What Does the Research Actually Say About Supporting Neurodivergent Employees at Work?

If you have searched for research-backed guidance on how organisations can support autistic and ADHD employees, you will have discovered quickly that the evidence base is thinner than you might expect. Most workplace neurodiversity content draws on lived-experience accounts, practitioner frameworks, or corporate case studies. These have value. But they are not the same as peer-reviewed research. This blog does something different.

Over the course of April 2026 I have been deep-diving peer-reviewed academic papers for my Research Vlog Series. This post synthesises findings from five recent studies, four peer-reviewed and one doctoral dissertation used as contextual evidence, alongside a landmark meta-analysis of workplace stress. Together they paint a picture that is more complex, more honest, and ultimately more useful than most neurodiversity workplace content you will find online.

What follows covers what the research says about role stress and how it affects neurodivergent workers specifically, what we know about ADHD and workplace relationships, what happens in the leader-employee dynamic when those two people have different neurotypes, and what organisations can actually do that is evidence-informed. This is not a listicle of accommodations. It is a genuine attempt to translate current research into organisational practice.

What Is Role Stress, and Why Does It Hit Neurodivergent Workers Harder?

Role stress is not a vague sense of being overwhelmed. It is a specific set of workplace conditions with decades of research behind them. A landmark 2026 meta-analysis by Sawhney and colleagues synthesised 60 years of role stressor research, drawing on 515 studies, 588 independent samples, and 787,959 participants. That is not a small dataset. That is the largest consolidation of role stress research ever published in the vocational behaviour literature (Sawhney et al., 2026).

Role stress has three main components, and understanding each of them matters if you work with, manage, or are a neurodivergent employee.

Research note: Sawhney et al. (2026) drew from 515 studies and 588 independent samples (N = 787,959) to produce the most comprehensive meta-analysis of role stressor research to date, published in the Journal of Vocational Behavior.

What is role ambiguity?

Role ambiguity occurs when an employee lacks clear information about what their job actually requires. This includes unclear expectations, inconsistent feedback, and uncertainty about how their performance will be evaluated. For neurotypical workers, this can be frustrating. For autistic workers and those with ADHD, it is frequently destabilising.

Autistic employees often rely on explicit, consistent information to navigate workplace environments. When expectations shift without warning, when feedback is implicit rather than direct, or when the unwritten rules of a role are assumed rather than stated, the cognitive cost of managing that ambiguity compounds quickly. The executive function demands of decoding unclear instructions while simultaneously masking, managing sensory load, and monitoring social dynamics represent a burden that role ambiguity research has not yet measured in neurodivergent populations specifically.

The Sawhney meta-analysis found that role ambiguity shares common antecedents with other role stressors, including trait negative affect, perceived organisational support, and leader-member exchange quality. In plain language: employees who feel unsupported by their organisation and have low-quality relationships with their manager are more vulnerable to the harms of role ambiguity. This matters enormously for late-diagnosed neurodivergent adults who have often spent years in workplaces without any support structures in place (Sawhney et al., 2026).

What is role conflict?

Role conflict occurs when an employee faces competing demands that cannot all be met simultaneously. This might be two managers with contradictory priorities, or a job description that formally requires one thing while informal workplace culture requires another. For many neurodivergent workers, this second form of role conflict, between formal and informal expectations, is a chronic feature of working life rather than an occasional stressor.

Late-diagnosed autistic adults frequently describe the exhausting work of performing the informal, socially calibrated version of their role while also trying to meet its stated requirements. The masking that accompanies this dual performance is not captured in standard role conflict measures. The meta-analysis found that role conflict predicts psychological distress and absenteeism (Sawhney et al., 2026), both of which are disproportionately high in autistic and ADHD populations, though the research has not yet drawn that connection explicitly.

What is role overload?

Role overload is exactly what it sounds like: too much to do, too little time, and insufficient resources to do it. ADHD-specific executive function profiles, particularly challenges with task initiation, time estimation, and prioritisation, mean that role overload is not just a quantitative problem for ADHD employees. It is a qualitative mismatch between how the work is structured and how the ADHD nervous system operates.

When a role routinely demands sustained attention across multiple competing priorities, with frequent interruptions and short deadlines, it is not that the ADHD employee lacks motivation or competence. The work design itself may be incompatible with their neurotype. This is a structural issue, not a personal failing.

For organisations: Reduce structural role ambiguity by making expectations explicit, providing written role clarity documentation, and establishing regular one-to-one check-ins with clear agendas. For ADHD employees specifically, consider how task handover processes, deadline structures, and priority-setting conversations are currently managed, and whether these are designed around neurotypical assumptions about how information is held in working memory.

What Does Research Tell Us About Supporting ADHD Adults at Work?

ADHD is estimated to affect 3.5% of the global workforce (Lauder et al., 2022). That figure likely understates prevalence among women and gender-diverse adults, who are diagnosed later and at lower rates. Given workforce populations, a team of 30 people statistically includes at least one employee with ADHD, and the chances rise considerably when you factor in undiagnosed or late-diagnosed individuals.

A 2022 systematic review by Lauder, McDowall, and Tenenbaum at the Centre for Neurodiversity Research at Work, Birkbeck College, synthesised 143 studies on interventions designed to support ADHD adults. Their findings are both instructive and sobering.

Publication quality:Lauder et al. (2022) was published in Frontiers in Psychology, an open-access peer-reviewed journal indexed in PubMed and Web of Science. Frontiers uses a collaborative peer review model, which has attracted some criticism for variability in quality control across its sections. The authors are affiliated with a credible specialist research unit. This paper is widely cited and the findings are internally consistent. Treat as usable evidence with appropriate caution.

Why does most ADHD research fail workplaces?

Of the 143 studies Lauder and colleagues reviewed, over 60% evaluated pharmacological interventions. Medication research dominates the ADHD literature, and while medication is often effective, it cannot directly inform workplace policy. A manager cannot prescribe Ritalin. An HR department cannot create a methylphenidate accommodation plan. The research that would most directly inform organisational practice, psychosocial and workplace-specific interventions, represents less than 30% of the evidence base (Lauder et al., 2022).

This is not a minor academic gap. It means that when practitioners turn to the research for evidence-based workplace guidance, much of what they find has been conducted in clinical rather than employment settings, evaluated pharmacological rather than environmental interventions, and studied populations that may not reflect the late-diagnosed adults increasingly coming to self-identification and disclosure in their thirties, forties, and beyond.

What mechanisms actually make workplace support work?

The Lauder review used a realist evaluation framework, which asks not just whether an intervention works, but how it works, for whom, and under what conditions. This is a more useful question for organisations than a simple yes or no.

Three mechanisms emerged from the psychosocial intervention research as particularly important: group-based support, involving people in the ADHD person’s network, and the quality of the client-practitioner relationship. Translating these into organisational contexts suggests the following.

Group support, whether in the form of employee resource groups, peer networks, or structured team processes, matters more than isolated individual accommodation. ADHD adults who feel connected to others navigating similar challenges report better outcomes than those managing in isolation. Network involvement means that support cannot be delegated entirely to the individual. Managers, teammates, and wider workplace systems need to be informed, at least at a structural level, about what conditions enable ADHD employees to do their best work. And the quality of the relationship matters profoundly. This is consistent with what the role stress research tells us about leader-member exchange quality as a buffer against workplace stressors.

For late-diagnosed adults, there is an additional layer. Disclosure itself requires trust. Before an employee will ask for what they need, they need reason to believe that asking will not be used against them. The research flags disclosure and self-awareness as barriers to accessing support (Lauder et al., 2022), a finding that reframes the issue entirely. The question is not whether neurodivergent employees know what they need. It is whether the workplace has created conditions in which telling the truth feels safe.

For organisations: Do not treat accommodation as a one-time administrative task completed at the point of disclosure. Build psychosocial support structures that do not require neurodivergent employees to repeatedly justify their needs. Manager training should focus on relationship quality and explicit communication, not just policy compliance. Consider whether your workplace culture makes disclosure feel genuinely safe, and test that assumption with anonymous staff surveys rather than relying on the absence of complaints as evidence.

How Does ADHD Shape Workplace Relationships?

One of the most interesting and underexplored areas in recent research concerns how ADHD affects the informal relational structures of workplaces. A 2026 study by Marineau, published in Acta Psychologica, used social network analysis to examine how ADHD symptomology shapes three types of workplace ties: friendship, advice-seeking, and conflict (Marineau, 2026).

The study distinguished between two ADHD subtypes: hyperactive/impulsive (ADHD/H) and inattentive (ADHD/I). This distinction matters. Much of the public conversation about ADHD in workplaces centres on the hyperactive presentation, which is more visible, historically more likely to be diagnosed in childhood, and disproportionately male in research samples. The inattentive presentation, more common in women and those diagnosed later in life, often goes unrecognised precisely because it does not disrupt others in observable ways.

Research note: Marineau (2026) was published in Acta Psychologica (Elsevier), a peer-reviewed journal with a Q1 Scopus ranking and a 2025 impact factor of 2.7. The study used two samples of working adults in the United States and examined ADHD symptomology via self-report measures. Specific full-text findings are drawn from the published abstract.

What does ADHD/H do to workplace social networks?

The hyperactive/impulsive presentation was hypothesised to be positively associated with friendship, advice, and conflict ties. In plain language: people with higher ADHD/H traits may form more relationships across all three categories. This is a relational reframe. The same impulsivity that creates friction in structured environments can also drive connection. The tendency to speak freely, follow interest with energy, and engage others with intensity can generate friendship and advice ties in workplace networks.

This does not mean that ADHD/H traits are without cost in workplace relationships. More conflict ties also accompany the picture. But the framing matters. Describing someone as having a lot of conflict is very different from recognising that they are relationally active across multiple network dimensions and that the conditions of the workplace, rather than the person, determine whether that energy becomes productive or destructive.

What does ADHD/I do to workplace social networks?

The inattentive presentation was hypothesised to be negatively associated with friendship and advice ties but positively associated with conflict. This predicted pattern is one that many late-diagnosed women will recognise from their own working lives: fewer informal connections, difficulty breaking into advice networks, and a disproportionate attribution of interpersonal friction.

Advice networks in workplaces function as informal routes to information, visibility, and sponsorship. They are how people find out about opportunities before they are advertised, get considered for projects, and build the social capital that translates into career progression. If ADHD/I is negatively associated with advice tie formation, this is not merely a social inconvenience. It is a structural disadvantage that compounds over a career.

The conflict association warrants particular scrutiny. Before accepting that ADHD/I workers experience more conflict, it is worth asking whether they are attributed with conflict they do not initiate. Inattentive presentation can be misread as disengagement, lack of respect, or passive resistance. A worker who misses emails, does not respond to implicit cues, or needs requests to be repeated may be perceived as creating friction even when no conflict is intended. The research raises the question without definitively answering it. That uncertainty is itself worth naming.

For organisations: Audit how informal advice and sponsorship networks function in your organisation and whether access to these networks is equitable across neurotypes. Formal mentoring programmes, structured onboarding to informal culture, and explicit introductions to key stakeholders can partially compensate for the social network disadvantages that ADHD/I employees may experience. Be careful about how conflict is documented and attributed. One person not following implicit social norms is not the same as that person creating a hostile workplace.

What Happens in the Leadership Relationship When a Manager and Employee Have Different Neurotypes?

Leadership sits at the intersection of all of the above. Role ambiguity is reduced or amplified by the quality of the manager-employee relationship. Workplace support depends on managerial skill and willingness. Access to advice networks and protection from misattributed conflict both rely substantially on how a manager sees and advocates for the people they lead.

A 2025 systematic review by Kirkwood, Radcliffe, Lyubovnikova, and Otaye-Ebede at the University of Liverpool Management School represents the first integrative systematic review of leadership specifically within neurotypical leader and neurodivergent follower dyads. Reviewing 43 articles across 13 disciplines, it is the most comprehensive synthesis of this question published to date (Kirkwood et al., 2025).

Research note: Kirkwood et al. (2025) was published in the International Journal of Management Reviews, a high-quality peer-reviewed Wiley journal published on behalf of the British Academy of Management. The study was funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council. This is one of the strongest papers in this set in terms of methodological rigour and outlet quality.

What is the double-empathy problem, and why does it matter for organisations?

The double-empathy problem is a concept from autism research that describes mutual misunderstanding between people with different neurotypes as a two-directional failure rather than a deficit of one party. When a neurotypical manager and an autistic employee misunderstand each other, the traditional framing attributes this to the social impairment of the autistic person. The double-empathy framework says something different: both people are failing to cross a neurotype gap, and both people bear some responsibility for that gap.

The Kirkwood review applied this framework to the leadership relationship and identified two leadership pathways. One pathway, characterised by dialogic, reciprocal communication, alleviates the double-empathy problem and creates conditions for inclusion. The other, characterised by monologic, leader-centric communication that assumes neurotypical social norms, exacerbates it.

The distinction is not about whether a manager is well-intentioned. It is about whether the structure of the communication relationship accommodates difference. A manager who communicates primarily through subtle hints, implied expectations, and informal social cues is not a bad manager by neurotypical standards. But they are very likely to create conditions that systematically disadvantage autistic employees regardless of their personal goodwill.

What does the research reveal about ADHD and leadership specifically?

One of the most striking findings from the Kirkwood review is what was absent from the literature. Of the 43 papers reviewed, 27 focused on autism. Just one focused specifically on ADHD (Kirkwood et al., 2025). Dyspraxia, dyscalculia, dysgraphia, and Tourette syndrome were entirely absent.

This matters because it means the conceptual frameworks, the double-empathy problem and relational leadership theory, have been developed almost entirely on the basis of autism research and then implicitly extended to other neurodivergent presentations without evidence. The leadership research infrastructure does not yet know whether ADHD employees experience the leader relationship in the same way as autistic employees, or whether different neurotypes require meaningfully different relational approaches from managers.

Organisations that claim to have evidence-based neurodiversity leadership frameworks should sit with this finding. In most cases, what they have is autism-based leadership evidence, reasonably extrapolated but not empirically tested across the full range of neurodivergent presentations.

For organisations: Manager training on neurodiversity should explicitly address the double-empathy problem. Leaders need to understand that communication breakdown in neurotypically led and neurodivergent followed dyads is structurally produced, not a sign of the employee being difficult. Introduce dialogic communication practices: explicit expectation-setting, regular written summaries of verbal conversations, and genuine bidirectional check-ins that create space for neurodivergent employees to raise concerns without requiring them to navigate implicit social protocols. Do not assume that training designed primarily around autism is sufficient for ADHD or AuDHD employees.

Does Neurodivergence Affect Wellbeing Beyond the Workplace?

A 2026 paper by van Rijswijk and Curseu in the British Journal of Psychology examined the relationship between neurodivergent conditions and wellbeing across two complementary studies. The first used survey data from 2,157 participants in a probabilistic sample of Dutch households. The second used large language model analysis of 2,214 Reddit life narratives to examine how psychological need fulfilment mediates the relationship between neurodivergence and wellbeing (van Rijswijk & Curseu, 2026).

The findings are not reassuring. Respondents with autism and ADHD reported significantly lower life satisfaction and higher levels of stress and maladjustment than neurotypical peers. Other conditions, such as dyslexia and giftedness, showed more nuanced patterns. The study draws on self-determination theory, examining three fundamental psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

Research note: Van Rijswijk and Curseu (2026) was published in the British Journal of Psychology, a peer-reviewed Wiley journal published on behalf of the British Psychological Society. The use of a probabilistic household sample in Study 1 is a methodological strength. The LLM analysis of Reddit narratives in Study 2 is an emerging methodology with specific limitations around sample representativeness and platform demographics.

What does self-determination theory tell us about neurodivergent workers?

Self-determination theory proposes that human wellbeing depends substantially on the fulfilment of three basic psychological needs: the need for autonomy (a sense of agency over one’s own actions), competence (a sense of effectiveness and capability), and relatedness (a sense of genuine connection with others). These needs are universal, but the conditions required to meet them differ by individual and context.

For autistic and ADHD adults, workplaces designed around neurotypical assumptions systematically undermine all three. Autonomy is eroded by rigid structures, surveillance-based performance management, and the constant social monitoring required by masking. Competence is undermined by evaluation systems that prioritise presentation and social performance over the actual quality of work. Relatedness is harder to build in workplaces whose informal social infrastructure was not designed for the full range of human neurotypes.

The van Rijswijk and Curseu findings also showed that the wellbeing gap between autistic and ADHD adults and neurotypical peers is not primarily a function of the conditions per se. It is mediated by whether fundamental psychological needs are being met. This is a meaningful distinction for organisations because it suggests that wellbeing interventions need to operate at the level of structural need fulfilment, not symptom management.

For organisations: Evaluate your workplace environment against the three self-determination theory needs for neurodivergent employees specifically. Are your performance management systems measuring actual work output or neurotypical social performance? Are your flexible working policies genuinely flexible or performatively so? Are neurodivergent employees able to build authentic collegial relationships without masking as a prerequisite? These are not soft questions. They have direct implications for retention, sick leave, and psychological safety data.

What Does Emerging Research on Creativity Tell Us?

A 2026 doctoral dissertation by Alemseged at Seattle Pacific University, included here as contextual evidence rather than peer-reviewed research, examined creativity in a neurodiverse workforce through the componential theory of creativity. Drawing on survey data from 321 participants, the study explored whether autonomy and social support moderated the relationship between creative idea generation and creative self-efficacy (the belief that one can produce creative work) (Alemseged, 2026).

Publication quality: Alemseged (2026) is a doctoral dissertation, not peer-reviewed research. It underwent committee review and is publicly available through Seattle Pacific University’s Digital Commons repository. The findings are preliminary and exploratory. Claims drawn from this source are used here for illustrative purposes and clearly distinguished from peer-reviewed evidence.

Why did autonomy not produce the expected result?

Autonomy is one of the most commonly recommended workplace accommodations for ADHD adults. The logic is straightforward: if rigid structure is the problem, flexible structure is the solution. The Alemseged findings complicate this. When the outcome of interest was creative self-efficacy specifically, autonomy did not emerge as a significant moderator. Social support did.

Employees who frequently generate ideas but receive low social support showed considerably lower creative self-efficacy than those with high social support. When social support was high, creative self-efficacy was broadly high regardless of idea generation frequency. The implication is that believing in the value of your own creative output may depend more on relational validation than on structural freedom (Alemseged, 2026).

For late-diagnosed neurodivergent adults whose creative contributions have been dismissed, minimised, or attributed to others over the course of a career, this finding has particular resonance. Autonomy alone does not rebuild creative confidence. Being genuinely seen, heard, and credited does.

It is important to note that this is a dissertation-level finding with a sample of 321 self-selected participants. The operationalisation of neurodivergent status is not detailed in publicly available materials. The null finding for autonomy may reflect measurement limitations rather than a true absence of effect. This is a direction worth watching, not a settled conclusion.

For organisations: Do not treat autonomy as a universal accommodation that substitutes for relational investment. For neurodivergent employees, particularly those who are late-diagnosed and carry histories of creative marginalisation, social support from managers and peers, including explicit recognition of contributions, may be more protective of creative wellbeing than schedule flexibility alone. Review how credit for ideas is currently attributed in your team’s working processes.

What Are the Key Research Gaps Organisations Need to Know About?

Across all five sources in this analysis, the same demographic gaps appear with enough consistency to warrant naming directly.

Where is the research on women and gender-diverse neurodivergent workers?

The history of neurodivergence research is a history of studying white boys and extrapolating findings to everyone else. The research base reviewed here has not corrected for this. ADHD presentation in women, diagnosis rates, workplace experiences, and responses to interventions may differ substantially from the populations that built these frameworks. The same is true for gender-diverse neurodivergent adults, who remain almost entirely absent from this literature.

Late-diagnosed women and gender-diverse adults are among the fastest-growing groups seeking neurodivergent identification and workplace support. Directing them toward research frameworks built without them is not good enough.

Where is the research on late-diagnosed adults specifically?

Being diagnosed at 35 or 45 or 55 is not the same neurological situation as being diagnosed at eight. Late-diagnosed adults carry accumulated masking strategies, internalized shame, disrupted identity, and often decades of occupational history shaped by unrecognised neurodivergence. The interventions and frameworks in this body of research were built primarily for people who had at least some of their working life supported by a diagnosis. They may need significant adaptation to serve late-diagnosed adults.

Where is the research on non-Western and non-white contexts?

All five sources in this set are drawn from the United States, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. The workplace cultures, disclosure norms, legal frameworks, and social support structures in these countries do not map onto most of the world. Organisations operating in diverse cultural contexts should treat these findings as potentially applicable but not universally so.

Where is the research on AuDHD?

AuDHD, the co-occurrence of autism and ADHD, is more common than previously recognised and presents a distinct neurological profile that is not simply an additive combination of the two. None of the papers reviewed here specifically examined AuDHD workers. Given that co-occurrence rates in adult populations are substantial, this is a significant gap in a field that claims to be addressing neurodiversity at work.

For organisations: Do not confuse the existence of a body of research with a complete body of research. The evidence base for neurodiversity-affirming workplace practice is growing but uneven. Approach neurodiversity inclusion as an ongoing process of learning and adjustment rather than a policy milestone to be completed. Employ, support, and listen to neurodivergent people with lived experience as part of your organisational learning, not as a substitute for research, but as a corrective to research that has not yet caught up with the diversity of neurodivergent experience.

What Should Organisations Actually Do? A Research-Informed Summary

The research reviewed here does not produce a neat list of five accommodations that work for all neurodivergent employees. Anyone offering you that list is oversimplifying. What the evidence does support is a set of structural and relational principles.

Make role expectations explicit and written

Role ambiguity is a measurable harm with well-documented outcomes including psychological distress, absenteeism, and disengagement. For neurodivergent workers, the cost of navigating ambiguous expectations is compounded by the cognitive and emotional demands already in play. Explicit, written, consistently communicated expectations are not a special accommodation. They are good management practice that disproportionately benefits those who need them most (Sawhney et al., 2026).

Build social support into the structure of work, not just the culture

Across multiple papers in this review, social support emerges as a key mechanism, not a nice-to-have. This means formal as well as informal structures: mentoring, peer networks, manager check-ins with genuine relational quality rather than administrative compliance. The research on ADHD workplace interventions found that network involvement is a key mechanism of effectiveness (Lauder et al., 2022). Social support also emerged as the strongest moderator of creative self-efficacy in the Alemseged dissertation.

Train managers in dialogic, reciprocal communication

The Kirkwood review identifies two leadership pathways: one that alleviates the double-empathy problem and one that exacerbates it. The difference lies in whether communication is structured as a bidirectional exchange that accommodates different ways of processing information, or as a monologic assertion of neurotypical norms. This is a trainable skill. It requires investment, but the investment is targeted and evidence-grounded (Kirkwood et al., 2025).

Audit informal networks for equity

The Marineau findings on ADHD and social network ties suggest that inattentive ADHD presentations are associated with fewer friendship and advice ties in workplace networks. Advice networks are career infrastructure. Organisations that do not actively audit who has access to informal mentorship, sponsorship, and information sharing are likely reproducing disadvantage for ADHD employees regardless of their formal accommodation policies (Marineau, 2026).

Measure wellbeing at the level of psychological need fulfilment

Standard employee wellbeing surveys are not designed to capture whether fundamental psychological needs are being met. The van Rijswijk and Curseu findings suggest that the gap in wellbeing between neurodivergent and neurotypical employees is mediated by autonomy, competence, and relatedness need fulfilment. If your wellbeing measurement is asking about satisfaction with benefits packages and office facilities, you are not measuring what matters for neurodivergent employees (van Rijswijk & Curseu, 2026).

The research is clear about one thing above all else: neurodivergent employees are not a problem to be managed. They are workers whose potential is being systematically constrained by workplaces designed without them in mind. The question is not whether organisations can afford to change. It is whether they can afford not to.

References

Alemseged, M. A. (2026). “If you can dream it, you can do it:” Bridging creative ideas and beliefs in a neurodiverse workforce through autonomy and social support [Doctoral dissertation, Seattle Pacific University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. ProQuest No. 32403906.

Kirkwood, M., Radcliffe, L., Lyubovnikova, J., & Otaye-Ebede, L. (2025). Advancing a relational perspective on leadership between neurotypical leaders and neurodivergent followers: An integrated systematic review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, e70008.

Lauder, K., McDowall, A., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2022). A systematic review of interventions to support adults with ADHD at work: Implications from the paucity of context-specific research for theory and practice. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 893469.

Marineau, J. E. (2026). Neurodiversity and workplace relationships: The impact of ADHD on social network ties. Acta Psychologica, 264, Article 106591.

Sawhney, G., McCord, M. A., Cunningham, A., Cook, P., Adjei, K., & Flinn, T. (2026). A meta-analytic review of 60 years of role stressor research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 158, Article 104234.

van Rijswijk, J., & Curseu, P. L. (2026). Neurodivergence and well-being: The fulfilment of fundamental psychological needs, work-related stress and life satisfaction. British Journal of Psychology, 00, 1-21.