Addressing the Negative Effects LGBTQ Employees Experience in Work Environments - Literature review Example

Addressing the Negative Effects LGBTQ Employees Experience in Heteronormative and Cisnormative Work Environments Name: University: Date: Addressing the Negative Effects LGBTQ Employees Experience in Heteronormative and Cisnormative Work Environments Introduction The ‘LGBTQ’ has recently been utilised widely to connote all communities as well as individuals who consider themselves as either lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or those not sure about their gender identity and/or sexual orientation. Lesbians are women who are sexually, romantically and emotionally attracted to other women while gays are either men or women who sexually, romantically and emotionally attracted to a person of the same gender. On the other hand, a bisexual is a women or man who is sexually, romantically and emotionally attracted to both genders. Transgender is a phrase utilised to depict individuals whose gender identity contradicts their sex at birth. Basically, their gender outward communication is different from the expectations related to their sex at birth. Lastly, questioning can be described as an individual, normally an adolescent, who is not sure about their gender identity or sexual orientation. As mentioned by Johnson (2015), going to work has become extremely challenging for the members of the LGBTQ community. Although the acceptance levels in some workplaces are high, the majority of LGBTQ are still worried about the repercussions of their work colleagues knowing about their actual gender identity or sexual orientation. Policies that support the LGBTQ people, according to Krejcova (2015), have enormous influence them leading to increased openness and less discrimination regarding their sexual orientation. In workplaces with no LGBTQ-supportive policies, the majority of LGBTQ employees spend most of their effort and time concealing their identity, and are inclined to experience increased anxiety and stress leading to work-related complaints and health problems. For that reason, LGBTQ employees network and friendly workplace policies can result in increased job satisfaction, improved health, improved relationships with supervisors as well as co-workers, and enhanced commitment. In the UK, diversity initiatives intended for improving equality for LGBTQ employees has increased, but still, heteronormativity and cisnormativity are persisting at the place of work. The objective of this piece is to critically analyse what organisations should do to address the negative effects that LGBTQ employees are facing in heteronormative and cisnormative work settings. Definitions Heteronormativity can be described as assumptions as well as beliefs that a person is heterosexual unless proven otherwise. Heteronormativity is system working to control societal expectations and behaviours which are connected to the heterosexuality assumption and observance to the stringent gender binary. As mentioned by Thorne (2016), heteronormativity influence the work settings and the employees. The majority of the cisgender and straight individuals do not know that it exists. Heteronormativity put workers into shame through bathrooms and dress codes. An employee outfit could be well-pressed, clean and tailored, but she may look different from the other women; thus, making the management less comfortable. Cisnormativity can be described as the supposition that nearly all people are cisgender. Even though people identified as transgender include rather a small percentage of the persons, scores of people who are transgender believe it is distasteful to presume that all people are cisgender unless specified otherwise. Cisnormativity is deemed to be root cause of transphobia, since it generates fear and pathologization of trans people because of inadequate knowledge regarding this population.  To understand how the daily life experiences can impact trans people, industrial-organisational psychologists should become familiarised with current relevant research exploring trans lives. As mentioned by Sawyer, Thai, Martinez, Smith, and Discont (2016), Cisnormativity prohibits the likelihood of trans visibility or trans existence. Basically, when an actual trans person exists in the healthcare and other social systems, it is normally unexpected and generates a social emergency of sorts since both systems and workers are not ready for this actuality. The bias in society that there exists just one moral, normal or right gender expression highlights this type of discrimination as well as the prejudice which could be caused by it. Examples of Social Level According to Kirton and Greene (2010), there were more than 1.7 million LGBTQ people in the United Kingdom’s workforce as of 2009. Basically, the issues for LGBTQ people in employment are to some extent different as compared to those of other people. For instance, it is challenging to set out the employment concentrations as well as locations of gay men and lesbians, since the main sources of data lack sexual orientation information. In addition, LGBTQ people do not have specific labour market, even though a number of employers appear to be ‘gay friendly’ as compared to others. In addition, sexual orientation could easily be hidden than concealing age, race, gender, or disability. Therefore, a number of LGBTQ persons prefer hiding their sexual orientation with the objective of avoiding harassment as well as discrimination. With reference to the disadvantages of LGBTQ individuals in tangible employment, for instance, evident bigotry in staffing, promotion and accessing employee incentives and benefits has led to the passing of laws that forbids prejudice on the basis of sexual orientation. For many years, people who are openly gay or lesbian have openly experienced prejudice by employers because of their sexual orientation. A survey conducted in the 1990s as cited by Kirton and Greene (2010), established that close to 14 per cent of gay men and lesbians denied a promotion or turned down a job offer due to their sexuality. Heterosexual individuals, in this survey, also cited that many lesbians and gay men are treated less favourably by their employers. Furthermore, it was established that some employees, especially the high-earners concealed their sexuality at work since it was considered inappropriate to openly be gay or lesbian in some career Fields like military, health service, and teaching. As pointed out by Colgan and Rumens (2015), the LGBTQ people are living in every aspect of the modern-day society and are also working in all organisations and companies. They are members of all social, racial, and economic groups. In the majority of workplaces, they conceal their sexual orientation; thus, making people believe that they are heterosexual. In these organisations, they fear to talk about their loved ones and hardly socialise with other employees. For those working in hostile workplaces, circumstances force them to endure slurs or jokes about homosexuals. According to Colgan and Rumens (2015), prejudice and discrimination sometime become more overt, and take the form of abuse as well as threats. When homophobic behaviours and attitudes are tolerated by organisations, productivity and morale plummet. In order to create an inclusive workplace, the organisations must get rid of homophobic behaviour as well as developing a working environment of acceptance and tolerance. This cannot be achieved by not valuing the LGBTQ’s family relationships akin to how the organisation value heterosexual people. The LGBTQ individuals are likely to be themselves in the inclusive organisations, with no fear of recrimination or discrimination. Ozturk and Rumens (2014) posit that LGBTQ initiatives in some organisations in the public sector have been frustrated, and sometimes regressed, because of antagonistic neoliberal impulses attributed to modernisation agenda. Most of the young LGBTQ employees are still witnessing the exchange of homophobic remarks, which in consequence, compel many people to conceal their sexual orientation through self-censorship and self-vigilance processes (Willis, 2012). This has become common practices for LGBTQ people in the workplace and across other social environments. In Ozturka and Tatlib (2015) study, the observed that transgender individuals are normally stigmatised, excluded, and marginalised in workplaces. Therefore, they prefer concealing their sexuality in attempt to avoid discrimination; as a result, quantifying transgender population to offer them workplace and social support has become exceedingly challenging. Policy Development in Organisations about LGBTQ People Kirton and Greene (2010) assert that discrimination legislation breach could be costly for employers. Still, legal approach that was utilised in the past focused on the compensation of the discriminated individuals instead of creating ethos of encouraging and valuing workforce diversity. Since 2000, legal approach developments have exhibited a change in focus, the public sector employers have been tasked with the duty of promoting equality. For instance, the Race Relations (Amendment) Act introduced positive duties with regard to race and was broadened to gender and disability through Equality Act 2006 and the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, respectively (Kirton & Greene, 2010). In essence, considerations in public policy have played a crucial role in employment law development. The governments’ role in defending the rule of law differs like approaches to equality law or antidiscrimination. The ‘equality’ approach is more comprehensive and involves utilisation of quotas as well as affirmative action. On the other hand, the anti-discrimination law tries to utilise the law with the objective of redressing inequality and injustice to defend marginalised members of the society such as LGBTQ. In UK, Kirton and Greene (2010) posit that valuing diversity has not been recognised legally and the legal framework does not completely address issues in the society that result in disadvantage. According to Colgan, Wright, Creegan, and McKearney (2009), while the equalities’ legislative framework is being developed, and much focus is directed towards ensuring consistency and compatibility between various strands of equality through the Single Equality Act and formation of Commission for Equality and Human Rights, introducing duty in the public sector that covers sexual orientation could offer an additional legislative trigger to equality at the workplaces. Lack of clear policy by central government that supports LGBTQ equalities, community actors and organisations in the UK are trying to advance sexual orientation equality. In Australia, Willis (2012) posits that the LGBTQ employees under Australian Law have varied but limited legal protection against prejudice and inequality. As a State Party to ICCPR (the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), Australia is required to uphold equality as well as non-discrimination principles in legislation. Therefore, the Australian employees are protected from age and sexual preference discrimination by the Fair Work Act 2009. LGBTQ’s marital status is not protected and also they are not protected against vilification or harassment based on sexuality. Even though the legislative, political, and social changes in UK were considered to enormously affect corporate strategy, most people in the private sector management believed that they were ready when Employment Equality Regulations was introduced by the government in 2003 (Colgan, 2011). The corporate business objectives, according to Colgan (2011), are the main drivers that shape diversity practice and policy in the UK. Besides that, union representatives, numerous managers and LGBTQ individuals have highlighted the important role played by the CSR agenda to offer a comprehensive diversity vision for companies across the globe. There are a number of companies in UK that provide fair policies of LGBTQ for their employees; for instance, Comco, a multinational company with more than 88% of its employees in UK have included sexual orientation in its equality practice and policy, particularly before its privatisation (Colgan, 2011). Even after its privatisation, the company continued to incorporate sexual orientation work together with other strands of equality despite developing a business-driven diversity approach. In 2007, the organisation developed a Diversity Centre of Expertise in HR to examine issues associated with equality that influence both customers and employees. In the same year, the company an LGBT champion was appointed as a senior manager, a position often occupied by heterosexuals. The objective of appointing the LGBT persons as a senior manager was to champion diversity as well as support the LGBTQ network group in every organisational level. Another company in UK with fair LGBTQ policies is Consultco, which has at least 5% of its employees in UK. The company started to establish sexual diversity practices and policies in its Canadian and United States’ operations. Even though the company was not unionised, it gave into LGBT campaigning wave for equity in employment. As a result, the company started extending its initiatives for sexual orientation diversity to other countries such as UK (Colgan, 2011). As cited by Colgan (2011), Manco and Bankco are also some of the companies in the UK with fair LGBTQ policies that promote diversity. As mentioned by Rumens and Broomfield (2014), lack of policy initiatives should be resolved so as to successfully address heteronormativity in workplaces. Basically, integration strategies could open up opportunities for LGBTQ employees to create their identities that would enable them to perform their work roles and responsibilities effectively. Working with LGBTQ Organisation In the UK, Stonewall is a not-for-profit organisation that champions for sexual orientation work and is involved in the benchmarking exercise across the country. Stonewall normally asses more than 350 UK organisations from the private, public and third sector in relation to their efforts to support the LGBTQ employees. Stonewall normally focuses on small, medium and large-sized employers with the objective of challenging their conduct towards LGNTQ employees not just in UK, but also across Europe. The organisation’s qualitative and quantitative research normally includes issues associated with sexual orientation, religion as well as disability. Recently, Stonewall named MI5 as the most ‘gay-friendly’ employer in the UK, more than two after LGBTQ individuals were allowed to apply (Jamieso & Whitehead, 2016). Even through 73 universities appear are listed in Stonewall’s Diversity Champions programme for their willingness to work with the organisation to improve inclusiveness and equality at their workplaces for LGBTQ, Ozturk and Rumens (2014) posits that there is no details regarding how different departments and faculties in all universities could vary on how they engage with LGBTQ people as well as problems. As mentioned by Köllen (2013), the LGBTQ employees’ working climate could be influenced positively by organisations through improved internal communications. Without a doubt, a supportive and positive working climate is an important factor for LGBTQ employees’ openness and making them less covert regarding their sexual orientation. In Ozturka and Tatlib (2015) study, they highlight the significance of equality legislation in order to make the organisations to focus on gender identity through equality agenda. The authors emphasise that the industry regulation and equality laws are crucial drivers for sexual; orientation work, but their success depends on the genuine willingness of the organisations to generally accept differences, especially gender identity diversity. Therefore, the HRM approach and proactive diversity by organisations could promote inclusion of LGBTQ workers. LGBTQ Employees Network In Colgan and McKearney (2012) study, they observed that LGBT activism take into account the formation of both LGBT company networks as well as union-based networks. The first LGBT employees’ networks were created in United States companies in the 1970s after LGBT activism and campaigning. Colgan and McKearney (2012) posit that LGBT activism in the United States compelled scores of large companies to take actions with the objective of extending equality to their LGBTQ workers, tackling discrimination, as well as developing a gay-friendly workplace that is more welcoming. In the UK, a number of studies as cited by Colgan and McKearney (2012) have established that LGBTQ employee networks exist in some companies. The LGBTQ employees have relentlessly advocated for union structures and self-organised groups in their unions. Thanks to self-organised structures, as LGBTQ members and other minority groups have enjoyed a safe workplace, where they can develop identity as well as strategies for changing the state of affairs. Unions have worked tirelessly to improve the representation of the LGBTQ as well as to include LGBTQ-related issues in the trade union agenda as demonstrated by the introduction of the LGBTQ seat on UK’s TUC General Council as well as LGBT union-networks extension in the individual trade unions. The UK’s voluntary, private, and public sector organisations started to include sexual orientation in their diversity and equality policies in the late 1990s. The establishment of LGBT company employee networks commonly referred to as LGBT CN demonstrate the group re-establishment. The LGBT CNs, according to Colgan and McKearney (2012), emphasise on organisational effectiveness in the corporate world while LGBT union groups focus on social change. The employers expect the LGBT CNs to help generate competitive advantage. More importantly, the LGBT CNs carries out a multifaceted act of balancing between contributing to the organisation as well as representing their members by championing objectives that are more radical. The membership of LGBT CN in the UK could overlap the LGBT trade union group since it is working to promote representation, visibility, and networking as well as tackling issues of exclusion and discrimination in the organisation. The LGBT networks serve a voice for the minority groups and help campaign for diversity in the organisations. According to Rumens and Broomfield (2014), the primary impetus for creating a work environment that is a more inclusive for LGBT workers could crystallise out of LGBT employees and allies’ activism. The LGBT CNs provides voice mechanisms for the LGBTQ employees in the UK. These network groups are considered to be more productive and enthusiastic if properly structured. The majority of LGBT employees in UK are experiencing a sense of genuine excitement as well as enthusiasm concerning the capability of being themselves while working in organisations with supportive culture. Without a doubt, the LGBT employee networks have significantly influence the inclusion and diversity initiatives. More importantly, the LGBT employee networks offer a forum for networking and serves as a tool for peer support between LGBTQ employees. Additionally, it enables the employer directly engage with the LGBTQ employees’ needs; therefore, setting up LGBTQ employee networks is crucial for ensuring equality in the workplaces. However the negatives associated with LGBTQ employee networks, is that the majority of workplaces presume all employees are heterosexual. Because of fear related to discrimination and prejudice, many LGBTQ are reluctant to join these networks. In addition, LGBTQ employees in larger companies that are based in different regions and offices cannot easily identify one another in order to find support, create informal connections, as well as manage difficulties that come about. Conclusion In conclusion, this piece has critically analysed what organisations should do to address the negative effects that LGBTQ employees are facing in heteronormative and cisnormative work settings. It has been observed that organisations can promote diversity by implementing polices favouring both heterosexual and LGBTQ employees. Many employees are reluctant to seek promotion or join LGBTQ employee networks and trade unions because they fear they will be discriminated or harassed. When LGBTQ employees work in a ‘gay friendly’ environment they are inclined to be happy, open, and confident. Furthermore, they are inclined to improved work effectiveness and productivity however, a negative environment can cause make them feel excluded, stressed, and hated. In consequence, this could lead to concentration problems, self censorship, and job dissatisfaction. References Colgan, F. (2011). Equality, diversity and corporate responsibility Sexual orientation and diversity management in the UK private sector. Equality Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 30(8), 719-734. Colgan, F., & McKearney, A. (2012). Visibility and voice in organisations Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered employee networks. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 31(4), 359-378. Colgan, F., & Rumens, N. (2015). Sexual Orientation at Work: Contemporary Issues and Perspectives. London: Routledge. Colgan, F., Wright, T., Creegan, C., & 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. Jamieso, S., & Whitehead, T. (2016, January 19). MI5 named Britain's most gay-friendly employer. Retrieved from The Telegraph : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/12106765/MI5-named-Britains-most-gay-friendly-employer.html Johnson, I. (2015 , April 16). Why LGBT Employees Should Come Out at Work. Retrieved from The Huffington Post United Kingdom: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ianjohnson/lgbt-employees_b_7064114.html Kirton, G., & Greene, A.-m. (2010). The Dynamics of Managing Diversity A Critical Approach (3rd ed.). London: Butterworth-Heinemann. Köllen, T. (2013). Bisexuality and Diversity Management—Addressing the B in LGBT as a Relevant ‘Sexual Orientation’ in the Workplace. Journal of Bisexuality, 13, 122–137. Krejcova, M. (2015, February 26). The value of LGBT equality in the workplace. Retrieved from GLAAD: http://www.glaad.org/blog/value-lgbt-equality-workplace Ozturk, M. B., & Rumens, N. (2014). Gay male academics in UK business and management schools: negotiating heteronormativities in everyday work life. British Journal of Management, 25, 503–517. Ozturka, M. B., & Tatlib, A. (2015). 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), 2-23. 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), 365–382. Sawyer, K. B., Thai, J. L., Martinez, L. R., Smith, N. A., & Discont, S. (2016). Trans Issues in the Workplace 101 . Retrieved from Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc. : http://www.siop.org/tip/july16/lgbt.aspx Thorne, Z. (2016, August 22). Heteronormativity at Work. Retrieved from Femme Frugality : http://femmefrugality.com/heteronormativity-at-work/ 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. Read More