Neurodiversity in Hospitality Work: Barriers and Opportunities

For as long as I can remember, hospitality employers have complained about recruitment difficulties, skills shortages and high staff turnover. We discuss how to attract people into the industry, how to keep them and, increasingly, why so many decide to leave. These are legitimate concerns. But there is another side to the conversation that receives much less attention: how many capable people are we excluding before they even have the chance to show us what they can do?

This is particularly relevant when we talk about neurodivergent people. We often assume that the main challenge is persuading employers to become more inclusive. In practice, the problem can be rather more mundane. A business may be perfectly willing to recruit a neurodivergent employee, yet its application forms, interviews, induction arrangements and management practices make it unnecessarily difficult for that person to succeed.

In our recent report, Neurodiversity at Work in Hospitality we examine these issues using academic research, industry examples and the experiences of people involved in supported hospitality training. We are not suggesting that there is one model that will suit every business or every employee. What we do argue is that hospitality needs to look more carefully at the way it identifies ability and at some of the established HR practices that we tend to take for granted.

So, what does neurodiversity at work actually mean?

Neurodiversity describes differences in the ways people think, learn, communicate and process information. Neurodivergent is a broad term that can include autism, ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia, among other differences. It is not a diagnosis in itself, and it should certainly not be treated as a convenient label for a particular set of strengths or difficulties. Two people with the same diagnosis may have very different experiences at work. One might find a noisy environment exhausting; another may be comfortable with noise but need more time to process written instructions. It makes little sense to design support around a stereotype when we can simply ask the individual what works for them.

Hospitality presents an interesting test of this principle. We place considerable value on personality, communication, flexibility and the ability to work under pressure. Quite rightly, in many cases. Yet these qualities are sometimes interpreted rather narrowly. We have all seen job advertisements looking for an “outgoing personality” or someone who can “thrive in a fast-paced environment”. What do those phrases actually tell us about the work? A good room attendant, kitchen assistant or administrator may be highly capable without performing particularly well in a conventional interview. There is a difference between being able to do a job and being good at the process used to obtain it.

That distinction matters because recruitment should establish whether a candidate can meet the genuine requirements of the role, not whether they fit a familiar image of the ideal hospitality employee.

When recruitment becomes the barrier

One of the clearest messages from our report is that the barriers are often built into ordinary HR procedures. Lengthy online forms, automated screening, broad selection criteria and interviews that reward confident verbal responses may appear neutral, but they do not necessarily give every applicant an equal opportunity. This is especially frustrating in an industry where so much of the work is practical. We can spend considerable time questioning someone about their ability to work in a kitchen, for example, without ever giving them a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate it.

Our work with The CRUMBS Project, a Bournemouth-based disability training charity, reinforces this point. Peter Jones has highlighted how difficult it can be to engage employers when established recruitment systems leave little room for flexibility. Progress often depends on developing a relationship with a business, understanding its concerns and working together to find a sensible way forward. That may involve a supported introduction, clearer information before an interview or a properly structured practical assessment. These are not shortcuts, nor should they mean lowering professional standards. They are different ways of finding out whether someone can do the job. 

Of course, employers still need to consider safety, service quality and the operational requirements of each position. Inclusion is not about ignoring these responsibilities. It is about distinguishing what is essential from what has simply become customary.

Inclusion does not end with a job offer

Getting someone through the recruitment process is only the first part of the story. A hotel or restaurant can be a demanding place to work: priorities change, colleagues are busy, instructions arrive from several directions and service cannot always wait. Some neurodivergent employees may find particular aspects of this environment difficult, especially when expectations are unclear. But we should be careful not to assume that every difficulty is an individual problem. Sometimes the organisation of work is the problem.

Think of a busy restaurant where a supervisor gives three instructions at once, changes the order of priorities and then becomes frustrated when an employee asks for clarification. I suspect many hospitality workers, neurodivergent or otherwise, would struggle with that approach. Clearer task allocation, a short pre-service briefing, visual prompts where useful and specific feedback are hardly revolutionary management techniques. They are simply good management. The important point is to agree with the employee which arrangements are helpful and to review them as the job changes.

This does not mean that every operation must be redesigned. Some adjustments will be straightforward; others will require more thought, particularly in smaller businesses with limited supervisory capacity. The key is to approach the discussion practically, considering both the employee and the demands of the role. Support also needs to continue after induction. A change of shift, supervisor or responsibilities can make an arrangement that previously worked much less effective.

There is a cultural dimension here too. Hospitality still has a tendency to admire people who can put up with almost anything. Resilience is important, but it should not become an excuse for poor communication or unnecessary pressure. Employees should be able to explain that something is not working without being made to feel that they lack commitment or are asking for special treatment.

The CRUMBS Project: developing skills and confidence

The CRUMBS Project provides a useful illustration of what a more individual approach can look like. Based in Bournemouth, the charity supports disabled people through hospitality, catering and life-skills training. Its participants have different needs and aspirations, and not all are neurodivergent. The programmes combine practical learning with confidence-building, independence and links to local employers. This wider picture is important: success cannot be measured by a single outcome imposed on everyone.

The trainee stories included in our report make that clear. For some, the ambition is to secure paid employment; for others, developing confidence, acquiring a qualification or becoming more independent is an important step. We should recognise these achievements without confusing training, volunteering and paid work. Each has a place, but they are not the same thing.

The difficult part often comes when someone is ready to move from a supportive training environment into mainstream employment. A person who performs well in practical training may still be screened out by an application process or struggle with an interview. This is why partnerships between employers and organisations such as CRUMBS matter. They allow people to meet, expectations to be discussed and appropriate support to be planned before problems arise.

The objective, however, should be meaningful choice and opportunity for the individual, rather than a permanent reliance on specialist provision. Where paid employment is the goal, there needs to be a credible route towards it.

Marsham Court Hotel: inclusion as an everyday management responsibility

Marsham Court Hotel in Bournemouth offers an example of how these principles can work in an ordinary hospitality business. The independent, family-run hotel has developed its approach to accessibility and inclusion from a personal family experience of disability. Importantly, this commitment extends to its employees as well as its guests. As reported in our study, 21% of its workforce has a declared disability. This is a figure for disability generally, not a measure of neurodivergence, but it does illustrate the scale of the hotel’s commitment. 

Marsham Court combines accessible recruitment with mentoring, staff training and links to specialist organisations, including The CRUMBS Project. These relationships provide opportunities for trainees to gain experience in a commercial hotel environment, while the hotel benefits from better understanding what individuals can contribute and what support may be required. The hotel has also received industry recognition for its work on inclusion, and co-owner James Dixon-Box serves as the UK Government’s Disability and Access Ambassador for Hospitality. 

I find this example particularly relevant because Marsham Court is not a large international hotel group with a substantial corporate HR department. It is an independent business that has made inclusion part of its management approach. That does not mean the experience can be copied without adaptation, but it does challenge the idea that smaller employers are necessarily unable to make meaningful changes.

From good intentions to practical action

So where should employers begin? Our report suggests starting with the basics. Review job descriptions and ask whether every requirement is genuinely necessary. Give applicants clear information about the selection process and consider whether a practical assessment would tell you more than a conventional interview. During induction, explain tasks properly, agree how instructions and feedback will be given, and make sure there is someone available to provide support. Above all, do not assume that recruitment is the end of the employer’s responsibility. Development, progression and continuity of support matter just as much.

Smaller hotels, restaurants and cafés may need outside help, particularly when they have limited HR expertise or cannot provide specialist coaching themselves. Local charities, training providers and employment services can be valuable partners. Government and industry bodies also have a part to play in making advice and support easier to access. Nevertheless, employers cannot outsource the everyday responsibility of managing people fairly. That remains a management task, whatever the size of the business.

There is one further point that should be obvious, although it is sometimes overlooked: neurodivergent employees need to be part of these conversations. We cannot decide what people need without listening to them, and we should not assume that everyone wants the same kind of work or career. Hospitality is a people business, and we are accustomed to talking about the importance of individual attention when it comes to our guests. Perhaps we need to apply some of that thinking more consistently to our employees. Neuroinclusion is not a separate HR fashion or a charitable gesture. It concerns the way we recruit, organise work, supervise people and create opportunities for them to develop.

There is still much we need to learn. We need more applied research involving neurodivergent hospitality employees themselves, better evidence on how adjustments work in different operational settings and a clearer understanding of the resources employers require. The examples in our report are encouraging, but they should not be mistaken for proof that one approach will work everywhere. In the meantime, we can make a start by questioning some familiar practices. When an applicant struggles with our recruitment process, is that telling us something about their ability to do the job, or about the way we have chosen to assess them?

For an industry that continues to worry about finding and keeping good people, it seems a question worth asking.

Full industry report: https://doi.org/10.18746/tzn7-4c52