The role of LGBT networks in companies

Master Thesis

The role of

LGBT networks

in companies

Name:

Iris Westland

Student number:

S4633466

E-mail address:

c.westland@student.ru.nl

Supervisor:

Drs. M.H.J. Dennissen

Second examiner:

Dr. J.J.L.E. Bücker

2

Abstract

In the literature on women’s networks the perspective of the non-members and legitimacy of the existence of the network are important aspects that play a role in the behaviour and the alleged success of a diversity network. This perspective is mostly omitted in the literature on LGBT networks. The objective of this research was to get an insight in the perception of non-members on LGBT networks in organisations and how members of the network legitimize the existence of the LGBT network. The views of the members and the non-members were be compared. The research question is therefore: How do legitimacy of the existence of LGBT networks and the perception of non-members influence LGBT networks?

To be able to answer the research question a single case-study was conducted to get a profound insight in the role the LGBT network plays in a company. Eighteen semi- structured interviews were conducted in a Dutch office of a US multinational in the IT-sector. From the interviews eight were with members of the network and ten were with other employees of the company. The data of these interviews have been analysed.

To complete the picture of the company, first the perception of the employees on the culture and on the diversity in the company were described. After that the sub questions of the research were answered. The results show that for the members the networking aspect is one of the most important reasons to be member of the network. Even though in the first place the aim of networking does not seem to be linked to LGBT, Friedman (1996) showed that informal relations are essential for success and that the creation of a comfortable environment to meet new people in a network can in this way contribute the equality of LGBT employees.

The conclusion of this research is that in this company the non-members are quite positive and supportive towards the network and agree on the fact that this is something that fits the culture of the company. Also the business case arguments are well known in the company. Having an LGBT network supports the achievement of the business goals in the company, because it creates a positive image of the company. Because of an environment where people in the company support the network, the members of the network do not feel the need to constantly legitimize the existence of the network.

4

Preface

In front of you is my master thesis on LGBT networks in companies. This master thesis is written to graduate from my master Business Administration in the specialization Strategic Human Resource Management. Although it was a rough process, I am proud to present you this final result.

I felt honoured that I was welcomed so openly in the company to be able to conduct this research. I would like to thank the respondents of my research who all participated with enthusiasm. A special thanks to my contact person at the company who gave me access to the company and all the respondents and even invited me to join him at a conference on LGBT networks in companies. Next I would like to thank my supervisor, Marjolein Dennissen, for all the time and effort she put in. She was always there for me to support me and had a critical view to constantly improve my research.

Finally I would like to thank my family and friends. I would like to thank my girlfriend for supporting me throughout the whole process even when I was in a bad mood sometimes. I want to thank my dad for the nights of endless brainstorm sessions and my mum for her pep talks and support. Last but not least I would like to thank my friend Marinda, because I would not have made it without her. I hope you enjoy reading!

Iris Westland

6

Contents

1.3 Outline of the thesis ... 11

2. Theoretical framework ... 12 2.1 Effects of discrimination ... 12 2.2 Voice of LGBT employees ... 12 2.3 Types of LGBT networks ... 13 2.4 Functions of LGBT networks ... 14 2.5 Dutch LGBT networks ... 15 3. Methodology ... 17 3.1 Research design ... 17 3.2 Epistemology ... 17 3.3 Case description ... 18 3.4 Data collection ... 18 3.5 Data analysis ... 20

3.6 Validity, reliability and ethics ... 20

3.7 Limitations of the research methods ... 21

4. Results ... 22

4.1 The organisational context ... 22

4.2 Diversity in the organisation ... 25

4.3 Establishment of the LGBT network ... 28

4.4 The aims of the LGBT network ... 31

4.4.1 Activities of the LGBT network ... 34

4.5 Legitimation of the existence of the network ... 37

4.5.1 Reasons to be a member of the LGBT network... 37

4.5.2 Reactions on the LGBT network ... 39

4.5.3 Perceived achievements of the LGBT network in the company ... 42

4.6 Perception of non-members on the network ... 45

4.6.1 View of non-members on the network ... 45

4.6.2 The benefits of an LGBT network according to non-members ... 47

7

5. Discussion ... 51

5.1 The aims of the network ... 51

5.2 Legitimation of the existence of the network ... 52

5.3 The perception of non-members on the network ... 53

5.4 Comparing the view of members and non-members on the network ... 54

5.5 Influence of legitimation of the existence of the network ... 56

5.6 Limitations ... 58

5.7 Future research ... 58

5.8 Practical implications ... 59

Literature ... 61

Appendix A: Interview guide member ... 63

Appendix B: Interview guide non-member ... 64

8

1. Introduction

Sexual orientation is getting more and more important in organisations since lesbian, gay, bi and transgender (LGBT) people are more accepted and therefore more visible (Colgan and McKearney, 2012; Eurobarometer, 2008). Many organisations have included sexual orientation in their policies on diversity and equality (Kersley et al., 2006). Nevertheless, homosexuality seems only acceptable as long as LGBT people behave in a certain way; people expect that they are open about their sexual orientation, but not show it too much (Savenije, 2015). Heterosexuality is still the norm in the public domain (Savenije, 2015). The research of Van der Klein, Tan, de Groot, Duyvendak, and Witteveen (2009) shows that in general the work environment in the Netherlands is not positive towards homosexuality. This is not particularly about very obvious discrimination, but mostly about jokes, bad words and disturbing questions. In this way LGBT people still have to deal with negative experiences. This can have serious consequences for LGBT employees in job satisfaction and well-being (Ragins and Cornwell, 2001; Waldo, 1999).

Because of these negative experiences, possible discrimination issues and acceptance struggles, LGBT employees increasingly initiate LGBT diversity networks in their organizations (Briscoe and Safford, 2010). Diversity networks are network groups of employees that have a part of their (social) identity in common, like ethnicity, gender, disability or sexual orientation (Briscoe and Safford, 2010). This research will focus on the networks for LGBT employees, so these employees share the fact that their sexual orientation differs from heterosexual or the way they identify their gender differs from their biological gender. Some examples of LGBT networks in the Netherlands are: Trainbow, this is the LGBT network for employees in the rail industry in the Netherlands; GALA, the LGBT network of the Dutch bank ING; and Pride, the LGBT network of the Dutch mail company PostNL.

According to Raeburn (2004) the first LGBT networks in the United States were not created to advocate for the interests of the network, but just for social reasons, such as a meeting platform for LGBT employees and a place where they could get career advice. In the mid-1980s LGBT networks became more political and members of the networks advocated for LGBT rights (Briscoe and Safford, 2010). The actions of the networks were still not focused on change within the company, but tried to initiate a change in the broader society. In the mid-1990s the LGBT networks started to focus more on changes in the company itself, many of them with the goal to get domestic partner benefits (Briscoe and Safford, 2010). But this was not the only goal of these networks. Members of LGBT networks also started to realize that the company is not only a place where people work, but also the place where people have social contacts and talk about their private live. The networks strived for

9

recognition of this life and that they could be more open about it. This striving for recognition was a part of the movement to achieve legitimacy in the society at large (Briscoe and Safford, 2010). Few studies have addressed LGBT networks in organisations. Bell, Özbilgin, Beauregard and Surgevil (2011) considered LGBT networks as a good way to decrease discrimination on sexual orientation and create voice for LGBT employees. Savenije (2015) conducted research on the functions and activities of LGBT networks in the Netherlands and concluded that the networks are a way to create awareness around unequal treatment of LGBT employees and reduce this. Colgan and McKearney (2012) also considered the networks as an important way to create visibility, community and voice. Briscoe and Safford (2010) try to place the networks in the organizational and societal environment. According to their research most of the LGBT networks identify with the organization, but also with a subgroup in the broader societal environment. Members of the network do identify as insiders of the company, but they also do not fit in completely and therefore also identify as outsiders. The networks use this two-sided identity to defend their interests without going against rules and norms in the company (Briscoe and Safford, 2010).

More research is done on other diversity networks, in particular networks for women. A remarkable difference that can be identified between the research on LGBT networks and the research on women’s networks is the focus of the research. The research on LGBT networks mainly focusses on what the networks can do for the group of LGBT employees in a company. The strive for recognition and creating visibility and voice are the main topics of this research. The research on women’s networks focuses more on empowerment, individual career support and the perception and legitimacy of the network itself. For example, Gremmen and Benschop (2011) show that the women’s networks can be beneficial for the individual career of women, but that the networks also encounter a lot of criticism. Because of this criticism the leaders of the network constantly have to legitimize the existence of the network. In their research they study how the leading members of the networks anticipate and respond to legitimize the networks’ existence and how they negotiate the ambiguities and criticism the networks encounter. The leaders of the networks argue that women have special value to their organization if their capabilities are recognized and valued and are encouraged to develop their capacities. Also Bierema (2005) studied women’s networks. In a case-study she studied the effects of a women’s network on the career of the women and on the organizational context. In the results of her research she states: “The women experienced the Network with apprehension and the organization proved more an obstacle than a support” (p. 213). Bierema (2005) concludes that the women’s network in her study reproduced patriarchal structures in the organisation instead of eroding them. She also concludes that for the establishment of a women’s network a high level of awareness of gender inequalities and high willingness to take action

10

are needed amongst the women in the company. The final conclusion she draws is that the success or failure of a network is not only attributable to the participants of the network, but even more to the organizational structure and the patriarchal culture in the company. From this researches on women’s networks I learn that also the perspective of the non-members1 _{and legitimacy of the}

existence of the network are important aspects that play a role in the behaviour and the alleged success of a diversity network. This perspective is mostly omitted in the literature on LGBT networks. It is important to complement the literature with this information to prevent LGBT networks from accomplishing the opposite of the intended effect. This is what I see in the research of Bierema (2005), the membership of the women’s network in her research was more an obstacle than a boost for the career of the women. With this research I will provide insight into the influence of the view of non-members and legitimacy on the LGBT networks.

The objective of this research is to get an insight in the perception of non-members on the LGBT network in organisations and how members of the network legitimize the existence of the LGBT network. The views of the members and the non-members will be compared to gain insight in the similarities and differences between these two views and if differences between those views affect the success of the network.

The research question is as follows: How do legitimacy of the existence of LGBT networks and the perception of non-members influence LGBT networks?

To answer this research question, the following sub questions are formulated:  What are the aims of the LGBT network?

 How do the members of the LGBT network legitimize the existence of the network?  How are LGBT networks perceived by non-members?

1.1 Theoretical relevance

From the information in the introduction can be concluded that already some research on LGBT networks has been done. Savenije (2015) already conducted a research on LGBT networks in Dutch companies. He interviewed members that had a leading function in the networks. This research will contribute to the existing literature by comparing the perception of the members of the LGBT network and the perception of non-members. By not only gaining insight in the perception of members of the network, but also including non-members, this research will give a more two-sided view of the LGBT network. In this research also the question will be answered if LGBT networks have to legitimize the existence of the network to the same extent as the women’s networks have to and

11

how they do that. Until now most of the literature focused on what an LGBT network can add for LGBT employees and if they perceive it as an valuable contribution to the company, but in this research also the legitimacy of the existence of the network and the perception non-members will be included. This will provide the literature with knowledge about the value of LGBT networks in companies and will give more insight in the reasons of success or failure of the network.

1.2 Practical relevance

This research will give information about the non-member view on an LGBT network in a company. It will show how the LGBT network is perceived in the company and how the network legitimizes its existence. All in all, this research could be of good use for LGBT employees in companies that do not have an (active) LGBT network yet and wonder if they should establish one and how this will be received by the rest of the company. It also could be a help for LGBT networks that struggle with the legitimacy of the existence of their network. They can get a view of how another network deals with this.

For HRM in general this can contribute to the knowledge about the effect of the context where a network operates on the network. This research will focus on the effect of the perception of non-members on the network. If the HR department in a company struggles with a diversity network that is not successful in achieving their goals this will not always be the fault of the network itself, the failure can also be ascribed to the organizational environment in which the network operates. In this research the effect of this environment on an LGBT network will be studied.

1.3 Outline of the thesis

After the introduction to the research a theoretical framework will be sketched. This will give an overview of the existing theories and literature on this topic. Next, the methods that will be used in the research will be described and subsequently the results of the research will be analysed. Finally some conclusions will be drawn and the added value and the limitations of the researched will be discussed.

12

2. Theoretical framework

In this chapter I will first shortly address the effects of discrimination. After that an overview of the existing literature on voice of LGBT employees, types of LGBT networks, the functions of LGBT networks and the literature on Dutch LGBT networks will be given.

2.1 Effects of discrimination

Ragins and Cornwell (2001) showed in their research that LGBT employees that encountered high levels of discrimination on sexual orientation had more negative job attitudes, were less satisfied and they thought that they had fewer promotion opportunities. Other research shows that working in a heterosexist climate can, not only for LGBT employees, but for every employee reduce their psychological well-being. In the case of LGBT employees this could be explained by the minority stress they experience. A possible explanation of reduced psychological well-being of their heterosexual colleagues could be that they experience bystander stress in a heterosexist climate what means that they suffer from hearing others talk negatively about LGBT people. (Silverschanz, Cortina, Konik and Magley, 2008). Waldo (1999) found out that LGBT employees experience minority stress, both LGBT employees that were more open about their sexuality and the LGBT employees that hided their sexuality. The minority stress resulted in negative psychological, physical and job-related outcomes. Waldo (1999) assumed that the employees who were open about their sexuality had to deal with direct discrimination and heterosexism and the employees that concealed their sexuality got more stress from the fact that people assumed that they were heterosexual.

2.2 Voice of LGBT employees

Bell and colleagues (2011) identified the voice and silence of LGBT employees. For their research they used the definition of voice from Hirschman (1970): “any attempt at all to change, rather than to escape from, an objectionable state of affairs, whether through individual or collective petition to the management directly in charge, through appeal to a higher authority with the intention of forcing a change in management, or through various types of actions and protests, including those that are meant to mobilize public opinion” (p. 30). Bell and colleagues (2011) argue that voice in relation to diversity and inclusion are crucial for the success of cultural change management efforts. Companies have to manage diversity effectively to capture the voices of all employees in the process of organizational change. To achieve this there is a wide range of voice mechanisms that companies can use. Companies that will succeed in managing diversity effectively will have advantages in attracting and retaining employees in their company. Bell and colleagues (2011) divide voice in four types: 1) voice as an articulation of individual dissatisfaction; 2) voice as an expression of collective

13

organization; 3) voice as a form of contribution to management decision making; and 4) voice as a form of mutuality. This division shows that there are a lot of forms in which voice can be expressed and that managers need different mechanisms to allow employees to give voice. One of the mechanisms Bell and colleagues (2011) mention is the establishment of LGBT networks where this research will be focused on.

2.3 Types of LGBT networks

Githens and Aragon (2009) distinguish four types of LGBT networks. The types of networks differ in their approach and the way they are organized. They show a framework with two continuums. The first continuum is their focus on social change either on the improvement of the organizational effectiveness and the second continuum splits the groups on their organizational structure, they strive toward order or they embrace the chaos and emergent thinking. The four groups they distinguish are groups with: 1) queer/radical approaches, these groups are on the emergent and social change side of the framework; 2) internally responsive informal approaches, these groups are also on the side of emergent thinking, but they focus on the organizational effectiveness; 3) conventional approaches, these groups strive for order and focus on the organizational effectiveness; and 4) organized unofficial approaches, the groups strive for order and focus on social change. See figure 1.

14

Briscoe and Safford (2010) tried to answer the question what role diversity networks play in employment relationships, but they note that they are not able to give a clear answer because of the fact that there has not been a lot of systematic research on the emerge and evolution of the role of the networks within companies. Besides that, diversity networks can take many forms. On the one hand there are groups that put pressure on employers and work together with contentious activist in a movement in the broader society. On the other hand there are networks that are run and financed by the company and are used to show the commitment to diversity of the organization to internal (e.g. employees) and external (e.g. customers) stakeholders. Most of the networks are somewhere in the middle between those two extremes. These networks identify both with the organization as well as with a subgroup in the society. The members of the group do identify as insiders of the company, but they also do not totally fit in and therefore also identify as outsiders. They use this two-sided identity to defend their interests without going against rules and norms in the company. Nowadays the political reasons to form a network since providing domestic partner benefits is not as controversial as it once was. The networks are more often formed by employers to support diversity in the workplace and to create a positive image on the marketplace.

The literature of Githens and Aragon (2009) and Briscoe and Safford (2010) show that LGBT network can differ in the way they are organized in the company. Some networks are established by the management of the company and work together with the top management, while others put pressure on the company to initiate changes. When looking at the legitimacy of an LGBT network this could influence how non-members look at the network. If the LGBT network works together with the company and focus on organizational effectiveness, this could influence the perception of non-members positively, in particular when it comes to top managers in the company. If the network works against the company and puts pressure on the top management, this could have the opposite effect.

2.4 Functions of LGBT networks

Colgan and McKearney (2012) studied diversity networks for LGBT employees in the UK. They revealed three main functions of the LGBT company networks: 1) visibility and community; 2) individual and collective voice mechanisms; and 3) tackling the “vacuum of responsibility”. The first function, creating visibility and community, means that members have the possibility to discuss their similar problems and concerns and support each other. The second function is to create individual and collective voice mechanisms. The networks are seen as a way to create voice, it was a good way to raise issues in the company. The last function is to tackle the “vacuum of responsibility”. This means that it becomes clear who is responsible for making what change in the way of working. The

15

LGBT networks develop a shared agenda and strategies to make changes in the company. (Colgan and McKearney, 2012). According to the research of Colgan and McKearney, LGBT employees see the establishment of the LGBT networks as an extension of the equality and diversity strategy of the company. The LGBT respondents of the research of Colgan and McKearney show that they value the networks highly, even the LGBT employees that are not out at work. When an LGBT network is formed in a company, the LGBT employees see it as an important step in the company that signals the inclusion of LGBT employees. They feel that they are treated equal to other minorities in the company that are united in a network. Most of the LGBT respondents use the website of the LGBT network, but the employees working in frontline or manual jobs had difficulties attending the meetings of the LGBT networks since they do not get time off from their managers. However, the respondents still saw the LGBT networks as a positive route to visibility and voice for LGBT employees. The networks provide advice on the individual level when needed, but also represent the LGBT employees in organization diversity committees and through this way participate in debates on organization policy and practice. Managers state that the LGBT network was the most innovative and active network of all employee networks in the organization. They could not mention actual changes the network made in the policy and practices in the company, but the achievements in this stage are the ones that the organizations are willing to collaborate with the LGBT network and try to find good ways to comply with legislation.

Githens and Aragon (2009) argue that the LGBT networks not only have functions for LGBT employees, but also for the employers of the company. Some examples are an enhanced diversity climate, improvement of the public relations and in the end an increase of the organizational performance (Githens and Aragon, 2009).

The functions of the LGBT network can be a way to legitimize the existence of the network. If the functions of the network are seen as important by the employees of the company and also has benefits for the company itself, this could a reason that the member do not have to legitimize the existence of the network.

2.5 Dutch LGBT networks

Savenije (2015) studied LGBT networks in the Netherlands. He interviewed leaders of five LGBT networks to get an insight of the aims and activities of the networks. To study the findings of his interviews, he compares the aims of the networks with the aims of the American LGBT networks that Raeburn (2004) distinguishes. The first aim that Raeburn (2004) mentions is providing a social platform for meeting each other and networking. Also for the Dutch networks this was an important function of the networks. The second aim of Raeburn was to get official recognition from the

16

organization, but the networks that Savenije (2015) included in his research were already officially recognized. The third aim of Raeburn (2004) was to teach employees about subjects that are related to sexual orientation. In the Dutch networks this function came up by the striving for more awareness when it comes to sexual and gender diversity within the organization. Fourth, the American networks strive for policies and practices that include homosexual men and women. In the Dutch networks only diversity trainings came up during the interviews. The last aim of the American networks was to encourage employers to donate to organizations or events in the LGBT community or to focus the marketing of the company on this community. In the Dutch networks one important aspect of this aim was to create an LGBT-friendly image to the environment and to convince potential LGBT employees to apply at the company.

Next to the aims of the networks Savenije (2015) distinguished four types of activities that the LGBT networks organize. The first type of activities concerns services for employees. For example drinks, lectures or spreading a newsletter with information about LGBT related activities. The second type of activities concerns addressing issues related to sexual and gender diversity. An example could be that the network organizes a lunch meeting to talk about an issue that LGBT employees encounter or they organize a training of workshop on dealing with sexual and gender diversity in a company. Third, the networks organize activities that focus on the visibility of LGBT employees both within and outside the organization. Within the company this could be organizing activities for the all employees of the company and making sure that the network is discussed in internal communication. The last type of activities is only important for one of the networks that Savenije (2015) included in his research. This aim is to take care of the safety and liveability of LGBT people in the society.

From this chapter can be seen that scientist already conducted research on the effects of discrimination and the voice of LGBT employees in company. Githens and Aragon (2009) and Briscoe and Safford (2010) distinguished several types of LGBT networks and Colgan and McKearney (2012) studied the functions of these LGBT networks. Savenije (2015) focused in his research on the Dutch LGBT networks in particular and examined if the aims and the activities of the Dutch networks corresponded with the aims and functions of the American LGBT networks. Something that was not examined in the existing literature yet is the perception of the non-members and how the networks are influenced by the legitimation of the existence of the network.

17

3. Methodology

In this chapter the research methodology will be explained. First a description of the research design will be given. Next, the epistemology of the research will be addressed and after that a description of the case will be given. Next, the data collection and analysis will be described. The last part will elaborate on the validity and reliability and the limitations of the research methods.

3.1 Research design

This research studied the perception of members and non-members on the LGBT network within a company. The most appropriate way to examine this is with qualitative research. According to Lee, Mitchell and Sablynski (1999) qualitative research suits purposes of description, interpretation and explanation. These three elements will be the major part of this research. Qualitative research provides the option to do in-depth interviews and this provides the possibility to ask further on an answer a respondent gave. Furthermore the topic of this research, sexual orientation and discrimination is a sensitive topic, therefore qualitative research is more suitable to study this. Boeije (2010) says: “…topics that are strange, uncommon or deviate from the ‘normal’ situation. It is assumed that these topics can be more easily captured in research that leaves much of the control to the participant, although within well-defined limits.” (p.33).

This research is based on a single case-study (see 3.3 Case description). By doing a case-study it was possible get a profound insight in the role the LGBT network plays in a company (Verschuren and Doorewaard, 2010). It was possible to study the network in its natural environment and the context of the company was taken into account in this research. Due to limited time, it was not possible to examine more than one company in depth.

3.2 Epistemology

The approach of this research was a constructivist approach. The goal of this research was not to test a hypothesis or to be totally objective, but to give an image of a social phenomenon (Jonassen, 1991). This research is focussed on perceptions and feelings of people and less focussed on facts and objectivity. Including the feelings and emotions of people in the research it is possible to get a complete insight in their perception and in this way draw an image of the social phenomenon. In the topic of this research, LGBT networks, a lot of feelings and emotions are involved. It is impossible for the researcher to be totally objective during data collection, so this has to be taken into account in the conclusion that will be drawn from the results.

18

3.3 Case description

This research is done in a Dutch office of a US multinational in the IT-sector. The multinational is active in more than 160 countries and has offices in more than 70 countries. Around 350.000 employees all over the world work for this company. A big part of this workforce consists of consultants, what means that the working environment of these employees is flexible. Sometimes they work at the office of the company, sometimes they work at the office of the client and in most of the cases it is also possible to work at home. When looking at the website of the company can be seen that diversity is important in the company. The company has five diversity networks for its employees: a women’s network, a generational network focusing on older employees, a network for disabled employees, a network for ethnic minority employees and the LGBT network. The networks are worldwide, but every department of the company has its own ‘section’ of the networks with a chairman and they organize local activities for the members in their country. The Dutch section of the network was established in the first years of this century. The founder of the network was also the chairman of the network until a few years ago when another employee took over this job. The network has around thirty LGBT members and also some straight allies are member of the network.

3.4 Data collection

The data of this research is collected by means of semi-structured interviews. Interviews with members and non-members of the LGBT network are conducted. In total eighteen interviews have been conducted from which eight with members of the network and ten with non-member employees of the company. From the interviews with the members of the LGBT network their view on the network was derived and how they perceive their membership of the network. Within this group a distinction is made between LGBT members and straight ally members (see Table 1), because their interests in being member of the network could differ. The interviews with the non-members gave insight into their perception of the network. Within this group a distinction is made between respondent that never heard about the existence of the LGBT network and respondents that already knew that the company has an LGBT network (see Table 1). Also some managers that are involved in writing policy of the company were interviewed. They could provide information about the influence the networks have on the policy of the company.

19

Table 1: Respondents

Members of the LGBT network 8

LGBT members 5

Straight allies 3

Non-members of the LGBT network 10

Did know the LGBT network 7

Never heard about the LGBT network 3

To find the first respondents my contact person of the company introduced me to some members of the network, to some of them face-to-face and some of them by e-mail. After this introduction I asked them if they wanted to do an interview with me to help me with my research. All of them were prepared to help me. After finding the respondents for the interview with the members of the network, I had to find non-member respondents. Even though it seems easier to find these respondents, because this could be every random employee of the company, it was not. Almost all of the contacts of my contact person at the company were involved in the LGBT network. I asked the respondents I already interviewed and through them I found enough non-member respondents. Something kept in mind during the search for respondents for the interviews is mentioned by Savenije (2015). In his research he only interviewed men. In this research effort is made to interview a more equal amount of male and female respondents. From the interviewed members five respondents are men, from which one was a straight ally and three of them are women, from which two of them are a straight ally. From the non-members six respondents were men and four respondents are women. This means that the amount of men and women is still not equal, but since the amount of men working in the company is higher than the amount of women in the company this is representative for the workforce of the company.

With some of the respondents it was impossible to meet at the office because of full agendas and because a lot of them are consultant, so they do not always work on the office of the company. With these respondents it was more suitable to do the interview over the phone. Because of the full agendas of the employees in the company I was restricted to limited time per interview. The longest interview took 52 minutes and the shortest interview was 18 minutes. The average time of the interview was about half an hour.

For both the interviews with the members of the network and the interviews with non-members an interview guide was prepared (see appendix A and B). This interview guide was based on the theoretical framework to make sure that all the topics were included in the interview, but given the fact that the interviews are semi-structured, it was not necessary for the interviewer to follow the

20

interview guide exactly. Some new topics will came up during the interview. In total eighteen interviews were conducted, because it was expected that more interviews would not provide new information. This is called theoretical saturation (Eisenhardt, 1989).

3.5 Data analysis

After the collection of the data, the data was analysed. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. The transcripts were coded by codes derived from the theoretical framework. When the codes from the theoretical framework did not cover all the data collected, new codes were added to the list. The code trees from the codes used in analysing the data is added in appendix C. The coding based on the theoretical framework gives the research a deductive character and the codes that are derived from the new information that came up during the interviews determine the inductive character of the research. First, the transcripts were coded by colouring the text. When all the relevant parts of the transcripts were coloured in Microsoft Word, the text was split up and organized per code. Every code had one tab and every sub code had one column. In every column the text from every respondent about the sub code was pasted. When the respondent did not say anything about the subject, the box remained empty.

After coding all the text of the transcripts and putting the codes together, it was possible to get a clear picture of the various thoughts about a subject. It was clear to see which codes gave information about the context of the company where the research took place and which codes contained information to answer the research questions. By comparing the data with the literature it was possible to get a profound insight in the operation of this LGBT network.

3.6 Validity, reliability and ethics

The internal validity was be ensured by using semi-structured interviews. In these interviews the interviewer had the possibility to explain the question and ask further and the interviewee had the possibility to make additional remarks. In this way the chance is higher that the researcher really understands what the interviewee means and that important data will not be overlooked.

The external validity is more difficult to ensure in a research with a constructivist approach and this was also not the goal of constructivist research. The results of the one single case-study cannot be generalized to a bigger population, because there is not one single truth. In this research the social construction of the LGBT network is sketched.

The reliability of the research was ensured by using the interview guide as a guideline for the semi-structured interviews. In this way the same topics were discussed in the different interviews. Also,

21

there is strived for transparency to increase the reliability. The full transcripts of the interviews and the coding of the interviews were added in an appendix to the report.

Considering the ethics of this research the interviews were totally confidential and anonymous and also the company were the research took place stays anonymous. This to protect the interests of the respondents and give them the chance to talk freely about the subject without jeopardizing their image or position. The respondents participated voluntary and were informed about the subject and aim of the research before conforming their participation.

3.7 Limitations of the research methods

A limitation to this research is the risk of social desirability. Particularly the answers of the non-member respondent could be influenced by social desirability, because the company shows to its employees that minorities in the company are valued and that discrimination is not allowed, so it could be the case that respondents do not dare to be honest about their opinion. The interviews are totally confidential and anonymous, so this could diminish this effect somewhat.

A risk of qualitative research is that the emotions of the researcher play a role in the results and analyses of the data. This research is about LGBT and this can be a sensitive topic. On top of that the researcher of the topic also identifies as LGBT. This could influence the results of the research. To diminish the effect of this the researcher did not share this before or during the interviews, only when this was relevant in the conversation after the interview she shared this. In particular for the interviews with the non-member respondents this was important, because sharing this information could make the answers of the respondents even more social desirable. The respondents could be extra careful in the formulation of their answers, because they would not like to insult or hurt the researcher.

Because of lack of time of the respondents some of the interviews were relatively short. In every interview there was enough time to address every topic of the interview guide, but in some cases it was not possible to ask further on a question. Because of this some of the answers remain somewhat unclear or less argued.

22

4. Results

In this chapter I will present the results of my research. To complete the picture of the company I will describe the perception of the employees on the culture in the company in the first paragraph. The second paragraph will be an addition to this and will describe the view of the employees on the diversity in the company. In the third paragraph I will describe the establishment of the network and in the fourth paragraph I will answer the first sub question by describing the aims of the LGBT network. The fifth paragraph will be about the question if members need to legitimize the existence of the network and last paragraph gives the view of the non-members on the network.

4.1 The organisational context

In this paragraph I will give the view of the employees on the culture in the company. This information is important to be able to place the results in the following paragraphs of this chapter in a context. The way and amount of information people are used to share about their private life has influence on how people think about sharing information about their sexual orientation and their (homosexual or heterosexual) relationship. No distinction is made in this paragraph between the members and non-members of the network, because this will be a general overview on the culture in the company and while analysing the data no link could be made between the view of the employees on the organisational context and their member/non-member status.

Most of the respondents perceive the atmosphere in the organisation as a mix of formal and informal characteristics. The most mentioned reason for this is that the structure of the company is quite formal and hierarchical. Every department has its own manager. On a higher level there is a layer of top management in the Netherlands. The top managers of the Dutch organization are supervised by the headquarters of the company in the USA.

“In how they make decision they are very formal. So that is the funny thing of [company], a lot of, actually almost all of the big decisions are made by the headquarters in America and are deployed worldwide with relatively limited freedom on local level. Yes, in that way they are very top-down.”

Respondent 2: woman, straight ally member

Important decisions are taken by the top management in the USA and the implementation is very top-down, which means that changes are implemented by the top management through every layer of the company until it reaches the actual work floor. The respondent tells that the managers lower in the company do not have a lot of space to make adjustments to the decisions made higher in the company.

23

Nevertheless the respondents say that the culture is open to communication and employees have the possibility to approach people in all the layers of the company. Respondents perceive the interaction between colleagues as informal. One of the respondents says:

“I think [company] globally is very open, open for feedback, but there is definitely a hierarchy, so there are a lot of layers and middle management and senior management, but there is very much an open door policy. So if you want to work or talk to somebody who is the general manager, you can just make an appointment and go. You don’t necessarily have to go through all the different layers, so there are a lot of layers, but it is open enough that you can communicate easily.”

Respondent 18: woman, non-member

This quote illustrates that the respondent perceives ‘open for feedback’ and a ‘hierarchy’ as a contradiction, but that these two properties are combined within the organisation. She talks about an open door policy, what would mean that you could walk into every office without an appointment, but one sentence later she says that you have to make an appointment to go to the general manager. Even though this is some kind of a contradiction in itself, the point that the respondent would like to make is clear: even though she would expect that someone has to go through all the layers in the company before he or she could talk to the general manager in an organisation that has a hierarchy like this, this is not the case. The culture in the company is open enough for communication between different layers of the company to make an appointment with the general manager straight away.

The fact that the company has a clear hierarchy, but the communication between employees is informal, is something to keep in mind when analysing the results. I understand from these quotes that it can be hard sometimes to get things institutionalized from lower layers of the company, because implementation is most of the time top-down, but employees do have the opportunity to approach the top management to present their ideas to them.

Private life in the workplace

When it comes to talking about private life, almost all of the respondents state that they feel free to talk about their private life at work. When I asked them if they felt free to talk about their private life at work, two of them talked about the importance of the work-life balance and they emphasise how the company values a healthy balance between work and the private life of its employees. They say that talking about your private life at work is an important part of this work-life balance. This indicates that private life is clearly present next to the job someone has.

24

Most of the respondents feel free to talk about their private life at work, but some of them mention factors that limit how much they share with their colleagues. For some of the respondents the age of the colleagues plays a role in this.

“I: Do you feel free to talk about your private life at work?

R: With some of the colleagues I do, these are mainly colleagues from my own age category. And the older they are, the farther I stand from them, the less quickly I’ll do that.”

Respondent 15: man, non-member

This respondent indicates that he shares information about his private life only with people from the same age category. Another respondent also mentions age as a limiting factor in sharing information about private life.

“And you can also see differences between younger [employees] and older [employees], for example with social partners and partners I work with. You can see that the [older employees] are much less likely to talk about their private life, because they regard this as something that should be separated from your job.”

Respondent 2: woman, straight ally member

This respondent does not mention that people only share this information with people from the same age category, but she mentions that the older employees, above the age of 50, are less likely to share information about their private life than younger employees, under the age of 30, anyway. According to her the older colleagues think that your private life should be something to keep outside work.

The conclusion of this paragraph is that the respondents do feel comfortable to talk about their private life in the company, both LGBT employees and other employees of the company. The culture of the company is open for this and the company emphasises a work-life balance in which you can share information about your family and private life. However, the respondents feel free to talk about their private life, age seems to be a limiting factor in this. The age of the employees could make a difference between what they think is a ‘normal’ way of communication.

25

4.2 Diversity in the organisation

This paragraph will give information about how the respondents look at diversity in the company. Information on how diverse employees think the workforce of the company is and how the company deals with diversity can be useful when I look at the results in the last three paragraphs. This paragraph will help to place the following results in the context of the company where the research was conducted. Also in this paragraph there will not be made a distinction between the members and non-members of the network, because this will give a general overview of the view of the employees in the company and while analysing the data no link could be made between the view of the employees on the diversity in the organisation and their member/non-member status.

Something all the respondents agree on is that in the company work a lot of different people from many different nationalities, men and women, employees from different ages. They see the company as a company with a diverse workforce.

“I think when you are in the canteen, you already look at the variety of people. For example the kind of people but also how people dress or how they work. One wears a suit with an attachee suitcase, the other wears jeans with a backpack or a combination of this. Older, younger, man, woman, all kinds of ethnic backgrounds, all kinds of nationalities and languages as well.”

Respondent 1: man, LGBT member

This respondent perceives the company as a place where a variety of people work. Some respondents tell that in the hiring of new employees the company tries to keep the number of men and women equal and hire a diverse workforce when it comes to nationality. Only one respondent does not agree with this at all, she says that the workforce is not diverse and should be a reflection of the society.

“I think ninety percent is man and ten percent is woman. I know one man who is disabled, I know one lady who is living together with another lady and I know, I’d say three men that are gay. And the company has, I think, 3000 employees, so it is not really a reflection of the society at [company].”

Respondent 16: woman, non-member

This respondent thinks that the proportion of different people when it comes to gender, disability and sexuality is not the same as in the overall society. She thinks that this should be the case and that the diversity in the company should be a lot more.

26

The two quotes above do not correspond with each other. This shows that the way people perceive diversity can differ within the same company. The first respondent says that a lot of different people work in the company, while the second respondent thinks that the proportions of women, disabled people and homosexual people in the company are significantly lower than the proportions in the Dutch society overall.

The way respondents talk about how the company deals with the differences between employees varies. Some respondents think that this subject needs more attention. One of the respondents says about the diversity networks:

“If the volunteers are not committed consistently, no one will. Their intrinsic motivation is needed.”

Respondent 3: woman, straight ally member

This respondent indicates that the motivation to pay attention to diversity and maintain the diversity networks has to come from the employees themselves. She talks about volunteers, because the company does not allow their employees to work on campaigns and diversity networks during working hours. Everything that needs to happen to maintain the diversity networks needs to be done outside working hours and is therefore voluntary work. The respondent says that if people stop doing this work voluntary, the networks will not be maintained.

Other respondents do not believe that the company is lacking attention to the subject of diversity, but that the employees have to be actively searching for it before they will notice the attention the company pays to diversity.

“Attention is paid to it, but it is more business as usual, there is not so much distinction between people. You see, if you are in a network, you will get more emails about it and stuff like that, but if you're not in the network, you will not be confronted with it immediately.” Respondent 5: man, LGBT member

This respondent says that he thinks that the company does pay attention to the subject, but if employees do not join a diversity network, they will not automatically notice the attention the company pays to the subject. This would mean that the company does not succeed in involving the rest of the company in creating awareness for diversity.

“I, also from my role [executive around the subject of diversity and LGBT], see that much attention is paid to it and a lot is happening around the subject, but I do not think that

27

everybody experiences it like this, because it is difficult to — in between all the corporate communication — also spread the message of diversity to everyone.”

Respondent 7: man, LGBT member

This respondent agrees with the previous respondent, he also thinks that not every employee in the company will notice the attention the company pays to diversity. He says that it is hard to spread the message about the importance of diversity in the company, because there is a lot of corporate communication in the company.

“I think you have to participate actively in it yourself to notice it. I mean, you will see something from [LGBT network] and in some information sessions and presentations given, you will see some things. But I do not consider [company] as an organisation where people show themselves and I think you do not notice a lot of activity.”

Respondent 8: woman, LGBT member

Also this respondent believes that employees have to be active themselves to notice the attention the company pays to diversity. She says that sometimes in presentations or information sessions some attention is paid to diversity, but it does not fit the culture of the company to show off. The three quotes above all say the same thing: when you do not actively search for activities around the subject of diversity, you will not notice that the company pays attention to this subject. The company focusses its diversity program on the minorities itself and people that actively seek for activities around diversity and finds it more difficult to involve the rest of the company in this. The corporate communication seems more important than communication about minorities and diversity in the company. The company’s main interest is that employees feel comfortable and accepted in the company. It is not a business goal to promote LGBT, they only work on diversity to let their employees feel comfortable and in this way get the best out of them.

From this paragraph can be seen that most of the respondents find the workforce of the company a diverse workforce with male and female employees from different nationalities and ages. When it comes to attention to this diversity in the workforce the respondents say that this depends on the motivation of employees themselves; the diversity networks are maintained by employees voluntary outside working hours. Employees will only notice the attention the company pays to diversity when they actively seek for activities around diversity.

28

4.3 Establishment of the LGBT network

To get an idea of the reasons to start an LGBT network in the company, I will first go back to the establishment of the network. According to the interview with a male member of the network, the company focused on diversity as a business strategy in the 80s of the last century. He tells that the company gave a few executive managers the task to conduct a research on diversity within the company. The first goal of this research was to gain insight in what the employees of the company considered important and what the company should do to be seen as a good employer for different groups in the company. The other goal of the research was to get to know what clients wanted to see from their supplier, to make sure that clients wanted to buy from the company. This means that the reason to focus in diversity in the first place is twofold. On the one hand the company wants to be a good employer for its employees, on the other hand the company wants to be seen as a good supplier for their clients.

The executive managers who conducted the research on diversity in the organization came with the advice to establish diversity networks. This would be a way to be seen as a good employer by the employees of the company and this would be something that clients liked to see from their suppliers. The headquarters of the company in the USA created five diversity networks: a women’s network, a generational network, a network for disabled people, a network for ethnic minorities and the LGBT network. One of the founders of the LGBT network in the Dutch division of the company tells about the establishment of the Dutch LGBT network. When he spoke to a colleague from the USA, he discovered that the company had an LGBT network. After subscribing for the international newsletter of the LGBT network, he was asked by the members of the network in England to start a ‘section’ of the network in the Netherlands also. The members of the English ‘section’ of the network were surprised that the Netherlands is known as a gay-friendly country, but they did not have an LGBT network for the Dutch division. The respondent started to gather all the LGBT employees he knew in the Dutch company and after some meetings with HR, this was the start of the Dutch section of the LGBT network.

“I: Would you say that the network is more top-down implemented or is it an initiative of the employees?

R: The network itself is an initiative of the employees. On the other hand, the policy and organisation is obviously top-down. In the end, we are a big American company, so it is always top-down.”

29

The respondent perceived the implementation as a combination of top-down implementation and implementation on the initiative of the employees. He says that everything in a big American company goes top-down when it comes to policies and rules, but that the initiative to start the LGBT network in the Netherlands and be active in organizing activities came from the employees and their involvement. This corresponds with the organizational context described in the first paragraph of this chapter. The respondents indicated that decisions in the company are taken by the top management and the implementation is very top-down. This is also the case in the policy on diversity networks. The company is open for input from the employees in lower levels of the hierarchy within the frameworks of the policies and decisions made by the top management. The policy on diversity network existed already, this made it easy for the founder to start the network in the Netherlands. A member of the management team of the Netherlands also talks about the establishment of the LGBT network. The previous respondent talked about the establishment from the point of view of the LGBT employees of the company, this in contrast to the member of the management team who approaches the establishment from a more business oriented view.

“[1] So it [the network] starts from a social perspective, [2] then you see that it is sometimes necessary for tenders2 _{[3] and finally people say: no, there really is a business economic}

interest involved, that they need talent, we need all the talent there is.” 3

Respondent 4: man, straight ally member

[1] The manager tells that the company started an LGBT network from the idea of Corporate Social Responsibility in the first place. When other companies started to pay attention to LGBT employees, the company did not want to stay behind. [2] Later it became necessary to pay attention to LGBT employees, because business partners started to require that their suppliers pay attention to diversity and offer their workforce a pleasant working environment. In this stage the LGBT network became necessary to be chosen by clients to do their projects. [3] According to the manager, people finally started to see that not only the social responsibility and the requirements of business partners were a good reason to have LGBT networks, but that this also had economic benefits. He emphasises that it is important for companies these days to attract the most talented people and to develop the talent of your workforce to the fullest. The LGBT network is a way to be seen as a good employer for new employees, especially for LGBT people and this makes it also for the most talented people an attractive choice to choose the company as his or her employer. The member of the management

2 _{Tenders: an offer to supply goods or do a job. When a company is searching for a supplier and get several}

tenders, they will have to choose with which supplier they will do business.

3 _{The respondent counted on his fingers to make clear that he mentioned three separate phases. To make this}

30

team says that he finds it important to support people from minorities in the development of their talents, even if they need a little extra support. The network will help to make LGBT employees feel comfortable in the company and support them in the development of their talents.

The quotes from the founder of the network and the member of the management team both view the establishment of the network from a different side. The founder talks about the establishment from the side of the LGBT employees themselves; how and why they started the network in the Netherlands. The member of the management team on the other hand has a more business oriented view and emphasises the business interests. He mentions the benefits while getting contracts with clients and business partners and the recruitment of the most talented people for their company.

31

4.4 The aims of the LGBT network

In this paragraph I will answer the first sub question: what are the aims of the LGBT network? I will answer this question with help of the interviews with the members of the network, I distinguish the aims the members of the network come up with. The members of the network consist of LGBT employees and straight allies. The aims that can be distinguished are: connecting people, sharing information, supporting each other, exposure from the company to its employees and being an example.

Connect people

The most important aim is to ‘connect people’. Almost all respondents mention this as an aim of the network. These two quotes illustrate this and are representative for what most of the respondents said:

“I think one of the main aims always is to connect people with each other. People, getting to know each other on another level than their own colleagues, because here you also get to know people from other parts of the organisation. This can on the one hand be good for you career to give people an extra boost and on the other hand this can help people a lot to learn from each other’s experiences.”

Respondent 2: woman, straight ally member

“The intention of the network is to find each other, to find support where needed and I think to give greater depth to where you can help each other and how you could develop in the future.”

Respondent 8: woman, LGBT member

According to these respondents the network is an excellent way to get to know people in the company, even if they are not from the same department. When LGBT people connect with each other they are able to share their experiences and learn from each other to deal with different situations, for example when they are discriminated against.

Sharing information

One of the respondents mentions that when you put people of the same group together something happens in the dynamics of the group, people are more likely to share information.

“Put people together, because then you get the dynamics. Even though you are a very diverse company, if you put people from a particular group together, and that is very human, there will be a different atmosphere where people are maybe more likely to share

32

information with each other, but also have a real insight into what it means to work as a woman at [company] or if you are someone from an older generation or moved from another culture to a country for your job or if you are gay or lesbian. So we actually use those networks to gain insight, to know what we need to do for those groups.

Respondent 1: man, LGBT member

According to this respondent, people are more likely to share information about what it means to be gay in the company when they are in a group of LGBT people. The top management of the company can use the information that they share here to improve the work environment for its LGBT employees. The respondent who said this is not only an LGBT member of the network, he is also a contact person between the top management and the LGBT network. He uses the information the members share in the meetings of the networks to make clear to the top management of the company what they can do to ensure that LGBT employees feel comfortable at work and do not have to hide information about their LGBT status.

Supporting each other

Another reason to have an LGBT network is that being open about being gay is still an issue these days in our society. Even in a company where the culture is open towards minorities it is not totally accepted to be open about your sexual orientation. Creating an environment where they can share their experiences and emotions can be an important way to help people in this struggle.

“It is still very challenging for people to come out of the closet. Because how does your supervisor react? How do you colleagues react? And if there is a good network, this is also a safety net for people where you can go and where you can share experiences. Sharing experiences is crucial.”

Respondent 3: woman, straight ally member

This quote is from a respondent that works on the Human Resource Management department of the company. Her function is to take care of the wellbeing of the employees of the company. She has sessions with people that do not feel comfortable in their work environment. This means that she also talks to people that struggle with being LGBT and being open about it at work. She tells that there are still people that struggle with this. They are scared about the reactions they will get and that colleagues will not accept them. The LGBT network can be important in this process. The network is something they can rely on and will support them in coming out as being gay, a ‘social safety net’, as the respondent calls it. She also says that it is important to share similar experiences in situations like this. When they hear that other people had the same struggle, but that the reactions where mainly positive in the end, this will make it easier for them.