Employers’ Perceptions on Protecting the Workplace Dignity of Their Employees with Disabilities

Theoretical Framework

Challenges Faced by Employees with Disabilities in the Workplace

Workplace challenges pose significant threats to the dignity of employees with disabilities, representing a complex and multifaceted issue. Kotzé (2008) emphasizes the critical importance of creating work environments free from biases and discrimination based on race, religion, socioeconomic status, or disability. Expanding on this perspective, Zawadzki (2018) identifies multiple forms of WPD violations, including exploitation, verbal and physical aggression, abuse, bullying, and discrimination.

The psychological impact of WPD violations emerges as a particularly critical concern. Sayer (2007) reveals that such violations can lead to profound emotional consequences, including feelings of shame, stigmatization, humiliation, and a pervasive sense of distrust. Melé (2014) and Kostera and Pirson (2017) further elaborate that inhumane working conditions—characterized by exploitation, bullying, and limitations on basic needs and personal autonomy—constitute severe threats to human dignity in professional settings.

Psychological and social challenges play a pivotal role in shaping workplace experiences for employees with disabilities. Research by den Nieuwenboer et al. (2022) highlights the unique psychological challenges faced by employees with disabilities, particularly those experiencing reading difficulties. These challenges manifest through feelings of inadequacy and social stigmatization, significantly influencing employer perceptions and interactions related to WPD.

The research underscores the critical importance of recognition, appreciation, and social support in addressing these challenges. Employees with disabilities actively seek acknowledgment and social support as fundamental mechanisms for achieving WPD (den Nieuwenboer et al., 2022). This necessitates a proactive approach from employers to develop strategies that promote a sense of value and respect.

Additional significant challenges include limited access to assistive technologies, reduced professional development opportunities, and constrained ability to perform tasks effectively (Verulava & Bedianashvili, 2021). These obstacles are further compounded by the pervasive social stigma associated with disability (den Nieuwenboer et al., 2022), which negatively impacts employer perspectives and increases the likelihood of discrimination and social exclusion.

The complexity of these challenges demands a comprehensive approach that addresses both structural barriers and deeply ingrained social attitudes. Employers must recognize the multifaceted nature of WPD for employees with disabilities, moving beyond mere compliance to create truly inclusive and supportive work environments.

Employers’ Role in Protecting the Dignity of Employees with Disabilities

Employers’ perceptions of the dignity of employees with disabilities are diverse and influenced by multiple factors. One of the most critical factors is the recognition of capabilities and potential. Verulava and Bedianashvili (2021) note that many employers recognize that individuals with disabilities are capable of performing work with efficiency comparable to their peers. This acknowledgment of capabilities serves as a fundamental element in enhancing WPD.

Moreover, professional commitment and ethical standards play a significant role in shaping employers’ perspectives. Research has consistently shown that employees with disabilities often demonstrate high levels of work commitment, typically being perceived as dedicated and reliable (Wittmer & Lin, 2017). This demonstrated commitment positively influences employers’ perceptions regarding the dignity of these employees.

The responsibilities of employers in protecting the dignity of employees with disabilities encompass several critical dimensions. These include increasing awareness about the capabilities of individuals with disabilities and enhancing their professional skills (Verulava & Bedianashvili, 2021). Equally important is creating an appropriate and safe work environment, which involves providing suitable facilities and accommodations that enable employees with disabilities to perform their work effectively (Jansen et al., 2022).

Providing optimal job opportunities for individuals with disabilities emerges as a crucial factor in promoting their dignity (Verulava & Bedianashvili, 2021). By offering diverse employment opportunities across various fields and enabling meaningful participation in the recruitment process, individuals with disabilities can experience a sense of active community membership and professional validation. Chumo et al. (2023) emphasize the critical importance of communication, coordination, and equitable work distribution in establishing a truly inclusive workplace.

The holistic approach to supporting employees with disabilities requires a multifaceted strategy that goes beyond mere compliance. It demands a genuine commitment to recognizing individual capabilities, providing meaningful opportunities, and creating an environment of mutual respect and professional growth.

The Current Study

The preceding theoretical framework underscores the multidimensional nature of WPD, the specific challenges faced by employees with disabilities, and the pivotal role of employers’ attitudes and actions in fostering inclusive environments. To empirically investigate these theoretically grounded aspects, particularly within the under-researched Saudi context where specific gaps were identified, the integration of individuals with disabilities into the workforce continues to pose significant challenges.

While the concept of WPD is gaining traction, its application concerning employees with disabilities specifically has received limited focus within the research literature, with Zawadzki (2018) highlighting a general lack of in-depth theoretical analysis in organizational contexts. This identified gap becomes particularly critical when considering specific national contexts. For instance, recent studies within KSA indicate that support systems for employees with disabilities remain underdeveloped and face significant challenges, pointing specifically to persisting barriers such as negative sentiments and the need for greater employer awareness and understanding (Almalky & Alasmari, 2024; Alshammari & Ali, 2024; Antonopoulos et al., 2024). Based on this evidence from prior research, a clear gap exists concerning the limited understanding of employers’ perceptions regarding the requirements for protecting and enhancing WPD for employees with disabilities within the Saudi context. Addressing this specific gap is essential for developing effective interventions (Rajapakse, 2024). Therefore, the current study aims to contribute to filling this identified research gap by exploring the following research questions:

What are employers’ perceptions regarding protecting WPD for their employees with disabilities?

Methodology

The current study employed a descriptive-analytical methodology alongside a survey approach to address the study variables. To analyze these variables and answer the research questions, a questionnaire was developed, which is a widely used measurement tool for data collection.

Participants

The Ministry of Human Resources and Social Development in the KSA provided data to identify potential participants, including employers and human resources personnel from various regions of the country. To qualify for the study, participants had to meet two criteria: (a) they must be from either the private or public sector, and (b) they must currently or previously have employed individuals with disabilities in their organizations. After obtaining approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University, the questionnaire was emailed to eligible participants along with a cover letter explaining the purpose of the survey and the estimated time required to complete it. The survey was conducted over a two-month period, during which 180 out of 200 questionnaires were completed and returned, resulting in a response rate of 90%. The questionnaire was administered to all participants in Arabic, the official language and primary language of business communication in KSA. Demographic information of the participants is presented in Table 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Demographic Distribution of Participants in the Main Study (N = 180).

Demographic Characteristics	Categories	Number	Percentage (%)
Employment Sector	Government	102	56.7
	Private	78	43.3
Employment Fields	Education	61	33.9
	Industry and Sales	54	30.0
	Construction	65	36.1
Organization Size	Small	60	33.3
	Medium	72	40.0
	Large	48	26.7
Total		180	100.0

Note. Small organizations have 6 to 49 employees, medium organizations have 50 to 249 employees, and large organizations are defined as those with 250 or more employees.

Table 1 presents the demographic distribution of participants in the main study (N = 180). The distribution indicates that 56.7% of participants are employed in the government sector, while 43.3% work in the private sector. In terms of employment fields, the construction sector represents the largest proportion (36.1%), followed by the education sector (33.9%), and then the industry and sales sector (30.0%). Regarding organization size, 40.0% of participants work in medium-sized organizations, followed by small organizations (33.3%), and then large organizations (26.7%).

Data Collection Instrument

The development of the questionnaire for this study followed a systematic process. This involved: (a) a comprehensive review of theoretical and empirical literature to identify the core dimensions of WPD protection relevant to employees with disabilities; (b) the generation, adoption, and adaptation of items from existing literature (as cited below) designed to measure these dimensions from an employer's perspective and suit the Saudi context; (c) a rigorous item selection and refinement process focusing on comprehensive coverage, contextual relevance, and clarity, informed by initial expert feedback; and (d) subsequent psychometric evaluation of the final instrument, as detailed in the ‘Psychometric Properties of the Questionnaire’ section.

The data collection instrument used in this study is a questionnaire designed to assess the requirements for protecting WPD for employees with disabilities. This questionnaire serves as a survey to gather the perspectives of employers and human resources personnel regarding the necessary measures to ensure WPD for their disabled employees. The measurement items were derived from existing theoretical and empirical literature and were modified to fit the context of employers in the human resources field. The questionnaire consists of two parts: the first part includes the demographic information of the research sample participants, such as job type, employment sectors, and organization size.

The second part comprises 23 items Drawing upon the cited theoretical and empirical literature (Alajlan, 2023; Chapman et al., 2024; Harpur, 2012; Kotzé, 2008; Lucas, 2015; Salyers et al., 2004; Walker, 2009), the organization of these items into four distinct subscales, representing core WPD dimensions synthesized from this literature, was a structure developed by the author for this study and was not adopted directly from a single pre-existing instrument. The selection and adaptation process for the final 23 items focused on ensuring comprehensive coverage of the four core dimensions identified, relevance to the Saudi workplace context, and clarity of wording based on initial expert review. modifications and accommodations (6 items) (e.g., “The organization provides physical environment accommodations to meet the needs of individuals with disabilities”), equality and non-discrimination (6 items) (e.g., “The organization offers equal employment opportunities to individuals with disabilities as it does to others”), communication and participation (5 items) (e.g., “The organization provides effective communication channels that allow individuals with disabilities to express their feedback and suggestions for improving the work environment”), and healthcare and well-being (6 items) (e.g., “The organization offers counseling or psychological support services to individuals with disabilities who may face health or psychological challenges in the workplace”). Responses were collected using a 5-point Likert scale (Strongly Agree = 5, Agree = 4, Neutral = 3, Disagree = 2, Strongly Disagree = 1).

The data were analyzed using a five-level scale (1–5), with cutoff scores established to classify the levels of perceptions into low (1–2.33), medium (2.34–3.67), and high (3.68–5.00). The cutoff scores were calculated by determining the range (5–1 = 4), dividing it by the number of perception levels (4/3 = 1.33), and then adding the result to the minimum scale value (1) to establish the upper limit for the first category. This process was repeated for the subsequent categories.

Psychometric Properties of the Questionnaire

Following the initial item development and refinement stages outlined above. Before the main study and as part of the instrument development process for this specific research, the initial psychometric properties of the questionnaire were assessed using two methods. First, it was presented to five experts in special education (all holding doctoral degrees) for their review of the appropriateness and accuracy of the statements, leading to modifications based on their feedback. Second, correlation coefficients were calculated between the scores of each statement and the total score of the dimension it belongs to, as well as between the scores of each dimension and the overall score of the questionnaire.

The results of the correlation analyses revealed strong and statistically significant positive correlations (p < 0.01) between all questionnaire statements and their respective dimension scores, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.535 to 0.984. Additionally, the second method demonstrated strong and statistically significant positive correlations (p < 0.01) between the scores of all dimensions and the overall score, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.892 (healthcare and well-being) to 0.963 (modifications and accommodations). These findings indicate that the questionnaire possesses high validity, effectively measuring what it was designed to assess.

The reliability of the questionnaire was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha and the split-half method. The results from Cronbach's alpha, calculated on an initial pilot sample of 35 participants, indicated a high degree of reliability, with reliability coefficients for its dimensions ranging from 0.778 (communication and participation) to 0.959 (healthcare and well-being) and an overall reliability coefficient of 0.963. The reliability was also assessed using the split-half method with the Spearman-Brown correction for length, yielding a reliability coefficient of 0.943. These results suggest that the questionnaire exhibits high internal consistency, with both halves measuring the same dimension reliably.

The results of the psychometric analyses confirm that the “Employer Perspectives on Protecting WPD for Their Disabled Employees” questionnaire possesses strong psychometric properties, including both validity and reliability. Therefore, this questionnaire is a reliable and valid measurement tool that can be depended upon to assess its intended constructs.

Employer Perspectives on Protecting WPD for Employees with Disabilities

Frequencies, means, and standard deviations were calculated, as shown in Table 2.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics for Employers’ Perceptions on the Subscale “Modifications and Accommodations,” Ordered by Mean (N = 180).

Item	Frequencies (Strongly Agree, Agree, Somewhat Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree)	Mean	Standard Deviation	Rank	Level of Agreement (1–2.33: Low, 2.34–3.67: Medium, 3.68–5: High)
Providing ongoing support programs for individuals with disabilities to help them adapt to the work environment.	(64, 72, 7, 13, 24)	3.77	1.35	1	High
Providing opportunities for training and professional development for individuals with disabilities.	(64, 65, 9, 21, 21)	3.72	1.36	2	High
Providing training programs for all employees on how to interact with individuals with disabilities in a way that respects their dignity.	(62, 77, 1, 7, 33)	3.71	1.44	3	High
Providing assistive technologies to help individuals with disabilities perform their job tasks.	(41, 37, 25, 29, 48)	2.96	1.53	4	Medium
Providing accommodations and modifications in the physical environment to meet the needs of individuals with disabilities.	(42, 31, 22, 28, 57)	2.85	1.58	5	Medium
Providing support services such as guidance and assistance with mobility within the workplace.	(35, 46, 14, 14, 71)	2.77	1.62	6	Medium
Overall Mean		3.30	1.48		Medium

Table 2 indicates that the overall mean of employers’ perceptions regarding modifications and accommodations in the workplace for individuals with disabilities was 3.30 out of 5.00, representing a medium level. The means of the individual statements ranged from 2.77 to 3.77. The statement “Providing ongoing support programs for individuals with disabilities to help them adapt to the work environment” recorded the highest mean (3.77), categorized as high, while the statement “Providing support services such as guidance and assistance with mobility within the workplace” had the lowest mean (2.77), categorized as medium.

Employer Perspectives on Justice and Inclusivity in the Workplace for Employees with Disabilities

Frequencies, means, and standard deviations were calculated for participants’ responses to each statement in the subscale “Justice and Inclusivity,” as illustrated in Table 3.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics for Employers’ Perceptions on the Subscale “Justice and Inclusivity,” Ordered by Mean (N = 180).

Item	Frequencies (Strongly Agree, Agree, Somewhat Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree)	Mean	Standard Deviation	Rank	Level of Agreement (1–2.33: Low, 2.34–3.67: Medium, 3.68–5: High)
Providing equal job opportunities for individuals with disabilities as for others.	(42, 34, 21, 28, 55)	2.88	1.58	1	Medium
Providing financial support programs for individuals with disabilities to enable them to work efficiently.	(40, 33, 24, 28, 55)	2.86	1.56	2	Medium
Providing equal opportunities for promotion and career advancement for employees with disabilities.	(25, 54, -, 10, 91)	2.51	1.64	3	Medium
Providing programs to raise awareness about diversity and inclusivity in the workplace.	(21, 40, 8, 25, 86)	2.36	1.53	4	Medium
Implementing policies that protect individuals with disabilities from harassment and discrimination in the workplace.	(18, 26, 12, 41, 83)	2.19	1.40	5	Low
Establishing fair performance evaluation standards that consider the needs and abilities of employees with disabilities.	(9, 32, 12, 38, 89)	2.07	1.31	6	Low
Overall Mean		2.48	1.50		Medium

Table 3 indicates that the overall mean of employers’ perceptions regarding justice and inclusivity in the workplace for individuals with disabilities was 2.48 out of 5.00, reflecting a medium level. The means of the individual statements ranged from 2.07 to 2.88. The statement “Providing equal job opportunities for individuals with disabilities as for others” recorded the highest mean (2.88), categorized as medium, while the statement “Establishing fair performance evaluation standards that consider the needs and abilities of employees with disabilities” had the lowest mean (2.07), categorized as low.

Employer Perspectives on Communication and Engagement in the Workplace for Employees with Disabilities

This section explores employers’ perceptions regarding communication and engagement in the workplace for their disabled employees. Frequencies, means, and standard deviations were calculated for participants’ responses to each statement in the subscale “Communication and Engagement,” as shown in Table 4.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Descriptive Statistics for Employers’ Perceptions on the Subscale “Communication and Engagement,” Ordered by Mean (N = 180).

Item	Frequencies (Strongly Agree, Agree, Somewhat Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree)	Mean	Standard Deviation	Rank	Level of Agreement (1–2.33: Low, 2.34–3.67: Medium, 3.68–5: High)
Encouraging the participation of individuals with disabilities in committees and working groups that influence work-related decisions.	(36, 36, 29, 24, 55)	2.85	1.53	1	Medium
Providing opportunities for ongoing communication between management and employees to discuss disability issues and improve the work environment.	(36, 41, 6, 20, 77)	2.66	1.65	2	Medium
Seriously considering the opinions of employees with disabilities.	(7, 36, 45, 10, 82)	2.31	1.32	3	Low
Providing multiple communication methods that cater to the diverse needs and abilities of individuals with disabilities.	(2, 58, 17, 20, 83)	2.31	1.36	4	Low
Offering equal opportunities for employees with disabilities to express their opinions.	(8, 49, 16, 22, 85)	2.29	1.40	5	Low
Organizing social activities that promote interaction and collaboration among all employees, regardless of disability.	(1, 50, 14, 38, 77)	2.22	1.27	6	Low
Overall Mean		2.44	1.42		Low

Table 4 indicates that the overall mean of employers’ perceptions regarding communication and engagement in the workplace for individuals with disabilities was 2.44 out of 5.00, reflecting a low level. The means of the individual statements ranged from 2.22 to 2.85. The statement “Encouraging the participation of individuals with disabilities in committees and working groups” recorded the highest mean (2.85), categorized as medium, while the statement “Organizing social activities that promote interaction and collaboration among all employees” had the lowest mean (2.22), categorized as low.

Employer Perspectives on Healthcare and Well-Being in the Workplace for Employees with Disabilities

This section examines employers’ perceptions regarding healthcare and well-being in the workplace for their disabled employees. Frequencies, means, and standard deviations were calculated for participants’ responses to each statement in the subscale “Healthcare and Well-Being,” as presented in Table 5.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 5.

Descriptive Statistics for Employers’ Perceptions on the Subscale “Healthcare and Well-Being,” Ordered by Mean (N = 180).

Item	Frequencies (Strongly Agree, Agree, Somewhat Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree)	Mean	Standard Deviation	Rank	Level of Agreement (1–2.33: Low, 2.34–3.67: Medium, 3.68–5: High)
Providing counseling and psychological support services for individuals with disabilities who may face health or mental challenges in the workplace.	(9, 38, 14, 47, 72)	2.25	1.31	1	Low
Offering opportunities for employees with disabilities to participate in health and wellness enhancement programs.	(10, 37, 12, 44, 77)	2.21	1.33	2	Low
Providing awareness and education programs for employees on how to support their disabled colleagues and foster a collaborative and inclusive work environment.	(8, 34, 14, 46, 78)	2.15	1.28	3	Low
Offering integrated healthcare programs that include prevention and treatment for individuals with disabilities.	(8, 32, 13, 50, 77)	2.13	1.26	4	Low
Encouraging the adoption of a comprehensive approach to health and well-being that includes all employees, including those with disabilities.	(8, 29, 12, 51, 80)	2.07	1.24	5	Low
Providing sufficient and appropriate breaks for individuals with disabilities to maintain their health and well-being.	(6, 30, 10, 52, 82)	2.03	1.21	6	Low
Overall Mean		2.14	1.27		Low

Table 5 indicates that the overall mean of employer perceptions regarding healthcare and workplace well-being for individuals with disabilities is 2.14 out of 5.00, which reflects a low level of agreement. The means of the statements ranged from 2.03 to 2.25. The statement “Providing counseling and psychological support services for individuals with disabilities” recorded the highest mean (2.25), while the statement “Providing adequate and appropriate breaks for individuals with disabilities” recorded the lowest mean (2.03).

Employer Perceptions of WPD Protection for Employees with Disabilities (Overall)

The means, standard deviations, and relative weights of participants’ responses regarding the dimensions of the WPD Protection questionnaire were calculated, as illustrated in Table 6.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 6.

Level of Employer Perceptions Regarding WPD Protection for Employees with Disabilities (N = 180).

Dimension	Mean	Standard Deviation	Relative Weight	Rank	Level of Agreement (1–2.33: Low, 2.34–3.67: Medium, 3.68–5: High)
Adjustments and Accommodations	3.29	1.48	65.8%	1	Medium
Fairness and Inclusion	2.47	1.50	49.4%	2	Medium
Communication and Participation	2.44	1.42	48.8%	3	Low
Healthcare and Well-Being	2.14	1.27	42.8%	4	Low
Overall Mean	2.59	1.42	51.7%		Medium

Table 6 indicates that the overall mean of employer perceptions regarding WPD protection for employees with disabilities is 2.59 out of 5.00, reflecting a medium level of agreement. The dimension “Adjustments and Accommodations” recorded the highest mean (3.29) with a relative weight of 65.8%, while the dimension “Healthcare and Well-Being” recorded the lowest mean (2.14) with a relative weight of 42.8%.

Demographic Factors Influencing Employer Perceptions of WPD Protection for Employees with Disabilities

The Impact of Employment Sector (Public/Private)

An independent samples t-test was employed to determine whether there were statistically significant differences between the mean scores of participants on the dimensions of the WPD Protection questionnaire based on the employment sector (public/private). Table 7 presents the results of this analysis.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 7.

Results of the t-test for Differences Between Mean Scores of Employer Perceptions on the Dimensions of the WPD Protection Questionnaire Based on Employment Sector (Public/Private) (N = 180).

Dimension	Employment Sector	Count	Mean	Standard Deviation	Degrees of Freedom	t-Value (Significance Level)
Adjustments and Accommodations	Public	102	20.27	5.45	178	(3.013, p < 0.01)
	Private	78	17.93	4.74
Fairness and Inclusion	Public	102	14.70	5.57	178	(2.348, p < 0.01)
	Private	78	12.85	4.74
Communication and Participation	Public	102	14.26	5.32	178	(2.021, p < 0.05)
	Private	78	12.70	4.85
Healthcare and Well-Being	Public	102	13.23	7.91	178	(3.402, p < 0.01)
	Private	78	9.84	4.37

Note. Degrees of freedom (df) for each comparison were calculated as (n1 + n2 − 2) = (102 + 78 − 2) = 178.

Table 7 indicates that there are statistically significant differences at the level of (α ≤ 0.05) between the mean scores of participants on all dimensions of the WPD Protection questionnaire based on the employment sector (public/private). The differences favored employers in the public sector, who recorded higher mean scores than those in the private sector across all dimensions of the questionnaire.

The Impact of Employment Sector (Education, Industry, Sales, Construction)

A one-way ANOVA was utilized to determine whether there were statistically significant differences between the mean scores of participants on the dimensions of the WPD Protection questionnaire based on the employment sector (education, industry, sales, construction). Table 8 presents the results of this analysis.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 8.

Results of the One-Way ANOVA for Differences Between Mean Scores of Employer Perceptions on the Dimensions of the WPD Protection Questionnaire Based on Employment Sector (N = 180).

Dimension	Source of Variation	Sum of Squares (Total, Average)	df	F-Value	Significance Level
Adjustments and Accommodations	Between Groups	(2550.858, 1275.429)	2	38.828	p < 0.01
	Within Groups	5814.092	177
	Total	8364.950	179
Fairness and Inclusion	Between Groups	(448.141, 224.070)	2	8.182	p < 0.01
	Within Groups	4847.387	177
	Total	5295.528	179
Communication and Participation	Between Groups	(440.805, 220.402)	2	7.949	p < 0.01
	Within Groups	4907.773	177
	Total	5348.578	179
Healthcare and Well-Being	Between Groups	(888.651, 444.325)	2	10.591	p < 0.01
	Within Groups	7425.549	177
	Total	8314.200	179

Note. df = degrees of freedom.

Table 8 indicates that there are statistically significant differences at the level of (α ≤ 0.01) between the mean scores of participants on all dimensions of the WPD Protection questionnaire based on the three employment sectors (education = 61, industry and sales = 54, construction = 65).

To explore the direction of differences in employer perceptions regarding adjustments and accommodations based on the employment sector (education, industry, sales, and construction), Scheffé's test for multiple comparisons was conducted.

In terms of adjustments and accommodations, Scheffé's post-hoc test indicated statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) among the three employment sectors. Employers in the education sector placed a significantly higher importance on this dimension (mean = 21.98) compared to those in the industry and sales sector (mean = 18.87) and the construction sector (mean = 13.66). The mean differences were 3.11 and 8.32, respectively. Additionally, the industry and sales sector also reported significantly higher importance than the construction sector, with a mean difference of 5.20. These findings suggest a hierarchy of perceived importance, with education placing the highest emphasis, followed by industry and sales, and finally, construction.

For the remaining three dimensions—fairness and inclusion, communication and participation, and healthcare and well-being—a consistent pattern emerged from the Scheffé test results. Statistically significant differences were found among the groups for all three dimensions. Specifically, employers in the education sector consistently reported significantly higher perceptions compared to employers in both the industry and sales sectors and the construction sector. For fairness and inclusion, the education group mean (15.00) was significantly higher than industry/sales (12.27) and construction (11.33). Similarly, for communication and participation, the education mean (14.42) exceeded industry/sales (11.75) and construction (10.78). The same pattern held for healthcare and well-being, with the education mean (14.86) being significantly higher than industry/sales (10.09) and construction (10.24). However, no statistically significant differences were observed between the industry and sales sector and the construction sector for these three dimensions. Overall, these results indicate that employers in the education sector perceive the dimensions of fairness, communication, and healthcare as significantly more important for WPD compared to employers in the other two sectors examined.

These results indicate that employers in the education sector perceive the importance of the dimensions of fairness and inclusion, communication and participation, and healthcare and well-being to a greater extent than employers in the industry and sales, as well as construction sectors.

The Impact of Organization Size (Large, medium, Small)

A one-way ANOVA and Scheffé's test for multiple comparisons were conducted to determine whether there were statistically significant differences in employer perceptions among the three groups (large, medium, and small) regarding the dimensions of adjustments and accommodations, fairness and inclusion, communication and participation, and healthcare and well-being. Table 9 presents the results of this analysis.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 9.

Results of the One-Way ANOVA for Differences Between Mean Scores of Employers on the Dimensions of the WPD Protection Questionnaire Based on Organization Size (Large, Medium, Small) (N = 180).

Source of Variation	Sum of Squares	Degrees of Freedom	Mean Squares	F-Value	Significance Level
Adjustments and Accommodations	2640.314	2	1320.157	40.818	0.01
	5724.636	177	32.343
	8364.950	179
Fairness and Inclusion	622.190	2	311.095	11.783	0.01
	4673.338	177	26.403
	5295.528	179
Communication and Participation	507.483	2	253.742	9.277	0.01
	4841.094	177	27.351
	5348.578	179
Healthcare and Well-Being	1164.001	2	582.001	11.227	0.01
	9175.799	177	51.841
	10,339.800	179

Table 9 indicates that there are statistically significant differences at the level of (α ≤ 0.01) between the mean scores of employers on all dimensions of the WPD Protection questionnaire based on organization size (large, medium, small). To explore the direction of these differences, Scheffé's test for multiple comparisons was performed.

The following is a presentation of the results of the multiple comparisons among the three groups (large, medium, and small) for each dimension of the study:

Dimension of Adjustments and Accommodations

The results of Scheffé's test indicated statistically significant differences (p < 0.01) among the three organization sizes regarding perceptions of adjustments and accommodations (F = 40.818). Post-hoc comparisons (at p < 0.05) revealed that large organizations (mean = 22.37, SD = 5.49) reported significantly higher perceptions compared to both medium organizations (mean = 19.06, SD = 5.06) and small organizations (mean = 12.76, SD = 6.49), with mean differences of 3.30 and 9.60, respectively. Additionally, medium organizations reported significantly higher perceptions compared to small organizations, with a mean difference of 6.30. This suggests a clear positive relationship between organization size and the perceived importance of providing adjustments and accommodations.

Dimension of Fairness and Inclusion

Significant differences were also found among the groups regarding the dimension of fairness and inclusion (F = 11.783, p < 0.01). Scheffé's post-hoc test (at p < 0.05) showed that large organizations (mean = 15.77, SD = 6.57) held significantly higher perceptions compared to both medium organizations (mean = 12.45, SD = 4.93) and small organizations (mean = 11.01, SD = 3.92), with mean differences of 3.31 and 4.75, respectively. However, no statistically significant difference was found between medium and small organizations for this dimension.

Dimension of Communication and Participation

Similarly, for communication and participation, statistically significant differences were observed (F = 9.277, p < 0.01). Post-hoc comparisons (at p < 0.05) revealed that large organizations (mean = 14.79, SD = 6.91) reported significantly higher perceptions than both medium organizations (mean = 12.22, SD = 4.41) and small organizations (mean = 10.43, SD = 4.52), with mean differences of 2.56 and 4.35, respectively. Again, there was no statistically significant difference identified between medium and small organizations concerning this dimension.

Dimension of Healthcare and Well-Being

Finally, the dimension of healthcare and well-being also showed statistically significant differences based on organization size (F = 11.227, p < 0.01). The Scheffé post-hoc test (at p < 0.05) indicated that large organizations (mean = 16.77, SD = 8.39) perceived this dimension as significantly more important compared to both medium organizations (mean = 11.65, SD = 8.07) and small organizations (mean = 10.50, SD = 4.57), with mean differences of 5.11 and 6.27, respectively. No significant difference was found between medium and small organizations for healthcare and well-being perceptions.

Discussion of Results Related to Employers’ Perceptions of WPD for Employees with Disabilities

The results indicated a generally moderate perception among employers regarding the importance of providing adjustments and accommodations. The high rating for “providing ongoing support programs… to help them adapt” aligns with theoretical conceptualizations of WPD enhancement through active participation and integration (Thomas & Lucas, 2019). This also resonates with findings from Almalky and Alasmari (2024), who noted employers’ recognition of the importance of various supports for employees with disabilities in KSA. Providing reasonable accommodations is a cornerstone of legal frameworks (Tromel, 2018) and a key aspect of employers’ responsibilities. However, the lower emphasis on “providing assistance services such as guidance and mobility assistance” might reflect practical challenges or a less comprehensive understanding of diverse needs, a point indirectly supported by Alajlan (2023), who highlighted various employer concerns and challenges in the Saudi private sector.

The findings suggested a need to enhance fairness and inclusion, with a relatively lower mean for this dimension. This is theoretically central to WPD, connecting to justice within Melé's (2014) framework and non-discrimination (Harpur, 2012; Kotzé, 2008). While providing equal employment opportunities received a higher mean, aligning with general commitments (Alajlan, 2023), the very low score for “Establishing fair performance evaluation criteria that consider the needs and abilities of employees with disabilities” points to a significant practical challenge. This difficulty in translating theoretical justice into individualized evaluation, potentially due to a lack of awareness or clear policies (Dali, 2018), is a concern also echoed in the broader challenges of equitable employment practices discussed by Alajlan (2023) in the Saudi private sector.

Employer perceptions revealed room for improvement regarding communication and active engagement. Theoretically, WPD involves recognition, respect, and participation (Bal, 2017; Chapman et al., 2024). While “Encouraging participation… in committees” received a moderate score, aligning with some recognition of participation's value (Chumo et al., 2023), the low mean for “Organizing social activities that enhance interaction” suggests a deficit in fostering social integration, crucial for combating isolation (Kotzé, 2008; Sakiz, 2022). This may indicate a lack of awareness, consistent with challenges in creating fully inclusive environments (Verulava & Bedianashvili, 2021).

The most significant concern was healthcare and well-being, which received the lowest overall mean. This contrasts with theoretical arguments supporting psychological health (Demartoto, 2018; Tromel, 2018) as integral to WPD. The overall low emphasis suggests this dimension is deprioritized, potentially indicating perceptions lagging ‘care’ and ‘development’ levels (Melé, 2014), perhaps focusing more on basic compliance. This prioritization of tangible aspects like accommodations over deeper care, while aligning with Alajlan's (2023) findings on physical adjustments, contrasts with holistic WPD models (Bal, 2017; Melé, 2014). The emphasis on adjustments might be driven by legislative requirements in KSA, while other dimensions requiring proactive cultural change, such as comprehensive healthcare support, appear to receive less attention (Demartoto, 2018).

Discussion of Results Related to Demographic Factors Influencing Employers’ Perceptions

The study revealed that the employment sector (public/private) significantly influences employers’ perceptions across all WPD dimensions, with the public sector consistently reporting higher means. This finding can be interpreted through the theoretical lens of institutional and legislative pressures. The public sector in KSA is often subject to stricter regulations and policies concerning disability rights and inclusion (Della Fina & Cera, 2015; Harpur, 2012), potentially fostering a greater awareness and perceived responsibility among employers. This aligns with the prominent role government entities play in implementing national disability policies and initiatives within the KSA. Furthermore, Alajlan's (2023) ethnographic study highlighted the distinct dynamics and challenges within the Saudi private sector regarding the employment of individuals with disabilities, which may contribute to the observed perceptual differences. As suggested by Verulava and Bedianashvili (2021), variations in workplace culture and resource availability might also play a significant role, with the public sector potentially possessing greater capacity or a stronger mandate towards implementing comprehensive inclusive practices compared to some private entities.

Statistically significant differences were also found based on the field of employment, with the education sector consistently showing higher perceptions of importance across all WPD dimensions compared to industry/sales and construction. This finding aligns with theoretical perspectives suggesting that the nature of work and the core organizational mission can shape prevailing values and attitudes (Kotzé, 2008). The education sector's inherent focus on human development, direct and frequent interaction with diverse individuals (including students with disabilities), and its often pioneering role in implementing inclusion policies (Chapman et al., 2024) may cultivate a deeper understanding and appreciation of WPD. This is particularly relevant in KSA, where significant efforts are being directed towards improving educational and vocational training outcomes for individuals with disabilities, potentially sensitizing employers in this field to their needs and rights. In contrast, sectors such as industry, sales, and construction may prioritize production or commercial targets, potentially leading to different perceptual frameworks regarding WPD.

Finally, organization size demonstrated a significant impact, with larger organizations generally reporting higher perceptions across all WPD dimensions compared to medium and/or small organizations. This finding strongly supports theoretical arguments and prior research linking organizational size to resource availability, the capacity to develop and implement formalized policies and procedures, and potentially a more developed organizational infrastructure for supporting WPD (Chumo et al., 2023; Verulava & Bedianashvili, 2021). Larger organizations in KSA often have dedicated human resources departments, greater capacity to provide necessary accommodations and training, and may face stronger scrutiny regarding compliance with national employment initiatives and laws concerning disability rights (Harpur, 2012). This could include adherence to employment quotas or benefiting from incentives designed to promote the hiring of individuals with disabilities. The observation that there was a lack of significant difference between medium and small organizations for most WPD dimensions (except for adjustments and accommodations) suggests that the most pronounced positive effect of size on employer perceptions occurs at the level of large enterprises, which may possess a critical mass of resources and structural capacity to more fully embed WPD principles.

Practical Implications and Recommendations

The findings of this study, particularly when viewed alongside recent Saudi-focused research, offer several evidence-based implications for enhancing WPD for employees with disabilities in KSA. Firstly, the lower employer emphasis on healthcare, communication, and participation underscores a critical need for targeted awareness programs and workshops. These initiatives should aim to move employers beyond basic compliance, focusing on the importance of psychological support (Demartoto, 2018), inclusive communication (Chumo et al., 2023), and social integration (Kotzé, 2008). Training should provide concrete strategies, drawing from models like Melé's (2014), and specifically address concerns highlighted by employers in the Saudi context (Alajlan, 2023).

Secondly, addressing low scores on fair performance evaluation and protection from discrimination necessitates clearer and more comprehensive dignity protection policies. As suggested by Dali (2018) and implicitly supported by the challenges in the Saudi private sector (Alajlan, 2023), clear policies are vital. Organizations should explicitly incorporate WPD principles, aligning with international standards like the CRPD (Harpur, 2012) and national directives.

Furthermore, given the variations by sector and size, interventions should be targeted. Special efforts are warranted for the private sector and SMEs, as well as for fields like industry and construction, reflecting challenges noted by Alajlan (2023) and the general findings of Almalky and Alasmari (2024) regarding employer perceptions of support. Tailored training and resource sharing could address their unique constraints (Verulava & Bedianashvili, 2021).

Bridging theory and practice also requires enhanced collaboration and knowledge sharing among employers, government bodies, civil society, and researchers to disseminate evidence-based strategies adaptable to the Saudi context. Crucially, fostering inclusive leadership is paramount. As Alshammari and Ali (2024) found in the Saudi health sector, inclusive leadership significantly enhances WPD, which in turn can improve employee performance. Promoting leadership styles that champion diversity and create psychologically safe environments (Chapman et al., 2024) is essential for WPD.

Finally, this study underscores the need for further context-specific research in KSA. Future studies could explore employees’ perspectives more deeply, complementing qualitative work like Alajlan's (2023), and evaluate specific WPD strategies within Saudi workplaces, thereby continuing the research agenda called for by theorists (Bal, 2017) and addressing the evolving understanding of employer perceptions of support (Almalky & Alasmari, 2024). By implementing these interconnected, evidence-informed recommendations, stakeholders can collaboratively work towards creating more inclusive and dignified work environments in KSA.

Contributions of the Study

This study makes a significant contribution to the literature concerning the WPD of individuals with disabilities by exploring employers’ perceptions within the Saudi context, which is an under-researched area. The study identifies, from the employers’ perspective, four main dimensions of protecting the WPD of employees with disabilities: accommodations and modifications, fairness and inclusion, communication and participation, and healthcare and well-being. The results demonstrate variability in the importance of these dimensions among employers, with prioritization of accommodations and modifications at the expense of other dimensions such as communication, participation, and healthcare. This indicates a need to raise awareness regarding the importance of these dimensions.

The findings also reveal the impact of variables such as the employment sector, field of employment, and organization size on employers’ perceptions. Based on these results, the study offers practical recommendations for improving policies and practices related to the employment of individuals with disabilities. This study opens new research avenues to explore this topic in diverse cultural contexts, thereby enhancing the development of more equitable and inclusive workplaces for individuals with disabilities on a global scale. The originality of the study lies in its exploration of WPD from the perspective of employers in KSA, filling a research gap in this area, particularly concerning the influence of demographic factors on employers’ perceptions.

Limitations and Future Research

Despite the importance of this study in highlighting employers’ perceptions regarding protecting the WPD of employees with disabilities, it is not without limitations. First, the study was limited to a sample of employers in KSA, which may hinder the generalizability of the results to different cultural and societal contexts. Second, the focus of the study was solely on employers’ perceptions without addressing the viewpoints of employees with disabilities, which may lead to a fragmented representation of the work environment. Third, the results may be biased due to social response bias, as employers might tend to provide positive answers that align with social expectations. To address these limitations, we recommend conducting future studies that include samples from diverse cultures and contexts, integrate the perspectives of employees with disabilities, and utilize a wider range of measurement tools. Additionally, longitudinal studies are important to track changes in employers’ perceptions and practices over time. Furthermore, subsequent research could delve into the impact of psychological and social factors on the WPD of employees with disabilities and explore the best ways to establish a respectful and inclusive work environment that ensures equal opportunities for all employees.

Finally, this research will contribute to a deeper understanding of the topic of WPD for employees with disabilities and enable policymakers to make more effective decisions to ensure the full integration of this group of employees into the labor market.