Blog

When “Communication Issues” Push Neurodivergent Staff Out of Veterinary Medicine

A nurse told me recently: “I’ve been let go twice. Both times, the reason was the same: communication issues.”

They’re not alone. Across veterinary workplaces, neurodivergent colleagues — autistic, ADHD, dyslexic, or otherwise wired differently — are being quietly moved on under the same vague banner.

On paper, it looks neutral: “Didn’t gel with the team.”, “Not the right fit.” or “Communication style didn’t work.”

But scratch the surface, and these phrases almost always mean one thing: we didn’t know how to work with difference.

The Coded Language of Exit

“Communication issues” is rarely about clarity of clinical notes or patient safety. More often, it means:

• They asked too many clarifying questions.

• They were more direct than colleagues expected.

• They didn’t pick up on implied meanings or banter.

I once sat in a seminar on incivility in the workplace. The presenter listed examples: not making eye contact, not smiling, being too direct with questions.

It struck me immediately: those are also everyday communication traits of many of our autistic and ADHD colleagues. If your definition of “incivility” includes neurodivergent styles, then your framework for respect is already exclusionary.

The Double Empathy Problem in Action

I saw this firsthand with an AuDHD (autistic/ADHD) employee whose direct communication sometimes unsettled colleagues.

My manager asked me to speak to her about softening her style.

I refused.

Here’s the truth: miscommunication is not a one-way street. It’s the double empathy problem — where both sides struggle to interpret each other’s signals. If we were going to ask her to change her style, then fairness demanded we also ask her colleagues to adjust theirs.

That’s not naïve. That’s equity.

And it’s the only way to avoid placing the full burden of change on one person.

My manager didn’t like it. But leadership sometimes means holding the mirror up, even when people flinch.

When Lived Experience Isn’t Enough

It’s tempting to assume that having a disabled or neurodivergent leader guarantees safety for similar staff. Sadly, that’s not always the case — and the reasons are about about pressure.

Many leaders have had to survive in systems that weren’t built for them. Some masked or suppressed difference for years just to stay employed. Others pushed themselves to “fit in” because they felt there was no alternative. Those survival strategies can harden into expectations: “I had to do it, so should you.”

Researchers call this the Minority Stress Model: marginalised people live with extra layers of stress — discrimination, the constant bracing for rejection, and the internalisation of negative messages. Leaders aren’t immune. In fact, those who’ve survived the longest by over-adapting often feel the pressure most. Sometimes, without meaning to, that pressure gets passed down the line.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. The real act of leadership is to flip the script: to notice the harsh standards you once endured, and reject them for the next generation. That’s how lived experience becomes not just survival, but solidarity.

Why I Can Empathise

I’m profoundly deaf. Throughout my career, I’ve seen how quickly difference gets reframed as deficiency. When I’ve struggled to access a conversation because someone spoke without facing me, or mumbled through a mask, it was often described as my communication issue.

That experience makes the stories of neurodivergent colleagues instantly recognisable to me. The pattern is the same: difference isn’t understood, so it gets rebranded as a shortcoming. Once you’ve lived it, you can’t unsee how often our profession confuses “not like us” with “not good enough.”

I’m not neurodivergent myself. But I’ve listened to too many of these stories to believe they’re isolated incidents. They’re not. They’re systemic. Once you see the pattern — dismissal after dismissal dressed up as “communication issues” — it becomes impossible to ignore.

The Cost of One-Sided Change

When neurodivergent colleagues are told they must adapt — while the majority culture remains unquestioned — the message is clear: belonging is conditional. Mask, adapt, or leave. And the cost is bigger than one person. We lose:

• Skilled professionals with unique strengths in focus, pattern-spotting, honesty, or problem-solving.

• Teams that could be stronger, but instead reinforce sameness.

• Credibility with younger generations who can see when difference is punished.

This is attrition hiding in plain sight.

What Leaders Can Do Differently

If you’re a manager or practice owner, here’s where to start:

1. Treat “communication issues” as a flag, not a verdict. Ask whether difference is being mistaken for deficiency.

2. Apply double empathy. If someone’s style is flagged, ask what adjustments both sides could make.

3. Build explicit structures. Written expectations, clear feedback, and team communication agreements reduce bias for everyone.

4. Reframe difference as strength. Directness, persistence, and precision can be extraordinary assets when they’re valued instead of pathologised.

5. Hold “culture fit” accountable. If “fit” always means “like us,” it’s not culture — it’s exclusion.

A Final Thought

When a neurodivergent vet or nurse is shown the door under the label of “communication issues,” the truth is simple: it wasn’t their communication that failed.

It was our profession’s ability to see that communication is a two-way street.

Want to Take Action in Your Own Workplace?

If this resonates and you’re wondering where to start, the Vetquity Signature Series was built for exactly these moments.

1. Safe to Share: The Disclosure Safety Framework — helps leaders build confidence around conversations that too often get mishandled.

2. The Climate You Create: Inclusive Leadership Reflection Tool — designed to help you see the culture you’re shaping, and where hidden biases creep in.

3. Moments That Matter: Everyday Inclusion Playbook — practical scripts and scenarios to help teams navigate “communication issues” with equity instead of exclusion.