The Social and Economic Imperative of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Supportive Organizational Policies

Abstract

The central premise of this article is that organizations have social and economic interests in building policies and practices that support lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) workers. This argument is based on empirical evidence that (a) LGBT workers continue to face discrimination at work from which they are not protected under federal law, and (b) discrimination has negative consequences for individual's mental and physical health, and on reasoning that (c) organizations share responsibility for the social good of the communities in which they operate. We offer practical suggestions for creating LGBT‐supportive organizations and propose that industrial–organizational psychologists have an ethical obligation to support such efforts.

Subtle Discrimination in the Workplace: A Vicious Cycle

“…Below, we provide a brief summary of some of the extant research on subtle discrimination that has been conducted from the perspective of each of these stakeholders, highlighting remediation strategies that can be implemented by occupants in each of these roles. Although we do not review organizational strategies for discrimination reduction in light of space constraints, we emphasize that organizations hold enormous power in shaping context, both inside and outside of the workplace, and can engage in specific strategies, particularly through recruitment and diversity training, to promote an inclusive environment in an effort to reduce subtle discrimination (see Hebl, Ruggs, Martinez, Trump-Steele, &Nittrouer, 2015, andGilrane, 2015, for additional reviews).…”

“…In today's workplace, it is illegal to overtly discriminate against a person based on a variety of protected characteristics (e.g., race, gender, disability status; King & Cortina, 2010). Furthermore, it is socially unacceptable to discriminate against applicants or employees based on traits that are not job related, even those that may not be legally protected (e.g., sexual orientation, gender identity, attractiveness; Perry, Murphy, & Dovidio, 2015).…”

Discrimination des minorités sexuelles et de genre au travail : quelles implications pour la santé mentale ?

“…Prenant appui sur le concept légal de discrimination, ces revendications visent à mettre fin aux traitements différentiels (harcèlement, perte d'emploi, accès inégal à l'embauche et aux promotions, aux bénéfices rattachés à un emploi, etc.) qui découlent des attitudes néga-tives envers les MSG et de l'organisation hétérosexiste du monde du travail qui privilégie systématiquement le modèle dominant de l'hété-rosexualité aux dépens des individus qui s'en écartent ou le transgressent (Creed, 2006 ;King et Cortina, 2010).…”

“…De plus, les employeurs peuvent adopter diverses initiatives pour prévenir de telles situations et assurer le bien-être des employé.e.s LGBT. L'adoption d'une politique antidiscriminatoire qui prohibe clairement la discrimination et les comportements LGBTphobes s'avère une stratégie de base pour tout employeur (King et Cortina, 2010 ;Tejeda, 2006), à condition que tous soient informés de son existence. Cependant, les politiques à elles seules ne suffisent pas pour transformer les comportements et les attitudes négatives des employé.e.s et doivent s'accompagner d'autres types d'initiatives, par exemple des formations abordant la diversité sexuelle et de genre (Beatty et Kirby, 2006 ;Harding et Peel, 2007).…”

Editorial: Three Perspectives of Employment Discrimination 50 Years After the Civil Rights Act—A Promise Fulfilled?

“…First, like the categories protected by federal law, an individual's sexual orientation is irrelevant to their job performance capability. Second, due to deeply ingrained prejudices against those who aren't strictly heterosexual, those in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered community continue to be common targets for discriminatory treatment (King and Cortina 2010;Martinez et al 2013). Not only is this an issue of social injustice, but it also creates a significant opportunity cost for organizations by introducing inefficiency in their J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:375-382 379 personnel management (i.e., missing out on better qualified candidates due to bias).…”