Breaking the Mould of an ‘Ideal Worker’ By Baani Sahota

Introduction 

Prior engagement with critical disability studies introduced me to topics of inclusion, representation, structural inequality, and accessibility, prompting a recognition of how deeply marginalised people with disabilities remain, despite constituting one of the largest minorities worldwide. Earlier exposure to the topic brought to light how the conceptualisation of normality remains focused on the able-bodied, pushing the lived realities of persons with disability to the margins. Entering this course, therefore, I expected to deepen this foundational understanding, particularly within the Indian and Global contexts. 

Among all eight sessions, the conversation on workplace accessibility was thought-provoking. My initial knowledge about the status of PwD within the workplace was through the lens of questions related to representation, quotas, inaccessibility, and large-scale unemployment for a huge section of the community. On reading the text by Dr Anita Ghai, I gained insight into the persistent gaps in the employment levels of PwD. Not only are government policies associated with reserving a meagre 3% of vacancies in public sector jobs for PwD extremely tokenistic, but they continue to employ only a small percentage of people, excluding many from the rural areas still. This can be inferred indirectly through the Current geotagged statistics on the website of the Department of Employment of PwD show only 35,051 vacancies available for PwD across India, which is clearly not enough for more than 2.68,14.994 people with disabilities (Census, 2011). Added to this are the intersectionalities of caste, class, and gender, which add to the struggles of securing a job. Dr Ghai pointed out another detail in this unfortunate statistical outcome, which connected deeply to a foundational gap in skill and education. As children with disabilities continue to receive inadequate and poor-quality education, in the name of token government policy and recognition, the job market of the future will be devoid of opportunities to work with PwD. On revisiting the text, I realised that there was little emphasis on the work conditions within the corporate sector. Beyond CSR- driven initiatives, the conditions of work in the private sector remain underexamined, which prompts me to think about the current status of this sector that operates beyond the government’s direct control.

While these perspectives are crucial in understanding why persons with disabilities remain underrepresented in employment, they tend to frame exclusion primarily as a question of access to work. The session on workplace inclusion extended this understanding by shifting attention from entry into employment to the conditions of work itself, especially in formal settings. Conversations surrounding the ‘ideal worker’ were novel to me and opened a new perspective. Mr Warrier talked about the ideal worker within the capitalistic lens, as an individual who is always ready, available, perfect, and self-sufficient. This opened an opportunity to critically view the privilege it requires to fulfil these expectations. I had learnt of the impact of capitalistic systems on the employment opportunities of PwD, wherein the initial premise of ‘survival of the fittest’ puts them at an obvious disadvantage. Which such productivity-driven systems benefit a narrow segment of the workforce, the majority of the population remains at a disadvantage, capable of putting a disproportionate disadvantage at an already marginalised section of society. 

The Ideal Worker as an Ableist Norm 

The concept of the ideal worker can be used to understand how nuances of ableism are embedded in the corporate culture. Contemporary workplaces are profit-driven. Workers are expected to work endlessly towards a primary goal of increasing production and profit for the organisation. Their worth and capability are determined by how they are able to maximise output and minimise organisational costs. Within this are born the traditional expectations of working equally hard towards this goal consistently, not taking into account everyday limitations caused by human capabilities. Within this framework, employees with disabilities are often perceived as less productive, particularly if they might take more time than an average able-bodied individual or need more special investment or additional ‘costs’ to improve their working conditions. Due to this simplistic cost-benefit analysis, many workers continue to stay unemployed and those who do find employment work in deplorable conditions, not designed keeping their needs in mind.  

An interesting paradox exists in this corporate culture of profit, as while capitalism marginalises disabled individuals, it actively disables workers. A production-focused economy does not take into account the health and working conditions of its workers as long as profit is maintained. In the long run, it leads to overwork, strain, burnout, and fatigue and, in capital-centred terminology, ‘depreciates’ the human capital. Many researchers working with lived experiences of PwD in the corporate sector emphasise how these workers are expected to work harder than an able-bodied employee to fight the embedded biases present against PwD. Their efforts are aimed at continuously being perceived as ‘normal’, which adds to the physical and emotional strain of working in an exclusive workplace (Costello, 2023).

The situation of individuals with invisible disabilities may add to their struggles. A major challenge is deciding whether to reveal the nature of their disability. Not only do they struggle with hiding a part of their identity from their workplace, but they also have to face the physical and emotional barrier of not being able to access support and facilities that might improve functioning, and face fear caused by factors like workplace bias, fear of stigma, fear of being “found out,” and job insecurity (Markou & Papakonstantinou, 2025). These examples illustrate how workplace cultures influence the experience of disability, and it cannot be viewed simply as an ailment or impairment from the medical model. 

Barriers to Accessibility and Universal Design

It was implicitly discussed in the session as well that, more often than not, employing PwD is a charitable gesture undertaken for the organisation's brand image, DEI, and CSR checklists. Instances of hiring people from diverse backgrounds and not providing them with work, necessary working conditions, or exploiting them by not paying the promised salaries. These defeat the purpose of such initiatives, and these organisations, being in the private sector, often get away with such exploitation, due to limited accountability. In this case, access to gainful employment for PwD becomes a pretty add-on to the company name, rather than an attempt to redesign a universal space. 

Other than this key issue, there are also various invisible barriers within the actual implementation of the policy, rooted in implicit biases from recruitment, selection, placement, promotions, etc. for employees with disabilities (McKinney et al., 2019). Mr Warrier recounted a real-life instance, where he talked about how in an organisation he found his colleagues debating about whether they can accommodate employees with hearing disabilities. While he was in favour of the employees' onboarding on the basis of their achievements, he introduced various forms of communication to the other employees. Simply having a transcription option on during meetings can increase access of not just employees with the hearing disabilities but for many able-bodied employees as well. This illustrates the principle that universal access is not useful to simply ‘accommodate’ needs of PwD within the limited boundaries of how society is designed, rather it improves functioning of every individual in society. A classic example for this in terms of infrastructure is the availability of curb ramps, which are easily used and accessed for bicycles, baby strollers, pedestrians alike. In the workplace scenario, aspects like automated doors, ergonomic chairs and desks, availability of quiet rooms to meet specific sensory needs, and accessible washrooms which have wider doors, handle bars, sensor-based faucets, and many more, can improve the quality of functioning of not just persons with disabilities, but also other able-bodied employees too (Jokiel et al., 2025). While hearing this, I realised that this was something even I took a little for granted in my everyday life, and made me more mindful of various elements of universal design. It further made me think of how it is unfortunate and unfair that we need to provide a list of benefits of how certain design choices which may be life changing for many, need to useful to all humans to be actually implemented. This reflects a troubling tendency to legitimise accessibility only if it benefits the majority. This further reinforces the dominance of the ideal worker norm, where accessibility is treated as adjusting the current workplace and not an attempt to redesign existing workplace expectations.   

Rethinking the Workplace

A key question that emerged during the session was then how to reduce implicit biases in able-bodied employees and the system that goes beyond inclusivity on the papers. The response to this was the need for sustained engagement and challenge what one can within the system, even if the progress is slow and uneven. It highlighted the long years of struggle that minority community have been doing for centuries, and need to continue for an unfortunately long period of time in the future. This provocation is a push for me to critically view existing social systems and infrastructures, and dismantle their absolutist nature. There is a need to inculcate universalism in design of not just physical spaces, but also social structures that allow individuals of all abilities to thrive. While this may seem too idealistic, but I feel that offers a necessary starting point for rethinking workplace structures. By slowly incorporating diverse needs into the design systems, we would be able to create a structure that benefits most and not just a narrow section of the society. So, before we try to create an office space accessible by many, we must start to question our expectations of productivity, perfection, efficiency, wellbeing in the employees. By shunning the ableist expectations from work, we might be able to move forward to create workspaces that are accessible by all. But of course, this cannot be done for the PwD, without them. 

References 

Costello, C. (2023, July 19). How capitalism contributes to ableism. The Mighty. https://themighty.com/topic/disability/how-capitalism-contributes-to-ableism/

Ghai, A. (2019). Rethinking disability in India. Routledge India.

Jokiel, M., Młodzińska-Granek, A., & Jokiel, G. (2025). UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN THE ORGANIZATION OF WORKPLACES-A LITERATURE REVIEW. Scientific Papers of Silesian University of Technology. Organization & Management/Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Slaskiej. Seria Organizacji i Zarzadzanie, (219). 

Markou, N., & Papakonstantinou, D. (2025). Navigating Invisible Disability Disclosure and Workplace Inclusion: Employers’ Attitudes and Workplace Policies. Disabilities, 5(2), 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities5020037 

McKinney, E. L., & Swartz, L. (2019). Employment integration barriers: Experiences of people with disabilities. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(10), 2298-2320. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1579749