Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

Social support in the workplace is crucial for the well-being of employees. For disabled employees, however, social support may have a different role, given structural, physical and social barriers in the work context.

Objective

Considering this, the study aims to explore the meaning and role of workplace social support in enabling disabled employees.

Methods

Using semi-structured interviews and qualitative content analysis, the experiences of 28 disabled employees were investigated.

Results

The participants highlight that social support is essential for balancing their individual needs with work demands by helping them deal with work tasks, create a suitable job framework, and develop occupational skills. Furthermore, the findings show that social support is both an expression and a driver of inclusion in the workplace when it is experienced as a regular lived working practice and reflects belonging.

Conclusions

Workplace social support is vital for disabled employees, as it helps mitigate work demands and addresses various barriers. Supervisors and coworkers play a key role in aligning disabled employee's needs with work requirements and fostering inclusion. To ensure sustainable employment for disabled employees, organizations must create environments that encourage supportive relationships. Inclusive work design should enable equal access to workplace social support for disabled employees but ensure they are not overly dependent on it.

Keywords

social support workplace employment persons with disabilities workforce diversity social inclusion diversity equity inclusion

Introduction

Social support can be defined as “psychological or material resources that are provided to a focal individual by partners in some form of social relationship” (P. 229).¹ In the workplace, social support often comes from “lay helping resources” (P. 353),² such as supervisors or coworkers.³ Research has shown that workplace social support is essential for employee well-being¹ as it is positively associated with job satisfaction and engagement and negatively associated with work-related stress.^3,4

For disabled employees, however, workplace social support can be even more important. Disabilities arise from the interplay between impairments and unfavorable environmental conditions, and most work environments are primarily designed for non-disabled individuals. As a result, disabled employees must navigate various barriers alongside typical work demands,^5,6 leading to a greater or more specialized need for social support. Furthermore, social support is linked to disabled employees’ inclusion in the workplace, as actual participation is not achieved by their mere presence in a company dictated by legal requirements such as disability quotas. Instead, genuine inclusion involves voluntary actions that promote a work environment free from discrimination and characterized by mutual respect.⁷ At the same time, interpersonal challenges can arise in support situations due to a lack of experience, uncertainty, or discomfort in dealing with disabled people in workplaces.^8,9 Even well-intentioned workplace social support can result in stigmatization and discrimination. For example, when support is embedded in informal care relationships that forces disabled employees into childlike or dependent roles.¹⁰

Considering that support is only truly effective when the recipient's needs are appropriately assessed and met,^11,12 it is imperative to understand what constitutes effective social support for disabled employees and how it contributes to sustaining their employment. This is especially important considering their lower employment rates^13–15 and higher risk of work exit^16,17 compared to non-disabled individuals. This not only leads to a higher threat of poverty and social isolation of disabled people,^15,18 but also results in economic damage as a valuable segment of the labor force is lost.

State of research

In occupational research, social support is highly regarded as a buffer for work stressors and its positive influence on employee well-being¹ and often appears in the context of work stress models, i.e., the Job Demands Resource Model (JD-R).^19,20 Social support can provide different resources in the work context, such as instrumental support (i.e., tangible help with tasks) or emotional support (i.e., being there for others, offering advice). However, these types of support can also overlap, i.e., when help with a difficult work task also has an emotional support component.⁴

Furthermore, research investigates the direct positive effects of social support,²¹ such as strengthening social relationships or making a person feel valued.¹ This is reflected in Social Exchange Theory (SET),²² which defines social support as a resource exchanged between individuals and emphasizes the importance of mutual support in adhering to exchange rules. In this sense, it can be stated that “social support is not a commodity that resides in the provider and passes to the recipient, but […] is an expression of the mutuality and affection characteristic of the relationship between the parties” (P. 512).¹¹ Thus, social support shapes social relationships. At the same time, research on social networks emphasizes that social relationships define the social integration of persons, which in turn influences access to social support.¹¹

Considering the challenges disabled employees face in workplaces through various barriers, it can be assumed that social support may carry a different meaning and serve unique functions for them. In line with this, existing research indicates that a supportive social environment is essential in facilitating access and implementation of work adjustments for disabled employees and engenders feelings of security and inclusion.²³ While there are insights into the importance of social support for employment participation and the organizational conditions influencing it, the specifics of what constitutes effective social support for disabled employees remain largely unclear.

In return-to-work (RTW) research, where social support has been investigated more closely,^24–27 findings indicate that social support is frequently underestimated and sometimes taken for granted.²⁸ This leads to uncertainties regarding support expectations, especially for coworkers who support day-to-day business.^29,30 However, these uncertainties become even more evident following the reintegration phase, when the omission of policy guidance and formal responsibility forces reintegrated employees to rely on the ‘goodwill’ of their social environment.³⁰ This can be problematic for employees with long-term impairments, as the support willingness of supervisors and coworkers tends to decline after a certain time.³¹

Similar to RTW research, in which social support has already been recognized as a ‘missing piece’ supplementing formal reintegration structures,³⁰ social support can also be an important element in research on sustainable employment, complementing knowledge on organizational support efforts and inclusive work design.³²

To understand how social support benefits disabled employees, it is essential to examine the various functions it serves. Existing research has identified numerous supportive behaviors that can enhance the work situations of disabled employees, reflecting different types of support such as instrumental and emotional support.^26,27,33 To develop a nuanced understanding of the impact of social support on the work experiences of individuals with disabilities, it is essential to explore its meanings and broader functions in greater depth. This can augment existing knowledge regarding the characteristics of adequate social support and the nature of interpersonal interactions that disabled employees perceive as supportive.

Additionally, this knowledge can help identify the conditions of successful social support, thereby complementing existing findings on the risks and challenges associated with social support, such as interpersonal conflicts and overprotection,^31,33 as well as broader issues of workplace inclusion, such as stigmatization and discrimination.³⁴ Moreover, an approach that considers a broader spectrum of impairments would enrich the current body of research, which predominantly centers on individuals with physical disabilities.^31,33 This could reveal both similarities and differences among individuals with physical, sensory, and psychological impairments, as well as those with learning difficulties. In light of these considerations, this study aspires to investigate the meaning and role of social support from the perspective of disabled employees, thereby contributing not only to a deeper understanding of their work situations and the success factors of sustainable employment, but also to enabling disabled employees and to the inclusive design of work environments.

Methodology

Study design

Using a qualitative research design, this study investigates the experiences of disabled employees regarding workplace social support. It includes various disabilities, acknowledging that social barriers are a universal challenge of disabled people that extend beyond the biological characteristics of impairments.³⁵ However, it is considered that different impairments and the associated support needs and risks of exclusion may influence social support.

The study adheres to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) checklist³⁶ (see Supplemental material) and received approval from the Ethics Committee of TU Dortmund University. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, who were provided comprehensive information about the study through brochures and an initial phone call. Participants were reminded that they had the freedom to choose the location of their interviews and were allowed to be accompanied by a trusted person if they wished. Where applicable, various options were discussed regarding the interview setting, particularly when private rooms were considered as an interview location. The aim was to ensure self-determined and accessible study participation, as well as to create a comfortable interview atmosphere for each participant.

Recruitment for the study utilized purposive sampling, a method aimed at selecting participants with specific characteristics who are likely to provide valuable insights related to the research question.³⁷ To be eligible, participants needed to be employed in the competitive labor market, and not be in a job (re-)integration phase. A further requirement was that the person had disclosed their impairment to at least one person in their workplace, as the aim of this study was to investigate how social support is provided in the context of disabilities. For ethical considerations, a self-declaration of impairment was deemed adequate. Recruitment involved distributing information letters via email to personal contacts and distribution lists. Snowball sampling was also used, encouraging participants to share information about the study with potential candidates they may know. Depending on participants’ preferences, interviews could be conducted face-to-face – at participants’ homes, workplaces, or the interviewer's workplace – or via digital video calls. Confidants of the participants were allowed to be present during the interview at request. Each participant was offered 50 € as remuneration for their study participation.

To effectively address our research question, we developed the sampling strategy along with two key requirements: (1) obtaining an in-depth understanding of perspectives on social support related to individual disability experiences, and (2) comparing these perspectives across different types of impairments. This approach required collecting data in a manner that allowed for a thorough analysis of each interview transcript while also ensuring that diverse viewpoints were represented. Data collection was concluded when saturation of codes and meaning was reached,³⁸ indicating that new interviews did not yield new analytical codes or substantially enhance the understanding of workplace social support.

After completing the data collection, an online workshop was held that participants could join voluntarily. The workshop served as communicative validation, aiming to develop a shared understanding of workplace social support in the context of disabilities. Initial analysis results were presented and discussed, allowing participants to reflect on how well the findings aligned with their perspectives and to share their feedback. The comments gathered during the workshop were incorporated into further data analysis and interpretation, reinforcing the validity of the results.

Data-collection

The first author, a female PhD candidate in rehabilitation sciences, conducted semi-structured interviews from January to August 2024. The interviewer possessed a thorough understanding and practical skills in qualitative data collection, developed through university studies specializing in qualitative research, prior job experience, and training in qualitative methodology. Most participants had no prior contact with the interviewer, though some had met her in a professional context. Participants were informed about the research and the interviewer's role before the interviews. The interviews lasted approximately 1:10 h (0:40 h – 2:19 h). Eighteen interviews took place on-site and 10 online using the video conferencing tools Zoom³⁹ or Webex.⁴⁰ In three on-site interviews, a third person was present at the participant's request. To ensure smooth operation during the online interviews, the interviewer used adequate technical equipment and was experienced with the video conferencing tools used. Any connection issues that could not be avoided were documented in the field notes, including one instance where a participant needed to turn off the camera to stabilize the connection. Ultimately, all online interviews were successfully transcribed and used for data analysis. All interviews were conducted in German. Quotes used in this manuscript were translated with DeepL⁴¹ and proofread by the first author.

The interview guide was developed with input from the second and third authors and master's students in rehabilitation sciences at TU Dortmund University. The guide was refined after an initial version was tested in nine student-led interviews, which they used for their study project. Modifications were made to the themes and types of questions. During the pilot study, participants struggled to answer some questions related to social support, such as providing specific examples from their daily work experiences. This difficulty may have stemmed from participants’ lack of awareness regarding social support, which hindered their ability to recall instances of support. As a result, the questionnaire was edited to include a broad array of questions that encompassed various dimensions of social support, aiming to facilitate participants’ understanding and recollection of their experiences in this area. Furthermore, the pilot study gathered information regarding disabilities in advance through a separate questionnaire. For the main study, it was decided that the topic of disability is both too complex and central not to be discussed in the qualitative interviews. As a result, a thematic section addressing participants’ disabilities was added to the interview guide, facilitating a deeper understanding of their life circumstances and coping strategies. A separate questionnaire was no longer used. The final interview guide covered five themes and consisted of broad and open-ended questions that allow free discussion (see Supplemental material). Follow-up questions were asked based on participant responses, and field notes were taken for each interview. The field notes served as a tool for the interviewer to reflect on their behavior during the interviews and to document the conditions of the interview environment. This method facilitated continuous improvements in the interview process and helped establish suitable conditions.

Data-analysis

All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim using the AI-assisted program f4.⁴² The study participants were informed about the use of the transcription program in the consent form. The program complies with the data protection regulations in Germany, as established in a license agreement between the provider and the research institutions. All AI-generated transcripts were corrected and pseudonymized by the first author. Upon request, two manuscripts were returned to participants for feedback. One transcript was then further pseudonymized. All transcripts were entered into MAXQDA⁴³ and analyzed by the first author using Kuckartz and Rädiker's⁴⁴ qualitative content analysis by employing a deductive-inductive approach. Initial main categories were developed based on the questionnaire, and inductive subcategories were subsequently developed and assigned to explore participants’ experiences and opinions. The analytical process was enriched by in-depth discussions among the three authors and input from various interdisciplinary researchers on multiple occasions. Additionally, 12 study participants volunteered in the subsequent online workshop and provided feedback on the categories. The participants confirmed the identified categories and provided additional examples, demonstrating that the analysis addressed all relevant aspects of social support. They particularly emphasized the need to promote inclusive and supportive behaviors as standard practices in the workplace, which reinforces our findings regarding the role of social support in fostering workplace inclusion. By discussing the unique challenges faced by individuals with invisible disabilities, the participants encouraged a stronger focus on different types of impairments during the data analysis. Furthermore, some participants highlighted the importance of organizational support as a crucial framework for interpersonal interactions in the workplace, such as having designated contact persons for disabled employees. This insight prompted a deeper examination of the relationship between workplace social support and organizational structures in the discussion section of this manuscript, raising important considerations for future research.

Findings

Study population

Thirty-one disabled employees were interviewed for the study. Three interviews were subsequently excluded as participants did not fulfill the study criteria (two participants were in some form of job training; one did not sufficiently disclose their impairment in the workplace). The final sample consisted of 28 disabled employees, comprising 18 women and 10 men, with an average age of 44 (see Table 1). The group included individuals with physical, psychological, and sensory impairments, and learning difficulties. Sixteen participants had visible impairments, ten had hidden impairments, and two persons with multiple impairments had both visible and hidden impairments. Among those that had a hidden impairment, seven reported being open about their impairments at work, or their descriptions indicate that there is a general awareness of their impairments in the workplace. Furthermore, five participants stated that only a few people know about their impairments. The average weekly working hours were 34. One participant worked only six hours a week, which makes an exception. The other 27 participants worked between 17 and 40 weekly.

Table 1.

Sociodemographic characteristics.

Participant characteristics
Age
Mean	44 Years
Range	26-61 Years
Gender
Men	10
Women	18
Impairment
Physical	12
Learning	4
Sensory	4
Psychological	3
Multiple	5
Impairment onset
Congenital	11
Acquired	15
Congenital and acquired (multiple impairments)	1
Unclear	1
Visibility of impairment
Visible	16
Hidden	10
Visible and hidden (multiple impairments)	2
Disclosure of hidden impairments
Full disclosure	7
Partial disclosure	5
Occupations (ISCO-08)
Managers	4
Professionals	10
Technicians and Associate Professionals	3
Clerical Support Workers	6
Service and Sales Workers	2
Elementary Occupations	3
Job tenure
Mean	13 Years
Range	2-43 Years
Weekly working hours per contract
Mean	34 Hours
Range	6-40 Hours

Disabled employees’ perspectives on workplace social support

Participants were asked what social support meant to them in the work context to gain understanding on their interpretation of workplace social support against the background of their disability. Most participants described social support as a resource for promoting work capability, such as task assistance in everyday work or organizing work to meet individual needs (n = 15). Furthermore, social support was also frequently associated with social relationships and being part of a social network, which determines access to help (n = 8). Reciprocity in support was also highlighted, where one person's strengths can compensate for another's weaknesses, regardless of disability (n = 6). Additionally, some participants interpreted social support as acknowledging and understanding their impairments, including negotiation processes surrounding support needs and wishes (n = 9). Four participants further asserted that social support entails a holistic perspective where disability is viewed as one aspect of human diversity rather than a defining characteristic (n = 5).ⁱ

Disabled employees’ experiences of workplace social support

After exploring their perspectives on the meaning of social support, participants were asked what kinds of support they actually experience or have experienced in their workplace. Participants’ descriptions of social support can be classified into two main categories: social support as a work resource (see Figure 1) and social support as a facilitator of inclusion (see Figure 2). In the context of a work resource, participants explained how social support helps them balance their individual limitations with the demands of their jobs. Regarding inclusion, participants highlighted how social support is regularly practiced and promotes their sense of belonging.

Figure 1.

Coding tree “social support as a work resource”.

Figure 2.

Coding tree “social support as a facilitator of inclusion”.

Social support as a work resource

Dealing with work tasks

Task assistance is a key support for disabled employees and often arises spontaneously during work situations. It is not exclusively but mainly provided by coworkers. They help bridge the gap between individual impairments and work requirements, particularly when tasks are associated with risks for the person or require considerable additional effort. For example, P15 (Woman, Physical impairment) said: “So it would be heavy carrying, for example, so I can do up to ten kilos. But when it comes to moving tables somewhere, I ask, and I immediately get ‘Yes, of course, of course.’”

The level of task assistance varies by individual and work context. For example, P8 (Woman, Learning difficulties) mentioned that her supervisor helps her organize daily tasks by writing them down, while P1 (Man, Physical impairment) only requires sporadic support on business trips.

Furthermore, participants expressed that their individual needs are acknowledged and accommodated in their daily work. This not only includes ensuring that meeting rooms or presentations are accessible but also recognizing individual characteristics, such as the need for extra time or the use of coping strategies. In this regard, P12 (Man, Learning and attention difficulties) spoke about how his strategy for dealing with stress at work is accepted:

“I just do it [calming down] in my head. Just take a deep breath, in and out, and then try to calm down. And if that does not work, then I say, ‘I need to get out for a minute,’ and then that is okay too.”

In this line, participants were also encouraged to consider their needs and not overextend themselves. In one case, coworkers of P2 (Woman, Physical impairment) clarified that her skills are recognized, even if she works slower due to limitations:

“[…] I have too much work at the moment, I do not know how I am going to manage it all. And then I can talk to my coworkers very well, who tell me, ‘This has priority and then this,’ and ‘You cannot get everything done right away,’ because I am not as fast as others. With typing and all that.”

Additionally, a few participants with physical and sensory disabilities mentioned small aids that do not ease the work itself but improve daily work life, such as support in commuting or walking the assistance dog.

Support in dealing with work tasks helps disabled employees navigate their daily working lives and balance disability and job demands. This allows individual coping strategies and protects them from stress and other work-related risks.

Suitable job framework

Another key function of social support is to establish working conditions that meet employees’ needs in the long term. Participants noted support around receiving work adjustments and aids, with supervisors playing a crucial role as decision-makers who advocate for necessary organizational changes. P25 (Woman, Psychological impairment) described a sensitive approach of her supervisor to help her in aligning job and impairment:

“Especially the times when I might have been late because I did not manage to get up so well, I was not blamed for it, but there was actually a certain amount of understanding. […] For example, my boss also approached me and asked […] whether we should change the working hours so that I could maybe start at 8 a.m., if that would make things easier for me.”

When adapting the job framework, the aim is to organize the job so that the person can do their work well in the long term and is neither over- nor under-challenged. P16 (Woman, Physical impairment, Learning difficulties) described how her supervisor achieved this by discussing possible changes to the range of tasks with her:

“And I talked to him openly about [changing tasks] and if I could imagine [it]. What might become too much. He also said, ‘Do not let yourself get stressed. Say if that is too much for you’ and so on. So, he is very open about it.”

Understanding of needs and an open dialogue are essential for this kind of support. However, not only supervisors can help create a suitable framework. For example, P4 (Woman, Physical impairment) described how a coworker noticed how her working conditions burdened her and approached the department management to initiate a job reorganization, which considerably improved her work situation.

Next to support in receiving work adaptions, three participants highlighted that support in implementing adaptions or the use of aids is also essential. Two participants emphasized the importance of supervisors’ trust in using flexible arrangements when dealing with fluctuating health issues. For instance, P15 (Woman, Physical impairment) noted that her supervisors accept her spontaneous decisions to work from home or reduce hours, which helps her manage her impairment while remaining productive. The findings indicate that openness, trust, and respect for disabled individuals’ needs are crucial for creating suitable job frameworks.

Development of skills

This category addresses the role of social support in developing professional skills, with recognition and encouragement being key aspects. Participants noted that supervisors primarily assess and actively develop their abilities. P5 (Man, Physical impairment) described this support as a resource-oriented attitude, focusing on individual strengths rather than limitations:

“[My supervisor] simply assessed how my work was and did not say, ‘He cannot walk’ or whatever, but, ‘How does he manage his processing?’ And then he realized, ‘He is doing well, and he actually has the potential to progress,’ and then developed me.”

Support for developing individual skills can also be expressed in the fact that employees are trusted with new or responsible tasks. A few participants described how this strengthened their self-confidence and made them realize they could work well with their impairment, as in the case of P16 (Woman, Physical impairment, Learning difficulties): “Well, I really grew from that [taking on responsibility and working independently]. It has also given me back a bit of self-confidence that I can achieve a lot despite the wheelchair.”

Another example is the supervisor's commitment to making the disabled person's skills visible and defending them within the organization. P14 (Woman, Sensory impairment) described how this strengthened her professional standing and emphasized her skills:

“I am more insecure than perhaps many of my colleagues. I had to present things to important committees, which I did. But the bosses actually wanted to stop it, they thought another colleague might be more suitable, but I was basically the expert in the field. And of course my boss blocked that, which I give him credit for, saying to the boss at the top, ‘No, this woman is the expert on this and we are not changing her because you have a problem somehow’.”

However, coworkers can also contribute to developing professional skills. A few participants with learning disabilities described how they were taught new tasks or given valuable tips on how to complete tasks considering their impairment. P12 (Man, Learning and attention difficulties) explained: “[One of my coworkers] taught me to always count to the nearest ten, and I have been doing it ever since. That is why it works better with the maths.”

The results show how supervisors and coworkers support employees through targeted appreciation and promotion of their skills. This form of social support centers employees’ skills and expertise, strengthening their professional development and self-confidence.

Social support as a facilitator of inclusion

Establishing regularity

Participants’ statements suggest that successful support is a matter of course. Support is no longer perceived and practiced as exceptional but is part of the work routines and social dynamics in the workplace. This is reflected in automation, where coworkers know what support the disabled person needs in certain situations and offer it automatically without the person having to ask for help or explain themselves. P5 (Man, Physical impairment) discussed his workplace experiences regarding this:

“So when I was in the team and there were still paper files, of course, my coworkers asked me, ‘Should I take the file to the archive?’ That was a matter of course. I never had to say ‘By the way, I have got a crutch, I cannot carry the file,’ but they would say, ‘Come on, I will take it to the archive,’ or something else.”

This goes so far that in some cases, support is ‘no longer an issue’ (P4, Woman, Physical impairment) and is seen as a natural part of working together. If support is provided this way, it shows that the environment understands the person's needs and does not question them. P15 (Woman, Physical impairment) emphasized that the support “[…] is just clear. Self-evident. ‘We understand. You cannot do this alone, we will handle it.’”

Through this, coworkers and supervisors show a high level of sensitivity to the individual needs of the disabled person and maintain an unobtrusive approach, respecting the impairment without emphasizing it. This also reduces the burden on the person concerned, as they do not have to expend additional energy communicating their needs or requesting support. However, this kind of support mainly applies to impairments with a static rather than fluctuating nature.

Another expression of the self-evident nature of support can be found in the knowledge that support would be available in case of doubt. Some of the participants described that they could get help at any time if they needed it. When asked what kind of support she experienced, P25 (Woman, Psychological impairment) described:

“So, these offers to talk or these open questions if I perhaps give the impression that I am not doing so well. But also the offer that I can come and talk at any time if I have the feeling that I somehow need more help.”

This makes the person concerned feel that they can rely on the team when problems arise, reducing the pressure of having to deal with difficult situations alone. Support that establishes regularity facilitates an inclusive workplace culture in which support is provided automatically and is available when needed. This expresses understanding and conveys to the person that they do not have a special role but that their needs are part of everyday working life.

Establishing belonging

Furthermore, it becomes apparent that social support also expresses belonging to the social environment in the workplace. This is primarily about disabled employees feeling that they belong to a community and experiencing inclusion.

In this regard, reciprocity of support is frequently discussed. Participants explained that they actively contribute their skills to relieve their coworkers and supervisors. This emphasizes the value of supportive exchanges and the skills that can be brought to a work team, regardless of impairments. P12 (Man, Learning and attention difficulties) said: “It simply works because we are a team. We all stick together. No matter whether you have a disability or not. […] we support each other and help each other.”

Thus, the disabled person feels like an equal part of the team and experiences their abilities as valued and relevant. Nevertheless, it is also noted that it is part of reciprocity that support is not “weighed up one-to-one” (P15, Woman, Physical impairment). Mutual support ultimately contributes to an inclusive working environment in which everyone benefits from each other. In this context, the support needs of non-disabled coworkers are also considered. P12 (Man, Learning and attention difficulties) said about his coworkers: “Even if they do not have a disability, […] they still have a few problems.”

A few participants with psychological impairments and learning difficulties described positive experiences when supervisors or coworkers took an interest in their well-being and actively inquired. P24 (Woman, Psychological impairment), whose manager asked about a behavior change, said: “And I liked it because I somehow felt seen.”

Several participants also addressed how their impairments are recognized in their social work environment and discussed equal treatment. P4 (Woman, Physical impairment) interpreted her coworkers’ forgetting of her impairment as proof that “inclusion is not just a token issue,” which made her feel that she belonged to the team. In contrast, P2 (Woman, Physical impairment) emphasized that there must be a balance between equal treatment and consideration of her impairment, needing people to realize “[…] that I am not so fast, that I need more time than a normal worker.”

Finally, some participants with physical and sensory impairments mentioned social support for participating in extracurricular activities such as company outings by considering their needs when organizing them, which reflects accessibility issues.

Mutual support and understanding of each other's needs are essential to belonging. In the context of social support, it is important to recognize an impairment to the extent that the needs of the disabled person are taken into account but not to the extent that the person feels alienated or excluded.

Discussion

This study explored the multifaceted nature of the meanings and roles social support adopts for disabled employees. It demonstrated that social support serves as a valuable resource and an important element of inclusion, fulfilling essential functions that enable disabled employees in the workplace and, in turn, promotes their sustainable employment. The success of social support depends not only on the type of support provided but also on the context and manner in which it is delivered. Social support should reflect appreciation for disabled employees and acknowledge their abilities. Furthermore, social support that becomes a natural part of the workplace culture and is based on mutuality contributes to the inclusion and participation of disabled employees. The findings regarding social support indicate how inclusion can be effectively implemented in the workplace, demonstrating a treatment that is free from discrimination and stigmatization. Additionally, the study underlined varying support needs based on the type of impairment. For instance, the findings indicate that accessibility needs are particularly critical for individuals with physical and sensory impairments, support for the development of professional skills is vital for those with learning difficulties, and ensuring the general availability of support is crucial for individuals with psychological impairments.

By underscoring that social support is essential for maintaining workability and promoting social inclusion, the findings align with existing literature emphasizing its relevance as a work resource and a driver of social relationships.²¹ Many participants describe workplace social support as a valuable resource for reducing work stressors. They outline how social support helps them to deal with work demands against the background of their impairment and prevents them from being physically or mentally overloaded. Supportive actions reflect varying levels of assistance in everyday working life, sometimes even extending into the personal sphere, i.e., when it comes to commuting. This form of support is mainly necessary due to work design and accessibility issues and serves as a bridge between the employee and their working conditions.

Social support can also relate closely to the disabled employee by accepting their coping strategies, trusting them in organizing their work situation, and strengthening the development and use of their individual skills. These support functions are aligned with the enabling hypothesis,⁴⁵ positing that social support enhances self-efficacy and coping abilities.^46,47 Thus, social support enables disabled employees to effectively navigate workplace challenges and pursue their goals, allowing them to thrive in the workplace.⁴⁸ In this regard, more “passive” support holds considerable value, such as accepting individual coping strategies or reassuring that support is available in case of doubt. This offers two advantages: On the one hand, disabled employees can cultivate and implement coping strategies. On the other hand, successfully overcoming challenges has been shown to encourage supportive behavior from other people.⁴⁶ This can establish a self-reinforcing cycle of coping and support, whereby the successful management of challenges by disabled employees stimulates an increased willingness to offer support in coworkers and supervisors. Furthermore, self-stigmatization among disabled employees can be mitigated by signaling that individual ways of working are appreciated and the consideration of individual needs is encouraged. This needs to be understood in the context of persisting stigmatization, wherein disabled individuals are often perceived as incompetent or less capable.⁴⁹ Consequently, they feel pressured to overcompensate for perceived shortcomings to conform to the societal ideal of a productive worker.^50–52 This is reflected in participants’ discussions of equality and some of their self-descriptions, indicating that they experience themselves as different. The urge to fulfill the ideal worker norm can lead to disabled employees refraining from talking about workloads and resulting health issues, overworking themselves, or being reluctant to seek help.^51,53 Consequently, it is imperative to cultivate a non-discriminatory work environment in which the self-stigmatization of disabled individuals can be mitigated and their coping strategies enhanced.

Furthermore, the findings demonstrate very clearly that supervisors or coworkers can actively promote inclusive workplace behavior. Participants describe how others advocate for them, i.e., when implementing work adjustments or defending their professional skills. This form of support exemplifies solidarity with disabled employees and can strengthen their position within organizations. Participants primarily described this advocacy as facing higher hierarchical levels. This highlights how social support can facilitate inclusion through a bottom-up approach and complements top-down initiatives such as supervisor training.^54,55 In this regard, alignment of support is crucial. Findings suggest that constellations of supportive coworkers and unsupportive supervisors are connected to increased feelings of dependency and resentment in support receivers.⁵⁶ Thus, rather than having disabled employees rely on the initiative of committed individuals, the organization should try to create a supportive environment throughout all hierarchical levels.^31,57–59

In this line, support is not only a means to facilitate working conditions but reflects the inclusion of disabled employees. Routines or availability of support emphasize it as a natural part of working together and establish a general supportive attitude in the workplace. This reduces the need for social negotiation processes and yields more security in social interactions. In line with Social Exchange Theory,²² the participants noted that they leverage their abilities to reciprocate the support they receive and help their non-disabled coworkers as they contend with skill gaps or personal challenges. However, it must be considered that balanced support exchanges may be more challenging to achieve in the context of disabilities, which can burden exchange relationships and lead to support being withdrawn.³¹ To prevent this and ensure disabled employees participate equally in workplace social support, two things are essential: First, organizations must create conditions that promote the development of mutually supportive work relationships between disabled and non-disabled individuals.⁶⁰ Second, work design must ensure accessibility to allow disabled employees to work independently and minimize their reliance on others. As outlined in Article 27 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,⁶¹ disabled employees should have equal access to favorable working conditions. This means they should be able to receive social support when needed but should not be more reliant on it than their non-disabled colleagues.

Strengths and limitations

With its exploratory design, this study highlights the relevance of social support for disabled employees across disabilities and occupations. While this approach deepens the understanding of the meaning and role of social support for disabled employees in general, it must be assumed that there are differences among specific disabilities and jobs. Thus, more profound insights into support functions and challenges relevant to specific groups in the labor market are needed. A focus on high-risk groups could be valuable, i.e., people with disabilities that can be only partly addressed by work design, people with invisible or highly stigmatized disabilities, people in very stressful or isolated jobs, or in organizations and sectors with high economic pressure or little openness to inclusion. Additionally, it is crucial to recognize that the findings are derived from a Western industrial nation context and future studies could explore cultural and country-specific differences regarding workplace social support for disabled employees. Another limitation is the sole focus on the perspective of the disabled employee. Though this addresses an important research gap, the views of coworkers and supervisors are essential for a holistic understanding of support. Dyadic research approaches could offer interesting insights into the interactive nature of social support and provide information on how supportive and inclusive cultures develop in teams or organizations. Furthermore, it must be recognized that the data obtained offers only retrospective and subjective perspectives on workplace social support. While participants were encouraged to detail the support they received, their accounts are shaped by personal perceptions, which may not reflect actual circumstances. Although it is stated that the perception of support can have a greater impact on individuals than the actual reception of support,² alternative methods—such as workplace observations or diary studies—are important to understand the dynamics of supportive interactions in workplace settings.

Implications for research and practice

In the context of work tasks, examining how work design relates to social support is crucial. Understanding this relationship can reveal ways to reduce support needs through effective work design. On the other hand, it can be investigated how work design influences the development of social relationships and supportive interactions between disabled and non-disabled employees. Additionally, research on social support can provide knowledge for improving work design by reflecting in which areas disabled employees require assistance due to accessibility issues.

Another interesting avenue for research may be the connection between coping mechanisms and support and whether these elements create a self-reinforcing cycle facilitating the empowerment of the disabled employee. In this regard, research can also examine how and under which conditions social support helps reduce the (self-)stigmatization of disabled employees.

In terms of organizational contexts, it is essential to investigate how organizational conditions impact social support. This includes exploring how top-down inclusive measures and bottom-up informal support interact and foster an inclusive organizational climate. It can also be valuable to examine how supervisors and coworkers perceive their role in supporting disabled employees and the challenges they face in doing so.

In practice, work needs to be organized to allow and encourage workplace social support for disabled employees. At the same time, it is important to help disabled employees achieve as much independence as possible through inclusive work design. Thus, it must be ensured that they have the same access to social support as their non-disabled colleagues but are not overly dependent on it. Next to providing assistance, workplace social support should focus on helping them develop and use coping strategies for managing work demands.

Additionally, it is crucial to create an environment where the needs of disabled individuals are understood, and they feel comfortable expressing their support requirements. It is important to refrain from associating the need for workplace social support with professional incompetence. Instead, disabilities and support needs must be understood as consequences of the interaction of impairments and environmental barriers. Organizations should aim to cultivate environments where this is recognized and encourage their employees to engage in supportive and inclusive behaviors. Thereby, the development of inclusive behaviors in organizations not only benefits the person that are included, but also the persons performing inclusive behaviors and their workgroups by cultivating an empathetic, respectful atmosphere marked by sensitive communication.^62,63

Conclusion

Workplace social support plays a crucial role for disabled employees, as it helps buffer work demands and fosters inclusion in the face of barriers in work environments. Supervisors and coworkers contribute to disabled employees’ work situations by enabling them to align individual needs with work demands and actively shape their working conditions. Additionally, the study highlights how social support promotes inclusion by establishing long-term support structures characterized by regularity and belonging. Effective workplace social support ensures that disabled employees can operate under favorable conditions, which contributes to their sustainable employment. Therefore, organizations must cultivate conditions that foster supportive workplace relationships and design work environments that facilitate social support. This is essential for ensuring disabled employees have access to workplace social support and can equally benefit from this resource.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-wor-10.1177_10519815251388977 - Supplemental material for How workplace social support facilitates work situations of disabled employees – a qualitative interview study

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-wor-10.1177_10519815251388977 for How workplace social support facilitates work situations of disabled employees – a qualitative interview study by Sophie Teborg, Lena Hünefeld and Tomke S Gerdes in WORK

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-2-wor-10.1177_10519815251388977 - Supplemental material for How workplace social support facilitates work situations of disabled employees – a qualitative interview study

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-2-wor-10.1177_10519815251388977 for How workplace social support facilitates work situations of disabled employees – a qualitative interview study by Sophie Teborg, Lena Hünefeld and Tomke S Gerdes in WORK

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank the students of the Department of Rehabilitation Sciences at TU Dortmund University, Fabian Gohlisch, Joline Düring, Nicole Bergmann, Nora Prinz, and Sophia Unkel, for their valuable input and contributions to the development and pilot testing of the interview guide.

Ethical considerations

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). The Ethics Committee of TU Dortmund University approved this study.

Consent to participate

Informed consent for participation in the study was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

Informed consent for publication of study results was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation was performed by ST, LH and TSG. Data collection and analysis were performed by ST. The first draft of the manuscript was written by ST and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interest

The authors ST, LH and TSG declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability

The interview transcripts are not publicly available due to the privacy of the participants.

Note

i. Some participants mentioned multiple dimensions of social support, so the total does not equal 28.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

ORCID iDs

Sophie Teborg

Lena Hünefeld

References

Jolly

Kong

Kim

. Social support at work: an integrative review. J Organ Behavior 2021; 42: 229–251.

Cohen

Wills

. Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychol Bull 1985; 98: 310–357.

Kossek

Pichler

Bodner

, et al. Workplace social support and work-family conflict: a meta-analysis clarifying the influence of general and work-family-specific supervisor and organizational support. Pers Psychol 2011; 64: 289–313.

Mathieu

Eschleman

Cheng

. Meta-analytic and multiwave comparison of emotional support and instrumental support in the workplace. J Occup Health Psychol 2019; 24: 387–409.

Kulkarni

Lengnick-Hall

. Obstacles to success in the workplace for people with disabilities. Hum Resour Dev Rev 2014; 13: 158–180.

Sundar

Neill

Houtenville

, et al. Striving to work and overcoming barriers: employment strategies and successes of people with disabilities. JVR 2018; 48: 93–109.

Winters

M-F

. From diversity to inclusion: an inclusion equation. In: Ferdman

Deane

(eds) Diversity at work: the practice of inclusion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2013, pp.205–228. DOI: 10.1002/9781118764282.ch7.

Chadsey

Beyer

. Social relationships in the workplace. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev 2001; 7: 128–133.

Boyle

. Social barriers to successful reentry into mainstream organizational culture: perceptions of people with disabilities. Hum Resour Dev Q 1997; 8: 259–268.

10.

Mik-Meyer

. Disability and ‘care’: managers, employees and colleagues with impairments negotiating the social order of disability. Work Employ Soc 2016; 30: 984–999.

11.

Gottlieb

Bergen

. Social support concepts and measures. J Psychosom Res 2010; 69: 511–520.

12.

Thoits

. Social support as coping assistance. J Consult Clin Psychol 1986; 54: 416–423.

13.

Eurofound . Disability and labour market integration: Policy trends and support in EU Member States: Living conditions and quality of life. Report, Luxembourg, 2021.

14.

Eurofound . Social and employment situation of people with disabilities. Report, Luxembourg, 2022.

15.

OECD . Sickness, disability and work. Breaking the barriers. A synthesis of findings across OECD countries. Report, Paris, France, 2010.

16.

Milner

Taouk

Disney

, et al. Employment predictors of exit from work among workers with disabilities: a survival analysis from the household income labour dynamics in Australia survey. PLoS One 2018; 13: e0208334.

17.

Fleischmann

Carr

Stansfeld

, et al. Can favourable psychosocial working conditions in midlife moderate the risk of work exit for chronically ill workers? A 20-year follow-up of the Whitehall II study. Occup Environ Med 2018; 75: 183–190.

18.

World Health Organization, The World Bank . World report on disability. Report, Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.

19.

Demerouti

Bakker

Nachreiner

, et al. The job demands-resources model of burnout. J Appl Psychol 2001; 86: 499–512.

20.

Bakker

Demerouti

. The job demands-resources model: state of the art. J Manag Psychol 2007; 22: 309–328.

21.

Bavik

Shaw

Wang

X-H

. Social support: multi-disciplinary review, synthesis, and future agenda. Acad Manag Ann 2020; 14: 726–758.

22.

Cropanzano

Mitchell

. Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review. J Manag 2005; 31: 874–900.

23.

Teborg

Hünefeld

Gerdes

. Exploring the working conditions of disabled employees: a scoping review. J Occup Med Toxicol 2024; 19: 2.

24.

White

Green

Ferguson

, et al. The influence of social support and social integration factors on return to work outcomes for individuals with work-related injuries: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil 2019; 29: 636–659.

25.

Tjulin

MacEachen

Stiwne

, et al. The social interaction of return to work explored from co-workers experiences. Disabil Rehabil 2011; 33: 1979–1989.

26.

Lysaght

Fabrigar

Larmour-Trode

, et al. Measuring workplace social support for workers with disability. J Occup Rehabil 2012; 22: 376–386.

27.

Lysaght

Larmour-Trode

. An exploration of social support as a factor in the return-to-work process. Work 2008; 30: 255–266.

28.

Tjulin

MacEachen

Ekberg

. Exploring workplace actors experiences of the social organization of return-to-work. J Occup Rehabil 2010; 20: 311–321.

29.

Dunstan

MacEachen

. Bearing the brunt: co-workers’ experiences of work reintegration processes. J Occup Rehabil 2013; 23: 44–54.

30.

Tjulin

MacEachen

. The importance of workplace social relations in the return to work process: a missing piece in the return to work puzzle? In: Gatchel

Schultz

(eds) Handbook of return to work: from research to practice. 1st ed. New York: Springer US, 2016, pp.81–97.

31.

Holland

Collins

. Supporting and retaining employees with rheumatoid arthritis: the importance of workplace social support. Int J Hum Resour Manag 2022; 33: 539–560.

32.

van Berkel

Breit

. Organizational practices for the inclusion of people with disabilities. A scoping review. J Occup Rehabil 2024. DOI: 10.1007/s10926-024-10228-5.

33.

Bellou

Papakonstantinou

Papadopoulos

. Workplace social support for people with physical disability. JVR 2024; 61: 115–126.

34.

Sharma

Asselin

Stainton

, et al. Ableism and employment: a scoping review of the literature. Soc Sci 2025; 14: 1–26.

35.

Santuzzi

Waltz

. Disability in the workplace. J Manag 2016; 42: 1111–1135.

36.

Tong

Sainsbury

Craig

. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007; 19: 349–357.

37.

Douglas

. Sampling techniques for qualitative research. In: Islam

Khan

Baikady

(eds) Principles of social research methodology. Singapore: Springer Nature, 2022, pp.415–426.

38.

Hennink

Kaiser

Marconi

. Code saturation versus meaning saturation: how many interviews are enough? Qual Health Res 2017; 27: 591–608.

39.

Zoom [Software]. San José: Zoom Communications, 2013–2024.

40.

Webex Meetings [Software]. San José: Cisco Systems, 2009–2024.

41.

DeepL [Software]. Cologne: DeepL SE, 2017–2025.

42.

F4 [Software]. Marburg: audiotranskription, 2024.

43.

MAXQDA: Software for Qualitative Data Analysis [Software]. (Original name: MAXQDA: Software für qualitative Datenanalyse). Berlin: Verbi Software GmbH, 1989–2024.

44.

Kuckartz

Rädiker

. Qualitative content analysis. Methods, practice, implementation with software and artificial intelligence. (Original title: Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Umsetzung mit Software und künstlicher Intelligenz). 6th ed. Weinheim/Basel: Beltz Juventa, 2024.

45.

Benight

Bandura

. Social cognitive theory of posttraumatic recovery: the role of perceived self-efficacy. Behav Res Ther 2004; 42: 1129–1148.

46.

Schwarzer

Knoll

. Functional roles of social support within the stress and coping process: a theoretical and empirical overview. Int J Psychol 2007; 42: 243–252.

47.

Kerksieck

Bauer

Brauchli

. Personal and social resources at work: reciprocal relations between crafting for social job resources, social support at work and psychological capital. Front Psychol 2019; 10: 2632.

48.

Feeney

Collins

. A new look at social support: a theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 2015; 19: 113–147.

49.

Colella

Varma

. Disability-job fit stereotypes and the evaluation of persons with disabilities at work. J Occup Rehabil 1999; 9: 79–95.

50.

Randle

Hardy

. Macho, mobile and resilient? How workers with impairments are doubly disabled in project-based film and television work. Work Employ Soc 2017; 31: 447–464.

51.

Humphrys

Rodgers

Asquith

, et al. ‘To prove i’m not incapable, I overcompensate’: disability, ideal workers, the academy. Econ Labour Relat Rev 2022; 33: 698–714.

52.

Millmark

Vänje

Palm

. Living up to the ideal worker norm: a critical case study about women with invisible disabilities working from home. EDI 2025; 44: 144–158.

53.

Rutherford

Hiseler

O'Hagan

. Help! I need somebody: help-seeking among workers with self-reported work-related mental disorders. J Occup Rehabil 2024; 34: 197–215.

54.

Schaap

Stevels

de Wolff

, et al. I noticed that when I have a good supervisor, it can make a lot of difference.” A qualitative study on guidance of employees with a work disability to improve sustainable employability. J Occup Rehabil 2023; 33: 201–212.

55.

Schaap

Coenen

Zwinkels

, et al. Training for supervisors to improve sustainable employment of employees with a work disability: a longitudinal effect and process evaluation from an intervention study with matched controls. J Occup Rehabil 2023: 1–17. DOI: 10.1007/s10926-023-10118-2.

56.

Elfering

Semmer

Schade

, et al. Supportive colleague, unsupportive supervisor: the role of provider-specific constellations of social support at work in the development of low back pain. J Occup Health Psychol 2002; 7: 130–140.

57.

Caldwell

. Top-down workplace diversity and inclusion. In: Marques

Dhiman

(eds) Leading with diversity, equity and inclusion: approaches, practices and cases for integral leadership strategy. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022, pp.137–147.

58.

Jansen

van Ooijen

Koning

PWC

, et al. The role of the employer in supporting work participation of workers with disabilities: a systematic literature review using an interdisciplinary approach. J Occup Rehabil 2021; 31: 916–949.

59.

Glade

Koch

Zaandam

, et al. Recommendations from employees with disabilities for creating inclusive workplaces: results from a grounded theory investigation. JVR 2020; 53: 77–88.

60.

Gerdes

. Mental impairment and employment. A qualitative study on middle-aged women and men in public administration. (Original title: Psychische Beeinträchtigung und Erwerbsarbeit. Eine qualitative Studie zu Frauen und Männern mittleren Alters in der Öffentlichen Verwaltung) . PhD Thesis, Julius Klinkhardt, Bad Heilbrunn, 2019.

61.

United Nations . Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Treaty Series 2006; 2515: 3.

62.

Jensen Larsen

Thorsteinsen Toft

. ‘What's in it for us?’ How inclusive behavior benefits interpersonal communication at work. Nord J Working Life 2024. DOI: 10.18291/njwls.150141.

63.

Jensen Larsen

Traavik

Svendsen

. “What's in it for me?” – uncovering the individual benefits of inclusive behavior in the Norwegian workplace. EDI 2024. DOI: 10.1108/EDI-10-2023-0354.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.15 MB

0.47 MB