Employer Practices for Integrating People With Disabilities Into the Workplace: A Scoping Review

Procedure

Major Themes Related to Integrating PWDs Into the Workplace

Our synthesis of the literature resulted in the following three themes: (a) policy and allegation, (b) internal and external partnership, and (c) organizational top-down management diversity support (see Table 2). These three major themes reveal current demand-side practices for integrating PWD in the workplace. Findings inform vocational rehabilitation professionals and employers’ existing workplace inclusion practices and future direction.

Policy and Allegation

We identified nine articles that discussed the effect of legislation, allegation, and workplace policy related to workplace integration (Chan et al., 2005; Cockburn et al., 2006; Feuerstein et al., 2017; Kuznetsova et al., 2017; Lowman et al., 2005; McNeil, 2015; Russinova et al., 2011; Van Wieren, 2006). The policy can impact every aspect of workplace inclusion, such as hiring, promotion, retention, compensation and benefits, performance evaluation, training, job modification, reasonable accommodation, and job harassment (Chan et al., 2005; Feuerstein et al., 2017; Lowman et al., 2005; McNeil, 2015). Although policies make a difference, Cockburn et al. (2006) and Kuznetsova et al. (2017) argued that policy needs to be re-evaluated and updated to include more educational and integrating language. Van Wieren (2006) and Russinova et al. (2011) advocated for the empowerment of PWD and the need for policies to protect workers with disabilities to exercise their rights. Feuerstein et al. (2017) compared ADA Title I discrimination allegations made by individuals with cancer prior to and after the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA, 2008). They found allegations related to terms of employment (e.g., promotions and wages) were more likely to be filed and found to have merit after implementing the ADAAA. Allegations related to workplace relations (e.g., harassment, discipline, and discharge) were also more likely to be filed post-ADAAA, although the merit of this type of allegation remained stable.

Allegation varied by company size, industry, geographical location, and individual and disability characteristics (Chan et al., 2005; Lowman et al., 2005; McNeil, 2015). Businesses that are small (i.e., 15–100 employees); in the southern region of the USA; and product, retail, and service industries reported more allegations. Product industries were more likely to have job retention discrimination charges, while service industries were more likely to have job acquisition charges (McNeil, 2015). Chan et al. (2005) analyzed 35,763 allegations with EEOC under the employment provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. They compared disability characteristics by using Corrigan et al.’ (1988) disability categories (a) uncontrollable but stable impairments (e.g., visual impairment, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and spinal cord injuries) and (b) controllable but unstable impairments (e.g., depression, schizophrenia, alcohol and substance use, and HIV/AIDS). Chan et al. (2005) found that individuals with controllable but unstable impairments perceived workplace discrimination at higher levels, whereas individuals with uncontrollable but stable impairments reported experiencing actual discrimination (as measured by the EEOC merit Resolutions). Balser (2000) also supported that individual perceptions contributed to the discrimination experience. For example, individuals with more education were less likely to believe they had experienced discrimination. Furthermore, racial minorities were less likely to perceive discrimination based on their disability than White individuals. Ren et al. (2008) found a greater negative bias on performance expectations and hiring decisions for individuals with mental disabilities than for those with physical disabilities. Gender was found to be a weak moderator; males with disabilities received more negative hiring decisions than females with disabilities.

Overall, the research revealed that policy alone lacks a necessary proactive element. For example, Cockburn et al. (2006) indicated that policy does not address attitudinal barriers, and policy alone can be a source of implicit and explicit stigma resulting from a lack of employer/employee education surrounding disability. Implementing a policy without encouraging disability awareness education in the workplace is not enough to be effective. In addition, research indicated that workers with disabilities were more likely to be placed in jobs that isolated them from the rest of the team and less likely to be involved in workplace interactions (Chan et al., 2005; Russinova et al., 2011; Van Wieren, 2006). Suggesting a more interactive, comprehensive, and systematic framework can support employer and demand-side practices toward integrating PWDs into the workplace (Cockburn et al., 2006; Feuerstein et al., 2017; Kuznetsova et al., 2017; Lowman et al., 2005; McNeil, 2015; Russinova et al., 2011; Van Wieren, 2006).

Internal and External Partnership

In addition to the policy and allegation, studies revealed that engaging employment specialists or rehabilitation personnel facilitated workplace integration, which underscores the importance of internal and external partnerships in integrating PWDs into the workplace (Akabas & Gates, 2009; Kulkarni et al., 2016; McFarlane, 1998; Wehman, 2003). Wehman (2003) stressed multiple factors for a successful workplace integration, as inclusion is fluid as work conditions change. Wehman (2003) posits that due to the complex and dynamic nature of inclusive practices, systematic procedures for assessment of integration opportunities in the workplace, workers, and the job setting are needed if maximum integration is to be achieved and maintained. In accordance with Wehman (2003), McFarlane (1998) emphasized the role of support and facilitation by rehabilitation personnel as structures for inclusion. Given that disabilities are often lifetime experiences, comprehensive personnel development must be attentive to the constituencies and the environment. McFarlane (1998) stressed that formal education, professional certification, continuing education, and self-directed learning provided an effective framework for positive employment outcomes and disability policy. Furthermore, Wehman (2003) illustrated concrete workplace integration strategies for employment specialists. In particular, prior to the job placement, employment specialists conducted comprehensive job analysis and bridged workplace elements with qualified employees (i.e., work environment, social atmosphere, co-worker activities, individual preferences, personal choice, and natural support availability). Workplace integration strategies included making job site modifications, providing social skills instruction, advocating on behalf of the employee, and teaching the employee the “social culture” of the job site.

Kulkarni et al. (2016) investigated the workplace inclusion of multinationals (Indian and German) and found employers that had positive integration results followed three guiding principles: (a) harnessing diversity, especially regarding disability as a form of diversity, (b) encouraging employers to engage multi-stakeholder interests internally (internal stakeholders across functions and hierarchy in inclusionary efforts), and (c) integrating external ecosystems including external expertise from various professional backgrounds in various facets of employment to aid inclusion efforts. Their findings also showed that job flexibility provisions and integration programs, two interdependent and mutually constitutive programs, prolonged job retention. In addition, Kulkarni et al. (2016) indicated that disability-inclusion principles may be universal, but their operationalization is region specific. Global organizations must be aware of these differences to design effective inclusion practices. Their study also illustrated the integration processes, including conducting sensitization training for all stakeholders, conducting accessibility audits, offering mentoring programs, and conducting periodic stakeholder round tables for each employee with a disability. Furthermore, Akabas and Gates (2009) suggested that union representatives can partner with employment specialists as well as internal stakeholders and external networks to support inclusion efforts.

Organizational Top-Down Management Diversity Support

We identified five main articles that contributed to the organizational top-down management diversity support strategies (Balser, 2000; Hanley, 2014; Novak et al., 2011; Ochocks et al., 1994; Ren et al., 2008). In this process, we identified that articles across themes also contributed to part of the organizational top-down management diversity support. Characteristics of successful organizational top-down management styles included openness to innovation from the top and/or senior personnel, organizational values that support supervisors, supervisors that were responsive to workers’ needs, and strong communication between employers and employees (Chan et al., 2005; McNeil; 2015; Ochocka et al., 1994; Wehman, 2003). The literature suggested systematic operations in the workplace that contribute to the integration of PWD, included regular diversity-related education and learning opportunities, concrete and clear workplace modification and accommodation practices, and comprehensive grievance procedures, as well as individualized natural supports with an aim to endorse individual differences into the workplace (Balser, 2000; Chan et al., 2005; Hanley, 2014; McNeil; 2015; Novak et al., 2011; Ochocks et al., 1994; Ren et al., 2008; Wehman, 2003).

Organizational top-down management diversity support can impact the workplace culture and facilitate positive interpersonal dynamics. For example, Novak et al. (2011) explored the work relationship structure with colleagues through the lens of intergroup contact theory. Findings indicated that when the employer and supervisor supported equality and workplace inclusion, co-workers were more accepting of colleagues with disabilities. Additionally, they were more inclined to work with colleagues with disabilities to accomplish common work goals if they had an opportunity to get to know the individual. A friendly workplace fostered positive relationships among workers, which led to independence, productivity, and feelings of happiness and support (Chan et al., 2005; Ochocka et al., 1994; Wehman, 2003). Novak et al. (2011) suggested the workplace should be structured in a way that facilities contact throughout all levels of the organization and encourages opportunities for workers with and without disabilities to take breaks at the same time. Similarly, Wehman (2003) suggested an indicator of integration of PWD is when their work areas are in proximity to other employees without disabilities and afford a similar work experience. In addition, the work procedures and processes can be designed to maximize the level of interactions and activities of co-workers and opportunities for social inclusion as opposed to alienation of employees with disabilities (Wehman, 2003). Collectively, situations that promote equal-status contact or interactions between members of two varying social groups were found to also improve intergroup attitudes and culture in the workplace (Novak et al., 2011).

Other sources suggested developing company-appropriate systems and strategies for employees to request workplace modification and accommodations (Akabas & Gates, 2009; Novak et al., 2011). The value of workplace modifications and accommodations has been well-documented. Researchers have found that workplace modifications and accommodations for employees can lead to improved (a) job satisfaction, (b) overall productivity, (c) retention of the employee, (d) enhanced interactions with co-workers, (e) elevated overall company morale, (f) increased accommodated employee’s attendance, and (g) a reduction in spending associated with training new hires (Hartnett et al., 2011; Nevala et al., 2015; Schur et al., 2014; Solovieva et al., 2011). In addition, Balser (2000) indicated that having grievance procedures provided to employees and organizations with a process for dealing with conflict in employment relations may foster integration. Although 89% of the organizations in the employer sample had an established grievance procedure, employees indicated that they used the procedure infrequently, suggesting the grievance procedure may play more of a symbolic role in the organization, resulting in increased allegations. Another salient diversity management strategy identified in the literature was to have an allegation tracking system in place (Feuerstein et al., 2017; Lowman et al., 2005; McNeil, 2015; Van Wieren et al., 2012).

Lastly, studies promoted positively oriented collegial interaction and workplace integration. Natural supports, such as diversity education and learning opportunities, job shadowing, supervision, and relationship supports from co-workers, demonstrated a more positive workplace integration (Akabas & Gates, 2009; Kulkarni et al., 2016; Novak et al., 2011; Wehman, 2003). Natural supports were found to be useful and were identified as one of the most common integration efforts in the workplace for PWDs across studies, especially when the natural supports were individualized and available to all employees (Akabas & Gates, 2009; Balser, 2000; Hanley, 2014; Kulkarni et al., 2016; McFarlane, 1998; Novak et al., 2011; Ochocks et al., 1994; Ren et al., 2008; Wehman, 2003).

Implications

An inclusive workplace for employees has been found to have higher job satisfaction, increased overall productivity, enhanced interaction among employees, elevated overall company morale, and improved employee attendance. This scoping review provided important information for both rehabilitation professionals and employers to work together to promote the integration of PWD in the workplace. We found that policy and allegation, internal and external partnerships, and organizational top-down management diversity support is the major employer practice for workplace inclusion. Recent research found that successful companies that establish an enterprise-wide accommodations budget line item to pay for applicant and employee accommodations (Chan et al., 2020). They also found that successful businesses have in-house disability management specialists who are knowledgeable and have the expertise to manage issues related to the ADA and job accommodations (Chan et al., 2020). Therefore, establishing a clear budget line for an enterprise-side accommodation and having those specialists are effective ways to enhance inclusive workplace culture. In addition, it is also important that vocational rehabilitation professionals establish relationships with local and national companies to support issues related to workplace accommodations and the ADA, which leads to developing inclusive workplaces. Especially since research has supported the importance of the top-down approach to change workplace culture and disability inclusion climate and to foster a welcoming climate for PWDs (Chan et al., 2010, 2020), it is vital for rehabilitation professionals to redouble their efforts to connect and cooperate with executive level employees to improve the workplace climate.

Iwanaga et al. (2021) reported that disability inclusion training is related to the inclusion of PWDs in the workplace. The leadership of successful companies also underscored the importance of disability inclusion training for their managers and staff; and provided disability inclusion training for employees at all levels of the organization to demystify misperceptions about PWD and their health conditions, job performance, and social functioning. Based on our findings, to be effective, the disability inclusion training must focus on sharing knowledge and experience of workplace adjustment and accommodation, emphasizing the importance of natural support and workplace culture, sharing examples of successful companies’ workplace supports, and providing knowledge of legislation related to the employment of PWDs.

Employer’s attitudes toward disabilities should be recognized in order to enhance the inclusion of PWD; rehabilitation professionals can focus on highlighting assets and strengths of PWD, assisting employers in generating novel ideas to carry out actions, and facilitating PWD in developing their skills (Nota et al., 2014). Rehabilitation professionals can promote community outreach and companies’ awareness of vocational rehabilitation services by providing information and consultation on accommodation, interviewing, and disability etiquette (Erickson et al., 2014). Promoting success stories of employees with disabilities, understanding employees with disabilities’ accommodation needs and paths to accomplish work tasks, and providing presentations regarding stereotypes and myths have been shown to be effective in increasing employer’s awareness of disability issues (Kaye et al., 2011). Rehabilitation professionals can also enhance PWDs’ workplace integration experiences by encouraging employees with disabilities to participate in the social network of the workplace and facilitating interactions among employees with and without disabilities (Novak et al., 2011; Wehman, 2003).

Limitations

Several limitations should be considered in this scoping review. First, no randomized control trials or quasi-experimental studies were included in the remaining 19 studies. In addition, there were only one meta-analysis and two literature reviews, and there was limited theory-driven research in this review. Moreover, we did not assess the quality of the literature included in the review. Although we followed the scoping review methodology, it became difficult to detect gaps where the existing research was of poor quality. Therefore, it would be beneficial if future research applied a more rigorous methodology to better understand employer practices in integrating and assisting PWDs in the workplace. Second, several disabilities (e.g., visual impairment, mental illness, and ASD) were discussed more than other disability types, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Workplace inclusion practices and strategies must be different based on disability types. For example, it has been found that employers have varying degrees of preference for different types of disability groups, and they tend to favor people with physical disabilities over people with cognitive and mental health disabilities (Huskin et al., 2018; Rudstam et al., 2012). Effective accommodations are also different based on disability types (JAN, 2020). For instance, the common accommodations for people with mental health impairment are flexible schedules, providing rest areas, or providing a support person, while people with blindness may need more technical supports such as providing braille labelers or screen readers. In the future, it is also recommended to include studies using other research methods or other search terms if the research topics under study are very broad and have not been empirically and systematically examined sufficiently. Additionally, although we identified several articles from human resources management, and administration journals, it is recommended to expand the focus on management and business-related journals to capture sufficient demand-side practices.