Neurodiversity and Leader Selection: Parity in Evaluations Amid Enduring Interpersonal Prototypes

Organizations increasingly promote neurodiversity in hiring, yet it remains unclear how candidates whose materials signal neurodiversity-related affiliation are evaluated in leadership selection. Drawing on implicit leadership and role congruity theories, dominant schemas would predict reduced perceived leadership effectiveness for candidates who deviate from interpersonal prototypes. In contrast, person-job and person-role fit perspectives suggest more contingent evaluations aligned with role demands. In an experimental study of 99 adults with hiring experience, participants evaluated matched candidates whose biographies either included or did not include neurodiversity-related signals across leadership roles emphasizing interpersonal skills, problem-solving, or innovation. Contrary to schema-based predictions of generalized disadvantage, candidates signaling neurodiversity-related affiliation were evaluated similarly to, and in some cases modestly more favorably than, those without such signals on perceived leadership effectiveness. However, evaluators showed a consistent preference for interpersonal leadership roles regardless of candidate identity. This pattern of evaluative parity alongside enduring relational preferences suggests increasing flexibility in leadership schemas even as interpersonal norms remain influential.