Don’t ask, don’t tell Two views on human resource practices for people with disabilities.pdf

7/30/2019 Dont ask, dont tell Two views on human resource practices for people with disabilities.pdf

1/10

Dont ask, dont tell: Two views on human resourcepractices for people with disabilities

Mukta Kulkarni a,*, Reimara Valk b

a Indian Institute of Management Bangalore, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore 560076, Indiab Utrecht University, Utrecht School of Governance, Bijlhouwerstraat 6, 3511 ZC, Utrecht, The Netherlands

KEYWORDSPeople with disabilities;Human resourcepractices

Abstract In the present paper we explore how employees with physical disabilities and their

human resource managers perceive practices aimed at entry, integration, and development of

disabled employees. The results indicate that both sets of respondents want to treat people

with disabilities as regular employees and take attention away from disability. The results

also indicate that employees would like to get additional help, but are afraid to ask. Employers

do not offer additional support unless asked, not wanting to highlight the disability given fears

of stigmatisation. Given this reluctance from both employees and employers, it is possible that

people with disabilities remain an underutilised resource.

2010 Indian Institute of Management Bangalore. All rights reserved.

Disability is an issue of concern for policymakers across theworld. According to United Nations Report, 2009 almost onein ten people globally is a person with a disability. Despiteinterventions aimedat increasing the employment prospectsof people with disabilities (PWD), they are at an increasedrisk of unemployment as compared with people who do nothave a disability (Barlow, Wright, & Cullen, 2002). Even ifthey do secure employment, most PWD do not reach or fulfilltheir potential in the workplace (Colella, 1994). Further, in

spite of decades of research and practice, there is incon-gruity between what employees with disabilities need interms of physical arrangements (Palmon, Oxman, Shahar, &Weiss, 2004) or other organisational policies (Stone &Colella, 1996) and what is offered to them. There are bothorganisational and individual implications of such incon-gruity. Employers may have to pay for compensation claimswhileindividuals whosufferfrom a disability may incur loss ofincome or may have to pay for care giver assistance (Lafumaet al., 2006). Both employersand PWD may also notbe able toeffectively utilise the employees potential at work

(Lengnick-Hall, Gaunt, & Kulkarni, 2008; Stone & Colella,1996). Fortunately such problems are avoidable, especiallythrough the implementation of certain organisational prac-tices, most of which fall under the purview of the humanresources function (Lengnick-Hall, 2007). The present studyexplores perceptions of people with physical disabilities andhuman resource managers in the Netherlands. Specifically,we examine if people with disabilities and human resourcemanagers view organisational human resource practices ina similar manner or differently.

Disability is defined as an impairment that limits a majorlife activity, but allows for gainful employment (Stone &Colella, 1996). It is viewed as an inability to perform some

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 91 80 2699 3029; fax: 91 80 26584050.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Kulkarni),[email protected] (R. Valk).

0970-3896 2010 Indian Institute of Management Bangalore. Allrights reserved. Peer-review under responsibility of Indian Instituteof Management Bangalore.doi:10.1016/j.iimb.2010.08.001

INDIANINSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT

BANGALORE

IIMB

a v a i l a b l e a t w w w . s c i e n c e d i r e c t . c o m

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / i i m b

IIMB Management Review (2010) 22, 137e146
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.elsevier.com/locate/iimbhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2010.08.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2010.08.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2010.08.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2010.08.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2010.08.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2010.08.001http://www.elsevier.com/locate/iimbmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/10

activity or as a lack of ability that society deems important(Barnard & Lan, 2007).Viewedas a formof diversity (Dipboye& Colella, 2005; Shore et al., 2009), disability concerns maybe neglected or hidden in organisational settings ascompared with other forms of diversity (Olkin, 2002;Wertlieb, 1985). People with disabilities have to overcomehurdles when trying to obtain as well as retain a job ascompared with peoplewho arenot disabled(Stone& Colella,

1996). Specifically, research shows that employers shy awayfrom hiring PWD, with attitudes ranging from negativeexpectations about performance to assumptions regardinglack of appropriate qualifications. Employers also assumethat coworkers may not appreciate the work potential ofPWD, may react negatively, and may have a fear of theunknown (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2008). This neglect is unfor-tunate considering the documented positive outcomes ofemploying people with disabilities. PWD perform as well astheirnon-disabledcounterparts in organisations,do not havehigherabsenteeism or turnover rates compared with therestof the organisational members, have fewer accidents atwork, and are stable, committed, and motivated to work(Colella, 1994; Lengnick-Hall, 2007; Schoonheim & Smits,

2008; Stone & Colella, 1996).In terms of human resource (HR) practices and disability

research, much has been done regarding factors relating toemployability and employment prospects of PWD (Barlowet al., 2002; Lengnick-Hall et al., 2008; Loo, 2004;Louvet, 2007; Stone & Colella, 1996). Not as muchresearch has focused on HR practices that enable PWD toachieve their potential within the workplace. Specifically,more attention is focused on job access and accommoda-tion of PWD but not on treatment once on the job (Colella,1994). We explore how employees with physical disabilitiesand their HR managers perceive practices aimed at entry,integration, and development of disabled employees.

We emphasise physical disability for the followingreasons. One, according to the Disability Status Report,2007 there is a higher rate of physical disability (ascompared with mental disability) in the employable pop-ulation, and employers are more open to engaging withpeople with physical rather than mental disabilities (Fuqua,Rathburn, & Gade, 1984). Two, it is possible that differenttypes of disabilities evoke different stereotypes, responses,and job-related expectancies. Someone with a mentalimpairment may be viewed differently as compared withsomeone who has a learning disability, or someone who hasa physical impairment. There are also various types ofphysical disabilities that evoke different responses (Fuquaet al., 1984; Stone & Colella, 1996). Finally, research

shows that research results are confounded if multipletypes of disabilities are considered simultaneously (Unger,2002). For tractability, we thus limit ourselves to under-standing how people with moderate physical disabilitiesperceive organisational HR practices.

We have chosen to explore our objective in theNetherlands. The Netherlands has had a long history ofproviding care for PWD. The Dutch government hascommissioned several private contractors as well asagencies such as Netherlands Institute for Social Research(Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau) and StatisticsNetherlands (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek), to namea few, to focus on disability related issues. Although there

has been considerable reduction in the number of peoplereceiving disability benefits, the overall employment rateof PWD has dropped. The employment market has notopened enough to include PWD comprehensively, andemployers are still wary of hiring PWD despite incentivesoffered to them (Schoonheim & Smits, 2008). Consequently,several hundred thousand employees in the Netherlands donot reach their earnings potential and claim disability

benefit for many years, causing a severe drain on the Dutchsocial security system (European Industrial RelationsReview, 2006). In fact, less than half of the disabled pop-ulation is gainfully employed. This is in contrast witha relatively high and recently increasing employment ratesfor people without disability (OECD, 2008). This problem islikely to continue in the future as the population ages, andwomen who claim disabilities enter the workforce(Einerhand & Van Der Stelt, 2005). This scenario makes itimportant to explore what employers do to make employ-ment attractive for the disabled population, and what PWDwho are currently working think about employer practices.Finally, a survey of more than a thousand Dutch public andprivate organisations by Henkens, Remery, and Schippers

(2008) indicated that over two thirds of the organisationswere facing labour shortages. These organisations indicatedthat one of the strategies to counter this shortage wastapping into new pools such as recruiting more elderly anddisabled into the workforce. This trend of increased labourshortage and the need to tap into alternate ways of staff-ing, retaining, and effectively deploying productiveworkers is reflective of most western countries (Henkenset al., 2008). All of these reasons make it likely that ourcontext will yield us rich and practically applicable findings.

By examining employee and HR manager views ofdisability related HR practices, we contribute to informingand broadening diversity research in the following ways.

One, by simultaneously focussing on both PWD andemployer perceptions, we respond to the call for a systemicview when studying individual perceptions of organisationalprocesses in terms of dealing with possible differentialtreatment (Gelfand, Nishii, Raver, & Schneider, 2005).

Two, our study responds to the call for more fieldresearch regarding disability issues, considering reliance onlaboratory studies (Colella & Stone, 2005). Three, it isimportant to systematically note the degree and reasons ofcongruity or incongruity between experience and objec-tives of organisational practices. This is because althoughpolicies may exist to help employees with a disability, theirimplementation may be questionable considering thatofficial goals may not always translate into operative

practices and policies (Stone & Colella, 1996). Finally, thestudy contributes to the growing yet incomplete under-standing of disability treatment within organisations (cf.Colella, 1994) and hence has practical implications fororganisational managers and policy makers.

Previous research on human resourcepractices and people with disabilities

We acquire and are socialised into certain stereotypicalattitudes, beliefs, and behaviours over time. These atti-tudes, beliefs, and behaviours are carried into the workplace

138 M. Kulkarni, R. Valk


3/10

and they continue to unfold over time as people advance intheir organisations. Unfolding implies change over time asattitudes, beliefs, and behaviours are challenged, rein-forced, or shaped in the workplace via organisational inter-ventions (Cleveland, Vescio, & Barnes-Farrell, 2005) such asimplementation of HR practices (Gelfand et al., 2005).Indeed, certain researchers argue that HR practices playa critical role in shaping access to opportunities, rewards,

andoverall treatmentin organisations. HR practices can alsoinduce a systemic ripple effect in the creation of the work-place context. For example, creation of and exposure to onepractice such as access to mentoring or training may influ-ence outcomes such as promotion and advancement oppor-tunities (Delaney & Lundy, 1996; Gelfand et al., 2005;Levitin, Quinn, & Staines, 1971).

HR practices are especially significant in terms oftreatment of PWD. People with disabilities may exhibita negative self concept, self limiting behaviours, andconsequently have lower motivation and ability (Jones,1997). This problem may be exacerbated by practicesthat further disfavour those with disabilities both in termsof organisational entry and post entry treatment. For

example, practices that unfairly favour the selection ofnon-disabled (Stone & Colella, 1996), and consequentaccordance of token status, out-group status, perceptionsof limited job fit, lack of role models and mentors, and lackof critical feedback, make it difficult for PWD to performoptimally (Jones, 1997). HR practices thus create a contextthat influences employee expectancies, attitudes, andbehaviours which in turn determine how PWD within theorganisation are treated in terms of performance ratings,rewards, job assignments, pay increases, training oppor-tunities, and mentoring (Stone & Colella, 1996).

Overall, employers cantake oneof three attitudes towardsPWD. They can ignore disability issues and not hire PWD,

comply with the law in terms of maintaining neutrality interms of hiring and developing PWD, or value PWD candidatesandemployees andactively seek andnurture them(Lengnick-Hall,2007). In thefollowingsectionwe especiallyconsidertheimportance of managing organisational entry, integration,and developmental activities for PWD.

Organisational entry

Most people with a disability wish to work but have diffi-culty obtaining employment (Lengnick-Hall, 2007). It ispossible that certain individuals who feel stigmatised mayshy away from applying for certain jobs. Employers may

also misattribute stigmas and may not hire such people(Stone-Romero, 2005) given various reasons such asassumptions about lower skill or ability level, lower jobperformance, and about adverse customer or coworkerreactions (Lengnick-Hall & Gaunt, 2007). While affirmativeaction programmes may reduce entry or access discrimi-nation, they may create future stigmas (Heilman, Block, &Lucas, 1992) which can lead to treatment discriminationproblems (Gelfand et al., 2005). That is, people withdisabilities may enter the organisation but may be subjectto differential treatment post entry. Thus, both recruit-ment and selection practices have to be managed carefully.Both channels and criteria for recruitment and selection

matter, in terms of signalling certain expectations toexisting organisational members and attracting candidateswith a disability. Channels of recruitment, or where theemployer recruits, can influence how discriminatory therecruitment process is. For instance, Gelfand et al. (2005)cite a 1995 US Department of Labor study which demon-strates that discrimination may be lower if organisationsactively recruit at minority oriented colleges. Criteria for

recruitment, or how the employer recruits and selects isalso critical. Conventional job profiles aimed at an idealcandidate may unintentionally and negatively discriminateagainst the disabled candidate. Thus key or essential jobrequirements more than ideal requirements must be iden-tified in order to evaluate the disabled candidate fororganisational entry (Stone & Colella, 1996).

Integration

Even if organisations encourage disability hiring, it ispossible that PWD may not feel included in daily organisa-tional life. Achieving diversity does not necessarily imply

achieving workplace inclusion and integration (Arthur &Doverspike, 2005). Thus the next steps in terms of HRpractices that influence PWD are initial socialisation andeventual integration in the organisation. It is possible thatpeople may be viewed and categorised differently such thattheir actual attributes are overshadowed unfairly by theirperceived attributes. This may lead to strained relation-ships among organisational members and possibly to phys-ical segregation from coworkers (Stone-Romero, 2005). Toavoid such situations, it is important for HR personnel toarrange for increased communication and contact to facil-itate PWD integration from the time of organisational entry.Increased contact and exposure to PWD may give coworkers

an opportunity to modify expectancies since they will haveinformation to disconfirm any preexisting stereotypes thatthey may hold about disabilities and disabled persons(Stone & Colella, 1996).

Developmental activities

HR practices not only indirectly help PWD through the crea-tion of a facilitative context; but they also directly help PWDby offering them developmental opportunities throughperformance management and training. In terms of perfor-mance management, Gelfand et al. (2005), elaborating onIIgen and Youtzs (1986) lost opportunities effect, arguethat if minorities do not receive critical feedback from

supervisors who anticipate negative emotional or behav-ioural reactions from minorities, the minorities may lose outon improvement opportunities. This may lead to a rippleeffect such as lower appraisal ratings, less desirable futurejob assignments, and lower training and developmentactivities (Stone-Romero, 2005). There are two kinds oftraining relevant in our context: competence training forminorities that leads to future advancement, and diversitytraining forthe majority (Gelfand et al., 2005) who may needto be sensitised to the needs of coworkers with disabilities.Competence enhancing training is important for PWDconsidering that most minority groups reach a develop-mental plateau (Evans & Herr, 1991), and have to be

Views on Human Resource Practices 139


4/10

nurtured carefully. In terms of training for the non-disabledmajority, programmes that re-frame orientations via thecommunication of PWD success stories sensitise employeesto possible stereotypes. Training programmes can alsocommunicate and clarify norms about treating and commu-nicating with PWD. Overall, either through contact orthrough knowledge, coworkers may understand disabilityissues (Stone & Colella, 1996) and this can help create

a climate of inclusiveness in the organisation (Garcia,Paetzold, & Colella, 2005).

In sum, inter-related HR practices such as staffing,integration, and developmental activities can help createan inclusionary context by granting fair access and treat-ment to minorities and by signalling fair attitudes andbehaviours to existing majority employees (Arthur &Doverspike, 2005).

Perceptions of HR practices for people withdisabilities: Present study

Method

We started the project with a general question: how doemployees with disabilities and their HR managers vieworganisational HR practices aimed at PWD? We useda purposive and convenience sampling method (Barton &Sutcliffe, 2009). Though the final sample was a conve-nience sample based on our network contacts, we tried toachieve purposive variation within it in order to gain a widerange of perceptions. Specifically, we tried to identifya sample of respondents who varied in terms of organisa-tional tenure, age, and gender, all potential sources ofsocial categorisation. Our final sample consisted of 38respondentse24 PWD and 14 HR managers who were

responsible for implementing policies in the departmentswhere these PWD worked. Respondents were employed byvarious sized organisations. Relatively small organisationsin our study (less than 300 employees) included a local newschannel and a religious education institution. Medium sizeorganisations (between 500e1000 employees) includedmunicipal services and water and traffic managementauthorities. Relatively large organisations (more than 1000employees) included healthcare and insurance services. Ofthe 24 PWD respondents, eight were from small organisa-tions, 12 were from medium size organisations, and fourwere from large organisations. Of the 14 HR respondents,one was from a small organisation, 11 were from mediumsize organisations, and two were from large organisations.

Respondent characteristics are summarised in Table 1.The interview guides for both PWD and HR managers

were developed based on a review of the literature and theinitial problem statement which revolved around under-standing HR policies and practices aimed at organisationalentry, workplace integration, and developmental activities.Interviews were semi-structured and open-ended, and tookplace over six months.

We created the survey questionnaire in English, and thentranslated it into Dutch for our participants who respondedin Dutch. Interview responses were then back-translatedinto English. We thus followed the most commonly usedtranslation technique, the back-translation technique, in

which a source language is translated to a target language,and the target language is, in turn, independently trans-lated back to the source language. Discrepancies betweentranslations are then corrected. Although back-translationmay not ensure precise equivalence, it allows for concep-tual equivalence (Peng, Peterson, & Shyi, 1991). Indeed,translations in multicultural settings are usually equivalentrather than literally identical (Teagarden et al., 1995), andthe back-translation method is followed by internationalHRM researchers (Mignonac, 2008; Teagarden et al., 1995;Tsui, 2006). We followed prior international HR research(Teagarden et al., 1995) to ensure validity of our trans-lations. The interviews were conducted by one of theauthors of this paper, who has the required businessknowledge in the target language and is a native speaker ofthe language. To ensure literal accuracy and idiomaticequivalence in language (Brislin, 1986) and to bolster val-

idity, we had a senior HR manager from one of theparticipating organisations as well as a Labour Expert froman Employee Insurance Authority validate the interviewguide for correct and sensible translation from English toDutch. This Labour Expert is in charge of reintegrationcoaching of PWD. After we obtained interview responses,one of the authors and an external language expert fromthe Labour Department of the Ministry of Social Affairs andEmployment back-translated documents together. Theback-translations of the interview transcripts were furtherverified by the previously mentioned Labour Expert.

Results

Data from interviews were analysed to examine commonthemes and variation across respondents e both PWD andHR. Overall we found no striking differences across our PWDrespondents in terms of age, tenure, and gender. Only oneof the PWD respondents who was more than 60 years of agestrongly voiced his ideas about the importance of selfinitiative on the part of the PWD to succeed in organisa-tions. Our general finding is in contrast to prior researchwhich positively associates age with disability issues(Bound, Schoenbaum, Stinebrickner, & Waidmann, 1999;Lengnick-Hall, 2007). Our findings are also in contrastwith research which shows that women react more

Table 1 Description of respondents.

Characteristics Respondents

with a disability

Human resource

managers

Age

Less than 30 4 1

Between 30e39 6 3

Between 40e49 7 4

Between 50e

59 6 5More than 60 1 1

Gender

Male 9 9

Female 15 5

Average organisational

tenure (years)

3.7 7

Total respondents 24 14



5/10

favourably compared with men in terms of PWD treatment(Loo, 2004), and that usually women are discriminatedagainst more than men in the workplace (Joseph, 2005/2006) given the possibility of multiple minority status(Jones, 1997). In each section below we describe employeeand HR views and situate findings in previous research.

Organisational entry

We asked respondents if any specific HR policies existed forrecruiting PWD, and to describe these policies. We foundthat none of the respondents with a disability was aware ofany special recruitment efforts made by their employer interms of attracting disabled people to apply for jobs. Allindicated that they applied and got jobs on their own. Onerespondent stated, I would not know. I do not believethere are certain rules to recruit people with disabilities

Five (21%) of our respondents speculated that there maybe certain policies and practices used for recruiting PWD,but this was based on their personal experience, and theywere not aware if these methods applied to all candidatessystemically. Specifically, two of the five respondents hadjoined from a reintegration agency, and three indicated

that there may be some policy and subsidy for recruitingPWD and other minorities, but they were not aware of thespecifics. For example, one respondent stated,

I have landed here via a reintegration agency. A workexperience place where they only invite people witha disability, impairment, limitation, or people who find itdifficult to obtain a job because of culture, for examplepeople from foreign origin. That is what I haveunderstood.

Another respondent said, How [recruiting] exactlyworks I do not dare to say with certainty. There are prob-ably subsidies to recruit people.

Of the thirteen (93%) HR managers who directlyanswered the question, eight (62%) said they do not havea specific recruitment and selection policy for persons withdisabilities. More than half of our respondents (54%) saidthey did not target PWD specifically in their recruitmentmaterial because (a) they did not want PWD to face futurestigmatisation, (b) they assumed that disabled people wantto be hired for their ability, not their disability, and (c)because though they may have a preference policy, its bestnot to state it since PWD may not appreciate it. Repre-sentative quotes are listed below.

.we have abandoned the active Target Group policy,because more and more this started circulating in the

sphere of stigmatisation. Along the way we havedecreased the frequency of stating this in our jobvacancies. The potential applicant found it undesirableto be appointed on this ground. They want to be viewedas a regular applicant, not being hired because of thereason that they have disability.

We do not put it in our job advertisements text any-more.Disabled people want to be appointed based ontheir capacities, not on the basis of their handicap.

More than half of our respondents (64%) also said theyrecruited through reintegration agencies. One stated thatthey work with multiple reintegration agencies. There are

people there who keep in touch with PWD and place themwithin [organisation name].

In terms of organisational entry, it seems that both thePWD and their HR managers experienced the same reality interms of lack of specific or overt policies. The HR managerswere explicit in terms of explaining why their organisationswere not overt about advertising specifically for PWD. Froma theoretical perspective, it is possible that employers are

trying to reduce overt social categorisation given docu-mented negative outcomes of categorisation and conse-quent stigmatisation. Specifically, research shows that ifwe perceive someone as being different from us, we maycategorise them and be biased to behave differentlytowards them (Thomas & Chrobot-Mason, 2005) such thatsometimes the categorised people are excluded (Riordian,Schaffer, & Stewart, 2005) or stigmatised (Stone-Romero,2005). Language creates and mirrors reality (Olkin, 2002),and it seems as though employers want to draw attentionaway from disability.

Organisational integration

We asked respondents to talk about organisationally con-ducted socialisation activities especially aimed at helpingthe PWD integrate in the organisation, overall integration interms of other employee attitudes towards PWD, and keychallenges PWD face in the integration process.

When asked to talk about integration issues, respon-dents with a disability were more vocal and discussedthese issues more passionately as compared with the HRrespondents. Overall we found that employers (a) did notconduct any separate socialisation activities for PWD (b)did not have a buddy or mentor system especially for PWD(c) viewed informal help extended by coworkers andmanagers as helpful, but did not view HR personnel ashelpful, and (d) saw integration as a reflection of PWDattitude.

All except one employee (93%) indicated that the initialsocialisation programme was the same for all employees.One respondent captured the feeling, No, I just went alongwith a certain process. No, I was not assigned a mentor norwere there any other ways of socialising me in the organi-sation. Two respondents indicated that it would be helpfulto have an assigned mentor. One of them said,

No, it is no different for PWD. I would have found itdesirable to have a mentor. In all areas particularly theknowledge of the organisation and knowledge of the jobcontent. This would have taken care of my familiar-

isation with how things work in this organisation.

Less than half (46%) of our respondents indicated thatoverall, managers and coworkers are helpful in day to dayworking, though at times, some had to be reminded of thedisability and associated limitations. For example, onerespondent told us,

In any case what I see is that people are considerate.They do not ask for certain things, they take mydisability into account. It happens that I have muchphysical pain and this makes me glum and that isa burden sometimes. They know this by now but theyhave to get used to it.I have to repeat my limitations.



6/10

Interestingly, 10 respondents (42%) specifically indicatedthat HR personnel were not as proactive in helping them astheir coworkers. This perception may be becauseemployees expectations of HR are higher than theirexpectations of coworkers or managers. Some reflected,

I find that the HR Consultant has many shortcomings inthis. Actually the ball was put in my court and she sees itas my problem.I do have an impairment but I need nosympathy and I want to keep on working

.

My salarywould be cut because I was in a sickness trajectory. Butif you have not been ill for one day your salary cannot becut.Information, communication and interest couldhave been much better.That is a point of concern.

I do not have anything to do with HR.HR approachedme for the height of my chair and those kinds of things.At that time I did not have everything at hand yet. Thenthat was postponed and nobody asked for it any more.I took care of it myself.

A few of our respondents (13%) indicated that integra-tion depends on PWD attitude at work.

. well, lots of it depends upon you. If you are willing toopen up to others like hey I do find this very nice ofyou, then those people will also approach youdifferently.

No negative experiences, only positive experiences,because you see, you have to see them yourself. Mycolleagues responded enthusiastically, because I wasvery motivated to become proficient in certain things,even though it took somewhat more time.

Twelve of our HR respondents (86%) indicated that therewere no separate socialisation activities for PWD. Of theserespondents, four (33%) stated that informal help was

offered by the HR department on an ad hoc basis only ifasked for or needed, and three (25%) said they didnt wantseparate socialisation activities designed for PWD for fearof stigmatising the minority group. One respondent indi-cated that there are specific HR meetings to determinePWD needs and three indicated that they had assignedspecial mentors to PWD. We list representative quotesbelow.

I can imagine that this happens on an ad hoc basis, butalso from the viewpoint of stigmatisation we want toprevent the thinking that people are being treatedseparately or differently. No policy, it is given shapepractically on an ad hoc basis.

No, everything is the same; we do not make a distinc-tion. We do assist with certain dealings.You should alsonot stigmatise people, they do not want that either.Sometimes it is tricky, theyd like it that you payattention.

To summarise, PWD indicated that they did not have anyseparate socialisation activities, were not assigned anymentors or buddies. Most viewed colleagues and managersas more helpful or understanding than HR managers. A fewindicated that separate induction programmes would behelpful, while some said that integration depends on thepersons attitude. HR managers echoed the fact that they

did not have a separate socialisation or induction pro-gramme for PWD so as not to segregate them. Froma theoretical perspective we can situate our findings inColellas (2001) research. Employers seem to be workingfrom an equity perspective, that is, they do not want tocreate a situation where coworkers without a disability maymake fairness judgements on the grounds that PWD aregiven preferential treatment during socialisation, leading

to questions about needs and wants of a minority group vis-a-vis the majority group. Coworkers are important stake-holders in the socialisation process, and it is possible that tokeep an equitable situation, PWD themselves shy awayfrom asking for more opportunities such as access tomentors, and yet feel that somehow organisational repre-sentatives such as HR personnel should tacitly recognisetheir needs and act upon them. This was evidenced throughthe higher expectations PWD had of HR managers.

Key challenges when integrating in the workplace

The key challenge that the majority of our respondentswith a disability (71%) spoke about was the need to provetheir ability or manage their image such that people

focused on their ability. One respondent said, That theysee the persons role and not that a disabled guy who justhappens to work here. they do not know your worth.they saw more problems along the path than thereactually were. When talking about proving that you arejust as good as a non-disabled person, respondents arguedthat they want to be part of society, to not be at the sideor that they wanted to prove themselves just a bit morethan others.

Interestingly, though our respondents wanted to provetheir worth and be recognised and accepted by coworkersfor their ability, some of them (17%) did not want to be inthe spotlight such that their success stories were circu-

lated, while few (13%) thought that highlighting successstories of ability and integration would help other PWD.Those who shied away from the spotlight said, Actually Ilike it this way, because everybody is being treated equallyand that they did not want to draw attention to themselvesor show off. One respondent among those who thoughtstories would help other PWD stated, Especially peoplewho have a severe disability or impairment could havesupport through this. There are opportunities for thesepeople. Such a spotlight effect may have mixed impli-cations positive in bringing attention to PWD foremployees who need sensitisation, but negative for thePWD themselves who are made to feel as second rungcitizens.

A few respondents (8%) indicated that a challenge in theworkplace for them is their own low self-confidence. Onerespondent talked about himself, In the past, I used to bea very silent boy. I did not dare to do much. There mightbe many PWD who think in the beginning that they cannotdo much. I used to think that way too. Another respondentsaid,I think that PWD might have to be stimulated some-what more because they have less self-confidence.

The majority of our HR respondents (79%) also perceivedthat a key challenge for PWD was to manage their imageand to prove that they can work well or be a regular part ofthe work process. This was especially because coworkersmay not understand PWD needs or may label them



7/10

inaccurately based on fear of the unknown. They indicatedthat PWD have difficulty talking about their disability and attimes hide their limitations so that they are accepted aswell functioning members of the organisation. Onerespondent spoke of barriers such that When the disabilityis something observable then I can imagine that you arebeing met head-on with image creation. Another respon-dent argued that The biggest challenge at the workplace is

dependent on the nature of the disability. For some peopleit is the issue of being accepted as a commendableemployee, not being placed in a specific box as a disabledperson. Another stated,

In this organisation we are good at putting imprints onpeople. Look, if you are liked within a department thenthere is no problem, you are like anybody else.Whatalways plays a role is whether people like you, then theacceptance rate is higher.

When mentioning that the challenge is getting people totalk about their limitations, one respondent stated, Thechallenge is to get a conversation going about a disability.

Another respondent expressed his concern stating,[PWD] have to take into account their own limitations.They do not always do this. This can result in aggravationof complaints which means that they cannot functionmaximally any more in their jobs.

In line with the assumption that PWD want to fit into theregular mainstream of the workflow, more than half of theHR managers (64%) also indicated that the organisationdoes not circulate success stories and put the spotlight onthe disabled employees because the PWD may not like to betalked about. The general feeling was,

PWD have the wish to be treated as normal, like

everybody else. No explicit attention. The cases I haveexperienced myselfdemployees indicated that nospecial adjustments were needed for them. That is thereaction you get. I have encountered that some peopletry to put it out of sight. They try to perform their workwithout any special adjustments.

A few of the managers (29%) indicated that the fact thatcontracts of PWD are extended is in itself a success story.The fact that an employee is still here is a success initself.

Only one respondent indicated that they were consid-ering highlighting success stories in the future. Specifically,this person stated, We are at the point where we want to

make known success stories of employees. That is nota common practice within this organisation.

In terms of challenges, managing self image seems mostsalient in the minds of our respondents. This finding is inalignment with previous research, which associatesa negative social image as a barrier to comprehensiveintegration (Boyle, 1997). The dominant feeling amongstPWD that they wanted to prove themselves as good as othernon-disabled coworkers may have motivated one of our HRrespondents to reflect that such high and sometimesunrealistic expectations may lead PWD to experiencefrustration, a finding reflected upon by researchers(Colella, 1994).

In contrast with prior research, which articulates theneed for circulating success stories and making coworkersaware of the abilities of PWD (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2008)our findings indicate that most PWD do not wish to betalked about, and HR managers also share this view. OurPWD respondents seem to shy away from talking about theirlimitations in the hope that they are seen as part of themainstream workforce. This may partially hamper integra-

tion such that all parties involved fear saying something ordoing something that may seem offensive to the receiver.

Developmental activities

We asked respondents to talk about organisationally con-ducted training or any developmental activities. In addi-tion, HR managers were asked to outline any diversity orsensitivity training that they conducted for the non-disabled employees.

When asked about training offered by the HR depart-ment when they joined the organisation, more than half ofour disabled respondents (58%) indicated that theyreceived no training. Of these 14 respondents, four (29%)indicated that they did not require any training. Of those

who spoke of not needing training, all focused solely ondiscussing training in terms of knowledge and skills requiredfor their jobs. For instance, one respondent said he did notreceive training because, they found that I was functioningwell. Another respondent stated, No, this was actuallynever a topic of conversation. I had the required diplomas.

Of the 14 respondents, six (43%) indicated that anytraining they were offered was because of their owninitiative. All of these respondents indicated that theirorganisations were receptive to offering them trainingwhen asked. A common response was, I initiated thismyself and it has been approved. Another respondentargued, You cannot expect [training] from the employ-

er.

How to function as a PWD in the workforce is a learningmoment.When the same question was posed to the HR managers,

half indicated that they did not offer any specific trainingto all because PWD received the necessary training whenthey came to the organisation from a reintegration agency,or because if needed, the PWD or their managers wouldinitiate training on an ad hoc basis. One respondent said,Well, we do not go to that extent, because most of thetime the person comes via a reintegration agency that givesguidance to the PWD. Another stated, When an employeewith or without a disability has the need for education andthe manager shares that opinion, we shall make it possiblefor the employee to participate in training. Reflecting

upon the ad hoc nature of training one respondent said,This would be open for conversation. There is no standardpolicy for this.If it is really necessary to perform on thejob then this is simply something we need to do.

In terms of offering diversity related training forcoworkers, all but one respondent indicated that they didnot offer any diversity related or sensitivity training.Interestingly, respondents indicated that they did not offerthis since no one had asked for it. One respondent said,No. I have never thought about it, because the questionhas never been asked.. No, on a structural basis no extraattention is being given. Another respondent echoed thisstatement, I cannot remember that we have ever done



8/10

this, nor can I remember that the question has ever beenasked.

Only one respondent indicated that they informallydiscuss among coworkers that a PWD is joining theirdepartment.

No, if there is a PWD in the team then within thedepartment this will be discussed like: a PWD with xximpairment will join our teamso please keep a close eye on

the issues that may arise for this person.Our results indicate lack of policies for skill based

training, and that such training happens in an ad hocfashion if the employee with disability asks for it, or if themanager initiates it. HR does not appear to be directlyinvolved, and seems to rely on training provided by rein-tegration agencies. The reliance on reintegration agenciesmay be explained by leveraging past research about howsupported employment programmes and associated traininghelps employers feel reduced uncertainty about PWD skilland ability level (Lengnick-Hall & Gaunt, 2007). Despite thisassumption that PWD have gained the required skills fromreintegration agencies, lack of structured training oppor-tunities may be an area of concern considering research

findings which demonstrate the positive associationbetween increase in relevant knowledge, perceived inde-pendence, and consequent career advancement chancesespecially for PWD (Grimaldi & Goette, 1999). It is possiblethat our HR respondents expected less from PWDemployees and assumed that they had sufficient skills andknowledge obtained from the reintegration agencies tofunction in their current function. Such attitudes, someresearchers argue (Colella, 1994) may lead to PWD gettingnon-challenging projects and this may unintentionallyhamper future advancement opportunities for them.

The finding that PWD respondents did not ask for trainingand insisted that they had the required skills can be couched

in theoretical arguments about the organisational climate asperceived by PWD. PWD may have certain beliefs that stopthem from seeking help. These beliefs may stem from theirperception of the organisational climate which may be seenas discouraging, sometimes in very subtle ways, of extrarequests for accommodating disability concerns. PWD maythinkthat askingfor anything extra may exacerbate or createa negative image of them and leads to stigmatisation basedon assumptions of lower competence. PWD may also shyaway givenreasonsof reciprocitye thattheymaynotbeableto reciprocate what the organisation is doing for them(Baldridge & Veiga, 2001).

Discussion

The aim of our study was to explore how people withdisabilities and their HR managers view HR practices andpolicies aimed at entry, integration, and development ofPWD. Overall, we found that respondents, both people withdisabilities and their human resource managers, reportedthe same reality. The experience of and reasons for thereality though were different. Most notably, it seems asthough both set of respondents want to focus on ability andbeing part of the mainstream of the workflow rather thanon the disability. Though people with disabilities wouldhave benefited from more training, mentoring, and from

highlighting their achievements, they seemed to shy awayfrom asking for anything more than what was offered by theemployer and more particularly by the HR department. Notwanting to specifically draw attention to PWD fearingnegative categorisation, HR managers also seem to haveoffered such employees exactly what was offered to thenon-disabled workforce. It is possible that such reluctanceon the part of both the PWD and their employers may

inadvertently lead to incomplete realisation of theemployers diversity management initiatives.

Limitations and implications for future research

Though our study pointed to areas in which PWD and HRperceptions and expectations match as well as areas wherethey do not, it is only an exploratory beginning. There arecertain limitations and potential implications of our studywhich should be noted. One, it is possible that HR managersmay have more positive attitudes than other people towardsissues relating to PWD (Colella & Stone, 2005) and percep-tions and expectations may be different for other employeegroups such as coworkers and supervisors. Future researchcan tap into a more holistic view of other employeesperceptions of organisationally driven practices aimed atPWD. Two, we only considered one type of disability groupepeople with physical disability. Though this allowed us tomaintain research scope and boundaries, it is possible thatthe answers to our research question would have beendifferent had we considered multiple types of disabilities.Three, in terms of future research, there is a need forexamining what employers mean by an inclusionary contextand how they implement diversity initiatives. In the presentstudy, it is possible that well intentioned employers whovalue disabled employees and wish to nurture them are notparticularly viewed as well intentioned by employees who

are left alone to navigate the organisational landscape. HRmanagers may want to explore perceptions of PWD in termsofwheretheyneedhelpandwhichareastheywouldprefertomanage on their own.

Implications for research and practice in the Indiancontext

The present study has clear implications for the Indiancontext considering Indias large population of PWD esti-mated at between 40 and 80 million people (World BankReport, 2007). Disability employment and treatment issuesare gaining attention in organisational and policy conversa-

tions in India in attempts to harness the potential of sucha large population of PWD, and there is currently very littlethat employers can draw upon in terms of best policies orpractices (Confederation of Indian Industry, 2009). Consid-ering that gaining employment is difficult for PWD in India(Confederationof Indian Industry, 2009), thatsocioeconomicsituations and societal inequalities can determine workplaceperceptions (cf. Adya, 2008), and that HR practices may bead hoc even in global Indian organisations (Kulkarni,Lengnick-Hall, & Valk, 2010), researchers and policymakers would do well to pay explicit attention to disabilitiesissues, to ensure workplace inclusion and effectiveness. Forexample, based on implications of the present research,



9/10

more attention should be paid to creating employmentopportunities for PWD, possibly via organisational ties withvocational training agencies, designing integration pro-grammes that involve all organisational members, andactively soliciting views of PWD as to their specific needs.This is especially critical given the existence of greaterpower distance in the collective (Blagoev, 2010) Indiancontext, where recruitment may be network based (Kulkarni

& Osicki, 2010), a privilege that may not be afforded to PWD.On theotherhand,it maybe relatively straightforwardin theIndiancontext to hire PWD given quotasin certain sectors forsuch employment, something we did not observe in thepresent study. In this case, though, treatment and inclusionof PWD needs careful attention.

In conclusion, while more attention is paid to theemployability of people with disabilities, treatment of suchemployees once on the job has only recently begun to garnerresearch momentum. Given labour market conditions andthe not yet fully tapped potential of people with disabilities,employers can neither ignore nor merely provide superficialservice in addressing disability related issuesdthe costs toboth employees with disabilities and their employers are too

high. It is important to gain a better understanding ofdisability issues considering its impact on overall organisa-tional effectiveness. Informal and ad hoc approaches tomanaging disabled employees will have to give way for moreformal and systematic HR policies and practices.

References

Adya, M. P. (2008). Women at work: differences in IT careerexperiences and perceptions between South Asian and Amer-ican women. Human Resource Management, 47(3), 601e635.

Arthur, W., Jr., & Doverspike, D. (2005). Achieving diversity andreducing discrimination in the workplace through humanresource management practices: implications of research and

theory for staffing, training, and rewarding performance. InR. Dipboye, & A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work. The

psychological and organizational bases (pp. 305e327). Mahwah,New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Baldridge, D. A., & Veiga, J. F. (2001). Toward a greater under-standing of the willingness to request an accommodation: canrequesters beliefs disable the Americans with Disabilities Act?

Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 85e99.Barlow,J., Wright, C., & Cullen,L. (2002). A job-seeking self-efficacy

scale for people with physical disabilities: preliminary develop-ment and psychometric testing. British Journal of Guidance &Counselling, 30(1), 37e53.

Barnard, L., & Lan, W. (2007). Faculty attitudes towards personswith disabilities when controlling for attitudes toward diversity.The International Journal of Diversity in Organisations,

Communities and Nations, 7(1), 1e

9.Barton, M. A., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2009). Overcoming dysfunctional

momentum: organizational safety as a social achievement.Human Relations, 62(9), 1327e1356.

Blagoev, V. (2010). Culture: values, beliefs, perceptions, norms,and behaviors. In K. Lundby, & J. Jolton (Eds.), Going global:Practical applications and recommendations for HR and OD

professionals in the global workplace (pp. 22e45). Jossey-Bass.Bound, J., Schoenbaum, M., Stinebrickner, T. R., & Waidmann, T.

(1999). The dynamic effects of health on the labor force tran-sitions of older workers. Labor Economics, 6(2), 179e202.

Boyle, M. A. (1997). Social barriers to successful reentry intomainstream organizational culture: perceptions of people with

disabilities. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 8(3),259e268.

Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of researchinstruments. In J. Lonner, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods incross-cultural research (pp. 137e164). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Cleveland, J. N., Vescio, T. K., & Barnes-Farrell, J. L. (2005).Gender discrimination in organizations. In R. Dipboye, &A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work. The psychological andorganizational bases (pp. 149e176). Mahwah, New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Colella, A. (1994). Organizational socialization of employees with

disabilities: critical issues and implications for workplaceinterventions. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 4(2),87e106.

Colella, A. (2001). Coworker distributive fairness judgments of theworkplace accommodation of employees with disabilities.

Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 100e116.Colella, A., & Stone, D. L. (2005). Workplace discrimination toward

persons with disabilities: A call for some new research direc-tions. In R. Dipboye, & A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work.The psychological and organizational bases (pp. 227e253).Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Confederation of Indian Industry. (2009). A values route to businesssuccess: The why and how of employing persons with disability.

Bangalore: DEOC.Delaney, J. T., & Lundy, M. C. (1996). Unions, collective bargaining,

and the diversity paradox. In E. E. Kossek, & S. A. Lobel (Eds.),Managing diversity: Human resource strategies for trans-

forming the workplace (pp. 245e272). Cambridge, MA:Blackwell.

Dipboye, R. L., & Colella, A. (2005). The dilemmas of workplacediscrimination.In R.Dipboye, & A. Colella (Eds.),Discrimination atwork. The psychological and organizational bases (pp. 425e462).Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Disability Status Report. (2007). Accessed on September 30, 2009from: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/edi/disabilitystatistics/.

Einerhand, M., & Van Der Stelt, H. (2005). Growing disability ratese the gender issue: the Dutch case in an internationalperspective. International Social Security Review, 58(1),

65e

84.European Industrial Relations Review. (2006). Legislative Reform of

the Labour Disablement System, 389, 18e21.Evans, K. M., & Herr, E. L. (1991). The influence of racism and

sexism in the career development of African American women.Journal of Multicultural Counselling and Development, 19(3),130e135.

Fuqua, D. R., Rathburn, M., & Gade, E. M. (1984). A comparison ofemployer attitudes toward the worker problems of eight typesof disabilities. Vocational Evaluation and Work AdjustmentBulletin, 15(1), 40e43.

Garcia, M. F., Paetzold, R. L., & Colella, A. (2005). The relationshipbetween personality and peers judgments of the appropriate-ness of accommodations for individuals with disabilities. Jour-nal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(7), 1418e1439.

Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., Raver, J. L., & Schneider, B. (2005).Discrimination in organizations: an organizational-level systemsperspective. In R. Dipboye, & A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination atwork. The psychological and organizational bases (pp. 89e116).Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Grimaldi, C., & Goette, T. (1999). The internet and the indepen-dence of individuals with disabilities. Internet Research, 9(4),272e280.

Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Lucas, J. A. (1992). Presumedincompetent? Stigmatization and affirmative action efforts.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4), 536e544.Henkens, K., Remery, C., & Schippers, J. (2008). Shortages in an

ageing labour market: an analysis of employers behaviour. The

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/edi/disabilitystatistics/http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/edi/disabilitystatistics/


10/10

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(7),1314e1329.

IIgen, D. R., & Youtz, M. A. (1986). Factors affecting the evaluationand development of minorities in organizations. Research inPersonnel and Human Resources Management, 4, 307e337.

Jones, G. E. (1997). Advancement opportunity issues for peoplewith disabilities. Human Resource Management Review, 7(1),55e76.

Joseph, M. V. (2005/2006). Diversity in women with disabilities.

International Journal of the Diversity, 5(6), 213e

220.Kulkarni, M., Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Valk, R. (2010). Employee

perceptions of repatriation in an emerging economy: the Indianexperience. Human Resource Management, 49(3), 529e546.

Kulkarni, M., & Osicki, M. (2010). Recruiting a global workforce. InK. Lundby, & J. Jolton (Eds.), Going global: Practical applica-tions and recommendations for HR and OD professionals in the

global workplace (pp. 113e142). Jossey-Bass.Lafuma, A., Brezin, A., Lopatriello, S., Hieke, K., Hutchinson, J.,

Mimaud, V., et al. (2006). Evaluation of non-medical costs asso-ciated with visual impairment in four European countries:France, Italy, Germany and the UK. PharmacoEconomics, 24(2),193e205.

Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2007). Hidden talent: How companies hire,retain, and benefit from people with disabilities. Westport,

Connecticut: Praeger.Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Gaunt, P. (2007). Why employers dont hire

people with disabilities. In M. L. Lengnick-Hall (Ed.), Hiddentalent: How companies hire, retain, and benefit from people

with disabilities (pp. 25e33). Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.Lengnick-Hall, M. L., Gaunt, P. M., & Kulkarni, M. (2008). Overlooked

and underutilized: peoplewith disabilitiesare an untapped humanresource. Human Resource Management, 47(2), 255e273.

Levitin, T., Quinn, R. P., & Staines, G. L. (1971). Sex discriminationagainst the American working women. America BehavioralScientist, 15(7), 238e254.

Loo, R. (2004). Attitudes toward employing persons with disabil-ities: a test of the sympathy-discomfort categories. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 34(10), 2200e2214.Louvet, E. (2007). Social judgment toward job applicants with

disabilities: perception of personal qualities and competences.Rehabilitation Psychology, 52(3), 297e303.

Mignonac, K. (2008). Individual and contextual antecedents ofolder managerial employees willingness to accept intra-orga-nizational job changes. International Journal of HumanResource Management, 19(4), 582e599.

OECD. (2008). Sickness, disability and work: Breaking the barriers.(Report on Denmark, Ireland, Finland and the Netherlands).

Olkin, R. (2002). Could you hold the door for me? Includingdisability in diversity. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic MinorityPsychology, 8(2), 130e137.

Palmon, O., Oxman, R., Shahar, M., & Weiss, P. L. (2004). Virtualenvironments as an aid to the design and evaluation of homeand work settings for people with physical disabilities. In:International conference on disability, virtual reality and asso-

ciated technology proceedings, 119e

124.

Peng, T. K., Peterson, M. F., & Shyi, Y. (1991). Quantitativemethods in cross-national management research: trends andequivalence issues. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12(2),87e107.

Riordian, C. M., Schaffer, B. S., & Stewart, M. M. (2005). Relationaldemography within groups: Through the lens of discrimination.In R. Dipboye, & A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work. The

psychological and organizational bases (pp. 37e61). Mahwah,New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Schoonheim, J., & Smits, J. (2008). Report on the employment ofdisabled people in European countries. ANED: AcademicNetwork of European Disability Experts.

Shore, L. M., Chung-Herrera, B. G., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H.,Jung, D. I., Randel, A. E., et al. (2009). Diversity in organizations:where are we now and where are we going? Human ResourceManagement Review, 19(2), 117e133.

Stone, D., & Colella, A. (1996). A model of factors affecting thetreatment of disabled individuals in organizations. Academy ofManagement Review, 21(2), 352e401.

Stone-Romero, E. F. (2005). Personality-based stigmas and unfairdiscrimination in work organizations. In R. Dipboye, & A. Colella(Eds.), Discrimination at work. The psychological and organi-zational bases (pp. 255e280). Mahwah, New Jersey: LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Inc.

Teagarden, M. B., Von Glinow, M. A., Bowen, D. E., Frayne, C. A.,Nason, S., Huo, Y. P., et al. (1995). Toward a theory ofcomparative management research: an Idiographic case studyof the best international human resources managementproject. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1261e1287.

Thomas, K. M., & Chrobot-Mason, D. (2005). Group-level explana-tions of workplace discrimination. In R. Dipboye, & A. Colella(Eds.), Discrimination at work. The psychological and organi-zational bases (pp. 63e88). Mahwah, New Jersey: LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Inc.

Tsui, A. S. (2006). Contextualization in Chinese managementresearch. Management and Organization Review, 2(1), 1e13.

Unger, D. D. (2002). Employers attitudes toward persons withdisabilities in the workforce: myths or realities? Focus on Autism& Other Developmental Disabilities, 17(1), 2e11.

United Nations Report. (2009). Making the MDGs inclusive:empowerment of persons with disabilities and their communi-ties around the world. from. http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp%3Fid%3D1484 Accessed 29. 09. 2009.

U.S Department of Labor, Office of Federal Contract CompliancePrograms (1995). OFCCP glass ceiling initiative: Are there cracksin the ceiling? Washington, DC: Office of Federal ContractCompliance Programs, U.S. Department of Labor.

Wertlieb, E. C. (1985). Minority group status of the disabled.Human Relations, 38(11), 1047e1063.

World Bank Report. (2007). People with disabilities in India: fromcommitments to outcomes. from. http://www.worldbank.org.in/wbsite/external/countries/southasiaext/indiaextn/0,,%20contentMDK:2021557057%7EmenuPK:3968122%7EpagePK:64027988%7EpiPK:64027986%7EtheSitePK:295584,00.html

Accessed 17. 11. 09.

http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp%253Fid%253D1484http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp%253Fid%253D1484http://www.worldbank.org.in/wbsite/external/countries/southasiaext/indiaextn/0,,%2520contentMDK:2021557057%257EmenuPK:3968122%257EpagePK:64027988%257EpiPK:64027986%257EtheSitePK:295584,00.htmlhttp://www.worldbank.org.in/wbsite/external/countries/southasiaext/indiaextn/0,,%2520contentMDK:2021557057%257EmenuPK:3968122%257EpagePK:64027988%257EpiPK:64027986%257EtheSitePK:295584,00.htmlhttp://www.worldbank.org.in/wbsite/external/countries/southasiaext/indiaextn/0,,%2520contentMDK:2021557057%257EmenuPK:3968122%257EpagePK:64027988%257EpiPK:64027986%257EtheSitePK:295584,00.htmlhttp://www.worldbank.org.in/wbsite/external/countries/southasiaext/indiaextn/0,,%2520contentMDK:2021557057%257EmenuPK:3968122%257EpagePK:64027988%257EpiPK:64027986%257EtheSitePK:295584,00.htmlhttp://www.worldbank.org.in/wbsite/external/countries/southasiaext/indiaextn/0,,%2520contentMDK:2021557057%257EmenuPK:3968122%257EpagePK:64027988%257EpiPK:64027986%257EtheSitePK:295584,00.htmlhttp://www.worldbank.org.in/wbsite/external/countries/southasiaext/indiaextn/0,,%2520contentMDK:2021557057%257EmenuPK:3968122%257EpagePK:64027988%257EpiPK:64027986%257EtheSitePK:295584,00.htmlhttp://www.worldbank.org.in/wbsite/external/countries/southasiaext/indiaextn/0,,%2520contentMDK:2021557057%257EmenuPK:3968122%257EpagePK:64027988%257EpiPK:64027986%257EtheSitePK:295584,00.htmlhttp://www.worldbank.org.in/wbsite/external/countries/southasiaext/indiaextn/0,,%2520contentMDK:2021557057%257EmenuPK:3968122%257EpagePK:64027988%257EpiPK:64027986%257EtheSitePK:295584,00.htmlhttp://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp%253Fid%253D1484http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp%253Fid%253D1484

Documents

Don’t ask, don’t tell Two views on human resource practices for people with disabilities.pdf