Resultados de la Evaluación

The following section will describe the sample (factual data), both for the individual participants and the companies, that completed the survey. Although the individual participants were asked to report on

(due to the focus on company and not individual characteristics). Company characteristics (size and type), however, were explored as independent variables.

4.2.1.1 Participants

A total of 86 participants completed the survey, representing the opinions of 86 companies. Forty-nine percent of the respondents were female, while males represented 40% (the remaining 11% represent missing data or an answer of “prefer not to answer”). Gender was not investigated as an independent variable, but the male to female ratio was quite even.

Almost half (44%) of the participants have a postgraduate university degree, while another 14% have at least an undergraduate degree. A tenth of the participants reported that they had only a professional qualification and another seven participants have at the least a diploma qualification. Only two participants indicated that Grade 12 was their highest qualification. With most participants having a high post-matric qualification, the survey content and language use was deemed adequate for this population.

There were 14 different job titles reported amongst 78 respondents who answered the question. The most common job title was Human Resources (HR) and/or Employment Equity (EE) managers (44%), as well as HR director/executive (42%). The remaining job titles were: financial managers, project managers, HR officer/consultant, medical officer, corporate affairs manager and wellness specialist. Most (68%) of the respondents that answered relevant questions represented senior level management positions, while 29%

were middle level managers. Respondents, due to their job titles and management level, should therefore have been adequately qualified and informed to answer the survey questions relating to company practices and policies.

The median (or the middle score in the distribution) for years that each participant has worked in their current company is two years. More than 50% of all participants have been in their current job titles for 2-5 years (inclusive). Again, this statistic reinforces the notion that the participants had adequate background knowledge and experience in their respective companies to justify their participation as representatives of their companies.

Only two participants reported that they themselves had a disability. Both reported a physical disability, while one also indicated an additional sensory disability. All respondents were asked to report on how many persons with disabilities they personally knew. Forty four percent of the sample knew at least one to five PWDs, while 43% knew more than five PWDs. Two respondents did not know any PWDs. Most of the respondents described their closest relationship with a person with a disability as either “neither close nor distant” (29%), “somewhat close” (26%) or “very close” (22%). When asked to describe the nature of their closest relationship with a person with a disability, 37% indicated that the relationship was with a co-worker and 27% was with a family member.

One can expect that having a disability and/or being exposed to PWDs may influence answers on a number of variables. There were, however, no significant differences between disability status and relationship status on numerous dependent variables. This is perhaps due to the small sample size.

4.2.1.2 Companies

The head office for 48 (56%) of the companies is based in Johannesburg, representing almost half of the sample. Another 16 (19%) companies have their head office in Cape Town and eight (9%) in Durban.

The rest are found throughout South Africa.

There were 15 different company types that respondents could select from in the survey. Table 4.1 presents the percentages of the three most represented company types, as well as the size of the companies.

Table 4.1

Percentages of Most Represented Company Types and Sizes in the Sample

Description Percentage

Company types: most represented

Financing & insurance 16

Manufacturing trade 13

Retail trade 11

Company size: number of employees

More than 5 000 43

1 000 – 5 000 26

Fewer than 1 000 22

The most represented type of company in the survey falls within the financing and insurance sector (16%). The retail (11%) and/or manufacturing (13%) trades are also strongly represented. These three company types will serve as independent variables in this study.

An analysis was performed on response rate per company type. The JSE classification differs from the industry type responses in this survey and some inferences on company type had to be made for this analysis (especially with regards to non-responders). The industry types with the highest response rate were:

transport/storage (44%), construction (36%), retail trade (34%) and health/social work (33%). The lowest response rates were found for: wholesale (18%), communication (13%), business/professional services (13%) and holding companies (4%). Response rate was only calculated where five or more companies appeared under a specific company type.

Company size (based on number of employees) was classified into seven options in the survey and reduced to only three categories in Table 4.1. Forty three percent of companies have more than 5000 employees. Twenty eight percent of the companies in the sample reported that their total number of employees fell between 10 000 – 49 999, representing very large companies. The initial seven options for company size were reduced to the three options in Table 4.1 to serve as an independent variable later in this chapter.

Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE) is an initiative by the SA government to promote transformation and increase black and minority group representation in the economy, according to the SA Department of Trade and Industry (n.d.). The annual turnover of a company dictates the level of compliance required from the government. Broad-based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE) compliance is measured with a scorecard (Integra Scores, n. d.). The scorecard reflects various social, economic and company elements and each company are measured out of a maximum of 100 points (or more in some cases). A score of 100+ points represents a Level 1 company (the best). A score of 30-40 points achieves the lowest rating and represents a Level 8 company. In this sample, 30% of companies indicated a BBBEE scorecard Level 4, which represents an average rating level (or 65 - 75 points). Fifteen percent of companies are Level 3 companies. There were only four Level 2 companies and one Level 1 company.

It was tested whether BBBEE scorecard ratings related to the percentage of EWDs in the company, and also to whether the company’s disability policy includes disability. This was due to the anticipated link between a good scorecard level and good diversity in the company. No significant results were, however, found. This is either an indication that BBBEE is not directly related to disability, or that the sample was not of sufficient size to present a difference.

When one shifts the focus to EWDs in the companies, 80% of companies in the sample indicated that they did employ PWDs in their company (refer to Table 4.2).

Table 4.2

Percentages of EWDs and Disability Types Represented in the Companies in the Sample

Description Percentage

Companies with EWDs 80

EWDs compared to total employees in company

More than 2% 7

1 – 2% 20

Less than 1% 52

Companies that indicated particular disability type representation in company

Physical disability: ranked highest occurring 52

Sensory disability: ranked 2nd highest occurring 45

Intellectual: ranked least occurring 55

Psychiatric: ranked least occurring 45

It was found that company size did influence whether a company employed EWDs (z = 3.53; p < .05).

There was a pile-up of scores (positively skewed) towards the bigger companies. This means that most bigger companies responded that they had EWDs, while smaller companies reported this less frequently. One also has to consider that the overwhelming percentage of companies in the sample with EWDs may be the

reason for the willingness of these companies in the sample to have participated in the survey. The possible implications of this will be discussed in Chapter 6.

Table 4.2 also shows that just over half (52%) of companies in the sample reported that they had less than 1% EWDs in their company. Another 20% of companies had between 1-2 % EWDs. There was no significant difference between bigger and smaller companies in terms of their overall percentage of EWDs.

Almost 80% of the companies that responded to the relevant question (and 52% in the total sample) indicated that employees with a physical disability represented the biggest type of disability in the company (refer to Table 4.2). Employees with a sensory disability were ranked as the second-most occurring disability in the company. Intellectual and psychiatric disabilities were the least represented, with the majority of companies giving them a rank of 3rd of 4th most employees by disability type. Eighty seven percent of companies that answered the relevant question indicated that they were aware of a disability before they appointed the PWD. This may indicate a willingness to have recruited specifically PWDs with obvious disabilities.

More than half (52%) of the companies in the sample do not target specific job types for PWDs.

Thirty-seven percent of companies do target specific job types to be filled by PWDs (the remaining 10%

represents missing data). This confirms that some job targeting does take place for PWDs in the SA labour market. The implications of this finding will be considered in Chapter 6.