Predictors to employees withdisabilities’ organisational

behaviour and involvement inemployment

Junaidah HashimDepartment of Business Administration,

Kulliyyah of Economics & Management Sciences,International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and

Saodah WokDepartment of Communication, International Islamic University Malaysia,

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the work challenges of employees with disabilitiesand predict the organisational behaviours of employees and their involvement in employment.Design/methodology/approach – A self-developed questionnaire was used to gather relevantinformation from employers, employees with disabilities and their co-workers. The questionnaireswere distributed and administered by a number of trained enumerators.Findings – Both employers and co-workers perceived that their organisations have provided conduciveorganisation climate, comfortable work environment and reasonable adjustment for their employees withdisabilities. Employees with disabilities are found loyal and committed. They are satisfied with the job.Organisational loyalty and commitment are predicted by the organisations’ ability to restructure their jobdesign to suit to the needs of employees with disabilities.Research limitations/implications – Initially, this study planned to use purposive sampling;however, due to poor database maintained by the relevant agency of employees with disabilityemployment in the country, the paper was unable to identify which employers employ how manyemployees with disabilities. The sampling then was based on convenient sampling.Practical implications – Job design, organisational climate and comfortable work environmenthave long been recognised for motivating employees’ performance (Hackman et al., 1975; Garg andRastogi, 2006). The paper’s findings show that these factors also motivate employees with disabilities.This is added value to the existing body of knowledge as limited is known about the motivation ofemployees with disabilities.Originality/value – This study is unique because it gathers data from several parties: employeeswith disabilities, the co-workers and the employers.

Keywords Job satisfaction, Employment, Motivation (psychology), Employees with disabilities

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionThe pervasive concern of employees with disabilities battling their way into the workarena has increasingly become the focus of public attention. Being a minorityunderprivileged group, employees with disabilities are too often overlooked by employers

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/2040-7149.htm

Received 13 March 2012Revised 10 May 2013

30 July 20132 August 2013

Accepted 27 September 2013

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:An International Journal

Vol. 33 No. 2, 2014pp. 193-209

r Emerald Group Publishing Limited2040-7149

DOI 10.1108/EDI-03-2012-0018

This research was funded by Fundamental Research Grant Scheme, Ministry of HigherEducation, Malaysia.

193

Predictors toemployees with

disabilities

in employment (Salleh et al., 2001) as they are perceived as incapable of contributingpositively in demanding workplaces.

In Malaysia, more conscientious efforts are being aggressively implemented toensure increased allocation for the employment of employees with disabilities in bothpublic and private sectors. Ambitious legislation, policies and programmes areintroduced in Malaysia to promote awareness of the rights of persons with disabilityand to promote employment opportunities to jobseekers with disability (Khor, 2002).However, recent statistics reveal the progress being stiff as employment challenges stillbefall the population with disability, limiting their access and participation in thelabour market (Osman, 2003) and hindering them from positively contributing to thegrowth of the nation. Even with an increase effort in recent years to rehabilitate, retrainand employ persons with disabilities, unemployment among those with severe disabilitiesis not easily overcome. The population with disability still faces many barriers toemployment. Persons with disabilities often compete through regular recruitmentchannels to be considered and selected for vacant positions (Kennedy and Harris, 2005).People with disabilities are too often stereotyped in cases of public welfare, constantly inneed of sympathy and relief aid instead of being seen as productive individuals who canalso contribute to organisations’ effectiveness and the growth of the nation. In additionpeople with disabilities sometimes perceive themselves negatively. As Stevens (2007)found, there is also evidence to show that negative attitudes towards, and negative self-perception by people with disabilities have often inhibited their employment. A reason fornegative attitudes is a failure to match the skills and qualities needed for particular jobs.

As the issue of employing persons with disabilities has increasingly become asocietal concern of the citizens and the legal concern of government entities in Malaysia,this research aims to understand the challenges faced by people with disabilities,particularly their behaviour at the organisational level. To address the major issuesassociated with employment of the people with disabilities, this research attempts toexamine organisational factors that possibly predict the behaviours as well as theinvolvement of employees with disabilities. It aims to establish the relationship betweenemployees with disabilities’ organisational behaviour and employers’ and co-workers’consciousness and responsiveness.

Although many studies have been done to study issues pertaining to employmentamong employees with disabilities, their organisational behaviour is less studied and theimmense impact of employment of persons with disabilities to society is poorly understoodby most people in organisations today. This study is unique because it gathers data fromseveral parties: employees with disabilities, their co-workers and the employers.

The paper is structured as follows. First, we set out a discussion of the relatedtheory to this study. This is followed by literature on the definition of disability,as several definitions are available. We then discuss some of the constructs examinedin this study which include organisation climate, organisation culture, reasonableadjustment and organisational behaviour of employees with disabilities. We thendescribe the research methodology. Specifically, we use three different sources of datato understand the organisational behaviour experienced by employees with disabilities.The final section concludes the work and provides directions for future research.

2. Conceptual framework2.1 Ambivalence amplification theoryAmbivalence amplification theory (Katz and Glass, 1979) is based on the idea thatindividuals often hold ambivalent attitudes (i.e. feelings of sympathy as well as

194

EDI33,2

hostility) towards members of stigmatized groups. This theory suggests that feelingambivalent towards a target (employees with disabilities) amplifies an individual’sbehavioural and attitudinal responses towards that target. Moreover, these amplifiedresponses can be manifested in extremely positive or extremely negative ways(Katz and Glass, 1979). Katz and Glass (1979) postulate that three steps are takenduring interactions between non-stigmatized and stigmatized actors that may lead toamplified responses towards the stigmatized: there is positive or negative input fromthe stigmatized actor; the input contradicts one of the non-stigmatized actor’sambivalent attitudes; and the actor may defend or deny the discredited attitude byresponding in an extremely favourable or unfavourable fashion (Katz and Glass, 1979).

In the context of the present study, positive actions performed by a person with adisability have led members of the general public to deny their negative feelingstowards people with disabilities and respond in disproportionately positive ways whilenegative actions from a person with disability led people to deny their positive feelingstowards people with disabilities and react in disproportionately negative anddiscriminatory ways (Taylor, 1998). Both cases point to the existence and possiblemanipulation of ambivalent attitudes towards people with disabilities. Both perspectivessuggest that employers may be discriminating against people with disabilities butprovide different explanations as to how this may be occurring and underscore therole that employer’s attitudes might have in the employment potential of people withdisabilities. Common sense would indicate that actors, regardless of disability status, whobehave positively, are more apt to gain assistance than actors behaving negatively.

2.2 Definition of disabilityAccording to the Malaysian Persons with Disabilities Act of 2008 (Act 685), personswith disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual orsensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers, may hinder their fulland effective participation in society. If an individual is unable to perform major lifeactivities including caring for oneself, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing orlearning, to the extent of the average person, that individual is considered as anindividual with disability. In addition, persons with disabilities include individualswho were disabled in the past or who are considered to be disabled by some otherpeople or organisations. Furthermore, the law also covers people who are onlytemporarily disabled, or those that may overcome the disability with the help of somespecific device (Nelson and Kleiner, 2001).

Many past studies have revealed the effort to discover various employment barriersfacing employees with disabilities (Barnes, 2003; Barnes and Mercer, 2005; Roulstoneand Warren, 2006). For instance, a study by Goldstone and Meager (2002) done onbehalf of the United Kingdom Department for Work and Pensions, explored theemployment barriers for people with disabilities where they primarily examined majorbarriers to employment faced by the them, including employment policies andpractices, employers’ awareness and attitudes of the Disability Discrimination Act,workplace adjustments for employees with disabilities and employers’ attitudes andperceptions towards employees with disabilities. Osman (2003), Chelvi (2007) andButler (2007) highlight employers’ negative attitudes and perceptions towardsemployees with disabilities on the grounds of their disabilities as one of the majoremployment barriers faced by them. The attitudes of the individuals with disabilitiesthemselves such as feeling of incompetence also contribute to the low employment rateof people with disabilities.

195

Predictors toemployees with

disabilities

2.3 Organisations’ climate: policies and initiativesPeople with disabilities are known to occupy a disadvantaged position in the labourmarket. Two main categories of explanation can be identified: the inability of peoplewith disabilities to compete in the labour market as a result of work limitationsstemming from disability-related impairments and social barriers which act to limittheir employment opportunities.

According to Dibben et al. (2001), people with disabilities can be discriminated byinternal organisational policies, practices and attitudes. As asserted by Peck andKirkbride (2001), employers fear of costs, additional supervision, productivity loss andbeing “stuck” with a substandard employee. This has influenced not only the hiringdecision but also minimising their chances of advancement. As pointed by Bruyereet al. (2006), this may be due to the perceived lack of related experience and requisiteskills and training on the part of the individual with a disability and lack ofsupervisor’s knowledge on the disability provision.

To be a qualified candidate, an individual must satisfy the job-related requirementsof the position. He or she must meet the prerequisites of the job including education,training and or work experience. If the individual meets the job requirement, the nextstep is to determine if he or she can perform all the essential functions of the job, withor without reasonable accommodation (Granger and Kleiner, 2003). Even after meetingthese requirements, many individuals with disabilities still fail to get employmentbecause they are competing with other candidates. More recently, studies have begunto examine whether disability affects the type of employment undertaken. US evidencesuggests that people with disabilities are concentrated in non-standard forms ofemployment, including independent contracting, part-time and temporary employmentthat have lower wages and with fewer benefits on average (Duff and Ferguson, 2012;Jones, 2008).

The Malaysian Disabilities Act 2008 specifies a clause regarding access toemployment for the disabled. This includes first, persons with disabilities shall havethe right to access to employment on equal basis with persons without disabilities;second, the employer shall protect the rights of persons with disabilities, on equal basiswith persons without disabilities, to just and favourable conditions of work, includingequal opportunities and equal remuneration for work of equal value, safe and healthyworking conditions, protection from harassment and the redress of grievances;third, the employer shall in performing their social obligation endeavour to promotestable employment for persons with disabilities by properly evaluating their abilities,providing suitable places of employment and conducting proper employmentmanagement; fourth, the Council shall, in order to promote employment of personswith disabilities in the private sector, formulate appropriate policies and measureswhich may include affirmative action programmes and other measures; fifth, theCouncil shall promote opportunities for training for persons with disabilities inthe labour market as well as opportunities for self-employment, entrepreneurship, thedevelopment of cooperatives, starting one’s own business and creating opportunitiesto work from home; and finally, for the purposes of this section, “employer” includesthe Government (Law of Malaysia Act 685).

2.4 Organisational culture and job designDibben et al. (2001) comment that line managers often lack the knowledge andexpertise needed to address the barriers that people with disabilities face at work andthey also discover that occupational health professionals frequently have inadequate

196

EDI33,2

understanding of their work capabilities. This is supported by Buciuniene andKazlauskaite (2010), where they asserted that one of the challenges related to theemployment of people with disabilities is the problem of realistically estimating one’scapabilities because some of them have never had any previous job. In fact, according toGranger and Kleiner (2003), a large portion of population with disabilitiesis mentally and physically capable of performing tasks and functions necessary tofulfil the responsibilities of employment. The jobs need to be designed to suit the differentimpairments of the employees. Jobs can involve moving between sites, so the work spaceis not always static. Whilst wheelchair users and people with mobility impairments mayprefer plenty of space, if the space is too big, it can cause problems for people with visualimpairment who are trying to find their way (Newton et al., 2007).

As suggested by Kennedy and Harris (2005), employing organisations must developcloser and more cooperative working relationships with rehabilitation agencies toeffectively communicate their recruitment needs and to secure better understandingof the services that rehabilitation agencies are capable of providing.

2.5 Reasonable adjustmentsAccording to the Malaysian Disabilities Act 2008, reasonable accommodation meansnecessary and appropriate modifications and adjustments not imposing adisproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure topersons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise of the quality of life and well-being onan equal basis with persons without disabilities. Reasonable accommodation may includemaking existing facilities readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities.It may also include job restructuring or modifying work schedules, equipment, trainingand policies. However, employers are not required to lower quality or production standardsto make accommodation or to provide personal items such as glasses or hearing aids(Christie and Kleiner, 2001; Phan and Kleiner, 1999; Nelson and Kleiner, 2001). However, ifthese accommodations are deemed too costly or disruptive to the company such that thecompany is adversely affected, the accommodations may not be required. Employers mayneed to make accommodations for people with disabilities once employed. However,employees may decide not to ask for accommodations because they may have hadexperience where accommodation requests led to stigmatisation (Barclay et al., 2012).Newton et al. (2007) found that the concept of “reasonable adjustment” is poorlyunderstood; some employers are unaware of the term and others are unsure of its meaningin practice. According to Bruyere et al. (2006), 40 per cent of small business owners areunaware of the American Disabilities Act (Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990), and 30per cent state that they knew about the law but could not afford to make structuraladaptations. In some instances, since accommodations are costly to firms it is possiblethat they will be passed on to employees with disabilities in the form of reduced wage( Jones, 2008).

Barriers in the built environment may be a problem for employers who are willingto employ people with disability but are hindered by the lack of accessible buildingin which to employ people. It may be that employers believe that new buildingsconforming to minimum building regulations are accessible and they are thereforemeeting the requirement of the law. For instance, according to the new law, all publicbuildings have to assign 2 per cent of their space for motorists with disability.A parking lot with fewer than 50 spaces must reserve at least one for people withdisabilities (The China Post, 2007). In addition, wheelchair accessible parking spacemust be located on the shortest possible route from the parking lot to the nearest

197

Predictors toemployees with

disabilities

accessible building entrance. Accessible parking spaces must be at least 96 inches wideand be on the ground level with slopes not more than 1:50 (2 per cent) in all directions.Accessible parking spaces must be clearly marked as reserved using appropriate signs.In addition, all walks, halls, corridors, aisles, skywalks, tunnels and other spacedesignated as accessible routes must be with a minimum width of 32 inches at a point and36 inches continuously. Building passageways must also be able to make allowances of atleast 60 inches minimum for two wheelchairs to pass (Hammond and Kleiner, 2005).Newton et al.’s (2007) study shows that inaccessibility of the working environmentmatters to people in all impairment groups, when entering or staying in employment.For example, people with visual impairment may not know there is an intercom;wheelchair users may not be able to reach them; deaf people cannot hear if anyone replies.The built environment is a key issue in gaining access to the world of work. In shortreasonable adjustments do not seem to have been accommodated. Further, Newton et al.’s(2007) study found that the built environment has a detrimental effect on people withdisabilities, who despite their best efforts cannot take part on equal terms with peoplewithout disability in the workplace (Schur, 2002; Sirvastava and Chamberlain, 2005).

2.6 Employees with disabilities’ organisational behaviour: loyalty and commitmentThere is evidence to suggest that employees with disabilities are often productive andreliable employees (Bricout and Bentley, 2000). People with disability can find it hard toget work; when they do get a job they protect it in terms of professionalism, commitmentand loyalty (O’Connell, 2007). For instance, Ariff (2007) says employers who have hireddeaf-mute workers found them to be hard working, full of determination and responsible.As asserted by Pedrasa (2007), employers hire employees with disabilities, not because oftheir sense of corporate social responsibility, but because of these employees have value-added skills. The deaf-mute can concentrate more on encoding and be more productive.The research has repeatedly shown that people with disability make good, loyalemployees; yet, many are still unemployed (Christie and Kleiner, 2001).

Meanwhile, individuals with disabilities report higher levels of dissatisfaction with theirjobs as compared to individuals without disabilities (Uppal, 2005). Absence of assistivetechnology or employer accommodations might be the reason for the dissatisfaction.At the workplace, the challenges for people with disabilities have much to do with others’understanding their abilities, goals and needs (Olsen, 2008). Carvel (2008) reports thatpeople with a disability are almost twice as likely to believe that their performance at workis unfairly criticised or that they have been humiliated or ridiculed. In fact, according toHall (2007), many individuals with disabilities believe that the greatest barrier to fullparticipation in society is not their disability or inaccessibility to buildings but rather thebiased attitudes and treatment by people without disabilities, such as talking down toa person with a disability and treating the person with disability as a child.

The review of this study supports the conceptual model derived to illustrateemployment opportunities and challenges among workers with disabilities and theimpact of employing persons with disabilities on the employers and employees oforganisations. Thus, we have developed the following hypotheses:

H1. There is a relationship between the employees with disabilities’ organisationalbehaviour and their employers’ consciousness and responsiveness.

H2. There is a relationship between the employees with disabilities’ organisationalbehaviour and co-workers’ consciousness and responsiveness.

198

EDI33,2

H3. Organisational loyalty and commitment are influenced job design, reasonableadjustment, organisational climate and organisational culture.

H4. Employees with disabilities’ motivation are influenced by job design, reasonableadjustment, organisational climate, organisational culture and organisationalconsciousness.

H5. Employees with disabilities’ work involvement are influenced by job design,reasonable adjustment organisational culture and organisational culture.

3. Methodology3.1 Research designThe study employed a survey research design using a questionnaire as the tool for datacollection. The self-developed questionnaire was used to gather relevant informationon employment challenges by the employers and the employment challengesand opportunities for employees with disabilities. Co-worker is another category ofrespondents to ascertain the claims made by the employment of employees withdisabilities.

This study reviews the major challenges facing workers with disabilitiesfrom two contexts, i.e., the employers and co-workers. The employment challengesby employers which are investigated include: organisational climate, organisationalculture, job design, reasonable adjustments and employers’ concern and responsetowards employment of persons with disabilities. The employment challengesby employees with disabilities which are investigated include: employees withdisabilities’ loyalty and commitment, job motivation, job satisfaction, workinvolvement and co-workers’ concern and response towards working with thedisabled. Each of these dimensions was measured by ten items and they were basedon a five-point Likert scale.

3.2 Sampling procedure and data collectionThere were three types of respondents, namely, the employers, the co-workers andthe employees with disabilities. The employers of employees with disabilities reflectthe organisations employing persons with disabilities. Since the database ofregistered employers is not available, we started to identify the employers byapproaching the association of the people with disabilities available in KualaLumpur, namely, the Society of the Orthopedically Handicapped Malaysia, KualaLumpur Society of the Deaf and Malaysian Association of the Blind. Theseassociations provided us with a list of their registered working members and theirrespective employers. We approached every employer registered with theseassociations as this is a census study.

We then approached the HR department of all the identified employers to get a listof employees with disabilities before interviewing the employers, the employees withdisabilities and the co-workers. There was at least one set of respondents (employer,employee with disability and co-worker) per each organisation. Our selection wasbased on sector, stratified random based on government, Government-LinkCompanies, and private companies. We employed 20 enumerators each of them wasgiven a list of employers so that there was no overlapping.

The total number of organisations involved in this study was 195. The total numberof respondents with disabilities was 384. Another group of respondents consisting of

199

Predictors toemployees with

disabilities

co-workers and friends of employees with disabilities totalled at 206. In some cases, wehave very few co-workers. Therefore, there was a total of 785 respondents belonging tothe three categories, with the bulk of the respondents belonging to the employees withdisabilities group. The questionnaires were distributed and administered by a numberof trained enumerators.

3.3 Data analysisThe SPSS software was used to systematically analyse all the data obtainedfrom the respondents and generate statistical information and detailed analyses of thesurvey results. The descriptive statistics used were frequency, percentage, meanand standard deviation. In addition, inferential statistics were used to analysethe data in order to answer the objectives of the study and to test the hypothesespostulated. Correlation and regression analysis were also used to test the hypothesesof the study.

Reliability test was used to check whether the items for each concept werehomogeneous, measuring the concept of interest. It is found that the reliability for theresearch concept lies between 0.72 and 0.93. Therefore, no item was deleted. The itemswere transferred to form meaningful concepts for further analysis.

4. Results and discussions4.1 Profile of employersThe results in Table I show that the companies which hire employees withdisabilities are mainly medium-sized companies coming from the private sector.These companies belong to the manufacturing, health/social work and hotel/restaurant, food and beverage types of industry. The respondents of the studycomprised of 195 employers, 206 co-workers and 384 employees with disabilities(Table I). The three categories of respondents (n¼ 785) were selected to representa particular organisation. However, the profile of each category of respondents isdescribed separately.

The employers (n¼ 195) of employees with disabilities consisted of both females(51 per cent) and males (49 per cent). More than one-third of them aged between36 and 45 years old (36.1 per cent), followed by those aged 26 and 35 years old(29.8 per cent) and those aged between 46 and 55 years old (24.6 per cent). More thantwo-thirds of the employers were Malays (68.1 per cent), followed by Chinese(24.1 per cent). With regard to the level of education possessed by the employers, about42.9 per cent of them had a degree, 28.3 per cent with diplomas and 11 per cent hadSPM/SPMV certificates.

4.1.1 Profile of employees with disabilities. It is found that there existed slightly morefemale employees with disabilities (57.6 per cent) compared to their male counterparts(42.4 per cent). Almost half of employees with disabilities (49.7 per cent) belonged to the26-35-year-old age group. More than two-thirds of them were Malays (68.2 per cent),followed by Chinese (18.5 per cent) and Indian (11.5 per cent). They were mainlyhigh school leavers with SPM/SPVM (27.1 per cent), STPM/Cert. (17.6 per cent) or PMR(17.3 per cent).

In sum, male respondents tended to be employers whereas female respondents wereeither co-workers or employees with disabilities. The employers were much older thanthe co-workers and employees with disabilities. Malays made up the bulk of therespondents for the employers, co-workers and employees with disabilities. In termsof education, the employers have higher level of education, mainly degree holders, than

200

EDI33,2

the co-workers and employees with disabilities who were found to have mainlySPM/SPMV certificates.

4.1.2 Profile of the co-workers. From 206 co-workers, 60.1 per cent were females andthe rest (39.9 per cent) were males. Half of the co-workers aged between 26 and 35 yearsold (50 per cent), followed by 36 and 45 years old (25.7 per cent). More than two-thirdsof the co-workers (68.5 per cent) were Malays, followed by Chinese (18.2 per cent) andIndian (12.8 per cent). They were SPM/SPVM holders (29.7 per cent), diploma holders(23.3 per cent) or degree holders (21.8 per cent).

4.2 Employers’ level of consciousness and responsivenessThe level of consciousness of the employers is evaluated based on four dimensions,namely, organisational climate, organisational culture, job design and reasonableadjustment (Table II). The employers perceived that their organisations provide conduciveorganisation climate, comfortable work culture, suitable job design and reasonableadjustment for their employees with disabilities.

The employers also noted that their organisations have provided employees withdisabilities with the necessary conducive working atmosphere and they are treatedwell with respect and dignity. Besides that, the employees with disabilities get alongwell with other employees in the organisation. The employers admitted that theemployees with disabilities are able to work well, give ideas and serve customers to

Employer (n¼ 195) Co-worker (n¼ 206) Disabled Employee (n¼ 384)Demographic profile ofthe respondents Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %

GenderMale 95 49.0 81 39.9 163 42.4Female 99 51.0 122 60.1 221 57.6Total 194 100.0 203 100.0 384 100.0Age25 years and below 10 5.2 32 15.5 51 13.426–35 years 57 29.8 103 50.0 190 49.736–45 years 69 36.1 53 25.7 103 27.046–55 years 47 24.6 16 7.8 31 8.156–65 years 8 4.3 2 1.0 7 1.8Total 191 100.0 206 100.0 382 100.0EthnicityMalay 130 68.1 139 68.5 262 68.2Chinese 46 24.1 37 18.2 71 18.5Indian 13 6.8 26 12.8 44 11.5Others 2 1.0 1 0.5 7 1.8Total 191 100.0 203 100.0 384 100.0Level of educationUPSR 5 2.6 6 3.0 42 11.2PMR 5 2.6 14 6.9 65 17.3SPM/SPVM 21 11.0 60 29.7 102 27.1STPM/Cert. 14 7.3 29 14.4 66 17.6Diploma 54 28.3 47 23.3 55 14.6Degree 82 42.9 44 21.8 38 10.1Master 7 3.7 1 0.5 6 1.6PhD 3 1.6 1 0.5 2 0.5Total 191 100.0 202 100.0 376 100.0

Table I.Demographic profile of

the respondents

201

Predictors toemployees with

disabilities

the best of their abilities. The employers were, however, very concerned about how theemployees with disabilities feel about their work. The employers claimed that theemployees with disabilities are satisfied with the task given to them. The job given tothe employees with disabilities provide opportunity for them to accomplish their taskbecause they are given full responsibility for their performance. This is in line withGranger and Kleiner’s (2003) study. They affirm that a big number of populations withdisabilities are capable of doing their tasks to fulfil the responsibilities of employmentdespite their disabilities. In addition, the employers were also aware of the requirementneeded by the employees with disabilities. Therefore, safety and security at workplaceare given priority by the employers for employees with disabilities.

With regard to employers’ responsiveness towards employees with disabilities,two items were evaluated (Table III). They were employers’ perception and workingexperience with employees with disabilities, and employers’ response and perceptiontowards employees with disabilities. The employers had a positive perception of theemployees with disabilities because they are proactive and valuable to the organisation

Employer Co-worker Disabled employeeOrganisational workenvironmentfor the disabled employees Mean SD % Total Mean SD % Total Mean SD % Total

Organisational consciousnessOrganisational climate 3.32 0.43 83.0 195 3.24 0.44 81.0 204 3.18 0.42 79.5 376Organisational culture 3.31 0.40 82.7 195 3.18 0.46 79.5 206 3.17 0.38 79.3 373Job design 3.27 0.41 81.7 194 3.18 0.43 79.5 206 3.15 0.41 78.8 376Reasonable adjustment 3.23 0.40 80.7 193 3.15 0.40 78.7 205 3.16 0.40 79.0 377Organisational behaviourOrganisational loyaltyand commitment 3.21 0.46 80.3 194 3.16 0.46 79.0 205 3.12 0.40 78.0 374Job motivation 3.31 0.42 82.8 194 3.16 0.45 79.0 204 3.15 0.41 78.7 375Job satisfaction 3.30 0.42 82.5 194 3.20 0.41 80.0 205 3.17 0.39 79.2 373Work involvement 3.24 0.42 81.0 195 3.14 0.45 78.5 204 3.12 0.40 78.0 382

Notes: 1¼ Strongly disagree; 2¼ disagree; 3¼Agree; 4¼ strongly agree

Table II.Organisational workenvironment foremployees withdisabilities

Employer Co-workerOrganisationalbehaviour

OCL(n¼ 192)

OCU(n¼ 192)

JD(n¼ 191)

RA(n¼ 190)

OCL(n¼ 199)

OCU(n¼ 200)

JD(n¼ 200)

RA(n¼ 190)

Organisational loyalty and commitmentr 0.682 0.599 0.680 0.656 0.590 0.577 0.630 0.652p 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000Job motivationr 0.609 0.668 0.699 0.680 0.680 0.689 0.735 0.772p 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000Job satisfactionr 0.592 0.597 0.655 0.608 0.597 0.622 0.660 0.680p 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000Work involvementr 0.615 0.618 0.672 0.618 0.650 0.692 0.731 0.647p 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Table III.Relationship betweenemployees withdisabilities’ organisationalbehaviour and employers’and co-workers’consciousness andresponsiveness

202

EDI33,2

as well as the pride of the organisation. The employers felt comfortable working withthe employees with disabilities, regardless of their disabilities. These results contradictwith those of Osman’s (2003), Chelvi’s (2007) and Butler’s (2007) studies. They statethat employers’ negative perception towards people with disabilities due to theirdisabilities is the major factor that makes it difficult for them to stay in the work.

4.3 Co-workers’ level of consciousness and responsivenessThe co-workers exerted that their working areas are safe even for the employees withdisabilities (Table II). The co-workers believed that their organisations have providedconducive organisation climate, comfortable organisation culture, suitable job designand reasonable adjustment for the benefit of the employees with disabilities. They, too,were proud to have employees with disabilities as part of the organisation because theyget along well with them. In terms of organisation culture, the co-workers indicatedthat their superiors are concerned about employees with disabilities’ feeling aboutwork. The co-workers affirmed that the employees with disabilities are giving theirbest possible service to the customers. Similar to the employers, the co-workers werealso interested in the ideas of the employees with disabilities. The co-workers felt thatthe employees with disabilities are given the opportunity to learn new skills, able tocontrol their work pace and are given the responsibilities for their own performance.Similar to the employers’ claim, the co-workers exerted that their organisations areaware of the requirement and the changes to the working hours besides the allocationof duties for the employees with disabilities. Furthermore, the co-workers highlightedthat the organisations also consider the salary increment for employees with disabilities.

Similar to the employers’ perception, the co-workers perceived that the employeeswith disabilities as proactive. They are highly committed and are willing to help theirco-workers. The co-workers are comfortable working with employees with all typesof disabilities.

4.4 Organisational behaviour of employees with disabilitiesOrganisational behaviour is measured using four dimensions, namely, organisationalloyalty and commitment, job motivation, job satisfaction and work involvement(Table II). The employees with disabilities claimed that they are loyal and committed,motivated to work, are satisfied with their job and are involved at the workplace.This supports O’Connell’s (2007) findings. Since people with disability find it difficultto get a job, when they get it, they definitely protect it. Therefore, they have to beprofessional, committed and loyal to the organisations which hire them. In line withO’Connell, Ariff (2007) also found that deaf-mute workers once hired work hardwith full determination and responsibility. They feel that they belong to the organisation,are emotionally connected to the organisation, and they feel as if they are part of theorganisation. They are motivated to do the job because they have the opportunity toparticipate in the goal-setting process of the organisations and their organisationsprovide support to balance between work and personal life. The employees withdisabilities are satisfied with the organisations because their performance is evaluatedfairly and appropriately. It contradicts Uppal’s (2005), study as Uppal reports thatemployees with disabilities tend to feel dissatisfied with their job compared to theirco-workers without disabilities.

The organisations provide comfortable workplace for employees with disabilitiesand they also receive training to do their job well. The employees with disabilities arestrongly attached to the organisations as teamwork is practiced in their organisations.

203

Predictors toemployees with

disabilities

These results confirmed Khor’s (2002) study. Khor also found that employees withdisabilities are loyal, productive, reliable and motivated.

4.5 Relationship between employees with disabilities’ organisational behaviour andemployers’ consciousness and responsivenessThere are positive relationships between the employees with disabilities’ organisationalbehaviour and their employers’ consciousness and responsiveness (Table III). This meansthat the higher the organisational climate, organisational culture, job design andreasonable adjustment, the higher would be the employees with disabilities’ organisationalloyalty and commitment, job motivation, job satisfaction and work involvement. This is inline with Hall’s (2007) findings. According to Hall, employees with disabilities are able togive full participation in society as long as there is no discrimination from others.

4.6 Relationship between the employees with disabilities’ organisational behaviour andco-workers’ consciousness and responsivenessSimilarly, the co-workers observed that when their organisations provided conduciveorganisational climate, suitable work culture, appropriate job design and reasonableadjustment to employees with disabilities, the employees with disabilities’ organisationalloyalty and commitment, job motivation, job satisfaction and work involvementimproved accordingly (Table III). This is because there is a positive relationship betweenthe organisational adaptations with the employees with disabilities’ organisationalbehaviour. With the organisational adaptations, employees with disabilities in turn tendto be more loyal and committed, motivated, satisfied with their job and are fully involvedin their work. They owe their organisations for accommodating to their needs.

4.7 Model for employees with disabilities’ workplace employment with organisationalbehaviourOrganisational behaviour of employees with disabilities encompasses organisationalloyalty, job motivation, job satisfaction and work involvement (Table IV). Organisationalconsciousness in providing workplace employment for employees with disabilitiesin catering to their needs to perform their duties is in terms of organisationalclimate, organisational culture, job design and reasonable adjustment. By providingthe workplace working atmosphere, employees with disabilities are able to be loyaland committed, motivated, satisfied with their job and are fully involved in theirwork.

Organisational loyalty and commitment are predicted by the organisations’ abilityto restructure their job design to suit to the needs of employees with disabilities, makereasonable adjustment, create conducive organisational climate and practice harmoniousorganisational culture between employees with disabilities with employers andco-workers. All these factors explained for 52.3 per cent towards the employees withdisabilities’ loyalty and commitment. Therefore, the equation of the model can beformulated as: organisational loyalty and commitment¼ 0.324þ 0.286 job designþ 0.362reasonable adjustmentþ 0.156 organisational climateþ 0.083 organisational culture.

Employees with disabilities are motivated when the organisations are able torestructure job design, make reasonable adjustment, practice harmonious organisationalculture and create conducive organisational climate for them. The organisationalconsciousness on these positive changes will cause employees with disabilities to bemotivated to work at their organisations. This is because these factors contribute tothe 56.2 per cent towards job motivation of the employees with disabilities. Hence, it can

204

EDI33,2

Dep

end

ent

var

iab

leIn

dep

end

ent

var

iab

leB

SE

Bet

at

p

Org

anis

atio

nal

loy

alty

and

com

mit

men

t(n¼

741)

Con

stan

t0.

324

0.10

23.

187

0.00

1Jo

bd

esig

n0.

286

0.04

20.

277

6.80

00.

000

Rea

son

able

adju

stm

ent

0.36

20.

036

0.33

410

.008

0.00

0O

rgan

izat

ion

alcl

imat

e0.

156

0.03

90.

156

4.00

60.

000

Org

aniz

atio

nal

cult

ure

0.08

30.

042

0.07

91.

975

0.04

9R¼

0.72

3,R

2¼

0.52

3,R

2A

dj¼

0.52

1,F¼

201.

950,

df¼

4,73

6,p¼

0.00

0Jo

bm

otiv

atio

n(n¼

738)

Con

stan

t0.

434

0.09

24.

719

0.00

0Jo

bd

esig

n0.

289

0.03

80.

297

7.59

40.

000

Rea

son

able

adju

stm

ent

0.27

90.

033

0.27

48.

540

0.00

0O

rgan

izat

ion

alcu

ltu

re0.

222

0.03

80.

222

5.80

80.

000

Org

aniz

atio

nal

clim

ate

0.07

70.

035

0.08

12.

172

0.03

0R¼

0.75

0,R

2¼

0.56

2,R

2A

dj¼

0.56

0,F¼

238.

040,

df¼

4,73

3,p¼

0.00

0Jo

bsa

tisf

acti

on(n¼

739)

Con

stan

t0.

509

0.10

24.

948

0.00

0Jo

bd

esig

n0.

258

0.04

20.

257

6.13

90.

000

Rea

son

able

adju

stm

ent

0.27

70.

036

0.26

37.

641

0.00

0O

rgan

izat

ion

alcu

ltu

re0.

181

0.04

30.

175

4.25

40.

000

Org

aniz

atio

nal

clim

ate

0.12

70.

040

0.12

83.

167

0.00

2R¼

0.70

2,R

2¼

0.49

3,R

2A

dj¼

0.49

1,F¼

178.

704,

df¼

4,73

4,p¼

0.00

0W

ork

inv

olv

emen

t(n¼

743)

Con

stan

t0.

446

0.09

64.

628

0.00

0Jo

bd

esig

n0.

291

0.04

00.

295

7.32

20.

000

Rea

son

able

adju

stm

ent

0.24

10.

034

0.23

17.

002

0.00

0O

rgan

izat

ion

alcu

ltu

re0.

178

0.04

00.

174

4.39

00.

000

Org

aniz

atio

nal

clim

ate

0.14

30.

036

0.14

93.

860

0.00

0R¼

0.72

7,R

2¼

0.52

9,R

2A

dj¼

0.52

6,F¼

206.

983,

df¼

4,73

8,p¼

0.00

0

Table IV.Model for employees with

disabilities workplaceemployment with

organisational behaviour

205

Predictors toemployees with

disabilities

be stated that job motivation¼ 0.434þ 0.289 job designþ 0.279 reasonableadjustmentþ 0.222 organisational cultureþ 0.077 organisational climate.

Organisation consciousness in providing appropriate job design, reasonableadjustment, conducive organisational culture and practicing harmoniousorganisational climate positively influenced the employees with disabilities’ jobsatisfaction. These factors contribute to the 49.3 per cent towards employees withdisabilities’ job satisfaction. Therefore, organisation consciousness is important inmaking employees with disabilities satisfied with their job. The equation can bepresented as job satisfaction¼ 0.509þ 0.258 job designþ 0.277 reasonableadjustmentþ 0.181 organisational cultureþ 0.127 organisational climate.

Employees with disabilities’ work involvement are also influenced by their jobdesign, reasonable adjustment made by the organisation, organisational culture andorganisational culture. These factors influenced the 52.9 per cent of the employees withdisabilities’ work involvement. Once the necessary modifications have been made,it is easy for employees with disabilities to be involved in the organisations’ activities.This is reflected by work involvement¼ 0.446þ 0.291 job designþ 0.241 reasonableadjustmentþ 0.178 organisational cultureþ 0.143 organisational climate.

5. ConclusionThis study provides valuable empirical findings about major issues associated withemployees with disabilities’ employment. Data were obtained from employers,co-workers and employees with disabilities. The findings of this study reveal that bothemployers and co-workers perceived that their organisations have provided conduciveorganisation climate, comfortable work environment and reasonable adjustment fortheir employees with disabilities. The employees with disabilities are found to be loyaland committed.

These findings support previous studies. Employees with disabilities were satisfiedwith the job (Ariff, 2007; O’Connell, 2007). This particular finding, however, is differentfrom Uppal’s (2005), study where he found employees with disabilities felt dissatisfiedwith their jobs. In addition, there are positive relationships between employees withdisabilities’ organisational behaviour and their employers’ consciousness and responsiveness.There is a positive relationship between the organisational adaptations with employeeswith disabilities’ organisational behaviour. With the organisational adaptations,employees with disabilities in turn tend to be more loyal and committed, motivated,satisfied with their job and are fully involved in their work. Organisational loyalty andcommitment are predicted by the organisations’ ability to restructure their jobdesign to suit to the needs of employees with disabilities, make reasonable adjustment,create conducive organisational climate and practice harmonious organisationalculture between employees with disabilities with their employers and co-workers. Jobdesign, organisational climate and comfortable work environment have long beenrecognised for motivating employees’ performance (Hackman et al., 1975; Garg andRastogi, 2006), but little is known of what motivates employees with disabilities.Our findings show that these factors also motivate employees with disabilities. This isan added value to the existing body of knowledge as limited is known about themotivation of employees with disabilities.

It is already a big challenge for employers to satisfy their employees; what more tosatisfy employees with disabilities. In addition to well-known factors such as rewardsand working relationship, job design, organisational climate, reasonable adjustmentand organisational climate all need attention. Employers may not get paid off if they

206

EDI33,2

hire a small number of persons with disabilities. Incentives such as tax reductionto employers may encourage more employers to hire these gifted human beings.Facilitating the integration of people with disabilities into organisations will needchanging beliefs among employers about them, changing behaviours towards themand changing affective reactions towards them. The results show that employees withdisabilities are motivated and committed. However, they are at a disadvantage in termsof career development. This is particularly due to lack of workplace training given tothem by employers. Therefore, the government should provide incentives to employersto encourage them to train their employees with disabilities. Such incentives include100 per cent reimbursement or reduced training fee. Government training agenciesshould also formulate special modules tailored towards training employees withvarious types of disabilities.

This study has tried to gather data using triangulation to ensure the study iscomprehensive and generalisable. However, it is not without limitations. We have noway of knowing for sure whether the information reported by our respondents isaccurate. Initially this study planned to use purposive sampling; however, due to poordatabase maintained by the relevant agency of employees with disabilities’ employmentin the country, we were unable to identify which employers employ how many employeeswith disabilities. The sampling then was based on convenient sampling. There arepossibilities that there are many more employees with disabilities who are not registeredto any association of disability, so we could not reach them. The findings of this studyindicate a variety of interesting opportunities for researchers interested in employmentopportunities for people with disabilities. For future research, it would be useful toidentify the population of employers and include representative employers from eachsector so that more interesting aspects of working and performance can be examined.The present study has examined the employers and co-workers; future studies mightwant to look into customers’ perspectives, particularly how comfortable they are whenthey are served by employees with disabilities.

References

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 y 3, 42 U.S.C. y 12102.

Ariff, S.A. (2007), “Disabled but they offer the best”, News Straits Times (Malaysia), 8 August, p. 24.

Barclay, L.A., Markel, K.S. and Yugo, J.E. (2012), “Virtue theory and organizations: consideringpersons with disabilities”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 330-346.

Barnes, C. (2003), “Rehabilitation for disabled people: a ‘sick’ joke?”, Scandinavian Journal ofDisability Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 7-23.

Barnes, C. and Mercer, G. (2005), “Disability, work, and welfare: challenging the social exclusionof disabled people”, Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 527-545.

Bricout, J.C. and Bentley, K.J. (2000), “Disability status and perceptions of employability byemployers”, Social Work Research, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 87-95.

Bruyere, S.M., Erickson, W.A. and VanLooy, S.A. (2006), “The impact of business size onemployer ADA response”, Rehabilitation Counselling Bulletin, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 194-206.

Buciuniene, I. and Kazlauskaite, R. (2010), “Integrating people with disability into the workforce:the case of a retail chain”, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal,Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 534-538

Butler, K.M. (2007), “10 million ways to fill up the talent gap”, Employee Benefit News,BenefitNews.com, March, pp. 22-24.

Carvel, J. (2008), “Disabled people ‘bullied at work”, The Guardian (London), 27 November, p. 22.

207

Predictors toemployees with

disabilities

Chelvi, S.T. (2007), “The disabled want equal opportunities in jobs, basic rights”, The Sun Online,3 December, available at: http://iltcmalaysia.blogspot.com/2007/12/disabled-want-equal-opportunities.in.html (accessed 10 January 2008).

(The) China Post (2007), “Law amended on rights of disabled”, (The) China Post, 6 June, availableat: www.chinapost.com.tw/news/2007/06/06/111557/Law-amended.htm (accessed 10January 2008).

Christie, L. and Kleiner, B.H. (2001), “New developments concerning reasonable accommodationof disabilities in American organizations”, Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 20Nos 5/6/7, pp. 152-156.

Dibben, P., James, P. and Cunningham, I. (2001), “Senior management commitment to disability: theinfluence of legal compulsion and best practice”, Personnel Review, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 454-467.

Duff, A. and Ferguson, J. (2012), “Disability and the professional accountant: insights from oral”,Histories, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 71-101.

Goldstone, G. and Meager, N. (2002), “Barriers to employment for disabled people”, In-houseReport No. 95, Department for Work and Pensions, Social Research Branch, London.

Granger, J.C. and Kleiner, B.H. (2003), “Benefit programmes for disabled employees”, EqualOpportunities International, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 10-15.

Garg, P. and Rastogi, R. (2006), “New model of job design: motivating employees’ performance”,Journal of Management Development, Vol. 25 No. 60, pp. 572-587.

Hackman, J.R., Oldham, R.G., Janson, R. and Purdy, K. (1975), California Management Review,Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 55-71.

Hall, E.W. (2007), “The effects of disability awareness trainings with career and technicaleducators teaching in high need rural schools”, Rural Special Education Quarterly, Vol. 26No. 3, pp. 16-24.

Hammond, G. and Kleiner, B.H. (2005), “Reasonable accommodation of teachers with amputatedlegs in public schools”, Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 24 Nos 5/6, pp. 115-121.

Jones, M.K. (2008), “Disability and the labour market: a review on the empirical evidence”,Journal of Economic Studies, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 405-424.

Katz, I. and Glass, D.C. (1979), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Brooks/Cole,Monterey, CA, pp. 55-70.

Kennedy, R.B. and Harris, N.K. (2005), “Employing persons with severe disabilities: much workremains to be done”, Journal of Employment Counselling, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 133-139.

Khor, H.T. (2002), “Employment of persons with disabilities in Malaysia”, paper presented atEconomic Briefing to The Penang State Government, March, available at: http://jobs4disabled.jobstreet.com/resources1.htm (accessed 2 January 2008).

Law of Malaysia Act 685, available at: www.malaysiancare.org.my (accessed 9 January 2008).

Nelson, J. and Kleiner, B.H. (2001), “How to accommodate common disabilities in organizations”,Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 20 Nos 5/6/7, pp. 146-151.

Newton, R., Ormerod, M. and Thomas, P. (2007), “Disabled people experiences in the workplaceenvironment in England”, Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 610-623.

O’Connell, S. (2007), “Open your mind to the benefits of disabled staff”, The Sunday Times(London), 3 June, p. 10.

Olsen, P.R. (2008), “Workers and employers, seeing past a disability”, The New York Times,24 August, p. 9.

Osman, Z. (2003), “Malaysian employers’ attitude toward hiring persons with disabilities”,Master thesis, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok .

Peck, B. and Kirkbride, L.T. (2001), “Why businesses don’t employ people with disabilities”,Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 71-75.

208

EDI33,2

Pedrasa, I.M.J.P. (2007), “Companies urged to hire more disabled workers”, Business World,27 July, p. S1/9.

Phan, B. and Kleiner, H. (1999), “The basics of employment discrimination”, Equal OpportunitiesInternational, Vol. 8 No. 8, pp. 10-15.

Roulstone, A. and Warren, J. (2006), “Applying a barriers approach to monitoring disabledpeople’s employment: implications for the Disability Discrimination Act 2005”, Disabilityand Society, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 115-131.

Salleh, N.M., Abdullah, K. and Buang, N.A. (2001), “Job opportunities for special needspopulation in Malaysia”, Jurnal Pendidikan, Vol. 27, pp. 77-85.

Schur, L. (2002), “The difference of a job makes: the effects of employment among people withdisabilities”, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 339-347.

Sirvastava, S. and Chamberlain, M.A. (2005), “Factors determining job retention and return towork for disabled employees: a questionnaire study of opinions of disabled people’sorganizations in the UK”, Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 17-22.

Stevens, G.R. (2007), “Job-matching and employee diversity: an exploratory study”, Journal ofSmall Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 719-731.

Taylor, C.J. (1998), The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 138 No. 6, pp. 766-771.

Uppal, S. (2005), “Disability, workplace characteristics and job satisfaction”, InternationalJournal of Manpower, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 336-349.

Further reading

Abdul Rahman, S.F. (2007), “Dapatkah OKU menjalani hidup seperti insan sempurna anggotadi negara ini?”, available at: www.ikim.gov.my/v5/print.php?grp¼ 2&key¼ 1251(accessed 3 January 2008).

Charles, K.K. (2004), “The extent and effect of employer compliance with the accommodationsmandates of the Americans with Disabilities Act”, Journal of Disability Policy Studies,Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 86-96.

Hawthorne, N. (2009), “High turnover antidote: hire employees with disabilities”, available at:www.esight.org/view.cfm?x-478 (accessed 9 January 2008).

Razak, M.S. (2007), “Sejarah OKU tercipta”, available at: www.utusan.com.my/utusan/content.asp?y¼ 2007&dt¼ 1222&pub¼Utusan_Malaysia&sec¼Rencana&pg¼ re_07.htm(accessed 9 January 2008).

Smith, T. (2002), “Diversity and disability: exploring the experiences of vision impaired people inthe workplace”, Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 21 No. 8, pp. 59-72.

US Department of State (2007), “Country reports on human rights practices”, available at:www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2007/ (accessed 10 January 2008).

Wong, C. (2007), “Still a struggle for disabled to join workforce”, South China Morning Post, 26June, p. 14.

Corresponding authorProfessor Junaidah Hashim can be contacted at: junaidahh@iium.edu.my

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

209

Predictors toemployees with

disabilities