How effective are disability sensitization workshops?
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-08-2016-0165 |
| Pages | 58-74 |
| Published date | 02 January 2018 |
| Date | 02 January 2018 |
| Author | Mukta Kulkarni,K.V. Gopakumar,Shivani Patel |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Industrial/labour relations,Employment law |
How effective are disability
sensitization workshops?
Mukta Kulkarni
Organizational Behavior and Human Resources Management,
Indian Institute of Management Bangalore, Bengaluru, India
K.V. Gopakumar
Organizational Behavior, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad,
Ahmedabad, India, and
Shivani Patel
Pre-University, Mallya Aditi International School, Bengaluru, India
Abstract
Purpose –Organizations are increasingly investing in disability-specific sensitization workshops. Yet, there
is limited understanding about their hoped outcomes, that is, increased knowledge about disability-related
issues and behavioral changes with respect to those with a disability. The purpose of this paper is to examine
the effectiveness and boundaries of disability-specific sensitization training in organizations.
Design/methodology/approach –This is an interview-based study where 33 employees from five
industries across India were interviewed over the span of a year.
Findings –The findings suggest tha t sensitization works hops are successful with r egard to awareness
generation. Paradox ically, the same aware ness also reinforced gro up boundaries through “othering.”
Further, workshops re sonated more so with indi viduals who already had s ome prior experience wi th
disability, implyin g that voluntary sensi tization is likely attra cting those who have th e least need of
such sensitization. The findings also suggest that non-mandated interventions may not necessarily
influence organizat ional level outcomes, especially if work shops are conducted in isolation from a b roader
organizational cult ure of inclusion.
Originality/value –The present study helps outline effects of sensitization training initiatives and enhances
our understanding about how negative attitudes toward persons with a disability can be overcome. The study
also indicates how such training initiatives may inadvertently lead to “othering.”Finally, this study offers
suggestions to human resource managers for designing impactful disability sensitization workshops.
Keywords India, Disability, Training workshop
Paper type Research paper
Diversity training is a key component of organizational diversity initiatives and comprises
programs aimed at enabling constructive intergroup interactions and reducing discrimination.
The most common forms of diversity training are sensitization or awareness training (e.g. being
sensitive to how we see ourselves and others) combined with skill-building or behavior-based
training (e.g. learning how to communicate, which actions are appropriate) (Bezrukova et al.,
2012; Phillips et al., 2016). Despite increasing investments in such programs, we do not know
if and under which conditions such sensitization training is most beneficial, who benefits,
and if benefits persist over a long term (Dwertmann, 2016); critical knowledge for human
resource managers who wish to better design and implement diversity training within their
organizations (Rynes and Rosen, 1994; Kearns, 1997; Bezrukova et al., 2012; Kalinoski et al.,
2013; SHRM, 2014).
Further, while the broader diversity training research indicates that focus on a specific
demographic group may pose problems as it highlights differences between participants
(Bezrukova et al., 2012; Ellis and Sonnenfeld, 1994), specific groups such as persons with a
disability are being increasingly focused upon in organizational diversity and inclusion
initiatives (SHRM, 2014). The disability-specific research also suggests the criticality of
focused sensitization training(Stone and Colella, 1996;Phillips et al., 2016). However , empirical
Employee Relations
Vol. 40 No. 1, 2018
pp. 58-74
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/ER-08-2016-0165
Received 19 August 2016
Revised 7 September 2017
Accepted 7 September 2017
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
58
ER
40,1
evidence for such is equivocal, outlining positive effects (e.g. Wilson et al., 2009) as well as
cautionary notes (e.g. French, 1992). We are thus faced with a situation wherein the focus on
disability-specific training is increasing across workplaces, but we do not know if and under
which conditions such training is effective.
In the present study, we outline effectiveness and boundaries of disability sensitization
training in organizations. More specifically, through interviews with 33 respondents across
five industries in India, the present study makes the following contributions. First, the
broader diversity training literature suggests that training has a positive short-term impact
on attitude of participants, but long-term assessments are less positive (Rynes and Rosen,
1994) and actual behavioral change after awareness training is not firmly established (Kulik
and Roberson, 2008). With an explicitly long-term focus, the present study can help outline
lasting effects of sensitization training initiatives. Second, as Barney (2011) explained with
regard to the disability-specific literature, understanding how negative attitudes toward
persons with a disability can be overcome is important as such attitudes mean society
overlooks contributions of this talent pool, and members of this group are not able to
support themselves through productive wage-earning. Finally, as the disability-specific
training focus (and spend) increases (SHRM, 2014; Kulkarni, 2016; Kulkarni et al., 2016),
studies such as the present one can serve as guides to human resource managers with
regard to designing effective sensitization training programs.
Importance of disability sensitization training in the workplace
Organizations may choose to engage with diversity training because of strategic objectives
and external forces. For example, training may be used to impart information, obtain
employee buy-in for diversity programs, change employee behavior, achieve diversity goals
toward competitive advantage, and for compliance with legal standards (Kulik and
Roberson, 2008; Cocchiara et al., 2010). Said alternately, diversity training can be framed
around the why (legal mandates, moral imperatives, and business success), what (e.g. types
of change desired or the goals), and how (e.g. type and duration of learning, Ferdman and
Brody, 1996). The most common form of diversity training is awareness training, wherein
the immediate goal is to increase awareness of cognitive processes which may lead to
differential treatment of certain groups of employees (Rynes and Rosen, 1994; Kulik and
Roberson, 2008).
While diversity training is noted as benefiting those least in the need of it (Kulik et al.,
2007), reinforcing group boundaries when it is meant to obliterate such (Bezrukova et al.,
2012), and as imposing costs when the benefits are unclear (Rynes and Rosen, 1994), it is also
shown to contribute in the aggregate to organizational economic performance beyond the
effects of a traditional high-performance work system (i.e. bundles of work practices and
policies) (Armstrong et al., 2010). Furthermore, diversity training remains indispensable as
legislation alone may not always have the intended effect on organizational inclusion of
certain groups such as persons with disabilities (Cocchiara et al., 2010).
Disability-specific sensitization training in the workplace is especially important for the
following reasons. As Baldridge et al. (2017) explain, despite being the world’s largest
minority whose rights are protected through legislations, persons with a disability continue
to face overt and subtle workplace discrimination. Persons with a disability may be
inadvertently overlooked as job profiles may depart from essential requirements and
include ideal profiles, or managers may recruit in mainstream spaces that do not have a pool
of diverse candidates such as those with a disability (Stone and Colella, 1996; Stone and
Williams, 1997). As Lengnick-Hall et al. (2008) found, employers may also harbor fears and
misconceptions about the productivity of persons with disabilities.
Once hired, the inadvertent or intentional sidelining of persons with disabilities may
continue. For example, accommodations, a critical component of workplace adjustment and
59
Disability
sensitization
workshops
To continue reading
Request your trial