Representation of Invisible Identities in Federal Agencies: The Impact of Organizational Factors on Disability Disclosure

Abstract

Passive representation of socially marginalized identities is important as it is closely connected with the government’s responsiveness. However, gauging the accurate level of passive representation of invisible identities is complicated, as individuals can strategically refrain from sharing their identities in the workplace, fearing potential repercussions such as negative performance appraisal or discrimination. Organizations can provide more support to mitigate these negative anticipations. This article aims to identify these specific organizational factors that could increase the proportion of employees who disclose their hidden identities. The article finds that the proportion of supervisors with disclosed disabilities and supervisors’ commitment to diversity positively correlate with the proportion of non-supervisory-level employees with disclosed invisible disabilities in federal agencies. The findings underscore the importance of fostering a supportive work environment that encourages disclosure of hidden, stigmatized identities, and the roles of supervisors are especially vital.

Keywords

passive representation disability identity

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allgood

(2021). Increasing equitable access to individuals with disabilities: Participation in electronic public administration research. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 7(3), 434–442. https://doi.org/10.20899/jpna.7.3.434-442

Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (1990). https://www.ada.gov/law-and-regs/ada/#subpart1

Ashforth

B. E.

Schinoff

B. S.

Rogers

K. M.

(2016). “I identify with her,” “I identify with him”: Unpacking the dynamics of personal identification in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 41(1), 28–60. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0033

Beatty

J. E.

Kirby

S. L.

(2006). Beyond the legal environment: How stigma influences invisible identity groups in the workplace. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 18(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-005-9003-6

Bell

Fairbrother

Jones

(2019). Fixed and random effects models: Making an informed choice. Quality & Quantity, 53(2), 1051–1074. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0802-x

Bell

Jones

(2015). Explaining fixed Effects: Random effects modeling of time-series cross-sectional and panel data. Political Science Research and Methods, 3(1), 133–153. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2014.7

Bishu

S. G.

Kennedy

A. R.

(2020). Trends and gaps: A meta-review of representative bureaucracy. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(4), 559–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x19830154

Bogart

K. R.

Dunn

D. S.

(2019). Ableism special issue introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 75(3), 650–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12354

Brohan

Henderson

Wheat

Malcolm

Clement

Barley

E. A.

Slade

Thornicroft

(2012). Systematic review of beliefs, behaviours and influencing factors associated with disclosure of a mental health problem in the workplace. BMC Psychiatry, 12(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244x-12-11

10.

Button

S. B.

(2004). Identity management strategies utilized by lesbian and gay employees: A quantitative investigation. Group & Organization Management, 29(4), 470–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601103257417

11.

Chaudoir

S. R.

Fisher

J. D.

(2010). The disclosure processes model: Understanding disclosure decision making and postdisclosure outcomes among people living with a concealable stigmatized identity. Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 236–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018193

12.

Choi

(2018). Managing flexible work arrangements in government: Testing the effects of institutional and managerial support. Public Personnel Management, 47(1), 26–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026017738540

13.

Chrobot-Mason

Button

S. B.

DiClementi

J. D.

(2001). Sexual identity management strategies: An exploration of antecedents and consequences. Sex Roles, 45(5/6), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1014357514405

14.

Clair

J. A.

Beatty

J. E.

Maclean

T. L.

(2005). Out of sight but not out of mind: Managing invisible social identities in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 78–95. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.15281431

15.

Croteau

J. M.

Anderson

M. Z.

VanderWal

B. L.

(2008). Models of workplace sexual identity disclosure and management: Reviewing and extending concepts. Group & Organization Management, 33(5), 532–565. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601108321828

16.

Dalgin

R. S.

Bellini

(2008). Invisible disability disclosure in an employment interview: Impact on employers’ hiring decisions and views of employability. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 52(1), 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034355207311311

17.

Dalgin

R. S.

Gilbride

(2003). Perspectives of people with psychiatric disabilities on employment disclosure. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 26(3), 306–310. https://doi.org/10.2975/26.2003.306.310

18.

Dhanani

L. Y.

Totton

R. R.

Hall

T. K.

Pham

C. T.

(2022). Visible but hidden: An intersectional examination of identity management among sexual minority employees. Journal of Management, 50(3), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063221121787

19.

Driscoll

J. M.

Kelley

F. A.

Fassinger

R. E.

(1996). Lesbian identity and disclosure in the workplace: Relation to occupational stress and satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48(2), 229–242. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1996.0020

20.

Executive Order No.13163, 3 C.F.R. 285 (2000). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/WCPD-2000-07-31/pdf/WCPD-2000-07-31-Pg1686.pdf

21.

Executive Order No.13548, 3 C.F.R. 232 (2010). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-201000631/pdf/DCPD-201000631.pdf

22.

Executive Order No.14035, 3 C.F.R. 597 (2021). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-202100538/pdf/DCPD-202100538.pdf

23.

Follmer

K. B.

Sabat

I. E.

Siuta

R. L.

(2020). Disclosure of stigmatized identities at work: An interdisciplinary review and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(2), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2402

24.

Gade

D. M.

Wilkins

V. M.

(2013). Where did you serve? Veteran identity, representative bureaucracy, and vocational rehabilitation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(2), 267–288. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus030

25.

Gibson

D. E.

(2004). Role models in career development: New directions for theory and research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 134–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-8791(03)00051-4

26.

Gonzalez

Tillman

C. J.

Holmes

J. J.

(2020). Coming home: Why veterans with disabilities withhold workplace accommodation requests. Human Relations, 73(10), 1439–1466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726719875810

27.

Griffith

K. H.

Hebl

M. R.

(2002). The disclosure dilemma for gay men and lesbians: “Coming out” at work. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1191–1199. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1191

28.

Gunning

J. N.

(2023). “But you don’t look sick:” Memorable messages of emerging adulthood autoimmune disease. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 40(6), 2008–2030. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221137548

29.

Jones

K. P.

King

E. B.

(2014). Managing concealable stigmas at work: A review and multilevel model. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1466–1494. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313515518

30.

Jones

K. P.

King

E. B.

Gilrane

V. L.

McCausland

T. C.

Cortina

J. M.

Grimm

K. J.

(2016). The baby bump: Managing a dynamic stigma over time. Journal of Management, 42(6), 1530–1556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313503012

31.

Keiser

L. R.

Wilkins

V. M.

Meier

K. J.

Holland

C. A.

(2002). Lipstick and logarithms: Gender, institutional context, and representative bureaucracy. The American Political Science Review, 96(3), 553–564. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055402000321

32.

Kellough

J. E.

(2000). The Americans with Disabilities Act: A note on personnel policy impacts in state government. Public Personnel Management, 29(2), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/009102600002900204

33.

Kulkarni

(2021). Hiding but hoping to be found: Workplace disclosure dilemmas of individuals with hidden disabilities. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 41(3), 491–507. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-06-2020-0146

34.

Le Forestier

J. M.

Page-Gould

Chasteen

A. L

. (2023). Which identities are concealable? Individual differences in concealability. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 51(5), 775–793. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231198162

35.

Lim

H.-H.

(2006). Representative bureaucracy: Rethinking substantive effects and active representation. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 193–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00572.x

36.

Lindsay

Cagliostro

Leck

Shen

Stinson

(2019). Disability disclosure and workplace accommodations among youth with disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 41(16), 1914–1924. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2018.1451926

37.

Liu

Park

Hymer

Thatcher

S. M. B.

(2019). Multidimensionality: A cross-disciplinary review and integration. Journal of Management, 45(1), 197–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318807285

38.

Lyons

B. J.

Martinez

L. R.

Ruggs

E. N.

Hebl

M. R.

Ryan

A. M.

O’Brien

K. R.

Roebuck

(2018). To say or not to say: Different strategies of acknowledging a visible disability. Journal of Management, 44(5), 1980–2007. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316638160

39.

Madaus

J. W.

Foley

T. E.

McGuire

J. M.

Ruban

L. M.

(2002). Employment self-disclosure of postsecondary graduates with learning disabilities: Rates and rationales: Rates and rationales. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(4), 364–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194020350040701

40.

Meier

K. J.

Nicholson-Crotty

(2006). Gender, representative bureaucracy, and law enforcement: The case of sexual assault. Public Administration Review, 66(6), 850–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00653.x

41.

Mosher

F. C.

(1968). Democracy and the public service. Oxford University Press.

42.

Muir

Coe

(2023). ‘Out of sight, but not out of mind’: A collaborative reflective case study on including participants with invisible disabilities in LIS research. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, 72(1), 26–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2023.2168115

43.

Mullins

Preyde

(2013). The lived experience of students with an invisible disability at a Canadian university. Disability & Society, 28(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.752127

44.

E. S. W.

Wyrick

C. R.

(2011). Motivational bases for managing diversity: A model of leadership commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 368–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2011.05.002

45.

Nicholson-Crotty

Grissom

J. A.

Nicholson-Crotty

Redding

(2016). Disentangling the causal mechanisms of representative bureaucracy: Evidence from assignment of students to gifted programs. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(4), 745–757. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muw024

46.

Pitts

D. W.

Wise

L. R.

(2010). Workforce diversity in the new millennium: Prospects for research. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 30(1), 44–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x09351823

47.

Prince

M. J.

(2017). Persons with invisible disabilities and workplace accommodation: Findings from a scoping literature review. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 46(1), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-160844

48.

Ragins

B. R.

(2008). Disclosure disconnects: Antecedents and consequences of disclosing invisible stigmas across life domains. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 194–215. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.27752724

49.

Ragins

B. R.

Singh

Cornwell

J. M.

(2007). Making the invisible visible: Fear and disclosure of sexual orientation at work. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1103–1118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1103

50.

Rhoades

Eisenberger

(2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698

51.

Riccucci

N. M.

Van Ryzin

G. G.

Lavena

C. F.

(2014). Representative bureaucracy in policing: Does it increase perceived legitimacy? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(3), 537–551. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu006

52.

Riccucci

N. M.

Van Ryzin

G. G.

(2016). Representative bureaucracy and the willingness to coproduce: An experimental study. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12401

53.

Saal

Martinez

L. R.

Smith

N. A.

(2014). Visible disabilities: Acknowledging the utility of acknowledgment. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 7(2), 242–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/iops.12140

54.

Saltzstein

G. H.

(1979). Representative bureaucracy and bureaucratic responsibility: Problems and prospects. Administration & Society, 10(4), 465–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/009539977901000404

55.

Santuzzi

A. M.

Waltz

P. R.

(2016). Disability in the workplace: A unique and variable identity. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1111–1135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315626269

56.

Santuzzi

A. M.

Waltz

P. R.

Finkelstein

L. M.

Rupp

D. E.

(2014). Invisible disabilities: Unique challenges for employees and organizations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 7(2), 204–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/iops.12134

57.

Schneider

K. T.

Wesselmann

E. D.

DeSouza

E. R.

(2017). Confronting subtle workplace mistreatment: The importance of leaders as allies. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1-4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01051

58.

Schur

L. A.

Ameri

Kruse

(2020). Telework after COVID: A “silver lining” for workers with disabilities? Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 30(4), 521–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-020-09936-5

59.

Schur

L. A.

Kruse

Blasi

Blanck

(2009). Is disability disabling in all workplaces? Workplace disparities and corporate culture. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 48(3), 381–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-232X.2009.00565.x

60.

Selden

S. C.

(1997). Representative bureaucracy: Examining the linkage between passive and active representation in the Farmers Home Administration. American Review of Public Administration, 27(1), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/027507409702700103

61.

Shih

Young

M. J.

Bucher

(2013). Working to reduce the effects of discrimination: Identity management strategies in organizations. American Psychologist, 68(3), 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032250

62.

Shin

J. E. L.

Levy

S. R.

London

(2016). Effects of role model exposure on STEM and non-STEM student engagement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46(7), 410–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12371

63.

Johnson

Bozeman

(2015). Gender diversity strategy in academic departments: Exploring organizational determinants. Higher Education, 69(5), 839–858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9808-z

64.

Tang

(2021). Understanding the telework experience of people with disabilities. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449104

65.

Tomas

Ahmed

Lindsay

(2022). Unravelling the complexities of workplace disclosure among persons with non-visible disabilities and illnesses: A qualitative meta-ethnography. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 32(3), 538–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-022-10023-0

66.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.-a). FY2020 annual report on the federal workforce Part 2: Workforce statistics and EEO commitment. Retrieved April 18, 2023, from https://www.eeoc.gov/fy-2020-annual-report-federal-workforce-part-2-workforce-statistics-and-eeo-commitment

67.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.-b). Questions & answers: The EEOC’s final rule on affirmative action for people with disabilities in federal employment. Retrieved April 18, 2023, from https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/questions-answers-eeocs-final-rule-affirmative-action-people-disabilities-federal

68.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.-c). The EEO status of workers with disabilities in the federal sector. Retrieved October 3, 2023, from https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/reports/eeo-status-workers-disabilities-federal-sector

69.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2016). Standard form (SF) 256-self-identification of disability. https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf256.pdf

70.

von Schrader

Malzer

Bruyère

. (2014). Perspectives on disability disclosure: The importance of employer practices and workplace climate. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 26(4), 237–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-013-9227-9

71.

Weichert

M. M.

Lipnic

V. A.

(2018, October 13). Memorandum for CHCOs EEO directors and diversity and inclusion directors. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. https://www.chcoc.gov/content/resources-disability-self-identification-efforts

72.

Wessel

J. L.

(2017). The importance of allies and allied organizations: Sexual orientation disclosure and concealment at work. Journal of Social Issues, 73(2), 240–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12214

73.

Wilkins

V. M.

Keiser

L. R.

(2004). Linking passive and active representation by gender: The case of child support agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui023

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB