New Considerations for Employers Regarding Workplace Integration: The Impact of Communication Disorders

by Jacques Barrette Ph.D, Linda J. Garcia Ph.D. and Chantal Laroche Ph.D.

Abstract

The aim of the present research was to examine with the help of manufacturing and service industry employers, the factors that may prevent the occupational integration of persons experiencing communication disorders. The identification of adjustment strategies that may be implemented by employers in order to facilitate the workplace integration of such persons was also an objective. The information was collected by using focus group and nominal group techniques and then analyzed on the basis of whether the barriers originated with the individual, the organization or society. The qualitative differences were recorded according to whether the participating employers were from the manufacturing or service industry. The results showed that many barriers differ according to the industry sector and that the majority of barriers pertain to the nature of the work. Recommendations regarding strategies to eliminate such barriers for persons with a communication disorder were also collected.

Introduction

Current and upcoming technological change will make communication an increasingly pervasive feature of the workplace environment. In the past, the manufacturing sector provided a major part of job opportunities (e.g., manufacturing plant). However, today's workplace is shifting away from these types of jobs, as service industry positions are growing at full speed. Over the next ten years, the labour market, which is currently based on the secondary sector , is expected to become a job market dominated by services and communication technologies (Kutscher, 1992). The service industry will likely provide 90% of all new jobs, many of which will be related to customer services (Carey & Franklin, 1992). This technological revolution is forcing individuals to retrain in the service industry where communication is an important ability. This new workplace must and will have to provide for the effective management of disability and handicap situations. In fact, it is already faced with several new handicap situations resulting from the specific demands of service industry positions. For example, health problems related to the intensive use of computers (e.g., eyesight) are being observed.

Although less known, communication disorders may also lead to situations of handicap in the workplace. A communication disorder is defined as an impairment in the ability to receive, transmit, process and understand verbal and non-verbal concepts as well as systems of graphic symbols (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 1995). A communication disorder may be experienced at the level of hearing, language and/or speech. Its range may vary from light too severe and the disorder may be congenital or acquired. In 1986, a survey indicated that 30% of Canadians with disabilities experienced language-related (6%) and hearing-related (24%) problems (Statistics Canada, 1990). However, the 1986 survey did not necessarily identify individuals with more subtle communication disorders, such as problems of comprehension not related to hearing, such as those resulting from a stroke or cranial trauma or such problems as stuttering (Johnson, 1987). Nonetheless these groups may experience difficult situations with occupational reintegration. Considering how important communication has become in the workplace, one may reasonably think that persons with a communication disorder are likely to experience an additional difficulty when they are reinstated in their job or reintegrate the labour market. They could be particularly disadvantaged with respect to the administration of disability programs. The service industry runs the risk of becoming a source of frustration and stress, and of generating situations of handicap and discrimination. For individuals with a communication disorder, the workplace may involve several major challenges. First of all, many communication disorders, such as hearing disorders, are invisible at first glance. Their invisible nature prevents them from being taken into account when it comes to workplace adjustment, such as is seen in workplace modification for users of wheelchairs. Moreover, the lack of visibility along with the small amount of research in this field make it extremely hard for human resource management professionals, who are responsible for staff hiring, work organization and disability management, to be familiar with these types of handicaps.

Persons experiencing a communication disorder are often faced with the challenge of finding, either by their own means or with the help of professionals (speech language pathologists, and audiologists), strategies to overcome or avoid the barriers that prevent them from being full and active members of the working community. However, the challenge of work reintegration does not only rest on the shoulders of persons with communication disorders or on the professionals that assist them. Employers also have a vital role to play in this respect. They have the responsibility and the legal obligation to create a work environment free of discriminatory barriers by adapting their management processes and workstations and by providing reasonable accommodation (Garcia, Barrette & Laroche, 1999). This responsibility is extremely important as it involves substantial costs when it is ignored or poorly managed.

It is estimated that disability management costs have increased by 35% since 1986 (Shrey & Lacerte, 1997). Given the importance of communication disorders in society and the preponderance of necessary communication-dependent skills, one may logically think that a substantial portion of these costs will be allocated to the management of disabilities related to communication disorders. However, the non-reinstatement of persons with a disability does not only have a major monetary impact. The ineffective management of disabilities produces negative effects such as the deterioration of the incumbent¹s health, lower productivity, the dissatisfaction of colleagues and manager, the reinforcement of prejudices with respect to the alleged lack of productivity associated with disabled persons, to name only a few. The absence of effective management programs would also be likely to have a discriminatory impact on some groups based on their type of functional limitations (Rice & Kroll, 1994).

For the past few years, many researchers have attempted to better understand the challenges experienced in the workplace by persons with a communication disorder (Black-Schaffer & Osberg, 1990; Carriero, Faglia, & Vignolo, 1987; Ezrachi, Ben-Yishay, Kay, Diller, & Rattock, 1991; Felsenfeld, Broen & Mcgue 1994; Garcia, Barrette & Laroche, 2000; Hétu, Getty, & Waridel, 1994;). These authors stated that a wide range of factors confronting persons with a communication disorder could affect their chances of being reinstated in their job or their chances of being considered fairly in organizational processes such as staffing and performance review. This literature suggests that such barriers be related to the work environment, job requirements, working conditions, psychosocial relations and certain human resource management policies and systems.

As far as the work environment is concerned, one may argue that the widespread use of communication equipment (phone sets, telephone answering service, computers) and the physical layout of the work premises (e.g., open space office) create barriers that hinder work integration. Moreover, with respect to employment, the new forms of work organization (e.g., self-managing and partially self-managing groups) could prove to be obstacles likely to make it harder for persons with communication disorders to adapt to the workplace. On this subject, Rolland and Belin (1991) think that extrinsic factors (the lack of adaptation of work environment) impede the reintegration of persons experiencing language disorders.

Interactions with customers, colleagues and the supervisors could turn out to be an additional difficulty for persons affected by certain disorders, thus creating barriers at the social level. Hetu, Getty and Waridel (1994) showed that subjects suffering from hearing loss feared triggering negative perceptions and had a tendency to isolate themselves in order to conceal their disability. In his work, Rice (1995) showed that social alienation was a factor affecting employment accessibility for stutters. Likewise, Rolland and Belin (1991) showed that obstacles related to social acceptance jeopardized the occupational reinstatement of persons experiencing language disorders as a result of a stroke.

Several studies indicate that persons with communication disorders were likely to be perceived negatively by those around them (Hetu, Getty & Waridel, 1994; Kalinowski, Stuart, Armson & Lerman, 1996; McKinnon, Hess & Landry, 1986). Negative biases against persons with communication disorders could be especially significant during the selection interview.

Once on the job, these persons must confront the internal promotion system. In fact, current research indicates that employment status and a decrease in advancement opportunities would be a major challenge for persons with communication disorders (Felsenfeld, Broen & McGue, 1994; MacLeod-Gallinger,1992; Rice & Kroll, 1994).

Historically, the workplace integration problems experienced by persons with a functional limitation were attributed to the person, i.e. his/her personal characteristics (education, motivation, physical and mental skills, etc.). However, current models stress the interaction between the person and his work environment (Fougeyrollas et al., 1999). These models enable researchers to identify incompatibilities and explain them according to whether the limitations are associated with the individual or the environment. Once the incompatibilities have been identified, the authors specify if the solution requires a modified environment, the use of technological aids or the treatment of the individuals functional limitations. In these models, and particularly in the Disability creation process model (Fougeyrollas et al., 1999), the handicap is not perceived as inherent to the individual but rather as a situation that could occur as a result of the interaction of both Personal Factors and Environmental Factors.

In such a model, the Environmental Factors may range from physical factors such as noise to social factors such as the attitude of co-workers. For example, a person suffering from hearing loss could find that e- mail is a work facilitator, whereas the phone set is a barrier. According to this viewpoint, some persons with a communication disorder such as hearing loss, could experience a situation of handicap if they were required to use a phone set to perform their work, whereas other persons with the same functional limitation could feel hey are fully participating in the work environment if they were able to use e-mail. The objective of this research is twofold; (1) to describe barriers to the workplace integration of persons with a communication disorder, and (2) to identify which accommodation strategies could be implemented by the employer in order to facilitate the workplace integration of such persons.

Six areas of communication disorders were considered as part of the study: (1) speech disorders (e.g., dysarthria) include problems associated with speech clarity and may be evidenced through a nasal voice, monotonous speech, difficulty in producing clear sounds, long sentences and in some cases the need to use an electronic communication device; (2) stuttering is a disorder affecting speech fluency and may take various forms such as the repetition of portions of words, the lengthening of sounds, the insertion of sounds, syllables or phrases; (3) total laryngectomy involves the absence of vocal cords and the use of an alternative method for communicating (e.g., artificial larynx); (4) aphasia is a language disorder associated with a brain lesion, further to a stroke for example, and may lead to problems such as a difficulty to find words, word substitution, telegraphic speech, reading and writing problems; (5) hearing disorders refer to problems with receiving an auditory message, which may result mainly in a difficulty to hear certain sounds, to understand speech surrounded with noise or to locate sound sources, and may be accompanied by buzzing in the ears; (6) voice disorders include problems related with voice quality such as a hoarseness, excessive aspiration, voice loss or a voice which does not match either the age or the sex of the person speaking (excessively high or low pitch).

Method

This project involved interviewing 22 employers (13 women, 9 men) from the private and public sectors in 4 small groups of which two groups came from the manufacturing sector and two from the services sector. Eleven participants were 41-50 years old, six were 31-41 and five were 51-60. Twelve of them were from the service industry and ten from the manufacturing industry. Participants from the manufacturing sector were interviewed separately from participants in the services sector. All the participants have held positions with management responsibilities within their Human Resources Department. Their average experience was 15 years. Employers were identified through the local business community and a Montreal-based consultant. These employers were selected based on the following criteria: (a) their size, i.e. more than 400 employees, in order to ensure a minimum staff turnover within the organization, (b) the almost equal representation of the manufacturing and service industries with a view to obtain a sufficiently broad range of reference jobs, (c) the presence of a Human Resources professional with at least 5 years of experience in the field in order to get a perception based on a variety of experiences from each participant.

Procedure

Data collection combined the focus group approach aimed at retrieving perceptions (Brotherson, 1994; Morgan, 1988) with the nominal group approach aimed at selecting and weighing the major barriers (Brunelle, Drouin, Godbout & Tousignant, 1988). As employers could be unfamiliar with communication disorders, they were shown a video on the various communication disorders. This session was followed by a question period. During the session, posters describing the features of each communication disorder provided participants with a practical reference, as needed. In line with the project objectives, the first task asked of participants was to identify, based on their actual experience, the workplace barriers which they perceived as being likely to generate difficult communication situations and prevent the hiring or integration of persons with communication disorders. In focus groups, participants identified numerous barriers that hinder or prevent workplace integration or reinstatement, as well a wide range of strategies or concrete means to bypass or lessen those barriers.

Upon arriving, participants, who were seated around the table in-groups of 4 to 7, were invited to read an information letter on the project, and to complete a consent form and a biographical questionnaire. Each 3-hour session was recorded on an audio tape (Sony Conference, Model BM-246) to enable researchers to return to the source at a later time, if needed, in order to check the understanding of certain barriers and strategies, the meaning of which may not have been fully understood. Participants were informed of the purpose of the recording and told that the tapes would be destroyed once the project had been completed. The permission to record and use only their first name was obtained after these explanations were given.

Identification of Barriers and Strategies

Phase 1: Exploring Barriers. Once the purpose of the research was explained to participants, they were invited to share their perceptions with respect to workplace barriers that generate difficult communication situations and may prevent persons with a communication disorder from being hired or integrated. These employers were encouraged to reflect on the existing barriers in their own work environment. Each barrier was written down on a flip chart as soon as it was mentioned, and we regularly ensured that the words matched the ideas being expressed. This process continued until no more ideas were found (approximately 1 hour). In order to trigger the discovery of additional barriers, 2 job descriptions, taken from the Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations (CCDO 1989), (e.g., police officer and travel agent) were presented and read aloud. This was followed by the collection of barriers perceived on the basis of these descriptions. During this exercise, participants had to imagine themselves as employers for these jobs. These descriptions were selected based on the variety of the communication tasks required and the fact they were easy for everyone to understand. Once the barriers had been described and numbered, the facilitator eliminated, with agreement from the group, all the redundant barriers. The employers produced a final list containing 27 to 34 barriers, depending on the groups.

Phase 2: Identifying Major Barriers. The second task was to identify the major barriers among all those listed. The nominal group procedure was used to select and weigh the most important barriers. With respect to the nominal group technique, Brunelle et al., (1988) indicate that the number of final elements to be selected, barriers in this case, depends on the number of distinct statements provided by the group, i.e. 9 elements when more than 22 statements have been identified. In order to perform this task, each subject received a number of cards equal to the number of barriers to be selected, and had to individually write down the number of the barrier selected and its rank (e.g., 9, most important, to 1, least important). Each participant selected their own subset of barriers and ranked them from 1 to 9. In this way, each participant had a say in both the chosen barriers and their importance. Afterwards, the results were compiled for all the participants within the group and the barriers that received the highest scores were retained.

Phase 3: Identifying Strategies. The third task was to identify the strategies or means that could be implemented in order to help overcome the barriers retained during Phase 2. Each barrier was listed in the upper part of the flip chart and the strategies were noted down under the relevant barrier as they were mentioned. Participants were encouraged to suggest strategies for all the persons concerned (employees, employers, professional practitioners).

Barrier Classification

A four-step classification process was used to extract the major points that attracted the attention of participants and to turn the information into interpretable data.

Step I: The goal of the first step was to extract from the data a list of preliminary categories under which the barriers could be grouped (e.g., interview process). A first list was produced based on the preliminary definitions originating in part from Fougeyrollas et al., (1999) environmental factors. Afterwards, fifty barriers among those that were not retained at the previous stage were selected randomly and classified by three evaluators familiar with the research project. These 50 barriers represented a sampling of the range of possible different environmental obstacles to integration. When a barrier could not be classified in a category or was disputed, it was noted and the category was reworked by research group members who were not involved in the previous evaluations. This step allowed us to verify to which extent the preliminary categories (e.g., electronic tools, interview process, etc.) were operational before classifying the final obstacles selected by the respondents. Once these categories were identified and improved, classification of the chosen barriers was much more systematic.

Step II: At this stage, the classification system obtained at Step I was checked once again by the same three evaluators, who reclassified the same 50 barriers, presented randomly this time.

Step III: Afterwards, the new classification was adjusted based on the results of Step II, and all barriers (n= 33) selected as the most important were then classified by 4 evaluators familiar with this research. Any barrier that was not classified under the same category by 3 out of 4 evaluators was reclassified by 2 additional evaluators whose final decision had to bring a consensus.

While this long classification process was taking place, Fougeyrollas and his associates (1999) published an experimental questionnaire concerning the measurement of environmental factors. It then became clear that the data extracted from this study could be more useful if the barriers were classified under neutral environmental factor categories. This made it possible to contribute to the enhancement of the model developed by Fougeyrollas et al., (1999) through the identification of other environmental factors that include barriers affecting persons with communication disorders but also possibly person with other types of functional limitations. Thus, the use of this neutral classification enabled us to incorporate our results into a model with greater potential of being generalised. For example, several barriers mentioned by the employers were related to their expectations regarding employee performance (e.g., high employer expectations, increased work productivity, increased expectations related to speed, etc.). These types of barriers were grouped under a factor called "expectations related to productivity". By grouping the barriers belonging to the same type under a single neutral label, it became possible to evaluate the factors on a barrier to facilitator continuum. This entire set of neutral factors forms what we call the neutral final classification.

Step IV: At this step, the barriers judged most important were classified by the three authors according to the neutral final classification. The classification process led to the creation of two major categories (organizational and social factors). Table 1 lists the barriers for each category of factors.

The participants identified 136 strategies to eliminate or bypass barriers, i.e. 53 for the manufacturing sector and 83 for the service sector, which were then classified on the basis of the neutral final classification. The results of this study present the barriers identified under each factor by all participants as well as the major strategies suggested.

Table 1: Most important obstacles mentioned by the groups of employers

Results

The research results are presented in terms of the common points and the qualitative differences between the perceptions of the participating groups of employers according to whether they belong to the manufacturing or service sector. Only the barriers deemed important by the various groups of respondents are presented. For each group of barriers, a short summary of the types of strategies suggested by participants is presented.

A. Organizational Factors

The organizational factors refer to the category of environmental factors specifically associated with work environment. Since the goal of the study was to examine workplace reintegration, it is not surprising that the majority of barriers identified by participants' fall under this category. Nine specific factors were identified under this category, i.e. working conditions and job requirements, electronic tools used at work, the number and the type of speakers, the type of communication tasks, the staffing process, the organization's ability to intervene and employer's expectations related to productivity.

1. Working Conditions and Job Requirements. Regarding work conditions, the safety-related aspects are the main source of concern for employers from the manufacturing sector. If the job required some security aspect, this could be a major barrier for persons with communication disorders. Certain jobs (e.g., police officer) may require the employee to be convincing with his speech. For them, integration solutions for persons experiencing a communication disorder must include identifying the problematic tasks involving a risk to oneself or others, as well as adapting the workstation to the disability in order to obtain adequate performance. An increased input of specialists and professionals (e.g., physicians, speech-language pathologist, audiologists, and human resources advisors) is also suggested. The service sector participants essentially raised concerns pertaining to the general job requirements and proposed a restructuring of tasks as well as the development of individual abilities in targeted areas.

2. Electronic Tools. The use of electronic tools was raised as an issue by participants from both sectors, although it did not figure prominently in voting results. In fact, this barrier was classified ninth by the employers of both sectors. More specifically, the identified barriers pertain to unadapted telephones, answering machines, voice mail and videoconference equipment. The strategies suggested under this category of factors were mainly aimed at the organization and focused on actions such as the setting up of a special telephone system, the increased use of e-mail and the development of visual/oral decoding technology.

3. Speakers around you (groups, meetings and committees). According to service employers, persons with a communication disorder experience difficulties when they are required to listen to several persons at once, such as during work meetings or work teams. The employers suggested a few strategies such as a more effective management of meetings by a manager aware of these persons¹ needs, the use of a more detailed agenda, the use of special equipment as needed, and the circulation among other participants, of information regarding the disability of their colleague.

Two types of speakers are represented in this category, i.e. internal speakers such as colleagues and supervisors and external interlocutors such as customers or the public. Employers from both the manufacturing and the service sectors consider that external speakers might represent a barrier that may be bypassed through adapted tools (e.g., interpreter, and computer) and through informing the public or customers. Assigning the employee to less busy work areas was proposed specifically by the service sector employers.

The barriers created by colleagues (internal speakers) were seen as a specific barrier by employers from the manufacturing sector. In order to bypass this barrier, employers suggested increased assistance from the supervisor, workforce education and awareness training pertaining to the communication problems experienced by such persons, mentoring and the input of colleagues in the selection process.

4. Type of Communication Task: oral and written. This factor is related to the performance of assignments that require a variety of communication modes such as oral and written tasks.

The types of communication tasks that create a barrier differ depending on the sector in which the company operates. Thus, written communication tasks are essentially perceived as a barrier for employers of manufacturing companies whereas oral communication tasks are raised as difficult in the service sector. For service companies, the need to communicate orally and the reception and transmission of messages are often basic job requirements. The respondents perceived that the person with a communication disorder is faced with a major barrier when the task requires rapid speaking abilities. In this case, the proposed strategies are of a general nature and concern rehabilitation. The adaptation or use of current technology, an in-depth assessment of the person's competencies as well as a suitable job assignment was suggested by this group as possible strategies. With respect to the strategies related to written communication, the use of correction software and the revision of texts by peers are suggested.

5. Diversity of Tasks. The barrier created by jobs requiring multiple communication skills was mentioned by only one group of employers from the service sector. In the case of service sector positions, the individual must be able to quickly adapt to different tasks requiring various degrees of communication skills.

The employee is therefore required to have a range of competent communication skills. Being required to perform two tasks at once is also perceived as a barrier. They proposed strategies involving improved work organization, the creation of multidisciplinary teams, the development of key competencies and the assistance of the organization and community associations in the reintegration process.

6. Staffing process: Testing and Interview. These barriers were mentioned only by service sector employers. A first barrier has to do with the use hiring tests that have not been validated on the target population and which may therefore generate a potential for discrimination. The second barrier raised has to do with the selection interview and how difficult it could be for a person with a communication disorder to impress the interviewer. The employers from this group proposed several strategies related to the interview: for example, an improved interviewer preparation, an increased knowledge on the part of interviewers with respect to the characteristics of persons with a communication disorder, the presence of a resource person during the interview, the request of input from community associations in order to get help preparing the interview.

More specifically with respect to recruiting, they suggest that the person with a communication disorder should identify him/herself as such on the application form. Regarding the selection tests, they propose their validation for this specific population segment.

7. Organization's Ability to Intervene. The organization's ability to intervene category refers to the organization's ability to support the integration of persons with a communication disorder. Barriers related to this ability were only mentioned by employers from the manufacturing sector. Two types of barriers were identified, i.e. (a) the costs related to adapting the workstation, and (b) corporate orientation, such as the organization's values and formal structure, which does not facilitate the integration of such persons.

The proposed strategies involve the establishment of hiring ratios or quotas as well as management's commitment to social values. Finally, some strategies pertain to changes in the ergonomic components of workstations.

8. Expectations related to productivity. Productivity-related expectations are considered to be a barrier for both industry sectors. Thirty-two strategies were proposed under this category, however most of them, i.e. 75%, originated from service industry employers. Employer expectations regarding workload and/or work pace requirements are perceived as major barriers by employers. The participants from the service sector are especially concerned with the barriers pertaining to high productivity expectations and the need to obtain maximum employee performance in the workplace.

As for the manufacturing sector, employers identified more specifically the pressure associated with work paces as the major barrier. The strategies suggested by these employers pertain to workplace adaptation or modification such as a transfer to another position or a reassignment of tasks. They also include strategies aimed at the person such as incentives and the assessment of skills that will provide for better hiring and placement decisions. Among the strategies presented by service sector employers, several are intended for the person with a communication disorder. For example, emphasizing your skills, minimizing your functional limitations extending your network of contacts, obtaining help from a professional, receiving training or reviewing your professional orientation. Several strategies involved assessing the person's skills and adapting the position to such skills, as was the case for manufacturing sector strategies. Finally, four strategies stood out from the others: i.e. the application of the Canada Employment Equity Act, the creation of links with community associations or organizations, the establishment of a quota for the hiring of persons with a communication disorder, and the setting up of a provincial job database featuring the most suitable job openings.

B. Social Factors

The following paragraphs mainly discuss the barriers related to attitudes and general policies that jeopardize the workplace reintegration of persons with a communication disorder.

1. Interlocutor Attitudes and Disorder Awareness. Interlocutors' attitudes at work (colleagues, supervisors) were identified by the manufacturing sector employers only. They mentioned the general negative bias towards persons with a disability as a barrier. The proposed strategies include the implementation of policies and structures that promote workplace integration as well as education and raising awareness at all levels of the organization.

The lack of awareness of such disorders in the workplace was identified as barriers by employers from the service industry. Under this factor, three specific barriers were mentioned: i.e. the lack of awareness in the work environment, the lack of understanding by employers, colleagues and clients with respect to a communication disorder, and the lack of knowledge pertaining to the capabilities of persons with a communication disorder.

The proposed strategies to raise the awareness level include employee training with respect to the difficulties experienced by persons with a communication disorder, workforce awareness through the circulation of current information in the work environment, the development of closer ties with consumer associations in order to intensify exchanges, as well as a more consistent matching of these persons skills with job requirements. With respect to the strategies aimed at gaining a better knowledge of these employees¹ skills and enhancing them, increasing support (coaching and sponsorship) was also suggested.

2. Realities of the Job Market. Several barriers were identified under this theme by both sectors, including the difficulty of being considered for a new job opening, the current competition for positions that have become scarce, and major job and workforce cuts which are still taking place in many organizations.

The strategies proposed by organizations under this factor are widely diversified, such as providing a variety of services (e.g., training, career planning, trainee programs, placement), establishing corporate partnerships in order to exchange personnel according to needs, and providing for task sharing among employees. Some strategies were intended for governments, such as the more stringent application of Bill C-64, the creation of incentives to stimulate the hiring of this population segment, the setting up of job counseling programs to enhance the self-esteem of persons with disabilities, and finally the establishment of hiring quotas.

No employer mentioned any socio-economic barriers, i.e. barriers related to the financial and administrative limitations of government.

Discussion and Conclusion

The results of this study suggest that the difficulties related to the full participation of persons with a communication disorder in the workplace may be associated with several environmental factors. The organizational and social factors identified in this study may, in the view of participants, contribute to the creation of a situation of handicap.

Although participants from both the manufacturing and service sectors identified almost the same number of barriers (e.g., 15 for the manufacturing sector and 18 for the service sector), many of the barriers differ from one group to the other. The barriers common to both groups include the need to achieve work performance in an environment requiring fast communications, modern electronic tools and the need to communicate with external interlocutors (e.g., customers, public).

As far as the service sector is concerned, the pressure for high productivity appears to create an increased requirement, which is fundamental for these employers. In fact, the workload and the high performance demands seem to significantly reduce the likelihood of a successful return to work for such persons if no strategies are undertaken. More specifically, working in a group and multiple tasks constitute two major barriers in the service industry. In the case of the manufacturing sector, the work conditions related to occupational safety, the need to exchange among colleagues as well as written communication requirements are the factors that stand out.

An interesting factor raised by the service sector employers has to do with the staffing process, and more specifically with selection tests (including hiring criteria) and the selection interview. Along the same lines, Rolland and Belin (1991) maintained that during the selection process, communication disorders are more critical than other types of functional limitations as the first impression is often based on the ability to communicate. Our results support the viewpoint of other researchers who maintain that certain selection tests, and particularly aptitude tests, are unsuited when applied to persons with a communication disorder (Nester, 1984). The attitudes and behaviors of unaware interviewers during the selection interview could become barriers that may have a determining impact on employment accessibility. It is important to note that employers from the service sector were the only ones to mention staffing as a barrier. Considering that service firms strongly rely on communication as a working tool, it would be reasonable to think that communication as a hiring requirement may be the subject of greater attention in this environment than in the manufacturing sector. The interview as a means of evaluating communication skills would then prove to be a greater barrier to overcome for persons with a communication disorder in the service sector. In fact, we know that the first negative impressions on the part of an unaware interviewer lead to unfavorable bias that will affect the final hiring decision (Jackson, Peacock & Smith, 1980). Functional limitations even when they are unrelated to the job requirements may easily be perceived as undesirable characteristics and generate first impression and halo errors unfavorable to the individual. Along the same lines, the research by Barrette and Haccoun (1995) shows that the evaluators easily draw negative judgments when the characteristics are considered socially undesirable.

Another barrier to hiring and workplace integration raised by employers seems to be related to the type of psychometric instruments used to select applicants. We know that cognitive aptitude tests are widely used in Canada to evaluate the applicants potential during the selection process (Getkate, Hausdorf & Cronshaw, 1992). These selection tests use verbal information (e.g., grammar, oral comprehension), that is a type of information that may be difficult to process for certain persons with a communication disorder. It is reasonable to think that their performance in such tests could be adversely affected because persons with a communication disorder may have a stronger probability of being evaluated on their functional limitations rather than on the job-related parameters. This is also plausible with respect to the selection interview. Moreover, the lack of validation for cognitive aptitude tests administered to this population segment could negatively impact this group. Without measurement instruments adapted to and validated by individuals with communication disorders, the judgment remains based on psychometric bias.

It is possible that an employer could argue that the ability to communicate is a bona fide requirement to fill a specific position and that a person who does not have this ability is not suitable for the position. The employer may also argue that there is no way for compensating for the lack of such ability. However, as with other abilities, the ability to communicate is a complex function that features multiple sub-abilities. Thus, in order to say that the ability to communicate is really bona fide, it would be necessary to understand the multiple facets of this ability and obtain a complete task analysis in order to assess this requirement objectively. Furthermore, an employer must be certain that there are no accommodation strategies that would enable an employee to bypass or eliminate the obstacles to integration if he/she were hired for this position. Currently, when an employer requires an employee to have good communication abilities, they are defined in general terms and the type and the extent of the communication ability required is rarely specified (e.g., the ability to read and understand written documents of 2 to 10 pages). This requirement is usually taken in a broader sense, leaving room for a significant amount of interpretation. Research indicates that in the presence of a person with an unfavourable trait such as a communication disorder, the interviewer has a tendency to bias his or her judgement negatively on the basis of aspects that have no connection with this ability and hence, to reject the candidate (Rolland & Belin, 1991). Thus, the absence of valid tools to measure communication with respect to the position and the individual results in the fact that this aspect is rarely evaluated objectively other than by the general impression conveyed during the selection interview.

One may also argue that the person with a communication disorder who feels he/she is a victim of discrimination may take action against the employer, the latter being required to prove that the evaluation is valid. However, the very nature of the disorder makes it difficult for individuals who feel they were subjected to discrimination to take action against the employers. In fact, as communication is an essential instrument during a court action, the individuals with communication disorders are at a disadvantage from the very start when they attempt to defend their point of view.

Another factor that was mentioned concerns the organization's ability to intervene. This category refers to the organization's ability to adapt the workstations or implement measures or programs to facilitate the reintegration of persons with a communication disorder. The results obtained indicate that this ability may be limited by financial factors or even by the corporate philosophy, which usually reflects the organization's values. The ability to intervene financially or otherwise was raised exclusively by employers from the manufacturing sector. Could it be possible that the manufacturing companies that were consulted are in a weaker financial position than their counterparts from the service sector or that the suggested strategies may be more expensive? Could a more rigid work organizational structure in this environment make the changes more difficult for them? Whatever the case may be, the integration of persons in the manufacturing sector could prove difficult to achieve when economic conditions are unfavorable. The cost of task adaptation may represent, for some firms, a factor that discourages workstation accommodation. However, when we realize that most accommodations cost less than $500 (Canadian Human Rights Commission, 1997), it is reasonable to think that this barrier could be alleviated by providing better information to Human Resources managers. However, in the service sector, the limitations to integration probably remain more significant, as task requirements continue to be a major barrier even when financial constraints are eliminated.

Social attitudes and behaviors represent another set of major difficulties that must be overcome. Several barriers identified under this theme are related to the attitudes and behavior of customers, colleagues and supervisors. These data support other research results showing that negative perception from the surroundings makes employment accessibility and advancement difficult for persons with a communication disorder (Beukelman, Kraft & Freal, 1985; Hetu, Getty & Waridel, 1994; Rolland & Belin, 1991). The lack of workplace awareness of the various communication problems reported by employers from the service industry clearly highlights the need for information and training on these issues. The overall results of this study suggest that, considering the specific barriers in each sector, the in-company interventions should stress different aspects depending on whether the reintegration takes place in the manufacturing or the service industry.

The large number of strategies proposed by the participants in this study indicate that several barriers to workplace integration could be overcome or eliminated if the employer takes certain measures. For example, some of the suggested strategies have to do with raising the awareness of supervisors and colleagues, and with the help and specific assistance they can provide during workplace reintegration. Several other strategies deal with the adaptation or modification of the position, such as the replacement of certain tasks requiring rapid communication with tasks featuring a high productivity potential for these persons. Other strategies deal with the organization of the physical premises such as locating the office in an area with less noise or less traffic. Several proposals are aimed at adapting current technologies such as phone sets, e-mail, voice mailboxes, videoconferencing, audio-conferencing, etc. Moreover, several suggestions consist in adapting certain human resources management systems. For example, employers could be asked to carry out task analyses that take into account the person's particular skills, and productivity expectations could be established gradually in order to give the person a chance to adapt to the new position. The supervisor's training is also relevant. For example, this training should be aimed at helping the supervisor better understand the phenomenon as well as playing his/her coaching role more effectively. Several other varied and specific strategies were suggested such as the involvement of and partnership with associations and community organizations, the adaptation of meeting rooms and the creation of provincial databases on target positions.

Our results support the research conclusions of other authors who believe that negative attitudes of peers, functioning in a group and the lack of adaptability of work stations (Kalinowski, Stuart & Armson, 1996; Rice 1995; Rolland & Belin, 1991) limit the workplace integration of persons with a communication disorder. Our results also confirm the research hypotheses proposed by Beukelman, Kraft and Freal (1985), Nester (1984), Rolland and Belin (1991) regarding the importance of the selection interview and the validity of hiring tests as barriers to integration. However, several barriers that have been identified are totally new and have never been raised in previous studies. This is particularly the case of all barriers classified under the following headings: (a) electronic equipment, (b) task diversity, (c) organization's ability to intervene, (d) expectations related to productivity, (e) awareness of the disorder and (f) realities of the job market. Finally, the strategies proposed by the participants represent as many practical means that employers may use to reduce employment barriers for persons experiencing a communication disorder. As far as employers are concerned, these results are informational items that may contribute to enhance the effectiveness of their disability management program.

The increasing number of communication skill requirements will make it harder for persons with a communication disorder to be systematically included from the job market if no action is taken to reduce or eliminate the barriers challenging them. The identification of barriers and strategies constitutes a first concrete step in the right direction. This study led to the development of a categories of environmental factors which might help in providing for the rapid diagnosis of the main factors that may limit the hiring and integration of persons living with a communication disorder or experiencing a major difficulty in communicating.

References

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1995). ASHA's consumer conscience. ASHA Reports, May, 14.18.

Barrette, J. & Haccoun, R. (1995). La precision de l'evaluation du rendement: une vérification de la theorie de Wherry. Revue canadienne des sciences de l'administration, 12(4), 325-339.

Beukelman, D.R., Kraft, G.H. & Freal, J. (1985). Expressive communication disorders in persons with multiple sclerosis: A survey. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 66, 675-677.

Black-Schaffer, R.M. & Osberg, J.S. (1990). Return to work after stroke: Development of a predictive model. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 71, 285-290.

Brotherson, M.J. (1994). Interactive focus group interviewing: a qualitative research method in early intervention. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 14 (1), 101-118.

Brunelle, J., Drouin, D., Godbout, P. & Tousignant, M. (1988). La supervision de l'intervention en activité physique. Montréal : Gaetan Morin.

Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations (C.C.D.O) (1989). Gouvernement du Canada, Ministere des Approvisionnements et Services. Classification Canadienne des Professions, 9 th. Ed. Ottawa, Canada, Canadian Government Publishing Center.

Canadian Human Rights Commission. (1997). Employeur sans obstacles. Internet: www.chrc.ca /barrier/index.htm.

Carey, M.L. & Franklin, J.C. (1992). Outlook - 1990-2005. BLS Bulletin 2402. (Washington, D.C.: US) Department of labour, Bureau of labour statistics.

Carriero, M.R., Faglia, Z. & Vignolo, L.A. (1987). Resumption of gainful employment in aphasics: preliminary findings. Cortex, 26, 667-672.

Ezrachi, O., Ben-Yishay, Y., Kay, T., Diller, L. & Rattock, J. (1991). Predicting employment in traumatic brain injury following neuropsychological rehabilitation. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 6(3), 71-84.

Felsenfeld, S., Broen, P.A. & Mcgue, M. (1994). A 28-year follow-up of adults with a history of moderate phonological disorder: Educational and occupational results. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 1341-1353.

Fougeyrollas, P., Cloutier, R., Bergeron, H., St. Michel, G., Cote, J., Cote, M., Boucher, N., Roy, K., & Remillard, M.B. (1999). The Quebec Classification: Disability Creation Process. Lac St-Charles, P.Q.: International Network on the Handicap Creation Process. Fougeyrollas, P., Noreau, L. & St Michel, G. (1997b), Measure of the quality of the environment, ICIDH Environmental Factors International Network, 9(1), 32-39.

Garcia, L.J., Barrette, J. & Laroche, C. (1999). Towards a social model on the integration of persons with human communications disorders into the work place. International Journal of Practical Approaches to Disability, 23(3), 14-23.

Garcia, L.J., Barrette, J. & Laroche, C. (2000). Perceptions of the obstacles to work reintegration for persons with aphasia. Aphasiology, 14, (3), 269-290.

Getkate, M., Hausdorf, P. & Cronshaw, S.F. (1992). Transnational validity generalization of employment tests from the United States to Canada. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 9(4), 324-335.

Hétu, R., Getty, L. & Waridel, S. (1994). Attitudes towards co-workers affected by occupational hearing loss II: focus group interviews. British Journal of Audiology, 28, 313-325.

Jackson, D.N., Peacock C.P. & Smith J.P. (1980). Impressions of personality in the employment interview. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 39(2), 294-307.

Johnson, R. (1987). Return to work after severe head injury. International Disability Studies, 9, 49-54.

Kalinowski, J., Stuart, A., Armson, J.,. & Lerman, J.W. (1996). Speech clinicians and the general public's perceptions of self and stutterers. Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 7(2), 79-85.

Kutscher, R.E. (1992). Outlook 1990-2005: major trends and issues. Occupational Outlook Quarterly, 36(1), 2-5.

Macleod-Gallinger, J.E. (1992). The career status of deaf women: a comparative look. American Annals of the Deaf, 137, 315-325.

Mckinnon, S.L., Hess, C.W. & Landry, R.G. (1986). Reactions of college students to speech disorders. Journal of Communication Disorders, 19, 75-82.

Morgan, D.L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Qualitative research methods. Volume 16. New Park, California: Sage Publications.

Nester, M.A. (1984). Employment testing for handicapped persons. Public Personnel Management Journal, 13, 417-434.

Rice, M. & Kroll, R. (1994). A survey of stutterer's perceptions of challenges and discrimination in the work place. Proceedings of the First World Congress on Fluency Disorders, 2, 559-562.

Rice, M. (1995). Work place experiences of people who stutter. Paper presented at the meeting of the World Conference of the International Fluency Association, Linkoping, Sweden.

Rolland, J. & Belin, C. (1991). L¹aphasique et le monde du travail. In J. Ponzio, D. Lafond, R. Degiovani & Y. Joanette (Eds.) L'aphasique (pp. 195-211). Montréal: Edisem, Inc.

Shrey, D.E. & Lacerte, M. (1997). Principles and practice of disability management in industry. GR Florida, Press Inc.

Statistics Canada. (1990). Highlights: Disabled Persons in Canada. The Health and Activity Limitation Survey, Ottawa, Catalogue # 82-602.

Submitted by

Jacques Barrette, Ph.D.
University of Ottawa
School of Management
136 Jean Jacques Lussier
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada K1N 6N5
E-mail: barrette@admin.uottawa.ca

Linda J. Garcia, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Audiology and Speech-language Pathology Program
University of Ottawa
Scientist
University of Ottawa Institute on Health of the Elderly
E-mail: lgarcia@uottawa.ca

Chantal Laroche, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology Program
School of Rehabilitation Sciences
Faculty of Health Sciences
University of Ottawa
45 Smyth road, # 3062
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada, K1H 8M5
tel: (613) 562-5800 #3066
fax: (613) 562-5428
e-mail: claroche@uottawa.ca

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Status of Disabled Persons Secretariat, Grants No. 817-95-1004. This project was also supported by and carried out in partnership with the following organizations: Quebec Telephone, The National Bank, The Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Montreal Association of Laryngectomees, Canadian Voice Care Foundation, Canadian Hard of Hearing Association, the Canadian Hearing Society, the Canadian Association for People who Stutter, Canadian Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists.

International Journal of Disability, Community & Rehabilitation
Volume 1, No. 1 Canada
www.ijdcr.ca
ISSN 1703-3381