Search results

The purpose of this study is to examine factors relating to the decision to proactively disclose a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a concealable stigmatized identity, before experiencing performance issues at work. These factors include stigma consciousness, psychological safety, and job demands. Proactive disclosure is also measured in relation to thriving.

Data were collected through the online research platform Prolific. Variables of interest were measured using surveys of 166 working adults who have ADHD. Path analysis was used to test the hypotheses.

The authors hypothesized that stigma consciousness is negatively related to proactive disclosure of ADHD at work and that psychological safety and job demands are positively related to it. The authors further hypothesized that proactive disclosure mediates the relationship between these variables and thriving at work. The results partially support these hypotheses, indicating that stigma consciousness is negatively related to proactive disclosure while psychological safety is positively related. Proactive disclosure fully mediates the relationship between stigma consciousness and thriving and partially mediates the relationship between psychological safety and thriving. Job demands relate to thriving but are not significantly related to proactive disclosure.

Organizations can help employees who have concealable disabilities to proactively disclose them and thrive by providing a psychologically safe environment where disabilities are not stigmatized.

This study diverges from previous studies by measuring positive contextual and individual factors that help employees who have ADHD to thrive in the workplace. A proactive disclosure scale is developed and validated.

The formal reporting of disability to an employing organization is inconsistent and likely an underestimate of the true numbers of workers with disabilities and the presence of various types of disabilities. This issue interferes with an organization's count of such workers, as well as efforts to set priorities and develop practices to support workers with disabilities. The authors argue that creating inclusive work environments not only improves worker well-being (as suggested in past research) but also improves their reactions to the process of formal reporting of disability in the workplace.

A sample of 160 working adults in the United States who reported disabilities or health conditions that may qualify as disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990, as amended in 2008) completed a survey that measured perceptions of the workplace environment and reactions to a frequently used disability disclosure form.

When controlling for age of respondents, anticipated disability stigma and inclusion in the workplace predicted different reactions to a disability disclosure request. Anticipated stigma was associated with more negative emotion, concerns about privacy and others' reactions to their responses on the disclosure form. Inclusion in the workplace was associated with higher ratings for appropriateness of the measure, positive emotion and less negative emotion.

Although research has identified associations between workplace inclusion and general worker experiences, such as job satisfaction and intentions to quit, this work uncovers a benefit of inclusion to required measurement processes in organizations. The unique contributions of inclusion and implications for workplace practices are discussed.

Research related to workplace accommodation requests for employees with mental illness is scarce, though evidence suggests that these individuals often fail to request accommodations even when needed. The authors' research study aimed to address these shortcomings by (1) assessing employees' knowledge of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) laws and how this knowledge influences employees' perceived need for and requests of accommodations; (2) examining the relationship between employees' perceived need for accommodations and employees' workplace outcomes and (3) examining the relationship between perceived need for accommodations and employees' actual accommodation requests, as well as how stigma influences this relationship.

The authors used two survey studies to investigate their research questions. Study 1 participants were recruited through Amazon's MTurk, and Study 2 participants were recruited through support groups for individuals diagnosed with mood disorders (i.e. depression and bipolar disorder).

The authors found significant gaps in both subjective and objective ADA-related knowledge among participants in their sample. The authors' Study 1 results also revealed an interaction between the perceived need for accommodations and accommodation requests in predicting job satisfaction and turnover intentions. When employees needed accommodations but did not request them, it resulted in worsened workplace outcomes. In Study 2, the authors aimed to identify barriers to requesting accommodations. The authors found that the relationship between perceived need for accommodations and actual accommodation requests was moderated by both public and self-stigma, thereby showing that stigma can impede individuals from requesting needed accommodations at work.

The authors' study sheds light on a population that has been relatively understudied in the workplace accommodations literature, namely those with mental illness. The authors first identify the perceived need for accommodations as an important factor in making accommodations requests at work, as prior work has failed to differentiate how the need for accommodations can vary across individuals. Next, the authors show how workplace outcomes (i.e. job satisfaction and turnover intentions) are negatively affected when employees need accommodations but do not request them. Finally, the authors demonstrate how both public stigma and self-stigma can reduce the likelihood that individuals request accommodations at work, even when needed.

The purpose of this paper is to describe workplace disclosure dilemmas of individuals with hidden mental health conditions who have privately accepted their mental health condition (anxiety and/or depression), but have chosen not to disclose it in their respective workplaces.

Interviews were conducted with 15 individuals who experience anxiety and/or depression. These individuals work across diverse organizations and sectors in India (e.g. architecture and health care). Data were analyzed using qualitative methods.

Interviewees grappled with three dilemmas: professionalism versus authenticity (i.e. bringing only a partial professional self or the whole self to work), withdrawal versus participation (i.e. withdrawal from workplace interactions to conceal their condition or participation such that people could know of it) and personal privacy versus general advocacy (i.e. guarding one's privacy or engaging in advocacy for individuals who experience mental health conditions). Overall, findings suggest that the disclosure dilemma can stem from both one's internalized sense of a devalued self and by perceived contextual cues.

Findings imply that perceived contextual conditions that amplify threat of discovery and its anticipated consequences can lead to and reinforce the disclosure dilemma. As individuals internalize others' constructions of themselves, they self-police and do not interrogate assumed normality within their social contexts.

Employers can create inclusive environments. Present findings suggest some examples of inclusive practices such as the employment of dedicated resident counselors or counselors shared across organizations, training of stakeholders (including human resource personnel), allowing for selective disclosure (e.g. only to medical personnel) and cultivating informal support networks comprising similar others.

Such evidence-based research that can inform practices of inclusion for persons with a disability is especially important, considering that research on mental health conditions is conspicuous by its relative absence in mainstream management journals.

Every employee embodies manifestations of every demographic that attach to him or her different minority and majority statuses at the same time. As these statuses are often related to organizational hierarchies, employees frequently hold positions of dominance and subordination at the same time. Thus, a given individual’s coping strategies (or coping behavior) in terms of minority stress due to organizational processes of hierarchization, marginalization, and discrimination, are very often a simultaneous coping in terms of more than one demographic. Research on minority stress mostly focuses on single demographics representing only single facets of workforce diversity. By integrating the demographics of age, disability status, nationality, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, and religion into one framework, the intersectional model proposed in this chapter broadens the perspective on minorities and related minority stress in the workplace. It is shown that coping with minority stress because of one demographic must always be interpreted in relation to the other demographics. The manifestation of one demographic can limit or broaden one’s coping resources for coping with minority stress because of another dimension. Thus, the manifestation of one demographic can determine the coping opportunities and coping behavior one applies to situations because of the minority status of another demographic. This coping behavior can include disclosure decisions about invisible demographics. Therefore, organizational interventions aiming to create a supportive workplace environment and equal opportunities for every employee (e.g., diversity management approaches) should include more demographics instead of focusing only on few.

The purpose of the study was to test the assumption of similarities between neurodivergents and other minority groups regarding their reaction to stereotype threat. In addition, it aimed to identify the source of stereotype threat and the neurodivergent's response to it.

Two studies were conducted. Study 1 employed three exercises consisting of brochures, learning sets and posters to test organisational cues, notions of intelligence and situational cues. It collected data from 53 participants to establish whether stereotype threat observed in visible difference such as race, gender and intelligence is equally relevant to neurodiversity. Study 2 consisted of interviews with 44 participants to establish stereotype threat source, reaction and effect on declaration of invisible difference.

Neurodivergents, defined by their invisible difference, react similarly to those with a visible difference with respect to organisational cues and stereotype threat. They will cognisantly define their behaviours depending upon those cues and stereotype threat. In doing so, they draw upon previous personal and work experiences. After the event, they will make a comparison to their assessment. If it is similar to their assessment, it reinforces it; however, if it is dissimilar, the neurodivergent will make an adjustment to the assessment. In both cases, the experience will form part of a future threat assessment.

The research is limited by its interpretivist nature and sample comprising personnel within a UK government organisation.

The research has practical implications for employers, providing managers with a model to understand the impact a neurodivergents' previous experiences can have on their ability to interact within the workplace. Such understanding can provide insight into how best to utilise human capital.

This study makes a contribution to theory by expanding knowledge of neurodiversity in the workplace and by identifying the neurodivergents' reaction to the anticipation of a stereotype threat. In addition, it offers the stereotype threat anticipation conceptual model as a representation of the cognitive decisions made by neurodivergents to conceal or reveal their invisible difference.

In this chapter, we theorize that metaperceptions (beliefs about how one is viewed by others) derived from social identity categories will influence intrapersonal processing and resultant member interaction patterns in diverse work groups. In turn, such patterns of interactions will affect the quality of emergent states within diverse groups, ultimately impacting group-level outcomes. We will extend previous work in this area by examining the formation, nature, and consequences of metaperceptions in workgroups within which individuals vary with regard to social identities. In addition, we will describe the implications of metaperceptions for the effective leadership of diverse groups.

The decision to disclose an illness is a difficult choice for many individuals. Despite national laws such Americans with Disabilities Act that protect workers with disabilities from discrimination in the workplace, the stigmas around certain illnesses, fears of being judged by others using different standards, and concerns about a lack of support regardless of legal requirements are all reasons why someone may hesitate to disclose a health condition in the workplace.

Using experimentally manipulated vignettes and a combination of theories on attribution and incivility, this study explores the dangers of not disclosing a disability/condition that can lead to behaviors that will engender judgments by coworkers.

The results of the study make clear that there are social benefits to disclosing a health condition rather than concealing. The findings clearly demonstrate that attributing an individual's negative behavior to their disposition will lead to more judgments of responsibility, and less sympathy and more anger compared to behaviors that can be explained by any health reason. Furthermore, more punishment, feelings of revenge and social distancing await individuals whose negative behavior cannot be explained by health issues.

This study combines issues of health, attributions, incivility in an experimental studies that illuminates issues surround disclosing a workplace disability that go beyond the typical focus of legal questions.

Many employers struggle with how to have a disability disclosure discussion with their employees and job candidates. The primary purpose of this study was to identify issues relevant to disability disclosure discussions. In addition, we explored how simulations, as an educational tool, may help employers and managers.

Seven participants (four employers and three human resource professionals) took part in this study. We used a qualitative design that involved two focus group discussions to understand participants' experiences of building a simulation training scenario that focused on how to have a disability disclosure discussion. The simulation sessions were audio-recorded and analyzed using an open-coding thematic approach.

Four main themes emerged from our analysis. Three themes focused on issues that participants identified as relevant to the disability disclosure process, including: (1) creating a comfortable and safe space for employees to disclose, (2) how to ask employees or job candidates about disability and (3) how to respond to employees disability disclosure. A fourth theme focused on how simulations could be relevant as an educational tool.

Developing a simulation on disability disclosure discussions is a novel approach to educating employers and managers that has the potential to help enhance diversity and inclusion in the workplace. Further, the process that we followed can be used as a model for other researchers seeking to develop educational training scenarios on sensitive diversity and inclusion topics.