“Why does my sexual identity have to matter?” : how gay employees in the Dutch workplace manage their

“Why does my sexual identity have to matter?”

How gay employees in the Dutch workplace manage their

sexual identity and what influences their sense of inclusion

Name: David Aragon UvAnetID: 10769560 Supervisor: Dr. J.M. Slevin Corporate Communication

Graduate School of Communication University of Amsterdam

Master’s Thesis February 2, 2018

“Why does my sexual identity have to matter?”

How gay employees in the Dutch workplace manage their sexual identity and what influences their sense of inclusion

Abstract

Diversity and inclusion have become prerequisites for organizational success and employee satisfaction. Failing to foster such a diverse and inclusive workplace has repeatedly been related to detrimental effects for minority groups, such as homosexual men. This does not only undermine organizational goals, but also leaves gay employees alienated, anxious, and distressed. However, little research has been conducted on the factors that influence sexual identity management at work and also gay employees’ sense of inclusion in the workplace has not been studied extensively. Also, because a paradox seems to prevail in how Dutch gay employees experience their workplaces, it remains unclear if similar situations occur in the Netherlands as well. This thesis, therefore, aims to investigate how gay employees in the Dutch workplace rely on conversations with colleagues and organizational policies in managing their sexual identity, and how this influences their sense of inclusion. Using qualitative research, 10 employees working across the Netherlands in a variety of occupations described their workplace experiences. Results indicated that gay employees feel most comfortable enacting their sexual identity when disclosure is met with casualness rather than with surprise, and when they are included in humorous conversations, in which it is allowed to talk lightly about homosexuality. Furthermore, concealing sexual identity in the first place does not always have to relate to a feeling of anxiety and alienation, as participants determinedly argue that their professionality should be deemed more important than their homosexual identity. In addition, gay employees can also contribute to inclusion themselves by supporting more openness about homosexuality, and positive discourse with colleagues is experienced more important for inclusion than the existence of formal policies, as these might even have the reverse effect of making gay employees feel like they differ even more from the norm. Lastly, implications for both scholars and practitioners are discussed.

Keywords: sexual identity, workplace sexual identity management, organizational inclusion, gay employees, LGBT-inclusive policies

Preface

First of all, I want to thank all participants for allowing me to come over, at their homes, at their workplaces, virtually or face-to-face, sharing all their experiences, even when we met that day for the first time, or had not seen each other in ages. Without being sentimental, I am sincerely grateful to have chatted away with you, both about my research and on a personal level. Special thanks to my parents for always being proud and curious about my progress, and my boyfriend for being unconditionally supportive, and for mindfully listening to my ideas, doubts, concerns, and excitement.

1 Introduction

Over the past decades, the workplace has become more and more diverse. Current workforces have not just changed in terms of race, ethnicity, and sex, but also the visibility of invisible minorities such as homosexuals has significantly increased (Bell, Özbilgin, Beauregard, & Sürgevil, 2011). As a result, many organizations have embraced inclusive policies that support non-heterosexual employees (Lloren & Parini, 2017), which is in the interest of both the organization and its employees, because fostering an inclusive workplace is argued to be a contribution to “performance, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship, intention to stay, and overall well-being of employees” (Sabharwal, 2014, p. 203). Although benefits for business remain rather unclear, there are scholars that argue that a diverse and inclusive workplace is indeed related to enhanced organizational productivity and increased profits (Ng & Rumens, 2014).

In a country that is argued to be a European leader in tolerance and acceptance of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people, organizations in the Netherlands obviously do not lag behind. According to research by The Netherlands Institute of Social Research (Sociaal en

Cultureel Planbureau, SCP), nine out of ten inhabitants is of opinion that homosexual men

and lesbian women should live the lives they want to live (Kuyper, 2015). Paradoxically, in another report of the SCP, Keuzenkamp, Kooiman, and Van Lisdonk (2012) argue that homosexuals in the Netherlands still experience widespread homo-negativity and question the oftentimes applauded gay-friendliness of the Netherlands. In addition, Tuk (2014) argues that in Dutch organizations, the acceptance of gay people is oftentimes still inadequate, even when formal policies are in place. This also corresponds to the existing literature on sexual orientation disclosure and sexual identity management in the workplace. Despite the existence of inclusive policies, Ng and Rumens (2017) argue that it is not guaranteed that gay people are free of discrimination and harassment in the workplace, which may be less overt, but still harmful.

Failing to foster an inclusive workplace can pose a threat to both organizations and its (gay) employees, as the unfavorable effects of a hostile working environment can lead to a greater sense of anxiety, emotional exhaustion, and social stress (Lewis, Derlega, Griffin, & Krowinski, 2003). Despite the importance of tackling possible destructive channels of communication, little research has focused on – not necessarily if – but how gay men manage their sexual identity in the workplace and which factors influence their sense of inclusion. Also, a vast amount of research being done on sexual identity management in the workplace has been conducted in North America, and little is known about the experience of Dutch gay employees.

Therefore, this thesis aims to heighten the understanding of the feelings, values, and perceptions that underlie and influence the decisions of gay employees whether to disclose or conceal their sexual identity. Subsequently, clear and specific guidance can be provided, both for organizations and its employees, how to take a (more) proactive and aware position in the inclusion of gay personnel, and how inclusive policies can be enacted, enhanced, or even reshaped. Grasping what factors influence gay employees’ perception of an inclusive organizational climate can consequently aid both management and co-workers how to make Dutch workforces and organizational discourse (more) gay-friendly.

2 Theoretical framework

2.1 Sexual orientation and sexual identity

For half a century, defining sexual orientation has been going hand in hand with many hurdles. Distinguishing individuals between heterosexuals and homosexuals, solely based on their sexual affinities for the same or other biological sex, was eventually considered troublesome. Because the complexities of a bisexual identity were overlooked and transgendered and transsexual people were excluded, sexual orientation began to be viewed as multidimensional and constituting of both behavioral and affectional preferences (Ragins, Singh, & Cornwell, 2007). Sexual identity, on the other hand, takes sexual orientation into account, but also constitutes of biological sex, the individual’s sense of being male or female and which social role is adopted. In other words, sexual identity not only describes to which sex one is attracted, but also how an individual identifies oneself.

Whereas sex, race, age, and ethnicity are easily detectable characteristics, sexual identity has frequently been labeled as an invisible social identity (Clair, Beatty, & Maclean, 2005), setting homosexuals “apart from most other marginalized groups” (Ragins et al., 2007, p. 180). Furthermore, Colgan and Rumens (2014) argue that it can be labelled as the most sensitive and least researched area of diversity. Having such an invisible social identity can be burdensome, as the individual must constantly make the decision whether or not to reveal such membership (Chrobot-Mason, Button, & DiClementi, 2001), which is concurrently dependent on one’s ongoing socially constructed understanding “of what is expected and accepted both in terms of whom I am/we are and whom I/we should be” (Wieland, 2010, p. 522). These thought processes are deemed more perplexing for males, as prejudice towards gay men is argued to be more menacing and hostile than towards lesbian women or bisexuals. While females are argued to have more freedom and flexibility in enacting their gender roles, males are obliged by society to conform to the masculine stereotype (Schope & Eliason, 2004). Schope and Eliason (2004) argue that violating these gender roles would infringe notions of status, toughness, and anti-femininity, that are oftentimes imposed to men from an early age.

2.2 Sexual identity in the workplace

Over the past decades, the visibility of LGB people has significantly increased, not only in the public arena, but also within organizations (Anteby & Anderson, 2014). However, the concept of sexual identity has not gained major academic attention, neither has sexual identity been studied excessively in the organizational context (Ng & Rumens, 2017). Over the last decades, the extant body of literature has seen distinct approaches to the organizational studies of sexual minorities. Whereas research from the beginning of the nineteenth century until the

70s predominantly focused on homosexuality as a disorder, research in the subsequent years more focused on the destructive effects of heterosexism and homophobia in the workplace.

In the workplace itself, continued progress has been observed in the recognition of non-heterosexual employees over the last years. Although not all industrial nations have adopted anti-discrimination laws, a vast and ever-increasing amount of organizations have become more accepting of homosexuality and have proactively implemented policies that cultivate an inclusive environment (Day & Greene, 2008; Woods, 2011). Sabharwal (2014) argues that establishing specific inclusion programs in the workplace is truly the crux of contemporary diversity efforts and ethical motivations. The proliferation of inclusive policies for gay employees has led to many organizations prohibiting discrimination, establishing support groups, and offering diversity training on sexual orientation and gender (Smith & Ingram, 2004; Ng & Rumens, 2o17). Such policies have been argued to be beneficial for organizations, not only for its overall profit, but also for improving employees’ job satisfaction, increased job commitment, and a greater willingness to disclose one’s sexual identity (Lloren & Parini, 2017). However, the importance of sexual orientation diversity has been refuted solely to the private sphere for a long time, due to its emotional, intimate, and sexual character (Williams & Giuffre, 2011), and it was not before the 2000s when organizations in Europe started to perceive sexual orientation diversity as “a relevant field of organizational action” (Köllen, 2016, p. 1970).

2.3 Workplace sexual identity management (WSIM)

As argued above, minority groups, such as gay men, continually determine whether to reveal this information in some way to other persons, also in the workplace. Workplace sexual identity management (WSIM), therefore, involves the actions that non-heterosexual employees take to manage information concerning their sexual identity (Lance, Anderson, & Croteau, 2010). WSIM is unequivocally rooted in stigma theory, asserting that “individuals weigh the costs and benefits of disclosing a stigmatized identity as they make choices about whom and what to disclose about their identity” (Reed & Leuty, 2016, p. 989). Although the perceptions of situational variables are deemed essential for WSIM, personal characteristics can also play an important role. Reed and Leuty (2016) argue that, across models, WSIM is argued to be inherent to one’s sexual identity development, with integration reached when the individual has integrated one’s sexual identity into one’s overall identity. When one’s sexual identity has not been fully developed, it is less likely that the individual discloses his sexual identity. Furthermore, an ill-developed sexual identity can also generate higher degrees of internalized heterosexism, which refers to more negative thoughts about personal aspects and lacking identification with the gay community (Reed & Leuty, 2016).

Whereas extent literature differs in how extensive and precise WSIM strategies are described, all researchers agree that WSIM at least constitutes of a passing and a revealing strategy. Passing is referred to “a cultural performance whereby one member of a defined social group masquerades as another in order to enjoy the privileges afforded to the dominant group" (Learry, 1999, p. 85, as cited in Clair et al., 2005), whereas revealing implies the disclosure of one’s invisible social identity, which would otherwise be hidden for colleagues. Because the WSIM process is considered too complex for solely two options (Day & Schoenrade, 1997), many researchers have specified the complicated practice with several other strategies, dependent on contextual and personal situations.

From a communicative point of view, Compton (2016) argues that WSIM is mainly a social interactive process rather than a rigid and inflexible practice. Subsequently, he argues that WSIM can be approached through assessing differing but interrelating frames of communication, including the relational frame and the communal frame.

2.3.1 Relational frame influencing WSIM and inclusion

Discourse with colleagues is deemed decisive for how the workplace climate is perceived. This is referred to as messages in the relational frame (Compton, 2016). Although previous research has approached such discourse from differing angles, with some researchers classifying the concept under workplace climate, whereas other seeing it as a sole concept, consensus has been reached on several areas. First, when interactions with superintendents and colleagues are deemed supportive, gay employees are more likely to disclose their sexual identity (Day & Schoenrade, 1997; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001; Reed & Leuty, 2016). Furthermore, Clair et al. (2005) argue that when non-heterosexual employees feel that they can trust their colleagues and have built a relationship, they feel comfortable in sharing personal information, including clues about their sexual identity. Also, they note that disclosing one’s sexual identity is easier when colleagues are deemed kind-hearted towards such personal differences or when there are other homosexual colleagues employed in the organization who share the same covert difference. Nevertheless, as discussed, disrespectful communication can have harmful consequences for one’s sense of inclusion or dignity (Baker & Lucas, 2017), whether it is of a deliberate or a subtle character.

However, because much research is solely devoted to the decision-making process itself, it remains unclear what kind of messages consequently cultivate or worsen a feeling of inclusion. Furthermore, whereas other researchers encapsulate discourse with colleagues as a sole piece of both assessing the workplace and managing one’s sexual identity, it is deemed essential to place discourse with colleagues as a central concept. Mainly, because respectful (Woods, 2011), positive and open communication (Sabharwal, 2014) are repeatedly

mentioned as being a crucial prerequisite for workplace inclusion. This corresponds to Compton’s (2016) notion, who also argues that discourse should be restored as a core concept, as these inherently communicative resources are the main means through which workplace climate perceptions are negotiated.

2.3.2 Communal frame influencing WSIM and inclusion

The communal frame refers to the construed identities of collectives, based on common characteristics (Compton, 2016; Jung & Hecht, 2004). As organizations have certain identities themselves, they can also influence the way their employees enact their identities. Therefore, messages in the communal frame are deemed equally important for how gay men manage their sexual identity in their workplaces. Previous research broadly referred to organizational structures as determinant for an inclusive workplace where gay employees would feel safe to enact their sexual identity. These structures mostly involve the existence of formal nondiscriminatory and/or inclusive policies. Compton (2016) argues that policies have three communicative functions for organizations. First, policies “have the agency to reaffirm and communicate communal frame organizational identities” (p. 421). Secondly, policies can be communicated to a large body of people, both internally as externally. Lastly, policies have a dominant role in determining the communicative environment. Although there is no consensus on what a policy should consist of, Ozeren (2014) perceives policies as ranging “from explicit written rules to prevent sexual orientation discrimination through diversity training programs that emphasize LGBT concerns to domestic partner benefits offered by companies” (p. 1209, as cited in Lloren & Parini, 2017).

Although a variety of studies found that the presence of formal inclusive policies contributes to a discrimination-free workplace (Lloren & Parini, 2017), other studies question the applauded effects of such policies. Thus, in what ways these channels of communication actually contribute to a strengthened sense of inclusion in gay employees remains vague.

2.3.3 Negative encounters in the relational frame and the communal frame

Although it can be argued that the current situation in the workplace goes along with greater acceptance towards homosexuality and more formal ‘gay-friendly’ organizational policies, it is not guaranteed that mistreatment and harassment against gay employees is eliminated. Giuffre, Dellinger, and Williams (2008) argue that, despite the receding of overt forms of discrimination, gay employees still continue to experience differential treatment, a sense of responsibility to justify their non-heterosexual identity, and stereotypical understandings of homosexuality. Furthermore, stereotyping, gender discrimination, and sexual harassment can

promotion, but can also occur on an interpersonal level in the relational frame (Lloren & Parini, 2017).

Ng and Rumens (2017) argue that subtle forms of harassment, such as stereotyping in the forms of unpleasant questions and/or hurtful jokes and taunts, should be taken seriously. These so-called ‘modern’ forms of harassment are subtler and generally pass off as harmless (Nadal et al., 2011; Platt & Lenzen, 2013). DeSouza, Wesselmann, and Ispas (2017) categorize these forms of harassment under the concept of microaggressions, which involve brief and everyday “verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative slights and insults toward members of oppressed groups” (Nadal, 2008, p. 23, as cited in DeSouza et al., 2017). Though the oftentimes unintended nature of these communication channels, the detrimental impacts for individuals being faced with such harassment should not be underestimated, as they can experience a decreased sense of inclusion and workplace dignity (Ng & Rumens, 2017), a sense of powerlessness and frustration (DeSouza et al., 2017), hindrance of one’s identity development process (Nadal et al., 2011), and a decrease of overall psychological well-being (Priola, Lasio, de Simone, & Serri, 2014). Such minority stress results in an unfavorable and tense social climate, that can subsequently lead to mental health problems (DeSouza et al., 2017).

However, most research on LGB-related workplace harassment has been conducted in the United States, a country that continues to lag behind in the development of anti-discrimination legislation for LGB people. Despite the recent legalization of same-sex marriage in all states, there are no state-level anti discriminatory laws. In addition, regulations that prohibit employment discrimination are non-existing or limited in a vast majority of states (Tilcsik, 2011; Zemsky & Sanlo, 2005). Because such workplace harassment statistics cannot be generalized for every country and the development and even existence of LGB rights differ per country, it is essential to reflect on the situation in the Netherlands, rather than assuming that the same effects would occur in the Dutch workplace.

2.4 Sexual identity in the Netherlands and the Dutch workplace

According to statistics, 5,3% of the male workforce and 6,1% of the female workforce in the Netherlands identify him- and herself, respectively, as non-heterosexual (Kuyper, 2013). When it comes to tolerance towards lesbian women and homosexual men, The Netherlands have repeatedly been portrayed as a country that highly values equal rights and the acceptance of homosexual people (Kuyper, 2015). In terms of nation-wide legislations, the Netherlands can also be considered a front runner, being the first country in the world to open up marriage

for same-sex couples and having discrimination against sexual minorities explicitly prohibited since the 1980s (Adam, 2003).

Paradoxically, both popular sources and research conducted by the SCP underline that lesbians and homosexuals still face widespread homo-negativity (Keuzenkamp et al., 2012). Also, in the Dutch workplace, a paradox seems to prevail. Whereas a variety of studies show that most homosexual men and lesbian women feel accepted, and that overt forms of discrimination or negative treatment at work are scarce, other studies underline that the acceptance of homosexuals in the Dutch workplace still falls short, as this minority group still encounters overt and subtle forms of harassment. Furthermore, more than 40% of gay and lesbian employees fear that they will be treated unpleasantly as soon as they disclose their sexual identity (Keuzenkamp et al., 2012). Van der Klein, de Groot, Duyvendak, and Witteveen (2009) also argue that homosexual men working in the four major cities may experience different treatment than those working in smaller municipalities outside the Randstad conurbation. Specifically, organizations based in the provincial areas may significantly differ in terms of liberalness and religiosity (Van der Klein et al., 2009).

Although we can draw on general statistics from a variety of population studies executed in the Netherlands, little qualitative research has been conducted on how Dutch gay men manage their sexual identity in the workplace and which factors influence their sense of inclusion. Also, due to the prevailing ambiguity of tolerance towards non-heterosexuals in the Netherlands, it is crucial to understand the perceptions of Dutch gay employees in what appears to be an oftentimes contrasting social climate, in order to comprehend how Dutch workplaces can foster a more inclusive environment for gay employees.

2.5 Interrelatedness of the concepts

As discussed, the way gay employees manage their sexual identity in the workplace is affected both by personal motives, but equally important by contextual variables in the workplace. Conversations with colleagues and organizational policies were repeatedly argued to be detrimental in the described process of identity work, though in previous research not always discussed in such a communicative manner. Messages communicated in both the relational frame and the communal frame can affect how gay employees perceive the inclusiveness of their workplaces. However, disclosing or concealing their sexual identity can also influence how employees experience inclusion, and vice versa. When their sense of inclusion is minimal, gay employees are more likely to keep their sexual identity to themselves in specific situation or at all times, whereas they are argued to disclose more easily when they perceive their workplace inclusive for non-heterosexuals.

In order to gain a more clarifying understanding of how the theoretical concepts interrelate, Figure 2.1 provides a visual representation.

Figure 2.1: Conceptual model

Taking the abovementioned concepts into account has led to the following overarching research question:

RQ: “How do gay employees in the Dutch workplace rely on conversations with colleagues and organizational policies in managing their sexual identity, and how does this influence their sense of inclusion?”

3 Methodology

As WSIM is highly personal, and disclosure or concealment can be influenced by a variety of factors, qualitative research is deemed the most suitable method to answer the research question. Due to the little sample, the weakness of qualitative research is that the results cannot be generalized on the population (Flick, 2009). However, the richness and detail of the design will consequently contribute to a more detailed understanding of how and why gay employees conceal or disclose, and what contributes to their sense of inclusion. Qualitative research also allows for more in-depth responses and richly textured experiences and reflections, that cannot be obtained through forced-choice responses in quantitative research (Jackson, Drummond, & Camera, 2007). This, – in turn – would help organizations, in the Netherlands and abroad, in which ways the inclusiveness of gay employees can be handled with more attention, in order for gay employees to feel safe in enacting their sexual identity.

3.1 Participants

The central research problem – how gay employees in the Netherlands manage their sexual identity and what influences their sense of inclusion – applies to every homosexual man in the Dutch workplace, as each of them will face the disclosure dilemma at one point in their career. Therefore, in selecting participants, it was not deemed efficient to only focus on a specific sub-group of non-heterosexual employees, as the research problem concerns all Dutch homosexual men. The decision to focus solely on homosexual men, and not also on lesbian women or bisexuals, relates to arguments made in previous research, in which gay men face more homo-negativity than lesbian women due to violation of less fluid gender roles (Schope & Eliason, 2004).

As mentioned by Van der Klein et al. (2009), gay men may experience different treatment when they are working in the larger cities than in the provinces outside of the Randstad metropolitan area. Therefore, in order to foster a diverse body of participants, it was deemed crucial to not only select participants working in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Utrecht, and The Hague, but also to select individuals who are employed in less highly urbanized areas. The 2016 LGBT-monitor of the SCP accurately outlined these socio-demographic characteristics, showing that 66% lives in (very) highly urbanized municipalities, 16% in moderately dense urban municipalities, and only 18% in minimal- or non-urban areas (Kuyper, 2016).

In line with the research objectives, the requirements for participants are that they are male, that they identify themselves as homosexual, and that they are employed by an organization in the Netherlands. Six homosexuals are interviewed who work in the four largest

Dutch cities, two who work in smaller, but still one of the larger municipalities in the Netherlands, and two who are employed in moderately dense or non-urban municipalities. All ten interviewees are of varying ages, and were employed at organizations in differing sectors. Purposive sampling was used to approach people of which was already known that they met the study criteria (N=7). These people were approached via phone or social media channels. In addition, snowball sampling was succeeded both through word of mouth (N=2) and through an appeal on the business- and employment-oriented social network service LinkedIn (N=1). As the anonymity of the interviewees should be guaranteed and maintained throughout the research (Flick, 2009), all the names used in this research are pseudonyms. This is emphasized prior to the recording of the interview. The following table provides a more detailed overview.

Table 3.1: Overview of all participants and characteristics of interest

Participant Age Out at work?

Place of employment

Sector Company

size Daan A. 22 Yes Very highly

urbanized

Law 500-1,000

Bram B. 35 Yes Highly

urbanized

Public administration 500-1,000

Sem C. 24 Yes Very highly

urbanized

Finance

1,000-5,000 Lucas D. 38 Yes Not

urbanized

Public administration 50-200 Luuk E. 24 Yes Very highly

urbanized

Entertainment 11-50 Thijs F. 29 Yes Moderately

urbanized

Public administration 1,000-5,000 Ruben G. 25 Yes Very highly

urbanized

Sales 11-50

Lars H. 27 Yes Very highly urbanized

Marketing and communication

11-50

Max I. 28 Yes Minimally

urbanized

Education 11-50

Julian J. 23 Yes Very highly urbanized

Marketing and communication

11-50

3.2 Data collection

In order to delve deeply into social and private phenomena, semi-structured interviews were used, which are deemed highly suitable for providing an intimate sense of individuals and their social worlds (Hermanowicz, 2002). As DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree (2006) emphasize the need for a safe and comfortable environment for the interviewee, participants were asked which location suited them best. Accordingly, interviews were held at home (N=4), the participant’s workplace (N=2), a nearby coffee house (N=2), or via Skype (N=2).

With the aid of a predetermined yet flexible interview guide (see Appendix A), the participant is asked to tell more about the management of his sexual identity and what factors influence his sense of inclusion. The interview is divided into four sections, starting with more general questions about their work and personal situation, followed by more sensitive questions about one’s decision to disclose or conceal one’s sexual identity, possible WSIM strategies, negative encounters, and the importance of workplace policies. Asking and subdividing these questions allows for a more structured interview, that also corresponds to the theoretical framework. Because sexual identity is argued to be the most sensitive minority group to research (Colgan & Rumens, 2014), it is deemed crucial to build rapport prior to the interview, allowing participants to ask questions about the motives of the research. Furthermore, questions are asked in a funnel shape (Kvale, 2007), starting with more general questions as “How would you describe yourself?” and “How is the atmosphere at work?”, followed by more precise questions as “Were you scared about your co-workers’ reactions?” and “Does the lack of inclusive policies make you feel less included?”. All interviews were – with the consent of the interviewee – recorded and subsequently transcribed, with the average interview lasting 39:07 minutes, ranging from 24:12 minutes (shortest) to 61:34 minutes (longest). Passages that contained their name, names of spouses, the organization where they are working or where they used to work, and that could reveal the participant’s identity, were marked black to safeguard their privacy.

3.3 Data analysis

115 pages of transcribed data were analyzed (see Appendix B) with the aid of the computer program ATLAS.ti. To gain a better understanding of the text, the approach of Strauss and Corbin was used, in which units of meaning were first clarified through open coding (Flick, 2014). For example, the passage in which a participant emphasizes his exemplary function for colleagues, the open code “role model for colleagues” was added. This resulted in a vast amount of codes (see Appendix C). At the same time, categories were roughly made, based on encountered passages of interest. In between transcribing new text, already highlighted

passages were included in categories, such as “stereotyping, positive”, “stereotyping, negative”, and “effect disclosure”. In the end, open codes and categories were being reconsidered, reshaped or deleted.

4 Results

4.1 The role of conversations with colleagues in fostering an inclusive workplace 4.1.1 The role of coming out to colleagues in fostering an inclusive workplace

In all cases, participants were open about their homosexual identity and stressed the importance of being open, because they feel that it is an inherent part of their personal identity. When asked which costs of concealment they would find most burdensome, participants brought in that they would feel alienated from other colleagues, as they could not talk openly about their private lives and that they would feel that they repudiate their personal values. Therefore, all participants reported a conscious or unconscious sense of relief and satisfaction after the disclosure of their sexual identity. Participants said that openness about their homosexual identity made their workplace environment more pleasant and conversations with colleagues easier and less superficial. Colleagues reacted positively, mostly as if it was the most normal thing in the world, to the participants’ contentment, with no colleagues responding in a surprised or in an exaggerating manner. It was this specific element participants found most important when discussing their sense of inclusion. Bram, 35, who is a strategic adviser at a highly urbanized municipality, sees the act of ‘coming out’ even as bizarre and told that he felt especially at ease because neither he nor the municipality he works for are concerned with his homosexual identity:

“I consider the organization where I am working as gay-friendly, mostly because [my homosexual identity] was not an issue at all. That is the entire thing with sexual identity. Non-heterosexuals have a sexual identity, whereas Non-heterosexuals […] they are not occupied with it, really. They are just heterosexual, and that is that, they do not have to think about it. And what I experience at work is that I do not have to be aware of my homosexual identity. That makes me feel that it is fully accepted and that being gay is not something exceptional”

Due to this casualness, participants did not experience openness about their homosexual identity as a hinder, that required predetermined strategies or an enduring process of weighing costs and benefits before passing or revealing (Clair et al., 2005), but more as a personal fact that has to be shared informally at some point in their career.

However, this easiness experienced by participants does not necessarily imply that participants feel the urge to disclose immediately, nor that they feel burdened or anxious when keeping their sexual identity to themselves in the beginning. Whereas some emphasize the primarily private character of one’s sexual identity that should not be pushed or cheered by colleagues, others feel that professionality should come first. Luuk, 24, who works as a sales

agent in the entertainment industry, deliberately postponed disclosure about his homosexual identity, because he felt that other features mattered more than his same-sex romantic preferences:

“[Disclosing my homosexual identity] was not the first thing that I did, and it is also not something that is highlighted on my resume or has to come forward in my job interview, in my opinion. Just respect me for my capabilities, in the first place, and then for who I am. So, I first showed them what I was worth and what I was capable of”

Only one case demonstrates that personal characteristics can be a hinder when managing sexual identity. Daan, 22, who now works for a large tax consultancy company in the Randstad, felt included in his workplace and already told some colleagues about his homosexual identity, but articulated his desire to be more confident about his sexual identity. Subsequently, he explained why sexual identity disclosure may still be a personal obstacle for him:

“I’d rather not be associated with a gay stereotype. It is not that I am trying very hard, but I do feel that I am exhibiting heterosexual behavior. So, if colleagues would ask me if I am into guys, I would not necessarily mind the question, but I would wonder why they would ask. Do I act feminine, then? I’d just rather have people not noticing that I am homosexual”

Because Daan does not want to be related to a (stereotyped) gay community, this corresponds to comments by Reed and Leuty (2016), who assign such feelings to internal heterosexism, which can indeed hamper WSIM.

In addition, even in a country that is argued to be progressive and tolerant, gay employees may still find themselves in conversations with co-workers that are strictly religious or less liberal. Lucas, 38, who works for a non-urban municipality in the Bible Belt, mentioned that he actively avoids conversations about his sexual identity with certain colleagues, because it would make them feel highly uncomfortable. Although he himself is openly homosexual in the workplace, he describes himself as resilient, and he does not necessarily feel less included because of his homosexual identity, his colleague remains closeted after colleagues openly expressed their disgust about homosexuality.

“My colleague fears to disclose that he is married to a man. Colleagues had said things that made him feel really uneasy. Primarily stemming from their religious affiliation. That it was a disease, such things”.

4.1.2 The role of stereotype-based humor in fostering an inclusive workplace

Overt forms of discrimination were very scarce in the workplaces of participants. Participants described that stereotyping did prevail in the workplace and jokes of such nature were oftentimes part of the overall workplace climate, which are oftentimes argued to be subtle forms of discrimination. Strikingly, these stereotype-based jokes were mostly conceived by participants as funny and acceptable rather than discriminatory, because participants were aware of the sender, the context, and the well-intended nature of the comment. This is in contrast with extent literature on microaggression, which underline that stereotype-based humor would leave the recipient hurt, frustrated, angry or powerless (DeSouza et al., 2017). On the contrary, participants would not describe these jokes as microaggressions, also because many reported that they make a lot of jokes themselves as well, and that the nature of these jokes are well-meant and teasing, rather than derogatory or hostile. Participating in such conversations actually led to a feeling of fitting in and total acceptance, making participants feeling very comfortable to enact their homosexual identity. For Daan, jokes served as a social glue:

“From the day that I started at the organization, I was involved in all the joking and it felt like I was working there for so long. And it was only my first day. I really liked that, because they included me so quickly, like I was one of them. The workplace climate really allowed for such humor as well”

However, some agreed that stereotype-based jokes should always be an ironic reference to reality, and not a way to portray others in a way that is flawed or improper. Despite their frequently unintended nature, participants reported some cases that, in the end, were deemed inappropriate. Lars, 27, who works at a public relations agency in the Randstad and attended the annual Sinterklaas party at the office, was written a poem that crossed the line:

“When I just became single, someone wrote a Sinterklaas-poem, in which I was portrayed as someone who does not know the name of the person he wakes up to the next morning. And I literally had one date in six months’ time. [I said:] “Sorry, but I find this really inappropriate. I am portrayed as a slut who sleeps with everyone. In front of all the other colleagues. Where is this coming from?” [To which his colleague replied:] “Well, but it is funny, right?”. No, I did not think that was funny”

Ruben, 25, who previously worked at a large cloud computing company, felt that his manager treated a homosexual employee more as an object than as a human being:

“My manager once went to an off-site in Hawaii, where the CEO was also present. And this CEO has a personal assistant who is fairly gay, and then she said: “Oh, that was so much fun, and then you see [the personal assistant] walking with his little purse, so funny, so funny”. That was quite annoying, not all gays are like that. She treated him like he was a little clown […] it is not that she is not positive about him, but she does it in a way, like […] it is not a zoo, you know” Strikingly, both participants did not feel powerless, hurt, or alienated, nor did it negatively impact their co-working, as oftentimes argued to be the results of such microaggression channels of communication. In contrast, they proactively and relentlessly put their colleagues in their place, with some responding with a similar joke or comment, and others calling their colleagues to account for their conduct. Luuk told his colleague that a stereotyped comment was an example of destructive communication:

“Last year, when we went on a staff outing, our office manager was responsible for our room division and he/she quickly stated: “Oh, you two can share a room, because, well, you both are gay” […] then I really said that I found it quite lousy and short-sighted”

Similar to Lars and Ruben, Luuk did not feel a decreased sense of inclusion, but felt that he had to point out such comments, in order to make clear what comments were considered funny and acceptable and what comments were not.

4.1.3 The role of exemplary functions in fostering an inclusive workplace

Remarkably, some participants felt that disclosing their homosexual identity could also serve as an exemplary function, that also encourages other homosexual colleagues to talk about their sexual identity and that fosters an inclusive workplace climate. Luuk pointed out that his new colleague, who he ran into in a gay bar that same week, felt more at ease telling about this experience at work than to explicitly come out without any clear occasion. Also, Bram pointed out that having another homosexual colleague can contribute to an increased sense of security and that his openness played an exemplary role for other non-heterosexual colleagues:

“Two weeks ago, the municipality where I work arranged a dinner for a colleague who have worked there for 25 years. I was invited, so was a colleague of mine who is also gay. He said: “Oh! My boyfriend is coming as well, you will totally like each other”, and I really liked that. It is nice that people come to me and think “oh, he is gay as well, so it is safe to talk about it”. They maybe do not talk that openly about that with everyone”

Furthermore, Max, 28, who is a high school teacher in a moderately urban municipality in the province of Zeeland, told he was not only a role model for his colleagues, but also for his pupils,

with whom he works and talks each day. Not only because he fosters an environment where both his colleagues and his pupils can talk openly about their sexual identity, but also because he feels that he can teach them something that is sometimes being overlooked:

“I see myself as a role model, mostly for my pupils. To teach them about stereotyping. Which does not mean that all these stereotypes are lousy or that I would contend that being more feminine is wrong, but that it is not limited [to those stereotypes]”

Also, Lucas felt that being the only one who dares to talk about his homosexual identity in a workplace climate that is strictly religious and orthodox, would give co-workers a little insight that homosexuals are also just human beings.

4.2 The role of organizational policies in fostering an inclusive workplace

None of the participants were aware of any inclusive (diversity) policies targeting sexual minorities at the organization where they were working and did not rely on the presence of such policies when deciding to disclose or reveal their homosexual identity. Daan and Sam, who both work for two larger corporate firms, indicated that there were formal policies in place, but that they were mostly intended to tackle gender distribution. However, Sem, 24, who currently works as a Finance Trainee at a Dutch retail bank, said that the organization does not need inclusive policies for non-heterosexual employees, as the organizational climate is in the end the most important aspect:

“You can create a policy and that is all fine, but in the end, the employees have to implement this inclusive climate […] I really wonder to what extant you can change the way people treat certain things with a formally written policy”

Most of the other interviewees do not seem to mind the absence of formal policies as well. On the contrary, the majority of participants said they would prefer that the organization does not emphasize their best interest in sexual identity diversity too much. Daan underlined that the emphasis on inclusive initiatives would treat homosexual identity as even more differing from the norm. Other participants also agree, feeling that inclusivity mostly stems from how employees interact and communicate with each other, and that policies should be followed informally rather than having them written black-on-white.

Furthermore, the presence of ‘tangible’ inclusive initiatives, such as an internal community for non-heterosexual employees, does not necessarily mean that gay employees are always motivated to participate, nor does it mean that such initiatives are always a

prerequisite for a feeling of inclusion. Bram mentioned that, at his former employer, there was a community for non-heterosexual employees, but he did not feel the urge to join this network: “When I worked at that organization, I was in touch with a colleague who joined the LGBT-network at that organization. At one point, she said to someone within that LGBT-network: “Oh, you should contact Bram, because that would be so much fun”, and that was the moment when I realized I liked meeting up with them one time or maybe drop in once, but I did not want to be active in that network […] I just did not have to urge to join them”

In contrast to the presence of diversity initiatives that Bram mentioned, Lucas noted that, in the first place, he would not describe the organizational identity of the municipality as gay-friendly, due to its strictly religious and orthodox character. However, Lucas felt that being hired by such a municipality was already a big step towards a more inclusive and supportive workplace climate, despite the fact that the municipality does not explicitly propagate diversity and inclusion. This lack of clear statements about being inclusive for non-heterosexuals was definitely not deemed regrettable. He even feels that too much emphasis on diversity, which does not match with the municipality’s identity, might backfire, making him even more grateful for the opportunities he was able to take in the organization so far:

“I really approve organizations that hoist rainbow flags on Coming Out Day, absolutely, but it has to match with the organization’s identity. Sometimes, you need a proverbial crowbar to open up new doors. In this organization, you really just have to rely on subtlety, whether it is about LGBT people or other delicate subjects”

Lars also reported subtle, but not less appreciated ways of support. Although the public relations agency he works for does not have formal policies, due to the small size of the organization, he was completely backed up by management when he was discriminated by one of the clients he was about to work for. Also, Lars was encouraged by the agency to devote a lot of time on a project for the Amsterdam Pride, even while the campaign was low-paid.

Max was the only participant who would appreciate more formal and explicit emphasis on diversity and inclusivity, especially in the education sector. He clearly referred to the recently repealed law regarding the ‘single fact construction’ (Enkele feitconstructie) to emphasize that organizational diversity and inclusivity in the education sector had, and still has, a long way to go. He feels that, now that homosexuals cannot be excluded anymore from educational institutions based on religious principles, schools can do more to underline the importance of sexual diversity. Teaching material concerning homosexuality was mentioned as a way to not only make pupils, but also colleagues more aware of the theme, as well as Spirit Day or Coming Out Day as excellent opportunities to raise more awareness.

5 Discussion and conclusion

The importance of fostering an inclusive workplace has increasingly gained attention from both academics as practitioners, and failing to do so may not only leave gay employees with a vast amount of negative emotional states, among all feelings of anxiety, distress, and alienation, but may also undermine organizational objectives, due to increased chances of turnovers and decreased organizational productivity. Because uncertainties remained in what contributes to a sense of inclusion for gay employees in the Netherlands, this study investigated how gay employees in the Dutch workplace manage their sexual identity and what influences their sense of inclusion. The research question specifically asked how both conversations with colleagues and the presence of organizational policies influence WSIM and a sense of inclusion.

Based on the findings, it can be argued that discourse with colleagues was considered most essential, both for WSIM as for feeling included in the workplace. However, in the majority of cases, participants were not excessively occupied with their disclosure, neither were their colleagues. In almost all cases, conversations in which participants were open about their sexual identity ran very smoothly, casual and unforced, comforting participants with the feeling that they do not differ from the norm. Practitioners, and co-workers in particular, should therefore take into account that treating homosexual identity as something non-deviant and even irrelevant contributes to a heightened sense of inclusion, rather than comments of surprise and excessive curiosity. For future research, it would be interesting to see if gay men working in sectors with many low-skilled co-workers experience the same easiness, as the participants in this research were all highly educated. The same accounts for other sexual minorities, such as lesbian women and bisexuals, that were not included in this study.

Secondly, although all participants stressed the importance of openness about their sexual identity, this did not necessarily mean that disclosure was the highest goal that had to be attained in the quickest manner possible. On the contrary, some participants reported that, in the end, sexual identity disclosure is still a personal decision, that their sexual identity should be independent of their professional capabilities, and that they do not have a responsibility to disclose, just because their sexual identity differs from the majority. Whereas concealing is mostly approached as a burdening cost that involves active avoidance and hampers the disclosure dilemma (Clair et al., 2005), these findings indicate that these motives can also be a mark of self-esteem. Future scholars could approach disclosure of one’s sexual identity not solely as something difficult that is always in need of pre-determined and deliberate strategies, neither does concealment of one’s sexual identity always have to be treated as something oppressive or inherent to a lack of self-confidence.

Furthermore, another theme that came forward was the importance of role models. Although participants mentioned that they did not rely on other non-heterosexual employees in managing their sexual identity, they did feel that they themselves had an exemplary function for others in the organization, ranging from a protective role for other homosexual employees to making colleagues opening their eyes for diversity. This finding implies that for an inclusive workplace, gay employees do not solely have to rely on their colleagues and the organization. Organizational scholars could research how minorities in the workplace can make meaningful contributions to more inclusion themselves, whereas practitioners could approach gay employees for more input on how to approach future inclusion efforts.

In addition, the vast majority of participants reported that stereotype-based humor is common in the workplace, and that being involved in such humorous conversations facilitate openness and casualness about sexual identity and increases participants’ sense of fitting in. However, previous scholarship mainly regards jokes targeted at gay employees unquestionably as discriminatory, arguing that such microaggressions have detrimental and alienating effects for gay employees (Priola et al., 2014; Chrobot-Mason et al., 2001; Platt & Lenzen, 2013). However, perceiving such humor solely as hostile, homophobic, and offensive would offset the vast majority of cases, in which humor has indeed a positive influence on WSIM and a more inclusive workplace. Nevertheless, as Lars’s and Ruben’s comments demonstrate, practitioners should be well-aware of the context, as findings also show that stereotype-based humor is only deemed acceptable when it is well-intended, reciprocal, used with close colleagues, and when stereotyping is not used a means to derogate or to convey negative images of someone. Furthermore, future scholars should be cautious not to devote exclusive focus on discriminatory and malicious jokes, but also consider the binding strength of well-intentioned jokes, whether they are stereotype-based or not.

In terms of formal organizational policies, none of the participants reported the existence of organizational policies fostering the inclusion of non-heterosexual employees. However, this did not mean that participants felt uncertain about enacting their sexual identities, neither did they deem the presence of such policies absolutely necessary for an inclusive workplace. Participants reported that they deemed practice more important than formally written inclusive policies, because such policies should always be “lived” by employees. If inclusive initiatives were implemented, participants agreed that it gives a positive signal, both internally as externally. However, this does not necessarily attract all non-heterosexual employees, as this is again a highly personal decision. Also, too much emphasis on such inclusive initiatives would even increase their sense of discomfort, as it would make them feel even more like outsiders that require special attention. Practitioners should keep in mind to be conscious of their workplace climate at all times and, if formal policies are in place, to be cautious not to deem the sole presence of formal policies or national anti-discrimination

laws as sufficient, but mostly how these policies work out in practice, without excessively emphasizing the minority status of gay employees. Focusing too much on policies rather than practice would make inclusion not a means to an end, but an end itself. Or as Julian, 23, who works in the communication and campaign team of a Dutch political party, captured it so nicely: “Whereas diversity is oftentimes a fact, inclusion remains a choice”.

List of references

Adam, B. D. (2003). The Defense of Marriage Act and American exceptionalism: The “gay marriage" panic in the United States. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 12(2), 259-276.

Anteby, M., & Anderson, C. (2014). The shifting landscape of LGBT organizational research.

Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 3-25.

Baker, S. J., & Lucas, K. (2017). Is it safe to bring myself to work? Understanding LGBTQ experiences of workplace dignity. Canadian Journal of Administrative

Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 34(2), 133-148.

Bell, M. P., Özbilgin, M. F., Beauregard, T. A., & Sürgevil, O. (2011). Voice, silence, and diversity in 21st century organizations: Strategies for inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees. Human Resource Management, 50(1), 131-146. Chrobot-Mason, D., Button, S. B., & DiClementi, J. D. (2001). Sexual identity management strategies: An exploration of antecedents and consequences. Sex roles, 45(5-6), 321- 336.

Clair, J. A., Beatty, J. E., & MacLean, T. L. (2005). Out of sight but not out of mind: Managing invisible social identities in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 78-95.

Colgan, F., & Rumens, N. (2014). Sexual orientation at work: Contemporary issues and

perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.

Compton, C. A. (2016). Managing mixed messages: Sexual identity management in a changing US workplace. Management Communication Quarterly, 30(4), 415-440.

Day, N. E., & Greene, P. G. (2008). A case for sexual orientation diversity management in small and large organizations. Human Resource Management, 47(3), 637-654. Day, N. E., & Schoenrade, P. (1997). Staying in the closet versus coming out: Relationships

between communication about sexual orientation and work attitudes. Personnel

Psychology, 50(1), 147-163.

DeSouza, E. R., Wesselmann, E. D., & Ispas, D. (2017). Workplace Discrimination against Sexual Minorities: Subtle and not-so-subtle. Canadian Journal of Administrative

Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 34(2), 121-132.

DiCicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical

education, 40(4), 314-321.

Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Giuffre, P., Dellinger, K., & Williams, C. L. (2008). “No retribution for being gay?”: Inequality in gay-friendly workplaces. Sociological Spectrum, 28(3), 254-277.

Hermanowicz, J. C. (2002). The great interview: 25 strategies for studying people in bed. Qualitative sociology, 25(4), 479-499.

Jackson, R. L., Drummond, D. K., & Camara, S. (2007). What is qualitative research? Qualitative research reports in communication, 8(1), 21-28.


Jung, E., & Hecht, M. L. (2004). Elaborating the communication theory of identity: Identity gaps and communication outcomes. Communication quarterly, 52(3), 265-283. Keuzenkamp, S., Kooiman, N., & van Lisdonk, J. (2012). Niet te ver uit de kast. The Hague,

the Netherlands: Het Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau.

van der Klein, M., Tan, S., de Groot, I., Duyvendak, J. W., Witteveen, D., & Braam, H. (2009).

Discriminatie is het woord niet. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Verwey-Jonker Instituut.

Köllen, T. (2016). Lessening the difference is more–the relationship between diversity management and the perceived organizational climate for gay men and lesbians. The

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(17), 1967-1996.

Kuyper, L. (2013). Seksuele oriëntatie en werk. Ervaringen van lesbische, homoseksuele,

biseksuele en heteroseksuele werknemers. The Hague, the Netherlands: Sociaal en

Cultureel Planbureau.

Kuyper, L. (2015). Wel trouwen, niet zoenen. De houding van de Nederlandse bevolking

tegenover lesbische, homoseksuele, biseksuele en transgender personen 2015. The

Hague, the Netherlands: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.

Kuyper, L. (2016). LHBT-monitor 2016. Opvattingen over en ervaringen van lesbische,

homoseksuele, biseksuele en transgender personen. The Hague, the Netherlands:

Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.

Kvale, S. (2007). Doing interviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lance, T. S., Anderson, M. Z., & Croteau, J. M. (2010). Improving measurement of workplace sexual identity management. The career development Quarterly, 59(1), 19-26.

Lewis, R. J., Derlega, V. J., Griffin, J. L., & Krowinski, A. C. (2003). Stressors for gay men and lesbians: Life stress, gay-related stress, stigma consciousness, and depressive symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 22(6), 716-729.

Lloren, A., & Parini, L. (2017). How LGBT-supportive workplace policies shape the experience of lesbian, gay men, and bisexual employees. Sexuality Research and Social

Policy, 14(3), 289-299.

Nadal, K. L., Issa, M. A., Leon, J., Meterko, V., Wideman, M., & Wong, Y. (2011). Sexual orientation microaggressions: “Death by a thousand cuts” for lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Journal of LGBT Youth, 8(3), 234-259.

Ng, E. S., & Rumens, N. (2017). Diversity and inclusion for LGBT workers: Current issues and new horizons for research. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue

Platt, L. F., & Lenzen, A. L. (2013). Sexual orientation microaggressions and the experience of sexual minorities. Journal of Homosexuality, 60(7), 1011-1034.

Priola, V., Lasio, D., De Simone, S., & Serri, F. (2014). The sound of silence. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender discrimination in ‘inclusive organizations’. British Journal

of Management, 25(3), 488-502.

Ragins, B. R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2001). Pink triangles: antecedents and consequences of perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees. Journal of

applied psychology, 86(6), 1244-1261.

Ragins, B. R., Singh, R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2007). Making the invisible visible: fear and disclosure of sexual orientation at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1103-1118.

Reed, L., & Leuty, M. E. (2016). The role of individual differences and situational variables in the use of workplace sexual identity management strategies. Journal of

Homosexuality, 63(7), 985-1017.

Sabharwal, M. (2014). Is diversity management sufficient? Organizational inclusion to further performance. Public Personnel Management, 43(2), 197-217.

Schope, R. D., & Eliason, M. J. (2004). Sissies and tomboys: Gender role behaviors and homophobia. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 16(2), 73-97.

Smith, N. G., & Ingram, K. M. (2004). Workplace Heterosexism and Adjustment Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Individuals: The Role of Unsupportive Social Interactions. Journal of counseling psychology, 51(1), 57-67.

Tilcsik, A. (2011). Pride and prejudice: Employment discrimination against openly gay men in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 117(2), 586-626.

Tuk, Y. (2014, Oct. 11). Homo's en lesbiennes slecht af op Nederlandse werkvloer. De

Volkskrant. Retrieved from: http://www.devolkskrant.nl.

Wieland, S. M. (2010). Ideal selves as resources for the situated practice of identity. Management Communication Quarterly, 24(4), 503-528.

Williams, C., & Giuffre, P. (2011). From organizational sexuality to queer organizations: Research on homosexuality and the workplace. Sociology Compass, 5(7), 551-563. Woods, S. (2011). Thinking about LGBT diversity in the workplace. Buffalo, NY: Henderson

Woods, LLC.

Zemsky, B., & Sanlo, R. L. (2005). Do policies matter? New Directions for Student

Appendix A – Interview guide

- SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE –

- Dankwoord

- Scriptie over seksuele identiteit op de Nederlandse werkvloer - Ben je uit de kast op werk?

- Verschil seksuele geaardheid en seksuele identiteit

- Werkwijze: Ik zal je straks een aantal vragen gaan stellen, waar je vervolgens vrijuit over kunt vertellen. [Vragen over opname]

- Dit interview wordt uitsluitend gebruikt voor m’n masterscriptie. Het interview is volledig anoniem, er wordt een pseudoniem gebruikt en je eigen naam zal dus niet genoemd worden. Daarnaast zal er uit de scriptie niet te herleiden zijn bij welke organisatie je werkzaam bent.

- Heb je nog vragen voordat we beginnen?

1. Persoonlijk, algemeen

1.1 Hoe zou je jezelf in een paar woorden omschrijven?

1.2 Ben je open over je seksualiteit naar je vrienden en familie? 1.2.1 Ben je daar comfortabel mee? Makkelijke coming-out? 1.3 Hoe denk jij over homo-tolerantie in Nederland?

1.3.1 Voel je dat je jezelf kan zijn?

1.3.1.1 Zo ja, welke factoren dragen bij aan dat jij jezelf kan zijn? 1.3.1.2 Zo nee, welke factoren belemmeren dat jij jezelf kan zijn? 2. Werk, algemeen

2.1 Wat doe je voor werk? En hoelang werk je al bij die organisatie? Heb je het naar je zin?

2.2 Hoe zou jij je werkomgeving beschrijven? Hoe is de sfeer? Voel jij je gerespecteerd?

2.2.1 Wat versta jij onder een ‘veilige’ werkomgeving? Is jouw werkomgeving veilig voor iedereen?

2.2.2 Versta jij hetzelfde onder een ‘homovriendelijke’ werkomgeving? 2.3 Waarom vind je het wel of niet belangrijk om op de werkvloer uit te komen

3. Gesprekken met collega’s - Coming-out, management van seksuele identiteit 3.1 Hoelang duurde het voordat je het als eerst tegen iemand vertelde?

3.1.1 Hebben ze het weleens aan je geprobeerd te vragen? 3.2 Aan wie vertelde je het als eerst? Wat gaf de doorslag?

3.2.1 Aan wie heb je het (nog) niet verteld? Wat speelde daarin mee? 3.3 Was je bang hoe je collega’s zouden reageren op je coming-out? 3.4 Hoe werd er gereageerd op je coming-out?

3.4.1 Gingen je collega’s ervanuit dat je op vrouwen viel? Vroegen ze weleens naar je ‘vriendin’?

3.5 Hoe voelde je je na je coming-out?

3.6 Voelde je je geroepen om ook andere collega’s te vertellen over je seksuele identiteit?

3.6.1 Deed je dat op een andere manier? Zo ja, waarom? Zo nee, kreeg je dezelfde reacties?

3.6.2 Heb je het ooit bewust voor je zelf gehouden bij bepaalde collega’s? Waarom?

3.7 Heb je het idee dat je lekkerder in je vel zit na je coming-out? 3.7.1 Is de relatie met je collega’s verbeterd? Hoe?

3.7.2 Hoe zou je je nu gevoeld hebben als je niet uit de kast was gekomen? 3.8 Wat kunnen collega’s doen om de coming-out van homoseksuele werknemers

te stimuleren?

4. Gesprekken met collega’s - Vervelende situaties op de werkvloer

4.1 Vroegen collega’s weleens irritante dingen? Zo ja, kan je een voorbeeld geven? 4.2 Maken je collega’s weleens grappen over (jouw) seksualiteit? Zo ja, kan je een

voorbeeld geven?

4.2.1 Vind je dat die grapjes moeten kunnen? Kan je er zelf ook om lachen? 4.3 Heb je het idee dat je soms anders behandeld bent en/of wordt? Hoe?

4.3.1 Krijg je het idee dat je onderdeel bent van een minderheid?

4.4 Heb je ooit te maken gehad met ongemakkelijke situatie? Zo ja, kan je een voorbeeld geven?

4.4.1 Heeft iemand ooit eens een opmerking gemaakt waarvan je dacht: “Hm, dit kan eigenlijk niet heel erg door de beugel”?

4.5 Gedraag je of zou je je anders gedragen als je met zulke situaties te maken krijgt?

4.5.1 Kan je me vertellen wanneer je voor het laatst voelde dat je niet jezelf kan zijn?

5. Organisatie en beleid

5.1 Hoe zet de organisatie waar je werkzaam bent zich actief in om gelijke behandeling te bevorderen op de werkvloer?

5.2 Wordt er bepaald (diversiteits/inclusief) beleid gevoerd die toegespitst zijn op homoseksuelen en andere seksuele minderheden?

5.2.1 Zo ja, vind je dat belangrijk aan een organisatie? Hoe wordt het gecommuniceerd?

5.2.2 Zo nee, vind je dat belangrijk aan een organisatie?

5.3 Is specifiek (diversiteits/inclusief) beleid nodig in een land als Nederland, waar men vaak zegt tolerant en vooruitstrevend te zijn?

5.4 Heb je het idee dat homo’s elders in Nederland andere situaties ervaren bij het managen van hun seksuele identiteit?

5.5 Wat kunnen organisaties doen om de coming-out van homoseksuele werknemers te stimuleren?

5.5.1 Wat kan jouw organisatie (beter) doen voor de inclusie van homoseksuele werknemers?

Appendix B – Interview transcripts Geïnterviewde: Daan A.

Datum: 22 november 2017

Duur (minuten): 61:34 David:

Hoe zou jij jezelf omschrijven? Daan:

Even nadenken. Hoe ik mezelf zou omschrijven. [...] Oprecht, sociaal, wel een beetje introvert. Stel ik zou naar een feestje gaan, dan zou ik niet meteen [...] ik kijk altijd de kat uit de boom als ik in een groep word gezet, als ik weet, dit zijn de mensen waarmee ik zit, dan kan ik daar beter op reageren. Verder, wel weer open als in, ik schaam me niet voor wie ik ben, open naar mensen toe.

David:

Dus, daar maak ik wel op uit dat je open bent over je seksualiteit naar familie en vrienden? Daan:

Ja David:

Voel je je daar comfortabel bij? Daan:

Ja, zeker. David:

Je coming out? Ging dat soepel? Daan:

Op zich ja, wel vond ik wel. M'n ouders reageerden allebei positief, m’n vrienden wisten het al wel. Op de middelbare school was ik nog niet voor iedereen uit de kast en toen ik naar de universiteit ging, toen [...] toen was het gewoon zo. Er was geen specifiek moment om het te doen. Bij m'n huisgenoten wel, voor hen was het wel onduidelijk omdat ik het nog nooit echt had gezegd zeg maar. Dat ze wel op een gegeven moment vroegen van, hoe zit het nou? Bij m'n ouders ging dat allemaal prima.

David:

Hoe oud was je toen? Daan:

Achttien. David:

Je zat er voor die tijd wel al een beetje mee? Daan:

Op m'n zestiende wist ik het wel zeker. David: