An investigation of fit perceptions and promotability in sexual minority candidates

• Date: 18 September 2017
• Pages: 628-646
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-02-2017-0037
• Published date: 18 September 2017
• Author: Shaun Pichler,Oscar Holmes IV
• Subject Matter: HR & organizational behaviour,Employment law,Diversity, equality, inclusion

An investigation of fit perceptions

and promotability in sexual

minority candidates

Shaun Pichler

Department of Management,

California State University, Fullerton, California, USA, and

Oscar Holmes IV

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Camden, New Jersey, USA

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether sexual minority candidates are viewed as less

likely to fit-in in their work environments than heterosexual candidates and, hence, to their being evaluated as

less promotable.

Design/methodology/approach –Consistent with previous research, the authors used a hiring scenario

where evaluators saw one of four different resumes, which varied based on candidate sexual orientation and

gender, yet were equal on all factors, including candidate qualifications. The research included a pre-test and

manipulation check to ensure the validity of the authors’research design.

Findings –As the authors expected based on stigma theory, gay and lesbian candidates were more likely to

be perceived as unable to fit-in than heterosexual candidates. Perceptions of a lack of fitting-in were

negatively related to promotability ratings, as were beliefs about the controllability of sexual orientation.

However, counter to the authors’expectations, gay and lesbian candidates were rated more promotable than

heterosexual candidates. This presents a more nuanced picture of sexual orientation discrimination than has

been offered heretofore.

Originality/value –Previous research has suggested that gay men and lesbians may be trapped in

“gay ghettos,”yet there is little if any research on evaluations of sexual minority candidates in employment

decisions beyond hiring. The present study extends research on sexual orientation discrimination by

investigating whether decision makers are biased against gay and lesbian candidates in promotion decisions,

and the factors that are related to promotability ratings.

Keywords Stigma, LGBT, Promotion decisions

Paper type Research paper

And I always feel this with straight people –that whenever they’re being nice to me, pleasant to me,

all the time really, underneath they’re only assessing me as a criminal and nothing else. It’s too late

for me to be any different now to what I am, but I still feel this keenly, that that’s their only

approach, and they’re quite incapable of accepting me as anything else (E. Goffman, Stigma, Notes

on the Management of Spoiled Identity).

Important advancements have been made in civil rights for gay men and lesbians in recent

years, includingthe Obama administration’srepealof“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”in 2011 and two

key Supreme Court decisions, the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined

marriageas a union between a man and a woman,and the Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)decision,

which held that the rightto marry is fundamental for same-sex couples(Supreme Court of the

United States, 2015). Although public opinion has become relatively more favorable toward

gay men and lesbians, anti-gay attitudes are still common in American society. For example,

a recent poll found that 40 percent of Americans believe homosexuality is always wrong

(Gallup, 2014). Furthermore, the US federal government has yet to pass comprehensive

anti-discrimination legislation, thus, making it legal (except in states and municipalities with

protective legislation) to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in employment

decisions, such as selection and promotion decisions, despite public support increasing for

non-discrimination legislation for sexual minorities (Gallup, 2014).

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:

An International Journal

Vol. 36 No. 7, 2017

pp. 628-646

© Emerald PublishingLimited

2040-7149

DOI 10.1108/EDI-02-2017-0037

Received 14 February 2017

Revised 22 June 2017

21 August 2017

Accepted 30 August 2017

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-7149.htm

628

EDI

36,7

To systematically understand the experiences of gay men and lesbians, scholars have

increasinglyinvestigated sexual orientationdiscrimination, otherwiseknown as heterosexism

(Pichler, 2007), as well as how organizations show support for gay men and lesbians,

for instance, by offering domestic partner benefits or adopting anti-discrimination policies

(King and Cortina, 2010; Martinez and Hebl, 2010). Although research suggests (King et al.,

2017; Law et al., 2011; Ragins, 2004)that organizational supportis important in improving the

workplace experiences of sexual minority employees, the literature has consistently shown

that gay men and lesbians are discriminated against in selection decisions (Hebl et al., 2002;

Pichler et al., 2010),that gay men and lesbians perceive that they are discriminated againstin

employment decisions based on their sexual orientation (e.g. Badgett et al., 2007; Ragins and

Cornwell, 2001) and that there are wage differences between persons based on sexual

orientation (e.g. Antecol et al., 2008).

Reasons for discrimination and wage differences include sexual orientation itself

(Hebl et al., 2002; Pichler et al., 2010), perceived job misfit based on the gendered nature of

jobs (Pichler et al., 2010), and occupational sorting based on sexual orientation (Antecol et al.,

2008; Tilcsik et al., 2015). Although the aforementioned research answered important

questions with regard to sexual orientation discrimination in hiring, beyond this, there is

relatively little research on why gay men and lesbians are treated differently in specific

employment decisions. Particularly, there is scant research on evaluations of gay men and

lesbians beyond initial hiring decisions, namely, with respect to promotion decisions.

This gap in the literature presents an unresolved challen ge to our complete

understanding of gays’and lesbians’career experiences as most lesbian, gay, bisexual,

transgender discrimination research focuses on personnel selection at the first point of

organizational entry, but ignores the complexity of experiences and changes in contexts and

motives involved surrounding the selection of gay men and lesbians post organizational

entry. This omission of research investigating post-entry personnel selection discrimination

of gay and lesbian employees is surprising because research on other forms of

discrimination, such as sex and racioethnic discrimination, has investigated discrimination

in various types of employment decisions including, and perhaps especially, promotion

decisions (e.g. Bamberger et al., 1995; Cook and Glass, 2014; Maume, 2004).

Since sexual minorities are sometimes trapped in “gay ghettos”(Ragins and

Cornwell, 2001), are virtually invisible in the upper echelons of organizations, and may

face the same “glass ceiling”effects (commonly referred to as the lavender ceiling) that

women do (Gedro, 2010), it seems important to study heterosexism in promotion decisions.

Given that promotions are generally key to higher earnings (McCue, 1996), it may also be

the case that a lack of promotability in particular is related to wage differences between

heterosexual and sexual minority workers. Indeed, promotions are important because

they are a form of an organizational reward –they also offer opportunities for higher

self-efficacy and status attainments, training, development and career growth, and are

thus an important focus of research on career progression and discrimination (Cobb-Clark

and Dunlop, 1999; London and Stumpf, 1983).

Another limitation in the aforementioned literatures is that, to our knowledge, scholars

have not developed a model of how sexual minority status is related to others’perceptions of

the extent to which gay men and lesbians fit-in in their work environment or not, and how

these perceptions are related to evaluations of the target in terms of promotability. In other

words, fitting-in has generally been conceptualized as objective demographic differences

between a target and one’s workgroup, or individuals’own perceptions of fitting-in. In the

context of work organizations, it is important to understand how decision maker’s

perceptions of sexual minority targets are related to perceptions of lack of fitting-in and,

hence, to promotability ratings. This is important because it provides an uninvestigated, yet

elegant, explanation as to the connections that are related to decision makers desire to

629

Sexual

minority

candidates