Stifled from the start: biased allocation of developmental opportunities and the underrepresentation of lesbian women and gay men in leadership

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-05-2022-0120
• Published date: 17 October 2022
• Date: 17 October 2022
• Pages: 300-318
• Subject Matter: HR & organizational behaviour,Employment law,Diversity,equality,inclusion
• Author: Jennica R. Webster,Gary A. Adams

Stifled from the start: biased

allocation of developmental

opportunities and the

underrepresentation of lesbian

women and gay men in leadership

Jennica R. Webster and Gary A. Adams

Department of Management, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA

Abstract

Purpose –The goal of this study was to help explain the underrepresentation of lesbian women and gay men

(LG) in senior leadership positions by examining bias in the allocation of developmental opportunities

(sponsorship/coaching and challenging work assignments). It further sought to test stigma-by-association as

one reason for the biased allocation of developmental opportunities.

Design/methodology/approach–An online experimental vignette study (N5273) using a 2 (target gender:

male vs female) by 2 (sexual orientation: LG vs heterosexual) design was conducted.

Findings –LG workers were less likely to be allocated developmental opportunities than heterosexual

workers overall and relative to their same-sex heterosexual counterparts. Further, lesbian women were least

likely to be allocated developmental opportunities. These effects also operated indirectly via participants

concerns about stigma-by-association.

Originality/value –Sexual orientation and gender identity minority workers remain underrepresented in

senior leadership positions and oftentimes despite having better objective qualifications. Research has begun

examining bias in leader selection. This study, however, directs attention to the biased allocation of

developmental opportunities which make one competitive for senior leadership positions and occur prior to

leader selection. In doing so, the authors provide a baseline understanding of an important reason why LG

might be underrepresented in leadership positions.

Keywords LGBTQ, Leadership, Bias, Discrimination, Developmental opportunities, Stigma, Careers

Paper type Research paper

People who identify as sexual orientation minorities such as lesbian women and gay men (LG)

have become an increasingly large and visible segment of the workforce (Jones, 2021).

Although same sex relationships were once criminalized and those who engaged in them

explicitly banned from certain types of employment (e.g. Executive Order 10450 banned LG

people from employment in the US federal government and was only completely revoked in

2017), more favorable attitudes have developed over the past 50 years and efforts have been

made to protect their employment rights. In the US for example, following a trend of more

favorable attitudes toward LG people in general (Adamczyk and Liao, 2019), 93% of

respondents to a 2019 Gallup poll agreed that ‘gay people’should have equal employment

rights (an increase from only 56% in 1977; McCarthy, 2019). Most large employers now

include sexual orientation (91%) and gender identity (81%) in their antidiscrimination

policies (Human Rights Campaign, nd) and recent Supreme Court rulings have sought to

protect people who are LG and those who identify as other sexual orientation and gender

identity minorities from discriminatory employment practices (e.g. Bostock vs Clayton

County, 2020). Despite these advancements, research finds that LG employees still experience

considerable formal discrimination such as being denied a job, pay raise or promotion (Flage,

2020;Ozturk and Rumens, 2020;Meyer, 2019;Sears et al., 2021) and interpersonal

discrimination in terms of being made to feel unwelcome and the targets of microaggressions

EDI

42,2

300

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 16 May 2022

Revised 22 July 2022

12 September 2022

Accepted 22 September 2022

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:

An International Journal

Vol. 42 No. 2, 2023

pp. 300-318

© Emerald Publishing Limited

2040-7149

DOI 10.1108/EDI-05-2022-0120

(Casey et al., 2019;Ellsworth et al., 2020). A growing body of research examining the effects of

discrimination on LG workers has found that not only are these discriminatory actions

harmful to the health and wellbeing of LG workers, but they also represent significant

barriers to career entry and advancement (see excellent reviews by Ng and Rumens, 2017;

Ozturk and Tatli, 2018;Pichler and Ruggs, 2018;McFadden, 2015).

One such barrier to the career advancement of workers who identify as LG workers has

been referred to as the ‘gay glass ceiling’(Frank, 2006)or‘lavender ceiling’(Hill, 2009;Gedro,

2010). Similar to the ‘ceiling’metaphors used to describe barriers to women and other

minority identity workers experience (Trau and Hartel, 2004), the lavender ceiling calls

attention to the underrepresentation of LG workers in leadership. More direct evidence for the

existence of a lavender ceiling comes from a large-scale study finding that LG workers are

much less likely to be found in higher level managerial positions even though many have

better objective qualifications (e.g. education) than their heterosexual counterparts (Aksoy

et al., 2019). Although rarely studied (Anteby and Anderson, 2014;Clarke and Arnold, 2018;

Pichler and Holmes, 2017), some research has begun to examine the factors that influence the

decision to select LG workers for leadership positions. The results of these studies suggest

that stigma (Goffman, 1963) and an interplay of gendered stereotypes surrounding LG people

(e.g. Kite and Deaux, 1987) and leadership, can decrease (and in some cases increase) the

likelihood of LG workers being considered suitable for leadership positions (Barrantes and

Eaton, 2018;Fasoli and Hegarty, 2020;Pichler and Holmes, 2017).

By documenting its existence and identifying some of the factors that impact the

appointment of LG workers to leadership positions this past research has advanced our

understanding of the lavender ceiling considerably. One limitation of the lavender ceiling

metaphor however is that it tends to situate the barrier to leadership positions at the point of

leader selection and directs relatively less attention to other barriers that may be encountered

along one’s career path, which can also create and maintain the underrepresentation of LG

workers in leadership positions. This is an important distinction because rather than just a

single opportunity, upward movement to leadership positions most often entails a series of

developmental opportunities (DOs) such as coaching, sponsorship, challenging assignments,

that help make someone competitive for appointment to a senior leadership position (Day and

Dragoni, 2015;DeRue and Myers, 2014;Vinkenburg and Weber, 2012). Moreover, the process

of allocating these DOs often includes more informal judgments than formal selection to a

specific leadership position (Bagdadli and Gianecchini, 2019). Managers typically have

considerable discretion when impleme nting human resources management practices

generally (Lopez-Cotarelo, 2018;Sikora and Ferris, 2014) and in particular when

identifying high potential employees and allocating DOs (De Pater et al., 2010;Hoobler

et al., 2014;King et al., 2012;Ng et al., 2005). In addition, the allocation of DOs occurs at

multiple points during one’s career and someone might be working for a different manager

and in a different organization at each of these points (Baruch and Rousseau, 2019;Lyons

et al., 2015;Sullivan and Al Ariss, 2021). Taken together, these suggest that the allocation of

DOs is contingent on the potentially biased perspectives of any of the several managers to

whom an LG person might report during their career. To the extent that LG workers are

excluded from these DOs at any point or by any of their managers, they are stifled on their

way to leadership positions. Although important for all of these reasons, we know relatively

little about the allocation of DOs to LG workers.

Given the importance of DOs and their allocation in the advancement to leadership

positions, as well as their potential role in creating and maintaining the underrepresentation

of LG workers in those positions, the purpose of the present study is to examine the allocation

of DOs to LG workers. Specifically, this study examines the perceptions of heterosexual

managers using an experimental vignette design to gain insights about the extent to which

gay men and lesbian might be disadvantaged as a result of heterosexual supervisor’s

Lesbian

women and

gay men in

leadership

301