Reasonable adjustments don’t start with diagnosis

Most organisations still treat reasonable adjustments as something that begins with a diagnosis.

Legally and practically, they don’t.

By the time someone discloses a diagnosis, a lot has usually already happened.

They’ve been struggling quietly.
They’ve tried to push through.
Their confidence has taken a hit.
Their performance may already be under question.

Waiting for paperwork isn’t a neutral act. It often means we’re intervening too late.

The shift HR and leaders need to make

The legal duty begins when an employer knows – or could reasonably be expected to know – that someone is experiencing a disadvantage at work.

That changes the role of managers entirely. It’s not about diagnosing. It’s about noticing.

• Changes in behaviour
• Drops in performance
• Signs of overwhelm or inconsistency
• Patterns that don’t quite make sense on the surface

Good managers don’t wait for certainty. They get curious earlier.

This is a critical (and often overlooked) part of leadership development – building the confidence and capability to have these conversations early, rather than defaulting to process.

Curiosity is not risk – it’s risk reduction

One of the biggest misconceptions I see is that early conversations are risky.

In reality, they reduce risk, because when we delay:

• issues escalate into formal performance processes
• employees disengage or leave
• trust erodes
• HR gets pulled in later, when options are more limited

Early conversations create space to understand what’s actually going on before it becomes a capability issue.

This is particularly important when we think about neurodiversity in the workplace, where challenges aren’t always immediately visible, and waiting for disclosure can mean missing the opportunity to support someone sooner.

What this looks like in practice

It doesn’t require clinical language or complex processes. It starts with simple, human questions:

• “How is this affecting your work day to day?”
• “What happens when that situation comes up?”
• “Is there anything about the way work is set up that’s making this harder than it needs to be?”

These questions don’t assume a diagnosis. They explore impact.

And that’s what reasonable adjustments are really about – removing barriers, not labelling people.

When organisations are confident in this approach, reasonable adjustments often become much simpler than expected.

For example:

• clearer prioritisation and expectations
• flexibility in how or when work is completed
• reducing unnecessary meetings or interruptions
• providing written follow-ups after verbal conversations

These kinds of examples of reasonable adjustments are low-cost, practical, and often improve ways of working for the wider team too.