Cornell University |
Mental Modeling |
A Qualitative Method for Mapping Audience
Behaviors and Designing Social Marketing Initiatives |
|
Valerie B.
Malzer & Sarah von Schrader |
4/2/2014 |
Abstract: Social marketing often applies
commercial marketing approaches to programs intended to improve the social
welfare by changing individuals’ beliefs and behaviors. We present Mental
Modeling, a commercial approach to market research and audience
segmentation that has not previously been applied in a social marketing
context. We discuss the application
of this methodology within an organization focusing on changing employers’
perceptions and behaviors around hiring and retaining individuals with
disabilities. First, we describe approaches to social marketing broadly and
present the Mental Modeling methodology. We then discuss interpretation and
application of the model to the development of an improved, data-driven
approach to social marketing for our target audience. |
This research
was supported in part by U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL) Office of Disability
Employment Policy (ODEP) Cooperative Agreement OD-19529-09-75-4-43 between
Cornell University and the USDOL-ODEP. The opinions expressed herein do not
necessarily reflect the position or policy of the USDOL-ODEP, nor does the
mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply the
endorsement of the U.S. Department of Labor.
Correspondence
concerning this article should be addressed to Valerie Malzer, Employment and
Disability Institute, ILR School, Cornell University, 201 Dolgen Hall, Ithaca,
NY 14850. Email: vbm5@cornell.edu.
Since its definition in the early
1970s (Kotler
& Zaltman, 1971), social marketing has focused on the
application of commercial marketing principles and technologies to programs
designed to influence behaviors in order to improve personal or social welfare
of a target audience (Andreasen,
1994). Social marketing uses a combination
of education, tactics to increase motivation to act, and social pressure to influence audience behaviors (Andreasen,
1995).
Despite increasing use of social
marketing and evidence of its effectiveness (e.g., in public health campaigns
and to promote environmentally sustainable behavior (Cheng
et al., 2011; McKenzie-Mohr, Schultz, Lee, & Kotler, 2011)), there continue to be challenges
inherent in applying traditional marketing approaches to social contexts. These
challenges span the marketing life cycle from conceptualization and research to
campaign implementation (Bloom
& Novelli, 1981).
In particular, social marketing seeks
to influence behaviors that are fundamentally more complex than those targeted
by traditional marketing. Individuals’ decisions to smoke, use contraceptives (Cheng
et al., 2011), or engage in environmentally
sustainable behaviors (McKenzie-Mohr
et al., 2011) are influenced by a wide range of
factors (e.g., personal, contextual, familial, cultural). It can be difficult
to identify these factors and to then determine which are key to target in a
social marketing campaign (Bloom
& Novelli, 1981).
There is often the added complication
that “upstream” policies, structures or context may support or inhibit
individuals’ behaviors (Andreasen,
2006). For example, a campaign to increase
contraceptive use among women in rural India may need to address the
“downstream” issues of women’s and communities’ attitudes toward contraceptive
use, but it must also address upstream factors such as access to medical care
and funding for women’s programs, if it is to have the desired result. Thus
social marketing campaigns must also often account for both up- and downstream
determinants of behavior (Hastings
& MacFadyen, 2000).
Market research plays a critical role
in understanding complex audience behaviors and the upstream context, however, there
is often very little existing data available to inform social marketing
campaigns (Bloom
& Novelli, 1981). Primary research for social
marketing may be difficult because it often addresses “high-involvement” behaviors
– those about which people care a great deal and for which they perceive risks
to changing. Individuals are often reluctant to discuss these sometimes highly
personal topics candidly with researchers (Andreasen,
1995).
Though challenging, market research
is undoubtedly key to formulating an effective social marketing campaign (Cheng
et al., 2011). There is, however, ongoing debate
as to the research methods that are most appropriate. As with socio-behavioral
research more broadly, this debate often centers around the use of positivist
versus social constructivist approaches (Goulding,
1999). The positivist approach posits that
reality is external and objective and the researcher is independent of the
phenomenon under study, while the social constructivist approach holds that
reality is socially constructed and the researcher is a part of the observation.
Generally, positivist approaches generate and test hypotheses, while constructivist
approaches draw conclusions inductively from data (Easterby-Smith,
Thorpe, & Lowe, 2002). Fewer initial assumptions are made
in the contextually-focused constructivist approach. In the context of social
marketing, a positivist might attempt to measure the prevalence of smoking
among teens and to examine the demographic and other characteristics that are
related to smoking, while a social constructivist might attempt to understand why
teens are deciding to smoke and the social context in which they are doing so.
While positivist approaches have long
been used in market research to identify audience attributes, size and
distribution (Iacobucci &
Churchill, 2009; Mitchell, 1994a; Thompson,
Locander, & Pollio, 1989), since the 1980s there has been
increasing interest in constructivist approaches as a tool to generate detailed
information on audience members and audience behavior, with fewer initial assumptions
(Goulding,
1999,
2005).
We present Mental Modeling[1]
(Young,
2008), a constructivist methodology
closely resembling phenomenology (see
Thompson, Locander, & Pollio, 1989), that has not, to our knowledge,
been applied to social market research.
We illustrate the methodology in detail, using an example of its
application in early-stage social market research for a U.S. Department of
Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP)-funded Center at Cornell
University concerned with educating and influencing the behaviors of employers
toward employees and job applicants with disabilities.
The Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) of 1990 extends to people with disabilities, similar protections as
afforded to women and persons of color by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and was
intended to increase inclusion of individuals with disabilities in virtually
every aspect of American society (Hernandez,
Keys, & Balcazar, 2004). In particular, Title I of the ADA
prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in employment.
Despite the ADA’s employment provisions,
the employment rate for working age individuals with disabilities continues to
be less than half that of individuals without disabilities (Erickson,
Lee, & von Schrader, 2012) and workers with disabilities have
lower average pay and less job security than workers without disabilities (Schur,
Kruse, Blasi, & Blanck, 2009). There is evidence that these
disparities are at least partially attributable to exclusionary corporate
culture and to employers holding inaccurate stereotypes about people with
disabilities (Bruyere,
Erickson, & Van Looy, 2000; Lengnick-Hall, Gaunt, & Kulkarni, 2008; L
Schur et al., 2009). These attitudinal barriers in the
workplace have led some to argue that the transformation of corporate culture
and individual attitudes toward people with disabilities in the workplace is a
key component of improved employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities
(Brostrand,
2006).
The Employer Assistance and Resource
Network (EARN) is part of the National Employer Technical Assistance Center (NETAC)
currently funded to Cornell University by ODEP. EARN’s mission is to support employers
in recruiting, hiring, retaining and advancing qualified individuals with
disabilities, and in doing so to improve employment opportunities and outcomes
for individuals with disabilities. Currently this is accomplished through an
informational website, regular newsletters and updates, staff on-call to
provide responses to employer questions, individualized consultations and
training.
We undertook market research in this
context in order to: 1) better understand the full range of activities in which
employers encounter disability, 2) identify when and how employers are
currently seeking information related to disability in the workplace, and 3)
better understand employer perspectives on job applicants/employees with
disabilities. Our ultimate goals, in
line with social marketing principles, were to understand areas in which
employers were in need of education or information (both from their perspective
and from ours), to identify what motivates them to seek information when they
did, and to determine whether and how they ultimately apply any information
they obtained to the workplace. We
intended to use this information to ensure that our materials and services were
targeted to employer-relevant topics, were promoted in ways aligned with
existing employer information-seeking behaviors, accounted for upstream factors
influencing employers, and were actionable in the context in which employers
were operating.
Recent large-scale social marketing
campaigns for disability inclusiveness (e.g., Think Beyond the Label and What can YOU do?) have used television
and print advertising campaigns in an effort to make employers think
differently about disability. Such
campaigns can serve a useful purpose in raising the general public’s awareness
of employment issues for people with disabilities. In contrast, our goal was to develop
materials and an outreach strategy to educate and support employers that
focused on depth of impact, rather than breadth.
Mental Modeling (Young, 2008) has its genesis in the
user-centered web design literature (Pruitt
& Adlin, 2006; Beyer
& Holtzblatt, 1997; Lai,
Honda, & Yang, 2010). As the web has evolved, so has
philosophy about how to best design sites to serve users (Cooper,
1999).
As a result, web designers have increasingly utilized sophisticated
research methods in order to better understand and reflect the needs and
behaviors of users. These research methods include in-depth interviews and
contextual inquiry, a methodology whereby researchers conduct naturalistic
observations of target audience members (e.g., in their homes, places of work,
etc.; Beyer
& Holtzblatt, 1997). Web developers have also
increasingly drawn from marketing
principles; including audience segmentation, which is often called “persona
development” in the web literature (Pruitt
& Adlin, 2006).
Mental modeling is a methodology that
employs selective sampling (see Schatzman
& Strauss, 1973) based on hypothesized audience
segments (demographic and behavioral), unstructured interviews, and a clearly
delineated approach to line-by-line interview transcript analysis. The result
is a detailed map (“Mental Model”) of user behaviors, feelings and
philosophies, and revised data-based audience segments (Young, 2008). This
approach emphasizes careful selection of research subjects and depth of
interviews; as such the focus is on conducting a small number of detailed
interviews, rather than a large number of more superficial ones. The goal is to
achieve “saturation” of themes and concepts, rather than representativeness of
the interviewees (see Richie
& Lewis, 2003)
A significant benefit of the Mental
Modeling approach is that it retains data at a highly granular level (that of
individual behaviors), while also providing the contextual understanding common
among constructivist research methodologies. Data at each of these levels can
then be used to inform not only web design, but strategic thinking about
products, services and marketing approaches; as well as decision-making about
particular features and language choices in written copy.
As discussed above, the employment
rate of individuals with disabilities is substantially lower than that of
individuals without disabilities (Erickson
et al., 2012), and there is evidence that this is
attributable, at least in part, to disparate treatment of people with
disabilities in hiring and in the workplace (Lengnick-Hall,
Gaunt, & Kulkarni, 2008; Schur, Kruse,
& Blanck, 2005).
In designing a social marketing
campaign to influence employer and workplace behaviors to improve employment
rates and workplace inclusion for individuals with disabilities, it was first necessary
to define the scope of the project. In particular, we identified aspects of the
employment process in which disparate treatment has the potential to occur,
ranging from pre-employment and hiring (Leasher,
Miller, & Gooden, 2009) to retention and promotion (Hernandez,
B. & McDonald, 2008). Building on this literature, we
developed a single question to guide our research process and interviews: How do employers go about solving problems
finding, recruiting, hiring, keeping, & promoting employees with
disabilities?
As with phenomenological methods,
this question was developed with the intention of eliciting information on
individuals’ experiences, behaviors and emotions as they occurred in context
and to encourage employers to think about disability in the workplace in a way
in which they had not previously reflected on the topic (Thompson
et al., 1989).
It is key that social (and
commercial) marketing campaigns be developed based on a clear understanding of
the needs and differences among members of the audience (Andreasen,
2006; Wedel & Kamakura, 2000). Across marketing, an understanding
of the potential target audience members typically involves segmenting the
market into meaningful subgroups based on physical (e.g., demographic,
geographic, etc.) and/or behavioral (e.g., lifestyle, psychographic, etc.)
characteristics (Cahill,
2006). This information is then used to
plan campaigns targeting some or all of these segments.
Since the concept of market
segmentation was introduced in 1956 (Smith), a multitude of methods have emerged
for parsing market segments (see
McDonald & Dunbar, 2004; Mitchell, 1994; Wedel & Kamakura, 2000 as
examples). In recent years, there has been
increasing interest in dividing market segments based on patterns of audience
member behavior, rather than demographic characteristics. There are persistent
challenges in developing behavioral audience segments, however, as behavioral data
tend to be difficult to collect and categorize, while data on physical
characteristics tend to be easily available through organizational records or
through market research firms (Cahill,
2006; McDonald & Dunbar, 2004). In addition, the effort to collect data
to identify behavioral audience segments is often difficult to justify to
management, who must be convinced that the additional time and money will be
worth the investment.
Mental Modeling involves the
development of initial, hypothetical audience/market segments based on existing
organizational data and the subsequent revision of these segments following interview
transcript analysis. For the purposes of this project, we developed four
hypothetical audience segments (Table 1) describing the range of employer
attitudes and behaviors toward the recruitment and employment of people with
disabilities observed through our own regular interactions with employers
during training events and individual interactions.
Our hypothetical audience segments
are roughly aligned with the Stages of Change model, which describes how
individuals can be influenced to change high-involvement behaviors over time (Andreasen,
2006). The four segments were “Resistor,” “Compliance-Focused
Implementer,” “Dedicated Implementer,” and “Positive Change-Maker,” aligning
respectively with the Precontemplation,
Contemplation, Preparation and Action, and Maintenance Stages of Change. In
describing the segments, we developed a first-person narrative capturing what
we hypothesized to be their outlook on the employment of people with
disabilities (presented in Table 1).
There is evidence that social
marketing campaigns are more effective when designed to target individuals in a
particular stage (Prochaska
& DiClemente, 1983). While social marketing campaigns may
focus on any of the Stages of Change, often they are focused on the
Contemplation stage (Andreasen,
2006). As discussed below, we opted to
focus our research on the audience segments aligned with the Contemplation and
Preparation and Action stages.
A variety of sampling methods are employed in qualitative
research, ranging from choosing subjects purposefully to simply using
volunteers (see
Morse, 1991). Mental Modeling employs a selective
sampling method, in which subjects are chosen based on their potential to inform
the goals of the research and their personal characteristics (Schatzman & Strauss, 1973). In particular, Mental Modeling
combines the use of hypothetical audience segments and demographic
characteristics to ensure selection of a varied set of research participants.
Given available resources, we were
unable to study all four hypothesized audience segments, and so began by
selecting the segments which we believed would be the best targets – the
“Dedicated Implementer” (Preparation and Action) and the “Compliance-Focused
Implementer” (Contemplation). We chose not to focus on “Positive Change-Makers”
(Maintenance) because their behavior was hypothesized to already be largely in
line with desired outcomes, and we chose not to study the “Resistors” (Precontemplation) because of the anticipated challenges in
recruiting these individuals and subsequently in conducting candid interviews (Lengnick-Hall
et al., 2008).
We then identified relevant
demographic characteristics to employ to ensure variety among individuals our
sample (see Table 2.). The goal of this stratification was not
Hypothetical Audience Segments and the Stages of Change
Segment Name |
Segment Description |
Approximate Stage of Change* |
“Positive Change-Maker” |
I believe strongly that hiring and retaining employees with disabilities and making a concerted effort to serve customers with disabilities is important, and that this has a positive impact on my organization both internally (culture) and externally in terms of competitiveness. I believe that the benefits of hiring people with disabilities far outweigh the costs and that making accommodations is just a natural part of making a workplace inclusive of the needs of all employees. I am not just familiar with the laws related to the employment of people with disabilities, I also know a lot about best practices, and I am always looking to implement new programs or enhance existing programs to improve my company's responsiveness to employees with disabilities. |
Maintenance: In this phase individuals are already engaged in the desired behavior and any additional marketing efforts should focus on supporting that continued behavior. |
“Dedicated Implementer” |
I am committed to meeting my organization's objectives and standards related to employees with disabilities, and I generally think that hiring people with disabilities is a good organizational choice, but I find some of the regulations and requirements to be excessively confusing and burdensome. I do everything I can to make sure that I am compliant with internal and external standards, but I admit that I spend little time beyond that to ensure that the actions we are taking are truly effective. I am familiar with the basics of disability employment laws and making simple accommodations, but I still often have questions about how to handle situations with employees with disabilities appropriately. |
Preparation and Action: In this phase individuals have thought about engaging in the desired behavior and are ready to act, but may need an additional push to enact the behavior. |
“Compliance-Focused Implementer” |
I have little interest in employing/recruiting people with disabilities, but my organization is required by law/regulation/EO to do so. Most of my effort in this area focuses on meeting minimum compliance standards so that my organization does not get in trouble. I am familiar with the basics of disability employment law, though I often need assistance to understand exactly what my organization is required to do, especially when there are specific employee issues that need to be addressed. |
Contemplation: In this phase individuals are thinking about engaging in the desired behavior and considering the costs and benefits of acting. |
“Resistor” |
I believe that people with disabilities cannot really contribute as employees at my workplace and that they would not fit into the workplace culture. I resent the disability laws and regulations and find them to be excessively burdensome. I only address issues of disability employment as a reaction to immediate crises (e.g., EEOC charges filed against me). |
Precontemplation: In this phase indivi-duals are not thinking about the desired behavior. This can be because they are unaware of it or have decided against engaging in it, etc. |
*Adapted from Andreasen, 2006
“representativeness”
as is often the case in quantitative research, but rather to ensure a wide
range of perspectives and work toward “transferability” of the findings (see Patton,
1990). These characteristics were based on
differences across organizations and individual roles with the potential to
facilitate or inhibit the behaviors our campaign was intended to influence. For
example, we planned to recruit a mix of individuals working for federal
agencies, for private businesses holding contracts with the federal government
(federal contractors), and for private businesses without federal contracts, in
part because of the different laws and regulations governing each group. This
ensured that we were able to get a sense of the role of upstream policies on
employer perspectives on the employment of people with disabilities. We
hypothesized that each of the characteristics in Table 2 were relevant to the issues
under examination.
Young (2008) suggests interviewing
five to six individuals per chosen audience segment (also aligning with the
demographics selected); at this point “saturation” has typically been reached
and additional interviews will only add incrementally to accrued knowledge.
Again, because of resources we opted to interview a total of ten individuals,
five from each of our chosen audience segments.
Recruitment of research participants
was conducted through outreach to existing professional and personal contacts.
All potential candidates were screened to ensure that they were members of the target
audience segments and had a desired combination of characteristics.
Demographic
Characteristics of the Sample
Number of Interviewees |
||
Characteristics |
Target |
Actual |
Organizational Type |
|
|
Federal Agency/Unit |
3 |
2 |
Federal Contractor |
5 |
6 |
Private Organization |
2 |
2 |
Individual Role |
|
|
Director/Organizational
Leader |
2 |
2 |
Human Resource
Manager/Representative |
5 |
6 |
Line/Staff Manager |
3 |
2 |
Organizational Size |
|
|
Less than 50 employees |
2 |
1 |
51 - 500 employees |
1 |
2 |
501 - 2,499 employees |
3 |
2 |
More than 2,500 employees |
4 |
5 |
Level of experience with
people with disabilities in the workplace (participant perception) |
|
|
A lot |
3 |
4 |
Some |
7 |
6 |
None |
0 |
0 |
Level of organizational
interest in disability employment |
|
|
High |
5 |
6 |
Low or Don't Know |
5 |
4 |
Audience Segment |
|
|
The Positive Change-Maker |
0 |
0 |
Dedicated Implementer |
5 |
5 |
Compliance-Focused
Implementer |
5 |
5 |
The Resistor |
0 |
0 |
After a short screening call to confirm
participant eligibility, an appointment was scheduled for a one-hour phone
interview. Mental Modeling uses an unstructured approach to interviewing
similar to that of phenomenology, which relies on a single opening question and
then proceeds in a circular way in which the interviewer probes with the
intention of bringing out rich descriptions of specific experiences (Thompson
et al., 1989). In this study, the opening prompt
was simply a derivation of our research question, namely: “How do you go about
solving problems finding, recruiting, hiring, keeping, and promoting employees
with disabilities?”, and subsequent questions followed the direction of the
study participant.
Each of the interviews was conducted
by phone, recorded, and professionally transcribed. Analysis was done on these
transcripts using a line-by-line method of coding developed by Young (2008),
which involved extracting individual “behaviors, feelings and philosophies”
from the transcripts, grouping these codes across interviews and then identifying relationships
across groups of codes, similar to many qualitative research methodologies
(e.g., Braun
& Clarke, 2006). Ultimately, a model was developed
to visually represent these individual behaviors and their relationships.
After screening 19 employers, we identified
10 who met the screening criteria (Table 2). Selective sampling ensured that
this sample was diverse along our pre-specified criteria. Ultimately we
conducted interviews with Human Resource (HR) professionals (n=6), managers
(n=2), and organizational directors/leaders (n=2). Participants represented
federal contractors (n=5), the federal government (n=3) and private businesses without
federal contracts (n=2), as well as small (< 500 employees, n=3), medium
(501-2,499 employees, n=2) and large (> 2,500 employees, n= 5)
organizations. Private organizations were from the following industries:
Manufacturing, Accommodation and Food Services, Professional and Technical
Services, Finance and Insurance, Educational Services, and Retail Trade.
In coding and grouping the interview
transcripts, we identified five major themes and 13 subthemes across the
interviews (see Figure 1.). The major themes addressed workplace and management
issues broadly, without specific reference to disability, while the subthemes
focused on a mix of general and disability-specific issues.
Summary of themes
Theme 1: Improve Workplace Diversity Theme 2: Recruit, Assess and Hire New Employees Subthemes: ·
Recruit for open positions ·
Assess candidates ·
Hire new employees Theme 3: Manage Employees Subthemes: ·
Develop employees' skills and awareness ·
Monitor employee performance ·
Reward employees ·
Address concerns about employee performance, misbehavior ·
Accommodate an employee ·
Plan for employee leave ·
Terminate an employee Theme 4: Address Workplace Health and Safety Theme 5: Demonstrate Organizational Values |
Each of these themes and subthemes is
composed of and derived from the codes developed during analysis. As mentioned
previously, one of the benefits of Mental Modeling is that it retains data at a
highly granular level, in addition to identifying broader themes. All of these data
are displayed in the “Mental Model” itself (see Figure 2. for an example
section of the much larger Mental Model). Within the model each small box
represents a code, while each “tower” represents a group of related codes and
each group of towers composes a subtheme.
The five major themes identified through analysis broadly
cover both individual employment situations (“Recruit, Assess and Hire New
Employees” and “Manage Employees”) as well as organizational culture and
decision-making (“Improve Workplace Diversity,” “Address Workplace Health and
Safety,” “Demonstrate Organizational
Values”). Interviewee responses addressed the full spectrum of the employment
process, from recruitment and retention to discipline and termination.
Interviewees spoke most about issues of individual employment; likely this is a
circumstance of many of their roles in HR or as managers in frequent contact
with individual employees and job applicants.
A range of up- and downstream issues
were apparent across these themes. For example, interviewees made reference to
concerns about legal compliance related to improving workplace diversity,
recruitment and hiring of new employees and managing employees, and they also
discussed their uncertainty about how to appropriately respond to employees and
applicants with disabilities throughout the employment process.
Following analysis of the
transcripts, we revisited our hypothetical audience segments to assess how
accurately they described the individuals we spoke to. It was immediately quite
clear that the “Dedicated Implementer” and “Compliance-Focused Implementer”
descriptions did not adequately describe the philosophical or behavioral
characteristics and differences across interviewees. Instead of being
differentiated based on attitudes to disability in the
Example section of the Mental Model displaying the
major theme “Manage Employees” and two subthemes, with legend.
workplace, these individuals differed
fundamentally in their beliefs about their role as an employer.
We thus developed revised audience
segments based on this difference: the “Empathetic Problem-Solver” and the
“Organizational Implementer” (see Table 3.).
In particular, Empathetic
Problem-Solvers were proactively focused on the interests of all of their
employees as individuals, regardless of (dis)ability, while Organizational
Implementers were more reactive to the requests of employees and more focused
on maintaining compliance with organizational and governmental requirements. While
the Organizational Implementer had characteristics in common with the
hypothesized “Compliance-focused Implementer,” the revised description and
naming more accurately captured the philosophy and behaviors of this group.
This shift in audience segmentation
has significant implications for how we choose to approach social marketing. Empathetic Problem-Solvers would likely be
best reached by social marketing that appeals to their existing desire to care
for their employees by increasing their awareness of disability in the
workplace. Organizational Implementers, on the other hand, would likely be more
receptive to appeals that focus on disability relative to legal mandates and
organizational objectives.
It is interesting to note that these
audience segments were independent of demographic characteristics –each
audience segment was composed of individuals in different positions (e.g., HR,
management, etc.) and sectors (e.g., federal, federal contractor, etc.).
Revised Audience Segments
Segment Name |
Segment Description |
Example Statement |
Empathetic Problem-Solver |
I consider taking care of the people who work for me a critical part of my job. I can sense when an employee seems to be struggling professionally or personally and I reach out to them to see if there is anything I can do to help support them. I often go beyond what is in the standard “management/HR” handbook because I’m really invested in my employees and I want to do everything I can to keep them healthy and happy at work. |
“The motto that I have is health and family first… you know, it's sort of nice to be able to help folks that way. And at least, you're not directly helping them but you're making their lives a little easier by not putting stress on them.” |
Organizational Implementer |
I strive to contribute to my organization’s mission and I work hard to follow its policies and processes. I maintain a professional relationship with my employees and I trust that they will let me know if they need something. |
“We need to make sure what we're doing is based on the law. The challenging part is when employees with disabilities don't come forward and say something - we can't necessarily treat them differently when we would like to make sure that we're making reasonable accommo-dations.” |
Finally, within the Mental Model it
is possible to add information on the characteristics of respondents to better
understand the characteristics of individuals engaging in each coded behavior.
In this way it is possible to visualize patterns of responses across
demographic or other groups. We included in our model visual indications of
employer sector, size and audience segment (see Figure 2).
There are several demographic and
audience segment patterns within the Mental Model that are of particular
relevance to a social marketing approach. In particular, there are themes in
the model about which only one audience or demographic segment spoke. For
example, only federal employers and federal contractors who were also Organizational
Implementers spoke about the major theme “Improve Workplace Diversity.” Both
federal employers and federal contractors are subject to upstream policies that
emphasize meeting diversity objectives, including disability; but only
Organizational Implementers within those sectors spoke about feeling pressure
to improve workplace diversity.
Beyond a few trends like the above,
however, the Mental Model suggests that employers across demographics and
audience segments engage in many of the same general behaviors, but approach
them differently. For example, while all of the individuals interviewed provide
accommodations for their employees with disabilities, Organizational Implementers
tend to wait for requests from employees, while Empathetic Problem-Solvers are
more likely to communicate to an employee that they would be receptive to a
request for accommodation. These
differences, while seemingly subtle, make it clear that a social marketing
campaign intended to change employer behavior must build on some employers’ focus
on maintaining legal and organizational compliance and on others’ focus on
caring for their employees as individuals.
The preceding research was undertaken
to better understand the full range of activities in which employers encounter
disability, identify specific areas in which employers were in need of
education or information about this topic (both from their perspective and from
ours), identify what motivated them to seek information when they did so, and
ascertain whether and how they ultimately applied any information they obtained
to their workplace. Mental Modeling allowed us to develop a detailed
understanding of employer behaviors, feelings and philosophies around each of
these issues.
Encountering Disability: We found that
employers encountered disability frequently in the workplace, in a range of
contexts that aligned broadly with the employment process (e.g., recruitment
through termination). Despite the frequency of these
contacts, employers often did not label these experiences as disability-related
and expressed confusion about when and whether or not to use the word
disability. For example, one interviewee stated, “I have discovered that one of
my employees has Asperger's Syndrome, which, I guess probably it might be
considered a disability.” Though Asperger’s syndrome is significant and
pervasive, this individual still expressed uncertainty about whether it
qualified as a disability.
Interviewees spoke about disability
most directly at points in the employment process where disability-focused
legislation was most salient. This included recruitment (for employers subject
to hiring mandates), providing accommodations, and addressing issues of
employee medical or other leave.
Informational Needs: Interviewees spoke frequently about
needing to find information related to employment and disability. This was
especially true around legal issues, where interviewees expressed uncertainty
about what was and was not legal in particular situations. Interviewees also discussed
feeling unsure how to address interpersonal or workplace culture issues related
to an employee with a disability.
Information Seeking: Interviewees
spoke most about seeking information when it concerned legal issues or
mandates, or pertained to a current issue or challenge in the workplace (e.g.,
employers looked for information on accommodating an employee with a disability
when faced with the need to do so for a particular employee). While a few
interviewees spoke about attending training or other formal events to prepare
in advance, it was more common that they sought information to address a
particular situation in the moment in which it was needed.
When interviewees did seek
information, they used a variety of channels, including searching online,
asking colleagues for advice, consulting legal counsel, and searching the phone
book.
Using Information: Interviewees
who sought information to address a particular issue typically applied that
information immediately to resolve the issue at hand. In very few instances interviewees did
talk about using that information as a starting point for addressing issues of
disability in the workplace more broadly, although they often used such
information to respond to similar issues in the future.
Using the above findings and revised
audience segments, we have begun to revise our social marketing and information/service
delivery strategy to better align with the language and behaviors of employers.
In particular, we have begun identifying areas of the Model which are and are
not priorities for EARN and our funder, developing products and services to
support employers in priority areas, revising our website architecture to align
with the major themes identified, and identifying points within the employment
process where we may capitalize on employers’ existing information-seeking
behaviors to insert our own resources and services. We have also begun to
incorporate the concerns of both Organizational Implementers and Empathetic
Problem-Solvers in the development of materials and services, to ensure that
our resources speak to and address both perspectives.
We undertook Mental Modeling in order
to help us better understand how to reach and support employers in hiring,
retaining and advancing individuals with disabilities. While members of our
team have worked with employers on these very issues for years, the Mental Model
allowed us to document the contextual experiences of employers at a granular
level and to identify behavioral audience segments to guide our marketing and
outreach.
Despite the utility of the Mental
Modeling method, it is still subject to some of the challenges inherent in
social marketing research (Bloom
& Novelli, 1981). In particular, it was difficult at
times to get interviewees to speak candidly about their perspectives on people
with disabilities in the workplace, likely because of fear of sounding
discriminatory or revealing socially unappealing behaviors. This was
ameliorated in part by recruiting through existing personal and professional
connections, rather than through more distant sources or through EARN’s
existing constituents; interviews in which the connection between interviewer
and interviewee were most remote often had more interactions in which the
interviewee appeared to be monitoring their responses for social
appropriateness.
Future research will focus on
interviewing individuals from the other two hypothesized audience segments and
focusing on particular themes in the Mental Model for additional exploration.
In particular, there is an enduring interest in better understanding the
perspectives of the hypothesized audience segment the “Resistors” (Precontemplation). This group is likely to present
additional research challenges as they may be even less likely to be candid
than the groups studied here. Future
work may also focus on validating the audience segments and themes through
survey research on a larger population; moving from the transferability of this
small sample (Patton,
1990), to generalizability with a
representative sample. Such work would also help gauge the relative
pervasiveness of each of these audience segments in the employer population.
In addition, we have not, to date,
fully explored the upstream implications of this Model. While it is clear that
legislation and regulations played a key role in the choices of some
interviewees, further exploration of the Model, and likely additional research,
will be necessary to fully understand the interplay between upstream policy and
the actions taken by employers related to employees and applicants with disabilities.
Ultimately, despite these
limitations, the Mental Model has proven to be useful as both a guiding
strategic document and as a tactical guide for reaching and serving our
employer audience with an eye to both upstream policy and downstream individual
factors.
Andreasen,
A. R. (1994). Social Marketing : Its definition and domain. Journal of
Public Policy & Marketing, 13(1), 108–114.
Andreasen, A. R.
(1995). Marketing Social Change: Changing Behavior to Promote Health, Social
Development, and the Environment (p. 368). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Andreasen, A. R.
(2006). Social Marketing in the 21st Century (p. 264). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Beyer, H., &
Holtzblatt, K. (1997). Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems
(p. 496). San Fransico: Morgan Kaufmann.
Bloom, P., &
Novelli, D. (1981). Problems and challenges in social marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 45(2), 79–88.
Braun, V., &
Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
research in psychology, 3, 77–101.
Brostrand, H.
(2006). Tilting at Windmills: Changing Attitudes Toward People with
Disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 72(1), 4–9.
Bruyere, S.,
Erickson, W., & Van Looy, S. (2000). HR’s role in managing disability in
the workplace. Employment Relations Today, 27(3), 47–66.
Cahill, D. J.
(2006). Lifestyle Market Segmentation (p. 184). Binghamton, NY:
Routledge.
Cheng, H.,
Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2011). Social Marketing for Public Health: Global
Trends and Success Stories (p. 422). Sudbury, Ma: Jones & Bartlett
Publishers.
Cooper, A.
(1999). The Inmates Are Running the Asylum (p. 288). Indianapolis: Sams.
Craik, K. J. W.
(1943). The Nature of Explanation (p. 134). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Easterby-Smith,
M., Thorpe, R., & Lowe, A. (2002). Management Research: An Introduction
(p. 208). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Erickson, W.,
Lee, C., & von Schrader, S. (2012). 2010 Disability Status Report:
United States (p. 64). Ithaca, NY.
Goulding, C.
(1999). Consumer research, interpretive paradigms and methodological
ambiguities. European Journal of Marketing, 33(9/10), 859–873.
Goulding,
Christina. (2005). Grounded theory, ethnography and phenomenology: A
comparative analysis of three qualitative strategies for marketing research. European
Journal of Marketing, 39(3), 294–308.
Hastings, G.,
& MacFadyen, L. (2000). Whose behavior is it anyway? The broader potential
of social marketing. Social Marketing Quarterly, 6(2), 46–58.
Hernandez, B.,
Keys, C., & Balcazar, F. (2004). Disability rights: Attitudes of private
and public sector representatives. Journal of Rehabilitation, 70(1),
28–37.
Hernandez, B.,
& McDonald, K. (2008). Reflections from employers on the disabled
workforce: Focus groups with healthcare, hospitality and retail administrators.
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 20(3), 157–164.
Iacobucci, D.,
& Churchill, G. A. (2009). Marketing Research: Methodological
Foundations (p. 624). Stamford, CT: Cenage.
Johnson-Laird,
P. (1986). Mental Models (p. 528). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kotler, P.,
& Zaltman, G. (1971). Social marketing: An approach to planned social
change. Journal of Marketing, 35(3), 3–12.
Lai, J., Honda,
T., & Yang, M. C. (2010). A study of the role of user-centered design
methods in design team projects. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering
Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 24(03), 303–316.
Leasher, M. K.,
Miller, C. E., & Gooden, M. P. (2009). Rater effects and attitudinal
barriers affecting people with disabilities in personnel selection. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 39(9), 2236–2274.
Lengnick-Hall,
M., Gaunt, P., & Kulkarni, M. (2008). Overlooked and underutilized: People
with disabilities are an untapped human resource. Human Resource Management,
47(2), 255–273.
McDonald, M.,
& Dunbar, I. (2004). Market Segmentation: How to Do It, How to Profit
from It (p. 465). Boston: Elsevier.
McKenzie-Mohr,
D., Schultz, P. W., Lee, N. R., & Kotler, P. (2011). Social Marketing to
Protect the Environment: What Works (p. 256). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Mitchell, V.
(1994). How to identify psychographic segments: Part 1. Marketing
Intelligence and Planning, 12(7), 4–10.
Morse, J.
(1991). Qualitative Nursing Research: A Contemporary Dialogue (p. 344).
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Patton, M. Q.
(1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (p. 536). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Prochaska, J.,
& DiClemente, C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: toward
an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 51(3), 390–395.
Pruitt, J.,
& Adlin, T. (2006). The Persona Lifecycle: Keeping People in Mind
Throughout Product Design (p. 724). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
Richie, J.,
& Lewis, J. (Eds.). (2003). Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for
Social Science Students and Researchers (p. 336). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Schatzman, L.,
& Strauss, A. L. (1973). Field Research: Strategies for a Natural
Sociology (p. 160). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Schur, L, Kruse,
D., Blasi, J., & Blanck, P. (2009). Is disability disabling in all
workplaces? Workplace disparities and corporate culture. Industrial
Relations, 48(3), 381–410.
Schur, Lisa,
Kruse, D., & Blanck, P. (2005). Corporate culture and the employment of
persons with disabilities. Behavioral Sciences & the lLw, 23(1),
3–20.
Smith, W.
(1956). Product differentiation and market segmentation as alternative
marketing strategies. The Journal of Marketing, 21(1), 3–8.
Thompson, C.,
Locander, W., & Pollio, H. (1989). Putting consumer experience back into
consumer research: The philosophy and method of existential-phenomenology. Journal
of Consumer Research, 16(2), 133–146.
Wedel, M., &
Kamakura, W. A. (2000). Market segmentation: Conceptual and methodological
foundations (p. 382). New York: Springer.
Young, I.
(2008). Mental Models: Aligning design strategy with human behavior (p.
299). Brooklyn, NY: Rosenfeld Media.
[1] Please note that this use of the term “Mental Model” is distinct from and unrelated to its use in cognitive science (e.g., Craik, 1943; Johnson-Laird, 1986).