Managing Stigma and Perpetuating Ableism: How Frontline Workers Navigate Disclosure When Encouraging Employers to Hire Disabled People

Abstract

Although disability disclosure is extensively researched, little is known about how professionals disclose disability on behalf of others. This article examines how frontline workers involved in active labour market policies (ALMPs) employ stigma management strategies when encouraging employers to hire disabled people. As employer engagement is central to ALMPs, disclosure emerges as a critical site for analysis. The study draws on group interviews with Norwegian work inclusion professionals (counsellors, employment specialists, and market coordinators) who assist disabled jobseekers. A theoretical framework connecting stigma and ableism was developed, contributing to the sociology of work literature by analysing how ableist norms of productivity are contested and reproduced in their management of stigma. Analysis revealed four disclosure approaches: familiarisation, facilitation, targeting, and self-disclosing, shaped by individual and environmental factors. These approaches involve interpersonal contact and consideration of timing and selectivity, highlighting the dilemmatic nature of disclosure within welfare systems where ableism persists.

Keywords

ableism disability employment policies stigma work-life inclusion

Introduction

Disabled people occupy a marginalised position in labour markets worldwide. A substantial body of research documents that disclosing a disability during job applications often leads to high levels of discrimination across various labour market contexts (e.g. Berre, 2023; Bjørnshagen, 2021; Bjørnshagen and Ugreninov, 2021; Hipes, 2016; Krogh and Bredgaard, 2022). This discrimination is rooted in ableist norms constructing disabled people as incapable of performing demanding work (Elraz, 2018), as less productive (Jammaers et al., 2016), in need of help (Mik-Meyer, 2016a), or as less socially fit (Østerud, 2023). As a result, disabled people often face a dilemma about whether and how to disclose their disability, knowing it may lead to exclusion from employment opportunities. To better understand how such exclusionary dynamics unfold and may be negotiated, this article integrates stigma management with the ableism perspective.

Previous research on disability disclosure has centred on the perspectives of disabled people (Charmaz, 2010; Goldberg et al., 2005; Richard and Hennekam, 2021; Vedeler, 2022; Von Schrader et al., 2014; White et al., 2023). These studies demonstrate that decisions to disclose or conceal a stigmatised identity involve balancing potential benefits – such as social support – against the risks of discrimination or exclusion. While this literature offers valuable insights into the stigma management strategies employed by disabled individuals, less attention has been paid to how others involved in the employment process handle disclosure. In particular, there is limited understanding of how labour market actors who support disabled people into employment navigate these issues. These actors play a key role in shaping processes of inclusion and exclusion. To fully grasp how stigma operates, it is crucial to examine not only how disabled people respond to stigma, but also how it is produced, reinforced, or contested by those in positions of power (Scambler, 2009; Tyler and Slater, 2018) – such as work inclusion professionals who act as gatekeepers to the labour market.

Work inclusion professionals tasked with implementing active labour market policies (ALMPs) occupy precisely such gatekeeping roles. In doing so, they may inadvertently reproduce ableist assumptions – that is, norms that privilege non-disability and construct disability as deviation – by emphasising productivity and employer “fit”. This emphasis can legitimise some disabled identities while marginalising others (Garsten and Jacobsson, 2013; Hardonk and Halldórsdóttir, 2021; Lantz and Marston, 2012; Møller and Stone, 2013). While a growing body of research acknowledges the importance of work inclusion professionals in employer-targeted services to promote the employment of disabled people (Aksnes, 2019; Hardonk and Halldórsdóttir, 2021; Ingold and McGurk, 2023; Johnson et al., 2023; Williams, 2012), few studies have examined how disability disclosure and stigma management are negotiated in these interactions. This omission is significant, given that several studies show work inclusion professionals frequently encounter employer prejudice when advocating for the hiring of disabled individuals (Garsten and Jacobsson, 2013; Hardonk and Halldórsdóttir, 2021; Lundberg, 2022, 2024). Since engaging employers is a central mechanism of ALMPs, there is a need for critical scrutiny of how disability is disclosed and how stigma is navigated in these encounters.

Addressing this gap, the present article investigates how a key group of labour market gatekeepers – work inclusion professionals, referred to here as frontline workers – manage disability disclosure as part of their efforts to encourage employers to hire disabled people. We ask: How do frontline workers engage in the disclosure of a stigmatised identity when promoting the employment of disabled people? Based on qualitative interviews with frontline workers implementing ALMPs within the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV), this study offers new insights into how employment opportunities for disabled people are facilitated – and the exclusionary consequences these practices may entail. The term “disability” is here understood relationally, as emerging from the interaction between a person’s impairment-related abilities and the social, cultural, and functional demands of their environment. This relational model, developed in the Nordic context, was introduced internationally by Tøssebro (2004).

This study contributes to the existing literature on disability, disclosure, and employment in two key ways. First, it shifts the analytical focus from how disabled individuals manage disclosure to how frontline workers – who hold gatekeeping power over access to employment – navigate disclosure in their interactions with employers. This shift highlights the social construction of stigma in terms of how it is actively produced, negotiated and sometimes resisted in institutional and relational contexts (Scambler, 2009). Second, it contributes to scholarship aimed at “rethinking the sociology of stigma” (e.g. Sebrechts, 2023; Tyler and Slater, 2018). This literature critically revisits Goffman’s (1963) foundational work on stigma, seeking to move beyond micro-sociological accounts by situating stigma within broader structural and political contexts. A promising development in this field is the integration of Goffman’s interactional insights with the concept of ableism – norms that privilege non-disability and marginalise disabled people (Campbell, 2009). This article applies and develops this integration to enable a more nuanced examination of how frontline workers both reproduce and resist ableist ideas about productivity and employability – challenging earlier findings that portray them predominantly as reinforcing these norms (Garsten and Jacobsson, 2013; Hardonk and Halldórsdóttir, 2021; Lantz and Marston, 2012; Møller and Stone, 2013).

Following this introduction, the article outlines the theoretical framework, linking stigma management with the concept of ableism. It then presents the data and methods, followed by empirical findings and a discussion of their implications for the sociology of work.

Connecting stigma management with the ableism perspective

Goffman (1963) introduces the concept of stigma to explain the marginalisation and discrimination experienced by socially devalued groups – a concept that has since been widely applied in sociology and related disciplines (e.g. Barnartt, 2016; Østerud, 2022; Tsatsou, 2021; Williams, 2022). He defines stigma as an “attribute that is deeply discrediting”, one that spoils an individual’s social identity (Goffman, 1963: 3). At the same time, he emphasises that stigma should be understood as relational, emerging through social interactions. Stigma management refers to the strategies individuals use to mitigate the negative consequences of stigmatisation. Depending on the situation, actors selectively focus on the information and strategies most relevant for navigating specific social contexts.

In the context of disability and work, scholars examine a range of stigma management strategies employed by individuals with either concealable or visible disabilities. Moloney et al. (2019) show that women with concealable disabilities face difficult decisions about whether and when to disclose their disability across different stages of their employment trajectory. Individuals with visible disabilities encounter pre-employment dilemmas, such as whether to acknowledge their disability in their CVs or postpone disclosure until the interview stage to increase their chances of being shortlisted. Other common strategies include engaging in interpersonal contact and practising selective disclosure – sharing personal information only with trusted individuals in order to maintain control over stigmatised identities. While such research highlights individual agency in managing stigma, it also prompts critical reflection on the role of institutional actors. Goffman (1963: 29) attributes a relatively benevolent role to professionals, portraying them as more likely to sympathise with or advocate for stigmatised individuals. However, this view downplays the extent to which professionals operate within organisational contexts that may incentivise or oblige them to uphold dominant ableist norms. As street-level bureaucrats, professionals are expected to work in accordance with policies that frame people with disabilities as clients with medical diagnoses who as moral subjects are expected to actively adjust to prevailing norms of the employment market (Mik-Meyer, 2017).

To better understand the structural frameworks shaping frontline workers’ stigma management strategies, this article connects stigma management with ableism as a theoretical lens. Ableism has already influenced research on disability and work and is suggested as a useful lens in examining disability employment policies and their impacts on the rights and dignity of disabled people (e.g. Kumar et al., 2012; Scholz and Ingold, 2021; Van Aswegen, 2020). It draws attention to how disabled people are expected to conform to, and are assessed against, normative assumptions of ability. In this way, ableism is central to understanding why disabled people are often excluded from employment (e.g. Jammaers and Zanoni, 2021; Mik-Meyer, 2016b), making it essential to critically examine the expectations embedded in policy and practice. Research in this area shows that frontline workers seldom challenge the prevailing norms of the self-sufficient, fully productive worker (Garsten and Jacobsson, 2013; Hardonk and Halldórsdóttir, 2021; Lantz and Marston, 2012; Møller and Stone, 2013).

A small number of studies on disability and work combine the concepts of stigma and ableism. Mik-Meyer (2016a) for example, examines how employees with cerebral paresis become entrapped in limiting roles, such as being perceived as childlike or helpless. While she links stigma and ableism to explain these stereotypical constructions, she does not fully explore their theoretical integration. Similarly, Hennekam et al. (2025) find that neurodiverse individuals often internalise stigma and are unable to challenge dominant ableist regimes. Their analysis points to the need for a more explicit integration of stigma and ableism. Building on these insights and addressing the lack of integration in studies such as Mik-Meyer (2016a), the present study positions ableism as the ideological foundation upon which stigma is constructed and managed by frontline workers in the context of everyday welfare-to-work practices. Regarding the ableism literature, along with studies such as Hennekam et al. (2025), the study seeks to highlight the relevance of the stigma concept to the theoretical strength of the ableism perspective. Furthermore, it extends the work of Hennekam et al. (2025) by refining the integration of stigma and ableism integration through an analysis of professional attitudes.

By framing stigma not merely as a personal or interpersonal phenomenon but as embedded within broader social and economic systems, this article contributes to bridging the micro-level focus of traditional stigma studies with the structural perspective offered by ableism theory. In this view, stigma is not an incidental social response but a constitutive element of the political economy, rooted in classificatory regimes that reproduce inequality (e.g. Sebrechts, 2023; Tyler and Slater, 2018). Tyler and Slater (2018) emphasise the role of state actors in shaping, challenging, and perpetuating stigma within the context of a global shift from liberal welfare policies to neoliberal governance, where welfare conditionality and market logics increasingly determine who is deemed worthy of inclusion. This policy orientation shifts the analytical focus away from individual strategies of coping or concealment toward the normative frameworks that structure hiring practices. Within this framework, stigma is conceptualised as a form of governmentality – a productive force that enables “the structures, mechanisms, and justifications of power to function” (Foucault, 2008: 85).

Recent scholarship rethinking stigma in welfare contexts has informed research examining how stigma operates within welfare systems, with particular attention to the experiences and forms of resistance among welfare recipients (e.g. Bolton et al., 2022; Evans, 2022). Bolton et al. (2022) demonstrate how individuals receiving welfare in England resist moralising narratives that construct them as undeserving or dependent. This article shifts the focus from how stigmatised individuals manage stigma to how those in positions of institutional power – specifically frontline workers implementing ALMPs – engage with it. It explores how these professionals navigate and negotiate stigma on behalf of their disabled clients, situating stigma management within a broader institutional and societal context. This approach connects stigma management with ableism as a theoretical lens, highlighting how stigma is not only managed through interpersonal interactions but also shaped by the wider institutional and societal norms within which frontline workers operate.

Empirical context, data, and methods

The Norwegian welfare context

Norway is renowned for its universalistic and all-encompassing approach to welfare support, including a long tradition of ALMPs. However, despite its reputation for comprehensive welfare support and the long tradition of ALMP policies, the country faces one of the highest unemployment ratios in Europe among disabled people, placing them in an adverse position. Still, Norwegian authorities are reluctant to impose obligations on employers, such as quota systems (Hyggen et al., 2018). This reluctance leaves engagement among employers largely dependent on voluntary commitment (Aksnes, 2019; McGurk and Ingold, 2023). Hence, it becomes vital to empirically study how frontline workers navigate disclosure as they encourage employers to hire disabled people.

NAV helps provide social and economic security while encouraging a transition to activity and employment. Its frontline offices are one-stop shops that provide welfare and unemployment services and financial and social assistance. The overall objectives of the NAV offices are to help clients find employment and to provide them with person-oriented, holistic, and efficient welfare services (Sadeghi and Fekjær, 2019). Hence, the frontline offices are not divided into specific disability units.

Nordic ALMPs are renowned for an enabling approach that centres on employer engagement (Frøyland et al., 2019), meaning to strengthen employers’ willingness and responsibilities to include disabled people in the workforce through hiring or training (Van Berkel et al., 2017). However, Norwegian authorities are reluctant to impose obligations on employers (Hyggen et al., 2018), leaving such engagement largely dependent on voluntary commitment among employers (Aksnes, 2019; McGurk and Ingold, 2023).

Several types of frontline workers encourage employers to hire disabled people who are users of the services NAV provides. Interviewees in the current study represented the three relevant occupational roles: counsellors, employment specialists, and market coordinators. Counsellors clarify citizens’ resources and motivations for work and activities. They offer employment programmes, outline activity plans, and assess rights under relevant legislation. Counsellors should also have familiarity with the local labour market and the means and measures by which citizens may be included (Sadeghi and Fekjær, 2019).

Employment specialists play a key role in vocational rehabilitation programmes such as Individual Placement and Support (IPS) and Extended Follow-Up. IPS mainly targets people with significant mental health illnesses. Extended Follow-Up targets those with severe difficulties finding a job, including disabled people. IPS and Extended Follow-Up are supported employment (SE) models whereby employment specialists offer support to both the employer and the employee in finding the right match and the right jobs (Frøyland et al., 2019). Further, SE prioritises a quick transition into work, with much of the training and skills development taking place in the workplace (Drake et al., 2012).

Market coordinators’ core task is employer engagement. The focus is also on creating new recruiting agreements by mapping local/regional employers’ demands for labour. Hence, the market coordinators have a more substantial presence in the labour market to obtain these agreements.

The three groups of frontline workers – counsellors, employment specialists, and market coordinators – facilitate employment for different types of disabilities. Counsellors and market coordinators follow up on a wide array of people with disabilities, including people with physical, sensory, neurodiverse, and cognitive disabilities, whereas employment specialists engaged in IPS typically follow up on people with mental illnesses. Additionally, compared with the market coordinators, counsellors and employment specialists tend to follow up with individuals with more extensive support requirements, with or without disability.

Data

Data were collected in group interviews to take advantage of the interaction between the participants and to reflect different experiences (Morgan, 2012). Participants will inspire and stimulate each other during a group interview, which may result in identifying central themes and displaying disagreement or giving nuance to shared experience patterns. It may, therefore, stimulate a more complex story about a given topic than is possible in individual interviews. Furthermore, by applying group interviews with different types of frontline workers (counsellors, employment specialists, and market coordinators) differently positioned about encouraging employers, the data material provides a unique resource for exploring the various ways frontline workers engage in the issue of disclosure and stigma management.

The limitations of this approach include that one or several group participants may dominate the discussion so that theirs is the only opinion clearly articulated. Power dynamics, among the group of participants, can threaten a group’s ability to be cohesive and build a sense of trust as a prerequisite for sharing knowledge (Pincock and Jones, 2020). In two of the interviews, one of the most experienced frontline workers (in terms of years) at NAV took more space than the less experienced. The challenge was immediately recognised and met with repeating the central introductory ground rule that we wanted opinions and reflections from all participants.

The interviews were conducted in the spring and autumn of 2019 at five frontline offices, each located in a different Norwegian municipality in eastern or western Norway, ranging in size from around 80 to 180 employees (medium to large NAV offices).

A two-step recruitment process was used. First, approval was obtained from the Norwegian Directorate of Labour and Welfare, which contacted local frontline offices on a list suggested by the authors and asked whether they would participate in the project. After that, the first author contacted the frontline office managers who had agreed to participate. The office managers were asked to recruit participants with relevant experience in and knowledge about disability and work inclusion. Office managers chose the participants based on their expertise and experience in facilitating employment for disabled individuals. In total, 38 participants were interviewed in thirteen groups according to their respective occupational roles. Each group consisted of three to four participants, usually four (two or three group interviews in each local office). The gender, years of work experience at NAV offices, and educational background varied among the participants (Table 1). The frontline workers did not disclose any disabilities in the interviews.

Table 1.

Overview of participants: (n=38).

Office	Category of frontline workers	Gender *	Years of work experience at NAV offices	Educational background
1	Counsellors	F¹, M²	10¹, 25²	Social sciences¹, social work²
2	Counsellors	F¹, F², F³, F⁴	10¹, 26², 4³, 3⁴	Social work¹, social work², social sciences³, sales and marketing⁴
3	Counsellors	F¹, F²	10¹, 6²	Social work¹, humanities²
4	Counsellors	F¹, F², F³, F⁴	20¹,20²,10³,19⁴	Social work¹, social work², social work³, social work⁴
5	Counsellors	F¹, F², M³	9¹,3²,20³	Sales and marketing¹, sales and marketing², humanities³
1	Employment specialists	F, F, M, M	Undisclosed	Undisclosed
2	Employment specialists	F¹, F², M³	5¹, 5², 3³	Humanities¹, sales and marketing², sales and marketing³
3	Employment specialists	F¹, F², F³	10¹, 9², 7³	Humanities¹, humanities², social worker³
4	Employment specialists	F¹, F², F³	6¹, 1², 6³	Humanities¹, social sciences², social sciences³
1	Market coordinators	F¹, M²	20¹, 30²	Social sciences¹, social sciences²
3	Market coordinators	F¹, M²	4¹, 6²	Sales and marketing¹, sales and marketing²
4	Market coordinators	M¹, F², F³, F⁴	15¹, 4², 10-15³, 5⁴	Sales and marketing¹, sales and marketing², humanities³, humanities⁴
5	Market coordinators	F¹, M²	20¹, 10²	Undisclosed

Note: F = Female, M = Male.

A semi-structured interview guide was used, but interviewers were free to pursue additional relevant themes that emerged during interviews. The guide probed questions about methods and strategies in facilitating employment for disabled people, including the knowledge and skills essential in this work. Another topic was cooperation with frontline workers in the local welfare office and external agents, such as employers and health professionals. The interview began with a presentation of each participant’s professional background and prior work experience. Interviews lasted between 60 and 90 minutes and were conducted face-to-face.

The authors notified the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research (ref. 52180), which assessed and accepted the data collection and storage of personal data. All participants were informed orally and in writing that participation was voluntary and confidential. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Identifiable aspects of the offices or frontline workers, such as name, age, and location, were altered for discretion in the transcripts. The interviews were conducted in Norwegian, and the selected quotes were translated into English by the second author and reviewed by a professional language editing service. Informants are coded (1–3) to indicate turn-taking during interviews. All actions were performed following relevant guidelines and regulations.

In terms of positionality, the first author is an able-bodied academic, while the second author has lived with total hair loss (alopecia universalis) for most of his life. Both authors are academically engaged with the social construction of disability, particularly in relation to work inclusion. This study was part of a larger project, which appointed a panel of representatives from non-governmental disability organisations. One of these organisations advised the project’s planning, and during the research process, preliminary study results were presented and discussed in panel meetings.

Analysis

The analytical approach selected was a modified adaptation of Ricœur’s (1976) theory of interpretation, as outlined by Robinson and Kerr (2015). This approach involves a multiphase process commencing with a preliminary, unprejudiced understanding phase where immediate impressions of the content are noted. Subsequently, a structural analysis phase is employed to identify prevalent themes within the material and to connect these findings to existing theoretical frameworks. Finally, an in-depth understanding phase is undertaken to uncover underlying assumptions and ideologies embedded in the material.

Consequently, analysis of the interviews began with a broad and open exploration of the topic of frontline workers’ encouragement. Initial codes were expansive, encompassing a wide range of perspectives and viewpoints. This phase was based on an open manual coding of the text segments in the transcripts, where frontline workers’ engagement of the employers was addressed, as well as writing a short summary of each interview. Approximately 70 codes were established initially. Two illustrative examples of the codes from this phase are ‘nurturing relationships with employers who are perceived as generous and willing’, and ‘highlighting competence before focusing on accommodation’. From this open exploration, the issue of disability disclosure emerged as a prominent and recurring aspect of frontline workers’ engagement with employers, which became the focal point for the subsequent structural analysis.

In the structural analysis, we grouped the initial codes into broader thematic categories reflecting how frontline workers approached the disclosure of disability during their interactions with employers. These themes were developed and refined in dialogue with Goffman’s (1963) conceptualisation of disclosure as a form of stigma management, encompassing strategies such as covering, concealing, and passing. Through this phase, we identified four main thematic categories that structure the results – familiarising, facilitating, targeting and self-disclosing – each representing a distinct way of planning and managing disclosure.

In the subsequent phase, focused on in-depth understanding, we did not conduct additional coding or develop new thematic categories. Instead, this phase involved a more rigorous theoretical analysis, connecting the previously identified thematic categories – developed in dialogue with stigma management – to ableism. This approach allowed us to integrate stigma management with ableism, helping to uncover the underlying assumptions and ideologies embedded in the disclosure approaches.

The first author conducted the initial coding, while the second author contributed to the refinement of the thematic categories and the integration of theoretical concepts.

Results

The outcome of the analysis was the depiction of the four disclosure approaches that the frontline workers adopted. First, a familiarising approach was constructed, highlighting building relationships with employers. Second, a facilitating approach was created where competencies were at the forefront. The third, a targeting approach, involved addressing disability upfront in interactions with employers. Finally, a self-disclosure approach was constructed where the frontline workers advised jobseekers on disclosure as a process where timing is essential. As illustrated, while the approaches of the frontline workers illustrate attempts to negotiate ableist norms, these efforts simultaneously risk perpetuating these norms.

Familiarising

The term “familiarising” encapsulates the practice of frontline workers in building relationships with employers and underscores the vital role that interpersonal connections and trust play in the disclosure process. The frontline workers believed such links could increase the potential for safe disclosure and influence employers’ evaluation of disabled clients. They chose a strategically timed disclosure by revealing the client’s disability after they had cultivated a relationship with the employers. Such disclosure can be interpreted as stereotypical reactions that decrease as people become more acquainted with each other (Goffman, 1963: 71). Increased contact can transform the perception of “the less than fully human” into a more positive sentiment, leading to decreased chances of stigma. Frontline workers also carefully chose which employers they could disclose disability status to by considering the employer’s receptivity to diversity and disability inclusion. At the same time, frontline workers’ familiarising approach illustrates the navigation of ableist norms constructing disabled people as less able to handle demanding work (Elraz, 2018), and as less productive (Jammaers et al., 2016).

Most reflections characterised by the familiarising approach were brought up by the employment specialists and market coordinators and only occasionally by the counsellors. The frontline workers conducted several preparatory meetings to facilitate the disclosure of a client’s disability to the employer:

Employment Specialist: There’s a lot of mapping in the beginning. Get to know the candidate before you turn your attention to an employer. Find the candidate’s resources. Find their interests and find out what they like to do. You do that before you go out and map the labour market. You don’t necessarily sell your candidate in the first meeting but map the labour market and get to know employers to assess whether it could be a job match. In the third or fourth meeting with the employer, you introduce the candidate and include them in the meeting. (Office 1)

Here, it is demonstrated how frontline workers cultivated their method of building relations with the employer as a strategic move.

Frontline workers took their approach of gradually informing employers further by elaborating on the disability and the challenges it could represent at the workplace. In one of the interviews, the case of mental health was brought up:

Employment Specialist 1:

Well, we also feel that we’re afraid to scare the employer by talking about mental health and their challenges. . . But when we get to know the employer, we’ll see who we can take it with them, and that works.

Employment Specialist 2:

Yes. Sufficient information to keep the employers safe, but not so much that they’re scared. We’re keen not to use some of these diagnoses. . . We’re concerned about what could be the challenge, but it’s further ahead in the follow-up. (Office 2)

The familiarising approach aimed to build relationships with employers and select which ones to build relationships with. Frontline workers recognised that some employers were a potentially better fit for their clients than others. These employers were perceived as more open-minded regarding embracing diversity and maintaining an inclusion perspective, lessening the ableist expectations. Frontline workers emphasised the significance of this openness, as it could lead to valuable employment opportunities for their clients. Therefore, they prioritised building relationships with such employers before disclosing disabilities. To solidify these relationships, the frontline workers organised several meetings with the employers, seeking to gain insight into the workplace dynamics, culture, sense of humour, and leadership style, and whether they displayed a willingness to accommodate:

Employment Specialist: In terms of sensing something about the mood and corporate culture, we always evaluate it, but we must test out some things over time. There have been a few episodes where I’ve been in contact with the employer and quickly realised there is no room here for people like my candidate. For example, it can be some harsh language – “Everyone who delivers here delivers 100%”. They have a little bit of that attitude then, and not the inclusion perspective, or that there’s room to facilitate or. . . You listen to the way they talk to each other or how they talk about the company. (Office 3)

This demonstrated how frontline workers navigated disclosure within the framework of ableist understandings of productivity. However, these understandings were not typically challenged in their interactions with employers. The primary goal of the frontline workers was to secure employment for people with disabilities. To achieve this, they often aligned themselves with ableist notions that emphasised productivity.

In summary, the familiarising approach indicated that frontline workers managed disclosure by first cultivating relationships with employers before revealing a client’s disability. They believed that such relationship-building increased the likelihood of successful disclosure and positively influenced employers’ evaluations of disabled clients. This emphasis on relationship-building underscored the significance of proximity in mitigating the perception of stigmatised attributes (Goffman, 1963: 50). However, proximity alone did not account for the fact that familiarising practices were grounded in a consensual understanding of the “normal” and “productive” employee – an understanding that enabled the withholding of stigma while simultaneously reproducing ontologies that perpetuated and reinforced ableism. This reproduction was particularly evident in the emphasis placed on “delivering 100%” and on navigating around stereotypes rather than challenging them. When viewed through the lens of ableism, it became increasingly clear that stigmatising processes must be addressed through actions that “interrogate and challenge hegemonic ideas that exclude, separate and subordinate people with disabilities” (Campbell, 2009: 23).

Facilitating

In the facilitating approach, the frontline workers emphasised the client’s abilities and competencies before disclosing their disability to employers. This approach also involved strategically timing the disclosure to ensure employers first recognised the candidates’ qualifications, strengths, and skills. Such strategic timing reduces the likelihood of bias or preconceived notions influencing the employer’s initial assessment of the potential employee. This strategy seeks to ensure that disabled candidates are evaluated based on their merit, just like any other candidate, and that they compete on an equal playing field. Primarily, the market coordinators and some employment specialists shared stories in the facilitating approach.

The facilitating approach is a form of covering where individuals intentionally present themselves as conforming to societal norms to reduce the significance of the stigma and direct attention to the goal of the interaction (Goffman, 1963: 74). The form of temporary covering was manifested in the facilitating stories as the frontline workers focused on candidates’ qualifications and adapted their language to an ableist labour market:

Market Coordinator 1:

When we work with employers, we are concerned with competence. And for us, it’s not . . . It’s not like we somehow include those who need facilitation. We work with employers to provide the skills they need, and then we kind of have to replenish if there should be any facilitation. So, we kind of don’t separate that group in anything.

Market Coordinator 2:

No. If a person is in a wheelchair, it doesn’t matter if he meets the competence requirements. (Office 3)

The reflections above illustrated how market coordinators emphasised competence as the key selling point when encouraging employers to view disabled candidates as productive. Their goal was to ensure that employers recognised candidates for their qualifications and potential contributions, positioning disability as a secondary consideration. In doing so, the market coordinators often reproduced ableist norms by framing disability in terms of perceived deficits or limitations (Jammaers et al., 2016).

Attuned to productivity-oriented expectations in the labour market, several frontline workers also reflected on the proper use of language. In the dialogue below, the frontline workers mentioned how language could be reframed to be more attuned to productivity. The reflection was made after they had presented how they had developed their recruitment programme, where one part of the programme focused on language:

Market Coordinator 1:

There’s a big difference between saying “unemployed” or “service user” and saying “talent” or “candidate”. We’ve worked a lot on how we use the terms.

Market Coordinator 2:

Not unemployed but a “work shifter”.

Market Coordinator 3:

“Hidden talents” is such a good word to use because we see that is what it’s about. (Office 4)

The three market coordinators also underscored the importance of rethinking language in their dialogues with employers, aiming to keep discussions of potential hires safely within the boundaries of ableist conceptions of productivity. By referring to “talent”, they invoked a discourse that has been critiqued in organisational studies for its potential to marginalise those deemed “untalented” (Painter-Morland et al., 2019). Both market coordinators and employment specialists reflected on this linguistic rethinking. To underscore their point, they described using success stories to persuade employers to hire disabled individuals. These narratives typically portrayed disabled people as hard-working and productive – thereby conforming to ableist expectations associated with the “normal” worker. In Goffman’s terms, such “success stories are tales of heroes of assimilation who have penetrated new areas of normal acceptance” (Goffman, 1963: 25).

In sum, the facilitating approach was a strategy employed by frontline workers to promote disclosure by emphasising qualifications and skills first and disclosing disability second – a strategically timed disability disclosure. The aim was to ensure equal opportunities for and fair evaluation of disabled candidates by navigating societal expectations and gaining acceptance when a stigma is present but, at the same time, perpetuating ableist norms by minimising the characteristics accepted as devaluing (Campbell, 2009: 23).

Targeting

By the term “targeting”, we mean that the frontline workers reduced a stigma’s offensiveness by calling attention to how the stigma attribute can be a trait that leads to a potentially valuable employee for the employer. The frontline workers intentionally highlighted an individual’s disability status by aligning it with the employer’s corporate social responsibility. Such responsibility included the increased inclusion of marginalised groups in the workforce alongside a corporate goal of profit maximisation. Note that the targeting approach contrasted with the familiarising and facilitating approaches, emphasising a late disability disclosure. Furthermore, while the targeting approach called attention to the stigma attribute, it was mobilised to repair disability as a spoiled identity by pointing out how it makes the individual loyal and trustworthy to the employer. Targeting stories were brought up by all types of frontline workers – counsellors, employment specialists, and market coordinators.

One way that frontline workers applied the targeting approach was by bringing in corporate societal responsibility to increase the inclusion of marginalised groups:

Employment Specialist:

It’s become a different attitude in working life: You shall not have a homogeneous group. It would be best if you have diversity; the employees are your most important asset as a company. The competence of the enterprise. You can play on such things, but these issues are very different depending on which employer you meet. It would be best to reflect the employer’s interests in the best possible way. Take them a little bit by the mouth. Most people are interested in taking part in their social responsibility. [. . .]

Interviewer:

What do you mean by social responsibility?

Employment Specialist:

People are more aware that we’re all responsible for many things. More and more employers have become aware that people mustn’t be excluded. (Office 5)

The framing of diversity as an asset introduced a normative shift in the understanding of productivity. One employment specialist highlighted how adherence to anti-exclusion policies was increasingly recognised by employers, suggesting a potential move toward anti-ableist values. Yet ableist norms of competence remained influential. A tension emerged between valuing diversity – a position that might challenge ableism – and strategically presenting disabled individuals through stereotypical portrayals to secure accommodations. This strategic labelling aligns with Goffman’s (1959: 49) description of managing impressions to meet normative expectations. This tension was evident in a counsellor’s reflection on the traits of employers willing to hire disabled people:

Counsellor 1:

They think of inclusion and are eager to help people into work life. And, of course, it’s a carrot to save some salary expenses during the training period.

Counsellor 2:

Yes. I discovered that there are a lot of excellent potential employers out there who feel a social responsibility. But you shouldn’t be blind to the fact that they’re thinking about money. They do business, and we do management. (Office 5)

While corporate societal responsibility was considered a driver in the targeting approach, the frontline workers noted that the early disclosure was intertwined with the attraction of the economic support measures, such as wage subsidies, provided by the labour and welfare services to hire disabled people. In addition, some frontline workers brought up the aspect of loyalty that they believed disabled people could bring to the workplace. There was an idea that disabled people will stay longer at the workplace, and consequently, the employer could experience lower turnover rates and potentially save money in the long run.

Market Coordinator 1:

I was at a meeting yesterday, and the company says they’d like to welcome those far away from the labour market. Just that you have a business that comes and says this in the closing part of a meeting, it’s sort of “send the worst of the worst to me. I want them here and motivate and welcome them”.

Market Coordinator 2:

It’s a new company with repetitive tasks for which you don’t need expertise. It’s clear that if you hire someone highly educated, they won’t stay there for long. (Office 3)

While loyalty to an employer can be seen as an asset, it also represented a disability stereotype of being loyal and staying at the same workplace because one is “being taken care of” in an ableist labour market and society. Goffman’s (1963: 53) analysis of information control identified those with whom the stigmatised individual is open and upon whose assistance they rely. This analysis highlights the relational dependencies that emerge when stigmatised individuals seek to secure a position in working life.

In sum, the targeting approach implied an early disclosure. Assets such as workplace diversity, wage compensation, and presumed loyalty, together with anti-exclusion awareness through social responsibility, were tools for frontline workers to gain employment for disabled people. In these cases, the potential employee had to be presented with the impairment recognised. When this happened, we saw dimensions of a disclosure approach where the selling point is the employee’s disability status as a wage subsidy releaser, keeping the employee in a client position. At the same time, we saw elements of a discourse where employers recognise the value of diversity. As Campbell (2012) noted, ableism involves not asking about the difference. Hence, there was subversive potential in how frontline workers reflected on the way they worked with employers; however, they were far from erasing the difference between paid employment and an active self-directed life.

Self-disclosing

Frontline workers also emphasised the importance of promoting self-disclosure. In this approach, disabled clients are advised to reveal information about their disability status. This approach differed from the familiarising, facilitating, and targeting approaches in which frontline workers are actively engaged in the question of how to inform employers about disability. In the self-disclosing approach, the frontline workers advised clients when and how much to disclose to employers. In this approach, strategically timed disclosure and selective disclosure gained importance. Employment specialists and some market coordinators shared stories about this approach. They engaged in discussions with disabled job seekers regarding when and how much information they should self-disclose to their employers about disability.

Employment Specialist 1:

We’re trying to make them understand the importance of being open. Not always at the beginning of the process. But when they have the job, they should perhaps be open with the employer, not least the working environment. That’s because we notice that many people struggle with the people around them after they start working. And especially if they come from NAV because then they have the stigma that they come from NAV and feel that everyone looks at them. Or that they’re just hiding that there’s something.

Employment Specialist 2:

Yes. Because it’s a case of now you can share. And then there’s what’s nice: we can spar with jobseekers about how much to tell and where to set the limit. Some people want to expose themselves; that’s how it is, but sometimes you have to wait 6 to 12 months with an employer before you can start telling your colleagues about how you feel, but you proceed cautiously if you feel uncomfortable. (Office 5)

These frontline workers talked about how they would advise the jobseekers to be open about their disability and how to present it, but they are far from reflecting on how disabled people have a right to work and not being stigmatised because of their client status. A few other frontline workers also proposed the idea of selective self-disclosing to specific individuals at the workplace, such as a human relations (HR) specialist.

While advocating for self-disclosure to employers, frontline workers also highlighted the delicate balance required when deciding how much information to share with employers regarding disability:

Employment Specialist 1:

It’s backstage and front stage. I don’t bring everything I do into the workplace. Many of our participants may have been sitting for years and just talking about what they couldn’t do and their illness. Maybe you don’t need to talk about all your challenges as soon as you get to the workplace. The role of patient and user is quite evident with them. We jokingly say that when we were hired, we didn’t tell everything in the first interview.

Employment Specialist 2:

Or we said too much. That’s the kind of presentation phase that everyone is in when they’re about to be hired. There’s nothing unique about it in this. After all, it’s part of working life. (Office 4)

To address disclosure in the process, the employment specialists used a formulation echoing Goffman’s concepts backstage and front stage. Goffman (1959) argued that, regarding self-presentation and identity management, the front stage is where the performance occurs and where an individual manages their public identity, while the backstage is where the actor can drop the façade and be more authentic. The employment specialists implied that the disability side of life is to be left backstage. However, for disabled clients, the backstage could also be the front stage. This suggested that the frontline workers sought to attune disability presentations to what they believed employers would perceive as indicating valuable employees. The reflections among the two employment specialists also activated a normalisation of dilemmas in giving out information. Everyone must decide what information they will share about themselves in a recruitment interview and the initial period at a new workplace. Anti-medicalisation was also brought into the mix by suggesting that disabled job seekers are being withheld as patients and, consequently, as “remainders” in the welfare system (Campbell, 2009: 42).

In summary, frontline workers worked on normalising the challenges disabled workers faced when entering the labour market. Stigma was recognised as a challenge in disclosure decisions, but this disclosure management was understood as part of an ordinary start-up phase for a new employee. Hence, a re-thinking of disability attuned to a normalising approach challenging ableist norms occurred.

Discussion and conclusion

This study examines how Norwegian frontline workers approach disability disclosure within an institutional context where disability remains closely associated with an assumed inability to work. This deficit-oriented framing disadvantages disabled individuals by positioning them as less productive. In response, frontline workers challenge these assumptions and promote employability through four disclosure strategies: familiarising, facilitating, targeting, and self-disclosing. The first three involve disclosing on behalf of clients – by building trust with employers, highlighting clients’ competencies, or invoking a social responsibility narrative. In contrast, the self-disclosing strategy entails clients revealing their disabilities themselves.

To date, research on disability disclosure has primarily focused on the perspectives and strategies of disabled individuals (Charmaz, 2010; Goldberg et al., 2005; Richard and Hennekam, 2021; Vedeler, 2022; Von Schrader et al., 2014; White et al., 2023). This scholarship has been instrumental in revealing how disabled people weigh the risks and benefits of disclosure and manage stigma within contexts shaped by exclusionary norms. While it remains vital to centre the experiences of those subjected to stigma, an exclusive focus on individual-level strategies risks obscuring the broader social construction of stigma and its entanglement with social, economic, and political structures (Scambler, 2009). In response to Scambler’s (2009) call to examine how stigma is socially and structurally embedded and produced, this article shifts analytical attention from stigmatised individuals to the institutional actors who support disabled people into employment. This first contribution thus broadens the focus beyond the individual to include the institutional processes through which disclosure is managed and negotiated. Previous research on employer-targeted services (Aksnes, 2019; Hardonk and Halldórsdóttir, 2021; Ingold, 2018; Ingold and McGurk, 2023; Johnson et al., 2023; Williams, 2012) has provided important insights into how such services systems engage with employers, yet it has largely overlooked the role of disclosure and stigma management.

Second, this article contributes to rethinking stigma in sociological work and employment research by proposing a framework that links Goffman’s micro-sociological understanding of stigma management with structural accounts, particularly through the concept of ableism (Campbell, 2009; Williams and Mavin, 2012). Ableism, defined as the systemic privileging of able-bodiedness, offers a powerful lens through which to examine the embedded discrimination disabled people face in employment. Yet, frontline workers’ disclosure strategies are shaped not only by pervasive ableist norms, but also by their relationships with, and perceptions of, employers’ inclusivity, as well as the nature of the disability in question. For example, the familiarising strategy – aimed at relationship-building – illustrates how workers identify some employers as more receptive to diversity and inclusion, thereby mitigating ableist expectations. Taken together, this illuminates how disability disclosure is not merely a matter of interactional stigma management, but a structurally conditioned practice through which frontline workers actively navigate, reinforce, and at times resist the ableist contours of contemporary labour markets.

Building on this framework – connecting stigma management with the ableism perspective – enables an examination of how frontline workers both reproduce and resist ableist ideas about productivity and employability, thus nuancing earlier studies suggesting that frontline workers rarely challenge the ableist ideal of the self-sufficient worker (Garsten and Jacobsson, 2013; Hardonk and Halldórsdóttir, 2021; Lantz and Marston, 2012; Møller and Stone, 2013). We show that frontline workers’ stigma management strategies do, at times, reproduce ableist norms – particularly when emphasising clients’ productivity and adaptability – but they also subtly challenge these norms by promoting broader notions of inclusion, diversity, and relational fit. Disclosure thus emerges as a professional dilemma, reflecting the tension between aspirations for inclusivity and the institutional and societal normative frameworks that privilege able-bodied ideals of productivity and autonomy.

On one hand, frontline workers may inadvertently reinforce ableist norms by aligning too closely with narrow conceptions of ability and productivity. On the other hand, they hold the potential to challenge such norms by advocating for broader understandings of productivity and the value of diverse workforces. This aligns with a counter-ableist perspective, where disability is reframed as an asset (Campbell, 2009, 2012). In this view, disability-related experiences or characteristics can be positioned as valuable contributions, transforming disclosure from an admission of limitation into a strategic emphasis on value. For instance, Hockerts (2015) and Krzeminska et al. (2019) illustrate how impairment-related competencies may be advantageous for certain roles, such as those in autism-supportive workplaces.

The professional dilemma of promoting inclusion while risking the reinforcement of ableism underscores the need for frontline workers to advocate not only for recognising disabled people’s competencies but also for challenging prevailing norms of what constitutes capacity. Goffman (1959: 29) characterises professionals as potential allies of the stigmatised, but this characterisation may underestimate the extent to which professionals operate within organisations that incentivise or compel the reproduction of dominant standards. Adopting a role that actively promotes social change may involve advocating for broader definitions of productivity and framing disability disclosure not as a liability but as an expression of human diversity (Goodley and Runswick-Cole, 2016; Hammell, 2006). One example is the targeting strategy, where workers align disclosure with employers’ corporate social responsibility goals rather than concealing it.

In the Norwegian welfare state, this work unfolds within a contradictory policy environment. Activation policies aim to foster inclusion, yet continue to reflect ableist assumptions equating value with employability and independence. Frontline workers must therefore promote clients’ employability while navigating systems that simultaneously support and marginalise them. These contradictions cannot be resolved at the individual level; workers’ efforts remain constrained by institutional structures that define worth through narrow, able-bodied norms.

In Norway, employer participation in the hiring of disabled people is voluntary, unlike in systems governed by quotas (Aksnes, 2019; McGurk and Ingold, 2023). This contrasts with countries where quota systems render disclosed disabilities assets, albeit at the risk of reinforcing medicalised and individualised frameworks (Richard and Hennekam, 2021). In a quota system, the disclosed disability can be understood as an asset, but such systems are in danger of withholding an individualised and medicalised approach. Hence, the disclosure strategies of counsellors in a non-quota context represent a less medicalised approach. Nevertheless, Berre (2023), finds that wage subsidies in a non-quota system context – though not other publicly funded accommodations – significantly improve employment outcomes for people with chronic illnesses. These findings suggest that while quota systems and wage subsidies may be effective, they also risk deepening medicalisation and individualisation.

Limitations and future research

A key limitation of this study is the absence of disabled clients’ and employers’ perspectives. Consequently, it remains unclear how disabled individuals perceive frontline workers’ efforts to facilitate their employment, or how employers interpret those efforts. Studying work inclusion solely through interviews with non-disabled professionals risks marginalising disabled voices. We sought to mitigate this by involving a panel of representatives from disability NGOs.

Additionally, interview accounts may be shaped by the context in which they are given. Social desirability bias may have influenced how frontline workers described their approaches to disclosure. Instances of exclusion or discrimination may have been downplayed, while successes and person-centred practices may have been emphasised.

Future research could address several areas. First, there is a need for more sociologically informed studies that conceptualise stigma not only as individually experienced, but also as institutionally produced, mediated, and reinforced. Examining these processes from the perspective of gatekeeping actors to employment – such as frontline workers implementing ALMPs – can yield critical insights into the constraints and possibilities of inclusion within neoliberal policy regimes. Second, the core dilemma identified in this article – the need for frontline workers to support clients into employment while navigating employer expectations shaped by ableist assumptions – warrants further investigation. Studies exploring how frontline professionals and disabled individuals jointly reflect on and navigate this dilemma would be especially valuable.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank our colleagues, the anonymous reviewers and the editor for providing helpful comments on earlier versions of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by The Research Council of Norway, 256646/H10.

Ethics statement

Research performed for this article received ethical approval from Norwegian Social Science Data Service (NSD) (ref.nr. 52180) – now known in English as SIKT – Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research.

ORCID iDs

Camilla Stub Lundberg

Per Koren Solvang

Camilla Stub Lundberg is a criminologist and senior researcher at the Work Research Institute, Oslo Metropolitan University. Her research focuses on disability and work inclusion, with a particular emphasis on norm-critical approaches.

Per Koren Solvang is a sociologist and professor in the Department of Rehabilitation and Health Technology at Oslo Metropolitan University. His research explores rehabilitation as a professional practice and conceptual models of disability. He also has a long-standing interest in qualitative health research.

References

Aksnes

(2019) Engaging employers in vocational rehabilitation: understanding the new significance of knowledge brokers. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 50(1): 73–84.

Barnartt

(2016) How Erving Goffman affected perceptions of disability within sociology. In: Green

Barnartt

(eds) Sociology Looking at Disability: What Did We Know and When Did We Know It. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 29–37.

Berre

(2023) Exploring disability disadvantage in hiring: a factorial survey among Norwegian employers. Work, Employment and Society 38(4): 1087–1106.

Bjørnshagen

(2021) The mark of mental health problems: a field experiment on hiring discrimination before and during COVID-19. Social Science & Medicine 283: 114181.

Bjørnshagen

Ugreninov

(2021) Disability disadvantage: experimental evidence of hiring discrimination against wheelchair users. European Sociological Review 37(5): 818–833.

Bolton

Whelan

Dukelow

(2022) What can welfare stigma do? Social Policy and Society 21(4): 632–645.

Campbell

(2009) Contours of Ableism: The Production of Disability and Abledness. London: Palgrave McMillan.

Campbell

(2012) Stalking ableism: using disability to expose ‘abled’ narcissism. In: Goodley

Hughes

Davis

(eds) Disability and Social Theory: New Developments and Directions. London: Palgrave McMillan, 212–230.

Charmaz

(2010) Disclosing illness and disability in the workplace. Journal of International Education in Business 3(1/2): 6–19.

10.

Drake

Bond

Becker

(2012) Individual Placement and Support: An Evidence-Based Approach to Supported Employment. NY: Oxford University Press.

11.

Elraz

(2018) Identity, mental health and work: how employees with mental health conditions recount stigma and the pejorative discourse of mental illness. Human Relations 71(5): 722–741.

12.

Evans

(2022) Coping with gendered welfare stigma: exploring everyday accounts of stigma and resistance strategies among mothers who claim social security benefits. Social Policy and Society 21(4): 690–700.

13.

Foucault

(2008) Psychiatric Power: Lectures at the College De France, 1973–1974. NY: Macmillan.

14.

Frøyland

Andreassen

Innvær

(2019) Contrasting supply-side, demand-side and combined approaches to labour market integration. Journal of Social Policy 48(2): 311–328.

15.

Garsten

Jacobsson

(2013) Sorting people in and out: the plasticity of the categories of employability, work capacity and disability as technologies of government. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization 13(4): 825–850.

16.

Goffman

(1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Penguin Books.

17.

Goffman

(1963) Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. London: Penguin.

18.

Goldberg

Killeen

O’Day

(2005) The disclosure conundrum: how people with psychiatric disabilities navigate employment. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 11(3): 463–500.

19.

Goodley

Runswick-Cole

(2016) Becoming dishuman: thinking about the human through dis/ability. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 37(1): 1–15.

20.

Hammell

(2006) Perspectives on Disability and Rehabilitation: Contesting Assumptions, Challenging Practice. PA: Elsevier Health Sciences.

21.

Hardonk

Halldórsdóttir

(2021) Work inclusion through supported employment? Perspectives of job counsellors in Iceland. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 23(1): 39–49.

22.

Hennekam

Kulkarni

Beatty

(2025) Neurodivergence and the persistence of neurotypical norms and inequalities in educational and occupational settings. Work, Employment and Society 39(2): 449–469.

23.

Hipes

(2016) Why Does Employment Discrimination Persist Against People with Mental Illness? Effects of Negative Stereotypes, Power, and Differential Hiring Discrimination. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.

24.

Hockerts

(2015) How hybrid organizations turn antagonistic assets into complementarities. California Management Review 57(3): 83–106.

25.

Hyggen

Kolouh-Söderlund

Olsen

, et al. (2018) Young people at risk: school dropout and labour market exclusion in the Nordic countries. In: Halvorsen

Hvinden

(eds) Youth, Diversity and Employment. Comparative Perspectives on Labour Market Policies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 32–56.

26.

Ingold

(2018) Employer engagement in active labour market programmes: the role of boundary spanners. Public Administration 96(4): 707–720.

27.

Ingold

McGurk

(2023) Employer Engagement: Making Active Labour Market Policies Work. Bristol: Policy Press.

28.

Jammaers

Zanoni

(2021) The identity regulation of disabled employees: unveiling the ‘varieties of ableism’ in employers’ socio-ideological control. Organization Studies 42(3): 429–452.

29.

Jammaers

Zanoni

Hardonk

(2016) Constructing positive identities in ableist workplaces: disabled employees’ discursive practices engaging with the discourse of lower productivity. Human Relations 69(6): 1365–1386.

30.

Johnson

Martínez Lucio

Grimshaw

, et al. (2023) Swimming against the tide? Street-level bureaucrats and the limits to inclusive active labour market programmes in the UK. Human Relations 76(5): 689–714.

31.

Krogh

Bredgaard

(2022) Unequal? A field experiment of recruitment practises towards wheelchair users in Denmark. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 24(1): 266–276.

32.

Krzeminska

Austin

Bruyère

, et al. (2019) The advantages and challenges of neurodiversity employment in organizations. Journal of Management & Organization 25(4): 453–463.

33.

Kumar

Sonpal

Hiranandani

(2012) Trapped between ableism and neoliberalism: critical reflections on disability and employment in India. Disability Studies Quarterly 32(3).

34.

Lantz

Marston

(2012) Policy, citizenship and governance: the case of disability and employment policy in Australia. Disability & Society 27(6): 853–867.

35.

Lundberg

(2022) Is there an ableist paradox in frontline workers’ success stories about disability and work inclusion? Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 24(1): 1–14.

36.

Lundberg

(2024) Striving to abolish a deficit approach to disability: frames applied by frontline workers and activist entrepreneurs in employment. Disability & Society 39(7): 1725–1746.

37.

McGurk

Ingold

(2023) Conclusion: making active labour market policies work. In: Employer Engagement. Bristol: Bristol University Press, 231–245.

38.

Mik-Meyer

(2016a) Disability and ‘care’: managers, employees and colleagues with impairments negotiating the social order of disability. Work, Employment and Society 30(6): 984–999.

39.

Mik-Meyer

(2016b) Othering, ableism and disability: a discursive analysis of co-workers’ construction of colleagues with visible impairments. Human Relations 69(6): 1341–1363.

40.

Mik-Meyer

(2017) The power of citizens and professionals in welfare encounters: the influence of bureaucracy, market and psychology. In: Mik-Meyer

(ed.) The Influence of Bureaucracy, Market and Psychology. MA: Manchester University Press.

41.

Møller

MØ

Stone

(2013) Disciplining disability under Danish active labour market policy. Social Policy & Administration 47(5): 586–604.

42.

Moloney

Brown

Ciciurkaite

, et al. (2019) ‘Going the extra mile’: disclosure, accommodation, and stigma management among working women with disabilities. Deviant Behavior 40(8): 942–956.

43.

Morgan

(2012) Focus groups and social interaction. In: Gubrium

Holstein

Marvasti

McKinney

(eds) The Sage Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft, vol. 2. CA: Sage, 161–176.

44.

Østerud

(2022) A balancing act: the employer perspective on disability disclosure in hiring. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 56(3): 289–302.

45.

Østerud

(2023) Disability discrimination: employer considerations of disabled jobseekers in light of the ideal worker. Work, Employment and Society 37(3): 740–756.

46.

Painter-Morland

Kirk

Deslandes

, et al. (2019) Talent management: the good, the bad, and the possible. European Management Review 16(1): 135–146.

47.

Pincock

Jones

(2020) Challenging power dynamics and eliciting marginalized adolescent voices through qualitative methods. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 19: 1609406920958895.

48.

Richard

Hennekam

(2021) When can a disability quota system empower disabled individuals in the workplace? The case of France. Work, Employment and Society 35(5): 837–855.

49.

Ricoeur

(1976) Interpretation Theory: Discourse and The Surplus of Meaning. TCU press.

50.

Robinson

Kerr

(2015) Reflexive conversations: constructing hermeneutic designs for qualitative management research. British Journal of Management 26(4): 777–790.

51.

Sadeghi

Fekjær

(2019) Frontline workers’ competency in activation work. International Journal of Social Welfare 28(1): 77–88.

52.

Scambler

(2009) Health-related stigma. Sociology of Health & Illness 31(3): 441–455.

53.

Scholz

Ingold

(2021) Activating the ‘ideal jobseeker’: experiences of individuals with mental health conditions on the UK Work Programme. Human Relations 74(10): 1604–1627.

54.

Sebrechts

(2023) Towards an empirically robust theory of stigma resistance in the ‘new’ sociology of stigma: everyday resistance in sheltered workshops. The Sociological Review 72(5): 1117–1135.

55.

Tøssebro

(2004) Introduction to the special issue: understanding disability. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 6(1): 3–7.

56.

Tsatsou

(2021) Is digital inclusion fighting disability stigma? Opportunities, barriers, and recommendations. Disability & Society 36(5): 702–729.

57.

Tyler

Slater

(2018) Rethinking the sociology of stigma. The Sociological Review 66(4): 721–743.

58.

Van Aswegen

(2020) Disabling discourses and charitable model of disability: labour market activation for people with disabilities, Ireland – a critical policy analysis. Disability & Society 35(3): 435–459.

59.

Van Berkel

Ingold

McGurk

, et al. (2017) Editorial introduction: an introduction to employer engagement in the field of HRM. Blending social policy and HRM research in promoting vulnerable groups’ labour market participation. Human Resource Management Journal 27(4): 503–513.

60.

Vedeler

(2022) How is disability addressed in a job interview? Disability & Society 39(7): 1705–1724.

61.

Von Schrader

Malzer

Bruyère

(2014) Perspectives on disability disclosure: the importance of employer practices and workplace climate. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 26: 237–255.

62.

White

Baldwin

Cang

(2023) Workers’ perspectives on workplace disclosure of serious mental illness and their employers’ responses. Qualitative Health Research 33(6): 481–495.

63.

Williams

Mavin

(2012) Disability as constructed difference: a literature review and research agenda for management and organization studies. International Journal of Management Reviews 14(2): 159–179.

64.

Williams

(2012) We are all boundary spanners now? In: Williams

(ed.) Collaboration in Public Policy and Practice. Bristol: Policy Press, 95–118.

65.

Williams

(2022) Goffman, interactionism, and the management of stigma in everyday life. In: Scambler G (ed.) Sociological Theory and Medical Sociology. London: Routledge, 134–164.