“How long should it take to agree a reasonable adjustment?”

The questions managers ask me about neurodiversity – Part 8

I think there is a difficult tension in reasonable-adjustment conversations that we don’t talk about enough. An employee has finally told their manager that something at work is creating a significant barrier and asks for an adjustment. They may have spent weeks or months getting to the point where they feel able to ask, so understandably they want something to happen.

The manager, meanwhile, may be hearing the request for the first time. They are trying to understand what is being asked, why it is needed, whether it will actually remove the barrier, what it means for the job, whether it affects anybody else, what it will cost and perhaps whether they need advice from HR, occupational health or somebody else.

The employee can experience that as delay. The manager can experience pressure to make an immediate decision. Neither is necessarily being unreasonable.

The problem is that we’ve sometimes talked about reasonable adjustments as though the process should be: employee asks, manager decides, yes or no.

Usually, good decision-making is more complicated than that.

Taking time isn’t the same as doing nothing

I want to be careful here because employers absolutely can take too long to deal with adjustment requests. An employee shouldn’t be left struggling indefinitely while
Giving people time to process change can make a real difference to how they understand, adapt and move forward.

their request disappears into an HR process, particularly where something relatively straightforward could reduce the disadvantage immediately.

Acas advises employers to listen to the person, avoid making assumptions and consider reasonable adjustments with them. It also recommends keeping a record and reviewing agreed adjustments. ⁠Acas guidance on reasonable adjustments

But “we need to deal with this promptly” doesn’t necessarily mean “we need to decide immediately.”

Sometimes an immediate answer is possible. If somebody says, “I struggle to retain several verbal instructions; could you send me the key actions in writing after our weekly meeting?”, a manager may be able to agree that very quickly.

Other requests need more thought.

Imagine an employee asks to work permanently from home because the office environment is causing significant sensory overload. That’s not something I would want a manager to dismiss with, “No, everyone has to be in three days a week.” But neither would I necessarily expect them to say yes during the first conversation.

I would expect them to understand what is happening.

What is it about the office environment that creates the difficulty? Is it noise, lighting, interruptions, travel, lack of control over the environment or a combination of factors? What happens to the employee when they’re there? Which parts of their role can be done remotely? Are there aspects that genuinely require them to be physically present? Could changes to the office reduce the barrier? Would different hours help? Could there be a quieter workspace? What would homeworking change?

Those questions aren’t obstacles to an adjustment. They’re part of working out what an effective adjustment might actually be.

There are several decisions hiding inside one question

This is where I think managers need a better framework.

When somebody asks, “Is this reasonable?”, we’re often trying to answer several questions at once.

First, what is the barrier? We need to understand what is actually placing the employee at a disadvantage rather than making assumptions based on a diagnostic label.

Then, what are we trying to make possible? Is the employee trying to concentrate sufficiently to complete reports, manage a full shift without sensory overload, participate effectively in meetings or reliably arrive at work?

We also need to understand what the job genuinely requires. If the proposed adjustment changes when, where or how something is done, does that matter to the outcome? Are we protecting a genuine requirement or simply the way we’ve always organised the work?

Then there is whether the proposed adjustment will actually help. A request can be completely understandable and still not be the most effective solution to the underlying barrier.

We may also need to consider the impact elsewhere. Does the adjustment affect workload, customers, safety, service delivery or another employee’s access needs? Could that impact be managed differently?

There may be questions about practicality, cost and available resources, and there may be other possible adjustments that achieve the same outcome more effectively.

That’s quite a lot to think about.

So I don’t think we should be surprised that some reasonable-adjustment decisions take more than one conversation.

“I’ll consider it” needs to mean something

There is, however, a big difference between consideration and avoidance.

If a manager says, “I’ll have to think about it,” the employee needs to know what happens next. Otherwise, from their perspective, they have disclosed something difficult, asked for support and watched their request disappear into a black hole.

I would much rather hear a manager say something like:

“Thank you for explaining that. I can understand why you’re asking. I don’t think I can give you a proper answer today because there are a couple of things I need to understand and check. I’ll speak to HR about X, and I’d like to look at whether Y is possible. Can we meet again next Wednesday and make a decision about what we can try?”

Now the employee knows their request hasn’t been dismissed. They know what is being considered, who is doing what and when the conversation will continue.

If more time is genuinely needed, explain why.

Good process matters because uncertainty itself can be incredibly difficult, particularly for someone who is already struggling at work.

Could we do something while we’re deciding?

This is another question I think managers should ask more often.

A final decision may take time, but perhaps something temporary can happen now.

If the office environment is overwhelming, could the employee temporarily work from a quieter area while options are explored? If they’re struggling with verbal instructions, could the manager start following important actions up in writing immediately? If shift changes are creating difficulties, could more notice be given for the next few weeks while the wider arrangement is considered?

A temporary measure isn’t the same as agreeing that it will be the permanent solution.

It can simply mean: we’ve heard that there’s a barrier, and we’re not going to knowingly leave you struggling while we work out the longer-term answer.

Of course, temporary arrangements need reviewing too. Otherwise, “temporary” has a habit of becoming permanent without anybody ever making a proper decision.

The person requesting the adjustment should be part of the thinking

I also think managers sometimes disappear to make these decisions.

The employee makes a request, the manager speaks to HR, HR talks to occupational health, perhaps somebody checks a policy, and eventually the employee is told the outcome.

We can do better than that.

The person experiencing the barrier has information we need. They may be able to explain why an alternative being considered won’t address the problem, or suggest something much simpler than the manager has imagined. Equally, the manager may need to explain operational constraints the employee wasn’t aware of.

This doesn’t mean the employee makes the final decision about what is reasonable. It means we don’t try to solve a problem about somebody’s working experience without involving the person experiencing it.

Sometimes we may need specialist advice too. Occupational health, Access to Work or a workplace needs assessment might help us understand the barrier or identify possible solutions, particularly where neither the manager nor employee knows what might work.

Again, that takes time. But it should be purposeful time.

Sometimes the best answer is “let’s try it”

Not every adjustment needs to be designed perfectly before anything happens.

In fact, there are situations where we could spend weeks debating whether something will work when the simplest answer is to test it.

Try the different start time for six weeks. Trial the quieter workspace. Provide the written instructions. Change how work is allocated for a month. Allow the employee to attend a particular meeting remotely and see what happens.

Then review it against something meaningful. Has the barrier reduced? Can the employee do the work more reliably? Has attendance improved? Has the adjustment created an unexpected problem elsewhere? Does it need tweaking?

A trial gives us evidence from the actual workplace rather than endlessly arguing about hypothetical consequences.

There isn’t a magic number of days

I don’t think we can sensibly say every reasonable-adjustment decision should take three days, seven days or two weeks. A request for written instructions and a request involving a major change to working arrangements are clearly not the same thing.

What we can reasonably expect is progress.

The employee should know that their request has been heard, what is happening next, whether anything can be done in the meantime and when they can expect to hear more. If there is a delay, there should be a reason for it rather than the request simply sitting somewhere.

The more significant the disadvantage the employee is experiencing, the more important it becomes not to let the process drift.

And perhaps that’s the distinction we need to make: reasonable-adjustment decisions don’t always need to be immediate, but they do need to be active.

Taking time to understand a barrier, consider competing needs, explore alternatives, seek advice or trial something can be good management. Taking time because nobody quite knows whose inbox the request is sitting in isn’t.

So when somebody asks me “How long should it take to agree a reasonable adjustment?”, my answer is frustratingly that it depends.

But I would want to see a process that is moving.

Understand the barrier. Understand the job requirement. Explore the options and their impact. Involve the employee. Get specialist input where it’s genuinely needed. Consider whether something can be done in the meantime. Try things where appropriate, review them, and make a decision.

Reasonable adjustments aren’t always a quick yes or no. But they shouldn’t become an indefinite maybe either.

This is the eighth article in my series, The questions managers ask me about neurodiversity, where I’m exploring some of the difficult questions I hear in real workplaces and training rooms. These aren’t questions I want managers to be frightened to ask. They’re questions I think we need to get much better at answering.

Not sure what’s reasonable, what to offer or where to start? Explore our Reasonable Adjustments training.

Next: “If they need that much support, are they really working independently?”