Why Meetings Undermine Productivity for Autistic (Asperger's / ASD Level 1) Individuals

Introduction

Meetings have long been regarded as the heart of organizational collaboration. They are praised for enabling direct communication, encouraging idea exchange, and aligning teams toward shared goals. For many professionals, meetings are an essential component of productivity, seen as moments where plans are clarified, momentum is generated, and problems are solved collectively. But this perspective, while true for some, overlooks the hidden costs these gatherings impose on neurodivergent individuals—particularly those on the autism spectrum, such as people with Autism Level 1 (formerly known as Asperger’s Syndrome).

What is often considered a routine or even trivial meeting—a quick online stand-up, a short brainstorming session, a ten-minute sync—can become a major cognitive and emotional event for an autistic individual. The preparation alone, days in advance, may involve mentally simulating potential dialogue paths, carefully scripting answers, and planning for every conceivable question or misunderstanding. This level of planning is not driven by insecurity but by necessity: social unpredictability is taxing, and preparing for it consumes energy that could otherwise go into focused, creative, or technical work.

The aim of this article is to advocate for greater awareness and understanding of how meetings can undermine the productivity of autistic professionals. These effects are not just minor inconveniences—they represent a fundamental mismatch between standard workplace practices and the cognitive styles of a significant part of the workforce. By recognizing these differences, organizations have a chance to build more inclusive environments that do not just accommodate, but empower autistic individuals to contribute at their highest capacity.

• The Hidden Cost of “Quick” Meetings
• During the Meeting: Overload and Mismatch of Expectations
• Post-Meeting Recovery: The Invisible Time Sink
• The Vicious Cycle: More Meetings, Less Performance
• Rethinking Workplace Norms: Inclusion Is Efficiency
• Conclusion
• References

The Hidden Cost of “Quick” Meetings

In many workplaces, short meetings are seen as harmless and even efficient. The five-minute check-in, the daily stand-up, the impromptu online sync—these are all framed as minimal interruptions designed to foster communication without consuming too much time. However, for individuals on the autism spectrum, especially those with Level 1 Autism, these seemingly small interactions can carry a disproportionate cognitive and emotional burden.

The challenge begins long before the meeting actually takes place. Where neurotypical individuals might jump into a meeting with little preparation, autistic individuals often feel compelled to prepare extensively. This preparation isn’t optional—it is a mechanism to cope with the inherent unpredictability of social interaction. Autistic minds tend to process information with high precision and a preference for structure and clarity. As a result, even a short meeting can require hours or even days of mental rehearsal.

This rehearsal might involve imagining every possible question that could arise, scripting responses to a wide range of scenarios, and mentally preparing for unexpected shifts in topic or tone. The goal is to minimize the anxiety of the unknown by simulating every possible path the conversation might take. But this mental load is exhausting, especially when multiplied across recurring or back-to-back meetings.

Moreover, the label “quick” is misleading. While the meeting itself may be brief, the time and energy it demands from autistic participants extend far beyond its scheduled duration. This disconnect often goes unnoticed by colleagues or managers, who only see the calendar slot and not the invisible work that surrounds it.

Understanding this hidden cost is essential. What appears to be a minor, time-saving habit for some can be a major barrier to focus, productivity, and well-being for others. Recognizing and respecting these differences is the first step toward a more inclusive and effective workplace.

Another critical but often overlooked factor is the emotional burden caused by short-notice changes to meeting schedules. For individuals on the spectrum, routine and predictability are not just preferences—they are essential structures that help manage cognitive load and maintain a sense of control. When a meeting is rescheduled at the last minute or moved due to someone else’s personal obligations, it can create significant internal disruption.

Declining such a rescheduled meeting can itself be an emotional ordeal. The individual may grapple with guilt, self-doubt, or the fear of appearing uncooperative. The sudden change forces a recalibration of mental preparation, often invalidating the extensive planning already done for the original time slot. Even small shifts—like pushing a meeting by an hour—can require reprocessing of social scripts, changes in focus, and emotional rebalancing.

This problem is compounded when meetings are scheduled with little regard for the rigid structure many autistic individuals rely on. A well-ordered day can be thrown into chaos by a single short-notice meeting, potentially disrupting not just the hour it occupies but the entire rhythm of the day or even several days to come. To foster a truly inclusive workplace, meeting organizers must understand that flexibility for one person can mean instability for another.

During the Meeting: Overload and Mismatch of Expectations

Once a meeting begins, a different set of challenges emerges—often invisible to others but intensely disruptive for autistic participants. One of the most immediate problems is sensory and cognitive overload. Seemingly trivial behaviors like whistling, background chatter, or side conversations can become overwhelming. Autistic individuals often struggle with filtering auditory input, which means that instead of being able to tune out distractions, they end up processing all conversations in parallel. When multiple people speak or when irrelevant comments are thrown in, the mental strain increases exponentially.

Adding to the problem is the lack of structure in many meetings. Topic shifts can occur abruptly, driven by the personal preferences or impulses of more dominant voices in the room. For someone who thrives on clarity and predictability, these sudden jumps are disorienting and difficult to follow. The autistic brain, which excels at deep, focused processing, is not optimized for rapid multitasking across changing contexts. Instead of participating effectively, the person may end up simply trying to keep up.

Speed is another fundamental mismatch. Even highly intelligent autistic individuals often process spoken language and complex social cues more slowly in real time. Questions that seem simple on the surface might trigger layers of nuanced internal reasoning. As a result, it’s not uncommon for someone on the spectrum to respond with “I don’t know,” an answer that might appear incomplete or off-topic, only to realize hours later—sometimes out of nowhere—that they actually had a clear and accurate answer all along. The delay is not a lack of understanding, but a different processing rhythm.

This slow unfolding of understanding also affects participation in typical back-and-forth meeting dialogue. Much like small talk, these quick exchanges demand instant access to words, context, social tone, and timing. For many autistic individuals, this kind of rapid conversational agility is difficult, and trying to engage in it can lead to anxiety or silence.

Turn-taking itself becomes a complex social puzzle. It’s often unclear when one is “allowed” to speak. The individual may try to contribute and accidentally interrupt, only to be met with irritation or dismissal. Or they may wait too long, only to find that the topic has moved on. Equally frustrating is the frequent experience of offering an idea or suggestion that is ignored—only to hear the exact same idea repeated minutes later by someone else, who is then praised for their insight. These experiences are not just disheartening; they reinforce a sense of invisibility and social exclusion.

Post-Meeting Recovery: The Invisible Time Sink

The challenges for autistic individuals do not end when the meeting is over. The mental and emotional recovery process can stretch far beyond what neurotypical colleagues might imagine. While others may return to their tasks immediately after a meeting, autistic individuals are often left grappling with lingering effects that can impair productivity for hours or even days.

One common experience is the compulsive replaying of the meeting. Questions like “Did I say something wrong?” or “Did I miss a cue?” dominate the mind, sometimes spiraling into intense self-criticism. Every word, every reaction, and every silence is analyzed in detail, often without resolution. This post-event analysis is not a choice—it’s a manifestation of how autistic cognition works when faced with ambiguous social input.

Alongside the emotional residue comes a very real difficulty in regaining focus. The kind of deep, uninterrupted concentration needed for technical, analytical, or creative work is hard to reclaim after the social and sensory overload of a meeting. The brain remains in a state of agitation or exhaustion, and the shift back into solitary, high-performance work does not happen instantly. In some cases, the mental cost is so high that the rest of the day becomes unproductive.

This entire process is invisible. To a manager or team member, it might appear that the autistic individual is simply slow, disengaged, or underperforming after a meeting. In reality, what they’re seeing is the aftermath of a demanding cognitive and emotional event—an event that may have lasted only 15 minutes but continues to exert its weight long after everyone else has moved on.

Understanding this recovery time is crucial. Productivity cannot be measured by how quickly someone bounces back from a meeting, especially when meetings are structured in ways that exhaust certain individuals. To create a truly inclusive and effective workplace, it’s essential to make space not only for different working styles but also for different recovery processes.

The Vicious Cycle: More Meetings, Less Performance

A deeply problematic pattern often emerges in workplaces that misunderstand the reasons behind declining performance: they respond to the symptoms by reinforcing the cause. When an autistic employee begins to struggle with focus, productivity, or communication—often as a direct result of meeting-related exhaustion—management may attempt to “solve” the problem by introducing more meetings, more collaborative work, and more peer pairing. These interventions, though often well-meaning, can drastically worsen the situation.

The assumption is that closer contact, more frequent check-ins, or increased teamwork will help the employee re-engage or become more motivated. In reality, each of these measures adds additional social and cognitive load. More meetings mean more mental simulations, more recovery time, and greater disruption of routines. Instead of creating clarity or support, these measures produce an unrelenting cycle of fatigue and perceived underperformance.

Another common managerial approach is to pair up employees who are seen as “high drive” with those who seem to be struggling. The idea is that enthusiasm or momentum will be contagious. But for an autistic person, this form of forced interaction is rarely energizing. It introduces additional ambiguity, as they must now navigate the working style, pace, and unspoken expectations of another person. This often amplifies feelings of failure or inadequacy, rather than providing the intended motivation.

What unfolds is a downward spiral: more meetings lead to more exhaustion, which leads to lower output, which leads to further intervention. Each step in the cycle assumes that the problem is internal to the autistic person, rather than being a mismatch between the individual and the social structure they’re embedded in. The interventions are based on neurotypical models of engagement, and so the more rigorously they are applied, the more alienating they become for those who think and work differently.

Another layer of difficulty arises for individuals with a PDA (Pathological Demand Avoidance) profile, which is increasingly recognized within the autism spectrum. For these individuals, demands—especially those that are externally imposed or come across as controlling—can trigger extreme resistance and anxiety. When management responds to perceived underperformance by increasing oversight, applying pressure, or resorting to micromanagement, they often end up intensifying the very dynamics that caused the drop in performance to begin with. Instead of resolving the issue, such responses can lead to complete shutdown, avoidance, or emotional distress, making it nearly impossible for the individual to function effectively.

To break this cycle, organizations must shift their assumptions. Instead of equating visibility with productivity or collaboration with effectiveness, they must recognize that genuine productivity can look very different for different minds. Trust, flexibility, and respect for cognitive diversity are not luxuries—they are prerequisites for tapping into the potential of neurodivergent professionals.

Rethinking Workplace Norms: Inclusion Is Efficiency

In many professional settings, meetings are treated as the default tool for collaboration and alignment. But for workplaces that aim to support neurodiverse teams, especially those with autistic employees, it’s time to challenge that assumption. Meetings should not be the default mode of interaction. Instead, communication and coordination strategies should be selected intentionally, with inclusion and efficiency as core criteria.

One of the most effective alternatives is the use of written, asynchronous updates. These allow individuals to process information at their own pace, formulate responses with clarity, and contribute meaningfully without being overwhelmed by real-time social demands. Asynchronous formats reduce the cognitive and emotional load associated with spontaneous discussion, helping autistic employees stay engaged without sacrificing energy needed for focused work.

When meetings are truly necessary, they should be designed for accessibility. This starts with clear agendas distributed in advance, so participants know what to expect and can prepare appropriately. Structured turn-taking should be explicitly facilitated, minimizing chaotic interruptions and ensuring all voices are heard in an orderly and respectful way.

Another important shift is to make attendance optional wherever possible, or to provide high-quality summaries and follow-ups for those who opt out. This respects the reality that some individuals may contribute more effectively outside live discussions. It also reduces pressure on those who might otherwise attend only out of obligation, at great cost to their mental resources.

Equally crucial is cultivating a workplace culture where slower or delayed responses are not penalized. Some of the most insightful contributions from autistic employees come hours or days after a meeting, once they’ve had time to process. These moments of clarity are not shortcomings in communication but reflections of a different and often deeper cognitive style. Organizations that make space for these contributions unlock a valuable dimension of problem-solving and creativity.

It’s also worth noting that autistic individuals often possess exceptional focus and performance potential—especially when given the space to work uninterrupted. Attention spans during hyperfocus can be far longer than those of neurotypical colleagues, and the depth of analysis and creative problem-solving that emerges during these periods can far exceed average expectations. However, this level of high-functioning concentration is fragile: interruptions from unstructured meetings or constant social interaction can break the flow and take a long time to recover.

Ultimately, true productivity does not come from conformity. It comes from enabling people to work in ways that are aligned with how they process, think, and solve problems best. Inclusion is not a concession—it is a competitive advantage.

Conclusion

Meetings are not inherently bad. In the right context, with the right structure, they can serve as powerful tools for collaboration and alignment. But when meetings are designed solely around neurotypical communication styles and workplace norms, they risk excluding and exhausting autistic individuals—particularly those with Level 1 Autism or Asperger’s. This exclusion is not always intentional, but its effects are real and measurable.

For autistic professionals, fewer meetings, clearer formats, and thoughtfully structured communication are not preferences—they are essential accommodations that enable full participation and peak performance. The idea that more interaction automatically leads to better outcomes needs to be reevaluated. Sometimes, the greatest contributions come not from the meeting room, but from quiet, focused hours of deep thought and sustained concentration.

If organizations truly value innovation, quality, and inclusivity, they must treat neurodiversity as a foundational design principle—not an afterthought. Inclusive practices don’t just benefit autistic individuals—they improve clarity, reduce unnecessary interruptions, and create space for a wider range of talents and working styles to thrive.

The workplace of the future will not be built by asking everyone to think the same way. It will be built by making room for different kinds of minds to do their best work, side by side. That begins with rethinking how, when, and why we meet. to accommodate neurodiverse needs.

References

• Garnett, Attwood: Autism Working: A Seven-stage Plan to Thriving at Work (Note: This link is an affiliate link, this pages author profits from qualified purchases)

This article is tagged:

• Psychology
• Asperger
• Autism