This article explores the quality of working life (QoWL) of people with intellectual disabilities (PWID) employed in Work Integration Social Enterprises (WISEs). WISEs are hybrid organizations that combine social and commercial goals and provide important alternative employment opportunities for PWID, yet little is known about how PWID themselves experience their working lives within these tension-driven settings. Drawing on a qualitative, participatory research design, the study is based on participant observation and semi-structured interviews with 16 PWID employed in three Swiss WISEs, alongside a focus group of PWID who contributed to the development of the research design and interview guidelines. The findings show that PWID identify meaningful work experiences, the ability to work independently with tailored support, and opportunities for growth and career development as central to a high QoWL. In particular, peer support structures were valued by participants because they fostered productive work, supportive environments, and career paths, thereby contributing to a high QoWL and simultaneously supporting both the social and commercial goals of WISEs.
AdamSAvilésGFerrariD, et al. (2016) Work integration social enterprises in Switzerland. Nonprofit Policy Forum7(4): 509–539. https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2016-0014
2.
American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) (2021) Intellectual disability definition - diagnosis, classification, and systems of supports. Available at. https://www.aaidd.org/intellectual-disability/definition
3.
BabikianVAHamdaniY (2023) Social enterprises and transition to employment for people labeled with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Current Developmental Disorders Reports10(1): 40–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-023-00267-7
BattilanaJSengulMPacheA-C, et al. (2015) Harnessing productive tensions in hybrid organizations: the case of work integration social enterprises. The Academy of Management Journal58(6): 1658–1685. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0903
6.
BelteARidderH-GBaluchAM (2023) Addressing social-business tensions in hybridized nonprofit organizations: the contribution of strategic human resource management. Human Resource Management Review33(4): 100987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2023.100987
7.
BesharovMLSmithWK (2014) Multiple institutional logics in organizations: explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review39(3): 364–381. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0431
8.
BeyerSBrownTAkandiR, et al. (2010) A comparison of quality of life outcomes for people with intellectual disabilities in supported employment, day services and employment enterprises. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities23(3): 290–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3148.2009.00534.x
9.
BraunVClarkeV (2022) Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. Sage Publications Ldt.
10.
BraunVClarkeV (2023) Toward good practice in thematic analysis: avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing researcher. International Journal of Transgender Health24(1): 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2022.2129597
11.
ChuiCH-KShumMHYLumTYS (2019) Work integration social enterprises as vessels of empowerment? Perspectives from employees. Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development29(2): 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/02185385.2018.1538899
12.
CooneyK (2016) Work integration social enterprises in the United States: operating at the nexus of public policy, markets, and community. Nonprofit Policy Forum7(4): 435–460. https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2016-0009
13.
CooneyKNyssensMO’ShaughnessyM, et al. (2016) Public policies and work integration social enterprises: the challenge of institutionalization in a neoliberal era. Nonprofit Policy Forum7(4): 415–433. https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2016-0028
FlickURapleyT (2014) Sampling strategies in qualitative researchThe Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage Publications Ldt, 49–63.
17.
FloresNJenaroCBegoña OrgazM, et al. (2011) Understanding quality of working life of workers with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities24(2): 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3148.2010.00576.x
18.
GarrowEHasenfeldY (2012) Managing conflicting institutional logics: social service versus market. In: GidronBHasenfeldY (eds) Social Enterprises. an Organizational Perspective. Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 121–143. Available at. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137035301 (accessed 12 January 2024).
19.
GischCHirschBLindermüllerD (2021) Reporting practices in situations of conflicting institutional logics: the case of a German federal authority. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change17(4): 494–518. https://doi.org/10.1108/jaoc-02-2020-0020
20.
GoninMGachetN (2015) Social Enterprise in Switzerland: An Overview of Existing Streams, Practi. ICSEM Working Paper. Liege.
21.
GreeneJCSommerfeldPHaightWL (2010) Mixing methods in social work research. In: The Sage Handbook of Social Work Research, London. Sage, 315–331.
22.
GrünenfelderRPalanzaAZumbachD (2023) Inklusionsindex 2023. Pro Infirmis.
Inclusion Europe (2023) Inclusion indicators 2023 - rights and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities in 29 European countries. In: Inclusion Eurpoe. Available at. https://str.inclusion.eu/4fbaa7b98fcf6c493d7f54e03.pdf
25.
KocmanAWeberG (2018) Job satisfaction, quality of work life and work motivation in employees with intellectual disability: a systematic review. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities31(1): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12319
26.
LanctôtNCorbièreMDurandM-J (2012) Job tenure and quality of work life of people with psychiatric disabilities working in social enterprises. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation37(1): 39–48. https://doi.org/10.3233/jvr-2012-0598
27.
LysaghtROuellette-KuntzHMorrisonC (2009) Meaning and value of productivity to adults with intellectual disabilities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities47(6): 413–424. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-47.6.413
28.
LysaghtRKrupaTBouchardM (2018) The role of social enterprise in creating work options for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Journal of Development Disabilities23(3): 18–30.
29.
MetzlerAKayessRBatesS (2018) Perspectives of people with intellectual disability about open, sheltered and social enterprise employment: implications for expanding employment choice through social enterprises. Social Enterprise Journal14(2): 225–244.
30.
MichaudVRijpensJ (forthcoming). Coping with strategic tensions in nonprofit organizations: a paradox perspective. In: BabaSKouaméSStambouliJ (eds) Managing Nonprofit Strategic Tensions: Impact, Scaling and Sustainability. Springer.
31.
NyssensM (2007) Social enterprise at the crossroads of market, public policy and civil societySocial Enterprise. Routledge, 329–344.
32.
OECD (2022) Disability, Work and Inclusion: Mainstreaming in all Policies and Practices. OECD Publishing, Vol. 11. https://doi.org/10.1787/1eaa5e9c-en
33.
PooleMSvan de VenAH (1989) Using paradox to build management and organization theories. The Academy of Management Review14(4): 562–578. https://doi.org/10.2307/258559
34.
PutnamLLFairhurstGTBanghartS (2016) Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: a constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals10(1): 65–171. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1162421
35.
RendallJRoyMJSteinerA, et al. (2025) What matters for ‘good work’? Shared perspectives from Work Integration Social Enterprises. In: Work in the Global Economy, 1–22.
36.
SchadJLewisMWRaischS, et al. (2016) Paradox research in management science: looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals10(1): 5–64. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422
37.
SchwandtTA (1994) Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In: DenzinNKLincolnYS (eds) Constructivist, Interpretivist Approaches to Human Inquiry. Sage Publications Ldt, pp. 118–137.
38.
SmithWKLewisMW (2011) Toward a theory of paradox: a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review36(2): 381–403. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0223
39.
SmithPMcVillyKRMcGillivrayJ, et al. (2018) Developing open employment outcomes for people with an intellectual disability utilising a Social Enterprise Framework. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation48(1): 59–77. https://doi.org/10.3233/jvr-170916
40.
TøssebroJOlsenT (2020) Employment opportunities for people with intellectual disabilities. In: StancliffeRJWehmeyerMLShogrenKA, et al. (eds) Choice, Preference, and Disability: Promoting Self-Determination Across the Lifespan. Springer Nature, pp. 225–246.
41.
WoodsideSJ (2018) Dominant logics: US WISEs and the tendency to favor a market-dominant or social mission-dominant approach. Social Enterprise Journal14(1): 39–59. https://doi.org/10.1108/sej-01-2016-0001
