Workplace contextual supports for LGBT employees: A review, meta‐analysis, and agenda for future research

• Author: Jennica R. Webster,Cheryl L. Maranto,Gary A. Adams,Katina Sawyer,Christian Thoroughgood
• Published date: 01 January 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21873
• Date: 01 January 2018

HR SCIENCE FORUM

Workplace contextual supports for LGBT employees:

A review, meta-analysis, and agenda for future research

Jennica R. Webster

1

| Gary A. Adams

1

| Cheryl L. Maranto

1

| Katina Sawyer

2

|

Christian Thoroughgood

2

1

Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

2

Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania

Correspondence

Jennica R. Webster, Marquette University,

P.O. Box 1881, Milwaukee, WI 53201.

Email: jennica.webster@marquette.edu

The past decade has witnessed a rise in the visibility of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgen-

der (LGBT) community. This has resulted in some organizational researchers focusing their

attention on workplace issues facing LGBT employees. While empirical research has been

appropriately focused on examining the impact of workplace factors on the work lives of LGBT

individuals, no research has examined these empirical relationships cumulatively. The purpose

of this study was to conduct a comprehensive review and meta-analysis of the outcomes asso-

ciated with three workplace contextual supports (formal LGBT policies and practices, LGBT-

supportive climate, and supportive workplace relationships) and to compare the relative influ-

ence of these workplace supports on outcomes. Outcomes were grouped into four categories:

(a) work attitudes, (b) psychological strain, (c) disclosure, and (d) perceived discrimination.

Results show that supportive workplace relationships were more strongly related to work atti-

tudes and strain, whereas LGBT supportive climate was more strongly related to disclosure and

perceived discrimination compared to the other supports. Our findings also revealed a number

of insights concerning the measurement, research design, and sample characteristics of the

studies in the present review. Based on these results, we offer an agenda for future research.

KEYWORDS

bisexual, gay, lesbian, LGBT, transgender, workplace diversity

1|INTRODUCTION

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) employees comprise a

significant portion of the workforce. It is estimated that approxi-

mately 8 million people, or 3.5% of the U.S population, identify as

LGBT (Gates, 2011). This is a conservative estimate, given that LGBT

identities can be invisible and, as a result, some LGBT employees

decide to conceal their identities (King, Mohr, Peddie, Jones, & Ken-

dra, 2014). Indeed, deciding whether to disclose at work is often a

challenging process that is accompanied by fear and anxiety due to

the stigma associated with LGBT identities (Ragins, Singh, & Corn-

well, 2007; Trau, 2015). Although public perceptions of LGBT people

have become increasingly more positive in the United States, a large

portion of Americans (45%) still believe that being gay is a sin (Drake,

2013), and attitudes toward gender nonconformity are even more

unfavorable (Norton & Herek, 2013). Due in large part to social

stigma, employees who identify as LGBT are at greater risk of unfair

treatment, systematic oppression, and even violence. For example, a

2008 survey by the Williams Institute found that 38% of LGB

employees reported being harassed at work, and 27% experienced

employment discrimination based on their sexual orientation (Sears &

Mallory, 2011). More strikingly, in the National Transgender Discrimi-

nation Survey, approximately 78% of transgender employees

reported being harassed or mistreated at work, and 47% reported

being discriminated against in terms of hiring, promotion, or job

retention (Grant et al., 2010).

These negative experiences of LGBT workers not only stem from

stigma, but also from a lack of federal legislation that protects LGBT

employees from harassment and discrimination. While some states

have instituted laws that cover LGBT harassment and discrimination

directly, 30 states have no laws protecting the employment rights of

LGBT individuals, and 3 states specifically prohibit the passage of

DOI: 10.1002/hrm.21873

Hum Resour Manage. 2018;57:193–210. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrm © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 193

such laws. This leaves approximately 52% of LGBT people living in

states where they are especially vulnerable to harassment and dis-

crimination at work (Movement Advancement Project, 2016). Con-

fronted with mistreatment and an incomplete patchwork of legal

protections, many organizations have recognized the “social and eco-

nomic imperative”(Day & Greene, 2008; King & Cortina, 2010) of

offering LGBT-supportive policies (Armstrong et al., 2010). In fact,

93% of Fortune 500 companies include sexual orientation and 75%

include gender identity in their nondiscrimination policies (Human

Rights Campaign, 2016).

Inconsistencies in legal and organizational protections for LGBT

employees across states and organizations have prompted

researchers to examine the impact of workplace contextual supports

on the work experiences and decisions of LGBT employees. Theoreti-

cal frameworks have been proposed to provide a better understand-

ing of these experiences, with most focusing on the management of

LGBT identities at work and across life domains (Croteau, Anderson, &

VanderWal, 2008). Two of the most prominent of these models are

the Home-Work Disclosure Model (Ragins, 2004, 2008) and the

Interpersonal Diversity Disclosure Model (Clair, Beatty, & MacLean,

2005). While these two models offer slightly different perspectives,

both agree on the importance of three common workplace contextual

supports that are expected to exacerbate or alleviate the effects of

negative work experiences for employees with stigmatized identities:

formal LGBT policies and practices, an LGBT-supportive climate, and

supportive workplace relationships.

While empirical research has been appropriately focused on

examining the impact of contextual supports on the work experiences

of LGBT employees, no research has examined these relationships

cumulatively. Narrative reviews of the literature characterize the

results of peer-reviewed studies examining the impact of contextual

supports as decidedly mixed (Curtis & Dreachslin, 2008) and lacking

in terms of empirical integration (Croteau et al., 2008). As a result,

researchers are faced with a literature that presents mixed results

from an assortment of studies on a wide array of variables, which

lacks a coherent framework. The lack of integration and presence of

mixed results provides an opportunity to fill an important gap in the

literature that would help to advance progress in this area for both

researchers and practitioners alike (Kulik & Roberson, 2008). More

specifically, synthesizing existing research, developing a cohesive

framework, and shedding light on the relative importance of contex-

tual supports on the workplace experiences of LGBT employees

could be used to enhance understanding and advance theory. Addi-

tionally, such work will provide guidance for practitioners who seek

to make their organizations more welcoming and inclusive of LGBT

employees by providing some clarity regarding the types of work-

place contextual supports that are most effective.

The purpose of the present study is to fill this gap in the litera-

ture by undertaking a cumulative review of nearly two decades of

empirical research on the effects of workplace contextual supports

(i.e., formal LBGT policies and practices, LGBT-supportive workplace

climate, and peer and leader support) on LGBT employees' work

experiences. In so doing, we contribute to the literature in four ways.

First, by adopting commonalities across the prominent conceptual

works in this area, we provide an overarching framework with which

to organize and summarize the often fragmented and diffuse litera-

ture on LGBT workplace contextual supports and outcomes. Research

in this area spans several disciplines, including psychology, psychiatry,

sociology, and business, each of which brings its own theoretical and

empirical approaches to studying this topic. While these multiple per-

spectives do advance the literature, they can also make it difficult to

draw firm conclusions. The integrative approach taken here will allow

scholars to use existing cumulative knowledge to inform subsequent

theory building and empirical research. Second, we extend previous

conceptual models of disclosure decisions across life domains

(e.g., Clair et al., 2005; Ragins, 2008) to a broader set of work out-

comes. Better understanding the multiple ways in which workplace

contextual supports may impact LGBT employees is important for

researchers but also for practitioners tasked with justifying the devel-

opment and implementation of workplace diversity initiatives. Third,

we build on and overcome limitations inherent in narrative reviews

by quantifying the direction and magnitude of the relationships

between workplace contextual supports for LGBT employees and

each of these outcomes. Finally, we compare the relative relation-

ships among the three types of workplace contextual supports and

outcomes using dominance analysis. This allows us to compare the

relative importance of various types of supports on the work lives of

LGBT employees. Disentangling the impact that these supports have

on outcomes of interest will enable policy makers to make more

informed decisions on how to create more inclusive, equitable, and

supportive work environments. Taken together, these contributions

inform and advance knowledge about LGBT experiences at work and

practice aimed at increasing LGBT inclusivity.

2|WORKPLACE CONTEXTUAL SUPPORTS

Although all workers can benefit from working in supportive work

contexts, contextual support is especially important for employees

with LGBT identities (Huffman, Watrous-Rodriguez, & King, 2008).

This is recognized in two of the most prominent models used to

describe the workplace experiences of those with invisible stigmas [i.-

e., the Interpersonal Diversity Disclosure Model (Clair et al., 2005)

and the Home-Work Disclosure Model (Ragins, 2004, 2008)]. Both

models call attention to personal (e.g., individual differences in per-

sonality) and contextual factors that help determine the workplace

experiences of those with invisible stigmas. A complete review of all

of the variables in these two models is beyond the scope of this

study. Rather, we focus on the contextual supports identified by

these models because they are the most often studied, most under

an organization's control, and most relevant to both human resource

management and individual workers.

Both the Interpersonal Diversity Disclosure Model (Clair et al.,

2005) and the Home-Work Disclosure Model (Ragins, 2004, 2008)

are based on stigma theory (Goffman, 1963). As described by Goff-

man (1963), a stigma is a “mark”or “badge”that indicates to others

that someone possesses a characteristic that is devalued by society,

which can lead the stigmatized person to be ostracized, rejected, har-

assed, and discriminated against. This can have negative conse-

quences in terms of poor health and well-being, job loss, and the like

194 WEBSTER ET AL.