Author’s note: With everything that’s happening in the world right now, it’s hard to focus on just one topic for this newsletter, it also feels like a newsletter may be insignificant in the face of everything. But, as a community organizer I follow says “chop wood, carry water” and that’s how you get through day by day. So consider this newsletter a little bit of chopping wood and carrying water.
This newsletter focuses on the experience of LGBTQ+ people in the workplace, and the impact that the workplace has on this community, and how that differs from cis-gender, heterosexual people. The impetus for this newsletter is the recent wave of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and court cases in the U.S. From Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill that recently passed the Florida House, to the orders from Texas Governor and Attorney General criminalizing supportive care for trans youths, to the Supreme Court announcing that they’ll take up a case about whether organizations have to serve non-heterosexual couples, it’s clear that there is a reactionary pushback against the LGBTQ+ community. This stands in contrast to the celebrated Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County in 2020 that ruled that employment or housing discrimination against individuals based on their gender identity or sexual orientation is illegal.
Research on LGBTQ+ experiences at work reveal a world of subtle, if not explicit, discrimination. A recent survey of US LGBTQ+ employees found 36% of LGB individuals and 62% of transgender employees reported discrimination in the workplace in the last year (Gruberg et al., 2020). One study, for example, found that job applicants who were visibly out (i.e., wore a hat saying “Gay and Proud”) had shorter and more negative interactions with hiring managers than individuals who wore a “Texan and Proud” had (Hebl et al., 2002). Another study found that transgender individuals who perceived higher levels of workplace discrimination are more likely to be emotionally exhausted, want to leave the organization, and have lower job satisfaction (Thoroughgood et al., 2017).
Choosing when and how to be out at work can be difficult (King et al., 2008). Nearly half of LGBTQ+ employees are not out at work (Turner, 2018). LGB employees face additional stress, conflict, and challenges when trying to integrate their families at work, because their family structure would out them and may not be accepted by their colleagues (Sawyer et al., 2017). This echoes the finding that gay employees may alter how they present themselves online when their work colleagues find their online presences, in order to match their level of outness that they have at work (Lauriano & Coacci, in press).
But on average, being out is typically associated with higher job satisfaction and lower job-related anxiety (Griffith & Hebl, 2002). Another study showed that individuals who had transitioned to align their outward gender presentation with their gender identity were more satisfied with their job and felt like they fit with the organization better, and perceived less discrimination, especially if they felt their coworkers viewed them in a way that was consistent with their gender identity (Martinez et al., 2017). But this experience isn’t uniform. One study found bisexual men are less likely to be out at work compared to bisexual women, they report experiencing higher levels of discrimination, more distress, and more substance use (Corrington et al., 2019). Plus, there are cultural variables both within organizations and within countries (for example, Hungary has actively undermined LGBT+ rights) that may make being out a riskier choice.
So what can be done? Certainly, additional legislation can help reduce discrimination (Hebl et al., 2016) and there have been calls for organizations to push for legislation protecting sexual orientation minorities (Martinez at al., 2013). But, absent meaningful and enduring protections at the federal, state, and local level, organizations can enact policies (King & Cortina, 2010; Ruggs et al. 2011), and more importantly (Griffith & Hebl, 2002), practices that protect, include, and engage LGBTQ+ individuals. Sawyer & Thoroughgood (2017) point to some organizational best practices (having anti-discrimination policies, inclusive bathroom and dress policies, providing inclusive healthcare resources). Companies can provide a formal mentoring program that can include matching based on LGBTQ+ status (Hebl et al., 2012).
But what can the average worker without decision making power do? First and foremost, confront prejudice and discrimination in the workplace in a calm and direct manner (Martinez et al., 2017), especially if this is seen as requiring courage (Thoroughgood et al., 2021). Secondly, provide social support, creating a place for your LGBTQ+ coworkers to discuss their experiences and problems, and ensuring they feel included and welcome (e.g., Webster et al., 2018).
With the number of LGBTQ+ identified individuals rising, and this community’s w wellbeing under threat from politicians, it is critical organizations and coworkers create inclusive and safe working environment for LGBTQ+ individuals.
-Keaton