From access to influence: why neurodivergent board members go quiet in the boardroom

This is the second article in a three-part series dedicated to Neurodiversity in the boardroom. 

Read Aurelia's first blog

Following our exploration of the 'Wheel of Power,' we introduce the concept of the 'Double Burden.' This refers to the 'inclusion labour' often required of neurodivergent and racially diverse members, who must educate their peers even as they fulfil their board responsibilities. The depth of this challenge is mirrored by the significant representation gap shown below:

 

Demographic	General Population (US)	Fortune 500 Boards
Hispanic/Latino	19%	5%
African American	13%	12%
Neurodivergent	~15-20%	<1% (Disclosed)

Sources : Spencer Stuart 2024 S&P 500 New Director Snapshot, The "Missing Pieces" Report (7th Edition, 2023), EY Neurodiversity Centers of Excellence, Neurodiversity in Business Research , 2024 Cypher Learning report 

 

In recent years, more boards have begun to reflect on access: recruitment processes are being reviewed, role descriptions refined, and there is growing recognition that neurodiversity is directly relevant to governance rather than peripheral to it.

This is a great first step but access doesn’t stop at the door. 

Many neurodivergent board members describe a similar experience once they join: they are present, engaged, and prepared, yet over time their contributions carry less weight than expected. They are asked for input, sometimes even valued for their perspective, but remain outside the informal processes where influence is shaped and decisions are consolidated.

Sometimes they may even have a hard time getting their voices heard at all and if this gap between access and influence is rarely intentional, it is, however, consequential.

 

Inclusion without influence

Boards often assume that once someone has a seat at the table, inclusion has been achieved. In practice, influence operates through more than formal roles or speaking time.

It is shaped by:

• how agendas are set
• which concerns are explored in depth
• how concerns or questions can be raised (medium/modality) 
• whose disagreement is seen as constructive rather than disruptive
• where conversations continue outside formal meetings
  
  

Neurodivergent board members are frequently excluded from these informal channels, not because they lack capability, but because influence tends to follow familiarity. Shared communication styles, social confidence and unspoken norms still shape whose views are absorbed and acted upon.

When neurodivergent members are repeatedly consulted but not influential, boards risk creating a form of tokenism that is difficult to detect from the outside.

 

Why voices go quiet

Silence in the boardroom is often misread as agreement, disengagement or worse, disinterest. But for neurodivergent members, it is more often a learned response.

Over time, many pick up on subtle signals: hesitation when they raise concerns, discomfort or impatience when conversations slow down or the words are slower to come, disregard for alternative inputs (such as written comments, raised hands during online meetings) or a sense that challenging established thinking is tolerated once but discouraged thereafter. Others become acutely aware that disclosure of neurodivergence, or even visible difference in communication style, can carry reputational risk.

Faced with these dynamics, self-censorship becomes rational and speaking less is a way of protecting credibility, relationships or simply energy.

From a governance perspective this should be concerning as boards depend on challenge, not just consensus. When certain voices go quiet, risks go unexamined and assumptions harden.

 

The cost of avoiding discomfort

Many boards are currently navigating uncertainty about inclusion. Chairs and board members often express concern about saying the wrong thing, using outdated language, or causing offence. While these concerns are understandable, they can have unintended effects.

When the priority becomes avoiding missteps, difficult conversations are postponed or avoided altogether, neurodivergent members may sense that certain topics are too sensitive to raise, or that their difference is something to be managed quietly rather than engaged with openly.

Inaction is not neutral and maintains existing power dynamics and places the burden of adaptation on those with the least structural influence, which unfortunately, is already often the case for neuro-minority and underrepresented groups. 

 

Psychological safety is not the absence of conflict 

Psychological safety is often described as a hallmark of effective boards but in practice, people associate it with politeness or the absence of visible tension.

Well-governed boards do not avoid discomfort, they are able to sit with disagreement, uncertainty, and challenge without personalising them and they understand that robust oversight requires friction, not just harmony.

For neurodivergent board members, this distinction matters. Many already navigate heightened scrutiny when they speak. In cultures that equate safety with smoothness, difference is more likely to be silenced than explored.

 

Repair over perfection

No board will handle this perfectly, language will be clumsy at times and assumptions will surface, everyone makes mistakes but what differentiates effective boards (or any interaction for that matter) is not the absence of missteps, but the presence of repair. A willingness to acknowledge when something has not landed well, to clarify intent, and to adjust behaviour builds trust over time.

Repair is not a soft skill, it becomes a governance capability; boards that can recover from discomfort are better equipped to deal with complexity, risk, and change.

 

Designing for influence

Influence does not automatically follow representation. It needs to be designed into board processes and culture.

This requires boards to ask themselves:

• how dissent is handled over time, not just in isolated moments
• whether confidence is being used as a proxy for competence
• whose contributions shape outcomes, not just discussion
• whether meeting structures privilege speed over depth

These are key governance questions, not inclusion add-ons.

 

Why this matters

Neurodivergent perspectives often surface risks, ethical tensions, and system-level issues that others miss. When those perspectives are muted, boards lose valuable information and weaken their own oversight.

Moving from access to influence is not about fairness alone. It is about the quality of governance.

In the final article in this series, we will explore how neuroinclusion can be understood as a core governance competence: something boards can develop, practice and assess alongside strategy, risk, and accountability.

 

Practical Tips 

---

Aurelia Deflandre is a Senior Client Partner and Neurodiversity Lead at Google Ireland. She also provides professional training and coaching through The Neurodiversity Advantage to help enhance leadership skills through emotional intelligence, improve decision making and increase resilience. 

Aurelia is a Director of Neurodiverse Sport. Click below to find out more.

Read Aurelia's previous blog