legal requirements and employer responses to accommodating employees with disabilities

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND EMPLOYER RESPONSES TO ACCOMMODATING

EMPLOYEES WITH DISABILITIES

Barbara A. Lee Rutgers University

This article focuses upon the legal requirements for accommodating individuals with disabilities in the workplace and the perceptions of employers regarding barriers to accommodation. After a brief analysis of how federal courts have interpreted the ADA's accommodation requirements, the literature on accommodation is reviewed and a theoretical framework for examining employers' attitudes toward accommodation is proposed. The article then tests the framework using the results of a study of 500 New Jersey employers which elicited their experiences with and attitudes toward the accommodation of disabled workers. Suggestions for further research are provided.

Employers have provided accommodations to workers for many decades. Dis- ability leave, materni ty leave, the purchase of an ergonomic chair, or providing better lighting for workers are all examples of accommodations that many U.S. firms have provided, often without question, in order to increase worker productivity, to keep a valued employee, or to respond to the needs of a worker who, through the aging process or because of an accident, has incurred a physical impairment that requires adapting the workplace or the job. Volun- tary accommodation of workers is not new to the American workplace.

What is new for many U.S. firms is the legal requirement that they accommodate a worker with a disability. Although firms that received federal con- tracts, and all public employers, have been prohibited from discriminating on the basis of disability since 1972 (when the Rehabilitation Act was enacted), and many states have prohibited disability discrimination for decades, compre- hensive coverage for most U.S. firms did not occur until the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).

The Americans With Disabilities Act guarantees individuals the right to be

Direct all correspondence to: Barbara A. Lee, Department of Human Resource Management, School of Management and Labor Relations, Butgers University, P.O. Box 5062, New Brunswick, NJ 08903-5062.

H u m a n Resource Management Review, Copyright © 1996 Volume 6, Number 4, 1996, pages 231-251 by JAI Press Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN:1053-4822

232 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 6, NUMBER 4, 1996

free of discrimination based upon disability. But this law is not self-enforcing, and research demonstrates that employers are both ill-informed about their responsibilities under the law (Gallup 1992) and skeptical of whether they can make efficient use of such workers (Janofsky 1993). Despite the fact that employers who have hired or retained such workers have reported satisfaction with their performance and minimal cost for accommodating them (Blanck 1994, 1996; Collignon 1986; Lee & Newman 1992; Eagleton Institute of Politics, 1993b), individuals with disabilities are still vastly underrepresented in the U.S. workforce (Holmes 1994; Smolowe 1995).

Enforcement data for the first four years of the ADA's existence show some surprising results. Far from being the "wedge" in the door to employment for disabled workers (Livingston 1991), the data demonstrate that most claims are filed by currently-employed or terminated workers, rather than applicants. Between July 26, 1992 (the date the law became effective for some employers) and March 31, 1996, 63,332 disability discrimination claims were filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that enforces the ADA. Over half of all the charges (52 percent) involved challenges to a termination decision; 27 percent alleged a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation. Harassment complaints comprised 12 percent of the charges; other claims involved discipline (8 percent), layoffs (5 percent), benefits (4 percent), promotion (4 percent), wages (3.5 percent), rehiring (3 percent), and suspension (2 percent). Charges of discrimination in hiring comprised only 10 percent of the claims (EEOC 1996). 1

The EEOC data also show that the disabilities that were discussed in Con- gressional debates, such as hearing and visual impairments, mobility impairments, and developmental disabilities, have not been the subject of the major- ity of the discrimination charges. During the same time period, the most frequent disability claimed by individuals who alleged disability discrimination is back impairment (19 percent). Emotional or psychiatric disorders (12 percent) and neurological impairments (11. percent) were the second and third most frequent type of disability involved in the claims (EEOC 1996).

The enforcement 'data are troubling, because they suggest that a major motivation of the ADA--to increase the representation of individuals with disabilities in the workplace, has been unsuccessful. This is borne out by data that show that, five years after the ADA's passage, the proportion of individuals with disabilities who were unemployed was identical to the 1986 figure (Smolowe 1995, p. 55), and the proportion of individuals with disabilities who were working declined between 1986 and 1994 (Holmes 1994, p. A18). It is currently-employed workers who represent 90 percent of the EEOC claims; many of the legal challenges involve disabilities that are not congenital, but which developed during the individual's employment. Because the ADA does not specify how the disability must be acquired, any individual who can meet the statutory definition is protected by the law.

This article discusses one component of the ADA: the employer's obligation to provide a "reasonable accommodation" for a qualified worker who has a disability that meets the statutory definition for coverage. After a brief analy-

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND EMPLOYER RESPONSES 233

sis of how federal courts have interpreted the ADA's legal requirements, the literature on accommodation is reviewed, and a preliminary theoretical framework for examining employers' attitudes toward workplace accommodation is proposed. The article then tests the framework using the results of a study of 500 New Jersey employers which elicited their experiences with and attitudes toward the accommodation of disabled workers. The article concludes with suggestions for further research.

TRENDS IN JUDICIAL ANALYSIS OF ADA CLAIMS

The ADA has four elements which must be satisfied: (1) the individual bringing the claim must have a disability that meets the statute's definition; (2) the individual must be qualified to perform the position's essential functions; (3) the employer must demonstrate that it attempted to determine whether a reasonable accommodation would enable the worker to perform the job; and (4) the employer may demonstrate that the accommodation requirement poses an undue hardship (Lee 1993a). If a plaintiff cannot meet the tests of elements 1 and/or 2, the judge typically either grants summary judgment for the employer or dismisses the charges.

What is a Disability?

ADA's language states that the impairment must "substantially limit" one or more major life functions; work is considered a major life function. Courts are interpreting the "substantially limited" language very narrowly, ruling that the impairment must preclude the individual from working in a broad range of jobs, not just the job the individual holds (Zappa 1991). Thus, a supervisor whose diabetes resulted in visual impairment was found not to be disabled because she could work in other nonsupervisory jobs within the company (Schluter v. Industrial Coils, Inc. 1996), and an individual whose back disorder precluded his climbing telephone poles or lifting items over forty pounds was found not to be disabled because he had not shown that he was prevented from working in a broad range of jobs (Matthews v. TCI of Illinois 1996).

This exclusion of individuals whose impairment affects their ability to do their own job, but may not preclude them from employment more generally, has troubling policy implications. These are typically experienced workers whose disorders are not fabricated, many of whom could be accommodated at relatively low cost. The federal courts appear to be interpreting "disability" to protect only those workers with disorders so severe that they limit that individual's ability to do almost any type of work.

Who is Qualified?

The ADA defines a qualified individual with a disability as one who "with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions" of the


position. If the employer can convince a judge that the applicant or employee cannot perform the essential functions, even with accommodation, the judge rules for the employer.

Courts have typically deferred to the employer's definition of the position's essential functions unless the employer had claimed that trivial or peripheral functions were "essential" (Lee 1993). Although most essential functions involve performing physical tasks, such as answering the telephone or lifting, courts have accepted employers' arguments that the ability to work in a team setting (Misek-Falkoff v. IBM Corp. 1994), the ability to follow supervisory orders without emotional outbursts (Mancini v. General Electric 1993), and dealing with the public (Larkins v. Ciba Vision Corp. 1994) may be essential functions. Furthermore, regular and predictable attendance has been viewed by numerous courts as an essential function of a wide range of positions (Carr v. Reno 1994; Tyndall v. National Education Center 1994; Jackson v. Veterans Administration 1994). This doctrine has also led most federal courts to reject employee assertions that being allowed to work at home is a legally-mandated reasonable accommodation (Whillock v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. 1995).

What is a Reasonable Accommodation?

The ADA does not define "reasonable accommodation," but lists several examples, such as job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, modification of training or examination materials, or physical modifications to the work space or other areas of the employer's facilities. For those employees who can demonstrate that they meet the law's definition of"disability" and "qualified" individual, the next step is to identify one or more accommodations that would enable the worker to perform the essential functions of the position.

In the four years since the ADA became effective, most ADA lawsuits have not reached the issue of accommodation because the plaintiff has been unable to establish either a legally-protected disability or that he or she is "qualified." The few cases that have discussed accommodation have typically involved not an employer's failure to accommodate at all, but an employee's claim that the accommodation was unsuccessful or insufficient. For example, in Carozza v. Howard County (1995), a secretary with bipolar disorder claimed that her employer had not properly accommodated her disability. The court found that the employer had provided her with additional time and additional training on the word processing program, job counseling, and medical leave; that none of the accommodations was successful in assisting the secretary with the skills that she needed to develop was not evidence of failure to accommodate. Sim- ilarly, in Hankins v. The Gap, Inc. (1996), the court praised the employer's attempts to accommodate a warehouse worker with migraine headaches by offering her sick leave, in-house medical treatment, and additional rest time; the employee's request for a transfer was not reasonable and would not have improved her job performance, according to the court.

Although disability leave is one example of a reasonable accommodation, the


courts have balked at employees' requests for unlimited unpaid leave in order to seek medical treatment or therapy. InMyers v. Hose (1995), a court rejected a bus driver's claim that the ADA required the company to give him unlimited time off to attempt to treat his congestive heart failure and diabetes. And in Hudson v. MCI Telecommunications Corp. (1996), another court rejected the employee's argument that the ADA required her employer to give her indefinite unpaid leave to remedy her carpal tunnel syndrome. Nor does the ADA require the employer to hold the employee's position for him or her if the employee's accommodation is a leave (although the Family and Medical Leave Act does require reinstatement if the employee's leave does not exceed twelve weeks or the equivalent in intermittent or partial leave).

Other potential accommodations considered by courts have been a paid parking space for an employee with severe mobility impairments (Lyons v. The Legal Aid Society 1995) and an aide for a teacher with head trauma and related cognitive disorders (Borkowski v. Valley Central School District 1994). A leave of absence for rehabilitation may also be a reasonable accommodation for a worker with alcoholism, but the employer is not required to excuse misconduct, either at or outside of work, that is related to the individual's abuse of alcohol (Despears v. Milwaukee County Medical Complex 1995).

The law requires the employer to consider potential accommodations; if the employer determines that no accommodation will allow the employee to perform the essential functions of the position, then the accommodation need not be made. But an employer who ignores the ADA's requirement that accommodations be considered may encounter legal liability, even if the accommodation analysis would have demonstrated that no accommodation is possible (Hindman v. GTE Data Services 1994).

What is an Undue Hardship?

The ADA does not require the employer to accommodate the employee if the accommodation results in undue hardship for the employer. The law defines "undue hardship" as "an action requiring significant difficulty or expense" (42 U.S.C. sec. 12111(9)). There is no monetary limitation in the statute or regulations on the accommodation requirement; guidelines are provided in the regulations for determining whether a particular employer can afford a specific accommodation. Thus, small employers may escape a costly accommodation that a larger firm with greater resources may be required to make.

Although few courts have addressed the question of when an accommodation is too costly (an exception, litigated under the Rehabilitation Act, is Nelson v. Thornburgh 1984), several courts have analyzed an employer's argument that an accommodation was significantly difficult.

The most frequently-analyzed argument is the safety defense. Under the ADA's regulations, an employer must demonstrate that the employee is a "direct threat" to the safety of that worker or others. An individualized determination must be made that considers the employee's medical history, work and discipline history, the essential functions of the job, and how the employee


could be accommodated more safely. Employers who do not provide evidence of this type of individualized determination do not prevail at the summary judgment stage (Rizzo v. Children's World Learning Center 1996); they must show that the employee's medical or psychiatric disorder affects him or her in such a way as to pose a significant safety risk to co-workers or the public (Sifkin v. Village of Arlington Heights 1994).

Another type of accommodation that courts have found to present an undue hardship is accommodating workers who are disruptive, insubordinate, or who physically threaten their supervisors or co-workers. For example, in Allen v. Stone (1992), a nursing supervisor with a personality disorder was rude and disruptive, claiming that the hospital was required to accommodate her by eliminating any supervision of her work. The court ruled that her proposed accommodation was unreasonable and that her disruptiveness, albeit related to her disability, justified termination. Similar results obtained in Gordon v. Runyon (1994), where a mail handler with a psychiatric disorder had a history of disruptive behavior and was terminated when he brought a stun gun to work. Misconduct related to alcohol abuse is not protected under the law, and may serve as the grounds for discipline or discharge (Williams v. Widnall 1996).

Implications of Judicial Interpretation

Since the ADA went into effect in 1992, most federal courts have interpreted its requirements fairly narrowly. While it is impossible to know how many cases settled prior to trial, and the costs of these settlements, the cases that have resulted in a written opinion do not show that the law is burdening employers with either costly or disruptive accommodations. Furthermore, when combined with the research that has found that more than half of all accommodations are cost-free and that many others involve only a modest cost (Blanck 1994, 1996; Collignon 1986; Lee & Newman 1995), employers should have little to fear from the ADA. The literature on workplace accommodation, and data gathered from a sample of New Jersey employers, however, demonstrate that stereotypes and bias persist, particularly in small firms. The next section of the article discusses the literature on this topic, and presents and tests a theoretical framework for examining this issue.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Research on disability and work has focused primarily on economic issues (for example, social welfare programs for individuals with disabilities (Berkowitz 1987)) or on the attributes of disabled individuals in the workplace (Freedman & Keller 1981). The rehabilitation literature has examined attitudes toward workers with disabilities, and has sought to counter the strong stereotypes still held concerning the competence of workers with disabilities (Greenwood & Johnson, 1987). More recently, theories from psychology have been used to


begin to address the perceptions held about workers with disabilities by supervisors, co-workers, or recruiters (Stone & Colella 1996) and the socialization of newly-hired workers with disabilities (Colella, DeNisi, & Lund 1993).

But little research has been conducted on the accommodation process (Lee & Newman 1995) or on employer perceptions about accommodating workers with disabilities. Previous research, predominantly in the rehabilitation literature, demonstrates that employers have mixed attitudes about hiring workers with disabilities. Although some research has reported positive attitudes toward hiring a worker with a disability, there may be a gap between self-reported positive (or neutral) attitudes toward workers with disabilities and the actual decision to hire such an individual (Lyth 1973). One study criticized earlier research on employer attitudes toward hiring individuals with disabilities as "dated and present[ing] an unclear picture about employer attitudes toward the disabled" (McFarlin, Song, & Sonntag 1991). A review of research on attitudes toward workers with disabilities that affect their employment opportunities concluded that prior research has disproportionately focused on either the "defects" of the worker with a disability or on negative employer attitudes; other influences on an individual's career development, such as families, schools, and rehabilitation professionals, have not received sufficient attention (McCarthy 1988).

Researchers have found it difficult to study work accommodations because, as a survey of Fortune 500 companies demonstrated, many companies do not track workers with disabilities or keep data on the accommodations provided (McFarlin, Song, & Sonntag 1991). Employers also tend to believe that the general cost of accommodating workers with disabilities is prohibitive, despite the fact that in the same survey, two thirds of the respondents characterized their workers with disabilities as good performers with normal rates of absen- teeism (p. 113). This research demonstrates that employers, either through inexperience with or bias against disabled workers, have exaggerated fears about their cost and their work performance.

Research conducted in New Jersey by the Eagleton Institute of Politics (EIP) revealed employer ambivalence toward hiring and accommodating workers with disabilities. In a series of focus group discussions, employers cited the following barriers to hiring people with disabilities: no applicants, limited capabilities, cost of physical changes to the workplace, health care costs, safety concerns, liability issues, coworker and customer resistance, longer training time, and the need for additional supervision. Most of these concerns were expressed by employers who had not hired a worker with a disability (EIP 1993a). A second report prepared by the EIP involved a telephone survey of 600 individuals representing New Jersey companies (1993b). The respondents identified the following barriers to hiring individuals with disabilities: lack of applicants, safety concerns, lack of proper equipment, health care cost, potential resistance from coworkers, and lack of management support. Yet the employers in this sample who had experience with workers with disabilities reported that the performance and attitudes of these workers were as good or better than that of nondisabled workers, and their health problems were no


more frequent or serious overall than those of nondisabled workers. More than half (57 percent) reported that the cost of hiring a worker with a disability was about the same as hiring a nondisabled worker. The survey also found that large companies are more likely to have hired a worker with a disability and that their leaders are more likely to have positive attitudes toward workers with disabilities (EIP 1993b).

Prior research has found that employers who have hired or retained workers with disabilities in the past have done so only for those disabilities that are "easier" or less costly to accommodate, (Combs & Omvig 1986; Greenwood & Johnson 1987; Chirikos 1991). Furthermore, employers are more likely to hire or retain workers with physical disablities than those with other types of disabling conditions, such as psychiatric disorders (Combs & Omvig 1986; Mancuso 1990).

Employers, particularly small business owners, have several concerns about the cost of accommodating workers with disabilities (Note: "The Duty to Ac- commodate" 1991; Comment: "Reasonable Accommodation... "1991). Concern about possible co-worker (and management) resentment of disabled workers is also on the minds of employers (Comment: "Overcoming Barriers" 1991, p. 1466), despite the fact that this resentment may stem from the same preju- dices and stereotypes that the ADA was, in part, designed to battle. And, of course, the employers are particularly concerned about their potential liability should a disabled worker bring a charge under the ADA. But, as the previous section of the article demonstrates, employees attempting to use the ADA to challenge alleged disability discrimination have found that the courts are interpreting the law very narrowly, and, in many cases, judges are awarding summary judgment for employers without holding a trial. 2

The literature on accommodation, and the related literature on disability and work, suggest a potential theoretical framework for examining the attitudes of employers toward accommodating workers with disabilities.

The framework (see Figure 1) posits that characteristics of the organization, such as its size and the type of industry, as well as the experience of the organization with one or more workers who are disabled, will influence the perceptions of the employer concerning the feasibility of accommodating a worker with a disability. Furthermore, employers' beliefs about "desirable" characteristics of disabled workers, such as the type of disability (whether it is "hidden" or visible, whether it may be manifested in unpredictable behavior, such as with certain psychiatric disorders or neurological impairments), and whether the disability was incurred prior to or after hiring, will influence perceptions about accommodation. In addition, the employer's perceptions concerning the feasibility of accommodation will be influenced by his or her concerns about the perceived cost of the accommodation, perceived disruption by either the accommodation or the worker him or herself, and potential co-worker reactions to the disabled worker or the accommodation. Finally, the employer's willingness to accommodate a worker with a disability ("Attitude toward Accommodation") will be determined by the interaction among organizational


Employer Characteristics --size --industry --experience with a

disabled worker

>

Employee I Characteristics I --type of disability I

-visibility -predictibility I

--onset of disability I

$ Employer P e r c e p t i o n s About Accommodat ion - - c o s t --disruption --co-worker response

E m p l o y e r Att i tude Toward Accommodat ion

Figure 1. Theoretical Framework for Examining Employers' Attitude toward Accommodat- ing a Worker with a Disability

characteristics, characteristics of the worker with the disability, and the employer's perceptions about accommodation.

In order to determine whether the theoretical framework had identified characteristics that were relevant to employers' perceptions about accommodating disabled workers, a survey of such perceptions was conducted.

EMPLOYER ATTITUDES TOWARD ACCOMMODATION

Methodology

Sample. The target population for this study was all private sector employers in the State of New Jersey. New Jersey is a heavily industrialized state with a mix of service industries as well; confining the survey to one state reduced the variability of state law and regulation that would have affected a multi-state study. For these reasons, the sample was limited to companies that had a work site in New Jersey.

The names of all private sector establishments in New Jersey with fifteen or more employees, including address, Standard Industry Code, municipal code, county code, and number of employees, were obtained from the New Jersey Department of Labor. A stratified random sample of 500 establishments was drawn from this population. The sample was stratified by four size categories: 15-24 employees, 25-99 employees, 100-499 employees, and 500 + employees (i.e., one hundred twenty-five establishments were randomly selected from each of these size categories for a sample size of 500). A stratified sample was used in order to oversample large companies (establishments with more than 100 employees), since 88 percent of all companies in New Jersey have fewer than 20 employees (N.J. Dept. of Labor 1993).

240 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW "¢OLUME 6, NUMBER 4, 1996

The Questionnaire. A questionnaire, consisting of 88 yes/no and forced-choice items, was developed. Questions used in the Gallup survey (1992) and the Eagleton Institute survey (1993b) were used or adapted, as well as a significant number of original items which were developed as a result of earlier research (Lee & Newman 1992).

The questionnaire asked these employers whether they had hired a worker with a disability during the past three years, what types of accommodations they had made if they had workers with disabilities, and how much these accommodations had cost. In addition, questionnaire items focused upon (a) attitudes toward hiring and accommodating workers with disabilities; (b) perceptions of barriers to employing workers with disabilities; (c) perceptions of the difficulty of accommodating various disabilities; and (d) attitudes regarding the performance of workers with disabilities. 3 Respondents were also asked to provide data on company size, industry, company age, number of sites in New Jersey and elsewhere, the company's union status, and the job title of the respondent.

Procedure. A preliminary test of the questionnaire was performed by sending it to twenty companies that had participated in an earlier study. Respondents were asked to reply to the questionnaire and to identify items that were unclear or confusing. Modifications were made to the questionnaire in response to the pilot group's suggestions.

The revised questionnaire was then sent to the chief human resource officer at each of the 500 companies. A follow-up mailing was done one month after the initial mailing. Eighteen questionnaires were returned as undeliverable. One hundred thirty-one companies returned usable questionnaires, for a response rate of 27%. Analysis of nonrespondents indicated that respondents were roughly comparable to nonrespondents in terms of company size. How- ever, company size had a strong effect on many of the questionnaire items. Therefore, all means and standard deviations were adjusted by weighting for size in order to estimate the target population.

A concern during the development of the questionnaire was that the placement of the attitudinal items might bias the responses. Therefore, half of the sample received questionnaires with the attitudinal items appearing early in the questionnaire, and the other half of the sample received questionnaires with the attitudinal items placed at the end. Statistical analysis found no differences in response patterns between the two forms of the questionnaire.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Respondents represented the following industries: 4 construction and agricul- ture (10%); finance and insurance (2%); manufacturing (36%); services (3%); trade (wholesale and retail) (19%); transportation, communication, and public utilities (30%). Nineteen percent of the respondents characterized their industry as "other," which included health care organizations, private social service


agencies, computer companies, research and development organizations, and child care facilities. Forty-two percent of the respondents reported that some or all of their employees were represented by a trade union.

Employment of Workers with Disabilities. Approximately 43 percent of the respondents reported that their company had hired a worker with a disability during the past three years. This figure is substantially lower than the findings of a 1992 Gallup Poll of 400 businesses across the United States, in which 66 percent of the respondents had hired a worker with a disability in the past five years. It is equal, however, to the figure 5 reported by the Eagleton Institute study of a random sample of New Jersey employers (1993b). Forty-five percent reported that they had not hired a worker with a disability during the past three years, and 12 percent of the respondents did not know.

Acquisition of Disability. Although the ADA prohibits discrimination in hiring, it also requires employers to accommodate workers who become disabled after they are hired. To that end, respondents were asked whether they had a worker who became disabled after he or she was hired, and if so, whether or not that individual left the company. Thirty-one percent of the respondents reported that one or more of their workers became disabled while on the company's payroll; of those employees, 33 percent left the company. Fifty-eight percent of the respondents, however, stated that none of their employees had become disabled after being hired.

Types of Disabilities. Prior research has demonstrated that many employers have a "hierarchy" of disabilities; that they prefer to hire individuals with disabilities they can see or understand, such as sensory impairments (hearing, sight), mobility impairments (paralysis), or developmental disabilities (such as mental retardation) (Combs & Omvig 1986). The current study bore these earlier findings out. Sixty-six respondent companies reported the disability for 158 workers (reflecting multiple workers with disabilities for some respondents). Sixteen percent of these workers had a disease (cancer, diabetes, epilep- sy, lupus). Seventeen percent had mobility impairments (paralysis, missing limbs) and another 18 percent were hearing impaired or deaf. Fourteen percent were reported to be developmentally disabled (most being mentally retarded). Nine percent were visually impaired. Seven percent had cognitive or learning disabilities, 5 percent had psychological disabilities, and 5 percent had or were recovering from alcoholism.

Accommodations Made. Respondents were asked what type of accommodations they had made for their workers with disabilities. Table 1 displays the types of accommodations made. The largest proportion, 51 percent, reported they provided additional supervision or training for their worker(s) with disabilities. Approximately half of the respondents (49%) indicated that their worker(s) needed a part-time or modified work schedule or additional time off. This finding is similar to the Eagleton Institute survey, which found that 47 percent of the companies had provided a more flexible work schedule for their


Table 1 Type of Accommodation Provided (weighted percent

answering yes, weighted by size)

Accommodation Mean

Modifications to Building or Work Area 44% Purchase or Adaptation of Equipment 35% Reassignment of Tasks to Coworkers 45% Reassignment of Worker with Disability to Different Job 26% Assistant, Interpreter, Reader 26% Part-time, Modified Work Schedule, Time Off 49% Additional Supervision or Training 51% Other 01% No Accommodation Was Made 43%

disabled worker(s). Other frequently-provided accommodations included reas- signing tasks to co-workers, modifying the building or work area, and purchas- ing or adapting equipment. These findings are also consistent with the Ea- gleton Institute study.

Accommodation Costs. Prior research has demonstrated that employers fear that accommodating workers with disabilities will be costly (McFarlin, Song, & Sonntag 1991). Research on the actual cost of accommodating workers with disabilities, however, has not supported that concern. Studies conducted by Collignon (1986), by Lee and Newman (1992), and by Blanck (1994, 1996) demonstrated that most accommodations cost less than $500, and that more than half of the accommodations in all of these studie's cost nothing.

Respondents were asked to respond to three questions concerning the cost of accommodation: the cost of the most expensive accommodation they made, the cost of the least expensive accommodation they made, and, if only one worker had been accommodated, the cost of that accommodation. The present survey bore out the findings of earlier research. Table 2 presents the results.

With regard to the cost of the most expensive accommodation, 38 percent of the respondents reported a cost of $0, and another 24 percent reported a cost under $500. At the high end, 11 percent of the respondents reported that the most expensive accommodation cost over $5,000.

When asked about the least expensive accommodation made, the proportion of no- or low cost accommodations increased substantially. Ninety percent of the respondents reported an accommodation cost of less than $500, while no respondents reported that their least expensive accommodation cost over $5,000. Very few respondents reported making only one accommodation (n = 12). Of those, 52 percent reported that the one accommodation was cost-free, and the remaining 48 percent reported a cost of over $1,000.

Attitudes Toward Workers with Disabilities. Previous research has demonstrated that many employers fear hiring workers with disabilities, citing their


Table 2 Cost of Accommodations (weighted percentages) 1

Cost of Most Expensive Accommodation

Cost Percentage

Nothing 38 Less than $500 24 $500-1,000 5 $1,001-5,000 21 Over $5,000 11

Cost of Least Expensive Accommodation Nothing 63 Less than $500 27 $500-1,000 10 $1,001-5,000 0 Over $5,000 0

~Based on 66 companies who had accommodated one or more worker with a disability.

increased cost, safety concerns, potential legal liability, reactions of co-workers and customers, and the need for additional supervision (Eagleton Institute 1993a). The survey asked employers about what problems they had had with their disabled workers and which disabilities they believed simply could not be accommodated at their worksite. Size of the respondent in the current study had a significant effect on employers' attitudes. ~ Respondents from large companies (over 100 employees) were far more likely to view workers with disabilities in a positive manner. They were also far more likely to report having hired one or more such worker.

Because the survey responses included many employers who have had no experience with disabled workers, the survey asked respondents to answer the question about problems with disabled workers either from their own experience or on the basis of what they had read or heard about disabled workers. Potential problems included transportation, training, education, inexperience, absences, interpersonal problems, and communication skills. Responses were measured on a Likert scale with 5 indicating that the disability was strongly perceived as a problem.

Table 3 reports the perceived problems in employing workers with disabilities. None of the potential problems received a strongly positive response, suggesting that most respondents did not perceive any of these problems as insurmountable. Several, however, had means approaching 3, which was the "neutral" category. Respondents appeared to believe that inexperience of the worker with a disability and transportation problems were the most likely to occur, although the large standard deviations on those items demonstrate the


Table 3 Problems the Company Perceives with Workers With Disabilities (weighted means)

Problem Mean Standard Deviation

Transportation 2.93 1.24 Insufficient Training 2.58 1.16 Insufficient Education 2.52 1.21 Inexperience 2.97 1.19 Frequent Absences 2.54 1.26 Difficult to Supervise 2.57 1.03 Difficulty Getting Along With Coworkers 2.28 0.80 Poor Work Attitude 2.08 0.97 Disability Interferes With Performance 2.76 1.26 Communicating With the Individual 2.84 1.04 Responses to Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree

substantial differences in opinion within the respondent group. The strongest disagreement was with the statement that workers with disabilities had poor attitudes toward their work.

Other statistical tests, which are not reported here, 7 confirmed the relation- ship between an employer's experience with disabled workers and employer perceptions that workers with disabilities are more likely to have performance problems and that particular disabilities cannot be accommodated.

Perceived Barriers to Accommodation. The heart of this survey was employers' attitudes toward potential barriers that prevent or impede the accommodation of workers with disabilities. Given the research results reported above and the theoretical model developed earlier, it was posited that attitudinal differences would be found based on company size and experience with disabled workers.

Respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed that certain problems were major barriers to employing persons with disabilities. Their weighted mean responses and standard deviations are reported in Table 4.

Mean employer responses do not indicate strong agreement with any of the potential barriers. Barriers perceived to be the most difficult were accommodation cost and extensive structural modifications, although these barely ex- ceeded the 3.0 "neutral" category. Respondents were least likely to believe that resistance from co-workers or managers would be a barrier.

Negative employer attitudes were stronger with regard to specific disabilities. Table 5 reports weighted means and standard deviations for each of the disabilities listed. Respondents again showed overall disagreement that any of these disabilities would be very difficult to accommodate, but means for certain disabilities neared the "agree" category of 4. Paralysis of arms and legs (quad- riplegy) was viewed as the disability most difficult to accommodate, followed by

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND EMPLOYER RESPONSES "2.45

Table 4 Perceived "Major Barriers" to Employing Workers With Disabilities

Barrier Weighted Mean 2 Standard Deviation

Accommodation Expensive 3.08 1.25 Structural Mod. Excessive 3.05 1.23 Higher Insurance Costs 2.90 1.09 Resistance from Coworkers 2.04 0.75 Resistance from Managers 2.14 0.92 Union Contract-No Reassignment 2.75 1.22 Union Contract-No Reallocation 2.84 1.12 Disabled Worker Can't Do Our Work 2.80 1.25 Disabled Worker is a Safety Risk 2.80 1.16 Responses to Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree

2Means are weighted to adjust for size.

blindness. These findings are similar to those of Combs and Omvig (1986), who found that employers were most likely to perceive blindness as a disability that precluded employment in their organization. Head injuries were also perceived as barriers to employment. Disabilities perceived as least difficult to accommodate included diabetes, disease (such as cancer or HIV), sensory impairments, and learning disabilities.

Table 5 Disabilities Perceived To Be Very Difficult to Accommodate

Type of Disability Weighted Mean 3 Standard Deviation

Alcoholism 3.32 1.34 Paralysis of Legs 3.23 1.42 Paralysis of Arms and Legs 3.94 1.16 Difficulty in Walking or Climbing 3.22 1.40 Emotional/Psychological Impairments 3.22 1.17 Seizure Disorders 3.07 1.35 Diabetes 1.99 0.99 Disease 2.54 1.25 Blindness 3.75 1.20 Deafness 3.37 1.30 Cognitive Disabilities 3.45 1.06 Learning Disbilities 2.87 1.00 Sensory Impairments 2.47 1.21 Head Injuries 3.66 1.14 Responses to Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree

3Means are weighted to adjust for size.

246 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW ~LUME 6, NUMBER 4, 1996

Table 6 Perceptions Regarding Performance of Workers With Disabilities

All Employers Performance of Worker with Disability

New Jersey Sample 5

Gallup Sample 4 Experienced Inexperienced Mean Employers Employers 6

Is More Productive 3.13 2.83 2.77 Has Better Attendance 3.33 3.10 3.20

Record Is More Punctual NA 3.13 3.21 Is More Reliable 3.33 3.10 3.07 Works in a Safer Manner 3.11 3.10 3.04 Responses to Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree

4These mean scores were recalculated from Table U (Gallup, 1992, p. 56). 5Means are weighted to adjust for size. 6Only responses of companies that had hired a worker with a disability are included in these means.

Perceived Performance of Workers with Disabilities. Several questions included in the 1992 Gallup poll of 400 employers were replicated in the questionnaire in order to see if New Jersey employers differed from the national sample on their attitudes toward the performance of disabled workers. Table 6 lists the means for all respondents and then compares responses of those who had hired a worker with a disability with the Gallup sample. This approach was also taken in the Eagleton Institute survey (1993b), which reported that 88 percent of "experienced" employers rated the performance of their workers with disabilities as either excellent or good.

The data show (1) that respondents in the Gallup survey were slightly more positive than the New Jersey respondents about the performance of workers with disabilities; and (2) that respondents in the New Jersey sample who had hired workers with disabilities were slightly less positive about the attendance and punctuality of workers with disabilities than were respondents who had no experience with disabled workers, but were slightly more positive about the productivity, reliability, and safety of workers with disabilities.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the relatively low response rate to the questionnaire, and the preliminary nature of the research, it is not possible to generalize the study's findings to all employers, or even to all New Jersey employers. But even with that constraint, the findings appear to represent the views of a cross-section of New Jersey employers, to support the approach taken in the theoretical framework


described above, and to suggest several issues that researchers, policymakers, and others interested in the employment of individuals with disabilities may wish to consider.

Company size had a substantial effect on the attitudes of employers. Repre- sentatives from large companies were more likely to have hired or retained individuals with disabilities, more likely to believe that they could be accommodated without excessive cost, and more likely to believe that most disabilities could be accommodated in the workplace. Given the relatively greater resources of large companies compared with those of smaller ones, this finding is not surprising. It suggests that advocacy groups, placement services and other agencies whose mission it is to facilitate the employment of workers with disabilities may wish to target medium to small companies for information on the the relatively low cost of most accommodations, the technical assistance that is available to employers without charge or for a minimal cost, and how to recruit qualified individuals with disabilities.

Findings of earlier research that employers tend to avoid individuals with certain types of disabilities were borne out by this study. Most disabilities reported were either physical, sensory or developmental; psychological disabilities and alcoholism appeared infrequently in the New Jersey sample. This finding suggests that employers need additional information on the nature of psychological disabilities (such as alcoholism) and their accommodation, as this category of disability is included within the coverage of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The study confirmed earlier findings that most accommodations are relatively inexpensive (under $500) and most frequently involve additional supervision and training, and flexible work schedules. The relatively low cost of most accommodations needs to be emphasized to employers, who still fear that accommodating disabled workers is costly and inefficient (Eagleton Institute 1993a).

Responses to the attitudinal items were informative primarily because of the differences among groups of employers. The effects of company size and a company's own experience with workers with disabilities were strong, and resulted in more positive attitudes toward these workers. This finding suggests that a credible source of information for inexperienced employers with regard to the success of workers with disabilities may be those employers experienced in hiring them. Trade or industry associations could develop training or informative materials with the assistance of experienced employers, agencies, and professionals in the fields of disability and rehabilitation.

The study did not elicit strongly negative attitudes toward workers with disabilities, even among inexperienced employers. The findings do suggest, however, continued hesitation by many employers to hire, and a disinclination to seek out, workers with disabilities. Policymakers need to address the communication failures between the findings of research regarding this hesitation and the results of actual experiences with employees with disabilities, especially those with developmental disabilities.


SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

The ADA has been in effect since 1992 for large companies and since 1994 for those with 15-24 employees. It is still too early to determine whether employers are complying with the law, or whether it has achieved its purpose of increasing the representation of individuals with disabilities in the labor force. The volume of complaints to the EEOC and individual lawsuits suggests that many individuals are seeking the law's protections, but early litigation results show only limited success for many plaintiffs.

In this context, additional research needs to be conducted at the i~rm level on the recruitment, hiring, assignment, evaluation, and progress of employees with disabilities. Does access to employment, or the ability to keep one's position after sustaining an impairment, result in fair t reatment on the job? Are employers beginning to expand the category of disabilities that they will toler- ate in the workplace? Has training for supervisors and managers changed to include issues related to supervising individuals with disabilities?

The political climate is moving U.S. social policy away from subsidies and toward self-reliance. The ADA is wholly congruent with this movement, but the law may be viewed by some employers as another type of employer subsidy for workers they otherwise might not hire or retain. Research results demonstrate that this concern is unfounded, but it does not appear that the message has gotten to many U.S. employers. Researchers and policymakers need to work cooperatively to see that it does.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Support for this research was provided by the New Jersey Developmental Disabilities Council. The author wishes to thank Karen A. Newman, who as- sisted with data collection; Professors Avraham Kluger and Barbara Rau, who provided advice on the statistical analysis for the empirical portion of this article.

NOTES

1. Percentages add to more than 100 because some claimants alleged multiple viola- tions (for example, wages and benefits).

2. Summary judgment is a ruling by a judge, prior to trial, that one party must prevail as a matter of law because the other party's proof is insufficient to prevail. Summary judgments may be appealed; if overturned on appeal, the case returns to the trial court for a full evidentiary hearing.

3. The questionnaire is available from the author. 4. These percentages are unadjusted; percentages and means reported in subse-

quent subsections have been adjusted to estimate the target population. 5. Employers were asked if they had hired a worker with a disability during the

previous five years. In the present study, a three-year time period was used.


6. Additional analyses revealed that size was significantly related to employer attitudes, but that the industry of the respondent was not. These analyses, not reported in this article, are available from the author.

7. The results of these additional statistical tests are available from the author.

REFERENCES

Allen v. Stone, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1008 (D.D.C. 1992). Berkowitz, E. 1987. Disabled Policy: America's Programs for the Handicapped. Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press. Blanck, P. D. 1994. Communicating the Americans With Disabilities Act, Transcending

Compliance: A Case Report on Sears, Roebuck and Co. Washington, DC: The Annenberg Washington Program in Communications Policy Studies of North- western University.

_ _ . 1996. The Americans with Disabilities Act, Transcending Compliance: 1996 Follow-up Report. Washington, DC: The Annenberg Washington Program in Communications Policy Studies of Northwestern University.

Borkowski v. Valley Central School District, 1994. 63 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 1994). Carozza v. Howard County, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 387 (4th Cir. 1995) (unpublished). Carrv. Reno, 1994 3 Americans with Disabilities Cases 434 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Chirikos, T. N. 1991. "The Economics of Employment." Pp. 150-179 in The Americans

With Disabilities Act: From Policy to Practice edited by J. West. New York: Mil- bank Memorial Fund.

Colella, A., A. S. DeNisi, and M. Lund. 1993. The Job Socialization of Employees with Disabilities: The Role of Expectations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA.

Collignon, F. C. 1986. "The Role of Reasonable Accommodation in Employing Disabled Persons in Private Industry." Pp. 196-241 in Disability and the Labor Market edited by M. Berkowitz and M. A. Hill. Ithaca: Industrial and Labor Relations Press.

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

Despears v. Milwaukee County Medical Complex, 1995. Eagleton Institute of Politics, Center for Public Interest Polling. 1993a. Employing

People with Disabilities: The Employer's Perspective Focus Group Discussions. New Brunswick, NJ: Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University.

_ _ . 1993b. Employing People with Disabilities: The Employer's Perspective--Quan- titative Survey. New Brunswick, NJ: Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers Uni- versity.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 1996. Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990--Statistics, FY 1992--Second Quarter FY 1996. Washington, DC: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission~

Freedman, S. A. and R. T. Keller. 1981. "The Handicapped in the Workforce."Academy of Management Review 6: 449-458.

Gallup Organization. 1992. Baseline Study to Determine Business'Attitudes, Awareness and Reaction to the Americans With Disabilities Act. Washington, DC: Electronic Industries Foundation.

Gordon v. Runyon, 1994. 3 Americans with Disabilities Cases 284 (E.D. Pa. 1994).


Greenwood, R. and V. A. Johnson. 1987. "Employer Perceptions on Workers with Dis- abilities." Journal of Rehabilitation 57: 21-25.

Hankins v. The Gap, Inc., 1996. 84 F.3d 797 (6th Cir. 1996). Harris, L. and Associates. 1986). The ICD Survey of Disabled Americans: Bringing Disabled Americans into the Mainstream. New York: Harris and Associates.

Hindman v. GTE Data Services, 1994. Holmes, S. A. 1994. "In 4 Years, Disabilities Act Hasn' t Improved Jobs Rate." New York

Times (October 23): A18. Hudson v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 1996. U.S. App. LEXIS 15821 (10th Cir.

1996). Jackson v. Veterans Administration, 1994. 22 F.3d 277 ( l l th Cir. 1994). Janofsky, J. C. 1993. "Whoever Wrote ADA Regs Never Ran a Business." The Wall Street

Journal (March 15): A-12. Larkins v. Ciba Vision Corp., 1994. 3 Americans with Disabilities Cases 715 (N.D. Ga.

1994). Lee, B. A. 1993a. "Reasonable Accommodation Under the Americans with Disabilities

Act: Limitations of Rehabilitation Act Precedent." Berkeley Journal of Labor and Employment Law 14: 201-250.

_ _ . 1993b. Reasonable Accommodation Under the Americans With Disabilities Act: A Handbook for Employers. Trenton: Developmental Disabilities Council.

Lee, B. A. and K. Newman. 1992. Reasonable Accommodation of Persons with Disabil- ities in the New Jersey Workplace. Final Report to the New Jersey Developmen- tal Disabilities Council. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Bureau of Economic Research.

_ _ . 1995. "Employer Responses to Disability: Preliminary Evidence and a Research Agenda." Employee Responsibilities. and Rights Journal 8(3): 209-229.

Livingston, S. 1991. "New Rights Law is Expected to Bring More Disabled into the Workplace." Newark Star Ledger (October 4): 40.

Lyons v. The Legal Aid Society, 1995. 68 F.3d 1512 (2d Cir. 1995). Lyth, M. 1973. "Employers' Attitudes to the Employment of the Disabled." Occupational

Psychology 47: 67-70. McCarthy, H. 1988. "Attitudes That Affect Employment Opportunities for Persons with

Disabilities." Pp. 246-261 in Attitudes toward persons with disabilities, edited by H. E. Yuker. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

McFarlin, D. B., J. Song, and M. Sonntag. 1991. "Integrating the Disabled into the Work Force: A Survey of Fortune 500 Company Attitudes and Practices." Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 4: 107-123.

Mancini v. General Electric, 1993. 2 Americans With Disabilities Cases 764 (D. Vt. 1993).

Mancuso, L. A. 1990. "Reasonable Accommodation for Workers with Psychiatric Disabil- ities." Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal 14: 3-19.

Matthews v. TCI of Illinois, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8274 (N.D. Ill. 1996). Misek-Falkoff v. IBM Corp., 1994. 3 Americans With Disabilities Cases 449 (S.D.N.Y.

1994). Myers v. Hose, 1995. 50 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 1995). Nelson v. Thornburgh, 1984. 732 F. 2d 146 (3d Cir. 1984). New Jersey Department of Labor. 1993. Number of New Jersey Establishments in the

Private Sector by Employment Size Group, 1991. Trenton, NJ: Department of Labor.

Rizzo v. Children's World Learning Center, 1996. 84 F.3d 758 (5th Cir. 1996).


Schluter v. Industrial Coils, Inc., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8962 (W.D. Wisc. 1996). Sifkin v. Village of Arlington Heights, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13015 (E.D. Ill. 1994). Smolowe, J. 1995. "Noble Aims, Mixed Results." Time (July 31): 54-55. Stone, D. L. and A. Colella. 1996. "A Model of Factors Affecting the Treatment of

Disabled Individuals in Organizations." Academy of Management Review 21(2): 352-401.

Tyndall v. National Education Centers, 1994. (4th Cir. 1994). Whillock v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20928 (N.D. Ga. 1995). Williams v. Widnall, 1996. 79 F.3d 1003 (10th Cir. 1996). Zappa, J. M. 1991. "The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990: Improving Judicial

Determinations of Whether an Individual is Substantially Limited." Minnesota Law Review 75: 1303-1337.

IMPLEMENTING MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVE FEEDBACK:

AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK

Jeff W. Johnson Andrea M. Olson

Carol Lynn Courtney Questar Data Systems, Inc.

Despite the recent popularity of multiple perspective feedback systems, there is little theory to guide research in this area and to promote the successful implementation of multiple perspective feedback in organizations. By integrating organizational development and individual performance perspectives, a theoretical framework is developed that illustrates the mechanisms by which feedback can lead to improved individual, work group, and organizational performance. According to this framework, when the structure and systems of the organization are congruent with the goals of the feedback program, feedback positively influences individual performance determinants (e.g., declarative knowledge, motivation). This leads to improved individual performance, which contributes to desired organizational outcomes. Based on this framework, practical questions that should be addressed before a feedback process is implemented are presented.

Although the concept of multiple perspective, or "360-degree," feedback is not new (Dunnette 1993), the widespread use of these systems did not begin until the mid-1980's (Romano 1993). A recent survey of approximately 900 companies found that roughly 25% of those companies had a multiple perspective feedback program in place ("A twist on performance reviews" 1993). One rea- son for implementing such systems and concepts is the changing nature of the work structure in response to competitive global markets. There is a trend in American industry toward a more democratic workplace, so companies are flattening their organizational layers and increasing the use of teams (Bud- man & Rice 1994). These changes have led to a focus on employee participation and a concern for upward communication. Also, the multidimensional nature of jobs makes the perceptions of people with different perspectives valuable in

Direct all correspondence to: Jeff W. Johnson, Personnel Decisions Research Institutes, Inc., 43 Main Street, Southeast, Suite 405, Minneapolis, MN 55414.

H u m a n Resource Management Review, Copyright © 1996 Volume 6, Number 4, 1996, pages 253-277 by JAI Press Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN:1053-4822


guiding individual development and informing performance evaluations (Lon- don & Smither 1995).

Despite the recent popularity of multiple perspective feedback (MPF) systems, there is little theory to guide research in this area and to promote the successful implementation of MPF in organizations. Implementing such a program without understanding the process through which it works will diminish program effectiveness, and may even lead to failure, because the necessary support and preparation are not likely to be present. To maximize the effectiveness of MPF, researchers and practitioners should understand how the envi- ronment and the individual interact to make the feedback process work. This article describes the process by which MPF contributes to organizational change by presenting a theoretical framework that combines an organizational development framework with a model of individual performance, and modifying them to deal explicitly with MPF. The article is organized into three sec- tions. The first section describes MPF and provides a brief review of evidence for the effectiveness of feedback programs. The second section presents a theoretical framework that describes how MPF can enhance individual, work group, and organizational performance. Based on this framework, the third section offers some practical questions that should be addressed before a feedback process is implemented. The primary objectives of this article are to emphasize the importance of viewing MPF as a complete organizational development effort, to demonstrate the process by which MPF contributes to individual and organizational change, and to suggest some practical issues to consider for those interested in implementing MPF in their organizations.

Throughout this article we use the term "multiple perspective feedback," or MPF, to refer to a process by which individual performance evaluations are obtained from more than one rating source. This term encompasses upward feedback, in which ratings are obtained only from direct reports, 360-degree feedback, in which ratings are obtained from all relevant viewpoints, and any variant in between (e.g., peers and supervisor, but not direct reports). Other common terms to describe this process are multi-rater or multi-source feedback (Bracken 1996; London & Smither 1995), but we use the term multiple perspective because it emphasizes the fact that different raters view an individual's performance from different perspectives, especially when raters represent multiple job levels (e.g., supervisor, peer, direct report).

DESCRIPTION OF MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVE FEEDBACK

The primary use of MPF is as a developmental tool (Bracken 1996; London & Smither 1995; Timmreck 1995). MPF can increase an individual's insight into his or her strengths and weaknesses, which may then help guide his or her strategies for personal development (Tornow 1993). Other common uses of MPF are identifying organization strengths and training needs, evaluating individual and/or organizational change, and making administrative decisions on compensation and promotion. Regardless of the purpose, MPF is expected to be

legal requirements and employer responses to accommodating employees with disabilities

Documents