Queering the Workplace

Abstract

Despite many advances toward equity in society, gay, lesbian, and bisexual (GLB) individuals remain subjected to many stereotypes and experience negative consequences resulting from a dominant heterosexual environment, which includes significant obstacles that inhibit opportunities and participation in the workplace. As a start to addressing these issues, this conceptual article begins by providing an overview of the experiences of GLB people in the workplace, focusing on forms of discrimination, its impacts on GLB people, and coping mechanisms employed to mitigate stress. Though the literature supporting this endeavor is largely derived from the United States, an examination of extant literature suggests that experiences of GLB Canadians are similar. This paper concludes by encouraging employers to foster expansive learning environments as a means of promoting full participation for GLB individuals in the workplace.

KEYWORDS:

• gay
• lesbian
• bisexual
• work place
• participation
• equity
• learning environment

INTRODUCTION

North American society is becoming more liberal and, consequently, gay, lesbian, and bisexual (GLB) people are experiencing greater rights and freedoms. In addition, since GLB people rarely concern themselves with child rearing, their resulting disposable income, greater than that of their heterosexual counterparts, propels many into the elite and affluent echelon of society. Indeed, the “DINK” (Dual Income No Kids) lifestyle is a benefit that most GLB people enjoy personally and professionally as a consequence of their sexual orientation.

These common myths about GLB people are far from the truth. Through an investigation of myths surrounding GLB people, Badgett (1999) found no significant differences when GLB workers were compared with heterosexual workers; specifically, that GLB people exist throughout the earning spectrum and are not restricted to the upper strata. In addition, through an analysis of the General Social Survey data from 1989 to 1991, Badgett (1995) found that gay and bisexual males earned 11% to 27% less than equivalent (based on experience, education, occupation, marital status, and region of residence) heterosexual males. In that same study, Badgett also found that lesbian couples, on average, earn less than couples in other groups (i.e., married heterosexual, unmarried heterosexual, and gay male couples). Anastas (2001) attributes myths about GLB individuals, and general disparities in equity, to the heteronormative North American context, a situation that is exacerbated for lesbians who also experience the negative effect of both sexism and heterosexism.

Despite many advances toward equity in society, GLB individuals remain subjected to many stereotypes and experience negative consequences resulting from a dominant heterosexual environment, which includes significant obstacles that inhibit opportunities and participation in the workplace. This presents employers with an instrumental challenge: how can supportive and engaging environments be created for GLB employees? To respond effectively to this challenge, employers must first become cognizant of the challenges that GLB employees experience both in society and the workplace.

As a start to addressing these issues, this article begins by providing an overview of the experiences of GLB people in the workplace, focusing on forms of discrimination, its impacts on GLB people, and coping mechanisms employed to mitigate stress. Though the literature supporting this endeavor is largely derived from the United States, an examination of extant literature suggests that experiences of GLB Canadians are similar. This article concludes by encouraging employers to foster expansive learning environments as a means of promoting full participation for GLB individuals in the workplace.

DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE

Homophobic and heterosexist behaviors serve to exclude GLB individuals from full participation in the workplace. The following section discusses heteronormativity in more detail, specifically illustrating the negative effects for GLB workers.

Heteronormativity

Heteronormativity permeates all facets of GLB life and significantly shapes learning and development. Heteronormativity describes the hegemonic normalizing of heterosexuality, resulting in both homophobic and heterosexist behaviors and practices. Homophobia and heterosexism are closely related; however, the conceptual distinction between the two is important. While homophobia describes a fear of homosexuality, often resulting in violent episodes or treatments, heterosexism, defined eloquently by Herek (1992), is “an ideological system that denies, denigrates, and stigmatizes any non-heterosexual form of behavior, identity, relationship or community” (p. 89). Heterosexism creates privilege for those within the dominant group because it normalizes heterosexuality and treats homosexuality as an aberration, notwithstanding the diversity existing between heterosexuality and homosexuality (Waldo, 1999).

Heterosexism maintains various exclusionary practices and privileges, as Embrick, Walther, and Wickens (2007) argue: “[White, working class, heterosexual, males] have constructed and maintained a form of White male solidarity, a collective practice directed toward women, People of Color, and non-heterosexuals that maintains racism, sexism, and homophobia in the local, national, and global context” (p. 757). Examples of heterosexism include assuming that one is heterosexual, protecting marriage as a heterosexual institution, and regarding homosexual behavior as aberrant. Heterosexist dispositions, whether conscious or subconscious, permeate all aspects of GLB existence; consequently, GLB individuals develop an “othered” sense of self.

Heterosexism and homophobia culminate to create an oppressive milieu for GLB people in the workplace, as Hill (2009) shares:

We are bearable as long as we “cover” and do not “flaunt” ourselves. Taboo behaviors include placing pictures of our loved one on our desk, and mentioning our same-gender companion in conversations. At times, we are in the crosshairs of anger, hatred, and backlash for multiple reasons: threats to straight entitlement; because of the ground we are gaining in some areas of civil society; simply because of our “Out” presence/visibility in the workplace; organizational policies of support; resentment for what is labeled “special treatment”; religious intolerance; seemingly gender-inappropriate appearance or behavior (i.e., effeminacy and masculinity) linked to heteronormativity; and government and politician-sponsored antigay speech. (pp. 38–39)

Hill's statement powerfully illustrates the segregation that GLB people experience in the workplace, whether they have disclosed their sexuality or not.

Discrimination

Beatty and Kirby (2006) report that 25% to 66% of GLB individuals experience some form of workplace discrimination in the United States, including termination, ostracism, diminished mobility, and violence. With significant legislative advances, such as the addition of sexual orientation as a protected characteristic under Hate Propaganda Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada in September 2003 (Beauchamp, 2004), Canada might be considered more “gay friendly”; however, the workplace experiences of GLB Canadians are similar.

In the 2004 General Social Survey, Canadians were asked, for the first time, to identify their sexual orientation, resulting in more than 362,000 Canadians (1.5%) age 18 years and older identifying themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. They reported higher rates of violence (such as sexual assault, robbery, and physical assault) compared with their heterosexual counterparts; in fact, the odds of being victimized were nearly two times greater for gay men and lesbians, and four and a half times greater for bisexuals, compared to heterosexuals (Beauchamp, 2004). In the workplace, 44% of gay men and lesbians and 41% of bisexuals reported some form of workplace discrimination in the past five years, compared to only 14% of heterosexuals. This information provides significant insight into the experiences of GLB Canadians; specifically, that the workplace experiences of GLB Canadians, in spite of significant legislative differences, unfortunately parallel the experiences of GLB Americans.

Some aspects of workplace-related discrimination may occur within the hiring process. Embrick, Walther, and Wickens (2007) interviewed 38 respondents at a Southwestern baked-goods company in the United States and found that 90% would not hire anyone they thought was homosexual. In addition, the respondents shared they would not promote homosexuals, and those that previously hired gay men or lesbians indicated that they would not repeat their mistake, citing company image as their primary concern. Embrick, Walther, and Wickens concluded that, while many Americans espouse liberal dogma, their actions are contradictory to their expressed attitudes.

In an interview of 900 gay, lesbian, and transgender workers (416, 415, and 59, respectively), Irwin (2002) found that 59% of respondents had experienced some form of homophobic behavior or prejudicial treatment in the workplace; 97% of those respondents indicated that such behaviors or treatments were chronic. For example, homophobic behaviors included homophobic jokes, comments, threats, destruction of property, and inappropriate physical contact, whereas prejudicial behaviors included unequal treatment and practices, such as work sabotage and failure to recognize ability for promotion. The consequences of discrimination are many, and often unexpected.

Effects of Discrimination

Hill (2009) warns that “disclosure in unsafe workplaces can lead to discrimination … organizational exclusion, ridicule, verbal and physical threats, violence, marginalization, or hitting the lavender ceiling (a perceived tendency for organization to not promote or advance LGBTQ members in the system)” (p. 41). For example, Tejeda (2006), in an analysis of 65 surveys from gay men working in organizations with gay-friendly organizational policies, found that those that disclosed their sexuality to their supervisor reported experiencing greater hostility in the workplace. Similarly, Smith and Ingram (2004) summarize results where “heterosexism and unsupportive social interactions were each related to negative psychological health outcomes” (p. 57). These findings illustrate that disclosure in unsafe work environments can not only negatively affect LGB workers physically, but psychologically as well. The latter can be explored through the concept of minority stress.

First coined by Brooks (1981), minority stress describes the strain minorities experience resulting from hegemonic oppression. It is defined as “a state between the sequential antecedent stressors of culturally sanctioned, categorically ascribed inferior status, resultant prejudice and discrimination” (p. 84). Individuals experiencing minority stress often struggle with negative feelings and emotions that have potential consequences for identity development and adjustment. Factors contributing to minority stress are threaded throughout social institutions, including the workplace.

Drawing on the minority stress perspective, Meyer (1995) studied the experiences of 741 gay men and found that negative mental health outcomes were significantly associated with experiencing prejudicial events. Meyer further categorized three distinct prejudicial constructs that affect the mental health of GLB workers: internalized homophobia, which refers to negative homophobic schema that the GLB person has internalized; perceived stigma, which describes the GLB person's belief that she or he will be treated differently; and prejudice events, which are the discriminatory, violent, or biased actions toward a GLB person.

Additional studies investigating the impact of stress resulting from homophobic behaviors and/or prejudicial events on GLB workers further illustrate negative consequences for these people. For example, in a study of 287 GLB employees, Waldo (1999) found that “GLB [Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual] people who had experienced heterosexism exhibited higher levels of psychological distress and health-related problems, as well as decreased satisfaction with several aspects of their jobs” (p. 229), resulting in disengagement from the workplace. In a more recent study of 97 workers, Smith and Ingram (2004) also found that depression and psychological distress were related to discrimination in the workplace. Smith and Ingram, through an investigation of support for victims of heterosexism, hypothesized that two types of coworker responses exacerbate feelings of distress for GLB workers; that is, blaming responses, where the person is blamed for the outcome of the situation, and minimizing responses, where the significance of the event is downplayed. Smith and Ingram's findings seem to indicate that, while blaming GLB individuals for the negative outcomes is inhumane, minimizing responses are significantly associated with increasing psychological distress.

Evident from the discussion above is that heteronormativity creates a stressful environment that GLB workers must successfully navigate in order to survive in the workplace. Specifically, in order for GLB individuals to successfully navigate the heteronormative workplace environment, energy must be expended on protective behaviors:

Organizations that exclude gays, lesbians, bisexuals and other sexual minorities are losing the energy, resourcefulness and creativity that these groups of people possess. Instead of putting these quality traits into improving workplace performance, sexual minorities are forced to expend their energies to survive, to protect themselves, as well as to flourish as well as they can in a homophobic environment. (Powers, 1996, p. 82)

To illuminate the amount of energy required to constantly manage a homosexual identity, Powers presents a hypothetical situation to heterosexual workers. In this situation heterosexual workers are challenged to hide all aspects of their heterosexual identity—including references to partners, weekend activities, and photographs, for example—to avoid being terminated. Through this example, Powers illustrates to heterosexual workers the struggles and energy drain GLB workers experience in managing their sexual identity; a cost that inhibits full participation in the workplace.

Identity Management

Disclosing one's sexuality (“coming out”) is a complex process that occurs at various times throughout a GLB person's life. It is also never fully complete, as the GLB person has to make the disclosure decision during each novel event or encounter (Hill, 2009). Sexuality disclosure has been regarded by many as essential to identity development, general psychosocial adjustment, and well-being (Rostosky & Riggle, 2002). However, to further complicate the disclosure process, as an invisible construct the GLB individual can manage disclosure of his or her gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity. Given that the option exists, many GLB people choose to hide their sexual identity in some, or all, contexts “to avoid the potential for social ostracism, physical violence, or other sanctions imposed by an unaccepting society” (Badgett, 1996, p. 35). For example, when weighing the benefits (e.g., full engagement, fulfillment, and decreased stress) and costs (e.g., discrimination and harassment) of disclosure, the GLB individual may choose to be perceived as heterosexual and, consequently, manage his or her personal information. Generally, those choosing to hide their identity, toward the “closeted” end of the spectrum, do so out of fear (Croteau, 1996) and employ strategies that impose a degree of separation between work and personal life, resulting in significant stress and disengagement. Those at the more open end of the spectrum are driven by self-integrity and, therefore, choose to integrate the work and personal aspects of their lives (Croteau, 1996).

In an attempt to develop a scale to measure identity management strategies, Anderson, Croteau, Chung, and DiStefano (2001) developed the Workplace Sexual Identity Management Measure (WSIMM) based on the work of Griffin (1992). Griffin overviews four sexual identity management strategies along a continuum:

1. Passing involves managing information to be perceived as heterosexual;

2. covering involves censoring information that would implicate a gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity;

3. implicitly out involves being honest about one's life without applying gay, lesbian, or bisexual labels; and

4. explicitly out involves being honest about one's life and openly identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

In their study of 172 lesbian and gay student affairs professionals, Anderson, Croteau, Chung, and DiStefano found that WSIMM successfully measured identity management strategies. The authors share, however, that GLB student affairs professionals are more likely to disclose their sexuality in the workplace given the generally accepting culture of student affairs, concluding that more work is needed to fully develop the tool.

As seen above, and summarized by Badgett (2001), disclosure in unsafe workplaces can lead to exclusion, threats, violence, and reduced opportunity. However, disclosure in safe environments has been associated with many positive outcomes.

Benefits of Disclosure

Factors influencing disclosure decisions in the workplace are highly contextual, relying largely on the extent to which the GLB individual feels comfortable. Huffman, Watrous-Rodriguez, and King (2008) discerned three very unique, yet similar, sources of support that may contribute to the comfort level of GLB employees; they are supervisor support, coworker support, and organizational support. While all three are very important, they found that each type of support contributed to employee well-being in different ways. Specifically, they found that supervisor support was more strongly associated with job satisfaction, coworker support was more strongly associated with life satisfaction, and organizational support was most strongly associated with sexual identity disclosure. Indeed the latter has been found in other studies as well (Huffman et al., 2008). For example, Griffith and Hebl (2002), in their study of 220 gay men and 159 lesbians, found that, in addition to supportive organizational policies, lesbian and gay people are likely to be “out” in the workplace depending on their level of self-acceptance and the extent to which they are out to others in their personal lives. Griffith and Hebl (2002) concluded that sexuality disclosure and working for a supportive organization (i.e., a workplace free from discrimination and where there are meaningful coworker interactions) are associated with higher satisfaction and lower anxiety in the workplace.

Most recently, based on data from an online survey of 581 gay men, Trau and Hartel (2007) also report positive outcomes related to sexuality disclosure in the workplace. They found that support, albeit not as defined as Huffman, Watrous-Rodriguez, and King (2008), was positively related to organizational commitment, career satisfaction, and career encouragement. Not surprisingly, homophobia was negatively related to the mentioned outcomes. In addition, Trau and Hartel (2007) found that having a community of gay individuals in the workplace not only impacts the likelihood of disclosure, but also positively impacts the employee's level of organizational commitment, career satisfaction, and career encouragement.

A report presented by Wright, Colgan, Creegan, and McKearney (2006) at the 2006 Working Lives Research Institute conference held at London Metropolitan University overviewed research studies investigating the experiences of GLB workers in 16 case study organizations. In a mixed-methods study, they analyzed company documentation, interviewed 60 managers, administered a survey and conducted in-depth interviews with 154 GLB employees, and interviewed 25 informants (employees, employers, government, and GLB people) in organizations in the United Kingdom (UK). Similar to the discussion above, the majority of GLB respondents (81.6%) indicated that working in a supportive environment positively impacted job satisfaction. Wright and colleagues also found that trade, manual, and skill workers were less likely to be out at work and found this particularly interesting, as the organizations had been identified as gay friendly. However, Schope (2002), through an evaluation of 443 questionnaires completed by White, Catholic, and well-educated gay men, found that professionals and managers tended to be less out than clerical and service workers, though the difference was not found to be statistically significant. In addition, they found that those with higher incomes (i.e., over $50,000) would disclose less in the workplace compared with middle-income ($15,000 to under $50,000) respondents. While type of employment or income level may be factors associated with disclosure, correlations are weak and require further investigation.

Altogether, factors affecting disclosure are captured in the theory of work adjustment (Degges-White & Shoffner, 2002), which describes four facets that people negotiate as they transition into the workplace:

1. satisfaction describes the ability to engage meaningfully with coworkers,

2. person-environment correspondence refers to the degree of congruence between the person and the work environment,

3. reinforcement value refers to the extent that the workplace fulfills a psychological need, and

4. ability refers to the degree of skill and personal trait congruence with the workplace.

Using the theory of work adjustment as a conceptual framework, Gedro (2009) describes the conundrum GLB workers face regarding workplace satisfaction: “On one hand, remaining closeted for fear of rejection, they are being inauthentic. On the other hand, coming out may result in rejection by coworkers” (p. 57). Similarly, Gedro also highlights that discrimination may prevent full engagement in the workplace as evaluated by the person-environment correspondence factor. Conversely, disclosing one's sexual identity, despite experiences of discrimination, may have high reinforcement value. Disclosure is a complex process and a contextual decision that only the GLB individual can make; however, evident from the discussion above, certain benefits may be associated with disclosing one's sexual identity in the workplace. One way to provide a supportive and engaging workplace for GLB individuals is through the creation of expansive learning environments.

EXPANSIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

Lave and Wenger (1991) introduced the theory of situated learning (or situated cognition), which proposes that individuals learn as they participate in work situations. Specifically, as presented in Fenwick (2006), individuals interact with communities (consisting of values, rules, and histories), tools (language and technology, for example), and their current context (which include organizational activities, purpose, and norms), and develop ways of performing. This interactive environment facilitates learning as one moves from being a novice to being a full participant in her or his primary community of practice. Fenwick presents various shortcomings with the theory of situated learning, including that it does not adequately discuss the nature of individual interactions or how individual and group knowledge changes in a community of practice.

Further critical examination of the theory of situated learning is presented by Fuller and Unwin (2006). Specifically, they present an expansive-restrictive framework for workplace development and contrast it with Engeström's (2001) concept of expansive learning. Engeström designed an intervention strategy that focuses on an entire system where workers facilitate organizational learning and change through engagement with one another (Fuller & Unwin, 2006). In contrast, Fuller and Unwin are concerned with workforce development by focusing on individual people and their learning within a given context: “The framework provides an umbrella under which diverse forms of participation or opportunities for learning can be considered. In particular, it foregrounds the relevance of both pedagogical and organizational factors to the creation of expansive or restrictive learning environments” (p. 39). Notably, Fuller and Unwin address the unequal nature of the workplace, individual status, and worker isolation, which are key factors when exploring the experiences of GLB people.

According to Fuller and Unwin (2006), an expansive approach to workforce development includes collaboration among team members; opportunities to learn new skills, to access learning and upgrading opportunities, and for career progression; and a sense of belonging and engagement, particularly in the primary community of practice and extending to multiple communities of practice both in and out of the workplace.

Creating an Expansive Learning Environment

Some organizations argue that a “business case for diversity” exists, as diversity results in positive economic gains through recruitment, increased understanding and problem solving, and the ability to enhance customer satisfaction: “The quality of thought, performance, and decision making are improved by including minority viewpoints” (Johnston & Malina, 2008, p. 607). However, others justify inaction toward diversity policies, particularly for the GLB population, stating that investment in diversity decreases the value of the firm, has other negative economic ramifications, or is immoral (Johnston & Malina, 2008).

Through a review of financial data from 203 firms in the United States, Johnston and Malina (2008) investigated the financial impact on firm value of the introduction of anti-discriminatory and/or equal right policies for sexual minorities. They found that stakeholders do not react unfavorably to the introduction of policies supporting sexual diversity. In fact, stock values were, at worst, value neutral. They concluded that organizations do not experience financial losses when sexual orientation policies are introduced and, therefore, cannot justify inaction based on negative economic impact.

Advocates of critical perspectives of human resource development would further challenge employers to engage people in the organization and relegate profit to the background: “A critical approach would challenge the subjugation of human knowledge, skills, and relationships to organizational or shareholder gain and focus on transforming workplaces and HRD practice toward justice, fairness, and equity” (Fenwick, 2004, p. 193). These advocates would argue in favor of an expansive learning environment for GLB workers.

Hodkinson and Rainbird (2006) present a tool for creating an expansive learning environment in the workplace. Their framework suggests that practitioners identify dimensions of the workplace that can be evaluated as highly restrictive or expansive, evaluate the dimensions on the expansive-restrictive continuum (i.e., restrictive, expansive, or somewhere in between), generate options for improvement, identify which options are relevant for the environment and would be impactful, and implement and evaluate the interventions.

Evident from the above discussion, creating an expansive learning environment in the workplace involves a paradigmatic shift; that is, a critical approach to human resource development where diversity is fostered in the workplace as a means to equity for all workers. Indeed, fostering diversity in the workplace has many benefits for GLB people and the organization, but must be facilitated in a very respectful and sensitive manner.

Fostering Diversity

Reasons underlying heterosexism and homophobia are numerous and cannot be given adequate attention here as they include many factors over which the employer has little control (e.g., religious beliefs, upbringing, and political climate). However, employers can help workers understand the experiences of, and challenges faced by, GLB employees as opportunities clearly exist to enhance capacity in an attempt to foster a supportive work climate and a truly diverse workplace.

Kormanik (2009) articulates that people are at different stages of understanding the various facets of sexuality, described as sex discrimination, were decisions are based on sex or gender; sexual harassment, a form of sex discrimination, which includes inappropriate behaviors; sexual orientation, which describes attraction toward the same and/or opposite sex; gender identity, which is an individual's sense of being male or female; and sexual attraction, described as an individual's inclination toward another person. Using his cycle of awareness development model, Kormanik examined individuals’ awareness of the various facets of sexuality with respect to pre-encounter, where there are no experiences with the issue; intellectualization, where there is recognition of the issue, with little involvement; encounter, where an individual has experience with the issue, but may or may not alter existing schema; empowerment, where an individual has experience with the issue and personal judgments are suspended in favor of understanding; and integration, where the person has been transformed and old schemas are replaced with new ones. The analysis clearly demonstrates that, while many have developed considerable awareness concerning sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and sexual attraction, awareness around sexual orientation and gender identity is significantly lower: “The most frequently identified stage of awareness development for both sexual orientation and gender identity was intellectualization. The difference was even more pronounced for gender identity, with nearly 80% of responses at pre-encounter or intellectualization at best” (Kormanik, 2009, p. 32). This suggests that employers have an opportunity to create engaging environments for GLB employees, in part, by educating other workers from pre-encounter through integration.

Given the diversity present in most organizations, and the potential for ideological clashes, employers must approach diversity initiatives with care. For example, in a study of three court cases involving discrimination and accommodation, Kaplan (2006) discovered that employers must introduce GLB diversity initiatives with caution, balancing convictions from other groups (religious beliefs, for example). The courts assessed four factors that employers must consider when balancing diversity initiatives with conflicting views those being, reasonable accommodation for the religious views of others and level of participation required, content of the training, response from the affected individual, and employer response. Kaplan concludes that the rulings provide considerable optimism as they support the assertion that GLB diversity benefits organizations, though employers need to provide reasonable accommodations for those with strong opposing beliefs to a GLB diversity initiative.

For this reason, Hill (2009) suggests that successful diversity initiatives should celebrate all forms of diversity as everyone has a race, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity. He calls for people to engage in critical reflection, or consciousness-raising (Mojab & Gorman, 2003), to foster more meaningful engagement in the workplace. In such an environment, “we simultaneously focus on our ethical obligation to recognize the pain of historically excluded minority and underrepresented groups, while taking into account the valuable contributions of dominant group members” (Hill, 2009, p. 49), in addition to majority group members understanding the privileges afforded to them for being who they are.

CONCLUSION

Opportunities for Employers

Engaging GLB people in the workplace has various organizational benefits including improved recruiting, enhanced problem solving, and increased consumer support (Kaplan, 2006). More important, the benefits of full participation are numerous for GLB workers, both personally and professionally, which include positive psychosocial adjustment, reduced stress and anxiety, and enhanced job and life satisfaction.

Creating a workplace environment conducive to these positive outcomes is the responsibility of managers and supervisors; however, Kormanik (2009) attributes workplace inequities to management attempting to treat all employees the same. Indeed, for workplace engagement equity to exist, management must explore ways to navigate the muddy waters of workplace diversity in order to fully engage GLB people. Cultivating an expansive learning environment provides employers with a means to foster support and engagement for GLB individuals.

Simply put, creating an expansive learning environment for GLB people in the workplace distills down to creating a place where GLB people can feel safe, employment equity exists, and coworkers embrace all forms of human diversity. This would entail establishing senior-level support for GLB initiatives and ensuring that nondiscriminatory policies exist, advocating for equity concerning employer-provided employee benefits, engaging in conscious-raising dialogue so that heteronormative practices and comments are challenged and not accepted, and where inclusive language is the norm, fostering supportive teams and employee-supervisor relationships, supporting GLB and other formal or informal minority support groups, and educating workers and celebrating all forms of diversity during mandatory training sessions.

Opportunities for Future Research

This fairly novel territory presents many research opportunities to further illuminate issues that GLB workers experience and presents employers with intervention options to increase GLB engagement in the workplace. For example:

1. Gender identity and expression is notably absent from organizational policies and requires a place in the discourse (Davis, 2009).

2. Information regarding career development for bisexuals is not well understood and requires further exploration (Gedro, 2009).

3. While GLB individuals have been studied together, due to salient differences between the groups, notably gender, each group requires individualized investigation, particularly gay men, who have received little attention in the literature (Trau & Hartel, 2007).

4. Longitudinal studies, though costly, would expand understandings of GLB workers’ experiences and enhance the quality of employer responses.

5. Little is known of the effects of how a GLB identity intersects with other minority identities for a given person in the workplace.

6. Exploring various intra-group variations (for example, in gay culture, “bears” and “twinks” are very unique groups as the former are stereotypically more masculine and the latter more effeminate) may reveal some interesting workplace differences and implications.

7. The experiences of heterosexual individuals, who are judged to be homosexual due to various archetypes of their person, requires exploration to assess any opportunities to enhance their engagement in the workplace.

8. The GLB workplace discourse is currently dominated by research from the United States and requires an enhanced Canadian perspective.

Overall, enhanced insight will help practitioners better create expansive learning environments for all facets of Queer in the workplace. Indeed, because GLB workers are human beings in the workplace, it is the responsibility of each and every employer to engage themselves, and others, in conscious-raising surrounding GLB issues in order for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people to enjoy full participation in the workplace.