Abstract
Introduction
At the 94th Academy Awards, a historic moment unfolded when Troy Kotsur won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for the film, CODA (Child of Deaf Adults), making him the second deaf actor to receive this prestigious award. As Troy approached the stage, the entire audience rose in a standing ovation, and applause in sign language filled the venue as a tribute to his achievement. CODA also secured victories in the categories of Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Picture. Although many viewers observed the sign language and potentially heard its translation during the live broadcast as a symbol of openness and recognition of artistic excellence by diverse individuals, it represents but one small step in the challenging journey toward equal status for deaf people and their normalizing within society. As Louise, from a sign-language theater, told us: Yes, we are very excited about it. At least in this version of CODA, artists of deafhood have participated in the artistic process. The original version of the film was made only by hearing persons. So, the storyline was still made from the perspective of hearing people. We are portrayed as dependent and helpless, disabled persons who are in need of hearing persons’ help in every aspect. We do need help, but at the same time, we want to be treated as “normal” people . . . There is a lot that remains to be done. But yes, we are happy about the attention.
Louise fervently advocates for equal rights and for the status of deaf people in both the performing arts and society. She emphasizes the complexity of deaf individuals’ feelings when dealing with equal but different treatment, in this case, when their different conditions are framed on the basis of their hearing impairment from a hearing perspective. According to Louise and her colleagues, deaf people prefer to be recognized as a linguistic minority using sign language rather than being labeled as disabled. For Louise, genuine equal treatment is achieved when people broaden their perspectives on ableness. As she asserts, “True equality is not granted by another group but emerges from a changed mindset.”
People constructed as disabled are minorities in organizations where able bodies and their capabilities are regarded as the norm against which all other bodies are measured (Foster, 2007). While insisting on their rights and entitlement to special treatments enabling them to work, individuals such as Louise also reject their constant categorization as “disabled” through differential management measures, which commonly essentialize them as different from others. This has been called the sameness-difference dilemma (see Ghorashi and Sabelis, 2013; Holvino and Kamp, 2009).
We argue that the sameness-difference dilemma is closely associated with the overt emphasis on social cohesion and the integrative approach in general diversity management practices (Holck and Muhr, 2017; Risberg and Romani, 2022). These practices are often designed to organize both able-bodied and differently-abled individuals to align with organizational norms and achieve common goals. Consequently, in the case of disability and work, many interventions aimed at integrating differently-abled individuals into the “normal” workforce leave them perceived as an economic burden and contribute to their sense of being seen as different. Thus, the sameness-difference dilemma adds complexity to the inclusion of differently-abled bodies in workplaces. Caught between well-intentioned, integrative organizational inclusion discourses and the amplified feeling of being treated as different, individuals like Louise struggle to express resistance (e.g. Bowen and Blackmon, 2003) and pursue equal and fair conditions.
Previous research from a critical perspective highlights that mainstream diversity management can reinforce ableist norms by essentializing disability, pressuring individuals to conform while intensifying feelings of alienation (Holck and Muhr, 2017; Jammaers et al., 2016; Risberg and Romani, 2022; Van Laer et al., 2022; Zanoni and Janssens, 2007). This issue often arises from an imbalance in knowledge resources: diversity and inclusion policies are typically developed based on demographic categories of disadvantage, as defined by national and international conventions and legislative frameworks (Özbilgin and Tatli, 2011). Alternatively, organizational interventions often focus on one-sided integrative approaches and economic considerations, accepting differential treatment based on ableist assumptions as rational in the workforce (e.g. Aston et al., 2014; Raw, 2019).
While these efforts aim to promote equal opportunities and offer differentiated treatments to ensure inclusion, they frequently overlook the potential for learning from and integrating the knowledge embedded in the lived experiences of differently-abled individuals. As a result, both research and organizational practices remain caught in the sameness-difference dilemma, inadvertently perpetuating ableist norms and marginalizing disabled bodies (e.g. Bend and Priola, 2021; Gherardi, 2017; Lindsay et al., 2019).
To address this gap, our article examines the dilemmas and contradictory outcomes of differential treatment in workplace disability management, focusing on the personal experiences of differently-abled employees. Rather than merely critiquing existing diversity management practices, we aim to answer a central research question: How can the experiences of differently-abled individuals provide critical insights that drive knowledge creation and foster reflexive learning within organizations?
To achieve this, we analyze empirical data from deaf employees in a performing arts organization based in a Scandinavian capital city. Specifically, we explore how individuals respond to able-bodied norms within the sameness-difference tension and how they strive to effect change within the organization. Our goal is to understand how their experiences navigating sameness-difference dilemmas embedded in ableist norms generate new insights and contribute to epistemic value. This work positions individual experiences as essential epistemic resources for challenging mainstream diversity and disability inclusion interventions in the workplace.
To reflect the ethos of this research, we include the perspective of a marginalized deaf individual as a co-author, emphasizing the importance of equitable distribution of epistemic power among majorized and minoritized groups of people. This inclusion challenges the traditional imbalance in knowledge production and underscores the need for diverse perspectives in academic discourse (Collins, 2000; Dotson, 2014; hooks, 2000). Our aim is to advocate for the equal distribution of epistemic power across socially, ideologically, and organizationally constructed groups.
Essentializing disability and the reproduction of ableism in workplaces
Our lives are deeply intertwined with the concept of normalcy, as we constantly evaluate and compare various aspects of human existence against ideal standards. This fixation on an idealized state of being, known as normalcy, plays a crucial role in identifying and categorizing deviations from the norm (Davis, 1995; Raw, 2019). Consequently, individuals falling outside the established boundaries of normalcy are marginalized and socially constructed as “others” or “outliers,” representing a deviation from the norm and embodying the anormal. Scholars have argued (Davis, 1995; Raw, 2019) that this level of marginalization is more likely to happen to people with disabilities than to people of other minority groups.
Discourses on impairment and disability typically revolve around two main models: the medical model and the social model (Oliver and Barnes, 2010). The medical model primarily focuses on bodily or mental impairments, whereas the social model draws attention to the societal barriers and restrictions that hinder the full participation of individuals with impairments in social and occupational domains (European Commission of the European Communities, 2003). In the social model, disability is seen as a socially constructed phenomenon, a negated difference created through discourse based on normative assumptions of non-disability—the able body. Thus, the dominant ableist norm, wherein processes, beliefs, and behaviors promote the idea that a certain perfect body characterizes the human (Jammaers and Zanoni, 2020; Williams and Mavin, 2012), shapes societal perceptions of disability and impairment. This contributes to the perpetuation, reproduction, and reinforcement of oppressive dynamics, particularly in work contexts.
Ableism has long been a principle of organizing work and the workforce (Jammaers et al., 2016; Williams and Mavin, 2012), wherein ableist discourses construct disabled people as deficient, thereby assigning them a precarious status (Dobusch, 2017). Critical organization scholars have challenged the regulatory effects embedded in the hegemonic, production-oriented view of disability, which defines disability primarily in medical and psychological terms (Barton, 2018). They have investigated the impact that managerial initiatives may have on individuals’ lived experiences and in forming their social identity as disabled people (Bend and Priola, 2021). Thus, when disability is understood only in its binary hierarchical relationship to able-bodiedness (Jammaers and Zanoni, 2020) at workplaces, it is further constructed, materialized, and essentialized through socio-material practices and technological influences that shape the individual’s sense of self, existence, and potential (Gherardi, 2017). These dynamics are closely intertwined with the composition of organizational rationality, which prioritizes outcomes and financial considerations.
In the context of diversity and disability management, mainstream approaches often generate a fix-the-problem discourse. This stems from the traditional focus of disability management, which aims to prevent disabilities, rehabilitate injured individuals, and address the needs of people with disabilities in order to reduce organizational costs associated with injuries and improve the work environment and job satisfaction of employees (Krause and Ragland, 1994; Williams and Westmorland, 2002). Similar to diversity management, these disability management approaches tend to follow a result-oriented logic, perpetuating social cohesion and the assimilation to the idealized norm of a non-disabled workforce (Bend and Priola, 2021; Holck and Muhr, 2017; Risberg and Romani, 2022; Williams and Westmorland, 2002). While the inclusion of individuals with disabilities has become increasingly central in diversity management, the persistent fixation on positive outcomes, demonstrated mainly through the numerical increase in diversity representation (Johansson et al., 2023), limits the possibility of understanding the real experiences and needs of disabled people (Bend and Priola, 2018; Gherardi, 2017).
Highlighting individual experiences, Jammaers et al. (2016) suggest that discursive organizational practices that prioritize able bodies amplify negative perceptions and create unfavorable experiences for disabled individuals. They argue that disabled individuals often find themselves in contradictory situations: they are hired by organizations for their abilities and capacity to create value, yet they are framed based on their limitations. To make matters worse, ableist discourse can also give rise to managerial expectations that individuals with disabilities should conform to conditions that managers consider ability-neutral (Dobusch, 2017). Under such circumstances, the inclusion of differently-abled individuals in the workforce becomes a token gesture of benevolent intention rather than genuine inclusion, further silencing their voices of resistance (Houston and Kramarae, 1991). Recognizing the complexities inherent in what Foster (2018) refers to as benevolent organizational interventions, she advocates for the acquisition of knowledge involving perceptive understanding, employing a critical framework to meticulously analyze the domains of disability management and ableism.
The sameness-difference dilemma in diversity and disability management
Diversity management systematically addresses marginalized individuals to provide equal workplace opportunities. Researchers in diversity management have gradually shifted their focus from managing differences to understanding how the role of the privileged norm (in our case, the able bodied) has constructed a sense of differentness (and disability) for minority employees (in our case, disabled employees) in their organizational context. Holvino and Kamp (2009) address what they refer to as the “sameness-difference dilemma,” stating that diversity is either assimilated or essentialized in diversity management. Ghorashi and Sabelis (2013) propose a focus on what they call a balancing act between sameness and differences, in order to achieve inclusion in organizations. Thus, general integrative and inclusion discourses have not only unintentionally contributed to the essentialization of disability by reinforcing individuals’ sense of difference from ableist norms, but the sameness-difference dilemmas also add layers of complexity and ambiguity. This, in turn, makes it more challenging for individuals to openly express resistance (Bowen and Blackmon, 2003).
Disability management addresses the differential treatment of employees with disabilities to accommodate their special needs in the workplace (Foster, 2007; Williams and Mavin, 2012). As disability management becomes increasingly crucial within diversity management (Palumbo et al., 2023), such disparate treatment may cause tensions in organizations. This is because diversity management and equal employment opportunities typically emphasize equality and equal treatment. Instrumentally, differential treatment and accommodations may be perceived as creating additional costs, leading to the perception that people with disabilities limit or burden the organization. Subsequently, hiring managers may use differential treatment as a justification for classifying the workforce based on physical abilities (Mauksch and Dey, 2023). Thus, organizational interventions aimed at including and employing people with disabilities often turn into marginalizing practices, reproducing disabled identities (Bend and Priola, 2021; Gherardi, 2017).
Some gender and diversity scholars argue that equal treatment of all employees may produce and strengthen experiences of inequality (Acker, 2006; Johansson and Lindström Sol, 2021). Others (Aston et al., 2014; Davis, 2004; Raw, 2019) have argued that employers should treat their employees according to their individual needs. In such models of disability management, differential treatments are applied more broadly and are accepted as necessary measures, given that people, depending on their physical or psychological conditions, have specific needs requiring differential treatment.
While some scholars propel the celebration of disability as a difference, organizations may present disability as a commodified and essentialized asset (Mauksch and Dey, 2023). For example, blind people may be hired as massage therapists based on the ableist belief that they have a natural talent for massage. In this way, the employing organization tends to homogenize disability as a source of talent and economic value, leading to the paradox that difference gains value and legitimacy only through productive work (Mauksch and Dey, 2023: 15). This discourse leads to an emphasis on differences between disabled and less-disabled workers. Emphasizing either sameness or difference in this way risks further marginalizing disabled minority groups from dominant organizational norms, thereby intensifying their feelings of isolation and exclusion (Bend and Priola, 2021; Foster, 2018; Zanoni, 2011; Zanoni and Janssens, 2007).
Furthermore, the practice of lumping together a large and diverse group under a particular disability label, such as deafness or blindness, based on the assumption that all individuals with that disability have the same needs and experiences (Raw, 2019), leads to an oversight of individual identities in the managerial context.
Along a similar line of reasoning, focusing on the formation of identities in an organizational context, Gherardi (2017) has noted that people develop “disability identities” through a “series of affective and relational becomings” realized through individuals’ “performative enactment” of dominant socio-material practices (Gherardi, 2017: 42). Hence, individuals’ subjectivity, identity and experience of being or becoming are significantly shaped by the constant negotiation of sameness and difference in the context of organizational and regulatory discourses that are informed by ableist assumptions (Harding et al., 2021). The complex impact on individuals may have become a hindrance for them to voice resistance and further pursue their rights and equal conditions.
Moreover, in research, there are conflicting notions regarding minoritized indiviudals and their capacity to effect change. Westmorland et al. (2005) investigate individual perceptions of the organizational strategies used in developing and implementing diversity management policies and practices. They found that employees with disabilities rely on and require others in the organization to consider their opinions. Taking a different approach, exploring individuals’ vulnerable experience, Johansson and Wickström (2023) discover the agentic strengths among marginalized individuals who proactively express willingness and effect change through their actions.
Building on these works, we identify an urgent need for knowledge on new organizational initiatives for differently-abled individuals that address the challenges of balancing equal treatment with differentiated approaches. Crucially, we recognize that understanding how individuals navigate the complexities of the sameness-difference dilemma as a process of knowledge creation can enrich management learning and drive meaningful change. Despite its significance, this dilemma has received limited attention in existing research (Ghorashi and Sabelis, 2013; Holvino and Kamp, 2009).
Further to achieving our objective for insiders’ understanding of our respondents, the composition of our co-authorship (we are one deaf and two hearing persons) indicates our methodological attempt to include the perspectives of the people we study.
The case and the empirical setting
SPAC (a pseudonym) is a publicly funded performing arts organization based in one of the Scandinavian capital cities led by hearing individuals and primarily employs hearing staff. SPAC serves as the umbrella organization for several units of performing arts productions, including theater, dance, children’s theater, and sign language theater (hereafter SLT, a pseudonym). While each unit maintains its own leadership, the heads of these units form SPAC’s management team. SPAC’s decision-making process also involves a Congress held every four years, where all board members from the associated organizations gather to decide on the main policies, as well as the artistic and social missions and visions for SPAC.
In conducting this study, we have drawn upon empirical data from a case study of SLT, one of the artistic units producing sign language theater. SLT is an artistic unit within the umbrella organization SPAC. SLT was founded in 1970’s after several successful sign language productions but with hearing leaders. It was not until 2019 that SLT got its first deaf artistic director. Over more than five decades, SLT has grown from a two-person group (both hearing individuals) to a six-person department, where five members are hearing-impaired, and one is a hearing person who works as a part-time in-house sign-language interpreter. SPAC’s production units are all located in the same building, with hearing and deaf employees working side by side. Although small, SLT is significant and important in the realm of performing arts in the region and globally as one of the few sign language theaters led by a hearing-impaired individual, Louise (Pseudonym).
The principles of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (hereafter EDI) remain at the center of its activities in SPAC. SPAC has initiated and implemented diversity-management strategies to include persons of different ethnic backgrounds, religions, sexual orientations and identities, ethnicity, and physical conditions. And specific measures have been taken in order to generate a better integration of deaf employees. For example, sign-language interpreters are in place in all major company events and conferences, which is perceived by all employees at SPAC as a measure to meet the special needs of deaf employees. To improve the integration of deaf employees into the organization, SPAC’s leadership has encouraged its hearing employees to take sign language classes. During fieldwork, it has been observed that most of the hearing employees (including the first author) learned some elementary signs. Despite these and other well-intentioned organizational inclusion efforts, deaf employees of SLT have long resisted some aspects of diversity and inclusion practices that they perceive as reinforcing their characterization as disabled and separating them from hearing employees. At a societal level, deaf people have persistently strived for the status of a cultural and linguistic minority rather than the status of a disabled minority.
The first author observed that tensions emerging from the sameness-difference dilemmas were related to the well-intentioned interventions initiated by the SPAC management team. While various treatments were implemented to support the deaf employees’ daily work, these employees refused to be labeled as disabled individuals with special needs. They insist on their rights and access to differentiated treatment, but as any normal employees. In dealing with such dilemmas, the deaf employees forge collective actions to effect change.
Furthermore, most deaf people view deafness as a linguistic issue (e.g. Robinson and Adam, 2003) rather than a medical disability. Thus, deaf people and their experiences of deafness add fluidity to the concept of disability and have “posed challenges to our thinking about disability, particularly about how disability should be defined” (Corker, 1998: 6). We, therefore, identify that the experiences of deaf individuals are evidence of the social model of disability, whereby a fluid boundary exists between constructed notions of able and disabled bodies.
Based on these observations and considerations, we find the empirical case highly relevant for understanding individuals’ experiences and their actions toward the sameness-difference dilemma. Research based on this case may provide insights into how individuals’ resistance to structural arrangements and persistence in different perspectives can become an alternative epistemic source, fostering change agency in diversity and disability management.
Methods
The first author of this article was a full-time, in-house researcher studying the Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) work of SPAC from 2018 to 2021. The research focused broadly on EDI strategies within performing arts, particularly at SPAC. During her research at SPAC, she observed interactions between the deaf staff at SLT and the hearing staff at SPAC. As part of the research activities, the first author interviewed Louise four times to understand the conditions of individuals conventionally categorized as diversity or minority group members. This fieldwork sparked her interest in collecting further data to analyze the experiences of deaf employees in a hearing organization. The first author observed sign language theater rehearsals on several occasions and in meetings, seminars, as well as conferences held by SLT.
Even after the research concluded, the first author maintained contact with several employees from SPAC, including Louise and others within SLT. To learn more about how deaf employees reflected on some organizational changes that had taken place at SLT, the first author conducted two additional interviews with Louise. These interviews were conducted with the sign-language interpreter Sara.
To understand the genuine experiences of deaf employees, the third author was invited to conduct a few more interviews with other deaf employees at SLT. The third author, who is deaf and a user of sign language, conducted two interviews on Zoom with Johan and Anders in sign language. These interviews were video recorded for transcription purposes with the participants’ consent.
For this article, as shown in Table 1, the analysis draws on ten formal interviews conducted by both the first and the third author with Louise, Johan, and Anders. A series of brief, informal interviews with Sara, who served as a sign language interpreter during the interviews, were recorded in the form of field notes and are also included as part of the data. The number of informants reflects the small size of SLT. Nevertheless, the six interviews with Louise span over 6 years between 2018 and 2023. The data set encompasses a range of perspectives and content, which has evolved and diversified over time. The duration of each formal interview is, on average, longer than 70 minutes.
Interviews with SLT and SPAC employees.
An inclusive authorship
The collaborative authorship in this work embodies an inclusive process of knowledge creation by prioritizing perspectives from “others.” To deepen the research insights, the lead researcher invited the third author to join the project after the first draft of the article was completed. After reading the draft, the third author expressed her interest and enthusiasm for the project in a letter, stating, “I really enjoyed reading your paper and it provided many exciting and interesting insights regarding deaf people’s struggle for an accessible workplace while not being essentialized or Othered as disabled . . . I think this work is much needed.” She then joined the project, further enriching the collaborative effort, where her contribution expanded the data collection, broadened our views on understanding the data, and profoundly facilitated the exploration of topics related to societal constructions of the ideal body, including “normal” and “flawed” bodies, the formation of able bodies, and the marginalization of other bodies.
Most importantly, the third author introduced a critical and reflexive learning process during the writing phase. While the first and the second authors developed the literature review and theoretical framework of the article and interpreted the data accordingly, the third author contributed a perspective of the data interpretation as an individual with lived experience of deafhood. She also provided critical insights on the “hearing perspective,” which often assumes an audible world as the norm. This input was carefully integrated into the article. For instance, based on her insights, we became aware of how words such as silent, silence, and voice reflect an audible-centric worldview. We, therefore, use these words with caution, with an aim to illuminate alternative ways of viewing the world. This critical and reflexive approach highlights how differently-abled individuals can contribute their experiences as valuable epistemic resources, enriching both the research and writing process. We found that incorporating diverse experiences and perspectives in this collaboration was not only methodologically advantageous but also instrumental in advancing our goal of broadening the epistemic scope of this work. This inclusive approach to authorship lays the foundation for the development of the concept of full inclusion proposed in this study.
The analysis process
The aim of the analysis is to offer an alternative epistemic trajectory, moving away from the traditional reliance on majority, ableist rationalizations that prioritize productive, capable bodies in organizations. Our analysis, therefore, focuses on unraveling the tensions in individual experiences of differential treatment, particularly the pressure to conform to ableist norms—in this case, hearing norms.
The analysis was conducted in two steps. The first step was inductive coding with data-near codes (see Tjora, 2018). The second step was grounded in a theoretical framework derived from literature on body, disability management, and critical diversity management and the sameness-difference dilemma often found in disability and diversity-management literature. We applied our theoretical lens to create a second-order construct based on the experience-near narratives of the respondents (Aspers, 2009). Through this theoretical lens, we examined how individuals navigated the tensions between the enforcement of sameness and the highlighting of differences in the process of organizing work activities to include deaf employees. To highlight individuals and their actions as epistemic resources, the analysis illustrates how new insights, knowledge and reflexivity emerged while deaf employees reflected upon organizational inclusion interventions and how they navigated through these interventions—whether through opposition, resistance, or actions for change.
Analysis and discussion
To achieve the aim of highlighting the epistemic value of individual experiences in knowledge creation and management learning, this analysis focuses on the responses of marginalized individuals to organizational practices that exclude disabled bodies (Bend and Priola, 2021; Gherardi, 2017; Lindsay et al., 2019). Equality and inclusion strategies in SPAC have been primarily developed from the perspective of the majority group: the hearing people. Despite efforts to integrate deaf employees into organizational activities, the data reveals a dilemma between amplifying a sense of difference and enforcing cultural and organizational sameness, particularly in light of the ableist perspective.
Deaf employees proactively confront these dilemmas by openly articulating their resistance and taking concrete actions. They aspire to be recognized and treated as equals to their hearing peers while advocating for their right to access sign language support. Rather than relying solely on others to consider their opinions (see Westmorland et al., 2005), deaf employees persistently advocate for the recognition and respect of their unique identities. They actively seek opportunities to integrate their perspectives into organizational decision-making processes, aiming to drive structural change while engaging in continuous learning and reflexivity.
The following sections present our findings, structured around the epistemic values derived from individuals navigating sameness-difference dilemmas. Building on these insights, we propose the concept of
Resisting narrow definitions of special needs and broadening epistemic insights
SPAC developed and implemented EDI strategies and interventions to foster a more inclusive organizational environment. For example, sign language interpreters have been required in most in-house meetings, conferences, and events. Despite these measures, obvious tension arises. Throughout this research project, representatives from various minoritized groups have voiced their concerns that the EDI initiative lacks perspectives from these groups. Deaf employees have expressed gratitude for the good intentions underlying the organizational strategies pertaining to equality and inclusion. However, they also reject the organizational approach of categorizing accommodations for their needs solely from a hearing-centric perspective, which labels deaf employees as having “special needs.” Johan, one of the producers in SLT, exemplifies this sentiment: Well . . . It [the EDI strategy] is written for the whole of SPAC. Keep in mind that SLT is just a small part of SPAC, which is actually quite large. It’s good, absolutely, but what happens is that it’s always on someone else’s terms. I mean . . . At the Congress when they adopted the [EDI] strategy, there were no deaf people present.
For SLT employees, SPAC provides a unique platform for sign-language performing arts. Nonetheless, a dilemma remains. SLT staff members anticipate being recognized as a language minority rather than accepting the label of “people with disabilities.” Nevertheless, within the SPAC structure, SLT and its employees have been frequently categorized as a group with special needs, and they represent the primary focus of the inclusion work based on these needs. The focus on special needs for deaf employees serves to reinforce their status as outsiders within the mainstream artistic workforce.
The need for sign language interpreters in all events involving deaf employees may inadvertently support the view that they have extraordinary needs. Deaf employees, however, argue that this is a fundamental right—comparable to how all employees are entitled to appropriate workplace accommodations. They advocate for a broader concept of inclusion, emphasizing the need to revisit and redefine what is considered “normal needs.”
Expectedly, the management has consistently framed the right to accommodation for deaf employees as a special need that demands additional economic resources. Johan and his deaf colleagues have argued that the concept of special needs is inherently tied to economic concerns centered around cost-effectiveness and measured by an equation involving productivity, performance, and expenses. This ingrained discourse of special needs and its financial implications have contributed to a perception of deaf employees as deviating from the majority hearing norm. Johan continued, The special needs are not solely SLT’s. For example, the deaf audience does not have special needs to watch our performances, but maybe a hearing audience does. The need for a sign language interpreter in meetings and events is mutual for both the hearing and deaf groups, so the cost should not be allocated to us. A sign-language theater may be produced differently from an orally spoken theater, just like a dance production or a children’s theater production is different from a hearing theater production. So, what we argue here is that SPAC needs to pay attention to our perspectives and challenge why the majority group’s needs are not seen as special needs but ours are.
Deaf employees assert that this limited understanding of special needs that Johan describes also has restricted the possibility of being treated and perceived in terms of their deafness by either management or other hearing employees. Sara, the only hearing employee in SLT, encapsulates this sentiment: From my experience, when you work in an environment that’s quite homogenous, where people are alike, and then meet people with differing experiences or different languages—if you’re a hearing person who meets a deaf person for example—that makes your privileges visible. It is in those meetings that you become aware of how many privileges you get if you’re a hearing person like me. But it depends on how you put the strategy into use, of course. It could be stigmatizing for those minority members if it is not properly stated. And one thing we all need to think about is who needs to change. Them or us? Or both?
Sara notes how EDI initiatives are often based on the expectation that minority groups should change, which, in her view, does not lead to true equality. Her perspective raises several questions. Who does the EDI strategy target, and who should adapt and change? Should the solution lie solely in the minority groups’ adaptation to the majority, or should the norm be broadened to become more inclusive? If we dissolve the self-evident majority-minority tension, can we then redefine the meaning of special needs? During their interviews, the SLT employees suggested that the answers to these questions have been taken for granted for too long and require reassessment.
Written from the perspective of a hearing person, the EDI strategy frames the norm and what is seen as a deviation from the norm. The issue of a sign-language interpreter is a telling one in this case. Because deaf people often require an interpreter in order to participate in events outside SLT, SPAC’s leaders (who had the privilege of defining the problem) defined the need for an interpreter as a special need of deaf people and allocated the cost to the SLT budget. As Johan suggested, one could turn this argument around and claim that it is equally a problem for the hearing employees who cannot understand the deaf employees without an interpreter or claim that it is a general organizational problem. In any case, we observe that the deaf staff’s sense of being defined as different others and being excluded from the norms has been strengthened by the assertive characterization of deafness as anormal (Jammaers and Zanoni, 2020) and the prevailing belief that deaf employees have special needs.
When special needs, such as sign-language interpretation in meetings, are viewed as an economic burden, differential treatment shaped by hearing norms frames deafness as a disability, reinforcing exclusion and further stigmatizing deaf employees. This tension, often rooted in ableist norms coupled with economic reasoning, undermines the very goals of inclusion efforts. By rejecting these exclusionary practices and resisting the ongoing social reproduction of disability subjectivity, deaf individuals assert their right to be different within the organizational context, thereby broadening the understanding of special needs.
By addressing and navigating the complexities of well-intentioned inclusion strategies—often designed by hearing individuals—deaf employees advocate for equal treatment by normalizing their needs. We argue that their resistance is epistemically generative, as it not only challenges conventional perspectives on difference and directly confronts ableist norms that marginalize differently-abled bodies as unfit or abnormal, but also introduces an alternative approach:
Fostering critical reflexivity within hearing-centric and ableist norms
In addition to the differentiated treatment based on deaf employees’ specific needs, another type of sameness-difference tension arises from the demands of artistic and administrative work routines. Deaf employees face a persistent force of exclusion through ableist discourses that shape daily routines around hearing norms, making it challenging for them to adapt to the established production pace, particularly regarding repertoire selection, casting, and touring schedules. It is observed that deaf employees have demonstrated critical reflexivity by actively challenging this exclusionary force. As Louise stated in one interview, “We spend much time trying to adapt to existing work structures that are not made for us, and this needs to be changed.”
Johan has remarked that while SPAC allocates eight weeks of rehearsal for all theater productions, SLT’s production cycle for a play using sign language typically requires an additional two weeks. This extra time is essential for translating the script into sign language, selecting cast members, and planning rehearsals. Unique conditions, like adjusted lighting to ensure visibility of the sign language, also require more attention and time than other SPAC productions.
Sara echoed Johan’s sentiments in the interview, adding that such differences in production requirements and performances for sign-language theater needed to be more proactively addressed. “If they did that,” she asserted, “people would experience genuine equality and inclusion throughout all aspects of SPAC’s operations. And this will ensure that deaf individuals, like their hearing counterparts, would receive equal opportunities and a platform to showcase their talent and artistry.”
However, when discussing these issues, deaf individuals often find their pursuits intentionally or unintentionally neglected or less prioritized in day-to-day work processes. This pattern maintains the risk of emphasizing sameness—aligning with hearing norms—and further reducing opportunities for deaf individuals to express their resistance (Bowen and Blackmon, 2003; Jammaers and Zanoni, 2020). Despite these challenges, deaf employees persistently advocate for their rights by expressing concerns on various occasions. This effort enables deeper critical reflexivity, not only within the organization but also in society at large. We view this as evidence of the need for adopting the approach of We are deaf but not stupid. We communicate in another language. Other than that, we function as others. On the one hand, we would like to raise attention to the situation of deaf persons in art, workplaces, and society, just like we often talk about the issue of racism and discrimination. On the other hand, we can’t let hearing people drive such activities because then we become the objectives, the target for inclusion. We want to be equal to others. This will take some effort, such as [hearing people] learning sign language and understanding our experience as deaf people.
Anders works with marketing and communication at SLT. He described his emotions while attending meetings organized by central management and aimed at enhancing equality and inclusion. He asserted that deaf perspectives are given lower priority than hearing perspectives and issues, despite the meetings being centered around the theme of inclusion: Often, I was so tense for the whole meeting that I was just exhausted afterward. I was always the last one to get a chance to speak, as if our [the deaf] perspective was the least important. To give an example, when I attended marketing conferences to discuss texts and images to be used in marketing and PR, what frequently happened was that the discussion dragged on for hours, everyone got to talk about their current productions, and when there were around five minutes left, it was finally my turn, and everyone was hurried and stressed and had to go.
Anders frequently experiences that the hearing meeting participants would preclude any opportunity for him to express opposition or raise questions. A significant number of deaf employees who participated in this study articulated a common sentiment: they perceived a lack of avenues for integrating their perspectives into the development of an authentic, inclusive organizational culture.
It is observed that the sharing of challenging encounters in everyday practices openly often leads to critical reflections on work conditions among deaf employees and within the organization. It also highlights the importance of balancing the celebration of individual differences with cultivating a sense of belonging for everyone. Sara speaks on behalf of her deaf colleagues on this point arguing that when equality and diversity are constructed solely on the conditions of one group (e.g. the majority group), it inevitably excludes other groups (e.g. the minority group), as members of these groups are seen as different and in need of inclusion into the norm. To explain this, she states, There is this gap between what the headquarters management suggests and what people do in their daily work. I see how my [deaf] colleagues try to catch attention to issues that bother them. They are often disappointed. But they keep on trying to let the management notice what they want.
According to Sara, despite organizational and managerial efforts, the differences between hearing and deaf employees are also shaped by reactions from hearing employees: I see that my colleagues make efforts to blend in, but some people are uncomfortable around deaf people. They try to keep their distance to avoid uncertainty and inadequacy when communicating with deaf colleagues.
When sharing their experiences and expressing the pressure to conform to ableist norms embedded in everyday practices, routines, and processes at work, deaf employees cultivate critical reflexivity and gain profound insights into their situation. They reveal that their voices have been frequently excluded and overlooked in these processes, leading to exclusionary forces that inadvertently subordinate their positions within the organization.
When central planning and structures are primarily designed from a hearing perspective, SLT employees experience existing SPAC production and marketing routines as targeted primarily at the hearing audience, and SLT employees find it difficult to gain external exposure to or collaborate with performing arts organizations outside the SPAC umbrella.
Louise expresses critical opinion about this issue, indicating that the current setup restricts SLT’s ability to reach a broader audience and achieve recognition beyond the organization: There are performing arts organizations that we could work with. But SPAC’s management team was not pleased with us when we bypassed them and contacted the theater directly. It is a structural problem that we are embedded in a hearing working structure and are left with little power and freedom for other choices.
By constantly evaluating daily encounters, deaf employees proactively promote a state of critical reflexivity, emphasizing that the prevailing work and administrative structures are predominantly oriented toward hearing-centered activities. They further highlight that this imbalance affects not only organizational structures but also extends to differences in producing theater plays for deaf versus hearing audiences, as well as addressing the specific needs of the deaf audience.
Another area where deaf employees strive to assert their rights to evoke critical reflexivity is their persistence in participating in the central decision-making processes on equal footing with hearing employees. Deaf employees have experienced fewer opportunities in decision-making events than hearing employees. For instance, at the Congress, which convenes every four years, there has been a notable lack of representation and participation by deaf employees, and their perspectives have not been given significant influence. As a result, although deaf employees are often the focus of the EDI strategy, they feel excluded and underrepresented in Congress decisions. Louise expressed her disappointment and determination for changing this in the interview, stating: We are invited to the Congress, but we never have the opportunity to participate in the actual voting process. We cannot lip read all the information presented on stage. The decisions are made about us but not for us. But we will keep fighting until achievements are made.
Closely examining how deaf employees navigate hearing-centric structures and assert their decision-making rights reveals how perceived differences in daily work are used to legitimize and sustain ableist norms within the organization. Such marked differences perpetuate the designation of deafhood as a disability, separating it from what is perceived as normal, based primarily on an ableism orientation. Exclusion is, thus, perpetuated through organizational practices in daily routines, work structures, and decision-making processes that either highlight or neglect differences, attach privilege to sameness (norms of the able-bodied), and intensify diversity (e.g. framing deafness as a disability). This sameness-difference tension highlights the need for an organization to shift its perspective, learn from minoritized experiences, and foster genuine inclusion by addressing the diverse needs and abilities of all employees.
More profoundly, it is observed that when navigating rigid structural arrangements and economic rationales rooted in hearing-centric, able-bodied norms that position them on the costly and marginalized periphery, deaf employees persist in defending core issues. This ongoing act of resistance, expressed through vulnerability, frustration, anger, and anxiety, encourages critical reflexivity within the organization. It challenges the dominant hearing-centric discourse and promotes an alternative perspective on
Learning to lead: Becoming change agents through leadership roles
Advocating for leadership has not been an easy task, as deaf employees have traditionally relied on hearing leaders to navigate the hearing world. However, it has been observed that they are embarking on a transformative learning journey by assuming leadership roles themselves—positions where they can authentically represent their own perspectives and needs.
Leadership was a vital area of ongoing debate about norms and about differences between SLT and SPAC. In its long history, SLT has been led by hearing leaders. Although they recognize the convenience and the access, as well as the advantages involved in having a hearing artistic director before Louise’s hiring in 2019, SLT employees have strongly advocated for a deaf leader who is able to understand and represent the deaf perspective genuinely. Louise has passionately expressed her opinion on this matter: We must lead our artistic activities. In one other country, they pointed to a hearing person as the artistic director; I strongly opposed it. Only the deaf understand the lived experience of the deaf. We cannot be led by a hearing person who does not know or use sign language. In that way, we will be treated only as different, disabled objects.
Then, finally in 2019, Louise was appointed artistic director—a decision that was well received by the deaf employees. As Anders noted in one interview, It has meant a lot that Louise has become the head of SLT. It means that artistic decisions are made by a deaf person. She has experience; she has read different manuscripts; and she also hires deaf actors, directors, and everything. She’s very competent in her role. She has made a difference in the productions.
Ander’s sentiments seem to reflect the feelings of many deaf employees in SLT. He continued, And the previous artistic directors of SLT, who were hearing, have opened many doors [for the deaf]. I think it’s a good thing. But one can really start to wonder why so many doors have to be opened by hearing leaders for a deaf organization when there are many deaf actors, directors, and writers. Now, when we have a deaf artistic director, we can immediately see a huge positive development.
In this situation, the tension between seeking sameness and embracing differences has resurfaced, affecting how deaf employees perceive their place in a hearing organization. Instead of accepting differentiated treatment, they actively question the existing situation and challenge their dependency on a hearing leader to create opportunities within the hearing world. Having a deaf leader is a powerful symbol of normalcy, demonstrating that they possess equal abilities in managing their performing arts operations. With a deaf leader who can understand their unique perspectives, they express the hope that the differences could be addressed in a way that prevents them from being viewed and treated solely through the lens of disability.
When management, production structure, and leadership are shaped predominantly by a hearing norm, focusing mainly on hearing needs, deaf employees face exclusionary forces. Despite managers’ and hearing colleagues’ frequent use of the words “equality” and “inclusion” in meetings and at organizational events, the deaf employees’ experiences suggest otherwise. Even within the deaf community, however, there is an ambivalent portrayal of normalcy, disability, and difference. As Johan highlights, On the one hand, we strive to be defined as “normal” rather than disabled and want to be better included in the SPAC organization; on the other hand, we see ourselves as different from hearing people and insist on our differences by arguing that only deaf people can lead and understand deaf people.
Johan’s ambivalent feelings resonated with many employees at SLT. They anticipate recognition for their uniqueness, embracing their distinctive theatrical talents that rely on expressive body language to tell stories and convey emotions on stage. Although they operate differently than hearing employees do in their daily work, administrative routines, and leadership, they emphasized that these differences should not be seen as markers of disability. Rather than expecting deaf individuals to conform to or accept conditions dictated by the hearing majority, they strive to broaden the hearing community’s perspective by advocating their points of view—an approach we term
Amid this, we observe an agentic power that emerges from the process of deaf individuals learning to lead. When deaf employees choose not to retreat into a comfort zone by relying on hearing individuals to lead and organize their activities, they engage in active learning by taking on leadership roles. In doing so, they harness the power of change, fully aware of the potential challenges and obstacles they may face. This suggests that individuals labeled by diversity and disability can transform their circumstances by learning and subverting the dominant ableist discourse through their actions (Johansson and Wickström, 2023). They can effect change within an organizational context without solely relying on majority members for support (e.g., Westmorland et al., 2005).
Enriching knowledge by effecting change collectively
During the first author’s research from 2018 to 2021, SLT successfully changed the organization’s name after a lengthy battle. This confirms that the most impressive characteristic of deaf employees’ responses to ableist norms and hearing structures imposed on them is their collective determination for change. Their pursuits are often expressed as a group mission rather than individualized, micro-political strategies aimed at satisfying self-interests. This may be due to the long history of political struggles that the deaf community has endured.
The first author has identified that the deaf employees at SLT strongly insisted on their differences, avoided compromising, and they tenaciously effected change by actively insisting on inclusion of their perspectives in mainstream ideas. This has been confirmed by the third author, a deaf individual. By effecting several changes through such efforts collectively, deaf employees introduced new knowledge that challenges hearing-centered and ableist norms, providing critical insights for evolving EDI research and practices.
Our data highlights the crucial importance of understanding a new aspect of differences expressed unanimously by the deaf participants in this study: the concept of silence. The previous name of SLT mistakenly highlighted the idea of silence, a common misconception of deaf individuals in general and sign-language theater in particular. According to Louise, sign-language theater can best be described as visual. The new name points more to the artistic creations rather than solely the concept of silence, accurately reflecting that it is a theater created by and for deaf people, with sign language as a means of theatrical expression. Louise explained this in the interview: You see, we are not silent. Many deaf people have a voice. That we use sign language in theater does not mean the theater is quiet. This is a common misunderstanding of us from the hearing perspective.
Our data and the writing collaboration between the deaf author and the hearing authors have confirmed a stark contrast in the perception of the word “silence” by deaf and hearing individuals. Although they have voices, they have never heard any sound. For the deaf community, the word silence carries a dominant hearing perspective that essentializes their condition as anormal or disabled. As expressed in the interviews, the word “silence” holds little meaning for the deaf, as they have nothing to compare. From a deaf perspective, the notion of silence signifies an audible world, something taken for granted by hearing people. As one of the informants noted, neither sign language nor sign-language theater is silent; words may not be spoken, but deaf actors make sounds, although they cannot hear them. Challenging the notion of silence is a way of resisting a worldview based on a hearing perspective.
By expressing their resistance and advocating for their perspective to be acknowledged, we learned from this study that the deaf community seeks to challenge the perception that their existence is solely defined by silence. Through these efforts, they aspire to be embraced not as the antithesis of the hearing world but as integral members of the broader world, regardless of audibility. Thus, the change of name is considered a significant milestone for SLT employees. Louise views this change as a small step forward, but it represents a tremendous effort made by the department and its members to achieve this seemingly small progress.
This insight opens a new realm of knowledge required to comprehend the different connotations of language use from both the able-bodied perspective and the viewpoint of the deaf community. The term “silent” is understood as an epithet imposed upon the deaf community by the hearing community, constructing deaf individuals in a manner they do not recognize.
The reactions among deaf employees to the use of the word “silence” reflect a strong desire shared by many individuals with disabilities. They seek to be distinguished from a broad, mixed category of disabled people and to be recognized for who they are, with the correct and respectful description of their unique physical conditions. This goal is a vital step toward the promotion of inclusion, understanding, and an embrace of diversity within the deaf community and beyond.
The deaf employees in this study consistently advocate for hearing employees to learn about deaf identity and culture, to recognize differences as valuable strengths, and to embrace the working methods of deaf staff as standard practices rather than as accommodations for special needs. Their actions contribute to and enrich the existing organizational knowledge and practices regarding deafness and disability, illuminating an alternative way of viewing the world.
To further understand their roles in effecting change, our analysis reveals an intriguing pattern: deaf employees often act with solidarity and a strong sense of community rather than relying on individualistic survival strategies. While their personal experiences may involve frustration, antagonism, and even helplessness, their approaches to effecting change are typically unified and directed toward collective objectives. This contrasts with previous research, which has emphasized individualized experiences among minority group members in diversity management, concluding that micro-political strategies are mainly aimed at personal survival and thriving. Our findings shed light on understanding marginalized members—not just as targets of diversity and disability management but as potential change agents for socially sustainable organizational initiatives (e.g. Johansson and Wickström, 2023).
Conclusion
In this article, we emphasize the importance of leveraging individual experiences as epistemic resources for organizational learning and practices, particularly in developing a more nuanced approach to addressing sameness-difference dilemmas in EDI efforts. By examining the lived experiences of deaf employees within a performing arts organization, we bring forward often-marginalized perspectives on navigating the persistent sameness-difference dilemma (Ghorashi and Sabelis, 2013; Holvino and Kamp, 2009) in diversity and disability management.
Our findings critically indicate that differential treatments in diversity and disability management are not always perceived as fair or effective by those directly affected. Management interventions that promote assimilative behaviors or treat disabled individuals differently can create tension between an emphasis on sameness and an emphasis on difference. While a focus on sameness overlooks individual needs and experiences, a focus on difference risks essentializing disabled employees.
We, therefore, highlight the risks in inclusion interventions that reduce physical conditions, particularly deafness, to mere categories of disability, stripping individuals’ experiences of nuance. We argue that an emphasis on fulfilling special needs may inadvertently establish taken-for-granted discursive practices, legitimizing one-sided categorization (see Bowen and Blackmon, 2003) that further essentializes disability. In addition, reliance on uniform work routines and processes can create further barriers for individuals with specific physical conditions.
This study moves beyond critique by foregrounding an alternative discourse and highlighting the achievements it enables. Advocated by those directly impacted by diversity and disability management, this discourse rejects mainstream ableist norms, champions the right to difference, and incorporates the often-unheard knowledge of diverse perspectives into mainstream thinking. We argue that differently-abled individuals’ persistent resistance to ableist notions and their proactive pursuit of fair treatment become valuable epistemic resources, broadening perspectives and fostering critical reflexivity within entrenched systems. Deaf employees, in particular, inspire learning by courageously stepping into unfamiliar leadership roles, enriching organizational knowledge, and demonstrating their roles as both epistemic and change agents.
Based on our findings, we propose the concept of
With the concept of
Profoundly, this work reflects a collaborative authorship that includes the perspective of a deaf individual, providing an outsider-within viewpoint (Collins, 2000; hooks, 2000) and demonstrating the true value of
Footnotes
Funding
ORCID iDs
