Article

Employers’ attitudes on hiring workers with intellectual disabilities in small and medium enterprises: An Italian research

Journal of Intellectual Disabilities 2015, Vol. 19(4) 381–392 ª The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1744629515580883 jid.sagepub.com

Emanuela Zappella University of Bergamo, Italy Date accepted: 27 February 2015

Abstract Employers play a significant role in the process of hiring workers with intellectual disability. Through an in-depth interview, this research aims to investigate the attitudes of 30 representatives of small and medium-sized Italian companies involved in a process of recruitment. The data were analyzed using a phenomenological approach. The results show that attitudes toward the disabled employee are influenced by three areas, namely, personal characteristics of employers, selection process, and concerns and opinions of employers. Keywords employers attitudes, workers with intellectual disability, hiring process, employment

Introduction Employers play a crucial role in ensuring that disabled workers have the possibility of finding and maintaining employment in the labor market (Barnes and Mercer, 2005; Vornholt et al., 2013). Often, however, employers have conflicting opinions on disability and about the potential candidates themselves, particularly for candidates with intellectual disability who have a poor rate of employment (Luecking, 2004; Shier et al., 2009). In fact, the low employment rate of people

Corresponding author: Emanuela Zappella, Department of Human Science, University of Bergamo, Via Salvecchio, 19, 24129 Bergamo BG, Italy. Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from jid.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on November 15, 2015

382

Journal of Intellectual Disabilities 19(4)

with intellectual disabilities may be partially attributed to employers’ attitudes (Amir et al., 2009). To develop effective educational and marketing strategies, it is therefore necessary to gain a better understanding of the factors that lead employers to hire disabled people (Fraser et al., 2011). An initial series of interesting studies focused on personal factors, such as the age and gender of employers (Burge et al., 2007; Gilbride, 2003; Griffin et al., 1996; Henry et al., 2004; Jones et al., 2008; Lau and Cheung, 1999; Ouellette-Kuntz et al., 2003; Swain et al., 2013; Unger, 2002; Vornholt et al., 2013; Yazbeck et al., 2004), the personal attributes of employees with disabilities such as training and type of disability (Howlin et al., 2005; Ju et al., 2013; Swain et al., 2013), and organizational characteristics such as type of work and size of the company (Harlan and Robert, 1998; Levy et al., 1991; Luecking, 2004). The results also indicated a group of specific characteristics of employers who were open to hiring and accommodating people with disabilities, of which the four major categories were work cultural issues, job match, employer experience, and employer support. Secondly, investigations have been based on recruitment practices. Dalgin and Bellini (2008) investigated the impact of disclosing invisible disabilities (physical and psychiatric) during the employment interview. The findings indicated no significant effects in terms of the extent of disclosure and type of disability (Foster and Fosh, 2010). In terms of evaluating candidates, large companies generally choose their employees from job application forms, curricula vitae (CVs)/ resumes, and aptitude tests and are generally better equipped to manage the hiring process. On the other hand, in small and medium-sized businesses, the process has essentially relied on intuition and turns out to be more problematic. These recruitment methods are potentially exclusionary for disabled, and in particular, for workers with intellectual disabilities. In fact, it may be difficult for such people to perform an aptitude test or an interview (Davidson, 2011; Frazer et al., 2011; Houtenville and Kalargyrou, 2012; Lodato, 2008). Thirdly, other studies have focused on the attitudes of employers using quantitative and qualitative methods. A series of questionnaires was particularly interesting that explored different aspects of these attitudes such as concerns of employers about hiring individuals with disabilities, the opinions of employers about the legislation governing the employment of disabled workers, and employers’ beliefs and emotional reactions (Gilbride, 2003; Mansour, 2009; Unger, 2002). In addition to quantitative research, a series of qualitative studies was also carried out using in-depth interviews and focus groups with employers and human resource managers (Chan et al., 2010; Davidson, 2011; Gilbride, 2003; Hernandez et al., 2000). Employers report several concerns surrounding the work potential of employees with disabilities that may derive from existing myths and misconceptions rather than from their direct experiences (Dovidio et al., 2011; Levy et al., 1991). Some concerns were related to the workers with intellectual disabilities and their productivity, work performance/quality, and lack of necessary job skills (Diska and Rogers, 1996; Gustafsson et al., 2013; Jans et al., 2012; Lysaght et al., 2012; Mansour, 2009). Another set of difficulties was related to the employers and their fear of not being able to handle the needs of the person with intellectual disability, a lack of knowledge or experience of people with intellectual disabilities, along with a lack of knowledge about discrimination laws or reasonable accommodations. Critical issues have also been raised related to the organization, particularly regarding costs, safety, and a perceived negative impact on staff and customers (Davidson, 2011; Domzal et al., 2012; Hand and Tryssenaar, 2006; Houtenville and Kalargyrou, 2012; Lindsay et al., 2014; Morgan and Alexander, 2005; Ross, 2004). With respect to the impact of legislation, the results appear to be contradictory. Some studies have argued that the legislation encourages employers to create facilities that are accessible to

Downloaded from jid.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on November 15, 2015

Zappella

383

workers with intellectual disabilities (Arni et al., 2013; Lalive et al., 2009; Mudrick, 1997; Skivington, 2013). However, the detractors of legislation are convinced that it cannot change the reactions and behavior of employers, especially in terms of more visible disabilities (Clayton et al., 2012; Nietupski et al., 1996). Finally, regarding employers’ reactions and opinions, several studies found that managers view people with intellectual disabilities positively, generally regarding them as easy to supervise, and as productive as their coworkers without disabilities (Hartnett et al., 2011). When potential employers believe that hiring people with intellectual disabilities produces mainly positive outcomes, their attitudes are more favorable and vice versa (Amick et al., 2000; Ju et al., 2013). Although employers’ attitudes toward individuals with intellectual disabilities have been explored extensively, research has produced inconsistent findings. Firstly, some factors that are seen as positive attributes by some employers (such as attendance, safety, and productivity) have been cited as concerns by employers in other studies. This discrepancy may be due to the diversity of the methods used to conduct the research, which have meant that the results were not comparable (Gilbride, 2003). Potential employers generally tend to express positive attitudes toward people with disabilities, but when pressed more specifically about hiring individuals with disabilities (particularly certain subgroups, such as people with severe mental health issues), they are often reluctant to actually authorize hiring (Banks et al., 2001; Bruyere et al., 2004; Levy et al., 1992; McLaughlin et al., 2004; Paetzold et al., 2008; Schur et al., 2014; Zissi et al., 2007). Finally, studies on employer attitudes toward hiring workers with disabilities suffer from different definitions of attitudes and insufficient concerns with the hiring decision itself (Chan and Strauser, 2007; Griffin et al., 1996; Rimmerman et al., 2013; Sanchez et al., 2010). This study aims to investigate the attitudes of employers during the hiring process in order to record their own experiences. The decision to involve employers engaged in hiring at the time of the research enabled us to focus on the factors influencing the decisions of the employers. In addition, we avoided the risk of depending on the employers’ memories of past events in favor of their direct experiences. We then decided to compare these narratives with those of the employees with disabilities in order to perform a triangulation of the data and reduce the risk of answers being dictated by the social desirability of the responses.

Research design To investigate employers’ attitudes influencing the hiring of people with intellectual disabilities, we used a qualitative approach based on interviews during the hiring process with employees with intellectual disabilities and their future employers.

Participants We selected 30 employers from companies in northern Italy who were in the process of hiring a worker with intellectual disabilities at the time of the research. Italian law requires all companies with more than 15 employees to hire a percentage of disabled workers. The sample was selected in order to recruit people who were directly involved in the hiring process at the time of research. We requested an interview with the person responsible for selecting staff and then shadowed the worker when he/she joined the company. The interviewee was either the owner (6) or the human resources manager (16) or a colleague particularly close to the employee with a disability (8). We chose companies with a variable number of employees (from 15 to 150) and from different sectors,

Downloaded from jid.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on November 15, 2015

384

Journal of Intellectual Disabilities 19(4)

such as manufacturing (food, electrical, chemical, mechanical, and textile) and services (school canteens, care services for elderly people, and kindergartens). We also interviewed workers with intellectual disabilities in order to gain a complete picture of the different experiences. We chose workers with intellectual disabilities (15 women and 15 men) rather than physical disabilities because it is known from the literature that it is more difficult for them to find and keep a job.

Ethical approval The research was carried out with the permission of all people attending the services involved; for example, workers with disabilities, employers, and representatives of the services. The data collected during the research were treated on a confidential basis. The anonymity of participants have been protected throughout the research process and thereafter in any future published work. The results come from a precise and detailed analysis of the collected materials. The answers of the interviews were not taken out of context and small parts of observation were not been discussed without putting them in the appropriate context.

Procedure A qualitative methodology was used, which was based on interviews, in order to gather the views of workers with intellectual disabilities and employers involved in recruitment. Interviews are particularly useful because it enables the researcher to gain in-depth feedback. The triangulation of the two points of view gives a complete picture of this experience. The interviews were recorded with the consent of the participants and then transcribed. The interviews were carried out when the employers communicated the decision to hire the workers with intellectual disability. The main questions of the interview include the selection procedure, the factors affecting how workers were evaluated, the factors affecting how workers with intellectual disability chose the job, the conceptions of ‘‘ideal’’ applicants that employers and employees have, and the expectations of the job interview.

Data analysis The collected data were analyzed using an interpretative phenomenological approach (IPA) aimed at exploring in detail the participants’ views on their experiences (Smith et al., 2009). IPA can be used to analyze data from one-to-one interviews in order to develop thick descriptions (i.e. not just behavior, but context as well) that may help to shed light on human experience (Fade, 2004). An IPA researcher must approach their data with two topics. The first aim is to try to understand their participants’ world and opinion and to describe ‘‘what it is like.’’ The second aim is to develop a more overtly interpretative analysis, which positions the initial ‘‘description’’ in relation to a wider cultural, social, and theoretical context. This second-order account aims to provide a conceptual and critical commentary upon the participants’ personal ‘‘sense-making’’ activities. The first step involved a repeated reading of each transcript, then identifying, and finally writing down all the interesting and significant elements that emerge from the data. The second step was to identify patterns of recurring content (abstraction process) and organization of the patterns in emerging themes (from the comments to the issues). The themes were not selected on the basis of their frequency, but their meaning and their relevance and similarities and differences were highlighted between groups of participants. Then data were organized into thematic categories in order to capture the meaning of the experience. Finally, the last step was the identification of the

Downloaded from jid.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on November 15, 2015

Zappella

385

relationship between the issues identified. Some themes are grouped, other categories become superordinate (Smith and Osborn, 2003).

Results Our research shows that employers’ attitudes play a key role in influencing the recruitment of disabled workers in three themes.

Theme 1: Personal characteristics of employers The data collected on the personal characteristics of employers and workers did not point to specific characteristics that might influence the hiring of workers with disabilities. As regards the employers, there did not appear to be any significant differences regarding age, gender, and level of education. However, the concept of disability together with the past experiences of the employers as well as that of the organization was significant. In terms of the concept of disability, the employers surveyed had different views. Firstly, some employers identified the employee with disabilities in terms of his/her pathology. The employee is referred to as the ‘‘mad man/woman’’ or someone with an illness. The limitations of the employee here are highlighted, which make him/her different from other colleagues. Secondly, the employee was seen as a ‘‘person with disabilities’’ emphasizing both the appearance of the individual and the presence of a disability. In this situation, employers expect the employee to put in place all the necessary strategies to limit the important consequences of the illness. Thirdly, some employers identify disabled workers without reference to the disability and recognizing the specificity of each individual, regardless of the pathology. The second important factor is the previous experiences of the individual and the company. When the employer has had a positive experience in the past, he/she is more prepared to hire workers with disabilities, mostly with the same type of disability, as noted by a large part of employers: We always hired workers with the same intellectual disability and we enjoyed it, so we decided that this category of workers is right for us.

The risk, however, is that employers consider that only workers with a particular disability can be integrated into the company and refuse to take on other categories of workers. On the other hand, a negative experience can make the employer reluctant to hire workers with similar disabilities to those they had to deal with in the part, and sometimes they are reluctant to hire anyone with a disability, as declared by two employers reluctant in order to hire disabled workers: Several years ago we had a disabled worker who created a lot of problems, so we no longer hire this category of worker, and we don’t do job interviews.

Employers classify people with disabilities into two major categories, physical or intellectual disabilities. Generally, they seem more willing to hire workers with physical rather than intellectual disabilities. On the other hand, those who have hired a worker with intellectual disabilities have said that when a suitable job is found for them, they can be as productive and as reliable as their nondisabled colleagues. As noted by three employers that hired workers with intellectual disabilities in the past:

Downloaded from jid.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on November 15, 2015

386

Journal of Intellectual Disabilities 19(4)

when the employee knows his job, he is productive and reliable. I watch his work and I am very surprised, very very surprised.

In addition, employers have been found to be more prepared to hire younger workers because they are believed to be more willing to have any job, and they are more flexible and quicker to learn. As noted by one human research manager: They are very available, when you call them, they immediately arrive.

Some companies highlighted the importance of qualifications, while recognizing the difficult path that a disabled worker has to face.

Theme 2: Selection process A second set of signs emerges regarding the identification of the tasks and the selection of the candidate. Some employers argue that there is a suitable job for all disabled persons: It should be a simple series of repetitive actions, which are not absolutely fundamental to the productive process, ensuring that the company has no problems even when an error occurs.

Other employers, however, believe that the job of the worker with a disability should be equal to other colleagues: In our company all workers are equal, all workers do the same tasks and have to reach the same company standards.

Finally, other employers report that each worker has a personalized task according to his/her abilities: Every worker is different, and each plays a different role that is essential for the organization. The disabled worker is as important to the organization as all other workers.

This mode of identifying the job also emerges from the stories of workers with intellectual disabilities. Some complain of being left on the sidelines, with a simple job to do and little time in which they are actually employed. In these cases, the workers make different decisions, with some people trying to make themselves useful: ‘‘When I finish my task, I, I’ll see if I can help someone in the department, as I want to make myself useful to my colleagues.’’ Other workers, however, prefer to take long breaks: ‘‘When I finish, I lie down and I rest, and my boss doesn’t say anything. I’ve done my job, my little job.’’ In other cases, however, the workers with disabilities say they are happy with their work: ‘‘I know I’m important to the company, my work is as important as that of the others and I feel important to my organization.’’ The identification of the task is linked to the choice of candidate who is going to be assigned to that location. Again employers may have different ideas about or images of the ‘‘ideal applicant.’’ Some employers think that there is an ideal candidate who possesses certain characteristics: Disabled workers in our company must all be the same, have the same illness and perform the same work. It is not important what they can do, it is important they carry out a task that is designed for them.

Downloaded from jid.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on November 15, 2015

Zappella

387

In this case, the workers are compared to ‘‘a parcel that has been deposited at the company, all that counts is that it has the characteristics required by the company.’’ The disabled person is thus viewed more as an object with certain functions rather than as a human being. Other employers consider disabled workers to be like all other colleagues. In this case, the image used is that of soldiers: ‘‘Workers (disabled or not) are like soldiers, all in a row, all of which move together at the same pace and with the same step. They all wear the same uniform which hides the differences, all workers are equal.’’ Finally, some employers argue that it is not possible to think of an image of the ideal candidate, ‘‘Workers (disabled or not) are all different, each has particular characteristics that should be valued by the organization.’’ In this case, the employer is compared to a tailor, who must create a bespoke suit for his employees: ‘‘Employers have to take measurements of the workers and build the task that is most suited to his/her characteristics without distinguishing between employees with disabilities and those without.’’ This image of the ideal candidate affects the evaluation of the workers, which is usually based on the CV and the job interview. During the interview, the company representatives may request the support of a tutor to work alongside the disabled worker and help him/her take the test. The tutor is a specialist who knows the world of intellectual disability and can help the employer assess the candidate. In other cases, however, the company contacts may prefer an autonomous choice, without the interference of someone outside the company. The evaluation may follow two criteria. First, the workers may be assessed in terms of their limitations, that is, by observing what they are not able to do, the tasks that cannot be performed, and the difficulties involved. Alternatively, the employees are assessed in terms of their ability, for what they can do at that point in time and that they might be able to do in the future, with the help of all the aids available. These criteria condition the decision as to whether or not the worker is suitable for the job available.

Theme 3: Concerns and opinions of employers The decision to hire the employee with an intellectual disability within the organization is affected by a number of factors relating to the opinions and concerns of employers. Opinions are important with respect to the regulations governing the employment of people with intellectual disabilities. For some employers this is a negative element: ‘‘The law is like a stone that drops on you and crushes you, and you cannot do anything, apart from trying to protect yourself and running away.’’ For other employers, however, the legislation is a positive opportunity: ‘‘The law is like a bridge, which benefits the company, and, at the same time, offers a job to people with disabilities.’’ This view is also transmitted to the workers. If the recruitment is seen in negative terms, the employee with intellectual disability knows that he/she is a burden to the organization and has only been hired because the company is required to. If the recruitment is considered as an opportunity, then the worker is evaluated positively, as an opportunity that will enrich the company. Another important topic is the concerns of employers regarding the recruitment of people with an intellectual disability: ‘‘If a person has a disability,’’ say some employers, ‘‘they cannot be productive as their colleagues.’’ Others remarked, ‘‘When a worker is disabled, he/she must have some problem, and sooner or later some difficulties will arise, otherwise he/she would not be disabled.’’ Before knowing the worker, employers already believe they will have problems and assume that they will not have the same productivity as their nondisabled colleagues.

Downloaded from jid.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on November 15, 2015

388

Journal of Intellectual Disabilities 19(4)

The costs of accommodating the disabled person and making the environment accessible are also a key issue as declared by a large group of employers: the cost is not sustainable, as it is only the disabled person who benefits from this change.

A third problem is the safety risks for both the employee with disabilities and the organization. Employers are afraid that the disabled employee might get hurt or could be dangerous to other colleagues. Another pressing concern is managing the emotional reactions of the disabled employee. Employers say they do not always understand the reasons and, therefore, do not know how to cope with these reactions, as noted by a large part of employers: Some of the reactions of workers with disabilities are excessive, and in our view are not always justified. When we do not understand what the reasons are for these reactions, it is difficult to know what to do, you do not know how to handle them, which is worrying for us.

When employers do not know how to handle the emotions of employees, the employers also struggle to manage their own emotions, which they find very difficult.

Discussion In accordance with the literature, the employers’ concept of disability is significant. The first concept of disability that emerged from the employers identifies the employees with their pathology. Disability here takes a medical and health connotation, which affects the appearance of the individual person. The second concept, that is, the term ‘‘worker with disability,’’ puts the emphasis on the difficulty that may or not affect the employment opportunities of the employee. This emphasis is on the social dimension of disability if the disability is no longer a medical condition, then it may be possible to make suitable accommodations to reduce it. Finally, the third concept regards the disability as only one aspect of the person, who, however, is recognized in terms of his/her ability and potential and not in terms of his/her condition. The second key factor that influences the decision of the employers is their previous experience. In accordance with the literature, previous positive experiences make employers more predisposed to hiring a disabled person, while negative experiences make them more reticent. Sometimes, however, even the positive experiences can be limiting for people with disabilities. In fact, the employer who has had a positive experience may imagine that this is the only location available for disabled workers and may insist on the same type of workers, excluding other categories. Compared to recruiting practices, however, the idea of ideal candidates plays a decisive role in the choice of the task to be assigned to the disabled workers. Some employers believe that there are tasks to be allocated specifically to disabled workers. In this case, the characteristics of the workers are taken for granted, and the employer does not need to know the employee, they simply allocate the appropriate task for him/her. On the other hand, when the disabled worker does the same job as his/her colleagues, the employer imagines that this worker can be trained (like a soldier) until he/she matches the standards of the colleagues. It is the worker who has to make an effort to be able to conform to the standards required by the company. However, when the work is specifically created, the employer, like a tailor, creates custom clothes for all the employees. In this case, the employer has the most

Downloaded from jid.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on November 15, 2015

Zappella

389

important task, recognizing the skills of the workers and sorting out a suitable job. Thanks to this mechanism, the distinction between disabled and nondisabled workers is overcome because the employer appreciates the ability of each employee. Finally, there is another set of attitudes that influence the decisions of the employers. The first relates to the law. For some employers hiring a disabled person is a burden, while for other employers it represents a beneficial opportunity for the company. The second set refers to the sphere of the emotions of both the employer and the worker. The main concern is not knowing the needs of workers and not understanding the reasons for their attitudes. This situation is very difficult for the employer who does not know how to behave. Finally, the last aspect is related to the possibility of introducing changes in the work environment and work organization. If the workers are all the same, the company will try to avoid making changes that accentuate the differences among workers. If, on the contrary, the company’s goal is to encourage the employees, it is then possible to introduce changes such as aids to ensure that each worker is given the most productive conditions.

Conclusions This research has highlighted different elements that can influence the decisions of employers to hire workers with disabilities. The first involves the reasons that lead to recruitment. Employers can hire people with disabilities because they see an opportunity for growth for the organization and for the employee with disabilities and not just to fulfill the mandatory requirement. Second, another important factor is the goal of the recruitment. Employers have to see the recruitment as a beneficial opportunity for the company. For this, it is important to choose the right job and candidate. The job must be useful for the organization, specifically designed through an analysis of organizational activities and not just involve a marginal position. The applicant must thus be assessed according to his/her abilities and actual work potential (what he/she can do with the aid of assistive technology and the support of colleagues). Finally, the company has to negotiate improvements with the workers to make the work environment and procedures more inclusive. References Amick BC, Habeck RV, Hunt A, et al. (2000) Measuring the impact of organizational behaviors on work disability prevention and management. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 10: 21–38. Amir Z, Strausser D, and Chan F (2009) Employers’ and survivors’ perspective. In: Feuerstein M (ed) Work and Cancer Survivors. New York: Springer, pp. 73–89. Arni P, Lalive R, and Van Ours J (2013) How effective are unemployment benefit sanctions? Looking beyond unemployment exit. Journal of Applied Econometrics 28(7): 1153–1178. Banks B, Charleston S, Grossi T, et al. (2001) Workplace supports, job performance, and integration outcomes for people with psychiatric disabilities. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 24(4): 389–396. Barnes C and Mercer G (2005) Disability, work, and welfare challenging the social exclusion of disabled people. Work, Employment & Society 19(3): 527–545. Bruyere SM, Erickson WA, and VanLooy S (2004) Comparative study of workplace policy and practices contributing to disability non-discrimination. Rehabilitation Psychology 49(1): 28–38. Burge P, Ouellette-Kuntz H, and Lysaght R (2007) Public views on employment of people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 26: 29–37.

Downloaded from jid.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on November 15, 2015

390

Journal of Intellectual Disabilities 19(4)

Chan F and Strauser D (2007) Demand side employment factors affecting job placement and job retention among people with disabilities. Paper presented at the Cancer Survivorship and Work Seminar. London: Goldsmith College. Chan F, Strauser D, Maher P, et al. (2010) Demand-side factors related to employment of people with disabilities: a survey of employers in the Midwest region of the United States. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 20(4): 412–419. Clayton S, Barr B, Nylen L, et al. (2012) Effectiveness of return-to-work interventions for disabled people: a systematic review of government initiatives focused on changing the behaviour of employers. The European Journal of Public Health 22(3): 434–439. Dalgin RS and Bellini J (2008) Invisible disability disclosure in an employment interview: impact on employers’ hiring decisions and views of employability. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 52: 6. Davidson J (2011) A Qualitative Study Exploring Employers’ Recruitment Behaviour and Decisions: Small and Medium Enterprises, Vol. 754. Sheffield: Department for Work and Pensions. Diska E and Rogers S (1996) Employer concerns about hiring persons with psychiatric disability: results of the Employer Attitudes Questionnaire. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 40: 31–44. Domzal C, Houtenville A, and Sharma R (2012) Survey of employer perspectives on the employment of people with disabilities: technical report. (Prepared under contract to the Office of Disability and Employment Policy, US Department of Labor). McLean, VA: CESSI. 2008. Dovidio JF, Pagotto L, and Hebl MR (2011) Implicit attitudes and discrimination against people with physical disabilities. In: Wiener RL and Willborn SL (eds) Disability and Aging Discrimination. New York: Springer, pp. 157–183. Fade S (2004) Using interpretative phenomenological analysis for public health nutrition and dietetic research: a practical guide. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 63(04): 647–653. Foster D and Fosh P (2010) Negotiating difference: representing disabled employees in the British workplace. British Journal of Industrial Relations 48: 3. Fraser R, Ajzen I, Johnson K, et al. (2011) Understanding employers’ hiring intention in relation to qualified workers with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 35(1): 1–11. Gilbride G (2003) People with disabilities in the workplace. Rehabilitation Counseling: Basics and Beyond. Griffin DK, Rosenberg H, Cheyney W, et al. (1996) A comparison of self-esteem and job satisfaction of adults with mild mental retardation in sheltered workshops and supported employment. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded 31(2): 142–150. Gustafsson J, Peralta JP, and Danermark B (2013) The employer’s perspective: employment of people with disabilities in wage subsidized employments. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 16: 249–266. Hand C and Tryssenaar J (2006) Small business employers’ views on hiring individuals with mental illness. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 29(3): 166–173. Harlan SL and Robert PM (1998) The social construction of disability in organizations why employers resist reasonable accommodation. Work and Occupations 25(4): 397–435. Hartnett HP, Stuart H, Thurman H, et al. (2011) Employers’ perceptions of the benefits of workplace accommodations: reasons to hire, retain and promote people with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 34(1): 17–23. Henry DB, Duvdevany I, Keys CB, et al. (2004) Attitudes of American and Israeli staff toward people with intellectual disabilities. Mental Retardation 42(1): 26–36. Hernandez B, Keys C, and Balcazar F (2000) Employer attitudes toward workers with disabilities and their ADA employment rights: a literature review. Journal of Rehabilitation 66(4): 4–16. Houtenville A and Kalargyrou V (2012) People with disabilities employers’ perspectives on recruitment practices, strategies, and challenges in leisure and hospitality. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 53(1): 40–52. Howlin P, Alcock J, and Burkin C (2005) An 8 year follow-up of a specialist supported employment service for high-ability adults with autism or Asperger syndrome. Autism 9(5): 533–549.

Downloaded from jid.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on November 15, 2015

Zappella

391

Jans LH, Kaye SH, and Jones C (2012) Getting hired: successfully employed people with disabilities offer advice on disclosure, interviewing, and job search. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 22(2): 155–165. Jones J, Ouellette-Kuntz H, Vilela T, et al. (2008) Attitudes of community developmental services agency staff toward issues of inclusion for individuals with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities 5(4): 219–226. Ju S, Roberts E, and Zhang D (2013) Employer attitudes toward workers with disabilities: A review of research in the past decade. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 38(2): 113–123. Lalive R, Wuellrich JP, and Zweimu¨ller J (2009) Do Financial Incentives for Firms Promote Employment of Disabled Workers? A Regression Discontinuity Approach. London: Centre for Economic Policy Research. Lau JTF and Cheung CK (1999) Discriminatory attitudes to people with intellectual disability or mental health difficulty. International Social Work 42(4): 431–444. Levy JM, Jessop DJ, Rimmerman A., et al. (1991) Employment of persons with severe disabilities in large businesses in the United States. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research 14(4): 323–332. Levy JM, Jessop DJ, Rimmerman A, et al. (1992) Attitudes of Fortune 500 corporate executives toward the employability of persons with severe disabilities: a national study. Mental Retardation 30(2): 67–75. Lindsay S, Adams T, Sanford R, et al. (2014) Employers’ and employment counselors’ perceptions of desirable skills for entry-level positions for adolescents: how does it differ for youth with disabilities?. Disability & Society 29(6): 953–967. Lodato MA (2008) Going with your gut: an investigation of why managers prefer intuitive employee selection. Dissertation, Bowling Green State University, USA. Luecking R (2004) Essential Tools: In their Own Words: Employer Perspectives on Youth with Disabilities in the Workplace. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration, National Center on Secondary Education and Transition. Lysaght R, Fabrigar L, Larmour-Trode S, et al. (2012) Measuring workplace social support for workers with disability. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 22(3): 376–386. Mansour M (2009) Employers’ attitudes and concerns about the employment of disabled people. International Review of Business Research Papers 5(4): 209–218. McLaughlin ME, Bell MP, and Stringer DY (2004) Stigma and acceptance of persons with disabilities—Understudied aspects of workforce diversity. Group and Organization Management 29(3): 302–333. Morgan RL and Alexander M (2005) The employer’s perception: employment of individuals with developmental disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 23: 39–49. Mudrick NR (1997) Employment discrimination laws for disability: utilization and outcome. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 549(1): 53–70. Nietupski J, Harme-Nietupski S, VanderHart NS, et al. (1996) Employer perceptions of the benefits and concerns of supported employment. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities 31(4): 310–323. Ouellette-Kuntz H, Burge P, Henry DB, et al. (2003) Attitudes of senior psychiatry residents toward persons with intellectual disabilities. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 48(8): 538–545. Paetzold RL, Garcıa MF, Colella A, et al. (2008) Perceptions of people with disabilities: when is accommodation fair? Basic and Applied Social Psychology 30(1): 27–35. Rimmerman A, Araten-Bergman T, Hernandez B, et al. (2013) Israeli employers’ hiring intentions for recruiting employees with disabilities: how do they compare with us Employers?. Journal of Social Work in Disability & Rehabilitation 12(3): 176–193. Ross GF (2004) Ethics, trust and expectations regarding the treatment of disabled staff within a tourism/ hospitality industry context. International Journal of Hospitality Management 23(5): 523–544. Sanchez D, Wind H, Sluiter JK, et al. (2010) A qualitative study of perpetuating factors for long-term sick leave and promoting factors for return to work: Chronic work disabled patients in their own words. 42(6): 544–552(9).

Downloaded from jid.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on November 15, 2015

392

Journal of Intellectual Disabilities 19(4)

Schur L, Nishii L, Adya M, et al. (2014) Accommodating employees with and without disabilities. Human Resource Management 53(4): 593–621. Shier M, Graham JR, and Jones ME (2009) Barriers to employment as experienced by disabled people: a qualitative analysis in Calgary and Regina, Canada. Disability & Society 24(1): 63–75. Skivington K (2013) Incapacity benefit, employment transitions, and health: evidence from longitudinal data and a qualitative study. Doctoral dissertation, University of Glasgow, UK. Smith JA and Osborn M (2003) Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In: Smith JA (ed) Qualitative Psychology. London: Sage, pp. 51–80. Smith JA, Flowers P, and Larkin M (2009) Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research. London: Sage. Swain J (Ed.) (2013) Disabling barriers-enabling environments. Sage. Unger D (2002) Employers’ attitudes towards people with disabilities in the workforce: myths or realities? Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 17(1): 2–10. Vornholt K, Uitdewilligen S, and Nijhuis FJ (2013) Factors affecting the acceptance of people with disabilities at work: a literature review. Journal of occupational rehabilitation 23(4): 463–475. Yazbeck M, McVilly K, and Parmenter T (2004) Attitudes toward people with intellectual disability (ID): an Australian perspective. Journal of Disability Policy Studies 15(2): 97–111. Zissi A, Rontos C, Papageorgiou D, et al. (2007) Greek employers’ attitudes to employing people with disabilities: effects of the type of disability. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 9(1): 14–25.

Downloaded from jid.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on November 15, 2015

Employers' attitudes on hiring workers with intellectual disabilities in small and medium enterprises: an Italian research.

Employers play a significant role in the process of hiring workers with intellectual disability. Through an in-depth interview, this research aims to ...
142KB Sizes 0 Downloads 9 Views