1 / 19

Belle Rose Ragins University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee John M. Cornwell Loyola University-New Orleans

Pink Triangles: Antecedents and Consequences of Workplace Discrimination Against Gay and Lesbian Employees. Belle Rose Ragins University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee John M. Cornwell Loyola University-New Orleans. Background.

diazs
Download Presentation

Belle Rose Ragins University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee John M. Cornwell Loyola University-New Orleans

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Pink Triangles:Antecedents and Consequences of Workplace Discrimination Against Gay and Lesbian Employees Belle Rose Ragins University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee John M. Cornwell Loyola University-New Orleans

  2. Background • Gay men and lesbians constitute between 4 - 17% of the workforce (Gonsiorek & Weinrich, 1991) • Workplace Discrimination Widespread • Between 25-66% of gay employees report sexual orientation discrimination (cf. review by: Croteau, 1996) • Legal to discriminate in most workplaces (NGLTF, 2000) • The Decision to Be Out at Work • Only 16-24% of gay employees completely out at work (Driscoll, Kelley & Fassinger, 1996; Schneider, 1987)

  3. Purpose of Study • Develop and test a multi-level model of heterosexism in the workplace: • Provide insight into the macro and micro level factors that contribute to reported workplace discrimination against gay employees. • Examine the job attitudes and organizational outcomes associated with discrimination. • Examine the relationship between disclosure and discrimination, and other variables in the model.

  4. Jones’ (1972) Model of Institutional Racism. Racism occurs at 3 levels: Individual: racial climate/composition of workgroup. Institutional: institutional policies that produce racist consequences. Societal/cultural: societal views of racial superiority. Model of Heterosexism in Workplace. Applied to heterosexism: Individual: work group composition; relational demography theory. Institutional:organizational policies and practices; organizational culture. Societal/cultural: protective legislation. Theoretical Foundation

  5. Protective Legislation Hyp. 3 Perceived Workplace Discrimination Job and Career Attitudes Hyp. 5a Hyp. 2 Organizational Policies & Practices Hyp. 4 Hyp. 5b Disclosure of Sexual Orientation Organizational Outcomes: Compensation Promotion Hyp. 1a & 1b Work Group Composition: Supervisor Coworkers Research Question #1 ANTECEDENTS MEDIATOR CONSEQUENCES Research Question #2 Hypothesized Relationships

  6. Hypotheses: Antecedents • #1a. Gay employees with gay supervisors will report less workplace discrimination than gay employees with heterosexual supervisors. • #1b. Gay employees with a greater proportion of gay coworkers will report less workplace discrimination than gay employees with workgroups that are primarily heterosexual. • #2. The greater the extent of supportive policies and practices in the organization, the less workplace discrimination will be reported by gay employees. • #3. Gay employees in organizations governed by protective legislation will report less workplace discrimination than gay employees in organizations lacking protective legislation. • Research Question #1: Which antecedent factor has the greatest impact on reports of workplace discrimination?

  7. Hypotheses: Out at WorkConsequences of Discrimination • Hypothesis #4: Gay employees will be more likely to conceal their sexual orientation when they have experienced or observed workplace discrimination. • Hypothesis #5a: Gay employees who report workplace discrimination will hold more negative job and career attitudes than employees who do not report discrimination. • Hypothesis #5b: Gay employees who report workplace discrimination will have less compensation and fewer promotions than employees who do not report discrimination. • Research Question #2: Does reported workplace discrimination mediate the relationship between antecedent variables and outcomes?

  8. Method • Stratified random sample of 2,919 members of 3 national gay rights organizations: • 1,488 sent to largest glbt civil rights org.; 681 national Hispanic-American glbt org; 750 national African-American glbt org. • 334 returned unanswered (283: undeliverable mail; 51: retired, unemployed, deceased). • 768 respondents (30% response rate) • Excluded self-employed, heterosexual, unemployed, employed by gay organizations. • Final sample 534 gay and lesbian respondents

  9. Sample • Gender: 168 lesbians; 363 gay men. • Race/Ethnicity (69% white) • Euro-American: n= 361 African-American: n = 81 • Hispanic-American: n=65 Asian-American: n = 4 • Multiracial n = 6 (11 did not report race). • 92.9% gay/lesbian; 7.1% bisexual. • Average age: 41 yrs. • Education: B.A. (38%), M.A. (28%), Ph.D. (18%). • Primary Job Classifications: Professional/Technical (68%); Managerial (20%). Main Industries: Education (24%), Health (17%), Government (15%), Service (12%).

  10. Antecedent Measures • Protective Legislation • Respondents asked city and state of employer. • 69% in protective locales; 30% in locales lacking protection. • Organizational Policies and Practices(sum 6 items; alpha=.82) • Written Non-Discrimination Policy (54% yes; 29% no; rest: don’t know) • Include Sexual Orientation in Definition of Diversity (51% yes; 31% no) • Include Sexual Orientation in Diversity Training (31% yes; 46% no) • Offer Same-Sex Domestic Partner Benefits (20% yes; 70% no) • Offer GLBT Resource/Support Groups (22% yes; 67% no) • Welcome Same-Sex Partners at Comp. Social Events (52% yes; 19% no). • Work Group Composition • Sexual Orientation of Coworkers (89% mostly heterosexual; 6% balanced; 2% mostly gay; 2% did not know) • Sexual Orientation of Supervisor (86% straight supervisor; 9% gay supervisor; 5% did not know)

  11. Discrimination and Disclosure • Workplace Discrimination • Modified version of James, Lovato & Cropanzano (1994) Workplace Prejudice/Discrimination Inventory • Established reliability and validity (James, Lovato & Cropanzano, 1994) • 15 item single-factor instrument • Alpha = .94 • Disclosure(modified Croteau & Lark, 1995 & Levine & Leonard, 1984) • At work, have you disclosed your sexual orientation to: • No one (11.7%) • Some people (37%) • Most people (24.6%) • Everyone (26.7%)

  12. Attitudes and Outcome Variables • Established Measures of 6 Job Attitudes (alphas: .77-.91): • Job Satisfaction(Quinn & Staines, 1979) • Satisfaction with Opportunities for Promotion(Smith, Kendall & Hulin, 1969) • Organizational Commitment(Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979) • Organization-Based Self-Esteem(Pierce et al, 1989) • Career Commitment(Blau, 1985) • Turnover Intentions(Nadler et al, 1975) • Career Outcomes • Promotion Rate (# of promotions over past 10 yrs.) • Compensation

  13. RESULTS: Antecedents • All 3 antecedent variables significantly related to reported workplace discrimination. • Gay employees reported less discrimination with: • Gay supervisors (r =-.16, p < .001) (Hypothesis 1a) • Greater proportion of gay coworkers (r =-.27, p < .001) (H1b) • Gay friendly organizational policies/practices (r =-.28, p < .001) (Hypothesis 2) • Strongest item: partner welcome at social events (r= -.60) • Protective legislation (r =-.14, p = .001) (Hypothesis 3) • Research Question #1: Which variable had greatest impact?

  14. Results of EQS Analyses:Policies and Practices Had Strongest Impact (Research Q 1)Greater disclosure with less perceived discrimination (H4) Protective Legislation -.096 .100 Perceived Workplace Discrimination Organizational Policies & Practices -.260 -.197 .326 Exogenous Variables Endogenous Variables Coworkers Orientation -.145 Hyp. 4 .180 -.043( N.S.) Disclosure of Sexual Orientation Supervisor Orientation -.070 (N.S.) Chi Square non-significant = 1.78 (2), p = .410 Goodness of fit indices greater than .99 Standardized residuals less than .065 All coefficients significant (alpha = .05)

  15. Post Hoc Analyses of Policies and Procedures Items • Gay employees report less discrimination and are more likely to be out in organizations that: (all p<.001) • Welcome same-sex partners at company social events*** • Have a non-discrimination policy • Include sexual orientation in definitions of diversity • Offer same-sex domestic partner benefits • Inclusion of gay issues in diversity training unrelated to discrimination or disclosure. • Gay support groups marginally related to discrimination (p=.05), but significantly related to disclosure (p=.007).

  16. Results: Outcomes of Discrimination • Gay employees who experienced or witnessed discrimination had more negative job and career attitudes than those who did not (Strong support for Hypothesis 5a) • Reports of workplace discrimination significantly related to all 6 attitudinal variables (r’s range: -.24 to -.47, all sign. p<.001) • Gay employees who experienced or witnessed discrimination had lower promotion rates(r= -.21, p<.001) than those who did not, but no differences in compensation (r =-.01, ns).(Partial support for Hypothesis 5b.)

  17. Research Question # 2: • Does workplace discrimination mediate the relationship between antecedents and outcomes? • Test: Chi-Square Difference Test between 2 EQS analyses: • Model #1: Workplace discrimination as mediator • Workplace discrimination did mediate relationships: All path coefficients were significant(except: discrimination and compensation) • Model #2: Added direct effects between antecedents and outcomes • Direct effects improved on model.Difference test: chi square=64.67 (34) p<.01) • Workplace discrimination mediated relationship between antecedents and outcomes but did not do so completely. • Legislation influenced outcomes through discrimination, • But organizational policies and practices had both a direct and indirect effect on attitudes and compensation. • Gay employees’ compensation and half of attitudes studied were directly improved by supportive policies and practices.

  18. Trimmed Model with Mediated and Direct Effects Turnover Intentions .246 -.670 -.067 Organizational Commitment .109 .687 -.455 Protective Legislation Career Commitment -.096 .090 .100 .511 -.220 Organizational Policies & Practices Organizational Self-Esteem -.436 Perceived Workplace Discrimination .450 -.262 Latent Common Variance .325 -.215 -.417 -.142 Job Satisfaction .715 Coworkers Orientation -.400 .457 -.119 Opportunities For Promotion .147 Supervisor Orientation -.244 .137 .152 Promotion Rate Disclosure of Sexual Orientation .170 Compensation

  19. Conclusion • Gay friendly organizational policies and practices had the strongest impact on discrimination and outcomes. • Greater impact than protective legislation. • Legislation important but not sufficient • Greater impact than whether supervisor or coworkers were gay. • Gay work group may buffer employee but not take the place of supportive organizational culture. • Independent effect on compensation and attitudes • Cultures that value diversity not only reduce discrimination, but also have a direct and independent effect on attitudes and outcomes. • Key indicator of gay friendly cultures: welcome the partner! • not “don’t ask/don’t tell” • BUT! Policies and practices built on culture; instituting policies without culture can result in backlash.

More Related