Companies are increasingly strategizing on how to reduce all kinds of bias in the workplace, including those related to disabled people. Despite empirical evidence to the contrary, perceptions remain that disabled employees are less competent, less productive, require more supervision, and are more expensive and more dependent, which results in lower levels of both employment and promotion. However, disabilities are not a single entity, nor is the bias uniform across people or situations. For example, research suggests that disabilities categorized as “invisible” (including psychological and neurological) encounter more stigma than “visible” disabilities (such as amputations and paralysis). Although there has been a growing awareness and conscious effort to destigmatize mental health disabilities in recent years, tremendous bias still exists with consequences for employment, income, and levels of stress. In addition, research suggests that disabled women face even harsher penalties. While disability studies often focus on bias at the level of employment or promotion decisions, the lived experiences of disabled employees also involve biases on the job. One context in which this can unfold is in professional negotiations. The prototypical image of a successful negotiator is someone who is competent, confident, and in control — characteristics that are not always readily applied to disabled people. Are disabled people more stigmatized in an intense job task, such as a potentially contentious, price-based negotiation? If so, is this stigma more pronounced for women and/or those with an invisible disability? To answer these questions, in partnership with the Rutgers Center for Women in Business, we had more than 2,000 people complete an online experiment. Participants were first provided with background information about a fictitious company they supposedly worked for and about a specific employee named Alex. An image of Alex was provided, and about half of our participants saw an image of a man, while the other half saw one of a woman. Participants were told that they would read a partial transcript of a negotiation and then be asked to provide their opinion about Alex, described as a colleague who had been on the job for about a year and was being asked to lead an important negotiation for the first time about the potential acquisition of a manufacturing plant. Alex was said to be “a little nervous” but felt “ready for this challenge.” The transcript showed Alex asking for a break before the negotiation even started. The experiment varied the presentation of Alex, with either: No disability A visible disability, seated in a wheelchair, which was described as due to a spinal cord injury An invisible disability, described as episodic epilepsy An invisible disability, described as bipolar disorder In the three disability versions, Alex also requested that the negotiation occur over Zoom to accommodate the disability. The first offer made by Alex in the negotiation was also varied. In some instances, Alex offered honest information about the valuation of the property. In other instances, they misrepresented the valuation to potentially get a better deal — a condition we set up so we could understand whether a disabled negotiator (of either gender) would be penalized further for this tactic. After reading the transcript of the negotiation and learning of its successful outcome, participants were asked to rate Alex on a series of items related to integrity (which included trustworthiness, warmth, confidence, morality, negotiation ethics, and perspective-taking) and negotiation competence. Participants were also asked for their overall impressions of Alex. The key question in this study was how negotiators with specific disabilities might be evaluated differently compared to an employee with no disability, a different disability, or gender. Indeed, differences arose. Somewhat surprisingly, participants who saw Alex as male and seated in a wheelchair rated him as having more integrity and more negotiation competence than any of the other versions. This character was perceived to be more warm, likable, and competent than others, results that contrast with previous research about disability perception, which has shown that while disabled people are often considered to be warmer and more likable, they may be considered less competent than others. Interestingly, this effect disappeared when Alex was a woman, where the wheelchair did not seem to inspire the same bump in positive perceptions. It’s possible that the stereotype of a man in a wheelchair as strong and able to overcome obstacles was activated for participants. We saw comments describing the male Alex as “conscientious,” “capable,” “effective,” and “competent.” By contrast, when Alex was a woman in a wheelchair, the comments described her as “nervous,” “soft,” and “in over her head.” Another gender difference emerged when examining reactions to the version of Alex who described living with bipolar disorder. While the man with bipolar disorder was perceived as having less integrity, the woman with bipolar disorder was perceived as not only lower in integrity but also as less competent. Neither the male nor female version of Alex with epilepsy was perceived as having an integrity deficit, indicating a stronger reaction to a mental health disability than to another invisible disability. Indeed, we found that gender stereotypes may be influencing perceptions of employee capability, even when their actual behaviors are identical. When the Alex character did not employ any negotiation tactic at all but instead chose to present honest information about the valuation of the property, both the man and the woman with bipolar disorder were seen as having less integrity and lower competence in negotiations than a person engaging in the same behaviors but with a different disability. When Alex was a man and used strategic misrepresentation about the property’s value, participants seemed to have been reassured that he was up to the task. Ratings of integrity rose, while they were (relatively speaking) even lower for the woman. A woman with a mental health disability seems to be perceived as a greater risk on some level (participants described her as “awkward,” “odd,” and “stupid,” with one person going so far as to say they would be “wary of her”). Even a successful negotiation outcome didn’t reassure our participants of her value as a negotiator. Further gender bias appeared in the responses. Many of the negative comments about the woman character with an invisible disability seemed harsh and gender-specific, such as “She’s dumb. Obviously poorly trained, or has no idea what she’s doing” or “THIS WOMAN IS HORRIBLE AT THE OPENING BID, LETS [sic] SEE WHERE THIS TRAIN WRECK GOES” or “…that’s the bimbo’s initial offer??? Give me a break, how did she get this job?” There were no comparable comments about the same character engaging in the same behaviors when Alex was a man. Overall, these results speak to the extra burden of discrimination faced by those with mental health disabilities, especially for women who seem to face the “double bind” of the intersection of stigmatized categories. Research into the bias faced by those with mental health disabilities is nascent but growing, and companies are increasingly attuned to supporting the inclusion of all individuals. Some studies have begun to explore ways to lessen this bias, such as through specific, heartfelt words of inclusion in company policy statements, which may improve the hiring process for those with mental health disabilities specifically. Even when disabled employees demonstrate the same skills and behaviors as their nondisabled peers, they may still be subjected to biased judgments of their performance across job categories and tasks. For managers, the key takeaway is not to acknowledge what they likely already know — that bias exists and lurks in the workplace — but to confront it head-on to avoid missing out on the value that disabled employees of all genders bring to the table. In practical terms, this means: 1. Reinforcing learning opportunities beyond one-off anti-bias sessions While broad diversity trainings may be informative for all employees, research suggests they don’t seem to change behavior. More effective efforts include a combination of clear leadership buy-in and qualified external trainers who create space for employees to learn, opportunities to engage in perspective-taking, and a pathway for employees to track their progress over time. 2. Improving performance evaluation systems to reduce bias Classic work on “management by objectives” has long endorsed goal setting as a mechanism for creating transparency and equity in evaluation processes. Establishing clear targets as standards for the end products can help reduce bias across contexts. While traditional (and often biased) performance appraisal systems look backward, this approach shifts to a forward-looking planning process in which both managers and employees participate in and agree on objectives (which can include both outcomes and activities), and how to measure them. Tools that can help include creating effective rubrics before work has been performed, creating standardized templates for reviews and write-ups, having calibration sessions across managers, and using a management style that includes regular open-ended questions about how support can be offered. 3. Adopting disability inclusion, along with sponsorship, at all levels Having disabled employees in leadership positions — and in the leadership pipeline — generates a sense of belonging and brings voice to critical policy decisions. Visibility in leadership matters for disability as for all other identities. Beyond the symbolic and the immediate sense of belonging, the ability to bring voice to decision-making roles encourages more inclusivity. In addition, formal programs around sponsorship, mentorship, and allyship can help companies navigate bias-prone situations so that each employee is represented and valued for their true capabilities. Mentors need to commit to exposing protégées to high-impact projects, increasing their visibility, and lending their own names to promote a positive reception of the work and the person. 4. Conducting regular inventories of workplace practices To ensure that inclusion efforts are sustainable and frequently improved upon, managers need to know where the pain points are and what might help resolve them — especially for issues that might otherwise fly under the radar, such as bias against a mental health disability, or the intersection of multiple stigmatized identities. Resources are available for gathering this type of information, such as the “Disability Inclusion Blueprint” (a toolkit for companies to curate questions for an internal audit), or suggestions for tracking the metrics relevant to success (selection, retention, promotion, pay, representation, etc.). Additionally, employee resource groups can be a valuable source of not only support but also information about the experiences of employees. These actions are a good starting point to prevent underestimating the contributions of disabled people and to protect companies from the legal and reputational risks associated with bias. Companies that opt to lose out on this talent pool do so at their own risk, foregoing the chance to improve their collaborative culture, lower absenteeism and attrition rates, create better relationships with stakeholders, and enhance their external reputation. Note: This article follows the preference of autistic and disabled communities for identity-first language.
