King Thesis_published

INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI

films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some

thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be

from any type o f computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality

illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,

and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete

manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if

unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate

the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and

continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each

original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced

form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white

photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations

appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to

order.

UMIA Bell & Howell Information Company

300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

MAXIMIZING CAREER OUTCOMES:A STUDY OF PROFESSIONALS WITH DISABILITIES

by

Diane K. King

BS, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1981 MBA, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1983

Submitted to Rush University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Master of Science, Occupational Therapy

(c) Copyright by Diane Karen King, 1998 All Rights Reserved


UMI Number: 1392159

Copyright 1998 by King, Diane Karen

All rights reserved.

UMI Microform 1392159 Copyright 1998, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.

This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

UMI300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103


THESIS APPROVAL FORM

The undersigned have examined the thesis entitled: Maximizing Career Outcomes:

A Study of Professionals with Disabilities presented by: Diane K. King

a candidate for the degree of Master of Science in Occupational Therapy and hereby

certify that in their judgment it is worthy of acceptance.

Joyce B. Lan£, M.Ed., OTR, FAOTA (date)Assistant Professor, Department of Occupational Therapy Rush University Thesis Committee Chair

> 7 ' ' ‘

(date)

(date)

Fatema T. Azhar, MS, OTR/L, CHT Clinical Specialist, Hand and UE Rehabilitation Rush Occupational Health Thesis Committee Advisor ,

{ Pl/O ■Jonathan Dopkeen, Ph.D^Risk Management Consultant The Segal Company Thesis Committee Advisor


ABSTRACT

Maximizing Career Outcomes A Study of Professionals with Disabilities.

Diane K. King, BS, 1981, MBA, 1983

Thesis directed by: Joyce B Lane, M.Ed., OTR, FAOTA Assistant Professor Department of Occupational Therapy Rush University

Signa e omhesis Advisor

This study explored the career experiences of professionals who have a physical or sensory

disability. The goal was to identify the key factors that facilitate and inhibit an individual's ability

to maximize his or her career potential

Interviews were conducted with a sample of thirty employed professionals who acquired a

disability prior to or early in their professional lives. The interview was based upon the Model of

Human Occupation which provides a framework for analyzing the effect that performance, habits,

volition, and the environment have on performance outcomes.

The results indicate that the ability to maximize career outcomes is affected by the

presence or absence of volition and environment factors. Specifically, individuals who perceive

that career outcomes are within their control and who are provided the opportunity to participate in

career enhancing training and development, reported more positive career outcomes. The roles

performance and habituation factors play are inconclusive


DEDICATION

I dedicate this thesis to my family and friends who have supported me throughout this

career change by providing their love and encouragement. I especially want to thank my

mom for expecting my sisters and me to reach for the stars, my sister Sandi for telling me

to shake up my life, my sister Anita and brother-in-law Howard for encouraging me to

“dig a new well”, my sister Abby for sharing her wisdom and editorial expertise, and Gene

for his analytical and ever-present emotional support. I would also like to thank Joyce,

Jonathan and Fatema for helping me to get done and get out.


V

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the following individuals and organizations for their help with

recruiting subjects for this study : Marca Bristo and the staff at Access Living, Diane

Coleman and the staff of the Progress Center, Pam Provost at the Guild for the Blind, the

National Federation of the Blind, Anne Feiler at the Chicago Public Library, Mercedes

Rauen and the staff of the National Spinal Cord Injury Association, Illinois Chapter, David

Hanson at the Chicago Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities, the Rehabilitation

Institute of Chicago, Rush University, and the thirty individuals without whom this study

would not have been possible.


VI

Table of Contents

Preliminary PagesThesis Approval Form iiAbstract iiiDedication ivAcknowledgments vT able of Contents viTables viii

Chapter I: Introductory Information 1Introduction 1Problem Statement 3Purpose 4

Conceptual Assumptions 5Theoretical Framework 6Delineation of the Research Problem 8

Research Questions 10Definition of Terms 10

Chapter II: Literature Review 13Process Theories 13

Model of Human Occupation (MOHO) 13Expectancy/V alence Theory 15Equity Theory 17Attribution Theory 21

The Environmental Context. Systemic & Workplace Factors 23Systemic Factors 23Workplace Factors 24

Individual Employee Factors 26Career versus Job Orientation 26Impact of Visible Difference on Career Outcomes 27Impact of Gender on Career Outcomes 30Impact of Type of Disability on Career Outcomes 33

Summary 35

Chapter III: Methodology 37Overview 37Statements of Hypotheses 3 7Research Design 38Human Subjects 39Procedure 40Characteristics of the Sample 43Instrumentation 45Measures 46


vii

Data Analyses 48

Chapter IV: Results 50Introduction 50Hypotheses 1,2,3, and 4: Correlation of MOHO factors with Career Outcomes 51Hypothesis 5: Impact of Gender on Career Outcomes 53Hypothesis 6: Impact of Disability on Career Outcomes 55Hypothesis 7: Impact of Demographics on Career Choice 57Hypothesis 8: Impact of Career Choice on Career Outcomes 59Workplace Accommodation 61Recommendations to Employers and Healthcare Professionals 64

Chapter V: Discussion 66Introduction 66MOHO Factors and Career Outcomes 67

Performance 67Habituation 68Volition 69Environment 69

Gender and Career Outcomes 70Disability Category and Career Outcomes 71Career Choice and Career Outcomes 72Effect of Demographics on Career Choice 73Implications for Employers 74Implications for Occupational Therapistsand Other Healthcare Professionals 75Implications for People With Disabilities 75Limitations of the Study 76Recommendations for Further Research 78Summary 79

References 81

AppendicesA. Subject Pre-Screening Questions 89B. Subject Information Sheet 91C. Written Consent Form 93


viii

Tables

Tables1. Characteristics o f the Sample2. Correlation o f MOHO Factors with Career Outcomes3. Comparison Between Men and Women4. Barriers to Career Advancement by Gender5. Comparison Between Individuals with Physical, Visual,

and Speech/Hearing Disabilities6. Barriers to Career Advancement by Disability7. Impact o f Gender on Career Choice8. Impact o f Disability on Career Choice9. Impact o f Age o f Onset o f Disability on Career Choice10. Comparison Between Individuals in Disability-Related Careers

and Individuals Not in Disability-Related Careers11. Barriers to Career Advancement by Career Choice12. Workplace Accommodation Requests by Gender13. Workplace Accommodation Requests by Disability14. Workplace Accommodation Requests by Career Choice15. Top Recommendations to Employers16. Top Recommendations to Healthcare Professionals

44515454

5557575858

60616263636465


1

Chapter I: Introductory Information

Introduction

A fundamental assumption about human kind lies at the core of the discipline

known as Occupational Therapy. The assumption is that men and women have an

occupational nature, within which there is an innate desire for mastery of their

environment. Mastering one’s environment requires the ability to continuously change

and adapt, not only for survival, but also for the purpose o f self-actualization (Hopkins &

Smith, 1993). This occupational nature encompasses a wide range o f purposeful

behaviors, typically grouped by occupational therapists into the broad domains of play,

leisure, activities of daily living, and work (Kielhofner, 1997; Kielhofiier, Burke, Igi,

1980). For many adults, the domain labeled “work” is a significant part of their

occupational lives, occupying more than 30 percent of their day, and spanning 5 decades

or more. It is no wonder that work, for many, takes on more meaning than payment in

exchange for services rendered. For these individuals work provides a means for

fulfillment and purpose, friendships and affiliations, status within the community, and is a

major contributor to their identity and self-esteem (Steers & Porter, 1979).

The above assumptions are no less true for people who, for whatever reason, are

living with a disability. Despite the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act of

1990 (ADA) with its stipulation that employers provide reasonable accommodations for

employees who qualify as disabled under the act, full inclusion in the workplace is

extremely difficult. This is still the case, even with the removal of many o f the physical

and architectural barriers previously encountered by workers with disabilities. There are


many reasons why this is so, including stereotypes and false beliefs held by employers,

workplace cultures and norms that reward “sameness” versus diversity, and self-limiting

behaviors adopted by the employees themselves (Braddock & Bachelder, 1994; Cox,

1993; Greenhaus, Parasuraman, & Wormley, 1990).

Specifically, many employers still maintain, despite evidence to the contrary, false

beliefs regarding people with disabilities including an expectation of higher costs,

absenteeism, turnover, and lower productivity levels. In addition, because these

employers expect less of employees with disabilities, the more challenging assignments

that could lead to advancement opportunities are not offered. This may also be due to the

false belief that career advancement is not as important to employees with disabilities as it

is to their able-bodied counterparts (Braddock & Bachelder, 1994).

In addition, organizational cultures generally reflect the values, beliefs, styles,

norms and traditions held by the employee group which dominates the upper echelons,

which is, in most major companies in the U.S., the able-bodied white male (Cox, 1993;

Thomas, 1990). This is still the case despite the changing demographics of the labor

market, which estimates that by the year 2000, the workforce will consist of over 25

percent racial and cultural minorities and close to 50 percent women (Jamieson &

O’Mara, 1991). American white males will comprise only 15 percent of new entrants into

the workforce. In spite of this, white men still hold most of the power in companies.

Coopers & Lybrand’s recent national survey o f 267 companies found that, although the

numbers o f women and minority directors had increased slightly in the past year,

boardroom representation for the survey sample was still 92 percent Caucasian and 89


3

percent male (“Women show gains,” 1997). New entrants into the workforce are

therefore expected to assimilate to a culture developed by and for white males, which is

not always easy, or even possible, for people who are different. Often the amount of

energy expended to try to “fit in” interferes with the ability of these employees to focus on

job performance and achieving their career goals. Individuals who are unable to adapt

may find it easier to limit their behavior by avoiding challenging assignments or

developmental opportunities (Greenhaus, et al.., 1990; Kielhofiier, 1997). For instance,

some may separate from the mainstream by cloistering themselves within a certain job

category or department, thus restricting their opportunities for career growth and

movement (Cox, 1993). Others, believing that certain opportunities are closed to them, or

that their efforts will not result in the desired outcomes, may lower or abandon their goals

all together, thus resigning themselves to a career that has plateaued or to a job that pays

the bills but is otherwise unfulfilling. (Cox, 1993; Kielhofiier, 1997; Steers & Porter,

1979).

Problem Statement

The focus of most employers with regard to people with disabilities has been

employment or re-employment after illness or injury. The goal is to provide a job, not a

career. This may be acceptable to some individuals, but for others, promise of a job with

no real opportunity for career development or advancement places limits on their ability to

master their environment, and to maximize their career outcomes. The result is diminished

opportunity to reap the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards that non-disabled members of

society have come to expect from work.


4

People with disabilities who would like the opportunity for a career face attitudinal

barriers and organizational biases in the workplace similar to those faced by minorities,

women, and other diverse groups. In effect, people with disabilities experience a glass

ceiling which prevents them from achieving their career potential (Braddock & Bachelder,

1994).

Purpose

Writings have suggested that issues regarding careers for the disabled are

important; however, most of these have been conceptual in nature. The majority of the

research has focused on jobs as opposed to career development. In addition, the studies

(Glass & Elliott, 1993; Johnson, 1993; Kanellos, 1985; Miller, 1991; Walter, 1993;

Welsh & Foster, 1991; Wiedman & Freehafer, 1981) that do exist have tended to focus

on one particular type of disability (e.g., hearing impaired employees). There is a need for

research that is empirical in nature, that focuses on careers for people with disabilities, and

that samples from a more diverse population.

The research proposed in this study will explore how individual and environmental

factors impact the ability of professionals to maximize their career outcomes, leading to

fulfillment of career goals. The subjects o f the study are men and women who have an

apparent disability (e.g., impaired sight, hearing, speech, or mobility) and who meet the

definition of having a disability as defined by the ADA. To be covered by the ADA, at

least one of the following conditions must be met: 1) the impairment substantially limits

one or more mayor life activities, 2) there is a record o f such impairment, or 3) the


5

individual is regarded as having such an impairment (Braddock & Bachelder, 1994; U.S.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC], 1991).

The intent of this study is to examine how the process o f maximizing one’s career

outcomes depends upon a number of factors that contribute to the career process. These

factors include: the performance skills and abilities held by the individuals; the

development o f habits and internalized roles that allow them to establish routines; and to

fit in and be accepted into the workplace; the value they place on their goals; and, their

perception that their efforts will lead to desired outcomes. In addition, the impact o f the

environment in which the process is taking place (e.g., workplace accessibility, job

accommodation, career support, and cultural diversity) will be explored.

Conceptual assumptions

Three assumptions will be considered as givens throughout this study. First, the

assumption that for many individuals work provides rewards in addition to income. These

rewards include status, self-worth, social interaction, opportunities to be creative,

problem-solving opportunities, power over others, new skills, security, and recognition

(Walter, 1993). Second, the assumption that a career is important to many people with

disabilities and in general, people with disabilities have the same need to master their

environment and fulfill their career potential as people without disabilities (Braddock &

Bachelder, 1994; Daly & Bound, 1996). Third, the assumption that individuals who are

unable to access a full range of opportunities will be limited in their ability to self-actualize

(Walter, 1993). In addition to the implicit assumptions imbedded in this study, it is


6

important to review some of the theories currently used to explain employee behavior in

the workplace.

Theoretical framework

Existing work theories tend to fall into two broad categories, content theories and

process theories. Content theories look at the specific correlates to worker satisfaction

and motivated behavior, (e.g., job content, work environment, and tangible rewards).

Process theories focus on the dynamic relationships among various variables in order to

explain how behavior is energized and sustained (e.g., an individual’s perception of his or

her progress relative to others) (Steers & Porter, 1979; Tremblay, Rogers, Toulouse,

1995; Thomas, 1990).

Content theories are still widely used by organizational psychologists and human

resources professionals, although their value is mostly in the realm of determining the

causes of worker satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Two typical content theories will be

discussed briefly. First, the Need Theory, originally put forth by Maslow (1979),

considers how an individual’s basic needs (e.g., hunger and safety) must be satisfied before

he or she will be motivated to strive for higher-level needs (e.g., love, esteem, and self-

actualization). This theory has been applied to the employee in the workplace, and has

been used by other theorists as a means of categorizing employees into affiliation,

achievement, or power need groups (Litwin & Stringer, 1979). Another widely

researched content theory, the Motivation/Hygiene Theory developed by Herzberg

(Hersey & Blanchard, 1993; Herzberg, 1987) identifies six factors that contribute to

worker satisfaction, termed “motivators”, and seven factors that contribute to worker


7

dissatisfaction, termed “hygiene factors”. The presence or absence o f these factors allows

an employer to predict the level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction of his or her workforce.

Process theories, on the other hand, are more conducive to the study of career

mobility versus workplace satisfaction, because they consider how human behavior

operates within a dynamic open-system, continuously adjusting to environmental cues

(Steers & Porter, 1979). Process theories, in general, assume that the reason a person

embarks on a specific course of action is to reduce an inner state of disequilibrium (i.e.,

achieve homeostasis). He or she is energized to take a specific action in order to move

toward a valued goal or outcome. The outcome of this action, whether successful or

unsuccessful, provides feedback to the person, who then modifies his or her inner state,

resulting in an increased or decreased drive or expectation. Theorists who look at human

motivation from a process perspective believe that a major determinant of human behavior

is beliefs, expectations, and anticipation with regard to future events (Steers & Porter,

1979). According to Lewin, as cited by Steers & Porter (1979), people make conscious

decisions concerning their future behavior based upon cues received from their

environment. The emphasis here is on the anticipation that a specific outcome or goal can

be achieved. Thus, an individual’s skills and competence level, combined with perceptions

of his or her ability to achieve career goals, and moderated by feedback from the

environment, will determine what actions he or she may take (Kanter, 1977; Landeau &

Hammer, 1986; Tremblay, et al., 1995; Veiga, 1981).

The key process theory considered in this study will be one that is widely used by

occupational therapists in assessment and treatment o f patients, the Model of Human


8

Occupation (MOHO). Because MOHO considers the interaction between an individual’s

skills, roles, habits, and volition, within the context of his or her environment, it provides

an intuitively appropriate framework to explain how and why an individual fulfills or fails

to fulfill his or her career potential. Three other related process theories that contribute to

our understanding of the volitional aspect of MOHO will also be used in this study. These

are the theories of Expectancy, Equity, and Attribution, and will be explained in greater

detail in Chapter II.

All four of these theories help to explain how individuals establish career goals,

whether or not they are able to achieve them, and how they evaluate the outcome o f their

efforts. The following section describes how these theories will be applied in this study.

Delineation of the research problem

The research problem will be explored within the framework o f the Model o f

Human Occupation (MOHO) which provides a method for examining the career process.

The model allows individuals to identify factors in their environment, as well as personal

factors, that facilitate or inhibit their ability to sustain the effort required to maximize

career outcomes. While it is true that career success is individually perceived and

therefore subjective, patterns may exist among individuals who are career oriented but

face barriers due to their disability. Such patterns, once revealed, could provide valuable

information to employers, occupational therapists, vocational counselors, and individuals

with disabilities, who are working toward achieving the intentions of the ADA, i.e., full

inclusion for people with disabilities in the workplace.


9

A non-experimental research design will be used to collect data and analyze the

differences between individuals who feel satisfied with their career progress and those who

feel their careers are plateaued. Because o f the small number o f anticipated subjects,

consideration must be given to minimizing the number of confounding variables. This will

be accomplished as follows:

1. All subjects will be professionals who are currently employed in companies or

organizations.

2. All subjects will have an apparent disability versus a hidden disability. The assumption

is that people with hidden disabilities may find it easier to assimilate into the workforce, at

least on the surface, and can therefore access more opportunities than those who are

visibly different.

3. All subjects will have acquired their disabling condition either prior to, or early in their

careers.

4. The categories of disabilities studied will be limited to those that affect physical

mobility, vision, hearing and/or speech.

5. Both men and women will be selected for the study in order to compare the effect that

gender has in establishing career goals and maximizing career outcomes. Although,

gender discrimination for women regardless of ability has been well established, there is

evidence that disability-related discrimination is compounded by gender (Braddock &

Bachelder, 1994; Menz, Hansen, Smith, Brown, Ford, & McGrowey, 1989).

Other variables that may have an impact on results (e.g., age, race, job type) will

not be controlled for, but will be examined after the fact, to assess their contribution.


10

Research Questions

The data collected from participants in the study will be examined using the MOHO

framework in order to explain the following:

1. How and why do some individuals with disabilities achieve career success, while others

do not?

a. What environmental and individual circumstances allow for achievement o f

maximum career outcomes for individuals with disabilities?

b. What environmental and individual circumstances interfere with or inhibit

achievement of maximum career outcomes for individuals with disabilities?

2. How does gender impact one’s ability to achieve maximum career outcomes?

3. How does type of disability impact one’s ability to achieve maximum career outcomes?

Definition of Terms

For the purpose o f this study, key terms are defined as follows:

1. Professionals include individuals whose primary duties require knowledge of an

advanced type, customarily obtained through specialized education or certification. The

work performed by professionals is predominantly intellectual and varied, requiring use of

discretion and judgment, versus routine, manual, or mechanical duties (U.S. Department

o f Labor, 1983).

2. A job, is static, provides financial rewards and is performed out o f necessity

(Wrzesniewski, McCauley, Rozin, & Schwartz, 1997).


11

3. A disability-related job is one where the primary customers and/or ultimate

benefactors of services are people with disabilities. All others are considered not

disability-related

4. Job discretion means having autonomy and decision-making authority within an

organization (Greenhaus, et al., 1990).

5. A career is dynamic and provides challenging and rewarding work, with opportunities

for personal and professional development, and/or advancement (Wrzesniewski, et al.,

1997). An individual is said to have a career when they have established a long term goal

which they plan to achieve by accumulating specified skills and experiences through

participation in intermittent assignments.

6. Career support consists of having a sponsor or a mentor who provides career guidance

and advice, opportunities for challenge, visibility, and advancement, and increased power

or influence. This individual may be a supervisor or another more experienced colleague,

who has higher status and influence in the organization than the employee. (Greenhaus, et

al., 1990; Igbaria & Wormley, 1992).

7. Career strategies are organizationally appropriate behaviors undertaken to enhance the

likelihood of achieving one’s career goals. These include making one’s goals and

aspirations known to supervisors and relevant others, seeking visible job assignments, and

taking advantage of networking opportunities (Greenhaus, et al., 1990).

8. Maximum career outcomes include favorable assessments o f met expectations and

satisfactory attainment of desired career goals that are established by the individual

(Greenhaus, et al., 1990; Igbaria & Wormley, 1992).


1 2

For the purpose o f this study, the phrase maximizing career outcomes is used

interchangeably with achieving career potential, achieving career success and reaching

one’s career goals.

9. Individual descriptors include demographics (e.g., age, gender, race or ethnic origin),

job content, time in current job, type of business, and size of company.

10. Performance factors describe the social, cognitive, and physical abilities which may

impact occupational performance (Kielhofiier, 1997). In this study the performance

factors considered will be type of disability, age o f onset, education, and experience level.

11. Habituation implies the ability to organize, regulate and maintain behavior to meet

social norms, fulfill role expectations for behavior, and establish habits and routines

(Kielhofiier, 1997). In this study Habituation factors will be defined as the degree o f

perceived acceptance and inclusion by others into the workgroup, and the degree that job

performance feels routine.

12. Volition is defined as an individual’s feelings of efficacy and control over valued

outcomes (Kielhofiier, 1997). In this study, Volitional factors will include job power,

career orientation, implementation of career strategies, perceptions o f equity in the

workplace, how he or she attributes results o f efforts, and perceptions o f advancement

prospects.

13. Environmental factors include the individual’s perception of physical accessibility,

available accommodations, career support, performance feedback, mentoring, training and

development, and corporate culture (e.g., expectations for conformity versus diversity).

(Greenhaus, et al., 1990; Herzberg, 1987; Igbaria & Wormley, 1992).


13

Chapter II: Literature Review

In seeking the answers to the aforementioned research questions, the literature

reviewed includes studies that explore the relevant applications o f the process theories; the

environmental context o f disability; and the effect of individual factors, specifically gender

and specific types o f disability, on career outcomes.

Process Theories

Model of Human Occupation

The Model of Human Occupation (MOHO) is an open-system, occupational

therapy frame of reference, which attempts to explain how human beings interact with the

environment (Kielhofiier, 1980; Kielhofiier, Burke, Igi, 1980; O’Brien, 1993). MOHO

describes a generic process in which an individual receives input from the environment

urging him or her to take action (disequilibrium). The input is processed as throughput,

and a course of action is determined, resulting in an output (outcome), which elicits

feedback to the individual from the environment.

Within this open-system are three subsystems, that determine how effective the

individual will be in his or her attempts to achieve desired outcomes. The three

subsystems are organized hierarchically, each influencing the relative effectiveness of the

one above it (Kielhofiier, 1997; Mufioz, Lawlor, & Kielhofiier, 1993). The first

subsystem, performance, provides a foundation for the middle and top subsystems. Its

function is to perform an activity or behavior, and it consists o f the individual’s social,

cognitive, and physical abilities, used to produce purposeful behavior. The middle

subsystem is habituation. It maintains the activity or behavior, and consists of the


14

individual’s internalized roles, habits, and routines. This subsystem allows an individual to

carry on an activity automatically, by incorporating skills into appropriate patterns, thus

meeting the expectations for behavior established by the organization or workgroup. The

top subsystem is volition. It describes an individual’s belief that he or she has the efficacy

and control needed for personal causation, i.e., the expectation that his or her specific

actions are likely to result in desired ends. In addition, the volitional subsystem considers

the individual’s valued goals and interests as keys to his or her willingness to commit to a

sustained activity.

The environment within which the individual must perform includes the physical

and psychosocial make-up of the community and its culture, the workplace and

workgroup, and required tasks. An environment may be perceived by the individual as

providing a supportive context for achievement, or containing physical and/or social

barriers that inhibit optimal performance (Kielhofiier, 1997; Munoz, et al., 1993).

By providing a framework for assessing the interaction of skills, habits, roles, and

volition, within a specific environment, MOHO provides a way to pinpoint where

obstacles to effective performance may arise, and helps to explain why an individual’s

career progress may stall. The model terms the successful achievement o f performance

outcomes as a trajectory that supports adaptation, and unsatisfactory outcomes as a

trajectory that threatens adaptation. Both scenarios, once entered, can result in an

unending cycle o f success or failures, dubbed as benign or vicious cycles (Kielhofiier,

1980).


15

Studies using MOHO have primarily focused on proving the soundness of the

model’s underlying premise, i.e., that human behavior is ordered and self-organizing, as

opposed to random and reactive (Kielhofner, 1997). Other research, in occupational

therapy literature, has focused on MOHO’s strength as an assessment tool. In a survey of

occupational therapists (Murioz, et al., 1993), respondents indicated that they routinely

used the model as a systematic framework for collecting and communicating information

on the occupational performance of specific clients. Participants in this study reported

that the model’s major limitations were its complex terminology, and inadequate

assessment instruments and application tools.

While these limitations must be considered when planning to apply the model in a

new way, the fact that MOHO has strong descriptive properties, and considers the holistic

nature of individuals and their environment as an integrated system, makes it an intuitively

appealing approach for this study.

Expectancy/Valence Theory

MOHO assumes that the benign and vicious cycles o f an individual’s behavior are

greatly driven by his or her past experiences. If an individual’s efforts have proven to be

successful in the past, he or she is likely to expect that similar future efforts will result in

similar outcomes. If efforts have been unsuccessful, the expectation for future success is

likely to be reduced. Thus, the expectation for success or failure is a key factor in

predicting one’s motivation to exert the effort necessary to achieve desired goals (Burke,

1977). This notion of past experiences predicting future outcomes, and subsequently

influencing one’s motivation to persist, is the crux of the Expectancy/Valence theory, an


16

approach to human motivation and behavior utilized by organizational psychologists and

managers o f people within organizations.

Expectancy/Valence theory (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993; Steers & Porter, 1979),

like MOHO, looks at performance as a function of motivation level; role perception and

role clarity; and skills. The theory focuses on two key concepts, valence and expectancy.

Valence refers to the assumption that individuals have preferences for, or place a value on,

a particular activity or outcome (Burke, 1977; Vroom, 1989; Steers & Porter, 1979).

Expectancy is the extent to which individuals believe that the outcomes they desire are

probable, and the expectation that a specific action or behavior will result in a particular

outcome.

The Expectancy/Valence theory attempts to measure the individual’s motivational

force mathematically by having him or her assign probability values to expectancy.

Expectancy equals the strength o f the belief that effort will lead to desired performance,

(i.e., E—>P), and performance will be instrumental in producing desired outcomes, (i.e.,

P—>0), with 0 = absolutely no belief, and 1 = complete certainty. The resulting

expectancy measure is multiplied by outcome valance, which equals the degree of

desirability, with -1.0 being least desirable, and +1.0 being most desirable. The resulting

formula is as follows:

Motivational Force = (E—>P) (P-»0) (outcome valence)

The Expectation/Valence theory is primarily concerned with an individual’s ability

to make conscious choices about present and future behavior; however, as was noted

previously, the expectation for success is often based upon his or her own historical


17

experiences, or the vicarious experiences of relevant others. Thus, an individual who has

behaved in a specific way in the past and been rewarded, will believe there’s a high

probability that continued behaviors along the same lines will result in future rewards.

Conversely, an individual who has experienced a string of failures (or has seen others

similar to him or herself who have failed), will believe there’s a low probability for success

and will eventually lower his or her expectations, or completely give up on his or her goal.

This was evident, in a study of black and white Management Information Systems

(MIS) professionals (Igbaria & Wormley, 1992), where initial expectations for rate of

promotion, salary increases, career opportunities, and training and development

experiences were compared to later perceptions about whether these expectations were

actually met. The results showed that black employees indicated lower levels of met

expectations than whites. This in turn correlated significantly with lower career

satisfaction levels and organizational commitment for black employees. The study implies

that affective outcomes (i.e., satisfaction and commitment) were impacted by unmet

expectations, which could lead to a vicious cycle of lowered expectations for successful

career outcomes, followed by reduced motivational force, or turnover.

Equity Theory

Equity theory (Adams, 1979; Perry, 1993; Tremblay, et al., 1995), like Expectancy

theory, is used by organizational psychologists, human resource professionals, and

business managers, to help explain differences in employee motivation. It suggests that an

individual will accept his or her own individual success as the “right amount” by

comparing his or her progress to referent variables, usually other individuals. According


18

to Adams (1979), individuals perceive that they possess certain attributes or Inputs that

are relevant to the relationship with some significant other (e.g., employer). A person’s

Inputs are provided in exchange for certain Outcomes. In other words, employees may

perceive their relevant Inputs as education, skills, and experience, for which they should

receive the Outcomes of high pay, promotional opportunities, and status. They will then

compare their own Input/Outcome ratio to some referent person, in order to determine

equity. For comparison they may look at others with equivalent experience, education,

and job duties both inside and outside the company, their own past experiences of success,

or the expectations for success that are established by others (e.g., teachers or spouses)

(Lawrence, 1988; Sheridan, Slocum, Buda, & Thompson, 1990). What is considered

one’s just rewards, therefore, is relative, versus absolute.

In addition, when inequities are perceived, whether positive or negative,

individuals will strive to reduce feelings o f distress and restore equity by taking some sort

of action or adjusting their own perceptions of the situation. This may be achieved by

altering Input levels or Outcomes, cognitively changing perceptions o f Inputs or

Outcomes, or withdrawing from the situation or relationship (Adams, 1979; Huseman,

Hatfield, & Miles, 1985).

While certain studies have found that individuals will vary in the amount of distress

they feel when under or over-rewarded (Huseman, et al., 1985), equity has been shown by

many researchers to be a strong predictor of job-related attitudes and behaviors. For

example, Dubinsky and Levy (1989) used perceived organizational fairness as the equity

measure to predict overall job satisfaction, organizational commitment, motivation


19

(defined as valence, expectancy, and instrumentality), and performance levels for 238 retail

salespeople. In this quantitative study, organizational fairness was measured across seven

dimensions, pay rules, pay administration, pay level, work pace, rule administration,

distribution o f tasks, and employee latitude. The authors found that perception of

organizational fairness positively impacted job satisfaction, organizational commitment,

and instrumentality (i.e., the belief that higher performance levels will lead to pay raises

and promotions, or the P -» 0 part of the Expectancy/Valence equation). Organizational

fairness showed no perceptible influence on expectancy, valence, or worker performance.

The results were due, in part, to the definition o f organizational fairness and how it

emphasized workplace processes associated with tangible outcomes. The study did not

measure the degree to which an individual valued these outcomes. In addition, employee

performance was defined using a single measure, which perhaps did not capture the many

facets of performance that may have been influenced by perceptions o f fairness.

A subsequent study of the effect o f equity perception on the specific job outcomes

of job satisfaction and intentions to stay with an organization conducted by Berg (1991),

found that professionals who worked at television stations were more satisfied in their jobs

when they perceived that outcomes (pay, seniority, benefits, promotion and advancement

opportunities, security, and job location) were equitable. Employee perceptions of equity

predicted both job satisfaction and intention to stay. An interesting finding of this study

was that perceptions of equity were related solely to tangible outcome measures that were

provided by the employer. Less tangible outcome variables such as job challenge,


20

responsibility, meaning, status, belonging, and recognition, did not appear to effect

employee perceptions of equity.

The phenomenon described by Equity theory has also been illustrated in several

studies that looked at subjects who were members o f a specific demographic category.

Lawrence (1988) studied the effect that an employee’s age had on performance ratings.

The author found that an individual whose age deviated from what was considered the

average (or “normative”) age for a given job level was labeled by management as “ahead

of schedule”, “behind schedule”, or “on schedule”. Those labeled as “ahead” (i.e.,

employee with ages below the norm) received very high ratings, and were considered

“high potential employees”, while those labeled as “behind” (i.e., employees with ages

exceeding the norm) received very low ratings, and were considered as lacking future

potential. The likelihood for advancement for those individuals whose age exceeded the

average age for the job level was significantly reduced. In accordance with the Equity

theory, the affected workers attempted to reduce their distress by lowering their

aspirations, and resigning themselves to the fact that they were too old, or had been in

their jobs too long.

In a national survey of African-American workers, Perry (1993) examined the

relationship o f Equity theory to job satisfaction, by looking at inequities in pay and status

as compared with data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, which

surveys a sample of households monthly. Perry’s findings supported the theory that

negative inequities (i.e. being underpaid) reduced job satisfaction. She also found that

while positive inequities (i.e., being overpaid) increased job satisfaction, the worker felt


21

the need to justify the inequity by increasing his or her cognitive estimation of his or her

skill level (Input), thereby reducing the distress.

Attribution Theory

The theory o f Attribution (Tremblay, et al., 1995) is related to the theories of

Expectancy and Equity, in that it explores how individuals attribute their relative success

or non-success within an organization. Understanding attribution is important because it

provides a way to assess the relationship between the amount of power individuals feel

they have over their career outcomes and their career behaviors. According to Bandura,

as cited by Manz (1989), individuals who attribute career outcomes to self-efficacy are

more likely to persist in their goals. For instance, people who perceive themselves as

successful in their careers often attribute this to factors that they could control (e.g.,

performance, abilities, and training), and have correspondingly higher aspirations,

satisfaction, and performance levels. On the other hand, individuals who attribute

outcomes, such as a plateaued career, to external factors beyond their control (e.g.,

systemic bias, favoritism, and luck) may react by lowering aspirations, reducing on-the-job

effort, or leaving their company (Tremblay, et al., 1995; Veiga, 1981).

Consistent with the Attribution theory, Perry’s (1993) above-mentioned equity

study of African-American workers proposed that the individuals who were not in jobs

that were commensurate with their skill level (i.e., the negative inequity group) may

attribute the cause o f the inequity to racial bigotry. Similarly, the women subjects in the

study who indicated that sex discrimination was a problem, believed that they had the


2 2

skills for a better job (status inequity) and attributed their circumstances to sexism. In

both cases, subjects indicated low satisfaction with their jobs.

Tremblay, et a i (1995) studied plateaued managers and career satisfaction, finding

that the perception ofbeing plateaued had a greater effect on the attitudes and intended

behaviors (e.g., intention to quit) of their sample than objective measures (e.g., tenure in

the job). Subjects who believed that their career had plateaued attributed their lack o f

success to variables beyond their control including their age and their perception that

performance was not indicative of career advancement. These subjects also indicated

dissatisfaction with their work and their supervision.

The theories o f MOHO, Expectancy, Equity and Attribution illustrate how

subjective perceptions about volition, expectancy of success or failure, belief in one’s own

efficacy, and the valence or meaningfulness o f the goal, will influence one’s motivation

and ability to maintain a productive career trajectory and result in a benign cycle o f

positive career outcomes. These theories are important to this study in that they provide

insight into some o f the factors that influence how individuals maintain their dedication to

achieving established career goals, hi other words, if they perceive that their efforts are

doomed to failure, they will lower their expectations and goals. Or if others whom they

deem to be equivalent to themselves are progressing farther and foster through the ranks,

they will perceive themselves to be in a state of inequity. If they attribute the cause to a

biased system, they may feel that the most attainable way to balance the inequity is to

decrease their motivation and performance, alter their goals, or look for a job in another

organization.


23

As mentioned above in the discussion of process theories, particularly MOHO,

many of the individual’s perceptions are influenced and shaped by feedback he or she

receives from the environmental context in which he or she performs. Both systemic (i.e.,

factors that exist within the community as well as society at large) and workplace factors,

influence the ability of people with disabilities to maximize their career outcomes.

The Environmental Context: Systemic & Workplace Factors

Systemic Factors

The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) is a landmark piece of

legislation with the potential to enforce substantive systemic change for people with

disabilities living in the United States. Bowman (1992) discusses how prior to the ADA,

the only law that even considered the Civil Rights o f people with disabilities was the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973. She describes the results of a telephone survey conducted just

prior to enactment of the ADA, asking 1,000 non-institutionalized Americans with

disabilities, ages 16-64, to assess what being disabled meant to them. They said that

disability in this country meant less education, employment, money, and social life. The

majority of respondents said that they wanted to work outside their home, attend movies,

and do their own grocery shopping, but found these fundamental activities extremely

difficult to accomplish. More than half of respondents felt that they had been prevented

from achieving their potential, not because they were biologically or mentally impaired,

but because society had put up obstacles. National surveys indicate that 70-80 percent of

Americans would continue to work even if there wasn’t a financial need. For many

individuals, work provides status, self-worth, social interaction, opportunities to be


24

creative, problem-solving opportunities, power over others, new skills, security, and

recognition. Unemployment, low status jobs, or lack o f advancement opportunities result

in low self-image (Walter, 1993).

People with disabilities are substantially underrepresented in the labor force, with

only one-third holding jobs. Seventy-nine percent of the remaining say they can work

and would like to work (Shapiro, 1994). A review of studies conducted with spinal cord-

injured individuals concluded that reports of successful employment outcomes varied from

20 percent to 85 percent, depending on the definition of “employment” (Wiedman &

Freehafer, 1982). For example, in one study by the National Spinal Cord Injury Data

Research Center, “vocation” was defined as worker, homemaker, or student. A 48.3

percent success rate was reported, but 68 percent of individuals were either homemakers

or students (Kanellos, 1985). In addition, people with disabilities who are working earn as

much as 15 to 30 percent less than their non-disabled colleagues and are less likely to be

promoted (Shapiro, 1994).

Workplace Factors

While the National Organization on Disability reports little improvement in job

rates for people with disabilities over the last four years (Kopelman, 1996), other studies

seem to indicate that since the ADA, employers are more likely to accommodate an

employee who is returning to work after a disability (Blanck, 1995b).

It is important to note that the writings in the area of people with disabilities and

work have typically focused on job entry, re-employment after injury or illness, and


25

physical access to the workplace. While many have alluded to the importance of careers

to people with disabilities, relatively few of these articles are empirically based.

A study by Blanck (1995) that examined workplace factors that have worked in

favor of successfully employing people with disabilities, looked at how Sears, Roebuck

and Co. (Sears), who has approximately 20,000 known disabled employees, implemented

the ADA. Sears, as a company, has long been committed to employing a diverse

workforce, and recognizes that providing a barrier-free environment is key. It is important

to note that Sears began accommodating employees with disabilities long before the ADA.

Blanck credits its success to three areas. (1) implementation of a universal work place

design versus trying to retrofit its environment; (2) education of all management and

employees on the ADA and (3) institution of an internal process for mediating employee

disputes. In addition, as part of its corporate culture, accommodations are considered a

routine part o f doing business. Ninety-seven percent of the accommodations Sears made

required little to no cost (e.g., flex time, extended training, revised job descriptions, rest

periods, enhanced lighting, and altered work stations). Higher cost accommodations such

as voice synthesizers and Braille displays for visually impaired employees have also been

implemented. Sears clearly holds that the benefits to providing these accommodations

outweighs the costs. However, as Blanck points out, the implementation of the ADA in

the world of work, has been more of an evolution as opposed to a revolution since

corporate cultures, among other things, are not changed lightly. There needs to be a

strong commitment at the top, along with awareness education at all levels.


26

The need for strong commitment from management was supported by a survey of

deaf employees in the private sector. The study found that the work environment factors

that contributed most to employment success included management support, promotion

opportunity, access to training, access to meetings, and worksite accommodations

(Johnson, 1993).

In addition to environmental factors that effect the ability o f people with disabilities

to maximize career outcomes, individual employee factors including attitudes towards

work, age, education, experience level, race and ethnic origin, gender, and type of

disability have an impact. As previously mentioned, this study will focus on how gender

and type o f disability affect career outcomes. However, it is important to consider all of

the possible factors that may have an impact in order to make recommendations for future

research.

Individual Employee Factors

Career versus job orientation

In a recent study examining the subjective way that individuals experience their

work, Wrzesniewski, et al. (1997) surveyed 196 individuals in a variety of occupations

including professionals, technicians, and clerical employees. They found that employees

were able to easily classify whether they viewed their work as a job, a career, or a calling.

In addition, results revealed that within the occupations surveyed, it was possible for all

three of the dimensions to be represented. They also found that subjects who classified

their work as a calling had the highest work and life satisfaction. Those who classified

their work as a career tended to be younger, which, as other authors have found


27

(Lawrence, 1988; Tremblay, et al., 1995) implies an age-related expectation for

advancement, as well as perhaps a resignation by older employees that all they can hope

for is a job. A key question raised by the authors is what individual factors will cause one

person to view their work as a job, while another views the same work as a career or a

calling?

Career choice and vocational aspirations are influenced by many factors including

ability, gender, community, parental occupation, and self expectations. Common beliefs

and theories in the area of careers for individuals with and without disabilities emphasize

that it is important to introduce career awareness, and the exploration of skills and

interests, to all individuals at a young age (Jacobs, 1993). This notion was emphasized by

the American Foundation for the Blind’s Task Force on Upward Mobility, which found

that even the common question, “what do you want to be when you grow up?” is seldom

put to disabled children (Miller, 1991). As a result, disparate expectations for people with

disabilities are reinforced by not informing them of career options and career strategies.

Impact of visible difference on career outcomes

In addition to individual attributes, career outcomes for individuals have been

shown to be influenced by the degree o f congruence or “fit” between the organization’s

values and the values o f the individual. This has implications for people who stand out as

“different” from the organization’s traditional workforce (Cox, 1993). For instance, the

effect of race on organizational experiences and career outcomes was examined by

surveying 138 black and white MIS professionals and their supervisors (Igbaria &

Wormley, 1992). The study looked at the relationships between organizational experience


28

and career success variables. Organizational experience variables included acceptance, job

discretion, met expectations, career support from one’s supervisor (defined as providing

challenging and visible assignments, sponsorship, counseling, acceptance, and friendship),

participation in training and development programs, while career success variables

included job performance assessment, advancement prospects, career satisfaction, and

organizational commitment. The authors found that the variables most associated with

career satisfaction were feelings of acceptance into the organization’s informal social

networks, met expectations, career support, and advancement opportunities.

Advancement opportunities correlated strongly with supervisory performance

ratings (i.e., higher rated employees were expected to have greater opportunities for

advancement), and higher performance ratings correlated positively with participation in

training, job discretion, and career support. The survey data revealed that blacks

experienced less discretion in their jobs, had lower levels of met expectations, and received

less career support from supervisors. They also experienced lower performance ratings,

resulting in less favorable advancement expectations, and lower career satisfaction levels.

The fact that racial difference was shown to negatively influence organizational

experiences and career outcomes for black respondents has implications for other

categories of employee difference. Such disparate treatment may lead to under-utilization

of the individual talents, skills, and energy of affected employees, thus diminishing the

collective potential of the organization’s workforce.

It is important, therefore, to identify which career success factors can be affected

by individual employees, and which require the involvement of others (i.e., governments,


29

organizations, or supervisors). For instance, a study of people with disabilities and the

glass ceiling identified several career limiting factors, including lack of marketable business

skills and/or college education, vocational rehabilitation programs that do not counsel

clients on career development, and existing myths and stereotypes held by employers that

tend to preclude people with disabilities from employment or career development

(Braddock & Bachelder, 1994).

In a survey of deaf employees in the private sector (Johnson, 1993), worker

attributes was one o f two factors identified as contributing to employment success, (the

other being work environment, as mentioned above). Successful worker attributes

included conforming to overt and covert worksite expectations, and exceeding co-workers

performance within the realms of task performance, teamwork, supervision, and

socializing.

These important individual success factors are routinely downplayed or ignored by

programs designed to help people with disabilities return to the workforce after illness or

injury. For example, in a qualitative review of vocational programs (Velozo, 1993), the

author found that the focus was mostly on physical accessibility, adaptation and

environmental accommodation, as opposed to the psychosocial aspects of work and its

meaning to individual employees. The author recommended that work evaluations which

consider the employee’s perception of his or her work environment and other psychosocial

factors may be more predictive o f success in the workplace.

In a retrospective analytic study of 1,192 employees who had experienced onset of

a health limitation while they were employed, it was found that the majority of


30

respondents continued to work. This was particularly true of older, more educated

employees who worked for larger companies, especially if the company provided them

with specific accommodations (Daly & Bound, 1996). However, psychosocial aspects of

work, and its meaning to these employees, was not addressed.

Impact of Gender on Career Outcomes

While it has been shown that career outcomes are influenced by a wide range of

demographic characteristics such as race and age, gender-based job discrimination is the

most pervasive form o f discrimination world-wide. Although women make up one-third

of the world’s labor force, two-thirds of the total hours worked and one-third of the

world’s heads of households, they still receive only one-tenth of the world’s income and

make up 70 percent o f individuals living in poverty (Joel, 1994; Thompson, 1995;

Whaley & Hashim, 1995). When gender is combined with disability, the disparities in how

women are treated in the labor market are compounded. Studies have shown that while

employment of all women, including those with disabilities, has markedly increased over

the last 20 years, women tend to be clustered into less secure, lower paying occupations,

often with few or no health benefits (Braddock & Bachelder, 1994; Menz, et al., 1989;

Yelin, 1993). This was particularly illustrated in Baldwin, Johnson, & Watson’s report (as

cited in Braddock & Bachelder, 1994) which was based on data from national surveys

conducted in 1971 and 1983. The data showed several distinct differences between

treatment of women with disabilities, women without disabilities, and men with

disabilities. The authors found that work experience, union membership, and education

had a positive impact on the salaries of women without disabilities, but had no effect on


31

the pay of women with disabilities. Furthermore, women with disabilities typically had

more education then men with disabilities, but still received less pay.

The greater disparities experienced by women with disabilities as opposed to

women in general may be partially a result of gender biases in the vocational rehabilitation

system. A 13-year study of rehabilitation outcomes for men and women who participated

in vocational rehabilitation programs throughout the midwest showed that society’s

viewpoint of careers for women as unnecessary is alive and well in the rehabilitation

system (Menz, et al., 1989). At the time of application for rehabilitation, no differences in

earnings for men and women were evident, yet at the time o f exit, women’s earnings were

only 67 percent o f men’s. Apparently, women were only directed into jobs considered

traditionally female, i.e., clerical, sales, and services positions. Also, a case closure option

that was acceptable for women was no employment, or “homemaker” status. Non-

traditional fields, defined as less than or equal to one-third female (Slappo and Katz,

1989), were not considered for women, thus limiting their potential for earnings growth

and benefits, even though more women were provided business school and college training

than men. Menz, et al., (1989) emphasized that these results prove a need for greater

education of women and rehabilitation counselors about opportunities in non-traditional

fields, role models of women with non-traditional careers, and overall career planning.

While providing more information and access to non-traditional careers for women

is needed, those with disabilities who currently have non-traditional careers still face

unique issues that are not faced by men or women without disabilities. Slappo and Katz’s

(1989) survey of 120 women with disabilities employed in non-traditional careers (e.g.,


32

attorneys, computer programmers, scientists, engineers, and physicians) highlighted the

success factors and obstacles encountered by these women. They found that while

disabled women often chose non-traditional careers for the same reasons as non-disabled

women, (i.e., personal interest and high motivation), had similar influences in their lives,

(i.e., their mothers), and attributed their success to similar forces, (i.e., dedication to the

job and career support from supervisors or other mentors), the obstacles they faced were

different. The problem cited most often was the negative attitudes of others towards

disability and the constant need to prove oneself. These women also reported that their

disability status and gender were equally problematic. For women with multiple

disabilities, insufficient support services was reported as the greatest obstacle to career

success, demonstrating how availability o f such services overshadows the unfavorable

attitudes of others when it means the difference between being able to perform one’s job

duties or not. When asked how they overcame career problems and barriers, they

indicated work experience, education, and assistance from others most often. However,

the relative importance of these three factors varied according to differences in onset and

visibility of disability. Specifically, work experience was indicated as most important to

women who had later onset o f disability, most likely because their education was far in the

past, and they were advanced in their careers. Education, on the other hand, was

indicated as most useful in overcoming barriers by women whose disability was acquired

early in life. For them, it was their education which played a large part in getting their

careers launched. For individuals with more visible disabilities, such as those with

amputations or visual impairments, assistance from others was considered most helpful.


33

This illustrates the notion that acceptance and support from others is important to

achieving satisfactory career outcomes, particularly when one visibly stands out as

different (Igbaria & Wormley, 1992).

Impact of Type of Disability on Career Outcomes

Studies (Braddock & Bachelder, 1994; Gething, 1992; Greenwood, et al., 1991)

have shown that it may be difficult to make broad generalizations about the experiences of

people with disabilities, as there are distinct differences among groups o f individuals with

different types o f disability, as well as the unique experiences of each individual.

However, these studies have found that people with specific types of disability share

common experiences, and like the shared experiences o f other minority groups,

highlighting these commonalties can lead to higher levels o f awareness among those who

are not living with a disability. One type of shared experience is the reactions of others to

various types of disability.

Gething (1992) conducted a study of health professionals’ reactions to people with

a visible physical disability. Respondents watched a video of an individual who was

interviewing for a bank position, and then completed an assessment of the applicant as if

they were the hiring manager in the scenario. Half of the respondents watched a version

of the video where the job candidate was in a wheel chair. The results showed that the

presence of the wheelchair corresponded with extremely negative assessments.

Specifically, the visibly disabled candidate was rated as less likable, trustworthy, sensitive,

pleasant, intelligent, attentive, ambitious, brave, socially adaptable, tenacious, confident

and religious, and more cruel, bad, selfish, shallow, dishonest, careless, passive, weak, self


34

pitying, dependent, submissive, incompetent, tense, anxious, mentally unstable, and

unfriendly.

In a study of employer receptivity to employees with different types of disability,

Projects With Industry (PWI) practitioners were surveyed as to the probable reactions o f

typical employers with regard to recruitment and selection of people with disabilities,

willingness to assign them to various types of positions, workforce acceptance, and

expectations for work performance (Greenwood, et al., 1991). The respondents rated

these four areas while considering four broad categories of disability, physical (i.e.,

incoordination, limitations of stamina, seizures, impairments of upper extremities or lower

extremities), menial (i.e., difficulty in learning new tasks or interpreting information),

emotional (i.e., alcohol/drug dependency, irregular behavior, problems with interpersonal

relationships), and communication (i.e., sensory disabilities that limit hearing, sight, or

speech). The results indicated that employers would respond most positively to

employees with physical disabilities. In addition, employers were more likely to consider

employees with physical disabilities for manager and professional positions, than mental,

emotional, or communication impaired individuals. Employees with communication

impairments received the least favorable ratings as far as recruitment and selection

activities, and co-worker and customer acceptance.

Some of the unique difficulties experienced in the workplace by employees with

communication impairments are highlighted by several studies (Glass & Elliott, 1993;

Welsh & Foster, 1991) o f deaf employees’ experiences in the workplace. For instance, in

a study of the experiences o f deaf employees with college degrees (Welsh & Foster, 1991)


35

it was shown that, similar to hearing individuals, a college education led to higher overall

employment levels, increased number of overall opportunities, greater likelihood of a

professional or managerial position, and considerably higher pay than deaf employees with

a high school diploma or sub-bachelors education. However, deaf employees, whether

college educated or not, still encountered barriers to achieving career goals due to reduced

ability to fully participate in meetings and exclusion from most of the informal social

interactions and information exchanges that allow individuals to test their ideas and stay in

the information loop. Deaf employees indicated that they were able to communicate with

their co-workers in one-to-one situations, but were otherwise isolated from the work

group. Employer accommodations such as TDD equipment, written meeting agendas and

notes, or interpreters were seldom provided. This decreased their ability to fully perform

on their jobs, as well as the likelihood for career advancement.

Similarly, in a study of workers who developed a hearing impairment later in their

careers (Glass & Elliott, 1993), the percent o f respondents who reported receiving

workplace accommodations were extremely low. This group, however, did not indicate

that their work success or failure was affected by the presence or absence of adaptive

equipment. Rather, supervisor and co-worker support was indicated as the most critical

element to career success.

Summary

In summary, the literature explains the theoretical processes that individuals

engage in while attempting to master their environment. The specific theories described,


36

MOHO, Expectancy, Equity, and Attribution, consider the importance of individuals and

environmental factors which interact within an open, dynamic system.

It can be theorized, therefore, that in order for individuals to maximize their career

outcomes, they must possess the requisite skills, abilities, and work habits, as well as have

confidence that the actions they take will result in desired career outcomes. In addition, a

supportive environment which provides them with, and responds to, feedback is

important. Describing and explaining how all of these individual and environmental

factors come together to facilitate or inhibit maximum career outcomes for people with

disabilities is the goal of this study.


37

Chapter III: Methodology

Overview

This study applied an empirically based approach, in order to determine the

individual and environmental factors that enable professionals with visible disabilities to

maximize their career outcomes. The study considered the experiences of a sample of

employed professionals who are attempting to pursue their career goals with an apparent

physical disability. The career inhibiting and facilitating factors experienced by the

subjects were examined. In addition, the study considered the implications for employers

as well as occupational therapists and other health professionals who are working towards

employment o f individuals with disabilities.

Statements of Hypotheses

Initially the study was designed to answer the following six hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1: The level of performance factors (i.e., ability, education and

experience) for an employee with a disability relates to his or her career outcomes.

Hypothesis 2: The degree of habituation (i.e., acceptance and inclusion in the

workplace, work routines and habits) for an employee with a disability relates to his or her

career outcomes.

Hypothesis 3: The degree of volition (i.e., job power, career orientation, career

strategies, perceptions of equity, attribution and advancement prospects) for an employee

with a disability relates to his or her career outcomes.


38

Hypothesis 4: The existence o f supportive environmental factors (i.e., accessibility

and accommodation, career support, feedback, mentoring, T&D, and cultural diversity) as

reported by an employee with a disability, is related to his or her career outcomes.

Hypothesis 5 Women will encounter more obstacles to maximizing career

outcomes than men.

Hypothesis 6: Individuals with a speech or hearing related disability will encounter

more obstacles to maximizing career outcomes than individuals with a mobility or vision

related disability.

Upon examination of preliminary results of twenty subjects it was evident that

many of the subjects were working in fields where the primary customers or ultimate

beneficiaries o f their services were people with disabilities. Since employment in such

disability-related areas as Independent Living Centers, Disability Studies departments, or

Government Agencies for the ADA may affect career outcomes, two additional

hypotheses were added.

Hypothesis 7: There will be a relationship between career choice and gender,

career choice and type of disability, and career choice and age of onset of disability.

Hypothesis 8: Professionals with disabilities in disability-related jobs will

encounter more obstacles to maximizing career outcomes than professionals with

disabilities in jobs that are not disability-related.

Research Design

The study followed a non-experimental, quantitative design, utilizing personal

interviews o f a sample of professionals with apparent disabilities. Interviews took place at


39

a location specified by the participant, and consisted o f 71 multiple choice plus 2 open-

ended questions. Interviews were conducted utilizing adaptive technology as requested by

the respondent. Structured interview questions asked respondents to report on individual

and environmental factors, define their role within their organization, and identify the

factors that they believed were the most career-promoting, and the most career-inhibiting.

The interviews included questions regarding respondents’ expectations for achieving

satisfactory career outcomes and equity with relevant others. Participants were asked to

globally assess their overall satisfaction with their career success to-date. Finally,

participants were asked to comment on what they believed employers and healthcare

workers could do to help people with disabilities maximize their career outcomes.

Prior to data collection, the interview questionnaire (or instrument) was reviewed

and revised based upon input from the author’s thesis committee members. As a pilot, the

instrument was completed and critiqued by two professionals with physical disabilities in

order to obtain feedback and evaluate the effectiveness of the interview questions.

Because both were in remote locations the questionnaire was faxed for their completion

and responses and feedback was collected via the telephone. Some minor revisions to the

questionnaire were made based on suggestions of the two pilot subjects.

Human Subjects

Prior to proceeding with any research data collection involving human subjects,

approvals were obtained by the Human Investigation Committees of the sponsoring

organizations. Applications were submitted to the Human Investigation Committees at

Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center and Northwestern University/Rehabilitation


40

Institute of Chicago, in compliance with federal and state laws protecting the rights and

welfare of human research subjects. This important process mandates that participants are

informed o f the purpose o f the study, procedures, benefits, and any potential risks. In

addition, participants must be informed that their confidentiality will be protected, their

participation is voluntary, and that they may withdraw their consent to participate at any

time. To assure that this study was in compliance with these rules, each participant

received a subject information sheet and written consent form prior to their participation

(Appendices B and C).

Procedure

The target population for this study was employed professionals who have an

apparent disability. Since the author had limited access to the target population, a non

probability sampling technique was used. This involved collecting a core sample of

individuals through organizations who work with people with disabilities. Initial

organizations contacted included: Access Living, Guild for the Blind, Illinois Mayor’s

Office for People with Disabilities, National Association of the Deaf, National Federation

o f the Blind, National Spinal Cord Injury Association, Progress Center for Independent

Living, Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago (RIC), and Rush University. Individuals whose

names were provided by these organizations were contacted by the researcher and asked

to provide the names of others who they believed would be interested in participating in

the study or who might provide additional referrals. This snowball process was used until

the targeted sample size of 30 individuals was reached.


41

The inclusion criteria for the study was that (1) subjects are managers or

professionals who are currently employed in companies or organizations, (2) subjects have

an apparent disability versus a hidden disability, and (3) subjects obtained their disabling

condition either prior to, or early in their careers. All potential subjects were asked six

screening questions to determine their eligibility (Appendix A). Answers to questions one,

two, three, and four determined if the potential participant met the inclusion criteria of the

study. In addition, questions five and six asked potential participants if they have career

goals and if so, what impact, if any, their disability had on these goals. Answers to these

questions did not disqualify participants, but provided additional information which was

used during the analysis of the interview data as potentially explanatory.

Both men and women were selected for the study in order to examine the effect

that gender has in establishing career goals and maximizing career outcomes. Although,

gender discrimination for women regardless of ability has been well established, there is

evidence that disability-related discrimination is compounded by gender (Braddock &

Bachelder, 1994; M enz,etal., 1989).

Disability types were initially categorized as physical (primarily affects mobility) or

sensory (primarily affects vision, hearing, or speech). After examining preliminary data,

disability types were re-categorized as physical, vision-related, or speech/hearing-related.

No controls were included for other variables that may have had an impact on the

results. These included demographic variables (e.g., age, race, and ethnic origin) and job-

related descriptors (e.g., type of industry, business sector, and company size).


42

Once the subjects were selected, an appointment for a personal interview was

arranged. The participants were informed that the interview process would take

approximately one hour. The data collection procedures were modified slightly to

accommodate the needs of the individual subjects. For example, during the interview all

respondent received the aforementioned subject information sheet explaining the purpose

of the study, as well as the written consent form to read and sign. In the case of subjects

with vision-related disabilities, the consent form was presented orally to them by the

researcher, with the exception of one individual who asked that the form be emailed to

him so that he could review it using voice technology. A copy of the interview

questionnaire was offered to all sighted respondents so that they could follow along as

each question was read out loud by the researcher. The researcher then recorded the

responses on her copy of the questionnaire.

There were several additional procedural modifications required for subjects with

hearing-related disabilities. Interpreters, because o f their expense, were used only when

they were made available by the subject’s organization. This occurred in two cases.

These two interviews were, for the most part, conducted in the same manner as the

interviews with hearing subjects, i.e., the researcher read each question, the interpreters

used American Sign Language (ASL) to relay their meaning, the subjects answered in

ASL, and the interpreter explained their response. In the cases of the other five deaf

subjects, a combination o f fax, email, TTY and/or relay operator were used to collect the

data. The information sheet, consent form and questionnaire were faxed, mailed or


43

emailed prior to the scheduled interview. The interview itself was conducted live via TTY

or relay operator, with the researcher asking the questions and the subjects typing their

responses. In two cases subjects completed the short answer items on the questionnaire

upon receiving the FAX instead of waiting for the scheduled interview. One of these

individuals returned the questionnaire by FAX prior to the “live” TTY interview. Since

most of the questions were already completed, the researcher focused solely on any

skipped or unclear questions plus the two open-ended questions. The other individual

returned the completed questionnaire to the researcher by mail, so at the time of the

scheduled TTY interview neither the researcher nor the subject had a copy of the

responses. For this individual the researcher focused solely on the two open-ended

questions and then followed up with the subject on any skipped or unclear questions after

the mailed responses were received one week later.

Characteristics o f the Sample

The total sample size was 30 individuals. As shown in Table 1, 16 (53.3 percent)

had a mobility-related physical disability, 6 (20.0 percent) had a vision-related disability,

and 8 (26.7 percent) had a speech and/or hearing-related disability. Fifteen (50.0

percent) were men and 15 (50.0 percent) were women. Twenty-six (86.7 percent) were

white, 3 (10.0 percent) were black, and 1 (3.3 percent) was Latino. Twenty-three (76.6

percent) acquired their disability before the age o f 20, and o f these, 13 (56.5 percent)

were disabled from infancy. Years of professional experience ranged from 1 year to over

20 years, with 13 (43.3 percent) having 10-19 years and 11 (36.7 percent) with 20 or

more years. All individuals (100 percent) had attended some college with 10 (33.3


44

percent) holding an undergraduate degree, and 19 (63 .3 percent) holding a graduate

degree.

A varied representation of industries was reflected in the sample including

Advertising/Public Relations, Arts & Architecture, Disability Advocacy, Education,

Government, Health Services, Information Technology, Law and Manufacturing. Sixteen

subjects (53 .3 percent) reported that the work that they do is disability-related and

twenty-three subjects (76.7 percent) reported they worked in the not-for-profit sector.

Table ICharacteristics of the Sample (N=30)

PersonalDemographics

Total % ProfessionalDemographics

Total %

GENDER YRS PROFL EXPERIENCE.Male 15 50.0 <5 1 3.3Female 15 50.0 5 to <10 5 16.7

10 to <20 13 43.3RACE 20+ 11 36.7White 26 86.7Black 3 10.0 JOBTYPELatino 1 3.3 Disability-Related 16 53.3

Not Related 14 46.7DISABILITYPhysical 16 53.3 BUSINESS SECTORVision 6 20.0 Not for Profit 23 76.6Speech/Hearing (S/H) 8 26.7 For Profit 7 23.3

AGE OF ONSET INDUSTRYBirth-Infancy 13 43.3 Advertising/P.R. 2 6.7Childhood 5 16.7 Arts and Architecture 2 6.7Adolescence 5 16.7 Disability Advocacy 8 26.7Early Adulthood 2 6.7 Education 5 16.7Adulthood 5 16.7 Government 6 20.0

Health Services 2 6.7EDUCATION Information TechnoL 2 6.7Some College 1 3.3 Law Practice I 3.3Baccalaureate 10 33.3 Manufacturing. 2 6.7Masters 14 46.7Ph.D., JD 5 16.7


45

Instrumentation

Interview questions were adapted from Gould & Penley’s Career Strategies

Inventory (1984), and original survey questions on sponsorship, supervisory support, and

career satisfaction, developed by Greenhaus, et al. (1990). It should be noted that these

instruments were used in studies that examined the effects of race on career outcomes for

black professionals.

In addition, the author developed specific questions to address issues unique to

people with disabilities, e.g., workplace accessibility and accommodation.

The resulting questionnaire consisted of 71 structured interview questions, which

use both nominal and ordinal levels o f measurement, plus 2 open-ended questions, to

provide additional information regarding the underlying research questions. The

questionnaire took an average of 30-45 minutes to complete. The questionnaire examined

the following key variables:

Dependent variable:

Career Outcomes: subjects’ perceptions of met expectations with regard to

promotions, salary increases, career opportunities, and opportunities for continued

development; progress toward meeting career goals; and overall career success.

Independent variables:

Individual Descriptors: include gender, race or ethnic origin, job content, and

type o f business.

Performance Factors: include type of disability, age o f onset, education, and

experience level.


46

Habituation Factors: defined as the degree of acceptance and inclusion o f the

employee into the workgroup.

Volitional Factors: include degree of career orientation, implementation of career

strategies, perceptions of equity in the workplace, attribution, and perceptions of

advancement prospects.

Environmental Factors: include physical accessibility, available accommodations,

career support, performance feedback, mentoring, training and development, and

workplace diversity.

Measures

As mentioned earlier the Model Of Human Occupation (MOHO) was used as a

framework to establish measures for the critical factors, Performance, Habituation,

Volition, Environment, and Career Outcomes.

Performance was measured by four items, category of disability, age of onset,

education, and years of professional experience. Responses to age of onset, education,

and experience were averaged to produce a global performance score. The affect of

category of disability was considered separately.

Habituation was measured with two subscales, work habits and acceptance and

inclusion. For most items in this section as well as the sections to follow, subjects

indicated their agreement or disagreement on a four-point scale. Work habits was

measured with three items (e.g., “I am able to perform the majority o f my job duties

comfortably”) and acceptance and inclusion with four items (e.g., “There is a feeling of

camaraderie between me and my work associates”). Means were calculated for all items


47

to produce a global habituation score as well as a sub-score for work habits and a sub

score for acceptance and inclusion.

Volition was measured with five subscales, job power, career orientation, career

strategies, perceptiom o f equity, and attribution. Job power was measured with three

items (e.g., “there is an opportunity for independent thought and action in my job”),

career orientation with five items (e.g., “My work means more to me than just a means o f

financial support”). Career strategies was measured with five items (e.g., “In the past

year I have made my supervisor aware o f the assignments I want”) adapted from Gould

and Penley’s (1984) Career Strategies Inventory. Perceptions o f equity consisted o f six

items (e.g., “The amount o f effort I put into my work is than others” [much less,

less, about the same, more, much more] ) and attribution with three items (e.g., “I control

my own career success”). Means were calculated for all items to produce a global volition

score as well as sub-scores for each o f the five subscales.

Environment was measured with seven subscales, physical accessibility,

accommodation, career support, performance feedback, mentoring, training and

development, and workplace diversity. Accessibility was measured with one item (“My

workplace is accessible to people with a disability like mine). Accommodation was

measured with a descriptive checklist. Career support was measured with five items (e.g.,

“My supervisor keeps me informed about different career opportunities for me in the

organization”) adapted from a longer survey developed by Greenhaus, et al. (1990).

Feedback was measured with two items (e.g., “I feel my performance appraisal provides

an accurate assessment o f my performance”)- Mentoring consisted of four items (e.g.,


48

“People who get ahead in this profession generally have a mentor”), training and

development with three items (e.g., “In this organization, people with disabilities have the

same opportunities for training and development as other employees), and workplace

diversity with three items (e.g., “This organization has a formal diversity program which

includes persons with disabilities”). Means were calculated for all items accept

accommodation, to produce a global environment score as well as sub-scores for the

subscales. Frequencies were calculated for the accommodation checklist.

Career Outcomes was measured with three subscales, met expectations,

aspiratiotis, and satisfaction. Met expectations was measured with four items (e.g., “1

feel my rate of promotions a re than what I expected when 1 started with this

organization”, [much less than, less than, about the same as, more than, much more than]),

aspirations, with one item (“I feel I’m schedule when it comes to my career goals”,

[behind, right on, ahead o f]). Career satisfaction was measured with three items (e.g., “I

am satisfied with the success I have achieved in my career”) adapted from Greenhaus, et

al. (1990). Means were calculated for all items to produce a global career outcomes

score, as well as sub-scores for the two subscales.

Data Analysis

After all the interviews were completed the researcher worked with a bio

statistician to analyze the data and explore the relationships among the variables. Because

of the non-probability sampling technique used only non-parametric tests were selected.

Spearman’s rho, a measure o f correlation computed for ranked data, was used to

determine the extent o f agreement or disagreement between the independent variables and


49

the dependent variables. For example, in the case of volition, Spearman’s rho ranks the

mean scores for volition and the mean scores for career outcomes for each subject and

assesses the extent that individuals who rank high on volition also rank high on career

outcomes and vice versa. If the two sets of ranks are in agreement then there is a positive

correlation. The Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare the responses o f men

with women, and of physically disabled and visually disabled with speech/hearing disabled

subjects. The Mann-Whitney U compares the mean ranks of responses between two

groups (e.g., men’s mean rank volition score and women’s mean rank volition score) to

determine if there is a significant difference. The Pearson Chi-Square test was used to

determine if there was a significant relationship between career choice and gender, career

choice and type of disability, and/or career choice and age of onset of disability.


50

Chapter IV: Results

Introduction

This section presents the results o f the statistical analyses that were performed in

order to address each o f the research hypotheses. The first four hypotheses stated that a

relationship would be found between the MOHO factors (independent variables) o f

performance, habituation, volition, and environment and career outcomes (dependent

variable). Hypothesis 5, 6 and 8 predicted that women encounter more obstacles to

maximizing career outcomes then men, that individual's with a speech and/or hearing

related disability encounter more obstacles to maximizing career outcomes then

individual's with a physical or vision related disability, and that individuals who choose a

disability-related career path encounter more obstacle to maximizing career outcomes,

respectively. Hypothesis 7 predicted that career choice is affected by gender, type o f

disability, and age o f disability onset.

For all analytical test, results are considered significant at g < .05, representing a

95% confidence level that statistical findings did not occur by chance. This p score level

was set by the researcher in accordance with conventional norms o f research. However,

in the case of a small sample which was selected using non-probability techniques, it is

reasonable to assume that the data may be less representative than data drawn from a

larger, more random sample o f the population (Depoy & Gitlin, 1994). For this reason,

scores o f g < .10 will be discussed as a potential area for further research.

Mean scores < 3.0 indicate that the average response to a question or group o f

questions was below the satisfied leveL While this in and o f itself may not be significant ft


51

will also be examined further where other corroborating evidence of dissatisfaction is

provided.

Hypotheses 1 .2 .3 and 4: Correlation of MOHO Factors with Career Outcomes

A statistically significant relationship was not found between performance factor

scores and career outcomes or habituation factor scores and career outcomes, thus

hypotheses 1 and 2 were not confirmed (Table 2).

Table 2Correlation of MOHO factors with Career Outcomes (N=30)

FACTORS M SD Zm D

PERFORMANCE (global score) 3.41 0.73 0.266 0.156

HABITUATION (global score) 3.20 0.44 0.162 0.392

VOLITION (global score) Career Strategies Equity Attribution

3.002.94 2.722.94

0.280.430.340.71

0.4420.1000.2240.404

0.014**0.6000.2340.027**

ENVIRONMENT (global score) Career Support Performance Feedback Training & Development Workplace Diversity

2.542.832.583.212.91

0.420.530.470.600.82

0.3270.2140.1560.3530.080

0.077*0.2570.4110.055*0.676

* 2 < .10, potential area for further research.~ E < .OS, significant.

Hypothesis 3 which states that a professional with a disability’s degree o f volition

is related to his or her career outcomes is supported by Spearman’s rho which indicated

significant correlation between the volition factor score and the career outcomes score

(r,= 442, p= 014). In addition, several relationships among volition sub scale scores were


52

revealed. For instance, higher job power scores were related to greater career satisfaction

(r» = 367, g=.046), a higher degree of career orientation was marginally related to met

expectations (r, = 354, p=.055), and attributing one’s career success to one’s own efforts

was related to a higher career outcome score (r, = 404, g=.027). Mean scores for subject

responses to several volition-related items, i.e., career strategies, perceptions of equity,

and attribution, were slightly below a 3.0 level, indicating that average responses were less

than positive. While this was not correlated statistically with career outcomes, concerns

were raised by several subjects about these areas during the open-ended portion of the

interview. For instance, on the subject of career strategies one individual said, “I was

interested in that question you had about ‘have you talked to your supervisor about your

achievements this year’, because this is where I am miserable. I am a miserable self-

promoter. Y’know, and part of this is because this stereotype of disability I’ve had to

wear”. Another subject commented on the areas o f equity and attribution, “I’ve never not

gotten a job, I don’t feel, because of my disability, but I probably didn’t progress,

promotions things like that, because of my disability .”

The environment factor score was marginally correlated with career outcomes, as

indicated by Spearman’s rho (£=.327, g=.077), and therefore did not demonstrate a strong

relationship, as predicted by hypothesis 4. Also, the environment factor score was

marginally related to one of the career subscale items, aspirations (r, =.354, p=.055).

Training and development was related to career satisfaction (r, =.375, g=.041) and

marginally related to overall career outcomes (r, = 354, g=.055). In addition, the overall

mean score for the combined responses to environment items on the questionnaire was


53

2.54, with mean scores below 3.0 for career support, performance feedback, and

workplace diversity. Anecdotal evidence provided by subjects during the open-ended

portion o f the interview suggest that some of these environment-related variables may be

important to career outcomes. For instance, one subject reflected on the subject of

workplace diversity that, “employers need to be again thinking about disability as an

aspect of diversity on an equal level to other diversity elements in the work force. It

would be best I think for employers to obtain for staff—for their own staff and themselves-

-meaningful training by people with disabilities about the disability experience, lifestyle,

culture, ways of accommodation. There should be a whole new level of respect.” These

variables will be investigated further in the discussion section below.

Hypothesis 5: Impact o f Gender on Career Outcomes

Hypothesis 5 proved true for women’s perceptions o f acceptance and inclusion

and equity, as their scores reflected significantly less positive scores than men, as

determined by a Mann-Whitney U test. Marginally significant differences were noted for

the overall volition score and career support (Table 3). In addition, 66.6 percent of

women as compared to 33 .3 percent of men identified barriers in the workplace, with

women reporting nearly twice as many barriers as men (Table 4).


54

Table 3Comparison between Mien and Women (N=30)

FACTORSMenGr=i5)M SD

Women(2=15)M SD D

PERFORMANCE (global score) 3.53 0.78 3.29 0.68 0.436

HABITUATION (global score) Acceptance/Inclusion

3.343.33

0.460.74

3.052.90

0.370.63

0.041**0.019**

VOLITION (global score) Equity

3.092.85

0.290.24

2.912.59

0.250.39

0.081*0.033**

ENVIRONMENT (global score) Career Siqiport

2.602.96

0.450.61

2.482.70

0.350.41

0.2670.056*

CAREER OUTCOMES (global score)

2.88 0.56 2.69 0.56 0.412

*£<.10, potential area for further research. **E < -05, significant

Table 4Barriers to Career Advancement by Gender

Men(n=15)

Women(n=15)

Total(N=30)

Resoonses % n Resoonses %n Resoonses %NBARRIERS 5 33.3 10 66.6 15 50.0

Lack of Available Positions 4 6 10Lack of Supervisor Support 1 3 4Lack of Available Accomm. 1 1 2

Failed Past Attempts 1 0 1Gender 0 1 1

Race of Ethnicity 0 1 1Disability 1 3 4

Education Level 1 2 3Experience Level 1 0 1

Performance Ratings 1 3 4Other (Politics, Favoritism) 2 5 7

Total Barriers Identified 13 25 38


55

Hypothesis 6: Imnaet o f Disability on Career Outcomes

Significant differences in work habits scores between physically disabled subjects

and speech/hearing disabled subjects were detected, as predicted by hypothesis 6 (Table

5). A marginally significant relationship between performance factors and type of

disability was noted. No other significant differences were evident although concerns

were raised by several subjects with vision and speech/hearing disabilities on the topic of

participation in meetings and training and development.

Table 5Comparison between Individuals with Physical, Visual, and Speech/Hearing Related Disabilities (N=30)

FACTORS Physical(n=16)

M SD

Visual(n=6)

M SD

Speech/Hearing(3=8)M SD B

PERFORMANCE (global) 3.63 0.78 3.39 0.57 3.00 0.62 0.087*

HABITUATION (global) 3.16 0.36 3.31 0.33 3.18 0.66 0.730Work Habits 3.19 0.52 3.17 0.62 3.63 0.42 0.045**

VOLITION (global) 2.97 0.28 3.00 0.12 3.07 0.38 0.534

ENVIRONMENT (global) 2.62 0.41 2.48 0.16 2.41 0.56 0.696

CAREER OUTCOMES (global)

2.85 0.52 2.69 0.53 2.71 0.70 0.755

Note, p represents comparison between physical and vision (combined) and speech/hearing disabled.

*E < .10, potential area for further research.< 05, significant


56

Blind subjects remarked that because meeting and training materials were often not

provided in Braille, and that voice technology was often not available, their full

participation during these sessions was limited. As one subject explained, “In the example

of internal meetings and training programs I’ve attended where they give out materials

that are useless to me, it’s what software they choose to produce course materials and to

some extent how materials are presented, and they certainly could do more to be proactive

to make educational materials used be more accessible.” Similarly, several deaf subjects

provided examples of mandatory meetings or training sessions they attended where no

interpreters were provided. One of the subjects described it this way, “I went to a

meeting/training without an interpreter, 1 knew not what was being said, so I did not learn

very much, another co-worker attended that can hear, I guess they learned more about the

meeting or training that they could apply to the work place when they returned to work.

So I lost the chance to get ahead, to learn more, to do my job better, several times.”

Another subject stated, ‘They only give me interps when I require it i.e., for staff training

not for staff meetings, etc. but I have to attend staff meetings anyhow. Lip reading as I’m

able or not.” In addition, 62.5 percent of speech and hearing disabled subjects identified

barriers as compared with 37.5 percent of physically disabled subjects. However, speech

and hearing disabled subjects were topped by vision disabled subjects, 66.6 percent of

whom identified barriers to advancement. On the other hand, when it came to the total

number o f barriers reported by each group, subjects with a physical disability reported 19,

subjects with a speech and hearing disability reported 15, and subjects with a vision-

related disability reported 4 (Table 6).


57

Table 6Barriers to Career Advancement by Disability

Physical(m=ld)

Vision(Of*)

Speech/Hearing

(n=8)

Total(N=30)

Resoonses % n Resoonses % n Resoonses % n Resoonses %NBARRIERS 6 37.5 4 66.7 5 62.5 15 50.0

Lack of Available Positions 5 2 3 10Lack of Supervisor Support 2 0 2 4Lack of Available Accomm. 0 0 2 2

Failed Past Attempts 0 0 I 1Gender 1 0 0 1

Race of Ethnicity 1 0 0 1Disability 1 0 3 4

Education Level 3 0 0 3Experience Level 0 0 1 1

Performance Ratings 3 0 1 4Other (Politics, Favoritism) 3 2 2 7

Total Barriers Identified 19 4 15 38

Hypothesis 7: Impact of Demographics on Career Choice

Consistent with hypothesis 7, which states that there is a relationship between

career choice and gender, a Pearson Chi-Square revealed that women were more likely to

be in disability-related careers (Table 7).

Table 7Impact of Gender on Career Choice (1 df, N=30)

CAREERTYPE

Menn %

Womenn % £

Disability-Related

5 33.3 11 73.3

0.028*NotDisability-Related

10 66.7 4 26.7

< -05, significant


58

Further, more subjects with a physical disability or a speech/hearing related

disability chose careers that were disability-related than did subjects with a vision related

disability (Table 8).

Table 8Impact of Disability on Career Choice (2 df, N=30)

CAREERTYPE

Physical

n %

Vision

n %

Speech/Hearingn % £

Disability-Related

11 68.7 0 0.0 5 62.5

0.013*NotDisability-Related

5 31.3 6 100.0 3 37.5

*E - 05, significant

Finally, while the influence of age o f onset of disability on career choice did not

produce a statistically significant Pearson’s Chi-Square, 66.7 percent of subjects who

acquired their disability prior to adolescence worked in disability-related fields versus 33.3

percent of subjects who acquired their disability after the age of twelve (Table 9).

Table 9Impact of Age-of-Onset of Disability on Career Choice (4 df, N=30)

CAREERTYPE

Birth

n %

Childhoodn %

Adolescencen %

EarlyAdnltn %

Adult

n % DDisability-Related

9 69.2 3 60.0 2 40.0 1 50.0 1 20.0

.405NotDisability-Related

4 30.8 2 40.0 3 60.0 1 50.0 4 80.0

*E < .05, significant


59

Hypothesis 8: Impact o f Career Choice on Career Outcomes

Consistent with hypothesis 8, significant differences were revealed between people

in disability-related fields and people in non-disability-related fields, specifically in the

areas of performance factors and perceptions o f equity, with subjects working in disability-

related jobs demonstrating lower mean scores (Table 10). While these were the only two

statistically significant differences, it is interesting to note that subjects working in

disability-related jobs had lower mean scores on most of the habituation and volition

factors, and higher mean score on all workplace environment factors. As one subject at a

Center for Independent Living expressed, “Because I work where I work it’s veiy rare

that I’ve experienced any barriers specifically related to my disability that would prevent

me from doing my job”.

The fact that 62.5 percent of subjects in disability-related fields identified barriers

to advancement as compared with 35.7 percent of subjects in non-disability-related fields

is also consistent with Hypothesis 8. Further, subjects in disability-related fields identified

more than double the number of barriers reported by those not in disability-related fields

(Table 11).


60

Table 10Comparison between Individuals in Disability-Related Careers and Individuals Not in Disability-Related Careers (N=30)

FACTORSDisability-Related(n=16)M SD

Not Disability-Related(n-14)M SD B

PERFORMANCE 3.15 0.66 3.71 0.71 0.034*

HABITUATION 3.15 0.45 3.24 0.44 0.355Work Habits 3.27 0.56 3.33 0.52 0.790Acceptance/Inclusion 3.06 0.70 3.18 0.74 0.473

VOLITION 2.94 0.28 3.07 0.28 0.131Job Power 3.35 0.46 3.40 0.67 0.355Career Orientation 3.31 0.43 3.21 0.32 0.448Career Strategies 2.86 0.39 3.03 0.46 0.377Equity 2.60 0.38 2.86 0.23 0.022*Attribution 2.83 0.62 3.05 0.81 0.208

ENVIRONMENT 2.59 0.40 2.48 0.45 0.728Physical Accessibility 3.44 0.51 3.00 1.11 0.448Career Support 2.84 0.42 2.81 0.64 0.918Performance Feedback 2.59 0.52 2.57 0.43 0.759Training & Development 3.35 0.52 3.05 0.66 0.166Workplace Diversity 3.10 0.84 2.69 0.76 0.120

CAREER OUTCOMES 2.71 0.48 2.87 0.64 0.787Met Expectations 2.98 0.49 3.21 0.69 0.653Aspirations 1.63 0.62 1.86 0.53 0.976Career Satisfaction 2.79 0.68 2.86 0.87 0.697

*B < .05, significant


61

Table 11Barriers to Career Advancement by Career Choice

Disability-Related

(n=16)

Not Related (£=14)

Total(N=30)

Resoonses %n Resoonses % n Resoonses % NBARRIERS 10 62.5 5 35.7 15 50.0

Lack of Available Positions 7 3 10Lack of Supervisor Support 3 1 4Lack of Available Accomm. 1 1 2

Failed Past Attempts 0 I 1Gender 1 0 1

Race of Ethnicity 1 0 1Disability 3 1 4

Education Level 3 0 3Experience Level 0 1 1

Performance Ratings 3 1 4Other (Politics, Favoritism) 4 3 7

Total Barriers Identified 26 12 38

Workplace Accommodation

Provision of appropriate accommodations by employers was generally positive;

however, 46.2 percent of individuals in the study who required job content changes, 21.4

percent in need of personal assistant services, and 20.0 percent requesting the option to

telecommute indicated that their accommodation needs were not met. Men and women

made approximately the same number of requests for accommodation, with women

averaging 3.5 requests per person and men averaging 3.1 requests. However, 21 percent

of women’s requests compared with 15 percent of men’s requests were denied (Table 12).


62

Table 12Workplace Accommodation Requests by Gender

Men(n=15)

Women<B=15)

Total(N=30)

Reauests %n Reauests % n Reauests % NACCOMMODATION 14 93.3

% denied15 100.0

%denied

29 96.7 % denied

Structural Changes 6 16.7 7 14.3 13 15.4Technology or Equip 10 10.0 11 18.1 21 14.3

Flex Hours/Policy 6 0.0 10 0.0 16 0.0Telecommuting 6 16.6 9 22.2 15 20.0

Job Content Changes 9 22.2 4 100.0 13 46.2Personal Assistants 7 14.3 7 28.6 14 21.4

Others 2 50.0 4 0.0 6 16.7

Total Requests 46 15.0 52 21.0 98 18.4

When accommodation requests are looked at by disability category, 15 subjects

with physical disabilities averaged 3 .0 requests per person, 6 subjects with vision-related

disabilities averaged 2.8 requests per person, and 8 subjects with speech or hearing related

disabilities averaged 4.1 requests per person. In other words, individuals with speech or

hearing related disabilities made 28 percent more requests per person than individuals with

physical disabilities and nearly 50 percent more requests than those with vision related

disabilities. O f these requests 23 .5 percent made by individuals with speech or hearing

related disabilities were not fulfilled as compared to 14.5 percent and 21.2 percent for

physical and vision related disabilities respectively (Table 13).


63

Table 13Workplace Accommodation Requests by Disability

Physical(n=16)

Vision(5=6)

Speech/Hearing

(n=8)

Total(N=30)

Reauests %a Reauests %n Reauests % n Reauests % NACCOMMODATION 15 93.8 6 100.0 8 100.0 29 96.7

% denied % denied % denied! % deniedStructural Changes 8 12.5 0 0.0 5 20.0 13 15.4

Technology or Equip 7 14.3 6 16.7 8 12.5 21 14.3Flex Hours/Policy 10 0.0 2 0.0 4 0.0 16 0.0

Telecommuting 9 0.0 2 50.0 4 50.0 15 20.0Job Content Changes 6 50.0 3 33.3 4 50.0 13 46.2

Personal Assistants 4 50.0 4 25.0 6 0.0 14 21.4Others 4 0.0 0 0.0 2 50.0 6 16.7

Total Requests 48 14.5 17 23.5 33 21.2 98 18.4

Finally, while subjects in disability-related fields made slightly more requests for

accommodation than those in non-disability-related fields (3 6 requests per person versus

2.9 requests per person) fewer requests were fulfilled for those not working in disability-

related fields (19.5 percent versus 17.5 percent denied) (Table 14).

Table 14Workplace Accommodation Requests by Career Choice

DisabilityRelated

(n=16)

NotDisability

Related(n=14)

Total

(N=30)Reauests %n Reauests %n Reauests %N

ACCOMMODATION 16 100.0 % denied

13 92.8 % denied

29 96.7 % denied

Structural Changes 9 11.1 4 25.0 13 15.4Technology or Equip 11 18.2 10 10.0 21 14.3

Flex Hours/Policy 11 0.0 5 0.0 16 0.0Telecommuting 9 11.1 6 33.3 15 20.0

Job Content Changes 6 66.7 7 28.6 13 46.2Personal Assistants 7 28.6 7 14.3 14 21.4

Others 4 0.0 2 50.0 6 16.7

Total Requests 57 17.5 41 19.5 98 18.4


64

Recommendations to Employers and Healthcare Professionals

Responses to the open-ended questions, which asked subjects to advise employers

and healthcare professionals on what could be done to help people with disabilities

maximize their career outcomes, were extremely consistent. Providing accommodations;

increasing awareness and understanding of disability issues and culture; increasing

awareness of career options and adaptive technologies; and enhancing adaptive living and

career skills topped the list (Tables 15 and 16).

Table 15Top Recommendations to Employers

TOP RECOMMENDATIONS TOTAL %

Provide Reasonable Accommodation 23 76.7

Increase Employer and Workforce Awareness of

Disability Issues and Culture

23 76.7

Provide Career Development Opportunities for

People With Disabilities

17 56.7

Accept Disability as a Natural Part of

Workforce Diversity

13 43.3

Hire People With Disabilities 7 23.3


65

Table 16Top Recommendations to Healthcare Professionals

TOP RECOMMENDATIONS TOTAL %

Increase Awareness of Career Options and

Adaptive Technologies

21 70.0

Provide Training for People With Disabilities For Adaptive

Living and Career Skills

21 70.0

Establish and Make Use of Resources Within the Disability Community

18 60.0

Increase Awareness of Disability Issues and Culture

17 56.7

Provide Information and Resources on Career Preparation to Children With Disabilities and their Families

17 56.7


66

Chapter V: Discussion

Introduction

This study explored the perceptions of professionals with apparent disabilities as

they attempt to maximize their career outcomes. The results of the study suggest that

there are a number o f factors that may potentially facilitate or inhibit career outcomes for

professionals with disabilities. In addition, participants in the study provided

recommendations to employers and healthcare professionals with regard to the role they

might play in helping people with disabilities maximize their career outcomes.

The Model o f Human Occupation (MOHO) provided a framework for defining

workplace variables and determining their relevance to career outcomes. The researcher’s

attempt to apply the model to career performance, and develop workplace variables that

were analogous to MOHO’s more generic variables of human motivation and

performance, was key to the design of the study. It was clear from the results that pieces

of the model significantly relate to career outcomes. However, the hierarchical nature o f

the model’s factors, i.e., performance factors providing the foundation for habituation

factors which in turn provide the foundation for volition factors, was not conclusively

established by the outcome o f this study. This may be due to the fact that few objective

measures were used. Most measures were based upon the literature, studies conducted on

other groups, assumptions made by the researcher, and the perceptions provided by the

subjects at a static point in time.


67

MOHO Factors and Career Outcomes

Performance

The relationship between performance factors and career outcomes (hypothesis 1),

was not supported by the study. A performance score was established by combining those

variables assumed to affect basic performance skills such as level of education, years of

professional experience, and age of onset of disability.

The age o f onset of disability was included based on an assumption that early onset

of disability affects the development of social and competitive skills, as well as career

expectations and goals. As noted previously, all individuals, regardless of ability or

disability, benefit from early exposure to careers and exploration of skills and interests

(Jacobs, 1993). Children with disabilities, however, are often not informed of career

options and strategies because society expects less of them (Miller, 1991). This was

indeed supported by several of the study’s subjects. As one individual stated, “Kids with

disabilities don’t often get asked what they want to do when they grow up. And then if

they’re courageous enough to say what they want to do when they grow up somebody’s

gonna go, “You want to be a what? How are you gonna be a fireman?” Another

explained, “Just the fact that I went to a special high school that didn’t care about

preparing people for advanced study. They said they did, they said they wanted us all to

go to college and do well, but there wasn’t one tutoring program, or coaching program, to

take SATs, you know, to get a merit scholarship, that the other good schools would

require, the suburban public schools even, and some o f the private schools, would coach

people, teach them, to begin excelling and winning in high school. I didn’t have any of


6 8

that.” A third concurred that, “Parents shouldn’t isolate the young disabled person.

That’s hard to avoid when you’re in hospitals a lot and going through that kind of

isolation. Those formative years are very important. Being kept out of school for

whatever reason is a big mistake, you don’t develop the social skills and the interaction

skills the way everybody else does and that puts you behind right at the beginning.” A

more objective measure of career-related performance skills may have provided more

conclusive results.

Habituation

The relationship between habituation and career outcomes (hypothesis 2), was

partially supported for women subjects, who reported significantly lower scores for

acceptance and inclusion, but was not supported by the study in general. The variables

used to define the MOHO concept “habituation”, i.e., work habits and

acceptance/inclusion, were based on assumptions made by the researcher that when an

individual feels comfortable with their ability to complete their work assignments, and

feels accepted by others in the workplace, then they must have established routines and

habits that positively affect their work performance. One question in particular, “The

longer I work for my company, the more routine things feel” got a varied reaction from

subjects. Many indicated that they interpreted the word “routine” as something negative,

equating it to boredom or lacking in challenge. This different interpretation of the concept

of habituation may have affected the validity of the scores.


69

Volition

The variables used to define “volition” produced some interesting results in

support of hypothesis 3. Subjects who reported a higher degree of autonomy and

decision-making power on the job, who had defined career goals, and who attributed their

success to their own efforts, also had a higher level of met expectations and career

satisfaction. In addition, 80 percent of subjects used their own past performance history

as a benchmark when assessing whether or not their expectations for career outcomes

were met. This speaks to both the Expectancy/Valence and Attribution theories discussed

in Chapter II. These theories state that past success and belief in one’s own self-efficacy

leads to expectations o f future success and a sustained effort to achieve valued goals

(Burke, 1977; Manz, 1989). In other words, those subjects who knew where they

wanted to end up and believed in their own ability to get there, were more likely to

persevere to reach their goals, and as a result were more satisfied with the outcomes.

Environment

Subjects who were satisfied with their developmental experiences and

opportunities for training showed significantly higher levels of career satisfaction, thus

partially supporting hypothesis 4. These findings are consistent with a previously cited

survey of deaf employees who said that access to training and development was a strong

contributor to employment success (Johnson, 1993). As one subject put it, “I think that

the more you demand of me the more I will feel the need to give you exactly what you

demand of me. I think, just like everybody else, for people with disabilities a positive

environment is one where they know they’re trusted, they know that their supervisors


70

think they can do what they tell them to do. But also, every now and then [my supervisor]

will come in and ask the impossible and give me two days to do it. And I think the fun

and the thing that keeps me here is that. . . when you’re challenged, you feel the need to

stand up to the challenge. And I think more people with disabilities need that. And you’ll

find that they’re capable o f doing a lot.”

Gender and C areer Outcomes

Consistent with the literature and hypothesis 5, there were some significant gender

differences. Results confirmed that women felt less accepted and included in the

workplace and perceived more inequities in the workplace than men. The fact that these

two factors are perceived more negatively by women than men may have work-related

ramifications according to the theory of Equity which predicts that, when imbalances

between input and output are perceived, individuals will strive to restore equity by taking

action or changing their perceptions. This could mean a reduction in the amount o f effort

women put into their careers, a lowering of career goals, a change in their perceptions of

the situation, or withdrawal from the situation (Adams, 1979; Huseman, et al., 1985).

Whether gender compounds the adverse impact experienced by people with disabilities, as

evidenced in the literature (Braddock & Bachelder, 1994; Menz, et al., 1989) was not

shown by this study. However, the fact that women’s mean scores on all factors (except

training and development) were lower then men’s suggests a pattern that may warrant

further study.


71

Disability Category and Career Outcomes

Few significant differences among disability categories left hypothesis 6 largely

unsupported. This may have been due in part to the small sample sizes for vision-related

and speech/hearing-related disabilities. The fact that a significant difference in work habits

was evident has implications for the availability of accommodation and technology for

different types of disability. Clearly, having the appropriate equipment or adapting the job

to the individual is important to being able to meet the expectations o f the employer. As

one individual expressed, “I feel that the key to creating an equal opportunity environment

is really to be open to giving accommodations that are requested. Having the technology

like the computer. I realize now they let most employees have computers, but for people

with disabilities, with physical disabilities, we’ll tell you that having computers is vital to

any kind of job. Having access to that kind of technology. Having assistants when

needed, secretarial support, for typing envelopes, y’know, the more mundane tasks, that

because of their disability would take up a lot o f their valuable time”. On the other hand,

most subjects agreed that there needs to be more of a partnership between disabled and

non-disabled individuals, in order to come up with the most effective solutions. As one

deaf subject expressed it, “my ‘disability’ requires partnership between hearing and deaf

people to communicate with each other, because deaf people cannot go all the way to the

hearing community to meet their requirements, it has to be a half-way agreement.

Because most hearing people just don’t want to come half-way to communicate with me

as a deaf person, like for example writing back and forth to each other, using an

interpreter, talking slower so I can lip read, and they’re just not interested to or motivated


72

unless somebody has to... ” Another subject who is blind said, “Sometimes I wish that the

general attitude was that the person with the disability is the one that’s left to design the

solutions to their own problems, rather than being forced fed something that’s

“accessible”, but it’s not really if it’s so complicated that it takes forever to get it to work.

Sometime I wish people would try much less to make things accessible and let the person

with the disability decide if something is accessible or not.” A subject who is physically

disabled said, “I think that especially for people that have pretty extensive disabilities, it’s

very difficult, and if the employer had some insight into that and would really turn over the

problem-solving responsibility to me, and be supportive of that, and say, ‘So what can we

do’?”. This subject also commented that, “ ...you can make the environment as accessible

and universally designed as possible, but you’re still going to need that element of

programmatic access, which is human help.”

Career Choice and Career Outcomes

Consistent with hypothesis 8, people working in disability-related fields reported

more concerns about fairness and equity. Subjects working in these areas were generally

working in government or university settings where the environment was perceived to be

extremely political. Several subjects commented on not being included in the right

“networks”. As one subject put it, “Advancement is a little bit harder because I think that

there are a lot of organizations who don’t necessarily advance based on merit, and that’s

not a problem that’s really related to disability. But, I think it is compounded by a

disability because it’s that much more difficult for disabled people to develop the kind of


73

mentoring relationships and to come from the type of families that have the power and

influence to get people advanced.”

Effect of Demographics on Career Choice

Finally, there appears to be a relationship between demographic variables and

whether or not an individual chooses disability-related work, as predicted by hypothesis 7.

More women, people with complex physical disabilities, and people with speech/hearing

related disabilities in the sample tended to choose disability-related careers than men and

people with vision related disabilities. This has several implications. First, many o f these

organizations were small Centers for Independent Living, public schools or universities,

where opportunities for advancement are limited. Second, these organizations were

usually not-for-profit and thus pay scales were presumably lower than comparable jobs in

private industry. Employment of people with disabilities in such fields while potentially

challenging and satisfying, does imply a potential economic disadvantage for those who

choose these jobs. While this is also true of people without disabilities working in

disability-related jobs, the fact that a disproportionate number of women, physically

disabled, and speech/hearing related disabled are represented in lower paying, social

service jobs with limited advancement opportunities, creates an adverse impact. A related

implication is that entry into disability-related fields for those with more severe disabilities

may be less a matter of choice versus a matter of physical and social accessibility. The

literature has proposed that assimilation into the mainstream for a person with a severe

disability is more difficult (Greenhaus, et al., 1990; Kielhofiier, 1997). The result may be

that the person chooses to separate from the mainstream (Cox, 1993), and work in an


74

environment that is more accepting o f his or her disability. While severity of disability was

not specifically measured in this study, it was the observation o f the researcher that those

professionals working in disability-related fields presented with more involved disabilities

than those not working in disability-related fields. Furthermore, the data confirmed that

individuals working in disability-related careers requested and received a greater number

o f accommodations than those who worked in environments not related to disability.

Implications For Employers

Favorable career outcomes appear to relate to volition factors and work

environment factors. In particular, perceiving that the system is equitable and believing

that one has control over his or her own career outcomes is important. Partnering with

the individual in order to come up with accessibility and accommodation solutions is key

to creating a work environment where all individuals can maximize their career outcomes.

The situations shared by individuals with regard to meetings and training opportunities are

poignant examples o f how a lack o f accommodation results in frustration and a waste o f

time and money.

Employers can help professionals with disabilities in the area of career

development by providing appropriate accommodation; increasing workforce awareness

o f disability issues and culture; providing career development opportunities for people

with disabilities; and accepting disability as a natural part of employee diversity.


75

fmnlif»rinn« Fqt Occupational Therapists and Other Healthcare Professionals

Occupational therapists and other healthcare professionals can help professionals

with disabilities in the area o f career development by increasing their own awareness and

sensitivity to disability issues, culture, career options and adaptive technology. Having

more knowledge and resources should enable occupational therapists to encourage

parents, teachers, and healthcare workers to foster career expectations in children with

disabilities. It would also allow them to better assist aduhs with disabilities to acquire the

information and skills they need in order to maximize career outcomes.

In addition, occupational therapists can become a valuable resource to individuals

with disabilities by aligning themselves with knowledgeable individuals who can provide

information on available technology, career options, workplace accommodations, and the

laws protecting people with disabilities. Developing relationships with disabled

professionals and organizations that advocate for people with disabilities could be

mutually beneficial. Including professionals with disabilities as speakers in occupational

therapy curricula, professional conferences, and continuing education is important to the

process o f obtaining first hand knowledge o f individuals with disabilities who are

achieving their potential.

Impliflfffyiiy Fyr People W ith Disabilities

Women, people with more complex accommodation needs, and individuals who

acquired their disability prior to adolescence more frequently choose a disability-reiated

career. This may be due to narrower career expectations o f children with disabilities and


76

women, greater willingness to accommodate people with disabilities in the public sector,

and a stronger identity with disability for people who acquired their disability early.

While individuals working in the disability-related arena often expressed high

career satisfaction, they also cited more barriers to career advancement with lack of

available positions as number one, followed by concerns about politics and favoritism.

Indeed, perceptions o f equity were rated significantly lower for these individuals. This

lack of opportunity has serious economic implications for those who choose these

positions, or whose choices are made for them based upon a lack of accommodation and

acceptance of people with severe disabilities in the private sector.

Limitations of the Study

Due to the complexity o f the data collection process this study had several

limitations that require consideration. First, some o f the interview questions, as noted

previously, may not be valid measures o f the identified constructs. Although many of the

questions were adapted from a study of black managers and career outcomes (Igbaria A

Wormley, 1992), the design o f that study consisted o f comparisons between black and

white managers at one company. Also, many questions that were developed by the

researcher to address specific issues related to disability, or to attempt to capture the

constructs represented by MOHO, were not previously tested.

The methodology developed and implemented by the researcher had several

limitations. First, pre-screen questions did not eliminate senior executives from

participation. As a result, two of the sample participants held the top position in their

organizations and were unable to answer questions that pertained to their “supervisor”.


77

Second, the need to provide accommodation for disability required the researcher to

modify the methodology, particularly for deaf respondents. For example, 5 out o f 7 deaf

respondents were interviewed via the telephone using a TTY or relay operator and 2 were

interviewed in person using an interpreter. Individuals interviewed by phone received the

written survey questions ahead of time via mail or fine in order to aid in the interview

process. In two cases the respondents filled out the multiple choice survey questions prior

to the interview. In one o f these cases the respondent completed the faxed survey and

dropped it in the mail with one page missing. The missing questions were completed a

week later during which time an unforeseen interim event occurred (an unexpected

promotion). This appeared to affect the consistency of the later responses as compared to

those completed at the time of the interview.

The sampling strategy used by the researcher was also a limitation o f the study.

The scarcity of subjects necessitated a non-probability sampling technique. Nine

organizations were contacted who supplied the researcher with a list o f potential subjects.

From there the sample snowballed as subjects referred colleagues or friends whom they

thought would meet the criteria for inclusion. This may have biased the data since

subjects who know one another may also influence each other’s opinions, attitudes, and

actions. In addition, in at least one case a subject told the researcher she was meeting

another subject for lunch immediately after her interview. The latter subject had not yet

been interviewed and therefore may have received information regarding the questions and

her responses, potentially biasing his own responses.


78

Finally, due to the scarcity of subjects as well as limited resources and time, the

sample size consisted o f only 30 subjects. The small sample size limited the power o f

statistical tests performed and also affected their ability to determine significance

statistically. Further, when comparisons were attempted among various groups, such as

disability category, sample sizes as small as sue and eight greatly reduced the probability o f

detecting statistically significant differences among these groups.

Recommendations for Further Research

Research has primarily focused on workforce entry o f people with disabilities, with

very little data provided on professional development and careers. The results of this

study suggests the following as areas for future research:

1. Career awareness and preparation for children with disabilities, including the

importance of role models and early socialization.

2. Adaptive technology, and awareness levels of employers, health professionals, and

people with disabilities.

3. The impact of the ADA on career entry and advancement in the private sector versus

the public sector.

4. Comparisons o f women with and without disabilities and career outcomes.

5. Comparisons o f career outcomes for professionals with apparent disabilities versus

professionals with hidden disabilities.

6. The impact of a disability on career progression when the disabling condition is

acquired post-career entry.


79

Summary

This study asked people with disabilities to identify those factors which are most

important to career outcomes and to make some recommendations to employers and

healthcare professionals as to what can be done to create a more equal opportunity

environment which allows all individuals to maximize their potential. The messages

provided were clear:

1. Eliminate preconceived ideas and assumptions about people with disabilities by

providing training that increases awareness of disability issues and culture;

2. Develop partnerships with people with disabilities to come up with solutions to

workplace accommodation;

3. Allow people with disabilities to have the same opportunities for training and career

development as non-disabled people;

4. Encourage children with disabilities to expect that they will have career options and

opportunities, and provide them and their families with accurate information and

resources; and

5. Accept that disability is a natural part of workforce diversity, not a problem to be

assimilated or “cured”.


80

As one subject remarked, “You’re still gonna need to create a culture in your

workplace where asking for help and giving help, receiving and giving help is natural and

expected, and not a big deal. And not just a disability concern. Wouldn’t it be nice if all

work environments were ones in which people could be vulnerable and open about their

needs and be willing to help without making it such a formal request and a granting of

assistance?”


81

References

Adams, J.S. (1979). Inequity in social exchange. In FLM. Steers & L.W. Porter

(Eds ). Motivation and work behavior (2nd Edition, pp. 107-124). New York: McGraw-

Hill.

Berg, T.R. (1991). The importance of equity perception and job satisfaction in

predicting employee intent to stay at television stations. Group & Organization Studies.

16(3). 268-284.

Blanck, P.D. (1995). Legal Forum: Implementing the Americans with Disabilities

Act. A case report on Sears, Roebuck and Co. Spine. 20 (19). 2161-2167.

Bowman, O. J. (1992). Americans have a shared vision: Occupational Therapists

can help create the future reality. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 46(5). 91-

396.

Braddock, D. and Bachelder, L. (1994). The glass ceiling and persons with

disabilities. Public policy monograph series number 56. Chicago: College of Associated

Health Profession, University of Illinois at Chicago.

Burke, J.P. (1977). A clinical perspective on motivation: Pawn versus origin.

American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 31(4). 254-258.

Cox, T. H., Jr. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations. Theory, research &

practice. San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Daly, M.C. and Bound, J. (1996). Worker adaptation and employer

accommodation following the onset of a health impairment. Journal of Gerontology. 5 IB

(2). S53-S60.


82

DePoy, E. and Gitlin, L.N. (1994). Introduction to Research. Multiple Strategies

for Health and Human Services. St. Louis, MO: Mosby-Year Book, Inc.

Dubinsky, A. J. and Levy, M. (1989). Influence of organizational fairness on work

outcomes of retail salespeople. Journal of Retailing. 65 (2). 221-252.

Gething, L. (1992). Judgments by health professionals of personal characteristics

o f people with a visible physical disability. Social Science Medicine. 34 (7). 809-815.

Glass, L.E. and Elliott, H. (1993). Work place success for persons with adult-

onset hearing impairment. The Volta Review. 95. 403-415.

Gould, S. and Penley, L.E. (1984). Career strategies and salary progression: A

study of their relationships in a municipal bureaucracy. Organizational Behavior and

Human Performance. 34. 244-265.

Greenhaus, J.H., Parasuraman, S., and Wormley, W.M. (1990). Effects of race

on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes.

Academy of Management Journal. 33(1). 64-86.

Greenwood, R., Schriner, K.F., and Johnson, V. (1991). Employer concerns

regarding workers with disabilities and the business-rehabilitation partnership: The PWI

practitioners perspective. Journal of Rehabilitation. 21-25.

Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H. (1993). Management of Organizational Behavior

(6th edition). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Herzberg, F. (1987). One more time. How do you motivate employees?

Harvard Business Review. 65 (51. 109-120.


83

Hopkins, H.L. and Smith, H.D. (1993). Scope of occupational therapy. InH.L.

Hopkins & H.D. Smith. (Eds ), Willard & Spademan’s occupational therapy (8th ed., pp.

3-4). Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott.

Huseman, R.C., Hatfield, J.D., and Miles, E.W. (1985). Test for individual

perceptions of job equity: some preliminary findings. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 61.

1055-1064.

Igbaria, M. and Wormley, W.M. (1992). Organizational experiences and career

success of MIS professionals and Manager: An examination o f race differences. MIS

Quarterly. 507-528.

Jacobs, K. (1993). Work assessments and programming. In H.L. Hopkins &

H.D. Smith. (Eds ), Willard & Spademan’s occupational therapy (8th ed., pp. 243-244).

Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott.

Jamieson, D. and O’Mara, J. (1991). One size no longer fits all. Managing

workforce 2000. Soundview Executive Book Summaries. 13(11). 13-26.

Joel, L A. (1994). Teach a woman, educate the world [editorial]. American

Journal of Nursing. 94 (7). 7.

Johnson, V.A. (1993). Factors impacting the job retention and advancement of

workers who are deaf. The Volta Review. 95. 341-356.

Kanellos, M.C. (1985). Enhancing vocational outcomes of spinal cord-injured

persons: the occupational therapist’s role. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 39

( i n . 726-733.


84

Kanter, R.M. (1977). Men and women o f the corporation. New York: Basic

Books.

Kielhofner, G. (1997). Conceptual foundations of occupational therapy (2nd

edition). Philadelphia: F. A. Davis Company.

Kielhofner, G. (1980). A model of human occupation, part 3, benign and vicious

cycles. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 34 (12). 731-737.

Kielhofner, G., Burke, J.P., and Igi, C.H. (1980). A model of human occupation,

part 4. Assessment and intervention. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 34

(12). 777-788.

Kopelman, L.M. (1996). Ethical assumptions and ambiguities in the Americans

With Disabilities Act. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 21. 187-208.

Landeau, J. and Hammer, T. (1986). Clerical employees’ perceptions of

intraorganizational career opportunities. Academy of Management Journal 29 (2). 385-

404.

Lawrence, B .S. (1988). New wrinkles in the theory o f age: demography, norms

and performance ratings. Academy of Management Journal. 31(2), 309-337.

Litwin, G.H. and Stringer, R.A (1979). In R.M. Steers & L.W. Porter (Eds ),

Motivation and work behavior (2nd Edition, pp. 55-66). New York. McGraw-Hill.

Manz, C.C. (1989). Self Leadership: Toward an expanded theory of self

influence processes in organizations. In J.W. Newstrom & K Davis. (Eds.),

Organizational Behavior: readings and exercises. (8th edition, pp. 269-283). New York:

McGraw-Hill.


85

Maslow, AH. (1979). A theory of human motivation. In R.M. Steers & L.W.

Porter (Eds ), Motivation and work behavior (2nd Edition, pp. 41-46). New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Menz, F.E., Hansen, G., Smith, H., Brown, C., Ford, M., and McGrowey, G.

(1989). Gender equity in access, services and benefits from vocation rehabilitation.

Journal o f Rehabilitation. 31-40.

Miller, G. (1991). The challenge o f upward mobility. Journal of Visual

Impairment. 85. 32-225.

Mufioz, J.P., Lawlor, M., and Kielhofner, G. (1993). Use o f the model of human

occupation: A survey of therapists in psychiatric practice. The Occupational Therapy

Journal o f Research. 13 (21. 117-138.

O’Brien, S.P. (1993). Human occupation frame of reference. In Kramer &

Hinojosa. Frames of reference for pediatric occupational therapy. Baltimore, MD.

Williams & Wilkins.

Perry, L. S. (1993). Effects of inequity on job satisfaction and self-evaluation in a

national sample of African-American workers. The Journal of Social Psychology. 133 (4).

565-573.

Shapiro, J.P. (1994). No Pitv. New York: Times Books.

Sheridan, J.E., Slocum, J.W., Buda, R., and Thompson, R. (1990). Effects of

corporate sponsorship and departmental power on career tournaments. Academy of

Management Journal. 33 578-802.


86

Slappo, J. and Katz, L.J. (1989). A survey of women with disabilities in non-

traditional careers. Journal of Rehabilitation. 23-30.

Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W. (1979). Motivation and work behavior. 2nd

edition. NY: McGraw-Hill.

Thomas, Jr., R. R. (1990). From affirmative action to affirming diversity.

Harvard Business Review. 107-117.

Thompson, J.E. (1995). Women of the world, from a midwife’s perspective.

Report of the NGO Women’s Forum, Beijing, 30 August - 9 September, 1995.

Midwifery. 11 (41. 217-218.

Tremblay, M., Roger, A., and Toulouse, J. (1995). Career plateau and work

attitudes: an empirical study of managers. Human Relations. 48 (3). 221-238.

U.S. Department of Labor. (1983). Executive. Administrative. Professional and

Outside Sales Exemptions Under the Fair Labor Standards Act. (WH Publication No.

1363). Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the U.S. Department of

Justice (1991). Americans With Disabilities Act Handbook. Washington, DC: Author.

Veiga,J.F. (1981). Plateaued versus non-plateaued managers career patterns,

attitudes, and path potential. Academy o f Management Journal 24 (3). 566-578.

Velozo, C .A. (1993). Work evaluations, critique of the state of the art of

functional assessment of work. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 47 (3). 203-

209.


87

Vroom, V.H. (1989). The concepts of valence and expectancy. InJ.W.

Newstrom & K Davis. (Eds.) Organizational Behavior: readings and exercises. (8th

edition, pp. 251-252). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Walter, G.G. (1993). Some strategies for enhancing career advancement

prospects: a reactant paper. The Volta Review. 95. 417-420.

Welsh, W.A. and Foster, S B. (1991). Does a college degree influence the

occupational attainments of deaf adults? An examination of the initial and long term

impact of college. Journal of Rehabilitation. 41-48.

Whaley, R.F. and Hashim, T.J. (1995). A Textbook of World Health: A Practical

Guide to Global Healthcare. New York & London: Parthenon Publishing Group.

Wiedman, C D. and Freehafer, A.A. (1981). Vocational outcome in patients with

spinal cord injury. Journal of Rehabilitation. 47. 63.

Women show gains on boards o f directors. (1997). Women’s Connection Online

[On-line]. Available: www.womenconnect.com.

Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C., Rozin, P., and Schwartz, B. (1997). Jobs,

careers, and callings: people’s relations to their work. Journal of Research

Yelin, E.H. (1993). Gender, disability, and employment. Occupational Medicine.

8 (4). 849-857.


http://www.womenconnect.com

88

Appendix A Subject Pre-Screening Questions


89

Appendix A

Subject Pre-screenine Questions

The purpose of this study is to explore the workplace experiences of professionals who have an apparent disability, and identify the key factors that support or create barriers to career success.

1. How would you describe your disability?

2. Are you currently employed? How many hours/week?

3. What is your job title?a. Does your job require specialized education or credentials?b. Would you describe your job as routine or varied?c. Do your duties require use of discretion and judgment?d. What are your key responsibilities?

4. At what stage in your current career did you acquire a disability?a. prior tob. earlyc. middled. late

5. What are your long-range career goals, if you have them?

6. When you started out, what were your career goals?

7. How did your disability affect your:

a. career goal-setting (if onset was prior to)

b. career goals (if onset was post career entrance).


90

Appendix B Subject Information Sheet


91

Appendix B

Subject Information Sheet

I am a graduate student, currently working towards the degree of Master of Science in Occupational Therapy, at Rush University in Chicago, Illinois. In order to fulfill graduation requirements I am conducting research on professionals with apparent disabilities and their experiences in the workplace. Specifically, I am interested in the individual and workplace factors that inhibit or enhance an individual’s ability to reach his or her career goals.

In an effort to collect data on this subject I am conducting personal interviews. These interviews are expected to take approximately one hour to complete and will require participants to answer verbal questions.

I would appreciate your participation in this study. All results will be anonymous and confidential. Participation in this study is, of course, completely optional, but your time and input would be greatly appreciated.

If you are willing to participate please sign the attached consent form.

If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me at 708-383-8508. Also, if you would like to know the results of the interview, please notify me, and a summary will be sent to you at the completion of the study. Thank you for your time and cooperation.

Sincerely,

Diane K. King


92

Appendix C Written Consent Form


93

Appendix C

Maximizing Career Outcomes: A Study of Professionals With DisabilitiesConsent Form

Introduction and Purpose of StudyThe purpose o f this research study is to explore the workplace experiences of professionals who have an apparent disability, and identify the key factors that support or create barriers to career success.

ProceduresThe study involves a personal interview of each participant by the researcher, Diane King. The interview will consist of answering structured, verbal questions. The interview process should take approximately one hour to complete, and the interview will be audio tape recorded to assist the researcher in later data analysis. Efforts will be made to accommodate participants with special requests.

BenefitsThere are no direct benefits to subjects. The purpose of this study is to collect data which describes the workplace issues faced by professionals who have an apparent disability as they pursue their career goals. This data may provide valuable insight to healthcare professionals, vocational counselors, and employers regarding the key factors that facilitate or inhibit an individual’s ability to fulfill his or her career potential, leading to a more inclusive work environment.

RisksThere are no personal risks involved in participating in this research.

ConfidentialityThe interview results will be kept confidential by Diane King. The confidentiality of each individual participant will be protected and the information that is released or published will not identify any individual or employer.

Participant’s RightsParticipation in the study is completely voluntary, and participants may withdraw their consent to participate at tny time without penalties or loss of benefits.

ConsentBy signing this Consent. Form I am indicating that I have read the above information and that I agree to participate in the study as outlined above.

Please contact Diane King at 708-383-8508 with any questions.

Signature of Participant Date

Signature of Researcher Date


COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

I hereby guarantee that no part of the thesis entitled, Maximizing Career Outcomes: A Study of Professionals With Disabilities, which I have submitted for publication, has been copied from a copyrighted work, except in cases o f passages properly quoted from a copyrighted work, copied with permission of the author, or copied from a work in which I won the copyright; that I am the sole author and proprietor o f the thesis; that the thesis in all respects complies with the Copyright Revision Act o f 1976; that the thesis contains no matter which, if published, will be libelous or otherwise injurious to, or infringe in any way the copyright o f any other party; and that I will defend, indemnify and hold harmless Rush- Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical center against all suits and proceedings which may be brought and against all claims which may be made against Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center by reason o f publication o f the thesis.

Dateii/iq/qs

Author’s Signature


IMAGE EVALUATIONTEST TARGET (Q A -3 )

1.0

l.l

II2.2

2.0

.8

1.25 1.4 1.6

150mm

IIWIGE. Inc1653 East Main Street Rochester, NY 14609 USA Phone: 716/482-0300 Fax: 716/288-5989

0 1993. Applied Image. In c . All Rights R eserved


King Thesis_published

Documents

Transcript of King Thesis_published