FLUJO DE TRABAJO: PLANIFICACIÓN

Bias at work towards PWDs has been studied through investigating bias when appraising performance, when making predictions about future performance or when selecting possible candidates for a job (Colella et al., 1997). Positive bias can exist when it is deemed unkind to give a poor evaluation of an EWDs, especially in situations where evaluations have little consequence or due to initial low expectations. When a performance rating is negative for no other reason than a characteristic of the individual being evaluated (such as having a disability), negative bias occurs. There are several theories on why negative bias occurs towards EWDs (mentioned by Colella et al., 1997). The evaluator can feel that a person deserved the disability due to a prior wrongdoing, or general stigma towards people that are different. It can even simply occur due to a clash of personalities.

A model to describe the processes involved in job performance ratings was developed by Colella et al.

(1997). A model of the appraisal process, with a focus on cognitive processes, quality of the employer-employee interaction, performance measures, employer’s attributions and the consequences of the performance measurement emerged from their research. This model is based on “the notion that performance ratings are an indirect outcome of a cognitive process whereby ratees are categori[s]ed, stereotypes and beliefs are generated and, in turn, influence performance expectations, and consequently actual ratings” (p.

36). In a later study, the same authors conclude that disability-job fit stereotypes and consequences thereof should be considered when studying personnel judgements of PWDs (Colella, DeNisi & Varma, 1998).

Colella et al. (1997) conclude that both higher and lower ratings than deserved do PWDs a disservice.

The attributes that are perceived as important in EWDs and their job performance evaluation may differ in comparison to able-bodied employees. McLaughlin et al. (2004) found that certain aspects of work performance (workplace climate, speed and accuracy of work performance) that influenced employer satisfaction differed between employees with or without a disability. This means that employers often use different ‘criteria’ when determining their satisfaction with employees with and without disabilities. This possibly indicates a type of bias and differed expectations that employers may have with regards to employees in these two groupings. Even more worrying was another study that identified a tendency to

generalise a bad performance rating on one person with a disability to the group of PWDs as a whole (Smith, Webber, Graffam and Wilson, 2004).

PWDs also tend to have lower level positions, receive lower remuneration and work fewer hours than their able-bodied counterparts (Schriner, 2001; International Labour Organisation, 2011). Kidd, Sloane, and Ferko (2000) found lower earnings (coupled with wage discrimination) for British males with disabilities in comparison to males without disability. Schur, Kruse, Blasi, and Blanck (2009) also found from data of 30 000 employees from fourteen USA companies that EWDs received less average wages than employees without disability. Also, PWDs reported less job security, training opportunities and involvement in decision-making at their companies (Schur et al., 2009).

PWDs often have less satisfaction in their careers in comparison to persons without disability. The Employment Access Questionnaire (EAQ) was administered and analysed by Gillies et al. (1998) in order to compare the importance of and satisfaction with work for both persons with blindness and those without.

Persons with blindness reported less satisfaction with their careers and the education/training that they received prior to being employed. Another study on persons with blindness and employment was conducted by Wolffe, Roessler and Schriner (1992). They used the Employment Concerns Questionnaire, the forerunner for the previously mentioned EAQ. The employment concerns of this USA-based sample (N = 76) of persons with blindness centred on inadequate support for finding jobs and in limited financing of assistive devices. In an American sample, Schur et al. (2009) found that EWDs were less satisfied with their jobs and companies in comparison to employees with no disability.

The access to employment benefits (such as medical aid membership) is also an indicator of the quality of any given job. A study by Lustig, Strauser, and Donnell (2003) found in the USA that workers with disabilities often had less access (“the availability of a particular benefit for the employee” [p. 7]) to benefits in comparison to the general population. The authors concluded that EWDs “were less likely to have access to health insurance, paid vacation, paid sick leave, and retirement benefits” (p. 11), possibly due to the general trend that persons with disabilities are often employed in low paying jobs with few additional benefits (Lustig et al., 2003). Their finding, however, also indicated that medium to large enterprises tended to offer better employment benefits to PWDs in comparison to small businesses.

PWDs often face a “glass ceiling” (Braddock & Bachelder, 1994). This is an invisible barrier that prevents PWDs from advancing in their careers. This lack of advancement is also evident in SA. As reported in Chapter 1, the Commission for Employment Equity 2010-2011 report again highlighted that most PWDs remained either excluded from, or in lower level positions in, the labour force (SA DoL, 2011). PWDs represent only 1.4% of all top management levels and 1.2% in senior management in SA organisations.

Gillies et al. (1998) also concluded that inadequate career development and limited training opportunities seemed to limit the careers of PWDs.

Two additional factors that can limit or facilitate the careers of PWDs are accessibility and accommodations at the workplace.

2.5.4 Accessibility, accommodations and disclosure

Physical barriers can partly explain the under-representation of PWDs in some organisations (Schur et al., 2005). Many authors have reported that physical accessibility at companies is lacking (e.g. Dixon et al., 2003; Smit, 2001; Targett, Wehman, & Young, 2004; Titchkosky, 2008). Some have also reported on access problems for PWDs near their working environments (refer to section 2.3.4). A Zimbabwean study, for example, found poor access for wheelchair users in the central business district of Harare (Useh, Moyo &

Munyonga, 2001).

Others reported that most companies in their samples felt that their premises were physically accessible (e.g. Dixon et al., 2003; Robinson, 2000). Robinson (2000), however, discussed findings from a survey suggesting that employers over-generalised accessibility at their companies. What this means is that they responded that their companies were accessible through having ramps and office-setting jobs. This, however, only ensures access to a select few wheelchair users and not necessarily other types of disability (Robinson, 2000). Smit (2001) presents a checklist per disability type to help guide employers on ensuring physical and structural access to all their PWDs. Ensuring accessibility can form part of reasonable accommodations at organisations.

Reasonable or job accommodation can create suitable employment for PWDs by adapting the work environment to the needs/skills of the EWD. Job accommodations for, and retainment of, an EWD in a job where they also feel competent can contribute to the wellness of the EWD, as was found in a SA sample of persons with psychiatric disabilities (L. Van Niekerk, 2009). Reasonable accommodation, according to the Code of Good Practice on Disability in the Workplace (SA DoL, 2002), requires that employers will provide accommodation for the needs of PWDs in order to “reduce the impact of the impairment of the person’s capacity to fulfil the essential functions of the job” (p. 5). The term ‘reasonable’ implies that an accommodation must be cost-effective and not present an “unjustifiable hardship” to the employer.

A coding scheme in order to describe specific categories of job accommodation in terms of feasibility was developed by Chi, Pan, Liu, and Jang (2004). The potential job accommodation categories identified by Chi et al. (2004) were: job assignment; job analysis; training/instruction and accessibility (in terms of the physical environment, equipment and technology). This coding scheme is useful in its potential to provide a

“checklist” for feasible accommodation for EWDs (Chi et al., 2004, p. 446). With reasonable accommodation, many job options can become a reality for PWDs.

EWDs often need accommodations at work, but the provision of these accommodations can be influenced by the willingness of the employer to arrange and provide accommodations (Vedeler & Schreuer, 2011). The employer is central to providing accommodations and their involvement in the process influences an EWD’s perception of the accommodation process, according to a qualitative study by Vedeler and Schreuer (2011). “As such, the employer became a gatekeeper who effectively or ineffectively translated the workplace accommodation policies into action” (Vedeler & Schreuer, 2011, p. 103). Workers are less likely to leave their employment after the onset of their disability when accommodation efforts by employers were made (Burkhauser, Butler, & Kim, 1995). Retrospective data analysis was used to determine the effect that

job accommodations by management has on the ability of male workers to perform their jobs after the onset of a disability (Burkhauser et al., 1995). Discouragingly, however, was that this study also found that accommodated workers still tend to leave their jobs prior to retirement age (Burkhauser et al., 1995). It was concluded that accommodation alone will not advance and ensure career success for people with disabilities throughout their working lives.

Job accommodations for employees that become disabled while already employed seem to be mediated by the perceived human capital of the EWD (Campiolieti, 2004). When employees received vocational training before the disability-causing accident, employers are more like to grant an accommodation. It is also more likely that the employer at the time of the accident would give the accommodation, in comparison to a new employer (Campiolieti, 2004). Both the cost of replacing a skilled worker and institutional pressure can account for these findings.

The financial costs of accommodations being made for EWDs can deter employers from hiring PWDs (Dixon et al., 2003; Kaye, Jans, & Jones, 2011; Schur et al., 2005). Despite this fear of the cost of accommodations, others have found that accommodation costs are often low (e.g. Schartz, Hendricks, &

Blanck, 2006).

Some other factors can also inhibit accommodation efforts by companies. Accommodation of the workplace and inherent difficulties with certain job requirements (such as heavy lifting) was also a challenge for the 126 organisations that completed a survey in the United Kingdom (Robinson, 2000). Domzal et al.

(2008), as well as Dixon et al. (2003), also found many companies citing the nature of their company’s work and job types in the company as inappropriate for PWDs to perform or a barrier to their employment.

One way for companies to plan for accessibility and accommodations is through disclosure of disability. The Technical Assistance Guidelines on the Employment of people with disabilities (SA DoL, 2007) include eight guidelines on disclosure of disability. PWDs have the right not to disclose their disability. Non-disclosure, however, means that an employer is not under an obligation to provide an accommodation. The employee also has the right to disclose at any time and to confidentiality of the disclosed information. The employer has the right to verify disability to the extent that it influences the essential functions of a given job.

Disclosure, however, is a contentious issue. With hidden disability, literature has found very low rates of disclosure (Madaus, Foley, McGuire, & Ruban, 2002; Price, Gerber, & Mulligan, 2003). Some authors have also described that disclosure is a complex issue and may be a risky strategy for PWDs with hidden disabilities (e.g. Dalgin & Bellini, 2008; Dalgin & Gilbride, 2003; McMillan, 2007), mainly due to the potential for discrimination and bias against the PWD. Apart from disclosure about having a disability, others have suggested that companies should be guided by PWDs themselves on the accommodations that they need (e.g. Smit, 2001).

The employment experiences of PWDs can be influenced by attitude, organisational culture and the provision of access and accommodations. The following section will explore ways in which to enhance the employment success and experiences of PWDs.