Australian Leadership Advisor's Provocative Question on Neurodivergence Sparks Global Conversation

Australian leadership advisor, keynote speaker, and author Mike Meyer has ignited a global conversation with a provocative question about neurodivergence and the nature of 'normal.' In a recent post, Meyer asked, "What if we've spent 200 years making people fit the system, then called the people who couldn't fit it the problem?" The question, which he posed online, has unexpectedly taken off, with 92% of its reach coming from outside his existing network and gaining traction across Australia, the UK, and the US.

Meyer's query stems from an earlier hypothesis suggesting that as much as 40 to 50% of the population could potentially be neuro-complex. While the figure has sparked debate, Meyer emphasizes that the real conversation is about more than just numbers. "People understandably got caught on the 40 to 50% figure," he says. "But the conversation it opened is far more interesting." He asks, "What if neurodivergence isn't suddenly exploding? What if we're simply getting better at seeing people who were already here?"

The idea has resonated well beyond Meyer's usual professional audience, crossing countries, industries, and networks. Meyer believes the appeal lies in its challenge to long-held assumptions about what is 'normal.' He points out that neurodevelopmental differences are strongly hereditary, yet generations of adults grew up in an era 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," he says. "They were already here."

Meyer argues that the world we have built over the past 200 years, shaped by the industrial age, has dictated that people turn up at the same time, sit still, follow processes, work the same hours, and communicate in expected ways. These systems worked for the era, but Meyer contends that we 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 explains.

The timing of this conversation is significant. Meyer notes that the conditions that shaped the industrial age are changing, creating more room for people to work, communicate, lead, and contribute differently. "This is the catalyst moment to question what we have been calling normal," he says.

For Meyer, who authored Weird is the New Normal: The Unlikely Path of Leadership, this isn't a new direction. He has spent years challenging conventional ideas about leadership and difference. What has changed is the moment. "The idea that weird might be normal isn't new to me," he says. "What's different now is that it feels more relevant, more visible, and, perhaps, more obvious than ever before."

Meyer is not suggesting that everyone is neurodivergent or that 40 to 50% of people are disabled. Rather, he is asking a more uncomfortable question: "How much human capability have we overlooked because our definition of normal was too narrow?" He acknowledges that for some, neurodivergence is profoundly disabling, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. But he adds, "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 that people are ready to ask bigger questions about neurodivergence than simply how many people have a diagnosis. Meyer encourages challenge to his hypothesis, but he believes there's something underneath it that we can't unsee. "Maybe the people weren't always the problem," he says. "Maybe sometimes it was the system we were asking them to fit."

The original article that sparked the conversation, "We're Not All Neurodivergent. So Why Does It Suddenly Look That Way?" can be read on LinkedIn and M31's website. Meyer's earlier hypothesis is detailed in Beyond Diagnosis: What If We've Been Counting the Wrong People?.