"I noticed that when I have a good supervisor, it can make a Lot of difference." A Qualitative Study on Guidance of Employees with a Work Disability to Improve Sustainable Employability.

PURPOSE: For employees with a work disability adequate daily guidance from supervisors is key for sustainable employability. Supervisors often lack expertise to guide this group of employees. Mentorwijs (literal translation: Mentorwise) is a training for supervisors to improve the guidance of employees with a work disability. The aim of this study was to investigate the experiences of employees with a work disability regarding: (1) the guidance from their supervisors (who followed the Mentorwijs training), (2) which differences they notice in the guidance due to the Mentorwijs training, and (3) what kind of aspects they consider important in their guidance to achieve sustainable employability. METHODS: A qualitative study was performed with semi-structured (group) interviews among twenty-one employees with a work disability. Thematic analysis was performed to analyze the data. RESULTS: Themes that followed from the interviews were: (1) work tasks and conditions can facilitate or hinder sustainable employability: (2) relationships among employees and with supervisors can affect sustainable employability; (3) a desire for new opportunities and challenges; and (4) a need for supervisor skills to facilitate sustainable employability, i.e. appreciation, availability of help, dealing with problems, listening, attitude and communication. According to employees, changes were mainly noticed in supervisor skills. CONCLUSIONS: Employees with a work disability were very satisfied with the guidance of supervisors who followed the Mentorwijs training. To improve sustainable employability, training of supervisors should focus more on adequate work conditions, providing employees opportunities to learn new work tasks and improving supervisors' skills regarding appreciation, attitude and communication.

Employers' attitude, intention, skills and barriers in relation to employment of vulnerable workers.

BACKGROUND: Little is known why some organizations employ vulnerable workers and others do not. OBJECTIVE: To explore the relationships between the attitude, intention, skills and barriers of employers and employment of vulnerable workers. METHODS: We included 5,601 inclusive organizations (≥1% of employees had a disability, was long-term unemployed or a school dropout) and 6,236 non-inclusive organizations of the Netherlands Employers Work Survey 2014-2019. We operationalized employer factors based on the Integrative Model of Behavioral Prediction as attitude (negative impact), intention (mission statement regarding social inclusion), skills (human resources policies and practices), and barriers (economic conditions and type of work). We used multivariate-adjusted logistic regression models. RESULTS: Compared to non-inclusive organizations, inclusive organizations had a more negative attitude (OR:0.81) and a stronger intention to employ vulnerable workers (OR:6.09). Regarding skills, inclusive organizations had more inclusive human resources practices (OR:4.83) and initiated more supporting human resources actions (OR:4.45). Also, they adapted more work conditions towards the needs of employees (OR:1.52), negotiated about work times and absenteeism (OR:1.49), and had general human resources practices on, for example, employability (OR:1.78). Inclusive organizations had less barriers reflected by better financial results (OR:1.32), more employment opportunities (OR:1.33) and more appropriate work tasks (OR:1.40). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, inclusive organizations reported more positive results on the employer factors of the Integrative Model of Behavioral Prediction, except for a more negative attitude. The more negative attitude might reflect a more realistic view on the efforts to employ vulnerable groups, and suggests that other unmeasured emotions and beliefs are more positive.

Graphologists' assessment of extraversion compared with assessment by means of a psychological test.

The study investigated whether graphologists can infer extraversion from handwriting correctly. On the basis of three personality questionnaires, three persons (targets) were classified as extraverted and three as introverted. Ten graphologists independently analysed the handwriting of the targets and classified them as extraverted or introverted. Of the 60 (10 graphologists for 6 targets) classifications 58 were correct, which shows the graphologists assessed the classification of extraversion from handwriting. Graphologists agreed substantially on which characteristics of the handwriting were indicative for classification as extraversion or introversion. In each handwriting sample, however, both extraverted and introverted characteristics were present. Eventual classification may be based on the relative frequency of the two kinds of characteristics. Comparative studies like this one indicate that in research one should consider whether graphologists and psychologists share the same notion of extraversion.