Employing People With Disabilities in the Taiwanese Workplace

Abstract

This study aimed to explore the experiences of employers who had long-term experiences with employing people with disabilities in Taiwan. In-depth qualitative interviews were adopted as the main data collection instrument. The participants included 12 Taiwanese employers in the private enterprise sector with 2 or more years of experience hiring employees with disabilities beyond the required employment quota enacted by the Taiwanese government. The results identified four main reasons that led to hiring, including personal experience relating to people with disabilities, economic concerns, charitable perspectives, and policy implications. Although the employers were highly willing to collaborate with vocational rehabilitation systems, their needs for services rendered differed in the distinct employment processes. Employers expressed greater concern about the employability of applicants with disabilities during the recruitment and selection process than during the placement and accommodation stages. Barriers to career advancement for individuals with disabilities were indicated. This study underscores the importance of demand-driven employment strategies and highlights the need to gain insights into the experiences of employers who actually work with people with disabilities. The implications of the findings for rehabilitation practitioners are discussed.

Keywords

demand-side employment model employer perceptions employment of people with disabilities job placement vocational rehabilitation

In recent decades, the legislative body of Taiwan has passed several landmark laws aimed at promoting the rights of its citizens with disabilities. Disability policy makers were instrumental in helping to write and implement the 1991 Handicapped Welfare Act, the Physically and Mentally Disabled Citizens Protection Act of 1997, and the People With Disabilities Rights Protection Act of 2007. Article 38 of the People With Disabilities Rights Protection Act explicitly stipulates a mandatory employment quota: For each 100 employees hired by private companies or organizations, 1 employee must be a person with a disability (e.g., 100:1). Failure to comply with the required employment quota will subject employers to a monetary fine (Jang, Wang, & Lin, 2014). However, the employment rate of people with disabilities in Taiwan continues to be low, despite the enactment of such disability-related laws. A 2009 national survey conducted by the Workforce Development Agency of Taiwan (2012) revealed that the workforce participation rate for people with disabilities hovered at 26.5%. Such findings affirm that employment concerns remain a big challenge for people with disabilities.

Several studies have indicated that the employment dilemma that people with disabilities face can partially be attributed to the low effectiveness of the traditional supply-side job placement model (Amir, Strauser, & Chan, 2009; Chan, Strauser, Gervey, & Lee, 2010). Common supply-side employment strategies include all kinds of services designed to support and assist people with disabilities in seeking and applying for employment. Specifically, this approach focuses on the comprehensive evaluation of the functioning, job skills, and career interests of people with disabilities, as well as the provision of medical and psychological interventions, vocational training, and support services to improve employment outcomes (Gilbride & Stensrud, 1992). However, this client-centered training and placement model often pays no attention to the issues related to employer needs, organizational behaviors, and the demand of the labor market (Chan et al., 2010).

The importance of using a demand-side employment approach to help people with disabilities obtain and retain employment has increasingly gained recognition in recent years. Demand-side techniques are services provided directly to employers to make their workplaces more accessible and user friendly for employees with disabilities (Gilbride & Stensrud, 1999). One major implication of this approach is that employers are viewed as potential customers of vocational rehabilitation services, because the focus shifts from the people who need these services to employers and their work environments (Gilbride & Stensrud, 1999). According to Fabian, Luecking, and Tilson (1995), such a shift mobilizes existing support networks so that it can sustain long-term employment opportunities. This approach also affects the ways in which employers respond to the needs of employees with disabilities, as well as to those of non-disabled employees, which in turn tries to alleviate discrimination against people with disabilities and improve workplace integration. Because employers have played such an influential role in addressing the issues of people with disabilities in the workplace, vocational rehabilitation researchers have advocated a greater need to research employers’ perceptions and attitudes toward the hiring and retaining of people with disabilities to complement current demand-side employment research (Fraser et al., 2010; Unger, 2002). An examination of employer perceptions also provides an opportunity to gather information to understand employers’ rationales in doing business, to develop communications between service providers and employers, and to acquire knowledge to increase the effectiveness of job placement outcomes (Morgan & Alexander, 2005).

Many studies have indicated a discrepancy between employers’ expressed willingness to hire people with disabilities and their actual hiring practices. Copeland, Chan, Bezyak, and Fraser (2010) reported that employers generally hold moderately positive attitudes toward people with disabilities, but specific attitudes related to the hiring or degree of comfort working with people with disabilities appear to be negative. A review of the literature revealed that although global attitudes toward individuals with disabilities in the workplace are favorable, when pressed about actual hiring practices, employers seem hesitant to recommend hiring individuals with disabilities (Hernandez, Keys, & Balcazar, 2000). Furthermore, these negative attitudes are magnified if prospective employees have mental health problems or intellectual disabilities (Olson, Cioffi, Yovanoff, & Mank, 2001).

Other studies have focused on the reasons for employers’ low acceptance of people with disabilities. Their misconceptions are often reinforced by inaccurate stereotypes, such as individuals with disabilities are mentally unstable, possess poor social skills, and lack age-appropriate maturity (Amir et al., 2009). These supposedly negative traits are in conflict with the employability of people with disabilities. Johnson, Greenwood, and Schriner (1988) found that employers tend to have doubts about whether people with disabilities possess work-related skills such as productivity, work quality, and promotability. Their work-related personality attributes were also questioned, including level of motivation, ability to get along with co-workers, willingness to accept supervision, and work tolerance. Stensrud (2007) concluded that because of the burdens of having medical conditions and the associated symptoms in people with disabilities, employers tend to believe hiring them could bring additional risks to the business. Other research suggests that employers’ fear inhibit the consideration of hiring a person with a disability. These concerns include unknown potential costs, the need for additional supervision, loss of productivity, and the possibility of litigation (Kaye, Jans, & Jones, 2011; Peck & Kirkbride, 2001). Moreover, safety concerns were frequently mentioned because employers are inclined to refer to people with disabilities as a protected class (Morgan & Alexander, 2005).

Despite negative perceptions and concerns about workers with disabilities, the general satisfaction of employers with employees with disabilities has been reported in several studies (Kregel & Unger, 1993; Reisman & Reisman, 1993). Previous studies have also consistently shown that employers with past hiring experiences reported having more favorable attitudes toward retaining or rehiring people with disabilities (Lengnick-Hall, 2007; Unger, 2002). The findings of these studies indicate that some employers do hire and effectively accommodate people with disabilities, in spite of myths and stereotypes. Therefore, vocational rehabilitation researchers pointed out the need to provide employers with more accurate and practical information to dispel negative perceptions about hiring and retaining people with disabilities. Researchers have also recommended that gaining insights into employers who hold positive attitudes toward the employment of individuals with disabilities can help rehabilitation professionals better understand the concerns and needs of business practice. Such information can also guide the provision of consulting, education, and placement services.

In the present study, the authors applied a qualitative research design to investigate the hiring of people with disabilities from the prospective of employers. The authors sought participants from private enterprise employers with long-term experience in hiring employees with disabilities beyond the required employment quota enacted by the Taiwanese government and with business relationships with vocational rehabilitation agencies or employment service agencies. The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of employers who have been successful in employing individuals with disabilities. Specifically, the authors focused on the perceptions and considerations of employers when hiring and accommodating people with disabilities.

Method

Research Design and Sampling

This study used a descriptive qualitative method to conduct an in-depth investigation of participants’ responses. Criterion sampling was deemed a suitable technique for the analysis of information-rich sources (Bryman, 2004). Because the authors wanted to focus solely on the experiences of employers in the private sector who had successfully hired employees with disabilities, prospective participants had to meet the following selection criteria: (a) They have the authority to hire and terminate employees, (b) they work at a privately owned enterprise, (c) they offer competitive employment to employees with disabilities, (d) they have hired more people with disabilities than the employment quota stipulated by the People With Disabilities Rights Protection Act for more than 2 years, (e) they have previous working experiences with vocational rehabilitation agencies or employment service agencies, and (f) they agree to participate in the study voluntarily.

Participants

A total of 12 employers from 7 cities or counties located in Northerner, Central, and Southern Taiwan participated in the study. The gender of the participants was equally distributed with 6 males and 6 females. The average age of the participants was 44.58 years (SD = 11.01). The number of years since the participants had exceeded the required employment quota implemented by the government in 1990 ranged from 2 to 22 years (M = 9.25, SD = 6.26). Additional information about the participants’ job titles, industry types, the number of employees with and without disabilities in the company, and the types of disabilities the employees had is shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Profiles of Participant Employers.

Employer	Job title	Industry type	Age	Gender	Number of employees	Number of EWD	Disability types of EWD	Years of exceeding required employment quota
1	Business owner	Services	36	Male	33	7	1	≈9 years
2	Human resource manager	Technology	53	Female	516	7	2, 3	≈5 years
3	Line manager	Services	56	Male	1,200	≈200	1, 2, 4, 5	≈22 years
4	Line manager	Manufacturing	62	Male	310	19	1, 2, 3	≈17 years
5	Human resource manager	Lodging	40	Female	270	3	1, 2	≈6 years
6	Human resource personnel	Retail	29	Female	1,150	≈60	1, 2, 3	≈10 years
7	Business owner	Manufacturing	45	Male	43	3	1	≈10 years
8	Human resource manager	Manufacturing	38	Female	132	3	2, 3	≈2 years
9	Business owner	Manufacturing	64	Male	38	7	1	≈18 years
10	Department manager	Lodging	36	Male	≈300	8	1, 3	≈2 years
11	Human resource personnel	Manufacturing	34	Female	544	8	1, 3	≈5 years
12	Human resource manager	Hospitality	42	Female	≈600	9	2	≈5 years

Note. Disability types: 1 = intellectual disability, 2 = physical disability, 3 = hearing impairment, 4 = emotional impairment, 5 = psychiatric disability. EWD = employees with disabilities.

Data Collection and Procedure

Participants were recruited through local vocational rehabilitation agencies and employment service agencies. At these agencies, case managers or employment specialists identified prospective participants in their databases and then forwarded participation requests and information the authors had provided about the study to the prospective participants.

This study was funded by Taiwan’s Ministry of Science and Technology. Official approval of the study was secured prior to contacting prospective participants. A statement outlining the purpose of the study, the interview procedure, and the participants’ rights was given to each participant. All the participants who agreed to take part in the study signed an informed consent form and granted the researchers permission to create audio recordings of the interviews. The first author used two digital mini-disc recorders during the interviews, which typically lasted an hour or longer. To protect the confidentiality and anonymity of the participants, all the data were analyzed in aggregates.

This study’s data were gathered from February to July of 2012. For the purpose of the study and to obtain information that might have direct bearings on the research objectives, the qualitative interviews comprised semi-structured conversations that consisted of exchanges of questions and responses between the researcher and the interviewee (Kvale, 1996). The aforementioned protocols give the authors the flexibility to gather broader information, to explore the underlying meanings of the interviewees’ thoughts, and to deal with emerging issues (Robson, 2002).

Data Analysis

All of the interviews were conducted in Mandarin by the first author. The audio recordings of the interviews were then subsequently transcribed verbatim. The authors translated the transcribed texts to English and then back to Mandarin to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the original interviews.

The qualitative thematic coding method described by Miles and Huberman (1994) was used. The data analysis mainly comprised two stages. The two-step analysis of the raw data was cyclical; continual adjustments were made throughout the interpretation process. During the first stage, the authors coded the participants’ responses, which were further divided into sub-domains and classified accordingly. The strategy, better known as open coding, was applied because it allowed the authors to scrutinize the data at a more in-depth level and from a broad perspective. In the second stage, an advanced coding technique—the reiterative process of organizing and comparing data—was performed to reorganize the domains that led to the identification of the relevant themes in the study. The analysis was facilitated by the qualitative analysis software program, MAXQDA 10. To enhance the rigor of the study, peer examination was conducted continually during all steps of the analysis by the second author.

Results

Table 1 shows that employers were most accepting of employees with intellectual disability. Nine out of the 12 employers interviewed in the current study had hired someone with this type of disability. Physical disability did not seem to deter 7 out of 12 of employers from hiring employees with such limitations. However, only 1 employer had a worker with psychiatric disabilities in his workplace. Four major themes also emerged from the analysis of the qualitative data: (a) reasons for hiring employees with disabilities, (b) recruitment and selection, (c) placement and accommodations, and (d) career advancement. Sub-topics for each theme were further identified and discussed in detail.

Theme I: Reasons for Hiring Employees With Disabilities

Because all the participating employers had lengthy and repeated experience working with people with disabilities, they were able to provide an array of reasons for their hiring intentions and practices. These reasons can be divided into four main categories: personal experience relating to people with disabilities, economic concerns, charitable perspectives, and policy implications.

Personal experience relating to people with disabilities

As their reason for hiring people with disabilities, some employers indicated having personal contacts with people who have disabilities outside the workplace, such as an immediate family member, relative, friend, or close neighbor. The situational contacts allowed them to develop a better grasp of disability information and to personally appreciate the adverse circumstances people with disabilities face that are construed by social stereotyping. This valuable knowledge made them more willing to provide job opportunities and to accommodate qualified people with disabilities.

Some employers’ decisions to rehire employees with disabilities were influenced by their previous hiring experiences. These employers admitted to previously having reservations about the work potential of individuals with disabilities and feeling that they were taking a huge risk the first time when they hired an employee with disabilities. Their worries were then set to rest when they realized that the person was not only able to perform the essential functions of the job but was also accepted by most of his or her co-workers. Their experiences had a positive effect on their attitudes toward job applicants with disabilities. Some employers were even willing to engage in outreach activities in an effort to recruit applicants with disabilities.

Economic concerns

Some employers whose enterprises belonged to the secondary labor market (e.g., cleaning, car washing, operating factory equipment, assembling products) tended to tap into the pool of workers with disabilities to ease persistent labor shortages. Due to difficulty recruiting new employees, these employers were forced to consider employing people with disabilities. The following account came from Employer 1, who provided this view:

In fact, the jobs I offer are physically demanding. But parents always encourage their children to pursue education. After university, go to get a master’s degree. After earning a master’s degree, go do a doctoral degree. Also, the government continuously provides with student loans. So, we have difficulty recruiting people to do our type of work. Comparatively, hiring people with disabilities is more stable.

Several employers also reported low turnover of employees with disabilities once they became familiar with the work environment. As a result, these employers saw significant reductions in resources expended in recruitment and reaped savings in terms of costs from preventing incompatible hires.

Charitable perspectives

Some employers indicated that in a stable economy, their companies were more willing to bear their share of corporate social responsibility. They viewed the employment of individuals with disabilities and other disadvantaged people as a noble approach to fulfilling social obligations. Compared with other types of philanthropy, such as monetary donations, employers tended to consider the employment of people with disabilities as more meaningful because of how the practice could directly help people with disabilities lead productive lives and provide them with a means to take care of their families financially. For instance, Employer 2 remarked,

Our boss is a kind person. He wants to help the disadvantaged and make contributions to our society. One of the approaches he does is offering job opportunities because he thinks people with disabilities also need opportunities to work, but it is actually difficult [for them] to gain a job.

In general, the employers believed that hiring people with disabilities showed the public that their companies cared about the community, which in turn helped them project a reputable image. Some employers also believed that the employment of people with disabilities could bring their companies good luck.

Policy implications

All employers agreed that the required personnel quota set by the government had a compelling effect on their intentions to hire people with disabilities. They described their companies as willing to comply with the law, so they remained in compliance with the explicit stipulation in the People With Disabilities Rights Protection Act about the numbers of workers with disabilities that must be hired to avoid the fine associated with non-compliance and prevent any unnecessary losses. Moreover, many employers expressed concerns about the sudden resignation of employees with disabilities due to the stipulation that the obligatory numbers of employees with disabilities be based on the employee list provided for labor insurance on the first day of every month. Therefore, some employers faced the pressure of recruiting appropriate people with disabilities in a short period of time when employees with disabilities had unexpectedly resigned. Hence, some employers hired more than the number of employees with disabilities required in an attempt to preemptively avert possibly a falling short of the personnel requirements stipulated by the laws.

Theme II: Recruitment and Selection

Several employers stressed the need to use multifaceted approaches to attracting people with disabilities different from those conventionally used for recruiting potential non-disabled employees. For example, to recruit people with disabilities, employers used sources including personal networks, newspapers, the Internet, employment agencies, vocational rehabilitation agencies, special education schools, and disability-related associations. Based on their past experiences, employers found that vocational rehabilitation agencies, special education schools, and disability-related associations served the purpose more effectively than other sources because those sources were able to recommend more applicants with disabilities and explain the applicants’ conditions in more detail to facilitate selection.

In particular, the role of employment specialists in matching employers with suitable job applicants was extensively discussed in the interviews. Many employers in this study had the experience of collaborating with employment specialists, although the role the employment specialists played differed in accordance with each company’s unique situations and needs. For instance, some employers used employment specialists as a referral resource and had them pre-screen applicants. As Employer 8 stated,

We have worked with the public employment service center for many years. So, several years ago, when they told us the information of [hiring employees with disabilities], we were willing to cooperate. We now let the employment specialists know the characteristics of our job openings and the criteria we need first. They help us to pre-screen. We cooperate with each other well.

Some employers had good working relationships with employment specialists and were willing to give applicants whom they recommended a try. For example, Employer 5 explained his response in this way:

I have contacted [an employment specialist] whom I knew since I worked at the previous job. She is full of enthusiasm for the work and actively searches for resources. We had worked together several times. Her attitudes touch me. If there is a consumer she finds suitable to work at our hotel, she will come to me because she knows I am an enthusiastic person, as well. Basically, I am willing to help. I will give the person a chance to try.

In general, all employers who had the experience of working with employment specialists felt positive about the employment specialists’ services and their attitudes toward work.

Concerning the selection method, the job interview was described as unavoidable. Due to differences in each individual’s level of functioning, employers have not found information on application forms or resumes to be of much help. Instead, they chose to interview applicants with disabilities in person and to use direct observation and mutual interaction to minimize making a poor hiring decision based on inaccurate and insufficient information. In job interviews, the employers were able to assess applicants’ job skills and job readiness, to identify appropriate jobs and required accommodations, and to discuss work conditions. On occasion, the employers also gave applicants the opportunity to demonstrate their reported skills in the interview process.

The usefulness of referrals on people with disabilities who applied for unskilled jobs was emphasized. Several employers mentioned that due to the lack of schooling or spotty work history of those applying for entry-level jobs, it was not easy to perform reference checks. Because of the doubts employers might have about the information that the applicants provided, sources of referrals were considered crucial for the purpose of verification and to learn more about an applicant’s skills, past job history, and personal characteristics.

Furthermore, several employers indicated an interest in having referral sources attend job interviews together with applicants to allow them to obtain more information in a time-efficient manner. Some employers further admitted to not hiring a person who did not have referral sources, because doing so would pose an unnecessary risk to their businesses. The following account came from Employer 7 who shared this view:

One time, a woman came to apply for my job by herself. I told her to bring a family member to see me, but she did not. This made me suspicious. Although she actually looked fine and had competence to perform the job, I finally decided not to hire her. Somehow, I couldn’t totally trust her.

Of note, the employers particularly relied on referral sources to make hiring decisions for unskilled jobs in comparison with hiring for skilled jobs, for which they based hiring decisions on the applicant’s educational achievement or relevant licensure.

When talking about hiring guidelines, the employers frequently mentioned work skills, soft skills, physical conditions, parents’ attitudes, and location of residence as major considerations. All employers agreed that work skills were the factor that needed to be primarily considered because an employee’s ability to perform the job could directly and significantly affect the profitability of the business. When hiring, the employer aimed to identify potential employees who demonstrated the competence needed to perform the essential functions of the job or at least showed the potential to perform those functions. To ensure prospective employees with disabilities meet the job expectations, some employers laid out plainly the basic skill requirements as selection criteria, which were formulated based on their understanding of a job. For instance, Employer 4 talked about his experience,

Our factory makes surfboards and skis. You can see we have many assembly lines. Manual dexterity is very important for doing these jobs. So we just ask applicants with disabilities to button. We will know whether or not they have work potential.

Other employers considered a short trial period of 1 or 2 days as helpful because the observation time allowed them to gain a clear picture of the actual performance ability of each applicant.

In addition, the employers’ attitudes toward the relationship between educational attainment and job skills varied based on the types of works. Employers usually perceived educational achievement as important when selecting employees for skilled jobs, but placed less emphasis on it when selecting employees for unskilled jobs. Several employers further stated that, because applicants for skilled jobs had received a certain level of education and professional training, the identification of their work skills was more objectively supported by evidence than for those applying for unskilled jobs.

When contemplating soft skills, the employers expected the prospective employees with disabilities to have neat and tidy personal appearance, show motivation for work, get to work on time, attend work regularly, communicate with others, accept responsibility, get along with co-workers, accept supervision or constructive criticism, have the ability to handle personal problems, and be willing to comply with company policy and company regulations. Some employers also emphasized the importance of optimism. As Employer 8 said,

Although [he/she] has disabling conditions, we still want [him/her] to have a positive attitude, express gratitude, and be willing to overcome difficulties and make contributions.

Among these attributes, the employers were most concerned with attendance and punctuality; in regard to the other attributes mentioned, they were willing to compromise to a degree.

In regard to physical conditions, disability severity was viewed as a critical determinant. The employers appeared to define severity of disability based on the extent to which the ability to carry out daily activities was affected. All of them particularly underscored the importance of independent functioning at work. Therefore, applicants who needed assistance with their daily routines were not favored. A few employers took ambulatory functioning into consideration and turned down applicants who used wheelchairs because the nature of the jobs offered required prolonged standing and moving, or because making structural changes for accessibility required great expense. In addition, the issue of disability type garnered much attention because most employers admitted that the type of disability affected the hiring decision even if not part of the selection criteria. An employer was more prone to making a job offer to a person with a certain disability type that they were familiar with through previous contact experience. The additional knowledge and resources required to hire an employee with an unfamiliar disability type increased the apprehension of the employers and made them less reluctant to hire in such instances.

Several employers who had the experience of hiring individuals with intellectual disabilities expressed concerns about parental over-protectiveness. The employers stated that because of worries that their children might receive unfair treatment in the workplace, parents sometimes exhibited behavior that interfered with the development of the employee relationship with the workplace (e.g., asking unreasonable accommodations) or affected the company’s reputation (e.g., making complaints in the media). According to the employers’ experiences, such interferences were relatively common as parents of employees with intellectual disabilities believe their children were unable to speak up for their own rights due to their impairments. To deal proactively with this issue, employers indicated making efforts to contact parents during the selection phase of hiring so that they could observe the attitudes of the parents of prospective employees.

The influence of the locations of employees’ residence was twofold: transportation needs and turnover. The employers were aware of the transportation barriers people with disabilities might face and expressed concerns about safety, particularly for those with physical and intellectual disabilities. Therefore, applicants who lived nearby were preferred because their commutes posed minimal problems. Some employers further stated that the ease of a daily commute facilitated the maintenance of employment for employees, thus reducing the problem of high employee turnover in their companies.

Theme III: Placement and Accommodations

The employers described employee orientation as a procedure for providing new employees with disabilities with background information about the company and familiarizing them with the workplace. Although these orientation sessions usually took on a similar form as those offered to non-disabled employees, the importance of creating an atmosphere of inclusion, whereby employees with disabilities felt welcome and not discriminated against, was emphasized. The employers believed that they play the lead role in influencing their employees’ attitudes toward co-workers with disabilities. Once a hiring decision was made, the employers took responsibility for creating an inclusive work environment. Employer 9 illustrated how he approached this issue:

I introduce [a new employee with a disability] to other employees and department managers in person and they accordingly understand my attitude towards the hiring of people with disabilities. Once they clearly understand the boss’s attitudes, they will know what to do.

When discussing the issue of job match, the employers generally agreed that assigning employees with disabilities to jobs that did not push them beyond their limitations was a good strategy to minimize the impact of disability on the job. Several employers stated that the success of a job match depended heavily upon a basic understanding of the nature of the employee’s disability, and they also tended to view the disability type as an essential factor in influencing the type of work duties assigned. Common strategies the employers used included assigning individuals with intellectual disabilities to simple tasks requiring less mathematics and no handling of money and assigning those with physical disabilities to sedentary jobs requiring low levels of physical exertion. In addition, Employer 5, the only participant hiring workers with psychiatric disabilities, shared his experiences of assigning these employees to jobs with repetition that required little interpersonal communication and no direct contacting with customers.

Many employers were willing to use their companies’ existing resources to train employees with disabilities when deemed necessary. Training, which refers to a process of systematic instruction of the technical skills relevant for performing job duties, usually took the form of on-the-job training because this approach helped familiarize the employees with the companies’ ways of doing things and allowed them to learn at their own pace. Although the amount of time for implementing training programs differed based on each company’s or employee’s situation, the employers tended to perceive employees with disabilities as requiring a longer training period when compared with their co-workers. At the same time, the employers recommended training plans to include the development and implementation of adaptations or teaching strategies to enhance training outcomes. Common approaches that the employers adopted included breaking down complex information into readily understandable units, abstracting instructions into concrete concepts, combining instruction with demonstration to facilitate skill acquisition, and using natural cues or written material.

In most cases, the employers saw themselves or their companies as assuming the primary responsibility for job site training and thus actively established and implemented training programs. Although they might sometimes need the support of employment specialists, employers preferred that the employment specialists be present only when they were requested. The reason for this preference was that employers generally considered themselves as having a greater understanding than employment specialists of the practical operations of their businesses, as well as the authority to ensure smooth interactions between employees with disabilities and their colleagues or managers. Therefore, they felt that they were the more appropriate choice to provide training for job site technical skills, but might need employment specialists to address the employees’ non-work support needs (e.g., housing, finances, and medical issues). Some employers expressed concerns that the continued presence of employment specialists might affect a company’s regular operations or discourage interaction between employees with disabilities and their co-workers or supervisors. As one of the important functions of initial training was to develop effective communication with employees with disabilities and to facilitate the employees’ commitments to the company, the employers tended to gradually lessen their need for post-placement services provided by employment specialists and strengthen their own abilities to address disability issues.

Most employers had experience with providing accommodations. Due to the heterogeneity of disability, the concerns and implementation of workplace support tended to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Common accommodations that employers provided could be divided into three categories: physical access accommodations, job modifications or restructuring, and work schedule adjustments. Physical access accommodations included providing easy accessibility to work areas or restrooms, changing the physical layout of work facilities, furnishing barrier-free facilities in the restroom, and making environmental modifications readily accessible to people with disabilities and their assistive devices. Job modifications or restructuring included reassigning, replacing, or changing part of the job duties performed to facilitate job success. In addition, some employers made adjustments to work schedules whereby employees with disabilities did not take rotating work shifts or night shifts because they tended to interfere with steady and consistent performance.

When asked about their views toward the provision of workplace accommodations, all employers showed a preference for easy-to-make solutions with minimal costs. Accommodations involving a significant change in work arrangements or requiring great expense and time were rejected in spite of the fact that government subsidies are readily available. This attitude was exemplified by the following account provided by Employer 7:

My factory is located on a hilltop. Many places are very steep. They cause problems for wheelchair accessibility. However, there is no way to install a new elevator now, even if the government is willing to pay all the costs. This is a really big project. For example, production would be halted as machines are shut down and moved.

Furthermore, if modifications to job duties and work schedules were involved, the employers stressed the need to consider the reaction of the employee’s colleagues. Suggested efforts included educating the employee’s colleagues to understand the importance of accommodations to employees with disabilities and preventing them from perceiving such treatments as preferential or unfair due to the need to meet labor regulations.

Theme IV: Provision for Career Advancement

Only one participating employer had experience with offering career advancement opportunities for employees with disabilities. The others confessed to seldom considering employees with disabilities as suitable candidates for job promotions. From the employers’ perspectives, this could be explained by two main reasons. First, the employers viewed fairness as crucial in making promotion decisions. To increase company competitiveness and improve managerial efficiency, they tended to base promotion decisions on competence and work-related performance appraisals; though disability was considered an irrelevant factor, employees with disabilities experienced less career progress as a result of the fact that they usually did not outperform their colleagues. However, several employers also admitted that the need for work site accommodations or extra training and supervision was a matter of concern that adversely affected their perceptions of the promotability of employees with disabilities in spite of the benefits recognized.

Second, promotion was described as advancement to a position involving increased responsibilities and more managerial roles that inadvertently also involved changes in work duties, work content, and interpersonal situations on the job. If the changes were considered to pose a big problem for employees with disabilities, the promotional opportunity was not likely given to those employees. Employer 2 explained his view in this way:

In our company, if a person is promoted, [he/she] is department manager . . . [He/she] has to travel abroad frequently, can’t just work in a fixed location. So, we think it’s not appropriate for [the employees with disabilities].

Some employers indicated that executive potential was a key determinant when evaluating candidates for promotion. However, based on their own observations, the employers noted that many people with disabilities had lower self-confidence as a result of their physical conditions, or showed less interest in assuming management duties, which in turn also led to diminished career advancement opportunities for them.

Discussion

Many of the prior employer attitudes studies were conducted using scenarios of hypothetical employees with disabilities as researchers sought information from employers who might not necessarily have had actual hiring experiences (Levy, Jessop, Rimmerman, Francis, & Levy, 1993; Morgan & Alexander, 2005; Stensrud, 2007). This study contributes to the knowledge base of vocational rehabilitation counseling by providing an account of actual experiences of employers who had attained successful inclusion of employees with disabilities. Examination of these employers’ perspectives can help rehabilitation practitioners develop sensitivity toward the attitudes of employers and their concerns in doing business.

The four reasons for hiring employees with disabilities identified in this study—personal experience relating to people with disabilities, economic concerns, charitable perspectives, and policy implications—are consistent with the work of Copeland and colleagues (2010) who indicated that direct experience working with employees with disabilities could result in employers exhibiting positive attitudes and influence their perspectives about individuals with disabilities as productive workers because employers’ assessments were less affected by the stereotypes. Results from Morgan and Alexander’s (2005) study also showed that experienced employers were more likely to hire again and identified advantages more frequently than those without experience. Several participants in the current study viewed the employment of employees with disabilities to be cost-efficient as it reduced turnover problems. In a review of more than 90 studies, Greenwood and Johnson (1987) reported a similar finding that most evidence regarding turnover has been basically positive, indicating a tendency for employees with disabilities to remain on the job; such stability in the workplace is an advantage often cited by employers with hiring experiences.

With empathy toward people with disabilities for the discrimination that they encounter on the job market, many participating employers reckoned altruism and charitable perspectives as an important reason for them to recruit people with disabilities. Employers also mentioned several benefits of hiring employees with disabilities, including projecting favorable images in the community, improved equality, commitment to corporate social responsibility, and compliance with the law. Apparently, the mandatory employment quota stipulated by the People With Disabilities Rights Protection Act has an undeniable effect on the employers’ hiring intentions. To comply with the law, the participating employers were willing to engage in a proactive approach to embrace disability in their workplaces. Although some also mentioned their pressure in dealing with the unexpected resignation of employees with disabilities, the employers generally responded favorably to such an employment regulation and believed it had an effect on alleviating employment discrimination. This finding echoes Unger’s (2001) view that the more employers fully understand that disability is an area protected by law and expect enforcement by government, the greater the extent to which people with disabilities are included and retained in the workforce.

A clear message emerging from the interview data is that employers expressed greater concern about the employability of individuals with disabilities in the recruitment and selection process than after hiring them. As with the conclusion drawn by Gilbride, Stensrud, Vandergoot, and Golden (2003), even if employers were open and successful in employing people with disabilities, they were also aware that inappropriate hires could put their businesses at risk. Therefore, employers were very concerned about maintaining explicit hiring guidelines to recruit people with disabilities who are equipped with the necessary work skills or have demonstrated their work potential. In contrast to findings from other studies that revealed employers expressed an aversion to the risk of interviewing people with disabilities (Amir et al., 2009; Stone & Colella, 1996), participating employers in the current study tended to mention that through their past trial-and-error experiences, they had found some efficient ways to identify potential employees with disabilities and had a certain degree of confidence in their selection outcomes.

To recruit qualified people with disabilities, all the employers not only showed a willingness to collaborate with vocational rehabilitation service systems but also used other networks for recruitment, such as special education schools and disability-related associations, or personal networking. In general, employers considered employment specialists as the most useful resource. An investment in partnerships with them in the recruitment process could enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of outreach efforts. Moreover, the insistence of several employers on having referral sources for applicants with disabilities, in particular for those applying for unskilled jobs, as well as the preference of employers for having referral sources attend job interviews, together implied the employers’ needs for source support in screening to minimize hiring risks. In line with the study of Hernandez et al. (2000), employers tended to be more positive about applicants pre-screened by vocational rehabilitation agencies.

Once a hiring decision was made, employers tended to focus on looking at work potential and capabilities rather than limitations. To achieve an optimal job position that is compatible with the abilities and assets of an employee with a disability, all employers recommended being flexible with respect to job assignments and giving attention to detail during matching and training. Although a longer period for job placement was often required as indicated in the literature (Fraser et al., 2010; Peck & Kirkbride, 2001), employers generally considered the time spent on maximizing the fit between the worker and the job and initial training as a worthwhile investment because the worker’s productivity typically improved as a result. Furthermore, the current study found that after hiring, many employers were quite willing to develop their own skills, as well as internal resources in dealing with disability-related issues. They might gradually decrease their reliance on the support from vocational rehabilitation systems or request the provision of service to be less intrusive. This finding is in congruence with the study of Unger (2001) in which the extent to which employees with disabilities were included is very likely to be affected by the level of confidence employers had in their abilities to address disability in the workplace.

All employers agreed that a logical workplace adjustment would assist employees with disabilities to be efficient and comfortable on the job. Consistent with the evidence from relevant studies (Granger, Baron, & Robinson, 1997), common accommodations provided were usually inexpensive, requiring minor physical modifications or simple job restructuring. It is also important to note that financial incentives concerning work site accommodations seemed to have little impact on the employers’ hiring decisions. This finding implies that employers are willing to invest in accommodations within a reasonable extent and cost to facilitate employment for qualified workers with disabilities. In addition to the cost, employers suggested a need to take co-workers’ reaction into consideration, in particular when modifying work schedules or job duties. According to Stensrud (2007), this is because improper handling of provisions of accommodations might disrupt teamwork or cause low morale as a result of perceived inequality on the part of non-disabled employees.

Limited career advancement opportunities for individuals with disabilities were found. Because of the concerns of fairness and change of job duties, most employers rarely associated employees with disabilities with job promotions, in spite of their proactive approaches to embracing disability. In a study exploring employers’ concerns about hiring people with disabilities, Stensrud (2007) had similar findings in that advancement was less likely to be considered by both employers and rehabilitation practitioners. This result emphasizes the need to address issues of career development beyond stabilization in an initial job. Otherwise, there is a potential risk that people with disabilities become stuck in the secondary labor market, as indicated in several studies (Burkhauser & Houtenville, 2010; Hagner, 2000).

One limitation of the study is its small sample size, as with most cases of in-depth interview qualitative studies. In anticipation of this concern, the current study tried to involve participating employers of both genders, working in different industry types, hiring employees with different disability types, and coming from different geographical regions. However, it is possible that more themes may have been identified if there had been more participants recruited. Due to the qualitative nature, this study does not intend that generalizations be made beyond its scope. Nonetheless, the results can be understood as exploratory, which is helpful for future validation conducted by using different research methodologies.

Conclusion

This study underscores the importance of demand-driven employment strategies to help people with disabilities obtain gainful employment. Through a better understanding of the needs of employers, as well as a cogent explanation of job duties and functions, demand-side employment models can match more effectively the labor needs of employers with pools of prospective employees with disabilities. The results have a number of implications for vocational rehabilitation counselors and service providers. First, the four main reasons that identified why employers hire employees with disabilities support the notion that exposure to disabilities tends to yield improved views of disability. Employers’ commitments to bettering society are evidenced by their beliefs in fulfilling corporate responsibility and complying with the People With Disabilities Rights Protection Act. Educating prospective employers to recognize the advantages of employing people with disabilities is therefore an indispensable strategy for job development practice. Second, the overall assessment of employer concerns indicates that the recruitment and selection of suitable employees are critical phases for both employers and vocational rehabilitation counselors. Employers have expressed their desire for more intensive consultations and assistance to achieve favorable hiring outcomes. Provision of services to reduce incompatibility between employers and employees during this phase can markedly facilitate the development of a mutually beneficial partnership. Third, the preference of employers to develop their own in-house working knowledge and resources when hiring people with disabilities during the placement and accommodation phase sheds light on the urgent need of rehabilitation practitioners to spend time analyzing and comprehending employers’ expectations for vocational rehabilitation services rendered in employment settings and processes. The more confidence employers have in their abilities to meet the support needs of employees with disabilities, the more positive their attitudes will be toward the inclusion and retention of such employees. Finally, barriers to career advancement for employees with disabilities identified in the current study reflect generally insufficient attention paid to the issues of ongoing support and career development in the world of work. Hence, more endeavors are needed to support equality of employment and enhance quality of employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank all of the participants for their involvement in making the study feasible.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was funded through Grant NSC 100-2410-H-018-033 from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan.

References

Amir

Strauser

D. R.

Chan

(2009). Employers’ and survivors’ perspectives. In Feuerstein

(Ed.), Work and cancer survivors (pp. 73–89). New York, NY: Springer.

Bryman

(2004). Social research methods. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Burkhauser

R. V.

Houtenville

A. J.

(2010). Employment among working-age people with disabilities: What the latest data can tell us. In Szymanski

E. M.

Parker

R. M.

(Eds.), Work and disability: Contexts, issues, and strategies for enhancing employment outcomes for people with disabilities (3rd ed., pp. 49–86). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Chan

Strauser

Gervey

Lee

E.-J.

(2010). Introduction to demand-side factors related to employment of people with disabilities. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20, 407–411. doi:10.1007/s10926-010-9243-7

Copeland

Chan

Bezyak

Fraser

R. T.

(2010). Assessing cognitive and affective reactions of employers toward people with disabilities in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20, 427–434. doi:10.1007/s10926-009-9207-y

Fabian

E. S.

Luecking

R. G.

Tilson

G. P.

(1995). Employer and rehabilitation personnel perspectives on hiring persons with disabilities: Implications for job development. Journal of Rehabilitation, 61, 42–49. Retrieved from https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-16955917/employer-and-rehabilitation-personnel-perspectives

Fraser

R. T.

Johnson

Hebert

Ajzen

Copeland

Brown

Chan

(2010). Understanding employers’ hiring intentions in relation to qualified workers with disabilities: Preliminary findings. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20, 420–426. doi:10.1007/s10926-009-9220-1

Gilbride

Stensrud

(1992). Demand-side job development: A model for the 1990s. Journal of Rehabilitation, 58, 34–39. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-13975718/demand-side-job-development-a-model-for-the-1990s

Gilbride

Stensrud

(1999). Demand-side job development and system change. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 42, 219–229. Retrieved from http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/2105472/demand-side-job-development-system-change

10.

Gilbride

Stensrud

Vandergoot

Golden

(2003). Identification of the characteristics of work environments and employers open to hiring and accommodating people with disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 46, 130–137. doi:10.1177/00343552030460030101

11.

Granger

Baron

Robinson

(1997). Findings from a national survey of job coaches and job developers regarding job accommodations arranged between employers and people with psychiatric disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 9, 235–251. Retrieved from http://iospress.metapress.com/content/aj63pq0425338065/

12.

Greenwood

Johnson

V. A.

(1987). Employer perspectives on workers with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 53, 37–45.

13.

Hagner

(2000). Primary and secondary labor markets implications for vocational rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 44, 22–29. doi:10.1177/003435520004400104

14.

Hernandez

Keys

Balcazar

(2000). Employer attitudes toward workers with disabilities and their ADA employment rights: A literature review. Journal of Rehabilitation, 66, 4–16. Retrieved from http://www.ncwd-youth.info/foundations/001

15.

Jang

Wang

Y.-T.

Lin

M.-H.

(2014). Factors affecting employment outcomes for people with disabilities who received disability employment services in Taiwan. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 24, 11–21. doi:10.1007/s10926-013-9433-1

16.

Johnson

V. A.

Greenwood

Schriner

K. F.

(1988). Work performance and work personality: Employer concerns about workers with disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 32, 50–57. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ383591

17.

Kaye

H. S.

Jans

L. H.

Jones

E. C.

(2011). Why don’t employers hire and retain workers with disabilities? Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21, 526–536. doi:10.1007/s10926-011-9302-8

18.

Kregel

Unger

(1993). Employer perceptions of the work potential of individuals with disabilities: An illustration from supported employment. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 3, 17–25. Retrieved from http://iospress.metapress.com/content/38x5620253246050/

19.

Kvale

(1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

20.

Lengnick-Hall

M. L.

(2007). Hidden talent: How leading companies hire, retain, and benefit from people with disabilities. Westport, CT: Praeger.

21.

Levy

J. M.

Jessop

D. J.

Rimmerman

Francis

Levy

P. H.

(1993). Determinants of attitudes of New York state employers towards the employment of persons with severe handicaps. Journal of Rehabilitation, 59, 49–54. Retrieved from http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/9306035462/determinants-attitudes-new-york-state-employers-towards-employment-persons

22.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

23.

Morgan

R. L.

Alexander

(2005). The employer’s perception: Employment of individuals with developmental disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 23, 39–49. Retrieved from http://iospress.metapress.com/content/1vxhwp8vwmthwqyf/

24.

Olson

Cioffi

Yovanoff

Mank

(2001). Employers’ perceptions of employees with mental retardation. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 16, 125–133. Retrieved from http://iospress.metapress.com/content/mmec34vyxb23q83y/

25.

Peck

Kirkbride

L. T.

(2001). Why business don’t employ people with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 16, 71–75. Retrieved from http://iospress.metapress.com/content/g5e7ylk9eda81kh8/

26.

Reisman

(1993). Supervision of employees with moderate special needs. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 199–206. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8486997

27.

Robson

(2002). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

28.

Stensrud

(2007). Developing relationships with employers means considering the competitive business environment and the risks it produces. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 50, 226–237. doi:10.1177/00343552070500040401

29.

Stone

D. L.

Colella

(1996). A model of factors affecting the treatment of disabled individuals in the organizations. Academy of Management Review, 21, 352–401. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/258666

30.

Unger

D. D.

(2001). A national study of employers’ experiences with workers with disabilities and their knowledge and utilization of accommodations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

31.

Unger

D. D.

(2002). Employers’ attitudes toward persons with disabilities in the workplace: Myths or realities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 17, 2–10. doi:10.1177/108835760201700101

32.

Workforce Development Agency, Executive Yuan. (2012). Labor survey of people with disabilities, 2012 (in Chinese). Taipei, Taiwan: Author. Available from http://www.wda.gov.tw