1
Including or excluding disabled people on the work floor
A qualitative study on disabled employees of the municipality of Amsterdam
Diede van der Gun, 10014330
Master thesis in Sociology, June 2016
Track: Comparative organisation and labour studies First supervisor: J.P. Bruggeman
Second supervisor: R. Hulst University of Amsterdam Word count: 11,006
2
Content
Abstract ... 4
1. Introduction ... 5
1.2 The subjects, the organisation, and the research problem ... 5
1.3 Organisational practices ... 7
1.4 The role of employers in the inclusion of disabled people ... 9
1.5 Inventory of the municipality of Amsterdam ... 9
2 Methodology ... 11
2.1 Operationalisation of the variables ... 11
2.2 Observations ... 11
2.3 The conditions and candidates of the interviews ... 12
3 Analysis and results ... 13
3.1.1 Balancing the interaction with the disabled employee ... 13
3.1.2 Feelings of discomfort ... 15
3.2 Interactions with colleagues on the work floor ... 16
3.2.1 The disabled employee‟s experiences on the work floor... 16
3.2.2. Interactions with the supervisor ... 17
3.2.3. Caution in interactions ... 17
3.2.4. Acceptance of the disability ... 18
3.2.5 Complicated communication and exclusion ... 18
3.3 Invisibility and visibility of the handicap ... 20
3.3.1 Large invisible group ... 20
3.3.2 Invisibility in practice ... 20
3.3.3. Reactions to the visibility of the disability ... 21
3.3.4 Definition of groups and persistence of the group ... 22
3.4 Stigmatisation of the disabled employee ... 23
3.4.1 Stigmas in the workplace ... 23
3.4.2 Mechanisms of stigmatisation ... 23
3.4.3. Stigmatisation on the work floor ... 24
3.4.3. Labelling people with disabilities ... 24
3.4.4. Highly educated disabled employees ... 25
3.4.5. Lesser-educated disabled employees ... 26
3.4.6. Providing a job coach for support ... 27
3
3.5.2 Participation law ... 29
4 Reflection and conclusion ... 31
Attachments ... 34
Questionnaire for group 1: People with disabilities ... 34
Questionnaire for group 2: Colleagues of people with disabilities ... 35
Questionnaire for group 3 Managers of people with disabilities ... 36
Questionnaire Group 4: Job coaches ... 37
Questionnaire Group 5: Mediation organizations ... 38
Observational table ... 39
4
Abstract
The Dutch participation law of 2015 requires employers to hire a certain percentage of disabled people. Employers tend to perceive disabled people as a risk for their company and are not eager to hire them. This study investigates how this political initiative affects the work floor of the municipality of Amsterdam. This top-down approach creates room for the disabled on the labour market, but also puts them in a specific pool of employees who receive created jobs and do not follow regular hiring procedures. The research focuses on social interaction between and among disabled and non-disabled employees, and on the integration of disabled people into the workforce. More specifically, this research examines the inclusion and exclusion of people with disabilities in the work force at the municipality of Amsterdam since the participation law. Data retrieved from interviews (N=25) and four months of observations on the work floor show that the implementation of the policy provides disabled people with a basic level of inclusion in the labour market, but social integration with colleagues, superiors, and tasks remain to be developed. Non-disabled employees perceive their disabled colleagues to receive special treatment and do not see them as full employees. The general perspective of disabled respondents in this study is that their disabilities are negatively labelled due to their limitations and that they are not fully integrated into the work force. There are different ways of social interaction among disabled and non-disabled colleagues that stand out to the respondents of this research. The interactions with people with disabilities are characterised by: shyness, denial or emphasis of the disability, discomfort, and mislabelling of the capabilities and behaviour. In addition, there is an underestimation of the capabilities of the highly educated disabled employees and an overestimation of the capabilities of the lesser-educated disabled employees. There is a fear among the disabled employees of being pushed out of tasks by the non-disabled employees. A recommendation is for disabled people and non-disabled people to discuss the extra care needed due to the disability. There is no solution in the denial of the handicap: it only complicates the social interaction of disabled employees.
5
1. Introduction
The Dutch participation law of 2015 requires employers to hire a certain percentage of disabled people. Employers tend to perceive disabled people as a risk for their company, because they are believed to be exceptionally costly, unqualified, slow, and too often on sick leave (Verveen & van Petersen 2007). However, because of the participation law, it is encouraged that disabled people (re-) enter the labour market and that possible employers consider the merits that these employees may bring forth, just as any other valuable employee. Employers may risk a financial penalty in the long run from the government, and may further risk losing their image of non-discrimination if they maintain preferences for non-disabled employees. It is a political choice to promote disabled people to join the labour market. Policy makers choose not to invest in the welfare system but instead to make room for disabled people on the labour market. Employers receive subsidies if they cooperate, and a fine or a bad reputation if they do not. If they do not cooperate, they are accused of discrimination against the disabled. The change in legislation is a change from a political standpoint. It is a retrenchment (money cut) and not an initiative of the disabled persons in the first place. One can question how this top-down initiative affects the work floor. The present study examines the different mechanisms of including and excluding people with disabilities in the work force at the municipality of Amsterdam since the participation law. Data were collected from interviews and four months observations during an internship in a project group of the municipality. This group has been assigned the task of meeting the requirements of the participation law, and therefore creates jobs within the municipality for employees with disabilities.
1.2 The subjects, the organisation, and the research problem This study defines people with disabilities as those individuals who are classified as such by the participation law (Wilke et al. 2015). Disabilities include physical, cognitive, mental, sensory, emotional, or developmental disabilities. Some people are born with a disability and some acquire a disability throughout their life course. The project group of the municipality of Amsterdam creates jobs within the municipality for those selected by the participation law, which distinguished between four categories of people with disabilities. It is aimed for those who (1) are covered by the participation law and cannot make minimum wage; (2) have a „Wsw-indicatie‟ (Wet sociale werkvoorziening); (3) are covered by the incapacity insurance
6 for young disabled persons (Wajongers) with the possibility of working; and (4) have a Wiw-job (Wet inschakeling werkzoekenden) or ID-Wiw-jobs (Besluit In- en doorstroombanen). The project group works to provide jobs for those people who are the furthest removed from the labour market and are unlikely to succeed in finding a job without assistance (Gemeente Amsterdam 2015). The project group has created almost 150 jobs since 2013 for individuals with disabilities, and is well over its targeted number of 42 jobs a year.
Creating an inclusive workforce is currently a hot topic for policy makers in Amsterdam. An inclusive workforce is a work force that represents those groups in society that are usually underrepresented. One of these groups consists of people with disabilities. The municipality of Amsterdam, Uitvoeringsinstituut Werknemersverzekeringen (UWV), the Algemene Werkgeversvereninging Nederland (AWVN), the Normaalste zaak, and the 99 van Amsterdam are all institutions and employers organisations that aim to create inclusive organisations. A project group of the municipality, Arbeidsbeperkten aan het Werk, has been assigned the task of creating jobs for the disabled since 2014. The project group creates at least 42 jobs every year for people with disabilities. The jobs are all created and paid from a central budget of the municipality. The project group places disabled employees at new jobs within different departments of the municipality. When these jobs are created, inclusion on the work floor is achieved. This research focuses on the social level of inclusion and exclusion of disabled people who are already employed by the municipality of Amsterdam. It is seen as necessary within the project group to pay people with disabilities from a central budget and not to place them in the formation of the department. This is because these individuals are seen as unable to directly compete with non-disabled employees. Employers have a high preference for non-disabled employees. Thus, this can be seen as a partial version of inclusion: it is inclusion by affirmative action, but it is a limited inclusion. For example, the career options of the disabled employees are questioned; one respondent explained, „If you put these people in a pool then this will stay. They will stay in that pool. What if there was a job opening and someone outside of the pool wanted to apply? Then that person would not be hired because there would be a chance of hiring someone else. You are safe in your position, but will you ever get out of it? I doubt it.‟ Because the positions for the disabled employees are specifically reserved by the initiative, these employees enjoy job security in set positions and occupations; however, since the positions are based on the principle of reservation, the careers and upward mobility of these employees are diminished.
7
1.3 Organisational practices
The project group „Arbeidsbeperkten aan het werk‟ looks for work places for the disabled within the departments of the municipality. The strategy of work for the disabled is organised from the outside and in a top-down manner. It is not created from inside the company or the labour market. The strategy for finding workplaces for people with disabilities comes from the initiative of an authoritative structure. Nevertheless, there is an organisational culture promoted that emphasises equal chances, unknown talent, and working based on ability. As the law „Wet Werken naar Vermogen‟ has been replaced by the participation law, newly disabled people need to find work in the formal labour market and not in sheltered workplaces as they used to. To successfully implement the requirements of the law, an organisational culture of diversity demands an internal motivation; therefore, the Dutch participation law could cause hindrances as it is a top-down policy.
Another organisational practice is the special treatment that disabled people receive because of the legislation. The assistance that is necessary to make room for disabled people on the work floor is stigmatising and causes complex relations on the work floor, as they may feel that there is unfairness and favouritism. However, disabled employees also have difficulty with the way in which they enter the work place. The tension is between wanting people with disabilities to be seen and employed as regular employees, and the reality that these people often are not hired without „special treatment‟. They need the assistance of mediators to obtain jobs. With the assistance of the mediators the disabled are able to secure jobs, but with this assistance a certain label is obtained. The advantage is that more disabled people have work, but the downside is that the stigma of needing special treatment might be emphasised. This favouring policy can obstruct the position of people with disabilities in their aim to be seen as regular employees. Will stigmatisation because of special treatment increase because of the implementation of the participation law or will disabled employees be accepted more and seen as valuable employees as more disabled employees enter the labour market? An even more complicated question is whether they will be seen as fully participating and valuable employees.
Goffman defines stigma as „the situation of the individual who is disqualified from full social acceptance‟ (1963:9). He makes a distinction between normal and the stigmatised people. „The stigmatized individual is unsure how ‟the normal‟ will identify him and receive him‟ (1963:24). The concept of stigma is a result of societal norms. However, the identities of the stigmatised are not fixed and there are strategies to control these identities. Goffman
8 mentions tension management and information management. The aim is to control information management and not tension management in social interactions. The stigmatised person tries to project information about him- or herself and tries to manage expectations of others, but there is a gap between virtual and actual identity and this can lead to disappointment as the stigmatised person does not belong to the normal category. Goffman stresses that identity norms cause deviations from the normal category as well as conformance to the normal category. The balance is downplaying one‟s stigma while giving it enough validity so that normal people (without a stigma) do not feel uncomfortable about it (idem).
Another formulation for distinguishing the normal and the stigmatised is as follows: „The benchmark for establishing difference in relation to the disabled people is non-disabled people‟ (Woodhams & Danieli 2000:403). One respondent explains what happens on the work floor when conformance is pushed: „Young disabled persons do not like people to be stigmatised. As the targeted group of the participation law, we as an organisation need to expand. We go for the least different person in comparison to the rest of the work floor. We want them to be as normal possible in our communication, and that‟s why in the communication we take the initiative and we impose our communication.‟ This spokesperson explained the importance of conforming and not broadening the normal category too much on the work floor. The image of the normal employee is the non-disabled employee. In this study the non-disabled group is the normal group on the work floor, and the disabled group is the exception to the norm and can be seen as the deviator.
The research question of this research is the following: „How are people with disabilities included and excluded in the work place at the municipality of Amsterdam?‟
My expectation was that the research question would solicit different answers from the employees, employers, mediation offices, and the job coaches, as they all defend different political or personal interests. They are differently motivated in including and excluding the disabled. A further expectation was that ideas about costs attached to this group of employees would play a role in the exclusion of disabled people, or at least cause hesitation in hiring large numbers of people with disabilities. In addition, ideas about employability might also cause exclusion. There is a negative bias against hiring workers who are different from the majority (Spataro 2005). Furthermore, Colella (2001) warns against perceptions of unfairness and favouritism by non-disabled employees. Anyone who deviates too much from the norm is seen as a less valuable employee and is therefore excluded on the work floor more often in
9 comparison to non-disabled employees. There are assumptions about the type of employees who make the most contributions to the work floor (idem).
The participation law might contribute to the basic level of inclusion, as the disabled may be hired to reach a targeted number, but might emphasise the stigma of a specific group as it may receive „special treatment‟. As the literature indicates, special treatment of certain group causes resentment among co-workers and supervisors, and might cause difficulties with the total inclusion of the group. The assistance of the project group improves partial inclusion of disabled individuals into the workforce of the public sector, but that same assistance also causes exclusion of those individuals among co-workers. The disabled are included due to their stigmatisation, but also excluded because of that stigmatisation. The disabled are employed due to a specific promotional law, but because it has created jobs especially for those employees, co-workers sense special treatment, and full integration in the work floor is complicated.
1.4 The role of employers in the inclusion of disabled people
In a study by the Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau (SCP), 71% of employers who did not employ people with disabilities never even considered hiring someone with disabilities. They were more interested in the higher segments of the labour market than in policy that creates room for the „bottom‟ of the labour market (Verantvoort & van Echtelt 2012). Furthermore, these employers knew about financial compensation and insurance policies in the Netherlands, but these did not convince them to hire people with disabilities (ibid).
Another study presents the most influential factors that play a role in the rejection of people with disabilities from the perspective of managers. Those factors are the following: 78% expected low productivity; 80% expected high sickness absence; 70% preferred hiring someone without a handicap with comparable suitability; and 63% expected high financial risks. The image that managers have has not changed over the years, and that image is not positive (Verveen & van Petersen 2007).
1.5 Inventory of the municipality of Amsterdam
In April 2016 an interest group called SNAB (stedelijk netwerk arbeidsbeperkten, urban network of disabled employees) ordered the department of research and statistics (Onderzoek en Statistiek) of the municipality to conduct a survey. This survey was called a quick-scan and it was developed to examine how many employees of the municipality had a disability. The survey was sent to all employees of the municipality (N= 13,582). A total of 3,756
10 respondents completed the survey, a response rate of 28%. In this survey, 1,750 employees indicated that they have a disability. The five most common disabilities are chronic illness (23%), physical or motoric limitation (14%), allergies (10%), concentration problems (10%), and asthma/respiratory problems (8%). For 71% of the employees, their disabilities are a limitation on the work floor.
In summary, the top-down initiative to include more disabled people on the work floor might cause resentment in co-workers and favouritism on the work floor. This policy comes with a stigma and a label, and might counter the integration of disabled people on the work floor. Furthermore, 71% of the employees of the municipality see their disability as a limitation on the work floor (Quickscan SNAB). However, the importance of work is also positive. „Work is seen as the most important means of countering social exclusion‟ (van Echtelt 2010:113).
11
2 Methodology
2.1 Operationalisation of the variables
2.1.2. Including and excluding people with disabilities are operationalised on different levels. Including and excluding can be placed in the basic categories of hired and not hired. This is on a basic level: have they gained access to the workforce? This remains important as work is seen as a necessary condition to be socially included (van Echtelt 2010). Including and excluding can be found in tasks descriptions: to which tasks are people with disabilities assigned, and are those tasks suitable? Including and excluding can be noticed by colleagues, supervisors, and management. How valued and accepted is this group? How is a culture of diversity and inclusion activated? Is there an active recruitment process for employees with disabilities, and is it explicitly aimed as a company goal? To study the concepts of including and excluding, questions in the interviews were drafted about the interaction with colleagues and supervisors, organisational input, thoughts about the participation law, and reserving jobs. Concrete examples were requested about responsibilities on the workforce; coaching, tasks, and trust in handling the requirements of the job (see attachments of questionnaires 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5). To examine the concepts of including and excluding in the observational sphere is to focus on where people with disabilities are placed on the work floor: are they in separate workplaces or integrated with the other employees? And how is their contact with colleagues and supervisors?
2.2 Observations
During my internship, I observed the project group „Arbeidsbeperkten aan het werk‟ at the municipality of Amsterdam. By being present at the organisation, I saw how the group worked and how they interacted not only with each other but also with possible candidates for whom they arranged jobs. From February until June I was present and observed the project group and associated organisations. By being present at the organisation I could see how the project group they worked and what they accomplished. Different initiatives are organised to promote people with disabilities to find suitable jobs with suitable employers. I also spoke to some employers who did not succeed or had a low number of successes with including people with disabilities in their workforce. I attended meetings, work conferences, and Meet & Greets for my research. Meet & Greets are arranged meetings for employers and job-seeking disabled applicants to meet and exchange information about possible jobs. In addition, I
12 attended meetings of the project group and meetings with external companies who wanted to learn from the methods of the project group. I attended work conferences organised for employers to exchange ideas about inclusiveness and disabled employees. Work conferences were organised by employers. I attended the work conferences of the ING, AWVN, and ABN AMRO (see attachment 6 observation table).
2.3 The conditions and candidates of the interviews
One-on-one interviews were conducted with all of the members of the project group (12 members, 12 interviews). In addition, I conducted 13 interviews with external parties, consisting of disabled employees, colleagues, employers, managers, and experts in the areas of disability studies and discrimination. All interviewees played crucial roles in employing and keeping people with disabilities employed. Not only managers have a role in determining whether the employee stays employed: colleagues also play crucial roles in making the employee feel comfortable in the workplace. The choice to interview more than just managers was made because no single group has the only answer to the question of how and why people with disabilities are included and excluded in the workplace. Most of the interviews were conducted at the Jodenbreestraat 25 in Amsterdam. Per the respondents‟ requests, some interviews were conducted at their workplaces or in a restaurant.
In this study, single, open-ended interviews were conducted for several reasons (see attachments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 for the questionnaires). First of all, the prediction was that these topics could be sensitive, as they concern the immediate contact with one‟s own colleagues, disabled or non-disabled. My role as an interviewer was to facilitate the employees and employers to speak freely about their experiences in the workplace. The subject of this thesis regards the experiences and situations in the workplace and requires detailed description: context is thus a highly important aspect (Silverman 2011). Furthermore, in order to answer the research question, elaborate answers are of great importance: what are the reasons why someone is included or excluded? Therefore, the research question demanded flexibility to ask follow-up questions in direct response to the interviewee‟s answer. Anonymity was guaranteed for every respondent; therefore, respondents with disabilities are not named with their specific disability or tools.
13
3 Analysis and results
In this section, theories by previous researchers and the data gathered for this research are combined. All quotes are translated from Dutch to English and reduced to accommodate the flow of the text. Some quotes are also altered to safeguard the anonymity of the respondents, as some handicaps are highly personal and could lead to the discovery of the identity of a person. To prevent this, individuals‟ disability and tools are not mentioned. Wheelchairs, hearing aids, visual help devices, and other devices are all named as tools or attributed to the disability but not named specifically.
3.1.1 Balancing the interaction with the disabled employee
Interacting with people with disabilities is a balancing act, as was explained by colleagues and supervisors of the disabled employees. People want to pay attention to the disability but also want to keep the communication and the classification of a co-worker as normal as possible. One manager explained that it is in his/her task description to deal with the reaction of other employees when a disabled employee enters the workplace; however, not much attention is paid to what the appropriate response is. In this respondent‟s opinion, even if he/she introduces or prepares a department regarding the arrival of someone with a disability, frictions will occur with colleagues. Another respondent explained what needs to happen for the interaction to be „normal‟ on the work floor: „People need to get used to it. Until people go to elementary school with a disabled person or to high school, or have them as neighbours, become friends with them. Until then, it will always be in an imperfect way, with all our separate rules for the disabled group.‟
No vision was agreed upon among the respondents regarding how to deal with a person with a disability. The most common answer was that dealing with a disabled person is a balancing act. This balance is found in behaviour: one should not remind a disabled person too much of his incapability, but should also be helpful. This coincides with Goffman‟s perspective (1963). Goffman stresses that identity norms cause deviations as well as conformance. The balance is downplaying one‟s stigma while giving it enough validity so that normal people do not feel uncomfortable about it (ibid).
With regard to the introduction of an employee with a disability on the work floor, managers must find the balance in terms of what to tell their colleagues and what not to tell
14 them. The person with a disability wants to be treated as any other employee, which includes maintaining his privacy, but also wants some extra help due to his disability, which might interfere with his privacy preferences. „It‟s still hard to explain to people what your disability is. Maybe involve colleagues more? I do not know if that is okay for me, it is my personal life. I do not know what other colleagues think about it.‟ Respondents with a disability are hesitant to explain their disability to co-workers as they do not know how co-workers will respond.
This balance of not reminding a disabled person too much of her incapability, but also being helpful, is a fine line and people often feel uncomfortable in their interaction with people with disabilities. They can either ignore or emphasise the disability, said one respondent. „There are categories of people. There are people who step over that hurdle easily. People like Sam – to him I am just a person, with all my features equally important. But there are also people who have difficulty relating to you. They choose to completely ignore it.‟
„You act as if it does not exist. That is why raising awareness, having an open and honest conversation about it is important. Both groups need to be linked with each other. The side of the receiver and the side of the disabled employee. A lot of shyness in interaction between the two groups.‟ It also remains difficult whether to discuss something as a factual characteristic or as a stigma. Another respondent commented the following: „No I think that it is the stigma of a disabled person, the stigma is not discussed. Or at least not in terms of it being a stigma. ‟‟Do you tell someone they cannot do that due to your disability, which I personally disagree with.‟‟ But if you have to have that conversation it becomes a complicated one.‟ Disabled and non-disabled people disagree on whether it is a stigma or a factual characteristic of a person.
In addition, people turn to regular employees instead of disabled employees to know how to respond. A story was told about a supervisor addressing another manager about a disabled employee of his: „The employee with autism, I find it so sad. He does not sit with the rest of us. It is so sad. And then they (the colleagues) come to me to tell me they find it sad. This is the way we treat disabled people in this country. ‟‟Did you ask him about it?‟‟ No, that is scary then or something, the manager explained. And they think it is my responsibility.‟
15
3.1.2 Feelings of discomfort
Feelings of discomfort were also noticeable in observations of interactions with people with disabilities. At a work conference for integrating people with disabilities the front row was reserved for people in wheelchairs. The organisers missed the fact that some people do not want to be in the front row but want to sit with their colleagues, with whom they came to the meeting. The seating was not arranged to integrate but to separate the people in wheelchairs. The organisers also gave people with disabilities 30 seconds to present themselves and explain what job they would want to obtain. The setting was uncomfortable as the podium was too high to make a comfortable step (which highlighted their physical limitations) and the candidates were in general nervous as they were in front of a large group with potential employers, which highlighted their performance and insecurity.
One respondent expressed his/her frustration with this type of work conference: „What you sometimes see happening is success stories, which include stories like “Hi my name is John, I have autism and I have worked at these two locations. This is really embarrassing”.‟ This embarrassment is also found in conversations. At a meeting, one employee did not understand why a supervisor did not pay special attention when hiring a disabled employee. It was not publicly promoted. In response, a disabled person attending that meeting was happy: „wow, finally a supervisor who does not see it as super special‟.
In summary, this chapter has shown that balancing interactions with disabled employees is accompanied by shyness in interaction, feelings of discomfort, and not being able to comment on the disability directly. Section 3.2 will discuss the interaction with colleagues on the work floor.
16
3.2 Interactions with colleagues on the work floor
3.2.1 The disabled employee’s experiences on the work floor
This chapter discusses the interaction on the work floor. In a study conducted by Robert (2003), people with disabilities experienced alienation from other employees and harassment by managers and co-workers. Specific work units or spaces were created for employees with disabilities; some people with disabilities experienced these as „dumping grounds‟. Furthermore, chronically ill employees were more likely to be harassed when employees without disabilities saw adjustments to the workplace as „special treatment‟. Often, disabled people are considered to be responsible for their own oppression and when they seek equal treatment, they are accused of seeking „special treatment‟ (ibid).
In their study, Robert and Harlan (2006) found that most people with disabilities felt like „an outsider in the workplace‟. These feelings of being an outsider were mainly experienced in various forms of social isolation, such as being excluded from daily routines of work life, being stared at, and being ignored by co-workers and supervisors. Other experienced feelings were those of unease, distrust, dislike, and even hate (idem). Furthermore, people with disabilities felt that they were attributed an unfair label. The most damaging labels were those of the „the incompetent‟ or „the helpless‟ and „needing‟, „special treatment‟, „a free ride‟, and having an „easier job‟ (2006:610). When nothing is done about mislabelling, people with disabilities see these forms of characterisations intertwined with interpersonal workplace relationships. Especially when top decision makers in the company „[…] fail to name, confront, and counter disability discrimination, this can only contribute to creating, sustaining, and even intensifying such discrimination‟ (2006:615).
In the interviews conducted for the present study, one of the main obstacles named by the disabled employees was that their non-disabled colleagues decides for them what they can handle without necessarily consulting the one who should be completing the task. The disabled employees indicated that their colleagues have presupposed ideas about the capabilities of a person with a disability.
„It is one step deeper. In the long run you get fewer tasks; slowly you are pushed to the outskirts. You are not able to fully participate. Or you are not the chosen one for a task, because of: “oh that may be a little bit too much for you. It is not for you.” That fear is
17 definitely present. It is not like people are not nice about it. I am not afraid to say something, but the consequence could be that you no longer participate. It could be my perception, but I am not taking the risk.‟ A more concrete example of that fear is illustrated in the following: „I see that happening with my colleague and it makes me anxious, that you are afraid to be vulnerable. I am afraid to say, “oh I am tired and I cannot focus on work anymore, I have to go home”. I am afraid that someone will do my job. You need to perform better.‟
3.2.2. Interactions with the supervisor
A respondent with disabilities found that he/she was attributed an unfair label. The supervisor gave the respondent tasks that, according to the respondent, did not represent one of his/her strengths, and further denied him/her other tasks. The respondent‟s explanation was that the manager had presupposed assumptions about the respondent‟s capabilities. Occurrences of this unfair label are found in the literature. In one study, people with disabilities felt that they were unfairly labelled. The most damaging labels were those of the incompetent, helpless, and needing (Robert and Harlan 2006:610). The respondent named the labels he/she encountered throughout his/her life course: the misfit, the freak of the organisation, and the circus act. Another three respondents explained that they were given tasks below their level of competence. It remained difficult to discuss and change the tasks in deliberations with their supervisors.
3.2.3. Caution in interactions
Most non-disabled colleagues are more careful in their interaction with colleagues with disabilities than they are with non-disabled colleagues. They find it difficult to be angry or to give criticism to a person with a disability. „Maybe I am a little bit more careful. Yeah I think that plays a role implicitly. I can imagine slowing down and taking a step back because of, “oh how tragic”. Not that I find them pathetic.‟
In one case, a disabled employee‟s reason for quitting his/her job was reported to be interactions with colleagues. The colleagues did not want to hurt the disabled employee by giving him/her criticism. The colleagues were not straightforward about the level of performance of the disabled employee towards the management of the company. The disabled employee performed on a low level, according to these colleagues. When the management of the company discovered this low level of performance, the disabled employee could not stay at the company but was offered a job at a different location. However, because the employee‟s
18 trust was damaged by the management, as he/she counted on receiving a permanent contract at that specific location when his/her trial period was over, the employee quit instead.
3.2.4. Acceptance of the disability
The difficulty with accepting the disability is another finding. There are situations in which a colleague does not accept the disability. „I notice it in the way she talks and acts around me. It all stems from the concept she has of a disabled person. I hear her say, I see her do. Obviously she is not able to step over that hurdle. Sometimes she passes me over for tasks, without discussing them with me. Or I give serious feedback on a subject and it is not taken into account. The fact that she can dismiss it with, “oh that is that disabled person”. I already have many problems with the fact that I am disabled. Everything I say, she places in that framework.‟
The follow-up question in the interview was whether anyone could intervene in a complicated interaction with a colleague. „That is complicated. Roos is disabled and if Roos says something about another colleague, then the reasons for that is because she is disabled. Roos has a problem with the limitations of her disability and because of that has a problem. Try to mediate with that – nobody is going to admit that.‟
In addition, opinions can differ: „when does somebody‟s disability interfere with his or her work? Because someone with a disability and someone without a disability can have different ideas about it.‟
3.2.5 Complicated communication and exclusion
When the interaction between disabled and non-disabled employees is complicated, such as in previous examples, colleagues and supervisors attribute the difficulty to the character of the disabled person, instead of his/her handicap. However, further questioning of why the interaction is difficult revealed that the components that are difficult coincide with the characteristics of the handicap.
Furthermore, a respondent explained that when something goes wrong in the work place, the mistake is attributed to the disability without further discussing why the mistake occurred. The discussion ends by attributing the mistake to the disability. With a „regular‟ employer, there would be a conversation and an improvement program. Less is invested in the disabled employee, one respondent said. „You can notice it with Jane. She was not taken seriously, you could tell. You can notice it in the behaviour of others. She was maybe
19 excluded from tasks, and at one point people stopped including her. Tasks were not given to her. […] I expected that it had something to do with her disability, that some people did not take her seriously because of her disability or were unable to see what her disability is.‟
There are also norms and standards regarding what is done in the interaction with colleagues. Helping one another is important on the work floor. The following quote illustrates a situation in which a disabled employee was helped by a worker, and other co-workers reacted to this assistance: „Then they say that you always help John. I think that is part of helping each other as colleagues. The fact that somebody helps me, helps a disabled person – but for me it is completely normal. Sorry, you guys ask for her help as well, and nobody says “jeez how nice”. If you ask someone who is better at writing, nobody notices. Helping each other is part of it. […] It is part of tunnel vision. “Everybody can do that particular task themselves, why can‟t you do it?”
In summary, disabled employees in this study were mostly worried about losing tasks and were afraid of or had experienced the negative consequences of asking for help. They also found the labelling of their capabilities unfair. The co-workers were in general careful in their interaction by excluding them from tasks and attributing conflicts on the work floor to personality traits and not disability traits. Furthermore, the acceptance of the characteristics of the disability remained a point of conflict.
20
3.3 Invisibility and visibility of the handicap
There is a difference between an invisible and a visible handicap. In general, a visible handicap is more noticeable and an invisible handicap is more easily forgotten, but it also makes people cautious and insecure, as they do not know what it entails.
3.3.1 Large invisible group
A survey administered by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Kopnina & Haafkens 2010) concludes that 48% of the population in the Netherlands lives with some kind of chronic condition; of this group, 60% work to some degree. However, in disability management in organisations, the evaluation of why people with a chronic condition quit their jobs is conducted on an individual level. Insufficient attention is paid to the deeper underlying cause of the fall out of disabled people in organisations (ibid).
In addition, chronically ill employees are largely invisible for Human Resources Management (HRM) practitioners. This invisibility can be explained by three main factors. First, chronic illness is often invisible due to non-manifested external symptoms. Furthermore, employers and HRM employees are not always trained to recognise illnesses. Finally, discrimination in the work place and stigmas attached to chronic illness might cause HRM practitioners to be careful when disclosing information about an employee‟s condition (idem).
Apart from issues concerning the invisibility of chronicle illness, managers tend to let their personal opinions guide them in their interactions with this group. They are often unaware of the number of employees who deal with chronicle illnesses, and they underestimate the impact of illness on their employees‟ personal and work lives (idem). Furthermore, managers often assume that after the diagnoses of the illness, the chronically ill employees will leave the workforce, or will not enter the workforce in the first place. This might explain why some employers are reluctant to invest in their employees. In general, Kopnina and Haafkens‟s study that people with disabilities want to and can work if some adjustments are made with regard to the workplace, the tasks, or other specific requirements of the job. However, managers are too often unaware of the necessity of these adjustments (ibid).
3.3.2 Invisibility in practice
A chronic illness is often invisible due to non-manifested external symptoms (Kopnina & Haafkens 2010). Some respondents in the present study claimed that when the disability is visible, the prejudice is stronger than with non-visible disabilities. A respondent explained:
21 „With the visibility of the disability, the prejudice lasts longer. If the disability is invisible you tend to forget all about it.‟ However, there are doubts regarding whether the prejudice ever fully disappears. This is illustrated in the following quote: „You get introduced with your disability. And before that label disappears it takes years and then you become a co-worker. And with some it goes a little faster. If you have a non-visible handicap it is faster but then you have another disadvantage. And some are past that first bump a lot faster. I even wonder if you will ever lose it at all.‟
A visually impaired respondent indicated that colleagues do not notice a visual deficiency. This could be positive, as the handicap is not highlighted and therefore not stigmatised but it also has a downside, as his/her colleagues forget his/her limitations. A disabled person provided the following example: „At the beginning, I started working less. Colleagues reacted by saying: “are you leaving already?” Lack of understanding, of course. I cannot blame them. You do not see it when you look at me.‟ There are differences in a visible handicap and a non-visible handicap. These differences are highly personal and are not generalisable, meaning that what is helpful for one employee might not be for another.
3.3.3. Reactions to the visibility of the disability
If a disability is highly visible it causes people to look and stare, as it is something different than what they usually see. A manager explained a situation on the work floor: „What I see is that the disabilities of the employees in my department are very visibly, so you need to deal with that. Everyone at the department needs to adjust. They are weirded out because the disabled person is too busy and wobbles over the floor. I got a lot of criticism for it. But that is part of it; there is more chatter at the department.‟
Reactions to the disability also depend on whether a person is able to hide his or her disability. This coincides with Goffman‟s perspective about information management (1963). Especially those who are less educated are not able to hide information about their disability, while more highly educated disabled people can hide more and are in more control of the information about them and their disability. Consequently, especially the lesser educated become more stigmatised.
Reaction to the disability also depends on the type of disability; some disabilities are more difficult to deal with. Another respondent explained: „A sensory visibility is usually harder to deal with. Blindness is okay, but visual impairment, moving eyes, “can she or can she not
22 look at me?” It is intangible; that makes it difficult. And for me as a disabled person to deal with all the misunderstanding that people have about me is also difficult.‟ If a disability is intangible, confusion regarding how to respond causes discomfort among co-workers. There is also difficulty in accepting the limitations of a colleague with a handicap. A deaf respondent indicated that a colleague insisted on speaking to her from the side, which made it impossible for the respondent to lip-read. A similar situation occurred for a blind person: a colleague simply could not accept the fact that the respondent does not see at all.
3.3.4 Definition of groups and persistence of the group
The respondents presented many different views on the classification of groups in the participation law. Some respondents critiqued the specific classification, as it only gives room to certain people. „What I also find bad is that we give room to two types of people. Either you have a cognitive disability and you are physically healthy, or you have a physical disability and have a high level of cognitive ability. But there are also people on another level, and there is actually no room for that type.‟
The policy of the participation law wants to reduce the amount of money spent on welfare benefits for the disabled, and to move disabled people into the workforce in all sections of the public and private sectors. This means that employers and disabled employees need to be motivated by targeted numbers and negative consequences if they do not succeed in reaching these numbers. For the project group investigated in this study, the targeted number is 412 disabled employees by 2026 (Gemeente Amsterdam 2015).
In summary, this section has shown that the visibility of a disability has two main effects on the work floor. Being visibly disabled ensures that employees do not lose their identification as disabled persons, and might increase the awareness of co-workers and thus lead them to assist the disabled employee when necessary. Conversely, a non-visible disability creates confusion as the disability is not always tangible; this might cause an overload of demands from the supervisors or co-workers, because they forget about the invisible handicap.
23
3.4 Stigmatisation of the disabled employee
3.4.1 Stigmas in the workplace
Major and O‟Brien (2005) state that „[…] people who are stigmatised have (or are believed to have) an attribute that marks them as different and leads them to be devalued in the eyes of others‟ (2005:395). This mark can be a physical mark, such as a bodily deformity. The main point that these authors make is that stigma is context specific; it does not reside in the person but in the social context. The stigmatisation becomes a reason for excluding or avoiding members of the stereotype category. „In short, stigma exists when labelling, negative stereotyping, exclusion, discrimination, and low status co-occur in a power situation that allows these processes to unfold‟ (2005:395). This labelling, negative stereotyping, exclusion, and discrimination can be combined in the greater concept of stigma. Having a job grants a person social status. Employees want this social status. This forms a basis for competition among co-workers. Employees need to perform in the work place. Stigmas are strengthened rather than weakened by competition in the work floor.
3.4.2 Mechanisms of stigmatisation
One mechanism by which stigma affects the stigmatised is the automatic stereotype-activation behaviour. Prevailing cultural stereotypes of groups in society are widely known. By associations in memory between stereotypes and the actions that they imply, activation of stereotypes can automatically lead to behaviour that assimilates to the stereotype by the stigmatised person (ibid). This activation occurs in dominant collective representations: „These collective representations include awareness that they are devalued in the eyes of others, knowledge of the dominant cultural stereotypes of their stigmatized identity, and recognition that they could be victims of discrimination‟ (2005:399). Research shows that most children aged 10 know prevailing cultural stereotypes about several groups and society. Furthermore children who are members of stigmatised groups are conscious of cultural stereotypes at an earlier age.
Another mechanism by which stigma affects the stigmatised is the stigma as an identity threat. „These perspectives assume that stigma puts a person at risk of experiencing threats to his or her social identity‟ (2005:398). To handle these threats, different coping strategies are used. In response to the stigma, the stigmatised can blame him or herself, or blame discrimination. This can lead to the following issues: „Whereas making an attribution to discrimination may sometimes protect personal self-esteem, it may also interfere with
24 accurate knowledge of one‟s strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, members of stigmatized groups who blame their failures on discrimination are socially derogated‟ (2005:404). Blaming discrimination cannot be a strategy of the disabled, as co-workers might find that this dismisses their actual limitations. This was commonly mentioned in the answers of non-disabled respondents in this study.
3.4.3. Stigmatisation on the work floor
The tension between wanting people with disabilities to be seen and employed as regular employees and the reality that these people receive assistance to obtain jobs causes people with disabilities to be labelled due to their handicap. This supporting policy can obstruct the position of people with disabilities in their aim to be seen as regular employees because of their „special treatment‟. One respondent who is not (officially) disabled stated that everyone has disabilities and therefore also has personal limitations. I asked the respondent what the difference is between him/her and those classified by the law as disabled. The respondent answered: „they can use their disability whenever they want. Nobody adjusts to my disabilities/limitations. ‟The respondent claimed that because the disabilities of the disabled are officially classified by the participation law, they can use their disability to their advantage by demanding an adjusted job description. The respondent implied that disabled employees use their disability to their advantage and receive special treatment in the workforce.
In general, the respondents classified the disabled as a forgotten group or a stigmatised group. Prejudice was found regarding the combination of certain characteristics. For instance, being deaf is associated with being stupid. „It does not occur to average and highly educated people that there are also smart blind people.‟
„I keep it to myself; that also has to do with the stigma that you are afraid of. People always think that having my device is my problem, but it is the least of my problems, it is actually my solution. I would be deeply unhappy without my device. I am identified as my device. If some event is being organised, people say ‟oh no you cannot attend‟ (not accessible). Everything they think about you, that they interpret like that, is another characteristic.‟
3.4.3. Labelling people with disabilities
Respondents discussed the labelling of employees with disabilities. Respondents claimed that some disabled employees are bothered by the label, but that this is not the case for all of them. There was a wide spread agreement that disabled employees enter the work floor with a label, but that they lose this label after some time (some indicated weeks, others years). This also
25 has a historical aspect, as the Wajong labelling meant that young disabled persons were sent home with a state benefit. Nowadays, there is the possibility that the label may become a tool for mediators to put effort into finding a job for those persons, as one respondent explained. The project group needs to offer people with disabilities jobs, and is therefore actively seeking applicants. „Yeah it is a stamp), one that will never leave your forehead. But it is a two-way road, because you are also protected by the stamp. ‟‟
Some recurring answers were given with regarding highly educated disabled employees; these employees are perceived as belonging to a separate group compared to the general group of disabled employees. They tend to overestimate their own capabilities and there is little awareness of their illness. In comparison, lesser-educated respondents also overestimate their own capabilities, or they do the complete opposite, believing that they cannot do anything, and that they better stay at home and live on their state assistance. The most widely shared view among the respondents was that there is a clear difference between lesser-educated disabled people and more highly educated disabled people with regard to how they respond to the hiring procedure.
3.4.4. Highly educated disabled employees
The highly educated disabled employees do not want to be associated with the Wajong status: „It is some kind of disgrace‟, explained a job coach. A non-disabled respondent who places people with disabilities on different workforces discussed the image that disabled people have of themselves: „You can tell with the highly educated disabled employees that their self-image is too optimistic. They think, “I can do anything because I have a diploma/degree”. But that is not the way it works, you are competing with all other employees. And because of your handicap, you have been pampered throughout your life course. And the hard world is a disappointment. They come to the work floor and see how little money they make even though they have a college degree. They need to get used to it. Their self-image does not coincide with the everyday practice on the work floor.‟
Another respondent confirmed the prevalence of this image. „Usually, highly educated disabled employees, from college or university, derive a lot of status from their degree. Just to put them in one general image. They have little awareness of their illness.‟ The respondent named an example of an employee with a university degree who only had an administrative background. He/she immediately felt that the placing of this person would not work in this particular workplace. The disabled employee had stiffness and was reducing his medication. „He is an intelligent man‟, the respondent explained, „but his intelligent does not concur with
26 his carrying capacity. And that is something that this disabled group of workers does not know, they say yes to academic-level jobs, but forget that they are in a busy workplace, with extra pressure.‟
In contradiction with the above-stated ideas and perceptions, the highly educated employees feel underestimated in their capabilities. They feel positions that demand their full cognitive capabilities. There is also an assumption on the part of supervisors, job coaches, and managers that a job coach is necessary for highly educated disabled employees. Highly educated disabled employees do not want a job coach, they do not need it, they say. They do not need it to perform their work tasks, but more for how to interact with colleagues on the social level. They could use a job coach for social interaction with colleagues‟. The highly educated disabled employee is no longer the little boy or girl who was told by his or her parents, „how great, you are fantastic‟. This comes back to the earlier statement about the pampering of the disabled throughout their life course. Highly educated employees are classified as people who find it difficult to receive criticism. Co-workers have a strong sense that the highly educated disabled employee wants to be treated as any other employee, but the latter are also accused of using their disability as a tool when they are treated as such.
3.4.5. Lesser-educated disabled employees
A generally named characteristic of a person with a disability is a lack of employee skills; this mostly regards lesser-educated employees. Employee skills are basic skills that include coming to work on time, knowing one‟s tasks, understanding whom to address if there is a problem, etc. „It really depends with disabled people. For some people, it is really important that we do not forget that they have a disability, especially with an intellectual limitation. People can be harmed by expectations that are too low, but also by expectations that are too high. Extra tasks. A problem could arise, it could make that person really unhappy.‟ Several job coaches, managers, and co-workers emphasised this regarding employees with an intellectual limitation.
With this specific group it is of great importance to create a supportive workplace environment, where people with disabilities with no or a low level of education can work. One manager explained why a disabled employee did not succeed in staying at the work place. The respondent explained that when the disabled employee did not have money and complained about it, all of the other colleagues opened their lockers to find food for their
co-27 worker. However, not receiving a salary was not the problem of the disabled employee. His problem was that he could not manage his money over the course of a month, and that he spent his money too soon. The manager explained that the intellectual level of his co-workers was too low to really guide this candidate. The guiding and coaching demanded more effort than the supervisors and managers expected. They underestimated the guidance required for lesser-educated disabled employees. Near the end of the trial period, when the candidate could receive a permanent employment, the manager discovered that the co-workers were not pleased with the abilities of the disabled employee. The recurring theme discussed in Section 3.2 is evident here: the co-workers found it difficult to offer real criticism regarding the disabled employee. Because of the co-workers‟ hesitant reactions to the actual performance level, the employee with disabilities was not fairly judged and guided. Inclusion in the work floor means receiving feedback and improving, and experiencing a learning curve over a few months. Because of a lack of information sharing and because the disabled employee was not explicitly criticised, the employee could not learn and was therefore of no „real‟ value to the co-workers. In this case, inclusion was only partial.
3.4.6. Providing a job coach for support
The project group places a job coach with every candidate to improve that candidate‟s labour market performance. The job coach can be an internal or external individual. The job coach can discuss personal and work-related issues and is a confidant for the employee.
However, the use of job coaches is not without problems and different perspectives. Highly educated disabled employees feel that they do not need a job coach, or that the job coach is not qualified enough to comment on the employee. With lesser-educated employees, on the other hand, the problem the employee becomes too attached to the job coach. In addition, the employee discusses too many personal stories with the job coach, which undermines the actual coaching that needs to be done. The relationship between the job coach and the disabled employee also interrupts the management‟s leadership in the work place. The employee sees the job coach as his supervisor, instead of the actual supervisor. Even supervisors are sometimes confused by the way in which the project group works, and think that the disabled employees fall under the group‟s supervision. For instance, some supervisors that that the project group would hold the conversations about the employees‟ level of performance (functioneringsgesprekken). However, this would not be suitable as the project group is not regularly on the work floor and does not supervise the employees. This would not
28 integrate the disabled employee as a regular employee, because regular employees are guided and evaluated by the management and not by external job coaches.
In summary, this section has shown that stigmatisation plays a role on the work floor. Highly educated disabled employees feel underestimated, while managers, supervisors, and job coaches think that these employees overestimate their abilities. The hierarchical structure is carefully selected but also confusing, pampering, and patronising. One recurring point of conflict is the role of the job coach and the role of the managers, and how they should divide their workload.
29
3.5 Critique on the special status of disabled employees
Some respondents criticised the differentiation and the naming of disabled employees. They emphasised that many people have a form of disability that limits them in their work. A survey administered by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Kopnina & Haafkens 2010) concludes that 48% of the population lives with some kind of chronic condition, and of this group 60% work to some degree.
One respondent explained that people are used to making generalisations about the disabled group; however, a homogenous group of disabled people does not exist. The group is so diverse that no characteristics are generally applicable. The respondent explained that, „the distinction between employees with disabilities and the other employees is really nonsense. And what we come up with for employees with disabilities is actually really applicable for regular employees. For example the retirement age, with five extra years, with the flaws that come with age. Employees who adjust to their workplace, who are not able to perform on the level they used to, who have less carrying capacity. There are actually many more connections to be seen.‟
Another respondent discussed the stigmatisation of a label as follows: „If you have a mental diagnosis like autism or ADHD, then you immediately have a stigma as well. And you are brought in with that stigma. This is Roos and she has PDD NOS; that is what we need to pay attention to and deal with. If you look around this building to see how many people have ADHD characteristics, autism characteristics, you can point out a hundred. [… ] We have a dictatorship of diagnoses, and this is really serious.‟
3.5.2 Participation law
The employees of the municipality criticised the participation law in particular. There were disagreements between non-disabled employees in particular regarding whether hiring disabled employee is beneficial, but also whether it should even have the aim to be. One respondent commented: „There are employers who say, “this is my business model”, and who can explain how this pays off. You need to be able, also at the municipality of Amsterdam, to explain how you profit from it. And if that reason is “to help pathetic people”, then you need to stop doing it.‟
Some literature suggests that it is not even possible to build a business case: „The type and number of initiatives aimed at disabled people are so specific to this group, and crucially
30 to differences between individuals within the group, that it becomes difficult to establish a business/economic case for employing disabled people‟ (Woodhams & Danieli 2000:404). As the previous quote indicates, if hiring disabled persons is to help pathetic people, then the activity must cease. This is sometimes promoted and criticised at the same time. The disabled are seen as pathetic people who need help to succeed, but one is criticised for explicitly mentioning this as the reason why they need assistance. „Sometimes it gets out of hand. “They are nice boys, with all kinds of pictures. Look! You do not see anything in their appearance, such nice boys. ‟‟Stop that. They are just regular employees who need an extra bit of help.‟‟ In contrast, some say that hiring disabled persons will not be beneficial: „I compare it to green entrepreneurship – it also costs money. And this also costs money. If you do this out of internal motivation, then it will work.‟
In summary, the classification of the categories of the participation law is highly debated among respondents. In addition, there is a debate about the economic value and productivity the disabled employees have and if it exceeds the costs made by the organisations that hire disabled employees.
31
4 Reflection and conclusion
There are some limitations to be considered regarding the analysis and results of this study. To promote an inclusive workforce is immediately associated with morals: morality and immorality. Employees cannot freely take a position against including people with disabilities in their workspace. They will be identified as discriminating against this group. When asked about whether people with disabilities are included, my respondents‟ answer will always be yes. Therefore, to avoid receiving only socially desirable answers in this study, I asked specifically about the tasks that employees with disabilities perform, and about how they divide the work load between disabled and non-disabled employees.
Another point of reflection is that my interviewees represent five groups: disabled people, colleagues, managers, job coaches and mediation organisations. Among the group of disabled employees who were interviewed, all of the employees are highly educated. For future research, attention could be paid to distinguishing between education levels, and to whether being able to hide information about one‟s disability plays a role in inclusion and exclusion on the work floor. Some findings indicate that lesser-educated employees receive a more explicit label, whereas more highly educated employees seem to be more bothered by the labelling of their capabilities. I also cannot state that all disabled employees feel excluded. What this research does indicate is that disabled employees systematically answered differently than the non-disabled employees did.
The research question of this paper was, „How are people with disabilities included and how are excluded in the work place at the municipality of Amsterdam?‟ To answer this question, 25 interviews were conducted and observations were made in order to discuss the inclusion and exclusion of disabled people in the work place. This inclusion is twofold, as the participation law is twofold. Disabled people are supported and caged by their label. This has the advantage that they are protected and supported by the law, but it also puts them in a category with a specific label: visibly and invisibly handicapped. The disabled employees receive a so-called „doelgroepvinkje‟, which makes them financially more attractive to employers.
Previous research has shown that managers are hesitant to hire disabled employees. Not only costs but also mainly the managers‟ estimation of the performance level of disabled employees plays a crucial role in the integration of those employees. Due to the participation law and the way in which the project group at the municipality finances the disabled, these
