IIMB Management Review (2010) 22, 137e146 available at www.sciencedirect.

com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/iimb

IIMB

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT BANGALORE

Dont ask, dont tell: Two views on human resource practices for people with disabilities
Mukta Kulkarni a,*, Reimara Valk b
a b

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

KEYWORDS
People with disabilities; Human resource practices

Abstract In the present paper we explore how employees with physical disabilities and their human resource managers perceive practices aimed at entry, integration, and development of disabled employees. The results indicate that both sets of respondents want to treat people with disabilities as regular employees and take attention away from disability. The results also indicate that employees would like to get additional help, but are afraid to ask. Employers do not offer additional support unless asked, not wanting to highlight the disability given fears of stigmatisation. Given this reluctance from both employees and employers, it is possible that people with disabilities remain an underutilised resource. 2010 Indian Institute of Management Bangalore. All rights reserved.

Disability is an issue of concern for policymakers across the world. According to United Nations Report, 2009 almost one in ten people globally is a person with a disability. Despite interventions aimed at increasing the employment prospects of people with disabilities (PWD), they are at an increased risk of unemployment as compared with people who do not have a disability (Barlow, Wright, & Cullen, 2002). Even if they do secure employment, most PWD do not reach or fulll their potential in the workplace (Colella, 1994). Further, in

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 91 80 2699 3029; fax: 91 80 2658 4050. E-mail addresses: mkulkarni@iimb.ernet.in (M. Kulkarni), reimara.valk@gmail.com (R. Valk). 0970-3896 2010 Indian Institute of Management Bangalore. All rights reserved. Peer-review under responsibility of Indian Institute of Management Bangalore. doi:10.1016/j.iimb.2010.08.001

spite of decades of research and practice, there is incongruity between what employees with disabilities need in terms of physical arrangements (Palmon, Oxman, Shahar, & Weiss, 2004) or other organisational policies (Stone & Colella, 1996) and what is offered to them. There are both organisational and individual implications of such incongruity. Employers may have to pay for compensation claims while individuals who suffer from a disability may incur loss of income or may have to pay for care giver assistance (Lafuma et al., 2006). Both employers and PWD may also not be able to effectively utilise the employees potential at work (Lengnick-Hall, Gaunt, & Kulkarni, 2008; Stone & Colella, 1996). Fortunately such problems are avoidable, especially through the implementation of certain organisational practices, most of which fall under the purview of the human resources function (Lengnick-Hall, 2007). The present study explores perceptions of people with physical disabilities and human resource managers in the Netherlands. Specically, we examine if people with disabilities and human resource managers view organisational human resource practices in a similar manner or differently. Disability is dened as an impairment that limits a major life activity, but allows for gainful employment (Stone & Colella, 1996). It is viewed as an inability to perform some

138 activity or as a lack of ability that society deems important (Barnard & Lan, 2007). Viewed as a form of diversity (Dipboye & Colella, 2005; Shore et al., 2009), disability concerns may be neglected or hidden in organisational settings as compared with other forms of diversity (Olkin, 2002; Wertlieb, 1985). People with disabilities have to overcome hurdles when trying to obtain as well as retain a job as compared with people who are not disabled (Stone & Colella, 1996). Specically, research shows that employers shy away from hiring PWD, with attitudes ranging from negative expectations about performance to assumptions regarding lack of appropriate qualications. Employers also assume that coworkers may not appreciate the work potential of PWD, may react negatively, and may have a fear of the unknown (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2008). This neglect is unfortunate considering the documented positive outcomes of employing people with disabilities. PWD perform as well as their non-disabled counterparts in organisations, do not have higher absenteeism or turnover rates compared with the rest of the organisational members, have fewer accidents at work, and are stable, committed, and motivated to work (Colella, 1994; Lengnick-Hall, 2007; Schoonheim & Smits, 2008; Stone & Colella, 1996). In terms of human resource (HR) practices and disability research, much has been done regarding factors relating to employability and employment prospects of PWD (Barlow et al., 2002; Lengnick-Hall et al., 2008; Loo, 2004; Louvet, 2007; Stone & Colella, 1996). Not as much research has focused on HR practices that enable PWD to achieve their potential within the workplace. Specically, more attention is focused on job access and accommodation of PWD but not on treatment once on the job (Colella, 1994). We explore how employees with physical disabilities and their HR managers perceive practices aimed at entry, integration, and development of disabled employees. We emphasise physical disability for the following reasons. One, according to the Disability Status Report, 2007 there is a higher rate of physical disability (as compared with mental disability) in the employable population, and employers are more open to engaging with people with physical rather than mental disabilities (Fuqua, Rathburn, & Gade, 1984). Two, it is possible that different types of disabilities evoke different stereotypes, responses, and job-related expectancies. Someone with a mental impairment may be viewed differently as compared with someone who has a learning disability, or someone who has a physical impairment. There are also various types of physical disabilities that evoke different responses (Fuqua et al., 1984; Stone & Colella, 1996). Finally, research shows that research results are confounded if multiple types of disabilities are considered simultaneously (Unger, 2002). For tractability, we thus limit ourselves to understanding how people with moderate physical disabilities perceive organisational HR practices. We have chosen to explore our objective in the Netherlands. The Netherlands has had a long history of providing care for PWD. The Dutch government has commissioned several private contractors as well as agencies such as Netherlands Institute for Social Research (Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau) and Statistics Netherlands (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek), to name a few, to focus on disability related issues. Although there

M. Kulkarni, R. Valk has been considerable reduction in the number of people receiving disability benets, the overall employment rate of PWD has dropped. The employment market has not opened enough to include PWD comprehensively, and employers are still wary of hiring PWD despite incentives offered to them (Schoonheim & Smits, 2008). Consequently, several hundred thousand employees in the Netherlands do not reach their earnings potential and claim disability benet for many years, causing a severe drain on the Dutch social security system (European Industrial Relations Review, 2006). In fact, less than half of the disabled population is gainfully employed. This is in contrast with a relatively high and recently increasing employment rates for people without disability (OECD, 2008). This problem is likely to continue in the future as the population ages, and women who claim disabilities enter the workforce (Einerhand & Van Der Stelt, 2005). This scenario makes it important to explore what employers do to make employment attractive for the disabled population, and what PWD who are currently working think about employer practices. Finally, a survey of more than a thousand Dutch public and private organisations by Henkens, Remery, and Schippers (2008) indicated that over two thirds of the organisations were facing labour shortages. These organisations indicated that one of the strategies to counter this shortage was tapping into new pools such as recruiting more elderly and disabled into the workforce. This trend of increased labour shortage and the need to tap into alternate ways of staffing, retaining, and effectively deploying productive workers is reective of most western countries (Henkens et al., 2008). All of these reasons make it likely that our context will yield us rich and practically applicable ndings. By examining employee and HR manager views of disability related HR practices, we contribute to informing and broadening diversity research in the following ways. One, by simultaneously focussing on both PWD and employer perceptions, we respond to the call for a systemic view when studying individual perceptions of organisational processes in terms of dealing with possible differential treatment (Gelfand, Nishii, Raver, & Schneider, 2005). Two, our study responds to the call for more eld research regarding disability issues, considering reliance on laboratory studies (Colella & Stone, 2005). Three, it is important to systematically note the degree and reasons of congruity or incongruity between experience and objectives of organisational practices. This is because although policies may exist to help employees with a disability, their implementation may be questionable considering that ofcial goals may not always translate into operative practices and policies (Stone & Colella, 1996). Finally, the study contributes to the growing yet incomplete understanding of disability treatment within organisations (cf. Colella, 1994) and hence has practical implications for organisational managers and policy makers.

Previous research on human resource practices and people with disabilities

We acquire and are socialised into certain stereotypical attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours over time. These attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours are carried into the workplace

Views on Human Resource Practices and they continue to unfold over time as people advance in their organisations. Unfolding implies change over time as attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours are challenged, reinforced, or shaped in the workplace via organisational interventions (Cleveland, Vescio, & Barnes-Farrell, 2005) such as implementation of HR practices (Gelfand et al., 2005). Indeed, certain researchers argue that HR practices play a critical role in shaping access to opportunities, rewards, and overall treatment in organisations. HR practices can also induce a systemic ripple effect in the creation of the workplace context. For example, creation of and exposure to one practice such as access to mentoring or training may inuence outcomes such as promotion and advancement opportunities (Delaney & Lundy, 1996; Gelfand et al., 2005; Levitin, Quinn, & Staines, 1971). HR practices are especially signicant in terms of treatment of PWD. People with disabilities may exhibit a negative self concept, self limiting behaviours, and consequently have lower motivation and ability (Jones, 1997). This problem may be exacerbated by practices that further disfavour those with disabilities both in terms of organisational entry and post entry treatment. For example, practices that unfairly favour the selection of non-disabled (Stone & Colella, 1996), and consequent accordance of token status, out-group status, perceptions of limited job t, lack of role models and mentors, and lack of critical feedback, make it difcult for PWD to perform optimally (Jones, 1997). HR practices thus create a context that inuences employee expectancies, attitudes, and behaviours which in turn determine how PWD within the organisation are treated in terms of performance ratings, rewards, job assignments, pay increases, training opportunities, and mentoring (Stone & Colella, 1996). Overall, employers can take one of three attitudes towards PWD. They can ignore disability issues and not hire PWD, comply with the law in terms of maintaining neutrality in terms of hiring and developing PWD, or value PWD candidates and employees and actively seek and nurture them (LengnickHall, 2007). In the following section we especially consider the importance of managing organisational entry, integration, and developmental activities for PWD.

139 matter, in terms of signalling certain expectations to existing organisational members and attracting candidates with a disability. Channels of recruitment, or where the employer recruits, can inuence how discriminatory the recruitment process is. For instance, Gelfand et al. (2005) cite a 1995 US Department of Labor study which demonstrates that discrimination may be lower if organisations actively recruit at minority oriented colleges. Criteria for recruitment, or how the employer recruits and selects is also critical. Conventional job proles aimed at an ideal candidate may unintentionally and negatively discriminate against the disabled candidate. Thus key or essential job requirements more than ideal requirements must be identied in order to evaluate the disabled candidate for organisational entry (Stone & Colella, 1996).

Integration
Even if organisations encourage disability hiring, it is possible that PWD may not feel included in daily organisational life. Achieving diversity does not necessarily imply achieving workplace inclusion and integration (Arthur & Doverspike, 2005). Thus the next steps in terms of HR practices that inuence PWD are initial socialisation and eventual integration in the organisation. It is possible that people may be viewed and categorised differently such that their actual attributes are overshadowed unfairly by their perceived attributes. This may lead to strained relationships among organisational members and possibly to physical segregation from coworkers (Stone-Romero, 2005). To avoid such situations, it is important for HR personnel to arrange for increased communication and contact to facilitate PWD integration from the time of organisational entry. Increased contact and exposure to PWD may give coworkers an opportunity to modify expectancies since they will have information to disconrm any preexisting stereotypes that they may hold about disabilities and disabled persons (Stone & Colella, 1996).

Developmental activities
HR practices not only indirectly help PWD through the creation of a facilitative context; but they also directly help PWD by offering them developmental opportunities through performance management and training. In terms of performance management, Gelfand et al. (2005), elaborating on IIgen and Youtzs (1986) lost opportunities effect, argue that if minorities do not receive critical feedback from supervisors who anticipate negative emotional or behavioural reactions from minorities, the minorities may lose out on improvement opportunities. This may lead to a ripple effect such as lower appraisal ratings, less desirable future job assignments, and lower training and development activities (Stone-Romero, 2005). There are two kinds of training relevant in our context: competence training for minorities that leads to future advancement, and diversity training for the majority (Gelfand et al., 2005) who may need to be sensitised to the needs of coworkers with disabilities. Competence enhancing training is important for PWD considering that most minority groups reach a developmental plateau (Evans & Herr, 1991), and have to be

Organisational entry
Most people with a disability wish to work but have difculty obtaining employment (Lengnick-Hall, 2007). It is possible that certain individuals who feel stigmatised may shy away from applying for certain jobs. Employers may also misattribute stigmas and may not hire such people (Stone-Romero, 2005) given various reasons such as assumptions about lower skill or ability level, lower job performance, and about adverse customer or coworker reactions (Lengnick-Hall & Gaunt, 2007). While afrmative action programmes may reduce entry or access discrimination, they may create future stigmas (Heilman, Block, & Lucas, 1992) which can lead to treatment discrimination problems (Gelfand et al., 2005). That is, people with disabilities may enter the organisation but may be subject to differential treatment post entry. Thus, both recruitment and selection practices have to be managed carefully. Both channels and criteria for recruitment and selection

140 nurtured carefully. In terms of training for the non-disabled majority, programmes that re-frame orientations via the communication of PWD success stories sensitise employees to possible stereotypes. Training programmes can also communicate and clarify norms about treating and communicating with PWD. Overall, either through contact or through knowledge, coworkers may understand disability issues (Stone & Colella, 1996) and this can help create a climate of inclusiveness in the organisation (Garcia, Paetzold, & Colella, 2005). In sum, inter-related HR practices such as stafng, integration, and developmental activities can help create an inclusionary context by granting fair access and treatment to minorities and by signalling fair attitudes and behaviours to existing majority employees (Arthur & Doverspike, 2005).
Table 1 Description of respondents.

M. Kulkarni, R. Valk

Characteristics

Respondents Human resource with a disability managers 1 3 4 5 1 9 5 7 14

Age Less than 30 4 Between 30e39 6 Between 40e49 7 Between 50e59 6 More than 60 1 Gender Male 9 Female 15 Average organisational 3.7 tenure (years) Total respondents 24

Perceptions of HR practices for people with disabilities: Present study

Method
We started the project with a general question: how do employees with disabilities and their HR managers view organisational HR practices aimed at PWD? We used a purposive and convenience sampling method (Barton & Sutcliffe, 2009). Though the nal sample was a convenience sample based on our network contacts, we tried to achieve purposive variation within it in order to gain a wide range of perceptions. Specically, we tried to identify a sample of respondents who varied in terms of organisational tenure, age, and gender, all potential sources of social categorisation. Our nal sample consisted of 38 respondentse24 PWD and 14 HR managers who were responsible for implementing policies in the departments where these PWD worked. Respondents were employed by various sized organisations. Relatively small organisations in our study (less than 300 employees) included a local news channel and a religious education institution. Medium size organisations (between 500e1000 employees) included municipal services and water and trafc management authorities. Relatively large organisations (more than 1000 employees) included healthcare and insurance services. Of the 24 PWD respondents, eight were from small organisations, 12 were from medium size organisations, and four were from large organisations. Of the 14 HR respondents, one was from a small organisation, 11 were from medium size organisations, and two were from large organisations. Respondent characteristics are summarised in Table 1. The interview guides for both PWD and HR managers were developed based on a review of the literature and the initial problem statement which revolved around understanding HR policies and practices aimed at organisational entry, workplace integration, and developmental activities. Interviews were semi-structured and open-ended, and took place over six months. We created the survey questionnaire in English, and then translated it into Dutch for our participants who responded in Dutch. Interview responses were then back-translated into English. We thus followed the most commonly used translation technique, the back-translation technique, in

which a source language is translated to a target language, and the target language is, in turn, independently translated back to the source language. Discrepancies between translations are then corrected. Although back-translation may not ensure precise equivalence, it allows for conceptual equivalence (Peng, Peterson, & Shyi, 1991). Indeed, translations in multicultural settings are usually equivalent rather than literally identical (Teagarden et al., 1995), and the back-translation method is followed by international HRM researchers (Mignonac, 2008; Teagarden et al., 1995; Tsui, 2006). We followed prior international HR research (Teagarden et al., 1995) to ensure validity of our translations. The interviews were conducted by one of the authors of this paper, who has the required business knowledge in the target language and is a native speaker of the language. To ensure literal accuracy and idiomatic equivalence in language (Brislin, 1986) and to bolster validity, we had a senior HR manager from one of the participating organisations as well as a Labour Expert from an Employee Insurance Authority validate the interview guide for correct and sensible translation from English to Dutch. This Labour Expert is in charge of reintegration coaching of PWD. After we obtained interview responses, one of the authors and an external language expert from the Labour Department of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment back-translated documents together. The back-translations of the interview transcripts were further veried by the previously mentioned Labour Expert.

Results
Data from interviews were analysed to examine common themes and variation across respondents e both PWD and HR. Overall we found no striking differences across our PWD respondents in terms of age, tenure, and gender. Only one of the PWD respondents who was more than 60 years of age strongly voiced his ideas about the importance of self initiative on the part of the PWD to succeed in organisations. Our general nding is in contrast to prior research which positively associates age with disability issues (Bound, Schoenbaum, Stinebrickner, & Waidmann, 1999; Lengnick-Hall, 2007). Our ndings are also in contrast with research which shows that women react more

Views on Human Resource Practices favourably compared with men in terms of PWD treatment (Loo, 2004), and that usually women are discriminated against more than men in the workplace (Joseph, 2005/ 2006) given the possibility of multiple minority status (Jones, 1997). In each section below we describe employee and HR views and situate ndings in previous research. Organisational entry We asked respondents if any specic HR policies existed for recruiting PWD, and to describe these policies. We found that none of the respondents with a disability was aware of any special recruitment efforts made by their employer in terms of attracting disabled people to apply for jobs. All indicated that they applied and got jobs on their own. One respondent stated, I would not know. I do not believe there are certain rules to recruit people with disabilities Five (21%) of our respondents speculated that there may be certain policies and practices used for recruiting PWD, but this was based on their personal experience, and they were not aware if these methods applied to all candidates systemically. Specically, two of the ve respondents had joined from a reintegration agency, and three indicated that there may be some policy and subsidy for recruiting PWD and other minorities, but they were not aware of the specics. For example, one respondent stated, I have landed here via a reintegration agency. A work experience place where they only invite people with a disability, impairment, limitation, or people who nd it difcult to obtain a job because of culture, for example people from foreign origin. That is what I have understood. Another respondent said, How [recruiting] exactly works I do not dare to say with certainty. There are probably subsidies to recruit people. Of the thirteen (93%) HR managers who directly answered the question, eight (62%) said they do not have a specic recruitment and selection policy for persons with disabilities. More than half of our respondents (54%) said they did not target PWD specically in their recruitment material because (a) they did not want PWD to face future stigmatisation, (b) they assumed that disabled people want to be hired for their ability, not their disability, and (c) because though they may have a preference policy, its best not to state it since PWD may not appreciate it. Representative quotes are listed below. .we have abandoned the active Target Group policy, because more and more this started circulating in the sphere of stigmatisation. Along the way we have decreased the frequency of stating this in our job vacancies. The potential applicant found it undesirable to be appointed on this ground. They want to be viewed as a regular applicant, not being hired because of the reason that they have disability. We do not put it in our job advertisements text anymore.Disabled people want to be appointed based on their capacities, not on the basis of their handicap. More than half of our respondents (64%) also said they recruited through reintegration agencies. One stated that they work with multiple reintegration agencies. There are

141 people there who keep in touch with PWD and place them within [organisation name]. In terms of organisational entry, it seems that both the PWD and their HR managers experienced the same reality in terms of lack of specic or overt policies. The HR managers were explicit in terms of explaining why their organisations were not overt about advertising specically for PWD. From a theoretical perspective, it is possible that employers are trying to reduce overt social categorisation given documented negative outcomes of categorisation and consequent stigmatisation. Specically, research shows that if we perceive someone as being different from us, we may categorise them and be biased to behave differently towards them (Thomas & Chrobot-Mason, 2005) such that sometimes the categorised people are excluded (Riordian, Schaffer, & Stewart, 2005) or stigmatised (Stone-Romero, 2005). Language creates and mirrors reality (Olkin, 2002), and it seems as though employers want to draw attention away from disability. Organisational integration We asked respondents to talk about organisationally conducted socialisation activities especially aimed at helping the PWD integrate in the organisation, overall integration in terms of other employee attitudes towards PWD, and key challenges PWD face in the integration process. When asked to talk about integration issues, respondents with a disability were more vocal and discussed these issues more passionately as compared with the HR respondents. Overall we found that employers (a) did not conduct any separate socialisation activities for PWD (b) did not have a buddy or mentor system especially for PWD (c) viewed informal help extended by coworkers and managers as helpful, but did not view HR personnel as helpful, and (d) saw integration as a reection of PWD attitude. All except one employee (93%) indicated that the initial socialisation programme was the same for all employees. One respondent captured the feeling, No, I just went along with a certain process. No, I was not assigned a mentor nor were there any other ways of socialising me in the organisation. Two respondents indicated that it would be helpful to have an assigned mentor. One of them said, No, it is no different for PWD. I would have found it desirable to have a mentor. In all areas particularly the knowledge of the organisation and knowledge of the job content. This would have taken care of my familiarisation with how things work in this organisation. Less than half (46%) of our respondents indicated that overall, managers and coworkers are helpful in day to day working, though at times, some had to be reminded of the disability and associated limitations. For example, one respondent told us, In any case what I see is that people are considerate. They do not ask for certain things, they take my disability into account. It happens that I have much physical pain and this makes me glum and that is a burden sometimes. They know this by now but they have to get used to it.I have to repeat my limitations.

142 Interestingly, 10 respondents (42%) specically indicated that HR personnel were not as proactive in helping them as their coworkers. This perception may be because employees expectations of HR are higher than their expectations of coworkers or managers. Some reected, I nd that the HR Consultant has many shortcomings in this. Actually the ball was put in my court and she sees it as my problem.I do have an impairment but I need no sympathy and I want to keep on working.My salary would be cut because I was in a sickness trajectory. But if you have not been ill for one day your salary cannot be cut.Information, communication and interest could have been much better.That is a point of concern. I do not have anything to do with HR.HR approached me for the height of my chair and those kinds of things. At that time I did not have everything at hand yet. Then that was postponed and nobody asked for it any more. I took care of it myself. A few of our respondents (13%) indicated that integration depends on PWD attitude at work. . well, lots of it depends upon you. If you are willing to open up to others like hey I do nd this very nice of you, then those people will also approach you differently. No negative experiences, only positive experiences, because you see, you have to see them yourself. My colleagues responded enthusiastically, because I was very motivated to become procient in certain things, even though it took somewhat more time. Twelve of our HR respondents (86%) indicated that there were no separate socialisation activities for PWD. Of these respondents, four (33%) stated that informal help was offered by the HR department on an ad hoc basis only if asked for or needed, and three (25%) said they didnt want separate socialisation activities designed for PWD for fear of stigmatising the minority group. One respondent indicated that there are specic HR meetings to determine PWD needs and three indicated that they had assigned special mentors to PWD. We list representative quotes below. I can imagine that this happens on an ad hoc basis, but also from the viewpoint of stigmatisation we want to prevent the thinking that people are being treated separately or differently. No policy, it is given shape practically on an ad hoc basis. No, everything is the same; we do not make a distinction. We do assist with certain dealings.You should also not stigmatise people, they do not want that either. Sometimes it is tricky, theyd like it that you pay attention. To summarise, PWD indicated that they did not have any separate socialisation activities, were not assigned any mentors or buddies. Most viewed colleagues and managers as more helpful or understanding than HR managers. A few indicated that separate induction programmes would be helpful, while some said that integration depends on the persons attitude. HR managers echoed the fact that they

M. Kulkarni, R. Valk did not have a separate socialisation or induction programme for PWD so as not to segregate them. From a theoretical perspective we can situate our ndings in Colellas (2001) research. Employers seem to be working from an equity perspective, that is, they do not want to create a situation where coworkers without a disability may make fairness judgements on the grounds that PWD are given preferential treatment during socialisation, leading to questions about needs and wants of a minority group visa `-vis the majority group. Coworkers are important stakeholders in the socialisation process, and it is possible that to keep an equitable situation, PWD themselves shy away from asking for more opportunities such as access to mentors, and yet feel that somehow organisational representatives such as HR personnel should tacitly recognise their needs and act upon them. This was evidenced through the higher expectations PWD had of HR managers. Key challenges when integrating in the workplace The key challenge that the majority of our respondents with a disability (71%) spoke about was the need to prove their ability or manage their image such that people focused on their ability. One respondent said, That they see the persons role and not that a disabled guy who just happens to work here. they do not know your worth .they saw more problems along the path than there actually were. When talking about proving that you are just as good as a non-disabled person, respondents argued that they want to be part of society, to not be at the side or that they wanted to prove themselves just a bit more than others. Interestingly, though our respondents wanted to prove their worth and be recognised and accepted by coworkers for their ability, some of them (17%) did not want to be in the spotlight such that their success stories were circulated, while few (13%) thought that highlighting success stories of ability and integration would help other PWD. Those who shied away from the spotlight said, Actually I like it this way, because everybody is being treated equally and that they did not want to draw attention to themselves or show off. One respondent among those who thought stories would help other PWD stated, Especially people who have a severe disability or impairment could have support through this. There are opportunities for these people. Such a spotlight effect may have mixed implications positive in bringing attention to PWD for employees who need sensitisation, but negative for the PWD themselves who are made to feel as second rung citizens. A few respondents (8%) indicated that a challenge in the workplace for them is their own low self-condence. One respondent talked about himself, In the past, I used to be a very silent boy. I did not dare to do much. There might be many PWD who think in the beginning that they cannot do much. I used to think that way too. Another respondent said,I think that PWD might have to be stimulated somewhat more because they have less self-condence. The majority of our HR respondents (79%) also perceived that a key challenge for PWD was to manage their image and to prove that they can work well or be a regular part of the work process. This was especially because coworkers may not understand PWD needs or may label them

Views on Human Resource Practices inaccurately based on fear of the unknown. They indicated that PWD have difculty talking about their disability and at times hide their limitations so that they are accepted as well functioning members of the organisation. One respondent spoke of barriers such that When the disability is something observable then I can imagine that you are being met head-on with image creation. Another respondent argued that The biggest challenge at the workplace is dependent on the nature of the disability. For some people it is the issue of being accepted as a commendable employee, not being placed in a specic box as a disabled person. Another stated, In this organisation we are good at putting imprints on people. Look, if you are liked within a department then there is no problem, you are like anybody else.What always plays a role is whether people like you, then the acceptance rate is higher. When mentioning that the challenge is getting people to talk about their limitations, one respondent stated, The challenge is to get a conversation going about a disability. Another respondent expressed his concern stating, [PWD] have to take into account their own limitations. They do not always do this. This can result in aggravation of complaints which means that they cannot function maximally any more in their jobs. In line with the assumption that PWD want to t into the regular mainstream of the workow, more than half of the HR managers (64%) also indicated that the organisation does not circulate success stories and put the spotlight on the disabled employees because the PWD may not like to be talked about. The general feeling was, PWD have the wish to be treated as normal, like everybody else. No explicit attention. The cases I have experienced myselfdemployees indicated that no special adjustments were needed for them. That is the reaction you get. I have encountered that some people try to put it out of sight. They try to perform their work without any special adjustments. A few of the managers (29%) indicated that the fact that contracts of PWD are extended is in itself a success story. The fact that an employee is still here is a success in itself. Only one respondent indicated that they were considering highlighting success stories in the future. Specically, this person stated, We are at the point where we want to make known success stories of employees. That is not a common practice within this organisation. In terms of challenges, managing self image seems most salient in the minds of our respondents. This nding is in alignment with previous research, which associates a negative social image as a barrier to comprehensive integration (Boyle, 1997). The dominant feeling amongst PWD that they wanted to prove themselves as good as other non-disabled coworkers may have motivated one of our HR respondents to reect that such high and sometimes unrealistic expectations may lead PWD to experience frustration, a nding reected upon by researchers (Colella, 1994).

143 In contrast with prior research, which articulates the need for circulating success stories and making coworkers aware of the abilities of PWD (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2008) our ndings indicate that most PWD do not wish to be talked about, and HR managers also share this view. Our PWD respondents seem to shy away from talking about their limitations in the hope that they are seen as part of the mainstream workforce. This may partially hamper integration such that all parties involved fear saying something or doing something that may seem offensive to the receiver. Developmental activities We asked respondents to talk about organisationally conducted training or any developmental activities. In addition, HR managers were asked to outline any diversity or sensitivity training that they conducted for the nondisabled employees. When asked about training offered by the HR department when they joined the organisation, more than half of our disabled respondents (58%) indicated that they received no training. Of these 14 respondents, four (29%) indicated that they did not require any training. Of those who spoke of not needing training, all focused solely on discussing training in terms of knowledge and skills required for their jobs. For instance, one respondent said he did not receive training because, they found that I was functioning well. Another respondent stated, No, this was actually never a topic of conversation. I had the required diplomas. Of the 14 respondents, six (43%) indicated that any training they were offered was because of their own initiative. All of these respondents indicated that their organisations were receptive to offering them training when asked. A common response was, I initiated this myself and it has been approved. Another respondent argued, You cannot expect [training] from the employer.How to function as a PWD in the workforce is a learning moment. When the same question was posed to the HR managers, half indicated that they did not offer any specic training to all because PWD received the necessary training when they came to the organisation from a reintegration agency, or because if needed, the PWD or their managers would initiate training on an ad hoc basis. One respondent said, Well, we do not go to that extent, because most of the time the person comes via a reintegration agency that gives guidance to the PWD. Another stated, When an employee with or without a disability has the need for education and the manager shares that opinion, we shall make it possible for the employee to participate in training. Reecting upon the ad hoc nature of training one respondent said, This would be open for conversation. There is no standard policy for this.If it is really necessary to perform on the job then this is simply something we need to do. In terms of offering diversity related training for coworkers, all but one respondent indicated that they did not offer any diversity related or sensitivity training. Interestingly, respondents indicated that they did not offer this since no one had asked for it. One respondent said, No. I have never thought about it, because the question has never been asked.. No, on a structural basis no extra attention is being given. Another respondent echoed this statement, I cannot remember that we have ever done

144 this, nor can I remember that the question has ever been asked. Only one respondent indicated that they informally discuss among coworkers that a PWD is joining their department. No, if there is a PWD in the team then within the department this will be discussed like: a PWD with xx impairment will join our teamso please keep a close eye on the issues that may arise for this person. Our results indicate lack of policies for skill based training, and that such training happens in an ad hoc fashion if the employee with disability asks for it, or if the manager initiates it. HR does not appear to be directly involved, and seems to rely on training provided by reintegration agencies. The reliance on reintegration agencies may be explained by leveraging past research about how supported employment programmes and associated training helps employers feel reduced uncertainty about PWD skill and ability level (Lengnick-Hall & Gaunt, 2007). Despite this assumption that PWD have gained the required skills from reintegration agencies, lack of structured training opportunities may be an area of concern considering research ndings which demonstrate the positive association between increase in relevant knowledge, perceived independence, and consequent career advancement chances especially for PWD (Grimaldi & Goette, 1999). It is possible that our HR respondents expected less from PWD employees and assumed that they had sufcient skills and knowledge obtained from the reintegration agencies to function in their current function. Such attitudes, some researchers argue (Colella, 1994) may lead to PWD getting non-challenging projects and this may unintentionally hamper future advancement opportunities for them. The nding that PWD respondents did not ask for training and insisted that they had the required skills can be couched in theoretical arguments about the organisational climate as perceived by PWD. PWD may have certain beliefs that stop them from seeking help. These beliefs may stem from their perception of the organisational climate which may be seen as discouraging, sometimes in very subtle ways, of extra requests for accommodating disability concerns. PWD may think that asking for anything extra may exacerbate or create a negative image of them and leads to stigmatisation based on assumptions of lower competence. PWD may also shy away given reasons of reciprocity e that they may not be able to reciprocate what the organisation is doing for them (Baldridge & Veiga, 2001).

M. Kulkarni, R. Valk highlighting their achievements, they seemed to shy away from asking for anything more than what was offered by the employer and more particularly by the HR department. Not wanting to specically draw attention to PWD fearing negative categorisation, HR managers also seem to have offered such employees exactly what was offered to the non-disabled workforce. It is possible that such reluctance on the part of both the PWD and their employers may inadvertently lead to incomplete realisation of the employers diversity management initiatives.

Limitations and implications for future research

Though our study pointed to areas in which PWD and HR perceptions and expectations match as well as areas where they do not, it is only an exploratory beginning. There are certain limitations and potential implications of our study which should be noted. One, it is possible that HR managers may have more positive attitudes than other people towards issues relating to PWD (Colella & Stone, 2005) and perceptions and expectations may be different for other employee groups such as coworkers and supervisors. Future research can tap into a more holistic view of other employees perceptions of organisationally driven practices aimed at PWD. Two, we only considered one type of disability group e people with physical disability. Though this allowed us to maintain research scope and boundaries, it is possible that the answers to our research question would have been different had we considered multiple types of disabilities. Three, in terms of future research, there is a need for examining what employers mean by an inclusionary context and how they implement diversity initiatives. In the present study, it is possible that well intentioned employers who value disabled employees and wish to nurture them are not particularly viewed as well intentioned by employees who are left alone to navigate the organisational landscape. HR managers may want to explore perceptions of PWD in terms of where they need help and which areas they would prefer to manage on their own.

Implications for research and practice in the Indian context

The present study has clear implications for the Indian context considering Indias large population of PWD estimated at between 40 and 80 million people (World Bank Report, 2007). Disability employment and treatment issues are gaining attention in organisational and policy conversations in India in attempts to harness the potential of such a large population of PWD, and there is currently very little that employers can draw upon in terms of best policies or practices (Confederation of Indian Industry, 2009). Considering that gaining employment is difcult for PWD in India (Confederation of Indian Industry, 2009), that socioeconomic situations and societal inequalities can determine workplace perceptions (cf. Adya, 2008), and that HR practices may be ad hoc even in global Indian organisations (Kulkarni, Lengnick-Hall, & Valk, 2010), researchers and policy makers would do well to pay explicit attention to disabilities issues, to ensure workplace inclusion and effectiveness. For example, based on implications of the present research,

Discussion
The aim of our study was to explore how people with disabilities and their HR managers view HR practices and policies aimed at entry, integration, and development of PWD. Overall, we found that respondents, both people with disabilities and their human resource managers, reported the same reality. The experience of and reasons for the reality though were different. Most notably, it seems as though both set of respondents want to focus on ability and being part of the mainstream of the workow rather than on the disability. Though people with disabilities would have beneted from more training, mentoring, and from

Views on Human Resource Practices more attention should be paid to creating employment opportunities for PWD, possibly via organisational ties with vocational training agencies, designing integration programmes that involve all organisational members, and actively soliciting views of PWD as to their specic needs. This is especially critical given the existence of greater power distance in the collective (Blagoev, 2010) Indian context, where recruitment may be network based (Kulkarni & Osicki, 2010), a privilege that may not be afforded to PWD. On the other hand, it may be relatively straightforward in the Indian context to hire PWD given quotas in certain sectors for such employment, something we did not observe in the present study. In this case, though, treatment and inclusion of PWD needs careful attention. In conclusion, while more attention is paid to the employability of people with disabilities, treatment of such employees once on the job has only recently begun to garner research momentum. Given labour market conditions and the not yet fully tapped potential of people with disabilities, employers can neither ignore nor merely provide supercial service in addressing disability related issuesdthe costs to both employees with disabilities and their employers are too high. It is important to gain a better understanding of disability issues considering its impact on overall organisational effectiveness. Informal and ad hoc approaches to managing disabled employees will have to give way for more formal and systematic HR policies and practices.

145
disabilities. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 8(3), 259e268. Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In J. Lonner, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137e164). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Cleveland, J. N., Vescio, T. K., & Barnes-Farrell, J. L. (2005). Gender discrimination in organizations. In R. Dipboye, & A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work. The psychological and organizational bases (pp. 149e176). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Colella, A. (1994). Organizational socialization of employees with disabilities: critical issues and implications for workplace interventions. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 4(2), 87e106. Colella, A. (2001). Coworker distributive fairness judgments of the workplace accommodation of employees with disabilities. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 100e116. Colella, A., & Stone, D. L. (2005). Workplace discrimination toward persons with disabilities: A call for some new research directions. In R. Dipboye, & A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work. The psychological and organizational bases (pp. 227e253). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Confederation of Indian Industry. (2009). A values route to business success: The why and how of employing persons with disability. Bangalore: DEOC. Delaney, J. T., & Lundy, M. C. (1996). Unions, collective bargaining, and the diversity paradox. In E. E. Kossek, & S. A. Lobel (Eds.), Managing diversity: Human resource strategies for transforming the workplace (pp. 245e272). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Dipboye, R. L., & Colella, A. (2005). The dilemmas of workplace discrimination. In R. Dipboye, & A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work. The psychological and organizational bases (pp. 425e462). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Disability Status Report. (2007). Accessed on September 30, 2009 from: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/edi/disabilitystatistics/. Einerhand, M., & Van Der Stelt, H. (2005). Growing disability rates e the gender issue: the Dutch case in an international perspective. International Social Security Review, 58(1), 65e84. European Industrial Relations Review. (2006). Legislative Reform of the Labour Disablement System, 389, 18e21. Evans, K. M., & Herr, E. L. (1991). The inuence of racism and sexism in the career development of African American women. Journal of Multicultural Counselling and Development, 19(3), 130e135. Fuqua, D. R., Rathburn, M., & Gade, E. M. (1984). A comparison of employer attitudes toward the worker problems of eight types of disabilities. Vocational Evaluation and Work Adjustment Bulletin, 15(1), 40e43. Garcia, M. F., Paetzold, R. L., & Colella, A. (2005). The relationship between personality and peers judgments of the appropriateness of accommodations for individuals with disabilities. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(7), 1418e1439. Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., Raver, J. L., & Schneider, B. (2005). Discrimination in organizations: an organizational-level systems perspective. In R. Dipboye, & A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work. The psychological and organizational bases (pp. 89e116). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Grimaldi, C., & Goette, T. (1999). The internet and the independence of individuals with disabilities. Internet Research, 9(4), 272e280. Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Lucas, J. A. (1992). Presumed incompetent? Stigmatization and afrmative action efforts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4), 536e544. Henkens, K., Remery, C., & Schippers, J. (2008). Shortages in an ageing labour market: an analysis of employers behaviour. The

References
Adya, M. P. (2008). Women at work: differences in IT career experiences and perceptions between South Asian and American women. Human Resource Management, 47(3), 601e635. Arthur, W., Jr., & Doverspike, D. (2005). Achieving diversity and reducing discrimination in the workplace through human resource management practices: implications of research and theory for stafng, training, and rewarding performance. In R. Dipboye, & A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work. The psychological and organizational bases (pp. 305e327). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Baldridge, D. A., & Veiga, J. F. (2001). Toward a greater understanding of the willingness to request an accommodation: can requesters beliefs disable the Americans with Disabilities Act? Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 85e99. Barlow, J., Wright, C., & Cullen, L. (2002). A job-seeking self-efcacy scale for people with physical disabilities: preliminary development and psychometric testing. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 30(1), 37e53. Barnard, L., & Lan, W. (2007). Faculty attitudes towards persons with disabilities when controlling for attitudes toward diversity. The International Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Communities and Nations, 7(1), 1e9. Barton, M. A., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2009). Overcoming dysfunctional momentum: organizational safety as a social achievement. Human Relations, 62(9), 1327e1356. Blagoev, V. (2010). Culture: values, beliefs, perceptions, norms, and behaviors. In K. Lundby, & J. Jolton (Eds.), Going global: Practical applications and recommendations for HR and OD professionals in the global workplace (pp. 22e45). Jossey-Bass. Bound, J., Schoenbaum, M., Stinebrickner, T. R., & Waidmann, T. (1999). The dynamic effects of health on the labor force transitions of older workers. Labor Economics, 6(2), 179e202. Boyle, M. A. (1997). Social barriers to successful reentry into mainstream organizational culture: perceptions of people with

146
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(7), 1314e1329. IIgen, D. R., & Youtz, M. A. (1986). Factors affecting the evaluation and development of minorities in organizations. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 4, 307e337. Jones, G. E. (1997). Advancement opportunity issues for people with disabilities. Human Resource Management Review, 7(1), 55e76. Joseph, M. V. (2005/2006). Diversity in women with disabilities. International Journal of the Diversity, 5(6), 213e220. Kulkarni, M., Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Valk, R. (2010). Employee perceptions of repatriation in an emerging economy: the Indian experience. Human Resource Management, 49(3), 529e546. Kulkarni, M., & Osicki, M. (2010). Recruiting a global workforce. In K. Lundby, & J. Jolton (Eds.), Going global: Practical applications and recommendations for HR and OD professionals in the global workplace (pp. 113e142). Jossey-Bass. Lafuma, A., Bre zin, A., Lopatriello, S., Hieke, K., Hutchinson, J., Mimaud, V., et al. (2006). Evaluation of non-medical costs associated with visual impairment in four European countries: France, Italy, Germany and the UK. PharmacoEconomics, 24(2), 193e205. Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2007). Hidden talent: How companies hire, retain, and benet from people with disabilities. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger. Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Gaunt, P. (2007). Why employers dont hire people with disabilities. In M. L. Lengnick-Hall (Ed.), Hidden talent: How companies hire, retain, and benet from people with disabilities (pp. 25e33). Westport, Connecticut: Praeger. Lengnick-Hall, M. L., Gaunt, P. M., & Kulkarni, M. (2008). Overlooked and underutilized: people with disabilities are an untapped human resource. Human Resource Management, 47(2), 255e273. Levitin, T., Quinn, R. P., & Staines, G. L. (1971). Sex discrimination against the American working women. America Behavioral Scientist, 15(7), 238e254. Loo, R. (2004). Attitudes toward employing persons with disabilities: a test of the sympathy-discomfort categories. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(10), 2200e2214. Louvet, E. (2007). Social judgment toward job applicants with disabilities: perception of personal qualities and competences. Rehabilitation Psychology, 52(3), 297e303. Mignonac, K. (2008). Individual and contextual antecedents of older managerial employees willingness to accept intra-organizational job changes. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(4), 582e599. OECD. (2008). Sickness, disability and work: Breaking the barriers. (Report on Denmark, Ireland, Finland and the Netherlands). Olkin, R. (2002). Could you hold the door for me? Including disability in diversity. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8(2), 130e137. Palmon, O., Oxman, R., Shahar, M., & Weiss, P. L. (2004). Virtual environments as an aid to the design and evaluation of home and work settings for people with physical disabilities. In: International conference on disability, virtual reality and associated technology proceedings, 119e124.

M. Kulkarni, R. Valk
Peng, T. K., Peterson, M. F., & Shyi, Y. (1991). Quantitative methods in cross-national management research: trends and equivalence issues. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12(2), 87e107. Riordian, C. M., Schaffer, B. S., & Stewart, M. M. (2005). Relational demography within groups: Through the lens of discrimination. In R. Dipboye, & A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work. The psychological and organizational bases (pp. 37e61). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Schoonheim, J., & Smits, J. (2008). Report on the employment of disabled people in European countries. ANED: Academic Network of European Disability Experts. Shore, L. M., Chung-Herrera, B. G., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H., Jung, D. I., Randel, A. E., et al. (2009). Diversity in organizations: where are we now and where are we going? Human Resource Management Review, 19(2), 117e133. Stone, D., & Colella, A. (1996). A model of factors affecting the treatment of disabled individuals in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 352e401. Stone-Romero, E. F. (2005). Personality-based stigmas and unfair discrimination in work organizations. In R. Dipboye, & A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work. The psychological and organizational bases (pp. 255e280). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Teagarden, M. B., Von Glinow, M. A., Bowen, D. E., Frayne, C. A., Nason, S., Huo, Y. P., et al. (1995). Toward a theory of comparative management research: an Idiographic case study of the best international human resources management project. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1261e1287. Thomas, K. M., & Chrobot-Mason, D. (2005). Group-level explanations of workplace discrimination. In R. Dipboye, & A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work. The psychological and organizational bases (pp. 63e88). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Tsui, A. S. (2006). Contextualization in Chinese management research. Management and Organization Review, 2(1), 1e13. Unger, D. D. (2002). Employers attitudes toward persons with disabilities in the workforce: myths or realities? Focus on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities, 17(1), 2e11. United Nations Report. (2009). Making the MDGs inclusive: empowerment of persons with disabilities and their communities around the world. from. http://www.un.org/disabilities/ default.asp%3Fid%3D1484 Accessed 29. 09. 2009. U.S Department of Labor, Ofce of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (1995). OFCCP glass ceiling initiative: Are there cracks in the ceiling? Washington, DC: Ofce of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, U.S. Department of Labor. Wertlieb, E. C. (1985). Minority group status of the disabled. Human Relations, 38(11), 1047e1063. World Bank Report. (2007). People with disabilities in India: from commitments to outcomes. from. http://www.worldbank.org. in/wbsite/external/countries/southasiaext/indiaextn/0,,% 20contentMDK:2021557057%7EmenuPK:3968122%7EpagePK: 64027988%7EpiPK:64027986%7EtheSitePK:295584,00.html Accessed 17. 11. 09.