The benefit of full disclosure

Abstract

Disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace is a communication exchange wherein an individual reveals his/her sexual orientation to coworkers, to one extent or another. Although there have been a number of empirical studies on disclosure in the workplace, the literature has never been systematically reviewed. The current study meta-analyzed 24 primary studies in order to elucidate the relationship between workplace sexual orientation disclosure and individual, relational, and organizational correlates. Results indicated that disclosure is most strongly related to organizational climate, suggesting that the organization has a substantial impact on individual disclosure decisions.

Keywords

diversity homosexuality meta-analysis sexual orientation

Across workplaces worldwide, there exists an invisible, ideological system known as heterosexism, which privileges heterosexuality and oppresses nonheterosexuals (Herek, 1990). Although over 60 countries have implemented workplace protections for LGBTQIA+¹ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual, or other) employees, approximately 40% of the world’s population still lives in a place where sexual minorities are criminalized (“International Work,” 2016). Sexual orientation is not a protected class in the United States, meaning that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect Americans from being discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation. In other words, it is currently legal to harass, deny benefits to, and even fire an American employee because of his or her sexual orientation. Furthermore, there is clearly progress to be made, even in the most progressive nations; for instance, although countries such as the United Kingdom and Israel passed LGBT antidiscrimination legislation, there still exist legal loopholes that allow for discrimination against LGBT individuals (e.g., religious institutions are allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation in certain contexts; Badgett & Frank, 2007).

Heterosexism drives sexual stigmatization, which is defined as the societal-level phenomenon whereby nonheterosexual identities, behaviors, and relationships are regarded negatively and rendered relatively low-status and powerless (Herek, 2007). Based on stigma theory (Goffman, 1963), sexual stigmatization involves both the target of the stigmatization and the perceiver of the stigma, and manifests itself at the individual, relational, and institutional levels. Furthermore, sexual stigmatization operates independent of individual beliefs about sexual orientation, due to the engrained nature of heterosexism in cultural and societal structures.

Although certain social stigmas are based on relatively visible individual attributes (e.g., certain physical disabilities), sexual orientation is invisible, meaning that identifying as a member of a stigmatized group is not readily apparent to others, or identifiable at the surface level. The implication of this is that invisibly stigmatized individuals must decide whether to disclose their stigmas to others, keep their identities private, or use some combination of the two tactics. The decision to come out at work has been called a “core challenge” (Ragins, Singh, & Cornwell, 2007, p. 1105) of sexual stigmatization, and has repeatedly been framed as a lesser of two evils scenario (e.g., Chrobot-Mason, Button, & DiClementi, 2001)—in a no-win situation, which choice will cause the least harm? Being that sexual stigmatization manifests across organizational levels, one critical first step in understanding the implications of coming out at work is to investigate how disclosure relates to individual-, dyadic-, and organization-level variables. However, the scholarly literature has yet to reach clear, resounding, empirically based conclusions regarding the work-relevant correlates of disclosure of sexual orientation.

At the individual level, the potentially reciprocal relationship between job attitudes (such as job satisfaction) and disclosure may be either positive or negative. On the one hand, individuals who feel satisfied with their jobs may be more likely to disclose their sexual orientation at work, and the act of disclosure may serve to reinforce those positive job attitudes (e.g., Griffith & Hebl, 2002). On the other hand, sexual orientation disclosure frequently leads to physical and verbal victimization, particularly for men and for individuals who are more open and less inhibited about discussing their sexuality (D’Augelli & Grossman, 2001). Thus, disclosure may lead to job dissatisfaction if individuals experience discrimination subsequent to coming out at work. Alternatively, disclosure and satisfaction may not be related at all (e.g., Trau, 2015). In its current state, the scholarly literature on the topic has failed to reconcile these competing points of view; the implications that disclosure has for job satisfaction have been studied repeatedly, but results are oftentimes inconsistent across studies. In addition to job satisfaction, effects ranging in both magnitude and valence have been reported for the relationships between disclosure and job attitudes such as organizational commitment (e.g., Day & Schoenrade, 1997; Miller & Higgins, 2006; Ragins et al., 2007; Trau & Härtel, 2007), turnover intentions (e.g., Law, Martinez, Ruggs, Hebl, & Akers, 2011; Ragins et al., 2007; Tejeda, 2006), and job strain (e.g., Day & Schoenrade, 1997; Griffith & Hebl, 2002; Huebner & Davis, 2005). Accordingly, there is no clear consensus on whether/how coming out at work impacts (or is impacted by) individuals’ attitudes about their jobs.

At the dyadic level, the relation between disclosure and coworker relationships may also theoretically be positive or negative. On the positive side (e.g., Griffith & Hebl, 2002; Law et al., 2011), individuals with high-quality coworker relationships may be more likely to disclose their sexual orientation at work because they feel at ease in their social surroundings, and the act of disclosure may serve to reinforce these high-quality relationships. On the negative side, individuals with low-quality coworker relationships may choose to disclose their sexual orientation at work because they feel the need to seek out additional support in light of their dire social circumstances (e.g., Tejeda, 2006), and disclosure may lead to impoverished relationships if, subsequent to coming out, coworkers respond with rejection (Badgett, 1996; Cain, 1991). Finally, some results have implied that there is a near-zero relation between coming out and coworker relationships (e.g., Huebner & Davis, 2005; Ruggs, Martinez, Hebl, & Law, 2015). Thus, the strength and direction of the (potentially reciprocal) relationship between sexual orientation disclosure and coworker supportiveness have yet to be conclusively determined.

Finally, at the organizational level, there are a number of theoretically viable associations between disclosure of sexual orientation and perceptions of the organization. On the one hand, individuals who see their organization as being LGBT-supportive may be more likely to disclose their sexual orientation at work because they feel relatively safe and comfortable doing so, and the act of disclosure may serve to reinforce positive perceptions of the organization (e.g., Griffith & Hebl, 2002; Law et al., 2011). On the other hand, individuals may disclose their sexual orientation if they see their organization as being systematically anti-LGBT because they hope to gain additional support, maintain authenticity, and/or speak up against injustice (Cain, 1991; Clair, Beatty, & MacLean, 2005). Furthermore, disclosure may lead to negative perceptions of the organization if individuals are faced with discriminatory organizational policies and procedures subsequent to coming out (Badgett, 1996). Alternatively, as some research has indicated, the relationship between disclosure and perceptions of the organization may be close to null (e.g., Trau & Härtel, 2007). Thus, when faced with the relation between individual disclosure decisions and organization-level perceptions, a robust answer with regard to effect size, direction, and potential reciprocity has yet to clearly resonate across the literature.

Accordingly, the current study sought to unify the scholarly literature on workplace sexual orientation disclosure by employing meta-analytic techniques to estimate the relations between disclosure and work-relevant variables. Specifically, the objective of the study was to use meta-analysis to answer research questions regarding the relative magnitudes and valences of the relations between disclosure of LGBT identity and (a) attitudinal, (b) relational, and (c) organizational work-relevant variables. Practically speaking, when employees feel safe, comfortable, and happy at work, they will be more likely to express their authentic selves (e.g., Ménard & Brunet, 2011). In turn, understanding the factors associated with disclosure of sexual orientation—including factors that encourage and discourage disclosure, and ripple effects that occur as a result of disclosure—is important in order to progress organizational and social justice, as well as to improve well-being of individual employees and organizations at large. An elucidated understanding of the relations between sexual orientation disclosure and correlates at various organizational levels could lead to more targeted diversity initiatives, for instance.

We conceptualized these relationships as correlations (as opposed to causal relationships) for two primary reasons, both of which relate to the issue of causal ambiguity. First, psychological meta-analyses often draw causal conclusions only when there is a clear implication that one variable temporally preceded the other (e.g., Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Riketta, 2008; M. L. Williams, McDaniel, & Nguyen, 2006). In the case of this meta-analysis, there is no clear temporal antecedent/consequence for any of the aggregated relationships. On the contrary, it is likely that disclosure co-occurs and coevolves with employee job attitudes, coworker relationships, and perceptions of the organization; thus, these associations are best conceptualized as correlative as opposed to causal. In line with this conceptualization, prior meta-analyses have opted to frame variables as correlates instead of as antecedents or consequences, in order to avoid the same threat of causal ambiguity (e.g., Mesmer-Magnus, DeChurch, & Wax, 2012). Second, there is evidence to suggest that drawing causal conclusions based on the results of meta-analyses is generally inappropriate (Weed, 2010). In order to confidently draw appropriate causal conclusions, the original studies must involve random assignment of individuals to experimental groups (Jennions, Lortie, & Koricheva, 2013); because the studies in our database were descriptive in nature, we opted to err on the side of caution and conceptualize all relationships as correlations. Thus, although we drew on research that theorizes potential antecedents and consequences of disclosure decisions at work in the development of our hypotheses (i.e., Chrobot-Mason et al., 2001), we conceptualize the relationships of interest in our paper as correlations as opposed to causal relationships.

In the sections to follow, we start by briefly reviewing the extant literature on disclosure of sexual orientation at work. Subsequent to that, we develop research questions regarding disclosure and its individual, relational, and organizational work-relevant correlates, and utilize meta-analytic correlations to answer our proposed research questions. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of our results, the limitations of our study, and avenues for future research. In sum, this systematic review explores and draws conclusions about an area of research that has produced somewhat scattered findings; knowledge of overarching patterns will lead to a more definitive understanding of sexual orientation disclosure at work.

Coming out (or staying in the closet) at work

Rather than being a clear-cut, unequivocal phenomenon, sexual orientation disclosure is a highly complex, fluid, ongoing process. It involves negotiating the social world by releasing information on one’s invisible identity to different people in different ways. To this end, many scholars refer to the disclosure process holistically as workplace sexual identity management (e.g., Croteau, Anderson, & VanderWal, 2008), a term which implies an ongoing process.

Sexual identity management strategies have been conceptualized in a variety of different ways. One popular model is Griffin’s (1992) continuum, which she taxonomizes into four parts; passing and covering are oriented toward identity concealment, while being implicitly out and explicitly out are both oriented toward identity revealment. Passing, the behavior most oriented toward identity concealment, occurs when an individual fabricates information (i.e., a nonexistent significant other of the opposite sex) in an attempt to present himself or herself as heterosexual. While covering does not involve providing false information to others in order to appear heterosexual, it does involve omitting any mention of information that may implicate oneself as LGBT. Being implicitly out means that the individual communicates clues that signal their sexual orientation (i.e., being a member of a gay–straight alliance), but do not explicitly disclose their identity. Finally, being explicitly out means that the individual fully embraces and discloses his or her identity. Another popular model of sexual identity management is Woods’s (1994) three-part taxonomy, which parallels Griffin’s earlier model in both structure and content. In essence, each part of Woods’s model maps on to a category from Griffins’s; counterfeiting is akin to passing, avoidance to covering, and integration to being explicitly out.

More contemporarily, researchers have theorized regarding the potential antecedents and consequences of disclosure decisions. For instance, Ragins (2008) developed a model based on stigma theory, which posits that individuals with an invisible stigma face unique challenges surrounding the decision whether to disclose/conceal said stigma. This model depicts four antecedents to disclosure decisions: stigma characteristics (i.e., whether the stigma is viewed as controllable and/or dangerous by others; whether the stigma disrupts normal social interactions; whether the visibility of the stigma changes/increases over time), internal psychological factors (i.e., self-verification and identity centrality), anticipated consequences of disclosure (i.e., positive vs. negative outcomes), and environmental factors (i.e., similar others, supportive relationships, and institutional support). Furthermore, this model suggests that there may be a disconnect between disclosure decisions made in one venue versus another (e.g., work vs. informal settings). In a similar vein, Clair et al. (2005) put forth a theoretical framework in which the relation between individual differences (i.e., propensity toward risk taking, self-monitoring, developmental stage, and motives) and disclosure decisions is moderated by interpersonal and environmental contexts (i.e., organizational diversity climate, professional and industry norms, legal protections, and target relationships and characteristics). This model proposes that individual and interpersonal costs–benefits of disclosure decisions are impacted by interpersonal and environmental contexts in addition to disclosure decisions themselves, and that cost–benefits reciprocally impact future disclosure decisions. Finally, Lidderdale, Croteau, Anderson, Tovar-Murray, and Davis (2007) proposed a model of sexual identity management based on social cognitive theory. Their framework is composed of the following four parts: distal influences on learning experiences about identity management (e.g., personal characteristics, early life experiences, and social/cultural identities); learned self-efficacy beliefs (i.e., beliefs about ability to perform a given behavior) and outcome expectations (i.e., valence and instrumentality); proximal contextual influences (e.g., immediate work context, LGB-related work climate, work role, interpersonal factors, and community context); and outcomes of identity management.

Based on the aforementioned previous theories, we propose a comprehensive, three-part model, which encompasses individual-, relational-, and organizational-level correlates of disclosure decisions. For the purposes of the current meta-analysis, we emphasized job satisfaction at the individual level, social support at the relational level, and climate and discrimination at the organizational level.

Job attitudes

At the individual level, job attitudes are affective, behavioral, and cognitive evaluations that individuals make with regard to their jobs. Job satisfaction—or, an individual’s valenced opinion of his/her job—is not just the most frequently studied job attitude; it is the most frequently studied organizational behavior variable bar none (Spector, 1997). From a humanistic perspective, job satisfaction is important because it reflects employee well-being and happiness (Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000; Spector, 1997). From a more utilitarian framework, job satisfaction is important because it drives behaviors that impact overall, organization-level outcomes (Spector, 1997). For instance, job satisfaction predicts job performance (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001), organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs; Moorman, 1993; L. J. Williams & Anderson, 1991), counterproductive workplace behaviors (Penney & Spector, 2005), and turnover intentions. In the case of turnover intentions, which have costly implications for organizations, job satisfaction is a better predictor than similar job attitudes such as organizational commitment (Tett & Meyer, 1993). Moreover, job satisfaction can be seen as a litmus test for team/organization dysfunction (Spector, 1997). For example, role ambiguity/conflict (Brown & Peterson, 1993), incivility, organizational constraints, and interpersonal conflict have all been found to negatively predict job satisfaction (Penney & Spector, 2005).

The relationship between the disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace and job satisfaction has frequently been reported in the scholarly literature, and the results across studies have been highly inconsistent. On one end of the spectrum, some studies have concluded that disclosure and satisfaction are strongly, positively correlated. For instance, Griffith and Hebl (2002) surveyed 379 gay men and lesbian women from Texas and found that workplace disclosure and job satisfaction were significantly, positively correlated. In a similar vein, Velez, Moradi, and Brewster (2013) reported a similar moderate–strong positive correlation between disclosure and satisfaction, based on a sample of 326 sexual minority individuals who were recruited to complete a survey.

However, other studies have concluded that the relationship between sexual orientation disclosure and job satisfaction is strongly negative. For example, Miller and Higgins (2006) concluded a negative correlation between disclosure and satisfaction after surveying 67 same-sex-attracted individuals from two Australian organizations. Tejeda (2006) drew a similar conclusion based on 65 surveys of gay men from the East Coast of the United States. Furthermore, still other studies have resolved that the magnitude of the relationship between disclosure and satisfaction is close to null, including one study with results based on an online survey of 654 lesbian and gay individuals from 35 countries (Trau, 2015), and another with evidence from surveys of 172 lesbian and gay student affairs professionals (Anderson, Croteau, Chung, & DiStefano, 2001).

One possible explanation for these inconsistencies is the influence of extraneous, work-relevant variables. As an example, research has indicated that organization-level variables such as workplace heterosexist climate and anticipated discrimination may mediate the relationship between disclosure and job satisfaction (e.g., Prati & Pietrantoni, 2014). Overall, despite the substantial amount of research on the subject, the overarching results are yet inconclusive. However, previous research has indicated many salutary correlates of job satisfaction, such as a positive association with coworker support (Goldstein & Rockart, 1984); positive associations with self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, internal locus of control, and emotional stability (Judge & Bono, 2001); and negative associations with role conflict and ambiguity (Goldstein & Rockart, 1984; Keller, 1975). Authenticity is also positively correlated with indicators of psychological well-being, including self-esteem and life satisfaction (Goldman & Kernis, 2002; Kernis & Goldman, 2006). Because disclosure of sexual orientation is a highly authentic action, the literature on authenticity serves as an additional theoretical linkage between disclosure and beneficial variables such as job satisfaction. Accordingly, we posit the following individual-level research question:

Research Question 1: Is disclosure of sexual orientation positively related to job satisfaction?

Workplace relationships

At the dyadic level, workplace relationships also have a profound impact on the day-to-day experiences of employees. High-quality social relationships are an important part of an individual’s personal happiness, helping people feel supported and appreciated (Kahn, 1990), while unsupportive social interactions are associated with depression and psychological distress (N. G. Smith & Ingram, 2004). The quality of one’s social relationships influences one’s sense of acceptance or rejection, which is related to the experience of psychological safety (Kahn, 1990).

Workplace social support stems primarily from relationships that individuals have with coworkers and supervisors. Coworker relationships are particularly important due to the large amount of time spent at the workplace, much of which is spent interacting with peers (e.g., Dormann & Zapf, 1999). These relationships are essential building blocks of a positive work environment because people are fundamentally motivated by the need to belong and to be reciprocally socially supported (Griffith & Hebl, 2002).

In terms of the relation between workplace sexual orientation disclosure and supportive coworker relationships, the extant literature has reported a range of valences and magnitudes. For instance, Huebner and Davis (2005) conducted a laboratory study of 72 gay and bisexual men, and found that disclosure is weakly, negatively correlated with workplace social support. However, it should be noted that, although there are inconsistencies in the literature, the lion’s share of studies vary in terms of magnitude but not valence; most studies have reported positive relationships, ranging from very weak to very strong. For instance, Ragins et al. (2007) concluded that LGB employees were more likely to disclose their sexual orientation when they perceived their coworkers and supervisors as supportive, and were more fearful of disclosing when they perceived their coworkers and managers as unsupportive. In this study, the reported correlation between disclosure and coworker support was weak–moderate and positive. Contrastingly, Day and Schoenrade (1997) reported that openly gay employees perceived top management as more supportive of their rights than did closeted employees. The results of this study indicated a very strong, positive correlation between disclosure and supervisor support. In conjunction, these findings indicate the importance of how LGBT individuals perceive the level of support they receive from their coworkers and supervisors, and how that affects their willingness or apprehension to disclose their sexual orientation. However, the precise magnitude of this relationship remains to be seen.

When social support is present in the workplace, it seems to facilitate individual sexual orientation disclosure, and in turn improves the quality of social relationships by enhancing their psychological meaningfulness (Kahn, 1990). The presence or absence of social support seems to influence the decision to disclose one’s true sexual identity, which in turn has other broad-reaching implications for the individual and the work environment as a whole. Therefore, based on the aforementioned research indicating a positive impact of social support on sexual orientation disclosure, we posit the following relational-level research question:

Research Question 2: Is disclosure of sexual orientation positively related to social support?

The organization at large

At the organization level, climate and discrimination are two variables that have been commonly emphasized in the context of LGBT issues at work. First, organizational climate has been defined as the shared perceptions of organization norms, policies, and practices (Joyce & Slocum, 1984). Specifically, diversity climate is the degree to which an organization prioritizes inclusivity (Cox, 1991, 2001; Stewart, Volpone, Avery, & McKay, 2011). Climate influences employee stress, coping, job satisfaction, and job performance (Cox, 1994; Driscoll, Kelley, & Fassinger, 1996); unsupportive climates are associated with reduced levels of satisfaction, heightened anxiety, and increased turnover, while supportive climates are linked to both job and life satisfaction (Brewster, Velez, DeBlaere, & Moradi, 2012; Griffith & Hebl, 2002; Huffman, Watrous-Rodriguez, & King, 2008; Liddle, Luzzo, Hauenstein, & Schuck, 2004; Stewart et al., 2011).

Because the organizational climate reflects the overarching mind-set of the organization, it plays an important role in an individual’s decision to come out. Climate is particularly impactful in terms of the experiences of LGBT employees who are deciding whether—and to what degree—to disclose their sexual orientation. Beyond simply affecting the decision to disclose, climate affects the act/experience of disclosing itself; supportive climates are positively correlated with positive disclosure experiences (Chrobot-Mason et al., 2001; King, Reilly, & Hebl, 2008; Reed & Leuty, 2016). In other words, when LGBT individuals feel a sense of organizational support and acceptance stemming from a positive organizational climate, they will be more likely to disclose their sexual orientation and reflect favorably on the event.

While the patterning of previous research results is clear with regard to valence (i.e., positive), consensus on magnitude is another story. For instance, Chrobot-Mason et al. (2001) surveyed 255 lesbian, gay, and transgender individuals, and reported a moderate, positive correlation between disclosure and perceptions of LGBT climate. In comparison, Boyles (2008) surveyed a similarly sized sample of 284 lesbian and gay individuals, and concluded that the correlation is much stronger. Accordingly, because of the theoretically impactful nature of climate on disclosure decisions and individuals’ subjective experiences of disclosure, in conjunction with the lack of consistency in terms of magnitude of effects across prior research, we posit the following organization-level research question:

Research Question 3: Is disclosure of sexual orientation positively related to organizational climate?

Sexual minorities experience a variety of types of discrimination at work, such as termination, harassment, violence, and loss of career opportunities (Driscoll et al., 1996). Studies—including several nationally representative surveys—on the prevalence of discrimination in the workplace have found that approximately 25–66% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual employees have been discriminated against at some point due to their sexual orientation (Croteau & Lark, 1995; Croteau & von Destinon, 1994; Levine & Leonard, 1984).

Research has indicated that sexually stigmatized individuals fear workplace discrimination (Button, 1996, 2001). Furthermore, perceptions of past discrimination have been shown to influence current fears of disclosure and decisions to disclose at work (e.g., Woods, 1994). Thus, the motivation to conceal one’s stigmatized identity may stem from the desire to diminish feared negative consequences. However, some organizations are gay-friendlier than others, and as a result LGBT individuals undergo various degrees of discrimination in the workplace, differentially affecting their attitudes towards their organizations and careers (e.g., Griffith & Hebl, 2002; Ragins et al., 2007). Accordingly—in certain organizational contexts—revealing one’s stigmatized identity may be done to promote integrity, or congruence between one’s identity and others’ perceptions of oneself (Goffman, 1963).

One study by Huebner and Davis (2005) showed that men who are out at work have higher levels of the stress hormone cortisol in their saliva. The hypothesized reason for this is that disclosing one’s sexual identity at work leads to increased levels of harassment and discrimination. Moreover, the stress attributed to the experience of discrimination—or simply the anticipation of the experience—may be more potent than the stress caused by sexual identity concealment. The results of this study indicate that not only is heterosexist discrimination still a problem in the workplace, but that it is such an issue that the negative consequences of coming out at work may outweigh the benefits for many individuals.

Admittedly, the extant literature has reported a range of valences and magnitudes for the correlation between workplace sexual orientation disclosure and perceptions of organizational discrimination. For instance, Ragins et al. (2007) surveyed 348 LGB individuals from across the United States, and found that perceptions of past discrimination were weakly, positively related to disclosure. The researchers suggest that this finding may occur because individuals value congruence between their public and private lives, and act resilient in the face of discrimination in order to maintain their authenticity. However, although there are inconsistencies across studies, most reported correlations between disclosure and discrimination have been negative, ranging from very weak to strong. For instance, Moradi (2009) surveyed 445 LGBT military veterans, and concluded that the relationship between disclosure and discrimination is near zero and negative. In contrast, Griffith and Hebl (2002) used the exact same operationalization of discrimination as Moradi did, but they uncovered a strong, negative correlation. Taken together, these findings suggest that perceptions of organizational discrimination have an impact on disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace, although the precise impact is yet unknown. Thus, based on the continued importance of understanding the relationship between sexual identity disclosure and organizational discrimination, along with the unclear prior results regarding the strength of the relationship between the variables, we propose the following organization-level research question:

Research Question 4: Is disclosure of sexual orientation negatively related to organizational discrimination?

Comparative effects

Although a number of studies have evaluated the relationship between disclosure decisions and either attitudinal, relational, or organizational correlations, few have ventured to assess the comparative magnitude of the relationships between disclosure decisions and correlates at different organizational levels. Furthermore, across studies that have assessed relationships between disclosure decisions and variables at multiple organizational levels, results have been mixed. Some studies have reported that, across levels, the relationships of the greatest magnitude are between disclosure and organization-level variables such as climate or discrimination (e.g., Griffith & Hebl, 2002; Huffman et al., 2008; Trau, 2015), while other research has concluded that the strongest relationships exist between disclosure and individual or relational variables, such as job satisfaction or coworker support (e.g., Brewster et al., 2012; Ragins et al., 2007). Therefore, based on the dearth of research cross-comparing disclosure decisions at different organizational levels—as well as the discrepancies that exist in the small body of existing literature that can speak to the subject—we posit the following research question:

Research Question 5: Is disclosure of sexual orientation more strongly associated with attitudinal, relational, or organizational correlates?

Method

Database

Twenty-four independent studies (N = 7,566) examining disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace were included in this meta-analysis. We compiled a database of relevant literature by conducting electronic searches of ABI/INFORM, Academic Search Complete, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Public Library of Science (PLoS), PsycINFO, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science. Search terms included disclosure (or coming out, stigma, passing, closeted, in the closet), sexual orientation (or LGBT, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender), and work (or workplace). The electronic search was supplemented by a review of articles that cited seminal papers on disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace (e.g., Anderson et al., 2001), as well as a review of the reference lists of studies included in the current meta-analytic database. Finally, a number of scholars/research groups were contacted with requests for papers to include.

Each study that was included in the database was empirical, based on a sample of employed adults, written in English, and reported a correlation between workplace sexual orientation disclosure and at least one relevant correlate (i.e., job satisfaction, social support, organizational climate, and/or organizational discrimination). Date of publication and nationality of sample were irrelevant in terms of inclusion criteria. Additionally, we only included effect estimates that reflected unique samples of individuals. Consequently, for publications that included multiple measurements of a correlate based on a single sample of participants (Brewster et al., 2012; N. G. Smith & Ingram, 2004), we averaged these estimates together in order to preserve the assumption of independence, as per the guidelines provided by Hunter and Schmidt (Schmidt & Hunter, 2015; see also Maynard, Mathieu, Gilson, O’Boyle, & Cigularov, 2013).

Finally, two pairs of publications that employed partially nonindependent samples were identified (i.e., Day & Schoenrade, 1997, 2000; Law et al., 2011; Ruggs et al., 2015). In both cases, the researchers published results based on the same dataset twice, but utilized an updated sample as the basis for their second publication. In instances where these studies reported on the same correlates of disclosure, the more recent results were incorporated into analyses because the later publications subsumed and expanded upon the samples of the earlier publications. All studies that were included in this meta-analysis are indicated in the references section with an asterisk.

Primary study characteristics

Table 3 displays descriptive statistics for the meta-analytic database. In terms of the identification of the sample, 50% of studies utilized some combination of gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals, while 17% were broadly inclusive of all same-sex-attracted individuals. The remaining 33% of studies focused more narrowly on a single identification: either gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender individuals. The majority of studies employed samples that were mixed-gender (75%), mixed-occupation (92%), and from the United States (71%).

The vast majority of studies were conducted in a field setting (96%), with only a single study taking place in a laboratory setting. The studies in this database unanimously employed a survey design. In terms of publication source, the majority of studies were published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals (92%); the two exceptions were a dissertation and a book chapter.

Measurement of sexual orientation disclosure

A variety of measures of sexual orientation disclosure were employed/cited in the meta-analytic database. Specifically, there were three primary types of measures: identity management measures, disclosure measures, and outness measures. First, a number of studies employed identity management measures, which assess behaviors surrounding the sexual orientation disclosure in a taxonomic fashion. The most popular of these measures was Anderson et al.’s (2001), which is based on Griffin’s (1992) four-part framework (i.e., passing, covering, implicitly out, explicitly out). Similarly, Button’s measure (1996, 2001, 2004) is derivative of Woods’s (1994) three-part identity management taxonomy (i.e., counterfeiting, avoidance, integration).

The measures of workplace disclosure asked individuals about the extent to which they communicated information about their sexual orientation to others at work. This was typically accomplished by asking individuals to use a response scale to rate their extent of disclosure for a variety of predetermined categories of colleagues such as coworkers, supervisors, and subordinates (e.g., Day & Schoenrade, 1997; Driscoll et al., 1996; Tejeda, 2006). Another similar variation on this methodology asked individuals first to provide a list of work colleagues, and then to use a response scale to rate the extent to which they disclose their sexual orientation with each individual (Huebner & Davis, 2005; Trau, 2015). Some studies simply asked individuals to rate their general/overall level of workplace disclosure (e.g., Miller & Higgins, 2006). Finally, Griffith and Hebl (2002) measured disclosure by aggregating two behavioral categories: avoidant behaviors (e.g., lying to others, avoiding the topic of sexual orientation) and overt behaviors (e.g., disclosing one’s sexual orientation, directly addressing the topic).

The remaining measures, which gauged outness, asked individuals to rate their level of openness in terms of their sexuality for different spheres of their lives (e.g., family, work, religious community, life in general, etc.; Mohr & Fassinger, 2000; Waldo, 1999). The studies included in the database specifically emphasized workplace outness (e.g., Huffman et al., 2008).

Coding procedure

Studies were coded for (a) sample size, (b) sample characteristics (e.g., sexual identification, gender, occupation, location), (c) study setting and design, (d) operationalization of disclosure/nondisclosure, (e) correlations between disclosure/nondisclosure and work-related constructs, (f) reliability estimates for the measures of sexual orientation disclosure/nondisclosure, and (g) reliability estimates for the measures of work-related constructs. After coding and discussing a practice set of articles, all three of the study’s authors independently coded the 24 articles. Interrater agreement was high, with a mean agreement of 84.75% (SD = 27.21%) on the coded variables. Any instances of disagreement were resolved by reaching consensus through discussion.

Coding of sexual orientation disclosure

Of all the studies in the database, 41.66% operationalized sexual orientation disclosure using an identity management measure, while 41.66% employed a measure of disclosure, and 16.66% utilized an outness measure. When coding for studies that used identity management measures, explicitly out/integration scales were used as proxies for sexual orientation disclosure because they are the categories that represent unequivocal disclosure. In addition, we coded the identity management studies for nondisclosure, for purposes of comparison; passing/counterfeiting scales were coded as nondisclosure due to the fact that they unambiguously reflect behaviors that are the antithesis of disclosure. Nondisclosure was not reverse-coded as disclosure because all studies that included measures of nondisclosure also included measures of disclosure.

Coding of correlates

The studies in the meta-analytic database included correlates of sexual orientation disclosure at the individual, relational, and organizational levels. First, at the individual level, 16 studies reported on job satisfaction in relation to disclosure. Out of these studies, 25% measured job satisfaction using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ; Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967), 18.75% employed the Job in General Scale (Ironson, Smith, Brannick, Gibson, & Paul, 1989), 12.5% utilized the Job Descriptive Index (JDI; P. C. Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969), and the remainder (43.75%) relied on prevalidated measures from alternative sources, the details of which are listed in Table 1. Second, at the relational level, 10 studies provided data on coworker support in relation to disclosure. The majority of these studies employed prevalidated measures, although few studies overlapped in terms of their measurement approach, with the exception of the twice-used Griffith and Hebl measure (2002). In addition, two organization-level correlates were commonly referenced in the database: climate (included in eight studies) and discrimination (included in 13 studies). In terms of the measurement of climate, 62.5% of studies employed the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Climate Inventory (LGBTCI; Liddle et al., 2004). For the measurement of discrimination, 53.85% of studies utilized the Workplace Heterosexist Experiences Questionnaire (Waldo, 1999). Additional work-relevant correlates of sexual orientation disclosure reported by the studies in the meta-analytic database can be seen in Table 2.

Table 1.

Studies included in the meta-analysis

Authors	Year	N	Country	Disclosure measure	α_disclosure	Correlate	Correlate measure	α_correlate	r
Anderson et al.	2001	172	USA	WSIMM (Explicitly out subscale)	.91	Job sat.	MSQ	.91	.04
Boyles	2008	284	USA	Button (1996) ^Δ (Integrating subscale)	.91	Support Climate	May, Gilson, and Harter (2004) LGBTCI	.97 .97	.32 .69
Brewster et al.	2012	263	USA	WSIMM (Explicitly out subscale)	.86	Job sat. Climate Discrim.	JDI (Work) LGBTCI WHEQ	.84 .96 .92⁺	.21 .48 −.05⁺
Bucher and Raess	2007	581	Switz.	Day and Schoenrade (1997)	.78	Job sat. Discrim.	Weyer, Hodapp, and Neuhäuser (1980) Original	.86 .78	.22 −.28
Chrobot-Mason et al.	2001	255	USA	Button (1996) ^Δ (Integrating subscale)	.89	Climate	Button (1996) ^Δ	.88	.32
Day and Schoenrade	2000	744	USA	Original	.96	Job sat. Support	JIG Original (top management)	.81 NA	.16 .50
Driscoll et al.	1996	123	USA	Original	.52	Job sat. Climate	MSQ CES	.90 .90	.16 .41
Griffith and Hebl	2002	379	USA	Croteau (1996)	.91	Job sat. Support Discrim.	JIG Original (coworkers’ reactions) WHEQ^**	.36 .45 −.54	.95 .89 .86^*
Huebner and Davis	2005	72	USA	Original	NR	Job sat. Support	Caplan, Cobb, French, van Harrison, and Pinneau (1980) ^Δ Frankenhaeuser et al. (1989)	.76 .88	−.11 −.08
Huffman et al.	2008	99	USA	Waldo (1999) (Outness scale)	.84	Job sat. Support Climate	Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh (1983) CSS LGBTCI	.90 .90 .96	.10 .29 .63
Köllen	2013	77	Germany	WSIMM (Explicitly out subscale)	NR	Climate	LGBTCI	.96	.42
Law et al.	2011	114	USA	Griffith and Hebl (2002)	.80	Job sat.	JIG^**	.93	.11
Miller and Higgins	2006	67	Australia	Original	NA	Job sat.	MSQ	.89	−.38
Moradi	2009	445	USA	WSIMM (Explicitly out subscale)	.79	Job sat. Discrim.	Original WHEQ	.95 .92	.07 −.04
Prati and Pietrantoni	2014	1,460	Italy	Mohr and Fassinger (2000)	NR	Job sat. Discrim.	Wanous, Reichers, and Hudy (1997) Original	NA .82	.08 −.30
Ragins et al.	2007	348	USA	Original	NR	Job sat. Support Discrim.	Quinn and Staines (1979) Caplan, Cobb, and French (1975) ^Δ (coworkers) Original	.82 .82 .80	.18 .18 .09
Reed and Leuty	2016	135	USA	WSIMM (Explicitly out subscale)	.88	Climate Discrim.	LGBTCI WHEQ	.91 .89	.56 −.27
Ruggs et al.	2015	118	USA	Griffith and Hebl (2002) ^**	.72	Support Climate Discrim.	CRS Original POSCR^**	.65 .87 .89	−.06 .20 −.08
Rummell and Tokar	2016	162	USA	WSIMM	.88	Climate	WCQ	.87⁺⁺	.46
N. G. Smith and Ingram	2004	97	USA	Waldo (1999) (Outness scale)	NR	Support Discrim.	USII WHEQ	.89⁺ .92	.14^+* −.35
Tejeda	2006	65	USA	Original (supervisors)	NA	Job sat. Discrim.	JDI Original	.65 .68	−.23^* −.31^*
Trau	2015	654	Multiple	Original	NA	Job sat. Support Discrim.	Brayfield and Rothe (1951) Thomas (1990) ^ Button (2001) ^Δ	.89 .79 .91	.01 .20 −.22^*
Trau and Härtel	2007	582	Australia	Driscoll et al. (1996)	.74	Discrim.	Button (2001) ^Δ**	.90	−.10
Tuten and August	2006	58	USA	Griffith and Hebl (2002)	.76	Support	Original (managers)	.86	.65
Velez et al.	2013	326	Multiple	Button (2004) ^Δ (Integrating subscale)	.92	Job sat. Discrim.	MSQ WHEQ	.92 .94	.31 −.37

Note. Job sat. = job satisfaction; Switz. = Switzerland; NR = not reported; NA = not applicable (single-item measure). Measures listed as “original” include those that were written by the authors indicated and those that were created by combining together preexisting items. CES = Campus Environment Survey (Blankenship & Leonard, 1985). CRS = Coworker Reactions Scale (Griffith & Hebl, 2002). CSS = Coworker Support Scale (Baruch-Feldman, Brondolo, Ben-Dayan, & Schwartz, 2002). JDI = Job Descriptive Index (P. C. Smith et al., 1969). JIG = Job in General Scale (Ironson et al., 1989). LGBTCI = Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Climate Inventory (Liddle et al., 2004). MSQ = Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss et al., 1967). POSCR = Perceived Organizational Support and Coworker Reactions (Griffith & Hebl, 2002). USII = Unsupportive Social Interactions Inventory (Ingram, Betz, Mindes, Schmitt, & Smith, 2001). WCQ = Workplace Climate Questionnaire (Rummell, 2013). WHEQ = Workplace Heterosexist Experiences Questionnaire (Waldo, 1999). WSIMM = Workplace Sexual Identity Management Measure (Anderson et al., 2001).

^*Reverse coded. ^**Modified version of the scale used. ⁺Composite value based on data from two subscales. ⁺⁺Authors provided this information. ^ΔThis measure is represented by several different citations.

Table 2.

Additional work-relevant correlates of sexual orientation disclosure reported by studies in meta-analytic database

Correlate	Frequency in database	Citations
Anticipated discrimination at work¹	1	Prati and Pietrantoni (2014)
Career
Commitment	1	Ragins et al. (2007)
Satisfaction	2	Trau (2015) Trau and Härtel (2007)
Coworker
Seniority	1	Trau (2015)
Sexual orientation	2	Ragins et al. (2007) Trau (2015)
Employee engagement	1	Boyles (2008)
Experience of external homophobia at work	1	Trau and Härtel (2007)
Fear of disclosure at work	1	Ragins et al. (2007)
Harassment at work	1	Miller and Higgins (2006)
Hours worked per week	1	Tuten and August (2006)
Individual/coping resources at work	2	Boyles (2008) Driscoll et al. (1996)
Job
Characteristics	1	Boyles (2008)
Role autonomy	1	Tuten and August (2006)
Status	1	Huebner and Davis (2005)
Stress/anxiety	6	Day and Schoenrade (2000) Driscoll et al. (1996) Griffith and Hebl (2002) Huebner and Davis (2005) Law et al. (2011) Ragins et al. (2007)
Type	1	Boyles (2008)
Leader–member exchange	1	Tejeda (2006)
Length/strength of coworker relationships	1	Trau (2015)
Negative affect at work	1	Huebner and Davis (2005)
Opportunities for promotion	3	Ragins et al. (2007) Tejeda (2006) Trau and Härtel (2007)
Organization size	3	Boyles (2008) Day and Schoenrade (2000) Ragins et al. (2007)
Organization-based self-esteem	1	Ragins et al. (2007)
Organizational
Balance regarding time demands	1	Tuten and August (2006)
Citizenship behaviors	1	Tejeda (2006)
Commitment
Overall	3	Miller and Higgins (2006) Ragins et al. (2007) Trau and Härtel (2007)
Affective	2	Day and Schoenrade (2000) Law et al. (2011)
Continuance	2	Day and Schoenrade (2000) Law et al. (2011)
Normative	1	Law et al. (2011)
LGBT diversity	1	Trau and Härtel (2007)
Tenure	3	Boyles (2008) Day and Schoenrade (2000) Trau (2015)
Promotion rate	1	Ragins et al. (2007)
Role
Ambiguity	1	Ragins et al. (2007)
Conflict	1	Ragins et al. (2007)
Salary	5	Boyles (2008) Day and Schoenrade (2000) Huebner and Davis (2005) Prati and Pietrantoni (2014) Ragins et al. (2007)
Satisfaction with supervision	1	Tejeda (2006)
Self-consciousness at work	1	Boyles (2008)
Supervisor sexual orientation	1	Ragins et al. (2007)
Supervisory level	2	Boyles (2008) Day and Schoenrade (2000)
Supportive organizational policies
Availability	4	Day and Schoenrade (2000) Griffith and Hebl (2002) Tejeda (2006) Trau and Härtel (2007)
Freedom from repercussions	1	Tuten and August (2006)
Usage	1	Tuten and August (2006)
Turnover intentions	3	Law et al. (2011) Ragins et al. (2007) Tejeda (2006)
Work group
Functioning	1	Chrobot-Mason et al. (2001)
Social cohesion	1	Moradi (2009)
Task cohesion	1	Moradi (2009)
Work–family conflict	2	Day and Schoenrade (2000) Tuten and August (2006)
Work-role fit	1	Boyles (2008)
Workplace
Participation	1	Ragins et al. (2007)
Sexual identity management
Behavioral intentions	1	Rummell and Tokar (2016)
Outcome expectations	1	Rummell and Tokar (2016)
Perceptions of acceptability	1	Rummell and Tokar (2016)
Self-efficacy	1	Rummell and Tokar (2016)

¹The text “Anticipated discrimination at work” was added in Table 2 after the article's original OnlineFirst publication.

Analyses

Hunter and Schmidt’s meta-analytic methods (Schmidt & Hunter, 2015) were used to analyze the data. Corrections were made for sampling error and measure reliability, and corrections were made for unreliability in both sexual orientation disclosure and nondisclosure and correlate measures whenever possible.

Moderator analyses

We evaluated the relationships between disclosure of sexual orientation and individual, relational, and organizational correlates for moderating effects based on measurement of sexual orientation disclosure. In order to do this, we utilized Hunter and Schmidt’s (Schmidt & Hunter, 2015) methodology, which involves conducting meta-analyses for each level of the moderator, and subsequently interpreting the results based on credibility intervals (CVs; reflect the generalizability of ρ) and confidence intervals (CIs; reflect the precision of the estimation of ρ, and can be used to assess whether different estimations of ρ are substantially different from one another).

We attempted to test a variety of moderating effects, but were not able to meaningfully investigate the majority of the moderators that interested us, for two primary reasons. First, the majority of samples from our meta-analytic database included individuals from multiple sexual identity categories and multiple gender identities. Thus, in order to test these two variables as moderators, we would have to impose an artificial system of categorization (e.g., a single category including samples of gay, lesbian, or bisexual participants; see Table 3 for further clarification). Especially considering the topic of this particular meta-analysis, we deemed it inappropriate to test for moderating effects using this methodology. Second, the remainder of our potential moderating variables of interest exhibited little to no variability in the final meta-analytic database; see Table 3 for descriptive statistics regarding occupation, location, setting, design, and publication source for a more detailed breakdown of this issue.

Table 3.

Descriptive statistics of meta-analytic database

	k	n
Total	24	7,566
Identification of sample
Gay	3	1,228
Lesbian	2	181
Bisexual	1	77
Gay or lesbian	6	2,339
Gay or bisexual	1	72
Gay, lesbian, or bisexual	5	2,288
Same-sex attracted	4	1,000
Transgender	2	381
Gender
Male	4	1,300
Female	2	181
Mixed	18	6,085
Occupation
Education	1	172
Armed services (veterans)	1	445
Various	22	6,949
Location of sample
United States	17	3,819
International	5	2,767
Mixed	2	980
Setting
Field	23	7,494
Lab	1	72
Design
Survey	24	7,566
Publication source
Peer-reviewed journal	22	6,701
Book chapter	1	284
Dissertation	1	581

Note. Studies with nonindependent samples were only counted once.

Results

Table 4 presents the results of the meta-analyses, which tested the relation between disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace and individual-, group-, and organization-level correlates.

Table 4.

Meta-analytic results for the relation between disclosure/nondisclosure of sexual orientation and work-relevant variables

					% Var. due to sampling error	95% CI				% Var. acc. for	95% CV
Variable	k	n	$\bar{r}$	$S D_{\bar{r}}$	% Var. due to sampling error	Lower	Upper	ρ	SD _ρ	% Var. acc. for	Lower	Upper
Disclosure of sexual orientation
Job satisfaction	16	5,912	.13	.12	18.36	.07	.19	.07	.05	34.43	−.03	.16
Measure of disclosure
Identity management	4	1,206	.16	.11	27.07	.06	.27	.18	.10	27.38	−.02	.39
Disclosure	9	2,768	.11	.13	19.90	.03	.19	.05	.05	20.93	−.05	.14
Outness	3	1,938	.14	.11	12.24	.01	.26	.08	.06	12.33	−.04	.19
Coworker support	10	2,853	.31	.17	9.67	.21	.42	.18	.08	34.73	.02	.33
Measure of disclosure
Identity management	1	284	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Disclosure	6	1,994	.30	.19	6.79	.14	.45	.19	.12	8.39	−.04	.42
Outness	3	575	.37	.12	27.49	.24	.51	.15	.04	27.88	.07	.23
Organizational climate	9	1,516	.50	.13	20.12	.41	.59	.57	.12	31.72	.34	.81
Measure of disclosure
Identity management	6	1,176	.50	.13	17.17	.40	.60	.55	.13	18.00	.30	.81
Disclosure	2	241	.31	.11	62.28	.16	.45	.22	.04	67.99	.13	.30
Outness	1	99	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Organizational discrimination	13	5,453	−.23	.15	9.34	−.31	−.14	−.15	.07	46.83	−.29	−.01
Measure of disclosure
Identity management	4	1,169	−.16	.15	14.89	−.31	−.02	−.18	.15	14.99	−.48	.12
Disclosure	6	2,348	−.15	.13	15.65	−.25	−.05	−.10	.07	16.09	−.24	.05
Outness	3	1,936	−.35	.10	13.40	−.46	−.24	−.14	-	-	-	-
Nondisclosure of sexual orientation
Job satisfaction	4	1,206	−.09	.12	24.77	−.21	.02	−.12	.13	26.24	−.37	.13
Organizational climate	5	1,014	−.38	.15	15.85	−.52	−.25	−.50	.15	39.93	−.80	−.20
Organizational discrimination	4	1,169	.40	.08	34.05	.32	.48	.55	.00	-	-	-

Note. Results are corrected for predictor and criterion unreliability. k = number of correlations; n = number of individuals; $\bar{r}$ = sample-weighted mean correlation; $S D_{\bar{r}}$ = sample-weighted standard deviation of $\bar{r}$ ; % var. due to sampling error = percentage of variance attributed to sampling error; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval; ρ = corrected population correlation; SD _ρ = standard deviation of the corrected population correlation; % var. acc. for = percentage of variance attributed to sampling error and artifact corrections; 95% CV = 95% credibility value.

Job attitudes

First, at the individual level, one commonly studied relationship is between sexual orientation disclosure and job satisfaction. As seen in Table 4, we meta-analyzed results from 16 studies, and found that the overarching effect is approximately null and not generalizable (ρ = .07, k = 16, 95% CV includes 0). Furthermore, we meta-analyzed results from four studies that explicitly assessed nondisclosure of sexual orientation via identity management measures, in addition to job satisfaction. We found a similar, null, nongeneralizable result (ρ = −.12, k = 4, 95% CV includes 0); this information, along with other relevant details, can be found in Table 4.

Workplace relationships

Second, at the dyadic level, the relation between disclosure and coworker support has been assessed via correlational means frequently. As visible in Table 4, we meta-analyzed results from 10 studies that reported such correlations, and found that overall there is a moderate, positive relation between the variables (ρ = .18, k = 10, 95% CV does not include 0).

The organization at large

At the organizational level, perceived work climate and perceived work discrimination are both commonly assessed in relation to disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace. First, as seen in Table 4, we meta-analyzed results from nine studies that evaluated both disclosure and perceived climate, and found a strong, positive, overarching effect (ρ = .57, k = 9, 95% CV does not include 0). Furthermore, as visible in Table 4, we meta-analyzed results from five studies that assessed nondisclosure and climate, and uncovered a complementary result (ρ = −.50, k = 5, 95% CV does not include 0).

Finally, we meta-analyzed results from 13 studies that evaluated both disclosure and perceived discrimination, and uncovered a moderate, negative effect capable of being generalized (ρ = −.15, k = 13, 95% CV does not include 0); this information, along with other relevant details, can be found in Table 4. Furthermore, as visible in Table 4, we meta-analyzed results from four studies that assessed nondisclosure and perceived discrimination, and uncovered a strong, positive effect (ρ = .55, k = 4). However, the 95% CV could not be calculated because SD _ρ = 0, so the generalizability of this estimate is not interpretable.

Comparative effects

Across all primary analyses, perceived organizational climate yielded the strongest relation with disclosure (ρ = .57, k = 9, 95% CV does not include 0), followed by social support (ρ = .18, k = 10, 95% CV does not include 0), perceived organizational discrimination (ρ = −.15, k = 13, 95% CV does not include 0), and job satisfaction (ρ = .07, k = 16, 95% CV includes 0). Out of the generalizable results (based on 95% CVs not including 0), perceived organizational climate yielded the strongest relation with disclosure (ρ = .57, k = 9), followed by social support (ρ = .18, k = 10), and perceived organizational discrimination (ρ = −.15, k = 13).

In addition, the ρ values were largely independent of one another’s CIs. First, the estimate for job satisfaction was independent of the CIs for all other variables (ρ _satisfaction = .07, CI _{discrimination} = −.31 to −.14, CI _support = .21 to .42, CI _climate = .41 to .59). Second, the estimate for coworker support was independent of the CIs for climate and discrimination but not job satisfaction (ρ _support = .18, CI _{discrimination} = −.31 to −.14, CI _satisfaction = .07 to .19, CI _climate = .41 to .59). Third, the estimate for organizational climate was independent of the CIs for all other variables (ρ _climate = .57, CI _{discrimination} = −.31 to −.14, CI _satisfaction = .07 to .19, CI _support = .21 to .42). Finally, the estimate for organizational discrimination was independent of the CIs for all other variables (ρ _{discrimination} = −.15, CI _satisfaction = .07 to .19, CI _support = .21 to .42, CI _climate = .41 to .59). This patterning of results implies that all estimates are meaningfully different from one another (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012), with the exception of job satisfaction and coworker support.

Moderator analyses

As seen in Table 4, for the meta-analyzed relationships between sexual orientation disclosure and job satisfaction, coworker support, organizational climate, and organizational discrimination, variance accounted for ranged from 31.72% to 46.83%. Based on the 75% rule—which states that there is evidence of a moderator effect if less than 75% of the observed variance in effect sizes is due to sampling error—these estimates indicate the presence of moderating effects for all four relations (Schmidt & Hunter, 2015). Furthermore, the credibility intervals for all four relations were substantially broad, indicating the same conclusion (Steel & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2002; Whitener, 1990).

We tested all four relations for potential moderating effects based on the measurement of sexual orientation disclosure that the study employed (i.e., either an identity management measure, disclosure measure, or outness measure). First, as seen in Table 4, the relationship between sexual orientation disclosure and job satisfaction was not generalizable for any of the measures of disclosure (95% CVs include 0). Additionally, the CIs for these three estimates overlap, indicating that there are no meaningful differences between these effects.

Second, the relationship between sexual orientation disclosure and coworker support could not be meta-analyzed for studies that utilized identity management measures because k = 1. For studies that employed disclosure measures, the relation between sexual orientation disclosure and coworker support was moderate but not generalizable (ρ = .19, k = 6, 95% CV includes 0). For studies that utilized outness measures, the relation between sexual orientation disclosure and coworker support was weak–moderate and positive (ρ = .15, k = 3, 95% CV does not include 0). The CIs for these two estimates overlap, indicating that there is no meaningful difference between the effects.

Third, the relation between sexual orientation disclosure and perceived organizational climate was large and positive for studies that utilized identity management measures (ρ = .55, k = 6, 95% CV does not include 0). For studies that employed disclosure measures, the relation was moderate and positive (ρ = .22, k = 2, 95% CV does not include 0). Again, the CIs for these two estimates overlap, which implies that there is no meaningful difference between the effects. For studies that employed outness measures, the relationship between sexual orientation disclosure and organizational climate could not be meta-analyzed because k = 1.

Finally, the relation between sexual orientation disclosure and perceived organizational discrimination was weak–moderate, negative, and nongeneralizable for studies that utilized identity management and disclosure measures (ρ = −.18 and −.10, k = 4 and 6, respectively; 95% CVs include 0). For studies that utilized outness measures, the relation between sexual orientation disclosure and organizational discrimination was moderate and negative (ρ = −.14, k = 3). However, the 95% CVs for these estimates could not be calculated because there were too few validity coefficients available to complete the requisite calculations, so the generalizability of these estimates could not be interpreted. All three CIs were nonindependent, indicating that these ρ values are not meaningfully different from one another.

Discussion

In recent years, the historical tide with regard to gay rights has begun to rapidly shift in many places; a recent survey of 96,331 individuals in 65 countries found that (a) 35% of respondents said that their attitudes toward LGBT people have become much–somewhat more favorable over the past 5 years, and (b) there was no clear region of the world where the majority of respondents agreed that being LGBT should be a crime (Paletta, 2016; Rosenberg, 2016). In addition, the transgender rights movement has contemporarily gained momentum and attention, bringing gender-related issues to the forefront of the public’s consciousness. Specifically, the use of public bathrooms has been a particularly divisive issue related to the rights of transgender individuals (Lipka, 2016). In many nations, these social changes have been reflected in the experiences of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals; for instance, 92% of LGBT Americans say they feel that society has grown more accepting of them, and that they expect the progressive trend to continue (Pew Research Center, 2013).

However, even though the LGBT civil rights movement has effectively shifted popular opinion on the topic, LGBT rights are still tremendously variable depending on the country in question, and workplace policies and procedures are largely behind the times. On the one hand, countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom have relatively progressive antidiscrimination legislation protecting LGBT citizens (Badgett & Frank, 2007). On the other hand, draconian punishments for homosexuality are still readily enforced throughout large swaths of Africa and the Middle East (e.g., the death penalty in Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Sudan; Cameron & Berkowitz, 2016). Falling in a grey area, the U.S. federal government has yet to mandate protective policies for LGBT employees, leaving a hodgepodge of state-level rules and regulations regarding sexual orientation/gender identity employment discrimination, and rendering the workplace a yet contentious venue despite the societal progress that has been made. Accordingly, the current study aimed to synthesize the existing literature on sexual/gender identity disclosure in the workplace in order to better understand the correlates of coming out at work.

Our meta-analyses rendered several results that were noteworthy but not generalizable. In particular—at the individual level—the aggregated relationships between disclosure of sexual orientation and job satisfaction resulted in a near-zero effect estimate. This estimate lacks generalizability because there was substantial variability across the studies in our meta-analytic database, making it difficult to confidently conclude that there is an overarching effect of a given magnitude or valence. In the future, with the addition of studies to the database, more precise generalized effects may come into focus.

Of the generalizable results—at the relational level—disclosure of sexual orientation and social support were moderately, positively related to one another. There are a number of possible explanations for this result. First, supportive coworkers and supervisors may help to create a safe workspace where LGBT individuals feel comfortable disclosing their sexual orientation. Indeed, a number of studies have found support for this ordering of events. For example, Ragins et al. (2007) concluded that perceptions of support lead gay, lesbian, and bisexual employees to fear disclosure less and to actually disclose their sexual orientation more. However, it is also possible that disclosure of sexual orientation leads to an outpouring of social support. In line with this train of thought, other research has indicated that coworker reactions to disclosure—which reflect social support, or lack thereof—mediate the relation between disclosure of sexual orientation and job attitudes (Griffith & Hebl, 2002). Additionally, there is some evidence that individuals who are closeted in the workplace fear the (presumably unsupportive) reactions of their coworkers above all else (Ruggs et al., 2015).

Furthermore—at the organizational level— we found that there is a strong, positive relation between disclosure of sexual orientation at work and perceived organizational climate, as well as a moderate negative relation between disclosure and perceived organizational discrimination. The (arguably) intuitive interpretation of these results is that positive, supportive, nondiscriminatory workplaces will promote disclosure of sexual orientation. Indeed, a wide variety of research on the subject has reported that perceived organizational support leads to greater degrees of outness among LGBT employees (e.g., Chrobot-Mason et al., 2001; Huffman et al., 2008; Köllen, 2013; Reed & Leuty, 2016); when the climate of an organization communicates the message that employees will not be fired, shamed, or discriminated against because of their sexual orientation/gender identity, LGBT individuals will be more openly authentic to who they are. However, it’s also possible that increased levels of disclosure can serve to enhance an organization’s climate and/or lessen discriminatory organizational practices. For instance, it may be that pluralistic ignorance—or, “the notion that although people publicly express support for and conform to norms that they do not privately accept, they believe that another person’s public support reflects his or her true sentiment” (Shelton & Richeson, 2005, p. 92)—is preventing individuals from disclosing their stigmatized sexual orientations/gender identities at work. In other words, a gay man may pass as heterosexual at work, while simultaneously assuming that his apparently heterosexual colleagues are truly heterosexual, and not just passing as such. One effective way of rectifying a situation of pluralistic ignorance is to make the unknown known; speaking out and disclosing one’s invisibly stigmatized identity has the power to shatter illusions regarding normative organizational sentiments, and potentially fundamentally alter the organization by increasing awareness, opening up channels of communication, promoting inclusivity, and pushing back against institutionalized discrimination. One recent example of such an occurrence was Caitlyn Jenner’s coming out, which catalyzed the national conversation surrounding transpeople and their rights. Her disclosure broke the decades of cultural silence on the topic—not to mention personal silence—and profoundly altered the national climate regarding transgenderism.

Across all primary analyses, perceived organizational climate yielded the strongest relation with disclosure, followed by social support, perceived organizational discrimination, and job satisfaction. This result suggests (somewhat counterintuitively) that, rather than the individual or his/her relationships, it is the organization that has the strongest impact on whether an employee decides to disclose his/her sexual orientation at work or not. This patterning of results is not completely unique to the literature; other scholars have previously identified the powerful impact that organizational policies/practices exert on perceptions of LGBT discrimination (Ragins & Cornwell, 2001) and diverse group processes and outcomes (Ely & Thomas, 2001). Individuals are inherently embedded/nested in organizations, and therefore their day-to-day lives, including their mental processes, relationships, and behaviors, are shaped—at least in part—by the organization. One applied implication of this result is that climate perceptions, which matter a great deal (based on the results of the current meta-analysis), are still just perceptions. Thus, it would behoove management—especially in the context of an organization with a negative climate toward LGBT employees—to consider taking steps toward managing employee perceptions of the organization’s diversity climate, perhaps by making inclusivity a more obvious organizational priority.

Limitations and future directions

It is important to acknowledge that, although the results of our meta-analysis stand to contribute to both science and practice, it is not without its limitations. First, our sample size was relatively small; although the number of studies needed to perform a meta-analysis is technically two, psychometric meta-analyses are typically conducted using much larger databases of studies. Our small sample size made it challenging to draw generalizable conclusions in some instances, and made it impossible to assess certain moderators of interest in others. Furthermore, due to the low cell sizes for the included moderator analyses (i.e., the k per measure of disclosure), it is possible that there is substantial error in our estimates of between-studies variance and/or our understanding of dispersion may be flawed (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009). Accordingly, these estimates should be interpreted with caution; we recommend approaching the moderator analyses as you would a set of preliminary analyses, as opposed to definitive results.

In addition, there are other individual, relational, and organizational variables of interest (visible in Table 2) that we were interested in meta-analyzing in relation to disclosure decisions, but we were unable to because these variables have not been assessed frequently enough in the extant literature, and thus the sample size for those analyses was too low to render meaningful results. Moreover, 100% of the studies in our database employed self-report measures, introducing the possibility of common-method variance as an overarching limitation of our primary sources. Finally, causal ambiguity is an overarching limitation of this study. The direction of causality between disclosure and its correlates is unclear in most circumstances, and oftentimes can be logically interpreted bidirectionally.

In the future, more research should be carried out on the disclosure of sexual orientation in the workplace in relation to individual, relational, and organizational correlates. Further studies on the subject will allow future meta-analyses to: (a) draw more generalizable conclusions than the current meta-analysis was able to, (b) include additional moderator analyses, and (c) include additional correlates of disclosure. Moreover, once ample primary studies are available, an aggregation of the research on the relation between sexual orientation disclosure and individual, group, and organizational work outcomes (e.g., performance, productivity) should be conducted.

Conclusion

For individuals with invisible, stigmatized identities, the decision regarding whether to “stay in the closet” or “come out” is persistent, and especially problematic when at work. The current study meta-analyzed 24 studies in order to better understand the relationship between disclosure of sexual orientation at work and individual-, relationship-, and organization-level correlates. Results indicated that disclosure is most strongly related to organizational climate (an organization-level correlate) followed by social support (a relationship-level correlate), organizational discrimination (an organization-level correlate), and, finally, job satisfaction (an individual-level correlate). This patterning of results suggests that the organization has a substantial impact on individual disclosure decisions.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education (award #P031M140050-16).

Note

References

*Anderson

M. Z.

Croteau

J. M.

Chung

Y. B.

DiStefano

T. M.

(2001). Developing an assessment of sexual identity management for lesbian and gay workers. Journal of Career Assessment, 9(3), 243–260.

Badgett

M. V. L.

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

Badgett

M. V. L.

Frank

(Eds.). (2007). Sexual orientation discrimination: An international perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.

Baruch-Feldman

Brondolo

Ben-Dayan

Schwartz

(2002). Sources of social support and burnout, job satisfaction, and productivity. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(1), 84–93.

Blankenship

L. L.

Leonard

M. M.

(1985). Technical information for the campus environment survey. Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland at College Park, College Park, MD.

Borenstein

Hedges

L. V.

Higgins

Rothstein

H. R.

(2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. New York, NY: Wiley.

*Boyles

(2008). “Thank you for letting me be myself”: Exploring the effects of identity management strategies on engagement levels of lesbian, gay and bisexual employees (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, VA.

Brayfield

A. H.

Rothe

H. F.

(1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307–311.

*Brewster

M. E.

Velez

DeBlaere

Moradi

(2012). Transgender individuals’ workplace experiences: The applicability of sexual minority measures and models. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(1), 60–70.

10.

Brown

S. P.

Peterson

R. A.

(1993). Antecedents and consequences of salesperson job satisfaction: Meta-analysis and assessment of causal effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(1), 63–77.

11.

*Bucher

Raess

(2007). Discrimination, coming out, and job satisfaction of gay men in Switzerland: Results of a survey. In Badgett

M. V. L.

Frank

(Eds.), Sexual orientation discrimination: An international perspective (pp. 194–205). New York, NY: Routledge.

12.

Button

S. B.

(1996). Organizational efforts to affirm sexual diversity: A multi-level examination (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA.

13.

Button

S. B.

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

14.

Button

S. B.

(2004). Identity management strategies utilized by lesbian and gay employees: A quantitative investigation. Group & Organization Management, 29(4), 470–494.

15.

Cain

(1991). Stigma management and gay identity development. Social Work, 36(1), 67–73.

16.

Cameron

Berkowitz

(2016, 6 14). The state of gay rights around the world. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/gay-rights/

17.

Cammann

Fichman

Jenkins

G. D.

Klesh

(1983). Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. In Seashore

S. E.

Lawler

E. E.

Mirvis

P. H.

Camman

(Eds.), Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures, and practices (pp. 71–138). New York, NY: Wiley.

18.

Caplan

R. D.

Cobb

French

J. R.

(1975). Job demands and worker health: Main effects and occupational differences (HEW Publication No. NIOSH 75–160). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

19.

Caplan

R. D.

Cobb

French

J. R. P.

van Harrison

Pinneau

S. R.

(1980). Job demands and worker health: Main effects and occupational differences. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

20.

*Chrobot-Mason

Button

S. B.

DiClementi

J. D.

(2001). Sexual identity management strategies: An exploration of antecedents and consequences. Sex Roles, 45(5–6), 321–336.

21.

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.

22.

Cox

Jr . (1991). The multicultural organization. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 34–47.

23.

Cox

Jr . (1994). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research and practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

24.

Cox

Jr . (2001). Creating the multicultural organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

25.

Croteau

J. M.

(1996). Research on the work experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people: An integrative review of methodology and findings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48(2), 195–209.

26.

Croteau

J. M.

Anderson

M. Z.

VanderWal

B. L.

(2008). Models of workplace sexual identity disclosure and management reviewing and extending concepts. Group & Organization Management, 33(5), 532–565.

27.

Croteau

J. M.

Lark

J. S.

(1995). On being lesbian, gay, or bisexual in student affairs: A national survey of experiences on the job. NASPA Journal, 32(3), 189–197.

28.

Croteau

J. M.

von Destinon

(1994). A national survey of job search experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual student affairs professionals. Journal of College Student Development, 35(1), 40–45.

29.

D’Augelli

A. R.

Grossman

A. H.

(2001). Disclosure of sexual orientation, victimization, and mental health among lesbian, gay, and bisexual older adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(10), 1008–1027.

30.

Day

N. E.

Schoenrade

(1997). Staying in the closet versus coming out: Relationships between communication about sexual orientation and work attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 50(1), 147–163.

31.

*Day

N. E.

Schoenrade

(2000). The relationship among reported disclosure of sexual orientation, anti-discrimination policies, top management support and work attitudes of gay and lesbian employees. Personnel Review, 29(3), 346–363.

32.

Dormann

Zapf

(1999). Social support, social stressors at work, and depressive symptoms: Testing for main and moderating effects with structural equations in a three-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6), 874–884.

33.

*Driscoll

J. M.

Kelley

F. A.

Fassinger

R. E.

(1996). Lesbian identity and disclosure in the workplace: Relation to occupational stress and satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48(2), 229–242.

34.

Ely

R. J.

Thomas

D. A.

(2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 229–273.

35.

Frankenhaeuser

Lundberg

Fredrikson

Melin

Tuomisto

Myrsten

A. L.

,… Wallin

(1989). Stress on and off the job as related to sex and occupational status in white-collar workers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10(4), 321–346.

36.

Goffman

(1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

37.

Goldman

B. M.

Kernis

M. H.

(2002). The role of authenticity in healthy psychological functioning and subjective well-being. Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association, 5(6), 18–20.

38.

Goldstein

D. K.

Rockart

J. F.

(1984). An examination of work-related correlates of job satisfaction in programmer/analysts. MiS Quarterly, 8(2), 103–115.

39.

Griffin

(1992). From hiding out to coming out: Empowering lesbian and gay educators. Journal of Homosexuality, 22(3–4), 167–196.

40.

*Griffith

K. H.

Hebl

M. R.

(2002). The disclosure dilemma for gay men and lesbians: “Coming out” at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1191–1199.

41.

Herek

G. M.

(1990). The context of anti-gay violence notes on cultural and psychological heterosexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5(3), 316–333.

42.

Herek

G. M.

(2007). Confronting sexual stigma and prejudice: Theory and practice. Journal of Social Issues, 63(4), 905–925.

43.

*Huebner

D. M.

Davis

M. C.

(2005). Gay and bisexual men who disclose their sexual orientations in the workplace have higher workday levels of salivary cortisol and negative affect. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 30(3), 260–267.

44.

*Huffman

A. H.

Watrous-Rodriguez

K. M.

King

E. B.

(2008). Supporting a diverse workforce: What type of support is most meaningful for lesbian and gay employees? Human Resource Management, 47(2), 237–253.

45.

Ingram

K. M.

Betz

N. E.

Mindes

E. J.

Schmitt

M. M.

Smith

N. G.

(2001). Unsupportive responses from others concerning a stressful life event: Development of the Unsupportive Social Interactions Inventory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 20(2), 173–207.

46.

International work: Campaigning for global LGBT equality. (2016). Stonewall. Retrieved from http://www.stonewall.org.uk/our-work/international-work-1

47.

Ironson

G. H.

Smith

P. C.

Brannick

M. T.

Gibson

W. M.

Paul

K. B.

(1989). Construction of a job in general scale: A comparison of global, composite, and specific measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(2), 193–200.

48.

Jennions

M. D.

Lortie

C. J.

Koricheva

(2013). Using meta-analysis to test ecological and evolutionary theory. In Koricheva

Gurevitch

Mengersen

(Eds.), Handbook of meta-analysis in ecology and evolution (pp. 381–403). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

49.

Joyce

W. F.

Slocum

J. W.

(1984). Collective climate: Agreement as a basis for defining aggregate climates in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 27(4), 721–742.

50.

Judge

T. A.

Bono

J. E.

(2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80–92.

51.

Judge

T. A.

Bono

J. E.

Locke

E. A.

(2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 237–249.

52.

Judge

T. A.

Thoresen

C. J.

Bono

J. E.

Patton

G. K.

(2001). The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376–407.

53.

Kahn

W. A.

(1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.

54.

Keller

R. T.

(1975). Role conflict and ambiguity: Correlates with job satisfaction and values. Personnel Psychology, 28(1), 57–64.

55.

Kernis

M. H.

Goldman

B. M.

(2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: Theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 283–357.

56.

King

E. B.

Reilly

Hebl

(2008). The best of times, the worst of times: Exploring dual perspectives of “coming out” in the workplace. Group & Organization Management, 33(5), 566–601.

57.

*Köllen

(2013). Bisexuality and diversity management—Addressing the B in LGBT as a relevant “sexual orientation” in the workplace. Journal of Bisexuality, 13(1), 122–137.

58.

*Law

C. L.

Martinez

L. R.

Ruggs

E. N.

Hebl

M. R.

Akers

(2011). Trans-parency in the workplace: How the experiences of transsexual employees can be improved. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(3), 710–723.

59.

Levine

M. P.

Leonard

(1984). Discrimination against lesbians in the work force. Signs, 9(4), 700–710.

60.

Lidderdale

M. A.

Croteau

J. M.

Anderson

M. Z.

Tovar-Murray

Davis

J. M.

(2007). Building lesbian, gay, and bisexual vocational psychology: A theoretical model of workplace sexual identity management. In Bieschke

K. J.

Perez

R. M.

DeBord

K. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender clients (2nd ed., pp. 245–270). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

61.

Liddle

B. J.

Luzzo

D. A.

Hauenstein

A. L.

Schuck

(2004). Construction and validation of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Climate Inventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 12(1), 33–50.

62.

Lipka

(2016). Americans are divided over which public bathrooms transgender people should use. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/03/americans-are-divided-over-which-public-bathrooms-transgender-people-should-use/

63.

Mathieu

J. E.

Zajac

D. M.

(1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171–194.

64.

May

D. R.

Gilson

R. L.

Harter

L. M.

(2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 11–37.

65.

Maynard

M. T.

Mathieu

J. E.

Gilson

L. L.

O’Boyle

E. H.

Jr Cigularov

K. P.

(2013). Drivers and outcomes of team psychological empowerment: A meta-analytic review and model test. Organizational Psychology Review, 3(2), 101–137.

66.

Ménard

Brunet

(2011). Authenticity and well-being in the workplace: A mediation model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(4), 331–346.

67.

Mesmer-Magnus

J. R.

DeChurch

L. A.

Wax

(2012). Moving emotional labor beyond surface and deep acting: A discordance–congruence perspective. Organizational Psychology Review, 2(1), 6–53.

68.

*Miller

Higgins

D. J.

(2006). The role of sexual orientation disclosure and harassment in predicting job satisfaction and organisational commitment. Lesbian and Gay Psychology Review, 7(2), 216–230.

69.

Mohr

Fassinger

(2000). Measuring dimensions of lesbian and gay male experience. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33(2), 66–90.

70.

Moorman

R. H.

(1993). The influence of cognitive and affective based job satisfaction measures on the relationship between satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Relations, 46(6), 759–776.

71.

*Moradi

(2009). Sexual orientation disclosure, concealment, harassment, and military cohesion: Perceptions of LGBT military veterans. Military Psychology, 21(4), 513–533.

72.

Paletta

(2016). ILGA releases global research of attitudes towards LGBTI people. Retrieved from http://ilga.org/global-survey-attitudes-lgbti-riwi-logo/

73.

Penney

L. M.

Spector

P. E.

(2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7), 777–796.

74.

Pew Research Center. (2013). A survey of LGBT Americans. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/06/13/a-survey-of-lgbt-americans/

75.

*Prati

Pietrantoni

(2014). Coming out and job satisfaction: A moderated mediation model. The Career Development Quarterly, 62(4), 358–371.

76.

Quinn

R. P.

Staines

G. L.

(1979). The 1977 quality of employment survey. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, Survey Research Center.

77.

Ragins

B. R.

(2008). Disclosure disconnects: Antecedents and consequences of disclosing invisible stigmas across life domains. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 194–215.

78.

Ragins

B. R.

Cornwell

J. M.

(2001). Pink triangles: Antecedents and consequences of perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1244–1261.

79.

*Ragins

B. R.

Singh

Cornwell

J. M.

(2007). Making the invisible visible: Fear and disclosure of sexual orientation at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1103–1118.

80.

*Reed

Leuty

M. E.

(2016). The role of individual differences and situational variables in the use of workplace sexual identity management strategies. Journal of Homosexuality, 63(7), 985–1017.

81.

Riketta

(2008). The causal relation between job attitudes and performance: A meta-analysis of panel studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 472–481.

82.

Rosenberg

(2016, 5 17). How the world feels about LGBT people. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2016/05/17/how-the-world-feels-about-lgbt-people

83.

*Ruggs

E. N.

Martinez

L. R.

Hebl

M. R.

Law

C. L.

(2015). Workplace “trans”-actions: How organizations, coworkers, and individual openness influence perceived gender identity discrimination. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2(4), 404–412.

84.

Rummell

C. M.

(2013). Testing an empirical model of workplace sexual identity management (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Akron, Akron, OH.

85.

*Rummell

C. M.

Tokar

D. M.

(2016). Testing an empirical model of workplace sexual identity management. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 3(1), 49–62.

86.

Schmidt

F. L.

Hunter

J. E.

(2015). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

87.

Shelton

J. N.

Richeson

J. A.

(2005). Intergroup contact and pluralistic ignorance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(1), 91–107.

88.

*Smith

N. G.

Ingram

K. M.

(2004). Workplace heterosexism and adjustment among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals: The role of unsupportive social interactions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(1), 57–67.

89.

Smith

P. C.

Kendall

L. M.

Hulin

C. L.

(1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

90.

Spector

P. E.

(1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, cause, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

91.

Steel

P. D.

Kammeyer-Mueller

J. D.

(2002). Comparing meta-analytic moderator estimation techniques under realistic conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 96–111.

92.

Stewart

Volpone

S. D.

Avery

D. R.

McKay

(2011). You support diversity, but are you ethical? Examining the interactive effects of diversity and ethical climate perceptions on turnover intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(4), 581–593.

93.

*Tejeda

M. J.

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

94.

Tett

R. P.

Meyer

J. P.

(1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46(2), 259–293.

95.

Thomas

D. A.

(1990). The impact of race on managers’ experiences of developmental relationships (mentoring and sponsorship): An intra-organizational study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 479–492.

96.

*Trau

R. N. C.

(2015). The impact of discriminatory climate perceptions on the composition of intraorganizational developmental networks, psychosocial support, and job and career attitudes of employees with an invisible stigma. Human Resource Management, 54(2), 345–366.

97.

*Trau

R. N. C.

Härtel

C. E. J.

(2007). Contextual factors affecting quality of work life and career attitudes of gay men. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 19(3), 207–219.

98.

*Tuten

T. L.

August

R. A.

(2006). Work–family conflict: A study of lesbian mothers. Women in Management Review, 21(7), 578–597.

99.

*Velez

B. L.

Moradi

Brewster

M. E.

(2013). Testing the tenets of minority stress theory in workplace contexts. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(4), 532–542.

100.

Waldo

C. R.

(1999). Working in a majority context: A structural model of heterosexism as minority stress in the workplace. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46(2), 218–232.

101.

Wanous

J. P.

Reichers

A. E.

Hudy

M. J.

(1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247–252. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.247

102.

Weed

D. L.

(2010). Meta-analysis and causal inference: A case study of benzene and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Annals of Epidemiology, 20(5), 347–355.

103.

Weiss

D. J.

Dawis

R. V.

England

G. W.

Lofquist

L. H.

(1967). Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Vol. 22). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Industrial Relations Center.

104.

Weyer

Hodapp

Neuhäuser

(1980). Weiterentwicklung von Fragebogenskalen zur Erfassung der subjektiven Belastung und Unzufriedenheit im beruflichen Bereich (SBUS-B) [An improved version of a questionnaire for measuring job related subjective stress and dissatisfaction (SBUS-B)]. Psychologische Beiträge, 22, 335–356.

105.

Whitener

E. M.

(1990). Confusion of confidence intervals and credibility intervals in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(3), 315–321.

106.

Williams

L. J.

Anderson

S. E.

(1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601–617.

107.

Williams

M. L.

McDaniel

M. A.

Nguyen

N. T.

(2006). A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of pay level satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 392–413.

108.

Woods

J. D.

(1994). The corporate closet: The professional lives of gay men in America. New York, NY: Free Press.