A Critical Discussion of Sexual Orientation in the Workplace

Sexual orientation is a diverse trait that has been historically discriminated against. 35% of LGBTQIA+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Asexual and more) employees in the UK do not disclose their sexual orientation or gender identity at work to avoid potential discrimination (Stonewall, 2018). This article will seek to identify key reasons for this in the literature, with a focus on lesbian mothers and institutionalised heterosexual norms. The impact on organisational and individual performance is addressed, critically evaluating the business case and highlighting the social justice case. Employee resource groups, the diversity controlling cycle and the influence of management are debated further, in the context of potential organisational strategies and policies. Finally, the legal framework is analysed and the success of the Equality Act (2010) is reviewed.

Literature review

Historically, it has long been assumed that homosexual people are unproductive sexually and socially (Goodwin, 1993). Section 28, an amendment to the Local Government Act (1988), stated that: ‘A local authority shall not – (a) intentionally promote homosexuality… (b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship’ (UK Government, 1988). This phrase, ‘pretended family relationship’, supports the idea that homosexual people are not seen as legitimate parents (Gabb, 2018). Despite the repeal of Section 28 in 2000 (Scotland)/ 2003 (rest of UK), Weston’s (1997) text still holds relevance in its recognition that the status as a mother often renders the status of a homosexual invisible (UK Government, 2003; Goodwin, 1993). This is supported by Gabb’s (2018) autoethnographic paper, recognising the separation of motherhood and sexuality and the ‘misplacement’ of lesbian motherhood in society. Further, Gabb (2018) identifies struggles between lesbian identity and institutionalised heterosexual motherhood, resulting in isolation from these communities.

The dismantling of the heterosexual monopoly of the family is a continuing struggle (Wilson, 2006). Wilson (2006) continues, arguing that the acceptance of LGBTQIA+ couples as a family is a consequence of capitalist society no longer requiring the model of a nuclear family. This is in agreement with Waaldijk and Bonini-Baraldi (2004) who note the need for consistency across the European Union in order for capitalism to continue to progress (Wilson, 2006). This need for consistency must be acknowledged by organisations in their diversity strategies.

Homonormativity

In contrast to the above contention between lesbianism and motherhood, ‘new homonormativity’, proposed by Duggan (2002) suggests that heterosexual ideals are glorified in the LGBTQIA+ communities, providing conformists of heterosexual norms and values with privilege. Duggan (2002) describes neoliberalist ‘domesticity and consumption’ as the key drivers behind homonormativity, and Santos (2013) expands on this by stating that homosexual people are held to the benchmark of the dominant ‘respectable’ heterosexual couple. This is in concurrence with Gabb (2018), suggesting that the assimilation into heterosexual norms reinforces heterosexuality as the familial norm, strengthening ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ (Butler, 1990). This limits the extent to which diversity is celebrated and limits inclusion to the people who are privileged in other respects (white and middle-class) (Santos, 2013; Kennedy, 2014). From this, it can be inferred that equal opportunities for homosexual people can lead to the acceptance of heterosexuality as the norm, which in turn serves to marginalise and depoliticise homosexual people in the name of hegemonic heteronormativity (Lasio, Serri, Ibba, & De Oliveira, 2018). While considerable research has been conducted regarding homosexual citizenship and the assimilation into heterosexual norms, there is a lack of research into bisexual and transgender citizenship. Equal opportunities can, therefore, infer bi- and trans-erasure through a universalist strategy (Richardson & Monro, 2012). However, it is also argued that the shift from equal opportunities approaches to diversity approaches neglects structural inequalities and overlooks power relations, while also moving towards the business case and away from the social justice case (Richardson & Monro, 2012).

Heterosexualised workplaces

The phenomenon of ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ is highlighted in the above sections in the context of the family, and within homosexual communities themselves. The performativity of this ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ forms the norms of society, and consequently, the workplace (Butler, 1990). Organisational hetero-masculinities are suggested to be performed by men and women, which leads to a hegemonic heteronormative workplace (Rumens, de Souza, & Brewis, 2019). This agrees with Acker’s (1992) theory of gendered organisations, as stereotypical masculine traits are favoured. Implicit heterosexism and homophobia can manifest into the informal interactions in organisations, damaging the potential for social connections between colleagues (Zurbrügg & Miner, 2016; Kirton & Greene, 2016). While colleagues may discuss their personal lives and relationships, homosexual people may feel marginalised and reluctant to share details for fear of unwanted questions and stigmatisation (Kirton & Greene, 2016). Disclosing sexual orientation can challenge heteronormativity and (for lesbians) gender hierarchy, as lesbians do not depend on male approval of their femininity (Kirton & Greene, 2016; Creed, 2006; Cockburn, 1991). However, employees’ experience of sexual orientation in the workplace can vary within industries, occupations and organisations (Kirton & Greene, 2016). For some, fear of bullying, harassment and a disconnect between their occupation and their sexual orientation can prevent disclosure (Kirton & Greene, 2016; Roberts, 2011). 

The impact on individual and organisational performance

The business case for diversity suggests that a greater market share and greater profits can be achieved by employing diverse talent (Herring, 2009; Hunt, Yee, Prince, & Dixon-Fyle, 2018). This competitive advantage is identified as a result of an increase in creative conflict, which improves innovation and strengthens teams (Herring, 2009). Additionally, Pichler et al. (2018) found that organisations that adopt LGBTQIA-supportive policies are more attractive to both talent and investors. Further, LGBTQIA+ employees that feel supported in the workplace report a positive effect on productivity, stress and commitment (Liddle, Luzzo, Hauenstein, & Schuck, 2004).

Conversely, it must be reiterated that the business case can neglect structural inequalities and power relations while reinforcing stereotyping and accepting heterosexuality as the norm (Richardson & Monro, 2012; Kirton & Greene, 2016). For this reason, employees may feel ‘othered’ and tokenised (Kirton & Greene, 2016). Hostility towards LGBTQIA+ employees can also increase absenteeism and cause a decline in individual productivity (Bonaventura & Biondo, 2016). A balance must be kept between the business case and the social justice case. Although, Jones and Stablein (2006) state that in a capitalist economy, the business case will have more power while profit is favoured over people.

Organisational strategies and policies

Employee Resource Groups (ERGs)

ERGs allow employees to engage in formal events such as leadership initiatives, and informal mentoring, networking and cross-functional sharing of knowledge (Dutton, 2018). Although they are usually created by small groups of employees as a grassroots organisation, they can also be used to implement a business plan or strategy, and funding can be connected to objectives achieved (Brown, 2016; Thornton, 2018). Employees can use ERGs to discuss workplace experience with members of their minority group and allies, which allows for more authentic communication (Brown, 2016). Similarly, management can gain a greater understanding of how they can support these employees (Brown, 2016). For employees who have not disclosed their sexual orientation, ERGs can provide confidential professional information and supportive resources (McNulty, McPhail, Inversi, Dundon, & Nechanska, 2018). This is particularly important for LGBTQIA+ employees who wish to take part in international opportunities, as the ERG can indicate supportive allies and resources (McNulty et al., 2018). ERGs can also support employees during the COVID-19 global pandemic. FINRA displays a best practise strategy, as pride events have been cancelled, the LGBTQIA+ ERG has organised a virtual pride parade, speaker events and volunteering opportunities for its members (Fraser, 2020).

While ERGs are intended to overcome stereotype threat, employees may feel that their participation risks conforming to a negative stereotype which can lead to increased discrimination (Steele, 1997). ERGs focussed on working parents should be redesigned to remove heterosexist ideals and encourage the inclusion of LGBTQIA+ parents to avoid the discrepancy between motherhood and lesbian identity suggested by Gabb (2018) (Johnson & Otto, 2019).

Top-down or Bottom-up?

The commitment of senior management is suggested by a Stonewall workplace guide to be paramount in securing competitive advantages such as increased creativity, talent retention, service improvement and legal compliance (Ashok, 2014). This suggests that the primary concern of senior management is the business case noted by Herring (2009). Diversity can be integrated into the vision and direction of an organisation by senior management, which can influence the organisation as a whole (Kandola & Fullerton, 1998). The Office for National Statistics stipulates that 2.5% of those in managerial or professional positions in the UK identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual (Guy, 2019). Despite the majority of senior management being heterosexual, this approach suggests that the onus is on them to advocate diversity management in order to secure competitive advantages and organisational commitment.

Brown (2016) identifies the employees as key change originator. In organisations that lack visible diversity in leadership roles, employees can feel frustrated that their identities are not reflected in leadership (Brown, 2016). Bottom-up approaches strengthen accountability at all levels, focus on the individual and organically build community within organisations (Winters, 2012).

Diversity Controlling Cycle

One process suggested by Müller and Sander in 2005 (further adapted in 2011) to implement diversity strategy is the diversity controlling cycle (Mensi-Klarbach & Risberg, 2019). It takes a top-down approach to integrate diversity goals into the processes within the organisation, thus reinforcing accountability (Mensi-Klarbach & Risberg, 2019). It aligns with the business case, as goals are quantitative, as strategic advantages and added value are the focus of the process, which can emphasise stereotyping (Mensi-Klarbach & Risberg, 2019; Kirton & Greene, 2016). All management are responsible for achieving measurable goals, enabling them to display a commitment to diversity to their teams (Mensi-Klarbach & Risberg, 2019). As the initial stage of diagnosis is revisited as the cycle continues, relevant issues are defined periodically as the organisation progresses (Mensi-Klarbach & Risberg, 2019). The cyclical nature of the process can link with performance reviews and constant internal reporting (Mensi-Klarbach & Risberg, 2019).

The legal framework context

Introduced by the Labour party in 2010, the Equality Act forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation, perceived sexual orientation and association with members of a sexual orientation (Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2016). This unified previous sexual orientation law with other dimensions of inequality, promoting equal opportunities for all diverse employees (Kollman & Waites, 2011). Following the previous example of lesbian motherhood, employees may be caught in the ‘double-bind’ of sexual orientation, and pregnancy and maternity, or further a ‘triple-paralysis’ including gender. While the Equality Act (2010) covers both of these individual characteristics, it fails to appreciate the nuances of those at the intersection of the two. For an employee to bring a claim based on multi-discrimination, they must pursue separate claims based on each characteristic, which may be unsuccessful as the organisation may be able to provide evidence that the employee was not discriminated against based on the single characteristic highlighted in the case (Knowles, 2017). For this reason, it is suggested that the Equality Act (2010) requires reformation to integrate the intersectionality of diverse employees (Knowles, 2017). Additionally, the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU means that the UK no longer has to comply with minimum anti-discrimination standards (Wintemute, 2016). This could feasibly lead to the repeal of the Equality Act (2010), as the Conservative government are historically noted to have conflicting views regarding anti-discrimination legislation (Wintemute, 2016).

Recommendations and conclusion

For organisations to effectively support diverse employees, it is suggested that the social justice case for diversity must be acknowledged. While capitalist society dictates the business case to be of utmost importance, organisations should minimise ‘othering’ and ‘tokenism’ of employees based on stereotypes (Jones & Stablein, 2006; Kirton & Greene, 2016). However, this article also notes that organisations can then benefit from increased productivity, greater market share, and talent attraction, thus benefiting the business case (Herring, 2009; Hunt, Yee, Prince, & Dixon-Fyle, 2018; Pichler, Blazovich, Cook, Huston, & Strawser, 2018; Liddle, Luzzo, Hauenstein, & Schuck, 2004).

ERGs are recommended to provide support and voice to LGBTQIA+ employees. It is also advised that ERGs for working parents are assessed and redesigned to remove heterosexualised language, norms and ideals and integrate support for LGBTQIA+ working parents (McNulty, McPhail, Inversi, Dundon, & Nechanska, 2018; Johnson & Otto, 2019). ERGs have also been highlighted as useful during times of remote work, as they can keep in touch with communities by organising online events (Fraser, 2020).

Finally, regarding internal organisational reform, a mixture of top-down and bottom-up approaches are recommended to build accountability into diversity strategy. While the diversity controlling cycle can assimilate diversity goals into the processes of the organisation at every level, its focus on top-down approaches and the business case should be assessed in its application and reviewed in reporting (Mensi-Klarbach & Risberg, 2019). 

References

Acker, J. (1992). From Sex Roles to Gendered Institutions. Contemporary Sociology, 21(5), 565-569.

Ashok, V. (2014). Line Managers: How to Manage a Diverse Workforce. Stonewall Workplace Guides. Retrieved April 25, 2020, from https://www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/line_managers.pdf

Bonaventura, L., & Biondo, A. E. (2016). Disclosure of sexual orientation in the USA and its consequences in the workplace. International Journal of Social Economics, 43(11), 1115-1123.

Brown, J. (2016). Inclusion: Diversity, the New Workplace & the Will to Change (2nd ed.). Hartford: Publish Your Purpose Press.

Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.

Cockburn, C. (1991). In the Way of Women. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Creed, D. (2006). Seven conversations about the same thing: homophobia and heterosexism in the workplace. In A. Konrad, P. Prasad, & J. Pringle, Handbook of Workplace Diversity (pp. 371-400). London: Sage.

Duggan, L. (2002). The new homonormativity: the sexual politics of neoliberalism. In R. Castronovo, & D. Nelson, Materializing democracy: toward a revitalized cultural politics (pp. 175–194). Durham: Duke University Press.

Dutton, K. (2018). Increasing diversity, awareness, and inclusion in corporate culture: investigating communities of practice and resource groups among employees. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 32(6), 19-21.

Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2016). Sexual orientation discrimination. Retrieved May 27, 2020, from Equality and Human Rights Commission: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/sexual-orientation-discrimination

Fraser, L. (2020). How FINRA and Its Employee Resource Groups are Stepping Up to Support Employees During the COVID-19 Crisis. Retrieved 05 27, 2020, from Diversity Best Practices: https://www.diversitybestpractices.com/how-finra-and-its-employee-resource-groups-are-stepping-up-to-support-employees-during-covid-19

Gabb, J. (2018). Unsettling lesbian motherhood: Critical reflections over a generation (1990–2015). Sexualities, 7(21), 1002–1020. doi:10.1177/1363460717718510

Goodwin, J. (1993). Valuing Families. The Journal of Sex Research, 30(2), 185-187.

Guy, P. (2019). Sexual orientation, UK: 2017. Retrieved May 17, 2020, from Office for National Statistics: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/sexuality/bulletins/sexualidentityuk/2017#statisticians-comment

Herring, C. (2009). Does Diversity Pay?: Race, Gender, and the Business Case for Diversity. American Sociological Review, 74(2), 208-224.

Hunt, V., Yee, L., Prince, S., & Dixon-Fyle, S. (2018). Delivering Through Diversity. Retrieved June 1, 2020, from McKinsey: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/delivering-through-diversity

Johnson, C. P., & Otto, K. (2019). Better Together: A Model for Women and LGBTQ Equality in the Workplace. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 272.

Jones, D. H., & Stablein, R. (2006). Diversity as resistance, resistance to diversity: Critical theory, post-structuralist perspectives and workplace diversity. Handbook of Workplace Diversity, 145-166.

Kandola, R., & Fullerton, J. (1998). Diversity in Action: Managing the Mosaic (2nd ed.). London: Institute of Personnel and Development.

Kennedy, T. M. (2014). Sustaining White Homonormativity: The Kids Are All Right as Public Pedagogy. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 18(2), 118-132.

Kirton, G., & Greene, A. (2016). The Dynamics of Managing Diversity (4th ed.). Oxon: Routledge.

Knowles, C. (2017). The challenges of bringing a multi-discrimination claim. Retrieved May 26, 2020, from People Management: https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/experts/legal/multi-discrimination-claims

Kollman, K., & Waites, M. (2011). United Kingdom: Changing Political Opportunity Structures, Policy Success and Continuing Challenges for Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Movements. In M. Tremblay, D. Paternotte, & C. Johnson, The Lesbian and Gay Movement and the State: Comparative Insights Into a Transformed Relationship (pp. 181-195). Farnham: Ashgate.

Lasio, D., Serri, F., Ibba, I., & De Oliveira, J. M. (2018). Hegemony and Heteronormativity: Homonormative Discourses of LGBTQ Activists About Lesbian and Gay Parenting. Journal of Homosexuality, 66(8), 1058-1081.

Liddle, B. J., Luzzo, D. A., Hauenstein, A. L., & Schuck, K. (2004). Construction and validation of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered climate inventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 12(1), 33-50.

McNulty, Y., McPhail, R., Inversi, C., Dundon, T., & Nechanska, E. (2018). Employee voice mechanisms for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender expatriation: the role of Employee-Resource Groups (ERGs) and allies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(5), 829-856.

Mensi-Klarbach, H., & Risberg, A. (2019). Diversity in Organizations-concepts and practices (2nd ed.). London: Red Globe Press.

Pichler, S., Blazovich, J. L., Cook, K. A., Huston, J. M., & Strawser, W. R. (2018). Do LGBT‐supportive corporate policies enhance firm performance? Human Resource Management, 57, 263-278.

Richardson, D., & Monro, S. (2012). Sexuality, Equality and Diversity (1st ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Roberts, S. (2011). Exploring How Gay Men Manage Their Social Identities in the Workplace. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 30(8), 668-685.

Rumens, N., de Souza, E. M., & Brewis, J. (2019). Queering Queer Theory in Management and Organization Studies: Notes toward queering heterosexuality. Organization Studies, 40(4), 593-612.

Santos, A. C. (2013). Are we there yet? Queer sexual encounters, legal recognition and homonormativity. Journal of Gender Studies, 22(1), 54-64.

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613-629.

Stonewall. (2018). LGBT in Britain - Work Report. Retrieved May 15, 2020, from Stonewall: https://www.stonewall.org.uk/lgbt-britain-work-report

Thornton, G. S. (2018). Internal communications flourishes at the grassroots: the growing importance of managers in employee engagement. In G. S. Thornton, V. Mansi, B. Carramenha, & T. Cappellano, Strategic Employee Communication (pp. 107-120). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

UK Government. (1988). Local Government Act. Retrieved March 23, 2020, from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/9/contents

UK Government. (2003). Local Government Act. Retrieved March 23, 2020, from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/26/section/122

Waaldijk, K., & Bonini-Baraldi, M. (2004). Combating Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Employment: Legislation in Fifteen EU Member States. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden.

Weston, K. (1997). Families We Choose: Lesbians, Gays, Kinship (Between Men - Between Women: Lesbian & Gay Studies). New York: Columbia University Press.

Wilson, A. (2006). Practically Between Post-Menopause and Post-Modern. In D. Richardson, J. McLaughlin, & M. E. Casey, Intersections Between Feminist and Queer Theory (pp. 156-173). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wintemute, R. (2016). Goodbye EU Anti-Discrimination Law? Hello Repeal of the Equality Act 2010? King's Law Journal, 27(3), 387-397.

Winters, M. F. (2012). Top-down vs. bottom-up: successfully implementing diversity initiatives. Retrieved May 27, 2020, from Workinfo.com: https://www.workinfo.org/index.php/articles/item/852-top-down-vs-bottom-up-successfully-implementing-diversity-initiatives

Zurbrügg, L., & Miner, K. N. (2016). Gender, Sexual Orientation, and Workplace Incivility: Who Is Most Targeted and Who Is Most Harmed? Frontiers in Psychology, 7(1), 565.