In one famous study, researchers asked students to state their race before taking a standardised test. That tiny reminder — that little checkbox — was enough to tank their scores. Not only did they underperform compared to white students, but they also underperformed compared to their own baseline.
That’s stereotype threat: when you make people identify with a label tied to weakness or stigma, performance collapses. And it doesn’t just apply to race. It applies to gender. To class. And yes — to neurodivergence and creativity.
Which is why I’m increasingly sceptical of the way so many talented people lead with “I’m autistic,” “I’m ADHD,” or “I’m dyslexic.” Not because those traits aren’t real — they are. However, the constant foregrounding of labels is quietly cutting into the performance.
The weight of labels
Once you put a label in front of someone, you prime them to perform under the shadow of it.
- Tell a woman she’s about to take a maths test “where women usually score lower” — her score drops (Spencer, Steele & Quinn, 1999).
- Tell a Black student to tick “race” before a logic test — same effect (Steele & Aronson, 1995).
Now tell a creative, “remember, you’re ADHD, your attention will drift,” or “you’re autistic, you’ll miss the nuance.” Guess what happens? They drift. They miss nuance. Not because they must, but because the label has written the script in advance.
The creative pattern-spotter paradox
Here’s the irony: many of the best creatives, strategists, and innovators are pattern spotters, system thinkers, and seers. The traits that are often categorised as “neurodivergent” are the very traits that fuel originality.
But over-identification with the label flips the gift into a straitjacket. Instead of “I think differently — that’s my edge,” it becomes “I think differently — that’s why I can’t.”
It legitimises avoidance. It feeds doubt. And it narrows performance to the story of the label, not the reality of the talent.
The organisational trap
Businesses make it worse. They love categories. HR forms. Diversity initiatives. Endless accommodations. The intention may be good, but the signal is poisonous: you are defined by what you lack.
Case in point: the DEI backfire
I once sat in a leadership meeting where a neurodivergence initiative was being “rolled out.” The HR lead proudly explained the new adjustments: quieter desks, lighter workloads, and reduced meeting expectations. It sounded compassionate — but the net result was brutal.
The creative director in question went from “the maverick idea-generator everyone listened to” to “the person we don’t expect much from.” Their seat at the table shrank. Their performance followed. Not because their mind had changed — but because the framing had.
That’s not inclusion. That’s sabotage dressed as sensitivity.
A better frame
The alternative isn’t denial. It’s reframing.
- Recognise wiring differences — and remove pointless friction.
- But don’t make the diagnosis the headline.
- Anchor people in capability, not category.
In practice? Drop the checkbox obsession. Introduce people by what they do well. Give them systems that support performance without labelling them as a deficit.
Closing
The lesson from stereotype threat is simple: the more you force someone to define themselves by a label, the more you limit what they can do.
For creatives and strategists, that’s fatal. You don’t want your edge dulled by the weight of someone else’s category. You want freedom — to see patterns, to invent, to create at your full capacity.
So if you’re tempted to lead with a label, stop. Lead with your work. Lead with what you build. Let the world see the output, not the checkbox.
Because great strategy isn’t about squeezing people into tidy identities. It’s about unboxing potential. And nothing boxes you in faster than carrying your own stereotype on your sleeve.
References
- Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811.
- Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4–28.
- Author’s Note
Artificial intelligence has been used in the organization and structuring of original ideas and research connections throughout this work. Every argument, insight, and conclusion originates from the author’s own analysis; AI tools were applied solely to assist in synthesis, clarity, and coherence.
Leave a Reply