Navigating Invisible Disability Disclosure and Workplace Inclusion: Employers’ Attitudes and Workplace Policies

Abstract

This study explores employers’ attitudes and practices regarding disclosing and including individuals with invisible disabilities in Greek workplaces. Invisible disabilities present unique challenges regarding workplace inclusion and the disclosure of disability. Through a thematic analysis of structured interviews with 50 employers and human resource professionals from various industries, this research study identifies organizational policies, attitudes toward disability disclosure, the perceived impacts and benefits of hiring individuals with invisible disabilities, and recommendations for workplace inclusivity improvement. The findings reveal a range of employer practices. While many employers acknowledge the importance of fostering an inclusive workplace, there are gaps in formal training and structured policies. Employers have varied views on the necessity and timing of disability disclosure, with some supporting disclosure during hiring to ensure proper accommodations and others prioritizing employee comfort and autonomy. Important advantages of employing individuals with invisible disabilities include improved workplace diversity, increased innovation, and reinforced team unity. This study recommends diversity training, clear disclosure guidelines, and joint initiatives with external organizations to promote inclusivity in the workplace. These findings offer practical recommendations to close the inclusion gap and maximize the capabilities of employees with invisible disabilities.

1. Introduction

Diversity and inclusion in the workplace have become significant concerns in today’s organizational practices, particularly when addressing the difficulties that people with disabilities face [1,2,3]. Greek labor law protects employees with disabilities in line with EU guidelines, focusing on preventing discrimination and ensuring reasonable accommodations [4]. Invisible disabilities pose particular difficulties. The term “invisible disability” refers to physical, mental, or neurological conditions that challenge an individual’s movement, senses, or activities but may not be immediately observed [5,6]. Invisible disabilities include mental health conditions, chronic illnesses, and neurological impairments (e.g., anxiety, diabetes, Crohn’s disease, multiple sclerosis, and fibromyalgia) [7]. According to the Invisible Disabilities Association, they include symptoms such as chronic pain, fatigue, dizziness, cognitive dysfunctions, brain injuries, learning differences, and mental health disorders, as well as hearing and vision impairments [8].

One major challenge for people with invisible disabilities is deciding whether to disclose their condition at work, and if so, when, how, and to whom [9,10,11,12]. Disclosure often causes stress, especially when requesting accommodations or proving the existence of a disability [9,13,14,15,16,17]. Factors like workplace bias, fear of stigma, fear of being “found out,” and job insecurity influence this decision [15,18,19,20]. Individuals are concerned that they will be seen as less capable or lose career opportunities in case of disclosure [19] or that their co-employees might believe that they are pretending or taking advantage of their health situation to obtain the desired accommodations [21]. Their disclosure decisions are shaped by organizational culture, perceived social norms, and anticipated reactions from colleagues and employers, aligning with Identity Management (IM) Theory, which explains how individuals with concealable identities, such as invisible disabilities, make disclosure decisions by assessing potential risks (e.g., discrimination and stigma) and benefits (e.g., accommodations and support) first [22]. As a result, many individuals with invisible disabilities, assessing the above potential risks, choose not to disclose a decision that can potentially harm their well-being [15,23,24].

Because invisible disabilities often go unrecognized, employees may lack the support they need. That result can prevent them from fully participating and contributing to the workforce [15,25]. To perform at their best with these conditions, employees frequently require workplace accommodations like flexible scheduling, assistive technology, work-at-home options, or job role changes [26,27]. However, because these are hidden conditions, employees are frequently hesitant to disclose, particularly in companies where policies and practices may not actively support inclusion [28,29].

How employers view invisible disabilities significantly impacts workplace culture and the success of diversity and inclusion programs [30]. Positive attitudes and strong diversity efforts can boost employee morale, productivity, and retention, while negative attitudes can increase stigma and exclusion [31]. Broader social factors, like cultural norms, stereotypes, and limited public discussion about disabilities, also shape workplace attitudes. Diversity and inclusion policies, especially those supporting employees with invisible disabilities, play a key role in fostering fair and supportive environments [32]. Inclusive workplaces benefit from diverse perspectives, better team dynamics, and higher employee engagement and loyalty [33,34].

Despite growing awareness, workplace diversity still has significant gaps when it comes to invisible disabilities. Little is known about the opinions of employers on the disclosure of invisible disabilities, including their assessments of the benefits and drawbacks. This study addresses these gaps by exploring employer attitudes and practices related to invisible disabilities, focusing on inclusivity and disclosure. This research study has four main aims, consisting of exploring employers’ (1). policies and practices on disability inclusion; (2). attitudes toward the disclosure of invisible disabilities; (3). points of view on the benefits, anticipated colleagues’ reactions according to employers, and impacts of hiring individuals with invisible disabilities; and (4). recommendations for workplace’s inclusivity improvement.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Procedures

This research study was approved by the Committee for Research Ethics of the researchers’ institution (13, 1 February 2022). This research study is an autonomous part of a broader study on workplace disclosure and people with non-visible disabilities in Greece. Participants were interviewed by using a structured interview with questions based on the interview research study by Lindsay et al. [35] on employers’ attitudes, practices, and policies regarding disability inclusion and accommodations, enriched with added questions on employers’ preferences regarding the disclosure of invisible disabilities and their perceptions of the impact of disclosure during job interviews on their decision-making process. For this study, the questions focused on invisible disabilities.

The formed structured interview consisted of 13 questions, and the researchers divided them thematically into four main categories: (1) employers’ practices and policies related to disability inclusion and diversity; (2) employers’ attitudes towards the disclosure of invisible disabilities; (3) employers’ perceived impacts, colleagues’ reactions, and benefits of hiring individuals with disabilities; and (4) employers’ recommendations for fostering inclusivity in the workplace. The questions included in the interview are presented in

Table 1. Interview questions.

Main Categories	Interview Questions
	Does your company encourage the hiring and employment of individuals with disabilities? In what ways? Are there specific measures to encourage hiring individuals with invisible disabilities?
	What is the workplace framework/policy/practice regarding diversity in your workforce (concerning disability)?
Employers’ practices and policies related to disability inclusion and diversity	What training programs do you provide to raise awareness about diversity/disability?
	What benefits do you offer to employees with invisible disabilities?
	Do you have programs/policies for managing invisible disabilities (e.g., helping individuals with invisible disabilities cope with fatigue or pain)?
	Do you offer opportunities for professional advancement to individuals with disabilities—or with invisible disabilities?
	Would you prefer disclosing an invisible disability? Why? If yes, would you prefer epigrammatic or detailed disclosure? At what stage would you prefer disclosure to occur?
Employers’ attitudes towards the disclosure of invisible disabilities	Do you believe that disclosing an invisible disability during a job interview generally influences employers’ views on hiring and employing candidates?
	What would your reactions be to a later disclosure or an accidental disclosure?
	Have you noticed any impact of hiring individuals with invisible disabilities on your company?
Employers’ perceived impacts, anticipated colleagues’ reactions according to employers, and benefits of hiring individuals with disabilities	What are the anticipated reactions from colleagues/employees?
	Do you believe there are benefits to hiring individuals with invisible disabilities?
Employers’ recommendations for fostering inclusivity in the workplace	What advice would you give to other employers considering hiring an individual with a disability or who have never hired individuals with visible or invisible disabilities before?

.

The researchers used random purposive sampling to recruit participants. Random purposive sampling is a qualitative sampling technique that combines purposive sampling (choosing people who meet specific requirements) with random sampling (adding a randomness element in the selection process to minimize bias and increase diversity) [36,37]. First, purposive sampling was applied by selecting companies from the Chamber of Small & Medium Sized Industries of Thessaloniki, which served as a communication channel, ensuring that only private sector businesses relevant to the study were considered. Then, a random selection was made from the Chamber’s list of 672 registered private sector companies. From this list, the researchers contacted these randomly selected companies by mail and invited them to participate in their study. Ultimately, a total of 50 companies responded positively. The researchers included the employers and human resource (HR) professionals who responded positively in the survey and explained to them via mail the study’s objectives, design, and voluntary nature. The participants did not receive any payment and voluntarily participated in the research study. All participants gave their written consent. The researchers anonymized all participants’ data to ensure confidentiality. Identifying information was removed from the dataset, and participants were assigned unique identifiers.

The researchers asked demographic questions regarding the company’s primary field and size. The companies represented seven primary fields of activity: (1) Construction (18 companies, 36%), (2) Manufacturing (12 companies, 24%), (3) Trade and Distribution (5 companies, 10%), (4) Repair and Maintenance Services (5 companies, 10%), (5) Publishing and Printing (4 companies, 8%), (6) Small-scale Manufacturing and Material Processing (4 companies, 8%), and (7) Recycling and Material Processing (2 companies, 4%). In this study, 12% of the total sample were Micro Enterprises (fewer than 10 employees), 56% of the total sample were Small Enterprises (10 to 49 employees), and 36% of the total sample were Medium Enterprises (50 to 249 employees, according to Canton [38]).

2.2. Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection took place between March 2024 and October 2024. Participants were interviewed by using a structured interview, lasting between 20 and 50 min. A total of 12 interviews were conducted in person, and 38 were conducted online via Zoom. Most participants chose to be interviewed online via Zoom, given the distance and to maximize time efficiency (i.e., employers and HR managers are very busy). Each participant received and signed a written consent form in person or by mail before the interview.

Data were stored securely in a password-protected database and were only accessible to the researchers. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and checked for accuracy. Given the large number of interview participants, they were coded as #1 to #50 for anonymity and practicality. Qualitative data were analyzed by using thematic analysis. Thematic analysis was chosen for its flexibility and ability to identify, analyze, and report patterns within qualitative data [39]. Thematic analysis followed the six-step process by Braun and Clarke [40] and Clarke and Braun [41]. The steps included (a) organizing and preparing the data by reading the transcripts to gain a thorough understanding of the context; (b) obtaining a general sense of the data by aligning responses with the interview questions to ensure relevance; (c) coding the data, identifying initial themes, subthemes, and applying the thematic framework; (d) categorizing themes by noting patterns and statements that aligned with participants’ responses; (e) interpreting the data by using direct participant quotations to support the identified themes and subthemes; and (f) reporting the findings by organizing and presenting the data in detail.

3. Results

3.1. Employers’ Practices and Policies Related to Disability Inclusion and Diversity

Theme 1: Organizational practices and policies

Organizations’ views on hiring individuals with disabilities varied from being open to actively supporting them. Several participants emphasized equal opportunity. For example, Participant #36 said, “Our company ensures there are no restrictions on hiring individuals with disabilities as long as they meet the job criteria.” Participant #18 agreed, saying, “We actively explore programs from OAED to identify and recruit individuals with disabilities, including those with invisible conditions.” However, there were also issues with hiring, especially for jobs that required a lot of physical labor. Participant #25 noted, “Given the nature of our work, which involves heavy lifting and manual labor, it is difficult to accommodate individuals with certain disabilities.”

A noticeable lack of formal diversity and inclusion policies was discovered in many organizations. “We don’t have any specific policies related to disability inclusion,” admitted Respondent #2. Participant #44 expressed a similar sentiment: “Diversity is not formally addressed in our organizational practices, but we aim to treat all employees equally.” A number of participants brought up unofficial procedures that were supervised by outside professionals. “The occupational physician handles employee health records and advises on adjustments needed to ensure a supportive environment,” according to Participant #1. These responses suggest the adoption of reactive rather than proactive strategies. Accommodations for employees with disabilities sometimes meet legal standards with little additional help. “We provide what is mandated by law,” stated Participant #24. Others brought up initiatives to offer flexible scheduling. “Employees with invisible disabilities receive reduced workloads and flexible schedules when needed,” shared Participant #50. Some companies offered more comprehensive support networks, such as specialized private insurance plans. “We ensure employees with disabilities have access to a private insurance plan that differs from the standard one,” highlighted Participant #47.

The absence of official training programs on disability awareness was often brought up. Participant #21 openly admitted, “We haven’t implemented any specific training initiatives for disability inclusion.” Participant #4 said, “We don’t highlight differences among employees; everyone integrates naturally into our workforce.” However, a few organizations did demonstrate that they recognized the necessity of reform. Participant #39 said, “Although training is currently absent, we recognize its importance and plan to introduce programs focused on diversity and inclusion.”

Theme 2: Invisible disabilities and individual support

There were particular difficulties with invisible disabilities because most organizations did not have official policies to address them. Participant #43 admitted, “We don’t have any measures in place for managing the fatigue or pain associated with invisible disabilities.” Participant #22 mentioned, “The occupational physician provides guidance on creating a supportive environment, including access to rest areas and reduced workloads.” Another respondent, Participant #10, shared, “Employees are encouraged to communicate their needs confidentially, enabling us to offer tailored support.”

Although there were many different opportunities for advancement, merit-based systems were the most common. “Career progression depends solely on performance and the willingness to grow,” emphasized Participant #35. However, societal and workplace biases were recognized as barriers. “Employees with disabilities often face prejudice that limits their opportunities,” noted Participant #38. Some success stories surfaced despite these obstacles. “An employee with an invisible disability excelled and rose to a supervisory role, proving that inclusion fosters talent,” shared Participant #16.

3.2. Employers’ Attitudes Towards the Disclosure of Invisible Disabilities

Theme 1: Disclosure preferences

Employers had differing opinions about the disclosure of invisible disabilities, with some highlighting how crucial it is to understand an employee’s condition to provide the right kind of support. Participant #19 noted, “We would like to know only within the scope of ensuring that we do not create a problem for them, such as applying pressure that could be avoided.” Similarly, Participant #33 said, “It would be important to know from the beginning to ensure a more favorable treatment and to prevent excessive workload on such individuals.” Participant #41 recommended, “Creating a safe environment for private disclosure ensures employees feel supported.” Many employers preferred disclosure to provide tailored support and promote an inclusive workplace. Participant #23 said, “It is very important to know employees’ needs to provide the right help when necessary.” Participant #48 said, “Knowing about a condition allows us to adapt tasks and prevent undue stress on the employee.” Some employers, however, believed that disclosure was not required unless the employee thought it was necessary. As Participant #30 said, “Disclosure is not considered necessary. We believe it is up to the employee to disclose their condition.”

The ideal timing for disclosure was frequently highlighted during interviews. Many participants preferred that disclosure occur during the hiring process. Participant #40 explained, “It is essential to know during the interview process to help the employee and avoid assigning tasks that could pose risks.” Participant #13 said, “Chronologically, it would be good to know from the beginning to create a plan and choose the right position for the candidate.” These answers show a desire to improve role alignment by incorporating disclosure into the hiring process. On the other hand, some acknowledged that timing could be flexible and that disclosure should be in line with the employee’s comfort level. Participant #42 said, “If and only if the individual wishes, they can disclose at any point they feel comfortable.”

There were differing views on the level of disclosure. A majority were in favor of detailed disclosure, supporting that thorough understanding is necessary to guarantee employee’s readiness and safety. Participant #8 noted, “We would like to know the entire health history to respond appropriately if something happens.” Participant #45 added, “Full disclosure from the start, accompanied by a medical report, would help us provide the necessary support.” Others, on the other hand, favored epigrammatical disclosure based on particular implications related to the workplace. Participant #32 said, “We only need enough information to take appropriate measures to ensure their safety and productivity.”

Theme 2: Impacts of disclosure on workplace dynamics

There were differing opinions about disclosing invisible disabilities regarding its impact on hiring. Although most participants confirmed that disclosure would not negatively impact hiring decisions, some admitted that societal biases could influence perceptions. Participant #5 said, “It does not constitute a criterion for us, but I believe it might influence decisions in Greek workplace contexts.” Participant #3 explained, “In general, it may affect some employers, but in our company, we value honesty over any condition.”

Participants generally emphasized empathy and practical responses to late or accidental disclosure. For example, Participant #12 said, “We would discuss the situation with the employee and consult a doctor to determine if additional measures are needed.” Participant #9 added, “Our reaction would be calm; understanding is key in such cases.” Some participants, however, expressed worries about trust and operational implications. Participant #17 said, “If someone hides a condition and later requests exemptions from duties, it may affect the trust and expectations established during hiring.”

3.3. Employers’ Perceived Impacts, Colleagues’ Reactions, and Benefits of Hiring Individuals with Disabilities

Theme 1: Impacts of hiring

Many participants acknowledged the broader social benefits of hiring individuals with invisible disabilities. Participant #6 noted that such actions help “promote solidarity on a corporate and societal level,” implying that they create a sense of harmony within the company and the larger community. Several participants also highlighted the potential for creating a more inclusive and empathetic workplace. As participant #27 said, “I believe it can make us better people and give opportunities to individuals who struggle to find professional stability,” demonstrating the belief that hiring individuals with invisible disabilities can help create a more compassionate, fair, and supportive work environment.

Theme 2: Anticipated Colleagues’ Reactions According to Employers

Participants acknowledged initial difficulties, particularly biases or hesitations on the part of colleagues who might not be aware of the needs or abilities of people with invisible disabilities. Participant #34 said, “There might be initial hesitation from staff, but this can be overcome,” suggesting that these concerns are often temporary and can be resolved with experience and communication. Participants thought that a more accepting work environment would result from staff members learning about the needs and strengths of their co-employees. Participant #14 mentioned, “People tend to observe differences initially, but over time, they integrate well.” Participant #49 emphasized, “Our staff would not only be accepting but also make them feel comfortable and valued.” Similarly, Participant #12 stated, “I think they would embrace and support them,” which also supports that once initial obstacles are removed, there will be a generally positive response.

Theme 3: Hiring benefits

The participants identified many benefits of hiring individuals with invisible disabilities. Contributions to team dynamics, business innovation, and moral and social benefits were among them. Many participants saw the benefits of the varied viewpoints that individuals with invisible disabilities offer when solving problems. As Participant #33 pointed out, “Any individual who thinks differently can bring a perspective we wouldn’t have considered,” highlighting the idea that employees with invisible disabilities have unique insights that could spur innovation and creativity. Others underlined the significance of encouraging unity in the workplace. As Participant #45 stated, “It fosters solidarity and highlights the value of every individual’s contribution,” emphasizing how inclusivity improves team cohesion and recognition of individual worth. According to some participants, employees with invisible disabilities are just as valuable to the company in terms of productivity and financial contributions. Participant #28 noted, “They are productive individuals, but the benefits are the same as with any other employee,” indicating that these employees are just as capable as their peers of meeting performance standards.

3.4. Employers’ Recommendations for Fostering Inclusivity in the Workplace

Theme 1: Overcoming barriers and promoting equality

Employers should overcome any reservations about hiring people with disabilities to promote inclusion. Participant #47 noted, “I see no reason for this aspect to hinder someone’s progress, hiring, or professional rehabilitation.” Participant #11 emphasized that utilizing an employee’s skills can benefit both the individual and the company: “If you properly utilize this other element, you can get your job done as a business.”

Equality and inclusion in the workplace were found to be fundamental principles for creating a supportive environment. Participants emphasized the direct connection among work, self-esteem, and mental health. As Participant #34 emphasized, “Excluding someone from contributing… is essentially excluding them from life.” Participant #22 emphasized the positive contributions individuals with disabilities can make: “These are people who can truly contribute, boost their self-esteem, and become valuable members of a team.” Participant #17 stated, “I find it completely unfair to exclude someone from work, which is also a social exclusion… it could boost their self-esteem and make them a part of a team...”

Equal treatment and avoiding discrimination are essential to an inclusive environment. Participants emphasized that health concerns should never overshadow a person’s potential or abilities. As Participant #3 stated, “Health issues are not a criterion for hiring an employee.” Participant #41 noted, “Equal treatment is a core component of corporate responsibility.”

Theme 2: Creating inclusive workplaces and leveraging strengths

Employers recognized several advantages to adopting disability inclusion. “Inclusive hiring practices enhance team diversity and bring unique perspectives to problem-solving,” noted Participant #7. Participant #31 stated, “Supporting employees with disabilities fosters a sense of trust and loyalty within the workforce.” It was repeatedly stated that providing meaningful opportunities to people with disabilities benefits employers and employees. According to the participants, working with individuals with disabilities can be a very fulfilling and positive experience. Participant #26 encouraged employers to take the initiative, stating, “They should dare and not be afraid… People can pleasantly surprise us.” Additionally, Participant #7 highlighted that “These opportunities are not only beneficial for individuals with disabilities but also enhance the company culture.”

The distinct abilities that individuals with disabilities possess, both mentally and physically, have been acknowledged as important assets in the workplace. Participant #5 described an employee as “ a little Hercules,” highlighting the value these individuals add to their jobs. Participant #36 noted, “The mental strength of these individuals makes them more focused and dedicated to their work.”

Participants emphasized the crucial importance of recognizing and utilizing the unique abilities and skills of employees with disabilities. As Participant #18 explained, “If you utilize this other element properly… you can get your job done and give someone the chance to prove their value.” Participant #24 also emphasized that “Utilizing these skills can lead to innovative solutions and improve overall team performance.”

Despite the advantages, there were still implementation issues. “Stigma and lack of awareness about disabilities, especially invisible ones, hinder progress,” admitted Participant #15. Participant #26 highlighted the lack of resources: “Providing specialized support requires significant investment, which smaller companies struggle to afford.”

Participants proposed various strategies to promote inclusivity. Among these were implementing training on disability awareness, creating transparent disclosure guidelines, and cultivating a trusting environment. “Introducing structured training programs on diversity would help eliminate biases and foster a more supportive culture,” recommended Participant #37. Participant #29 suggested, “Training on disability inclusion would help eliminate biases and improve understanding.” Others emphasized the importance of clear policies. “A formal framework for disability inclusion would guide organizations in adopting consistent practices,” noted Participant #20. A few participants emphasized the importance of outside partnerships. “Collaborating with disability-focused organizations can provide valuable resources and insights for creating an inclusive workplace,” suggested Participant #28.

Theme 3: Enhancing communication and adapting policies

Collaboration and trust are fostered by open communication regarding the needs and abilities of employees with disabilities. Participants underlined how crucial it is to be sincere when discussing workplace accommodations. As Participant #9 explained, “They should be sincere about what they want to learn regarding existing disabilities……disability should not be a barrier.” Participant #20 added, “Transparency helps to avoid problems and misunderstandings while building trust.”

To improve employee performance and organizational results, participants recommended that employers tailor roles to meet the needs of each individual. As Participant #50 noted, “They should adapt [the position] according to the requirements of the role being offered.” Personalized work schedules, remote work choices, and ergonomic modifications are a few examples of these adaptations. Participant #48 emphasized, “Appropriate adaptations help maximize the potential of employees with disabilities.”

4. Discussion

This study aimed to address critical gaps in understanding how employers perceive and respond to the disclosure of invisible disabilities in the workplace in Greece. This research study examined employers’ practices and policies related to diversity inclusion; their attitudes toward disclosure; their points of view on the benefits, anticipated colleagues’ reactions according to employers, and impacts of hiring individuals with invisible disabilities; and their recommendations for workplace inclusivity improvement. The data received can additionally offer insightful information about how organizational diversity initiatives and invisible disabilities interact, adding to the larger conversation about workplace inclusion.

The first objective of this research study was to analyze employers’ practices and policies related to diversity inclusion. The results show that organizations had different opinions about hiring people with disabilities. Some focused on equal opportunity, while others concentrated on the difficulties, mainly regarding positions requiring physical labor. Many organizations’ formal policies addressing diversity and disability inclusion were lacking. Some organizations acknowledged the need for reform, while others believed their companies lacked formal training programs for both individuals with invisible and visible disabilities. The above results, which show mostly hesitation on behalf of employers, could be explained by prejudices and stereotypes that may influence employers’ attitudes about hiring people with disabilities [1,2,3] and by a lack of knowledge/comprehension regarding the accommodations required to support people with disabilities [35] or the advantages of their work inclusion [42]. An additional reason for this hesitation could be the belief that some employees might exaggerate or make up disability claims to obtain accommodations. This fear of fraud, known as the con related to disability, can make employers skeptical about invisible disabilities, affecting their attitudes and reducing efforts to promote inclusivity [43]. Moreover, organizations might not prioritize these issues because of a lack of funding or conflicting priorities [44]. Despite the absence of official policies, some companies have adopted informal practices to support employees with disabilities, such as providing rest areas, reducing workloads, and providing personalized support. These findings suggest that while formal policies are rare, there is recognition of the issue, and some efforts are being made to address it on an individual basis. However, the lack of consistency highlights the need for comprehensive programs that systematically address the challenges faced by individuals with invisible disabilities.

The second objective of this research study was to explore attitudes towards the disclosure of invisible disabilities. Employers expressed varied views regarding the disclosure of invisible disabilities. Some emphasized the importance of disclosure to offer appropriate support. Others believed that disclosure was unnecessary unless the employee felt it was necessary. This result may be due to employers’ fear of potential bias or discrimination against employees with invisible disabilities if disclosure is not managed appropriately [45]. Additionally, some employers might prioritize their employees’ autonomy and privacy when determining whether to disclose their working conditions, considering that they may not feel comfortable sharing their conditions because of what they might consider the social stigma of invisible disabilities [18,19].

The ideal timing for disclosure was frequently highlighted during interviews. While some participants agreed that timing could be flexible and that disclosure should follow the employee’s comfort level, many preferred that disclosure occur during the hiring process to improve role alignment. The emphasis on flexible disclosure supports findings by Angermeyer et al. [46], suggesting that employees with disabilities often anticipate stigmatization, which could influence both their and the employer’s decision-making process. IM Theory explains this anticipation as part of a careful calculation, where individuals weigh the potential negative outcomes of disclosure against the possible benefits, such as accommodations or support, which may delay disclosure until individuals feel more comfortable [22]. The preference for disclosure during the hiring process was mainly because it would help align the employee with the right role and allow for better preparation to meet their needs. Many employers emphasized the importance of disclosure to provide the proper support and accommodations. However, they also understood that employees might hesitate to disclose because of potential stigma and bias. Most employers showed understanding when employees disclosed their invisible disabilities later or unexpectedly. However, their responses reveal a careful balance between practical concerns, like making accommodations and matching employees to the right roles, and social or emotional factors, such as trust, bias, and stigma. Τhe findings show a conflict between the preference for early disclosure—especially during hiring—and the reality that employees may hesitate due to stigma and personal concerns. Employers aware of social biases were more cautious about when disclosure should happen, emphasizing the importance of open communication and trust in the workplace. Open communication and a supportive work environment can develop trust and understanding between employees and employers, helping employees feel more at ease expressing their needs when necessary [47,48].

There were different perspectives on how disclosing an invisible disability during a job interview may influence employers’ views. Most participants said that disclosure would not impact hiring decisions, but a few acknowledged the influence of broader societal biases. These findings suggest that while some organizations try to be fair, disclosing an invisible disability can still be influenced by societal attitudes and workplace culture. For instance, applicants disclosing their disability in their application documents have been found to be invited less frequently to job interviews than applicants with a similar profile but without a disability [49]. This study showed that employers had both proactive and reactive attitudes toward inclusion. While many recognize the value of diverse perspectives, the hidden stigma around invisible disabilities might still affect their policies and practices without them realizing it. For example, the lack of formal training on invisible disabilities, even though some informal support exists, highlights a need for more structured inclusivity programs.

The third objective was to evaluate the perceived impacts, colleagues’ reactions, and benefits of hiring individuals with invisible disabilities. According to the results, the perceived impacts of hiring individuals with invisible disabilities were positive. Many participants highlighted the broader social benefits. Additionally, several participants emphasized the potential for building a more inclusive and empathetic workplace. Participants also pointed out the numerous benefits of hiring individuals with invisible disabilities. One of them was the varied viewpoints they offer when solving problems. Such perspectives often emerge because individuals with disabilities face difficulties requiring them to think creatively and adapt to their environments [50].

Colleagues’ reactions may initially include hesitation or biases because they might not be aware of people with invisible disabilities’ needs or abilities. This study’s findings show that colleagues may have initial doubts or biases about employees with invisible disabilities, often because of social stigma. Dorfman [43] explains the idea of the con related to disability, where some people wrongly believe that individuals with invisible disabilities might be faking or exaggerating their condition. These reactions often stem from societal stigma or a lack of education [51]. Many participants believed that these hesitations could be overcome with time and communication and that they are often temporary. Organizations need to focus on education and training to create an inclusive, understanding environment for all employees [12]. This belief stems from the belief that educating staff members about the needs and strengths of their co-employees can create a more accepting work environment. When co-employees gain this understanding, it could also lead to greater collaboration, empathy, and ultimately, a better dynamic among team members [52]. Creating an atmosphere that allows people to share their thoughts and work together also helps the organization grow [53,54].

The fourth objective was to make recommendations for enhancing inclusivity within the workplace. Participants consistently emphasized the crucial role of work, self-esteem, and mental health. This view reflects that excluding people from work directly leads to broader social exclusion [55]. When a person with a disability is excluded, it often results in lost opportunities for the individual to grow and reconnect socially. Equal treatment and not allowing health precedence over ability and potential contribution are important [56]. These were also seen as essential to identifying roles to tailor and providing accommodations, including ergonomic adjustments, flexible schedules, and remote work options, to maximize employee potential. Personalized adaptations help individuals with disabilities overcome their barriers, perform at their peak, and feel valued in the workplace [45,57]. However, to truly promote inclusion, employers must proactively address skepticism about invisible disabilities.

It is necessary to mention some limitations of the present study. This study may have some self-selection bias since employers who participated likely already support inclusivity, which means that the results may not reflect all views in the private sector. However, their input offers valuable insights into best practices and successful workplace initiatives that can inspire other organizations. Also, this study relies on self-reported data, which may be biased, as participants might over- or under-report their experiences based on their views [58]. However, self-reported data are essential to capturing participants’ perceptions and experiences [59]. Moreover, although this study mostly showed positive views on inclusion, it is important to note that there were fewer negative opinions in the data. This could mean participants were giving answers that they thought were expected rather than sharing their actual experiences. For example, while many participants talked about the benefits of hiring people with invisible disabilities, negative opinions or challenges might not have been mentioned as much, making the results seem unbalanced. When interpreting the findings, these factors should be considered, as the positive responses may not fully capture opposing or critical views. Social desirability bias may have led participants to give answers that sound more acceptable rather than reflecting their actual practices and opinions [60]; however, it also shows a growing commitment to creating inclusive workplaces.

Future research should address the limitations identified in this study. It may use a more extensive and diverse sample to gather perspectives from other areas and industries. In addition, it can help create evidence-based plans for making workplaces inclusive by assessing specific interventions like government grants, training courses, or innovative technology. Future studies could use IM Theory to examine how employees with invisible disabilities decide whether to disclose their condition in various workplace settings. Long-term research on how employer policies shape disclosure over time could offer valuable insights into fostering a more inclusive workplace [22]. Future research could also examine the difference between what people hope will happen in terms of inclusion and what happens in reality. This gap, between “what should happen” and “what does happen,” could be influenced by company culture, social expectations, and personal biases, especially regarding people with invisible disabilities.

The findings of this study have practical implications for Greek authorities and employers in improving the inclusion of individuals with invisible disabilities in the workplace. Greek authorities can use the findings to revise and strengthen their policies by creating programs encouraging companies to hire people with visible or invisible disabilities or by improving training to help them integrate into the workplace. Employers can use the results to revise or create policies and practices, such as staff training, remote work, or realistic accommodations, which promote the inclusion of individuals with disabilities in the workplace. Employers can also develop specific procedures to manage the disclosure of invisible disabilities better. These results can also be used by invisible disability organizations to use the findings to educate about the rights and needs of individuals in the workplace. They can also work with businesses to develop best practices for inclusion and support. Addressing these issues would make Greek workplaces more equitable, enabling them not just to meet legal requirements but also to take advantage of the varied talents and perspectives of all those who work there.

5. Conclusions

This research study underscores the difficulties and prospects of workplace inclusion for those with invisible disabilities, stressing the importance of explicit policies, training in disability awareness, and fostering a culture of transparency. Although certain employers acknowledge the advantages of employing people with invisible disabilities, others are still reluctant because of biases, operational issues, and the absence of structured inclusion policies. The pressure to disclose one’s disability for accommodations and the anxiety about stigma continues to be a major concern. To create genuinely inclusive workplaces, employers need to establish organized inclusion initiatives, clear disclosure methods, and flexible workplace policies. It is crucial for employers and Greek authorities to work together to close these gaps, allowing individuals with invisible disabilities to engage in the workforce without the fear of discrimination.