Accommodation, interpersonal justice, and the turnover intentions of employees with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of employees with disabilities in the workforce is increasing and accommodations are essential to the work of many of these individuals. Prior research has explored perceptions of accommodation requests as well as coworkers’ and managers’ reactions to accommodations; yet, we know little about how employees with disabilities experience their own accommodations. We draw from the disability literature as well as contemporary justice and social exchange theory to develop and subsequently test a multilevel moderated mediation model on this subject. We test our hypotheses with data from 4,083 employees nested in 256 workgroups across two time points. We find support for our prediction that accommodation-focused interpersonal justice influences turnover intentions. The effect of these justice perceptions was mediated by workgroup openness to communication. Further, we find that representation of accommodated employees with disabilities at the workgroup level plays an important role in these relationships. We look beyond the technical aspects of accommodation with this research to highlight the social experience of accommodation as a central driver of employee perceptions and work outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".