Page 224 - Discrimination at Work The Psychological and Organizational Bases

8. UNDERSTANDING HETEROSEXISM
instances where they are studied, these individuals are most often grouped
with gay men and lesbians, offering little information or insight into their
unique workplace experiences. 193
There are other more subtle biases in research on sexual orientation in
the workplace. Most studies focus exclusively on gay employees, thus as­
suming that only gay men and lesbians have a sexual orientation. Research
on sexual orientation in the workplace essentially becomes a study of the
"other" and fails to examine the cumulative effects of heterosexuality on
workplace policies and norms. A poststructuralist queer theory approach
to this issue (i.e., Namaste, 1996) would entail an examination of how het­
erosexuality is infused into workplace cultures, norms, policies, and prac­
tices. An example of the pervasiveness of heterosexist norms on workplace
culture is the concept of "family-friendly workplaces." Family is defined
as heterosexual in both implicit and explicit ways. Even in many family-
friendly organizations, gay and lesbian employees are denied health care
benefits for their partners. Display of family pictures is accepted and even
implicitly encouraged for heterosexuals, but gay employees who display
pictures of their partners meet with a quite different reaction (Herek, 1996).
A final limitation is that research on sexual orientation has often relied
on person-centered variables, ignoring the influence of group and organi­
zational level variables. Martin and Knox (2000) point out that researchers
often rely on person-centered variables because they are easier to mea­
sure and are less complex. However, a focus on person-centered variables
may lead to an inadvertent blaming of gay men and lesbians for their own
predicament, or of labeling particular groups as "heterosexist," rather than
examining the environmental and cultural factors that affect workplace
discrimination.

Heterosexist Biases and Assumptions in Diversity Research

It is telling that although researchers have been studying diversity in orga­
nizations for the past 15 years, only a handful of very recent publications
examine sexual identity in the workplace. Current definitions of diver­
sity often omit sexual orientation; Ragins and Gonzalez (2003) point out
that there is little reason to assume that diversity researchers are somehow
immune from the subtle, and sometimes subconscious, effects of stereo­
typing, prejudice, and discomfort with those who are different. In addition
to the overall stigma associated with sexual orientation and the religious
conflicts that are sometimes raised in discussions of homosexuality, schol­
ars who study sexual orientation are susceptible to courtesy stigma effects
(Goffman, 1963), in which others assume that they are gay simply because