Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore the triggers to the development of sexual orientation diversity policy and practice in the UK private sector, based on the perspectives of those “championing” sexual orientation diversity work.

The paper is based on 22 in‐depth key informant interviews which can be broken down as follows: diversity specialists (5), management (6, of whom 3 were sexual orientation senior management “champions” in their organisations), trade union (3) and LGBT network group representatives (8), as well as access to company and trade union web sites and publications. Interviews sought to trace the history of sexual orientation equality and diversity work, development of structures, policies and practices as well as triggers and barriers to progress and areas of innovation.

Recent literature on equality and diversity in the British national context has sought to explore the implications of a social justice versus a business case driven equality and diversity agenda. This paper considers that this dichotomous analysis can be unhelpful. Within the private sector case studies, the difference between the two approaches was not clear‐cut. The corporate social responsibility agenda seemed to offer a broader vision for sexual orientation diversity work in a global context. It promised a more activist awareness of international human rights standards, stakeholder involvement plus links between employee and customer rights and concerns.

The paper addresses a gap in knowledge regarding sexual orientation diversity management in the UK private sector. It also considers the links between corporate social responsibility and sexual orientation diversity management.

The paper aims to focus on the activism of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) people and their allies within work organisations. Specifically, it explores whether LGBT trade union groups and company employee network groups provide mechanisms for visibility, voice and activism for LGBT employees within UK organisations.

This paper is based on in‐depth interviews with 149 LGB employees within 14 UK case study organisations. These took place within four local authorities, three fire and emergency services, two national voluntary sector organisations and five private sector organisations between 2004‐2006. In addition, 55 in‐depth interviews with management, trade union and LGBT company employee network group representatives within the organisations plus analysis of company and trade union web sites and publications provided information on organisation policy and practice. Interviews were conducted using a semi‐structured interview schedule and the data collected were coded and analysed with the assistance of Nvivo software.

This paper outlines the history of LGBT trade union groups and company employee network groups within the UK. It found that both LGBT trade union groups and company employee network groups have provided important and at times complimentary mechanisms for visibility, community and voice for LGBT employees. However, the paper recognised that LGBT company network groups were relatively “new actors” within the case study organisations and suggests that some early gains may have been those which companies were willing to concede. It concludes that more research will be needed to see whether both LGBT trade union and company employee network groups can maintain their momentum during a time of economic recession as equality and diversity budgets are squeezed.

A decline in trade unions and increasing non‐unionisation despite labour movement revitalisation campaigns has meant that there is growing interest in whether employee network groups can provide meaningful avenues for “employee voice” in both unionised and non‐unionised workplaces. The paper addresses a gap in knowledge by focusing firstly on LGBT activism in the workplace and secondly on the rationale for and development of LGBT trade union and company employee network groups as mechanisms for “employee voice” for LGBT employees.

This editorial introduces the papers within the special issue and outlines their contribution to the emerging and evolving study of sexuality and sexual orientation in organisation and management studies.

A review of some key themes within the literature on sexuality and sexual orientation is provided prior to drawing out key points within the submitted papers and considering how they contribute to this literature.

These six papers make an important contribution to the fast‐changing and evolving study of sexuality and sexual orientation in organisations and the development and implementation of equality and diversity policy and practice.

The editorial refers to papers presented at the Equality Diversity and Inclusion Conference held in Istanbul, July 2009, which included a stream entitled: “Spirals of silence? Tackling the ‘invisibility’ of the sexual orientation strand and sexuality in academic research and in organisation equality and diversity policy and practice” which can lead to reflections on the processes of voice and silence as these pertain to the discussion of sexuality and sexual orientation issues in academic organisations and at academic and practitioner conferences.

Among trade unions, women, black, disabled and lesbian and gay members are increasingly recognised as significant in the drive for increases in membership. In turn, unions have come under mounting pressure from these constituencies to ensure that their interests and concerns are represented within the union and at the bargaining table. The challenge is how to reformulate notions and practices of trade union democracy to recognise that membership is increasingly diverse and diversely politicised. Here we examine how traditional approaches to trade union democracy have been revised following demands for gender democracy and the need to reflect membership diversity, and consider whether such strategies are sufficient. We do so by drawing on research with two unions; the print union, the GPMU, a private sector industrial union where women make up only 17 per cent of the membership, and the public service union UNISON, where women are three‐quarters of the members.

Aims to present a report of a conference held at London Metropolitan University in June 2006 that presented and discussed the findings of a two‐year research project, funded by the Higher Education European Social Fund. The project investigated the experiences of LGB workers following the introduction of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulation 2003 in the United Kingdom.

The research was a qualitative study carried out in 16 case study organisations, seen as representing “good practice” in the area of employment of LGB workers. The case studies involved: the analysis of company documentation and reports; interviews with 60 management, trade union and LGBT network group representatives, a short survey and in‐depth interviews with 154 LGB employees. The case studies were supplemented by a series of 25 national key informant interviews with individuals in UK organisations representing government, employers, employees, and LGB people charged with disseminating advice and promoting good practice.

Just over half (57.8 per cent) of the LGB respondents were out to everyone at work. A third (33.8 per cent) were out to some people, while 8.4 per cent said that they were out to very few people or nobody at work. The research indicated that equal opportunities and diversity policies which include sexual orientation; the establishment and promotion of same sex benefits; positive employer and trade union signals; the existence of LGBT groups, the presence of LGB colleagues and LGB senior managers can help LGB people come out. However, LGB people may be prevented from coming out by fears about career progression; lack of visible senior LGB staff; temporary employment status; previous negative experiences of discrimination and harassment; desiring privacy; “macho” or religious attitudes/behaviours of co‐workers.

Little research exists in the UK on the experiences of LGB workers, and this is one of the first studies to focus on the experiences of LGB workers following the introduction of legislation to protect workers against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in 2003.

The purpose of this paper is to identify organisational good practice concerning equality, diversity and sexual orientation and consider the impact of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003.

The paper employs in‐depth interviews and a short survey with 154 lesbian, gay and bisexual people (LGB) and 60 interviews with management, trade union and LGB group representatives within 16 “good practice” case study organisations.

Before the introduction of the (SO) Regulations (2003), progress concerning equality, diversity and sexual orientation was made based on social justice and/or business case arguments. The research shows that an inclusive organisational response can benefit both LGB employees and their employers. However, an “implementation gap” between equality/diversity policy and practice on sexual orientation was identified. The introduction of the law as a further driver to equality action in the sexual orientation area has been positive. However, LGB employees voiced concerns about the way in which organisations rely on LGB people to come forward with complaints before tackling problems. Thus, the protection provided by the (SO) Regulations 2003, although welcomed, was not seen as a panacea to tackling discrimination and harassment on grounds of sexual orientation in the workplace. LGB respondents looked to their organisation management to provide proactive leadership on equality/diversity issues and stop treating the sexual orientation strand as the “poor relation” within the organisational drive for equality and diversity.

The paper addresses the gap in knowledge regarding LGB people's perceptions of equality/diversity policy and practice within UK workplaces, providing information on good practice for employers, trade unions, government and LGB campaigning organisations.

This paper draws upon research on women’s employment in the UK book publishing industry. Contrary to public opinion that publishing offers exceptional opportunities for women, the survey revealed that although women make up 60 per cent of the workforce, men were more than twice as likely to become managers and more than 5 times as likely to become directors. Processes contributing to gendered occupational segregation and the operation of dual labour markets are analysed in terms of “pressures” and “preferences”; mediated by a traditionally informal approach to personnel practices. Structural change is creating polarisation into large conglomerates and small specialised operations; the implications for women’s careers are discussed briefly.

The purpose of this paper is to consider whether lesbians may experience an “advantage” in non‐traditionally female work compared to heterosexual women, but argues for an intersectional approach to understanding the relationship between gender, sexuality and class in male‐dominated work.

The research uses semi‐structured interviews with women working transport and construction, focusing here on an analysis of 13 interviews with lesbian workers, eight working in transport and five in construction, representing both professional/managerial and skilled manual occupations.

The paper considers the question of whether lesbians may experience an “advantage” in non‐traditionally female work compared to heterosexual women, but finds that their experience is complicated by other factors such as ethnicity, class and organisational culture. Organisational response and practice in relation to sexual orientation is found to be equally significant in shaping the realities of working lives for lesbians in traditionally male work.

The findings in this paper are based on an analysis of interviews with lesbians drawn from a larger research project examining the experience of both heterosexual and lesbian women working in the transport and construction sectors.

The paper addresses a gap in the literature on lesbian experience in non‐traditionally female work and aims to contribute to knowledge of the diversity of lesbian experience through examining the working lives of lesbians in both professional and skilled manual roles.

The purpose of this paper is to look beyond the issue of disclosure/non‐disclosure in the workplace, to explore the ways gay men challenge, negotiate and conform in the two‐way process of managing their identities in what Jenkins terms the interaction order. In the validation of their external identities, the author aims to identify critical incidents and experiences in gay men's working lives in which they have resisted or challenged identities, labels and stereotypes ascribed by others.

Data were gathered through ten semi‐structured interviews with self‐identified gay men in a wide range of occupations and age ranges working in Bournemouth, UK.

The data focus on the fluidity of identity and the impact of organisational context. In their self‐presentations a number of strategies were deployed. The respondents experienced exclusion, stereotyping, being viewed as a piece of curiosity, silence, discomfort and a marked identity in the eyes of others. In response to these reactions, themes of compliance, conformity and adopting an educator role were uncovered.

Although the findings presented are not necessarily generalizable, themes of exclusion, silence and marked identities were uncovered that echo many previous studies of gay men's experiences in the workplace.

Little research has been done on identity management in the workplace beyond the issue of disclosure of sexual identity. In particular, there has been limited focus on how gay men challenge, negotiate and modify the labels and social identities ascribed by others in what Jenkins terms the interaction order. Nor does there seem to be any research on whether gay men have modified the management of their social identities throughout their working lives.