Explaining Sexual Minorities

708000
research-article2017
OSS0010.1177/0170840617708000Organization StudiesCapell et al.
Article
Organization Studies
2018, Vol. 39(7) 947–973
Explaining sexual minorities’ © The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
disclosure: The role of trust sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0170840617708000
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617708000
embedded in organizational www.egosnet.org/os
practices
Ben Capell
The Open University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Shay S. Tzafrir
University of Haifa, Israel
Guy Enosh
University of Haifa, Israel
Simon L. Dolan
ESADE Business School, Barcelona, Spain
Abstract
This paper reports on an empirical study that demonstrated how organizational inclusion practices and
employees’ trust in their organization and supervisors affect their willingness to share personal information
that could potentially lead to workplace discrimination. The findings are based on data obtained from 431
sexual- and gender-minority employees using an anonymous online survey. The results reveal that trust
in the organization and the supervisor fully mediates the relationship between organizational policies and
practices and workplace disclosure. In other words, in organizations where policies and practices generate
trust, employees are more willing to disclose their minority identity. Our analysis also reveals how trust
in the organization and the supervisor interacts with psychological variables associated with the workplace
disclosure decision.
Keywords
LGBTQ, organizational practices, trust, workplace disclosure
Corresponding author:
Ben Capell, Institute of International Business and Governance, The Open University of Hong Kong, 30 Good Shepherd
Street, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
Email: bcapell@ouhk.edu.hk
948 Organization Studies 39(7)
Introduction
Understanding the way organizations and managers can generate a working environment where
employees feel comfortable and safe to share sensitive personal information is important for both
employees and their leaders. When lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) employ-
ees fear disclosing their identity to other organizational members, they must devote considerable
attention away from their tasks at work in trying to conceal it (Clair, Beatty & MacLean, 2005). Fear
and the constant effort required to keep one’s true identity hidden from colleagues and managers
have been found to negatively affect employees’ well-being, commitment to work and job satisfac-
tion (Law, Martinez, Ruggs, Hebl & Akers, 2011; Ragins, Singh & Cornwell, 2007; Waldo, 1999).
The American Psychological Association (APA, 2002) and King and Cortina (2010) have concluded
that organizations which provide LGBTQ employees with a supportive environment where they feel
safe being open about their sexual identity results in employees who are not only more satisfied and
healthy but also more dedicated and productive. 1
Research on the antecedents of the disclosure decision has focused on the individual, the
legal environment and policies and practices of the organization (Day & Schoenrade, 2000;
Law et al., 2011; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001). Models that explain disclosure suggest that sex-
ual- and gender-identity disclosure is related to both contextual and individual variables
(Button, 2001; Clair et al., 2005; Jones & King, 2014; Ragins, 2008) and is driven, at least in
part, by individual-level motivating factors (Chaoudoir & Fisher, 2010; Jones & King, 2014;
Ragins, 2008). While these and other models help identify the variables predicting disclosure,
only a few studies confirm that the decision results from the interaction of variables. Apparently,
most research to date seems to study the predicting variables separately, without clarifying the
possible moderating and mediating interactions between them (Griffith & Hebl, 2002; Law
et al., 2011). One exception is Jones and King’s (2014) theoretical work, which distinguishes
interpersonal processes from intrapersonal ones. In this study, we examine a specific compo-
nent of Jones and King’s model, using single-level data that focuses on the moderating effect
of LGBTQ identity and nonwork (away from work) outness on the relationship between types
of trust and the disclosure decision.
Our study suggests that employees’ trust in their organization in general and in their immedi-
ate managers/supervisors in particular2 play a key role in workplace disclosure decisions
through mediating and moderating variables such as organizational HR practices, workplace
experiences and personal factors. It complements existing workplace disclosure models (e.g.
Button, 2001; Chaudoir & Fisher, 2010; Jones & King, 2014; Mamman, 1996) and previous
research (Law et al., 2011; Ragins et al., 2007) by simultaneously specifying relationship pat-
terns between intrapersonal, interpersonal and contextual variables relating to workplace dis-
closure decisions. This is in line with Shore and colleagues’ (2011) suggestion that
diverse-employee perceptions of workgroup inclusion and employee experiences and percep-
tions are determined by a combination of factors including personal identity and psychology, as
well as organizational practices, climate and leadership.
In the following section, we propose a conceptual framework that reveals the importance of
organizational HR practices to employees’ decisions to disclose their identity and the role that
different types of trust play in deciding to reveal sensitive information. We then discuss the mod-
erating role of individual identity and outness behaviour in private life in facilitating the rela-
tions between trust and workplace disclosure. Finally, we present the role of trust as mediating
the relations between organizational policy and practices and the individual’s behaviour (work-
place disclosure).
Capell et al. 949
Conceptual Framework
An increasing number of organizations have implemented organizational LGBTQ inclusion initia-
tives such as nondiscrimination policies, diversity training or domestic partner benefit programmes
to improve employee work attitude and productivity (Button, 2001; Day & Greene, 2008).
Underlying organizational HR measures of this kind is the assumption that they help employees
feel more comfortable being open, or ‘come out’, about their sexual orientation and gender-identity
at work (Jones & King, 2014), and various scholars (Law et al., 2011; Ragins 2008) tend to agree.
Others found only a weak or insignificant relationship between such programmes and employee-
related workplace attitude and well-being (Day & Schoenrade, 2000; Griffith & Hebl, 2002).
Reluctance to come out, despite the existence of policies, is also evident at the top levels.
Nonacademic data show that while 91% of Fortune 500 companies include sexual orientation in
their antidiscrimination policies, until recently, no CEO from any of the 500 leading companies
listed in the Standard & Poor’s index has ever come out publicly (Miller, 2014; Stewart, 2014).3
Some research suggests that it is not organizational inclusion practices per se that predict work-
place disclosure, but employee confidence in organizations that adhere to such practices that does
so (Clair et al., 2005; Day & Schoenrade, 2000). For instance, Jones and King (2014) mentioned
the key role of perceived organizational support as workplace disclosure antecedents; Chaudoir
and Fisher (2010) similarly identify ‘attention to positive cues’ and ‘positive affect’. All these con-
structs imply trust in the employee social environment (Tzafrir, Gur & Blumen, 2015). Rousseau,
Sitkin, Burt and Camerer (1998) defined trust as ‘a psychological state comprising the intention to
accept vulnerability based on positive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of another’. Trust
can alternately be conceptualized as stemming from a propensity to trust that is built by focusing
on beliefs and intentions and culminating in acts of trust (Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006). Typically,
high-trust individuals are found to exhibit more honest and compliant behaviour and to cheat less
(Rotter, 1980) as well as to conform more to norms of reciprocity. In this study we focus on peo-
ple’s trusting beliefs about others (managers and organizations) and the impact those beliefs have
on the act of trusting as expressed by ‘outness’ about sexual behaviour.
In an effort to understand the relationship between the two constructs, organizational practices
and workplace disclosure, researchers have looked at factors that mediate between organizational
activities and employee behaviour; one factor found to play a critical role in this intersection is
trust (Chen, Aryee & Lee, 2005; Gould-Williams, 2003). Researchers specifically point to a posi-
tive relationship between employee trust in management and readiness to share sensitive informa-
tion (Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006; Gillespie, 2003; Möllering, 2006). Mayer and Gavin (2005) found
that employees who trust their managers spend less effort trying to conceal mistakes and were
therefore able to focus more on their work tasks. Organizational research tends to focus on profes-
sional information such as admission of mistakes or voicing potentially unpopular ideas and disre-
gards attributes that are unique to the disclosure of personal information such as sexual-minority
identities. According to Jones and King (2014), we can expect that trust will impact the relationship
between HRM practices and the decision to disclose this type of information. On the one hand, the
additional social and even physical risks that an individual may face by sharing potentially stigma-
tizing information (FRA, 2013; Sears & Mallory, 2011) suggest that trust in one’s organizational
authorities (Kramer, 1999) might play an even more important role in this type of workplace dis-
closure than has been found so far in studies on work-related information. On the other hand,
workplace disclosure of personal information involves outside work factors that may reduce the
impact of trust in the decision-making process. For instance, Ragins (2008) concluded that indi-
viduals’ motivation to achieve harmony in their identities across life domains strongly predicts
workplace disclosure, regardless of their level of trust in management. Consequently, the role of
trust in the workplace disclosure decision is more opaque than it initially appears.
Workplace disclosure decision

Estimates suggest that approximately 8 million of the US workforce and approximately 1.7 million
of the UK workforce are LGBTQ employees (Department for International Development, 2011;
Sears, Hunter & Mallory, 2009). Other groups of employees also have to reckon with the risks of
workplace disclosure; for example, those suffering from invisible medical conditions or mental
disorders, employees who have experienced potentially stigmatizing life experiences (such as vic-
tims of sexual assault) and employees of minority religions (Ragins, 2008). A broader and contem-
porary approach argues that to some degree all people end up concealing parts of their authentic
selves in order to fit the norm, be it their political ideas, hobbies, friendships and so forth (Parker,
2002; Yoshino, 2006).
What determines how difficult it is for LGBTQ employees to decide whether to disclose their
sexual- or gender-minority identity (to come out) are the possible counterproductive consequences
associated with the workplace disclosure (Clair et al., 2005); this decision is typically referred to
as the ‘disclosure dilemma’.
On the one hand, concealing one’s identity generates high levels of stress and anxiety, mainly
resulting from the need to constantly monitor the information one shares and the fears of being
involuntarily outed (Ragins et al., 2007; Waldo, 1999). On the other hand, coming out involves the
risk of discrimination, harassment and even physical harm. A recent study surveying over 90,000
individuals in the EU member states reveals that despite legal advances over the course of a year,
47% of the respondents felt discriminated against or harassed, and 59% experienced threat or vio-
lence because of their gender-identity or sexual orientation (FRA, 2013). Experiential studies
reveal a similar picture. A study on hiring practices (Drydakis, 2009) showed that applicants who
revealed they were gay on their CV had significantly lower chances of being called for an interview
compared to ‘straight’ candidates with an identical background.
As legal protection is not always available or reliable, the risks associated with coming out
undoubtedly vary depending on organizational practices, management and culture. The example of
John Browne, the former British Petroleum (BP) executive, highlights how different factors inter-
play in forming heteronormative norms in organizations (Courtney, 2014; Parker, 2002; Skidmore,
2004). Browne (2014) explains how the lack of executive LGBTQ role models, the demanding
corporate engineering culture and the nature of worldwide industry to encompass conservative
countries all contributed to his fears of making his sexual orientation visible at work. Nevertheless,
when employees do come out and the reaction at the workplace is positive, the results can be very
satisfying for both the individuals and their organizations; studies show that LGBTQ employees
who are out and enjoy a work environment that is supportive report higher levels of well-being,
commitment, intention to stay, job satisfaction, involvement and productivity (APA, 2002; Griffith
& Hebl, 2002; Huffman, Watrous-Rodriguez & King, 2008).4
Trust and sharing sensitive information

Studies conclude that trust relates to one’s willingness to become vulnerable to another (Mayer,
Davis & Schoorman, 1995; Rousseau et al., 1998). A conscious disclosure of potentially damaging
information by one party constitutes risk-taking behaviour indicating trust in the other party.5
Gillespie (2003) found that employees were more likely to confide their negative feelings about
work to supervisors they trusted. Other studies also show that trusting people at work is related to
Capell et al. 951
workplace disclosure of various types of work-related information, including opinions, mistakes,

problems and feelings (Arthur & Kim, 2005; Lee, Gillespie, Mann & Wearing, 2010; Muthusamy
& White, 2005; Zand, 1972). Trust in this sense defines the boundaries within which organizational
members feel comfortable sharing confidential information (Costas & Grey, 2014).
These studies focused mainly on information that does not potentially render individuals highly
vulnerable as disclosure of LGBTQ identity does. Research suggests that LGBTQ employees may
be exposed to severe risks – such as discrimination, social hostility and physical aggression (FRA,
2013; Sears & Mallory, 2011) – more than other employees who, for example, express unwelcome
opinions (Quinn & Chaudoir, 2009). The stakes in the trust relationship are greater for LGBTQ
employees who seek organizational benefits, are going through a visible transformation of their
appearance or have strong motivation to affirm their identity (Jones & King, 2014; Law et al.,
2011). Feeling secure and confident about the reactions of one’s organizational superiors to work-
place disclosure has already been positively correlated with the workplace disclosure of informa-
tion that could potentially lead to work discrimination, such as psychiatric conditions (Ellison,
Russinova, MacDonald-Wilson & Lyass, 2003) or moral or legal wrongdoing (Miceli & Near,
1984). It is intuitive to suggest that LGBTQ identity disclosure and trust in the organization’s key
referents are similarly tied. Nevertheless, both research and theory suggest that at least two types
of factors may diminish the predictive role of trust – personal factors that serve as antecedents for
disclosure and environmental antecedents.
As to relevant personal factors, research has identified two psychological motivators. One is the
individual’s need for self-verification and the motivation to achieve congruence between identities
outside and inside the organization. According to the theory of self-verification (Swann, 1983),
people want others to see them as they see themselves. Thus, employees who identify strongly with
their sexual identity will be more motivated to ensure that others see them in the same way, in
comparison with employees for whom their LGBTQ orientation is not an important element of
their identity or who do not feel comfortable with their sexual orientation and gender-identity
(Capell, Tzafrir & Dolan, 2016; Clair et al., 2005; Law et al., 2011). The second psychological
motivator is the need for identity congruence across different life domains, which suggests that
people who are open about their sexual orientation or gender-identity in their private lives will be
more inclined to come out at work as well (Griffith & Hebl, 2002; Ragins, 2008).
Environmental elements that co-impact disclosure might undermine the role of trust in one’s
superiors with respect to the disclosure decision: for example, antidiscrimination laws, inclusive
organizational policies and practices, and the nature of one’s interaction with one’s colleagues
(Courtney, 2014; Law et al., 2011; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001). As suggested by Brewis, Tyler and
Mills (2014) in a review of the progress since Burrell’s (1984) cornerstone work on the desexuali-
zation of organizational life, protective legislation, changing social attitudes and other important
developments at the political level have led to more gender diversity in organizations. For instance,
Day and Greene (2008) have reported an increasing number of organizations that specifically pro-
tect LGBTQ as a group under their nondiscrimination policies or include domestic partners in their
benefit programmes. Employees whose organizations enact such policies may feel safe enough to
come out at work regardless of the degree of trust they place in their managers. Interest in the com-
plex relationship between formal mechanisms and trust in organizations goes beyond the specific
context of stigma disclosure (Shamir & Lapidot, 2003; Woolthuis, 2005). Some studies (Child &
Möllering, 2003) show that confidence in the institution and its mechanisms are a determinant for
developing more trust in work relationships. Others (e.g. Lui, 2009) point to an added value that
formal mechanisms (such as contracts) and informal trust bring to knowledge exchange.
The role of trust is therefore ambiguous. While it is expected to impact workplace disclosure, it
is not clear how, in view of its complex relationship with other implicated variables. Gaining
a better understanding of how trust operates can decisively improve leaders’ ability to include
sexual- and gender-minority employees. However, prejudices against LGBTQ individuals are
deeply rooted socially and historically and hence cannot be easily eliminated. Even with the exist-
ence of antidiscrimination legislation, it is important to ensure that organizational practices and
individual managers’ behaviour reflect it and to monitor the effectiveness of measures taken to
defeat prejudices in organizations. Just as trust in organizations and managers can be improved
(Webber, Bishop & O’Neill, 2012), learning more about the relationship between trust and work-
place disclosure can guide organizations that wish to integrate diversity into their business
strategy.
Our study follows earlier categorizations of the targets of trust in an organization (Fulmer &
Gelfand, 2012) focusing specifically on trust in supervisors (interpersonal) and trust in the organi-
zation (impersonal-institutional). Interpersonal trust relates to the dyadic relationship, for example,
between employee and immediate supervisor, whereas the latter stems from many sources related
to the organizational system (Vanhala & Ritala, 2016). From a conceptual perspective, in line with
Fulmer and Gelfand (2012), one may trust the immediate supervisor but may feel that the organiza-
tion at large (as well as the top management team) may present a hostile culture. Conversely, an
employee may doubt that the direct supervisor accepts his or her LGBTQ identity despite organi-
zational systems that support workplace disclosure legally and otherwise. In the past, trust in inter-
personal and impersonal referents was shown to facilitate the readiness of employees to share
sensitive information (Gillespie, 2003; Mayer & Gavin, 2005).
The effects of organizational trust and psychological motivators for workplace

disclosure
Because coming out at work involves risk, we expect the impact of psychological motivators for
workplace disclosure to interrelate with the degree of trust employees have in their organizations
and managers. In line with previous studies (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; Fleig-Palmer & Schoorman,
2011), the strength of the relationship between trust and workplace disclosure is expected to be
influenced or moderated by the employee’s measure of personal identification as an LGBTQ indi-
vidual and the level of nonwork outness or openness outside the workplace, because both consti-
tute psychological motivators for identity verification (Jones & King, 2014; Ragins, 2008; Swann,
1983). Accordingly, we expect the employee’s measure of personal identification as an LGBTQ
and the degree of outness outside the workplace to affect the relationship between trust (in the
manager and organization) and workplace disclosure. We also expect employees who have a strong
LGBTQ identity and have come out outside their organizations to be more prone to do so in the
workplace, regardless of their level of trust in the organization and managers. Employees with a
weaker LGBTQ identity who are less open about it outside of work tend to disclose their identity
only when their trust level in their managers and the organization is high.
Hecht and Faulkner’s (2000) study on disclosure of religious identity provides a helpful descrip-
tion of how identity can moderate the impact of trust on disclosing a potentially stigmatized iden-
tity. In their study of Jewish Americans, they found that for some, religious identity was so central
that they would never conceal it, even preferring to make it conspicuous; for example, by wearing
symbols such as a Star of David. For those whose religious identity was more peripheral, the poten-
tial consequences such as negative reactions to disclosing their Jewishness played a significant role
in their decision to reveal their religious identity or not. Courtney’s (2014) study describes how
both protective workplace policies and a sense of identity empower queer school leaders to per-
form a ‘brave act of revealing professional confidence’ (p. 392) by making themselves visible.
When trust is high, even employees with relatively little psychological need to come out may
Capell et al. 953
decide to do so. Conversely, when trust is low and workplace disclosure is perceived as more risky,
only highly motivated individuals will decide to come out.
Consequently, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1a: Strength of LGBTQ identity will moderate the relationship between trust in the
organization and workplace disclosure. A higher level of personal identification as an LGBTQ
individual will result in a weaker relationship between trust in the organization and workplace
disclosure.
Hypothesis 1b: Strength of LGBTQ identity will moderate the relationship between trust in the
manager and workplace disclosure. A higher level of personal identification as an LGBTQ indi-
vidual will result in a weaker relationship between trust in the manager and workplace
disclosure.
Hypothesis 2a: Nonwork outness will moderate the relationship between trust in the organiza-
tion and workplace disclosure. Higher levels of nonwork outness will result in a weaker rela-
tionship between trust in the organization and workplace disclosure.
Hypothesis 2b: Nonwork outness will moderate the relationship between trust in the manager
and workplace disclosure. Higher levels of nonwork outness will result in a weaker relationship
between trust in the manager and workplace disclosure.
Trust as a mediator between inclusive organizational practices and workplace

disclosure
Organizational policies and practices significantly affect individual and organizational outcomes
(Tzafrir, 2005), and employee’s perceptions of organizational practices have a strong impact on
employee behaviour (Gould-Williams, 2003). Jones and King (2014) suggest that a supportive
organizational system of policies and practices is conducive to LGBTQ employees feeling com-
fortable about coming out. Who the employees perceived as responsible for these policies and
practices determined the target of their trust. Scholars have long debated throughout the manage-
ment literature to what degree the upper echelons of the organization reflect the organization over-
all (see Hambrick & Mason’s [1984] discussion of the importance of top management
characteristics). The view adopted in this paper is that top management’s philosophy, actions and
policies do in fact reflect the organization (Tzafrir, 2009). Hence, we will treat trust in the organiza-
tion and trust in top management as the same type.6
In the interest of finding ways to integrate diverse employees, practitioners and researchers have
examined practices aimed at creating an inclusive workplace environment (Mamman, 1996; Shore
et al., 2011). Despite interest in inclusion as a concept, there is no consensus as to its benefits from
both a practical and theoretical standpoint (Guillaume, Dawson, Woods, Sacramento & West,
2013; Shore et al., 2011). While some studies show that organizational inclusion practices such as
antidiscrimination policies or LGBTQ affinity groups or employee resource groups (ERGs) predict
workplace disclosure (Law et al., 2001; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001), others show that they have no
effect or very little, and likewise none or little effect on employee well-being and workplace atti-
tudes (Day & Schoenrade, 2000; Griffith & Hebl, 2002).
This discrepancy can be explained by closer understanding of the workplace disclosure process,
which follows a pattern similar to that found in the relationship between organizational HR prac-
tices, trust and employee attitudes and behaviours. On the basis of social exchange theory (Blau,
1964), the norm of reciprocity, concern (Mishra, 1996) and harmony, which focuses on shared
values (Tzafrir & Dolan, 2004), we expect employees to increase risk-taking with a trustee.
Organizational practices and policies impact trust, which in turn impacts the decision to risk dis-
closing sensitive information. In line with this assertion, studies on different organizational prac-
tices show that trust in both the organization and the supervisors mediates the relationship between
the perception of justice (e.g. fair treatment) and workplace outcomes (Chen et al., 2005; Lee et al.,
2010). We therefore hypothesize:
Hypothesis 3a: Trust in the organization will mediate the relationship between the organiza-
tion’s inclusion practices and disclosure of LGBTQ identity at the workplace.
Hypothesis 3b: Trust in the manager will mediate the relationship between the organization’s
inclusion practices and disclosure of LGBTQ identity at the workplace.
Trust as a mediator between workplace heterosexist experiences and workplace

disclosure
LGBTQ employees, whether they are out or not, may perceive their organizational environment to
be hostile to sexual and gender minorities (heterosexist) or supportive of them, depending on their
work experiences (Shore et al., 2011). Positive experiences can include seeing a gay couple warmly
welcomed at a company event, while negative or heterosexist experiences may include being the
object of derogatory name-calling or losing a promotion opportunity for not being straight.
Undoubtedly the perception of the level of openness towards LGBTQ individuals appears to
strongly affect the readiness of individuals to disclose their sexual orientation or gender-identity.
As expected, the more employees experience the organization as prejudiced and discriminatory,
the less likely they are to come out at work (Waldo, 1999): a lesbian employee, for example, hear-
ing her colleagues and managers tell antigay jokes might decide to keep her sexual orientation to
herself to avoid becoming a target of hostility in the future.
Numerous studies suggest that trust in one’s superiors is expected to mediate between employee
workplace experiences (whether positive or negative) and workplace disclosure. Deery, Iverson
and Walsh (2006) found that employees’ perception of a breach of the psychological contract had
a negative impact on their level of trust in the organization, which consequently triggered a higher
level of absenteeism. Tan and Lim’s (2009) research shows that the quality of one’s relationship
with colleagues and the perception of their level of care influence the level of trust employees have
in the organization and consequently their work attitude as well.
Hypothesis 4a: Trust in the organization will (at least partially) mediate the relationship between
workplace heterosexism and disclosure of LGBTQ identity at the workplace.
Hypothesis 4b: Trust in the manager will (at least partially) mediate the relationship between
workplace heterosexism and disclosure of LGBTQ identity at the workplace.
The hypotheses are summarized in Figure 1.
Method
Procedures
To recruit participants, we posted announcements to LGBTQ online communities and fora such as
group lists and emailed their members. Participants were asked to complete an anonymous online
Capell et al. 955
Figure 1. Research Hypotheses.

Note: Given the high correlation between trust in organization and trust in manager, the analysis of the model was car-
ried out separately for each of the mediators.
survey that had previously been submitted for evaluation and fine-tuned by community members
with expertise in LGBTQ inclusion issues at the workplace. Before beginning the survey, the
respondents were informed about the study’s confidentiality policy and of the way their informa-
tion would be treated and used. They were also encouraged to contact the research team if they had
any questions or if they wished to receive a free copy of the report.
Participants
All survey respondents were self-identified LGBTQ employees who were at least 18 years old.7 Of
the 431 survey respondents, 58% (n = 250) self-identified as gay, 32% (n = 139) lesbian, 7% (n =
31) bisexual, 1% (n = 6) queer, and another 1% (n = 5) transgender. In response to the question
about sexual identity, participants could identify themselves as male or female (aside from transgen-
der, queer, and ‘prefer not to answer’). Overall, 258 identified themselves as male, 155 as female,
and the rest as belonging to other categories.8
The largest groups came from the EU (n = 242), followed by Israel (n = 116), the US (n = 32)
and Latin America (n = 32); only 9 individuals came from all the other countries combined.9 The
majority, 64%, worked for the private sector, 30% for the public sector and 6% for
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Slightly less than half, 48%, worked for organizations
with over 1000 employees, 19% for organizations with 100 to 1000 employees and 33% for organi-
zations with fewer than 100 employees. Of the 431 participants, 338 provided their age (M =
37.01; SD = 10.12; range 20–65).
Measurements10
In order to minimize the risk of percept-percept bias, we first asked about the level of workplace
disclosure, then about the personal antecedents to workplace disclosure (trust, heterosexism) and
finally, about the demographic and control variables.
Workplace disclosure. Four items were used from the Self-Disclosure of Sexual Orientation in the
Workplace scale (Day & Schoenrade, 1997, 2000). We measured the degree of workplace disclo-
sure by asking the respondents how hard they tried to keep their sexual orientation or gender-
identity a secret from four targets of workplace disclosure11: their direct supervisor, senior leaders,
colleagues and HR personnel. The reliability coefficient was α = .91 (compared to .97 calculated
in the original Day & Schoenrade, 1997, study).
Nonwork outness. We adapted the Outness Inventory (Mohr & Fassinger, 2000), which originally
contained 10 items and three subscales, to measure the level of employees’ LGBTQ identity dis-
closure in their private life with their close family, distant family, new straight friends and groups
they belonged to (hobby, religious, social). Reliability coefficients were α = .74, α = .79 and α =
.97. The response scale ranged from 1 (I try very hard to keep it secret) to 4 (I actively talk about
it with others); the reliability coefficient was α = .78.
Identity strength as an LGBTQ individual. To capture the different stages of LGBTQ identity forma-
tion (Clair et al., 2005), we used a scale to measure the extent of one’s level of comfort and identi-
fication with being an LGBTQ individual, which integrates three previously used scales (the
Importance to Identity subscale [Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992], the Self Identity Distress Scale
[Wright, Dye, Jiles & Marcello, 1999] and the Lesbian Identity Questionnaire [Fassinger, 2001]).
Good reliability coefficients for all three scales and subscales have already been demonstrated:
Luhtanen and Crocker’s (1992) study yielded α values ranging from .76 to .86; Wright and Perry’s
(2006) study yielded a reliability coefficient of .83; and Tozer and Hayes’s (2004) reliability coef-
ficient was .77. In order to achieve external validity for our integrated scale, we consulted five
LGBTQ organization leaders (three men and two women) dedicated to workplace inclusion of
sexual and gender minorities. The lay experts, who were unfamiliar with the literature on LGBTQ
identity and had different educational backgrounds and occupations, evaluated the instruments and
identified key items independently of each other. As a result, we selected two items from Wright
and colleagues’ (1999) scales and one each from Luhtanen and Croker’s (1992) and Fassinger’s
(2001) scales for our instrument. A high scale score indicated that the respondent strongly identi-
fied with and felt very comfortable being LGBTQ. Sample items included ‘I have a positive atti-
tude about being LGBTQ’ and ‘Being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer is an important
reflection of who I am.’ The reliability coefficient of the modified scale was α = .77.
Organizational inclusion practices. We measured organizational policies and practices using items
from Griffith and Hebl’s (2002) scale and an item from Button’s (2001) study (there was no
reported reliability for either of the studies). We verified our items with the aid of this paper’s lead
author, who is an expert on diversity management, five LGBTQ lay experts, and the works of
Capell et al. 957
Button (2001), Day and Greene (2008) and Ragins and Cornwell (2001). On the final scale,
respondents were asked about the existence of organizational nondiscrimination policies, inclusion
programmes such as ERGs, diversity training and domestic partner benefits. Respondents could
answer ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘don’t know’. The measure was calculated by totalling all the ‘yes’ replies;
the reliability coefficient was α = .70.
Trust. We distinguished between two foci of trust for our measurements: the immediate supervisor
and the organization/top management. Using a modified version of Mishra and Mishra’s (1994)
scale to fit the specific LGBTQ context, we repeated the items twice in two different sections for
each measurement; the reliability coefficients for the immediate supervisor and organization were
α = .97 and α = .96 respectively, which matched results from earlier studies (Brahma & Chakrabory,
2009).
Heterosexism. We measured experiences of heterosexism at work by using an adapted version of

Waldo’s (1999) Workplace Heterosexist Experiences questionnaire, focusing on the frequency of
instances of anti-LGBTQ manifestations that employees faced. The original scale included 22 pos-
sible incidents from which we deleted those with descriptions suggesting that disclosure had
already occurred: items, for example, in which respondents were asked if they had been exposed to
derogatory name-calling or if they had been discriminated against because of their LGBTQ iden-
tity. One of the questions on our five-item scale was ‘During the past two years, have you ever been
in a situation or heard of a situation in which any of your co-workers or managers/supervisors
made rude or offensive sexual remarks about LGBTQ people in your workplace?’ Responses
ranged from 1 (never happened) to 5 (happens most of the time). The modified scale showed good
reliability (α = .86).
Control variables. Because workplace disclosure can be affected by external variables, we included
three potential control variables that were found to have an impact on employee workplace disclo-
sure processes in previous studies (Day & Greene, 2008; Day & Schoenrade, 2000; Ragins et al.,
2007) and according to our five lay LGBTQ experts. Our three covariates were perceived protec-
tion, size of the organization and age, each of which represents an antecedent at a different ecologi-
cal level – individual, organization and society.12 Respondents were asked to indicate their year of
birth, select the size range of their organization from among five different options, and answer
whether or not they felt protected on a societal-legal level.
Results
As can be seen in Table 1, workplace disclosure is statistically related to all the study’s variables:
Workplace disclosure is highly related to the individual’s nonwork outness (r = .57, p < .01). A
positive relationship exists between workplace disclosure and trust in the organization (r = .45, p <
.01), as well as between workplace disclosure and trust in the manager (r = .44, p < .01). Another
interesting result is the relationship between workplace disclosure and organizational practices (r
= .20, p < .01). As expected, previous experiences of anti-LGBTQ manifestations were negatively
related to workplace disclosure (r = −.43, p < .01), organizational trust (r = −.49, p < .01), trust in
a manager (r = −.44, p < .01) and legal protection (r = −.45, p < .01). Finally, workplace disclosure
is shown to be related to age (r = −.17, p < .01), whereas it is not significantly related to differences
in organizational size.
The results demonstrate a high correlation between trust in the organization and trust in manag-
ers (r = 0.75, p < 0.01). Since the level fell below the threshold of r > 0.80 (Licht, 1998), we
958
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations.
Variables Means Std 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Org Trust 3.47 .89 (.96)
2. Manager Trust 3.64 .94 .75** (.97)
3. Identity 4.15 .77 .16** .11* (.77)
4. Disclosure 3.05 .82 .45** .44** .33** (.91)
5. Outness 3.31 .62 .22** .23** .29** .57** (.78)
6. Org Pract 2.11 2.2 .32** .22** .07 .20** .13** (.70)
7. Heterosexism 1.64 .85 –.49** –.44** –.03 –.43** –.25** –.15** (.86)
8. Legal Prot 0.71 .49 .26** .29** –.02 .36** .22** .26** –.45**
9. Age 34 10 .21** .04 .24** –.17** –.15** –.35** .13* –.41**
10. Org size 3.5 1.5 –.09 –.03 –.04 –.03 –.04 .43** .02 .19** –.07
N = 431; internal consistency reliability coefficients (alphas) appear on the diagonal.

^ = 500–1000 employees.
*p < 0.05 **p < 0.01.
Organization Studies 39(7)
Capell et al. 959
Figure 2. Outness moderating the relationship between trust in the organization and disclosure.
decided to analyse each type of trust separately. One way to assess the degree of multicollinearity
is to calculate its variance inflation factor (VIF). The results reveal that there was no VIF greater
than 3, and the lowest tolerance estimate was .42 (Cohen, Cohen, West & Aiken, 2013), thus we
were able to rule out the possibility of multicollinearity problems. We also calculated a two-factor
model versus a one-factor model and found that the former surpassed the latter (χ2/DF = 7.43 vs.
10.33 respectively). Furthermore, in order to ascertain that each type of trust uniquely contributed
to the model, we performed a multistage regression13 and assessed one type of trust at each stage.
The percentage of additional variance (ΔR2) in workplace disclosure that was predicted by each
type of trust over and above the other type of trust was low (1%), yet significant (p < .02).
Nevertheless, in order to keep to the conservative side, due to the high correlation between these
variables, in our subsequent analyses we treated each type of trust separately instead of calculating
their impact simultaneously.
The moderation effect of nonwork outness and LGBTQ identity on the relationship between
trust and workplace disclosure was tested using Hayes’s (2012) approach, which estimates a mod-
erating model based on the interaction of centred predicting variables. The interaction effects are
presented in Figures 2–5, revealing that nonwork outness serves as a significant moderator of the
relationships between both types of trust and workplace disclosure. LGBTQ identity and outness
(outside the workplace) both have significant moderating effects on the relationship between trust
in the organization and workplace disclosure (β = −.13, p < 0.01; β = −.14, p < 0.01). At high levels
of LGBTQ identity and nonwork outness, workplace disclosure is high, regardless of the level of
trust. However, at low levels of LGBTQ identity and nonwork outness, the role that trust plays in
the propensity for workplace disclosure becomes critical – the higher the level of trust, the higher
the workplace disclosure. Similar results were found regarding LGBTQ identity and nonwork out-
ness vis-a-vis the relationships between trust in the manager and workplace disclosure (β = −.10,
p < 0.01; β = −.13, p < 0.05). The above results are in line with our first and second hypotheses.
Our model suggests that both types of trust play an intermediate role between the antecedent
variables (legal protection, LGBTQ identity, organizational practices, heterosexist workplace
experiences and nonwork outness) and workplace disclosure. To test our mediation hypotheses
Figure 3. LGBTQ identity moderating the relationship between trust in the organization and disclosure.
Figure 4. Outness moderating the relationship between trust in the manager and disclosure.
(H3a–b and H4a–b), we constructed two structural equation models using AMOS software
(Arbuckle & Wothke, 2001). According to the structural equation analysis, the models measuring
workplace disclosure both fit the data adequately: Model A, where organizational trust is mediator
(χ2= 5.532, p = .50; CFI = 1.00; TLI = 1.00; RMSEA < .001) and Model B, where trust in manager
is mediator (χ2 = 5.886, p = .32; CFI = .998; TLI = .991; RMSEA < .020).
Statistically significant parameter estimates were found for the paths between the antecedent
variables and mediation variables (trust in the manager and trust in the organization) and for the
path between both types of trust and workplace disclosure (β = .22, p < .01; β = .21, p < .01, respec-
tively).14 Legal protection, LGBTQ identity, organizational practices, heterosexist workplace
Capell et al. 961
Figure 5. LGBTQ identity moderating the relationship between trust in the manager and disclosure.
Figure 6. The mediating role of trust in the organization.

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
χ2 = 5.532, p = .50; CFI = 1.00; TLI = 1.00, RMSEA < .001.
experiences, nonwork outness and trust in the organization together explain 49% of the variance of
workplace disclosure (R2 = .49) (Figure 6). Similar results were found for the same set of variables
with trust in the manager as a mediator (R2 = .50) (Figure 7). The two figures differ because we
examined the different impact on and impact of the two types of trust. The different paths indicate
that while the two are highly correlated, each has its unique effect and should be considered
separately.
Figure 7. The mediating role of trust in the manager.

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
χ2 = 5.886, p = .32; CFI = .998; TLI = .991, RMSEA < .020.
Discussion
From theoretical and practical points of view, the results of our study demonstrate how contextual
variables interact with individual behaviour in an organization, explaining the degree to which
LGBTQ employees are willing to out themselves at the workplace. Our results, which reinforce
earlier theorizations on the way workplace inclusion practices impact employees in organizations,
emphasize the important role of the organization’s leaders. Our findings have shown the impor-
tance of different stakeholders for employee ‘outing’ decision-making in the workplace. Clarkson
(1995) defined stakeholders as ‘persons or groups that have, or claim, ownership, rights, or inter-
ests in a corporation and its activities, past, present or future’ (p. 98). We classify stakeholders
according to their relational distance from the individual (Clarkson, 1995) as primary or secondary
stakeholders, and according to their position vis-a-vis the organization (Malvey, Fottler &
Slovensky, 2002) as internal or external stakeholders. The use of this combined model will help
researchers as well as managers to better understand the position and influence each stakeholder
has on the individual; for instance, trying to create a productive employee social environment
(Tzafrir et al., 2015), focusing on employee voice, socialization for diversity, training workers and
managers in diversity, appropriate rules and just practices.
Tzafrir, Enosh, Parry and Stone’s (2013) codified framework of organizational research also
suggests that ‘the external environment interacts with the internal one through various mecha-
nisms, including communication, observation, diffusion, interaction, friction, and yearning’ (p.
39). Because openness to sexual and gender minorities varies across organizational cultures (Crary,
2013; Human Rights Campaign, 2013), it is plausible that organizations less tolerant to LGBTQ
issues will recruit and invest in managers who reflect their cultural norms, and vice versa. From
another perspective, offered by socio-psychological literature, we may expect trust levels in the
organization and managers to affect each other because the official organizational leaders straddle
the intersection between systemic and interpersonal policy-making levels (Grey & Garsten, 2001).
The social-constructivist approach (Shamir & Lapidot, 2003) contributes the insight that it is likely
Capell et al. 963
that LGBTQ individuals may develop a collective assessment of trust in their organizational
authorities as a result of various group and social information processes. Hence, managerial actions
with respect to a gay employee might influence trust levels of the LGBTQ group of employees as
a whole.
Accordingly, our findings reveal that the external environment interacts with the internal envi-
ronment such that disclosure outside the organization and the level of identification as an LGBTQ
individual largely determine, to a major degree, employees’ willingness to disclose their identity
within the organization. This relationship is consistent with theories that postulate the need for iden-
tity verification and congruency (Jones & King, 2014; Ragins, 2008; Swann, 1983) and is consistent
with other research findings (Griffith & Hebl, 2002; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001). Yet, the choice to
disclose sensitive information is also impacted by other mechanisms, including trust in the organiza-
tion, trust in the manager and exposure to negative experiences within the organization.
Our findings confirm our hypothesis that the impact of trust in the organization and manager is
moderated by these external and internal variables. Specifically, nonwork outness and expressed
LGBTQ identity both moderate the relationship between trust and workplace disclosure, such that
trust comes to play a critical role only when the employee faces ambiguous internal and external
pressures. At high levels of LGBTQ identity and nonwork outness, an employee does not face any
ambiguity; thus, the employee will find it easier to disclose his or her identity at work, regardless
of their trust levels. Conversely, at low levels of LGBTQ identity, nonwork outness and lower
personal drive for disclosure, trust becomes critical. In other words, the higher the level of trust, the
higher the level of workplace disclosure. Furthermore, the results help explain why previous stud-
ies showed that organizational policies and practices sometimes have no or little impact on disclo-
sure or inclusiveness (Day & Schoenrade, 2000; Griffith & Hebl, 2002). Similarly, Clair and
colleagues (2005) have suggested that when organizational inclusion policies are not taken seri-
ously, they will fail to have a positive impact on employees’ readiness to come out at work. Thus,
our findings open the path for further research on the impact of trust on workplace disclosure of
highly personal and sensitive information such as stigmatized identities, which is still under-stud-
ied. Most research to date is concerned with the workplace disclosure of information that is periph-
eral to one’s self (e.g. voicing opinions or articulating work-related problems), which seems to
pose a lower level of risk. The small yet significant differences we found between trust in the
organization and trust in the supervisor indicate that when LGBTQ workers experience incongru-
ence between organizational policies and direct supervisors’ behaviours, they may experience
ambivalence and fear. The issue of incongruence between organizational policies and local behav-
iour of supervisors and colleagues may prove to be a defining attribute and contextual variable that
can predict the variance between trust in different foci in other contexts as well.
Finally, our conceptualization and results indicate that using one referent level of trust is insuf-
ficient. The distinction between the two referent levels (immediate supervisor and organization) is
not merely a conceptual exercise, but a real-life issue. Taking into account contextual theory
(Johns, 2006), and our conceptualization and results, may yield new insights and a new path for
future research. Johns (2006) discusses the need to consider both omnibus and discrete contexts.
Therefore, using both ‘universal’ factors (omnibus context) such as legal protection and unique
organizational factors (discrete context) is imperative for any research dealing with a complex
phenomenon.
Limitations and Future Research

From a conceptual and practical standpoint, it may be true that workplace disclosure benefits the
individual; if so, behaviour that corresponds with workplace disclosure and vice versa can be
considered positive or negative respectively. However, people vary in the extent to which they
want to be open about their personal life and in their individual need to keep aspects of it private.
For those with a greater need for privacy, workplace disclosure may actually increase stress.
Therefore, depending on the person’s privacy or boundary preferences, workplace disclosure may
not always be optimal.
Another concern centres on the fine distinction between the individual’s effort to come out
compared with his or her actual behaviour. On the scale we used, we asked participants how hard
they tried to hide their identity from four targets at work. We must consider, however, that an indi-
vidual may try very hard, and fail to keep their identity a secret or, alternatively, not try at all, yet
not necessarily be open about it or disclosing.
As described, our data came from a single source over a single time interval. Nevertheless, as
Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Podsakoff (2012) recommended, we eliminated item ambiguity and
guaranteed response anonymity. Moreover, we calculated a confirmatory factor analysis in order to
address the mono-method bias. Yet, it is possible for individuals to be open with some people and
not with others; individuals can also fluctuate in the extent to which they are open with people over
time. In other words, workplace disclosure is not an ‘all or nothing’, ‘in’ or ‘out’ phenomenon, it is
a continuous process comprising smaller workplace disclosure episodes with various people over
time. As Möllering (2013) suggested, other process-like phenomena, such as crises, are entangled
with trusting. We propose that self-disclosure is a process of how people develop the preliminary
outcome of ‘trust’ in different ways of studying trust. Therefore, future research should focus on a
longitudinal analysis combined with in-depth interviews to explore the self-disclosure process
more deeply. Also, due to the sensitivity and anonymity of the data, we had no way to control
against the possibility of nested data (respondents from the same organization). However, to com-
pensate, we disseminated the questionnaire in various networks as well as in multinational corpo-
rations where it was completed by employees in different locations and countries, thus reducing the
probability for nested data.
Another possible limitation pertains to the generalizability of the results to the overall LGBTQ
population: The profiles of LGBTQ individuals who are members of LGBTQ ERGs or are readers
of LGBTQ media may differ from those LGBTQ individuals who are not. One may also question
the preponderance of male respondents in our sample, but we note that other studies show the ratio
of males to females is consistently higher in LGBTQ samples. For instance, in the National Health
Statistics Report of the Centres for Disease Control (Ward, Dahlhamer, Galinsky & Joestl, 2014),
there were 20% more males than females who self-identified as gay or lesbian. Similarly, using
data from the Office for National Statistics in the UK, Chalabi (2013) found that ‘While 1.5% of
men in the UK say they’re gay, only 0.7% of women say the same.’
As in other studies, our sample is based on respondents who exhibited some degree of disclo-
sure (Law et al., 2011; Ragins et al., 2007). To reduce this potential sampling bias, we intentionally
used different types of online media to reach out to respondents (e.g. company ERGs, LGBTQ
rights media, commercial sites, advocacy groups, and so forth). It would nonetheless be worth-
while to use a random sampling approach within the LGBTQ population in future research.
Like other studies (e.g. Ambrose & Schminke, 2003; Tan & Tan, 2000), ours shows a strong
correlation between both types of trust (supervisor, organization), which previous studies have also
shown (e.g. Ambrose & Schminke, 2003; Tan & Tan, 2000). The study has shown that despite the
high correlation among the two constructs, participants still differentiate between the two. The
results highlight the unique contribution of each type of trust, yet the percent of additional variance
in both types of trust accounted for beyond the other type of trust was only 1%. One might ask, if
they are truly unique and distinct, then why test them separately? Technically, according to familiar
statistical techniques showing there is no multicollinearity between the two, we suggest that
Capell et al. 965
available measures are not sensitive enough to capture the fine differences in the given contexts.
We urge that in order not to lose sight of the essential issue and context (Johns, 2006) of the foci of
trust, more sensitive measurements must be developed.
In spite of the limitations, the research findings presented here provide new insights into the
relationship between organizational trust, organizational policies and practices, and negative work-
place manifestations of disclosure. This study emphasizes the importance of the external and inter-
nal social environments in understanding employee attitudes and behaviours in the organization.
Implications and Conclusion

Previous studies point to the benefits to organizations that foster a supportive climate, in which
employees feel comfortable and safe being true to themselves. This research shows the importance
of employee trust in the organization to feeling comfortable about disclosing sexual- and gender-
identity at work. This is an effect that goes above and beyond organizational-level antidiscrimina-
tion policies and practices; simply enforcing organizational-level antidiscrimination policies and
practices does not go far enough. Managers must be aware that some of their employees are
undoubtedly LGBTQ individuals, be they visible or not, and that learning how to supervise them
can increase their engagement, and in turn, their contribution to the organization.
Top management teams (that reflect the organization in general; see, for example, Hambrick &
Mason, 1984; Kickul, Gundry & Posig, 2005) should be encouraged to increase the perceived and
actual trustworthiness of the organization and line managers in the eyes of the LGBTQ staff. This
can be accomplished by making visible progress in all the relevant dimensions of trustworthiness:
competence, concern, openness and reliability (Mishra, 1996; Mishra & Mishra, 1994). Competence
can be enhanced by ensuring that managers demonstrate professionalism in the way they handle
issues concerning sexual diversity. Concern can be improved by expressing support for LGBTQ
employees and by taking concrete measures to eradicate heterosexism. Openness can be furthered
by being transparent about the criteria for selection and promotion and by openly discussing areas
for improvement. Finally, to increase reliability, top managers must consistently apply all of the
above and continually communicate the real steps the organization is taking to become more
inclusive.
Funding
This research was done with the support of the Generalitat of Catalonia, Research Grant 2014FI_B1 00198.
Notes
1. In this article, with respect to gender-identity issues, we take the ‘functionalist’ approach. It should be
noted that others have taken a more critical approach (e.g. Riach, Rumens & Tyler, 2014; Thomas, Hardy,
Cutcher & Ainsworth, 2014). A more in-depth discussion of the differences and similarities between the
critical approach and the one adopted in this paper is beyond the scope of this article.
2. The terms manager and supervisor are used throughout and interchangeably to refer to the immediate
manager or supervisor.
3. The exception that proves the rule: Apple’s CEO recently announced that he is gay.
4. Interestingly, some studies show that coming out, in and of itself – without taking into account environ-
mental factors – can be beneficial to an individual’s psychology (Day & Schoenrade, 2000; Law et al.,
2011; Moradi, 2009).
5. People do not necessarily risk disclosure because they trust the other party, but because they have no
other choice: for example, in order to negotiate or access partner benefits or because they are undergoing
a visible gender transition.
6. Nevertheless, we should note that using trust in top management as a proxy is a reasonable but imperfect
solution, which may be debatable.
7. In order to comply with legal restrictions in several countries regarding sexual content addressed to
minors, we decided to restrict the age of respondents to 18 or over.
8. Berg and Lien’s (2006) model, based on US census data, suggests that 7.1% of men and 4.1% of women
are nonheterosexual. Our sample reflects this ratio.
9. Almost all the respondents came from countries where legislation protects against discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation or gender-identity, so there is almost no variation.
10. All the scales we used in this study are available on the journal’s website.
11. Given that we captured data at a single point of time, we found it impossible to confirm cause and effect
between trust and disclosure in relation to questions that indicated experiences in which disclosure had
already occurred (e.g. ‘Did your supervisor ever deny you a promotion, raise, or other career advance-
ment for not being “straight”?’).
12. As Riach and colleagues wrote: ‘If age does indeed become a “pathology” in later working life, as sug-
gested by Ainsworth and Hardy (2008, p. 402), to what extent does the multiplicity of selfhood, particu-
larly as this multiplicity is organized around one’s sexuality and gender…’ (2014, p. 1694). Indeed, in
this sense the approach taken here and the critical approach dovetail, as age and ageing may intertwine
with and affect other organizational and personal processes implicated in one’s decisions and perceptions
regarding gender outing.
13. We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this procedure.
14. Bootstrap analysis as recommended by Fritz, Taylor and MacKinnon (2012) confirmed these results. In
order to avoid overwhelming readers with redundant information, we present only the point significance
and not the confidence intervals.
References
Ainsworth, S., & Hardy, C. (2008). The enterprising self: An unsuitable job for an older worker. Organization,
15, 389–405.
Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2003). Organization structure as a moderator of the relationship between
procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational support, and supervisory trust. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 88, 295–305.
American Psychological Association (2002). APA Congressional Testimony. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/
CHRG-107shrg78032/html/CHRG-107shrg78032.htm
Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (2001). AMOS 4.0 User’s Guide. Chicago, IL: Small Waters.
Arthur, J. B., & Kim, D-O. (2005). Gainsharing and knowledge sharing: The effects of labour–management
cooperation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 1564–1582.
Berg, N., & Lien, D. (2006). Same-sex sexual behaviour: US frequency estimates from survey data with
simultaneous misreporting and non-response. Applied Economics, 38, 757–769.
Blau, M. P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Brahma, S. S., & Chakraborty, H. (2009). Assessment of construct validity of Mishra and Mishra’s trust scale
in the context of merger and acquisition in India. Asian Journal of Management and Humanity Sciences,
4, 200–225.
Brewis, J., Tyler, M., & Mills, A. (2014). Sexuality and organizational analysis – 30 years on: Editorial intro-
duction. Organization, 21, 305–311.
Browne, J. (2014). The glass closet: Why coming out is good business. London: Random House.
Burrell, G. (1984). Sex and organizational analysis. Organization Studies, 5, 97–118.
Button, S. B. (2001). Organizational efforts to affirm sexual diversity: A cross-level examination. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86, 17.
Capell, B., Tzafrir, S. S., & Dolan, S. L. (2016). The disclosure of concealable stigmas: Analysis anchored in
trust. Cogent Psychology, 3(1), 1121066.
Chalabi, M. (2013). Gay Britain: What do the statistics say? The Guardian, 3 October 2013. https://www.
theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/oct/03/gay-britain-what-do-statistics-say
Capell et al. 967
Chaudoir, R. S., & Fisher, J. D. (2010). The disclosure processes model: Understanding disclosure decision-
making and post-disclosure outcomes among people living with a concealable stigmatized identity.
Psychology Bulletin, 136, 236–256.
Chen, Z. X., Aryee, S., & Lee, C. (2005). Test of a mediation model of perceived organizational support.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 457–470.
Child, J., & Möllering, G. (2003). Contextual confidence and active trust development in the Chinese business
environment. Organization Science, 14, 69–80.
Clair, J. A., Beatty, J. E., & MacLean, T. L. (2005). Out of sight but not out of mind: Managing invisible
social identities in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 30, 78–95.
Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social perfor-
mance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92–117.
Costas, J., & Grey, C. (2014). Bringing secrecy into the open: Towards a theorization of the social processes
of organizational secrecy. Organization Studies, 35, 1–25.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for
the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Courtney, S. J. (2014). Inadvertently queer school leadership amongst lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) school
leaders. Organization, 21, 383–399.
Crary, D. (2013, May 22). Complaint accuses Exxon Mobil of anti-gay bias. USA Today. https://www.usato-
day.com/story/money/business/2013/05/22/exxon-mobil-anti-gay-bias/2350843/
Day, N. E., & Greene, P. G. (2008). A case for sexual orientation diversity management in small and large
organizations. Human Resource Management, 47, 637–654.
Day, N. E., & Schoenrade, P. (1997). Staying in the closet versus coming out: Relationships between com-
munication about sexual orientation and work attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 50, 147–164.
Day, N. E., & Schoenrade, P. (2000). The relationship among reported disclosure of sexual orientation, anti-
discrimination policies, top management support and work attitudes of gay and lesbian employees.
Personnel Review, 29, 346–363.
Deery, S. J., Iverson, R. D., & Walsh, J. T. (2006). Toward a better understanding of psychological contract
breach: A study of customer service employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 166–175.
Department for International Development (2011). Sexual Orientation Core Script. from:https://www.gov.
uk/government/publications/sexual-orientation-core-script
Dietz, G., & Den Hartog, D. M. (2006). Measuring trust inside organizations. Personnel Review, 35, 557–588.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12,
450–467.
Drydakis, N. (2009). Sexual orientation discrimination in the labour market. Labour Economics, 16, 364–372.
Ellison, M. L., Russinova, Z., MacDonald-Wilson, K. L., & Lyass, A. (2003). Patterns and correlates of work-
place disclosure among professionals and managers with psychiatric conditions. Journal of Vocational
Rehabilitation, 18, 3−13.
Fassinger, R. E. (2001). Lesbian identity questionnaire (Revised). Unpublished manuscript, University of
Maryland, College Park.
Fleig-Palmer, M. M., & Schoorman, D. F. (2011). Trust as a moderator of the relationship between mentoring
and knowledge transfer. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18, 334–343.
FRA (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights) (2013). EU LGBT survey – European Union lesbian,
gay, bisexual and transgender survey – results at a glance. http://fra.europa.eu
Fritz, M. S., Taylor, A. B., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2012). Explanation of two anomalous results in statistical
mediation analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 61–87.
Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). At what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust across multiple organi-
zational levels. Journal of Management, 38, 1167–1230.
’Gillespie, N. (2003). Measuring trust in working relationships: The behavioural trust inventory. Paper pre-
sented at the AOM Meeting, Seattle, August 2003.
Gould-Williams, J. (2003). The importance of HR practices and workplace trust in achieving superior perfor-
mance: A study of public-sector organizations. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
14, 28–54.
Grey, C., & Garsten, C. (2001). Trust, control and post-bureaucracy. Organization Studies, 22, 229–250.
Griffith, K. H., & Hebl, M. R. (2002). The disclosure dilemma for gay men and lesbians: “Coming out” at
work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1191–1199.
Guillaume, Y. R. F., Dawson, J. F., Woods, S. A., Sacramento, C. A., & West, M. A. (2013). Getting
diversity at work to work: What we know and what we still don’t know. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 86, 123–141.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top manag-
ers. Academy of Management Review, 9, 193–206.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation,
and conditional process modelling. http://www.afhayes.com/introduction-to-mediation-moderation-
and-conditional-process-analysis.html#process
Hecht, M. L., & Faulkner, S. L. (2000). Sometimes Jewish, sometimes not: The closeting of Jewish American
identity. Communication Studies, 51, 372–387.
Huffman, A. H., Watrous-Rodriguez, K. M., & King, E. B. (2008). Supporting a diverse workforce: What
type of support is most meaningful for lesbian and gay employees? Human Resource Management, 47,
237–253.
Human Rights Campaign (2013). Corporate equality index. http://www.hrc.org/corporate-equality-index/#.
Ug08MFOp7us
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management
Review, 31, 386–408.
Jones, P., & King, B. (2014). Managing concealable stigmas at work: A review and multilevel model. Journal
of Management, 40, 1466–1494.
Kickul, J., Gundry, L. K., & Posig, M. (2005). Does trust matter? The relationship between equity sensitivity
and perceived organizational justice. Journal of Business Ethics, 56, 205–218.
King, E. B., & Cortina, J. M. (2010). The social and economic imperative of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgendered supportive organizational policies. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 69–78.
Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual
Review of Psychology, 50, 569–598.
Law, C. L., Martinez, L.R., Ruggs, E. N., Hebl, M. R., & Akers, E. (2011). Transparency in the workplace: How
the experiences of transsexual employees can be improved. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 710–723.
Lee, P., Gillespie, N., Mann, L., & Wearing, A. (2010). Leadership and trust: Their effect on knowledge shar-
ing and team performance. Management Learning, 41, 473–491.
Licht, M. H. (1998). Multiple regression and correlation. In L. G. Grimm & P. R Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and
understanding multivariate statistics (pp. 19–64). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s social identity.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302–318.
Lui, S. (2009). The roles of competence trust, formal contract, and time horizon in interorganizational learn-
ing. Organization Studies, 30, 333–353.
Malvey, D., Fottler, M. D., & Slovensky, D. J. (2002). Evaluating stakeholder management performance using
a stakeholder report card: The next step in theory and practice. Health Care Manage Review, 27(2), 66–79.
Mamman, A. (1996). A diverse employee in a changing workplace. Organization Studies, 17, 449–477.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy
of Management Review, 20, 709–734.
Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the
employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48, 874–888.
Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1984). The relationships among beliefs, organizational position, and whistle-
blowing status: A discriminant analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 687–705.
Miller, C. (2014). Where are the gay chief executives. New York Times, 16 May 2014. http://www.nytimes.
com/2014/05/18/upshot/there-are-still-no-openly-gay-major-s.html?_r=0
Mishra, A. K. (1996). Organizational responses to crisis. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in
organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 261–287). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Mishra, A. K., & Mishra, K. E. (1994). The role of mutual trust in effective downsizing strategies. Human
Resource Management, 33, 261–279.
Capell et al. 969
Mohr, J. J., & Fassinger, R. E. (2000). Measuring dimensions of lesbian and gay male experience. Measurement
and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33, 66–90.
Möllering, G. (2006). Trust: Reason, routine reflexivity. Oxford: Elsevier.
Möllering, G. (2013). Process views of trusting and crises. In: R. Bachmann & A. Zaheer (Eds.), Handbook
of advances in trust research (pp. 285–305). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Moradi, B. (2009). Sexual orientation disclosure, concealment, harassment, and military cohesion: Perceptions
of LGBT military veterans. Military Psychology, 21, 513–533.
Muthusamy, S. K., & White, M. A. (2005). Learning and knowledge transfer in strategic alliances: A social
exchange view. Organization Studies, 26, 415–444.
Parker, M. (2002). Queering management and organization. Gender, Work & Organization, 9, 146–166.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 539–569.
Quinn, D. M., & Chaudoir, S. R. (2009). Living with a concealable stigmatized identity: The impact of antici-
pated stigma, centrality, salience, and cultural stigma on psychological distress and health. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 634–651.
Ragins, B. R. (2008). Disclosure disconnects: Antecedents and consequences of disclosing invisible stigmas
across life domains. Academy of Management Review, 33, 194–215.
Ragins, B. R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2001). Pink triangles: Antecedents and consequences of perceived
workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
1244–1261.
Ragins, B. R., Singh, R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2007). Making the invisible visible: Fear and disclosure of sexual
orientation at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1103–1118.
Riach, K., Rumens, N., & Tyler, M. (2014). Un/doing chrononormativity: Negotiating ageing, gender and
sexuality in organizational life. Organization Studies, 35, 1677–1698.
Rotter, J. B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. American Psychologist, 35(1), 1.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline
view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393–404.
Sears, B., & Mallory, C. (2011). Documented evidence of employment discrimination & its effects on LGBT
people. http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/workplace/documented-evidence-of-employment-
discrimination-its-effects-on-lgbt-people
Sears, B., Hunter, N. D., & Mallory, C. (2009). Documenting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
and gender identity in state employment. http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu
Shamir, B., & Lapidot, Y. (2003). Trust in organizational superiors: Systemic and collective considerations.
Organization Studies, 24, 463–491.
Shore, M., Randel, E., Chung, G., Dean, A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diver-
sity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37, 1262–1289.
Skidmore, P. (2004). A legal perspective on sexuality and organization: A lesbian and gay case study. Gender,
Work & Organization, 11, 229–253.
Stewart, B. J. (2014). Among gay C.E.O.s, the pressure to conform. New York Times, 27 June 2014. http://www.
nytimes.com/2014/06/28/business/john-browne-former-chief-of-bp-on-being-a-closeted-executive.html.
Swann, W. B., Jr. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self. In J. Suls &
A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Social psychological perspectives on the self, vol. 2 (pp. 33–66). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tan, H. H., & Tan, C. S. F. (2000). Toward the differentiation of trust in supervisor and trust in organization.
Genetic Social and General Psychology Monographs, 126, 241–260.
Tan, H. H., & Lim, A. K. (2009). Trust in coworkers and trust in organizations. Journal of Psychology, 143,
45–66.
Thomas, R., Hardy, C., Cutcher, L., & Ainsworth, S. (2014). What’s age got to do with it? On the critical
analysis of age and organizations. Organization Studies, 35, 1569–1584.
Tozer, E. E., & Hayes, J. A. (2004). Why do individuals seek conversion therapy? The role of religiosity,
internalized homonegativity and identity development. The Counseling Psychologist, 32, 716–740.
Tzafrir, S. (2005). The relationship between trust, HRM practices and firm performance. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 1600−1622.
Tzafrir, S. S. (2009). Transforming kibbutz research. Organizational Studies, 30, 681–684.

Tzafrir, S. S., & Dolan, S. (2004). Trust me: A multiple item scale for measuring managers’ employee trust.
Management Research, 2, 115–132.
Tzafrir, S. S., Enosh, G., Parry, E., & Stone, D. L. (2013). CODIFYing social issues in organizations: Scope
and perspectives. Global Business Perspective, 1, 39–47.
Tzafrir, S. S., Gur, A., & Blumen, O. (2015). Employee Social Environment as a tool for Decrease Intention
to Leave. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31, 136–146.
Vanhala, M., & Ritala, P. (2016). HRM practices, impersonal trust and organizational innovativeness. Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 31, 95–109.
Waldo, C. R. (1999). Working in a majority context: A structural model of heterosexism as minority stress in
the workplace. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 46, 218–232.
Ward, B. W., Dahlhamer, J. M., Galinsky, A. M., & Joestl, S. S. (2014). Sexual orientation and health among
US adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2013. National Health Statistics Reports, 77, 1–10.
Webber, S., Bishop, K., & O’Neill, R. (2012). Trust repair: The impact of perceived organizational support
and issue-selling success. Journal of Management Development, 31, 724–737.
Wright, E., Dye, J. D., Jiles, M. E., & Marcello, M. K. (1999). Empowering gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth:
Findings from the Indiana Youth Access Project (final evaluation report). Unpublished manuscript,
Indiana University, Bloomington.
Wright, E. R., & Perry, B. L. (2006). Sexual identity distress, social support, and the health of gay, lesbian,
and bisexual youth. Journal of Homosexuality, 51, 81–11.
Woolthuis, K. (2005). Trust, contract and relationship development. Organization Studies, 26, 813–840.
Yoshino, K. (2006). Covering: The hidden assault on our civil rights. New York: Random House.
Zand, E. D. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 229–239.
Author biographies
Ben Capell is a lecturer at the Institute of International Business at the Open University of Hong Kong. Ben
publishes in the fields of HR and OB. He received his PhD from ESADE Business School, Barcelona, Spain.
Shay Tzafrir is an associate professor in the Department of Business Administration at the University of Haifa.
He received his PhD in behavioral science from the Technion (Israel Institute of Technology). He serves as
an Associate Editor in various journals.
Guy Enosh is associate professor in the School of Social Work at the University of Haifa. He received his PhD
from the University of Pennsylvania. Guy researches and publishes in the fields of interpersonal conflict and
violence.
Simon Dolan is a full professor in the department of Human Resource Management at ESADE Business
School, Barcelona, Spain. Simon has a PhD from the University of Minnesota. He publishes in the areas of
cultural change, HRM, stress and future of work.
Appendix 1: Instruments
Workplace disclosure scale
5 items from Disclosure of Sexual Orientation in the Workplace scale (Day & Schoenrade, 1997).
The following questions measure to what extent you are out to different groups of people. One
end of the scale indicates that you try hard to keep your sexual orientation or gender identity a
secret/private and on the other that you actively talk about it.
Mark your answers using the scale from 1–5, where:
1 = I try very hard to keep it secret

2 = I try somewhat hard to keep it secret
Capell et al. 971
3 = I don’t try to keep it secret

4 = I actively talk about it to others
5 = Not applicable/Prefer not to answer
Please indicate to what extent you are out to the following groups of individuals.
At Work:
1. Co-workers (peers)
2. Immediate supervisor/manager
3. Senior management
4. HR
Self-identity scale
Items 1 and 2 are from the Self-Identity Distress Scale (Wright, Dye, Jiles, & Marcello, 1999), item
3 from the Lesbian Identity Questionnaire (Fassinger, 2001) and item 4 from Importance to Identity
subscale (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992).
The following questions are meant to gather your feedback on how you feel about being Gay,
Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender or Queer (LGBTQ). There are no right or wrong answers to any of
these statements; we are interested in your honest reactions and opinions.
1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree; 6 = Not
applicable/Prefer not to answer
1. I have a positive attitude about being LGBTQ

2. I feel pride for being Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender or Queer
3. My sexual/gender identity is an integrated part of my social and public life
4. Being Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender or Queer is an important reflection of who I am
HR management practices
The next three following questions ask about your organization’s HR management practices.
Answer either Yes, No, or Don’t Know
1. In my organization there are LGBT inclusive non-discrimination policies or guidelines

(e.g. the policies specify clearly the company stance against discrimination of employee
due to sexual orientation or gender identity).
2. My organization provides its employees with domestic partner benefits (vs. benefits only to
the spouse).
3. In my organization there are formal programs to promote inclusion of LGBTQ employees
(diversity training, networking groups, etc).
Trust in immediate supervisor/trust in the organization

Adapted items from Mishra & Mishra’s (1994) Trust scale. There are two sections. First you will
answer these questions with respect to your supervisor and then again, with respect to the organiza-
tion as a whole:
Section 1. Trust in the Supervisor: This part asks about your level of trust in your immediate
supervisor.
The following questions are meant to assess your level of trust in your superior at work (e.g.,
immediate supervisor/manager). Please answer these questions whether you are “out” or not.
Section 2. Trust in the Organization: This part asks about your level of trust in your
organization.
The following questions are meant to assess your level of trust in your organization (e.g., top
management team). Please answer these questions whether you are “out” or not.
1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree; 6 = Not
applicable/Prefer not to answer
For example: My superior at work (immediate supervisor or manager):
1. Cares about my future in the company/organization;

2. Has the competencies needed to support my career;
3. Will keep the promises that they make to me;
4. Shares with me important information that is relevant to my career;
5. Is completely open and transparent regarding their views/feelings related to inclusion of
LGBTQ employees in the workplace;
6. Place their people needs above any possible personal biases;
7. Consistently manage the people in their organization in a fair and unbiased way;
8. Are skilled in managing people`s issues related to sexual diversity at work;
9. Express their true feelings about workplace diversity (e.g., sexual diversity);
10. Care about my well-being as an employee of their organization;
11. Appear to understand what it means to provide equal and non-discriminatory treatment to
their LGBTQ staff;
12. Are able to provide the appropriate support an LGBTQ employee might need in the work-
place (e.g., protection against discrimination, hostility, etc.);
13. Will treat me in a consistently positive way simply for being who I am;
14. Would make personal sacrifices to support me regardless if I am out or not;
15. Would acknowledge their own mistakes if they happen to treat me unfairly (due to my
sexual or gender identity);
16. Can be relied on to treat me fairly whether or not I am “out”.
Heterosexism
5 items from Waldo’s (1999) Workplace Heterosexist Experiences questionnaire. Below are some
questions about possible negative experiences in your workplace. They refer to either your own
experiences or those of other LGBTQ employees you know.
1 = never happened; 2 = happened only once or twice; 3 = happened multiple times; 4 = happened on a
regular basis; 5 = happened most of the time; 6 = Not applicable/Prefer not to answer
Capell et al. 973
During the past 2 years in your workplace, have you ever been in/heard of a situation where any
of your COWORKERS or MANAGERS/SUPERVISORS:
1. Made rude or offensive sexual remarks about LGBTQ people (e.g., in the office or to you
privately)?
2. Displayed or distributed homophobic literature or materials (e.g., e-mail, flyers,
brochures)?
3. Made you (or another LGBTQ employee) afraid of being treated poorly for discussing your
(their) sexual orientation or gender identity?
4. Made you (or another LGBTQ employee) feel it was necessary to “act straight” (e.g., moni-
tor speech, dress, or behavior)?
5. Made you (or another LGBTQ employee) feel a need to alter discussions about personal or
love life (e.g., referring to your partner as a “roommate”)?
Background and demographics

1. Your birth year: (scroll)
2. What is the size of your organization:
1–10 employees
11–100 employees
101–500 employees
501–1000 employees
Over 1000 employees
3. In which country do you work? Scroll

4. Do you feel legally protected against LGBTQ workplace discrimination?
1. Yes
2. No

Explaining Sexual Minorities

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Explaining Sexual Minorities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

708000

Workplace disclosure decision

Trust and sharing sensitive information

workplace disclosure of various types of work-related information, including opinions, mistakes,

The effects of organizational trust and psychological motivators for workplace

Trust as a mediator between inclusive organizational practices and workplace

Trust as a mediator between workplace heterosexist experiences and workplace

The hypotheses are summarized in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Research Hypotheses.

Heterosexism. We measured experiences of heterosexism at work by using an adapted version of

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations.

Variables Means Std 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

N = 431; internal consistency reliability coefficients (alphas) appear on the diagonal.

Figure 6. The mediating role of trust in the organization.

Figure 7. The mediating role of trust in the manager.

Limitations and Future Research

Implications and Conclusion

Tzafrir, S. S. (2009). Transforming kibbutz research. Organizational Studies, 30, 681–684.

1 = I try very hard to keep it secret

3 = I don’t try to keep it secret

1. I have a positive attitude about being LGBTQ

1. In my organization there are LGBT inclusive non-discrimination policies or guidelines

Trust in immediate supervisor/trust in the organization

For example: My superior at work (immediate supervisor or manager):

1. Cares about my future in the company/organization;

Background and demographics

3. In which country do you work? Scroll

You might also like