Page 225 - Discrimination at Work The Psychological and Organizational Bases

194
they study gay people. These factors, combined with the methodological
and sampling challenges discussed earlier, may contribute to the lack of
research on sexual identity in the workplace. RAGINS AND WIETHOFF
The stigma associated with homosexuality, combined with its invisi­
bility, may lead to other biases in the literature. Apart from research on
sexual orientation, one would be hard-pressed to find even a single study
that reports the sexual orientation of its sample, even when the research
is focused on diversity. Some researchers contend that asking respondents
about their sexual orientation may be an invasion of privacy. However, not
asking about it not only assumes a heterosexual sample, but also sends the
implicit message that sexual orientation should remain invisible, best kept
in the closet.
Assumptions of heterosexuality underlie many emerging theories and
research on diversity in organizations. For example, relational demography
theory predicts that individuals with same-gender managers and teams
will form closer work relationships than those in dissimilar work groups
(Riordan, 2000). These predictions are based on the assumption that same-
gender work environments evoke "similar to me" reactions that increase
comfort and security. However, this gender similarity prediction may be
reversed for gay and lesbian employees and may be entirely meaningless
for transgendered employees (Ragins et al., 2003). Other theoretical per­
spectives used to understand diversity in organizations also have limited
applicability for gay men and lesbians. For example, social identity theory
addresses the degree to which individuals identify with social groups and
the role of context in social identification (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). It holds
that individuals categorize themselves and others into social categories
and that personal identity is driven in part from identification with other
social groups. However, applications of social identity theory to the work­
place often assume that group membership is visible and that personal
identities are stable (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). This has limited applicability
to gay men and lesbians, who are usually not visible in organizations and
who may have fluid identities that develop and change over time.
Other constructs in the diversity literature may also reflect heterosexist
biases. As discussed earlier, the concept of "family" assumes heterosex­
uality. As a consequence, we know little about gay and lesbian families
and the unique issues they face in the workplace. In addition, whereas
studies have documented the relationship between family-friendly work­
place policies and employee work attitudes, little attention has been placed
on the effects of these policies on gay employees (Ragins & Cornwell,
2002).
We have provided an initial exploration into some of the more visi­
ble heterosexist biases and limitations that underlie theory and research