The Identity Regulation of Disabled Employees: Unveiling the ‘varieties of ableism’ in employers’ socio-ideological control

Abstract

Conceptualizing organizational representations of disabled workers as a form of socio-ideological control, this study investigates the identity regulation of disabled employees. The comparative analysis of a bank, a labour market intermediary organization and a local public administration unveils distinct ways in which the able-bodied/disabled dichotomy is used to regulate disabled workers’ identity in function of organizational goals and the organization of work: by subsuming them into the ideal employee, by constructing them as the negation of the ideal employee, and by constructing the disabled and the able-bodied employee as distinct and mutually dependent ideal workers. These ‘varieties of ableism’ produce specific understandings of disabled employees that give them differential access to an ideal worker identity, and are resisted in multiple and surprising ways, including reclaiming the ideal worker’s identity and the promised rewards associated with it, and disclosing or hiding one’s embodiment and disability. The study advances the extant knowledge by showing how ableism variously functions as a principle of organizing shaping whom disabled workers are (not) allowed to be in specific organizational settings.

Organizational inclusion and identity regulation: How inclusive organizations form ‘Good’, ‘Glorious’ and ‘Grateful’ refugees

“…In that sense, inclusion goes hand in hand with normative organizational control aimed at aligning the refugees’ behaviours with organizational goals. This kind of normative control may differ from those forms described in the literature on identity regulation of other social groups, for example managers (Alvesson and Willmott, 2002), call-centre workers (Fleming and Sturdy, 2011) or employees with impairments (Jammaers and Zanoni, 2020) in that it intervenes more in the private sphere of the workers’ lives. Also, its effects may be stronger because of the refugees’ precarious existential conditions.…”

“…Such group activities are a common mode of identity regulation (Alvesson and Willmott, 2002: 630), which can bring about a sense of belonging to a group – in this case Austrian workers and citizens. Yet often they have the paradox effect of reproducing existing social categories and hierarchies (Jammaers and Zanoni, 2020; Kelan, 2010; Ortlieb and Sieben, 2019; Rumens and Broomfield, 2014; Van Laer, 2018). Likewise, the supermarket chain adopted a programme targeted at refugees that comprised special recruitment activities and so-called ‘integration days’ where refugees learn about the supermarket’s product range as well as eating habits and Christian holidays in Austria – and ‘how to talk with women in Austria; what it means to have a romantic relationship’ (Zoran).…”

“…Partly drawing on Alvesson and Willmott’s identity regulation framework, a large and still growing strand within the critical diversity literature analyses identity construction along the lines of social minority categories such as gender (Kelan, 2010; Ortlieb and Sieben, 2019), ethnicity (Van Laer and Janssens, 2017; Zanoni et al, 2017), religion (Essers and Benschop, 2009), sexuality (Rumens and Broomfield, 2014; Van Laer, 2018) and dis-/ability (Jammaers and Zanoni, 2020). Furthermore, several studies found that organizational practices aimed at fostering diversity and inclusion such as training and promotion procedures trigger identity work of minority group members (Jammaers and Zanoni, 2020; Villesèche et al, 2018; Yang and Bacouel-Jentjens, 2019; Zanoni and Janssens, 2007). These studies show how organizational practices directly define minority workers, which presents one of the modes of identity regulation discussed by Alvesson and Willmott (2002), thereby also challenging the prevalent assumption that individuals retain their identities in inclusive organizations.…”

“…Furthermore, while both Priola et al (2018) and Tyler (2019) as well as Alvesson and Willmott (2002) highlight discursive practices within the processes of inclusion and identity regulation, they also consider material practices and bodily or emotional aspects, for instance attached to recruitment tools, job design or training programmes. Also recent empirical studies by Jammaers and Zanoni (2020) on identity regulation of ‘disabled’ employees and Lai et al (2020) on identity regulation in a Chinese multinational corporation demonstrate how discursive and material practices unfold together with their complex interplay to influence workers’ identities. In line with these authors, we maintain that the discursive construction of inclusion and refugees as well as material practices plus bodily and emotional aspects – notions for which we also use the umbrella term ‘organizational practices’ in the following – must be considered in an analysis of the relationship between organizational inclusion and identity regulation.…”

Care for the self, overcompensation and bodily crafting: The work–life balance of disabled people

“…In arguing that ableism is a concept relevant to the WLB field, we draw on a growing stream of literature exploring how the construction of work and organizations assume non‐disability as an organizing norm (e.g., Jammaers & Zanoni, 2020; Sang, Richards, & Marks, 2016). Following the call made by Özbilgin et al (2011) to include disability in the WLB thesis, and by Williams and Mavin (2012) for more intersectional disability research, this article investigates how gender and disability complicate the WLB of disabled employees and the meaning given to conflicting roles in their life (Bochantin & Cowan, 2016).…”