‘But My Kid Has It’ – The Rise of the Fake Neurodiversity Expert in Training Delivery.

Recently I saw a post on LinkedIn where someone who claimed to be able to help neurodiverse children was asserting the idea that people with ADHD have an ‘executive functioning age’ that is 30% lower than their biological age. According to the brightly coloured table they had posted (without a single reference to any research), someone with ADHD and a biological age of 27, would have an ‘executive functioning age’ of 18. This is, of course, absolute nonsense.

I left a comment asking where their evidence for these ‘ages’ came from. Shockingly I never received a response.

People with ADHD do often struggle with executive functioning tasks, but ‘Executive Functioning Age’ is not a real concept. The 30% figure is not evidence based.

The person posting takes money to ‘help’ people with ADHD.

Their qualification to do so? Their child has it.

What’s the problem for L&D?

This  is not an isolated incident and this individual is not the only person advertising paid for services relating to neurodiversity without much to back up their qualification to do so.

As we see more visibility for neurodiversity in the workplace there are more L&D teams looking to work with experts to deliver training in this area. There are some really great examples of training available in this area, but there are also some truly terrible ones.

As a person who has been diagnosed with ADHD myself, I am concerned that there are ‘trainers’ or ‘experts’ out there taking advantage of the increased interest in neurodiversity for their own profit. All while producing sub-standard or outright harmful training.

In the example above, telling an employer that their new hire, who has just disclosed their ADHD diagnosis, is going to act like a teenager despite being in their late 20’s, is probably not going to support a positive relationship. It’s also not factually accurate.

Equally I’ve seen suggestions that managers only give their neurodiverse colleagues positive feedback as they may not be able to cope with the negative. This doesn’t help anyone. Neurodiverse people are often more sensitive to negative feedback and we can take a little longer to process it, but we still need to know where we are going wrong in order to improve.

A real expert, who understands the nuances of neurodiversity and the psychology behind it, is not going to suggest either of these approaches.

Is there not a place for lived experience in L&D?

There absolutely is!

Lived experience can be interesting, insightful and help to promote further awareness of neurodiversity. People who have these experiences are an integral part of the conversation around neurodiversity and I am in no way suggesting that these voices are excluded. However, I think it is important to understand where they are most relevant.

I love to see sessions on topics like ‘My Experience of ADHD’, ‘My Experience as a Parent of an ADHD Child’ etc. This is something I really encourage, and think is hugely important.

What I believe is crucial is that these types of sessions are very clearly one person speaking about their own personal experience. Not speaking for everyone with ADHD or Neurodiverse people as a whole.

I can tell you all about my experience with my ADHD diagnosis and I am always keen to do so. What I can’t do is profess to understand the complex psychology behind neurodiversity, because I am not a psychologist. I don’t have the education or training that makes me an expert on these topics.

I am an expert on me, but I’m not an expert on ADHD.

I can remember that and I think others would benefit from remembering it too.

What can L&D teams to do avoid working with the wrong person?

If you are concerned about getting the right speaker or training facilitator to deliver your neurodiversity training, think about some of the following questions:

• Do they have any qualifications or education that would give them the knowledge needed to deliver Neurodiversity Training?

• If they do not have the education or training, do they have lived experience?

• If they are providing training based on lived experience, is the training planned specifically about their personal experience?

• Where they are giving statistics or facts, can they easily back these up with research?

• Are they open to discussing their ideas and sharing their evidence with you?