Page 209 - Discrimination at Work The Psychological and Organizational Bases

178
RAG INS AND WIETHOFF
workplace experiences of gay and lesbian employees. Finally, there is an
affective component of heterosexism, homophobia, that has no counterpart
in racism or sexism.
As these differences suggest, existing models and theories of race and
gender discrimination may have limited applicability to the study of sex­
ual orientation-based discrimination. We need to chart a separate, though
related, course of study that examines the unique workplace experiences
of this understudied population. The purpose of this chapter is to guide fu­
ture research by illuminating the complexities, issues, and dilemmas in the
study of sexual orientation in the workplace. We start by defining sexual
orientation, heterosexism, and homophobia and by reviewing distinctions
between gays and lesbians and other identity groups. Next, we provide a
brief review of the antecedents and consequences of heterosexism in the
workplace. We then examine methodological issues involved with identi­
fying and surveying gay and lesbian employees in organizational research.
Finally, we provide a brief overview of biases that can hinder research on
sexual orientation in the workplace and identify areas for future research.

DEFINING THE CONSTRUCTS

Sexual Orientation

For 50 years, researchers have struggled with the complexities involved
in defining sexual orientation. Early research used a simple bipolar be­
havioral perspective: Individuals were viewed as either heterosexual or
homosexual based on whether they engaged in sexual relations with some­
one of the same biological sex (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Kinsey,
Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953). Garnets and Kimmel (1993) identified
three limitations associated with this simple dichotomy. First, individuals
may engage in homosexual behaviors without viewing themselves as gay
or lesbian. This is particularly significant when studying adolescents en­
gaging in sexual experimentation and individuals in cultures that do not
view same-sex sexual contact as homosexuality (Schmitt & Sofer, 1992).
Second, like heterosexuals, gay men and lesbians may self-identify as gay,
but choose to be celibate. The decision to engage in same-sex sexual be­
haviors is complex and may follow or precede the development of a gay
or lesbian identity (Rivers, 1997). Third, this simple dichotomy views bi­
sexuality as falling midway on a single dimension between homosexuality
and heterosexuality. This ignores the complexity of a bisexual identity and
excludes those who are transgendered and transsexual (cf., Horowitz &
Newcomb, 2001).