In my previous Hospitality Net article, I explored how small, practical adjustments can help hotels tap into an overlooked talent pool of neurodivergent people—and, in the process, make operations smoother for everyone. But the story does not end there: even when hotels make public commitments to neuroinclusion, the day-to-day experience doesn’t always reflect those intentions.
Recent research with neurodiversity advocates and human resource professionals of hotels reveals a consistent implementation gap. Hotels announce initiatives, publish policies, and share uplifting statements, yet their employment practices frequently end up as simple neurodiversity‑washing—symbolic action that looks progressive while leaving serious employment barriers untouched.
The numbers tell the story. Over 40% of UK hospitality employers now have some form of neuroinclusion policy. However, fewer than 15% of neurodivergent employees find workplace accommodation effective or consistent. Unemployment rates among neurodivergent adults, particularly those with autism, hover around 70 to 80%. For an industry that faces chronic staff shortages, this is both a moral failure and a missed opportunity.
The core conflict in approach
The problem is that hotels often try to hold two conflicting ideas about neurodiversity employment at the same time. The first treats inclusion as a right. It demands that hotel companies redesign workplaces to remove barriers for all neurodivergent individuals, regardless of any immediate return on investment. The second treats neurodiversity as a business resource. It celebrates cognitive differences that can offer competitive advantages, attention to detail, pattern recognition, and so on.
The research describes this tension as the “Accommodation‑Valorisation Paradox.” A hotel cannot logically argue that neurodivergent people face disabling barriers that require universal accommodation and, at the same time, claim that they possess special cognitive profiles that make them suitable only for specific jobs. In practice, most hotels resolve this conflict by prioritising the business case. That shortcut leads to three problematic patterns.
How the business-case shortcut shows up
First, hotels categorise neurodivergent traits into predefined “talent packages.” Human resource professionals report that they map neurodivergent employees into roles like revenue management or housekeeping based on assumed strengths in analytical thinking or attention to detail. Neurodiversity becomes a recruitment checklist, not a reason to make the entire workplace more accessible.
Second, job mapping becomes a gatekeeping mechanism. Hotels systematically exclude people from roles with high unpredictability or sensory load—front desk positions, night shifts, and busy service periods. One manager admitted that their hotel “cannot always provide a quiet environment or stick to rigid routines.” In effect, this restricts individuals whose support needs do not align with existing operations.
Third, hotels celebrate only those traits with immediate market value. If a neurodivergent trait does not translate into clear business benefits—or if the required support is perceived as too costly—neurodivergent applicants are quietly filtered out. This is not inclusion; it is selective recruitment dressed up as progressive policy.
The gap between policy and practice
This gap is not simply an implementation lag; it is structural. Corporate headquarters may announce neurodiversity initiatives, but franchisees often have enough operational discretion to ignore them. One human resource director candidly acknowledged that quiet rooms and sensory accommodation exist in company‑owned hotels but are often absent in franchised properties.
Even where policies exist, their impact depends on whether individual managers choose to use them. One manager stated that online training alone “is not enough. When managers commit, retention improves. When they do not, the policy becomes corporate theatre—visible in annual reports but absent from daily operations.
Neurodiversity advocates also report that standard recruitment and interview processes remain exclusionary. Candidates are still forced to request accommodation rather than receiving them as standard practice. Meanwhile, many neurodivergent employees already working in hotels do not disclose their status due to stigma. This is the real test of whether a publicised inclusive culture is genuine.
What needs to change?
Hotels need to stop relying on business cases alone. A strength-based approach sounds appealing, but it inevitably marginalises neurodivergent individuals with higher support needs. A rights‑based approach is not about finding the “perfect” job‑person match. It is about redesigning the work environment so that everyone can participate.
This does not mean ignoring operational realities. Hospitality operates with tight margins and variable demand. But hotel companies must acknowledge the real trade‑offs between efficiency and equity, rather than pretending the two goals will automatically align. When neurodiversity is framed only through the lens of business benefits, the conditions for selective inclusion are created—and those conditions serve neither social justice nor long‑term business interests.
The industry must build neurodivergent employee inclusion into its foundations. If an employee has to disclose a diagnosis just to receive clear instructions or reduced sensory intensity, the workplace is not inclusive. It simply has a higher barrier to entry.
Hotels must also address the franchisee challenge. Neurodiversity policies cannot be optional at the property level if corporate commitments are serious. The sector should consider mandatory reporting on accommodation outcomes and stronger oversight to ensure consistency.
Several managers stressed that hotel companies must prepare their entire structure before launching dedicated hiring programmes for neurodivergent individuals. Without the right cultural groundwork and processes in place first, even well‑intentioned hires will struggle. Inclusion is an organisational responsibility, not an individual burden.
The choice for the industry is not between rights and resources. The choice is whether hotels will continue with symbolic gestures that maintain the status quo or undertake the structural redesign that genuine inclusion requires. Hospitality claims people‑centred values while facing ongoing staffing crises. It cannot afford to keep getting this wrong.
For more information about implementing neurodiversity employment practices in hospitality, contact Jayanti Jayanti ([email protected] ) at the London Geller College of Hospitality and Tourism, University of West London.
Jayanti Jayanti
Senior Lecturer, Hospitality Management
University of West London
