Managing Mixed Messages

Abstract

The organizational landscape is changing for sexual minorities in U.S. workplaces. A dramatic increase in organizational policy protections reflects a broader societal shift toward social acceptance of sexual diversity. However, as participant narratives demonstrate, discrimination and bias are still present in contemporary organizations. As such, sexual minority employees must manage their sexual identities in a changing environment that is rife with mixed messages. In this study, 20 employees from across the United States in a variety of occupations described policies and communication with coworkers as influential to their sexual identity management. Using the framework of the communication theory of identity, gaps between communal frame communication (organizational policy) and relational frame communication (coworker communication) resulted in mixed messages participants had to discursively navigate to manage their sexual identities. Implications for practitioners and scholars are discussed.

Keywords

policy communication theory of identity (CTI)identity work sexual diversity

Organizational policies in the United States are becoming more gay friendly. The 2016 Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index found that 93% of Fortune 500 companies now offer explicit policy protections to employees based on sexual orientation (Human Rights Campaign Foundation, 2015), a dramatic increase from a decade ago. However, not all companies have implemented policy protections, and no federal law requires them to be offered (Pizer, Sears, Mallory, & Hunter, 2012). More important, gay-friendly workplace policies do not automatically create supportive organizational cultures or eradicate discriminatory practices (e.g., Gusmano, 2008), which remain alarmingly common (Pizer et al., 2012). Thus, many workers in the United States who identify as sexual minorities manage their sexual identities in a complicated terrain of mixed messages.

Managing sexual identities is inherently a communicative process. Organizational communication scholarship has demonstrated that discourse is a primary medium through which people perceive how their sexual identity is considered by others as well how identities are concealed or revealed (Scott, Corman, & Cheney, 1998; Ward & Winstanley, 2006). In the workplace, organizational policies (Clair, Beatty, & MacLean, 2005) and organizational members’ conversations about and applications of them (e.g., Kirby & Krone, 2002) communicate messages to sexual-minority employees that can influence how or if they reveal their sexual identities. Policies and practices related to sexuality often seem to be at odds, leading to feelings of confusion and frustration for employees trying to abide by both. The present study explores how non-heterosexual employees use their perceptions of organizational policies and practices to manage their sexual identities at work.

The communication theory of identity (CTI) provides a useful lens for analyzing how sexual identities are communicatively managed in the workplace (Hecht, Warren, Jung, & Krieger, 2005; Jung & Hecht, 2004). CTI argues that through communication, we continuously construct and communicate identities with others across the personal, enacted, relational, and group frames of identity (Jung & Hecht, 2004). The framework of CTI allows for the elucidation of how non-heterosexual employees communicatively manage their sexual identities in the workplace.

This study contributes to a growing body of literature in organizational communication and management studies that explore the nuanced ways sexual minorities communicatively manage their identities at work. As this study shows, sexual minorities draw on multiple discursive resources to manage their sexual identities. These discursive resources are rapidly shifting, making this process particularly challenging in the modern U.S. workplace. This study explores how gay and lesbian employees manage their sexual identities in the face of changing organizational policies and practices.

Communicatively Managing the Closet at Work

Scholarship exploring how identities are managed in the workplace has become more nuanced over time. Identities are no longer conceptualized as fixed or stable; rather, individuals must manage multiple possibilities for defining themselves, a process referred to as “identity work” (Alvesson, Ashcraft, & Thomas, 2008). Identity work involves the negotiation of multiple identities in relationship to one another as a way of making sense of who the individual is (e.g., Meisenbach & Kramer, 2014). Wieland (2010) argues that identity work in the workplace is primarily “a normative activity . . . shaped by a socially constructed understanding of what is expected and accepted both in terms of whom I am/we are and whom I/we should be” (p. 522). Thus, sexual identity management is conceptualized here as the process of reconciling one’s sexual identity with perceptions of what it “should be” in the workplace (e.g., Wieland, 2010). Because organizations continue to privilege heterosexuality (Dixon & Dougherty, 2014), sexual identity management in the workplace remains a rich area of study.

Sexual identity management scholarship focusing on both the performative (e.g., Clair et al., 2005; Gusmano, 2008) and cognitive (e.g., Chaudoir & Fisher, 2010) aspects of sexual identity management indicates that perceptions of workplace heterosexism strongly influence decisions about how or if sexual minorities choose to come out (e.g., Clair et al., 2005; Gusmano, 2008; Prati & Pietrantoni, 2014). For sexual minorities, the process of identity work begins with an expectation of discrimination in the workplace, resulting in an effort to “pass” as heterosexual until they can perceive what their sexual identities “should be” or what the consequences of coming out will be (Chaudoir & Fisher, 2010). In the modern U.S. workplace, gay-friendly organizational policies and practices, or their absence, can affect how sexual minorities perceive their workplaces, and thus influence sexual identity management (Clair et al., 2005).

Much scholarship exploring sexual identity management at work takes a psychological or management perspective and treats communication as an important but peripheral component of the process. However, recent organizational communication scholarship places communication at the core of identity management, positioning identity work, communication, and discourse as interwoven concepts. Broadly, discourse shapes the context for communication (Ashcraft, 2007). Discursive resources serve as “concepts, expressions, or other linguistic devices that, when deployed in talk, present explanations for past and/or future activity that guide interactants’ interpretation of experience” (Kuhn, 2006, p. 1341). It is through communication that we learn the discursive resources available regarding the assumptions and ideologies that influence daily conversation (Gill & Larson, 2014). As people communicate, they do identity work by drawing on available discursive resources (Kuhn & Nelson, 2002) and knitting them together to construct and communicate a preferred identity (Larson & Pearson, 2012).

Workplace policies and practices can serve as discursive resources used for managing identities. Previous scholarship indicates that formal and informal organizational policies and practices influence sexual minorities’ perceptions of organizational support, which in turn affects how they communicate their identities (Clair et al., 2005). Much of this scholarship explored the intersection of policy, practice, and sexuality in terms of organizational control. In some cases, policies and practices work to silence sexual minorities (e.g., Ward & Winstanley, 2003; Willis, 2011). In other cases, organizational practices encouraging employees to enact their sexual identities have been acknowledged as a form of concertive control, as employees of all sexualities perceived the organization to be requiring hypersexualized performances (see Fleming, 2007). It is necessary to further explore how perceptions of organizational policies and practices affect how or if sexual minorities enact their sexual identities at work.

The Communication Theory of Identity

I chose to use the CTI as a lens for this study. CTI emerged from social identity theory (SIT; Ashforth & Mael, 1989) and identity theory (Schlenker, 1985), which broadly treat identity construction as a product of social categorization and performances of social roles. CTI is similar to these theories, in that it acknowledges the multiple and negotiated nature of identities. CTI stands apart from these theories because it places communication at the core of identity work, treating identities as partial and negotiated rather than as an overarching structure (Hecht et al., 2005).

Foundational assumptions of CTI are also similar to the structuration model of identity, which argues that regular social practices, or “systems,” and “structures,” or enduring social constructions such as identities are mutually influential (Scott et al., 1998).

Similarly, CTI treats communication and identity as mutually influential, indicating that both theories treat identity as a process of social interaction instead of fixed or monolithic (Hecht et al., 2005). Both theories also argue that identities can be negotiated with some degree of agency. A primary difference is that CTI treats communication as identity rather than a component of the process (Jung & Hecht, 2004). Furthermore, the structuration model of identity is particularly concerned with the link between identity and identification, whereas CTI is concerned with how an individual’s identities are constructed and negotiated.

CTI articulates identity as four interpenetrated frames: (a) personal, (b) enacted, (c) relational, and (d) communal (Jung & Hecht, 2004). Individual self-concepts (Jung & Hecht, 2004) and self-definitions (Hecht et al., 2005) are located in the personal frame.

Identities are communicated through performance and expression in the enacted frame (Hecht et al., 2005). In the relational frame, identities emerge through interactions with others. How others ascribe identities and categorize us affects how relational identities are formed (Jung & Hecht, 2004). Relational identities can become social entities in and of themselves (Hecht et al., 2005), such as a work group (“We think this should be the rule”). In the communal frame, groups or collectives possess their own identities. Group identities can influence the other three frames (Faulkner & Hecht, 2011). For example, Hecht et al. (2002) found that communal representations of Jewish Americans on the show Northern Exposure influenced participants’ identity performances in the relational, enacted, and personal frames.

Identity Gaps

As identities interact, they can be incongruent and in tension with one another, causing people to feel dissonance when enacting them (Henson & Olson, 2010). This dissonance is the result of an identity gap, which can occur within and between identity frames. To reduce dissonance, people negotiate how they communicate facets of their identity based upon their perception of the communicative context, such as their comfort with others or how socially appropriate they believe enacting facets of their identity would be (Colaner, Halliwell, & Guignon, 2014). Sometimes, identity gaps cannot be easily negotiated, decreasing feelings of being understood, communication satisfaction, and perceptions of conversational appropriateness and effectiveness (Jung & Hecht, 2004). For example, Henson and Olson (2010) found that male serial killers struggled to manage their identities when faced with navigating an identity gap between negative communal frame conceptualizations of their identities and their more positive perceptions of their personal frame identity.

Navigating identity gaps can be particularly challenging for sexual-minority employees as the discursive resources available for sexual identity management shift. For example, a growing yet inconsistent level of social support (Drake, 2013) and changes in workplace policies (Human Rights Campaign Foundation, 2015) reflect discursive resources that are situational and in flux, making sexual identity management a complex communicative process. Coupled with the frames of identity proposed by CTI, identity gaps serve as a useful tool for determining where and how sexual identities are negotiated in the workplace.

Conceptualizing Identity Frames as Resources for Identity Management

To date, CTI has not been used as a framework to explore the management of sexual identities at work. CTI’s interpenetrated framework has much to contribute to identity scholarship in organizational contexts because it encourages an exploration of how communication within and between identity frames affects identity work. CTI could be especially effective in workplace contexts, where identities are heavily regulated through policy and practice. CTI acknowledges that identity frames are not neat but messy and constantly negotiated (e.g., Jung & Hecht, 2004). However, the framework of CTI gives practitioners and theorists a vocabulary that can clarify conversations about identity and, more important, pinpoints gaps in identity construction, management, and negotiation. Expanding CTI to conceptualize identity frames as communicating messages that influence identity work provides a pragmatic way to explore how this process occurs.

Most research using CTI focuses on personal identities in relation to the enacted and relational frames (e.g., Colaner et al., 2014). This research is useful for conceptualizing how perceptions of messages communicated at the relational level affect sexual identity management in the workplace. For example, perceptions of messages sent during conversations with colleagues at the relational level (Hecht et al., 2005) act as a discursive resource that can influence how or if we enact our personal sexual identities.

How communication in the communal frame influences sexual identity management is less clear. Previous research using CTI to explore sexual identity management focused on the intersection of ethnicity and sexuality. Again, this scholarship used participants’ perceptions of identity messages communicated by the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) and Jewish communities, respectively, to represent the communal frame (Faulkner & Hecht, 2011). Following this scholarship, I also use individuals’ perceptions of messages communicated at the communal frame in the context of an organization. However, concrete examples of how communal identity messages are communicated are needed to move the literature forward.

Because the communal frame is defined as collectives who define their identities based on shared characteristics (Jung & Hecht, 2004), organizations can be positioned in the communal frame. Combining previous CTI scholarship and identity scholarship within organizational communication, organizations have identities that can influence, but are separate from, organizational members’ identities in the other three frames (Ashforth, Rogers, & Corley, 2011; Hecht et al., 2005). For example, many organizations privilege displays of heterosexuality (Bruni, 2006) which can influence how employees’ sexual identities are communicated in the enacted frame, as well as how sexuality is communicatively negotiated in the relational frame.

One way organizations communicate identity messages is through workplace policy (e.g., Canary, Riforgiate, & Montoya, 2013; Cheney & Christensen, 2001). Policies function as communal frame communication in three ways. First, policies have the agency to reaffirm and communicate communal frame organizational identities (Cooren, 2004). Second, policies are intended to communicate to a collective and are able to communicate organizational messages both within and outside the organization (Cheney & Christensen, 2001). Finally, policies have the power to structure the communicative environment in the workplace by creating communicative boundaries for both organizations’ behavior and employees’ freedom of identity expression (Skidmore, 2004).

How communal frame messages are perceived can affect identity management in other identity frames. For example, a manager in the relational frame could ignore a communal frame policy benefitting sexual minorities, affecting how gay employees enact their personal frame sexual identity. LeGreco (2012) describes this as differences between policy text, or the sanctioned policy, and policy talk, where the policy is discussed and considered in the relational and personal frames. Indeed, “even when great care goes into the crafting of formal documents, policy talk can lead organizational members to appropriate policies in ways never imagined by policymakers” (p. 46). In practice, messages communicated by policy do not function alone as discursive resources; just as the four frames of identity are interpenetrated, so are policy messages in organizational contexts.

By conceptualizing CTI in this way, we now have sites to explore how sexual identities are managed in the workplace: self-understandings at the personal level, performances of identities at the enactment level, interactions with coworkers and bosses at the relational level (Hecht et al., 2005), and organizational policies at the communal level. Using this framework, communication within and between individual frames can be examined to see how sexual minorities use communication. This leads to two research questions:

Research Question 1 (RQ1): How do sexual minorities use perceptions of messages within identity frames as discursive resources for sexual identity management in the workplace?

Research Question 2 (RQ2): How do sexual minorities manage their sexual identities when mixed messages emerge between identity frames?

Method

I recruited a diverse group of participants for this study using two broad criteria. First, participants had to self-identify as non-heterosexual. All participants self-identified as gay or lesbian. Second, interviewees had to be currently employed or employed within the last 6 months. To recruit participants, I used snowball sampling techniques because they are well suited to reach hidden or marginalized populations, such as sexual minorities (Tracy, 2013). I first contacted three people who met study criteria that I knew personally. Two participated, and all three responded to my request to contact at least one person who met participant criteria. One contacted more than 30 potential participants via Facebook. Interested potential participants emailed or called me to schedule a time to talk. I ceased recruiting participants when responses became repetitive and reached saturation (Charmaz, 2006).

Participants consisted of eight men and 12 women ranging from 24 to 63 years of age. Participants lived in and had work experiences in a variety of states: Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, California, Georgia, Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Illinois, Oregon, and Ohio were all present in interviews. Because of the varied locations of participants, 17 interviews were conducted by phone, and three were conducted face to face. Prior to recording, I dedicated roughly 10 min to discussing the project and answering participants’ questions. Common questions were about what information I was seeking and learning more about my interest in workplace policies, sexuality, and the discursive management of identities. I used this time to discuss my own workplace experiences and develop rapport with participants. Recorded interviews lasted between 13 and 56 min, with an average length of roughly 30 min.

I used a semi-structured interview guide for interviews as this format provides for both structure and flexibility, and allowed me to probe participants’ responses (Lindlof & Taylor, 2010). Questions explored issues of policy in the workplace: First, if policies addressing sexual orientation existed in participants’ organizations and second, how the presence or absence of these policies affected participants’ sexual identity management. Probing responses allowed me to recognize that organizational policies did affect participants’ sexual identity management in complex and nuanced ways.

Discussions of sexuality can be uncomfortable for some participants, so I arranged my questions in a funnel shape (Kvale, 2007), asking broad questions such as “Tell me about your current job” at the beginning of the interview and more specific questions such as “How accepting is your current organization of gay and lesbian employees?” and “How important are policies when deciding how to manage your sexuality in the workplace?” as the interview progressed. These questions allowed me to understand how participants perceived identity messages communicated by policies in their organizations as well as how they were used as discursive resources for sexual identity management.

All interviews were digitally recorded. After the recorded portion of the interview was complete, I spent roughly 10 min debriefing the participants. Although most participants did not have questions, several shared lengthy stories that they indicated were too personal to include in the recorded interview. Participants were reminded that they could contact me if they wanted to share more or if they had questions or concerns.

All interviews were transcribed, resulting in 226 pages of single-spaced data. As data were transcribed, participants and any names or organizations mentioned were assigned pseudonyms to ensure confidentiality (Creswell, 2013). I also wrote a total of nine memos (Charmaz, 2006) reflecting my reactions to participants’ stories, developing themes or questions after interviews which provided enlightening or contradictory information. I found memo writing particularly useful, as it allowed me to converse with myself during the analysis process. For example, I asked questions such as “How tolerant does the participant paint their organization? How did they talk about policy as influential to this perception?” Ultimately, memoing allowed me to develop ideas about the data as well as shape of the formal analysis of the manuscript (Charmaz, 2006).

Once data were organized, I began primary-cycle coding (Tracy, 2013) using multi-colored tabs (Tracy, 2013) on printed transcripts. During this phase, I identified instances of participants’ sexual identities intersecting with organizational policies. Broad, messy themes such as “revealing sexuality” and “concealing sexuality” did not adequately address the research questions. To clarify, I incorporated modified disciplinary concepts into second-level coding, where first-level codes are synthesized and explained (Tracy, 2013). Specifically, I used a literature-based expanded conceptualization of CTI, coding for participants describing communication within the four frames as a resource for sexual identity management. During the coding process, it became clear that participants were describing mixed messages between policy and practice. Using the constant comparative method (Charmaz, 2006), I recognized that a number of participants’ stories were not representative of previously supported identity gaps. Through conversation with colleagues (Creswell, 2013), I realized that participants were describing an identity gap between the relational and communal frame.

Finally, I created a draft of the analysis, selecting participant voices that most clearly communicated the emerging themes. When complete, I verified that my analysis resonated with participants by conducting member checking (Charmaz, 2006) through informal conversations with four participants about the findings of the study. All four responded positively, and the manuscript was updated in places where participants had questions of clarity.

Analysis

Participants relied on their perceptions of organizational policies as well as conversations with and between coworkers to manage their sexual identities at work. However, these messages were often perceived as a mix between supportive and discriminatory, causing participants to work to conceal their identities from the larger organization. To answer RQ1, I provide specific examples of participants’ perceptions of policies and coworker conversations as a resource for sexual identity management. To answer RQ2, I describe the three most commonly perceived mixed messages and explore how participants negotiated them. The final portion of the analysis explores the single participant who perceived matched messages between policy and practice.

Organizational Policies as a Resource for Managing Sexual Identities

Participants frequently described the importance of having clear policies addressing sexual minorities in their workplaces. Jackson, a gay-identified 25-year-old teacher in Louisiana, described the importance of knowing policies before taking a job:

Don’t accept the job until you are sure of the policies and you are comfortable working under those policies. Because when you sign your contract, when you accept a job, it is a binding contract, so you must be willing, don’t sacrifice yourself for unacceptable policies. So, if, if I could give advice to some other person out there seeking jobs in the gay community, make sure, be aware, be knowledgeable, don’t go in blind and naïve.

Because these things are what you are agreeing to live, breathe, and work by. As much as we hate to admit it, work is our life. It consumes more than 80% of our week. So, we better make sure that the policies of an organization are acceptable to us, and that we can live by them. Do not sacrifice who we are just for a paycheck.

Consistent with previous scholarship, Jackson’s comment demonstrates an expectation that sexual minorities will be discriminated against at work (Chaudoir & Fisher, 2010), and thus advises sexual minorities to rely on organizational policies as a discursive resource for predicting how accepting the organization is. Jackson attributes a good deal of power to organizational policy, indicating that “binding” policies have the power force employees to “sacrifice who we are” and ultimately shape how and if sexualities are communicatively enacted in the workplace. His advice to learn an organization’s policies are before accepting a job implies that he believes that policies provide sexual-minority employees a powerful discursive resource for sexual identity management even before entering the organization. Unfortunately, not all sexual minorities have the economic luxury of carefully selecting an employer based on their policies.

For most participants, policies were not relied on unless it addressed a salient issue. For example, Jon, 35, a gay-identified magazine sales representative in Illinois, told me that he was impressed by a policy providing employees paid time off when they got married. Because the policy included domestic partnerships in its definition of marriage, Jon perceived that his organization would allow him to use this policy if he and his partner formally committed. When I asked Jon to describe how important he perceived policy to be as he managed his sexual identity at work, he responded, “I think policies are important. When my HR manager told me about that leave for domestic partnerships, I automatically was like, obviously this policy is there for a reason, and this employer supports the gay community.” For Jon and other participants, specific verbiage in policies offering protections or benefits to sexual minorities communicated a message of organizational support. However, it is important to note that Jon had not inquired further about this policy beyond the initial presentation of it by his HR manager. Had the policy been presented or applied differently at the relational level, Jon might have found his organization less supportive.

Conversations With Coworkers as a Resource for Managing Sexual Identities

Conversations with and between coworkers in the relational frame were, for some, the most important resource for workplace sexual identity management. This is consistent with previous identity scholarship that indicates it is during conversations with others that the costs and rewards associated with performing identities in the workplace are revealed (Scott et al., 1998). For some, day-to-day talk was the primary resource for sexual identity management. Some described specific conversations that were crucial to deciding to enact their sexual identities or keep them in the personal frame. Becky, 63, a gay-identified state employee of Florida, was careful because of conversations with coworkers:

One fellow who was gay, who was a friend of mine when he worked there, informed me that one of the supervisors had told my supervisor, when [my friend] first came out . . . to beware of him, of my friend, and me, because we were gay.

Becky repeatedly said that she worked with individuals that “make problems for people” who would use knowledge of her sexual identity to make her workplace unpleasant. Although she enacted her sexual identity with some coworkers and managers, conversations like the one above caused her to be selective about whom she came out to. Ultimately, through conversation, Becky perceived that her sexuality was not completely accepted in her workplace.

Ken, an “out” 28-year-old gay male who works for a large retail store in Wisconsin, described using general workplace conversation as a resource for managing his sexual identity:

I think just in general, people talking about it. I mean, you hear the occasional like, people calling someone a fag or whatever, just as a joke or whatever, and it kind of doesn’t really bother me. I know they’re kidding and all that kind of stuff. And other, comments people made, like politically and stuff just kind of indicated to me that, that it wouldn’t be an issue.

Although Becky and Ken perceived different levels of support for sexual minorities from their organizations, both used communication at the relational level as a resource for sexual identity management.

RQ1 asked how individuals used communication within identity frames as a discursive resource for sexual identity management. Although perceptions of messages communicated by policies in the communal frame and by coworker communication in the relational frame were characterized as independent discursive resources, most participants described relying on their perceptions of messages across the relational and communal frames. Bonnie, a lesbian-identified 54-year-old employee of the state of Florida, noted “the fact that people themselves may be accepting doesn’t necessarily mean that is translated into policy, so you’ve got to look at the big picture.” For Bonnie, “the big picture” was her perception of her organization’s policies and conversations with her coworkers to determine what message was most salient. Jon agreed with Bonnie, saying that for him to feel comfortable enacting his sexual identity in the workplace, he would need to see matched messages between policy and practice: “You can’t have the policies on the books and then have people saying like, faggot in the office. You have to kind of live those policies as well.” Unfortunately, most participants described perceiving mixed messages between policy and practice.

Mixed Messages: Relational–Communal Gaps

Overwhelmingly, participants described their workplaces as rife with mixed messages between the communal and relational frames, making sexual identity management challenging. Many perceived messages from managers or coworkers as supportive, despite vague or absent policies. Some, but fewer, reported experiencing discrimination from coworkers and managers in the face of supportive policies. Because most participants relied on policy and interactions with coworkers as resources for identity management, mixed messages between frames resulted in confusion and unhappiness in the workplace. Most important is that when mixed messages between frames were perceived, all participants concealed their sexual identities from some or all colleagues.

Gaps between the communal and relational frames presented most frequently in three ways: first, when supportive communal frame policies were not discussed or applied at the relational level; second, when supportive policies were discussed but communication from coworkers was perceived as negating the policy; and third, when colleagues perceived to be supportive were unsupportive when applying policy. These are discussed below.

Uncertain policy messages

Uncertain policy messages most frequently occurred when participants worked in an organization offering policies protecting sexual minorities but the policy had not been used and was not discussed to the participants’ knowledge. In such organizations, participants had a discursive resource for sexual identity management available in the communal frame, but none in the relational frame, creating an identity gap participants found challenging to negotiate. For example, when I asked Pete, 49, a gay-identified male chaplain in Kentucky if he could get fired for being gay, he responded,

Well, supposedly no. You know, there’s a non-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation, so in theory, it should not have any, any effect. But, I don’t know that from personal experience. And I don’t know that from what I’ve seen, I don’t know, I don’t see any other out leaders in the organization, I don’t see any other out people.

Pete was very informed about his organization’s non-discrimination policy, indicating to me that he thought policies were an important discursive resource for sexual identity management. Pete told me he thought the non-discrimination policy communicated support for sexual-minority employees, but the absence of conversations about sexuality from coworkers was worrisome, creating a mixed message. Furthermore, the lack of visibly out colleagues caused Pete to be unsure if he was the only sexual minority in the organization or if other sexual-minority employees were silent for other reasons. Although many other participants described being out to at least one colleague, the silence in the relational frame led Pete to completely avoid discussions of his sexual identity at work.

Because Pete was so uncertain about the consequences of enacting his sexual identity at work, he continued to avoid discussions of sexuality in settings where it might reach his coworkers. For example, Pete was the leader of a non-profit pride agency for local youth. He said, “If I were asked to do a [news] interview [for the pride agency], I would have to do the interview off the record and use a pseudonym just because I don’t know what the organizational stance would be.” For Pete, a non-discrimination policy was not enough; instead, silence in the relational frame communicated a much clearer message that ultimately led him to conceal his sexual identity. For Pete, perceiving support across identity frames was essential to his comfort enacting his sexual identity at work.

Inconsistent presentations of policy

How organizational members talk about policies influences how they are perceived and used by others (Kirby & Krone, 2002). Participants noted that the usability of workplace policies for sexual minorities was influenced by how coworkers presented the policy to them. In this identity gap, policies appearing supportive of sexual minorities were perceived as useless when messages at the relational level were perceived as discriminatory. Holly, a gay-identified 35-year-old, described her experience in Oklahoma:

We were going through orientation, and this girl and I, we were sitting in the HR office, and the rep was going through the handbook, and, and then she like, skipped over this part, and this girl and I were like, oh what was that? . . . And she goes, oh, that’s for same-sex benefits. You guys don’t need to worry about that. And I’m like, yep, pretty sure I do, but okay, thanks. So that’s when I realize that they acknowledge it, as an organization, but . . . I think they were still a little backwards . . . So, legally they were doing everything right, but internally I felt that it wasn’t necessarily going to be to my benefit if I came out.

Like Pete, Holly chose not to enact her sexual identity at work despite having a policy offering protections to sexual minorities. Unlike Pete, however, Holly did not read the policy. Because of how the policy was presented in conversation, Holly perceived that her organization acknowledged sexual diversity but presumed that employees were heterosexual. Holly shared that the heteronormative nature of this organization caused her great frustration, reifying her negative opinion of what she called “corporate America.” For Holly, “corporate America” represented being unable to enact her sexual identity at work, leading her to change careers. Ultimately, the gap between policy and practice in “corporate America” affected Holly’s livelihood.

Another participant experiencing inconsistent presentations of policy was Alex, 28, a federal employee in Wisconsin. He had not enacted his sexual identity at work because he believed that one coworker might react poorly and found it simpler to remain closeted. If he came out, Alex believed that he would be protected by an executive order signed by President Clinton declaring that the U.S. federal government would not discriminate against employees based on sexual orientation, until he learned about the firing of a gay colleague:

There was a guy in a different agency, not too long ago, who almost could have, sounded like he was me, by his description . . . and his manager found out he was gay and proceeded to make his life a living hell, and then he was fired and he appealed his firing to the federal board that does appeals for firings and stuff, and he lost. Because technically even though there’s an executive order that issues some protection to gay people in the federal government, that does not have the effect of law, and realistically, you could still get fired for being gay, as far as I know.

Because Alex could picture himself in the same position as his fired colleague, he actively worked to hide his sexual identity from the larger organization. Alex repeatedly said that he was concerned he would “slip up” and face unknown consequences. Although most of the messages he received from his immediate colleagues led him to believe that they would support him if he enacted his sexual identity, this event caused him to recognize that supervisors across the organization were actively discriminatory in spite of the aforementioned executive order. For Alex, bridging the gap between identity frames required rationalizing that the executive order was not a formal law, and thus managers and coworkers could ignore it. Although Alex did not know the legal realities, the message was clear for him: You are unprotected by this policy.

Conflicting coworker communication

Coworkers were a frequent source of mixed messages for participants. For some, the relational communication they received from coworkers and managers made them feel comfortable enough to enact their sexual identities in the workplace. Yet, when an issue involving policy arose, previously supportive bosses or coworkers applied policies in a way that was discriminatory. Gina, 61, a lesbian-identified project director in Florida, described her experience inquiring about leave time to care for her same-sex partner. According to Gina,

My sense of my workplace based on the discussion that I had with my supervisor some years ago when I had a partner who was ill was that I would not qualify to take either bereavement leave or sick leave to care for her. I could use my [vacation] leave if I wanted to, but that I couldn’t use sick leave or bereavement leave. I ended up not needing to take the leave, so we never had the issue, but it surprised me, because I’d been out at work and people know about me and know about my relationship, and in fact, while I’ve worked at this workplace, I’ve had a commitment ceremony and my boss attended that ceremony, so I was actually surprised that in her mind, my leave . . . would not extend to my same-sex partner.

Gina’s narrative contains multiple mixed messages. First, Gina perceived the policy itself as a mixed message because it did not communicate support or disapproval of same-sex relationships. Instead, the policy was ambiguous, to be interpreted by individual managers. The second mixed message occurred between Gina’s perception of legitimation from her boss and a negation of that legitimation when communal frame policies were part of the conversation. I felt particularly empathetic with Gina’s sense of betrayal by her boss. The choice to reveal sexual identities in the workplace can be risky (Chaudoir & Fisher, 2010). Gina had perceived supportive messages from coworkers and therefore chose to come out at work, yet was subjected to a heterosexist application of a policy by someone she perceived as supportive. This mixed message caused Gina to warn, “Just because things seem okay on the surface and you can feel comfortable or you talk about relationships . . . don’t relax into thinking everything’s okay, because there could still be minefields out there.” For Gina, the minefield was the gap between how her boss communicated policy and practice. As a result of this incident, Gina requested to change departments and implied she would be more guarded when discussing her partner and home life at work.

A Case of Matched Messages: Policy and Practice in Sync

Only one participant, Mandy, 28, a gay-identified server for a restaurant in a theme park in Florida, described matched messages between policy and practice in her workplace. Mandy’s experience is classified as a negative case because it does not “fit the pattern” of other participants’ experiences (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 84). For Mandy, policy and practice communicated support across identity frames, allowing her to enact her sexual identity comfortably.

Mandy and her wife work for the same company, which she acknowledged could be problematic for sexual minorities working elsewhere. In Mandy’s organization, however, this is a non-issue:

We never think twice about telling someone who works at [Theme Park] that we are a couple . . . At work, it doesn’t matter what your beliefs are. Like, you need to be accepting. That’s just part of [Theme Park’s] policy.

Specifically, Mandy described policies offering the same benefits to sexual-minority and heterosexual employees. For example,

When [my wife] entered me as her domestic partner, I automatically got all the health benefits; they don’t care if you’re gay, straight. If you say you’re in a relationship . . . the odd thing is, they didn’t even ask for any kind of documentation. They want you to be in a relationship for at least a year, and possibly live at the same address (laughs), but, you know, they just, they were like, okay, you’re listed as spouse.

The fact that the organization did not require proof of their relationship communicated to Mandy that the organization was supportive of all employees. Mandy told me that health benefits were only one example, and that she perceived all of her organization’s policies as undergirded by a desire for equality.

In addition, Mandy said that her coworkers and managers consistently communicate messages of workplace equality in day-to-day conversations:

Nobody in my workplace has ever said negative things about me being gay. Like, I’ve never felt unsafe saying I have a wife, or I have a partner. So it’s a very, very welcoming environment. If you want to work for [Theme Park], you better be open to people of different cultures, people of different beliefs, all different types of backgrounds.

At Theme Park, communication in the relational and communal frames was matched, working together for Mandy’s benefit. Because policies and communication at the relational frame were perceived as being consistently supportive, sexual identity management was far less stressful for Mandy when enacting her sexual identity with fellow employees. Although her experience is only one among many other employees, Mandy shared that there are several sexual-minority employees enacting their sexual identities with coworkers in the restaurant and the broader park.

Discussion

This study explored how gay and lesbian employees managed their sexual identities in contemporary U.S. workplaces that are seemingly becoming more gay friendly. The first research question asked how sexual minorities used perceptions of messages within identity frames as discursive resources for sexual identity management in the workplace. For all of the above participants, as well as many whose voices are absent from this manuscript, deciding how or if to enact their sexual identity at work was influenced by their perceptions of organizational policy, one type of communication found within the communal frame, and interactions with coworkers, one type of communication found within the relational frame. In most cases, participants relied on both for identity management. Nearly all perceived mixed messages between policy and practice, causing participants to feel reticent about enacting their sexual identities to the broader organization.

The second research question asked how sexual minorities manage their sexual identities when mixed messages emerged between identity frames. Several mixed messages emerged between the relational and communal frames. Some participants experienced uncertainty because a supportive policy existed but had never been applied or discussed; for others, a supportive policy existed but was communicated such that participants perceived it as unusable. Finally, some participants perceived their coworkers’ communication to be supportive until an issue of policy arose and they were denied equal treatment. When participants perceived mixed messages, they worked to conceal their sexual identities from the larger organization, remaining closeted or enacting their sexual identities with a select group of coworkers perceived as safe. Mandy was the only participant who perceived matched messages. In her case, a positive message of support and equality for sexual-minority employees was described in both policy and practice. I discuss the implications of these findings below.

Implications for Sexual Identity Management Scholarship

Organizational scholars have long pointed out the inequities in heteronormative U.S. workplaces (Acker, 1990), critiquing policies and practices alike in their ability to silence or control sexual-minority employees (e.g., Fleming, 2007; Ward & Winstanley, 2006). Biases toward sexual minorities clearly still exist, but how biases present is changing. For example, the legalization of gay marriage by the Supreme Court in 2015 indicates a sweeping social shift in the legitimation of sexual diversity. However, the court’s 5-4 vote is indicative of the uneven acceptance of sexual diversity in the United States.

Although fractious, the current social environment has shifted in ways that affect day-to-day experiences for sexual minorities. Scholarly implications are twofold: First, the struggle for organizational acknowledgment of sexual diversity is at a point where the focus can shift from primarily fighting for policy protections to digging further into how their presence or absence affects sexual identity management. The present study along with others (e.g., Clair et al., 2005) shows that sexual minorities value gay-friendly policies as a way of determining that organizations acknowledge sexual diversity as well as learning what consequences they may face if they come out. It is now time to explore how these and larger social policies affect day-to-day conversations, shape organizational cultures, and influence sexual identity management.

Second, and most important, participant narratives in this study illustrate that sexual identity management at work happens in the liminal spaces between what is organizationally mandated and what is practiced. Liminal spaces exist “betwixt and between the positions assigned and arrayed by law, custom, convention, and ceremonial” (Turner, 1969, p. 95). Generally, liminality describes interpolated space that exists as one moves between social identities, such as puberty or transsexualism (Booth, 2011). This study indicates that the shifting social landscape in the United States has created a liminal space in which sexual identity work is paramount to sexual minorities as they struggle to determine where the socially ascribed positions ascribed by law, custom, convention, and ceremony are fixed.

Putting liminality in conversation with sexual identity management and individual agency can add much to sexual identity scholarship. For example, previous scholarship has noted that while some may actively work to escape liminal spaces (e.g., Jones, Zagacki, & Lewis, 2007), others may find this space preferable because it is in flux; a space in which one is not fully one thing or the other (Booth, 2011). For sexual minorities, the agency to choose whether they enact their identities, to whom, and for what reasons can be found in this space. Scholars should continue exploring liminal spaces and sexual identity management as changing workplace contexts affect millions of working Americans. Below, I offer suggestions for putting CTI, identity gaps, and liminality into conversation.

Implications for CTI

This article extends CTI into a work context to explore how people manage their sexual identities at work. CTI allows for a better understanding of how people manage their identities in a context where they are heavily constrained by workplace policies and practices. CTI’s four identity frames can represent the location of an individual’s multiple identities, as conceptualized in the original theory (e.g., Jung & Hecht, 2004). However, this study positions communication within and between frames as discursive resources that are influential to identity work across frames. Drawing from previous identity scholarship that argues identities and organizational practices are discursive resources affecting identity management (Kuhn, 2006), the present study positioned messages communicated by organizational policies in the communal frame and coworker communication in the relational frame. This application is but one of many possible conceptualizations of identity messages as discursive resources in the context of an organization.

This expansion of CTI also allows for the development of identity gaps (Hecht et al., 2005), which I believe are CTI’s greatest contribution to conversations about “between” spaces and identity work (e.g., Wieland, 2010). The narratives in this study suggest that the term “identity gap” needs to be rearticulated. Instead of a void of identity existing in these “between” spaces, as “gap” implies, they are instead brimming with identities that are in tension with each other. It is here that the concept of liminality can contribute to this discussion. Positioning “identity gaps” as liminal spaces allows for a more nuanced way to discuss identity work, as the frames of identity described by CTI can be part of the conversation. For example, compare Pete, whose discomfort with mixed messages caused him to remain strictly closeted with coworkers, Gina, who described being out to certain trusted coworkers. Gina was willing to navigate the liminal “between” space of being fully out or fully closeted, though it is unclear how, or more important, why she made those decisions, or how identities were in tension with one another. The framework of CTI, as expanded here, allows for a nuanced exploration of how people navigate identity gaps, identifying which messages are the most salient for identity work and communicating preferred identities in the workplace.

Implications for Practice

Organizational and management scholarship argues that employees who are comfortable enacting their sexual identities at work are more productive, more loyal to the organization, and happier overall (e.g., Brenner, Lyons, & Fassinger, 2010). Furthermore, extant literature indicates that sexual minorities who perceive their workplaces as heterosexist experience lower job satisfaction (Prati & Pietrantoni, 2014). For organizations seeking to improve the happiness and productivity of sexual minorities, this study positions clarified policy language as a good place to start.

Again, gay-friendly workplace policies do not always equate to perceptions of support by sexual-minority employees (Gusmano, 2008). Narratives in this study show that mixed messages occur partially because what is perceived as a “gay-friendly” policy is unclear. Generally, policies that use carefully constructed strategically ambiguous language allowing for the greatest amount of individual agency for employees and managers while promoting organizational change are considered the most effective (LeGreco, 2012). However, as evidenced by Gina and Mandy’s experiences, ambiguous policies can be interpreted in vastly different ways, leaving employees like Gina feeling confused. Organizations seeking to add formal protections for sexual minorities must ensure that their policy language is clear. Explicit policy language requires managers and employees to do less interpretation work, leading to both more consistent applications of policy and fewer mixed messages for sexual minorities to navigate when deciding whether to enact their sexual identities.

However, there are always consequences following policy changes. Clarifying policy language can have possible unintended consequences. First, participants such as Mandy described the application of a policy with ambiguous language as a clear message of support from her organization, demonstrating that ambiguous language can, in some instances, be beneficial to sexual minorities. Second, for sexual minorities who choose to develop their identities in liminal spaces, restricting ambiguous policy discourse could alter their agency to exist in this space.

Practitioners should also take into account the complexities associated with regulating organizational practice through policy. In organizations where sexual diversity is acknowledged via policy, sexual minorities do not necessarily rush to come out of the closet, instead self-regulating their sexualities to uphold the heteronormative work environment (Rich, Schutten, & Rogers, 2012). Indeed, participants who had explicit policy protections available still chose not to enact their sexual identities to the entire organization, choosing instead to remain closeted or out only to a few coworkers. For example, Pete, who described his reticence to enact his sexual identity in contexts where his coworkers might be present, was able to describe his organization’s policy protections covering sexual minorities very clearly. The existence of a gay-friendly policy simply was not enough for him to feel comfortable in his workplace; rather, he needed open communication about how his coworkers and his organization reacted to sexual diversity in the workplace. Policymakers and human relations practitioners should take this into account as they determine how to discuss issues of sexual diversity in their organizations and help craft an organizational culture, as each workplace is unique.

Limitations and Strengths

A primary limitation of this study is the exclusive focus on communication and discourse. This approach ignores the body as an important source of knowledge in communication scholarship (Yep, 2013). Although discourse and materiality should be treated as a dialectic, rather than a dichotomy (Ashcraft & Mumby, 2004), future scholars should explore sexual identity management as an embodied process. I suggest exploring how conscious and unconscious physical representations of sexuality (e.g., wedding rings or wedding ring tattoos, photographs of children or significant others, clothing choices) intersect with communicative performances of sexual identities and contribute to sexual identity work.

Interviewing participants employed in different organizations is another important limitation. Each organization has a unique culture that affects what identities are perceived as acceptable within its boundaries (Bruni, 2006). The lack of a shared culture between participants made it difficult to recommend specific action to organizations individuals experiencing mixed messages. In addition, the culture of certain professions beyond the context of the organization can influence sexual identity management. Future scholars could offer more specific should they focus on sexual identity management in a single organization’s or profession’s culture.

Diversity between participants’ organizations and occupations is also a strength of this study. Because participants from varying occupations, ages, genders, and geographical locations experienced mixed messages between policy and practice in their organizations, this research serves as a starting point for future scholarship to explore this phenomenon in more nuanced ways. Organizational communication and management scholars should continue to explore the “between” spaces where sexual identity management happens. Many participants shared that they were not exclusively in or out of the closet; many were out to a small number of coworkers or a trusted manager for a variety of reasons. Some examples included knowing a manager for years and seeing them apply policies equally for all employees; for others, this meant seeking other gay or lesbian employees. However, the presence of another sexual minority was not always sufficient for participants to enact their sexual identity with that person if the broader organization was perceived as heterosexist. Further exploring the communicative process of how and why sexual minorities enact their sexual identities will help scholars and practitioners alike.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr. Debbie Dougherty, Dr. Rebecca Meisenbach, and my colleagues at the University of Missouri for their guidance in developing this manuscript. I would also like to thank the participants who shared their personal experiences with me. Finally, I would like to thank the reviewers of this manuscript for their insightful suggestions throughout the review process.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Cristin A. Compton (MA, Missouri State University) is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Communication at the University of Missouri. Her main research interests are identity work and power, particularly the intersection of power, sexuality, and gender.

References

Acker

(1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4, 139-158. doi:10.1177/089124390004002002

Alvesson

Ashcraft

K. L.

Thomas

(2008). Identity matters: Reflections on the construction of identity scholarship in organization studies. Organization, 15, 5-28. doi:10.1177/1350508407084426

Ashcraft

K. L.

(2007). Appreciating the “work” of discourse: Occupational identity and difference as organizing mechanisms in the case of commercial airline pilots. Discourse & Communication, 1, 9-36. doi:10.1177/1750481307071982

Ashcraft

K. L.

Mumby

D. K.

(2004). Organizing a critical communicology of gender and work. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2004, 19-44. doi:10.1515/ijsl.2004.012

Ashforth

B. E.

Mael

(1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39. doi:10.5465/AMR.1989.4278999

Ashforth

B. E.

Rogers

K. M.

Corley

K. G.

(2011). Identity in organizations: Exploring cross-level dynamics. Organization Science, 22, 1144-1156. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0591

Booth

E. T.

(2011). Queering queer eye: The stability of gay identity confronts the liminality of trans embodiment. Western Journal of Communication, 75, 185-204. doi:10.1080/10570314.2011.553876

Brenner

B. R.

Lyons

H. Z.

Fassinger

R. E.

(2010). Can heterosexism harm organizations? Predicting the perceived organizational citizenship behaviors of gay and lesbian employees. The Career Development Quarterly, 58, 321-335. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2010.tb00181.x

Bruni

(2006). “Have you got a boyfriend or are you single?” On the importance of being “straight” in organizational research. Gender, Work & Organization, 13, 299-316. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2006.00309.x

10.

Canary

H. E.

Riforgiate

S. E.

Montoya

Y. J.

(2013). The policy communication index: A theoretically based measure of organizational policy communication practices. Management Communication Quarterly, 27, 471-502. doi:10.1177/0893318913494116

11.

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

12.

Chaudoir

S. R.

Fisher

J. D.

(2010). The disclosure processes model: Understanding disclosure decision making and postdisclosure outcomes among people living with a concealable stigmatized identity. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 236-256. doi:10.1037/a0018193

13.

Cheney

Christensen

L. T.

(2001). Organizational identity: Linkages between “internal” and “external” organizational communication. In Jablin

F. M.

Putnam

L. L.

(Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 231-269). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

14.

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. doi:10.5465/AMR.2005.15281431

15.

Colaner

C. W.

Halliwell

Guignon

(2014). “What do you say to your mother when your mother’s standing beside you?” Birth and adoptive family contributions to adoptive identity via relational identity and relational-relational identity gaps. Communication Monographs, 81, 469-494. doi:10.1080/03637751.2014.955808

16.

Cooren

(2004). Textual agency: How texts do things in organizational settings. Organization, 11, 373-393. doi:10.1177/1350508404041998

17.

Corbin

Strauss

(2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

18.

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

19.

Dixon

Dougherty

D. S.

(2014). A language convergence/meaning divergence analysis exploring how LGBTQ and single employees manage traditional family expectations in the workplace. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 42, 1-19. doi:10.1080/00909882.2013.847275

20.

Drake

(2013, June 18). As more Americans have contact with gays and lesbians, social acceptance rises. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/18/as-more-americans-have-contacts-with-gays-and-lesbians-social-acceptance-rises/

21.

Faulkner

S. L.

Hecht

M. L.

(2011). The negotiation of closetable identities: A narrative analysis of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered queer Jewish identity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 829-847. doi:10.1177/0265407510391338

22.

Fleming

(2007). Sexuality, power and resistance in the workplace. Organization Studies, 28, 239-256. doi:10.1177/0170840606068307

23.

Gill

Larson

G. S.

(2014). Making the ideal (local) entrepreneur: Place and the regional development of high-tech entrepreneurial identity. Human Relations, 67, 519-542. doi:10.1177/0018726713496829

24.

Gusmano

(2008). Coming out or not? How nonheterosexual people manage their sexual identity at work. Journal of Workplace Rights, 13, 473-496. doi:10.2190/WR.13.4.g

25.

Hecht

M. L.

Faulkner

S. L.

Meyer

Niles

T. A.

Golden

Cutler

(2002). Jewish American identity: A communication theory of identity analysis of the television series Northern Exposure. Journal of Communication, 52, 852-869. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02577.x

26.

Hecht

M. L.

Warren

J. R.

Jung

Krieger

J. L.

(2005). A communication theory of identity: Development, theoretical perspective, and future directions. In Gudykunst

W. B.

(Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 257-278). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

27.

Henson

J. R.

Olson

L. N.

(2010). The monster within: How male serial killers discursively manage their stigmatized identities. Communication Quarterly, 58, 341-364. doi:10.1080/01463373.2010.503176

28.

Human Rights Campaign Foundation. (2015). Corporate equality index 2016. Retrieved from http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com//files/assets/resources/CEI-2016-FullReport.pdf

29.

Jones

K. T.

Zagacki

K. S.

Lewis

T. V.

(2007). Communication, liminality, and hope: The September 11th missing person posters. Communication Studies, 58, 105-121. doi:10.1080/10510970601168780

30.

Jung

Hecht

M. L.

(2004). Elaborating the communication theory of identity: Identity gaps and communication outcomes. Communication Quarterly, 52, 265-283. doi:10.1080/01463370409370197

31.

Kirby

E. L.

Krone

K. J.

(2002). “The policy exists but you can’t really use it”: Communication and the structuration of work-family policies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 50-77. doi:10.1080/00909880216577

32.

Kuhn

(2006). A “demented work ethic” and a “lifestyle firm”: Discourse, identity, and workplace time commitments. Organization Studies, 27, 1339-1358. doi:10.1177/0170840606067249

33.

Kuhn

Nelson

(2002). Reengineering identity: A case study of multiplicity and duality in organizational identification. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 5-38. doi:10.1177/0893318902161001

34.

Kvale

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

35.

Larson

G. S.

Pearson

A. R.

(2012). Placing identity: Place as a discursive resource for occupational identity work among high-tech entrepreneurs. Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 241-266. doi:10.1177/0893318911435319

36.

LeGreco

(2012). Working with policy: Restructuring healthy eating practices and the circuit of policy communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 40, 44-64. doi:10.1080/00909882.2011.636372

37.

Lindlof

T. R.

Taylor

B. C.

(2010). Qualitative communication research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

38.

Meisenbach

R. J.

Kramer

M. W.

(2014). Exploring nested identities: Voluntary membership, social category identity, and identification in a community choir. Management Communication Quarterly, 28, 187-213. doi:10.1177/0893318914524059

39.

Pizer

J. C.

Sears

Mallory

Hunter

N. D.

(2012). Evidence of persistent and pervasive workplace discrimination against LGBT people: The need for federal legislation prohibiting discrimination and providing for equal employment benefits. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 45, 715-779. doi:10.1086/227279

40.

Prati

Pietrantoni

(2014). Coming out and job satisfaction: A moderated mediation model. The Career Development Quarterly, 62, 358-371. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2014.00088.x

41.

Rich

Schutten

J. K.

Rogers

R. A.

(2012). “Don’t drop the soap”: Organizing sexualities in the repeal of the US military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Communication Monographs, 79, 269-291. doi:10.1080/03637751.2012.697633

42.

Schlenker

B. R.

(1985). The self and social life. Blacklick, OH: McGraw-Hill College.

43.

Scott

C. R.

Corman

S. R.

Cheney

(1998). Development of a structurational model of identification in the organization. Communication Theory, 8, 298-336. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1998.tb00223.x

44.

Skidmore

(2004). A legal perspective on sexuality and organization: A lesbian and gay case study. Gender, Work & Organization, 11, 229-253. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2004.00230.x

45.

Tracy

S. J.

(2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

46.

Turner

(1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

47.

Ward

J. H.

Winstanley

D. C.

(2003). The absent presence: Negative space within discourse and the construction of minority sexual identity in the workplace. Human Relations, 56, 1255-1280. Retrieved from http://hum.sagepub.com

48.

Ward

Winstanley

D. C.

(2006). Watching the watch: The UK fire service and its impact on sexual minorities in the workplace. Gender, Work & Organization, 13(2), 193-219. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2006.00304.x

49.

Wieland

S. M.

(2010). Ideal selves as resources for the situated practice of identity. Management Communication Quarterly, 24, 503-528. doi:10.1177/0893318910374938

50.

Willis

(2011). Laboring in silence: Young lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer-identifying workers’ negotiations of the workplace closet in Australian organizations. Youth & Society, 43, 957-981. doi:10.1177/0044118X10377650

51.

Yep

G. A.

(2013). Queering/Quaring/Kauering/Crippin’/Transing “other bodies” in intercultural communication. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 6, 118-126. doi:10.1080/17513057.2013.777087