This study is grounded in an integrated theoretical framework that combines the social model of disability with SET to provide both a normative and analytical understanding of disability inclusion in the workplace. The social model of disability serves as the philosophical foundation of the study. It shifts the focus from individual impairments to the societal, environmental, and organisational barriers that restrict participation (Oliver & Barnes 2012; Shakespeare 2006). Within this framework, disability is understood as a socially constructed phenomenon, arising from inaccessible environments, discriminatory practices and exclusionary institutional arrangements rather than inherent limitations of individuals. This perspective is particularly relevant in the South African context, where structural inequalities continue to shape labour market outcomes. Through foregrounding the role of organisational systems and practices, the social model positions employers as key agents responsible for enabling inclusion through workplace transformation (Barnes 2019).

While the social model explains the nature and origin of exclusion, it provides limited insight into how organisations can be motivated to implement and sustain inclusive practices. To address this limitation, this study incorporates SET as an analytical lens. Social exchange theory, originally developed by George Homans (1958) and further advanced by Peter Blau (1964), conceptualises social behaviour as an exchange process in which individuals and organisations evaluate interactions based on perceived costs and benefits (Kitole & Mwita 2025; Ogbonna & Mbah 2022). The theory posits that relationships are maintained when the perceived rewards outweigh the associated costs, and when reciprocal benefits are expected (Wallenburg & Handfield 2022). In organisational contexts, SET has been widely applied to understand employee engagement, organisational commitment and workplace behaviour.

Key principles of SET relevant to this study include:

The relevance of SET to the South African public sector becomes clearer when considered alongside existing governance and performance frameworks. Public sector organisations operate within structured performance management systems that include key performance indicators, employment equity reporting, and compliance scorecards linked to the Employment Equity Act (Uzule, Zarina & Shina 2024). These mechanisms are designed to monitor transformation but are often experienced as compliance tools rather than drivers of meaningful inclusion. From a SET perspective, such systems may fail to produce desired outcomes if the perceived costs of employing PWDs outweigh the perceived benefits for managers and organisations (Chumo, Kabaria & Mberu 2023). For instance, if disability inclusion is associated primarily with administrative burden, resource constraints or risk, rather than with organisational value, compliance is likely to be minimal and symbolic. On the other hand, where inclusion is linked to tangible rewards such as improved team performance, enhanced service delivery, innovation or recognition within performance appraisal systems, organisations are more likely to internalise and sustain inclusive practices (Kipara 2025).

Furthermore, the Batho Pele [People First] principles, which underpin South African public administration, emphasise service, accountability and responsiveness (Molobela 2024). These principles align closely with the reciprocity norm in SET, as they implicitly frame the relationship between the state and citizens as one of mutual obligation and value exchange. Integrating SET into the analysis, therefore, allows for a more contextually grounded understanding of how inclusion can be embedded within existing public sector values and systems.

Through combining the social model of disability with SET, this study bridges a critical gap in the literature. The social model identifies what needs to change (removal of structural barriers), while SET explains how and why change can occur (through perceived mutual benefit and sustained exchange relationships). This integrated approach moves beyond compliance-based explanations and provides a more dynamic framework for understanding organisational behaviour in relation to disability inclusion.

Purposive sampling was used to select 10 senior officials occupying Deputy Director and Assistant Director positions within human resource management and policy implementation units. Participants were selected based on their direct involvement in employment equity implementation and disability inclusion decision-making, ensuring alignment with the study objectives.

Access to participants was obtained through formal institutional permission from the relevant provincial department, after which a departmental gatekeeper facilitated initial contact. Eligible participants were invited via official email communication, and participation was entirely voluntary. Inclusion criteria required participants to: (1) hold a senior human resources (HR) or policy implementation role, (2) have direct responsibility for or oversight of employment equity processes, and (3) have a minimum of 2 years’ experience in their current managerial role. All participants provided informed consent prior to data collection. Ethical compliance with the Protection of Personal Information Act was strictly observed. Anonymity was ensured through participant codes (P1–P10), and no identifying departmental or personal information was disclosed. Data were securely stored and used solely for research purposes.

Data were collected through semi-structured interviews conducted between December 2020 and March 2021. Although the data were collected between December 2020 and March 2021, the findings remain relevant given the continued stagnation in disability employment levels in the public sector, which have remained at approximately 1% in recent reports (DPSA 2023; PMG 2025).

Interviews were guided by the central question, ‘How can the employment of persons with disabilities (PWDs) be increased in the South African public sector?’, alongside probing questions exploring organisational practices, perceived barriers and facilitators of inclusion. All interviews were audio-recorded with participant consent and transcribed verbatim to ensure accuracy.

Data were analysed thematically following the six-phase approach outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006). The analysis combined deductive and inductive strategies to ensure both theoretical alignment and sensitivity to participants’ perspectives. In the first phase, transcripts were read repeatedly to achieve familiarisation with the data. This was followed by initial coding, where segments of text were assigned codes reflecting key ideas and patterns.

A deductive coding framework was then applied, guided by the core tenets of SET, namely reciprocity, reinforcement, social structures and cost–benefit exchange. This enabled systematic examination of how organisational behaviours and decisions related to disability inclusion could be interpreted through a social exchange lens. In parallel, inductive coding allowed for the identification of emergent sub-themes not explicitly captured by SET, ensuring that participants’ voices were not constrained by the theoretical framework.

In the third phase, codes were organised into broader categories and candidate themes through constant comparison across participants. These themes were reviewed and refined to ensure internal coherence and clear distinctions between themes. The final themes were defined and named in alignment with both the data and the theoretical framework.

Data saturation was reached after the sixth interview, with subsequent interviews confirming the stability of identified themes. To enhance trustworthiness, the analysis process emphasised credibility through verbatim transcription, consistency in coding, and alignment between data, themes and theoretical interpretation. The resulting themes informed the development of a conceptual model illustrating how structural, relational and reinforcement mechanisms interact to influence the employment of PWDs.

Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the Cape Peninsula University of Technology Faculty of Commerce Research Ethics Committee (No. 2015FBREC274). It was approved on 25 November 2016. The study followed the general and specific ethical guidelines on informed consent by explaining the study to participants and allowing them to participate voluntarily. The data collected was kept private and confidential, with password protection.

Participants consistently emphasised the need for formal structures and designated roles to support disability inclusion. These included disability management offices, databases of PWDs, and the appointment of disability champions at different levels of government. Such structures were viewed as essential for coordination, accountability and sustained implementation.

One participant highlighted the importance of dedicated roles:

Similarly, another participant emphasised the importance of maintaining systems to facilitate recruitment:

Participants also noted that without such structures, managers often lack the knowledge and confidence to implement inclusion effectively.

A second key theme related to the need to reinforce inclusive behaviour through formal recognition and reward systems. Participants indicated that current approaches focus heavily on compliance, with limited incentives to actively promote disability inclusion.

A participant suggested the introduction of recognition mechanisms:

Another participant further emphasised the importance of recognising performance:

These responses indicate that reinforcing positive behaviour both at organisational and individual levels may encourage sustained commitment to inclusion.

The third theme highlights the importance of respectful, professional engagement with PWDs throughout the employment lifecycle. Participants stressed that inclusion is not only structural but also relational, requiring ongoing interaction, communication and trust.

One participant emphasised the value of social interaction:

Another participant linked respect directly to performance outcomes:

Participants indicated that such relational dynamics contribute to improved teamwork, communication and overall organisational functioning.

Across the three themes, participants highlighted that improving the employment of PWDs requires a combination of structural support, behavioural reinforcement and relational engagement. These findings suggest that inclusion is shaped by both organisational systems and interpersonal dynamics.

A conceptual synthesis of these findings, interpreted through SET, is presented in Figure 1 in the Discussion section.

The findings indicate that organisational structures such as disability units, dedicated champions and centralised PWD databases function as critical enablers of social exchange. These mechanisms reduce informational asymmetry, clarify organisational expectations and mitigate perceived risks associated with employing PWDs.

Within the logic of SET, such structures lower the transactional costs of inclusion by providing institutional support, thereby increasing the likelihood of positive exchange relationships between management and PWDs. This finding suggests that inclusion is facilitated not only by policy mandates but also through operational systems that actively support decision-making and accountability.

Rather than positioning disability inclusion as an individual adjustment issue, the results reinforce a systemic interpretation in which organisational readiness determines the quality of exchange relationships.

The second theme highlights the limited effectiveness of compliance-based approaches in sustaining inclusive behaviour. Participants emphasised the absence of structured incentives and recognition mechanisms for inclusive managerial practices.

From a SET perspective, behaviour is sustained when perceived rewards outweigh perceived costs. The absence of recognition systems weakens the reinforcement loop necessary for sustaining inclusive behaviour among managers and employees.

This finding extends SET by demonstrating that in public sector contexts, inclusion is not only a moral or legal obligation but also a behavioural outcome influenced by organisational reward systems. Embedding disability inclusion within performance management frameworks may therefore strengthen behavioural reinforcement and institutionalise inclusion as a valued organisational outcome.

The third theme underscores the importance of interpersonal respect, communication and trust between organisational actors and PWDs. Participants reported that respectful treatment fosters commitment, engagement and enhanced performance among PWDs, reinforcing the principle of reciprocity within SET.

These findings demonstrate that inclusion is sustained through ongoing relational exchanges rather than formal structures alone. When employees perceive respect and dignity, they are more likely to reciprocate with loyalty, productivity and organisational commitment.

This relational dimension aligns with broader social capital theory, where trust and interaction enhance organisational effectiveness. In this sense, inclusion becomes both a structural and relational process embedded in everyday workplace interactions.

The three themes collectively demonstrate that disability inclusion operates as an integrated exchange system in which structures enable interaction, reinforcement sustains behaviour and relationships consolidate long-term engagement.

Figure 1 captures this systemic interaction, illustrating that inclusion is not linear but cyclical and mutually reinforcing. This challenges conventional compliance-driven approaches that treat inclusion as a policy obligation rather than an evolving organisational process.

The findings therefore extend SET by demonstrating its applicability in understanding institutional inclusion dynamics within public sector employment contexts in South Africa.

To further strengthen the theoretical interpretation, Table 2 maps participant narratives against SET principles and their organisational implications. This analytical mapping demonstrates how micro-level perceptions reflect macro-level exchange dynamics within the public sector employment environment.

Table 2 demonstrates that participants consistently link inclusion outcomes to three core exchange mechanisms: institutional structures (reducing uncertainty and improving coordination), reinforcement systems (driving motivation and recognition) and relational dynamics (building trust and reciprocity).

Importantly, the synthesis shows that perceived organisational benefits such as improved performance, reduced recruitment inefficiencies and enhanced organisational reputation are contingent on the strength of exchange conditions. This reinforces SET’s central proposition that sustained engagement occurs when the exchange relationship is perceived as equitable and beneficial.

Overall, the findings confirm that disability inclusion in the public sector is best understood as a social exchange process shaped by institutional readiness, behavioural reinforcement and relational reciprocity. Through integrating SET with empirical evidence from participants, this study advances a more systemic understanding of inclusive employment practices in South Africa.

For policymakers and public sector managers, the study suggests a strategic shift from a compliance-centric approach towards a SET-informed relational model of disability inclusion. Practical strategies include:

This study was conducted as a qualitative case study within a single provincial department; therefore, its findings may not be generalisable across all public sector institutions or provinces. In addition, the sample comprised mainly senior managers, excluding perspectives from frontline human resource practitioners, direct supervisors and PWDs. This results in a predominantly management-centred perspective on disability inclusion.