text version

.

VCU Alert

Page Last Updated:
01/20/05 03:39 PM

Copyright 2005 Worksupport.com©

  << Main    Send This Page

Factors that influence employer decisions in hiring and retaining an employee with a disability
Joe Graffam, Alison Shinkfield, Kaye Smith and Udo Polzin
Institute of Disability Studies, and School of Psychology, Deakin University, Australia
Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation
VOLUME 17, NUMBER 3,  2002
Copyright© IOS Press
Reprinted with permission

Abstract. This paper is based on results of a national study in Australia. Questionnaires were completed by 643 employers, each of whom had employed a person with a disability between 1996-1998. Employers rated the importance of several factors relevant to decisions to hire and retain a person with a disability. Individual factors were rated most important, with grooming/hygiene and work-performance factors rated highest. Management factors and cost factors were rated moderately important. Social factors were rated least important. Analyses of variance were conducted, identifying several employer differences in ratings. The paper discusses employer values as well as the need to include employers in a partnership approach.

 Keywords: Employment, hiring and retaining a person with a disability, employer values

1. Introduction

Employer decisions to hire and retain an employee can be influenced by a variety of factors. The study reported here examined factors that influence employer decisions to hire and retain a person with a disability. Prior to this study, employer-related research that has been conducted within the disability employment field has mostly investigated employers' attitudes toward people with a disability generally. Levy et al. [8] investigated attitudes of 341 executives toward people with a disability. Responses indicated a positive attitude toward employment of people with a disability. Previous positive experience with an employee with a disability was predictive of positive attitude. In another study, Levy and colleagues [9] examined the attitudes of those responsible for hiring in 418 companies. Generally positive attitudes toward people with a disability were found. Previous positive experience with the employment of a person with a disability was a predictor of positive attitude. Diksa and Rogers [3] surveyed the attitudes of 373 employers toward hiring a person with a psychiatric disability. Previous experience was associated with lower employer concern. In contrast to all these findings, Kregel and Tomiyasu [6], found previous experience in an employment setting was not a significant factor in 170 employers' attitudes.

Rimmerman [13] studied attitudes of 120 Israeli executives toward employment of people with an intellectual disability and found that larger organisation size, positive previous contact, and hiring a person with a disability was associated with more favorable attitudes. Butterworth and Pitt-Catsouphes [2] analysed attitudes of employers in relation to different characteristics of the organisation and found more favorable attitudes in large companies, in companies with lower annual sales, and in the government sector compared with the profit and not-for-profit sectors. Women and those with higher levels of education held more positive attitudes. The greater potential of larger organisations to offer support was seen as a contributing factor in both studies. Alternatively, Ravaud, Madiot and Ville [11] reported that discrimination against job applicants on the basis of disability was higher in larger organisations.

General satisfaction of employers with employees with a disability has been shown in several studies [5, 7,12,14,15]. Kregel and Unger [7] obtained the views of 46 employers who had hired an employee through a disability employment service and found generally very positive employer attitudes regarding the employment potential of employees who have a disability. Reisman and Reisman [12] surveyed 65 workplace supervisors of employees with a learning disability. Their performance was rated better than the general workforce in punctuality, attendance, and ability to accept constructive criticism, but less positively in memory, social skills, learning transfer, following directions, and attention.

Hill and Wehman [5] questioned 16 supervisors and 31 co-workers on their attitudes toward 25 employees with moderate and severe intellectual disability with whom they worked. The found positive views of the employees and the support received from the agency. Shafer and colleagues [14] surveyed 483 supervisors who had employed a person with an intellectual disability. They too found general satisfaction among employers, with a greater degree of satisfaction among employers who had received on-site training from a disability employment agency. Purdon [10] examined employer satisfaction and reported that expectations held by 63 employers of employees placed through a disability service were met or exceeded in 32 of 37 cases. The factors most frequently nominated as contributing to positive employment outcomes were personality, motivation and social skills of the employee; ability of the employee to do the job; good management by the employer; and provision of free training by the service provider.

The present study investigated underlying employer values by examining what influences employer decisions related to hiring and retaining an employee with a disability. Employers rated the importance of 38 different factors to decisions about hiring and retaining a person with a disability. Those factors fell into four categories including individual factors, management factors, cost factors, and social factors.

2. Method

2.1. Sample 

Completed employer questionnaires were received from 643 Australian employers all of whom had employed a person with a disability through a funded disability employment service during the preceding three years (1996-1998). This was a response rate of 12.5%. Representativeness of the sample was tested in relation to a national database of employment for people with a disability averaged over the preceding 12 quarters. Thirteen pre-selected variables were included in the test. The sample was within one standard deviation (SD) for 5 of the total 8 states/territories, "permanent regular" employment, "percent of employees earning less than $200 per fortnight", and "intellectual/learning disability", and within two SDs for one state and "psychiatric disability". With respect to two states and gender, the sample was more than two standard deviations from the mean of the national database. Despite the relatively low response rate, we believe the sample to be generally representative of non-respondents as well, on the grounds that the sample did match or closely approximate, on several pre-selected variables, the national database.

2.2. Instrument

The questionnaire for the study was developed in consultation with an industry reference group representing disability employment services, employer organisations, disability self-advocacy organisations, and the Commonwealth government. The questionnaire was piloted by 30 non-participant employers with the assistance of disability employment services and revised slightly. Content also reflects, to some degree, the research interest of the funding body (Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services). The questionnaire was seven pages long. Separate sections referred to: employer-organisation characteristics; factors influencing employer decisions to hire and retain a person with a disability; characteristics and employment conditions of a referent employee with a disability; impact of the employee with a disability on the workplace; benefits and costs of employing a person with a disability and other employees; and summary questions. Results reported in this paper refer to factors that influence employer decisions to hire and retain a person with a disability.

Employers were asked to rate the importance of 38 different items as possibly influencing decisions about hiring and retaining an employee with a disability. Although distributed randomly in the questionnaire, the items were intended to refer to four recognised main variables or groups of items. Therefore, the groups were logically derived rather than on the basis of statistical method. Those grouped items refer to individual factors (11 items), management factors (9 items), cost factors (9 items), and social factors (9 items). Ratings were between 1 (very low importance) and 5 (very important) on a 5-point scale.

2.3. Procedure

Employer contact information lists were solicited from all funded disability employment services throughout Australia. Lists were received from 43% of the 291 funded employment services. Questionnaires were sent to all employers associated with those agencies.

2.4. Analysis

Results were analysed in terms of whole group responses and within-group differences. Frequencies, means, standard deviations, t-tests, and analyses of variance were calculated. Because of the sample sizes involved in most of the analyses, a confidence level of p < 0.01 was adopted for consideration of statistical significance. Where appropriate, post-hoc Tukey tests were performed as well (p < 0.05).

3. Results

3.1. Factors related to hiring and retaining a person with a disability

Tables 1-4 present the results of the employer ratings. The tables include mean scores and standard deviations for each item and for the main variable as well. Mean scores of the 38 items have been ranked from highest to lowest value.

Table 1 shows that factors related to the individual were rated most important by employers. The overall mean rating of individual factors was 3.43 (sd = 1.05). Six individual factors ranked among the ten highest mean values. Appropriate grooming and personal hygiene was the factor rated most important of all with the highest mean rating of 4.01 and 75.2% of respondents describing grooming and hygiene as important or very important. Working to a satisfactory standard and ability to undertake most assigned tasks were each also rated as important, with mean ratings of 3.97 and 3.90 respectively. Percentages of respondents rating those factors as important or very important were 74.6% and 70.5% respectively. Having a negative previous workrelated experience with an employee with a disability was rated as least important with a mean rating of 2.43 and only 20.9% of respondents describing a negative previous experience as important or very important.

As shown in Table 2, management factors were rated second most important by employers. The overall mean rating of management-related factors was 3.12 (sd = 1.15). Most of the management-related factors were rated as moderately important to hiring and retaining a person with a disability. Consultation with disability support professionals, the employee and co-workers was the management factor rated most important with a mean rating of 3.72 (4th highest mean rating) and 60.9% describing consultation as important or very important. Employer involvement in planning work integration was also rated as important, with a mean rating of 3.71 (5th highest mean rating), and 62.2% rating that as important or very important. Availability of a large, skilled workforce and employer reluctance to take a chance were rated as less important.

As indicated in Table 3, factors related to costs were rated next most important by employers. The overall mean rating of cost factors was 3.11 (sd = 1.17). Most of the cost-related factors were rated as moderately important to hiring and retaining a person with a disability. Possible need for extra supervision was the cost factor rated most important with a mean rating of 3.45 and 46.9% describing that as important or very important. Availability of training to co-workers to support the employee with a disability was also rated as important, with a mean rating of 3.44 and 50.7% rating that as important or very important. Mean ratings for those two factors were among the top ten highest mean ratings. Possible need for extra training was likewise rated important with a mean rating of 3.41 and 46.9% describing that as important or very important. Access to a productivity-based wage was rated as rather important as well, with a mean rating of 3.28 and 44.0% describing that as important or very important. Possible higher absenteeism was rated as least important, with a mean of 2.64 and only 23.8% of respondents rating that as important or very important. The remainder of cost-related factors were rated very near the level of moderate importance.

Table 4 shows that social factors were rated least important by employers. The overall mean rating of social factors was 2.63 (sd = 1.08). Most of the social factors were rated as low-to-moderately important to hiring and retaining a person with a disability. The mean ratings for all but one social factor were in the lower half of all ranked means. Ability of staff to work with the person with a disability was the social factor rated most important with a mean rating of 3.44 (11th highest mean rating) and 53.3% describing that as important or very important. (That factor may well refer as much to management as it does to social interaction.) Belief in social responsibility was also rated as rather important, with a mean rating of 3.16, and 42.7% rating that as important or very important. Discomfort of other staff, concern about negative responses by customers, discomfort of others with an observable disability, and pressure to employ other disadvantaged people were all rated low in importance, in terms of mean ratings and rankings of those means.

3.2. Employer differences in responses

 One-way analyses of variance were conducted to examine the effect of the referent employee disability type, age, and education level on employer decisionmaking related to hiring and retaining a person with a disability. The effect of employer characteristics was also analyzed including effect of employer age, job role, size of organization, state/territory, and location (metropolitan/regional/rural). Independent t-tests were conducted to test the effects of the gender of referent employee and employer on employer responses. Table 5 presents the results of those analyses.

There were six significant main effects identified by the advanced analyses. Only one related to referent employee characteristics, with disability type having an effect on employer ratings of the importance of cost factors. When the referent employee had a vision impairment, cost was rated less important than when the referent employee had an intellectual / learning disability or unknown disability.

There were five main effects related to employer characteristics. There was a significant main effect for employer gender, with female employers reporting management factors as significantly more important than did male employers. There was a significant main effect for employer age, with those aged 31-40 years reporting cost factors as significantly more important than did those aged 41-50 years. There was a significant main effect for employer job role with respect to cost factors. Owner-operators rated cost factors as significantly more important than did either human resource/personnel managers and administrators. There was a significant main effect for size of organization in relation to cost factors, with cost factors considered significantly more important by employers from organizations with less than 10 employees than by those from all other sizes except organizations with 50-99 employees. There was a significant main effect for location with respect to management factors. Employers from organizations in major metropolitan areas rated management factors as significantly less important than those from organizations in either regional centers or multiple locations. 

4. Discussion

 In addition to the basic hierarchy of importance that emerged when considering individual, management, cost, and social factors, there are some meaningful patterns to employer responses. Implicit employer values are evident in the responses. Employers placed greater importance on factors related to work performance, both individual performance and the effect of the employee on organization or work group performance than on explicitly disability-related issues or social responsibility. The importance of consultation and assistance from disability employment services was evident. Cost factors were less important than broader issues relating to performance. There was a certain degree of social commitment evident, expressed in terms of their belief in social responsibility and compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act. However, social pressures to employ someone were rated low in importance indicating a relative immunity to those pressures.

There are several conclusions that can be drawn from the results. Employers want someone who can perform to standard in a job. Reliability and productivity were clearly important to their judgments about hiring and retaining a person with a disability. They want to be part of the process of planning, organizing, and managing the employment "placement". They want individualized assistance from a disability employment service; assistance that may be intermittent or continuous over time. They want the employment outcome to be cost efficient, but appear to consider this broadly in terms of impact on the organization or work group, not simply individual productivity and one-off expenses. Employers also generally want to "do the right thing" in terms of social responsibility, although not in a shallow sense of appearances, community image or social pressure.

Four underlying values of employers are evident. The most prominent of those is valuing their business. Factors that were directly business-related were rated as more important; factors that were only indirectly business-related were rated as less important. Another underlying value apparent from these results is valuing and considering the individual. Factors that were related to individual performance, matching a person with a job, and individual integration were rated as more important; factors related to previous experiences with people who have a disability, social pressures, and reactions of others were rated less important.

A third underlying value complements the first two. It is valuing the whole organization and being able to consider an employee and employee performance in terms of social factors such as acceptance, inclusion, and workplace morale, as well as directly job-related behavior as part of work performance. It also includes considering work group and organization effects and not just individual performance effects. Factors that related to longer term or "holistic" aspects of the work group and/or organization performance were rated as more important; factors that related to narrow, shortterm or one-time effects were rated as less important.

A fourth employer value pertains to consultation and partnership. The "partnership" concept is central to current business practice, and, therefore, more or less expected by employers generally. In this case, employers rated their participation with disability employment services and employees in planning, implementation and maintenance of a job/employment as among the most important factors.

Recommendations for disability employment service managers and job developers are related to job matching and developing and maintaining employer partnerships. Job matching is recognized as an important feature of placing a person with a disability into a job/employment. The emphasis by employers in this study on individual performance supports that view. However, it is important to realize that simply matching the person to the present requirements of a job is not sufficient. Employers in this study also emphasized effects on group and organization performance. The concept of job matching should be expanded to include consideration of matching the person with the conditions and needs of the employer workplace and organization. This implies not only a broader focus of attention, but consideration of changes to jobs and workplaces over time as well.

Developing and maintaining a partnership approach with employers starts with sensitivity to the beliefs, values, attitudes, and needs of the employer and the employing organization. Differences in the values and assumptions held by employers, and disability employment service providers have been recognized [1,4]. Fabian and colleagues [4] challenged the traditional approach that has largely ignored aspects of the external environment such as employer satisfaction. Developing a partnership approach goes beyond acknowledging differences. It is likely to include ongoing informal support and may well include features such as coworker training, job safety nets, and other joint activities.

There is little research that concentrates on outcomes for employers, employers' views of employment services, or employer resources necessary to successfully integrate employees with a disability into the workforce. A lack of understanding of the issues from the perspective of employers can seriously compromise business practices of disability employment services and employment outcomes for people with a disability. The identification of any impediments and strategies to address impediments from the perspective of employers is critical for effective employment outcomes, keeping in mind that a "successful" outcome for an employee is also a successful employer outcome. Treating employers as partners in the employment process is an obvious ingredient to success.

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services for funding this project and for providing advice and other support during its conduct.

References

 [1] J. Albin, Quality improvement in employment and other human services: Managing for quality through change, Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Baltimore, 1992.

[2] J. Butterworth and M. Pitt-Catsouphes, Different perspectives: Workplace experience with the employment of individuals with disabilities. Report developed by the Rehabilitation Research and Training Centre at the Institute for Community Inclusion at the Children's Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, 1995.

[3] E. Diksa and S. Rogers, Employer concerns about hiring persons with psychiatric disability: Results of the Employer Attitude Questionnaire, Rehabilitation Counselling Bulletin 40(1) (1996), 31-44.

[4] E. Fabian, R. Luecking and G. Tilson, Employer and rehabilitation personnel perspectives on hiring persons with disabilities: Implications for job development, Journal of Rehabilitation 61(1) (1995), 42-49.

[5] M. Hill and P. Wehman, Employer and non-handicapped coworker perceptions of moderately and severely retarded workers, Journal of Contemporary Business 8(4) (1979), 107-112.

[6] J. Kregel and Y Tomiyasu, Employers' attitudes toward workers with disabilities: Effect of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 4(3) (1994), 165-173.

[7] J. Kregel and D. Unger, Employer perceptions of the work potential of individuals with disabilities, Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 3(4) (1993), 17-25.

[8] J. Levy, D. Jessop, A. Rimmerman and P. Levy, Attitudes of Fortune 500 corporate executives toward the employability of persons with severe disabilities: A national study, Mental

Retardation 30(2) (1992), 67-75.

[9] J. Levy, D. Jessop, A. Rimmerman, F. Francis and P. Levy, Determinants of attitudes of New York State employers towards the employment of persons with severe handicaps, Journal of Rehabilitation 59(1) (1993), 49-54.

[10] Purdon Associates, Opportunities and barriers to open employment for people with disabilities. Paper commissioned by the department of Health, Housing and Community Services, 1992.

[11] J. Ravaud, B. Madiot and I. Ville, Discrimination towards disabled people seeking employment, Social Science & Medicine 35(8) (1992), 951-958.

[12] S. Reisman and J. Reisman, Supervision of employees with moderate special needs, Journal of Learning Disabilities 26(3) (1993), 199-206.

[13] A. Rimmerman, Factors relating to attitudes of Israeli corporate executives toward the employability of persons with intellectual disability, Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability 23(3) (1998), 245-254.

[14] M. Shafer, J. Hill, J. Seyfarth and P. Wehman, Competitive employment and workers with mental retardation: Analysis of employers' perceptions and experiences, American Journal of Mental Retardation 92(3) (1987), 304-311.

[15] J. Tse, Employers' expectations and evaluation of the job performance of employees with intellectual disability, Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities 19(2) (1994), 139-147.

JVR 17:3 p175 -181 (2002) - Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation IOS Press