Supervisory Competencies that Matter: Insights from Employees with an Intellectual and/or Developmental Disability

Abstract

Individuals with an intellectual and/or developmental disability (ID/DD) remain underrepresented in competitive integrated employment settings due to various workplace barriers, with one key challenge being the lack of supervisor preparedness to effectively support and manage this population (Heron & Bruk-Lee, 2023). Targeted initiatives to enhance workplace inclusion for individuals with an ID/DD are essential to fostering a diverse and equitable labor force. This study contributes to these efforts by investigating the competencies individuals with an ID/DD perceive as critical for effective supervision. Through qualitative interviews and an importance rating task, 14 participants with an ID/DD identified key supervisory knowledge and skills necessary for facilitating their success at work. The findings from this study provide insights to inform the development and refinement of training programs designed to enhance supervisors’ capacity to support and manage employees with an ID/DD effectively.

Work is a fundamental human activity that influences social, emotional, and health outcomes, extending far beyond the provision of financial security (Wilkinson & Marmot, 2003). Successful competitive employment contributes to enhanced well-being (Modini et al., 2016), fosters social integration (Lysaght et al., 2017), provides a sense of purpose and belonging (Gilson et al., 2022), and promotes independence (Taylor et al., 2022). Unfortunately, not everyone has access to meaningful and sustainable employment opportunities. Individuals with disabilities, particularly those with an intellectual and/or developmental disability (ID/DD), often face significant barriers to workforce participation, which limits their access to community participation, financial independence, and quality of life (Jahoda et al., 2008; Joyce, 2024; Joyce et al., 2024). Recent employment rates confirm this workforce disparity, as only 38.1% of working-age individuals with disabilities were part of the workforce compared to 74.9% of their non-disabled peers (Office of Disability Employment Policy, n.d.-a). Employment rates are even lower for people with an ID/DD, with only 17% holding a paid job in the community (National Core Indicators, 2024). This inequity endures despite Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which affirms the right to work for all individuals (United Nations, 1948). Without targeted efforts to promote workforce inclusion, individuals with disabilities risk being marginalized. Hence, there is an urgent need for research that not only highlights the employment rate disparities but also actively seeks to eliminate the numerous obstacles that hinder individuals with an ID/DD from securing and sustaining meaningful employment. Addressing these challenges is essential to ensuring a diverse and equitable labor force that benefits both individuals and society.

This study contributes to these efforts by exploring the essential knowledge and skills that individuals with an ID/DD determine are important for a good supervisor to possess. Our findings can inform the development or enhancement of training programs designed to help supervisors better support and manage employees with an ID/DD, ultimately improving employment outcomes for this population.

Factors that Shape Employment for this Workforce

Despite the advantages of competitive integrated employment (Taylor et al., 2022), individuals with an ID/DD are often denied such work due to a number of existing employment disparities and barriers. From a historical perspective, people with disabilities have been stigmatized and segregated (Bunbury, 2019), which has led to systemic discrimination and misconceptions about their capabilities (Ameri et al., 2015). These misconceptions have resulted in exclusion and delays in workforce entry and limited career advancement opportunities for this population (Khalema & Shankar, 2014; Hiersteiner et al., 2018). More specifically, past research has shown that societal misconceptions often represent people with disabilities as having limited work skills or not desiring employment (Bonaccio et al., 2020). For instance, the successful integration of this population into regular gainful employment is often hindered by employers’ concerns about lacking skills, low performance, potential cost of accommodations, and possible negative reactions from customers and coworkers (Kocman & Weber, 2018; Society for Human Resource Management, 2019). However, organizations that provide competitive integrated employment for individuals with an ID/DD gain a competitive advantage, as they benefit from their loyalty, team morale, creative problem-solving, and innovative thinking (Hamilton, 2024; Lengnick-Hall, 2007). Beyond the organizational benefits, offering meaningful employment opportunities to this population can be the key to a life of independence, self-determination, and social integration (Jahoda et al., 2008).

Competitive integrated employment is often facilitated through supported employment programs for this talent pool (Wehman et al., 2016). These programs rely on collaborations between vocational rehabilitation services, supported employment agencies, and employers. Employment partnerships assist employers in talent identification, job training, and placement while also providing necessary employee support (e.g., job coaching). However, given the variability in length and format of services provided by supported employment agencies and vocational rehabilitation services, natural workplace supports (i.e., supervisors) play an essential role in job retention and career advancement (Ellenkamp et al., 2016; Schaap et al., 2024). Indeed, supervisors have a profound influence on managing and overseeing employees’ performance and day-to-day tasks, shaping workplace inclusion, and influencing job satisfaction and performance (Elias & Mittal, 2011). Nevertheless, research indicates that supervisors lack the necessary skills and knowledge to successfully manage and support this workforce (Heron & Bruk-Lee, 2023). More specifically, Heron and Bruk-Lee (2023) conducted a training needs analysis with data from direct supervisors, employers, job coaches, and respondents from vocational rehabilitation and supported employment agencies, which identified several critical gaps in supervisor skills and knowledge areas (i.e., socialization, training, performance management, etc.). Notably, training has been an effective method for developing these essential supervisory competencies and enhancing disability confidence in managers (Bruk-Lee et al., 2024).

Addressing the Research Gap

Training is most effective when it is developed with input from all relevant stakeholders, as their perspectives ensure that training content aligns with their needs and workplace experiences (Gilliam et al., 2002). However, to date, limited research has explored the training needs of supervisors from the perspectives of people with an ID/DD (see also Schaap et al., 2024), even though they are the primary beneficiaries. With their direct input, training programs can be more comprehensive, closely aligned with their actual needs, and less dependent on assumptions made by others. The “Nothing about Us Without Us” paradigm further corroborates the necessity of involving people with an ID/DD in decisions and discussions that directly impact them, ensuring that their voices are central to the research process (Charlton, 2000).

Historically, individuals with an ID/DD have had limited influence over the research enterprise designed to benefit them directly and are often minimally engaged in the research process (Browne & Dorris, 2022; Kim et al., 2022). While limited studies exist, the research with individuals with an ID/DD has primarily focused on identifying employment barriers, workplace accessibility, well-being and socialization, as well as organizational and policy constraints that hinder transitions from supported to open employment (Estreder et al., 2024; Flores et al., 2011; Jahoda et al., 2009; Joyce et al., 2024; Meacham et al., 2017; Meltzer et al., 2020; Waisman-Nitzan et al., 2021). However, little attention has been given to their perspectives on what competencies supervisors must possess to best support them in the workplace.

The present study addresses an important gap in the literature by exploring the supervisor competencies that employees with an ID/DD themselves identify as most critical for their workplace success. Findings from this research capture firsthand experiences rather than relying solely on external stakeholders. This ensures that natural workplace supports are directly informed by the lived experiences of this population (National Disability Authority, 2022), aligning with the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which emphasizes the right of individuals with disabilities to participate in decisions that affect their lives (United Nations, 2006). By centering the voices of employees with an ID/DD, this study enhances efforts to build more inclusive workplaces and develop evidence-based supervisor training programs that are responsive to their needs. Accordingly, this study seeks to answer the question: What supervisor competencies do employees with an ID/DD identify as critical for their workplace success?

Method

Participants

To take part in the pilot and main study, eligible participants were required to self-identify as having an ID/DD, be at least 18 years old, not have a legal guardian, have current or past employment experience (could be paid or unpaid), and have had at least one direct supervisor overseeing their work and daily tasks. A member of the Advisory Board supporting this research endeavor, who also met the study criteria, was consulted to ensure the study’s design and materials were accessible and aligned with best practices (see Nicolaidis et al., 2019; Nicolaidis et al., 2020) prior to the pilot. They provided input into the content, format, structure, and layout of study materials, as well as shared their insights into the procedures and study protocol. Five individuals who met the inclusion criteria later participated in the pilot study to further refine the study materials and research protocol. A total of 14 participants completed the main study interviews. Demographic data for the pilot study participants can be found in Table 1 and for the main study participants in Table 2.

Table 1.

Demographic Information of Pilot Study Participants

Sample characteristics	M	SD	n	%
Age	21.00	0.71
Receiving support from a job coach
Yes			3	60
No			2	40
Gender identity
Female			1	20
Male			4	80
Racial/ethnic background*
Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Origin			2	40
White (not Hispanic or Latino)			2	40
Asian (not Hispanic or Latino)			1	20
Other			1	20
Disclosed Disability**
Autism			3	60
Intellectual Disability			2	40
Fragile X syndrome			1	20
ADHD			1	20

Note. N = 5.

^*Some participants reported having multiple racial/ethnic backgrounds.

^**Some participants reported having multiple disabilities.

Table 2.

Demographic Information of Main Study Participants

Sample characteristics	M	SD	n	%
Age	30.20	9.17
Job tenurea	5.33	10.27
Receiving support from a job coach
Yes			6	43
No			8	57
Sex
Female			7	50
Male			6	43
Did not indicate			1	7
Gender identity
Female			7	50
Male			5	36
Did not indicate			2	14
Racial/ethnic background
Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Origin			6	43
White (not Hispanic or Latino)			7	50
Black or African American (not Hispanic or Latino)			1	7
Disclosed Disability*
Anxiety Disorder			1	7
Autism			11	79
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder			2	14
Epilepsy			1	7
Intellectual Disability			5	36
Learning Disability			2	14
Obsessive-compulsive disorder			1	7
Disability Characteristics (answered yes)
Difficulty hearing			0	0
Difficulty seeing			0	0
Difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions			5	36
Difficulty walking or climbing stairs			1	7
Difficulty dressing or bathing			1	7
Difficulty doing errands alone			4	29
Participant Language
Speaks English well or very well			14	100
Speaks second language at home			6	43

Note. N = 14.

^aJob tenure was reported in years (n = 14).

^*Some participants disclosed multiple disabilities.

Procedure

University Institutional Review Board approval was obtained prior to the start of the study. A study flyer was distributed through FIU Embrace, a post-secondary education program promoting competitive integrated employment and independent living skills for young adults with an ID/DD, to recruit pilot participants. Main study participants were recruited through multiple channels, including FIU Embrace alumni lists, not-for-profit disability resource centers, local employers of individuals with disabilities, and supported employment agencies, among other outlets. A recruitment flyer detailing the study objective, inclusion criteria, compensation, and research team contact information was distributed through these networks and also posted on FIU Embrace’s social media account. The flyer included a QR code directing interested participants to a Qualtrics survey to submit contact information, including name, phone number, and email address. Participants could also contact the research team via phone or email to express interest and request accommodations.

The pilot phase of this study sought to refine research materials and procedures, ensuring accessibility and content clarity for individuals with an ID/DD. Additionally, the research team followed the accessibility guidelines made by Nicolaidis and colleagues (2019; 2020) in the development of the study materials. Careful attention was given to ensuring that the research materials adhered to plain language guidelines (The Plain Language Action and Information Network, 2011). Prior to the pilot interview, an initial in-person meeting was scheduled for screening and consent purposes. This meeting was conducted by at least one facilitator with experience working with the sample population. Participants were shown the screening questions and the consent form as the interviewer read them aloud. They were also encouraged to ask questions throughout this process. To ensure comprehension, the research team embedded six checkpoint questions throughout the consenting process (e.g., “What can you do if you start the study but do not want to finish it?”), which participants had to answer correctly to move on to the next section (see Horner-Johnson & Bailey, 2013). If a participant answered a checkpoint question incorrectly on their first attempt, the researcher reviewed the relevant section with them before asking the question again. If the participant could not provide the correct answer on the second attempt, they were excluded from the study. Six participants underwent screening, with one person removed for not meeting the inclusion criteria. Pilot interviews began with an overview of the study and were followed by an icebreaker to build rapport. Participants could ask questions, take breaks, or withdraw at any time. Three participants provided feedback on the content of the recruitment flyer, screening and consenting forms, main interview script, and post-interview survey questions. Two participants completed a mock run of the interview. The interviews were recorded with participants’ consent and ranged from 40 to 87 minutes. Each participant received two Amazon gift cards as compensation, totaling $120. The study protocol and research materials were modified based on the feedback received.

For the main study, screening and consenting were conducted online via Zoom. Participants received the consent form and screening questions in advance for accessibility purposes (Center for Applied Special Technology [CAST], 2018). The screening criteria remained the same for the main study, but the consenting process was modified to include multiple-choice answers for the checkpoint questions. Of 15 individuals who completed the screening and consent process, 14 met the inclusion criteria. Interviews were conducted in person by at least one trained facilitator, and a co-facilitator was present when possible. The study’s overview, icebreaker, and instructions were provided verbally and via written prompts, with research materials using plain language. To ensure the process was accessible and participant-centered, interviews included brief breaks, and participants were encouraged to ask questions at any time. Data for this study were collected during the second half of the interview when participants were shown a series of statements and asked to rate whether they deemed the knowledge or skill described as important for a supervisor to know or possess. Ratings were followed by additional interview prompts, depending on the participant’s rating. The interviews ranged from 70 to 114 minutes, were recorded with participant consent, and transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription service. Compensation included two $60 Amazon gift cards and a $50 travel stipend paid in cash.

Measures

Demographic and inclusion criteria

Demographic information was collected at multiple stages of the study. In the initial Qualtrics interest survey, participants provided their name and answered whether they had been diagnosed with an ID/DD, with the option to disclose their specific diagnosis. During the screening process, additional data were collected. This included participants’ age, decision-making support needs (e.g., whether they required assistance from a parent or another adult to make decisions, such as taking part in the present study), legal guardianship status, current and past employment experiences (including internships, job shadowing, or on-the-job training), job roles, length of employment, history of supervision, and whether they had ever used or needed a job coach. After completing the interview, participants anonymously answered a self-report survey that gathered information on their sex, gender identity, race, hearing and vision impairments, cognitive and physical disabilities affecting daily activities (e.g., difficulty concentrating, remembering, walking, or performing self-care tasks), ability to complete errands independently, English proficiency, and primary language spoken at home.

Pilot study interview

A semi-structured interview script was developed to gather feedback from five participants on the materials used in the main study, including the recruitment flyer, screening and consent forms, interview script questions, and the post-interview demo-graphic survey. Participants were asked general questions such as whether any words were confusing, if they had suggestions to make the materials more understandable, and if there was anything else they felt was important to share before moving on to the next section. Additionally, specific questions were included to assess comprehension of key study documents. For example, when reviewing the consent form, participants were asked, “Will anyone know that you took part in this study?” and “What happens if you do not finish all of the study?”

Main study interview

Fourteen participants rated a total of 19 statements depicting a series of skills, knowledge, or behaviors a supervisor may possess or display. The statements were informed by the learning objectives of the Ready to Lead supervisor training program (Bruk-Lee et al., 2024), which was developed to meet the critical training gaps identified by Heron and Bruk-Lee (2023). Statements were further grouped into five different topic areas, including (1) creating a healthy workplace, (2) building an inclusive team climate, (3) maximizing employee job fit, (4) training employees on the job, and (5) managing employee performance. A sample statement is “A supervisor should know what their employees are good at doing, so that they can give them work that is right for them.” Participants were asked to make one of four ratings: (1) Yes (the statement is important), (2) No (the statement is not important), (3) Not sure (if they were uncertain about its importance), or (4) I need more information (if they did not understand the statement or required further clarification to decide). Participants were prompted with additional questions to allow them to discuss their chosen rating or were provided with additional information if needed. For instance, follow-up questions included “Why do you think this is (not) important?” or “Can you provide an example of when/where your supervisor demonstrated this?

Data Analysis

To identify critical supervisory skills and knowledge areas from the perspectives of individuals with an ID/DD, participants rated the importance of 19 learning objectives on four rating categories. If a participant selected “I need more information”, researchers provided additional explanations to enhance understanding before the participant re-evaluated the statement. Consequently, only responses from the first three options were included in the final data analysis. Independently trained raters reviewed interview recordings and transcripts to ensure participant responses aligned with their selected ratings. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus among raters. Any additional themes emerging from the data were identified and incorporated into the analysis. Rating data were aggregated, and descriptive statistics were reported (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Importance Ratings for Supervisory Statements

Item #	Statement	Response
	A supervisor should …	Yes	Not sure	No
Create a Healthy Workplace
1	… know what their employees are good at doing, so that they can give them work that is right for them.	100%
2	… get to know their employees and treat them with respect.	86%	14%
3	… know how to create a happy workplace where employees can do their best.	86%	7%	7%
4	… know how and when employees prefer to talk about their disabilities.	100%
Build an Inclusive Team Climate
5	… know how to make the workplace welcoming and accepting for people with disabilities.	100%
6	… know how to help their worker with a disability be part of the team and make friends. For example, by giving them a work buddy or someone who can help them when they need it.	93%		7%
Maximize Employee Job Fit
7	… know what makes their workers worried or upset.	79%	21%
8	… know how their employees will react when they are stressed or upset.	93%	7%
9	… know how to help employees feel better when they are stressed.	93%	7%
10	… understand ways to help their employee with a disability receive the accommodations they need.	93%		7%
Train Employees on the Job
11	… know how to teach an employee to do a good job.	86%	7%	7%
12	… give an employee with disabilities enough time to practice a new task.	100%
13	… know how to teach employees a new job in different ways. For example, a supervisor can have a chat with the employee about how to do the job and they can also show them how to do it.	93%		7%
14	… learn how to use pictures, signs, or reminder lists to help employees do their jobs, if they need them.	100%
Manage Employee Performance
15	… know how to clearly tell the employee what they expect of them.	100%
16	… be honest when telling an employee how they are doing on the job.	86%	14%
17	… know how to help an employee when they see them making mistakes at work.	93%	7%
18	… help an employee to grow and become a better employee.	93%	7%
19	… have meetings with their employees to talk about how things are going at work.	93%	7%

Note. N = 14.

Results

Of the 19 statements, six items were endorsed by all participants as important supervisory skills or knowledge areas. These included (1) knowing what their employees are good at so that they can assign appropriate tasks, (2) understanding when and how employees prefer to discuss their disabilities, (3) making the workplace welcoming and accepting for employees with disabilities, (4) allowing employees with disabilities sufficient time to practice new tasks, (5) learning to use visual supports (e.g., pictures, signs, or reminder lists) to assist employees as needed, and (6) knowing how to clearly communicate job expectations. These items reflected supervisory competencies that spanned the general content areas of creating a healthy workplace, building an inclusive team climate, and training employees on the job.

Eight items received strong endorsement, with most participants selecting “yes” and a small proportion indicating “not sure.” Five of these eight items were considered important by at least 90% and fell into the general content areas of maximizing employee job fit and managing employee performance. These items included supervisory skills such as knowing how their employees will react when they are stressed or upset, how to help them feel better in a stressful situation, and how to help them when they make a mistake. Additionally, supervisors should help employees grow and become better employees, as well as have meetings with them to talk about how things are going at work. Eighty-six percent of participants agreed that getting to know their employees and treating them with respect, along with being honest when telling an employee how they are doing on the job, are important aspects of a supervisor’s job. Seventy-nine percent of participants agreed that it is important for supervisors to know what makes their workers worried or upset, while 21% were not sure of its importance. The presence of “not sure” ratings in some of these items suggests that some participants may have viewed these skills as context-dependent or requiring further specification.

Three statements were considered important by 93% of the participants, with only 7% of participants rating them as not important. These included (1) the ability to know how to help employees with disabilities be part of a team and make friends, (2) understanding ways to help them receive needed accommodations, and (3) knowing how to teach them a new job in different ways.

Finally, two items received responses across all three categories (yes, not sure, and no), indicating some uncertainty or context-dependent considerations. Specifically, 86% of participants rated creating a positive workplace and teaching employees to perform their jobs well as important, while 7% rated these items as unimportant and another 7% were unsure. The former item aligns with a learning objective within the topic area creating a healthy workplace, while the latter corresponds to a learning objective within the training employees on the job topic area. Nevertheless, taking all statements into consideration, the results suggest broad agreement on all 19 supervisory competency statements from the perspective of individuals with an ID/DD. Areas of divergence highlight the need for additional clarity and context.

Discussion

The present study examined the necessary knowledge and skills that individuals with an ID/DD determine are important for a good supervisor to possess. Findings indicate strong support for all 19 knowledge and skill statements, with 18 statements endorsed by greater than 85% of participants and one statement receiving 79% endorsement (see Table 3). The results suggest that employees with ID/DD value supervisors who offer support and constructive feedback, give clear instructions, foster professional growth, make time to communicate, and facilitate team integration. To contextualize these findings, this discussion offers qualitative insights from participants, explores relevant literature, and discusses implications for practice, as well as limitations and directions for future research.

Supervisory Skills, Knowledge, and Behaviors Universally Endorsed

Statements 1, 4, 5, 12, 14, and 15 (see Table 3) were endorsed by all participants, however, the rationale for their support varied across statements. A theme that emerged from participant responses was the need for supervisors to recognize employees’ strengths in order to assign tasks that align with their abilities. This finding is consistent with strengths-based management approaches, which suggest that leveraging employee strengths enhances career satisfaction and job performance (Ding et al., 2024). Participants offered different reasons for why this was important. One participant emphasized the need for supervisors to be aware not only of an employees’ strengths, but also challenges they may face in order to provide necessary support and accommodations. She explained that “obviously, you’re going to maybe sometimes do work that you’re not that great at. But then, hopefully, they [supervisors] can, like, help you and provide support” (Participant 2). Other participants approached the topic from a productivity perspective, arguing that “it would be the most efficient use of their skills…” (Participant 3) and “a good time management technique […] if the priority is getting the work done, you wanna give it to the person who’s going to do it best” (Participant 10). A third participant highlighted the stress associated with being assigned unfamiliar tasks, framing this issue in terms of psychological well-being and work-related anxiety. More specifically, she said, “If you get a task that you don’t know, and this happened to me before, […], it causes me, you know, stress. It’s just a bad experience” (Participant 5). Finally, another participant viewed strength-based task assignment as a sign of a supervisor’s care for their employees. They mentioned that “it’s also a good way to show your employee that you care about [them and] you’re not always going to be giving them work they hate” (Participant 10). Collectively, these perspectives underscore the multifaceted benefits of supervisors recognizing employee strengths, encompassing efficiency, well-being, and workplace relationships.

Similarly, participants emphasized that knowing how and when employees prefer to discuss their disabilities, as well as knowing how to make the workplace welcoming and accepting for people with disabilities, are important qualities of a supervisor. In this study, participants’ preferences for disclosure varied widely with some employees being comfortable openly discussing their disabilities, while others preferring to keep this information private. As one participant noted, “[some people] don’t want their coworkers to know. They only want management to know…I don’t care if my coworkers know […]” (Participant 12). Supervisors should be mindful of these differences and avoid initiating discussions about an employee’s disability in public settings or in ways that could make the employee feel uncomfortable. Another participant highlighted the importance of sensitivity in these interactions, stating:

It’s a very touchy subject, and a lot of people probably aren’t comfortable disclosing their disabilities. So, if I had somebody walk up to me and say, oh, are you autistic because you’re doing this? I would feel very judged and uncomfortable

(Participant 8).

Respecting an employee’s boundaries on disclosure not only upholds their privacy but also demonstrates professionalism and trust (Galt, 2025; Gignac et al., 2021; Office of Disability Employment Policy, n.d.-b). Additionally, participants emphasized that if an employee chooses to disclose their disability, supervisors should engage in the conversation with openness and support rather than dismissing or avoiding the topic. More specifically, Participant 10 mentioned:

Trying to make sure that I don’t feel like I have to talk about my disability … sometimes can be counter-productive. So, just kind of allowing the person who has this disability to decide how and when to be open and how much [they would like to disclose] - I think it’s better.

Notably, if supervisors manage to create a work environment where employees feel comfortable sharing information on their own, it can foster a stronger workplace relationship (von Schrader et al., 2014) and more effective communication (Lindsay et al., 2018).

Furthermore, participants agreed that it is important for supervisors to give their employees with disabilities enough time to practice a new task. For instance, one participant explained, “It gives them time to master the task. If they get really nervous, they might fail at first. So, if they’re more comfortable doing it several times, they’ll do a better job” (Participant 13). Another participant commented that this is not just a beneficial practice, but sometimes a necessary accommodation. She emphasized that “if that is also the accommodation that they need. […] depending on the person that if they do need more time, yes, give them more time to practice” (Participant 2). By accommodating an individual’s learning pace and providing adequate practice opportunities, supervisors can foster a supportive and equitable work environment where employees can perform at their best (Gilson et al., 2022).

Similarly, participants recognized the importance of visual aids, such as pictures, signs, and reminder lists. They mentioned how using these tools can benefit employees who process information in alternative ways. For instance, Participant 14 noted that while he does not currently have access to such tools, it would be helpful to have pictures. Past research on universal design for learning (UDL) supports our findings by demonstrating the importance of providing multiple means of representation (e.g., visual aids) to improve accessibility for all individuals (CAST, 2018). Supervisors who use these resources can enhance task clarity, strengthen learning retention, reduce performance errors, and ultimately support all employees in completing their tasks more efficiently.

Likewise, all participants recognized that setting clear expectations is essential for supervisors to avoid miscommunication and ensure employees understand their responsibilities. Several participants emphasized the importance of specificity, with one participant stating that “I think it’s really easy to fall into the trap of trying to be kind and then end up being vague instead. I think I said this earlier, but specificity is very useful. It avoids a lot of misunderstandings” (Participant 10). Another participant added that clear expectations provide a standard for performance and enable constructive feedback (Participant 3). When supervisors communicate their expectations clearly, employees are better equipped to succeed and contribute meaningfully to the workplace. As Participant 8 expressed, “I wouldn’t… live up to my full potential without knowing exactly what is expected of me.”

Additional Key Supervisory Competencies Highlighted by Participants

Statements 2, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, and 19 (see Table 3) were largely rated as important, but in some cases, participants indicated they were not sure. Most participants agreed that supervisors should make an effort to understand their employees while treating them with respect. Many emphasized the importance of mutual understanding:

Getting to know each other is important so that you can know more where both of you are coming from and understand what they’re saying and meaning and not judge. If you don’t know each other and don’t treat each other with respect, that’s just a horrible work environment

(Participant 2).

Others highlighted the value of team cohesion, as Participant 4 noted, “if you know your employees, then [there is] more unity.” However, participants differed in their views on how personal the supervisor-employee relationships should be, with some preferring more professional boundaries. Some participants appreciated team-building efforts, such as a ‘Sushi Tuesday’ in Participant 7’s case, which fosters a positive work culture for them, while others felt that getting too personal could be uncomfortable or even problematic. For instance, Participant 5 cautioned that “to get to know their employees, I think, could be bad” if personal details were misused. Overall, participants agreed that it is important for supervisors to foster a respectful and inclusive work environment, while carefully navigating the balance between personal connections and professional boundaries.

Furthermore, the findings revealed that supervisors should be aware of what makes their employees worried or upset, particularly when it impacts their work or falls within the supervisor’s control. Participant 14 emphasized the importance of private conversations, stating that supervisors could “come in and ask them [employees] why they’re upset and why they’re feeling the way they are and [pull] them aside and talk to them.” Another participant noted that understanding employee concerns can help maintain productivity, explaining that “if you’re worried or upset, you’re not gonna be able to do your job as efficiently” (Participant 3). However, opinions varied on the extent to which supervisors should be involved. Some participants felt that supervisors should only focus on major stressors, cautioning that otherwise, “…supervisors sound more like a therapist” (Participant 6). Others expressed concern that sharing one’s worries might lead to judgment, with one participant stating, “[If I would] tell them that I’m worried about making a mistake and losing my job, I feel like that would make them [supervisors] think that I wasn’t reliable or able to do my job as well” (Participant 8). Ultimately, there was a consensus among participants that supervisors cannot be expected to anticipate every concern. However, they should create an environment where employees feel comfortable sharing work-related stressors. Past research on psychological safety and open communication supports this notion (Basit, 2021). Notably, when employees share work-related stressors, supervisors should respond constructively by exploring appropriate accommodations or support strategies.

Findings from this study also show that employees with an ID/DD value supervisors’ honesty when telling them how they are doing on the job. Particularly, participants emphasized transparency as a key component of growth and development. One participant noted the importance of constructive feedback, stating, “If they [employees] are doing bad, not just saying, ‘You are bad,’ but explaining what you are doing wrong, and this is how you can fix it” (Participant 2). Another participant agreed, saying, “[…] they [employees] can’t really improve if they don’t know that they’re doing something wrong” (Participant 13). However, while honesty is important, participants also stressed the need for sensitivity in delivering feedback. One participant expressed concern about overly blunt criticism, explaining, “They should find a way to help you do better […] without just saying, ‘Hey, you’re not fulfilling your role’” (Participant 8). Others preferred a more supportive approach, with one suggesting that instead of directly pointing out mistakes, a supervisor could ask, “Do you need some help? What’s going on?” (Participant 5). Overall, the results showed that employees with an ID/DD generally appreciate honesty and feedback that is delivered with respect, kindness, and a focus on improvement. Past research showed that performance appraisals of employees with disabilities are biased (Colella & Varma, 1999; Shore et al., 2009), which may lead to withholding constructive feedback altogether, ultimately limiting the growth potential of this labor force. Participants mentioned the importance of receiving constructive feedback in a private setting, noting that supervisors should communicate both what they are doing well and what needs improvement without making them feel discouraged. The majority of participants valued supervisors who support employees when they make mistakes and are committed to helping them grow and improve.

Past research has shown that supervisors play a crucial role in fostering an inclusive workplace where employees with disabilities feel like valued members of the team (Hujerat, 2024). Statement 6 specifically emphasizes that a supervisor should know how to help their worker with a disability be part of the team and make friends, such as by offering support through a work buddy system. This study reveals that while making friends is a personal choice, creating opportunities for team integration, as with a peer mentor, can help employees with an ID/DD feel supported and connected. One participant shared:

If I had somebody that I could trust at work and who understood my disability or at least like, um, accommodations I need, that would be really awesome. I’ve never even thought about that. I think that would make me more motivated and secure in what I’m doing

(Participant 8).

While most participants agreed that supervisors should foster team inclusion, they also emphasized the importance of recognizing that not all employees desire this type of support. Some participants agreed that making friends was not as important; however, the broader theme of social integration and supervisor support remained a key element for them. Nevertheless, one participant noted, “I’m there to do my job […] I don’t need the externals” (Participant 5). To create an inclusive environment, supervisors should avoid a one-size-fits-all approach (Homan et al., 2020). It is important to encourage teamwork and support while respecting individual preferences.

Largely, participants in this study also agreed that it is important for supervisors to understand ways to help their employees with an ID/DD receive the accommodations they need. For instance, one participant mentioned that if they had an employee they knew to have a disability, they would:

[…] say, ‘Hey, did you know you can get accommodations? Here are some resources that you can use to get accommodations if you want.’ Instead of just putting it all on the disabled person

(Participant 2).

However, Participant 12 argued that it is the employee’s responsibility to understand how to obtain their own accommodations and to proactively communicate their needs to their supervisor. It is important to note, however, that this participant had received accommodations since middle school, had access to a job coach, and was already familiar with the accommodation request process.

Furthermore, the qualitative analysis of Statement 13 revealed that most participants found it important that their supervisors utilize various instructional methods when teaching employees new tasks. Particularly, a prevalent theme was that individuals have different learning preferences. For instance, Participant 3 stated, “Not everyone learns the same way. Some people are […] visual learners. Some are […] audio learners. So everyone learns in their own way.” However, one participant pointed out that not all employees may feel comfortable seeking guidance from a supervisor; some may prefer to receive instructions from a coworker instead. Nevertheless, providing multiple methods of instruction can help supervisors promote a more inclusive and accessible learning environment.

Although importance ratings for Statements 3 and 11 (see Table 3) displayed the greatest variability, the majority of participants still rated them as important. Findings showed that supervisors play a key role in shaping a positive work environment where employees can perform at their best. One participant highlighted the importance of support and communication and mentioned that a supervisor can create a happy workplace “by lifting each other up and having regular meetings; […] letting employees know that they’re there for them” (Participant 4). Others emphasized that a happy workplace fosters teamwork and productivity, with Participant 10 explaining, “Nobody wants to come to work somewhere where they’re not happy… and it also makes it easier to supervise people who are happy working.” However, some participants expressed reservations about the term ‘happy’, suggesting instead that a respectful and comfortable workplace is more important. One participant noted that a happy workplace is not as important as a respectful workplace because “I don’t think that helps you necessarily to do your best” (Participant 5). Interestingly, the term ‘happy’ used in this statement was focal to those who rated it as “not sure” or “not important.” These participants also mentioned they may have been interpreting the statement literally, which aligns with past research supporting that autistic individuals tend to interpret language in a literal manner (Vicente et al., 2024). Others pointed out that happiness is subjective and difficult for a supervisor to control. As Participant 2 questioned, “you [supervisor] can’t always make sure that everyone is happy.” In general, supervisors should aim to create a supportive, inclusive, and respectful environment that allows employees to thrive. Inclusive formal and informal HR practices can help create a workplace where employees with an ID/DD experience improved well-being and greater participation (Meacham et al., 2017).

Lastly, the findings from this study indicate that supervisors should play an active role in teaching employees to do their jobs well by providing guidance, support, and workplace resources. For instance, Participant 1 mentioned that supervisors who effectively teach their employees allow them to gain independence, explaining, “It’s important so that they can learn it fast and do it by [themselves]. Or if they’re stressed out, they can just ask for help.” Some participants, however, also noted that while guidance is essential, excessive supervision can be counterproductive. For instance, one participant emphasized his discomfort being supervised too closely, stating that “Sometimes […] my supervisor will stand behind my back […] that’s so uncomfortable. But if I know somebody who’s done the job and I can ask them questions […] I’d be way more comfortable” (Participant 5). Generally, participants agreed that supervisors should strike a balance between actively supporting employees in learning their jobs and fostering autonomy and trust. This balance would best help them feel capable and respected at work.

Practical Implications

Organizations and practitioners can use the findings of this study to improve workplace practices that promote sustainable employment for persons with an ID/DD. More specifically, the present study identified supervisory skills, knowledge, and behaviors that can be part of training and development efforts for managers who oversee the work of employees with an ID/DD. Doing so can foster more supportive work environments where employees may experience better employment outcomes, such as increased job satisfaction, improved performance, and job retention. Hence, these findings can assist organizations with the development of policies that make workplaces more accessible.

Limitations and Future Directions

While this study provides important insights into supervisory competencies from the perspectives of individuals with an ID/DD, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the sample size was relatively small (N = 14), limiting the generalizability of the findings. Although the qualitative nature of the study allows for in-depth exploration of participants’ perspectives (Lim, 2024), a larger and more diverse sample could provide a broader understanding of the critical supervisory skills necessary for inclusive workplace practices for this employee population. Future research should build upon the current findings by employing methods with a larger sample size. Second, the supervisor statements in the current study were derived from the learning objectives of the Ready to Lead training program, which was built on the critical training need gaps identified by prior research (Heron & Bruk-Lee, 2023). While pilot participants were invited to offer feedback on the wording and content of these statements, it is possible that other supervisory competencies not captured in this study are also important. Future research could utilize a qualitative approach to explore whether employees with an ID/DD identify additional competencies crucial for effective supervision and workplace inclusion. Third, the study was cross-sectional, capturing participants’ perspectives at a single point in time. This design limits the ability to assess how supervisory competency needs may evolve over time as employees with ID/DD gain more workplace experience or as organizational policies shift. Future research should consider longitudinal designs to capture more than a snapshot in time and track differences in the importance of supervisory statements that may arise with job tenure or work experience. Nevertheless, the limitations of the findings should be considered in relation to the newly gained insights and not solely as a point of criticism. This research is among the few (see also Schaap et al., 2023) to incorporate the perspective of individuals with an ID/DD in determining what supervisory skills, knowledge, and behaviors matter to them, and the shortcomings of this study should serve as a springboard for more work in this area.

Conclusion

This study employed inclusive research practices to enhance our understanding of supervisor skills, knowledge, and behaviors identified as important competencies for a supervisor to possess in order to help employees with an ID/DD perform and thrive at work. These competencies span broader content areas tied to a supervisor’s role in: 1) creating a healthy workplace where employees can grow, produce and feel valued, 2) building inclusive teams, 3) maximizing employee-job fit by facilitating accommodations and offering appropriate supports, 4) training employees on the job, and 5) managing day-to-day performance. These findings support the critical supervisor training gaps identified by other stakeholder groups (i.e., job coaches, employers, etc.), but further contextualize these supervisor qualities from the perspective and lived experiences of the employees themselves.