Why Do Employers (Fail to) Hire People with Disabilities? A Systematic Review of Capabilities, Opportunities and Motivations

Abstract

Purpose To increase the number of people with disabilities in employment, we need to understand what influences employers’ hiring decisions. In this systematic review, we map out factors affecting employers’ hiring decisions about people with disabilities. Methods This study is a systematic review that applies the COM-B model to identify factors that contribute to employers (not) hiring people with disabilities. The COM-B model proposes that employers will perform hiring behavior (B) if they have the capability (C), opportunity (O) and motivation (M) to do so. We also investigate if factors have a negative, positive or no effect. We report in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Results In a review of 47 studies, we find 32 factors. Most of these factors are barriers. The most frequently mentioned barriers are employers’ (1) expectations that people with disabilities are unproductive, (2) expectations that people with disabilities cost a lot of money, and employers’ (3) lack of knowledge about disabilities. The most researched facilitators for employers to hire people with disabilities include (1) the motivation to help others, (2) working in a large organization, and (3) expecting a competitive advantage. The effect of factors can differ depending on contextual circumstances, including the type of organization, the type of disability and different policies. Conclusions We conclude that hiring decisions are influenced by an array of different barriers and facilitators. The effect of these factors can differ across organizations and disability types. Our study of factors affecting hiring can be used by scholars, policy makers, and organizations to create interventions to increase the hiring of people with disabilities.

Facing the human capital crisis: A systematic review and research agenda on recruitment and selection in the public sector

“…Besides this environmental process perspective, research on self‐processing in recruitment could follow the path of intersectionality to contribute to a “richer conceptualization of race and gender […] for a substantive social equity turn in public administration” (Pandey et al, 2023, p. 31). In addition to that, recent research on the role of disability in hiring shows a huge need for research to understand the extent to which public organizations fulfill the policy requirements they may impose on private firms (Nagtegaal et al, 2023). With regard to interactionist processing, public administration could research the extent to which politization and party membership affects recruit fit with public organizations, extending political science and governance research on public leaders (e.g., Papenfuß & Schmidt, 2022) to public employees in general.…”

Harmful communication behaviors in cancer care: A systematic review of patients and family caregivers perspectives

“…Next, the Artificial Intelligence (AI) screening tool ASReview was used by JW for screening the rest of the studies on title and abstract 31 . Recently published systematic reviews described this tool as helpful in their screening process 32–34 . ASReview is a free and open‐access machine learning technology used to save time and prevent from bias 35 and human errors 36 .…”

“…31 Recently published systematic reviews described this tool as helpful in their screening process. [32][33][34] ASReview is a free and open-access machine learning technology used to save time and prevent from bias 35 and human errors. 36 To optimize the reliability of using ASReview we well prepared the AI screening process by means of the 20% double screening.…”

Sustainable Employment for People with Disabilities: A Scoping Review on Workplace Practices and Positive Employment Outcomes

“…Recognizing the crucial difference between employers' attitudes and their behavior (Bredgaard 2018), this study focuses on practices carried out by different stakeholders (e.g., managers, HR personnel, coworkers, job specialists) at the workplace and analyzes the relationship between these workplace practices and various positive employment outcomes. Unlike reviews that concentrate on specific workplace practices like recruitment (Nagtegaal et al 2023), accommodation (Nevala et al 2015) or HRM practices (Schloemer-Jarvis, Bader & Böhm 2022), our review article adopts a more comprehensive approach. It encompasses all practices, ranging from strategically implemented HRM practices (e.g., recruitment, diversity management, sensitivity training) to more subtle and informal cultural ones (e.g., fairness, equal opportunities, social team climate).…”