Originally published here.

The federal government lags behind in progressive civil rights policies in regard to universal workplace antidiscrimination lawsfor lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Americans. The slow progress matters to inclusionary workplace practicesand the theory and practice of public administration generally, as recognition of LGBT rights and protection are constitutiveof representative bureaucracy and promoting social equity. This study examines the turnover intention rates of self-identifiedLGBT employees in the U.S. federal government. Using the Office of Personnel Management’s inclusion quotient (IQ), and 2015 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS), we identify links in the relationships between workplace inclusion andturnover outcomes among LGBT individuals.

We also examine the impact of agency type on LGBT turnover rates based onLowi’s agency classification type. Key findings suggest that LGBT employees express higher turnover intentions than thosethat identify as heterosexuals/straight, and LGBT employees who perceive their agencies as redistributive or communal areless likely to experience turnover intentions. However, an open and supportive workplace environment had a positive impacton turnover, suggesting that to implement effective structural change in an organization’s culture of inclusion, public sectormanagers must do more than merely “talk the talk.” This finding is also suggestive of LGBT employees’ desire to avoid thestigma of being LGBT and hide their identities. Institutions must heed the invisible and visible identities of their employees tobe truly inclusive. Workplace practices that acknowledge the invisible and visible identities of their employees are a positivestep toward real workplace inclusion.

The lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) popula-tion has historically been marginalized in the United Statesthrough the systematic denial of legal protections and bene-fits (Pizer, Sears, Mallory, & Hunter, 2012). Today, LGBT people continue to face discrimination as a result ofhomophobia and transphobia, and in many cases, face vio-lence motivated by such beliefs about their sexual orienta-tion and/or their gender identity (Herek, 1989; Riccucci &Gossett, 1996; Sears & Mallory, 2011; Tilcsik, 2011). Recenttragedies testify to this, such as the 2016 Orlando massshooting, where 49, mainly Latino and Black LGBT attend-ees of a local gay club, were murdered and at least 53 wereleft injured.Despite the U.S. Supreme Court deeming marriage a rightof same-sex couples in the 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the federal government lags behind in progressivecivil rights policies, particularly in regard to universal workplace antidiscrimination laws for LGBT Americans.

Although sexual orientation and gender identity remain unprotected categories under the Civil Rights Act of 1964,which prohibits employment discrimination based on race,color, religion, sex, and national origin, at the end of 2016,20 states plus D.C. banned discrimination based on both sex-ual orientation and gender identity or expression in employ-ment, housing, and public accommodations (American CivilLiberties Union, 2017). However, according to the HumanRights Campaign, these protections remain inconsistentlyderived through a patchwork of state and local law (Fidas &Cooper, 2014).

This slow progress matters—not only toinclusionary workplace practices but also to the theory and practice of public administration more generally, as recogni-tion of LGBT rights and protection are constitutive of repre-sentative bureaucracy and promoting social equity.Understanding differences between LGBT and comparableheterosexual employees is important to human resources professionals who must ensure that all employees are treatedequitably (Lewis & Pitts, 2017). However, recognition of sex-ually diverse populations extends to a greater public policyagenda that moves away from a climate of homo-negativity,which implicitly normalizes and naturalizes heterosexuality,resulting in a circular process and continued invisibility of theneeds of sexually diverse people (Mulé et al., 2009).

This study examined the impact of inclusive practices andagency type on turnover intentions of LGBT employees inthe federal workforce. Our findings show that LGBT employ-ees who identify their workplace as more inclusive (e.g., fair,cooperative and empowering) are less likely to express theirintent to turnover. Also, as workplaces bolster their LGBT-supportive policies, people may be more inclined to be openabout one’s identity. For example, as OPM added the LGBTresponse item to the FEVS in 2012, the percent of federalgovernment employees identifying as LGBT has increased;in 2012, 2.2% said they were LGBT—by 2014, 2.8% of2014 FEVS respondents self-identified as LGBT. As govern-ment faces constricted budgets, the resources necessary after employee’s turnover (i.e., recruitment, training, and develop-ment of incoming employees), strain its capacity for higher performance. 

To mitigate the need to pick up the pieces onceemployees have left, government should focus on increasingits inclusivity, specifically of LGBT employees.However, contrary to expectations, LGBT individualswho perceive their environment to be open and supportiveare actually more likely to turnover. This result supports theview of LGBT employees’ desire to avoid the stigma of being LGBT by hiding their identities, which may result inunder-reporting. This finding also suggests that to implementeffective structural change in an organization’s culture ofinclusion, public sector managers must do more than merely“talk the talk.” Therefore, while an employer can providenecessary resources, it must also give more and do more tomake people feel included (Sabharwal, 2014). Institutionsmust heed the invisible and visible identities of their employ-ees and constituents to truly be inclusive. Workplace prac-tices that do acknowledge this concept of people’s interwovenidentity, that is, the inseparability of one’s personal life andone’s work life, are a positive step toward real workplaceinclusion.

The ideal of inclusion, as Yoshino and Smith (2013) dis-cuss, has been to allow individuals to bring their authenticselves to work. However, the development into the idea ofinclusion and identity particularly applies to LGBT employ-ees who occupy a different public space in terms of the dis-crimination they experience, how they feel in and access to public spaces (Sanschagrin, 2011). They also bear a conceal-able stigma, that is, their sexual orientations and in somecases, their gender identities, can be hidden and undisclosedallowing them to evade stigmatization.

Most inclusion effortshave not explicitly and rigorously addressed the pressure toconform that prevents individuals from realizing that ideal.One example is the provision of gender-neutral restrooms,and health care coverage.Although Lowi’s (1985) typology was not developed toimply gendering of organizations it has been used by publicadministration scholars as a way to classify agencies basedon occupational segregation (e.g., Mastracci & Bowman,2015; Newman, 1994). Here, we used Lowi’s typology tolook at the impact of agency classification on LGBT’s intentto turnover. We found that LGBT employees in redistributiveagencies are less likely to express turnover intention thanthose working in distributive and regulatory agencies. 

As millennials move away from identifying within tradi-tional sex/gender binaries such as “man/woman” and “gay/straight” (Glaad.org, 2017), and are more likely to openlyidentify as LGBT than in prior generations, a younger andmore diverse workforce that is accepting of the LGBT com-munity will become the voice for nondiscrimination protec-tion and inclusion. Regardless of these steps forward, presentand future public sector managers must remain resolute inthe face of possible political challenges that could reverse progress for equality. Given this potential undoing, a next phase to this research may be to understand how public orga-nizations can further an inclusive and nondiscriminatoryworkforce agenda (e.g., skillset, best practices, and readi-ness) as the conflict over federal civil rights statutes andLGBT rights will no doubt continue in the years ahead.

You can read the complete article here.

Or you can listen to it on Spotify.