Attracting, Retaining and Supporting Autistic Talent in Local Government
An advice guide for local authority managers and HR professionals
Local government has a talent challenge. Across the sector, councils are competing for people with the analytical ability, creativity, specialist knowledge, resilience and different perspectives needed to redesign services, embrace technology and respond to increasingly complex community needs. At the same time, there is a significant group of talented people who continue to face barriers to entering, remaining and progressing in employment: autistic people.
The government-commissioned Buckland Review of Autism Employment reported that only around three in ten working-age autistic disabled people are in employment, compared with around five in ten disabled people generally and eight in ten non-disabled people. Those figures should concern every HR director, chief executive and hiring manager in local government. They should prompt us to ask not simply how we support autistic employees once they are in our organisations, but how much talent we may currently be excluding because our recruitment processes, workplaces and management practices have been designed around one particular way of communicating, thinking and working.
Neuroinclusion is therefore not a niche HR initiative.
It is a workforce issue, a leadership issue and, fundamentally, a question of whether we are prepared to remove barriers that have very little to do with somebody’s ability to do their job.
The first principle for managers is perhaps the most important: if you have met one autistic person, you have met one autistic person. Autism is not a single workplace experience. Autistic people are not a homogeneous group, and we should be extremely cautious about assuming that a diagnosis tells us everything we need to know about an individual. One person may experience significant differences around communication, sensory processing, executive functioning, social interaction, uncertainty or changes to routine. Another autistic colleague may experience those things very differently. Some people will require workplace adjustments, while others may require very few. Some will openly identify as autistic, others may choose not to disclose, and some employees may only receive a diagnosis later in their career or may never seek a formal diagnosis at all.
That means neuroinclusive management cannot be built around a checklist of assumptions about what autistic people are supposedly like. It has to start with the individual.
One of the biggest opportunities for local authorities is recruitment. Traditional recruitment processes can inadvertently test things that have little relationship to somebody’s ability to perform the role. Think about the standard council interview. A candidate enters an unfamiliar building, meets several unfamiliar people, sits in an unfamiliar room and is asked questions they have never seen before. They are expected to interpret what the panel really wants, identify an appropriate example and communicate it confidently within seconds. At the same time, they may be consciously thinking about eye contact, facial expression, tone of voice and body language. Add fluorescent lighting, a ticking clock, a humming projector, screen glare or an uncomfortable chair and we have created a very particular type of assessment environment.
We may believe we are assessing competence. Sometimes we are actually assessing how effectively somebody can navigate an artificial social situation under pressure.
The Buckland Review identified traditional recruitment practices, unclear job descriptions, ambiguous interview questions and sensory environments among the barriers autistic people can experience when seeking employment. Acas guidance similarly encourages employers to consider clearer recruitment processes, adjustments to interviews and alternative ways for candidates to demonstrate their capability.
For local authorities, that should begin before anybody reaches the interview room. Job descriptions and person specifications should be reviewed to ensure that every criterion is genuinely necessary. Phrases such as “excellent interpersonal skills” or “outstanding communication skills” are routinely included in job descriptions, but we should ask what they actually mean in the context of the role. If what we really need is somebody who can explain complex information clearly to residents, write accurate reports or work effectively with colleagues, we should say that. Clear and specific language helps candidates understand what is expected and allows us to assess the capability we genuinely need.
The same principle applies to interviews.
Depending on the role and the individual, an inclusive process might involve providing interview questions in advance, explaining who will be on the panel, giving clear information about the location and format of the assessment, offering a quiet waiting area, allowing additional processing time, reducing unnecessary sensory distractions, providing written as well as verbal instructions or using a practical assessment or work sample where that provides a better indication of somebody’s ability to perform the job.
I recently discussed this with autism speaker and advocate Alex Manners during an episode of The Truth About Local Government. One of Alex’s observations particularly stayed with me. He described how something as apparently insignificant as being able to choose where he sits in an interview room can make a difference. A bright window, screen glare or another sensory distraction may make concentrating significantly harder. We may not be able to remove the television from the wall or redesign the interview room, but we can ask somebody where they would feel most comfortable sitting.
It is a small example, but it illustrates something much bigger. Managers sometimes hear the words reasonable adjustment and imagine expensive equipment, complicated occupational-health processes or major changes to somebody’s job.
Sometimes the solution is simply asking, “Where would you feel most comfortable?”
It costs nothing, but somebody has to think to ask. We also need to stop confusing social performance with professional capability. Local government recruitment frequently rewards people who are good at interviews, but being good at an interview is not necessarily the same as being good at the job. Eye contact is an obvious example. Unless maintaining eye contact is genuinely an occupational requirement, why should it influence our assessment of somebody’s suitability? The same question can be asked about body language, conversational style, comfort with small talk, speed of response or somebody’s ability to immediately produce an example in response to an abstract competency question.
This does not mean lowering recruitment standards. Quite the opposite. It means making sure we are measuring the right standards. Interview panels need to understand the difference between communication difference and lack of competence, and HR teams should examine whether hidden expectations around social presentation are influencing recruitment decisions.
Once somebody joins the organisation, the physical and sensory environment becomes equally important. Sensory processing can easily be overlooked because the people designing and managing workplaces may simply not experience the environment in the same way. During my conversation with Alex, he described being affected by sounds such as a ticking clock or equipment that other people barely noticed. For somebody else, the issue might be fluorescent lighting, strong smells, background conversations, office temperature, screen glare, crowded spaces, particular fabrics, constant telephone noise or unpredictable interruptions.
NHS information on autism recognises that autistic people can experience heightened or reduced sensitivity to sensory input. The important point for managers is not that they need to become experts in sensory processing.
It is that they need to recognise that an environment that feels completely ordinary to one person may be exhausting for somebody else.
The response can often be remarkably straightforward. Access to a quiet working area, alternatives to hot-desking, noise-reducing headphones where appropriate, different lighting, seating choice, flexible working locations, predictable desk arrangements or permission to take short sensory breaks can all make a difference depending on the individual and the role. Many of these changes are inexpensive, and many will benefit colleagues who are not autistic as well.
Predictability is another important consideration. Local government will never be entirely predictable. Emergencies happen, political priorities change, budgets move and residents need urgent responses. Nobody can promise an environment without uncertainty. There is, however, a significant difference between necessary uncertainty and unnecessary uncertainty. Good managers can reduce the latter.
Sending meeting agendas beforehand, explaining what somebody is expected to contribute, providing written confirmation of important instructions, giving advance notice of changes where possible, setting clear deadlines and being explicit about priorities can all reduce unnecessary ambiguity. These practices are sometimes described as adjustments for neurodivergent employees. I would argue that much of this is simply good management. Clarity benefits almost everybody.
The legal framework matters too. Under the Equality Act 2010, employers in Great Britain have a duty to make reasonable adjustments where a disabled employee or applicant would otherwise experience a substantial disadvantage. Autism will often fall within the Act’s definition of disability depending on its impact on the individual. But good employers should not reduce neuroinclusion to legal compliance. Acas advises employers to consider support for neurodivergent employees whether or not somebody has a formal diagnosis.
That is important because diagnosis can take time. Some people may not want a diagnosis, while others may be exploring their neurodivergence or simply know that particular working conditions allow them to perform more effectively. Managers should therefore become comfortable having conversations about what somebody needs rather than feeling that they need a diagnostic label before they can act.
One of the most useful questions a manager can ask is simply: “What helps you do your best work?” The natural follow-up is: “What gets in the way?” From there, a manager can explore how somebody prefers to receive instructions and feedback, what helps when priorities change, whether there are environmental factors that make concentration difficult, what signs might indicate that workload is becoming unsustainable and what the employee would like their manager to do if that happens. The objective is not to manage somebody’s autism.
It is to create the conditions in which that person can perform.
This is why managers matter so much. An organisation can have an excellent neurodiversity policy and still provide a terrible experience for an autistic employee because employees experience organisations largely through the behaviour of their immediate managers. An Acas survey of 1,000 employees published in 2026 found that only 32% believed their employer effectively trained managers to identify and make reasonable adjustments for neurodivergent employees. Around 35% thought their employer was ineffective, while approximately 32% did not know.
Those figures suggest that policy alone is not enough. Managers need basic autism and neurodiversity awareness, confidence discussing adjustments, permission to make sensible decisions, access to HR and occupational-health advice, time for meaningful one-to-ones and a clear understanding of confidentiality. Most importantly, they need empathy.
Empathy was one of the strongest themes in my conversation with Alex Manners. Technical knowledge is valuable, but knowledge alone does not create inclusion. A manager who notices that somebody is struggling, listens without judgement and is prepared to adapt can make an enormous difference. Alex also spoke about the value of having at least one trusted person to speak to when worries or difficulties begin to build. That person might be a manager, colleague, mentor, buddy or member of a staff network. For some autistic employees, knowing that there is somewhere safe to raise a concern before it becomes overwhelming can be extremely valuable, particularly during induction, organisational restructures, changes of manager, office moves or periods of increased workload.
Recruitment, however, is only half of the challenge. There is little value in making recruitment more inclusive if somebody joins the organisation and then encounters a workplace in which they cannot thrive. Retention requires councils to examine the everyday employee experience. Are workloads manageable? Are expectations clear? Are agreed adjustments actually being implemented? Do those adjustments survive a change of manager? Are employees repeatedly required to explain or justify the same needs? Are meetings accessible? Are development opportunities accessible? Are informal networks determining who receives opportunities? Do employees feel safe discussing difficulties before they become crises?
Reasonable adjustments should not be treated as a one-off transaction. Something that worked two years ago may no longer work following a promotion, restructure, office move, change of manager or change in somebody’s personal circumstances. A useful principle for organisations is therefore: ask, agree, record and review.
Burnout also deserves attention. Some autistic people describe periods of profound exhaustion associated with sustained demands, sensory overload and the effort involved in navigating environments that are not designed around their needs. Masking, the conscious or unconscious adaptation or suppression of autistic characteristics, can also require significant effort. Managers should not attempt to diagnose autistic burnout, but they should be alert to changes in energy, concentration, communication, attendance, tolerance of sensory environments or somebody’s ability to manage competing demands.
When somebody who has previously performed well begins to struggle, the first organisational response should not automatically be performance management. Sometimes the more useful question is: “Has something changed, and what support would help?” A workload review, clearer prioritisation, temporary reduction of non-essential demands, protected breaks or recovery time following particularly intense periods may be appropriate depending on the circumstances.
We also need to challenge a subtle assumption that appears in many workplace conversations about neurodiversity: the idea that neurodivergent people are always the employees being managed. They are not. Autistic people are managers, heads of service, directors, specialists and senior leaders. Some will have known they were autistic throughout their careers, some will receive a diagnosis later in life and some will never disclose it.
Leadership development therefore needs to be neuroinclusive too. The Buckland Review highlighted the potential for traditional ideas about leadership, informal networking and social expectations to create progression barriers for autistic employees. Structured feedback, mentoring, coaching, peer networks, clear development pathways, preparation time and sensible diary management can all help. More fundamentally, organisations need to challenge narrow ideas about what leadership looks and sounds like.
Executive presence should not mean everybody communicating, networking and leading in exactly the same way.
There is also an understandable desire to move conversations about autism away from deficit and towards strengths. That is positive, but it needs to be handled carefully. In my conversation with Alex, we discussed potential strengths such as intense focus, attention to detail, memory, technical capability, reliability, honesty and different approaches to problem-solving. These can absolutely be strengths for some autistic people, but they are possibilities rather than universal characteristics.
We should be as cautious about positive stereotypes as negative ones. Not every autistic person works in technology. Not every autistic person loves data. Not every autistic person has extraordinary attention to detail. And autistic employees should not have to possess a supposed “superpower” to justify being included. The organisational opportunity is much simpler: different people think differently, and organisations that allow different ways of thinking, communicating and solving problems have access to a broader range of human capability.
HR professionals and managers should also understand Access to Work, the government scheme that can provide practical employment support for disabled people and people with health conditions. Depending on eligibility and individual circumstances, this can include specialist equipment, assistive technology, job coaching and other forms of workplace support. Access to Work does not remove an employer’s responsibility to make reasonable adjustments, but local authority HR teams should understand the scheme well enough to signpost employees and support them in navigating it where appropriate.
Ultimately, attracting, retaining and supporting autistic talent does not require local government to wait for the perfect neurodiversity strategy. We can start by looking critically at the systems we already have. Look at the job advert. Look at the person specification. Look at the interview room. Look at the office. Look at meetings. Look at how managers communicate. Look at how performance is assessed. Look at who receives development opportunities and who progresses. Then ask whether any of those processes are creating barriers that have nothing to do with somebody’s ability to perform their role.
And, above all, ask the person sitting in front of you:
“What would help you do your best work here?”
That question captures something I took strongly from my conversation with Alex Manners. Inclusion is not about assuming that we understand somebody because we have attended an autism-awareness course. It is about having enough awareness to recognise that we should not assume at all.
The employment statistics tell us that significant barriers remain. The Equality Act tells us that employers have responsibilities. The Buckland Review tells us that recruitment, retention and progression still need attention. But the opportunity for local government is bigger than compliance. Councils need talented people. They need people who think differently, challenge assumptions, solve difficult problems and bring different perspectives to public service. Autistic people are part of that talent pool. Our responsibility as leaders, managers and HR professionals is to make sure that unnecessary barriers in our recruitment processes, workplaces and organisational cultures do not prevent people from joining us, staying with us and progressing.
Attract differently. Recruit fairly. Manage individually. Support consistently. And create workplaces where autistic people do not simply cope, but have the opportunity to thrive.
