Queering Employee Engagement to Understand and Improve the Performance of Gay Male Law Enforcement Officers: A Phenomenological Exploration

Abstract

Masculinized industries such as law enforcement (LE) are characterized as being ruled by traditional standards for masculinity and having a heteronormative culture. Both can be detrimental to gay men by diminishing their capacity for full engagement with the work. The purpose of this phenomenological study is to provide a “queered” understanding of gay male law enforcement officers' (LEOs') employee engagement (EE) to improve performance and inclusion for all LEOs. Findings indicated that positive disclosure experiences (coming out) produced stronger EE, and EE was sometimes limited by the extent to which the officers felt safe being out of the closet. Being able to frame coming out as beneficial for social interactions and positive perceptions of competency was important for the officers as they made meaning of their experiences. The implications for LE practice and organizational and EE research are discussed.

Measuring trans youths’ perceptions of police and police bias: Exploring the use of the perceptions of police scale.

“…While stereotype threat has often been discussed with respect to how Black individuals respond to police encounters, it is also relevant for trans and gender-expansive communities given law enforcement agencies and policing are rooted in a masculinized culture (Collins & Rocco, 2018), where binary stereotypes of gender are highly endorsed (Collins, 2015). When the gender binary is conceptualized as the “normative” model of gender identity, individuals who exist outside of this binary are inadvertently considered “deviant” or in need of correction (Daum, 2015; Gaynor & Blessett, 2022; Lenning et al, 2021).…”

“…Certainly, the entirety of policing cannot be oversimplified as a hypermasculine monolith (Reiner, 1992; Silvestri, 2017), and some men who are police officers experience tension surrounding the masculinized culture of policing (du Plessis et al, 2021; Sanders et al, 2022). Yet, this culture may help explain why LGBTQ police officers, especially gay men, report experiencing more frequent workplace discrimination compared with their non-LGBTQ counterparts (Collins & Rocco, 2018; Lyons et al, 2008; Mallory et al, 2015; Rumens & Broomfield, 2012) and why the interactions between LGBTQ individuals and the police may often be rooted in behaviors that reinforce heteronormative ideals (e.g., Owen et al, 2018).…”

Fighting for Their Place in Brave Spaces: Uncovering the Travails of the Closeted Police Officers

“…The work atmosphere for closeted officers is additionally complicated by implicit biases in policing, leading police departments to address concerns related to biased policing and community complaints (Spencer et al, 2016). A deeper understanding of the experiences of both "out" and "closeted" officers within law enforcement emphasizes the significance of enhancing the performance and engagement of gay male law enforcement officers, shedding light on the impact of disclosure on their workplace experiences (Collins & Rocco, 2018).…”

An overview of coming out research: Introducing a three‐lens typology

“…It is worth noting that coming out research paid special attention to work sectors that are considered or known to educate younger generations, reproduce rigid gender roles (e.g., masculinity), and be less LGBTQ+ progressive. This leads to an overlap of different institutions, e.g., the workplace with education (e.g., LGBTQ+ teachers) and sport (e.g., LGBTQ+ athletes) as discussed above, the military and police force (e.g., LGBTQ+ military service members, veterans, and police and law enforcement officers (e.g., Bernstein & Swartwout, 2012; Bérubé, 1990; Collins & Rocco, 2018; Evans et al., 2019; Galvin‐White & O’Neal, 2016; McNamara et al., 2021; Ramirez & Sterzing, 2017; Shilts, 1993)), and two institutions that are separately discussed below, namely secondary health care (e.g., LGBTQ+ therapists) and religion (e.g., LGBTQ+ religious leaders).…”

“…LGBTQ+ athletes) as discussed above, the military and police force (e.g., LGBTQ+ military service members, veterans, and police and law enforcement officers (e.g., Bernstein & Swartwout, 2012;Bérubé, 1990;Collins & Rocco, 2018;Evans et al, 2019;Galvin-White & O'Neal, 2016;McNamara et al, 2021;Ramirez & Sterzing, 2017;Shilts, 1993)), and two institutions that are separately discussed below, namely secondary health care (e.g., LGBTQ+ therapists) and religion (e.g., LGBTQ+ religious leaders).…”