PasteChapter 4 Analysis
When looking at the gathered data it become apparent that the issues, which were indicated by the interviewees as barriers for the inclusion of people with disabilities, were mainly caused by the current norms and organizational culture. Within this current norm the requirement to work at least 32-hours, the required educational level, the flexibility but also a certain attitude towards work which is expected from the employees are indicated as difficulties to include people with disabilities. Furthermore, the research findings indicated that the organizational structures are based upon the ideal worker image and the norm set by organization x. Within these structures there is not a lot of flexibility is present to place people with disabilities. The fit of organization x and the inclusion of people with disabilities is questioned by its employees, therefore it will be discussed in this chapter that the dominant discourse about the inclusion of people with disabilities meets the discourse about the organizational culture. The position that is taken in this debate will be that the dominant view upon diversity and the norm obstruct the inclusion of people with disabilities. Additionally these norms also obstruct employees who does not conform to the norm within organization x. The dominant view upon diversity management within organization x, which can be indicated as an essentialist view, does not question the current norms (Holvino & Kamp, 2009), as it promotes the focus on differences. As a reaction differences are embellished and seen as being different than the norm (Holvino & Kamp, 2009). For that reason the creation of safe spaces as mentioned by Ghorashi & Sabelis (2013) is suggested. Safe spaces create the possibility to develop a different perspective on diversity management to change the ‘toothless critique’, critique without any effect, into effective critique which does change the current norms at organization x.
4.1 Is diversity present within organization x?
Organization x can be described as a homogenous organization when looking at the diversity within their workforce. Not only obvious diversity measures like gender diversity are missing within organization x, but also diversity of age, cultural diversity, educational level and personality characteristics are not present. People with disabilities are the diversity category most lacking at organization x. Nonetheless it seems wrong to focus only on this dimension when looking at diversity within organization x. As Acker (2006) states the focus on one dimension of diversity would be a simplification of the reality of an organization. She states that all the aspects of diversity within an organization should be considered when looking at a specific dimension of diversity, like people with disabilities. The dimensions should be considered as a whole, because they reproduce each other (Acker, 2006). When looking at the diversity from the angle of the people with disabilities, the gender dimension seems to be connected to the dimension of people with disabilities as both of the dimensions consider the appreciation of qualities which are different from the masculine norm. Furthermore age, the preference towards rather young employees and people with disabilities seems to be connected to the norm of working long hours and the aim to get promotion as fast as possible. People who are considered to stall the high intensity of working and delivering output do not conform the current ideal worker. The favored worker image supports sameness amongst the employees instead of valuing diversity within the workforce (Holvino & Kamp, 2009; Essed,2002). The way in which this valuing of sameness has an effect on the inclusion of people with disabilities will be illustrated in next paragraph.
Within organization x masculine features are appreciated as the organizational culture promotes focus on output, promotion, the contest between colleagues for promotion and performance as having priority. It can be said that masculinity is at the core of organization x (Acker, 2006). Current discursive patterns put people with disabilities within a less appreciated position as masculine characteristics as competitive characteristics and being less productive are seen as characteristics of people with disabilities. This undervalued stereotype gets reproduced as a results of both the lack of experience with this group and the masculine characteristics and behavior which is appreciated within organization x. Behavior which does not conform this masculinity is undervalued. This will make it more difficult for people with disabilities to be included as their deviation from the norm is not appreciated (Essed, 2002). Barriers for the inclusion of people with disabilities are established in organizational structures and daily activities within organization x. An example is the assessment system wherein promotion is the main aim and people even talk about an up or out model, where people leave the organization when they are not able to get promotion fast enough. Another obstacle is the full-time dedication which is expected from the employees of organization x. Narratives about the flexibility which is expected and work-attitude which is expected from employees of organization x and how this work can be a burden for people who are disabled . Discourse about the full-time dedication was found which indicated this norm to be a barrier for people with disabilities. It was indicated to affect people with disabilities as they might need more time for their personal life, need more time for work-home transport or are not able to work full-time. Which can cause conflicts in people their work-life balance. Furthermore discourse about the ability to travel and work in a changing environment was found. The ability to adapt and assimilate to all different kinds of work environment was indicated as an requirement people have to meet when working at organization x to meet the demands of the client and as a barrier for people with disabilities. As there are almost no role models present in the organization who promote the inclusion of people with disabilities it becomes more difficult to imagine people with disabilities within an organization as organization x. Except for one senior-manager who is disabled there are not examples of people with disabilities in managerial positions. Narratives were found that interviewees thought it was important for management to ‘walk the talk’ about diversity initiatives. This is line with Essed’s (2002) finding that it is important that leadership promotes and is a representation of the diversity goals. As the people within management position shape the norms and there are no people with disabilities present within this positions, people without disabilities will determine the organizational structure, behaviors and norms within organization x and the current norms will not be questioned (Collinson, 2005; Ford, 2010).
To conclude, the masculine organizational norms which are reinforced and result in establishing these norms results in inequality within organization x towards people who do not conform to these norms. Not only are people with disabilities hindered by these norms, but all employees who differ from the norm are obstructed by them.
4.2 How does the strong culture of organization x influence its employees?
First and foremost it is important to understand how existing norms are maintained through a strong corporate culture. Why do employees accept and reproduce organizational norms without questioning them. Often it even proceeds further and people conform their own personal norms to the expected and approved organizational norms and behavior. An example of these norms within organization x is the norm of working at least 32-hours a week and the flexibility within this working hours as well as the flexibility within working environment and the ability to conform to this situation. The discourse found surrounding this subject enhances that people conform to the norms of the organization and conforms to a certain ideal worker image. This incorporation discourse can be linked to Kunda’s article (1992) wherein the idea of normative control was described. Kunda (1992) describes the use of strong organizational cultures to internalize organizational norms within the employees of an organization. Through this internalization employees adopt the norms set by the organization which results in behavior which is approved and rewarded by the organization (Kunda, 1992). As Kunda (1992: 356) stated these norms are not maintained by strict supervision, but by examples set by peers and the pressure which derives from these examples. This is illustrated by an non-managerial employee who explained the maintenance of current norms as follows:
NM “I think at first people are uncomfortable with the set norms. When they are consultants or analysts they just do not dare to speak up and when they are further in their careers they are used to it and perceive it as normal. I think it just is how we are around here.”
Another discursive pattern which was found about the normative control of the strong corporate control of organization x were people who were aware of this control and opposed this control. These interviewees were mostly found within the managerial section of the organization. They did not conform to the norms consciously because they thought it pushed the limits of their authenticity. Within this group there was more space for diversity as they perceived this as an expression of their personal selves.
To summarize, organization x’s strong organizational culture promotes commitment towards to organization and shapes employees into an ideal worker as imaged by organization x. This normative control is both embraced as repelled by the employees, but necessary to understand how the organizational norms remain untouched. As some employees protest against this norm and consciously challenge it, this norm might change in the future.
4.3 Diversity perspectives
Organization x’s aim to become an inclusive organization is seen through a business case perspective (Holvino & Kamp, 2009). The business case approach can be found within organization x’s diversity statement- which enhances that diversity is necessary and contributes the delivering of high performance to the client and enables organization x to compete with other players in the same sector (organization x, 2016), but also in the presentation given at the introduction days for new employees. Furthermore the business approach can be found in the narratives of the interviewees, who emphasized that diversity promotes the output of teamwork, ‘it is scientifically proven that diversity creates better teams’ and that diverse backgrounds of employees offer the opportunities of diverse perspectives on projects. These statements made the business case approach to diversity management clear. However this is not the whole image of diversity management within organization x. Within organization x diversity management is furthermore explained from a social justice argument, namely that the inclusion of people with disabilities would contribute to the usage of the now often unused potential of this group. As aforementioned the obstacles for the inclusion of people with disabilities evolve from the norms related to work pressure, flexibility, working hours and employee assessment. It can be stated that the diversity management actions only mask the real reason behind diversity inequity within organizations, like Meyerson and Fletcher (2000) stated in relation to gender inequity. When applying this to inequity for people with disabilities, diversity management initiatives to promote the inclusion of people with disabilities only appears to mask that actually the organizational norms and structures are withholding this inclusion. This is applicable to the situation at organization x.
When looking at the narratives of the interviewees it was indicated that currently the diversity within the workforce was mainly determined within the perspective of super diversity (Vertovec, 2007) found within a group of mostly young, highly educated and often masculine employee profile. The homogeneity found within organization x is indicated as a phenomenon they are trying to change. While trying to change this homogeneity, differences between employees are enhanced, promoting the focus on differences and promoting the super diversity perspective (Vertovec, 2007). Currently the domination of the norm is accepted as natural and as a consequence of the aim of delivering a certain quality and service to the clients of organization x. Another explanation given is the lack of people with disabilities who apply at organization x and thus want to work there. Organization x is described as an organization with a masculine organizational culture (Edwards, 2006) where not much space is created for the support of people who are different from the current norm, like people with disabilities. Therefore, the most dominant diversity discourse found reasons that people with disabilities have different needs which are not met at organization x presently. The current masculine culture does not fulfill the wishes and demands of this group, which makes them unwilling to work at organization x. The needs of people with disabilities were found in more feminine cultures which offers more support and the focus is more on soft skills than on output (Catanzaro, Moore & Marshall, 2010). Furthermore, the domination of people without disabilities within organization x is understand as a consequence from the relative small group of people with disabilities who meet the requirements employees need to work at organization x, and the different needs and expectations people with disabilities have of their employer. I analyzed the diversity perspectives which can be found within organization x and recognized four detectable discourses.
Perspective 1: Lack of people with disabilities within organization x is a the result of a small target group
This perspective most often reproduced by managerial employees and mid-managerial employees is that the lack of people with disabilities in the organization is represents the lack of people with disabilities with a high level of education. From this perspective it is less understood that the inclusion of people with disabilities is becoming a specific point of attention. The absence of people with disabilities is explained as being natural as this target group is pretty small. This perspective rejects the need for active action to recruit and hire people with disabilities. The cause of the lack of people with disabilities present is placed outside of the organization. This perspective therefore rejects the need to adjust human resource procedures and recruitment processes as in their eyes there is no need to change the norm (Cox, 1993). This perspective does not challenge the current work practices, current organizational culture, organizational structure and the current norm that together are focused on hiring and maintaining an employee coherent to organization’s x ideal worker image (Holvino & Kamp, 2009; Essed, 2002).
Perspective 2: Lack of people with disabilities within organization x derives from the different needs of people with disabilities
A second perspective that was reproduced by interviewees from all three different levels is that people with disabilities actually do not want to work at organization x. This statement derived from the perception that people with disabilities are looking for different aspects in their work environment than people without disabilities. People with disabilities are expected to want more support from the organization they work for and are expected to bloom in a more stable environment where there is place for a routine in their workday. Within this perspective people with disabilities are approached from an emergency repertoire (Ostendorp & Steyeart, 2009) wherein disabilities are seen as something that is different from the norm and has to be taken care of. Furthermore a preference towards a more feminine organization for people with disabilities is expressed within this perspective. Within organization with a feminine organizational culture there is more space for personal circumstances of employees (Catanzaro, Moore & Marshall, 2010). The need for people with disabilities to work in organization with space for personalized attention for someone’s need is in line with the findings of a study by Stone and Colella (1996) who state that people with disabilities flourish within environments where flexibility towards the needs of employees is present. Nevertheless this perspective is a representation of stereotypical assumptions about people with disabilities as most of the interviewees has never worked together with someone with a disability. Stereotypical assumptions about of people with disabilities, which are found in the narratives of both managerial and non-managerial employees, are a common phenomenon. Nonetheless stereotypical assumptions are found to be the greatest barrier for people with disabilities to get hired (Dixon et al. in Schur, Kruse & Blanck, 2013) .
Perspective 3: People with disabilities are difficult to include, because they cannot contribute in the appropriate way.
A third diversity perspective looks at people with disabilities as being less than the current employees of organization x. People with disabilities as seen from this perspective are expected to contribute to the organization in a less efficient way than people without disabilities. The output of people with disabilities is questioned within this discourse. Their questionable output is in contrast with the cultural focus on output and performance . People with disabilities are compared to the norm and indicated as being less than the norm (Hall, 1990). The inability to perform according to the standards of organization x is indicated as an obstacles for hiring people with disabilities. These images are based on assumptions as the employees have not worked together with people with disabilities or as one of the respondents stated ‘this is just how I imagine it’. Within this discourse both stereotypes (Dixon et al. in Schur, Kruse & Blanck, 2013), as the high standards of work dedication and sort of output that is delivered by the employees of organization x form obstacles. The output that is desirable by organization x is measurable in client value, but people with disabilities might contribute to the organization is more than just client value. They will also contribute to the organization by enlarging the engagement of other employees (David & Berry, 1993) which is not measurable in the current assessment system. The one-dimensional focus of the organizational structure shows is reflected in the way people talk about contributing to the organization.
Perspective 4: Focus of organizational structures on one type of employee forms an obstacle for the inclusion of people with disabilities.
The fourth perspective describes the current situation from an inclusion approach (Ashcraft, Muhr, Rennstam & Sullivan’s, 2012) which recognizes the lack of diversity within the organizational structure as an obstacle for the inclusion of people with disabilities and their employment within organization x. The obstacle which is indicated is the domination of people without disabilities within organization x and the ancillary norms that must be adhered by the employees of organization x. Within this approach people with disabilities are compared to the norm and are seen as aberrant from this norm (Hall, 1990). Changes that need to be made to the organization structures to provide support to people with disabilities are not seen as a source of conflict, unless colleagues are not informed about the necessity of these changes. When people are not informed about the disability it is expected that people feel disadvantaged when someone receives privileges. This is in line with Essed (2002) who describes differences with the norm as a potential source of conflict. To change these organizational structures and acceptance of these changes support from management is needed. As interviewees stated management must ‘walk the talk’ to create support and acceptance of these changes. Both commitment from management and leadership are necessary to make diversity initiatives successful (Essed, 2002).
To rehash, to query is whether an organization where the inclusion of people with disabilities is approached from a business case approach can change the current discursive patterns about people with disabilities and therefore change the current norm. To change the current norms and the inequalities these norms comprehend the dominant diversity discourses needs to be questioned (Holvino & Kamp, 2009). The agency of employees to question present norms therefore should be considered (Zanoni & Janssens, 2007).
4.5 Does career level has an influence on how people with disabilities are approached?
Now we have insight in how diversity is approached and in the different discourses on disability within organization x. Another distinction that can be made is the way how the inclusion of people with disabilities is approached is between the different career levels present at organization x.
Non-managerial employees are found to approach people with disabilities with an essentialist diversity approach in which people with disabilities are seen as different from the norm (Essed, 2002). Non-managerial employees report the existence of space within the workforce to guide and include people with disabilities. Non-managerial employees saw the inclusion of people with disabilities from a business case approach and thought it should be approached from this perspective as ‘it was not like organization x to do this only from a charity perspective’. Managerial employees considered people with disabilities as different than the norm, but they saw the disabilities as a source of opportunities where organization x should use for their competitive advantage. Middle-management on the other hand was more critical towards hiring of people with disabilities. They questioned the productivity of this group and were worried that they should have to deal with the complications that it would cause. This is in line with the findings of Ogbonna & Wilkinson (2003) who found that middle-management would not immediately follow the ideology set by management and often have their own agenda. The agenda of middle management within organization x is determined by the aforementioned normative masculine culture. Changes in behavior are found to be caused by surveillance, direct control and sanctions instead of managerial values (Ogbonna & Wilkinson, 2003). Currently the inclusion of people with disabilities is only stimulated through the expression of these managerial values, which does not make it land. In addition consequences are connected to the output middle management delivers. This explains the need to challenge the inclusion of people with disabilities by middle management, as might have concerns how to deliver the output they are assessed on. These concerns were not found within non-managerial employees. However this can be connected to the fact their only responsibility is their own output and not the output of the entire team. As an analyst explained:
NM “I do not feel responsible for the entire project. I just want to deliver my own output, so working together with someone with a disability is no problem. I can image a project manager does consider it a problem. A project manager gets assessed on how the project goes.”
To conclude, in order to get middle management on board with the aims of managerial employees and organization x it seems to be important to get rid of the doubts they have according to the inclusion of people with disabilities. The first and foremost apparent reason is the reward they receive for output that is delivered and the lack of rewards middle management receive for contributing to the inclusion of people with disabilities. Thus to get middle management on board it seems wise to connect the inclusion of people with disabilities to their assessment.
4.6 Creating safe spaces
Ghorashi and Sabelis (2013) suggested the use of safe spaces to recreate images and revise power structures which establish current norms. Within organization x, where an essentialist diversity perspective is present, safe spaces are not present and therefore the current norm is not questioned. People are afraid to question to current norm as they are scared it will influence their career. The absence of safe spaces eliminates the opportunity to break through the circle in which the norms are re-established over and over. This reestablishment of the current norms is done by the employees of organization x, who comply with this norm. Ghorashi & Sabelis (2013) suggested that in order to revise norms people should step away from these norms and create space wherein there can there can be reflected upon these norms, and these norms should be negotiated. This can be a tool in overcoming the essentialist diversity perspective currently present at organization x. As organization x aims to hire more people with disabilities and create a more diverse workforce it is important to look at the power structures within the organization (Ghorashi & Sabelis, 2013). To make the change of the norm durable there should be simultaneously looked into the sources which provide the exclusion of people with disabilities as well as the foundations on which the norms are based within the organization.
Differences between people should not be denied, but otherness should be accepted. Janssens and Steyaert (2001) stated that by taking the position of the other, sameness and acceptance can be developed. Janssens and Steyaert (2001) call this phenomenon alterity. Both Ghorashi & Sabelis (2013) and Janssens & Steyaert (2001) claim that understanding the position of the other, which can be established by listening to stories or placing yourself in the position of the other, is important when challenging dominant norms. When hearing stories from people who do not conform to the dominant norm sensitivity towards this group is created. This sensitivity can lead to breaking the dominant norm and therefore can change the dominant discourse on disability within organization x. Ghorashi and Sabelis enhance that diversity management procedures where the dominant norms are not taken into account cannot change discourse. Therefore there is a need to take dominant discourses and the origin of exclusion into account.
Currently there is critique within organization x on the diversity of the organization and with the appearance of the inclusion and diversity department and developing policy considering the inclusion of people with disabilities should be included within organization x. However neither of these initiatives question the structures which contain power and therefore can be considered toothless. Considering this it can be considered useful to look at creation of places where critique is heard.
To recap, in order to change the dominant discourse on disability it is suggested to create safe spaces within organization x wherein there is scope for understanding the other. Within these safe space employees may attempt to take the perspective of the other and connect to this perspective instead of distancing themselves from people with disabilities.
your