Processes, policies, and procedures are crucial elements in any organisation, intended to bring structure, fairness, and consistency to decision-making. Yet, in some cases, these processes can become hollow routines—followed for the sake of compliance rather than for their original purpose. This phenomenon of “box-ticking” can be particularly harmful to employees with ADHD, as it allows managers and HR professionals to go through the motions of protocol without considering the true intent behind them. When processes become mere checklists, they can fail to protect the very people they were designed to serve, resulting in unfair treatment, particularly for neurodivergent employees who may already face challenges in traditional work environments.
In this article, we’ll explore how processes lose their purpose when they’re reduced to mere compliance, why this is especially harmful for employees with ADHD, and how organisations can return to meaningful process adherence that upholds fairness and inclusivity.
The Purpose of Processes: Fairness, Equity, and Support
Organisational processes are designed with specific goals in mind. Ideally, they aim to ensure:
- Consistency and Fairness: By following a standardised approach, organisations aim to treat all employees fairly, reducing the risk of bias or discrimination.
- Protection for Vulnerable Employees: Many processes are developed to support marginalised groups, including those with disabilities, by setting guidelines for accommodations and fair treatment.
- Accountability: Clear processes help hold decision-makers accountable, ensuring that actions taken against any employee are justified and appropriate.
- Transparency: Processes provide clarity, allowing employees to understand the steps involved in decisions that affect them, such as performance reviews, disciplinary actions, and dismissal.
For people with ADHD, these processes are essential, as they provide a structure that should, in theory, protect against discrimination and ensure that any actions taken, such as decisions around accommodations (or lack thereof) or disciplinary procedures, are fair and well-considered.
However, when these processes devolve into box-ticking exercises, the purpose behind them is lost, and they can become a tool for dismissal or unfair treatment rather than support and protection. For example, it is not uncommon for employees with ADHD to experience being bullied at work and just like anyone else, the protections are supposed to be in place to stop this from happening, but in some cases become more about ‘going through the motions’ , such as waiting for months for outcomes of slow investigations while these negative experiences are still affecting the person.
The Problem of “Box-Ticking” for Process Compliance
“Box-ticking” occurs when individuals follow a procedure to the letter without considering the spirit or intent behind it. This approach treats the process as an obstacle to be cleared rather than a meaningful guide to fair treatment. In practice, box-ticking can have several negative consequences:
- Using Processes as a Justification for Unfair Treatment
Box-ticking can be used to justify actions that would otherwise be viewed as unfair. If an employee with ADHD is struggling due to insufficient accommodations, rather than addressing the support they need, an organisation might simply go through a checklist of performance warnings, effectively setting them up for dismissal. This box-ticking approach allows decision-makers to claim that they “followed the process,” even when doing so ultimately results in discriminatory or unjust outcomes. - Diluting Accountability
When processes are reduced to checklists, the individuals following them may feel they are not accountable for the outcomes. If a manager simply “ticks the boxes” to discipline or dismiss an ADHD employee without considering alternative support strategies, they can defer responsibility to the process itself. This detachment from accountability allows for decisions that may harm the employee, particularly those who require understanding and tailored support. - Missing the Spirit of Inclusivity and Fairness
The purpose of most HR processes is (supposed) to protect and support employees, especially those who may be vulnerable to biases, including people with ADHD. When processes become perfunctory, the inclusivity they were designed to foster is lost. Instead of evaluating how well the process serves its intended purpose, the focus shifts to whether every step has been “completed,” often disregarding whether fair treatment was achieved.
Box-Ticking and ADHD: How the Process Fails Neurodivergent Employees
For employees with ADHD, box-ticking processes are particularly problematic. ADHD individuals often need accommodations such as awareness training given to peers. However, the bureaucratic approach of box-ticking disregards these needs, resulting in unfair treatment and missed opportunities for effective support.
- Disciplinary Action Without Consideration of Disability
For example, if an ADHD employee struggles with communication under certain circumstances, the root cause is often tied to executive function challenges. Instead of offering reasonable accommodations (or in some cases, providing support but then using the need to do so as a negative), a manager focused on box-ticking might initiate a performance improvement plan that doesn’t address the core issue. This procedural approach sets up the employee for failure, leading to disciplinary action or dismissal. - Lack of Follow-Through in Accommodations
Employees with ADHD may need types of support that result in greater awareness of their condition by colleagues, such as ADHD training. Box-ticking often leads to rigid accommodations that don’t consider the effectiveness of the support. If a process simply asks, “Have accommodations been offered?”, for example “Has ADHD training been suggested to people?” without assessing their effectiveness (e.g. whether the training was then carried out), the employee may be left with insufficient support that doesn’t actually help them succeed. - Failure to Engage in Meaningful Dialogue
Effective processes should involve two-way dialogue, allowing the employee and employer to work collaboratively toward solutions. Box-ticking limits this dialogue, as decision-makers may be more focused on checking procedural boxes than actively listening to and understanding the employee’s experiences. For ADHD employees, this can feel isolating and lead to disengagement, as they are not given the chance to advocate for their needs in a meaningful way.
How Organisations Can Restore Meaning and Fairness to Processes
To ensure processes fulfill their purpose of fairness, accountability, and support for all employees (including those with ADHD) organisations need to shift away from box-ticking and return to the underlying intent of their processes. Here’s how:
- Focus on Purpose, Not Just Procedure
Every time a process is followed, managers and HR professionals should ask themselves, “What is the purpose of this step?” Understanding the intent (e.g. protecting an employee’s rights, providing necessary support, or ensuring fair treatment) helps keep the focus on outcomes rather than simply completing tasks. For ADHD employees, this shift means their differences are more likely to be considered in each step. - Emphasise Individualised Support
Processes should allow for flexibility and personalisation. Instead of rigidly following the same steps for everyone, managers should consider the individual circumstances of each employee, such as those with ADHD. Accommodations and performance reviews should be tailored, addressing specific needs and adjusting support as necessary. - Reframe Accountability as Responsibility to Fairness
Managers and HR professionals should view their role as one of responsibility for fair treatment, not just compliance. Processes must be approached with the understanding that their purpose is to provide equitable opportunities and prevent discrimination. For example, negatives in a performance review should be viewed as a guide for determining if all possible support has been provided. - Foster a Culture of Empathy and Understanding
Effective processes start with understanding the individual. Organisations should provide neurodiversity training, and condition-specific training to raise awareness about ADHD and other conditions, equipping managers with the skills to better understand and support their neurodivergent employees. This awareness allows managers to approach processes with empathy, improving outcomes for employees with different thinking styles. - Allow for Flexibility and Evaluation of Outcomes
Processes should be flexible enough to adjust to the needs of each individual case, and they should be evaluated based on outcomes. If a box-ticking approach leads to the unfair dismissal of an ADHD employee, it’s clear that the process has failed. Organisations should regularly review the effectiveness of their processes, ensuring that they are achieving fair and equitable outcomes for all employees.
From Box-Ticking to Meaningful Support
In workplaces that rely on process for process’ sake, ADHD employees and others with unique needs will suffer the most. When processes devolve into box-ticking exercises, they lose their original purpose of ensuring fairness, accountability, and inclusivity, becoming little more than bureaucratic tools that justify decisions without consideration of individual needs.
To truly support ADHD employees and uphold the principles of equity and inclusivity, organisations must approach processes thoughtfully, recognising their underlying purpose and implementing them with empathy and understanding. By focusing on outcomes, prioritising individualised support, and fostering a culture of fairness, organisations can transform processes from hollow checklists into meaningful frameworks that genuinely protect and uplift all employees.