Diversity and the Workforce

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Sexual orientation diversity is increasing in the workforce. However, only 21 states and Washington D.C. prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Without federal protection, individuals who do not live in these states could be overlooked for employment or fired for their sexual orientation unless their employer has policies to protect them. Many employers are beginning to understand that being perceived as inclusive will make them more attractive to a larger pool of job applicants. So although the Civil Rights Act does not explicitly provide federal protection to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) employees, more than half of the Fortune 500 companies have corporate policies that protect sexual minorities from discrimination at work and offer domestic-partner benefits.

Unfortunately, the percentage of hate crimes relating to sexual orientation discrimination has increased. Indeed, LGBTQ employees are stigmatized so much that in a recent study, researchers found that straight-identifying participants were more attracted to employers with no job security to offer them compared to gay-friendly employers. In other words, individuals would waive job security to avoid working with sexual minorities. Also, compared to heterosexuals, sexual minorities have higher education levels but still face hiring and treatment discrimination frequently.

LGBTQ employees are often faced with the decision of whether or not to be truthful about their sexual orientation at work for fear of being stigmatized and treated unfairly. The decision to not disclose is sometimes called passing, and for some it involves a great risk of emotional strain that can affect performance. Individuals who pass may distance themselves from coworkers or clients to avoid disclosure about their personal life. This behavior can also result in decreased networking and mentoring opportunities, which over time can limit advancement opportunities. The decision to be transparent about sexual orientation is sometimes called revealing. Just like passing, revealing has its own set of risks including being ostracized, stigmatized, and subjected to other forms of discrimination at work. However, compared to passing, the benefits of building relationships at work and using their identity as a catalyst for tolerance and progressive organizational change may outweigh the risks when LGBTQ employees decide to reveal. The decision to "come out" should be made exclusively by the individual; "outing" someone else as any sexual orientation or gender identity is considered highly inappropriate and hurtful, and may have employment-related consequences.

Research shows that when local or state laws are passed to prevent sexual orientation discrimination, incidents of workplace discrimination decrease. This same effect occurs when firms adopt policies that protect the rights of sexual minority employees. By creating a safe and inclusive work environment for LGBTQ employees, companies can create a culture of tolerance for all employees regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Managing Change

Blind Recruiting

An increasing number of companies are testing a new and innovative way of recruiting. Blind recruiting is a process by which firms remove any identifying information about applicants during the recruitment process. An example of this may include anonymous applications that omit fields requesting information such as an applicant's name or age. Using computer application technology, some companies like Google administer surveys to their anonymous applicants that measure the abilities required for the job before they are considered in the next step of the recruitment process. Alternatively, companies may request that applicants remove identifying information such as names and address from their resumes before applying for positions. As resumes are received, hiring managers can assign a temporary identification number.

Although more companies are using this method of recruiting, the idea is not new for symphony orchestras, many of which have been using blind auditioning since the 1970s. In some instances musicians audition behind screens so they are evaluated only by their music. This process removes bias associated with race and gender because the performer cannot be seen and only heard. A study investigating this practice examined 11 symphony orchestras that varied on the use of blind auditions. Researchers found that blind auditions increased the likelihood that a woman would be hired by between 25 and 46%. A recruitment process like this can help organizations attract more candidates, hire the best talent, increase their workplace diversity, and avoid discrimination liability.

Discussion Questions

Should all companies use blind recruiting in place of traditional recruiting, or are there exceptions that must be considered?
If blind recruiting helps eliminate bias during the recruitment process, then what does that say about social media platforms such as Linked In that are commonly used for recruiting applicants? Will using those platforms expose companies to greater liability compared to using more traditional means of recruiting?
How does blind recruiting help organizations? How may it hinder organizations?