Originally published here.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) workers[1] lack federal protectionsagainst employment discrimination in the USA, face pervasive discrimination in countrieswith federal anti-discrimination policies (e.g. Cossman, 2002), and “LGBT people of all agesand in all regions of the world (are exposed) to egregious violations of their human rights”(United Nations, 2016).
Employer organizations are increasingly adopting LGBT-supportive[2]policies, which include sexual orientation and gender identity non-discrimination policies,domestic partner and transgender-inclusive benefits, inclusive diversity training, employeeresource groups, and public commitment to the LGBT community (e.g. Human RightsCampaign, 2016; Ragins and Cornwell, 2001). There is limited research on why organizationschoose to adopt these policies (e.g. Chuang et al., 2011), or the consequences of policy adoption(e.g. Pichler et al., forthcoming).
In fact, policy adoption may sometimes have negativeconsequences for firms (Chuang et al., forthcoming; Creed et al., 2002; Kaplan, 2006), suchas boycotting of firm’s products and services. That said, even companies with arguablynegative reputations in terms of employee treatment, such as Walmart, have begun adoptingLGBT-supportive policies (e.g. Wahba, 2015).Given the increase in policy adoption (Pichler et al., forthcoming), the controversialnature and the relative lack of research on LGBT-supportive policies as compared to, for instance, research on race and gender, we intend to shed light on the likely outcomes ofpolicy adoption for all workers –workers in the sexual and gender identity minority and majority.
Previous research has focused on how LGBT policies affect sexual and genderidentity minority employees, mostly gay and lesbian employees, without considering sexualmajority employees, including reviews of this literature (e.g. Anteby and Anderson, 2014;MacLean et al., 2006; McFadden, 2015; Pichler, 2007; Pichler and Ruggs, 2015; Ragins, 2004).
Given that research tends to show state-level policies may be effective for promotingdiversity (Ng and Burke, 2010), we suggest that policymakers further consider government-mandated policies and programs that protect and support LGBT workers. That said,government-mandated policies may have limited utility, and it seems important thatorganizations demonstrate initiative when it comes to supporting sexual orientation andgender identity diversity. Furthermore, in the absence of government policies,organizational policies can help create fairness and equity for sexual and gender identityminority employees, and may ultimately influence changes in laws (Martinez et al., 2013).
The adoption of LGBT-supportive policies and practices is on the rise (Chuang et al., 2011;Human Rights Campaign, 2016). In fact, as more firms implement LGBT-supportive policies,a company’s decision not to adopt such rules may send a negative signal to potentialemployees (Pichler et al., forthcoming). Given this uptick in organizational policy adoption,our model is timely in understanding the effects of such policies for all employees.We develop support the notion that human resources executives and diversity managersshould support LGBT workers, provide a safer climate for sexual orientation diversity(Bell et al., 2011), and consider implementing policies and practices that are supportive of thisdiversity (Day and Greene, 2008; Huffman et al., 2008).
Doing so should ultimately result inpositive outcomes for all workers –regardless of their sexual orientation –and for employers.Employees are more likely to feel that their employer genuinely cares about their well-beingwhen the employer adopts policies and practices that support workers, when employees feelfairly treated, and when they perceived they are valued group members (Mckay and Avery,2015). When this is the case, employees are also more likely to develop an emotionalattachment to the organization and to reciprocate their feelings of support through positiveattitudes and behaviors (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002; Kaplan et al., 2011).Thus, we expect that LGBT-supportive policies and practices can benefit firms in termsof improved productivity and financial performance (Pichler et al., forthcoming), in part dueto increased perceptions of organizational support.
Still, organizations should consider theinterests of multiple stakeholders when adopting LGBT-supportive policies and practices,including other employees (Ragins, 2004), financial investors (Chuang et al., 2011) and regulators (Anteby and Anderson, 2014; Ozturk, 2011; Tilscik, 2011). For instance, employers must consider how distributing healthcare benefits for employees’dependentsbased on an equality principle, which acknowledges non-traditional families, couldadversely impact other types of families, such as families with a relatively large number ofdependents (Scully and Creed, 1999), and grapple with potential backlash from variousconsumer constituencies (Kaplan, 2006; Laythe et al., 2002).
You can read the complete article here.