Reaction to disability through organization policy: early return to work policy.

Expenditures for disability benefits are increasing every year. Currently, disability costs exceed the amount that employers spent on general health care seven years ago. Current literature indicates that workers who become disabled will return to work sooner and more often to their previous job if they are encouraged to do so (Lundell, 1985; Tate, Habeck & Galvin, 1986). In response, a number of private sector employers have initiated a new personnel policy which provides such encouragement; it is called Early Return to Work policy. This policy is one in a continuum of policies and practices which address and promote steady employment and equal employment opportunity in the work place.

Early return to work policies encourage and enable injured/disabled employees to return to duty under medical supervision prior to being fully recuperated. During the recovery period, the injured/disabled employees are assigned to redesigned jobs which can be performed within their physical/medical restrictions. Adoption of this policy appears to conform to existing federal law. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires employers to take "affirmative action" in the hiring of the handicapped and states that those corporations and organizations receiving federal financial assistance must not discriminate against the handicapped in any of their policies and practices. The relevance of this Act to early return to work policies was largely a matter of application and interpretation. However, the recently passed Americans with Disabilities Act (July 1990) has a major provision that requires companies to make "reasonable accommodations" for disabled employees (Traver, 1990). This recent Act appears to have direct application to early return to work policies, though court rulings and federal guidelines may be required to specify the precise relationship. Hence, even though there have been national policies encouraging early return to work and current legislation addressing this issue, the early return to work concept is reported to be spreading slowly and achieving only partial acceptance. This was evidenced by a national study in 1986 which indicated that only 8% of all American corporations had in-house early return to work programs for the disabled (Schwartz, 1986).

The purpose of this research was to discover the patterns of acceptance and to provide explanations for the differential acceptance which the concept of an early return to work policy is encountering in the private sector. The investigation began with the identification of three perspectives from which corporate behavior can be examined: (1) corporate culture, (2) corporate structure and (3) beliefs held by key corporate actors. Each perspective was comprised of several variables, conceptually distinct and individually measured.

Corporate Culture

Corporate culture, a commonly used sensitizing concept, embodies a set of beliefs and values collectively held and socialized consciously or unconsciously by a corporation. Specific elements of corporate culture to be examined are: (a) the goals of the corporation, including to value the employee and corporate social responsibility, (b) the flexibility of the corporation, and (c) personnel principles.

Goals occupy a central position in corporate culture. Goals focus the attention and structure priorities of the corporation by defining which specific corporate behaviors are organizationally relevant. The technological processes or practices required to achieve specific goals impose restrictions on personnel activity and resource allocation and may affect the propensity to accept early return to work policy.

To value the employee: The employee may be viewed as a valuable human resource, or as an interchangeable instrument. If the employee as an individual is not valued as a human resource, there may be considerable resistance for the corporation to pursue an early return to work policy (Hester, Decelles & Planek, 1988). This corporate goal appears to be directly relevant to early return to work policy.

Corporate social responsibility: Corporate social responsibility refers to the type and extent of responsibility that corporations have to the society within which they operate. If a corporation subscribes to social responsibility as a corporate goal, it may welcome early return to work policies and programs (Harris, 1987; Weissman, 1966).

Increased market share and maximization of profit: If the primary goal of a corporation is an increased market share or the maximization of profits, everything else may be subordinated. Corporations endorsing these two goals as their highest priorities would tend to be more resistant to the introduction to any new programs that do not advance them (Szilagyi & Wallace, 1983), including early return to work policies.

The flexibility of a corporation: The flexibility of a corporation refers to the propensity of a corporation to make changes. if a corporation's culture is flexible, that is, able to entertain change, the corporation would tend to be more accepting of early return to work, should it find the concept itself attractive (Aiken & Hage, 1967).

Personnel principles: Personnel principles refer to the practices of retaining and retraining existing employees rather than the recruiting, hiring, and training of replacement personnel. if the principle of the retaining and retraining of current employees is endorsed by a corporation, that corporation would tend to be more accepting of the introduction of an early return to work program (Hill, Mehnert & Lederer, 1987).

Corporate Structure

Corporate structure involves the identification of organization components and the formal pattern of relationships among components. In this research, (a) organization size, (b) organization shape, (c) work force composition, (d) degree of centralization, and (e) degree of bureaucratization were considered.

Corporate size: Size refers to the scale of operations of a corporation. The scale of operations in a corporation may be indicated by the number of personnel, the amount of assets, and the expenditures. It is expected that larger corporations would be more accepting of early return to work policies since, due to their size, they would have more flexibility in job assignments (Moch & Morse, 1977; Rabby, 1983).

Corporate shape: Shape is a construct used as an analog to describe selected structural characteristics of a corporation. The terms flat and tall are frequently used to describe organizations. It would be expected that flatter corporations would be more accepting of early return to work policies and more capable of implementing them since key decisions would be required to traverse fewer levels of decision makers (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1986; Luthans, 1985).

Work force composition: The variable work force composition involves the proportional distribution of blue collar and white collar positions within a given corporation. It would be expected that the corporations with larger percentages of blue collar workers would be less accepting of early return to work policies due to the variety of jobs and work station situations that potentially would require modification. Most white collar workers can be accommodated relatively easy, because their jobs and work place environments are less physically oriented (Hester et al., 1986; Sussman & Hagan, 1979).

Centralization: Centralization refers to the degree of concentration and dispersion of the organizational authority to make decisions. Corporation centralization could enhance acceptance and implementation of early return to work policies if the concept is endorsed on other bases (Hage, 1980).

Degree of bureaucratization: Bureaucratization refers to the presence of four of the characteristics included by Weber in his definition of a bureaucracy: (a) division of labor, (b) positional hierarchy, (c) formality, and (d) written rules. Highly bureaucratic corporations would tend to be slow in adopting new policies, including early return to work policies or their implementation (Merton, 1962).

Corporate Executive Beliefs

A number of beliefs held about the consequences of early return to work policies for corporations have been reported in the literature. Although some writers consider the beliefs to be myths, it is clear that if key corporate actors accept as fact these beliefs, which are mostly negative, to early return to work policies, their corporations will be less likely to accept such policies. In contrast to corporate culture and corporate structure, which can be seen as sets of contextual influences, adherence to these beliefs by key actors may be a direct influence on the acceptance of early return to work policies.

The International Association of Industrial Accident Board and Commission report that the corporate experiences with injured employees have created three major concerns about retaining and retraining occupationally disabled employees: (1) increased workers' compensation premiums; (2) increased supervisory time for instruction and job supervision, and (3) lower productivity of disabled persons (I.A.I.A.B.C., 1984, p. 41). In the same vein, Galvin (1984) states:

Some managers and supervisors in business fear that ablebodied but malingering employees may simply seek disability benefits, time off of work, and more lenient work standards when they do return to the job. Revising work techniques to accommodate an employee with a disability may be strongly resisted or even deemed unacceptable out of hand. (p. 176)

He adds that some employers fear that job modification for the disabled may also be demanded by other employees causing additional company expense. Similarly, Nathanson (1977) addresses four common "myths" (his term) that some employers believe to be fact. They are the insurance myth, the dependability myth, the productivity myth, and the accommodation myth. Some believe that hiring or retaining the disabled will cause insurance and worker's compensation costs to increase along with an increase in accidents for which the employer will be liable. It is believed that the disabled workers will have higher absenteeism and tardiness rates. There is concern that their productivity will be lower in quality and quantity, that the physical work place will have to be modified at a great expense to accommodate the disabled and that they will have to be treated differently.

Accordingly, in this research, corporate administrators were to respond to the following checklist:

The implementation of an early return to work policy is thought to have consequences for corporations. Please check all the statements you believe to be true for your corporation.

- Permitting blue collar employees to return to duty with medical/physical restrictions at your corporation would result in generally lower productivity for your corporation.

- Permitting white collar employees to return to duty with medical/physical restrictions at your corporation would result in generally lower productivity for your corporation.

- Making job accommodations for employees with medical/physical restrictions is costly.

- Retaining employees who have medical/physical restrictions is not an appropriate use of the corporations resources.

- The technology in my corporation makes it difficult to retain employees who become disabled.

- Returning employees to duty with medical/physical restrictions will cause an increase in the corporation's insurance premiums.

- A returned employee who was seriously injured on the job will be a safer employee in the future.

- Bringing a worker who was injured on the job back to work will improve safety consciousness among other workers.

- For a corporation to offer rehabilitation services to a work-injured employee is to admit liability.

- Retaining employees who have medical/physical restrictions will cause an increase in workmen's compensation premiums.

- Employees who have returned to work with medical/physical restrictions will have a higher absenteeism rate than other employees.

- It is difficult for management to reassign returning employees from one job classification to another in your corporation to accommodate disability management.

- It costs less to accommodate returning employees who have medical/physical restrictions than to train a new hire.

Methods

A computer information retrieval service. DIALOG, was utilized to access D & B - Dun's Market Identifiers, an on-fine database maintained by Dun and Bradstreet (1988) which lists corporate data. The data retrieved consisted of corporate name, phone number, address, city, zip code, county, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC code), total employment, employee growth, and total sales. From these data, a population of all 508 Michigan corporations, with 250 or more employees, engaged in some form of manufacturing was identified.(1)

A self-administered survey was selected as the means for collecting the data. Questionnaires were mailed to the corporate official responsible for the personnel division of each selected corporation, if he/she was able to be identified. When this was not possible, the questionnaire was mailed to the president of the corporation. A series of follow-up letters was used to secure responses.(2)

Two items were used to measure the dependent variable, acceptance of an early return to work policy. First, the respondents were asked to indicate their corporation's position regarding early return to work on a six point continuum ranging from 1, "Has considered early return to work and has rejected it" to 6, "Has an early return to work policy and it is fully implemented." (See Table 1 for the full continuum.) Second, respondents were asked to indicate, by means of a check list, their corporations' personnel policies. Response to early return to work policy on the check list was used primarily as a validity check on the major measure of the dependent variable. It also provided information about the prevalence of several personnel policies and benefits. (See Table 2 for the personnel policies included.)

The independent variables in corporate culture were measured via respondent self reports. Each respondent rated a set of corporate goals on a continuum of importance from very important" to "not important." Thus, value of employee, corporate social responsibility, increased market share, and maximization of profits were reported on the same continuum. Corporate flexibility was measured by a modified version of the Siegel Scale of Support for Innovation (Siegel & Kaemmerer, 1978). The employees was measured by a scale composed of three Likert items. Personnel principle about the retaining and retraining of current employees were measured by a three item Likert Scale.

The independent variables in corporate structure were measured in several ways. Corporation size was obtained from the Standard Industrial Classification code, Dun's Market Identifiers (Dun & Bradstreet, 1988). After Pugh, Hickson and Hinings (1968), respondents were asked to indicate the number of levels of authority in die corporation to determine corporation shape. Work force composition was measured by self-reported perceptions of blue and white collar employees in the corporations. Centralization was measured by a sub-scale of the Siegel Scale of Support for Innovation (Siegel & Kaemmerer, 1978). Four sub-scales (Hierarchy of Authority, System of Rules, System of Procedures and Promotion and Selection for Employment) of Hall's Bureaucracy Scale (Hall, 1961, 1963, 1972) were combined to measure degree of bureaucratization.(3)

To measure beliefs, each respondent, in almost all cases the corporate official responsible for the personnel division (88% as far as can be determined), was asked if he(she agreed that each of the thirteen belief items about the consequences of implementing an early return to work policy was true for his/her corporation.

The data analysis for corporate culture and corporate structure was initiated with bivariate tests of association between the independent and dependent variables (Pearson Product-Moment Correlation and eta). Independent variables significantly associated with acceptance of early return to work policy were used in the multiple regression analyses. One multiple regression was performed for the corporate culture variables and a second for the corporate structure variables.

Responses to the thirteen belief items were subjected to a principal component factor analysis with verimax rotation. The resulting factor-s were converted to belief variables for each respondent by assigning the number of endorsed beliefs for each factor as a respondent score. The variables were regressed on acceptance of early return to work.

Finally, the significant variables in the separate regressions for corporate culture, corporate structure and beliefs about acceptance of early return to work policy, were combined into a single regression analysis. The latter permitted us to compare the relative strengths of these variables in an explanation of acceptance of early return to work policies.

Findings

Of the 500 successfully delivered questionnaires (the remaining 8 corporations could not be located by the Postal Service), a total of 248 corporate executives (49.6%) responded to the self-administered questionnaire.(4) The sample consists of 119 corporations which have 250-499 employees, 70 corporations which have 500-999 employees, and 59 corporations which have 1000 or more employees.

Table 1, shows that 41.5% of the corporations report having in place a fully implemented early return to work policy, a proportion considerably higher than the earlier literature would have led us to predict. An additional 6.5% report having adopted but not yet implemented such a policy. Thus, 48% of the responding corporations clearly accept early return to work. Rejection and unfavorable disposition of previously considered early return to work policies is reported by 26.6% of the sample corporations. The remaining quarter of the sample were considering the adoption of an early return to work policy, and 7.7% reported being disposed to adopting one. If we combine the 7.7% who are favorably disposed with the 48% that already have a policy, then over half (55.7%) of the corporations can be viewed as accepting early return to work.

Corporate Positions About Early Return to Work

Value                                                 f     %

  1    Has considered early return to work           39    15.7
       and rejected it.
  2    Is considering early return to work but is
       not favorably disposed toward it.             27    10.9
  3    Is considering early return to work but has
       not adopted a policy supporting it.           44    17.7
  4    Is considering early return to work and is
       disposed toward it                            19     7.7
  5    Has adopted an early return to work policy
       but it is not yet implemented.                16     6.5
  6    Has an early return to work policy and it
      is fully implemented.                         103    41.5

                              Totals                248   100.0

Shown in Table 2, early return to work was checked by 46.4% of the corporation respondents as a policy in place in their corporations, which is about half the frequency of policies such as medical insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, and safety policies. Early return to work placed thirteenth in the list of 16 personnel policies; 12 other policies have a greater frequency among the corporations surveyed. Clearly, it is not yet among the more common personnel policies. These data serve as a validity check on our continuum measurement of acceptance of an early return to work policy, since 48.0% of the corporations indicated that they had a policy when responding to that question.

Corporate Personnel Policies (N=248)

              Policy                       f              %

      Medical Insurance                   248          100.02
      Life Insurance                      246           99.2
      Disability Insurance                242           97.6
      Safety                              239           96.4
      Wages and Salaries                  227           91.5
      Pension Plan                        220           88.7
      Maternity Leave                     220           88.7
      Sick Leave                          217           87.5
      Safety Eyewear                      214           86.3
      Dental Insurance                    203           81.9
      Affirmative Action                  181           73.0
      Safety Shoes                        152           61.3
      EARLY RETURN TO WORK                115           46.4
      Matched Investment                  103           41.5
      Adoption Leaves                      24            9.7
      Paternity Leave                      19            7.7

The respondents in this sample consider the maximization of profits as very important for their corporation, increased market share and to value the employee as moderately important, and social responsibility low in importance. The corporations are very high in flexibility and most endorse the personnel principles of retention and retraining of their current experienced personnel.

The corporations on the average are moderate (250-649 employees) in size, and tall in shape consisting of several employee strata. in terms of employee composition, the majority of the corporations in the sample are comprised of primarily blue collar employees. Most have a moderate degree of centralization and a moderate degree of bureaucracy as measured on the scales employed.

Significant bivariate associations (P.05) between the corporate culture variables and acceptance of early return to work were found for (a) employee as a valued resource (r= .28), (b) to serve society (r= .19), (c) corporate flexibility (r=.16), and (d) endorsement of personnel principles (r=.27). Associations between increased market share and maximization of profits and the dependent variable, degree of acceptance of early return to work, were not significant. A multiple regression analysis with the four significant corporate culture variables was calculated and is presented in Table 3. The four corporate culture variables have a multiple correlation of .344 and explain about 10% (adjusted R2 = .103) of the variance of the dependent variable. As a group they are significant at the less than .001 level. To value employees and personnel principles are the variables that individually are the significant corporate culture predictors of acceptance of early return to work policies. Both significant beta values are positive: the goal of valuing employees and the personnel principle of retaining and retraining personnel are positively related to acceptance of early return to work principles.

Regression Analysis Prediction of Degree of Acceptance
Corporate Culture

Multiple R = .422
R Square = .178
Adjusted R Square = .168
Standard Error = 1.77
F = 17.65
p (Significance of F) = .0001

      Predictors                        b      Beta       T

   Bureaucracy                       -.085    -.270    -3.88(*)
   Centralization                    -.236    -.169    -2.49
   Corporate shape                   -.241    -.107    -1.79
   (Constant)                        1.568

(*)P < .001, two tailed.

The significant bivariate associations between the corporate structure variables and acceptance of early return to work were for. (a) corporate shape (r=.19), (b) degree of centralization (r=.32), and (c) degree of bureaucracy (r=.38). Associations with corporate size and work force composition, and the dependent variable, degree of acceptance of early return to work, were not significant. A regression analysis with the three significant corporate structure variables was performed and is presented in Table 4. The three corporate structure variables presented in Table 4 have a multiple correlation of .422 and explain about 17% (adjusted R2 = .168) of the variance of the dependent variable. Degree of bureaucracy is the only corporate structure variable significantly predictive of acceptance of early return to work policies. The significant negative beta value indicates that the acceptance of early return to work policy decreases with increased bureaucratization.

Regression Analysis Prediction of Degree of Acceptance for
Corporate Structure

Multiple R = .422
R Square = .178
Adjusted R Square = .168
Standard Error = 1.77
F = 17.65
p (Significance of F) = .0001

      Predictors                     b        Beta       T

   Bureaucracy                     -.085     -.270     -3.88(*)
   Centralization                  -.236     -.169     -2.49
   Corporate shape                 -.241     -.107     -1.79
   (Constant)                      1.568

(*)P < .001, two tailed.

The factor analysis of corporate executive beliefs yielded four factors, three reflecting negative beliefs: Belief that Early Return To Work Raises Costs and Lowers Productivity; Belief that Early Return To Work Involves Occupational Difficulties (on site difficulties in accommodating the returnees' working requirements);5 Belief that Early Return To Work Increases Absenteeism and Insurance Costs; and one positive belief, Belief that Early Return To Work Promotes Safety. When the responses to the factor items were summed to create belief variables for each respondent and the variables were regressed on acceptance of early return to work, the data reveal that the belief variables explain about 41% (adjusted R2 = .408) of the dependent variable (see Table 5). Only one factor (Factor 3), belief that early return to work increases absenteeism and insurance costs, is not a significant predictor. Concerns with occupation difficulty (Factor 2) is the strongest predictor, with cost and productivity (Factor 1) and (inversely) promotion of safety (Factor 4) following. Belief that early return to work involves occupational difficulties and belief that early return to work is costly are negatively associated with acceptance of early return to work; belief that early return to work promotes safety is positively associated. Beliefs comprise a stronger predictive model than corporate culture or corporate structure.

Regression Analysis Prediction of Degree of Acceptance for
Corporate Executive Beliefs

Multiple R = .646
R Square = .418
Adjusted R Square = .408
Standard Error = 1.49
F = 43.61
p (Significance of F) = .00001

      Predictors                     b       Beta       T

   ERW Involoves Occupational
       Difficulties               -.635     -.402    -6.95(***)
   ERW is Costly                  -.319     -.205    -3.34(*)
   ERW Promotes Safety             .345      .151    -2.87(**)
   ERW Increases Insurance        -.267     -.099    -1.78
   (Constant)                     8.360

(*)P < .01, two tailed.
(**)P < .001, two tailed.
(***)P < .00001, two tailed.

The final step in the analysis involved the combining of the corporate culture, corporate structure, and belief variables that were significant in the prior regression analyses in a complete regression model to predict corporate acceptance of early return to work policy. These data are presented in Table 6. This regression contains six variables. Two of them, the corporate goal of valuing employees and the personnel principle of retaining and retraining workers are corporate culture variables; one, bureaucracy, is a corporate structure variable; and three, early return to work involves occupational difficulties, early return to work is costly and early return to work promotes safety are belief variables (factors) of key corporate actors. These six variables explain about 44% (adjusted [R.sup.2] =.442) of the acceptance of early return to work policy. Five of the six variables are statistically significant at less than the .05 level. The personnel principle of retaining and retraining workers is not significant (P = .071).

Regression Analysis Prediction of Degree of Acceptance for
Corporate Culture, Corporate Structure and Beliefs

Multiple R = .675
R Square = .456
Adjusted R Square = .442
Standard Error = 1.452
F = 32.80
p (Significance of F) = .00001

      Predictors

  ERW Involves Occupational
      Difficulties               -.520     -.329    -5.39(****)
  ERW is Costly                  -.324     -.206    -3.57(***)
  ERW Promotes Safety             .366      .159    -3.07(**)
  Bureaucracy                    -.038     -.124    -2.28(*)
  Value employee                  .025      .114     2.23(*)
  Personnel principles            .121      .092     1.81
  (Constant)                     6.922

(*)P < .05, two tailed.
(**)P < .01, two tailed.
(***)P < .001, two tailed.
(****)P < .00001, two tailed.

As predicted earlier, and following the prior regression analyses, the direction of each of the variables appear to admit ready interpretation. The two strongest predictors, belief that early return to work involves occupational difficulties and early return to work is costly are negatively associated with acceptance of early return to work policy. The belief that early return to work promotes safety, the third strongest predictor, is positively associated with acceptance of the policy. Bureaucracy, the remaining structural variable, is negatively associated and the corporate culture variable of valuing employees is positively associated.

Comparison of Tables 5 and 6 reveals that the most complete model, including the two corporate culture variables, the corporate structure variable, and the three belief variables, constitutes a small improvement of about 2% over prediction of the acceptance of early return to work policy made on the basis of beliefs of corporate actors alone.

Discussion

Since the analysis of all variables, cultural, structural and belief predict only marginally more than beliefs alone (44% vs 42%), corporate personnel executive beliefs may be the best, direct indicator of the propensity to endorse early return to work policy. Since corporate culture and corporate structure variables are salient, it may well be that the effects of these variables are in part responsible for and invested in the belief systems of corporate executives.

The success of the factor analysis demonstrates a coherence of corporate executive beliefs. This raises the possibility that these groups of beliefs constitute or are part of a belief system or ideology. Given the major importance of these beliefs to acceptance of early return to work policy on the part of those executives most directly involved in this issue, the findings suggest difficulty in belief alteration and a potential resistance to the greater acceptance of early return to work policy. Individual beliefs imbedded in systems of supporting beliefs and rationales are much more difficult to change than beliefs held in isolation and more superficially adhered to.

The finding that bureaucracy is negatively associated with acceptance of early return to work policy also introduces a note of caution. There is no reason to believe that corporations will become less bureaucratic in the foreseeable future. Although the finding that 41.5% of Michigan's private corporations have accepted and implemented early return to work policy and an additional 6.5% have accepted the policy but not yet implemented it stands in dramatic contrast to Schwartz's 1986 national figure of 8%, it cannot be assumed that adoption of the policy will proceed apace. This increase in policy acceptance (assuming that Michigan is not atypical of the nation as a whole) may explain why many of the variables cited in our earlier discussion, and examined in this research, are no longer predictive of acceptance of early return to work policies. These variables (corporate goals, personnel principles, corporate size and shape, work force composition, flexibility, etc.) may have ceased to be barriers to acceptance. Even with the recent Americans with Disabilities Act legislation, however, the remaining negative variables may prove more resistant. It may well be that the current gains in policy acceptance represent the easy gains in this area. The remaining 52% of the corporations, for reasons revealed in this research, may be more resistant and may move more slowly to accept early return to work policy.

Footnotes

(1) It was decided to direct the research efforts within a single state, since a single state constitutes a common legal environment. Michigan was selected because it is not atypical of large industrial states and it was convenient to the conduct of the research since the corporate affiliation of one of the authors (R.J.S.) and the University affiliation of the others (S.S.R. & H.S.R.) was thought to promote mad questionnaire responses. (2) The 1988 edition of the Michigan Manufacturers Directory was used to identify the corporate official in charge of the personnel division of the corporation. Those corporations that did not have a corporate official responsible for personnel listed were contacted by telephone. Very few corporations (64 - 12.6%) failed to provide the name of the individual responsible for personnel functions. In these cases, the questionnaires were filled out by the corporate president or his/her office staff. If a response was not received in two weeks, a follow-up questionnaire was mailed to those corporate officials who had not responded. If a reply to this follow-up was not received in three weeks, a second follow-up letter was mailed to those corporate officials who had not responded. (3) All summated scales were tested for reliability via Cronback's Alpha. All alphas exceeded.70. (Corporate Flexibility Scale, alpha = .74; Personnel Principles Scale, alpha = .70; Centralization Scale, alpha = .72; Bureaucracy Scale, alpha = .74.) (4) Of the 248 (49.6%) responses, 129 (52% of the returns) were received prior to the first follow-up within two weeks time. Ninety-eight (39.5%) after the first follow-up and 21 (8.5%) after the second follow-up mailed three weeks after the first. (5) Details of this factor analysis are available; please write Stanley S. Robin, Department of Sociology, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI 49008.

References

Backer, C. L. Vash (Eds.), Annual Review of Rehabilitation, 5, 172-215. New York: Springer Publishing Company. Dun & Bradstreet Inc. (Revised Dec. 1988). D & B - Dun's market identifiers. Palo Alto, CA: Dialog Information Services, Inc. Galvin, D. E. (1986). Employer-based disability management and rehabilitation programs. In E. L. Pan, S. S. Newman, T. E. Hage, J. (1980). Theories of organizations: Form, process, and transformation. New York: Wiley. Hage, J., & Aiken, M. (June 1967). Relationship of centralization to other structural properties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 72-92. Hall, R. H. (1961). An empirical study of bureaucratic dimensions and their relation to other organizational characteristics. Ph.D. dissertation, Columbus: The Ohio State University. Hall, R. H. (July 1963). The concept of bureaucracy: An empirical assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 69, 32-40. Hall, R. H. (1972). Organizations: Structure and process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hester, E. J., Decelles, P. G., & Gaddis, E. L. (1986). Predicting which disabled employees will return to work: The Menninger rtw scale. Topeka, KS: The Menninger Foundation. Hester, E. J., Decelles, P. G., & Planek, T. (1988). Attitudes of employers and rehabilitation professionals toward employees who become disabled. Topeka, KS: The Menninger Foundation. Hill, N., Mehnert, T., & Lederer, E. (February 1987). The merits of hiring disabled persons. Business and Health, 42-44. International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions. (1984). An Overview of Vocational Rehabilitation in Workers' Compensation. Lawrence, P., & Lorsch J. (1986). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Louis Harris and Associates, Inc. (1987). The ICD survey II: Employing disabled Americans. New York: Author. Lundell, P. (1985). Disability: A manageable risk. Health Cost Management, 2(2), 5-12. Luthans, F. (1985). Organizational behavior (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Merton, R. K. (1962). Bureaucratic structure and personality. In A. Etzioni (ed.), Complex organizations. (pp. 48-61). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Moch, M. K., & Morse, E. V. (October 1977). Size, centralization, and organizational adoption of innovations. American Sociological Review, 42, 716-725. Nathanson, R. B. (1977). The disabled employee: Separating myth from fact. Harvard Business Review, 55 (3), 6-8. Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. (1968). Dimensions of organization structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 13(1), 65-105. Rabby, R. (1983). Employment of the disabled in large corporations. International Labour Review, 122, 23-26. Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (1973). P.L. 93-112, 87 Stat. 357 (as amended). Schwartz, G. E. (July 1986). State of the art: Corporate behavior in disability management-survey results. Washington, DC: Institute for Rehabilitation and Disability Management. Siegel, S., & Kaemmerer, W. F. (1978). Measuring the perceived support for innovation in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 553-562. Sussman, M. B., & Hagan, F. C. (1979). Worker's compensation and rehabilitation: policy and program recommendation. In Research report of the interdepartmental workers' compensation task force, 5, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor Employment Standards Administration. Szilagyi, A. D. Jr., & Wallace, M. J. Jr. (1983). Organizational behavior and performance (3rd ed.). Glenview, II: Scott, Foresman and Company. Tate, D. G., Habeck, R. V., & Galvin, D. E. (1986). Disability management: Origins, concepts and principles for practice. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 17(3), 5-12. Traver, N. (June 1990). Time, Opening Doors for the Disabled, 54. Weissman, J. (ed.), (1966). The Social Responsibilities of Corporate Management,(2). Hempstead, NY: Hofstra University.