Queering up with Congruency: The Impact of DE&I Messaging on LGBTQIA+ ‘Employees’ Perceptions within the United States ()
1. Introduction
The current climate for LGBTQIA+ professionals in the United States suggests that a gap exists between what is claimed [emphasis added] to be socially accepted in the workplace and the actualities of being a queer professional in the country. Despite growing support for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I) initiatives specific to queer employees throughout the private and public sectors, queer individuals continue to struggle with mixed perceptions of discrimination stemming from their unique position as members of the LGBTQIA+ community. The term LGBTQIA+ is an acronym for: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning [or Queer], Intersex, Ally [or Asexual], including a plus sign as a symbol of all other segments within the community. This acronym enables researchers to appropriately address all members of the community, including those that are members because of their sexual orientation and those that are members because of their gender identity. Leveraging the information theory, this study seeks to understand the factors that influence queer ‘employees’ perceptions of discrimination and career advantages within professional organizations in the United States.
In recent years, DE&I initiatives have been at the forefront of many major ‘corporations’ recruiting and retention efforts throughout the country (Lee et al., 2023: p. 114) . Though extremely important, there continues to be a noticeable lack of diverse talent within both the private and public sectors, especially so when considering queer (LGBTQIA+) individuals in our workforce (Barthelemy et al., 2022; Cech & Waidzunas, 2021; Opall, 2021) . Recent scholarship suggests that the congruence of organizational policy and coworker support plays a significant yet nuanced role in U.S. workplaces (Bryant-Lees & Kite, 2021; Compton, 2016; Dimant et al., 2019; Tatum, 2018) . According to Meyer-Bridgewater and Millesen (2022) , the queer community in the United States continues to be particularly vulnerable due to institutionalized stigmatization, marginalization, social exclusion, and violence (p. 146). Medina and Mahowald (2023) stipulated that one-half of queer Americans not only reported workplace discrimination in 2022 (Employment and Housing Discrimination section, para. 1), but 78% hid or altered aspects of their personal or work lives to avoid discrimination (Overall Experiences of Discrimination section, para. 8). Simply stated, queer professionals in the United States continue to alter their social identities, including the omission of some of the most fundamental aspects of themselves, despite the espoused support for diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workplace.
The following literature will leverage evidence-based research (EBR) to explore the congruence of organizational nondiscrimination initiatives and implementation in support of queer employees within their ranks. The research will focus on literature highlighting the differential treatment of LGBTQIA+ professionals within the United States. Expected primary research includes peer-reviewed journal articles on DE&I, organizational retention, and the information theory. These primary research sources should shed significant light on the observable phenomenon the current review seeks to answer: how the congruence of DE&I messaging and initiatives affect queer ‘employees’ perceptions of discrimination and career advantages within the United States.
Lastly, because this topic may be controversial to some, the author wishes to self-identify in two distinct ways: 1) professionally, in the context of his career field; and 2) in the context of this literature, as part of the LGBTQIA+ community. The author works in the private sector, specifically in the U.S. financial industry, and identifies as a gay, cisgender, immigrant in the United States [pronouns: he/him/his]. The author felt this information pertinent to share, acknowledging that his lived experiences provide one of many queer lenses through which the world is seen. This lens provides a unique vantage point in which he interprets the world and his philosophical perspective as a scholar-practitioner.
Research Question
A study’s research question (RQ) is essential, narrowing the review objective and purpose to specific questions researchers attempt to address (Creswell, 2005; Johnson & Christensen, 2004) . This observation suggests that the RQ is paramount in creating and implementing an author’s purpose statement. Using the Context-Intervention-Mechanisms-Outcomes (CIMO) framework (Booth et al., 2016: p. 87) , depicted in Table 1, the author of the current review defines the parameters to articulate a relevant question to guide the research.
![]()
Table 1. CIMO framework for current management question.
a. Adapted from Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review (p. 87), by A. Booth, A. Sutton, and D. Papaioannou, 2016 , SAGE Publications Inc. Copyright 2016 by SAGE Publications Inc.
Therefore, the research question guiding this study is: How does congruent messaging of DE&I initiatives affect queer employees’ perceptions of discrimination and career advantages within professional organizations in the United States?
2. Literature Background
Using appropriate language when studying and working with LGBTQIA+ individuals helps the researcher and supports and affirms the queer community (Meyer-Bridgewater & Millesen, 2022: p. 147) , acknowledging both the shared and diverging experiences of different segments within the population. In this literature, the terms queer and LGBTQIA+ are used interchangeably. This, in part, is due to the growing acceptance of the synonymity between the two terms within the community. The author consciously uses the term queer interchangeably as it is widely considered “a former term of abuse that members of the LGBTQIA+ community have reclaimed as an identity that may be used in place of or conjunction with, other identities within the LGBTQIA+ spectrum” (Barthelemy et al., 2022: p. 3) . The term enables the empowerment of the LBTQIA+ community through the socially conscience use of a term once used to oppress them.
The Human Rights Campaign’s 2022 Corporate Equality Index [the premier benchmarking tool on how corporations across the United States adopt equitable workplace policies] found that 93% of the Fortune 500 companies include sexual orientation, and 91% include gender identity in their nondiscrimination policies (2022, Equality at the Fortune-Ranked Companies section, para. 1). However, nondiscrimination policies do not explicitly entail cultural change or eliminate exclusionary practices in the workplace. Thus, literature on LGBTQIA+ professionals, and their associated sexual identity management, in the United States has placed increased emphasis on sexual orientation discrimination and identity management in the workplace. Scholarship in this space suggests that queer-identifying professionals in the United States continue to actively manage their sexual identities due to mixed messaging between organizational policy and coworker support (Bryant-Lees & Kite, 2021; Compton, 2016; Everly et al., 2016; Sabharwal et al., 2019; Tatum, 2018) . In other words, sexual minority employees continue to manage their sexual identities in the workplace due to a tangible disconnect between nondiscrimination policies and personal experiences of exclusionary practices within the workplace.
Most notably, systemic marginality and normalized microaggressions within organizations highlight that the current heteronormative, patriarchal societal structure legally allows the discrimination of queer individuals (Blanck et al., 2021; Opall, 2021) , simultaneously enabling the disenfranchising and marginalization of allies who champion the equitable treatment of all social groups (Martinez et al., 2017) . Mehretu et al. (2000) define systemic marginality as a deliberate “socioeconomic condition of disadvantage created by socially constructed inequitable non-market forces of bias” (p. 89). The authors further stipulate that systemic marginality results from the disadvantages that individuals and social groups experience in a constructed system of unbalanced relations within a hegemonic social structure that enables one group to exercise power and control over another, with the second group manifesting one or several vulnerability markers based on class, ethnicity, age, gender, or similar characteristics (Mehretu et al., 2000: p. 91) . Simply put, systemic marginalization enables the mistreatment of one or more social groups simultaneously enabling another to exercise undue power, thereby achieving specific outcomes of control, social exclusion, and economic exploitation.
For LGBTQIA+ professionals, these outcomes are commonly seen in the form of occupational barriers such as lack of career progression (Freeman, 2020; Pierce et al., 2020) , lower perceived competence and hireability (Bryant-Lees & Kite, 2021; Pichler & Holmes, 2017) , lower earnings (Burn & Martell, 2022) , and willful acts of damage (Tatum, 2018; Thoroughgood et al., 2021) . Of significance, the literature also suggests that individuals with intersectional marginalized backgrounds experience significantly higher discrimination and disadvantages in the workplace than their counterparts (Barthelemy et al., 2022; Blanck et al., 2021; Cech & Waidzunas, 2021; Cheeks & Yancey, 2022) .
Literature Review—Theory and Theoretical Lens
An explanation of the current management problem may be concluded by applying the information theory’s theoretical framework. While the author acknowledges that the information theory is unconventional, it is paramount that the current management problem be studied through a lens not customarily considered in scholarly literature on marginalized communities. This differing perspective enables the author to approach the management problem through the novel adaptation of a historically mathematics-based theory instead of the traditional behavioral management-based approaches used to study these communities.
Contemporary academic articles on marginalized communities are frequently confined to behavioral management-based approaches, such as the social exchange theory (Hur, 2020) , social equity theory (Lewis & Pitts, 2017) , and the co-cultural theory (Compton, 2020) . These behavioral management-based approaches examine businesses as both formal organizations and social systems, where the employee, rather than a process, is at the core of business operations (Villanova University, 2022 , Behavioral Management Theory section, para. 1). While these perspectives are significant to the overarching study of marginalized communities in business, this study focuses on the nuances of organizational messaging and their consequential effects on sexual minority employees, emphasizing the need for a more technical theoretical lens.
While contemporary theories of human communication seldom refer to information theory directly, the theory serves as a metaphor for the linear transmission of information between human senders and receivers (Littlejohn, 2009: p. 513) . The linear transmission of information is the core phenomenon the author seeks to understand. Specifically, the information theory focuses on communication signals and how they can be transmitted accurately and efficiently, in isolation from the meaning of the message itself, where questions of meaning are avoided as much as possible (Markowsky, 2023) . This stipulation is in “sharp contrast with the common conception of information, in which meaning has an essential role” ( Markowsky, 2023 , Historical Background section, para. 3). This information is vital to understand as it directly links the theoretical framework to the current management problem, namely, the gap between the message of what is [claimed to be] socially acceptable in the workplace and the actual messages received by queer professionals.
The information theory addresses uncertainty in message redundancy, noise, channel capacity, and feedback (Littlejohn, 2009) . Unlike most mathematics-based theories, the information theory can be traced back to a specific source of origin, Claude Shannon’s “A Mathematical Theory of Communication” in 1948. Due to its multi-disciplinary applicability, information theory has branched out into many disciplines since the formal study of the concept began. In contemporary times, the information theory has been applied to communications, data compression, error correction, and scholarly disciplines such as physiology, linguistics, physics, and business (Markowsky, 2023) .
The information theory postulates the conditions and boundaries that affect the transmission and processing of information between actors (Markowsky, 2023) , emphasizing the linear transmission of information between senders and receivers (Littlejohn, 2009) . In other words, the theory emphasizes the boundary conditions that affect systemic communications within an operating environment. A critical theoretical stipulation contends that communication signals must be treated in isolation from the meaning of the messages that they transmit (Markowsky, 2023) . Essentially, the environmental problems (i.e., redundancy, noise, channel capacity) associated with the channel of communication must be remediated separately from the communication of the message itself.
The information theory also stipulates that information is a measure of uncertainty in a system of signals: the higher the amount of information in a system, the greater the uncertainty (Littlejohn, 2009) . Entropy, the lack of predictability within a system is the foundation for understanding information in the current context. Situations high in entropy “have little organization, reduced predictability, and therefore great uncertainty” (Littlejohn, 2009: p. 513) . Considering the complex nature of the current management problem, this suggests that organizations operate under high entropy levels when considering their nondiscrimination policies.
According to Markowsky (2023) , there are six components in this theoretical framework: 1) the sender, or the entity/actor that creates the message; 2) the encoder, or the object that connects the message to the physical signals sent; 3) the channel, the medium that carries the message; 4) noise, known as anything that interferes with the transmission of a signal; 5) the decoder (or filter), the object that converts the signal into a form that the message receiver can comprehend; and 6) the receiver, the object that gets the message. To visually represent this concept, a straightforward model of communication, as seen in Figure 1, was developed by Shannon as the foundation of this theory.
In the current context, the sender (the organization or a peer) sends a message through a channel (in the form of written communication: written policy, or verbal communication: peer-to-peer interactions) to the receiver (employees) via a channel (email communication or a policy portal, or the receivers’ senses). To reach its intended destination, the message must then travel through noise (unclear policy, incongruence of policy and action in terms of written policy, or physical noise in the case of verbal communication) and a decoder [also known as a filter] (personal interpretation of the message). If there is much noise (poorly written policy or incongruency between policy and practice), this message may not reach its destination.
3. Methodology
A systematic review (SR) is a research method that aims to limit bias by leveraging predetermined and standardized methods to identify, appraise, and synthesize all relevant literature to answer a particular research question (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006) . In other words, an SR is a method that utilizes a preconstructed set of standard procedures to identify, appraise, and synthesize all available literature about a study’s review question. The stages of an SR are: 1) define a review question, 2) consider the use of a steering committee or advisory group, 3) develop a protocol, 4) conduct a literature search, 5) screen the literature, 6) apply inclusion/exclusion criteria, 7) extract the data, 8) critically appraise the data, 9) synthesize the literature, 10) consider biases, 11) write the review, and 12) disseminate the review (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006) .
For this study, a systemic review [specifically: a rapid evidence assessment (REA)] was conducted to better understand the factors that influence LGBTQIA+ employees’ perceptions of discrimination and career advantages within professional organizations in the United States. According to Barends et al. (2017: p. 4) ,
![]()
Figure 1. Initial conceptual framework of the information theory. Note: From “Information Theory,” by G. Markowsky, 2023 , Encyclopedia Britannica, Classical Information Theory section, para. 1 (https://www.britannica.com/science/information-theory) Copyright 2023 by Encyclopedia Britannica.
a REA “may exclude unpublished research, include only meta-analyses and controlled studies, or limit the number of reviewers who critically appraise the studies’ trustworthiness to only one.” Due to the limited time and resources, the REA methodology was the most appropriate for this research.
3.1. Search Strategy and Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
The researcher leveraged a university library database aggregator and the ProQuest database to search for and retrieve relevant literature. The database aggregator allows users to simultaneously search 43 databases for relevant articles and resources through a broad range of topics, including the EBSCO Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection and SAGE Knowledge Collection. The search included a mix of search terms and limiters to ensure the retrieval of the most relevant articles about the research topic. The following search criteria were applied to obtain relevant literature:
1) Search terms “(perceptions or attitudes or opinions or beliefs or bias or stigma or discrimination) AND AB (sexual orientation or gender identity or queer or lesbian or bisexual or gay or transgender or lgbt*) AND (professional jobs or careers or professions or leadership) NOT (medicine or medical or health or nursing or “social work”) NOT (teacher* or teaching or school or student)”.
2) Only scholarly, peer-reviewed literature.
3) Articles published between the period of January 1, 2013, and April 29, 2023.
4) Articles published in English.
The search provided an initial sample of 511 pieces of literature: database aggregator (n = 508), ProQuest (n = 3).
3.2. Study Selection
After an initial sample review, 120 articles were removed due to duplications. The titles and abstracts of the remaining pieces of literature were screened for their relevance and irrelevant publications and publications categorized as secondary research were discarded. This phase yielded six viable results, three selected to be included in the synthesis and three removed due to irrelevance to the review question. Due to the limited number of search results, the snowballing method was conducted on the reference lists of the six pieces of literature and the secondary source literature retrieved during the initial review. Ten articles were retrieved using the snowballing method; seven were included in the synthesis (the remaining three were removed due to irrelevance to the review question). Figure 2 depicts the PRISMA flowchart for the study selection process.
3.3. Data Extraction
Data extraction of the 10 articles included pertinent information, as seen in Table 2.
![]()
Figure 2. PRISMA flowchart for the study selection process.
![]()
Table 2. Data extraction chart headers for reviewed literature.
The author’s name and article title were included for easy distinction between scholarships. Publication year was also included as it was pertinent to the review that literature be published within the last 10 years. This information is significant as research on LGBTQIA+ professionals in the workplace is a relatively new topic of study within management, in addition to the tense socio-political climate surrounding this segment of the population within the United States. Sample population description, method, hypothesis, findings, and limitations were also pertinent to review as they shed insight into the fit-for-purpose assessment of each article in reference to the current REA question. A complete record of the extracted data may be found in Table A1 of the Appendix.
3.4. Critical/Quality Appraisal
A literature appraisal was conducted to weigh and compare the selected articles’ quality, validity, and rigor. The 10 articles were evaluated using the TAPUPAS framework, an appropriate quality assessment tool that facilitated the literature’s uniform judgment or scoring. According to Pawson et al. (2003) , “the phrasing of the generic standards as questions reflects the first key message of the report: that standards do not replace judgment” (p. ix). This statement indicates that the TAPUPAS (transparency, accuracy, purposivity, utility, propriety, accessibility, and specificity) framework provides a reference and context against why and how judgments are made. This way, the framework is a generalizable assessment tool that enables reviewers to assess a broader spectrum of literature within the same scope. The scoring protocol consists of three distinct ratings: high, medium, and low. An article is rated high when the study methodology and purpose are clearly stated, their findings are articulated and supported, and the research question is answered with a conclusion provided.
Additionally, the study must be reusable by other researchers and prove high in ethical and legal standards. A medium rating constitutes an article with items that were articulated but not clearly supported, and a low score rating constituted no support or support that needed clarification. Articles that received high scores were considered appropriate for the research and were included in the coding process. The quality assessment of the 10 articles selected resulted in all 10 articles scoring as high-quality studies. The uniform evaluation of these criteria, using TAPUPAS and a three-tiered scoring protocol, ensures that the author maintained an objective posture when interpreting, evaluating, and synthesizing evidence.
According to Saldaña (2021) , coding is a heuristic, exploratory process that follows no specific formulas or algorithms yet helps identify different themes and the relationships between literature. That is, coding enables researchers to tailor their coding approach yet systemically identify recurring themes in literature through deductive or inductive means. To make theory-based interpretations of the reviewed literature, the researcher leveraged inductive coding, an approach entailing the creation of original codes as one reviews the literature (Saldaña). Coding was conducted on the findings and discussion sections of the 10 articles to ensure that only the most pertinent findings from every article were reviewed.
Coding was conducted in three stages and leveraged ATLAS.ti (Version 23.0.1). Stage one (first cycle coding) applied inductive coding, facilitating the review of any potential patterns of information that would enable the synthesis of the reviewed literature. The codes were segregated into groups with similar characteristics in this stage for easy synthesis. Stage one concluded with a total of 23 codes, including codes such as bias, coworker support, mixed messaging, and opposing perspectives. Stage two, the first iteration of the second cycle coding, focused on synthesizing codes into categories. Stage two concluded with the final 12 codes and preliminary categorization into three categories: congruency of messaging, external cultural factors, and LGBTQIA+ employee perceptions. Stage three, the final stage, focused on a final review and synthesis of the codes and categories into two distinct themes: 1) influential cultural factors and 2) regulatory effects of identity centrality.
4. Results
The literature review results suggest that an intricate web of connections exists between the external cultural environment (e.g., national and regional norms), organizational practices, and queer employees’ perceptions of discrimination and career advantages. Despite growing support for the LGBTQIA+ community in the country, biases toward queer individuals still exist, but exactly how biases present is constantly changing. For instance, the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage in 2015 suggests a social shift in destigmatizing sexual diversity. However, their 5 - 4 vote also indicates an uneven acceptance of sexual diversity throughout the country (Compton, 2016: p. 432) . The split decision, partnered with exclusionary religious norms and cultural discomfort (Compton, 2020: p. 1024) , suggests that this uneven acceptance also exists within organizations in the United States.
4.1. External Cultural Environment
Queer individuals employed in organizations with legacies of formalized anti-LGBTQIA+ discrimination (e.g., the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” [DADT] policy) and those in regions where religion is more central to individual identities often face particularly poor informal work environments compared to those in other agencies or regions (Cech & Rothwell, 2020: p. 35; Compton, 2020: p. 1025) . Active-duty military personnel, those in military-related agencies, and those in Midwestern states report significantly worse employee treatment, workplace fairness, and workplace satisfaction (Carey et al., 2022: p. 4; Cech & Rothwell, 2020: p. 42; Compton, 2020: p. 1025; Lewis & Pitts, 2017: pp. 582-584; Sabharwal et al., 2019: p. 487) than those in organizations with more inclusive workplace practices. These findings illustrate that external cultural factors are heavily influential components that drive organizational environments, ultimately impacting queer employees’ stigma consciousness and minority stress, two significant drivers of sexual orientation identity management.
4.2. Congruency of Messaging
While negative external factors may affect organizational cultures, the increased adoption of inclusive workplace policies and practices was shown to counteract these influences. The presence and congruence of employee protections and inclusive work practices indicate a positive and significant effect on job satisfaction, affective commitment, and feelings of comfort in being out in the workplace (Gates, 2014: p. 272; Hur, 2020: p. 433) . Since mixed messages occur partially because of what is perceived as unclear LGBTQIA+ inclusive policy, organizations must enact clear language within their policies to improve the positive perceptions of sexual minority employees (Compton, 2016: pp. 434-435) . If organizational policies are unclear, they are subject to interpretation and act as a detrimental filter by organizational actors, such as managers and human resources (HR) representatives. Explicitly clear language enables management and HR representatives to enact equitable policies towards LQBTQIA+ and heterosexual individuals.
Congruently, inclusive practices signal the acceptance of queer individuals within organizations; this is especially salient to employees considering their sexual minority status as central to their identity. Managerial and coworker actions that advocate for, defend, and educate in support of members of a stigmatized identity group, specifically trans employees, are often significant in creating a more inclusive workplace (Thoroughgood et al., 2021: p. 414) . Although these actions do not eliminate the marginalization of LGBTQIA+ individuals, they do reduce instances of exclusionary practices. In harmony, these findings articulate that clear written policy and congruent support are essential factors influencing the perceptions of discrimination and career advantages within organizations. Without this congruency, organizations risk communicating mixed messages of support, increasing environmental noise, and limiting the effective messaging behind the policy, adversely affecting LGBTQIA+ employees’ perceptions of equity and inclusion within the organization.
4.3. LGBTQIA+ Employee Perceptions
Queer identity centrality, the degrees to which an individual’s queer identity is central to their self-concept (Hogg & Terry, 2000: p. 127) , and stigma consciousness, an individual’s expectation to be stereotyped or discriminated against due to a stigmatized identity (Gates, 2014: p. 265) , are significant aspects of LGBTQIA+ individuals’ identities. Findings suggest that queer individuals at all levels of outness possess a strong consciousness of possible stigmatization throughout their career, many of which expect every professional interaction will result in stigmatization (Gates, 2014: p. 271) .
Interestingly, the literature suggests a positive relationship exists between [LGBTQIA+ employee] levels of outness and perceptions of negative coworker judgment based solely on sexual orientation. This relationship suggests that while queer employees understand that their heterosexual coworkers generally acknowledge the importance of workplace equity, LGBTQIA+ individuals that are more “out” perceived that they are judged at higher rates than those that conceal their sexual identities (Gates, 2014: p. 272) . In other words, the more “out” an LGBTQIA+ individual is, the more they perceive being negatively judged by heterosexual coworkers based solely on their sexual identity. Therefore, identity centrality and stigma consciousness act as filters for messages and symbolic gestures directed toward LGBTQIA+ employees in the workplace.
Additionally, compounding marginality (Garduño-Ortega et al., 2022: p. 2) and minority stress (Corrington et al., 2019: p. 132) distinctly affect several subgroups of queer professionals (i.e., bisexuals, trans individuals, queer people of color, queer individuals with disabilities) while not affecting others. This information suggests that individuals experience significantly more stress and marginality due to their unique stigmatized identities. Bisexual male employees, for instance, experience more sexual orientation-based discrimination at work than bisexual female employees, a gender effect that does not exist between gay and lesbian professionals (Corrington et al., 2019: p. 137) .
Of significance, findings also suggest that gay, lesbian, and even bisexual employees [themselves] demonstrate significantly greater levels of discrimination toward bisexual men compared to bisexual women (Corrington et al., 2019: p. 134) . These factors negatively affect subgroup individuals and may cause increased perceptions of discrimination among individuals. Thus, it is paramount for nondiscrimination policies to clearly articulate the distinct stigmas associated with individual subcultures within the queer community and how to address issues of said groups appropriately.
Figure 3 visually demonstrates the integration of the current management problem into the information theory’s theoretical framework. The high impact of external cultural factors and individual decoders on communicating organizational nondiscrimination policies to LGBTQIA+ employees is significant.
![]()
Figure 3. Final conceptual framework of the information theory. The figure demonstrates the integration of the current management problem into the information theory’s theoretical framework. The high impact of external cultural factors and individual decoders on communicating organizational nondiscrimination policies to LGBTQIA+ employees is significant. Because cultural and historical norms of exclusion drive the environmental noise within organizations, messaging must explicitly communicate inclusive practices that drive the authentic acceptance of LGBTQIA+ professionals. Note: Adapted from “Information Theory,” by G. Markowsky, 2023 , Encyclopedia Britannica, Classical Information Theory section, para. 1 (https://www.britannica.com/science/information-theory) Copyright 2023 by Encyclopedia Britannica.
Because cultural and historical norms of exclusion drive the environmental noise within organizations, messaging must explicitly communicate inclusive practices that drive the authentic acceptance of LGBTQIA+ professionals. If executed correctly, this explicit communication may enable cultural change and inevitably eliminate systemic marginalization and the normalized microaggressions towards queer professionals that are commonplace in today’s professional environments. Conversely, suppose nondiscrimination policies are subjective or unclear. In that case, the messaging will inevitably deteriorate as it passes through the surrounding environmental noise, sustaining the inequitable and exclusionary treatment of LGBTQIA+ employees that drive current perceptions of discrimination within professional organizations.
5. Discussion
The rapid evidence assessment review of the literature revealed two distinct prevailing themes: 1) the significant influence that external cultural factors hold on organizational policy congruence and 2) the regulatory effect’s identity centrality holds on LGBTQIA+ individuals’ perceptions of discrimination and career advantages in the United States. It is also important to re-emphasize the complexity and interlocking nature these two themes share within organizational practices and norms: namely, a reciprocal, and presently contradicting, influence on the congruency of organizational practices.
5.1. Culture Influences Organizational Policy & Implementation
Culturally, organizations in the United States are driven by the larger national and regional context through established laws, norms, and residual cultural artifacts left behind by legacies of formalized anti-LGBTQIA+ discrimination. Specifically, LGBTQIA+ individuals in conservative-leaning states perceive that the Judeo-Christian religious narrative affects the process of co-sexuality (the coeval existence of heterosexuality and minority sexual preferences) through “constructing and maintaining larger cultural sexual ‘norms’ but also within daily conversations and behaviors about sex and sexuality at work” (Compton, 2020: p. 1026) . Similarly, sexual minority professionals in public sector agencies (specifically, male-dominated agencies such as the DoD) are disproportionately more likely to experience inequalities in workplace experiences due to legacies of heterosexist and transphobic policies, even if said policies have been formally revoked (Cech & Rothwell, 2020: p. 54) . These examples and those discussed in the proceeding section directly correlate external cultural influences to normalized cultural practices that contradict established DE&I initiatives and send mixed messaging of incongruency to sexual minority professionals.
The direct effect of inequitable treatment has resulted in negatively perceived workplace experience differentials between LGBTQIA+ and heterosexual employees being equal to, or greater than, those of minority gender or race employees, partially explaining why LGBTQIA+ employees are more likely to consider leaving organizations (Cech & Rothwell, 2020: p. 50; Lewis & Pitts, 2017: p. 588) . While informal, the influence of this master narrative of marginality demonstrates the complexities LGBTQIA+ professionals must navigate within organizations daily. Although federal legislation does not guarantee sweeping societal change, inclusive federal laws may spark the creation of national and [consequently] organizational environments that authentically value the contributions of every professional within the United States, including LGBTQIA+ professionals (Gates, 2014: p. 273) .
5.2. Identity Centrality Drives Perceptions of Unequitable Treatment
Like cultural influences, identity centrality heavily influences individual perceptions of discrimination and career advantages within organizations. Identity centrality acts as a personal filter in which LGBTQIA+ individuals interpret the congruency of written DE&I messaging sent within their organizations. While cultural influences affect how organizations communicate and enact written policy, identity centrality drives how sexual minority employees interpret that policy and subsequent actions (enacted by heterosexual employees) that may or may not align. For example, Thoroughgood et al. (2021: p. 414) suggested that when trans individuals perceive that their cisgender colleagues oppose non-inclusive norms or behaviors toward them [trans employees], they report a greater sense of value, higher job satisfaction, and lower emotional exhaustion. Significantly, these effects are only presented for individuals with trans identities that are more central to their self-view. This suggests that individuals that consider their sexual minority status less central will interpret acts of oppositional courage as less significant than those who hold their marginalized status as more central to their identities.
Additionally, identity centrality impacts feelings of compounding marginality in individuals within multiple marginal status groups and minority stress in individuals within aggregated disadvantage groups. Queer-identifying racial minority individuals experience more negative workplace treatment than white LGBTQIA+ employees, with queer women of color disproportionately less likely than all other LGBTQIA+ groups to perceive fair wages within organizations (Cech & Rothwell, 2020: p. 45) . Unexpectedly, the literature indicates that bisexual male employees experience more minority stress and sexual orientation-based discrimination in the workplace than bisexual female employees, with this gender differential not exhibited between gay and lesbian employees (Corrington et al., 2019: p. 137) . The aggregated findings suggest that although identity centrality drives perceptions of discrimination and career advantages, these perceptions fluctuate between differing LGBTQIA+ groups, impacting them in varying capacities.
An alternative explanation to the themes discussed above is that the negative perceptions LGBTQIA+ individuals have about their professional experiences are unrelated to workplace inequity. Cech and Rothwell (2020) test this alternative explanation in their study. The authors conducted a supplemental analysis with a set of questions that asked queer and heterosexual respondents how satisfied they were with five employee programs they participated in and found that sexual minority status is unrelated to satisfaction with any of the programs (pp. 51-52). This finding and similar results throughout the reviewed literature suggest that LGBTQIA+ perceptions of discrimination and career advantages depend on experiences of congruent messaging within organizations. A second alternative explanation may be that LGBTQIA+ professionals are overrepresented in professions with poorer work conditions than their heterosexual counterparts, leading to higher perceptions of negative workplace experiences. The reviewed literature provides insight into various professions within the United States, studying these professions in different regions and professional sectors (the private and public sectors). The literature provided no evidence to support this alternative interpretation explanation.
A final alternative explanation may be the outness levels of the LGBTQIA+ participants studied in the reviewed literature. LGBTQIA+ professionals who participated in the studies may be considered more “out” at work and exhibit less stigma consciousness because they have chosen to be out professionally. Again, the variety in the reviewed literature negates this alternative explanation by providing insight into participants at all levels of outness and stigma consciousness. In harmony, these additional considerations suggest that LGBTQIA+ perceptions of discrimination and career advantages are not simply a result of the types of work these individuals are employed in or individual stigma consciousness but of the workplace experiences these individuals face on a day-to-day basis.
5.3. Limitations
Limitations to this study include the limited availability of literature, limited time and resource availability, and perceived bias due to the researcher’s direct connection to the topic. The most significant limitation of this research is the current lack of literature; due to the relatively novel nature of queer studies within management, the availability of literature on the subject was minute compared to similar phenomena. Fortunately, the reviewed literature proved to be high in quality and represented a vast array of topics (on queer professionals and theoretical lenses) in both the public and private sectors. The limited availability of time and resources to research, synthesize, and address the management problem also proved significant as this review was conducted by a single researcher with limited time.
Future research should expand on this study by addressing the management problem with additional researchers, time, and theoretical lenses. Continuing this research at a future time may allow for additional knowledge production, adding to the findings from this review. Lastly, perceived bias (due to the researcher’s sexual orientation) may also be considered a limitation to some. In hopes of limiting these perceptions of bias, the researcher thought it pertinent to divulge his sexual orientation prior to conducting the study and emphasize his objective, evidence-based stance during the literature selection, analysis, and synthesis.
5.4. Recommendations for Management and Scholarship
The current review contributes to the burgeoning body of theoretical and practical literature on DE&I and organizational management, serving as a potential cornerstone for future research to build upon. Given the current socio-political uncertainty for LGBTQIA+ individuals within the United States, practitioners should remain steadfast in the face of federal civil rights challenges that could reverse progress for equality; organizations should remain resolute in their commitment of fair treatment of sexual minority employees within their ranks.
Further emphasis on nondiscriminatory workforce practices, with diversity training that educates employees on the differing perspectives of the queer community, may authentically foster more queer-inclusive workplaces and significantly shift LGBTQIA+ perceptions of discrimination and career advantages. These practices encourage employees of all backgrounds to engage in conversations that equip them with the strategies and confidence needed to translate knowledge into tangible action, reducing mixed messaging within organizations.
Seeking external partnerships with organizations that champion LGBTQIA+ equality, such as the Human Rights Campaign, may provide resources for employers to better support their LGBTQIA+ employees, specifically those with highly stigmatized identities, such as transgender and bisexual individuals. Additional research and continued academic discussions on the current review question may exponentially improve the work conditions of queer individuals, aiding in the current movement the United States is experiencing.
Of note, the major limitation of this research is the current need for more literature on the phenomenon being studied. Because of this, the author suggests future studies expand on this research, applying new literature pertaining to queer employees’ perceptions of discrimination and career advantages in the United States. Applying additional research may add a richer understanding of the phenomenon, further improving organizational functionality and increasing our understanding of the impact congruent messaging has on queer talent within the country. Contributions in this space may genuinely change how organizations in the United States view DE&I initiatives and continue to move our nation away from just [emphasis added] tolerating marginalized communities and towards the full acceptance of every individual, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
6. Conclusion
“The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house” (Lorde, 2007: p. 112) . This is a fitting reminder that established means of equality may never [emphasis added] dismantle the prevalent heterosexual, white bias experienced in the United States. To this point, the researcher concludes that while the current literature adds to our understanding of the role congruent messaging plays in queer employees’ perceptions of discrimination and career advantages within organizations, much more work is still needed to disentangle the complex interactive processes that affect these perceptions. Despite the growing support for the LGBTQIA+ community in the country, biases toward queer individuals still exist. The lack of national and regional protections, partnered with exclusionary religious norms and mixed organizational messaging, emphasizes the importance of continued scholarship on this complex and socially diverse group of professionals within the United States.
Acknowledgements
This study could not have been made possible without the guidance and support of my professor, Dr. Denise Breckon. I would also like to thank my colleague and friend, Danaeka Wilkes, for her support and feedback throughout this process. Finally, I would like to thank my parents, Tamara Saavedra and Alberto Chirino, and my two siblings, Wendy Mobilla and Alberto J. Chirino, for their steadfast support and encouragement, without them this article would not be possible.
.) (2017). CEBMa Guideline for Rapid Evidence Assessments in Management and Organizations. Version 1.0, Center for Evidence Based Management. https://www.cebma.org/resources-and-tools/
Falk, M. L., Deconinck, W., Long, E. A., & Atherton, T. J. (2022). LGBT+ Physicists: Harassment, Persistence, and Uneven Support. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 18, Article 010124. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.010124
in the American Legal Profession: Discrimination and Bias Reported by Lawyers with Disabilities and Lawyers Who Identify as LGBTQ. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 47, 9-61. https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2021.1
to a Successful Literature Review (M. Steele, Ed., 2nd ed.). SAGE Publications Inc.
References marked with an asterisk (*) indicate studies included in the systematic review.
icants: Consequences of Applying “Out”. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 40, 874-891. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-01-2019-0048
ty Labour Market Differentials. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 60, 784-814. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjir.12671
Carey, F. R., Jacobson, I. G., Lehavot, K., LeardMann, C. A., Kolaja, C. A., Stander, V. A., & Rull, R. P. (2022). Military Service Experiences and Reasons for Service Separation among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Individuals in a Large Military Cohort. BMC Public Health, 22, Article No. 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12420-1
Cech, E. A., & Rothwell, W. R. (2020). LGBT Workplace Inequality in the Federal Workforce: Intersectional Processes, Organizational Contexts, and Turnover Considerations. ILR Review, 73, 25-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793919843508
Cech, E. A., & Waidzunas, T. J. (2021). Systemic Inequalities for LGBTQ Professionals in STEM. Science Advances, 7, 933-941. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abe0933
Cheeks, M. E., & Yancey, G. B. (2022). Examining Diversity Climate through an Intersectional Lens. Psychology of Leaders and Leadership, 25, 12-33. https://doi.org/10.1037/mgr0000122
*Compton, C. A. (2016). Managing Mixed Messages: Sexual Identity Management in a Changing U.S. Workplace. Management Communication Quarterly, 30, 415-440. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318916641215
*Compton, C. A. (2020). Co-Sexuality and Organizing: The Master Narrative of “Normal” Sexuality in the Midwestern Workplace. Journal of Homosexuality, 67, 1013-1039. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2019.1582220
*Corrington, A., Nittrouer, C. L., Trump-Steele, R. C. E., & Hebl, M. (2019). Letting Him B: A Study on the Intersection of Gender and Sexual Orientation in the Workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 113, 129-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.10.005
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.
Dimant, O. E., Cook, T. E., Greene, R. E., & Radix, A. E. (2019). Experiences of Transgender and Gender Nonbinary Medical Students and Physicians. Transgender Health, 4, 209-216. https://doi.org/10.1089/trgh.2019.0021
Everly, B. A., Unzueta, M. M., & Shih, M. J. (2016). Can Being Gay Provide a Boost in the Hiring Process? Maybe If the Boss Is Female. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31, 293-306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9412-y
Freeman, A. (2020). Don’t Hire Me as a Token: Best Practices for Recruiting and Supporting Externs from Historically Marginalized Backgrounds. South Carolina Law Review, 72, 357-391.
Garduño-Ortega, O., Li, H., Smith, M., Yao, L., Wilson, J., Zarate, A., & Bushnik, T. (2022). Assessment of the Individual and Compounding Effects of Marginalization Factors on Injury Severity, Discharge Location, Recovery, and Employment Outcomes at 1 Year after Traumatic Brain Injury. Frontiers in Neurology, 13, Article 942001. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2022.942001
*Gates, T. G. (2014). Assessing the Relationship between Outness at Work and Stigma Consciousness among LGB Workers in the Midwest and the Resulting Implications for Counselors. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 27, 264-276. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070.2014.886998
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social Identity and Self-Categorization Process in Organizational Contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121-140. https://doi.org/10.2307/259266
*Hur, H. (2020). The Role of Inclusive Work Environment Practices in Promoting LGBT Employee Job Satisfaction and Commitment. Public Money and Management, 40, 426-436. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2019.1681640
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2004). Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. Allyn and Bacon.
Lee, N., Moieni, R., & Mousaferiadis, P. (2023). Diversity and Inclusion Career Path Analysis. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 11, 114-141. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2023.119009
*Lewis, G. B., & Pitts, D. W. (2017). LGBT-Heterosexual Differences in Perceptions of Fair Treatment in the Federal Service. American Review of Public Administration, 47, 574-587. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074015605378
Littlejohn, S. W. (Ed.). (2009). Encyclopedia of Communication Theory. SAGE Publication, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412959384
Lorde, A. (2007). Sister Outsider. Crossing Press.
Markowsky, G. (2023). Information Theory. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/information-theory
Martinez, L. R., Hebl, M. R., Smith, N. A., & Sabat, I. E. (2017). Standing Up and Speaking Out against Prejudice toward Gay Men in the Workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 103, 71-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.08.001
Medina, C., & Mahowald, L. (2023). Discrimination and Barriers to Well-Being: The State of the LGBTQI+ Community in 2022. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/discrimination-and-barriers-to-well-being-the-state-of-the-lgbtqi-community-in-2022/
Mehretu, A., Wm. Pigozzi, B., & Sommers, L. M. (2000). Concepts in Social and Spatial Marginality. Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, 82, 89-101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0435-3684.2000.00076.x
Meyer-Bridgewater, S., & Millesen, J. L. (2022). Queer up Your Work: Adding Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity to Public and Nonprofit Research. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 8, 145-156. https://doi.org/10.20899/jpna.8.1.145-156
Opall, B. S. (2021). Motives in Creating an LGBTQ Inclusive Work Environment: A Case Study. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 16, 237-260. https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-09-2019-1822
Pawson, R., Boaz, A., Grayson, L., Long, A., & Barnes, C. (2003). Types and Quality of Knowledge in Social Care. Social Care Institute for Excellence.
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754887
Pichler, S., & Holmes, O. I. V. (2017). An Investigation of Fit Perceptions and Promotability in Sexual Minority Candidates. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 36, 628-646. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-02-2017-0037
Pierce, A. E., Moreno-Walton, L., Boatright, D., Moll, J. L., Hicks, M. N., Druck, J., Lopez, B. L., Oral, E., & Heron, S. L. (2020). Advancing Diversity and Inclusion: An Organized Approach through a Medical Specialty Academy. AEM Education and Training, 4, S40-S46. https://doi.org/10.1002/aet2.10427
*Sabharwal, M., Levine, H., D’Agostino, M., & Nguyen, T. (2019). Inclusive Work Practices: Turnover Intentions among LGBT Employees of the U.S. Federal Government. American Review of Public Administration, 49, 482-494. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074018817376
Saldaña, J. (2021). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (J. Seaman, Ed., 4th ed.). SAGE Publications Inc.
Tatum, A. K. (2018). Workplace Climate and Satisfaction in Sexual Minority Populations: An Application of Social Cognitive Career Theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65, 618-628. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000292
*Thoroughgood, C. N., Sawyer, K. B., & Webster, J. R. (2021). Because You’re Worth the Risks: Acts of Oppositional Courage as Symbolic Messages of Relational Value to Transgender Employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106, 399-421. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000515
Villanova University (2022). An Overview of Management Theories: Classical, Behavioral, and Modern Approaches. https://www.villanovau.com/resources/leadership/an-overview-of-management-theories/
Appendix