Handbook on Sexual Violence (89 page)

experience of LGBs, social prejudices and heterosexist norms in the wider society are likely to fuel oppression and even mistreatment within the workplace. It should additionally be noted that in some cases bullying is also carried out deliberately as a measure of social control where other, preferable control methods might not suffice (Beale and Hoel, in press).

Specific explanation of sexuality and bullying

Social identity theory and the seminal work of Tajfel (1978) can be a useful starting point to explore how LGBs might encounter bullying as a result of their sexuality. According to Tajfel (1978), internalised social identities associated with social groupings, such as being gay or heterosexual, define one’s own self-concept and one’s emotional significance in being a member of that social group. In an organisational setting how one retains an LGB identity while continuing to belong to other communities of the workplace presents a possible situation where bullying might occur. Bar-Tal (1998) reminds us that the very essence of group beliefs provides the foundation for their existence. It therefore follows that if that group denies or rejects the existence of gay people then bullying, harassment and discrimination are likely to be eventualities. There is of course a long tradition in groups of handing out mistreatment to perceived deviants by socially categorising them and exaggerating differences (Marques
et al
. 1998). This is because the unification of group beliefs requires the group to have a coherent sense of identity such as ‘we are builders’ or ‘we are engineers’. Similarly, group beliefs are built upon shared confidence in their ideals which are seen as ‘facts’ that become central components of their belief systems (Bar Tal 1998). Prejudices and discriminatory behaviour become part of group norms and practices, such as telling of gay jokes or widespread adoption of sexualised innuendo that might be used to ‘test out’ and suppress minorities (Ward and Winstanley 2006).

The increasing globalisation of labour markets, and thus of organisational constituencies, is also a potential key source of bullying for sexual minorities, with prejudices and discriminatory beliefs of majority and minority constituents fertile breeding grounds for bullying. Gay employees must face the prejudices of not only majority groups but also other minority groupings. Religious doctrine for example is often used as a rationale to underpin homophobic behaviour ranging from the AIDS campaigns of the 1980s through to gay clergy in the twenty-first century. Dudley and Mulvey (2009) showed how religious fundamentalism was more likely to result in gay prejudice while those with an egalitarian upbringing produced an opposite result. In a US study of homophobic attitudes to AIDS among ethnic students, Long and Millsap (2008) found that ethnic minority groups had a much greater fear of AIDS, resulting in a more homophobic attitude, and this was greatest among men. Gay employees therefore face a double jeopardy of discrimination from both majority and minority groups. However, as Lewis (2003) noted, black and white attitudes to homosexuality and gay rights is a complex issue with many black US citizens disapproving of homosexuality but African Americans being more in favour of legislation outlawing discrimination

against gays then white citizens, possibly reflecting their own struggle for civil rights.

Industry characteristics such as those associated with uniformed and ‘blue light’ services have a recent tradition of trying to eradicate discrimination and bullying of minorities (see for example Archer 1999; Giga
et al
. 2008b). However, cultural attitudes are deeply ingrained and it can sometime require years of policies, training and reinforcement to address such ingrained behaviours. It is only after decades of intervention that progress seems to be made against accepted norms as evidenced by the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry into the London Metropolitan Police Service (see Lewis and Gunn 2007) which found that the cultural norms of racism in the service had prevented a meaningful investigation into Stephen Lawrence’s murder taking place. (See also the full Macpherson report 1999.) As Bar-Tal (1998) noted, similarity of beliefs has a significant effect upon discriminative behaviour where values and ideologies and goals can underpin beliefs. This long road of intervention can result in workplaces being categorised as ‘safe’ or ‘unsafe’ by minority groups. As suggested above, this might have implications for career choices and career moves with gay men and women frequently using word of mouth to indicate which workplaces are safe and which are not.

Invisible stigmas as first described by Goffman in 1963 can be widespread for a range of employees, including LGBs. The depth and spread of invisible stigmatisation in organisations is described by Ragins (2008), who explains how the invisibility of their situation leads individuals from stigmatised groups to conceal their identities in order to avoid prejudicial treatment and behaviours. For some LGBs the concealment of their sexual identity is not simply a work issue as their social lives can be a source of identification of their identity by their colleagues, for example being seen in a gay bar or at a Gay Pride event. Thus the pressure of thinking about ‘who knows’ and ‘who does not know’ could become an intolerable source of anxiety. In a work environment, such dilemmas can lead to feelings of vulnerability and be amplified by working or living in close-knit communities where everyone knows everyone else.

As bullying can be considered a form of breakdown in relationships, it is easy to understand how both voluntary or involuntary disclosure can put relationships under strain or even damage or end them. As Ragins (2008: 197) notes, ‘Friends, family and co-workers may feel uncomfortable, threatened, or even repulsed by the newly revealed stigma. They may feel shocked, foolish, and betrayed by the realisation that their relationship may not be as close as they had imagined.’ Of course there may also be positive outcomes for disclosure including a palpable sense of psychological relief and rediscovered energy at no longer having to conceal their identity (Woods 1994).

Heterosexism is a term which suggests that heterosexuality is the only acceptable or indeed legitimate sexual orientation (Simoni and Walters 2001 in Ragins and Wiethoff 2005) and according to Herek (1993: 89) is ‘an ideological system that denies, denigrates, and stigmatises any non-heterosexual form of behaviour, identity, relationship, or community’. According to Ragins and Wiethoff (2005) it is prejudice in the form of heterosexism, rather than homophobia, with its focus on personal discomfort and fear, which most

accurately captures the organisational experience of many LGBs. Waldo (1999) showed that the further an organisation’s culture was towards heterosexism the less likely it was that employees would disclose their sexuality. This concealment strategy is often referred to as a ‘spiral of silence’, a concept first described by Noelle-Neumann in 1974 in research on public opinion. The ‘spiral of silence’ theory postulates that when people are not sure that they agree with the majority, they are reluctant to express opinions using the social environment as a reference point (Bowen and Blackmon 2003). For LGB employees who disclose within a dominant organisational culture of heterosexism, this could result in stigmatisation and labelling as deviant. Such a situation led Noelle-Neumann (1991) to argue that fear and the threat of isolation lead to a spiral of silence, particularly when the dilemma has a moral component or is attached to values or beliefs. Bowen and Blackmon (2003) note that the spiral of silence is particularly influential when ostracisation exists in a work group, for example, being shunned at meetings, not being invited to social events or being ignored during lunch breaks. Bullying research tells us that isolation and ostracism are possible outcomes of exposure to bullying (Leymann 1996). Similarly, the strain and concealment caused by being a victim of bullying while working alongside colleagues who are oblivious to what is occurring can be a major source of stress (Lewis 2004). Woods (1994) identified three concealment strategies used by LGB employees at work, including using a counterfeiting strategy of passing themselves off as heterosexuals; evading the issue by censoring their identity and maintaining social distance; and finally adopting an integration strategy by openly disclosing their stigmatised identity. It is believed that some LGB employees use a range of disclosure versus non-disclosure strategies (Croteau 1996) thus supporting Goffman’s (1963) assertion that each social situation and interaction requires a judgement to weigh the costs and benefits of disclosure versus non-disclosure. This is particularly difficult for invisible stigmas such as LGB because they are not necessarily perceived as stigmas. Furthermore, as Ragins (2008) notes, those with hidden stigmas that are undisclosed are not fully in control of the disclosure process. In terms of bullying, this allows for gossip and rumours to be spread which can permeate the organisation

resulting in involuntary self-outing.

The more aggressive or even violent forms of bullying, direct discrimination and harassment might be directly related to homophobia. Homophobia is a direct and explicit hatred of gay men and lesbian women (Weinberg 1972) which Ragins and Wiethoff (2005) argued had no direct counterpart in racism or sexism. As previously noted, many homophobic beliefs are rooted in religious fundamentalism although Walters and Moore (2002) note that LGBs themselves can display internalised homophobic tendencies that need to be ‘unlearned’.

Extreme forms of homophobia can manifest themselves as ‘hate crime’. In a 2008 report on hate crime by LGB campaigning organisation Stonewall (Dick 2008), 20 per cent of lesbian and gay people surveyed had experienced a homophobic hate crime or hate incident within the past three years with three-quarters of survey participants deciding not to report their experience to police and the majority not reporting their hate crime experience to third

parties of any kind. It is important to note that differences exist between ‘hate incidents’ and ‘hate crimes’; hate incidents are described by the UK’s Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) as ‘any non-crime incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s sexual orientation’, while a hate crime is defined by ACPO as ‘any hate incident, which constitutes a criminal offence, perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hate based on a person’s sexual orientation (Dick 2009). The law in the UK at the time of writing allows for those who perpetrate racial and religiously motivated hate crime to be charged with aggravated harassment or assault but the same condition does not exist for homophobic hate crimes where perpetrators would be charged with the more general condition of assault. Hate crimes are unlikely to be enacted in the workplace but hate incidents are a much more realistic possibility. The hate crime associated with homophobia is normally associated with events outside of workplaces such as the reported activities of Westboro Baptist Church in the USA where funerals of HIV victims were picketed by church members bearing signs such as ‘God Hates Fags’ (Walters and Moore 2002) or the extreme violence displayed against LGBs as reported by Moran (2004) and Dick (2008). Dick (2008) showed that 17 per cent of victims of homophobic hate crimes had experienced physical assault with 12 per cent experiencing unwanted sexual contact.

Brenner
et al
. (2010) showed how gay and lesbian employees’ openness about their sexuality (outness) had a direct bearing on an organisation. Their study showed how marginalisation, or what they term ‘stigmatisation salience’ heightens negative self-focus attention that subsequently minimises disclosure. The Brenner
et al
. study also showed that where organisations were willing to take action against heterosexism, employees were more likely to disclose their sexual orientation. This finding supports the notion that gay and lesbian employees are less likely to be negatively focused on being a member of a sexual minority when they feel more protected from organisational heterosexism. Evidence such as this could be effectively used by organisations as a policy response by being pro-LGB and challenging the conventions of heterosexism. By making it clear that the organisation will not tolerate bullying, discrimination or harassment of LGB employees, there is a greater likelihood that LGB staff will feel comfortable about disclosure of their identities which, from the evidence of researchers such as Woods (1994) and Day and Schoenrade (1997), produces more effective employees.

Organisational responses to bullying and harassment of LGBs

We will argue that a successful response to bullying and harassment against LGB employees in the workplace would adopt a wider perspective, locating the problem within the overall work situation of LGBs. In doing so, it should be recognised that sexual orientation is a significant organisational issue that has risen in prominence through legislative and societal awareness. There are also the moral and ethical drivers of change towards a greater acceptance of sexual orientation diversity (Lansing and Cruser 2009). It also makes sound

business logic to have strategic awareness of the economics of LGB behaviour. As Lansing and Cruser (2009) noted, the purchasing power of gay people in the USA was then twice that of as the combined spend of African Americans and Asians and gay people were much more likely to spend dollars on brands where there is a positive association with anti-discriminatory, pro-gay policies. This sort of evidence should be important to the organisational decision- makers, and might move the LGB agenda into the boardroom, not simply to be left on the desks of those deployed in human resources (HR) departments. This factor is reflected in initiatives such as the British LGB campaign group Stonewall’s ‘Diversity Equality Index’, which measures standards of good practice among UK employers in the area of sexual orientation (Stonewall 2010).