Unit VI RM
breal
DEIC.pdf
Navigating Job Satisfaction: Unveiling the Nexus of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Accessibility (DEIA), Perceived Supervisory Support, and Intrinsic Work Experience. Published in: Public Personnel Management, Mar2025,Business Source Ultimate
This study aims to unravel the intricate interplay among diversity, equity, inclusion, and
accessibility (DEIA), along with perceived supervisory support (PSS) and intrinsic work
experience (IWE), as pivotal determinants influencing the job satisfaction (JSC) of employees
with disabilities. The research sample used comprises civil servants employed in government
organizations in Indonesia. Utilizing covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-
SEM), the analysis encompasses confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and the evaluation of a
structural model, coupled with hypothesis testing, to confirm the findings. The study's
findings affirm not only the direct influence of DEIA components and IWE on the JSC of
employees with disabilities, but also highlight the indirect mediation of DEIA components
and JSC through PSS. This study stands as a pioneering effort in exploring the interplay
between DEIA, PSS, and IWE with regard to the JSC of employees with disabilities.
Keywords: diversity; equity; inclusion; and accessibility (DEIA); perceived supervisory support;
intrinsic work experience; job satisfaction; government institutions
Introduction
In the evolving landscape of the contemporary workplace, the pursuit of job satisfaction (JSC)
has taken center stage as a driving force behind employee engagement, retention, and
overall organizational prosperity ([ 4 ]; [58]; [64]). As organizations strive to create
environments that foster a sense of belonging and purpose, the intricate interplay of various
factors that influence JSC is being closely examined ([ 9 ]; [35]; [50]). This study embarks on a
journey of exploration, delving into the dynamic relationships between diversity, equity,
inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA), perceived supervisory support (PSS), and intrinsic work
experience (IWE), to uncover how these factors collectively shape the vital aspect of JSC for
employees with disabilities.
In the realm of the modern workplace, the pursuit of a nurturing work environment
characterized by DEIA has recently gained substantial momentum ([39]; [49]; [57]). In
Indonesia, specifically, the legislation outlined in Law No. 8/2016 concerning individuals with
disabilities mandates that both government institutions and private organizations must
employ individuals with disabilities, constituting at least 2% of their total workforce. The
acknowledgment of diverse backgrounds, perspectives, and abilities has brought about a
paradigm shift in organizational dynamics ([28]). Equity and inclusion have emerged as
pivotal factors for ensuring fair treatment and cultivating a sense of worth among all
employees, including those with disabilities, thereby fostering a shared sense of purpose ([ 5
]; [49]; [55]). The concept of accessibility, which aligns seamlessly with the DEIA principles,
advocates for environments, which are designed to accommodate the unique needs of
employees, ensuring their full engagement and contribution ([16]; [54]; [60]). However, amid
the backdrop of such DEIA endeavors, a potential shadow emerges—the specter of stigma.
Stigma theory posits that individuals with unique attributes, such as those associated with
disabilities or minority status, are likely to face societal stereotypes, discrimination, and
prejudice, which can detrimentally impact their self-esteem and well-being ([22]; [46]; [47]).
On the other hand, when the DEIA principles are implemented effectively, employees are
more likely to feel a sense of belonging, empowerment, and fulfillment in their roles. In turn,
this can enhance employees' IWE by fostering a positive culture where individuals feel valued
for their unique perspectives and contributions, leading to higher levels of motivation,
engagement, and JSC ([28]; [40]; [60]). Moreover, DEIA efforts can also create opportunities
for skill development, career advancement, and professional growth, further enriching IWE
for employees ([38]; [49]; [64]).
In addition, PSS is a vital aspect of this intricate nexus. PSS reflects the degree to which
employees, including those with disabilities, believe that their supervisors genuinely prioritize
their well-being, professional growth, and overall career development ([ 9 ]; [38]; [43]). Such
support can significantly contribute to mitigating barriers and fostering an inclusive
environment where employees with disabilities can thrive and contribute effectively to
organizational goals and success.
To navigate these unique interconnections, the emergence of stigma theory introduces a
multifaceted and largely unexplored territory. Individuals who face stigma due to their
identities or abilities (i.e., employees with disabilities) may encounter barriers to inclusion
and equitable treatment ([ 2 ]; [44]; [47]). This stigma can harm their IWE, diminish the impact
of PSS, and subsequently influence overall JSC. With organizations striving to promote DEIA
and foster supportive environments, recognizing and addressing the potential ramifications
of stigma takes on a position of paramount significance ([63]).
The aim of this study is to untangle the complex interconnections among DEIA, PSS, and IWE
as pivotal factors that influence the JSC of employees with disabilities. By scrutinizing
empirical evidence and real-world insights, this article seeks to offer a comprehensive
understanding of how these factors collectively shape these employees' overall work
experience, with a specific focus on employees with disabilities within Indonesian
government institutions. The contention is that disabled employees within government
institutions possess unique characteristics due to their connection to public service and their
position within a large workforce. As this investigation unfolds, it strives to shed light on a
trajectory that can lead to the establishment of work environments where JSC thrives,
facilitated by the seamless amalgamation of DEIA and the core principles of PSS, which
include supervisors demonstrating empathy, maintaining clear communication, offering
guidance and feedback, and advocating for employee well-being and growth, alongside
IWEs. Considering this context, the present study endeavors to address the following
research questions (RQs):
RQ1: What is the extent of the direct impact of the DEIA components and IWE on the JSC
of employees with disabilities?
RQ2: To what extent does the influence of the DEIA components on the JSC of
employees with disabilities occur indirectly through PSS?
This study contributes to the scientific discourse in three notable ways. First, it illuminates the
combined influence of DEIA, PSS, and IWE on the holistic JSC of employees with disabilities.
By comprehensively investigating the relationships between these variables in conjunction
with each other, this research advances the present understanding of the intricate interplay
of factors shaping diversity research ([ 6 ]; [50]; [57]). Notably, the context of employees with
disabilities remains underexplored in the existing literature, making this study particularly
significant in filling this gap. Second, this study provides evidence-based insights that can
empower government institutions to enhance the JSC of employees with disabilities. By
grasping the interplay between DEIA, PSS, IWE, and stigma theory, government institutions
can devise targeted strategies aimed at cultivating inclusive and supportive environments,
ultimately fostering elevated levels of JSC. These empirical discoveries hold significance due
to the prevailing focus of prior research in this field on qualitative studies or systematic
literature reviews ([ 6 ]; [18]; [57]). Finally, a distinctive contribution of this research is the
integration of stigma theory within the context of DEIA, PSS, IWE, and JSC. This study seeks to
uncover how stigma theory shapes the dynamics between these variables, potentially
molding individuals' perceptions and experiences within diverse and inclusive workplace
settings.
The remainder of this article begins with the theoretical background and hypotheses,
followed by the research methods used. Following these sections, the results and empirical
findings are presented, while theoretical and practical implications are provided in the final
section.
Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
Stigma Theory and the Inclusion of Employees With Disabilities in the Workplace
Stigma theory plays a pivotal role in understanding the intricate relationship between DEIA,
PSS, IWE, and employee JSC, particularly in the context of individuals with disabilities. This
theory, rooted in social psychology, focuses on the negative attitudes and beliefs that society
holds toward individuals who possess unique attributes or characteristics that deviate from
societal norms. These attributes can include disabilities, minority status, or other
distinguishing features ([63]).
Stigma theory provides a lens through which this study can examine how societal
stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination can influence the experiences of employees with
disabilities ([17]). Stigma theory suggests that individuals who face stigma due to their
disabilities might encounter barriers to inclusion and equitable treatment. This can lead to
feelings of marginalization, reduced self-esteem, and psychological distress ([ 1 ]; [36]; [50]).
When applied to the DEIA framework, stigma theory implies that despite efforts to promote
diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workplace, employees with disabilities may still
encounter stereotypes and discriminatory attitudes ([22]; [51]). This can hinder their sense of
belonging, thwart their efforts to engage fully in their work, and potentially impact their IWE
and overall JSC. Negative perceptions and attitudes from colleagues and supervisors, as well
as self-stigmatization, can undermine the positive effects of DEIA initiatives on the well-being
of employees with disabilities.
Moreover, stigma theory also intersects with PSS. Employees who perceive their supervisors
as unsupportive or insensitive to their unique needs might experience heightened feelings of
stigma and exclusion ([54]). On the other hand, supportive supervisors who actively work to
mitigate stigma and foster an inclusive environment can alleviate the negative effects of
stigma on employees' JSC. Supervisors who understand and address the challenges faced by
employees with disabilities can contribute to their sense of belonging and psychological well-
being, thereby positively influencing their JSC ([64]).
In essence, stigma theory provides a comprehensive framework for understanding how the
stigma associated with disabilities can impact the interplay between DEIA, PSS, IWE, and
employee JSC. By recognizing and addressing the potential consequences of stigma within
the context of workplace diversity and inclusion efforts, organizations can take proactive
steps to create an environment that minimizes the negative effects of stigma, fosters a sense
of belonging, and ultimately enhances JSC for employees with disabilities.
The Impact of DEIA Components on the JSC of Disabled Employees
The relationship between DEIA and the JSC of disabled employees is intricately linked, and
can be understood through the lens of stigma theory, as well as through previous research.
Stigma theory posits that individuals who possess unique attributes, such as disabilities,
might encounter negative societal attitudes, stereotypes, and discriminatory behaviors.
These experiences can lead to feelings of marginalization, reduced self-esteem, and
psychological distress ([17]; [63]). In the workplace context, this can translate to challenges in
achieving a sense of belonging, equitable treatment, and overall JSC.
Previous studies have shown that despite efforts to create inclusive workplaces, disabled
employees may face both external and internal stigma ([ 2 ]; [39]). External stigma refers to
discrimination and negative perceptions from colleagues, supervisors, or the broader
organizational culture. Internal stigma, also known as self-stigma, occurs when individuals
internalize societal stereotypes and view themselves negatively due to their disabilities.
Empirical evidence has indicated that disabled employees who perceive higher levels of
external stigma are more likely to experience reduced JSC ([ 7 ]; [35]; [42]). Discrimination and
exclusionary behaviors can lead to feelings of isolation and dissatisfaction with the work
environment. In addition, disabled employees who internalize negative stereotypes about
their abilities may experience diminished self-worth, affecting their overall well-being and JSC
([58]).
Conversely, research has demonstrated that when organizations effectively address and
mitigate stigma, disabled employees experience higher levels of JSC ([ 9 ]; [64]). Inclusive
practices, supportive policies, and awareness campaigns aimed at reducing stigma can create
a more positive work environment ([24]). Organizations that prioritize diversity by promoting
equitable treatment, fostering inclusive practices, and ensuring accessibility have been found
to have a positive impact on employees' overall JSC ([61]). This is particularly true for disabled
employees, who often face unique challenges in the workplace. Based on these arguments
and prior research, the following concurrent hypotheses can be formulated:
_I__B_Hypothesis 1a (H1a): Perception of diversity has a direct effect on enhanced JSC
among employees with disabilities._i_
_I__B_Hypothesis 1b (H1b): Perception of equity has a direct effect on enhanced JSC
among employees with disabilities._i_
_I__B_Hypothesis 1c (H1c): Perception of inclusion has a direct effect on enhanced JSC
among employees with disabilities._i_
_I__B_Hypothesis 1d (H1d): Perception of accessibility has a direct effect on enhanced
JSC among employees with disabilities._i_
The Influence of Intrinsic Work Experience on the JSC of Disabled Employees
Previous research suggests that IWE is closely linked to the JSC of disabled employees ([ 9 ];
[38]). IWE refers to the fulfillment, purpose, and satisfaction that employees derive from their
roles. Studies have consistently shown that disabled employees who perceive a strong
positive IWE generally exhibit higher levels of JSC ([ 4 ]; [59]). When employees find meaning
and purpose in their work, they are more likely to be engaged, committed, and satisfied with
their jobs ([ 5 ]).
Research has also indicated that IWE can serve as a buffer against the negative effects of
stigma ([63]). Disabled employees who possess a strong IWE may exhibit greater resilience in
the face of stigma, as the internal satisfaction derived from their job enables them to
maintain a focus on the positive aspects of their work and effectively navigate challenges
associated with their disabilities. Moreover, IWE has been shown to empower disabled
employees to actively pursue opportunities for personal and professional development,
thereby contributing to their overall JSC ([ 4 ]; [38]; [64]). Based on these insights and prior
research, the next hypothesis can be formulated:
Hypothesis 2 (H2): Perception of IWE has a positive and direct effect on JSC among
employees with disabilities.
Perceived Supervisory Support as a Mediating Variable
DEIA initiatives can be carefully crafted to establish a workplace ambiance where every
employee, irrespective of their background or abilities, experiences a sense of worth,
inclusivity, and equal opportunities ([59]). These measures collectively contribute to a
nurturing work environment that upholds the overall welfare of employees. According to
stigma theory, individuals with disabilities often face societal prejudices and discriminatory
attitudes that can negatively impact their self-esteem and JSC. However, when organizations
implement DEIA initiatives, they actively challenge these stigmatizing beliefs and create an
environment where employees feel valued, respected, and empowered to succeed. Moreover,
when employees perceive their work to be aligned with their personal values, offering
avenues for personal growth and imbuing a sense of purpose, their likelihood of expressing
elevated levels of JSC increases ([ 4 ]; [38]; [61]).
In this context, the significance of PSS takes center stage. Employees with disabilities who
identify their supervisors as active advocates for DEIA initiatives and facilitators of requisite
support and accommodations are more likely to experience heightened JSC ([ 9 ]; [30]; [32]).
Supportive supervisors contribute to fostering an atmosphere characterized by trust and
comprehension, thereby facilitating effective job performance and circumventing
unnecessary impediments ([32]). Moreover, the role of PSS plays a critical part in shaping the
aforementioned interplay. Employees with disabilities who perceive their supervisors as
sources of support, accommodations, and genuine care for their well-being tend to
encounter a positive IWE ([54]). Supportive supervisors create an environment conducive to
employees' growth, enabling them to navigate challenges and find significance in their roles
([ 5 ]; [30]).
In addition, supervisors who demonstrate support and advocacy for DEIA initiatives can
create a positive environment where employees feel psychologically safe, respected, and
empowered to bring their authentic selves to their jobs. This type of positive relationship with
supervisors can enhance IWE by providing employees with the necessary guidance,
resources, and feedback to succeed in their roles. Moreover, supportive supervisors can
create opportunities for meaningful work assignments, recognition of accomplishments, and
constructive feedback, which are essential components of IWE and JSC ([ 9 ]; [32]; [37]; [42]).
Drawing on these insights and prior research, the following concurrent hypotheses can be
formulated:
_I__B_Hypothesis 3a (H3a): Perception of diversity indirectly influences JSC among
employees with disabilities, through the avenue of PSS._i_
_I__B_Hypothesis 3b (H3b): Perception of equity indirectly influences JSC among
employees with disabilities, through the avenue of PSS._i_
_I__B_Hypothesis 3c (H3c): Perception of inclusion indirectly influences JSC among
employees with disabilities, through the avenue of PSS._i_
_I__B_Hypothesis 3d (H3d): Perception of accessibility indirectly influences JSC among
employees with disabilities, through the avenue of PSS._i_
_I__B_Hypothesis 4 (H4): PSS has a positive and indirect effect on JSC among employees
with disabilities, facilitated by IWE._i_
Figure 1 depicts the theoretical framework of this study.
Graph: Figure 1. Theoretical framework and path relationships between latent variables.
Research Methods
Participants and Procedures
This research employs a sample of civil servants working in Indonesian government
institutions. Specifically, this study focuses on employees with disabilities, as they have
relevant experience with variables, such as DEIA (see Figure 1). For data collection, the Prolific
company was used (https:// www.prolific.co/), as it provides a reliable platform for this type of
study ([33]). In comparison to Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), which primarily consists of
workers from the United States ([41]), Prolific better suits the needs of this study, given the
location of the sample in Indonesia. The sampling framework used comprises over 3.5 million
employees, encompassing civil servants and contracted government employees. Before
conducting the survey, non-probability sampling techniques were utilized to select target
respondents based on the criteria mentioned earlier. The total sample pool comprises of
1,081 employees with disabilities.
Prolific is an online survey platform that facilitates the collection of high-quality data and
allows researchers to reach participants across the world. Utilizing this platform enables
efficient and reliable data collection on a large scale. For this study, the survey was conducted
between May and June 2023, and the employees with disabilities were invited via
personalized email messages, each containing a unique survey link and instructions.
Participants were given approximately 1 month to complete the survey, with additional time
allowed if necessary. To enhance response rates, reminder emails were sent weekly to those
who had not responded, with the final reminder sent on the day before the data collection
period ended, indicating that the survey would close the next day.
At the conclusion of the research deadline and after closing the survey, a total of 418
completed questionnaires were received, with 16 of these subsequently excluded for being
incomplete or containing missing values. This yielded a final response rate of 37.2%. Several
studies, such as [26], have indicated that the response rate achieved can be considered high
and aligns with the response rates commonly found in organizational research. Thus, this
response rate meets the rule of thumb regarding the minimum level required for survey-
based research, as suggested by [11].
The characteristics of the respondents, describing the details of the sample used in this study
([10]), can be summarized as follows. Based on gender, the majority of respondents were
male, accounting for 68.7% of the sample, while women made up 31.3%. Regarding work
experience, the largest segment of participants (33.8%) reported having worked for 6 to 10
years, followed by those with 2 to 5 years of experience (30.9%), and individuals with less
than 2 years of experience (23.4%). Conversely, respondents with over 10 years of experience
represented only approximately 11.9% of the sample. Furthermore, all respondents identified
themselves as individuals with disabilities (100%). Finally, in terms of age distribution, the
most common response fell within the range of 35 to 45 years, comprising 40.8% of
respondents.
Measures
The measurement items used in this study were derived from the questionnaire utilized in
the 2022 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS). Items from the FEVS were chosen due to
their prior use in surveying government agency employees with disabilities ([12]).
Approximately, 25 relevant questions were identified as suitable for measuring the latent
variables in the proposed model. To ensure that these items accurately captured the essence
of each construct, principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted through factor analysis.
The validity and reliability of each variable were tested to ensure the formation of a single
factor.
Using IBM SPSS 28.0 software, a Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO-
MSA) value greater than 0.50 was obtained for each latent variable, with one component
extracted. In addition, the factor loading values for each item exceeded 0.748, and
Cronbach's alpha for each construct exceeded 0.806, further supporting the formation of a
single factor ([21]; [48]). Table 1A presents the full list of the 25 items selected for this study.
To measure DEIA, IWE, PSS, and JSC, multiple items were employed with responses recorded
on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = "strongly disagree" to 5 = "strongly agree."
Data Analysis
Covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) was applied to assess the
comprehensive model, incorporating confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural model
evaluation, along with hypothesis testing, to validate the findings. CB-SEM is recognized as
well-suited for testing latent factors with reflective indicators, rendering it particularly useful
for estimating common factor models based on theory ([31]). Scholars such as [34] and [62]
emphasize that CB-SEM is a robust and reliable approach, providing unbiased parameter
estimates. Some of the acknowledged advantages of this method include its ability to
produce goodness-of-fit indices (GOFI), accounting for measurement error in model
estimation, and testing causal relationships between latent variables. In addition, the
availability of sophisticated software makes CB-SEM an advantageous choice for researchers
([20]; [27]; [34]).
Results
In this study, the CB-SEM estimation was conducted using the SmartPLS 4 software. The CB-
SEM algorithm in SmartPLS is specifically designed to handle non-normal data conditions, as
the model estimation utilizes bootstrapping instead of the maximum-likelihood (ML)
estimator to calculate standard deviation ( SD ), which was considered relevant for this study.
Given that a Likert-type scale, which falls under the ordinal category of data, was utilized, it
was challenging to meet the assumption of normality. Hence, several preliminary tests were
conducted, and are detailed in Appendix. The outcomes of these preliminary tests affirmed
the appropriateness of the approach taken.
The descriptive statistics were analyzed for each variable. The results indicate that the mean
values for all latent variables are below 5, and the SD values do not exceed 2. According to
[10], these values do not surpass either the maximum or minimum threshold. In addition, the
variance inflation factor (VIF) for each predictor was calculated, and all VIF values obtained
were less than 3.3 (refer to Table 2A). These findings suggest that the model is free from
multicollinearity issues ([21]).
Assessment of Method Biases
Two potential method biases in online surveys have been extensively examined due to their
potential to influence the results of this study; specifically, non-response bias ([56]) and
common method variance (CMV) ([52]). Following the outcomes of the analysis delineated in
Appendix, it has been deduced that these two method biases do not pose a threat to the
validity of the findings herein.
Assessment of Validity and Reliability
The validity and reliability of the measurement items were evaluated through CFA and the
CFA model fit was also assessed. Based on the results presented in Appendix, it was
determined that all measurement items in the model were valid (refer to Tables 1A and 2A)
and met the criteria for construct reliability. Moreover, the measurement model exhibited a
satisfactory level of fit.
Assessment of the Full Model
The full model was assessed by running a bootstrapping procedure within the context of
non-normal data. Employing 10,000 resamples for robust estimates ([34]), key metrics
examined in this stage encompass r -square ( R 2 ), effect size ( f 2 ), p values, and t -statistics.
In terms of model performance, the proposed model yields R 2 values of 0.554, 0.229, and
0.587 for PSS, IWE, and JSC, respectively (as illustrated in Figure 2). According to [ 8 ], these R 2
values fall within the accepted range for social science research. To supplement the insights
gained from the significance tests of hypotheses, f 2 values were computed; these varied
from 0.030 to 0.287, all surpassing 0.02. These values confirm the extent to which the null
hypothesis is false and provide support for alternative hypothesis testing ([29]).
Graph: Figure 2. Findings derived from Structural Equation Modeling.
Testing of Hypotheses
The methodology recommended by SEM experts to perform hypothesis testing was followed
to test the hypotheses of this study. This involved examining key parameters, such as the
beta coefficient (β), SD, p -value, and t -statistics ( t ) at a significance level of 5% (one-tailed
test). This approach was based on the guidelines of [27] and [34]. For this study, standardized
estimates were employed to simultaneously test the hypotheses of the full model. The results
of this model estimation consistently upheld the proposed hypotheses. These outcomes are
visually presented in Table 1 and Figure 2. Notably, this study offers empirical substantiation
for the direct relationships between DEIA and IWE concerning the JSC of employees with
disabilities. The beta (β) values were 0.146 ( SD = 0.072) for diversity, 0.293 ( SD = 0.124) for
equity, 0.424 ( SD = 0.098) for inclusion, 0.542 ( SD = 0.072) for accessibility, and 0.628 ( SD =
0.084) for IWE, all with p values <.05, respectively. Drawing on these results, support can be
confidently attested for hypothesis 1a (H1a), hypothesis 1b (H1b), hypothesis 1c (H1c),
hypothesis 1d (H1d), and hypothesis 2 (H2).
Table 1. Results of Hypothesis Confirmation.
Graph
Connection between latent variables Coef. (β)
SD p- value
t- statistics
Finding
Direct effect
Diversity (DV) → job satisfaction (JSC) 0.146 0.072 .022* 2.025* H1a supported
Equity (EQ) → job satisfaction (JSC) 0.293 0.124 .009** 2.368** H1b supported
Inclusion (IS) → job satisfaction (JSC) 0.424 0.098 .000*** 4.322*** H1c supported
Accessibility (AC) → job satisfaction (JSC) 0.542 0.072 .000*** 7.520*** H1d supported
Intrinsic work experience (IWE) → job satisfaction (JSC) 0.628 0.084 .000*** 7.437*** H2 supported
Indirect effect
Diversity (DV) → perceived supervisory support (PSS) → job satisfaction (JSC)
0.112 0.052 .016* 2.144* H3a supported
Equity (EQ) → perceived supervisory support (PSS) → job satisfaction (JSC)
0.143 0.049 .002** 2.935** H3b supported
Inclusion (IS) → perceived supervisory support (PSS) → job satisfaction (JSC)
0.184 0.053 .000*** 3.481*** H3c supported
Accessibility (AC) → perceived supervisory support (PSS) → job satisfaction (JSC)
0.179 0.080 .013* 2.240* H3d supported
Perceived supervisory support → intrinsic work experience (IWE) (PSS) → job satisfaction (JSC)
0.489 0.069 .000*** 7.127*** H4 supported
1 Note(s) : Coef. (β) = standardized beta coefficient; SD = standard deviation; *│ t │ ≥ 1.65 at p
<.05 level; **│ t │ ≥ 2.33 at p <.01 level; ***│ t │ ≥ 3.09 at p <.001 level.
In the final phase of hypothesis testing, the potential mediating role played by PSS was
investigated. This study provides concrete empirical support for the indirect effect paths
connecting DEIA with JSC among employees with disabilities. These connections occur
through the influence of PSS. Notably, these indirect paths received robust confirmation from
the analysis conducted. Specifically, for diversity and equity through PSS, the beta (β) values
obtained were 0.112 ( SD = 0.052) and 0.143 ( SD = 0.049), respectively, while for inclusion and
accessibility through PSS, they were 0.184 ( SE = 0.053) and 0.179 ( SE = 0.080), respectively.
Furthermore, these relationships exhibit significance levels with p values <.05. As a result, it
can be asserted that the findings provide substantial support for hypothesis 3a (H3a),
hypothesis 3b (H3b), hypothesis 3c (H3c), and hypothesis 3d (H3d). Ultimately, the indirect
effect between PSS, IWE, and JSC were examined (beta = 0.489, SD = 0.069, p value =.000).
Based on these results, it can also be inferred that hypothesis 4 (H4) is substantiated.
Robustness Checks
Particular attention was paid to addressing concerns related to endogeneity bias within the
model. To tackle this bias, a series of straightforward regression models were employed.
Through the utilization of the Gaussian copulas approach, via the Stata software, the
significance of p -values was scrutinized. The outcomes of these tests, as indicated by [13],
revealed that no statistically significant p -values emerged at the 5% significance level. This
leads to the assertion that endogeneity bias is absent and does not pose a threat to the
validity of these findings.
Discussion and Conclusions
Government institutions play a vital role in serving diverse populations. By researching the
interaction between DEIA initiatives, PSS, IWE, and JSC among employees with disabilities, as
depicted in Figure 1, these institutions can ensure that their internal practices align
harmoniously with their external goals. The JSC of employees has a direct influence over their
dedication to providing high-quality services. When employees with disabilities encounter a
favorable work environment fostered by DEIA initiatives and bolstered by supportive
supervisors, their engagement and satisfaction in their roles are enhanced ([28]; [61]). This
amplifies service delivery efficacy and fortifies the efficiency of government operations.
Aligned with the tenets of stigma theory, the main findings of this study can be outlined as
follows. Based on hypothesis testing, this investigation has yielded four key insights. To begin
with, a direct and favorable relationship between DEIA efforts and the JSC of employees with
disabilities in government institutions has been uncovered. This indicates that the
implementation of DEIA initiatives within Indonesian government institutions is attuned to
the needs of employees with disabilities, ultimately impacting their JSC. Specifically, these
results indicate that practices promoting inclusion and the provision of accessibility are
particularly influential in shaping the satisfaction levels of individuals with disabilities. In
addition, the examination conducted here uncovered varying impacts of each DEIA
component, underscoring the significance of complementarity among them ([24]). These
findings harmonize with prior research ([ 4 ]; [ 9 ]; [61]; [64]) suggesting that initiatives related
to DEIA can enhance the engagement and satisfaction of individuals with disabilities in the
workplace.
Furthermore, this study has revealed a direct and constructive relationship between IWE and
JSC among employees with disabilities within Indonesian government agencies. This implies
that Indonesian government agencies have accorded significance to nurturing IWE for
individuals with disabilities, culminating in a positive work environment for disabled
employees and leading to heightened levels of JSC. This discovery can be elucidated by the
fact that government institutions are legally mandated to address the needs and roles of
employees with disabilities, thereby enriching their IWEs, which subsequently influence their
JSC. These findings echo those of previous studies ([ 5 ]; [38]).
Moreover, a positive and indirect relationship between DEIA initiatives and the JSC of
employees with disabilities in Indonesian government agencies has been discerned,
mediated by PSS. This highlights the role of PSS in aiding employees with disabilities to
navigate challenges within the framework of Indonesian government agencies. PSS indirectly
shapes their sense of belonging and identity within the organization. Once more, these
findings indicate that inclusion practices and the provision of accessibility, backed by PSS,
play a prominent role in shaping the JSC of individuals with disabilities. This corroborates
findings from earlier research conducted by [ 1 ], [32] and [61].
Finally, a favorable and indirect association between PSS, IWE and the JSC of employees with
disabilities in Indonesian government institutions has been ascertained. This finding
highlights the role of PSS in assisting employees with disabilities in navigating the intricacies
of work within Indonesian government establishments, thereby enhancing their IWE and JSC.
This indirect effect on their sense of group affiliation and organizational identity corresponds
to insights derived from prior research by [54].
Theoretical Implications
In terms of theoretical implications, the primary findings of this study, as discussed earlier,
hold significant value for human resources managers and government institutions aiming to
establish a workplace that is more inclusive for employees with disabilities. To elaborate
further, the concept of stigma theory brings to light the formidable challenges that
individuals confront when they become the target of societal stereotypes ([63]). Employees
with disabilities often grapple with stigma, which can engender feelings of exclusion and
diminish their JSC. By delving into the role of DEIA initiatives, this study directly addresses
how organizational endeavors can impact the mitigation of stigmatization. When
organizations prioritize DEIA, they cultivate an environment wherein employees with
disabilities can receive recognition, inclusivity, and fair opportunities. This nurturing
environment counteracts the adverse effects of stigma, fostering a sense of belonging and
consequently heightening JSC.
Furthermore, the significance of stigma theory lies in its emphasis on the pivotal role of
supportive social interactions in ameliorating the repercussions of stigma. Here, the pivotal
role of PSS comes into play as a key mediator. Supervisors who actively champion DEIA
initiatives and provide essential support contribute to dismantling stigmatizing notions and
shaping a positive working atmosphere. PSS functions as a safeguard against the detrimental
impact of stigma, improving employees' IWE and overall JSC.
In essence, this research brings these theoretical insights into a pragmatic context. By
recognizing the challenges of stigma and acknowledging the role of DEIA initiatives and PSS,
human resources managers and government institutions can strategically formulate policies
and practices that foster inclusivity, create supportive workplace environments, and
ultimately enhance JSC for employees with disabilities.
Practical Implications
In terms of practical implications, this research offers valuable insights that can guide
strategic decision-making, policy formulation, and practices aimed at creating a more
inclusive and satisfying work environment. First, understanding how DEIA initiatives, PSS, and
IWE collectively influence JSC provides organizations with a roadmap to enhance their overall
effectiveness. By fostering an environment where all employees, including those with
disabilities, feel valued and supported, organizations can boost employee morale,
motivation, and commitment. This, in turn, positively impacts productivity, reduces turnover
rates, and contributes to a healthier organizational culture.
Second, the findings of this research offer human resources professionals' concrete insights
into developing tailored strategies that cater to the diverse needs of employees, particularly
those with disabilities. Organizations can design training programs for supervisors to
enhance their ability to provide necessary accommodations, demonstrate empathy, and
advocate for inclusivity. These strategies contribute to a more supportive work environment,
enhancing JSC, and overall well-being. Furthermore, this study sheds light on the pivotal role
of DEIA initiatives in shaping JSC. Organizations can use these insights to prioritize diversity
recruitment, equal pay, accessible facilities, and supportive policies. Consistent with the
findings of [25], the integration of DEIA components is imperative, not only aligning with
ethical imperatives but also strengthening the organization's reputation as an inclusive and
socially responsible entity.
Finally, recognizing the significance of PSS in mediating the relationship between DEIA and
JSC encourages organizations to invest in supervisor training. Equipping supervisors with the
skills to foster an inclusive and supportive environment contributes to higher levels of JSC
among employees with disabilities.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
This study is not without certain inherent limitations, and also offers potential directions for
further research. Primarily, this investigation exclusively centers on employees with
disabilities within Indonesian government institutions. Consequently, its scope is confined to
research conducted within the public sector. Given the distinct variations in the treatment
and experiences of employees with disabilities across different countries, the generalizability
of the research findings herein is therefore restricted. To address this, future researchers may
transcend this limitation by undertaking surveys of disabled employees in diverse countries
and encompassing a broader spectrum of organizational types, including private firms, small
and medium-sized enterprises, as well as non-governmental organizations. Moreover,
delving deeper into the specifics of disability type and severity could offer valuable insights
for further analysis.
In addition, future research endeavors could introduce variables, such as accommodation
([54]), climate for inclusion ([35]), or organizational support ([ 9 ]) as potential moderating
factors. Incorporating these variables could potentially fortify the relationships observed in
this study's model. Moreover, there exists the possibility of exploring other facets that are
pertinent to the disabled community, such as their challenges in securing employment ([ 2 ]; [
5 ]), disparities in compensation between disabled and non-disabled workers ([22]; [36]), or
even investigating alternative outcomes, such as turnover intention ([ 7 ]; [54]).
Finally, this study solely embraces the perspective of stigma theory to elucidate the
interrelationships among the variables under study. Future research endeavors could diverge
from this approach by adopting alternative theoretical frameworks, such as social identity
theory (SIT) or self-verification theory, to provide nuanced explanations for the observed
relationships. These potential areas of exploration serve to acknowledge the limitations of
this study and indicate promising avenues for enriching understanding of the complex
dynamics surrounding DEIA, PSS, IWE and JSC among employees with disabilities.
Appendix
Preliminary Testing
Several preliminary tests were conducted and are outlined as follows. First, through the
Cramér–von Mises test, it was observed that the skewness and kurtosis values obtained were
statistically significant at the 5% level, leading to the conclusion that the data used were not
normally distributed ([20]; [31]; [34]). Second, upon examining outliers in our data, it was
found that all cases had Z -score values below 2.58, which adheres to the general rule of
thumb and indicates the absence of outliers ([48]). Finally, the heteroscedasticity of these
observations was assessed. Through the chi-square test, it was determined that there is no
significant residual variance at the 5% level, thus confirming that the assumption of
homoscedasticity is met.
Method Bias Testing
Initially, testing of biases was focused on non-response bias through applying multivariate
analysis of variance (MANOVA) to several demographic variables, as outlined by [14]. This
analysis demonstrated no significant differences in the main variable across different
demographic categories, at a significance level of 5%. To further validate these findings, t -
tests were carried out for both survey waves (early vs. late) among respondents who
completed the questionnaire. Once again, no statistically significant distinction between the
two groups was observed ([56]). Based on these analyses, it can be confidently concluded
that the data collection process was not affected by non-response bias.
Finally, the potential for CMV was addressed using the marker variable approach, a
contemporary method for detecting CMV as outlined by [52]. CMV was employed first
through the survey design, by separating predictor and outcome variables. Following the
systematic procedure described by [45], a new variable was introduced into the
questionnaire, which was unrelated to the focal constructs. This additional variable was then
assessed using correlation coefficients and GOFI. Upon analyzing the CFA marker, no
significant correlations ( r = < 0.087 at p >.05) were observed between the marker variable
and the focal constructs in the model. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that the model
incorporating the CFA marker yielded inferior GOFI in comparison to the main CFA model.
Taking both these observations into account, it can be confidently concluded that CMV was
not present during the data collection process and poses no threat to the validity of the
findings of this study.
Validity and Reliability Testing
To gauge convergent validity, the standardized factor loading (SFL) and average variance
extracted (AVE) methods were employed. Meanwhile, divergent validity was evaluated using
metrics, such as the heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT and HTMT2), maximum shared
variance (MSV) and average shared variance (ASV). Examining Table 1A reveals that all items
exhibit SFL values exceeding 0.724, and the AVE values are higher than 0.627 for all
constructs, with the exception of JSC2 which, although slightly lower at 0.565, remains
acceptable. Consequently, convergent validity aligns with the stipulated criteria in this case ([
3 ]; [19]; [27]). Furthermore, both the HTMT and HTMT2 ratios remained below 0.85, and both
MSV and ASV values were smaller than the AVE values, as evident in Table 2A. Based on these
outcomes, it can be confidently asserted that the measurement items meet the requirements
for divergent validity, aligning with established guidelines ([23]).
Table 1A. Results of Validity and Reliability Assessment.
Graph
Item FA SFL AVE MSV ASV RRC ρ c
A. Diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA) (Source: Adapted from Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, 2022)
Diversity 0.807 0.362 0.344 0.888 0.889
My organization's management practices promote diversity (e.g., outreach, recruitment, promotion
DV1 0.949 0.841
Item FA SFL AVE MSV ASV RRC ρ c
opportunities)
My supervisor demonstrates a commitment to workforce diversity (e.g., recruitment, promotion opportunities, development)
DV2 0.949 0.952
Equity 0.759 0.471 0.433 0.902 0.904
I have similar access to advancement opportunities (e.g., promotion, career development, training) as others in my work unit
EQ1 0.909 0.840
My supervisor provides opportunities fairly to all employees in my work unit (e.g., promotions, work assignments)
EQ2 0.928 0.884
In my work unit, excellent work is similarly recognized for all employees (e.g., awards, acknowledgements)
EQ3 0.912 0.889
Inclusion 0.760 0.454 0.440 0.935 0.937
Employees in my work unit make me feel I belong IS1 0.932 0.943
Employees in my work unit care about me as a person IS2 0.912 0.922
I am comfortable expressing opinions that are different from other employees in my work unit
IS3 0.856 0.780
In my work unit, people's differences are respected IS4 0.911 0.866
I can be successful in my organization while being myself IS5 0.883 0.838
Accessibility 0.903 0.365 0.353 0.964 0.965
I can easily make a request of my organization to meet my accessibility needs
AC1 0.959 0.930
My organization responds to my accessibility needs in a timely manner
AC2 0.970 0.956
My organization meets my accessibility needs AC3 0.972 0.965
B. Intrinsic work experience (IWE) (Source: Adapted from Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, 2022)
0.627 0.431 0.364 0.894 0.896
I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things
IWE1 0.845 0.821
My work gives me a feeling of personal accomplishment IWE2 0.856 0.828
Item FA SFL AVE MSV ASV RRC ρ c
I know what is expected of me on the job IWE3 0.812 0.724
My talents are used well in the workplace IWE4 0.853 0.822
I know how my work relates to the agency's goals IWE5 0.824 0.760
C. Perceived supervisory support (PSS) (Source: Adapted from Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, 2022)
0.639 0.441 0.405 0.875 0.876
My supervisor is committed to a workforce representative of all segments of society
PSS1 0.852 0.831
Supervisors in my work unit support employee development
PSS2 0.875 0.832
My supervisor supports my need to balance work and other life issues
PSS3 0.841 0.765
My supervisor provides me with constructive suggestions to improve my job performance
PSS4 0.850 0.766
D. Job Satisfaction (JSC) (Source: Adapted from Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, 2022)
0.649 0.394 0.373 0.821 0.822
Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your job?
JSC1 0.903 0.888
Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your pay?
JSC2 0.748 0.565
Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your organization?
JSC3 0.923 0.916
2 Note(s) : FA = factor analysis; SFL = standardized factor loading; AVE = average variance
extracted; MSV = maximum shared variance; ASV = average shared variance; RRC = Raykov's
reliability coefficient; ρ c = composite reliability.
Table 2A. Divergent Validity Results and Descriptive Statistics Among Latent Variables.
Graph
Latent variable 1 2
Accessibility (AC)Diversity (DV)Equity (EQ)Inclusion (IS)Intrinsic work
(0.85)0.6720.6820.7170.6310.6760.6574.0600.8862.180 0.670(0.85)0.8060.7330.6370.700
Latent variable 1 2 experience (IWE)Job satisfaction (JSC)Perceived supervisory support (PSS)MeanStandard deviation (SD)Variance inflation factor (VIF)
3 Note(s) : Below the diagonal are the HTMT values. Above the diagonal are the HTMT2 values.
Diagonal and bold elements are cut-off values for HTMT and HTMT2.
In a subsequent phase, the constructs' reliability was assessed using both Raykov's reliability
coefficient (RRC) and composite reliability (ρ c ), both of which are deemed suitable for CFA.
[53] recommend values exceeding 0.70 for both measures. The findings, detailed in Table 1A,
demonstrate values exceeding 0.821 for both measures, aligning with the stipulated criteria.
Furthermore, the GOFI calculated for the CFA model yielded the following results: minimum
discrepancy function divided by the degrees of freedom (CMIN/DF) = 0.096, comparative fit
index (CFI) = 0.920 > 0.90, normed fit index (NFI) = 0.918 > 0.90, goodness of fit index (GOFI) =
0.897 > 0.85, parsimony GFI (PGFI) = 0.690 > 0.60, and root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) = 0.041 < 0.08 ([31]; [34]; [62]). Based on these GOFI results from the
CFA model, it can be confidently asserted that all of them meet the prescribed standards and
indicate a favorable fit.
References
1 Araten-Bergman T. (2016). Managers' hiring intentions and the actual hiring of qualified workers
with disabilities. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(14), 1510–1530.
2 Bainbridge H. T. J., Fujimoto Y. (2018). Job seekers with musculoskeletal or sensory disabilities:
Barriers and facilitators of job search. British Journal of Management, 29(1), 82–98.
3 Bandalos D. L., Finney S. J. (2019). Factor analysis: Exploratory and confirmatory. In Hancock G.
R., Stapleton L. M., Mueller R. O. (Eds.), The reviewer's guide to quantitative methods in the social
sciences (2nd ed., pp. 98–122). Routledge.
4 Baumgärtner M. K., Dwertmann D. J. G., Boehm S. A., Bruch H. (2015). Job satisfaction of
employees with disabilities: The role of perceived structural flexibility. Human Resource
Management, 54(2), 323–343.
5 Beatty J. E., Baldridge D. C., Boehm S. A., Kulkarni M., Colella A. J. (2019). On the treatment of
persons with disabilities in organizations: A review and research agenda. Human Resource
Management, 58(2), 119–137.
6 Cavanagh J., Bartram T., Meacham H., Bigby C., Oakman J., Fossey E. (2017). Supporting workers
with disabilities: A scoping review of the role of human resource management in contemporary
organisations. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 55(1), 6–43.
7 Chordiya R. (2020). Organizational inclusion and turnover intentions of federal employees with
disabilities. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 42(1), 60–87.
8 Cohen J., Cohen P., West S. G., Aiken L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis
for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9 Coll C., Mignonac K. (2023). Perceived organizational support and task performance of
employees with disabilities: A need satisfaction and social identity perspectives. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(10), 2039–2073.
Cox K. S., Holcomb Z. C. (2022). Interpreting basic statistics: A workbook based on excerpts from
journal articles (9th ed.). Routledge.
Dillman D. A., Smyth J. D., Christian L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed mode surveys:
The tailored design method (4th ed.). Wiley.
Dwertmann D. J. G. (2016). Management research on disabilities: Examining methodological
challenges and possible solutions. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
27(14), 1477–1509.
Eckert C., Hohberger J. (2022). Addressing endogeneity without instrumental variables: An
evaluation of the Gaussian Copula approach for management research. Journal of Management,
49(4), 1460–1495.
Fawcett S. E., Waller M. A., Miller J. W., Schwieterman M. A., Hazen B. T., Overstreet R. E. (2014). A
trail guide to publishing success: Tips on writing influential conceptual, qualitative, and survey
research. Journal of Business Logistics, 35(1), 1–16.
Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. (2022). Office of Personnel Management, Washington, DC.
www.opm.gov/FEVS .
Ferraro C., Hemsley A., Sands S. (2023). Embracing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI):
Considerations and opportunities for brand managers. Business Horizons, 66(4), 463–479.
Follmer E. H., Talbot D. L., Kristof-Brown A. L., Astrove S. L., Billsberry J. (2018). Resolution, relief, and
resignation: A qualitative study of responses to misfit at work. Academy of Management Journal,
61(2), 440–465.
Fujimoto Y., Rentschler R., Le H., Edwards D., Härtel C. E. J. (2014). Lessons learned from community
organizations: Inclusion of people with disabilities and others. British Journal of Management,
25(3), 518–537.
Garson G. D. (2023). Factor analysis and dimension reduction in R. Routledge.
Gunzler D. D., Perzynski A. T., Carle A. C. (2021). Structural equation modeling for health and
medicine. CRC Press.
Hair J. F., Black W. C., Babin B. J., Anderson R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.).
Cengage Learning.
Hallock K. F., Jin X., Waldman M. (2022). The total compensation gap, wage gap and benefit gap
between workers with and without a disability. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 60(1), 3–31.
Henseler J. (2021). Composite-based structural equation modeling: Analyzing latent and emergent
variables. Guildford Press.
Ho J. A., Bonaccio S., Connelly C. E., Gellatly I. R. (2022). Representative-negotiated i-deals for
people with disabilities. Human Resource Management, 61(6), 681–698.
Hoang T., Suh J., Sabharwal M. (2022). Beyond a numbers game? Impact of diversity and inclusion
on the perception of organizational justice. Public Administration Review, 82(3), 537–555.
Holtom B., Baruch Y., Aguinis H., Ballinger G. A. (2022). Survey response rates: Trends and a validity
assessment framework. Human Relations, 75(8), 1560–1584.
Hoyle R. H. (Ed.). (2023). Handbook of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Husar Holmes M., Elias N. M., D'Agostino M. J. (2023). Inclusion in public-sector workplaces:
Charting a path for theory and practice. Public Personnel Management, 52(4), 491–497.
Iacobucci D., Popovich D. L., Moon S., Román S. (2023). How to calculate, use, and report variance
explained effect size indices and not die trying. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 33(1), 45–61.
Jones M. K. (2016). Disability and perceptions of work and management. British Journal of
Industrial Relations, 54(1), 83–113.
Jöreskog K. G., Olsson U. H., Wallentin F. Y. (2016). Multivariate analysis with LISREL. Springer.
Kensbock J. M., Boehm S. A. (2016). The role of transformational leadership in the mental health
and job performance of employees with disabilities. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 27(14), 1580–1609.
Khenfer J., Shepherd S., Trendel O. (2020). Customer empowerment in the face of perceived
Incompetence: Effect on preference for anthropomorphized brands. Journal of Business Research,
118, 1–11.
Kline R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (5th ed.) Guilford Press.
Klinksiek I. D., Jammaers E., Taskin L. (2023). A framework for disability in the new ways of working.
Human Resource Management Review, 33(2), 100954.
Kruse D., Schur L., Rogers S., Ameri M. (2018). Why do workers with disabilities earn less?
Occupational job requirements and disability discrimination. British Journal of Industrial Relations,
56(4), 798–834.
Kulkarni M. (2016). Organizational career development initiatives for employees with a disability.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(14), 1662–1679.
Kulkarni M., Gopakumar K. V. (2014). Career management strategies of people with disabilities.
Human Resource Management, 53(3), 445–466.
Kulkarni M., Lengnick-Hall M. L. (2013). Obstacles to success in the workplace for people with
disabilities: A review and research agenda. Human Resource Development Review, 13(2), 158–180.
Li R., Liu H., Chen Z., Wang Y. (2023). Dynamic and cyclic relationships between employees' intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation: Evidence from dynamic multilevel modeling analysis. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 140, 103813.
Litman L., Robinson J. (2021). Conducting online research on Amazon Mechanical Turk and beyond.
SAGE.
Luu T. (2019). Relationship between benevolent leadership and the well-being among employees
with disabilities. Journal of Business Research, 99, 282–294.
Lyons B. J., Baldridge D. C., Yang L.-Q., Bryan C. (2023). Disability severity, professional isolation
perceptions, and career outcomes: When does leader–member exchange quality matter? Journal of
Management. Advance online publication. https://doi-
org.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/10.1177/01492063221143714
McKinney E. L., Swartz L. (2021). Employment integration barriers: Experiences of people with
disabilities. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(10), 2298–2320.
Miller B. K., Simmering M. J. (2023). Attitude toward the color blue: An ideal marker variable.
Organizational Research Methods, 36(3), 409–440.
Mitra S., Kruse D. (2016). Are workers with disabilities more likely to be displaced? The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(14), 1550–1579.
Nelissen P. T. J. H., Hülsheger U. R., van Ruitenbeek G. M. C., Zijlstra F. R. H. (2016). How and when
stereotypes relate to inclusive behavior toward people with disabilities. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 27(14), 1610–1625.
Newbold P., Carlson W. L., Thorne B. M. (2023). Statistics for business and economics (10th ed.).
Pearson.
Newman M. A., Ali S., Powell A., South J. (2023). The experience of local governments in promoting
equity and inclusion. Public Personnel Management, 52(4), 624–649.
Peng K. Z., Cooke F. L., Wei X. (2023). Managing minority employees in organizations in Asia Pacific:
Towards a more inclusive workplace? Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 40(3), 877–902.
Pérez-Conesa F. J., Romeo M., Yepes-Baldó M. (2020). Labour inclusion of people with disabilities in
Spain: The effect of policies and human resource management systems. The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 31(6), 785–804.
Podsakoff P. M., Podsakoff N. P., Williams L. J., Huang C., Yang J. (2024). Common method bias: It's
bad, it's complex, it's widespread, and it's not easy to fix. Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 11, 17–61.
Raykov T., Marcoulides G. A. (2011). Introduction to psychometric theory. Routledge.
Samosh D., Maerz A., Spitzmuller M., Boehm S. (2023). Accommodation, interpersonal justice, and
the turnover intentions of employees with disabilities. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 34(1), 128–153.
Santuzzi A. M., Waltz P. R. (2016). Disability in the workplace: A unique and variable identity. Journal
of Management, 42(5), 1111–1135.
Scheaf D. J., Loignon A. C., Webb J. W., Heggestad E. D. (2023). Nonresponse bias in survey-based
entrepreneurship research: A review, investigation, and recommendations. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 17(2), 291–321.
Schloemer-Jarvis A., Bader B., Böhm S. A. (2022). The role of human resource practices for including
persons with disabilities in the workforce: A systematic literature review. The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 33(1), 45–98.
Shantz A., Wang J., Malik A. (2018). Disability status, individual variable pay, and pay satisfaction:
Does relational and institutional trust make a difference? Human Resource Management, 57(1),
365–380.
Shore L. M., Randel A. E., Chung B. G., Dean M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart K., Singh G. (2010). Inclusion
and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management,
37(4), 1262–1289.
Sweeting K. D. (2023). Executive orders: Mandating inclusion in the federal workplace: Insights
from federal executive departments' strategic plans. Public Personnel Management, 52(4), 590–
623.
Trochmann M., Stewart K., Ragusa J. (2023). The impact of employee perceptions of inclusion in a
racially diverse agency: Lessons from a state government survey. Public Personnel Management,
52(4), 543–565.
Whittaker T. A., Schumacker R. E. (2022). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling (5th
ed.). Routledge.
Zhang R., Wang M. S., Toubiana M., Greenwood R. (2020). Stigma beyond levels: Advancing
research on stigmatization. Academy of Management Annals, 15(1), 188–222.
Zhu X., Law K. S., Sun C., Yang D. (2019). Thriving of employees with disabilities: The roles of job
self-efficacy, inclusion, and team-learning climate. Human Resource Management, 58(1), 21–34.
Footnotes
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by Diponegoro University through its
highly reputed international publication research (RPIBT) program with non-state budget (Non-
APBN) sources for the fiscal year 2023. The authors gratefully acknowledge this financial support.
Hersugondo Hersugondo
Graph https://orcid.org/0009-0006-7794-3455
~~~~~~~~
By Hersugondo Hersugondo; Kardison Lumban Batu; Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour; Ana
Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour and Hengky Latan
Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author
Hersugondo Hersugondo currently holds the position of Associate Professor at Diponegoro
University in Semarang, Indonesia. He has authored numerous articles indexed in Scopus
and Web of Science (WOS).
Kardison Lumban Batu currently holds the position of Associate Professor at Diponegoro
University in Semarang, Indonesia. He has authored numerous articles indexed in Scopus
and Web of Science (WOS).
Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour has been appointed as Head of the Information Systems,
Supply Chain Management & Decision Support department and Professor of Green, Circular,
and Responsible Supply Chains at NEOMA Business School, France. He is one of dozens of
French-based scholars to have been included in the prestigious Clarivate/Web of Science
Highly Cited Researcher awards, due to having multiple articles ranked among the top 1% of
most cited papers globally.
Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour is currently a Professor of Supply Chain Management for
Sustainable Development at EM Normandie Business School—Paris Campus, France. Her
research explores contemporary pressing issues related to sustainability in supply chains,
circular economy, and the nexus between sustainability and digital technologies. She has
been recognized as a highly cited researcher by Clarivate.
Hengky Latan currently serves as research director at the FTD Institute and senior researcher
at HLC Consulting, Indonesia. He has authored over 15 books and published over 55 articles,
most of them in leading international journals. He has also been included in Stanford
University's ranking of the 2% most cited scientists globally since 2021. According to Google
Scholar, his works have been cited more than 18,000 times (H-index = 49) in just 10 years of
his academic career.
Copyright of Public Personnel Management is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
This document was generated by a user of EBSCO. Neither EBSCO nor the user who have generated this content is responsible for the content of this printout.
© 2025 EBSCO Information Services, LLC. All rights reserved. EBSCO | 10 Estes Street | Ipswich, MA 01938
