Managing Sexual and Gender Identity in the Workplace

Perceived lack of visibility of sexual identities was the feature that conditioned many early studies in the field. In this assumption, sexual identity management was assumed and conceptualized as a process under the control of LGBT people themselves as to how, when and to whom one decides to make one’s sexual orientation visible by disclosing it (Clair et al., Reference Clair, Beatty and MacLean2005; Lidderdale et al., Reference Lidderdale, Croteau, Anderson, Tovar-Murray, Davis, Bieschke, Perez and DeBord2007; Ragins, Reference Ragins2008). Researchers’ interest was initially focused on understanding which strategies people use to conceal (passing as heterosexual or covering information about their personal life) or disclose their sexual orientation (e.g., sharing information or cues to reveal it explicitly or implicitly); which individual characteristics (e.g., self-efficacy, expectations of outcomes, past discriminatory experiences) and organizational factors (LGBT affirmative policies, social support, etc.) might affect the strategy selection; and the consequences of such selection for people and organizations, in terms of well-being, job attitudes, turnover intentions, etc. (Clair et al., Reference Clair, Beatty and MacLean2005; Lidderdale et al., Reference Lidderdale, Croteau, Anderson, Tovar-Murray, Davis, Bieschke, Perez and DeBord2007; Ragins, Reference Ragins2008; Wood, Reference Woods1993).

However, increasingly it crystalized that disclosure is not a one-time choice or act (Button, Reference Button2004; Croteau et al., Reference Croteau, Anderson and VanderWal2008; King et al., Reference King, Mohr, Peddie, Jones and Kendra2017), but an ongoing process implying decision making into revealing information about one’s sexuality when one meets with new colleagues or new actors in the workspace. Moreover, the acceptance signals sent by interlocutors are decisive in determining degrees of disclosure by LGBT people (King et al., Reference King, Mohr, Peddie, Jones and Kendra2017).

According to recent studies (Di Marco et al., Reference Di Marco, Munduate, Arenas and Hoel2017; Einarsdóttir et al., Reference Einarsdóttir, Hoel and Lewis2016), the dynamic and interactional nature of such processes must be recognized, suggesting disclosure processes do not depend on LGBT individuals’ wishes alone, but is affected by responses and interests of discloses or interaction partners. Informed by Boundary Theory Ashforth et al. (Reference Ashforth, Kreiner and Fugate2000), Di Marco et al. (Reference Di Marco, Munduate, Arenas and Hoel2017) suggest that depending on the response, non-heterosexual people might share information about their personal life at work (e.g., providing information about their partner), or, by contrast, where information given is ignored or rejected, this may prevent them being their authentic selves. Conversely, LGBT workers might wish to separate private lives from work life, deliberately omitting informational clues about their sexual orientation. However, this might not always be respected by colleagues, bothering them with questions or sometimes spreading rumors or ‘outing’ them within the organization (Di Marco et al., Reference Di Marco, Munduate, Arenas and Hoel2017). Such interactions also hinge on stereotyping, with colleague responses sometimes informed by stereotypical clues, which might act as a source of discrimination and exclusion whether clues are interpreted correctly or not (Di Marco et al., Reference Di Marco, Munduate, Arenas and Hoel2017; Einarsdóttir et al., Reference Einarsdóttir, Hoel and Lewis2016).

While research on identity management has traditionally focused on lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) workers, more recently scholars have started to address the dynamics of transgender people at work, whose disclosure experiences might be unique. Gender transition might or, might not involve physical changes or interventions; moreover, the degree of masculine and/or feminine characteristics transgender people adopt to express their gender identity can vary (Dieter & Dentice, Reference Dietert and Dentice2009). Bearing such variables in mind, if gender transition is carried out prior to employment, transgender workers might decide concealment, or “going stealth” (Beauregard et al., Reference Beauregard, Arevshatian, Booth and Whittle2018, p. 10) to avoid negative colleague responses, or because they completely identify with their post-transition gender (Budge et al., Reference Budge, Tebbe and Howard2010). However, desires to silence issues around their biological sex might be thwarted by co-workers asking questions or spreading rumors about colleagues whose gender expressions or physical attributes do not correspond to normative, binary masculine or feminine ones. Dynamics are different for transgender people who commence transitioning after entering the organization. In such cases, transgender people are often forced to negotiate or affirm their identity on a daily basis (Dietert & Dentice, Reference Dietert and Dentice2009), forcing departure from the organization when colleagues are unsupportive (Dietert & Dentice, Reference Dietert and Dentice2009).

LGBT Workers’ Stigmatization and Exclusion: From Overt to Covert Discrimination

Disclosing sexual or gender identity might be a dilemma for LGBT workers. This is an historical stigmatization for not confirming normative expectations about affective relationships with gender expressions established by society, where homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association until 1973, and where non-heterosexual acts and manifestations remain illegal in many jurisdictions (McPhail & McNulty, Reference McPhail and McNulty2015). Heteronormativity is the concept that reflects such norms, assuming that only two genders exist, based upon sex assigned at birth, and that they be expressed according to prevailing social norms of masculinity or femininity (Habarth, Reference Habarth2015). Heteronormativity also implies that only people of opposite sexes can hold romantic relationships, granting a hegemonic position to heterosexuality (Warner, Reference Warner1991).

Socialization of heteronormative beliefs is considered to start at the early stages of child development and reinforced by social institutions representing breeding grounds for internalization of negative attitudes towards LGBT people as homophobia and transphobia. However, scholars have pointed out that the term “phobia” might undermine the comprehension of such phenomena, by considering the hostility against LGBT people as uncontrollable and irrational individual reactions (Herek & McLemore, Reference Herek and McLemore2013). For this reason, the terms homo- and transphobia are increasingly replaced by new terms such as sexual and gender identity prejudice (Cramwinckel et al., Reference Cramwinckel, Scheepers and van der Toorn2018; Herek & McLemore, Reference Herek and McLemore2013) and anti-homosexuality/anti-transgenderism (Einarsdóttir et al., Reference Einarsdóttir, Hoel and Lewis2015; Hill & Willoughby, Reference Hill and Willoughby2005; Yep, Reference Yep2003). The terms incorporate a broader range of, and motives for, hostile acts against LGBT people, going beyond the irrationality of the perceived phobia.

Social psychologists have tried to understand the mechanisms behind negative attitudes towards sexual minorities. In line with Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, Reference Tajfel and Tajfel1978) and Self-Categorization Theory (Turner, Reference Turner and Tajfel1982), people perceive and categorize themselves according to their group membership. Group belonging a source of self-esteem, allows people to define their identity, recognize appropriate behavioral and affective responses in certain contexts, setting the boundaries between one’s own group (in-group) and others (out-groups) (Lewis et al., Reference Lewis, Glambek, Hoel, Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf and Cooper2020). In order to protect self-esteem, people tend to minimize in-group members’ negative or deviating behaviors and characteristics, instead emphasizing negative aspects of out-groups. In-group membership leads to rejection and stigmatization of those constituting threats to group identity. Therefore, LGBT people might be perceived as a threat by those defining and categorizing themselves and their own group by heteronormative norms and standards.

Although discrimination at work is outlawed by many countries, prejudice exists with organizations not immune to negative attitudes and discrimination. A distinction is often made between formal or institutional discrimination and interpersonal discrimination (Hebl et al., Reference Hebl, Foster, Mannix and Dovidio2002; Jones et al., Reference Jones, Arena, Nittrouer, Alonso and Lindsey2017). Whilst formal discrimination refers to prejudices and biased treatment of minorities, including LGBT people through organizational processes, policies and practices, such as recruitment, selection and career development (Hebl et al., Reference Hebl, Foster, Mannix and Dovidio2002), interpersonal discrimination manifests during social interactions including verbal and non-verbal behaviors. Examples of the latter are derogatory language, or displaying discomfort during interactions with LGBT people (Hebl et al., Reference Hebl, Foster, Mannix and Dovidio2002). Discrimination may occur openly or blatantly through behaviors that are easily recognizable as harming (e.g., direct verbal aggression). Bullying and harassment might form part of such blatant discrimination, with LGBT workers far more exposed than their heterosexual counterparts (see Hoel et al., Reference Hoel, Lewis, Einarsdóttir, D’Cruz, Noronha, Caponecchia, Escartín, Salin and Tuckey2018). But discrimination can also be subtle, through acts whose discriminatory intention is not clear to targets and observers. Selective incivility (Cortina, Reference Cortina2008), refers to rude or unkind behaviors, which might be attributed to reasons other than negative attitudes and bias. Moreover, the perpetrator’s intention to harm has to be considered, whether it is conscious or unconscious. Concepts such as Microaggressions reflect implicit prejudicial and aggressive motives designed to injure feelings, whether intentional or not, and communicating hostile, derogatory slights and insults (Sue, Reference Sue2010). Formal vs. interpersonal, overt vs. subtle, and conscious vs. unconscious represent the extreme ends of three continuums that are not mutually exclusive. Thus, a behavior might be interpersonal, subtle and conscious at the same time (Jones et al., Reference Jones, Arena, Nittrouer, Alonso and Lindsey2017).

Studies about discrimination on grounds of sexual and gender identity within organizations show that one in five LGBT workers perceives themselves discriminated against (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2013). Notwithstanding, recent research appears to show increasing manifestations of subtle and interpersonal discriminatory acts (Corlett et al., Reference Corlett, Di Marco and Arenas2019; Dietert & Dentice, Reference Dietert and Dentice2009; Di Marco et al., Reference Di Marco, Hoel, Arenas and Munduate2018; Einarsdóttir et al., Reference Einarsdóttir, Hoel and Lewis2015), also called modern discrimination (Cortina, Reference Cortina2008). Although many countries have made significant strides recognizing LGBT rights, negative attitudes might still persist at conscious and unconscious levels, and be expressed subtly to avoid social disapproval. A typical example would be using derogatory language and making uncivil or sexualized jokes; asking intrusive and inappropriate questions about private lives; and not using correct pronouns to refer to transgender colleagues. While many organizations condemn blatant aggressive acts and mistreatment of minority groups, including LGBT people, they often fail to call out subtle and ambiguous acts, seeing them as harmless, indirectly contributing to normalizing modern discrimination. Besides, whilst most studies examine LGBT workers’ as a singular category, investigating the various groups separately shows that lesbians and bisexual women appear at greater risk than gay men (Hoel et al., Reference Hoel, Lewis and Einarsdóttir2014, Reference Hoel, Lewis, Einarsdóttir, D’Cruz, Noronha, Caponecchia, Escartín, Salin and Tuckey2018), indicating requirements for intersectional (Corrington et al., Reference Corrington, Nittrouer, Trump-Steele and Hebl2019) perspectives.

Organizational Responses to Stigmatization

Given LGBT workers’ frequent exposure to discrimination in numerous forms, it is important to explore how organizations respond to rectify and challenge such experiences, enabling ‘voice’ and providing a sense of inclusion. Organizational motives to tackle discrimination range from upholding anti-discrimination laws (where they exist), to taking advantage of diversity (the business case for diversity), and pursuing moral and ethical values for creating a safe space for all (the moral case for diversity) (Bell et al., Reference Bell, Özbilgin, Beauregard and Sürgevil2011). Many organizations develop and implement equal rights or diversity policies and practices to reduce bias, create awareness and challenge (subtle) discrimination, also strengthening the inclusion and visibility of minority groups. To achieve inclusion, diversity training is frequently deployed, although its effectiveness is questioned (Bezrukova et al., Reference Bezrukova, Spell, Perry and Jehn2016; Kalinoski et al., Reference Kalinoski, Steele-Johnson, Peyton, Leas, Steinke and Bowling2013), because while such training may produce stable cognitive learning about improved interaction with minority groups, it rarely leads to changes in attitudes in the long-term (Bezrukova et al., Reference Bezrukova, Spell, Perry and Jehn2016).

Recent meta-analysis showed that three types of organizational support moderate the negative effects of LGBT workers’ stigmatization, namely formal policies and practices (e.g., top-management support for LGBT worker inclusion; providing benefits to employees’ same-sex partners; and diversity training); a supportive climate (creating a safer and inclusive work environment); and relational support from colleagues and supervisors (Webster et al., Reference Webster, Adams, Maranto, Sawyer and Thoroughgood2018). According to the authors, a supportive climate with high levels of relational support contribute positively to LGBT workers’ job satisfaction, commitment and disclosure; whilst at the same time reducing psychological strain and perceived discrimination. Although formal policies and practices also appear to work in the same direction, their impact is lower. Thus, formal statements supporting inclusive values and beliefs are not sufficient if lacking enactment on a daily basis (Clair et al., Reference Clair, Beatty and MacLean2005).

Knowledge about social identity construction, categorization processes and diversity management have several implications for human resources practitioners. For instance, creating diverse teams with superordinate goals might help members to perceive themselves as part of a new group, where co-operation and interdependence are important to achieve common goals (Gaertner & Dovidio, Reference Gaertner and Dovidio2000; Lewis et al., Reference Lewis, Glambek, Hoel, Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf and Cooper2020). The new collective group identity reduces risks of conflicts related to internal categorization processes tied to individual identities, allowing for expansion of the greater quantity of information available, improving group dynamics, meliorating decision-making processes and increasing creativity (van Knippenberg et al., Reference van Knippenberg, De Dreu and Homan2004). Furthermore, in line with Social Contact Theory (Allport, Reference Allport1954), the social contact of working to achieve shared goals can also disprove stereotypes and reduce prejudices (Pettigrew & Tropp, Reference Pettigrew and Tropp2006).

According to Bell et al. (Reference Bell, Özbilgin, Beauregard and Sürgevil2011), organizations need to provide LGBT workers with safe formal and informal voice mechanisms to increase visibility in the workplace and enable speaking up when unfair situations occur. Trade unions, where applicable, and LGBT networks can act as formal voice mechanisms, illuminating issues related to gender and sexual orientation minorities groups, and offering social support to LGBT workers. However, previous findings (McFadden & Crowley-Henry, Reference McFadden and Crowley-Henry2018) showed that some LGBT people do not access such participation channels believing their voice will be ignored. Moreover, speaking up might label them as troublemakers, increasing risks of mistreatment (McFadden & Crowley-Henry, Reference McFadden and Crowley-Henry2018). Therefore, organizations must foster formal voice channels by improving LGBT workers’ voice self-efficacy and reducing acquiescence. In this respect, special attention must be given to transgender and bisexual employees who are included under the “LGBT diversity management” umbrella label but remain less visible and more stigmatized than lesbian and gay colleagues (Arena et al., Reference Arena and Jones2017; McFadden & Crowley-Henry, Reference McFadden and Crowley-Henry2018). The scant presence of specific organizational policies and practices for transgender and bisexual workers exemplifies the lack of recognition of their specific needs (Arena et al., Reference Arena and Jones2017; Beauregard et al., Reference Beauregard, Arevshatian, Booth and Whittle2018).

Although formal voice mechanisms, including systems for complaints and mediation, are essential pieces of the participation system (Klaas et al., Reference Klaas, Olson-Buchanan and Ward2012), previous studies show that people often prefer to use informal voice channels, to address concerns to supervisors or line-managers (Olson-Buchanan & Boswell, Reference Olson-Buchanan and Boswell2008). Perceiving their managers to be committed, trusted and supportive, who offer protection and set the tone of inclusion through role-modeling inclusive behavior, is key for improving access of LGBT workers to such channels (Bell et al., Reference Bell, Özbilgin, Beauregard and Sürgevil2011; Di Marco, Reference Di Marco, Arenas, Di Marco, Munduate and Euwema2017). Moreover, the proximity of supervisors and line managers give them a privileged position to observe, recognize and stop subtle discriminatory acts, providing they are attuned to the signals of them. Therefore, selecting supervisors engaged with diversity issues or providing mandatory training to ensure they carry out roles effectively could make a difference towards the construction of inclusive and safe work environments.

To succeed, supervisors and managers need the reinforcement of senior management. In that sense, the adoption of formal policies and procedures, which establish clear pathways to embed equality and inclusion, might be through a decisive statement of organizational commitment. To practically address such issues, national and international organizations, including the International Labor Organization (ILO) and the International Standardization Organization (ISO) are currently advocating more holistic approaches. For instance, the British Standard on diversity and inclusion (BS76005) (Hoel & McBride, Reference Hoel, McBride, Arenas, Di Marco, Munduate and Euwema2017) provides a guideline to develop and implement policies and practices that value people and safeguard their dignity across the employment cycle. Such standards or codes of practice might assist in embedding diversity and inclusion within the organization, recognizing, valuing and giving voice to gender and sexual orientation minority identities.

Building effective organizational responses requires that the complexity of multiple challenges experienced by LGBT workers is acknowledged. Future research should explore how interpersonal dynamics at work may change when multiple stigmatized identities intersect (e.g., gender identity and race) (Corrington et al., Reference Corrington, Nittrouer, Trump-Steele and Hebl2019). To build comprehensive and inclusive diversity management programs, the paucity of research about the unique experience of bisexual and transgender workers (Arena et al., Reference Arena and Jones2017; Beauregard et al., Reference Beauregard, Arevshatian, Booth and Whittle2018) must be addressed. Additionally, researchers should identify organizational variables that empower LGBT workers and allies to speak up when recognizing subtle forms of discrimination.

In conclusion, recognizing and tackling discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity entails multilevel actions and the commitment of several organizational actors including senior management. Making visible stigmatized identities, giving LGBT workers voice and raising awareness about LGBT issues are important steps to challenge belief systems and the many manifestations that maintain and reinforce heteronormativity within the organizational environment.