The question, “What if we've spent 200 years making people fit the system, then called the people who couldn't fit it the problem?” has unexpectedly captured global attention, with 92% of its reach coming from outside the author's existing network, spanning Australia, the UK, and the US. The question, posed by Australian leadership advisor, keynote speaker, and author Mike Meyer, has opened a broader conversation about neurodivergence and the nature of 'normal'.
Meyer's earlier hypothesis suggested that as much as 40 to 50% of the population could potentially be neuro-complex. While many focused on that figure, Meyer notes, “People understandably got caught on the 40 to 50% figure. But the conversation it opened is far more interesting.” At the heart of the discussion is a critical question: “What if neurodivergence isn't suddenly exploding? What if we're simply getting better at seeing people who were already here?” This idea has resonated far beyond Meyer's usual professional audience, crossing countries, industries, and networks, and continues to generate conversation.
Meyer believes the appeal lies in the possibility that “normal” was never as normal as we thought. Neurodevelopmental differences are strongly hereditary, yet generations of adults grew up when autism, ADHD, and other differences were poorly recognized, narrowly defined, or rarely diagnosed. They didn't suddenly become neurodivergent when their children or grandchildren were diagnosed; they were already here. The world they grew up in played a crucial role. For much of the past 200 years, schools and workplaces were designed around the needs of an industrial society: turn up at the same time, sit still, follow the process, work the same hours, communicate the expected way. Those systems worked, but Meyer argues we eventually confused what worked for the system with what was normal for humans. “We built a world that needed people to behave predictably, then decided the people who didn't behave that way were the unusual ones,” he says.
Now, as the conditions that shaped the industrial age change, there is more room for people to work, communicate, lead, and contribute differently. Meyer sees this as a catalyst moment to question what we have been calling normal. His book, Weird is the New Normal: The Unlikely Path of Leadership, has long challenged conventional ideas, but the current moment makes the message more relevant, visible, and obvious than ever before. Meyer is not suggesting everyone is neurodivergent or that 40 to 50% of people are disabled. Instead, he asks a more uncomfortable question: How much human capability have we overlooked because our definition of normal was too narrow? “For some people neurodivergence is profoundly disabling. We shouldn't pretend otherwise,” he says. “But for others, part of the problem may have been the collision between the person and a system built around somebody else's way of functioning. Change the environment, and you don't change the person's neurology. You change the collision.”
The popularity of the conversation suggests people are ready to ask bigger questions about neurodivergence than simply how many people have a diagnosis. “Maybe the 40 to 50% hypothesis turns out to be wrong. I want people to challenge it,” Meyer says. “But there's something underneath it we can't unsee. Maybe the people weren't always the problem. Maybe sometimes it was the system we were asking them to fit.” For those interested in exploring the conversation further, Meyer has shared his thoughts in a piece titled “We're Not All Neurodivergent. So Why Does It Suddenly Look That Way?” on his website and LinkedIn.
For HR vendors, this global discussion has significant implications. It underscores the importance of designing workplace systems that accommodate neuro-complexity, not just for compliance but for tapping into a broader pool of talent. As the industrial-age norms fade, flexibility in work hours, communication styles, and processes can unlock potential in employees who might otherwise be marginalized. The conversation also highlights the need for HR technologies and services that support personalized work environments, moving away from one-size-fits-all solutions. Companies that embrace this shift may gain a competitive edge in attracting and retaining diverse talent, while those that cling to outdated norms risk overlooking valuable human capability. The question Meyer poses is not just philosophical; it is a call to action for the HR industry to rethink how we define 'normal' and how we build systems that allow everyone to thrive.
