Handbook on Sexual Violence (90 page)

Creating a workplace climate that allows for a more holistic appreciation of the contribution of LGB colleagues requires the development of policies and practices that embrace LGBs as an important component in the diversity agenda and not simply a fringe component. Thus, diversity in all its forms should not simply be associated with legal compliance but explained as a source of competitive advantage by ensuring diversity is incorporated into vision, mission, goals and objectives of the organisation. In smaller firms, this challenge falls to the senior executives and owners. In larger firms, it requires direct intervention by middle managers who are the voice of the organisation to subordinate and entry level employees (Lansing and Cruser 2009).

It is these middle managers in larger organisations who must be trained, monitored and evaluated to ensure that the policy is not seen as a remote diktat but an engendered set of principles to which the whole organisation subscribes. However, for this to happen, it is necessary for an audit of missing best practice to be undertaken otherwise how will employees and the managers identify what needs to be done? A central feature of this audit should be the relationship of the organisation to its external stakeholders. If an organisation is closely involved in partnership with others then it makes strategic sense to better understand their diversity agenda and their diversity practices. What might be the cost of losing the commercial value of a partnership by failing to adopt sound diversity practices of a partner or by losing one’s own talent to a competitor because one’s own practices are falling short?

Policy creation is of course only the beginning. Without effective monitoring of procedures and practices the policy is likely to be left rather powerless (Rayner and Lewis 2011). Additionally, any policies or processes will require regular review to ensure compliance with recognised best practice of agencies which in the UK would be the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) or the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas). Policy- makers and reviewers would also need to be cognisant of emerging case law. Additional interventions within organisations and employee representative groups might include appropriate forms of information transfer. For LGBs who are yet to disclose their identity it is necessary to provide a broad spectrum of information sources that could act as signposts to organisational networks and routes to self-organising support as outlined by Colgan and Ledwith (2000). Additionally, proactive and pro-LGB organisations could

provide LGB mentoring through effective role models, but again this would need extremely sensitive handling for LGBs who are yet to disclose their identity. Mentoring of LGB colleagues by those who have disclosed their sexual orientation could produce significant personal and organisational benefits. Brenner
et al
. (2010) showed how gay employees who were open about their sexuality or had outed themselves were more helpful in their behaviours thus producing more effective organisational outcomes. It is posited that being ‘out’ perhaps allows gay employees to redirect their energies away from strategies aimed at preventing disclosure, or that they simply feel a more positive orientation to the organisation that employs them (Day and Schoenrade 1997). The stigmatisation salience referred to earlier therefore appears to have a direct bearing on psychological health as well as on organisational and personal performance. This has direct implications for organisational policies and management and workplace practices.

Equally important in an organisational context is the role of trade unions and employee representative groups. These can be a powerful force for good in the promotion of LGB rights but only if the trade unions or employee representative groups themselves recognise the potential tensions within the different diversity agendas. Based on the evidence of Lewis (2003) and Dudley and Mulvey (2009) there are clear lessons for both employee representative groups and HR officers in recognising that tensions do exist in the way LGBs are perceived by other minorities (Colgan and Ledwith 2000). Thus it might be too simplistic to expect an equal division of attention to the six equalities strands identified by diversity champions. It therefore makes sense to create an individual component element for promotion of LGB rights to counter any bias that might exist.

One of the most difficult challenges at an organisational level for both LGB employees and employers is the way complaints are reported and investigated. Bullying research demonstrates that there can be an unwillingness to report bullying incidents because of fears of the impact on careers and working relationships, or that no action will be taken or because line managers are the cause of the incidents (Rayner and Lewis 2010). These reasons are compoounded for LGB employees when their sexual identity is hidden or where they do not wish their colleagues to perceive them differently. Thus whilst bullying complaints per se need to be handled with a degree of sensitivity, bullying complaints of an LGB nature are even more complex. It is therefore essential that policies clearly state that bullying and harassment will not be tolerated, including on the grounds of sexual orientation, and that clear examples and definitions are used to explain this to all employees. This suggests that representatives of the LGB constituency should be consulted about policy content already at the development stage, incorporating what Colgan
et al
. (2008) refer to as ‘everyday experience of LGBs’. Managers will need specific training on handling the confidential nature of bullying of LGBs, especially for those who have not disclosed their sexual identity. Ultimately, as confidence in the policy depends on how it is enforced and how complaints are dealt with by the organisation (Wright
et al
. 2006), failure to act, or in the case of LGBs, possibly downplaying the seriousness of homophobic incidents, would have repercussions for its use and

for wider trust in management.

In line with senior management commitment and line management support, systems and processes should support informal dispute resolution where possible (Gibbons 2007) although where hate incidents or hate crimes exist then clearly a more formal route is needed. At an organisational level, informal solutions may well require the involvement of others such as mediators, counsellors, trade union representatives and employee assistance programme (EAP) specialists. It is critical that all those deployed in intervention strategies are clearly cognisant of equality regulations as they apply to sexual orientation so that interventions are applied sensitively. Similarly, it is essential that although seen as informal, such procedures are shown to be taken seriously, thus demonstrating organisational commitment to LGB equality. In the event that an employee has experienced bullying or harassment on the grounds of their sexuality and has to take time away from work, for example through stress caused by exposure to bullying, they must be provided with appropriate support to return to work, possibly with agreed adjustments to their role or potentially to their place of work. This will require sensitive management and the appointing of a supportive manager, mentor or colleague to assist them to get back to normal working life. Such a return to work could involve a period of home working where practicable but not at the expense of failing to address the inappropriate behaviours associated with bullying. We are certainly not advocating the isolation of an LGB employee from their colleagues; rather we suggest that flexible working from home might suit the gradual return to work necessary after an incident of bullying and harassment. Ultimately, the key to a longer-term solution is a culture change that sees zero tolerance of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, as with any other form of discrimination. In terms of homophobia, an effective strategy to deal with it is knowing or being friends with LGBs, which is a more effective predictor of attitude change than either demographic characteristics or parental attitudes (Walters and Moore 2002).

Note

The chapter was written before the 2010 Equality Act came into power and readers ought to be cognisant of that.

Further reading

For a comprehensive overview of the issue of bullying and harassment in the workplace we recommend the edited book by Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C.L (2011)
Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace. Developments in Theory, Research and Practice
. London/Atlanta, GA: CRC Press. Brodsky, C.M. (1976)
The Harassed Worker.
Toronto: Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Co., remains a ‘must read’ for those interested in harassment.

For an overview of the problem of violence and harassment within EU states, including legal responses to the problem, we point to the European Agency of Safety and Health at Work report (2011) downloadable from http://osha.europa.eu/en/

publications/reports/violence-harassment-TERO09010ENC

A challenging but interesting book is Hearn, J. and Parkin, W. (2001)
Gender, Sexuality and Violence in Organizations: the Unspoken Forces of Organization Violations
. London: Sage. The following reports also provide additional reading on sexual orientation inside and outside the workplace:

EHRC (2009
) Beyond Tolerance: Making sexual orientation a public matter
. Manchester: Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Stonewall (2007)
Living Together: British attitudes to lesbians and gay people
. London: Stonewall.

Acas (2007)
Sexual Orientation and Religion or Belief Discrimination in the Workplace
.

London: Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas).

References

Acas (2007)
Sexual orientation and religion or belief discrimination in the workplace
. Research paper 01/07. London: Acas.

Acker, J. (1990) ‘Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations’, in J. Lorber and S. Farrell (eds)
The Social Construction of Gender
. London: Sage Publications.

Amnesty International (2009) Available at http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_det
ails.
asp?NewsID=18264, posted 18 June 2009.

Aquino, K. and Thau, S. (2009) ‘Workplace victimization: Aggression from the target’s perspective’,
Annual Review of Psychology
, 60: 717–41.

Archer, D. (1999) ‘Exploring ‘‘bullying’’ culture in the para-military organisation’,

International Journal of Manpower
, 20(1/2): 94–105.

Bar-Tal, D. (1998) ‘Group beliefs as an expression of social identity’, in W. Worchel, J.F. Morales, D. Paez J.C. and Deschamps (eds)
Social Identity: International Perspectives
. London: Sage Publications.

Beale, D. and Hoel, H. (in press) ‘Workplace bullying and British employers: exploring questions of cost, policy, context and control’,
Work, Employment and Society
.

Bloisi, W. and Hoel, H. (2008) ‘The expectation of abusive work practices and bullying

among chefs: a review of the literature’,
International Journal of Hospitality Management
, 27: 649–56.

Bolton, S.C. (2007)
Dimensions of Dignity
. London: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Bowen, F. and Blackmon, K. (2003) ‘Spirals of silence: The dynamic effects of diversity on organizational voice’,
Journal of Management Studies
, 40(6): 1393–417.

Brenner, B.R., Lyons, H.Z. and Fassinger, R.E. (2010) ‘Can heterosexism harm

organizations? Predicting the perceived organizational citizenship behaviors of gay and lesbian employee’,
The Career Development Quarterly
, 58: 321–35.

Brodsky, C. M. (1976)
The Harassed Worker
. Toronto: Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Co.

Chappel, D. and Di Martino, V. (2006)
Violence at Work
(3rd edn). Geneva: International Labour Office.

Cochran, S.D. (2001) ‘Emerging issues in research in lesbians’ and gay men’s mental

health: Does sexual orientation really matter?’,
American Psychologist
, 56: 931–47.

Colgan, F. and Ledwith, S. (2000) ‘Diversity, identities and strategies of women trade union activists’,
Gender, Work and Organization
, 7(4): 242–57.

Colgan, F., Creegan, C., McKearney, A. and Wright, T. (2008)
Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Workers: Equality, diversity and inclusion on the workplace
. London: London Metropolitan University.

Coyne, I., Seigne, E. and Randall, P. (2000) ‘Predicting workplace victim status from

personality’,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology
, 9: 335–49.

Croteau, J. M. (1996) ‘Research on the work experiences of lesbian, gay and bisexual people: An integrative review of methodology and findings’,
Journal of Vocational Behavior
, 48: 195–209.

Day, N.E., and Schoenrade, P. (1997) ‘Staying in the closet versus coming out: Relationships between communication about sexual orientation and work attitudes’,
Personnel Psychology
, 50: 147–63.

Dick, S. (2008) ‘Homophobic hate crime: The Gay British Crime Survey 2008’. London:

Stonewall.

Dick, S. (2009) ‘Homophobic hate crimes and hate incidents’. London: Equalities and Human Rights Commission.

Di Martino, V., Hoel, H. and Cooper, C.L. (2003) ‘Preventing violence and harassment in the workplace.’ European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Dudley, M.G. and Mulvey, D. (2009) ‘Differentiating among outgroups: Predictors of congruent and discordant prejudice’,
North American Journal of Psychology
, 11(1): 143-56.

EHRC (2009)
Beyond Tolerance: Making sexual orientation a public matter
. Manchester: Equality and Human Rights Commission.