JASH 1988, Vol. 13, N o . 3, 2 1 1 - 2 1 9

copyright 1988 by The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps

Job Satisfaction Research: Implications for Supported Employment Charles R. Moseley Syracuse University and Vermont Division of Mental Retardation Increased emphasis is being placed on providing in­ tegrated and normalizing work experiences for people with severe disabilities through supported employment. As more individuals are offered training in nonsheltered situations, it is important to consider the nature of the typical environments they will be moving into and the elements of work that make it a meaningful and satis­ fying experience for typical workers. The literature on supported employment has been primarily concerned with outcome studies of demonstration projects, the efficacy of training strategies, and the development of administrative structures and funding systems. In con­ trast, studies of work for nondisabled individuals have focused on job satisfaction and what the experience means to the worker, andfor the most part have ignored those who have disabilities. This review examines sup­ ported employment in light of the literature on the experience of work by nondisabled people, with partic­ ular reference to the meaning of work in the lives of persons with disabilities. There is discussion of worker satisfaction, the meaning of pay, the effect of the task itself, and the role of the culture of the workplace on the behavior of the workers. Implications for the establish­ ment of supported employment opportunities in typical businesses are presented.

ployment traditionally has not occurred, or those whose competitive employment has been interrupted or intermittant as a result of a developmental disability and who need ongoing support to perform the work. Sup­ ported employment occurs in a variety of settings, particularly work sites in which persons without disa­ bilities are employed. Support involves any activity needed to sustain paid work by persons with disabilities including supervision, training, and transportation (Federal Register, 1987). A primary focus of the literature on supported em­ ployment has been to provide outcome data that doc­ ument the effectiveness of this approach. Investigators have reported the success of various demonstration projects in providing integrated employment and higher wages (Krause & MacEachron, 1982; Sowers, Thomp­ son, & Connis, 1979; Wehman, 1986; Wehman & Kregel, 1985), on systematic instructional procedures to train specific skills (Boles, Bellamy, Horner, & Mank, 1984; Brown et al., 1986; Rusch, Weithers, Menchetti, & Schutz, 1980; Schutz, Jostes, Rusch, & Lamson, 1980; Wacker & Berg, 1986), and program development issues such as job creation strategies, coordination of resources, and the formation of enabling administrative structures (Hill et al., 1985; Revell, Wehman, & Arnold, 1985). While there has been some discussion of pay and the meaning of work (Bellamy et al., 1984; Brown et al., 1984), the literature on supported employment has primarily focused on the transition of workers with severe disabilities from segregated rehabilitation settings into more typical workplaces in the community. Little attention has been directed to other aspects of a job that can have a significant effect on individuals' satis­ faction with their work, and which could have a major impact upon their successful employment. A number of studies, however, have examined the satisfaction of nondisabled people with their jobs (Locke, 1983). Primarily driven by a desire to increase productivity and efficiency in the workplace, research­ ers have attempted to isolate those components of the experience that appear to affect workers' satisfaction with their jobs, such as the ability to make decisions that affect one's work, the opportunity to socialize with peers, potential for career advancement, and so on (Blauner, 1966; Gruneberg, 1979; Locke, 1983).

DESCRIPTORS: competitive employment, devel­ opmental disabilities, employment, job placement, job satisfaction, mental retardation, supported employ­ ment, vocational environment, vocational rehabilita­ tion, vocational training Supported employment is an approach that provides an effective alternative to more traditional vocational services for adults with severe disabilities. This method has been defined in the Developmental Disabilities Act Amendments of 1987 (Federal Register, 1987) as com­ petitive work in integrated settings for persons with developmental disabilities for whom competitive em-

The author would like to thank Douglas Biklen, Jan Nisbet, Frank Laski, and the JASH reviewers for their contributions to this article. Requests for reprints should be sent to Charles R. Moseley, P. O. Box 228, East Middlebury, VT 05740. 211

212

Moseley

With an increasing emphasis on offering individuals with severe disabilities integrated and normalizing vo­ cational training alternatives, it is important to consider the nature of the "typical" environments the workers will be moving into and the elements of work that provide satisfaction for nondisabled individuals. From this perspective a number of questions arise with respect to the meaning people give to their work. For example, what is a good job for a person who has a severe disability? Is the purpose of his or her employment to work alongside nonhandicapped peers, to earn enough money to acquire some degree of independence, or simply to provide a stimulating, positive experience? Is work made satisfactory by the nature of the worker's abilities, the character of the task itself, the environment in which it occurs, or some interaction? Can society provide meaningful work for individuals who have severe disabilities when it cannot for so many others? The primary purpose of this article was to review the literature on job satisfaction of workers without disa­ bilities and to discuss implications for the design of supported employment programs. Issues include the nature of worker satisfaction, the meaning of pay, the effect of the job itself, and the role of social interactions or the culture of the workplace on the behavior of the employees.

Job Satisfaction Research General Review of the Literature In a review of the 3,350 studies conducted on job satisfaction prior to 1972, Locke (1983) noted that although research conducted in the early 1900s focused on the relationship between workers' "attitudes" and the physical conditions of the work environment, in­ cluding the pay received, the systematic investigation of the nature and cause of job satisfaction did not begin until the 1930s. At this time the classic "Hawthorne" studies (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939) examined the social factors that influence job satisfaction and em­ ployees' attitudes toward supervision, the nature of the job itself, and the work group. Later, in the early 1960s, Hertzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman (1959) established a line of research that concentrated on the nature of the work itself as a determinant of job satisfaction and the need to allow workers enough responsibility and judg­ ment on a task to grow mentally. Another approach, described by Maslow (1943, 1970), relates job satisfac­ tion to the degree to which the particular tasks per­ formed meet the individual needs of the worker, while other strategies have emphasized improving the quality of the workplace to enhance the satisfaction of workers with their jobs (Hopkins, 1983). Whatever the ap­ proach, a worker's job satisfaction involves the match between the characteristics of the job and his or her own personal and social needs, feelings of significance

and worth, and expectations for the working experience (Gruneberg, 1979). Satisfaction of Workers with Disabilities There are a number of points that should be taken into consideration with respect to the job satisfaction of workers with severe disabilities in supported employ­ ment. While most nondisabled people identify closely with their jobs (Hughes, 1958; LeMasters, 1975), it is less clear how those with severe disabilities who have never experienced the "world of work" and who may have led lives cut off from the mainstream of society view their working experience. In a review of the re­ search on the job satisfaction of workers with disabili­ ties, McAffee (1986) noted the scarcity of studies in this area. He reported that the investigations that were per­ formed yielded data that were very similar to those described by researchers on the job satisfaction of nondisabled workers. That is, the majority of individuals studied stated that they were satisfied with their jobs regardless of the nature of their positions. Reporting on the findings of Rosen, Halenda, Nowakiwska, and Floor (1970), who studied workers with mental retardation, and Scott, Williams, Stout, and Decker (1980), on adults with learning disabilities, McAffee concluded that workers with disabilities and nondisabled workers appear to express job dissatisfaction for similar reasons, including pay, participation in decisions, leadership behavior, hours, and co-worker behavior. When reviewing the job satisfaction literature, espe­ cially with reference to workers with severe disabilities, a number of factors should be taken into consideration. It has been noted, for example, that the fact that a worker responds positively to an inquiry about his or her job satisfaction does not necessarily mean that he or she would not rather do a different task (Blauner, 1966). To be satisfied really implies a comparison with something else, some other experience either more or less desirable than the current one. It seems reasonable to suggest that individuals whose vocational training has not gone beyond sheltered situations, and whose previous experiences may have included long periods of institutionalization or "training" in day activity pro­ grams, may see a workshop or other segregated facility as a highly desirable alternative. For example, some research has reported that some individuals in sheltered workshops were content with their experience and were reluctant to move to less restrictive settings (Turner, 1984). Another study, however, reported that individ­ uals in sheltered workshops who had once held com­ petitive employment and had returned to the program were especially dissatisfied with their jobs, particularly the tasks performed and the pay received (Seltzer, 1984). The context from which an individual expresses his or her opinion is also important. Persons who have

213

Job Satisfaction

received treatment or training in a structured environ­ ment, such as an institution or a sheltered workshop, frequently become very adept at anticipating the answer desired by the staff and have learned to respond in an acceptable manner. The responses to questions may reflect more of the person's desire to please than his or her actual beliefs. Methods of determining the job satisfaction of work­ ers with severe disabilities must be able to describe the meaning of events from the worker's own point of view and be responsive to the subjective aspects of the per­ son's experience. Qualitative research techniques which document how individuals perceive the events of their lives offer an effective tool to reveal this data. Both Bogdan and Taylor in Inside Out (1982) and Edgerton in Cloak of Competence (1976) demonstrated the use­ fulness of this methodology with individuals diagnosed mentally retarded. Utilizing qualitative research tech­ niques such as participant observation, in-depth inter­ viewing, and review of case history information, the researcher can come to understand and document the experience of work from the perspective of the worker with severe disabilities. For example, in an investigation of the job satisfaction of workers in supported employ­ ment (Moseley, 1987), in-depth interviews were con­ ducted with persons diagnosed severely mentally re­ tarded working in supported individual jobs and en­ claves which focused on their satisfaction with their current employment and how they compared it with previous experiences in sheltered workshops or training programs. Individuals reported greater satisfaction with their supported work experiences, citing better pay, more consistent work, and the ability to do one's job without being distracted by others. Two workers put it this way: The pay is a lot better and you work all the time, sometimes at the workshop we didn't have work. You know, it's a regular place. (Richard, a dish­ washer in a hotel kitchen). I worked in a workshop and this is better... . The pay is better and they leave you alone here, you get your work done. (Mary, a worker in a bottle recycling plant). Similar findings were reported in a qualitative study of work stations in which the workers interviewed stated that they were satisfied with virtually all aspects of their employment experience (Conte, 1983). The data on job satisfaction for both nonhandicapped workers and those with disabilities must be viewed with care. In an early study on job satisfaction, Hoppock (1935) noted that a person may enjoy one aspect of his job and dislike another, and the strength of these feel­ ings may vary from one day to the next. Some workers change their jobs even though they report a high degree

of satisfaction with them, while others may stay with positions they describe as unsatisfactory for a long period of time (Palmer, Parnes, Wilcock, Herman, & Brainard, 1962). Dissatisfaction with the tasks per­ formed on the job or with the nature of the work environment can lead to an increased emphasis on leisure and the social aspects of work as the worker pursues activities that are stimulating and different (Halle, 1984). The literature on job satisfaction points to the central position work occupies in people's lives and to the factors that make work a meaningful experience. These issues have many implications for the placement of individuals with disabilities. Taken collectively they form an outline for the selection of potential work sites by indicating the types of job opportunities that have a good potential for success. As stated above, however, satisfaction in a job means different things to different people. If job placements are to be successful, each candidate must be given as much autonomy and control as possible in the development and selection of his or her employment alternatives.

Wages and Job Satisfaction For nonhandicapped individuals the amount of pay received for the work performed plays a complex role in the satisfaction derived from the job (Locke, 1983). Some have reported that the majority of workers indi­ cate that the function of employment is to provide money for the comforts and pleasures of life (Friedmann, 1964), while others have found that workers derive satisfaction primarily from the nature of the job itself (LeMasters, 1975). Pay is interpreted differently by individual workers and can be rewarding not only because of the material benefit, but also as a sign of accomplishment and recognition (Gruneberg, 1979). Most studies of the meaning of job satisfaction for nonhandicapped people have suggested that the amount of pay individuals receive, while important, and most significant for those in lower paying jobs, is but one of many factors that are taken into consideration. Some workers value the personal relationships they have on the job, while others value their autonomy, the chal­ lenge presented by the work, the prestige involved, or the chance for steady employment (Dawis, 1984; Locke, 1983; Palmer etal., 1962; Vanfossen, 1979). A very important aspect of supported employment is equitable and commensurate payment for the work performed. Yet, because of restrictive regulations re­ garding the employment of individuals with severe dis­ abilities imposed by federal and state Departments of Labor and fiscal disincentives in social security and welfare programs, this issue has come into conflict with the ability to work in integrated settings (Burkhauser & Haveman, 1982; Hagner, Nisbet, Callahan, & Moseley, 1987). Some have argued that although individuals

214

Moseley

should be paid for their work, integration, not pay, is more important in the hierarchy of needs and should be the crucial variable in the vocational training of people with severe disabilities (Brown et al., 1984). Others stress the importance of the pay over the need for integration and note that the amount of wages received affects not only the individual's self-respect, but also increases his or her ability to go into the community and purchase goods and services in a nor­ mal fashion, essentially "buying" integration (Bellamy et al., 1984; Wehman & Moon, 1985). The role of wages in the job satisfaction of workers with severe disabilities with their jobs has been de­ scribed in a study conducted by the author of adults with disabilities placed in supported employment. For some workers, the amount they earned was very im­ portant, while for others, satisfaction depended on the nature of the job itself and the degree to which it provided variation and required skill. Several examples illustrate this point. Carl has Down syndrome. He works for a public utility corporation and has described his feelings this way: "I just like the w o r k . . . . I like jobs that are different." Brian works in a bottle recycling plant and also has been labeled mentally retarded. He liked the money he earned but was less enthusiastic about his job. "I have been here three years and I am sick of i t . . . . I like the money, I just don't like the job." Pete, who also has Down syndrome, likes the money he earns at his job on the line in the recycling plant. If he had his way, however, he would work as a janitor where he could be on this own and in control. "I like it here. I like a good w a g e . . . (but) out there, I teach myself, that's my job." For the individuals interviewed, work derived its meaning from the activities it enabled the workers to take charge of and perform. Satisfaction with the wages received, although important, did not necessarily overcome dissatisfaction with the job. In the development of supported employment sites, particular attention should be given to the rate of pay an individual will receive, but not to the exclusion of the nature of the work performed. The person respon­ sible for job development needs to participate with employers to form an appropriate match between worker and job and must monitor the placement to ensure that increases in production are followed by increases in pay.

Work Characteristics and Job Satisfaction Studies on workers' satisfaction with their jobs have identified a number of factors related to the character of the work itself with significant implications for the development of supported employment opportunities for people with severe disabilities. For example, the level of complexity of the task, the challenge presented to the worker's abilities, and the amount of control he

or she is able to exert over its execution all affect an individual's satisfaction with the work performed. The fact that job satisfaction increases with task complexity has been well documented. Numerous stud­ ies have reported workers to show a clear preference toward more varied tasks and a desire to become in­ volved in both the planning of their work and in the use of the materials and equipment entrusted to them (Blauner, 1966;Chinoy, 1955; Friedmann, 1964; Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Locke, 1983). In an area closely related to task complexity, Locke (1983) described a number of factors strongly associated with job interest and satisfaction that involve "mental challenge"; that is, the opportunity for new learning, creativity, autonomy, coping with difficulties, and re­ sponsibility for decisions. Greater satisfaction was re­ lated not only to the presence of challenges, but also the ability to successfully overcome them with regular feedback regarding the results of the effort being made (Hackman & Lawler, 1971). Workers also appear to have a need to complete their tasks or assignments, rather than performing unrelated single-step assembly line operations (Friedmann, 1964). A study of the job satisfaction of service employees in the public sector reported that workers who were content with their jobs tended to engage in tasks that had more depth and scope and which offered greater challenge (Hopkins, 1983). The amount of self-direction and control workers are able to exert over their labor also affects how contented they are with their work. A comprehensive study of the job satisfaction of civil service employees in Britain noted that "job satisfaction was about people deciding things for themselves (p. 277)" and stressed the need for staff participation in day-to-day decision making (Hodgson & Burden, 1979). Industrial employees, par­ ticularly those working on assembly line operations, frequently express dissatisfaction over the fact that they cannot control the pace and character of their work (Blauner, 1966; Kohn & Schooler, 1978; Locke, 1983; Walsh, 1982). The lack of control over the nature of the work performed and the presence of dull and un­ interesting tasks can result in a worker's energies being directed into other less productive areas and a decrease in productivity (Halle, 1984). Recent trends in the nature of the work itself, includ­ ing the change in the types of jobs in America from predominantly manufacturing to predominantly serv­ ice occupations, have had an important impact on workers. Although the number of white collar admin­ istrative and managerial jobs has grown significantly in the face of a decreasing demand for blue collar produc­ tion or manufacturing work, the amount of unskilled, "menial" work generated has continued to grow (Levitan & Johnson, 1983). This increase in the number of less challenging jobs has significant implications for

215

Job Satisfaction

those who work them. The worker's need for greater involvement with the structure of the work and control over the way in which the job is to be accomplished has been identified as an important factor in efforts to increase satisfaction and productivity in the workplace. A report of a special task force to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1972 identified a growing dissatisfaction of American workers with their work and emphasized the redesign of jobs to increase productivity by allowing workers involvement, control, and challenge in their occupations. The report noted that what workers want the most is to become in charge of the particular tasks they are working on and to feel that both they and the work they do are important (Work in America, 1973). Job redesign in auto plants in Sweden that focus on the ability of workers to take on increasing responsibility and an active role in the determination of job assignments has resulted in im­ provements in both job satisfaction and productivity (Gyllenhammer, 1977). The increased productivity and stability of Japanese workers have been credited in part to their system, which emphasizes the employer's com­ mitment to the employee by actively involving him or her in many different aspects of the job to improve the quality of the product and the working environment, and offering social and educational services which seek to improve the quality of life of the employee and his or her family (Hanami, 1979; Koshiro, 1983). Whether because the production of workers with disabilities has traditionally been considered inconse­ quential (Burkhauser & Haveman, 1982) or because they have usually experienced high rates of unemploy­ ment and low wages due to discrimination in the work­ place (Johnson & Lambrinos, 1985; Wehman & Moon, 1985), there has been little study of the job satisfaction of workers with disabilities. As a result, a number of assumptions exist regarding the types of vocational activities that are best suited to the abilities of these workers that appear to be based on conjecture rather than evidence. For example, it has been suggested that workers with mental retardation excel in performing routine or repetitive tasks and, by virtue of their disa­ bility, are said to enjoy and find challenge in jobs that would be considered too boring or monotonous by nonhandicapped workers (Greenleigh Associates, Inc., 1975; U.S. Department of Labor, 1979). Brown et al. (1983) point out that this assumption is rarely valid and state that nonhandicapped individuals actually seem to be much better at this type of work than those who are mentally retarded. They suggest that workers with men­ tal retardation perform best in an environment that allows them to do a variety of meaningful tasks during the work week. Another opinion about workers with disabilities is that they will be successful in low level, repetitive jobs that are frequently characterized by high turnover. One

of the key elements in the process of establishing com­ munity work stations, for example, has been to seek out those jobs which have the highest vacancy rate and which the employer has difficulty filling or keeping filled (Hagner & Como, 1982). Since many studies of work have reported that the amount of satisfaction people derive from a particular task is suggested by the rate of turnover of those who work that job (Blauner, 1966; Friedmann, 1964), one must question the place­ ment of individuals who will need considerable support in the best of circumstances into positions that no one has found satisfactory. Although it can be argued that these jobs require a skill level that best matches that of the worker with mental retardation or that they might be the only jobs available, it is also true that individuals, regardless of their abilities, require some complexity in the tasks they perform in order to remain satisfied with them. The long-term effects of routine, repetitive, and unchallenging jobs on workers without disabilities have been well documented (Rubin, 1976; Terkel, 1972). It should not be assumed that such jobs would affect workers with disabilities any differently. These findings are relevant to the establishment of supported employment sites. Since many placements involve tasks in unskilled or semiskilled categories that tend to allow less control, job opportunities need to be developed that allow a person to influence the condi­ tions of his or her work and to experience a sense of completion. For example, tasks that provide immediate feedback, where the worker can directly control his or her rate of production, the quality of the work, and see the results of the efforts made, may be preferable to jobs that involve less participation. Working in service jobs or custodial positions, where the person is respon­ sible for organizing the tasks to be performed, or per­ forming the complete assembly of a product, may be more desirable than tending a machine or working on an assembly line. An important reason for the emphasis on placing workers with severe disabilities directly into integrated work sites in "regular" companies is an understanding that effective vocational training takes place only when there is the opportunity to perform "real" work that offers both challenge and stimulation. The need of the worker with disabilities for complexity on a job is really no different than it is for the nonhandicapped worker.

Work Culture and Job Satisfaction Among the most frequent reasons cited for placement failure is the inability of workers with disabilities to adjust to the social aspects of the employment situation (Greenspan & Shoultz, 1981; Sowers et al., 1979; Weh­ man, 1981). In many jobs, however, particularly those that require less skill and ability, the social features of the work become the most important part of the activity (Roy, 1959; Halle, 1984). A study of the job satisfaction

216

Moseley

of employees of state governments in service occupa­ tions has suggested that the job environment may be more significant to the worker than the character of the job itself (Hopkins, 1983). Virtually every job setting has a culture of its own, an unofficial code of rules and ethics that prescribe the range of acceptable behaviors for the workers. Increased satisfaction with one's job has been linked to the ability to work closely with a group of others to accomplish a common assignment. Work groups which function to reinforce social norms will provide satisfaction to the degree that they are seen as facilitating the achievement of the worker's own work goals and rewards, and as sharing his or her own values (Locke, 1983). Levels of satisfaction across all aspects of the job have been reported to increase with the degree to which workers believed they were part of a work team (Blauner, 1966) and when they were allowed to choose their coworkers (Gruneberg, 1979). In an early study of the social relationships between factory machine operators, Roy (1959) described a se­ ries of small group interactions which provided intellec­ tual stimulation and "marked off the time; . . . gave it content and hurried it along (p. 162)." These group activities involved themes that were repeated on an hourly and daily basis, and frequently consisted of situations in which one worker would become the brunt of others' jokes. Becoming involved in the group meant sharing in the experience, sometimes being the instiga­ tor, other times being the target. The culture, or code of behavior, of a workplace is frequently tied to unofficial reward systems that serve to bridge the gap between the limitations of formal mechanisms and the wide range of activities that must be rewarded. The "unsanctioned" use of materials or equipment to supplement low salary is a common and important part of the work environment, many times involving management's tacit approval (Dalton, 1959). Workers faced with uninteresting jobs use a variety of social and manipulative means to increase their power over the conditions of work (Halle, 1984). Such a situation could lead to problems for employees with disabilities who may attempt to follow the official norms of the workplace while other employees follow another set of in-group rules. Take the case of a worker with a disability placed into a job where the other employees actively pace themselves to regulate their rate of production in order not to finish the work too soon and be forced to leave early or to perform another less desirable task. In this example, the lower productiv­ ity of the disabled worker may actually exceed that of the other employees and threaten their ability to work at a slower, more relaxed pace. If employees with disabilities are trained and encour­ aged to conform to the "official" rules only, they may be excluded from an important part of the work culture

and prevented from being accepted into the very social groups in which they need to be included. On the other hand, if the individual does become involved with some of these "unofficial" activities, would he or she be able to discriminate between those occasions when it is acceptable to deviate from the official norms and those in which it is not? Including potential co-workers in setting up work sites is essential to facilitate integration into the work culture, as well as to establish patterns of behavior to guide the interactions of all workers (Shafer, 1986). It is important to involve workers with disabili­ ties with social groups in the workplace as much as possible and to develop supported employment oppor­ tunities which enable the individual to become a part of a work team. Being a member of a group has an additional benefit in that it may help to develop rela­ tionships with co-workers and establish supports that could ease one's transition into the job. It should be realized, however, that both individuals with disabilities and nondisabled co-workers may need assistance in adjusting to the social rituals of these group situations.

Conclusion What is a good job? According to Rubin (1976), for the blue collar employee, desirable work allows both freedom and autonomy. A good job is one where the worker "can combine skill with strength, where he can control the pace of his work and the order of the tasks to be done, and where successful performance requires his independent judgments" (p. 157). For many work­ ers, however, particularly those without a trade or a skill, this goal is seldom reached. Many give up looking for the perfect job in exchange for one that is tolerable and provides some security. The job becomes only a means to make money, something that must be en­ dured, not enjoyed (Terkel, 1972); "something to do, not to talk about" (Rubin, 1976, p. 159). What is a good job for workers with severe disabilities who may have never before entered the work force, and whose abilities may be most suited for those unskilled jobs that appear to provide so little satisfaction for many people? Although the training technology is clearly available, it is a mistake to conclude that we are aware of every­ thing we need to know about placing people in jobs in regular work settings. Individuals with severe disabilities still experience great difficulty adjusting to work and meeting the many vocational, personal, and social de­ mands placed upon them. Problems in making a suc­ cessful adaptation to the workplace, however, are not limited to people who are disabled. The large amount of data on the meaning of work and job satisfaction attest to the fact that workers, particularly those in positions that require little skill and involve much rep­ etition, frequently have difficulty adjusting to their jobs

Job Satisfaction

(Friedmann, 1964; Halle, 1984; Locke, 1983; Roy, 1959; Rubin, 1976). Studies of workers in numerous blue collar occupa­ tions have identified different aspects of work that appear to be related to increased satisfaction and pro­ ductivity. Because these are the same types of jobs that are being filled by individuals with severe disabilities, these data bear a direct relevance to the development of supported employment alternatives. Greater job sat­ isfaction has been related to (a) a person's increased control over his or her task and conditions of work; (b) the ability to function as a part of a work team and living in a community in contact with one's co-workers (Blauner, 1966; Dalton, 1959; Friedmann, 1964); (c) higher, more equitable pay (Blauner, 1966; Locke, 1983; Rubin, 1976); and (d) the ability to perform work tasks of a complexity sufficient to hold one's interest (Blauner, 1966; Friedmann, 1964; LeMasters, 1975; Locke, 1983; Rubin, 1976; Terkel, 1972). The work environment or culture and relationships with co-workers affect a person's satisfaction with his or her job by providing complexity in the face of routine and repetition, and establishing a structure to govern a worker's behaviors (Dalton, 1959; Gruneberg, 1979; Halle, 1984; Hopkins, 1983; Roy, 1959). Culture changes more slowly than regulation or "program ini­ tiatives" that encourage supported employment. One of the problems individuals with severe disabilities must confront when they enter the workplace is that the other workers who are not disabled may not know how to interact with them. Customs and patterns of behavior need to be developed to structure relationships that are to be formed on the job. Potential placements should be evaluated carefully with respect to each of the points listed above and the degree to which the job matches the worker's own interests and abilities. Individuals with severe disabili­ ties must have appropriate payment for the work they perform and jobs that provide complexity and chal­ lenge. The idea that persons with mental retardation, for example, excel in dull repetitive tasks appears to be based on handicappist prejudice rather than evidence. Vocational training and employment situations must be created that provide truly integrated, meaningful work experiences and equitable wages. Workers with severe disabilities and their nondisabled co-workers are more alike than different. The aspects of a job that are important to one are important to the other. Feelings of satisfaction, hope, and accomplish­ ment that can come from a person's work have to do with the nature of the experience, not whether the individual happens to have a disability.

References Bellamy, G. T., Rhodes, L. E., Wilcox, B., Albin, J. M., Mank, D. M., Boles, S. M., Horner, R. H., Collins, M., & Turner,

217

J. (1984). Quality and equality in employment services for adults with severe disabilities. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 9, 270-277. Blauner, R. (1966). Worker satisfaction and industrial trends in modern society. In R. Bendix & S. M. Lipset (Eds.), Class status and power: Social stratification in comparative per­ spective (pp. 473-487). New York: The Free Press. Bogdan, R., & Taylor, S. J. (1982). Inside out: The meaning of mental retardation. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Boles, S. M., Bellamy, G. T., Horner, R. H., & Mank, D. M. (1984). Specialized training program: The structured em­ ployment model. In S. C. Paine, G. T. Bellamy, & B. Wilcox (Eds.), Human services that work: From innovation to stand­ ard practice (pp. 181-208). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Brown, L., Shiraga, B., Ford, A., Nisbet, J., VanDeventer, P., Sweet, M., York, J., & Loomis, R. (1986). Teaching severely handicapped students to perform meaningful work in nonsheltered vocational environments. In R. Morris & B. Blatt (Eds.), Special education: Research and trends (pp. 131189). New York: Pergamon. Brown, L., Shiraga, B., York, J., Kessler, K., Strohm, B., Rogin, P., Sweet, M., Zanella, K., VanDeventer, P., & Loomis, R. (1984). Integrated work opportunities for adults with severe handicaps: The extended training option. The Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handi­ caps, 9, 262-269. Burkhauser, R. V., & Haveman, R. H. (1982). Disability and work: The economics of American policy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Chinoy, E. (1955). The automobile worker and the American dream. Garden City: Doubleday. Conte, L. (1983). Sheltered employment and disabled citizens: Analysis of the work stations in industry model (Doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, 1982). Dissertation Ab­ stracts International, 43, 2976A. Dalton, M. (1959). Men who manage: Fusions offeeling and theory in administration. New York: Wiley. Dawis, R. V. (1984). Job satisfaction: Worker aspirations, attitudes and behavior. In N. C. Gysbers & Assoc., Designing careers: Counseling to enhance education, work and leisure (pp. 275-301). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Edgerton, R. B. (1967). The cloak of competence: Stigma in the lives of the mentally retarded. Berkeley: University of California Press. Federal Register. (1987, October 29). Developmental Disabil­ ities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act Amendment of 1987. P. L. 100-146, Section 102 (14) (A) (B). Friedmann, G. (1964). The anatomy of work: Labor, leisure and the implications of automation. New York: Free Press of Glencoe. Greenleigh Associates, Inc. (1975). The role of the sheltered workshop in the rehabilitation of the severely handicapped. New York: Report to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Rehabilitation Services Administration. Greenspan, S., & Shoultz, B. (1981). Why mentally retarded adults lose their jobs: Social competence as a factor in work adjustment. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 2, 2 3 38. Gruneberg, M. M. (1979). Understanding job satisfaction. New York: Wiley. Gyllenhammer, P. G. (1977). People at work. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics [Monograph]. Journal of Applied Psy­ chology, 55, 259-286. Hagner, D., & Como, P. (1982). Work stations in industry: An alternative for the training and employment of handicapped individuals. Materials Development Center, Stout Voca-

218

Moseley

tional Rehabilitation Institute, University of WisconsinStout, Menomonie, WI. Hagner, D., Nisbet, J., Callahan, M., & Moseley, C. (1987). Payment, mechanisms for community employment of work­ ers with severe disabilities: Realities and recommendations. The Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 72(1), 45-52. Halle, D. (1984). America's working man: Work, home and politics among blue collar property owners. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hanami, T. (1979). Labor relations in Japan today. New York: Kodansha International Ltd. Hertzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: Wiley. Hill, M., Hill, J., Wehman, P., Revell, G., Dickenson, A., & Noble, J. (1985). Time limited training and supported em­ ployment: A model for redistributing existing resources for persons with severe disabilities. In P. Wehman & J. W. Hill (Eds.), Competitive employment for persons with mental retardation: From research to practice (pp. 134-168). Rich­ mond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University. Hill, M., & Wehman, P. (1983). Cost benefit analysis of placing moderately and severely handicapped individuals into com­ petitive employment. The Journal of The Association for the Severely Handicapped, 8, 30-38. Hodgson, A., & Burden, D. (1979). Job satisfaction in the civil service in the United Kingdom. In H. van Bernum (Ed.), Working on the quality of working life: Developments in Europe (pp. 277-287). Boston: Martinus NijhofT. Hopkins, A. H. (1983). Work and job satisfaction in the public sector. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allenheld. Hoppock, R. (1935). Job satisfaction. New York: Harper & Row. Hughes, E. C. (1958). Men and their work. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. Johnson, W. G., & Lambrinos, J. (1985). Wage discrimination against handicapped men and women. Journal of Human Resources, 20, 265-277. Kohn, M. L., & Schooler, C. (1978). The reciprocal effects of the substantive complexity of work and intellectual flexibil­ ity: A longitudinal assessment. American Journal of Sociol­ ogy, 82, 24-52. Koshiro, K. (1983). The quality of working life in Japanese factories. In T. Shirai (Ed.), Contemporary labor relations in Japan (pp. 63-88). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Krause, M., & MacEachron, A. (1982). Competitive employ­ ment training for mentally retarded adults: The supported work model. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86, 650-653. LeMasters, E. E. (1975). Blue collar aristocrats: Life styles at a working class tavern. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Levitan, S. A., & Johnson, C. M. (1983). The survival of work. In J. Barbash, R. J. Lampman, S. A. Levitan, & G. Tyler (Eds.), The work ethic—A critical analysis (pp. 1-25). In­ dustrial Relations Research Association. Madison: Univer­ sity of Wisconsin. Locke, E. A. (1983). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organ­ izational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago: Rand McNally. Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psycholog­ ical Review, 50, 370-396. Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed). New York: Harper & Row. McAffee, J. K. (1986). The handicapped worker and job satisfaction. Vocational Evaluation and Work Adjustment Bulletin, 19, 23-27.

Moseley, C. R. (1987). The meaning of work for persons with severe disabilities: A qualitative study of supported employ­ ment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse Univer­ sity, Syracuse, NY. Palmer, G. L., Parnes, H. S., Wilcock, R. C , Herman, M. W., & Brainard, C. P. (1962). The reluctant job changer: Studies in work attachments and aspirations. Philadelphia: Univer­ sity of Pennsylvania Press. Revell, G., Wehman, P., & Arnold, S. (1985). Supported work model of competitive employment for mentally retarded persons: Implications for rehabilitative services. In P. Weh­ man & J. W. Hill (Eds.), Competitive employment for per­ sons with mental retardation: From research to practice (pp. 46-64). Richmond: Virginia Commonwealth University. Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Roy, D. (1959). Banana time: Job satisfaction and informal interaction. Human Organization, 18 (Winter), 158-168. Rosen, M., Halenda, R., Nowakiwska, M., & Floor, L. (1970). Employment satisfaction of previously institutionalized mentally subnormal workers. Mental Retardation, 8, 3540. Rubin, L. B. (1976). Worlds of pain. New York: Basic Books. Rusch, F. R., Weithers, J. A., Menchetti, B. M., & Schutz, R. P. (1980). Social validation of a program to reduce topic repetition in a nonsheltered setting. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 15, 208-215. Schutz, R. P., Jostes, K. F., Rusch, F. R„ & Lamson, D. S. (1980). Acquisition, transfer and social validation of two vocational skills in competitive employment settings. Edu­ cation and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 15, 306-311. Scott, A. J., Williams, J. M., Stout, J. K., & Decker, T. W. (1980). Field investigations and evaluation of learning disa­ bilities. Scranton, PA: University of Scranton Press. Seltzer, M. M. (1984). Patterns of job satisfaction among mentally handicapped adults. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 5, 147-149. Shafer, M. (1986). Utilizing coworkers as change agents. In F. Rusch (Ed.), Competitive employment issues and strategies (pp. 215-224). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Sowers, J., Thompson, R., & Connis, R. (1979). The food services vocational training program. In G. T. Bellamy, G. O'Connor, & O. C. Karen (Eds.), Vocational rehabilitation of severely handicapped persons (pp. 181-205). Baltimore: University Park Press. Terkel, S. (1972). Working: People talk about what they do all day and what they feel about what they do. New York: Pantheon. Turner, J. L. (1984). Ethnographic observations in a work setting for retarded adults. In R. B. Edgerton & M. J. Begab (Eds.), Ethnological perspectives in mental retardation (pp. 147-171). Baltimore: University Park Press. U.S. Department of Labor. (1979). Sheltered workshop study: Vol. II. Study of handicapped clients in sheltered workshops and recommendations of the secretary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Vanfossen, B. E. (1979). The structure of personal inequality. Boston: Little, Brown and Co. Wacker, D. P., & Berg, W. K. (1986). Generalizing and main­ taining work behavior. In F. R. Rusch (Ed.), Competitive employment issues and strategies (pp. 129-140). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Walsh, E. J. (1982). Prestige, work satisfaction and alienation: comparisons among garbagemen, professors, and other work groups. Work and Occupations, 9, 475-496. Wehman, P. (1981). Competitive employment: New horizons for severely disabled individuals. Baltimore: Paul H.

Job Satisfaction

Brookes. Wehman, P. (1986). Competitive employment in Virginia. In F. R. Rusch (Ed.), Competitive employment issues and strategies (pp. 23-33). Baltmore: Paul H. Brookes. Wehman, P., & Kregel, J. (1985). A supported work approach to competitive employment of individuals with moderate and severe handicaps. The Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 10, 3-11. Wehman, P., & Moon, M. S. (1985). Critical values in em­ ployment programs for persons with developmental disabil­ ities. In P. Wehman & J. W. Hill (Eds.), Competitive em­

219

ployment for persons with mental retardation: From research to practice (pp. 2-19). Richmond: Virginia Commonwealth University. Work in America. (1973). Report of a special task force to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Received: January 8, 1988 Final Acceptance: May 9, 1988 Editor in Charge: Barbara Wilcox