Advertisement

Workforce Diversity in Malaysia: Current and Future Demand of Persons with Disabilities

  • Rosly OthmanEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Technical and Vocational Education and Training: Issues, Concerns and Prospects book series (TVET, volume 17)

Abstract

One of the most recent additions to the idea of workforce diversity in Malaysia is the inclusion of persons with disabilities (PWDs). However, such inclusion does not come without any challenges as most employers interviewed are worried about the cost in terms of time, money, and productivity when hiring PWDs. In addition, many employers often had preconceived ideas about PWDs’ abilities and shortcomings. The situation was further aggravated by the fact that most of the employees in these organizations had never worked with PWDs, and they had to learn how to interact with them and how to provide guidance and instruction. Nevertheless, things have started to change over the years, and generally, there is a positive outlook on disability employment. This study used the institutional theory to explore several sets of institutional influences under which employment of PWDs is likely to occur. A total of 36 organizations with diverse profiles were sampled for this study. Although it was difficult to achieve representativeness of the actual Malaysian organizational landscape, most of the eight employment sectors specified in the Malaysian Economic Report 2011/2012 were represented. Eighteen respondents are current employers of PDWs, while the remaining 18 employers did not have any prior experiences in hiring workers with disability. Results indicated that there seems to be a paradigm shift from “selling” to employers of potential PWDs to accommodating the workforce needs of the employers. Both categories of employers agreed that a more constructive approach has been taken by the government and NGOs involved in disability employment to convince employers to hire PWDs. Results also indicated that prior experiences in hiring PWDs as workforce is one of the main catalyst for employment of PWDs. Therefore, a smart partnership between the various stakeholders in disability employment will contribute positively toward the future supply and demand of PWDs workforce in Malaysia.

Keywords

Corporate Social Responsibility Venture Capitalist Disability Worker Future Demand Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research project was funded by the Research University Grant, Universiti Sains Malaysia. Account No: 1001/PGURU/816047. The contributions of the research team members and also the participants of the study are acknowledged.

References

  1. Benner, P. (1994). The tradition and skill of interpretive phenomenology in studying health, illness and caring practices. In P. Benner (Ed.), Interpretive phenomenology: Embodiment, caring, ethics in health and illness. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Bryen, D. N., Potts, B., & Carey, A. C. (2007). So you want to work? What employers say about job skills, recruitment and hiring employees, who rely on ACC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(2), 126–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burgstahler, S. (2001). A collaborative model to promote career success for students with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 16, 209–215.Google Scholar
  4. Burke, L. (2004). Finding premium volunteers: Post discovery. In R. Luecking (Ed.), Essential tools: Employer perspectives on youth with disabilities in the workplace (pp. 10–11). Minneapolis: ICI Publication Office.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways: An institutional theory of corporate social responsibilities? The Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 925–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diska, E., & Rogers, S. (1996). Employer concerns about hiring persons with psychiatric disability. Results of the Employer Attitudes Questionnaire. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 40, 31–44.Google Scholar
  8. Domzal, C., Houtenville, A., & Sharma, R. (2008). Survey of employer perspective on the employment of people with disabilities (Technical report). http://www.dol.gov/odep/documents/survey_report_jan_09.doc. Accessed 12 Oct 2009.
  9. Doren, B., & Benz, M. R. (1998). Employment inequality revisited: Predictors of better employment outcomes for young women with disabilities in transition. The Journal of Special Education, 31(4), 425–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DuPont and Company. (1993). Equal to the task: DuPont survey of employment of people with disabilities. Wilmington: DuPont deNemours and Company.Google Scholar
  11. Edelman, L. (1992). Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: Organizational mediation of civil rights law. The American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1531–1576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fabian, E., Luecking, R., & Tilson, G. (1995). Employer and rehabilitation personnel views on hiring persons with disabilities: Implication for job development. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 61, 42–49.Google Scholar
  13. Guthrie, D. (2003). Survey on corporate-community relations. New York: Social Sciences Research Council.Google Scholar
  14. Harris, K. (2004). Infrastructure for success; Kemtah group. Inc. In R. Luecking (Ed.), Essential tools: Employer perspective on youth with disabilities in the workplace. Minneapolis: ICI Publication Office.Google Scholar
  15. Hernandez, B., Keys, C., & Balcazar, F. (2000). Employer attitudes towards disability and their ADA employment rights: A literature review. Journal of Rehabilitation, 16, 83–88.Google Scholar
  16. Isaksson, A., Cornelius, B., Landström, H., & Junghagen, S. (2004). Institutional theory and contracting in venture capital: The Swedish experience. Venture Capital, 6(1).Google Scholar
  17. Jennings, P. D., & Zandbergen, A. (1995). Ecologically sustainable organizations: An institutional approach. The Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 1015–1052.Google Scholar
  18. Khor, H. T. (2002). Employment of persons with disabilities in Malaysia. Paper presented at the Economic Briefing to the Penang State Government. http://job4disabled.jobstreet.com/resources1.htm. Accessed 2 Apr 2008.
  19. Lengnick, M. L. (2007). Why employers don’t hire people with disabilities. In Mark L. Lengnick (Ed.), Hidden talent: how leading companies hire, retain and benefit from people with disabilities (pp. 25–35). Westport: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Lengnick, M. L., Gaunt, P. M., & Kulkarni, M. (2008). Overlooked and underutilized: People with disabilities are an untapped human resource. Texas: Wiley Periodicals Inc.Google Scholar
  21. Levy, J., Jessop, D., Rimmerman, A., Francis, F., & Levy, P. (1995). Determinants of attitudes of New York state employers towards the employment of persons with severe handicaps. Journal of Rehabilitation, 59(1), 49–54.Google Scholar
  22. Lowman, D., West, S., & McMohan, B. (2005). Workplace discrimination and mental retardation: The national EEOC. ADA research project. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 23(3), 171–177.Google Scholar
  23. Luecking, R. (Ed.). (2004). Essential tools: Employer perspectives on youth with disabilities in the workplace. Minneapolis: ICI Publication Office.Google Scholar
  24. Luecking, R. (2008). Emerging employer views of people with disabilities and the future of job development. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 29, 3–13.Google Scholar
  25. Luecking, R., & Fabian, E. (2000). Paid internship and employment success for youth in transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 23, 205–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McIlveen, J. (2004). Investigating human resource options: American institute for cancer research. In R. Luecking (Ed.), Essential tools: Employer perspectives on youth with disabilities in the workplace (pp. 12–13). Minneapolis: ICI Publication Office.Google Scholar
  27. Metts, R. L. (2000). Disability issues, trends and recommendations for the World Bank. Washington: World Bank.Google Scholar
  28. Ng, M. L. Y. A., See, C. M., & Tan, K. E. (2008). Employability and work-success factors: A preliminary study on Malaysian teachers with visual impairment. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 3(7), 155–166.Google Scholar
  29. Nietupski, J., Hamre, N., Vanderhart, N. S., & Fishback, K. (1996). Employer perception of the benefits and concerns of supported employment. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Development Disabilities, 31(4), 310–323.Google Scholar
  30. Padolina, M. (2004). Reaching out to youth: Microsoft Corporation. In R. Luecking (Ed.), Essential tools: Employer perspectives on youth with disabilities in the workplace (pp. 5–7). Minneapolis: ICI Publication Office.Google Scholar
  31. Pearson, V., Ip, F., Hui, H., Yip, N., Ho, K., & Lo, E. (2003). To tell or not to tell: Disability disclosure and job application outcomes. Journal of Rehabilitation, 69, 35–38.Google Scholar
  32. Peck, B., & Kirkbride, L. T. (2001). Why businesses don’t employ people with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 16(2), 71–75.Google Scholar
  33. Perry, D. A. (2003). Moving forward: Toward decent work for people with disabilities. Examples of good practices in vocational training and employment from Asia and Pacific. Thailand: International Labour Organization.Google Scholar
  34. Riley, C. A. (2006). Disability and business. Hanover: University Press of New England.Google Scholar
  35. Rothwell, W., Sullivan, R., & McLean, G. (1995). Practicing organization development. San Diego: Pfieffer & Company.Google Scholar
  36. Rutkowski, S., Daston, M., Kuiken, D. V., & Riehle, E. (2006). Project SEARCH: A demand-side model of high school transition. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 25, 85–96.Google Scholar
  37. Scott, W. R. (1992). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  38. Sinclair, M. (2002, August). Forging the partnership: Using all of your resources in recruiting. Presentation at Business Leadership Annual Conference, Washington, DC.,Google Scholar
  39. Social Firms. (2010). Mapping and social impact measurement. http://socialfirms.co.uk/resources/mapping-and-social-impact-measurement. Accessed 15 Apr 2010.
  40. Social Welfare Department. (2010). Person with Disability Act 2008. http://www.jkm.gov.my/. Accessed 15 Apr 2010.
  41. Streubert, H. J., & Carpenter, D. R. (1999). Qualitative research in nursing: Advancing the humanistic imperative (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott.Google Scholar
  42. Unger, D., Kregel, J., Wehman, P., & Brooke, V. (2006). Employer views of workplace supports: Virginia Commonwealth university charter business roundtable’s national study of employers’ experiences with workers with disabilities. Richmond: Commonwealth University Rehabilitation Research and Training Center.Google Scholar
  43. Van Manen, M. (1997). Researching the lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy (2nd ed.). London: The University of Western Ontario.Google Scholar
  44. Waterhouse, P., Kimberley, H., Jonas, P., & Glover, J. (2010). What would it take? Employer perspectives on employing people with disability. Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER).Google Scholar
  45. Weber, M. (2007). Disability harrassment. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Zhang, D., Ivester, J. G., Chen, L. J., & Katsiyannis, A. (2005). Perspectives on transition practices. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 28(1), 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of BusinessUniversiti Sains MalaysiaPenangMalaysia

Personalised recommendations