Disability-inclusive HRM in practice: a qualitative meta-synthesis of barriers and enablers Open Access

Disability is often regarded as the forgotten frontier of organizational diversity (Kulkarni and Lengnick-Hall, 2014; Santuzzi and Waltz, 2016). Despite the growing popularity of inclusive policies and corporate commitments to equity, disabled individuals continue to face significant challenges in accessing, navigating, and thriving within the workplace (Bhaskar et al., 2023; Ezeafulukwe et al., 2024). Formal compliance with diversity standards does not necessarily translate into meaningful experiences of inclusion (Mor Barak et al., 2022). Behind the language of accessibility, persistent barriers remain in recruitment, accommodation, evaluation, and career advancement (Alammar et al., 2025).

Scholarly research has increasingly recognized the importance of Human Resource Management (HRM) in shaping workplace inclusion, pointing to practices such as job redesign, flexible scheduling, and the introduction of assistive technologies (Cavanagh et al., 2017; Zaccone and Pedrini, 2025). However, much of this literature has been driven by policy analyses or quantitative metrics (Chan and Hutchings, 2024; Schloemer-Jarvis et al., 2022). These studies tend to focus on aggregate employment data, organizational self-assessments, or employer attitudes, often overlooking the lived experiences and voices of disabled employees (Beatty et al., 2019; Procknow and Rocco, 2016).

Although some scholars have begun to adopt more experiential and narrative approaches, qualitative research on disability and work remains fragmented and under-synthesized across disciplines, countries, and sectors (Chan and Hutchings, 2024; Palumbo et al., 2023). There is growing recognition of the need for deeper, context-sensitive insights into how disability-inclusive practices are enacted and interpreted in everyday organizational life (Alammar et al., 2025; Zhu et al., 2025). Yet no comprehensive meta-synthesis has consolidated these qualitative findings to identify recurring patterns, tensions, and missed opportunities across different contexts.

This paper addresses this gap. Through a qualitative meta-synthesis of existing empirical studies (Hoon, 2013), we examine how HRM practices aimed at disability inclusion are implemented and experienced across diverse organizations. Our focus is not limited to written policies but extends to the social interactions and organizational processes that shape inclusion in practice. This approach foregrounds the everyday negotiations and contradictions that emerge when inclusion is pursued as a lived reality rather than a static ideal.

The contribution of this study unfolds on several levels. First, it centers the perspectives of disabled employees and HR professionals engaged in inclusion work, uncovering insights often invisible in survey-based or policy-focused research. Second, it maps cross-cutting themes and persistent challenges that arise across sectors and national contexts. Third, it develops a conceptual framework that captures the complexity of disability-inclusive HRM, supporting both theoretical advancement and future policy guidance.

To guide our inquiry, we pose the following research questions: (1) How are disability-inclusive HRM practices enacted and experienced in organizational settings? (2) Which recurring tensions and challenges are identified in qualitative studies of workplace inclusion for disabled persons? (3) What conceptual insights emerge from these findings that can support more meaningful HRM strategies?

This study offers an integrated understanding of how disability inclusion is performed, interpreted, and at times undermined within organizations. At a time when inclusivity has become an organizational imperative, clarifying the distance between intention and experience is essential for moving beyond symbolic compliance and fostering structural change.

Over the past 2 decades, scholarship on workplace diversity has progressively expanded to include disability as a key dimension of analysis (see Phillips et al., 2016; Schloemer-Jarvis et al., 2022 for reviews). Yet disability has often remained marginal in both organizational theory and mainstream HRM literature (Remnant et al., 2023), frequently framed as a matter of compliance rather than as a dynamic axis of organizational life (Georgiadou and Damianidou, 2025; Hein and Ansari, 2022; Sánchez-Marín et al., 2024). Traditional models of HRM, grounded in assumptions of able-bodied norms, have historically struggled to account for the heterogeneity of experiences and the structural barriers encountered by disabled workers (Jammaers and Zanoni, 2021; Napolitano et al., 2024).

Several theoretical perspectives have sought to reposition disability within HRM debates (Bartram et al., 2021; Cavanagh et al., 2017). Social model frameworks emphasize that disability arises from environmental and attitudinal barriers rather than from individual impairments alone (Hammel et al., 2015; Sanclemente et al., 2024; Sang et al., 2022). From this perspective, inclusion depends on the removal of institutional constraints and the redesign of systems that disadvantage certain bodies and minds (Napolitano et al., 2024; Stone and Colella, 1996; Vornholt et al., 2018). This line of thinking has significantly influenced the development of inclusive and sustainable HRM policies, including workplace accommodations, inclusive recruitment, and participatory practices in job design (Ezeafulukwe et al., 2024; Kersten et al., 2023; Richards, 2022; Schloemer-Jarvis et al., 2022).

However, inclusion cannot be fully understood without considering how it is practiced and negotiated in specific contexts (e.g. Luu, 2021; Smith et al., 2025). Organizational discourse often projects an image of openness and accessibility, yet this narrative may contrast with subtle forms of exclusion that persist in daily interactions, informal evaluations, and career trajectories (Alammar et al., 2025). Scholars working at the intersection of critical disability studies and organizational behavior have drawn attention to this tension between discourse and lived experience, advocating approaches that foreground the agency, voice, and situated knowledge of disabled workers (Campbell, 2009; Harlan and Robert, 1998).

Within HRM, emerging concepts such as disability-inclusive HRM describe systems that actively support equal participation and recognition of disabled persons in all organizational processes (Jamin et al., 2024; Luu, 2018, 2021). This perspective requires rethinking traditional HRM functions in terms of accessibility, flexibility, and fairness (Cavanagh et al., 2017). Recruitment, for example, cannot rely solely on standardized procedures that disadvantage candidates with non-traditional trajectories (Hidegh and Csillag, 2013). Similarly, performance evaluation systems must recognize diverse working styles and capacities, avoiding ableist assumptions embedded in conventional productivity metrics (van Berkel and Breit, 2025).

Qualitative research has provided important contributions in this regard. Through interviews, ethnographies, and case studies, scholars have examined how disability-inclusive HRM is enacted in a variety of organizational contexts (see Chan and Hutchings, 2024; Rezai et al., 2023). These studies often highlight contradictions between formal policies and informal practices, as well as the pivotal role of managers, peer dynamics, and organizational culture in shaping inclusion outcomes (e.g. Gewurtz et al., 2022; Tsatsou, 2020). Rather than presenting a unified or linear model, qualitative findings reveal a complex and situated reality—one in which success depends less on written protocols and more on responsiveness, communication, and relational sensitivity (Beatty et al., 2019; Rezai et al., 2023).

Despite this progress, the literature remains fragmented (Chan and Hutchings, 2024; Palumbo et al., 2023). Many studies focus on isolated practices or sectors, limiting the ability to generalize findings or develop integrative frameworks (Schloemer-Jarvis et al., 2022). Moreover, there is a lack of theoretical synthesis capable of connecting micro-level experiences to broader institutional patterns (Cavanagh et al., 2017; van Berkel and Breit, 2025). As a result, HRM theories have struggled to fully incorporate disability as an organizing category that intersects with gender, race, age, and class in shaping workplace inclusion (Dawson et al., 2024; Triana et al., 2021).

This study engages with these theoretical and empirical developments through a qualitative meta-synthesis of existing research. The aim is to bring together insights from diverse contexts to clarify how inclusion is shaped, challenged, and sustained in real-world HRM processes. Rather than approaching disability as a static identity category, we treat it as a relational construct embedded in organizational routines, discourses, and power structures. This perspective allows for a more nuanced understanding of how HRM can support meaningful participation for disabled persons—an understanding grounded in experience, sensitive to context, and oriented toward change.

This study adopts a qualitative meta-synthesis methodology (Hoon, 2013) to explore how HRM practices support—or fail to support—the workplace inclusion of disabled persons. Meta-synthesis provides a rigorous strategy to re-express, connect, and interpret findings from existing qualitative research. Unlike traditional literature reviews, which often summarize results, meta-synthesis generates new conceptual insights by identifying patterns across diverse studies (Walsh and Downe, 2005). Drawing together evidence from qualitative accounts makes it possible to capture the richness of lived experiences, the contextual nuances of organizational practices, and the underlying mechanisms that shape inclusion. This approach enriches existing knowledge by offering interpretive depth and conceptual clarity, and it strengthens our understanding of disability-inclusive HRM from a perspective that foregrounds complexity and meaning.

The research design follows five interconnected phases (Figure 1), adapted from existing qualitative synthesis protocols (Agrifoglio and de Gennaro, 2022; Lazazzara et al., 2020). Each phase contributes to the construction of an interpretive framework that integrates experiential accounts of inclusion from both disabled employees and HR professionals.

This meta-synthesis seeks to understand how HRM practices contribute to the workplace inclusion of disabled persons, focusing on both their practical implementation and the subjective experiences they generate. Specifically, it explores which aspects of inclusion emerge consistently across qualitative studies—particularly in recruitment, onboarding, accommodations, performance appraisal, and career progression—and how these insights can inform more responsive HRM models.

To ensure methodological clarity and alignment with the study's qualitative orientation, the SPIDER framework (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research Type) was employed to structure the research questions (Amir-Behghadami, 2024). The sample comprises disabled employees and HR professionals; the phenomenon of interest is the operationalization of disability-inclusive HRM; the design refers to qualitative approaches (e.g. interviews, case studies, ethnographies); the evaluation concerns perceptions, meanings, and experiences of inclusion; and the research type includes only studies based on primary qualitative data.

We conducted a systematic search across multiple academic databases—Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar—to identify relevant qualitative studies. The search strategy combined controlled vocabulary and free-text terms to maximize sensitivity and specificity. The following keyword string was applied: (“disability” OR “disabled workers” OR “persons with disabilities”) ^[1] AND (“qualitative study” OR “qualitative research” OR “interview” OR “case study” OR “ethnography” OR “focus group” OR “observations” OR “narrative approach”) AND (“HRM” OR “human resource management” OR “recruitment” OR “career development” OR “performance appraisal”).

We also examined references from key studies and hand-searched relevant journals, ensuring the inclusion of high-quality peer-reviewed work published in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and listed in the 2024 Academic Journal Guide (AJG).

To ensure the relevance and rigor of the selected studies, we applied the following inclusion criteria, based on recognized standards for evaluating qualitative research (Lazazzara et al., 2020):

1. Qualitative research design – The study adopted a qualitative methodology, using interviews, focus groups, case studies, ethnographic approaches, observations, or narrative techniques for data collection;

2. Primary focus on disability and HRM practices – The study examined experiences, practices, or organizational processes related to disability inclusion in HRM domains such as recruitment, onboarding, accommodation, performance management, or career development;

3. Broad definition of disability – The study addressed disability in a comprehensive sense, including physical, sensory, intellectual, and mental health conditions, as well as forms of neurodivergence (e.g. autism, ADHD, dyslexia), in line with the Social Model of Disability and international policy frameworks;

4. Use of primary data – The research was based on firsthand data collected directly from participants, rather than relying on secondary analysis or theoretical discussion;

5. Clearly stated research objectives or questions – The study included explicit research aims related to disability and organizational life;

6. Methodological alignment – The methodological approach was consistent with the study's stated aims and research questions;

7. Detailed study context – The study clearly described the organizational, institutional, or sectoral setting in which the research took place;

8. Researcher reflexivity – The study addressed the researcher's position or reflexivity, acknowledging potential influences on data collection and interpretation;

9. Defined sampling method – The study explained participant selection criteria, including justification for sample size and the relevance of participants to the research aim;

10. Transparent data collection procedures – The study described how data were collected, including tools and protocols such as interview guides or observation strategies;

11. Clearly explained method of analysis – The study presented a detailed account of how qualitative data were analyzed, using methods such as thematic analysis, grounded theory, or coding frameworks;

12. Conceptual relevance – The study addressed key dimensions of disability-inclusive HRM rather than focusing narrowly on legal compliance or general workplace diversity;

13. Publication quality – Only studies published in peer-reviewed journals indexed in the SSCI and included in the AJG 2024 were considered, to ensure academic rigor and quality (Järvi and Kortelainen, 2017).

These criteria were designed to ensure that the included studies were methodologically robust, thematically relevant, and capable of supporting a meaningful synthesis of evidence.

The initial search returned 801 potential studies. After title and abstract screening, 486 were excluded as unrelated (e.g. studies addressing disability in consumer behavior, education, or legal policy without HRM focus) or because they used quantitative methodologies. A further 263 studies were removed because they were not published in SSCI- or AJG-listed journals. Full texts were retrieved for the remaining 52 studies and evaluated against the inclusion criteria. After careful review, 43 studies published up to mid-2025 were selected for the final synthesis. These studies are identified in the reference list with an asterisk (*).

Each selected study was read in full, and relevant data were extracted using a shared protocol that captured not only surface-level findings but also interpretive layers of meaning, including participants' narratives, authorial analysis, and contextual factors. Open coding was employed to generate initial categories related to disability-inclusive HRM, with early codes such as “reasonable accommodation,” “managerial discretion,” “implicit bias,” “career stagnation,” and “symbolic inclusion” emerging from iterative readings.

As coding progressed, more abstract and relational dimensions—such as “Silence, discomfort, or avoidance in everyday interactions,” “Disability-specific training for HR staff and line managers,” and “Celebrating diversity through informal recognition and storytelling”—began to surface. Two researchers independently coded a subset of the studies, and discrepancies were resolved through iterative discussion. The coding process followed the principles of constant comparison and was open to emergent categories. Inter-coder agreement was measured using Cohen's kappa coefficient, with an initial score of 0.68 (moderate agreement), which improved to 0.88 (strong agreement) after schema refinement.

Building on the open codes, the material was synthesized into higher-order themes through interpretive clustering. Rather than privileging frequency, the analysis emphasized conceptual depth, recurring tensions, and contextual specificity. Patterns were explored across dimensions such as organizational culture, HRM structures, relational practices, and the lived experiences of disabled employees.

A key outcome of this synthesis was the development of a dual-axis conceptual framework that classifies inclusion mechanisms according to their degree of formality and their enabling or constraining function. This matrix structure allowed for the integration of diverse empirical insights while preserving the complexity of individual cases. It also facilitated the identification of cross-cutting themes, such as the importance of managerial support, the persistence of cultural stigma, and the situated negotiation of inclusion.

To enhance analytical validity, peer debriefings were conducted with external researchers familiar with disability studies and HRM. Preliminary results were presented in two academic workshops, where expert feedback was incorporated to refine thematic categories and ensure theoretical precision. The final framework thus reflects both the grounded richness of qualitative data and the conceptual coherence needed to support theoretical and practical contributions.

The meta-synthesis of 43 qualitative studies reveals a nuanced and multidimensional picture of how disability-inclusive HRM practices are enacted, resisted, and redefined in organizational life. To capture this complexity, we adopt a dual-axis framework that considers both the formality of practices (formal vs. informal) and their effect (enabling vs. constraining) (see Table 1).

This structure makes it possible to identify recurring tensions, contextual strategies, and conditions that mediate the lived experience of inclusion across diverse sectors, institutional cultures, and policy regimes. Table 1 illustrates this framework by mapping concrete examples of practices, showing how the same organizational domain can function either as a source of empowerment or as a mechanism of exclusion.

Many studies highlight how formal inclusion policies often remain superficial or disconnected from workplace realities. HRM systems rooted in rigid norms—standardized assessments, inflexible job descriptions, or inaccessible digital procedures (e.g. Walkowiak, 2024)—systematically exclude disabled workers, even when policies appear progressive. Legal accommodations are inconsistently implemented, and disclosure often results in subtle penalization. The accelerating digitalization of HRM further complicates this scenario: while technology can enable accessibility, it can also introduce new forms of exclusion (Walkowiak, 2024). For example, the shift to remote work has been associated with loss of routine, increased distractions, and prolonged working hours—conditions difficult for line managers to monitor and potentially disproportionate in their impact on disabled workers (Szulc et al., 2023). Communication challenges in virtual environments, coupled with limited awareness from colleagues, have been particularly burdensome (Kulkarni and Lengnick-Hall, 2011). At the same time, remote work has also offered benefits, such as reducing sensory overload and supporting a more balanced integration of work and personal life.

Several authors note that disability is often framed as a legal risk or cost burden rather than a structural opportunity (Bam, 2025; Bartram et al., 2021; Bhaskar et al., 2023; Burnard et al., 2025; D'Alkan et al., 2024; Efeoğlu and Kılınçarslan, 2024; Gottardello et al., 2025; Gröschl, 2007; Hafsteinsdóttir and Hardonk, 2023; Harlan and Robert, 1998; Hutchinson et al., 2024). In many cases, disability remains absent from equity strategies or relegated to corporate social responsibility agendas (Buettgen et al., 2024; Gould et al., 2021; Gupta and Priyadarshi, 2020).

Beyond formal structures, subtle social dynamics frequently undermine inclusion (Moore et al., 2017; Sang et al., 2022). Informal interactions—biased attitudes, peer discomfort, stereotypes, discrimination, and microaggressions—create climates of exclusion even in organizations with inclusive charters (Jacob et al., 2023; Jupille et al., 2025; D’Alkan et al., 2024). Several studies describe how disabled workers face tokenism, avoidance, or skepticism regarding their performance (Jupille et al., 2025; Kopnina and Haafkens, 2010). In some cases, managers discourage accommodation requests or perpetuate silence and stigma (Bam, 2025; Gröschl, 2007; Gupta and Priyadarshi, 2020; Hafsteinsdóttir and Hardonk, 2023; Jacob et al., 2023).

Prejudices are reinforced by ableist norms of autonomy, aesthetics, and productivity (Buettgen et al., 2024; Cavanagh et al., 2019; Richards, 2012; Sang et al., 2022). In hotel, financial, and hospitality sectors, for instance, selection criteria explicitly exclude disabled workers for not fitting a desired “image” (Bartram et al., 2021; D'Alkan et al., 2024; Gould et al., 2021; Hafsteinsdóttir and Hardonk, 2023; Hutchinson et al., 2024). These patterns are further compounded by the psychological and relational dilemmas faced by employees with chronic conditions (Kopnina and Haafkens, 2010), particularly those with invisible or mental health issues (Kulkarni, 2022). Interviewees across several studies reported tensions between professionalism and authenticity, participation and withdrawal, and privacy and advocacy—often prompted by a perceived need to manage impressions in contexts where stigma is both internalized and socially reinforced (Jacob et al., 2023; Kulkarni, 2022). Disclosure thus becomes a complex and risky act, shaped by individual identity and subtle organizational cues.

Despite structural limitations, several studies identify formal HRM strategies that enhance disability inclusion. These include inclusive recruitment campaigns, proactive accommodation protocols, job redesign, flexibility in task allocation, and cross-functional collaboration on disability employment procedures (Peter et al., 2018; Richards et al., 2019; Suresh and Dyaram, 2022). Research also shows that employers' willingness to hire disabled persons is shaped by a combination of attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control, though the relative weight of these factors varies across organizational and regional contexts. Three social marketing approaches have proven particularly effective in promoting inclusive hiring: educational initiatives to enhance employers' understanding of disability, relational strategies to strengthen community ties and employer engagement, and interactive interventions that foster direct contact with disabled persons (Mahasneh et al., 2023).

Some organizations also provide training for line managers to support inclusive practices, while internal champions advocate for accessibility and universal design (Bartram et al., 2021; Cavanagh et al., 2019; Diener et al., 2020; Gottardello et al., 2025; Gould et al., 2021; Ikutegbe et al., 2024; Richards et al., 2019). Inclusion-supportive environments often recognize and facilitate a range of adaptive strategies undertaken by disabled employees, including developing realistic self-assessments, asserting oneself, building mutual understanding with colleagues and supervisors, gaining awareness of rights and options, advancing careers, shaping work for personal fulfillment, and maintaining a social life beyond work (Jammaers, 2023; Kulkarni and Lengnick-Hall, 2011; Lysaght and Larmour-Trode, 2008; Meacham et al., 2017a, b; Samosh, 2021; Varekamp et al., 2009). Participatory approaches to job crafting and employee-driven solutions are especially prominent in public services and healthcare (Hafsteinsdóttir and Hardonk, 2023; Jupille et al., 2025).

The strongest inclusion outcomes are consistently reported in contexts where interpersonal dynamics are supportive (Lysaght and Larmour-Trode, 2008). Numerous studies emphasize the importance of emotionally intelligent leadership, trust-based communication, and empathetic peer relations (Kulkarni and Lengnick-Hall, 2011; Lysaght and Larmour-Trode, 2008; Moore et al., 2020).

Managerial support appears repeatedly as a core predictor of positive inclusion, enhancing motivation, vitality, and confidence among disabled workers (Bam, 2025; Bartram et al., 2021; Bhaskar et al., 2023; Cavanagh et al., 2021; Gottardello et al., 2025; Gupta and Priyadarshi, 2020; Hafsteinsdóttir and Hardonk, 2023; Hutchinson et al., 2024; Lysaght and Larmour-Trode, 2008; Packalen et al., 2024). In such contexts, inclusion is co-produced through micro-practices of care, listening, and flexibility rather than rigid adherence to protocols (Kwan, 2020; Meacham et al., 2017a). This dynamic is particularly evident in organizations where disability is normalized alongside other forms of diversity (Cavanagh et al., 2019; D'Alkan et al., 2024; Diener et al., 2020; Efeoğlu and Kılınçarslan, 2024; Gröschl, 2007). In these cases, disabled employees are regarded not merely as contributors to diversity metrics but as individuals deserving ethical treatment, dignity, and full organizational citizenship (Jammaers, 2023; Meacham et al., 2019).

Across all four quadrants, one insight is evident: inclusion is not the product of isolated practices but of ongoing negotiations embedded in specific social and organizational contexts (Kwan, 2020; Moore et al., 2017). Several studies underscore that disabled employees are not passive recipients of inclusion but active agents who navigate complex power relations, manage their identities, and reshape organizational norms (Bam, 2025; Bhaskar et al., 2023).

Intersectional dimensions—particularly ethnicity and gender—further complicate inclusion pathways and call for differentiated strategies (D'Alkan et al., 2024; Efeoğlu and Kılınçarslan, 2024; Hafsteinsdóttir and Hardonk, 2023; Hutchinson et al., 2024). Ultimately, what matters most is not whether inclusion is formally declared but whether it is felt, negotiated, and sustained through meaningful organizational relationships (Packalen et al., 2024).

This study set out to investigate how disability-inclusive HRM practices are enacted and experienced within organizational contexts. Through a qualitative meta-synthesis of 43 peer-reviewed studies, we illuminate the lived realities of workplace inclusion for disabled persons and develop an integrative framework that captures the tensions, practices, and enabling conditions shaping these experiences (Chan and Hutchings, 2024; Palumbo et al., 2023). Anchored in the evidence reviewed, Table 1 functions as the organizing device for our findings: a dual-axis matrix distinguishing formal vs. informal processes and enabling vs. constraining effects. Building the Results explicitly around its four quadrants, we show how the same policy instrument can translate into very different outcomes depending on relational dynamics, local routines, and cultural assumptions.

Beyond mapping the tensions between formal and informal practices, our findings acquire a specific contribution because they are grounded in qualitative evidence. Synthesizing insights from interviews, ethnographies, and case studies allows us to highlight the lived realities of disabled employees in ways that go beyond reporting prevalence or correlations. This qualitative grounding brings to the fore the subtle mechanisms, emotional undercurrents, and contextual contingencies that often remain hidden in survey-based or cross-sectional research. As a result, the framework we propose does not simply aggregate prior studies but reinterprets them in a way that foregrounds complexity and meaning, thus providing a richer account of how inclusion is enacted on the ground.

Our synthesis underscores a persistent disjunction between declared commitments and lived experiences. Formal policies—such as reasonable accommodation protocols or inclusive hiring targets—provide necessary scaffolding yet are frequently implemented unevenly or remain disconnected from daily practice (Burnard et al., 2025; Gröschl, 2007; Harlan and Robert, 1998). Informal barriers, including managerial discretion exercised in exclusionary ways, peer dynamics, and ableist norms, often undermine these initiatives, particularly in sectors organized around aesthetic standards or high-speed performance metrics (D’Alkan et al., 2024; Buettgen et al., 2024; D'Alkan et al., 2024). Conversely, inclusion flourishes when formal strategies are coupled with relational sensitivity—emotionally intelligent leadership, trust-based communication, and open dialogue—which transform written policies into meaningful everyday practices (Bartram et al., 2021; Bhaskar et al., 2023; Cavanagh et al., 2021; Lysaght and Larmour-Trode, 2008; Moore et al., 2020). In such contexts, disability is not simply accommodated but recognized as a valued dimension of workforce diversity.

This study offers several theoretical contributions that advance the existing literature on disability and HRM.

First, the study deepens and systematizes the critique of the policy–performance gap. While prior work has noted a disconnect between inclusive discourse and organizational realities (Alammar et al., 2025; Mor Barak et al., 2022; Procknow and Rocco, 2016), our meta-synthesis demonstrates how this gap is reproduced across sectors and geographies, specifying the mechanisms by which formal arrangements are neutralized by informal dynamics. In doing so, we extend insights from Cavanagh et al. (2017) and Schloemer-Jarvis et al. (2022), showing that compliance-based models overlook the micro-processes through which inclusion is sustained or eroded.

Second, the study reinforces and operationalizes the Social Model of Disability in organizational analysis. Echoing Hammel et al. (2015), Napolitano et al. (2024), and Stone and Colella (1996), we show that exclusion arises not from impairment per se but from institutional architectures and cultural expectations privileging normativity and self-sufficiency. Our matrix clarifies where those architectures are enacted: in formal HRM systems (e.g. job descriptions, recruitment methods) often built around able-bodied assumptions (Hidegh and Csillag, 2013; Jammaers and Zanoni, 2021; Vornholt et al., 2018) and in informal relational norms that enable or constrain practice on the ground.

Third, the findings advance a situated and relational view of inclusion (Campbell, 2009; Luu, 2021; Smith et al., 2025). Rather than a binary state, inclusion emerges as an ongoing negotiation within evolving cultures and power relations (Packalen et al., 2024). This agentic perspective aligns with calls to foreground employee voice and identity work in HRM (Beatty et al., 2019; Rezai et al., 2023), highlighting how disabled employees actively navigate and reshape organizational norms.

Fourth, the synthesis foregrounds intersectional dynamics. As argued by D'Alkan et al. (2024), Dawson et al. (2024), and Triana et al. (2021), disability intersects with race, gender, and class, compounding disadvantage and rendering it less visible to policy instruments designed for “average” cases. Our evidence indicates that uniform interventions risk reproducing inequities; differentiated, context-sensitive strategies are required.

Fifth, we contribute a conceptual framework that integrates dispersed qualitative insights into a coherent structure. Complementing existing typologies of inclusive HRM (Jamin et al., 2024; Kersten et al., 2023; Luu, 2018), the matrix adds a distinctive lens by cross-classifying formality with effect (enabling/constraining). This yields a diagnostic map that is theoretically generative—clarifying mechanisms beyond generic SMD statements—and practically actionable.

Finally, this study demonstrates the distinctive value of qualitative synthesis for advancing theory in disability-inclusive HRM. By integrating findings from diverse qualitative designs, we move beyond descriptive accumulation and generate conceptual clarity about the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion. This methodological stance emphasizes depth, meaning-making, and contextual variation, offering insights that complement and extend those emerging from large-scale quantitative inquiries. In this way, our contribution is not limited to what we found, but also to how we arrived at these findings—through a qualitative lens that surfaces hidden processes and enriches the theoretical conversation on HRM and disability.

The framework presented in Table 1 functions not only as an analytical device but also as a diagnostic and design tool for HR leaders and public managers seeking to strengthen inclusion strategies. It highlights the need to examine both the formal and informal dimensions of HRM and to evaluate whether they enable or constrain the participation of disabled employees.

First, organizations must move beyond symbolic compliance. Policies and diversity statements, while important, are insufficient unless they are embedded in concrete operational procedures, measurable indicators, and accountability mechanisms. This involves integrating inclusion goals into performance management systems, establishing clear responsibility lines, and ensuring regular monitoring of progress. In this way, inclusion becomes part of the organizational fabric rather than an isolated or reputational initiative.

Second, line managers emerge as pivotal mediators between formal structures and lived experiences. Even the most sophisticated policies will fail if frontline managers are not equipped and motivated to enact them consistently. Therefore, organizations should invest in training programs and reflective leadership development initiatives that enhance emotional intelligence, awareness of bias, and competence in implementing accommodations (Moore et al., 2020). Supportive managerial behavior has been shown to directly influence employee motivation, trust, and confidence, making it a cornerstone of sustainable inclusion.

Third, inclusion strategies must be intersectionally informed. Disabled employees who also belong to ethnic minorities, gender minorities, or other marginalized groups often encounter compounded forms of exclusion. One-size-fits-all approaches risk neglecting these layered dynamics. HR systems should therefore provide flexible entry points for recruitment, differentiated development opportunities, and equitable career progression frameworks that acknowledge the diversity of needs and trajectories.

Fourth, inclusion should be co-designed with disabled employees themselves. Their experiential knowledge provides indispensable insights into hidden barriers and practical solutions. Mechanisms such as advisory boards, participatory workshops, or feedback loops can ensure that HRM systems are continually revised and adapted in ways that are contextually appropriate and meaningful to those directly affected. Co-creation not only enhances the legitimacy of inclusion initiatives but also fosters a culture of shared responsibility.

Finally, organizations need to redesign their core HRM infrastructures—recruitment, career development frameworks, and performance evaluation systems—so that they accommodate a wider range of capacities, aspirations, and modes of contribution. This requires moving beyond traditional assumptions of talent, merit, and productivity rooted in able-bodied norms. For instance, recruitment practices should recognize non-linear career trajectories, while evaluation systems should account for diverse working styles. Embedding such principles into HRM ensures that inclusion is not an optional add-on but a structural principle guiding how organizations define and value work.

This meta-synthesis focuses on peer-reviewed qualitative studies published in English and indexed in major databases. While this enhances rigor, it may exclude relevant insights from gray literature, practice reports, or studies from underrepresented regions or languages, limiting generalizability to non-Western or less institutionalized labor markets. Moreover, meta-synthesis privileges conceptual integration over causal testing; it cannot identify differential effects by industry, size, country, or workforce composition.

Although we attended to intersectionality, most primary studies did not foreground it analytically, leaving under-theorized how disability interacts with race, gender, socioeconomic status, and other identities. Finally, while our analysis stresses employee voice and agency, few included studies used participatory designs; experiential knowledge is still filtered through researcher-led interpretations. Addressing these gaps, Table 2 outlines a research agenda that couples longitudinal and comparative designs with participatory methodologies to connect micro-level experiences to institutional patterns (see also Cavanagh et al., 2017; van Berkel and Breit, 2025).

This meta-synthesis advances a coherent framework for understanding disability-inclusive HRM as the outcome of interwoven relational, cultural, and structural dynamics. By integrating evidence from 43 qualitative studies, the analysis shows how inclusion is negotiated within everyday practices, often caught between formal commitments and the lived realities of employees. The dual-axis matrix distinguishes how enabling and constraining mechanisms operate across formal and informal domains, providing a clear structure to interpret both progress and persistent gaps.

For research, the framework offers a basis for examining how inclusion unfolds in context, highlighting processes that quantitative approaches may overlook. For practice, it provides a diagnostic tool to assess whether formal policies translate into meaningful experiences on the ground. More broadly, the study demonstrates how qualitative synthesis can generate insights that are both theoretically generative and practically actionable, enriching the pursuit of justice, dignity, and responsiveness in HRM systems.