Chapter 11: Sexual Orientation and Work (PDF)

Chapter 11: Sexual Orientation and Work Defining Terms Sex is based on biological factors (male or female) A small number of intersex individuals have anatomical characteristics of both sexes Gender Past usage concerned social expectations and roles associated with one...

Chapter 11: Sexual Orientation and Work Defining Terms Sex is based on biological factors (male or female) A small number of intersex individuals have anatomical characteristics of both sexes Gender Past usage concerned social expectations and roles associated with one’s sex Gender identity Experience of oneself as male or female, neither (agender), both (bigender) or flexible (nonbinary, gender fluid, etc) Cisgender A gender identity consistent with biological sex Transgender A gender identity that differs in some way from assigned sex Defining Terms Continued Sexual orientation Concerns one’s attraction to people of the same and/or other sex as romantic and sexual partners Sexual orientation identity Awareness and recognition of oneself as a person with a particular sexual orientation Heterosexual – attracted to opposite sex Homosexual – attracted to same sex Bisexual – attracted to both sexes Asexual – sexually attracted to neither Statistics 4% of Canadians aged 15 years or older identify as LGBTQ2S+ (Stats Can, 2022) What is “Different” about Sexual Orientation? 1. Sexual orientation is identified only if one chooses to self-identify 2. LGB persons may experience hostile environment discrimination or harassment even if they are not “out” 3. Stereotypes of gay people are based on people who are out, media portrayals, and sometimes people identified in error. Openly gay people are only a subset of homosexually-oriented persons, and it is not known how large of a subset this is 4. Victims of other types of discrimination often have a support network 5. Otherwise tolerant and nondiscriminatory individuals may have a religious or moral basis for negative feelings toward LGB persons. 6. For most people, sex and race/ethnicity are apparent at birth and do not change throughout life Canadian context Same-sex sexual activity, in private between consenting adults, was decriminalized in Canada on June 27, 1969, when the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968–69 (also known as Bill C- 150) was brought into force upon royal assent. In a landmark decision in 1995, Egan v Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada held that sexual orientation is constitutionally protected under the equality clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world, and the first in the Americas to legalize same-sex marriage. In 2022, Canada was the third country in the world, and the first in North America, to fully ban conversion therapy nationwide for both minors and adults. Homophobia Homophobia Denotes a set of negative beliefs and emotional responses to homosexuality Transphobia has been used to describe internalization of cultural stigma against transgender individuals Men are more homophobic than women Less research to support, but those with conservative religious or political beliefs and low education tend to endorse greater homophobia Younger people tend to have more positive attitudes Knowing someone who is gay or lesbian is an important factor in dispelling homophobia Canadian statistics (Ipsos, 2023) When 1000 Canadians (18+) were asked how likely they would be to participate in various activities related to the status of the LGBTQ2S+ community in Canada: 48% of Canadians say they would speak up against homophobic or transphobic comments on social media; 46% say they would sign a petition in support of LGBTQ2S+ rights; 46% say they would talk to family and friends about LGBTQ2S+ rights; and 32% say they would be likely to take actions to support LGBTQ2S+ rights, such as attend a rally or donate to an LGBTQ2S+ charity. A consistent portion of around three in ten (between 27% and 36%, respectively) say they would be “very unlikely” to do each of these things. Workplace Issues Only recently have researchers begun to consider that families headed by same-sex couples may experience unique conflicts LGB workers reported stigma-based work family conflict (WFC) Lack of formal invitation to include partners at social events, lack of same-sex partner benefits, suppression or invention of family-related information, identity management strategies involving selective disclosure of family information at work Special challenges for LGB employees Invisibility of sexual orientation, negative reactions of co-workers, the lack of social support Workplace discrimination in Canada A study by Telus in 2016 reported that 37% of 814 respondents believed that their workplace was not inclusive for lesbian and gay employees, and 45% believed that their workplace was not inclusive for trans employees. A survey on LGBTQ2S+ employees’ workplace experiences in Ontario revealed that only 36.3% of workers disclosed their sexual orientation to their bosses or supervisors (Mills et al., 2020). A study in 2022 published by the Canadian Press also shows that 65% LGBTQ2+ employees in Quebec had experienced workplace discrimination in the previous five years. Furthermore, a recent systematic study on 2STNB (two spirit, trans, and nonbinary) showed that 72% of survey participants had experienced workplace discrimination and 49% quit their job due to not feeling accepted in the workplace (Rodomar, et al., 2023). Where are we at on LGBTQ+ Workplace Discrimination? (Chuang et al., 2024) Recent study led by researchers from York University, with help from Dignity Network Canada and Pride at Work Canada. Conducted a Canada-wide survey in aimed to understand the prevalence of workplace discrimination against LGBTQ+ employees and how LGBTQ+ employees coped with various forms of discrimination they encountered. The survey consisted of demographic questions and items related to workplace discrimination, microaggressions, identity concealment, identity authenticity and voice The results provide an update on the degree of workplace discrimination against sexual orientations, identities, and expressions in Canada. Chuang et al. (2024) Demographics of survey participants Sample size: 4,205 Age: Average of 31.25 years old with the standard deviation of 5.17 (ranging from 18 to 65 years old). Organizational tenure: Average of 4.3 years with the standard deviation of 2.87 (ranging from.5 to 45 year). Position at work: 56.9% are in middle or senior management positions. Marital status: 45.9% single or never married Living with common law partner: 61.8% Gender identity: 38.1% self-identified as men and 23.4% self- identified as women Sexual orientations: 39.3% self-identified as gay men, 34.3% self-identified as bisexual, and 19.3% self-identified as lesbians. Chuang et al. (2024) For perceived discrimination, about 50.1% of participants indicated that they agreed there is workplace discrimination against their LGBTQ+ identities. In terms of microaggressions, our participants told us that they experienced microaggressions with the average score of 3.00 (a standard deviation of.556). 55% of participants reported they sometimes experienced microaggressions at work, while 2.6% reported they often or all the time experienced microaggressions. We can further decompose microaggressions into three dimensions – workplace values against LGBTQ+, heteronormative assumptions, and cisnormative culture. Chuang et al. (2024) For identity management almost 60% indicated that they prefer to keep their identities private or carefully controlled who knows about their identities. Turning to identity authenticity at work, about 50.2% of participants felt they could be themselves at work regarding their LGBTQ+ identities. 52.6% of participants agreed that their colleagues’ perceptions of their identities are consistent with their own perception. Chuang et al. (2024) Regarding voice, participants shared that they were able to suggest how to improve workplace practices on diversity, equity and inclusion. 50.1% of participants had sometimes or often made some suggestions at work. Participants also indicated that they spoke up or expressed opinions on things that would make LGBTQ+ employees uncomfortable. 52.3% reported that they had sometimes or often expressed concerns about things that made LGBTQ+ employees uncomfortable. Chuang et al. (2024) Chuang et al. (2024) Results show workplace discrimination and microaggressions against LGBTQ + employees in Canada are declining. Nevertheless, discrimination and microaggressions are still evident in Canadian workplaces. LGBTQ+ employees in Alberta, NW Territories, and Nunavut reported the highest levels of perceived discrimination and microaggressions. In contrast, our survey participants in British Columbia reported the lowest level of perceived discrimination and microaggressions at work. Survey participants in Ontario scored highest on items related to being careful in how they managed their LGBTQ+ identities at work. Combined with the results from perceived discrimination and microaggressions, the results suggest that people who are open about their identities may be more vulnerable to becoming targets of discrimination and microaggressions, particularly in Alberta. These findings suggest that we still have a long way to go to reduce workplace discrimination and microaggressions against LGBTQ+ employees. Discrimination and its Outcomes Access Discrimination In a field study, the apparently-gay applicants received 7.2% fewer callbacks than those who seemed to be heterosexual, but this varied drastically state to state Treatment Discrimination Salary difference 10-32% wage gap for gay men compared to heterosexual men in comparable jobs Lesbian women actually earn more than heterosexual women The Minority Stress Model Simply being a member of a marginalized group is a unique source of chronic social stress Research shows LGBTQ members have higher levels of psychological distress and stress-related psychiatric disorders This model was developed by Meyer (2003) based on experiences of sexual minorities but can be applied to other groups Three additional sources of stress occur for sexual minorities besides the stressors that affect most workers External stressors: actual events that the person may or may not interpret as discrimination (microaggressions, bullying, etc.) Internal stressors: Stem from the person’s expectations of rejection related to group membership based on past experiences and cultural knowledge Internalized prejudice: self-devaluation that results from accepting society’s disregard and applying it to oneself The Process of Disclosure: Coming Out at Work Some LGB employees face a decision when joining an organization about keeping their sexual orientation private, with fear that it may affect their work negatively. In a study, 161 LGB persons responded to a survey Half said they had disclosed their sexual orientation to their coworkers. This was lower than family and friends, but higher than school and religious settings Respondents were more likely to disclose their sexual orientation in settings high in Autonomy Support, meaning that the work environment was one of acceptance The Process of Disclosure: Coming Out at Work Continued Three strategies that LGB persons follow, with each having consequences Counterfeiting Making up a heterosexual identity in order to appear heterosexual Avoidance Trying to control conversation and behavior so the issue does not come up Integration Free disclosure of sexual orientation Research shows the importance of organizational climate and policy in the disclosure decision Disclosure and lower discrimination were strongly related to supportive social climate, formal policies and supportive relationships Three Challenges In many employment settings, LGB employees who have not disclosed will be assumed to be heterosexual since their sexual identity is invisible, which can have indirect discrimination and disclosure backlash Negative co-worker reactions experienced by openly gay employees may include direct discrimination, avoidance, uncivil language, or microaggressions Lack of social support presents concerns for the LGB employee, as many may react with puzzlement or aversion. Courtesy Stigma Applies to those who may avoid associating with someone they believe to be gay in order to prevent others from thinking they are gay as well. Even other LGBT men or women who have not disclosed their identities may also avoid associating with other LGBT persons to prevent their own discovery. This process of avoidance increases the sense of isolation that some LGBT employees feel at work. Career Choice and Development Many career theories do not apply to the work history for persons who are LGB Important things for LGB members when seeking career options LGB persons may seek out safe havens, or places that support the development of a gay identity Identity supporters -friends and family who support the individual in his or her sexual orientation development – are important to seek out Diversity, Equity and Inclusion for Gay People at Work As with other diversity dimensions, the employer should focus on the person and the contributions they can make to the organizational goals, not their sexual orientation. In three situations sexual orientation does become relevant 1. Social interactions: policies should be in place to make it clear that harassment, discrimination, or other mistreatment on the basis of sexual orientation (or gender identity) will not be tolerated, and in company statements, diversity should be defined to include sexual orientation (and gender identity) 2. Organization of workplace activities: the capable diversity manager should consider sexual minority status is in the organization of workplace activities. For example, company social events (e.g., banquets, picnics) to which employees are expected to bring spouses or dates may be awkward for LGBT employees. 3. Employee benefits: employer-provided health insurance plans provide a family option in which the employee can pay an additional premium for coverage of his or her spouse/partner. The most inclusive organizations offer domestic partner (health insurance) benefits to both gay and straight married or cohabiting couples. In addition, policies for sick leave, “personal time off,” or family leave often permit employees to take time away from work to care for the needs of a spouse or other family member. These policies are most inclusive if they are available to partnered LGBT employees on the same terms as others. Why Organizations Should Respond Unfair treatment based on sexual orientation produces negative consequences for both employees and the organization. Job satisfaction and commitment are likely to be lower, and job anxiety and turnover higher when LGB employees experience a heterosexist work environment The importance of using valid predictors of performance to make personnel decisions “There is no evidence that LGBT workers perform any less well than their straight counterparts” Organizations with diversity initiatives that do not consider sexual orientation in their policies, risk presenting a mixed message about their goals, which can have negative effects on employees, customers and stakeholders. The diversity manager’s goal should be to create a supportive and inclusive environment for all LGB employees References Chuang, Y-T., Zhang, C., Wang, J., Chan, Z., Bryan-Carbonell, S. (2024). Where are we at on LGBTQ+ workplace discrimination? A report from a Canada-wide survey study. York University https://sway.cloud.microsoft/H3ucLZPlAZz2fteJ?ref=Link Mills, S. Owens, B., Guta, A., Lewis, N., & Oswin, N. (2020). The LGBTQ2S+ work & inclusion study brings together unions, worker centres, and LGBTQ2S+ people in Sudbury and Windsor to investigate the experiences of LGBTQ2S+ workers. https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/28174/1/work- and-inclusion_for-posting-and-distribution.pdf Rodomar, N, Irving, D, Jakubiec, B., Desmeules-Trudel, F., & Maclennan, E. (2023). Working for change: Understanding the employment experiences of two spirit, trans, and nonbinary people in Canada. Egale Canada.