Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Introduction

There is accumulated evidence indicating that many subgroups in society are stigmatized, although the degree of stigmatization changes over time and is dependent on the culture in which the subgroup resides. One of the most highly stigmatized subgroups during the last decade has been lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals. While these groups hold their own unique characteristics, they bear a similar social stigma of deviation from the gender identity or sexual orientation, which is perceived to transgress against social, religious, and moral norms.

The term ‘LGBT’ includes sexual orientation and gender identity minorities as members of the same broader population, as there is more research evidence and wider recognition of these subgroups in contemporary society. Sexual orientation is defined as “the cumulative experience and interaction of erotic fantasy, romantic-emotional feelings, and sexual behavior directed toward one or both genders” (Kauth & Kalichman, 1995, p. 82), and sexual orientation minorities include gay men, lesbian women, and bisexual individuals. The term “homosexual” encompasses the terms “gay,” which is generally used to refer to men who are homosexual, and “lesbian,” which is generally used to refer to women who are homosexual (Pichler, 2007).

In regard to gender identity, it is important to differentiate between sex and gender. Sex is assigned based on one’s biology at birth, while gender is the experience of being male, female, or neither (Bilodeau, 2005). One’s gender identity is the gender with which one identifies. Gay men, lesbian women, and bisexual individuals are considered sexual minorities, while transgender individuals are considered gender identity minorities. According to a recent survey, between 2.2 and 4% of the population of the United States identify as LGBT (Gates, 2014).

The stigma surrounding LGBT individuals is considered invisible, as compared to visible groups, such as women and racial minorities (Clair, Beatty, & MacLean, 2005). However, during the last ten years, LGBT individuals have gained greater visibility , as many have stepped forward to identify themselves as LGBT and have united to lobby for their rights. This movement has attracted considerable attention from policymakers, practitioners, and researchers globally, and resulted in a shift in attitude toward minority groups in society and the workplace. This phenomenon has spilled over into the workplace as LGBT activists are now fighting to be protected under antidiscrimination laws, and an increasing number of large multinational corporations have implemented policies recognizing and protecting the rights of their LGBT employees.

Despite these changes, many governments in some parts of the world still retain discriminatory policies and practices toward LGBT individuals. For instance, according to the United Nations, 77 countries currently have discrimination laws that criminalize homosexuality, which subsequently places LGBT individuals at risk (United Nations, 2016). Even in countries that intend to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and to foster equality and inclusion of sexual minorities in the workplace and society, there remain enormous difficulties in influencing attitudes and implementing policies and practices. For example, the debate on marriage equality is divisive in Australia , which has hindered the development of legal recognition of same-sex couples, even though the majority of Australians support marriage equality (Hinman & Sanders, 2016).

In the business environment, organizations and their leaders around the world are increasingly realizing that they can benefit from a demographically diverse workforce, and it is necessary to implement policies and practices that enable all individuals to reach their potential (Ragins, 1997; Thomas & Ely, 1996). In the context of LGBT workplace experiences, recent research clearly indicates that LGBT-supportive policies and practices are linked to positive business outcomes (Badgett, Durso, Kastanis, & Mallory, 2013). For instance, research shows positive stock market reactions to the announcement of LGBT-supportive policies (Wang & Schwarz, 2010). Research also shows firms that adopt LGBT-supportive policies outperform non-adopter firms and indicate performance declines when discontinuing these policies (Pichler, Cook, Huston, & Strawser, 2016). Unfortunately, a substantial body of evidence also indicates that LGBT employees continue to face inequality and discrimination in the workplace (see King & Cortina, 2010), including discrimination in selection decisions (Pichler, Varma, & Bruce, 2010), promotion decisions (Pichler & Holmes, 2016), and wages (Badgett, 1995), as well as harassment in the workplace (Pichler, 2012).

Further, many organizations are confronted with various constraints in developing and/or implementing LGBT-supportive policies and practices. These constraints are either related to the external environment (Ragins, 2004) or the interaction between the external environmental and organizational factors that hinders the implementation and effectiveness of these policies and practices (Chuang, Church, & Ophir, 2011). Recent research on LGBT workplace experiences has shed some light on both the internal and external constraints imposed on LGBT-supportive practices. Scholars in organizational theory (Chuang, Church, & Hu, 2016; Chuang et al., 2011; Creed, 2003; Creed & Scully, 2000; Tilscik, 2011) have focused on institutional factors—such as the legal protection of LGBT individuals in the community—that may influence social movements, policies, and practices, such as same-sex partner health benefits and employment decisions. Thus far, this line of research has placed less focus on the relationship between institutional factors and the psychological experiences of LGBT employees.

Scholars in organizational psychology (Button, 2001; Griffith & Hebl, 2002; Pichler, 2007; Ragins, Singh, & Cornwell, 2007; Trau, 2015) have found that organizational factors (such as policies, practices, norms, and climate) influence the psychological process of LGBT employees, yet it is unclear how community characteristics beyond the organizational context affect the psychological experiences of LGBT employees. In short, while these observations make apparent the connection between the community and workplace experiences of LGBT employees, this insight has rarely been examined in the literature and, if so, was investigated separately via two distinctive approaches—organizational theory and organizational behavior. In fact, organizational psychology and diversity scholars have only recently begun to explore how the demographic characteristics of the community affect the work-related attitudes (e.g., Halvorsen, Treuren, & Kulik, 2015; Pugh, Dietz, Brief, & Wiley, 2008; Ragins, Gonzalez, Ehrhardt, & Singh, 2012) and service encounters (King et al., 2011; McKay, Avery, Liao, & Morris, 2011) of ethnic minorities. This trend clearly indicates the need to bridge micro and macro factors in order to provide a holistic perspective and insight to how organizations and individuals deal with stigma and stigmatization in the workplace.

The influence of community characteristics on the social and psychological experiences of LGBT employees is consistent with stigma theory, which suggests that stigma is socially constructed and is shaped and reshaped by context (Crocker & Major, 1989; Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998; Pescosolido & Martin, 2015; Shapiro & Neuberg, 2007). Most stigma scholars agree that stigmatized identities are socially constructed to such an extent that they are mostly defined by society, rather than the nature of the stigmatized condition (Crocker et al., 1998). Hence, the stigmatization process—which is referred to as the social process by which the stigma affects the stigmatizer and the persons being stigmatized (Pescosolido & Martin, 2015)—occurs not only at individual and psychological levels, but also at social and structural levels (Ragins, 2008).

Given that the stigmatization processes toward LGBT individuals in the workplace and broader society occur at both individual/psychological, social, and structural levels, bridging multiple lenses and disciplines across multiple levels of analysis may enhance understandings of these interactive effects, resolve discrepant findings, and offer rich insights to the workplace experiences of LGBT employees (Jones & King, 2014; Joshi, Liao, & Roh, 2011; Ragins, 2008). In this line of research, little attention has been paid to the influence of community characteristics on diversity policies and practices, and perceived discrimination. This is partly because it has been difficult to gather individual- and community-level data (Trau, Härtel, & Härtel, 2013) and subsequently explore cross-level effects from the community among organizational, group, and individual outcomes. However, as stated by Pescosolido and Martin (2015), stigma and stigmatization require a system approach in order to understand the complex nature and effects of stigma on stigmatized groups.

Thus, this chapter has two primary goals. First, using Scott’s (2001) influential typology of institutional features, we aim to unpack the underlying community features that influence the adoption of LGBT-supportive policies and practices by organizations, and the perceived discrimination against LGBT employees. We intend to shed light on how these features may produce ignorance, intolerance, and rejection that are embedded in the human resource management policies and practices of organizations and the work experiences of LGBT individuals. Second, to better theorize the process, we also propose recursive dynamic processes in which the institutional environment is also influenced and modified by individuals and groups (including activist groups) in organizations and society. Third, this chapter provides recommendations to guide future research on this emerging topic. The theoretical perspectives are primarily drawn from institutional theory (Scott, 2001), stigma theory (Clair et al., 2005; Goffman, 1963; Pescosolido & Martin, 2015; Ragins, 2008) and social movement theory (Bernstein, 2002). Our theoretical model is presented in Fig. 5.1, and we will elaborate this model in greater detail below. Our analysis encompasses international examples, including the United States, Australia, China, Singapore , Taiwan, and Turkey, among others.

Fig. 5.1
figure 1

The dynamic recursive process of community influences, LGBT-support policies and practices, and perceived discrimination at work

Full size image

Consistent with Marquis and Battilana (2009), we define the term “community” as individuals, organizations, authorities, and markets located in a geographical location that share common elements of culture, norms, identity, and laws. We recognize that there are variations in views and perceptions of culture, norms, identity, and laws among individuals, groups, and organizations in a local community. Our analysis of community is based on a macro level of analysis; thus, we make an assumption that individuals, groups, and organizations in a local community share common views and perceptions of culture , norms , identity , and laws. This assumption is particularly important to the extent that it is consistent with the notion of structural (also referred to as “institutionalized”) stigma, whereby prejudice, discrimination, and stigmatization occur via policies, laws, and institutional practices, which may yield intended or unintended consequences for stigmatized individuals and observers (Pescosolido & Martin, 2015; Ragins, 2008). In the context of LGBT workplace experience, we argue that, while each local community holds divergent perceptions and views toward LGBT individuals, they also hold and share their own distinctive social, legal, and cultural features that represent their views and perceptions of the LGBT population. Based on this assumption, we argue that social, legal, and cultural features influence organizational policies and practices, as well as LGBT individuals who are locally embedded, and vice versa.

The Interaction of Community Environment and LGBT Workplace Experiences

Stakeholders—including suppliers, policymakers, activist groups, and business partners—are nested within their local communities and subsequently influence how organizations behave internally and externally, as well as the attitudes and behaviors of their employees (Marquis & Battilana, 2009; Ragins et al., 2012). Each local community not only encompasses the geographic boundaries of markets and regulations, but also entails social and cultural factors that shape individual and organizational behaviors (Marquis & Battilana, 2009; Marquis, Davis, & Glynn, 2011; Stone-Romero & Stone, 2007). Organizational scholars recently demonstrated that the representativeness of the local community influences the career experiences of various demographic groups (Ragins et al., 2012), which may shape organizational performance (see King et al., 2011). At a macro level, organizational scholars have shown that the local community influences corporate social responsibility practices (Marquis, Glynn, & Davis, 2007) and corporate strategies (Lounsbury, 2007). These diverse studies suggest that, although practices and organizational behaviors may vary across communities, there are systematic patterns and effects to these variations. However, research that explores the influence of community characteristics on organizations and employees is still limited (Marquis & Battilana, 2009) and scattered across disciplines. In this chapter, we unpack these dynamics by exploring two theories that have been commonly adopted in the LGBT literature: stigma theory and institutional theory.

Stigma theory has provided a foundation to understanding the individual and psychological processes underlying the workplace experiences of LGBT employees. Stigma theory suggests that the social environment influences how stigma is incorporated into a person’s self-concept (Crocker & Major, 1989; Jones et al., 1984; Ragins, 2008). This perspective is consistent with the symbolic interactionist perspective that the self is related to how one believes others perceive and evaluate one’s self (Shrauger & Schohn, 1989). Similarly, stereotype scholars (e.g., Davies, Spencer, Quinn, & Gerhardstein, 2002; Davies, Spencer, & Steele, 2005; Murphy, Steele, & Gross, 2007) have consistently found that the environment affects the level of vulnerability of those being stigmatized. In particular, the interaction between the social self and relevant situational cues causes stereotypes and stigmatization , and subsequently generates a social identity threat to members of the stigmatized group (Hogg & Terry, 2000; Petriglieri, 2011).

While scholars in social and organizational psychology have provided insightful examination of the interaction between individual and organizational factors and the stigmatizing experiences of LGBT individuals in the workplace, there has been limited research exploring institutional influences on LGBT employees and their organizations. Much recent research examining institutional influences has also primarily focused on the interaction between organizational factors and identity (e.g., Creed & Scully, 2000), and social movement and actions in organizations (e.g., Chuang et al., 2016; Creed, 2003). A recent study by Tilscik (2011) indicated that the community environment (viz., antidiscrimination laws) influences the biased employment decisions of recruiters toward gay men. These studies have opened a new pathway for further research on the effect of community features on organizations’ and individuals’ attitudes and behaviors toward stigmatized groups.

Institutional theory is one theoretical framework that potentially offers insight into how and why local communities influence the practices, attitudes, and behaviors of individuals and organizations. Broadly speaking, institutional theory focuses on the processes by which social structures—including norms, rules, and routines—guide social behavior, and how these processes are diffused, adopted, and adapted by organizations over space and time. Organizations often vary in size, norms, practices, opportunities, and constraints. While individuals differ in attitudes and behaviors, individuals face different challenges and react differently to their internal workplace environment in their organizations and the local community the organizations reside in. Understanding these mechanisms can be a challenging task, given the cross-level interactions of these factors. We seek to understand these dynamics using Scott’s (2001) seminal work on institutional features at the community level of analysis, whereby Scott divided these features into three pillars: regulative, social-normative, and cultural-cognitive. These factors work collectively as mutually reinforcing forces that influence organizational practices.

The regulative pillar refers to rules, laws, monitoring, and sanctions in an attempt to influence individual and organizational behaviors. Organizations recognize that noncompliance with regulations such as antidiscrimination laws will have legal implications and potential sanctions. However, employment law is often open to different interpretations and subsequently different implementation across judicial regions (Marquis & Battilana, 2009). For LGBT employees, an awareness of legal protection may provide a sense of assurance that their rights are protected, which may reduce their perceptions of discrimination risk (Trau & Härtel, 2004). For organizations, such an awareness reinforces the need for policies and practices that protect the rights of LGBT employees.

The social-normative pillar refers to systems of values and norms that lead to social and moral obligations, duties, and binding expectations. While normative systems define the goals and objectives of the organization, values and norms dictate how the organization achieves its objectives. Many organizations, such as Microsoft, obtain economic and moral benefits by embracing equality, diversity, and inclusion of sexual minorities (Clark, 1997). Further, shared values and norms in the community dictate prejudiced and discriminatory behaviors toward marginalized groups, thereby influencing the experience and perceptions of discrimination by LGBT employees (Ragins, 2004).

The cultural-cognitive pillar refers to shared frames of reference or mental models through which meaning is made. This pillar is characterized by taken-for-granted common beliefs and shared conceptions in the community. Recent research (e.g., King et al., 2011; Ragins et al., 2012) indicated that the demographic characteristics of a community influence shared diversity or stereotypical beliefs, which subsequently affect attitudes and behaviors toward minority workers and customers, and majority and minority employees. At the macro level, scholars have also found that the geographic proximity between firms influences their discriminatory policies and practices toward LGBT employees, such as same-sex partner health benefits and employment decisions (Chuang et al., 2011; Tilscik, 2011), thereby suggesting that there is a diffusion of attitudes across a region in regard to protection and equal-rights treatment.

The above analysis of the three-pillar framework by Scott (2001) is consistent with stigma theory, which suggests that stigmatization involves a set of “interrelated, heterogeneous system structures, from the individual to the society, the processes, from the molecular to the geographic and historical, that constructs, labels, and translates difference into marks” (Pescosolido & Martin, 2015, p. 101). Hence, by integrating these two streams of research, this chapter sheds light on how LGBT-supportive organizational policies are influenced, institutionalized, and diffused within and across communities, and how perceptions of discrimination by LGBT employees are created and shaped by the community in which they are embedded. By doing so, we hope that this chapter will unpack how and why communities interact with organizations and LGBT workers, and redirect theoretical and empirical attention to understanding LGBT-related issues in the workplace.

The Recursive Cycle: Community Characteristics, LGBT Policies and Practices, and Discrimination Perceptions of LGBT Employees

Regulative Influence

Regulative influence is one of the institutional forces that govern organizational policies and practices. Such regulative influence can derive from the legal environment of a local community in which organizations operate. Importantly, most legislation provides only the principles underlying the ideal of material practices, and seldom offers clear prescription for conduct (Edelman & Suchman, 1997; Marquis & Battilana, 2009). It is organizations’ discretion to interpret and elaborate the essence of legislation (Edelman, Uggen, & Erlanger, 1999). Nevertheless, the legal environment of a local community plays an important role in governing organizational policies and practices, and reinforcing the principles of material practices (e.g., Chuang et al., 2011; Raeburn, 2004). Legal protections of LGBT individuals vary across countries and even regions within a country, and are reflective of local attitudes toward gays and lesbians (Pichler, 2007; Trau & Härtel, 2004). Considering that antigay attitudes and legislations are not uncommon in many countries, legal protections of LGBT workers are often limited, and the strength of such protections is questionable. While some research evidence indicates that local employment protections can reduce perceptions of work-related heterosexism among LGBT employees (Ragins & Cornwell, 2001), the effectiveness of these protections is questionable and requires further attention from researchers (Klawitter & Flatt, 1998).

The legal environment has both symbolic implications for and rein-forcement power over organizational policies and practices (Stone & Colella, 1996). The legal environment’s “prescription” on the rights related to LGBT individuals can have significant impact on perceived stigma and discrimination by LGBT individuals. Accordingly, the legal environment regarding LGBT equality has been characterized as a contested terrain in which LGBT groups (such as Human Rights Campaign and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in the United States) and anti-LGBT activists (such as the Catholic Church in Australia, and the Alliance of Religious Groups for the Love of Families in Taiwan) mobilize resources to challenge and protect various legal measures regarding LGBT populations, particularly in relation to equal employment and marriage rights (Bernstein, 2002; Chuang et al., 2016). For example, in Taiwan, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act did not include the protection for LGBT employees until 2013 after a long contestation between LGBT and anti-LGBT activists and adherents. On December 26, 2016, nearly 3000 people (LGBT and anti-LGBT activists and adherents) gathered outside Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan to advocate for and against the proposed marriage equality bill for lesbian and gay couples when the committee in the Legislative Yuan was reviewing the bill. In Singapore, pro-LGBT activists lobbied for the government to repeal a section of the law that made it illegal for men to have sex with men. This was met with backlash from some Christian churches and Muslim groups.

While the legal framework at the federal or national level has been the contested subject of LGBT and anti-LGBT groups, the legal framework at the local level has also been a battleground for both groups to fight for their causes. To challenge the existing legal framework, LGBT activists presented cases to the local jurisdiction authority to advocate for equality and reduce stigma attached to LGBT identity (Taylor, Kimport, Van Dyke, & Andersen, 2009). Under such pressure, local governments in some countries are increasingly conscious of the need to protect the employment rights of LGBT individuals, including implementing legal regulations and creating administrative bodies and positions associated with LGBT-related rights. For example, while there is no legal recognition of same-sex marriage in Taiwan, the number of cities and municipalities to allow for same-sex partner registries has been on the rise since 2015. A state government of Australia recently appointed a gender and sexuality commission, whose role is to protect the rights of sexual minorities and inclusive practices across the state, including in the workplace context (Victorian Equal Opportunity & Human Rights Commission, 2015). In addition, the local government may mobilize other local actors to promote and reinforce the regulations. For example, the Australian Human Rights Commission (2015), in collaboration with various activists groups, developed a university guide for LGBT students. While this initiative directly seeks to influence practices in the higher education sector, the organizations involved may also recognize that local universities play a key role in shaping the attitudes and behaviors of individuals and organizations across the community. Hence, organizations in these communities face pressure from regulations and administrative policies to the extent that they demonstrate compliance or gain legitimacy. Recent studies have shown that the introduction of legislation aimed at protecting LGBT individuals at the state level exerts great influence on organizations’ decisions to implement policies that reflect the essence of the state legislations (e.g., Chuang et al., 2011; Everly & Schwarz, 2015; Raeburn, 2004).

The passage of various legal measures to protect LGBT rights is in part driven by efforts put forward by LGBT activists and adherents. The passage of these legislations does not, however, necessarily reduce individual prejudice and discriminatory attitudes and behaviors in organizations—including heterosexism, stigma attached with LGBT identity , and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity—given that prejudice and discrimination can be subtle in the contemporary workplace (Deitch et al., 2003). Nevertheless, the introduction of LGBT-supportive regulations and policies by a local community government—such as nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation and same-sex partner registry—can signal the legal environment’s attitude toward and support of LGBT employees (Trau, 2015) and, in some contexts, reduce the stigma associated with LGBT identity (Griffith & Hebl, 2002). Thus, regulations and policies can help reduce heterosexism and stigmatization , and promote employment equality in the workplace.

Research has also found that legal protections for LGBT individuals can reduce bias toward LGBT individuals (Tilscik, 2011). Therefore, when the legal framework of a local community has begun to recognize the equality of LGBT employment by increasing the scope of LGBT employment protection and adopting other LGBT-supportive policies, it serves as a coercive mechanism in the policy formulation and practices of human resource management functions (Theodorakopoulos & Budhwar, 2015). In this institutional context, the employers and employees of organizations in the local community (including managers and human resource leaders) are more likely to comply with LGBT equality policies and gradually further reduce bias discrimination toward LGBT individuals. As a result, LGBT employees’ perceptions of discrimination based on sexual orientation are likely to be reduced. Recent research (see Button, 2001; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001; Trau, 2015; Trau & Härtel, 2007) has consistently indicated that nondiscrimination policies are correlated with positive work-related attitudes among LGBT workers.

Social-Normative Influence

Social-normative influence governs organizational policies and practices by defining social norms and desirable values in the normative systems, with which organizations should comply. Normative systems specify how certain actions and behaviors should be undertaken, and prescribe legitimate means to pursue valued ends (Scott, 2001). While the normative systems of each local community may share similar norms and values, each community has its idiosyncratic and unique norms and values that constrain its constituents’ behavior and empower social action. Thus, social-normative influence in a local community can play a significant role in shaping the stigmatization of LGBT identity, affecting LGBT employees’ perceptions of discrimination based on sexual orientation, and influencing organizational practices.

Social norms and values against LGBT identity have historically been rooted in religious beliefs and societal conceptions of family values and definitions. For example, sexual minorities in Turkey are objectified as a source of shame and threat to an ideal and “pure” family order (Ozturk, 2011), which increases the degree of stigmatization by both LGBT and non-LGBT individuals in the community. In China and many other East Asian communities, the strong social norm of engaging in marriage and bearing offspring to preserve traditional family values greatly suppresses LGBT identity development (Hu & Wang, 2013). Depending on the strength and governance of social norms and values against LGBT identity in a local community, employers tend to exclude LGBT employees in their policies and practices to avoid backlash by anti-LGBT activists and adherents, and to enhance their resource stability (see Trau & Shao, 2016). However, the strength and governance of social norms and values against LGBT identity in a local community also depend on movement mobilization efforts by LGBT and anti-LGBT activists. Specifically, both LGBT and anti-LGBT activists mobilize resources (such as political support, donations, and forming alliances) to influence social norms and values against LGBT identity (e.g., Armstrong, 2002; Bernstein, 2002). Both LGBT and anti-LGBT activists form advocacy organizations to challenge or maintain social norms and values against LGBT identity, respectively. They engage in framing activity to theorize the importance of the social norms and values that they advocate in an attempt to gather support from bystanders and adherents, thereby ultimately influencing the social norms and values of the community.

There have been a few instances in which both LGBT and anti-LGBT activists have launched boycotts targeted at corporations in an attempt to influence their policies toward LGBT employees (Raeburn, 2004; Trau & Shao, 2016). In 1993, after Apple Computer announced its offering health benefits to same-sex partners of its lesbian and gay employees, Williamson County commissioners in Texas voted 3–2 against tax breaks for an $80 million plant that Apple Computer planned north of Austin. Opponents of the tax breaks packed commission chambers, wearing buttons that read “Just say no! An Apple today will take family values away.” Disney had a reputation of traditional family values. In 1996, the annual Gay Days celebration took place in the Disney’s Magic Kingdom. Nearly 16 million members of the Southern Baptist Convention voted to boycott Disney because of its lesbian- and gay-friendly employment policies. Not only were all Disney products to be boycotted, these protesters entered Disney’s Magic Kingdom videotaping the gay crowd and approached men and women, attempting to convince them that homosexuality was immoral (Pinsky, 2004). In addition to the Southern Baptist Convention, Disney also received protest letters from 15 Florida legislators to express their concerns with Disney’s action.

Noticeably, anti-LGBT activists intended not only to prevent organizations from including LGBT-friendly policies into policies, but also intended to repeal already installed policies. In May 2001, for example, AT&T stockholders were faced with a proposal to remove sexual orientation from the corporation’s nondiscrimination policy. The board of directors urged shareholders to vote against the initiative, a recommendation strongly backed by the company’s lesbian and gay employee network. The resolution failed, garnering fewer votes than any of the other proposals on the ballot that year (Human Rights Campaign, 2001). In 2002, the anti-LGBT activists targeted Boeing with a shareholder action seeking to overturn its gay-inclusive nondiscrimination policy, which ultimately failed (Raeburn, 2004).

In addition, LGBT and anti-LGBT activists can work with employees within and across organizations—such as human resource professionals and elites—to advocate the importance of aligning organizational policies and practices with social norms and values (Chuang et al., 2016; Raeburn, 2004). To the extent that the social norms and values in a local community are subject to the contestation between LGBT and anti-LGBT activists, the adoption of LGBT-supportive policies and practices and LGBT employees’ perceptions of discrimination based on sexual orientation are likely to be partly driven by such contestation (Chuang et al., 2016; Raeburn, 2004).

The community’s norms and values are influenced by social connections between individuals and organizations (Marquis & Battilana, 2009). For example, Marquis et al. (2011) found that supportive social and cultural infrastructure play a crucial role in the growth of community nonprofit organizations. Organizational processes and decisions are influenced by local interpersonal connections between members of the community. Employees and corporate leaders attend community and corporate network events, which provide opportunities for them to inform, share, and exchange ideas on their organizational policies and practices (Woods, 1993). Hence, such interactions over time influence individual and organizational views on what is considered socially and morally appropriate in their community. In the context of LGBT-related issues, corporate leaders and employees also establish norms, values, and expectations regarding LGBT-related issues via their social and professional experiences outside their organization; hence, over time, they may bring those values and expectations to their organizations, and even influence relevant practices in their organizations (Bell, Özbilgin, Beauregard, & Surgevil, 2011). For LGBT employees, internal and external social and professional experiences also influence their perceptions of how their sexual identity is perceived and accepted by their coworkers, which may affect their identity management strategies at work (Ramarajan & Reid, 2013).

Cultural-Cognitive Influence

Cultural-cognitive influence governs organizational policies and practices by providing members in organizations with mental models that are comprehensible, recognizable, and culturally supported by constituents in the local community where organizations reside (Scott, 2001). The shared mental models are tied with the long-standing identity and tradition associated with the community or region (Marquis & Battilana, 2009).

Marquis and Battilana (2009) proposed a number of factors that may contribute to the shared mental models upon which individuals in the community draw to create common views of the situation. First, the histories of the community may provide an understanding of how culture influences individual and organizational perspectives and behaviors. In the context of gay rights, the Stonewall riots in New York City provided a symbol of gay liberation (Armstrong & Crage, 2006) and shaped New Yorkers’ tolerance toward homosexuality. Second, the demographic differences in a community may influence individual and organizational attitudes and behaviors. For example, Ragins et al. (2012) found that white individuals who are racially dissimilar to their community are more likely to intend to move to another location and change jobs than those who are racially similar to their community, and, interestingly, for both White and Black Americans, the diversity climate of the community influences their intention to move to another community. Put together, these two factors and the associated empirical research evidence suggest that historical development and demographic differences in a community are two important factors that may influence the worldviews of individuals in that community, which subsequently shape their attitudes and interpersonal interactions with LGBT individuals in the community. In particular, these factors may contribute to the level of tolerance and acceptance of LGBT individuals due to the evolving identities and traditions of the community, which may facilitate similar practices in the organizations embedded in the community.

Institutional theorists have long contended that the taken-for-granted aspect of organizational practices stemming from cultural-cognitive influence aids the persistence of these practices. Thus, the theorization of new organizational practices is important in replacing previous practices because it helps individuals understand problems with the previous practices, and rationalizes and provides meaning to the new practices (Greenwood, Suddaby, & Hinings, 2002). The first organizations that implemented LGBT-supportive policies could be driven by the management’s attitude toward LGBT employees or by LGBT activists’ mobilization (Bell et al., 2011; Raeburn, 2004). However, the emergence of LGBT-supportive policies and nondiscrimination practices based on sexual orientation requires theorization of such policies and practices, and support from other actors in the local community (see Strang & Meyer, 1993). LGBT-supportive policies and ideas of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation have been subject to intense contestation between LGBT and anti-LGBT activists and adherents. LGBT and anti-LGBT activists have engaged in framing activity to theorize the meanings of such practices, as well as the benefits and problems associated with them (Chuang et al., 2016; Raeburn, 2004). For example, LGBT activists and adherents have contended that the equal treatment for LGBT employees reflects equal pay for equal work and the value for diversity and can increase productivity. In contrast, anti-LGBT activists and adherents argued that homosexuality and same-sex relationship are a matter of lifestyle and do not deserve a “special right” or equal treatment. Regardless of the effectiveness of these framing efforts, the contestation itself has drawn the attention of constituents and employers in the local community to the stigma attached to LGBT identity and equality in the LGBT population in the community. This has challenged the taken-for-granted aspect of existing policies and practices related to LGBT employment.

To enhance the comprehension of mental models associated with LGBT equality, LGBT advocacy organizations mobilized resources to organize workplace conferences and workshops (e.g., Out and Equal Conferences and Equality Forums in the United States) in which they brought activists and LGBT-friendly employees together to facilitate and develop strategies and exchange workplace experiences. LGBT advocacy organizations provide manuals for and work directly with LGBT employees and human resource professionals to help implement LGBT-supportive policies and practices (Chuang et al., 2016). LGBT employees also seek opportunities to form allies from management elites to support equal treatment in the workplace. In addition, LGBT advocacy organizations work with each other to provide networking opportunities for LGBT activists (Armstrong & Crage, 2006), employees, and human resource professionals by organizing workplace conferences, workshops, and networking events (Githens & Aragon, 2009). Through these events, the cognitive mental models of LGBT equality and the practical knowledge of implementing LGBT-supportive policies and practices can be gradually diffused to employers in the local community, thereby potentially alleviating the concerns of LGBT employees regarding stigmatization and discrimination from others in their organization.

Discussion and Conclusion

We have argued that a local community’s legal, social-normative, and cultural-cognitive features exert great influence on an organization’s stance on its LGBT policies, which in turn affect its employees’ perception of discrimination based on sexual orientation. The regulative, social-normative, and cultural-cognitive processes in a community are also influenced by individuals, groups and organizations, particularly in relation to stigma and stigmatization toward LGBT individuals residing in the community, and in relation to the degree to which LGBT-related policies and practices are adopted within and across organizations in a community.

We have also examined stigma and stigmatization in the workplace in this chapter. Goffman (1963) recognized that stigma is a social phenomenon, yet it is shaped by the culture and structure of the community. Hence, the intersection between society and individual systems cannot be separated from one another (Pescosolido & Martin, 2015). However, knowledge regarding the influence of institutional factors on LGBT employees and organizations remains limited. While previous research in the social psychology and management disciplines has clearly indicated the interplay between stigma and situational factors with the prejudiced and discriminatory experiences of stigmatized individuals, much of this research has focused on this phenomenon in organizational contexts. We know little about the complex situation that arises when considering the effect of the broader community context on individuals and organizations. Hence, this chapter aimed to provide a preliminary insight into the intersections between individuals, organizations, and community features, which we hope will generate further interest and research into these dynamics. Such an insight provides further understanding of the opportunities and constraints associated with reducing stigma in the workplace and, more broadly, the community, as well as avoiding the unintended consequences stemming from the implementation of these policies and practices (Pescosolido & Martin, 2015).

While this chapter has focused on individuals and organizations in a community, it is important to recognize that there is variation in the regulative, social-normative, and cultural-cognitive processes across communities in countries and around the world. As the world becomes more global, individuals and leaders travel across communities and are influenced by the perspectives and practices of other communities (Marquis & Battilana, 2009). This is particularly prevalent in relation to LGBT issues because tolerance and acceptance vary dramatically within countries (such as in the United States and China) and continents (such as Asia and Europe). Exposure across communities not only enhances the perspectives of individuals and leaders, but may also generate tension, conflict, and pressure regarding whether to engage in influencing and changing attitudes and systems in the local community. This is particularly important for Western multinational corporations that aim to address equality and inclusion for LGBT employees located in subsidiaries where disclosing certain stigmatized characteristics, such as homosexuality, is considered inappropriate or may be illegal. Norms and cultural values toward certain stigmatized groups, alongside the political context, provide very different interpretations to moral obligations and expectations; hence, the challenge is whether to implement unifying (“ethnocentric”) LGBT-friendly policies and practices, or “localizing” (or “polycentric”) policies and practices in these contexts, and what the consequences are for the global reputation of corporations that adopt anti-LGBT policies and practices in the local market. When localizing policies and practices are adopted (adopting anti-LGBT policies and practices to align with local legislative and cultural context), multinational organizations must consider the potential negative effect on their global reputation , which may have vast implications for their performance and profitability.

Future Research Directions

Given that studies focusing on the influence of community characteristics on individuals and organizations remain limited, there is ample opportunity for future research. First, there is still very limited understanding of the effect of community features on the quality of work life of disadvantaged groups in organizations (Ragins et al., 2012). Recent research has found that the racial composition of the community shapes diversity climate perceptions (Pugh et al., 2008), perceived discrimination (Avery, McKay, & Wilson, 2008), intention to move and its indirect effects on intention to leave, and job search behaviors (Ragins et al., 2012). Further, other research has suggested that the relationship between community diversity and workplace diversity may have implications for service outcomes and organizational performance (King et al., 2011). These studies have highlighted one key point—when community demographics become more diverse, the majority group exhibits resistance to the integration of minority members (Brief et al., 2005), and this effect spills over into the workplace and the daily activities outside of work for minority members. As a result, minorities can become less attached to their communities and organizations, and subsequently become more likely to leave for an alternative job (Zhang, Fried, & Griffeth, 2012) in another community.

It is anticipated that the dynamics discussed above may be problematic for LGBT individuals who are stigmatized within and outside the workplace and communities in which they reside. Research has indicated that gay households are over-represented in some cities such as New York City in the United States, Toronto in Canada, and Chongqing in China (e.g., Black, Gates, Sanders, & Taylor, 2000). Yet little is known about the extent to which the work experience of these individuals and their organizational policies and practices vary according to their community characteristics and the underlying mechanisms that explain such variation. Importantly, LGBT individuals residing in isolated communities have limited support from similar others and LGBT organizations, which may influence their decision to leave or stay in the community. Such patterns have implications for organizations in those communities in terms of turnover costs and their ability to attract best talents. Further, one should not assume that LGBT individuals in large cities experience less prejudice. Previous research on race (e.g., Avery et al., 2008) has indicated that the composition of similarity or dissimilarity to others in a community influences the diversity climate perceptions of ethnic minorities. Hence, the composition of LGBT individuals in their neighborhood may influence their decision to stay, which may affect their decision to search for other job opportunities elsewhere.

A good theoretical approach to address the above topics may include bridging macro and micro theories in order to obtain a holistic understanding of the interplay between community features and individual perceptions. One potentially useful micro theory to explore the effect of community characteristics is job embeddedness theory. According to job embeddedness theory, an employee lives in two worlds: an on-the-job world and an off-the-job world (Holtom, Mitchell, & Lee, 2006; Lee, Mitchell, Sablynski, Burton, & Holtom, 2004). An individual becomes part of a web of attachments interconnecting the on-the-job and off-the-job worlds (Tanova & Holtom, 2008). The more complex the web, the more interconnections an employee has, and the more difficult it becomes to leave an organization or community (Tanova & Holtom, 2008). This line of research has tended to focus on on-the-job embeddedness , which focuses directly on aspects of an individual’s job that connect him or her to an organization, as organizations are more easily and readily able to influence these factors. However, emerging research has shown that off-the-job embeddedness, which focuses directly on aspects of an individual’s life outside the workplace, does affect organizational outcomes, such as turnover (Lee et al., 2004; Mignonac, 2008; Ng & Feldman, 2014). This area of research is particularly important in regard to LGBT individuals who experience discrimination in the workplace and community in which they reside. Hence, job embeddedness theory may guide research into the degree to which community influences flow over into workplaces and, as such, how organizations and LGBT individuals can confront ongoing challenges that stem from regulative, social, and cultural changes in the community.

Importantly, our discussion on the relationship between a community’s features and its organizations’ policies toward LGBT employees shed light on the dynamic, recursive process of changes in a community’s features that manifest the institution of heterosexism. Indeed, recent studies have begun to emphasize the roles of actors and collective action in shaping institutional change (e.g., Battilana, Leca, & Boxenbaum, 2009; Briscoe & Gupta, 2016). To date, there are only less than a handful of studies that explicitly examined the effects of mobilization efforts by LGBT activists on organizational policies (Chuang et al., 2016; Raeburn, 2004). However, the detailed processes by which LGBT employees and activists changed their organizational policies toward LGBT require a more holistic examination by incorporating how they mobilize resources to change community’s features. Specifically, organizations need to comply with expectations derived from the features of the community where it resides in order to maintain their resource stability (Scott, 2001). To change organizational policies, it may require to first change the community’s features. Future research should explore into how LGBT employees and activists and anti-LGBT employees and activists mobilize resources to alter each of the community’s features, which in turn shapes organizational policies toward LGBT employees.

Another interesting factor worth considering is the reciprocal influences between community characteristics and organization characteristics. While countries with legislation protecting LGBT individuals from employment discrimination may witness legislation influencing organizational policies, the organizational policies of multinational companies may have a reverse influence on legislation , social norms, and values, as well as mental models of how LGBT individuals should fit into society. Multinational companies with headquarters in countries with protective employment legislation have enacted policies that comply with legislation. These policies may differ across countries with differing legislation; however, the headquarters’ stance is reflected in countries such as China that have no protective policies of their own. LGBT workers are likely to be drawn to these companies for a quality work life. To remain globally competitive, the governments of certain countries are under pressure to promote employment fairness and inclusion in general (not limited to LGBT), and to indirectly encourage other companies to do the same. Future research should address issues such as how regulative, social-normative, and cultural-cognitive forces shape the adoption of LGBT-supportive policies and practices; how expatriate employees and leaders from institutional environments where homosexuality is more widely accepted shape LGBT-supportive policies and practices in their host country where homosexuality is illegal or highly stigmatized socially; and how these policies and practices are diffused and institutionalized in the host country.

In conclusion, this chapter has sought to direct attention to understanding the intersection of community characteristics and the adoption of LGBT-supportive policies and practices, as well as perceived discrimination by LGBT employees. In addressing these issues, we recognize that stigma is multifaceted and requires multiple levels of analysis to holistically examine the complexity of stigma and stigmatization (Anteby & Anderson, 2014; Jones & King, 2014; Pescosolido & Martin, 2015; Ragins, 2008). At a broader level, we also recognize that LGBT individuals and organizations are embedded within their community; thus, examining cross-level effects will enable a holistic understanding of the interactions between communities, organizations, stigmatized individuals, and groups in society. At a practical level, our analysis is timely and relevant because governments and organizations around the world are tackling or confronting the decision to develop policies and practices that prohibit discrimination against LGBT individuals in order to attract and retain talent around the world.