Integration Agreements as a New Approach on Dealing with Disability in Companies

Doerte Bernhard & Mathilde Niehaus

Abstract

New legislation in Germany (Book IX of the Social Code) aims to increase in-plant integration of people with disabilities. One new measure called 'Integration Agreement' is being evaluated in a sectoral case study based on quantitative and qualitative data. The paper gives evidence of its general acceptance and investigates how the Integration Agreement can function as a goal-setting measure. It will be shown how this new measure is addressed in the German Automobile Industry and concludes that its effect could be enhanced by giving professional support to the stakeholder/ representatives.

Introduction

In-plant Integration as an Imperative

With the recent legislation in Germany (Book IX of the Social Code), the Integration Agreement is introduced and the matter of work retention and integration into the labour market can be considered in a new light. Integration means social participation and inclusion in society. With the demographic trend of people living longer the issue of job retention becomes an increasing concern (Buck, Kistler & Mendius, 2002). In this way, attempts at maintaining and restoring employability status in the common workplace are of an increasing importance. This issue is reflected in a well-intended policy development aimed at changing practice at company level.

The International Perspective and how Germany deals with in-plant Integration

A political framework towards well-targeted active and preventive labour market measures concerning unemployment and an aging workforce is given at the European level with the Employment Strategy (European Commission, 2003). There, it is emphasized that priority should be given to the development of comprehensive strategies and to joint governments and social partners initiatives to retain workers longer in employment and to provide better support for the stakeholders. Moreover, the mobilisation of all relevant actors and an involvement of stakeholders in a partnership-based approach, should be encouraged and supported by the governments. Best practices, progressive measures and social responsibility along with incentives are needed (European Commission, 2003).

The International Labour Organization has transferred this framework and notion of cooperation of the stakeholders into specific guidelines for employers aiming to improve the prospects of people with chronic illnesses and disabilities and implementing an integration management in their company (ILO, 2001). The "Code of Practice on Managing Disability in the Workplace" calls upon employers to consult with disabled workers or their representatives in formulating a workplace strategy on disability. According to the Code of Practice, disability management practices are most effective when they are based on the cooperation among governments, employers' organizations, workers organizations and organizations of persons with disabilities (ILO, 2001). This framework could be considered useful when adopting or evaluating a strategy for managing disability-related issues. In Germany, this concept of concensus-based and social partnership approach regarding job retention and integration management is targeted by the implementation and adjustment of legal measures. In 1999, the Act on Combating the Unemployment of Severely Disabled Persons was introduced and in 2001/ 2004 revised as the Social Code Book IX "Rehabilitation and Participation of Disabled Persons." This new legislative approach highlights the need for an increased social responsibility of the companies regarding the prevention of labour-related health problems and an extending social dialogue of the responsible actors.

The Integration Agreement as a new goal-setting measure

Section 83 of the Social Code Book IX puts the focus on a much stronger interplay between the representatives and the different players concerning Integration Management. It provides a basis for dialogue and understanding between the various players (i.e. employer, employee, representatives of the disabled employees, integration office) who can now come together to discuss such concerns as the prevention of work related illness and the retention of those who have acquired work related illness. Moreover, it is envisaged that companies administer their own in-plant integration measures with respect to human resource planning, workplace design, work organization, working hours and work environment. It is hoped that companies who implement an Integration Agreement will maximize their integration efforts and will set up an integrative human resource management (Feldes, 2001). The new measure can be considered as a necessary requirement for the setting up of a disability management scheme in any company.

The central intention of the Integration Agreement is that it should serve as a measure for setting specific goals (Seel, 2001; Feldes, 2001). Moreover, it should entail the establishing of a controlling system, i.e. responsibilities of the various players regarding the integration and participation of people with a disability should be defined and made transparent. This idea of measuring and controlling is operationalised in companies and in management literature as "Management by Objectives" (see Locke & Latham, 1990). "Management by objectives" in this sense refers to realistic goals reached by agreement among the participants. This involves a deepened and followed up approach, whereby the cooperation should be based on mutual trust, taking the respective expectations and interests into account (Steiger, 1999).

Fankhaenel and Ihme (2003) refer to the SMART approach as one way of assessing "Management by objectives" as to how the respective parties should proceed when negotiating and signing an Integration Agreement. Following this approach, the Integration Agreement could be considered a steering tool to monitor in-plant integration. SMART is an acronym with each letter standing for the expected criteria of the interaction.

S -- stands for the formation of specific, targeted and concrete goals based on an analysis of the given situation,

M -- means that goals should be measurable, i.e. that the extent of progress can be seen and is made transparent,

A -- refers to accepted or appropriate goals that are reached by agreement among the respective parties and viewed in the light of openness and transparency,

R -- describes a realistic goal which should apply to the situation and which at the same time should be challenging and,

T -- refers to the time element wherein the aim is to be achieved.

This paper provides an opportunity to gain insight into relevant practice in Germany. While traditionally, research in the field of vocational rehabilitation has focused on institutionalised rehabilitation, there is an emerging need to target the company work setting for evaluative purposes. For the most part, studies evaluating labour market programmes are limited and only refer to the 1980s and early 1990s (Frick, 2002). The recent change of law has encouraged further research, for example a study that was commissioned by the German Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (Schmal et al., 2002; Bernhard, Schmal & Niehaus, 2003). The objective of this study was to investigate the acceptance of the Integration Agreement with specific reference to the Automobile Industry, its implementation and the role of the involved stakeholders as far as enhancers and inhibitors of the new measure were concerned. With this paper evidence will be given regarding its implementation in two respects:

1. the general acceptance of Integration Agreements, and

2. how the SMART criteria reflect the success of the agreements' implementation.

Method

The evaluation of the implementation of Integration Agreements started six months after the new measure came into practice and continued over a period of two years (2001-2003). During these two years quantitative and qualitative data were collected in the German Automobile Industry. Due to the explorative design of the sectoral case study, a multi-method approach was transferred into various written data collections, with in-depth-interviews, moderated group discussions/ workshops and document analysis. Moreover, the research design and the methods applied were based on an interactive approach taking user-orientation as a main principle. The study did not promote any particular stakeholders' interest.

In order to get an overview of the expectations and the acceptance of the new measure, a written questionnaire was sent to the various representatives as listed in section 83. These are the representative body of the disabled employees, the works council and the employers' representatives. Additionally, the company doctors were included since they were identified as important stakeholders in an earlier study by Niehaus, Schmal and Heinrich (2001). The German Automobile Industry comprises 13 enterprises (OPEL, AUDI, BMW, DAIMLER CHRYSLER, EVO BUS, FORD, IVECO, KARMANN, MAN, PORSCHE, RHEINMETALL, VISTEON , VOLKSWAGEN). Each of these enterprises consists of several plants/ sites. There are over 50 plants around Germany with a total potential of 250 stakeholders that were addressed in the study on two specific occasions. Questionnaires were received from more than one hundred representatives (N=112, t1: 2001 and N=107, t2: 2002).

According to the law, every company is obliged to sign an Integration Agreement. In the event that the companies do not sign, there are no penalties or sanctions. Between 2001 and 2003, six out of the 13 enterprises signed an Integration Agreement. These signed agreements (N=6) were looked into and analysed to verify the reliability of the data obtained by questionnaire and interviews. The criteria of the analysis were developed from the content of the agreements themselves (inductive procedure) and from what is suggested in sec. 83, code IX as well as mentioned in the guidelines for implementation (deductive procedure). The categories are:

a) applicability, i.e. whether it applies on a company wide level throughout Germany or on a particular site, based on the fact that there is no indication in the law,

b) objects/ targets, i.e. according to the law (human resource planning, workplace design, work organization, working hours, work environment and regulations about implementation) as well as what is mentioned additionally and whether specificity is a matter of consideration,

c) character/ nature of the agreement, i.e. if specific goals are contained in the agreement/ if there is a formative evaluation/ controlling system implemented.

The results of the analysis have been matched with the SMART criteria in order to see whether or not the Integration Agreement is a useful steering tool towards the "Management by Objectives" method regarding in-plant integration.

Results

1. Acceptance of the measure in 2001

One item in the questionnaire dealt with how the agreement was perceived by the participants (t1: N=106, t2: N=104). They were given the choice of positive, neutral or negative. Positive was evaluated with the number 3, neutral with the number 2 and negative with the number 1, and, they were asked to account for their choices. In the chart the numbers of the representatives participating in the study with respect to their assessment of the integration agreement can be seen (+ positive, +/ - neutral, - negative).

Representatives	t1, n=106
	+	+/-	-
of the employers	11	9	1
of the employees	24	1	0
of the disabled employees	29	7	0
Company doctor	11	2	0
Others	7	4	0
Total	82	23	1

With an overall general average at t1 of 2.8 it can be concluded that at an early implementation stage the agreement was seen in a generally positive light. This is underlined by the following qualitative data from questionnaire t1.

More than three quarters (82 persons) valued the Integration Agreement as a positive measure for the following reasons: the agreement is seen as means for more binding obligation on in-plant integration. Responsibilities concerning the different tasks are to be specified and clarified. Moreover, with its all-party approach it is anticipated that internal communication will improve as well as information flow between the different players. Furthermore, the implementation of Integration Agreements results in an increased awareness of in-plant integration and disability matters. With the implementation of Integration Agreements the opportunity of creating new jobs and an improvement of the work surroundings and work organization are expected. And, in addition, as the representative body of the disabled employees initiate the discussion, this is perceived as giving them more influence and strength. 23 of those participating in the study were not as positive about the new measure for the following reasons: pre-existing agreements and policies in the companies, and unfamiliarity as well as inexperience in putting such agreements into practice. Furthermore, it was mentioned that a written form of agreement would only have effects when a top-down strategy is followed, i.e. when management changes first their attitudes towards employees with a disability. And, one participant assessed the Integration Agreement as negative expressing his concern that the employer wouldn't stick to what was agreed upon.

Taking the qualitative data from the questionnaire, the measure is seen more positively by the representatives of the employees, the representatives of the disabled employees and the company doctors as apposed to the employers' representatives. The latter expressed themselves more sceptically about the Integration Agreement whereas the representatives of the (disabled) employees were more positively in favour. The positive answers of the representatives of the disabled employees refer to the binding character of the agreement and an improvement of cooperation and communication and a promotion of their own position as representatives. Nevertheless, some of the representatives of the employers regarded the new measure positively because it was seen as a measure to raise awareness and to promote cooperation.

2. Application of SMART criteria

Beside the data of the questionnaire, the analysis of the agreements according to the categories has lead to the following results:

a) Regarding their universal application it was found that all the agreements were signed at a company-wide level, i.e. the signed agreement of each enterprise is valid and applies for all sites/ plants around Germany. In one agreement an opening clause was mentioned whereby Integration Agreements for each site are to be set up. According to one other agreement supplemental agreements were envisaged.

b) As far as objects and targets are concerned, it was ascertained that the suggested aspects of sec. 83, code IX (i.e. human resource planning, workplace design, work organization, working hours and work environment) were considered in all the agreements. Human resource management was mentioned but without specific goals except that the enterprise was aiming to fulfil the quota. Altogether, it can be said that in most cases the legal suggestions just seem to be repeated, compiled and copied. In addition, it was found, that issues relating to the prevention of work-related illness were mentioned in three agreements. In one case the content of section 84 ("prevention") of the Social Code was quoted. In the two other agreements it is specified how to deal with long-term absenteeism caused by illness. Furthermore, the necessity for an increased awareness of the management regarding chronic illness and disability were agreed upon and put into all agreements. Nevertheless, no indications of how the level of awareness was to be attainted nor was there mention of a time-frame given.

c) The character of the agreement comes as a result of its application, i.e. considering that all agreements were signed at a company wide level, the gist of these agreements was vague and general when specificity was required. Therefore the agreements refer more to a general framework of in-plant integration or a general outline for dealing with chronically ill and disabled employees.

Conclusion

The results of the written data collection have shown how the Integration Agreement has been accepted. The German Automobile Industry initiated discussions and negotiations to implement this new measure. Nevertheless, up to the present time, not all enterprises have signed, let alone implemented an Integration Agreement. But those who have already signed have had their specific requirements taken into consideration. This is an ongoing process which hopefully will develop positively in the future. The analysis of the signed agreements according to the defined categories regarding "Management by Objectives" leads to the following conclusion. The quality of the agreements could be enhanced by taking the SMART-model into consideration:

• Specific goals could be achieved given that the requirements of each individual plant are looked into and analysed before signing an Integration Agreement,
• Measurement of change/ success is only possible when goals are precisely defined and when a framework for evaluation is seriously considered from the beginning,
• Acceptance could be achieved by transparency and openness in the process of negotiating the agreement,
• Realistic goals are only to be defined when the given situation is analysed and when there is a consensus about the necessity for change. Whether or not the goals are defined realistically could be seen by an evaluation that was put in practice or, respectively that was intended in the agreement,
• Timing is to be considered in action plans helping to put the agreements in practice.

The Integration Agreement could have been more successfully implemented had the various companies and enterprises paid more attention to follow the SMART criteria. One particular shortcoming was that a data driven analysis did not take place before negotiating the content of the agreements. This means for example that no data regarding the number of employees or work places was obtained, nor were any weak points identified in order to assess specific objectives before signing the agreement. From this shortcoming it can be concluded that the representatives require support and professional help when defining the content of the agreement regarding "Management by Objective" and the SMART principle. It seems that the representatives of the employees as well as the employers themselves need to be instructed to develop tools, checklists and questionnaires in order to have instruments or methods to analyse their specific company/plant situation as the basis for the targeted Integration Agreement. Furthermore, they need to know how to evaluate and how to set up a controlling system. The integration offices in Germany who supply counselling and coaching have responded to the stakeholders' needs with printed materials, i.e. guidelines or by directing workshops. But the data shows that there is a need for more support, particularly since the SMART criteria can be considered as a useful tool to define integration goals and to put them into practice.

From the research it can be concluded that in order to implement the agreement successfully, certain qualifications of the stakeholders and participants are required. From an international perspective, Harder and Voaklander (2003) refer to the shortage of information available regarding the required education to fulfil integration management tasks. A high request for schooling and training is also one main result from the evaluation of Integration Agreements (Bernhard, Niehaus & Schmal, 2004). Therefore, further research regarding the training, skills and competencies of the stakeholders becomes necessary.

References

Bernhard, D., Niehaus, M. & Schmal, A. (2004). New Approach for In-Plant Integration: Integration Agreements and their Impact on Integration Management. In J. Wirkstroem (Ed.). International Journal of Rehabilitation Research. Proceedings of the 8th Congress of European Federation for Research in Rehabilitation vom 13-17. Juni 2004 in Ljubljana, Slovenien [S. 49]. London, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Bernhard, D., Schmal, A. & Niehaus, M. (2003). A New approach for in-plant Integration: Integration Agreements -- relevant views of the people involved. In Deutsche Vereinigung fuer die Rehabilitation Behinderter (Hrsg.), Networking in Practice: Connecting Partners in Rehabilitation. Proceedings. 8th European Regional Conference of Rehabilitation International [S. 174-178].

Buck, H., Kistler, E. & Mendius, H.G. (2002). Demographic change in the world of work. Opportunities for an innovative approach to work -- a German point of view. Bundesministerium fuer Bildung und Forschung: Stuttgart.

Bundesministerium fuer Gesundheit und Soziale Sicherung (BMGS) (2004). Rehabilitation and participation of disabled persons (Law stated as of 1 January 2004). Bonn: BMGS. http://www.bmgs.bund.de/download/broschueren/a990eng.pdf [31.09.05].

Commission of the European Communities (2003). The Future of the European Employment Strategy (EES) "A strategy for full employment and better jobs for all". europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/pdf/2003/com2003_0006en01.pdf [12.01.04].

Fankhaenel, K. & Ihme, C. (2003). Zwei Jahre Integrationsvereinbarung gem. 83 SGB IX-- Erfahrungen, Umsetzungsstand, Arbeitshilfen. Behindertenrecht, 6, 177-181.

Feldes, W. (2001). Mit Vereinbarungen schuetzen und foerdern. Behindertenrecht, 6, 157-160.

Frick, B. (2002). Active labour market programmes for people with disabilities. Country profile Germany. www.employment-disability.net/upload/final%20country%20profiles%20website/F_ALMPs%20for%20disabled.pdf [26.01.04].

Harder, H. & Voaklander, D.C. (2003). Disability Management Career Awareness survey. IJDCR, vol.2, 1, 1-4.

Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Niehaus, M., Schmal, A. & Heinrich, T. (2001). Ansaetze betrieblicher Beschaeftigungsfoerderung (schwer)behinderter Mitarbeiter/innen in der Deutschen Automobilindustrie (Forschungsbericht Nr. 291 des Bundesministeriums fuer Arbeit und Sozialordnung). Bonn: Bundesministerium fuer Arbeit und Sozialordnung.

International Labour Organization (2001). Code of Practice on Managing disability in the workplace. http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/gb/docs/gb282/pdf/tmemdw-2.pdf [12.01.04].

Schmal, A., Niehaus, M., Bernhard, D., Kamrad, K. & Kriesel, M. (2002). Implementierung von Integrationsvereinbarungen am Beispiel der Deutschen Automobilindustrie -- Erster Ergebnisbericht. Trier: Universitaet Trier.

Seel, H. (2001). Integrationsvereinbarungen -- Ein neues Instrument zur Planung und Steuerung der beruflichen Integration von Menschen mit Behinderungen. Behindertenrecht, 2, 61-66.

Steiger, T. (2001). Fuehren durch Zielvereinbarungen -- Management by objectives (MbO). In T. Steiger & E. Lippmann, Hrsg., Handbuch angewandte Psychologie fuer Fuehrungskraefte, 156-173. Berlin: Springer.

Contact for correspondence

Dipl. Paed. (rehab.) Doerte Bernhard, University of Cologne, Research assistant at the Chair for Labour and Vocational Rehabilitation, Herbert-Lewin-Str.2, D-50931 Cologne, Germany, Tel. 0049-221-470 4953, Fax: 0049-221-470 7722

Email: Doerte Bernhard

Univ. Prof. Dr. Mathilde Niehaus, University of Cologne, Chair for Labour and Vocational Rehabilitation, Herbert-Lewin-Str.2, D-50931 Cologne, Germany, Tel. 0049-221-470 4955, Fax: 0049-221-470 7722

Email: Mathilde Niehaus

International Journal of Disability, Community & Rehabilitation
Volume 4, No. 2 Canada
www.ijdcr.ca
ISSN 1703-3381