Does voluntarism work for the workplace inclusion of individuals with disabilities in a country with limited equality structures?

IF 3.3 3区 管理学 Q1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR
Deniz Palalar Alkan, Rıfat Kamaşak, Mustafa Ozbilgin
{"title":"Does voluntarism work for the workplace inclusion of individuals with disabilities in a country with limited equality structures?","authors":"Deniz Palalar Alkan, Rıfat Kamaşak, Mustafa Ozbilgin","doi":"10.1108/pr-01-2024-0041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe study explores measures designed explicitly to manage people with disabilities in a context where diversity interventions are incorporated voluntarily. Furthermore, it examines global organizations’ approaches to marginalized groups, such as people with disabilities, in a context where there is an explicit lack of state regulation on diversity measures.Design/methodology/approachAn abductive approach was adopted for the exploratory nature, which sought to understand how global organizations in a developing country utilize diversity management mechanisms to manage people with disabilities.FindingsThe findings reveal that human resources departments of international organizations operating in a neoliberal environment demonstrate two distinct perspectives for individuals with disabilities: (i) inclusiveness due to legal pressures and (ii) social exclusion.Originality/valueWe explored global organizations’ approaches to marginalized groups, such as people with disabilities, in the context of an explicit lack of state regulation on diversity measures and showed that the absence of coercive regulation leads to voluntary actions with adverse consequences. The paper expands theories that critique the inclusion of individuals with disabilities in untamed neoliberal contexts and explains how the responsibilization of institutional actors could enhance what is practical and possible for the workplace inclusion of individuals with disabilities. Without such institutional responsibilization, our findings reveal that disability inclusion is left to the limited prospects of the market rationales to the extent of bottom-line utility.","PeriodicalId":48148,"journal":{"name":"Personnel Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personnel Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-01-2024-0041","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PurposeThe study explores measures designed explicitly to manage people with disabilities in a context where diversity interventions are incorporated voluntarily. Furthermore, it examines global organizations’ approaches to marginalized groups, such as people with disabilities, in a context where there is an explicit lack of state regulation on diversity measures.Design/methodology/approachAn abductive approach was adopted for the exploratory nature, which sought to understand how global organizations in a developing country utilize diversity management mechanisms to manage people with disabilities.FindingsThe findings reveal that human resources departments of international organizations operating in a neoliberal environment demonstrate two distinct perspectives for individuals with disabilities: (i) inclusiveness due to legal pressures and (ii) social exclusion.Originality/valueWe explored global organizations’ approaches to marginalized groups, such as people with disabilities, in the context of an explicit lack of state regulation on diversity measures and showed that the absence of coercive regulation leads to voluntary actions with adverse consequences. The paper expands theories that critique the inclusion of individuals with disabilities in untamed neoliberal contexts and explains how the responsibilization of institutional actors could enhance what is practical and possible for the workplace inclusion of individuals with disabilities. Without such institutional responsibilization, our findings reveal that disability inclusion is left to the limited prospects of the market rationales to the extent of bottom-line utility.
在平等结构有限的国家,志愿服务对残疾人融入工作场所有用吗?
目的 本研究探讨了在自愿采取多样性干预措施的情况下,为管理残疾人而明确设计的措施。此外,本研究还探讨了在国家对多样性措施缺乏明确监管的情况下,全球性组织对残疾人等边缘化群体采取的方法。设计/方法/途径本研究采用归纳法进行探索,旨在了解发展中国家的全球性组织如何利用多样性管理机制来管理残疾人。研究结果研究结果表明,在新自由主义环境下运作的国际组织的人力资源部门对残疾人表现出两种截然不同的观点:(i) 法律压力导致的包容性和 (ii) 社会排斥。本文拓展了批评新自由主义背景下对残疾人的包容的理论,并解释了机构行为者的责任感如何能增强残疾人工作场所包容的实际性和可能性。我们的研究结果表明,如果没有机构的责任感,那么残疾人融入工作场所就只能依靠市场的有限前景来实现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Personnel Review
Personnel Review Multiple-
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
7.70%
发文量
133
期刊介绍: Personnel Review (PR) publishes rigorous, well written articles from a range of theoretical and methodological traditions. We value articles that have high originality and that engage with contemporary challenges to human resource management theory, policy and practice development. Research that highlights innovation and emerging issues in the field, and the medium- to long-term impact of HRM policy and practice, is especially welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信