Homosexuality in the Workplace - Essay Example

Homosexuality in the Workplace The issue of homosexuality on the workplace has been of high discussion and interest among many scientists and researchers along with the topics of sexism and racism. Statistics say that gay and lesbian employees constitute between 4% and 17% of the U. S. workforce (Gonsiorek & Weinrich, 1991), a larger proportion than many other minority group. Gay and lesbian employees face unique challenges that have no real parallel in other minority groups. Most notably, discrimination against gay and lesbian employees, or even those who appear to be gay, is legal in most workplaces in the United States. Between 25% and 66% of gay employees experience workplace discrimination, including losing their jobs because of their sexual orientation. This represents a conservative estimate because most gay and lesbian employees do not fully reveal their sexual identity at work (Ragins & Cornwell, 2001 a). Moreover, unlike race and gender, sexual orientation is generally invisible. This complicates the study of both heterosexism and the workplace experiences of gay and lesbian employees. Finally, there is an affective component of heterosexism, homophobia, which has no counterpart in racism or sexism. As these differences suggest, existing models and theories of race and gender discrimination may have limited applicability to the study of sexual orientation-based discrimination. We need to chart a separate, though related, course of study that examines the unique workplace experiences of this understudied population. The purpose of this paper is to guide future research by illuminating the complexities, issues, and dilemmas in the study of sexual orientation in the workplace. Besides the paper addresses the legal undergrounds of homosexuality on the workplace and discusses whether it should be regulated/protected by law; gives points to the impacts of homosexuality on the profits, productivity, efficiency and other important indicators of organizational performance and, finally, relates the phenomena of homosexuality to Christian realities when reflecting it from religious point of view. The invisibility of sexual orientation sets gay men apart from most other marginalized groups. For the most part, the sexual orientation of gay employees becomes visible only when they communicate it, a process known as "coming out." Coming out is an ongoing process, and the decision to disclose sexual orientation must be made with every new person a gay man meets (Appleby, 2001). Consequently, gay employees face an ongoing and often challenging process of negotiating their invisible identity in the workplace (Ragins, 2004). Gay employees use various strategies to manage disclosure of their sexual identity. Woods (1993) identified three tactics used in the workplace. Individuals can: (a) "counterfeit" or construct a heterosexual identity; (b) use an avoidance strategy in which they evade the issue, maintain a social distance, and appear to be asexual; and (c) use an integration strategy and openly disclose their sexual identity to others at work. Woods (1993) found that nearly all of the 70 gay male professional workers under study sought to avoid discrimination by posing as a heterosexual at some point in their careers. Existing research indicates that gay employees' attitudes towards identifying with gay groups, as well as the organizational context, predict the use of various identity management strategies. Most gay employees report that they limit the disclosure of their sexual identity to a select group of trustworthy coworkers (Ragins, 2004). For example, a recent national study of 534 gay men revealed that 12% of the sample were out to no one at work, 37% were out to some people, 24% were out to most people, and 27% reported that they were out to everyone at work (Ragins & Cornwell, 2001 a). Coming out to some coworkers, but not all, can create considerable ambiguity as to "who knows and who does not. " Research on the work and individual outcomes associated with disclosure yields inconsistent findings. Some researchers found that gay employees who disclosed their sexual orientation to more people at work had less general anxiety (Jordan & Deluty, 1998), greater job satisfaction, and less job anxiety (Griffith & Hebl, 2002) than those who did not disclose. However, other researchers found no relationship between disclosure and work attitudes, psychological strain, or occupational coping. In fact, some studies found that gay employees who disclosed to more people at work had lower continuance organizational commitment, earned less compensation, and had less pay satisfaction than those who concealed their sexual identity from others in the workplace. One reason for these inconsistent findings may be that the actual decision to disclose at work, although important and complex, has less of an impact than the immediate fears preceding this decision. In fact, Ragins and Cornwell (2001 b) found that the fear of negative consequences of disclosure had a greater impact on work attitudes and psychological strain than the actual disclosure decision, which brought a sense of relief to gay and lesbian employees. This suggests that the organization's climate is a key factor to consider when examining outcomes associated with disclosure; staying in the closet may be an optimal survival strategy for gay employees in hostile organizational climates. However, when gay workers feel free to "be their true selves" in the workplace, the organization may also benefit. For example, Creed and Scully (2000) observed that disclosure of a gay or lesbian identity in the workplace is a tool for positive change, as it can heighten others' awareness of the potential for heterosexism and discrimination. Support for Identity Gay employees get little support in managing their sexual identities, and the coming out process is usually a difficult and isolating experience (Rivers, 1997). Because families of gay men are typically heterosexual, they often cannot provide adult gay children with role models or coping mechanisms to address heterosexism. Whereas the family unit is a source of support for many people of color, families are often disrupted, and even lost, when adult gay children come out to their families. Similarly, close friends can be alienated or lost during the coming out process. Supportive relationships in the workplace may also be disrupted; gay employees who disclose at work may lose mentors, role models, and important peer relationships. Similarly, gay employees who hide their sexual identity may need to keep a social distance that precludes the development of supportive work relationships. Finally, unlike that of other racial and ethnic groups, gay history is rarely taught in school and is not passed on through family traditions, thus limiting the sense of gay pride and community. Consequently, many gay employees face isolation and limited support for their sexual identity both in and out of the workplace. Compounding the lack of support for gays' sexual identities are the negative reactions they may receive from coworkers. As previously noted, the invisibility of sexual orientation fuels the paranoia of homophobia and has no parallel in race or gender. In addition, the invisibility of sexual orientation amplifies "courtesy stigmas" (Herek & Capitanio, 1996). Heterosexuals may avoid associating with gay coworkers because they fear that they will be perceived as being gay if they simply extend the "courtesy" of socializing with gay colleagues. This outcome of stigma does not occur on the basis of gender and rarely on the basis of race. In summary, these processes create a unique sense of isolation among gay and lesbian employees. Understanding the unique challenges faced by gay men at work is a prerequisite for appreciating the reasons for prejudice toward them. In the next section, I first provide an overview of the extent of sexual orientation discrimination. I then explore the antecedents and consequences of heterosexism in the workplace. Extent of Discrimination and Societal Sanctions Heterosexism, and the discrimination it engenders, is well documented in the United States. Survey research indicates that nine out of ten gay men have faced verbal abuse or threats, and more than one in five have been physically assaulted because of their sexual orientation (Elliott, 2000). In fact, gays are more likely to be victims of hate crimes in the United States than are members of many other social groups. Some of the stigma that continues to be associated with homosexuals, particularly gay men, is related to the AIDS epidemic: about 40% of the American population holds the outdated belief that AIDS is spread primarily through homosexual behavior (Herek & Capitanio, 1999). Studies of prejudice and discrimination toward gays in countries other than the United States have produced similar findings. Heterosexism and the resulting negative treatment of lesbians has been documented in Canada (Mallon, 2001), Britain (Ellis & Fox, 2001), Israel (Ben-Ari, 2001), New Zealand (Appleby, 2001), and India (Bhugra, 1997). Heterosexism is particularly prevalent in countries where conservative religious beliefs shape social mores, such as strongly Islamic countries in the Middle East (Schmitt & Sofer, 1992). Although relatively little research has examined the nature and effects of workplace discrimination toward gay men, existing reports indicate this discrimination is fierce. Research indicates that more than half of those who disclose their sexual orientations at work experience discrimination on the job, including termination of employment. One reason for this continued discrimination is its legality. Internationally, gays are not protected by the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Wetzel, 2001) and the United States lacks federal legislation prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination. At this writing, only 14 states, the District of Columbia, 119 cities, and 23 counties in the United States have passed ordinances banning sexual orientation discrimination in employment, and it is estimated that only one-fifth of gay and lesbian Americans live in areas that offer this protection (Herrschaft & Mills, 2002). The absence of legislation prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace is an important antecedent of discrimination. A recent study found that gay employees in organizations covered by protective legislation reported significantly less heterosexism in the work- place than did employees in organizations not covered by protective legislation. Still, discrimination against employees who are gay (or are merely perceived to be) is legal in most workplaces. When speaking of legislation that might set the rights for gay man it is needed to mention the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act that to some extent prohibit prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act enforces equal employment opportunities for everybody independently from any factor that might be defined as discrimination. Likewise, The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that has been signed by President Bush into law July 26, 1990 President George Bush gives civil rights protection to individuals with disabilities, similar to that provided to individuals on the basis of race, sex, national origin and religion. The ADA guarantees equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities in the areas of employment, state and local government services, public transportation, privately operated transportation available to the public, places of public accommodation and services operated by private entities, and telephone services offered to the general public. Many regard the ADA as the most sweeping piece of civil rights legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. From the facts discussed in above, as for high productivity of work and efficiency that an organization gets when employing gay men, it is needed to conclude that the prohibition of gay discrimination should be controlled by either the acts recently mentioned or any other legal documents that would legitimate gay employment. A key factor in reducing heterosexism in the workplace is the presence of "gay-friendly" organizational policies and practices. These range from policies that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination to practices that create a more inclusive workplace climate (Ragins & Cornwell, 200la). Companies that lack protective policies and practices may foster a climate of heterosexism in the workplace. For example, Ragins and Cornwell (2001 a) found that gay employees were less likely to report sexual orientation discrimination in organizations that (a) had written policies forbidding it, (b) included sexual orientation discrimination in their definition of diversity, or (c) offered same-sex domestic partner benefits. In fact, although the presence of protective legislation and gay coworkers were significantly related to reduce reports of discrimination, the overriding variable affecting reported discrimination was the presence of gay-friendly organizational policies and practices. A particularly interesting finding was that of all the gay-friendly practices and policies examined, inviting same-sex partners to company social events had the strongest relationship to reduced reports of workplace discrimination. This practice reflects a climate that is not only inclusive of gay employees, but also promotes and reflects a high comfort level in social interactions with them. Work climate is clearly a key predictor of workplace heterosexism, and other research indicates that heterosexism is positively related to perceptions that the employer lacks antidiscrimination policies, does not take such policies seriously, and will permit the open expression of heterosexist attitudes in the workplace. Group Level Antecedents Heterosexism in the workplace may be affected by a number of group-level factors. First, we can examine the influence of the group's relational demography on individual and group outcomes. Relational demography theory is based on the principle that the more similar the individual is to the work group, the more positive will be the individual's work attitudes and behaviors. In support of relational demography predictions, Ragins, Cornwell & Miller (2003) found that gay employees with gay supervisors or primarily gay work groups were more likely to be out at work and reported less heterosexism than those who worked in mostly heterosexual work teams. In addition, gay employees were more likely to disclose their sexual identity when they had supervisors of the same race or ethnicity, regardless of the supervisor's sexual orientation. However, no support was found for demography predictions regarding gender similarity, perhaps because these predictions assume that gender similarity dispels underlying sexual tensions or other relational difficulties, which may not be the case for gay employees. The demography of the workgroup may not be as important as the attitudes held by group members and the degree to which gay employees receive support from their coworkers. For example, in one study, even when holding the sexual orientation of the group constant, gay and lesbian employees with supportive coworkers and supervisors reported less fear of disclosure and were more likely to be out at work than those lacking a supportive work group (Ragins & Cornwell, 2001b). This suggests that the presence of supportive heterosexual coworkers also allows gay and lesbian employees to bring their true identity to work. In summary, when individuals within a work group have heterosexist attitudes, gay employees are likely to feel threatened, resulting in less group cohesion and, potentially, more group conflict. On the other hand, when group members have tolerant and/or positive attitudes toward homosexuality, lesbians and gays can be open and productive members of the team. Individual Level Antecedents In addition to examining organizational- and group-level predictors, researchers have tried to determine personal aspects of heterosexuals that correlate with heterosexism. Although no studies support the claim that individual traits cause heterosexism, they do create a general profile of heterosexuals who are most likely to hold these attitudes. For example, some research indicates that race and ethnicity may affect attitudes toward gays; both Asians and African Americans were found to harbor more heterosexism than their Caucasian counterparts. Results of this work also indicated that heterosexual men are typically less tolerant of gays, particularly gay men, than are heterosexual women (Moss, 2001). Additionally, antigay prejudice is stronger among men and women who strongly adhere to traditional gender roles. This may be related to a more general finding that people who support rigid social rules, such as those who adhere to right-wing authoritarianism (Whitley & Lee, 2000) and socially conservative philosophies are also likely to harbor negative attitudes toward lesbians and gays. Similarly, individuals who hold traditional and conservative religious values are often opposed to homosexuality on religious grounds. Existing research indicates more negative attitudes toward homosexuality among individuals with fundamentalist Christian religious orientations, and those from conservative non-Christian religions, such as Muslims. Finally, researchers have found links between heterosexist attitudes and (a) sexist attitudes in general, (b) personal contact with gay men and (c) the belief that homosexuality is a choice rather than a biological orientation. Consequences of Discrimination Now that we understand the antecedents of heterosexism, we can begin to examine some of the outcomes associated with its practice. Research in this area addresses two basic questions. First, what are the behavioral consequences of heterosexism And second, how do gays react to this treatment The following discussion explores each of these questions in turn. Heterosexism prompts heterosexuals to engage in a variety of negative behaviors toward lesbians and gay men in the workplace. At best, these behaviors can be described as "avoidance"; at worst, they represent overt and aggressive forms of discrimination and physical harassment. A national study of 534 gay and lesbian professionals revealed that over a third had been physically or verbally harassed in prior positions because of their sexual orientation, 37% faced discrimination because others suspected or assumed that they were gay or lesbian, and 12% left their last job because of sexual orientation discrimination (Ragins & Cornwell, 2001b). Swim and her colleagues found that heterosexual women made public statements to distance themselves from attitudes and opinions held by a lesbian. Other studies indicate that individuals who hold heterosexist beliefs help gays and lesbians far less than do those without this prejudice. Similarly, Kite and Deaux (1986) found less information-seeking behaviors and more guarded self-presentation among heterosexual males interacting with a gay man. Participants in other research experiments were found to speak more quickly and abruptly to people believed to be gay and to label gay men as less preferred work partners, regardless of the quality of their work. Moreover, although many heterosexuals recognize that overt discrimination is unacceptable or illegal in some locales, more subtle forms of interpersonal discrimination emerge. For example, one study found that while job applicants who posed as gay men did not face overt workplace discrimination, they still were subject to interpersonal biases that resulted in shorter job interviews, less eye contact, and more negative and truncated communication interactions. This suggests that even in the presence of formal organizational policies and legislation that prohibit discrimination more subtle, even unconscious, forms of discrimination can persist. In conclusion I would like to say that homosexuals on the workplace currently constitute a significant part of employees and do it successfully. The efficiency and productivity of the work that gay men do is not lower, and oftentimes higher than those accomplished by heterosexuals. Subsequently, it is fair to conclude, that sexual orientation of people does not influence their performance at jobs, moreover, it, statistically, points to the higher levels of return. Valid legislation relating to homosexual employment does not accurately determine gay men's rights at work, as well as it does not point to any discrimination as for lower opportunities for them but rather promotes the reduction of discrimination in every instance. Emerging research often views "gay employees" as a monolithic group, thus ignoring important differences based on biological gender, race, ethnicity, class, and other group memberships. To start, we need to explore similarities and differences in the workplace experiences of gay men, and whether these relationships vary by race and ethnicity. We need to delve into the interactive and additive effects of race, sexual orientation, and biological gender on workplace discrimination and disclosure decisions. We need to analyze the similarities and differences between heterosexism, racism, sexism, and other forms of social prejudice. Along parallel lines, we need to understand how the multiple identities of heterosexual employees combine to affect their interactions with gay coworkers. For example, what factors affect the reaction of heterosexual employees to gay coworkers This leads to a larger issue: We need a more thorough understanding of the overarching effects of sexual identity in the workplace, and we need to not limit our study of sexual identity to investigations of homosexuality. Bibliography: 1. Appleby, G. A. (2001). Ethnographic study of gay and bisexual working-class men in the United States. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services: Issues in Practice, Policy, and Research, 12, 51-62. 2. Bhugra, D. (1997). Experiences of being a gay man in urban India: A descriptive study. Sexual & Marital Therapy, 12, 371-375. 3. Elliott, D. (2000, January 3). Nondiscrimination laws now cover 60 million Americans, new report finds. Press release. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. [Online. ] Available: http://www.ngltf.org (Accessed January 4, 2000). 4. Ellis, J., & Fox, P. (2001). The effect of self-identified sexual orientation on helping behavior in a British sample: Are lesbians and gay men treated differently Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1238-1247. 5. Gonsiorek, J. C., & Weinrich, J. D. (1991). The definition and scope of sexual orientation. In J. C. Gonsiorek and J. D. Weinrich (Eds. ), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy (pp. 1-12). Newbury Park: Sage. 6. Griffith, K. H., & Hebl, M. R. (2002). The disclosure dilemma for gay men and lesbians: "Coming Out" at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1191-1199. 7. Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). "Some of my best friends": Intergroup contact, concealable stigma, and heterosexuals' attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 412-424. 8. Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1999). AIDS stigma and sexual prejudice. American Behavioral Scientist, 42, 1130-1147. 9. Herrschaft, D., & Mills, K. I. (2002). The state of the workplace for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans 2002. Washington, DC: Human Rights Campaign. 10. Jordan, K. M., & Deluty, R. H. (1998). Coming out for lesbian women: Its relation to anxiety, positive affectivity, self-esteem, and social support. Journal of Homosexuality, 35, 41-63. . 11. Kite, M. E., & Deaux, K. (1986). Attitudes towards homosexuality: Assessment and behavioral consequences. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 137-162. 12. Mallon, G. P. (2001). Oh, Canada: The experience of working-class gay men in Toronto. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 12, 103-117. 13. Ragins, B. R. (2004). Sexual orientation in the workplace: The unique work and career experiences of gay, lesbian and bisexual workers. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 23, 37-122. 14. Ragins, B. R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2001 a). Pink triangles: Antecedents and consequences of perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1244-1261. 15. Ragins, B. R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2001b). Walking the line: Fear and disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace. Paper presented at the National Academy of Management Meeting, Washington, DC. 16. Rivers, I. (1997). Lesbian, gay and bisexual development: Theory, research and social issues. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 7, 329-343. 17. Schmitt, A., & Sofer, J. (1992). Sexuality and eroticism among males in Moslem societies. New York: Haworth Press. 18. Wetzel, J. W. (2001). Human rights in the 20th century: Weren't lesbians and gays human In M. E. Swigonski & R. S. Mama (Eds. ), From hate crimes to human rights: A tribute to Matthew Shepard (pp. 15-31). New York: Haworth Press. 19. Whitley, B. E., Jr., & Lee, S. E. (2000). The relationship of authoritarianism and related constructs to attitudes toward homosexuality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 144-170. 20. Woods, J. D. (1993). The corporate closet: The professional lives of gay men in America. New York: The Free Press. Read More