The Gap Between Reasonable Adjustments Policy and Practice
Over the past year, I have worked with multiple organisations investing in training for line managers responsible for reasonable adjustment conversations. A common frustration emerges: the policies exist, but implementation is inconsistent. This is not a knowledge deficit. It is a capability deficit. Knowing that reasonable adjustments are a legal duty under the Equality Act does not automatically equip someone to manage a nuanced conversation about fluctuating needs, performance expectations, or team impact. Policy creates structure. It does not create fluency. Without rehearsal, managers default to caution.
Line Managers Avoid Reasonable Adjustment Conversations
Line managers understand that there are real consequences attached to adjustment conversations. They are aware of potential grievances, tribunal risk, and reputational damage. That awareness shapes behaviour. And internal calculation often happens.
If I say the wrong thing, this could escalate. If I agree to something unreasonable, I expose the organisation. If I open this conversation, I may not know how to resolve it.
Avoidance feels safer in the short term. Silence feels like risk management. But silence is not neutral. For disabled employees, hesitation can communicate doubt. Delay can communicate disbelief. A postponed reasonable adjustment conversation can feel like rejection, even where there is no malicious intent. The harm does not require hostility. It only requires inaction.
Misunderstanding What “Reasonable” Means
Another recurring issue is confusion around what reasonable adjustments involve and what the term “reasonable” actually protects. Many managers overestimate cost and underestimate flexibility. They assume complexity before asking a single question. In practice, most reasonable adjustments are practical and low cost. Reasonableness is built around proportionality and this safeguards organisations from disproportionate burden while protecting disabled people from systemic disadvantage. When managers genuinely understand this balance, fear reduces significantly. Clarity reduces defensiveness and increases action.
Why Reasonable Adjustments Training Must Go Beyond Awareness
Delivering a single disability inclusion workshop does not create behavioural change. If line managers are expected to lead reasonable adjustment conversations confidently, they need repeated opportunities to practise and reflect. That means structured case studies, safe rehearsal environments, and space to explore what happens when conversations feel uncomfortable. It means analysing examples of what worked well and where small language shifts changed outcomes.
This is why our Reasonable Adjustments Training at Celebrating Disability is designed around application, not just awareness. I explored this further in my recent Thinking Out Loud episode on the silence around reasonable adjustments, where I unpack why compliance without confidence creates organisational risk.
Organisational Priorities Shape Reasonable Adjustment Conversations
There is a deeper structural issue that is often overlooked. What is genuinely prioritised inside the organisation?
If speed, productivity, and immovable deadlines are consistently rewarded above all else, managers receive a clear signal. Inclusion becomes secondary. Reasonable adjustment conversations become optional.
But…
If inclusion is the priority, leadership must communicate that clearly and operationalise it. That may involve shifting deadlines, adjusting team expectations, or giving managers explicit permission to slow down in order to support someone properly.
The Legal and Cultural Risk of Avoiding Reasonable Adjustments
Avoiding reasonable adjustment conversations does not eliminate risk. It compounds it. Silence increases the likelihood of grievance and tribunal. It suppresses disclosure rates. It undermines trust. Over time, it signals to disabled employees that belonging is conditional. That is not a policy issue. That is a culture issue. And culture is shaped by behaviour, not documentation.
From Silence to Skilled Reasonable Adjustment Conversations
The barrier is rarely intent. It is capability. It is clarity. It is organisational permission. The most effective line managers are not necessarily the most naturally confident personalities. They are the ones given structured opportunities to practise, ask questions, and prioritise inclusion without fear of penalty. If reasonable adjustment conversations are not happening in your workplace, the question may not be whether managers are compliant. It may be whether they feel equipped.
