Workplace social support for people with physical disability

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The employment experiences of individuals with physical disabilities in previous studies shed light on the challenges they face and the assistance they receive in the workplace.

OBJECTIVE:

This study aimed to examine the practical and emotional social support received by individuals with physical disabilities in their workplaces from colleagues, employers, or supervisors. The study explored different forms of social support, considering both positive and negative outcomes.

METHODS:

Twenty participants completed a questionnaire consisting of open and closed-type questions to gather demographic and personal data. In-depth interviews were conducted as free discussions. Employing content analysis, the researchers categorized the reported forms of workplace social support into four primary categories and calculated their frequency of occurrence.

RESULTS:

Participants reported 175 cases of practical support and 358 cases of emotional support, both with positive and negative outcomes. Among these cases, 376 referred to social support, practical and emotional, with positive outcomes, and 157 to social support, practical and emotional, with negative outcomes.

CONCLUSION:

The participants received more cases of social support, practical and emotional, with positive outcomes than corresponding cases of social support with negative outcomes. At the same time, the reported cases of emotional support with positive and negative outcomes outnumbered the corresponding cases of practical support. These findings could be the starting point for future studies in workplace social support for people with physical disabilities.

Keywords

Social support workplace social support practical support emotional support physical disability

1 Introduction

1.1 Defining social support

Social support has been recognized as a significant and essential factor in individuals’ lives, providing unity, therapeutic benefits, and vital assistance (Virtanen & Isotalus, 2011). It refers to the assistance or help individuals receive or expect from those connected to them (Papakonstantinou & Papadopoulos, 2010). Within the workplace context, social support takes the form of interpersonal behaviors among employees and encompasses the support provided by co-workers, employers, or supervisors (Kossek et al., 2011). It involves collaborative problem-solving, information sharing, and the exchange of advice (Brough & Pears, 2004).

Social support is commonly categorized into practical and emotional support. Practical support involves providing information, material assistance (Chang & Schaller, 2000), and tangible aid in an individual’s daily activities, such as assistance with grocery shopping, cooking, and cleaning (Berkman & Krishna, 2014). Emotional support, on the other hand, encompasses expressions of interest, care, acceptance, and encouragement during challenging personal situations (Uchino et al., 2018).

1.2 Workplace difficulties of individuals with physical disabilities

Previous studies have highlighted the employment experiences of individuals with physical disabilities, shedding light on both the challenges they face and the assistance they receive in the workplace. One of the most critical difficulties encountered by individuals with physical disabilities is workplace accessibility. An inaccessible workplace creates numerous mobility barriers and evokes feelings of limitation or unfairness (Kim & Williams, 2012). Additionally, discrimination (Graham et al., 2018) and skepticism regarding work capacity (Rana et al., 2022) pose significant challenges for these individuals in the workplace. They may also experience a sense of being overprotected (Ozhek, 2008) and excluded from decision-making roles, with limited prospects for promotions, salary raises, and social involvement (Rana et al., 2022). Lastly, discriminatory attitudes from employers during the hiring process or throughout employment (Wilson-Kovacs et al., 2008) further exacerbate the challenges faced by individuals with physical disabilities.

1.3 Support benefits for individuals with physical disabilities

Despite the challenges faced by individuals with physical disabilities in the workplace, they have reported certain supports that prove beneficial for their daily lives. Research has shown that having a support network can be highly advantageous for these individuals (McColl, 2017). Part of a person’s support system is considered family members, friends, health professionals, colleagues, supervisors, or employers who can offer valuable emotional or practical support (Harris et al., 2007).

Moreover, assistive technology is a beneficial facilitator for people with physical disabilities because it can remove the employment barriers for employees with disabilities and promote their productive effort (Yeager et al., 2006). Additionally, colleagues can provide beneficial support through work training, personal assistance, guidance on work benefits, transportation assistance, flexible scheduling, and modifications to job duties and workspaces (Sevak & Khan, 2017).

1.4 Previous research on workplace social support

Workplace social support is an essential category of social support contributing to the reduction of work stress (Fernandes et al., 2008; Jang et al., 2018) and improving organizational productivity (Park et al., 2004), job satisfaction and ability of individuals (Harris et al., 2007). Workplace social support can also have a positive influence on an individual’s work attitudes and behaviors (Saks, 2019). On the other hand, lacking workplace social support can have many negative consequences. Some of these consequences can be psychological distress (Nguyen et al., 2019), injustice (Bowling et al., 2005), and also reduction of productivity (Park et al., 2004), motivation, and self-efficacy (Franche et al., 2005).

1.5 Previous research on workplace social support for individuals with disabilities

Workplace social support has been recognized as crucial for individuals with disabilities, as it has been shown to provide significant support and benefits. Previous studies have demonstrated that workplace social support is vital in improving the health, psychological well-being, and retention of employees with rheumatoid arthritis (Holland & Collins, 2020). Additionally, workplace social support is critical in reducing high psychological stress and emotional exhaustion while enhancing the sense of personal fulfillment for employees with intellectual disabilities (Mutkins et al., 2011).

Furthermore, social support in the workplace has been found to increase the ability of employees with disabilities to manage work demands and stress (Lysaght et al., 2012) and facilitate successful job inclusion (Sanclemente et al., 2022) and the return-to-work process (Lysaght & Larmour-Trode, 2008). However, the lack of workplace social support, coupled with symptoms of depression, has been directly associated with burnout symptoms, emotional exhaustion, and reduced personal achievement among employees with intellectual disabilities (Mutkins et al., 2011).

1.6 Aim of the research

The current research explores the social support provided in the workplace and received by individuals with physical disabilities. Specifically, the study emphasizes the practical and emotional social support that people with physical disabilities receive from their colleagues, employers, or supervisors in the workplace. The research focuses on examining both positive forms of social support, which are considered valuable and helpful, and negative forms of social support, which are considered damaging and unhelpful. The specific aims of the present study are to:

(a) Examine the forms of practical and emotional social support, including both positive and negative outcomes, reported by individuals with physical disabilities in the workplace, (b) investigate the most predominant types of emotional and practical support, based on their frequency, along with their positive and negative outcomes, as reported by individuals with physical disabilities in the workplace.

2 Methods

2.1 Participants

The sample consisted of 20 individuals with physical disabilities (12 men and 8 women), aged 26 to 52 years (mean = 37.5, SD = 7.64). Nine of the participants (45%) were employed in the public sector, 7 (35%) in the private sector, and 4 (20%) in the broader public sector. Specifically, the participants worked in public services (8), hospitals/clinics (5), schools (3), and private companies/enterprises (4). They lived in urban areas. In terms of education level, 9 participants (45%) had a master’s degree, 8 (40%) were university graduates, 2 (10%) had graduated from high school, and only one participant (5%) was a university student.

Regarding their physical disabilities, half of the participants (50%) reported a disability in the lower extremities, 45% reported a disability in both the lower and upper extremities and (5%) reported a disability on one side of the body. For 11 participants (55%), the disability was either congenital or had appeared by age 5. For the remaining 9 participants (45%), the disability had developed later in life. In terms of mobility, 11 participants (55%) reported moving around independently at all times, 8 (40%) mentioned moving around alone sometimes and sometimes being accompanied by someone, and only one participant (5%) always moved accompanied by another person.

2.2 Procedures and instruments

Due to the unique circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, the researchers implemented the research through online meetings, utilizing cameras, and simultaneously following all appropriate steps for qualitative research. The researchers approached the research sample by contacting organizations that work with people with disabilities or physical disabilities via telephone. Additionally, the sample was provided with information about the procedure and purpose of the investigation and assurances regarding the anonymity and protection of their personal data. However, the researchers adopted the snowball or chain sampling method due to the difficulty of finding participants with these specific characteristics and the aim of gathering as many participants as possible. In this case, the researchers approached individuals from the target population who had the appropriate knowledge and a vast social network to connect with others in this specific population (Isari & Pourkos, 2015). In other words, the participants in the present research were given the option to indicate other eligible individuals they knew who were likely to want to participate (Zafeiropoulos, 2015).

The research procedure was completed in two parts. In the first part, participants completed an anonymous questionnaire of 18 open-ended (where they could provide their own answers) and closed-ended questions (where they had to choose an answer among the provided options) on demographic and personal data. The questionnaire lasted approximately 5 to 10 minutes. It included inquiries about gender, place of residence, date of birth, level of education, marital status, labor sector, job responsibilities, duration of employment in their current position, type of physical disability and its causes, age of disability onset, and any other chronic health conditions. Additionally, the questionnaire included multiple-choice questions regarding the location of the physical disability on the body (upper and/or lower extremities or on one side of the body), hand function, level of independent mobility (alone, with assistance, or with the use of supportive equipment), frequency of mobility, and a description of their daily movement patterns. Throughout the questionnaire completion process, the researchers provided appropriate clarifications to participants who encountered any difficulties.

The researchers followed the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. They obtained informed consent from the participants using the appropriate forms and according to the procedure suggested by the World Medical Association.

Then, in the second part of the process, in-depth interviews were conducted with each participant individually. In-depth interviews, as a valuable method for generating research data, allow researchers to delve deeply into the participants’ perceptions and beliefs, facilitating more active communication (Isari & Pourkos, 2015, p. 99). In this study, the researchers structured the interviews as open discussions aimed at capturing the participants’ experiences of social support received from their colleagues and employers in the workplace. The interviews followed an unstructured approach, allowing the participants to freely and openly discuss their experiences with the researchers (Isari & Pourkos, 2015). The researchers conducted the interviews as a team to ensure consistency in the data collection process.

The in-depth interviews began by reading two texts, one focusing on social support with positive outcomes (approximately 230 words) and the other addressing support with negative outcomes (approximately 380 words). These texts presented examples of both practical and emotional forms of support. The positive examples of practical support mentioned in the texts included assisting with practical matters, providing information, and offering problem-solving advice. Examples of positive emotional support included showing interest and treating individuals equally in the workplace. On the other hand, the texts also mentioned negative examples of practical support, such as overprotectiveness in practical issues and underestimation of abilities. Negative emotional support examples encompassed unequal treatment and an excessive willingness to help.

After reading these texts, the in-depth interviews were conducted, allowing all participants to narrate and evaluate their experiences of receiving practical and emotional support with positive and negative outcomes from their colleagues, employers, or supervisors in the workplace. In this free discussion, no time limits were set, but the duration depended on the depth of the experiences of each participant. Thus, the interview lasted from 30 minutes to 2 hours. The entire content of the interviews was recorded to be analyzed further, with the participants’ consent.

2.3 Data analysis

The researchers used a content analysis approach to identify and interpret patterns and themes within the data and followed a systematic process to enhance trustworthiness. First of all, each participant’s data were examined so that a detailed file could be created. In particular, a file was compiled for each participant with their demographic and personal data and other data gathered from the analysis of their in-depth interview. The entire content of the interviews was transcribed. Afterward, they generated initial codes to identify data related to social support, which were refined through an iterative process of coding and comparing data across interviews. The researchers explored the relationships between patterns and themes that emerged. Then all of the statements of participants that referred to cases of social support with positive and negative outcomes, practical and emotional, that they received in their workplace were extracted. Subsequently, the cases of social support reported by the participants in the interviews were classified into four main categories: practical support with positive outcomes, practical support with negative outcomes, emotional support with positive outcomes, and emotional support with negative outcomes.

Furthermore, wherever it was possible, the statements of participants were divided into some more general subcategories based on similar characteristics within the framework of the four main categories. Finally, the forms of workplace social support reported by the participants were categorized using the content analysis methodology, and their reference frequency was calculated. The analysis was conducted by all three researchers, who engaged in ongoing discussions to ensure consensus in interpreting the data. To ensure trustworthiness, the researchers repeatedly read the transcribed interviews to understand the participants’ experiences deeply. They also hold debriefing sessions to ensure transparency in the analysis process. The researchers made all the required efforts to ensure the trustworthiness of the data collection and analysis in qualitative research that is based on flexibility. The tables with the in-depth interview analysis results are presented further downward (see Tables 1–4). The tables contain the participants’ statements regarding the forms of social support they receive in their workplace and their reporting frequency. As previously mentioned, the classification of the stated forms of social support is done into four basic categories: (a) practical support with positive outcomes, (b) practical support with negative outcomes, (c) emotional support with positive outcomes, and (d) emotional support with negative outcomes.

3 Results

From the analysis of the in-depth interviews, remarkable results can be drawn, not only about the forms of social support but also about the reporting frequency of these forms. Specifically, it was revealed that during their interviews, the participants reported 17 different forms of practical support with positive outcomes, 13 forms of practical support with negative outcomes, 32 forms of emotional support with positive outcomes, and 21 forms of emotional support with negative outcomes. The participants mentioned 30 forms of practical support with positive and negative outcomes and 53 forms of emotional support with positive and negative outcomes. Of the abovementioned forms, 49 were related to social support with positive outcomes, both practical and emotional, and 34 were related to social support with negative outcomes.

Regarding the frequency of occurrence of the specific forms, as shown by the above tables, the participants reported 125 cases of practical support with positive outcomes, 50 cases of practical support with negative outcomes, 251 cases of emotional support with positive outcomes, and 107 cases of emotional support with negative outcomes. Therefore, the participants reported 175 cases of practical support with positive and negative outcomes and 358 cases of emotional support with positive and negative outcomes. It is worth mentioning that from the abovementioned cases, 376 were related to social support with positive outcomes, both practical and emotional, and 157 were related to social support with negative outcomes.

The data obtained from the in-depth interviews and the presented tables (Tables 1–4) reveal the main cases of practical support with positive outcomes. According to Table 1, the participants highlighted workplace accessibility as the most frequently mentioned case. An accessible workplace encompasses various elements such as ramps, accessible toilets, appropriate flooring, spacious elevators, and wide areas for easy movement. One participant expressed their experience by stating, “They made sure to assign me a desk that is accessible because I use a large electric wheelchair, which can be quite challenging to navigate indoors... They adjusted the placement of some furniture to ensure there are enough spaces for me to maneuver easily... Overall, I have no issues with the accessibility of the building.‬

Table 1
Forms of practical support with positive outcomes

Forms of practical support with positive outcomes Frequency

•Caring for the workplace’s accessibility, internally and externally. 22

•Flexibility and understanding in matters of leave, absence, or delay. 18

•Being aware of when I need help. 17

•Effort for more effortless adjustment in the workplace. 14

•Provision of advice and guidance in work-related matters. 8

•Assistance in practical matters (e.g., in managing clothes and objects). 8

•Undertaking tasks that I cannot accomplish without being bothered or angry. 6

•Help in moving around when needed. 5

•Help in finding objects that are in a distant place. 5

•No pressure to do tasks that I cannot achieve. 5

•Practical assistance that helps me do my work tasks more effectively. 4

•Arrangement of space to facilitate my movement (e.g., keep a distance from the furniture). 4

•Provision of information and advice on general issues. 3

•Provision of suitable support equipment. 2

•Defense in conflicts with other people. 2

•Help with personal needs during working hours. 1

•No interference in my work subject. 1

Forms of practical support with positive outcomes	Frequency
•Caring for the workplace’s accessibility, internally and externally.	22
•Flexibility and understanding in matters of leave, absence, or delay.	18
•Being aware of when I need help.	17
•Effort for more effortless adjustment in the workplace.	14
•Provision of advice and guidance in work-related matters.	8
•Assistance in practical matters (e.g., in managing clothes and objects).	8
•Undertaking tasks that I cannot accomplish without being bothered or angry.	6
•Help in moving around when needed.	5
•Help in finding objects that are in a distant place.	5
•No pressure to do tasks that I cannot achieve.	5
•Practical assistance that helps me do my work tasks more effectively.	4
•Arrangement of space to facilitate my movement (e.g., keep a distance from the furniture).	4
•Provision of information and advice on general issues.	3
•Provision of suitable support equipment.	2
•Defense in conflicts with other people.	2
•Help with personal needs during working hours.	1
•No interference in my work subject.	1

Another significant case of practical support with positive outcomes reported by the participants was “Flexibility and understanding in matters of leave, absence, or delay.” This case pertains to the accommodating and understanding attitude demonstrated by colleagues, employers, or supervisors when it comes to situations involving delays, absences, or the need for personal or non-personal leave. A participant shared their experience by stating, “There was a great deal of understanding when I had to be absent due to heavy rain. My electric wheelchair is not suitable for rainy conditions, as it can malfunction. So, the two or three times I couldn’t make it to work due to rain, it was not a problem for them.” These examples illustrate how workplace accessibility and flexibility in handling leave, absence, or delay are perceived as essential forms of practical support with positive outcomes by the participants.

Among the cases of practical support with adverse outcomes (Table 2), the primary case mentioned by the participants is referred to as “Overprotection in practical issues at the beginning of the cooperation.” This case involves an excessive sense of protectiveness exhibited by colleagues, employers, or supervisors towards their colleagues with disabilities, primarily driven by concerns for their physical safety and well-being. One participant shared their experience, stating, “Some of my colleagues are overly protective because they are unsure of what I am capable of. For instance, they often advise me not to engage in certain activities out of fear that I might get injured or fall.” Additionally, participants reported the case of “Underestimation - contestation of abilities” as another form of practical support with adverse outcomes. This case involves various demeaning behaviors and actions directed towards individuals with disabilities, as well as the active denial or challenge of their capabilities. Notably, one participant expressed, “They consistently underestimated my abilities and potential. Despite my efficiency, they deliberately did this to demoralize me.” These examples shed light on the negative experiences participants encountered, including overprotective attitudes and underestimation of their abilities, which are considered detrimental forms of practical support in the workplace.

Table 2

Forms of practical support with negative outcomes

Forms of practical support with negative outcomes	Frequency
•Overprotection in practical issues at the beginning of the cooperation.	8
•Underestimation –contestation of abilities.	8
•Overestimation of abilities.	8
•Lack of flexibility in matters of leave, absence, or delay.	5
•No caring for the workplace’s accessibility.	4
•Unwillingness to provide suitable support equipment.	3
•Interference in my work subject.	3
•No knowledge of when I need help.	3
•No provision of advice and guidance in work-related matters.	2
•Unwillingness to adjust the work schedule to facilitate.	2
•No effort for more effortless adjustment in the workplace.	2
•Rejection of a job due to inaccessibility of the space.	1
•Not being equally treated as my colleagues by management.	1

In addition to practical support, the participants highlighted numerous instances of emotional support. The most frequently mentioned case of emotional support with positive outcomes (Table 3) was “Equal treatment - behavior in the workplace.” This case encompasses behaviors exhibited by colleagues, employers, or supervisors that are objective and fair towards all employees, regardless of their disabilities. One participant expressed, “There is no discrimination, racism, or excessive protectiveness. They treat everyone objectively... I am always treated as an equal member of the team.” Another notable case of emotional support mentioned by the participants was “Good cooperation - positive work environment.” This case emphasizes the importance of effective collaboration, open communication, and mutual understanding among colleagues, which fosters a favorable and pleasant working environment. A participant shared, “The overall work atmosphere is positive, and we have excellent teamwork. My colleagues are supportive, and my supervisor is understanding and cooperative. I have no complaints or issues to raise.” These examples illustrate the significance of emotional support in the workplace, particularly through equal treatment and positive cooperation, as highlighted by the participants.

Table 3

Forms of emotional support with positive outcomes

Forms of emotional support with positive outcomes	Frequency
•Equal treatment - behavior in the workplace.	25
•Good cooperation - positive work environment.	20
•Provision of help and support.	17
•Recognition of my abilities –confidence.	15
•Objective evaluation of my efficiency.	15
•No rejection, negativity, or discrimination because of disability.	14
•Having friendly relations with people at work.	13
•Provision of help in case of problems.	12
•Showing interest in me.	11
•Getting compliments for my achievements.	10
•Having the courage to ask for help with any problem.	9
•Well-intentioned and polite treatment.	8
•Common activities and outings outside the workplace.	8
•Willingness for further contact.	8
•Having harmonious relationships.	8
•Giving great importance, in my opinion.	7
•Showing respect to me.	7
•Recognition of my contribution.	6
•Understanding of the difficult position in which I am sometimes.	5
•Discussion of work problems - finding solutions.	5
•Feeling accepted.	4
•Exchanging opinions on various issues.	4
•Sharing my problems with colleagues and listening to their problems.	3
•Having mutual respect.	3
•Making me feel part of the group.	3
•Pointing out mistakes in a polite way.	2
•Showing admiration for my effort.	2
•Giving each other emotional support.	2
•Provision of motivation and encouragement for new things.	2
•Assignment of tasks and responsibilities.	1
•Feeling of caring, understanding, and confidence whenever I have problems.	1
•Caring for my good psychology.	1

Among the cases of emotional support with negative outcomes (Table 4), participants frequently mentioned the case of “Being distrustful and skeptical” as the leading instance. This case encompasses instances where colleagues or employers exhibit doubt, suspicion, or reluctance towards the capabilities of individuals with disabilities. Participants expressed experiences of others not understanding their work abilities, leading to an atmosphere of distrust and negativity. One participant shared, “There was a general lack of understanding about how I work and what I am capable of, resulting in a distrustful and negative attitude towards me.” Another significant case of emotional support with adverse outcomes was “Unequal treatment - behavior.” This case includes any discrimination, prejudice, and hostile behavior experienced by these individuals, mainly based on their disability. One participant mentioned, “I believe they perceive us as somewhat intrusive, and their behavior changes when you use a wheelchair compared to when you don’t. In essence, it’s about how visible or invisible the disability is.” These examples shed light on the adverse experiences of individuals with disabilities, where they encounter skepticism, mistrust, and unequal treatment from their colleagues and employers.

Table 4

Forms of emotional support with negative outcomes

Forms of emotional support with negative outcomes	Frequency
•Being distrustful and skeptical.	15
•Unequal treatment –behavior.	9
•Disagreeing with colleagues or the supervisor.	8
•Feeling embarrassed by the behavior of colleagues.	8
•Being overly willing to help me, even when I can do something independently.	8
•Hostile behavior.	7
•Not being interested in my needs.	7
•No recognition of my contribution.	6
•Provision too full of praise, being too polite.	6
•Having formal and impersonal relationships.	4
•Reprimand without limits.	4
•No knowledge of my abilities.	4
•Exclusion from some tasks.	4
•Looking at me strangely and putting me in an awkward position.	4
•Being distant - unwilling to socialize and meet me.	3
•Underestimating me and insulting me.	3
•Thoughts that I am taking advantage of the conditions to work less.	2
•Beliefs that I had acquired everything because of my disability.	2
•Non-integration in activities and outings outside the workplace.	1
•Feeling rejection.	1
•Abusive attack regarding my disability.	1

4 Discussion

This study aimed to explore the types of social support, both practical and emotional, received by individuals with physical disabilities in their workplace from colleagues, employers, or supervisors. Through in-depth interviews, participants shared and evaluated their positive and negative workplace experiences. The results of the interviews, along with the frequency of occurrence of various forms of workplace support, answer the research questions and offer essential insights into the labor relationships of individuals with physical disabilities.

The statements of practical support with positive outcomes reported by the participants are more numerous than those of negative outcomes. Likewise, the statements of emotional support with positive outcomes reported by the participants are also more numerous than those of negative outcomes. Therefore, the participants of this research have experienced more incidents of support with positive outcomes, both practical and emotional, than of support with negative outcomes. Even if practical and emotional support are examined separately, it is revealed that cases of practical support with positive outcomes were more than cases of practical support with negative outcomes. Similarly, the participants mentioned more cases of emotional support with positive than negative outcomes. This conclusion is considered extremely important, as international studies have found that workplace social support with positive outcomes directly affects employees’ psychological well-being and organizational productivity (Park et al., 2004). Positive workplace support can also reduce work stress (Fernandes et al., 2008; Jang et al., 2018) and improve job satisfaction and the ability of employees (Harris et al., 2007).

In addition, the reported cases of emotional support, both with positive and negative outcomes, were far more numerous than the corresponding cases of practical support, making it clear that the category of emotional support overcomes the category of practical support. Possibly, the participants considered emotional support more critical than practical support, which is why they reported more forms of this support type (both positive and negative) during their interviews. The research of Kef and Dekovic (2004), which concerned people with or without visual impairment, and the research of Camara et al. (2014), which concerned the general population, identified emotional support as the most important type of social support for research participants and confirmed the abovementioned. Furthermore, the confirmation of studies that emotional support can be a buffer against stressful life situations and improve people’s psychological well-being (Kef & Dekovic, 2004) may justify the greater importance given to this type of support. However, a strict comparison between the surveys could not be made, as the abovementioned surveys included quantitative rather than qualitative data (used in the present study).

The majority of the participants’ reports on practical support with positive outcomes focused on three key aspects: a) workplace accessibility, b) flexibility in matters of leave, absence, or delay, and c) the provision of assistance only when needed. Workplace accessibility is undoubtedly a critical issue for people with physical disabilities (Kim & Williams, 2012). According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) law, employers are obliged to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities. As reasonable accommodation is defined as any workplace adjustment that enables employees with a disability to complete the necessary work functions (ADA, 2009). Consequently, an accessible entrance and a toilet, a parking position, a large elevator, and a suitable floor material are some of the facilities a workplace should have (Hashim et al., 2011). The mention of workplace accessibility in the present study as the most common form of practical support aligns with the importance placed on this aspect by individuals with physical disabilities (Kim & Williams, 2012).

Moreover, previous studies have revealed that work flexibility is a beneficial form of support (Sevak & Khan, 2017). It has been associated with lower levels of stress and burnout symptoms (Grzywacz et al., 2008) and has been shown to improve employees’ overall well-being (Ray & Pana-Cryan, 2021). These findings justify the inclusion of work flexibility as a significant form of practical support. Additionally, the participants frequently mentioned the importance of being aware of when they need assistance. This form of support is considered important because individuals with physical disabilities often receive more help than they actually need or want (Braithwaite & Eckstein, 2003). By understanding their own needs and being able to request help when necessary, individuals with physical disabilities can maintain their independence and autonomy.

On the other hand, as negative cases of practical support, the participants mainly mentioned: a) overprotection from colleagues, employers, or supervisors in various practical issues, b) underestimation and contestation of their abilities, and c) overestimation of their abilities. It has been established that individuals with physical disabilities often face excessive overprotection in their daily lives compared to individuals without disabilities (Ozhek, 2008). This overprotection is particularly evident in the workplace, where individuals with disabilities are sometimes treated with excessive protectiveness or even as children, leading to a continuous underestimation of their abilities (Pérez-Garín et al., 2018). It is likely that these factors contribute to the participants reporting these forms as the most common negative cases of practical support. Previous studies have also indicated that individuals with disabilities experience more underestimation rather than overestimation of their work capacity (Knijn & van Wel, 2014). Since people with disabilities do not often experience overestimation in their workplace, participants may have been encouraged to refer to this form as one of the most negative.

Regarding the forms of emotional support with positive outcomes, the participants’ statements were primarily related to a) equal treatment and behavior in the workplace, and b) good cooperation and a positive working environment among colleagues, employers, or supervisors. The prevalence of references to equal treatment can be justified by the fact that people with physical disabilities often encounter unequal treatment and discrimination (Dovidio et al., 2011; Graham et al., 2018). Additionally, the positive outcomes associated with equal treatment may have contributed to its prominence. Previous research on workplace diversity has shown that employees who perceive equal treatment and access to opportunities experience psychological empowerment and are more likely to generate innovative solutions (Chrobot-Mason & Aramovich, 2013). Conversely, when individuals experience unfair or unequal treatment in the workplace, they may feel marginalized and inadequate (Chrobot-Mason & Aramovich, 2013; Kim & Williams, 2012). Furthermore, a positive working environment is a crucial factor that can influence emotional well-being (Chan & Huak, 2004) and job satisfaction among employees (Raziq & Maulabakhsh, 2015), which may explain why it was mentioned as the second most commonly shared form of emotional support.

Finally, the most frequently reported instances of negative emotional support were primarily associated with two factors: a) the disbelief experienced by individuals, particularly during initial interactions, and b) unequal treatment and differential behavior. Previous research has indicated that people with physical disabilities often face being stared at and subjected to discrimination in the workplace (Pérez-Garín et al., 2018). Furthermore, they may encounter skepticism and doubt from colleagues, particularly regarding their abilities to perform their job tasks (Rana et al., 2022). Additionally, individuals with disabilities may experience unequal treatment and discrimination during their employment (Wilson-Kovacs et al., 2008), as some individuals display spontaneous negative attitudes, avoid socializing with them, and feel discomfort when directly interacting with them (Dovidio et al., 2011; Graham et al., 2018). The combination of these negative experiences, along with the emotional impact of anxiety and depression, as highlighted by Pérez-Garín et al. (2018), likely influenced the participants’ reports of these forms of negative emotional support as the most frequent.

4.1 Limitations

One limitation of the study is the sole reliance on open interviews as the primary data collection method. While open interviews offer valuable qualitative data and allow participants to express their experiences freely, it is essential to acknowledge the potential limitations of this approach. The data based exclusively on participants’ subjective reports may be at risk of bias, potentially affecting the accuracy and consistency of the reported social support cases. Another limitation is the relatively small sample size of the participants, which could limit the representation of various perspectives and hinder a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon under study.

Additionally, using the snowball sampling method to recruit participants may introduce selection bias. This sampling method might limit the diversity of perspectives represented in the study. It is important to note that non-random sampling was chosen for its practical advantages, such as efficiency and cost-effectiveness, as it does not require a comprehensive survey frame (Sharma, 2017). However, the reliance on this sampling method warrants caution when generalizing the findings to a larger population.

5 Conclusions

5.1 Future directions

The findings of this research serve as a starting point for future studies in this field. Future research could be expanded to a more extensive and diverse sample, ensuring an even distribution of participants based on gender, age, and type of disability to enhance the generalizability of the results. Additionally, based on the findings gained from the in-depth interviews, future studies could develop a questionnaire with multiple-choice questions to measure the workplace satisfaction of people with physical disabilities. Furthermore, exploring the social support that employees with physical disabilities provide in the workplace could be an interesting area for future investigation.

5.2 Implications for practice

The findings of this study, along with the presented tables of support forms, provide valuable insights into the needs and preferences of individuals with physical disabilities regarding workplace social support. The research results highlight significant problems that people with physical disabilities face in their workplaces, pointing out the negative forms of workplace social support and the positive preferred forms. According to Emerson et al. (2021), people with disabilities are more likely to be exposed to discrimination. Thus, the research results can be helpful for vocational rehabilitation specialists and employers to create a better work environment without discrimination by replacing the negative forms of practical and emotional support with positive forms. The specific design of information programs and seminars in the workplace, which will focus on the benefits of positive forms of support and the effects of negative forms, could contribute to that objective.

Moreover, these findings could benefit not only people with physical disabilities but also individuals with other types of disabilities. They can serve as a guide for setting appropriate boundaries and expectations when entering into partnerships with colleagues and employers or supervisors. By being informed about the potential behaviors they may encounter in the workplace, individuals with disabilities can better prepare themselves for the labor market. Ultimately, the goal is to facilitate the smooth professional integration of individuals with physical disabilities and other disabilities.

Practical implications also extend to the design of information programs and seminars in the workplace. These programs can focus on the benefits of positive forms of support and educate employees about the detrimental effects of negative forms. By increasing awareness and understanding among all employees, workplaces can foster a more inclusive and supportive environment. Overall, the findings of this study have practical implications for improving workplace experiences for individuals with physical disabilities and promoting their successful integration into the workforce.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors declare no acknowledgments.

Funding

The authors declare no funding.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethics statement

The study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

References

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, As Amended (2008). Retrieved from https://www.ada.gov/law-and-regs/ada/.

Berkman,

L. F.

, Krishna,

(2014). Social network epidemiology. In L. F. Berkman, I. Kawachi, & M.M. Glymour (Eds.), Social epidemiology (pp. 234–289). Oxford University Press.

Bowling,

N. A.

, Beehr,

T. A.

, Swader,

W. M.

(2005). Giving and receiving social support at work: The roles of personality and reciprocity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67(3), 476–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.08.004.

Braithwaite,

D.O.

, Eckstein,

N. J.

(2003). How People with Disabilities Communicatively Manage Assistance: Helping as Instrumental Social Support. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 31(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880305374.

Brough,

, Pears,

(2004). Evaluating the influence of the type of social support on job satisfaction and work related psychological well-being. International Journal of Organizational Behavior, 8(2), 472–485.

Camara,

, Bacigalupe,

, Padilla,

(2014). The role of social support in adolescents: Are you helping me or stressing me out? International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 22(2), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2013.875480.

Chan,

A.O.M.

, Chan,

Y.H.

(2004). Influence of work environment on emotional health in a health care setting. Occupational Medicine, 54(3), 207–212. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqh062.

Chang,

S.H.

, Schaller,

(2000). Perspectives of Adolescents with Visual Impairments on Social Support from Their Parents. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 94(2), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X0009400202.

Chrobot-Mason

, Aramovich,

N.P.

(2013). The psychological benefits of creating an affirming climate for workplace diversity. Group&Organization Management, 38(6), 659–689. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601113509835.

10.

Dovidio

J.F.

, Pagotto

, Hebl

M.R.

(2011). Disability and Aging Discrimination: Perspectives in Law and Psychology. In R. L. Wiener & S. L. Willborn (Eds.), Implicit Attitudes and Discrimination Against People with Physical Disabilities (pp. 157–183). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6293-5_9.

11.

Emerson,

, Milner,

, Aitken,

, Krnjacki,L , Vaughan,

, Llewellyn,

, Kavanagh,

(2021). Overt acts of perceived discrimination reported by Britishworking-age adults with and without disability. Journal of Public Health, 43(1), E16–E23. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdz093.

12.

Fernandes

C.F.V.

, Kumar

, Mekoth

(2008). Social Transaction at Workplace: Impact of Social Support on Role Stress. ICFAI Journal of Organizational Behavior, 7(1), 41–48. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=28378667&login.asp&site=ehost-live .

13.

Franche

R.L.

, Cullen

, Clarke

, Irvin

, Sinclair

, Frank

, The Institute for Work & Health (2005). Workplace-Based Return-to-Work Interventions: A Systematic Review of the Quantitative Literature. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15(4), 607–631. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-005-8038-8.

14.

Graham

C.W.

, Inge

K.J.

, Wehman

, Seward

H.E.

, Bogenschutz

M.D.

(2018). Barriers and facilitators to employment as reported by people with physical disabilities:Anacross disability type analysis. In Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation (Vol. 48, pp. 207–218). IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-180929.

15.

Grzywacz

J.G.

, Carlson

D.S.

, Shulkin

(2008). Schedule flexibility and stress: Linking formal flexible arrangements and perceived flexibility to employee health. Community, Work and Family, 11(2), 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668800802024652 .

16.

Harris

J.I.

, Winskowski

A.M.

, Engdahl

B.E.

(2007). Types of Workplace Social Support in the Prediction of Job Satisfaction. The Career Development Quarterly, 56(2), 150–156. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2007.tb00027.x.

17.

Hashim

, Wok

, Rahim

A.A.

(2011). The accessibility of workplace built environment to the disabled employees in Malaysia. International Conference on Universal Design for Built Environment: 22–23 November 2011. Retrieved from http://irep.iium.edu.my/14176/ .

18.

Holland

, Collins

A.M.

(2020). Supporting and retaining employees with rheumatoid arthritis: The importance of workplace social support. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2020.1737175.

19.

Issari

, Pourkos

(2015) Πoιoτικη´μɛθoδoλoγι´αɛ´ρɛυνας [Qualitative research methodology]. Undergraduate textbook. Kallipos, Open Academic Editions. http://hdl.handle.net/11419/5826.

20.

Jang

, Shen

, Allen

T.D.

, Zhang

(2018) Societal individualism-collectivism and uncertainty avoidance as cultural moderators of relationships between job resources and strain. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(4), 507–524. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2253.

21.

Kef

, Deković

(2004). The role of parental and peer support in adolescents well-being: A comparison of adolescents with and without a visual impairment. Journal of Adolescence, 27(4), 453–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2003.12.005.

22.

Kim

M.M.

, Williams

B.C.

(2012) Lived employment experiences of college students and graduates with physical disabilities in the United States. Disability and Society, 27(6), 837–852. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.673081.

23.

Knijn

, van Wel

(2014). Better at work: Activation of partially disabled workers in the Netherlands. Alter, 8(4), 282–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alter.2014.09.005 .

24.

Kossek

E.E.

, Pichler

, Bodner

, Hammer

L.B.

(2011) Workplace social support and work-family conflict: A metaanalysis clarifying the influence of general and work-familyspecific supervisor and organizational support. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 289–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01211.x.

25.

Lysaght

, Fabrigar

, Larmour-Trode

, Stewart

, Friesen

(2012) Measuring Workplace Social Support for Workers with Disability. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 22(3), 376–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-012-9357-1 .

26.

Lysaght

, Larmour -Trode

(2008) An exploration of social support as a factor in the return-to-work process. Work, 30(3), 255–266.

27.

McColl

M.A.

(2017). Rehabilitation and social support for disability. Critical Reviews in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine. Begell House Inc. https://doi.org/10.1615/CritRevPhysRehabilMed.v29.i1-4.130.

28.

Mutkins

, Brown,

R.F.

, Thorsteinsson

E.B.

(2011). Stress, depression,workplace and social supports and burnout in intellectual disability support staff: Stress, support and burnout in disability support staff. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 55(5), 500–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01406.x.

29.

Nguyen

D.T.N.

, Teo

S.T.T.

, Grover

S.L.

, Nguyen

N.P.

(2019) Respect, bullying, and public sector work outcomes in Vietnam. Public Management Review, 21(6), 863–889. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1538426.

30.

Ozhek

R.S.

(2008) Overprotection and adolescents with physical disabilities. Journal of special education and rehabilitation, 9(1–2), 100–106. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.28634.

31.

Papakonstantinou

, Papadopoulos

(2010) Forms of Social Support in the Workplace for Individuals with Visual Impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 104(3), 183–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1010400306.

32.

Park

K.O.

, Wilson

M.G.

, Lee

M.S.

(2004).Effects of Social Support at Work on Depression and Organizational Productivity. American Journal of Health Behavior, 28(5), 444–455. https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.28.5.7.

33.

Pérez-Garín

, Recio

, Magallares

, Molero

, García-Ael

(2018).Perceived Discrimination and Emotional Reactions in People with Different Types of Disabilities: A Qualitative Approach. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 21, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2018.13 .

34.

Rana

, Murray

, Sapkota

K.P.

, Gurung

(2022).Lived employment experiences of persons with physical disabilities in Nepal: A phenomenological study. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 24(1), 136. https://doi.org/10.16993/sjdr.860.

35.

Ray

T.K.

, Pana-Cryan

(2021). Work flexibility and work-related well-being. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(6), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063254.

36.

Raziq

, Maulabakhsh

(2015).Impact of Working Environment on Job Satisfaction. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 717–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(15)00524-9 .

37.

Saks

A.M.

(2019).Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement revisited. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness, 6(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-06-2018-0034.

38.

Sanclemente

F.J.

, Gamero

, Medina,

F.J.

, Mendoza-Denton

(2022). A multilevel model of job inclusion of employees with disabilities: The role of organizational socialization tactics, coworkers social support, and an inclusive team context. Applied Psychology, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12390.

39.

Sharma

(2017) Pros and cons of different sampling techniques. International Journal of Applied Research, 3(7), 749–752. Retrieved from www.allresearchjournal.com.

40.

Sevak

, Khan

(2017).Psychiatric versus physical disabilities: A comparison of barriers and facilitators to employment. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 40(2), 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/prj0000236.

41.

Uchino

B.N.

, Bowen

, de Grey

R.K.

, Mikel

, Fisher

E.B.

(2018). Social support and physical health: Models, mechanisms, and opportunities. In Principles and Concepts of Behavioral Medicine: A Global Handbook (pp. 341–372). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-93826-4_12.

42.

Virtanen

I.A.

, Isotalus

(2011).The essence of social support in interpersonal communication. Empedocles: European Journal for the Philosophy of Communication, 3(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1386/ejpc.3.1.25_1.

43.

Wilson-Kovacs

, Ryan

M.K.

, Haslam

S.A.

, Rabinovich

(2008).”Just because you can get a wheelchair in the building doesn’t necessarily mean that you can still participate‭ Barriers to the career advancement of disabled professionals. Disability and Society, 23(7), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590802469198.

44.

Yeager

, Kaye

H.S.

, Reed

, Doe

T.M.

(2006). Assistive technology and employment: Experiences of Californians with disabilities. Work, 27(4), 333–344.

45.

Zafeiropoulos

(2015). Πωγι´νɛταιμι´αɛπιστημoνικη´ɛργασι´α [How to do a scientific paper]. Criticism.