Employers' attitude, intention, skills and barriers in relation to employment of vulnerable workers.

G Hulsegge, W Otten, H A van de Ven, A M Hazelzet, R W B Blonk
{"title":"Employers' attitude, intention, skills and barriers in relation to employment of vulnerable workers.","authors":"G Hulsegge,&nbsp;W Otten,&nbsp;H A van de Ven,&nbsp;A M Hazelzet,&nbsp;R W B Blonk","doi":"10.3233/WOR-210898","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Little is known why some organizations employ vulnerable workers and others do not.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To explore the relationships between the attitude, intention, skills and barriers of employers and employment of vulnerable workers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included 5,601 inclusive organizations (≥1% of employees had a disability, was long-term unemployed or a school dropout) and 6,236 non-inclusive organizations of the Netherlands Employers Work Survey 2014-2019. We operationalized employer factors based on the Integrative Model of Behavioral Prediction as attitude (negative impact), intention (mission statement regarding social inclusion), skills (human resources policies and practices), and barriers (economic conditions and type of work). We used multivariate-adjusted logistic regression models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared to non-inclusive organizations, inclusive organizations had a more negative attitude (OR:0.81) and a stronger intention to employ vulnerable workers (OR:6.09). Regarding skills, inclusive organizations had more inclusive human resources practices (OR:4.83) and initiated more supporting human resources actions (OR:4.45). Also, they adapted more work conditions towards the needs of employees (OR:1.52), negotiated about work times and absenteeism (OR:1.49), and had general human resources practices on, for example, employability (OR:1.78). Inclusive organizations had less barriers reflected by better financial results (OR:1.32), more employment opportunities (OR:1.33) and more appropriate work tasks (OR:1.40).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, inclusive organizations reported more positive results on the employer factors of the Integrative Model of Behavioral Prediction, except for a more negative attitude. The more negative attitude might reflect a more realistic view on the efforts to employ vulnerable groups, and suggests that other unmeasured emotions and beliefs are more positive.</p>","PeriodicalId":319034,"journal":{"name":"Work (Reading, Mass.)","volume":" ","pages":"1215-1226"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9484112/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Work (Reading, Mass.)","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-210898","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: Little is known why some organizations employ vulnerable workers and others do not.

Objective: To explore the relationships between the attitude, intention, skills and barriers of employers and employment of vulnerable workers.

Methods: We included 5,601 inclusive organizations (≥1% of employees had a disability, was long-term unemployed or a school dropout) and 6,236 non-inclusive organizations of the Netherlands Employers Work Survey 2014-2019. We operationalized employer factors based on the Integrative Model of Behavioral Prediction as attitude (negative impact), intention (mission statement regarding social inclusion), skills (human resources policies and practices), and barriers (economic conditions and type of work). We used multivariate-adjusted logistic regression models.

Results: Compared to non-inclusive organizations, inclusive organizations had a more negative attitude (OR:0.81) and a stronger intention to employ vulnerable workers (OR:6.09). Regarding skills, inclusive organizations had more inclusive human resources practices (OR:4.83) and initiated more supporting human resources actions (OR:4.45). Also, they adapted more work conditions towards the needs of employees (OR:1.52), negotiated about work times and absenteeism (OR:1.49), and had general human resources practices on, for example, employability (OR:1.78). Inclusive organizations had less barriers reflected by better financial results (OR:1.32), more employment opportunities (OR:1.33) and more appropriate work tasks (OR:1.40).

Conclusions: Overall, inclusive organizations reported more positive results on the employer factors of the Integrative Model of Behavioral Prediction, except for a more negative attitude. The more negative attitude might reflect a more realistic view on the efforts to employ vulnerable groups, and suggests that other unmeasured emotions and beliefs are more positive.

雇主在雇用弱势工人方面的态度、意图、技能和障碍。
背景:很少有人知道为什么有些组织雇佣易受伤害的员工,而有些组织不这样做。目的:探讨用人单位态度、意向、技能、障碍与弱势劳动者就业的关系。方法:我们纳入了2014-2019年荷兰雇主工作调查的5601个包容性组织(≥1%的员工有残疾、长期失业或辍学)和6236个非包容性组织。基于行为预测综合模型,我们将雇主因素操作为态度(负面影响)、意图(关于社会包容的使命宣言)、技能(人力资源政策和实践)和障碍(经济条件和工作类型)。我们使用多变量调整逻辑回归模型。结果:与非包容性组织相比,包容性组织的消极态度更强(OR:0.81),雇佣弱势员工的意愿更强(OR:6.09)。在技能方面,包容性组织的人力资源实践更具包容性(OR:4.83),并发起了更多支持性人力资源行动(OR:4.45)。此外,他们还根据员工的需求调整了更多的工作条件(OR:1.52),就工作时间和缺勤进行了谈判(OR:1.49),并在就业能力等方面进行了一般的人力资源实践(OR:1.78)。包容性组织的障碍较少,体现在更好的财务业绩(OR:1.32)、更多的就业机会(OR:1.33)和更合适的工作任务(OR:1.40)。结论:总体而言,包容性组织在行为预测综合模型的雇主因素上报告了更多的积极结果,除了更消极的态度。更消极的态度可能反映了对雇用弱势群体的努力的更现实的看法,并表明其他未测量的情绪和信念更积极。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信