Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Colgan Eo I 2007
Colgan Eo I 2007
Equality and diversity policies and practices at work: lesbian, gay and bisexual workers
Fiona Colgan Chris Creegan Aidan McKearney Tessa Wright
Article information:
To cite this document:
Fiona Colgan Chris Creegan Aidan McKearney Tessa Wright, (2007),"Equality and diversity policies and
practices at work: lesbian, gay and bisexual workers", Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 26 Iss 6 pp.
Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)
590 - 609
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02610150710777060
Downloaded on: 08 November 2014, At: 14:08 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 36 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3792 times since 2007*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Tessa Wright, Fiona Colgan, Chris Creegany, Aidan McKearney, (2006),"Lesbian, gay and bisexual workers:
equality, diversity and inclusion in the workplace", Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 25 Iss 6 pp.
465-470
Paul Brook, Rosemary Lucas, Fiona Colgan, Aidan McKearney, (2012),"Visibility and voice in organisations:
Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered employee networks", Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An
International Journal, Vol. 31 Iss 4 pp. 359-378
Fiona Colgan, Aidan McKearney, Fiona Colgan, (2011),"Equality, diversity and corporate responsibility:
Sexual orientation and diversity management in the UK private sector", Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An
International Journal, Vol. 30 Iss 8 pp. 719-734
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 404256 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
EOI
26,6
Equality and diversity policies
and practices at work: lesbian,
gay and bisexual workers
590 Fiona Colgan, Chris Creegan, Aidan McKearney and Tessa Wright
Comparative Organisation and Equality Research Centre, WLRI,
London Metropolitan University, London, UK
Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify organisational good practice concerning equality,
diversity and sexual orientation and consider the impact of the Employment Equality (Sexual
Orientation) Regulations 2003.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper employs in-depth interviews and a short survey with
154 lesbian, gay and bisexual people (LGB) and 60 interviews with management, trade union and
LGB group representatives within 16 ‘‘good practice’’ case study organisations.
Findings – Before the introduction of the (SO) Regulations (2003), progress concerning equality,
diversity and sexual orientation was made based on social justice and/or business case arguments.
The research shows that an inclusive organisational response can benefit both LGB employees and
their employers. However, an ‘‘implementation gap’’ between equality/diversity policy and practice on
sexual orientation was identified. The introduction of the law as a further driver to equality action in
the sexual orientation area has been positive. However, LGB employees voiced concerns about the
way in which organisations rely on LGB people to come forward with complaints before tackling
problems. Thus, the protection provided by the (SO) Regulations 2003, although welcomed, was not
seen as a panacea to tackling discrimination and harassment on grounds of sexual orientation in the
workplace. LGB respondents looked to their organisation management to provide proactive
leadership on equality/diversity issues and stop treating the sexual orientation strand as the ‘‘poor
relation’’ within the organisational drive for equality and diversity.
Originality/value – The paper addresses the gap in knowledge regarding LGB people’s perceptions
of equality/diversity policy and practice within UK workplaces, providing information on good
practice for employers, trade unions, government and LGB campaigning organisations.
Keywords Homosexuals, Sexuality, Equal opportunities, Employment legislation, United Kingdom
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
This paper will discuss the experiences of lesbian, gay and bisexual ( LGB) workers
following the introduction of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation)
Discrimination Regulations (2003)[1]. The research first focuses on what employers
have done to develop and implement good practice both prior to and following the
introduction of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (2003). It
then considers the impact of organisation equality/diversity policy and practice and
the introduction of the Regulations from the point of view of LGB people within 16 case
study organisations[2].
The academic literature concerning progress in UK organisation equality and
diversity policy and practice has pointed to the gap that too often exists between
equality policy and practice ( Jewson and Mason, 1986; Cockburn, 1991; Young, 1992,
Equal Opportunities International Dickens, 2005). It has also focused on the relative merits of the social justice, business
Vol. 26 No. 6, 2007
pp. 590-609
# Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0261-0159
The authors would like to thank Pauline Baseley, Hazel Conley and the two anonymous referees
DOI 10.1108/02610150710777060 for their comments on an earlier version of this article.
and legislative compliance arguments as drivers for effective organisational equality Equality and
and diversity action ( Dickens, 1999, 2005; Liff and Dickens, 2000; Richards, 2001).
Evaluation of progress within the UK thus far has pointed to the weakness of
diversity policies
anti-discrimination legislation and the uneven application over time and within
organisations of arguments based solely on the social justice and business cases
(Skidmore, 2004; Dickens, 1994, 2005). Few studies, thus far have considered progress
concerning the sexual orientation strand, with a few notable exceptions (Cockburn,
1991; Kirton and Greene, 2000; Dickens, 2005; Cooper, 2006).
591
There is a lack of robust statistical evidence concerning the proportion of the UK
population who identify as LGB. The DTI’s regulatory impact assessment suggested
Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)
that between 5 and 7 per cent of the UK population is LGB (DTI, 2005). However, the
assessment was based on a range of arguably conflicting data concerning sexual
identity and sexual activity. The attribution of the labels ‘‘lesbian, gay and bisexual’’ to
those involved in this study is based on self-identification by respondents themselves
during the research process. Despite a growing body of research on sexual orientation
in organisations, the experiences of ‘‘sexual minorities’’ in the workplace remains an
under researched area and there have been very few case studies of particular
organisations (Ward and Winstanley, 2003). Research has demonstrated that LGB
people experience discrimination at work and that fears about the consequences of
revealing their sexuality affects both career choices and personal strategies within the
workplace (Palmer, 1993; ID Research, 2002). Ryan-Flood’s (2004) research found that
LGB workers in the ‘‘higher echelons of the labour market’’ tended to choose careers in
sectors with a more tolerant environment and were more likely to be out. Whereas,
those employed in lower level jobs were more likely to remain ‘‘closeted at work,’’ and
change employer rather than seek assistance through their trade union where they
encountered difficulty at work. Moreover, whilst there has been some research on trade
union responses to LGB workers in the UK (Colgan, 1999a; Humphrey, 2002), to date
there has been little focus on the policies and practices of UK employers (Equal
Opportunities Review, 2004; Carabine and Monro, 2004; Stonewall, 2004; Colgan et al.,
2008).
Over the last decade a range of ‘‘good practice’’ organisations have recognised that a
commitment to equality and diversity includes engaging with the needs of LGB
employees, service users and customers (Stonewall, 2006). Prior to the introduction of
the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (2003), any progress made
has been based on social justice and/or business case arguments. This paper focuses on
the experiences of LGB people at work within 16 such ‘‘good practice’’ employers
following the introduction of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation)
Regulations 2003. The study is important in being able to explore the ‘‘tip of the
iceberg’’ within UK workplaces by researching the views of LGB employees who have
been willing to participate in the research who in turn work for progressive
organisations who see the value of a study in this area. As such the research does not
pretend to provide a ‘‘window’’ into the average or typical UK workplace but rather into
16 ‘‘good practice’’ UK workplaces, with a track record of developing policy and
practice on sexual orientation. It does however, begin to address the gap in knowledge
that exists regarding the experiences of LGB people within UK workplaces.
Methodology
The research is based on in-depth interviews with 154 LGB employees within 16 case
study organisations as part of a two-year study (2004-2006) funded by the Higher
EOI Education European Social Fund. In addition, 60 in-depth interviews with
management, trade union and LGB group representatives within the case studies
26,6 provided information on organisational context, as well as equal opportunities policy
and practice. Case study organisations also provided access to documentary material
such as policies, reports, company and trade union websites and publications.
Organisational experiences have, in turn, been contextualised through in-depth
interviews with 25 key informants within UK organisations representing LGB people,
592 government, employers, employees charged with disseminating advice on the
Employment Equality (SO) Regulations (2003). All in-depth interviews were
unstructured and conducted using open-ended topic guides. The interviews were taped
Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)
and transcribed verbatim for analysis. The data management phase of the analysis was
carried out with the use of N6 computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software.
The 154 LGB employee respondents were also asked to complete a short survey
questionnaire prior to the interview and all 154 did so. The purpose of this
questionnaire was to obtain headline demographic and attitudinal data about the LGB
respondent sample. For example, in addition to questions about gender, ethnicity, age
and disability, it included questions about who people disclosed their sexual orientation
to at work, the impact of policies and practices on job satisfaction and the perceived
impact of the regulations. The data collected via this questionnaire was also used to
inform our sampling strategy, for example monitoring the sample in relation to
ethnicity, disability, occupational classification and whether respondents were ‘‘out’’
(disclosed their sexual orientation) to people at work. The statistical data presented in
this paper is based on the 154 survey questionnaire responses. However, the key
themes summarised are based on our analysis of qualitative data and listed in no
particular significant order collected through the 154 in-depth interviews. The
geographical focus of the study was London and Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield (in
Yorkshire) because these provide contrasting urban areas in different parts of England
with ethnically diverse populations and vocal LGB communities.
Research on LGB issues is still a relatively new and ‘‘sensitive’’ area of research in
the UK and the ‘‘hidden’’ nature of the LGB population raised a number of
methodological issues. In order to overcome difficulties in negotiating research access,
we identified 16 ‘‘good practice employers’’ (nine public sector, five private sector and
two voluntary sector) with the assistance of employers’ organisations, trade unions and
LGB groups. Most (12 of the 16) case studies which agreed to participate in the
research were members of the Stonewall Diversity Champion’s programme[3] and eight
were listed within the top 100 employers in Stonewall’s Workplace Equality Index in
2006 (Stonewall, 2006). Fourteen of the case studies participating in the project were
willing to be identified by name, but two agreed to participate on an anonymous
basis[4]. All but two of the case study organisations were unionised. To maximise the
diversity of LGB respondents, we used multiple access routes via organisational
newsletters, email or intranet sites, invitations via workplace LGBT groups and via
local and national trade union and LGBT campaigning groups. This was supplemented
by a snowballing approach to ensure an appropriate range of LGB interviewees from
each case study organisation.
Despite undertaking the research within ‘‘good practice’’ organisations, the study
has experienced the same difficulties as other LGB studies in accessing a diverse LGB
population (McManus, 2003). The lack of statistical data regarding sexual orientation
either in the general population or in organisations means that probability sampling is
not possible. In this paper, therefore, quantitative data based on the survey
questionnaire responses is used to present a profile of the 154 LGB respondents. In Equality and
doing it does not suggest that the sample of respondents is representative (statistically diversity policies
or otherwise) of the LGB population within the case study organisations. A greater
proportion of men (61.7 per cent) than women (38.3 per cent) participated in the
research and there was an under-representation of black and minority ethnic LGB
people (BME, 8.4 per cent) and a high representation of managerial (39 per cent) and
professional (41.6 per cent) respondents compared to the general population[5]. 593
Respondents ranged in age from 21 to over 60 and 11.3 per cent defined themselves as
having a disability. Nearly two-thirds (60.4 per cent) defined as gay men, 33.8 per cent
as lesbian and 5.8 per cent (two men and seven women) defined themselves as bisexual.
Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)
Among the 154 LGB research respondents, 50 per cent worked in the public sector,
42.2 per cent in the private sector and 7.8 per cent in the voluntary sector. Thirty eight
(24.7 per cent) of the respondents worked in Bradford, Leeds or Sheffield with 115 (75.7
per cent) working in the London area.
We think it is important to acknowledge that the qualitative interviews with 154
LGB respondents were inevitably with those who felt comfortable and/or able to
participate in a research project on equality and sexual orientation within their
workplace. We found administrative, manual, service and skilled trades workers and
BME workers particularly hard to reach despite the multiple access routes described
above. It was suggested to us by key informants within the case study organisations
that those in these sub-groups were less likely to be ‘‘out’’ at work and thus much less
likely to participate in a research project on LGB issues. Those involved in organising
LGB employee groups within organisation LGBT and trade union groups reported
similar difficulties in securing the participation of these sub-groups in organisational
initiatives. This illustrates the ‘‘hidden’’ nature of much of the LGB population even
within ‘‘good practice’’ organisations where employers and trade unions have been
striving to implement equality and diversity policies and practices in order to ensure a
‘‘gay-friendly’’ workplace. Our research confirmed Ryan-Flood’s (2004) findings that
those in lower level and perhaps more difficult working environments are less likely to
be out and ‘‘visible and vocal’’ at work (Colgan et al., 2006a).
those trying to progress work to ensure fair treatment of LGB people in the workforce
and via service provision in local authorities, schools and voluntary sector
organisations working with children and young people.
The second political impetus cited for change following the election of a Labour
Government in 1997, was the establishment of new structures, expansion of the
voluntary sector role and the expansion of equality legislation. A range of duties
have been placed on the public sector including the Race Relations (Amendment) Act
(2000) and the raft of legislation which has been introduced to remove discrimination
on grounds of sexual orientation in a number of areas including the sexual age of
consent, fostering and adoption of children. Four important recent measures have
included the repeal of the Local Government Act: Section 28 (2003) and the introduction
of the Employment Equality (SO) Regulations (2003), the Civil Partnership Act (2004)
and the Equality Act (2006).
Human Resource (HR) and diversity managers within the public and voluntary
sectors were more likely to mention the importance of recent developments in the law
in assisting and empowering them to make progress within the equalities area,
particularly where political or managerial opposition or inadequate resources had
stopped them from developing LGB initiatives in line with other strands:
I think it’s fair to say the authority like the vast majority of other public bodies views its
response and investment in equality work based on our statutory responsibilities (Senior
manager, Public sector).
And sexual orientation has now become, instead of being a bit of a difficult area for us and a
cause of anxiety, I think it’s just become a cause of well, that’s another part of the diversity
agenda (Senior manager, Voluntary sector).
Within the public sector, local authorities, for example, have sought to adopt a
comprehensive and systematic approach to dealing with equality and diversity issues
as outlined in the Equality Standard for Local Government (Employers Organisation,
2001). The standard provides a common approach for dealing with equality for race,
gender and disability which most progressive local authorities have sought to extend
to anti-discrimination policies for age, sexuality, class and religion and belief. This
broader equality and diversity focus is now being adopted in the good practice public
and voluntary sector organisations assisted by the impetus provided by the
introduction of the Employment Equality (SO) Regulations and the expansion of anti-
discrimination legislation in services and on grounds of age and religious beliefs.
Private sector
The five private companies participating in the research are global companies
although the research project focused only on the UK operation as the case study for
each company. Thus, although the UK legislative and political changes outlined above Equality and
have also impacted on the private sector case study organisations, most of the HR diversity policies
and diversity managers thought the more substantial force shaping their equality and
diversity policies has been corporate business objectives and the ‘‘business case’’ for
diversity. All five private sector companies argued that they were ‘‘ahead of the
game’’ when it came to tackling LGB discrimination and social exclusion and so did not
need to make many changes to comply with the requirements of the Employment 595
Equality (SO) Regulations (2003):
I think our policies generally are pretty much across the board so didn’t need tweaking or
Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)
changing to accommodate the new Sexual Orientation Discrimination Act (Senior Manager,
Private Sector).
I think diversity is crucial to the business. We see it as if we can employ people from a wide
range of backgrounds. . .that will help us engage with our customers and understand the
solutions and the way that they need to interact so we then develop the inclusive solutions
that work for everybody. . . And around the whole LGBT area in particular, it’s quite an
important market for us because LGBT people tend to have high disposable income and tend
to be early adapters of technology and there’s lots of research being done around that. So
actually it’s quite a key market for us to have LGBT people engaged in our products so that
we can use them as ambassadors for how it can work (Senior manager, Private sector).
A number of the US organisations operating in Europe, had established sexual
diversity policies and procedures as part of a broader managing diversity approach
during the 1990s. For example, IBM at its foundation, established its policy on ‘‘Respect
for the Individual.’’ Over time this was modified to incorporate equality and diversity.
In 1985, sexual orientation was introduced into its equality and diversity policy. The
‘‘Respect for the Individual’’ policy states that the company is committed to ‘‘creating
an inclusive working environment’’ and ‘‘ensuring that employees feel comfortable,
productive and able to reach their full potential.’’ By 1991, informal LGB network
groups were established at company locations in the US and Canada and by the mid-
1990s same-sex partner benefits were extended to US and Canadian employees. LGBT
same-sex partner benefits and an LGBT formal networking group were established in
the UK in 2001 (IBM LGBT Group member, interview). Ford of Britain and BT also
included sexual diversity within equality and diversity policies during the late-1990s
and have introduced same-sex partner benefits and established LGBT groups in the
last five years. As US subsidiaries operating in the UK, have led the way, many UK-
based organisations such as RBOS and the finance organisation have followed suit as
they compete to be ‘‘employers of choice’’ for LGBT staff and attract business from the
LGBT customers (Private sector, key informant interviews).
but letting it ‘‘slip’’ into workplace interactions with people they trusted over time.
Respondents described a range of scenarios in which others had played a part in
their coming out in the workplace, both maliciously and non-maliciously. At one end of
the spectrum this was a relatively benign process. People assumed and accepted that
colleagues would talk to others and that their sexuality would become known via such
interaction. At the other end of the spectrum, being outed could be a painful and
uncomfortable experience leading to unpleasant comments, ‘‘jokes’’ and hostility.
The respondents described a variety of factors that had helped them to come out as
illustrated below:
. The presence of an equal opportunities policy (inc. sexual orientation).
. Feeling safer as a result of signals from the organisation.
. The presence of an organisational LGBT group.
. Getting involved in a trade union LGBT support network.
. The presence of other LGB colleagues.
. The presence of senior LGB people.
For some, it was important that the organisation provided formal ‘‘gay-friendly’’
signals via an equal opportunities policy which included sexual orientation and the
establishment of an LGBT organisation group. Others described the importance of a
gay-friendly departmental/workplace culture where they felt confident to be out at
work on a daily basis. This might include the presence of other openly out LGB
colleagues or senior LGB staff. Another experience was of increased confidence to
come out as a result of getting involved in an LGBT organisation or trade union group,
so feeling ‘‘supported’’ rather than ‘‘alone and isolated’’.
As previously indicated our sample included LGB people who had chosen not to
come out or to come out to very few people. A range of reasons was articulated for such
choices as indicated below:
. Fears about job/career/promotion.
. Lack of visible senior LGB staff.
. Temporary status of employment.
. Previous bad experiences (on grounds of gender, race, sexuality, etc.).
. Respect for partner’s wishes.
. Desire for privacy.
. Attitudes/behaviour of male colleagues.
EOI . Fundamentalist/evangelical religious attitudes held by colleagues.
26,6 . Organisational culture.
A key factor that prevented some respondents coming out, or had done within the past,
was the fear that to be openly LGB might hamper career opportunities. Once a decision
not to come out had been taken at the start of employment it could be difficult to reverse
this further down the line. Respondents talked of the compartmentalisation of their lives:
598
A long time ago, I decided just to compartmentalise my life, you know, my personal life and
my working life and I guess, that’s the way to stay. . . I would say I feel there would be a
negative impact. But that’s again my perception and might be, because I don’t know anyone
Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)
else who is out. . .especially at the top. . . all the people at that level are like, you know,
married with children and grey hair. . . and you never know how the customer will react, you
know, because somebody in your team might let it slip sometime (BME Gay Man, Private
Sector, London).
A very real fear of coming out was expressed by men working in ‘‘100 per cent male’’
workplaces. One respondent, who was also a trade union representative, when asked if
he would like to be more open at work said:
I would but I wouldn’t. . .Yeah, I daren’t. Because my credibility would go down the
drain . . . . . Yes, I just have to close off. I can’t afford to take risks . . . . You don’t find anybody
who walks around as an engineer, whether they are male or female, who says I am gay. (Gay
man, Private Sector, London)
Reluctance to come out was also discussed by women, disabled and BME respondents
based on previous bad experiences at work. They felt unwilling to tackle multiple
discrimination at work:
I think what happens with sexuality is that it’s much easier for it to just be brushed aside
because it is something that you can hide. I cannot hide the fact that I am [BME], I cannot hide
the fact that I am a woman. But the other issue I can just not address it (BME lesbian, Private
sector, London).
Other factors discussed by LGB respondents that prevented openness in the workplace
related to organisational culture and negative attitudes held by particular groups of
staff. For example, men expressing ‘‘macho’’ attitudes or colleagues who expressed
negative views of homosexuality based on fundamental, evangelical religious beliefs.
. Nervousness/embarrassment.
. Exclusion/silence.
. Homophobic comments – direct and indirect.
. Insults and abuse.
. Physical and emotional intimidation.
Most respondents were able to provide anecdotal evidence of discriminatory
behaviours within organisations during the LGB respondent in-depth interviews.
Human resource, trade union and LGBT group representative ‘‘key informants’’ also
expressed concern that a range of stories concerning discrimination/harassment
circulated ‘‘third-hand’’ within organisations. They acknowledged that there was
reluctance on the part of LGB individuals to take issues up formally. Harassment could
make work a miserable and threatening place to be:
There were about 250 men working on that production line. And you have an area where you
work, you know, you have so many, like ten paces that’s your area. Sometimes you have to
overlap into someone else’s area. Well, if I ever went into that other person’s area by a few
steps they would stop work because they knew I was gay. . .When the supervisor asked him
why he stopped work, he’d say ‘‘Well, I am not working with him because he is bent, I am not
working with him or go anywhere near him’’. . .when I was working on the production line I
had things thrown at me. . .anything that they could get their hands on really. . .and when you
look round. . .you don’t know who it was, you know (Gay man, Private sector, London).
Even within the same organisation, there were perceived to be pockets of ‘‘safety’’ and
‘‘hostility’’ within organisations. There were some departments where LGB respondents
said they would never want to work. Some of the respondents described their level of
comfort as contingent on the existence of personal networks within their department:
If people are okay with me, like the people I’ve got at the moment, we are all a close-knit group
at work, then I am quite comfortable. But take me out of that and put me somewhere that I
don’t really know people, no, I am not very comfortable (Lesbian, Private sector, Yorkshire).
One finding of the research was that fear of discrimination/harassment could provide a
barrier to LGB respondents seeking promotion with an employer if this meant having
to move from a ‘‘comfort zone’’ to a new department or area so requiring them once
again having to negotiate the coming out process with a new manager and work
colleagues. Restructuring and re-organisations could also be particularly stressful.
During the in-depth interviews, it was clear that experiences of discrimination/
harassment had made people want to transfer to another department or leave their
organisation completely. Organisations had actively encouraged LGB members to
formally raise problems through the appropriate channels but to little avail. Taking out
EOI a grievance against a colleague could lead to more problems than just coping with it
yourself or deciding to leave:
26,6
The problem is that they want to have examples of homophobia. They actively are requesting
for people to blow the whistle on others. . . Because they want to change the culture. . . They
want to be able to show in a very visible way that they support gay issues without having to
send an email around saying that they support gay issues. They have absolutely no tolerance for
it. But the problem is there is no-one who will blow the whistle. . .(Lesbian, Private sector,
600 London)
Having considered some of the problems which still face LGB employees, even within
16 ‘‘good practice’’ employers, this paper will now examine the impact of organisational
policy and practice on sexual orientation from the point of view of the LGB
respondents. Questions about the impact of policy and practice were included in the
survey questionnaire and the nature of impact was explored further in the in-depth
interviews. Figure 1 provides a profile of LGB respondents in relation to their
perception of the extent to which their employers were gay-friendly in terms of policy
and practice.
A majority (81.1 per cent) strongly agreed/agreed that their employer was gay-
friendly in policy and nearly two-thirds (62.7 per cent) strongly agreed/agreed that
their employer was gay-friendly in practice. In general, therefore the case study
employers were seen as gay-friendly in policy and practice by the majority of LGB
respondents.
However, there was some evidence of a perceived ‘‘implementation gap’’ amongst
respondents (Young, 1992; Creegan et al., 2003). For example, although one in three
(34 per cent) strongly agreed that their employer was gay-friendly in policy, just under
one in five (18.3 per cent) strongly agreed that this was the case in practice. And just
over a quarter of the respondents (28.1 per cent), neither agreed nor disagreed that their
employer was gay-friendly in practice with 9.1 per cent disagreeing that this was the
case. Indeed for some, the sexual orientation strand still remained the ‘‘poor relation’’
within the organisational drive for equality and diversity:
I really want to say that on a corporate level the gay issue is like being Black in the Seventies,
we are at that stage. It’s not cool to be racist at work. It’s not acceptable. . . you won’t hear
Figure 1.
I consider my employer to
be a ‘‘gay-friendly’’
employer
anyone doing it, anyone. You will hear people saying, you know, ‘‘bloody gay idiot’’. . .That is Equality and
totally accepted. So that’s why the gay committee, we are extremely active because we
probably feel that we are so far behind in terms of culturally what is acceptable and what is diversity policies
not acceptable (Lesbian, Private sector, London).
There was some variation by sector. Over three-quarters of public sector LGB
respondents (77.6 per cent) agreed their employer was ‘‘gay friendly’’ in terms of its
employment policies with 63.1 per cent agreeing that this was the case in practice. 601
Among private sector LGB respondents, 83.1 per cent agreed their employer was ‘‘gay-
friendly’’ in terms of its employment policies, whereas 60 per cent agreed that this was
the case in practice. Nearly all of the voluntary sector employees (91.6 per cent) agreed
Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)
their employer was ‘‘gay-friendly’’ in terms of its employment policies with 75 per cent
agreeing that this was the case in practice.
Respondents offered a range of explanations for the implementation gap between
policy and practice on sexual orientation including promotional, managerial, cultural,
attitudinal, resource based and communication factors. Two over-riding explanations
emerged. First the gap was explained as a consequence of a clash between social justice
and business case arguments in progressing equality and diversity. Organisations were
perceived by LGB employees to be even more ‘‘cautious’’ in developing, resourcing and
publicising work on LGB employment, service and product issues internally and
externally than was the case with their work on gender, race and disability. Sexual
orientation was thought to be more ‘‘politically sensitive’’ and a ‘‘potential vote loser’’ or
more likely to ‘‘provoke a backlash’’ within organisations and with clients, parents and
customers, than other equality strands (Colgan et al., 2006a).
Second, the gap was explained in relation to the ‘‘appreciative context’’, that is ‘‘the
constellation of images, beliefs and judgements’’ which contributed to the prevailing
culture within organisations (Young, 1987). Thus, formal commitments were not
necessarily realised within individual workplaces because of the entrenched attitudes
of managers and colleagues, which respondents were in some cases resigned to.
Moreover, while respondents generally welcomed the organisational recognition of the
business case, concern was expressed that it did not provide a guarantee of a ‘‘gay-
friendly’’ organisational culture for employees. Substantial variations in practice were
reported to occur within and across organisations. There was a perception from the
LGB respondents that equalities work relevant to the sexual orientation strand was
developing slowly and in a piecemeal way dependent on the ‘‘commitment’’ of
individual managers and/or pressure for change from LGB employees and/or service
users. This confirms research findings by Cooper (2006) and Monro (2007) who report
on the uneven development of sexualities and transgender equality work within local
authority organisations.
relied on LGB people to come forward and whistle blow before tackling problems.
Respondents discussed a variety of potential initiatives that they believed would
assist organisations in moving from policy to practice, promote awareness and
enhance inclusion for LGB workers. These are summarised below:
. Anti-discrimination and awareness training – particularly for managers.
. Communication and promotion of same sex benefits.
. Use of intranet/web pages to promote policies affecting LGB staff.
. Senior LGB role models.
. LGB mentoring scheme.
. Marketing of products and services to LGB people.
. Recruitment advertising in LGB press.
. Sexual orientation monitoring.
Both LGB respondents and national/organisational key informants were positive to
these initiatives. However, a range of views were expressed about the desirability and
efficacy of sexual orientation monitoring. For example, concerns were expressed about
confidentiality and how such information might be used. On the other hand it was
suggested by both LGB respondents and key informants, that in an appropriate context
and if done with consultation, monitoring could be seen as another positive indicator of
the employer’s commitment to LGB employees and progressing initiatives in this area.
drive for equality and diversity. In addition to the establishment of an LGBT group,
another key indicator of inclusion for LGB respondents was the extent to which
homophobia (in addition to other forms of discrimination) was proactively challenged
at work. This also meant tackling clients, parents and customers which thus far
organisations had been reluctant to do. Respondents, particularly those in difficult
working environments voiced strong concerns about the way in which organisations
relied on LGB people to come forward with complaints before tackling problems.
Thus, respondents in manual and front-line positions and those working in
departments within organisations where managers showed minimal commitment to
equality policy talked of facing homophobic attitudes and behaviours on a regular
basis. Notwithstanding organisation equality policy, these respondents expressed
concern that they risked outing themselves or generating a backlash when seeking
resolution to discrimination or harassment and that even supportive handling of a
grievance would not guarantee a change in attitude within such workplaces. Thus, the
protection provided by the Employment Equality (SO) Regulations 2003 although vital
was not seen as a panacea to tackling discrimination and harassment on grounds of
sexual orientation in the workplace.
Nevertheless, the view expressed by a majority of the LGB respondents from the
good practice organisations was that they were ‘‘lucky’’ to work in what were perceived
to be ‘‘gay-friendly’’ organisations, particularly in the light of their own previous work
experience or in comparison to partners and friends. The benefits to the good practice
employers of creating a more inclusive workplace were evident in ensuring more
confident, committed, productive, loyal LGB employees who were more likely to stay
with the organisation. Even, where respondents were thinking of moving jobs, they
were unlikely to settle for less than their current employer provided so were more likely
to be aware of competitor’s policy on same sex issues and benefits. However, as
emphasised at the outset, the research has only been able to explore the ‘‘tip of the
iceberg’’ by talking to LGB employees working for ‘‘good practice’’ employers willing to
participate in a research project on equality and sexual orientation. More research is
urgently required to gain a more ‘‘representative’’ picture of the working lives of LGB
employees across a broader range of UK workplaces.
Notes
1. These Regulations outlawed discrimination in the workplace on grounds of sexual
orientation and provided protection against harassment at work for the first time in the
UK.
2. Thus the paper focuses on sexual orientation and not on transgender issues. However,
some of the organisations participating in this research had chosen to adopt policies and
establish groups that are inclusive of LGBT people.
3. Stonewall established the Diversity Champions Programme to bring together Equality and
organisations ‘‘committed to tackling sexual orientation discrimination, and to sharing
good practice’’ (Stonewall, 2005). In June 2006, there were 197 companies signed up to diversity policies
this initiative (Stonewall, 2006).
4. The organisations willing to be identified in the research are Barnardo’s, BT, Ford of
Britain, George Greens School, IBM, Leeds City Council, London Borough of Croydon,
London Borough of Lewisham, London Borough of Tower Hamlets, London Fire and
Emergency Service, National Association for Care and Resettlement of Offenders 607
(NACRO), Royal Bank of Scotland (RBOS), South Yorkshire Fire and Emergency Service,
West Yorkshire Fire and Emergency Service.
Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)
5. According to the Labour Force Survey (Winter 2005), the breakdown of all those in
employment was as follows: managers and senior officials (15.1 per cent), professionals
(12.8 per cent), associate professional and technical (14.4 per cent), admin and secretarial
(12.2 per cent), skilled trades (11.1 per cent), services (15.7 per cent), manual occupations
(18.7 per cent).
6. A further 5.8 per cent of the 154 respondents who completed the pre-interview survey
questionnaire responded ‘‘don’t know’’ to this question.
References
Carabine, J. and Monro, S. (2004), ‘‘Lesbian and gay politics and participation in New Labour’s
Britain’’, Social Politics, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 312-27.
Cockburn, C. (1991), In the Way of Women: Men’s Resistance to Sex Equality in Organisations,
Macmillan Education, Basingstoke.
Colgan, F. (1999a), ‘‘Recognising the lesbian and gay constituency in UK trade unions: moving
forward in UNISON?’’, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 444-63.
Colgan, F. (1999b), ‘‘Moving forward in UNISON: lesbian and gay self-organization in action’’,
in Hunt, G. (Ed.), Labouring for Rights: Unions and Sexual Diversity across Unions, Temple
University Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Colgan, F., Creegan, C., McKearney, A. and Wright, T. (2006a), Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual
Workers: Equality, Diversity and Inclusion in the Workplace?, Comparative Organisation
and Equality Research Centre, London Metropolitan University, available at:
www.workinglives.org/docs/ESF_LGB_Report_5_June_2006.pdf
Colgan, F., Creegan, C., McKearney, A. and Wright, T. (2006b), ‘‘Sexuality in the workplace:
personal strategies and organisational responses to discrimination and social exclusion,’’
paper presented at BUIRA National Conference, National University of Ireland, Galway,
June 28-30.
Colgan, F., Creegan, C., McKearney, A. and Wright, T. (2008), ‘‘Lesbian workers: personal
strategies amid changing organisational responses to ‘sexual minorities’ in UK
workplaces’’, Journal of Lesbian Studies, in press.
Cooper, D. (1994), Sexing the City: Lesbian and Gay Politics within the Activist State, Rivers Oram
Press, London.
Cooper, D. (2006), ‘‘Active citizenship and the governmentality of local lesbian and gay politics’’,
Political Geography, Vol. 25, pp. 921-43.
Creegan, C., Colgan, F., Charlesworth, R. and Robinson, G. (2003), ‘‘Race equality policies at work:
employee perceptions of the ‘implementation gap’ in a UK local authority’’, Work,
Employment and Society, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 617-38.
Department of Trade and Industry (2005), Full Regulatory Impact Assessment for Sexual
Orientation, DTI, London.
EOI Dickens, L. (1994), ‘‘The business case for women’s equality: is the carrot better than the stick?’’,
Employee Relations, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 5-18.
26,6
Dickens, L. (1999), ‘‘Beyond the business case: a three-pronged approach to equality action’’,
Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 9-19.
Dickens, L. (2005), ‘‘Walking the talk? Equality and diversity in employment’’, in Bach S. (Ed.),
Managing Human Resources: Personnel Management in Transition, Blackwell, Oxford,
pp. 178-208.
608
Employers Organisation (2001), The Equality Standard for Local Government, Employers
Organisation, London.
Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)
Equal Opportunities Review (2004), ‘‘Sexual orientation and religion: an EOR survey’’, Equal
Opportunities Review, Vol. 136, pp. 6-16.
Humphrey, J.C. (2002), Towards a Politics of the Rainbow: Self-organisation in the Trade Union
Movement, Ashgate, Aldershot.
ID Research (2002), Demographic Profile, London.
Jewson, N. and Mason, D. (1986), ‘‘The theory and practice of equal opportunity policies: liberal
and radical approaches’’, Sociological Review, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 307-33.
Kirton, G. and Greene, A.M. (2000), The Dynamics of Managing Diversity: A Critical Approach,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Liff, S. and Dickens, L. (2000), ‘‘Ethics and equality: reconciling false dilemmas’’, in Winstanley, D.
and Woodall, J. (Eds), Ethical Issues in Contemporary Human Resource Management,
Macmillan, Basingstoke.
McManus, S. (2003), Sexual Orientation Research Phase 1: A Review of Methodological
Approaches, The Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.
Monro, S. (2007), ‘‘New institutionalism and sexuality at work in local government’’, Gender,
Work and Organization, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Palmer, A. (1993), Less Equal than Others: A Survey of Lesbians and Gay Men at Work,
Stonewall, London.
Richards, W. (2001), ‘‘Evaluating equal opportunity initiatives: the case for a ‘transformative’
agenda’’, in Noon, M. and Ogbonna, E. (Eds), Equality, Diversity and Disadvantage in
Employment, Palgrave, Basingstoke.
Ryan-Flood, R. (2004), ‘‘Beyond recognition and redistribution: a case study of lesbian and gay
workers in a local labour market in Britain’’, Gender Institute New Working Paper Series,
No. 12, London School of Economics, London.
Skidmore, P. (2004), ‘‘A legal perspective on sexuality and organization: a lesbian and gay case
study’’, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 229-53.
Stonewall (2004), The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations: Guidelines for
Employers, Stonewall, London.
Stonewall (2005), Network Groups, Stonewall Workplace Guides, London.
Stonewall (2006), Workplace Equality Index 2006, Stonewall, London.
Tatchell, P. (1992), ‘‘Equal rights for all: strategies for lesbian and gay equality in Britain’’,
in Plummer, K. (Ed.), Modern Homosexualities, Routledge, London.
TUC (2000), Straight Up! Why the Law Should Protect Lesbian and Gay Workers, TUC, London.
UNISON (2003), Unpublished Survey of UNISON LGBT Members, UNISON, London.
Ward, J. and Winstanley, D. (2003), ‘‘The absent presence: negative space within discourse and the
construction of minority sexual identity in the workplace’’, Human Relations, Vol. 56
No. 10, pp. 1255-80.
Young, K. (1987), ‘‘The space between words: local authorities and the concept of equal Equality and
opportunities’’, in Jenkins, R. and Solomos, J. (Eds), Racism and Equal Opportunities
Policies in the 1980s, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 252-69. diversity policies
Young, K. (1992), ‘‘Approaches to policy development in the field of equal opportunities’’,
in Braham, P., Rattansi, A. and Skellington, R. (Eds), Racism and Antiracism: Inequalities,
Opportunties and Policies, Sage, London.
1. Isaac Sabat, Alex Lindsey, Eden KingAntecedents, Outcomes, Prevention and Coping Strategies for
Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Workplace Stress 173-198. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
2. Isaac Sabat, Alex Lindsey, Eden KingAntecedents, Outcomes, Prevention and Coping Strategies for
Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Workplace Stress 173-198. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
3. Heather E. Canary, Maria Blevins, Shireen S. Ghorbani. 2014. Organizational Policy Communication
Research: Challenges, Discoveries, and Future Directions. Communication Reports 1-17. [CrossRef]
4. Mustafa Bilgehan Ozturk, Nick Rumens. 2014. Gay Male Academics in UK Business and Management
Schools: Negotiating Heteronormativities in Everyday Work Life. British Journal of Management
Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)
24. Steve Williams, Edmund Heery, Brian Abbott. 2010. Mediating equality at work through civil society
organisations. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 29:6, 627-638. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
25. Paul Willis. 2010. Connecting, Supporting, Colliding: The Work-Based Interactions of Young LGBQ-
Identifying Workers and Older Queer Colleagues. Journal of LGBT Youth 7:3, 224-246. [CrossRef]
26. Paul Willis. 2009. From exclusion to inclusion: young queer workers' negotiations of sexually exclusive and
inclusive spaces in Australian workplaces. Journal of Youth Studies 12:6, 629-651. [CrossRef]
27. Fiona Colgan, Tessa Wright, Chris Creegan, Aidan McKearney. 2009. Equality and diversity in the public
services: moving forward on lesbian, gay and bisexual equality?. Human Resource Management Journal
19:3, 280-301. [CrossRef]
28. Beatrice Gusmano. 2008. Coming Out or Not? How Nonheterosexual People Manage Their Sexual
Identity at Work. Journal of Workplace Rights 13:4, 473-496. [CrossRef]