Aseguramiento de la Calidad del Software

This section will explore attitudes towards PWDs in organisations. It will start by defining an organisation and culture separately, and then explain what organisational culture is and how attitudes and the

concept of organisational culture relate. The rest of the section will then explore employer and co-worker attitudes and attitude towards specific disability types.

An organisation is an “assembly of people working together to achieve common objectives through a division of labor”, according to Mote (1995, p. 1112). Organisations of different sizes and function usually have three shared characteristics (Mote, 1995). Firstly, organisations have a structural division of labour, both horizontally (among persons with the same job class) and vertically (between labour classes). Secondly, there’s a structure by which decisions are taken and derived at in organisations. Finally, there are formal rules and policies in place that govern the operations and behaviour of individuals in the organisation.

Organisations can also have a certain culture.

Culture, according to Alvesson (2002), represents common meanings and symbols that develop in any given group and that greatly influence and explain behaviour and social interaction. Organisational culture definitions, according to Schein (2000), usually “refer to how people feel about the organi[s]ation, the authority system, the degree of employee involvement and commitment” (p. xxiii). Organisational culture refers to shared values, norms and beliefs by individuals and groups within an organisation (Du Plessis, 2006). These norms influence interaction within the organisation and also interaction with others outside the organisation. Ideally the organisational culture should have values and beliefs that extend throughout the organisation and lends support to the overall objective of any given organisation. Brocklehurst (2005) also adds that organisational culture, as is the case with culture in general, is not stagnant, but rather re-defines and re-organises continually.

By studying organisational culture, one can look both at current individuals’ attitude, as well as collective (group) attitudes at a point in time (Brocklehurst, 2005). Collective attitude and individual experiences of both employers within an organisation and employees of the organisation will provide an in-depth picture of the organisational culture that exist within a given population at a specific space in time (Brocklehurst, 2005). In terms of capturing and understanding the essence of an organisation’s culture, Schein (as cited in Schur et al., 2005) suggested three levels of investigation. One can ascertain what present organisation members deem necessary or did in order to become a part of the group (acceptance). Secondly, one can look at the organisational structure and determine the distribution of power and potential for advancement. Lastly, by studying the reasons and methods of obtaining positive feedback versus negative feedback from peers and management can yield, one can develop an understanding of an organisation’s culture (Schein cited in Schur et al., 2005).

There are three levels of organisational culture (Schein, 1990). The first level of organisational culture represents “observable artifacts” (p. 111), or any physical and visible elements or permanent policies in the organisation. The second level of culture is the “espoused or documented values, norms...” (p. 112) that have been formulated for the organisation. Lastly, core values and assumptions evolve unconsciously within the organisation and most members of the group subscribe and promote these core beliefs. These assumptions are reflected in behaviour and often present in the other two levels of culture.

Schur et al. (2005) offer an example of ‘cultural’ conflict that may arise when Schein’s three levels of organisational culture are incongruent. It may be that organisational policy may subscribe to disability equity employment opportunities, but members of the organisation may not believe this is fair or wise. Also, an inaccessible environment may counteract policy decisions.

2.5.2.1 Employer attitudes towards PWDs

Managers, as decision makers in any organisation, dictate to a considerable degree what happens within their departments. Several studies (mostly outside SA) have focused on employer opinions and feedback to explore organisational culture and to explain the under representation of PWDs in the open labour market. Some studies have also focused on dedicated managers that have provided the impetus for advancing the integration of PWDs into the open labour market.

It appears that global attitudes of employers are mostly positive, but that more negative attitudes are found when investigation probes specific, narrower constructs (Hernandez et al., 2000). Hernandez et al.

(2000) reviewed literature from 37 USA-based studies concerning employer attitudes towards workers with disabilities. Social desirability to appear in positive light due to social pressure may explain this difference, according to the authors. The employers’ educational background and an organisation’s size seem to mediate attitude. Managers from large businesses indicated that they would generally hire from this group. Also other facilitators can create a positive attitude by managers towards hiring PWDs.

Employers with previous hiring experience of PWDs have a more positive attitude towards PWD employment (Hernandez et al., 2000). With a more narrow focus on persons with developmental disabilities, Morgan and Alexander (2005) also found, with survey data, a general indication of willingness by employers to hire more persons with developmental disabilities. Feedback from experienced employers (in terms of employing PWDs) identified numerous advantages and concerns concerning employment, but most were willing to hire from this group again. High rates of work attendance by workers with disabilities were mentioned as the main advantage to employment of the group, whereas concerns about safety and quality control were most frequently mentioned (Morgan & Alexander, 2005). McLaughlin, Bell, and Stringer (2004) compared employer satisfaction between employees with and without a disability. They also concluded, from other literature, that one variable consistently associated with future hiring intent of persons with disabilities was previous positive experiences that the employer had concerning a worker with a disability. Unfortunately, though, more willingness to hire does not necessarily translate to actual hiring practices (Hernandez et al., 2000).

Other common characteristics of employers/managers willing to appoint and employ PWDs were identified by Gilbride, Stensrud, Vandergoot and Golden (2003). Three main categories, with 13 distinct characteristics, emerged from their interviews with EWDs, employers with current/previous experience of employing PWDs and job placement personnel. The three main categories identified were: work-culture, job match and characteristics of employers, and organisational support.

Elements that Gilbride et al. (2003) grouped under the term “work cultural issues” (p. 132), other authors have discussed as organisational culture (including the norms, policies and practices that define an

organisation). This represents their first main category where positive characteristics can promote integration. Employers who embrace diversity and full integration of workers with and without disabilities and who are willing/able to provide accommodations in the physical environment are favourable to employing PWDs. These employers also focus on performance-based outcomes and are flexible when it comes to task performance.

Employers that carefully analyse job-person fit when identifying suitable candidates for a job are willing to employ a person that can perform the essential job functions, irrespective of any other (almost irrelevant) limitations/disability. This “job match” (p. 134) category of Gilbride et al. (2003) also includes employer characteristics such as an openness to discuss reasonable accommodation and a willingness to offer on the job training or internships. The skill of the employer in managing diversity can potentially promote the inclusion of PWDs in organisations. This employer characteristic, coupled with perceived organisational and community support, describes the third category in Gilbride et al.’s (2003) grounded theory on characteristics that are found in employers willing to employ persons with disabilities.

Apart from employer and managerial attitudes, employee relations are central to any organisation’s functioning. One of the important elements in determining an organisations culture is co-worker interactions.

2.5.2.2 Co-worker attitudes towards PWDs

Modern organisations may find their competitive edge through proper personnel management (Major, 2000). It is therefore important to understand what effectively integrates new employees into a new working group. Newcomers in organisations can and most probably will directly influence, transmit and perhaps even change organisational culture. Major (2000) highlights the following employee characteristics that should give organisation the tools to compete in today’s every changing business landscape: flexibility and adaptability; self-development and continuous learning; teamwork and the sharing of important information (paraphrased from pp. 357 – 358). The significance of these tools is the insight that it reveals concerning the importance of integration of the PWD into his working team.

The attitude of the co-worker can influence behaviour towards an EWD. Miller and Werner (2007) attempted to predict what would induce helping behaviour towards a colleague with a disability. With regression analysis of two treatment conditions and a control group (a total of 133 college graduate students) the authors found that workers who did not mind putting in extra work for no additional direct benefit would provide more help to a co-worker with a disability (Miller & Werner, 2007). This is opposed to a worker who felt entitled to additional pay for additional work. More help was also offered to workers with a physical disability as opposed to a mental disability (Miller & Werner, 2007). McLaughlin et al. (2004) also found that the employee’s disability and its impact on job performance was a critical factor in co-worker acceptance and negatively related to stigma.

McLaughlin et al. (2004) found that judgement with regards to how well a EWD can perform their job adequately directly related to acceptance of co-workers with a disability (irrespective of disability type). In addition, stigma was found to mediate the relationship between disability type and acceptance of a co-worker with a disability. McLaughlin et al. (2004) used an experimental, between-subject design in order to

investigate the relationship between disability type (AIDS, cerebral palsy and stroke), stigma and individual characteristics as predictors of acceptance of an employee with a disability by co-workers. This implies that an attitude change away from stigma can promote very positive co-worker interaction between workers with or without a disability.

The amount of contact and type of contact can also influence co-worker attitude towards PWDs (Novak & Rogan, 2010). As was discussed in 2.2.1.2, actual contact with PWDs can counteract stigma. In the work setting, higher levels of contact, especially with PWDs of “equal status” (Novak & Rogan, 2010, p.

31), was associated with a more positive attitude from co-workers. Supervisor acceptance and more positive co-worker attitude were also associated with EWDs reporting positive support from, and integration into, their working groups.

For both managers and co-workers, though, attitude towards different disability types can differ.

2.5.2.3 Attitude towards disability type

Persons with physical disabilities receive more favourable judgement in comparison to persons with intellectual or psychiatric disabilities (e.g. Hernandez et al., 2000; Jones et al., 1991; Morgan & Alexander, 2005; Smit, 2001). Wright and Multon (1995) also found that employers perceived PWDs with good non-verbal communication as more employable than those with poor non-non-verbal skills. This may again prove to be an advantage for PWDs with less serious disabilities or disabilities that do not affect movement and speech.

Persons with a less severe psychiatric disorder have better employment outcomes than persons with a psychotic disorder (Baldwin & Marcus, 2007). Baldwin and Marcus (2007) explored the poor employment outcomes and wages for persons with mental disorders. This study provided insights into the employment outcomes (employment and wage rates) for four sub-types of psychiatric disorders: mood, anxiety, adjustment and psychotic disorders. Persons with a psychotic disorder seem to be the most stigmatised minority and also have the lowest wages, even when controlling for other influencing variables.

Positive previous experiences with a disability type can create positive attitude towards future employment of that disability type. A New York-based study by Levy, Jessop, Rimmerman, Francis, and Levy (1993) focused on employer attitudes concerning the employment of persons with severe disabilities. It is unclear from their explanation whether this only includes persons with severe intellectual impairment or other disabilities as well. They collected quantitative data (in the form of questionnaires) from a substantial random sample (N=418). Almost 60% of the respondents in the study had had previous experience with an employee with a severe disability, which was mostly positive. Although the sample itself may have a self-selection bias towards PWDs, most respondents indicated positive attitude towards the employability of persons with severe disabilities.

One Canadian study also showed a general feeling of support by the public of integrated employment for persons with intellectual disabilities (Burge et al., 2007). This sample (N=680) not only believed that integrated employment (especially unskilled work) would benefit the person with intellectual disability, but also that company image would not be negatively affected by having intellectually disabled employees

(Burge et al., 2007). The majority of respondents also concurred that a lack of training for, and ignorance of, the skills of persons with intellectual disability may disadvantage job seekers with an intellectual disability.

Despite the reported literature on attitude towards different disability types, Robinson (2000) found (with a survey of UK companies) that employers tended to group all PWDs into a single homogeneous group. This often also led to placing PWDs in stereotypical jobs. This highlights the complexity of attitude and how it contributes to stereotyping and how it can limit the careers of PWDs.

This section shows that attitude towards disability can influence the employment outcomes of PWDs.

Several facilitators for changing negative to positive attitude have been discussed. Attitudes of employers towards disability can also influence their performance appraisals and the advancement opportunities for PWDs.