Social Research Division (SRD) of the Policy Research Directorate (PRD) of Human
Resources and Social Development Canada (HRSDC)
Literature Review on Job Retention and Career Progression for Persons with
Disabilities in Canada and Internationally
Final Draft
Janalee Morris-Wales, Canadian Centre on Disability Studies
February 5, 2010
The views expressed in this document are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the
views of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada or of the federal government.
i
Abstract
This document provides a thematic review and meta-analysis of general and disability-related
literature in order to identify interrelationships between disability and job retention/career
progression. It provides a starting point for creating models to better understand differences in
the career paths of Canadian working people with disabilities vis-à-vis those without disabilities.
Due to considerable variation in the base terms of “job retention” and “career progression,” the
paper begins by developing tailored definitions of these basic notions of employment history. It
then turns to four broad groups of variables considered in the literature to be strongly related to
how employment histories evolve. Two involve broader, more macro-level considerations:
exogenous economic circumstances, and socio-demographics and disability-related
characteristics. The other two groups impact at a micro-level: dynamics in the workplace and
personal psychological factors.
The review provides direction for the development of a series of research questions addressing
gaps in our understanding in this area.
Key Words: Disability, disabled persons, careers, career development, retention of staff, job
market, employment equity, job promotion, jobs, vocational rehabilitation, disability
management
Internet Summary: This document provides a thematic review and meta-analysis of general and
disability-related literature in order to identify interrelationships between disability and job
retention/career progression for Canadian working people. It develops four broad groups of
macro- and micro-level variables that are considered in the literature to be strongly related to
how employment histories evolve. The review provides direction for the development of a series
of research questions addressing gaps in our understanding in this area.
ii
Table of Contents
List of Tables ............................................................................................................... iv
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... v
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
Methodology ................................................................................................................. 1
Basic Notions of Employment History ......................................................................... 2
Job Retention Definition ....................................................................................... 2
Job Retention and People With Disabilities.......................................................... 3
Career Progression Definition............................................................................... 4
Career Progression and People with Disabilities .................................................. 5
2. Major Themes in the General Literature ....................................................................... 6
Exogenous Economic Circumstances ........................................................................... 6
The Nature and Structure of the Labour Market ................................................... 6
Regional Variations .............................................................................................. 7
Industry-Specific Trends ....................................................................................... 8
Occupation ............................................................................................................ 9
Employment Sector (Public, Private, Non-Profit) .............................................. 10
Transportation Issues .......................................................................................... 11
Personal Socio-Demographic and Disability-Related Characteristics ........................ 11
Age ...................................................................................................................... 11
Gender ................................................................................................................. 12
Marital Status ...................................................................................................... 13
Education and Training ....................................................................................... 14
Type of Impairment ............................................................................................ 14
Severity of Disability .......................................................................................... 15
Onset of Disability .............................................................................................. 16
Workplace Dynamics .................................................................................................. 17
Size of Organization ........................................................................................... 17
Unionization........................................................................................................ 17
Corporate Culture................................................................................................ 18
Employer/Coworker Attitudes ............................................................................ 18
Discrimination and Harassment .......................................................................... 19
Career Mentoring ................................................................................................ 20
Disability Supports/Workplace Accommodations .............................................. 20
Personal Psychological Factors................................................................................... 20
Organizational Commitment ............................................................................... 21
Job Satisfaction and Job Retention ..................................................................... 21
Job Satisfaction and Career Progression ............................................................. 22
Quit Intentions .................................................................................................... 22
Self-Efficacy ....................................................................................................... 22
Perception of Fit .................................................................................................. 23
Personality Factors/Behaviours .......................................................................... 23
3. Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 25
References ..................................................................................................................... 1
Endnotes...................................................................................................................... 11
iii
List of Tables
Table 1: Over and Under Representation of Persons with Disabilities by
Industry, Canada, 2006 ................................................................................................................... 8
Table 2: Comparison of Occupations of People With and Without Disabilities
in Canada, 2006 ............................................................................................................................ 10
iv
Executive Summary
The impetus for this work is a Human Resources and Skills Development Canada request for
proposal for a literature review and conceptual paper on measuring inter-relationships between
disability and job retention and career progression. It called for a review of general and
disability-related literature on the course of employment histories for individuals. A strong
emphasis is placed on the general literature in these areas because there is very little material
regarding the relationships between disability and job retention/career progression. In response,
this review develops a basic model that complements the current and limited understanding on
the career paths of people with disabilities.
In examining the literature, the methodology included a combination of thematic review
(integrating and synthesizing diverse literature with a common subject or theme) and metaanalysis (combining pertinent results of several studies related to a set of research hypotheses).
Literature used in this report comes primarily from academic materials (peer-reviewed) and is
supplemented with grey literature (non-governmental and governmental reports).
Due to a lack of clear definitions in the literature for job retention and career progression, we
distilled definitions that best satisfy the objective of understanding trends in labour force
participation among people with disabilities. Career progression is the harder to define due to its
personal connotation; it is characterized here as the measure of success or achievement through
increasing salary, responsibility, promotion, and professional development. Job retention is
defined as the duration of time spent with an employer.
Both the general and disability-related literature allude to the consideration of four different
dimensions of analysis in understanding job retention and career progression trends. At a
broader, macro level, exogenous economic circumstances as well as personal socio-demographic
and disability-related characteristics are important. At a more micro level, dynamics in the
workplace and psychological factors come to the fore. Impacts on job retention and career
progression often reflect interactions across factors that are important in each of these
dimensions.
Pertinent exogenous economic circumstances include trends in the labour market, industryspecific trends, regional variations, employment sector (public, private, non-profit) variations,
and transportation issues. Specifically, there is evidence that the increasingly tight job market of
recent years has led to increases in the proportion of older working people with disabilities
staying on at their jobs. More generally, certain industries and occupations have higher turnover
rates, lower job retention, and less opportunity for career mobility.
The socio-demographic and disability-related characteristics in the literature that impact job
retention and career progression include age, gender, marital status, level of education, type of
impairment, severity of disability (with the most severe less able to retain employment and
achieve career progression), and the point of onset. In particular, there is considerable empirical
evidence that tenure and the development of job-related skills tend to increase with age in
parallel with the likelihood of disability, thus reducing the probability of job separation.
v
However, the literature also indicates that proximity to time of retirement in conjunction with
onset of disability act in tandem to increase the probability of job separation.
A third dimension in the literature concerned dynamics in the workplace and included factors,
such as the size of an organization, corporate culture, employer/co-worker attitudes,
discrimination/harassment, career mentors, and workplace accommodations, as indicators of job
retention and career progression. For instance, research suggests that negative perceptions and
attitudes of employers and co-workers are often seen as a barrier to gaining and maintaining
employment for persons with a disability. However, the likelihood of job retention for people
with disabilities is seen to increase in larger workplaces and workplaces that accommodate for
disability management strategies.
Important personal psychological factors are sparse in the literature on employment histories of
those with disabilities. They include such issues as an employee’s attitudes (job satisfaction and
commitment to the organization), motivations (aspirations and goals), and perceptions (such as
self-assessment of abilities to perform well and belong in the workplace). For individuals both
with and without disabilities, commitment to their organization has been seen to be a particularly
strong predictor of job retention.
While there is promising material in the disability-related literature on job retention and career
progression, this material is far from comprehensive. Current disability research about the labour
market experiences of people with disabilities focuses on barriers influencing the dynamics of
entry to and exit from the labour market, quality of employment, and accommodation in the
workplace. In contrast, there is very little research in the areas of the extent to which people with
disabilities hold onto work or move up the career ladder. This review seeks potential for a better
understanding of the obstacles people with disabilities experience in the workplace by applying
general human resources, economics, and academic literature to the issue. More research is
needed to determine the most important factors related to job retention and career progression for
people with disabilities.
vi
1. Introduction
This work began with a request for proposal from Human Resources and Skills Development
Canada (HRSDC) for conceptual papers measuring interrelationships between disability and job
retention, and career progress. It called for a review of general and disability-related literature on
the course of employment histories for individuals. In response, this review develops a basic
model that complements the current and limited understanding of the career paths of people with
disabilities.
This review places a strong emphasis on the general literature, because there is very little
material regarding the relationships between disability and job retention/career progression. This
research gap has been identified in the literature. “For persons with disabilities in the workforce,
the idea of changing jobs and pursuing career advancement opportunities is certainly an area that
has been frequently overlooked in the delivery of supported employment services” (Unger, 1999:
174).
Until recently, most of the literature describing the labour market experiences of people with
disabilities focused on barriers influencing the dynamics of entry to and exit from the labour
market, quality of employment, and accommodation in the workplace. A new emphasis in the
literature has emerged regarding the effect of disability management strategies on job retention.
This new approach places emphasis on the nature of accommodations needed to maintain
employment for those experiencing the onset of a disability while in the workplace.1 This review
seeks to supplement current focuses by examining the literature regarding employment histories
that identifies a wider range of factors that could be important in holding onto work or moving
up career ladders.
However, the literature does not consistently define “job retention” and “career progression.”
Due to these variations, this paper begins with the development of definitions for these terms,
which are congruent with understanding employment histories. Once these are in place, emphasis
shifts to consideration of four broad groups of variables considered in the literature to be strongly
related to how these aspects of employment histories evolve. Two of these groups involve
broader, more macro-level influences on job retention and career progression: exogenous
economic circumstances and socio-demographic/disability-related characteristics. The other two
groups impact at micro levels: dynamics in the workplace and personal psychological factors.
The review provides direction for the development of a series of research questions addressing
gaps in our understanding in all of these areas.
Methodology
The examination of the literature included a combination of thematic review (integrating and
synthesizing diverse literature with a common subject or theme) and meta-analysis (combining
results of several studies that address a set of related research hypotheses). In particular, the
collected literature focused on strongly developed themes of career progression and job retention
as they relate to people without disabilities. This literature is then used in developing a metaanalysis to augment the similar but limited literature focusing on people with disabilities. Much
of this material is drawn from human resources and economics literature.
1
Literature used in this report comes primarily from academic material (peer-reviewed),
supplemented by grey literature (non-governmental organization/NGO and governmental
reports). Specifically, the electronic databases identifying peer-reviewed materials included
CBCA Business, Sage Journal Online, Taylor & Francis Journals Online, Academic Search Elite,
and EBSCO Host, while Gladnet was the source for the grey literature. In addition, a manual
search of the following journals based on our knowledge of the literature and anticipated sources
of research in this field included Disability & Society, Disability Studies Quarterly, and Review
of Disability Studies Journal. The research conducted through the following community-based
research organizations was also reviewed: Canadian Centre on Disability Studies, the National
Institute of Disability Management and Research, and the Roeher Institute.
Scholarly papers with any combination of the following key words within their titles or abstracts
were reviewed: disability, handicap, illness, impairment and employment, job retention, career
advancement, career progression, promotion, employee turnover.
Basic Notions of Employment History
Due to the lack of clear definitions in the literature for job retention and career progression, we
distilled definitions that best satisfy the objective of understanding trends in the employment
histories of people with disabilities.
Job Retention Definition
There is no predominant, single definition of “job retention” in the literature. For example, job
retention can mean how long an individual has stayed with an employer, or it can mean how long
a person has been attached to the labour force.
In the literature, job turnover is very often considered, rather than its converse, job retention. In
most cases, this reflects a preoccupation with employer perspectives in much of this literature —
reacting to concerns about the high costs of replacing lost workers (HayGroup, 2001; KepnerTregoe, 1999). Thus reducing job turnover (encouraging job retention) becomes a key factor for
employers, who “recognized that it was in their own interests to keep disabled workers in their
employment, to demonstrate social responsibility, out of loyalty to their employees, to reduce
insurance costs and loss of productivity, and to avoid losing valued workers” (ILO, 1998: 18). As
a result, much of the focus has been on determining what causes turnover and how to reduce its
occurrence. In addition, job turnover is also prominent in professional development literature
where concern is with the positive or adverse effects of turnover on long-term career path
development.
As a starting point, we considered common definitions of job turnover, which is typically broken
down into two categories: voluntary and involuntary.

Voluntary turnover can include leaving to start another job, or taking a leave of absence (i.e.,
parental or sick leave). Voluntary turnover can affect career paths in both positive and
negative fashions. For example, starting a new job often leads to career advancement
opportunities, but taking parental leave may temporarily stall opportunities for promotion.
2

Involuntary turnover can result from layoffs, retirement, or death. However, in a number of
seasonal industries and those where demand is volatile (e.g., most primary industries), layoffs
are an accepted norm and, especially early in one’s career, very often do not impact future
career progression. Retirement as a planned end to a career can be positive; however, some
workers are “forced” into retirement at a certain age, or opt to take “early retirement” in
times of economic downturns or after the onset of disability.
These definitions demonstrate myriad influences, which affect turnover and the converse, job
retention.
Underlying much of this material is a simple, key idea — job retention as the duration of time
spent with an employer. In reviewing the literature, we use this, a common denominator, as our
definition. At the same time, it is acknowledged that this is a simplification of a complex and
multi-faceted concept.
Job Retention and People With Disabilities
Due to tangential meanings of job retention, the research conducted on, and literature related to,
job retention varies. This creates a complex picture of job retention for people with disabilities.
The research that does exist on job retention and people with disabilities tells us that this
population is more likely to experience work interruptions (voluntary or involuntary) than those
without disabilities. Further, statistics (such as Participation and Activity Limitation Survey/PALS
data) demonstrating higher rates of unemployment among people with disabilities indicate that it
is more difficult for this population to secure employment once out of the labour force. However,
the issue of job retention and disability is more complex than first indicated by these trends.
People with disabilities have a greater likelihood of having a significant work interruption or
losing their jobs than those without disabilities. In their analysis of the Canadian Survey of
Labour and Income Dynamics (SLID), Spector et al. (2008) indicated that among those working
full time in 1999-2000, 45% of people with disabilities experienced a work interruption over the
next four years in contrast to 26% of those without disabilities. Moreover, Gibson and Lindberg
(2007: 729) note that “persons with disabling illness are four times more likely than persons
without illness or disability to be dismissed from their jobs.”
Studies of people with specific types of disabilities show similar difficulties with regard to job
retention. In their review of vocational rehabilitation services in the United States, Roessler et al.
(2001) pointed out that job retention for people with multiple sclerosis was only 50 percent
twelve months after vocational rehabilitation services. In a UK study of nurses with dyslexia,
Morris and Turnbull (2007: 98) stated: “Within the UK National Health Service (NHS), Europe’s
largest employer, the recruitment and retention of disabled health care staff have been an issue.”
For people with mental health disabilities, Lehman et al. (2002: 170) stated: “After initial success
in obtaining work, the monthly employment rate…leveled off in the range of 15% to
20%…despite the ongoing job supports.” Morris-Wales (2000) discussed a similar cycle of job
training, support, and turnover in her examination of an employment training program for youth
with physical disabilities. Lehman and colleagues (2002: 170) stated it best when they said:
“Clearly, a better understanding of how to enhance job retention is needed. Job retention is a
more challenging outcome than job initiation.”
3
However, the story is more complex than these studies indicate. The literature also shows that
people with disabilities who are employed are actually more likely to remain at the same job than
those without disabilities (Spector et al., 2008). Hotchkiss (2003) provided some possible
explanations for this phenomenon, suggesting that those with disabilities may have a greater fear
of leaving their current employer (due to the loss of medical benefits or the failure of future
employers to provide disability-related accommodations) than those without disabilities. This
may also be due to the increased incidence of disability with older age. As people age, job
mobility declines and the likelihood of holding onto the same job increases.
At the same time, Hotchkiss (2003: 110) showed that leaving work can be a combination of the
pulls associated with voluntary turnover and the pushes of involuntary shifts. Her examination of
labour market trends in the United States suggested: “This result lends support for the theory that
disabled workers may have more difficulty finding the right ‘match,’ and are therefore more
likely to quit in search of a better accommodation for their disability.”
The likelihood of holding onto a job or staying with a particular employer can be influenced by a
variety of factors including exogenous economic circumstances, socio-demographic factors,
characteristics of the workplace, and individual/personality factors. These factors are described
in detail below.
Career Progression Definition
It is not easy to define “career progression” or “career success.” Blau and Duncan (1967:20)2
first attempted to define this idea as “the outcome of the lifelong process in which ascribed status
at birth, intervening circumstances and earlier attainments determine the level of ultimate
achievement.” Most definitions refer to a measure of salary or levels of “job responsibility”
(Gregg and Wadsworth, 2002), promotions (Greenhaus et al., 1990; Seibert et al., 2001; Wayne
et al., 1999), career satisfaction (Wayne et al., 1999), and professional development (Greenhaus
et al., 1990).
Emerging literature highlights the changing landscape of Canadian and international career
paths, and the research that indicates the importance of job turnover and mobility in overall
career progression and skill acquisition. “[O]ur evidence is that the process of job changing
among young workers, while apparently haphazard, is a critical phase in workers' movement
toward the long-term, stable employment relations that characterize mature careers” (Topel and
Ward, 1988: 443).
This evolution in career paths has led some researchers to rethink the traditional model, which
consisted of continuous full-time work moving from lower levels of job status to successively
higher levels within an organization. Benko and Weisberg (2008: 3 of 7) stated that modern
career paths are “not a straight climb up the corporate ladder but rather an undulating journey of
climbs, lateral moves, and planned descents.” Similarly, Seibert et al’s (2001: 845) research
found that “individuals’ work experiences now tend to span multiple employers, work
arrangements, and types of competencies and that individuals are increasingly responsible for
managing the transitions in their own careers.”
4
Early job mobility has been associated with increased wage growth. According to Topel and
Ward (1988: 453): “Empirically, profiles of earnings growth mirror the pattern of early career
mobility. For the typical male worker in the United States, over two thirds of total lifecycle
earnings growth occurs during the first ten years of labor market experience.” Career progression
seems to be greatly influenced by job mobility, where employees progressively acquire new
skills and apply them to increasingly more difficult jobs.
Generally, positive predictors of career progression include higher levels of ability and
educational attainment. Further, early job mobility and longer labour force attachment both lead
to increased career success. On the other hand, age and female gender have a negative effect on
career progression. And finally, the research indicates a complex interaction between career
mentors, corporate culture including expectations of employees and co-workers, social inclusion
on the job, job satisfaction, and performance appraisals. These factors are explored in more detail
below.
Career Progression and People with Disabilities
Career progression is an under-researched area for people with disabilities. The issues that
plague job retention for this population affect career progression in similar ways. For example,
“Yelin and Trupin (2003)…find that people with disabilities are more likely to experience
involuntary job loss and thus are less likely to establish long job tenure or job-based career
progression” (HRSDC, 2006: 3).
Research has shown that people with disabilities face many barriers to achieving upward job
mobility. In his review of the Irish Civil Service, Murphy (2002: vi-viii) pointed out that when a
“similar proportion of civil servants with and without a disability are applying for
promotion…civil servants with a disability experience less job mobility in comparison to those
without a disability.” Similarly, England (2003) pointed to a study by the Canadian Council on
Social Development, which found that people with disabilities were more likely to remain in
non-managerial positions, while those without disabilities were more likely to experience upward
mobility.
For those people with disabilities who do achieve greater career progression, Wilson-Kovacs et
al. (2008: 715) pointed out: “The focus on breaking through the glass ceiling has led to an
assumption that at higher levels of management dealing with disability raises fewer issues.”
Their study warned that this assumption may be unwarranted. Instead, they reported several
challenges faced by people with disabilities in higher-ranking positions, including employer and
co-worker support, effects of employment reviews, and lack of accommodations strategies.
5
2. Major Themes in the General Literature
This section discusses the four emergent macro- and micro-level groups of variables affecting
job retention and career progression that are found to be important throughout the literature. A
strong emphasis is placed on the general, non-disability-related literature, because there is little
material regarding the relationships between disability and job retention/career progression.
Within the discussion of each group, an emphasis is placed on how the non-disability-related
literature can be used to better understand trends in the career paths of the population of people
with disabilities.
Exogenous Economic Circumstances
A range of macro-level factors may have an influence on job retention and career progression for
people with disabilities. This includes the nature and structure of the labour market, regional
variations, industry-specific trends, occupation, employment sector (public, private, non-profit),
and transportation issues.
The Nature and Structure of the Labour Market
From the end of the recession in the late 1990s to the middle of the first decade of the 21st
century, the Canadian labour market experienced consistent growth. According to the
Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (PALS) analytical report (Statistics Canada, 2008),
employment growth averaged two percent per year over the 13 years prior to 2006. Additionally,
“the Canadian economy grew between 2001 and 2006, generating hundreds of thousands of jobs
and leading to near record lows for unemployment” (Statistics Canada, 2008: 11). This growth
has been positive for employment rates of people with disabilities, whose unemployment rates
decreased from 13.2 percent in 2001 to 10.4 percent in 2006 (Statistics Canada, 2008). Spector et
al. (2008: 2) indicated: “Between 1999 and 2004, the number of people with disabilities whose
major income support was wages and salaries increased from 1.5 to 2.1 million.” During this
time, people with disabilities were more successful in gaining initial access to employment and
retaining their jobs if onset of a disability occurred once employed.
Trends in the labour market that influence job retention and tenure include availability of
alternative job opportunities (Griffeth et al., 2000), global competition (De Witte and Naswell,
2003), and the availability of part-time or temporary jobs versus full-time employment. The
close relationship between economic recession and voluntary job mobility has been clearly
demonstrated. For example, Heisz (2002: 13-14) indicated that “job stability is shown to be
counter cyclical — rising during recessions and falling during recoveries…. Job stability tends to
decline in periods of economic recovery as workers change jobs more often.” In other words, as
more jobs become available, job retention decreases, because workers leave to pursue better
opportunities. When jobs are more scarce, job retention increases as workers tend to hold onto
the jobs they have.
Worker perceptions of the labour market can influence job seeking and turnover behaviours. For
example, although some studies report that length of job tenure has either not changed much
since the 1960s (Archibald, 2009) or has actually increased (Heisz, 2002), it seems that the
perception of job stability has, in fact, decreased in the general population (De Ruyter and
Burgess, 2003). This may be due to increased global competition and outsourcing to developing
6
nations of jobs that were formerly conducted within places like Canada and the United States
(Archibald, 2009; De Witte and Naswall, 2003). Research indicates that perceptions of job
insecurity influences job satisfaction and organizational commitment, both of which have been
shown to influence job retention (De Witte and Naswall, 2003: 157).
Job tenure has also been related to positive career progression (Dolton et al., 2005). “Prior
research indicates that job tenure and organization tenure are positively related to career
outcomes” (Wayne et al., 1999: 580). This is logical, since job mastery tends to improve the
longer one stays at a job, and temporary jobs offer less opportunity for acquiring/developing
skills and advancement. Job tenure is also positively related to job retention, as the longer one
stays at a job, the more likely one is to retain that job even in times of recession (Holzer, 2000).
Generally, part-time work has a limiting effect on career progression, as less time on the job
makes it more difficult to acquire skills. This is important for persons with disabilities, who are
more likely to enter part-time work than those with no disability (McLean, 2003; Piggott and
Houghton, 2007). However, labour market effects are, at best, only partial determinants of job
retention and career progression. According to one study of job separation in Illinois, only
seventeen percent of the separations could be attributed to exogenous labour market factors, such
as economic downsizing (Botuck and Levy, 1998).
Although labour force participation of persons with disabilities has reflected general economic
trends, their substantial gains, even as compared to those without disabilities, must also be
ascribed to the changing socio-political climate. Participation gains are partly reflective of a
policy shift away from economically supporting people and emphasizing active participation in
the labour market. For example, government policies, such as the Employment Equity Act, may
have impacted the employment prospects of those with disabilities.
Moreover, changes in technologies and shifts in the nature of work may open up opportunities to
people with disabilities. In the United Kingdom, this “was closely associated to changes
occurring in the economy. The loss of permanent employment, particularly in heavy industry and
primary production, and the shift to flexible labour markets in light manufacturing and the
service sector opened labour markets to disabled people” (Grover and Piggott, 2005: 711).
Similar trends have occurred in Canada.
It is difficult to sort out how much of this increased employment is a direct reflection of the
country’s economy, or if people with disabilities will continue to be seen largely as a “reserve
labour force,” experiencing gains when the economy is good, and disproportionate declines when
the economy fails. A number of studies in the United States indicate that the ‘last hired and first
fired’ syndrome whereby employment opportunities for people with disabilities is highly
volatile, as jobs appear with the ups and disappear with the downs of economic business cycles
(See for example, Yelin and Katz, 1994; Burkhauser et al., 2001).
Regional Variations
Overall, Canada has experienced increasing rates of labour market participation. However, these
increases have not been equally shared across the regions. Generally, from 1999 to 2006, the
western provinces and the territories experienced a large growth in participation rates, followed
7
by the Atlantic provinces, while rates declined across Central Canada. These regional trends are,
for the most part, reflected in the participation of persons with disabilities in the labour force
(Statistics Canada, 2008; Uriarte-Landa and Spector, nd). However, barriers to intraregional
mobility may lead to lower flexibility of regional shifts in employment since “work specific to
people with disabilities indicates that those in high unemployment regions are less likely to
migrate elsewhere in order to find work” (HRSDC, 2006: 6). This may be due to more limited
options for people with disabilities regarding housing, transportation, formal and informal
support services, and portability of health benefits between provinces. This could affect their
ability to maintain employment by relocating, and to accept opportunities for career
advancement that necessitate moving.
Industry-Specific Trends
Job retention varies considerably across industry sectors. At one extreme, a study in the United
States indicated that for front-line employees in the hospitality industry annual turnover rates
average 60 percent, rising to rates exceeding 120 percent annually in quick-service restaurants
(Tracey and Hinkin, 2008). For certain jobs in the trucking industry turnover rates ranged as high
as 200 percent (Shaw et al., 1998). More generally, data on voluntary turnover in the United
States consistently show job separation rates that are four to five times higher for leisure and
hospitality industries than for government (e.g., US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009). Because
the distribution of employment by industry is significantly different for people with disabilities
(see Table 1), overall industry trends also impact workers with disabilities differently.
Table 1: Over and Under Representation of Persons with Disabilities by Industry,
Canada, 2006
Industry
Canada Wide
%
6.5
4.9
10.8
6.2
5.1
12.8
16.0
4.5
6.6
7.0
6.3
Persons with Disabilities
%
7.2
5.9
12.6
6.9
6.9
8.9
14.5
4.0
6.1
6.2
4.3
Construction
Transportation and warehousing
Health care and social assistance
Accommodation and food services
Public administration
Manufacturing
Trade
Information, arts, culture, recreation
Professional, scientific, research
Education
Finance, insurance, real estate
Sources:
Adapted from two Statistics Canada tables: Employment by Industry; and Industry of Employment for
People with Disabilities by Sex and Age Group, Canada.
The correlation between specific industries and the employment patterns of workers with
disabilities has yet to be sufficiently explored, as is reflected in these conflicting studies. In a
study of UK contractors, researchers found that those who acquired a disability while working
were more likely to have accommodations made for job retention, but contractors were less
likely to have policies in place to support the recruitment of new employees with disabilities
(Newton and Ormerod, 2005). However, other work in the United Kingdom by Burkhardt (2003:
3) indicated that this is not universally the case. She found that “manual occupation [is]
8
independently associated with increased risk of leaving employment following onset of
disability.” Specifically, there were links between the construction and manufacturing industry
and low rates of job retention for persons with disabilities.
Canadians with disabilities appear to be underrepresented in the following industries:
information, arts, culture, recreation; finance, insurance, real estate; professional, scientific,
research; education; manufacturing; and trade, as compared to the proportion of those without
disabilities in those sectors (Statistics Canada, 2008). The presence of a disability interacts with
industry type, both as a causal factor (i.e., certain industries lead to higher risks of acquiring
disability) and correlational factors (higher proportions of workers with disabilities tend to be
clustered within certain industries). For example, “the likelihood of injury tends to be much
higher in a number of low-paying occupations, while at the same time, people with disabilities
— because of factors such as a lower likelihood of receiving a post-secondary degree, diploma or
certificate — tend to be clustered in many of these same occupations” (HRSDC, 2006: 3). Lower
levels of education may account for the underrepresentation of people with disabilities in the
professional, education, and finance industries as reflected in Table 1.
However, these situations are not static, as demographic factors also influence disability rates.
“Across 12 industrial sectors, the reduction in work-related compensation claims in Ontario
during 1990 to 2003 more strongly correlated with the contemporary decrease in the proportion
of workers in occupations with high physical demands than with changes in the demographic
composition of the workforce” (Breslin et al., 2007: 454).
Government policies, such as the federal Employment Equity Act, influenced some sectors more
than others, such as the banking industry, since these are often linked, either directly or indirectly
to specific industries. “The representation of persons with disabilities rose significantly in the
banking sector over time, but stayed relatively stable in the remaining federally regulated private
sector” (HRSDC 2007: 17). Higher representation of people with disabilities in the public
administration industry may also reflect employment equity initiatives.
Occupation
Research has shown that “many people with disabilities, who are in paid employment, are
ghettoized into low status, low paid jobs” (England, 2003: 430). These positions include
unskilled jobs, service, sales, and clerical work. People with disabilities are largely missing from
managerial and professional positions (England, 2003; Grover and Piggott, 2005; Wilson-Kovacs
et al., 2008).
The concentration of people with disabilities in these occupations has implications for job
retention: “[E]xtremely high turnover rates are well documented in entry level positions and may
be costly for employers” (Perlmutter et al., 2005: 475). According to Spector et al. (2008: 9):
“Preliminary evidence…indicates, for example, significantly higher levels of job retention…in
‘white collar occupations’ and, conversely, low retention in particular blue/pink collar jobs
(sales/services).” Research by HRSDC (2006: 8) pointed to a link between occupation and job
retention following onset of disability. “[T]here are clear interactions between occupation and
lost employment with disability onset — with men in low-skill level ‘manual occupations’ most
likely to leave employment.”
9
Table 2 was adapted from Statistics Canada census information, and is for demonstration
purposes only. Due to the small numbers reporting employment in some occupations, they
cannot be considered statistically reliable.
Table 2: Comparison of Occupations of People With and Without Disabilities in
Canada, 2006
Occupation
Management
Total (Canada)
%
9.7
Total (people with
disabilities)
%
6.5
Business, finance, and administrative occupations
17.9
16.0
Natural and applied sciences, and related occupations
6.6
5.5
Health occupations
5.6
5.3
Occupations in social science, education, government
8.4
8.5
service, and religion
Occupations in art, culture, recreation, and sport
3.0
2.6
Sales and service occupations
23.9
28.3
Trades, transport, and equipment operators, and related
15.1
16.9
occupations
Occupations unique to primary industry
3.8
3.6
Occupations unique to processing, manufacturing, and
5.9
6.9
utilities
Sources: Adapted from two Statistics Canada tables: Occupations of People with Disabilities by Sex and
Age Group, Canada, 2006; and Experienced Labour Force 15 Years and Over by Occupation (Census 1991
to 2006).
Based on these comparisons, we can see that Canadians with disabilities are overrepresented in
sales and service and trades, transport, and equipment operator occupations. These same
occupations correlate with high turnover rates, leading to a double jeopardy in terms of job
retention for people with disabilities. They are underrepresented in management, business and
finance, and natural and applied sciences occupations.
Some progress has been made, as indicated in the Employment Equity Annual Report 2007
(HRSDC 2007:17). According to the report, the representation of people with disabilities has
increased in “senior and middle management in the federally regulated private sector.…
However, persons with disabilities remained under-represented in supervisory and all other
occupational groups.”
Employment Sector (Public, Private, Non-Profit)
There is some indication that employment sector (public, private, non-profit) may influence job
retention for persons with disabilities. For example, Foster (2007) reported that employment
equity policies are more likely to be implemented in the public sector than the private. Perlmutter
et al. (2005: 473) found that “job retention rates are highest in the nonprofit sector, and that this
retention may be a result of HR practices that emphasize investment in and commitment to
employees.” However, literature indicates that unstable project-based funding results in
considerable turnover within non-profit organizations, a factor that may mitigate the HR
practices which increase job retention.
10
Transportation Issues
A discussion of employment and people with disabilities would not be complete without a
reference to transportation as a barrier to employment. Time and again, researchers (Genevie et
al., 1987; Holzer et al., 2001; Noreau et al., 1999; Sirvastava and Chamberlain, 2005) have
pointed out that a lack of transportation represents a major barrier to competitive employment for
people with disabilities. These issues impact both job retention and career progression. For
example, an individual who wishes to change jobs may be limited by access to transportation to a
new job site. Lack of job mobility could lead to fewer opportunities for advancing skills, which
limits career progression.
Personal Socio-Demographic and Disability-Related Characteristics
Similar to exogenous economic circumstances, personal socio-demographic as well as disabilityrelated characteristics include a range of broad, macro-level factors that may have an influence
on job retention and career progression for people with disabilities. Because of their important
influences on job retention and career progression, the following factors are discussed: age,
gender, marital status, education and training, type of impairment, severity of disability, and
onset of disability.
Age
Age has been shown to affect both job opportunity and rate of employment. It also affects job
retention and career progression. Heisz (2002: 13) showed that job retention increases with
worker age. “This makes sense because as workers age they will have had more opportunities to
find a good job match and more time to accumulate tenure.” This trend holds up to age 55, where
rates of job retention begin to fall, likely due to many workers moving into retirement.
Disability rates increase with age. According to PALS data (Statistics Canada, 2006: 32),
disabilities associated with “mobility, agility, hearing, seeing and pain” rise with age. Also
indicated in the PALS data is the growing rate of employment of persons with disabilities in both
the 45-54 age group and the 55-64 age group, in part reflecting the aging of the Canadian
population in general. However, “[t]his growth in employment for people with disabilities
occurred at more than double their population growth rate” (Statistics Canada, 2008: 14),
demonstrating perhaps that we are better able to maintain workers with disabilities in the work
force. We can postulate that attachment to the labour force by these older workers mitigates at
least some of the negative effects of acquiring a disability. This is reflected in the work of
Spector et al. (2008), who noted that employment rates for those with and without disabilities
tend to converge with age.
At the same time, older age has been found to increase the risk of leaving employment following
onset of disability (Botuck and Levy, 1998; Burkhardt , 2003; Dolton et al., 2005; Roessler,
2007a,b). Salkever et al. (2003), for example, found that rates of job loss increased with age for
people with schizophrenia. Some studies indicate that older people who experience job loss
following onset of certain conditions are less likely to return to work. For example, Crudden
(2002) found that those acquiring vision loss were most likely to return to work if they were
under the age of 35.
11
Age is usually seen as positively related to job tenure but, for the most part, negatively related to
career progression, where it can be a barrier. Bradley et al. (2004: 255) observed that
older people commonly experience discrimination in the workplace (Davies et al.,
1991) fuelled by the mistaken belief that older workers are resistant to change, not
motivated to update or maintain their skills, unsuitable for promotion, less
physically able than younger workers and have poorer interpersonal and IT skills.
This stereotyping could have a double effect for older workers who acquire disabilities. Both
Spector et al. (2008) and HRSDC (2006: 5) reflected on the tendency of older workers to retire
after onset of disability: “[D]isability reduces attachment to work and thus income — and…this
impact increases as people approach the age of retirement.” O’Day (1998: 139) found that people
with multiple sclerosis tended to “move from a high demand to a lesser demand job and then to
retire.” Hence, at a time when workers with disabilities have achieved their highest level of skill
and education, they may be pushed into retirement as opposed to progressing even higher in their
careers.
Alternatively, young people with disabilities may have had limited opportunity to hold part-time
jobs or have limited access to education and training opportunities (McLean, 2003). According
to Ochs and Roessler (2004: 224), “difficulties in making the transition to adult career roles
result when young people have not successfully completed the tasks of career development that
coincide with adolescence. Failure to successfully meet the challenges of the exploration phase
interfered with alternate career adjustment and advancement outcomes.” Failure to engage in
employment for these young people tends to leave them behind in terms of skills development
and promotional opportunities.
Gender
As a group, women have made significant gains in employment equity since the 1960s. Strides
toward income equity and increased representation in managerial and professional jobs are
apparent (HRSDC 2007). In terms of job retention, Heisz (2002: 13) reported that “after 1991,
retention rates were virtually equal for men and women.” Length of job tenure seems to follow a
similar trend, with gaps between men and women closing significantly. Women with disabilities
have also experienced great strides in equalizing labour force participation since 2001. “Women
with disabilities experienced more growth in employment than their male counterparts between
2001 and 2006.… In fact, the growth for women during this time period resulted in more women
with disabilities being employed than their male counterparts” (Statistics Canada, 2008: 14). This
would seem to echo findings in Roessler’s (2005) literature review, where a number of
researchers (Edgley et al., 1991; Roessler et al., 2001) did not find a relationship between gender
and employment. However, the link between gender, disability, and employment is not clear, as
much disability research finds that women with disabilities are at greater risk of unemployment
than men with disabilities (Botuck and Levy, 1998; Burkhardt, 2003; Randolph and Andresen,
2004; Stafford, 2000).
Regardless of their continued success in entering the labour force, women continue to face
barriers, stemming from the effect of the glass ceiling, ghettoizing into pink-collar employment,
and gendered job interruptions related to biological events, such as maternity and child care
12
(Bodkin and El-Helou, 2001). “It has long been known that wages (for both men and women) are
lower in so called ‘female’ industries and occupations, i.e., those industries and occupations in
which the bulk of the labour force is female” (Bodkin and El-Helou, 2001: 47). And although
England (2003: 447) pointed out: “Women with disabilities (and women without disabilities) are
less concentrated in the ‘pink-collar’ ghetto than in the past…it is still the job that a woman with
disabilities is most likely to have in banking.”
Caregiving roles affect the employment of women with disabilities. As Sirvastava and
Chamberlain (2005: 30) pointed out, “family responsibilities combined with disability made it
difficult to return to work. The adjustments required within the family were considerable,
particularly when the work hours and duties required in the job were inflexible.” An additional
barrier for women with disabilities was described by McLean (2003), who found that men are
more likely than women to have obtained a degree before acquiring a disability, thus making reentry into the labour force a greater possibility.
Gender-based discrimination continues to be an issue. Poole and Rebick (1993: 350)3 pointed out
that “harassment, whether based on sex, class or disability, is one of the most difficult aspects of
their work. Even if women are hired, the climate in a workplace can ensure that they will not
stay, or if they stay, that they will not be promoted.” These issues may constitute a double
jeopardy regarding job retention for women with disabilities, who may be juggling caregiving
and gendered role expectations on top of managing any disability issues. Foster (2007) for
example, suggested that women with disabilities may have more difficulty negotiating for
disability-related accommodations than men. According to England (2003), only 14 percent of
Canadian women with disabilities work full time all year, as compared to 38 percent of women
without disabilities (the rate for men is 23 and 58 percent respectively).
Gender can also affect career progression, leading to the glass ceiling effect. Cultural
expectations about the way women are expected to behave
can result in devaluation of their performance, denial of credit to them for their
successes, or their penalization for being competent…. Because of gender bias
and the way in which it influences evaluations in work settings, it is argued that
being competent does not ensure that a woman will advance to the same
organizational level as an equivalently performing man (Heilman, 2001: 657).
Kilian et al. (2005: 618) reported that “the rate of growth for women into top positions has
slowed in the last three years.” They called attention to the importance of career advancement as
an area of study. “Attention has shifted from organizational entry to advancement as the most
important diversity challenge facing organizations” (Kilian et al. (2005: 618). Disparate
advancement rates mean limited career paths for women and minorities and are believed to
contribute to higher turnover for members of these groups.
Marital Status
Some research has indicated that marital status impacts job retention for people with disabilities.
Roessler et al. (2005) pointed out that having a supportive and understanding spouse was a key
factor in predicting job retention. However, other research (Genevie et al., 1987; Mitchell et al.,
13
2001) showed that those who had access to income from a spouse were less likely to maintain
employment.
Education and Training
Employment, job retention, and career progression are closely linked to educational attainment
for all Canadians (Heisz, 2002). For people with disabilities, a lower level of education is a risk
factor for job retention (Burkhardt, 2003; Dolton et al., 2005; Noreau et al., 1999; Piggott and
Houghton, 2007; Roessler, 2007a,b; Roessler et al., 2001; Salkever et al., 2003; Wayne et al.,
1999). Research strongly indicates that increased education leads to better, more stable job
prospects.
Education levels have clearly been tied to career progression. According to Wayne et al. (1999:
580), “research has shown educational attainment to be positively related to managerial
advancement, salary progression, and assessments of promotability.”
People with disabilities are attaining higher levels of education than ever before; however, some
barriers still exist as “young people with learning disabilities are more likely to be unemployed
or underemployed and are less likely to acquire postsecondary education or training than are
their peers without disabilities” (Ochs and Roessler, 2004: 224). In a study of nurses with
dyslexia in the United Kingdom, Morris and Turnbull (2007: 101) pointed out: “For many, the
type of pre-registration training undertaken was significant in its impact on future career
progression.… Most had been denied the opportunity of the more academically demanding, 3year first-level training due to a lack of appropriate formal postsecondary school education
qualifications.”
For many people with disabilities, balancing the demands of formal education and employment
is difficult which, in turn, can “impair career progression because formal study was seldom
undertaken simultaneously with part time or full time employment” (Waghorn et al., 2005: 64).
Others avoid ongoing education based on fears that their disabilities will “be highlighted”
(Morris and Turnbull, 2007: 98).
Type of Impairment
Different types of disabilities affect people’s employment in different ways (Murphy, 2002;
Burkhardt, 2003). In fact, a large amount of research has been done to explore the interaction of
particular disability types and labour force participation, but the literature generally fails to
consider the impact of disability type on matters of job retention and career progression, focusing
instead on entry into the labour force. As a cautionary note, it is important not to overstate the
importance of the specific impairment on employment outcomes. These outcomes exist as a
result of interaction between the individual and the physical, social, and political environment.
According to Statistics Canada data, people with hearing disabilities have the highest labour
force participation, while those with memory and psychological disabilities have the lowest.
People with learning disabilities and those with physical disabilities are among the most
successful in labour force participation. This may be due to disability management strategies
being employed for these populations, as well as advancements in computer software and
technology (Statistics Canada, 2008). According to a study of post-secondary students by Piggott
14
and Houghton (2007: 576), “[g]raduates with dyslexia or an unseen disability achieved the
highest employment rates of any groups of disabled graduates and achieved the most consistently
favourable outcomes overall,” including career progression opportunities.
People with physical disabilities also fare well in employment situations. According to McLean
(2003), they are among the top earners of people with disabilities. Of course, physical disability
can result from many different types of impairments, all of which have a different effect on
employment. For example, Roessler et al. (2001) reported that severity and persistence of
symptoms for people with multiple sclerosis impact employment outcomes. Many people with
physical disabilities also experience pain as a result of their impairment. According to the PALS
data (Statistics Canada, 2006: 37), pain is “the most common activity limitation for the workingage population with disabilities.” Pain is more commonly reported in women than men. According
to one study, people who experienced pain reported: “Poorly designed work environments and
inflexible working conditions made working life more difficult, as did lack of awareness amongst
colleagues and managers” (McLean, 2003: 66). These difficulties lead to decreased job retention.
People with mental health disabilities experience some of the worst employment
outcomes. In terms of job retention, many studies measure rates by number of days
employed (as opposed to months or years). For example (Dorio and Marine, 2004: 32-33)
stated:
In a paper written in Fall 2002, Provencher, Mead and Mueser state that job
tenure remains problematic considering that 70 days is the average job tenure in a
supported employment program. Cook (1992) found an average job tenure of 215
days. Gervey and Bedell (1994) in two different studies reported averages of 80
and 117 days.
This demonstrates the short-term nature of many employment opportunities of people with
mental health disabilities. According to the research, the difficulty with job retention is often a
result of the unpredictable episodic nature of symptoms (sometimes resulting in hospitalization),
side effects of medication, and difficulty with stress (Salkever et al., 2003; Shier et al., 2009).
There is some evidence that supported employment leads to better employment rates and job
retention (Twamley et al., 2008). However, the evidence shows only slight increases in job
tenure, an issue that remains a problem for people with mental health disabilities. Research
consistently finds that this group has great difficulty finding and maintaining employment (Dorio
and Marine, 2004; McLean, 2003). This, in turn, significantly reduces career progression
opportunities for this population (Waghorn et al., 2005).
Severity of Disability
The severity of a person’s disability does affect their employment. Generally, the more severe
the impairment, the less likely a person is to gain or maintain employment. Several studies of
single disability types confirmed this: Roessler et al. (2005) with regard to people with multiple
sclerosis; Crudden (2002) reporting on people with vision loss; and Hiebert and Ashworth (2006)
in reference to those who had amputations. Cross-disability studies also conclude that the greater
the severity of disability, the less likely a person is to participate in the labour force. According
to a literature review by HRSDC (2006: 7):
15
Fawcett (1996), Batavia and Beaulaurier (2001) and Ho (2002) all indicate a
strong relationship between the severity of disability and low income, largely
related to both employment and level of attachment. Spector (1996) also indicates
that severity influences occupation — with employed people with severe
conditions being much more likely to hold poorer-paying semi-skilled or
unskilled jobs
where the likelihood of holding onto work or of finding opportunities for career
progression are low.
In terms of job retention and career progression, the literature is silent on those issues,
and more study is indicated. As a cautionary note, Noreau et al.’s (1999) study of people
with amputations pointed out that the association between the severity of the injury and
employment outcomes does not seem to be directly proportional and other factors, such
as social supports, must be taken into consideration.
Onset of Disability
A person’s career path can be impacted in several ways by the onset of a disability. Onset can be
congenital (born with the disability) or acquired later in life. It can be sudden, as in the result of
an accident, or gradual, as with the progression of a chronic illness such as rheumatoid arthritis.
While McLean (2003) found effects of discrimination, stigmatization, and marginalization
irrespective of time of onset on the full range of employment characteristics, research indicates
variations with period of onset. For example, the younger one experiences onset, the better the
job prospects (Hiebert and Ashworth, 2006; Noreau et al., 1999). Researchers suggest that
younger people are better able to cope with their new disability status. It is also possible that
recovery times after acute illness/injury may be reduced the younger the onset. Of course, the
number of people with disabilities increases with age. The older a person, the more likely it is
that the individual will have established strong connections with the labour market. According to
Spector et al. (2008), disability onset has less of an effect on job retention for older workers in
the next few ensuing years. However, the likelihood of maintaining employment after disability
beyond a few years following onset decreases for older workers, probably due to the increased
pressure to retire.
The majority of workers with disabilities have acquired those disabilities during their working
lives (Bradley et al., 2004; Lock et al., 2005). Job retention for this group is a priority, as the
research reports that one is much more likely to maintain employment if one stays in the same
job as opposed to seeking a new job (Habeck, 1999). Studies report that while most people who
acquire disabilities wish to remain employed, many encounter barriers, such as failure of
employers to provide accommodations, negative co-workers, and lack of scheduling flexibility
(Roessler, 2007a,b). Return-to-work strategies, such as those initiated through provincial
workers’ compensation boards, have gone far to address these barriers. Disability management
strategies, such as modified work stations, flexible scheduling, modified job responsibilities, and
workplace education on disability issues, have improved the chances of retaining employment
after onset of disability.
16
Employment following onset of disability is different for those who acquire a disability suddenly
through either an accident or acute illness, compared to those who experience a progressive onset
of disability, such as multiple sclerosis. O’Day (1998: 145) reported that these populations “do
not wish to acknowledge or work on their problems until they reach a crisis stage.… Based on
this explanation, participants who believed that they were suddenly asked to leave their
employment may in fact have experienced an unacknowledged period during which job retention
was in jeopardy.”
Workplace Dynamics
More difficult to measure, but nonetheless important for job retention and career progression, are
the conditions of workplaces in which people with disabilities are employed. Micro-level factors
that emerged from the literature as having some effect on the employment histories of people
with disabilities included the size of an organization, unionization, corporate culture,
employer/co-worker attitudes, career mentoring, and disability supports/workplace
accommodations.
Size of Organization
The size of an organization directly affects the employment of people with disabilities.
Generally, the smaller the workplace, the greater the chance that a person will not maintain
employment following acquisition of a disability (Burkhardt, 2003; Harcourt et al., 2005;
Newton and Ormerod, 2005). This may be due to the ability of larger organizations to offer
modified job responsibilities, flexible work hours, and pay for accommodations. It may also be
that a larger organization is more likely to have a human resources department responsible for
accommodating the needs of workers with disabilities. Harcourt et al. (2005: 2128)
hypothesized: “Larger organizations can be expected to be more concerned about legitimacy
enhancing practices, because they have a higher profile in the public arena.” The influence of
employment equity legislation could also be a factor, as this affects organizations beyond
threshold levels to a greater extent.
Unionization
The effects of unionization on disability, job retention, and career progression have not been
closely studied. Historically, the association has not been positive. According to Grover and
Piggott (2005: 710),
in order to meet the requirements of labour shortages during World War II
disabled people were employed in large numbers before being let go during the
post-World War II period, when the interests of capital and trade unions
conjoined to exclude disabled people from paid employment.
The research of Harcourt et al. (2005) supports this negative association between unions and
people with disabilities. They stated that union presence does not influence organizations toward
more inclusive practices for people with disabilities.
Speaking of the time of his injury in the early 1980s, Zimmerman (1997: 76) said: “There was a
total lack of understanding of the additional barriers disabled persons must surmount to find and
retain jobs. The common focus among unions was to ensure that disabled workers received
17
adequate pensions.” However, Getzie (1997) stated that joint approaches to disability
management between unions and employers are more likely to lead to positive employment
outcomes — including job retention and career progression.
Corporate Culture
The culture of an organization can influence issues of job retention and career progression for
people with disabilities in complex ways. These issues might include the “ norms, values,
policies, the nature of jobs [within organizations, which]…affect the way disabled individuals
are treated in organizations” (Stone and Colella, 1996: 352). Cultural expectations of workers
differ from place to place and impact employment rewards. For example, “two of the
motivational variables (average hours worked per week and expected future income) were
positively related to compensation” (Wayne et al., 1999: 580-581). The implications of
expectations for long hours of work may be negative for people with disabilities who may
experience less flexibility in work hours (due to fixed transportation or home-care schedules) or
limited energy for doing overtime.
Employer/Coworker Attitudes
Many studies have pointed out the impact of employer and co-worker attitudes on the employment
experiences and job retention for persons with disabilities (Bishop et al., 2000; Koch et al. (2003);
Morris and Turnbull, 2007; Morris-Wales, 2000; Murphy, 2002; Shier et al., 2009). WilsonKovacs et al. (2008: 715) reported that people with disabilities experience difficulties maintaining
employment “due to the widespread unwillingness of human resources departments, immediate
line managers and peers to understand, acknowledge and accommodate their needs.”
Research has shown that public perception of disability remains a barrier: The “most frequently
reported barrier to social inclusion of disabled people (in a study conducted with non-disabled
people) is public attitudes and prejudices concerning disabled people” (Shier et al., 2009: 73).
Other studies highlight the importance of both employer and employee attitudes for job retention.
“Barriers were not only physical but attitudinal…targeting the employers’ attitudes is required,
since discriminatory and unhelpful attitudes and negativity make finding and retaining a job
difficult” (Sirvastava and Chamberlain, 2005: 21).
Many employers continue to believe that people with disabilities are less able to perform job
duties, are more prone to sick leave and accidents (thus increasing costs of benefits), and require
expensive accommodations (Harcourt et al., 2005). Research has demonstrated that these negative
perceptions are unfounded (Dowler and Walls, 1996; McLean, 2003). However, these attitudes
impact the ability of people with disabilities to gain and maintain employment, or to disclose their
disability in order to receive accommodations (McLean, 2003).
Employer and co-worker attitudes impact career progression of persons with disabilities as well.
According to Wilson-Kovacs et al. (2008: 714), having to struggle for workplace
accommodations and understanding represents a huge barrier to upward mobility, and “such
battles are likely to discourage disabled professionals from seeking to advance their careers.
They are also likely to make survival in the organization an uphill struggle entailing greater
stress, reduced organizational identification and, ultimately, organizational exit.” In addition, coworkers’ understanding of the disability impacts people who do achieve promotions, because
“while disabled professionals can break through the glass ceiling and attain top ranking
18
positions, their being there is often viewed by peers and subordinates as a result of diversity
quotas, rather than an acknowledgement of their true abilities” (Wilson-Kovacs et al., 2008:
714).
“The literature on workplace social networks indicates that informal more than formal
socialization systems are salient in advancing careers” (Combs, 2003: 385). Further, social
inclusion and peer acceptance is an important component of job satisfaction, in turn, influencing
job retention and promotion (Ellenbecker, 2004; Tracey and Hinkin, 2008). Social inclusion and
peer acceptance may be a particularly important by-product of long job tenure for people with
developmental disorders (Fillary and Pernice, 2005). For example, Hagner and Cooney (2005),
found this in a study focusing on employed people with autism.4
Discrimination and Harassment
Outright discrimination and harassment have also been reported in a number of studies of
employment and persons with disabilities (Piggott et al., 2005; Roessler et al., 2005, 2007a,b).
Vickers’ (2008: 43) interviews with several professionals with multiple sclerosis led her to
comment: “The influence of discrimination and a hostile work environment on the careers of
people with MS seem to have been under-emphasized in previous studies.” Other research
echoes this idea. “The fact that a greater portion of unemployed than employed people in this
study had endured workplace harassment raises the question whether that harassment is not in
fact a causal factor in job loss” (Gibson and Lindberg, 2007: 729). The link between
discrimination and harassment was detailed in Piggott et al.’s (2005: 602) report, where they
stated that among a group of workers with epilepsy, many felt that “employers used covert ways
to fire a person with epilepsy once the diagnosis was made known.”
More subtly, literature exists that indicates employers often hold stereotypical beliefs about
people with disabilities. For example, a study in the United States (Wilson-Kovacs et al., 2008:
706) found:
Relative to other employees, employers are more likely to question the work ethic
of disabled workers and their aspirations for career advancement while believing
they are more prone to absenteeism, less committed to their work and less capable
of getting along with others on the job.
These biases can affect the type of job responsibilities given to an individual (i.e., less
challenging or visible duties) (Wilson-Kovaks et al., 2008), and lowered expectations of persons
with disabilities (Colella and Varma, 1999). As a result, people with disabilities may not be
given the opportunity to prove success at challenging tasks. In addition, “due to unfairly low
performance expectations, employees with disabilities may find themselves progressing more
slowly than others who are providing comparable contributions to the work organization”
(Colella and Varma, 1999: 93). The impact on career progression is echoed by Wilson-Kovacs
et al. (2008). “This lack of demonstrated competence in turn means that they are often passed
over for promotion or for other opportunities to advance their career” (Wilson-Kovacs et al.,
2008: 706). Furthermore, research on bias and appraisals consistently points out that where
employer prejudice exists it can be subtly played out through indirect job performance ratings
and ability measurements (Greenhaus and Parasuraan, 1993).
19
Career Mentoring
Also referred to as career sponsors, career mentors have been seen in the literature to have a
positive effect on career progression. According to Wayne et al. (1999: 582): “Research has
indicated that mentoring is related to a number of career outcomes including salary and
promotions.” Seibert et al. (2001: 855) concurred. “Research has also found mentoring by senior
colleagues to have positive effects on employees’ job satisfaction and perceived career success.”
Wayne et al.’s (1999: 582) research indicated: “High quality leader-member exchanges involve a
high level of trust, support, and interaction between the supervisor and subordinate. As a result of
the supervisor’s support, the subordinate may perform at a higher level and, ultimately, be
rewarded via career success.” People with disabilities may be at a disadvantage in terms of finding
a mentor who shares knowledge about disability. According to Wilson-Kovacs et al. (2008: 706),
“disabled professionals…often lack role models, information about promotions and critical
feedback.”
Disability Supports/Workplace Accommodations
The disability management literature abounds with information on making appropriate
accommodations for people with disabilities in the workplace; indeed, providing
accommodations directly influences job retention. These range from adaptive equipment,
situating workplaces closer to exits or bathrooms, or flexible work hours or job duties (Bishop et
al., 2000; Koch, 2003; Morris-Wales, 2000). Other accommodation strategies, mainly for people
with developmental disabilities or severe mental health disabilities include individually
supported employment. These models have shown increases in job retention (Twamley et al.,
2008). An example of a job retention strategy for persons with disabilities that has emerged is
described as natural support. Here, co-workers are given skills to provide employment support to
individuals with disabilities. According to Cimera (2001: 194),
proponents of Natural Supports have suggested that supported employees would
become more integrated within the social culture of workplaces if these (e.g.,
involvement of co-workers in training supported employees) are utilized.
According to Nisbet and Hagner, thus supported employees are likely to feel
better about their employment status which in turn may reduce voluntary job
mobility than supported employees training via the “job-coach model”
where an employee from a job-support agency visits the employment site periodically to offer
support. His study concluded: “Co-worker involvement did not increase cost efficiency, although
it appeared to increase tenure by more than a year (12.36 months)” (Cimera, 2001: 194).
A study by Dowler and Walls (1996: 42) found that very few accommodations were requested
when people advanced to different positions within their organizations. They hypothesized: “It is
probable that an additional accommodation would not be needed to promote a worker whose job
performance within that environment is satisfactory.”
Personal Psychological Factors
Although these micro-level factors are recorded in the literature as highly important influences
on job retention and career progression for individuals without disabilities, there is sparse
20
literature on the effect they have on the employment histories of those with disabilities. In line
with emphases found in the literature, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, quit
intentions, self-efficacy, perception of fit, and personality factors are brought to the fore.
Organizational Commitment
The inverse of an organization’s commitment to its employees is, of course, the commitment or
loyalty its workers demonstrate toward the organization. Research on job retention strongly
supports “organizational commitment theory.” According to Griffeth et al. (2000: 480):
“Organizational commitment…predicts turnover better than does overall job satisfaction.”
Meyer and Allen’s (1991) study introduced this concept. As described by Irving et al. (1997:
444), the three forms of organizational commitment are as follows.
Affective commitment refers to a psychological attachment to the organization
(i.e., individuals stay with the organization because they want to). Continuance
commitment refers to costs associated with leaving the organization (i.e.,
individuals stay with the organization because they need to). Normative
commitment refers to a perceived obligation to remain with the organization (i.e.,
individuals stay with the organization because they feel they should).
This theory suggests that employees base their commitment to their current job on a variety of
factors, including exogenous economic circumstances (availability of other jobs), personality
factors, loyalty, place-of-work characteristics, perceived job stress, work–life balance issues, and
demonstrated employer support (Botuck and Levy, 1998; Ellenbecker, 2004; Griffeth et al.,
2000; Perlmutter et al., 2005; Smith, 2005). For example, Smith (2005: 155) stated that “higher
levels of perceived organizational support are associated with increased organizational
commitment and indirectly with reduced job turnover.” The most visible form of organizational
support relates to pay and benefits packages, a factor that is supported by the literature (Botuck
and Levy, 1998; Ellenbecker, 2004; Griffeth et al., 2000; Perlmutter et al., 2005; Shaw et al.,
2007; Smith, 2005). Additionally, according to McLean (2003: 64): “Commitment to work…was
unaffected by long term illnesses and disabilities,” suggesting that people with disabilities are
subject to the same or similar factors regarding commitment to the organization as are others.
Job Satisfaction and Job Retention
Another strong predictor of job retention is job satisfaction. According to Ellenbecker (2004:
305): “Job satisfaction has emerged as the strongest predictor of intent to stay and retention.” Lee
et al. (1999: 450) agreed, stating that “the prevailing theory and research on turnover have
focused on quitting induced by lower levels of job satisfaction, with the intention to leave viewed
as quitting’s immediate antecedent.” Gleasonwynn and Mindel’s (1999: 67-68) comprehensive
literature review supported this conclusion, when they stated: “Dissatisfied workers are more
likely to seek other employment or change jobs than those more satisfied with their job.” Shaw et
al. (1998: 512) stated: “Researchers studying individuals consider voluntary turnover to be
affected by two primary factors: the attractiveness of a current job and the availability of
alternatives.”
But what factors influence job satisfaction? Smith’s work (2005: 153) outlined the following
contributors: “Factors positively associated with job retention included the perceptions that an
21
employer promoted life-work balance, that a supervisor was supportive and competent, and that
few other job alternatives were available. In addition, organization-level turnover rates and
unmeasured organizational characteristics affected the likelihood of job retention.” Gleasonwynn
and Mindel (1999) found that job autonomy, job clarity, satisfaction with salary, and supervisor
support and feedback were positively related to job retention. In research specific to people with
disabilities, Allaire et al. (2005: 101) found that
job satisfaction is a function of job-mastery problems and the number of work-site
barriers experienced, indicating that assessment of work-related barriers,
development of solutions (often job accommodations) for barriers, and skill
training in requesting accommodation are essential strategies.
McLean (2003) also pointed to the importance of autonomy in the workplace contributing to job
satisfaction. Most of these factors (with the exception of availability of other job opportunities)
are a reflection of characteristics of the workplace.
Job Satisfaction and Career Progression
Intrinsic, or subjective, variables influencing career progression include satisfaction with the rate
of progress (Seibert et al., 2001). According to Wayne et al. (1999: 579),
subjective career success has been defined as an individual’s feelings of
accomplishment and satisfaction with his or her career, which is partially based
on objective indicators. Based on this definition, one subjective indicator of career
success is the individual’s self-report of career satisfaction, with facets including
career advancement, salary growth, and professional development.
Quit Intentions
Much of the literature on job retention reflects on the “quit intentions” of employees as a
predictor of turnover. These predictors of turnover manifest themselves in “other behaviours
(namely, lateness, absenteeism, and job performance)” (Griffeth et al., 2000: 483). However, for
people with disabilities, some of these behaviours (lateness, absenteeism) could be a reflection of
external circumstance, such as transportation issues, lack of accommodation, or fluctuating
health circumstances. These behaviours could be misinterpreted as dissatisfaction with the job,
leading to compromised evaluations/assessments by employers and peers.
Self-Efficacy
One’s self-efficacy, or belief in abilities, has been shown to have a great impact on success in
employment (Allaire et al., 2005; Madaus et al., 2003; Ochs and Roessler, 2004; Roessler et al.,
2001; Shaw et al., 2007). Research indicates that people with disabilities, especially youth, may
encounter difficulty in developing high self-esteem and self-efficacy (Allaire et al., 2003;
Morris-Wales, 2000; Piggott and Houghton, 2007). Research also suggests that those with higher
self-efficacy show higher levels of job satisfaction (Madaus et al., 2003; Roessler et al., 2001).
For people with disabilities, adoption of a medical/rehabilitation model may undermine and
discourage proactive and self-efficacy behaviour, as those with disabilities are required to
assume the “sick role” (Parsons, 1951) in order to be apportioned health-care services/treatments
22
and ultimately to “get better.” This is opposed to the “consumer model” of service delivery,
which encourages people with disabilities to be active and assertive in their treatment and care
plans, autonomously choosing health-care services.5
Perception of Fit
A significant factor in predicting job retention, “fit” can be defined as “those experiences that
fulfill employee’s psychological needs to feel comfortable within the organization and competent
in the work-role” (Allen and Meyer, 1990: 4). According to a literature review by Saks and
Ashforth (1997: 396),
fit has been found to be positively related to job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, intentions to remain, job involvement, career success, health and
adaptation, and organizational effectiveness, and to lower stress and turnover.
According to Smith (2005: 155), fit is a result of social interactions within the workplace through
which “employees develop notions about what to expect from a job and how to appropriately
respond to job conditions.”
Discriminatory attitudes toward disability may impact perception of fit through “a negative
impact on individuals’ acceptance into work groups, rates of promotion, assignment to
challenging jobs and training and mentoring opportunities” (Wilson-Kovacs et al., 2008: 706).
The importance of job fit for retention is reflected in Hagnar and Cooney’s (2005) study of
people with autism which, in turn, may affect job retention (Allaire et al., 2005: 101): “Roessler
and Rumrill (1995; 1998) theorized that among people with chronic diseases, greater numbers of
work-site barriers reduce job mastery and job satisfaction and that perceptions of reduced
mastery and satisfaction lead to premature work cessation.”
Personality Factors/Behaviours
Personality factors have been examined and found to correlate with career progression/success.
Seibert et al. (2001: 845) studied four personality constructs — voice, innovation, political
knowledge, and career initiative — as they relate to career progression. They found: “Innovation,
political knowledge, and career initiative in turn had positive relationships with career
progression (salary growth and the number of promotions during the previous 2 years) and career
satisfaction.” Dorio and Marine (2004: 34) described the following traits as important to job
retention: “being flexible, open minded, willing, accepting, realistic and positive, are usually
more likeable to others as well. These traits generally lead to a more positive view of workers by
co-workers and supervisors.” They went on to outline the importance of such traits for people
with disabilities. “Employers are often more likely to make accommodations or exceptions for
workers who are willing to be flexible, open minded and who have an overall positive nature.”
Crudden’s (2002: 621) work also pointed to the importance of considering employee attitudes in
her study, which found that persons with disabilities who were successful in retaining
employment “were generally regarded as intelligent, hard-working, and with a desire to be
independent.”
The growing research on career progression considers the influence of the “big five personality
factors” (Carroll, 2002) on career progression. Of the five (neuroticism, extraversion, openness,
23
agreeableness, and conscientiousness), Griffeth et al. (2000: 485) found that “conscientiousness,
agreeableness, openness to experience can predict turnover or tenure.”
It is interesting that these career studies focus on individual characteristics as they relate to career
progression, while disability studies tend to focus on social/systemic issues, while rendering the
individual almost invisible. To examine this issue specifically for people with disabilities, we
would have to look at whether that population shares certain personality traits that make them
more or less desirable as employees. For example, Roessler et al.’s (2001) research pointed out
that multiple sclerosis often has emotional and behavioural impacts, as do many mental health
conditions. Wilson-Kovacs et al. (2008: 706) postulated:
Disabled employees may display self-limiting behaviours and decide voluntarily
not to take advantage of career opportunities or go as far as refusing promotion.
While such explanations may seem to shift the blame on to disabled individuals,
the self-limiting behaviour may be a coping strategy adopted to maintain a
comfortable position, to keep work at a manageable level or to retain control.
It is also important to note that many of these personality factors may be unrelated to the
presence of a disability.
24
3. Conclusion
Both the general and disability-related literature allude to the consideration of four different
dimensions of analysis in understanding job retention and career progression trends. At a macro
level, exogenous economic circumstances and personal socio-demographic qualities were seen as
important. At a more micro level, workplace dynamics and psychological factors came to the
fore. Impacts on job retention and career progression often reflected interactions across factors in
each dimension.
The first macro level of analysis found in the literature is exogenous economic circumstances,
which include trends in the labour market, industry-specific trends, regional variations,
employment sector (public, private, non-profit) variations, and transportation issues. As an
example, there is evidence that the increasingly tight job market of recent years led to increases
in the proportion of older working people with disabilities staying at their jobs. More generally,
certain industries and occupations have higher turnover rates, lower job retention, and less
opportunity for career mobility. There is a need to examine the relationships between labour
market dynamics and job retention/career progression for people with disabilities. Future
research will be needed to determine if new employment opportunities available to people with
disabilities reflect a systemic change in the way they are perceived as potential employees, or if
they were called upon because of labour shortages — if they were indeed part of a “reserve
labour force.” If the latter is the case, people with disabilities may disproportionately be cast out
of employment as the economy shrinks.
The literature also documents several macro-level, personal socio-demographic characteristics
that impact job retention and career progression. These include age, gender, marital status, level
of education, type of impairment, severity of disability (with the most severe less able to retain
employment and achieve career progression), and the point of onset as important factors for
those with disabilities. Focusing on age, empirical evidence shows tenure and the development
of job-related skills tend to increase with age in parallel with the likelihood of disability —
reducing the probability of job separation. At the same time, proximity to time of retirement in
conjunction with onset of disability may act in tandem to increase the probability of job
separation.
A third trend emerging from the literature on a micro-level dimension involved workplace
characteristics. This includes factors, such as the size of an organization, corporate culture,
employer/co-worker attitudes, discrimination/harassment, career mentors, and workplace
accommodations, as indicators of job retention and career progression. For instance, the
literature indicates that career mentors positively affect career progression, but individuals with a
disability may have difficulty finding a mentor who understands the dynamics of the interaction
between disability and how to excel in a work setting. Additionally, research suggests that
negative perceptions and attitudes held by employers and co-workers are often seen as a barrier
to gaining and maintaining employment for persons with a disability.
The final micro-level dimension that emerged in the literature involved psychological factors.
These include such issues as an employee’s attitudes (job satisfaction and commitment to the
organization), motivations (aspirations and goals), and perceptions (such as self-assessment of
25
abilities to perform well and belong in the workplace). For individuals both with and without
disabilities, commitment to their organization is a particularly strong predictor of job retention.
While there is promising material in the disability-related literature on job retention and career
progression, this material is far from comprehensive. Current disability research about the labour
market experiences of people with disabilities focuses on barriers influencing the dynamics of
entry to and exit from the labour market, quality of employment, and accommodation in the
workplace. In contrast, very little research looks at the extent to which people with disabilities
hold onto work or move up the career ladder. More research is needed to determine the most
important factors related to job retention and career progression for people with disabilities.
The following questions remain unanswered.

Coincident with higher rates of unemployment, low average employment income, and
clustering in lower-paid, low-skill employment sectors among people with disabilities, have
there also been lower average levels of job retention and slower rates of career progression?

What are the influences of policy (employment equity, human rights legislation, focus on
“return to work” within income support programs) and new human resources practices
(disability management) on job retention and career progression? How would
measuring/evaluating these influences affect behaviour within organizations? Should these
measurements be integral to employment equity strategies?

Is there a place within current or potential employment equity legislation for job retention
and career progression? What other legislation could positively impact job retention and
career progression?

Is there a difference between the personality factors of people with disabilities and those
without disabilities that influence job retention and career progression?

Are people who acquire disabilities at an advanced age choosing retirement or being forced
into early retirement?
26
References
Allaire, Saralynn H., Wei Li, and Michale P. LaValley. 2003. “Work Barriers
Experienced and Job Accommodations Used by Persons with Arthritis and Other
Rheumatic Diseases.” Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 46 (April): 147-156.
Allaire, Saralynn H., Jingbo Niu, and Michael P. LaValley. 2005. “Employment and
Satisfaction Outcomes from a Job Retention Intervention Delivered to Persons with
Chronic Diseases.” Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 48 (January): 100-109.
Allen, Natalie J., and John P. Meyer. 1990. “The Measurement and Antecedents of
Affective, Continuance and Normative Commitment to the Organization.” Journal of
Occupational Psychology 63: 1-18.
Archibald, W. Peter. 2009. “Marx, Globalization and Alienation: Received and
Underappreciated Wisdoms.” Critical Sociology 35.
Batavia, Andrew I., and Richard L. Beaulaurier. 2001. “The Financial Vulnerability of
People with Disabilities: Assessing Poverty Risks.” Journal of Sociology and Social
Welfare 28, no. 1: 129-162.
Belcher, R. G., and M. D. Smith. 1994. “Coworker Attitudes Toward Employees with
Autism.” Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 4, no.1: 29-36.
Benko, Cathy, and Anne Weisberg. 2008. “Mass Career Customization™: A New Model
for How Careers Are Built.” Ivey Business Journal Online 72, issue 3 (May/June).
London.
Bishop, Malachy, Molly K. Tschopp, and Michael Mulvihill. 2000. “Multiple Sclerosis
and Epilepsy: Vocational Aspects and the Best Rehabilitation Practices.” Journal of
Rehabilitation 66, no. 2 (April/May/June).
Blau, Peter M., and Otis Dudley Duncan. 1967. The American Occupational Structure
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY.
Bodkin, Ronald G., and Majed El-Helou. 2001. “Gender Differences in the Canadian
Economy, with Some Comparisons to the United States (Part II: Earnings, Low
Incomes, and the Allocation of Time).” Gender Issues (Fall).
Botuck, Shelly, and Joel M. Levy. 1998. “Post-Placement Outcomes in Competitive
Employment: How Do Urban Young Adults with Developmental Disabilities Fare
Over Time?” Journal of Rehabilitation 64, no. 3 (July/August/September).
Bradley, E.J., E.H. Boath, R. Chambers, J. Monkman, A. Luck, and E. Bould. 2004. “The
Impact of Involuntary Job Loss on Those Disabled by Society: A Pilot Study to
Encourage Effective Participation.” Disability & Society 19, no. 3: 245-258.
1
Breslin, F. Curtis, Emile Tompa, Cameron Mustard, Ryan Zhao, Peter Smith, and Sheliah
Hogg-Johnson. 2007. “Association Between the Decline in Worker’s Compensation
Claims and Workforce Composition and Job Characteristics in Ontario, Canada.”
American Journal of Public Health 97, no. 3.
Burkhardt, Tania. 2003. “Employment Retention Following Onset of Sickness or
Disability: Evidence from the Labour Force Survey Longitudinal Data Department
for Work and Pensions.” Government of the United Kingdom, London.
Burkhauser, Richard V., Mary C. Daly, and Andrew J. Houtenville. 2001. “How
Working-Age People with Disabilities Fared over the 1990s Business Cycle.” in
Ensuring Health and Income Security for an Aging Workforce. W.E. Upjohn Institute
for Employment Research: 291-346.
Canada, HRSDC (Human Resources and Social Development Canada). 2006. Disabilities
and Low Income in the Non-Senior Adult Population.Working Paper: Catalogue no.
HS28-52/2006E.
———. 2007. Employment Equity Act: Annual Report 2007. Catalogue no. HS211/2007.
Canada, Statistics Canada. 2006. Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (PALS):
Analytical report. Catalogue no. 89-628-XIE, no. 002.
———. 2008. Participation and Activity Limitation Survey 2006: Labour Force
Experiencene of People with Disabilities in Canada. Catalogue no. 89-628-X, no.
007.
Carroll, John G. 2002. “The Five-Factor Personality Model: How Complete and
Satisfactory Is It?” in The Role of Constructs in Psychological and Educational
Measurement, ed. Braun, Jackson, Wiley, Messick. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Cimera, Robert Evert. 2001. “Utilizing Co-Workers as ‘Natural Supports’: Evidence on
Cost Efficiency, Job Retention, and Other Employment Outcomes.” Journal of
Disability Policy Studies 11 (January): 194-201.
Colella, Adrienne, and Arup Varma. 1999. “Disability-Job Fit Stereotypes and the
Evaluation of Persons with Disabilities at Work.” Journal of Occupational
Rehabilitation 9, no. 2.
Combs, Gwendolyn M. 2003. “Social Networks on Career Advancement. The Duality of
Race and Gender for Managerial African American Women.” Human Resource
Development Review 2: 385.
2
Cook, J. A. 1992. “Job Ending Among Youth and Adults with Severe Mental Illness.”
The Journal of Mental Health Administration 19: 158-169.
Crudden, Adele. 2002. “Employment after Vision Loss: Results of a Collective Case
Study.” Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness (September).
DeJong, Gerben. 1979. “Independent Living: From Social Movement to Analytic
Paradigm.” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 60 (October): 435-446.
De Ruyter, Alex, and John Burgess. 2003. “Growing Labour Insecurity in Australia and
the UK in the Midst of Job Growth: Beware the Anglo-Saxon Model.” European
Journal of Industrial Relations 9 (July): 223-243.
De Witte, Hans, and Katharina Naswall. 2003. “‘Objective’ vs ‘Subjective’ Job
Insecurity: Consequences of Temporary Work for Job Commitment in Four European
Countries.” Economic and Industrial Democracy 24, no. 2: 149-188.
Dolton, Peter, Gerald Makepeace, and Oscar Marcenaro-Gutierrez. 2005. “Career
Progression: Getting-On, Getting-By and Going Nowhere.” Education Economics.
13, issue 2 (June): 237-255.
Dorio, JoAnn, and Susan Marine. 2004. “Tying It All Together – The PASS to Success:
A Comprehensive Look at Promoting Job Retention for Workers with Psychiatric
Disabilities in a Supported Employment Program.” Psychiatric Rehabilitation
Journal 28, issue 1 (Summer): 32-39.
Dowler, Denetta, and Richard T. Walls. 1996. “Accommodating Specific Job Functions
for People with Hearing Impairments.” Journal of Rehabilitation 62, no. 3
(July/August/September).
Edgley, K., M. Sullivan, and E. Dehoux. 1991. “A Survey of Multiple Sclerosis, Part 2:
Determinants of Employment Status.” Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation 4: 127–
132.
Ellenbecker, Carol Hall. 2004. “A Theoretical Model of Job Retention for Home Health
Care Nurses.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 47, no. 3 (August): 303-310.
England, Kim. 2003. “Disabilities, Gender and Employment: Social Exclusion,
Employment Equity and Canadian Banking.” The Canadian Geographer 47, no 4.
Fawcett, Gail. 1996. Living with Disabilities in Canada: An Economic Portrait, Human
Resources Development Canada. Office for Disability Issues, Hull, Quebec.
Fillary, Rose, and Regina Pernice. 2005. “Workplace Culture Analysis Where People
With Intellectual Disability Work: A Case Study Approach.” Journal of Intellectual
& Developmental Disability 30, no. 3 (September): 176-180.
3
Foster, Deborah. 2007. “Legal Obligation or Personal Lottery?: Employee Experiences of
Disability and the Negotiation of Adjustments in the Public Sector Workplace.” Work
Employment Society 21, no. 1: 67.
Genevie, Louis, June E. Kallos, and Elmer L. Struening. 1987. “Job Retention Among
People with Multiple Sclerosis.” Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 1, no. 3:
131-135.
Gervey, R., and R. Bedell. 1994. “Supported Employment in Vocational Rehabilitation.”
in R. Bedell (Ed.), Psychological Assessment and Treatment with Severe Mental
Disorders Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis. 139-163.
Getzie, Thomas J. 1997. “The Importance of Labour-Management Collaboration.
Strategies for Success: Disability Management in the Workplace.” National Institute
of Disability Management and Research (NIDMAR).
Gibson, Lamela Reed, and Amanda Lindberg. 2007. “Work Accommodation for People
with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.” Disability & Society 22, no. 7: 717-732.
Gleasonwynn, Patricia, and Charles H. Mindel. 1999. “A Proposed Model for Predicting
Job Satisfaction Among Nursing Home Social Workers.” Journal of Gerontological
Social Work 32, no. 3: 65-79.
Greenhaus, Jeffrey H., and Saroj Parasuraman. 1993. “Job Performance Attributions and
Career Advancement Prospects: An Examination of Gender and Race Effects.”
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 55: 273-297.
Greenhaus, Jeffrey H., Saroj Parasuraman, Wayne M. Wormley. 1990. “Effects of Race
On Organizational Experiences, Job Performance Evaluations, and career Outcomes.”
Academy of Management Journal 33, no. 1: 64-86.
Gregg, P., and J. Wadsworth. 2002. “Job Tenure in Britain 1975-2000. Is a Job for Life
or Just for Christmas?” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 64, no. 2.
Griffeth, Rodger W., Peter W. Hom, and Stefan Gaertner. 2000. “A Meta-Analysis of
Antecedents and Correlates of Employee Turnover: Update, Moderator Tests, and
Research Implications for the Next Millennium.” Journal of Management 26, no. 3:
463-488.
Grover, Chris, and Linda Piggott. 2005. “Disabled People, the Reserve Army of Labour
and Welfare Reform.” Disability & Society 20, no. 7: 705-717.
Habeck, Rochelle V. 1999. “Job Retention Through Disability Management.”
Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 42, issue 4 (June): 317, 12 p.
4
Hagner, David, and Bernard F. Cooney. 2005. “‘I Do That for Everybody’: Supervising
Employees With Autism.” Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 20
(January): 91-97.
Harcourt, Mark, Helen Lam, and Sondra Harcourt. 2005. “Discriminatory Practices in
Hiring: Institutional and Rational Economic Perspectives.” The International Journal
of Human Resource Management 16, no. 11: 2113-2132.
Haygroup. 2001. Engage Employees and Boost Performance. Philadelphia, USA,
Haygroup Inc. Working Paper.
Heilman, Madeline E. 2001. “Description and Prescription: How Gender
Stereotypes Prevent Women’s Ascent Up the Organizational Ladder.” Journal of
Social Issues 57, no. 4: 657-674.
Heisz, Andrew. 2002. “The Evolution of Job Stability in Canada: Trends and
Comparisons to U.S. Results.” Statistics Canada. Catalogue no. 11F0019MIE, no.
162
Hiebert, Jackie S., and Nigel L. Ashworth. 2006. “Predictors of Return to Work
Following Traumatic Work-Related Lower Extremity Amputation.” Disability and
Rehabilitation 28, no. 10 (May): 613-618.
Holzer, Harry J. 2000. Unemployment Insurance and Welfare Recipients: What Happens
When the Recession Comes? The Urban Institute Report no. A-46.
Holzer, Harry J., Michael A. Stoll, and Douglas Wissoker. 2001. Job Performance and
Retention Among Welfare Recipients. Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion
Paper no. 1237-01.
Ho, Pei-Shu. 2002. Disability and Employment Status among Older Workers. National
Rehabilitation Hospital, Center for Health and Disability Research, Washington.
Hotchkiss, Julie L. 2003. The Labor Market Experience of Workers with Disabilities: The
ADA and Beyond. W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
ILO (International Labour Organization), Vocational Rehabilitation Branch, Employment
and Training Department. 1998. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Job
Retention and Return to Work Strategies for Disabled Workers. Geneva: ILO
Publications, International Labour Office.
Irving, P. Gregory, Daniel F. Coleman, and Christine L. Cooper. 1997. “Further
Assessments of a Three-Component Model of Occupational Commitment:
Generalizability and Differences Across Occupations.” Journal of Applied
Psychology 83, no. 3: 444-452.
5
Kepner-Tregoe. 1999. Avoiding the Brain Drain: What Companies Are Doing to Lock in
Their Talent. Business Issues Research Group, Research Monograph One. (January)
Kilian, C.M., D. Hukai, and C.E. Mcarty. 2005. “Building Diversity in the Pipeline to
Corporate Leadership.” Journal of Management Development 24, no. 2: 155-168.
Koch, Lynn C., Phillip D. Rumill Jr., David Hagner, Bernard Cooney. 2003. “Building
Employer Capacity to Support Employees with Severe Disabilities in the
Workplace.” Work 21, no.1: 77-82.
Lee, Thomas W., Terence R. Mitchell, Brooks C. Holtom, Linda S. McDaniel, and John
W. Hill. 1999. “The Unfolding Model of Voluntary Turnover: A Replication and
Extension.” The Academy of Management Journal 42, no. 4 (August): 450-462.
Lehman, Anthony F., Richard Goldberg, Lisa B. Dixon, Scot McNary, Leticia Postrado,
Ann Hackman, and Karen McDonnell. 2002. “Improving Employment Outcomes for
Persons With Severe Mental Illnesses.” Archives of General Psychiatry 59 (February).
Lock, Sarah, Lesley Jordan, Karen Bryan, and Jane Maxim. 2005. “Work after Stroke:
Focusing on Barriers and Enablers.” Disability & Society 20, no. 1: 33-47.
Madaus, Joseph W., Lillia M. Ruban, Teresa E. Foley, and Joan M. McGuire. 2003.
“Attributes Contributing to the Employment Satisfaction of University Graduates
with Learning Disabilities.” Learning Disability Quarterly 26, no. 3 (Summer): 159169.
McLean, John. 2003. “Employees with Long Term Illness or Disabilities in the UK
Social Services Workforce.” Disability & Society 18, no. 1: 51-70.
Meyer, John P., and Natalie J. Allen. 1991. “A Three-Component Conceptualization of
Organizational Commitment.” Human Resource Management Review 1, no. 1:61-89.
Mitchell, Terence R., Brooks C. Holtom, Thomas W. Lee, Chris J. Sablynski, and Miriam
Erez . 2001. “Why People Stay: Using Job Embeddedness to Predict Voluntary
Turnover.” Academy of Management Journal 44: 1102-1122.
Morris, David, and Patricia Turnbull. 2007. “A Survey-Based Exploration of the Impact
of Dyslexia on Career Progression of UK Registered Nurses.” Journal of Nursing
Management 15, issue 1 (January): 97-106.
Morris-Wales, Janalee. 2000. “Working for Equity: Issues of Employment for Youth with
Disabilities.” Unpublished master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University
of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Murphy, C. 2002. “Employment and Career Progression of People With a Disability in
the Irish Civil Service.” Government of Ireland, Department of Finance, Dublin.
6
Newton, Rita, and Marcus Ormerod. 2005. “Do Disabled People Have a Place in the UK
Construction Industry?” Construction Management and Economics 23, no. 10: 10711081.
NIDMAR (National Institute of Disability Management and Research). 1997. “Strategies
for Success: Disability Management in the Workplace.”
Noreau, L., S.-A. Dion, J. Vachon, M. Gervais, and M.-T. Laramee. 1999. “Productivity
Outcomes of Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury.” Spinal Cord 37: 730-736.
Ochs, Lisa A., and Richard T. Roessler. 2004. “Predictors of Career Exploration
Intentions: A Social Cognitive Career Theory Perspective.” Rehabilitation
Counseling Bulletin 47 (July): 224-233.
O’Day, Bonnie. 1998. “Barriers for People with Multiple Sclerosis Who Want to Work:
A Qualitative Study.” Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 12 (January): 139-146.
Parsons, Talcott. 1951. “Illness and the Role of the Physician: A Sociological
Perspective.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 21: 452-460.
Perlmutter, Felice Davidson, John R. Deckop, Alison M. Konrad, and Joshua L. Freely.
2005. “Nonprofits and the Job Retention of Former Welfare Clients.” Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly 34, no. 4.
Piggott, Linda, and Ann-Marie Houghton. 2007. “Transition Experiences of Disabled
Young People.” International Journal of Lifelong Education 26, no. 5: 573-587.
Piggott, Linda, Bob Stapey, and Fred Wilenius. 2005. “Out of Touch: Local Government
and Disabled People’s Employment Needs.” Disability & Society 20, no. 6: 599-611.
Poole, P.J., and J. Rebick. 1993. “Not Another Hundred Years: The Failure of the Federal
Employment Equity Act.” Canadian Labour Law Journal 1, no. 4: 341-367.
Provencher, H. E., R. Gregg, S. Mead, and K. T. Mueser. 2002. “The Role of Work in
The Recovery of Persons with Psychiatric Disabilities.” Psychiatric Rehabilitation
Journal 26,no. 2: 132-144.
Randolph, Diane Smith, and Elena M. Andresen. 2004. “Disability, Gender, and
Unemployment Relationships in the United States from the Behavioral Risk Factor
Surveillance System.” Disability & Society 194, no. 4: 403-414.
Roessler, Richard T., and Phillip D. Rumrill. 1995. “The Relationship of Perceived Work
Site Barriers to Job Mastery and Job Satisfaction for Employed People with Multiple
Sclerosis.” Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 39: 2–14.
7
———. 1998. “Reducing Workplace Barriers to Enhance Job Satisfaction: An Important
Post-Employment Service for Employees With Chronic Illnesses.” Journal of
Vocational Rehabilitation 10: 219–229.
Roessler, Richard T., Shawn M. Fitzgerald, Phillip D. Rumrill, and Lynn C. Koch. 2001.
“Determinants of Employment Status Among People with Multiple Sclerosis.”
Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 45 (October): 31-39.
Roessler, Richard T., Ronna C. Turner, Judith L. Robertson, and Phillip D. Rumrill Jr.
2005. “Gender and Perceived Illness Severity: Differential Indicators of Employment
Concerns for Adults with Multiple Sclerosis?” Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 48
(January): 66-74.
Roessler, Richard T., Jeanne Neath, Brian T. McMahon, and Philip D. Rumrill. 2007a.
“Workplace Discrimination Outcomes and Their Predictive Factors for Adults With
Multiple Sclerosis.” Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 50 (April): 139-152.
———. 2007b. “The Relationship of Selected Supply-and Demand-Side Factors to
Forms of Perceived Discrimination Among Adults With Multiple Sclerosis.”
Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 50 (July): 203-215.
Saks, Alan M., and Blake E. Ashforth. 1997. “A Longitudinal Investigation of the
Relationships Between Job Information Sources, Applicant Perceptions of Fit, and
Work Outcomes.” Personnel Psychology 50, issue 2 (Summer): 395-426
Salkever, David S., Eric P. Slade, and Mustafa C. Karakus. 2003. “Employment
Retention by Persons with Schizophrenia Employed in Non-Assisted Jobs.” Journal
of Rehabilitation 69, issue 4 (October-December): 19-26.
Seibert, Scott E., Maria L. Kraimer, and Michael J. Crant. 2001. “What Do Proactive
People Do? A Longitudinal Model Linking Proactive Personality and Career
Success.” Personnel Psychology 54, issue 4 (Winter): 845-874.
Shaw, Alexander, Deborah Gold, and Karen Wolffe. 2007. “Employment-Related
Experiences of Youth Who Are Visually Impaired: How Are These Youths Faring?”
Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness 101, issue 1 (January): 7-21.
Shaw, Jason D., John E. Delery, Douglas G. Jenkins, Jr., and Nina Gupta. 1998. “An
Organization-Level Analysis of Voluntary and Involuntary Turnover.” The Academy
of Management Journal 41, no. 5 (October): 511-525.
Shier, Michael, John R. Graham, and Marion E. Jones. 2009. “Barriers to Employment as
Experienced by Disabled People: A Qualitative Analysis in Calgary and Regina,
Canada.” Disability & Society 24, no. 1: 63-75.
8
Sirvastava, Shirley, and M. Anne Chamberlain. 2005. “Factors Determining Job
Retention and Return to Work for Disabled Employees: A Questionnaire Study of
Opinions of Disabled People’s Organizations in the UK.” Journal of Rehabilitation
Medicine 37: 17-22.
Smith, Brenda D. 2005. “Job Retention in Child Welfare: Effects of Perceived
Organizational Support, Supervisor Support, and Intrinsic Job Value.” Children and
Youth Services Review 27, issue 2 (February): 153-169.
Spector, Aron. 1996. The Housing Conditions of Persons with Health and Activity
Limitations in Canada. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Research
Division. Ottawa, Ontario.
Spector, Aron, J. Sykes, and J. Uriarte-Landa. 2008. “Identifying and Operationalizing
Indicators of Work Retention.” Unpublished manuscript, Human Resources and
Social Development Canada.
Stafford, B. 2000. “Job Retention in the Context of Long-term Illness.” in Proceedings of
a Seminar of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Department for Education and
Employment. London: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Working Paper (March): 42-43.
Stone , Dianna L., and Adrienne Colella. 1996. “A Model of Factors Affecting the
Treatment of Disabled Individuals in Organizations.” The Academy of Management
Review 21, no. 2 (April): 352-401.
Topel, Robert H., and Michael P Ward. 1988. Job Mobility and the Careers of Young
Men. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 2649.
Tracey, Bruce J., and Timothy R. Hinkin. 2008. “Contextual Factors and Cost Profiles
Associated with Employee Turnover.” Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 49, issue 1: 1227.
Twamley, Elizabeth W., Jenille M. Narvaez, Deborah R. Becker, Stephen J. Bartels, and
Dlip V. Jeste. 2008. “Supported Employment for Middle-Aged and Older People with
Schizophrenia.” American Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilitation 11, no. 1: 76-89.
Unger, Darlene D. 1999. “Workplace Supports: A View From Employers Who Have
Hired Supported Employees.” Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities
14, no. 3 (Fall): 167-179.
United States, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009. News Job Openings and Labour
Turnover (July).
Uriarte-Landa, Jorge, and Aron Spector. nd. Labour Market Trends of People With
Disabilities in Canada (1999–2005). Policy Research Note, Human Resources and
Skills Development Canada.
9
Vickers, Margaret H. 2008. “Why People with MS Are Really Leaving Work: From a
Clayton’s Choice to an Ugly Passage – A Phenomenological Study.” Review of
Disability Studies: An International Journal 4, issue 4.
Waghorn, Geoff, David Chant, Paul White, and Harvey Whiteford. 2005. “Disability,
Employment and Work Performance Among People With ICD-10 Anxiety
Disorders.” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 39, no. 1-2 (January):
55-66.
Wayne, Sandy J., Robert C. Liden, Maria L. Kraimer, and Isabel K. Graf. 1999. “The
Role of Human Capital, Motivation and Supervisor Sponsorship in Predicting Career
Success.” Journal of Organizational Behaviour 20, no. 5 (September): 566-595.
Wilson-Kovacs, Dana, Michelle K. Ryan, Alexander Haslam, and Anna Rabinovich.
2008. “Just Because You Can Get a Wheelchair in the Building Doesn’t Necessarily
Mean that You Can Still Participate: Barriers to the Career Advancement of Disabled
Professionals.” Disability & Society 23, no. 7: 705-717.
Yelin, Edward. H., and P. Katz. 1994. “Labor Force Trends among Persons with and
Without Disabilities.” Monthly Labor Review 117, no. 10: 36–42.
Yelin, Edward H., and Laura Trupin. 2003. “Disability and the Characteristics of
Employment.” Monthly Labour Review 126, no. 5: 20-31.
Zimmerman, Wolfgang. 1997. “A Canadian Perspective. Strategies for Success:
Disability Management in the Workplace.” National Institute of Disability
Management and Research (NIDMAR).
10
Endnotes
1
For a good Canadian example, see NIDMAR, 1997.
2
As quoted in Dolton et al., 2005: 3.
3
As quoted by England, 2003: 433.
4
See also Belcher and Smith, 1994.
5
See, for example, DeJong, 1979.
11