The United Nations has expressed that every person should have access to paid work. However, people with disabilities appear to be structurally disadvantaged as they are 50 % less often employed compared to people without disabilities. All kind of barriers and hindrances in society and the labour market put them at a disadvantage. This entry describes these barriers, focusing primarily on organizational aspects, and the measures that are available that should help to overcome these barriers. The current tendency of jobs becoming more demanding and homogeneous makes the threshold of entering the labour market even higher, and make it more difficult for a large group of people to find employment. A solution might be to use job (re)design to create jobs of different levels of complexity, and requiring different levels of competencies. This might also help to address some organizational needs, like reducing sickness absence.
Introduction
Work is an important aspect of life, for everyone, particularly from a psychological perspective, since it affects people’s mental health. Work often is the key to participation in society. For that reason, the United Nations sees the right to work as one of the fundamental human rights (International Covenant on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights, 19661). Approximately 15 per cent of the world’s population are affected by a disability of some kind (ILO, 2020), and people with a disability have significantly more difficulties in finding (and keeping) a paid position in the labour market. According to the International Labour Organization (ILO, 2020), people with disabilities are two times less likely to be employed than people without disabilities, and the chance that their employment concerns paid work is also smaller.
‘Disability’ is defined in terms of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (the ICF model2 of the World Health Organization, or WHO), and is ‘the umbrella term for impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions, that negatively affects the interaction between an individual (with a health condition) and that individual’s context (environment and personal factors)’ (WHO and World Bank, 2011, p. 4). This definition indicates that a person’s disability is determined by environmental factors together with their long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments. Certain barriers may limit the interaction with the environment and may prevent a person from participating on an equal basis with others in society. Thus, requirements from the job or environment that cannot be fulfilled contribute to determining whether a person is ‘disabled’. Impairments causing a disability may be present since birth, or can occur during a person’s lifetime. A chronic health condition or age-related impairments can also be regarded as ‘disabling factors’. This is particularly relevant for work and organizational psychologists given the fact that the workforce is ageing in many countries, which means that adequate measures and policies need to be developed.
The United Nations formulated the Convention on the Rights of Persons with a Disability (20063), and according that treaty people with a disability need to have access to paid work like anybody else. Many countries have ratified this treaty, and have legislation in place to ensure that people with disabilities are not discriminated in their attempts to find work. In the USA this is the Americans with Disability Act (2008), and in the UK the Equality Act (2010), and the European Union adopted this treaty in 2011, which led to a resolution on ‘mobility and inclusion of people with disabilities’ (2011), and the implementation of a ‘European Disability Strategy’.4 These laws aim to ensure that ‘all persons with disabilities should have full enjoyment of all human rights’ and, of course, also have equal employment opportunities. Therefore, measures need to be taken in terms of accommodations and adjustments in organizations and their procedures to provide equal opportunities.
In this entry an overview of various barriers that prevent people with disabilities from participating, and several strategies and measures to resolve or reduce these barriers will be presented. The entry starts with an historic perspective on how people with disabilities were treated.
Historic perspective
In earlier days, people had a different view on people with disabilities then we have now. A disability was often considered to be God’s ‘punishment’. In the Roman era, children born with an ‘abnormality’ or ‘defect’ were often killed. People with a mental handicap were likely to display ‘strange behaviour’. Consequently, people thought they were ‘possessed’ by the devil or seen as ‘bewitched’. Therefore, they were exorcized, and left alone. In the Middle Ages people with a disability were considered pariahs and were excluded, or when they were lucky they were ‘stowed away’ in monasteries or special institutions where they were looked after. Only in the 19th century did a somewhat more humanitarian approach emerge, when the medical profession started to see these people with ‘strange behaviour’ as having an ‘illness of the senses and the mind’, and started using the term ‘insane’. Around this time special institutions emerged in which people with disabilities were taken care of, and attempts were made to teach them a skill or trade so that they could be productive. Often these institutions p. 157focused on specific types of disability: like being visually impaired, auditory impaired and/or mute, or a combination thereof. Also, for people with mental/cognitive disabilities or diseases these kinds of institutions emerged and ‘patients’ were offered some activities to keep them occupied. The idea emerged that society had some kind of responsibility for these people, and people feared that if they were neglected, they would cause all kind of problems for society, like disorderly conduct, vagrancy, begging and stealing. In various countries, an institutionalized approach to this problem emerged in the 19th century. In the Netherlands, the first institute for deaf-mute people was founded in Groningen (in 1790), and in Amsterdam an institute for blind people emerged (in 1808). For people with mental illness it took a bit longer, until around 1840 a group of medical doctors tried to find ways to treat or educate these people. Mental illness became a diagnosable medical problem, rather than rooted in superstition, and psychiatry became a profession. This helped to shift the way people with mental illness were perceived. The American Psychiatric Association was founded in 1844, and in the Netherlands the Dutch Society for Psychiatry was founded in 1871. This resulted in experts looking for various ways to deal with mental illness, and one even started thinking about therapies. It was recognized that these people had some capacity to learn and develop, and that structure, order and discipline would be beneficial. Therefore, activating people with mental illness was considered to be important, and work could provide a structure and a purpose in life. This means that in these institutions people were given therapy by having them perform some work. Sometimes the tasks were rather meaningless, and meant just to keep them occupied (like separating peas and beans; the next day they would be given the same bags again). Later, they were given more useful tasks to do, like helping in the kitchen or with the laundry, or repairing clothes. These initiatives can be seen as predecessors of current institutions for ‘sheltered employment’ where people are trained and prepared for open-competition jobs (see later).
Predecessors of corporate social responsibility and inclusion
Around the time of the Industrial Revolution, many workers were required in factories, and some factory owners became concerned about the living conditions of their employees. They understood that when people had no place to live and no food they performed poorly. Therefore, some progressive and socially committed entrepreneurs provided housing, and paid attention to the social conditions of their employees. In the Netherlands Jacques van Marken, the founder of the Royal Dutch Yeast and Spirit Factory in 1869, was the country’s first ‘social entrepreneur’. He introduced a pension scheme for his employees, from which some allowance could be paid when workers had an accident or were too sick or too old to work. In fact, this was a first step toward a ‘social security’ scheme. In early 1900 in the USA, Henry Ford introduced several social policy measures, like an eight-hour working day and a minimum wage of 5 dollars a day. Ford also decided that job applicants should not be rejected because of their physical condition, and nobody would be made redundant because of health conditions. In addition, Ford made an inventory of the work in his organisation. He noted that most jobs in his factory were easy to learn (learning took one day, or less than one week). Moreover, he also made a detailed account of what physical capacity would be required, and noted that various jobs could be fulfilled by employees missing a leg or arm. In total, Ford had 9563 what he called ‘sub-standard’ men employed. Although the jobs in Ford’s factory were not particularly adjusted to allow people with disabilities to be employed, it fitted the emerging notion that people with disabilities can contribute to society, and provide in their own living. Ford’s ideas refer to ‘corporate social responsibility’: ‘If an industrial institution is to fill its whole role, it ought to be possible for a cross-section of its employees to show about the same proportions as a cross-section of society in general’ (Ford, 1922, p. 75).
Employing people with disabilities
Barriers in application processes
Despite the fact that organizations are not allowed to discriminate against personal p. 158characteristics, people with disabilities often seem to be at a disadvantage during the application process. Employers appear to be reluctant to employ people with disabilities. Decisions during selection decisions are often biased by stereotypes. A frequently occurring bias regarding people with disabilities is that people see them as being limited, or hampered in their capacity to execute tasks and thus less productive, or frequently ill. This makes human resources managers often hesitant because they want to protect their organizations from the risks of absence, or production loss due to sickness absence. Also, the issue of accepting (or not) colleagues with a disability is affected by stereotypes. These factors explain why people with disabilities have more difficulties in finding a job than people without disabilities (Janssens et al., 2021).
Organizations need to make a fair assessment whether an applicant with a disability will be equally capable of performing in a particular role as a person without a disability, with or without particular accommodations. Due to fear of being rejected, people with invisible disabilities are hesitant to disclose their disability during the application process (Dewa et al., 2021). However, when accommodations are requested one needs to disclose the reason for the request. This means that at some point one needs to decide to disclose or not, and the timing of such a decision is important. It is evident that being dishonest about one’s disability, and how this might affect job performance, will affect the relationship with the employer. Thus, the issue of whether and when to ‘disclose’ is important when applying for a job. There are (online) tools available that may help weighing the advantages and disadvantages of such a decision.5
Instruments to overcome barriers
In most countries, professionals and agencies are available to help people with disabilities find a job. These agencies provide advice to employers regarding accommodations. Moreover, for people with mental health problems programmes exist to help professionals in assisting their clients to get to work. One such programme is Individual Placement and Support (IPS;6 Bond et al., 2020). Work has therapeutic aspects because it provides structure and the opportunity to meet other people. Therefore, the motto of IPS is ‘First place, then train.’ After finding a suitable workplace, the client should develop the required skills on the job. The IPS programme appears to be effective for people with severe mental health issues, and gradually researchers are now looking at whether IPS might also be useful for people with common mental disorders.
For people with common mental disorders, or those with other ‘issues’ that might prevent them from finding a job, a relatively new development is the approach of ‘open hiring’. This is a recruitment method where no questions are asked, no interviews held, and no résumés sought nor background checks conducted. A vacancy is announced and applicants who are interested and motivated in working with this organization can put their name on the vacancy list. Those first on the list are invited and given a chance to demonstrate their capacities. Employees are monitored and the organization may steer employees to certain jobs within the organization that might be better suited to their capacities and interests. Sometimes, opportunities are found in other organizations. At this stage, the focus is on the employee’s personal circumstances, and if needed the organization provides support and counselling. Employees will have a contract and payment from Day 1 onwards. The Greyston Bakery, a non-profit, social firm based in New York,7 introduced this approach a few years ago. The approach works well for people who have difficulties in finding a job due to their personal history (which can be either a mental health history, or criminal record, or lack of formal training or education). Stereotypes and selection biases in the hiring process do not play a role in this approach, which is mostly suitable for businesses with jobs where primarily manual work is required, like a bakery, agriculture or horticulture, or the cleaning industry. Organizations applying this approach do not have to spend money on advertisements and selection and recruitment, but focus on human resource management (i.e. training, learning and development, and employee support).
Most European governments have instruments in place to stimulate employers to hire people with disabilities. These instruments can have various forms, like setting a quota (indicating that a percentage of all employees should be people with a disability), or subsidizing the costs for the required accommodations or part of the salary of the disabled person (i.e. compensating for potenp. 159tial production loss). These instruments all encompass financial incentives or penalties. However, sometimes employers often find it more convenient to pay the penalty than employ someone with a disability. Employers often appear hesitant and reluctant, caused by the uncertainty regarding to what extent, and under which conditions, the person with a disability can perform and contribute to the economic goals of the organization as well as other employees (Janssens et al., 2021).
A governmental instrument applied in many countries is offering ‘sheltered employment’. Following the idea mentioned before, that having a regular structure of going to work and opportunities to meet other people is beneficial, specific organizations have been set up where people can work in a protected environment under special supervision. The work in those settings generally consists of highly routine and structured assembly-type work. The goal of sheltered employment is to provide training, experience and real-world skills, such as ‘personal hygiene’ and ‘being on time for work’, aimed at preparing people for a job in the open market. Nevertheless, the reality is that few people will move to jobs on the open market, because their remaining level of work capacity is not enough for open-market organizations. That means that the concept of sheltered employment is contested; there is always a debate over which factor is more important and gets priority: the fact that some goods and or services are produced, or the therapeutic and rehabilitating aspects. This also questions the employment status of people in sheltered employment, and what their rights are. Should the money they receive be considered as wages or social security benefits? One way or another, for many people with a disability, sheltered employment is the only way to employment and some kind of psychological fulfilment.
Work-related accommodations
Once a person with a disability has secured a job in an organization, reasonable workplace accommodations can be requested. Often tools (like hearing or visual aids) can facilitate and support people with disabilities in their work. However, when the disabilities are hidden (like brain injuries, intellectual disability or mental health issues) it is important to assess what kind of talents, and potential work capacity, that person has. Most tests in this domain try to assess deficiencies, rather than potential. In fact, a person applying for a job, or a counsellor (or job coach), should know this before searching for suitable jobs, keeping in mind that this might require adjustments, like flexible work schedules and modified job duties.
A technique for modifying job duties might be ‘job carving’ (Griffin et al., 2008). Job carving originated from the USA and focuses on ‘carving’ (simple) tasks out of an existing job vacancy to make it suitable for a candidate with disabilities. Although this provides a rather simple opportunity to create work for a particular person, there are some negative aspects associated with this approach. When tasks are left out of a job, these tasks will have to be reassigned to someone else, and thus might add to their workload. Another critique is that it is difficult to create sustainable solutions this way, because the task exchange may terminate when the persons concerned have left.
A related but different technique is ‘job crafting’. For people with disabilities ‘crafting’ their job means that they look for informal alternate ways of performing their tasks, which may imply the use of assistive technology.8 In fact, when people try to mould the boundaries of their job to their own preferences, this also implies that tasks will have to be exchanged between colleagues because ultimately the work needs to be done.
Evidently, job (re)design can also be a way to accommodate people with disabilities. Job design refers to the organization of work, which in essence is the agreement between people regarding how to divide the work amongst themselves. Since the wider context of work is also considered (the physical and social environment), we might also use the term ‘work (re)design’. The fact that job (or work) design can be considered as a way to provide accommodations for people with disabilities is relatively new. The Centre for Inclusive Organizations (CIAO)9 used job redesign as a starting point for its approach (called ‘Inclusive Redesign of Work’; see Mulders et al., 2022; Zijlstra et al., 2017). The ‘CIAO approach’ focuses on the work processes in an organization or department, rather than individual jobs, and tries to identify, together with the team of employees, what alternative ways of dividing the work there are. One could see this as ‘team-based job crafting’, where the goal is to find solutions p. 160that result in sets of tasks (jobs) that require sets of skills of different levels of complexity, especially including low-level skills. One of the underlying observations of this approach is that technological developments (i.e. office automation) and increased focus on efficiency have led to low-qualified staff being made redundant because their work is taken over by more highly qualified staff with the help of a computer. The result of this process is that many professionals now complain that they spend 30–40 per cent of their time on tasks for which they are overqualified (and too expensive), which may even feel like an ‘offence to their professionalism’. At the same time, organizations particularly value ‘social skills’ and are looking for employees that combine ‘high problem-solving skills’ with ‘high interpersonal skills’ (Fouarge, 2017). This has made it more difficult to enter the labour market for people who lack those skills. By rearranging tasks of various levels of complexity and required skills, jobs can be designed that require different levels of skills and competencies. This enables the design of jobs for people with a low level of qualifications, and can help to ensure that other staff can also be addressed at their level of competence and skills. In fact, this ‘task differentiation’ counteracts the trend of the last few decades in which jobs became more ‘homogeneous’ as the result of team-based work strategies. Job (re)design is seldom applied in this way: designing jobs with an eye to the capacities of future job incumbents.
One of the advantages of this approach that it is now possible to redesign jobs while using criteria for good-quality work. A decent and sustainable job implies that financial and legal, but also psychological and ergonomic, criteria are met. If work should have its positive effect on people, then it should be work of good quality, which means that at the very least a job should be ‘do-able’ for a longer period, without causing negative effects on health and well-being. It also requires that work should be meaningful, and have a reasonable level of variation, and options to communicate and interact with colleagues all in relation to the capacities of the job incumbent.
Organizational aspects
After jobs have been created for disabled people, the success of their employment is largely determined by contextual factors, such as organizational socialization and inclusion. Organizational socialization refers to the process that helps ‘newcomers’ to become ‘insiders’ in the organization. Socialization procedures should help new employees to obtain organizational information that allows them to adapt to organizational culture. People with disabilities may do their best to fit in, but whether they are accepted as a team member depends on the attitudes and behaviours displayed by co-workers. Co-workers’ behaviour is critical to workplace inclusion. Workplace inclusion means that disabled people are accepted, helped and treated as equal by co-workers. Organizational norms and policies play a central role in the inclusion process (Colella & Bruyère, 2011). Research has shown that employees who endorse norms related to inclusion are more inclined to display inclusive behaviour toward people with disabilities. Organizations can facilitate inclusion of people with disabilities, for example, through leadership that stimulates a disability-friendly environment and shared inclusive norms and values. The influence of inclusive climate at team level can overrule individual characteristics because employees will adhere to group norms (Nelissen et al., 2016).
A recent literature review (Jansen et al., 2021) looking into characteristics of organizations and the extent they support re-integration of people with chronic health issues and disabilities, and facilitate their employment, suggested that the evidence for an association between organizational characteristics and these aspects was inconsistent. However, there was weak evidence for a positive association between organizational culture and return to work. This suggests that when an organization has policies and practices in place that support return to work, it shows that it has awareness of the topic and is inclined to think about the possibilities. The role of the supervisor often appears to be the decisive factor. There was rather strong evidence of a positive association for accommodations to work schedules (reduced working hours, flexible working hours), and workplace accommodations like changes in furniture, and interventions that aim to provide workers with additional support and guidance associated with return to work. These factors are generally within the supervisors’ mandate.
p. 161Final remarks
Despite the fact that the United Nations has stated that everyone has the right to work, people with disabilities are less often employed. Various mechanisms in society, in the labour market and in organizations put them at a disadvantaged position. Apparently, laws and regulations that try to give them an equal opportunity are not sufficient. In the past, most initiatives to support people with disabilities focused on the individual needs of those people and tried to help them to overcome their shortcomings by providing training, support and other accommodations. This is necessary but not sufficient to overcome the structural barriers in the labour market. In fact, the demands of the labour market have increased, which actually means that the labour market has been moving away from what can be asked of people, resulting in a ‘labour market that has distanced itself from people’. The solution should therefore be found in organizations, and the needs that organizations may have in order to solve their human-resources-related issues—like having difficulties in finding staff, or high levels of sickness absenteeism in their organization due to mental health issues caused by work pressure and stress. This will require an open outlook from employers and a willingness to consider new approaches to the design of work, and awareness of the corporate responsibility.
References
Bond, G. R., Drake, R. E., & Becker, D. R. (2020). An update on Individual Placement and Support. World Psychiatry, 19(3), 390–391. https://doi:10.1002/wps.20784
Colella, A., & Bruyère, S. (2011). Disability and employment. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 473–504). American Psychological Association.
Dewa, C. S., Van Weeghel, J., Joosen, M. C., Gronholm, P. C., & Brouwers, E. P. (2021). Workers’ decisions to disclose a mental health issue to managers and the consequences. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, 631032.
Ford, H. (in collaboration with S. Crowther). (1922). My life and work. Doubleday, Page & Company.
Fouarge, D. (2017), Veranderingen in werk en vaardigheden. Maastricht University. (Inaugural lecture)
Griffin, C., Hammis, D., Geary, T., & Sullivan, M. (2008). Customized employment: Where we are; where we’re headed. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 28(3), 135–139.
ILO (International Labour Organization). (2020). Disability and work. https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/disability-and-work/lang—it/index.htm
Jansen, J., Van Ooijen, R., Koning, P. W. C., Boot, C. R. L., & Brouwer, S. (2021). The role of the employer in supporting work participation of workers with disabilities: A systematic literature review using an interdisciplinary approach. J Occup Rehabil, 31, 916–949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-021-09978-3
Janssens, K. M. E., Van Weeghel, J., Dewa, C., Henderson, C., Mathijssen, J. J. P., Joosen, M. C. W., & Brouwers, E. P. M. (2021). Line managers’ hiring intentions regarding people with mental health problems: A cross-sectional study on workplace stigma. Occupational Environmental Medicine, 78(8), 593–599. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2020-106955
Mulders, H., Van Ruitenbeek, G., Wagener, B., & Zijlstra, F. (2022). Towards more inclusive work organizations by redesigning work. Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences: Disability, Rehabilitation, and Inclusion, 3, 861561. https://doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2022.861561
Nelissen, Ph. T. J. H., Hülsheger, U. R., Van Ruitenbeek, G. M. C., & Zijlstra, F. R. H. (2016). How and when stereotypes relate to inclusive behavior toward people with disabilities. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(14), 1610–1625. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1072105
WHO (World Health Organization) and World Bank. (2011). World report on disability. https://www.who.int/teams/noncommunicable-diseases/sensory-functions-disability-and-rehabilitation/world-report-on-disability
Zijlstra, F. R. H., Van Ruitenbeek, G. M. C., Mulders, H. P. G., & Van Lierop, B. (2017). Designing work for inclusiveness. In A. Arenas, D. Di Marco, L. Munduate, & M. C. Euwema (Eds), Shaping inclusive workplaces through social dialogue (pp. 121–137). Springer.
-
Bond, G. R., Drake, R. E., & Becker, D. R. (2020). An update on Individual Placement and Support. World Psychiatry, 19(3), 390–391. https://doi:10.1002/wps.20784
-
Colella, A., & Bruyère, S. (2011). Disability and employment. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 473–504). American Psychological Association.
-
Dewa, C. S., Van Weeghel, J., Joosen, M. C., Gronholm, P. C., & Brouwers, E. P. (2021). Workers’ decisions to disclose a mental health issue to managers and the consequences. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, 631032.
-
Ford, H. (in collaboration with S. Crowther). (1922). My life and work. Doubleday, Page & Company.
-
Fouarge, D. (2017), Veranderingen in werk en vaardigheden. Maastricht University. (Inaugural lecture)
-
Griffin, C., Hammis, D., Geary, T., & Sullivan, M. (2008). Customized employment: Where we are; where we’re headed. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 28(3), 135–139.
-
ILO (International Labour Organization). (2020). Disability and work. https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/disability-and-work/lang—it/index.htm
-
Jansen, J., Van Ooijen, R., Koning, P. W. C., Boot, C. R. L., & Brouwer, S. (2021). The role of the employer in supporting work participation of workers with disabilities: A systematic literature review using an interdisciplinary approach. J Occup Rehabil, 31, 916–949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-021-09978-3
-
Janssens, K. M. E., Van Weeghel, J., Dewa, C., Henderson, C., Mathijssen, J. J. P., Joosen, M. C. W., & Brouwers, E. P. M. (2021). Line managers’ hiring intentions regarding people with mental health problems: A cross-sectional study on workplace stigma. Occupational Environmental Medicine, 78(8), 593–599. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2020-106955
-
Mulders, H., Van Ruitenbeek, G., Wagener, B., & Zijlstra, F. (2022). Towards more inclusive work organizations by redesigning work. Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences: Disability, Rehabilitation, and Inclusion, 3, 861561. https://doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2022.861561
-
Nelissen, Ph. T. J. H., Hülsheger, U. R., Van Ruitenbeek, G. M. C., & Zijlstra, F. R. H. (2016). How and when stereotypes relate to inclusive behavior toward people with disabilities. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(14), 1610–1625. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1072105
-
WHO (World Health Organization) and World Bank. (2011). World report on disability. https://www.who.int/teams/noncommunicable-diseases/sensory-functions-disability-and-rehabilitation/world-report-on-disability
-
Zijlstra, F. R. H., Van Ruitenbeek, G. M. C., Mulders, H. P. G., & Van Lierop, B. (2017). Designing work for inclusiveness. In A. Arenas, D. Di Marco, L. Munduate, & M. C. Euwema (Eds), Shaping inclusive workplaces through social dialogue (pp. 121–137). Springer.
