Equality and diversity policies and practices at work ...

Equal Opportunities International Equality and diversity policies and practices at work: lesbian, gay and bisexual workers Fiona Colgan Chris Creegan Aidan McKearney Tessa Wright

Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)

Article information: To cite this document: Fiona Colgan Chris Creegan Aidan McKearney Tessa Wright, (2007),"Equality and diversity policies and practices at work: lesbian, gay and bisexual workers", Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 26 Iss 6 pp. 590 - 609 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02610150710777060 Downloaded on: 08 November 2014, At: 14:08 (PT) References: this document contains references to 36 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3792 times since 2007*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: Tessa Wright, Fiona Colgan, Chris Creegany, Aidan McKearney, (2006),"Lesbian, gay and bisexual workers: equality, diversity and inclusion in the workplace", Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 25 Iss 6 pp. 465-470 Paul Brook, Rosemary Lucas, Fiona Colgan, Aidan McKearney, (2012),"Visibility and voice in organisations: Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered employee networks", Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, Vol. 31 Iss 4 pp. 359-378 Fiona Colgan, Aidan McKearney, Fiona Colgan, (2011),"Equality, diversity and corporate responsibility: Sexual orientation and diversity management in the UK private sector", Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, Vol. 30 Iss 8 pp. 719-734

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 404256 []

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0261-0159.htm

EOI 26,6

Equality and diversity policies and practices at work: lesbian, gay and bisexual workers

590

Fiona Colgan, Chris Creegan, Aidan McKearney and Tessa Wright

Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)

Comparative Organisation and Equality Research Centre, WLRI, London Metropolitan University, London, UK Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify organisational good practice concerning equality, diversity and sexual orientation and consider the impact of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003. Design/methodology/approach – The paper employs in-depth interviews and a short survey with 154 lesbian, gay and bisexual people (LGB) and 60 interviews with management, trade union and LGB group representatives within 16 ‘‘good practice’’ case study organisations. Findings – Before the introduction of the (SO) Regulations (2003), progress concerning equality, diversity and sexual orientation was made based on social justice and/or business case arguments. The research shows that an inclusive organisational response can benefit both LGB employees and their employers. However, an ‘‘implementation gap’’ between equality/diversity policy and practice on sexual orientation was identified. The introduction of the law as a further driver to equality action in the sexual orientation area has been positive. However, LGB employees voiced concerns about the way in which organisations rely on LGB people to come forward with complaints before tackling problems. Thus, the protection provided by the (SO) Regulations 2003, although welcomed, was not seen as a panacea to tackling discrimination and harassment on grounds of sexual orientation in the workplace. LGB respondents looked to their organisation management to provide proactive leadership on equality/diversity issues and stop treating the sexual orientation strand as the ‘‘poor relation’’ within the organisational drive for equality and diversity. Originality/value – The paper addresses the gap in knowledge regarding LGB people’s perceptions of equality/diversity policy and practice within UK workplaces, providing information on good practice for employers, trade unions, government and LGB campaigning organisations. Keywords Homosexuals, Sexuality, Equal opportunities, Employment legislation, United Kingdom Paper type Research paper

Equal Opportunities International Vol. 26 No. 6, 2007 pp. 590-609 # Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0261-0159 DOI 10.1108/02610150710777060

Introduction This paper will discuss the experiences of lesbian, gay and bisexual ( LGB) workers following the introduction of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Discrimination Regulations (2003)[1]. The research first focuses on what employers have done to develop and implement good practice both prior to and following the introduction of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (2003). It then considers the impact of organisation equality/diversity policy and practice and the introduction of the Regulations from the point of view of LGB people within 16 case study organisations[2]. The academic literature concerning progress in UK organisation equality and diversity policy and practice has pointed to the gap that too often exists between equality policy and practice ( Jewson and Mason, 1986; Cockburn, 1991; Young, 1992, Dickens, 2005). It has also focused on the relative merits of the social justice, business The authors would like to thank Pauline Baseley, Hazel Conley and the two anonymous referees for their comments on an earlier version of this article.

Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)

and legislative compliance arguments as drivers for effective organisational equality and diversity action ( Dickens, 1999, 2005; Liff and Dickens, 2000; Richards, 2001). Evaluation of progress within the UK thus far has pointed to the weakness of anti-discrimination legislation and the uneven application over time and within organisations of arguments based solely on the social justice and business cases (Skidmore, 2004; Dickens, 1994, 2005). Few studies, thus far have considered progress concerning the sexual orientation strand, with a few notable exceptions (Cockburn, 1991; Kirton and Greene, 2000; Dickens, 2005; Cooper, 2006). There is a lack of robust statistical evidence concerning the proportion of the UK population who identify as LGB. The DTI’s regulatory impact assessment suggested that between 5 and 7 per cent of the UK population is LGB (DTI, 2005). However, the assessment was based on a range of arguably conflicting data concerning sexual identity and sexual activity. The attribution of the labels ‘‘lesbian, gay and bisexual’’ to those involved in this study is based on self-identification by respondents themselves during the research process. Despite a growing body of research on sexual orientation in organisations, the experiences of ‘‘sexual minorities’’ in the workplace remains an under researched area and there have been very few case studies of particular organisations (Ward and Winstanley, 2003). Research has demonstrated that LGB people experience discrimination at work and that fears about the consequences of revealing their sexuality affects both career choices and personal strategies within the workplace (Palmer, 1993; ID Research, 2002). Ryan-Flood’s (2004) research found that LGB workers in the ‘‘higher echelons of the labour market’’ tended to choose careers in sectors with a more tolerant environment and were more likely to be out. Whereas, those employed in lower level jobs were more likely to remain ‘‘closeted at work,’’ and change employer rather than seek assistance through their trade union where they encountered difficulty at work. Moreover, whilst there has been some research on trade union responses to LGB workers in the UK (Colgan, 1999a; Humphrey, 2002), to date there has been little focus on the policies and practices of UK employers (Equal Opportunities Review, 2004; Carabine and Monro, 2004; Stonewall, 2004; Colgan et al., 2008). Over the last decade a range of ‘‘good practice’’ organisations have recognised that a commitment to equality and diversity includes engaging with the needs of LGB employees, service users and customers (Stonewall, 2006). Prior to the introduction of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (2003), any progress made has been based on social justice and/or business case arguments. This paper focuses on the experiences of LGB people at work within 16 such ‘‘good practice’’ employers following the introduction of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003. The study is important in being able to explore the ‘‘tip of the iceberg’’ within UK workplaces by researching the views of LGB employees who have been willing to participate in the research who in turn work for progressive organisations who see the value of a study in this area. As such the research does not pretend to provide a ‘‘window’’ into the average or typical UK workplace but rather into 16 ‘‘good practice’’ UK workplaces, with a track record of developing policy and practice on sexual orientation. It does however, begin to address the gap in knowledge that exists regarding the experiences of LGB people within UK workplaces. Methodology The research is based on in-depth interviews with 154 LGB employees within 16 case study organisations as part of a two-year study (2004-2006) funded by the Higher

Equality and diversity policies

591

EOI 26,6

Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)

592

Education European Social Fund. In addition, 60 in-depth interviews with management, trade union and LGB group representatives within the case studies provided information on organisational context, as well as equal opportunities policy and practice. Case study organisations also provided access to documentary material such as policies, reports, company and trade union websites and publications. Organisational experiences have, in turn, been contextualised through in-depth interviews with 25 key informants within UK organisations representing LGB people, government, employers, employees charged with disseminating advice on the Employment Equality (SO) Regulations (2003). All in-depth interviews were unstructured and conducted using open-ended topic guides. The interviews were taped and transcribed verbatim for analysis. The data management phase of the analysis was carried out with the use of N6 computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software. The 154 LGB employee respondents were also asked to complete a short survey questionnaire prior to the interview and all 154 did so. The purpose of this questionnaire was to obtain headline demographic and attitudinal data about the LGB respondent sample. For example, in addition to questions about gender, ethnicity, age and disability, it included questions about who people disclosed their sexual orientation to at work, the impact of policies and practices on job satisfaction and the perceived impact of the regulations. The data collected via this questionnaire was also used to inform our sampling strategy, for example monitoring the sample in relation to ethnicity, disability, occupational classification and whether respondents were ‘‘out’’ (disclosed their sexual orientation) to people at work. The statistical data presented in this paper is based on the 154 survey questionnaire responses. However, the key themes summarised are based on our analysis of qualitative data and listed in no particular significant order collected through the 154 in-depth interviews. The geographical focus of the study was London and Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield (in Yorkshire) because these provide contrasting urban areas in different parts of England with ethnically diverse populations and vocal LGB communities. Research on LGB issues is still a relatively new and ‘‘sensitive’’ area of research in the UK and the ‘‘hidden’’ nature of the LGB population raised a number of methodological issues. In order to overcome difficulties in negotiating research access, we identified 16 ‘‘good practice employers’’ (nine public sector, five private sector and two voluntary sector) with the assistance of employers’ organisations, trade unions and LGB groups. Most (12 of the 16) case studies which agreed to participate in the research were members of the Stonewall Diversity Champion’s programme[3] and eight were listed within the top 100 employers in Stonewall’s Workplace Equality Index in 2006 (Stonewall, 2006). Fourteen of the case studies participating in the project were willing to be identified by name, but two agreed to participate on an anonymous basis[4]. All but two of the case study organisations were unionised. To maximise the diversity of LGB respondents, we used multiple access routes via organisational newsletters, email or intranet sites, invitations via workplace LGBT groups and via local and national trade union and LGBT campaigning groups. This was supplemented by a snowballing approach to ensure an appropriate range of LGB interviewees from each case study organisation. Despite undertaking the research within ‘‘good practice’’ organisations, the study has experienced the same difficulties as other LGB studies in accessing a diverse LGB population (McManus, 2003). The lack of statistical data regarding sexual orientation either in the general population or in organisations means that probability sampling is not possible. In this paper, therefore, quantitative data based on the survey

Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)

questionnaire responses is used to present a profile of the 154 LGB respondents. In doing it does not suggest that the sample of respondents is representative (statistically or otherwise) of the LGB population within the case study organisations. A greater proportion of men (61.7 per cent) than women (38.3 per cent) participated in the research and there was an under-representation of black and minority ethnic LGB people (BME, 8.4 per cent) and a high representation of managerial (39 per cent) and professional (41.6 per cent) respondents compared to the general population[5]. Respondents ranged in age from 21 to over 60 and 11.3 per cent defined themselves as having a disability. Nearly two-thirds (60.4 per cent) defined as gay men, 33.8 per cent as lesbian and 5.8 per cent (two men and seven women) defined themselves as bisexual. Among the 154 LGB research respondents, 50 per cent worked in the public sector, 42.2 per cent in the private sector and 7.8 per cent in the voluntary sector. Thirty eight (24.7 per cent) of the respondents worked in Bradford, Leeds or Sheffield with 115 (75.7 per cent) working in the London area. We think it is important to acknowledge that the qualitative interviews with 154 LGB respondents were inevitably with those who felt comfortable and/or able to participate in a research project on equality and sexual orientation within their workplace. We found administrative, manual, service and skilled trades workers and BME workers particularly hard to reach despite the multiple access routes described above. It was suggested to us by key informants within the case study organisations that those in these sub-groups were less likely to be ‘‘out’’ at work and thus much less likely to participate in a research project on LGB issues. Those involved in organising LGB employee groups within organisation LGBT and trade union groups reported similar difficulties in securing the participation of these sub-groups in organisational initiatives. This illustrates the ‘‘hidden’’ nature of much of the LGB population even within ‘‘good practice’’ organisations where employers and trade unions have been striving to implement equality and diversity policies and practices in order to ensure a ‘‘gay-friendly’’ workplace. Our research confirmed Ryan-Flood’s (2004) findings that those in lower level and perhaps more difficult working environments are less likely to be out and ‘‘visible and vocal’’ at work (Colgan et al., 2006a). Good practice case study organisations All of the organisations, participating in the research saw themselves as ‘‘good practice’’ employers in terms of equality and diversity including sexual orientation. Interviews with senior human resource (HR) and trade union representatives suggested that the case study organisations had sought to be progressive on sexual orientation initially on social justice grounds and then in conjunction with the business case despite the fairly hostile UK social and public policy climate prior to 1997 (Tatchell, 1992; Cooper, 1994, 2006; Colgan, 1999b). Each organisation had its own specific history regarding the inclusion of sexual orientation within its organisational policy and practice (Colgan et al., 2006a). However, it is possible to summarise some of the key drivers over time by sector. Public and voluntary sectors Within the public and voluntary sectors, managers, union and LGBT group representatives interviewed, talked of the recent impetus provided by legal compliance in addition to the earlier social justice and business case arguments. Steps to include sexual orientation alongside other equality strands had experienced two major drives.

Equality and diversity policies

593

EOI 26,6

Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)

594

The first was during the late-1980s following a big push by LGB campaigning groups and employees within local authorities, other public and voluntary sector organisations and within unions. This led to the inclusion of sexual orientation within equal opportunities policies and the work of equality departments and units on social justice grounds as early as the late-1980s. The Conservative government, however, showed little support for these ‘‘gay-friendly’’ developments. Thus interviewees within the local authority, school, voluntary sector and the fire services case studies talked of the stalling of this early progress. Particularly key was the introduction of Section 28 of the Local Government Act (1988) which made it illegal for local authorities to ‘‘intentionally promote homosexuality,’’ and created a difficult political climate for those trying to progress work to ensure fair treatment of LGB people in the workforce and via service provision in local authorities, schools and voluntary sector organisations working with children and young people. The second political impetus cited for change following the election of a Labour Government in 1997, was the establishment of new structures, expansion of the voluntary sector role and the expansion of equality legislation. A range of duties have been placed on the public sector including the Race Relations (Amendment) Act (2000) and the raft of legislation which has been introduced to remove discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in a number of areas including the sexual age of consent, fostering and adoption of children. Four important recent measures have included the repeal of the Local Government Act: Section 28 (2003) and the introduction of the Employment Equality (SO) Regulations (2003), the Civil Partnership Act (2004) and the Equality Act (2006). Human Resource (HR) and diversity managers within the public and voluntary sectors were more likely to mention the importance of recent developments in the law in assisting and empowering them to make progress within the equalities area, particularly where political or managerial opposition or inadequate resources had stopped them from developing LGB initiatives in line with other strands: I think it’s fair to say the authority like the vast majority of other public bodies views its response and investment in equality work based on our statutory responsibilities (Senior manager, Public sector). And sexual orientation has now become, instead of being a bit of a difficult area for us and a cause of anxiety, I think it’s just become a cause of well, that’s another part of the diversity agenda (Senior manager, Voluntary sector).

Within the public sector, local authorities, for example, have sought to adopt a comprehensive and systematic approach to dealing with equality and diversity issues as outlined in the Equality Standard for Local Government (Employers Organisation, 2001). The standard provides a common approach for dealing with equality for race, gender and disability which most progressive local authorities have sought to extend to anti-discrimination policies for age, sexuality, class and religion and belief. This broader equality and diversity focus is now being adopted in the good practice public and voluntary sector organisations assisted by the impetus provided by the introduction of the Employment Equality (SO) Regulations and the expansion of antidiscrimination legislation in services and on grounds of age and religious beliefs. Private sector The five private companies participating in the research are global companies although the research project focused only on the UK operation as the case study for

Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)

each company. Thus, although the UK legislative and political changes outlined above have also impacted on the private sector case study organisations, most of the HR and diversity managers thought the more substantial force shaping their equality and diversity policies has been corporate business objectives and the ‘‘business case’’ for diversity. All five private sector companies argued that they were ‘‘ahead of the game’’ when it came to tackling LGB discrimination and social exclusion and so did not need to make many changes to comply with the requirements of the Employment Equality (SO) Regulations (2003): I think our policies generally are pretty much across the board so didn’t need tweaking or changing to accommodate the new Sexual Orientation Discrimination Act (Senior Manager, Private Sector). I think diversity is crucial to the business. We see it as if we can employ people from a wide range of backgrounds. . .that will help us engage with our customers and understand the solutions and the way that they need to interact so we then develop the inclusive solutions that work for everybody. . . And around the whole LGBT area in particular, it’s quite an important market for us because LGBT people tend to have high disposable income and tend to be early adapters of technology and there’s lots of research being done around that. So actually it’s quite a key market for us to have LGBT people engaged in our products so that we can use them as ambassadors for how it can work (Senior manager, Private sector).

A number of the US organisations operating in Europe, had established sexual diversity policies and procedures as part of a broader managing diversity approach during the 1990s. For example, IBM at its foundation, established its policy on ‘‘Respect for the Individual.’’ Over time this was modified to incorporate equality and diversity. In 1985, sexual orientation was introduced into its equality and diversity policy. The ‘‘Respect for the Individual’’ policy states that the company is committed to ‘‘creating an inclusive working environment’’ and ‘‘ensuring that employees feel comfortable, productive and able to reach their full potential.’’ By 1991, informal LGB network groups were established at company locations in the US and Canada and by the mid1990s same-sex partner benefits were extended to US and Canadian employees. LGBT same-sex partner benefits and an LGBT formal networking group were established in the UK in 2001 (IBM LGBT Group member, interview). Ford of Britain and BT also included sexual diversity within equality and diversity policies during the late-1990s and have introduced same-sex partner benefits and established LGBT groups in the last five years. As US subsidiaries operating in the UK, have led the way, many UKbased organisations such as RBOS and the finance organisation have followed suit as they compete to be ‘‘employers of choice’’ for LGBT staff and attract business from the LGBT customers (Private sector, key informant interviews). Equality and diversity policy and practice: sexual orientation All of the case study companies had taken a number of the steps outlined in the Stonewall Diversity Champion’s programme (Stonewall, 2005). These are summarised below: .

Developed and promoted a written equality/diversity policy barring discrimination and specifically stating ‘‘sexual orientation’’.

.

Developed a working group/diversity team that includes LGB issues.

.

Established a lead person for LGB issues at Board/Chief executive level.

Equality and diversity policies

595

EOI 26,6

Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)

596

.

Established an LGBT network group for support, consultation and to inform policy at work.

.

Audited policies and procedures for employees in line with Employment (SO) Regulations 2003 and Civil Partnership Act.

.

Ran diversity awareness training that referred to ‘‘sexual orientation’’ and drew on concrete examples.

.

Sponsored or supported an LGB organisation or event (although neither school had done so nor had they participated in LGBT history month thus far).

.

Recruited staff or advertised products or services in UK LGB media.

There were areas where policy and practice development varied. For example, the public sector organisations fell behind the private and voluntary sector when it came to pensions entitlement to same-sex partners in the UK. However, this was because the public sector schemes were statutory schemes that could only be changed by parliament not the employers alone. Public and voluntary sector organisations had moved further on sexual orientation monitoring at all stages and grades although most of the case study organisations had either introduced a sexual orientation question in their staff attitude survey or intended to do so. Private sector organisations offered specific support to LGB staff via targeted mentoring, LGB leadership training and resources. Openly LGB members were evident at senior levels of the organisation via councillors in the local authority context and senior staff in the schools but senior managers and LGB staff identified the lack of senior out LGB representatives as a problem across all three sectors. Although trade unions were identified as supportive of many of the equality and diversity initiatives, including the more recent establishment of LGBT groups, their consultation and involvement by organisations was variable. Prior to 2003, organisation policy and practice concerning sexual orientation had primarily developed within the case study organisations driven by the social justice and/or business cases for equality. As Dickens (2005, p. 187) argues these may often be ‘‘contingent and variable’’ and can be ‘‘experienced differently by (and within) different organisations’’. The research found evidence to support this. For example, a number of LGB respondents complained that line managers and work colleagues at best claimed not to know about corporate policy in the area or at worst were hostile to or considered it irrelevant or marginal to the work that they did (Colgan et al., 2006b). LGB respondents: out at work? Although working for ‘‘good practice’’ employers, just over half (57.8 per cent) of the 154 LGB respondents willing to participate in the research were out to everyone at work. Based on the survey data, a third (33.8 per cent) were out to some people leaving 8.4 per cent saying that they were out to very few or nobody at work. Nearly 1 in 10 (9.5 per cent) of the male respondents said they were out to very few or nobody at work compared to 6.8 per cent of the women respondents (Colgan et al., 2008). Even those who said they were ‘‘out’’ at work were selective in terms of those they came out to. Respondents said they were not out to clients/customers and students (31.2 per cent), particularly teachers who did not feel ‘‘safe’’ in terms of the reactions of pupils and parents. In the private sector, although company equality policies offered protection from discriminatory colleagues, this often did not extend to clients. Respondents during the in-depth interviews talked of making a distinction between

Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)

being out in the organisation as a whole or in their individual workplace, though the dissemination of information and ‘‘gossip’’ about their sexuality was not something over which they had control. Nearly, one in six of the respondents (15.6 per cent) said they were not out to their manager (17.1 per cent of men relative to 14 per cent of women). Among the respondents who were out at work, in-depth interviews uncovered a multiplicity of experiences and motivations. Some chose to come out at the beginning and ‘‘gay friendly’’ inductions and training could be important in facilitating that. More commonly respondents described coming out at work as a ‘‘gradual’’ or ‘‘organic’’ process. Typically, this would not necessarily involve announcing their sexuality directly but letting it ‘‘slip’’ into workplace interactions with people they trusted over time. Respondents described a range of scenarios in which others had played a part in their coming out in the workplace, both maliciously and non-maliciously. At one end of the spectrum this was a relatively benign process. People assumed and accepted that colleagues would talk to others and that their sexuality would become known via such interaction. At the other end of the spectrum, being outed could be a painful and uncomfortable experience leading to unpleasant comments, ‘‘jokes’’ and hostility. The respondents described a variety of factors that had helped them to come out as illustrated below: .

The presence of an equal opportunities policy (inc. sexual orientation).

.

Feeling safer as a result of signals from the organisation.

.

The presence of an organisational LGBT group.

.

Getting involved in a trade union LGBT support network.

.

The presence of other LGB colleagues.

.

The presence of senior LGB people.

For some, it was important that the organisation provided formal ‘‘gay-friendly’’ signals via an equal opportunities policy which included sexual orientation and the establishment of an LGBT organisation group. Others described the importance of a gay-friendly departmental/workplace culture where they felt confident to be out at work on a daily basis. This might include the presence of other openly out LGB colleagues or senior LGB staff. Another experience was of increased confidence to come out as a result of getting involved in an LGBT organisation or trade union group, so feeling ‘‘supported’’ rather than ‘‘alone and isolated’’. As previously indicated our sample included LGB people who had chosen not to come out or to come out to very few people. A range of reasons was articulated for such choices as indicated below: .

Fears about job/career/promotion.

.

Lack of visible senior LGB staff.

.

Temporary status of employment.

.

Previous bad experiences (on grounds of gender, race, sexuality, etc.).

.

Respect for partner’s wishes.

.

Desire for privacy.

.

Attitudes/behaviour of male colleagues.

Equality and diversity policies

597

EOI 26,6

Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)

598

.

Fundamentalist/evangelical religious attitudes held by colleagues.

.

Organisational culture.

A key factor that prevented some respondents coming out, or had done within the past, was the fear that to be openly LGB might hamper career opportunities. Once a decision not to come out had been taken at the start of employment it could be difficult to reverse this further down the line. Respondents talked of the compartmentalisation of their lives: A long time ago, I decided just to compartmentalise my life, you know, my personal life and my working life and I guess, that’s the way to stay. . . I would say I feel there would be a negative impact. But that’s again my perception and might be, because I don’t know anyone else who is out. . .especially at the top. . . all the people at that level are like, you know, married with children and grey hair. . . and you never know how the customer will react, you know, because somebody in your team might let it slip sometime (BME Gay Man, Private Sector, London).

A very real fear of coming out was expressed by men working in ‘‘100 per cent male’’ workplaces. One respondent, who was also a trade union representative, when asked if he would like to be more open at work said: I would but I wouldn’t. . .Yeah, I daren’t. Because my credibility would go down the drain . . . . . Yes, I just have to close off. I can’t afford to take risks . . . . You don’t find anybody who walks around as an engineer, whether they are male or female, who says I am gay. (Gay man, Private Sector, London)

Reluctance to come out was also discussed by women, disabled and BME respondents based on previous bad experiences at work. They felt unwilling to tackle multiple discrimination at work: I think what happens with sexuality is that it’s much easier for it to just be brushed aside because it is something that you can hide. I cannot hide the fact that I am [BME], I cannot hide the fact that I am a woman. But the other issue I can just not address it (BME lesbian, Private sector, London).

Other factors discussed by LGB respondents that prevented openness in the workplace related to organisational culture and negative attitudes held by particular groups of staff. For example, men expressing ‘‘macho’’ attitudes or colleagues who expressed negative views of homosexuality based on fundamental, evangelical religious beliefs. Discrimination and harassment at work Based on the survey questionnaire data, the majority of the respondents within the ‘‘good practice’’ case study organisations (60.1 per cent) said they had not experienced discrimination at work on grounds of their sexual orientation during the last 4 years. However, just under one in five (18 per cent) of the respondents said that they had experienced discrimination and just under one in four (22.1 per cent) said they did not know whether they had experienced discrimination as it was ‘‘difficult to prove’’ during the same period. The percentage of respondents who reported discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation is lower in this research study than in other recent studies (TUC, 2000; UNISON, 2003; ID Research, 2002). Respondents were also asked if they had experienced harassment at work on grounds of their sexual orientation during the last 4 years. Although a majority said that they had not (70.8 per cent), just under a quarter (22.7 per cent) said they had experienced harassment with 6.5 per cent responding that they did not know whether

Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)

they had or not. Again the percentage of respondents who reported harassment on grounds of sexual orientation was lower than in other studies (Palmer, 1993). As policies and benefits had been tackled to ensure they were non-discriminatory, the main problem concerned the heterosexist (sometimes tipping over into homophobic) culture within which people worked. Thus, 22.1 per cent of respondents admitted they were not always sure whether their sexual orientation had had a negative impact on their career or not. The list below summarises the forms of discrimination and harassment that the respondents discussed within the in-depth interviews: .

Nervousness/embarrassment.

.

Exclusion/silence.

.

Homophobic comments – direct and indirect.

.

Insults and abuse.

.

Physical and emotional intimidation.

Most respondents were able to provide anecdotal evidence of discriminatory behaviours within organisations during the LGB respondent in-depth interviews. Human resource, trade union and LGBT group representative ‘‘key informants’’ also expressed concern that a range of stories concerning discrimination/harassment circulated ‘‘third-hand’’ within organisations. They acknowledged that there was reluctance on the part of LGB individuals to take issues up formally. Harassment could make work a miserable and threatening place to be: There were about 250 men working on that production line. And you have an area where you work, you know, you have so many, like ten paces that’s your area. Sometimes you have to overlap into someone else’s area. Well, if I ever went into that other person’s area by a few steps they would stop work because they knew I was gay. . .When the supervisor asked him why he stopped work, he’d say ‘‘Well, I am not working with him because he is bent, I am not working with him or go anywhere near him’’. . .when I was working on the production line I had things thrown at me. . .anything that they could get their hands on really. . .and when you look round. . .you don’t know who it was, you know (Gay man, Private sector, London).

Even within the same organisation, there were perceived to be pockets of ‘‘safety’’ and ‘‘hostility’’ within organisations. There were some departments where LGB respondents said they would never want to work. Some of the respondents described their level of comfort as contingent on the existence of personal networks within their department: If people are okay with me, like the people I’ve got at the moment, we are all a close-knit group at work, then I am quite comfortable. But take me out of that and put me somewhere that I don’t really know people, no, I am not very comfortable (Lesbian, Private sector, Yorkshire).

One finding of the research was that fear of discrimination/harassment could provide a barrier to LGB respondents seeking promotion with an employer if this meant having to move from a ‘‘comfort zone’’ to a new department or area so requiring them once again having to negotiate the coming out process with a new manager and work colleagues. Restructuring and re-organisations could also be particularly stressful. During the in-depth interviews, it was clear that experiences of discrimination/ harassment had made people want to transfer to another department or leave their organisation completely. Organisations had actively encouraged LGB members to formally raise problems through the appropriate channels but to little avail. Taking out

Equality and diversity policies

599

EOI 26,6

600

a grievance against a colleague could lead to more problems than just coping with it yourself or deciding to leave: The problem is that they want to have examples of homophobia. They actively are requesting for people to blow the whistle on others. . . Because they want to change the culture. . . They want to be able to show in a very visible way that they support gay issues without having to send an email around saying that they support gay issues. They have absolutely no tolerance for it. But the problem is there is no-one who will blow the whistle. . .(Lesbian, Private sector, London)

Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)

LGB workers’ perceptions of organisational policy and practice Having considered some of the problems which still face LGB employees, even within 16 ‘‘good practice’’ employers, this paper will now examine the impact of organisational policy and practice on sexual orientation from the point of view of the LGB respondents. Questions about the impact of policy and practice were included in the survey questionnaire and the nature of impact was explored further in the in-depth interviews. Figure 1 provides a profile of LGB respondents in relation to their perception of the extent to which their employers were gay-friendly in terms of policy and practice. A majority (81.1 per cent) strongly agreed/agreed that their employer was gayfriendly in policy and nearly two-thirds (62.7 per cent) strongly agreed/agreed that their employer was gay-friendly in practice. In general, therefore the case study employers were seen as gay-friendly in policy and practice by the majority of LGB respondents. However, there was some evidence of a perceived ‘‘implementation gap’’ amongst respondents (Young, 1992; Creegan et al., 2003). For example, although one in three (34 per cent) strongly agreed that their employer was gay-friendly in policy, just under one in five (18.3 per cent) strongly agreed that this was the case in practice. And just over a quarter of the respondents (28.1 per cent), neither agreed nor disagreed that their employer was gay-friendly in practice with 9.1 per cent disagreeing that this was the case. Indeed for some, the sexual orientation strand still remained the ‘‘poor relation’’ within the organisational drive for equality and diversity: I really want to say that on a corporate level the gay issue is like being Black in the Seventies, we are at that stage. It’s not cool to be racist at work. It’s not acceptable. . . you won’t hear

Figure 1. I consider my employer to be a ‘‘gay-friendly’’ employer

Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)

anyone doing it, anyone. You will hear people saying, you know, ‘‘bloody gay idiot’’. . .That is totally accepted. So that’s why the gay committee, we are extremely active because we probably feel that we are so far behind in terms of culturally what is acceptable and what is not acceptable (Lesbian, Private sector, London).

There was some variation by sector. Over three-quarters of public sector LGB respondents (77.6 per cent) agreed their employer was ‘‘gay friendly’’ in terms of its employment policies with 63.1 per cent agreeing that this was the case in practice. Among private sector LGB respondents, 83.1 per cent agreed their employer was ‘‘gayfriendly’’ in terms of its employment policies, whereas 60 per cent agreed that this was the case in practice. Nearly all of the voluntary sector employees (91.6 per cent) agreed their employer was ‘‘gay-friendly’’ in terms of its employment policies with 75 per cent agreeing that this was the case in practice. Respondents offered a range of explanations for the implementation gap between policy and practice on sexual orientation including promotional, managerial, cultural, attitudinal, resource based and communication factors. Two over-riding explanations emerged. First the gap was explained as a consequence of a clash between social justice and business case arguments in progressing equality and diversity. Organisations were perceived by LGB employees to be even more ‘‘cautious’’ in developing, resourcing and publicising work on LGB employment, service and product issues internally and externally than was the case with their work on gender, race and disability. Sexual orientation was thought to be more ‘‘politically sensitive’’ and a ‘‘potential vote loser’’ or more likely to ‘‘provoke a backlash’’ within organisations and with clients, parents and customers, than other equality strands (Colgan et al., 2006a). Second, the gap was explained in relation to the ‘‘appreciative context’’, that is ‘‘the constellation of images, beliefs and judgements’’ which contributed to the prevailing culture within organisations (Young, 1987). Thus, formal commitments were not necessarily realised within individual workplaces because of the entrenched attitudes of managers and colleagues, which respondents were in some cases resigned to. Moreover, while respondents generally welcomed the organisational recognition of the business case, concern was expressed that it did not provide a guarantee of a ‘‘gayfriendly’’ organisational culture for employees. Substantial variations in practice were reported to occur within and across organisations. There was a perception from the LGB respondents that equalities work relevant to the sexual orientation strand was developing slowly and in a piecemeal way dependent on the ‘‘commitment’’ of individual managers and/or pressure for change from LGB employees and/or service users. This confirms research findings by Cooper (2006) and Monro (2007) who report on the uneven development of sexualities and transgender equality work within local authority organisations. What do LGB workers think makes a difference? During in-depth interviews, respondents discussed a range of policy initiatives, which they believed had been effective and valuable in providing support for LGB people within organisations. These are summarised below: .

Establishment of organisation and trade union LGB groups/networks.

.

The appointment of senior managers to act as diversity champions.

.

Workplace campaigns highlighting inclusion and safety for LGB staff.

.

Enforcement of equal opportunities policy on sexual orientation.

Equality and diversity policies

601

EOI 26,6

Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)

602

.

Sponsorship of internal and external LGB events, e.g. pride events.

.

Integration of equality and diversity into job roles and performance management and appraisal systems.

As indicated above, one of the key initiatives to increase visibility and signal support for LGB workers and their issues was the establishment of LGBT groups. LGB workers also discussed the need to see policy championed, resourced and implemented by senior and line managers. For example the extent to which homophobic comments and behaviour were challenged within the workplace was considered a key indicator of inclusion. Respondents voiced strong concerns about the ways in which organisations relied on LGB people to come forward and whistle blow before tackling problems. Respondents discussed a variety of potential initiatives that they believed would assist organisations in moving from policy to practice, promote awareness and enhance inclusion for LGB workers. These are summarised below: .

Anti-discrimination and awareness training – particularly for managers.

.

Communication and promotion of same sex benefits.

.

Use of intranet/web pages to promote policies affecting LGB staff.

.

Senior LGB role models.

.

LGB mentoring scheme.

.

Marketing of products and services to LGB people.

.

Recruitment advertising in LGB press.

.

Sexual orientation monitoring.

Both LGB respondents and national/organisational key informants were positive to these initiatives. However, a range of views were expressed about the desirability and efficacy of sexual orientation monitoring. For example, concerns were expressed about confidentiality and how such information might be used. On the other hand it was suggested by both LGB respondents and key informants, that in an appropriate context and if done with consultation, monitoring could be seen as another positive indicator of the employer’s commitment to LGB employees and progressing initiatives in this area. The impact of a gay-friendly environment An overwhelming majority (81.6 per cent) of LGB respondents within our sample felt that working in a gay-friendly environment had a direct impact on their job satisfaction. The list below provides a summary of the way respondents described the impact of both positive and negative environments: (1) Impact of positive environment: .

Happiness and openness;

.

Freedom to speak;

.

Greater confidence;

.

Feel supported;

.

Work productivity and effectiveness;

.

Enhances enjoyment of job; and

.

Feel pride in and loyalty to organisation.

Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)

(2) Impact of negative environment: . Frustration; . Fear; . Exclusion; . Ostracism; . Self censorship; . Difficulty concentrating; and . Desire to leave. At the most basic level the impact of working in a positive or gay-friendly environment was described by respondents as making them feel happier at work. It facilitated greater openness, which some respondents contrasted with previous experiences of being ‘‘hesitant’’ and having to be ‘‘careful’’ and ‘‘guarded’’ about what they said to managers and colleagues. In turn this led to enhanced job satisfaction, which was said to improve productivity and effectiveness. LGB respondents talked of the ways in which they were better able to perform at work, the ways in which the organisation had retained them and made them feel positive to their employer. For example, following the introduction of gay-friendly policies, respondents had felt encouraged to join the LGBT network and to ‘‘risk’’ coming out: I think the main thing is, the important thing to know is that I didn’t want to work in the industry for much longer because. . .it was too much of a strain not being out. And I thought well, I might as well come out. . . so unbeknown to the company they have actually kept me. . . Yes, and the longer you are out, the more comfortable you are. . .just be upfront because the other ways haven’t worked. . . Closeting. It just doesn’t work, it’s no fun, people can’t interact with it. You’ve got to interact. To interact means that you get on with people. If you get on with people that means you are a team player (Lesbian, Private sector, London).

Although, there remained pockets of difficulty within organisations, there was evidence that organisational equality policies that included sexual orientation had empowered LGB respondents as individuals and through LGBT groups and their unions to come out and challenge inequalities: I mean, I would challenge somebody if I found them to be homophobic. I just wouldn’t tolerate it, as I wouldn’t tolerate somebody being discriminatory against someone because of disability or race or gender or belief (Lesbian, Public sector, London).

A number of LGB respondents, expressed a range of positive views concerning their employer including feelings of loyalty and pride in the organisation: I think I have been lucky working for a company like this. I have my beefs, it’s not perfect by any means but its heart is in the right place and I think if we can help through things like Diversity Champions, share best practice with other companies it will make the UK a better place to live and work (Gay man, Private sector, London).

Working in a negative environment In contrast, working in a negative environment was described as potentially reducing job satisfaction and compromising the ability of LGB workers to do their jobs: If you are in a homophobic environment you are not allowed to look at anyone or do anything or you got to be just like a robot. . .. if you are not allowed to openly express your sexuality you are withholding, you are having to repress a big part of yourself and it just makes the whole work experience less fun, less pleasurable. . .And of course, your personality is

Equality and diversity policies

603

EOI 26,6

required to do the job effectively. You know, you’ve got to have people skills. And if you are having to repress a big part of your personality you are also repressing a big part of your skills (Gay man, Public sector, Yorkshire).

In contrast to the positive impact of a gay-friendly environment and inclusive attitudes, homophobic experiences were reported to have hampered concentration, adversely affected work, requiring staff to ‘‘gear themselves’’ up to come to work:

Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)

604

Just coming in here it undermines me before I even sit down to do my job. Quite often, I feel like I have to put on a suit of armour just to get here. And it sounds dramatic but it’s true. It does take energy out of me just getting here, being here, making myself sort of mentally braced for the day (Lesbian, Private Sector, Yorkshire).

Impact of the employment equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations A majority (73.2 per cent) of LGB respondents in the research sample reported that they were aware of the Sexual Orientation Regulations. However, 20.9 per cent said that they were not[6]. Perceived impact of the regulations on organisations The survey questionnaire, asked LGB respondents whether they felt that the introduction of the Sexual Orientation Regulations had made a positive difference to the way their employer treated LGB workers. Only one third (34 per cent) of respondents agreed that the Regulations had made a positive difference (17.3 per cent of respondents disagreed and 48.7 per cent neither agreed nor disagreed) though the proportion who agreed was higher among voluntary sector respondents (58.3 per cent) than private (32.8 per cent) or public (31.1 per cent) sector respondents. During in-depth interviews with LGB respondents, the view that the Regulations had made little or no impact on organisational policy and practice was commonly associated with a perception that the organisation was ‘‘ahead of the game’’ and that policies had been in place prior to the regulations. Nevertheless, where respondents did feel that the introduction of the Regulations had been significant this was either because it had ‘‘cemented’’ existing equality/ diversity policy and practice on sexual orientation or because it had ‘‘kick started’’ a fresh approach to policy development and implementation. In addition, respondents were more positive about the impact of the Regulations within organisations both in terms of creating an impetus for new initiatives concerning the sexual orientation strand and providing a form of ‘‘leverage’’ for LGB groups and trade unions to campaign for improvements (Colgan et al., 2006b). Perceived impact of the regulations on individuals Employees were, however, more positive about the impact of the Regulations on them as individuals. Nearly two-thirds (64.7 per cent) of the survey respondents agreed that the Regulations have made it more likely that they would take up a grievance about LGB discrimination if necessary. During in-depth interviews, LGB respondents gave a range of reasons for taking this view. The introduction of the Regulations made people feel more confident to challenge discrimination and harassment by taking up a grievance within the organisation. Respondents also welcomed the Regulations because they provided legal recognition and afforded LGB people the same protection as other groups thus creating a form of parity. A more cautious point of view was that the Regulations would not of

themselves create change, but that they did provide a ‘‘statement of intent’’ and some confidence that things were moving in the right direction:

Equality and diversity policies

Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)

I always felt like gays and lesbians were the bottom of the heap as usual on the discriminatory ladder, but now obviously the law itself. . .I don’t feel it will change society overnight, it is a statement of intent. . . it does make me feel more confident that we are going in the right direction (Gay man, Public sector, 2005).

Conclusion The paper considers the progress being made following the inclusion of sexual orientation within UK organisation equality and diversity policies. The emerging story from LGB respondents within 16 good practice workplaces is that an inclusive organisational response does benefit and so influence the personal strategies of LGB employees. However, individual experiences nevertheless vary. An ‘‘implementation gap’’ between equality and diversity policy and practice on sexual orientation was identified across sectors, across workplaces and even within the same building within organisations. Thus progress on the sexual orientation strand within these organisations lends support to Dickens (1994, 2005, p. 191) argument that a reliance on social justice and business arguments are likely to have ‘‘uneven purchase’’ and even where they do encourage action they may be ‘‘selective and partial,’’ focused on areas only where business and equality and diversity needs coincide. And it highlights the challenge of translating formal policies into a new ‘‘appreciative context’’ within organisations (Young, 1987) which is inclusive of LGB workers. Cooper (2006) points to the existence of a range of ‘‘firewalls’’ and ‘‘contradictory rationalities’’ which have stopped local government organisations from thinking ‘‘hard, deep or critically’’ about lesbian and gay equality work within local authorities. Thus, organisational change in terms of equality and diversity policy and practice even within ‘‘good practice organisations,’’ still does not necessarily guarantee a working environment which engages with and embraces ‘‘sexual minorities’’ or prevents homophobic attitudes and treatment across the board. The difficulties the research identified in reaching a range of LGB respondents underlined the heterogeneity of LGB workers in terms of gender, ethnicity, disability, age, occupation and desire to be out at work. Indeed, it was mostly those working in managerial and professional areas who were aware of and felt most protected by organisational equality and diversity policy on sexual orientation who came forward to participate in the research. Women, BME workers and those working in manual, administrative and/ or frontline occupations were far more reticent in doing so. This lends support to the view that organisations need to develop ‘‘transformative’’ equality and diversity policies, procedures and structures which recognise and seek to overcome a whole range of gender, race, class, disability and ‘‘stone floor’’ inequalities if they wish to be inclusive and address discrimination and inequality at all levels of the organisation (Cockburn, 1991; Richards, 2001; Dickens, 2005). The more positive legal, political and organisational climate which has developed in the UK since 1997 and particularly since the introduction of the Employment Equality (SO) Regulations 2003 has encouraged LGB respondents to come ‘‘out’’ and to feel more empowered to challenge inequalities on the grounds of sexuality as well as other areas of equality and diversity within their organisations. This has increased the visibility of LGB workers and their issues within both the good practice workplaces and trade unions. The experience of working in an organisation striving to have ‘‘gay-friendly’’ policies and practices had raised expectations, although the findings indicate a wide

605

EOI 26,6

Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)

606

divergence of experiences among LGB employees even within the same organisation. Thus, the arrival of the law as a further driver to organisational equality action in the sexual orientation area was welcomed by LGB employees, by trade unions and HR and diversity managers, particularly those in the public and voluntary sectors. As Skidmore (2004) suggests the law (whatever its shortcomings) as a regulatory apparatus is important in shaping organisational policy, practice and the production of cultural norms. LGB respondents still looked to their organisation senior and middle management to provide proactive and effective leadership on equality and diversity issues and not treat the sexual orientation strand as the ‘‘poor relation’’ within the organisational drive for equality and diversity. In addition to the establishment of an LGBT group, another key indicator of inclusion for LGB respondents was the extent to which homophobia (in addition to other forms of discrimination) was proactively challenged at work. This also meant tackling clients, parents and customers which thus far organisations had been reluctant to do. Respondents, particularly those in difficult working environments voiced strong concerns about the way in which organisations relied on LGB people to come forward with complaints before tackling problems. Thus, respondents in manual and front-line positions and those working in departments within organisations where managers showed minimal commitment to equality policy talked of facing homophobic attitudes and behaviours on a regular basis. Notwithstanding organisation equality policy, these respondents expressed concern that they risked outing themselves or generating a backlash when seeking resolution to discrimination or harassment and that even supportive handling of a grievance would not guarantee a change in attitude within such workplaces. Thus, the protection provided by the Employment Equality (SO) Regulations 2003 although vital was not seen as a panacea to tackling discrimination and harassment on grounds of sexual orientation in the workplace. Nevertheless, the view expressed by a majority of the LGB respondents from the good practice organisations was that they were ‘‘lucky’’ to work in what were perceived to be ‘‘gay-friendly’’ organisations, particularly in the light of their own previous work experience or in comparison to partners and friends. The benefits to the good practice employers of creating a more inclusive workplace were evident in ensuring more confident, committed, productive, loyal LGB employees who were more likely to stay with the organisation. Even, where respondents were thinking of moving jobs, they were unlikely to settle for less than their current employer provided so were more likely to be aware of competitor’s policy on same sex issues and benefits. However, as emphasised at the outset, the research has only been able to explore the ‘‘tip of the iceberg’’ by talking to LGB employees working for ‘‘good practice’’ employers willing to participate in a research project on equality and sexual orientation. More research is urgently required to gain a more ‘‘representative’’ picture of the working lives of LGB employees across a broader range of UK workplaces. Notes 1. These Regulations outlawed discrimination in the workplace on grounds of sexual orientation and provided protection against harassment at work for the first time in the UK. 2. Thus the paper focuses on sexual orientation and not on transgender issues. However, some of the organisations participating in this research had chosen to adopt policies and establish groups that are inclusive of LGBT people.

Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)

3. Stonewall established the Diversity Champions Programme to bring together organisations ‘‘committed to tackling sexual orientation discrimination, and to sharing good practice’’ (Stonewall, 2005). In June 2006, there were 197 companies signed up to this initiative (Stonewall, 2006). 4. The organisations willing to be identified in the research are Barnardo’s, BT, Ford of Britain, George Greens School, IBM, Leeds City Council, London Borough of Croydon, London Borough of Lewisham, London Borough of Tower Hamlets, London Fire and Emergency Service, National Association for Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NACRO), Royal Bank of Scotland (RBOS), South Yorkshire Fire and Emergency Service, West Yorkshire Fire and Emergency Service. 5. According to the Labour Force Survey (Winter 2005), the breakdown of all those in employment was as follows: managers and senior officials (15.1 per cent), professionals (12.8 per cent), associate professional and technical (14.4 per cent), admin and secretarial (12.2 per cent), skilled trades (11.1 per cent), services (15.7 per cent), manual occupations (18.7 per cent). 6. A further 5.8 per cent of the 154 respondents who completed the pre-interview survey questionnaire responded ‘‘don’t know’’ to this question. References Carabine, J. and Monro, S. (2004), ‘‘Lesbian and gay politics and participation in New Labour’s Britain’’, Social Politics, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 312-27. Cockburn, C. (1991), In the Way of Women: Men’s Resistance to Sex Equality in Organisations, Macmillan Education, Basingstoke. Colgan, F. (1999a), ‘‘Recognising the lesbian and gay constituency in UK trade unions: moving forward in UNISON?’’, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 444-63. Colgan, F. (1999b), ‘‘Moving forward in UNISON: lesbian and gay self-organization in action’’, in Hunt, G. (Ed.), Labouring for Rights: Unions and Sexual Diversity across Unions, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA. Colgan, F., Creegan, C., McKearney, A. and Wright, T. (2006a), Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Workers: Equality, Diversity and Inclusion in the Workplace?, Comparative Organisation and Equality Research Centre, London Metropolitan University, available at: www.workinglives.org/docs/ESF_LGB_Report_5_June_2006.pdf Colgan, F., Creegan, C., McKearney, A. and Wright, T. (2006b), ‘‘Sexuality in the workplace: personal strategies and organisational responses to discrimination and social exclusion,’’ paper presented at BUIRA National Conference, National University of Ireland, Galway, June 28-30. Colgan, F., Creegan, C., McKearney, A. and Wright, T. (2008), ‘‘Lesbian workers: personal strategies amid changing organisational responses to ‘sexual minorities’ in UK workplaces’’, Journal of Lesbian Studies, in press. Cooper, D. (1994), Sexing the City: Lesbian and Gay Politics within the Activist State, Rivers Oram Press, London. Cooper, D. (2006), ‘‘Active citizenship and the governmentality of local lesbian and gay politics’’, Political Geography, Vol. 25, pp. 921-43. Creegan, C., Colgan, F., Charlesworth, R. and Robinson, G. (2003), ‘‘Race equality policies at work: employee perceptions of the ‘implementation gap’ in a UK local authority’’, Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 617-38. Department of Trade and Industry (2005), Full Regulatory Impact Assessment for Sexual Orientation, DTI, London.

Equality and diversity policies

607

EOI 26,6

Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)

608

Dickens, L. (1994), ‘‘The business case for women’s equality: is the carrot better than the stick?’’, Employee Relations, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 5-18. Dickens, L. (1999), ‘‘Beyond the business case: a three-pronged approach to equality action’’, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 9-19. Dickens, L. (2005), ‘‘Walking the talk? Equality and diversity in employment’’, in Bach S. (Ed.), Managing Human Resources: Personnel Management in Transition, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 178-208. Employers Organisation (2001), The Equality Standard for Local Government, Employers Organisation, London. Equal Opportunities Review (2004), ‘‘Sexual orientation and religion: an EOR survey’’, Equal Opportunities Review, Vol. 136, pp. 6-16. Humphrey, J.C. (2002), Towards a Politics of the Rainbow: Self-organisation in the Trade Union Movement, Ashgate, Aldershot. ID Research (2002), Demographic Profile, London. Jewson, N. and Mason, D. (1986), ‘‘The theory and practice of equal opportunity policies: liberal and radical approaches’’, Sociological Review, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 307-33. Kirton, G. and Greene, A.M. (2000), The Dynamics of Managing Diversity: A Critical Approach, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. Liff, S. and Dickens, L. (2000), ‘‘Ethics and equality: reconciling false dilemmas’’, in Winstanley, D. and Woodall, J. (Eds), Ethical Issues in Contemporary Human Resource Management, Macmillan, Basingstoke. McManus, S. (2003), Sexual Orientation Research Phase 1: A Review of Methodological Approaches, The Scottish Executive, Edinburgh. Monro, S. (2007), ‘‘New institutionalism and sexuality at work in local government’’, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-19. Palmer, A. (1993), Less Equal than Others: A Survey of Lesbians and Gay Men at Work, Stonewall, London. Richards, W. (2001), ‘‘Evaluating equal opportunity initiatives: the case for a ‘transformative’ agenda’’, in Noon, M. and Ogbonna, E. (Eds), Equality, Diversity and Disadvantage in Employment, Palgrave, Basingstoke. Ryan-Flood, R. (2004), ‘‘Beyond recognition and redistribution: a case study of lesbian and gay workers in a local labour market in Britain’’, Gender Institute New Working Paper Series, No. 12, London School of Economics, London. Skidmore, P. (2004), ‘‘A legal perspective on sexuality and organization: a lesbian and gay case study’’, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 229-53. Stonewall (2004), The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations: Guidelines for Employers, Stonewall, London. Stonewall (2005), Network Groups, Stonewall Workplace Guides, London. Stonewall (2006), Workplace Equality Index 2006, Stonewall, London. Tatchell, P. (1992), ‘‘Equal rights for all: strategies for lesbian and gay equality in Britain’’, in Plummer, K. (Ed.), Modern Homosexualities, Routledge, London. TUC (2000), Straight Up! Why the Law Should Protect Lesbian and Gay Workers, TUC, London. UNISON (2003), Unpublished Survey of UNISON LGBT Members, UNISON, London. Ward, J. and Winstanley, D. (2003), ‘‘The absent presence: negative space within discourse and the construction of minority sexual identity in the workplace’’, Human Relations, Vol. 56 No. 10, pp. 1255-80.

Young, K. (1987), ‘‘The space between words: local authorities and the concept of equal opportunities’’, in Jenkins, R. and Solomos, J. (Eds), Racism and Equal Opportunities Policies in the 1980s, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 252-69. Young, K. (1992), ‘‘Approaches to policy development in the field of equal opportunities’’, in Braham, P., Rattansi, A. and Skellington, R. (Eds), Racism and Antiracism: Inequalities, Opportunties and Policies, Sage, London.

Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)

Corresponding author Fiona Colgan can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Equality and diversity policies

609

Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)

This article has been cited by: 1. Isaac Sabat, Alex Lindsey, Eden KingAntecedents, Outcomes, Prevention and Coping Strategies for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Workplace Stress 173-198. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF] 2. Isaac Sabat, Alex Lindsey, Eden KingAntecedents, Outcomes, Prevention and Coping Strategies for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Workplace Stress 173-198. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF] 3. Heather E. Canary, Maria Blevins, Shireen S. Ghorbani. 2014. Organizational Policy Communication Research: Challenges, Discoveries, and Future Directions. Communication Reports 1-17. [CrossRef] 4. Mustafa Bilgehan Ozturk, Nick Rumens. 2014. Gay Male Academics in UK Business and Management Schools: Negotiating Heteronormativities in Everyday Work Life. British Journal of Management 25:10.1111/bjom.2014.25.issue-3, 503-517. [CrossRef] 5. Vincenza Priola, Diego Lasio, Silvia De Simone, Francesco Serri. 2014. The Sound of Silence. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Discrimination in ‘Inclusive Organizations’. British Journal of Management 25:10.1111/bjom.2014.25.issue-3, 488-502. [CrossRef] 6. David M. Kaplan. 2014. Career anchors and paths: The case of Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual workers. Human Resource Management Review 24:2, 119-130. [CrossRef] 7. Surya Monro, Diane Richardson. 2014. Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Populations: The Role of English Local Government. Local Government Studies 1-19. [CrossRef] 8. Emir Ozeren. 2014. Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace: A Systematic Review of Literature. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 109, 1203-1215. [CrossRef] 9. Elizabeth M. Ineson, Matthew H.T. Yap, Graham Whiting. 2013. Sexual discrimination and harassment in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 35, 1-9. [CrossRef] 10. Andrew King. 2013. Prepare for Impact? Reflecting on Knowledge Exchange Work to Improve Services for Older LGBT People in Times of Austerity. Social Policy and Society 1-13. [CrossRef] 11. Diane Richardson, Surya Monro. 2013. Public duty and private prejudice: sexualities equalities and local government. The Sociological Review 61:1, 131-152. [CrossRef] 12. Nick Rumens, John Broomfield. 2012. Gay men in the police: identity disclosure and management issues. Human Resource Management Journal 22:3, 283-298. [CrossRef] 13. Paul Brook, Rosemary Lucas, Fiona Colgan, Aidan McKearney. 2012. Visibility and voice in organisations. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 31:4, 359-378. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 14. Fiona Colgan, Aidan McKearney, Fiona Colgan. 2011. Equality, diversity and corporate responsibility. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 30:8, 719-734. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 15. Fiona Colgan, Aidan McKearney, Tessa Wright. 2011. A “lesbian advantage”?. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 30:8, 686-701. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 16. Fiona Colgan, Aidan McKearney, Fiona Colgan, Aidan McKearney. 2011. Spirals of silence?. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 30:8, 624-632. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 17. Dorota Bourne, Gozde Inal, Mine Karataş‐Özkan, Nick Rumens. 2011. Minority support. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 30:6, 444-462. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 18. Christine Williams, Patti Giuffre. 2011. From Organizational Sexuality to Queer Organizations: Research on Homosexuality and the Workplace. Sociology Compass 5:7, 551-563. [CrossRef] 19. Fiona Colgan, Tessa Wright. 2011. Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Equality in a Modernizing Public Sector 1997-2010: Opportunities and Threats. Gender, Work & Organization no-no. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY At 14:08 08 November 2014 (PT)

20. Steve Williams, Brian Abbott, Edmund Heery. 2011. Civil regulation and HRM: the impact of civil society organisations on the policies and practices of employers. Human Resource Management Journal 21:1, 45-59. [CrossRef] 21. Steve Williams, Brian Abbott, Edmund Heery. 2011. Non-union worker representation through civil society organisations: evidence from the United Kingdom. Industrial Relations Journal 42:1, 69-85. [CrossRef] 22. Myrtle P. Bell, Mustafa F. Özbilgin, T. Alexandra Beauregard, Olca Sürgevil. 2011. Voice, silence, and diversity in 21st century organizations: Strategies for inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees. Human Resource Management 50:1, 131-146. [CrossRef] 23. Elaine Swan. 2010. “A testing time, full of potential?”. Gender in Management: An International Journal 25:8, 661-675. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 24. Steve Williams, Edmund Heery, Brian Abbott. 2010. Mediating equality at work through civil society organisations. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 29:6, 627-638. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 25. Paul Willis. 2010. Connecting, Supporting, Colliding: The Work-Based Interactions of Young LGBQIdentifying Workers and Older Queer Colleagues. Journal of LGBT Youth 7:3, 224-246. [CrossRef] 26. Paul Willis. 2009. From exclusion to inclusion: young queer workers' negotiations of sexually exclusive and inclusive spaces in Australian workplaces. Journal of Youth Studies 12:6, 629-651. [CrossRef] 27. Fiona Colgan, Tessa Wright, Chris Creegan, Aidan McKearney. 2009. Equality and diversity in the public services: moving forward on lesbian, gay and bisexual equality?. Human Resource Management Journal 19:3, 280-301. [CrossRef] 28. Beatrice Gusmano. 2008. Coming Out or Not? How Nonheterosexual People Manage Their Sexual Identity at Work. Journal of Workplace Rights 13:4, 473-496. [CrossRef]