A review of the LGBTQ+ work–family interface: What do we know and where do we go from here?

• Author: Lauren D. Murphy,Alexius E. Hartman,Haley R. Cobb,Candice L. Thomas
• Published date: 01 February 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2492
• Date: 01 February 2021

THE JOB ANNUAL REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL

DEVELOPMENT ISSUE

A review of the LGBTQ+ work–family interface: What do we

know and where do we go from here?

Lauren D. Murphy | Candice L. Thomas | Haley R. Cobb | Alexius E. Hartman

Department of Psychology, Saint Louis

University, Saint Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.

Correspondence

Lauren D. Murphy, Department of Psychology,

Saint Louis University, 3700 Lindell Boulevard,

Morrissey Hall, Saint Louis, MO 63108, U.S.A.

Email: lauren.d.murphy@slu.edu

Summary

Work–family research has blossomed over the past several decades but mostly

remains focused on traditional couples and heteronormative individuals. However,

research suggests that LGBTQ+ employees face unique challenges, such as discrimi-

nation and stigma, that impact their work–family interface in ways that current

work–family research may not be fully capturing. We propose a review and synthesis

that summarize current LGBTQ+ and work–family literature with four primary goals:

(1) identify predictors and outcomes of the work–family interface for LGBTQ+

employees, (2) integrate empirical findings and current theory into a recently

developed framework to delineate our understanding of LGBTQ+ work–family expe-

riences, (3) provide direction for future research, and (4) provide recommendations

on translating the current findings into practice. Our results identify k= 74 studies

that cover the work–family interface and LGBTQ+ individuals. This comprehensive

and integrated review will help inform researchers on how to best address unique

research questions for LGBTQ+ employees and provide employers with empirical

evidence as they develop inclusive policies, cultures, and workforces.

KEYWORDS

LGBT, review, sexual orientation, work–family

1|INTRODUCTION

Work–family research has grown exponentially over the last few

decades and is of interest to scholars across a variety of disciplines

(e.g., organizational behavior, management, human resource manage-

ment, and applied psychology). However, even the most seminal work

in this interface does not acknowledge that lesbian, gay, bisexual,

transgender, and queer+ (LGBTQ+) employees and their experiences

may vary compared with heterosexual families. LGBTQ+ employees

represent a significant subset of employees within the United States:

approximately 6.28% of the workforce in the United States identified

as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (Burns, Barton, & Kerby,

2012). As society grows to embrace and support the LGBTQ+

community, the number of individuals publicly identifying as LGBTQ+,

living in same-sex households (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019), and raising

children in LGBTQ+ families (Gates, 2015) is increasing. Because of

this, organizations can expect a growing obligation to address the

needs of nonheteronormative family structures. To properly address

LGBTQ+ family experiences, both researchers and employers need to

focus more attention on how employees with diverse sexual identities

may have needs unique from their heterosexual counterparts. A major

goal of our review is to contribute to this area by summarizing what is

known about this group thus far, as well as suggest future directions

for both research and practice.

The current review expands beyond other reviews concerning

similar topics (e.g., King, Huffman, & Peddie, 2013; McFadden, 2015;

It is important to note that the current study strives to be all-encompassing and use inclusive

language when discussing the LGBTQ+ community. However, the initialism will beshortened

throughout the following text when the research discussed studied alimited population of

this group (e.g., LGB).

Received: 30 September 2019 Revised: 14 September 2020 Accepted: 9 November 2020

DOI: 10.1002/job.2492

J Organ Behav. 2021;42:139–161. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 139

Webster, Adams, Maranto, Sawyer, & Thoroughgood, 2018) by pro-

viding a contemporary, integrated, and exhaustive review of the

research on LGBTQ+ work–family interface. Past reviews have given

brief overviews of quantitative and qualitative findings and have

applied existing work–family theories (e.g., role theory) to LGBTQ+

families (e.g., King, Huffman, & Peddie, 2013). Themes such as iden-

tity, discrimination, and social issues have been systematically applied

to offer recommendations for LGBTQ+ employees navigating their

minority identity at work (e.g., McFadden, 2015). However, over the

last few years, we have seen both societal (Witeck, 2014) and legal

(Pew Research Center, 2015; Widiss, 2016) shifts concerning LGBTQ

+ individuals, along with an increase in publications studying the

population's work–family experiences. Additional research and

changes within laws and societal perspectives warrant an updated and

comprehensive catalog of the current literature. More recently,

Webster, Adams, Maranto, Sawyer, and Thoroughgood (2018) quanti-

fied the sparse and scattered relationships in the literature by

presenting meta-analytic findings of workplace contextual supports

and their influence on individual-level outcomes. We expand on their

findings by focusing on the work–family interface and discussing

bidirectionality, dyadic relationships, and interpersonal outcomes

within a comprehensive theoretical framework. Building off prior

reviews, our systematic and multidisciplinary review synthesizes the

current literature by (1) identifying prominent antecedents and conse-

quences of the work–family interface for LGBTQ+ employees, (2) out-

lining common trends regarding research on LGBTQ+ employees and

their families, (3) expanding on recent theoretical models concerning

LGBTQ+ work–family experiences, and (4) providing recommenda-

tions for future research and translating the findings into practice.

2|LGBTQ+ FAMILIES: CALLS FOR

INCLUSION IN RESEARCH, FAMILY

DEFINITIONS, AND ORGANIZATIONS

Over the last several decades, work–family research has emerged and

continues to grow (e.g., Allen & Martin, 2017). Given the increase of

mothers in the workforce (U.S. Department of Labor, 2016), the onset

of technology creating “overwork”culture (Miller, 2015), and the nor-

malcy of work schedules that blur boundaries (i.e., telecommuting)

(Allen, Golden, & Shockley, 2015), the work–family interface has

become a central focus of occupational health psychology. The litera-

ture covers a variety of major themes, such as negative spillover into

the family domain (e.g., Crouter, 1984) and the incompatibility of role

demands that creates work–family conflict (WFC; Greenhaus &

Beutell, 1985). Research has also begun to acknowledge different

family types (e.g., single and divorced parents) and shifts in the

division of labor (i.e., men's increased household involvement)

(e.g., Gerson, 2010). One such example is the focus on maternal

well-being and implications for children as more and more families are

led by dual-earner couples (Allen & Finkelstein, 2014). Although there

has been a recent deviation from solely studying traditional

family types, work–family scholars are still being nudged to include

underrepresented populations in their research and to more

accurately understand the current diversity in employees' family and

work relationships (e.g., Agars & French, 2016).

Just as researchers work to expand their understanding of hetero-

sexual employees' varying family structures (e.g., single-parent

families, adoptive families, and coparenting families), LGBTQ+ parents

also need to be considered in work–family research; LGBTQ+ family

structure is often not legitimized both socially and legally (Agars &

French, 2016). The lack of consistent recognition for LGBTQ+ families

in the literature is disadvantageous and prevents the dissemination of

empirically supported advice to organizations and employees. For

example, we know little about how work–life balance policies affect

LGBTQ+ employees and their families (Stavrou & Ierodiakonou,

2018), how one's sexual minority identity may create unique WFC

(Sawyer, Thoroughgood, & Cleveland, 2015), or how existing

work–family measures can be interpreted differently across hetero-

sexual and LGB populations (Sawyer, 2012). Without sufficient

evidence and understanding, work–family research will continue to

fall short for LGBTQ+ employees.

2.1 |Changes in family conceptualization

As of 2018, there are nearly one million same-sex couple households

in the United States (U. S. Census Bureau, 2019). It is evident that the

conceptualization of family is shifting, and a variety of familial

structures should be included in the definition of family. From an

economic, social, organizational, and legislative standpoint, family is

narrowly defined and therefore can be exclusionary to a wide variety

of family structures. As researchers, it is necessary that we broaden

the scope of this definition in our review and include all familial

relationships. Discussing the social construction of family, Beauregard,

Ozbilgin, and Bell (2009) used the definition, “a collective of two or

more individuals who are in a relationship of interdependence

towards shared vision and goals”(p. 47). We adopt this conceptualiza-

tion in order to encompass all nontraditional family structures and

better understand LGBTQ+ employees' experiences with respect to

the work–family interface. We encourage other work–family

researchers to do so as well.

2.2 |Organizations' recognition of LGBTQ+ family

needs

Public media has recently increased its attention to include the

experiences of LGBTQ+ employees and the need to provide inclusive

workplace policies. Major US corporations (e.g., Walmart, Apple,

AT&T, and Chevron) are striving to provide nondiscrimination policies,

equal family-related policies, and an inclusive culture with corporate

social responsibility (Human Rights Campaign, 2019a). Many of these

businesses are taking to social media to report their achievements and

express their commitment to working toward LGBTQ+ inclusiveness

at their organization (Human Rights Campaign, 2019a). It appears that

140 MURPHY ET AL.