Employee disability disclosure and managerial prejudices in the return-to-work context

Abstract

PurposeThis paper investigates the extent to which disability type contributes to differential evaluation of employees by managers. In particular, the authors examined managerial prejudice against 3 disability diagnoses (i.e. psychiatric, physical disability and pending diagnosis) compared to a control group in a return-to-work scenario.Design/methodology/approachWorking managers (N = 238) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 scenarios containing medical documentation for a fictional employee that disclosed either the employee's psychiatric disability, physical disability, or a pending diagnosis. The authors also collected a separate sample (N = 42) as a control group that received a version of the medical documentation but contained no information about the disability diagnosis.FindingsCompared with employees without stated disabilities, employees with a psychiatric disability were evaluated as more aggressive toward other employees, less trustworthy and less committed to the organization. Compared to employees with either physical disabilities or pending diagnoses, employees with psychiatric disabilities were rated as less committed to the organization. The authors discuss implications for future research and the trade-offs inherent in disability labeling and disclosure.Originality/valueThe current study extends prior research by examining a broader range of outcomes (i.e. perceived aggressiveness, trustworthiness and commitment) and moving beyond performance evaluations of employees with disabilities. The authors also assess the relative status of a “pending diagnosis” category—a type of disclosure often encountered by managers in many jurisdictions as part of accommodating employees returning to work from medical-related absence.

Double disadvantage: Disability and gender in the context of workplace harassment.

“…Both males and females with mental/psychological disabilities experienced a higher rate of verbal harassment at work in the past 12 months compared with the physical disability and no disability groups. These findings are in line with studies showing greater negativity toward mentally disabled individuals as compared with physically disabled (Lyubykh et al, 2020;Shaw et al, 2012). However, we also found a slightly higher rate of verbal harassment in males than in females with mental disabilities, which is similar to findings of previous studies that found men were at higher risk of verbal harassment than women (e.g., Guay et al, 2014).…”

“…This approach allowed us to estimate the interplay between the disability type and biological sex and, thus, to examine whether specific combinations of the two factors would be associated with increased disadvantage. Based on the literature (Cortina, 2008;Crandall & Eshleman, 2003;Jones et al, 2018;Lyubykh et al, 2020), it was hypothesized that the relationship between disability and workplace-harassment experiences would depend on biological sex: Hypothesis 1 (H1). Individuals with mental-health disabilities will be more likely to experience verbal and physical harassment, compared with individuals with no disability or physical disability.…”

Bias among managers: Its prevalence across a decade and comparison across occupations

“…The data in this study point to a similar pattern among people working in management occupations within the US, suggesting that many in this work areas are also implicit ableists. Thus, the poor experiences and limited access for people with disabilities (Bjørnshagen and Ugreninov, 2021;Lyubykh et al, 2021) could be due, in part, to the implicit biases managers have against them.…”

“…Thus, even though they might not state as much explicitly, people in management occupations are more likely than their peers to express bias against people with disabilities and against members of the LGBTQ+ community. Put another way, the well-documented poor treatment of and limited advancement opportunities for people with disabilities (Bjørnshagen and Ugreninov, 2021;Lyubykh et al, 2021) and members of the LGBTQ+ community (Webster et al, 2018;Mara et al, 2021) are at least partially due to the biases held by managers.…”

Attitudinal beliefs towards individuals with disabilities at a metropolitan university: Insights and implications for kinesiology professionals

“…A paradigm shift toward inclusion of those with disabilities has been underway for the past few decades (Staniland, 2010). Resistance remains, however, as ongoing prejudices and discrimination toward individuals with disabilities pose barriers to their opportunities for employment, housing, health care, and positive social interactions (Corrigan & Watson, 2002;Jahoda & Markova, 2004;Lyubykh et al, 2020;McDonell & Samman, 2020;Metzel & Walker, 2001;Odom et al, 2011). Predictably, increased enrollment in higher education institutions coincides with increasing numbers of students who self-identify as having a disability (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2014;.…”