The sexual identity disclosure dilemma for lesbian, gay, and bisexual employees in the Indian workplace

• Date: 13 June 2023
• Pages: 1107-1125
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-02-2022-0052
• Published date: 13 June 2023
• Author: Shiji Lyndon,Preeti S. Rawat,Ketan Bhardwaj,Ajinkya Navare

The sexual identity disclosure

dilemma for lesbian, gay, and

bisexual employees in the

Indian workplace

Shiji Lyndon, Preeti S. Rawat and Ketan Bhardwaj

K J Somaiya Institute of Management, Somaiya Vidyavihar University,

Mumbai, India, and

Ajinkya Navare

S P Jain Institute of Management and Research, Mumbai, India

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to extend the theoretical understanding of the disclosure dilemma

experienced by lesbian, gay and bisexual(LGB) employees. The study focuses on examining the factors related

to self-disclosure such as co-worker support and fear of disclosure. Further, the study also aims at testing the

impact of coworker support on the psychological well-being of LGB employees.

Design/methodology/approach –The study adopts a concurrent triangulation research design, which

involves a simultaneous collection of quantitative and qualitative data. Using a survey questionnaire, data

from 200 LGB employees were collected. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 10 LGB employees.

The qualitative findings were treated as complementary to the relationship tested through the quantitative

method.

Findings –Quantitative results reveal that co-worker support positively impacts self-disclosure by LGB

employees. And the fear of disclosure mediates the relationship between coworkersupport and self-disclosure.

Further, self-disclosure is positively related to psychological well-being. The qualitative study brings insights

from the lived experiences around these factors. This research expands knowledge about the factors associated

with the disclosure of LGB employees.

Originality/value –The study examines the factors related to the disclosure of sexual identity and the

experiences of the dilemma of LGB employees in the workplace. Most of the studies in the context of LGB have

adopted a quantitativeresearch design. The current study adopts a mixed methods approach with a concurrent

triangulation research design.

Keywords Disclosure dilemma, Coming out, LGB, Fear of disclosure, Co-worker support,

Psychological well-being, India

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

Employees from the lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) community are perceived differently

from others based on their sexual orientation (Arena and Jones, 2017). Research shows

that the workplace perspectives are different for LGB employees as compared with their

heterosexual counterparts (Hebl et al., 2002). The differences in this perspective primarily

come from various risks that LGB employees face such as the experience of

discrimination, harassment and even physical aggression (Capell et al., 2016;Croteau,

1996;FRA, 2013;Sears and Mallory, 2011). A study by Drydakis (2009) showed that

applicants who revealed their identity as gay in their CV had significantly lower chances

of being called for an interview as compared to heterosexual candidates with an identical

background.

An increasing number of organizations are demonstrating their support for the

inclusion of the LGB community by implementing various initiatives such as

nondiscrimination policies, domestic partner benefits, gender-neutral adoption leave an d

Sexual identity

disclosure

dilemma

1107

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 23 February 2022

Revised 10 February 2023

19 April 2023

Accepted 20 April 2023

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:

An International Journal

Vol. 42 No. 8, 2023

pp. 1107-1125

© Emerald Publishing Limited

2040-7149

DOI 10.1108/EDI-02-2022-0052

equal opportunity policies (Button, 2001;Day and Greene, 2008). Despite the benefits that

are extended to help individuals come out, there is a huge reluctance to come out (Capell

et al., 2016). Studies show that despite having anti-discrimination policies concerning

sexual orientation, in more than 90% of Fortune 500 companies, no CEO from Standard and

Poor’s listed companies came out publicly until recently (Stewart, 2014). Research suggests

that when organizations allow individuals to bring their “whole selves”to work, they

immensely benefit (Robbins, 2018). Kaplan (2022) in the ethnographic research among

junior bankers who participated in Wall Street’s LGB recruitment events and employee

networks found that “bringing their full selves to work”enabled them to pursue their

project of self-fashioning and managing the queer differences more effectively.Conversely,

employees who are unable to express their true selves at work experience decreased well-

being (Bono and Vey, 2005), job satisfaction (Pugh et al., 2011) and are likely to engage in

unethical behavior (Ebrahimi et al., 2020). However, organizationsfaceadilemmatopursue

diversity-related issues because it is a high-risk, high-reward proposition (Donovan and

Kaplan, 2019). Also, many organizations address diversity issues by bringing in

representation at work but fail to build inclusivity in the workplace. And concerning

sexual orientation, how can an organization claim to be inclusive when their employees

don’t even feel safe to disclose who they are as individuals? At the very of inclusion is to

create an environment where people feel safe to accept and disclose who they are as an

individual. Therefore, organizations must examine what enables sexual identity disclosure

in the workplace.

Disclosure of sexual orientation is considered a positive step in the literature on

diversity and inclusion (Byington et al., 2020). However, the decision about identity

disclosure is a central concern for many LGB employees as after family, the workplace is

the second most important context for social interaction (Button, 2001;Clair et al., 2005;

Croteau, 1996). However, in the space of non-heterosexual people, notmanyemployees

have been comfortable with self-disclosure at the workplace. Collins and Miller (1994)

defined self-disclosure as the “act of revealing personal information about oneself to

another”(p. 457). Many fear that disclosure would lead to rejection and discrimination

(Bohan, 1996;Ellis and Riggle, 1996;Franke and Leary, 1991;Wells and Kline, 1987).

While others say it is not about their fear but feel that their sexual orientation is a very

personal thing and their organization need not know about it. However, there is research

that suggests that remaining closeted leads to lower life satisfaction (Garnets and

Kimmel, 1993;Lane and Wegner, 1995;Savin-Williams and Rodriquez, 1993), increased

health risks (Cole et al., 1996;Kalichman and Nachimson, 1999) and extensive and energy-

draining activities focused on covering up their stigmatized identity (Ellis and

Riggle, 1996).

In the context of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) employees, disclosure isnot a one-time

decision they make disclosure-related decisions each time they enter a new situation and/or

interact with a new individual (Croteau et al., 2008). Disclosing a concealable stigma at work

has been identified as risky by diversity researchers (Follmer et al., 2020). Ragins (2004)

stated that the fear of negative consequences of the disclosure may have a greater impact

on employees than the actual act of disclosure. The fear of disclosure is linked to the

experiences of disclosure. Past research has found that disclosure resulted in verbal

harassment, job termination and even physical assault (D’Augelli and Grossman, 2001;

Friskopp and Silverstein, 1996) and leads to low self-efficacy (Barreto et al., 2006), low job

satisfaction (Day and Schoenrade, 1997;Ellis and Riggle, 1996), stress-related physical

symptoms (Cole et al., 1996) and low organizational commitment (Day and Schoenrade,

1997). In this context, it is not surprising that LGB employees fear the negative

consequences of disclosure (Friskopp and Silverstein, 1996;Woods, 1994), and choose not

to disclose their identity to anyone at work (Croteau, 1996). Therefore, it is important to

EDI

42,8

1108