accommodation in the workplace

ACCOMMODATION IN THE WORKPLACE

Jeanette N. Cleveland Colorado State University

Janet L. Barnes-Farrell University of Connecticut

Joan M. Ratz Colorado State University

With the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, employers are now required to provide reasonable accommodations for qualified individuals with disabilities. Although the practice of accommodating applicants or employees is not new, accommodation for disabled individuals has shifted the thinking about accommodation and our perceptions and reactions to such practices. In this article, four major factors that contribute to workplace reactions to accommodation are discussed: (1) rationale for the accommodation, (2) the nature of the accommodation, (3) whether the accommodation is organization, employee or jointly initiated, and (4) the characteristics of the target or person being accommodated. A general framework is presented depicting how these variables combine to influence workplace reactions to accommodation. Research from managerial, social psychological and rehabilitation literatures is reviewed and integrated.

The practice of accommodating employees at work is not new. Employers have consistently looked for “new ways to lighten the burden of work” (p. 5) especially to enhance worker productivity (McCray 1987). Historically, however, accommodations were reserved for the average worker in order to move him/her toward maximizing performance and productivity. With the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990, employers are now required to provide reasonable accommodation for qualified individuals with disabilities to compete fairly for jobs, to perform essential job functions and to enable such employees to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment

Direct all correspondence to: Jeanette N. Cleveland, Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80525.

Human Resource Management Review, Copyright 0 1997 Volume 7, Number 1,1997, pages 77-107 by JAI Press Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN:1053-4822

78 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 7, NUMBER 1, 1997

(e.g., promotions, benefits offered to nondisabled employees, Vernon-Oehmke 1994).

The presence of legal requirements to provide accommodation for disabled individuals has shifted the thinking about accommodations (a) from a focus on average or above average workers to a focus on workers with special needs and (b) from the goal of maximizing performance (from average to superior) to the goal of meeting minimum essential job functions. This shift has several implications both for the targets of accommodations and for the perceptions of accommodating acts themselves. The purpose of this article is to review and integrate research that provides a basis for understanding perceptions of and effects of workplace accommodation. In this article, we draw from a number of managerial and social psychological theories in order to identify a number of the correlates of and reactions to workplace accommodations.

As Figure 1 indicates, there are at least four major factors that contribute to workplace reactions to accommodations: (1) the rationale or reason for the accommodation, (2) the nature of the accommodation itself, (3) whether the accommodation was organization, employee, or jointly initiated, and (4) the characteristics of the target or person being accommodated. The present article will discuss the first three of these factors which all deal with accommodations, specifically. Other papers in this issue and elsewhere (e.g., Stone & Colella 19961 have dealt more thoroughly with point four concerning charactertics of and reactions to individuals with various disabilities. The rationale or reason for an

r

I 1

Accommodation

Figure 1. Factors that Influence Workplace Reactions to Accommodation

ACCOMMODATION IN THE WORKPLACE 79

accommodation sets in motion a number of other factors and processes that ultimately influence the perceptions of and reactions to workplace accommodations. The final section of this article deals with these reactions.

In the first section of the article, we present a number of reasons why an accommodation can or will be made. The rationale, in turn, may be associated more closely with some characteristics of the accommodations requested or provided than others. Because of the possible effects of accommodation characteristics on employer/employee reactions, the second section of the article con- siders some of the major features of accommodations to gain an appreciation of how such features may contribute to our perceptions of workplace accommodations. Equally important in our Figure 1 is an understanding of the dynamics associated with organization-initiated or employee/applicant-initiated accommodations. In section three of the article, we draw on theory and research on psychological contracts, procedural justice, and current Human Resources practices to explore employers’ perspectives on both worker-initiated and employer-initiated accommodations. Following this discussion, the perspective of a worker who receives an accommodation is presented, focusing on psychological contracts and research findings from affirmative action practices. In the final section, research on psychological and behavioral responses to accommodations and accommodation requests is reviewed. This latter section draws heavily from empirical evidence of reactions to workers with disabilities and their accommodation requests as well as from the empirical literature on at&native action outcomes.

RATIONALE FOR WORKPLACE ACCOMMODATIONS

Employers make accommodations to individual worker needs for a variety of reasons, ranging from the legal mandates to provide “reasonable accommodation” to disabled workers noted above to the use of accommodation as an enticement to join or stay with an organization. Similarly, a variety of reasons for failing to accommodate individual worker needs and requests can be identified. However, the underlying rationales for these decisions generally fall into three classes: Legal mandates (i.e., “we must accommodate”), social/moral mandates (i.e., we should accommodate), and business or economic considerations (i.e., accommodation is an investment with an economic payoff). The first two considerations imply that unwillingness to accommodate carries the risk of sanctions imposed by government or society. Positive consequences of accommodation come in the indirect form of self-presentations that the organization may value: e.g., fostering good public relations and developing a positive employee-oriented organizational climate. In contrast, the perception of accommodation as a business or economic issue implies that accommodation of individual worker needs has costs which are directly offset by positive consequences such as increased effort and performance, lower absenteeism, lower turnover, etc. Failure to accommodate in this context represents a decision that the costs of accommodation outweigh the economic benefits to be

80 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 7. NUMBER 1. 1997

gained. With these rationales in mind, in the following sections we review the primary reasons for employer accommodation of individual worker needs, and concerns that may make employers reluctant to make individual accommodations.

Legal Mandates as a Rationale

In some cases, employers have legal obligations to provide some level of accommodation (ADA 1990). With respect to workers with disabilities, this is certainly the reason that has received the most widespread attention (Barlow 1991; Susser & Jett 1988). Legal obligations are not unique to disability requests, however. For example, employers have legal obligations to honor worker requests for leave to perform military service or to serve jury duty. The Family and Medical Leave Act similarly mandates specific employer accommodations to family needs.

Situations in which employers have a statutory obligation to provide accommodation lead naturally to comparisons with other legislative and government-sponsored imperatives, such as Affirmative Action. As in the case of Affirmative Action, the ADA creates target groups that have entitlements to certain considerations that are not necessarily available to all employees. Kra- vitz and Platania (1993) reported most of the positive reactions toward the components of Affirmative Action programs reflected a more positive reaction when the target of affirmative action was a handicapped individual, which suggests that attitudes toward the accommodation of special requests made by disabled individuals may meet with a positive reception relative to other entitled groups.

In a somewhat different vein, Larwood (1994 1995) recently discussed some of the possible outcomes of the increased proliferation of groups claiming entitlements. As she noted, one possible outcome is the extension of legally mandated “advantages” to all workers, as evidenced by a systematic willingness to accommodate a wide variety of worker requests (without benefit of legal entitlement). An alternative possibility is an increased unwillingness on the part of organizations to comply with legal regulations. With respect to entitlements for disabled workers, she suggested that issues such as the “deservingness” of the worker may be associated with beliefs about whether the disability represents an ascribed status (i.e., not controllable by the worker) or an achieved status (i.e., to some extent under the control of the worker). This is consistent with the argument discussed later in the article that attributions about worker responsibility for their disabilities and the need for accommodation are likely to affect employer responses to their requests.

In a recent review of factors affecting the treatment of disabled individuals in organizations, Stone and Colella (1996) made a similar point about possible drawbacks to legislative imperatives. Although they were generally very opti- mistic about the value of legislation in increasing access of disabled individuals to organizations, they also pointed out that legislation U . . . may evoke negative reactions . . . if it is perceived as coercive . . . ” (p. 372). Reactions may


play out in the form of resentment, less challenging job assignments, and negatively biased performance appraisals.

Social/Moral Obligations as a Rationale

Social and moral obligations are offered as the rationale for some accommodations. The social climate in which organizations operate has ramifica- tions for the kinds of non-legal obligations that nonetheless require their attention. As Boyatzis and Skelly (1995) noted recently, organizational agendas in the ‘90s are driven in part by a shift in social policy “ . . . away from a sense of entitlements driving social policy to the idea of reciprocity. You give back some of what you have gotten” (p. 8). To the extent that accommodations reflect “giving,” they are consistent with this type of moral imperative.

This orientation meets the general definition of social contract, which implies that societal norms regarding the fair treatment of workers includes the expectation that employers should provide for individual worker needs. As such, requests for accommodation do not represent requests for special consideration and do not require that the employer have an expectation in the form of “return on investment”.

The degree to which employers embrace such social values and prescriptions is certainly likely to influence their willingness to accommodate (Campbell 1985). However, there are sometimes conflicting norms which may serve to decrease willingness to provide accommodations to individual workers. For example, an employer’s unwillingness to accommodate a disabled individual may reflect concerns about the reactions of coworkers to special treatment of a Workgroup member. In particular, if employers believe that coworkers will feel inequitably treated when one individual is singled out for “over-reward,” justice considerations would predict that they will hesitate to accommodate. Such beliefs about the reactions of coworkers have been reported in recent work (Cleveland, Barnes-Farrel & Huestis 1996).

Business Considerations as a Rationale

A third basis for accommodating individuals involves business or economic considerations. There are at least three issues that fall under business considerations: changing workforce demographics, enhancing productivity, and rewarding performance.

Changing Workforce Demographic Characteristics. The shifting workforce demographics that are regularly noted in the popular (Offerman & Gowing 1990) and professional literature (cf. Howard 1995) provide numerous pressures on organizations to consider accommodating the individual needs of workers. The increasingly diverse composition of our workforce is accompanied by similarly diverse needs and expectations on the part of workers (Offerman & Gowing 1990). Organizations that seek to maintain a competitive advantage in attracting and retaining the most qualified members of this workforce are likely to recognize that accommodations can be used as an enticement for joining the


organization or a reward for significant contributions to the organization. In other words, rather than viewing accommodation as the “legal” thing to do, or viewing accommodation as an activity in keeping with a morally upright stance, accommodation may be seen as an inducement or reward that can have practical value in attracting qualified workers and retaining competent employees. Furthermore, as Boyatzis and Skelly (1995) have pointed out, the labor shortages anticipated by many organizations, especially in jobs requiring advanced skills, demand that they develop creative, competitive recruiting strategies, A willingness to accommodate the individual needs of workers, as evidenced by family-friendly policies, proactive stances on removing workplace barriers to the disabled, flex-time, etc. provides cues about organizational values that can be used to competitive advantage (Friedman 1990; Grover & Crooker 1995).

Enhancing Productivity. Accommodation may be used by an employer as a vehicle to enhance or maintain productivity. Thus, an accommodation might be granted or extended as a way of removing barriers or other impediments that could interfere with performance (Brannick, Brannick & Levine 1992; McCar- thy 1988). This is characterized by an approach to enhancing performance that views performance as a collaboration between worker and employer. By making accommodations, organizations can provide workers with the best possible opportunities to make contributions to the organization; at the same time, they are demonstrating their willingness to act as partners in performance.

In many cases, this particular rationale is at the heart of accommodation to the particular needs of disabled workers and also provides a compelling argument for the institution of family-friendly policies regarding accommodation of worker needs. It is consistent with the theoretical perspective that investments in workers provide important and direct economic consequences for an organization.

Reward for Performance. The willingness to provide for the special needs of high performing employees may be thought of as one of the “perks” that organizations offer as a reward for the employee’s demonstrated contributions to the organization. Accommodations of various types are also frequently made as part of the negotiation of terms and conditions between a high performing worker and the organization (Offerman & Gowing 1990). This rationale primarily reflects a proactive stance on the part of an employer who extends an offer (reward) in hopes of attracting (retaining) a valuable asset. Strategic human resources planning and considerations of the cost effectiveness of im- plementing accommodations are likely to play an important role in the decision to engage in such negotiation. Furthermore, equity considerations may argue that high performing workers are deserving of additional outcomes and considerations from the organization (Offerman & Gowing 1990). As such, accommodation may provide a vehicle for equitably rewarding those who have the potential to or have made substantial contributions to the success of the organization.

In sum, there has been little research which directly addresses the links


between the rationale for an accommodation and the nature of the accommodation or whether the accommodation is initiated by the organization or the applicant/employee. According to Figure 1, the rationale or basis for workplace accommodations may be associated with the features of the accommodation provided or not granted in a given situation. In the next section, we describe a number of dimensions along which accommodations can vary. The variety of accommodations available in a given setting may be associated, in part, with the rationale or reason that an organization or a potential employee might provide or request an accommodation.

ACCOMMODATION AS AN ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIVITY: TYPES OF ACCOMMODATIONS

Webster defines accommodation in a number of ways: (1) adaptation (to a purpose); adjustment; (2) reconciliation of differences; (3) willingness to do favors or services; or (4) a help or convenience. Effective organizations con- stantly undergo change and must adapt and accommodate those changes. Many of these accommodations or adaptations to change are designed to enhance worker effectiveness. Yet the term, accommodation, takes on slightly different connotations when one moves from definition 1 (adaptation) to definitions 2 (reconciliation of differences), 3 (. . favors or services . . ) and 4 ( . . . help . . . ). While the first definition and possibly the second connote an ongoing process within the organization, definitions three and four suggest going beyond that which may be the norm and providing activities or services for some employees and not to others.

In this paper, we assert that accommodations can reflect positive, adaptive and responsive organizational Human Resources practices that sharpen competitive advantage and enhance effectiveness and productivity (e.g., by enlarg- ing the skilled worker pool to include qualified individuals with disabilities, women, minorities, and men whose nonwork responsibilties have traditionally limited their access to the workplace). Further, it is important to note that accommodations are not limited to responses to disabled individuals or to “needy” or nontraditional applicants. As noted previously, one rationale for accommodation is that organizations routinely compete for qualified individuals by adjusting work activities or the work environment to entice the best workers into their organization. Some of these accommodations might be labeled extra benefits or “perks” of the job.

Features of Accommodation

Given the widespread interest in workplace accommodation, there is sur- prisingly little research documenting the types of accommodation offered by organizations (Lee & Newman 1992; McFarlin, Song & Sonntag 1991). In part, the paucity of descriptive research reflects the failure of many organizations to collect or report data on accommodations (Lee & Newman 1992). Another fac-

84 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 7, NUMBER 1,1997

tor, however, is the substantial diversity in both disabilities (and capabilities of individuals sharing similar disabilities) and plausible accommodations (Bran- nick et al. 1992).

Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to construct a taxonomy of accommodations, it is useful to note that accommodations can vary along a number of critical dimensions. Based on a review of the literature, six dimensions were identified including (a) types of accommodations, (b) cost and availability, (c) timing of the accommodation, (df duration, (e) impact of accommodation on workplace, and ff) who initiates the accommodation (employer or employee request). Each factor will be discussed briefly below.

Types of AccommocMions. The ABA defines a reasonable accommodation as a modi~cation or adjustment to the job, the work environment, or the way the job is typically performed which helps a quali~ed individual with a disability perform that job (Vernon-Oehmke 1994). There are countless accommodations possible within the workplace depending upon the job, the individual, and the circumstances (Vernon-Oehmke 1994). Both scientific and legal communities have attempted to categorize reasonable (and possible) accommodations. The Equal Emplo~ent Opportunity Commission identifies at least three categories of accommodations that are reasonable: (I) accommodations that are required to ensure equal opportunity in the application process; (2) accommodations that enable employees with disabilities to perform the essential functions of the position held or desired; and (3) accommodations that enable employees who have disabilities to enjoy the same benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by employees who are not disabled (e.g., health spa and so forth; Barlow 1991).

Kiernan and Schalock (1989) identified five common types of accommodations suggested by disability specialists including (a) worksite changes (e.g., ramps, elevators, doors, flooring, restrooms, enlarged working areas), (b) work station changes (e.g., adjustable desks and tables, lighting, moving work areas to benefit workers in wheel chairs), fc) work environment (e.g., hea~col~noise/ pollution controls, reduced distractions, safety from chemicals, rest areas), (d) job restructuring (e.g., task reassignment, reevaluation of tasks to update methods, combining jobs to redesign total method of accomplishing goal, job sharing), and (e) work activities modification (e.g., flextime including days, hours or shifts, and flexibility of rest breaks). Any one of these accommodation activities might be relevant to each of the three categories of accommodations suggested by EEOC.

The categories described are general enough to include accommodations that would meet the needs of nondisabled populations including individuals with elder-care or childcare responsibilities. For example, when her children were in the “stroller stage”, the first author often used the wheelchair ramp to access her worksite with the child in tow. Also many parents of multiple young children realize that the stalls in public restrooms for individuals with disabilities are much more family-friendly than the traditional size stall . These are examples of worksite changes that all employees can utilize and benefit from.


Cost and Availability. The costs of providing accommodation deserve special mention, for they have been a particular worry for organizations as they make plans to increase the access of disabled individuals to the workplace. In a recent national meeting of ADA experts, there was concern of a growing backlash similar to that which occurred during the initial implementation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act . The backlash is in part fueled by numerous misunder- standings about the ADA, especially concerning the cost of disability-related accommodations. Employers often fail to hire workers with disabilities due to the widespread belief that the cost of accommodating workers with disabilities would be a major financial burden (Johnson & Lambrinos 1983; McFarlin, Song, & Sonntag 1991; Satcher 1992). Yet few employers are actually familiar with the likely costs incurred through the provision of accommodations (Stev- ens 1986). In fact, many accommodations are relatively inexpensive and can be accomplished with a few physical modifications and work adjustments (Lee & Newman 1992; Satcher 1992; Stevens 1986). For example, in a survey of organizations in one state, 46% of the companies surveyed did not spend any money for the accommodations they made for persons with disabilities (Lee & New- man 1992). Further, many accommodations provided to individuals with disabilities are also ones valued by nondisabled employees, including flexible working hours, minor modifications to the functions within a job, or more frequent work breaks. It is likely that increased exposure to the actual costs associated with making accommodations to disabled workers will make it clear to employers that their concerns in this respect are largely unfounded (Asher & Asher 1976; Stevens 1986).

Timing of Accommodation. Accommodations can take place during the hiring process and on the job, to facilitate performance of essential job functions. Further, timing of accommodation may interact with who requires an accommodation: an applicant to the organization or a current employee who is disabled while working with the organization. Smith-Davis (1983) and Baur and Green (1988) reported that employers are often receptive to accommodating workers who become disabled after they are hired but are resistant to hiring applicants with disabilities. One explanation is that employers have more performance information on their current employee than on an applicant. Al- though there continues to be uncertainty in the type and level of performance the a current employee can provide after a disabling condition, there is greater uncertainty in hiring a person with a disability with no past performance information in that organization.

Duration of the Accommodation. Another accommodation feature is the duration of time it is to be in operation. Temporary accommodations for an individual with a broken leg or arm have very different organizational and workgroup implications than a job redesign that may continue for the length of employee tenure within the organization. There is greater likelihood that supervisory and coworker interactions would be affected by an accommodation the longer it is in effect. As we will discuss later in this article, a number of accommodation dimensions interact with the type of disabilities that are involved and the


specific characteristics of the targets of accommodation (i.e., disabled, single parent, and so forth).

impact of Accommodafion on Workgroup. This dimension is not necessarily independent of other accommodation features including cost, duration, and so forth. We conceptualize it as the degree to which the accommodation has an impact on the performance of the job activities and the interactions among other members of the workgroup and supervisor. For example, permitting a worker with a disability to leave work an hour early two to three times a week may not disrupt job-related interactions with coworkers. It also is not costly except in terms of time. However, equipping an individual with a telecommuting office in their home so that they can work at home two to three times a week may be viewed as more significant. First, there are tangible costs associated with the accommodation (e.g., equipment costs). Second, with the individual not physically present in the office, there is the potential for less optimal organizational socialization and less opportunity to receive crucial supervisory and coworker performance feedback. Independent of one’s specific type of disability, there is evidence that the significance of the accommodation has an impact on perceptions of the individual as a coworker and member of a workgroup (Cleveland et al. 1996).

Employer- VS. Worker-initiated Accommodation. It is useful to make a distinc- tion between the granting of an accommodation request and the extension of an accommodation offer. That is, accommodations may be distinguished in terms of whether they are worker-initiated or employer-initiated. Which party initiates the process is likely to have important consequences for perceptions of and responses to the accommodation, the provider and the receiver.

Most often, an accommodation may represent a response to a request by a worker (Lee & Newman 1992). Classically, discussions of employment accommodations for disabled workers refer to situations in which the accommodation process is worker-initiated. For example, a job applicant with a severe vision impairment may request that a paper-and-pencil selection battery be adminis- tered as an oral examination; an incumbent with disabling chronic lower back pain whose job involves long periods seated at a desk may request that the employer provide a chair with special features designed to minimize those symptoms. Worker initiated requests are by no means limited to individuals with disabilities, of course. The past decade has seen a fairly dramatic increase in worker-initiated requests for alternative work arrangements such as flextime and telecommuting, requests for changes in shift assignment, and requests of geographic transfers to accommodate dual career needs.

Worker initiated requests differ with respect to the legal standing of the request (e.g., does it represent a “reasonable accommodation” mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act?) and societal norms regarding the appro- priateness of the request. They also differ in the extent to which they primarily afford the opportunity to carry out designated job responsibilities as opposed to minimizing conflict with non-work responsibilities that may interfere with effective work performance. However, one common denominator shared by all


worker-initiated requests is an acknowledgment that the worker desires to establish or maintain an affiliation with the organization. The accommodation is a means of allowing the worker to carry out work functions, to maintain performance standards, or to continue a career with the organization. As such, the employer is put in the position of granting (or failing to grant) conditions that may allow the worker to “keep” his/her job.

In contrast, accommodation may represent a proactive offer by an employer as an incentive for a worker to remain with the organization. For example, organizations that hope to retain valuable workers sometimes go out of their way to identify and accommodate personal circumstances of workers in an attempt to develop the “tie that binds”. Clearly, here the characteristic permeating the accommodation process is the desire ofthe organization to maintain an affiliation with the worker. Thus, such accommodations tend to represent offers extended rather than requests granted. However, we do point out that disability-related accommodations typically fall into the category of worker-initiated requests.

Summary. As noted in Figure 1, the features of accommodations are likely to be of consequence to organizations because they are the providers of accommodation. Similarly, some of these features will be relevant to a worker’s willingness to request particular accommodations or their receptivity to offers of accommodation. However, trying to get a handle on the nature of accommodations is a difficult task because accommodations take so many different forms. We have identified several characteristics of accommodations that we believe are especially perti- nent to employers and workers. Distinguishing among accommodations with respect to these characteristics may be a useful way of integrating employer/employee perceptions of disability-related accommodations with perceptions and reactions to accommodations that are provided to workers for other reasons. Research that describes perceptions of various accommodations with respect to each of these characteristics would be valuable and should serve as the basis for systematic examinations of the relationships between features of accommodations and employer/employee reactions to such accommodation activities.

ORGANIZATION-INITIATED ACCOMMODATIONS

Employers and their agents play an important role in the accommodation process, regardless of the rationale for accommodation, nature of the accommodation, or the characteristics of the recipient. The role is that of provider. Simply put, employers elect whether to provide the resources or adaptations required to accommodate a worker. As such, it is important to understand why employers make accommodations and to understand the conditions that are likely to influence the granting or extending of accommodations.

Theoretical Perspectives on Willingness to Accommodate

First, we consider several theoretical perspectives that may be useful in understanding the dynamics of accommodation from the vantage point of the pro-


vider. For example, we might look at this issue from the perspective of psychological contracts that develop between employers and employees. In a related vein, it is reasonable to incorporate some facets of the organizational justice literature within the notion of psychological contracts. Second, attribution theory is presented as offering important insights to understanding perceptions of workplace accommodations. A final framework that may shed light on the willingness of organizations to provide accommodations is furnished by strategic planning approaches to human resource management.

Social Exchange, Psychological Contracts, and Organizational Justice. Organ- izations and workers are often described as engaging in a social and economic exchange relationship that includes expectations by both parties about what they will bring to the relationship (their obligations) and what they will receive in exchange (Emerson 1976). A specific variant of social exchange theory that has received substantial attention in employment contexts is the notion of psychological contract, described as “an individual’s belief in an obligation of reciprocity” (Rousseau 1989, p. 124).

As argued most eloquently by Rousseau and her associates (Robinson, Kraatz, & Rousseau 1994; Rousseau 1989, 1990, 1995a, 199513; Rousseau & Aquino 1993) such psychological contracts have important consequences for workplace attitudes and behaviors. Psychological contracts refer to the perceptions of individual organization members regarding the terms of their employment contract: e. g., “I will work hard and be loyal to my employer; in return, my employer will provide me with a fair wage, will treat me with respect, and will continue to employ me as long as I perform my job responsibilities compe- tently.” Some of these perceptions are based on explicitly stated language in a formal contract; other aspects of the psychological contract reflect unstated understandings that develop during the course of the employment relationship. Furthermore, “two parties to a relationship, such as employee and employer, may each hold different beliefs regarding the existence and terms of a psychological contract” (Rousseau 1990, p. 391).

In most cases, psychological contracts have been used as a way of understanding workers’ responses to employer breaches in the psychological employment contract. However, the notion of psychological contract has also been invoked to elucidate the expectations that managers and other agents of the employing organization hold about what workers bring to the employment exchange (cf. Cleveland et al. 1996; Nicholson & Johns 1985; Schein 1980). For example, Cleveland, et al. (1996) argued that organizational agents have beliefs about the kind of worker reciprocation that is appropriate when accommodations are requested of an employer. These may hinge on the extent to which accommodation is seen as an entitlement, which implies no obligation to reciprocate, or is seen as a special benefit to the worker, which implies an obligation for the worker to reciprocate.

Rousseau (1995a, 1995b) has described several other aspects of contracts beyond the individual-level perceptions that characterize psychological contracts. These include normative contracts, implied contracts, and social contracts. Of particular interest to the accommodation process are social contracts.


Social contracts are characterized as widespread beliefs that function as as- sumptions about conditions of employment in a society, and may include beliefs about such issues as job security and work-family relations. Such societal-level norms and expectations should influence whether accommodation is in fact perceived as a special consideration awarded to an individual worker as a benefit (with an accompanying expectation of return), or whether it is viewed as a basic condition of employment to which a worker is entitled, without any further expectation of return.

A closely related theoretical framework that is also helpful in understanding employer perspectives on accommodation is that provided by conceptions of organizational justice. Organizational justice models, which focus on identify- ing conditions that represent “fairness” or justice in the social exchange have been used to examine how workers respond to breaches in the psychological contract (cf. Rousseau & Aquino 1993; also see Cropanzano 1993 for recent discussions of justice models and their applications in work settings). In a sense, the psychological contract is a statement of what a party expects to give and get in an exchange (i.e. it is a statement of the fair exchange to which both parties have agreed). Organizational justice models are concerned with identi- fying the rules that parties use to decide what constitutes a fair exchange, and to decide whether the contract has been breached in a way that requires a response.

Most research on organizational justice has focused on the reactions of workers or other observers of a social exchange. However, because supervisors and managers acting as agents of the organization are responsible for ensuring that all workers (i.e., both the individual worker who requests or is offered an accommodation as well as coworkers who observe and may be affected by the accommodation) are treated fairly, organizational justice theory is relevant to understanding employers’ as well as employees’ reactions to accommodations. Managers who believe that co-workers who are affected by or who do not have access to a specific accommodation will resent those who do receive it may be less willing to offer accommodations. As such, organizational justice models provide insight into the situations in which accommodation of worker needs will be perceived by employers (or their agents) as equitable-and therefore fair and defensible. Likewise, they allow the identification of situations in which accommodation will be perceived as creating inequitable conditions (for the employer or for other workers), for which the employer may be held ac- countable.

Attribution Theory. Work in the field of social cognition has a long tradition of examining the attributions that perceivers make about social targets. When the perceiver is an employer and the target is an individual for whom an accommodation is being considered, the nature of these attributions may have important consequences for the willingness to grant or extend accommodations. We know, for example, that willingness to provide rewards and impose punishments is affected by the attributions that managers make about responsibility for worker success and failure. In particular, workers are seen as more deserving of rewards and punishments when their behavior and performance

90 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 7. NUMBER 1, 1997

is primarily attributed to internal causes and less deserving of rewards and punishments when their behavior is primarily attributed to external causes (Heilman & Guzzo 1978; Mitchell & Wood 1980). Furthermore, attempts to disentangle the effects of the two primary internal causes of performance- ability and effort-show that those who are seen as investing more effort are rewarded more for success and punished less for failure (Weiner 1995).

One way of thinking about the role of attributions in accommodation is rep- resented by the position that accommodations are special favors or rewards that an organization provides to deserving individuals. It is only when workers are seen as responsible for their achievements that employers should be willing to “reward” them with accommodations (Weiner 1995). Accordingly, willingness to accommodate worker needs should be enhanced by attributions of personal responsibility for successful work performance. To the extent that attributions about responsibility for success differ among target groups of workers (e.g., Deaux & Emswiller 19741, we may expect systematic differences in willingness to initiate accommodations to members of those groups. When accommodations are perceived by an employer as rewards or special favors, this perspective may be useful in understanding reactions to accommodation of male and female worker needs and the needs of older workers, as well as differ- ential reactions to accommodating the needs of disabled workers with charac- teristically different “kinds” of disabilities.

Strategic Planning. Finally, strategic planning approaches to human resource management provide a systems perspective on employer goals that may shed light on the willingness of organizations to provide accommodations. From this standpoint, accommodating the needs of individual workers may be a component of a strategic position taken by an organization as part of its definition of “good HR practice” (Berkeley Planning Associates 1982).

Specifically, when human resources are viewed as a valuable asset, accommodating individual worker needs may be seen as a strategic investment that will pay high dividends in the future. This can be seen in two ways. First, the investment may pay off by developing “ties” to the organization in the form of reciprocal obligations: i. e., it is based on the social exchange assumption that a promise of future return has been made in the acceptance of a consideration (Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro 1990; Shore & Wayne 1993). Alter- natively, the investment may pay off by removing barriers that would other- wise impede a worker’s performance and contributions to the organization (Brannick, et al. 1992; McCarthy 1986 1988).

Distinctions between the HR strategies advocated by organizations that Miles and Snow (1984) characterized as “make-oriented” firms and those characterized as “buy-oriented” firms are also relevant to understanding the perceived value of accommodating worker needs. Make-oriented firms are typified by investments in their workforce that are likely to have long-term payoffs (e.g., investment in worker development and training) whereas buy-oriented firms are typified by short-term investments with an immediate payoff (e.g., paying top dollar to recruit individuals with specific skills that can be utilized immediately). When accommodation is perceived to represent an immediate


enticement intended to attract or retain a skilled worker, it is consistent with a buy-orientation. On the other hand, the more general strategy of accommodating worker needs as a means of fostering a positive work environment and encouraging long-term worker commitment to the organization is in keeping with a make-orientation. This would suggest that the manner and situations in which accommodation is likely to occur should differ systematically among organizational settings.

More recently, Barry and Bateman (1996) have provided an analysis of organizational diversity initiatives that could be profitably applied to the prob- lem of accommodation. They liken diversity initiatives to social traps (social dilemmas) in which behaviors that provide long-term collective benefits may incur short-term individuals costs. If we think about accommodation as a way of dealing with diversity, this suggests that employers must recognize and respond to the conflicts between the individual near-term outcomes of accommodation and the collective, long-term consequences of accommodation.

APPLICANT/EMPLOYEE-INITIATED ACCOMMODATION REQUESTS

From the applicant/employee’s perspective, several factors may impact the request for an accommodation or acceptance of an offered accommodation. First, whether the specific accommodation is viewed as an entitlement must be considered. Employees’ requests for an accommodation may vary based upon whether or not the employee views the accommodation as something “due” to them. The affirmative action literature and the psychological contract concept are used to frame the idea of accommodations as entitlements. Second, the attribution literature provides a framework for understanding the possible dif- fering reactions that organizations and applicants/employees might have to applicant/employee-initiated accommodation requests. Third, when an applicant or employee requests a change in the application process or in the conditions of work, organizational agents may view the requests as a threat to activities over which they rightfully have control. Psychological reactance is one theory that examines reactions to threats of freedom. Finally, factors motivating an employee to accept or decline an accommodation are central to understanding worker utilization of available accommodations. The severity of need for an accommodation, employee perceptions of self-competence, and employee concerns about stigmatization and negative reactions by co-workers are discussed as issues which might impact use of accommodations.

Accommodation as an Entitlement

Little research has specifically addressed employee perceptions of accommodations and in particular worker feelings of entitlement to accommodations. The American with Disabilities Act makes accommodation a legal entitlement under certain conditions. Further, the research on affirmative action is one source of information pertaining to recipicients’ perceptions of entitlement. Finally, an applicant/employee’s perceptions of entitlement to accommodations


may also be considered as a negotiated component of a psychological contract between employer and employee. An individual’s feeling of entitlement may be a primary factor motivating an applicant/employee to request an accommodation. Furthermore, it may affect workers’ reactions to receiving or being offered an accommodation that is not requested, as well as their reactions to not receiving a requested accommodation. The extent to which an applicant/ employee feels entitled to an accommodation may affect his/her reaction to the final accommodation.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Entitlement. As described earlier, the ADA requires that employers provide reasonable accommodation for qualified individuals with disabilities to compete fairly for jobs, to perform essential job functionsa nd to enable such an employee to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employement (Vernon-Oehmke 1994). When an employee is other- wise qualified, he or she is legally entitled to a reasonable accommodation. This legal mandate may contribute to or heighten feelings of entitlement among individuals with disabilities. Although the ADA provides such individuals with a reason to believe that they are entitled to an accommodation, little research is available on either disabled or non-disabled applicant/employee feelings of entitlement.

Affirmative Action and Entitlement. The literature addressing target group reactions to affirmative action policies provides a framework as a starting point for addressing the issue of entitlement. Al&native action can be viewed as a social or moral remedy for previous wrong-doing. Accommodation can similarly be viewed as a remedy for previous and continuing exclusion of people with disabilities from the workforce. However, reactions to affirmative action policies may differ between specific target groups (Eberhardt & Fiske 1994) so it is important to clearly indicate the target group when discussing reactions. In terms of entitlement to affirmative action policies, Eberhardt and Fiske (1994) suggest that Blacks may feel more entitled to policies that protect their civil rights than do women. This may be due, in part, because women do not see themselves as having been the targets of discrimination and do not have a strong group identity. Similar to the employment history of the Black population, people with disabilities have been subjected to long-standing and systemic discrimination and therefore, may react in a similar way i. e., we might expect them to show more feelings of entitlement to remedies, in this case, accommodations. However, little research has been conducted on the extent to which accommodation is viewed as analogous to affirmative action programs or the extent to which people with disabilities believe they are entitled to accommodation.

The Psychological Contract and Entitlement. Alternatively, accommodations can be considered part of a psychological contract between employer and employee. As discussed previously, a contract between employer and employee may include what the employee is expected to do for the employer and what in turn the employee expects to have done for him or her. Perceived entitlements


based on legal or moral obligations may also enter in as part of a psychological contract.

Accommodations in psychological contracts may be either need-based or merit-based. A need-based accommodation would be one necessary for an individual to fulfill his or her obligations as an employee. For example, an employee, who is hearing-impaired, in a position requiring telephone work may need a Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) to perform to the employer’s expectations. A merit-based accommodation would be an accommodation given when an employee meets or exceeds employer expectations. This type of accommodation may be included in a psychological contract as an incentive for future performance, a reward for current performance, or to enhance performance. For example, a worker entering an organization may be told that some workers, after a probationary period, have been allowed to telecommute to work for a day or two each week.

When accommodations are viewed as entitlements, workers may view them as part of the psychological contract with the organization and either request accommodations or accept organization-initiated accommodations on a more frequent basis. Research is needed on employee attitudes toward accommodations; entitlement is one factor which may affect workers’ use of accommodations.

Attributions and Requests for Accommodation

One way of thinking about the impact of attributions on employer reactions to accommodation requests is to think of a request for accommodation as repre- senting an instance of “failure”. That is, by making the request, the applicant or employee has explicitly or implicitly acknowledged that work performance will be difficult or impossible without the accommodation. Willingness to accommodate according to attribution theory should then be influenced by perceptions about whether the need for an accommodation is under the control of the worker. If the need is perceived as something over which the worker has control, willingness to punish (by withholding the accommodation) should be increased. Recent work indicates that judges regularly make attributions of responsibility for disabling conditions (Jones et al. 1984; Weiner 1993 1995; Weiner, Perry, & Magnusson 1988). As such, employer beliefs about responsibility for disabilities should have implications for their willingness to provide requested accommodations. Similarly, we would expect that employer beliefs about worker responsibility for other needs which may give rise to accommodation requests (e.g., requests founded on needs created by dual-career concerns and family responsiblities) will also influence their stance toward accommodation of such requests.

Psychological Reactance and Accommodations

Psychological reactance (Brehm 1966; Brehm & Brehm 1981) represents yet another perspective that might be used to think about employers’ reactions to


employee or applicant-initiated accommodation requests, particularly in light of increased legal/gove~mental pressures on employers to provide accommodations of various types. As used in several applications to organizational phenom- ena, psychological reactance refers to subjective and behavioral reactions that occur in response to real or implied threats to the exercise of freedoms. These reactions may reflect attempts to regain control of the situation. Other researchers have successfully applied concepts derived from psychological reactance theory and from the closely related construct of personal control (cf. Greenberger & Strasser 1986) to a variety of organizational situations in which affective and behavioral responses to impingements on employee freedoms have been the focus of the investigation (cf. Organ 1974; Austin 1989). For employers, the freedom to hire whom they choose and to have discretion over job design and work conditions is often perceived as a “right” vested in the employer-employee relationship (i.e., psycholo~cal contract). Legal and moral imperatives surrounding the hiring of disabled workers, older workers, women and minorities place constraints on an employer’s ability to exercise those freedoms. Similarly, the requirement to provide “reasonable” accommodations to disabled workers may be interpreted as a threat. In such situations, reactance theory may be a useful way of explaining reluctance to provide accommodations and may also explain negative subjective reactions to some accommodation requests and to those who request them. The source of resistance may not be located in the accommodation or in the recipient of the accommodation, but may instead reside in the extent to which the employer sees government regulations (and perhaps requirements to be “politically correct”) as controlling an activity that was construed to be rightfully under the control of the employer.

Worker Utilization of Accommodations

It is important to consider what would motivate an individual to accept an accommodation because there is no requirement that an individual must accept an accommodation they have not requested or do not believe is necessary (Zuckerman 1993). When discussing motivation for accepting accommodations, several factors should be considered. As we know of little empirical research which directly addresses this issue, we must look to other literature to develop theories and frameworks for understanding utilization. Here we address the severity of the need for an accommodation, role of self-concept, perceptions of self-competence, and concern about sti~atization and/or negative reactions from co-workers as issues which may affect a worker’s decision to use an accommodation.

Severity of Need. One of the primary factors that may drive worker use of accommodation is the severity of need for the accommodation. If the need is severe enough, such that an employee can not perform the job without an accommodation, need alone may be enough motivation to seek out or accept an offered accommodation. However in situations where the need is not severe but an accommodation would be of some help, other psychological factors may affect a worker’s decision regarding acceptance of an accommodation.


Perceptions of Self-Competence. An individual’s level of self-competence for a job whether or not an accommodation is used may affect the choice to accept an accommodation. Heilman, Rivero, and Brett (1991) found that perceptions of self competence can impact work behavior, in particular task selection. Specifi- cally, women in a preferential selection condition tended to choose an easier, less attractive task over a more challenging task. These women also reported lower estimates of their ability. If self-competence affects an individual’s choice of task it may also affect the mechanism chosen to complete a task. A person who has high levels of self-competence may not feel that an accommodation is needed. Lower levels of self-competence may lead to a request and acceptance of an accommodation.

It is also possible that accommodations affect an individual’s self-competence. The affirmative action literature suggests that preferential selection lowers self-confidence, at least in some target groups (Barnes Nacoste 1994; Heilman, Lucas, & Kaplow 1990; Heilman, Simon, & Repper 1987). If an individual views accommodation as similar to preferential selection, the acceptance of an accommodation may ultimately undermine his or her self-competence. The role played by self-competence in accommodation acceptance decisions should be pursued as a research issue.

Stigmatization and Negative Reactions. While there are many reasons an applicant or employee may desire an accommodation, a concern about stigmatization is a compelling reason to neither request nor accept one. As pointed out by Stone and Colella (19961, people with disabilities may be reluctant to disclose a disability to avoid the negative attitudes that tend to accompany disability status. In particular, people with mental disabilities may fear they are risking invoking stereotypes and myths about people with mental disabilities (Zucker- man 1993). However, some research indicates that an individual who discloses a disability, if done in an appropriate way, may be viewed more favorably than someone who does not disclose or acknowledge a disability (Stone, Stone, & Dipboye 1992).

The possibility of stigmatization is present even when the reason for an accommodation is not known. Colella and DeNisi (1993) note that an accommodation may act as a marker, indicating that an employee needs assistance and stigmatization of that individual may result. This may be true for non- disability related accommodations as well.

Our review of worker perceptions and utilization of accommodations suggests that these are areas that are in need of further research. We have provided here a beginning framework for conceptualizing each. The list of factors which may impact a worker’s decision to use an accommodation is not exhaustive by any means. We hope that the inclusion of this brief overview of accommodations from a worker’s perspective will serve to encourage research on these topics.

PSYCHOLOGICAL AND BEHAVIORAL REACTIONS TO ACCOMMODATIONS

When we are trying to understand reactions to accommodation of persons in the workplace, there are two factors that are critical. First, who or what is the

96 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW MLUME 7, NUMBER 1, 1997

target of inference? In this issue of Human Resource Management Review, we are focusing on persons with disabilities. There is somewhat extensive empirical literature on reactions and inferences about persons with various disabilities which we will summarize briefly below. In addition, however, we argue that people also make inferences about the accommodation and its features (discussed at the beginning of this article). The second factor involves the source or maker of inferences. There are a minimum of three important perceivers including (1) the organization or its agent, (2) coworkers and (3) the recipient of the accommodation. In order to more fully understand the process of integrating persons with disabilities into the workplace and the reactions others have, we need to know how organizations, coworkers and the person with a disability feel and react to various disabilities and also how they perceive and react to various accommodations.

Organization, Coworker, and Self Reactions to Persons with Disabilities

Stone and Colella (1996) have recently summarized the body of research that documents the negative stereotypic beliefs that are often ascribed to individuals with various disabilities. Similar work in the fields of gender and aging provide reason for concern that such stereotypes often provide employers with lowered expectations about the capabilities of individuals in these target groups. There is extensive research on perceptions of the disabled which draws from the rehabilitation literature as well as the social psychological literature.

Many beliefs and attitudes about individuals with disabilities are based on myths or stereotypes of the disability (Satcher 1992; Stone & Colella 1996). Further, these beliefs and negative attitudes are cited as the primary reasons for discrimination against disabled individuals in personnel decisions (Freed- man & Keller 1981; Jones & Stone 1994; Stone et al. 1992; Satcher & Dooley- Dickey 1992; Yuker 1988). Although there is no single stereotype or image of individuals with disabilities, there is evidence of disability subtypes that have different stereotypes associated with them (Stone & Colella 1996).

Further, there are numerous studies on the effects that types of disabilities have on others’ attitudes and evaluations (Combs & Omvig 1986; Schmelkin 1984). Tringo (1970) attempted to establish a hierarchy of disabilities in terms of degree to which they produce negative reactions in others. The data showed that decision-makers reacted most negatively to persons with mental illness, mental retardation, and alcoholism followed by brain injury and sensory im- pairments. Although there has been little research on coworkers’ affective responses to working with individuals with disabilities, the findings of the limited research available are mixed (Stone et al. 1992).

However, there is extensive evidence that non-disabled people do not know what to expect of individuals with disabilities (more uncertainty associated with some disabilities than others) or how to communicate with them (Bel- grave & Mills 1981; Cook & Makas 1979; Hastorf, Wildfogel, & Cassman 1979). Although supervisors hold generally lower expectations for advancement for individuals with disabilities, research also shows that some persons with dis-


abilities receive significantly higher performance evaluations than would be expected (Ratz & Cleveland 1995). No or slow advancement and high performance ratings may send mixed and frustrating signals to individuals with disabilities within organizations. For example, reactions such as “I received excellent ratings but I am not being recommended for promotion” might be observed.

In the management and social psychological literature, the focus of research has been on others’ perceptions of persons with disabilities. There has been less attention given to the perceptions or esteem levels held by disabled individuals. However, the research that exists has failed to find consistently lower self-esteem among facially disfiguring conditions such as cleft lip or cleft lip and palate (Clifford & Clifford 19861, those who are developmentally or learning disabled (Johnson, Johnson, & Rynder 19811, mentally retarded (Gibbons 1985; Stager, Chassin, & Young 1983), and physically handicapped (Burden & Parish 1983; although Harvey & Greenway 1984 found discrepant results). Empirical literature suggests then that prejudice against members of a stig- matized group does not necessarily result in lower general self-esteem.

Organization, Coworker and Self Reactions to Accommodation in the Workplace

Although there has been more extensive research on reactions to persons with disabilities, more research is needed on the nature of reactions people have to accommodations in the workplace both independent of a given disability and jointly. In the next section, drawing from the affirmative action, psychological contract literature, and perceptions of entitlement, we will suggest possible reactions to accommodations per se in the workplace.

Organization and Coworker Reactions. According to Lee and Newman (1992) there is not a substantial amount of published research on employer or employee reactions to workplace accommodations. Unlike research on disabilities, we do not know whether or not there is a hierarchy of accommodations that elicit varying reactions by others or by the recipient. Further, although there are theoretical bases, little empirical research exists that identifies the parame- ters that contribute to perceptions that an accommodation is viewed as minor or significant. Cost has been repeatedly cited as an employer concern, yet the average cost of accommodations is minimal (Lee & Newman 1992). Coworkers’ reactions are viewed as another concern.

Cleveland et al. (1996) investigated people’s reactions to various disabilities as well as to requests for accommodation. Although no interaction effects were found, there were significant disability and accommodation main effects on several measure of reaction to job candidates. The disability main effect was in the predictable direction: job applicants with mental depression received less favorable ratings than individuals with paraplegia. Individuals with lower back pain also received more negative evaluations than individuals with a physical disability. However, there were significant accommodation main effects independent from the disability reactions. Manipulation checks indicated


that requesting to work at home two days a week via telecommuting was considered a major a request while requesting to leave work 45 minutes early two days a week was evaluated as minor. Additionally, subjects rated the major accommodation (telecommuting two days a week) as more costly, less appropriate as an accommodation and that the applicant was less entitled to the major accommodation than the minor accommodation.

This provides some evidence that people can and do make judgements about the significance or impact of a specific accommodation request. Further, the type of accommodation requested influenced subjects’ inferences about the applicant. Applicants who requested the major accommodation were rated lower in anticipated future performance or promotablity and lower in citizenship behaviors. Subjects also inferred by the accommodation request that applicants’ (both nondisabled and disabled) anticipated performance was associated with more risk and uncertainty. Two additional scales assessed the level of comfort subjects felt if they were acting in a supe~isory or coworker capacity with the applicant. Results indicated that subjects would feel less comfortable and more negative affect when supervising someone who requested a major accommodation than someone who requested a minor one. Further, subjects believed that major accommodation would meet with greater resentment or hard feelings among coworkers either because the accommodation would be seen as a benefit that other workers would not be able to receive or because it would disrupt the workplace (Cleveland et al. 1996). Consistent with these findings, Bottrill and Hazer (1995) found independent of disability, the act of seeking an accommodation, even relatively ‘minor’ ones, (e.g., extra unpaid breaks or unpaid l/2 day off each week) had a significant negative effect on employability ratings.

In both of the above studies, accommodations were requested by the applicant or employee. Such requests may signal to employers that the target groups need special treatment and cannot compete with other workers (Colella 1994). Further, there are often negative perceptions or stereotypes associated with various disabilities, and these perceptions may be reinforced or ‘verified by accommodation requests from members of that group.

Accommodation requests then may elicit reactions that are similar to those elicited by affirmative action. For example, Heilman and her colleagues (Heil- man, Block, & Lucas 1992; Heilman, Rivero, & Brett 1991; Heilman, Simon, & Repper 1987; Heilman, Kaplow, Amato, & Stathatos 1993) found that a stigma of incompetence is perpetuated from the affirmative action label. That is, when affirmative action is highlighted (especially ‘hard affl~ative action or quotas), there are more unfavorable evaluations regarding the qualifications of the targeted group (Garcia, Erskine, Hawn, & Casmay 1981). According to Kelley’s discounting principle (Kelley 1972; Kelley & Michela 1980), affirmative action provides perceivers (or decisionmakers) with a viable explanation for the applicant’s selection independent of the person’s qualifications for the job. QualiBca- tion or merit is viewed as important in this organizational context. Yet when an individual is perceived to be hired under affirmative action (and perhaps when they are provided with an accommodation), others perceive that the


individual is hired or promoted on a basis other than qualifications. Heilman (1994) suggested that perceivers assume the individuual is not competent (i.e., attribution of incompetence). Further, Northcraft, and Martin (1982) indicate that the widely shared view of affirmative action is that women and minorities are selected because of demographic characteristics and not because of what they can do.

In addition to stigmatization, other negative responses from coworkers may result. If coworkers do not know the reason for an accommodation, they may think the accommodation recipient is being treated in a special way which is unfair to everyone else (Zuckerman 1993). Accommodations for some individuals may increase coworkers’ feelings of inequity and resentment (Stone & Colella 1996). However, one study (Lee & Newman 1992) found that a majority of coworkers responded to a recipient of an accommodation in non- negative ways by either being supportive or just not treating them any differ- ently.

Heilman, Simon, and Repper (1987) found that subjects perceived merit selection more positively and as fairer than strong preferential treatment. Further, although male and female subjects responded similarly to merit treatment, males responded more negatively than women to strong preferential treatment. Others studies have also found that merit selection is evaluated more positively than preferential selection (Brutus & Ryan 1994; Hattrup 1994; Tougas & Veilleux 19891. There is evidence that majority members generally evaluate individuals selected through affirmative action as less competent than those selected without affirmative action. This appears to hold for both women (Heilman 1994) and minorities (Garcia et al. 1981; Nacoste & Fender 1993, cited in Nacoste 1994). Kravitz and colleagues (1996) concluded that these results occur when affirmative action is operationalized as strong preferential treatment and when it is defined procedurally. If workplace accommodations serve to reinforce initial stereotypically negative perceptions of the competence of individuals with disabilities, then organizational members may react in similar ways to requests for accommodations (and for those individuals accommodated) as they do with individuals working in organizations under affirmative action.

However, little empirical research exists on the effect of affirmative action programs on relations among target and non-target groups (Kravitz et al. 1996). Heilman, Gilbert, and McCullough (1995) found that males’ reactions to affirmative action (operationalizaed as strong preferential treatment) were negative unless (a) males believed that they (themselves) were inferior to the females in the task relevant ability or (b) the males thought themselves equal to the females in ability and were also given a historical rationale for the female being appointed as leader. Heilman (1994) has also summarized anec- dotal evidence of hostile reactions by nontarget groups toward affirmative action. Further, target and non-target group relations will be strained if either group has negative reactions to the affirmative action program (Barnes Nacoste 1992). If we apply these findings to accommodations, we would predict that if initial perceptions of the competence of a disabled employee were nega-


tive, reactions to providing a desirable accommodation to the individual would be negative.

There is also evidence that the specific group targeted for affirmative action programs influences attitudes towards that program (Kravitz et al. 1996). Sniderman, Piazza, Tetlock and Kendrick (1991) found both liberal and conser- vative White subjects in the San Francisco Bay area were more supportive of government intervention when the target was gender based. Clayton 61992) found results consistent with Sniderman et al. (1991). Kravitz et al. (1994) found that Black, Hispanic, and White subjects were more positive about affirmative action programs targeted at their own ethnic group. Murrell, Diet- Uhler, Dovidio, Gaertner, and Drout (1994) found that respondents were more negative toward affirmative action directed at Blacks than at either the elderly or the handicapped; while Kravitz and Plantania (1993) found that subjects were less opposed to hiring someone who was unquali~ed when the person was handicapped rather than a minority, especially if the decisionmaker was female.

In sum, the research on affirmative action suggests that individuals benefitting from such programs are perceived as less competent and are perceived more negatively than indivduals selected based on merit or quali~cations. However, negative attitudes and reactions (although it is not clear whether competence perceptions are included) vary depending upon which group is targeted, with more negative attitudes toward affirmative action for Blacks than for women and the disabled, respectively.

The affirmative action literature provides one basis for understanding possible reactions from coworkers and supervisors to individuals requesting and receiving accommodations. One important point throughout the research on affirmative action is that reactions to such programs depend on the nature of the affirmative action program. That is, the most negative reactions are associated with ‘hard programs reflecting strong preferential treatment while individuals hired or benefitting from ‘soft’ programs are regarded similarly to individuals hired using a merit process. Research is needed to det~~ine what characteristics of accommodations appear to cast doubts on an individual’s competence level. In addition, drawing from affirmative action research findings, specific research is needed to determine which accommodations might lead to perceptions among nonrecipients that they have been denied some work experience or benefit to which they were entitled.

Accommodation, Affirmative Action and Se/f-Perceptions. Little research has been conducted on recipients’ reactions to receiving an accommodation and its effects on one’s attitudes and self-evaluations. There is empirical research on the psychological and behavioral effects of affirmative action on target group members including motivation and task interest and self-evaluations of ability and performance. Many of the findings on motivation and task pe~o~anee are based on research primarily using females as subjects. In addition, the results of such research are mixed. In some research, results indicate that commitment and job satisfaction are lowered (e.g., Chacko 1982; Heilman & Herlihy 1984;


Heilman et al. 1987; Heilman et al. 1990) when sex-based affirmative action is used while in other research, no negative effects were found (e.g., Turner, Pratkanis, & Hardaway 1991; Turner & Pratkanis 1993) or females expressed a greater intent to remain with an organization (Graves & Powell 1994) with affirmative action procedures perceived as favorable to women.

Sex-based selection can negatively affect self-evaluations of ability and performance. Again, one caution should be noted; this research largely utilized gender-based selection procedures so there are limits to generalizing to other demographic groups including individuals with disabilities (see Eberhardt & Fiske 1994). In general, when women are told or described as being selected on the basis of sex, their self-rated leadership ability was lower than when they were selected based on merit (Heilman et al. 1987; Heilman et al. 1990; Nacoste 1985). The relationship between sex-based selection procedures and task performance is more complex. It appears that the effects of affn-mative action on performance are moderated by such factors as self-efficacy and task characteristics (Turner & Pratkanis 1993).

In sum, self-evaluations of individuals receiving an accommodation might be adversely affected especially if recipients initially lack confidence in their ability. On the other hand, there is evidence to suggest that individuals (with or without a disability) would show greater job satisfaction and organizational commitment when treated (accommodated) in ways that allow them to work effectively within an organizational setting.

CONCLUSIONS

One goal of this article was to discuss the importance of how the features and process surrounding the granting or extending of accommodations at work can influence both others’- and self-perceptions of competence, fairness, and attitudes towards the organization and job. Because so little research has been systematically conducted or published on reactions to accommodations per se (Lee & Newman 19921, we suggested a number of existing theoretical frameworks and literatures from which we might draw insights regarding accommodations including attribution theory, justice and fairness literature, psychological contracts and affirmative action. While there have been extensive and recent reviews and models concerning individuals with disabilities in the workplace (i.e., Stone & Colella 1996), few reviews include the consideration of the features and process of accommodating individuals. Within this article, the authors have indicated where research is needed regarding workplace accommodations. We also articulate that within this research, there is a need for researchers to clearly indicate whether they are examining accommodation reactions from the employer or the worker’s perspective. It is our hope that the two perspectives ultimately can be integrated so that the needs of both the individual and the organization can be effectively met.

As indicated in the final section of the paper, both characteristics of the individual and the accommodation need to be considered jointly to more fully

102 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 7, NUMBER I,1997

understand both others’ and recipients reactions. As the affirmative action research indicates, subjects’ reactions to ablative action targets depend in part on the targets’ characteristics (i.e, Black, female, disabled) and on the nature of the affirmative action program. Therefore, current organizational behavior research on reactions to individuals with disabilities in the workplace that does not address accommodation considerations provides us with a partial view at best of the organizational experiences of individuals who are accommodated.

REFERENCES

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 1990. P.L. 101-336. Asher, J. and J. Asher. 1976. “How to Accomodate Workers in Wheel~~irs.~’ Job Safety

and Health (October): 3-35. Austin, J. T. 1989. “Effects of Shifts in Goal Origin on Goal Acceptance and Attainment.”

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 44: 415-435. Barlow, W. E. 1991. “Act to Accommodate the Disabled.” Personnel Journal 70: 119-124. Barnes Nacoste, R. 1992. “Toward a Psychological Ecology of Affirmative Action.” Social

Justice Research 5: 269-289. -. 1994. “If Empowerment is the Goal . . . : Affirmative Action and Social Interac-

tion.” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 150 & 2): 87-112. Barry, B. and T. S. Bateman. 1996. “A Social Trap Analysis of the Management of

Diversity.” The Academy of Management Review 21: 757-790. Baur, D. and J. Green. 1988. “The Disabled Battle Bleak Job Prospects.” Management

Review 11: 59-61. Belgrave, F. 2. and J. Mills. 1981. “Effect Upon Desire for Social Interaction with a

Physically Disabled Person of Mentioning the Disability in Different Contexts.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 11: 44-57.

Berkeley Planning Associates. 1982. Study of Accommodations Provided by Federal Contractors. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Stan- dards Administration.

Bottrill, K. and J. T. Hazer. 1995. cocks of D~abi~ity and Seeking Accommodat~n on Pre-Employment Evaluations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, (May), Orlando, FL.

Boyatzis, R. E. and F. Skelly. 1995. “The Impact of Changing Values on Organizational Life-The Latest Update.” Pp. 1-17 in The Organizational Behavior Reader, (6th ed.), edited by D. Kolb, J. Osland, and I. Rubin. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.

Brannick, M. T., J. P. Brannick, and E. L. Levine. 1992. “Job Analysis, Personnel Selec- tion, and the ADA.” Human Resource Management Review 2: 171-182.

Brehm, J. W. 1966. A Theory of Psychology Reactance. New York: Academic Press. Brehm, S. S. and J. W. Brehm. 1981. Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and

Control. New York: Academic Press. Brutus, S. and A. Ryan. 1994. A New Pe~pe~tive on Prefe~ntia~ Treatment: The Role of

Amb~uity and Sel~Effi~~. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, (April), Nashville.

Burden, I? R. and T. S. Parish. 1983. “Exceptional and Normal Children’s Descriptions of Themselves.” Education 104: 204-205.


Campbell, J. 1985. “Approaching Al&native Action as Human Resources Develop- ment.” Pp. 14-30 in Complete Guide to Employing Persons with Disabilities, edited by H. McCarthy. Albertson, NY: Human Resources Center.

Chacko, T. I. 1982. “Women and Equal Employment Opportunity: Some Unintended Effets.” Journal of Applied Psychology 67: 119-123.

Clayton, S. D. 1992. “Remedies for Discrimination: Race, Sex and Affirmative Action.” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 10: 245-257.

Cleveland, J. N., J. Barnes-Farrell, and J. Huestis. 1996. “Reactions to Requests for Accommodation from Disabled and Non-Disabled Applicants.” In Understanding Reactions to Workers with Disabilities, chaired by J. Barnes-Farrell and S. Huestis. Symposium conducted at the annual conference of the Society for Indus- trial and Organizational Psychology, (April), San Diego, CA.

Clifford, E. and M. Clifford. 1986. “Social and Psychological Problems Associated with Clefts: Motivations for Cleft Palate Treatment.“Znternational Dental Journal 36: 115-119.

Colella, A. 1994. “Organizational Socialization of Employees with Disabilities: Critical Issues and Implications for Workplace Interventions.” Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 4: 87-106.

Colella, A. and A. DeNisi. 1993. Research and Development of Interventions to Increase Satisfaction, Performance, Advancement, and Retention of Employees with Dis- abilities. Phase ZZZ: The Organizational Socialization of Employees with Disabil- ities. Unpublished manuscript, Rutgers University.

Combs, I. J. and C. P. Omvig. 1986. “Accommodation of Disabled People into Employ- ment: Perceptions of Employers.” Journal of Rehabilitation 52: 42-45.

Cook, S. and E. Makas. 1979. Why Some of My Best Friends are Disabled!A Study of the Interaction between Disabled People and Nondisabled Rehabilitation Profession- als. Unpublished manuscript, George Washington University.

Cropanzano, R. ted.) 1993. Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource Management. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Deaux, K. and T. Emswiller. 1974. “Explanation of Successful Performance on Sex- Linked Task: What is Skill for the Male is Luck for the Female.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 29: 80-85.

Eberhardt, J. and S. Fiske. 1994. “Affirmative Action in Theory and Practice: Issues of Power, Ambiguity, and Gender versus Race.” Basic and Applied Social Psycholo- gy 15(1 and 2): 201-220.

Eisenberger, R., P. Fasolo, and V. Davis-LaMastro. 1990. “Perceived Organizational Support and Employee Diligence, Commitment, and Innovation.” Journal of Ap- plied Psychology 75: 51-59.

Emerson, R. M. 1976. “Social Exchange Theory.“Annual Review of Sociology 2: 335-362. Freedman, S. A. and R. T. Keller. 1981. “The Handicapped in the Workforce.” The

Academy of Management Review 6: 449-458, Friedman, D. E. 1990. “Work and Family: The New Strategic Plan.” Human Resource

Planning 13: 79-89. Garcia, L. T., N. Erskine, K. Hawn, and S. R. Casmay. 1981. “The Effect of Afhrmataive

Action on Attributions about Minority Group Members.” Journal of Personality 49: 427-437.

Gibbons, F. X. 1985. “A Social-Psychological Perspective on Developmental Disabilities.” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 3: 391-404.

Graves, L. M. and G. N. Powell. 1994. “Effects of Sex-Based Preferential Selection and Discrimnation on Job Attitudes.” Human Relations 47: 133-157.


Greenberger, D. B. and S. Strasser. 1986. “Development and Application of a Model of Personal Control in Organizations.” Academy of Ma~a~e~nt Review 11: 164- 177.

Grover, S. L. and K. J. Crooker. 1995. “Who Appreciates Family-Responsible Human Resources Policies: The Impact of Family-Friendly Policies on the Organizational Attachment of Parents and Nonparents.” Personnel Psychology 48: 271-288.

Harvey, D. H. P. and A. P. Greenway. ,1984. “rhe Self-Concept of Physically Hand- icapped Children and Their Non-Handicapped Siblings: An Empirical Investiga- tion.” Journal of Child ~ychology and ~ychiutry 25: 273-284.

Hastorf, A. H., J. Wildfogel, and T. Cassman. 1979. “Acknowledgment of Handicap as a Tactic in Social Interaction.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37: 1790-1797.

Hattrup, K. 1994. “The Roles of the Self-Concept and Fairness Perceptions in Reactions to Preferential Hiring.” In Research in ~rmutive Action, chaired by M. A. McDaniel. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Society for Indus- trial and Organizational Psychology, (April), Nashville, TN.

Heilman, M. E. 1994. ‘Affirmative Action: Some Unintended Consequences for Working Women.” Pp. 125-169 in Research in Organziational Behavior (Vol. 16), edited by B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Heilman, M. E., C. J. Block, and J. A. Lucas. 1992. “Presumed Incompetent? Stigmatiza- tion and Affirmative Action Efforts.” Journal of Applied Psychology 77: 395-405.

Heilman, M. E., D. Gilbert, and W. McCullough. 1995. The Other Side of A~rmatiue Action: Reactions ofNon-Beneficiaries to Sex-Based Preferential Selection. Manu- script submitted for publication.

Heilman, M. E. and R. A. Guzzo. 1978. “The Perceived Cause of Work Success as a Mediator of Sex Discrimination in Organizations.” Organizational Behavior and Human Pe~orman&e 21: 346-357.

Heilman, M. E. and J. M. Herlihy. 1984. “Affirmative Action, Negative Reaction? Some Moderating Conditions.” Organizat~na~ Behavior and Human Performance 33: 204-213.

Heilman, M. E., S. R. Kaplow, M. G. Amato, and P. Stathatos. 1993. “When Similarity is a Liability: Effects of Sex-Based Preferential Selection on Reactions to Like-sex and Different-Sex Others.” Journal of Applied Psychology 78: 917-927.

Heilman, M. E., J. Lucas, and S. Kaplow. 1990. “Self-Derogating Consequences of Sex- Based Preferential Selection: The Moderating Role of Initial Self-Confidence.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 46: 202-216.

Heilman, M. E., J. C. Rivero, and J. Brett. 1991. “Skirting the Competence Issue: Effects of Sex-Based Preferential Selection on Task Choices of Women and Men.” Jour- nal of Applied Psychology 76(l): 99-105.

Heilman, M., M. Simon, and D. Repper. 1987. “Intentionally Favored, Unintentionally Harmed? Impact of Sex-Based Preferential Selection Self-Perceptions and Self- Evaluations.” Journal of Applied Psychology 72(l): 62-68.

Johnson, R. T., D. W. Johnson, and J. Rynders. 1981. “Effect of Cooperative, Competi- tive, and Individualistic Experiences on Self-Esteem of Handicapped and Non- handicapped Students.” The Journal of Psychology 108: 31-34.

Johnson, W. G. and J. Lambrinos. 1983. “Employment Discrimination.” Society 20(3): 47-50.

Jones, E. E., A. Faroma. A. H. Hastorf, H. Markus, D. T. Miller, R. Scott, and R. desales- French. 1984. Social Stigma: The Ps_ychology of Marked Relationships. San Fran- cisco: W. H. Freeman and Co. _


Jones, G. E. and D. L. Stone. 1994. Barriers to Social Acceptance of Disabled Individuals into Work Groups: Investigation of the Nature of the Disability. Symposium paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, (August), Dallas, TX.

Kelley, H. H. 1972. “Attribution in Social Interaction.” In Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior, edited by E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, and B. Weiner. Morristown, NJ: general Learning Press.

Kelley, H. H. and J. L. Michela. 1980. “Attribution Theory and Research.” Pp. 457-501 in Annual Review of Psychology (Vol. 311, edited by M. Rosenzweig and L. Pater. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews Inc.

Kiernan, W. E. and R. L. Schalock. 1989. Economics, Industry, and Disability: A Look Ahead. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Kravitz, D. A., D. A. Harrison, M. E. Turner, E. L. Levine, M. T. Brannick, D. L. Denning, C. J. Russell, M. A. Conard, and R. S. Bhagat. 1996. Affirmative Action: A Review of Psychological and Behavioral Research. Unpublished manuscript prepared by a subcommittee of the Scientific Affairs Committee of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, April.

Kravitz, D. A. and J. Platania. 1993. “Attitudes and Beliefs about Affirmative Action: Effects of Target and Respondent Sex and Ethnicity.” Journal ofApplied Psychol- ogy 78: 928-938.

Larwood, L. 1994. Equal Rights vs. Special Entitlements: The Band Still Plays But the Music Has Changed. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, (August), Dallas, TX. . 1995. “Attributional Effects of Equal Employment Opportunity: Theory Devel- opment at the Intersection of EEO Policy and Management Practice.” Group and Organization Management 20: 391-408.

Lee, B. and K. Newman. 1992. Reasonable Accommodation of Persons with Disabilities in the New Jersey Workplace. Final report submitted to the New Jersey Develop- mental disabilities Council through the Bureau of Economic Research, Rutgers University.

McCarthy, H. 1986. “Corporate Social Responsibility and Services to People with Dis- abilities.” Journal of Rehabilitation Administration 10: 60-67,

-. 1988. “Attitudes That Affect Employment Opportunities for Persons with Dis- abilties.” Pp. 246-261 in Attitudes Toward Persons with Disabilties, edited by H. E. Yuker. New York: Springer Publishing Co.

McCray, P. M. 1987. The Job Accommodation Handbook. Verndale, MN: RPM Press. McFarlin, D. B., J. Song, and M. Sonntag. 1991. “Integrating the Disabled into the Work

Force: A Survey of Fortune 500 Company Attitudes and Practices.” Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 4: 107-121.

Miles, R. E. and C. C. Snow. 1984. “Designing Strategic Human Resource Systems.” Organizational Dynamics 13: 36-52.

Mitchell, T. R. and R. E. Wood. 1980. “Supervisor’s Responses to Subordinate Poor Performance: Attest of an Attributional Model.” Organizational Performance and Human Behavior 25: 123-138.

Murrell, A. J., B. Dietz-Uhler, J. Dovidio, S. Gaertner, and C. Drout. 1994. “Aversive Racism and Resistance to Afirmative Action: Perceptions of Justice Are Not Necessarily Color Blind.” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 15: 71-86.

Nacoste, R. W. 1985. “Selection Procedure and Responses to Afhrmataive Action: The Case of Favorable Treatment.” Law and Human Behavor 9: 225-242.

106 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 7. NUMBER 1, 1997

-. 1994. “Policy Schemas for A6rmative Action.” Pp. 205-221 in Applications of Heuristics and Biases to Social Issues, edited by L. Heath, R. S. Tindale, J. Edwards, E. J. Posavac, F. B. Bryant, E. Hendeson-King, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, and J. Myers. New York: Plenum Press.

Nicholson, N. and G. Johns. 1985. “TheAbsence Culture and the Psychological Contract- Who’s in Control of Absence.” Academy of Management Review 10: 397-407.

Northcraft, G. B. and J. Martin. 1982. “Double Jeopardy: Resistance to Affirmative Action from Potential Beneficiaries.” Pp. 81-130 in Sex Roles Stereotyping and Affirmataive Action Policy, edited by B. Gutek. Los Angeles: University of Cali- fornia, Institute of Industrial Relations.

Offerman, L. and M. Gowing. 1990. “Organizations of the Future: Changes and Chal- lenges.” American Psychologist 2: 95-105.

Organ, D. W. 1974. “Social Exchange and Psychological Reactance in a Simulated Supe- rior-subordinate Relationship.” Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor- mance 12: 132-142.

Ratz, J. M. and J. N. Cleveland. 1995. Attitudes Toward People with Disabilities and Ratings of Performance. Unpublished master’s thesis, Colorado State University.

Robinson, S., M. Kraatz, and D. Rousseau. 1994. “Changing Obligations and the Psycho- logical Contract: A Longitudinal Study.” Academy of Management Journal 37: 137-152.

Rousseau, D. M. 1989. “Psychological and Implied Contracts in Organizations.” Employ- ee Rights and Responsibilities Journal 2: 121-139.

-. 1990. “New Hire Perceptions of Their Own and Their Employer’s Obligations: A Study of Psychological Contracts.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 11: 389- 400.

-. 1995a. Promises in Action: Written and Unwritten Contracts. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. . 1995b. Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written and Unwritten Agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rousseau, D. M. and K. Aquino. 1993. “Fairness and Implied Contract Obligations in Job Terminations: The Role of Remedies, Social Accounts, and Procedural JUB-

tice.” Human Performance 6: 135-149. Satcher, J. 1992. “Responding to Employer Concerns about the ADA and Job Applicants

with Disabilities.” Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling 23: 37-40. Satcher, J. and K. Dooley-Dickey. 1992. “Attitudes of Human-Resource Management

Students Toward Persons with Disabilities.” Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 23: 299-313.

Schein, E. H. 1980. Organization Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Schmelkin, L. P. 1984. “Hierarchy of Preferences Toward Disabled Groups: A Rean-

alysis.” Perceptual and Motor Skills 59: 151-157. Shore, L. and S. J. Wayne. 1993. “Commitment and Employee Behavior: Comparison of

Affective Commitment and Continuance Commitment with Perceived Organiza- tional Support.” Journal of Applied Psychology 78: 774-780.

Smith-Davis, J. 1983. When Handicapped Children Grow Up. Washington, DC: Nation- al Information Center for Handicapped Children and Youth.

Sniderman, P. M., T. Piazza, P. E. Tetlock, and A. Kendrick. 1991. “The New Racism.” American Journal of Political Science 35: 423-447.

Stager, S. F., L. Chassin, and R. D. Young. 1983. “Determinants of Self-Esteem Among Labeled Adolescents.” Social Psychology Quarterly 46: 3-10.


Stevens, G. E. 1986. “Exploding the Myths About Hiring the Handicapped.” Personnel (December): 57-60.

Stone, D. and A. Colella. 1996. “A Model of Factors Affecting the Treatment of Disabled Individuals in Organizations.” Academy of Management Review 21: 352-401.

Stone, E. F., D. L. Stone, and R. L. Dipboye. 1992. “Stigmas in Organizations: Race, Handicaps, and Physical Unattractiveness.” Pp. 385-444 in Issues, Theory, and Research in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, edited by K. Kelley. Am- sterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

Susser, P. A. and D. A. Jett. 1988. “Accommodating Handicapped Workers: The Extent of the Employer’s Obligation.” Employment Relations Today 15: 113-120.

Tougas, F. and F. Veilleux. 1989. “Who Likes Affirmative Action: Attitudinal Processes Among Men and Women.” Pp. 11-124 in Affirmative Action in Perspective, edited by F. A. Blanchard and F. J. Crosby. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Tringo, J. L. 1970. “The Hierarachy of Preferences Toward Disability Groups.” Journal of Special Education 4: 295-306.

Turner, M. E. and A. R. Pratkanis. 1993. “Effects of Preferential and Meritorious Selec- tion on Performance: An Examination of Intuitive and Self-Handicapping Per- spectives.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 19: 47-58.

Turner, M. E., A. R. Pratkanis, and T. Hardaway. 1991. “Sex Differences in Reacations to Preferential Selection: Towards a Model of Preferential Selection as Help.” Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 6: 797-814.

Vernon-Oehmke, A. 1994. Effective Hiring and ADA Compliance. AMACON:New York. Weiner, B. F. 1993. “On Sin Versus Sickness. A Theory of Perceived Responsibility and

Social Motivation.” American Psychologist 48: 957-965. -. 1995. Judgments of Responsiblity. New York: Guilford Press. Weiner, B. F., R. P. Perry, and J. Magnusson. 1988. “An Attributional Analysis of Reac-

tions to Stigmas.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55: 738-748. Yuker, H. E. 1988. Attitudes Toward Persons with Disabilities. New York: Springer. Zuckerman, D. 1993. “Reasonable Accommodations for People With Mental Illness Un-

der the ADA.” Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter 17(3): 311-320.

accommodation in the workplace

Documents