Is it safe to bring myself to work? Understanding LGBTQ experiences of workplace dignity

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1439
• Date: 01 June 2017
• Published date: 01 June 2017

Is it safe to bring myself to work? Understanding

LGBTQ experiences of workplace dignity

Sara J. Baker*

Southern Connecticut State University

Kristen Lucas

University of Louisville

Abstract

Despite increased efforts by more organizations to be seen

as “gay-friendly,”workplaces remain challenging sites for

LGBTQ employees to navigate. We examine the ways in

which LGBTQ employees experience dignity threats in the

workplace and the protection strategies they use to def‌lect

those threats. Interviews with 36 LGBTQ working adults re-

vealed that their dignity is threatened by a range of identity-

sensitive inequalities that undermine their safety and secu-

rity when they claim authentic gendered/sexual identities.

Specif‌ic safety and security threats to dignity include social

harm, autonomy violations, career harm, and physical

harm. To (re)claim their dignity, they engage in four primary

dignity protection strategies: avoiding harm by seeking safe

spaces, def‌lecting harm with sexual identity management,

offsetting identity devaluations by emphasizing instrumental

value, and creating safe spaces for authenticity and dignity.

Copyright © 2017 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons,

Ltd.

Keywords: authenticity, gay-friendly, heteronormativity,

safety, sexual identity management, workplace dignity

Résumé

Même si de plus en plus d’organisations déploient des ef-

forts accrus pour paraître « favorables aux gays », les lieux

de travail continuent d’être des cadres dans lesquels les em-

ployés LGBTQ peinent à s’épanouir. Dans cet article, nous

examinons les différentes formes de menace qui pèsent sur

la dignité de ces derniers et les stratégies de protection

qu’ils utilisent pour y faire face. Les interviews réalisées

auprès de 36 travailleurs LGBTQ révèlent que lorsque ces

derniers revendiquent des identités sexuées/sexuelles

authentiques, leur dignité est menacée par un ensemble

d’inégalités identitaires qui minent leur sûreté et leur

sécurité. Ces menaces sont, entre autres, des dommages

sociales, professionnelles et physiques, ainsi que des viola-

tions de leur autonomie. Pour (ré)aff‌irmer leur identité, les

employés LGBTQ déploient quatre principales stratégies

de protection à savoir: l’évitement des dangers par la

recherche de lieux sûrs, le détournement des dangers grâce

à la gestion de l’identité sexuelle, la compensation des dé-

valuations identitaires par la réaff‌irmation de la valeur

instrumentale et la création des espaces sûrs dans lesquels

l’authenticité et la dignité sont valorisées. Copyright ©

2017 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mots-clés : authenticité, favorables aux gays,

hétéronormativité, sûreté, gestion de l’identité sexuelle,

dignité en milieu professionnelle.

While disrespectful communication plagues many em-

ployees on a daily basis, problematic exchanges may be

even more pervasive or severe for individuals who perform

their gender, sex, and sexuality in ways that differ from

heteronormative expectations. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans,

and queer (LGBTQ) employees often are met with messages

and experiences that are particularly damaging—including,

but not limited to such things as bullying (Cowan, 2007;

Hunt & Dick, 2008), discrimination (Bedgett, Lau, Sears,

& Ho, 2007; Lewis, 2006, 2009; Ozturk, 2011; Sears &

Mallory, 2011), harassment (Bedgett et al., 2007; Das,

2009; Meyer, 2009), hurtful jokes and taunts (Baker, 2010;

Silverschanz, Cortina, Konik, & Magley, 2008), and

ostracism (Embrick, Walther, & Wickens, 2007).

We explore the experiences of LGBTQ people in the

workforce through a workplace dignity lens. Specif‌ically,

we identify the unique dignity threats LGBTQ working

adults experience because of their gender and sexuality.

We then describe the dignity protection strategies LBGTQ

employees use to def‌lect threats. By viewing these experi-

ences through a workplace dignity lens, we draw attention

to the complexity of dignity negotiations as related to mar-

ginalized and stigmatized social identities.

*Please address correspondence to: Sara J. Baker, Southern Connecticut

State University. Email: sabaker3@gmail.com

Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences

Revue canadienne des sciences de l’administration

34: 133–148 (2017)

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/CJAS.1439

Can J Adm Sci

34(2), 133–148 (2017)Copyright © 2017 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 133

The Gay Unfriendly Workplace

The term “gay-friendly”has become a catch-all label for

environments where LGBTQ individuals feel accepted

(Giuffre, Dellinger, & Williams, 2008). Workplaces have

been designated as gay-friendly based on equal employment

opportunity policies, the availability of employment benef‌its

(e.g., partner benef‌its, trans*inclusive health care), demon-

strations of organizational LGBT competency (e.g., training,

resources, employee group or diversity councils), and public

commitments to LGBT advocacy (e.g., employee recruit-

ment, philanthropic support of LGBT organizations or

events) (Human Rights Campaign, 2015). Despite these ef-

forts to make organizations more inclusive and welcoming,

workplaces remain largely gay unfriendly. In particular,

LGBTQ employees can be harmed in the workplace by dis-

crimination and sexuality-specif‌ic microaggressions.

For LGBTQ employees, workplace discrimination is

marked by a lack of consistent formal policies and informal,

prejudicial treatment that affects material outcomes includ-

ing decisions about hiring, f‌iring, job assignments, promo-

tion opportunities, and fringe benef‌its (Lewis, 2009). For

example, survey data revealed that one in four lesbian,

gay, and bisexual employees reported experiencing employ-

ment discrimination, but for those who are out at work, the

frequency increased to nearly one in three (Sears & Mallory,

2011). Discrimination can bar LGBTQ employees from ac-

cess to certain organizations and jobs. An ethnographic

study of a large company in the United States revealed that

90% of respondents admitted they would not hire anyone

they thought was gay, would not consider them the best or

f‌irst choice for the position, and, if given the chance, would

not rehire gay or lesbian employees already employed

(Embrick et al., 2007). Once LGBTQ employees gain access

to the workplace, they may have diff‌iculty being promoted

or maintaining secure employment. For instance, 7% of

LGB employees surveyed had lost a job due to their sexual-

ity, while 9% of LGB employees who are out at work re-

ported losing a job due to their sexuality (Sears & Mallory,

2011). Finally, LGBTQ employees experience discrimina-

tion in terms of equal pay and benef‌its. Between 10-19%

of LGB employees believe they were the recipients of un-

equal pay or benef‌its (Bedgett et al., 2007). These percep-

tions are not unfounded. In Canada, white, gay men with

partners earn 5% less than heterosexual men with partners

(Waite & Denier, 2015), which is similar to the pay disparity

in the US workforce (Pinsker, 2015).

Notably, LGBTQ employees can be harmed in the work-

place whether or not they face overt and legally-actionable

discrimination. They also may be harmed by repetitive, small

injuries inf‌licted by microaggressions. Nadal (2008) de-

scribed microaggressions as “brief and commonplace daily

verbal, behavioral or environmental indignities”(p. 23)

that are communicated as microassaults, microinsults,

and microinvalidations (Sue, 2010). Nadal, Rivera, and

Corpus (2010) outlined a taxonomy of seven common

sexual orientation specif‌ic microaggressions: (a) use of

heterosexist and transphobic terminology (e.g., calling an

LGBTQ employee a “faggot,”“dyke,”or “tranny”); (b)

endorsement of heteronormative or gender-normative

cultures/behaviours (e.g., implicit dress codes that align

with birth sex); (c) assumption of universal LGBTQ ex-

periences (e.g., stereotyping lesbian women as being

“butch”or gay men as being into fashion or design);

(d) exoticization (e.g., asking explicit questions about

sex and genitalia); (e) discomfort/disapproval with

LGBTQ experience (e.g., believing that LGBTQ couples

should not raise children); (f) denial of societal heterosex-

ism or transphobia (e.g., a co-worker telling an LGBTQ

employee that they are being “overly sensitive”about dis-

crimination); and (g) assumption of sexual pathology/ab-

normality (e.g., believing that all gay men have HIV/

AIDS or are child molesters). In follow-up research,

Nadal, Issa, Leon, Meterko, Wideman, and Wong

(2011) added an eighth microaggression: denial of indi-

vidual heterosexism/transphobia (e.g., saying “I have a

gay friend”to refute accusations of homophobia).

Combined, workplace discrimination and the communi-

cation of sexuality-specif‌ic microaggressions paint a trou-

bling picture of organizational life for LGBTQ employees.

While organizations are increasingly implementing LGBTQ

protection policies and seeking to create gay-friendly work-

places, there is certainly more work to be done in order for

LGBTQ employees to achieve a full sense of workplace

dignity.

Workplace Dignity

A valuable way to examine LGBTQ individuals’prob-

lematic experiences in the workplace is through the theoret-

ical lens of workplace dignity. Workplace dignity is def‌ined

as “the ability to establish a sense of self-worth and self-re-

spect and to appreciate the respect of others”(Hodson,

2001, p. 3)—that is, dignity is simultaneously highly per-

sonal and highly relational. Dignity is about one’sown

sense of self and the ability to maintain and protect that core

part of being; at the same time, one’s dignity is dependent

upon others in order to be recognized. Moreover, the core

principle of dignity is a fundamental belief that dignity is a

universal and unconditional right of all human beings who

possess, simply by virtue of being human, an inherent and

equal value to all others (Lee, 2008). Because of its norma-

tive stance, dignity provides an important lens for under-

standing the experiences of people who experience

challenges to their worthiness, esteem, and respect. A dig-

nity framework is important for understanding LGBTQ ex-

periences because it necessarily broadens the scope of

attention from illegal and unethical behaviours that inf‌lict

harm to include behaviours that are necessary to aff‌irm

LGBTQ EXPERIENCES OF WORKPLACE DIGNITY BAKER & LUCAS

Can J Adm Sci

34(2), 133–148 (2017)Copyright © 2017 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 134