Source: storyset / Freepik

The persistent barriers to disability employment are not merely architectural or logistical. Most are entrenched in societal beliefs and misconceptions. Myths or biased narratives, often perpetuated by mainstream media and uninformed conversations, play a major role in the underemployment and unemployment of disabled¹ people.

To create a truly inclusive workforce, it's imperative to debunk these myths. Here are some of the most pervasive ones.

1. Myth: Disability Employment Compromises Productivity

The Reality: A study including 140 U.S. companies by Accenture, in partnership with the American Association of People with Disabilities and Disability, found that companies higher in disability inclusion were, in fact, more profitable. Findings suggested that these companies achieved, on average, 28 percent higher revenue and twice the net income of their peers.

Another study used a large sample of Walgreens employees. In 2007, Walgreens opened a distribution center in which more than 30 percent of employees were disabled. The result helps to debunk the myth of “lower” productivity—the center employing disabled workers was 20 percent more efficient than otherwise comparable but not disability-diverse centers. Moreover, the costly employee turnover was half that of other employees. Disabled workers also had a third fewer accidents than other employees.

2. Myth: Accommodations for Disabled Employees Are Prohibitively Expensive

The Reality: According to the U.S. Job Accommodation Network, a majority of workplace accommodations are made at no cost. When costs are incurred, the typical one-time expenditure is approximately $500, which is minimal when considering the long-term value and productivity added by the employee. Moreover, much of what is thought of as accommodations—such as closed captioning or flexible schedules—are in fact accessibility features that benefit most employees.

3. Myth: Disabled People Are Best Suited for Low-Skilled Jobs

The Reality: Just like the general population, disabled people have a wide range of talents, skills, experiences, and educational backgrounds.

A large-sample Canadian study indicated that college grades and graduation outcomes of disabled students are mostly identical to those of other students, and there is no reason to discourage them from pursuing challenging careers. In many countries—for example, Germany—the levels of educational achievement are higher for disabled people than for the rest of the population. This means that when organizational hiring and promotion practices are biased against disabled people, a significant talent pool is excluded.

Occupational pigeonholing and the obstacles to leadership development often negatively impact the careers of neurodivergent talent. Responsible leaders and organizations should help retire occupational typecasting by creating inclusive environments across industries and levels of organizational hierarchies. This will allow disabled and neurodivergent people the essential freedom to pursue careers aligned with their talents, not with societal preconceived ideas about their abilities.

The data speak clearly: Disabled people are highly qualified and essential contributors to the workplace.

Both disability rights activists and disabled employees who quietly deliver professional results have done much more than their fair share of the disability inclusion work, advocating for workplace improvements that ultimately support all employees. It is the responsibility of society—including legislators, media, organizational decision-makers, and colleagues—to dismantle the persistent exclusionary myths and barriers.