Interpersonal Antecedents to Selective Disclosure of Lesbian and Gay Identities at Work

Abstract

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) employees’ sexual identitymay be considered a concealable stigmatised identity. Disclosing it to others at work could potentially lead to discrimination and rejection, hence threatening their inclusion. Therefore, they may hide their sexual identity instead, which may then come at the cost of, e.g., guilt for not living authentically. However, disclosure is a continuum—rather than a dichotomy—meaning that LGB workers may decide to disclose selectively, i.e., telling some, but not all co‐workers. Most literature on disclosure focuses on the interplay between intrapersonal (e.g., psychological) and contextual (e.g., organisational) characteristics, thereby somewhat overlooking the role of interpersonal (e.g., relational) characteristics. In this article, we present findings from semi‐structured, in‐depth interviews with nine Dutch lesbian and gay employees, conducted in early 2020, to gain a better understanding of interpersonal antecedents to disclosure decisions at work. Through our thematic analysis, we find that LGB workers may adopt a proactive or reactive approach to disclosure, which relates to the salience of their sexual identity at work (high/low) and their concern for anticipated acceptance. Other themes facilitating disclosure include an affective dimension, being in a relationship, and associating with the employee resource group. We demonstrate the importance of studying disclosure at the interpersonal level and reflect on how our findings relate to literature on disclosure, authenticity, belonging, and social inclusion of LGB individuals at work.

Factors influencing LGBTQ+ disclosure decision-making by Canadian health professionals: A qualitative study

“…In the ensuing years, evidence has begun to amass regarding those influencing factors for LGBTQ+ disclosures in work contexts. At the individual level, identity centrality, internal identity positivity, identity perceptibility, impression management strategies, and anticipated outcomes of disclosure appear relevant [ 3 , 12 , 16 ]. Interpersonally, the presence of supportive colleagues and supervisors directly affects disclosure/concealment decisions [ 3 , 12 , 17 ].…”

“…Disclosure may also be more likely after a professional reputation is well-established [ 3 , 19 ]. Rengers et al found disclosures were affected by how salient queer identity was in the workplace, how closely people engaged with co-workers and for how long, and whether interactions with clients/customers/patients were brief or extended [ 16 ]. There are hints that even in queer-friendly workplaces, disclosures to clients/customers/patients/students may be seen as ‘unprofessional’ and ‘inappropriate’ [ 19 ].…”

“…Identity perceptibility (the extent to which one is ‘read’ by others as queer) may be emerging both as influencing factor and as process. While the extent to which one is able to conceal queer identity affects disclosures, it also appears that it may be easier to disclose queer identity when in a relationship [ 16 ]; referring to a same-gender partner is simpler than making an identity announcement. At the same time, acceptance of LGBTQ+ workers may hinge on ‘homonormativity’–the extent to which gender expression and performance aligns with heterosexual gender roles and expectations, allowing assimilation [ 19 , 20 ].…”

“…Assimilation requires invisibility, not presenting as ‘too queer.’ On the flip side, visibly LGBTQ+ workers may be expected to embody heteronormative (binary) assumptions of queerness (the flamboyant gay man or the butch lesbian), with “certain kinds of performances required of them at work” [ 20 , p.31] such that queer “visibility is often achieved through conformity to stereotypes” [ 20 , p. 41]. In one study, workers avoided disclosing lest they be relegated to narrow perceptions of queerness [ 16 ].…”

“…Pasek and colleagues also urge researchers to attend to how intersecting social identities affect disclosures, noting that there is some evidence to suggest LGBTQ+ disclosures may prove more beneficial for those from higher socioeconomic classes, and dominant racial/ethnic groups [ 15 , p. 402]. Rengers and colleagues argue that at the individual level, disclosure decisions entail assessment of anticipated acceptance [ 16 ]–which surely would be complicated by the embodiment of multiple marginalized statuses.…”