Search results

There is a gap in understanding with regards to the discrimination and prejudice experienced by gay entrepreneurs. To address this, an intersectional perspective is adopted to facilitate a better understanding of how lesbian and gay entrepreneurs may experience heterosexism.

This qualitative study uses semi-structured interviews to explore the experiences of 14 lesbian and gay entrepreneurs as they navigate homophobia and heterosexism.

The study contributes novel insights to the field of entrepreneurship, extending the study of lesbian and gay entrepreneurs to include gender and a fine-grained analysis of the experience of heterosexism. Its inclusion of an intersectional perspective of the lesbian-female entrepreneur expands the emerging body of literature examining intersectional identities of minority entrepreneurs.

The authors provide a more nuanced understanding of the impact of heterosexism on LGBT+ entrepreneurial activities. This is facilitated by the authors' adoption of an intersectional perspective which shows how the different axes of identity influenced gender identity performance in relation to the model of perceived neutrality in LGBT+ entrepreneurship. The authors also make an original contribution to minority stress literature through the authors' exploration of one facet of minority entrepreneurship, namely the impact of heterosexism on LGBT+ entrepreneurial activities.

Lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) employees constitute one of the largest, but least studied, minority groups in the workforce. This article examines what we know, and what we need to know, about the career and workplace experiences of this understudied population. The construct of sexual identity is defined, followed by a review of the research on sexual orientation in the workplace. Then an analysis of the differences between LGB employees and other stigmatized groups is presented. Three unique challenges facing LGB employees are identified, and conceptual models are developed that explain underlying processes. Finally, career theories are critically analyzed, and an identity-based longitudinal theory of LGB careers is presented.

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals experience institutionalized prejudice within society and in their working lives. This prejudice increases the stress that these individuals experience within the workplace. Thus, in this chapter, we outline the mechanisms of LGB-workplace stress, detailing the antecedents, outcomes, and strategies to remediate this form of stress. We first outline theoretical conceptualizations of workplace stress before explaining how sexual orientation minorities experience additional workplace stressors due to their specific, stigmatized identities. Then, we explain how the stressors of formal discrimination, interpersonal discrimination, stigma consciousness, internalized heterosexism, concealment, and social isolation each contribute to workplace stress and ultimately health and workplace outcomes. Finally, we discuss several strategies that organizations, stigmatized individuals, and allies can engage in to prevent and cope with each of these LGB-related workplace stressors. In so doing, this chapter encourages researchers and practitioners to continue to develop more comprehensive and effective strategies to combat the negative outcomes experienced by these and all other stigmatized employees, thereby promoting more healthy and inclusive organizations.

Social identity shaped by sexual orientation is unique because it is invisible (as compared to age and some ethnic identities); a circumstance that may activate homophobia perceptions when an individual’s sexual orientation becomes fodder for speculation. Chapter 7 enjoins a wide variety of related issues in order to sharpen a focus on sex in the workplace; love and sex in the literal sense, as well as social identity shaped by sexual orientation, sex-based discrimination, sex as political action, and important ways that sex intersects with other social identity dimensions including age, gender, ethnicity/race, and socioeconomic status. An important distinction made throughout the chapter is the degree that protections are offered to various groups with regard to sex and work. These protections (or lack of them) are critical for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, the transgendered, and queer or questioning people who consider whether or not to disclose information about their sexual identity at work.

While many multinational corporations have adopted policies or guidelines and implemented programs to communicate an inclusive perspective on sexual identity in the workplace and to promote diversity training for all employees, too few workplaces around the globe offer legal protections for workers relative to sexual identity. People are subject to workplace discrimination whether they are gay or lesbian, or simply appear to be so and sexual harassment according to gender remains a fixture of organizations. To explore the organizational research on sexuality, Chapter 7 attends to subthemes of: love, lust, and sex-based harassment in the workplace; how organizations address sexual orientation and sex-based harassment in the workplace; managing one’s sexual identity in the workplace; and intersectionalities of sexual identity with ethnicity, gender, and social class.

Through scholarly personal narrative (Nash, 2004), this chapter outlines a multifaceted approach to creating safer brave spaces for queer and trans students within a predominantly Hispanic-serving, public research university with a mainly commuter student population in South Florida. All spaces require courageous acts of authenticity on the part of its occupants. Thus, the creation of safer brave spaces is acknowledged as a practice since safety is an ideal to be worked toward especially for those with less power and privilege, such as queer and trans people as opposed to straight and cisgender people. Experiences of heterosexism and cisgenderism are positively associated with psychological distress among queer and trans college students (Goldberg, Kuvalanka, & Black, 2019; Sue, 2010; Woodford, Kulick, Sinco, & Hong, 2014). Research suggests empowerment and the acquisition of power is a positive coping mechanism for resisting and overcoming experiences of heterosexism and cisgenderism (Mizock, 2017; Nadal, Davidoff, Davis, & Wong, 2014; Todoroff, 1995). Administrators are called upon to mindfully create spaces that empower queer and trans students. Quick tips throughout the chapter highlight that queer and trans students should be given opportunities to determine their own risks, choose their own mentors, create their own spaces, have their own voices centered, realize their own solutions, fail and learn from setbacks, and deconstruct systems of power. At the University level, administrators should work to educate and change policies that further support students' opportunities to courageously exist and persist authentically in spaces across the university as a whole and not just in designated centers.

Using early recruitment and workplace diversity literature, the purpose of this paper is to investigate how employee recruitment statements regarding employment-at-will moderate the effect that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT)-supportive recruitment statements have on job seekers’ job pursuit intentions (JPI) and attraction toward a firm.

A between-subjects, cross-sectional experimental design was used where subjects answered self-report questionnaires after viewing mock recruitment web ads. The ads included statements where the condition for job security or at-will employment and GLBT-supportive or equal opportunity employment climates were manipulated.

The paper provides empirical insights about how gay-friendly work climate perceptions impact the organizational attractiveness and JPI of job seekers. Furthermore, the results suggest that the combination of recruitment strategies affect subjects differently based on their individual level of heterosexist attitudes.

Because of the chosen research approach, research results may lack generalizability and be affected by social desirability effects. Because a cross-sectional design was used, causality cannot necessarily be inferred. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to test the proposed propositions further.

The implications of these findings will assist human resources managers in creating cultures of tolerance within their workforce by helping them better understand who their recruitment methods target, and how to effectively use statements in recruitment literature to attract tolerant workers.

There is limited research that investigates the effects that diversity statements supportive of sexual minorities have on job seekers. A major contribution of the current study is the empirical evidence supporting the understanding of how individuals are affected by recruitment literature containing statements in support of sexual orientation employee diversity.

This paper seeks to identify, examine, and discuss the unique challenges for lesbians who serve in leadership positions in corporate America.

Drawing upon a multi‐disciplinary framework of management, diversity, feminist, and leadership literature, the paper critically examines the myriad of pressures exerted upon all women in leadership positions, and then identifies the pressures that are specific and unique for lesbians.

There are pressures that are unique for lesbian leaders. These pressures include negotiating the heterosexism of the organization; invisibility versus visibility, and gender expression and gender role expectations.

The paper provides implications for human resource development to assume a stronger and more active role in uncovering tacit issues embedded in leadership so that organizational workplaces become locations of greater equity, access, and fairness for all who aspire to leadership positions.

The purpose of this paper is to further the understanding of experiences of anti-social behaviour in LGBTIQ+ youth in university settings.

The discussion reflects on qualitative interviews with LGBTIQ+ young people studying at university (n=16) exploring their experiences of anti-social behaviour including harassment, bullying and victimisation in tertiary settings.

The findings demonstrate that attention should be paid to the complex nature of anti-social behaviour. In particular, LGBTIQ+ youth documented experiences of microaggressions perpetrated by other members of the LGBTIQ+ community. Using the taxonomy of anti-social behaviour against LGBTIQ+ people developed by Nadal et al. (2010, 2011), the authors build on literature that understands microaggressions against LGBTIQ+ people as a result of heterosexism, to address previously unexplored microaggressions perpetrated by other LGBTIQ+ people.

Future research could seek a larger sample of participants from a range of universities, as campus climate may influence the experiences and microaggressions perpetrated.

Individuals within the LGBTIQ+ community also perpetrate microaggressions against LGBTIQ+ people, including individuals with the same sexual orientation and gender identity as the victim. Those seeking to respond to microaggressions need to attune their attention to this source of anti-social behaviour.

Previous research has focused on microaggressions and hate crimes perpetrated by non-LGBTIQ+ individuals. This research indicates the existence of microaggressions perpetrated by LGBTIQ+ community members against other LGBTIQ+ persons. The theoretical taxonomy of sexual orientation and transgender microaggressions is expanded to address LGBTIQ+ perpetrated anti-social behaviour.

Systematic oppression and marginalization of queer (sometimes also referred to as LGBTQ) people has affected all aspects of U.S. society, including education at all levels. Despite the heavy policing of queer sexuality and gender both inside and outside higher education, these aspects of identity have been overlooked in educational policy. This paper discusses federal educational policy that affects queer students, faculty, and staff in higher education.

Discussion in this paper is informed by three guiding tenets: sexuality is both central and marginal to queer identities; trans* identities are both inclusive of and beyond those who are in the process of confirming their gender identity through hormones and/or surgery; discussion of educational policy must acknowledge queer theory’s utility and nonutility.

The status of queer people in colleges and universities is reviewed first. Then, challenges of developing policy to address queer issues are acknowledged, while also illustrating recent policy changes and judicial rulings that have positive implications for queer people in higher education.

The paper concludes by identifying remaining gaps and recommendations for future policy development, including the need for federal nondiscrimination laws that cover sexual and gender minorities and restructuring policies for queer inclusion.