Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T07:41:23.471Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Discrimination and Exclusion on Grounds of Sexual and Gender Identity: Are LGBT People’s Voices Heard at the Workplace?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2021

Donatella Di Marco*
Affiliation:
Universidad de Sevilla (Spain) ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (Portugal)
Helge Hoel
Affiliation:
The University of Manchester (UK)
Duncan Lewis
Affiliation:
Edith Cowan University (Australia)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Donatella Di Marco. Universidad de Sevilla. Departamento de Psicología Social. Calle Camilo José Cela, S/N. 41018Sevilla (Spain). E-mail: [email protected]. Phone: +34–954557345.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The review explores key issues associated with discrimination and hostility faced by Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) people at work and organizational responses to it. Starting from a description of the main challenges facing LGBT workers’ identity management, the review examines manifestations of negative attitudes towards gender and sexual minority groups, highlighting processes of subtle discrimination and exclusion. It presents and critiques dominant organizational responses to LGBT stigmatization, highlighting the need for holistic, intersectional approaches, and pointing out issues requiring further research.

Type
Review Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2021

Social identities are relevant across all life domains because they help people to define themselves and to shape daily social interactions. Being authentic in the workplace is associated with positive outcomes in terms of job attitudes and well-being (Martinez et al., Reference Martinez, Sawyer, Thoroughgood, Ruggs and Smith2017). However, authenticity might be challenging for those groups historically stigmatized by society and who may have concealed identities, as is often the case for LGBT people (Croteau et al., Reference Croteau, Anderson and VanderWal2008; Martinez et al., Reference Martinez, Sawyer, Thoroughgood, Ruggs and Smith2017). Although many countries reject discrimination based on sexuality and gender identity (McFadden & Crowley-Henry, Reference McFadden and Crowley-Henry2018), overt and subtle discrimination against non-heteronormative identities remains. As Hoel et al. (Reference Hoel, Lewis and Einarsdóttir2014) reported, LGB workers are twice as likely to be victims of bullying and harassment than heterosexual colleagues. Moreover, almost 30% of European transgender people perceive discrimination when looking for a job (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2013). At a time when some elements of society actively challenge the rights of LGBT people and other protected groups (Walker, Reference Walker2020), organizations that enable people from diverse backgrounds to be themselves, to be included and feel safe at work is even more significant.

Starting with a brief review of research about sexual and gender identity management in workplaces, the article explores discriminatory and exclusionary processes experienced by LGBT workers. Given such a pretext, it critically evaluates the effectiveness of some mainstream organizational strategies aimed at tackling discrimination and progressing diversity and inclusion in the workplace. Finally, several issues requiring further research are identified.

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.

Footnotes

Conflicts of Interest: None.

Funding Statement: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley. https://doi.org/10.2307/2573151Google Scholar
Arena, D. F. Jr., & Jones, K. P. (2017). To “B” or not to “B”: Assessing the disclosure dilemma of bisexual individuals at work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 103, 8698. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.08.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. The Academy of Management Review, 25, 472491. https://doi.org/10.2307/259305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beauregard, T. A., Arevshatian, L., Booth, J. E., & Whittle, S. (2018). Listen carefully: Transgender voices in the workplace. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29, 857884. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1234503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, M. P., Özbilgin, M. F., Beauregard, T. A., & Sürgevil, O. (2011). Voice, silence, and diversity in 21st Century organizations: Strategies for inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees. Human Resource Management, 50(1), 131146. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bezrukova, K., Spell, C. S., Perry, J. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2016). A meta-analytical integration of over 40 years of research on diversity training evaluation. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 12271274. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000067CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Budge, S. L., Tebbe, E. N., & Howard, K. A. S. (2010). The work experiences of transgender individuals: Negotiating the transition and career decision-making processes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(4), 377393. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Button, S. B. (2004). Identity management strategies utilized by lesbian and gay employees: A quantitative explanation. Group & Organization Management, 29, 470494. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601103257417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clair, J. A., Beatty, J. E., & MacLean, T. L. (2005). Out of sight but not out of mind: Managing invisible social identities in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 30, 7895. http://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.15281431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corlett, S., Di Marco, D., & Arenas, A. (2019). ‘Coming out’ across cultures: Examining the experiences of Ecuadorian and Spanish LGB employees. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00463-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortina, L. M. (2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organizations. Academy of Management Review 33, 5575. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.27745097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corrington, A., Nittrouer, C. L., Trump-Steele, R. C. E., & Hebl, M. (2019). Letting him B: A study on the intersection of gender and sexual orientation in the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 113, 129142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.10.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cramwinckel, F. M., Scheepers, D. T., & van der Toorn, J. (2018). Interventions to reduce blatant and subtle sexual orientation- and gender identity prejudice (SOGIP): Current knowledge and future directions. Social Issues and Policy Review, 12, 183217. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croteau, J. M., Anderson, M. Z., & VanderWal, B. L. (2008). Models of workplace sexual identity disclosure and management: Reviewing and extending concepts. Group & Organization Management, 33, 532565. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601108321828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietert, M., & Dentice, D. (2009). Gender identity issues and workplace discrimination: The transgender experience. Journal of Workplace Rights, 14, 121140. https://doi.org/10.2190/wr.14.1.gCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Marco, D. (2017). Unlocking closet at organizations. In Arenas, A., Di Marco, D., Munduate, L., & Euwema, M. (Eds.), Shaping inclusive workplaces through social dialogue. Industrial relations & conflict management (pp. 187200). Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66393-7_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Marco, D., Hoel, H., Arenas, A., & Munduate, L. (2018). Workplace incivility as modern sexual prejudice. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33, 19782004. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515621083CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Di Marco, D., Munduate, L., Arenas, A., & Hoel, H. (2017). ¿Quién queda en el armario? La experiencia de los colectivos de personas lesbianas y gais en el trabajo [Who is left in the wardrobe? The experience of lesbian and gay groups at work]. Ediciones Pirámide.Google Scholar
Einarsdóttir, A., Hoel, H., & Lewis, D. (2015). It’s nothing personal’: Anti-homosexuality in the British workplace. Sociology, 49, 11831199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038515582160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einarsdóttir, A., Hoel, H., & Lewis, D. (2016). Fitting the bill: (Dis)embodied disclosure of sexual identities in the workplace. Work, Employment and Society, 30, 489505. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017014568136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Union Agency for Fundamental Right. (2013). European Union lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender survey: Results at a glance. Publications Office of the European Union. https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2013/eu-lgbt-survey-european-union-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-survey-results.Google Scholar
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Habarth, J. M. (2015). Development of the heteronormative attitudes and beliefs scale. Psychology & Sexuality, 6(2), 166188. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2013.876444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hebl, M. R., Foster, J. B., Mannix, L. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2002). Formal and inter- personal discrimination: A field study of bias toward homosexual applicants. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 815825. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202289010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herek, G. M., & McLemore, K. A. (2013). Sexual prejudice. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 309333. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143826.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, D. B., & Willoughby, B. L. B. (2005). The development and validation of the Genderism and Transphobia Scale. Sex Roles, 53, 531544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-7140-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoel, H., Lewis, D., & Einarsdóttir, A. (2014). The ups and downs of LGBs’ workplace experiences. Manchester Business School.Google Scholar
Hoel, H., Lewis, D., & Einarsdóttir, A. (2018). Sexual orientation and workplace bullying. In D’Cruz, P., Noronha, E., Caponecchia, C., Escartín, J., Salin, D., & Tuckey, M. (Eds.), Dignity and inclusion at work. Handbooks of workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment (pp. 129). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5338-2_13-1.Google Scholar
Hoel, H., & McBride, A. (2017). ‘Getting in’, ‘staying in’ and ‘moving on’: Using standards to achieve diversity and inclusion. In Arenas, A., Di Marco, D., Munduate, L., & Euwema, M. C. (Eds.), Shaping inclusive workplaces through social dialogue. Industrial relations & conflict management (pp. 3351). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66393-7_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, K. P., Arena, D. F., Nittrouer, C. L., Alonso, N. M., & Lindsey, A. P. (2017). Subtle discrimination in the workplace: A vicious cycle. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 10(1), 5176. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2016.91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalinoski, Z. T., Steele-Johnson, D., Peyton, E. J., Leas, K. A., Steinke, J., & Bowling, N. A. (2013). A meta-analytic evaluation of diversity training outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 10761104. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klaas, B. S., Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Ward, A.-K. (2012). The determinants of alternative forms of workplace voice. Journal of Management, 38(1), 314345. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311423823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, E. B., Mohr, J. J., Peddie, C. I., Jones, K. P., & Kendra, M. (2017). Predictors of identity management: An exploratory experience-sampling study of lesbian, gay, and bisexual workers. Journal of Management, 43, 476502. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314539350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D., Glambek, M., & Hoel, H. (2020). The role of discrimination in bullying. In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. (Eds.), ‘Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (3rd Ed.). CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
Lidderdale, M. A., Croteau, J. M., Anderson, M. Z., Tovar-Murray, D., & Davis, J. M. (2007). Building LGB vocational psychology: A theoretical model of workplace sexual identity management. In Bieschke, K. J., Perez, R. M., & DeBord, K. A. (Eds.), Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients (2nd Ed., pp. 245270). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11482-010.Google Scholar
Martinez, L. R., Sawyer, K. B., Thoroughgood, C. N., Ruggs, E. N., & Smith, N. A. (2017). The importance of being “me”: The relation between authentic identity expression and transgender employees’ work-related attitudes and experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 215226. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McFadden, C., & Crowley-Henry, M. (2018). ‘My People’: The potential of LGBT employee networks in reducing stigmatization and providing voice. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29, 10561081. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1335339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPhail, R., & McNulty, Y. (2015). “Oh, the places you won’t go as an LGBT expat!” A study of HRM’s duty of care to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender expatriates in dangerous locations. European Journal of International Management 9(6), 737765. https://doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.2015.072227.Google Scholar
Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Boswell, W. R. (2008). An integrative model of experiencing and responding to mistreatment at work. The Academy of Management Review, 33, 7696. http://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.27745325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ragins, B. R. (2008). Disclosure disconnects: Antecedents and consequences of disclosing invisible stigmas across life domains. Academy of Management Review, 33, 194215. http://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.27752724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions and marginality – Manifestation, dynamics and impact. John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. (1978). The achievement of inter-group differentiation. In Tajfel, H. (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups (pp. 77100). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In Tajfel, H. (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 1540). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 10081022. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walker, S. (2020, November 11). Hungarian government mounts new assault on LGBT rights. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/11/hungarian-government-mounts-new-assault-on-lgbt-rights.Google Scholar
Warner, M. (1991). Introduction: Fear of a queer planet. Social Text, 29, 317.Google Scholar
Webster, J. R., Adams, G. A., Maranto, C. L., Sawyer, K., & Thoroughgood, C. (2018). Workplace contextual supports for LGBT employees: A review, meta-analysis, and agenda for future research. Human Resource Management, 57, 193210. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woods, J. D. (1993). The corporate closet: The professional lives of gay men in America. Free Press.Google Scholar
Yep, G. A. (2003). The violence of heteronormativity in communication studies. Journal of Homosexuality, 45(2), 1159. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v45n02_02.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed