The role of human resource practices for including persons with disabilities in the workforce: a systematic literature review

Abstract

Organizations are increasingly aware that a better vocational inclusion of persons with disabilities (PWD) is in their self-interest for reasons such as a shortage of skilled labor, an increasing prevalence of disability in their aging workforces, and changed societal attitudes and laws regarding the promotion of diversity and equity in the workplace. Human resource (HR) practices have been identified as a primary enabler of inclusion, yet research on disability-related HR Management is scattered across disciplines. To provide an evidence-based analysis and integration, this article systematically reviews the literature on HR management in the context of employing persons with disabilities, using the high-performance work practices ‘selection and staffing’, ‘training and development’, ‘(performance) appraisal, promotion, and career management’ and ‘compensation and benefits’ as an organizing framework. We systematically reviewed and summarized the key findings of 74 empirical studies conducted from 1990 through 2020. Most studies focused on selection and staffing practices, providing strong evidence that standardization and structure reduce bias in the appraisal of PWD and related employment decisions. Research regarding appropriate HR practices that allow to utilize, develop and reward PWDs’ potential, in contrast, is still in its infancy.

Keywords:

• Disability
• inclusion
• human resource management
• HRM practices

Introduction

The successful employment of persons with disabilities (PWD) turns into an increasingly relevant topic for organizations around the world. Main reasons include a shortage of skilled labor, the demographic change in age which comes with a rising disability prevalence in aging workforces, as well as changes in societal perceptions and legislative frameworks to promote the workforce participation of PWD (Baldridge et al., 2018; Baumgärtner et al., 2015; Kulkarni, 2016). Following the World Health Organization, we define disability as ‘[…] the umbrella term for impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions, referring to the negative aspects of the interaction between an individual (with a health condition) and that individual’s contextual factors (environmental and personal factors)’ (World Health Organization, 2011: 4). Already today, PWD are described as one of the world’s largest minorities with approximately 1.1 billion individuals affected by a disability (World Health Organization, 2018). Unfortunately, though, PWD still encounter disproportionately high levels of job insecurity, underemployment, and unemployment compared to the rest of the population (Baldridge et al., 2018; Beatty et al., 2019). To fight these longstanding disparities in employment while better using the high-skilled labor pool that PWD constitute (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2008; Schur et al., 2014) has become subject of a growing body of research.

Practitioners and scholars widely agree that organizations’ human resource (HR) practices play a decisive role for the vocational inclusion of minorities (Boehm et al., 2021; Nishii et al., 2018). Yet, to date, mainstream human resources (HR) practices have insufficiently addressed the complexity surrounding disability at work (Cavanagh et al., 2017). As shown in prior research, employer practices can even cause disparities in PWDs’ employment (Erickson et al., 2014; Kaye et al., 2011). This contrasts with their potential for a positive impact on PWDs’ workforce participation (Yang & Konrad, 2011). PWD and (potential) employers are still in a socio-economically inefficient situation. Scholarly and managerial guidance on the appropriate utilization and adaption of HR practices regarding PWD is clearly lacking. However, HR managers need to become more familiar with appropriate HR practices for PWD, as their decisions impact PWDs’ workplace inclusion (Kulkarni & Valk, 2010). In an effort to reduce the socio-economic inefficiency, our review provides a comprehensive assessment of the literature on HR practices potentially fostering the workforce inclusion of PWD.

To effectively screen, analyze and summarize relevant articles, we chose high-performance work practices (HPWP) as our theoretical framework. HPWP is a management perspective that makes use of various HR practices for contributing to workplace effectiveness and efficiency (Dyer & Reeves, 1995) by enhancing employee ability and motivation (Combs et al., 2006). We chose the HPWP-framework for various reasons. First and foremost, our review’s main goal is to explore the role of HR practices for inclusion, therefore we were looking for an established framework to identify and cluster the most relevant individual HR practices such as selection and staffing, training and development, or compensation and benefits. High performance work practices are such a framework that provides orientation to scholars and practitioners which individual HR practices are important and should be taken into account (Becker & Gerhart, 1996; Posthuma et al., 2013). Second, HPWP are typically conceptualized as HR measures which aim at achieving organizational results by placing importance on employees, fostering their abilities and further development (Appelbaum et al., 2000; von Bonsdorff et al., 2018). In this way, they should be particularly suited to provide an inclusive experience for PWD. Thus, as intended in the context of disability, the HPWP-framework allows outlining HR practices with the potential to attract, retain, and develop current and prospective employees. Given the goals of this review, we focus on the dimensions ‘selection and staffing’, ‘training and development’, ‘(performance) appraisal, promotion, and career management’ as well as ‘compensation and benefits’ (following e.g. Melesse, 2016).

Aiming to capture current practices and potential changes in the landscape that might have emerged over time, we review research that was conducted between 1990 and 2020. This timeframe coincides with the development of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and covers its amendment in 2008 which qualified various forms of disability, such as mental conditions, to be considered under the ADA. Therefore, the ADA enactment is a significant starting point to look at articles focusing on how to treat PWD in the workplace from an HR perspective. The majority of this research has been conducted in the US and the ADA can also be seen as a blueprint that PWD and allies around the world can adapt and build on, to forge their own policies, laws, and procedures that work best in their country. Further, from a time perspective, three decades of research seems to be a meaningful timeframe to conduct a review on a topic like this as it is long enough to show long-term developments but at the same time short enough to still result in a number of articles that can realistically be covered in one review.

To be more precise, 74 qualitative and quantitative articles published in journals of the top and second quartiles according to the Scientific Journal Rankings (SJR) (available at http://www.scimagojr.com) are analyzed, guided by the following research questions: What is known about the role of HR for the vocational inclusion of PWD, and which areas remain understudied? By addressing these questions, we contribute to the growing yet incomplete understanding of the role of HR practices for PWDs’ employment.

Previous reviews and remaining research gap

Research on the employment of PWD and related reviews have been mainly inspired by Stone and Colella’s (1996) seminal model that outlines various societal, cultural, and organizational elements affecting PWDs’ workplace treatment. Since then, different factors have been reviewed as either isolated characteristics, or in combination regarding the subject of employment in the context of disability. Especially, attitudes of certain stakeholders, the perception and related treatment of certain disability types, and discrimination against PWD in general have peaked researchers’ interest. The reviews of Heera and Devi (2016), Ren et al. (2008), Santuzzi and Waltz (2016), Vornholt et al. (2013) and Williams and Mavin (2012) can be considered as examples with such foci. Despite the related thematic foci, though, individual approaches differed significantly. Heera and Devi (2016) and Vornholt et al. (2013), for example, focused on the acceptance of PWD at work. While Heera and Devi (2016) reviewed attitudes of employers toward PWD, Vornholt et al. (2013) considered characteristics of PWD, coworkers and employers. Other reviews took a particular conceptual lens, such as ableism, which describes how employees with disabilities are discursively constructed as less capable, willing and productive workers and thus as less valuable for and/or employable by organizations (Santuzzi & Waltz, 2016; Williams & Mavin, 2012).

Aiming to discover major challenges for and needs of employers and PWD, there are also reviews that answer the call of research to take certain boundary conditions into consideration. Hence, in addition to the behaviorally focused reviews described above, such studies accumulated additional information on current disability employment research, policy, and strategies regarding certain sizes of organizations (Murfitt et al., 2018) or the impact of legal frameworks (e.g. Cleveland et al., 1997; Stone & Williams, 1997). In contrast, organizational factors in terms of actual measures and policies when employing PWD, have hardly been addressed by prior reviews.

Partially because of the complexity of human resource management (HRM), so far mostly either PWDs’ organizational entry (Gewurtz et al., 2016) or post-entry treatment (Dispenza, 2021) was focused upon. Efforts to assess all employment phases have been scarce to date. Solely, Beatty et al. (2019), Cavanagh et al. (2017) and Colella and Bruyère (2011) provided holistic reviews of the workplace treatment of PWD. These three reviews have in common that they comprehensively address societal, cultural and organizational characteristics, aiming to encourage greater interest among researchers and practitioners. Due to the articles’ thematic breadth, however, observations and implications are rather general and not HR-dimension-specific. Knowing which HR practices are (and shall be) used to appropriately manage and support PWD throughout the employment life cycle, however, is important for improving PWDs’ (workplace) inclusion.

For a better understanding of (evidence-based) practices in the field, this study builds upon and extends the reviews described above, seeking to delve deep into the role of HR practices for PWDs’ workplace inclusion. Instead of analyzing barriers, potential discrimination or maltreatment, we analyze and discuss the role of HR practices as potential enablers of PWDs’ successful entry, inclusion, and development. Yet, also insufficiently developed or implemented HR practices can turn into an area of concern. Taken together, our review provides an overview of (un)successfully implemented practices in specific HR dimensions regarding disability, their applicability in relation to specific employment phases as well as the elaboration of areas that still need to be addressed in order to help guide future research and offer recommendations for corporate practice.

HPWP as an organizing framework for the literature review

With growing interest in strategic HR practices that may be leveraged to achieve business objectives, researchers’ focus has shifted from control-based HR practices to more commitment-based ones, such as HPWP (Martin-Tapia et al., 2009). HPWP seem ideal as an organizing framework for this review for the following reasons:

First, HPWPs’ theoretical foundation lies in the management principles ‘high-commitment’ (Walton, 1985) and ‘high-involvement’ (Lawler, 1986) that aim to create opportunities for the workforce to share ideas, develop job abilities, and utilize knowledge for the organization’s good (Wood et al., 2012). While operating on similar principles, HPWP aim to optimize the workforce’s work-related knowledge, skills and abilities to contribute to organizational performance and success (Combs et al., 2006; Edwards & Wright, 2001). This understanding of the role of HPWP as ‘enabling factors’ perfectly fits with our review’s aim to evaluate the potential of HR measures to systematically foster the vocational inclusion of PWD.

Second, HPWP are typically deployed and investigated in ‘bundles’ (Patel et al., 2013), spanning and integrating various HR practices. In this respect, prior research has commonly used certain dimensions that can be broadly categorized as ‘selection and staffing’, ‘training and development’, ‘(performance) appraisal, promotion, and career management’ and ‘compensation and benefits’ (e.g. Melesse, 2016). We follow this understanding of HPWP for our review and use these categories as the organizing framework for our systematic literature search.

Third, HPWP should be most effective if all dimensions are designed and implemented in this manner, i.e. as a unique set of interconnected HR practices. This should be particularly true when addressing disability as those firms might be most effective that provide a bias-free, inclusive HR experience throughout the employee life-cycle. However, as will be observed throughout this review, hardly any study has identified corporate contexts in which all of these practices have been applied and analyzed regarding their potential to foster the inclusion of PWD. The vast majority investigated individual practices instead of bundles of HR practices. Consequently, we propose that it is meaningful to research the impact of HPWP not only from an integrated perspective but to also investigate individual HR practices separately. Those might explain additional variance in outcomes through their unique characteristics and allow ascertaining whether specific workplace practices have tangible benefits for an organization and their employees (MacDuffie, 1995).

Methodology

Identifying literature

To locate, critically appraise, and synthesize contributions concerning HR practices for PWD, a systematic literature review in the databases Business Source Ultimate, ABI/INFORM, PsycINFO and PsycARTICLES was conducted. We focused on peer-reviewed quantitative and qualitative studies that were written in English. Also, to be included in our review articles had to be conducted between 1990 and 2020 as we aimed to capture HR practices that have been addressed in the context of disability over the last three decades.

In the initial search (stage 1), abstracts of empirical studies were searched by using the keyword ‘disab^a’ and search terms related to HPWP like ‘selection’ or ‘evaluation’. Particularly, the HPWP-related search terms reflected the HPWP-categories ‘selection and staffing’, ‘training and development’, ‘(performance) appraisal, promotion, and career management’ as well as ‘compensation and benefits’ defined in the theoretical framework of this article (see Table 1 for the full list of search terms). By combining ‘disab^a’ and the different sets of search terms with ‘AND/OR’ operators, thousands of prospective studies for each HPWP-category were identified. An adaption of the search strategy became necessary. Therefore, in stage 2, the search was confined to publications that also contained one of the following terms: ‘work^a’, ‘employ^a’, ‘HR’, ‘HRM’ or ‘human resource’.

Table 1. List of key search terms.

Stage 1	Disab ^a
	AND
	Selection and staffing	Training and development	(Performance) appraisal promotion and career management	Compensation and benefits
	Application Interview Hir ^a Recruit ^a Selection Staffing	Competency Development Intervention training Workshop	Advancement Appraisal Career management Career path Career planning Evaluation Performance Promoti ^a Succession planning	Pay ^a Benefit Compensation incentives Remuneration Rewards Wage
Stage 2	AND
	Work ^a ; employ ^a ; HR; HRM; human resource

a All derivatives of the word.

Further, to ensure high quality of the articles, only those published in journals of the top and second quartiles in their respective disciplines were retained. For this procedure, we used the SJR, an open-access tool based on the weighted impact factor that encompasses considerably more journals than other indicators like the Thomson Reuters Impact Factor (TRIF). It is even regarded as superior to the TRIF since it does not only value received citations, but also the journals’ importance and quality where citations occurred (Falagas et al., 2008). For these reasons, this procedure has been applied in other recent literature reviews (e.g. Beatty et al., 2019). Only studies from the fields of management, rehabilitation, psychology and sociology were examined. Journals with scope statements focusing on law, education, economics or information technology did not meet the inclusion criteria, as they often lack an HR focus. Despite the top quartile of journals providing the most reliable data, including the second quartile allowed for a greater and more well-rounded spectrum of results. The selected articles of the four HPWP-categories that fit the inclusion criteria were combined at this point and all duplicates removed, resulting in a set of 845 articles.

Next, we screened titles and abstracts for their fit with the research questions. Studies were only retained if the implementation or implication of HR practices regarding PWD were referenced as primary and recurring themes. Articles that prioritized supported employment were culled. Based on an analysis of the titles and abstracts, 81 articles were selected. After reading the full articles and researching, if articles were conducted before 1990, 15 articles were excluded from the set (either because of a misfit with the research questions or the date when the study was conducted). This resulted in 66 studies included in the analysis. Next, the citation pearl-growing method was used, adding eight new articles to the data set. Finally, 74 articles were ultimately included in our review. Figure 1 displays an overview of the selection process.

Figure 1. Systematic literature search and selection process.

Analysis of articles

Two of the authors read the full texts of the remaining articles twice to compile annotated bibliographies that summarized the articles’ structure and main findings. To verify the articles’ appropriate classification and to discern if information for more than one category was provided, all authors reviewed the articles again. Extracted information included author(s), year of publication, disability type(s) studied, national context(s), study design, sample and the main findings for the addressed HR-categories (see Table 2). Derived implications were also summarized.

Table 2. Published articles included in review.

Study	Disability type(s)	National context(s)	Method/design	Sample	Key findings ^a APaCM: (Performance) appraisal, promotion, and career management; CaB: compensation and benefits; SaS: selection and staffing; TaD: training and development
Ameri et al. (2018)	Asperger’s syndrome/Spinal cord injury	US	Experiment	Employers	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD and their chances of being hired. Disability bias accounts for low employer interest in hiring PWD compared to applicants without disabilities (despite having identical resumes). Disability types and related productivity or accommodation concerns had little influence on interest in hiring PWD. – Size of organizations affect employers’ attitudes toward hiring PWD. Interest in applicants with disabilities is less likely in small companies, suggesting that ADA is constraining discriminatory behavior of medium and large employers.
Araten-Bergman (2016)	Unspecified	Israel	Longitudinal survey	Supervisors	SaS – Positive attitudes and intentions to hire PWD often not resulting in actual hiring. Instead, the existence of a written disability hiring policy and providing disability training emerged as significant determinants of hiring.
Baldwin and Choe (2014)	Sensory	US	Government survey (SIPP ^b + O*Net ^c )	PWD/Employees	CaB − 26% (13%) disability-related mean wage differential for men (women). – Disability-related wage differential is attributed to differences in productivity; around one third (one tenth) of the male (female) earnings gap is unexplained and potentially attributed to discrimination.
Baldwin and Marcus (2007)	Mental	US	Government survey (MEPS ^d )	PWD/Employees	CaB – Wages of persons with mental illness are significantly lower than those without such disorders. − 7.5% disability-related offer wage differential (hourly, average values); after correcting selection bias, the wage differential is 5.1%. – Mean wage differential varies from less than 1% to 33%, depending on certain mental disorders; adjustment disorders have the least impact on wages while psychotic disorders have the greatest. – Unexplained wage differential on average: 1.5%; again, significant differences based on disability type (e.g. 14.8% wage differential for anxiety disorders, 11.8% of wage differential is unexplained).
Bell and Klein (2001)	Multiple	US	Experiment	Students/Employees	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD and their chances of being hired. Bias in favor or against certain disability types. PWD were rated significantly higher in activity and potency than applicants without a disability.
Bengisu and Balta (2011)	Multiple	Turkey	Delphi panel surveys	Experts	SaS – Hiring of employees should be based on merit, suitability, and capability of the candidate, regardless of the presence or degree of disability; PWDs’ objective constraints are critical for job placements. – Companies should apply special conditions for applicants with disabilities, such as customizing entry-level examinations. TaD – Companies should provide disability inclusiveness trainings for managers; also, training and orientation programs should be provided for newly hired PWD.
Boden and Galizzi (2003)	Work injury	US	Government surveys	PWD	CaB – Earnings losses in the quarter after an injury are similar for women and men, but women tend to fare worse than men in the years following the injury. Much of disparity in losses is likely attributed to gender differences and reductions in hours worked reduced compensation is also potentially linked to discrimination.
Bordieri and Drehmer (1997)	Multiple	US	Survey	Managers	APaCM – Appraisals on future performance of PWD are affected by stigma and stereotypes, for instance due to skepticism about PWDs’ readiness for promotion compared to non-disabled employees. Disability type matters.
Brecher et al. (2006)	Physical	US	Experiment	Students	SaS – When appraising applicants with disabilities, structured procedures have the potential to be fairer, more accurate, and more resistant to biases and stereotypes than non-structured ones. – Concerns that standardized formats may be experienced as decision-making hindering by employers, and as unwelcoming or inflexible by applicants with disabilities. – In non-structured interviews, applicants with a disability are rated more favorably than those without. – To support fair interview processes for PWD, note-taking, multiple interviewers, behaviorally anchored rating scales, and job analyses that consider necessary and desirable qualifications are suggested.
Bricout and Bentley (2000)	Physical/Psychiatric	US	Survey	HR managers	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. PWD rated as less employable than applicants without disabilities. No significant difference between the ratings of persons with physical and psychiatric disabilities in terms of employability.
Bruyère et al. (2004)	Unspecified	UK/US	Survey	HR professionals	SaS – Biases and stigmas significantly drive the appraisal of PWD. Modifying attitudes of colleagues and supervisors toward PWD was the change most often made but also seen as most difficult to implement. Monetary issues are not considered as major barriers to PWD’s employment and advancement; but e.g. perceptions about PWDs’ lack of skills or knowledge are. – Wide-spread familiarity with making changes related to recruitment, screening, testing and orientation for PWD. But several HR professionals also face difficulties when applying certain legal basics like making information accessible for persons with visual or learning disabilities. TaD – Staff training, on-site consultation/technical assistance to employers, and mentoring were found to be effective to reduce employment barriers for PWD by the majority of companies. – Disability inclusiveness trainings mostly focus on the accommodation or adjustment process, or on nondiscriminatory equal employment treatment. – Provision and perception of effectiveness regarding practices are affected by national context. Training is, e.g. related to defining essential job functions and the accommodation process offered more in the US than in the UK.
Bruyère et al. (2006)	Unspecified	US	Survey	SHRM members/NBGH members	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. Uncertainty of PWDs’ performance and qualifications are among the most common barriers to PWDs’ employment or advancement. – Wide-spread familiarity with making changes related to recruitment, screening, testing and orientation for PWD. But several HR professionals also face difficulties when applying certain legal basics like making information accessible for persons with visual or learning disabilities. TaD – Staff training, on-site consultation/technical assistance to employers, and mentoring were found effective to reduce employment barriers for PWD. More than 3/4 of companies provide training for disability inclusiveness covering nondiscriminatory recruiting, confidentiality requirements, nondiscriminatory discipline, and defining job functions. – Provision and perception of effectiveness regarding practices are affected by company size.
Cesare et al. (1990)	Multiple	US	Experiment	Students	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD positively and negatively. Disability type matters: Potential leniency bias toward job applicants with a physical disability; for instance, an applicant using crutches was rated the highest, while an applicant who was hard of hearing received the lowest rating.
Chan et al. (2010)	Physical/Sensory	US	Survey	HR managers/Line managers	SaS – HR managers’ and line managers’ attitudes toward hiring PWD improve when they have previous experience with PWD, but is mediated by knowledge of the ADA legislation, job accommodations, and the inclusion of disability in the organization’s diversity statement. – Managers rated themselves as being moderately positive about PWDs’ productivity and reliability. – Managers report challenges related to hiring and supporting PWD, including lack of resources, incentives, knowledge of ADA, and reasonable accommodations. TaD – Training for disability inclusiveness has the potential to improve managers’ attitudes toward PWD. Knowledge of ADA and ADA job accommodations are the two most significant predictors of efforts to recruit, hire, retain, and promote PWD in the workplace. – ADA and job accommodations training is not provided regularly, reducing the level of knowledge regarding the ADA.
Charles (2003)	Unspecified	US	Government survey (PSID ^e )	PWD/Employees	CaB – PWD’s earnings drop sharply around the date of disability onset, mainly as a result of hours reductions, and subsequently recovery. – Greater chronicity is associated with larger wage losses. – Younger PWD exhibit smaller wage losses and more robust wage gains.
Chi and Qu (2003)	Unspecified	US	Survey	Employers	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. Respondentsexpressed (to some degree) favorable attitudes toward PWD; but concerns, e.g. about training or cost of accommodation remain. – Employers’ attitudes toward hiring PWD improve when they have previous experience with PWD.
Chi and Qu (2004)	Physical/Sensory/Mental	US	Survey	Employers	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. Concerns, e.g. about training or cost of accommodation. “The sentiment of appraisals is affected by disability type, where employers have more positive attitudes toward employees with sensory impairment and physical disabilities compared to employees with mental disabilities. Persons with physical disabilities receive more favorable employability. – Employers’ attitudes toward hiring PWD improve when they have previous experience with PWD.
Colella and Varma (1999)	Hearing/Vision	US	Experiment	Students	APaCM – Appraisal of PWDs’ current performance was performed accurately when clear objective information was available; appraisals on PWD’s future performance were affected by stigma and stereotypes about disability job-fit. Raters were less willing to recommend PWD for promotion.
Colella et al. (1998)	Dyslexia	US	Experiment	Students	APaCM – PWD’s performance was rated fairly when performance information was directly available. Fair appraisals of PWD’s performance can be achieved through standardization. Future performance of PWD was expected to be equal to current performance. – Boundary conditions affect appraisals: appraisals tend to differ when rater is affected by PWDs’ performance. Appraisals tend to be more negative in case of poor-fit situations.
Dalgin and Bellini (2008)	Physical/Psychiatric	US	Experiment	Employers	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. Disability type matters: negative bias against psychiatric disabilities; applicants with psychiatric disabilities are rated more negatively than those with physical disabilities. – Applicant with physical disability who disclosed the disabilities received highest employability rating.
DeCarvalho-Freitas and Stathi (2017)	Unspecified	Brazil	Experiment	Students/Managers	TaD – Imagined intergroup contact is an efficient preparatory tool in the implementation of organizational actions related to securing and promoting diversity, improving the belief in performance, and attitudes toward PWD in organizational settings.
DeLeire (2001)	Multiple	US	Government survey (SIPP ^f )	PWD/Employees	CaB – Unexplained gap between work-limited PWD and non-disabled employees is a combination of discrimination and productivity differences with 5–8% earnings gap due to discrimination.
Diksa and Rogers (1996)	Psychiatric	US	Survey	Employers	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD and their chances of being hired. The sentiment of appraisals is affected negatively by administrative concerns, concerns about work performance, work personality, and symptoms regarding psychiatric disabilities. – Levels of concern differ by industry type: persons with psychiatric disabilities were most likely hired by companies in the retail trade rather than by companies in other industries. – Employers’ attitudes toward hiring PWD improve when they have previous experience with PWD.
Erickson et al. (2014)	Unspecified	US	Survey	SHRM members	SaS – Supply-side barriers (e.g. impediments associated with PWDs’ skills) and demand-side barriers (e.g. costs and managers’ attitudes) affect PWDs’ employment or advancement. Organizational barriers to hiring PWD and, e.g. barriers due to attitudes/stereotypes or concerns about training costs decreased in importance; concerns about accommodation costs remained significant. TaD – Relative absence of retention and advancement practices, as well as of disability-inclusive recruitment practices that legitimize the disability employment within the organizations. E.g., less than half of the organizations implemented mentoring; and only slightly over half of organizations surveyed provide training to HR staff and supervisors on effective interviewing approaches for candidates with disabilities. – Training for disability inclusiveness (implemented by around two thirds of companies) seems to improve organizational attitudes toward PWD and related employment decisions. Mentoring
Fraser et al. (2011)	Unspecified	US	Focus groups	Managers	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD and their chances of being hired. Concerns relate to behavioral and to normative beliefs regarding co-worker and manager negativity. – The sentiment of appraisals/employers’ attitudes toward hiring PWD depends on the size of organizations with openness toward hiring PWD increasing with company size. – Larger employers generally expressed fewer concerns about PWDs’ ability to perform tasks than small and midsized employers; but a lack of commitment regarding actual hiring practices remained.
Gilbride et al. (2003)	Unspecified	US	Focus groups/Interviews	PWD/Employers/Placement providers	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD and their chances of being hired. Employers’ attitudes toward hiring PWD improve when they have previous experience with PWD. – Applicants with (and without) disabilities have to meet the following criteria to be considered for a position: being able to perform essential functions of the job effectively, with or without accommodations, and soft skills (i.e. positive attitude) to be reliable.
Gouvier et al. (1991)	Neurological	US	Experiment	Students	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD negatively. Disability type matters: raters rated applicants with nonvisible, non-neurologic disabilities better than those with visible and neurologic ones. Persons with visible disabilities are less likely chosen for jobs requiring high amounts of public contact.
Gouvier et al. (2003)	Multiple	US	Experiment	Students	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. Discrimination hinges on course of a disability and disability type. Applicants with back injury (i.e. physical disability) are rated significantly more favorably than those with a developmental disability, brain injury, or mental illness. No effects of public contact were found.
Gröschl (2007)	Unspecified	Canada	Interviews	Managers	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. Focus on aesthetics and physical attractiveness as well as industry-specific challenges, such as mobility requirements and shift or night work, might hinder the recruitment of PWD. – Proactive attraction and recruitment of PWD is mostly limited. None of the participating hotels had policies or company documents, such as mission statements, referring specifically to PWD. – Only one hotel had a specific recruitment strategy for employees with physical disabilities. TaD – More disability inclusiveness training is suggested to improve, e.g. educative programs and pre-employment initiatives for PWD. – Training for PWD is limited/not provided, as it is perceived as more expensive than their counterparts without disabilities. However, mentoring and developing programs like vocational training are suggested.
Gröschl (2013)	Unspecified	Germany	Interviews/Observations	Managers/Employees/Customers	SaS – Appraisals of applicants with (and without) disabilities should be based on job-relevant characteristics and abilities. – Selection methods with strong predictive validity of future job performance and matching PWDs’ competencies with job requirements allows that PWD have no effect on their performance. TaD – Objective, factual, and immediate feedback supported by examples, and frequently individualized training programs that are to address and accommodate each employee’s disability are helpful measures.
Gunderson and Hyatt (1996)	Work injury	Canada	Survey	PWD	CaB – Injured workers who receive job accommodations might receive lower wages, which was found to be in essence ‘paying the price’ of their own accommodations. This mainly happened when employees did not return to the employer where their accident took place (working for a new employer).
Gunderson and Lee (2016)	Multiple	Canada	Government survey (PALS ^g )	PWD	CaB – PWD earn less income relative to employees without disabilities, even after controlling for variables like quality of the job, tenure, and actual performance (10% disability-related wage differential). – Disability-related wage differential is commonly attributed to discrimination.
Habeck et al. (2010)	Unspecified	US	Survey	Employers	SaS – Efforts to include PWD in recruitment and hiring of new employees are limited. Validity of ratings of hiring practices regarding PWD may be threatened. Retention and disability management practices do not correlate with intention and commitment to hire PWD but including disability in a company’s diversity plan does. TaD – Absence and disability management and retention policies and practices relate to improving health and managing health conditions and resolving disability and return to work issues. – Provision of development opportunities for PWD and related tools are highly correlated with retention, but the importance of developing such practices is relatively low.
Hand and Tryssenaar (2006)	Mental	Canada	Interviews/Survey	Employers	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. Employers are reluctant to hire persons with mental illness due to safety concerns and concerns about (poor) work performance and quality of Managers report moderate to high degrees of concern regarding all applicant characteristics, specifically regarding workplace personality (interpersonal factors). Employers might be reluctant to hire persons with mental illness due to concerns about Study Disability type(s) National context(s) Method/design Sample Key findingsa APaCM: (Performance) appraisal, promotion, and career management; CaB: compensation and benefits; SaS: selection and staffing; TaD: training and development (poor) behaviour at work, safety and work performance. – Previous contact with persons with mental illness may alleviate some areas of concern.
Harcourt et al. (2005)	Unspecified	New Zealand	Archival documents	Organizations	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. The sentiment of appraisals is affected by concerns about PWD’s performance, cost pressures and institutional concerns for perceived legitimacy. – Coercive pressures necessary to treat PWD appropriately. – Lack of compliance with legal standards to provide accessible and inclusive selection. – The likelihood of using health- or disability-related questions in the application process depends on boundary conditions: Health- or disability-related questions used more commonly… – when companies pay higher rather than fewer benefits to injured employees – in larger rather than smaller companies – in civil service organizations rather than private-sector ones
Hayes and Macan (1997)	Unspecified	US	Survey	PWD/Recruiters	SaS – PWDs’ self-presentation affects perception of PWDs’ qualifications and, in turn, affects the perceived employability and final hiring decisions. – Aesthetic qualities affect the appraisals of persons without disabilities, but not evaluations of PWD.
Hayes et al. (1995)	Unspecified	US	Survey	PWD/Employees	SaS – A comprehensive list of seven selection methods is discussed in terms of fairness and job-relatedness in the context of disability.
Hazer and Bedell (2000)	Physical/Psychiatric	US	Experiment	HR managers/Students	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. Requesting accommodation affects the evaluation of PWDs’ employability and PWDs’ chances of being hired negatively. – ADA knowledge and attitude toward the law are not significantly related to applicants with disabilities’ suitability ratings.
Hebl and Kleck (2002)	Obesity/Wheelchair	US	Experiment	Students	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. High controllability of a disability (e.g. obesity) affects appraisal and hiring intention negatively. Applicants with concealable disabilities may have more success in ‘passing’ compared to those without disabilities or a disability identity. In case of disability disclosure, persons with physical disabilities were evaluated more positively than obese persons were.
Hernandez et al. (2012)	Unspecified	US	Focus groups	Employers	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. Attitudes toward hiring PWD were favorable in both nonprofit and for-profit organizations, but subjective norms remained. Even employers with positive attitudes might perceive abilities and talents of PWD incorrectly. – Employers’ attitudes improve when managers have previous experience with PWD.
Huang and Chen (2015)	Unspecified	Taiwan	Interviews	Employers	APaCM – Promotions are based on competence and work-related performance appraisals, while disability as a factor was considered irrelevant. – Promotions that require changes in work duties, work content, and interpersonal situations on the job might be perceived as a problem for PWD by managers, and promotions, as a result, may be considered inappropriate for PWD. SaS – Lack of disability-oriented processes in Canadian hotels. – PWDs’ objective constraints are critical for job placements. – Employers’ attitudes toward hiring PWD may improve when they have previous experience with PWD. – Hiring of PWD is affected by policy implications like quota systems. – (Structured) interviews are helpful selection practices regarding PWD, since they allow the assessment of PWDs’ qualifications, job match, and the discussion about potential accommodations and work conditions. – Written resources, such as application forms or resumes, as stand-alone practices are of little help to assess applicants. – Referrals as supportive tools (especially for unskilled positions) allow clarity about PWD’s abilities, job history, and individual characteristics. – ‘Physical conditions’, ‘parents’ attitudes’, and ‘location of residence’ are significant hiring criteria regarding applicants with intellectual disabilities. ‘Soft skills’ are also relevant hiring criteria for PWD. TaD – Orientation procedures and training on-the-job provide PWD with background information and increase their familiarity with the company. Programs are designed similarly to those of non-disabled employees, but have a strong emphasis on characteristics of inclusion, such as abstracting instructions, combining instruction with demonstration, and written material.
Jackson et al. (2000)	Unspecified	UK	Survey	HR managers	SaS – Employers’ attitude and knowledge of legislation affects provision of legally required adjustments to recruitment and selection processes. TaD – Training for disability inclusiveness is a logical way to improve employer attitudes and knowledge of “Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), as well as to encourage employers to comply with DDA.
Jasper and Waldhart (2013)	Unspecified	US	Government survey (ODEP ^h )	Employers	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD; there are concerns about employability, qualifications and costs of accommodations. – Employers’ attitudes toward hiring PWD depends on the size of organizations with openness toward hiring PWD increasing with company size. TaD – Practices like training for disability inclusiveness, mentoring, and short-term on-the-job assistance are widely supported and considered helpful by leisure and hospitality employers.
Kaye et al. (2011)	Unspecified	US	Survey	HR managers	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. The sentiment of appraisals is affected by concerns about costs of accommodations, PWD’s performance, and fear of legal liability. TaD – Training for disability inclusiveness is the most commonly endorsed action for improving hiring and retention of PWD. Lectures only on legal requirements are insufficient regarding disability awareness. Instead, solutions for disability and accommodation issues and practical approaches are preferrable. Employed PWD are suggested to be trainers or participants in such trainings.
Kitchin et al. (1998)	Multiple	Ireland	Interviews	PWD/Supporters	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. Employers are generally ignorant and fearful of disability. TaD – Training for disability inclusiveness is suggested to educate employers in terms of the aspirations, capabilities, and productiveness of PWD.
Kosyluk et al. (2014)	Psychiatric	China/US	Experiment	Employers	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. The sentiment of appraisals is affected by concerns about functional performance and stability in the workplace of persons with psychiatric disabilities. – Employers’ attitudes toward hiring persons with psychiatric disabilities improve when they have previous experience with such persons.
Kruse et al. (2018)	Multiple	US	Government survey (ACS ^i + O*Net ^c )	PWD/Employees	CaB – Earnings differential is attributed to differences in productivity but does not comprehensively explain lower pay of PWD. About 5–8% of the earning differential potentially reflects discrimination. – PWD might accept pay reductions in exchange for beneficial working conditions.
Kulkarni (2016)	Unspecified	India	Interviews	Employers	APaCM – Career development initiatives should be generic, avoiding positive or negative discrimination, and ensuring equal opportunities and accommodating all employees, with and without disabilities. – Use of the right language and terminology, sensitization programs, feedback, publication of PWDs’ success stories, and ability building/coaching sessions for PWD mentoring, accommodations, and related audits for everyone are apart from a diversity and inclusion policy critical for PWDs’ career advancement. SaS – Applicants with a disability are rated based on the same stringent hiring criteria as those without, because of the belief that no one would like differential treatment. – Rating applicants based on merit is recommended. TaD – Training for disability inclusiveness is important for PWDs’ careers.
Kulkarni and Valk (2010)	Physical	Netherlands	Interviews	PWD/HR managers	SaS – Some companies intentionally do not use disability-specific recruitment material to either avoid future stigmatization for PWD, to refrain from preference policy that PWD probably do not appreciate, or to hire based on ability. TaD – Mostly no automatic provision of mentoring programs, specific socialization activities, or skill-based training for PWD. – Provision of developmental interventions to PWD only if PWD or a manager requested them. – Most employers offer general induction or socialization activities to PWD.
Kulkarni et al. (2018)	Unspecified	India	Interviews	Employees	TaD – Systematic organization-wide changes regarding disability-inclusive practices are only achieved, if disability awareness interventions are part of a large inclusion project. – Effectiveness of disability training depends on format and the ways of implementation (e.g. PWD as instructors). – Training for disability inclusiveness in form of group seminars covering general recommendations and information about disability and accommodations is successful. – Training for disability inclusiveness is, apart from directly associating with PWD, an efficient way to widen disability awareness and to support social inclusion. – Increased awareness for PWD might inadvertently lead to singling out PWD (‘othering’).
Kwan (2020)	Down syndrome/Intellectual	China	Interviews	Employees/Social workers	SaS – Matching job duties with abilities of PWD and shorter working hours to accommodate physical needs are essential for successful employment. TaD – Training for PWD after recruitment as a helpful measure, including mini-lectures, visits, role-plays, and demonstrations, in which PWD were provided with basic vocational skills needed for the hospitality sector, practical opportunities to learn essential skills and work attitude. Also support for colleagues on how to engage and work properly with PWDs. – Mentors for PWD to help understand instructions.
Leasher et al. (2009)	Unspecified	US	Experiment	Students	SaS – Biases and stigmas affect the appraisal of PWD and their chances of being hired. Simulated applicants with disabilities elicit positive appraisal because of managers’ commitment to diversity, internal motivations to control prejudice, and openness to new experiences.
Lengnick-Hall et al. (2008)	Unspecified	US	Interviews	Employers	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. The sentiment of appraisals is affected by concerns about job qualifications and performance of PWD, fear of the unknown, and fear of legal liability. Concerns about the costs associated with hiring PWD and possible reactions of other stakeholders. – Rating PWD on their abilities, capabilities, and experience to do the job (without focusing on disability) is suggested. TaD – Vocational training and increasing disability awareness through contact with PWD and publications of success stories of companies employing PWD is suggested. – Mentoring is suggested to integrate PWD into organizations.
Louvet (2007)	Physical	France	Experiment	Students	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD, with biases about perceived poor-fit with certain jobs.
Macan and Hayes (1995)	Unspecified	US	Field study	Managers/Students	SaS – Raters’ pre-interview impressions of PWD influenced PWDs’ interview and post-interview outcomes. Tendency to rate applicants with a disability more favorably than those without a disability. – Resumes (pre-interview) in addition to interviews and interview presentations of PWD affect the evaluations of applicants’ qualifications. – Around 20% of the addressed companies asked legally non-compliant, disability-related questions.
Malo and Pagán (2012)	Unspecified	Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and UK	Government survey (ECHP ^j )	Employees	CaB – Wage differentials are affected by activity limitations due to certain disabilities. No relevant wage differential in most EU countries when PWD have little limitations in daily activities. – If wage differentials existed, they were mainly related to low productivity characteristics, not to wage discrimination. However, PWD with limitations in daily activities face low productivity and wage discrimination.
McKinney and Swartz (2019)	Multiple	South Africa	Interviews	PWD	SaS – Lack of compliance with legal standards to provide accessible and inclusive selection practices (e.g. barriers relating to medical and psychometric testing). – Interviewers are unprofessional, e.g. directing questions to interpreters and not the interviewee, or asking disability-related questions. – Advertisements, application forms, interview venues and interview questions need to be accessible and appropriate for PWD to prevent barriers to employment. Selection criteria that focus only on inherent requirements of a position and do not discriminate against PWD are suggested.
McLellan et al. (2001)	Work injury	US	Survey	Supervisors	TaD – Training for disability inclusiveness (1.5 h) focused on promoting supervisor behavior, administered by an occupational health nurse practitioner. Contents: empathic and supportive communication, job-site analysis, and accident investigation. Results: Participants had significant improvements in confidence to handle concerns regarding work injury, including facilitating communication and accommodations.
Meacham et al. (2017a)	Intellectual	Australia	Case study (Focus groups/Interviews)	Managers/PWD/Supervisors/Colleagues	TaD – Exchanges about supervision support and buddy systems are particularly important for employees with intellectual disabilities. – ‘Buddy systems’ provide on-going support to PWD and are cost-effective. – Increased awareness for PWD might inadvertently lead to singling out PWD (‘othering’).
Meacham et al. (2017b)	Intellectual	Australia	Case studies (Focus groups/Interviews/Observation)	Managers/PWD	TaD – Supervised, real-life experience in form of a film project for persons with intellectual disabilities is a successful approach to increase disability awareness. – A combination of formal and informal socialization practices (training and buddy systems) support PWDs’ workplace inclusion and development by strengthening their abilities and confidence.
Miceli et al. (2001)	Child-care-demands/HIV-positive/Wheelchair	US	Experiment	Students	SaS – Structured interviews are a valid selection tool, leading to accurate performance appraisal. However, evaluations are not connected to hiring decisions. Interview performance of PWD is seen as favorable, yet respondents do not favor hiring them. – Also biases and stigmas against certain disability types still persist. Applicants using a wheelchair are rated more negatively than equally qualified counterparts without a physical disability.
Michna et al. (2017)	Unspecified	Poland	Interviews/ Survey	PWD/Managers/Companies	SaS – Positive appraisals of PWD depends on personality (43.9%), meeting the formal requirements (32.5%), and self-presentation (21.1%). TaD – Employers aim to offer general and vocational training for PWD and listed PWDs’ development of social and personal competences (e.g. communication, working in a group, or talking on the phone) as essential. Modules for PWDs’ professional development are suggested to include psychology-focused training, self-presentation courses, foreign language courses, practical classes, and gaining hands-on vocational experience.
Miller and Werner (2005)	Physical/ Mental	US	Experiment	Students	APaCM – Boundary conditions affect appraisals where consequences for raters affect the evaluation of PWD. In case of little consequence to raters, PWDs’ appraisal was affected by socially desirable sympathy effects. Task performance ratings were better for PWD than for persons without disabilities. – Disability type does not affect contextual performance ratings by coworkers, but onset or origin of a disability does.
Nordstrom et al. (1998)	Physical	US	Experiment	Employees	SaS – Biases and stigmas affect the appraisal of PWD positively. Applicants with a disability are rated more favorably than those without a disability.
Pérez-Conesa et al. (2020)	Unspecified	Spain	Survey	HR managers, CEOs, and other managers responsible for HR	APaCM, SaS & TaD – Existence of a strategic plan to normalize disability in organizational environment, as a means to develop an inclusive culture. HR management systems do not require adaption to particularities and diversities of employees when applied inclusively. TaD – Degree of adaptation is lowest regarding professional development systems for PWD compared to other HR practices.
Premeaux (2001)	Physical/ Mental	US	Experiment	Students	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD and their chances of being hired. Disability types affect hiring decisions: negative bias against mental disabilities – persons with mental disabilities are less likely to be hired than”} persons with physical disabilities. – The sentiment of appraisals is also affected by interdependence for the evaluator. PWD are recommended for hire less frequently when the position is in close physical proximity to the evaluator, ostensibly as close proximity implies higher interdependence.
Reilly et al. (2006)	Multiple	US	Experiment	Students	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. Disabilities’ origin matters, with applicants with a history of depression or substance abuse being rated differently than those with cancer. – Appraisals suggested to be based on job-relevant characteristics and abilities irrespective of the disability’s nature, degree, or severity. – Specific job-relevant benchmarks, validated structures, and objective standards are important to reduce bias in selection processes of PWD. Disability stigma can be removed through a structured interview.
Rudstam et al. (2013)	Unspecified	US	Interviews/Survey	Employees	TaD – Disability inclusiveness training administered using a combination of in-person and online training designed to impact employer knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors/practices around hiring, accommodating, and retaining PWD in the workplace. Contents include specific consideration of disability as diversity, perspective taking exercises, assessment of organization inclusiveness and strategizing for change. This results in changes in attitudes, knowledge, and behavioral intentions between pre- and post-training (immediately). Individual action, teaching others, building partnerships, and changing organizational policies or practices (long-term) are important.
Schur et al. (2009)	Unspecified	US	Government survey (NBER ^k )	Employees/Companies	APaCM – Providing instrumental advice or psychosocial support through peers is relevant for PWDs’ promotion. There is a relative lack of informal training that, in turn, should be expected to lead to fewer promotions. CaB – PWD are low on base pay, including overtime and benefits. PWD are eligible for merit-based pay and bonuses based on group or department performance. TaD – PWD less likely participate in formal, company-sponsored training and mentoring programs than persons without disabilities. If formal training was received, the hours of training are not significantly affected by disability status.
Shantz et al. (2018)	Unspecified	UK	Government survey (WERS ^l )	PWD/Employees	CaB – PWD may feel that individual variable pay is not an equal treatment policy, leading to pay dissatisfaction (especially if trust in management is low, or if disability-related policy and practices are not jointly implemented with an effective management policy). – Type of evaluation of variable pay – subjective (e.g. performance appraisal) vs. objective (e.g. piece-rate pay) – may change PWDs’ reaction to it.
Vedeler (2014)	Mobility	Norway/US	Interviews	PWD	SaS – PWD can experience discrimination, uncertainty, or recognition in interviews. Appraisal of PWD is based on qualifications, with PWD on par with persons without disabilities. Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD and their chances of being hired; there are misconceptions about what constitutes disability.
Villanueva-Flores et al. (2015)	Physical	Spain	Survey	PWD	CaB – PWD perceive their compensation as being not based on the position’s degree of difficulty, complexity, or responsibility, leading to dissatisfaction. Anti-discrimination and diversity management policies are suggested, as PWD perceived pay to be unequal and discriminatory.
Wilson-Kovacs et al. (2008)	Physical	UK	Interviews	PWD	APaCM – Lack of support at formal and informal levels, limiting PWDs’ promotion opportunities. Career-enhancing practices, like networks, mentoring, and feedback, are absent and PWDs’ learning opportunities that drive career progression are limited.
Woodhams and Corby (2007)	Unspecified	UK	Survey	HR managers	SaS – Disability equality practices including standardization of entry procedures, like monitoring PWD during recruitment, review of resourcing documentation (such as job/person specifications), medical standards, and reviewing interview procedures increased in usage and led to increased employment of PWD. A written equal opportunity policy that mentions disability is not a significant practice measure in improving PWDs’ employment. – Move toward practices of standardization by, for example, formulating policy guidelines and reviewing recruitment procedures for differences in treatment. TaD – Organizations increased their efforts not only to ensure disability equality, but also equal treatment of PWD. – Training for disability inclusiveness is a successful disability equality practice that increased in usage.

Notes: HR: human resources; NBGH: National Business Group on health members; PWD: people with disabilities; SHRM: Society for Human Resource Management.

a This table only reports on the sample and findings related to our objective to discover HR practices proven to be successful or recommended, as well as related areas of concern or uncertainty.

b Survey of income and program participation – 1996, 2000, 2004 (US).

c Occupational information network.

d Medical expenditure panel survey – 1999 (US).

e Panel study of income dynamics – 1968–1993 (US).

f Survey of income and program participation – 1984, 1993 (US).

g Participation and activity limitation survey – 2006 (Canada).

h Office of disability employment policy survey of employer perspectives on the employment of persons with disabilities – 2008 (US).

i American community survey – 2008–2014 (US).

j European community household panel – 1995–2001.

k National Bureau of economic research shared capitalism research project – 2001–2006 (US).

l Workplace employee relations survey – 2011 (UK).

Description of the studies

In 32 articles (43.2%), disability was researched as a homogenous construct, followed by 27 publications (36.5%) that studied disability types such as physical disabilities. Another 11 studies considered multiple types of disability (14.9%). Only four studies (5.4%) researched distinct conditions.

The selected studies included 18 qualitative (24.3%), 53 quantitative (71.6%) and 3 mixed-method (4.1%) studies. Publications occurred in 33 different journals, although comparably little attention has been given to the subject from an academic (HR) management perspective. Most findings stemmed from rehabilitation and psychology journals.

Nineteen different national contexts were addressed, demonstrating wide interest in various academic communities in this subject. However, most articles were conducted in the US (N = 44), followed by Canada (N = 4) and the UK (N = 4). Only four studies used a cross-country comparative approach.

As a post-hoc analysis, we investigated but could not observe significant changes in the number of publications regarding HR practices for PWD over time. Furthermore, we researched whether the changes to the definition of ‘disability’ due to the Amendments Act of 2008, broadening the scope of coverage under both the ADA and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, affected the design of the reviewed research. However, except for increased research interests regarding training and development practices, no major changes in the addressed practices, methodology, or disability types studied (see Table 3) could be observed.

Table 3. Overview of studies (n = 74).

	Count 1990–2008 (past ADA)	Count 2009–2020 (past ADA Amendment Act)	Total count
Methodology
Qualitative	6	12	18
Quantitative	34	19	53
Mixed methods	1	2	3
Addressed HR practices
Staffing and selection	31	20	51
Training and development	8	19	27
(Performance) appraisal, promotion, and career management	4	5	9
Compensation and Benefits	5	7	12
Disability type(s) studied ranked by occurrence
Unspecified	13	19	32
Disability types	18	9	27
Physical	9	5	14
Physical	(4)	(2)	(6)
Work injury	(3)		(3)
Hearing/Vision	(1)		(1)
Mobility		(1)	(1)
Neurological	(1)		(1)
Physical/Sensory		(1)	(1)
Sensory		(1)	(1)
Physical/Mental (Psychiatric)	6	0	6
Mental (Psychiatric)	3	1	4
Intellectual (incl. Down syndrome/Intellectual)	0	3	3
Multiple types of disability	7	4	11
Distinct conditions	3	1	4
Asperger’s syndrome/Spinal cord injury		(1)
Childcare-demands/HIV-positive/Wheelchair	(1)
Dyslexia	(1)
Obesity/Wheelchair	(1)

Results

The following analysis is divided into four parts, discussing current findings on HR practices in the context of disability regarding ‘selection and staffing’, ‘training and development’, ‘(performance) appraisal, promotion, and career management’ and ‘compensation and benefits’. Not only insights on content features, but also conspicuous aspects in the interplay of HR practices and used research methods or disability types studied (see Table 4) are provided.

Table 4. Overview of addressed HR practices.

	HR practices
	SaS	TaD	APaCM	CaB
Disability type(s) studied ranked by occurrence
Unspecified	25	19	4	4
Disability types	16	6	3	5
Physical	7	3	2	4
Physical	(4)	(1)	(1)	(1)
Work injury		(1)		(2)
Mobility	(1)
Physical/Sensory	(1)	(1)
Hearing/Vision			(1)
Neurological	(1)
Sensory				(1)
Physical/Mental (Psychiatric)	5	0	1	0
Intellectual (incl. Down syndrome/Intellectual)	1	3	0	0
Mental (Psychiatric)	3	0	0	1
Multiple types of disability	7	2	1	3
Distinct conditions	3	0	1	0
Asperger’s syndrome/Spinal cord injury	(1)
Childcare-demands/HIV-positive/Wheelchair	(1)
Dyslexia			(1)
Obesity/Wheelchair	(1)
Research method(s) ranked by occurrence
Qualitative	14	11	3	0
Quantitative	18	3	3	12
Mixed methods	2	2	0	0

Selection and staffing

The clear majority of studies in our sample (51 articles) dealt with PWDs’ selection and staffing, whereby recruiting was investigated in both actual (e.g. Huang & Chen, 2015) and hypothetical contexts (e.g. Bricout & Bentley, 2000). Although PWD should not face obstacles, selection processes were often found to inadvertently discourage or even discriminate against PWD. Several studies indicated that managers are regularly not comprehensively informed about effective recruitment practices (e.g. Chan et al., 2010), deliberately do not provide appropriately designed practices (e.g. Harcourt et al., 2005) or lack compliance with (legal) standards (e.g. McKinney & Swartz, 2019). For example, adjustments to selection processes like adapting assessment centers, although legally required, depend not only on employers’ legal knowledge but also on their attitudes toward PWD (Jackson et al., 2000). Moreover, Bruyère et al. (2006) discovered that several HR professionals addressed in their study faced difficulties applying certain legal basics (e.g. making information accessible for persons with visual or learning disabilities) despite having knowledge of them.

In contrast, Kulkarni and Valk (2010) observed that disability-specific recruitment material may be also missing intentionally to avoid stigmatization, to refrain from preference policy that PWD will not appreciate, or to hire based on ability.

(Design of) selection practices

Seven articles reported on (the design of) selection practices regarding PWD. While Hayes et al. (1995) addressed a comprehensive list of selection methods like personality inventories, work samples, and interviews regarding fairness and job-relatedness, the research overall lacked information on most of them. Articles mainly considered (un-)structured interviews (e.g. Reilly et al., 2006) with mixed results regarding their applicability.

In an experimental study, Reilly et al. (2006), for example, discovered the importance of job-relevant benchmarks, validated structures and objective (behavioral) standards to reduce bias against applicants with a prior disability in interviews. Brecher et al. (2006) observed similar measures regarding physical disabilities, while also suggesting note-taking, multiple interviewers, and written job analyses based on required and desired duties and qualifications. However, despite acknowledging that structured interviews are fairer, more accurate and more resistant to biases than non-structured ones, they raised concerns. Standardized formats may be experienced as decision-making hindering by employers, and as unwelcoming or inflexible by applicants with disabilities (Brecher et al., 2006).

Huang and Chen (2015), in comparison, discovered employers’ affection for interviews. Interviews allow ‘to assess applicants’ job skills and job readiness, to identify appropriate jobs and required accommodations, and to discuss work conditions’ (p. 48), unlike application forms and resumes that were found to be of little help. As complementary evaluation resources (pre-interview), resumes were considered helpful (Macan & Hayes, 1995). Furthermore, personal references were described as supportive tools in PWDs’ hiring process, especially for unskilled positions, as they allow clarity about abilities, job history, and individual characteristics (Huang & Chen, 2015).

Evaluation and hiring criteria

Forty-five studies revealed that both objective ratings based on job-relevant characteristics and evaluations profoundly affected by subjective norms are applied in practice to assess applicants with disabilities. Most articles in this section suggested that ratings and hiring criteria are often not objective. Nevertheless, findings were inconclusive. Five articles (e.g. Nordstrom et al., 1998) discussed favorable ratings unrelated to PWDs’ objective suitability, (presumably) implying the risk of leniency or social desirability bias. The opposing view, considering adverse evaluations and related tendencies to refrain from hiring (certain) PWD, was addressed in 30 studies. These reluctant approaches are often based on stigma and prejudices regarding specific disability types (e.g. Dalgin & Bellini, 2008), or related factors like their course (Gouvier et al., 2003) as well as on misperceptions or uncertainty of PWDs’ performance and qualifications (e.g. Kaye et al., 2011). Adding to this ambiguity, managers’ fear of the unknown (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2008), supervision, costs of PWDs’ accommodations (e.g. Chi & Qu, 2003), and PWDs’ perceived fit to certain occupations (e.g. Louvet, 2007) were cited as potential obstacles to hiring PWD. Managers, for example, incorrectly assume that PWD are unable to perform physically demanding tasks (e.g. Lengnick-Hall et al., 2008). Furthermore, Huang and Chen (2015) found compelling effects of policy implications like quota systems. Rather than valuing PWDs’ potential, employers focus on meeting stipulations.

Despite the strong indication of subjective evaluations, these findings cannot be considered as unequivocal proof for intended or consistently negative evaluations. PWDs’ objective constraints are critical for job placements (e.g. Huang & Chen, 2015). Orthopedic disabilities, for example, preclude filling positions that require dexterity (Bengisu & Balta, 2011). Moreover, focusing on ideal qualifications rather than necessary ones was found to unintentionally disqualify PWD, implying that fair and impartial evaluations require objective rating schemes (e.g. Reilly et al., 2006). Research presenting an objective side hence suggested evaluating PWDs’ qualifications irrespective of nature, degree, or severity of the disability (e.g. Bengisu & Balta, 2011). For instance, reflecting practices in Turkish touristic facilities, Bengisu and Balta (2011) argued that job matches should be based on ‘professional knowledge, abilities, experience and capabilities’ (p. 48). Despite vocational qualifications, ‘soft skills’ for PWD in general (e.g. Gilbride et al., 2003) and ‘physical conditions’, as well as ‘parents’ attitudes’ and ‘location of residence’ regarding intellectual disabilities were also found to be significant (Huang & Chen, 2015).

Overall, many studies in this section still implicitly research barriers to the employment of PWD in the context of hiring criteria with a focus on stereotypes and prejudice. Few have actually analyzed solutions toward equal treatment of PWD. Mainly, applying structure and standardization were found to be important criteria for designing appropriate selection and staffing practices. The few studies discussing selection practices are certainly helpful in that they addressed the usefulness of certain designs like structured interviews or referrals as complementary evaluation resources. However, effects of those selection practices are mostly anticipated rather than actually measured. Hence, although our review indicates that PWDs’ chances for employment should be positively affected when objectivity is aimed for, researchers and HR practitioners are still in the dark about how to choose and to appropriately design concrete selection practices. Building upon current findings, relying more on mixed-methods as well as longitudinal research may be a promising way to investigate the actual effects of individual selection practices in more depth.

Training and development

Twenty-seven articles addressed disability-focused HR practices that aim to enhance employees’ knowledge, skills or behavior.

(Competency) training and development for PWD

Nine articles addressed ability-enhancing practices relevant to PWDs’ vocational development. Of those, three articles discovered a lack or restricted implementation of positively perceived, probably effective, but yet-to-be-confirmed training and development interventions. In a large-scale survey, Schur et al. (2009), for example, discovered that PWD were less likely to participate in formal training and mentoring programs compared to peers without disabilities. Moreover, Kulkarni and Valk (2010) observed that developmental interventions would only be provided to PWD if they or a manager requested it. However, most employers did not refrain from offering general induction or socialization activities to PWD. The latter finding is similar to Huang and Chen’s study (2015) that also discovered orientation procedures for PWD. They resembled those for employees without disabilities, but included characteristics of inclusion, like combining instruction with demonstrations and written material.

Another eight studies investigated practices that aim to support PWDs’ (vocational) development. Short-term on-the-job assistance with an outside job coach (Jasper & Waldhart, 2013), job training programs (Kwan, 2020), factual and immediate feedback, and individualized training (Gröschl, 2013) were listed as helpful measures. Additionally, Meacham et al. (2017b) introduced a mentoring system and a film project that successfully supported the (career) development of persons with intellectual disabilities by allowing real-life experiences and developing a feeling of inclusion.

Michna et al. (2017) discovered employers’ affinity for general and vocational training, and for development of social and personal competencies (e.g. communication). These findings allowed recommending four modules for PWDs’ professional development that include psychology-focused training, self-presentation or foreign language courses, practical classes and hands-on vocational experience. Finally, Pérez-Conesa et al. (2020) suggests that disability-focused practices would no longer be needed, if companies aimed for inclusive cultures, providing generic training, professional development and internal communication systems for all employees. However, so far even adapting professional development systems for PWD lacks implementation.

Training for disability inclusiveness

As a specific form of training and development, 17 articles discussed knowledge-building and behavior-changing training that mainly targets PWDs’ colleagues and superiors, aiming to improve PWDs’ workplace treatment. Kaye et al. (2011), for example, detected the training’s potential to affect employers’ misconceptions and concerns regarding the recruitment and retention of PWD. Others regarded such training, apart from directly associating with PWD, as the most efficient way to increase disability awareness and to support social inclusion, a key factor in informal workplace learning and PWDs’ career development (Kulkarni et al., 2018). However, Kulkarni et al. (2018) indicated that efforts will only translate into systemic organization-wide change if this training is part of a larger inclusion project.

Moreover, despite such interventions’ importance, several scholars underlined a lack of implementation, or a need to expand approaches that occasionally allowed for insights on successful concepts and content. Kaye et al. (2011), for instance, observed that incoherently presented information about (legal) disability-related requirements was perceived as insufficient. Instead, solutions for accommodation issues, practical approaches (e.g. rethinking job tasks), and other aspects that help overcome prejudice and misconceptions (e.g. PWDs’ success stories) were found to be critical. However, there was no consensus on the training’s design. Successful approaches utilized mental imagery (DeCarvalho-Freitas & Stathi, 2017), were interactive (e.g. McLellan et al., 2001), or blended online modules and in-person training (Rudstam et al., 2013). Effectiveness of disability training further seems to depend on its format, implying, for example, the advantage of instructors with disabilities (e.g. Kulkarni et al., 2018).

In the end, while disability awareness measures aim at PWDs’ vocational inclusion, two studies pointed to potential difficulties (Kulkarni et al., 2018; Meacham et al., 2017a). Specifically, focusing on a certain group can lead to the phenomena of ‘othering’, an inadvertent consequence of inclusion activities that segregates the target group such as PWD as being ‘outsiders’.

Taken together, the majority of studies focusing on training and development investigated the potential impact of inclusiveness trainings on colleagues and supervisors. Comparably few studies shed light on training PWD themselves. While fostering a climate of inclusion should definitely be beneficial for employees with disabilities (Boehm & Dwertmann, 2015; Dwertmann & Boehm, 2016), many questions remain open including the most effective training design and content. Ideally, future research should conduct formal training evaluations, using longitudinal and randomized field studies.

Moreover, future research should also focus more strongly on training and development opportunities for PWD in companies. To date, studies only suggested ability-enhancing practices without describing or analyzing them in detail. Mentoring, was, for example, introduced in various articles as a helpful measure for PWDs’ careers. Nonetheless, almost no information was provided on how to implement such a measure and what advantages or difficulties are to be expected when utilizing peer support. Further, even if studies addressed concrete practices, consistent with this body of research as a whole, the disability types studied remained often unclear. As disability attributes seem highly relevant for developing and implementing successful training and development measures, more fine-grained research is needed.

(Performance) appraisal, promotion and career management

Nine articles provided information on (performance) appraisal and practices that foster PWDs’ chances to progress within the workplace.

Performance appraisal

Five articles addressed performance appraisals of PWDs’ current or future performance, whereby three different kinds of assessment were considered. Studies discussed performance appraisal either based on current performance, future performance, or concerning evaluations of job applicants with disabilities. To avoid repetition, previously discussed selection evaluations are not addressed.

Huang and Chen (2015) found that promotions are based on competence and work-related performance appraisals, while disability as a factor was considered irrelevant. Similarly, Colella et al. (1998) discovered accurate estimates and expectations of PWDs’ performance when clear performance information and standards had been provided, indicating that disability in interaction with a task does not affect ratings. In an experimental follow-up study, however, Colella and Varma (1999) observed contradicting results. Unlike the appraisal of PWDs’ current performance that was performed accurately when clear objective information was available, expectations of future performance were negatively affected by stigma and stereotypes. Hence, while participants acknowledged PWDs’ entitlement to rewards based on performance, they were reluctant about training or promotion recommendations (Colella & Varma, 1999).

Thus, as already described regarding selection processes, appraisals and related reactions do not necessarily accurately reflect or anticipate PWDs’ performance. Stigma and stereotypes may impact information processing (e.g. interpretation, information recall) and lead to erroneous evaluations. Persons seen as personally responsible for their disabilities (e.g. depression), for example, receive comparably low promotion ratings (Bordieri & Drehmer, 1997). Further, research showed that certain boundary conditions like reward consequences for the rater or poor job-fit situations can affect the evaluation of PWD’s performance, leading to both adverse (Colella et al., 1998) and ‘inflated’ ratings (Miller & Werner, 2005).

Promotion and career management

Four studies reported on practices regarding the promotion and career management of PWD.

Schur et al. (2009) proposed that informal training and peer mentoring, instrumental advice and psychosocial support through peers is relevant for PWDs’ promotion. However, even though such factors were described as important, they mostly lack implementation. Such relative lack, in turn, is expected to lead to fewer promotions of PWD.

Similar findings were obtained by Wilson-Kovacs et al. (2008) who gathered in-depth insights on the career advancement process for PWD through interviews. They observed a lack of support at both formal and informal levels. Career-enhancing practices like networks, mentoring and feedback were found to be absent, and PWDs’ learning opportunities that drive career progression were limited. PWD were metaphorically encouraged ‘to do the safe colouring’ (Wilson-Kovacs et al., 2008, p. 710) and to leave ‘playing with scissors’ (p. 710) to other employees.

Finally, while researching career management strategies for PWD in the Indian context, Kulkarni (2016) discovered practices that are apart from a diversity and inclusion policy critical for PWDs’ career advancement. Sensitization programs, feedback, publication of PWDs’ success stories and coaching sessions for PWD were listed. Further, ability building, mentoring, accommodations and related audits for everyone were emphasized. Overall, and in line with the findings of Pérez-Conesa et al. (2020) mentioned above, programs were suggested to be generic ‘to signal meritocracy and not engage in positive or negative discrimination’ (p. 1668), allowing for equal opportunities and accommodations for all employees with and without disabilities.

Taken together, findings regarding the career management of PWD including their performance appraisal have been limited and broad. Formal and informal training were found to be relevant regarding their promotion. Apart from listing the importance of certain practices such as feedback, no detailed information was provided. Similar to our analysis of other HR dimensions, the existent research lacks information on distinct HR practices that affect PWDs’ chances and plans of job movement. These findings are in line with previous research that described PWD as a largely unutilized, yet skilled labor pool (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2008; Schur et al., 2014). While research on PWDs’ careers is already scarce for disability as an overarching status, it is basically non-existent regarding particular types or conditions of disability. These, however, would most likely call for differentiated approaches and measures in order to promote affected persons’ careers. Particularly, qualitative research could explore what kind of career support in form of HR practices employees with different forms of mental, physical and cognitive disabilities potentially miss or aim for.

Also, in contrast to selection appraisals, evaluations of PWDs’ current and future performance remain understudied. While appraisals of PWDs’ performance tend to be accurate when relevant information and standards are provided, they lack accuracy and objectivity when future potentials are concerned – most likely due to the prevalence of negative biases. Relatedly, further research is needed regarding fair and motivating rating criteria for PWD – both regarding general performance and if certain disability types require further evaluation accommodations.

Compensation and benefits

Twelve articles reported on compensation and benefits for PWD by using data that was solely obtained through (governmental) surveys.

(Discriminatory) pay differentials for PWD

In the nine articles that focused on (discriminatory) pay differentials and their explanation, there appeared to be a broad consensus: Notwithstanding different conditions and institutional contexts as well as disability types studied, PWD, on average receive less income than employees without disabilities. Wage differentials exist on an hourly and annual basis, both before and after controlling for wage-affecting factors (e.g. Baldwin & Marcus, 2007).

Evidence regarding wage-affecting, personal and job-specific attributes of PWD like education or (limited) performance, in contrast, was inconclusive and yielded mixed results. Charles (2003) found that earnings show a sharp drop around the date of onset and then subsequently recover, that greater chronicity is associated with larger wage losses, or that younger PWD exhibit smaller wage losses and more robust wage gains. Earning reductions observed here were suspected to be driven more by reductions in worked hours as opposed to lower wages. Other researchers underlined that different types or degrees of disability impact wages differently, for example due to various disability-related health conditions and the (actual or perceived) related productivity (e.g. Baldwin & Choe, 2014). However, despite acknowledging potential pay differences based on certain disabilities, none of the studies researched distinct conditions.

Regardless of the considered factors, though, a certain percentage of pay gaps could not be explained by the data, indicating discrimination and bias as potential reasons. DeLeire (2001), for example, observed that the unexplained earning gap is a combination of discrimination and productivity differences. Gunderson and Lee (2016), further, observed that when productivity was controlled for, around half of the 21 percent pay differential for PWD was linked to discrimination. This finding led them to suggest that discriminatory compensation systems are at least partially to blame for PWDs’ earning disparities. Two other studies, in contrast, indicated better working conditions like beneficial job characteristics and accommodations as potential reasons for (voluntary) compensation reductions (Gunderson & Hyatt, 1996; Kruse et al., 2018).

Pay for performance and benefits

Information about specific compensation practices was covered by only three articles. Schur et al. (2009) linked disability based on a large-scale survey of US employees to decreased base pay (including overtime) and benefits. However, all employees were found equally eligible for merit-based pay and bonuses for group performance.

Villanueva-Flores et al. (2015) proposed and tested a model that aimed to explore the perception of job-related compensation and its consequences for individuals with physical disabilities. They suggested anti-discrimination and diversity management policies, as PWD perceived pay to be unequal and discriminatory. PWD expressed that their wages were not position- or effort-related, underlining unequal and discriminatory compensation that might lead to dissatisfaction (Villanueva-Flores et al., 2015).

In comparison, analyzing data from a British government survey allowed Shantz et al. (2018) to discover pay dissatisfaction when PWD received individual variable pay. This was especially true when disability-related HRM practices and formal organizational policies were not aligned, or when PWD perceived their management as unfair and biased (Shantz et al., 2018). Moreover, it was suggested that PWDs’ reaction to variable pay might change based on its evaluation (subjective, e.g. performance appraisal vs. objective, e.g. piece-rate pay).

Overall, empirical research does not provide a conclusive picture on compensation-based HR practices for PWD. While we know that disability is found to have a negative effect on earnings independent of the specific definition of disability, data source, or time period, research does not provide a definite answer about how personal and job-specific attributes compare to discrimination in explaining wage differences. Further, no detailed insights regarding desired or effective designs of payment structures for PWD exist. Studies consistently discuss the influence of certain disability types and severity on labor market outcomes, yet far less evidence relates to the dynamic effects of disability, the diversity of PWD or the role of national contexts. Research regarding remuneration for PWD certainly presents its challenges. This is due to various combinations of disabilities that might affect productivity which is also difficult to control for without extensive information on work capabilities, job requirements that themselves will vary by occupation, and other individual differences and preferences of PWD. Research, hence, has only begun to identify reasons for unexplained disability-related wage gaps as well as to discover (desired) wage components; aiming toward impartial, fair and encouraging payment practices for all employees including those with disabilities. Future studies, however, shall not continue to focus solely on (governmental) surveys. Qualitative studies such as conducting interviews within and across organizations that are lacking to date are highly recommended to explore and uncover trends in thoughts and opinions of PWD about their current and/or potentially desired compensation.

Discussion and avenues for future research

As prior research has indicated, insights on the effective treatment of PWD via HR practices are limited and scattered among disciplines (Dwertmann, 2016), turning integrative reviews into important sources of information for scholars and practitioners alike. This systematic review maps HR practices regarding PWD that have been the subject of previous academic inquiry. Significant ongoing gaps in knowledge and understanding of HR practices’ regarding PWD were observed. The findings will be discussed in the following and related avenues for future dialogue highlighted. However, it shall be noted that while empirical evidence may be directing in one direction or another, it does not necessarily mean that these empirical findings are to be taken factual and/or final. We will structure the discussion in two main sections. To begin with, we will discuss four broader themes and topics that emerged while reviewing the literature. In a second step, we will discuss our findings regarding the various HR practices reviewed in this study.

First, our review indicated that research regarding HR practices in the context of disability has either primarily focused on disability as a homogenous construct, i.e. aggregated across different disability types (e.g. Schur et al., 2009), or in form of physical disabilities. This has been the case for all HR practices. Although disability is multifaceted and complex (Dwertmann, 2016; Stone & Colella, 1996), these foci are commonly used in disability research. Psychological disabilities, for example, are rather discussed in specialized, psychiatry-related journals and persons with cognitive disabilities are also hardly considered in management journals, potentially due to the lack of their employment in the first labor market. Moreover, even if distinct conditions were investigated, only certain ones would be repetitively addressed, probably depending on researchers’ interests and/or field access. Knowing that disability type can influence PWDs’ treatment (Vornholt et al., 2013), however, greater attention to specific conditions including intermittent, unpredictable and invisible disabilities and their effects on HR practices is needed.

Second, the HPWP-framework and its concept of ‘bundling’ practices, namely implementing HR practices as part of a system to maximize their effects, should be discussed. Bundles of HR practices are important in general, but even more so for PWD as a target group. The specific needs of PWD might differ from those of their colleagues in many ways. The combined use of HPWP might not only be considered an advantage for PWD but rather a necessity. Recruiting inclusively without promoting based on inclusive criteria would, for example, ultimately create a glass ceiling for PWD. However, as our review indicates, HR practices regarding PWD are mostly researched isolated rather than interconnected. While uncovering information on bundling was not intended in this review, the lack of such input breaks new ground for future research. Indications of potential interrelations between HR practices for PWD were given but not addressed in-depth. In contrast to the advanced literature on the role of bundled HR practices for managing specific diversity categories (e.g. Boehm et al., 2021; Kooij et al., 2010 for age as a diversity category), to date only one study (Hoque et al., 2018) has investigated this important subject in the disability context. However, since scholars (and practitioners) are challenged to find ways beyond utilizing common HR practices to manage, motivate, and retain PWD, studying potential interrelations between HR practices regarding PWD and assessing their effects is highly recommended.

Third, and somewhat related, scholars and practitioners will have to discuss more extensively if they rather believe in the usefulness of disability-specific HR practices or if they want to develop, test, and apply truly inclusive HR practices, i.e. those who equally appeal to all members of the workforce, including PWD. On the one hand, disability-specific practices seem meaningful, particularly if they address needs that are disability-specific (Baldridge & Veiga, 2001; Brzykcy et al., 2019) (e.g. technical or physical accommodations, interventions to reduce disability-specific biases and stigmatization in recruiting, development and promotion, etc.). On the other hand, research on accommodations has also shown that employees without disabilities can profit from those (Schur et al., 2014). In addition, in related fields such as aging, research has shown that (age-)inclusive practices that equally apply to the needs of all age groups might be preferrable compared to age-specific practices which only apply to specific groups such as younger or older employees (Boehm & Dwertmann, 2015; Boehm et al., 2013). Similar discussions should be led in the field of disability. Except for Pérez-Conesa et al. (2020), who addressed how disability in the work environment might be normalized through policies and HRM systems, to date, no study has analyzed this issue in depth. Taken together, ensuring that HR practices are designed with all employees in mind, including those with disabilities, seems not only promising but almost mandatory in reducing social categorization and promoting real inclusion.

Fourth and finally, the potential effect that the national context as a moderator might have on HR practices for PWD requires close attention, as the importance of international HRM is increasing (Bader et al., 2021; Breitenmoser & Bader, 2016). We propose that scholars and practitioners alike should differentiate between two broad types of disability-related HR practices, i.e. those more dependent on the national context and those less dependent on the national context. The first cluster encompasses practices that are directly related to meeting legal obligations which are country-specific. For instance, in the US, employees have the right to get reasonable accommodations while such laws do not exist in many European countries. In contrast, countries like Germany, Austria, France or Japan use quota systems that call for the employment of a certain minimum percentage of PWD. In consequence, HR practices which would be related to one of these specific obligations (e.g. accommodation practices in the US) would be rather country-specific. The same is true for practices which are not directly related to laws, but more to cultural aspects. For instance, in the US, it is common to send CVs without photos or birthdates while this is not the case in Germany. This might lead to differences in ‘blind’ recruiting practices across countries which might be of value for PWD. The second category of practices would encompass those that are universally important, independent of a specific national, legal, or cultural context. An example would be to reduce potential biases in promotion processes, e.g. by making use of promotion panels instead of letting individual managers decide alone. Our review brought up that hardly any study has differentiated between these two classes; in most cases, certain HR practices were applied in one particular national context without reflecting too much if and to what extent the research results could be transferred to other national contexts. This is clearly one of the most promising and pressing needs for future research on disability in the context of HR.

Next, we turn to the observations we made regarding the various HR practices analyzed in this review. First, while the factors by which applicants with disabilities’ performance and job-fit are (or shall be) evaluated receive special consideration in the reviewed literature, researchers struggle to provide information on the appropriate implementation of selection practices and their related effects on PWDs’ chances for employment. While selectivity and biased behavior in judgment affect all applicants, PWD face certain exclusive difficulties like the accessibility of selection methods or the potential need for disability disclosure to receive necessary accommodations. The (inclusive) design of selection practices is hence relevant for fair and impartial evaluations of PWD (Stone & Williams, 1997). Researchers (and practitioners) would greatly benefit from mixed-method approaches to contrast and compare selection practices like online and face-to-face interviews. Incorporating both the applicant’s and employer’s perspectives is highly recommended.

Second, the literature accords strong attention to disability inclusiveness training for PWDs’ colleagues and superiors, aiming to ameliorate PWDs’ workplace inclusion and treatment. However, the training’s effectiveness depends on its format and related content, areas of interest that have not been but should be consistently addressed in the literature. To assess disability training in-depth, comparative data (e.g. between concepts) is essential. Moreover, building upon the relatively well-rounded research on general diversity training or that of other dimensions like age is highly recommended. Taking a closer look at training for disability inclusiveness reveals a significant shortcoming. The broader diversity (training) research observed that focusing on a specific area of diversity was found to be unfavorable, as it highlights differences rather than unity (e.g. Bezrukova et al., 2012; Dobbin & Kaley, 2016). Continuing this thought, the question arises whether disability-focused practices aiming for PWDs’ inclusion inadvertently lead to their segregation. While ‘othering’ regarding disability has received growing attention in the sociology literature (in form of ‘ableism’, e.g. Jammaers et al., 2019), empirical studies have not yet approached this paradox from an HR (management) perspective; however, connecting these very separate bodies of literature is an interesting avenue for future research. Researchers are, for example, encouraged to investigate if and how practices aimed at fostering disability might in fact backfire by pronouncing differences between groups instead of highlighting similarities and offering inclusive practices for all groups of employees.

Third, training and (career) development practices for PWD were merely listed and have been largely unexplored in research. Provided that PWD are an untapped, talented resource (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2008; Schur et al., 2014), however, it is of great interest to investigate if, which, and how PWDs’ training and development programs shall be implemented. Possible explanations for a lack of progress in this field might be ignorance, misperception, or uncertainty regarding PWDs’ interest in (vocational) development and their career aspirations. Kulkarni and Gopakumar (2014), for example, observed that ‘career objectives of PWD are not those traditionally expected or lauded by organizations’ (p. 15). While (such) findings regarding career objectives are certainly intriguing, disability research has not yet followed up on assessing them in detail. Studies of other diversity dimensions, on the contrary, have yielded interesting results in this regard. For instance, it has been discovered that older employees respond more positively to maintenance practices (e.g. providing job security), while younger employees react more positively to development practices (e.g. providing training) (Kooij et al., 2010; 2013; Korff et al., 2017). These findings may be indications that workforces with and without disabilities also aim at different values, asking to direct greater effort toward the discovery of PWDs’ vocational preferences and their distinct consequences for training design. Research into other diversity dimensions like Ravichandran et al.’s (2015) study on the elderly could present useful templates here. For this specific example, it would imply evaluating PWDs’ experiences with training programs to develop future interventions endorsed by them. However, as outlined above, it would not be without risk to address PWD as a homogenous group (Baldridge et al., 2018). PWD may share experiences within society while the nature of their impairments and their unique circumstances and personalities will most likely differ. Hence, motives, potential career aspirations, and related interventions should and cannot be researched for the ‘group of PWD’ as a whole. It is questionable, however, if a focus on specific disability types (e.g. sensory impairments) is a potential solution to this problem as these groups might show large differences among affected individuals as well (e.g. due to education, personality, etc.). Consequently, researchers must well explain why they treat a group as homogenous and why intra-group differences are expected to be smaller than inter-group differences.

Fourth, despite researching (discriminatory) pay disparities for PWD, insufficient attention was given to competitive performance-based compensation and related practices. The various decomposition techniques and wage-affecting factors used to investigate wage differentials limited the possibility of drawing universal conclusions regarding compensation components or effective structures. ‘In sum, earnings gaps between workers with and without disabilities have been well documented but not well explained’, as Kruse et al. (2018, p. 801) stated. Moreover, only two articles and statements that could be interpreted as references to (perceived) limited performance gave slight indications of forms of (inefficient) individual pay. However, the scarcity of literature regarding compensation beyond salary seems to be common for demographic groups (e.g. List, 2004). Nonetheless, compensation-focused research into diversity dimensions like gender has advanced recently (e.g. Kung et al., 2019). This trend raises questions of why there is (again) no complex insight on HR practices for PWD; and more specifically, which kind of compensation is even practicable or desirable for PWD. Shantz et al. (2018), for example, observed that variable pay led to dissatisfaction among PWD, especially if PWD perceived their management to be unfair and biased. Moreover, PWD might (voluntarily) accept pay reductions in exchange for beneficial working conditions (Gunderson & Hyatt, 1996; Kruse et al., 2018). These findings indicate that PWD require not only certain boundary conditions, but also have specific reward preferences. Hence, research would strongly benefit from discovering reward perceptions and preferences for certain kinds of disability. Studies could, for example, observe if and to what degree persons with psychological disabilities shall receive merit-based pay, as this might either foster their motivation or result in additional stress, leading to a potential deterioration of symptoms. However, as argued before, individual diagnoses, motives, and personal circumstances can vary significantly even within certain disability categories. Mental disabilities are a vivid example in this regard, as performance-based pay might be a significant stressor for those with general depression or generalized anxiety disorders, while at the same time they may be of much less risk for employees with specific phobias or with e.g. Asperger syndrome.

Implications for HR practice

Following the review’s aim to provide managerial advice, suggestions for HR practice will be outlined (see Table 5). However, it shall be noted that HR practitioners can only be informed with the results that currently exist. As research mostly observed disability as a homogenous construct from an US-centric point of view, while also being rather limited regarding HR practices (e.g. Dwertmann, 2016), so are evidence-based recommendations for HR.

Table 5. Main findings, related references and derived practical implications.

Category	Main findings	References	Practical implications regarding the design of inclusive HR measures
Selection and Staffing	HR practices proven to be successful or recommended		Standardized systems for selection appraisal. Selection appraisal based on job analyses. Structured observation methods. Multiple interviewers. Training for disability inclusiveness ^a Aim: positively affecting PWDs’ appraisals and related employment decisions. Content: disability issues, accommodation, legal frameworks, stigma, prejudices, procedural justice.
	• Intentional lack of disability-specific recruitment material to avoid future stigmatization, to refrain from preference policy, or to hire based on ability.	Kulkarni and Valk (2010)
	•  (Structured) interviews as selection practices, since they allow… • Accurate, fair and impartial evaluations of PWD. • Assessment of qualifications, job match, and discussion of potential accommodations and work conditions.	Brecher et al. (2006); Hayes et al. (1995); Huang and Chen (2015); Miceli et al. (2001); Reilly et al. (2006) Huang and Chen (2015)
	• Fair interview processes through… • Multiple interviewers. • Note-taking and behaviorally anchored rating scales.	Brecher et al. (2006) Brecher et al. (2006); Reilly et al. (2006)
	• Resumes (pre-interview) in addition to interviews to support evaluations of applicants’ qualifications.	Macan and Hayes (1995)
	• Personal references verify information and allow clarity about abilities, job history and individual characteristics (mainly for unskilled positions).	Huang and Chen (2015)
	• Appraisals based on job-relevant characteristics and abilities irrespective of the disability’s nature, degree or severity.	Bengisu and Balta (2011); Brecher et al. (2006); Gilbride et al. (2003); Gröschl (2013); Huang and Chen (2015); Kulkarni (2016); Kwan (2020); Lengnick-Hall et al. (2008); McKinney and Swartz (2019); Reilly et al. (2006); Vedeler (2012)
	Areas of concern or uncertainty
	• Process of evaluation – hiring criteria: Appraisal affected by subjective norms, stigma or stereotypes.	Ameri et al. (2018); Bell and Klein (2001); Brecher et al. (2006); Bricout and Bentley (2000); Bruyère et al. (2004, 2006); Cesare et al. (1990); Chan et al. (2010); Chi and Qu (2003, 2004); Dalgin and Bellini (2008); Diksa and Rogers (1996); Erickson et al. (2014); Fraser et al. (2011); Gouvier et al. (1991; 2003); Gröschl (2007); Hand and Tryssenaar (2006); Harcourt et al. (2005); Hazer and Bedell (2010); Hebl and Kleck (2002); Hernandez et al. (2012); Jasper and Waldhart (2013); Kaye et al. (2011); Kitchin et al. (1998); Kosyluk et al. (2013); Leasher et al. (2009); Lengnick-Hall et al. (2008); Louvet (2007); Macan and Hayes (1995); Miceli et al. (2001); Nordstrom et al. (1998); Premeaux (2001); Reilly et al. (2006); Vedeler (2012)
	• Application forms/resumes as stand-alone practices.	Huang and Chen (2015)
	• Legally non-compliant questioning (e.g. health- or disability-related).	Harcourt et al. (2005); Macan and Hayes (1995); McKinney and Swartz (2019)
	• Provision of required accommodations to recruitment processes.	Bruyère et al. (2004; 2006); Jackson et al. (2000)
Training and development	HR practices proven to be successful or recommended		Measures based on motives and interest in (vocational) development.
	• Formal and informal training initiatives for PWD.
	• Mentoring.	Bruyère et al. (2004; 2006); Erickson et al. (2014); Gröschl (2007); Jasper and Waldhart (2013); Kulkarni and Valk (2010); Kwan (2020); Lengnick-Hall et al. (2008); Meacham et al. (2017a, b); Schur et al. (2009)
	• Induction and socialization activities.	Kulkarni and Valk (2010); Bengisu and Balta (2011); Meacham et al. (2017b)
	• Orientation procedures and training on-the-job. Programs’ design includes abstracting instructions and combining instruction with demonstration and written material.	Huang and Chen (2015)
	• Job training program. Programs’ design includes mini-lectures, visits, role-plays, and demonstrations.	Kwan (2020)
	• Short-term on-the-job assistance with outside job coach.	Jasper and Waldhart (2013)
	• Psychology-focused training, self-presentation courses, foreign language courses, practical classes and hands-on vocational experience. [Relevant for (career) development.]	Michna et al. (2017)
	• Frequently individualized training programs and objective, factual and immediate feedback.	Gröschl (2013)
	• Training for disability inclusiveness (e.g. reduction of discriminatory treatment; enhanced knowledge regarding accommodation and legal frameworks).	Bengisu and Balta (2011); Bruyère et al. (2004, 2006); Chan et al. (2010); DeCarvalho-Freitas and Stathi (2014); Erickson et al. (2014); Gröschl (2007); Jackson et al. (2000); Jasper and Waldhart (2013); Kaye et al. (2011); Kitchin et al. (1998); Kulkarni (2016); Kulkarni et al. (2018); Lengnick-Hall et al. (2013); McLellan et al. (2001); Rudstam et al. (2013); Woodhams and Corby (2007)
	Areas of concern
	• Mostly no automatic provision of programs like mentoring.	Kulkarni and Valk (2010)
	• Boundary conditions regarding training for disability inclusiveness.
	• Effectiveness of disability training depends on format and the ways of implementation (e.g. PWD as instructors).	Kulkarni et al. (2018)
	• Systematic organization-wide changes only achieved if interventions are part of a large inclusion project.	Kulkarni et al. (2018)
	• ‘Othering’: inadvertently singling out PWD.	Kulkarni et al. (2018); Meacham et al. (2017a)
(Performance) appraisal, promotion, and career management	HR practices proven to be successful or recommended		Standardized (and alternative) systems for performance evaluation. ^b Management by objective-systems. 360-degree peer assessments. Discussing employees’ career aspirations and related expectations. Provision of Career path options like downshifting or lateral movements.
	• Fair appraisals through standardization.	Colella et al. (1998)
	• Informal training/mentoring: instrumental advice or psychosocial support through peers expected to affect PWDs’ promotion.	Kulkarni (2016); Schur et al. (2009); Wilson-Kovacs et al. (2008)
	• Networks, role models and specifically tailored programs.	Wilson-Kovacs et al. (2008)
	• Constructive performance feedback.	Kulkarni (2016); Wilson-Kovacs et al. (2008)
	• Accommodation (audits) and disability awareness programs for all employees, additional coaching and ability building training for PWD.	Kulkarni (2016)
	• Career development initiatives should be generic.	Kulkarni (2016)
	Areas of concern or uncertainty
	• Appraisal and related reactions do not reflect PWDs’ performance.
	• Favorable and adverse appraisals on current performance.	(see ‘Selection and staffing: Evaluation and hiring criteria’ for references).
	• Appraisals on future performance affected by stigma and stereotypes.	Bordieri and Drehmer (1997); Colella and Varma (1999); Miller and Werner (2005)
	• Boundary conditions (e.g. poor-fit situations) affect appraisals.	Colella et al. (1998); Miller and Werner (2005)
	• Career-enhancing practices are absent.	Wilson-Kovacs et al. (2008)
Compensation and benefits	Areas of concern or uncertainty		Reviewing existing compensation structures to discover potential deficiencies. Merit-based/team-performance-based appraisal to avoid prejudiced evaluations.
	•  (Reduced) compensation linked to some extent to discrimination.	Baldwin and Choe (2014); Baldwin and Marcus (2007); Boden and Galizzi (2003); DeLeire (2001); Gunderson and Hyatt (1996); Gunderson and Lee (2016); Kruse et al. (2018); Malo and Pagán (2012); Villanueva-Flores et al. (2015)
	• PWDs’ compensation not linked to position’s degree of difficulty, complexity, or responsibility.	Villanueva-Flores et al. (2015)
	• Pay reduction in exchange for - beneficial job characteristics. - accommodations.	Kruse et al. (2018); Gunderson and Hyatt (1996); Kruse et al. (2018)
	• PWD eligible for merit-based pay and bonuses based on group performance.	Schur et al. (2009)
	• Variable pay experienced as negative.	Shantz et al. (2018)

a Practical implication applies to all dimensions.

b Practical implication applies to the dimensions TaD, APaCM and CaB.

First and foremost, HR practitioners need to understand that HR practices for PWD in general are not necessarily or automatically different from those for persons without disabilities. However, due to certain challenges that PWD often face – such as biased employment decisions or inaccessible interventions – HR practitioners are tasked to uncover and address potential deficiencies in their HR practices to avoid to inadvertently exclude PWD. As stigmatization or accessibility, for example, do not only affect PWD, but everyone who may be considered not to fit the ‘norm’, the way to approach this seems two-fold. On one hand, HR practitioners are tasked to address the challenge of (un)intentional neglect regarding individual needs due to diverse disabilities and boundary conditions relevant to their organizations such as company size and national context. On the other hand, HR practitioners are advised to employ disability-inclusive HR practices that reflect the organization’s commitment to an ability-diverse workforce, considering challenges that affect everyone rather than just certain individuals (with disabilities). Employees’ contributions shall be made possible, valued and supported regardless of their (dis-)ability.

As stigmatizing behavior seems stronger in human nature than objectivity, this entails standards and objectives that employees must abide by; advising HR practitioners to adhere to transparent appraisal criteria to which employees and employers alike can refer. Applied to organizational entry, selection methods such as interviews should consequently be administered in a structured format (e.g. Huang & Chen, 2015) with evaluation schemes that focus on required and desired abilities for a position, rather than idealistic ones (e.g. Brecher et al., 2006). For other employment phases, ‘management by objective systems’ (e.g. Posthuma & Champion, 2009) shall be considered, allowing setting collective or individual goals to aim for, be evaluated, and rewarded upon. To approach inequality in workplace judgments and related decisions, HR practitioners should be further advised to utilize additional resources, suggesting the ‘four-eye principle’ (e.g. Brecher et al., 2006) for selection evaluations, and comprehensive (peer) feedback instruments like 360-degree assessments (e.g. London & Beatty, 1993) for developmental and other purposes.

Next, HR practitioners have the responsibility to approach inequity in PWDs’ compensation and to (re)design reward systems and related evaluation components accordingly. As disability may affect an individual’s performance on specific tasks but not the overall contribution to a team objective, alternative approaches to individualized compensation shall be considered. Performance appraisal systems at a team-based level may be beneficial to avoid prejudiced evaluations. This recommendation is, however, to be taken with caution. Employees may resist being in group incentive plans with PWD and consequently discriminate against them, as they expect group performance and, in turn, compensation to be reduced through PWDs’ involvement (Colella et al., 1998). Hence, HR practitioners need to address potential concerns and related behavior of PWDs’ coworkers.

However, applying structure and transparency alone is likely insufficient to allow for PWDs’ fair workplace treatment. The context that PWD operate in, including the (unconsciously) biased behavior of coworkers and superiors, often provides the most challenging barrier to overcome. HR practitioners are thus encouraged to attempt to change the nature of perceptions and to widen disability awareness by educating the workforce on various disability-related subjects through disability inclusiveness training (e.g. Kulkarni, 2016). Moreover, as PWDs’ interest in (vocational) development is as unique as the person itself, HR practitioners should also engage in careful analyses of PWDs’ motives, career aspirations, and related expectations. This, in turn, allows providing suitable measures for every employee (with and without career aspirations), supporting them to work toward their personal goals and strengths. Although ‘best-practices’ in this regard are again limited, providing various career path options like downshifting or lateral movements seems beneficial.

Finally, HR practitioners should not only examine and adapt HR practices, but also realize and emphasize the benefits that disability-related adjustments provide for all employees. In summary, while there is still much to learn about the appropriate implementation and utilization of HR practices for PWD, aiming for PWDs’ social and workplace inclusion will ultimately allow all of society to benefit from and work in a more inclusive employment system.

Limitations

As with every article, this review faces several limitations. First, the review may be limited due to its search strategy. Articles were only included in the sample if they were published in English and conducted within a specific period (from 1990 to 2020). Accordingly, considerations of non-English speaking countries and findings conducted before 1990 were excluded. Moreover, the choice of databases, search terms, and journal format (peer-reviewed) might have limited the ability to identify relevant publications.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.