OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
Journal of occupational rehabilitation
12, 2020;30 (4): 613-623.

Disability Severity, Leader-Member Exchange, and Attitudinal Outcomes: Considering the Employee and Supervisor Perspectives.

Zhanna Lyubykh, Mahfooz A Ansari, Kelly Williams-Whitt, Vicki L Kristman
Author Information
  1. Zhanna Lyubykh: Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada. zhanna.lyubykh1@ucalgary.ca.
  2. Mahfooz A Ansari: Dhillon School of Business, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Canada.
  3. Kelly Williams-Whitt: Dhillon School of Business, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Canada.
  4. Vicki L Kristman: EPID@Work Research Institute, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Canada.
PMID: 32146643 DOI: 10.1007/s10926-020-09884-0

Abstract

Purpose Although the effects of disability on employee work outcomes are well-documented, the mechanism that explain these relationship remains unclear. We propose that the quality of relationships employees with disabilities develop with their supervisors explains the link between disability severity and employee work outcomes. More specifically, we examine the mediating role of leader-member exchange (LMX) in the relationship between employee disability severity and presenteeism, job accommodation, supervisor-rated performance, job satisfaction, and resilience. We test this proposition from two perspectives: employees with disabilities and supervisors who had supervised employees with disabilities. Method We collected data from employees with musculoskeletal disabilities (Sample 1, N = 264) and supervisors who had supervised employees with musculoskeletal disabilities in the past two years (Sample 2, N = 224). Results From the perspective of employees with disabilities (Sample 1), disability severity was negatively related to LMX quality (R = .28). Contrary to our hypothesis, we found a positive relationship between supervisor perceptions of employee disability severity and LMX in Sample 2 (R = .27). After adjusting for disability severity, LMX quality was related to improved outcomes in both samples: higher employee job satisfaction (Sample 1: R = .36), provision of job accommodations (Sample 1: R = .16; Sample 2: R= .15), resilience (Sample 1: R = .18), lower levels of presenteeism (Sample 1: R = .20), and higher performance evaluations for employees with disabilities (Sample 2: R = .49). Conclusion By collecting two separate samples, we revealed similarities and differences in employee and supervisor perspectives. Our findings demonstrated the need for including both perspectives when considering implications of employee disability severity.

Keywords

Job accommodation Leader–member-exchange Persons with disabilities Presenteeism Resilience

References

  1. Uppal S. Disability, workplace characteristics and job satisfaction. Int J Manpower. 2005;26(4):336–349.
  2. Unger DD. Employers’ attitudes toward persons with disabilities in the workforce: myths or realities? Focus Autism Dev Dis. 2002;17(1):2–10.
  3. Ren LR, Paetzold RL, Colella A. A meta-analysis of experimental studies on the effects of disability on human resource judgments. Hum Resour Manage. 2008;18(3):191–203.
  4. Schartz K, Schartz HA, Blanck P. Employment of persons with disabilities in information technology jobs: literature review for “IT works”. Behav Sci Law. 2002;20(6):637–657. [PMID: 12465132]
  5. Kulkarni M, Lengnick-Hall ML. Obstacles to success in the workplace for people with disabilities: a review and research agenda. Hum Resour Dev Rev. 2014;13(2):158–180.
  6. Shaw W, Kristman V, Williams-Whitt K, Soklaridis S, Huang Y-H, Côté P, et al. The job accommodation scale (JAS): psychometric evaluation of a new measure of employer support for temporary job modifications. J Occup Rehabil. 2014;24(4):755–765. [PMID: 24643785]
  7. Kensbock JM, Boehm SA. The role of transformational leadership in the mental health and job performance of employees with disabilities. Int J Hum Resour Manage. 2015;27(14):1–30.
  8. Gerstner CR, Day DV. Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: correlates and construct issues. J Appl Psychol. 1997;82(6):827–844.
  9. Dansereau F, Graen G, Haga WJ. A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: a longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organ Behav Hum Perform. 1975;13(1):46–78.
  10. Graen GB, Uhl-Bien M. Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadersh Q. 1995;6(2):219–247.
  11. Golden TD, Veiga JF. The impact of superior-subordinate relationships on the commitment, job satisfaction, and performance of virtual workers. Leadersh Q. 2008;19(1):77–88.
  12. Mahsud R, Yukl G, Prussia G. Leader empathy, ethical leadership, and relations-oriented behaviors as antecedents of leader–member exchange quality. J Manage Psychol. 2010;25(6):561–577.
  13. Colella A, Varma A. The impact of subordinate disability on leader–member exchange relationship. Acad Manage J. 2001;44(2):304.
  14. Ali A, Hassiotis A, Strydom A, King M. Self stigma in people with intellectual disabilities and courtesy stigma in family carers: a systematic review. Res Dev Disabil. 2012;33(6):2122–2140. [PMID: 22784823]
  15. Dwertmann DJG, Boehm SA. Status matters: the asymmetric effects of supervisor-subordinate disability incongruence and climate for inclusion. Acad Manage J. 2016;59(1):44–64.
  16. Dulebohn JH, Bommer WH, Liden RC, Brouer RL, Ferris GR. A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader–member exchange: integrating the past with an eye toward the future. J Manage. 2012;38(6):1715–1759.
  17. Sin HP, Nahrgang JD, Morgeson FP. Understanding why they don’t see eye to eye: an examination of leader–member exchange (LMX) agreement. J Appl Psychol. 2009;94(4):1048–1057. [PMID: 19594243]
  18. Colella A. Coworker distributive fairness judgments of the workplace accommodation of employees with disabilities. Acad Manage Rev. 2001;26(1):100–116.
  19. Major DA, Morganson VJ. Coping with work-family conflict: a leader–member exchange perspective. J Occup Health Psychol. 2011;16(1):126–138. [PMID: 21280949]
  20. Vornholt K, Uitdewilligen S, Nijhuis F. Factors affecting the acceptance of people with disabilities at work: a literature review. J Occup Rehabil. 2013;23(4):463–475. [PMID: 23400588]
  21. Liden RC, Wayne SJ, Stilwell D. A longitudinal study on the early development of leader–member exchanges. J Appl Psychol. 1993;78(4):662–674.
  22. Liden RC, Sparrowe RT, Wayne SJ. Leader–member exchange theory: the past and potential for the future. Res Pers Hum Res Manage. 1997;15:47–120.
  23. Williams-Whitt K, Taras D. Disability and the performance paradox: can social capital bridge the divide? Br J Ind Relat. 2010;48(3):534–559.
  24. Kray LJ, Thompson L, Galinsky A. Battle of the sexes: Gender stereotype confirmation and reactance in negotiations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001;80(6):942–958. [PMID: 11414376]
  25. Epitropaki O, Martin R. From ideal to real: a longitudinal study of the role of implicit leadership theories on leader–member exchanges and employee outcomes. J Appl Psychol. 2005;90(4):659–676. [PMID: 16060785]
  26. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51(6):1173–1182. [PMID: 3806354]
  27. Behrend T, Sharek D, Meade A, Wiebe E. The viability of crowdsourcing for survey research. Behav Res Methods. 2011;43(3):800–813. [PMID: 21437749]
  28. Desimone JA, Harms PD, Desimone AJ. Best practice recommendations for data screening. J Organ Behav. 2015;36(2):171–181.
  29. Moss-Morris R, Weinman J, Petrie KJ, Horne R, Cameron LD, Buick D. The revised illness perception questionnaire (IPQ-R). Psychol Health. 2002;17(1):1–16.
  30. Liden RC, Maslyn JM. Multidimensionality of leader–member exchange: an empirical assessment through scale development. J Manage. 1998;24(1):43–72.
  31. Dunham RB. Organizational surveys: an internal assessment of organizational health. Glenview: Scott Foresman; 1979.
  32. Lazarus RS. From psychological stress to the emotions: A history of changing outlooks. Annu Rev Psychol. 1993;44(1):1–22. [PMID: 8434890]
  33. Connor KM, Davidson JRT. Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depress Anxiety. 2003;18(2):76–82. [PMID: 12964174]
  34. Aronsson G, Gustafsson K, Dallner M. Sick but yet at work. An empirical study of sickness presenteeism. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 2000;54(7):502–509.
  35. Koopman RC, Pelletier FK, Murray EJ, Sharda LC, Berger SM, Turpin MR, et al. Stanford presenteeism scale: health status and employee productivity. J Occup Environ Med. 2002;44(1):14–20. [PMID: 11802460]
  36. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu Rev Psychol. 2012;63(1):539–569. [PMID: 21838546]
  37. Williams LJ, Anderson SE. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. J Manage. 1991;17(3):601–617.
  38. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Statistical analysis with latent variables using Mplus. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén; 2012.
  39. Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Publications; 2017.
  40. Little TD, Cunningham WA, Shahar G, Widaman KF. To parcel or not to parcel: exploring the question, weighing the merits. Struct Equ Model. 2002;9(2):151–173.
  41. Gu Q, Day C. Challenges to teacher resilience: conditions count. Br Educ Res J. 2013;39(1):22–44.
  42. Schur L, Nishii L, Adya M, Kruse D, Bruyère S, Blanck P. Accommodating employees with and without disabilities. Hum Resour Manage. 2014;53(4):593–621.
  43. Sundar V, O'Neil J, Houtenville AJ, Phillips KG, Keirns T, Smith A, et al. Striving to work and overcoming barriers: employment strategies and successes of people with disabilities. J Vocat Rehabil. 2018;21(2):352–401.
  44. Snyder LA, Carmichael JS, Blackwell LV, Cleveland JN, Thornton GC. Perceptions of discrimination and justice among employees with disabilities. Empl Responsib Rights J. 2010;22(1):5–19.
  45. Colella A, Varma A. Disability-job fit stereotypes and the evaluation of persons with disabilities at work. J Occup Rehabil. 1999;9(2):79–95.
  46. Gignac MAM, Cao X. “Should I tell my employer and coworkers I have arthritis?” A longitudinal examination of self-disclosure in the work place. Arthrit Care Res. 2009;61(12):1753–1761.
  47. von Schrader S, Malzer V, Bruyère S. Perspectives on disability disclosure: the importance of employer practices and workplace climate. Emp Responsibil Rights J. 2014;26(4):237–255.
  48. Miller S. Attitudes toward individuals with disabilities: does empathy explain the difference in scores between men and women? Ann Behav Sci Med Educ. 2010;16(1):3–6.
  49. Capella M. Evaluating differences in demographics, services, and outcomes for vocational rehabilitation consumers with hearing loss versus consumers with other disabilities. J Rehabil. 2003;69(3):39.
  50. Pledger C. Discourse on disability and rehabilitation issues: opportunities for psychology. Am Psychol. 2003;58(4):279–284. [PMID: 12866393]
  51. Spencer SJ, Steele CM, Quinn DM. Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1999;35(1):4–28.
  52. Wang K, Dovidio JF. Disability and autonomy: priming alternative identities. Rehabil Psychol. 2011;56(2):123–127. [PMID: 21574731]
  53. Paluck EL, Green DP. Prejudice reduction: what works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annu Rev Psychol. 2009;60:339–367. [PMID: 18851685]
  54. Stone DL, Colella A. A model of factors affecting the treatment of disabled individuals in organizations. Acad Manage Rev. 1996;21(2):352–401.
  55. Jones EE, Farina A, Hastorf AH, Markus H, Miller OT, Scott RA. Social stigma: the psychology of marked relationships. New York: Freeman; 1984.

MeSH Term

Disabled Persons
Humans
Job Satisfaction
Leadership
Journal Article

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0SampledisabilitiesdisabilityemployeeemployeesseverityR = LMXjob1:outcomesrelationshipqualitysupervisorstwoworkpresenteeismaccommodationperformancesatisfactionresiliencesupervisedmusculoskeletal12relatedsupervisorhigher2:perspectivesPurposeAlthougheffectswell-documentedmechanismexplainremainsunclearproposerelationshipsdevelopexplainslinkspecificallyexaminemediatingroleleader-memberexchangesupervisor-ratedtestpropositionperspectives:MethodcollecteddataN = 264pastyearsN = 224Resultsperspectivenegatively28ContraryhypothesisfoundpositiveperceptionsR=27adjustingimprovedsamples:36provisionaccommodations16R=1518lowerlevels20evaluations49ConclusioncollectingseparatesamplesrevealedsimilaritiesdifferencesfindingsdemonstratedneedincludingconsideringimplicationsDisabilitySeverityLeader-MemberExchangeAttitudinalOutcomes:ConsideringEmployeeSupervisorPerspectivesJobLeader–member-exchangePersonsPresenteeismResilience

Similar Articles

Cited By