LGBTQ+ Microaggressions in the
Workplace
Heer Shah
Queer Academia by Mendlife Foundation
Abstract
Microaggressions are “subtle forms of discrimination that
convey hostile, derogatory, or negative slights and insults toward members of
oppressed groups” (Galupo, 2016). They may be present behaviourally, verbally
or through spoken and unspoken norms and policies. In recent years, attention
has shifted to microaggressions experienced by members of the LGBTQ+ community
in the workplace. These may be in the form of heterosexist language, enforced
dress codes and behaviours that isolate sexual minority employees, leading to
poor job satisfaction, productivity, self-esteem, etc. This article will review
the kinds of workplace microaggressions, how they affect employees, and
possible solutions to microaggressions.
Keywords: microaggressions, workplace, LGBTQ+, transgender
Microaggressions in the workplace
are defined as “everyday verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities,
whether intentional or unintentional, that convey hostile, derogatory, or
negative slights and insults toward members of oppressed groups” (Galupo & Resnick, 2016). For the LGBTQ+ community and for
those who are gender non-conforming, these microaggressions are witnessed
through workplace policies, workplace climate and organizational structure,
often leading to the employee experiencing poor workplace relationships and
interactions (Galupo
& Resnick, 2016). Microaggressions are not a minor form of discrimination,
rather a more subtle, ambiguous way of expressing prejudice, though the message
to the victim remains the same- “You are not accepted here” (Paludi, 2012).
Through a qualitative focus group,
consisting of gay, lesbian and bisexual participants, Nadal et al. (2011) collected
instances of microaggressions, with eight themes emerging from the responses-
Use of heterosexist language included using derogatory terms such as “dyke” and
“faggot” in comments and jokes; endorsement of
heteronormative culture included being asked to embrace heteronormative
styles of communication, dressing and behaviour, along with being told to hide
their orientations; an assumption of universal LGB experience, i.e.,
heterosexual individuals making assumptions (dressing style, interests, occupation
etc.) about others on the basis of their sexual orientation; exoticization,
which involves being dehumanized and objectified by heterosexual individuals;
experiencing discomfort or even disapproval due to one’s sexual orientation;
denying the existence of heterosexist behaviours and language; assuming sexual
pathology, i.e., being regarded as abnormally sexual, making connections
between being gay and having HIV/AIDS, and often being viewed as sexual
predators; verbal and physical threats, though not subtle, are also considered
to be microaggressions that create hostile environments for members of the LGB
community.
For members of the transgender
community, these microaggressions are particularly difficult to deal with.
Transgender individuals have to often negotiate whether or not to come out at
work, due to fears of harassment and losing their job, and those who do come
out, face hardships in getting co-workers, especially management, in using
their chosen names and correct pronouns (Dietert
& Dentice, 2009). Brewster et al. (2014) conducted qualitative interviews
with 139 transgender individuals, in relation to their experience in
transitioning at work. Almost all participants reported facing discrimination
of varying severity, from immediately losing their job to being left out of
events, being ridiculed and isolated. For some participants, the lack of legal
protection led to major crises in their career, including being denied
promotions and being terminated for transitioning at work. The study also
revealed the problematic nature of working in gendered environments, where
dress codes are enforced, leading to obstructions in their gender expression
and where office space is gendered (restrooms, locker rooms), going as far as
being denied entry to restrooms (Brewster et al., 2014).
What effects do these subtle
discriminations have on its victims? Research shows that individuals who suffer
workplace microaggressions linked to their sexual orientation experience mental
health disparities, feel embarrassed and ashamed, belittled, angry and often,
uncomfortable with their identity and with coming out (Nadal et al., 2011).
Smith and Ingram (2004) found that a heterosexist work environment, along with unsupportive
social interactions, such as minimizing experiences of heterosexism, are
positively correlated to psychological distress and depression among LGB
employees. Through an intersectional approach, Zurbrügg and Miner (2016) found
that sexual minority women experience the highest levels of workplace
incivility, in comparison to their male and heterosexual counterparts. This
finding is supported by the selective incivility theory, which states that
members of low-status social groups such as women, minority races, and sexual
minorities, are more likely to experience uncivil behavior due to their
membership in these groups (Cortina, 2008). Beyond psychological distress,
Rabelo and Cortina (2014) found that higher the severity of harassment and
lower the support from management, higher the job dissatisfaction,
disengagement and burnout experienced by the victims.
Though it might seem that only a
small percentage of the population suffers from workplace discriminatory
practices, the reality is that such behavior has far reaching consequences. A
World Bank report that estimates the economic costs of stigma against the
LGBTQ+ community in India (Badgett, 2014) suggests that discriminatory behavior
against LGBTQ+ employees leads to low productivity and output, reduced
investment in human capital due to discrimination faced in education
institutions and loss of output due to health outcomes of stigma such as
depression. This report is supplemented by a 2011-2012 survey conducted among
Indian lesbian, gay and bisexual employees working in Indian and multinational
engineering, financial and software organizations, 80% of whom have reported
hearing anti-gay sentiments, homophobic jokes and comments at work, and almost
all of them have experienced harassment at work (MINGLE, 2011). Another survey
of more than 300 Indian, white-collar LGBTQ+ employees found that 56% of these
employees had experienced discrimination on the basis of their sexual
orientation (Hewlett et al., 2013).
Researchers have investigated ways
in which workplaces can be made inclusive for the queer community and
non-gender conforming employees. When searching for solutions, research finds
that the issue often lies with generalized statements of inclusivity that make
it problematic to police specific and subtle microaggressions, such as
excluding LGBTQ+ employees from social events (Galupo & Resnick, 2016).
They suggest using specific language and providing examples to employees.
Sawyer and Thoroughgood (2017) provide a list of practices for gender expression
inclusivity in an organization, such as gender neutral dress codes and
inclusive restroom policies. They also recommend greater contact between
employees and the transgender community and provision of diversity training. On
an organizational level, they suggest changing HR and Legal functions to make
them more inclusive. An inclusive workplace is not only beneficial to the
employees, but the organization as well. Research finds that in government
agencies in America, LGBT employees are
less likely to intend to turnover if they perceive their work environment to be
inclusive, empowering and supportive (Sabharwal et al., 2019).
In India, a survey has discovered
that many Indian organizations are yet to make even broad LGBTQ+ friendly
policies. Of the 100 LGBTQ+ employees in the survey, working in IT, FMCG and
Manufacturing and Banking and Finance industries, only 48% work at companies
that have sexual orientation based non-discrimination policies and only 4%
offer same-sex partner benefits. The survey recommends that organizations in
India can change corporate culture though steps such as organizing Employee
Resource Groups for LGBT employees and their allies, displaying visible support
from senior management, sensitization training, and participation in major
LGBTQ+ events, such as Pride parades, providing Corporate Social Responsibility
sponsorship LGBTQ+ events and groups (MINGLE, 2016).
Microaggressions are not jokes that are misinterpreted, but serious forms of discrimination. Their subtle nature makes it easier for them to slip through the cracks, often leaving the victim wondering if an offense has actually occurred. If they do choose to respond to the microaggression, due to lack of sufficient laws protecting them, LGBTQ+ employees may suffer from retribution from colleagues, ostracization, and in severe cases, termination. On a personal level, microaggressions have a severely negative effect on the victim’s psychological well-being, and in a workplace, such effects lead to feelings of dissatisfaction and isolation, which may result in resignation from the job. Workplaces need to become more open to the diverse world we live in, if they hope to engage in and develop a productive and safe organizational environment. Engaging with and understanding the LGBTQ+ community and putting in specific legal safeguards are the first steps in making an inclusive and encouraging work environment for all employees.
References
Badgett,
M. (2014). The economic cost of stigma
and the exclusion of LGBT people: A case study of India.
Brewster,
M. E., Velez, B. L., Mennicke, A., & Tebbe, E. (2014). Voices from beyond:
A thematic content analysis of transgender employees’ workplace experiences. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender
Diversity, 1(2), 159.
Brower,
T. (2013). What’s in the closet: Dress and appearance codes and lessons from
sexual orientation. Equality, Diversity
and Inclusion: An International Journal, 32(5), 491–502. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-02-2013-0006
Cortina,
L. M. (2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in
organizations. Academy of Management
Review, 33(1), 55–75.
Dietert,
M., & Dentice, D. (2009). Gender Identity Issues and Workplace
Discrimination: The Transgender Experience. Journal
of Workplace Rights, 14(1),
121–140. https://doi.org/10.2190/WR.14.1.g
Galupo,
M. P., & Resnick, C. A. (2016). Experiences of LGBT Microaggressions in the
Workplace: Implications for Policy. In T. Köllen (Ed.), Sexual Orientation and Transgender Issues in Organizations: Global
Perspectives on LGBT Workforce Diversity (pp. 271–287). Springer
International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_16
Hewlett,
S.A., Sears, T., Sumberg, K., Fargnoli, C. (2013). The Power of “Out” 2.0: LGBT
in the Workplace, New York: Center for Talent Innovation.
Nadal,
K. L., Issa, M.-A., Leon, J., Meterko, V., Wideman, M., & Wong, Y. (2011).
Sexual Orientation Microaggressions: “Death by a Thousand Cuts” for Lesbian,
Gay, and Bisexual Youth. Journal of LGBT
Youth. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19361653.2011.584204
Paludi,
M. A. (2012). Managing Diversity in
Today’s Workplace: Strategies for Employees and Employers [4 volumes].
ABC-CLIO.
Rabelo,
V. C., & Cortina, L. M. (2014). Two sides of the same coin: Gender
harassment and heterosexist harassment in LGBQ work lives. Law and Human Behavior, 38(4),
378–391. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000087
Sabharwal,
M., Levine, H., D’Agostino, M., & Nguyen, T. (2019). Inclusive Work
Practices: Turnover Intentions Among LGBT Employees of the U.S. Federal
Government. The American Review of Public
Administration, 49(4), 482–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074018817376
Sawyer,
K., & Thoroughgood, C. (2017). Gender non-conformity and the modern
workplace. Organizational Dynamics, 46(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.01.001
Smith,
N. G., & Ingram, K. M. (2004). Workplace Heterosexism and Adjustment Among
Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Individuals: The Role of Unsupportive Social
Interactions. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 51(1), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.57
Mission for Indian Gay & Lesbian
Empowerment (2011). “Out”-Numbering in India,
MINGLE
Mission for Indian Gay & Lesbian
Empowerment (2016). The Indian LGBT
Workplace Climate Survey 2016. MINGLE
Zurbrügg,
L., & Miner, K. N. (2016). Gender, Sexual Orientation, and Workplace
Incivility: Who Is Most Targeted and Who Is Most Harmed? Frontiers in Psychology, 0. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00565
Comments
Post a Comment