Bias, blind spots, and broken systems: Your leadership playbook is outdated
The future of leadership isn’t reserved for those who fit the mold but for those who break it
Tech! The thing known as fast-paced, innovative, and changing the world as we know it. Tech is driven by big ideas, limitless possibilities, and the resources to make them real. I often wonder how the person who first pitched Siri approached that conversation in a room full of people.
Do you think it went something like…
“Hey, I have an idea… it’s a person's voice, but the person doesn’t exist. It’s kind of abstract. You can ask her to do things, like set an alarm. She lives inside a phone, and I’m saying ‘she’ because, well, she’s a woman. An invisible woman. And her name is Siri…”
THAT’S THE FUTURE! ROBOTS! TECHNOLOGY! AI!
Remember when everything felt new, interesting, and exciting? I lived in SF from 2011 to 2021, and from 2013 to 2018, working a “tech job” was highly sought after. In fact, it was COOL!
Well, it was cool to anyone from the Embarcadero to Divisadero Street.
But now our tech overlords are too busy fighting over bathroom tampon policies and scrubbing DEI initiatives to remember why they were once considered the future.
Google has removed Pride Month, Black History Month, and other cultural celebrations from our calendars. So, maybe the car-driving tech innovation was actually a Tesla.
As someone with a neurodivergence — did I lose some of you? — climbing the leadership ladder has become exhaustive for all the wrong reasons.
The things tech once boasted as leading the initiatives in an outdated world of slow corporations operating on waterfall versus the BIG dogs driving impact through agile frameworks are now but a fart in the wind.
Tech’s decision to abandon inclusivity—except for Costco, shoutout to Costco—doesn’t change reality. Marginalized communities didn’t vanish just because a CEO removed DEI from the handbook.
Diverse teams don’t just feel good—they perform better.
A report by McKinsey & Company finds that companies embracing cognitive diversity thrive socially and outperform their homogeneous counterparts in profitability by 36%.
Additional research continues to support these claims.
A study from Wiley’s Online Journal (Cognitive Diversity for Creativity and Inclusive Growth) found that cognitively diverse teams outperform even high-IQ teams in problem-solving — and companies with at least one woman on the board financially outperform all-male leadership teams.
Yet, this still seems to be lost on decision-makers.
Tech wasn’t built for neurodivergent minds, but that doesn’t mean we can’t thrive in it. When systems are designed around neurotypical norms, bias, and shame make it harder for us to succeed, not because we lack ability but because the rules were never written with us in mind.
Our biases are hardwired
Two years ago, I sat at dinner with my partner, replaying the words from my performance review earlier that day. Like so many others, the feedback I received wasn’t about my work — it was about my personality.
A line that many companies blur.
While we waited outside to be seated at a table, I shared my frustrations with my partner, and at one point, I began to cry.
Tears flowed as I shared feedback from my review and the words that have become all too familiar: “You’re just not leadership material.”
I’m too direct. Too communicative. Too empathetic. I talk too fast. Or too much. Or not enough.
Coworkers misread my tone because I use a single period at the end of Slack sentences, rendering me “terse.”
My passion doesn’t read as drive. It reads as reactive. Emotional.
Asking for accountability from your colleagues can be (and usually is) labeled as problematic because you’re directly confronting potential or existing conflict that one (or more) individuals caused.
That’s when leadership takes the microphone to repeat themselves once more, “It’s a team effort.”
Going back to the time of elementary school days, think of a time when peers bullied you. Even if only once.
Maybe something you said incorrectly out loud in class. Maybe a word you mispronounced. Maybe you misunderstood something, and others laughed at you for misunderstanding it.
Now, jump to middle school. Could your parents afford the clothes the popular kids deemed “cool”? For us, it was Abercrombie and Hollister. My mom was more in the “Aéropostale and Walmart” income bracket, and my peers never let me forget it.
In high school, the divide goes even further. The cliques break into sub-groups from their former middle school grouping of “popular” and “unpopular.”
Now you have band geeks, jocks, preps, theatre kids, smart nerds, burnt outs, and the list goes on. What was considered normal in high school was what was accepted — and nothing else.
The same pattern repeats at every stage: elementary, middle, and high school. We are taught what’s ‘normal’, told what’s acceptable and shown what’s valued.
Everything outside of that becomes an outlier. Something to exclude. Something that makes you uncomfortable, even if you can’t explain why.
Humans have an inherent tendency to categorize information, which helps simplify the complex world around us.
Research indicates that social categorization is a fundamental aspect of human cognition, aiding quick decision-making and generalization.
“…Categorization can be detrimental to society. It creates three main conflicts: considering people with one commonality to be more similar than they are, considering people with one difference to be more different than they are, and stating that an individual is more desired or preferred over another.” — The Harmful Impact That Categorization Has Upon People by Camila Kulahiloglu
The standards we set or were asked to meet were the ones that we felt safe in because everything makes a lot more sense when you can put meaning or names behind it.
When you fit into those standards, you feel included. You are included.
When you fall outside of those standards, you might feel as if you’re on an island.
Our entire world is built on what is “normal” or “good” versus what is “weird” and “bad.” Most of the time, all are defined by someone who is not us.
“The fear of being rejected becomes the fear of not being good enough. Eventually we become someone that we are not. We become a copy of Mamma’s beliefs, Daddy’s beliefs, society’s beliefs, and religion’s beliefs.”
― Miguel Ruiz, The Four Agreements: A Practical Guide to Personal Freedom
The mask leaders are expected to wear
A study in Frontiers in Psychology examined how leaders are expected to perform emotional labor. To meet organizational expectations, they often engage in ‘surface acting’ (faking emotions) or ‘deep acting’ (convincing themselves they feel a certain way).
“This forced emotional regulation leads to burnout and job dissatisfaction. Leaders are expected to suppress authenticity in the name of professionalism, but instead of making them ‘better,’ it makes them disconnected, exhausted, and ineffective.”
— Influence of Leaders’ Emotional Labor and Its Perceived Appropriateness on Employees’ Emotional Labor by Xiuli Tang and Yingkang Gu
All the things we are led to believe in our lives are the same things that build the world around us. Today, in our workplace, the standards for leaders to lead or managers to manage are set by those who may have believed what was passed to them, and so on.
How long has it been since someone looked at how we define our boxes and the expectations of the humans around us?
Why are business personas required to be so detached from human personas?
The world of business looks down upon the things that make us human, like:
- Sharing or showing emotion
- Discussing project challenges
- Asking colleagues to be accountable for missed deadlines or dishonesty
- Expressing fatigue from work politics or overly political colleagues that don’t produce anything other than chatter and distraction
- Sharing fears or vulnerabilities around the state of the world
Would you trust a friend who never showed emotion? Who never shared their thoughts openly?
So why do we expect our leaders to do exactly that?
The standards we set for leadership are nothing like the standards we set for being a good human. And maybe that’s the problem.
The standard set doesn’t even benefit the business, the leaders, or the employees. Research highlighted by the Journal of Business and Psychology indicates that:
“Employees’ perceptions of their leaders’ emotional expressions significantly impact their own engagement and performance. Leaders who consistently display a narrow range of emotions may inadvertently hinder employee engagement, as their emotional variability is perceived as inauthentic or detached.”
— Leader Affect Variability and Employee Engagement by Jiaqing Sun, PhD, Sandy J. Wayne, PhD, and Yan Liu, PhD
We’re human, and we’re flawed by default. Whether your bias is conscious or subconscious, it is there. Businesses are not expected to fix this, but we need to continue to ask and advocate for it.
Understanding the human propensity for categorization and the adverse effects that follow is crucial to ensuring we recognize the biases that exist among us.
Without advocacy, the conversations that need to take place for organizations to work towards creating more inclusive environments won’t happen.
Recognizing biases creates an environment that values diversity rather than shames it, reducing the marginalization of individuals who don’t fit traditional norms.
This brings us back to my performance review. My boss wasn’t evaluating my work—they were evaluating me through the lens of their own bias, through the rigid box they’ve been taught leaders should fit into.
And because I don’t fit, I must not belong.
But that’s exactly why we need to keep pushing and keep advocating. Leadership shouldn’t be about who best fits the mold—it should be about who actually leads.
A leader is someone who…
In tech, leadership often claims to value adaptability, inclusion, and diverse perspectives, but reality rarely reflects those ideals. The expectations set for leadership seldom match the leaders we see in the room. Yet, those same expectations become the criteria used to evaluate everyone else, especially those still climbing the ladder.
When leaders preach openness but fail to embed it in their actions, they create a false sense of safety that demands conformity instead of genuine inclusion.
A 2024 article in Forbes highlights that many neurodivergent professionals face invisible barriers to advancement due to outdated leadership stereotypes. The piece emphasizes the need for businesses to create more inclusive environments that recognize diverse leadership styles.
If leadership at the top doesn’t understand bias and the benefits of cognitive diversity, how can we expect the hiring process or leadership pipeline to reflect those values?
Bias trickles down, shaping who gets hired, who gets promoted, and who never gets a chance.
Traditional perceptions of leadership often emphasize traits such as assertiveness, rapid decision-making, and strong verbal communication skills. These expectations can inadvertently create barriers for neurodivergent individuals aspiring for leadership roles in the tech industry.
Addressing these biases requires organizations to reassess their definitions of leadership potential and to implement more inclusive practices that recognize and value diverse cognitive styles.
It doesn’t have to be said aloud for us to feel it: Neurodivergent professionals aren’t seen as leaders.
We’re seen as risks.
Given the data, science has proven more than once that having a neurodivergent condition provides an advantage in more ways than one to teams/companies, especially from a financial reporting perspective (see top of article for McKinsey study).
You would think businesses would be more open to employing diverse individuals and allowing those diverse individuals to lead.
Yet the same feedback echoes through the walls of neurodivergent people in their monthly 1:1s or annual performance reviews.
Talking with your hands. Expressing emotions. Showing honest thoughts, real feelings, real reactions. The very things that make us human are the same things used to measure why we shouldn’t be seen as leaders
If you asked someone to describe a great leader, how often do you think they’d say:
- “They were great with eye contact.”
- “My leader never showed emotions. That made me feel more connected.”
- “A previous manager had an impressive level of assertiveness.”
- “A leader is not someone who dislikes small talk, that’s for sure.”
- “I prefer a leader to be sociable; it doesn’t matter much to me if they drive results or lead us to impact.”
If the majority of decision-makers are neurotypical — or completely untrained in neurodivergent inclusion — how do we expect neurodivergent professionals to succeed in a system that was never built for them?
Worse….how do we expect them to get there in the first place?
Bias and ableism perpetuate the same myths you believe
The point above may prove itself if I ask you what you think of when you hear “ADHD.”
In January 2025, I went to speak at the Design Leadership Summit in Toronto, where I gave a talk on Neurodivergence within Design. As I open the presentation, I first ask the audience what they think when they see/hear the words:
- Strategic
- Decisive
- Strong communicator
- Visionary
- Polished
- Linear thinker
- Focused
One person yelled out, “LEADER!”. And he wasn’t wrong — but the slide was a trap. I picked those words because they are not commonly associated with ADHD or autistic individuals.
The follow-up slide asked the audience if anyone thought “ADHD.” The overwhelming response was “No.”
But why not? Why are those words so far removed from an ADHD/AUDHD individual?
The sad thing is the audience isn’t alone. Anecdotal evidence suggests that a majority of people, likely well over 50%, default to thinking of hyperactivity and the associated traits when ADHD is mentioned.
I’m a designer, so let’s take the ‘leadership traits’ above and translate them into neurodivergent traits…which then translate to design strengths:
🔹 Deep Focus & Hyper-Fixation → Mastering complex problems, spotting patterns, and driving high-quality execution. (focused, linear thinker)
🔹 Nonlinear Thinking → Solving problems unconventionally and seeing connections others miss. (Strategic)
🔹 Rapid Idea Generation & Creativity → Iterating quickly, adapting ideas, and coming up with out-of-the-box solutions. (visionary)
🔹 Systems Thinking & Pattern Recognition → Understanding how everything fits together and designing for scalability. (Strategic)
🔹 Hyper-Empathy & Intuition → Deeply understanding users and designing more inclusive, emotionally resonant experiences. (visionary, strong communicator, decisive)
“Neurodivergent employees can be adept at pattern recognition, enabling them to identify inefficiencies or potential problems before they escalate. By leveraging their unique talents, companies can streamline processes, minimize errors, and ultimately save time and resources.”
– How Leadership Unlocks the Potential of a Neurodiverse Workforce by Anne Schmitz
Because neurodivergence is often seen negatively, even positive traits get framed as deficits. This isn’t just happening in the workplace; it happens in science, too.
A study published in JNeurosci compared the moral behavior of autistic and non-autistic people. The results showed that autistic participants always acted ethically, whether someone was watching them or not. In contrast, non-autistic participants were less ethical when they weren’t being observed.
However, instead of seeing this as a positive trait (sticking to moral values no matter what), the researchers labeled it as a moral “deficit” — as if something was wrong with the autistic participants.
After backlash from the autistic community, the study changed some wording, but it still used language that made being consistently ethical sound like a problem.
This shows how research bias can negatively frame neurodivergence, even when the studied behavior is a strength.
What if, instead of jumping to conclusions, we started asking better questions that led to better assessments?
When someone calls a person ‘too literal,’ what they might mean is that they communicate differently.
But literal thinking ensures precision and clarity; isn’t that what you want in design, engineering, or strategy?
When interviewing designers, a key part of the process is storytelling abilities while presenting case studies / previous work. Some companies are vague on what they’re expecting those stories to look and sound like — and while yes, even if there’s a general foundation for storytelling, expectations are often vague and unspoken.
So, even if a candidate shares a well-structured case study, it might not match what one specific person had in mind.
Instead of saying, ‘This candidate didn’t tell a strong enough story,’ what if we asked, ‘Did they clearly explain their design decisions?’ That shifts the focus from bias to clarity.
Instead of saying: “so and so is rigid and doesn’t adapt well to change,” what if you were informed enough to ask better questions as to why someone might be responding that way?
Imagine an employee, let’s say, a systems architect. They push back on last-minute changes.
To you, that feels rigid and inflexible. But to them? They see the whole picture. They understand how this change will disrupt dependencies and create a domino effect of issues.
Instead of labeling them rigid, what if we saw them for what they are? A strategic thinker preventing significant roadblocks.
“If companies actually want to benefit from neurodivergent leaders, they need to do more than just hire diverse talent. They need to create an environment where neurodivergent professionals don’t have to mask, hide, or constantly ‘prove’ their worth.”
— Your leadership team is likely more neurodiverse than you think by Eleanor Hecks
Humans categorize everything, including people. When someone doesn’t fit the expected mold, we immediately assume something is ‘wrong’ with them.
Instead of asking why someone works a certain way, like our systems architect here, we label those experiences:
🔹 ‘Delaying is bad.’
🔹 ‘This coworker is blocking us from moving fast.’
🔹 ‘We should break things quickly…not slow down for the process.’
But is that true? Or is it just what we’ve been taught?
A neurodivergent person thrives on clear structures and well-defined processes. They prefer logical consistency, which ensures efficiency and prevents unnecessary rework.
How will leaders even know what to ask if no one teaches them how to see differently?
Can you nurture what you don’t understand?
The arguments, ‘That’s just how it is!’ or ‘Business doesn’t have to account for your issues,’ are tired, outdated, and, frankly, low-EQ.
Come on! At least get a more original argument than bending the knee to a corporation that doesn’t care about you, man who makes $50k a year and a CEO who makes billions.
Yet…the data keeps proving that Diverse teams perform better financially, operationally, and culturally.
“Our latest analysis reaffirms the strong business case for both gender diversity and ethnic and cultural diversity in corporate leadership — and shows that this business case continues to strengthen. The most diverse companies are now more likely than ever to outperform less diverse peers on profitability.”
— Diversity wins: why inclusion matters, report by McKinsey
What’s the controversy in asking organizations to meet cognitively diverse individuals in the middle?
The ask benefits everyone within the org.
If companies were transparent about measuring pay, promotions, and hiring decisions, they’d level the playing field and ensure everyone, not just those who fit the mold, is held to the same standard.
Before and after my diagnosis, the same struggles have followed me. My ways of working — my “communication style” — are always a little different. But not once have I seen the roles reversed. Not once has anyone adjusted to work with me.
It’s always me doing the adapting. The questioning. The understanding.
At every job I’ve had, I’ve been the only person to reach out to others, ask questions, and reach an understanding in order to adapt.
How do you prefer to communicate? What time zone are you in? How do you give/receive feedback? I want to know all of this and more because I want to understand my peers, regardless of what baggage, trauma, and triggers they bring to the work environment.
As a kid, I thought adulthood came with built-in upgrades like respect, communication, empathy, and patience. I thought people just became emotionally intelligent the way we grew taller. Like it was automatic.
Boy, oh boy! I was naive to think those things come naturally just because the clock strikes midnight on whatever birthday you consider an adult.
Some people believe we leave our baggage at the door when we start work.
We don’t.
We carry it everywhere, whether we realize it or not. Hidden emotional wounds can influence behavior, interactions, and workplace dynamics.
Remember that just because you stop thinking about something doesn’t mean it stops affecting or impacting how you make decisions or respond to others.
The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) notes that people may engage in behaviors to manage the aftereffects of trauma, such as avoidance or aggression, often without realizing the root cause.
Additionally, Psychology Today discusses how intergenerational trauma — emotional and psychological wounds passed down from previous generations — can affect an individual’s stress responses and behavior in professional settings.
Neurodivergent professionals have spent their entire careers adapting, masking, adjusting, and burning out just to fit into workplaces never designed for them.
So why is it so unthinkable to ask businesses to meet us halfway?
“On a larger scale, many employers tell us that including people with autism has improved the companies’ overall corporate cultures. Learning how to most effectively manage people with autism has made them better managers overall, for all of their employees. It’s made them more aware of the shortcomings in their traditional screening and interview processes. They’ve realized that they are missing very talented people by assessing candidates with traditional interviews, rather than by giving them a more applicable opportunity to show what they are capable of.”
— Quote by David Kearon, in “Closing the neurodiversity gap in the workplace”
Teams that understand each other, trust each other. Trust means better feedback, stronger collaboration, and more growth for the team, the business, and the products you’re building.
The best leaders aren’t the most polished, they’re the most human
If leadership were truly about vision, strategy, and driving impact, we would have a very different idea of what makes a great leader.
However, leadership is often measured by how well someone fits a mold rather than by their impact.
So what if we stopped forcing people to perform leadership and instead let them lead as themselves?
➡️ A leader who prioritizes understanding over assumption.
➡️ A leader who knows that trust and transparency fuel success more than posturing ever will.
➡️ A leader who recognizes that being human isn’t a weakness; it’s the foundation of authentic leadership.
“More high quality human connections at work isn’t just good for people. According to research by Cameron et al. at the University of Michigan, when leaders adopt a human-centered view of business that emphasizes cultures of respect, trust, compassion, and wisdom, the performance of the organization rises along with individual well-being.”
— Sesil Pir in Forbe’s “A Human Way Of Business: Organizational Behaviors Necessary To Redefine Leadership”
Last year, I had a 1:1 set up with our new manager as she was onboarding into the role. It was one of the first conversations we had after she was brought on to the team, where I utilized our session to touch on my “manual of me”, where I also shared my ADHD diagnosis with her.
Her reply: “I don’t know much about that. I will need to look into it and educate myself more.”
Fourteen years in tech and ten in design, and this was the first time a leader actively sought to understand my way of thinking rather than applying a one-size-fits-all leadership lens. Instead of seeing my neurodivergence as a risk, she recognized it as a factor in how I work, learn, and grow, choosing to meet me where I am rather than force me into a mold.
That’s the future of leadership: co-elevating, bridging gaps, and creating space for diverse ways of thinking. High—impact work happens when we stop letting misunderstandings get in the way.
Because if neurodivergent professionals can spend their entire careers adapting just to be included, it’s not unreasonable to expect leadership to meet them halfway.
When we elevate leaders with diverse perspectives — whether neurodivergent, POC, or other historically marginalized identities — we don’t just fill a quota; we close the gaps that keep workplaces from genuinely evolving.
These leaders bring lived experiences that challenge outdated norms, reshaping how we define success, collaboration, and growth.
They understand firsthand the hurdles that others dismiss, and because of that, they’re uniquely equipped to navigate and dismantle systemic barriers.
When leadership reflects the full spectrum of human experience, we don’t just create more inclusive workplaces; we build environments where people can thrive, innovate, and contribute at their highest level without constantly proving their worth.
The future of tech isn’t just about better products; it’s about better cultures — ones where understanding isn’t optional, empathy is a core skill, and leadership isn’t reserved for those who fit the mold but for those who break it and make space for others to do the same.
