Disabilities | Free Full-Text | Traversing Disability: Employers’ Perspectives of Disability Inclusion
[ad_1]
1. Introduction
This paper is organised by first providing an outline regarding disability inclusion in employment, whereafter literature supporting how social capital could influence the employability of persons with disabilities is presented. This literature is followed by a description of the methods used for data generation. Findings emanating from critical conversations with two employers who have employed persons with disabilities from a cohort of trainees who received training between 2015 and 2017 are presented. These findings are then discussed in light of four themes which were generated deductively through using existing literature around the cognitive dimension of social capital theory. This deductive process provides insights into how employment and/or economic inclusion of persons with disabilities are viewed by employers and makes suggestions as to how these insights could be used to support the development of disability inclusive employment practices.
1.1. Disability Inclusion in Employment
In this arena, it is thus important to note the influence of social capital for making connections that would allow persons with disabilities to join networks of education and employment opportunities and ultimately improve inclusion by considering the importance of attributes such as shared understandings, values, attitude and beliefs. To promote these attributes, it is useful to look at how existing theory on social capital may be utilised to support the sustained employability of persons with disabilities.
1.2. Social Capital
This paper has viewed social capital through the lens of critical disability theory in order to understand the complexities of disability inclusive employment. It can be said that critical disability theory on its own provides context and space in which persons with disabilities’ voices are foregrounded. Social capital theory presents an understanding from which solutions to some challenges can be gleaned. In the sphere of employment, it is necessary that both the context and individualism of persons with disabilities are considered. Employing persons with disabilities inclusively requires that more human elements of a person and not only their knowledge or skills or infrastructure are considered.
2. Methods
The overarching research question for the study was “Whether and to what extent do the auxiliary skills development programmes build social capital in order to facilitate pathways to economic inclusion and/or employment for persons with disabilities?” Sub-questions were related to the value of auxiliary training opportunities in terms of skills acquisition opportunities for persons with disabilities; factors that occur during skills development opportunities that potentially build social capital and how skills development opportunities can be better used in advancing the economic inclusion and/or employment of persons with disabilities.
The challenge of doing research where the sample is small warranted an in-depth, albeit non-generalisable, case study design to better understand how policy and practice need to become more inclusive. Despite the small sample in this context, relevant information was still gathered, which will help employers strengthen their practices.
This study was approved by the Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Cape Town under ethical approval number HREC740/2016 and informed consent was received from each participant.
3. Findings
Employer’s perspectives related to categories identified from the cognitive dimension of social capital theory are presented. The themes presented relate to the employer’s understandings of values and obligations, attitudes and beliefs, shared norms, reciprocity, and shared missions and goals.
3.1. Theme 1: Equal but Different—Values and Obligations
One of the points highlighted through interviews with the employers was that there are apparently specific guidelines utilised when appointing persons with disabilities to positions. A phrase such as “It’s to ensure that we appoint accordingly” (HR1) was utilised repeatedly during the interaction with the government department officials and points directly to the notion of having an obligation to appoint persons with disabilities. Upon probing regarding what an appropriate appointment was, responses were vague and unclear. Internal organisational policies were mentioned, but the content and location of these policies were vague. This dichotomy is quite telling in that while there is an obligation to “appoint accordingly”, the value of “appointing accordingly” is not understood.
On further probing into this notion of “appointing accordingly”, one employer responded that: “Our advert says ‘disability’ or ‘disadvantaged’. People from disadvantaged background will be given preference” (HR2). This response suggests that disability and the notion of being disadvantaged are either similar or interchangeable. It also suggests that if one is disabled, one is also from a disadvantaged background. Another dichotomy arises in that despite being given preference, persons with disabilities are also “measured with the same yardstick” as their able-bodied counterparts. There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding the difference between persons with disabilities being treated equally as opposed to being treated equitably. This sentiment is further evidenced by a comment from one of the employers who explained that “if a disabled person come for the interviews, they—he had the same questions than the normal persons … but they are treated exactly the same. And I think they wanted that. People with disability, they don’t want to be treated differently. They want to be treated the same than I am treated” (HR2). Additionally, participants from the government department mentioned that all prospective employees need the same form or level of qualification. In this context, employers assume that they know what applicants with disabilities want. However, they continue to use the same measuring tool for every applicant. This too indicates the obligation that employers have in terms of equitable treatment of applicants, which is most likely based on legislative mandates. Employers require the same level of qualification for all applicants despite acknowledging that persons with disabilities are disadvantaged and categorised when applying for employment. Through further discussion, evidence of an apportionment system was revealed when HR1 indicated that “basically, whether its disabled people, whether of race, we’ve got a rate—what do you call that programme? Target [statistics]. It’s a target that we need to reach. But we do not specifically advertise the post”.
It is construed that while there is an obligation to meet quotas in terms of equity categories, this practice is not always transparent, nor is it value-based. There seems to be an understanding that if one meets the qualification requirements and the equity requirements, then the job is almost guaranteed. This assumption indicates a murky understanding of value versus obligation. Advantaging a person with a disability may be interpreted as obligatory or it may be interpreted that the employer values the contribution of a person with a disability in the workplace. This ambiguity is further evidenced by a telling response illustrating obligation: “usually, even if you [potential employee] go to an interview and you find a disabled person with you in the interview, you know already you are disadvantaged to get that post” (HR1).
Even before an interview, a screening process or job-matching process occurs, the outward appearance of equity and qualification seems to point to a better chance of obtaining employment. The resounding sentiment around how persons with disabilities experience obtaining employment is captured by one participant: “basically it’s [employing people with disabilities] because we need to reach the target, and in my opinion, your disability will speak for yourself” (HR2).
An indication of obligations to meet legislative mandates is reflected in levels of education that seem to play a large role in terms of obtaining employment. When looking through the lens of obligations and values, employers appear to be particularly aware of the challenges that potential employees face and accede that: “ …they go to school [basic education] but their level of education is more often than not, very low…and not enough to find employment afterwards” (E2). It appears that with respect to employability, obligatory factors trump value-based decisions as evidenced by the response from a participant who explained that “For the internship, you must have your N5. So, it’s a contract for 12 months. It’s no guarantee that he’ll be placed. The contract says they are not obliged to appoint you after the training” (HR1).
Upon reflecting on the types of employment available to persons who have acquired disabilities, the employer at the DPO presented an alternate understanding regarding the employability of persons with disabilities. He intimated that: “people may be employed [at the time of acquiring their disability] but very often the demographic of the people that get injured, would have been a builder, you know a bricklayer, a labourer, a security guard, it’s not a career that can continue [post injury]…” (E2). The reference to the demographic of people who get injured suggests that persons with disabilities have lower levels of education to start with and had previously developed skills, predominantly in manual labour, that enabled them to find work. If they are not able to use their existing skills, it is implied their level of education also does not allow them to pursue other skills development opportunities and possibly then it is not obligatory to employ them, and career opportunities are even more restricted.
3.2. Theme 2: Building Up—Attitudes and Beliefs
A sentiment shared by both employers in this study is that of improving the quality of life of persons with disabilities and suggests that “…the best way of improving a person with disabilities life, the quality of it, is by improving their financial situation, because everything costs money. It’s about economic empowerment. You invest in them as people as much as investing in skills development. Just build up the person” (E2).
What is absent is how this investment in the “person” is understood or how it will be undertaken. One participant expressed: “I will say that the disabled people…they must also get a chance in life. Because to disadvantage these people is not correct. They can make a difference in the [organisation] in the office bound positions” (HR2). This statement resembles a double-edged sword, in that while employers understand the importance of employing and empowering persons with disabilities, it is done with provisos, such as meeting the obligatory organisation mandates that are in place or only working within certain occupations. This attitude is corroborated by a participant who opined that: “The job itself limits them. Certain disabilities cannot be accommodated. You can’t have a blind man in ‘tronk’ [Afrikaans for working in a jail]” (HR2). This response alludes to an attitude towards disability, which believes that some occupations or jobs are outside of the capabilities of persons with disabilities. No reference to reasonable accommodation or task adjustments were made. It was interesting to note that in the context of the government department that participated in this study, the appointment to positions took place under separate legislative regulations. The difference in regulations guiding the appointment of employees indicates that assumptions and beliefs about disability and function, influence how, when, and if persons with disabilities obtain employment. Furthermore, depending on which regulatory body approves the appointment, persons with disabilities are afforded employment opportunities in selected and sometimes restricted job functions only as suggested by HR3: “If they are employed under [government departments’ act], then they will be in control rooms” (HR3).
The discussion around policies and procedures relating to the employment of persons with disabilities revealed the deep-rooted beliefs of those tasked with recruitment and appointment. HR2 indicated that: “they [persons with disabilities] can make a difference in the office bound positions. You know, administrative-wise. There’s nothing wrong with your brain whatsoever or your hands. You can sit at the computer and do good; you can be a good administrator” (HR2).
It is apparent that disabilities are categorised internally within the organisation and that certain disabilities preclude one from engaging in certain job tasks. The researcher was interested to see if this belief extended beyond the participants’ understanding of physical disability and posed the question: “What other kinds of disabilities do people have who are employed here? Psychiatric conditions, depression?” The response received was: “When it comes to depression, usually we don’t categorise it as a disability. It’s not openly talked about” (HR1). This response speaks to how organisational attitudes and beliefs influence the employment experience of persons with disabilities. If one’s disability is not categorised or understood, it is essentially not recognised, and stigma and discrimination leading to workplace exclusion are promulgated. The researcher was directed to the organisation’s website to view the policies relating to disability. However, only policies related to service users were found as opposed to policies related to employees with disabilities. This finding has highlighted the continuing influence of the attitude of others on the development of persons with disabilities. The contention between personal beliefs and regulatory mandates remains, as employers attempt to implement disability inclusive practices.
3.3. Theme 3: Disjuncture; Disconnection and Deviation—Shared Norms and Reciprocity
Further probing around disability-specific policies or how decisions are made or how disability is understood in the organisation revealed that: “The thing is there is an equity [policy], but the person who is in charge is on temporary incapacity leave, so that policy is not available” (HR1). This admission provides an indication that disability inclusion is not necessarily ingrained into general institutional operations and organisational norms within the organisation in question. In this instance, there is one individual who holds knowledge and decision-making power.
Participants were questioned about the training received by some of their employees with disabilities due to an interest in the reasons why certain individuals were afforded the opportunity to do the auxiliary ICT training offered by the DPO in this study. The response to this enquiry was: “Remember every year there’s a skills gap identified in your performance management [review]” (HR1). This response was interesting in two ways. The fact that persons with disabilities are “performance managed” and upskilled within this organisation is positive and bodes well in terms of career progression. However, there is also a sense that employees with disabilities were sent to a training provider that was “suitable” for them. The researcher questioned why that particular training programme was chosen (as opposed to the myriad of other accredited ICT programmes available) and no response was offered. Without shared understandings, disconnection and disjuncture between policy and policy implementation become apparent and the persons responsible for implementing these mandates may find navigating disability inclusive employment practices challenging.
3.4. Theme 4: Silence—Shared Goals and Missions
4. Discussion
The findings of this paper have highlighted that integral elements of social capital are absent or limited in the employment of persons with disabilities. An obligation to implement policy has meant that shared goals and missions between employers and their employees with disabilities are unexplored, discriminatory attitudes still exist in employment processes, and value is not ascribed to the employment of persons with disabilities.
Of significance are the legislative frameworks that govern, support, and contextualise the employment of persons with disabilities. These policies and procedures, while instituted to increase the accessibility of the labour market, are open to interpretation and might require consideration of the influence that social capital has on employing persons with disabilities. These mandates often influence organisational attitudes and emphasise the obligations associated with employing persons with disabilities, without recognising the differences in practices required when employing persons with disabilities. While legislative frameworks relating to the obligations associated with the employment of persons with disabilities are in place and have filtered down to employers from policy makers, institutionalised and deeply sedimented beliefs and practices of what persons with disabilities can do or cannot do, still influence whether or not persons with disabilities obtain employment. A deeper understanding of social capital might provide insight into policy effectiveness, the unintended effects of policy, as well as the equity goals that are to be achieved by emphasising the value gained by employing persons with disabilities. These insights may deter employers from viewing potential employees as only disabled and thus defined by their impairments.
Should employers understand the social networks, the vocational themes and the importance of sharing knowledge, norms, and goals with persons with disabilities, they can then provide valuable knowledge about work, job tasks, skills needed, ideas, business leads, and insight into where the individual’s skills would be a good fit, in terms of both skill and value. This approach would then eliminate the focus on the inability of the job seeker with a disability and rather focus on matching existing skills. A shift in focus from impairment to a focus on value has the potential to improve labour market inclusivity.
5. Conclusions
The employment of persons with disabilities is complex. Beyond legislation and process, there are many factors that require consideration when viewing the employment of persons with disabilities through the lens of social capital theory. Consideration of the structural and relational dimensions of social capital is commonplace and often unconsciously inherent in employment planning for persons with disabilities. What is absent is a sense of mutual and shared understanding between employers and employees with disabilities.
There is currently no best practice which incorporates the use of social capital, which would humanize the workplace. This absence of valuing the human element decreases the possibility of developing networks that would facilitate increased economic inclusion for persons with disabilities. To further understand and promote the employment of persons with disabilities, employers require an understanding of how to increase social capital in all of the factors which influence the role of being a worker. This study focused on how social capital could be better considered in the employment of persons with disabilities and how its use could be supportive and mutually beneficial.
To this end, persons with disabilities need to acknowledge and expand their own social capital. Furthermore, training providers need to support the expansion of networks and capital through their engagements with trainees. Employers are encouraged to look beyond the disability so that employment goals are shared and re-enforced by understanding and possibly re-evaluating their views on their organisation’s obligations, norms, values and mission, and goals as they pertain to the economic inclusion of persons with disabilities.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, A.E., methodology, A.E.; formal analysis A.E., T.L. and H.K.; writing—original draft preparation, A.E.; writing—review and editing, A.E., T.L., H.K.; supervision, T.L., H.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received funding from The National Research Foundation, Faculty of Health Sciences University Research Committee, UCT and the UCT Division of Occupational Therapy.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of the University of Cape Town under ethical approval number HREC740/2016 for studies involving humans.
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Commission for Employment Equity. 20th Commission for Employment Equity Annual Report 2019–2020; Department of Employment and Labour Statistics South Africa: Pretoria, South Africa, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Bredgaard, T.; Salado-Rasmussen, J. Attitudes and behaviour of employers to recruiting persons with disabilities. Alter 2020, 15, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Republic of South Africa. Skills Development Act No.97. 1998. Available online: https://www.gov.za/documents/skills-development-act (accessed on 23 March 2019).
- South African Human Rights Commission. Disability Toolkit for the Private Sector; South African Human Rights Commission: Braamfontein, South Africa, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Engelbrecht, M.; Shaw, L.; Van Niekerk, L. A literature review on work transitioning of youth with disabilities into competitive employment. Afr. J. Disabil. 2017, 6, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gouvier, W.D.; Sytsma-Jordan, S.; Mayville, S. Patterns of discrimination in hiring job applicants with disabilities: The role of disability type, job complexity, and public contact. Rehabil. Psychol. 2003, 48, 175–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartram, T.; Cavanagh, J. Re-thinking vocational education and training: Creating opportunities for workers with disability in open employment. J. Vocat. Educ. Train. 2019, 71, 339–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- International Labour Organisation Report. International Labour Organisation; General Report; Papers of the Governing Body: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Escorpizo, R.; Miller, W.C.; Trenaman, L.M.; Smith, E.M. Work and Employment Following Spinal Cord Injury. 2014. Available online: https://scireproject.com/wp-content/uploads/work_and_employment-1.pdf (accessed on 17 October 2015).
- General Assembly. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. GA Res, 61, 106. 2006. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_61_106.pdf (accessed on 17 March 2015).
- Forms of Work and Labour Force Statistics Conceptual Frameworks. Available online: https://ilostat.ilo.org/resources/concepts-and-definitions/forms-of-work/ (accessed on 30 April 2022).
- Republic of South Africa. Employment Equity Act 5/1998: Code of Good Practice. Key Aspects of Employment of People with Disabilities. Government Gazette, 446 (23702). Available online: https://www.gov.za/documents/employment-equity-act-code-good-practice-employment-persons-disabilities-9-nov-2015-0000 (accessed on 18 January 2022).
- Social Assistance Regulation Act. 2005. Available online: http://www.info.gov.za/view/ (accessed on 21 January 2022).
- Republic of South Africa. Skills Development Act No.13. 2004. Available online: https://www.gov.za/documents/social-assistance-act#:~:text=The%20Social%20Assistance%20Act%2013,inspectorate%20for%20social%20assistance%3B%20 (accessed on 20 January 2022).
- Republic of South Africa. The Skills Development Levies Act; Government Printer: Pretoria, South Africa, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Dube, A.K. The Role and Effectiveness of Disability Legislation in South Africa. 2005. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08c5ce5274a27b2001155/PolicyProject_legislation_sa.pdf (accessed on 19 January 2022).
- Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The Well-Being of Nations: The Role of Human and Social Capital; OECD: Paris, France, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Fujimoto, Y.; Rentschler, R.; Le, H.; Edwards, D.; Hartel, C. Lessons learned from community organisations: Inclusion of People with Disabilities and Others. Br. J. Manag. 2014, 25, 518–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnes, C.; Mercer, G. Disability, work, and welfare. Work. Employ. Soc. 2005, 19, 527–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gotto, G.S.; Calkins, C.F.; Jackson, L.; Walker, H.; Beckmann, C. Accessing Social Capital: Implications for Persons with Disabilities; A National Gateway to Self-Determination Project: Kansas City, MO, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Transforming Disability into Ability; OECD: Paris, France, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Putnam, R. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community; Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Chenoweth, L.; Stehlik, D. Implications of Social Capital for the Inclusion of Persons with disabilities and Families in Community Life. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 2004, 8, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zinnbauer, D. What Can Social Capital and ICT Do for Inclusion; Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. European Commission Joint Research Centre: Seville, Spain, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Hosking, J. Critical Disability Theory. A Paper Presented at the 4th Biennial Disability Studies Conference at Lancaster University, UK, 2–4 September 2008. Available online: http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/events/disabilityconference_archive/2008/papers/hosking2008.pdf (accessed on 17 April 2019).
- Network for Business Sustainability South Africa. Measuring and Valuing Social Capital: A Guide for Executives. Network for Business Sustainability South Africa. 2014. Available online: www.nbs.net/knowledge (accessed on 23 February 2019).
- Chow, W.S.; Chan, L.S. Social network, social trust and shared goals in organizational knowledge sharing. Inf. Manag. 2008, 45, 458–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McNeil, J.F., III. Overcoming Negative Employer Attitudes: Exploring the Lived Experiences of Employees with Visual Impairments. Ph.D. Thesis, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Frank, J.; Bellini, J. Barriers to the accommodation request process of the Americans with Disabilities Act. J. Rehabil. 2005, 71, 28–39. [Google Scholar]
- Manzoor, M.; Vimarlund, V. Digital technologies for social inclusion of individuals with disabilities. Heal. Technol. 2018, 8, 377–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Harrison, H.; Birks, M.; Franklin, R.; Mills, J. Case Study Research: Foundations and Methodological Orientations. Forum Qual. Soc. Res. 2017, 18, 19. [Google Scholar]
- Wood, S. What is Critical?: An Analysis of Small Group Critical Conversations with African American Second Grade Males. Ph.D. Thesis, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Silvers, P.; Shorey, M.; Crafton, L. Critical literacy in a primary multiliteracies classroom: The Hurricane Group. J. Early Child. Lit. 2010, 10, 379–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gale, N.K.; Heath, G.; Cameron, E.; Rashid, S.; Redwood, S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res. Methodol. 2013, 13, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Newman, A. Enabling the Disabled—Complying with the BBBEE Act. De Rebus: Law Society of South Africa. 2013. Available online: http://www.derebus.org.za/enabling-disabled-complying-bbbee-act/ (accessed on 23 February 2019).
- Claridge, T. Social Capital and Natural Resource Management. 2004. Available online: https://www.socialcapitalresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Social-Capital-and-NRM.pdf (accessed on 19 May 2020).
- Bonaccio, S.; Connelly, C.; Gellatly, I.; Jetha, A.; Martin Ginis, K. The Participation of Persons with disabilities in the Workplace Across the Employment Cycle: Employer Concerns and Research Evidence. J. Bus. Psychol. 2019, 35, 135–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Botha, M.; Fischer Mogenson, K.; Ebrahim, A.; Brand, D. In search of a landing place for persons with disabilities: A critique of South Africa’s skills development programme; Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town: Cape Town, South Africa, 2022; under review. [Google Scholar]
- Ariefdien, R. Learnerships: Enabling Inclusion for Persons with Disabilities into Employment. In Monitoring Disability Inclusion and Social Change; Disability Innovations Africa: Cape Town, South Africa, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Putnam, R.; Wasserman, D.; Blustein, J.; Asch, A. Disability and Justice. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Zalta, E.N., Ed.; 2019. Available online: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/disability-justice (accessed on 13 December 2018).
- Englebrecht, M.; Lorenzo, T. Exploring the tensions of sustaining economic empowerment of persons with disabilities through open labour market employment in the Cape Metropol. South Afr. J. Occup. Ther. 2010, 40, 8–11. [Google Scholar]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
[ad_2]