Pension engagement remains one of the most persistent challenges in running an effective workplace pension scheme. When employees fail to engage with their pensions – missing communications or deadlines, avoiding decisions, or defaulting into choices they do not fully understand – it is often assumed that they are careless, disengaged or insufficiently informed.
That instinct is understandable in a society that tends to frame financial security as a matter of discipline and foresight – but it is misplaced. Often, low engagement tells us more about the assumptions embedded in pension systems than about the people trying to navigate them.
In recent years, the concept of neurodiversity has reshaped conversations across education, employment and healthcare. Rooted firmly in behavioural science and psychology, it reflects well-evidenced differences in how people process information, regulate attention, plan for the future and respond to complexity. Estimates vary, but research consistently suggests that a significant minority of adults – commonly cited at around 1 in 7 members of the population – exhibit some form of neurodivergent trait, whether diagnosed or not. Yet while these ideas are now well established in other fields, their relevance to pensions administration remains under-explored.
Pension systems are not neutral. They tend to reward certain ways of thinking while making engagement harder for others. This article explores how recognising cognitive diversity can help employers improve pension engagement, reduce friction and deliver better outcomes across their schemes.
Read more: Autumn Budget: Why the Rumoured £2,000 Salary Sacrifice Cap Could Undermine Pensions Reform
Pension design impacts engagement
Differences in how people process information and approach complex decisions often go unnoticed. They become more apparent when systems place sustained demands on organisation, long-term planning and abstract thinking.
Workplace pension schemes do exactly that. They ask people to make decisions today about outcomes decades away, often using technical language and unfamiliar concepts. For many employees, this is manageable. For others, particularly where pension administration relies heavily on forms, deadlines and lengthy written communications, the cognitive load becomes a barrier to engagement.
These challenges are not confined to employer-led communications. Trustees, pension providers and administrators also shape how complexity is presented to members – through default structures, member journeys, scheme literature and digital platforms. Design choices made at any point in the system can either reduce friction or unintentionally amplify it.
Neurodivergence is not always visible. Many employees, particularly older workers, will never have received a formal diagnosis, and may struggle to articulate the challenges they face when navigating complex systems. As a result, difficulties with organisation, sustained attention or administrative tasks can remain hidden, compounding over time through missed actions and reduced engagement. This makes inclusive pension design essential even where there is no obvious or declared neurodiversity within the workforce.
Read more: Why Employers Must Stop Whispering About Pensions and Start Leading the Conversation
Inclusive pension design works by assuming cognitive variation
Every system reflects assumptions about human behaviour. Pension systems typically assume members who are comfortable with delayed rewards, fluent in technical language and able to manage complexity with minimal guidance.
That cognitive profile exists, but it is not universal.
Inclusive pension design does not depend on disclosure or diagnosis. It works best when systems assume variation from the outset. Clear language reduces cognitive effort. Information structured in manageable sections improves comprehension. Multiple formats recognise that people process information differently.
This is not about any single firm claiming to have solved the challenge. In truth, the pensions industry as a whole – advisers, providers, trustees and administrators included – is still learning how best to reflect cognitive diversity in design and communication. Recognising the issue is not an admission of failure. It is a necessary step towards more realistic, member-centred systems.
Digital tools that guide decision-making and reduce clutter do not remove responsibility. They make responsibility possible. What supports neurodivergent individuals often improves the experience for everyone else. The difference is that some people pay a much higher price when systems fail to accommodate them.
Read more: Is Your School Ready for the Impact of the Employment Rights Bill on Pensions?
Human support matters most when people are already under strain
Even the best-designed systems, however, cannot replace human judgement. Pension engagement often coincides with moments of pressure such as job changes, illness, caring responsibilities or the transition into retirement.
At these points, cognitive capacity is reduced for all of us.
Support at these moments relies on coordination across the system. Employers, trustees, advisers, providers and pension administrators each play a role in ensuring members can access clear explanations, appropriate pacing and flexibility when they need it most. No single party can remove complexity alone, but collective awareness can materially reduce its impact.
Staff who are trained to recognise overload rather than disengagement can materially change outcomes. Clear explanations, patient pacing and flexibility in how pension administration communications are delivered can materially change outcomes. From an employer perspective, this often depends on how effectively HR teams, advisers and the pensions administrator work together to reduce friction at key moments.
Inclusive design is essential to fair pension outcomes
The challenge neurodiversity presents to pension systems is both practical and moral. Do we continue to design systems for an idealised member, or do we design them for the population as it actually exists?
Financial engagement is not simply about literacy or effort. It is shaped by how people experience complexity. If pensions are meant to provide security and dignity in later life, accessibility cannot be treated as optional.
Engagement improves when complexity is reduced, language is clear, and pension administration processes are designed to guide people through decisions rather than overwhelm them. Using plain language, breaking actions into manageable steps, offering information in different formats and providing timely prompts can all reduce friction and make engagement easier.
But design alone is not enough. Moments of pressure are unavoidable, and access to clear, patient human support can be decisive when employees are least able to navigate complexity. Where employers, trustees, advisers, providers and the pensions administrator work together to recognise overload and reduce friction, outcomes improve.
Contact Broadstone today for help managing your pension scheme with simple, clear advice.
