Sexual Orientation and Organisation - Essay Example

Running head: SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND ORGANISATION Sexual Orientation and Organisation s Sexual Orientation and Organisation Managing diversity is based on the assumption that diverse groups will create new ways of working together and develop understanding in that group, causing profit and productivity to increase. Managing diversity is really about managing differences, and a simple training program cannot accomplish it. It is a culture change; a culture change initiated by enlightened managers who can see the energy and enthusiasm that result from capturing the best of a variety of people and ideas. It is not enough that companies state their concern; they must take action to show that diversity is valued. Diversity includes diverse perspectives, approaches and sensitivity to culture, gender, religion, ethnic and national origin, attitudes, socio-economic and personal differences, sexual orientation, physical and mental abilities, productive abilities, power, knowledge, and status. Therefore, diversity management means the creation of internal and external environment within which these different perspectives, approaches and sensitivities are incorporated and developed in such a way that the full potential of individuals and institutions may be realized. Diversity management is fast becoming a management approach that is being applied effectively within institutions. Managing diversity tries to build specific skills and to create policies that derive the best from each employee. Managing diversity is based on the assumption that diverse groups will create new ways of working together and have understanding in that group, profit and productivity will increase This paper will explain what defining of diversity, diversity management and what related to diversity management in companies. To explained how's diversity management work in organization/companies and why so important Sexual Orientation encompasses the feelings of sexual attraction towards individuals of the same gender or opposite gender. Terms such as heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual have stemmed from category of sexual orientation. Along with race and ethnical discrimination, sexual harassment is one of the top issues being litigated between organizations and employees. Why do I mention sexual harassment when were covering sexual orientation because sexual harassment is not just limited to "Quid Pro Quo" (this for that), it now can also include hostile work environment. Too often we may see employees ridiculing a co-worker because he is gay. This constitutes sexual harassment, as does harassing someone of the same sex. Establishing policies that address these issues is the start of being a responsible organization. Organizations are now addressing the lifestyles their employees chose by making available benefits to same-sex couples even though the federal government does not allow same-sex marriages. A very famous story is about an interior decorator in London, Greg baker who fell in a relation with his employer William Banks -Blaney. Even though William was happily married with children, he preferred to eave it all for his new gay partner. Top 2007 employer is IBM. In second place is last year's winner, Staffordshire Police. The Greater London Authority and Manchester City Council tie for third place. Lloyds TSB was named Most Improved Employer and Manchester City Council wins an award for Network Group of the Year. Ben Summerskill, Stonewall Chief Executive said: "a pink plateau still exists in too much of the British workplace. The business case for addressing effective recruitment and retention of lesbian and gay staff is increasingly persuasive. This work isn't just about fair treatment; it's about establishing competitive advantage in the labour market. Happily this year there's excellence in every sector from which other employers across Britain can learn". Larry Hirst, Country General Manager at IBM UK, said: "To be recognised by Stonewall as the leading UK employer for workplace equality is a source of tremendous pride. I'm convinced that the principles of diversity, inclusion and equality must sit at the heart of any truly modern, successful and confident organisation. This award will give IBM the impetus to further imbed these principles into the way we work, empowering all of our employees to succeed and thrive". Fiona Cannon, Head of Equality and Diversity at Lloyds TSB said: "Our progress sends a powerful message to our lesbian, gay and bisexual staff and customers about how committed we are to making sure our organisation is fully inclusive, and has significantly helped us in building our brand with the LGB community. Stonewall's Workplace Equality Index has been crucial in helping us to understand what best practice tools looked like". Steve Mycio, Deputy Chief Executive at Manchester City Council, said: "We're proud to feature in Stonewall's Index. It provides us with evidence that we are a supportive and progressive employer and that we value our LGB staff." Employers were ranked according to criteria ranging from implementation of an effective equality policy to demonstrating how they engage with their lesbian and gay staff and customers and service users. The Index assesses actual practice, such as recruitment and mentoring activity, as well as just policy. Stephen Frost, Stonewall's Director of Workplace programmes, said: "Employers actively engaged in the talent market take Stonewall's Workplace Equality very seriously. They know Britain's 1.7 million gay staff and their colleagues now use this information in their career planning. Organisations that have made Stonewall's list deserve congratulations for their performance over the past year". The awards were presented at a ceremony and champagne reception at the Wallace Collection in London sponsored by PricewaterhouseCoopers. Stonewall's Diversity Champions good practice programme currently has 254 members from across Britain with almost four million employees among them. Recent recruits include Manchester City Football Club, the Royal Air Force and Procter & Gamble. On average, programme members scored 14 per cent higher in the 2007 Index than organisations that do not work with Stonewall and 94 organisations out of the top 100 are Diversity Champions. (http://www.stonewall.org.uk/workplace/1477.asp) Affirming Organizational Policies A written statement testifying that the organization does not discriminate on the base of sexual orientation is a critical step in affirming sexual diversity. In many settings, statements of non-discrimination represent the only tangible indication that the presence of sexual minority members will be tolerated. When there is no statement of non-discrimination, gay and lesbian employees must face the possibility that they will be terminated, or unfairly discriminated against, if identified as a sexual minority. There is at present no federal legislation except for employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; lesbian as well as gay employees require any legal recourse to such discrimination in most jurisdictions. Organizations may also institute diversity workshops that address issues and concerns of relevance to gay and lesbian employees. Though sexual minority members have become more visible in recent years, many individuals in our society have little or no access to information about lesbians and gay men Diversity workshops on gay and lesbian issues allow trainers to present precise information about homosexuality, dispel common misperceptions, and lower anxiety among heterosexual employees. In addition to a presentation of the facts, exercises can be used that allow nongay employees to take the lesbian or gay employee's perspective. Exercises of this nature help illustrate that homophobic and heterosexist behaviours are inappropriate in the workplace. In 1998 the European Court of Justice - in Grant v. South West Trains Ltd (Case C-249/96) [1998] I.C.R. 449) - held that the existing EU sex discrimination legislation did not extend to discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Domestic courts have taken the same line with the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. However, since 1st December 2003, discrimination of grounds of sexual orientation has been unlawful in the workplace, under the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations ('the Regulations') 2003 (S.I. 2003/1661, implemented in response to the Framework Directive, 2000/78/EC). Unfortunately, these new Regulations, covering employment matters only, do not correspond fully with the UK's existing legislative schemes provided by the Sex Discrimination Act, or the Race Relations Act 1976. This is because they do not extend to activities such as the provision of goods, facilities and services; housing, and education. However, in these activities, there are some cases of sexual orientation discrimination that may be argued under the Sex Discrimination Act, the Human Rights Act 1998, or the common law. These possibilities will be explored, sometimes with the help of the Canadian and United States' experiences. (http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2005/issue2/connolly2.html) Employers may also permit or facilitate the existence of informal lesbian and gay networks within the company. These networks provide a source of social support in the face of adversity or invisibility. Some organizations signal a stronger acceptance of sexual minorities by officially recognizing lesbian and gay employees. This action enhances visibility and may allow the group to use organizational resources (e.g., meeting rooms), obtain administrative time for officers, and use of the company's official logo on letterhead and banners. Another way for an organization to recognize and affirm sexual diversity is to provide the same benefit coverage to same-sex domestic partners as it does for all the spouses of heterosexual employees. The extension of health care to domestic partners is currently the most visible component of such efforts. Death leave and sick-care leave are other forms of domestic partnership benefits. The former permit gay and lesbian employees to take time off to grieve the loss of one's partner, whereas the latter extends the organization's sick-care leave policies to include same-sex domestic partners as well as spouses. Treatment Discrimination toward Sexual Minorities Policies of this kind should promote fair and equitable treatment of lesbian and gay employees within the organizational context. It was observed by Schneider as well as his colleagues, organizational policies and practices create a set of rewards and expectations that indicate to organizational members the kinds of goals that are important and behaviours by which the goals are to be accomplished. The network of organizational practices and policies and the rewards and expectations that result create a shared sense of imperative that, in turn, guides behaviour. Consequently, policies that recognize and affirm the existence of sexual minorities should signal that discriminatory behaviours based on sexual orientation are not acceptable within the organization. The principal legislation governing sexual orientation discrimination in the UK is: The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1661) - these apply across England, Scotland and Wales. The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003 (SR 2003/497) - these apply across Northern Ireland. The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/2827). These came into force inDecember 2003and implement the sexual orientation aspects of EC General Framework Directive (2000/78). They make discriminationon the grounds of sexual orientation unlawful. Sexual orientation is defined as having a sexual attraction to: persons of the same sex (lesbians and gay men) persons of the opposite sex (heterosexual) Persons of both sexes (bisexual). (http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/dvsequl/sexdisc/sexdiscrimination.htm) It is observed that there are two types of discriminatory behaviours faced by minority members. Access discrimination stops members of a certain group from entering a job or else an organization. On the other hand, treatment discrimination takes place when members of a group obtain fewer rewards, resources, or chances on the job than they legally deserve. Treatment discrimination can have an effect on substantial phenomena for example work assignments, training opportunities, in addition to salary increases. It moreover influences more restrained factors such as approval into a work group, the accessibility of support from supervisors, and the degree of discretion one is permitted in job activities. Consequently, those who are exposed to treatment discrimination encounter organizational experiences that are less favourable than those experienced by the dominant group (Segal 1994). The current research is concerned with the extent to which lesbian and gay employees face treatment discrimination in various organizational settings. Organizations that have enacted affirming policies should promote an understanding that organization members are to be treated equitably, regardless of sexual orientation. Consequently, lesbian and gay employees in these settings should be less likely to experience heterosexist biases, exclusionary behaviours, and job-related inequities. Work-Related Attitudes Although individuals are capable of holding many different attitudes, organizational researchers have focused their attention on a relatively limited number of work-related attitudes. These attitudes tap positive and negative evaluations that individuals hold about various aspects of their work environment. Two of the most commonly investigated attitudes, job satisfaction and organizational commitment, were considered in this research. Lower levels of treatment discrimination toward gay and lesbian employees should facilitate access to the rewards, resources, and opportunities that individuals legitimately deserve. As greater access to both tangible (e.g., training opportunities, promotions) and intangible rewards (e.g., supervisory support) is acquired, gay and lesbian employees should exhibit more positive workplace attitudes. In addition, these attitudes should be further enhanced as access to various workplace rewards and opportunities becomes more equitable relative to heterosexual peers. Lesbian and gay male group identity attitudes were also expected to moderate the relationship between treatment discrimination and each work-related attitude. That is, the level of treatment discrimination experienced by gay and lesbian employees was not expected to impact all gay and lesbian employees in the same way or to the same extent. Gay and lesbian employees who hold strong reencounter attitudes should be least influenced by the prevalence of treatment discrimination. In essence, because they idealize heterosexuality, these individuals may attach little importance to the equitable treatment of sexual minority members. Sexual Orientation Discrimination Workforce researchers have not focused on the gay question; and therefore, little data is available about the discrimination against persons who are lesbian or gay. Individual cases seldom move to litigation because most states and municipalities do not recognize sexual orientation as a category against which discrimination is banned. Since there are no federal laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, discrimination significantly continues but go largely unrecorded. The Work Environment Not each and every workplace has a preponderance of heterosexual workers. Many Researches have been conducted in undersized organizations where sexual minorities are present. For instance in a study of conflict and dependence in an organization the researchers interviewed eight out of the ten women who were employed there, as well as the two owners. The strike was relating to a number of issues, but for the most part concerning pay and conditions. The most important difference among being 'out' at The research found that a most important consequence of permitting employees to be themselves would result in incorporating emotions into workplace dynamics and to facilitate a widespread lesbian identity to develop and conquer other differences. Nonetheless, most gay people are probable to locate themselves to be in a minority in their job and will find that there is an innate disagreement in being gay in a predominantly heterosexual workplace. at the same time as out gay employees are extra dedicated to their organization and are expected to feel more satisfied and do a enhanced job, there is important, well documented discrimination in opposition to sexual minorities in jobs, For sexual minorities, discrimination as well as the apprehension of discrimination, are all-encompassing features of the workplace and regular features of lesbian and gay men's experience. The organization can back up the education in a variety of ways: using inclusive language in all company communications (for example, using the term "partner" instead of "spouse"), offering benefits to same-sex partners, and publicly supporting gay and lesbian issues. The education and training must be sensitive not only to gay and lesbian workers seeking support, but also to others. Usually, heterosexual resistance to accepting gay men and lesbians in the workplace is due to religious or moral beliefs. The training must respect people's values, but it also must send a message that the organization appreciates all aspects of diversity. From a theoretical perspective, stigma theory has been used to understand the decision to disclose one's sexual orientation at work (and may provide insights into the relationship between disclosure and perceived workplace discrimination. stigmatized groups are viewed as inferior and are discredited by groups that are considered "normal" and in the majority. In an attempt to avoid the negative attributions and discrimination associated with stigmatized groups, individuals may attempt to conceal their stigma or even "pass" as members of majority groups. When applied to gay employee's stigma theory leads to two predictions: (a) Gay employees will tend to conceal their sexual orientation at work, and (b) they will be more likely to conceal their sexual orientation when they fear discrimination and stigma effects based on their sexual orientation. Existing research indicates general support for the first proposition; most gay men and lesbians limit the disclosure of their sexual orientation in the workplace. For example, in a study of 228 lesbian employees in the north-eastern two thirds of the women limited disclosure of their sexual orientation at work and that the decision to disclose was strongly influenced by prior experiences of workplace discrimination. Twenty-one percent of the 70 gay men interviewed. It is reported that they did not disclose their sexual orientation at work, and all of these professionals reported that they had "passed" as heterosexuals in previous corporate jobs. Many reported that they had to leave their organization after 1 or 2 years because of the pressures associated with this "counterfeiting" and the fear of being discovered. Although there has been very little research on the relationship between disclosure and reported workplace discrimination, the results of existing research yield mixed support for the theory-based proposition that individuals are more likely to conceal their sexual orientation when they have witnessed or experienced workplace. In a study of lesbians, found a relationship between the degree of disclosure of sexual orientation at work and a newly developed measure of workplace climate, which included items related to perceived workplace discrimination. In support of the stigma theory prediction, gay employees were more likely to disclose their sexual orientation in workplaces that were viewed as supportive of gay employees. In contrast, two studies of student-affairs professionals found greater perceptions of workplace discrimination among those who were more open about their sexual orientation at work) and in employment interviews, suggesting that disclosure may increase perceptions of workplace discrimination. These disparate findings may be due to the fact that the decision to disclose is affected by more than just perceptions of workplace discrimination. Emerging perspectives on the management of gay identity at work suggest that a complex pattern of factors may affect disclosure, including supportive co workers, organizational culture protective legislation and anticipated discrimination. A more accurate test of the theoretical relationship between disclosure and perceived discrimination would therefore include controlling for these factors and assessing their impact on the discrimination-disclosure relationship. To that end, we used structural equation techniques to examine simultaneously and hold constant the effects of legislation, organizational culture, and work group composition when examining the relationship between disclosure and perceived discrimination. This technique provides a more comprehensive and accurate test of the theory-based prediction of less disclosure in the face of perceived workplace discrimination. Although there has been a lack of research on the relationship between perceived discrimination and work outcomes, a few studies have examined the relationship between being gay and work outcomes. For example, found that gay and bisexual male workers earned significantly less than their heterosexual counterparts, but the salaries of lesbian and heterosexual women were not significantly different. Other studies, based on qualitative interviews, suggest deleterious effects of perceived workplace discrimination on gay employees' work attitudes and careers Not each and every workplace has a preponderance of heterosexual workers. Many Researches have been conducted in undersized organizations where sexual minorities are present. For instance in a study of conflict and dependence in an organization the researchers interviewed eight out of the ten women who were employed there, as well as the two owners. The strike was relating to a number of issues, but for the most part concerning pay and conditions. The research found that a most important consequence of permitting employees to be themselves would result in incorporating emotions into workplace dynamics and to facilitate a widespread lesbian identity to develop and conquer other differences. Nonetheless, most gay people are probable to locate themselves to be in a minority in their job and will find that there is an innate disagreement in being gay in a predominantly heterosexual workplace. at the same time as out gay employees are extra dedicated to their organization and are expected to feel more satisfied and do a enhanced job, there is important, well documented discrimination in opposition to sexual minorities in jobs, For sexual minorities, discrimination as well as the apprehension of discrimination, are all-encompassing features of the workplace and regular features of lesbian and gay men's experience. The organization can back up the education in a variety of ways: using inclusive language in all company communications (for example, using the term "partner" instead of "spouse"), offering benefits to same-sex partners, and publicly supporting gay and lesbian issues. The education and training must be sensitive not only to gay and lesbian workers seeking support, but also to others. Usually, heterosexual resistance to accepting gay men and lesbians in the workplace is due to religious or moral beliefs. The training must respect people's values, but it also must send a message that the organization appreciates all aspects of diversity. From a theoretical perspective, stigma theory has been used to understand the decision to disclose one's sexual orientation at work (and may provide insights into the relationship between disclosure and perceived workplace discrimination. stigmatized groups are viewed as inferior and are discredited by groups that are considered "normal" and in the majority. In an attempt to avoid the negative attributions and discrimination associated with stigmatized groups, individuals may attempt to conceal their stigma or even "pass" as members of majority groups. When applied to gay employee's stigma theory leads to two predictions: (a) Gay employees will tend to conceal their sexual orientation at work, and (b) they will be more likely to conceal their sexual orientation when they fear discrimination and stigma effects based on their sexual orientation. Although there has been very little research on the relationship between disclosure and reported workplace discrimination, the results of existing research yield mixed support for the theory-based proposition that individuals are more likely to conceal their sexual orientation when they have witnessed or experienced workplace. In a study of lesbians, found a relationship between the degree of disclosure of sexual orientation at work and a newly developed measure of workplace climate, which included items related to perceived workplace discrimination. In support of the stigma theory prediction, gay employees were more likely to disclose their sexual orientation in workplaces that were viewed as supportive of gay employees. In contrast, two studies of student-affairs professionals found greater perceptions of workplace discrimination among those who were more open about their sexual orientation at work) and in employment interviews, suggesting that disclosure may increase perceptions of workplace discrimination. These disparate findings may be due to the fact that the decision to disclose is affected by more than just perceptions of workplace discrimination. Emerging perspectives on the management of gay identity at work suggest that a complex pattern of factors may affect disclosure, including supportive co workers, organizational culture protective legislation and anticipated discrimination. A more accurate test of the theoretical relationship between disclosure and perceived discrimination would therefore include controlling for these factors and assessing their impact on the discrimination-disclosure relationship. To that end, we used structural equation techniques to examine simultaneously and hold constant the effects of legislation, organizational culture, and work group composition when examining the relationship between disclosure and perceived discrimination. This technique provides a more comprehensive and accurate test of the theory-based prediction of less disclosure in the face of perceived workplace discrimination. Existing research and theory in this area lead to the prediction that gay workers perceptions of workplace discrimination will have a negative relationship with their job and career attitudes and will be negatively related to their compensation and promotion rates. Although these relationships are relatively straightforward, as we discussed earlier, the documentation of the work outcomes associated with perceptions of discrimination has important practical and policy implications for organizations (Day 2000). Existing research and theory in this area lead to the prediction that gay workers' perceptions of workplace discrimination will have a negative relationship with their job and career attitudes and will be negatively related to their compensation and promotion rates. Although these relationships are relatively straightforward, as we discussed earlier, the documentation of the work outcomes associated with perceptions of discrimination has important practical and policy implications for organizations. Conclusion Why should companies concern themselves to diversity management From this paper many reason already mention about how's important diversity in companies. Manager must know about internal and external companies and employees. Not because the companies have a diversity they can not reach the goal, and make companies decreased the profit. In order to implement diversity management, strategies for dynamic diversity management were described. On the basis of research it seems that the creation of a mission, creative leadership, the predisposition and involvement of senior management, the attainment of objectives, communication, the creation of positive diverse interaction and partnerships are clear indicators of a goal-orientated approach to achieve effective diversity management. If companies know about diversity if any problem come its easy to solving the problem. That the reason why should companies concern to diversity management. References Butler, J. (1999) Gender Trouble, Routledge, New York and London Day, N.E. and P. Schoenrade, (2000) the Relationship among Reported Disclosure of Sexual Orientation, Anti-discrimination Policies, Top Management Support and Work Attitudes of Gay and Lesbian Employees, in Personnel Review, Vol. 9 #3 2000, MCB University Press http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2005/issue2/connolly2.html retrieved on 9 June 2007 http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/dvsequl/sexdisc/sexdiscrimination.htm retrieved on 9 June 2007 http://www.stonewall.org.uk/workplace/1477.asp retrieved on 9 June 2007 Segal, L. (1994) Straight Sex, Virago, London Read More