english question

maomaoice

heterosexism_in_the_workplace_1.pdf

Home >English homework help >english question

10.1177/1059601102250018 ARTICLEGROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENTRagins et al. / HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE

Heterosexism in the Workplace

DO RACE AND GENDER MATTER?

BELLE ROSE RAGINS University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee

JOHN M. CORNWELL Loyola University–New Orleans

JANICE S. MILLER University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee

This article examined the effects of multiple group memberships and relational demography on the workplace experiences of 534 gay employees, 162 of whom were gay employees of color. Two competing models of multiple group membership were tested by assessing the effects of race and gender on sexual orientation discrimination and the decision to disclose a gay identity at work. Race and gender were unrelated to heterosexism. Lesbians were as likely to disclose as gay men, but gay employees of color were less likely to disclose at work. Relational demography predictions were supported for race and sexual orientation but not for gender, suggesting that gender similarity predictions may not apply to gay employees. More heterosexism was reported with male supervisors or work teams, and these effects were stronger for lesbians than gay men. Irrespective of race, employees in racially balanced teams reported less heterosexism than those in primarily White or non-White teams.

Keywords: diversity; race; gender; gay

Although gay men and lesbians constitute between 4% and 17% of the workforce (Gonsiorek & Weinrich, 1991), we know very little about their workplace experiences. In fact, even though gay employees constitute a larger proportion of the workforce than many other minority groups, sexual

The research described in this study was supported by a grant to the first author from the Wayne F. Placek Fund of the American Psychological Foundation. Earlier versions of this article were presented at the National Academy of Management meeting, August 2001, Washington, D.C., and at the Rice University conference on Psychological and Organizational Perspectives on Discrimination in the Workplace: Research, Theory and Practice, May 2000, Houston, TX. We would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their excellent feedback and help with this manuscript.

orientation has been excluded from most empirical research on workplace diversity (Badgett, 1996; Croteau, 1996). Discrimination against employees who are gay, or simply appear to be gay, is legal in most workplaces (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 1996). Without legal protection, gay employees are vulnerable to discrimination, and existing research indicates that between 25% and 66% of gay employees report sexual orientation dis- crimination at work (cf. review by Croteau, 1996). However, these are proba- bly conservative estimates because most gay employees do not fully disclose their sexual orientation at work for fear of discrimination (Badgett, 1996; Schneider, 1987).

This situation may be worse for gay and lesbian employees of color. These employees face discrimination not just because of their sexual orientation but also because of their race, ethnicity, and gender. Diversity scholars observe that women of color may face “double jeopardy” in the workplace because of their ethnicity and gender (cf. review by Ferdman, 1999). A key question is whether this becomes “triple jeopardy” for lesbian women of color. Existing theory and research provide little information on the combined effects of rac- ism, sexism, and heterosexism in the workplace. Do lesbians of color face greater heterosexism than other gay groups because racism and sexism spills over into heterosexism, or is heterosexism relatively independent from these other forms of discrimination?

In addition to discrimination, gender and race may also affect the decision to “be out,” or the disclosure of a gay identity to others in the workplace. Les- bians and gay people of color may be reticent to disclose their sexual orienta- tion at work because of their fear of becoming susceptible to yet another form of workplace discrimination and also because they are already highly visible because of their race and gender (Kanter, 1977). This visibility may increase their chances of being targeted for heterosexism. The disclosure of a gay identity at work is often done on a careful case-by-case basis; gay employees reveal their orientation in situations where they feel safe and to individuals whom they trust (Badgett, 1996; Friskopp & Silverstein, 1996). Gay employ- ees who are highly visible on the basis of their race and gender may fear that “coming out” to one coworker may result in a domino effect of coming out to the entire organization. Do these factors combine to make lesbians and gay people of color less likely than their White gay male counterparts to disclose their sexual orientation at work? The first purpose of this study was to answer these questions by exploring the effects of race and gender on reports of heterosexism in the workplace and the decision to disclose sexual orientation to others at work.

Although demographic variables of race and gender may affect workplace experiences, these effects do not occur in a vacuum but are influenced by the

46 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

broader context of work relationships. In fact, a relational demography per- spective holds that the individual’s work experiences are shaped by the demographic composition of the manager-subordinate relationship and work team (Tsui, Egan, & O’Reilly, 1992; Tusi & O’Reilly, 1989). A number of observable and nonobservable demographic characteristics have been inves- tigated in studies of relational demography, including race, ethnicity, gender, education, age, attitudes, and tenure (see review by Tsui & Gutek, 1999), but there has been no research on the effects of sexual orientation demography on work experiences. Similarly, other scholars have identified work group com- position as an important contextual variable to consider when examining the effects of multiple group memberships on interpersonal discrimination (Landrine, Klonoff, Alcaraz, Scott, & Wilkins, 1995; Tsui & Gutek, 1999), but sexual orientation has been omitted from these discussions. A second purpose of this study was to examine whether the race, gender, and sexual orientation of work groups and supervisors affect gay employees’ reports of discrimination and their decisions to disclose a gay identity at work.

THEORETICAL AND LITERATURE REVIEW

HETEROSEXISM, RACISM, AND SEXISM: THE EFFECTS OF MULTIPLE GROUP MEMBERSHIPS ON WORKPLACE EXPERIENCES

There is a lack of research on the effects of multiple group member- ships on workplace discrimination. The impact of race and gender are often explored in isolation, as if employees have either a race or a gender but not both (Ferdman, 1999), and sexual orientation has been excluded from these discussions. In the following sections, we first introduce the construct of heterosexism and provide a foundation for examining the relationship between heterosexism, racism and sexism. We then review the existing the- ory and research on the general effects of multiple group memberships on interpersonal discrimination. Following this, we examine how these relation- ships may transfer to work settings involving gay and lesbian employees. We use these various perspectives to develop and test two competing models of the effects of multiple group membership on heterosexism and disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace.

Defining heterosexism and homophobia. Although there are a number of different terms that are used to characterize antigay attitudes and discrimina- tion (cf. Herek, 1984), two of the most common are heterosexism and

Ragins et al. / HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE 47

homophobia. Heterosexism is defined as “an ideological system that denies, denigrates, and stigmatizes any nonheterosexual form of behavior, relation- ship, or community” (Herek, 1990, p. 316). Heterosexism incorporates antigay attitudes, prejudice, and discriminatory behavior (Sears, 1997).

Homophobia is a popular term that is often used interchangeably with heterosexism. Homophobia reflects the fear and aversion associated with homosexuality (Weinberg, 1972). There is a lack of consensus on the rela- tionship between homophobia and heterosexism. Some authors view homo- phobia as the emotional component of heterosexism. For example, Sears (1997) defines homophobia as “prejudice, discrimination, harassment or acts of violence against sexual minorities, including lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgendered persons, evidenced in a deep-seated fear or hatred of those who love and sexually desire those of the same sex” (p. 16). Morin and Garfinkle (1978) view homophobia as involving the individual’s irrational fear, as well as a cultural belief system that supports negative stereotypes about gay people.

Other authors maintain that homophobia and heterosexism are independ- ent constructs. For example, Jung and Smith (1993) observe that “although heterosexism is often accompanied by homophobia, no logical or necessary connection exists between the two. People who are homophobic may not be heterosexist; those who are heterosexist may not be homophobic” (p. 14). Jung and Smith also provide an analogy that is pivotal to this study: “Heterosexism is analogous to racism and sexism. Homophobia finds appro- priate analogies in racial bigotry and misogynism” (p. 14). The debate as to whether or not homophobia is part of heterosexism may be similar to the debate as to whether or not racial bigotry and misogyny are part of racism and sexism. It is clear that individuals can engage in racist, sexist, or heterosexist behaviors for reasons other than fear; prejudice may be based on self-inter- ests, beliefs, values, group norms, or social institutions (Allport, 1954). At issue is whether individuals can be fearful or even hate a group without being racist, sexist, or heterosexist. This discussion provides important insights into the similarities and differences between heterosexism, racism, and sexism.

The relationship between heterosexism, racism, and sexism. A review of the literature reveals two perspectives on the relationship between heterosexism and other forms of social prejudice. One perspective is that heterosexism shares a common root with racism and sexism (e.g., Fernald, 1995). This “common roots” perspective holds that heterosexism springs from the same social, cultural, and political foundations as racism and sex- ism. Specifically, racism, sexism, and heterosexism are all forms of social

48 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

prejudice, and all involve attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that result in the superiority of one group over another (Herek, 1990; Jones, 1972; Lott, 1995).

A second perspective is that heterosexism is different from racism and sexism. There are at least three factors that support this “independence per- spective.” First, the affective component of heterosexism, homophobia, has no real counterpart in racism or sexism. Homophobia is grounded in hetero- sexuals’ fear that they are gay, may become gay, or may simply be perceived as being gay by others (Herek, 1984). The ability to conceal sexual orienta- tion also fuels homophobia by allowing others to speculate about an individ- ual’s sexual orientation. This fear does not readily translate to emotions underlying racism and sexism; individuals usually are not afraid that they may become or be viewed as another race or gender.

Second, the stigma associated with homosexuality is different from the stigmas associated with other groups (Goffman, 1974). The invisibility of sexual orientation may amplify “courtesy stigmas,” which are stigmas received by associating with stigmatized groups (Goffman, 1974; Herek & Capitanio, 1996). Heterosexuals who associate with gay employees may be assumed to be gay by others in the organization; this form of stigma by asso- ciation does not occur on the basis of gender and rarely occurs on the basis of race. Along with the courtesy stigma, gay men face an AIDS-related stigma. Although education has dispelled many of the myths associated with HIV/ AIDS, the fear of AIDS is intertwined with a fear of homosexuality in a way that has no real parallel for race and gender.

The third factor that supports the independence perspective is the con- demnation of homosexuality by many religious groups. Although various religious groups throughout history have promulgated racism and sexism, the current focus of religious-based heterosexism has no direct parallel with race and gender. Jung and Smith (1993) observe that some religious groups view gay men and lesbians as unnatural or diseased and “proclaims them to be at the core of their very being abhorrent to God” (p. 61). A compounding factor is the idea that homosexuality is a “lifestyle choice” (Jung & Smith, 1993), and this concept of choice is an important predictor of antigay atti- tudes (Herek & Capitanio, 1995). In contrast, race and gender are not viewed as immoral life choices that violate religious beliefs.

Herek (2000) identified two competing frameworks that have been used to understand gay prejudice and that parallel the common roots and inde- pendence perspectives. The “gay rights framework” holds that attitudes toward gay people are psychologically similar to attitudes toward racial and ethnic minority groups. Like other minority groups, attitudes toward gays are based on political and religious values, normative pressures from peers, and the degree of intergroup contact. In contrast, the “gay liberation framework”

Ragins et al. / HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE 49

holds that gay prejudice is less about attitudes toward others and more about attitudes toward one’s own sexual identity. Under this framework, gay preju- dice is due to the individual’s confusion about his or her own sexuality, and the fear of being labeled gay. This internal anxiety becomes externalized in prejudice against gays. Herek observed that both of these frameworks may be operative and that antigay prejudice may be due to a common process under- lying minority group attitudes, as well as an individual process that reflects fears and insecurities about one’s sexual identity.

Research on racist, sexist, and heterosexist attitudes provides support for both the “common roots” and the “independence” perspectives. In support of the common roots perspective, Henley and Pincus (1978) found significant relationships among attitudinal measures of racism, sexism, and heterosexism. Additionally, Herek’s (1984) review of the literature indicates that although heterosexism shares many of the same predictors as racism and sexism (i.e., limited contact, conservative religious orientation, limited edu- cation), some predictors are unique to heterosexism (i.e., guilt about sexual- ity, permissiveness about sexuality, and prior homosexual behaviors). Ficarrotto (1990) found support for both the common roots and independ- ence perspectives in his study of 79 undergraduate students. In support of the common roots perspective, he found a significant relationship between racist and sexist attitudes and an attitudinal measure of homophobia. However, he also found support for the idea that negative attitudes toward gays reflects the unique dimension of sexual conservatism, or deep-seated, negative feelings about human sexuality. It is clear that more research is needed to test these two perspectives.

A final area that can shed theoretical light on the relationships between heterosexism, racism, and sexism is the area of aversive/modern racism (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1986) and subtle/modern sexism (Benokraitis & Feagin, 1995). In general, the modernist perspective on prejudice holds that because modern social values prohibit blatant expressions of racism and sex- ism, overt prejudice has gone underground and now surfaces in more covert ways. For example, the theory of aversive racism holds that aversive racists express egalitarian values and truly believe they are not racist but uncon- sciously harbor racist feelings that result in subtle, but potent, biases (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1986). At the heart of aversive racism is the individ- ual’s ambivalence over egalitarian beliefs regarding socially acceptable behavior, on one hand, and their negative feelings toward minority groups, on the other hand. These feelings are usually unconscious and involve dis- comfort, disgust, or even fear of the minority group. Aversive racism may have a direct counterpart in aversive heterosexism (Winegarden, 1994). In essence, aversive heterosexism holds that unconscious homophobia leads

50 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

individuals to behave in heterosexist ways, even though they profess and believe that they are not heterosexists.

Although aversive racism and heterosexism may share some common psychological processes, a key difference between them is that the social norms prohibiting heterosexism are not as well established as norms prohib- iting racism and sexism. For example, it is still legal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in most workplaces (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 1996), and 6 out of 10 Americans believe that homosexuality is morally wrong (Newport, 1998). In addition to differences in social norms, the emotional component of heterosexism may be stronger, more subcon- scious, and more personal than the feelings associated with racism and sex- ism (Herek, 1984). One consequence of this may be that the ambivalence experienced by aversive racists may be less than or different from than the ambivalence experienced by aversive heterosexists.

In sum, whereas racism, sexism, and heterosexism may share common foundations in social prejudice, heterosexism may also be distinct from tradi- tional and modern forms of prejudice. The common roots and independence perspectives provide an important context for understanding the effects of multiple group membership on interpersonal discrimination and are the foundation for our model on heterosexism in the workplace. We now exam- ine the effects of multiple group membership on interpersonal discrimination and heterosexism in the workplace.

Multiple group memberships and interpersonal discrimination. Although the relationships between heterosexism, racism, and sexism provide one the- oretical piece of the puzzle, we need to understand how an individual’s mem- bership in multiple minority groups affects his or her experience of heterosexism in the workplace. Although Ransford’s (1980) model does not address workplace discrimination, his theory of multiple group memberships provides a good basis for examining the effects of multiple group member- ships on heterosexism in the workplace.

Ransford (1980) proposed the “Multiple Jeopardy-Advantage” (MJA) hypothesis, which holds that members of multiple low-status groups (i.e., African American females) may be faced with a double disadvantage, whereas members of multiple high-status groups (i.e., White males) enjoy a double advantage. Ransford presented two competing scenarios of multiple group memberships. The first is that the effects of membership in multiple low- or high-status groups are independent. For example, he notes that women of color experience both racism and sexism, but these effects may be independent; women of color would therefore experience equivalent sexism as White women. As applied to gay men and lesbians, we would expect that

Ragins et al. / HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE 51

lesbians would experience equivalent heterosexism as gay men, and gay peo- ple of color would experience the same heterosexism as their majority gay counterparts.

In contrast, Ransford’s (1980) second scenario holds that group member- ships interact synergistically so that the total impact of multiple group mem- berships is greater than the sum of individual memberships. He proposed that “multiple jeopardy emphasizes that class, ethnicity, sex and age discrimina- tion may combine to produce unique barriers that cannot be explained by any one of these hierarchies singly” (p. 280). Under this scenario, women of color would experience greater sexism than White women because of the synergis- tic effect of multiple group memberships. As applied to the current study, les- bians and gay people of color could be expected to experience greater heterosexism at work than their majority gay counterparts. Ransford also the- orized that White males have a dual advantage position due to their race and gender. In addition to main effects for race and gender, we would also expect an interaction resulting in White gay males’ experiencing less heterosexism than any other group.

There is little guidance from the literature as to which of these models best predicts interpersonal discrimination. Landrine and her associates (1995) assessed the MJA hypothesis by reviewing interpersonal discrimination studies published in social psychology and feminist journals, by examining race and gender differences in 1991 census salary reports, and by conducting a laboratory study on discriminatory reactions to television characters (Landrine et al., 1995). Landrine and colleagues found conflicting support for the interaction between multiple group memberships and concluded that one problem with the MJA hypothesis is that it assumes equivalency across low- or high-status group memberships. Their conclusion that the effects of multiple group memberships may be contingent on the type of membership is a key point to consider when examining sexual orientation as a group mem- bership and is congruent with our earlier discussion on the similarities and differences between heterosexism, racism, and sexism. We now revisit that earlier discussion and examine how the MJA hypothesis can be applied to heterosexism in the workplace.

Sexual orientation and multiple group memberships in the workplace. There has been a lack of theory or research on the relationship between sexual orientation and other group memberships in the workplace. Ransford’s (1980) two competing scenarios of interpersonal discrimination provide a good foundation for examining this topic and are congruent with the common roots and independence perspectives reviewed earlier. We integrate these

52 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

approaches and use them as a springboard to develop two competing models of the effects of multiple group membership on heterosexism and disclosure in the workplace.

We call the first model the ”spillover model.” This model holds that the effects of race and gender spill over into heterosexism in the workplace and are in line with the MJA hypothesis prediction (Ransford, 1980) that mem- bership in multiple groups compounds the advantages or disadvantages asso- ciated with individual group memberships. This model is also aligned with the broader common roots perspective, which holds that heterosexism, rac- ism, and sexism are all forms of social prejudice that involve attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that result in the superiority of one group over another.

A basic premise of the spillover model is that the common foundation of different forms of prejudice allows for the transference of discrimination from one form to another at work. This is congruent with other perspectives on workplace diversity. For example, women and employees of color are often excluded from social networks and face increased visibility and nega- tive performance attributions that increase their susceptibility to job discrim- ination (Kanter, 1977; Pettigrew & Martin, 1987). These factors may also make gay employees of color reluctant to risk further discrimination by dis- closing their gay identity at work, and prior experiences of racism or sexism may amplify this reluctance (Rosabal, 1996).

Emerging norms on racism and sexism may also contribute to the spillover model. Because legislation and societal norms prohibit blatant rac- ism and sexism, these forms of discrimination may become channeled into more socially permissible forms of heterosexism. For example, the use of a racial slur against a gay employee of color could result in immediate dis- missal, but the use of a gay slur may not even warrant a reprimand in most workplaces.

A logical extension of the spillover model is that group membership not only penalizes employees who are members of low-status groups but also helps those in high-status groups. This view is aligned with Ransford’s (1980) proposal that upper-class White males obtain multiple advantages from their high-status group memberships. As applied to the workplace, the same perceptual and attributional processes that place women and employ- ees of color at a disadvantage may give advantages to their majority counter- parts. White gay males, for example, may be assumed to be competent because of their race and gender. Accordingly, although White gay males face heterosexism, the spillover model predicts that the status, power, and privilege associated with their race and gender should buffer them from the full brunt of heterosexism and decrease their experience of heterosexism in

Ragins et al. / HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE 53

the workplace. White gay males should therefore experience less heterosexism than any other gay group.

A competing model, which we label the “independence model,” holds that heterosexism is independent from other forms of workplace discrimination. This perspective predicts that race or gender will not affect experiences of heterosexism or the decision to be out at work. This model builds upon Ransford’s (1980) theory that group memberships are independent in their effects and is also aligned with the view that heterosexism springs from a dif- ferent foundation than racism or sexism. As discussed earlier, there are a number of ways in which heterosexism is different from other forms of social prejudice. First, heterosexism involves an emotional component that lacks a counterpart in racism and sexism. Second, the concealability of homosexual- ity amplifies courtesy stigmas and may fuel homophobia. Third, homosexu- ality is viewed as an immoral lifestyle choice that runs counter to many reli- gious doctrines. Finally, heterosexism may take a different form in the workplace than racism or sexism. For example, the competence, intelligence, motivation, or leadership of a female or minority employee is often auto- matically questioned as an expression of racism or sexism, but these ques- tions are usually not raised in response to an employee’s sexual orientation. In contrast, gay employees are often treated as an onerous oddity, and their identity becomes shaped by their sexual behavior. The questions aimed at gay employees often focus on their sexual behaviors, whether they are HIV- positive, or whether they will become sexual predators at work (e.g., Friskopp & Silverstein, 1996; Woods, 1994) rather than on their job perfor- mance or competence.

These factors may combine to create a situation whereby the heterosexism faced by gay employees is not influenced by their other group memberships. Under this model, lesbians would be as likely as gay men to experience heterosexism, and gay people of color would face equivalent heterosexism as their White counterparts. Additionally, White gay males would not gain a heterosexism buffer by their race or gender and would therefore be as likely to experience heterosexism as their female and minority counterparts. Simi- larly, the independence model would predict that inasmuch as race and gen- der would not affect heterosexism, and heterosexism is related to disclosure decisions (Ragins & Cornwell, 2001), race and gender would therefore not affect the decision to disclose a gay identity at work.

Although both the spillover and the independence models are plausible, there is no research to support one perspective over another in predicting dis- crimination against gay employees. We therefore assess the spillover model by testing the prediction that lesbians and gay people of color will be less

54 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

likely to disclose their sexual orientation and will report more workplace dis- crimination on the basis of sexual orientation than will their majority gay counterparts.

We controlled for two important factors in our study. First, because gay employees in organizations covered by legislation prohibiting sexual orien- tation discrimination are more likely to be out at work and report less work- place discrimination than those in organizations that are not governed by such legislation (Ragins & Cornwell, 2001), we controlled for this variable in our study. It is also important to control for disclosure of sexual orientation when investigating reports of discrimination; a gay employee may be less likely to be the direct target of heterosexism if no one at work knows that she or he is gay. Accordingly, we controlled for these variables in our test of the spillover model:

Hypothesis 1a: Holding protective legislation constant, lesbians will be less likely than gay males to disclose their sexual orientation in the workplace, and gay people of color will be less likely than gay Caucasians to disclose their sexual orientation in the workplace.

Hypothesis 1b: Holding protective legislation constant, gay White males will be more likely than any other group to disclose their sexual orientation in the workplace.

Hypothesis 2a: Holding protective legislation and disclosure of sexual orientation constant, lesbians will report more heterosexism in the workplace than will gay males, and gay people of color will report more heterosexism than will gay Caucasians.

Hypothesis 2b: Holding protective legislation and disclosure of sexual orientation constant, White gay males will report less heterosexism in the workplace than will any other group.

Workplace discrimination may be affected by more than an individual’s group membership. As we discuss next, the demographic composition of the work group is a critical variable that may affect reports of heterosexism and the decision to be out at work.

RELATIONAL DEMOGRAPHY AND HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE

A factor that may be even more important than the gay employee’s race or gender is the race, gender, and sexual orientation of his or her supervisor and workgroup. A relational demography perspective predicts that individuals who work with managers and teams that are similar to them will form closer work relationships than will individuals who work in dissimilar work groups (Tsui et al., 1992; Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989). A number of observable and

Ragins et al. / HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE 55

unobservable demographic characteristics have been investigated in studies of relational demography (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender, education, age, atti- tudes, and tenure) (see Riordan, 2001; Tsui & Gutek, 1999). However, these studies have not examined sexual orientation as a demographic variable and have assumed that the effects of other demographic variables generalize to gay employees.

An application of relational demography theory to sexual orientation in the workplace leads to the prediction that sexual orientation discrimination and the decision to disclose a gay identity at work may be affected by the rela- tional demography of the work team and supervisory relationship. Gay employees who have coworkers and supervisors of the same race, gender, and sexual orientation should have a more supportive work environment than employees in work settings where they are the only people of their race, gen- der, or sexual orientation.

Holding protective legislation constant, we therefore expect the following relationships:

Hypothesis 3: Gay employees who share a similar sexual orientation, gender, or race with coworkers will be more likely to disclose their gay identity and, hold- ing disclosure constant, will report less workplace discrimination than employees who differ from their coworkers.

Hypothesis 4: Gay employees who share a similar sexual orientation, gender, or race with their supervisor will be more likely to disclose their gay identity and, holding disclosure constant, will report less workplace discrimination than employees who differ from their supervisor.

Finally, we explore whether these relational demography effects are sym- metrical for different groups. Existing research suggests that the effects of demographic similarity may be different for majority and minority group members, and some research indicates that majority members have a more difficult time in diverse groups than do minority members (see reviews by Riordan, 2001; Tsui & Gutek, 1999). Riordan (2001) has called for more research that investigates nonsymmetrical demographic effects, but there is little theory or research to guide an investigation of these effects among gay employees. In fact, asymmetrical demography effects may be quite different for gay employees. For example, current research predicts that a heterosexual male may have a negative reaction to being in an all-female group (Riordan, 2001), but this reaction may be quite different in the case of a gay male in an all-female group. Accordingly, we investigate this issue with a research question:

56 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

Research Question: Are relational demography effects among gay employees symmetrical for race and gender?

METHOD

PROCEDURE AND RESPONDENTS

Sampling procedure. As part of a larger study on workplace diversity (Ragins & Cornwell, 2001), surveys were sent to a national random sample of 2,919 members of three national gay rights organizations in the United States. Specifically, we sent surveys to 1,488 members of one of the largest gay civil rights organizations in the nation. To obtain a diverse sample, we sent an additional 681 surveys to members of a national gay Latino/a organi- zation, and 750 surveys were sent to a national gay African American organi- zation. A stratified random sampling technique was used in which equal numbers of men and women were selected by geographic area. The surveys were mailed in 1997 and were completely anonymously; there was no identi- fying information on the surveys that would connect them to the respondents. Two reminder postcards and a reminder letter were sent to all respondents. A total of 334 surveys were returned unanswered for various reasons, the pri- mary reason being undeliverable mail (283); 51 surveys were returned unan- swered because respondents were retired, unemployed, self-employed, het- erosexual, or deceased. Completed surveys were returned by 768 respondents, yielding a response rate of 30%.

Respondents. Because this study investigated workplace discrimination against gay employees, surveys returned from the following groups were not used in the analyses: those indicating they were heterosexual (n = 20) or unsure of their sexual orientation (n = 3), those who were self-employed (n = 99) or employed by a gay, lesbian, or bisexual organization (n = 51), and those who were not employed in paid positions (i.e., retired, unemployed, or volunteers) (n = 61). The final sample consisted of 534 respondents.

The sample consisted of 168 women and 363 men; 3 respondents did not report their gender. The majority of the respondents considered themselves gay or lesbian (92.9%), as compared with bisexual (7.1%). The racial and ethnic background of the respondents was 67.6% White (n = 361), 15.2% Black (n = 81), 12.2% Latino/Hispanic (n = 65), .7% Asian (n = 4), 1.1% mul- tiracial (n = 6) and 1.1% other (n = 6); 11 (2.1%) did not report their race.1 The

Ragins et al. / HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE 57

average age of the respondents was 41 years. The respondents were highly educated—the majority held bachelor’s degrees (38.6%), and many had master’s (28.2%) and doctoral (17.9%) degrees. Forty-one percent of the sample earned between $26,000 and $50,000 a year, and 24% earned between $51,000 and $75,000 a year. The average tenure in their current organization was 9.3 years, and the average tenure in their current position was 6.1 years. The majority of respondents held professional or technical jobs (68.5%) and managerial jobs (19.7%); the remainder of the sample were employed in clerical or sales positions (4.9%), service or craft (6.4%), or agricultural (.4%). Respondents also came from a large range of industries, such as education (24.2%), health (17%), government (14.8%), service (12.2%), manufacturing (9.2%), finance/insurance (6.8%), arts/entertain- ment (4.8%), advertising/publishing (3.1%), travel (2.0%), human services (2.0%), and design/fashion (.9%).

MEASURES

The survey was developed and pretested on an opportunity sample of 28 gay and lesbian employees across the nation. The pretest was used to ensure clarity, refine instruments, and select items. The staff from the gay rights organizations that provided the mailing lists also critiqued and approved the pretest and final surveys.

Controls for protective legislation. Respondents were asked the city and state in which they worked. Because legislation varies by region, multiple sources were used to determine current legislation governing respondents’ employers (Button, Rienzo, & Wald, 1997; National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 1996; Wald, Button, & Rienzo, 1997). The protective legislation vari- able was coded 0 = not covered by protective legislation or 1 = covered by protective legislation; therefore, higher values represent protective coverage.

Work group and supervisor demographic composition. As recommended by Riordan and Shore (1997), we operationalized our demographic variables as the individual’s demographic characteristic relative to his or her supervi- sor and work group. A set of questions asked respondents to indicate whether their coworkers were mostly the same race or ethnicity as them (coded as 3), about equally balanced (coded as 2), or mostly a different race or ethnicity from them (coded as 1). Parallel sets of questions and codings were used to assess the gender and sexual orientation of the work group. Another set of questions asked respondents if their supervisors were the same race or ethnic- ity as them (coded 1) or a different race or ethnicity from them (coded 0).

58 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

Parallel questions and coding were used to assess the supervisor’s gender and sexual orientation. Higher values therefore represent greater similarity of the respondent’s race, gender, and sexual orientation to his or her manager and work group. Respondents were also given an option of “don’t know” for reporting similarities of their coworkers’ and manager’s race and sexual ori- entation. These responses were recoded as missing data in the analyses.

Workplace discrimination. A review of the literature revealed no psychometrically established measures of sexual orientation discrimination at work. A modified version of the Workplace Prejudice/Discrimination Inventory (James, Lovato, & Cropanzano, 1994) was therefore used to test the hypotheses and research questions. The 15-item, single-factor instrument has established reliability and validity (James et al., 1994). The inventory measures perceptions of race discrimination in the workplace, so items relat- ing to race were replaced with items relating to sexual orientation. Sample inventory items are “Prejudice against gays and lesbians exists where I work,” “At work I am treated poorly because of my sexual orientation,” and “Supervisors scrutinize the work of gay and lesbian employees more than the work of heterosexual employees.” Although the instrument measures both experienced and observed discrimination, prior studies have found that the instrument represents a single factor (James et al., 1994), and a principal components factor analysis conducted on the present sample also yielded a single factor with an eigenvalue of 7.49, accounting for 53.6% of the vari- ance. The instrument uses a 7-point Likert-type scale, with responses ranging from 7 (completely agree) to 1 (completely disagree). Higher values there- fore indicate greater reported workplace discrimination. The coefficient alpha found in the present study for this instrument was .94.

Disclosure of sexual orientation at work. Disclosure was measured with the following question: “At work, have you disclosed your sexual orientation to (Please check one option): (1) no one, (2) some people, (3) most people, (4) everyone.” These four options were modified from similar “out at work” scales used by Croteau and Lark (1995), Levine and Leonard (1984), and Schneider (1987). Higher values represent greater disclosure of sexual orien- tation at work.

RESULTS

The correlations, means, and standard deviations for the variables are dis- played in Table 1. Our sample reflected substantial diversity in work group

Ragins et al. / HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE 59

relationships. For supervisor-subordinate relationships, 30% (n = 159) of respondents reported that their supervisor was a different race or ethnicity from them, 68% (n = 362) had supervisors of the same race or ethnicity as them, and 5 individuals did not know their supervisor’s race. In terms of gen- der, 43% (n = 227) had a supervisor of the opposite sex, and 57% (n = 299) had a supervisor of the same sex. In terms of the supervisor’s sexual orienta- tion, 85.8% (n = 452) had heterosexual supervisors, 8.9% (n = 47) had gay supervisors, and 5.3% (n = 28) did not know their supervisor’s sexual orien- tation. With respect to work group demography, 24% (n = 126) had cowork- ers that were mostly a different race or ethnicity from them, 18% (n = 97) worked in groups that were about equally balanced, 57% (n = 305) had coworkers who were mostly the same race or ethnicity as them, and 1 respon- dent reported not knowing coworkers’ race or ethnicity. For gender, 29% (n = 154) worked in groups composed mostly of individuals of the opposite sex, 43% (n = 224) were in gender-balanced work groups, and 28% (n = 148) worked in groups that were mostly the same gender as them. For sexual ori- entation, the majority of the respondents (89.3%, n = 474) reported that most of their coworkers were heterosexual, 6.6% (n = 35) reported that their work groups were about equally balanced, 2.3% (n = 12) reported that most of their coworkers were gay or lesbian, and 1.9% (n = 10) did not know their cowork- ers’ sexual orientation.

There was also significant variation in the degree to which individuals were out at work: In total, 11.7% reported that they were out to no one at work, 37% reported being out to some people, 24.6% reported being out to most people, and 26.7% reported being out to everyone at work.

We also wanted to assess whether our African American, Latino Ameri- can, Asian American, and multiracial respondents differed in experienced discrimination and disclosure decisions. Analyses of variance indicated that respondents of color did not significantly differ from one another in the dependent variables of disclosure of sexual orientation, F(3, 152) = .552, ns, or reports of sexual orientation discrimination, F(3, 150) = .796, ns. We therefore combined and recoded the race variable as 1 (White respondent) or 0 (respondent of color).

Hierarchical regression analyses were used to test the study’s hypotheses. Our first set of hypotheses tested the spillover perspective, which predicted that lesbians and gay people of color would be less likely to disclose their sex- ual orientation (Hypothesis 1a) and would report more heterosexism at work (Hypothesis 2a) than would their majority gay counterparts. We also tested for a significant interaction of race and gender, resulting in White gay males reporting less heterosexism (Hypothesis 2b) and being more likely to dis- close at work (Hypothesis 1b) than any other group. As displayed in Table 2,

60 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

only Hypothesis 1a was partially supported. When holding protective legis- lation constant, gender was not significantly related to disclosure, but gay people of color were less likely than their White counterparts to be out at work. No support was received for the other spillover hypotheses. When holding protective legislation and disclosure constant, we found no signifi- cant race or gender effects in reports of heterosexism at work. Moreover, the lack of a significant interaction between race and gender indicated that White gay males were as likely as other groups to disclose and report equivalent heterosexism.

Hypotheses 3 and 4 examined the effects of the demographic composition of the work team and supervisory relationship on disclosure and reported dis- crimination. Because women and people of color are more likely to be in the minority in work groups, we controlled for race and gender effects by enter- ing the respondent’s race and gender in the second step of our hierarchical analyses. As displayed in Table 2, we found partial support for Hypothesis 3. Gay respondents who worked with mostly gay coworkers reported less

Ragins et al. / HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE 61

TABLE 1

Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations for Study Variables (N = 499)

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Reported discrimination 45.3 20.5

2. Protective legislation .70 .46 –.14

3. Out at work 2.66 1.00 –.29 .20 4. Supervisor’s race .70 .46 –.08 .01 .12 5. Supervisor’s

gender .57 .50 .00 –.04 –.04 .08 6. Supervisor’s

sexual orientation .09 .29 –.17 .05 .11 –.01 .09 7. Coworkers’ race 2.34 .84 –.02 –.04 .07 .66 .05 –.06 8. Coworkers’

sexual orientation 1.11 .38 –.28 .06 .26 –.04 –.01 .42 –.02 9. Coworkers’ gender 2.01 .76 –.01 –.04 –.04 –.05 .36 .01 –.02 .08

10. Respondent’s race .69 .46 –.04 .02 .08 .60 .10 –.05 .60 –.02 .03 11. Respondent’s gender .68 .47 –.04 .03 .01 .09 .13 .03 .04 .00 .16 .08

NOTE: The significance levels for correlations are r > .07, p < .05; r > .10, p < .01; r > .14, p < .001; r > .20, ns, one-tailed. Higher values represent more discrimination, protective legislation, greater disclosure at work, and greater demographic similarity with coworkers and supervisors. Respondent’s race is coded 1 = majority, 0 = minority. Respondent’s gender is coded 1 = male, 0 = female.

heterosexism and were more likely to be out at work than were respondents who worked in balanced or mostly heterosexual groups. However, the gender or racial composition of the work team was not significantly related to dis- crimination or disclosure. Relational demography had a somewhat stronger effect in the supervisor-subordinate relationship. In partial support of Hypothesis 4, respondents with supervisors of the same sexual orientation or

62 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

TABLE 2

Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses: Tests of Hypotheses

Perceived Workplace Disclosure At Work Discrimination

β ∆R2 R2 β ∆R2 R2

Hypotheses 1a and 2a Step 1

Control variables .04*** .04*** .09*** .09*** Protective legislation .20*** –.09* Disclosure at worka –.27***

Step 2 Race and gender effects .01 .04*** .01 .09*** Respondent’s race .07* –.02 Respondent’s gender –.01 –.03

Hypotheses 1b and 2b Step 3

Race and gender interaction .14 .01 .05*** .07 .00 .09*** Hypothesis 3

Step 3 Work team effects .07*** .11*** .04*** .13*** Coworkers’ sexual orientation .26*** –.22*** Coworkers’ race .05 –.01 Coworkers’ gender .05 .01

Hypothesis 4 Step 3

Supervisor effects .02** .07*** .02** .11*** Supervisor’s sexual orientation .11** –.14*** Supervisor’s race .11** –.05 Supervisor’s gender –.05 .01

NOTE: Higher values represent protective legislation, more discrimination, greater disclosure, and greater demographic similarity to coworkers and supervisors. Respondent’s race is coded 1 = majority, 0 = minority. Respondent’s gender is coded 1 = male, 0 = female. a. Disclosure at work was only entered as a control variable in analyses involving perceived workplace discrimination. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001. One-tailed significance tests were used for directional hypothe- ses, two-tailed levels for control variables.

race were more likely to be out at work than were respondents with supervi- sors of a different race or sexual orientation. Additionally, respondents with gay supervisors reported less workplace discrimination than those with het- erosexual supervisors. The gender of the supervisor did not affect disclosure or reported discrimination. In short, we found significant demography effects for similarities based on sexual orientation and supervisor’s race but no significant effects for similarities based on gender.

The finding that gay employees were more likely to disclose their sexual orientation when they had supervisors of the same race led us to ask a follow- up question about whether this effect was independent of the supervisor’s sexual orientation. To answer this question, we entered the supervisor’s sex- ual orientation before the race similarity variable in a hierarchical regression analysis. When controlling for the sexual orientation of the supervisor, along with the other control variables (protective legislation, respondent’s race and gender), the similarity in the supervisor’s race variable maintained its signifi- cant relationship with disclosure of sexual orientation (Beta = .10, p < .05). This indicated that irrespective of the supervisor’s sexual orientation and the employee’s race, gay employees with supervisors of the same race were more likely to be out at work than those with supervisors of a different race.

Our research question assessed whether these relational demography variables varied by the respondent’s race or gender.2 To answer this question, we tested the interaction between all the relational demography variables and the respondent’s race and gender in a series of regression analyses. We entered the control variables in the first step of the analyses, followed by the main effect terms in the second step (respondent’s race and gender, and the relational demography of the team and supervisory relationship) and the interaction terms in the final step. None of the interactions was significant for disclosure, indicating that the demography effects found for disclosure did not vary by the respondent’s race or gender.

Whereas race and gender main effects were not significant, we found three significant interactions for discrimination. First, as indicated in Table 3, we found a significant interaction between the respondent’s gender and the gender composition of the work team. As displayed in Figure 1, both gay men and lesbians encountered the most heterosexism in work teams composed of primarily men, and this effect was amplified for lesbians. Second, we found a significant interaction between the respondent’s and supervisor’s gender. A plot of the adjusted means in Figure 2 revealed that both gay men and lesbians reported more heterosexism with male supervisors than with female supervi- sors and that lesbians with male supervisors reported significantly more heterosexism than did any other group. Combined, these two interactions

Ragins et al. / HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE 63

indicate that heterosexism is more likely to be reported in work environments involving male supervisors and primarily male work teams and that this effect is stronger for lesbians than for gay men.

The third significant interaction was between the respondent’s race and the racial composition of the work group. As displayed in Figure 3, both

64 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

TABLE 3

Significant Interactions for Research Question

Perceived Workplace Discrimination

β ∆R2 R2

Step 1 Control variables .09*** .09*** Protective legislation –.09* Disclosure at work –.27***

Step 2 Main effects .00 .09*** Respondent’s gender –.04 Coworkers’ gender .02

Step 3 Respondent × Coworker Gender –.53*** .02*** .12***

Step 1 Control variables .09*** .09*** Protective legislation –.09* Disclosure at work –.27***

Step 2 Main effects .00 .09*** Respondent’s gender –.04 Supervisor’s gender –.01

Step 3 Respondent × Supervisor Gender .20* .003* .10***

Step 1 Control variables .09*** .09*** Protective legislation –.09* Disclosure at work –.27***

Step 2 Main effects .00 .09*** Respondent’s race –.02 Coworkers’ race .00

Step 3 Respondent × Coworker Race .41** .01** .10***

NOTE: Only significant interactions are displayed in the table. Higher values represent protec- tive legislation, more discrimination, and greater demographic similarity to coworkers and supervi- sors. Respondent’s race is coded 1 = majority, 0 = minority. Respondent’s gender is coded 1 = male, 0 = female. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001, two-tailed.

Ragins et al. / HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE 65

42.72

43.4

58.38

51.67

42.41

43.67

Same Balanced Opposite

Coworkers' Gender

P er

ce iv

ed D

is cr

im in

at io

Female Male Lesbians in primarily male groups

Gay men in primarily male groups

Figure 1: Adjusted Perceived Discrimination Means for Significant Respondent’s Gen- der by Coworkers’ Gender Interaction

43.41

49.53

46.16

42.87

Same Opposite

Supervisor's Gender

P er

ce iv

ed D

is cr

im in

at io

Female Male Lesbians with male supervisors

Gay men with male supervisors

Figure 2: Adjusted Perceived Discrimination Means for Significant Respondent’s Gen- der by Supervisor Interaction

White gays and gays of color reported the most heterosexism in primarily White work teams. Additionally, both White gays and gays of color reported less heterosexism in groups that were racially balanced than in groups that were primarily White or composed primarily of people of color. To ensure that these interactions were not due to the sexual orientation of coworkers or supervisors, we reran all the analyses controlling for this variable. All three interactions retained significance.

DISCUSSION

We used a national sample of gay and lesbian employees to examine the effects of race, gender, and work group demography on reports of sexual ori- entation discrimination and disclosure of sexual orientation at work. Our study breaks new ground in exploring the effects of multiple group member- ships and relational demography on the workplace experiences of gay employees and provides a foundation for future research and theory develop- ment on this understudied population.

66 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

46.3

36.63

47.42

44.16

37.93

49.56

Same Race Bala nced Different Race

Coworkers' Race

P er

ce iv

ed D

is cr

im in

at io

Majority M inority Primarily white group

Primarily white group

Figure 3: Adjusted Perceived Discrimination Means for Significant Respondent’s Race by Coworkers’ Race Interaction

THE EFFECTS OF MULTIPLE GROUP MEMBERSHIPS ON HETEROSEXISM AND DISCLOSURE

We developed and tested two competing models of the effects of multiple group membership on reports of heterosexism and the decision to disclose a gay identity at work: the independence model and the spillover model. The results of our study indicate more support for the independence model than for the spillover model. In contrast to the spillover model, lesbians and gay people of color did not report more heterosexism than their White male coun- terparts, and lesbians were as likely as gay men to be out at work. However, in support of the model, gay people of color disclosed their sexual orientation to fewer people at work than their White counterparts. One explanation for this is that gay people of color are more likely to be in the numerical minority in organizations than women, and this visibility may increase the perceived risks associated with disclosure. Gay employees of color may already feel that they are under a microscope at work because of their race and may not want to feed the gossip mill by coming out at work. They may fear that their visibility may promote a “domino effect” in which their disclosure to a select group of individuals results in everyone in the organization knowing their sexual orientation. Finally, gay people of color who encounter racism at work may fear that a revelation of a gay identity may “add fuel to the discrimina- tory fire.”

The finding that lesbians and gay employees of color reported equivalent heterosexism at work as White gay males supports the independence model, which holds that the forms and functions of heterosexism make it distinct from racism or sexism. A key distinction is that the invisibility of sexual ori- entation combines with sexual insecurities and identity conflicts to create an emotional reaction that has no real counterpart in race and gender. Individ- uals are usually not afraid that they are or will become another race or gender or that they will be perceived as being a different race or gender by mere asso- ciation with a stigmatized group. Another distinction is that unlike sexual ori- entation, race and gender are not viewed as immoral lifestyle choices that violate religious doctrines.

Although our study provides a good start, more research is needed that examines the underpinnings of racism, sexism, and heterosexism in organi- zations. Our study assessed race and gender effects, but future research could take the next step by comparing mean reports of sexism, racism, and heterosexism using a racially diverse sample of gay and lesbian employees. We also need a more thorough understanding of the relationship between homophobia and heterosexism in organizations and the antecedents and out- comes of these constructs.

Ragins et al. / HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE 67

Whereas memberships in multiple high-status groups may give some individuals an advantage, we found no evidence of this among the White gay men in our study, who reported equivalent heterosexism as other groups. The race and gender of these men apparently did not buffer them from sexual ori- entation discrimination. One reason for this may be that openly gay men may not be invited to join the “good old boys’ club.” Moreover, the disclosure of a gay identity after entering this club may evoke heterosexist backlash; gay men may be viewed as “imposters who infiltrated the White heterosexual male bastion.” Additionally, our finding that White gay men were as likely to be out at work as their female and minority counterparts suggests that although coming out may mean relinquishing the privileges associated with their race and gender, the emotional costs involved with hiding a gay identity may make that decision well worthwhile.

Future research should use both quantitative and qualitative approaches to examine race and gender differences in identity management strategies. Our study examined race and gender differences in the decision to disclose, but we did not explore the strategies used by those who concealed their sexual identity at work (cf. Button, 2001). Although lesbians were as likely as gay men to be out at work, it would be interesting to examine the identity manage- ment strategies used by those who remained in the closet. For example, Woods (1994) observed that two nondisclosure strategies involve avoiding the issue of sexuality and counterfeiting a heterosexual identity. Are there race and gender differences in the use of these strategies? One could argue that counterfeiting a heterosexual identity would be difficult for those who are already highly visible because of their minority status. Additionally, the number of minority group memberships may matter; individuals who are members of multiple stigmatized groups may be more adept at managing their identities than those who are members of just one stigmatized group.

Future research could also explore the factors that predict disclosure in the workplace. Lesbians were as likely as gay men to be out at work, but the fac- tors that led to this decision may vary by race and gender. We need to under- stand what factors build the sense of trust and safety necessary for lesbians and gay people of color to disclose at work. Perhaps they disclose their sexual orientation to coworkers only after they have “tested the water” for racism and sexism. These questions point to the importance of examining not just the race and gender of the gay employee but also the demographic composition of their work environment.

68 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

THE IMPACT OF RELATIONAL DEMOGRAPHY ON HETEROSEXISM AND DISCLOSURE

Although the race and gender of gay employees did not affect their reports of heterosexism, the demographic composition of their work environment emerged as an important predictor of disclosure and discrimination. In fact, sexual orientation emerged as the leading demographic predictor of work- place experiences for gay employees. In support of relational demography theory, gay employees with gay supervisors or primarily gay work groups were more likely to be out at work and reported less heterosexism than employees in heterosexual work environments. Whereas sexual orientation is often omitted from discussions of relational demography, it is central to gay employees and should be included in future research.

Also in line with relational demography theory was the finding that gay employees were more likely to disclose their sexual orientation when they had supervisors of the same race or ethnicity, and this effect held regardless of the supervisor’s sexual orientation or the employee’s race. This suggests that although gay employees of color may be more reluctant than White employees to disclose at work, having a same-race supervisor may lessen this reluctance. Even if the supervisor is heterosexual, similarity in race may be sufficient to build the trust necessary for disclosure. Gay employees may also view a supervisor of a different race as less motivated to protect them from the potentially negative consequences of disclosure.

We found no support for relational demography predictions regarding gender similarity. Gender similarity in supervisory relationships and work teams did not affect disclosure or reports of heterosexism. On closer inspec- tion, it becomes clear that the assumption of heterosexuality underlies rela- tional demography predictions. Gender similarity predictions are based on the idea that working with someone of the same gender increases an individ- ual’s sense of comfort, security, and acceptance. This comfort may not be afforded to gay employees; the experience of a gay male working in a group of heterosexual men may be quite different from the experience of a hetero- sexual male in a heterosexual male group. The prediction that gender similar- ity creates a positive group climate also assumes that individuals in same- gender groups do not encounter the potential for sexual tension that may be present in cross-gender groups. This prediction is reversed for gay employ- ees; a gay male working in a group of gay males may encounter similar sexual tensions as might a heterosexual male working in a group of heterosexual females. This suggests that biological sex may be a poor predictor of

Ragins et al. / HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE 69

perceived similarity among gay employees. Moreover, biological sex may be an entirely meaningless construct for transgendered employees, whose gen- der identity is independent from their biological sex.

Some of the most intriguing findings in our study involved the significant interactions between the relational demography variables and the respon- dent’s race and gender. The most provocative finding was that both White and minority gay employees reported less heterosexism in groups that were racially balanced than in primarily White or non-White groups, and this find- ing held even when controlling for the group’s sexual orientation. One expla- nation for this finding is that teams that are diverse on one dimension (i.e., race) may undergo a diversity awareness process that transfers to other dimensions (i.e., sexual orientation). This supports the idea that diversity in one area helps teams deal with diversity in other areas. However, a less opti- mistic interpretation is that racially diverse groups are so focused on dealing with race issues that issues relating to sexual orientation slip into the back- ground. These two scenarios present an exciting agenda for future research. Do racially diverse teams develop greater self-awareness of all forms of diversity, or does the conflict derived from dealing with one form of diversity overshadow issues relating to other forms of diversity?

Our study also revealed that gay employees who worked in primarily male groups or who had male supervisors were more likely to report heterosexism than were employees who worked in gender-balanced or female-dominated work environments. Additionally, this effect was significantly more likely to be found among lesbians than among gay men, indicating that lesbians in male-dominated environments may face extensive heterosexism at work. Future research can build on this finding by examining the predictors, moder- ators, and outcomes of these relationships.

Although the demography of the work group is an important predictor of the workplace experiences of gay employees, team demography may not be as important as the group’s values and attitudes about homosexuality. Future research can investigate this topic and draw on current views of workplace diversity that distinguish between demographic “surface diversity” and “deep-level diversity,” which reflects group members’ attitudes, values, and beliefs (Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998). It would be interesting to assess how group demography interacts with attitudes toward homosexuality to affect work outcomes for gay employees.

LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY

Several limitations of this study should be mentioned. First, the use of members of national gay rights organizations may limit the generalizability

70 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

of the study. This group may be more likely than other gay groups to be out at work, they may be more sensitive to discrimination, and they may be more likely to choose organizations that are supportive of gay employees.

It should also be noted that we examined subjective reports of perceived workplace discrimination, which may under- or overestimate objective dis- crimination. For example, lesbians and gay employees of color may underreport heterosexism if they perceive it as being minimal relative to the racism and sexism they experience at work. The lack of gender and race dif- ferences in reported discrimination could also be a function of gender and race differences in discrimination attributions. Existing research indicates that women and people of color are less likely than their White male counter- parts to blame poor performance in ambiguous situations on discrimination (Ruggiero & Taylor, 1995). This research suggests that lesbians and gay employees of color may deny that discrimination exists or may assume per- sonal responsibility for workplace discrimination.

Another limitation of our study is that we did not take the climate of the organization into account. Disclosure of a gay identity may be affected not only by “gay-friendly” climates but also by the degree to which employees are allowed or encouraged to share any form of personal disclosure at work. Personal disclosure may be more common in some workplaces and occupa- tions than others and may vary by tasks and relationships with peers. For example, disclosure may be less likely to occur in teams that do not involve face-to-face interaction, in cases where employees have different coworkers every day (i.e., flight attendants), or in work situations that involve physi- cally close interactions (i.e., firefighters and police officers).

Finally, the results of our study may or may not generalize to the bisexual and transgender populations. Additionally, our survey did not allow respon- dents to indicate whether they were transgendered. Transgendered individu- als may self-identify as heterosexual, and because we excluded self-identi- fied heterosexuals (n = 20) from our analyses, we may have also excluded transgendered respondents.

In conclusion, the results of our study suggest that race, gender, and sexual orientation should not be considered in a vacuum but should be considered in relation to the broader work environment. Although the results of this study suggest that relational demography is central to the work experiences of gay employees, heterosexual assumptions underlying this theory need to be examined more closely. Finally, it is clear that more research is needed that explores the complex interactions between multiple group identities in the workplace and the effects of these identities on gay employees’ workplace experiences.

Ragins et al. / HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE 71

NOTES

1. Undeliverable mail was due to change of addresses. The majority of these returned sur- veys came from the mailing lists of the African American and Latino American gay civil rights groups. Race differences in return rates may therefore partially be attributable to the use of older mailing lists by the African American and Latino American groups.

2. We were not able to test for symmetrical sexual orientation effects because we did not have heterosexuals in our sample.

REFERENCES

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Badgett, L. (1996). Employment and sexual orientation: Disclosure and discrimination in the

workplace. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 4, 29-52. Benokraitis, N. V., & Feagin, J. R. (1995). Modern sexism: Blatant, subtle, and covert discrimi-

nation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Button, S. B. (2001). Organizational efforts to affirm sexual diversity: A cross-level examina-

tion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 17-28. Button, J. W., Rienzo, B. A., & Wald, K. D. (1997). Private lives, public conflicts: Battles over

gay rights in American communities. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Croteau, J. M. (1996). Research on the work experiences of lesbian, gay and bisexual people: An

integrative review of methodology and findings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 195- 209.

Croteau, J. M., & Lark, J. S. (1995). On being lesbian, gay, or bisexual in student affairs: A national survey of experiences on the job. NASPA Journal, 32, 189-197.

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (Eds.). (1986). Prejudice, discrimination and racism. San Diego: Academic Press.

Ferdman, B. M. (1999). The color and culture of gender in organizations: Attending to race and ethnicity. In G. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 17-34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fernald, J. L. (1995). Interpersonal heterosexism. In B. Lott & D. Maluso (Eds.), The social psy- chology of interpersonal discrimination (pp. 80-117). New York: Guildford.

Ficarrotto, T. J. (1990). Racism, sexism, and erotophobia: Attitudes of heterosexuals towards homosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 19(1), 111-116.

Friskopp, A., & Silverstein, S. (1996). Straight jobs, gay lives: Gay and lesbian professionals, the Harvard Business School, and the American workplace. New York: Touchstone/Simon & Schuster.

Goffman, E. (1974). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Jason Aronson.

Gonsiorek, J. C., & Weinrich, J. D. (1991). The definition and scope of sexual orientation. In J. C. Gonsiorek & J. D. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public pol- icy (pp. 1-12). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 41, 96-107.

Henley, N. M., & Pincus, F. (1978). Interrelationship of sexist, racist, and antihomosexual atti- tudes. Psychological Reports, 42, 83-90.

72 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

Herek, G. M. (1984). Beyond “homophobia”: A social psychological perspective on attitudes towards lesbians and gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 10, 1-21.

Herek, G. M. (1990). The context of anti-gay violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 316-333.

Herek, G. M. (2000). Sexual prejudice and gender: Do hetereosexuals’ attitudes towards lesbi- ans and gay men differ? Journal of Social Issues, 56, 251-266.

Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1995). Black heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men in the United States. Journal of Sex Research, 32, 95-105.

Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). “Some of my best friends”: Intergroup contact, concealable stigma, and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 412-424.

James, K., Lovato, C., & Cropanzano, R. (1994). Correlational and know-group comparison val- idation of a workplace prejudice/discrimination inventory. Journal of Applied Social Psy- chology, 24, 1573-1592.

Jones, J. M. (1972). Prejudice and racism. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Jung, P. B., & Smith, R. F. (1993). Heterosexism: An ethical challenge. Albany: State University

of New York Press. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books. Landrine, H., Klonoff, E. A., Alcaraz, R., Scott, J., & Wilkins, P. (1995). Multiple variables in

discrimination. In B. Lott & D. Maluso (Eds.), The social psychology of interpersonal dis- crimination (pp. 183-224). New York: Guildford.

Levine, M. P., & Leonard, R. (1984). Discrimination against lesbians in the workforce. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 9, 700-724.

Lott, B. (1995). Distancing from women: Interpersonal sexist discrimination. In B. Lott & D. Maluso (Eds.), The social psychology of interpersonal discrimination (pp. 12-49). New York: Guildford.

Morin, S. F., & Garfinkle, E. M. (1978). Male homophobia. Journal of Social Issues, 34, 29-47. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. (1996). Capital gains and losses: A state by state review

of gay-related legislation. Washington, DC: Author. Newport, F. (1998, July). Americans more likely to believe sexual orientation due to environ-

ment, not genetics. Gallup Poll Monthly, pp. 14-16. Pettigrew, T. F., & Martin, J. (1987). Shaping the organizational context for Black American

inclusion. Journal of Social Issues, 43, 41-78. Ragins, B. R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2001). Pink triangles: Antecedents and consequences of

heterosexism in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1244-1261. Ransford, H. E. (1980). The prediction of social behavior and attitudes: The correlates tradition.

In V. Jeffries & H. Ransford (Eds.), Social stratification: A multiple hierarchy approach (pp. 265-295). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Riordan, C. M. (2001). Relational demography within groups: Past developments, contradic- tions, and new directions. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 19, 131-173.

Riordan, C. M., & Shore, L. M. (1997). Demographic diversity and employee attitudes: An empirical examination of relational demography within work units. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 82, 342-358.

Rosabal, G. S. (1996). Multicultural existence in the workplace: Including how I thrive as a Latina lesbian feminist. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 4, 17-28.

Ruggiero, K. M., & Taylor, D. M. (1995). Coping with discrimination: How disadvantaged group members perceive the discrimination that confronts them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 826-838.

Ragins et al. / HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE 73

Schneider, B. E. (1987). Coming out at work: Bridging the private/public gap. Work and Occu- pations, 13, 463-487.

Sears, J. T. (1997). Thinking critically/intervening effectively about homophobia and heterosexism. In J. T. Sears & W. L. Williams (Eds.), Overcoming heterosexism and homo- phobia: Strategies that work (pp. 13-48). New York: Columbia University Press.

Tsui, A., Egan, T. D., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549-579.

Tsui, A. S., & Gutek, B. A. (1999). Demographic differences in organizations: Current research and future directions. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Tsui, A. S., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 402-423.

Wald, K. D., Button, J. W., & Rienzo, B. A. (1997). All politics is local: Analyzing local gay rights legislation. Washington, DC: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute.

Weinberg, G. (1972). Society and the healthy homosexual. New York: St. Martin’s. Winegarden, B. J. (1994). Aversive heterosexism: An exploration of unconscious bias toward

lesbian psychotherapy clients. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Woods, J. D. (1994). The corporate closet: The professional lives of gay men in America. New York: Free Press.

Belle Rose Ragins is a professor of management at the University of Wisconsin–Milwau- kee. She received her Ph.D. in industrial-organizational psychology from the University of Tennessee. Her research interests focus on diversity and mentoring in organizations.

John M. Cornwell is an associate professor of psychology at Loyola University–New Orleans. He received his Ph.D. in industrial-organizational psychology from the Uni- versity of Tennessee. His research interests include psychometrics, statistics, and educa- tional reform.

Janice S. Miller is an associate professor of management at the University of Wisconsin– Milwaukee. She received her Ph.D. from Arizona State University. Her research inter- ests include performance management, compensation, and employee development.

74 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT