Purpose The study highlights the challenges neurodivergent Gen Z females face in the workplace and how social disparities and workplace inequities affect their inclusion. The study relates the argument that over half of Gen Z identifies as neurodivergent and emphasises the need to include neurodiverse individuals in the workplace to outperform. It highlights the need to consider all kinds of minds and evaluate them by their skills rather than stereotypes. Design/methodology/approach The study has followed a quantitative approach and considered only neurodivergent female employees. Participants who self-identify as neurodivergent and fall within the Gen Z age range were invited. Findings The findings have revealed mixed results. The study has found insignificant results of psychological unsafety with disengagement intention, turnover intention, employee exhaustion and revenge intention. Further, supervisor incivility was found to be insignificant only with disengagement intention and revenge intention of employees. The other proposed hypotheses, including perceived exclusion and stigmatisation, were found to be significant with employee disengagement intentions and revenge intentions, and further with employee exhaustion and turnover intentions. The supervisor’s incivility was only found to be significant with employee emotional exhaustion and turnover intentions. Practical implications The study provides important insights that managers and policymakers can use to ensure workplace inclusion of all minds. This study offers actionable insights for organisations seeking to create an inclusive, psychologically safe environment for neurodivergent females. Originality/value The study discusses a relatively undebated social perspective on neurodivergent Gen Z female inclusion in the workplace and highlights the challenges faced by Gen Z in the workplace.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sawangchai et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:
More from Journal of Organizational Effectiveness People and Performance