Organizational culture involves many different details, including cu.docx

Organizational culture involves many different details,
including customer service, employee benefits, and
hiring/termination processes. In this essay, you will further
explain the role of organizational culture and its influences. the
one below is from the csu libary create another one on your own
need by tommorow 2pages
Within your essay, include the following points:
cultural continuity and change on organizational succession
social media the most effective way for employees to share
knowledge? Explain.
Your essay must be a minimum of two full pages in length, not
including the title and reference page. You are required to use a
minimum of two outside sources; one must be from the CSU
Online Library. All sources used, including the required reading
assignments, must be cited and referenced according to APA
standards.
Employers’ perceptions of the beneﬁts of workplace
accommodations: Reasons to hire, retain and promote people
with disabilities
Helen P. Hartnetta,∗ , Heather Stuarta, Hanna Thurmanb, Beth
Loyc and Linda Carter Batistec aDivision of Social Work, West
Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA bWest Virginia
University Divisions of Social Work and Public Administration,
Morgantown, WV, USA cThe Job Accommodation Network,
Morgantown, WV, USA

Revised/Accepted: August 2010
Abstract.DespitethelegalmandatesoftheADA,peoplewithdisabilit
iescontinuetobeunderrepresentedintheworkforce.While there
does exist an established body of research devoted to the hiring
of individuals with disabilities, information on retaining
individuals with disabilities in the workplace has not been
reflected as often in the critical discourse devoted to disability
and
employmentpractices.Thisarticleanalyzesdatafromanongoingstud
yconductedbytheJobAccommodationNetwork(JAN),a
serviceofODEP(DepartmentofLabor1004062R),showingthatempl
oyersbenefitedfromhiring,retaining,andaccommodating
individuals with disabilities. Benefits derived by employers
include the ability to retain quality employees, increased
company
profitability,andanavoidanceofcostsassociatedwithhiringandtrain
inganewemployee.Inadditiontothesebenefits,providing
accommodationsinordertoretainemployeesisshowntoimproveorga
nizationalcultureandclimate,aswellasfosteringasense among all
employees that employers recognize both the value of the
individual worker as a human being, and the inherent social
benefits of creating and sustaining an inclusive workplace.
Keywords: Disabilities, employment, accommodation benefits,
social service practice and disabilities
1. Introduction
Employment opportunities for all people have long been
considered an important component of the selfsociety
connection. For others, it becomes the most importantanti-
povertystrategy.Forpeoplewithdisabilities, inclusion in the
workplace can translate into the
differencebetweenindependenceanddependence,and
providebenefitsnotonlytoindividualswithdisabilities themselves,
but to their coworkers and communities as well. Others claim
that the employment of people with disabilities also benefits
employers.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 304 293 8808; Fax: +1 304

293 5963; E-mail:
[email protected]
The research presented in this article highlights the
natureofthesebenefits,aswellascompanymotivations for
providing accommodations. This article attempts to fill a gap in
critical discourse related to employment for individuals with
disabilities. At present there is an established body of writing
examining the hiring of people with disabilities, yet there exists
much less information on the retention of employees with
disabilities and the securing of appropriate workplace
accommodations. Funded by the U.S. Department of Labor’s
Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP), the Job
Accommodation Network (JAN) serves as the nation’s most
comprehensive resource on workplace accommodations in
support of increased
employmentopportunitiesforpersonswithalltypesof disabilities.
1052-2263/11/$27.50 © 2011 – IOS Press and the authors. All
rights reserved
18 H.P. Hartnett et al. / Employers’ perceptions of the benefits
of workplace accommodations
This paper seeks to examine the self-described
accommodationoutcomesbyemployerswhohavecontacted JAN. It
is not without limitations. The sample represents those people
who were customers of JAN and who agreed to participate
and/or were able to be contacted for this project. The
respondents most likely represent people who are either highly
engaged or dissatisfied with the accommodation process. The
voices
ofemployerswhohavenotcontactedJANarenotrepresentedhere.The
refore,theresultsshouldbeinterpreted with caution, but it is
hoped that social workers, rehabilitation professionals, policy
makers, employers and others interested in increasing
accommodation
opportunitiesforpeoplewithdisabilitiesintheworkplacecan gain
useful information.
Increasingemploymentandretentionandpromoting the

advancement of individuals with disabilities in the workplace
are key goals for rehabilitation
professionalsandsocialworkers.Professionalsworkdirectlywith
individuals with disabilities in many settings toward these aims.
However, employers express concern over both real and
perceived barriers to hiring and retaining employees with
disabilities. According to Unger [8], these barriers reflect
culturally entrenched
discriminatoryattitudestowardspeoplewithdisabilities,concerns
about the cost of providing accommodations, and anxieties
about the ability of employees with disabilities to perform
necessary job functions. Despite the legal mandates of the ADA,
employers’ impressions of the accommodation process may be
dominated by
considerationsofpossibleobstaclesasopposedtothebenefits of
providing accommodations. In order to respond to employer
concerns in productive ways, rehabilitation professionals and
social workers need to possess an understanding of the range of
concerns expressed by employers in their considerations of
hiring and retaining employees with disabilities. For example,
Bruyère [2] reports that human resource professionals in one
study identified changing co-worker or supervisor
attitudesasthemostdifficultchangetomakeinemploying or
advancing individuals with disabilities in the workplace.
Schartz et al. [6] point to the cost of accommodation
asanotherprimaryconcernforemployers.However,in their
assessments of monetary costs, employers need to evaluate the
costs of accommodating employees with disabilities relative to
the costs associated with accommodating employees without
disabilities. If an employee with a disability was in need of a
retrofitted office chair, for example, the employer would have to
evaluate this cost in relation to the price of stan
dard ergonomic chairs supplied to other non-disabled
employees. While further research needs to be conducted in this
area, existent studies indicate that the
directcostsofaccommodatingemployeeswithdisabilities are low,

and the benefits are numerous. Benefits highlighted in this
article include avoiding the expenditures of both time and
money associated with job searches, as well as hiring and
training new employees. In addition, employers are able to
retain qualified employees while encouraging the positive social
and psychological benefits of creating an inclusive workplace.
Schartz et al. [6], point out that while absorbing additional costs
may continue to be a key area of concern for companies,
employers’ fears of the costs associated with providing
workplace accommodations
areoftenunsubstantiatedandnotreinforcedwithempirical data.
Research by Unger and Kregel [9] supports the idea that job
performance has been documented as another prime
consideration for employers. In a national study
sponsoredbytheU.S.ChamberofCommerceexamining employers’
experiences with employees with
disabilities,onedimensionoftheresearchattemptstowork against
the myths and misconceptions surrounding the capabilities of
these workers. The study indicates that the job performance of
employees with disabilities has been shown to be equally and in
some cases more competentthannon-
disabledworkers.Employeeswith disabilities are said to be
punctual, reliable and conscientious. In turn, the effectiveness
of these employees contributes to companies’ overall
profitability and productivity [9]. These kinds of positive
contributions – increases to companies’ overall profitability and
productivity – translate to benefits to a company’s bottom
line.Informationpresentedtoemployersintheseterms may be more
likely to impact their employment practices.
AccordingtoTravis[7],inadditiontomonetarygains
associatedwithaccommodations,accommodatingindividuals with
disabilities has also been shown to benefit nondisabled workers.
These are known as third party benefits. Some of these benefits
include the expansion of medical privacy in the workplace and
the greater focusonanindividual’sabilitytoperformtheessential
tasks required by a job, as opposed to an individual’s personal

characteristics. One such example is the use of an elevator as a
benefit to coworkers in addition to
theindividualwhorequestedtheaccommodation.Ifan elevator is
installed in a workplace other employees’ use of the elevator
may allow lifting tasks not only to be faster, but less straining
as well [7]. Emens [4] indi
H.P. Hartnett et al. / Employers’ perceptions of the benefits of
workplace accommodations 19
cates that third-party benefits of accommodations are often
overlooked as are those encompassing employer benefits, such
as reduced absenteeism. Studies have been conducted regarding
employer perceived benefits and concerns around hiring
individuals with disabilities [8], however, they seldom
specificallyaddresstheperceivedbenefitsofworkplace
accommodationinordertoretainworkerswhobecome disabled after
having been hired. Though in a work environment affected by
socially circumscribed barriers to employment it is important to
focus on hiring individuals with disabilities, it is equally
important to concentrate upon employer efforts to retain
employees who become disabled while working. Within the
body ofscholarshipdevotedtodisabilityissues,emphasishas been
placed upon hiring individuals with disabilities while the
specifics involved in retaining employees with disabilities has
been given far less critical
attention.Likewise,astheresearchofHabecketal.[5] indicates,
policy efforts to retain individuals with
disabilitiesneedtocoincidewithpolicyeffortstoincrease hiring. A
November 2008 Technical Report from the U.S. Department of
Labor’s Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) Survey
of Employer Perspectives on the Employment of People with
Disabilities, found that 19.1% of companies employ people with
disabilities. This report examined the type of information that
would encourage companies to employ, hire, and actively
recruit people with disabilities. Overall, companies surveyed
(representing 2,469,000 companies) reported that they would be
persuaded by information about satisfactory job performance,

increases to
companyproductivity,andbenefitstothecompanybottom line.
Survey data prepared by Domzal et al. [3] under contract to the
Office of Disability and Employment Policy indicate that small
and medium-sized companies find information about satisfactory
job performance most persuasive, while large companies are
most persuaded by information supported by statistics or
research. It is helpful for professionals to be equipped with an
understanding of the range of
motivationsemployershaveforprovidingaccommodations. In this
paper, we share employers’ perspectives on these benefits, as
well as providing data that may be more likely to persuade large
companies and quantitative data about job performance that may
be more persuasive for small and medium-sized companies.
Rehabilitation professionals and social workers are in an
excellent position to assist employers in recognizing both the
direct and indirect benefits that companies
may sustain in creating and sustaining an inclusive workplace.
2. Methodology
This paper explores one component of an on-going evaluation
project (Department of Labor 1004062R) being conducted on
behalf of the Job Accommodation Network (JAN). JAN
consultants provide
individualizedandconfidentialconsultationtoprivateandfederal
employers, rehabilitation and service providers, and
individualswithdisabilities,andtheirfamilymembers. Data for the
evaluation are collected using a structured telephone survey that
contains both open and closeended questions. This allows the
evaluation to capture
thecomplexitiesofbothaccommodationdecisionsand solutions.
The survey was designed and approved by the Office of
Disability Employment Policy and the Office of Budget and
Management (Control Number 1225–0059). The purpose of the
survey is to collect
satisfactiondatafromcustomersaswellasinformation regarding the
accommodation processes. Interviews last approximately

20minutes. The instrument uses a variety of question formats
(Likert Scales, Forced Choice lists, and open ended). Upon
completion of service, JAN consultants ask if
customersarewillingtoreceiveafollow-upphonecall to complete
the evaluation survey. The research team
thenattemptstocontactallwhoagreetoparticipateand prompts them
to recall the speciﬁc case for which they used JAN services
(some may be repeat customers). Some choose not to
participate, or are not able to be reached after the third or fourth
call. For this paper, only the data collected from employers are
presented and analyzed using SPSS. The data for this paper
represent the data collected from July 2008 to October 2009.
This includes data regarding employee demographics (e.g., age,
gender, race, income, and length of
timeinemployment)aswellasemployerdemographics
(e.g.,companysize,andpercentofpeoplewithdisabilities).Descripti
vestatisticsarealsoincludedtoexamine accommodation decisions,
solutions, costs and beneﬁts. Given previous literature [3],
company size is also discussed. Open-ended responses are also
presented. These
datawereanalyzedbyrunningallresultsandcodingfor themes. The
themes were then reviewed by interviewers and JAN staff to
check for consistency with their experiences in providing
services or collecting data. Although components of the survey
instrument, client
satisfactionwithweb-basedandtelephoneconsultation are not
provided in this paper. For the purpose of this paper,
accommodation decisions refers to whether or not an
accommodation was made, if the decision was
pending,oriftheimplementationwaspending.Accommodation
solution refers to type of accommodation an employer reported
providing.
3. Results
3.1. Sample

3.1.1. Employers The total number of respondents was 387,
representing a response rate of 49.30%. The majority of
respondentswereprevioususersofJAN(45.2%),while (18.1%)
found JAN through an internet search. Other
respondentsreportedareferralfromanagency(16.0%), and from a
co-worker or friend. Agencies include a combination of state
and government entities involved in employment. Of the
employers (90) who were able to report the percentage of people
in the company considered to have a disability, the majority
(16.3%) responded 0, followed by 12.5% reporting 5 percent,
and10%reporting2%.Ofthoseabletoreportthenumber of
employees considered to have a disability (83), 16 percent
reported one employee followed by 9.8% reporting two
employees. Employerswereaskednumberofemployeesinorder to
measure company size. Company size varied from 35 to
350,000. The data were examined based on following ranges
used in the ODEP report: small (5–14), medium (15–249) and
large (250 or more) employees. The majority of respondents
were employed by large
companies(72.1%),followedbymedium(26.4%),and small
companies (1.6%).
3.1.2. Employees for whom employers call JAN
Employersreportedthatmostoftheworkaccommodationsdiscussedi
nvolvedretainingacurrentemployee (76.8%), followed by
seeking information on a job applicant (4.3%), hiring a new
employee (3.3%), and promoting a current employee (1.0%).
The other
categoryaccountsfor12.6%oftheresponses.Theseinclude cases
which involved more than one employee, and requesting
information for future use in the accommodation process. Of the
employers who were able to report demographic information,
the following data are presented. Some employers did not have
access to the employee ﬁle at the time of the interview and did
not know or were not comfortable providing the following
information. Employers (281) reported that the
majorityofemployeeswerefemale(59.4%),and40.6% were male.

Employers (281) stated that 9.7% employees were Black, 60.3%
white, (6.95%) Latino, (3.1%) Asian and (1.4%) American
Indian/Alaska Native. Employers (180) reported the following
education levels: (37.2%), high school or equivalent (28.3%),
college (18.9%), graduate degree (11.1%), associate’s degree
(2.8%), high school certificate, and (1.7%) did not complete
high school. Two hundred and thirty employers were able to
report that the majority of
employeesforwhomtheywerecallinghadanagerange of 46–55
(33.0%), followed by 36–45 (29.1%), 26–35 (17.8%), 56–65
(13.9%), and 18–25 (5.7%). Only one employee was reported to
be over the age of 66.
3.2. Accommodation decisions
Dataindicatethat43.9%ofemployersmadeaccommodations for
employees and 11.2% stated that the implementation was
pending, while 9.1% report the decision whether or not to
accommodate was pending. Only 13.3% stated that no
accommodation was made, while 22.5% fell into the other
category. The other
categoryincludesemployerswhowerecallingforgeneral
information,theemployeehadnotyetreturnedtowork,
orthatoptionswerebeingexplored,employeeresigned,
orthataccommodationshadbeenmadepriortocontacting JAN.
Employers did not report cost as a factor in the decision making
process. For those employers who made accommodations, the
satisfaction rate (4.04), on
ascaleof1(verydissatisfied)to5(verysatisfied).More than half of
the respondents had made the decision to
accommodate(55.1%)andwereverysatisfiedwiththe outcome.
3.3. Accommodation solutions
Of the accommodations made, the following represents the
types as reported by employers. These are not mutually
exclusive; some reported more than one accommodation. The
majority of employers reported an accommodation solution that
involved changes in work schedule (22.9%), followed by buying
a productorpieceofequipment(12.7%),modifyingworksite

(5.3%), moving the employee to another job (9.8%), formal
education of co-workers (4.1%), providing an interpreter, job
coach, reader or personal attendant (2.9%), change in workplace
policy (2.5%), and telework (2.5%). Other accommodations
included mod
ification to organizational processes such as having employee
carry emergency instructions with them, allowing longer lunch
breaks, allowing medicine to be stored in a secure area, and
providing detailed work assignments and reminders.
3.3.1. Cost information Employers were asked both actual
onetime costs and actual annual costs. Not all were able to
provide this information. This data should be interpreted with
caution, as there is a wide standard deviation in responses. For
actual onetime costs reported by 125 employers, the range is
from zero dollars to $10,000 with a mean of $478.66
(SD=$1,434.74). For actual annual costs reported by 92
employers, the range from zero dollars to $4,800 with a mean of
$150.05 (SD=$692.28). Of importance is to compare cost to
solutions. The majority of employers reported that the solution
is of no cost. For example, moved employee to another job,
change in workplace policy, or changes in work schedule are
among the list. Hence, many accommodations were of little or
no cost. When asked who helped or will help pay for the
accommodation, employers were the most frequently
responsible (87.8%). However, employees (5.6%),
rehabilitationservices(1.4%)andinsurancecompanies
(4.2%),alsocontributedtothecostofaccommodation. The other
category also accounts for 13.9% of those will helped pay. The
survey instrument does not ask who this category might include.
3.4. Direct and indirect benefits
Employers were asked both forced choice and open ended
questions regarding both the direct and indirect benefits derived
from providing accommodations. For those who made the
decision to accommodate employee/s the direct and indirect

benefits reported were numerous. Direct benefits included:
Allowed company to retain qualified employee (93.1%),
increased accommodated worker’s productivity (79.8%), and
increased company productivity (63%). Indirect benefits
included: increased company
morale(72.2%),increasedinteractionswithco-workers (73.2%),
and increased interactions with customers (54.8%). Employers
were also asked an open ended question regarding the benefits
derived from implementing accommodations. Interviewers
attempted to record verbatim the comments of employers. The
following represent the themes that emerged from reviewing
these data. As will be evident, these cat
egories are often not mutually exclusive. Many of the benefits
reported affect many people and various aspects of company
success.
3.4.1. Employee benefits
Manyemployersreportedthatthebenefitsofaccommodations
directly affect the happiness, morale and quality of the work of
the employee. For example, one interviewer noted, “agency
responsibility – get an employee who knows how to do a job;
this enables the employees motivation and productivity. The
employee feelslikeaproductivememberofsocietyandhasretirement
benefits”. Another recorded, “Happier employee, without fear of
consequences”. Another individual
interviewednoted,“Expecttohaveanemployeebackso
hecanbewithusuntilheretires(heisinhisearly40s). Has a young
family”. This final note indicates not only
adirectbenefittotheemployee,butatruecommitment of the
employer to retain a valued human being. Benefits derived by
individual employees also can
benefitacompany’sabilitytoretainaqualityemployee and improve
organizational culture and climate. One employer noted that the,
“Biggest benefit was to keep direct openness with employee.
Satisfied employee with issue they were having. They were able
to both (employee and employer) come up with a reasonable
solution that was agreeable to all”. Another example included:

“Individual benefit for employee; more productive employee;
keeping a good long term employee – he is best worker at that
location in his position”. Clearly, retaining a qualified worker
benefits the productivity of the company.
3.4.2. Company benefits Many interviewer notes reflected both
direct and indirect benefits to the company. Several included
cost savings, and increases in productivity. This category also
includes comments that reflect positive outcomes of better
image to the public, saving retraining,re-
hiringcosts,andhowothersinthecompany benefit from
accommodating one employee. Examples included: “The
company was able to keep an employee on the job and the
employee was able to stay employed. Now, the company has the
lean-to stool for otheremployees(women30–
50yearsofage)whomay need support in job that requires
standing”. Other examples include: −
“Abletobringpersonbacktowork.Italsoallowed restructure of
departments increasing workplace safety”.
− “Better customer service – he’s very good, personable”. −
“Employee retention, improved management/ labor relations,
positive interaction with union representation, and hiring and
training expense avoided”. − “Employer maintains reputation of
employee accommodation; creates working environment
whereemployees’healthandwelfarearevalued”. − “A happy
employee is a productive employee”. − “Goodwill for other
employers is they find themselves in a similar situation. It also
allowed the companytomaintainanemployeewhohadgiven work
and time”. − “Helpedmoraleofcompany.Gaveemployeesthe
impression that the company is fair and accommodating in its
treatment of workers”. − “I did not have to hire a new employee
or train a new employee”. − “It helps a few other employees
with disabilities as there is now a designated parking area”. −
“Retention is #1 thing; reduction of turn over; supportive of the
agency’s mission, goals, and objectives”. −

“Retainedloyalemployee,improvedmorale,educatedmanagersonA
DA,learnedhowtheprocess works – feel better equipped to
handle future cases,especiallypleasedwithADAformthatprovides
them better documentation from doctor”.
Although a long list of interviewer notes, one might imagine
that it is difficult to disregard the sentiments of employers who
opted to accommodated employees despite the potential
barriers. Clearly employers reported that accommodating
employees has multiple
benefitstothecompanyprocessandpreparescompany leaders for
future cases and compliance with ADA.
3.4.3. Legal benefits Several employers were candid that
accommodating an employee eliminated legal processes, which
might have been costly. Although for disability rights advocates
this may not be the motivation desired, it is important to focus
on the outcome. One of the tenets of community organizing is to
tap into the self-interest of involved parties to create a positive
outcome for all
[1].Therefore,understandingthatforsometheavoiding
legalactionisastrongmotivatorcanhelpsocialworkers and other
rehabilitation workers in gaining accommodations for people
with disabilities. Examples in this category included; “no union
grievances will be filed”,
“avoid future litigations, also to relieve employee discontent”,
and “haven’t thought about it in these terms – just wanted to
make sure company was doing what it needed to do legally (as
far as being liable)”.
Otheremployersstatedthatthemotivationwasbased on following
the law. These notes reflect the benefit for the company in being
in compliance with ADA
andotheremploymentequalopportunityrequirements. Examples
include; “We know that we are doing what we are required to do
by law. We are being proactive instead of reactive, and we are
not violating anyone’s Civil Rights” and “with change in law
and needing to keep records – we did it because it was the law”.
4. Discussion

The data presented here should be interpreted with
caution.Theemployerswhorespondedrepresentthose
whoagreedtoparticipateandthosewhowereabletobe
contactedviatelephone.Thisstudypredominantlyrepresents the
responses from employers who were
interestedinretainingemployees,asopposedtothosehiring
employees with disabilities. Although beyond the scope of the
data collected here, this willingness to accommodate may
indicate that the nature of the disabilities experienced by these
employees are either
shortterm,orthattheyoccurredlaterintheemployee’s
tenureatthecompany.Astheevaluationinstrument,the survey does
not generate data on the particulars of the
specifictypesofdisabilitiesexperiencedbyemployees, and the
nature of the company providing the accommodation. Therefore,
there may be unknown factors affecting the likelihood that
companies will provide
effectiveaccommodations.However,theresultsremain promising
for employers, rehabilitation professionals, and others
interested in increasing rates of accommodation in the
workplace for people with disabilities. The benefits of providing
work place accommodations reported by employers are
numerous. Reported satisfaction with the accommodation
outcome is high. Despite the general perception that
accommodations require major expenditure on the part of
employers, costs reported are minimal, and most
accommodations
areofnocost.Otherbenefitspointtothepositivefinancial outcomes
relating to the ‘bottom line’ of doing business: Increased
productivity, and the avoidance of the investment of time and
money recruiting, hiring, and training new employees appears to
factor heavily into decisions to accommodate. The expressed
consideration of public image may also indirectly relate to
concerns about company profitability. However, concerns over

company public image may also speak to
employers’desiretobeviewedasethical,equalopportunity
employers. Further, many of those surveyed reported that
accommodating workers allows them to
keephardworking,loyalemployees.Hence,employers are gaining
in many ways by retaining employees who are capable and
valued. Employer desire to comply with ADA regulations may
be framed as concern for the financial bottom line and an
avoidance of costly litigation. However, this compliance can
also reflect a desire to internally and
externallydemonstratethelegalandmoralresponsibility assumed
by the company, thus promoting a positive public image and
fostering a supportive work environment.
5. Implications
The findings presented here have implications for individuals
with disabilities, employers, professionals and policy makers
alike. This paper contributes to a
bodyofliteraturethatseekstomakethecaseforaccommodating,
retaining, and advancing individuals with
disabilitiesintheworkplace.Thefocusonretentionfills a gap in the
literature, but more research is needed in this area. Though the
discussion is framed around benefits for employers, it is evident
that benefits extend to non-
disabledemployeesandevenbeyondthewallsofa
singlefacility.Ifanemployerisawareofthesebenefits, she or he
may be more likely to foster more inclusive employment
practices. Accommodating and retaining individuals with
disabilities in the workplace benefits employers regardless of
whether a business owner or
publicmanagerisconcernedwithcompliance,increasing
productivity, keeping a high-performing worker, maintaining a
good public image, or avoiding extra training costs. Individuals
with disabilities can use this
informationtoadvocateforaccommodationstheyrequest.The
insights presented will equip advocates with information to
persuade large and small companies to retain

individuals with disabilities. Social work professionals can
advocate more effectively on behalf of clients if they know, for
example, that most accommodations have little or no cost, or
that workplace safety can be
increasedasaresultofaccommodations.Associalwork
professionals it is important to understand the ways that
multiple motivations can be harnessed in order to promote
social justice for any population. Lastly, policy makers can also
gain valuable information by understanding the benefits of
providing accommodations from the employers’ perspective. It
is hoped that thisinformationcanbeusedtochangecompanypolicy
and practice.
References
[1] W.G. Brueggemann, The Practice of Macro Social Work,
Third Edition, Thomson Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA, 2006. [2]
S. Bruyère, Disability employment policies and practices in
private and federal sector organizations, Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations Extension
Division, Program on Employment and Disability, 2000. [3] C.
Domzal, A. Houtenville and R. Sharma, Survey of Employer
Perspectives on the Employment of People with Disabilities:
Technical Report (Prepared under contract to the Office of
Disability and Employment Policy, U.S. Department of Labor),
CESSI, McLean, VA, 2008. [4] E. Emens, Integrating
accommodation, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 4
(2008), 839–922. [5]
R.Habeck,J.Kregel,C.HeadandS.Yasuda,Salientandsubtle
aspects of demand side approaches for employment retention:
Lessons for public policymakers, Journal of Vocational
Rehabilitation 26(1) (2007), 21–27. [6] H. Schartz, D.J.
Hendricks and P. Blanck, Workplace accommodations: Evidence
based outcomes, Work 27 (2006), 345–354. [7] M. Travis,
Lashing out at the ADA backlash: How the
AmericanswithdisabilitiesactbenefitsAmericanswithoutdisabiliti
es, Tennessee Law Review 76 (2009), 311. [8]
D.Unger,Employers’attitudestowardpersonswithdisabilities in

the workforce: Myths or realities? Focus on Autism & Other
Developmental Disabilities 17(1) (2002), 2–10. [9] D. Unger
and J. Kregel, Employers’ view of workplace supports: Virginia
Commonwealth University charter business roundtable’s
national study of employers’ experiences with
workerswithdisabilities.“Employers’KnowledgeandUtilization
of Accommodations”. Center for Workforce Preparation. U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, Washington, DC, 2000.
Copyright of Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation is the
property of IOS Press and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individu

Organizational culture involves many different details, including cu.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Organizational culture involves many different details, including cu.docx

Similar to Organizational culture involves many different details, including cu.docx (20)

More from johnbbruce72945

More from johnbbruce72945 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Organizational culture involves many different details, including cu.docx