LGBTQ+ in workplace: a systematic review and reconsideration

• Date: 16 May 2023
• Pages: 313-360
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-02-2022-0049
• Published date: 16 May 2023
• Author: Sucharita Maji,Nidhi Yadav,Pranjal Gupta

LGBTQ+in workplace:

a systematic review

and reconsideration

Sucharita Maji

Indian Institute of Technology Dhanbad, Dhanbad, India, and

Nidhi Yadav and Pranjal Gupta

Institute of Management Technology Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad, India

Abstract

Purpose –The inclusion of LGBTQ þpersons (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and having other

sexual orientations and gender identities) is a crucial step in improving gender diversity in the workplace; however,

till date, it remains a significant challenge for human resource management professionals. The current study

critically examines this issue of an inclusive workplace for LGBTQ þpeople through a systematicreview of the

existingresearch that has empirically studiedtheir experiencesat the workplace. Italso examines the resistance

and challenges organizations face in LGBTQþdiversity trainingand provides futureresearch avenues.

Design/methodology/approach –For systematically reviewing the literature, Preferred Reporting Items

for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) model has been used. A total of 101 empirical studies

have been reviewed.

Findings –The result shows that LGBTQ þpeople encounter multiple negative workplace experiences,

including proximal (hiring discrimination and housing discrimination) and distal workplace discrimination

(unsafe work climate, microaggressions and harassment). These aversiveexperiences lead to work stress while

also mandating that people manage their sexual identity and style of dressing. This stress, in turn, impacts

their work–family outcomes, job satisfaction and decision-making with regard to their careers.

Originality/value –The paper provides a holistic understanding of the aversive workplace experiences

encountered by sexual minorities.

Keywords Diversity, LGBTQþ, Systematic review, Workplace

Paper type Literature review

A report by the InternationalLabour Organization, “Women at Work: Trends 2016”shows a

general inclination towards a reducedgender gap in the global workforce except for Eastern

and Southern Asia. Higher inclusivity of women in organizations is undoubtedly an

accomplishment for humanresource management professionals (Hanappi-Egger,2013;Klein,

2016). However, mainstream gender diversity programs and policies tend to be grounded in

prevailing heteronormative assumptions that focus on the inclusion of cisgender and

heterosexuals (R€

ondahl et al.,2007;Mizzi, 2013;Priola et al., 2018) while largely ignoring the

LGBTQþin

workplace

313

This paper forms part of a special section “Producing Actionable Knowledge about Marginalized

Populations and Communities: A Challenge to Editors and Journals”, guest edited by Harry J. Van Buren

III, Charlotte Karam and Fida Alfiouni.

Corrigendum: It has come to the attention of the publisher that article Maji, S., Yadav, N. and Gupta,

P. (2024), “LGBTQþin workplace: a systematic review and reconsideration”,Equality, Diversity and

Inclusion, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 313-360. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-02-2022-0049 says “while in some Asian

countries like India, Thailand, Taiwan, Philippines, Nepal and Bhutan, homosexuality has been recently

decriminalized, there still exists a dearth of academic literature based on these countries”. This sentence

is amended to say “while in some Asian regions like India, Thailand, Taiwan, Philippines, Nepal and

Bhutan, homosexuality has been recently decriminalized, there still exists a dearth of academic literature

based on these countries”.

This change in being made in acknowledgment of the sensitive political nature of relations between

some Asian regions and is made in agreement with the author of the article and the journal’s editor.

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

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-7149.htm

Received 19 February 2022

Revised 30 September 2022

29 January 2023

26 March 2023

Accepted 20 April 2023

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:

An International Journal

Vol. 43 No. 2, 2024

pp. 313-360

© Emerald Publishing Limited

2040-7149

DOI 10.1108/EDI-02-2022-0049

inclusion issue of LGBTQ þpersons(Priola et al.,2018).In Spain, an analysis of the diversity

policies of the corporate sector revealed that they were primarily focused on women, culture

and work–life balance(Alonso, 2013); however, LGBTQ þdiversity remains taboo.The focus

on women can be attributed to the factthat “they make up around 50% of the workforce; not

consideringthem simply is not an option”(Alonso, 2013, p. 152). LGBTQ þissues have barely

reached the policy level since they grosslymake up 6% of the employees in an organization,

although thereis no specific data regarding the real percentage. Nevertheless,a good diversity

program must include sexual minorities since overemphasizing heterosexist discourse in

organizational policies negatively alters their workplace experiences (Compton, 2020).

This lack of LGBTQ þinclusion in organizations also finds reflection in academic

research. In the academic arena, research on gender has somewhat been “constantly ignored

and, at best, marginalized in separate chapters, special issues, separate tracks or divisions at

conferences, footnotes or parenthetic observations”(Martin, 2000, p. 208). Research on gender

identity, sexuality and sexual orientation in organizations was even more neglected until the

last few years (K€

ollen, 2021). This long absence of sexuality from management literature

(Brewis and Sinclair, 2000;Colgan and Rumens, 2014) has been attributed to two major forces;

a) perceived taboo and b) binary assumption of gender discourse in organizations (K€

ollen,

2021). Compton and Dougherty (2017), too, observed that a “process of silencing non-

normative identities is an essential part of workplace experiences”(p. 875). However, after a

long silence, in the last few years, the management literature has seen a surge in research

exploring sexuality in organizations; notably, most of the research in this field has been

conducted in the last five years (K€

ollen, 2021). This positive change might be attributed to

(1) the recent legal formulations that have decriminalized homosexualit y across

countries (Byington et al., 2021), a phase often being referred to as “second wave”

decriminalization (Perrin, 2022) and

(2) growing size of LGBTQ þidentification (Badgett et al., 2021;Byington et al., 2021).

This growing research interest in sexual orientation in management has gained momentum

in the last few years (McFadden, 2015;Hebl et al., 2016;Kalargyrou and Costen, 2017;Ng and

Rumens, 2017;Webster et al., 2018;Byington et al., 2021).

In recent times, a few reviews have provided significant clarity in this field. For instance,

Byingtonet al. (2021) provided a visualrepresentation of the topictrend associated with sexual

orientationin management literatureusing a science mapping framework.They observed that

the state-of-the-art of sexual orientation in management literature is divided into individual

perspective literature and organizational perspectivestudies. Ng and Rumens (2017) critically

reviewedand reflected on the importanceof workplace inclusionfor LGBTQ þpeople. Webster

et al. (2018) focustheir study on LGBTQ þsupportiveworkplaces. While most of the existing

reviews have taken management and organizational perspectives, Velez et al. (2021) recently

reviewed the psychological research on career issues experienced by sexual minorities by

employing the content analysis method. Thus, whereas few recent reviews address

LGBTQ þissues in organizations, there exists a relative dearth of studies that

systematicallyreview the existing literature from a psychological perspective.

Thus, the current study aimed

(1) to systematically review the state-of-the art of literature that addresses workplace

experiences of LGBTQ þindividuals.

(2) to identify and critically examine the major psychological variables and processes

associated with workplace experiences of LGBTQ þpersons.

(3) to develop an integrative theoretical model that connects the existing variables.

EDI

43,2

314

Method

Systematic reviewing “uses explicit, systematic methods that are selected to minimize bias,

thus provide more reliable findings from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions

made”(Green et al., 2011, p. 12). To ensure integrity, accountability and transparency in the

analysis (Moher et al., 2015), the current study has followed the Preferred Reporting Items for

Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement (Page et al., 2021). The current

study examines the critical issues related to the workplace experience of

LGBTQ þindividuals by systematically reviewing the research.

Search strategy

At first, a computerized search was conducted on Web of Science, ProQuest, EBSCOhost and

Scopus using a combination of key terms, such as “LGBTQ þAND Workplace,”“Homosexuals

AND Workplace”,“Gay AND Workplace”,“Lesbian AND Workplace”,“Transgender AND

Workplace”and “Bisexual AND workplace’in the titles or the abstracts (search results are

presented in Table 1). The first and second authors conducted this round of searching

independently. This initial search (with the filters of inclusion and exclusion criteria) led to the

identification of a maximum of 2,108 articles (ProQuest 52,108, EBSCOhost 5146,

ScienceDirect 5449 and Scopus 51899). After removing the duplicate records, we conducted

an initial round of screening with an emphasis on titles and keywords. At this phase, 760 articles

were excluded as they were irrelevant to the current review. After this initial exclusion, 213 articles

underwent a full review, and of these, only 102 articles were found relevant to the study. Because

of the huge volume of articles, the first and the second author divided the screening task into equal

halves for full review; however, they consulted each other in case there was any confusion

regarding the inclusion/exclusion of any article. Articles were included/excluded from the list only

when the first and second authors had a consensus. After the list was prepared, the first and

second authors rechecked and re-reviewed all the articles included. This step was conducted to

ensure that only relevant articles were included in the final list. Out of these 102 articles, one article

was not accessible. Thus, in the end, 101 articles were used for the review. We prepared an excel

sheet for all the articles with information on author names, year of publication, journal name,

sample, method and major findings. The PRISMA result table is presented in Figure 1.

Inclusion criteria

For the current study, we have used the following inclusion criteria.

(1) Study participants: LGBTQþ(lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer individuals)

(2) All workplace settings (technology organizations, science and engineering sector,

health organizations, etc.)

(3) Peer-reviewed papers published in English. Book chapters, conference papers and

theses are not included as there is no way to ensure the rigor of the peer-review

process in these cases (Eva et al., 2020).

(4) Papers published in the last twenty-five years (1997–2022)

(5) Empirical papers that involve primary data through qualitative, quantitative, or

mixed-method research design.

We have excluded studies that deal with

(1) cis-gendered and heterosexual persons as study participants

(2) school or university settings

(3) deals with students

LGBTQþin

workplace

315