factors affecting employee satisfaction with disability accommodation: a field study

Factors Affecting Employee Satisfaction with DisabilityAccommodation: A Field Study

Deborah B. Balser & Michael M. Harris

Published online: 5 January 2008# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007

Abstract We developed and empirically tested a model for employee satisfaction withdisability accommodation (our criterion). Our sample consisted of 333 employees who hadrequested and received a disability accommodation. We found support for most, but not all,of the links in our model. As hypothesized, employees whose input was sought by theorganization and employees who received the requested accommodation were significantlymore satisfied with their disability accommodation; employee race/ethnicity was indirectlyrelated to employee satisfaction with disability accommodation. Contrary to our model,employee gender was not related to employee satisfaction with disability accommodation.

Key words disability accommodation . satisfaction . discrimination .

organizational justice . race

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 has had a significant effect in manyways on the US workplace in terms of the employment of people with disabilities. From alegal standpoint, the law addresses a number of areas that companies need to be familiarwith including what questions can be asked at different stages of the hiring process, whatconstitutes a disability, and various factors in determining reasonable accommodations.Although employers are adapting organization practices to comply with the ADA (e.g.

Employ Respons Rights J (2008) 20:13–28DOI 10.1007/s10672-007-9062-y

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2006 annual convention of the Society of Industrial andOrganizational Psychology (SIOP), Dallas, TX. We thank Jim Breaugh for his helpful comments.

The order of the authors was determined alphabetically.

Deborah B. Balser and Michael M. Harris contributed equally to the paper.

D. B. Balser (*) :M. M. HarrisCollege of Business Administration, University of Missouri St. Louis, 1 University Boulevard, St. Louis,MO 63121, USAe-mail: [email protected]

M. M. Harrise-mail: [email protected]

Bruyere 2000; Condrey and Brudney 1998), we know less about how people withdisabilities experience the accommodation process at work, despite the fact that disabilityexperts assert that reasonable accommodations are integral in achieving equal opportunity(Cleveland et al. 1997; Feldblum 1991; West 1991). This may be due, at least in part, to thefact that much of the management academic literature does not actually include people withdisabilities; rather the focus has been on building conceptual models, conductingexperiments with abled individuals posing as disabled confederates, and examining howsupervisors and coworkers would hypothetically respond to accommodation requests. Inthis article, we use data from a survey of individuals with mobility-related disabilities andexamine the factors that are associated with employees’ satisfaction with their workplaceaccommodations.

Colella and Stone (2005) located more than three dozen studies examining the effect of adisability on various kinds of personnel decisions (e.g., hiring, performance evaluation).Some research has focused on other aspects of disabilities as well. Stone and Colella(1996), for example, developed a model explaining the treatment of workers withdisabilities, focusing on various factors, such as psychological consequences for observers,attributes of disabled individuals, the nature of the job, and organizational characteristics.Despite a few empirical studies of accommodation at work that incorporate the experienceof employees with disabilities (e.g. Baldridge and Veiga, 2006; Balser 2007; Campolieti2004; Harlan and Robert 1998), Colella and Stone (2005) observed that the issue ofaccommodation has been relatively ignored in the psychological literature. Moreover, theliterature that has appeared with regard to the accommodation process has typicallyaddressed either the managers who must decide how to respond to the request, orcoworkers’ perceptions based on the organization’s responses to the request. Florey andHarrison (2000), for example, tested various factors that might affect managers’ responsesto a request for an accommodation in a laboratory study. They found that onsetcontrollability and past performance affected managers’ hypothetical willingness to respondpositively to a request for accommodation, as did requests requiring lower commitment ofresources. Colella and her colleagues developed models describing the factors that mayaffect coworkers’ perceptions of procedural justice (Colella et al. 2004) and distributivejustice (Colella 2001) based on accommodations granted to other employees. Some of thehypothesized factors included the company’s history of accommodations, organizationaltraining on ADA, as well as individual factors, such as perceptions of organizationalsupport, and interpersonal factors (e.g., coworker empathy and liking of the employee whoreceived the accommodation). Finally, Baldridge and Veiga (2001) proposed a model toexplain the factors that predict whether an employee will request an accommodation,including such factors as the perceived usefulness of an accommodation, the appropriate-ness of seeking help, and the workplace accommodation culture.

Several points are noteworthy regarding this literature. First, it should be observed thatmuch of the work cited above consists of theoretical models; there is a paucity of empiricaldata. Second, much of the extant writing has focused on parties other than the employeerequesting the accommodation. Conversely, there is surprisingly little writing from theemployee perspective, particularly with respect to requests for an accommodation. Therehas been no research on the reactions of employees who have received an accommodation.

The focus of this article, then, is on employee satisfaction with the accommodation thatwas granted. Researchers have focused on employee perceptions of various workplacepersonnel policies and practices, including performance appraisals (e.g., Greenberg 1986),selection (e.g., Bauer et al. 1998; Ployhart and Ryan 1998), pay raises (e.g., Folger andKonovsky 1989), layoffs (Brockner et al. 1995), and training opportunities (Balser 2002).

14 Employ Respons Rights J (2008) 20:13–28

Following in this tradition of research on employee reactions to personnel decisions, thisarticle examines the factors that affect satisfaction with disability accommodations. We alsoextend the organizational justice framework with an application to issues of accommoda-tion. Understanding the factors that affect satisfaction with accommodation is alsoimportant from a practical viewpoint. Just as employee satisfaction can affect otheroutcomes (Judge et al. 2001; Ostroff 1992), it seems logical to expect that employees whohave negative reactions to the accommodation may be more likely to experience a declinein organizational commitment, perceive low organizational support, leave the organization,or perceive that discrimination has occurred, all of which can affect not only the employeebut the organization as well.

Our model offers a number of variables that may predict employee satisfaction with theaccommodation (see Fig. 1). First, we discuss expected direct effects on satisfaction withthe accommodation. Next, we discuss expected indirect effects on satisfaction with theaccommodation. We conclude with a brief description of the control variables we include inour model.

Predictors of Accommodation Satisfaction

Our model assumes that there are two direct determinants of employee satisfaction withaccommodations provided at work. These two variables concern aspects of theaccommodation process and are based on constructs borrowed from the organizationaljustice literature. Organizational justice refers to employees’ assessments of what is fair.Simply stated, two of the components of organizational justice are procedural justice anddistributive justice. The former variable refers to the perceived fairness of the procedures orprocesses by which decisions are made. The latter variable, distributive justice, refers to theperceived fairness of the outcomes that are received. Though these perceptions can beassessed by asking employees directly if they think organizational procedures and outcomesare fair, meta-analysis has shown that indirect measures of fairness, or proxies for assessingfairness, are more strongly correlated with employee satisfaction with their workplaceoutcomes, and therefore are preferred measures (Colquitt et al. 2001).

We expect that employee input into the accommodation process will be directly relatedto satisfaction. Input, or voice in decision-making processes, is a measure of proceduraljustice; when employees participate in decision making processes, they believe that there is

Employee Race/EthnicityEmployee SexJob Autonomy

Employee Input into Accommodation Process

Received Requested Accommodation

Employee Satisfaction with Accommodation

Control Variables: Employee Age, Education, Union Membership, Impairment Severity, Type of Impairment

Fig. 1 Model of predictors of satisfaction with disability accommodation.

Employ Respons Rights J (2008) 20:13–28 15

greater fairness in organizational decision making. Furthermore, when employeesparticipate in decision making and experience procedural justice, they tend to be moresatisfied with both the process and the outcomes of those decisions (Colquitt et al. 2001;Cropanzano and Greenberg 1997; Thibaut and Walker 1975). Perceptions of proceduraljustice in, and satisfaction with, accommodations could be affected by whether employersoffer opportunities to employees for input into how to meet their requests for reasonableaccommodations.

A second direct predictor was whether or not the respondent received the accommo-dation that he or she had requested. This variable is based on the notion of distributivejustice, wherein employees consider whether they were given the outcome that they believeis fair and that they deserve. Although much of this literature focuses on the comparison ofone’s outcome to the outcomes received by others, employees are less likely to make suchcomparisons in the case of accommodations because each case is likely to be unique.Accommodations are not supposed to be based on an individual’s contribution to theorganization, but rather on individual need and organization capacity to make theaccommodation. Distributive justice, however, is also based on employees’ expectationsof what they will receive (Gilliland 1994; Cherry et al. 2003). When employees receive theoutcomes they expect, they perceive greater distributive justice; when they do not receivetheir expected outcomes, they are likely to perceive less distributive justice (unless theyvalue what they received even more highly than what they expected). In the case of anaccommodation, it seems reasonable to assume that the employee will ask for anaccommodation that best suits his or her needs, and that most of the time when theemployee receives an alternative accommodation, he or she will be disappointed. It seemsmore likely, then, that distributive justice will be reflected in whether the employee receivesthe accommodation he or she requested.

It should be noted that the ADA does not require the company to provide the specificaccommodation that was requested if there is an acceptable alternative. That is, according toEqual Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforcement guidance,

The employer may choose among reasonable accommodations as long as the chosenaccommodation is effective. Thus, as part of the interactive process, the employer mayoffer alternative suggestions for reasonable accommodations and discuss theireffectiveness in removing the workplace barrier that is impeding the individual witha disability (EEOC 2002).

It seems reasonable, then, to predict that an employee will be more satisfied with theaccommodation if he or she receives the specific accommodation that was requested.

Hypothesis 1a Employee input into the accommodation will be positively related tosatisfaction with the accommodation.Hypothesis 1b Receipt of the accommodation requested will be positively related tosatisfaction with the accommodation.

We expect that employee input into the accommodation process will affect accommo-dation satisfaction not only through a direct effect, but also will have an indirect effect,mediated by receipt of requested accommodation. Employers frequently have littleknowledge and experience about making appropriate accommodations for employees(Bruyere 2000). Alternatively, employees requesting accommodations may be excellentsources of information; they are better able to identify the particular barriers to jobperformance and very often, they know what they need to facilitate their performance(Feldblum 1991). Disability experts therefore recommend employee input during the


accommodation process to generate a more optimal accommodation that will compensatefor the employer’s knowledge gap and may increase the employer’s understanding of thereasons behind a request for a particular accommodation. In addition, input may generatean accommodation that better meets the employee’s needs. Therefore, input into theaccommodation process may increase the likelihood that employees will receive theaccommodations that they requested, resulting in greater satisfaction with the accommo-dation. Thus, our model incorporated this indirect relationship as a determinant ofsatisfaction with workplace accommodations.

Hypothesis 2a Employees with input into the accommodation process will be moresatisfied with their accommodations, since they will be more likely to receive theaccommodations that they requested.

Individual status characteristics affect how employees are treated at work and theirworkplace outcomes (Maume 1999; Reskin and Roos 1990). Researchers have suggestedthat individual status characteristics also play roles in accommodation issues (Burkhauserand Daly 1996a). For example, people with higher status characteristics are more likely toreceive accommodations that they requested (Harlan and Robert 1998). This suggests thatpeople with characteristics that signal lower status may be treated differently during theaccommodation process. Consequently, they may be less satisfied with their accommoda-tions. We propose that status characteristics play an indirect role in accommodationsatisfaction; people with lower status characteristics may be less satisfied with theiraccommodation because they receive different treatment in arranging their accommoda-tions; they will be offered fewer opportunities for input into the accommodation processand they will less likely be granted the accommodations they requested. We included threeemployee status variables in this study: race/ethnicity, gender, and job autonomy.

Researchers have pointed out that belonging to two historically stigmatized groups mayhave a “double disadvantage” effect, such that within a particular group (e.g. people with adisability), those with an additional minority group membership (e.g. ethnic minorities) arepenalized twice (Burkhauser and Daly 1996b). Barnum and Liden (1995), for example,found that age increased the pay gap between men and women and between whites andminority-group members. Stone and Colella (1996) hypothesized that negative reactions toemployees with disabilities may be “exacerbated by their race or ethnicity” (p. 368).Indeed, research shows that individuals with disabilities who are also part of a minorityracial or ethnic group earn lower wages than white individuals with disabilities (Hotchkiss2003). Along with the extensive literature indicating that minorities often fare less well interms of compensation, promotions, and other workplace rewards (Dipboye and Halverson2004; Maume 1999), then, it seems likely that minorities will fare less well in terms of howthey are treated in the accommodation process. We hypothesize that this will demonstrateitself by minorities being less likely to be asked to provide input and being less likely toreceive the accommodation that they requested.

Another potentially important indirect variable is employee sex (Stone and Colella1996). Research has consistently shown that women fare less well in the workplace in termsof outcomes than men (Marini 1989) and women with disabilities earn lower wages thanmen with disabilities (Hotchkiss 2003). The extant literature, however, provides differentpredictions regarding the role of gender on accommodation requests. Stone and Colella(1996) hypothesized that men who are disabled are viewed as inconsistent with thestereotype held regarding them (i.e. people perceive men as strong, self-reliant, and notneeding help). Conversely, women who are disabled are not viewed as inconsistent with thestereotype held for women. Because men who are requesting an accommodation may be


viewed more negatively, one would expect that men will less likely be asked for input andwill be less likely to receive the accommodation that they have requested as compared towomen. However, contrary to this hypothesis, Harlan and Robert (1998) found that forwomen, one-third of their requests for accommodation were denied, while for men, onlyone-quarter of their requests were denied. Since Harlan and Robert had actual data, wepredict that women will be less satisfied with their accommodation, because they will haveless opportunity for input and will be less likely to receive the accommodation that theyrequested.

Job autonomy is the third indirect status determinant of employee satisfaction with theaccommodation. This variable reflects the nature of the work performed by the employee;employees with job autonomy have greater ability to schedule their own work and to decidehow work should be done. Jobs with greater autonomy are generally valued more than jobswith less autonomy (Campion and Berger 1990). Harlan and Robert (1998) found that notonly were employees in higher status jobs more likely to have their accommodationrequests granted, but these employees were also less likely to experience resistance to theirinitial requests for an accommodation. We predict that employees in jobs with moreautonomy will be more likely to have input into the accommodation process and to receivetheir requested accommodation. As a result, employees in jobs with greater autonomyshould be more satisfied with the accommodation they receive.

Hypothesis 2b Employee race will be indirectly related to satisfaction with theaccommodation, mediated by treatment during the accommodation process; whiteemployees will be more satisfied with their accommodations than minority employees.Hypothesis 2c Employee gender will be indirectly related to satisfaction with theaccommodation, mediated by treatment during the accommodation process; men willbe more satisfied than women.Hypothesis 2d Job autonomy will be indirectly related to satisfaction with theaccommodation, mediated by treatment during the accommodation process; employeesin jobs with higher autonomy will be more satisfied with their accommodation thanemployees in jobs with lower autonomy.

Our model has several control variables, including employee age and education, as wellas the presence of a union. We controlled for age and education since demographiccharacteristics may be associated with workplace outcomes. We controlled for unionmembership since union representatives could become involved in negotiating accom-modations for members, thereby affecting employee perceptions of satisfaction. We alsoincluded a self-reported measure of impairment severity. Severity could affect how othersrespond to the accommodation request, thereby affecting employee satisfaction with theaccommodation. In addition, given that the type of impairment may affect the type ofaccommodation needed and how others respond to the individual, we coded five types ofunderlying conditions that frequently lead to mobility disabilities: back problems, muscledisorder, multiple sclerosis, post-polio syndrome, and spinal cord injury.

Methods

Participants and Procedure

Data were collected in 1998 by administering surveys to employees with mobility-relateddisabilities. The sample was drawn from the mailing list of subscribers to a nationally


distributed magazine that focuses on mobility-related issues and disability. This magazinewas selected based on the demographics of its subscribers: 53% were employed, 85% had adisability, 83% had been to college, 35% of its readers were professionals, and 52% were inhouseholds with incomes greater than $35,000. Although this sample of employees is morehighly educated and earns higher incomes than the general population of adults withdisabilities (Harris and Associates 1994), this sampling frame was chosen for severalreasons. Preliminary efforts to contact individuals with hidden disabilities revealed theirreluctance to participate, even though confidentiality and anonymity were promised. Thepopulation was therefore narrowed down to individuals with visible disabilities. Thissampling frame was viewed as a way to improve the likelihood of achieving a sample ofindividuals who were employed in the competitive labor market (and not in shelteredworkshops), worked in a variety of occupations, and had enough education to complete thesurvey. Previous research has shown an inconsistent relationship between education andaccommodations (Allaire et al. 2003; Burkhauser and Daly 1996a; Campolieti 2004). Thus,the threat to the generalizability of the findings of this study due to the higher educationlevels of the sample is minimized.

Five hundred and twenty two individuals responded, yielding a response rate of 22%.However, this is a conservative estimate of the response rate. Of the individuals who receivedthe survey, an unknown percentage was self-employed; these individuals could notparticipate in this study since they could not respond to questions regarding accommodationsreceived from their respective employers. Nonetheless, the magazine had no informationabout the percent of subscribers who were self employed and there was no way to screen outthese individuals from the sampling frame (consequently, the denominator of the responserate is inflated). The respondents can be compared to the population of subscribers on threedimensions: college attendance, job status, and income. While 83% of the magazine’ssubscribers had been to college, 93% of the respondents attended college. Thirty five percentof the magazine’s readers were professionals compared to 46% of the respondents. Fifty twopercent of subscribers had household incomes greater than $35,000 compared to therespondents whose median income was between $35,000 and 50,000.

Not all individuals who completed the survey reported having received an accommo-dation: 359 respondents (69%) requested and received at least one accommodation. Due tothe nature of our dependent variable, we analyzed only that group. Missing data furtherreduced our sample to 333. Hierarchical regression analysis was used to test the predictorsof satisfaction with accommodations, with tests for mediation following the guidelinesprescribed by Baron and Kenny (1986). Testing for mediation is a three step process. In thefirst step, the mediator is regressed on the independent variable and should yield asignificant independent variable. In step two, the dependent variable is regressed on theindependent variable, which must yield a significant independent variable. In the third step,the dependent variable is regressed on both the mediator and the independent variable. Themediator must be significant, the effect of the independent variable must be less in stepthree than it was in step two, and the independent variable should be nonsignificant. Whenthese conditions hold, the mediator completely mediates the relationship between theindependent and dependent variables.

Measures

Accommodation satisfaction was measured with two items developed for this study (α=0.90). Participants provided responses on a six-point scale ranging from 1 (verydissatisfied) to 6 (very satisfied). Responses to the two questions were summed to yield


total scores for this measure. A sample item was “How satisfied are you with theaccommodation?”

Race/ethnicity was measured by asking respondents to indicate their racial/ethnic group.Seven choices were given, including African American, Asian, Hispanic, white non-Hispanic, bi-racial, native American, and other. Responses were transformed into adichotomous variable, white/minority. Sex was a dichotomous variable. Respondents wereasked to indicate whether they were female or male.

Job autonomy was measured using three items from Hackman and Oldham’s JobDiagnostic Survey (α=0.75). Participants provided responses on a seven-point scaleranging from 1 to 7. For two of the items, the anchors were very inaccurate (1) and veryaccurate (7). For the third item, the anchors were little autonomy (1) and much autonomy(7). Responses to the three questions were summed to yield total scores for this measure. Asample item was “The job gives me considerable opportunity for independence andfreedom in how I do the work.”

Employee input was measured with one item. Respondents were asked “Did youremployer ask for your input about how to meet your request for an accommodation?”Respondents answered yes or no; this is a dichotomous measure. Similarly, receipt of arequested accommodation was a one item, dichotomous measure. Respondents were asked,“Did you receive the accommodation you asked for?”

Age was a continuous variable; respondents indicated their age in years. Union was adichotomous variable; respondents indicated whether they were members of any union (yesor no). To measure education, respondents were asked to indicate the highest level ofschooling they had completed. Eight categories were provided, ranging from “some highschool” to “masters degree or higher.” The mean for education was 6, indicating an averageeducation level of a 4-year college degree.

Severity was measured with one item. Respondents were asked “How would you ratethe severity of your disability?” Respondents were provided with a six-point scale, rangingfrom 1 (not severe at all) to 6 (very severe). To measure type of impairment underlying thedisability, the survey asked participants to indicate their type of impairment(s). A list ofimpairments was provided and respondents were instructed to check off all that applied tothem; multiple responses were allowed. Space was also available for respondents to write inan answer if their impairment type was not included in the list.

Results

The correlations between our variables are provided in Table 1 and the hierarchicalregression analyses with all of our predictor variables (i.e., direct, indirect, and controlvariables) are provided in Table 2. In Table 2, accommodation satisfaction was regressed ononly the control variables in model 1 and on control variables and the indirect variables inmodel 2. Model 3 is the full model wherein accommodation satisfaction was regressed onthe control, indirect, and direct variables.

Model 1, with only the control variables, explained 4% of the variance of accommodationsatisfaction and was not statistically significant (F=1.47, p>.05). Model 2, in which theindirect variables were added, explained 22% of the variance and was statistically significant(F=7.33, p<0.01). Model 2 represents a significant change in R2 over model 1. In the fullmodel, model 3, the direct variables were added. Model 3 was statistically significant (F=22.41, p<0.01), and explained 50% of the variance in accommodation satisfaction, which is asignificant improvement over model 2.


Tab

le1

Correlatio

nresults

forvariablesused

inregression

analyses.

MSD

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

Accom

modationsatisfaction

9.64

3.13

(0.90)

Race

0.89

0.32

0.16

–Sex

0.47

0.50

−0.003

−0.07

–Jobautono

my

16.9

4.2

0.41

0.07

0.07

(0.75)

Employee

inpu

t0.87

0.33

0.48

0.15

−0.01

0.22

–Accom

modationreceived

0.91

0.29

0.61

0.19

−000

10.26

0.48

–Age

44.1

9.7

−0.07

0.08

−0.04

0.06

−0.04

0.03

–Union

0.20

0.40

−0.16

−0.02

0.03

−0.13

−0.06

−0.08

0.07

–Edu

catio

n6.0

1.9

0.02

0.05

0.05

0.14

−0.03

0.03

0.16

0.03

–Severity

4.3

1.1

0.004

−0.02

−0.10

−0.002

0.08

0.06

0.02

0.01

0.00

5–

Back

0.09

0.28

−0.07

−0.06

0.08

−0.07

−0.107

−0.05

0.19

−0.07

−0.05

−0.05

–Muscledisorder

0.08

0.26

−0.06

−0.01

0.10

0.06

0.04

0.01

−0.06

0.00

30.06

0.07

0.07

–Multip

lesclerosis

0.10

0.30

−0.02

−0.04

0.17

0.003

−0.09

−0.001

0.04

0.12

0.06

−0.001

−0.07

−0.09

–Post-polio

0.12

0.33

−0.05

0.05

0.07

0.02

0.005

−0.01

0.31

0.05

0.14

0.02

−0.02

−0.107

−0.06

–Spinalcord

injury

0.45

0.50

0.07

0.03

−0.28

0.09

0.13

0.05

−0.11

−0.08

−0.08

0.06

−0.13

−0.24

−0.30

−0.34

Correlatio

nvalues

>|0.108|are

statistically

significant,p<.05.

Reliabilitiesarein

parentheses.


In support of hypothesis 1a, model 3 shows that employee input was significantly relatedto satisfaction with the accommodation, even controlling for all of the other variables.Similar results were obtained for the employee receiving the requested accommodation,thus supporting hypothesis 1b. Together, these results suggest that employee treatmentduring the accommodation process directly affects employee satisfaction with theaccommodation. However, we also hypothesized that employee input would be indirectlyrelated to satisfaction, mediated by receipt of requested accommodation (hypothesis 2a).Using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) three step test for mediation, we found that receipt ofrequested accommodation partially mediated the relationship between employee input andsatisfaction with the accommodation (see Table 3a). This result suggests that employeeswith input were more satisfied, in part, because they were more likely to receive theaccommodation that they requested.

We predicted that employee race/ethnicity (hypothesis 2b), sex (hypothesis 2c), and jobautonomy (hypothesis 2d) would be indirectly related to satisfaction with the accommo-dation. As shown in Table 1, race was significantly correlated to accommodationsatisfaction (r=0.16), employee input (r=0.15), and receiving the requested accommoda-tion (r=0.19). Moreover, the direction of each effect was in the predicted direction (i.e.,non-minority employees were more satisfied and were more likely to have input and weremore likely to obtain the requested accommodation). However, in model 3, race and sexwere not significant predictors of accommodation satisfaction. Using Baron and Kenny’s(1986) three step test for mediation, we found that the relationship between race andaccommodation satisfaction was fully mediated by employee input and receiving therequested accommodation (see Table 3b). White employees were more satisfied with theiraccommodation because they were more likely to have input and were more likely to

Table 2 Results of regression analyses of employee satisfaction with their accommodation.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

b SD b SD b SD

Age −0.01 0.02 −0.03 0.02 −0.03 0.01Education 0.06 0.09 −0.04 0.09 −0.01 0.07Union −1.25** 0.44 −0.76 0.40 −0.54 0.32Severity 0.02 0.16 0.07 0.15 −0.05 0.12Back problems −0.69 0.64 −0.23 0.58 0.07 0.47Multiple sclerosis −0.02 0.64 −0.23 0.58 −0.18 0.47Muscle disorder −0.59 0.71 −1.23 0.65 −1.30* 0.52Post-polio syndrome −0.32 0.61 −0.56 0.56 −0.56 0.45Spinal cord injury 0.17 0.42 −0.27 0.39 −0.44 0.32Race 1.35** 0.50 0.32 0.41Sex −0.06 0.33 −0.13 0.27Job autonomy 0.30** 0.04 0.20** 0.03Employee input 2.00** 0.44Received requested accommodation 4.75** 0.51Constant 10.09** 1.17 4.94** 1.26 2.02 1.04R2 0.04 0.22 0.50ΔR2 0.18** 0.28**Adjusted R2 0.01 0.19 0.47F 1.47 7.33** 22.41**

*p<0.05

**p<0.01


receive the accommodation they requested than minority employees. Hypothesis 2a wassupported. Our results show that employee sex was not significantly related to satisfactionwith the accommodation (Table 2), nor was it significantly related to our direct/mediatorvariables (Table 3c). Thus, there was no support for hypothesis 2b.

Hypothesis 2c was partially supported. On the one hand, the correlation betweenautonomy and satisfaction with the accommodation was statistically significant (r=0.41),and the effect of job autonomy remained statistically significant even when all otherpredictors were in the regression analysis (see Table 2). On the other hand, we predictedthat the effect of job autonomy would be indirect. However, when accommodationsatisfaction was regressed on autonomy and the mediators, autonomy remained significant,indicating only partial mediation (Table 3d). The relationship between job autonomy andaccommodation satisfaction is partially mediated by employee input and receipt ofrequested accommodation.

Table 3 Results of regression tests for mediation effects.

Independent variables Mediator Mediator Dependent Variable

Employeeinput

AccommodationReceived

AccommodationSatisfaction

b b b

AStep 1 EE input 2.90**Step 2 EE input 4.46**Step 3 EE input 2.35**

Received accommodationrequested (mediator)

5.01**

BStep 1 Race 1.17**Step 2 Race 1.33*Step 3 Race 0.70 (n.s.)

EE Input (mediator) 4.50**Step 1 Race 1.38**Step 2 Race 1.33*Step 3 Race 0.125 (n.s.)


6.39**

CStep 1 Employee sex 0.05 (n.s.) −0.12 (n.s.)DStep 1 Job autonomy 0.12*Step 2 Job autonomy 0.31**Step 3 Job autonomy 0.25**

EE input (mediator) 3.67**Step 1 Job autonomy 0.18*Step 2 Job autonomy 0.31**Step 3 Job autonomy 0.20**


5.87**

*p<0.05

**p<0.01


Although being a union member was significant and negative in model 1, it wasstatistically nonsignificant when the indirect variables were added in model 2 and in model3, the full model. Finally, in the full model, muscle disorder was the only control variablethat was statistically significant. People with muscle disorders were less likely to besatisfied with their accommodations.

Discussion

Despite the importance of the ADA, there has been relatively little research on the reasonableaccommodation process, particularly as it pertains to employee satisfaction with theaccommodation. In this research, we developed and empirically tested a model of employeesatisfaction with the accommodation process in a field setting. As predicted, the two immediatepredictors of our criterion, employee input and whether the requested accommodation wasgranted, were statistically significant and in the expected direction. These findings suggest thatthe employees’ experiences in arranging accommodations affect their satisfaction with theaccommodation. These findings also support the general parameters of the organizationaljustice model, which indicates that both procedural and distributive justice are importantdeterminants of employee reactions to a wide variety of personnel practices. The significance ofemployee input, an indicator of procedural justice, and receipt of requested accommodation, anindicator of distributive justice, suggests that organizational justice concepts are useful inunderstanding employee reactions to disability issues.

In terms of future research, Bies and Moag (1986) have introduced a construct referredto as interactional justice. In turn, this construct may be divided into two factors (Colquitt2001; Greenberg 1993): interpersonal justice, which refers to the degree to which anindividual is treated with dignity and respect by his or her supervisor, and informationaljustice, which focuses on conveying information to people in terms of how decisions aremade. We suspect that both of these factors may play an important role in understandingemployee satisfaction with accommodations and encourage their study in this context.

In particular, interpersonal justice may be relevant in thinking about employee input intothe accommodation process. Despite experts’ recommendations that employees withdisabilities should have input into this process, we found no empirical test of whetheremployee input mattered in terms of outcomes. Therefore, our findings represent animportant contribution to our knowledge about the treatment of employees with disabilities.However, we used a relatively straight forward, simple measure of employee input.Employee input into the accommodation process can take a variety of forms. Furthermore,seeking employee input can be a sincere attempt to include the individual but it can also bea symbolic procedural adaptation (Edelman 1992; Meyer and Rowan 1977) or meaninglessgesture by the employer; there is a difference between being fair and “looking” fair(Greenberg 1988). Different formats for employee input could have implications foremployees’ perceptions about the extent to which they were treated with dignity andrespect. Future research should examine the different ways in which employers incorporateemployee participation into the accommodation process and employees’ reactions to thevaried approaches.

We also proposed that status characteristics, including race/ethnicity, employee sex, andjob autonomy, would indirectly influence accommodation satisfaction. Our findings suggestthat status has varying influences on satisfaction with accommodations. Contrary to ourhypothesis, there was no effect of employee sex on satisfaction with the accommodation.Given that the literature is rather mixed on this variable, that result is not terribly surprising.


Our predictions regarding employee race/ethnicity, however, were supported. Specifi-cally, minority employees were less likely to be satisfied with their accommodation.Furthermore, this effect was fully mediated by the two direct predictors of our criterion (i.e.,employee input and whether the employee received the accommodation that had beenrequested), indicating that the impact of race is due to the fact that minority employees areless likely to report having input and are less likely to report that their requestedaccommodation was granted. Note that this effect remains even when job autonomy istaken into account. Our data do not permit a more detailed examination of why minorityemployees are less likely to report having input and having their requested accommodationgranted. As noted earlier, however, we based this prediction on the fact that minoritiesgenerally fare less well in terms of workplace rewards and opportunities (e.g., pay andpromotions). Further investigation is clearly needed here to determine whether minorityemployees actually experience less organizational justice compared to non-minorityemployees, or whether they only perceive that they have less organizational justicecompared to non-minority employees.

Job autonomy was significantly and directly related to employee satisfaction with theaccommodation; job autonomy was not fully mediated by either of the direct variablestested in our model. Similar to Harlan and Robert’s (1998) argument regarding job status,we posited that employees working in jobs with greater autonomy are more valued thanemployees working in jobs with less autonomy, and therefore are treated better during theaccommodation request process. However, given only partial mediation of this variable, itis noteworthy that the effect of job autonomy is not only due to having more input or beingmore likely to having one’s requested accommodation granted. An alternative explanationcould be that jobs with more autonomy are more flexible in how the work is performed.Consequently, there could be more potential ways to meet accommodation requests,yielding greater opportunities for satisfying employee requests. The role of job autonomy inemployee satisfaction with the accommodation process should also be investigated further.

Future research should investigate various other variables that may affect employeesatisfaction with the accommodation. Do employees expect better accommodations, forexample, from organizations that have more resources, such as greater profits, larger humanresource departments, and so forth? Are certain aspects of organizational culture, such asperceived organizational support (Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002), associated with greateremployee satisfaction with accommodations? Finally, factors related to the quality of thesupervisor-employee interaction may play a role here. Colella and Varma (2001), forexample, found that subordinates’ disability interacted with various other variables (e.g.,use of ingratiation) to affect leader-membership exchange.

There are several practical implications of this research. First, all things being equal,employees will feel more satisfied if they are granted their requested accommodation. Ofcourse, organizations will need to consider other factors in deciding which accommodationto provide, if there is a legally acceptable choice. Second, organizations should clearlyobtain employee input into the accommodation process, as this factor appears to increaseemployee satisfaction with the accommodation. Finally, greater scrutiny is needed to ensurethat minority employees are not treated differently than non-minority employees in theaccommodation process. This is particularly critical given that employers have developedmore subtle mechanisms for discriminatory treatment (Glass 1999). Furthermore, thesesubtle mechanisms may be more likely when employers have much discretion and whenprocesses/outcomes are less visible (Edelman 1992; Elvira and Graham 2002). Givenemployers’ latitude in how they meet accommodation requests, responding to accommo-dation requests may be one mechanism for subtle, unequal treatment of employees.


Finally, this paper has some potential shortcomings. First, the data were cross-sectional,not longitudinal. Causality is more difficult to infer from cross-sectional data. This isgenerally an issue with field research, however, and it is difficult to design laboratorystudies of actual accommodations, where causality could be more precisely determined.Second, some of our variables were perceptual measures and therefore may be subject tocommon method biases (Podsakoff et al. 2003). Nevertheless, several of our variables weremore objective in nature, such as race/ethnicity and sex, and therefore are less susceptible tocommon method variance. Third, it is possible that some of the findings may have beenaffected by the type of the employees’ jobs. That is, perhaps employees in moreprofessional positions would have greater access to higher level executives and thereforewould be more likely to be asked to provide input into the accommodation process. To testthis possibility, we reran our analyses, including job type (e.g. clerical, professional,technical, etc) as a control variable. The results did not change. Thus, job type does notappear to influence the results we found.

The population of individuals with disabilities is heterogeneous and includes physical,sensory, and mental disabilities. Each type of disability represents different types offunctional limitations and underlying conditions, requiring different types of accommoda-tions. Although individuals in our study may have had more than one type of functionallimitation, this research focused on the mobility limitations of respondents. This allowed usto narrow the range of accommodations that employees were likely to request. In addition,we reran the analyses, excluding the variables representing types of impairment (i.e., spinalcord injury, post-polio, multiple sclerosis, muscle disorder, and back disorder). The resultsof our analyses did not change. Nonetheless, because this study included only individualswith mobility-related disabilities, caution should be taken in generalizing these results toindividuals with other types of disabilities.

In sum, this paper argues that greater attention must be paid to employee reactions to thereasonable accommodation process required by the ADA. Borrowing from the organiza-tional justice literature, we developed a model in which employee input and whether theemployee received the requested accommodation were immediate predictors of satisfactionwith the accommodation. These two predictions were supported. We also predicted thatemployee race, sex, and amount of job autonomy would indirectly affect satisfaction withthe accommodation. The results were more mixed for our indirect predictors. In terms ofemployee race, the results were supportive of our predictions. Job autonomy had both directand indirect relationships to satisfaction with the accommodation. Employee sex was notrelated to satisfaction with the accommodation.

References

Allaire, S. H., Wei, L., & LaValley, M. P. (2003). Work barriers experienced and job accommodations usedby persons with arthritis and other rheumatic diseases. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 46, 147–156.

Baldridge, D. C., & Veiga, J. F. (2001). Toward greater understanding of the willingness to request anaccommodation: Can requesters’ beliefs disable the ADA. Academy of ManagementReview, 26, 85–99.

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

Balser, D. B. (2002). Agency in organizational inequality: Organizational behavior and individualperceptions of discrimination. Work and Occupations, 29, 137–165.

Balser, D. B. (2007). Predictors of workplace accommodations for employees with mobility-relateddisabilities. Administration & Society, 39(5), 656–683.

Barnum, P., & Liden, R. (1995). Double jeopardy for women and minorities: Pay differences with age.Academy of Management Journal, 38, 863–880.


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

Bauer, T., Maertz, C., Dolen, M., & Campion, M. (1998). Longitudinal assessment of applicant reactions toemployment testing and test outcome feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 892–903.

Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki,B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.) Research in negotiations in organizations (vol. 1, (pp. 43–55)). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Brockner, J., Wiesenfeld, B., & Martin, C. (1995). Decision frame, procedural justice, and survivors’reactions to job layoffs. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 59–68.

Bruyere, S. M. (2000). Disability employment policies and practices in private and federal sectororganizations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Program on Employment and Disability.

Burkhauser, R. V., & Daly, M. C. (1996a). Employment and economic well-being following the onset of adisability. In J. L. Mashaw, V. Reno, R. V. Burkhauser, & M. Berkowitz (Eds.) Disability and cashbenefits (pp. 59–101). Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

Burkhauser, R. V., & Daly, M. C. (1996b). The potential impact on the employment of people withdisabilities. In J. West (Ed.) Implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act (pp. 153–191).Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Campolieti, M. (2004). The correlates of accommodations for permanently disabled workers. IndustrialRelations, 43, 546–572.

Campion, M., & Berger, C. J. (1990). Conceptual integration and empirical test of job design andcompensation relationships. Personnel Psychology, 43, 525–553.

Cherry, B., Ordonez, L. D., & Gilliland, S. W. (2003). Grade expectations: The effects of expectations onfairness and satisfaction perceptions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16, 375–395.

Cleveland, J., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Ratz, J. M. (1997). Accommodation in the workplace. HumanResource Management Review, 7, 77–107.

Colella, A. (2001). Coworker distributive fairness judgments of the workplace accommodation of employeeswith disabilities. Academy of Management Review, 26, 100–116.

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

Colella, A., & Stone, D. L. (2005). Workplace discrimination toward persons with disabilities: A call forsome new research directions. In R. Dipboye, & A. Colella (Eds.) Discrimination at work (pp. 227–253).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

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

Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure.Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at theMillennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 86, 425–445.

Condrey, S. E., & Brudney, J. L. (1998). The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: Assessing itsimplementation in America’s largest cities. American Review of Public Administration, 28, 26–42.

Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the maze. InC. L. Cooper, & I. T. Robertson (Eds.) International review of industrial and organizational psychology(pp. 317–372). Chichester, England: Wiley.

Dipboye, R. L., & Halverson, S. K. (2004). Subtle (and not so subtle) discrimination in organizations. In R.Griffin, & A. O’Leary-Kelly (Eds.) The dark side of organizational behavior. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Edelman, L. (1992). Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: Organizational mediation of civil rights law.American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1531–1576.

Elvira, M. M., & Graham, M. E. (2002). Not just a formality: Pay system formalization and sex-relatedearnings effects. Organization Science, 13, 601–617.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2002). Reasonable accommodation and undue hardship underthe Americans with Disabilities Act. Retrieved October 2002 from http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/accommodation.html.

Feldblum, C. R. (1991). Employment protections. In J. West (Ed.), The Americans with Disabilities Act:From policy to practice. Milbank Quarterly, 69(Supplement 1/2), 81–110.

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


http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/accommodation.html

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/accommodation.html

Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raisedecisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115–130.

Gilliland, S. W. (1994). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection system.Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 691–701.

Glass, J. L. (1999). The tangled web we weave. Work and Occupations, 26, 415–421.Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 71, 340–342.Greenberg, J. (1988). Cultivating an image of fairness: Looking fair on the job. Academy of Management

Executive, 2, 155–157.Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational

justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.) Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resourcemanagement (pp. 79–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Harlan, S. L., & Robert, P. M. (1998). The social construction of disability in organizations: Why employersresist reasonable accommodation. Work and Occupations, 25, 397–435.

Harris, L., & Associates (1994). N.O.D. Harris survey of Americans with disabilities. New York: Author.Hotchkiss, J. L. (2003). The labor market experience of workers with disabilities. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E.

Upjohn Institute for employment Research.Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance

relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376–407.Marini, M. M. (1989). Sex differences in earnings in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 343–

380.Maume Jr., D. J. (1999). Glass ceilings and glass escalators: Occupational segregation and race and sex

differences in managerial promotions. Work and Occupations, 26, 483–509.Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony.

American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An organizational level

analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 963–974.Ployhart, R., & Ryan, A. M. (1998). Applicants’ reactions to the fairness of selection procedures: The effects

of positive rule violations and time of measurement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 3–16.Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in

behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 88, 879–903.

Reskin, B. F., & Roos, P. A. (1990). Job queues, gender queues. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714.Stone, D. L., & Colella, A. (1996). A model of factors affecting the treatment of disabled individuals in

organizations. Academy of Management Review, 21, 352–401.Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.West, J. (1991). The social and policy context of the Act. In J. West (Ed.), The Americans with Disabilities

Act: From policy to practice. Milbank Quarterly, 69(Supplement 1/2), 3–24.


factors affecting employee satisfaction with disability accommodation: a field study

Documents