MNC Considerations in Identifying and Managing LGB Expatriate Stigmatization

• Author: Jane F. Maley,Miriam Moeller
• Published date: 01 April 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12132
• Date: 01 April 2018

International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 20, 325–342 (2018)

DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12132

MNC Considerations in Identifying and

Managing LGB Expatriate Stigmatization

Miriam Moeller and Jane F. Maley1

School of Business, Economics and Law, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia, and 1Faculty

of Business, Charles Sturt University, Panorama Avenue, Bathurst, NSW 2795, Australia

Corresponding author email: m.moeller@uq.edu.au

Lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) expatriates arerightfully sceptical, and at times fear-

ful, of international assignment experiences, owing to the sometimes hostile reception

at assignment locations as a result of their sexual orientation. The authors argue that

this hostility arises from a perceivedincompatibility in values between the host country

and LGB expatriates. Dissonance between the twovalue systems leaves LGB expatriates

seemingly powerless to self-manage imposed stigmas inside and outside the workplace

at international assignment locations. The authors suggest that it is essential for the

multinational corporation (MNC) to help manage these stigmas by implementing hu-

man resource management (HRM) practices and policies that recognize the needs of

traditional and non-traditional expatriates as substantially different. Using organiza-

tional legitimacy theory, the authors assert that MNCs’ strategic actions should entail

a set of distinct practices and policies for LGB expatriates as a wayto strive for accep-

tance within the LGB expatriate community and beyond. Managing value congruence

in this manner ensures greater willingness of the LGB talent pool to undertake interna-

tional career opportunities and is likely to result in better assignment experiences and

outcomes. Outcomes of LGB stigmatization are discussed and suggestions are put for-

ward on the MNC’srole in supporting LGB expatriates and their families. Propositions

relative to support are offered.

Introduction

In recent years, a momentum has built up in corpo-

rate America with respect to the human rights move-

ment for lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) employees

(Gedro 2007; Jones 2014; Rocco et al. 2009). Even

though the US has enacted federal legislation pro-

hibiting discrimination in the workplace on the ba-

sis of a variety of demographic factors, legislation

prohibiting discrimination against those who iden-

tify themselves as LGB has seemingly been unhur-

ried. This is surprising, since extant LGB literature

has stipulated that acts of discrimination, stereotyp-

ing and stigmatization all carry costs for the well-

being of individuals and organizational performance

outcomes (Beasley et al. 2015; Frable et al. 1997;

Herek 1991; King and Cortina 2010; Luhtanen 2003).

Deliberate or ignorant acts of discrimination against

LGB employees become evenmore concerning when

we consider their recruitment as overseas assignees

(i.e. expatriates) and the subsequent uncertainties it

presents for multinational corporations (MNCs). This

means that expatriates from countries that have ex-

pended great efforts to diminish discrimination are

not immune to the environment that other countries

have created and support, and thus MNCs operating

in these countries must be cautious in their operations.

McNulty (2013) suggests that LGB expatriates

may not accept international assignments out of fear

of being stigmatized, unsupported or discriminated

against by colleagues in both the home and host

countries; we assert that similar fears may apply to

LGB expatriates’ employers (i.e. MNCs). Multina-

tional corporations, which because of human rights

incompatibilities globally are cognizant of home and

host country nations’ stigmatizing behaviour towards

their workforce, invariably carry the real burden

of successfully managing international assignment

C2017 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Publishedby John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington

Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

326 M. Moeller and J.F. Maley

relocations for their LGB expatriate employees.Com-

bined, the fear of stigmatization and discrimination

can turn into hardships (e.g. lack of spousal support,

visa limitations, social and organizational exclusions)

in ways that are likely to negatively influence LGB

expatriates’ decision to pursue an international ca-

reer in the first instance, and it may also impede in-

stitutionalized MNCs’ planning, selection and com-

pensation practices (Gedro 2010a). More precisely,

MNCs seek to fill strategic positions across the globe

to aid their internationalization efforts (Cappelli and

Keller 2014; Farndale et al. 2010). Thus attracting,

developing and retaining the ‘right’ kind of talent

(Holland et al. 2007) becomes the central tenet of

internationalizing from an HRM standpoint. An ex-

isting and widening talent shortage gap (e.g. Beechler

and Woodward 2009; Cappelli 2008; Michaels et al.

2001) would suggest that, if MNCs expanded on their

ability to cater to traditional and non-traditional ex-

patriates alike, it could carry great benefits for all

parties.

The LGB expatriate embodies a form of non-

traditional expatriate (McNulty 2013; McNulty and

Inkson 2013) as it stands in comparison with the

middle-aged heterosexual male from a Western so-

ciety, who has been typified as the traditional type of

expatriate (Mendenhall et al. 2012). Wefirst and fore-

most define the LGB expatriate as an individual with

self-disclosed LGB status who is or is not in a partner-

ship or marriage (whether legally recognized or not)

and with/without children. Partnerships or marriages

may be between two women, two men or any other

alternative form that does not exemplify heterosexual

relationships.

The acronym LGBT (T meaning transgender) has

been in use since the 1990s and has been adopted by

the majority of sexuality and gender identity-based

community centres and media in the US and other

English-speaking countries. Although previous re-

search (see Gedro (2007), Gedro et al. (2013), King

and Cortina (2010) and Priola et al. (2014) for ex-

ample) has assumingly conflated so-called lesbians,

gays, bisexuals and transgender persons, using it as

blanket grouping; other research (see McPhail et al.

(2016) for example) has suggested that acronyms

should be carefully chosen to reflect the actual focus

and sample (if appropriate) of research. Furthermore,

Hines (2006) posits that that transgender is not a

sexuality or a sexual minority anyway. According

to McPhail (2004), who uses postmodern/queer

theory, transgender people do not perceive them-

selves as fitting neatly into binary categorization,

which makes any interpretation parallel to LGB

problematic.

Hines (2007, p. 122) suggests that ‘transgender is-

sues are qualitatively distinct from those related to

same-sex sexuality or bisexuality’. According to the

author, a thorough understanding of the distinctions

and intersections of contemporary gender and sexual

diversity is necessary in order to establish accurate as-

sumptions. A mounting body of evidence, then, sug-

gests that transgender people will require unique set

of solutions in order to undertake successful global

assignments and that the issues cannot be assumed to

be the same for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgen-

der people. With this in mind, we adopt the acronym

LGB to reflect more precisely the focus of this piece

of research.

The LGBT population in the US is estimated as

roughly 3.5% of the adult population or approxi-

mately 9 million people (Gates 2011). Worldwide,

depending on the actual definition of ‘gay’ used in

research, the most widely accepted statistic of LGBT

people lies between 1-in-10 and 1-in-20 (Gates 2011).

On the basis that over 200 million people worldwide

live and work in a country other than their country of

origin (McNulty and Inkson 2013), the opportunity

for LGB expatriates and their respective families to

be part of the expatriate community should be, non-

statistically speaking, ‘likely’,despite their reluctance

to undertake international assignments. After all, in-

ternational assignments, regardless of sexual orienta-

tion, are thought of as a way to progress in an organi-

zation (Berry and Bell 2012) and to earn a ‘red badge

of courage’ (Crane 1895). This thirst may therefore

stimulate LGB people to say ‘yes’ to an international

assignment regardless of their fears.

The literature on LGB and same-sex marriage con-

cerns, for the most part, health issues, suicide, human

rights, social support and gender identity, and sub-

stance abuse, among others (Adelman 1991; Alonzo

and Reynolds 1995; Cahill and Makadon 2014; Gedro

et al. 2013; Hamlyn et al. 2007; Helfer and Voeten

2014; Herek and Capitanio 1996; King et al. 2014;

Kowalewski 1988; Siegel et al. 1998). Little of the

literature, however, actually addresses LGB expe-

riences from a workplace perspective (e.g. Githens

and Aragon 2009; Gedro 2007; Collins 2009; King

and Cortina 2010; Ozturk and Rumens 2014) and

virtually none from a global or multinational stand-

point (e.g. McNulty 2013). Thus, there are obvious

conceptual, theoretical and empirical gaps about the

LGB expatriate experience during international as-

signment relocations that are likely to affect multiple

C2017 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.