The NEW E.R.A. Method® wasn't developed from an academic theory. It grew from more than 30 years of professional experience, alongside coaching and lived experience – and from repeatedly seeing how much unnecessary difficulty can be created by the way work is organised, communicated and managed.
The research came later.
What I found was that many of the principles underlying the framework are consistent with established research across cognitive psychology, organisational psychology and workplace studies.
Research into cognitive load helps explain why the way information and tasks are structured matters (Sweller, 2011). Complex work cannot always be made simple – nor would we necessarily want it to be – but unnecessary mental effort can be created by the way information or tasks are presented.
Research into role ambiguity similarly shows a relationship between unclear expectations and responsibilities and job performance (Tubre & Collins, 2000).
And research into job demands and resources provides an important distinction: challenge itself isn't necessarily the problem. Meaningful challenge can be engaging, while unnecessary obstacles can make it harder for people to use their strengths effectively (Crawford, LePine & Rich, 2010).
Reduce the noise, not the challenge.
Research also tells us something important about improvement. The people doing the work can hold valuable information about problems, risks and opportunities, but research into employee voice and psychological safety shows that having something useful to say doesn't necessarily mean people will feel able to say it (Morrison, 2011; Edmondson, 1999).
Previous experiences matter too. Poorly managed organisational change can leave a legacy that affects people's attitudes towards what happens next (Bordia et al., 2011).
That's one reason I believe meaningful, achievable improvement matters. Sometimes a smaller change that genuinely makes things better also demonstrates that change can happen.
And implementation matters. The Fogg Behaviour Model provides a useful reminder that behaviour depends not only on motivation, but also on whether something is possible to do and whether there is an effective prompt to do it (Fogg, 2009). In workplace processes, that raises very practical questions: Can people do what's being asked? Do they know when to do it? And what triggers the process?
What does the research tell us?
These aren't exclusively neurodivergent issues. Ambiguity, unnecessary cognitive demand, poor communication and ineffective processes can create difficulty for anyone.
But they don't necessarily affect everyone in the same way.
A 2025 systematic review of 56 studies across 12 countries identified a range of workplace barriers and facilitators experienced by neurodivergent people, including communication, flexibility, recruitment, management and organisational support, adjustments, feedback and workplace practices (Koldas et al., 2025).
So before asking only:
“What support does this individual need?”
there is another useful question:
“Is there anything about the way we work that is creating an unnecessary barrier?”
Sometimes, improving the environment, information, process or way of working may reduce the difficulty. Sometimes, individual support or reasonable adjustment will still be needed. Often, both may matter.
Why neuro-inclusion?
The NEW E.R.A. Method® doesn't replace HR, legal or specialist advice. It provides a practical framework that can help organisations put agreed requirements, recommendations and intentions into practice.
That's where The NEW E.R.A. Method® can help.
EXPLORE what is happening now and where barriers or unnecessary friction may exist.
REFINE what could work better and turn meaningful improvements into action.
ADJUST where individual needs or circumstances require additional support.
And keep reviewing, because implementing a change doesn't necessarily mean it achieved what it was intended to achieve.
Current Acas guidance recommends a range of actions to help organisations become more neuroinclusive, including reviewing recruitment, supporting managers and considering accessibility in processes and ways of working (Acas, 2025a).
Acas also makes an important point in its wider equality, diversity and inclusion guidance: an action plan can help put policy into everyday practice, including identifying what needs to happen, who is responsible and how progress will be monitored (Acas, 2025b).
From intention to action
Research is one part of the picture. Professional experience, lived experience and the experiences of the people actually doing the work matter too.
Evidence can help us understand why something may matter. It doesn't remove the need to explore what is actually happening in a particular organisation, with particular people, doing particular work.
Research can tell us the answer to the question that was asked. That doesn't necessarily mean we asked the question that mattered most.
If we can increase clarity, we can often reduce overwhelm – and that seems a good place to start.
Using the evidence
Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L. D., Jimmieson, N. L. & Irmer, B. E. (2011). Haunted by the Past: Effects of Poor Change Management History on Employee Attitudes and Turnover. Group & Organization Management, 36(2).
Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A. & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking Job Demands and Resources to Employee Engagement and Burnout: A Theoretical Extension and Meta-Analytic Test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834–848.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
Fogg, B. J. (2009). A Behavior Model for Persuasive Design. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology.
Koldas, M., Dounavi, K., MacCarthaigh, M. et al. (2025). Facilitators and Barriers to Employment of Neurodivergent Individuals: A Systematic Literature Review of Employee and Employer Experiences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.
Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee Voice Behavior: Integration and Directions for Future Research. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373–412.
Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 55, 37–76.
Tubre, T. C. & Collins, J. M. (2000). Jackson and Schuler (1985) Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of the Relationships Between Role Ambiguity, Role Conflict, and Job Performance. Journal of Management, 26(1), 155–169.
Acas (2025a). Neurodiversity at work: Making your organisation neuroinclusive.
Acas (2025b). Equality, diversity and inclusion: Making your workplace inclusive.
References
Read it
On-the-Job Training and Structure: Why It Matters for Neurodivergent Employees
03.
What Is the NEW E.R.A. Method® – and Why Does Neuro-Inclusion Need a Framework?
Read it
ADHD and Reasonable Adjustments: Is the Environment the Real Problem?
02.
Read it
01.
Reflections, practical insights and real-world thinking from my work as a neurodiversity consultant and coach, and from my own experience as a late-diagnosed neurodivergent person.
The Values Corner
Follow me on Instagram
