Aerospace risks groupthink by filtering out neurodivergent leaders, executive warns
April 18, 2026
The aerospace and defence sector prides itself on engineering excellence, systems thinking, and rigorous safety culture. Yet at the highest levels of leadership, those same principles are not always applied to how people are selected and promoted.
That is the warning from Michelle Carson, an executive search specialist working across the sector, who argues that companies are unintentionally filtering out the very cognitive diversity they claim to value.
Her comments build on recent Aerospace Global News coverage of neurodiversity in pilot training, where rigid pathways can exclude capable candidates. According to Carson, a similar dynamic is playing out in the boardroom.
Why aerospace leaders are still hired for ‘polish’ over judgement
At senior level, Carson says the issue lies in how leadership potential is assessed.
“Boards often prioritise confidence, fluency, and linear career paths because they’re easy to assess,” she explains. “But none reliably indicate judgement.”
In practice, this means candidates are often selected based on how they present, rather than how they think. Those who interrogate problems more deeply or approach them differently can be screened out early in the process.
The result, she warns, is leadership teams that “present well but lack the depth of thinking needed to manage risk in complex, high-stakes environments”.
This creates a structural contradiction at the heart of the industry.
The aerospace boardroom paradox: Innovation vs familiar leadership hires
Aerospace companies frequently emphasise the need for innovation, particularly in areas such as complex systems integration, cybersecurity, and next-generation aircraft design. Yet hiring practices continue to favour familiar profiles.
“You can’t expect different outcomes if leadership teams are built from the same profiles, assessed the same way, and rewarded for the same behaviours,” Carson says.
Innovation, she argues, depends on challenge, and challenge rarely comes from people selected because they are easy to appoint.
Why uniform thinking creates risk in aerospace hiring
In a sector shaped by interconnected systems and geopolitical uncertainty, the consequences of this approach can be significant.
“The risk is uniform thinking,” Carson says. “When leadership teams share similar backgrounds, assumptions go untested and blind spots form.”
In aerospace and defence, where failures rarely stem from a single issue, this lack of challenge can allow problems to build over time.
“Most failures build through early signals being missed or dismissed,” she adds. “Blind spots develop when teams align too quickly and don’t challenge what they’re seeing.”
How neurodivergent thinking strengthens aerospace decision-making
Carson, who is autistic and has ADHD, speaks from personal experience when describing the value of different cognitive approaches.
“In high-pressure situations, I focus on how a system is actually behaving, not how it’s expected to behave,” she says. “I’m less influenced by consensus and more focused on whether the underlying logic holds.”
This “bottom-up” style of thinking, she argues, is particularly valuable in complex environments, where understanding how small anomalies evolve into larger risks can be critical.
Different cognitive approaches can:
- Strengthen forensic problem-solving
- Improve pattern recognition across systems
- Enhance early detection of emerging risks
That, in turn, can mean the difference between early intervention and late-stage failure.
Aerospace hiring processes filter out neurodivergent talent
The aerospace sector is already well versed in human factors, particularly in flight operations and system design. But Carson points to a disconnect at leadership level.
“In operational settings, aerospace invests heavily in how environment, workload, and cognition affect performance,” she says. “At senior level, that thinking is rarely applied.”
Leadership, she argues, is still often defined by a narrow set of communication styles and behaviours, rather than a broader understanding of cognitive strengths.
From an executive search perspective, the biggest issue lies in assessment.
“Even in structured interviews, decisions often come down to how someone comes across in the room,” Carson says. “Confidence, fluency, and ease of interaction are weighted more heavily than how someone thinks.”
Over time, that narrows progression pathways and limits the diversity of thought at senior levels.
From awareness to capability: Autism acceptance in aerospace leadership
As the industry marks Autism Acceptance Month, Carson is clear that progress requires more than awareness campaigns.
“Genuine acceptance is reflected in decisions, not awareness,” she says. “It means assessing people on capability, not style, and recognising different ways of thinking as directly relevant to performance and risk.”
She argues that neurodivergence should not be treated purely as an inclusion issue, but as a capability advantage in sectors defined by complexity and uncertainty.
There remains a persistent perception that neurodivergence may be a barrier in highly regulated environments. Carson challenges that view directly.
“These sectors rely on judgement, system interrogation, and challenging assumptions, areas where neurodivergent individuals often excel,” she says.
In her view, the real risk lies not in cognitive difference but in failing to use it effectively.
“Many major failures come not from lack of process, but from not recognising when a process is no longer working.”
Neurodiversity is a strategic issue for aerospace leadership
For Carson, the conversation ultimately comes back to risk and performance.
By continuing to hire for familiarity rather than thinking style, aerospace organisations may be limiting their ability to detect problems early, challenge assumptions, and adapt in complex environments.
The implication is clear: embracing neurodivergent thinking is not simply about inclusion; it is about building leadership teams capable of navigating the increasingly complex systems that define modern aerospace.
