Smart tools for diverse minds: how AI use impacts performance and well-being among neurodivergent employees
Abstract
Purpose: This study investigates how and when AI use at work relates to neurodivergent employees’ task performance and burnout. Drawing on Sociotechnical System Theory, the study proposes that executive functioning (EF) serves as the mediating mechanism and that social support serves as the moderating factor. Design/methodology/approach: The three-wave survey data were collected from 286 neurodivergent employees in the United Kingdom, enabling temporal separation of the predictor, mediator, and outcome variables to reduce concerns for common method bias. Findings: Results showed that AI use at work was positively associated with EF, which in turn was positively associated with task performance and negatively associated with burnout. Social support moderated these relationships, with AI use’s benefits for EF and subsequent performance and well-being emerging only when workplace social support was high. Originality/value: This study advances a sociotechnical understanding of how AI use may support neurodivergent employees. By positioning AI as external cognitive scaffolding and social support as a key social system, the study clarifies how technological and social systems work together to shape work outcomes among neurodivergent employees.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Man Tang, P., Koopman, J., McClean, S. T., Zhang, J. H., Li, C. H., De Cremer, D., Lu, Y., & Ng, C. T. S. (2022) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2020.1516 · Cited by 370 · see citing works
The advantages and challenges of neurodiversity employment in organizations
Krzeminska, A., Austin, R. D., Bruyère, S. M., & Hedley, D. (2019) · Journal of Management & Organization · doi:10.1017/jmo.2019.58 · Cited by 222 · see citing works
Workplace accommodations for adults with autism spectrum disorder: a scoping review
Khalifa, G., Sharif, Z., Sultan, M., & Di Rezze, B. (2020) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09638288.2018.1527952 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Xing, L. (., & Tasker, K.
- Affiliations
- University of Auckland (NZ)
- Venue
- Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2026-10-26
- Pages
- 1-19
- ISSN
- 2040-7149 (ISSN-L)
- 2040-7157
- OpenAlex
- W7223459837
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Equality Diversity and Inclusion An International Journal (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Technostress in Professional Settings
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › AI and HR Technologies
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
- Keywords
- neurodivergent employees, executive function, task performance, burnout, social support at work, socio-technical systems theory, cognitive scaffolding, employee well-being, mediating and moderating effects
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
