Content uploaded by Rashmi Chordiya
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rashmi Chordiya on Jul 22, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
2
ORGANIZATIONAL INCLUSION AND TURNOVER INTENTIONS OF
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES WITH DISABILITIES
ABSTRACT
People with disabilities have experienced a long history of prejudice and disenfranchisement.
Negative attitudes and stigmas continue to act as barriers to employment and career success of
individuals with disabilities. However, diversity and inclusion of people with disabilities is an
under-researched area in public administration. This study contributes to the literature by
examining the turnover intentions of federal employees with disabilities as compared to
employees without disabilities. In addition, this study investigates the moderating effects of
inclusive organizational practices (i.e., organizational fairness, empowerment, openness,
supportiveness, and cooperativeness) in lowering the turnover intentions of federal employees,
and particularly, for employees with disabilities. Findings of this study indicate, as compared to
employees without disabilities, the odds of demonstrating an intention to leave their current
organization are significantly higher for employees with disabilities. While other inclusion
practices did not have the expected effects, organizational fairness was found to be a key factor
mitigating the negative relationship between employee’s disability status and turnover intentions.
Key words: federal employees’ viewpoint survey, federal government, disability inclusion,
employee turnover intentions, employees with disabilities, organizational inclusion
3
INTRODUCTION
Work is a significant part of American life. It is often a defining characteristic of an individual’s
identity (Bryan 2018). The technological advances of the 21st century have led to new jobs and
job opportunities for the American workforce. However, significant barriers to utilizing these
opportunities are experienced by a segment of the American workforce due to their disabilities
and differences in approaching and performing their job functions (Riccucci 2002; Enayati et al.
2019).
Americans with disabilities and their allies spearheaded a long struggle for freedom that
called upon legislative and societal attention to the needs and capabilities of people with
disabilities. They championed to recognize and transcend the misconceptions with regards to
people with disabilities1, to attain a protected class status, to lead an independent living
movement, to overcome the stigma attached to disability, and to recognize that a person’s worth,
self-respect, and dignity should not be determined based on their employment status in the labor
market, especially if the person is unable to work (e.g. because of the severity or perhaps type of
disability) (Bryan 2018; Ostiguy, Peters, and Shlasko 2016).
This struggle for freedom culminated into the disability rights movement that led to the
landmark civil rights legislations such as the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, and the Americans with Disabilities Amendment Act (ADAAA)
of 2008 (Bruyére 2000; Bryan 2018; Riccucci 2002; Ostiguy, Peters, and Shlasko 2016). Section
501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provides for the ‘model employer’ mandate that requires
federal agencies to ensure non-discrimination and take affirmative action in hiring, placement,
and advancement of individuals with disabilities (see sub-section disability and retention
4
likelihood below; The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunities Commission n.d.). Building on
these legislative enactments, Presidential Executive Orders (such as President Clinton’s E.O.
13163 and E.O. 13164 in 2000 and President Obama’s E.O. 13548 in 2010), focused on
“reducing discrimination against Americans living with a disability, in eliminating the stigma
associated with disability, and in encouraging Americans with disabilities to seek employment in
the Federal workforce” (Cobert 2015; Obama 2010; The U.S. Department of Justice 2009;
U.S.C. Title 29: Labor).
The disability rights movement has led to a paradigm shift from a medical model of
viewing disability- with disability viewed as a medical problem and focus of health care is to
help individuals adapt to the environment- to a social model where intervention strategies are
focused on adapting the environment and not the individual (Davis 2005; World Health
Organization and World Bank Group 2011; Ostiguy, Peters, and Shlasko 2016). While it is
important to highlight the success of the disability rights movement and consequent progressive
legal and structural advancements, it is also necessary to recognize the need for continued and
intentional work to overcome structural and cultural barriers to representation, equity, and
inclusion of people with disabilities in mainstream public and private sector employment across
occupations and job positions (Bruyére 2000; Davis 2005; World Health Organization and World
Bank Group 2011; Ostiguy, Peters, and Shlasko 2016).
For instance, people with disabilities with qualifications and standards of productivity
equivalent to their non-disabled counterparts continue to experience prejudicial attitudes from
employers and coworkers (e.g., Bonaccio et al. 2019; Bruyére 2019; Fine and Asch 1988; Kaye,
Jans, and Jones 2011; Yuker 1988). Visible and invisible forms of workplace discrimination and
structural, cultural, and attitudinal barriers to employment and career success remain (e.g.,
5
Bonaccio et al. 2019; Baldwin and Johnson 1995; Domzal, Houtenville, and Sharma 2008; Fine
and Asch 1988; Lewis and Allee 1992; Schur et al. 2017; Slack 1995; Yelin and Trupin 2003).
Existing studies have made valuable contributions to advance a constructive dialogue in
achieving equality, equity, and the inclusion of all persons regardless of differences in their
abilities and/or their ways of approaching and performing job functions. However, one area of
study that remains under-investigated is the attitudes of employees with disabilities about their
current employment and empirical examination of the usefulness of organizational diversity
management and inclusion strategies that can enhance their employment attitudes (Enayati et al.
2019; Li et al. 2017; Schur et al. 2017; Yang 2016).
The present study aims to fill this gap in the literature by examining the turnover
intentions of federal employees with disabilities as compared to employees without disabilities.
Using 2012 to 2015 federal employees’ viewpoint survey (FEVS) data and pooled time series
cross sectional method of analysis, this study advances the literature on organizational inclusion
and retention likelihood of employees with disabilities by empirically investigating the effects of
inclusive organizational practices, namely- organizational fairness, empowerment, openness,
supportiveness, and cooperativeness in lowering turnover intentions of employees with
disabilities and employees without disabilities.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
Disability and Retention Likelihood
As noted above, despite legislative actions to protect the civil rights of people with disabilities,
they continue to face severe barriers to employment opportunities and career progression (Lewis
and Allee 1992; Schur et al. 2017). However, it is important to note that studies in both public
6
(federal) and private sector employments indicate that structural factors such as the cost of
training, supervision, and accommodations are less significant barriers to the employment and
advancement of people with disabilities (Bruyére 2000). Research shows that 75% of
accommodations cost less than $500, and 25% cost nothing at all; while more than half of the
surveyed employers reported that each accommodation benefited their organization an average
of $5000 (Office of Disability Employment Policy 2005).
Research has consistently supported that the one of the most important barriers to
employment and career advancement of people with disabilities is the existence of stigma,
prejudice, and negative attitudes towards identities of people with disabilities and their
productivity (Bonaccio et al. 2019; Bruyére 2000; Colella and Varma 1999; Levitan and Taggart
1977; Lewis and Allee 1992; Mithaug 1979; Nelissen et al. 2015; Schechter 1977; Schur et al.
2017; Sue 2018; Westerholm et al. 2005). Existing research has refuted the stereotypes,
prejudices, and stigma attached to disability by showing employees with disabilities have above-
average performance evaluations, attendance, productivity, safety records, and lower turnover
rates when organizations are able to successfully ‘integrate’ them (Blanck and Pransky 1999;
Raphael 2002; Spechler 1996). These studies highlight existing inequities and lost organizational
opportunities in utilizing qualified human capital in part due to lack of concern and
understanding of full spectrum of human needs and capabilities.
An individual’s disability status often poses a detrimental barrier to their employment and
career growth opportunities, exacerbates existing workplace disparities, and has significant
social, psychological, and economic consequences. For instance, after controlling for education
and impact of disability on performance, research reveals pay disparities among employees with
disabilities and their non-disabled coworkers; and that disability status led to biased performance
7
evaluations, lower job security, and negative treatment by management (Baldwin and Johnson
1995; Colella and Varma 1999; Davis 1972, 1973; Gunderson and Lee 2016; Lewis and Allee
1992; Mitra and Kruse 2016; Schur et al. 2017).
Discrimination theories used to explain disparate treatment of people with disabilities
could be based on Becker’s (1957, 1971) taste-based discrimination model and Arrow (1971,
1998) and Phelps’s (1972) statistical discrimination model. According to the taste-based
discrimination model, discrimination results from employer’s prejudice and desire to avoid
personal, co-worker, or customer interaction with employees with disabilities (Becker’s (1957,
1971). Arrow (1971, 1998) and Phelps’s (1972) statistical discrimination model suggests
discrimination results from employer’s negative decisions/assessments based on existing beliefs
or stereotypes about productivity of people with disabilities, particularly when individual level
information is lacking (Baldwin and Johnson 1995; Guryan and Charles 2013; Schur et al. 2017).
Support for taste-based and statistical discrimination theories is derived from field
experimental studies. As compared to people with identical qualifications, job applicants with a
disability are less likely to receive a positive response from employers. Studies have also shown
that after controlling for health status, comorbidity, education, and other demographic
characteristics, people with disabilities have significantly lower employment rates and exit the
labor market earlier than people without disabilities (Mitra and Kruse 2016; Yelin and Trupin
2003). Prejudice, discrimination, and unwelcoming organizational cultures pose barriers to the
hiring of people with disabilities and have profound and long-term consequences for their work
experiences. These consequences include disparities in terms of employment (i.e., higher rates of
less secure jobs such as part time, part-year, and episodic employments) (Mitra and Kruse 2016;
Yelin and Trupin 2003), impeded career progression within an organization (Colella and Varma
8
1999; Lewis and Allee 1992; Yelin and Trupin 2003), involuntary job losses, and drop-outs
(Domzal, Houtenville, and Sharma 2008; Mitra and Kruse 2016; Schur et al. 2017; Yelin and
Trupin 2003).
In federal government’s context, the ‘model employer mandate’ of Section 501 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, requires each federal agency to ensure employment non-
discrimination and reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities. Agencies are also
mandated to submit to Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) for approval “an
annually updated affirmative action program plan for the hiring, placement, and advancement of
individuals with disabilities” (Enayati et al. 2019; The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunities
Commission n.d.). Agency efforts are directed toward severe disabilities that have historically
been used to exclude qualified individuals from employment. Accordingly, in pursuit of values
of equity, social justice, and inclusion of individuals with disabilities, the federal government
identified certain ‘targeted disabilities’ for special emphasis in affirmative action programs. The
‘targeted disabilities’, which were last listed on the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
Standard Form (SF) 256 in 1987, include: “deafness; blindness; missing extremities; partial
paralysis; complete paralysis; convulsive disorders; mental retardation; mental illness; and
distortion of limb and/or spine.” The targeted disabilities listed in SF 256 use outdated
terminology that does not necessarily reflect prevailing current usage (The U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunities Commission n.d.).
Despite these legal provisions and the ‘model employer mandate’ since 1973, the federal
government has underperformed in achieving the public values of representation, social equity,
and inclusion for people with disabilities (Bruyére 2000; Enayati et al. 2019; Riccucci 2002).
Past research shows as compared to private sector, employees with disabilities in federal
9
workplaces face greater barriers due to unreceptive attitudes and stereotypes among coworkers
and supervisors (see Bruyére 2000; Riccucci 2002). Cognitive, affective, and behavioral barriers
due to negative stereotypes and prejudicial attitudes associated with disability continue to pose a
serious challenge to the inclusion and consequently retention of employees with disabilities
(Bruyére 2000; Enayati et al. 2019). Therefore, it is expected that as compared to employees
without disabilities, federal employees with disabilities will exhibit higher turnover intentions.
Hypothesis 1: As compared to employees without disabilities, odds of turnover intentions will be
higher among federal employees with disabilities.
Organizational Inclusion and Retention of Persons with Disabilities
Defining Diversity and Organizational Inclusion
Before exploring the effects of organizational inclusion, it is important to first clearly define
diversity and inclusion. Although the terms ‘diversity and inclusion’ are related and often paired
together, they have distinct implications (Vohra et al. 2015). Diversity is defined as the “make-
up of a group” (Miller 1998, p.151) and can be achieved by recruiting and hiring people with
observable or surface-level diversity characteristics (e.g. sex, race) and non-observable
differences or deep-level diversity characteristics (such as attitudes, values, beliefs, education,
socio-economic backgrounds) (Lambert and Bell 2012; Vohra et al. 2015).
While diversity by itself is critical to organizational success, the key to benefiting from
the full potential of diversity lies in organizational inclusion (Sabharwal 2014; Vohra et al.
2015). Mor Barak and Cherin (1998, 48) defined organizational inclusion as “the degree to
which individuals feel part of critical organizational processes” and is represented by the extent
to which members have access to information and resources, workgroup involvement, and
10
participation in decision making. Other scholars have emphasized that in an inclusive
organization “members of are treated fairly, feel included and are actually included, have equal
opportunities, and are represented at all organizational levels and functions” (Holvino, Ferdman,
and Merrill-Sands 2004, 249). Thus, diversity and inclusion may be described as two sides of the
same coin. For the recruitment and retention of a disability diverse workforce, it is critical that
employees feel included and share a feeling of belongingness with their teams and their
organization. At the same time, recruitment and retention of a ‘critical mass’ (not ‘tokenism’) of
employees with disabilities at all levels and across all occupations and job functions is crucial to
creating and cultivating an inclusive environment for a disability diverse workforce.
Theoretical Underpinnings of Organizational Inclusion
The concept of organizational inclusion is influenced by social identity theory (Tajfel 1978,
2010) and the optimal distinctiveness theory (Brewer 1991) (Nair and Vohra 2015; Sabharwal
2014; Shore et al. 2011). Tajfel’s (1978, 2010) social identity theory suggests individuals
become attached to one another through a common social group connection, in turn producing a
feeling of social identification. Such a social identification results in creation of in-groups and
out-groups (Sabharwal 2014; Shore et al. 2011). Most workplaces lie on an inclusion-exclusion
continuum. Organizations are exclusionary when employees are expected to conform to pre-
existing values and norms determined by the majority or the mainstream. However, an inclusive
workplace model is based on a pluralistic value framework and coevolving organizational culture
that continuously strives to change its values and norms to mirror the diversity of its workforce
(Mor Barak 2013).
In addition to the social element, identity comprises a personal element based on
individual’s definition of oneself (Brewer and Gardner 1996). Brewer’s (1991) optimal
11
distinctiveness theory suggests that “social identity derives from a fundamental tension between
human needs for validation and similarity to others (on the one hand) and a countervailing need
for uniqueness and individuation (on the other). Individuals need a certain level of both
similarity to and differentiation from others” (Brewer 1991, p. 477). The salience of one or the
other need may vary depending on the context of an individual’s situation (Correll and Park
2005; Pickett and Brewer 2001; Shore et al. 2011).
Organizational diversity and inclusion have a positive impact on organizational outcomes
such as improved innovation, performances, and expansion of outreach to diverse client base or
customer groups, as well as higher employee job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and
intention to stay (Bruyére 2000; Donohue and Houghton 2013; Ferdman et al. 2009; Meier,
O’Toole, and Goerdel 2006; Pitts 2009; Sabharwal 2014; Schur et al. 2017; Shore et al 2011;
Smith 2017; Vohra et al. 2015). Therefore, the question then is how diversity and inclusion work
in the context of individuals with disabilities.
Diversity and Inclusion for Individuals with Disabilities
The Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act (ADA), originally passed in 1990 and
amended in 2008, defines “a person with a disability as someone who has a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; has a record of such an
impairment; or is regarded as having such an impairment” (Collier 2016, p.1). In the context of
employment discrimination, ADA defines a qualified person with a disability on the basis of
their ability to perform the 'essential job functions (Ostiguy, Peters, and Shlasko 2016). The
World Health Organization and World Bank Group’s World Report on Disability (2011) refers
to disability as a part of human condition and emphasizes the universality of it. The United
12
National Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) stresses that “disability
results from the interaction between persons with impairments, and attitudinal and environmental
barriers that hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others”
(World Health Organization and World Bank Group 2011, p. 4).
The experience of disability is diverse. It may be sensory (such as visual and hearing
impairments), illness-related (such as multiple sclerosis, AIDS), physical (such as cerebral
palsy), developmental (such as Down syndrome), psychiatric (such as bipolar, chronic-
depression), mobility-related (such as quadriplegia, paraplegia), or environmental (such as
asthma, sensitivities to allergens and chemicals in the environment). The disability experience,
resulting from the interaction of health conditions, personal factors, and environmental factors,
varies extensively. For instance, the health conditions of persons with disabilities can be visible
or invisible; temporary or long term; static, episodic, or degenerating; painful or inconsequential
(World Health Organization and World Bank Group 2011).
The diversity of personal factors include differences related to gender identity, age, socio-
economic status, sexual orientation, nationality, race, religion, ethnicity, and their intersections.
The differences among people with disabilities is further complicated due to intersectionality of
multiplied institutionalized marginalization often associated with one’s social identities
(Disability Rights Washington 2018; Fenton 2018). For example, social and organizational
barriers faced by a Trans*womxn3 of color with disabilities are likely to be different from a
cisgender white womxn with disabilities. Furthermore, the social disadvantages and arbitrary
barriers due to disability are found to be greater for individuals experiencing mental health
conditions or intellectual impairments, and more severe forms of disability. Conversely, wealth
13
and status may help to overcome activity limitations and hurdles to participation (Ostiguy,
Peters, and Shlasko 2016; World Health Organization and World Bank Group 2011).
At its primary level, disability inclusion can be defined as “including people with
disabilities in everyday activities and encouraging them to have roles similar to their peers who
do not have a disability” 2 (National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities
(NCBDDD) 2017). In practice, disability inclusion involves more than offering encouragement
to persons with disabilities; it requires that adequate policies and practices are made effective
within communities and in organizations (NCBDDD 2017).
In the context of U. S. federal government, fostering an inclusion climate is crucial for
effective management of disability-diverse groups (the one that includes members without
disabilities and members with disabilities with various levels of severity (Li et al. 2017; Shore et
al. 2011; Yang 2016). Human resources management (HRM) policies and practices such as
increased diversity through employment of individuals with disabilities at all positions, providing
enabling environments through accessibility and accommodations, supportive managers,
promotion of high performing employees with disabilities into leadership roles are key to
creating and nurturing an inclusive climate (Collier 2016). Some of the actionable suggestions
are developing a clear position description such as with essential and non-essential job functions;
keeping lines of communications clear and open; developing a strong orientation program
(including social aspects of it), encouraging the feeling of being part of the social group,
continuing learning and development opportunities, holding employees with disabilities
accountable at the same level as other employees; and providing opportunities for promotion and
career advancement (see Berman et al. 2019; Davis 2005; The Corporation for National and
Community Service n.d.).
14
Despite advances in our understanding of the need for an organizational inclusion
approach in management of disability-diverse workgroups, the “empirical testament of the power
of inclusion is scarce” (Nishi 2012, p. 1755; Li et al. 2017; Sabharwal, Levine, and D’ Agostino
2016; Yang 2016). Few research studies have centered the connection between formal
organizational diversity and inclusion interventions and macro-level organizational outcomes
such as turnover attitudes for marginalized groups of employees, and it is particularly lacking for
employees with disabilities (Enayati et al. 2019; Sabharwal, Levine and D’Agostino 2016).
Therefore, using a social-psychological approach grounded in optimal distinctiveness theory, the
present study examines the influence of inclusive organizational practices on lowering turnover
intentions of employees with disabilities in the federal government context.
Organizational Inclusion and Retention of Employees with Disability: An Optimal
Distinctiveness Perspective
One of the underlying themes of the inclusion literature is the recognition of the tension between
individuals’ need for belongingness and uniqueness and the motivation to optimally satisfy both
needs (Shore et al. 2011). The failure to recognize and value unique identities can exacerbate
stigmas associated with devalued identities (Ragins 2008; Shore et al. 2011). Stigmas are
“attributes, characteristics, or experiences that convey an identity that is devalued in some social
settings,” and individuals choosing to keep their identities private are likely to experience
psychological strain, emotional stress, and stress-related illnesses (Ragins, 2008, p.194).
There is a long history of stigmas associated with disability status and persistence of such
negative attitudes in workplaces (Baldwin and Johnson 1995; Bruyére 2000; Mithaug 1979;
Levitan and Taggart 1977; Lewis and Allee 1992; Schechter 1977; Schur et al. 2017). In the
15
federal government, employees with a disability were found to experience greater barriers to
representation and inclusion than other disadvantaged groups like womxn and employees of
color (Lewis and Allee 1992). In 2008, as compared to the goal of 2 %, individuals with a
targeted disability constituted 0.88 % of the federal workforce4 (U.S. EEOC 2008, I-13) and 0.51
% of the federal senior pay level representation5 (comprising of Senior Executive Service,
Executive Schedule, Senior Foreign Service, and employees earning salaries above grade 15 of
the General Schedule) (U.S. EEOC 2008, I-15). Although there has been a decline in the
tendency of non-identification (Lewis and Allee 1992; Riccucci 2002; The U.S. Office of
Personnel management n.d.), the fear that negative attitudes and stigmas may hinder career
advancement and adversely affect promotion decisions continues to influence employee’s
decisions whether or not to report their disability status (Ellner and Bender 1980; Lewis and
Allee 1992; Ostiguy, Peters, and Shlasko 2016). There is also evidence of occupational and job
segregation as employees with disabilities were less likely to be in professional and
administrative positions, had lower grades, salaries, and promotion rates than employees without
disabilities (Enayati et al. 2019; Lewis and Allee 1992). Both Lewis and Allee (1992) and Kim
(1996) concluded there is no concrete evidence to suggest progress to equality among the
workers with disabilities and the non-disabled workers with respect to opportunities for career
advancement.
Workplace diversity and inclusion practices have the potential to mitigate workplace
discrimination, level the playing field, and improve employment outcomes for employees with
disabilities (Chrobot-Mason and Thomas 2002; Chordiya 2018; Enayati et al. 2019; Li et al.
2017; Shore et al. 2011). Therefore, consistent with existing literature, the present study utilizes
Brewer’s (1991) optimal distinctiveness theory (ODT) to focus on elements of organizational
16
inclusion that are expected to optimally satisfy needs of belongingness and uniqueness for
employees without disabilities and employees with disabilities. These are: a) fairness, b)
openness to diversity, c) empowerment, d) supportiveness, and e) cooperativeness (Daya 2014;
Detert and Burris 2007; Chordiya 2018; Nair and Vohra 2015; Nembhard and Edmondson 2006;
Sabharwal 2014; The U.S. Office of Personnel Management 2015; Vohra et al. 2015). The
theoretical framework is depicted in figure 1.
One of the key characteristics of an inclusive environment is fair and equitable treatment
of all social groups, with special focus on groups that face social stigma and are historically
disadvantaged with fewer growth opportunities. Employees working in an inclusive climate
characterized by fairness perceive that the organization values their contributions equally
(Enayati et al. 2019; Hayes, Bartle, and Major 2002; Shore et al. 2011; Sabharwal 2014; The
Organizational Inclusion
Fairness (negative)
Openness (to diversity) (negative)
Empowerment (negative)
Supportiveness (negative)
Cooperativeness (negative)
Turnover Intentions
Organizational Inclusion*Disability Status
Fairness *Disability (negative)
Openness (to diversity) *Disability
(negative)
Empowerment *Disability
(negative)
Supportiveness *Disability
(negative)
Cooperativeness *Disability
(negative)
Disability Status (positive)
Controls
Female
Minority Status
Job Satisfaction
Years of
Government
Experience
Years fixed effects
Agency fixed
effects
Figure 1: Theoretical Framework
17
U.S. Office of Personnel Management 2015). In a fair environment, employees also feel safe to
speak up and share potentially valuable information (Daya 2014; Enayati et al. 2019; Mor Barak
and Cherin 1998; Roberson 2006; Detert and Burris 2007; Sabharwal 2014; The U.S. Office of
Personnel Management 2015).
Openness to diversity refers to management’s comprehensive approach through
leadership behaviors, policies, procedures, and structures to promote diversity in workplace. In
an open environment, employees from diverse backgrounds feel safe and open about their
identities, to express their opinions, and to communicate freely with other group members (Choi
2009; Ferdman et al. 2009; Ferdman et al. 2010; The U.S. Office of Personnel Management
2015). An empowering environment is where employees receive support to perform and excel in
their job, have access to essential information and resources, and are able to influence work
processes (Daya 2014; Mor Barak and Cherin 1998; Pelled, Ledford, and Mohrman 1999;
Sabharwal 2014; The U.S. Office of Personnel Management 2015).
The element of supportiveness ensures that supervisors support and value employees.
Supportive management is reflected in interpersonal relations between supervisors and
subordinates based on a feeling of being valued, respected, accepted, cared for, and recognized
for their ideas and contributions (Daya 2014; Detert and Burris 2007; Ferdman et al. 2010;
Nembhard and Edmondson 2006; Randel et al. 2016; The U.S. Office of Personnel Management
2015). Cooperativeness is concerned with encouraging communication and collaboration across
work units to achieve work objectives (Daya 2014; Ferdman et al. 2010; The U.S. Office of
Personnel Management 2015).
18
Existing literature suggests inclusive climates foster a feeling of belongingness and
respect for both minority and majority groups (Shore et al. 2011). Furthermore, through
enhanced feelings of belongingness, recognition of unique worth of employees, and negating
stigmas attached with devalued identities (Shore et al. 2011), inclusive organizational practices
can result in increased employee retention (Chordiya 2018; Nair and Vohra 2015; Vohra et al.
2015) Therefore, it is proposed that:
Hypothesis 2: The odds of turnover intentions will decline with increased organizational
inclusion (fairness, openness, empowerment, supportiveness, and cooperativeness).
Hypothesis 3: Organizational inclusion (fairness, openness, empowerment, supportiveness, and
cooperativeness) will have a negative moderating effect on the relationship between employees’
turnover intentions and disability status.
DATA AND METHODS
This study uses 2012-2015 Federal Employees Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) data made available
by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Even though the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management has made FEVS data publicly available for additional years, those data are not
included in this study, because, at the time of this study, the questions about disability status of
an employee were available only for the years from 2012-2015.
The survey sample included 687,687 employees in 2012 out of which 83,306 (13.07 %)
identified as having a disability; 376,577 employees in 2013 and 45,276 (13.01%) identified as
having a disability; 392,752 employees in 2014 and 421,748 employees in 2015 out of which
49,274 (13.54%) and 53,817 (13.65%) employees identified as people with disabilities,
respectively. The FEVS data are weighted or adjusted to represent the population from which the
19
sample is drawn (The U.S. Office of Personnel Management n.d.). These sampling weights were
accounted for in the regression analysis.
A pooled time series cross-sectional data for the years 2012-2015 is used. The outcome
variable of interest is turnover intention, which is binary in nature (Yes=1; No=0). Therefore,
logistic regression method is used for pooled time series cross-sectional (PTSC) analysis. The
PTSC method accounts for space and time variations (Podestà 2002; Tourangeau 2003). In this
study, controls include agency and year fixed effects (Park 2009). Robust standard errors were
clustered at an agency level to allow for intragroup correlations, that is, the usual requirement
that observations be independent was relaxed. These checks helped to improve the precision of
the estimates.
Measurements
Outcome Variable: Turnover Intention
The outcome variable turnover intention is measured using the following item: “Are you
considering leaving your organization within the next year, and if so, why?” The item includes
following responses: a) No; b) Yes, to take another job within the Federal Government; c) Yes,
to take another job outside the Federal Government; and d) Yes, other. Turnover intention is
coded as 0 for the “no” responses and 1 for all three “yes” responses.
Explanatory Variables
The disability status of an employee is measured based on the following question: “Are you an
individual with a disability?” The “yes” responses were coded as “1” and “no” responses were
coded as 0. This study controls for job satisfaction, which is expected to have a significant
negative impact on employee turnover intentions (Cantarelli, Belardinelli, and Belle 2015). Job
20
satisfaction is measured on a scale of 1-5 (1= very dissatisfied, 5=very satisfied) and measured
by the following question: “Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your job?” Other
controls include relevant demographic and individual characteristics. These are: years of
government experience (squared), veteran status, sex (female=1), and minority status
(minorities=1). To control for agency and year fixed effects, dummy variables were generated
for all agencies and all years included in this study.
Based on the existing literature, the following five elements of organizational inclusion
are considered in this study: fairness, openness to diversity, empowerment, supportiveness, and
cooperativeness (Detert and Burris 2007; Nair and Vohra 2015; Nembhard and Edmondson
2006; Sabharwal 2014; The U.S. Office of Personnel Management 2015; Vohra et al. 2015). The
direct and moderating effects of each of these five elements is modeled. Each element was
represented using a factor score of respective items used to measure it. All items were measured
on a 5-point Likert type scale ranging from 5 for ‘Strongly Agree’ and 1 for ‘Strongly Disagree’.
The Cronbach alpha values, the eigenvalues for the factor, the estimated factor coefficients, and
the t-test means comparisons (for employees with and without disability) for items measuring
organizational inclusion elements are described in table 1.
[Table-1 here]
RESULTS
The findings of the t-test mean comparisons of items measuring attitudes and perceptions of
employees with disabilities and employees without disabilities with respect to turnover
intentions, job satisfaction, and organizational inclusion (represented in terms of being fair, open,
21
supportive, cooperative, and an empowering environment) are presented in table-1. These
findings indicate that, on an average, compared to employees without disabilities, employees
with disabilities are likely to have significantly lower job satisfaction (Mean employees with disabilities
=3.54, Mean employees without disabilities =3.70, p<0.001, scale=1-5) and higher turnover intentions
(Mean employees with disabilities =0.397, Mean employees without disabilities =0.310, p<0.001, scale= 0-1). It is
important to also note that the mean values of all items used for measuring organizational
inclusion factors (fairness, openness, supportiveness, cooperativeness, and empowerment) were
significantly lower for employees with disabilities than employees without disabilities (see table-
1). Thus, findings indicate that on average, federal employees with disabilities experience
significantly lower levels of job satisfaction and organizational inclusion, and higher turnover
intentions.
[Table-2 here]
Pairwise correlations for study variables are reported in table 2 and variables did not
indicate high multicollinearity issues. Table 3 reports the findings of multiple regression analysis
for pooled time series cross-sectional (PTSC) data. The logistic regression method was used for
analysis, robust standard errors were clustered at agency levels, and controls included agency
and year fixed effects. The odds of federal employees’ intentions to leave are examined: both
coefficients and the odds ratio are described in table 3. It is more informative to interpret the
findings of a logistic regression by observing the change in odds ratio. An odds ratio above 1
indicates that a unit change in the independent variable leads to an increase in the odds that the
dependent variable equals 1, while an odds ratio that is below 1 indicates that a unit change in
22
the independent variable leads to a decrease in the odds that the dependent variable equals 1
(Rabe-Hesketh and Skrondal 2012).
[Table-3 here]
As expected in hypothesis 1, the results indicate that compared to employees without
disabilities, the odds for turnover intentions among employees with disabilities are higher by
14% (Odds ratio = 1.14, p<0.001). The organizational inclusion elements were found to have
mixed effects on turnover intentions of federal employees. Supportiveness did not have a
significant direct relationship with turnover intentions; and, contrary to expectations, openness to
diversity has a positive relationship with turnover intentions. However, consistent to hypothesis
2, fairness (Odds ratio=0.825, p<0.001), cooperativeness (Odds ratio=0.987, p<0.001), and
empowerment (Odds ratio=0.801, p<0.001) were found to significantly lower the odds of
employee turnover intentions. Therefore, hypothesis two was partially supported.
In the third and final hypothesis, it was expected that organizational inclusion elements
will have a significant negative moderating effect on the relationship between employee’s
disability status and turnover intentions, with the odds of turnover intentions becoming lower as
organizational inclusion becomes higher. In this case, only organizational fairness was found to
have a significant negative moderating effect on relationship between disability and turnover
intentions. As the perceptions of organizational fairness among employees with disability
increased, the odds of turnover intentions declined by 5.4% (Odds ratio= 0.946, p<0.05). With
respect to other organizational inclusion elements, the findings either lacked statistical
significance (as in the case of openness and cooperativeness) or indicated a positive effect that
23
was contrary to expectations (as in the case of supportiveness and empowerment). Thus, the
findings indicate mixed support for hypothesis 3.
With respect to control variables, job satisfaction was found to have the strongest impact
on turnover intentions; an increase in job satisfaction decreased the odds of turnover intentions
by 49.3% (Odds ratio=0.507, p<0.001). The individual and demographic controls indicate that
the odds of turnover intentions were significantly higher among employees identifying as racial
minorities (Odds ratio= 1.17, p<0.001) and veterans (Odds ratio= 1.27, p<0.001). The odds of
turnover intentions lowered with an increase in years of government experience.
DISCUSSION
The U.S. federal government envisions to become a model employer for people with disabilities
and has taken steps towards diversifying federal organizations through hiring of under-
represented populations of people with disabilities (The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunities
Commission n.d.; Cobert 2015; Obama 2010). Along with increased hiring, retention of
employees with disabilities is a concurrent objective of the federal government (Cobert 2015;
Obama 2010). Higher turnover means fewer people with disabilities are left in the organizations
and therefore less people to move to those upper echelons of leadership. Lowering turnover
attitudes among employees with disabilities is necessary to promote disability-diversity at the
upper echelons of organizational leadership.
The present study advances the literature on diversity and inclusion by examining the
influence of perceived organizational inclusion on turnover intentions of federal employees with
disabilities. The findings indicate that on average, compared to employees without disabilities,
federal employees with disabilities exhibit lower job satisfaction, lower organizational inclusion
24
(i.e., organizational fairness, openness, supportiveness, cooperativeness, and empowerment), and
higher turnover intentions (see table 1). The findings based on regression analysis confirm the
first hypothesis that disability status significantly increases the odds of employee turnover
intentions (see table 3).
Mixed support is found for hypotheses 2 and 3 (see table 3 and 4). Specifically, with
respect to the effects of organizational inclusion among federal employees in general, findings
reveal that an increase in perceived organizational fairness, cooperativeness, and empowerment
were effective in lowering the odds of employee turnover intentions. However, contrary to
expectations, supportiveness was found to have no significant effect, while openness to diversity
was found to have a positive effect on turnover intentions. This finding might imply that
organizational openness to diversity through supervisory commitment and diversity-oriented
policies and programs may not be adequate or effective in lowering turnover intentions. Perhaps,
future research is needed to explore if and why the policies and programs for diversity and
inclusion are not as popular among majority employees. Also, what are the barriers to
prioritization, employee buy-in, commitment, and effective implementation of these programs?
With regards to the moderating effects of organizational inclusion elements on
relationship between employee’s disability status and turnover intentions, only perceived
organizational fairness was found to have the expected negative effect. Further research, perhaps
with a mixed methods design, is needed to examine non-significant findings for cooperativeness
and contradicting results for moderating effects of inclusive practices of openness,
supportiveness, and empowerment on the relationship between employee’s disability status and
turnover intentions.
25
One speculation is that unlike organizational fairness, other elements of organizational
inclusion considered in this study may not be sufficient or effective in mitigating the effects of
employee’s disability status on turnover intentions. Another implication of contradictory findings
may be that organizational inclusion programs focused on improving organizational openness to
diversity, enhancing supportiveness, cooperativeness, and empowerment of employees may have
not specifically targeted or fully included employees with disabilities. Common or generic
strategies for inclusion may not necessarily be adequate or effective for inclusion and retention
of employees with disabilities. Inclusion measures focused on and designed by employees with
disabilities may be necessary for success outcomes.
The severity and the onset of disability experience affects the extent to which employees
with disabilities experience internalized oppression, social anxiety, stigma, negative stereotypes,
prejudice, and levels of workgroup supportiveness. Therefore, the ‘one size fits’ all diversity
management and inclusion strategy for implementation and success measurement is likely to be
ineffective. The practice of inclusion would need different approaches depending on the
characteristics of visible and invisible forms of disability diversity within the workgroup
(Baldridge 2005; Li et al. 2017; Yang 2016). From research standpoint, efforts targeted to create
inclusive environments for disability-diverse federal workforce need to be measured concretely
in the federal employee viewpoint survey (FEVS).
[Table-4 here]
26
Implications for Practice
The findings of this study have important implications for practice. In 2014, among people ages
25 and above, 16.4% of people with a disability had completed at least a bachelor’s level
education, though only 21.6% of those with bachelor’s education were employed (i.e., 78.4%
were unemployed). This can be seen in comparison to the 34.6% of college graduates without a
disability where 75.9% were employed (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2015). These statistics imply
not only a loss in terms of utilization of existing human capital, often merely due to disability
status, but also indicate that people with a disability have to overcome severe systematic biases
and barriers to gain employment (Bonaccio et al. 2019). Thus, the findings of this study’s imply
that contemporary human resource management practices still have a long way to go in terms of
representation and inclusion of persons with disabilities even for the federal government, which
envisions to be a model employer.
Studies have shown that although the condition of disability does not limit the
individual’s productivity, negative attitudes towards people with disabilities increase with the
intensity of prejudice elicited by the impairment (Baldwin and Johnson 1995; Fine and Asch
1988; Yuker 1988). People with disabilities are more likely to withdraw from the workplaces
when they experience unfair treatment and workplace discrimination from their coworkers and
supervisors (Schur et al. 2017). Creating an inclusive environment for disability diverse teams
necessitates legal and structural reforms, but going beyond and deeper, to create an inclusive
culture (Chordiya 2018).
Such a culture change necessitates intentional work at institutional level to create safe
spaces for organizational members at different positions to regularly engage, perhaps through
27
trainings and workshops, in action-oriented reflection and examination of their implicit and
explicit biases, stereotypes, prejudices, and overt and subtle discriminatory behaviors against
people with disabilities (Hays-Thomas 2016; Riccucci 2002). However, using intervention
strategies focused solely on stereotypes, prejudices, and unconscious bias trainings are not
effective (Sue and Foley 2018). There may also be potential pitfalls of excluding some people
with disabilities, if such trainings and conversations do not directly address the differences in
types and severity of disabilities, and intersecting impact of other forms of oppression based on
race, sexual orientation, gender identities and gender expressions. A holistic and intentional
approach to interventions for diversity, equity, and inclusion would involve ex-ante preparations
in terms of culture audits, needs assessment, and strength, weakness, opportunities, and threat
(SWOT) analysis; and ex-post evaluations and impact assessments for double loop
organizational learning and development (Hays-Thomas 2016).
In general, instead of aiming for best practices alone, depending on the assessment of
their baseline (e.g. through needs assessment, culture audits, or climate surveys), organizations
would benefit from identifying and working in levels of beginning, better, and promising
practices for enhancing diversity, equity, and inclusion of people with disabilities (Shlasko
2020). Such efforts should be led by organizational leadership at the top with accountability and
transparency, representative voice of employees with disabilities, with the help of internal and/or
external team of experts, and commitment from line and middle management. Strategic planning
or policy or program development for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) of people with
disabilities need to be a major component of organizational strategic human resource planning.
In the era of ‘managerialism’ when public sector employees, including the federal
government employees are stripped of due process rights (Battaglio 2015), the present study
28
highlights the key role of organizational fairness in reducing turnover intentions of all
employees, particularly employees with disabilities. More specifically, successful human
resources management interventions may include focusing on equal and merit based treatment of
all employees in matters of performance appraisals as well as related outcomes such as
recognitions, awards, and promotions; protection from and zero tolerance of discriminatory
personnel practices, personal favoritism, and coercion for partisan political purposes; fairness in
access to appropriate channels for reporting a suspected violation of law, rule or regulation
without fear of reprisal (Daya 2014; Detert and Burris 2007; Cho and Sai 2013; Hayes, Bartle,
and Major 2002; Mor Barak and Cherin 1998; Roberson 2006; Shore et al. 2011; Sabharwal
2014; The U.S. Office of Personnel Management 2015).
Limitations
This study makes an important contribution to the literature on diversity and inclusion from a
disability perspective. However, like other studies using the FEVS data (e.g., Cho and Sai 2013;
Choi 2009; Pitts 2009; Sabharwal 2015), this study has limitations related to the use of survey
questions. Self-reports are used for measurements of disability status. Because of the ongoing
stigma attached to it, many people who would qualify as having a disability under ADA do not
identify as disabled, and many more are unaware of their rights (Ostiguy, Peters, and Shlasko
2016). Therefore, there may be a degree of inaccuracy due to over or under reporting of
employee’s disability status.
Another limitation is related to the inadequacy of measures to distinguish between visible
and invisible forms of disability and types of disability (such as psychological, sensorial, or
physical disabilities) as well as severity of disability. Such information is not included in FEVS
29
data to protect employee’s anonymity. Given its broader focus on experiences of federal
employees with disabilities, this study is limited to the extent that it does not empirically address
disability experiences from an intersectional lens. Future research using intersectional
approaches is needed to empirically investigate the effects of visible and invisible forms of
disabilities, type of disability, onset of disability, and severity of disability on, job experiences,
career success, and turnover attitudes of people with disabilities whose identities intersect with
other identities that have been traditionally marginalized based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual
orientation, and gender.
CONCLUSION
One of the important goals of social equity, diversity management, and inclusion programs is to
ensure that all workers with diverse abilities are not only well represented but are also fully
included in the organizational community to serve public interests (Riccucci 2002). Such a goal
can be achieved successfully only when public organizations are able to retain employees with
disability. Improving retention likelihood of employees with disabilities is necessary to promote
them to higher echelons of leadership. This study shows that federal employees with disabilities
are likely to express higher turnover intentions as compared to employees without disabilities.
However, it is also testament to the importance of inclusive organizational practices, particularly,
organizational fairness in lowering turnover intentions for employees with disabilities.
NOTES
1Language: Throughout this paper, I use Person-First language. However, it is important to
know- “people with disabilities have different preferences when referring to their disability.
Some people see their disability as an essential part of who they are and prefer to be identified
30
with their disability first – this is called Identity-First Language (e.g. deaf person instead of
person who is deaf, or an autistic person instead of person with autism”. (ADA National
Network (2017, pp. 1-2).
2 It is important to note here, that most national and international efforts for disability inclusion
movement have embraced the rights-based discourse, and at a strategic level it has enabled
additional entitlements to persons with disabilities (Clapton and Fitzgerald n.d.; Lawson 2005).
The entitlements are contingent to individuals identifying themselves as persons with disabilities
(Clapton and Fitzgerald n.d.). Such an approach has been criticized for failing to question and
contest the construct of disability. Scholars have argued for the need to deconstruct the
philosophy of inclusion based on commonly accepted construct of disability that physiological or
psychological disabilities exist in specific individuals and reaffirms the humanly contrived
binary categorization of individuals based on abilities and disabilities (Danforth and Rhodes
1997). In the context of disability, term inclusion is critiqued to be problematic as “it implies a
norm (i.e., able-ness) and that a minority or oppressed group is being included into that larger
normative population, thus unintentionally reinforcing the traditional status quo” (Harbour
2012).
3Consistent with current inclusive language practices, the word ‘womxn’ is used here refer to all
womxn that is white womxn, womxn of color, cisgender, gender fluid, non-binary, or
transgender womxn. Please note, inclusive language is constant evolving and the word ‘womxn’
may potentially be updated in future (see Kerr 2019)
4 This was as compared to 55.9 % men, 44.1 % women, 4.7 % Hispanic or Latino Men, 3.2 %
Hispanic or Latino women, 7.8 % African American men and 10.5 % African American women,
31
3.3 % Asian men, 2.5 % Asian women, 0.17 % and 0.14 % Native Hawaiian men and women
respectively, and 0.7 % and 0.9 % American Indian men and women respectively (The U.S.
EEOC 2008, I-13).
5 This was as compared to 85.6 % non-minorities, 27.7 % women, 3.6 Hispanic or Latino, 6.7 %
Black or African Americans, 4.0 % Asian, 0.04 % Native Hawaiian, and 0.8 % Indians (The U.S.
EEOC 2008, I-15).
REFERENCES
ADA National Network. 2017. “Guidelines for Writing about People with Disabilities.” Accessed on
May 21, 2020. https://adata.org/factsheet/ADANN-writing.
Arrow, Kenneth J. 1971. “Some Models of Racial Discrimination in the Labor Market.” Rm-6253-Rc.
Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation
———. 1998. “What Has Economics to Say about Racial Discrimination?” The Journal of Economic
Perspectives 12, 2: 91–100.
Baldwin, Marjorie L., and William G. Johnson. 1995. “Labor Market Discrimination against Women
with Disabilities.” Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society 34, 4: 555–77.
Baldridge, David C. 2005. “Withholding Accommodation Requests: The Role of Workgroup
Supportiveness and Requester Attributes.” In Academy of Management Annual Meeting
Proceedings, D1–6. Academy of Management. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2005.18778665.
Battaglio, Randy Paul, ed. 2015. Public Human Resource Management: Strategies and Practices in
the 21stCentury. Washington, D.C.: SAGE/CQ Press.
Becker, Gary S. 1957. The Economics of Discrimination. 1st edition. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
———. 1971. The Economics of Discrimination. 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Berman, Evan M., James S. Bowman, Jonathan P. West, and Montgomery R. Van Wart. 2019.
Human Resource Management in Public Service: Paradoxes, Processes, and Problems. Sixth
edition. Los Angeles: CQ Press.
32
Blanck, P. D., and G. Pransky. 1999. “Workers with Disabilities.” Occupational Medicine 14 (3):
581–93.
Bonaccio, Silvia, Catherine E. Connelly, Ian R. Gellatly, Arif Jetha, and Kathleen A. Martin Ginis.
2019. “The Participation of People with Disabilities in the Workplace across the Employment
Cycle: Employer Concerns and Research Evidence.” Journal of Business and Psychology,
January. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9602-5.
Brewer, Marilynn B. 1991. “The Social Self: On Being the Same and Different at the Same Time.”
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17, no. 5: 475–82.
Brewer, Marilynn B., and Wendi Gardner. 1996. “Who Is This ‘We’? Levels of Collective Identity
and Self Representations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71, no. 1: 83–93.
Bryan, Willie V. 2018. “Struggle for Freedom: Disability Rights Movement.” In Readings for
Diversity and Social Justice, edited by Maurianne Adams, Warren J. Blumenfeld, D. Chase J.
Catalano, Keri Dejong, Heather W. Hackman, Larissa E. Hopkins, Barbara Love, Madeline L.
Peters, Davey Shlasko, and Ximena Zuniga, 4 edition. New York London: Routledge.
Bruyére, Susanne M., ed. 2019. Employment and Disability: Issues, Innovations, and Opportunities.
First Edition. Labor and Employment Relations Association Series. Champaign, IL 61820: Labor
and Employment Relations Association.
Bruyére, Susanne. 2000. 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.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 2015. “People with a Disability Less Likely to
Have Completed a Bachelor’s Degree.” The Economics Daily, July 20. Accessed January 20,
2018. https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/people-with-a-disability-less-likely-to-have-
completed-a-bachelors-degree.htm.
Cantarelli, Paola, Paolo Belardinelli, and Nicola Belle. 2015. “A Meta-Analysis of Job Satisfaction
Correlates in the Public Administration Literature.” Review of Public Personnel Administration,
March, 0734371X15578534. doi:10.1177/0734371X15578534.
Cho, Yoon Jik, and Na Sai. 2013. “Does Organizational Justice Matter in the Federal Workplace?”
Review of Public Personnel Administration 33 (3): 227–51.
Choi, Sungjoo. 2009. “Diversity in the US Federal Government: Diversity Management and
Employee Turnover in Federal Agencies.” Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory 19, no. 3: 603–30.
Chordiya, Rashmi. 2018. “Are Federal Child Care Programs Sufficient for Employee Retention?
Critical Examination from a Gendered Perspective.” The American Review of Public
Administration, October, 0275074018804662. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074018804662.
33
Chrobot-Mason, Donna, and Kecia M. Thomas. 2002. “Minority Employees in Majority
Organizations: The Intersection of Individual and Organizational Racial Identity in the
Workplace.” Human Resource Development Review 1, no. 3: 323–44.
Clapton, Jayne, and Jennifer Fitzgerald. n.d. “The History of Disability: A History of ‘Otherness.’”
New Renaissance, n.d. http://www.ru.org/index.php/human-rights/315-the-history-of-disability-
a-history-of-otherness.
Cobert, Beth F. 2015. “Report on the Employment of Individuals with Disabilities in the Federal
Executive Branch.” Washington, DC, USA: The U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Accessed January 6, 2018. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/diversity-and-
inclusion/reports/disability-report-fy2014.pdf.
Colella, Adrienne, and Arup Varma. 1999. “Disability-Job Fit Stereotypes and the Evaluation of
Persons with Disabilities at Work.” Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 9, no. 2: 79–95.
Collier, Danielle. (2016). Inclusion of people with disabilities in the workplace: Best practices for HR
professionals. Retrieved on April 24, 2019 from Cornell University, ILR School site:
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/ student/142
Correll, Joshua, and Bernadette Park. 2005. “A Model of the In-group as a Social Resource.”
Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality
and Social Psychology, Inc 9, no. 4: 341–59
Danforth, Scot, and William C. Rhodes. 1997. “Deconstructing Disability: A Philosophy for
Inclusion.” Remedial and Special Education 18 (6): 357–66.
Daya, Preeya. 2014. “Diversity and Inclusion in an Emerging Market Context.” Equality, Diversity
and Inclusion: An International Journal 33, no. 3: 293–308.
Davis, Joseph M. 1972. “Impact of Health on Earnings and Labor Market Activity.” Monthly Labor
Review 95, no. 10: 46–49.
———. 1973. “Health and the Education-Earnings Relationship.” Monthly Labor Review 96, no. 4:
61–63.
Davis, Linda. 2005. "Disabilities in the Workplace: Recruitment, Accommodation, and
Retention." Aaohn Journal 53, no. 7: 306-312.
Detert, James R., and Ethan R. Burris. 2007. “Leadership Behavior and Employee Voice: Is the Door
Really Open?” Academy of Management Journal 50, no. 4: 869–84.
Disability Rights Washington. 2018. “Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Statement.” Accessed February
3, 2020. https://www.disabilityrightswa.org/diversity-equity-inclusion/.
34
Domzal, C., A. Houtenville, and R. Sharma. 2008. “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). McLean, VA: CESSI.
Donohue, Thomas J., and Jill Houghton. 2013. “Leading Practices on Disability Inclusion.” U.S.
Chamber of Commerce. Accessed January 8, 2018. https://www.uschamber.com/leading-
practices-disability-inclusion-0.
Ellner, Jack R., and Henry E. Bender. 1980. Hiring the Handicapped. New York: Amacom.
Enayati, Hassan, Sarah von Schrader, William Erickson, and Susanne M. Bruyére. 2019. “Minimizing
Discrimination and Maximizing Inclusion: Lessons from the Federal Workforce and Federal
Subcontractors.” In Employment and Disability: Issues, Innovations, and Opportunities, edited
by Susanne M. Bruyére, First Edition, 34–63. Labor and Employment Relations Association
Series. Champaign, IL: Labor and Employment Relations Association.
Fenton, Zanita E. 2018. “Disability Does Not Discriminate: Toward a Theory of Multiple Identity
Through Coalition.” In Readings for Diversity and Social Justice, edited by Maurianne Adams,
Warren J. Blumenfeld, D. Chase J. Catalano, Keri Dejong, Heather W. Hackman, Larissa E.
Hopkins, Barbara Love, Madeline L. Peters, Davey Shlasko, and Ximena Zuniga, 4 edition, 482–
86. New York London: Routledge.
Ferdman, Bernardo M., Victoria Barrera, Ashley A. Allen, and Vanna Vuong. 2009. “Inclusive
Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion.” In Inclusion in Organizations: Measures, HR
Practices, and Climate. Chicago, IL.
Ferdman, Bernardo M., Avi Avigdor, Deborah Braun, Jennifer Konkin, and Daniel Kuzmycz. 2010.
“Collective Experience of Inclusion, Diversity, and Performance in Work Groups.” RAM.
Revista de Administração Mackenzie 11, no. 3: 6–26.
Fine, Michelle, and Adrienne Asch, eds. 1988. Women with Disabilities: Essays in Psychology,
Culture and Politics. First edition. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Gunderson, Morley, and Byron Y. Lee. 2016. “Pay Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities:
Canadian Evidence from PALS.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management
27, no.14: 1531–49.
Guryan, Jonathan, and Kerwin Kofi Charles. 2013. “Taste-Based or Statistical Discrimination: The
Economics of Discrimination Returns to Its Roots.” The Economic Journal 123 (572): F417–32.
Harbour, Wendy S. 2012. Inclusion in K-12 and Higher Education. In Righting Educational Wrongs:
Disability Studies in Law and Education, edited by Arlene S. Kanter and Beth A. Ferri, 294–306.
Syracuse, U.S.: Syracuse University Press.
35
Hayes, Bryan C, Simon A Bartle, and Debra A Major. 2002. “Climate for Opportunity:” Human
Resource Management Review 12, no. 3: 445–68.
Hays-Thomas, Rosemary. 2016. Managing Workplace Diversity and Inclusion: A Psychological
Perspective. New York: Routledge.
Holvino, Evangelina, Bernardo M. Ferdman, and Deborah Merrill-Sands. 2004. Creating and
Sustaining Diversity and Inclusion in Organizations: Strategies and Approaches. In The
Psychology and Management of Workplace Diversity, edited by M.S. Stockdale and F.J. Crosby,
245–76. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Kaye, H. Stephen, Lita H. Jans, and Erica C. Jones. 2011. “Why Don’t Employers Hire and Retain
Workers with Disabilities?” Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 21, no. 4: 526–36.
Kerr, Breena. 2019. “What Do Womxn Want?” The New York Times, March 14, 2019, sec. Style.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/style/womxn.html.
Kim, Pan S. 1996. “Disability Policy: An Analysis of the Employment of People with Disabilities in
the American Federal Government.” Public Personnel Management 25, no. 1: 73–88.
Lambert, Jason R., and Myrtle P. Bell. 2012. “Diverse Forms of Difference.” In Oxford Handbook of
Diversity and Work, edited by Quinetta M. Roberson. New York, United Kingdom: Oxford
University Press, Incorporated.
Lawson, Anna. 2005. “The EU Rights Based Approach to Disability: Strategies for Shaping an
Inclusive Society.” International Journal of Discrimination and the Law 6 (4): 269–87.
Levitan, Sar A., and Robert Taggart. 1977. Jobs for the Disabled. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Lewis, Gregory B., and Cheryl Lynn Allee. 1992. “The Impact of Disabilities on Federal Career
Success.” Public Administration Review 52, no. 4: 389–97.
Li, Jiping, Xiji Zhu, Xinxin Li, Prithviraj Chattopadhyay, and Elizabeth George. 2017. “Gain or Pain:
How Disability Severity Affects the Impacts of Climate for Inclusion.” Academy of Management
Proceedings 2017 (1): 14998. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2017.4.
Meier, Kenneth J., Laurence J. O’Toole, and Holly T. Goerdel. 2006. “Management Activity and
Program Performance: Gender as Management Capital.” Public Administration Review 66, no. 1:
24–36.
Miller, Frederick A. 1998. “Strategic Culture Change: The Door to Achieving High Performance and
Inclusion.” Public Personnel Management 27, no. 2: 151–60.
36
Mithaug, Dennis E. 1979. “Negative Employer Attitudes toward Hiring the Handicapped: Factor
Fiction?” Journal of Contemporary Business 8: 19–26.
Mitra, Sophie, and Douglas Kruse. 2016. “Are Workers with Disabilities More Likely to Be
Displaced?” The International Journal of Human Resource Management 27, no.14: 1550–79.
Mor Barak, Michalle E. 2013. Managing Diversity: Toward a Globally Inclusive Workplace. SAGE.
Mor Barak, Michalle E., and David A. Cherin. 1998. “A Tool to Expand Organizational
Understanding of Workforce Diversity.” Administration in Social Work 22, no. 1: 47–64.
Nair, Nisha, and Neharika Vohra. 2015. “Diversity and Inclusion at the Workplace: A Review of
Research and Perspectives.” IIMA Working Paper WP2015-03-34. Indian Institute of
Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department. Accessed January 22, 2018
https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/iimiimawp/13347.htm.
National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (NCBDDD). 2017. “Disability
Inclusion.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Disability and Health. Accessed January
8, 2018 https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/disability-inclusion.html.
Nelissen, Philippe T. J. H., Ute R. Hülsheger, Gemma M. C. van Ruitenbeek, and Fred R. H. Zijlstra.
2016. “How and When Stereotypes Relate to Inclusive Behavior toward People with
Disabilities.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management 27, no. 14: 1610–25.
Nembhard, Ingrid M., and Amy C. Edmondson. 2006. “Making It Safe: The Effects of Leader
Inclusiveness and Professional Status on Psychological Safety and Improvement Efforts in
Health Care Teams.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 27, no. 7: 941–66.
Nishii, Lisa H. 2012. “The Benefits of Climate for Inclusion for Gender-Diverse Groups.” Academy of
Management Journal 56 (6): 1754–74. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0823.
Obama, Barack. 2010. Executive Order 13548. Accessed January 6, 2018.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-07-30/pdf/2010-18988.pdf.
Office of Disability Employment Policy. 2005. “Investing in People: Job Accommodation Situations
and Solutions.” United States Department of Labor. 2005.
https://www.dol.gov/odep/pubs/misc/invest.htm.
Ostiguy, Benjamin J., Madeline L. Peters, and Davey Shlasko. 2016. “Ableism.” In Teaching for
Diversity and Social Justice, edited by Maurianne Adams, Lee Anne Bell, Diane J. Goodman,
and Khyati Y. Joshi, 3 edition. New York: Routledge.
Park, Hun Myoung. 2009. “Linear Regression Models for Panel Data Using SAS, Stata, LIMDEP,
and SPSS.” Working Paper. The University Information Technology Services (UITS) Center for
Statistical and Mathematical Computing, Indiana University.
37
Pelled, Lisa Hope, Jr Ledford Gerald E., and Susan Albers Mohrman. 1999. “Demographic
Dissimilarity and Workplace Inclusion.” Journal of Management Studies 36, no.7: 1013–31.
Phelps, Edmund S. 1972. “The Statistical Theory of Racism and Sexism.” The American Economic
Review 62, no. 4: 659–61.
Pickett, Cynthia L., and Marilynn B. Brewer. 2001. “Assimilation and Differentiation Needs as
Motivational Determinants of Perceived In-Group and Out-Group Homogeneity.” Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology 37, no. 4: 341–48.
Pitts, David. 2009. “Diversity Management, Job Satisfaction, and Performance: Evidence from U.S.
Federal Agencies.” Public Administration Review 69, no. 2: 328–38.
Podestà, Federico. 2002. “Recent Developments in Quantitative Comparative Methodology: The Case
of Pooled Time Series Cross-Section Analysis.” DSS Papers Soc 3-02. Accessed January 22,
2018. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f758/6d1e4e69d60938a8c30d5046a827dea391da.pdf.
Rabe-Hesketh, Sophia, and Anders Skrondal. 2012. Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using
Stata, Volumes I and II. 3rd Edition. College Station, Texas: Stata Press.
Ragins, Belle Rose. 2008. “Disclosure Disconnects: Antecedents and Consequences of Disclosing
Invisible Stigmas across Life Domains.” The Academy of Management Review 33, no. 1: 194–
215.
Randel, Amy E., Michelle A. Dean, Karen Holcombe Ehrhart, Beth Chung, and Lynn Shore. 2016.
“Leader Inclusiveness, Psychological Diversity Climate, and Helping Behaviors.” Journal of
Managerial Psychology 31, no. 1: 216–34.
Raphael, Todd. 2002. “Think Twice- Disabling Some Old Stereotypes – Workforce.” August 13,
2002. https://www.workforce.com/2002/08/13/think-twice-disabling-some-old-stereotypes/.
Riccucci, Norma. 2002. Managing Diversity in Public Sector Workforces. Boulder, Colo: Westview
Press.
Roberson, Quinetta M. 2006. “Disentangling the Meanings of Diversity and Inclusion in
Organizations.” Group & Organization Management 31, no. 2: 212–36.
Sabharwal, Meghna. 2014. “Is Diversity Management Sufficient? Organizational Inclusion to Further
Performance.” Public Personnel Management 43, no. 2: 197–217.
———. 2015. “From Glass Ceiling to Glass Cliff: Women in Senior Executive Service.” Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory 25, no. 2: 399–426.
Sabharwal, Meghna, Helisse Levine, and Maria D’Agostino. 2016. “A Conceptual Content Analysis
of 75 Years of Diversity Research in Public Administration.” Review of Public Personnel
Administration, October, 0734371X16671368. doi:10.1177/0734371X16671368.
38
Schechter, E. S. 1977. “Employment and Work Adjustments of the Disabled: 1972 Survey of
Disabled and Nondisabled Adults.” Social Security Bulletin 40, no. 7: 3–15.
Schur, Lisa, Kyongji Han, Andrea Kim, Mason Ameri, Peter Blanck, and Douglas Kruse. 2017.
“Disability at Work: A Look Back and Forward.” Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 27, 4:
482–97.
Shlasko, Davey. 2020. “Trans*ing the Classroom for Educators at Seattle University.” Seattle
University, January.
Shore, Lynn M., Amy E. Randel, Beth G. Chung, Michelle A. Dean, Karen Holcombe Ehrhart, and
Gangaram Singh. 2011. “Inclusion and Diversity in Work Groups: A Review and Model for
Future Research.” Journal of Management 37, no. 4: 1262–89.
Slack, James D. 1995. “The Americans with Disabilities Act and the Workplace: Management’s
Responsibilities in AIDS-Related Situations.” Public Administration Review 55, no. 4: 365–70.
Smith, Emma. 2017. “Disability Inclusion: How HR Leaders Can Build More Inclusive Workplaces.”
Devex. Accessed January 8, 2018. https://www.devex.com/news/sponsored/disability-inclusion-
how-hr-leaders-can-build-more-inclusive-workplaces-90323.
Spechler, Jay W. 1996. Reasonable Accommodation: Profitable Compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.
Sue, Derald Wing. 2018. “Microaggressions, Marginality, and Oppression: An Introduction.” In
Readings for Diversity and Social Justice, edited by Maurianne Adams, Warren J. Blumenfeld,
D. Chase J. Catalano, Keri Dejong, Heather W. Hackman, Larissa E. Hopkins, Barbara Love,
Madeline L. Peters, Davey Shlasko, and Ximena Zuniga, 4 edition. New York London:
Routledge.
Tajfel, Henri. 1978. Differentiation between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of
Intergroup Relations. Published in cooperation with European Association of Experimental
Social Psychology by Academic Press.
———. 2010. Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge University Press.
The Corporation for National and Community Service. n.d. “Disability Inclusion Resources.”
Americorps and Senior Corps. Accessed September 4, 2019.
https://www.nationalservice.gov/resources/disability-inclusion.
The U.S. Department of Justice. 2009. “A Guide to Disability Rights Laws.” Civil Rights Division|
Disability Rights Section. Accessed January 22, 2018
https://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm#anchor62335.
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (The U.S. EEOC). 2008. “EEOC FY
2008 Annual Report on the Federal Work Force.” Washington, D.C.: United States Equal
39
Employment Opportunity Commission: Office of Federal Operations. Accessed September 4,
2017. https://www.eeoc.gov/federal/reports/fsp2008/fsp2008.pdf.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. n.d. “Questions and Answers: Promoting
Employment of Individuals with Disabilities in the Federal Workforce.” n.d. Accessed January
20, 2020. https://www.eeoc.gov/federal/qanda-employment-with-disabilities.cfm#model.
The United States Office of Personnel Management. 2015. “2015 Federal Employee Viewpoint
Survey: Employees Influencing Change.” Governmentwide Management Report. Washington,
DC, USA.
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management n.d. “2016 Employee Survey Results.” U.S. Office of
Personnel Management. Accessed September 4, 2017. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-
oversight/data-analysis-documentation/employee-surveys/results/2016-employee-survey-results/.
Tourangeau, Roger. 2003. “Recurring Surveys: Issues and Opportunities” A Report to the National
Science Foundation Based on a Workshop Held on March 28-29, 2003. Accessed January 8,
2018. https://www.nsf.gov/sbe/ses/mms/nsf04_211a.pdf.
U.S.C. Title 29 - LABOR. n.d. United States Code, 2018 Edition. Accessed January 20, 2020.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2018-title29/html/USCODE-2018-title29-
chap16-subchapV-sec791.htm#791_1_target.
Vohra, Neharika, Vijayalakshmi Chari, Putul Mathur, Priyanka Sudarshan, Nisha Verma, Nihar
Mathur, Poonam Thakur, et al. 2015. “Inclusive Workplaces: Lessons from Theory and
Practice.” Vikalpa 40, no. 3: 324–62.
Westerholm, Robert I., Laura Radak, Christopher B. Keys, and David B. Henry. 2005. “Stigma.” In
Encyclopedia of Disability, edited by Gary L. Albrecht. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Williamson, Sue, and Meraiah Foley. 2018. “Unconscious Bias Training: The ‘Silver Bullet’ for
Gender Equity?” Australian Journal of Public Administration 77 (3): 355–59.
World Health Organization, and World Bank Group. 2011. “World Report on Disability.” Malta:
World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report.pdf.
Yang, Dan. 2016. “How Multiple Identities of Employees with Disabilities Affect Their Voice
Behavior.” Academy of Management Proceedings 2016 (1): 16055.
https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2016.16055abstract.
Yelin, Edward H., and Laura Trupin. 2003. “Disability and the Characteristics of Employment.”
Monthly Labor Review 126, no. 5: 20.
40
Yuker, Harold E., ed. 1988. Attitudes toward Persons with Disabilities. First Edition. New York:
Springer Pub Co.
41
Table 1: T-test Mean Comparisons on Items Measuring Turnover Intentions, Organizational
Inclusion, and Job Satisfaction for Employees with and without Disabilities
Employees
with Disabilities
Employees
without
Disabilities
Min-Max
Mean (S.D.)
Mean (S.D.)
Turnover Intentions (Yes=1, No=0)
.397***
(.489)
.310
(.462)
0-1
Job Satisfaction
Considering everything, how satisfied are you
with your job?
3.54
(1.16)
3.70***
(1.06)
1-5
Organizational Fairness or Justice (Are all employees treated equally?)
Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.906; Eigenvalue=4.50; Factor loadings= 0.60 and above
My performance appraisal is a fair reflection of
my performance
3.58
(1.24)
3.74***
(1.13)
1-5
I can disclose a suspected violation of any law,
rule or regulation without fear of reprisal.
3.39
(1.34)
3.62***
(1.20)
1-5
Promotions in my work unit are based on merit.
2.69
(1.25)
2.94***
(1.22)
1-5
In my work unit, steps are taken to deal with a
poor performer who cannot or will not improve.
2.69
(1.23)
2.76***
(1.20)
1-5
In my work unit, differences in performance are
recognized in a meaningful way.
2.78
(1.21)
2.91***
(1.16)
1-5
Awards in my work unit depend on how well
employees perform their jobs.
2.87
(1.29)
3.06***
(1.22)
1-5
Arbitrary action, personal favoritism and
coercion for partisan political purposes are not
tolerated.
3.14
(1.32)
3.37***
(1.23)
1-5
Prohibited Personnel Practices (for example,
illegally discriminating for or against any
employee/applicant,
obstructing a person's right to compete for
employment, knowingly violating veterans'
preference requirements) are not tolerated
3.44
(1.28)
3.76***
(1.08)
1-5
Openness (Does management support diversity in all ways?)
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.82; Eigenvalue=2.07; Factor loadings= 0.68 and above
Creativity and innovation are rewarded.
2.89
(1.22)
3.06***
(1.16)
1-5
Policies and programs promote diversity in the
workplace (for example, recruiting minorities
and women, training in awareness of diversity
issues, mentoring
3.37
(1.16)
3.55***
(1.04)
1-5
My supervisor is committed to a workforce
representative of all segments of society.
3.67
(1.16)
3.84***
(1.04)
1-5
42
Supervisors work well with employees of
different backgrounds.
3.48
(1.16)
3.66***
(1.04)
1-5
Cooperative: Does management encourage communication and collaboration?
Cronbach’s Alpha=0.92; Eigenvalue=1.61; Both factor loadings=0.89
Managers promote communication among
different work units (for example, about projects,
goals, needed resources).
3.24
(1.23)
3.35***
(1.17)
1-5
Managers support collaboration across work
units to accomplish work objectives.
3.32
(1.21)
3.46***
(1.14)
1-5
Supportiveness (Do supervisors value employees?)
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.91; Eigenvalue=3.34; Factor loadings= 0.68 and above
My supervisor supports my need to balance work
and other life issues.
3.88
(1.16)
4.07***
(1.03)
1-5
My supervisor provides me with constructive
suggestions to improve my job performance.
3.48
(1.25)
3.64***
(1.16)
1-5
My supervisor listens to what I have to say.
3.80
(1.16)
3.99***
(1.04)
1-5
My supervisor treats me with respect.
3.93
(1.13)
4.12***
(1.00)
1-5
In the last six months, my supervisor has talked
with me about my performance.
3.86
(1.10)
4.01***
(1.00)
1-5
Empowering (Do employees have the resources and support needed to excel?)
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.84; Eigenvalue=2.23; Factor loadings= 0.69 and above
I have enough information to do my job well.
3.61
(1.08)
3.73***
(.989)
1-5
I feel encouraged to come up with new and better
ways of doing things.
3.51
(1.27)
3.77***
(1.15)
1-5
My talents are used well in the workplace.
3.26
(1.29)
3.43***
(1.19)
1-5
Employees have a feeling of personal
empowerment with respect to work processes.
3.05
(1.20)
3.15***
(1.14)
1-5
Note: Several items used for measuring organizational inclusion elements are adopted from The U.S. Office
of Personnel Management’s 2015 FEVS report.
*p<.05; **p<.01, ***p<.001.
43
Table 2: Pairwise Correlations Matrix of Study Variables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
Turnover
1
2
Disability
0.06***
1
3
Female
-
0.02***
-
0.10***
1
4
Minority
0.02***
0.03***
0.12***
1
5
Veteran
0.07***
0.30***
-
0.36***
-
0.00***
1
6
Fairness
-
0.31***
-
0.07***
-
0.04***
-
0.03***
-
0.02***
1
7
Openness
-
0.30***
-
0.06***
-
0.04***
-
0.09***
-
0.01***
0.82***
1
8
Supportiveness
-
0.26***
-
0.06***
-
0.02***
-
0.04***
-
0.02***
0.66***
0.74***
1
9
Cooperativeness
-
0.26***
-
0.03***
-
0.00***
0.01***
-
0.00***
0.68***
0.72***
0.54***
1
10
Empowering
-
0.34***
-
0.04***
-
0.00***
0.00***
0.00***
0.76***
0.75***
0.62***
0.67***
1
11
Job Satisfaction
-
0.41***
-
0.04***
-
0.00***
0.00***
-
0.00***
0.64***
0.64***
0.56***
0.56***
0.72***
1
12
Years of
Government
Experience
(Square)
-
0.04***
-
0.05***
0.07***
-
0.00***
-
0.12***
0.01***
-.02***
-.04***
-0.0***
0.01***
0.01***
1
*p<.05; **p<.01, ***p<.001.
44
Table 3: Pooled Time Series Cross-Sectional Analysis for Years 2012-2015
Statistical Procedure: Multiple Logistic Regression Analysis with Agency & Year Fixed Effects,
Robust Standard Errors Clustered at Agency Level
Outcome Variable: Turnover Intention
Coefficient
Odds Ratio
Disability (Yes=1)
. 131***
(.029)
1.14
(.033)
Female
.018
(.039)
1.01
(.040)
Minority (Yes=1)
.166***
(.010)
1.17
(.012)
Veteran (Yes=1)
.245***
(.039)
1.27
(.049)
Fairness
-.191***
(.014)
.825
(.011)
Openness
.052***
(.012)
1.05
(.013)
Supportiveness
.000
(.007)
1.00
(.007)
Cooperativeness
-.012***
(.009)
.987
(.009)
Empowering
-.221***
.007
.801
(.006)
Disability* Fairness
-.055**
(.015)
.946
(.014)
Disability* Openness
.025
(.015)
1.02
(.016)
Disability* Supportiveness
.027**
(.008)
1.02
(.009)
Disability*Cooperativeness
-.025
(.018)
.975
(.018)
Disability*Empowering
.039**
(.013)
1.04
(.014)
Job Satisfaction
-.677***
(.008)
.507
(.004)
Square of Years of Government Experience
-.015***
(.006)
.984**
(.006)
Controlled for Year fixed effects
Yes
Controlled for Agency fixed effects
Yes
Intercept
1.96***
(0.05)
7.10***
(0.355)
Pseudo R2
15.47
N
1,051,133
*p<.05; **p<.01, ***p<.001. Robust standard errors clustered at agency levels in parentheses. Please
see ‘data and methods’ section above for details on sample size.
45
Table 4: Summary of Findings
Hypothesis
Support for
Hypothesis
Hypothesis 1: As compared to employees without disabilities, odds of turnover
intentions will be higher among federal employees with disabilities.
Supported
Hypothesis 2: The odds of turnover intentions will decline with increased
organizational inclusion (fairness, openness, empowerment, supportiveness, and
cooperativeness).
Partially
Supported
Hypothesis 3: Organizational inclusion (fairness, openness, empowerment,
supportiveness, and cooperativeness) will have a negative moderating effect on the
relationship between employees’ turnover intentions and disability status.
Partially
Supported
