Conversations With Seasoned SIOP Members of the LGBQT Community

Steve Discont, Craig J. Russell, and Katina Sawyer

Conversations With Seasoned SIOP Members of the LGBTQ Community: 

Thoughts and Observations on Past, Present, and Future Pursuit of I-O Careers

Steve Discont, Craig J. Russell, and Katina Sawyer

SIOP LGBTQ Communications Subcommittee

            This issue’s LGBTQ column started in a very different direction, and we beg your patience while we explain its evolution—understanding what we learned from conversations with “seasoned” SIOP members of the LGBTQ community requires a little context.  Approximately 25 years ago, one of our committee members (Craig Russell) served on the TIPeditorial board and in that capacity interviewed and wrote TIPcolumns about two icons of I-O psychology, Drs. Charles Lawshe(then age 86) and Morris Viteles(then age 93).  In looking around the SIOP LGBTQ committee meetings at each of the last two conferences, it was very apparent that mid- to late-career members of the SIOP LGBTQ community were not present.  Craig got the bright idea to “interview senior SIOP members of the LGBTQ community” for insight into early career experiences, hurdles, sources of support, and guidance that might inform all SIOP members (students, academics, and private-/public-sector professionals) about their LGBTQ peers.  In hindsight, we somewhat naively put together a tentative list of initial questions and then set about how to find “senior members of the LGBTQ SIOP community.”

            “Naïve” is the operative word in the preceding sentence, as most TIPreaders will not be surprised to learn that there is no central registry of senior members of the SIOP LGBTQ community. Craig crafted an email sent to some of his personal friends of similar vintage (i.e., old, and you know who you are!), describing our purpose and asking for help in identifying folks to approach for this column.  Thanks again to those Craig reached out to for their encouragement and referrals we received!  With 20/20 hindsight, we probably should have contacted past chairs of the SIOP LGBTQ committee, as the committee has been around for some time.  As luck would have it, one of the individuals to whom we were referred had in fact held this post;Gene Johnsonput us in touch with others.  

            Some individuals we approached (or who were approached by others for us) understandably declined to participate.  As we indicated at the onset of our telephone conversations, we greatly appreciate the willingness of our SIOP colleagues who did elect to chat with us about something as personal as their I-O careers and LGBTQ status; heterosexual SIOP members would not likely be asked to discuss how their sexuality impacts their I-O careers for a TIPcolumn.  The folks we chatted with deserve the thanks of all SIOP members for their willingness to share.  

Drs. Alberto Galue, Gene Johnson,Johan Julin, andCheryl Paullinagreed to chat.  We wish we could have generated a larger sample for this column. However, depending on how this column is received, we may do it again to highlight ongoing career issues for LGBTQ I-O psychologists.  Regardless, there is no reason to believe this is a representative or even random sample of the LGBTQ community.  At best it is a convenience sample that is clearly deficient in that no member of the SIOP transgender community participated (though an invitation was extended).  Nonetheless, if only to express our optimism about their inclusion in future columns and committee activities, we will use the entire LGBTQ label throughout the column. Our group was heavily weighted toward private- and public-sector I-O career paths, though Gene had spent some time in a tenured academic position at the University of Auckland.  

A quick look at LinkedIn shows our conversationalists have been employed by the Los Angeles County Office of Education, Baylor Healthcare System, Texas Instruments, GTE, Verizon, Personnel Decisions Research Institute, HumRRO, Dell, Ford Motor Co., the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the Internal Revenue Service, and the University of Auckland.  They received their PhDs in I-O psychology from the esteemed programs at NYU, Tulane, and the University of Minnesota, and all have 20–30 years of post-PhD experience in their I-O careers.  All are U.S. citizens, though Alberto was born and raised in Venezuela, becoming a naturalized citizen after receipt of his PhD from Tulane and starting his I-O career (Gene is also a naturalized citizen of New Zealand and Great Britain). All but one pursued their careers (to date) within the U.S.  Gene is the exception, spending some time in New Zealand on the faculty of the University of Auckland and currently living in London.  We will not list the entire “structured interview guide” we forwarded before each conversation other than to note it focused on when/how their LGBTQ status was revealed, difficulties in pursuing their I-O careers after they came out, work/family conflict they encountered, advice they might have for early-career members of the LGBTQ SIOP community, and differences in private, public, and academic career paths.  

Recent Supreme Court Decisions

Of course, part of these conversations addressed recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, as the regulatory landscape regarding employment rights in the LGBTQ community changed dramatically over the last 12 years.  Specifically, decisions in United States v. Windsor(2013) struck down a federal law denying employment benefits to same sex couples and an earlier decision in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) struck down state laws criminalizing gay sex, effectively preventing denial of employment benefits made available to heterosexual employees to homosexual employees.  Any ambiguity in allocation of spousal employment benefits to same sex couples was removed on June 26, 2015 when the Supreme Court announced a decision in Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, Director of Ohio Department of Health, et al.making gay marriage legal in the U.S. Once employed, disparate treatment in employment benefits received by same sex couples (married or not) would appear to no longer be a hurdle.  Many of the conversations raised the expectation that research initiatives by our SIOP colleagues on work–family conflict in families of same sex couples should be appearing soon.

Disparate Treatment

Not surprisingly, most of the experiences shared in our conversations dealt with disparate treatment in access to employment opportunities.  All conversations described internship, employment selection, or client-facing consulting situations in which the individual’s LGBTQ status explicitly influenced the process or outcome.  Although the concepts of disparate treatment and disparate impact might seem to transport easily from traditional EEO employment selection venues, it quickly becomes clear that disparate impact is not likely to be of concern.  Further, by definition, disparate treatment cannot occur if the employer is unaware of applicants’ LGBTQ status.  Each conversation spent some time talking about the range of possible circumstances that might occur between (a) employers’ total lack of awareness (or even speculation) about an applicant’s LGBTQ status and (b) candidates’ explicit declarations of their LGBTQ status before the selection process concludes.  Many instances were cited in which employers acted in very appropriate ways, including making no efforts to determine sexual orientation and, when this information was volunteered, indicating that it would not (and should not) have any bearing on the choice to hire the individual or any subsequent treatment as an employee.  Alberto mentioned his great fortune in working for Nancy Tippinsearly in his career at GTE, who was particularly inclusive.  Others mentioned situations ranging from instances where employers (a) did not actively seek information about but found reasons to speculate on the applicant’s LGBTQ status (e.g., “never married” job applicants in older age ranges often led to employer speculation about LGBTQ status) to (b) actively sought information informally from applicants’ peers (fellow students applying for an internship) or from applicants’ references.  Although the LGBTQ community is not currently protected from “disparate treatment” as defined by the EEOC Uniform Guidelines on Employment Selection Procedures(1978) by federal law, federal litigation and court decisions over the last decade suggest this issue will be pressed at the national level soon.  Nonetheless, 22 states do have laws or regulations protecting LGBTQ employment rights; see Table 1 for a summary of protections offered by state laws and regulations.

Interestingly, if the 1964 Civil Rights Act is extended to include (or similar legislation is passed including) protection for applicants’/employees’ LGBTQ status, extending existing methods of ensuring employer compliance would require gathering information about all employees’ sexuality, gender identity, and/or transgender status.  Imagine firms’ affirmative action offices having to modify the 3 x 5 return postage paid cards to include information on race, religion, nationality, sex, and sexuality, sexual identity, and transgender status.  A number of conversations described experiences with select employers’ voluntary self-identification systems and the “measurement error” they engendered.  LGBTQ employees/applicants who have not publicly revealed their LGBTQ status (or revealed it in a limited way) may wish to maintain their nonpublic LGBTQ status by giving inaccurate information to their employer.  One conversation speculated on whether information protection afforded by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA, 1996) might reduce this measurement error.  

Hopefully the day will come when no part of society will stigmatize an applicant/employee’s LGBTQ status and HIPAA-like information protection will not be needed.  Other experiences our LGBTQ SIOP colleagues faced suggest that day is not coming soon.  For example, one of our LGBTQ SIOP colleagues had lunch with some mid-level management colleagues in the public agency he was employed by when the discussion turned to their children, and one asked if another’s son is dating anyone “seriously” yet.  When someone speculates that the son’s reluctance to commit to a long term relationship with any of his girl friends may be because he is gay, the parent says “I would have to disown him, as that is a violation of God’s law.”  Knowing this manager would disown her/his own gay offspring caused our I-O colleague to continue to refrain from coming out at his workplace.  If his colleague would “disown” their own son, what would the colleague do to an I-O professional on their staff?  Fear of being on the short end of that manager’s everyday discretionary decisions about task assignments, for example, decisions about who will be included on special projects that promise advanced skill development, was very real.  One implication is that even if current EEO disparate treatment protections are extended to the LGBTQ community, at best this provides only coarse protection against disparate treatment at major “gatekeeping” hire and promotion points in the employment process.  Alberto refrained from bringing his partner to organization social functions until he had become a U.S. citizen out of similar fear—you never know who might harbor strong negative bias against the LGBTQ community and exert influence to adversely affect his right to work in the country prior to attaining citizenship.  

Of course, disparate treatment at major gatekeeping employment decision points is not trivial. One of our LGBTQ SIOP colleagues described applying for a position with a consulting firm.  One of the firm’s biggest clients was a major metropolitan police force that purchased a complete personnel selection solution for all external and internal hiring.  This LGBTQ SIOP colleague was open about his LGBTQ status, though some time after receiving a job offer he learned that a senior manager had asked the hiring manager “given he is gay, how well would he be received by the client if he led our team pitching our proposal for a new contract in a Power Point presentation to the top police department leadership?”  The hiring manager expected our LGBTQ SIOP colleague would perform well, and the offer was subsequently made.  However, it was obvious that the same question would not have been asked of applicants who had not made their LGBTQ public.  In the same vein, Cheryl noted that anytime she is meeting with clients or representatives of other organizations she doesn’t know, she is careful. While she doesn’t dwell on how being a lesbian might impact what she is doing at in every moment of the day, she is attentive to high consequence situations with individuals she does not know.  Again, others described situations in which the employer dealt appropriately with this type of situation, for example, giving no indication of ever considering the individual’s sexual orientation when assigning her to work with different clients or on different project teams. 

Clearly, some of our LBTBQ colleagues have experienced situations where customer tastes/preferences might cause disparate treatment of a SIOP colleague in the LGBTQ communities.  EEOC v. Merrill Gardens(2005) and many other cases set precedents that employers cannot use customer preferences as a reason to disparately treat racial groups (see http://www1.eeoc.gov//eeoc/initiatives/e-race/caselist.cfm?renderforprint=1for a list of similar court cases on customer preferences).  Regardless, until such protections are extended to the LGBTQ community, they do not apply at a federal level.  It remains to be seen how customer preferences might be treated by the 22 state laws and regulations protecting LGBTQ employment rights (case law might exist, though a quick Lexus/Nexus scan did not discover any).

Conversations also covered experiences our LGBTQ I-O colleagues had with religious organizations. Many SIOP members work for institutions of higher education founded and maintained by religious groups: There are many Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, and other national religious organizations that sponsor colleges and universities employing SIOP members (including one of the coauthors of this column).  Many private sector and nonprofit organizations, particularly in healthcare, also are owned by or have their historical roots in religious organizations. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby(2014), the court decided closely held for-profit corporations can be exempt from a law the owners religiously objected to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest.  This is the first time the court recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief,though it is limited to closely heldcorporations (only the founder and his immediate family own Hobby Lobby stock).  The decision is based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and does not address whether firms are protected by the free exercise of religion clause in the Constitution’s First Amendment.  Hobby Lobby did not want to make contraceptive health care coverage available to its employees due to the religious beliefs of the founding family that continues to own and operate Hobby Lobby.  What if those same religious beliefs condemned homosexuality, leading the firm to explicitly exclude lesbian, gay, and bisexual applicants from employment opportunities?  Note, Hobby Lobby is headquartered in Oklahoma, one of the 28 states without laws protecting LGBTQ employment rights (though it operates stores in states that do). Our LGBTQ SIOP colleagues noted they had personally experienced concern about such treatment (though none were aware of any actual disparate treatment affecting them) and predicted it will be on the EEO legislation/litigation horizon.  We suspect it is most likely to involve a religious organization headquartered in one of the 22 states with state laws protecting LGBTQ employment rights.

Interestingly, our LGBTQ SIOP colleagues did not feel I-O career hurdles as a member of the LGBTQ communities were more or less likely to occur in private-sector, public-sector, or academic career paths.  Given change is not likely to take place across sectors at exactly the same rate, it would seem one employment domain has the opportunity to take the lead in removing barriers to entry and advancement of previously underutilized LGBTQ labor pools. Time will tell.  

Cheryl mentioned establishing the LGBTQ reception and social hours at the annual SIOP conference were important milestones in making it much easier for LGBTQ I-Os to meet each other and to feel supported by the SIOP community at large. The visible and vocal support of heterosexual colleagues for these activities made many feel a lot “safer” for LGBTQ colleagues to be open about their sexual orientation as they practice their chosen career. 

Perhaps it should have been expected, but there were also generational observations made throughout the conversations.  Challenges associated with pursuing a career in I-O or anywhere as publically identified members of the LGBTQ communities are changing quickly, and perhaps many if not all of their experiences will be irrelevant for people just entering their careers.  Consider that today’s members of the LGBTQ communities who apply for jobs at Apple (whose CEO Tim Cook announced he was gay at a press conference in September of 2014) will likely worry a lot less about disparate treatment and be more open about their membership in LGBTQ communities than the same applicants in 1984.  Relatedly, a common observation among our discussions was the minimal cross-generational networking in the SIOP LGBTQ community.  We pointed out that this was part of the rationale that led to this column, and the presence seasoned LGBTQ I-O professionals at the next LGBTQ committee meeting at the Anaheim SIOP conference next spring would help solve this. Nonetheless, it also suggests that adoption of the SIOP new member mentoring program within the LGBTQ community might facilitate intergenerational mentoring and guidance.  History suggests newbies can learn from those who have walked the path before, though to be sure, learning is likely to occur from communication going in both directions!

In sum, all our SIOP colleagues are individuals with unique identities, values, beliefs, personalities, skills, and abilities.  One of those interviewed for this column is female, another is Hispanic (and speaks English with a slight Hispanic accent), a third found himself working as a foreign national whose supervisors were foreign nationals from a different country (and who apparently didn’t like Americans), and all are over 40.  Gender, national origin, and applicants/employees over 40 years of age areprotected groups under the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1968 Age Discrimination Act, at least for those employed in the U.S.  Conversations suggested that if our LGBTQ SIOP colleagues suffered from disparate treatment in access to employment opportunities throughout their careers, it was their gender, national origin, and more recently age that had the biggest negative effects.  Of course, these observations may simply be evidence of how inclusive the employment venues they were attracted to were of LGBTQ professionals; none of them applied for jobs at or worked for Hobby Lobby.  Although these experiences must be at best viewed as anecdotal evidence, it is the kind of anecdotal evidence in which initial theory and hypotheses are grounded.  The effects of employees’ public LGBTQ status, suspected membership in an LGBTQ community by subordinates/peers/superiors, religious affiliations of employing organizations, and customer biases against the LGBTQ communities on access to jobs and other key career outcomes awaits future research.  We came away from these conversations hopeful that the evolving views of LGBTQ communities will facilitate answering these fundamental questions.

*From the ACLU website, current as of February 1, 2015.  Unless noted, all discrimination described as “barred” is barred by state law.