The perceived impact of sexual orientation on the ability of queer leaders to relate to followers

Abstract

As the body of research around diversity and leadership in the workforce continues to grow and develop, so does research around the queer experience in the workforce. Thus far, a great deal of research on the queer experience focuses on the costs and benefits of disclosure in the workplace. However, little work explores the intersection of leadership and sexual orientation. The aim of this qualitative paper is to focus on the specific work and/or volunteer leadership experiences of queer leaders within the context of their organizations. In particular, we focus on how queer leaders perceive the impact of their sexual orientation on their ability to relate to followers. Among the identified themes, issues of disclosure, advocacy, and temporal placement were the most consistent areas perceived to be impacted by sexual orientation. The implications and limitations of this study for future research are discussed.

Keywords

Leadership sexual orientation queer relating diversity

Introduction

Although the leadership literature addresses dimensions of diversity such as, for example, sex, color, and disability in parts, it has been slow to explore the intersection of sexual orientation and leadership. While some organizational scholars have begun to examine issues of sexual orientation, their focus has largely been on disclosure and homophobia in the workplace. In this paper, we examine the impact of sexual orientation on a leader’s ability to relate to followers. In particular, we discuss the results of a study researching how queer leaders perceive the impact of their sexual orientation on their ability to lead, specifically the leadership capability of “relating” as defined by Ancona (2005).

It is useful to explain how we use the terms sex and queer in the context of this paper. Taking our cue from Butler’s (1990) conceptualization of gender as including the sexed body, social gender roles, and sexual orientation, we use the term “sex” to mean the physical body of a person, “gender” to mean the femininity and/or masculinity of their social gender role and sexual orientation to mean the people whom they desire in a sexual or romantic way. Although these seem to be relatively straightforward definitions, we acknowledge these labels are more complex than they first appear. However, for the purposes of this paper, we use them in this relatively straightforward way unless indicated otherwise. As well, we use the term “queer” to denote people who identify in ways other than heterosexual. “Queer” has a number of meanings and has been used in the past as a derogatory term for nonheterosexual people before being reclaimed by the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. In this paper, we use it respectfully as an inclusive term reflective of the variety of ways in which community members self-identify.

We access the leadership literature via the Leadership Framework, first explained in Ancona (2005) and later elaborated upon in Ancona et al. (2007). This framework is divided into four key capabilities for leaders: sensemaking, relating, visioning, and inquiring. We focus on relating because it involves a reciprocal, more personal, relationship between leader and follower than the other relationships. Ancona (2005: 2) states “balancing people and process, action and understanding, individual and collective aspirations, can be challenging.” To successfully achieve this, she asserts, a leader develops the court capability of relating. At the core of relating, leaders engage in inquiry (listen and understand what others are thinking and feeling), advocate (trying to influence others while being open to alternative views), and connect (build collaborative relationships and coalitions for change). Each leader combines and deploys these capabilities in a unique way, which Ancona (2005: 4) calls their “change signature.” This change signature develops over time through self-knowledge and experience, resulting in each leader’s “… personal way of making change happen” (p. 4).

We propose that relating is the capability most impacted by sexual orientation because it is the capability requiring interaction between parties. The outcomes of these interactions are based on the exchange of information via communication and filtered through perceptions and assumptions. Thus, the ways in which a leader’s sexual orientation is perceived by others, and in turn the ways in which the leader understands and reacts to those perceptions, have the potential to influence the development and deployment of that leader’s change signature. We are most interested in examining how the ways in which leaders relate to their followers may be affected by these.

We set out to understand, therefore, the way in which a leader’s sexual orientation is perceived by them to affect the relating aspects of their change signature. In order to accomplish this, we interviewed 18 queer leaders, focusing on how they perceive the impact of their sexual orientation on their leadership experience in the context of their organization(s) and their ability to lead and relate with followers. The authors would like to thank the participants for their willingness, eagerness, and courage to take part in this study. Without their honesty in sharing personal insights and experiences, this study would not have been possible.

Leadership Framework and relating

As described briefly above, the Leadership Framework (Ancona, 2005; Ancona et al., 2007) is a distributed leadership model, developed to “end the myth of the complete leader: the flawless person at the top who’s got it all figured out” (Ancona et al., 2007: 92). Ancona et al. argue that this myth has negative consequences on both leaders, who wear themselves out trying to meet this impossible standard, and on the organizations in which they lead. They suggest, instead, that leaders understand, and accept, their limitations. In this way, they can further develop the skills and capabilities they lack and/or find others with complementary capabilities. Thus, leadership would not always and only be held in one person at the top, but rather distributed among those who hold the capabilities necessary for effective leadership.

The Leadership Framework lists these capabilities: sensemaking (making sense of the world around us), relating (developing key relationships within and across organizations), visioning (creating a compelling vision of the future), and inquiring (creating new ways of working together) (Ancona, pp. 2, 3). The four capabilities are complementary and necessary for effective leadership. Ancona (2005: 2) further acknowledges that for leaders, “balancing people and process, action and understanding, individual and collective aspirations, can be challenging.” To successfully achieve this, a leader develops the core capability of relating by developing the ability to engage in inquiry, advocacy, and connecting, thus enabling effective interpersonal relationships.

According to Ancona, when leaders combine the core capability of relating with the other cores (sensemaking, visioning, and inventing), they develop their capabilities and build leadership capacity in organizations (p. 4), thus contributing to the success of the organization. This argument builds on the work of Pettit and Vaught (1984), who examined the ways in which “self-actualization” on the part of leader affects leader effectiveness. In a study of line managers in a number of organizations, Pettit and Vaught used self-reported survey responses to look at the relationship between the degree of self-actualization of the managers and their interpersonal relating capabilities with followers. They found a “positive correlation between self-actualization and interpersonal communication ability” (p. 21). They went on to recommend that, for organizations wishing to move toward more trust and openness in their employee relations “steps should be taken to enhance interpersonal capability and self-actualization among managers” (p. 39). In other words, development of interpersonal capability through self-development (or self-actualization) leads to more favorable organizational interactions and leader effectiveness.

Leadership and sexual orientation

Sexual orientation can impact important workplace issues such as harassment, safety, and security. As a result, queer persons often face challenges when managing sexual orientation in the workplace (Law and Hrabal, 2010). For example, Bryne (1993) cites a 1987 survey where “66% of major-company CEOs said they would be reluctant to put a homosexual on management committees” (p. 56). Herek’s (1996) work with the Department of Defence points out how homosexuals were mistakenly thought to be psychologically impaired, a security risk and incapable of performing duties. Griffith and Hebl (2002) suggest 62% of gay men and 59% of lesbian women experience employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The above suggest the potential for sexual orientation to impact the interpersonal relationship between leaders and followers.

Much research into queer experiences in the workplace focuses on sexual orientation disclosure as an important issue for queer individuals. The importance of disclosure for an individual’s well-being, regardless of sexuality, is highlighted by Herek’s (1996) research and supported by Bowring and Brewis’ (2009) comparison of identity integration and fracture. While issues of sexual orientation disclosure can be linked to workplace discrimination and harassment, Driscoll et al. (1996) report disclosure of lesbian identities did not demonstrate significant influence on occupational stress, coping, or work satisfaction in the workplace, whereas workplace climate does. Tejeda (2006) also reports no actual benefit or obvious rationale for sexual-orientation disclosure in the workplace, answering Herek’s (1996) question “why tell if you’re not asked?”

However, Badgett’s (1996) research emphasizes the importance of all individuals understanding the relationship between disclosure and discrimination in order to create supportive workplace environments, regardless of orientation. More than a decade later, Bowring and Brewis (2009) pointed out the benefits individuals and organizations gain by integrating sexual identity at work with identities in the rest of their lives. Many respondents in Bowring and Brewis’ study cited the “visibility of other queer people as a vital characteristic of this [work] environment” (p. 10). Moradi’s (2009) research further demonstrates how disclosure positively relates to social and task cohesion, where concealment and harassment are negatively related.

Fassinger et al. (2010) argue that, as predominant leadership styles have moved from transactional approaches to transformational approaches to learning-based concepts of leadership, leadership roles are becoming more complex. They suggest the roles and definitions of leaders have broadened and transformed to mirror an equally broad range of followers with diverse needs, styles, and perspectives (p. 203), and cite the increased research on diversity and leadership as evidence. While it is possible to draw similarities between some experiences of marginalized groups they explain, the unique experiences of each group are equally important. Notwithstanding the growing body of research on queer experiences in the workplace, scholarly work on leadership has yet to investigate the characteristics and perspectives that sexual minorities bring to the leadership process.

There are also contradictions in the study of organizational diversity, specifically sexual diversity. For example, while Button (2001) suggests more organizations are introducing policies to address diversity (including sexual diversity) in the workforce, Bowring and Brewis (2009) found most contemporary western organizations operate in a “supposedly gender-neutral and asexual world” (p. 363). Both are correct. With research addressing queer issues in the workplace as early as the 1970s (Ellis, 1996), sexual diversity was only coming to the forefront of good business practices in the early to mid-1990s (Baker et al., 1995). At the time of Button’s research, over a decade ago, more organizations were noticeably implementing policies addressing diversity and offering related training. Disappointingly, Bowring and Brewis (2009) found problems in the queer work experience to be little different from those reported as early as the 1980s, suggesting policies and training still have a long way to go.

With regard to leadership and diversity, Tejeda (2006) highlights how varying identities around ethnicity, gender, and specifically sexual orientation directly impact how leaders and followers relate to each other. Tejeda’s research focuses on the Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) impacting organizational outcome variables, suggesting a leader’s sexual orientation (disclosed or not) impacts the leader–follower dynamic; specifically how they relate to one another. He discusses how the sexual orientation of leaders can impact the LMX, with queer leaders being caught in two roles: (1) as queer leaders managing direct reports and (2) as queer followers under their own supervisors. Our study explored how queer leaders perceive the impact of their sexual orientation on these relationships with their followers.

Leadership, sexual orientation, and relating

Within the well-established literature on leadership and the growing body of research on the queer experience in the workforce, there is little research on the queer leadership experience in the workforce. One example is Renn and Bilodeau (2005) who suggest this research remains rooted in the education sector where leadership identity development of queer student leaders is investigated, often in the context of queer activism. They, and later Renn (2007), found students’ sexual orientation motivates them to take on a leadership role and shapes their behaviors, priorities, and ultimately the student organizations they lead.

We could find no research on the impact of sexual orientation on interpersonal relationships between leaders and followers in the leadership literature. Given the growing acknowledgment of sexual orientation as an important element of organizational experience especially for queer people, and given the dearth of literature in this area, especially with regard to the intersection of sexual orientation and leadership, we set out to examine the way in which sexual orientation impacts one specific aspect of the relationship between leaders and followers, Ancona’s (2005) “relating.” In particular, we wanted to understand the ways in which queer leaders perceived their sexual orientation to impact their ability to relate to followers.

Methodology

Given the rich complexity of sexual orientation and its potential impact on an individual’s life, we determined that qualitative research would best capture the experiences and understanding of respondents. According to Trochim (2005), qualitative research is ideal to identify how sexual orientation interacts with other issues affecting the lives of respondents, specifically in the context of their organizations, and their ability to lead and relate to their followers.

Kirby (2006) cites Fontana and Frey (1994) in her study about gay and lesbian students, stating “… given the sensitive nature of the data collected, individual interviews are currently the best way to examine such personal and sensitive information” (p. 135). Bowring and Brewis (2009) echo this, identifying the extreme sensitivity of collecting data on managing lesbian and gay identities in the Canadian workplace. Renn and Bilodeau (2005) also used qualitative methods, given the exploratory nature of researching identity development and LGBT student involvement. Finally, Ward and Winstanley’s (2003) work to uncover silence about sexuality in organizations also points to utilizing qualitative methods for research on queer leaders, carefully considering the complications in gathering data for their study of sexual minorities in organizations.

With sexual minorities, silence can be indicative of the organization, making it difficult to convince people to talk about their sexual orientation and how it intersects with their organizational experience. Individual interviews can in such cases create a private and safe space, where this silent experience can be given a voice and dialogue can be created to break and explore the silence.

This paper, therefore, is based on the results of a qualitative study in which semi-structured interviews were conducted with self-identified queer leaders working in the not-for-profit, postsecondary education, and public sectors in Canada. A total of 10 men and 8 women ranging from 26 to 61 years of age were interviewed. These self-identified queer leaders were recruited through word of mouth, personal contacts, and modified snowball sampling, where each participant was asked to suggest other potential interviewees. All volunteers identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or queer, though not all were public about their orientation. Participants were out with regard to, and comfortable with, their sexual orientation to varying degrees.

Demographic information such as sex, ethnicity, and sexual orientation were noted, but not separated out. With the exception of one respondent of color, all participants were white and all were able-bodied. It is also worth noting that, as in Ward and Winstanley (2005), in this study, 16 of the 18 research participants knew Jerome, who also self-identifies as queer, in advance. Similar to Bowring and Brewis (2009), it is not possible to comment on all the complex intersections of sexuality, gender, ethnicity, class, ability, and age in the context of leadership or indeed in this study. Were it possible to parse these important elements, different trends may have been discovered under the encompassing umbrella of “queer leaders.” However, that is beyond the scope of this paper.

This research project received ethics clearance from the authors’ home university. The invitation to participate, which included the purpose of the research, expectations, steps to protect privacy and confidentiality, and how collected information would be used and protected were communicated to potential participants via email. Screener questions asked potential participants to verify that they were in a leadership role and that they self-identified as other than heterosexual (i.e., queer). All interviews were conducted within a three-week period according to the availability of the interviewer and participants, resulting in varied times and locations. Interviews were audiorecorded to allow for comprehensive data capture and to allow Jerome (who conducted all the interviews) to focus on the interaction as opposed to note-taking.

Given the extreme sensitivity and personal nature of the research topic for this study, protocols to protect the identities, privacy, and safety of participants were followed. Participant identity was kept out of all notes and documents of the study and interviews were conducted in a private and safe environment. All collected data and information were managed according to the standards set by the Research Ethics Board of our university.

Once selected and prior to the private interviews, participants were sent the ethics approval certificate, the consent form, the study synopsis, and interview schedule. Interviews began with a reiteration of the research purpose and expectations and the consent form. Once participants were satisfied with the way in which confidentiality and privacy were handled, the consent form was signed. Interview questions followed, encouraging participants to share experiences as self-identified queer leaders and their ability to relate with followers.

The interview questions were carefully worded, given the sensitive and personal nature of sexual orientation (Renzetti and Lee, 1993). Given the negative impacts of disclosure identified by Bowring and Brewis (2009), it was important to establish the contexts of the shared experiences. Respondents defined “relating to followers” and shared how they perceived the impact of their sexual orientation on their ability to relate to followers and the followers’ ability to relate to them in their leadership capacity. Subsequent questions asked respondents to share interactions where sexual orientation was considered in relation to their leadership role. Two behavior-based questions were designed to identify specific interactions where the way in which an individual related to them was positively or negatively impacted by their sexual orientation. The interview schedule is available upon request from the authors.

As Trochim (2005) states, qualitative research and the stories it generate add richness and depth while describing the phenomenon in the original language of the respondents (p. 120). Thus, while we asked the respondents to discuss relating to followers and were conscious of Ancona’s connection, inquiry, and advocacy elements, we were careful to use the semi-structured nature of the interviews in such a way as to develop an understanding of the respondents’ experiences as opposed to fitting them into a predetermined framework.

Follow-up questions framed the interview experience for each respondent by asking him or her to consider their attitudes about the perceived impact of their sexual orientation on their ability to lead and relate with followers, before and after the interview. This opened informal discussion and an opportunity for respondents to ask additional questions.

In the following sections, we provide a discussion of the major themes that emerged from the interviews and subsequent analysis. We focus on the ways in which respondents perceived their leadership in relation to the three elements we wished to explore: connection, engaging in inquiry, and advocacy, and then highlight two further themes that emerged from the interviews, disclosure and generational differences.

However, before moving on to our discussion of the interview data, it is important to be clear about the ontological and epistemological positions from which the authors approached the interviews and their interpretation. First, as Denzin and Lincoln remind us:

There are no objective observations, only observations socially situated in the worlds of—and between—the observer and the observed. Subjects, or individuals, are seldom able to give full explanations of their actions or intentions; all they can offer are accounts or stories about what they did and why. (2005: 12)

Thus, we view these interviews as the outcome of a specific set of interviewer–interviewee interactions coming out of a specific set of concerns and questions (Alvesson and Deetz, 2000: 72–73).

Further, we agree with Alvesson and Deetz that we “contribute(d) to invoking a particular identity through the questions raised and the responses made” (2000: 125). As a result, the topics we chose to focus on, the gender, age, academic position, and other elements of interviewer identity affected the discussion and subsequent recorded data. Had we chosen to focus on other elements of leadership or indeed of the Leadership Framework, we might well have moved the discussion in different ways.

At the same time, we were reminded during data interpretation that “Any gaze is always filtered through the lenses of language, gender, social class, race, and ethnicity” (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005: 12). We therefore acknowledge that our interpretation of these data is filtered through our own particular identities and positions. The quotations from participants that appear in this paper are reproduced verbatim, but we are aware that other researchers may quite possibly have interpreted these data differently.

Connection (relating to followers)

For many participants, “relating” to followers involved building relationships based on common ground and understanding. One respondent said

That is the leadership that I value the most and the one that I put most energy into. It’s the ability to connect with others, the ability to build trusting relationships. People won’t be lead by people they don’t trust.

Another spoke about politics at work and how “relating is being connected to the different factions … ” Several participants spoke about making connections and building relationships when relating. Many agreed it meant understanding follower tasks and jobs. As one participant put it, “I’ve worked my way up and I’ve been where they are, done their jobs, so I’m able to understand their perspective.”

Several respondents felt their ability to relate had not been impacted by their sexual orientation. As one respondent put it “I don’t feel that my sexuality impacts my ability to relate to people; my sexual identity is not the end all and be all of who I am.” Another respondent said “With followers, no big deal; it’s with colleagues at the same level where it’s different.”

At the same time, some felt their sexual orientation made them more guarded about what details they shared about their personal lives and with whom they shared it. One respondent said “It’s most impacted with individuals I don’t know very well … I’m more guarded with sharing with people I’m less connected to. I try to gauge their response to information.” Another respondent answered “Definitely in different contexts. What’s it worth to me to disclose? Is it relevant? As a result, when I filter, I may not come across as genuine.”

Still, some participants felt their sexual orientation helped them to recognize “difference” in others, having had similar experiences themselves. “In general I’m more open to differences in others as I hope people would be open to difference in my social identities.” Another respondent shared: “Having grown up feeling different, I look for differences in others and when recognizing it I try to let them know it’s ok.” This participant took it a step further, pointing out how

Excellent leaders in queer history have helped me be open to alternative views—because many of us live in margins, alternative to mainstream. Queerness is so broad and I’m open to that because that’s who I am, especially in my work with poverty. Sexual identity strengthens my ability.

Bowring and Brewis (2009) found little research available on this dynamic where respondents felt their own experiences increased their sensitivity and tolerance, though this was the case with respondents in their study and with five of the respondents in this study.

Two respondents had particularly unique responses. One disclosed her coming out story and how it impacted her emotional development, which in turn impacts her ability to relate to others generally, resulting in her being more guarded about sharing any details about her personal life. Another respondent spoke broadly about his reluctance to work with (and lead) those he could not relate to, including sexual orientation. As he put it:

I don’t feel confident. I would doubt my ability to lead because of not having experience in that framework. The experience of sexual identity isn’t shared. I think I can do it, but would not seek out that leadership opportunity.

This respondent also spoke about his inability to relate to men “who embody the standard societal definition of masculinity,” and how that population intimidates him. While Griffiths and Hebl’s (2002) research around employment discrimination experienced by gay men and lesbian women supports his concerns, it is difficult to draw other definitive conclusions.

Some respondents felt their sexual orientation had no impact on others’ ability to “relate” to them in their positions. One respondent said “the fact that one of my direct reports is 15–20 years older is more of an issue than sexuality.” Others felt sexual orientation lent itself to creating and maintaining an atmosphere of openness and honesty; if they were open about who they were, they were more approachable to staff. Similarly, some respondents felt others who also identified as queer were more comfortable approaching them: “A barrier is removed for people coming in—they can engage with me easier, we can skip a step and get to another level faster. People might assume that I’m open to alternative views.”

Still, there were respondents who feel a level of discomfort and uncertainty sexual orientation brings when others are relating to them. One participant shared this:

I’d have to say I feel as though people will be sharing experiences and feel like they are talking about shared experiences. Then when people realize [they’re not shared], it doesn’t always strain the relationship, but it can be awkward. They’re afraid they may have offended me unintentionally. Then you can almost see them going through all past interactions with you to see if they offended you.

Three participants shared how they felt labeled by their sexual orientation. One participant felt perceptions of her changed when others found out and her sexuality became her main identifier in her organization. Another echoed that sentiment: “It can sometimes become the only identifier—queer feminist lesbian.”

Most respondents continued to identify with the “connecting” ability in the context of relating and the impact of sexual orientation. As one participant put it “Still connect: it involves more personal sharing, connecting more about life outside of work. Relationships include the whole person.” Another spoke specifically about the impact of sexual orientation:

I would say connection. For the reason that going through something that is still not entirely socially accepted. It was tough growing up and still tough in many workplaces. This has allowed me to be sensitive and attune to others’ problems and struggles, and I am more open to listen as a leader and try to connect with individuals …

When respondents spoke about circumstances where sexuality was considered when relating to others in their respective positions, almost all related it back to aspects of disclosure. Whether engaged in conversations around personal lives, dealing with negative reactions/comments from others, or working with their staff, the respondents addressed disclosure. “Do I have to disclose or can I find another way to approach this?” and “… that makes me consider the choices about how I disclose” were common statements. Conscious of the language, one respondent said:

Personal connections. If the topic is 100% work focused then sexuality doesn’t even occur to me: in personal conversations, it’s at the very forefront (depending on who I’m talking to). I feel myself playing the pronoun game and watching what I say so I don’t have to answer more questions.

Another respondent reported he did the same at work:

When conversation among colleagues goes into ‘personal life,’ that’s when I consider it the most. More often than not, I won’t volunteer information unless asked. Particularly in a group setting when I don’t know everyone, I’ll use ‘we,’ being generic and using generalizations.

With disclosure as a dominant trend, Bowring and Brewis’ (2009) research similarly found participants identifying the degree to which they were out in their lives, particularly at work, an important issue. As Bowring and Brewis cite, this is the case in two studies conducted by Ward and Winstanley (2003, 2005) where “coming out” was a recurring and prominent theme. This is further addressed in the section focusing on disclosure.

Pleasantly, 5 of the 18 respondents did not have examples of interactions being negatively impacted by their sexual orientation. In three interviews, participants clarified they had no negative experiences in their current leadership role. Negative interactions outside of those positions are unknown.

The most common negative situations involved coworkers or social situations involving negative/offensive remarks and/or behavior. Two respondents felt their personal safety and well-being were compromised. One respondent shared how his department dismissed his complaints and concerns, and chastised him for taking action. Two participants spoke about making others feel uncomfortable or embarrassed, even prioritizing it higher than their own discomfort and embarrassment. In this example, in the context of a staff social, a follower poorly handled sexual orientation terminology more than once and “… since then, the relationship has been strained. I worry more that she will feel bad if she finds out [I am a lesbian].”

Most respondents eagerly shared examples of positive interactions impacted by their sexual orientation and leadership roles. A common theme was being utilized as a resource, either for someone just coming out or for information around the queer experience.

Students seek me out when they’re dealing with their own sexual orientation and watching them develop—partly as a result of our relationship. It’s particularly great to see the student come out and engage. It’s very rewarding to play a part in that student experience.

In two cases, they were thanked by coworkers/staff for being positive influences on personal attitudes and assumptions about queer experiences and people. One respondent was thanked for being a visible role model specifically in a leadership position. Many participants spoke about improved relationships, with one respondent sharing:

In my line of work, I think that subordinates overall are positively impacted because they understand that there are still struggles with sexual identity and respect my ability to be comfortable in my own skin and have an ability lead and inspire. I lead a younger group where struggles in their lives involve relationships with partners and parents.

Engaging in inquiry

While the majority of respondents identified with “connecting” within Ancona’s (2005) capability of “relating,” a number identified with both “connecting” and “engaging through inquiry,” the next most identified characteristic. Each felt connecting and engaging in inquiry were not independent of the other. As one participant explained, “Engaging in inquiry is how you get to connecting; I don’t see them as distinct, rather more as a process.” Another felt both “engaging in inquiry” and “connecting” were impacted by sexual orientation. “Probably engaging with a side dish of connection—engaging in inquiry when talking about personal connections. I avoid because I don’t want to share of myself and in turn it affects connections.”

Advocacy and assumptions

A surprising theme across the interviews was the relationship between sexual orientation and one’s ability to advocate. When asked which capability was most impacted by their sexual orientation, four participants felt advocacy was most impacted by their sexual orientation, positively and negatively. One personally understood what it was like to feel different, therefore identified injustice or part of her not being represented. Since coming out, she is more apt to support individuals and speak up on their behalf. Similarly, another respondent discussed how his different identities (i.e., ethnicity, ability) in addition to his sexual orientation make him feel obligated to speak up for others because “… in the end, it’s all connected, our sexual identity, our gender, our ethnicity. Of course I’m going to speak up and advocate.”

The two respondents who felt their sexual orientation negatively impacted their ability to advocate, especially around queer issues, explained:

I’m going to say advocacy. At times that’s [sexual orientation] the reason why I don’t tend towards that. This might not necessarily be the case, but when I’m seen as being an advocate, I think some people thinks ‘she’s advocating for homos because that’s what she is’ … it’s often better to have an advocate who doesn’t identify with that group because it’s a stronger voice …

The other respondent felt the same way:

I would probably say the advocacy piece. I think the reason that one is most affected because sometimes if I am making any stances or putting a positive space or engage people in a conversation on creating a positive space, people are perceiving that it’s a part of my identity. I readily advocate for any issues. Are people making assumptions about me taking a stand on same-sex issues … is it because I’m gay or because it’s important?

She followed her statement with an example demonstrating the power of an ally from the popular television show “Glee” where a heterosexual character stands up for the rights of a queer character. She felt it demonstrated the impact of that dynamic.

The two respondents who shared negative impacts on their ability to advocate, gave examples more common than they initially appear. Both respondents spoke about their reluctance to advocate specifically around queer issues and rights, especially in their organizations. One respondent shared examples of not wanting to address mandates and policies involving diversity and gender identities because she felt it would be perceived she was only addressing these issues because she herself was queer. Furthermore, not being out to everyone in her position, by making this an issue, she would “tip off” those already wondering, putting herself in a position of scrutiny. She shared “… it bugs me, because it’s an important issue, but I don’t feel like I can say anything.”

This particular theme crossed several of the questions for these respondents, but it was also addressed by other respondents who had not spoken about it before. When asked to share negative interactions impacted by their sexual orientation, one participant spoke about how she organized an information session around diverse sexual identities in the community agency she worked for, but it was poorly received by the clients for reasons far beyond her control. When it was addressed by her supervisor, she was asked “what her agenda was.” “I don’t think I would have been asked that if my sexual identity was different.”

Disclosure

Perhaps unsurprisingly, disclosure came up as an overarching theme throughout the study even though we did not set out to specifically focus on this aspect of participants’ lives. Tejeda’s (2006) research around disclosure within the context of nondiscrimination policies, and Griffith and Hebl’s (2002) work on identifying the “disclosure dilemma” for gay men and lesbians, both help to lay the foundation for this aspect of the queer experience. The research conducted by Ward and Winstanley (2003) also found participants identifying coming out as a “defining moment” in their work life experience. When asked to speak on their experiences of work, coming out stories and themes emerged, dominating discussion in the focus groups. They also determined “the decision to come out is one of the most important career decisions faced by gay employees and one that many others do not have to make” (p. 448).

Respondents for this study were selected by how they self-identified their sexuality, not by the measure of their degree of being “out” in their organizations. Degrees of being out varied between the respondents with most being comfortably out, while a few were only “out to some” or “wholly within the closet” and not out at all. Regardless of their degree of being out, respondents all agreed that disclosure was an experience unique to the queer community and regularly occurred in their lives, not just in their roles within their organizations. In fact, three respondents did not think they would have become leaders had they not come out. This speaks to the impact of their sexual identity on their general identity as a leader, and reinforces the importance of disclosure and its unique impact on a person’s perceptions and attitudes.

One respondent shared the circumstances surrounding both his professional life and his personal life with his partner. He is in a relationship with someone who is not in the closet but is careful not to disclose at his work, due to the nature of his job. “I think about it [my sexual orientation] more now than two years ago because my partner is in a job where he has to think about it all the time.” He shared an example about looking at a house they were interested in buying and having to pose as his partner’s “decorator” because the real estate agent was one of his partner’s clients. In further discussion in the interview for this study, the respondent went on to say:

In a way we’re always navigating our sexual identity. You don’t just come out once. We’re always coming out with every new person that’s hired, with every new person that we meet, every new situation. We’re never done coming out … it’s maybe the one genuinely queer experience.

When respondents were asked for circumstances where sexual orientation was consciously considered, disclosure quickly emerged as a theme. When asked for negative experiences related to their sexual orientation, over half of the respondents referenced negative reactions once their orientation was disclosed, or negative remarks/behaviors making them reconsider disclosure. In some cases, reactions were so poor, personal safety was considered. When asked for positive interactions impacted by sexual orientation, many reported situations dealing with the disclosure of others in their work and volunteer leadership positions. One respondent shared his own experience working in a not-for-profit funding agency where the relationship between his organization and donors often rested on key relationships with his position. He went on to share examples where his relationship with one donor agency became strained because of the agency’s fundamental Christian beliefs; while another donor’s relationship with him improved when she found out about his sexual orientation because she was actively looking to make donations with issues of diversity in mind.

Issues of disclosure came up most frequently when engaged in conversations at work around personal lives and activities outside of work. When followers shared information about home life, partners, and family, participants stated they would consciously decide to disclose or not. By choosing not to share or take part in those conversations, some felt they were perceived as “cold or unfriendly and unapproachable.”

Generational gaps and experiences

It is important to note many of the findings reported by recent research such as Bowring and Brewis (2009) were similar to those already identified by respondents in the 1980s, even though much of the latter may be dated in other ways. This points to the persistence of the impact of sexual orientation on organizational members and highlights the proposal of Ancona et al. (2001) to consider the temporal lens as a new research lens and framework for “explaining and understanding organizational behaviour” (p. 646). While different lenses, such as strategic design, politics, and culture can be used to deepen our understanding of organizational behavior, the temporal lens cuts across the other lenses by acknowledging the importance of time. It is necessary to consider the experiences of respondents in the past and the contexts within which they occurred. For example, how fast or slow are the political and cultural climates changing around the acceptance of sexual diversity in mainstream society?

Many of the respondents’ experiences could potentially be very different from those of a queer leader just entering the work force. For example, within the past 15 years, the current cohort of leaders in the workforce has experienced the Matthew Shepard tragedy (where the murder of a 21-year old gay man in Laramie, Wyoming garnered national and international media coverage), an increase in visible (and even positive) representation of queer people in mass media, celebrity personalities coming out and the legalization of marriage, just to name a few notable moments. Three respondents spoke about the continuing “It Gets Better” campaign, launched by author Dan Savage and his partner, in 2010, in response to a string of teenage/young adult suicides related to harassment/bullying as a result of sexual orientation. This changing, broader societal context within which queer leaders and followers are relating to each other is a factor to consider when identifying the impact of sexual orientation. One respondent summed it up well:

Things today are a lot different than they were even 5 years ago. People are more open about it, but not necessarily with people in positions of power. Having an implicit understanding, I get some aspects of what they’re struggling with … they’ve been a lot more willing to let their guard down. I think it’s true in a lot of regards (though I think it can be too much sometimes), but generally it is the case.

Conclusion

The responses collected in this study reveal how queer leaders perceive the impact of their sexual orientation on their abilities to lead and relate to their followers. Specifically, using the capabilities of relating as outlined in the Leadership Framework, the respondents shared insight and personal experiences reflecting how their sexual orientation has impacted their abilities to engage with their followers through inquiry, advocacy, and connections with their followers within the contexts of their organizations.

A number of findings emerged from this study. By asking participants to discuss their perceptions and experiences, framed around elements of the core capability of relating to others, we were able to tease out several key areas where participants felt their sexual orientation and their leadership intersected. In terms of the Leadership Framework, advocacy emerged as the most impactful. We were also able to ascertain that issues of sexual orientation disclosure continue to occupy a predominant place in the work experiences of queer leaders. As well, the temporal context, or what we have called temporal placement, seems to have had impact on the way in which queer leaders’ sexual orientation is perceived by followers.

What also emerged from our interviews was the importance of relating to others: all our participants saw this capability as important in their day-to-day interactions with followers and as an important part of their leadership. The implications go beyond the personal to the organizational. Two decades after Pettit and Vaught (1984) outlined the benefits to organizations of developing interpersonal capabilities in managers, Ireland et al.’s (2002) research on alliance management links this capability to organizational success via the accumulation of social capital by organizations. Ireland et al. define social capital as a “product of relationships developed through long-term interactions” between organizations (p. 429). They go on to acknowledge that this is built through networks of personal relationships. Stronger relationships between organizations suggest stronger relationships between colleagues within each organization.

Leaders must cultivate and build these relationships. How much more complicated for queer leaders who have to navigate disclosing something as personal as sexual orientation or work at being able to pass with the majority, depending on their organizational environment?

Findings from current research and literature around the queer experience in contemporary work and volunteer organizations tend to focus on the cost and benefits of disclosure and the resulting experiences of respondents. The respondents in this study also discuss disclosure, although the focus of the study was more broadly on the experience of queer leaders. As queer individuals not in leadership positions were not interviewed, it would be interesting to ascertain whether the experiences of this study’s participants are uniquely linked to their leadership positions in their organizations.

While disclosure emerged as a topic of importance in the work life of these leaders, this study contributes more broadly to the literature on the experiences of queer leaders in the workplace. By exposing the unique ways sexual orientation impacts how leaders lead and relate with their followers, it reiterates the importance of developing a work–identity congruent with their identity outside of work (Bowring and Brewis, 2009).

How often the respondents in this study consider their sexual orientation and disclosure in their interactions with followers, demonstrates the relationship between disclosure and one’s ability to lead confidently (Renn and Bilodeau, 2005). Some questions for future research in this area include the following: How does the disclosure of the leader’s sexual orientation affect the professional working relationship between the leader and the follower? Using the continuum between full disclosure and intentional passing, there are legitimate concerns around the negative professional and personal outcomes of sexual orientation disclosure in the workplace (Bowring and Brewis, 2009). If passing promotes isolation and alienation (DeJordy, 2008), how much more impactful are experiences for queer leaders? What are the negative professional and personal outcomes for queer leaders who choose to disclose their sexual orientation? What is the impact on the leader and member exchange?

Other questions for future research that were raised by our study come out of the discussion on temporality: How do generational differences impact the way in which sexual orientation of leaders is perceived by both leaders and followers? How does this impact the leader’s ability to relate to followers? What happens when leaders and followers are from different generational cohorts?

As Fassinger et al. (2010) point out, there remains a large gap in the general understanding of the actual experience of most queer individuals in the workplace. We would add that the gap is even larger in the understanding of the experiences of queer leaders. This study contributes to that understanding.

Footnotes

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 biographies

Jerome Chang is a Graduate of the University of Guelph’s MA (Leadership) program. He is currently the Program Counsellor for the interdisciplinary Bachelor of Arts & Sciences degree program at the University of Guelph. With a Bachelor of Arts degree in Music, Drama and Family & Social Relations, he worked many years in Student Affairs, specifically in Residence Life. He continues to deliver keynotes, presentations and workshops at post-secondary institutions across Canada.

Michèle Bowring (PhD Leicester) is a Faculty Member in Leadership Studies in the Department of Management at the University of Guelph, Canada. Her primary research interests lie at the intersection of leadership, gender, sexuality and diversity in the workplace. Other recent areas of exploration include consumption and online communities, qualitative methods, media and culture. Her work has been published in Journal of Management Inquiry, Gender Work and Organization and Equality, Diversity and Inclusion.

References

Alvesson M and Deetz S (2000) Doing critical management research. London: Sage.

Ancona

(2005) Leadership in an age of uncertainty, Boston: Research Brief, MIT Leadership Center.

Ancona

Goodman

Lawrence

(2001) Time: A new research lens. Academy of Management Review 26(4): 645–663.

Ancona D, Malone TW, Orlikowski WJ and Senge PM (2007) In praise of the incomplete leader. Harvard Business Review 85(2): 92–100.

Badgett

MVL

(1996) Employment and sexual orientation: Disclosure and discrimination in the workplace. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services 4(4): 29–52.

Baker

Strub

Henning

(1995) Cracking the Corporate Closet: The 200 Best (and Worst) Companies to Work for, Buy From, and Invest in if You’re Gay or Lesbian—And Even if You Aren’t, New York: HarperBusiness.

Bowring

Brewis

(2009) Truth and consequences: Managing lesbian and gay identity in the Canadian workplace. Equal Opportunities International 28(5): 361–377.

Butler

(1990) Gender Trouble, New York: Psychology Press.

Button

(2001) Organizational efforts to affirm sexual diversity: A cross-level examination. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(1): 17–28.

10.

Byrne JS (1993). Affirmative action for lesbians and gay men: A proposal for true equality of opportunity and workforce diversity. Yale Law & Policy Review 47–108.

11.

DeJordy

(2008) Just passing through: Stigma, passing, and identity decoupling in the work place. Group Organization Management 33(5): 504, 531.

12.

Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (2005) Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

13.

Driscoll

Kelley

Fassinger

(1996) Lesbian identity and disclosure in the workplace: Relation to occupational stress and satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behaviour 48: 229–242.

14.

Ellis

(1996) Sexual identity issues in the workplace: Past and present. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services 4(4): 1–16.

15.

Fassinger

Shullman

Stevenson

(2010) Towards an affirmative lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender leadership paradigm. American Psychologist 65(3): 201–215.

16.

Griffith

Hebl

(2002) The disclosure dilemma for gay men and lesbians. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(6): 1191–1199.

17.

Herek

(1996) Why tell if you’re not asked? Self-disclosure, intergroup contact, and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. In: Herek

Jobe

Carney

(eds) Out In Force: Sexual Orientation and the Military, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 197–225.

18.

Ireland

Hitt

Vaidyanath

(2002) Alliance management as a source of competitive advantage. Journal of Management 28(3): 413, 446.

19.

Kirby S (2006) American gay and lesbian student leaders' perceptions of job discrimination. Equal Opportunities International 25(2): 126–140.

20.

Law

Hrabal

(2010) Sexual minorities in the workplace: The status of legal and organizational protection. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist 47(4): 37–44.

21.

Moradi B (2009) Sexual orientation disclosure, concealment, harassment, and military cohesion: Perceptions of LGBT military veterans. Military Psychology 21(4): 513–553.

22.

Pettit

Jr Vaught

(1984) Self-actualization and interpersonal capability in organizations. Journal of Business Communication 21: 33–40.

23.

Renn

(2007) LGBT student leaders and queer activists: Identities of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer identified college student leaders and activists. Journal of College Student Development 48(3): 311, 330.

24.

Renn

Bilodeau

(2005) Leadership identity development among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender student leaders. NASPA Journal 42(3): 342–367.

25.

Renzetti

Lee

(1993) Researching Sensitive Topics, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

26.

Tejeda

(2006) Nondiscrimination policies and sexual identity disclosure: Do they make a difference in employee outcomes? Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 18(1): 45–59.

27.

Trochim WMK (2005) Research Methods: The Concise Knowledge Base. Toronto: Nelson Education, Ltd.

28.

Ward

Winstanley

(2003) The absent presence: Negative space within discourse and the construction of minority sexual identity in the workplace. Human Relations 56(10): 1255–1280.

29.

Ward

Winstanley

(2005) Coming out at work: Performativity and the recognition and renegotiation of identity. Sociological Review 53(3): 447–474.