Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-12T10:13:40.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stated and Unstated Opportunities and Barriers to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Supportive Organizations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Eden B. King  and
José M. Cortina
Eden B. King*
Affiliation:
George Mason University
José M. Cortina
Affiliation:
George Mason University
*
E-mail: Eking6@gmu.edu, Address: Eden B. King and Jose Cortina, George Mason University. George Mason University, Department of Psychology, 4400 University Drive, MSN 3f5, Fairfax, VA 22030
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This response highlights the common themes across the commentaries that reflect both opportunities and barriers to the successful creation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered supportive organizations. In addition, in the interest of comprehensiveness, we describe additional perspectives and points that were not offered in the dialogue. Finally, in line with the evidence presented in the focal paper, we urge readers to consider their own roles in advocating for equity.

Type
Response
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 103 - 108
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2010 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barron, L. G., & Hebl, M. R. (2010). Extending lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered supportive organizational policies: Communities matter too. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 79–81.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01202.xGoogle Scholar
Dion, K. K., & Stein, S. (1978). Physical attractiveness and interpersonal influence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 97–108.10.1016/0022-1031(78)90063-XGoogle Scholar
Eschleman, K. J., & Gooden, M. P. (2010). Effects of policy change on non-stigmatized employees. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 93–96.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01206.xGoogle Scholar
Harrison, D. A., Kravitz, D. A., Mayer, D. M., Leslie, L. M., & Lev-Arey, D. (2006). Understanding attitudes toward affirmative action programs in employment: Summary and meta-analysis of 35 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1013–1036.10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1013Google Scholar
King, E. B., & Cortina, J. M. (2010). The social and economic imperative of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered supportive organizational policies. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 69–78.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01201.xGoogle Scholar
King, E. B., Hebl, M. R., George, J. M., & Matusik, S. F. (in press). Understanding tokenism: Antecedents and consequences of psychological climate for inequity. Journal of Management, 3, xx–xx.Google Scholar
Locke, E. A. (2010). The individual, corporations and society: To whom do rights belong? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 100–102.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01208.xGoogle Scholar
Madera, J. M. (2010). The cognitive effects of hiding one's homosexuality in the workplace. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 86–89.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01204.xGoogle Scholar
Martinez, L. R., & Hebl, M. R. (2010). Additional agents of change in promoting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered inclusiveness in organizations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 82–85.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01203.xGoogle Scholar
Neuberg, S. L., Smith, D., Hoffman, J. C., & Russell, F. J. (1994). When we observe stigmatized and ‘normal’ individuals interacting: Stigma by association. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 196–209.10.1177/0146167294202007Google Scholar
Nord, W. R., Fox, S., Phoenix, A., & Viano, K. (2002). Real-world reactions to work-life balance programs: Lessons for effective implementation. Organizational Dynamics, 30, 223–238.10.1016/S0090-2616(01)00054-7Google Scholar
Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 811–832.10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.811Google Scholar
Shelton, J. N., Richeson, J. A., & Salvatore, J. (2005). Expecting to be the target of prejudice: Implications for inter-ethnic interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1189–1202.10.1177/0146167205274894Google Scholar
Singletary, S. L., & Hebl, M. R. (2009). Compensatory strategies for reducing interpersonal discrimination: The effectiveness of acknowledgements, increased positivity, and individuating information. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 797–805.10.1037/a0014185Google Scholar
Volpone, S. D., & Avery, D. R. (2010). I'm confused: How failing to value sexual identities at work sends stakeholders mixed messages. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 90–92.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01205.xGoogle Scholar
Zickar, M. J. (2010). Recognizing the need for a humanistic movement within Industrial-Organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 97–99.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01207.xGoogle Scholar