A new study is set to cause controversy after suggesting that as companies take on more disabled employees, their non-disabled colleagues become less happy.
The study, by Dr Getinet Haile, an assistant professor of industrial economics at Nottingham University Business School, looked at data from hundreds of UK companies, and found that levels of job satisfaction are likely to fall as the number of staff with disabilities increases.
The findings apply only to non-disabled workers and only to those working in the private, and not public, sector, suggesting this is an issue that private firms need to tackle.
[please note: The paper referred to here is Workplace Disability: Whose Wellbeing Does It Affect?, published by the Institute for the Study of Labour, Bonn, and available at http://ftp.iza.org/dp10102.pdf
There have been very few studies into how disabled people’s presence in a workforce impacts on the wellbeing of their fellow employees – whether positively or negatively.
The research analysed data from the most recent British Workplace Employment Relations Survey, carried out in 2011. This looked at every business in the UK with five or more employees, using a variety of measures to assess job satisfaction.
Dr Haile cross-referenced these with statistics for disabled worker numbers to reveal a “significant” relationship between workplace diversity and workforce wellbeing. Dr Haile said the findings cast doubt on the effectiveness of current workplace disability strategies.
He said:
“The fact that only non-disabled workers report lower job satisfaction seems to suggest some form of discrimination. But the fact that all the findings relate specifically to the private sector indicates that some sort of cultural or organisational failure may provide a more credible explanation. Wherever the blame might lie, it’s clear that the private sector has some distance to go before it can be confident these issues are being dealt with effectively.”
In addition, he told us:
Deaf and disabled people are likely to feel disappointed by these findings. I would say that this is more of a cultural and awareness issue, which can be addressed by courtesy of researches of this nature.
I hope the findings do not deter private companies from employing disabled people. If the companies/managements believe in workplaces that are reflective of the wider society in terms of how diverse their workforce should be, then I think they would aim to address some of the challenges highlighted in the study and welcome people with disabilities, rather than being deterred by the findings.
Previous research in this field has focused largely on the disadvantages disabled workers suffer in the employment market and in terms of their earning potential.
Dr Haile says his study “highlights the importance and urgency of promoting a corporate culture that’s genuinely appropriate to the needs of a diverse group of employees,” and that the answer isn’t to shy away from diversity in the workplace, which would “deny the reality of the situation on every level.”
Instead he believes that better workplace policies and practices would help tackle the problem, along with more training for non-disabled workers.
Finally, he warns: “this represents a wake-up call for anyone who believes issues such as these have long since been addressed and should no longer be of concern.”
This research has prompted a strong negative response from our readers on social media this morning:
DougieDougiek74 @EineLorelei @Limping_Chicken @deafieblogger it worst now than it was 26 years ago, when I first started working. 08/11/2016 08:42 |
rwilks @Limping_Chicken who the hell would commission research like that?! Shame on them 08/11/2016 09:13 |
BenStephensArch @Limping_Chicken as a @UniofNottingham alumni very disappointed to see this report the researcher needs to get act together ask the right ?! 08/11/2016 07:29 |
BenStephensArch @Limping_Chicken pathetic research needs better understanding of disabilities + how to deal with it in right way will make everyone happier 08/11/2016 07:23 |
Splottdad @Limping_Chicken – I suggest THEY have the problem then, not me. Who’s funding this idiotic research? 08/11/2016 07:27 |
JCameronMorris @deafpower @Limping_Chicken @Saltbar the colleagues that are “less happy” are the ones that don’t have the understanding or awareness 08/11/2016 08:27 |
EineLorelei @deafieblogger @Limping_Chicken I’ve been treated like I’m stupid by hearing coworkers. They act like I’m some kind of pest. 08/11/2016 08:20 |
deafpower @Saltbar @Limping_Chicken in my view, the research is flawed and possibly was taken out of context at some point. 08/11/2016 08:14 |
CarolineSmith34 @BazzaDeaf @Limping_Chicken feel it’s a complex issue with possible jealousy, team dynamics, unawareness of individual needs by companies.. 08/11/2016 08:03 |
BazzaDeaf @Limping_Chicken Maybe it because we get the same or more pay due to our skills. This has happened to me when I worked in IT 08/11/2016 07:55 |
vix_lamb @Limping_Chicken ‘less happy’ is wishy washy. I’d be curious to know life satisfaction of employees generally + how inclusive culture is. 08/11/2016 09:36 |
DougieDougiek74 @deafieblogger @Limping_Chicken if one can do the job then where does the disability come in? Suspect it more a culture thing as I know 08/11/2016 07:34 |
The paper referred to here is Workplace Disability: Whose Wellbeing Does It Affect?, published by the Institute for the Study of Labour, Bonn, and available at http://ftp.iza.org/dp10102.pdf
Douglas
November 8, 2016
Surely if you can do the job then it does not matter if you are disabled or not??
pennybsl
November 8, 2016
Deeply shocked initially at this article…but the real blame is the Givernment’s.
Its indept handling of Acces to Work, the dangerous assumption of ‘give the dis/deaf a lolly (like CIs and mobility aids) ‘ to not bother to adapt personally to one’s d/d colleague and haphazard standards of respect demanded by the Equality Act all boils down to this biased research.
Angela
November 8, 2016
The problem lies not in more or less qualified for the job: the problem is an underlying one… suddenly your colleagues have to take into account your wheelchair, your guide dog, your interpreter… it’s undermining their comfort zone.
Vicki
November 8, 2016
‘Less happy’ compared to what? I haven’t read the paper yet so I’m speculating, but who were the control group? Most people have some form of disability or impairment; often goes undisclosed or often undiagnosed. And is there any scope for examining other aspects of life satisfaction – e.g. Do they have a young family, going through a divorce, sick parent, buying a home, financial worries – all contributors to work stress.
This all feels very wishy washy. The ultimate decider is an understanding of how inclusive the work culture is of diversity. If the culture is poor and disabled people aren’t supported in an appropriate way, chances are that colleagues will feel resentful if they have extra work loads or poor communication. That’s nothing to do with the disabled person and everything to do with the employer.
Getinet
November 8, 2016
@Vicki, you do raise valid points. First, the study is not an experimental/RCT type study. What it does is compare reported levels of job satisfaction (JS) between workplaces with respondents with disabilities and those without; and, for the former, comparing reported levels of JS for respondents with and without disabilities. So the first is comparing the between workplace differential in levels of JS while the second analysis is the within workplace differential in levels of JS between those with and without disabilities. In both types of analyses, we regress JS on % of respondents with disabilities, controlling for workpalce and geographic characteristics. Secondly, there may well be a measurment issue, as measuring disability is a “thorney issue”; and indeed some may go undisclosed or undiagnosed – a problem that most such studies face. Nevertheless, i do not see any reason why we should not try to shed more light on the issues the study tackles as long as possible caveates are flagged up.
Jen Dodds (@deafpower)
November 8, 2016
I really don’t know what this researcher hoped to achieve. He claims “I hope the findings do not deter private companies from employing disabled people.” – really?! I’m sure lots of private companies will be delighted to employ us now we apparently make our colleagues unhappy.
Why investigate this angle in the first place, anyway? It is, at best, unhelpful, and at worst, just another attack on Deaf and disabled people.
The research does not seem to take into account other factors that may have influenced employees’ wellbeing, such as the size of companies (more disabled people = more employees in general = more potential for unhappiness?), their ethos and many, many other things.
However he tries to justify his work, Dr Haile must see that it is really harmful and unconstructive, especially in these dire economic times when Deaf and disabled people are *already* having to defend ourselves from cuts and hostile post-Brexit attitudes.
Getinet
November 8, 2016
@Jen, this is an academic research exercise. why would not one investigate the issue the study raises. It is not the first time that people study workplace matters of this sort. this – and similar other studies – try to shed more light in what goes on in workplaces (workplace culture and all that) with the hope of improving the workplace culture/climate/what have you.
Jen Dodds (@deafpower)
November 8, 2016
I know it is academic research. Don’t you think its timing was unfortunate? You cannot possibly think it’s going to encourage people to employ disabled people?
LJ.
November 8, 2016
Now watch the resentment grow towards deaf and disabled people…. somethings are best left unsaid and researched.
Getinet
November 8, 2016
@LJ, this is not the first time people studies matters of disability in the workplace or other settings. There are all sorts of academic studies as well as government ones (see for example http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldeqact/117/117.pdf). The hope is that studies and reports of these nature eventually shape up workplace policy making, so improving things for all.
Mike Gulliver
November 8, 2016
It’s pretty clear that the researcher has little or no experience of Deaf or disability work… and so they’ve made a big mistake. They have failed to engage directly with Deaf and disabled people from the outset.
This means that the report reads badly, the wording seems vague and insensitive, there’s no presence of Deaf or disabled views, community priorities, analysis, interpretation… the list is endless. That the academic concerned thought that what they were doing was OK is probably the biggest ‘academic’ story here… it’s a systemic failure of the knowledge-production system that it still has no real idea how to manage research *with* rather than just *on* (particularly) Deaf people.
It also means that the researcher has lost control of their message… handing it over to journalists to interpret with (in this case) a rather good report, with a hugely irresponsible headline.
Imagine it, a researcher, researching nothing to do with Deaf and disabled people finds MASSIVE, disinterested, national evidence that confirms what Deaf and disabled people have said… pretty much for ever; that companies are systematically failing to welcome them, or to prepare their staff for their arrival, to the extend that some of those staff are becoming ‘unhappy’.
What a great weight of data to have…
… what a great ally the researcher could be.
… what a great starting point to start a discussion about privilege, and methodology, and the community/academic relationship.
You could use a headline like “Report shows massive failure of companies to welcome Deaf and disabled people”
or… “Private sector staff made miserable by failure of companies to make them Deaf and disability-aware”.
But no… the report is a ‘blow for Deaf and disabled workers’ because they make others ‘less happy’. It’s a headline that is almost guaranteed to anger people. Worse, that stops them reading the article uncritically.
The Limping Chicken is usually brilliant at reporting… but in this case, I’m sorry, your headline is little more than clickbait.
Editor
November 8, 2016
Hi Mike, I agree with much of your comment, thank you for this response.
Regarding the title, as I said earlier on via Twitter, I was keen to reflect what the study/researchers had said, and for Deaf people to be able to read the report and respond without me overly directing their thought process at the outset.
That’s often my approach on this site, and it does not mean that I am endorsing the subject of an article or the content of it. What I’m really saying is: ‘this is what’s happened / or has been said – what do you think about it?’
It is a blow for deaf and disabled workers that academic research has said this. It’s something that we should be deeply concerned about and that’s reflected in people’s responses this morning. Those responses come without me directing them in what to say, and I think they’re more valuable for that.
With thanks
Charlie (Editor)
Mike Gulliver
November 8, 2016
Ah, Charlie – you’ve backed me into a corner… because I do think it’s a dodgy title, because I think it actually ‘interprets’ what a clearly naive and rather ignorant researcher is saying to say more than he’s said.
It’s about knowing the context in which people will read it. He has assumed no context, and that it’s politically neutral. It’s just a ‘fact’.
You *know* the context… and that nothing is ever just a fact.
But, at the same time, you’re right… and in many ways, it’s the core of the report… part of the confusing +ve, -ve, message.
But, at the same time, the Twitter backlash makes it so clear that many people don’t really get how academia works.
And that’s a huge problem in itself… in fact, I might need to write you a post on that.
Editor
November 8, 2016
Hi Mike, I’d be very happy to post that, it would be very valuable. Thanks, Charlie (Editor)
Getinet
November 8, 2016
@MikeGulliver, the study is a quantitative analysis of large survey data; so you are right the researher does not have first-had experience of employees with disabilities of the sort a qualitative researcher would have. The latter would also have incorporated the views of disabled people as part of the nature of the study. That aside, however, the study does have the level, style and rigour of the typical quantitative analysis.
Mike Gulliver
November 8, 2016
Not true – there are many Quant studies of the Deaf and disabled community. If you want, I’ll gladly pass you some refs.
Your mistake is, I think, not to take account of the disproportionate power that you, as a publishing academic, have to ‘represent’ Deaf and disabled people… where they often do not have equal opportunity to write back.
You can’t duck this by stating that you’re simply a quant researcher, and that it’s not part of the methodology. If ti is, then the methodology is unsuited to projects that contain any findings associated with disempowered groups. This is the inherent weakness in academia, that it selects methodologies based on criteria that disregard these questions. This report, subsequent articles, etc. might be 4* REF pieces… the ongoing Impact could be huge… but the REF is politically ambivalent, and your university will only care about how well the articles and the Impact score. Think about what that Impact is doing if it’s effectively painting Deaf and disabled people (who are fighting a rearguard action against cuts, and Human Rights violations) as those whose primary impact is to ‘make people unhappy’…
… at least without a preceding caveat that this due to the failure of companies to accommodate and make staff aware.
It *hurts* to work responsibly in this area.
There are a couple of papers i can point you to go explore this in more depth, specifically on this topic… I’d also invite you to the Bridging the Gap conference in Brighton this weekend, which specifically addresses these issues.
Why don’t you engage in this… with me, with other academics, with Deaf academics… and write a paper on the process. It’s badly needed?
Matt Brown
November 8, 2016
Wow.
“Simply a quant researcher”. The horror.
Gate-keeping much, Mike?
Did you read the paper?
Aren’t you hearing btw?
Todolist
November 20, 2016
It very much lacks the rigor of good quantitative analysis because it lacks any meaningful consideration of the difference between correlation and causation.
If there is a relationship between proportion disabled workers and job satisfaction (JS) levels among non-disabled workers in this data, it does not follow that disabled workers cause lesser JS. There are many alternative explanations – for example, that disabled people tend to access ‘worse,’ less desirable working environments: hence the observed association.
This confusion of correlation and causation is compounded by reporting in this article:
“The study…looked at data from hundreds of UK companies, and found that levels of job satisfaction are likely to fall as the number of staff with disabilities increases.”
No, it doesn’t find a dynamic relationship as implied here. It is not possible to track difference over time, or rising and falling numbers, within this survey. All these cross-sectional data can show is a basic relationship between proportion disabled workers (as measured) and JS (as measured). This may be for many co-occurring and confounding reasons, and there is no definitive explanation.
Getinet
November 8, 2016
@MikeGulliver, i strongly disagree with the points you raise. It seems you are aiming to set a new standard in academic research, where study subjects will have to have empowerment or equal voice of some sort. So, next time no one in the developed west should write about those in the developing world, no one but children should write about matters on children, no man should write about women, etc – does not simply make any sense. As i tried to highlight, a qualitative study does do detailed interviews, focus group studies, etc that involve the study subjects themselves directly. The current study does not do that, it uses survey data and examines the survey data using standard modelling techniques. In fact, if you have looked at the paper, here we do not only deploy standard modelling but we provide the raw data, which tells the story. I suggest that you look at the paper properly – please see the link to it in the blog – including the most up to date list of references. REF etc is beside the point. Having said this, i am more than happy to engage with you and others – something i already do, btw, including in academic conferences – in addressing the issues raised and also what you refer to as ‘the process’. Thanks
Jen Dodds (@deafpower)
November 8, 2016
You clearly don’t know what you don’t know.
Dr. Melanie Thorley
November 8, 2016
I am too incensed to comment
pennybsl
November 8, 2016
Blimey….. at lunch break @ work, what a long list of comments, twitters etc..! And the dialogues above.
It is a FACT we Deafies are still raw from the near-genocide of our careers caused by non-Deaf-considered policies, systems and processes still handled by non-Deaf-aware civil servants and the ilk.
The results of that research is open to different interpretation by ‘anti-Deaf & anti-Disability’ agendas.
Hence our collective horrified Deafies’ & Deaf-aware Hearies’ reactions.
Oh Dear
November 8, 2016
The research paper, page 5, “On the other hand, there is generally a dearth of evidence on the JS-WD link, although there has been a growing interest in research in the area more recently,” Growing interest from whom?
Having read the report, it seemed sketchy at best. The data isn’t conclusive and the correlation between WD and JS isn’t absolute. It would have been better is there was face to face interviews between those who claim to have lower JS in order to find out why. There isn’t any “case studies” in the report, at least 10 would be sufficient.
Imagine a report linking JS with immigrants at work? No doubts the word racist will be bandied about and some protests in the streets.
Getinet
November 8, 2016
Growing inrerest in academia, as evidenced by the studies reviewed/cited in the paper. The paragraphs that follow what you have quoted (last para page 5 through the whole of page 6) dwell on these studies and the gap that remains for future research to address.
Matt Brown
November 8, 2016
Loving the comments which start with “I haven’t actually read the paper so have no idea what it might or might not have said but here’s my knee-jerk gut reaction anyway blah blah blah”. Thanks for that guys, really helps.
Matt Brown
November 8, 2016
Still, loving the “burn the Expert” rent-a-mob that’s popped up around this. Just another day in “science journalism”.