workforce aging, health restrictions, and related ... · workforce aging, health restrictions, and...

Workforce Aging, Health Restrictions, and Related Workplace Accommodations:

The Perspective of Affected Employees

DISSERTATION of the University of St. Gallen,

School of Management, Economics, Law, Social Sciences

and International Affairs to obtain the title of

Doctor of Philosophy in Management

submitted by

Kirill Bourovoi from

Germany

Approved on the application of

Prof. Dr. Heike Bruch and

Prof. Dr. Stephan Alexander Boehm

Dissertation no. 4512

Rosch Buch Druckerei GmbH, Scheßlitz, 2016

The University of St. Gallen, School of Management, Economics, Law, Social Sciences and International Affairs hereby consents to the printing of the present dissertation, without hereby expressing any opinion on the views herein expressed.

St. Gallen, May 30, 2016

The President:

Prof. Dr. Thomas Bieger

Dedicated to my father, Ilia Bourovoi

Acknowledgments

This dissertation would not have been possible without the continuous support of several people. First and foremost, I would like to thank my two referees, Prof. Dr. Stephan Boehm and Prof. Dr. Heike Bruch, who supervised and supported me throughout my doctorate. Thank you for your personal and professional guidance as well as for the creation of excellent conditions for this practice-oriented research project.

Second, I want to express my gratitude to my co-authors Julia Kensbock, Dr. David Baldridge, and Dr. Stephan Boehm for the fruitful discussions and the intense collaboration. It was my great pleasure to work with you.

Third, a special thanks goes to all the practice partners, especially to Tobias Munzel, Bernd Billes, Michael Ostermaier, Joachim Krause, Andreas Zelzer, Stefan Schuetz, Victoria Broscheit, Dr. med. Joachim Stork, Dr. med. Regine Terfloth, and Thorsten Gratzel for their trust in my abilities, their constant support and opening access to data.

Fourth, I thank my former and current colleagues at the Center for Disability and Integration at the University of St. Gallen, in particular Dr. David Dwertmann, Dr. Miriam Baumgaertner, Dr. Ina Zwingmann, Julia Kensbock, Anna Brzykcy, Lars Kreissner, and Christoph Breier for collaboration, their friendly reviews of my work and for creating a positive and inspirational work atmosphere.

Fifth, there were several friends who helped me keeping a healthy work-life balance despite all the academic work. I would like to express my love and gratitude to Jessica Foschini who was at my side through all the ups and downs while writing my dissertation. Thank you for your encouragement and patience. I also would like to thank Samuel Hunziker, Dr. Johanna Gollnhofer and Elisabeth Radek for their emotional and culinary support throughout these years. Moreover, I thank Dr. Liridon Korcaj and Dr. Johanna Gollnhofer for their friendly reviews.

Finally, I would like to thank my family who always stood by my side – during the dissertation process and my whole life. My special thanks goes to Svetlana and Erika Kalnitskaia, as well as Ilia and Evgeni Bourovoi for their unconditional love. I would not be who I am today without your support, so thank you!

St. Gallen, July 2016 Kirill Bourovoi

https://www.dict.cc/englisch-deutsch/encouragement.html

i

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................... i

List of Figures ............................................................................................................... iii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................ iv

List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................... v

Summary ....................................................................................................................... vi

Zusammenfassung....................................................................................................... vii

Dissertation Synthesis ................................................................................................... 1

Relevance ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Targeted Research Gaps ................................................................................................................. 3 Overall Research Process ............................................................................................................... 3 Outline of the Dissertation Articles ................................................................................................ 8 The Relationship between the Dissertation Articles ..................................................................... 10 Overall Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 13 References .................................................................................................................................... 21

Article I ........................................................................................................................ 27

Accommodating Jobs to Secure Older Workers’ Continued Employment: An Employee Perspective on Individual Change Processes

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... 27 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 28 Methods ........................................................................................................................................ 41 Results .......................................................................................................................................... 45 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 51 References .................................................................................................................................... 59 Appendix ...................................................................................................................................... 68

ii

Article II ....................................................................................................................... 70

Age and Coworkers’ Acceptance of Workplace Accommodations: The Role of Workgroup Composition

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... 70 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 71 Theory ........................................................................................................................................... 74 Methods ........................................................................................................................................ 80 Results .......................................................................................................................................... 84 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 88 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 92 References .................................................................................................................................... 93

Article III ..................................................................................................................... 97

Disability, Lost Productivity and Relative Subjective Age: The Role of Disability Visibility and LMX

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... 97 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 98 Theory and Hypotheses .............................................................................................................. 100 Methods ...................................................................................................................................... 109 Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 119 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 126 References .................................................................................................................................. 127

Curriculum Vitae ...................................................................................................... 132

iii

List of Figures

General Introduction

Figure 1: Conceptual Model of the Relationships between the Dissertation Articles .................................................................................................................. 12

Article I Figure 2: Model of Experiences during the Accommodation Process .................. 36

Article II Figure 3: Conceptual Model .................................................................................. 76

Figure 4: Interaction Plots Corresponding to Hypothesis 2 .................................. 87

Figure 5: Interaction Plots Corresponding to Hypothesis 3 .................................. 87

Article III

Figure 6: Conceptual Model ................................................................................ 103

Figure 7: Interaction Plot Corresponding to Hypothesis 3 .................................. 116



Figure 10: Interaction Plot Corresponding to Hypothesis 6 ................................ 117

iv

List of Tables

General Introduction

Table 1: Demographic Descriptions of the Overall Population of the Company’s Manufacturing Division in July 2013 .................................................. 8

Table 2: Outline of the Dissertation Articles........................................................... 9

Article I

Table 3: Final Categorization of Recipients’ Negative Experiences .................... 46

Table 4: Final Categorization of Recipients’ Positive Experiences ...................... 47

Table 5: Quotes of Recipients’ Negative Experiences .......................................... 68

Table 6: Quotes of Recipients’ Positive Experiences ........................................... 69

Article II

Table 7: Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of Study Variables .................... 84

Table 8: Hierarchical Regression Results ............................................................. 86

Article III

Table 9: Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of Study Variables .................. 112

Table 10: Hierarchical Regression Results ......................................................... 113

v

List of Abbreviations

ADA Americans with Disability Act (law in the United States) AOM Academy of Management Annual Meeting AP Arbeitsplatzanpassungen (workplace accommodations) AWM Age in the Workplace Group Meeting e.g. example gratia/for example ed. edition Ed./Eds. editor/editors EDI Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Conference et al. et alii EURAM European Academy of Management Annual Meeting F F-test value HR human resource i.e. id est/that is JAP Journal of Applied Psychology LMX Leader-Member Exchange quality N sample size OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development p level of significance p. page PWDs people with disabilities r correlation coefficient R2 squared multiple correlation coefficient RSA Relative Subjective Age SD standard deviation t t-test value UN United Nations US United States of America WAs workplace accommodations WHO World Health Organization β beta-coefficient

vi

Summary

In most industrialized countries, the average age of the workforce is rising. With increasing individual age, there is a higher probability of developing health restrictions. Organizations typically react to these circumstances by providing workplace accommodations (WAs), for example, adjustments to workplace organization, ergonomics, or work schedule. Prior managerial research indicates that the effectiveness of WAs relies on the individual characteristics and attitudes of all stakeholders including the affected employees, their coworkers, and supervisors. However, several significant shortcomings exist in the focal literature. First, there is a need to incorporate the literature on employee aging into the literature on health-related WAs, as both employee subgroups strongly overlap. Second, existing research has delivered a culturally and politically bound perspective as it is mostly US-focused. Finally, little is known about WAs for affected blue-collar employees. This dissertation targets these important gaps and presents three empirical studies that focus on the different aspects of health-restricted employee experiences and attitudes. Empirical data for these studies was collected in the manufacturing department of a German automotive company plant.

The first study offers a theoretical framework of negative experiences during the accommodation processes integrating the literature on WAs and organizational change, as applied to qualitative data gathered from group interviews with 73 accommodation recipients. The results reveal that affected employees often experience interpersonal issues similar to those typically occurring during organizational change.

The second article integrates the research on WAs, aging, and similarity attraction and proposes a model for the relationship between an accommodation recipient’s age and his or her perception of coworker accommodation acceptance. This model is tested using multi-source data on 144 WA recipients by accounting for the moderating role of workgroup social context (team age composition and peers with WAs).

The third study focuses on the individual consequences of health restrictions, integrating the literature on disability and subjective age to propose and test a model for productivity loss and a specific undesired outcome (feeling subjectively older). Using a sample of 382 affected employees, productivity loss is identified as a contributor to feeling subjectively older. Health restriction visibility is suggested to amplify this proposed relationship and Leader-Member Exchange quality is offered as a buffer.

vii

Zusammenfassung

In den meisten Industrienationen steigt der Altersdurchschnitt der erwerbstätigen Bevölkerung. Mit steigendem Lebensalter nimmt zugleich die Wahrscheinlichkeit zu, gesundheitliche Einschränkungen zu entwickeln. Unternehmen reagieren typischerweise mit sogenannten Arbeitsplatzanpassungen (AP) auf diese Umstände. Darunter verstehen sich Anpassungen der Arbeitsorganisation und der Arbeitszeiten oder ergonomische Anpassungen des Arbeitsplatzes. Die aktuelle Forschung zu gesundheitsbezogenen AP weist jedoch mehrere bedeutende Lücken auf. Zunächst besteht Bedarf, die Literatur zum Altern von Mitarbeitern mit der Literatur zu gesundheitsbezogenen AP zu integrieren, da sich die beiden betroffenen Mitarbeitergruppen stark überlappen. Zweitens ist die Forschung zu AP stark auf den US-amerikanischen Kontext fokussiert und damit kulturell und politisch stark eingeschränkt. Schliesslich ist zum Thema AP nur sehr wenig über die Perspektive von Mitarbeitern in körperlich anstrengenden Berufen bekannt. Diese Dissertation adressiert diese Forschungslücken in drei empirischen Studien. Diese Studien befassen sich mit jeweils unterschiedlichen Aspekten in den Erfahrungen und Einstellungen der betroffenen Mitarbeiter. Die empirischen Daten für die drei Studien wurden in der Produktion eines grossen deutschen Automobilherstellers gesammelt.

Die erste Studie schlägt ein theoretisches Rahmenmodell für negative Erfahrungen während der Durchführung von AP vor und bezieht sich dabei auf die Literatur zu Unternehmensveränderungen sowie AP. Das Rahmenmodell baut auf qualitativen Daten aus Gruppeninterviews mit 73 Mitarbeitern, die Arbeitsplatzanpassungen erhalten haben, auf.

Die zweite Studie stützt sich auf die Literatur zu Behinderung, Alterung und Similarity Attraction. Die Studie schlägt ein empirisches Modell vor, welches die Beziehung zwischen dem Lebensalter von Mitarbeitern mit AP und der wahrgenommenen Akzeptanz der AP durch die Arbeitskollegen zu erklären versucht. Diese Beziehung wird anhand der Daten von 144 Mitarbeitern mit AP getestet.

Die dritte Studie stellt, aufbauend auf der Forschung zu Behinderung und subjektivem Alter, ein Modell vor, welches die Beziehung zwischen Leistungsdefizit von Mitarbeitern und ihrem subjektiven Alter zu erklären versucht und testet diese anhand der Daten von 382 Mitarbeitern mit gesundheitlichen Einschränkungen.

“People know what they do; frequently they know why they do what they do; but what they don't know is what ‘what they do’ does.”

Michel Foucault (1926 – 1984)

https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1260.Michel_Foucault

Dissertation Synthesis

1


Relevance

The average age of the workforce is rising, and it is expected to rise even further in the future (Michaels, Handfield-Jones, & Axelrod, 2001; Truxillo & Fraccaroli, 2013). The global share of individuals age 50 years or above increased from 15.7% in 1965, to 20.6% in 2015, and is expected to reach 35.3% by 2065 (United Nations, 2015). Ranked by population median age, Europe is currently the oldest region in the world and its share of people age 50 and above increased from 25.7% in 1965, to 38.2% in 2015, and is expected to reach 45.6% by 2050 (United Nations, 2015). The reasons for this dramatic demographic change in age (Kulik, Ryan, Harper, & George, 2014; Lee, 2003) are, in particular, a decline in fertility rates (Morgan, 2003) and an increase in life expectancy (Centers for Disease & Prevention, 2003).

Organizations are challenged by these aggravating circumstances. Companies must struggle to find young talent (Dychtwald, Erickson, & Morison, 2006; Faulconbridge, Beaverstock, Hall, & Hewitson, 2009). The shortage in skilled workers and the current ongoing retirement of the Baby Boomer generation has forced organizations to look for other possibilities to meet their worker replenishment needs (Kunze & Bruch, 2010). Companies also experience serious issues in terms of maintaining workforce productivity due to higher dropout rates and a higher level of workers taking sick leave (Ilmarinen, 2009; Silverstein, 2008).

Such observations are based on the undisputable fact that aging is associated with an increased probability of developing functional limitations, chronic diseases, and disabilities (WHO, 2011). Although there is no clear consensus on the concept of disability, a common denominator of the recent conceptualizations of disability is a focus on medical and social aspects at the same time. The World Health Organization (WHO) has stated that disability is “[…] the umbrella term for impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions, referring to the negative aspects of the interaction between an individual (with a health condition) and that individual’s contextual factors (environmental and personal factors)” (WHO, 2011, p. 4).

A recent study from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2010) of their member countries has shown that on average between two and


2

three out of four all new disability benefit claimants were previously employed. This statistic suggests that initiatives to retain employees with disabilities at work may present one practicable remedy to enhance workforce productivity (Lengnick-Hall, 2007). However, in order to retain older employees and employees with disabilities, organizations have to adapt to the diverse needs of any affected employees (Dwertmann, 2013) that stem from their functional limitations (Cleveland, Barnes-Farrell, & Ratz, 1997; Stone & Colella, 1996).

These needs can often be met by implementing technical adjustments (e.g., redesigning a work task from a standing to a sitting position) or allowing for a flexible schedule and work organization. These are commonly referred to as job or workplace accommodations (Colella & Bruyère, 2011; Kulkarni & Lengnick-Hall, 2011; Wooten, 2008). As summarized in a recent literature review by Nevala and colleagues (2015), workplace accommodations (WAs) are intended to benefit affected individuals, their organizations, and society as a whole. On an individual level, the WAs aim is to enhance employment opportunities and improve job performance, self-efficacy, and thus the job satisfaction level of people with disabilities (PWDs). On an organizational level, the WAs intent is to retain or acquire qualified employees, enhance employee productivity, and minimize the cost of employee sick leaves and the training of new employees. On a societal level, WAs can provide a foundation for the participation of PWDs in their work and social lives to help improve the overall productivity of the workforce.

From a strategic viewpoint, an additional rationale for these organizational adaptation initiatives is provided by the Resource-Based View – a well-established perspective in management research (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). This perspective suggests that specific Human Resource (HR) practices can be a source for sustainable competitive advantage of a company when these practices address environmental constraints more effectively than the practices of their competitors do. The rising number of PWDs in the workforce is one example of an environmental constraint. Specific HR practices such as WAs can lead to a better integration of affected employees and thus to a competitive advantage for the respective firm.

Moreover, WAs could be classified as corporate social sustainability initiatives (Dahlsrud, 2008; Montiel, 2008), as they constitute a form of socially responsible behavior towards employees: On a societal level, WAs contribute to a sustainable development (Kates, Parris, & Leiserowitz, 2005; McMichael, Butler, & Folke, 2003)


3

by approaching talent from a different perspective (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005), by improving societal integration of minorities (Bruch, Kunze, & Böhm, 2010) and by encouraging inclusion within diversity (Ivancevich & Gilbert, 2000).

WAs are the focal phenomena of this dissertation, the objective of which is to explore in-depth facilitators and barriers to systematic WAs to gain a better understanding of how to retain and include people with health restrictions into work organizations. Here the discussion draws on the personal experiences and insights of health-restricted workers and recipients of accommodations. Three empirical papers shed new light on their accommodation experiences, their perceptions of their coworkers’ accommodation acceptance, and the consequences of their health restrictions as well as its boundary conditions.

Targeted Research Gaps

Research on disability is highly relevant, as PWDs represent a significant minority in the world at approximately 15% of the total population or one billion individuals (United Nations, 2006; WHO, 2011). Since the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) passed in 1990, the aim of which was to secure equal opportunities for PWDs in the United States (US) job market, the research on disability in the context of work has received increasing attention. Various disciplines, such as economics, law, sociology, rehabilitation psychology, and management, are concerned with this important contemporary topic.

In management research, a fundamental framework for the field of management and PWDs in work settings was introduced by Stone and Colella (1996). In their framework, these authors explored factors that affect the treatment of PWDs in organizations. They emphasized environmental factors and took into account the characteristics of organizations, jobs, coworkers, and supervisors as well as those of the PWDs themselves. In doing so, their theoretical model aims to explain observers’ categorization, stereotyping, expectation formation, affective reactions, and finally, their treatment of PWDs. This study has been among the most influential articles in disability research and remains to be a seminal source (e.g., Dwertmann & Boehm, 2016; Vornholt, Uitdewilligen, & Nijhuis, 2013). Further managerial research on PWDs in organizations can be divided into three subfields (Colella and Bruyère, 2011): (A) selection and entry into the workforce, (B) workplace accommodations, and (C)


4

integration and inclusion into the workforce. This dissertation mainly references the research from areas B and C which are strongly interrelated, as the aim of WAs is to foster PDW integration and inclusion into the general workforce.

Since there is no overarching taxonomy for what is considered to be a WA, researchers use different, but for the most part, overlapping classifications (e.g., Nevala et al., 2015). Colella and Bruyère (2011) presented four major groups for how WAs can be clustered: (1) assistive technologies, e.g., screen readers for people with visual limitations; (2) environmental accessibility, e.g., ramps or modified restrooms; (3) personal assistance, e.g., job coaches or service animals; and (4) job restructuring, e.g., reassignment to different jobs or modified job schedules.

Research from various disciplines has investigated the WAs for PWDs. For instance, recent research has been concerned with the effectiveness of WAs regarding employment as well as both the facilitators and barriers to WAs. The results show that some types of WAs, such as job restructuring, promote employment for PWDs with physical disabilities (Nevala et al., 2015). Self-advocacy (e.g., cooperating with employers or requesting WAs), support of others at work (i.e., attitude, understanding, and knowledge of employers, supervisors, and coworkers), the amount of training received by PWDs, and job flexibility were identified as the most important facilitators and barriers to implementing and using WAs to maintain employment.

Despite the increasing use of WAs, managerial research on WAs for PWDs is scarce and respective conceptual and empirical knowledge is limited. Scholars have been mainly concerned with three major topics that are (1) coworkers’ fairness perceptions of WAs (Colella, 2001; Colella et al., 2004; Paetzold et al., 2008), (2) employers’ or supervisors’ granting of WA requests (e.g. Baldridge & Swift, 2013; Florey & Harrison, 2000), and (3) PWDs’ actual willingness to request WAs (e.g., Baldridge & Swift, 2015; Baldridge & Veiga, 2001, 2006). Surprisingly, the perspectives of those employees at stake (PWDs and WA recipients) has received only minor attention, as it has been only investigated in the context of the willingness to request an accommodation (3rd topic). As Colella and Bruyère (2011: p. 493) concluded, “[…] not much is known about the experiences of people with disabilities at work.”

This dissertation addresses at least three important gaps in the management literature. First, it integrates research from two related literature streams. The literature


5

on WAs for PWDs covers themes that stongly overlap those found in the literarure on employee aging because there is a higher chance of aquiring a disability with increasing age (WHO, 2011). For instance, both disciplines are concerned with employee stereotyping and discrimination by coworkers and supervisors (Bjelland et al., 2010; Colella, 2001; Gilbert & Fiske, 1998). Many age-related HR practices, such as ensuring equal training and promotion opportunities (e.g., Boehm, Kunze, & Bruch, 2014) are also beneficial for PWDs, as both employee groups and their needs often do coincide. Likewise, WAs for PWDs, such as flexible work schedules or ergonomic adaptations can also benefit older workers and lead to further positive outcomes. To date, both disciplines have remained largely separated, which represents a significant shortcoming that gets addressed in this dissertation.

Second, as most of the research on PWDs and WAs has been conducted inside the US, this dissertation breaks new ground by transfering and applying its findings and concepts in another cultural context – in Germany. Existing research has delivered a culturally and politically bound perspective on the phenomenon, as PWDs’ treatment can vary across both cultures and nations. In the words of Colella and Bruyère (2011: p. 495): “[…] what is missing is how disability may be viewed differently in different cultural contexts and what impact such differences may have on adapting an international perspective.” For instance, the US context is highly specific due to the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). Since 1990, the ADA protects the rights of PDWs and secures equal opportunities for affected individuals in the job market. With regards to WAs, the law requires employers to provide ‘reasonable’ accommodations. However, the ADA may in fact have a negative effect on actual PDWs’ employement (Acemoglu & Angrist, 1998) and disability researchers have begun to focus on related issues, such as the unwillingness to request WAs in the first place (e.g., Baldridge & Veiga, 2001, 2006). More research in this area is needed, as cultural, political, and structural differences may inhibit the transferability of these results to other contexts (for instance, Germany).

Finally, this dissertation focuses on an understudied but highly relevant subgroup of PWDs and WA recipients. It explores the experiences and attitudes of blue-collar workers with health restrictions that received WAs. Existing studies have focused exclusively on office-dominated work and white-collar employees. However, over 8 million people of the German workforce (equaling 19%) are employed in the production


6

sector and over 5 million (equaling 12%) in manual professions (Destatis, 2016). These statistics indicate that a significant proportion of the German labor force fulfills rather physically dominated tasks. This goes hand in hand with an increased risk of developing health restrictions that make WAs necessary.

Additionally, blue-collar workers cannot compensate physical restrictions as simple as white-collar workers as their work usually demands a higher degree of physical fitness. Given the current aging of the workforce and entire societies, these reasons highlight the importance of developing a better understanding of successful WA processes for blue-collar employees. As these WA recipients have first-hand experience and in-depth insights into the accommodation processes, they should, consequently, be able to contribute to its improvement in valuable ways. This lack of knowledge constitutes another intersting and important gap in the literature.

Overall, this dissertation targets the shortcomings found in the existing literature. Three self-standing articles provide conceptual and empirical insights into the German work context by focusing on perspectives of blue-collar employees with health restrictions, a PWD subgroup of particular importance in the context of the current workforce aging.

Overall Research Process

Data for the three dissertation articles were collected in the manufacturing department of a German automotive company plant. The data collection was part of a large research project on the inclusion of people with health restrictions and disabilities (Stone & Colella, 1996) in the context of the demographic change in age (Kulik et al., 2014). The data was collected in three steps: A qualitative data collection in the form of group interviews (October 2013; the database for Article I), followed by the first quantitative data collection (July 2013; the database for Article II), and then a second quantitative data collection (February 2015; the database for Article III). For its participation, the company received sub-department benchmarking reports about their employees’ perceptions and attitudes toward coworkers with health restrictions, as well as overall recommendations to improve the related HR processes. Table 1 provides a summary of the relevant properties of this studied population at the time of the first quantitative data collection (July 2013). The population overlap for the two quantitative


7

data collections was 82.9%, indicating that the population remained mostly constant over the time span of the research project.

Four years prior to this research project, the same company established a systematic process to deal with manufacturing employees who failed to achieve the standard performance requirements. The process was established as a reaction to increasing average age and a growing number of physical and mental health restrictions in their workforce. Its main objective was to realize individual WAs to increase individual work productivity. Typically, the accommodation procedure was initiated by the supervisor in response to prolonged health restrictions, which produced a performance loss or deficit. Possible interventions were discussed and agreed upon in a round table that consisted of the supervisor, a HR specialist, a company physician, a work council member, and in certain cases an accommodation manager. The resulting WAs took three major forms: (A) Ergonomic adjustment of the original workstation (e.g., redesigning a work task from a standing to a sitting position), (B) transfer to another more suitable workplace (e.g., no more overhead work), or (C) changes in work organization (e.g., a different work schedule). These initiatives were classified as assistive technology (for A) and job restructuring (for B and C), according to the WAs classification by Colella and Bruyère (2011) presented in the literature shortcomings section above.

In sum, the data for the three dissertation articles were collected over a span of three years in the manufacturing department of a German automotive company plant. For further examples and explanations about this company’s accommodation process, please refer to the dissertation Article I (see page 41 in the section on the organizational setting).


8

Table 1: Demographic Descriptions of the Overall Population of the Company’s Manufacturing Division in July 2013 (first employee survey)

Category Subcategory Frequency % of Total Mean SD

Total Employees 14785 100.0

Chronological Age (years) 40.52 10.85

Organizational Tenure (years) 18.01 9.64

Women 1575 10.7

Supervisors 375 2.5

Professional Education

Metalworker or electrician apprenticeship at the same company 3248 22.0

Metalworker or electrician apprenticeship at another company 7081 47.9

Other Professional Education 3940 26.6

None 516 3.5

Employees with an official German document indicating a severe disability 383 2.6

Employees with task-related health restrictions granted by the company physicians 2039 13.7

Workplace accommodation recipients since the launch of the WA process (5-year period) 669 4.5

Outline of the Dissertation Articles

The three self-standing articles included in this dissertation shed light on different aspects of work experiences from the perspective of blue-collar employees with health restrictions and the accommodation recipients. The papers are presented in chronological order as the data were collected. Table 2 briefly introduces the articles and their current state of the research process (ongoing). Their relationship is discussed in the next chapter (see page 9).

https://www.dict.cc/englisch-deutsch/apprenticeship.html



Table 2: Outline of the Dissertation Articles Article I:

Accommodating Jobs to Secure Older Workers’ Continued Employment: An Employee Perspective on Individual Change Processes

Article II:

Age and Coworkers’ Acceptance of Workplace Accommodations: The Role of Workgroup Composition

Article III: Disability, Lost Productivity and Relative Subjective Age: The Role of Disability Visibility and Leader-Member Exchange

Co-Authors Julia M. Kensbock1, Stephan A. Boehm2 None Stephan A. Boehm, David C. Baldridge3 Type of Article Empirical qualitative research paper Empirical quantitative research paper Empirical quantitative research paper Research Question

How do workplace accommodation recipients perceive the accommodation process?

How does chronological age influence workplace accommodation recipients’ perception of coworkers’ accommodation acceptance?

How do employees with health restrictions assess their Relative Subjective Age?

Research Model

Integrating the organizational change and accommodations literatures, the paper proposes a theoretical framework of negative experiences during accommodation processes. Containing interpersonal burdens, process-related burdens, and affective reactions, the model is compared to empirical evidence from focus group interviews with 73 accommodation recipients.

I draw upon the literatures on disability, aging, and similarity attraction to propose a model of the relationship between an accommodation recipient’s age and his or her perception of coworkers’ accommodation acceptance. Accounting for the moderating role of the workgroup social context (age composition and peers with WAs), I test the model using multi-source data on 144 WA recipients.

This study draws upon literatures from disability and subjective age to propose a model of the relationship between health-related antecedents (sick days and performance loss) and employees’ relative subjective age. The model is tested using multi-source data on 375 employees with health restrictions.

Conference Presentation

Earlier versions were presented at the 7th Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Conference 2014 in Munich, Germany, and at the 75th Academy of Management Annual Meeting 2015 in Vancouver, Canada.

The current version was presented at the 16th European Academy of Management Annual Meeting (EURAM) 2016 in Paris, France.

An earlier version was presented at the 3rd Age in the Workplace Group Meeting (AWM) 2015 in Limerick, Ireland.

Publication Status

Published in the EDI 2014 conference proceedings (Organizing Inclusion: Beyond Privileges and Discrimination, 2014).

Published working paper at the research platform Alexandria; published in the EURAM 2016 conference proceedings (Manageable Organizations?)

Submitted to the 76th Academy of Management Annual Meeting (AOM) 2016 in Anaheim, USA.

Next Steps Submitted to the Journal of Vocational Behavior.

Together with my Ph.D. referee, Stephan Boehm, we work on a subsequent version for submission to Work, Aging and Retirement.

Submitted to the Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP).

1 Julia M. Kensbock is a Research Associate and Ph.D. candidate at the Department of E-Business and E-Entrepreneurship at the University of Duisburg-Essen 2 Dr. Stephan A. Boehm is an Associate Professor at the University of St. Gallen, Center for Disability and Integration 3 David Baldridge, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor at Oregon State University & National Technical Institute for the Deaf, USA

Dissertation Synthesis 9

G


10

The Relationship between the Dissertation Articles

The dissertation articles outlined above share several general communalities. First, the papers focus on the perspectives of employees with health restrictions. Second, the papers explore their experiences or attitudes toward their work limitations and related WAs. Third, the papers in particular investigate the influence of others, such as coworkers and supervisors, on the health-restricted employees’ experiences or attitudes. Finally, all three studies are embedded in a German production context and derive their empirical insights from a shared data source. The following section examines how the articles interlink.

Taking a qualitative approach, the first article builds on disability and the change literature and explores WA recipients’ experiences during the accommodation process. WA recipients’ experiences are important to study because the perspective of PWDs is largely neglected in focal research. The results reveal that interpersonal problems with supervisors and coworkers are the most frequent negative experiences. In particular, these issues refer to a perceived lack of social support, discrimination, bullying, and maltreatment. Further, interpersonal experiences with coworkers reveal two unpredicted issues, namely, coworkers’ envy of their colleagues’ accommodations and a conflict between old and young employees. All identified interpersonal experiences can be seen as social burdens and indeed threats to WA effectiveness (Nevala et al., 2015) as they hinder affected employees in performing their jobs and enjoying equal treatment (Colella & Bruyère, 2011). This reasoning suggests that supervisors’ and coworkers’ acceptance (Vornholt et al., 2013) may be of particular importance when providing WAs to any health-restricted employees.

The second study investigates WA recipients’ perceptions of accommodation acceptance by their coworkers and takes a quantitative approach. Drawing on the literatures on disability, employee aging (e.g, Posthuma & Campion, 2008), similarity attraction (Byrne, 1971), and relative demography (Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989), this article focuses on recipients’ chronological age as an antecedent and explores the moderating role of the workgroup social context (age composition and peers with WAs). The relationship between a recipient’s age and his or her perception of coworkers’ accommodation acceptance is interesting and important to study because of the aging of


11

the current workforce (Posthuma & Campion, 2008; Truxillo & Fraccaroli, 2013) and the generally negative correlation of age and health (WHO, 2011). As hypothesized in this study, the results suggest that age is positively related to perceived coworkers’ acceptance. This relationship is stronger when there are many older workers in the workgroup and weaker when there are other accommodated peers, thus further emphasizing the role of the social context of PWDs in organizations.

The third study focuses on the individual consequences of health restrictions and explores boundary conditions that can either amplify or buffer those consequences. In particular, the article explores a specific consequence of health restrictions, namely employees’ subjective perception of their age. This outcome is interesting because relative subjective age (i.e., the difference between an individual’s chronological age and subjective age) was shown to be more strongly associated with positive outcomes than was chronological age. Such outcomes include individual health, vitality, performance (Kotter-Grühn, Kornadt, & Stephan, 2015; Montepare, 2009), and, on a collective level, organizational performance (Kunze, Raes, & Bruch, 2015).

Compared to the first two articles, Article III does not focus exclusively on WA recipients, but includes all employees with health restrictions. This PWDs subgroup is of particular importance for the research on WAs as it includes current accommodation recipients as well as those employees that are most likely to receive WAs in the near future. In our sample, employees with health restrictions had functional limitations that were examined and assessed as critical for manufacturing tasks by company physicians. As hypothesized, the study results suggest that performance loss positively relate to feeling subjectively older. Moreover, performance loss and sick days had a stronger influence on RSA when those health conditions were visible (Colella, 2001) and a weaker influence when Leader-Member Exchange quality (Scandura & Graen, 1984) was high. Therefore, Article III emphasizes the important role of the supervisor-employee relationship and goes along with the theory and findings from the first article that points out that interpersonal problems with supervisors is the second most frequently reported burden for WAs (after interpersonal problems with coworkers).

In sum, each of the three dissertation articles focuses on a distinct, but strongly interrelated, issue that blue-collar employees with health restrictions and


12

accommodation recipients do face at work. Figure 1 visually illustrates these discussed relationships in the studies.

Figure 1: Conceptual Model of the Relationships between the Dissertation Articles


13

Overall Discussion

The workforce average age is rising alongside with an increased proportion of employees with health restrictions and disabilities (WHO, 2011). Consequently, companies struggle to maintain workforce productivity (Ilmarinen, 2009; Silverstein, 2008). As a consequence, more and more companies provide WAs to their employees. Adjustments to the workstation or work organization (Colella & Bruyère, 2011) are meant to enhance employee productivity, retain or acquire qualified employees, minimize the cost of employee sick leaves and the training of new employees (Nevala et al., 2015). As such WAs are able to enhance the professional and social integration of PWDs and could be classified as a form of corporate social sustainability initiative (Dahlsrud, 2008; Montiel, 2008).

This cumulative dissertation targets the shortcomings found in the existing disability and WAs literature. It yields practical and theoretical contributions by providing conceptual and empirical insights into experiences and attitudes of German blue-collar employees with health restrictions. This overall discussion integrates the findings from the three self-standing articles. The upcoming sections discuss theoretical and practical implications, limitations and future research recommendations.

Theoretical Implications

This dissertation contributes to the literature in several ways. First, the dissertation incorporates the literature on employee aging and other related fields to the body of managerial research on disability and related WAs. In particular, Article II integrates the research on age stereotypes (Posthuma & Campion, 2008) and age similarity (Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989; Zenger & Lawrence, 1989), while Article III adds knowledge on subjective age from the gerontological and lifespan development research (e.g., Montepare, 2009) to the literature on WAs for PWDs. In doing so, these studies introduce interesting outcome variables that are new to the field. In Article II, the focus is on coworkers’ acceptance of WAs that is expected to be critical to the successful inclusion of PWDs (Stone & Colella, 1996; Vornholt et al., 2013). Article III concentrates on PWDs’ relative subjective age (Barak & Stern, 1986) conceptualized as a consequence of health restrictions. Moreover, the dissertation also incorporates literature on organizational change (see Article I, e.g., Oreg, Michel, & By, 2013) as


14

well as climate for inclusion (see Article I, e.g., Nishii, 2013), and leadership (see Article III, e.g., Graen, 1995).

Second, the dissertation broadens the managerial discussion on WAs for PWDs by introducing a non-US perspective. In doing so, it responds to recent research calling for more insights regarding disability in other cultural contexts (Colella & Bruyère, 2011). So far, most of the research was conducted in the US, delivering a culturally and politically bound perspective on the phenomenon. The US context is highly specific due to the ADA that was introduced to protect the rights of PDWs and to secure equal opportunities for affected individuals in the job market. However, the ADA may in fact have a negative effect on actual PDWs’ employement (Acemoglu & Angrist, 1998) and US disability scholars have focused on investigating these issues (e.g., Baldridge & Veiga, 2001, 2006). While other nations often also have laws to protect PWDs, their legislation as well as actual treatment of affected individuals can vary significantly. Therefore, it is important to gain additional knowledge from different contexts and investigate the transferability of existing results to other cultural and national settings, for example, to European countries. This dissertation transfers US-based results and concepts to the German context, offers new empirical insights and paves the way for developing a holistic perspective on disability and WAs that takes cultural differences into account. All three articles add to the existing knowledge by investigating actual experiences and attitudes of employees with health restrictions and accommodation recipients in a big German industrial company.

Third, the dissertation adds to management research on disability by exploring experiences and attitudes of blue-collar workers in their WA processes. To date, only a few studies have focused on PWDs’ perceptions of WAs by investigating their willingness to request an accommodation (e.g., Baldridge & Swift, 2015; Baldridge & Veiga, 2006). Moreover, these studies have exclusively examined white-collar employees and office-dominated work neglecting a large proportion of the general workforce in physically dominated work environments such as manufacturing and production (Destatis, 2016). This dissertation contributes to the literature by adding to the existing conceptual knowledge on WAs’ burdens and PWD coworkers’ acceptance. For this purpose, empirical field evidence form a production work environment is used. Filling this gap is yet another interesting and important contribution to the literature stream.


15

Fourth, the dissertation follows the call by Colella and Bruyère (2011) to explore the role of boundary conditions for PWDs’ organizational inclusion and identify its facilitators and barriers. Article I sheds light on the social context of PWDs at work and explores the interpersonal burdens (Nevala et al., 2015) and process-related problems in implementing WAs. Article II predicts and finds evidence on the moderating effects of workgroup social context (age composition and other peers with WAs) on the relationship between the age of PWDs and their perceived coworkers’ accommodation acceptance. Article III suggests that the PWDs’ relationship quality with their supervisors (Leader-Member Exchange) can buffer the positive association of health-related productivity problems and a specific undesired consequence (feeling subjectively older).

Finally, this research further conceptualizes and provides empirical field insights into the role of individual characteristics of PWDs. By relying on a qualitative approach, Article I investigates individual experiences of accommodation recipients and identifies differences related to PWDs’ age and the nature of their health restriction. Article II focuses on PWDs’ chronological age, and Article III addresses disability visibility, performance problems, and sick days. In doing so, this dissertation contributes to the previous conceptual research on disability and related WAs (e.g., Baldridge & Veiga, 2001; Stone & Colella, 1996) that still lacks empirical evidence on its proposed relationships.

Overall, this dissertation contributes to the focal literature on WAs for PWDs by integrating relevant research streams with literature on disability, transferring US-based research to the German cultural context, and providing new insights from blue-collar WA recipients. Moreover, this research creates new conceptual and empirical knowledge on important individual and contextual factors of successful WAs and PWDs’ inclusion processes. Please refer to the three individual articles for an in-depth discussion.

Practical Implications

This dissertation contributes to organizational and managerial practices in several ways. Empathizing with the perspective of blue-collar employees with health restrictions, it illuminates the role of the different stakeholders involved in the


16

accommodation processes, including coworkers, supervisors, accommodation managers, and the organization as a whole.

First, in terms of the role of employees, the dissertation suggests that coworkers’ knowledge of disabilities and WAs is crucial for any successful inclusion of affected employees (Nevala et al., 2015). As pointed out in Article III, individual characteristics, such as performance problems, might lead to PWDs’ feeling subjectively older which in turn might lead to further undesired outcomes, such as worse organizational performance (Kunze et al., 2015). Article II suggests that particularly older workers tend to relate their acceptance of colleagues’ accommodations on individual characteristics, such as PWDs’ chronological age. Therefore, employee information and training on disability and its related accommodations may be a feasible way to minimize the stigmatization of PWDs (Colella, 2001) and also strengthen employee tolerance. As suggested in Article I, organizations should invest in the creation of climates that focus on employee strengths and abilities and encourage diversity (Nishii, 2013), rather than their possible weaknesses and disabilities (Baldridge & Swift, 2015).

Second, supervisors should be trained in leadership styles that will benefit their employees. As suggested in Article III, Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) seems to buffer the effect of productivity loss of PWDs on their relative subjective age. Despite performance loss or sick days, employees tend not to feel subjectively older when LMX is high. Therefore, organizations should provide training for their supervisors and teach leadership styles and techniques that are beneficial for PWDs as well as for all other employees.

Third, accommodation managers can learn from change managers. Article I points out that both fields share many important commonalities and that strategic organizational change practices are a long-lasting tradition in research and practice (e.g., Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008; Oreg et al., 2013). Organizations have to actively manage and accompany the WA process. As for dealing with organizational change, accommodation managers should in particular pay attention to providing sufficient communication and information (Bordia, Hobman, Jones, Gallois, & Callan, 2004), sufficient resources like work capacity and skillful personnel (Amiot, Terry, Jimmieson, & Callan, 2006; Rafferty & Griffin, 2006), and sufficient monitoring (Sirkin, Keenan, & Jackson, 2005).


17

Third, it is important to consider all age groups of PWDs when providing WAs. The general discussion on WAs is usually connected to older workers due to the strong negative correlation of age and health (WHO, 2011). However, Article II points out that younger recipients may have a disadvantage in terms of their coworkers’ accommodation acceptance compared to older accommodated peers. This is because younger recipients are generally a minority and thus will stick out more. Special attention should therefore be paid to any younger WA recipients.

Finally, this dissertation encourages organizations to group accommodation recipients together with further accommodated peers, but refrain from creating PWD-only workgroups. Article II points out that when there is only a single accommodation recipient in a workgroup, this recipient may receive little accommodation acceptance from coworkers because he or she appears to be highly uncommon (Colella, 2001) and sticks out negatively. On the other hand, PWD-only groups should be avoided because this reduced diversity can inhibit known benefits, such as increased problem-solving or creativity (e.g., Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007) and may create the impression of PWD discrimination (Bjelland et al., 2010), which may lead to further undesirable outcomes.

Overall, this dissertation offers new important insights regarding the experiences of employees with health restrictions who received WAs and contributes to both research and practice. Please refer to the three dissertation articles below for an in-depth discussion of each individual study.

Limitations and Future Research Recommendations

As with all empirical studies, some potential limitations of this dissertation should be noted. All three dissertation articles provide theoretical and empirical insights into the perspectives of German blue-collar employees with health restrictions. Their common limitations and recommendations for future research efforts are discussed below.

First, the generalizability of this research might be limited as the data was collected in a single German industrial organization. All participants were employees of the manufacturing department and had, in line with our research interest, health restrictions or disabilities. Thus, results may not generalize beyond Germany, to other industries, jobs tasks and populations. In particular, this dissertation cannot make a claim for white-


18

collar job contexts and employees without health restrictions that might also receive WAs to serve other than health-related needs (e.g. modified work schedules for parents; Colella & Bruyère, 2011). However, I believe that the dissertation’s research focus is meaningful given the theoretical and empirical gaps in existent research as well as the practical relevance of employees with health restrictions for aging workforces and entire societies. Nevertheless, I encourage future research to test the findings with other populations and in other work environments. For instance, the impact of WAs on white-collar employees is both interesting and relevant to study as job demands differ significantly and psychological wellbeing might play a more important role (e.g., Toppinen‐Tanner, Kalimo, & Mutanen, 2002).

Second, the proposed conceptual and empirical models involve directional relationships among the examined constructs, however, it should be noted that reversed causality cannot be completely ruled out. As the designs of the studies were neither longitudinal nor experimental, causality could not be empirically tested and is based on conceptual reasoning. Study I applied a group interview design and Study II and III a partly cross-sectional survey design that both might potentially involve common source bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). However, I do not believe that this issue significantly threatens the studies’ contribution, for the following reasons. All studies provide theoretical arguments for the expected causal order. Moreover, in case of the quantitative studies, all antecedent variables were measured several months prior to the outcome variables (coworkers’ accommodation acceptance in Article I; RSA in Article III). Finally, as Evans (1985) demonstrated with a Monte Carlo study, the probability of drawing incorrect conclusions from common method variance when testing for interaction terms is low. Therefore, I do not expect inflated relationships. Nevertheless, future research should consider longitudinal designs (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003) for being able to investigate the claimed causality of this dissertation’s findings.

Finally, while my coauthors and I tried to use theoretically and empirically sound operationalizations for the all constructs such as validated scales or objective measures, it was not always possible. Consequently, readers might question the validity of some of the measures. This limitation refers, in particular, to Articles II and III, as both applied a quantitative study design. In Article II, I used a self-developed outcome measure since there were no existing measures of coworkers’ accommodation acceptance. In Article


19

III, disability visibility was also assessed using a self-developed measure, as no validated scale could be identified despite its conceptual use (Colella, Paetzold, & Belliveau, 2004). Moreover, some objective measures, such as sick days (Article III), might not perfectly capture the intended construct, as alternative explanations cannot be completely ruled out (e.g. for sick days: skipping work time for other reasons while without claiming to be sick). Despite the missing pre-validation, I believe that all utilized measures produced reliable responses due to their high face validity. Particularly in times of workforce ageing, I am convinced that the obtained results are both valuable and meaningful as they offer new conceptual and empirical insights into blue-collar employees’ experiences and persecutions during their accommodation process. Nevertheless, I encourage future studies to further investigate these constructs and their conceptual foundation and to develop measures that are more sophisticated.

The findings also point to the need for further research on accommodation processes, their antecedents, outcomes and actual effectiveness. Despite recent advancements in disability and WAs research, researchers are still far from fully understanding successful inclusion of PWDs and WAs’ recipients. More theory and empirical insights are needed. For instance, subsequent studies might include the perspective of further stakeholders in the process to gain a more complete picture of accommodation processes. Investigating the strength and weaknesses of the accommodation process, the perspective of coworkers and supervisors might be of particular interest (referring to Article I). Further, studying coworkers’ acceptance of WAs, future research should directly assess coworker assessments and investigate their effects on recipients’ perceptions (referring to Article II). When investigating WAs’ effects on outcomes such as subjective age (Article III), it would be worthwhile to investigate their impact not only on accommodation recipients, but also on their coworkers, as their age norms and stereotypes (Posthuma & Campion, 2008) and, in turn, their own subjective age assessments might be affected as well.

Besides further stakeholder perspectives, it might be equally revealing to explore further moderators that attenuate negative side effects of WAs, such as increased stigmatization, and help employees to keep a positive self-perception. Inclusive climates (Nishii, 2013) and positive age-diversity climates along with age-inclusive HR practices (Boehm et al., 2014) might represent such intervention opportunities for organizations willing to sustainably include their accommodated workers.


20

Overall Conclusion

WAs are not a universal remedy for all problems that PWDs experience in organizations. However, they can offer a way to improve work conditions and enhance performance of the respective employees. WAs have to be actively managed in order to fulfill their promises. When not properly accompanied and implemented, WAs can evoke new unwelcome issues, such as interpersonal problems with coworkers and supervisors. By investigating the perspective of the most affected employee group – employees with health restrictions – this work provides new insights into their experiences, perceived coworkers’ accommodation acceptance, and subjective age assessments. Moreover, accommodations may benefit not only PWDs, but also older workers, parents, and all different employee subgroups (Colella & Bruyère, 2011).

I hope that this dissertation will stimulate additional research on health-restricted employees and related WAs. The final goal should always be the development of sound managerial practices that will further incorporate the desires, strengths, and abilities of every employee.


21

References

Acemoglu, D., & Angrist, J. (1998). Consequences of employment protection? The case of the Americans with Disabilities Act (No. w6670). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Amiot, C. E., Terry, D. J., Jimmieson, N. L., & Callan, V. J. (2006). A longitudinal investigation of coping processes during a merger: Implications for job satisfaction and organizational identification. Journal of Management, 32(4), 552-574.

Baldridge, D. C., & Swift, M. L. (2013). Withholding requests for disability accommodation: The role of individual differences and disability attributes. Journal of Management, 39(3), 743-762.

Baldridge, D. C., & Swift, M. L. (2015). Age and Assessments of Disability Accommodation Request Normative Appropriateness. Human Resource Management.

Baldridge, D. C., & Veiga, J. F. (2001). Toward a greater understanding of the willingness to request an accommodation: Can requesters’ beliefs disable the Americans with Disabilities Act? Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 85-99.

Baldridge, D. C., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). The impact of anticipated social consequences on recurring disability accommodation requests. Journal of Management, 32(1), 158-179.

Bjelland, M. J., Bruyère, S. M., von Schrader, S., Houtenville, A. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, A., & Webber, D. A. (2010). Age and disability employment discrimination: Occupational rehabilitation implications. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(4), 456-471.

Boehm, S. A., Kunze, F., & Bruch, H. (2014). Spotlight on age-diversity climate: The impact of age-inclusive HR practices on firm-level outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 67(3), 667–704.

Bordia, P., Hobman, E., Jones, E., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. J. (2004). Uncertainty during organizational change: Types, consequences, and management strategies. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(4), 507-532.


22

Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. (2005). Talentship, talent segmentation, and sustainability: A new HR decision science paradigm for a new strategy definition. Human Resource Management, 44(2), 129-136.

Bruch, H., Kunze, F., & Böhm, S. (2010). Generationen erfolgreich führen. Konzepte und Praxiserfahrungen zum Management des demographischen Wandels. Wiesbaden: Gabler.

Centers for Disease, C., & Prevention. (2003). Trends in aging—United States and worldwide. MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report, 52(6), 101.

Cleveland, J. N., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Ratz, J. M. (1997). Accommodation in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 7(1), 77-107.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3 ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.

Colella, A. (2001). Coworker distributive fairness judgments of the workplace accommodation of employees with disabilities. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 100-116.

Colella, A., & Bruyère, S. M. (2011). Disability and employment: New directions for industrial and organizational psychology. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 473-503).

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425.

Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 15(1), 1-13.

Destatis (2016). Kräftiger Zuwachs der Erwerbstätigenzahl im 4. Quartal 2015. Retrieved from https://www.destatis.de/DE/PresseService/Presse/ Pressemitteilungen/2016/02/PD16_049_13321.html;jsessionid=4F55AFE9B1306FAD6A3A94F62C39977D.cae2

Dwertmann, D. J. G., & Boehm, S. A. (2016). Status matters: The asymmetric effects of supervisor-subordinate disability incongruence and climate for inclusion. Academy of Management Journal, 59(1), 44-64.


23

Dwertmann, D. J. G. (2013). Adapting to the future workforce: Combining diversity and organizational climate research. Aachen, Germany: Shaker.

Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36(3), 305-323.

Florey, A. T. & Harrison, D. A. (2000). Responses to informal accommodation requests from employees with disabilities: Multistudy evidence on willingness to comply. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 224-233.

Graen, G. B. & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.

Ilmarinen, J. (2009). Aging and work: An international perspective. Ivancevich, J. M., & Gilbert, J. A. (2000). Diversity management. Time for a new

approach. Public Personnel Management, 29(1), 75-92. Kates, R. W., Parris, T. M., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2005). What is sustainable

development? Environment, 47(3), 8. Kotter-Grühn, D., Kornadt, A. E., & Stephan, Y. (2015). Looking Beyond

Chronological Age: Current Knowledge and Future Directions in the Study of Subjective Age. Gerontology, 62(1), 86-93.

Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2008). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, 86(7/8), 130.

Kulik, C. T., Ryan, S., Harper, S., & George, G. (2014). Aging populations and management. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 929-935.

Kulkarni, M., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011). Socialization of people with disabilities in the workplace. Human Resource Management, 50(4), 521-540.

Kunze, F. & Bruch, H. (2010). Age-based faultlines and perceived productive energy: The moderation of transformational leadership. Small Group Research, 41(5), 593-620.

Kunze, F., Raes, A. M., & Bruch, H. (2015). It matters how old you feel: Antecedents and performance consequences of average relative subjective age in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1511.


24

Lee, R. (2003). The demographic transition: three centuries of fundamental change. The journal of economic perspectives, 17(4), 167-190.

Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2007). Hidden talent: How leading companies hire, retain, and benefit from people with disabilities. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

McMichael, A. J., Butler, C. D., & Folke, C. (2003). New visions for addressing sustainability. Science, 302(5652), 1919-1920.

Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H., & Axelrod, B. (2001). The war for talent. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Montepare, J. M. (2009). Subjective age: Toward a guiding lifespan framework. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33(1), 42-46.

Montiel, I. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability separate pasts, common futures. Organization & Environment, 21(3), 245-269.

Morgan, S. P. (2003). Is low fertility a twenty-first-century demographic crisis? Demography, 40(4), 589-603.

Moulaert, T., & Biggs, S. (2013). International and European policy on work and retirement: Reinventing critical perspectives on active ageing and mature subjectivity. Human Relations, 66(1), 23-43.

Nevala, N., Pehkonen, I., Koskela, I., Ruusuvuori, J., & Anttila, H. (2015). Workplace Accommodation Among Persons with Disabilities: A Systematic Review of Its Effectiveness and Barriers or Facilitators. Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 25(2), 432-448.

Nishii, L. H. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1754-1774.

Nolte, E., & McKee, M. (2004). Does health care save lives? Avoidable mortality revisited: The Nuffield Trust.

Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (2013). The psychology of organizational change: Viewing change from the employee’s perspective: Cambridge University Press.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.

Posthuma, R. A., & Campion, M. A. (2008). Age stereotypes in the workplace: Common stereotypes, moderators, and future research directions. Journal of Management.


25

Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). Perceptions of organizational change: a stress and coping perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1154.

Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader–member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 428-436.

Silverstein, M. (2008). Meeting the challenges of an aging workforce. American journal of industrial medicine, 51(4), 269-280.

Sirkin, H. L., Keenan, P., & Jackson, A. (2005). The hard side of change management. Harvard Business Review, 83(10), 108.

Stephan, Y., Chalabaev, A., Kotter-Grühn, D., & Jaconelli, A. (2013). “Feeling younger, being stronger”: An experimental study of subjective age and physical functioning among older adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 68(1), 1-7.

Stone, D. L., & Colella, A. (1996). A model of factors affecting the treatment of disabled individuals in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 352-401.

Toppinen‐Tanner, S., Kalimo, R., & Mutanen, P. (2002). The process of burnout in

white‐collar and blue‐collar jobs: eight‐year prospective study of exhaustion. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(5), 555-570.

Truxillo, D. M., & Fraccaroli, F. (2013). Research themes on age and work: Introduction to the Special Issue. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(3), 249-252.

Tsui, A. S., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 402-423.

United Nations. (2006). Some facts about persons with disabilities. Paper presented at enable! International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/pdfs/factsheet.pdf

United Nations. (2010). Population projections using probabilistic projections of total fertility and life expectancy at birth, based on a Bayesian Hierarchical Model (BHM). Retrieved from http://esa.un.org/unpd/ppp/Figures-Output/Population/ PPP_Population-Age_65Plus.htm

United Nations. (2015). World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision, custom data acquired via website, retreived from http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/DataQuery/


26

Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515-541.

Vornholt, K., Uitdewilligen, S., & Nijhuis, F. J. (2013). Factors affecting the acceptance of people with disabilities at work: a literature review. Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 23(4), 463-475.

WHO. (2011). World report on disability 2011. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

Wooten, L. P. (2008). Guest editor’s note: Breaking barriers in organizations for the purpose of inclusiveness. Human Resource Management, 47(2), 191-197.

Zenger, T. R., & Lawrence, B. S. (1989). Organizational demography: The differential effects of age and tenure distributions on technical communication. Academy of Management journal, 32(2), 353-376.

Article I

27

Article I

Accommodating Jobs to Secure Older Workers’ Continued Employment: An Employee Perspective on Individual Change

Processes4

Abstract

Our study provides comprehensive insights into the experiences of workplace accommodation recipients, exploring the notion that workplace accommodations have certain costs. Building on the organizational change and accommodations literatures, we propose a theoretical framework of negative experiences during workplace accommodation processes and apply it to qualitative data from group interviews with accommodation recipients working at a German industrial company. Although problems associated with health-related restrictions were mostly solved by accommodations, affected employees with disabilities often experienced interpersonal problems and conflicts similar to those that typically occur during organizational change. Lacks of social support as well as poor communication and information were often raised as criticisms. Furthermore, discrimination, bullying, and maltreatment appeared to be common during accommodation processes. To make accommodation processes more successful, we derive recommendations from the organizational change literature and apply them to the accommodation context. We also emphasize unique characteristics of the accommodation setting and translate these into practical implications.

Keywords: workplace accommodation, disability, impairment, interpersonal conflicts, organizational change

4 Co-authored article with Julia M. Kensbock, and Stephan A. Boehm

Article I

28

“If there is no struggle, there is no progress.” Frederick Douglass (1818 – 1895)

Introduction

Organizations are confronted with a growing number of persons with physical or mental impairments and disabilities among the working population (WHO, 2011). A primary trigger of this development is a societal phenomenon often referred to as demographic change in age (Dychtwald, Erickson, & Morison, 2004; Tempest, Barnatt, & Coupland, 2002): Due to the combined effects of low birthrates and increased longevity, the average ages of entire nations as well as their workforces are rising. Owing to the high correlation of age and disability (Colella & Bruyère, 2011; WHO, 2011), older workers tend to experience more significant health limitations, putting their further employment at risk. Likewise, as governments are raising the retirement age, it is also becoming harder to opt out of working life for reasons of health (Muller-Camen, Croucher, Flynn, & Schröder, 2011). Thus, maintaining the employability of employees with disabilities is a primary corporate challenge of our time, raising one key question: How can workplaces be accommodated to enable employees with disabilities to work in ways that both add value for a firm and are satisfying for an affected individual?

Workplace accommodations encompass “modifications in the job, work environment, work process, or conditions of work that reduce physical and social barriers so that people with disabilities experience equal opportunity in a competitive work environment” (Colella & Bruyère, 2011: 478). To date, accommodation research has been approached mainly from the view of the employing organization or from the perspective of colleagues working with a person with a disability, to provide important insights into the preconditions and reasons that increase the likelihood of an accommodation being granted (Florey & Harrison, 2000) and the requirements under which colleagues tend to perceive an accommodation to be fair and justified (Colella, 2001). However, surprisingly, there has been little research from the perspective of the primary actors in the accommodation process, i.e. the employees with disabilities (Balser & Harris, 2008).

As one important exception, Baldridge and colleagues (Baldridge & Veiga, 2001, 2006; Baldridge & Swift, 2013) considered the perspective of employees with

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/f/frederickd377775.html

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/f/frederickd377775.html

Article I

29

disabilities and systematically examined their tendency to request accommodations. Remarkably, these studies show that employees with disabilities primarily fear psychological and social consequences and costs that prevent them from requesting an accommodation. Similarly, Davison and colleagues (2009) showed that negative past experiences in requesting accommodations affect the likelihood of individuals requesting accommodations in the future. While these studies constitute an important step towards understanding the psychological processes associated with accommodation requests, scholars have largely neglected the question of what employees actually experience after the accommodation has been requested and granted. We seek to shed light on the experiences of accommodation recipients during the actual accommodation process and thus expand the focus from an accommodation requester’s view to a recipient’s view, investigating both the positive and especially the negative aspects of actual accommodation experiences.

Besides the work of Baldridge and colleagues and Davison et al. (2009), the notion that workplace accommodations might also be accompanied by negative consequences for and experiences by accommodation recipients is not common in the accommodations literature. Instead, many studies suggest or assume that after the granting of an accommodation, the situation ends well for the affected employee, since his or her health issues are potentially solved and his or her further employment is secured (Colella & Bruyère, 2011; Schartz et al., 2006). We agree that accommodations are an important and indispensable opportunity to ensure the employability of people with disabilities and to increase the productivity of employees and organizations (Solovieva et al., 2011; Solovieva & Walls, 2013; Hartnett et al., 2011). Undeniably, accommodations solve some key problems of affected employees, i.e. practical, health-related problems. However, we argue that, once granted, accommodations also lead to novel and unexpected challenges for employees, especially interpersonal problems and team conflicts.

Theoretically, our assumption is based on the notion that accommodation processes might be associated with certain social costs and thus problems and conflicts (Baldridge & Veiga, 2001, 2006). This ‘negative side’ to accommodations was also echoed by Colella & Bruyère (2011: 479), who ask whether “these concerns on the part of people with disabilities [are] justified?” To further investigate this important gap in the accommodation literature, we draw on a second body of literature, i.e. studies on

Article I

30

organizational change. Specifically, we suggest that accommodation and organizational change processes share some important commonalities that allow for a transfer and combination of extant research findings. Thus, to derive a theoretical framework explaining experiences during accommodation processes, we integrate two central bodies of literature: First, we build on existing studies in the domain of disability and specifically accommodation research (e.g. Baldrige & Veiga, 2001, 2006; Colella, 2001; Gates, 2000). Second, we draw on the organizational change literature (e.g. Oreg et al., 2011).

Finally, the specific cultural and organizational context of the present study allows us to further contribute to the literature by complementing the U.S.-based studies that to date have characterized research on workplace accommodations. In the context of this study, accommodation requests are not raised by employees themselves (as typically specified in the ADA) but are “imposed from the outside”, i.e. by supervisors. Specifically, a supervisor initiates a workplace accommodation in response to the fact that an employee is unable to meet performance requirements owing to his or her disability. In our view, this institutional difference will also impact findings on accommodations’ effectiveness, since employees might perceive externally imposed accommodations more negatively.

Taken together, this study seeks to: (1) direct attention to the accommodation recipients’ experiences during and after the actual accommodation; (2) internationalize the accommodation literature by investigating accommodation processes in a non-U.S. setting that are not based on the ADA legal framework and are not requested by an employee; (3) assess potential similarities between employee reactions to accommodation processes and to organizational change; and (4) derive success factors in order to help organizations to effectively implement their accommodation processes.

To obtain such comprehensive insights into accommodation recipients’ experiences, we applied a qualitative approach. Using the method of template analysis (King, 1998), we develop a coding framework based on theoretical insights from both the organizational change and accommodation literatures and apply it to interview data from accommodation recipients of a large German industrial company.

Article I

31

Theoretical Framework

Accommodations as Individual-level Change Processes

The notion of change, which is an integral part of the accommodation concept, can take the form of a “change in duties, a change in a valuable commodity, a change in the physical conditions of work, a change in the tools of work, a change in resources available to coworkers, or even a change in location” (Colella, 2001: 101). Although we propose that organizational change processes and workplace accommodation processes share important similarities, findings from the organizational change literature cannot be entirely transferred to the accommodation context. An important difference concerns the level of analysis. In contrast to organizational-level change processes, workplace accommodation processes primarily occur at the individual level. That is, although colleagues working directly with an accommodation recipient are often also affected by a change, workplace accommodation processes primarily affect single employees and their immediate work environments. By contrast, organizational-level change processes typically affect many employees simultaneously. Furthermore, the reason for an accommodation is an individual-level problem, that is, an employee’s health restriction rather than an organizational-level issue or a management decision. Despite these different reference points, we posit that organizational change processes (as collective change processes) and accommodation processes share three important features that allow us to understand accommodations as individual-level change processes.

First, both organizational change processes and accommodation processes are characterized by an intentional goal to approach a challenge / an existing problem and to achieve an improved future state (Beckhard & Harris, 1987). Organizational change can be directed at various corporate challenges, for instance, business acquisitions or mergers, expansions, process improvements, or technology changes (Smith, 2002). Similarly, workplace accommodation processes derive from a situation that is in some way problematic, i.e. an employee’s health impairments interfere with the performance expectations of his or her job. Accommodation processes thus aim to find solutions to create a work environment in which employees can perform key functions of their jobs and can receive the same benefits of employment as others (Vernon-Oehmke, 1994).

Second, from the accommodation recipient’s perspective, both processes share the novelty associated with the changed workplace situation – a feature individuals often

Article I

32

perceive as threatening and harmful (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006). In both processes, employees are required to adapt to a new working environment, including potentially changed behaviors, duties, locations, or colleagues (Holt et al., 2007). Likewise, workplace accommodations often require employees to adapt to new working situations, which also involve novel tasks or skills.

Third and most importantly, both process types have a strong affective significance for affected individuals. The impact of organizational change has recently been examined from an individual-level perspective, considering the perceptions and sensemaking of the affected employee (Oreg et al., 2013; George & Jones, 2001). In line with affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), work-related processes have the potential to elicit both positive and negative affective reactions in employees. Change processes are also interpreted as work events that provoke various affective reactions – on the negative side, employee reactions to change often include stress, anxiety, or resistance, which – in turn – influence work attitudes such as job satisfaction or turnover intention (e.g. Ashford, 1988; Kiefer, 2005). Similarly, for accommodation recipients, the situation of being impaired in their jobs and being dependent on their employer’s help can certainly be a profound landmark in their work lives, especially for individuals who acquired their disability during their employment. Therefore, it can be assumed that the perception of the accommodation process might also exert a critical influence on affected employees’ wellbeing.

Owing to these commonalities, we propose that accommodation experiences should be perceived and analyzed similarly to organizational change experiences and that they might elicit affective reactions comparable to typical reactions to change.

Stakeholders in the Accommodation Process

In line with Gates (Gates et al., 1998; Gates, 2000), we agree that accommodations are inherently social processes that influence and are influenced by other actors in the social environment surrounding an accommodation recipient. Thus, we suppose that many conflicts and problems experienced during the accommodation phase will be interpersonal. Besides the accommodation recipients, several parties are involved in a typical accommodation process.

To begin with, the affected employee has coworkers that may be directly affected by the change (García et al., 2005). Research on coworkers’ reactions to workplace

Article I

33

accommodations suggests that interpersonal problems might stem from distributive justice issues, which refer to the differential treatment a single person in a group is provided when receiving an accommodation (Colella, 2001), which can elicit negative reactions and perceptions of unfairness in coworkers. An accommodation may be perceived as unfair by coworkers for various reasons (Paetzold et al., 2008): First, it may seem that the accommodation recipient’s job becomes easier (reducing his or her inputs) while the outcome remains the same as that of others. Second, coworkers might feel that their own inputs become higher (more difficulty, inconvenience, stress) through a colleague’s accommodation. Third, coworkers sometimes view accommodations as valuable and desirable outcomes given to another person but not to oneself (e.g. an ergonomic chair). Fourth, scarce resources that could also be used for other purposes might be spent for workplace accommodation purposes, for instance, money spent for the ergonomic improvement of only one workstation. The perception of unfairness by coworkers is thought to be stronger if employees work together in very interdependent ways (Colella, 2001), for instance, involving job rotation. In such situations, an accommodation and the related job easing for one employee can cause a direct deterioration for others, since they must often take over especially difficult or exhausting elements of this employee’s job. Another difficulty exists for accommodation recipients whose health impairments are not directly visible. When the reason for a workplace accommodation is invisible or unclear, coworkers tend to believe that the person might ‘fake’ a health-related problem, calling into question the reason for an accommodation (Paetzold et al., 2008; Colella, 2001). An additional source of conflict between accommodation recipients and their coworkers may be the perception that a workgroup’s performance is weakened by having employees with disabilities in the team. Especially when performance is measured or even rewarded at a team level, tensions between coworkers may arise (Paetzold et al., 2008).

Besides coworkers, supervisors or managers are primary stakeholders in the accommodation process (Gates, 2000). Specifically, they are in charge of organizing the implementation of a change and are directly interacting and communicating with an accommodation recipient. Supervisors might have strong concerns about employees with disabilities, for several reasons. First, similar to coworkers, they might think that these employees are incapable of high performance and therefore lower the department’s or workgroup’s overall performance. Indeed, evidence shows that

Article I

34

supervisors often perceive employees with disabilities as helpless and dependent (Baron & Neuman, 1996). Second, owing to these employees’ disability, age, or health status, supervisors might feel that these employees are different from themselves (demographic dissimilarity) (Turban & Jones, 1988), worsening their relationship quality with individuals with disabilities (Colella & Varma, 2001). Third, workplace accommodation in workplaces might in many cases run counter to the business objectives that supervisors are pursuing, i.e. cost-effectiveness or operating efficiency, a contradiction that might create further reservations towards employees with disabilities.

Finally, there may be other stakeholders in the accommodation process, especially in large organizations. Here, supervisors often do not organize the accommodation process on their own, but receive support from specialized departments responsible for accommodation issues, such as HR departments or company physicians (Colella & Bruyère, 2011). For them, accommodations typically generate additional work, possibly leading to negative feelings towards an employee with a disability.

An A Priori Model of Potential Experiences during the Accommodation Process

As described above, we assume that accommodation processes share some important characteristics with general change processes, which allows us to transfer knowledge from organizational change to develop an a priori model of potential experiences during accommodation processes. In doing so, we build on Oreg and colleagues’ (2011) review of change recipients’ reactions to organizational change. The authors developed an inductive organizing scheme by means of which they classify 79 quantitative studies. The model includes various antecedents of change (e.g. characteristics of the change recipient, of the internal change context, or of the change content), which lead to employees’ explicit reactions (affective, cognitive, and behavioral) and finally result in change consequences (work-related and personal consequences). Owing to the proposed similarities of general change and specific workplace accommodation processes, we consider this scheme as a reasonable framework that can be applied to our study context. Particularly, we focus on two major blocks of the framework that we assume to be specifically relevant for the workplace accommodation context. First, we focus on the identification of a series of change antecedents, especially those associated with the characteristics of the actual change process (e.g. participation, communication and information, support). Thereby, we also draw from the literature on interpersonal

Article I

35

experiences during accommodation processes to complement our a priori model. Second, concerning the change reactions, we focus on accommodation recipients’ immediate, explicit, and affective reactions during the process. Although organizational change processes are sometimes accompanied by positive employee reactions such as satisfaction (Jones et al., 2005) or commitment (Walker et al., 2007), in the majority of studies, change processes are associated with various forms of psychological distress (Kiefer, 2005; Oreg et al., 2011).

For the accommodation context, we propose that most of these negative experiences stem from the absence of supportive conditions during the process. A large proportion of past research on organizational change has identified such supportive conditions in the organizational environment that are critical for change success, including change participation (Bordia et al., 2004), communication (Lewis & Seibold, 1998), or trust in management (Morgan & Zeffane, 2003). This indicates that the absence of such supportive conditions will put change success at a risk. Similarly, from the accommodation recipient’s perspective, the lack of such supportive boundary conditions will probably cause individual problems and conflicts during the accommodation phase and will likely provoke negative affective reactions.

Thus, in line with the model, we primarily focus on employee perceptions of negative experiences (antecedents) as well as their negative affective reactions (outcomes) during the process that eventually arise from these antecedents. We further subdivide the accommodation antecedents into interpersonal and process-related experiences (Figure 2). We assume that affective reactions result from both categories of expected experiences. Despite our theoretical model’s theoretical focus on negative experiences, our qualitative analysis also considers the positive perceptions of accommodation recipients in order to provide a holistic picture of accommodation experiences.

Article I

36

Figure 2: Model of Experiences during the Accommodation Process

A. Interpersonal Experiences during the Accommodation Process

The interpersonal experiences presented might stem from interactions with the different stakeholders described above, i.e. coworkers, supervisors, and specialized departments.

A.1. Lack of social support. Social support can be defined as “the availability of helping relationships and the quality of those relationships” (Leavy, 1983: 5). Empirical results show that social support is a powerful resource that buffers stress reactions (Viswesvaran et al., 1999) and helps an employee to manage work demands (Lysaght et al., 2012). Research on organizational change (e.g. Eby et al., 2000) emphasizes that social support shown by coworkers and supervisors/further stakeholders is a critical success factor for change initiatives. In the special case of employees with disabilities, Baumgärtner, Boehm, and Dwertmann (2014) show that social support positively affects job performance, especially for individuals with low self-efficacy. The authors argue that, in line with the support buffer (compensation) hypothesis, social support provides necessary interpersonal resources especially to individuals with low intrapersonal resources, i.e. low self-efficacy levels.

Article I

37

In the accommodation context, social support can be provided by all the different stakeholders involved in the process. Concerning the accommodation recipients’ coworkers, Colella (2001) points out that support and cooperation in the workgroup are important success factors for the implementation of an accommodation. Gates (2000) also suggests that supervisor support is essential for accommodation recipients and thus, if missing, a potential source of perceived problems.

A.2. Discrimination, bullying, and maltreatment. Employees with disabilities tend to belong to a minority in the workforce who are confronted with comparable challenges as other marginalized groups (e.g. religious or racial minorities; Ruggs et al., 2013). Even without any accommodation, their disability makes them susceptible to stereotyping and stigmatization (Stone & Colella, 1996; Colella & Bruyère, 2011), i.e. a pervasive “devaluation […] on the basis of some characteristic they possess, related to membership in a group that is disfavored, devalued, or disgraced by the general society” (Hinshaw, 2007: 23). Given such processes of stigmatization and the detrimental implications workplace accommodations might have on their colleagues, as outlined above, it seems likely that accommodation recipients are not perceived as very desirable team members (Miller & Werner, 2007). This might lead to the devaluation and exclusion of affected employees from workgroup activities (Stone & Colella, 1996). One specific phenomenon we also expect to observe in this context is that accommodation recipients might be confronted with expressions of envy from their coworkers. From a distributive justice perspective, Colella (2001) argues that coworkers often perceive others’ accommodations as unequal treatment and as unfair because they imply more favorable working conditions.

In addition to avoidance and exclusionary behavior, we expect that coworkers’ reservations against accommodation recipients also give rise to more overt hostile interpersonal behavior including open conflicts, discrimination, or bullying. Especially the occurrence of bullying seems likely in an accommodation situation, as members of minority groups are frequently victims of discrimination (Fine & Asch, 1988; Green et al., 2005), particularly if they have a disability that makes some accommodation necessary (Baldridge et al., in press; Perry et al., 2000). Moreover, according to Salin (2003), changes to the status quo, such as workgroup composition changes but also more general organizational change processes, can serve as a trigger of bullying. Finally, increasing the number of employees with disabilities in a team also means increasing

Article I

38

the workgroup’s diversity – diversity, in turn, has also been shown to increase the incidence of aggressive workplace behavior owing to difficulties in communication, mutual stereotyping, and social categorization (Pelled et al., 1999; Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). Besides the discrimination and bullying conducted by coworkers, hostile behavior from supervisors is a common phenomenon known in literature (vertical aggression) (e.g. Cortina et al., 2001). One possible explanation is that a perceived power imbalance is a prerequisite for bullying, which is especially a problem for employees belonging to minority groups (Salin, 2003). We therefore assume that accommodation recipients are likely to perceive discrimination, maltreatment, or bullying not only from coworkers but also from supervisors and other authorities in the organization.

A.3. Lack of communication and information. Another well-known success factor for organizational change is the communication and information about the change process on the part of the management or superiors (Lewis & Seibold, 1998; Elving, 2005). In this regard, Bordia and colleagues (2004) argue that providing employees with change-related information will help them to feel better prepared and better able to deal with a change. Indeed, systematic communication has been shown to reduce uncertainty during organizational change (Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991) and to increase employees’ perceived procedural justice, trust, and commitment (Gopinath & Becker, 2000).

Therefore, we suggest that accommodation recipients should receive reasonable information about change processes from supervisors and other responsible stakeholders. Communication should keep a recipient updated at any point of the accommodation process and should include information about what the next steps are in the accommodation process, when these steps will be performed, how the accommodation will be implemented, and who the responsible contact person is for the process. In case this information is insufficient, this should be perceived as a considerable negative aspect of the accommodation by the affected employees.

B. Process-Related Experiences during the Accommodation Process

Further to the interpersonal problems and conflicts associated with an accommodation, there are certain negative experiences inherent in the accommodation process itself. These refer to unique circumstances we expect to accompany the accommodation process in organizational practice (Solovieva & Walls, 2013).

Article I

39

B.1. Lack of participation. Participation refers to the extent of involvement of accommodation recipients during the accommodation phase, especially with regard to planning and implementing the individual change (cf. Oreg et al., 2011). Having control over the process, i.e. having the opportunity and sufficient time to raise one’s voice and being sincerely listened, should increase the procedural justice judgments of accommodation recipients (Lind et al., 1990; Martin et al., 2005). Moreover, participative decision-making is associated with reduced levels of physical and psychological stress (Bordia et al., 2004; Jackson, 1983), and increased perception of control (Sagie & Koslowsky, 1996). Also in the case of workplace accommodations, Balser and Harris (2008) already showed that seeking accommodation recipients’ input during the process increased their satisfaction with the accommodation. As a consequence, we assume that a lack of participation during the accommodation process can result in a potentially negative experience for affected employees.

B.2. Lack of accommodation effectiveness. Workplace accommodations aim at eliminating (or significantly reducing) the difficulties associated with the health problems in everyday work. However, just like organizational change processes that are not necessarily successful but might provoke failures and frustrations instead (Reichers et al., 1997), workplace accommodations might not necessarily reach their intended effect. In interviews with employers who implemented workplace accommodations, Solovieva and Walls (2013) found that accommodations are not always perceived as effective as they should be. For instance, if an employee suffers from back problems, he or she will not be able to carry out overhead work any longer. Transferring the employee to a workstation that does not include overhead work but involves bending over instead will not ease day-to-day work. Thus, due to organizational constraints, it will sometimes not be possible to entirely solve the existing problem through workplace accommodations. From the perspective of an accommodation recipient, however, the perception that “accommodations aren’t helping” (Solovieva & Walls, 2013: 203) can be seen as a central issue in the process.

B.3. Process duration. Another potential problem associated with organizational constraints can be the length of the process. Especially for severe health problems, providing a workplace accommodation can take a long period of time, for instance owing to organizational measures to be followed or financial resources that must be

Article I

40

provided. Such delays might appear burdensome for employees and might hinder the process from being judged as successful. B.4. Lack of accommodation possibilities. In the study by Solovieva and Walls (2013), employers report that a lack of accommodation possibilities is a common reason for not granting suggested accommodations to employees. Indeed, most organizations are not geared to provide many workplace accommodations. Instead, especially private enterprises operating in a competitive market often depend on their employees’ flexibility in order to be able to quickly adapt to external circumstances. Adapting workplaces to individual employees’ needs reduces this flexibility (e.g. concerning job rotations). Therefore, accommodation requests may pose a challenge and – eventually – considerable financial effort to such companies and in many cases, providing accommodations is no simple undertaking – presumably a severe disadvantage from an employee perspective.

C. Accommodation Recipients’ Affective Reactions

In line with the literature on reactions of change recipients (e.g. Kiefer, 2005), we primarily focus on negative affective reactions during the accommodation process. We suppose that these affective reactions are consequences of the interpersonal and process-related experiences introduced above.

C.1. Uncertainty. Change processes are often accompanied by aversive feelings of uncertainty and anxiety (Ashford, 1988; Bordia et al., 2006). Uncertainty is “an individual’s inability to predict something accurately” (Milliken, 1987: 136). During the accommodation phase, employees often do not know how their future working situation will look like and whether an accommodation will lead to an improvement. Uncertainty can even take the form of change-related anxiety that arises from an actual or perceived threat of loss (Paterson & Cary, 2002). Workplace accommodations can also be associated with a perceived threat of loss, as one’s being transferred to another position might imply losing one’s previous coworkers; alterations in the job design might be accompanied by a salary reduction, etc. Moreover, job-related know-how and skills often cannot be transferred to a new work environment, which might result in a loss of prestige, reputation, and personal resources.

C.2. Stress and strain. Organizational change processes such as company mergers can be seen as stressful life events (Cartwright & Cooper, 1993), since they are often

Article I

41

accompanied by disruptions in work life. The increased stress levels during organizational change also arise from uncertainty over the future (Ashford, 1988). In this framework, we suppose that, in the context of workplace accommodations, stress and strain might be consequences on the one hand of the feeling of uncertainty (emerging for instance from a lack of managerial communication or a lack of participation). On the other hand, interpersonal problems and conflicts during an accommodation could be direct causes of stress and strain. Especially, social stressors including discrimination, bullying, and maltreatment are likely to be associated with higher stress levels (Hansen et al., 2006).

Methods

Organizational Setting

Our study was conducted in cooperation with a large German industrial company and took place in a manufacturing plant with approximately 15,000 employees. Manufacturing workers in this plant were on average 40.4 years old, and 89.1% were male; 13.8% of manufacturing staff had some kind of job-related health restrictions diagnosed by a (company) physician, and 4.4% had an official German disability ID documenting a disability status. Of the employees with a disability ID, 80.6% also had a performance-relevant health restriction, while 19.4% did not have any job-related health restrictions concerning their current workplace (e.g. a hearing impairment might not have any performance-related consequences for the required manufacturing task since all mandatory information is provided visually).

The manufacturing tasks are mostly executed by teams of 8 to 12 employees. The team members typically rotate through the different jobs performed by the team on an hourly basis, i.e. every employee works at up to eight different workstations in one workday. Owing to this interdependent work organization, employee job flexibility is crucial for enabling job rotation.

As a result of an aging workforce and a growing number of physical or mental health problems in this organization, the company established a systematic process to deal with manufacturing employees who fail to achieve expected standard performance on the production line. The primary objective of this process is to realize an individual workplace accommodation in order to increase individual work productivity while

Article I

42

maintaining job rotation; ideally, employees should be enabled to reach the standard performance of non-impaired workers again.

Typically, the accommodation procedure is initiated by a supervisor in response to prolonged health restrictions that have caused a performance deficit. Possible interventions are discussed and agreed upon in a round table consisting of a supervisor, an HR specialist, a company physician, a work council member, and – in some cases – an accommodation manager. Implemented workplace accommodations take three primary forms: (1) Transfer to another more suitable workplace. For instance, owing to shoulder problems and subsequent surgery, an employee was no longer capable of fulfilling the overhead tasks in his or her current workplace. Therefore, the employee was transferred to a workplace without overhead work. (2) Ergonomic adjustment of the original workstation. For instance, due to an irreversible damage of a hip joint, an employee was no longer capable of performing his or her current manufacturing task, which required permanent standing and walking. Therefore, the workplace was adjusted by providing a moveable seat and by rearranging the positions of the manufacturing components. Thus, work tasks could be fulfilled equally efficiently while seated. (3) Changes in working conditions. For instance, owing to several herniated disks and a subsequent spinal fusion of the lower back, an employee was no longer capable of working at any of the eight workstations of his or her team (job rotation). Therefore, the employee was excluded from job rotation and was permanently assigned to a single workspace in his or her former team. Because there was only low back strain, he or she was able to fully perform the required task.

Owing to a lack of documentation on the part of the company, a frequency distribution of these different workplace accommodation types cannot be provided. In the past three years prior to this study, 4.0% of the plant’s manufacturing staff officially underwent this accommodation process (equaling 579 employees with job-related health impairments and/or disabilities), highlighting the importance of accommodation for this company.

Participants

Our study sample consisted of 92 randomly selected accommodation recipients from the manufacturing department. Of these 92 invited employees, 73 finally participated in our study (a 79% response rate). A short questionnaire given to the participants revealed

Article I

43

that their mean age was 46.6 years (6.6 years above the manufacturing department’s mean age), and 90.6% was male. On average, participants were transferred 1.8 times during their accommodation phase. The mean process duration was 11.0 months. Owing to strict company regulations regarding data protection, we were unable to assess any further specifications of the health restriction types or disability types. In fact, company physicians are the only employees with access to these data.

Data collection

The data for this study were collected during 15 focus group interviews applying a variation of the nominal group technique (Delbecq et al., 1975). In this form of groupwork, participants individually generate ideas in response to specific guiding questions. We chose this technique primarily because we sought to receive a wide variability of non-biased responses in a time efficient manner. Additionally, the topic of workplace accommodations was considered a sensitive issue that might not be easy to talk about. This was aggravated by the fact that most participants did not know each other prior to the group interview. In general, the nominal group technique has been proven effective in health-related studies with client populations dealing with similarly sensitive topics such as severe physical disabilities (e.g. Elliot & Shewchuk, 2002). Thus, the silent idea generation that preceeded a group discussion was very beneficial for our setting.

In our study, participants were first welcomed by a company’s accommodation process manager who ensured the audience that their statements would not be individually traceable for the company and who introduced the independent focus group facilitators. The manager then left the room so that participants were alone with the two researchers, who started by providing information about the two-hour procedure to follow. After filling out a short demographic questionaire, the participants were asked to individually write down their ideas and impressions on metaplan cards, guided by the following two questions: (1) What types of positive aspects occurred during your accommodation process? (2) What types of negative aspects or problems occurred during your accommodation process?

Afterwards, all notes were shared with the group, as well as collected and roughly clustered on a board by the facilitator. This procedure helped ensure that participants could see the clustering and could speak up if their card content seemed to be

Article I

44

misunderstood. Concluding, there was a group discussion on the generated aspects during which participants were also encouraged to write down any new aspect arising from the discussion. We chose to refrain from the weighting and voting step, since we did not seek to converge to a shared solution – our goal was to get insights into accommodation recipients’ experiences that were as comprehensive and unbiased as possible.

Owing to very strict laws and regulations governing data protection, especially concerning health-related topics in this company and in Germany in general, we were not permitted to audiotape or videotape the nominal group sessions. We used the metaplan cards written by the nominal group participants as subject to the qualitative analysis. In cases where comments on the metaplan cards were too short or hard to understand, the facilitator directly asked the participant in question for further explication during the discussion phase; the comments were then added by the facilitator, using original terms. Following the nominal group sessions, the facilitators documented the board by taking photographs. Both researchers then jointly wrote a session reflection summarizing key take-aways from their observations (e.g. group atmosphere, displayed emotions, and key discussion topics).

Analysis

For the analysis, we adopted a procedure in between an inductive and a deductive approach. Template analysis (King, 1998) is a suitable way to build on existing theories; at the same time, it also leaves enough space for unanticipated themes emerging from the data. The method starts out with an a priori template of codes, expands it while analyzing the data, arriving at a final template (Crabtree & Miller, 1992). In this way, the approach enabled us to verify and advance the theoretical framework developed above. The template analysis approach has generally been proven effective in other organizational studies dealing with similar topics such as leaders’ negative emotions (Lindebaum & Fielden, 2011) or subordinates’ perceptions of stress management interventions (Randall et al., 2007).

Both positive (green) and negative (red) metaplan cards from the nominal group sessions were digitized and imported into MaxQDA. In a first step, we categorized the red cards. Each separate comment was coded by the two researchers who had been present during the group sessions. Following the approach of Randall et al. (2007), there

Article I

45

were two possible coding outcomes: Either the segment of text was coded in line with the theoretical framework (Figure 2), or the template had to be modified or supplemented. Based on this procedure, we further subdivided the category discrimination, bullying, and maltreatment in order to better reflect the empirical data. In a second step, each separate comment was re-examined with the revised template until we reached a final template. In a third and final stage, we coded the green metaplan cards. Since our coding template consisted of expected categories for the downside of workplace accommodations, we clustered the positive cards based on the neutral overarching categories interpersonal experiences, process-related experiences, and accommodation recipients’ affective reactions. Subcategories within these broad themes were generated in an exploratory manner while working through the data.

To enhance the coding’s reliability, two further researchers who had not been involved in the group interviews repeated the coding process. Apart from minor exceptions, the two resulting templates were very similar. As expected, there were some differences in the naming of the categories that did not match the initial a priori framework. The final category names for unexpected topics were derived by means of a group discussion among the researchers.

Results

In sum, we collected 285 metaplan cards, of which 218 (76%) referred to the question concerning issues and problems during the accommodation process; 17 metaplan cards had to be excluded owing to unrelatedness to the guiding questions (14 cards) or incomprehensibility (3 cards). Some participants noted several content aspects on one single card; thus, the 268 metaplan cards subject to the analyses resulted in 276 codings (208 negative and 68 positive codings). The final template, including the frequencies of the codes referring to our negative guiding question, is shown in Table 3, while the positive counterpart is provided in Table 4. Exemplary quotes for the various themes can be found in Table 5 and Table 6 in the Appendix.

Article I

46

Table 3: Final Categorization of Recipients’ Negative Experiences (the percentage from total negative codings appears in parentheses)

Category Number of times mentioned Sum

A. Interpersonal experiences 109 (52.4%)

A.1 Lack of social support 38 (18.3%)

By coworkers 6 (2.9%)

By supervisors / other stakeholders 21

(10.1%)

Unknown referent 11 (5.3%)

A.2. Discrimination, bullying, and maltreatment 50 (24.0%)


- Discrimination and bullying 4 (1.9%)

- Envy 5 (2.4%)

- Conflict old vs. young 14 (6.7%)

By supervisors / other stakeholders 20 (9.6%)

Unknown referent 7 (3.4%)

A.3. Lack of communication or information 21 (10.1%)

B. Process-related experiences 81 (38.9%)

B.1. Lack of participation 2 (1.0%)

B.2. Lack of accommodation effectiveness 14 (6.7%)

B.3. Process duration 23 (11.1%)

B.4. Lack of accommodation possibilities 13 (6.3%)

B.5. Feeling of dehumanization 5 (2.4%)

B.5. Other process-related problems and conflicts 24 (11.5%)

C. Accommodation recipients’ affective reactions 18 (8.7%)

C.1. Uncertainty 5 (2.4%)

C.2. Stress and strain 13 (6.3%)

208 (100%)

Article I

47

Table 4: Final Categorization of Recipients’ Positive Experiences (the percentage from total positive codings appears parentheses)

Category Number of times mentioned Sum

A. Interpersonal experiences 30 (44.1%)

A.1 Social support 28 (41.2%)


By supervisors / other stakeholders 20 (29.4%)

A.2. Communication or information 2 (2.9%)

B. Process-related experiences 37 (54.4%)

B.1. Participation 4 (5.9%)

B.2. Effectiveness of accommodation 24 (35.3%)

B.3. Short process duration 7 (10.3%)

B.4. Others 2 (2.9%)

C. Accommodation recipients’ affective reactions 1 (1.5%)

C.1. Certainty / Job retention 1 (1.5%)

68 (100%)

Negative Interpersonal Experiences (109 codings, 52% of total)

Lack of social support (38 codings, 18% of total). Participants referring to a lack of social support stated for instance that they had to organize their workplace accommodation without the help of supervisors or central functions such as HR. Other support-related comments concerned the lack of consideration and appreciation for accommodation recipients and a lack of understanding for the person’s disability (not taken seriously). Supervisors and other stakeholders (HR department, company physicians) were more often identified as sources of a lack of support (21 codings, 10% of total) than coworkers (11 codings, 5% of total).

Discrimination, bullying, and maltreatment (50 codings, 24% of total). In contrast to social support codings, coworkers were mentioned slightly more frequently as sources of discrimination, bullying, and maltreatment (23 codings, 11% of total) than

Article I

48

supervisors and other stakeholders (20 codings, 10% of total). Discriminatory behavior from supervisors was especially characterized by insulting and disrespectful communication to the respondents. Participants also felt threatened and placed under pressure (e.g. threat of dismissal). In statements referring to coworkers, participants reported false accusations, being called liars, or being derided (4 codings, 2% of total). We were also able to identify codings referring to the a priori subcategory envy by coworkers (5 codings, 2% of total). As expected, we found evidence that coworkers envied accommodation recipients for having received more favorable job conditions (e.g. “some of my colleagues are envious of my new workplace and try to give me even more work to do”). Additionally, owing to a high number of similar comments in the category discrimination, bullying, and maltreatment, a new subcategory arose from the data analysis that we did not expect a priori. We found that quite a few participants mentioned statements we refer to as the conflict ‘old vs. young’ (14 codings, 7% of total). Such statements criticized equal performance expectations, irrespective of age and competition for desirable workplaces (e.g. “with my performance, I must compete with younger, fitter employees; this is not ok”). Some participants claimed that younger employees were favored by supervisors or other stakeholders (e.g. “young workers are preferred”). Other statements also implied negative attributions towards younger employees (e.g. “young employees are too sniveling”).

Lack of communication or information (21 codings, 10% of total). Participants often criticized the absence of a dedicated contact person concerned with the accommodation process and a lack of feedback on the handling of their individual case. They also stated that they were not heard by supervisors and that communication between process stakeholders was poor.

Negative Process-Related Experiences (81 codings, 39% of total)

Lack of participation (2 codings, 1% of total). The lack of possibility to participate in the accommodation process was criticized only twice. From our initial framework, we expected a significantly larger number of comments.

Lack of accommodation effectiveness (14 codings, 7% of total). Participants criticizing the lack of situational improvement stated especially that their health restrictions (e.g. no overhead work) were not respected or that no accommodation measures had been taken at all.

Article I

49

Process duration (23 codings, 11% of total). Participants claimed that they had waited a long time until the final implementation of an accommodation, or that they had been transferred too many times during the process.

Lack of accommodation possibilities (13 codings, 6% of total). Here, the major aspect was the absence of ‘easy’ (i.e. less strenuous) work for accommodation recipients. Many participants also criticized that such jobs were increasingly outsourced or combined with additional tasks.

Data analysis resulted in two new categories classified as process-related issues not expected a priori. We called them feeling of dehumanization (5 codings, 2% of total) and other process-related problems and conflicts (24 codings, 12% of total). Statements classified as feeling of dehumanization refer to participants’ perceptions of being ‘treated like numbers’ and not being acknowledged as an individual but being reduced to one’s work output (e.g. “Individual problems are not noticed. People are seen as numbers; quantity and quality… people are forgotten”). The second new category, other process-related problems and conflicts, arose because some metaplan content did not match the existing codes but did not represent a separate code either. Issues raised in this category were mostly very specific individual disadvantages in the accommodation process (e.g. “loss of carpooling opportunity due to shift change”), or perceptions that could count as “single opinions” not mentioned by other participants (e.g. “favoritism: it only works with proper relationships”).

Negative Accommodation Recipients’ Affective Reactions (18 codings, 9% of total)

Uncertainty (5 codings, 2% of total). Most statements in this category referred to doubts and uncertainty about the future, especially concerning job security.

Stress and strain (13 codings, 6% of total). On the one hand, participants reported stress and strain emerging from the workplace accommodation itself, especially resulting from a high number of job transfers and treatment by other process stakeholders. On the other hand, respondents also emphasized that they felt stressed by the high workload in their teams and the pressure to perform.

Besides the codings for affective reactions, also other codings classified into different categories were emotionally charged. Some codings reflected feelings of concern (e.g. “it’s a matter of sink or swim”), others revealed a bitter, cynical tone (e.g.

Article I

50

“more and more people in suits and less and less workers”), while some sounded disappointed and sad (e.g. “nobody asks you how you feel”). These findings were also strongly supported by the impressions gained during the nominal group sessions and summarized in the session reflections. Researchers observed that some participants reacted very emotionally when talking about their accommodation process, which was revealed by intonation, facial expressions, and body language.

Positive Aspects of the Accommodation Process

In addition to the negative evaluations, 68 metaplan cards referred to positive experiences during the recipients’ accommodation process. These positive experiences were analyzed separately and represent 24% of all codings. Thus, there were approximately three times more negative than positive codings. The final template, including frequencies of the codes concerning the positive guiding question, are displayed in Table 4. Exemplary quotes can be found in Table 6 in the Appendix.

Positive interpersonal experiences (30 codings, 44% of total). In contrast to the preceding analysis of negative aspects, interpersonal experiences were not mentioned most frequently but were exceeded by process-related experiences. The major interpersonal strength was social support from supervisors and other stakeholders (20 codings, 29% of total positives), with most statements referring to a fairly practical, instrumental kind of support (e.g. “my former supervisor personally fought for my transition”).

Positive process-related experiences (37 codings, 54% of total). Overall, positive codings were most frequently referring to process-related experiences. Thereby, the most frequently mentioned process-related strength was accommodation effectiveness (24 codings, 35% total positives). Statements in this subcategory mostly referred to workplace aspects that had improved owing to the accommodation (e.g. “less physical strain now”).

Positive accommodation recipients’ affective reactions (1 coding, 1% of total). Compared to the preceding analysis of negative aspects, positive affective reactions were extremely rare. In fact, only one positive statement was provided that referred to the certainty of knowing that he or she can keep the accommodated workplace until retirement.

Article I

51

Discussion Prior research on workplace accommodations has provided important insights for

scholars and organizations to better understand how individuals and organizations request, manage, and perceive workplace accommodations for employees with disabilities. Still, some important gaps in the literature remained; our study sought to address these.

First, we sought to develop a more fine-grained and holistic view of workplace accommodations by focusing on recipients’ experiences during and after the accommodation process. In contrast to prior empirical work, our study investigated a later chronological phase of an accommodation, i.e. the phase after an accommodation has been granted and implemented. Building on the organizational change and accommodation literatures, we proposed a theoretical framework that served as a basis for a qualitative analysis of metaplan cards from nominal group sessions with accommodation recipients in a German industrial company. In sum, our findings indicate that negative evaluations are a substantial part of accommodation process experiences (Baldridge & Veiga, 2006; Davison et al., 2009). In our sample, negative statements were made three times more often than positive ones. The most frequently reported negative experiences referred to interpersonal issues, while the majority of positive comments concerned process-related aspects. In the category of interpersonal issues, perceived discrimination, bullying, and maltreatment from both coworkers and supervisors/other stakeholders was most prominent. Compared to this, the process-related issues were rather underrepresented, with the most common problem being long process duration. Furthermore, some participants also criticized insufficient accommodation effectiveness; however, an investigation of the positive evaluations of the accommodation process revealed that improvement of the situation was considered to be the major strength by most participants. Interestingly, perceptions of social support from coworkers and supervisors were very heterogeneous, with 38 negative comments (i.e. indicating lack of support) and 28 positive comments (i.e. indicating support). Since positive and negative aspects were raised by different employees, our conclusion is that accommodation process experiences are highly individual. In particular, supervisors as well as the teams they lead seem to differ concerning the support level they provide towards their followers/colleagues with health restrictions. This is an important finding,

Article I

52

which clearly calls for interventions such as awareness and leadership training offered throughout the organization.

In general, the themes proposed in our a priori framework were supported by the qualitative data. Taken together, these results suggest that workplace accommodations tend to solve practical problems that employees with disabilities are struggling with, but on the other hand, generate a wide range of other – mostly interpersonal issues – that have not yet received the attention they deserve (Colella & Bruyère, 2011). Notably, we consider this company to be a best practice example in systematically dealing with employees with disabilities and their related health impairments. Therefore, it is even more remarkable that we were able to identify this wide range of negative experiences among accommodation recipients in this company. The findings highlight the relevance of this topic, since even well-managed accommodation processes seem to lead to negative experiences and reactions among employees.

This finding might also be related to the second goal of our study, i.e. to conduct an accommodation study in a non-U.S. setting and to shed some light on external context factors. When analyzing prior accommodation literature, it is striking that most studies focus on accommodation requests by employees (e.g. Baldridge & Veiga, 2006). This seems to be due to the fact that accommodation requests represent a bottleneck in the U.S. ADA-based system, which is why research on this topic is crucial. Nevertheless, in contrast to the U.S. context where a person with a disability is usually expected to initiate the accommodation process, in our study’s context, accommodations are initiated by supervisors based on prior performance deficits. This is likely to influence persons with disabilities’ accommodation experiences, since they might consider the accommodation as externally imposed, and thus might experience the accommodation more negatively. As we know from various change management studies, affected employees might miss the sense of agency, competence, and internal control than if they had self-initiated an accommodation (Amiot et al., 2006; Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Oreg et al., 2011). While our study is non-comparative, was conducted in only one German organization, and thus does not allow for causal interpretations, our results still seem to imply that supervisor-initiated accommodation processes might be particularly prone to critical employee reactions, especially if they are not backed by increased levels of social support demonstrated by the leader.

Article I

53

Our study’s third goal was to build a bridge between the two research streams of workplace accommodations and organizational change. Our findings indicate that there are important similarities between individual accommodation processes and broader organizational change processes. Comparable to an organizational change process (Kiefer, 2005), an accommodation can be interpreted as a critical, affect-laden change experience that is associated with feelings of stress, strain, and uncertainty. The affective clusters obtained in the qualitative analysis were further supported by the impressions researchers gained during the nominal group sessions. Besides the similarities in affective responses, some supportive conditions known from organizational change settings seem to also be applicable to accommodation contexts. Especially a supportive environment (Vakola & Nikolaou, 2005) seems to be significant for accommodation recipients, since our analysis revealed many corresponding complaints. Other supportive conditions known from organizational change research that became apparent in the accommodation process are communication and information (Lewis & Seibold, 1998) or change effectiveness (Reichers et al., 1997).

Nonetheless, our analysis also revealed aspects that seem to be unique to the accommodation context. In the following, we will discuss our findings that were unexpected concerning our a priori framework and arose during data analysis. On the interpersonal side, we initially expected coworkers to primarily engage in discrimination, bullying, and maltreatment. Surprisingly, however, supervisors were often mentioned as sources for such hostile behavior, almost as often as coworkers. This vertical aggression (Cortina et al., 2001) carried out by authorities indicates that leaders might have strong considerations against employees with disabilities that become noticeable during the accommodation process. Furthermore, we subdivided this category into the additional aspect conflict old vs. young during data analysis, which was unexpected concerning our a priori framework. Containing statements were brought up by participants who belonged to older age groups (above 45 years) since our sample was on average six years older than the manufacturing population’s age average. On the one hand, the statements suggest that these participants were confronted with phenomena such as stereotyping and perceived age discrimination (ageism) (Rupp et al., 2006), as they for instance felt disadvantaged compared to younger employees in the workgroup. This might be explained by the poor performance and resistance to change stereotypes (Posthuma & Campion, 2009; Kunze et al., 2013), which are often held

Article I

54

about older employees. However, on the other hand, participants expressed negative stereotypes against younger employees themselves, reinforcing that ageism can occur in both directions – against old and young employees (Kunze et al., 2011).

Concerning process-related aspects, our data analysis also revealed several unexpected findings. First, we added a new category feeling of dehumanization. However, this finding is not entirely new to disability research. Dehumanizing others, i.e. denying others “qualities associated with meaning, interest, and compassion” (Barnard, 2001: 98) is a phenomenon that sometimes affects the perception of people with disabilities (Haslam, 2006). Moreover, dehumanization to the extent that a person is seen as “object- or automaton-like” (Haslam, 2006: 258) is more likely to occur in an environment that is dominated by technology, just like in our research setting in the manufacturing industry. Second, it was unexpected that approximately one-third of the complaints contained unique statements (category other process-related problems and conflicts). This assembled category suggests that many problems arising during a successful accommodation process are often highly individual and depend on every employee’s unique circumstances.


Our fourth and final study goal was to derive practical success factors in order to help organizations implement their accommodation processes more effectively. Based on our findings regarding the comparability of change and accommodation processes, we propose that accommodation managers should learn from change managers and the comprehensive knowledge available in organizational change management literature. Just as organizational change processes need a strategic approach in order to succeed (e.g. Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008), workplace accommodations must also be actively managed and accompanied. Research has suggested many critical factors for successful change reaching from soft factors (e.g. employee motivation, leadership styles, or corporate culture) to hard factors (including project evaluation, project teams’ skills, clear communication, and a limitation of additional workload) (Sirkin et al., 2005). We will now explicate some factors that appear to be most relevant for workplace accommodation processes, based on our study results.

Sufficient communication and information. During organizational change, goals and purposes of a change should be clearly communicated in order to prevent rumors among

Article I

55

the workforce (Elving, 2005; Lewis & Seibold, 1998). In turn, such communication helps employees to feel better prepared and able to better deal with a change (Bordia et al., 2009), reduces uncertainty (Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991), and increases employees’ perceived procedural justice, trust, and commitment (Gopinath & Becker, 2000). Likewise, we recommend that, during the accommodation process, all stakeholders (e.g. coworkers and supervisors) and especially the accommodation recipients should receive detailed and pro-active information about their future work environment, the reasons for a specific chosen accommodation, and how the accommodation will proceed. In addition, supervisors and other responsible parties (such as HR managers) should receive dedicated training on the accommodation process in order to increase their process knowledge and to improve communication quality.

Sufficient resources. Concerning change initiatives, research has demonstrated that resources for a change must be made available, including skillful personnel and work capacity (Amiot et al., 2006; Rafferty & Griffin, 2006). Appropriately skilled change managers are crucial if change goals are to be met. Equally, we recommend that workplace accommodation processes should be ideally accompanied by an accommodation manager responsible for the planning and implementation of the process. This should also allow a fairly flexible and individualized treatment of every unique case, as suggested by the comparably large category other process-related problems and conflicts in our findings. Additionally, accommodation processes might require further resources, for instance, training of different stakeholder or the redesign and accommodation of individual workplaces.

Sufficient monitoring. Finally, successful change initiatives are characterized by frequent project reviews that help identify problems in early stages, making it possible to take corrective action (Sirkin et al., 2005). Likewise, looking at the vast variety of issues and their high individualization, in our view, there should be a sufficient monitoring and feedback mechanism indicating to establish whether or not an accommodation was successful. Especially by asking accommodation recipients about their satisfaction with the accommodation process, this information can be used to improve future accommodations.

Inclusive climate. Finally, issues such as discrimination, bullying, being envied, and conflicts between older and younger employees seem to arise often in the

Article I

56

accommodation context. In this regard, recent research in the diversity domain suggests that creating an inclusive climate (Nishii, 2013; Shore et al., 2009) might be a key to success. Inclusion is defined as the “degree to which an employee perceives that he or she is an esteemed member of the work group through experiencing treatment that satisfies his or her needs for belongingness and uniqueness” (Shore et al., 2011: 1265). Therefore, an inclusive leadership style (Nishii & Mayer, 2009) that actively promotes diversity in the workgroup might create a culture in which all employees are equally valued – irrespective of their disability status or age. Thus, organizations that implement workplace accommodation processes should consider inclusive leadership training for their supervisors.

Limitations and Future Research

A first potential limitation refers to the metaplan data we used for our qualitative analysis. It is certainly more recommendable to record interview data via audio or video in order to draw from a more extensive and rich dataset. However, owing to organizational restrictions, we were unable to do so. We did not have the impression that the data were not suitable for template analysis, though, since only a small number of metaplan cards had to be excluded due to incomprehensibility. At the same time, we experienced high openness when discussing these sensitive issues. Participants highly valued the fact that we guaranteed full anonymity and that we conducted no audio or video recording. Our claim of anonymity was more credible and less risky to trust in without taping. Otherwise, in our view, the willingness to talk about health-related issues, to discuss personal impairments and limitations, and to openly criticize their employer, supervisors, and other staff would have been significantly lower. This potential increase in data reliability and validity might compensate for the loss in data richness. We also made sure that we understood the metaplan cards in the right way by letting the participants explain their cards and clustering them in front of the group. This procedure gave particpants the space to speak up if their card’s wording seemed to be misunderstood by the facilitators or other participants. This led to an additional validation of the data. Photographs of the pre-clustered boards represented a richer data source than the metaplan cards themselves due to their special proximity. Moreover, the session reflections provided additional data that was considered when interpreting the results.

Article I

57

A second limitation refers to the generalizability of our findings. Our study was conducted in a research context that might show special features concerning accommodations: In the production industry, employees work together in highly standardized, automated, and interdependent ways. As a result of one single accommodation, a whole workgroup is directly affected. It might be worthwhile to apply our framework to other work contexts (e.g. office-dominated work) to check applicability. Future research should thus set out to generalize the proposed framework to other contexts and industries, especially looking at industries in which the degree of interdependence is not as high. Furthermore, our data were collected in the German context, limiting its cross-cultural generalizability. Nations often differ concerning cultural and legal definitions of disability as well as disabling conditions (Baldridge et al., in press), which – in turn – should affect how employees with disabilities experience their treatment at work. Therefore, future research should investigate the applicability of our framework in other national contexts.

Third, one could ask whether the perceptions of the accommodation recipients are not overly negative, whether they are reliable, and whether they are not driven by the health restriction itself, which might have negatively impacted their job satisfaction. Indeed, there is empirical support for a negative relationship between sickness and job satisfaction (Faragher et al., 2005; Pagán & Malo, 2009). However, other research has shown that employees with disabilities are not per se less satisfied with their jobs, but that it depends largely on the organizational context, including the flexibility to provide suitable accommodations (Baumgärtner et al., 2015) or the organizational culture (Schur et al., 2009). Moreover, even if these negative perceptions are not completely backed by organizational realities, they might still have a negative impact on many important outcomes, such as commitment and turnover. As studies have shown for related fields such as perceived discrimination, “employees’ beliefs, whether or not they are consistent with reality, affect their behaviors” (Ensher et al., 2001: 53) as well as their decisions to file equal opportunity lawsuits (Sanchez & Brock, 1996).

Finally, some of our study results might reflect workplace aspects that are not limited to employees with health-related issues or disabilities. For instance, non-impaired workers might also report that they feel insufficiently supported by colleagues or a supervisor, or that they perceive an increasing dehumanization of production practices. Therefore, subsequent studies might include the perspective of further stakeholders in

Article I

58

the process, such as supervisors and coworkers, to gain a more complete picture of accommodation processes.

Above all, qualitative methods do not seek to provide a statistical generalization, but rather to produce descriptions that help to determine possibly contrasting and contradictory trends in social processes, in this case, within the experiences of accommodation recipients. In turn, this might help to expand and generalize theory as opposed to test theory. Therefore, in order to gain a more generalizable understanding of the individual issues arising from workplace accommodations, further research is necessary, which should also include quantitative methods. Nevertheless, we hope that our study contributes to a better understanding of workplace accommodation processes and provides a solid foundation for future research.

Article I

59

References

Amiot, C. E., Terry, D. J., Jimmieson, N. L., & Callan, V. J. (2006). A longitudinal investigation of coping processes during a merger: Implications for job satisfaction and organizational identification. Journal of Management, 32(4), 552-574.

Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293-315.

Ashford, S. J. (1988). Individual strategies for coping with stress during organizational transitions. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 24(1), 19-36.

Baldridge, D. C., Beatty, J., Boehm, S. A., Kulkarni, M., & Moore, M. (in press). Persons with (Dis)Abilities. The Oxford handbook of workplace discrimination.

Baldridge, D. C., & Swift, M. L. (2013). Withholding requests for disability accommodation - the role of individual differences and disability attributes. Journal of Management, 39(3), 743-762.


Baldridge, D. C., & Veiga, J. F. (2001). Toward a greater understanding of the willingness to request an accommodation: Can requesters' beliefs disable the Americans with Disabilities Act?. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 85-99.


Balser, D. B., & Harris, M. M. (2008). Factors affecting employee satisfaction with disability accommodation: a field study. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 20(1), 13-28.

Barnard, A. (2001). On the relationship between technique and dehumanization. In R Locsin (ed), Advancing technology, caring, and nursing, Westport, CT: Auburn House, 96-105.

Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22(3), 161-173.

Article I

60

Baumgärtner, M. K., Boehm, S. A., & Dwertmann, D. J. G. (2014). Job performance of employees with disabilities: Interpersonal and intrapersonal resources matter. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 33(4), 347-360.

Baumgärtner, M. K., Dwertmann, D. J. G., Boehm, S. A., & Bruch, H. (2015). The role of structural flexibility in the disability-job satisfaction relationship. Human Resource Management, 54(2), 323-343.

Beckhard, R., & Harris, R. T. (1987). Organizational transitions: Managing complex change, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bordia, P., Hobman, E., Jones, E., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. J. (2004). Uncertainty during organizational change: Types, consequences, and management strategies. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(4), 507-532.

Bordia, P., Jones, E., Gallois, C., Callan, V. J., & DiFonzo, N. (2006). Management are aliens! Rumors and stress during organizational change. Group & Organization Management, 31(5), 601-621.

Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1993). The psychological impact of merger and acquisition on the individual: A study of building society managers Human Relations, 46(3), 327-347.


Colella, A., & Bruyère, S. M. (2011). Disability and employment: New directions for industrial and organizational psychology, in S Zedeck (ed), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 1: 473-503.

Colella, A., & Varma, A. (2001). The impact of subordinate disability on leader-member exchange relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 304-315.

Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 64-80.

Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (eds) (1992). A template approach to text analysis: Developing and using codebooks, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Davison, H. K., O'Leary, B. J., Schlosberg, J. A., & Bing, M. N. (2009). Don't ask and you shall not receive: Why future American workers with disabilities are

Article I

61

reluctant to demand legally required accommodations. Journal of Workplace Rights, 14(1), 49-73.

Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes, Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

Donnelly, R. (2015). Tensions and challenges in the management of diversity and inclusion in IT services multinationals in India. Human Resource Management, 54(2), 199-215.

Dychtwald, K., Erickson, T., & Morison, B. (2004). It's time to retire retirement. Harvard Business Review, 82(3), 48-57.

Eby, L. T., Adams, D. M., Russell, J. E. A., & Gaby, S. H. (2000). Perceptions of organizational readiness for change: Factors related to employees' reactions to the implementation of team-based selling. Human Relations, 53(3), 419-442.

Elliott, T. R., & Shewchuk, R. M. (2002). Using the nominal group technique to identify the problems experienced by persons living with severe physical disabilities. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 9(2). 65-76.

Elving, W. J. L. (2005). The role of communication in organisational change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(2), 129-138.

Ensher, E. A., Grant-Vallone, E. J., & Donaldson, S. I. (2001). Discrimination on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and grievances. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12, 53-72.

Fine, M., & Asch, A. (1988). Disability beyond stigma: Social interaction, discrimination, and activism. Journal of Social Issues, 44(1), 3-21.

Faragher, E. B., Cass, M., & Cooper, C. L. (2005). The relationship between job satisfaction and health: a meta-analysis. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 62(2), 105-112.

Florey, A. T., & Harrison, D. A. (2000). Responses to informal accommodation requests from employees with disabilites: Multistudy evidence on willingness to comply. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 224-233.

García, M. F., Paetzold, R. L., & Colella, A. (2005). The relationship between personality and peers’ judgments of the appropriateness of accommodations for individuals with disabilities. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(7), 1418-1439.

Article I

62

Gates, L. B. (2000). Workplace accommodation as a social process. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 10(1), 85-98.

Gates, L. B., Akabas, S. H., & Oran-Sabia, V. (1998). Relationship accommodations involving the work group: Improving work prognosis for persons with mental health conditions. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 21(3), 264-272.

Gopinath, C., & Becker, T. E. (2000). Communication, procedural justice, and employee attitudes: Relationships under conditions of divestiture. Journal of Management, 26(1), 63-83.

Green, S., Davis, C., Karshmer, E., Marsh, P., & Straight B. (2005). Living stigma: The impact of labeling, stereotyping, separation, status loss, and discrimination in the lives of individuals with disabilities and their families. Sociological Inquiry, 75(2), 197-215.

Hansen, Å. M., Hogh, A., Persson, R., Karlson, B., Garde, A. H., & Ørbæk, P. (2006). Bullying at work, health outcomes, and physiological stress response. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 60(1), 63-72.

Hartnett, H. P., Stuart, H., Thurman, H., Loy, B., & Batiste, L. C. (2011). Employers' perceptions of the benefits of workplace accommodations: Reasons to hire, retain and promote people with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 34(1), 17-23.

Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 252-264.

Hinshaw, S. P. (2007). The mark of shame: Stigma of mental illness and an agenda for change, New York: Oxford University Press.

Holt, D. T., Armenakis, A. A., Field, H. S., & Harris, S. G. (2007). Readiness for organizational change - The systematic development of a scale. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(2), 232-255.

Jackson, S. E. (1983). Participation in decision making as a strategy for reducing job-related strain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(1), 3-19.

Jones, R. A., Jimmieson, N. L., & Griffiths, A. (2005). The impact of organizational culture and reshaping capabilities on change implementation success: The mediating role of readiness for change. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 361-386.

Article I

63

Kiefer, T. (2005). Feeling bad: Antecedents and consequences of negative emotions in ongoing change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(8), 875-897.

King, N. (1998). Template analysis. In G Symon, S Cassell (eds), Qualitative methods and analysis in organizational research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 118-134.

Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2008). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, 86(7/8), 130-139.

Kunze, F., Boehm, S. A., & Bruch, H. (2011). Age diversity, age discrimination climate and performance consequences—a cross-organizational study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(2), 264-290.

Leavy, R. L. (1983). Social support and psychological disorder: A review. Journal of Community Psychology, 11(1), 3-21.

Lewis, L. K., & Seibold, D. R. (1998). Reconceptualizing organizational change implementation as a communication problem: A review of literature and research agenda. Communication yearbook, 21, 93-152.

Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, P. C. (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 952-959.

Lindebaum, D., & Fielden, S. (2011). ‘It’s good to be angry’: Enacting anger in construction project management to achieve perceived leader effectiveness. Human Relations, 64(3), 437-458.

Lysaght, R., Fabrigar, L., Larmour-Trode, S., Stewart, J., & Friesen, M. (2012). Measuring workplace social support for workers with disability. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 22(3), 376-386.

Martin, A. J., Jones, E. S., & Callan, V. J. (2005). The role of psychological climate in facilitating employee adjustment during organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14(3), 263-289.

Miller, B. K., & Werner, S. (2007). Predictors of helping behavior toward coworkers with disabilities. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(11), 2660-2687.

Milliken, F. J. (1987). Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment: State, effect, and response uncertainty. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 133-143.

Article I

64

Morgan, D., & Zeffane, R. (2003). Employee involvement, organizational change and trust in management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(1), 55-75.

Muller-Camen, M., Croucher, R., Flynn, M., & Schröder, H. (2011). National institutions and employers’ age management practices in Britain and Germany: ‘Path dependence’ and option exploration. Human Relations, 64(4), 507-530.

Nishii, L. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender diverse groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1754-1774.

Nishii, L., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Do inclusive leaders help to reduce turnover in diverse groups? The moderating role of leader–member exchange in the diversity to turnover relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1412-1426.

Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (eds) (2013). The psychology of organizational change. Viewing change from the employee’s perspective, Cambridge University Press.

Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organizational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(4), 461-524.

Paetzold, R. L., García, M. F., Colella, A., Ren, L. R., Triana, M., & Ziebro, M. (2008). Perceptions of people with disabilities: When is accommodation fair? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30(1), 27-35.

Pagán, R., & Malo, M. Á. (2009). Job satisfaction and disability: Lower expectations about jobs or a matter of health? Spanish Economic Review, 11(1), 51-74.

Paterson, J. M., & Cary, J. (2002). Organizational justice, change anxiety, and acceptance of downsizing: Preliminary tests of an AET-based model. Motivation and Emotion, 26(1), 83-103.

Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 1-28.

Perry, E. L., Hendricks, W., & Broadbent, E. (2000). Exploration of access and treatment discrimination and job satisfaction among college graduates with and without physical disabilities. Human Relations, 53(7), 923-955.

Article I

65

Posthuma, R. A., & Campion, M. A. (2009). Age Stereotypes in the Workplace: Common Stereotypes, Moderators, and Future Research Directions. Journal of Management, 35(1), 158-188.

Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). Perceptions of organizational change: A stress and coping perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1154-1162.

Randall, R., Cox, T., & Griffiths, A. (2007). Participants' accounts of a stress management intervention. Human Relations, 60(8), 1181-1209.

Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. (1997). Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational change. The Academy of Management Executive, 11(1), 48-59.

Ruggs, E. N., Law, C., Cox, C. B., Roehling, M. V., Wiener, R. L., Hebl, M. R., & Barron, L. (2013). Gone fishing: I–O psychologists' missed opportunities to understand marginalized employees' experiences with discrimination. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6(1), 39-60.

Rupp, D. E., Vodanovich, S. J., & Credé, M. (2006). Age bias in the workplace: The impact of ageism and causal attributions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(6), 1337-1364.

Sagie, A., & Koslowsky, M. (1996). Decision type, organisational control, and acceptance of change: An integrative approach to participative decision making. Applied Psychology, 45(1), 85-92.

Salin, D. (2003). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations, 56(10), 1213-1232.

Sanchez, J. I., & Brock, P. (1996). Outcomes of perceived discrimination among Hispanic employees: Is diversity management a luxury or a necessity? Academy of Management Journal, 39, 704-719.

Schartz, H. A., Hendricks, D. J., & Blanck, P. (2006). Workplace accommodations: Evidence based outcomes. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 27(4), 345-354.

Schur, L., Kruse, D., Blasi, J., & Blanck, P. (2009). Is disability disabling in all workplaces? Workplace disparities and corporate culture. Industrial Relations, 48(3), 381-410.

Article I

66

Schweiger, D. M., & DeNisi, A. S. (1991). Communication with employees following a merger: A longitudinal field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 34(1), 110-135.

Shore, L. M., Chung-Herrera, B. G., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H., Jung, D. I., Randel, A. E., & Singh, G. (2009). Diversity in organizations: Where are we now and where are we going? Human Resource Management Review, 19(2), 117-133.

Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262-1289.

Sirkin, H. L., Keenan, P., & Jackson, A. (2005). The hard side of change management. Harvard Business Review, 83(10), 109-118.

Smith, M. E. (2002). Success rates for different types of organizational change. Performance Improvement, 41(1), 26-33.

Solovieva, T. I., Dowler, D. L., & Walls, R. T. (2011). Employer benefits from making workplace accommodations. Disability and Health Journal, 4(1), 39-45.

Solovieva, T. I., & Walls, R. T. (2013). Implications of workplace accommodations for persons with disabilities. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 28(3), 192-211.


Tempest, S., Barnatt, C., & Coupland, C. (2002). Grey advantage: New strategies for the old. Long Range Planning, 35(5), 475-492.

Turban, D. B., & Jones, A. P. (1988). Supervisor-subordinate similarity: Types, effects, and mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 228.

Vakola, M., & Nikolaou, I. (2005). Attitudes towards organizational change: What is the role of employees’ stress and commitment? Employee Relations, 27(2), 160-174.


Vernon-Oehmke, A. (1994). Effective hiring and ADA compliance, New York: Amacom.

Article I

67

Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J. I., & Fisher, J. (1999). The role of social support in the process of work stress: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(2), 314-334.

Walker, H. J., Armenakis, A. A., & Bernerth, J. B. (2007). Factors influencing organizational change efforts: An integrative investigation of change content, context, process and individual differences. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20, 761-773.

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective Events Theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In BM Staw BM, LL Cummings (eds), Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1-74.

WHO (2011). World report on disability 2011, Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

Article I

68

Appendix Table 5: Quotes of Recipients’ Negative Experiences

Category Quote A. Interpersonal experiences A.1 Lack of social support - By coworkers Coworkers do not show understanding, especially when

the disability is not directly visible. Lack of sympathy on the part of my coworkers.

- By supervisors / other stakeholders

I had to look for a new workplace myself, without support of my supervisor. My supervisor does not care about how employees with disabilities feel.

- Unknown referent I have never been taken seriously with my disability. I had to handle the accommodation on my own, no help.

A.2. Discrimination, bullying, and maltreatment

- By coworkers - Discrimination and

bullying Coworkers: Bullying! Colleagues sneer at me.

- Envy Some of my colleagues are envious of my new workplace and try to give me even more work to do. Envy of other (healthy) colleagues

- Conflict old vs. young With my performance I have to compete with younger, fitter employees, this is not okay. ‘Easy’ workplaces are occupied by young employees.


My supervisor threatened to fire me. Supervisor talks to me in an insolent and insulting way.

- Unknown referent I was called a liar. False accusations. A.3. Lack of communication or

information Unknown point of contact – didn’t know who to turn to. Arrangements between HR, work council, supervisor, company physicians: poor communication.

B. Process-related experiences B.1. Lack of participation Round table: no result, no participation. No

participation/voice with my supervisor. B.2. Lack of accommodation

effectiveness I must perform tasks I actually should not do at my new workplace. Doctor’s restrictions are disrespected.

B.3. Process duration It all took very long; too long (two years). B.4. Lack of accommodation

possibilities Not enough workplaces suitable for accommodation recipients. No ‘easy’ workplaces available.

B.5. Other process-related problems and conflicts

I was downgraded in my wage group. New shift (carpool).

C. Accommodation recipients’ affective reactions C.1. Uncertainty Uncertainty about whether one is allowed to stay at this

workplace. Uncertainty. C.2. Stress and strain Stress through too many job transfers. Performance

pressure from above. C.3. Feeling of dehumanization Individual problems are not noticed – people are seen

as numbers. Quality and quantity; people are forgotten.

Article I

69

Table 6: Quotes of Recipients’ Positive Experiences

Category Quote

A. Interpersonal experiences

A.1 Social support

- By coworkers Help and support from colleagues. Accepted by coworkers we get along well.


My supervisor supports me. My former supervisor personally fought for my transition.

A.2. - Communication or information

Good communication between the responsible parties in the process.

B. Process-related experiences

B.1. Participation My proposals for the configuration of the new workplace were considered. Autonomous workplace

B.2. Effectiveness of accommodation I found an appropriate workplace. The new workplace is good. Less physical strain now.

B.3. Short process duration All worked out very quickly. Swift transfer. Immediate action.

B.4. Others Funding by the German Federal Pension Insurance was possible.

C. Accommodation recipients’ affective reactions

C.1. Certainty / Job retention I know that I can keep this workplace until I retire.

Article II

70

Article II

Age and Coworkers’ Acceptance of Workplace Accommodations:

The Role of Workgroup Composition5

Abstract

In most developed countries, the workforce is aging. With increasing age, there is a higher chance for individuals to experience health restrictions. Organizations typically react to these circumstances by providing workplace accommodations. Prior research has indicated that the effectiveness of workplace accommodations strongly relies upon stakeholders, such as coworkers and their levels of acceptance. With regard to coworkers’ fairness assessments of accommodations, recipients’ characteristics play a major role. However, little is known about the effect of recipients’ chronological age and its boundary conditions. In this study, I draw upon the literature on disability, age, and similarity attraction to propose a model of the relationship between recipient’s age and coworkers’ acceptance of accommodations. I then test this model using multisource data on 144 accommodation recipients working for a large German manufacturing company. As hypothesized, I found that the relationship between a recipient’s age and coworkers’ acceptance of accommodations was conditioned by the social context. Age was positively related to coworkers’ acceptance when an individual is similar in age to the other members of his or her workgroup and when the workgroup does not comprise accommodated peers.

Keywords: disability, age, workplace accommodation, workgroup composition, relational demography, similarity attraction, social identity approach

5Single-authored article by Kirill Bourovoi

Article II

71

“The first step toward change is awareness. The second step is acceptance.”

Nathaniel Branden (1930 – 2014)

Introduction

The average age of the workforce is increasing in many countries around the globe (Posthuma & Campion, 2008; Truxillo & Fraccaroli, 2013). This demographic change in age challenges organizations (Dychtwald, Erickson, & Morison, 2004; Ng & Feldman, 2008). One of these challenges is related to the negative correlation between age and health (WHO, 2011). Many older workers develop health problems and functional limitations, which restrict their performance and endanger their continued employment (Brault, 2009). Organizations typically respond by providing workplace accommodations, defined as “modifications in the workplace, work environment, work process, or conditions of work that reduce physical and social barriers so that people with disabilities experience equal opportunity in a competitive work environment” (Colella & Bruyère, 2011: 478).

Despite the potential of workplace accommodations to increase productivity and integration of affected employees (Solovieva, Dowler, & Walls, 2011; Solovieva & Walls, 2013), several factors are known to influence the acceptance of people with disabilities (PWDs) at work (Vornholt, Uitdewilligen, & Nijhuis, 2013) and thus the effectiveness of workplace accommodations. Two central elements are individual-level attributes of the accommodation recipient and attributes of other stakeholders, such as coworkers and supervisors (Stone & Colella, 1996).

In particular, research has suggested that PWDs’ characteristics, such as the visibility of disability, should play a major role in coworkers’ fairness assessments of accommodations (Colella, Paetzold, & Belliveau, 2004). Furthermore, the work context of PWDs, such as environmental diversity climate, was hypothesized to influence accommodation perceptions (Colella, 2001). However, empirical field studies that investigate these relationships are limited. For instance, Baldridge and Swift (2015) have found that PWD’s age can affect their perception of whether it is appropriate to ask the employer for a desired accommodation (i.e., “normative appropriateness favorability”). Thus, the authors looked at accommodation requests chronologically

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/nathaniel_branden.html

Article II

72

before accommodations were actually implemented. Indeed, a review of the literature revealed that no empirical study has investigated the effect of PWDs’ age on their coworkers’ acceptance (of workplace accommodations).

In this study, I followed the call by Vornholt and colleagues who concluded from their recent literature review on disability that “what remains is to fill in the gaps to fully understand the concept of acceptance and how it is related to sustainable employment of people with disabilities” (Vornholt et al., 2013, p. 473). In particular, I target the relationship between a recipient’s age and his or her perception of coworkers’ acceptance of accommodations. This is a significant gap in the literature for several reasons. As already mentioned above, older employees represent a growing portion of the workforce (i.e., demographic change in age; Ng & Feldman, 2008), and age is positively associated with disability (WHO, 2011). Moreover, social and economic pressures force people in many countries around the globe to retire at a higher age (Muller-Camen, Croucher, Flynn, & Schröder, 2011). Interestingly, as I explain in this article, older employees with health restrictions may receive more acceptance for their workplace accommodations than younger employees do. Consequently, younger employees with health restrictions, as a minority within the group of accommodated employees, may stick out and therefore become disadvantaged. Toward that end, researchers need to understand better the mechanisms behind coworkers’ acceptance of accommodations.

To fill this gap, this study contributes mainly to research on PWD. Since no clear consensus exists on the concept of disability6, I focus on the important subgroup of employees with health restrictions that are of particular interest for nations and organizations with aging workforces. In doing so, I first review related disability accommodation literature (e.g., Colella, 2001; Colella et al., 2004) and age stereotypes literature (Gilbert & Fiske, 1998) to explore how age and health restrictions influence PWDs’ perception of their coworkers’ acceptance of accommodations. Further, I utilize the social identity approach (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner, 1987), the similarity-attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971), and relational demography arguments (Tsui &

6 According to the WHO (2011, p. 4), disability is an “[…] umbrella term for impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions, referring to the negative aspects of the interaction between an individual (with a health condition) and that individual’s contextual factors (environmental and personal factors)”.

Article II

73

O'Reilly, 1989) to examine the potential moderating influence of workgroup composition. I propose and test a model using a sample of 3301 manufacturing workers (thereof, 144 workplace accommodation recipients) of a large German automotive company.

I extend prior research in at least four ways. First, I point to the importance of PWDs’ perception of workplace accommodation by coworkers. This outcome variable is relevant because research has indicated that coworkers’ perception of and behavior towards PWDs is critical for their full integration (Stone & Colella, 1996) and thus the effectiveness of workplace accommodations. Furthermore, I argue that accommodation recipients’ perceptions really matters in this regard because it is the part of coworkers’ acceptance that gets transmitted to the affected employees and may motivate future behavior, such as accommodation requests (Baldridge & Swift, 2015; Baldridge & Veiga, 2001, 2006). Second, I explore the role of chronological age of accommodation recipients. The relationship between a recipient’s age and his or her acceptance of coworkers’ accommodation is interesting and important to study because health restrictions and accommodations in the workplace are expected to increase further due to the demographic change in age and related companies’ responses (Ng & Feldman, 2008). Third, I extend the work by Colella and colleagues (Colella, 2001; Colella et al., 2004; Paetzold et al., 2008) by examining the influence of the social context on the strength of the relation between recipients’ age and perceived coworkers’ accommodation acceptance. In particular, I examine two workgroup attributes, workgroup older workers ratio (i.e., the ratio of older workers in a workgroup), and workgroup accommodated peers (i.e., the effect of having or not having an accommodated coworker within one’s workgroup). These variables are relevant not only because the number of older workers is rising, but also because employees with health restrictions are likely to be members of workgroups that include others with similar restrictions (Ali, Schur, & Blanck, 2011; Ryan, 2000). Finally, I contribute to disability accommodation research by integrating relational demography arguments (Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989) to explore the interaction effect between a recipient’s age and coworkers’ age. This cross-level interaction is important, considering researchers’ calls to go beyond simple individual age when making predictions about employee behavior and attitudes (Schwall, Hedge, & Borman, 2012; Shore, Cleveland, & Goldberg, 2003). Overall, this paper emphasizes the role of workgroup social context in the relationship of an

Article II

74

accommodation recipient’s age and his or her coworkers’ accommodation acceptance. As I explain further in this paper, my central argument is that recipient’s chronological age relates to the perceived coworkers’ accommodation acceptance when there are mostly older coworkers or no further accommodation recipients in the workgroup.

Theory

Managerial research on workplace accommodations for PWDs is concerned with three major issues: (A) willingness to request accommodation (e.g., Baldridge & Swift, 2015; Baldridge & Veiga, 2001, 2006), (B) granting of accommodation requests (e.g., Baldridge & Swift, 2013; Florey & Harrison, 2000), and (C) coworkers’ perception of accommodations (e.g, Colella, 2001; Colella et al., 2004; Paetzold et al., 2008). Therefore, research on the first two issues (A and B) has focused on situations chronologically prior to the actual implementation of workplace accommodations. Furthermore, issue A focuses on the perspective of PWDs and issue B on the perspective of supervisors or employers. By contrast, the last issue (C) focuses on the phase during and after the implementation of workplace accommodations and on the perspective of coworkers. The present study centers on two of the introduced issues. It mainly builds upon the knowledge from the third issue in which coworkers’ accommodation acceptance can be thought of as an outcome of coworkers’ accommodation perception. By investigating the perspective of accommodation recipients, I also draw upon knowledge from issue A on the willingness of accommodation requests.

In a prior research, Colella (2001) identified coworkers as critical stakeholders in the workplace accommodation process because they may be directly affected by the change (García, Paetzold, & Colella, 2005). Arising interpersonal problems may stem from distributive justice perceptions, which refer to the differential treatment of a single person in a workgroup when receiving an accommodation. This can elicit negative reactions and perceptions of unfairness in coworkers (Colella, 2001). As Paetzold and colleagues (2008) pointed out, an accommodation may be perceived as unfair by coworkers in several circumstances. First, coworkers may perceive that the accommodation recipient’s job becomes easier, especially when recipients excel in performance. Second, coworkers may feel that their own workload increases due to the colleague’s accommodation. Third, coworkers may view workplace accommodations

Article II

75

as desirable for them as well while being granted to another person. Fourth, coworkers may think that scarce resources, such as money, which are needed elsewhere, were spent on accommodations. Fifth, accommodations for employees with invisible health restrictions are more likely to be perceived as unfair to coworkers. Coworkers may think that there is no reason that justifies an accommodation and the recipient is only “faking” his or her health restriction. Furthermore, as other researchers have pointed out, the anticipated origin of a health restriction may also influence accommodation judgments of PWDs’ coworkers (Baldridge & Veiga, 2001; Florey & Harrison, 2000). For instance, accommodations for congenital diseases or disabilities have no onset controllability; therefore, they should be viewed as more fair compared to accommodations for potentially self-inflicted restrictions (e.g., due to not wearing a helmet riding a motorcycle).

Building on this prior research, I shed light on coworkers’ accommodation acceptance, which I define as the affective coworkers’ judgment of the appropriateness to accommodate a particular health-restricted individual at a given point in time. Thereby, I concentrate on the perspective of the most affected individuals – accommodation recipients – and their perceived coworkers’ acceptance of accommodations. Because, as Vornholt and colleagues (2013, p. 473) have pointed out, “[…] there are several personal gains of feeling accepted as for example the development of a positive self-perception and general life satisfaction. Acceptance with all its facets seems to be a cornerstone for the long-term integration of people with disabilities at work.” I, therefore, argue that accommodation recipients’ feeling of being accepted by coworkers may influence their work experience and well-being. Feeling accepted may also affect future behavior, such as accommodation requests (Baldridge & Swift, 2015; Baldridge & Veiga, 2001, 2006), rather than coworkers’ actual acceptance that might not be publically disclosed.

To predict perceived coworkers’ accommodation acceptance, I focus on recipient’s chronological age in my model. As further illustrated below, recipients’ age is an understudied but highly relevant individual factor in the accommodation research mainly because of workforce aging and the association between age and health restrictions. Furthermore, the social context was included as a boundary condition in my model, as it was thought to influence whether workplace accommodations are perceived

Article II

76

as fair and accepted (Colella, 2001; Colella et al., 2004). In particular, I investigate the influence of two workgroup composition variables: workgroup older workers ratio and workgroup accommodated peers. The ratio of older workers in a recipient’s workgroup is notable, considering relational demography arguments (e.g., Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989). Further, accommodated coworkers in a recipient’s workgroup are interesting to consider because PWDs often work together in organizations (Bruyere, 2000), which may influence work norms and employee perceptions. Overall, as shown in Figure 3, my model proposed that recipients’ age directly influences the coworkers’ accommodation acceptance while the social context moderates this relationship. More specifically, workgroup ratio of older workers is posited to moderate the association between age and coworkers’ acceptance of accommodations as well as presence of accommodated coworkers in the workgroup.

Figure 3: Conceptual Model

Recipient Age

Several studies have provided evidence that PWDs’ experiences in organizations are affected by their individual characteristics, such as their performance level, visibility of the disability, or anticipated origin of the disability (Colella, 2001; Paetzold et al., 2008). Yet, very few authors have looked at the effect of the chronological age on the experiences of PWDs (e.g., Baldridge & Swift, 2015), despite the strong correlation of disability with age (Brault, 2009; WHO, 2011). In a sample of hearing-impaired employees, Baldridge and Swift (2015) investigated the association between chronological age and PWDs’ assessment of the “normative appropriateness

Article II

77

favorability” to request a disability accommodation from their employer. Thereby, normative appropriateness favorability occurs, “[…] when an employee believes that others at work (including supervisors, coworkers, and subordinates) would […] approve of that employee making a particular disability accommodation request at a particular point in time” (Baldridge & Swift, 2015, p. 3). The authors found a negative association with requester’s age, suggesting that older PWDs should be less likely to request an accommodation (Baldridge & Swift, 2013). They looked at accommodation requests chronologically before accommodations were implemented, and they sampled a very specific group of PWDs (namely hearing-impaired individuals with childhood disability onset). Other scholars investigated PWDs’ chronological age and its relation to coworkers’ perceptions. For instance, older PWDs were differently stereotyped compared to younger PWDs (Duncan, White, & Loretto, 2000). However, to my knowledge, no study has investigated the relationship of an accommodation recipient’s age and coworkers’ acceptance of accommodations.

Focusing on this relevant gap in literature, I argue that age is another important yet understudied antecedent of the acceptance of workplace accommodations. Based on the statistically proven negative relationship between age and health as well as potential own experiences, coworkers are likely to expect functional limitations and the need for accommodations from older rather than from younger workers. In addition, wide-spread age stereotypes depict older people as ill and helpless (Gilbert & Fiske, 1998), having lower productivity, higher resistance to change, and reduced ability to learn (Posthuma & Campion, 2008). Older workers may even evoke pity (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007) or paternalistic behavior (Fineman, 2014). Thus, accommodation of older employees fits the existing societal beliefs; therefore, colleagues should be inclined to apply the need-based justice rule (i.e., to focus more on individual needs compared to equal treatment of employees; Colella, 2001; Leventhal, 1976). Consequently, coworkers should judge health-related accommodations as more reasonable and appropriate for older than for younger workers. In contrast, accommodating younger employees should stick out more, appear less expected and more salient, and, therefore, be judged as less appropriate by coworkers. For these reasons I expect that:

Hypothesis 1: A recipient’s age is positively related to perceived coworkers’ acceptance of his or her workplace accommodation.

Article II

78

Social Context

While coworkers’ accommodation acceptance can generally be expected to increase with recipients’ age, beyond individual differences in age, it is also important to consider the influence of the social context on this relationship (Colella, 2001; Colella et al., 2004). The social context captures some of the real-world complexities that influence whether an accommodation is perceived as appropriate. In this study, I examined two social context attributes on the team-level: workgroup older workers ratio and workgroup accommodated peers. As described below, these social context attributes are theoretically interesting because they can affect workgroup norms, attitudes, and judgments (Cameron & Quinn, 2005) and, in turn, the extent to which age affects coworkers’ acceptance of accommodations.

Workgroup Older Workers Ratio

As detailed earlier, coworkers of older accommodation recipients can generally be expected to show higher acceptance of workplace accommodations compared to coworkers of younger accommodation recipients. However, in line with prior research on relational demography (e.g., Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989), I expect the positive effect of recipients’ age on accommodation acceptance to be stronger in workgroups with a high ratio of older workers. Tsui and O’Reilly (1989) found that similarity between two individuals, or individuals and groups, is often associated with higher levels of liking and trust based on similarity attraction processes (Byrne, 1971). Just recently, Dwertmann and Boehm (in press) found that incongruence in the disability status of subordinate-supervisor dyads is related to negative outcomes, such as lower leader-member-exchange quality and lower performance. In addition, according to the social identity approach (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner, 1987), individuals’ demographics, such as age, are crucial for in-group and out-group formation (Finkelstein, Burke, & Raju, 1995; Kunze, Boehm, & Bruch, 2011).

Furthermore, it is reasonable to expect older workers to have more experience with health issues with increasing age based on the negative correlation between age and health (WHO, 2011). Therefore, older employees should be more sensitive to older coworkers’ health restrictions, which should increase the understanding and levels of acceptance of older rather than younger coworkers with health restrictions.

Article II

79

In this study, I connect the literatures on workplace accommodation and relational demography and argue that the chronological age of the accommodated employee and the ratio of older workers in the respective workgroup interact with each other. Coworkers who are more similar to their health-restricted colleagues in terms of age will be more likely to accept their colleagues’ workplace accommodations mainly due to own aging experiences and higher levels of trust, which is an important factor of acceptance (Paetzold et al., 2008). In contrast, coworkers who are less similar to their health-restricted colleagues in terms of age will be less likely to accept their colleagues’ workplace accommodations. Formally stated:

Hypothesis 2: Workgroup older workers ratio moderates the positive relationship between recipient’s age and perceived coworkers’ accommodation acceptance such that this positive relationship will be stronger when the ratio of older workers in a workgroup is high.

Workgroup Accommodation Peers

The disability literature also indicates that PWDs often work together in the same organizations, departments, and workgroups and that their integration is more often successful when there are already other PWDs (Bruyere, 2000; Chadsey, Shelden, Horn De Bardeleben, & Cimera, 1999; Kulkarni & Lengnick-Hall, 2011). Based on these findings, Baldridge and Swift (2015) integrated workgroup disability peers as a mediator variable for the postulated moderation of organizational type (i.e., for-profit vs. non-profit organization) when exploring the relationship between PWDs’ age and their beliefs about whether it is appropriate to ask for accommodations (referred to as normative appropriateness favorability). The authors found confirmation for their hypothesized mediated moderation effect. Following these insights, I consider the possibility that workgroup accommodated peers may moderate the relationship between a recipient’s age and perceived coworkers’ acceptance of workplace accommodations. In particular, I expect this relationship to be weaker when there are further accommodation recipients in the workgroup. This is expected because the quantity of accommodated individuals should affect workgroup climate, norms, and attitudes toward health restriction and accommodation (Bruyere, 2000; Cameron & Quinn, 2005). When there are accommodated peers in a workgroup, the focal accommodation recipient should appear less unique and salient (Colella, 2001), and his or her individual attributes,

Article II

80

such as age, should appear ordinary and less relevant for coworkers’ accommodation acceptance. In contrast, when there is only one accommodated employee in the workgroup, coworkers should perceive this individual as unique, salient, and highly uncommon (Colella, 2001). Consequently, an accommodation recipient and his or her individual attributes, such as age, stick out more when coworkers make judgments about acceptance of workplace accommodations. Hence, since accommodating older employees should better fit societal beliefs (see also Hypothesis 1), the positive relationship of recipient’s age and coworkers’ accommodation acceptance should be stronger in workgroups with only one accommodation recipient. For these reasons, I formally state:

Hypothesis 3: Workgroup accommodated peers moderate the positive relationship between recipient’s chronological age and coworkers’ accommodation acceptance such that this positive relationship will be stronger when there is only one accommodation recipient in the workgroup.

Methods

Data Collection and Sample

The data for this study was collected in the production department of a large German automotive company. The data collection was a part of a large research project on inclusion of people with health restrictions and disabilities (Stone & Colella, 1996) in the context of demographic change in age (Posthuma & Campion, 2008; Truxillo & Fraccaroli, 2013). For their participation, the company received a sub-department benchmarking report about their employees’ perceptions and attitudes towards coworkers with health restrictions as well as overall recommendations to improve related HR processes.

To avoid common source bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012), I used two independent data sources, objective HR data and an employee survey. First, the company provided objective HR data on individual-level demographic variables (age, tenure, health-restrictions, sick days, etc.) for all production employees. Subsequently, supervisors in group meetings informed all production employees about an upcoming survey. Supervisors used a standardized document from their HR department,

Article II

81

explaining the study’s purpose, properties, and participation instructions. All employees could participate voluntarily during their working hours via the corporate intranet. Based on the objective HR data and individual login information, different questionnaires were administered to employees with health restrictions, their coworkers, and supervisors.

In this study, I focus exclusively on employees with health restrictions. Of the 579 employees who received health-related workplace accommodations in the last four years prior to the study, 179 responded to our survey (30.9% response rate). After listwise deletion based on study variables, 144 usable cases remained. Average employee age was 42.37 years (SD = 10.93), ranging from 21 to 64 years. Mean organizational tenure was 22.55 years (SD = 8.66), and 17% of the respondents were female. The participants were clustered in 114 workgroups (total of 3,301 employees) with a mean of 14.21 members per group (SD = 8.68). When comparing the study variable means (for a list see Table 7), I did not find significant differences between accommodated employees who responded and those who did not.

Measures

The study variables were calculated based on either objective HR data or an employee survey. Overall, only coworkers’ accommodation acceptance (dependent variable) was operationalized using the questionnaire. All further study variables were calculated based on objective HR data collected from all employees (even those who did not fill out the questionnaire).

Perceived Coworkers’ Accommodation Acceptance. The dependent variable in my model presented a perceptual measure, as assessed by the recipients of accommodation in the employee survey. Despite the fact that coworkers’ fairness judgments of workplace accommodations were previously identified as critical for the effectiveness of accommodation (e.g., Colella, 2001; Colella et al., 2004), I was not able to identify any empirical study that would operationalize a measure for coworkers’ acceptance of accommodations. Thus, I asked participants to respond to one self-created item: “My colleagues accept my workplace accommodations”. The item was measured on a Likert response scale ranging from “1” was “strongly disagree” and “5” was “strongly agree”. As lined out in the survey, workplace accommodations were defined as either (a) ergonomic adjustment of the original workplace, (b) transfer to another workplace, or

Article II

82

(c) other changes in working conditions (e.g., no workplace rotation, no alternating shifts).

Age Similarity: Recipient’s Age and Workgroup Older Workers Ratio. To account for the influence of age similarity between accommodation recipients and their workgroup on perceived coworkers’ accommodation acceptance, I referred to Riordan and Wayne (2007). After analyzing prior research studies on relational demography within groups, these authors compared three most common approaches to measure demographic similarity (Euclidean D-scores, interaction terms, and perceptual measures) in an empirical study. They concluded that the interaction term approach was the least biased and most accurate but had some limitations in terms of statistical power. Following the authors’ conclusions, I applied the recommended approach which involved creating cutoff values for continuous variables. To ensure correct calculation of age similarity, it was necessary to use an identical cutoff value for recipients’ age as well as their workgroup coworkers’ age. Therefore, I used a cutoff of 50 years7 since the surveyed company as well as the German Institute for Employment Research IAB considers people 50 years and above as older workers (Dietz & Walwei, 2011). Following Riordan and Wayne’s recommendation, I created a binary measure for the chronological age of accommodation recipients. The resulting binary variable recipient’s age was coded such that “0” indicated an accommodation recipient younger than 50 years of age and “1” indicated an accommodation recipient of age 50 and above. Accordingly, I applied the same logic for workgroup older workers ratio, indicating the proportion of workers age 50 years or above in the recipient workgroup. Therefore, I assigned ratio values between 0 and 1, for instance, an accommodation recipient working in a group containing only employees younger than 50 would receive the ratio value 0, and a recipient working in a group consisting of 7 younger employees and 3 employees of age 50 and above would receive the ratio value 0.3. To test for age similarity between accommodation recipients and their coworkers, I finally computed an interaction term (product) of both variables.

Workgroup Accommodated Peers. The second social context moderator was calculated following the example of Baldridge and Swift (2015). Likewise, I aggregated

7 To test for robustness, I also replaced the measure of the recipient’s chronological age with a continuous value as well as alternative cutoff values of 45 years and 55 years. Please refer to the results section.

Article II

83

the number of accommodation recipients within each workgroup and coded it the following way: “0” indicated that the accommodation recipient had no accommodated coworkers in his or her workgroup (no workgroup accommodated peers), and “1” indicated at least one accommodated coworker in his or her workgroup (presence of workgroup accommodated peers).

Controls. To rule out alternative explanations, I included three individual-level (sex, organizational tenure, and disability status) as well as two group-level control variables (muscular strain of the workplace and workgroup size), as previous studies have shown that these controls may be related to the vocal study variables. All five variables were obtained from objective HR data.

Sex was coded such that “1” indicated male and “2” indicated female accommodation recipients. Organizational tenure indicated the years that an employee was affiliated with the company. Disability status was based on the official German document for severe disability and was coded such that “0” indicated no disability and “1” indicated a disability. Muscular strain of the workplace was based on an organizational ergonomic assessment of the individual workplaces. Since workers typically rotated over all workgroup’s workstations, I assigned each workgroup’s average muscular strain to the respective accommodation recipient. The ergonomic measure could theoretically rank from “0” indicating no muscular strain to “70” indicating maximum muscular strain. Workgroup size indicated the number of workers in an accommodation recipient’s workgroup (including the accommodation recipient).

Data analysis

I used hierarchical regression analysis, as proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986), to test my hypotheses. All continuous predictor variables were z-standardized (Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004). The control variables were entered first, followed by the independent variables in the second step and the interaction terms in the final step. To further inspect the moderation effects, I plotted the results and performed simple slope analyses (Aiken & West, 1991).

Article II

84

Results

Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of the study variables are displayed in Table 7. Mean perceived coworkers’ accommodation acceptance was 3.88 (SD = 1.12). The mean of the binary predictor variable recipient’s age was .51 (SD = .50), indicating that 51% of accommodation recipients were 50 years of age or above. The mean of the binary social context moderator workgroup older workers ratio was .40 (SD = .29), indicating that on average 40% of recipient’s coworkers in the respective workgroup were 50 years of age or above. The mean of the second binary moderator workgroup accommodated peers was .58 (SD = .50), indicating that on average 58% of accommodation recipients had one or more colleagues in their workgroup who also received workplace accommodation.

Although not study variables and only used to calculate our measure of recipient’s age, mean chronological age was 47.97 years (SD = 7.91). Chronological age was not significantly correlated to perceived coworkers’ accommodation acceptance (r = .03, p > .1). It correlated with recipient’s age (r = .76, p < .01), workgroup older workers ratio (r = .40, p < .01), and organizational tenure (r = .67, p < .01).

Table 7: Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of Study Variables

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Perceived Coworkers' accommodation acceptance 3.88 1.12

2 Recipient’s age (below 50 vs. 50+ years) 0.51 0.50 .14

3 Workgroup older workers ratio (50+) 0.40 0.29 -.01 .45**

4 Workgroup accommodated peers 0.58 0.50 .00 -.06 .16

5 Workgroup size 10.63 5.94 -.08 -.19* -.22** .34**

6 Sex (1=male, 2=female) 1.17 0.37 .13 .03 .04 .04 .04

7 Muscular strain 11.51 9.52 -.02 .08 .02 .06 .13 -.16

8 Disability status (0=no disability, 1=disability) 0.38 0.49 .05 -.01 -.07 .11 .22** .00 -.10

9 Organizational tenure 22.55 8.66 .02 .54** .27** -.12 -.11 .03 .02 .05

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Article II

85

With respect to Hypothesis 1, I found marginal evidence for the positive relationship between recipient’s age and perceived coworkers’ accommodation acceptance based on a marginally significant correlation (r = .14, p < .10). As shown in Table 8, I also found a marginally significant main effect of recipient’s age on perceived coworkers’ accommodation acceptance using the regression analysis (ß = .48, p < .10, t = 1.96). Thus, the support for Hypothesis 1 was not clear.

As predicted in Hypothesis 2, the positive relationship between recipient’s age and perceived coworkers’ accommodation acceptance was stronger when workgroup older workers ratio was high (ß = .8, p < .01). To further inspect this relation, I plotted the simple slopes (Aiken & West, 1991) for low workgroup older workers ratio (one SD below the mean; on average 11% of workers 50 years of age or above) and high workgroup older workers ratio (one SD above the mean; on average 68% of workers 50 years of age or above). The results can be seen in Figure 4. As predicted, the positive relationship is stronger for high than for low workgroup older workers ratio, indicating that the relation between recipient’s age and perceived accommodation acceptance is stronger in workgroups with many older workers. The simple slope analysis revealed that the effect is only significant for high workgroup older workers ratio (ß = 1.00, p < .01) but non-significant for low workgroup older workers ratio (ß = .04, p > .05).

In line with Hypothesis 3, the regression analysis showed a significant moderation effect of workgroup accommodated peers on the relationship between recipient’s age and coworkers’ accommodation acceptance (ß = -1.21, p < .01). The results were plotted for not having and for having workgroup accommodated peers, as can be seen in Figure 5. As predicted, the positive relationship was stronger when an accommodation recipient did not have accommodated coworkers in his or her workgroup. Accordingly, the simple slope analysis revealed that the effect is only significant for not having workgroup accommodated peers (ß = 1.24, p < .001) but non-significant for having workgroup accommodated peers (ß = .03, p > .05).

In order to test the robustness of the results, I replaced the binary measure of recipient’s age with alternative cutoff values of 45 or 55 years of age as well as a continuous measure of chronological age. The main effect of recipient’s age was not significant in all three cases. The new interaction effect of recipient’s age x workgroup older workers ratio remained significant in all cases. The interaction stayed also stable

Article II

86

when additionally replacing the workgroup older workers ratio by the product of workgroup age mean and workgroup age standard deviation.

Table 8: Hierarchical Regression Results Perceived Coworkers’ Accommodation Acceptance

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

b t b t b t

Constant 3.38** 8.64 3.17** 5.84 1.95** 3.20

Controls

Workgroup size -0.12 -1.22 -0.13 -1.24 -0.02 -0.15

Sex (1= male, 2 = female) 0.43 1.67 0.42† 1.63 0.25 1.01

Muscular strain 0.03 0.32 0.01 0.13 0.07 0.70

Disability status 0.08 0.86 0.07 0.77 0.05 0.52

Organizational tenure 0.00 0.01 -0.01 -0.74 0.00 -0.06

Main Effects

Recipient’s age (below 50 vs. 50+) 0.48† 1.96 1.25** 3.85

Workgroup older workers ratio (50+) -0.14 -1.28 -0.67** -3.39

Workgroup accommodated peers 0.12 0.59 0.74** 2.64

Interaction Effects

Recipient’s age x Workgroup older workers ratio

0.80** 3.12

Recipient’s age x Workgroup accommodated peers

-1.21** -3.22

R2 0.03 0.06 0.16

ΔR2 0.03 0.03 0.10

F value 0.88 1.44 8.18**

Note: N = 144. Unstandardized beta coefficients (b) and t-values are reported.

Two-tailed testing. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01

Article II

87

Figure 4: Interaction Plots Corresponding to Hypothesis 2. Perceived coworkers’ accommodation acceptance for a recipient younger than 50 years of age and a recipient’s age 50 years or above depends on the workgroup older workers ratio.

Figure 5: Interaction Plots Corresponding to Hypothesis 3. Perceived coworkers’ accommodation acceptance for a recipient younger than 50 years of age and a recipient’s age 50 years and above depends on the presence of workgroup accommodated peers.

1

2

3

4

5

Low Recipient's Age(below 50)

High Recipient's Age(50+)

Perc

eive

d C

owor

kers

' A

ccom

mod

atio

n A

ccep

tanc

e

Low WorkgroupOlder Workers Ratio(-1SD)

High WorkgroupOlder Workers Ratio(+1SD)

1

2

3

4

5

Low Recipient's Age(below 50)

High Recipient's Age(50+)

Perc

eive

d C

owor

kers

' A

ccom

mod

atio

n A

ccep

tanc

e

WorkgroupAccommodated Peers:No

WorkgroupAccommodated Peers:Yes

Article II

88

Discussion

As employees age, do they receive more or less acceptance for workplace accommodation from their coworkers? To test this question, I drew on research on workplace disability, age, demographic similarity, and social identity to propose a conceptual and empirical model. The model captures some of the complex interplay between an accommodation recipient’s attributes (recipient’s age) and the social context (workgroup older workers ratio and workgroup accommodated peers) using the data from 144 employees who received workplace accommodations in a production department of a large German car manufacturer.

It is important to examine these issues because of the current demographic change in age (Truxillo & Fraccaroli, 2013) and its workforce consequences that increase the need for workplace accommodations in many companies around the world. Prior research has indicated that accommodation effectiveness depends on coworkers’ attitudes, which, in turn, rely on accommodation recipients’ attributes, coworkers’ attributes, and the social context. Yet, little is known about the effect of chronological age on workplace acceptance of accommodation by coworkers.

The current study adds to the literature on workplace accommodation for PWDs in important ways. First, it extends the work of Colella and colleagues (Colella, 2001; Colella et al., 2004; Paetzold et al., 2008) by shedding light on the importance of PWDs perception of coworkers’ acceptance of their workplace accommodation and looking beyond coworkers’ perceptions of accommodation fairness. Perceived coworkers’ accommodation acceptance is interesting and important to study because accommodation recipients’ feeling of being accepted by coworkers may influence their work experience and well-being (Vornholt et al., 2013) as well as their future work behavior (Baldridge & Swift, 2015; Baldridge & Veiga, 2001, 2006). Furthermore, coworkers’ behaviors and perceptions towards PWDs have been theorized to be critical for PWDs’ full integration (Stone & Colella, 1996) and consequently for a better use of PWDs’ talents and abilities.

Second, I explored the role of a recipients’ individual attribute – chronological age – on their perceived coworkers’ accommodation acceptance. By doing so, I extended the work of Baldridge and Swift (2015) who looked at PWDs’ age and its role in

Article II

89

accommodation requests. Consistent with my expectations, I found marginal evidence that accommodation recipient’s age is positively associated with perceived coworkers’ accommodation acceptance, which may reflect the effect of age stereotypes, personal life experiences, and common societal beliefs about older people. Despite the unclear results due to a marginal significance level, I argue that this finding is important because the hypothesis predicted a positive direction, which may legitimize one-tailed hypothesis testing. One-tailed test yielded a significant effect at p < .05 (equivalent to a p-value of .10 for two-tailed testing). Apart from that, on average 60% of the recipients’ coworkers in the respective workgroups were younger than 50 years of age and 58% had further accommodated peers in their workgroup. These properties of the sample increase the probability of not finding a significant main effect, as both moderating effects in my findings suggest (main effect only significant for high workgroup older workers ratio and no workgroup accommodated peers). Yet, my results suggest that older workplace accommodation recipients tend to receive higher acceptance of accommodation from their coworkers. In contrast, younger accommodation recipients tend to receive lower coworkers’ acceptance of accommodations because accommodating younger workers may appear less appropriate (minority within accommodation recipients).

Third, this study adds to the literature on workplace accommodation for PWDs by integrating relational demography arguments (Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989), which have been largely overlooked in the research stream to date. As expected, I found evidence that the social context variable workgroup older workers ratio (i.e., the ratio of older workers in a workgroup) moderates the positive relationship between the individual factor recipient’s age and perceived coworkers’ accommodation acceptance such that this positive relationship is stronger for high older workers ratio in a workgroup. This cross-level interaction suggests that groups seem to favor individuals belonging to the same age group (in-group) as compared to individuals from a different age group (out-group) when it comes to workplace accommodations. While the difference between both workgroup age categories in perceived acceptance of accommodation of older accommodation recipients (50 years of age and above) is rather small, the results suggest that younger accommodations recipients (below 50 years of age) experience significant disadvantages in terms of perceived coworkers’ accommodation acceptance in workgroups with a high proportion of older workers. In other words, older coworkers

Article II

90

who have no health issues may find it particularly difficult to accept health-related workplace accommodations for younger employees. Following my argumentation for Hypotheses 1 and 2, a reasonable explanation may be that accommodating younger workers may appear counterintuitive and less appropriate because older rather than younger individuals are expected to experience a greater number of health issues.

Finally, this study contributes to disability accommodation literature by examining the influence of a second workgroup attribute – workgroup accommodated peers – on the strength between recipient’s age and perceived coworkers’ accommodation acceptance. Thereby, I again extend the work by Colella and colleagues (Colella, 2001; Colella et al., 2004; Paetzold et al., 2008) by providing empirical evidence for the importance of the social context. As expected, I found evidence that workgroup accommodated peers (i.e., the impact of having or not having an accommodated coworker within one’s workgroup) moderates the positive relationship between recipient’s age and perceived coworkers’ accommodation acceptance. This positive relationship is stronger when an accommodation recipient does not have other workgroup accommodated peers. My result suggests that recipient’s age matters only for perceived coworkers’ accommodation acceptance when there are no other accommodated coworkers in the workgroup. In groups with no other accommodated peers, a younger accommodation recipient seems to experience the lowest level of coworkers’ acceptance of accommodations, whereas older recipients experience the highest level of coworkers’ acceptance of accommodations in groups with no other accommodated peers. A reasonable explanation may be that accommodation recipients’ attributes, such as age, are more salient and important for their acceptance of accommodation when there is only a single case in the workgroup. Under these circumstances, age-based societal beliefs seem to play a role in perceived coworkers’ accommodation acceptance. I encourage future research to further investigate these effects and explore other attributes of the workgroup social context.


The general discussion on demographic change in age typically deals with topics such as later retirement (i.g., Muller-Camen et al., 2011), age discrimination (i.g., Finkelstein et al., 1995), and age-related limitations and accommodations (i.g., WHO, 2011). Thus, the focus is on older workers. However, regarding workplace

Article II

91

accommodations, my findings highlight the need for HR professionals and managers to pay attention to younger accommodation recipients as well. Younger recipients of health-related workplace accommodations may be disadvantaged compared to older recipients who present the majority within the group of accommodation recipients. Therefore, I suggest that companies should try to increase the awareness of the risk of neglecting younger employees with health restrictions, since they might struggle more with acceptance of workplace accommodation by coworkers compared to older employees. In particular, companies should inform supervisors and employees about health restrictions and disabilities, affected groups, and the benefits of workplace accommodations. Supervisors should encourage employees to appreciate all coworkers for their strengths and abilities rather than focus on their weaknesses and disabilities.

Age diverse work environments present further challenges. Since my results suggest that workgroups with mostly older workers seem to be more reluctant to accept younger accommodation recipients, these trainings should address particularly older employees.

Furthermore, my results suggest that PWDs might profit from having peers with workplace accommodations within their workgroups, as coworkers’ acceptance may increase and, beyond that, having peers in similar circumstances may encourage mutual support, togetherness, and well-being based on relational demography arguments (Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989). When composing workgroups, it may be advisable to group several accommodation recipients in the same workgroup. However, when doing so, management and HR should refrain from creating PWD-only workgroups. Reducing versatility in this way may inhibit known benefits of diversity, such as increased problem solving or creativity (e.g., Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007) and additionally create the impression of discrimination of PWDs, which may lead to further undesirable outcomes.

Limitation and Future Research

Despite the contributions of this study to both research and practice, some potential limitations should be noted. First, since there were no existing measures of perceived coworkers’ accommodation acceptance, I used a self-developed single item measure. Building on this study, I encourage future studies to further investigate this construct and its conceptual foundation and to develop a more sophisticated measure.

Article II

92

Second, perceived coworkers’ accommodation acceptance was assessed by accommodation recipients. While perceived coworkers’ acceptance of workplace accommodations is interesting and important to study, future research should also assess the perspectives of coworkers and their effect on recipients’ perceptions.

Finally, this study recruited participants from a single German organization in the automotive industry. Furthermore, all participants worked in the manufacturing department. Thus, the results may not generalize beyond Germany to other industries and job tasks. Therefore, I encourage future research to test our findings across different work settings. While with this study, I shed some light on two social context attributes of accommodation acceptance, i.e., workgroup older workers ratio and workgroup accommodated peers, further contextual factors, such as climate for inclusion (e.g., Dwertmann & Boehm, 2016), should be investigated. Moreover, subsequent studies should extend this line of research on relational demography and further examine the interplay between individual and group-level factors in the context of PWDs workplace accommodations.

Conclusion This study provides new insights regarding the interplay between age and workplace acceptance of accommodation in disability research. My findings highlight the role of the demographic similarity between individuals and groups in the workgroup composition. I hope my findings will stimulate additional research on older and health-restricted employees as well as the antecedents of workplace acceptance of accommodation. The final goal should be to further develop organizational practices that help incorporate employees’ diverse strengths and abilities.

Article II

93

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ali, M., Schur, L., & Blanck, P. (2011). What types of jobs do people with disabilities want? Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 21(2), 199-210.

Baldridge, D. C., & Swift, M. L. (2013). Withholding requests for disability accommodation: The role of individual differences and disability attributes. Journal of Management, 39(3), 743-762.


Baldridge, D. C., & Veiga, J. F. (2001). Toward a greater understanding of the willingness to request an accommodation: Can requesters' beliefs disable the Americans with Disabilities Act? Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 85-99.


Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.

Brault, M. (2009). Americans with Disabilities: 2005. Current Population Reports, P70–117. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau. 2008.

Bruyère, S. M. (2000). Disability employment policies and practices in private and federal sector organizations. Employment and Disability Institute Collection, 63.

Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press. Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2005). Diagnosing and changing organizational

culture: Based on the competing values framework: John Wiley & Sons. Chadsey, J. G., Shelden, D. L., Horn De Bardeleben, J. R., & Cimera, R. E. (1999).

Description of variables impacting successful and unsuccessful cases of social integration involving co-workers. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 12(2), 103-111.

Article II

94


Colella, A., & Bruyère, S. M. (2011). Disability and employment: New directions for industrial and organizational psychology. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 473-503).

Colella, A., Paetzold, R. L., & Belliveau, M. A. (2004). Factors affecting coworkers' procedural justice inferences of the workplace accommodations of employees with disabilities. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 1-23.

Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 631.

Dietz, M., & Walwei, U. (2011). Germany—No Country for Old Workers? Zeitschrift für ArbeitsmarktForschung, 44(4), 363-376.

Duncan, C., White, P. J., & Loretto, W. (2000). Ageism and employment: controversies, ambiguities and younger people's perceptions. Ageing and Society, 20(03), 279-302.


Dychtwald, K., Erickson, T., & Morison, B. (2004). It’s time to retire retirement. Harvard Business Review, 82(3), 48-57.

Fineman, S. (2014). Age matters. Organization Studies, 35(11), 1719-1723. Finkelstein, L. M., Burke, M. J., & Raju, M. S. (1995). Age discrimination in simulated

employment contexts: An integrative analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(6), 652.

Florey, A. T., & Harrison, D. A. (2000). Responses to informal accommodation requests from employees with disabilities: Multistudy evidence on willingness to comply. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 224-233.

Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(1), 115-134.

Article II

95

García, M. F., Paetzold, R. L., & Colella, A. (2005). The Relationship Between Personality and Peers’ Judgments of the Appropriateness of Accommodations for Individuals With Disabilities1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(7), 1418-1439.

Gilbert, T. T., & Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 357-411).

Kulkarni, M., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011). Socialization of people with disabilities in the workplace. Human Resource Management, 50(4), 521-540.

Kunze, F., Boehm, S. A., & Bruch, H. (2011). Age diversity, age discrimination climate and performance consequences - a cross organizational study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(2), 264-290.

Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. Advances in experimental social psychology, 9, 91-131.

Muller-Camen, M., Croucher, R., Flynn, M., & Schröder, H. (2011). National institutions and employers’ age management practices in Britain and Germany:‘Path dependence’and option exploration. Human Relations, 64(4), 507-530.

Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 392-423.

Paetzold, García, M. F., Colella, A., Ren, L. R., Triana, M. C., & Ziebro, M. (2008). Perceptions of people with disabilities: When is accommodation fair? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30(1), 27-35.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual review of psychology, 63, 539-569.


Riordan, C. M., & Wayne, J. H. (2007). A review and examination of demographic similarity measures used to assess relational demography within groups. Organizational Research Methods.

Ryan, D. J. (2000). Job search handbook for people with disabilities: Jist Publishing. Schwall, A. R., Hedge, J. W., & Borman, W. C. (2012). Defining age and using age-

relevant constructs. The Oxford handbook of work and aging, 169-186.

Article II

96

Shore, L. M., Cleveland, J. N., & Goldberg, C. B. (2003). Work attitudes and decisions as a function of manager age and employee age. Journal of applied psychology, 88(3), 529.

Solovieva, T. I., Dowler, D. L., & Walls, R. T. (2011). Employer benefits from making workplace accommodations. Disability and Health journal, 4(1), 39-45.

Solovieva, T. I., & Walls, R. T. (2013). Implications of Workplace Accommodations for Persons With Disabilities. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 28(3), 192-211.


Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. W. W. Austin (Ed.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.


Tsui, A. S., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 402-423.

Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.


Vornholt, K., Uitdewilligen, S., & Nijhuis, F. J. (2013). Factors affecting the acceptance of people with disabilities at work: a literature review. Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 23(4), 463-475.

WHO. (2011). World report on disability 2011. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

Article III

97

Article III

Disability, Lost Productivity and Relative Subjective Age: The Role of Disability Visibility and LMX8

Abstract

Research indicates that subjective age rarely matches chronological age and that feeling younger than one’s chronological age is associated with enhanced cognitive functions, physical abilities and psychological wellbeing. Yet, relatively little is known about the antecedents to relative subjective age (RSA) in the workplace, particularly for employees with disabilities who might face a higher risk of forming negative RSA perceptions. We draw on extant disability and RSA research to apply and extend Montepare’s (2009) lifespan framework of subjective age to individuals with disabilities in the work context. Specifically, we propose a model of the relationship between lost employee productivity (i.e., sick days and performance problems) and RSA for employees with disabilities, as well as the potentially aggravating effects of disability visibility and attenuating effects of high leader-member exchange (LMX) quality. We then test this model using data from three different sources collected at different points in time on 375 employees with disabilities working for a large German manufacturing company. As hypothesized, employees with disabilities who encountered performance problems felt older. Moreover, the unfavorable influence of performance problems and sick days on RSA was stronger when employees believed that their disabilities were more visible, and weaker when LMX was higher in quality. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

Keywords: subjective age; disability; disability visibility; LMX; aging workforce

8 Co-authored article with Stephan A. Boehm and David C. Baldridge

Article III

98

“Age does not depend upon years, but upon temperament and health. Some men are born old, and some never grow so.”

Tryon Edwards (1809 – 1894)

Introduction

Subjective age, a crucial construct in gerontology (Stephan, Sutin, & Terracciano, 2015), refers to a perception of feeling an age which is often different from ones’ chronological age (Barak & Stern, 1986). Relative Subjective Age (RSA) measures the difference between chronological age and subjective age, and thus captures the extent to which people feel older or younger than their chronological age (Barak & Stern, 1986). RSA was originally studied among elderly people (e.g., Barak & Stern, 1986; Montepare, 2009; Stephan, Chalabaev, Kotter-Grühn, & Jaconelli, 2013) and has been shown to be related to health, vitality, and productivity (Montepare, 2009; Stephan et al., 2013).

Two aspects seem particularly important and theoretically interesting in applying and extending RSA theory and research to the work context and to persons with disabilities. First, subjective age often has greater explanatory power than chronological age in illuminating physical, psychological and social states, and behaviors (Kunze, Raes, & Bruch, 2015; Montepare, 1996). Consequently, RSA perceptions could be a valuable yet thus far neglected source of information in order to evaluate employees with disabilities’ feelings of inclusion, wellbeing, and contribution. Second, subjective age seems sensitive to various personal and interpersonal triggers and can be influenced intentionally (Stephan et al., 2013), turning RSA into a manageable resource for organizations if its antecedents were better understood. In times of demographic change in age in many developed countries (Fraccaroli & Deller, 2015; Kulik, Ryan, Harper, & George, 2014), organizations are keen to learn about such opportunities to foster successful aging at work (Kooij, 2015).

Moreover, due to the substantial correlation between age and disability (WHO, 2011), as workforces age, the number and proportion of persons with disabilities increases. Worldwide, one billion people—one in six individuals—have a disability (WHO, 2011) which is typically defined as the “umbrella term for impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions, referring to the negative aspects of the

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/tryonedwar136876.html



Article III

99

interaction between an individual (with a health condition) and that individual’s contextual factors (environmental and personal factors)” (WHO, 2011: 4). In the US, for instance, 33.8% of 55-64 year olds report one or more disabilities compared to only 6.3% of 18-44 year olds (Statistics, 2014). For these reasons, managers and scholars need to better understand the workplace experiences of persons with disabilities—a growing yet understudied group—and the complex relationships between chronological age, subjective age, health, and disability.

In spite of the high practical importance of persons with disabilities for work organizations, our knowledge of their work-related experiences is very limited. As Colella and Bruyère (2011: 494) summarized the status quo of disability research, “to some extent, what goes on in the organization has been ignored by disability and employment researchers”. The available research, however, shows a rather pessimistic picture as employees with disabilities seem to suffer from less formal and informal training, less participation in decision making, less inclusion, as well as lower quality LMX relationships (Colella & Varma, 2001; Dwertmann & Boehm, 2016; Schur, 2009). Organizations seeking to change this situation need to better understand the experiences of persons with disabilities. Given known associations between health, ability and subjective age, and the potential for organizations to favorably influence RSA perceptions, employees with disabilities’ RSA antecedents are particularly important to study. Unfortunately though, relatively little is currently known about these antecedents in the workplace and RSA theory has never been extended to employees with disabilities. Nonetheless, there is reason to believe that RSA may be even more important in the study of people with disabilities (Galambos, Darrah, & Magill-Evans, 2007).

In the current study, we first draw on extant disability and RSA research to apply and extend Montepare’s lifespan framework of subjective age to individuals with disabilities in work organizations. This theory suggests that RSA is based on anchoring and adjusting one’s age perceptions in light of distal reference points and more proximal influences. Specifically, we propose a model of the impact of an employee’s lost productivity (i.e., sick days and performance problems) on RSA, as well as the potentially aggravating effects of perceived disability visibility and attenuating effects of higher LMX quality. We then test this model using data from three different sources

Article III

100

collected at different points in time on 375 employees with disabilities working for a large German manufacturing company.

In so doing, this study breaks new ground and contributes to the literature in at least three important ways. First, by further extending RSA theory to the individual level in work organizations, we help answer calls in aging research to go beyond chronological age (e.g., Heckhausen, Wrosch, & Schulz, 2010; Kooij et al., 2013). Relatedly, we contribute to subjective age research by applying and extending Montepare’s (2009) framework to the work context. Second, we extend research on persons with disabilities in work organizations and address calls (Baldridge, Beatty, Boehm, Kulkarni, & Moore, 2016) to investigate an important and growing, yet understudied minority group (i.e., persons with disabilities being regularly employed in a company setting) as well as an understudied disability dimension (i.e., disability visibility). Finally, we further connect the disability, RSA and leadership literature (Dwertmann & Boehm, 2016) by demonstrating that supervisors are in an ideal position to improve the workplace perceptions of persons with disabilities (Stone & Colella, 1996), including their subjective age.

Theory and Hypotheses

Relative Subjective Age in the Work Context

Research in gerontology and lifespan developmental psychology has pointed to the fact that our understanding of human aging would benefit from investigating the aging process not only from a chronological age perspective, but also from more process-related, subjective, and individualized perceptions of age (Birren & Cunningham, 1985; Kastenbaum, Derbin, Sabatini, & Artt, 1972). Subjective age, or how young or old individuals feel, has become the dominant approach in this respect (Kotter-Grühn, Kornadt, & Stephan, 2015). Indeed, perceptions of subjective age and particularly feeling younger than one’s chronological age (i.e. a negative RSA) have been shown to be correlated with better physical health and functioning (Westerhof et al., 2014), improved psychological wellbeing (Spuling, Miche, Wurm, & Wahl, 2013), reduced cognitive decline (Stephan, Caudroit, Jaconelli, & Terracciano, 2014), and longer life expectancy (Kotter-Grühn, Kleinspehn-Ammerlahn, Gerstorf, & Smith, 2009; Westerhof et al., 2014).

Article III

101

In addition, dating back to Langer’s (2009) seminal work on the counterclockwise experiments in the 1970s, researchers are aware that perceptions of subjective age can be influenced by external cues and triggers, making it even more important to investigate the antecedents of RSA in order to foster and support a successful aging process. In fact, prior research indicates that subjective age is rarely the same as chronological age (Kotter-Grühn et al., 2015) and that beginning in the mid 20’s people generally report feeling younger subjective ages (Barnes-Farrell, Rumery, & Swody, 2002; Infurna, Gerstorf, Robertson, Berg, & Zarit, 2010; Montepare & Lachman, 1989). This effect is thought to result from two basic processes. First, self-enhancement processes might motivate individuals to feel younger in order to distance themselves from the stigma of old age (Teuscher, 2009). Second, information-processing might trigger a subjective age bias, implying that elderly people might today de facto feel, look, and behave younger than a few decades ago, causing a gap between their inner representation of a prototypical age group member and their actual self-perception.

We build upon this research and theory by applying and extending Montepare’s (2009) lifespan framework of subjective age to persons with disabilities in the work context. Similar to Teuscher’s view (2009), the model’s basic premise is that individuals form subjective age perceptions through a process of anchoring and adjusting one’s felt age in relation to both distal and proximal reference points of age. Distal reference points reflect rather stable personal models of development including phases such as adolescence, adulthood, and old age against which individuals compare themselves. In such developmental models, the midpoint (i.e. adulthood) is often perceived as the time of optimal functioning with anticipated gains before and losses thereafter (Heckhausen, Dixon, & Baltes, 1989; McFarland, Ross, & Giltrow, 1992), explaining why young people want to feel slightly older while later in life people mostly perceive themselves as younger. During one’s life, however, individuals encounter ongoing cues that force them to reevaluate their subjective age perception (Galambos, Albrecht, & Jansson, 2009; Montepare, 2009). Those more proximal reference points or so-called “age markers” can take various forms, including historic events (e.g. birthdays,) normative events (e.g. obtaining a driver’s licence), or interpersonal events (e,g. dating for the first time).

We argue that for research on subjective age in the work context, and for employees with disabilities in particular, work-and health-related age markers should play a

Article III

102

dominant role in forcing employees to reevaluate and adapt their subjective age perceptions. Given widespread disability stereotypes related to greater illness, increased absences and lower performance (Colella & Bruyère, 2011; Fichten, 1986; Stone & Colella, 1996), and the importance of absences and job performance to organizations (Alavinia, Molenaar, & Burdorf, 2009; Danna & Griffin, 1999), we argue that sick days and performance problems are two critical age markers for persons with disabilities in the workplace. More specifically, based on the notion that subjective age is strongly influenced by social comparison processes between peers (Cheng, Fung, & Chan, 2007; Frieswijk, Buunk, Steverink, & Slaets, 2004), one’s own contribution compared to colleagues should constitute a relevant work-related age marker, and consequently, an antecedent to RSA. We propose that one’s contribution to the firm consists of at least two components, i.e. the level of regular attendance (absence of sick days) as well as one’s performance. Therefore, pronounced sick days should negatively affect employees’ subjective age perceptions by drawing their attention to health issues and related physical decline, i.e. indications of increasing age (Spuling et al., 2013; Stephan et al., 2015). Similarly, performance problems, i.e. difficulties in reaching age-typical performance standards for a given job, constitute a work-related age marker which should also affect employees’ RSA by triggering concerns about one’s abilities compared to peer standards.

Beyond these two main effects, we are also interested in two boundary conditions which should moderate the relationship between lost contribution and RSA. On the one hand, the perceived visibility of one’s disability should aggravate the negative effects of both sick days and performance problems on RSA through increased salience and internalization of health issues in individuals’ self-concepts and reduced opportunities for self-enhancement and positivity bias regarding one’s contribution to the organization (Kwan, Love, Ryff, & Essex, 2003; Mezulis, Abramson, Hyde, & Hankin, 2004; Teuscher, 2009). On the other hand, we argue that high quality LMX with one’s supervisor should attenuate these negative relationships by protecting employees’ age-related self-image through decreasing anxiety related to aging, poor health and disability as well as providing positive feedback and opportunities for self-enhancement instead (Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, 2012; Dwertmann & Boehm, 2016). The resulting overall model is depicted in Figure 6.

Article III

103

Figure 6: Conceptual Model

Employee Productivity, Sick Days, Performance Problems and RSA

As noted, two work-related age markers are expected to be important antecedents to employees with disabilities’ RSA as they seem likely to trigger re-anchoring of employees’ age perceptions: sick days (number of workdays missed due to illness) and performance problems (performing below job requirements). Sick days represent lost productivity when employees cannot work at all, while performance problems capture lost productivity when employees are able to go to work but fall below performance standards for their job.

First, with regard to sick days, a comparably well-developed stream of literature has pointed to the effect of health and functional abilities on subjective age perceptions. Various studies have found that poor health is related to feeling older than one’s chronological age while relatively good health and physical functioning is associated with feeling younger, regardless of whether subjective or more objective health indicators were used (e.g., Barrett, 2003; Gana, Alaphilippe, & Bailly, 2004; Hubley &

Article III

104

Russell, 2009; Westerhof, Barrett, & Steverink, 2003). As Hubley and Hultsch (1994) showed, health variables tend to explain the greatest proportion of variance in subjective age perceptions. Moreover, longitudinal research indicates that negative changes in health states predict changes in subjective age including transitions to older age identities (Bergland, Nicolaisen, & Thorsen, 2014; Bowling, See-Tai, Ebrahim, Gabriel, & Solanki, 2005; Markides & Boldt, 1983). Taken together, these empirical findings offer strong support for the premise that indicators of good and poor health can trigger re-evaluation processes related to subjective age.

While this body of research has rarely been extended to the workplace, it indicates that sick days can be expected to create a bridge or link through which personal health becomes an important work-related age marker impacting RSA perceptions. Sick days are typically carefully monitored by supervisors and organizations and a higher number of sick days can often attract attention from supervisors, coworkers and HR departments. Many organizations now use automated systems to evaluate employee sick days and generate reports for supervisors and affected employees. Consequently, employees might even get formalized notifications that point them to their above-average sickness absenteeism, and relatedly, to their below-average health. Therefore, based on their sick days, individuals might be confronted with a direct social comparison between their own health and the health of their peers, turning their health state into a salient and highly influential age marker for their RSA perception (Cheng et al., 2007; Frieswijk et al., 2004; Greenberg, Ashton-James, & Ashkanasy, 2007).

Second, with regard to performance problems, ability, control, and personal mastery of daily life activities have been shown to favorably impact RSA while life task performance problems and functional limitations are associated with feeling older (Bergland et al., 2014; Kotter-Grühn et al., 2015; Stephan et al., 2013). In the work context, we therefore expect that performance problems, or employees’ ability or inability to meet performance standards, is another critical age marker. This is expected because job performance standards and goals are typically determined by average employees’ skills, physical properties and demographics such as age and “normal” health. This underlying information is often unknown to employees but workers are typically made aware of problems with their performance by supervisors, colleagues or HR departments. When employees fail to meet job performance requirements, it draws attention to the employee’s contribution to the firm and calls into question their ability

Article III

105

to perform their job which in turn can be expected to trigger anxiety and disrupt self-enhancement processes associated with younger subjective age (Montepare, 2009). Performance problems are therefore expected to be a further age marker in the workplace that can cause negative self-evaluation (Judge & Bono, 2001) as well as perceived loss of control and mastery which have been shown to be important predictors of subjective age outside the workplace (Boehmer, 2007; Bowling et al., 2005; Hubley & Hultsch, 1996; Infurna et al., 2010; Teuscher, 2009). Consequently, performance problems seem likely to trigger age-related self-assessment of physical and cognitive decline associated with aging (Stephan et al., 2015) and negatively impact employees’ RSA.

These processes of social comparison, sensemaking and re-anchoring can be expected to be particularly pronounced for employees with disabilities as the disability literature indicates that disability severity, disruptiveness and course impact an employee’s self-concept and treatment by others (Baldrige & Veiga, 2001; Stone & Colella, 1996). The number of days that an employee is unable to work at all and performance problems when they do work can signal and accentuate disability severity perceptions. Sick days and performance problems are also disruptive to employees, coworkers, supervisors and organizations and can make otherwise hidden disabilities more observable to others and more salient to an employee’s self-concept. Disability research further shows that beliefs about employees’ with disabilities absenteeism and job performance are central to their treatment, discrimination, and stigma and can have lasting effects on their self-perception (Stone & Colella, 1996). Consequently, sick days and performance problems can make a disability more salient and negatively impact employees’ treatment at work as well as their self-concept even if the disability is not directly related to number of sick days or performance problems (Stone & Colella, 1996; Baldridge et al., 2016).

In sum, our review of the literature only uncovered one study on RSA for people with disabilities (e.g., Galambos et al., 2007) which was not conducted in a work context. Nonetheless, given the considerable body of evidence linking health, physical abilities and RSA, we expect that in work contexts both sick days and performance problems will serve as two relevant age markers and thus be positively associated with increased RSA for persons with disabilities. Formally stated:

Article III

106

Hypothesis 1: The number of sick days is positively associated with RSA.

Hypothesis 2: Having a performance problem is positively associated with RSA.

Disability Visibility, Lost Productivity and RSA

As noted, we expect a positive association between lost productivity (in the form of sick days and performance problems) and RSA. We, however, also expect the strength of these relationships to be influenced by employees’ beliefs about the extent to which their disabilities are visible to others (i.e., disability visibility). Specifically, when employees believe that their disabilities are more visible, the relationship between lost productivity (i.e., sick days and performance problems) and RSA will be stronger. This is expected because disability research indicates that visibility (sometimes termed concealability) is an important disability attribute and that greater disability visibility can lead to more negative categorization and affective responses (Baldridge et al., 2016; Lyons & Schneider, 2009; Stone & Colella, 1996). Most existent research shows that when disabilities are more visible, non-disabled people are more anxious, react more negatively and are more likely to avoid or withdraw from uncomfortable interactions (e.g., Gouvier, Steiner, Jackson, Schlater, & Rain, 1991; Harma, Gombert, & Roussey, 2013). The degree of disability visibility is further thought to strongly contribute to stigma formation (Goffman, 1963; Jans, Kaye, & Jones, 2012) and research confirms that visibility impacts the extent of marginalization associated with stigmatizing conditions (Frable, 1993). For these reasons, while empirical research on employee disability visibility is extremely limited, the general disability literature suggests that disability visibility negatively impacts treatment in the workplace including job assignments, inclusion, mentoring, and promotions (Stone & Colella, 1996).

Yet, visibility also appears to impact the salience of disability in terms of both self-esteem and self-concept with some evidence that more visible disabilities trigger greater salience of physical attributes in general (Harma et al., 2013). In the case of internal assessments such as RSA, perceived disability visibility is of particular importance because attitudes and behaviors are often more closely tied to perceptions than objective reality, with perceived disability visibility conceptualized as encapsulating both objective and subjective assessments (Jans et al., 2012; Livneh, Martz, & Wilson, 2001). Moreover, RSA research shows the importance of individual differences which can moderate the relationship between proximal age markers and subjective age (e.g., Barak

Article III

107

& Stern, 1986). In the context of disabilities, employees’ beliefs about the visibility of their condition presents such a critical situational variable (e.g., Cacciapaglia, Beauchamp, & Howells, 2004) that can increase the impact of both sick days and performance problems as work-related age markers. We argue that when employees believe that their disabilities are more visible, disability becomes more salient to their self-concept and categorization by others (Stone & Colella, 1996), increasing employees’ concerns regarding stigmatization (Gilbert & Fiske, 1998). Additionally, employees often internalize their visible disabilities more strongly (Baldridge et al., 2016).

When disability is more salient and/or internalized, negative information about productivity (i.e., sick days and performance problems), is more likely to be attributed at least in part to one’s disability, which in turn amplifies the extent to which lost productivity impacts RSA. Consequently, in terms of Montepare’s (2009) subjective age framework, perceived disability visibility is proposed as an individual-level, physical context factor which should exasperate the extent of negative social comparison, sensemaking and re-anchoring processes which disrupt self-enhancement and trigger unfavorable changes in an employee’s subjective age perception. Taken together, we argue that when employees believe that their disabilities are more visible, the impact of reduced productivity—in the form of sick days and performance problems—on RSA will be stronger. Stated formally, we expect the following:

Hypothesis 3: Disability visibility moderates the relationship between the number of sick days and RSA such that the positive relationship between sick days and RSA is stronger when disabilities are more visible.

Hypothesis 4: Disability visibility moderates the relationship between having performance problems and RSA such that the positive relationship between having performance problems and RSA is stronger when disabilities are more visible.

Leader-Member Exchange Quality, Lost Productivity and RSA

In addition to the moderating, i.e. aggravating influence of disability visibility, we also expect LMX—the quality of the relationship between an employee and his/her supervisor (Scandura & Graen, 1984)—to be decisive for the relationship between productivity loss and RSA. In contrast to disability visibility, however, we expect an attenuating effect in the case of pronounced LMX.

Article III

108

During the past decades, LMX has developed into one of the most dominant leadership frameworks, proposing that supervisors develop different levels of exchange relationships with their followers (Sparrowe & Liden, 1997), ranging from close, trusting, and reciprocal high-quality relationships to more exchange-based and formalized low-quality relationships (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen, 1995; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997). Prior research indicates that the relationship quality in supervisor–subordinate dyads serves as an important contributor to successful workplace inclusion (Gates, 1993), particularly for minorities and in diverse organizations (Nishii & Mayer, 2009). Building on this rationale, Colella and Varma (2001) as well as Dwertmann and Boehm (2016) investigated the LMX quality that supervisors without disabilities form with their employees with disabilities and found that in such dyads, persons with disabilities often suffer from lower LMX quality with negative effects for their performance. In contrast, if persons with disabilities are able to form a high-quality LMX relationship with their supervisor, they are likely to benefit from increased interaction, greater personal concern and job direction, as well as more feedback, support, training, and developmental opportunities from their supervisor (Dulebohn et al., 2012; Gerstner & Day, 1997).

We build upon these findings and propose that higher levels of LMX will attenuate the positive relationship between lost productivity and RSA, i.e. that high levels of LMX protect employees from feeling older even in the case of more sick days or performance problems. More specifically, supervisors in high-quality LMX relationships can be expected to show higher personal affection and mutual interest in their employee with a disability, combined with more in-depth knowledge of his or her goals, strengths, and requirements (Sue-Chan, Chen, & Lam, 2011). As Gates (1993, p. 179) pointed out “supervisors are often in the best position to identify problems at work as a consequence of the disability, offer support to the worker, develop appropriate accommodations, monitor and evaluate their effectiveness, and educate others in the department about the impact of the disability on the flow of work or relationships”. Consequently, supervisors in close and reciprocal LMX relationships with their employees seem likely to do a better job in attenuating the negative effect of lost productivity. For instance, they might speak with the employee and point out remaining job capacities and how to use those effectively. This, in turn, is likely to positively affect the employee’s self-image with positive implications for RSA. In other words, following the terminology of

Article III

109

Montepare’s (2009) subjective age framework, a higher quality LMX relationship should constitute a work-related, interpersonal context factor that interrupts the negative social comparison, sensemaking and re-anchoring processes that would otherwise force an individual to unfavorably adjust his/her subjective age perception due to productivity loss.

Taken together, when LMX is stronger, employees with disabilities can be expected to perceive themselves as being more valuable to their organization, even if their productivity is reduced. In absence of a strong and reciprocal relationship with their supervisors, however, employees are likely to feel insecure and to more strongly internalize negative, work-related age markers such as sick days and performance problems. For these reasons, we argue that LMX moderates the extent to which lost productivity relates to RSA. Thus, we expect the following:

Hypothesis 5: LMX moderates the relationship between sick days and RSA such that the positive relationship between more sick days and RSA is weaker when LMX is stronger.

Hypothesis 6: LMX moderates the relationship between performance problems and RSA such that the positive relationship between performance problems and RSA is weaker when LMX is stronger.

Methods

Data Collection and Sample

Data for this study was collected in the production department of a large German industrial company as part of a research project on retention and inclusion of people with disabilities in the context of aging. To reduce the risk of common source bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012), we collected data on each employee from three different data sources: (1) objective HR personnel data, (2) an employee survey, and (3) managerial round table assessments. HR data was available for each employee for demographics information including age, sex, organizational tenure, disabilities, and sick days. Subsequently, supervisors informed production employees about an upcoming survey during routine group meetings. Supervisors used a standardized document from their HR department to explain the study’s purpose, properties, and participation instructions. All employees were given an opportunity to voluntarily

Article III

110

participate in the survey during work hours via the corporate intranet to gather study data on subjective age, disability visibility and LMX. The survey was hosted by an independent third company and full anonymity was assured to all study participants. Finally, data on employee performance problems were collected from managerial round table assessment meetings, in which groups consisting of supervisors, HR managers, company physicians, and work council members review and discuss an employee's recent performance and determine whether or not that employee is performing below requirements (i.e., performance problems). Additional details for each variable are provided in the measures section.

To be eligible for our study, employees had to have a disability diagnosed by a physician. In Germany, organizations above 20 employees have to fill at least 5% of their positions with employees with disabilities, otherwise they have to pay a monthly penalty of between € 115 and € 290 for each position that should have been held by a person with a disability (Dwertmann & Boehm, 2016). Therefore, organizations have to know about the disability status of their employees which is also documented in the company’s HR system. Of the 1,115 employees identified as having disabilities, 396 responded to our survey (35.5 percent). After listwise deletion based on study variables, 375 usable cases remained. Average employee age was 48.26 years (SD = 8.48), ranging from 22 to 62 years. Mean tenure was 23.25 years (SD = 8.67), and 15% were female. No meaningful differences were identified when comparing respondents to non-respondents with respect to their demographics.

Measures

As noted, study data were collected at different points in time from three different data sources: HR personnel records, an employee survey and management round tables. As an overview, our dependent variable, RSA, was calculated by comparing objective HR data on chronological age with employee survey responses about their subjective age. The predictor variables performance problems and sick days were collected from the management round tables and HR personnel data, respectively. Finally, data for the two moderating variables, disability visibility and LMX, were collected from the employee survey.

For all measures when no German translations were available, the English survey measures were translated into German following the commonly used back-translation

Article III

111

procedure (Brislin, 1986). Unless otherwise indicated, items in the survey were assessed using a Likert response scale format in which “1” was “strongly disagree” and “5” was “strongly agree.”

Relative subjective age (RSA). As noted, the dependent variable in our model was calculated using employee survey data on subjective age and objective HR data on chronological age. The measure of subjective age was taken from Kastenbaum, Derbin, Sabatini & Artt (1972) (e.g., Caudroit, Stephan, Chalabaev, & Le Scanff, 2012; Kunze et al., 2015). Using the same German translation as Kunze et al. (2015), survey participants were asked, “Irrespective of your actual age, how old do you feel?” and asked to respond with a number representing how old they felt. To calculate RSA, employees’ chronological age from HR data was subtracted from self-reported subjective age responses (i.e., Kunze et al., 2015; Stephan et al., 2013). Thus, positive values indicate that employees felt older than their chronological age, while negative values indicate that employees felt younger than their chronological age.

Sick days. We determined the number of sick days during the previous six months by examining HR personnel data. These data were gathered automatically from individual working schedules and employees’ company cards. Holidays and other missed days were not counted as sick days.

Performance problems. Employees’ performance problems were assessed by management round table groups consisting of a supervisor, an HR professional, a company physician, and a work council member. Applying the principle of multiple-assessor verification, the managerial round table determined whether or not an employee was performing below requirements for his/her current workstation. We received the most recent managerial round table assessments collected within 6 months prior to our survey, using a binary coding of “0” for no performance problems and “1” for performance problems.

Disability visibility. Despite the fact that visibility of disabilities has been shown to be critical for social interaction (e.g., Cacciapaglia et al., 2004), we were unable to find empirical research operationalizing this construct. We, thus, asked participants to respond to the following new item: “My disability is visible” with response options ranging from 1 for “strongly disagree” to 5 for “strongly agree.”

Article III

112

Leader-member exchange (LMX). LMX was measured based on the well-established LMX-7 scale (Scandura & Graen, 1984) following the wording adjustments according to Liden, Wayne, and Stilwell (1993). Due to company survey length restrictions, we chose five items based on the highest factor loadings from Liden, Wayne, and Stilwell (1993) (items 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7). Response options ranged from 1 for “strongly disagree” to 5 for “strongly agree.” Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .97.

Control variables. We included two control variables. First, we controlled for sex (male = 0; female = 1) because gender effects on RSA were previously shown (for an overview see Montepare, 2009). Second, we controlled for organizational tenure because RSA assessments are conceptualized to depend on personal reference time points such as work anniversaries (Montepare, 2009) which are associated with organizational tenure.

Results

Data analysis. We used hierarchical regression analysis as proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986) to test our hypotheses. All continuous predictor variables were first z-standardized (Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004). The control variables were entered in step 1, followed by the independent variables in the second step and the interaction terms in the final step. To further inspect the moderating effects, we also plotted the results and performed simple slopes analyses (Aiken & West, 1991).

Descriptive statistics. Table 9 reports means, standard deviations, and correlations for the study variables. The mean RSA was 0.21 years (SD = 10.03), i.e. employees felt on average 0.21 years older than they chronologically are. Mean performance problems was 0.30 (SD = 0.46) indicating that 30% of the employees had a deficit in performance assessed within 6 months prior to our survey. The mean for sick days was 11.07 (SD = 16.51), 3.97 (SD = 1.04) for LMX, and 2.48 (SD = 1.26) for disability visibility. Although not study variables, and only used to calculate RSA, mean chronological age was 48.26 (SD = 8.48) and mean subjective age was 48.46 (SD = 10.64). Their correlations with RSA were r = -0.22 for chronological age, r = 0.70 for subjective age, and r = 0.54 between chronological age and subjective age (reported correlations were significant at the 0.01 level). Among the study variables, there were no intercorrelations above r = 0.20, lessening multicollinearity concerns.

Article III

113

Table 9: Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of Study Variables

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Relative subjective age (RSA) 0.21 10.03

2 Sick days 11.07 16.51 .08

3 Performance problems 0.30 0.46 .15** .11**

4 Disability visibility 2.48 1.26 .13* .17** .10*

5 LMX 3.97 1.04 -.18** .03 -.04 .04

6 Sex 0.15 0.35 -.01 .05 .09* -.12* -.03

7 Organizational tenure 23.25 8.67 -.14** .08 .07 .03 .10 .04 Notes: n = 375, * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed), ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Regression analysis results. Hypothesis 1 states that having more sick days is positively associated with RSA, while Hypothesis 2 states that having a performance problem is positively associated with RSA. As shown in Table 10 we find support for Hypothesis 2 (performance problems, ß = 3.09; t = 2.79; p < .01) but not for Hypothesis 1 (sick days, ß = 0.59; t = 1.16; p > .1).

Hypothesis 3 states that disability visibility moderates the relationship between sick days and RSA such that the positive association is stronger when disabilities are more visible. Consistent with Hypothesis 3, the interaction term disability visibility x sick days on RSA is significant (ß = 1.56; t = 2.97; p < .01). To further inspect this relationship, we plotted the simple slopes (Aiken & West, 1991) for less visible disabilities (one SD below the mean) and more visible disabilities (one SD above the mean). Results can be seen in Figure 7. As predicted, the positive relationship between sick days and RSA is stronger when disabilities are perceived to be more visible (i.e., greater disability visibility). Further, simple slope analysis reveals that the slope is positive and significant for more visible disabilities (ß = 1.71, p < .01) and negative and marginally significant for less visible disabilities (ß = -1.41, p < .1).

Article III

114

Table 10: Hierarchical Regression Results

Relative Subjective Age Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

b t b t b t Constant

0.24 0.43 -0.67 -1.07 -1.00 -1.62

Controls

Sex (2=male, 1=female) -0.23 -0.16 -0.43 -0.30 -0.02 -0.01

Organizational tenure (years) -1.41** -2.75 -1.44** -2.85 -1.36** -2.79

Main Effects

Sick days 0.59 1.16 0.14 0.28

Performance problems (0=no deficit) 3.09** 2.79 2.92** 2.68

Disability visibility 1.08* 2.11 0.63 1.03

LMX -1.73** -3.45 -0.85 -1.44

Interaction Effects

Disability visibility x Sick days

1.56** 2.97

Disability visibility x Performance problems

1.69 1.62

LMX x Sick days

-1.49** -2.88

LMX x Performance problems

-2.50* -2.36

R2

0.02 0.09 0.16

ΔR2

0.02 0.07 0.06

F value 3.80 7.92 6.98

Note: N = 375. Unstandardized coefficients and t values are reported. Two-tailed testing. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01

Article III

115

Hypothesis 4 states that disability visibility moderates the relationship between performance problems and RSA such that the positive association is stronger when disabilities are perceived to be more visible. In contrast to our prediction, we find no support for Hypothesis 4. The interaction term disability visibility x performance problems on RSA is not significant (ß = 1.69; t = 1.62; p > .1). Although non-significant interactions cannot be interpreted, we still plotted the interaction in order to show the general pattern of results (Figure 8).

Hypothesis 5 states that LMX moderates the relationship between sick days and RSA such that the positive association is stronger when LMX is lower. Consistent with Hypothesis 5, the interaction term LMX x sick days on RSA is significant (ß = -1.49; t = -2.88; p < .01). The results were plotted for lower LMX (one SD below the mean) and higher LMX (one SD above the mean) in Figure 9. As predicted, the positive relationship between sick days and RSA was weaker when LMX was stronger. Simple slope analysis further reveals that the slope is positive and significant for lower LMX (ß = 1.62, p < .05) and negative and marginally significant for higher LMX (ß = -1.33, p < .1).

Hypothesis 6 states that LMX moderates the relationship between performance problems and RSA such that the positive association is stronger when LMX is low. Consistent with Hypothesis 6, the interaction term LMX x performance problems on RSA is significant (ß = -2.50; t = -2.36; p < .05). The results were plotted for lower LMX (one SD below the mean) and higher LMX (one SD above the mean) in Figure 10. Simple slope analysis reveals that the slope is positive and significant for lower LMX (ß = 5.40, p < .001) and non-significant for higher LMX (ß = .44, p > .10).

Article III

116

Figure 7: Interaction Plot Corresponding to Hypothesis 3


-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-10123456789

10

Few Sick Days Many Sick Days

Rel

ativ

e Su

bect

ive A

ge

Low DisabilityVisibility

High DisabilityVisibility

-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-10123456789

10

No Performance Problems Performance Problems

Rel

ativ

e Su

bect

ive A

ge

Low DisabilityVisibility

High DisabilityVisibility

Interaction is not significant (p = .11)

Article III

117



-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-10123456789

10

Few Sick Days Many Sick Days

Rel

ativ

e Su

bect

ive A

ge

Low LMX

High LMX

-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-10123456789

10

No Performance Problems Performance Problems

Rel

ativ

e Su

bect

ive A

ge

Low LMX

High LMX

Article III

118

Robustness Tests

Simultaneous interaction effects. As we test four interaction terms simultaneously in our model, concerns about interdependence and suppressor effects might be raised (Smith, Ager, & Williams, 1992). To account for this alternative explanation of our results, we ran four additional robustness checks. For this purpose, we applied hierarchical OLS regression to predict RSA inserting all individual predictor variables in the first step (sex, organizational tenure, sick days, performance problems, disability visibility, and LMX) and, in the second step, adding only one of the four interaction terms each. First, when we inserted disability visibility x sick days in the second step (consistent with Hypothesis 3), the interaction effect was significant (ß = 1.49; t = 2.81; p < .05) and explained 1.9% of additional variance above the first step. Second, when we inserted disability visibility x performance problems in the second step (consistent with Hypothesis 4), the interaction effect was marginally significant (ß = 1.92; t = 1.80; p < .1) and explained 0.8% of additional variance. Third, when we inserted LMX x sick days in the second step (consistent with Hypothesis 5), the interaction effect was significant (ß = -1.57; t = -3.08; p < .05) and explained 2.3% of additional variance. Finally, when we inserted LMX x performance problems in the second step (consistent with Hypothesis 6), the interaction effect was significant (ß = -2.96; t = -2.83; p < .05) and explained 1.9% of additional variance. Thus, the results stayed mainly the same as in our main model where we inserted all four interaction terms simultaneously. These robustness checks strengthened our confidence that suppression effects were not a major issue in our analysis.

RSA difference score. Following recent research on relative subjective age in the workplace (Kunze et al., 2015), we calculated the outcome variable RSA as a difference score between individual chronological age and individual subjective age (SA) of the observed participants. As there is debate on the validity and use of difference scores among management scholars (e.g., Edwards & Parry, 1993; Shanock, Baran, Gentry, Pattison, & Heggestad, 2010), we performed an additional robustness check to account for related methodological concerns. Therefore, we ran a hierarchical OLS regression model by replacing the outcome RSA with SA. Chronological age was used as an additional control variable to account for age-related differences in subjective age (Teuscher, 2009). In the first step, we entered the seven individual predictors and controls (sex, organizational tenure, chronological age, sick days, performance

Article III

119

problems, disability visibility) and, in the second step, we entered the four interaction terms (disability visibility x sick days, disability visibility x performance problems, LMX x sick days, and LMX x performance problems). The results of the first step revealed that SA was significantly predicted by chronological age (ß = .68; t = 8.48; p < .001), performance problems (ß = 3.48; t = 3.19; p < .05), disability visibility (ß = 1.31; t = 2.58; p < .05), and LMX (ß = -1.45; t = -2.95; p < .05). In the first step, no other predictors were significant. The results of the second step showed that SA was significantly predicted by disability visibility x sick days (ß = 1.53; t = 2.97; p < .05), LMX x sick days (ß = -1.37; t = -2.73; p < .05), and LMX x performance problems (ß = -2.33; t = -2.26; p < .05). The interaction term disability visibility x performance problems was not a significant predictor of SA (ß = 1.66; t = 1.62; p > .01), i.e. the same result as in our main statistical model with RSA being the dependent variable. Thus, the results stayed mainly the same as in our main model. This robustness check strengthened our confidence that using a difference score was not a major issue in our analysis.

Discussion

In this study we drew on extant disability and RSA research to apply and extend Montepare’s (2009) lifespan framework of subjective age to individuals with disabilities in the work context. We were motivated to do so because research indicates that subjective age rarely matches chronological age and that feeling younger than one’s chronological age is associated with enhanced cognitive functions, physical abilities and psychological wellbeing. Relatively little, however, is known about the antecedents and boundary conditions of relative subjective age (RSA) in the workplace, particularly for employees with disabilities who might face a higher risk of forming negative RSA perceptions.

We argued that for research on subjective age in the work context, and for employees with disabilities in particular, performance and health-related age markers should play a dominant role in forcing employees to reevaluate and adapt their subjective age perceptions. Further, we investigated two boundary conditions, i.e. perceived disability visibility and LMX quality which should respectively aggravate and attenuate the relationship between lost contribution and RSA. We tested this model using data from three different sources collected at different points in time on 375 production employees with disabilities working for a large German manufacturing company.

Article III

120

As hypothesized, we found evidence that individual performance problems are positively associated with RSA, implying that employees with disabilities feel older when they experience performance problems. Second, contrary to our expectations, we did not find evidence that sick days are related to RSA. Third, we showed that the visibility of one’s disability aggravates the relationship between employees’ lost productivity and RSA. Specifically, greater disability visibility amplifies the extent to which more sick days are associated with greater RSA. Finally, we found that higher quality LMX can attenuate or protect against the extent to which lost productivity is associated with feeling older than one’s chronological age—both in the case of performance problems and sick days. With these results, we contribute to the literature in several important ways.

Theoretical Contributions

First, we contribute to research on age in the workplace (Kulik et al., 2014; Fraccaroli & Deller, 2015) by addressing recent calls to go beyond chronological age in studying the effects of aging workforces for organizations (e.g., Boehm & Dwertmann, 2015; Kooij et al., 2013). We do so by applying and extending Montepare’s (2009) framework of subjective age to the work context, a further theoretical contribution of our study. Prior studies of subjective age in non-work settings indicated that feeling younger than one’s chronological age favorably influences productivity, health, and vitality (Montepare, 2009; Stephan et al., 2013), and Kunze et al. (2015) demonstrated that RSA might also contribute to organizational effectiveness with increased levels of individual goal accomplishment and company performance. Yet relatively little is known about the individual-level antecedents of workplace RSA as well as organizational intervention opportunities in order to foster a desirable, i.e. lower RSA.

Our study demonstrated that a loss of productivity, and particularly performance problems, can function as a work-related age marker which forces employees to reevaluate their subjective age perception. Most likely, social comparison processes between workers account for this finding (Cheng et al., 2007; Frieswijk et al., 2004; Greenberg et al., 2007). Employees seem to perceive and make sense of the discrepancy between their own performance level and that of colleagues, resulting in a higher RSA (Barnes-Farrell & Piotrowski, 1991). Interestingly though, sick days were not significantly related to RSA, although health has been identified as a correlate of

Article III

121

subjective age in earlier studies (Hubley & Russell, 2009). It might be the case that sick days are a work-related and rather objective measure of health in a given period, yet not a measure that perfectly reflects an employee’s perceived overall health state. For instance, having the flu might cause a high number of sick days in a given period, however might not reflect a serious health issue that lastingly affects one’s subjective age perception. However, in cases where many sick days and a high visibility of one’s disability come together, RSA is significantly affected. One explanation might be that in such cases employees are afraid of negative reactions by colleagues and supervisors who might attribute the missed work time to the person’s visible disability, even in cases where different reasons accounted for the sick days. A stronger internalization of the health issues (i.e. sick days) might result, with negative implications for RSA. This assumption is supported by the results of our sick days-LMX moderation which shows that if high sick days and low LMX quality (i.e. missing support and understanding of the supervisor) coincide, employees feel 5 years older than if sick days are experienced under high LMX quality.

Second, we addressed calls (Baldridge et al., 2016) to further investigate the workplace experiences of persons with disabilities which is a growing, yet understudied, minority group by extending RSA research to this population. As noted, the literature on persons with disabilities is generally characterized by a lack of empirical studies conducted in work organizations (Baldridge et al., 2016; Colella & Bruyère, 2011). In addition, with our focus on disability visibility and disability disruptiveness (operationalized through sick days and performance problems), we investigated the interplay with two further disability dimensions that have received very little scholarly attention to date (Baldridge et al., 2016) but that are of critical importance to organizations. In line with our expectations, our study results show that employees with disabilities face a high risk of forming negative subjective age perceptions. Although our study design did not allow for direct comparisons between employees with and without disabilities, we found that employees in our sample felt on average slightly older than they actually were. This finding is in contrast to prior studies on subjective age in both work and non-work contexts which typically find that individuals feel younger than they actually are. For instance, in Kunze and colleagues’ (2015) firm-level study in 107 German companies, employees felt on average 4.4 years younger than they actually

Article III

122

were. Consequently, we might have observed a main effect of disability status on RSA in our study.

We were even more interested, though, in the interplay of lost contribution, disability visibility, and LMX for RSA. Taken together, we found that performance problems make employees with disabilities feel older. Moreover, perceived visibility of one’s disability appeared to aggravate the negative effects of both sick days and performance problems on RSA, most likely through increased salience and internalization of health issues in individuals’ self-concepts and reduced opportunities for self-enhancement and positivity bias regarding one’s contribution to the organization (Baldridge et al., 2016; Stone & Colella, 1996). This finding complements scholarly evidence that employees with disabilities tend to lack full inclusion and often face stigmatization within organizations (Colella & Bruyère, 2011; Vornholt, Uitdewilligen, & Nijhuis, 2013). Although not measured directly in our study, disability-related stigma (Clair, Beatty, & MacLean, 2005; Stone & Colella, 1996) might be an important channel through which a loss of productivity as well as disability visibility enfold their influence on RSA. Therefore, a further integration of the RSA, disability, and stigma literatures seem highly warranted.

Finally, by demonstrating the importance of LMX for the RSA perceptions of employees with disabilities, we connected the disability, RSA and leadership literatures and shed further light on the important, yet understudied role of leadership for the successful inclusion of employees with disabilities (Kensbock & Boehm, in press). While previous studies showed that employees with disabilities face a higher risk of forming low quality LMX relationships with their supervisors (Colella & Varma, 2001; Dwertmann & Boehm, 2016), our results point to the strong potential for LMX to positively affect workplace perceptions of employees with disabilities, in our case perceptions of RSA. We found evidence that higher quality LMX with one’s supervisor has an attenuating effect on these negative relationships, potentially by protecting employees’ age-related self-image or by decreasing anxiety related to aging, health and disability and providing positive feedback and opportunities for self-enhancement instead. In this respect, LMX seems to constitute a work-related, interpersonal context factor that can interrupt the negative social comparison, sensemaking and re-anchoring processes that otherwise would force an employee to unfavorably adjust his/her subjective age perception in case of lost productivity. Consequently, organizations and

Article III

123

particularly supervisors should be made aware of the key function that they have in preventing negative self-images of persons with disabilities in the workplace.

Limitations and Future Research

As with all empirical studies, some potential limitations should be noted. First, the generalizability of our study might be limited as we collected our data in a single German industrial organization. All participants were employees of the manufacturing department and had, in line with our research interest, a disability. Therefore, we cannot make claims about the relationship of lost productivity with RSA for employees without disabilities. Nevertheless, given the high practical relevance of employees with disabilities for aging societies and workforces as well as the theoretical and empirical gaps of existent disability research, we believe that this focus for our study is meaningful. Yet, our results may not generalize beyond Germany, to other industries, jobs and populations. We therefore encourage future research to test our findings with other populations and in other work contexts.

Second, while we tried to use theoretically and empirically sound operationalizations for our constructs (i.e. objectively measured sick days and independently assessed performance problems), readers might question the validity of some of our model’s measures. Specifically, sick days were taken from the company’s HR system and should therefore not be prone to common source bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Nevertheless, sick days might not be a completely accurate measure for employee illnesses as we cannot rule out alternative reasons for missed work time (i.e. skipping work). However, in the organization in which we conducted our study, employees are expected to bring sick leave certificates from a physician if they don’t show up for work, so we are confident that our measure of sick days is a reliable and valid measure for illness. Moreover, disability visibility was measured with only one item that was self-developed as we could not find any validated scale for this construct. In spite of the missing pre-validation, we believe that the question “my disability is visible” is easy to understand and should produce reliable responses due to its high face validity.

Third, our study design was neither longitudinal nor experimental, so we cannot make any causal claims. Particularly, as subjective age was used as a predictor of health and performance in prior studies (e.g., Hubley & Russell, 2009; Kunze et al., 2015),

Article III

124

reversed causality cannot be completely ruled out. However, we do not believe that this issue significantly threatens our study’s contribution, for three main reasons. First, we provided ample theoretical arguments for the expected causal order, i.e. an effect of lost contribution on RSA through social comparison, sensemaking and re-anchoring of one’s subjective age. Second, our research design enabled us to measure our two antecedent variables (sick days and performance problems) six months prior to the moderators (disability visibility and LMX) and the dependent variable (RSA), making reversed causality less likely.

Finally, as a further robustness test, we applied an instrumental variable approach with a two-stage least square (2SLS) estimation procedure to account for a potential endogeneity bias, as recommended by Antonakis, Bendahan, Jacquart, and Lalive (2010). Inspecting further variables in our dataset, we were able to identify a theoretically sound instrument. We used workgroup size, which is defined as the number of employees in a respective workgroup, as an instrument in the 2SLS model. We reasoned that workgroup size might be associated with productivity loss because in a bigger workgroup there are more possibilities to accommodate an employee struggling with a certain work task by simply switching employees upon workstations. Consequently, in bigger workgroups employees should have less performance problems. Furthermore, workgroup size was an exogenous variable because there was no theoretical reason why it might be related to our outcome RSA. The mean workgroup size was 11.90 employees (SD = 4.96) and ranged from 1 to 29 employees. In the first step, the OLS regression showed significant results (ß = -0.13; t = -2.00; p < .05) when regressing performance problems on our instrumental variable workgroup size. However, the F statistics (F = 3.99; p < .05) were below the suggested threshold to be considered a strong instrument (F = 10; Stock, Wright, & Yogo, 2002). In the second step, the predicted values (by the instrumental variable workgroup size) from the first regression model were used to replace the performance problems measure in the 2SLS regression. The results of this model showed a marginally significant main effect (ß = 26.36; t = 1.69; p < .1). These results strengthened our confidence that endogeneity was not a major bias for our results and, thus, causality is likely to flow in the theoretically proposed direction. Nonetheless, it seems well possible that employees who change their subjective age perceptions due to deteriorated health and decreased performance get trapped into vicious circles, leading to a further decline of both their health and

Article III

125

performance levels. In fact, we encourage future research to investigate such potential feedback loops using fully longitudinal research designs.

Our findings also point to the need for further research in these important areas of investigation. Despite recent advancements in RSA theory and its application to work organizations, researchers are still far from fully understanding RSA antecedents and outcomes. More theory and empirical insights are needed. For instance, related to the management of an aging workforce, it would be worthwhile to investigate the impact of age stereotypes (Posthuma & Campion, 2008) on RSA as it seems likely that if those are prevalent in organizations, RSA perceptions of employees with disabilities might worsen. In contrast, it might be equally revealing to explore further moderators that attenuate negative effects of lost productivity and help employees to keep a positive self-perception. Inclusive climates (Nishii, 2013) as well as positive age-diversity climates along with age-inclusive HR practices (Boehm, Kunze, & Bruch, 2014) might represent such intervention opportunities for organizations keen to keep their employees feeling younger than they actually are.


We would also like to offer some practical implications of our study. Compared to chronological age, RSA is a perceptional measure and, therefore, can be influenced. This opens the door for managerial practices that make employees feel younger and may lead to further positive outcomes such as reduced turnover intentions or increased job satisfaction. In our study, we investigated individual-level RSA antecedents for people with disabilities and showed the importance of performance problems and sickness absence for employees’ self-perception in terms of RSA. Our moderators (disability visibility and LMX) represent two further variables with interesting practical implications. First, organizations should be aware of the negative impact that visible disabilities may have on affected employees, particularly regarding their self-perception, treatment and inclusion in teams, and, in turn, on organizations as a whole. Communication and education of all employees may present a reasonable remedy against these threats. Organizations should also invest in fostering high quality supervisor-employee relationships (LMX). As a result, employees with disabilities may feel younger regardless of a loss of productivity, which may lead to desired outcomes such as improvements in future health (Montepare, 2009) and organizational

Article III

126

performance (Kunze et al., 2015). Thus, our study contributes to practice by suggesting ways in which organizations might be able to make their employees with disabilities feel better included, and younger in turn.

Conclusion

As workforces in most western countries continue to age, it will be increasingly important for managers and organizations to manage disabilities and age-related beliefs such as subjective age and the relationship of each with productivity. We developed and tested an individual-level theoretical framework on RSA in work organizations, which shows that employees with disabilities face a significant, yet manageable risk of feeling older than they are. We hope that our findings provide a fruitful base for future RSA research on how to cope with the demographic change in organizations and particularly employees with disabilities.

Article III

127

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Albrecht, G. L., Seelman, K. D., & Bury, M. (2001). Handbook of disability studies. Sage Publications.

Baldridge, D. C., Beatty, J. E., Boehm, S. A., Kulkarni, M., & Moore, M. E. (2016). Persons with (dis)Abilities. The Oxford Handbook of Workplace Discrimination. New York.

Baldridge, D. C., Beatty, J. E., Konrad, A. M., & Moore, M. E. (2015). People with disabilities: Identity, stigmatization, accommodation, and intersection with gender and aging effects on employment opportunities. In R. Bendl, I. Bleijenbergh, E. Henttonen & A. J. Mills (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Diversity in Organizations (pp. 469). Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.


Barak, B., & Stern, B. (1986). Subjective age correlates: A research note. The Gerontologist, 26(5), 571-578.

Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Piotrowski, M. J. (1991). Discrepancies between chronological age and personal age as a reflection of unrelieved worker stress. Work & Stress, 5(3), 177-187.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.

Boehm, S. A., Kunze, F., & Bruch, H. (2014). Spotlight on age-diversity climate: The impact of age-inclusive HR practices on firm-level outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 67(3), 667-704.

Brislin, R. W. (1986). Research instruments. Field methods in cross-cultural research: Cross-cultural research and methodology series, 8, 137-164.

Cacciapaglia, H. M., Beauchamp, K. L., & Howells, G. N. (2004). Visibility of Disability: Effect on Willingness to Interact. Rehabilitation Psychology, 49(2), 180.

Article III

128

Caudroit, J., Stephan, Y., Chalabaev, A., & Le Scanff, C. (2012). Subjective age and social-cognitive determinants of physical activity in active older adults. Journal of aging and physical activity, 20(4), 484-496.

Clair, J. A., Beatty, J. E., & MacLean, T. L. (2005). Out of sight but not out of mind: Managing invisible social identities in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 78-95.


Colella, A., & Varma, A. (2001). The impact of subordinate disability on leader-member exchange relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 304-315.

Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715-1759.

Duncan, C., White, P. J., & Loretto, W. (2000). Ageism and employment: controversies, ambiguities and younger people's perceptions. Ageing and Society, 20(03), 279-302.


Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36(3), 305-323.

Florey, A. T., & Harrison, D. A. (2000). Responses to informal accommodation requests from employees with disabilities: Multistudy evidence on willingness to comply. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 224-233.

Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(1), 115-134.

Galambos, N. L., Darrah, J., & Magill-Evans, J. (2007). Subjective age in the transition to adulthood for persons with and without motor disabilities. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(6), 825-834.

Article III

129

Gates, L. B. (1993). The role of the supervisor in successful adjustment to work with a disabling condition: Issues for disability policy and practice. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 3(4), 179-190.

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-Analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827-844.

Gilbert, T. T., & Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 357-411).

Greenberg, J., Ashton-James, C. E., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2007). Social comparison processes in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1), 22-41.

Heckhausen, J., Wrosch, C., & Schulz, R. (2010). A motivational theory of life-span development. Psychological review, 117(1), 32.

Hubley, A. M., & Hultsch, D. F. (1994). The relationship of personality trait variables to subjective age identity in older adults. Research on Aging, 16(4), 415-439.

Hubley, A. M., & Russell, L. B. (2009). Prediction of subjective age, desired age, and age satisfaction in older adults: Do some health dimensions contribute more than others? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33(1), 12-21.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of applied Psychology, 86(1), 80.

Kastenbaum, R., Derbin, V., Sabatini, P., & Artt, S. (1972). " The ages of me": Toward personal and interpersonal definitions of functional aging. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 3(2), 197-211.

Kensbock, J. M., & Boehm, S. A. (in press). The role of transformational leadership in the mental health and job performance of employees with disabilities. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1-30.

Kooij, D. T. A. M., Guest, D. E., Clinton, M., Knight, T., Jansen, P. G. W., & Dikkers, J. S. E. (2013). How the impact of HR practices on employee well‐being and performance changes with age. Human Resource Management Journal, 23(1), 18-35.

Article III

130

Kulik, C. T., Ryan, S., Harper, S., & George, G. (2014). Aging populations and management. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 929-935.

Kunze, F., Raes, A. M., & Bruch, H. (2015). It matters how old you feel: Antecedents and performance consequences of average relative subjective age in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1511.

Lawrence, B. S. (2004). How old you are may depend on where you work. Next Generation Business Handbook: New Strategies from Tomorrow's Thought Leaders, 986-1006.

Liden, R. C. W., S. J.: Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 662-674.

Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 57-125.

Markides, K. S., & Boldt, J. S. (1983). Change in subjective age among the elderly: A longitudinal analysis. The Gerontologist, 23(4), 422-427.

Montepare, J. M. (2009). Subjective age: Toward a guiding lifespan framework. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33(1), 42-46.

Muller-Camen, M., Croucher, R., Flynn, M., & Schröder, H. (2011). National institutions and employers’ age management practices in Britain and Germany:‘Path dependence’and option exploration. Human Relations, 64(4), 507-530.

Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: a meta‐analysis. Personnel psychology, 58(2), 367-408.

Nishii. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender diverse groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1754-1774.

Paetzold, García, M. F., Colella, A., Ren, L. R., Triana, M. C., & Ziebro, M. (2008). Perceptions of people with disabilities: When is accommodation fair? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30(1), 27-35.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.

Article III

131

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual review of psychology, 63, 539-569.


Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader–member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 428-436.

Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 437-453.

Stephan, Y., Chalabaev, A., Kotter-Grühn, D., & Jaconelli, A. (2013). “Feeling younger, being stronger”: An experimental study of subjective age and physical functioning among older adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 68(1), 1-7.

Stephan, Y., Sutin, A. R., & Terracciano, A. (2015). How old do you feel? The role of age discrimination and biological aging in subjective age. PloS one,10(3), e0119293.


Sue-Chan, C., Chen, Z., & Lam, W. (2011). LMX, coaching attributions, and employee performance. Group & Organization Management, 1059601111408896.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. W. W. Austin (Ed.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Teuscher, U. (2009). Subjective age bias: A motivational and information processing approach. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33(1), 22-31.


Curriculum Vitae

Kirill Bourovoi

Born August 8, 1985 in St. Petersburg, Russia

Education

09/13 – present Doctoral candidate, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland Ph.D. in Business Administration, Strategy & Management

13, 14, 15 & 16 Summer School GSERM, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland Student at the “Global School in Empirical Research Methods”

10/06 – 08/12 Diploma / M.Sc. in Psychology, University of Saarland, Germany Focus on Cognitive and Industrial & Organizational Psychology 02/12 – 07/12 Erasmus Program exchange student, Universidad de Cadiz, Spain Curriculum: Statistics, Geography, Spanish 08/09 – 05/10 Oversees Program exchange student, Boise State University, USA Curriculum: Psychology, Communications, Spanish 06/05 High school degree, Kepler-Gymnasium, Freiburg i. B., Germany

Work Experience

09/12 – present Research Associate, University of St. Gallen (CDI), Switzerland Manage a large research and consulting project with a German car manufacturer concerned with workforce aging

09/12 – 02/12 Master’s thesis employee, Daimler AG, Böblingen, Germany Research & Development, Assistant Systems, Driver Analytics

05/09 – 05/11 Intern and student employee, Daimler AG, Böblingen, Germany Marketing, Customer Research Center, Product Acceptance

04/08 – 08/09 Research Assistant, University of Saarland, Germany Department of Cognitive Psychology, Brain & Cognition

09/05 – 08/06 Volunteer Social Year, Samuel-Heinicke School, Munich, Germany House teacher at a boarding school for hearing-impaired children

workforce aging, health restrictions, and related ... · workforce aging, health restrictions, and...

Documents