Beyond the Individual: Neurodiversity and the Multi-Level Ecology of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

Neurodiversity in Entrepreneurship: Potential, Paradoxes, and Limitations

Neurodiversity refers to the concept that variations in the human brain regarding sociability, learning, attention, and other cognitive functions represent natural human variation rather than inherent deficits or disorders (Armstrong, 2010; Kapp et al., 2013). This perspective acknowledges that conditions such as autism spectrum disorder ADHD and dyslexia can confer distinct cognitive strengths within specific contexts (Austin & Pisano, 2017; Doyle, 2020). Foundational work in this domain highlights potential alignments between these neurodiverse traits and entrepreneurial competencies. For instance, research indicates that ADHD symptoms such as a risk-taking propensity, hyperfocus, and sensation seeking show strong parallels with entrepreneurial action orientation and alertness to new opportunities (Verheul et al., 2015; Wiklund et al., 2017). Similarly autistic traits regarding systemizing pattern recognition and attention to detail align with the demands of deep technological innovation or niche market development (Baron-Cohen et al., 2007; Ezerins et al., 2024). Studies on dyslexia have also pointed toward potential strengths in visuospatial reasoning and the delegation of tasks which may align well with the demands of venture leadership (Logan, 2009). This body of work relies heavily on cognitive and trait theories to explain how these variations align with the functional demands of entrepreneurship.

However, this burgeoning literature primarily adopts a perspective that isolates the entrepreneur from their broader ecological context (Tran et al., 2026). Both trait-based and person-environment fit models often fail to account for the complex interplay of factors beyond the individual’s immediate control. While a founder may possess high cognitive fit for opportunity recognition or product development, they may simultaneously experience low fit with the social environment required to mobilize resources (Markman & Baron, 2003). For instance, while studies link ADHD traits to superior opportunity identification they rarely model how the social environment prevents the enactment of those opportunities due to elements such as networking norms (Busch & Barkema, 2022). For that reason, neurodiverse individuals face hurdles such as biased funding evaluations or the reliance on social signaling which can block resource acquisition. Therefore, neurodiversity functions as an entrepreneurial asset at the cognitive level but faces persistent environmental barriers that hinder the translation of this potential into entrepreneurial success (Tucker et al., 2021). To better understand this dynamic, we move the unit of analysis from the individual to the interaction between neurodiverse individuals and the ecosystems in which they reside.

The Neurotypical Assumption in EEs

The concept of the EE represents a significant shift in economic geography by moving the analytical focus from the isolated firm to the regional context where the actors and factors in the region enables high-growth entrepreneurship (Acs et al., 2017; Stam, 2015). Unlike traditional cluster theory which emphasizes industrial specialization or regional innovation systems which focus on knowledge transfer between institutions, the ecosystem approach centers on the entrepreneur as the primary agent of value creation (Spigel & Harrison, 2018). Scholarship in this domain defines ecosystems as complex sets of interdependent actors and factors governed by both material attributes and cultural norms that collectively enable productive entrepreneurship within a specific territory (Stam, 2015).

To date, research has predominantly focused on identifying the structural attributes that distinguish high-performing regions from stagnant ones. Spigel (2017), for instance, examined differences in EE configurations through a relational lens by categorizing attributes into cultural social and material components that interact to reduce the friction of starting a new venture. Similarly, Stam and van de Ven (2021) distinguished between framework conditions such as formal institutions and culture alongside systemic conditions including networks, leadership, finance, and talent. These frameworks converge on the core premise that aligned ecosystem structures generate regional social capital, thereby streamlining the flow of resources to high potential ventures (Theodoraki et al., 2018). However, these models implicitly assume that actors possess the social fluidity required to navigate the ecosystems dense networks and decode complex cultural norms.

Consequently, current perspectives on EEs significantly fall short in explaining how individual agency interacts with these structures. As Roundy and Lyons (2023) argued, the dominance of the ecosystem lens has led researchers to emphasize macro-level dynamics while overlooking the micro foundations of how entrepreneurs interact with these systems. By treating ecosystem actors as homogeneous, current theory operates on an implicit assumption of the neurotypical entrepreneur who possesses the specific forms of structural cognitive and relational social capital required to navigate the complexities of ecosystems (Theodoraki et al., 2018). This reliance on a neurotypical image of the entrepreneur presents a critical theoretical problem. While research confirms that ecosystems require diversity to foster innovation (Spigel, 2017), current frameworks prioritize social connectivity and persuasive signaling as the essential mechanisms for resource acquisition (Malecki, 2018). This establishes a paradoxical standard where the social behaviors required to access resources effectively filter out the cognitive diversity needed for ecosystem vitality (Stam, 2015; Wiklund et al., 2018). This inadvertently privileges a neurotypical baseline for social interaction. Consequently, current theory fails to recognize that ecosystems may be exclusionary environments for neurodiverse founders because they operate outside normative behavioral scripts. Doing so creates a situation where ecosystems mechanisms designed to bolster entrepreneurship and innovation do the opposite; actively filtering out cognitive diversity and therein, undermining promising ideas that neurodiversity has been proven to foster (cf. Wiklund et al., 2016, 2018).

To address this tension, we turn to EST. EST offers a comprehensive framework for analyzing how individual behavior unfolds through the interplay between an entrepreneur and the changing environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Central to this perspective is the concept of proximal processes defined as progressive complex and reciprocal interactions between an individual and the persons objects and symbols in their immediate environment (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). EST organizes the environment into a topology of four nested systems including the micro-, meso-, exo-, and macrosystems which collectively influence these proximal processes ultimately determining whether the environment fosters competence or creates dysfunction. While EE theory provides a necessary catalog of structural components entrepreneurs need to succeed, these frameworks often implicitly assume a standardized neurotypical approach to navigating them. EST provides the analytical leverage needed to challenge this assumption by focusing on the reciprocal interactions between a specific neurocognitive profile and those components. By integrating EST, we move beyond a view of ecosystem access as universal to a granular view where there is heterogeneity among the individuals operating within the ecosystem. The EST approach allows us to theorize how and why the barriers facing neurodiverse entrepreneurs are often the result of specific expectational and socio-interactional mismatches within the ecosystem.

EST: Integrating Neurodiversity and EEs

Before introducing EST in detail, it is useful to systematically outline what an ecological perspective adds to conventional ecosystem theory. Table 1 provides a synthesized comparison, illustrating how our EST-informed approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of the entrepreneurial actor, the concept of fit, and the nature of environmental barriers.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Integrating EST with EE Theory: A Comparative Framework.

Theoretical element	Conventional EE perspective	EST-informed perspective (Our contribution)
The actor	Implicitly assumes a neurotypical agent who effectively navigates social networks.	Explicitly models the entrepreneur as cognitively diverse where the neurocognitive profile acts as a filter for proximal processes.
The environment	A catalog of structural components (e.g., venture capitalists, universities, policy).	A nested set of interdependent systems (micro, meso, exo, macro) defined by interactional friction and alignment.
Primary barrier	Lack of resources or structural holes in the network.	Weak Tie Filtering and systemic dissonance between the founder’s cognitive style and ecosystem norms.
Mechanism of success	Leveraging weak ties and conforming to legitimacy norms.	Microsystem crafting to optimize cognitive strengths and bypassing gatekeepers via deep-tie networks (The Ecological Niche).
Role of time	Linear venture lifecycle stages.	Counter-stereotyping where successful neurodiverse ventures challenge dominant logics and drive the co-evolution of legitimacy norms.

Note. EST: ecological systems theory; EE: entrepreneurial ecosystem.

EST (Table 2) analyzes how behavior emerges from the reciprocal interactions between an entrepreneur and their environment. In this view, the ecosystem functions as a set of nested structures that range from immediate face-to-face settings (microsystem) and their interconnections (mesosystem) to external institutional policies (exosystem) and overarching cultural patterns (macrosystem). By situating these interactions within the dimension of time (chronosystem), the framework provides the necessary analytical leverage to identify where systemic friction occurs. It shifts the focus from the presence of ecosystem attributes to the quality of the interaction between the individual and the system (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

An Ecological Systems Framework for Neurodiversity in EEs.

System level	Definition within EST and EE context	Core tension for the neurodiverse entrepreneur	Representative publications	Associated propositions
Microsystem	Immediate environments of direct interaction, such as the venture team and family.	Innovation vs. Friction: The paradox where cognitive strengths drive innovation but can also create interactional friction.	Wiklund et al. (2017); Tucker et al. (2021)	Proposition 1a: Within EEs the positive relationship between an ADHD founder’s cognitive strengths and venture innovation is positively moderated by microsystem coordination routines that accommodate rapid iteration and buffer administrative friction. Proposition 1b: Within EEs, the positive relationship between an autistic founder’s cognitive strengths and venture innovation is positively moderated by microsystem coordination routines that utilize asynchronous communication and reduce sensory and social pragmatic friction.
Mesosystem	The interconnections between microsystems, such as team-investor and work–family links.	Translation burden: The cognitive and emotional labor required to navigate differing norms across system boundaries.	Johnson et al. (2017); Tran et al. (2026)	Proposition 2a: At the mesosystem interface, founders with ADHD will initiate weak ties but experience decay in tie maintenance due to friction in follow-through, constraining sustainable resource mobilization. Proposition 2b: At the mesosystem interface, founders with autism will develop deep, high-trust ties but experience friction in rapid rapport-building due to communication differences, constraining weak tie acquisition for resource mobilization.
Exosystem	External settings that indirectly influence the entrepreneur, such as venture capital funding criteria and accelerator design.	Systemic misfit: The mismatch between standardized institutional processes and the diverse needs of neurodiverse individuals.	Yu et al. (2021); Rajah et al. (2021)	Proposition 3a: The reliance of exosystem gatekeepers on linear due diligence templates and rigid milestone planning creates a structural mismatch that negatively moderates the evaluation of ventures led by ADHD founders, whose strategic logic is highly associative. Proposition 3b: The reliance of exosystem gatekeepers on rapid fire, verbally fluid pitch formats creates a structural mismatch that negatively moderates the evaluation of ventures led by autistic founders, who process dynamic social information differently.
Macrosystem	The overarching cultural blueprints, societal ideologies, and the ideal entrepreneur archetype.	Legitimacy Paradox: The contradiction where entrepreneurship celebrates non-conformity in outcomes but demands conformity in persona.	Stephan (2018); Hatak et al. (2021)	Proposition 4a: The prevalence of a neurotypical founder archetype within the EE macrosystem is negatively associated with the perceived legitimacy of ADHD founders, whose associative and highly iterative processes are culturally penalized as administrative instability. Proposition 4b: The prevalence of a neurotypical founder archetype within the EE macrosystem is negatively associated with the perceived legitimacy of autistic founders, whose direct and systemizing communication styles are culturally penalized as a lack of charismatic leadership.
Chronosystem	The dimension of time, encompassing individual development, venture lifecycles, and historical shifts.	Adaptation lag: The temporal mismatch where individual adaptations outpace slower institutional changes in the ecosystem.	Wiklund et al. (2016); Wolfe and Patel (2022)	Proposition 5a: Over time, successful ventures led by ADHD founders act as counter stereotypes that pressure the EE to expand its legitimacy norms to include nonlinear, highly iterative venture trajectories. Proposition 5b: Over time, successful ventures led by autistic founders act as counter stereotypes that pressure the EE to expand its legitimacy norms to prioritize technical rigor and asynchronous organizational structures over charismatic social signaling.

Note. EST: ecological systems theory; EE: entrepreneurial ecosystem; ADHD: attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

By integrating these perspectives, we map the structural components of the EE (Spigel, 2017; Stam, 2015) onto the nested interactional layers of EST. This mapping reveals how standard EE attributes function as specific normative settings for the entrepreneur. For example, we locate daily venture interactions within the microsystem, network interconnections within the mesosystem, institutional gatekeepers within the exosystem, and cultural norms within the macrosystem. The resulting framework illustrated in Figure 1 moves beyond a list of ingredients to model how neurodiverse entrepreneurs actively navigate these nested systems to construct functional ecological niches defined as specialized configurations of support that align with specific neurocognitive profiles.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

A dynamic ecological systems framework of neurodiverse entrepreneurship.

Proximal Processes and Nested Systems

We operationalize the EE by mapping its established structural components (Spigel, 2017; Stam, 2015) onto the interactional mechanisms of EST. Central to this framework is the concept of proximal processes. Bronfenbrenner and Morris (2006) defined proximal processes as the progressively complex reciprocal interactions between an individual and the persons, objects, and symbols in their immediate environment. In the context of entrepreneurship, these processes constitute the daily mechanics of venture creation where the cognitive profile of the founder interfaces with EE actors, factors, institutional, and cultural frames.

We examine these interactions across four nested layers. The microsystem comprises the immediate setting of the venture where proximal processes occur most intensely. The mesosystem encompasses the network of interconnections between distinct settings such as the interface between the internal venture team and external investor networks. The exosystem consists of external gatekeeping structures that indirectly influence the venture, and the macrosystem embodies the overarching cultural blueprints and legitimacy norms that shape the logic of the entire structure. By analyzing the friction or alignment within these layers, we move beyond a static list of ecosystem attributes to model the dynamic trajectory of the neurodiverse entrepreneur.

The Microsystem: Proximal Processes, Cognitive Styles, and Relational Dynamics

Bronfenbrenner (1979) conceptualized the microsystem as a pattern of activities, roles, and interpersonal relations experienced by a person in a given setting characterized by specific physical and material attributes. In the context of an EE, the microsystem is not merely the physical office but the immediate crucible of venture creation where the entrepreneur engages in proximal processes defined as sustained, complex, and reciprocal interactions with immediate ecosystem actors such as co-founders, early employees, and hands-on mentors (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006).

Within this layer, the neurocognitive profile of the entrepreneur acts as a bio-psychological filter that directly shapes the nature of proximal processes. For founders with ADHD, cognitive traits such as impulsivity and sensation-seeking alter how they interact with immediate ecosystem actors (Wiklund et al., 2017). Within the microsystem, these traits can drive specific entrepreneurial advantages; specifically, the propensity of a founder with ADHD for rapid task-switching and cognitive flexibility can accelerate the fast-paced iteration cycles necessary to find product-market fit (Hatak et al., 2021). Conversely, for autistic founders, the characteristic cognitive focus and systematic processing style fundamentally reconfigure interpersonal interactions and task execution within the immediate venture setting (Baron-Cohen et al., 2007). This systematic disposition can manifest as a distinct operational advantage, such as the enforcement of rigorous code quality or operational standards that become the core competitive advantage of the venture (Austin & Pisano, 2017).

However, a critical tension arises when these neurocognitive styles collide with the normative interactional expectations of early-stage venturing. The startup microsystem is often characterized by ambiguity, the need for rapid social signaling, and hustle culture. Differences in communication pragmatics (Chevallier et al., 2012), executive functioning challenges regarding time management (Willcutt et al., 2014), or sensory sensitivities (Marco et al., 2011) can introduce significant interactional friction into the venture’s daily operations. This friction is not a result of the entrepreneur’s deficit but of a misalignment between their cognitive style and the rigid, neurotypical behavioral scripts often assumed in high-growth venture teams (Tran et al., 2026). If the microsystem operates on these default assumptions, the very cognitive variances that sparked the venture’s innovation may simultaneously destabilize its execution.

To resolve this tension, the microsystem must move beyond passive accommodation toward proactive modification of the work environment (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). However, the specific nature of this modification is entirely dependent on the unique neurocognitive profile of the entrepreneur. For a founder with ADHD, proactive environmental adjustment requires coordination routines that accommodate rapid task-switching and associative thinking, such as connecting disparate market trends, generating nonlinear business model variations, or devising creative, lateral solutions to operational crises. These routines simultaneously buffer the founder from the friction of sustained administrative maintenance (Wiklund et al., 2017). Conversely, for an autistic founder, proactive environmental adjustment involves establishing asynchronous communication protocols, such as using written status updates on shared project boards rather than spontaneous verbal stand-up meetings, and highly structured, unambiguous social routines, such as establishing explicit meeting agendas with designated speaking slots. These protocols and routines serve to buffer against sensory overwhelm and social ambiguity in high-stimulation environments (Ezerins et al., 2024).

The Mesosystem: Navigating Inter-System Boundaries and Social Capital

The mesosystem comprises the interconnections between the distinct microsystems in which an entrepreneur actively participates (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). In the context of an EE, this layer forms the connective tissue linking the immediate venture team to external ecosystem actors such as seed investors, dealmakers, and university technology transfer officers. The quality and structure of these mesosystem linkages are critical for accessing resources, validating ideas, gaining legitimacy, and acquiring diverse forms of social capital beyond the immediate team (Adler & Kwon, 2002; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Effective entrepreneurship requires navigating these inter-system boundaries to translate the venture vision and needs to different audiences with varying expectations and communication norms (Aldrich & Zimmer, 1986).

This interface presents a specific challenge for neurodiverse founders. The ecosystem typically demands rapid rapport building and social fluidity to bridge the gap between the technical reality of the venture and the expectations of external stakeholders. However, neurodiverse traits such as differences in social communication or a preference for directness can disrupt this translation process (Chevallier et al., 2012; Sedgewick et al., 2019). For example, the social cues required to secure seed capital in a high-velocity networking environment often conflict with the cognitive processing styles associated with autism or ADHD such as a limited capacity for sustained eye contact or a rigid preference for technical accuracy over persuasive storytelling. The friction here is not necessarily a lack of venture viability but a breakdown in the social mechanism required to transport value across ecosystem boundaries.

Current ecosystem theory posits that high performing regions rely heavily on dealmakers and heterogeneous weak ties to facilitate the flow of novel information and resources (Malecki, 2018). Ecosystems are often deliberately engineered to maximize these weak ties through mechanisms like mixers, pitch competitions, and high frequency networking events (Spigel, 2017). We argue that this interface presents a specific challenge, but the nature of the boundary spanning problem differs radically depending on the cognitive profile. For an ADHD entrepreneur, the behavioral manifestation of their profile may lead them to readily initiate many weak tie relationships; however, they will experience severe interactional friction regarding consistent follow-through and the administrative maintenance of those ties. Conversely, an autistic entrepreneur faces friction at the very onset of tie creation. Due to differences in processing ambiguous social dynamics and a preference for deep dyadic interactions, they may build fewer but deeper ties, struggling specifically with the rapid rapport building demanded by ecosystem networking norms.

The Exosystem: Institutional Logics, Resource Gateways, and Systemic Misfit

The exosystem represents the influential layer of organizations and structures that indirectly yet powerfully shape the entrepreneurial journey. As defined in EST the exosystem comprises settings that the individual does not actively participate in but which profoundly influence their immediate context (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). In the context of an EE, this layer includes powerful gatekeeping entities such as regulatory agencies and government officials who possess the authority to support or block venture initiatives through policy mandates (Stam, 2015; Acs et al., 2017). These organizations function as carriers of logics which are the socially constructed assumptions values and rules that define what is considered legitimate within a field (Thornton et al., 2012; Scott, 2013). The critical theoretical challenge is that these logics have historically evolved through interactions with a predominantly neurotypical founder population. Consequently, the selection criteria used by these gatekeepers embed deep seated assumptions about communication styles decision making and behavioral norms that implicitly define the entrepreneur (Stam, 2015; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).

Gatekeeping organizations within the exosystem, particularly venture accelerators and seed funds, utilize institutional logics to manage the uncertainty inherent in new ventures (Stam, 2015). However, these evaluative heuristics effectively codify a neurotypical prototype, creating precise, mechanisms based structural mismatches for specific cognitive profiles. For example, exosystem gatekeepers frequently rely on highly structured, linear due diligence templates and rigid milestone planning. This creates a cognitive tax and structural friction for ADHD founders, whose strategic thinking and problem-solving are inherently more associative and nonlinear. Alternatively, exosystem actors rely heavily on pitch formats that reward rapid fire questions and answers, charismatic nonverbal signaling, and verbal fluency. This evaluative mechanism systematically disadvantages autistic founders because the institutional expectations for rapid, verbally fluid communication and charismatic nonverbal signaling are structurally incongruent with the preference of these founders for systematic, reflective cognitive processing and literal information exchange. Consequently, gatekeepers frequently miscode these systematic differences in social interaction and verbal pacing as a deficit in confidence, competence, or leadership potential, leading to exclusion based on interactive presentation rather than the objective viability of the venture.

The Macrosystem: Cultural Blueprints, Stigma, and the Quest for Legitimacy

Ultimately the entire ecological system is governed by the macrosystem which constitutes the overarching societal blueprint of cultural ideologies social structures and institutional logics that set the fundamental rules of the game (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). Within the context of entrepreneurship this layer operates as the supreme arbiter of legitimacy by preemptively defining the normative parameters for what a credible leader and a viable venture culture look like (Aldrich & Fiol, 1994; Scott, 2013). While these institutional norms originate at the societal level, they permeate every lower level of the ecosystem shaping the selection criteria of exosystem gatekeepers and patterning the interactional scripts within the mesosystem (North, 1990). These powerful macro-level forces are ultimately internalized and experienced within the immediate working environment of the venture where the founder must translate broad cultural blueprints into specific daily activities to signal their venture is a valid economic entity (Aldrich & Yang, 2012). Therefore, the macrosystem does not merely provide a backdrop for entrepreneurial action but actively constructs the cognitive and normative legitimacy requirements that founders must satisfy to access critical resources.

The primary mechanism regulating the configuration of legitimacy is the cultural archetype of the ideal entrepreneur, which functions as an institutionalized macrosystemic template that privileges extroverted, socially assertive, and highly optimistic leadership profiles (Gartner, 1988). Consequently, the evaluative penalties associated with non-conformity to this template diverge systematically based on the neurocognitive profile of the founder. For entrepreneurs with ADHD, evaluative discounting occurs when cognitive traits such as associative ideation and rapid pivoting diverge from institutional expectations of administrative constancy and sequential execution. Within the macrosystem, these nonlinear cognitive processing patterns are frequently miscategorized as operational instability or a deficit in strategic commitment. Conversely, for autistic entrepreneurs, evaluative discounting is triggered by deviations from normative expectations of performative expressiveness and narrative persuasion. Evaluators heavily weigh these differences in social presentation, thereby delegitimizing objective technical capability despite substantial task-specific expertise.

Thus, for neurodiverse entrepreneurs, this paradox functions as a primary barrier to gaining legitimacy as their competence and the viability of their venture become subordinated to judgments about whether their personal style aligns with the culturally sanctioned archetype (Zimmerman & Zeitz, 2002). This structural misalignment forces founders into an untenable position where they must either bear the high cognitive and emotional costs of impression management by constantly performing a neurotypical ideal or risk professional marginalization by acting authentically (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993). When a founder fails to perform this script, the resulting societal stigma functions not only as an abstract mood but also as an active mechanism of devaluation that distorts the allocation of resources within an EE (Corrigan & Watson, 2002; Goffman, 1963). This stigma acts as a legitimacy barrier transmitted downward through the layers of the system causing investors to exclude founders based on social presentation rather than entrepreneurial potential (Spigel, 2017; Wurth et al., 2022). Consequently, the macrosystem creates a structural inefficiency where the ecosystem fails to capture the value of neurodivergent human capital by filtering out high potential innovators who do not conform to the institutionalized performance of the ideal entrepreneur.

The Chronosystem: Co-Evolution, Adaptation Lags, and Systemic Change

The chronosystem introduces the dimension of time and frames the relationship between the neurodiverse entrepreneur and the ecosystem as a cumulative and evolving process (Bronfenbrenner, 1986). Development is about how the person interacts with changing environmental conditions over historical time (Elder, 1998). In the context of entrepreneurship, this temporal lens reveals how neurodiverse entrepreneurs can influence the broader institutional structure of the ecosystem. While the macrosystem imposes top-down legitimacy constraints through the archetype of the ideal entrepreneur, the chronosystem accounts for bottom-up institutional work where entrepreneurs contest these constraints through their performance (Katz, 1991).

This process operates through a reverse causal mechanism where individual success forces adaptation across the ecosystem’s layers. It begins in the microsystem where the entrepreneur proves that their cognitive divergence drives innovation rather than dysfunction. This objective performance creates a breach in the mesosystem forcing investors and partners to prioritize economic outcomes over their preference for social fluidity and standard communication norms. As these anomalies accumulate, they generate a signal that puts pressure on gatekeepers to update their rigid pattern matching heuristics or risk missing high-growth opportunities. Finally, this structural pressure erodes the macrosystem legitimacy paradox as the cultural definition of the entrepreneur expands to accommodate these new, successful behavioral profiles (Rao, 1998).

Consequently, the ecosystem does not just shape the entrepreneur. The cumulative actions of neurodiverse founders gradually reshape the ecosystem. However, the nature of this co-evolution depends on the specific cognitive profile acting as the catalyst. Successful ADHD founders function as counter stereotypes that legitimize rapid iteration, pivot heavy venture models, ultimately pressuring the ecosystem to accept nonlinear growth trajectories. Conversely, successful autistic founders function as counter stereotypes that validate asynchronous organizational structures and deep tech focus, pressuring ecosystem gatekeepers to value technical rigor over charismatic social signaling. As more neurodiverse individuals achieve visibility, they demonstrate the viability of alternative leadership styles and organizational structures. The chronosystem thus describes a feedback loop where individual adaptation leads to systemic resilience and inclusivity over the long term (Stam, 2015).

Reconceptualizing Fit as Multi-Level Systemic Alignment

Our first theoretical contribution is to reconceptualize entrepreneurial fit, moving beyond the static and limited concept of Person-Environment (P-E) fit to a dynamic model of multi-level systemic alignment. While valuable, traditional P-E fit approaches are insufficient for understanding the neurodiverse experience, as they tend to analyze a dyadic match between an individual and their immediate role, treating the wider ecosystem as a homogenous backdrop (Tucker et al., 2021). This fails to explain why a neurodiverse founder with profound strengths well-suited to the entrepreneurial process (Wiklund et al., 2017) and excellent fit within their own venture’s microsystem can still face insurmountable barriers.

Our EST framework broadens our theoretical perspective by offering theoretical diversity. We argue that for a neurodiverse entrepreneur, success is contingent not on a single point of congruence, but on the alignment, or misalignment, across the nested systems. The primary source of failure is often located in the frictional interfaces between these layers. For instance, a venture’s highly effective and tailored microsystem may be fundamentally misaligned with the rigid, neurotypical expectations of exosystem gatekeepers, creating a legitimacy crisis (Roundy & Lyons, 2023). This multi-level perspective allows us to see that the problem is not a poor fit in the traditional sense, but rather a systemic dissonance born from the conflicting institutional logics (Thornton et al., 2012) and resource architectures operating at different levels of the ecosystem (Spigel, 2017). This reframing relocates the locus of the challenge from an individual deficit to the structural and normative gaps between the ecosystem’s layers, offering a more robust theory for why individual potential so often becomes decoupled from entrepreneurial outcomes.

Theorizing the Neurodiverse Ecological Niche

This multi-level alignment perspective leads directly to our second theoretical contribution, which revitalizes and applies Bronfenbrenner’s own, often overlooked, concept of the ecological niche. We adapt this idea from its origins in organizational ecology (Hannan & Freeman, 1977) and redefine it through the lens of neurodiversity. We propose a niche is not merely a market segment, but a favorable configuration across multiple system levels that resonates with an entrepreneur’s specific neurocognitive profile. This suggests the most viable path for many neurodiverse founders is not assimilation into the ecosystem’s mainstream, but the strategic identification, cultivation, or creation of these specialized pockets where their unique strengths become profound assets (Gartner, 1988).

In practice, a viable neurodiverse ecological niche is a space where these different levels achieve a state of resonance. This might involve a macrosystem opportunity, like an underserved market uniquely understood through the founder’s identity and passion, combined with an exosystem where their specialized expertise is highly valued, bypassing traditional gatekeepers. This alignment would be supported by a mesosystem of affirming professional networks that provide tailored support and anchored in a psychologically safe microsystem designed to optimize the team’s cognitive strengths (Edmondson, 1999). Theorizing the niche helps resolve the paradox of why some neurodiverse entrepreneurs succeed despite pervasive systemic barriers. They do so by strategically operating within these pockets where the dominant ecosystem’s rules are modified or rendered less relevant, offering a powerful explanation for the heterogeneity of entrepreneurial outcomes (Wiklund et al., 2017).

Neurodiversity as a Catalyst for Ecosystem Co-Evolution

Our third theoretical contribution, revealed through the chronosystem, is to reframe neurodiversity as a catalyst for the co-evolution of the ecosystem itself. While traditional models often explain ecosystem change through external shocks or top-down policy interventions (Feldman, 2014; Stam & van de Ven, 2021), we conceptualize an internal, diversity-driven engine of change. We argue that neurodiverse entrepreneurs, by leveraging unique cognitive strengths (Wiklund et al., 2017), introduce novel variation and social perspectives into the ecosystem (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006). This variation is the essential raw material for systemic learning and adaptation, challenging the taken-for-granted assumptions of exosystem gatekeepers and the cultural norms of the macrosystem.

This evolutionary pressure unfolds across all system levels over time. At the microsystem level, entrepreneurs experiment with novel venture structures. At the mesosystem level, they build alternative support networks, driven by a need for both shared resources (Ingram & Lifschitz, 2006) and a collective identity that reinforces entrepreneurial passion (Renko et al., 2016). Their success stories serve as powerful counter-narratives that challenge limiting macrosystem archetypes (Rao, 1998), a legitimacy-building process familiar to other non-traditional entrepreneurs. Over time, this can influence the very architecture of exosystem support, much as academic entrepreneurship has co-evolved with its institutional environment (Rasmussen & Wright, 2015). While this process is slow and contested, facing the powerful inertia of institutional norms (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), its long-term impact is profound. The chronosystemic perspective thus reframes neurodiversity from a static trait to be accommodated into an agentic force that enhances the ecosystem’s heterogeneity and resilience, paving the way toward a more inclusive and structurally dynamic future (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).

Future Research

Future research at the intersection of neurodiversity and EST calls for a shift in the empirical agenda for studying neurodiversity in entrepreneurship (see Table 3). To move forward, we must prioritize research designs that can capture the multi-level, interactional, and dynamic phenomena that EST illuminates. For example, deep qualitative and ethnographic inquiry into the lived experience of neurodiverse entrepreneurs. Methodologies like in-depth case studies and longitudinal interviews are not merely descriptive tools; they are essential for capturing the thick descriptions (Geertz, 1973) of how founders navigate the ecosystem’s layers, a necessary step to understand the experiences of any non-traditional entrepreneur. This is a pivotal route to advance our understanding behind our propositions, such as how founders leverage the bright sides of their conditions (Wiklund et al., 2017) within their microsystems, or how the translation burden at mesosystem interfaces impacts their entrepreneurial passion (Renko et al., 2016). Such foundational work is the critical first step for generating richer, context-sensitive hypotheses about the dynamics of ecosystem navigation and revealing the nuanced reality behind the structural interactions we have theorized.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Future Research Agenda on Neurodiversity in EEs.

System level	Guiding research question	Potential methods/approach	Relevant entrepreneurship research streams
Microsystem	1. How do neurodiverse entrepreneurs actively engage in microsystem crafting to align venture team routines with their specific neurocognitive strengths?	ESM/Daily Diary Studies (to capture real-time friction), Interaction Analysis (video/audio coding of team meetings), Ethnography	Venture team dynamics, structural empowerment, bricolage, entrepreneurial coping, and stress.
Mesosystem	2. How does the weak tie filtering mechanism specifically impede resource acquisition for founders with social communication differences?	Mixed-Methods Social Network Analysis (combining structural mapping with qualitative accounts of tie quality), Ego-Network Analyses, Comparative Case Studies	Social network theory, structural holes, resource mobilization, and acquisition.
Exosystem	3. How do the standardized evaluative heuristics of funding bodies and accelerator programs create systemic misfit for neurodiverse founders?	Experimental Audit Studies (resumé/pitch deck variations), Field Experiments, Policy Analysis, Analysis of Archival Data (e.g., funding decisions)	Institutional logics, entrepreneurial finance, signaling theory, pitch evaluation, and venture legitimacy.
Macrosystem	4. How does the cultural archetype of the ideal entrepreneur function as a legitimacy barrier for non-neurotypical founders?	Discourse Analysis, CATA of media representations, Cross-Cultural Comparative Studies, Legal Scholarship	Entrepreneurial identity, cultural entrepreneurship, stigma, opportunity recognition, and evaluation.
Chronosystem	5. How do successful neurodiverse ventures function as counter stereotypes that alter EE legitimacy norms over time?	Sequence Analysis (to map nonlinear career trajectories), Process Tracing, Longitudinal Cohort Studies, Event History Analysis	Business model innovation and pivoting, co-evolutionary theory, institutional entrepreneurship.

Note. ESM: experience sampling method; EE: entrepreneurial ecosystem; CATA: computer-aided text analysis.

Second, our framework points toward a more ambitious empirical frontier: the development of multi-level quantitative models. While we acknowledge the significant data collection challenges involved, such research is essential for testing the cross-level interactions proposed by our theory. This would require capturing data simultaneously across the nested systems: from individual neurocognitive profiles and team-level dynamics (microsystem) to the network structures of support (mesosystem), and the institutional properties of exosystem organizations. Advanced techniques like Hierarchical Linear Modeling would then be necessary to quantify how these layers interact (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). For instance, such models could test how macrosystem stigma moderates the effectiveness of an exosystem support program or how mesosystem network diversity mediates the path from individual traits to resource acquisition. Ultimately, the long-term goal for the field should be large-scale comparative studies that can empirically identify the specific configurations of cross-level alignment that constitute a viable neurodiverse ecological niche, moving our theoretical propositions from concept to testable reality.

Finally, our framework’s chronosystemic dimension demands ambitious longitudinal and intersectional research to understand the co-evolutionary dance between neurodiverse entrepreneurs and their ecosystems. Tracking cohorts of founders over time is an ambitious way to empirically test our propositions about adaptation and the potential for entrepreneurs to act as agents of systemic change (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). Essentially, such longitudinal work must be informed by an intersectional lens. The temporal experience of navigating ecosystem barriers or catalyzing change is not uniform; it is profoundly shaped by the interplay of neurodiversity with other demographic markers. By investigating these compounded identities as they evolve, we can move beyond simplistic snapshots and develop a truly dynamic understanding of the lived realities and systemic impacts of the full spectrum of neurodiverse entrepreneurship.

Policy

The primary policy implication of our framework is a radical shift in focus: from interventions aimed at fixing the neurodiverse individual to a strategy of re-architecting the ecosystem itself. Our analysis shows that the most significant barriers are not individual deficits, but systemic dissonances and frictional interfaces between the nested layers of the ecosystem. Effective policy must therefore be multi-level, targeting these specific points of misalignment.

At the exosystem level, this means moving beyond generic support programs and toward interventions that intentionally cultivate neurodiverse ecological niches. This includes funding specialized accelerators with flexible, nonlinear curricula; training investors and mentors to recognize value in non-traditional communication styles; and designing funding instruments that accommodate different timelines and approaches to innovation. Simultaneously, these efforts must be reinforced at the macrosystem level by actively working to dismantle the limiting cultural archetypes of the ideal entrepreneur through the promotion of diverse, successful role models. The core insight for policymakers is that an intervention at one level will fail if it is contradicted by powerful barriers at another. By adopting a holistic, ecological approach, policymakers can create the conditions where neurodiversity is understood not as a barrier to be overcome, but as a vital source of the novel perspectives and disruptive innovation that benefit the entire system.