LGBTQ Employees in Heteronormative and Cisnormative Work Environments - Example

LGBTQ Employees in Heteronormative and Cisnormative Work Environments Student’s Name: Instructor’s Name: Course: Date: Over the past years, sexual orientation has defined equality and diversity in the public services. According to Colgan, Wright, Creegan and McKearney (2009), sexual orientation determines the extent to which one becomes successful in an organization. Notably, Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, Transgender, Queer/Questioning (LGBTQ) persons have attracted interests from different studies that have been concerned about their discrimination at places of work (Colgan and Rumens, 2015; Kirton and Greene, 2015). Studies that have concentrated their theses on hate crime among LGBTQ have reported that at least, one in six LGBTQ have experienced instances of biphobic or homophobic in places of work (Guasp, Gammon and Ellison, 2013). Guasp et al. (2013) while researching on The Gay British Crime Survey suggest that there is a lack of social recognition in places of work and by extension, LGBTQ fail to access fundamental rights. Recent studies on the connectedness between LGBTQ and organization role have recognized the need to shift attention by providing an avenue for change management thus, in turn, allows organizations to develop situations that can predict and overturn challenges LGBTQ are likely to face (Colgan and Rumens, 2015). In as much evidence-based researches have recognised growths of diversity initiative to empower and improve equality for LGBTQ employees, there is a consensus among these researches that LGBTQ is likely to experience instances of discrimination, intolerance, threat of violence and harassment due to their sexual orientation (Köllen, 2013; Rumens and Broomfield, 2014). According to the Gay British Crime Survey conducted by Guasp et al. (2013) LGBTQ living in urban areas are more likely to face victimization. This research was supported by a recent incident where hundreds of Apple employees marched together in San Francisco's pride parade to support instances of victimisatiion among LGBTQ in places of work (Åkestam, Rosengren and Dahlén, 2017). To conceptualise challenges faced by LGBTQ, this assignment critically discusses what organisations can do to address the negative effects faced by LGBTQ employees. Based on issues such as visibility and voice in organization as researched by Colgan and McKearney (2012), we narrow the objective of this research to heteronormativity and cisnormativity and how they have continued to diversify initiatives aimed at improving equality for LGBTQ employees. One of the focuses of this study is to examine the meaning of heteronormativity and its critical role in linking attitudes, sexual orientation and how it affects equality for LGBTQ employees. Studies that have focused on the definition of heteronormativity within the context of organisations have agreed that the term means instances where there is a belief in an organization that there are some workers who fall complementary and distinct genders and natural roles in life (Losert, 2008; Ozturk and Rumens n.d). Taking a research study from Losert (2008), heteronormativity is a situation where some workers believe that heterosexuality is the norm or the only acceptable sexual orientation. From these definitions, there is need to assess the link between prejudicial attitudes against LGBTQ employees and poor performances when heteronormativity views are in the organization. Guasp et al. (2013) showed that one in every 5 (representing about 19 percent) LGBTQ employees had experienced instances of bullying from other workmates or customers or service as a result of heteronormativity. It, therefore, means that heteronormativity brings about automatic and unconscious assumptions regarding heterosexuality as the only acceptable norm within the working environment and all other types of sexual orientation (LGBTQ) as abnormal. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) report (2014) as cited in Kletzel (2017) statistically indicates that heteronormativity has derailed efforts made to improve equality for LGBTQ employees. Heteronormativity is, therefore, that term which changes the hegemonic and binary meaning of gender at the workplace. When the term is applied in organisations it creates a binary and dualistic assumption of men as masculine and women as feminine---indicating that heteronormative is a term that allows sexual routines to be adopted as a point for preferred ends. Cisnormativity is term is an assumption within working place that most workers, if not all are cisgender (Colgan and McKearney, 2012). There is close connectedness between cisnormativity and gender essentialism in the sense that when an expression such as “men cannot give you children” is used in an organization then such statements are not only linked with cisnormativity but they tear social fabric and harmony LGBTQ organization. The extent to which cisnormativity is a concern in organisations was captured in recent studies where Gay in Britain (2013) noted that at least 10 percent of transgender individuals have experienced instances of verbal abuse in what was connected to cisnormativity (Kletzel 2017). Gay in Britain report observed that at least six percent of interviewed population faced physical assault that culminated from cisnormativity. This definition shows that cisnormativity has negative implication on LGBTQ and thus, may affect their workplace experience if measures are not taken by the organisations concerned. Borrowing from Kirton and Greene (2010) on The Dynamics of Managing Diversity, this study introduces the theory of gender as `performative.` The theory argues that the discord in working environment are likely to be created when there are cisnormativity expressions against LGBTQ. We look at cisnormativity as expressions that discredit rights that should be enjoyed by LGBTQ. Cisnormativity practices towards LGBTQ create negative effects on LGBTQ employees’ experience. For organisations to formulate what they can do to address the negative effects LGBTQ employees experience in cisnormative work environments, the definition can be seen in terms of gender and heterosexuality which is inextricably associated within different places of work as heterosexuality. Heteronormativity is an overarching and multidimensional construct challenges in an organization which continue to constrain steps that have been made towards the realization of rights enjoyed by LGBTQ. Heteronormativity results in sexual orientations and categorical labeling in places of work whose consequence include distress (Rumens and Broomfield, 2012). The United Kingdom based The School Report conducted in 2012 indicated that at least, two in five workers have attempted or thought about taking their own life directly because of heteronormativity related bullying (Guasp et al., 2013). This view has been supported by recent studies from the RaRE Research Report that noted that about 41 percent of interviewed workers deliberately self-harm directly because of heteronormativity related bullying (Kletzel, 2017). The negative effect of heteronormativity further stretches beyond self-harm. According to Gay in Britain report, about 42 percent of the interviewed LGBTQ people have not been able to live permanently with regard to their preferred gender role and this according to the study has been attributed to threat and fear they experience in their places of work. Analysing these reports, heteronormativity causes fear among employees as they deal with the consequence of harassment and bullying. Continued heteronormativity can lead job loss, stereotyping and persecution. On the other hand, studies have been concerned with benefits of heteronormativity at places of work (Humphrey, 1999; Clair, Beatty and MacLean, 2005). Clair et al. (2005) link heteronormativity with self-esteem and identity growth. According to the authors, heteronormativity helps individuals to be motivated to engineer their disclosure opportunities and use challenges they experience at the workplace as a springboard to improve self-esteem and identity growth. LGBTQ continue to face exclusion and discrimination expressed inform of cisnormativity. The homophobic violence that has targeted LGBTQ has inform of cisnormativity utterances. Further evidence from Köllen (2013) has indicated that most European Union Member States have experienced cisnormativity challenges at places of work. A contemporary study from Unhealthy Attitudes (2015) has noted that 24 percent of patient-facing staff has heard colleagues making negative remarks about lesbian, gay or bi people (Kletzel, 2017). These studies indicate that cisnormativity affects LGBTQ in workplaces in the sense that it makes LGBTQ individuals to hide their sexual orientations or in some cases, LGBTQ are forced to endure harassment out of fear that they may lose their job. Particularly, challenges of cisnormativity at workplace are adverse among the young. Cisnormativity make younger generation to experience estrangement from workmates as they have not mastered technique of dealing with cisnormativity related utterances. When such behaviors continue, LGBTQ are likely to underperform or quit their areas of work. Different observation noted that cisnormativity leads to ‘counterfeiting’ (Syed and Ozbilgin, 2015). According to the author, counterfeiting is a behvaiour developed by LGBTQ when they continuously face cisnormativity utterances. In such cases, they develop efforts to ‘pass’ as heterosexual in the workplace, thereby giving out the ‘wrong’ message about their gay identity, which remains concealed. These efforts are supported by Guasp et al. (2013) findings that one in every six LGBTQ people have experienced a homophobic or biphobic hate crime or similar incident in their places of work. Contrariwise, there have been studies that have shown benefits attributed to cisnormativity in organistions. Woods and Lucas (1993) noted that when LGBTQ people continue to face cisnormativity in work place they develop identity management so that they build in them process through which they redefine their identities and understand how to cope as lesbian, bisexual, gay, transgender, or queer/questioning. Continued cisnormativity utterances in workplaces have benefited LGBTQ people and the organization in general because LGBTQ people have attempted to develop strategies of avoidance so as to deal with challenges they are facing as a group or individuals. This study attributes such coping strategies as avoidance to disclose as little personal information as possible or deflecting attention away from the issue of sexuality. Microsoft found that avoidance to disclose actually helped their workers to deal with cisnormativity as they developed a sense of belonging as well as a drive to see themselves as part of a large group that work towards a common purpose in the organization (Kletzel, 2017). The aspect of LGBTQ, heteronormativity, cisnormativity and workplace cut across all social levels. Instances of heteronormativity and cisnormativity at places of work have been expressed towards elite social level. Other social levels such as established middle class, technical middle class, new affluent workers, traditional working class and emergent service workers have been subjected to different instances of heteronormativity and cisnormativity at places of work (Colgan, 2011). To conceptualise this point new affluent workers, traditional working class and emergent service workers have all voiced their concerns acknowledging that they have been members of LGBTQ who have constantly faced heteronormativity and cisnormativity at workplace (Willis, 2012). It is expected that elite social level have bigger influence not only in the society but at their places of work. However, being that they too face heteronormativity and cisnormativity just because they are LGBTQ means there is need for policy implementations in different organisations to improve equality for LGBTQ employees. Policy development seeking to enhance equality for LGBTQ in work place has been successful. Everly and Schwarz (2015) have provided insightful analysis of human resource policies relating to LGBT at work place. Researching on Predictors of the Adoption of LGBT‐Friendly HR Policies the authors recognize that discrimination against LGBT remains a persistent problem. To offer solutions, the authors noted that there is ratification of laws particularly, in United States. Some of the policies the authors have recognized include partner benefits, sponsoring affinity groups, and establishing other “LGBT-friendly” policies that discourage discrimination against LGBT. Muhr, Sullivan and Rich (2016) looked at ‘situated transgressiveness’ and concluded that between 1999 and 2010 74 percent of Fortune 500 companies including Walmart, Exxon Mobil, Apple and Berkshire Hathaway included sexual orientation in their policy which included non-discrimination and ban on heteronormativity and cisnormativity utterances at places of work. Muhr et al. (2016) report shows that policy development among companies such as Exxon Mobil, Apple and Berkshire Hathaway have developed and have measures where they offer domestic partner benefits to LGBTQ in work places. There is inherent importance of paying attention to the difference LGBT unified group of people which include but not limited to biphobia, transphobia and homophobia. Paying attention would further help reduce omophobic violence and abuse that have targeted LGBT people occur on a regular basis. A 2011 Williams Institute that investigated policy development in Express Scripts Holding, Microsoft and Bank of America Corp. about LGBTQ employees noted that at least 60 percent of federal government contractors have linked policies that prohibit gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination at their work places (Ozturk and Tatli, 2016). Mondelez International, Microsoft and Bank of America Corp. have recently extended domestic partner benefits to LGBTQ as a policy that ensures that instances of heteronormativity and cisnormativity are minimized. Additionally, Honor, IKEA North American Service, IBM Corporation, Glassdoor, Inc. and Hilton Worldwide have developed fair policies for LGBTQ in work places. Organisations that have fair policies of LGBTQ for their employees have realized positivity. Fair policies of LGBTQ for employees help in dismantling instances of heteronormativity and cisnormativity which in turn, creates openness in workplaces. Consequently, organizations that developed fair policies of LGBTQ for employees experienced reduced instances of discrimination and inequality between and among workers (Bowring and Brewis, 2009). The Gay British Crime Survey (2013) has noted that 38 percent of LGBTQ people have experienced physical intimidation and threats (Guasp et al., 2013). At the same time, the report indicates that 81 percent of LGBTQ people have experienced silent harassment. It therefore means that with developed fair policies of LGBTQ for employees these instances reported by The Gay British Crime Survey statistics will reduce. Studies have shown that there is connectedness between fair policies of LGBTQ for employees and work commitment. Statistical analyses that took case studies on Enterprise Products Partners, Capital One Financial, Penske Automotive Group and Cognizant Technology Solutions noted that employees in such organisations were committed when compared to organisations that have not developed such policies (Kletzel, 2017). Contrariwise, fair policies of LGBTQ for their employees have a number of negatives on individuals and organisations. Beginning with organisations, implementation of fair policies of LGBTQ for employees comes with cost that some organization may not meet in short and long term. While researching on ‘Truth and consequences: managing lesbian and gay identity in the Canadian workplace’ Bowring and Brewis (2009) noted that it is costly for organisations to set and manage such policies. Additionally, there are workers within different organisations who would not tolerate fair policies on LGBTQ. As such, these organisations stand to lose such workers which in turn, will affect general performance of such orgnisations. Working with LGBTQ organizations means recognizing and appreciating fair policies of LGBTQ for their employees. From the one hand, working with such organisations means formulating ones expectations to conform to diversity-respecting policies. Organisations such as Capital One Financial, Penske Automotive Group and Cognizant Technology Solutions have formulated their policies are currently considered as LGBTQ organizations (Kletzel, 2017). Working with them means that workers in such environment will have to adhere with the diversified policies including LGBT-supportive policies that discourage heteronormativity and cisnormativity. According to Colgan, Wright, Creegan and McKearney (2009), working in LGBTQ organizations means that workers in such environment need to recognize that such policies are as important just like other policy formulations developed organisations to maximise their productivity. Workers in LGBTQ organizations who have recognized the need to upheld diversity-respecting policies have promoted general performance of the organization and inter-personal relationship (Colgan et al., 2009). It therefore means that working with LGBTQ organizations means that such employees will be expected to conform to specific requirements of policies underlying LGBTQ-organizations relationship. A 2015 study that investigated LGBTQ organizations in United Kingdom noted that workers working with LGBTQ organizations had the responsibility of supporting workplace environment created to improve welfare of LGBTQ people (Kletzel, 2017). Other results from the same study indicated that working with LGBTQ organizations means that such workers will have develop LGBT-supportive climates as this step will have a positive impact on the general performance of workers as well as the organization. By 15th February 2017 Llyods Banking Group in United Kingdom topped Stonewall’s inclusive employer list based on the number of workers it had that recognized the company’s policy as LGBTQ organizations (Kletzel, 2017). Basing the argument from Llyods Banking Group case study, working with LGBTQ organizations means recognizing that the company does not support heteronormativity and cisnormativity utterances and expects such employees not discriminate against LGBTQ individuals. Working with LGBTQ organizations would mean that workers embrace LGBTQ-supportive policies that altruistically and socially help LGBTQ employees to feel as part of the organisations. In summary, working with LGBTQ organizations calls for development of behaviors that may not necessarily be part of organizational duties but those that positively contribute to positive workplace environment. While LGBTQ employees’ network is believed to be helping LGBTQ organizations and employees to seek opportunities, their roles stretch beyond this scope. Taking case of PrideBox Network - Dropbox (USA), LGBT Network - Accenture (UK) and GLBTA Alliance - GE (USA) Ozturk and Rumens (n.d) argue that these networks help secure working environment for LGBTQ employees and to some extent, the network add value to the company as it seeks to provide policy frameworks for working with LGBTQ employees. LGBT Network - Accenture (UK) take a leading role in tackling homophobic bullying in work places. Through its policy framework LGBT Network - Accenture (UK) came up with Societe Generale when they partnered with the London Investment Banking industry to ensure that LGBTQ employees have access to equal opportunities and creation of inclusive working environment. Contrariwise, LGBTQ employees network have a number of limitations. These networks majorly offer supportive network exclusively to individuals with LGBT+ issues. As it stands, there is need for these networks to sensitize members of the public, regardless of their sexual orientation so that implementation of policies that discourage heteronormativity and cisnormativity can be welcome easily especially in LGBTQ organizations (Rumens, 2016). The aim of this report was to critically discuss what organisations can do to address the negative effects LGBTQ employees experience in heteronormative and cisnormative work environments. While this study has recognized that continued inclusion of LGBTQ employees’ network and LGBTQ organization have improved growth of diversity initiatives aimed at improving equality for LGBTQ employees, heteronormativity and cisnormativity utterances have significantly derailed efforts made in equalizing rights that should be enjoyed by LGBTQ persons. We recognize that a supportive workplace climate which recognizes LGBTQ-supportive policy frameworks and support from core workers is essential in dealing with heteronormativity and cisnormativity. Based on reports and statistics provided, developing LGBTQ-supportive policy frameworks in places of work is associated with reduced incidences of discrimination again; less discrimination is associated with work commitments and job satisfaction. References Åkestam, N., Rosengren, S., & Dahlén, M. (2017). Think about it-can portrayals of homosexuality in advertising prime consumer-perceived social connectedness and empathy?. European Journal of Marketing, 51(1). Bowring, M. and Brewis, J. (2009). ‘Truth and consequences: managing lesbian and gay identity in the Canadian workplace’. Equal Opportunities International, 28(5): 361-377. Clair, J., Beatty, J. and MacLean, T. (2005). ‘Out of sight but not out of mind: Managing invisible social identities in the workplace’. Academy of Management Review, 30(1): 78-95. Colgan, F. & Rumens, N. (2015) Sexual Orientation at Work: Contemporary Issues and Perspectives. London: Routledge. Any chapter, but especially Chapter 1. Colgan, F. (2011) ‘Equality, diversity and corporate social responsibility: Sexual orientation in the UK private sector,’ Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 30(8): 719-734. Colgan, F. and McKearney, A. (2012) ‘Visibility and voice in organisations: Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered employee networks,’ Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 31 (4): 359-378. Colgan, F., Wright, T., Creegan, C. and McKearney, A. (2009) ‘Equality and diversity in the public services: moving forward on lesbian, gay and bisexual equality?’, Human Resource Management Journal, 19 (3): 280-301. Colgan, F., Wright, T., Creegan, C. and McKearney, A. (2009). ‘Equality and diversity in the public services: moving forward on lesbian, gay and bisexual equality?’ Human Resource Management Journal, 19(3): 280-301. Connell, C. (2010) Doing, undoing, or redoing gender? Learning from the workplace experiences of transpeople. Gender & Society, 24(1), pp.31-55. Everly, B. A., & Schwarz, J. L. (2015). Predictors of the Adoption of LGBT‐Friendly HR Policies. Human Resource Management, 54(2), 367-384. Guasp, A., Gammon, A., & Ellison, G. (2013). Homophobic hate crime the gay British crime survey 2013. London: Stonewall. Humphrey, J. (1999). ‘Organizing Sexualities, Organized Inequalities: Lesbians and Gay Men in the Public Service Occupations.’ Gender, Work & Organization, 6(3): 134-51. Kirton, G. and Greene, A-M (2015) The Dynamics of Managing Diversity, Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann (4th edition), pp. 6,7,51-3,58, 223,101-3, 280-4. Kletzel, G. (2017). The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights’ new Strategic Plan: an opportunity for true strengthening. The International Journal of Human Rights, 1-18. Köllen, T. (2013) Bisexuality and diversity management—addressing the B in LGBT as a relevant ‘sexual orientation’ in the workplace. Journal of Bisexuality, 13(1), pp.122-137. Losert, A. (2008) ‘Coping with Workplace Heteronormativity Among Lesbian Employees: A German Study’, Journal of Lesbian Studies, 12 (1): 47-58. Muhr, SL., Sullivan K. and Rich, C. (2016). Situated transgressiveness: Exploring one transwoman's lived experiences across three situated contexts. Gender, Work & Organization, 23(1): 52–70. Ozturk, M.B. & Rumens, N. ‘Gay male academics in UK business and management schools: negotiating heteronormativities in everyday work life’, British Journal of Management, 25(3): 503-517. Ozturk, M.B. and Tatli, A. (2016) Gender identity inclusion in the workplace: broadening diversity management research and practice through the case of transgender employees in the UK. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(8), pp.781- 802. Rumens, N. & Broomfield, J. (2012) ‘Gay men in the police: identity disclosure and management issues’, Human Resource Management Journal, 22(3): 283-298. Rumens, N. & Broomfield, J. (2014) ‘Gay men in the performing arts: performing sexualities within ‘gay-friendly’ work contexts’, Organization, 21(3): 362-379. Rumens, N. (2016) Towards queering the business school: A research agenda for advancing lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans perspectives and issues. Gender, Work & Organization, 23(1): 36-51. Syed, J. and Ozbilgin, M. (2015) Managing Diversity and Inclusion: An International Perspective. London: Sage, Chapter 9. Willis, P. (2012) ‘Witnesses on the periphery: Young lesbian, gay, bisexual and queer employees witnessing homophobic exchanges in Australian workplaces’, Human Relations, 65 (12): 1589-1610. Woods, J. D. and Lucas, J. H. (1993). The Corporate Closet: The professional lives of gay men in America, New York: The Free Press. Read More