Effective HR strategies for enhancing the organizational commitment of HIV-positive employees.

Fulford, Mark D. ; Rothman, Rachael

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this paper is to provide insight into the effective management and retention of employees who are HIV-positive. A focus group of employees who were HIV-positive was assembled and asked what HR policies would enhance their organizational commitment. A mail survey was then conducted asking HIV-positive employees to rank and rate the impact of each of the 18 policies resulting from the focus group on their organizational commitment.

Respondents felt that all 18 policies, if implemented by their respective employers, would enhance their organizational commitment. The policies felt to be the most influential relative to the others were ensuring confidentiality and non-discriminatory treatment; both of which can be implemented at little or no cost to the organization.

This paper is one of a handful to address the issue of enhancing the organizational commitment of a specific group of employees; it is also the first, to our knowledge, to specifically address the HIV-positive employee population. It offers something for both academic and practitioner audiences alike.

INTRODUCTION

Since the discovery of the HIV virus and AIDS in the early 1980's, the issue of employing those who are HIV-positive in the hospitality industry and other high-customer- contact service industries has been a controversial one. On the one hand, co-workers and customers have a fear (unwarranted) of becoming infected through casual contact with HIV-positive employees. On the other hand, HIV-positive employees already play a significant role in service organizations, a role which these organizations can no longer afford to ignore. While recognizing that not all HIV-positive individuals are gay or lesbian, a recent Nation's Restaurant News article discussing the employment of gays and lesbians says "hospitality companies must realize that the same gays and lesbians who patronize their businesses also make up an extremely valuable segment of their workforce. Those companies must assure that their workers are treated equitably and given paths to promotion that help reflect the growing diversity of their markets. It's not just profitable; it's good employment practice" (Allen et. al.; p. 20). For those organizations seeking to more effectively manage diversity, increasing the organizational commitment of all employees should be the goal.

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

Organizational commitment refers to the psychological state of identifying with and involving oneself with their organization (Angle & Perry, 1981; O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Steers, 1977). Research has shown that organizational commitment is positively related to employee retention; simply stated, employees committed to an organization are less likely to leave. Such commitment benefits both employees and organizations. Employees achieve greater job stability; the organizations achieve experienced, motivated workers, higher levels of service quality, and reduced employee turnover costs (Cohen, 2000; Hartline & DeWitt, 2004; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).

While there exists a vast body of literature on alternative sources of labor, and substantial literature on enhancing the organizational commitment of employees in general (see Riketta, 2005), there is relatively little published information on enhancing the commitment of specific employee groups (e.g., women, teens, ethnic minorities, gays) or of alternative labor sources (e.g., seniors, legal immigrants, and the disabled, including HIV-positive employees). There are several reasons why HIV-positive employees in particular have been neglected in this regard:

* HIV-positive employees are not readily identifiable. Many do not divulge their condition for fear that other employees will react negatively or that they will be terminated by their employer. Thus, it is difficult for researchers to learn much about the employment/management of HIV positive employees.

* Many service-sector organizations do not feel that HIV is a serious factor for management and staffing issues. They have ignored the demographic factors which indicate the growing significance of HIV-positive employees to their operations.

* Many service-sector organizations hesitate to hire and/or retain candidates who are HIV-positive for fear they will infect customers or other employees.

Yet, there are many reasons which give HIV-positive employees undeniable importance for future staffing needs, and why service organizations should make every effort to retain their HIV-positive employees:

Lack of risk. HIV cannot be transmitted to customers or other employees through casual contact.

Ability to perform. The symptoms of HIV may take as many as 12 years (if at all) to appear, during which time employees who carry the HIV virus are still able to fulfill their duties and responsibilities without compromising their performance.

Legal obligation. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), hospitality and other organizations may not discriminate against HIV-positive employees on the basis of their condition as long as the employee can adequately perform the "essential functions" of the job, either with or without reasonable accommodation(s).

Changing demographics. The shrinking qualified labor pool, coupled with the expected growth in service sector employment, will make full utilization of alternative sources of labor a necessity.

Cost/benefit. Significant increases in the organizational commitment (and subsequent decreases in turnover and associated costs) of HIV positive employees may be made at relatively no or little cost to the organization.

PRIVACY, FAIR TREATMENT, AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

Both employers and employees have a number of concerns regarding HIV status in the workplace. It is the employer's responsibility to provide a safe workplace; and although authorities maintain that HIV cannot be transmitted through casual contact, it can often be difficult for employers to mitigate employee and customer fear of contracting the virus. Employers are thus charged with the responsibility of ensuring a non-discriminatory work environment and protecting the health of all employees and customers, while at the same time tending to the fiscal health of the business. One of the key necessities to continued financial success is employee retention. The question must then be asked, "what steps can employers take to increase the organizational commitment of their HIV positive employees while ensuring the safety of the work environment and not causing undue business hardship?"

Although this situation might at first seem somewhat tenuous, this appearance is deceptive. In order to answer this question, employers must specifically address the needs of the HIV positive employees themselves. What could organizations do to increase the organizational commitment of HIV positive employees specifically that they might not already be doing? Misconceptions and stereotypes which surround HIV contraction and HIV positive individuals cause them to fear overreaction from coworkers, bosses, and clients, possibly leading to biased and unequal treatment in the workplace. Given that these are two primary concerns for HIV positive workers, it logically follows that confidentiality regarding HIV issues would be of utmost importance. The assurance of confidentiality regarding HIV issues has many implications. HIV positive employees are able to separate their personal lives from their work lives. According to Schoeman (1992), privacy protects us from social overreaching-and limits the control of others over our lives. Privacy enables the HIV positive individual to act with the same authority, autonomy, and freedom from bias as other workers. The commitment to worker privacy shows the company's respect for the individual and their support and confidence in their work.

Without confidentiality, it would be difficult to ensure unbiased treatment of HIV positive individuals during both the selection process and once on the job. Privacy ensures that not only will the HIV positive individual be treated in a non-discriminatory manner, but it also keeps employers from being subjected to inappropriate pressure from co-workers, employees, and customers regarding the treatment of such employees. Guaranteeing worker privacy is a tacit agreement of commitment between workers and their organizations. Working in a supportive environment which is free from bias will increase the workers' organizational commitment because they will be more able to identify with the goals of the organization. If their organization respects and trusts them, they, in turn, will respect and trust their organization.

Although privacy assists workers in ensuring fair and equitable treatment, room to be themselves, and control over their lives, oftentimes organizations have not implemented strict privacy policies for fear of losing control over their workers. As Bible & McWhirter (1990, p. 42) say, "when people disclose themselves to one another in privacy (as an HIV positive employee might do with his/her boss) a secret society comes into existence. This is discouraging to those running institutions that seek to control their members; such institutions prefer non-privacy." Organizations until this point might not have fully realized the implications of ensuring confidentiality regarding HIV related issues. In essence, attempting to maintain control over their workers, oftentimes organizations end up alienating them. Workers feel alone and distrustful of their organizations and are thus more likely to leave.

THE STUDY: PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY

The purpose of the research was to identify the effects of various HR policies on the organizational commitment of HIV-positive employees. If, for instance, an employer were to allow an HIV-positive employee flextime or the option to work at home to facilitate their treatment process, would this increase the employee's level of organizational commitment? Or, if an organization were to redesign an HIV-positive employee's job to be less taxing, would this increase the employee's commitment to the organization? What HR strategies are more effective than others?

The first step in the research process was to determine which HR policies were important to HIV-positive employees, i.e. which would enhance their organizational commitment. A review of the relevant literatures on HIV and employment and on organizational commitment was conducted. A wealth of information on the biology of HIV was discovered, along with a moderate amount of information on the legal aspects of AIDS and the ADA. However, there is a dearth of information regarding the effective management of HIV-positive employees. Because of this, it was also necessary to gather data on HIV-related organizational policies directly from HIV-positive employees.

FOCUS GROUP

A total of 13 employed HIV-positive individuals were interviewed concerning their organization's actions and attitudes toward HIV. They were asked the following basic questions:

* What are your organization's current policies regarding HIV?

* Which of these policies do you like the most?

* Which of these policies do you like the least?

* How would you change your organization's culture regarding HIV?

* What could the organization do to enhance your organizational commitment? The responses to these interviews and the findings from the literature review were used to compile an initial list of 72 human-resource strategies expected to enhance the organizational commitment of HIV-positive employees. A content analysis revealed that many of these were duplicative or irrelevant to the problem at hand, and the list was eventually pared down to 18 items. The focus group of thirteen interviewees plus five academicians then reviewed this list for accuracy, completeness, and appropriateness of phraseology. The list was revised accordingly and the final version was used to create a survey to gather primary data.

THE SURVEY

The survey consisted of three sections: Section 1 used a measure of organizational commitment developed and validated by O'Reilly and Chatman (1986); Section 2 listed the 18 human-resource policies generated by the focus group thought to be of importance to HIV-positive employees. For each of the 18 policies, survey recipients were asked (1) whether their organization currently followed such a policy, and (2) whether such a policy, if followed, would enhance their commitment to the organization. More precisely, recipients were asked to respond to the statement, "This policy or philosophy, if implemented by my organization, would increase my desire to remain with the organization," using the following scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree. Recipients were also asked to rank the 18 policies in descending importance, with 1 being the policy that would most enhance their commitment to the organization and 18 being the policy that would least enhance their commitment to the organization; and finally, Section 3 solicited demographic information such as age, gender, education, industry, job title, length of employment, and date of HIV/AIDS diagnosis.

A total of 237 surveys were sent to contact persons at various HIV/AIDS advocacy organizations nationwide. These contacts distributed the surveys, along with prepaid return envelopes, to members of their organizations. A total of 64 surveys were returned (representing a 27% response rate), of which 78% (50) were from respondents who were HIV-positive. The 50 HIV-positive respondents comprised the population for this particular research. Respondents ranged in age from 21 to 70, with a mean age of 36; 33 (66%) were male, 17 (34%) were female. 92% of the respondents had attended college and 70% were currently employed. See Table 1 for a complete respondent profile.

RESULTS

Section 2 of the survey listed the 18 human-resource policies and for each asked respondents to state whether their organization currently followed such a policy. For all but three of the 18 policies, the majority of the respondents stated that their organization did not currently have such a policy in place. For each policy, responses were used to determine mean commitment scores for employees in organizations that followed that policy and in organizations that did not. A statistical comparison of commitment scores for each policy was then conducted. The differences in mean commitment scores were significant for 10 of the 18 policies (tested at the significance level alpha < .10). Differences that were not statistically significant may have been affected by the relatively small sample size. In any case, it is important to note that for each of the ten policies where a significant difference existed, the commitment scores of employees whose organizations followed the policy were higher than those of employees whose organizations did not follow the policy. For a complete list of the policies and a comparison of the mean commitment scores, please refer to

Section 2 also asked respondents to rate each policy (based on the statement, "This policy or philosophy, if implemented by my organization, would increase my desire to remain with the organization") using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Responses to this section were used to calculate mean ratings for each of the policies. Significantly, the respondents felt that all 18 policies would be influential in enhancing their commitment to their organizations. Even the policy rated the least influential (allowing HIV-positive employees to take sabbaticals) had a mean rating of 3.33 (above neutral). See Table 3 for a list of the 18 policies and their mean ratings (far-right column).

The information obtained from section 3 provides insight regarding the absolute influence of each of the 18 items listed. However, it was felt that in order for organizations to make effective managerial decisions, it would be helpful for them to know how HIV-infected employees felt concerning the relative importance of each of the 18 policies. Having this information would enable managers to evaluate which policies to implement, based on their perceived value as well as financial and other constraints of the organization. Accordingly, the respondents were asked to rank the 18 policies in order of descending importance, with 1 being most important in terms of organizational commitment and 18 being least important. A mean rank score was then calculated and the policies were listed in order of influence (see Table 3 and the column labeled "Mean Rank").

The respondents felt that the policy which would most increase their desire to remain within their organization was ensuring confidentiality regarding HIV-related issues. The second most influential policy was to audit managers to ensure non-discriminatory treatment of HIV-positive employees, while the third most influential was to offer the same medical benefits to all employees and their domestic partners regardless of their HIV status. The policies which the respondents felt were least influential were: offering employee assistance programs for employees who have HIV, for those who do not, and for their loved ones; letting HIV-positive employees work with a committee of their choice to develop flexible work strategies to the mutual benefit of the organization and employee; and allowing HIV-positive employees to take sabbaticals to focus on other aspects of their lives.

DISCUSSION

The profile of the respondents was fairly representative of the HIV-positive population as a whole. Like most HIV-positive individuals, the majority of the respondents were male. However, the ratio of female respondents (34%) was substantially greater than the estimated percentage of HIV positive individuals in the general population who are female (15%; Centers for Disease Control, 2004).

The average size of the respondents' organizations was 1500 employees. This is significant in terms of the effect of an organization's size on its ability to effectively manage HIV-related issues. Larger organizations are more likely to have well-staffed human resources departments able to address HIV- related issues. They are also better able to allow flexible staffing for HIV-positive employees, since there are more workers to help fill in. Thus, as indicated in Table 2, it is possible that the number of organizations which have each policy is as large as it is due to the average size of the respondents' organizations.

The majority of service industry organizations do not have 1,500 employees. The smaller an organization, the more difficult it is for the organization to be flexible in its benefits scheduling and the division of labor. Thus, the percentage of service organizations which employ these policies in theory should be smaller. Because most service organizations are currently employing relatively few of these policies, they have a greater opportunity to implement some of these policies and make significant increases in the organizational commitment of all of their employees.

Significantly, responses to the survey showed that all 18 policies had the power (more or less) to enhance organizational commitment. It is significant to note that the two policies respondents rated as most influential for enhancing employee commitment were also ranked as the most important relative to the other policies. These were "ensuring confidentiality regarding HIV-related issues" and "audit managers to ensure non-discriminatory treatment of HIV-positive employees." The policy with the third highest rating on the Likert scale was, "promote HIV-positive employees strictly on the basis of job performance rather than future health considerations." All these policies are not only important to HIV-positive employees but also impose no financial burden on the organization, making them easier to implement. Any organization, regardless of size, management structure, and financial constraints can implement these three policies without causing any undue hardship. These policies will have the greatest impact on the employees' desire to remain within their organization and can be implemented at little or no financial cost.

Two policies concerning full and equal benefits for HIV-positive employees and their partners were also rated as influential on organizational commitment and as important relative to other policies. These were: offer the same medical benefits to all employees and their domestic partners regardless of their HIV status; and provide full medical benefits to HIV positive employees who were full-time but are now forced by their illness to work part-time. This is understandable considering the financial implications of losing medical insurance due to having the HIV virus.

In short, what seems to concern HIV-positive employees most is fair and equitable treatment in the workplace, and the opportunity to fulfill their duties and responsibilities to the full extent of their abilities regardless of their HIV status.

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SERVICE INDUSTRY

As the workforce continues to become older, more diverse, and less skilled, and as the 25 to 44-year-old age group traditionally used to fill line-level positions within the service industry continues to shrink, service organizations will look more and more to alternative labor pools such as seniors, the physically and mentally challenged, legal immigrants, and HIV-positive individuals to staff their operations. HIV-positive employees already represent a workforce to be reckoned with; today there may be as many as 1,550,000 HIV-positive individuals employed by U.S. hospitality organizations alone (using estimates outlined by Stine, 1993), a figure which is expected to grow exponentially as more individuals contract the virus.

Overall, the survey showed that what most concerns HIV-positive employees is fair and equal treatment in the workplace, i.e. the opportunity to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of one's job to the best of one's ability, without regard to medical condition. This applies as well to other alternate labor pools in the service industry. Accommodating workforce diversity is already a significant issue in the industry, where people of diverse age, race, color, religion, and sexual orientation must work together in harmony to deliver a quality service experience. By utilizing the human-resource strategies in this study to support their HIV-positive employees, service organizations also send a message of support to other alternate employee groups and in turn enhance their commitment. After all, the needs of the single mother who requests flextime in order to be able to pick up her children from school, and the needs of the HIV-positive employee who requests flextime to go for medical treatment, are basically the same. In both cases, the effect of organizational support is the same: greater organizational commitment. This is consistent with the findings of Day & Schoenrade (2000), who found that gay and lesbian employees who reported their organizations adopted anti-discrimination policies which included sexual orientation and those whose top management teams supported equal rights were significantly more committed to their organizations.

Service organizations can gain numerous other benefits by implementing the human-resource policies described in this study. They can for instance promote workforce harmony by creating a more supportive environment for diverse labor sources. They can help enlighten managers who think HIV-positive employees cannot be productive and are not worth the effort to retain (most HIV-positive employees remain productive for many years before showing signs of debilitation). Finally they can show good corporate citizenship and social responsibility. Ultimately it will be enlightened service organizations which will survive.

Although it may seem as though managers shouldn't care if HIV-positive employees turn over voluntarily because they will turn over involuntarily any way, this is not true. It is naive to think that although a worker is HIV positive that s/he is not able to be productive. Those employees who are HIV-positive can continue to be productive and contribute to the overall success of their organization for many years to come.

Increasing the organizational commitment of HIV-positive employees not only means increased retention of HIV-positive workers, but also benefits the organization in several other ways: with increased retention there is an increase in the consistency and quality of service. Because there are indirect and direct costs associated with turnover, by increasing retention, these costs are minimized. Showing support for those employees who are HIV-positive will help to increase employee morale and overall job satisfaction in both employees who are and are not HIV positive. In addition, increasing the organizational commitment of all employees will enhance the congruency between the workers' values and the organization's mission, helping to create a more tolerant and supportive work environment.

CONCLUSION

Service industry managers can implement the policies identified in this study within the financial and other constraints of their organization to enhance the commitment of HIV-positive employees. At the same time, by supporting good performers regardless of their medical condition, the organization can also enhance the commitment of those employees who do not have HIV, reduce turnover across the board, and ensure stable, motivated workforces. Only such workforces can deliver the levels of service quality necessary to survive in today's competitive marketplace.

REFERENCES

Allen, R.L., Gould, A., Koteff, E., & Martin, R. (2005). Industry comes out of closet, debuts hiring, promotion programs for gays and lesbians. Nation's Restaurant News 39(16) (April 18, 2005), 20.

Angle, H.L. & Perry, J.L. (1981). An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(1),. 1-14

Bible, J.D. & McWhirter, D.A. (1990). Privacy in the Workplace: A guide for human resource managers. New York: Quorum Books Centers for Disease Control. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 2003 (Vol. 15). Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2004:1-46. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/2003surveillancereport.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2005.

Cohen, A. (2000). The relationship between commitment forms and work outcomes: A comparison of three models. Human Relations, 53(3), 387-417.

Day, N.E. & Schoenrade, P. (2000). The relationship among reported disclosure of sexual orientation. antidiscrimination policies, top management support, and work attitudes of gay and lesbian employees. Personnel Review, 29(3), 349-363.

Hartline, M.D. & DeWitt, T. (2004). Individual differences among service employees: The conundrum of employee recruitment, selection, and retention. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 3(2), 25-42.

O'Reilly, C. & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 492-499.

Rhoades, L. & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 698-714

Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(2), 358-384

Schoeman, F.D. (1992). Privacy and Social Freedom. New York: Cambridge University Press

Stine, G.J. (1993). Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall

Steers, R.M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22( 1), 46-56.

Mark D. Fulford, University of Central Missouri

Rachael Rothman, Merrill Lynch

Table 1: Profile of HIV-Positive Respondents

Gender:
 Male 33 (66%)
 Female 17 (34%)

Age:
 Mean 36 years
 Range 21-70 years

Highest Education Level Achieved:
 High school diploma 8%
 Some college 28%
 Associates degree 14%
 Bachelor's degree 28%
 Master's/Professional degree 20%
 Doctorate 2%

Currently employed:
 Yes 35 (70%)
 No 15 (30%)

If not currently employed, Average 3.27 years ago
left previous employer

Length of time with current/ Average 4.15 years
most recent employer:

Length of time in current/ Average 3.13 years
most recent position:

Organization size: Average 1,500 employees

HIV diagnosis: Average 4.23 years ago

Diagnosed with full-blown AIDS
 Yyes 20 (40%)
 No 30 (60%)

AIDS diagnosis: Average 3.3 years ago

Table 2: Comparison of Mean Commitment Scores

 Policy Have Do not
 Policy Have

 1 Develop a culture that accommodates 46.20 36.12
 the special needs of HIV infected (10) * (33)
 employees.

 2 Give employees the opportunity to 43.25 34.30
 be open about their infection. (20) (23)

 3 Offer employee assistance programs 44.14 37.36
 for infected and non-infected (7) (36)
 employees and their loved ones.

 4 Develop orientation, training and 44.85 37.62
 team building programs and workshops (7) (35)
 to help infected and non-infected
 employees work effectively together.

 5 Offer the same medical benefits to 40.42 36.59
 all employees and their domestic (21) (22)
 partners regardless of their HIV
 status.

 6 Allow infected employees to take 42.92 36.31
 medical leaves of absence so they (14) (29)
 do not use up all of their sick
 leave for treatment and recovery.

 7 Allow infected employees a greater 42.50 38.05
 range of medical benefits options. (4) (39)

 8 Let infected employees work with a 43.12 37.40
 committee of their choice to develop (8) (35)
 Flexible work strategies to the
 mutual benefit of company and
 employee.

 9 Schedule infected employees for a 40.06 37.51
 maximum 5/day/40 hour work week (16) (27)
 with two days off in a row.

10 Allow infected employees a greater 42.10 35.58
 range of work options to meet (19) (24)
 their needs, including part-time,
 flex-time, and work at home.

11 Allow infected employees to 42.25 37.00
 transfer positions as required (12) (31)
 by their illness.

12 Allow infected workers to take 40.33 37.86
 sabbaticals (for example, one out (6) (36)
 of every six years) to focus on
 other aspects of their lives.

13 Provide full medical benefits to 40.30 37.46
 infected employees who were (10) (32)
 full-time but are forced by their
 illness to work part-time.

14 Promote infected employees 40.24 36.00
 strictly on the basis of job (25) (18)
 performance rather than possible
 future health considerations.

15 Ensure responsibilities are not 42.25 33.68
 taken away from infected employees (24) (19)
 unless the employee willingly
 renounces them or, can no longer
 perform them.

16 Empower infected employees to 41.75 36.51
 address issues of possible (16) (27)
 discrimination, harassment, or
 hostile co-workers.

17 Audit managers to ensure non- 42.47 35.84
 discriminatory treatment of (17) (26)
 infected employees.

18 Ensure confidentiality 39.40 36.30
 regarding HIV related issues. (30) (13)

 Policy T Sig.
 Score Level

Develop a culture that accommodates
the special needs of HIV infected -3.39 0.002
employees.

Give employees the opportunity to
be open about their infection. -3.61 0.001

Offer employee assistance programs
for infected and non-infected -1.83 0.074
employees and their loved ones.

Develop orientation, training and
team building programs and workshops -2.01 0.051
to help infected and non-infected
employees work effectively together.

Offer the same medical benefits to
all employees and their domestic -1.38 0.174
partners regardless of their HIV
status.

Allow infected employees to take
medical leaves of absence so they -2.32 0.025
do not use up all of their sick
leave for treatment and recovery.

Allow infected employees a greater
range of medical benefits options. -0.92 0.363

Let infected employees work with a
committee of their choice to develop -1.62 0.113
Flexible work strategies to the
mutual benefit of company and
employee.

Schedule infected employees for a
maximum 5/day/40 hour work week -0.87 0.387
with two days off in a row.

Allow infected employees a greater
range of work options to meet -2.44 0.019
their needs, including part-time,
flex-time, and work at home.

Allow infected employees to
transfer positions as required -1.72 0.094
by their illness.

Allow infected workers to take
sabbaticals (for example, one out -0.61 0.547
of every six years) to focus on
other aspects of their lives.

Provide full medical benefits to
infected employees who were -0.86 0.395
full-time but are forced by their
illness to work part-time.

Promote infected employees
strictly on the basis of job -1.51 0.138
performance rather than possible
future health considerations.

Ensure responsibilities are not
taken away from infected employees -3.39 0.002
unless the employee willingly
renounces them or, can no longer
perform them.

Empower infected employees to
address issues of possible -1.85 0.071
discrimination, harassment, or
hostile co-workers.

Audit managers to ensure non-
discriminatory treatment of -2.44 0.019
infected employees.

Ensure confidentiality
regarding HIV related issues. -1.01 0.317

* indicates the # of organizations to which the commitment
information is applicable Shaded areas are not significant at the
alpha < .10 level

Table 3: Perceived Influence of HIV Related Policies on Respondents'
Organizational Commitment

 Policy Mean Mean
 Rank Rating

 1 Ensure confidentiality regarding
 HIV related issues. 4.92 4.63

 2 Audit managers to ensure non-
 discriminatory treatment of
 infected employees. 6.58 4.40

 3 Offer the same medical benefits
 to all employees and their domestic
 partners regardless of their HIV
 status. 6.66 4.27

 4 Provide full medical benefits to
 infected employees who were full-time
 but are forced by their illness to
 work part-time. 6.84 4.26

 5 Allow infected employees a greater
 range of work options to meet their
 needs, including part-time, flex-time,
 and work at home. 7.56 4.17

 6 Give employees the opportunity to be
 open about their infection. 7.74 3.67

 7 Allow infected employees a greater
 range of medical benefits options. 7.84 4.07

 8 Empower infected employees to address
 issues of possible discrimination,
 harassment, or hostile co-workers. 8.12 4.10

 9 Ensure responsibilities are not taken
 away from infected employees unless
 the employee willingly renounces them
 or, can no longer perform them. 8.36 4.23

10 Promote infected employees strictly on
 the basis of job performance rather
 than possible future health considerations. 8.78 4.29

11 Allow infected employees to take medical
 leaves of absence so they do not use up
 all of their sick leave for treatment and
 recovery. 8.8 4.17

12 Allow infected employees to transfer
 positions as required by their illness. 9.04 4.06

13 Develop orientation, training and team
 building programs and workshops to help
 infected and non-infected employees work
 effectively together. 9.76 3.60

14 Develop a culture that accommodates the
 special needs of HIV infected employees. 9.8 4.17

15 Schedule infected employees for a maximum
 5/day/40 hour work week with two days
 off in a row. 9.98 4.00

16 Offer employee assistance programs for
 infected and non-infected employees
 and their loved ones. 10.5 3.89

17 Let infected employees work with a
 committee of their choice to develop
 flexible work strategies to the mutual
 benefit of company and employee. 11.8 3.94

18 Allow infected workers to take sabbaticals
 (for example, one out of every six years)
 to focus on other aspects of their lives. 13.26 3.33