefore likely to exist in any data and research on which the data is based. 

There are normal distribution assumptions (“neuronormative”) in selection instruments and the interpretation, and the expectations of demography (norms) can clash with the profile of a neurodivergent person (Doyle, 2025). For those who are neurodiverse, personality assessments can show more variance in traits than their neurotypical counterparts, and, at worst, can represent a negative bias (Doyle, 2025). 

Some evidence has highlighted that selection practices are seen as unfair and discriminatory towards neurodivergent candidates (Brown, 2021) and that research is lagging behind practice in the area of neurodiversity and assessments (LeFevre-Levy et al, 2022). This results in organisations and practitioners having insufficient guidance as to best practices for talent assessment. Readers should note that the British Psychological Society (BPS) and Employer Advice (ACAS) have recently published new advice and guidance on how to implement inclusive and fair testing practices (see References). 

There is a prevalence of research in the workplace relating to autism but little on other aspects of neurodiversity. The tech industries have tended to trailblaze in this area (Doyle, 2024) so it presents a somewhat limited view of selection practices. Research that takes a wider view of neurodiversity is growing, but it is hampered by low disclosure rates (Comer et al, 2024). Research is also limited when it comes to understanding the experiences of neurodivergent employees and the effectiveness of neuroinclusion policies (McDowall et al, 2025)—that is, research that includes the lived experience of the neurodivergent employees or candidates themselves. 

One argument is that most of the research represents the majority (neuronormative) view of how personality ‘should’ look in selection and work performance, and there is a power imbalance between this and the neuroinclusive view which embraces diversity.

The NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) Five Factor Model (FFM; Costa & McCrae, 1992) is the ‘gold standard’ personality assessment and considered to be highly reliable (McCrae et al, 2005; The Psychometrics Centre, Cambridge, 2025). Hogrefe conducted research in 2025 looking at the respective NEO Personality Inventory – 3, UK Edition (NEO-PI-3 UK) scores of the ‘neurodivergent’ and ‘neurotypical’ individuals within a new global norm (N = 967) [1]. We found that respondents who identified as neurodivergent scored higher in Neuroticism and Openness and lower for Extraversion, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness than their neurotypical counterparts.

From this small but insightful piece of research, we concluded that the personality profiles of neurodivergent and neurotypical people are different. When personality tests are used for selection purposes, the interpretation can be biased towards a neuronormative perspective which may mean that neurodivergent individuals are disadvantaged (Doyle, 2025). In turn, businesses may also miss the key talent and skills which neurodivergent people can bring to the role. 

A neurodivergent candidate’s personality test scores may show a somewhat ‘spikier’ profile, as opposed to a ‘flatter’ profile of a neurotypical individual. But, instead of looking at these as potentially problematic, paradoxes in personality and behaviour can and should be viewed as possible strengths. Psychological assessment practices can look wider than the current ‘job fit’ paradigm and can fit with the strengths-based model of defining neurodivergence (Fung & Doyle, 2021). Job role and requirements target profiles need to be assessed to see if what is required is actually reflective of the job itself. Adjusting that target profile or expectation will make selection practices more inclusive.

Practitioners can help here to reflect what feels like the experience for many neurodivergent individuals. Providing transparency and support to neurodivergent candidates, encouraging disclosure without consequence, will also result in greater inclusivity. We can practice this and also encourage organisations to do so.

The privacy and vulnerability of a minority group present a significant concern, and disclosure is a highly sensitive issue. But research must continue to create more evidence-based insights into selection practices and seek to balance out the neuronormative perspective. This will improve the experiences and opportunities for neurominorities.

Hogrefe has also recently published a white paper on neurodiversity in assessments which is available to download via this page. 

[1] Males - 54.9%; females - 43.8%; other - 1.2%; age range 18–74.; mean = 38.6) from Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Oceania. Individual contributors/non-managers (34.7%), Managers (33.9%), Senior Managers (31.3%).

Acas (January 2025): https://www.acas.org.uk/neurodiversity-at-work

Austin, R. D., & Pisano, G. P. (2017). Neurodiversity as a competitive advantage. Harvard Business Review, 95(3), 96–103.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). Meta-analysis of the relationships of the big five personality dimensions to job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 304–318. 

BPS, Psychological Testing Centre (2024). Neurodiversity & Psychometric Testing (www.psychtesting.org.uk) https://cms.bps.org.uk/sites/default/files/2024-11/Neurodiversity%20and%20Psychometric%20Testing.pdf

Brown, L. (2021). How opaque personality tests can stop disabled people from getting hired. Center for Democracy & Technology.

CIPD (2024): https://www.cipd.org/uk/knowledge/factsheets/selection-factsheet/

Comer, D. R., Lenaghan, J. A., Pittarello, A. and Motro, D. (2024). Focusing on what matters: effects of an informational intervention and candidate disclosure on ratings of jobseekers on the autism spectrum. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The five-factor model of personality and its relevance to personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 6(4), 343–359.

Doyle, N. (2025). Learning from Neurodivergent Leaders. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. UK: London.

Doyle, N. (2024). https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/neurodiversity-work

Goldberg, H. (2023). Unraveling Neurodiversity: Insights from Neuroscientific Perspectives. Encyclopedia, 3. 972–980. 

Krzeminska A., Austin R. D., Bruyère S. M., Hedley D. (2019). The advantages and challenges of neurodiversity employment in organizations. Journal of Management & Organization, 25(4), 453–463.

LeFevre-Levy, R., Melson-Silimon, A. M., Harmata, R., Hulett, A. L., & Carter, N. T. (2023). Neurodiversity in the workplace: Considering neuroatypicality as a form of diversity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 16.

McDowall A., Doyle N. & Kisleva, M. (2023). Neurodiversity at Work: a Supply and Demand Gap Analysis. Neurodiversity in Business. https://www.neurodiversityinbusiness.org/research/neurodiversity-in-business-research-report-2023

McDowall, A. Gawronska, J., Teoh, K. & Beauregard, A. (2025). https://www.acas.org.uk/research-and-commentary/neurodiversity-at-work-research-practice-and-policy

McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., & 78 Members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project. (2005). Universal Features of Personality Traits From the Observer's Perspective: Data From 50 Cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 547–561.

Rothstein, M. G. & Goffin, R. D. (2006). The use of personality measures in personnel selection: What does current research support? Human Resource Management Review, 16(2), 155–180.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). An updated meta-analysis of validity of job-related personnel selection procedures, Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 95–105. 

The Psychometrics Centre, Cambridge: https://www.psychometrics.cam.ac.uk/services/psychometric-tests/neo-pi-r

Wilmot, M. P., & Ones, D. S. (2021). Occupational characteristics moderate personality–performance relations in major occupational groups. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 131, 103655.