IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/126269.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Enabling inclusion: an analysis of positive and negative outcomes of discretionary work arrangements for employees with disabilities

Author

Listed:
  • Booth, Jonathan
  • Lup, Daniela

Abstract

While it is well-known that employees with disabilities have significantly more negative work experiences compared to other employees, research geared towards understanding how employers could improve some of these experiences is still underdeveloped. To advance this research agenda, this study investigates links between five distinct types of discretionary arrangements (work discretion, scheduling discretion, part-timing, homeworking and pay for individual performance), and outcomes related to work experiences and the wellbeing of employees with disabilities (job satisfaction, perception of fairness, recognition, motivation, engagement, work stress and work-life interference). To explore these links, we use data from the European Working Conditions Survey (2015). We find that not all work arrangements that increase discretion at the workplace have a positive impact on employees with disabilities and that some can be especially detrimental. By unpacking the multiple ways in which various types of discretion at the workplace affect employees with disabilities, this study not only makes a theoretical contribution but also provides employers who aim to improve the working experiences of employees with disabilities with some empirical evidence to help them take more inclusive actions.

Suggested Citation

  • Booth, Jonathan & Lup, Daniela, 2025. "Enabling inclusion: an analysis of positive and negative outcomes of discretionary work arrangements for employees with disabilities," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 126269, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:126269
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/126269/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Melanie K. Jones, 2016. "Disability and Perceptions of Work and Management," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 54(1), pages 83-113, March.
    2. Kelly Williams‐Whitt & Daphne Taras, 2010. "Disability and the Performance Paradox: Can Social Capital Bridge the Divide?," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 48(3), pages 534-559, September.
    3. Michael White & Stephen Hill & Patrick McGovern & Colin Mills & Deborah Smeaton, 2003. "‘High‐performance’ Management Practices, Working Hours and Work–Life Balance," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 41(2), pages 175-195, June.
    4. Elizabeth Daniel & MariaLaura Di Domenico & Daniel Nunan, 2018. "Virtual Mobility and the Lonely Cloud: Theorizing the Mobility†Isolation Paradox for Self†Employed Knowledge†Workers in the Online Home†Based Business Context," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(1), pages 174-203, January.
    5. Arran Caza, 2012. "Typology of the Eight Domains of Discretion in Organizations," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 144-177, January.
    6. John W. Budd & J. Ryan Lamare & Andrew R. Timming, 2018. "Learning about Democracy at Work: Cross-National Evidence on Individual Employee Voice Influencing Political Participation in Civil Society," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 71(4), pages 956-985, August.
    7. Herman Oyen & Johan Heyden & Rom Perenboom & Carol Jagger, 2006. "Monitoring population disability: evaluation of a new Global Activity Limitation Indicator (GALI)," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 51(3), pages 153-161, June.
    8. Paula Holland, 2021. "Will Disabled Workers Be Winners or Losers in the Post-COVID-19 Labour Market?," Disabilities, MDPI, vol. 1(3), pages 1-13, July.
    9. Younghwan Song & Jia Gao, 2020. "Does Telework Stress Employees Out? A Study on Working at Home and Subjective Well-Being for Wage/Salary Workers," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 21(7), pages 2649-2668, October.
    10. Kim Hoque & Nick Bacon, 2022. "Working from home and disabled people's employment outcomes," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 60(1), pages 32-56, March.
    11. Eline Jammaers & Jannine Williams, 2021. "Care for the self, overcompensation and bodily crafting: The work–life balance of disabled people," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 119-137, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lisa Waddington, 2025. "Hybrid Working Policies, Reasonable Accommodation, and Staff with Disabilities: A Case Study of European Universities," Laws, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-19, August.
    2. Jirjahn, Uwe & Rienzo, Cinzia, 2025. "Working from Home and Mental Health: Giving Employees a Choice Does Make a Difference," IZA Discussion Papers 18187, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Sum Lo Simon Ming, 2023. "Desired work-leisure balance in a partial equilibrium job search model with multiple job holding," IZA Journal of Labor Economics, Sciendo & Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 12(1), pages 1-43, December.
    4. Ive D Klinksiek, 2024. "Bridging the gap between diversity, equity and inclusion policy and practice: the case of disability," Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, , vol. 30(2), pages 207-223, May.
    5. John S. Heywood & W.S. Siebert & Xiangdong Wei, 2011. "Estimating the Use of Agency Workers: Can Family-Friendly Practices Reduce Their Use?," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(3), pages 535-564, July.
    6. Karlygash Madazimova & Aliya Mambetalina, 2025. "The Impact of Stress Factors on Employee Subjective Well-Being: The Case of Kazakhstan," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 16(3), pages 11314-11338, September.
    7. Israel Escudero-Castillo & Fco. Javier Mato-Díaz & Ana Rodriguez-Alvarez, 2021. "Furloughs, Teleworking and Other Work Situations during the COVID-19 Lockdown: Impact on Mental Well-Being," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-16, March.
    8. Cristina López-Duarte & Jane F. Maley & Marta M. Vidal-Suárez, 2021. "Main challenges to international student mobility in the European arena," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 8957-8980, November.
    9. Martin Gächter & David A. Savage & Benno Torgler, 2009. "Retaining the Thin Blue Line: What Shapes Workers' Intentions not to Quit the Current Work Environment," Working Papers 2010-05, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck, revised Mar 2010.
    10. Julia L. O. Beckel & Gwenith G. Fisher, 2022. "Telework and Worker Health and Well-Being: A Review and Recommendations for Research and Practice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-32, March.
    11. Juan Sandoval-Reyes & Sandra Idrovo-Carlier & Edison Jair Duque-Oliva, 2021. "Remote Work, Work Stress, and Work–Life during Pandemic Times: A Latin America Situation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-12, July.
    12. Ellen Melbye Langballe & Vegard Skirbekk & Bjørn Heine Strand, 2023. "Subjective age and the association with intrinsic capacity, functional ability, and health among older adults in Norway," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 1-10, December.
    13. Ivana Zilic & Helen LaVan, 2020. "Arbitration of accommodation in US workplaces: employee, stakeholder and human resources characteristics," Industrial Relations Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(5), pages 454-473, September.
    14. Laura Parte & Teresa Herrador-Alcaide, 2021. "Teaching Disruption by COVID-19: Burnout, Isolation, and Sense of Belonging in Accounting Tutors in E-Learning and B-Learning," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-22, September.
    15. Sandra M. Leitner, 2024. "Working from Home and Mental Well-being in the EU at Different Stages of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Gendered Look at Key Mediators," wiiw Working Papers 244, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.
    16. Thomas Hansen & Marcela Petrová Kafková & Ruth Katz & Ariela Lowenstein & Sigal Naim & George Pavlidis & Feliciano Villar & Kieran Walsh & Marja Aartsen, 2021. "Exclusion from Social Relations in Later Life: Micro- and Macro-Level Patterns and Correlations in a European Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-16, November.
    17. Sylvain Chareyron & Naomie Mahmoudi, 2022. "The effects of disability benefits on the employment of low-skilled youth: Evidence from France," Erudite Working Paper 2022-09, Erudite.
    18. Antinyan, Armenak & Burn, Ian & Jones, Melanie K., 2024. "Productivity Signals and Disability-Related Hiring Discrimination: Evidence from a Field Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 17290, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. John Pencavel, 2016. "Recovery from Work and the Productivity of Working Hours," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 83(332), pages 545-563, October.
    20. Malhotra, P. & Singh, Manjari, 2014. "Individual Factors and Organisational Initiatives Enabling the Success of PWD-Managers," IIMA Working Papers WP2014-03-19, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • J50 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor-Management Relations, Trade Unions, and Collective Bargaining - - - General
    • R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns
    • J01 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - General - - - Labor Economics: General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:126269. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.