Employer and rehabilitation personnel perspectives on hiring persons with disabilities: implications for job development.

A recent trend evident in supported employment and job development and placement is shifting the focus of services to employers. This shift is seen as encompassing several advantages. One is improving workplace integration for employees with disabilities. For example, natural workplace support approaches to supported employment are based on an assumption that de-emphasizing the job coach's presence in the work environment de-emphasizes the disability of the worker (Nisbet & Hagner, 1988). A second advantage is that such approaches mobilize existing support networks in order to sustain long-term employment. In other words, the economic and practical difficulties of achieving ongoing support for workers with severe disabilities are shared, in part, by having supervisors and co-workers provide it (Rhodes, Sandow, Mank, Buckley, & Albin, 1991). Yet a third advantage is that it encourages employers to respond to the needs of employees with disabilities in a similar manner that they respond to the needs of other diverse groups in the workplace. Thus, this approach promotes the view that workers with disabilities should not be seen as necessarily unique in requiring workplace accommodations (Fabian & Luecking, 1991).

Although shifting or sharing the responsibility for workplace training and support with employers is seen as advantageous, Sandow (1993) and others have pointed out that there are difficulties in developing the collaboration necessary to achieve it. These difficulties arise in part from different assumptions and values that drive rehabilitation agencies as compared to those that drive businesses (Patterson & Marks, 1992). The contrast between the two sets of assumptions was perhaps best described by Drucker (1985) who noted that human service agencies tend to focus on internal processes such as budgets, staff sizes, and numbers of individuals served, while businesses tend to focus on external feedback such as profits earned and performance outcomes. Albin (1992) suggested that the assumptions that drive rehabilitation agencies may actually function as barriers to developing effective collaborative or customer relationships, since agencies are not geared toward taking into account customer needs and expectations. She pointed out that many agencies lack the type of "customer culture" that continuously monitors and modifies service performance in accord with customer feedback.

For example, job development and placement efforts frequently involve rehabilitation agencies engaging in informal service agreements with employers. That is, agencies agree to assess employer needs, identify capable applicants, provide initial training, and conduct follow-up among other tasks. Employers have an expectation of service outcomes and evaluate them based not only on the performance of the individual employee, but on such factors as agency responsiveness, attitudes, and willingness to problem solve. These are the tangible indicators of service performance (Zemke & Schaaf, 1989). However, rehabilitation agencies have few standards for measuring performance effectiveness except in terms of the job performance of the individual worker, and overall the numbers of agency placements achieved.

The result of ignoring customer evaluations of service performance is that effective relationships with employers are difficult to develop or sustain, since feedback from employer-customers is generally lacking (Fabian, Luecking, & Tilson, 1994). In turn, poor or inadequate employer relationships negatively influence the ability of agencies to conduct effective job development and placement activities. Without external customer feedback, agencies tend to attribute job failures to inadequate internal processes or resources. Thus, Sandow (1993) noted the example of a program experiencing difficulties in job placement. The program's response was to redouble their job development activities, as if it were these activities that produce jobs, "when in fact, only community businesses can create jobs" (p. 63). It is this narrow internal focus on processes that affects the capabilities of rehabilitation agencies to promote employment opportunities for persons with disabilities. Concomitantly, it negates opportunities for developing relationships that result in building employers' capabilities to sustain, accommodate, and support employees with disabilities.

Although more recent job development literature describes how the assumptions that drive rehabilitation agencies might be barriers to employer collaboration (e.g., Albin, 1992; Sandow 1993), studies which describe these differences in terms of how they are articulated by employers and rehabilitation personnel are not available. Instead, most of the literature on what employers think comes from large surveys assessing employer attitudes toward persons with disabilities (e.g., Levy, Jessop, Rimmerman, & Levy, 1992), rather than attitudes toward services received through job development and placement efforts. Service quality is an appropriate issue for rehabilitation agencies to address in terms of satisfaction of consumers of these services (i.e., job seekers with disabilities, see Patterson & Marks, 1992), but it is also critical to assess employer perceptions of service quality in order to achieve a marketing orientation characteristic of private sector professional services (e.g., Crane, 1989). One way of assessing customer perceptions of service quality is through the use of focus group research methods (Graves, 1992).

In order to develop strategies for long-term relationships with employers, the authors devised an open-ended focus group study geared toward identifying the views of rehabilitation personnel and employers toward hiring persons with disabilities using the services of rehabilitation and other job development agencies. The first intent of the study was to identify perceptions of rehabilitation personnel and employers to the job placement process. Second, we hoped to use the data to identify strategies for working with employers that would result in long-term relationships focused on building employers' ability to train and support workers with disability.

Methods

This exploratory study used an open-ended focus group methodology (see, for example, Whyte, 1990). Focus group methodology is not only a recommended evaluation practice in rehabilitation research (Graves, 1992), but is also a method of participatory research recommended in business literature (e.g., Peters, 1987).

In separate sessions, representatives of rehabilitation personnel and employers in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area were invited to attend a two-hour focus group session at Marriott Corporate Headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland. Rehabilitation personnel were selected by inviting a representative from a randomly selected half of the 30 rehabilitation and job placement agencies in Montgomery County, Maryland that provide services to people with severe disabilities. Employers were selected by sending out 20 invitations to local area employers who have hired individuals with disabilities through various job development and placement agencies. This purposeful sampling method was used since the intent of the research was to gather qualitative and evaluative data, rather than to conduct methodological inquiry. Of the 20 employers invited to attend, 13 were able to commit to the necessary time involvement (approximately 2 hours). Eight of the members represented private industries that ranged from a small restaurant owner to a multi-national conglomerate. Four employers represented large government agencies in the D.C. area such as the National Institutes of Health. The rehabilitation personnel focus group consisted of 11 individuals directly involved in the job placement process. The 11 rehabilitation/job development personnel represented 10 different agencies in the county. Agencies represented included state vocational rehabilitation, supported employment, transition programs' and psychosocial rehabilitation. These 11 personnel represented job seekers with severe disabilities ranging from persons with severe developmental disabilities to those with sensory impairments. The mean number of years spent in job development and placement activities among this group was 5.3 years.

Responses from the focus groups were recorded using computer interactive software which allowed each member to respond individually at his or her workstation, while simultaneously viewing the anonymous responses of other group members. This computer technology is described in business journals as potentially enhancing corporate problem solving and improving worker productivity (Kirkpatrick, 1992). The interactive linking function encourages response generation since it allows for individual response time, guarantees anonymity, and encourages multiple responses from each group member.

The focus group procedure consists of asking group members to respond to a question and allowing approximately 20 minutes for response time. After group response periods were cut off, the network system displayed the entire group's responses for each participant to rate. Thus, results of the focus groups included not only all of the response items generated (approximately 100 per item), but mean ratings of each response by the entire group.

Each group responded to three questions:

1. What are the barriers to employment for people with disabilities?

2. What characterizes agency/business/professionals who are good to work with?

3. What would you (or your agency/company) need in order to achieve more successful job placements?

Response sets for each of the groups to each question consisted of a printout of all responses in rank order according to the rating assigned to the response by each group. Ratings were on a I to 5 scale, the higher the number, the more the individual agreed with the response. For example, a response to the question concerning barriers to employment was prejudice on the part of employers toward hiring people with disabilities. Each group member, then, rated that response. The printout of results included the average rating of the responses by all group members.

Results

In order to provide an opportunity to view verbatim responses of the groups to each of the questions, the 25 most highly rated responses to each question are presented in three tables. This approach was selected in order to enable readers to view the original narrative data. Twenty five was selected given space considerations, and the desire to include only the most highly rated responses (e.g., with a mean of 3.0 or better on a 5 point scale).

Responses within the top 25 which were repetitive are not included.

Table 1 identifies the top 25 responses from the two groups to the question of barriers to job placement. An examination of the responses to the question indicates that both the employer and rehabilitation groups cited negative attitudes and prejudice as the most significant barriers to job placement. However, many rehabilitation personnel responses were related to structural factors in the economy (lack of jobs, poor economy, etc.), whereas many of the employer responses were related to factors that could be redressed such as lack of training and information about people with disabilities.

Table 1 - Barriers to Job Placement as Perceived by Rehabilitation Personnel and Employers

Rehabilitation Personnel                     Mean
                                            Rating

1.      Negative employer attitudes          4.36
2.      The recession                        4.27
3.      Poor job market                      4.27
4.      People's misperceptions              4.27
5.      Employer's fears                     4.20
6.      Labor competition                    4.09
7.      Lack of understanding                4.00
8.      Lack of entry level positions        4.00
9.      General stigma                       4.00
10.     High demand for generic worker       4.00
        skills
11.     Doubts about disabled workers        3.91
12.     Oversized case loads                 3.91
13.     Failure of employers to see          3.91
        potential
14.     Fear of people who "look funny"      3.91
15.     Inflexible job market                3.90
16.     Transportation problems              3.82
17.     Stereotyping people with             3.82
        disabilities into certain jobs
18.     Poor preparation of students with    3.82
        disabilities
19.     Lack of marketable job skills        3.73

20.     Lack of business involvement         3.73
21.     Lack of comprehensive services       3.67
22.     Financial disincentives              3.64
23.     Lack of time for job placement       3.64

24.     Lack of employer willingness to      3.64
        accommodate
25.     Difficulty in accessing creative     3.64
        job opportunities

Employers                                           Mean
                                                   Rating

1.      Employer's fears                           4.33
2.      Employer's preJudices                      4.33
3.      Employer's ignorance of disabilities       4.33
4.      Downsizing of organizations                4.22
5.      No experience working with people          4.11
        with disabilities
6.      Entrenched misconceptions                  4.11
7.      Takes too much time and effort to train    4.11
8.      No corporate wide acceptance               4.11
9.      Lack of training to hiring managers        4.11
10.     Failure of top executives to set company   4.00
        standard
11.     In-accessibility of facilities             4.00
12.     Supervisors aren't trained                 3.89
13.     Employers have no exposure to people       3.89
        with disabilities
14.     Tough to compete with other applicants     3.89
15.     Attitudes of supervisors                   3.78
16.     Fewer job openings                         3.78
17.     Concerned about accommodations             3.78
18.     Understand climate of work                 3.78
        environment
19.     Better qualified applicants than people    3.67
        with disabilities
20.     Failure to restructure jobs                3.67
21.     Fear of costs involved                     3.67
22.     Poor follow-up services                    3.56
23.     Fear of unreasonable concessions to be     3.56
        made
24.     Lack of interviewing skills among          3.56
        applicants
25.     Company policies not flexible              3.44

The second question addressed the issue of what characterizes rehabilitation agencies/businesses that make for successful placements. Table 2 describes the responses. Most of the responses of rehabilitation personnel cited personal characteristics of employers such as flexibility, openness and willingness to take risks. In contrast, characteristics cited by employers were related to service indicators such as follow-up, responsiveness, and knowledge.

Table 2 - Characteristics of Successful Employers/Rehabilitation Agencies

Rehabilitation Personnel                          Mean
                                                 Rating

1.      Flexible employers                         4.73
2.      Creative employers                         4.73
        supervisors
3.      Willing to accommodate                     4.64
        requirements
4.      Company culture that encourages            4.64
        diversity
5.      Employers who communicate openly           4.55

6.      Employers who are frank about              4.55
        reservations
7.      Employers willing to take risks            4.55

8.      Employers who ask questions                4.45

9.      Employers who are receptive                4.45

10.     Employers who have experienced             4.45
        success with employees with disabilities

11.     Employers who maintain lines of            4.36
        communication
12.     Employers willing to make changes          4.36
13.     Employers willing to allow for training    4.36
        time
14.     Practice of non-discrimination in hiring   4.36

15.     Company accessible to transportation       4.27
16.     Open-minded employers                      4.27
17.     Progressive company                        4.27

18.     Availability of job training prior to      3.82
        placement
19.     Has purposeful desire to hire people with  4.18
        disabilities
20.     Willing to learn about people with         4.18
        disabilities
21.     Sensitive, caring employers                4.09
22.     Employers who set aside time for           4.09
        training and supervision
23.     Willing to make accommodations             4.09
        "beyond the law"
24.     Employers who are not afraid of people     4.09
        with disabilities
25.     Previous experience with disabilities      4.00

Employers                                Mean
                                        Rating

1.      Provide follow-up                4.67
2.      Understands job needs of         4.67
3.      Understands job                  4.56
4.      Concerned with making            4.56
        good job match
5.      Tested and know applicant's      4.56
        abilities
6.      Shows up quickly when            4.44
        concern are presented
7.      Knowledgeable about              4.44
        business needs
8.      Have ability to match skills     4.44
        with job needs
9.      Agencies that learn              4.44
        everything about jobs they
        place applicants in
10.     Can identify applicants for      4.38
        many positions
11.     Assist in initial job training   4.33
12.     Visits the facility              4.33
13.     Develops a relationship          4.33
14.     Looks at whole workplace         4.33
        environment
15.     Assists in problem-solving       4.33
16.     Specific about client skills     4.33
17.     Continue to follow progress      4.33
        after placement is made
18.     Understand climate of work       4.22
        environment
19.     Very positive attitudes even     4.22
        when there are problems
20.     Follows up on performance        4.22
        of individual placed
21.     Works closely with               4.22
        manager when placement is not
        a success
22.     Provides training to             4.22
        supervisors and co-workers
23.     Willing to establish a           4.22
        long-term relationship
24.     Is readily available in          4.22
        emergencies
25.     Able to identify job             4.11
        accommodations

The third question asked what factors would improve job placement of persons with disabilities. Responses from rehabilitation personnel indicate that most were concerned with increased internal resources such as money, time, staff, and so forth. A review of the top responses of employers indicate a more diverse picture that includes stronger internal supports for hiring, as well as increased access to training and applicants.

Discussion

The results of this very exploratory and qualitative study need to be examined with caution. However, its usefulness is that it serves as a model for the type of participatory action research that has recently been described in rehabilitation literature (e.g., Sandow, 1993; Walker, 1993). More importantly, it models the type of efforts that businesses conduct when identifying customer perception of services or products (see, for example, Peters, 1987). As a result of this inquiry, several issues emerged that are potentially significant ones for rehabilitation personnel to consider.

The first issue relates to our central thesis, which is that the two groups have different assumptions and perceptions about job development and placement which might interfere with the development of collaborative relationships. For example, regarding the issue of barriers to job placement, rehabilitation personnel tended to cite factors that are less amenable to remedy than did employers. Seven of the responses identified characteristics of the economy or the labor market that are not directly modifiable, such as few jobs, poor labor market, and so forth. However, only one of the employer responses (#16) identified lack of jobs as a barrier to employment. A similar response pattern is evident in Table 2, characteristics of successful placements. Here, eight of the 25 rehabilitation personnel responses identified personality characteristics of employers such as openness, flexibility, and willingness to take risk. In contrast, the majority of employer responses were related to rehabilitation service factors that could be changed or improved such as follow-up, knowledge of business needs, and so forth. It may be that the responses of agency personnel are indicative of an assumption that employers who work with rehabilitation agencies are doing so more out of charitable or altruistic motives than because of direct perception of the benefits of such collaboration. Callahan (1992) referred to this as the "one way street of benevolence" (p. 273).

Another issue that emerges from this focus group is the different types of responses to the question of what could improve the effectiveness of current job placement methods (Table 3). Here half of the rehabilitation personnel responses were related to increases in internal resources such as time, money, staff, and so forth. It is interesting to note that only two of the responses focused on improving job placement by modifying employer and public attitudes through education and training. However, seven employer responses cited these strategies for improving job placement outcomes.

Table 3 - Factors Needed to Achieve Successful Job Placement

Rehabilitation Personnel                              Mean
                                                      Rating

1. More jobs                                          4.45
2. More time to do job placement                      4.45
3. More time to network with employers                4.45
4. More flexible employers                            4.40
5. A better economy                                   4.36
6. More staff to reduce caseloads                     4.36
7. Well-trained job developers                        4.36
8. Availability of entry-level jobs                   4.27
9. Upturn in the local/national economy               4.20
10. Technology to access job information              4.18
11. Increased public education                        4.18
12. More aware job market                             4.18
13. More qualified job developers                     4.09
14. One person to specialize in job
development                                           4.09
15. Increased salaries for staff                      4.09
16. Coordination of job development efforts
between rehab agencies                                4.09
17. School system that trains applicants
better                                                4.09
18. Newsletters to disseminate success
stories                                               4.09
19. More job sharing                                  4.00
20. More flexibility from funding agencies            4.00
21. Less red tape and paperwork                       4.00
22. More money                                        4.00
23. Education regarding disabilities                  4.00
24. Real government support                           4.00
25. Centralized system of locating job leads          4.00

Employers                                            Mean
                                                     Rating

1. Top management support                            4.44
2. Strong corporate                                  4.22
commitment
3. Strong role models within                         4.22
organization
4. Training to understand                            4.11
people with disabilities
5. More qualified job                                4.00
applicants
6. Sensitivity training to all                       4.00
organizational levels
7. More direct training to                           4.00
corporate staff
8. Help in dealing with                              4.00
negative attitudes
9. Advisory committee of                             4.00
people with disabilities
10. Jobs that allow for job                          4.00
sharing
11. Referral agencies that                           3.89
source qualified applicants
12. More education on                                3.89
disability
13. Success stories                                  3.89
14. More long-term support                           3.89
from agencies
15. Training managers on how                         3.78
to modify jobs
16. Initial successes that are                       3.67
organizationally disseminated
17. Ability to identify                              3.78
recruitment sources
18. Better follow-up services                        3.78
by agencies
19. Incentives for hiring                            3.67
20. More coverage in media                           3.67
21. More government                                  3.56
incentives
22. Referral agencies who are                        356
easy to work with
23. Rehab people more                                356
knowledgeable about my
business
24. Better understanding of                          356
accommodations
25. More current employees                           3.44
with disabilities

Recommendations

These results suggest four recommendations to enhance the development of effective collaborative relationships necessary to increase employers' capabilities to train and support workers with disabilities.

he first recommendation is that agencies need to focus on service performance in terms of how it is perceived by employers. Typically, supported employment and other job development agencies tend to focus exclusively on performance factors of the specific applicant or worker with a disability. However, employers appear to emphasize agency service indicators such as responsiveness, follow-through, and knowledge. These are the tangible indicators of what is otherwise an intangible process of service delivery (Crane, 1989). It is interesting to note that employers do not emphasize the individual capabilities of the worker to perform a job as characterizing successful job placement process. This seems to suggest that if services are perceived as satisfactory, individual employee "failures" do not interfere with the development or implementation of successful relationships with employers.

The second recommendation is that rehabilitation agencies need to take a more proactive role in improving employment opportunities for persons with disabilities. Employers identified a need for increased training and technical assistance both as a way to overcome barriers to job placement, and as a means of facilitating placement success. Agencies that provide employer services such as disability awareness training, technical assistance in job analysis and job task training, would not only address a barrier to placement, but also promote employer capability to support workers with disabilities on the job.

The third recommendation is the need to assess customer satisfaction. As mentioned earlier, some agencies do assess employer satisfaction, but typically these assessments focus on specific feedback of an individual worker to adequately perform a job. Customer satisfaction requires obtaining employer feedback not on individual client performance factors, but on agency factors. Eliciting this type of feedback would suggest ways for service improvement, as well as provide indicators of agency service success.

Finally, our fourth and related recommendation is that other rehabilitation agencies conduct similar local focus groups in order to facilitate identification of local employer needs, encourage feedback from employer-customers on agency performance, and identify areas for program effectiveness research. Both the business literature (e.g., Peters, 1987), as well as rehabilitation literature (e.g., Walker, 1993; Sandow, 1993) agree about the importance of focus group research. In setting up this study, we found that employers we contacted were interested and willing to share their perceptions with us in a two-hour session. Incentives for participation might include offering technical assistance around reasonable accommodation, other ADA issues, conducting a training program in disability awareness, providing lunch and so forth.

Conclusion

Shifting the responsibility for providing training and support from rehabilitation professionals to employers is a viable way of enhancing workplace integration and employment opportunities for persons with disabilities. The difficulties in fostering the types of collaborative relationships that are necessary in order to promote this shift are hindered by the different sets of assumptions that rehabilitation personnel and employers bring to the job placement process. Recognizing how these differences might jeopardize the opportunities for workers with disabilities to integrate into the workforce is a first step in redesigning job placement efforts to focus on establishing collaborative relationships with employers. Current political and social conditions in terms of an emphasis on diversity, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and empowering employees represent opportunities for the development of relationships that gradually improve employer's capacity to work with individuals with disabilities at the worksite (Fabian, Luecking, & Tilson, 1994). Recent reports from management and human resource journals on training workers with disabilities and/or complying with requirements of the ADA (e.g., Martinez, 1990; Noel, 1990) suggest that employers are in a "ready posture" to respond to collaborative efforts. However, it is necessary to shift our focus externally in order to take advantage of these opportunities.

Acknowledgement

This study was supported in part by Grant # H128A02006 from the U.S. Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services Administration. Requests for reprints should be sent to: Ellen Fabian, Ph.D., TransCen, Inc., 451 N. Hungerford Drive, Rockville, MD 20850.

References

Albin, J. (1992). Quality improvement in employment and other human services: Managing for quality through change. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Callahan, M. (1992). Job site training and natural supports. In J. Nisbet (Ed.) Natural supports in school, at work and in the community for people with severe disabilities, pp. 241 -257. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Crane, F.G. (1989). A practical guide to professional services marketing. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 5 (1), 3-16.

Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York: Harper & Rowe.

Fabian, E. & Luecking, R. (1991). Doing it the company way: Using internal supports in the workplace. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 22(2), 32-36.

Fabian, E., Luecking, R., & Tilson, G., (1994). A working relationship: The job development specialist's guide to successful partnerships with business. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Graves, W.H. (1992). Participatory research: A partnership among individuals with disabilities, rehabilitation professionals, and rehabilitation researchers. Rehabilitation Education, 6, 221-224.

Kirkpatrick, D. (1992). Here comes the payoff from PCs. Employer and Rehabilitation Fortune, March 23, 93-100.

Levy, J.M., Jessop, D. J., Rimmerman, A., & Levy, P.H. (1992). Attitudes of Fortune 500 corporate executives toward the employability of persons with severe disabilities: A national study. Mental Retardation, 30, 67-75.

Martinez, M. (1990). Creative ways to employ people with disabilities. HR Magazine, November, 1990, pp. 40-46.

Nisbet. J.. & Hagner, D., (1988). Natural supports in the workplace: A reexamination of supported employment. Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps, 4, 260-267.

Noel, R.T. (1990). Employing the disabled: A how and why approach. Training and Development Journal, August, 1990, pp. 26-32.

Patterson, J. & Marks, C. (1992). The client as customer: Achieving service quality and customer satisfaction in rehabilitation. Journal of Rehabilitation, 59, 16-21.

Peters, T. (1987). Thriving on chaos: Handbook for a management revolution. New York: Harper Perennial.

Rhodes, L., Sandow, D., Mank, D., Buckley, J., & Albin, J. (1991). Expanding the role of employers in supported employment. Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps, 16, 213-217.

Sandow, D. (1993). Developing employers capacity to support employees with severe disabilities: From analysis to synthesis. Supported employment for people with severe mental retardation, NIDDR Consensus Validation Conference Resource Papers, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.

Walker, M.L., (1993). Participatory action research. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 37, 2-5.

Whyte, W.F. (Ed.) (1990). Participatory action research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Zemke, R., & Schaaf, D. (1989). The Service Edge. New York: New American Library.

Received: April 1993 Revision: February 1994 April 1994 Acceptance: February 1994