Conceptualizing neurodiversity as individual differences in self-regulation

A core assumption of the neurodiversity movement is that neurological differences such as autism, ADHD, and dyslexia stem from naturally occurring variability in the brain and thought processes, rather than disease. This idea is quite in line with I-O psychology’s tendency to conceptualize individual differences as continuous and multidimensional. Although comparing the experiences of neurominority groups with those of other marginalized groups will undoubtedly prove informative in guiding diversity and inclusion efforts, there is also much to be gained by conceptualizing neurodiversity through an individual difference lens. In this commentary in response to LeFevre-Levy et al. (2023), I give examples of existing bodies of knowledge on work motivation and associated individual differences in self-regulation that show conceptual overlap with descriptions of neurodiversity. I then point to advantages of conceptualizing neurodiversity as a set of continuous individual differences as opposed to a limited number of discrete, diagnosis-based categories. Theory and research on self-regulation highlight the internal processes involved in managing one’s own attention, emotion, and volitional behavior—processes directly affected by neurodiversity. Further, research on work motivation has long recognized between-person differences in selfregulation and explored the interaction of these person-level variables with the situation or job context. Thus, the plethora of individual differences examined in the work motivation literature hold direct relevance to the work-related strengths and weaknesses attributed to different neurominority groups. Consider, for example, the following descriptions of one employee’s challenges with self-regulation: