A Simulated Virtual Focus Group to Measure Employers’ Attitudes, Perceptions and Beliefs about Hiring Persons with Disabilities
Philip M. Gaunt
Professor of Communication
Director, Interdisciplinary Communication Research Institute
Wichita State University
1845 Fairmount
Wichita, KS 67260-0031
Mark L. Lengnick-Hall
Professor of Management
College of Business
University of Texas at San Antonio
6900 North Loop 1604
San Antonio, TX 78249-0634
Table of Contents
IV – Quantitative responses of individuals to specific questions
V – Discussion and conclusions
Appendix I – General traces for the three segments of the focus group.
Appendix II – General traces for all three segments showing what is being discussed in the focus group at high points and low points of agreement.
Appendix III – Comparative traces for all three segments showing differences between:
a) those companies with or without a policy for hiring persons with disabilities
b) those companies having more than 500 or fewer than 500 employees
c) those individual respondents having the title of CEO/President, Chief Operating Officer or Director of Operations and those respondents having a different title
d) those individual respondents who believe that financial incentives for the hiring of persons with disabilities are Very Necessary or Not Very Necessary
Appendix IV – Quantitative responses of individuals to a set of questions about disability and employment issues.
Appendix V – Demographic charts
Appendix VI – Detailed methodological note
Appendix VII– Text of the recorded focus group with second by second timing for each of the three segments, including a five-second delay corresponding to general aggregated reaction times of respondents.
I – Introduction
As part of a series of research projects designed to improve the hiring of persons with disabilities, this study uses a groundbreaking new method to collect data about key executives’ attitudes, perceptions and beliefs about the hiring persons with disabilities. In brief (please see detailed methodological note in the appendix section), respondents are invited to log on to a web site, listen to an audio-streamed focus group discussing the advantages and disadvantages of employing persons with disabilities and indicate their level of agreement with what is being said by using their mouse to move a cursor on a scale of 0 through ten. At two points during the focus group, the recording is stopped and respondents are asked to answer a number of specific questions related to the topic being discussed. The respondents are also asked to answer a few simple demographic questions about gender, job title, size and principal activity of their organization.
The results of the study are reported as:
a) trace lines showing levels of agreement with what is being discussed
b) charts showing responses to quantitative questions
c) tables showing demographics
All these traces, charts and tables are included in the appendix section.
Return to the Table of Contents
II – General findings
Overall respondents showed high levels of agreement with positive statements about the employment of persons with disabilities and high levels of disagreement with negative statements – a finding that is generally encouraging, even if comparative findings show some considerable differences.
Highest levels of agreement:
Segment 1
“There are all kinds of jobs people with disabilities could do in distribution – office jobs: accounting, inventory, billing, ordering or sales.”
“A lot of people with disabilities are on Social Security. If we can get them into the work force and start earning money, then they can get off welfare and start paying taxes. That’s a double benefit for society. Everyone benefits.”
Segment 2
“If I found a person who could really make a contribution to my business, I’d hire them with our without a disability. I’ve seen times when employment levels are low. That would be a good time to hire someone with a disability, assuming the person is qualified.”
Segment 3
“Perhaps it’s time for us all to recognize that abilities and not disabilities should determine a worker’s potential. Maybe that’s one way to look at it. Maybe that’s a better way to determine hiring decisions.”
“As an HR manager, I’d say you need to make sure that you CEO, your top management, is supportive of hiring people with disabilities, and is willing to say so and develop appropriate policies.”
Secondary levels of agreement
Segment 1
“In some sectors where there are workforce shortages, people with disabilities could make a valuable contribution and add to a company’s competitive edge, assuming they are qualified of course.”
“You know there are some very smart people with disabilities out there. Look at Stephen Hawking. All right I know he’s an exception. But he’s in a wheelchair and very seriously disabled, and he’s brilliant. He’s an asset to any company.”
Segment 2
“Are some employers reluctant to hire people with disabilities, not because of paperwork or hassle or training or whatever, but because they just don’t understand disability?”
“They (co-workers) might assume that it is the disability that’s the cause (of taking a long time to complete a task) when in fact the person may just be the methodical sort, with or without a disability.”
Segment 3
“Coming back to what Bruce was saying a few moments ago, it may be a question of trying to build a corporate culture that is favorable to the idea of hiring people with disabilities.”
Highest levels of disagreement
Segment 1
“I wouldnt want to expose some of our customers to people with major physical deformities for example, particularly when it comes to sales. The truth of the matter is that some customers can be uncomfortable interacting with people with disabilities.”
Segment 2
“What about the cost of training people with disabilities? That’s an expense. And what about lack of productivity, compared to a non-disabled worker. That’s a cost factor too.”
Segment 3
“What about law suits? If you hire someone with a disability, who turns out not to be a productive worker, or whatever, and then fire them, aren’t you going to get sued – probably for discrimination?”
“Even if the employer is in the right, law suits take time, cost money and you have to get those damned lawyers involved, and for what, just to prove you’re right.”
Secondary levels of disagreement
Segment 1
“That wouldn’t work for outside sales. I can’t see my customers buying a piece of exercise equipment from someone in a wheelchair. Inside sales maybe. As long as they don’t sound funny on the phone”
Segment 2
“Employing people with disabilities involves a lot of extra things, not just cost: special treatment, special training, special training of co-workers, special training of supervisors, special accommodation, and on and on.
Segment 3
“The nuisance factor, that is the hassle of extra paperwork and administration, the hassle of accommodation, the hassle of special treatment and possible the hassle of a law suit.”
Return to the Table of Contents
III – Comparative findings
This section compares differences of agreement ratings based on four different variables.
a) Companies with or without a policy about hiring persons with disabilities
In general, and this makes intuitive sense, those companies with such a policy agree more with positive statements and disagree more with negative statements than those companies that do not have such a policy. The following statements show the largest agreement gaps between the two groups.
Segment 1
“There are all kinds of jobs people with disabilities could do in distribution – office jobs: accounting, inventory, billing, ordering or sales.”
“A lot of people with disabilities are on Social Security. If we can get them into the work force and start earning money, then they can get off welfare and start paying taxes. That’s a double benefit for society. Everyone benefits.”
“I wouldn’t want to expose some of our customers to people with major physical deformities for example, particularly when it comes to sales. The truth of the matter is that some customers can be uncomfortable interacting with people with disabilities.”
“That wouldn’t work for outside sales. I can’t see my customers buying a piece of exercise equipment from someone in a wheelchair. Inside sales maybe. As long as they don’t sound funny on the phone”
Segment 2
“It’s bad enough having to deal with rising health insurance costs for people without disabilities, but when it comes to people with disabilities, it can get out of hand. And I’m pretty sure that there are no tax incentives there. In my view, this could be a real disincentive to hire someone with a disability.”
“And workplace accommodation can get pretty expensive. Special furniture, special chairs, special assistive devices.”
“And their co-workers can get impatient too if they have to wait for someone with a disability to finish a task.”
Segment 3
“It may be a question of trying to build a corporate culture that is favorable to the idea of hiring people with disabilities.”
“Of course, one of the most powerful messages would be if a CEO hired someone with a disability to work directly in their office, say a secretary or an administrative assistant, someone who is highly visible.”
“Cost in general, I think. Cost of accommodation certainly, but also cost in terms of training, both for the disabled and for co-workers, as well as supervisors, cost of insurance, cost of reduced productivity, the cost of special machines and procedures.”
“There’s one reason that we’ve only just skirted around and that’s prejudice against people with disabilities, prejudice by individual employees, but also by supervisors and management. It’s a real factor and it’s one that we shouldn’t ignore.”
b) Companies with more than 500 or fewer than 500 employees
In general, while there are fewer major differences between the two groups than with other groupings, the larger companies appear to be more hard headed, from a business perspective, more profit oriented and less flexible than the smaller companies. The following segments of the focus group show the most difference.
On the positive side:
Segment 1
“A lot of people with disabilities are on Social Security. If we can get them into the work force and start early money, then they can get off welfare and start paying taxes. That’s a double saving for society. Everyone benefits.”
“But that said, there are all kinds of jobs people with disabilities could do in distribution – office jobs: accounting, inventory, billing, ordering or sales.”
Segment 2
The largest differences are on the negative side.
Segment 3
“It may be a question of trying to build a corporate culture that is favorable to the idea of hiring people with disabilities.”
“Cost in general, I think. Cost of accommodation certainly, but also cost in terms of training, both for the disabled and for co-workers as well as supervisors, costs of insurance, the cost of reduced productivity, the cost of special machines and procedures.”
On the negative side:
Segment 1
“I think most companies would hire more people with disabilities if they didn’t have the government breathing down their necks.”
“I wouldn’t want to expose some of our customers to people with major physical deformities for example, particularly when it comes to sales. The truth of the matter is that some customers can be uncomfortable interacting with people with disabilities.”
“That wouldn’t work for outside sales. I can’t see my customers buying a piece of exercise equipment from someone in a wheelchair. Inside sales, maybe. As long as they don’t sound funny on the phone.”
Segment 2
“No matter how we might like to “do good” by hiring disabled people, we can’t afford to accept the risk that they might cost more and be less productive.”
“It’s bad enough having to deal with rising health insurance costs for people without disabilities, but when it comes to people with disabilities it can get out of hand. And I’m pretty sure that there are no tax incentives there. In my view, this could be a real disincentive to hire someone with a disability.”
Segment 3
“If you hire someone with a disability who turns out not to be a productive worker and you fire them, aren’t you going to get sued – probably for discrimination?”
c) C-level respondents (i.e. CEO, COO, CFO) or other respondents
In general, there are not many areas in which there are significant differences, but on the whole C-level respondents seem to be less concerned about some of the negative issues than do the non C-level employees. One explanation could be that C-level respondents have a more global corporate perspective on the issues than do the non C-level personnel. They tend to see the “big picture” in a more positive light, whereas non C-level employees are often called upon to deal with everyday implementation of policies and procedures and, as a result may be more negative toward persons with disabilities.
The most obvious differences emerge with reference to the following issues.
Segment 1
“So I guess pretty soon the government will be forcing us to employ people with disabilities. It seem as though more and more government is interfering with the way our businesses are run.”
“In some sectors where there are workforce shortages, people with disabilities could make a valuable contribution and add to a company’s competitive edge, assuming they’re qualified of course.”
“I can’t see my customers buying a piece of exercise equipment from someone in a wheelchair.”
Segment 2
“Co-workers can get impatient if they have to wait for someone with a disability to finish a task. They might assume that it is the disability that’s the cause, when in fact the person may just be the methodical sort, with or without a disability.”
“I had one employee in a wheelchair. When we hired him I asked him if he needed any special accommodations in his office. All he needed was for us to disconnect the automatic door closer. That didn’t cost us anything.”
“What concerns me the most though is the need for special training, because that holds up productivity and can hold up my production line.”
Segment 3
“If you hire someone with a disability, who turns out not to be a productive worker, and then fire them, aren’t you going to get sued for discrimination?”
“I still think that the threat of law suits is the strongest disincentive, whether it’s from individuals or organizations or maybe even the government. And that’s independent of tax incentives or productivity or anything else.”
d) Those respondents who believe that financial incentives to encourage the hiring of persons with disabilities are:
(i) Very necessary
(ii) Not very necessary
This is one of the areas in which differences between the groups involved are the most significant, with those believing that financial incentives are Not very necessary being considerably more negative than those believing that financial incentives are Very necessary.
Segment 1
“There’s one (food distributor in Texas) that has taken to hiring disabled people and minorities because their clientele is so diverse… and this has increased their business quite a lot, so sometimes there are sound business reasons to look at persons with disabilities.”
“There are some very smart people with disabilities out there.”
Segment 2
“There’s a small business tax credit for assistive devices…up to a maximum credit of $5,000. That’s not chicken feed for a small business.”
“Is the bottom line really about prejudice? Do you think that some people at least are just downright prejudiced against people with disabilities?”
Segment 3
“The nuisance factor, that is the hassle of extra paperwork and administration, the hassle of accommodation, the hassle of special treatment and possibly the hassle of a law suit.”
“The discomfort factor…. That comes back to a lack of knowledge about different types of disability, and ability, or lack of ability, to perform certain functions. That speaks to what we were saying about the lack of a corporate culture that is favorable to the employment of people with disabilities.”
“And if those making hiring decisions believe that top management is indifferent or even downright hostile to hiring people with disabilities, it’s probably not going to happen.”
Return to the Table of Contents
IV – Quantitative responses of individuals to specific questions
In between the recorded segments of the focus group, respondents were asked some specific questions regarding disability and employment issues. (See Appendix IV for relevant charts.)
The first question inquired whether the respondent had hired anyone with a disability. Respondents were very evenly divided with 49% saying Yes, and 51% No.
When asked how proactive the respondent’s industry and individual company has been in the hiring of persons with disabilities, responses were mixed and generally not very encouraging, although as many as 47% of respondents said that their individual company was somewhat proactive.
Industry %
Very proactive 23
Somewhat proactive 31
Not very proactive 37
Not proactive at all 10
Individual company
Very proactive 18
Somewhat proactive 47
Not very proactive 25
Not proactive at all 10
With regard to the suitability of jobs for persons with disabilities, a majority of respondents thought that only 0-10% (44% of respondents) or 11-20% (a further 21%) jobs would be suitable. Figures were not quite as high with regard to the respondent’s industry.
When asked how willing their industry or individual company is to make accommodations necessary to facilitate the employment of persons with disabilities, a large majority stated that both industry and company are very willing or somewhat willing to make the necessary accommodations.
With regard to financial incentives to encourage the employment of persons with disabilities, 28% of respondents saw them as Very Necessary, 49% as Somewhat Necessary and 23% as Not Very Necessary.
Following on from this question, respondents were then asked what level of tax incentive per individual hire would be attractive to encourage the hiring of persons with disabilities.
Amount %
Less than $5,000 30
$5,000-$7,500 31
$7,500-$10,000 17
More than $10,000 23
When asked if they had a disability, 17% said Yes, and 83% No.
Surprisingly, on the issue of whether the respondent’s organization had a policy regarding the hiring of persons with disabilities, 75% said Yes, and 25% No.
Another encouraging finding was that 49% of respondents said that they had hired a person with a disability as part of their personal staff, and 34% answered in the affirmative when asked if any member of their organization’s senior management had a known disability.
On the other hand, when asked whether they had sent a memo or given a speech recommending the employment of persons with disabilities, only 28% said Yes.
Finally, when asked on a scale of 1 (No effort) to 7 (Much effort) how much effort the respondent’s organization makes to recruit and hire persons with disabilities, only 4% reported Much effort, with a majority reporting No effort or not very much effort.
Return to the Table of Contents
V – Discussion and conclusions
Background
For three years a Wichita, Kansas, based consortium of researchers from Wichita State University and the University of Texas at San Antonio, working with the Cerebral Palsy Research Foundation of Kansas, has been investigating demand-side issues surrounding the employment of persons with disabilities. Most RRTC’s (Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers) around the country have focused primarily on supply-side issues, i.e. how to prepare and help persons with disabilities to find ongoing employment opportunities.
The Wichita group has conducted research with the Society for Human Resource Management to measure HR executives’ familiarity with federal tax incentives
designed to encourage the hiring of persons with disabilities. This research showed that levels of knowledge about the incentives were surprisingly low. Alongside this cognitive research, the group felt that in order to design persuasive strategies that would encourage organizations to create a culture favorable to the hiring and retention of persons with disabilities, it would be necessary to measure attitudes, perceptions and beliefs likely to influence decision making processes. The virtual focus group was designed to tease out these factors while respecting the anonymity of individuals who might otherwise hesitate to speak their mind on what could be perceived as controversial issues.
Summary of findings
In general, respondents showed high levels of agreement with positive statements about the employment of persons with disabilities and high levels of disagreement with negative statements. On the whole this is encouraging. Most of the respondents appear to be taken aback, if not offended, by very negative comments about the employment of persons with disabilities, among others those referring to:
- the cost of accommodation
- the cost of training
- the perceived lack of productivity
- the threat of law suits
- the hassle of paperwork
- negative co-worker reactions
- negative consumer reactions
- the perceived (if erroneous) increase in health insurance costs
However, that said, comparative findings seem to indicate that attitudes, perceptions and beliefs are likely to be different at different levels within a given organization. Top management may display what could be described as positive attitudes toward persons with disabilities, but they are less likely to be involved in the day-to-day management and supervision of employees, including persons with disabilities. At lower levels within the organization, attitudes, perceptions and beliefs may be less favorable toward persons with disabilities because of concerns about productivity, co-work reactions, and possibly consumer reactions.
This all speaks in favor of developing a business case for the employment of persons with disabilities. Indeed the benefits of employing persons with disabilities are many:
- Cost recovery: the average cost of turnover in a company is $55,977. PWDs typically have a longer retention rate, which can substantially reduce overall employee recruitment and training expenses.
PWDs exhibit traits that are increasingly more difficult to find in the emerging labor markets, e.g. loyalty and hard work. - PWDs are an untapped pool of talent. Organizations who take advantage of this labor pool may gain advantage over their competitors.
- PWDs represent a huge consumer market. Organizations that hire PWDs will make themselves more attractive to this market segment.
- The public tends to look favorably on those companies that do employ PWDs. A reputation for social responsibility can be beneficial.
- It may be easier to obtain government contracts if a company’s workforce more closely resembles the demographic make-up of the United States.
- When PWDs are working, they are no longer drawing Social Security benefits, and they pay taxes. This is a double benefit for society.
- Federal tax incentives for the employment of PWDs can increase the cost/benefit ratio of a company.
Another finding from this study shows that organizations with a policy about the hiring and retention of persons with disabilities are far more likely:
- to understand the benefits of employment persons with disabilities
- to have a set of policies and procedures in place that are favorable toward the hiring and retention of persons with disabilities
- to have a person or persons with disabilities in a highly visible position within the office(s) of senior management
- to have someone in senior management with a known disability
Another intriguing finding is that senior management from larger companies appears to be more hard headed, from a business perspective, and less flexible than the smaller companies. This again speaks to the probability that the larger the company the less likely senior management will be called upon to interact with or supervise persons with disabilities.
It is interesting to note from these findings that not many organizations consider themselves to be very proactive with regard to the hiring and retention of persons with disabilities.
It is believed that these findings, along with other findings from the SHRM study, and another study involving structured interviews with 58 corporate leaders, will enable the Wichita group to research, test, refine and apply successful organizational development approaches. It is believed that these will allow organizations to build a culture that is more favorable to the employment of persons with disabilities and put in place internal structure, policies and procedures that will help co-workers and managers at all supervisory levels to understand and benefit from this valuable but sorely neglected segment of the labor pool.
Return to the Table of Contents
VI – Appendix
Appendix I – General traces for the three segments of the focus group.
Appendix II – General traces for all three segments showing what is being discussed in the focus group at high points and low points of agreement.
Appendix III – Comparative traces for all three segments showing differences between:
a) those companies with or without a policy for hiring persons with disabilities
b) those companies having more than 500 or fewer than 500 employees
c) those individual respondents having the title of CEO/President, Chief Operating Officer or Director of Operations and those respondents having a different title
d) those individual respondents who believe that financial incentives for the hiring of persons with disabilities are Very Necessary or Not Very Necessary
Appendix IV – Quantitative responses of individuals to a set of questions about disability and employment issues.
Appendix V – Demographic charts
Appendix VI – Detailed methodological note
Appendix VII– Text of the recorded focus group with second by second timing for each of the three segments, including a five-second delay corresponding to general aggregated reaction times of respondents.
Return to the Table of Contents
Appendix I
General traces for the three segments of the focus group
Return to the Appendix
Return to the Table of Contents
Appendix II
General traces for all three segments showing what is being discussed in the focus group at highpoints and low points of agreement
Return to the Appendix
Return to the Table of Contents
Appendix III
Comparative traces for all three segments showing differences between:
- Those companies with or without a policy for hiring people with disabilities
- Those companies having more than 500 or fewer than 500 employees
- Those individual respondents having the title of CEO/President, Chief Operating Officer or Director of Operations, and those respondents having a different title
- Those individual respondents who believe that financial incentives for the hiring of people with disabilities are “Very Necessary” or “Not Very Necessary”
Return to the Appendix
Return to the Table of Contents
A Comparative traces for all three segments showing differences between those companies with or without a policy for hiring people with disabilities.
B Comparative traces for all three segments showing differences between those companies having more than 500 or fewer than 500 employees.
C Comparative traces for all three segments showing differences between those individual respondents having the title of CEO/President, Chief Operating Officer or Director of Operations, and those respondents having a different title.
D Comparative traces for all three segments showing differences between those individual respondents who believe that financial incentives for the hiring of people with disabilities are “Very Necessary” or “Not Very Necessary.”
Return to the Appendix
Return to the Table of Contents
Appendix IV
Quantitative responses of individuals to a set of questions
about disability and employment issues
Return to the Appendix
Return to the Table of Contents
Appendix V
Demographic charts
Return to the Appendix
Return to the Table of Contents
Appendix VI
Detailed methodological note
Abstract
SIMULATED VIRTUAL FOCUS GROUPS: A NEW TOOL FOR ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCHERS
Mark L. Lengnick-Hall
Professor of Management
College of Business
University of Texas at San Antonio
6900 North Loop 1604
San Antonio, TX 78249-0634
Philip M. Gaunt
Professor of Communication
Director, Interdisciplinary Communication Research Institute
Wichita State University
1845 Fairmount
Wichita, KS 67260-0031
Most researchers are familiar with traditional focus groups (six to twelve people interacting in a common location with a moderator guiding the discussion toward selected topics and facilitating participation). However, focus groups are rarely used in organizational research. When they are used, it is primarily as a first step in developing questionnaires/surveys. Traditional focus groups have important limitations. Since samples are not randomly selected from a targeted population, or necessarily representative of the target population, the generalizability of results is seriously constrained. In addition, the quality of the data obtained is determined largely by the skills and motivation of the moderator. Since the data obtained are usually the actual words and behaviors of the participants, researchers are limited to qualitative analyses. New variations on the traditional focus group are now possible using the Internet and have promise for applications in organizational research. One such variation is the simulated virtual focus group. A simulated virtual focus group provides participants with a scripted focus group audio stream via the Internet to listen to and to register their levels of agreement and disagreement with what they hear—as they hear it—using their computer mouse. It is much like listening to a radio drama and responding to what you hear. This paper will (1) describe what a simulated virtual focus group is, (2) explain its advantages and limitations for organizational research, and (3) illustrate its use in an ongoing research program examining executives’ attitudes toward hiring people with disabilities. Key words: simulated virtual focus group, organizational research, Internet
Most researchers are familiar with traditional focus groups. Traditional focus groups typically consist of six to twelve people interacting in a common location with a moderator guiding the discussion toward selected topics and facilitating participation. While focus groups were originally developed to assess audience responses to programs such as radio soap operas and wartime radio propaganda in the 1940s, they became a mainstay of marketing research by the late 1960s and early 1970s (Bloor, et.al., 2001). Social scientists also added this tool to their arsenal of research methods during this period.
In comparison to a survey, which provides quantitative data that can be generalized to larger populations, focus groups provide qualitative data that cannot be generalized to larger populations (Morgan & Stinson, 1997). While surveys provide measures of things such as frequency of behavior, attitudes, and intensity of feelings, focus groups collect a broad range of information that provides context to an issue or allows a story to be told. Used together, surveys can supply the detailed quantitative data necessary to answer empirical research questions (“what” questions), and focus groups can supply the qualitative data to answer “why” questions, for example, why particular relationships are observed.
In the social sciences, focus groups have been used to supplement either quantitative or other qualitative research methods, as self-contained means of data collection, and as precursors to surveys and/or questionnaires (Morgan, 1988). Specifically, focus groups have been useful for orientation to a new field; generating hypotheses based on informants’ insights; evaluating different research sites or study populations; facilitating and developing new interview schedules, surveys, and questionnaires; getting participants’ interpretations of results from earlier studies; stimulating new ideas and creative concepts, diagnosing the potential for problems with a new program, service, or product; interpreting previously obtained quantitative results; and generating impressions of products, programs, services, institutions and other interests (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990; Morgan, 1988).
As a research tool, focus groups offer several advantages (Morgan & Stinson, 1997). Focus groups can be used to gather a wide range of information in a relatively short period of time. A moderator can explore unanticipated issues that arise during discussions. Focus groups enable researchers to understand concepts in respondents’ terms, observe non-verbal behaviors, and obtain data from groups that are more difficult to study with surveys, such as children and those who are illiterate (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990). Furthermore, focus groups don’t require large samples and complex sampling techniques.
However, focus groups do have important limitations. Since samples are not randomly selected from a targeted population, or necessarily representative of the target population, the generalizability of results is seriously constrained. In addition, the quality of the data obtained is determined largely by the skills and motivation of the moderator. Since the data obtained is usually the actual words and behaviors of the participants, researchers are limited to qualitative analyses.
Focus groups are rarely used in organizational research. For example, Dukerich, Golden, and Shortell (2002), Ramus and Steger (2000), and Van Dyne and Soon (1998) used focus groups only as a first step in developing surveys/questionnaires. The low usage of focus groups in organizational research may be due to a number of causes: researcher unfamiliarity with the technique; cost; dominance of quantitative research methods in major journals; or bias—in general—against qualitative methods.
New variations on the traditional focus group are now possible using the Internet and have promise for applications in organizational research. This paper will (1) describe what a simulated virtual focus group is, (2) explain its advantages and limitations for organizational research, and (3) illustrate its use in an ongoing research program examining executives’ attitudes toward hiring people with disabilities.
What is a Simulated Virtual Focus Group?
While a virtual focus group and a simulated virtual focus group both use the Internet as a communication medium, they do so in quite different ways. Virtual focus groups can be structured like traditional focus groups with the primary distinction being that participants are not gathered in the same room for discussion. Virtual focus groups can be either synchronous or asynchronous due to the capabilities of Internet communication media. Virtual focus groups can have an online moderator like traditional focus groups.
A virtual focus group can overcome come objections to the traditional focus group, but it still has limitations. It is possible to reach a larger, more geographically dispersed sample. It does not require collocation of participants. It can be conducted asynchronously—unlike traditional focus groups. Participants respond when they want to and from any computer that is connected to the Internet. Bloor, et. al. (2001) identify the following additional strengths of virtual focus groups: (1) they are fast and low cost, (2) they offer convenience to the researcher and participants, (3) they offer access to disperse, immobile, or difficult to convene populations, (4) they encourage revelation on sensitive topics, (5) they reduce interviewer effects, (6) data is already transcribed with no room for transcription error, and (7) they are appropriate to the naturally occurring computer-mediated interactions.
However, a virtual focus group is still limited by how many individuals can reasonably join the discussion. While focus groups with up to fifty participants have been used (Robson, 2000), moderating large groups online can be difficult, especially if done synchronously. Other weaknesses associated with virtual focus groups include (Bloor, et. al., 2001): (1) they require a level of technical competence and familiarity with the discussion medium used, (2) they inherit the population biases of Internet users, (3) it is difficult to detect deceit or to probe issues, (4) rapport can be difficult to establish, and (5) data lack non-verbal cues and information.
A simulated virtual focus group, on the other hand, uses the form of a traditional focus group, but obtains data in an altogether different way. A simulated virtual focus group provides participants with a focus group audio stream (i.e., recording) via the Internet to listen to and to register their levels of agreement and disagreement with what they hear—as they hear it—using their computer mouse. It is much like listening to a radio drama and responding to what you hear. Like a virtual focus group, it too does not require collocation or synchronized participation.
A simulated virtual focus group can be created in one of two ways. In one method, a real focus group is conducted and recorded as a first step. Participants are gathered at a common location. A moderator controls the discussion of the group. Upon completion, the recorded focus group discussion is then edited to delete digressions and other irrelevant conversation. The resulting edited, real focus group is then uploaded to a website where it can be accessed by a new group of participants who are unconstrained by either time or collocation for providing their responses. The new group of participants (there are no limits on how many can participate) then listens to the recorded discussion and registers their levels of agreement or disagreement—using their computer mouse—with what they hear. This form of simulated virtual focus group thus uses actual conversations from participants in a real focus group (in their own words and voices) to create a stimulus for additional participants to respond to at a later time.
In a second method, a focus group script is written first to elicit responses to issues of importance to the researchers. Actors are hired to read and record the focus group script. The simulated virtual focus group is thus contrived to represent opinions, attitudes, and etc. of interest to the researchers and sound as if it was obtained from a real focus group. The resulting simulated virtual focus group is then uploaded to a website where it can be accessed by a new group of participants. The new participants then listen to the recorded discussion and register their levels of agreement or disagreement—using their computer mouse—with what they hear in real time.
Data are collected from movements of the mouse and cursor on a second-by-second interval as the focus group discussion progresses. Graphs can be created showing the pattern of responses for all respondents across the entire span of the focus group time period (see Figure 1). Graphs also can be constructed to show individual or subgroup respondents’ patterns of agreement/disagreement. Responses by blocks of time (e.g., between designated points of elapsed time of the simulated virtual focus group—such as between minute three and minute ten) can be converted to quantitative measures and then used in standard statistical software packages, such as SPSS.
Advantages and Limitations of Simulated Virtual Focus Groups
A simulated virtual focus group offers users several advantages and may overcome some difficult problems encountered with traditional instruments, such as paper-and-pencil questionnaires. First, the use of simulated virtual focus groups may increase response rates with some groups, such as executives, who frequently are asked to participate in research, but also who frequently decline to take part in research. Declining response rates in survey research has become a serious problem provoking researchers to examine both its causes and its likely impact on survey statistics (Tourangeau, 2004). The use of a simulated virtual focus group may increase responses because: (a) it is novel, (b) the task is engaging, and (c) it is convenient for the respondent.
Second, the use of simulated virtual focus groups may reduce some problems with traditional questionnaires, such as response sets, social desirability, and context effects. A response set occurs when a person’s answers to questions or other responses are determined by a consistent mental set (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991). Social desirability is the tendency of respondents to present themselves in a publicly favorable light (Schwab, 1999). Context effects occur when respondents use information provided in the context of the question to determine its intended meaning (Sudman, Bradburn, & Schwarz, 1996). Context effects result from the content and number of preceding questions, the generality of the target question, the spacing of related questions in the questionnaire, introductions or lack of introductions to a block of questions, and the graphical presentation of questions in self-administered questionnaires. Simulated virtual focus groups may reduce problems with traditional questionnaires because: (a) stimulus items are conversational and heard rather than statements that are read, (b) the continuous presentation of the stimuli elicits immediate reactions and does not provide time for respondents to think about how best to present themselves, and (c) the rating task does not provide a visual tracking of previous responses.
Third, the unique presentation of a group discussion may make issues of interest to researchers more understandable to study respondents. The conversational mode of the focus group stimulus creates the climate of the survey as a social encounter (Sudman, Bradburn, & Schwarz, 1996). While participants in simulated virtual focus groups do not respond verbally to what they hear, the conversational mode presented to them is both natural and elicits responses similar to watching television and registering levels of agreement or disagreement with what is heard.
Fourth, simulated virtual focus groups may be useful for researching sensitive organizational issues, such as sexual harassment, affirmative action, and racial attitudes, that are difficult to study using traditional methods. In much the same way that projective personality methods (e.g., thematic apperception tests) allow respondents to express their true feelings by projecting them onto a neutral stimulus, simulated virtual focus groups provide respondents a similar opportunity.
While simulated virtual focus groups have the potential to become a useful organizational research tool, they do have limitations. First, this method requires participants to have access to a computer that is connected to the Internet. Consequently, there is the potential for sample bias. While approximately 60% of the adult population of the United States now has access to the Internet either at home or at work, a substantial proportion do not have such access (Tourangeau, 2004).
Second, this method requires a significant investment in time and other resources to implement. Constructing focus group scripts (or conducting focus groups to obtain the stimulus material) requires some specialized expertise and skill. Additionally, the technical requirements necessary to deliver the simulated virtual focus groups over the Internet require specialized expertise that, at this time, necessitates contracting with outside consultants.
Third, data obtained from simulated virtual focus groups cannot be analyzed as flexibly and as easily as data obtained from more traditional research methods. As described previously, data is collected via the movements of a computer mouse along a ten-point scale on a second-by-second basis. Procedures are currently being developed to provide researchers tools analogous to traditional quantitative methods of analysis.
In the next section, we describe an ongoing application of the simulated virtual focus group in organizational research.
Application Example: Executive Attitudes Toward Hiring People with Disabilities
Problem: How do you get busy executives to respond candidly to a questionnaire about attitudes toward hiring people with disabilities? Previous research on attitudes toward hiring people with disabilities has focused on human resource professionals and other more easily accessed company officials, and not executives (see, e.g., Hernandez, Keys, & Balcazar, 2000). Since executives play a major role in determining what issues their organizations consider relevant, determine overall employment policies, and set examples for others to follow, learning about their attitudes toward hiring people with disabilities could provide needed insight into the problem of low employment of this segment of the workforce.
Solution: A simulated virtual focus group may provide two major benefits. One, after gaining general acceptance that the research issue is salient to them (using traditional methods, such as incentives and endorsement by an authoritative figure), executives may be more likely to complete the task due to its novelty, engagement of interest, and convenience. Two, the simulated virtual focus group may elicit more candid responses to a potentially sensitive issue (or one that often elicits socially desirable responses) by allowing the respondents to project their attitudes onto the focus group discussion.
The development, administration, and data analysis of the simulated virtual focus group used in this study has involved several steps. These steps will be described next.
Development and Pilot Testing of the Simulated Virtual Focus Group
First, we conducted a literature review to determine what dimensions of attitudes toward hiring people with disabilities previously had been identified. Six dimensions were identified from the literature: (1) fiscal motivators for employing people with disabilities, (2) intangible benefits of employing people with disabilities, (3) fiscal arguments against employing people with disabilities, (4) administrative consequences of employing people with disabilities, (5) anticipated employee reactions to people with disabilities, and (6) moderators of acceptance and transition of people with disabilities.
Second, we developed a script (see Appendix 1) for a fictional focus group of six business people with a moderator, discussing issues related to hiring people with disabilities. Based upon the six dimensions derived from the literature, we brainstormed typical comments that might be made by real people who hold both positive and negative attitudes about hiring people with disabilities. Six fictional characters (four male and two female) were created representing different jobs in different companies: (1) a chief executive officer of a large family-owned wholesale food distributorship, (2) a chief executive officer of an exercise equipment manufacturing company, (3) a vice president of sales with a furniture manufacturing company, (4) a vice president of human resources with a fairly small software development company, (5) a human resource manager in a large bank, and (6) a personnel director with an insurance company.
The flow of the script was carefully crafted to emulate a real discussion. The resulting script was then read to several colleagues who provided reactions to the naturalness of the dialogue created. Our initial goal was to create a script that was no longer than fifteen minutes in duration. It is our belief that even though the novelty of this method will encourage executives to respond, holding their attention beyond fifteen minutes would be more difficult to achieve. Once we were satisfied with the final script, we were ready to move to the next step.
Third, we hired actors to read and record the focus group script and make it sound like a real focus group. Professional actors were hired and coached to play their roles (e.g., favorable toward hiring people with disabilities, skeptical about hiring people with disabilities, etc.). The actors were recorded and the resulting recording was assessed. We decided after listening to the recording that the final focus group should be no longer than approximately ten minutes (rather than fifteen) in duration to sustain respondents’ participation. Our initial recording was too long, and therefore shortened to meet our objectives.
Fourth, DiscoverWhy (the Boston firm that supplied the technology for the data collection and analysis) uploaded the simulated virtual focus group to their server so it could be accessed on the Internet. Once loaded on the server, the simulated virtual focus group then was pilot tested with a small group of people to identify any technical or other problems. One problem that surfaced in pilot testing was the tendency for some participants to forget to move their mouse as they were listening—in essence, leaving their mouse wherever they last registered a response. Instructions were clarified to return the mouse to the neutral position after moving it to the right or left to register agreement or disagreement with what they just heard. Additional verbal prompts were inserted into the recording of the focus group to remind participants to return the cursor to the neutral position when not registering agreement or disagreement. In order to make the rating task more manageable, we introduced two breaks; where the simulated virtual focus group actually stops and participants are presented with two or three questions with pull down menus or radio buttons for responses. This provides a little stimulus variation to sustain participation and provides us with the opportunity to collect responses to items not specifically addressed in the focus group discussion. We tested several sets of instructions and methods of administration before arriving at the most user-friendly version possible.
Administration
How do you obtain a sample of executives to assess their attitudes toward hiring people with disabilities—and then how do you capture their interest enough to participate in the research? Obtaining a sample has proven challenging, as it is in most field research. Our goal is to sample from the population of executives at large, medium, and small organizations. Gaining access to executives at companies is problematic and usually results in obtaining convenience rather than random probability samples. First, we tried using e-mail mailing lists owned by the vendor. E-mail solicitations with an attached letter from former Senator and presidential candidate Bob Dole were mailed to participants (Bob Dole’s help was obtained due to his own experience with a disability and his recognizable public persona). Follow-up e-mails then were sent to increase response rates. Despite these efforts, we still obtained a low response rate and a sample that was skewed toward smaller companies.
Second, we recently obtained access to member companies who are associated with the National Association of Workforce Development Boards. The executives of the National Association of Workforce Development Boards have agreed to help us obtain participation from their member companies nationwide. Executives at individual companies will be identified and solicited personally by the executive directors of the state associations. Solicited individuals also will receive an endorsement letter from the chief executive officer of the National Association of Workforce Development Boards.
By providing an interesting and different approach to data collection, along with providing results to the National Association of Workforce Development Boards, we hope to get executives to take time out of their busy schedules to complete the rating task. The following are procedures that will be used to administer the simulated virtual focus group:
Participants will receive an e-mail asking them to participate in the study. This e-mail will include an endorsement letter from the chief executive officer of the National Association of Workforce Development Boards. Follow-up e-mails will be sent to increase response rates.
2. Willing participants either will click on the URL embedded in the e-mail they receive to access the website with the simulated virtual focus group, or they can cut and paste the URL from their e-mail into their Internet browser.
Once participants have arrived at the website for the simulated virtual focus group, they are presented with a set of instructions. These instructions describe what participants will be listening to and how they will register their levels of agreement or disagreement using their mouse and a sliding scale on the computer screen as they listen to the discussion.
After listening to the instructions, the simulated virtual focus group begins and participants register their levels of agreement or disagreement with what they hear throughout the duration of the entire discussion.
Data Analysis
Data is collected second-by-second with the simulated virtual focus group. This data can be analyzed using a graphing capability (see Figure 1). For each second, the average responses for the sample are reported in a continuous line graph. Using different colored lines to represent different cross-sections of the data, researchers can examine levels of agreement/disagreement among groups of interest (e.g., size of organization: large, medium, and small). See Figure 2. Segments of time also can be partitioned and mean responses can be obtained. For example, if you want to examine the levels of agreement/disagreement between minute three and minute seven (of the elapsed focus group discussion), averages can be calculated and reported much like standard questionnaire data.
We are currently developing data analysis procedures to assess the reliability and dimensionality of the data. First, we used a content validity approach recommended by Schriesheim, et. al. (1993) to determine which focus group script segments were associated with each of our previously identified six dimensions. Graduate student raters sorted script segments (blocks of script containing a complete thought and representing a single attitude) into one of the six dimensions. This is similar to the retranslation process in the development of behaviorally anchored rating scales or a Q-sorting process. Acceptable levels of agreement of the script sorting were achieved (agreement = 72%). The result of this process is the identification of each script segment grouped by its overarching dimension (e.g., fiscal motivators for employing people with disabilities, intangible benefits of employing people with disabilities, etc.).
Second, once the individual segments have been categorized by dimension, the next task is to identify where in the elapsed time of the focus group chronology, individual script segments are located. By identifying where individual script segments are located, we then can convert the data to means and treat the script segments equivalent to traditional questionnaire items. Then, we can assess whether or not script segments previously identified as related to the same dimension receive similar responses (i.e., reliability assessment within dimensions). The procedure described above will allow us to decompose the simulated virtual focus group script into its component parts and treat it as if it were a more traditional questionnaire for analysis purposes.
We hope that by developing data analysis procedures similar to those used in more traditional quantitative research methods that we will be able to draw stronger inferences about issues of interest. We also hope that by using this methodology, we are able to conduct research on a group of participants for whom it typically is difficult to obtain access and to study an issue for which it typically is difficult to obtain candid responses.
Conclusions and Opportunities for Researchers
Ironically, the development of simulated virtual focus groups using the Internet has its roots in the early stages of focus group development. As reported by Merton (1987), the original experimental procedure used to develop focus groups consisted of twelve people at a time who were seated in a radio studio where they listened to wartime radio propaganda programs. Each chair had a red and a green button on its side. Members of the focus group were asked to press the red button each time they responded negatively to what they heard and to press the green button each time they responded positively to what they heard. Because of his dissatisfaction with an approach that simply quantified positive and negative responses, Merton created an interviewing procedure for the groups, which would help researchers obtain subjective reactions to what was heard in the radio program. From that point forward, what we now describe as traditional focus groups evolved and became the dominant approach, whereas the original procedure focusing on agreement/disagreement was abandoned.
With the advent of technology and the availability of the Internet, researchers have reconceptualized the traditional focus group by going back to its original format. However, rather than relying upon simple agree/disagree responses, simulated virtual focus groups allow researchers to tap into intensity of feelings. Furthermore, by using simulated virtual focus groups, researchers can obtain some of the benefits of traditional questionnaire/survey approaches, such as large-scale sampling and ability to analyze items and dimensionality of constructs and yet not be constrained by limitations of traditional focus groups, such as small sample sizes, qualitative analyses, and need for synchronous delivery and collocation.
Simulated virtual focus groups provide organizational researchers a unique method for studying issues of interest—especially for studying sensitive topics. As with any new method, and especially methods based upon rapidly developing technology, there are many obstacles to overcome. While simulated virtual focus groups have been proposed to overcome some traditional problems with questionnaires (e.g., response sets, social desirability, and context effects), future research will have to establish whether such claims are realized.
References
Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., & Robson, K. (2001) Focus groups in social research. London: Sage Publications.
Dukerich, J.M., Golden, B.R., & Shortell, S.M. 2002. Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder: The Impact of Organizational Identification, Identity, and Image on the Cooperative Behaviors of Physicians. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47: 507-533.
Hernandez, Brigida, Christopher Keys, and Fabricio Balcazar. 2000. “Employer Attitudes Toward Workers with Disabilities and Their ADA Employment Rights: A Literature Review.” Journal of Rehabilitation, 66(4): 4-16.
Merton, R. (1987) Focused interviews and focus groups: continuities and discontinuities. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51: 550-557.
Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Morgan, D., & Stinson, L. (1997) What are focus groups? Alexandria, VA: Section on Survey Research Methods, American Statistical Association
Ramus, C.A. & Steger, U. 2000. The Roles of Supervisory Support Behaviors and Environmental Policy in “Econinitiatives’ at Leading-Edge European Companies. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 605-626.
Robson, K. (2000) Lay evaluations of quality of care and skill. Paper presented at the International and American Association for Dental Research Annual Meeting, Washington DC, 5-8 April.
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R.L. (1991) Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. Boston MA: McGraw-Hill.
Schriesheim, C.A., Powers, K.J., Scandura, T.A., Gardiner, C.C., & Lankaua, M.J. (1993) Improving construct measurement in management research: Comments and a quantitative approach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of paper-and-pencil survey-type instruments. Journal of Management, 19(2): 385-417.
Schwab, D.L. (1999) Research methods for organizational studies. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publisher.
Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. London: Sage.
Tourangeau, R. (2004) Survey research and societal change. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 55, 28.1-28.27.
Van Dyne, L. & Soon, A. 1998. Organizational citizenship behavior of contingent workers in Singapore. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 692-703.
Return to the Appendix
Return to the Table of Contents
Appendix VII
Text of the focus group with second-by-second timing for each of the three segments, including a five-second delay corresponding to general aggregated reaction times of respondents. Times are shown in bold.
VIRTUAL FOCUS GROUP
Moderator
(0) Before we begin we would like to remind everyone that you will be using your sliders to rate agreement or disagreement with what is being said. You’ll be setting your slider to 5 for neutral, 0 for complete disagreement, 10 for complete agreement, or any number in between. Right now your slider should be on 5 or neutral and you should return your slider to 5 after each person has finished speaking and when the moderator is giving instructions or asking a question. (30)
SEGMENT 1
Pat (35) Well, as you know, we’re here to talk about employing people with disabilities, the advantages and disadvantages. Let’s start with the advantages, Anyone?
Jean (45) Well, I think that on the whole the general public tends to look favorably on those companies that do employ people with disabilities. They are viewed as being good citizens, you know socially responsible. (57) Of course, I’m not saying that is the only reason employers should consider hiring people with disabilities, but it can have a positive side effect.
Moderator
(60) I hope that everyone is using their slider now to show how much they agree or disagree with what was just said. And now you should set your slider back to five or neutral to get ready for the next comment.
Eric (70) I’ve heard several employers say that people with disabilities tend to have more loyalty to a company and tend not to switch employers often. That’s particularly important in the IT industry where workers tend to switch jobs all the time.
John (94) And, along the same lines, in some sectors where there are workforce shortages, people with disabilities could make a valuable contribution and add to a company’s competitive edge, assuming they’re qualified of course.
Jean (106) There’s another reason. As a food distributor, we supply several large grocery chains in different states. There’s one down in Texas that has taken to hiring people with disabilities, along with ethnic minorities, because their clientele is so diverse. That grocer in Texas says that this has increased their business quite a lot, so sometimes there are sound business reasons to look at people with disabilities.
Bob (128) Well, companies of any size have to comply with ADA requirements anyway, so I guess pretty soon the government will be forcing us to employ people with disabilities. It seems as though more and more the government is interfering with the way our businesses are run.
John (144) I agree. I don’t like government intervention that requires us to hire individuals with disabilities. In fact, I think most companies would hire more people with disabilities if they didn’t have the government breathing down their necks.
Eric (157) You know there are some very smart people with disabilities out there. Look at Stephen Hawking. All right, I know he’s an exception. But he’s in a wheelchair and very seriously disabled, and he’s brilliant. He’s an asset to any company. I’d hire him.
Janet (171) You’re right, Eric. One of my colleagues has a daughter who is totally deaf, from birth. But she’s very bright. In fact she has just finished a graduate degree. Anyway, being deaf, nothing seems to bother her when she’s working. She’s a web site designer and just seems to be able to focus completely on what she’s doing. Making good money now.
Jean (193) That’s important: making good money. A lot of people with disabilities are on Social Security. If we can get them into the work force and start earning money, then they can get off welfare and start paying taxes. That’s a double saving for society. Everyone benefits.
John (209) That deaf web site designer, she’s working with computers. That makes sense. But in my business, furniture manufacturing, employees have to work with machines and that’s not always possible for people with serious physical disabilities.
Eric (223) Although it’s amazing what can be done to adapt machines.
John Sure. If a lot of physical strength is not needed. But I can see where a person with a physical disability could work in certain kinds of light manufacturing.
Jean (234) A lot depends on the kind of disability. For example, on the warehouse floor, there could be a safety issue if someone is deaf and can’t hear warnings from the fork lift trucks and other machinery. (248) But, that said there are all kinds of jobs people with disabilities could do in distribution – office jobs: accounting, inventory, billing, ordering or sales.
Bob (255) That wouldn’t work for outside sales. I can’t see my customers buying a piece of exercise equipment from someone in a wheelchair. Inside sales, maybe. As long as they don’t sound funny on the phone.
John (269) I wouldn’t want to expose some of our customers to people with major physical deformities for example, particularly when it comes to sales. (280) The truth of the matter is that some customers can be uncomfortable interacting with people with disabilities, particularly in the service sector, you know, like the fast food industry.
Eric (287) I have to agree. Let’s face it. While most people may feel guilty about their feelings, they would rather not be around individuals with disabilities. And, given the choice of having to conduct business with a disabled person or a non-disabled person, nine times out of ten customers are going to choose the non-disabled one. A company takes a risk of losing business if it hires people with disabilities.
SEGMENT 2
Bruce (5) I don’t want to get off track here, but more to the point perhaps is how co-workers view people with disabilities.
Janet Right.
Bruce (12) They have to work alongside them, or at least with them, day in and day out. What does that do to morale, and productivity, and efficiency? And what about working in teams, group projects. You know, if someone works more slowly than the rest of the team, what does that do to team morale and to productivity?
(Slight pause)
Moderator
(22) Remember to continue using your slider especially when you strongly agree or disagree with what is being said.
Pat (35) You seem to be agreeing that people generally and more specifically co-workers, at least some of them, are sometimes uncomfortable around people with disabilities. Anyone know why?
Eric (44) Well, there’s been some research on this. There was a guy gave a presentation on this at our local SHRM chapter. If you’re not used to being around people with disabilities, there’s a tendency to stare, but we’re taught that staring is not socially acceptable, so if we catch ourselves staring we feel a sort of forced embarrassment.
John (62) Another thing about co-workers is that sometimes they think that people with disabilities are less competent than they are. Of course, sometimes people with disabilities get impatient if their disability makes it difficult for them to complete a task. (76) And their co-workers can get impatient too if they have to wait for someone with a disability to finish a task. They might assume that it is the disability that’s the cause, when in fact the person may just be the methodical sort, with or without a disability.
Bob (90) Well, whether they’re patient or not, sometimes employees are resentful because they think that people with disabilities get special treatment. And of course they often do. Workplace accommodation they call it. And workplace accommodation can get pretty expensive. Special furniture, special chairs, special assistive devices.
Janet (111) But a lot of these costs are covered by federal incentives.
Jean It doesn’t have to be expensive. I’ll give you an example. I had one employee in a wheelchair, an accountant. When we hired him I asked him if he needed any special accommodations in his office. He looked it over and all he needed was for us to disconnect the automatic door closer. That didn’t cost us anything.
Bob (133) Come on, there are always costs. What about the cost of training people with disabilities? That’s an expense. And what about lack of productivity, compared to a non-disabled worker. That’s a cost factor too.
John (147) That’s right, Bob. As a business we’ve got to focus on the bottom line. No matter how much we might like to “do good” by hiring disabled people, we can’t afford to accept the risk that they might cost more and be less productive.
Eric (160) Here’s another thing. I don’t want to be negative, but in a smallish company like mine the extra paperwork you have to do if you employ people with disabilities is a pain. It’s a nuisance.
Bob (171) You’re right there, Eric! I know I’m being politically incorrect here, but employing people with disabilities involves a lot of extra things, not just cost. Some of them we’ve already talked about: special treatment, special training, special training of co-workers, special training of supervisors, special accommodation, and on and on.
John (193) I certainly agree about the hassle of paperwork. What concerns me the most though is the need for special training, because that holds up productivity and can hold up my production line. No production line, no product, no sales, no profit.
Janet (215) Well, as I just said a moment ago, that’s what the federal incentives are for.
Pat You know, I’m curious. Janet’s mentioned federal incentives several times. Do we all know what she’s talking about?
Jean (226) Well, I know there’s an incentive to remove barriers. We went through that because our warehouses were on two levels and that was causing a problem for our forklift trucks. It turned out that businesses can take a tax deduction of up to $15,000 a year to make a facility more user friendly for people with disabilities.
Bruce (245) There’s also a small business tax credit for such things as sign language interpreters, large print or Braille publications, as well as barrier removal. I think it’s something like 50% of money spent, up to a maximum credit of $5,000. That’s not chicken feed for a small business.
Eric (261) And there’s another one coming out that’s really of interest to us in software development. It’s called the IT Training Tax Credit. That’s not just for people with disabilities, but they would qualify of course.
Bob (272) It all sounds very complicated. And how much paperwork is involved there? I bet there’s a ton of it, like everything else the federal government does! I just don’t have time to deal with this.
John (285) I agree. I don’t want my people spending a lot of time figuring out ways to get a tax credit for a wider doorway. I want them spending time trying to come up with better ways to reduce costs or increase productivity. But, you know there’s one thing we haven’t talked about and that’s health insurance costs. (303) It’s bad enough having to deal with rising health insurance costs for people without disabilities, but when it comes to people with disabilities it can get out of hand. And I’m pretty sure that there are no tax incentives there. In my view, this could be a real disincentive to hire someone with a disability.
Jean (321) In my business, we’re perhaps less likely than, say a bank or a software company, to employ someone with a disability. But, that said, if I found a person who could really make a contribution to my business I’d hire him – or her – with or without a disability. (337) I’ve seen times, like all of you, I guess, when unemployment levels are very low. That would be a good time to hire someone with a disability, assuming the person is qualified. And if that person does have a disability and I can qualify for tax incentive to cover any costs involved, then that would just be icing on the cake. It’s a no-brainer. (356) This is bottom line stuff. All other things being equal, disability shouldn’t really come into it. The bottom line is the bottom line.
Eric (365) Or is the bottom line really about prejudice? I hate to say this, but do you think that people – some people at least – are just downright prejudiced against people with disabilities? Are some employers reluctant to hire people with disabilities, not because of paperwork or hassle or training or whatever but because they just don’t understand disability.
SEGMENT 3
Bruce (5) You know, what it really comes down to is building a corporate culture in which people with disabilities are understood for what they are and for what they can do and for what contribution they can make, just like anyone else.
Bob (17) Well, as you’ve probably gathered by now, I’m not exactly a bleeding heart liberal (laughter from the group), but I’m being serious here, there’s one thing that really disturbs me about hiring people with disabilities, and that is, what about law suits? (35) If you hire someone with a disability, who turns out not to a productive worker or whatever, and then fire them, aren’t you going to get sued – probably for discrimination?
Eric (46) Not necessarily. An employee who is fired must prove that he or she was fired because of discrimination based on disability – not incompetence. Of course, you’re right insofar as this is a perception that might dissuade employers from even considering hiring people with disabilities.
Bob (64) Even if the employer is in the right, lawsuits take time, cost money and you have to get those damned lawyers involved, and for what, just to prove that you’re right?
Pat (75) Well, litigation or rather fear of litigation certainly appears to be an issue and it could be a reason employers don’t employ more people with disabilities. But perhaps another reason is that employers don’t know enough about disability, generally, and don’t know enough about federal incentives. What do you think?
Jean (91) Well, in my job, I don’t have the time to get into all the details of these issues, but I certainly hope that my personnel people know about them. I guess, coming back to what Bruce was saying a few moments ago, it may be a question of trying to build a corporate culture that is favorable to the idea of hiring people with disabilities.
Janet (111) And, if those making hiring decisions believe that top management is indifferent or even downright hostile to hiring people with disabilities, it’s probably not going to happen.
Bob That’s right.
Pat So, what’s the answer?
Janet (123) I’m not sure there is one correct answer. As an HR manager, I’d say you need to make sure that your CEO, your top management, is supportive of hiring people with disabilities and is willing to say so and develop appropriate policies. Of course, one of the most powerful messages would be if a CEO hired someone with a disability to work directly in their office – (145) say a secretary or an administrative assistant, someone who is highly visible. Then, you need some kind of mechanism to implement corporate policy. Then you need to train those taking hiring decisions so that they have a good understanding of what constitutes disability and what the ADA is all about and how federal incentives can make a contribution, as you say, to the bottom line. (172) I think making a business case is most important, even more important than a social responsibility argument.
Jean (181) Perhaps it’s time for us all to recognize that abilities and not disabilities should determine a worker’s potential. Maybe that’s one way to look at it. Maybe that’s a better way to determine hiring decisions.
Pat (197) Well, however these decisions are made, the fact remains that only one third of working age Americans with disabilities are employed, full time or even part time. Our time is almost up, but quickly before we stop, why do you think that is? What are the most important reasons?
Jean (209) Ignorance perhaps. Lack of knowledge about disability, about those tax incentives we discussed, about what jobs people with certain kinds of disability can and cannot do, about workplace accommodation, and the cost of accommodation…
John (225) Cost in general, I think. Cost of accommodation, certainly, but also cost in terms of training, both for the disabled and for co-workers as well as supervisors, cost of insurance, the cost of reduced productivity, the cost of special machines and procedures.
Bob (242) I still think that the threat of lawsuits is the strongest disincentive, whether it’s from individuals or organizations or maybe even the government. And that’s independent of tax incentives or productivity or anything else. The threat’s out there and I don’t want to run that risk.
Bruce (261) The nuisance factor, that is the hassle of extra paperwork and administration, the hassle of accommodation, the hassle of special treatment and possibly the hassle of a lawsuit.
Janet (272) There’s one reason that we’ve only just skirted around and that’s prejudice against people with disabilities, prejudice by individual employees, but also by supervisors and management. It is a real factor and it’s one that we shouldn’t ignore.
Eric (290) Maybe the discomfort factor, the fact that people, both co-workers and/or customers, don’t feel comfortable interacting with people with disabilities. And that comes back to lack of knowledge, about different types of disability, and ability or lack of ability to perform certain functions. And that perhaps speaks to what we were saying about the lack of a corporate culture or mechanism that is favorable to the employment of people with disabilities.
Pat (319) Well, we seem to have come full circle so this might be a good place to stop. Thank you everybody.