Unstructured, unscientific evaluations are especially harmful to neurodivergent candidates—those with ADHD, autism, anxiety, or other cognitive differences—who may navigate social cues differently. When hiring hinges on subjective interpretations of behavior rather than ability, you risk filtering out uniquely talented individuals simply because they didn’t conform to an arbitrary norm.
The result? Missed innovation, limited diversity of thought, and teams that are less equipped to solve complex problems. Great talent doesn’t always look or act like you expect—and that’s exactly why your hiring process needs to be structured, inclusive, and fair.
Beyond ethics and fairness, there are legal implications to consider. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employment practices must be free from discrimination and provide reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities—including many neurodivergent conditions.
When hiring decisions are made based on non-standardized, unvalidated assessments—or worse, secret “tests”—you open your organization to serious legal risk. These practices are difficult to defend because they’re neither job-related nor consistently applied. Courts and regulatory bodies expect employers to use objective, validated tools to make hiring decisions. If you can’t clearly explain how your process predicts job performance, it’s not just ineffective—it may be unlawful.
