Job performance of employees with disabilities : Interpersonal and intrapersonal resources matter

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to follow the call of researchers to take intrapersonal resources into account when trying to understand the influence of interpersonal resources by investigating the interplay of social support and self-efficacy in predicting job performance of people with disabilities.

Design/methodology/approach

Data were collected in an Israeli call center employing mostly people with disabilities. The independent and moderator variables were assessed by an employee survey. To avoid common source bias, job performance was rated by the supervisors four weeks after conducting the survey. Hierarchical regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses.

Findings

The first main effect hypothesis, stating a positive relationship between social support and job performance was conditionally supported (p=0.06). The relationship between self-efficacy and job performance did not gain support. In line with the extended support buffer hypothesis, the job performance of low self-efficacious employees increased with higher levels of social support. The interference hypothesis, postulating a negative effect of social support under the condition of high levels of self-efficacy, was not supported.

Practical implications

The results indicate that employees with disabilities differ in the level of social support they need in order to reach high levels of job performance. Instead of a one-size-fits-all-approach, organizations should take individual levels of self-efficacy into account and offer support accordingly in order to unleash the full working potential.

Originality/value

This is the first known empirical investigation examining the role of individual differences in the need of social support among employees with disabilities.

Citation

K. Baumgärtner, M., A. Böhm, S. and J.G. Dwertmann, D. (2014), "Job performance of employees with disabilities : Interpersonal and intrapersonal resources matter", Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 347-360. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-05-2013-0032