Managerial influences on the inclusion of transgender and gender-diverse employees: A critical multi-method study

Abstract

This article examined the work experiences of transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals concerning the organisational environment and managerial influence on their workplace inclusion. The qualitative multi-method study design included semi-structured online interviews with TGD workers (n = 22); followed by an open-ended, photo-elicit questionnaire with organisational leaders and management personnel, including human resource management and career development practitioners (n = 42), to evaluate their awareness and approach regarding the inclusion of TGD individuals. A critical grounded theory approach was applied to identify numerous enablers and barriers for TGD employees. Further analysis identified three impact areas of managers: building an inclusive organisational infrastructure, fostering a safe psychological environment and supporting diverse impression-fit management. The three managerial areas provide practical recommendations concerning language use, leadership style, work practices and arrangements that should be considered for increasing TGD workplace inclusion.

JEL Classification:

M12, M14

Keywords

diversity management gender diversity inclusion practice organisational inclusion transgender and gender-diverse employees

1. Introduction

Diversity and inclusion are increasingly important measures of a positive organisational reputation (Um-e-Rubbab and Naqvi, 2022); they also impact the individual well-being and feeling of belonging of organisational members (Liu et al., 2011). Gender diversity and gender equity have become important topics in organisational and management literature over the last few decades (Köllen, 2019). However, gender diversity and gender equity are understood from a gender binary and cisnormative perspective (Collins et al., 2015). Management research applying this notion of binary gender overlooks the work experiences of transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals within the workforce. As the visibility of people identifying as TGD increases (Moulin de Souza and Parker, 2020), organisational development may be needed to ensure keeping up with the social change to remain profitable, compatible and inclusive (Ferrary and Déo, 2022).

Throughout the broader literature of organisational and management studies, gender diversity and equity representations are limited due to the constraints of the gender binary and cisnormativity. Cisnormativity presupposes that every person’s gender identity aligns with the sex assigned at birth (Rumens, 2017; Schilt and Lagos, 2017), while the gender binary implies the existence of only two genders: woman and man. This can result in gender binarism, which consists of discrimination against people who do not identify as a woman or a man, and further denies the existence of TGD identities (Dray et al., 2020). TGD individuals form a heterogeneous group of people who do not identify as cisgender. While cisgender individuals identify with the gender that aligns with their sex assigned at birth (Darwin, 2020), TGD people either identify with the opposite gender to their assigned sex at birth, as both genders, beyond the gender binary or with no gender (Cheung et al., 2020). Hence, gender expressions by TGD individuals are as diverse as the labels they might use to communicate their gender identity (Monro, 2019). Ensuring equity for TGD employees requires increasing inclusive managerial approaches and strategies for equitable and fair employment (Ladwig, 2022; Ozturk and Tatli, 2016).

The organisational and management literature demonstrates limited knowledge about TGD work experiences (Cheung et al., 2020). Current literature about TGD work experiences represents an individual focus on the phenomenon (Huffman et al., 2020) without considering the multi-perspective bi-directionality. The multi-perspective bi-directionality refers to the relation between TGD individual work experiences and the organisational awareness of gender diversity represented via leadership, management and human resources. Furthermore, researchers of organisational and management studies predominantly discuss discourse as a corpus of language, text and word (Lefebvre and Domene, 2020) while it overlooks the influence of body, structure and objects. The critical lens of this research considers such material aspects to develop an increasingly holistic understanding of the experiences of TGD workers. Finally, research about TGD work experiences is rather deficit-orientated (Bizjak, 2019) by representing TGD individuals as victims of structural inequality. While TGD individuals experience a high level of discrimination, stigmatisation and exclusion, such a perspective overshadows the resilience and empowerment of TGD people. This article aims to address the knowledge gap in existing scholarship with reference to the following research question: How does management influence and address the inclusion of transgender and gender-diverse employees in their organisation? Answering this question, the article addresses knowledge gaps regarding the work experiences of TGD employees and the influences managers and organisational leaders can have to increase equity for gender diversity.

2. An organisational perspective on TGD inclusive management practice

In this article, the analysis of TGD work experiences results in the evaluation of management influences on the inclusion of TGD employees. This process helps create practical recommendations for organisational culture and management to enhance inclusion for TGD individuals in the workforce. Organisational culture ‘refers to the values and beliefs that provide norms of expected behaviours that employees might follow’ (Hogan and Coote, 2014: 1609). Schein (2004) claims that organisational culture represents a social force that is invisible but powerful by influencing employees’ behaviour beyond existing formal control systems and procedures or authorities. Kalendra and Cook (2017: 74) summarise in their article the three levels of organisational culture referring to Schein (2004): ‘artefacts, including the structure of the organisation, stories, rituals and organisational processes, such as the flow of information; values and norms, which are the expectations about behaviour shared by the group; and, the organisation’s beliefs and assumptions’. The present research focuses on artefacts and embodied experiences, in addition to critical performativity that shapes both the enablers and barriers for TGD individuals’ work experiences. The definition of critical performativity and its benefits to the analysis of approaches to increasing inclusion for managers are discussed in the next section.

Critical management studies (CMS) aim to analyse social and political power governing leadership and organisations. Pullen et al. (2017: 2) highlight the meaning of the ‘critical’ in CMS as ‘radical critique and an attentiveness to the socially divisive and ecologically deconstructive broader patterns and structures that condition local action and conventional wisdom’. The critical framework for this study analyses the cisnormative gender binary structures at play to evaluate managerial approaches that increase TGD inclusion in the workplace. According to Fournier and Grey (2000), CMS has three characteristics: denaturalization – questioning taken-for-granted assumptions, reflectivity – challenging normative knowledge systems and non-performativity – disengaging from instrumental aims to go beyond social or economic expectations (Fleming and Banerjee, 2016). Similar principles underpin critical performativity notions introduced by Spicer et al. (2009) to CMS. According to Alvesson and Spicer (2012: 376), critical performativity ‘aims to combine intellectual stimulation through radical questioning with an ambition to use discourse in such a way that has an impact, both in terms of emancipatory effect and practical organizational work’. Hence, critical performativity and CMS are vital to this research as they reflect on existing normative power structures such as the cisnormative gender binary. In addition, CMS supports the aim of the emancipation of marginalised voices, in this case TGD employees. Finally, the perspective on critical performativity advocates for a focus on implications for practices that may increase the inclusivity and awareness of transgender and gender diversity in the organisational context.

Researchers are encouraged by proponents of critical performativity to think about performativity as an active mediation between practice and discourse (Cinque and Nyberg, 2020). Cabantous et al. (2016: 209) argue that performativity ‘cannot be bound to the sphere of language’ as performativity simultaneously happens ‘through the political engineering of socio-material agencements that are constituted within and across organizations, institutions and markets’. Thus, the focus on speech acts (Schaefer and Wickert, 2016) limits the understanding of performativity by excluding material, spatial and embodied aspects which are additional representations of the cisnormative gender binary influencing the awareness and inclusion of transgender and gender diversity in the organisational context. This claim is supported by Bell and King (2010), who state that ritual and bodily practices have been overlooked within the CMS, and by Parker and Parker (2017: 1369), who assert that ‘if you want to change the world, you need to go further than language’. The lack of consideration concerning materiality and embodiment could be cause for further critique by Butler et al. (2018) who argue that CMS does not engage with organisational practitioners and consequently, has limited influence on the organisational and management practice.

The following three sections of the introduction, regarding building an inclusive organisational infrastructure, fostering a safe psychological environment, and supporting diverse impression-fit management do not only indicate the main findings of the present studies but are further embedded within the critical performativity framework. By including materialities such as uniforms and dress codes, spatial structures like bathroom facilities, as well as embodiments through policies and documentation, this research offers practical and theoretical considerations for the inclusion of TGD individuals in the workplace that apply to managerial decision-making and actions. The multi-perspective and participant-enabling approach in the present studies should help extend knowledge regarding inclusive management practices. A further contribution of the current research is the inclusion of individual TGD voices to enable and engage with a perspective that goes beyond construing TGD people as powerless victims. A culture of inclusion for TGD individuals in the workplace is enabled by three parameters described in the following section: (a) building an inclusive organisational infrastructure; (b) fostering a safe psychological environment; and (c) supporting diverse impression-fit management.

2.1. Building an inclusive organisational infrastructure

A first step to increasing positive work experiences for TGD employees could be achieved by building an inclusive organisational infrastructure. The organisational infrastructure represents the organisational structure and inheritance of organisational culture (Schein, 2004). Organisational culture and structure form the work environment representing social norms and conditions including cisnormativity and gender binary. Furthermore, organisational culture and structure are closely intertwined, and managers can use both to enhance the inclusion of TGD organisational members.

The organisational structure should be understood as the systemic construction of an organisation, including personnel hierarchies and compositions, as well as functional and operational components such as the organisational infrastructure (McGrath, 2016). Artefacts and organisational structure might represent material aspects influential on the work experience of TGD employees. Materiality relating to the organisational infrastructure is identified as a significant element to the inclusion of TGD individuals in the organisation context, and a potential area of influence from a managerial perspective. Dale (2005) claims that materiality is an aspect of imagination and physicality that expresses social, historical and cultural meaning including relational occupation and gender norms. Cisnormative gender binary norms are influential through their representation in material aspects incorporated in organisational infrastructures (e.g. policies, templates, facilities) and need to be addressed to be inclusive.

2.2. Fostering a safe psychological environment

The representation of employee voices can be an indicator of a safe psychological environment, where members feel respected and accepted (Arham et al., 2022). Narayanan and Nadarajah (2022: 2) define employee voices as ‘a behaviour exhibited by employees to develop the company by communicating in a constructive and change-orientated manner’. Pluralism of diversity and the inclusion of TGD employees cannot be attained if employees feel insecure or unsafe speaking up (Morrison and Milliken, 2000). Managers are positioned to ensure a psychological safe environment via their expectations and behaviour (Um-e-Rubbab and Naqvi, 2022). According to Um-e-Rubbab and Naqvi (2022), workplace experiences of employees, including psychological safety, are shaped by other employees and managers.

The leader–member exchange (LMX) model describes the nature of the relationship between leaders such as managers and employees (Dienesch and Liden, 1986). The psychological safety of TGD people at work depends on the quality of the relational exchanges they have with both supervisors and colleagues. Exchange between leaders and followers can be transactional, where TGD employees are treated as out-groups resulting in low trust or support, including fewer interactions and rewards (Henderson et al., 2009). Such low-quality leader–member relationships are limited strictly to professional interactions to ensure the fulfilment of the contractual obligation. In contrast, a rich relationship with their leader, based on high trust and support including more interactions and rewards, can make TGD people part of the ingroup. Social exchange patterns representing high-quality leader–member relationships may lead to empowerment, sponsorship in social networks, or mentoring (Henderson et al., 2009). The status of leading managers also allows them to model inclusive behaviour towards TGD employees for other organisational members.

The quality of exchanges between team members, including reciprocal relationships via sharing information or helping colleagues (Chung, 2020: 2), is central to workplace inclusion. TGD employees who are ostracised from team interactions or exchanges have limited access to organisational resources such as social relations or potentially essential work-related information. According to Liu et al. (2011), organisational membership is part of a person’s self-concept and therefore, team-member exchanges are a critical influence on the development of a positive perception of the job role and the self. Limited team-member exchanges and a lack of supportive leadership to encourage a sympathetic climate can influence the level of safety for the psychological environment of TGD employees (Kim et al., 2021).

2.3. Supporting diverse impression-fit management

A third step to increase the inclusion of TGD employees could be supporting diverse impression-fit management. Impression management refers to a person’s self-representation and its perception by others (Leary, 2001). The lack of fit model by Heilman (1983) describes the gender-stereotypical bias concerning different occupations and tasks (Heilman and Caleo, 2018). The term impression-fit management combines the two concepts of impression management (e.g. a person’s own regulation to express gender) and the fit framework (e.g. gender-stereotypical expectations of certain occupational roles). The impression-fit management model comes into play when seeking employment and in any other situations where humans might be evaluated. A study by Riach et al. (2014) indicates that the job candidate has to materially or physically fit in with the rest of the existing team; otherwise, the future employee will not fit into the established team makeup. In her autoethnographic article ‘Working at Gender?’, O’Shea (2020) shares her encounters with the misalignment of organisational impression-fit management and the exclusive or discriminatory reaction O’Shea experienced from managers, like ignorance, negative comments and inappropriate questions. Based on his studies about sexual dimorphism, Timming (2019) would argue that O’Shea’s experiences of genderqueer and non-binary discrimination as a job applicant were due to her atypical gender presentation.

Narrative sensemaking or performativity, as part of impression-fit management, is not limited to language (Green and Dikmen, 2022), it is also represented through an embodied sense (Cunliffe and Coupland, 2012). Cunliffe and Coupland (2012: 64) explain narrative sensemaking as a reinforcement and enforcement of embodied interpretation of social gender norms, conscious or unconscious, that impact our everyday interactions. Furthermore, according to Rumens (2017), performativity represents the establishment of gender categories via the recitation of gender norms, and requires consciousness about to what extent cisnormative gender binary norms are embedded in the organisational impression-fit management. The extent to which cisnormative gender binary norms influence TGD work experiences is discussed in the next section.

3. Understanding the work experiences of transgender and gender-diverse employees

The majority of work experiences described in the organisational and management studies literature regarding TGD individuals draw a rather devastating image. Leppel (2020: 4) summarises the precarious situation for TGD individuals to be part of the US labour market:

Individuals have indicated that because of their gender identity or expression, they have been fired, denied a promotion, or not been hired for a job for which they have applied, as well as been verbally harassed, physically attacked, or sexually assaulted at work.

Bates et al. (2020), who researched employee discrimination of TGD individuals in Western Australia, confirm the claim that TGD employees experience the highest rate of prejudice, stigmatisation and discrimination in the workplace. Previously, Mizock et al. (2018) establish that TGD workers experience a lack of proper assistance and limited career promotion prospects, as well as suffer from psychological isolation, which might be through the limitation of customisation of workplace policies. Varshney (2022: 590) extends the claim of limited psychological safety for TGD employees as their study found ‘that gender-related issues impart psychological trauma to the mental health and well-being of transgender employees’.

In contrast, Salter and Sasso (2022: 228) discover positive implications for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual and plus (LGBTQIA+) individuals when bringing their whole self to work, resulting ‘in a person being more likely to be promoted, given a stretch assignment or receiving some other type of work-related opportunity – stemming in part from the person’s decision to disclose their identity’. Such positive development might also be due to the inclusive leadership style of the TGD employees’ manager. Lee et al. (2021: 1527) explain that the ‘notion of diversity-oriented leadership is drawn from leadership inclusiveness that highlights leaders’ behaviors of openness, accessibility and availability’. Diversity-oriented leadership is closely related to a transformational leadership style that is individually considerate of employees, and inspires and intellectually stimulates them (Bass, 1999). As has been argued before, managers can have a significant impact on the inclusion of TGD employees, which may further result in positive work experiences for TGD individuals. This process is explored through the qualitative multi-method research described in the next section.

4. Methodology

A qualitative multi-method approach was applied to provide space for and capture the voices of TGD individuals regarding their work experiences and engage with managers and human resource professionals. For this article, the focus is on the manager perspective regarding the level of organisational awareness about transgender and gender diversity and inclusion. The critical grounded theory (CGT) approach is applied to emphasise social processes relating to problems of inequality, discrimination and power while the methodological process engages ‘in transformative discourse that seeks to stimulate positive action towards the creation of more enlightened societies’ (Hadley, 2019: 3).

4.1. Participants and procedures

This qualitative multi-method research project includes two studies. The first study contains semi-structured online interviews (King and Horrocks, 2010) with TGD individuals (n = 22) from Australia to explore individual work experiences in relation to their diverse gender identities. Participants were recruited via the snowball method after an initial media call in collaboration with various TGD support organisations. Table 1 gives an overview of the demographic characteristics and occupational area of the TGD interview participants. The information of the interviewees is presented at a broader level to protect their privacy and ensure confidentiality. In the process of informing the participants about the study and receiving their voluntary consent, all respondents chose a pseudonym to be quoted under and used in the findings section. Interview questions concerned their work experiences, career development, gender identity as well as related aspects of gender identity and work. Interview questions were developed based on the previous literature review and community consultation with the researcher’s network. The interviews were transcribed and member-checked (Charmaz, 2017) before being analysed.

Table 1.

Overview of demographic characteristics and occupational area of transgender and gender-diverse interview participants.

Pseudonym	Gender identities	Industry area
Adele	Non-binary Genderqueer	Legal services
Alex	Genderless Genderqueer	Research
Ann	Transfeminine non-binary Non-binary trans woman Demigirl	Computer and IT industry
Ben	Male	Public service
Cameron	Trans masculine non-binary Trans male with feminine or genderfluid attitudes	Service industry
Charlie	Trans man	Service industry
CS	Trans feminine Trans woman	Computer and IT industry
Eli	Third gender Transgender Trans human	Education
Holly Potter	Genderfae Transfeminine non-binary	Education
Jack Hippocampus	Non-binary Genderqueer	Service industry
JJ	Woman with transgender history Non-binary woman	Computer and IT industry
Lailoken’s Daughter	Transgender woman	Media and culture
Moses	Trans masc with like non-binary elements Transmasculine	Media and culture
Nathan	Trans man Trans masculine	Public service
Peter	Trans man	Public service
Raine	Trans feminine	Public service
Romana	Female Trans woman	Management
Sam	Non-binary	Computer and IT industry
Seth	Trans masculine non-binary Trans guy	Education
Socks	Non-binary transfeminine Non-binary Trans fem	Engineering and mechanic
Taiga Tagish	Non-binary Genderfluid Trans feminine	Public service
Tyler	Man Trans man	Research

The interviews offered insight into the specific work experiences of TGD individuals that are previously scarcely described in the organisation and management literature. The work experiences were categorised into six related themes incorporating numerous enablers and barriers to work experiences for TGD employees. The six themes regarding TGD work experiences were translated into a metaphorical image. The images (see Figure 1) and their explanation were sent to the participants to evaluate the preliminary interpretation of the interviews. After the majority of TGD interview participants submitted feedback concerning the photos and their considerations were implemented, the images were integrated into the second study.

Figure 1.

Metaphorical images of transgender and gender-diverse employees’ work experiences.

The second study is a photo-elicit open-ended questionnaire for leadership and management personnel (n = 42) such as diversity management, human resources and career development staff (for simplicity, all referred to as managers in the rest of the methods and findings sections) to obtain an insight into the overall organisational awareness about gender diversity and inclusion. A photo-elicitation approach was applied to understand unconscious assumptions, the individual level of awareness regarding gender diversity and the professional knowledge regarding the inclusion of TGD employees from the perspective of managerial personnel. Direct questioning via an interview or survey model risks less authentic responses due to the sensitivity of the topic and difficulties to reflect on unconscious aspects of gender binary and cisnormativity in the workplace. Therefore, questionnaire respondents were asked to evaluate two randomised images (Figure 1) guided by open-ended questions based on the SHOWED questioning approach by Hergenrather et al. (2009) consistent with the principles of photo-elicitation (Parker, 2009). The image evaluation was embedded after open-ended questions about gender diversity and scaling questions regarding organisational characterisation (e.g. inclusion, progressiveness and gender diversity), and before investigating organisational initiatives to include TGD employees, reflecting on the organisational characteristics in relation to previous responses, as well as demographic questions to contextualise the responses.

4.2. Data analysis

The 22 interviews with TGD individuals and 42 responses to the questionnaire were analysed with a CGT approach (Hadley, 2019). The CGT approach includes an initial coding cycle (InVivo coding, initial coding and process coding) and a secondary coding cycle (Axial coding, focus coding and theoretical coding) as well as constant memo-writing (Charmaz, 2017). The first-order concepts are generic codes containing extensive quotes from TGD interviewees (see Figure 2). Interlinking different first-order concepts including their rich perspectives led to the second-order themes which are further metaphorically represented as images (see Figure 1). The multiplicity of meaning concerning the images offers a wide range of interpretation by the managers which potentially could correspond with one or more first-order concepts underlying the second-order themes. Based on the knowledge gaps of the managers and the experiences and recommendations of TGD participants, three aggregated dimensions of proposed inclusive practices were developed. The triangulation of the findings from the interviews with TGD workers and the questionnaire with managers (Levitt, 2021) guided the theorisation of the inclusivity of TGD voices in the organisational environment, work culture, as well as TGD-specific enablers and barriers.

Figure 2.

Outlining data structure (first-order concepts, second-order themes and aggregate dimensions).

5. Findings

The findings are presented grouped by the three aggregated dimensions of proposed inclusive practices. For each dimension, there is an explanation of how the second-order themes and first-order concepts contribute to its development.

5.1. Building an inclusive organisational infrastructure

The first finding relates to building an inclusive organisational infrastructure, including artefacts referring to the aspect bathroom situation. Most gender-diverse interviewees would prefer a separate gender-inclusive toilet, as Adele explained: ‘I would strongly prefer gender-neutral bathrooms at work, “hey I feel seen”’. The reality is that most organisations relabel the accessible toilet as unisex to accommodate TGD employees. This makes a lot of TGD participants uncomfortable, as Taiga Tagish described:

I feel bad about using that one. They [a person with a disability] might need it, and if I am occupying it and come out, the boss [who is a person with a disability] will see it and it would be embarrassing and potentially a career-limiting move.

Such a dilemma not only applies to restrooms but showers, changing rooms or other gendered spaces in the workplace. From a managerial perspective, based on the open-ended photo-elicit questionnaire, the toilet door image (Figure 1(e)) seems to signify a gender binary: ‘male and female, binary bathrooms. Traditional, narrow, noninclusive view’, which must be improved via further options or alternatives. The image is strongly disapproved by some manager respondents: ‘while it may seem innocuous to cisgendered individuals – these types of microaggressions can have massive impacts on nonbinary and/or gender fluid individuals’. Therefore, restrooms as part of the organisational infrastructure should be designed to increase the inclusion of TGD employees.

Restrooms are not the only example of an exclusive organisational structure. Documentation artefacts such as data collection, forms and policies are further examples of organisational infrastructure. Data collection within workplaces as well as their organisational policies can be exclusive and discriminatory towards TGD individuals, especially when the language represents the cisnormative gender binary. The documentation image (Figure 1(b)) in the open-ended photo-elicit questionnaire received critical feedback about its gender binarism and insufficient policies from managers: ‘gender options are only male and female’ and ‘image on employee handbook is very gender-normative’. Organisations seem to target this as their first action to improve gender diversity in the work context by increasing the inclusion of TGD representations. For example, Alex, one of the TGD interview participants, suggests including TGD affirmation guidelines in the bargaining agreement to increase inclusivity and awareness for TGD employees but ‘everybody laughed at me and said that is ridiculous because no one ever is going to take that up’. Alex’s experience represents a missed opportunity to increase the inclusion of TGD employees in organisational infrastructures and may indicate an unsafe psychological environment as explained in the next section.

5.2. Fostering a safe psychological environment

Managers can have a significant influence on fostering an inclusive work environment and safe psychological environment potentially resulting in work satisfaction by showing visible-supportive leadership. Simultaneously, it is the responsibility of management and every employee to support the establishment of a safe and inclusive organisational culture by avoiding tokenistic transgender and gender diversity. The person in the image depicting welcoming and inclusive leadership (Figure 1(d)) is mostly gendered as male by the manager respondents. Furthermore, the offered handshake raises concerns regarding business etiquette (Aptsiauri, 2020) which highlights the intersectional relation between gender and culture. Due to gender norms and cultural diversity people are part of the ingroup, or outgroup as described in the LMX model (Henderson et al., 2009). One manager explains that ‘different cultures and genders have different norms around interpersonal contact, including greetings’. That aspect refers to the significance of intersectionality and how culture, ethnicity and gender interrelate, as well as highlights the magnitude of education about diversity. Charlie, a TGD interviewee, describes the importance of managers as a behavioural role model to increase a safe psychological environment resulting in the confidence to affirm their gender in the workplace:

The culture comes from the top down, and so what I really liked about that workplace was that there was no ambiguity about expectations. We knew exactly how we were expected to behave, and we could just look to any of our supervisors or bosses to see the behavioural model for us. That was a surprisingly good experience of coming out at work.

The findings of this research indicate the need of an effective dyadic relation to make TGD people feel included, which extends the argument of the LMX model for the importance of effective exchanges between the subordinate and the supervisor. In addition, leaders need to set the standard and model inclusive behaviours that can be followed by other team members.

Relationships with team members (Figure 1(a)) had a significant impact on the work experiences of TGD employees, as interviewee JJ, a woman with transgender history, stated: ‘Sometimes I am sad to leave a job, but it is not the job it is the people, it is the people I formed relationships with’. A supportive and positive team and work environment improves through the visibility of awareness, acceptance and inclusion of transgender and gender diversity in an organisation. In addition, pride or ally networks, social events and visible TGD role models increase the feeling of belonging and psychological safety for TGD employees. Moreover, Nathan explains that a destructive working environment is unsafe for anyone: ‘the environment where the trans people must protect themselves, also the cis people must protect themselves for different reasons. So, probably, no one is thriving where trans people [are] not thriving’. Nathan’s comment signifies that TGD’s inclusivity can benefit all organisational stakeholders.

5.3. Supporting diverse impression-fit management

An exclusive organisational impression-fit management might be shaped by cisnormative gender binarism, which forces TGD individuals to accommodate gender-stereotypical norms. This may be the case for holding employment, as Moses describes: ‘I was kind of like pressured into wear blouses and wear skirts and presentable make-up’ and consequently links to lower job satisfaction. Also, in recruitment, for example, Ann preparing for a job interview: ‘I put on make-up, I am not usually wearing make-up, I just try to look straight and presentable’. Conversely, being able to express your gender identity and having the support of the management or organisation can lead to gender euphoria (Austin et al., 2022), as Charlie exemplifies:

I’ve been wearing form-fitting clothes, and everyone knows that I have a chest, so if it suddenly disappears that’s gonna be weird for most, but because I had come out before, everyone was just cool. And I felt, like, ‘Fantastic, I can start binding, packing, and wear the clothes I like, and no one will go ‘hang on a second’.

Hence, it increases the level of comfort and inclusion for TGD employees if they can express their whole selves. The dress code image (Figure 1(c)) depicting various clothes on the bed is mostly perceived in a gender binary and heteronormative manner by managers in the open-ended photo-elicit questionnaire: ‘two female outfits and two male outfits’. Only a couple of people raise the idea of a person undergoing gender affirmation or identifying as gender-diverse: ‘could also be clothing for someone who is transitioning at work’ and ‘the wardrobe of a potentially genderfluid or non-binary person’. Although the manager respondents knew about the aim of the study concerning transgender and gender diversity, many of them did not construe the pictures as reflecting the choices TGD people would have to navigate. Simultaneously, various questionnaire respondents mentioned that employees should dress for the purpose rather than in alignment with gender-stereotypical expressions.

Another significant aspect for TGD employees’ workplace experiences is that the pitch of their voice does not always align with cisnormative gender binary assumptions, in turn disrupting their impression-fit management. Autonomous task arrangements, which refers to job crafting (e.g. modifying the order of steps to achieve the task’s aims), might be beneficial for TGD employees as the perception of their voice can lead to misgendering and distress for the TGD individual, as Romana mentioned: ‘. . . because a lot of them had heard my voice on the phone, that is another one that gets me, my voice is terrible, and it is a trigger’. Options to avoid misgendering due to gender-stereotypical assumptions regarding a person’s voice can be reflected in the flexibility of task management which is mainly due to the discretion of the manager as micromanagement is contradictive to achieve such autonomy. The workstation image (Figure 1(f)) aims to capture the different communication methods but resulted in responses reflecting gender-stereotypical assumptions based on material objects in the workplace as this manager’s response exemplifies: ‘having a plant could be also slightly more feminine’. Responses like these demonstrate the embeddedness of cisnormative gender binarism in the organisational impression-fit management.

The team image (Figure 1(a)) resulted in limited gender-related insights from the questionnaire respondents. Most commonly it is interpreted as a lunch break or meeting and raises consideration about a diverse workforce: ‘This picture shows that people are different in the way they dress, what they eat or drink. It makes you think that they also may have different backgrounds and experiences’. Visibility of diversity within a team seems to increase the awareness of differences and therefore, hopefully, loosens the strict cisnormative gender binary expectations of the organisational impression-fit management.

6. Discussion

6.1. Implications for scholars

The research findings contribute to the academic knowledge about specific experiences for TGD individuals and their implications for management actions. Terminologies like gender equality and gender diversity should be broadened beyond the gender binary and cisnormative understanding (Goldberg et al., 2021) to include TGD matters in the literature of organisation and management studies. It is necessary to separately investigate and consider TGD working experiences from the broader LGBTQIA+ community to ensure a distinction between the influences of sex assigned at birth, gender identities and sexual orientation within the organisational context. This change in perspective has a further impact on critical management studies (CMS) and critical performativity. First, due to the exploration of TGD work experiences, cisnormative gender binary norms embedded in the organisational context can be identified and their deconstruction encouraged (Pullen et al., 2017). Second, the three characteristics of CMS according to Fournier and Grey (2000) – denaturalization, reflectivity and non-performativity – are present in this research (Fleming and Banerjee, 2016). The assumption of a homogenised response to the broader LGBTQIA+ community is being questioned (denaturalization), while reflecting on the cisnormative gender binary to challenge it as a normative knowledge system. This research attempts to be non-performative by being independent of societal norms defining management within specific industry sectors or occupational levels, and predominantly focuses on the social justice cause of equitable, fair and inclusive treatment of TGD employees in the general workplace.

Critical performativity and un-/re-doing gender can be approached from two perspectives: Zimmerman and West (1987), and Butler (2006) which are both imbedded throughout this research. Nentwich et al. (2015: 123) distinguish them as follows: ‘West and Zimmerman analyse fine-grained naturally occurring interactions, Butler’s conception of “doing gender” focuses more on how gender is performed to real and imagined audiences’. Consequently, from the perspective of West and Zimmerman, gender can never be undone but the differences can be gradually reduced by redoing (Connell, 2010). Accountable structures may shift to inherently less oppressive, such as the managerial influence to change organisational infrastructures to be more inclusive for TGD employees. It should be acknowledged that the perfect solution for everyone is a utopian phantasy due to the diversity of TGD people and the impossibility to not doing gender. Butler proposes that alternative performances might be enabling ‘to change the dominant gender order and the binary understanding of masculinity and femininity’ (Poggio, 2006: 227). Therefore, due to subverting practices, it might be possible to undo gender norms such as those aimed at diverse impression-fit management. Managers who support diverse impression-fit management encourage change to cisnormative gender binary stereotypes within the organisation by giving extensive freedom of expression. More explicit recommendations for managers and the practice are introduced in the next section.

6.2. Implication for practice

This research, especially the photo-elicit open-ended questionnaire for leadership and management, demonstrated the level of unawareness of TGD work experiences among managers and human resources practitioners. Most managers in this study were able to identify the gender binary issue with restrooms and policies as well as documents; other aspects like workstations, team environment, uniforms and dress codes were less recognised among this sample as issues TGD workers must navigate. Practical recommendations were identified through this research that suggests ways for increasing TGD inclusivity in the organisational structures and cultural working environment. Here, leadership is regarded as significant support for implementing, sustaining and improving gender diversity in the organisational context by building an inclusive organisational infrastructure, fostering a safe psychological environment, and supporting diverse impression-fit management.

The first step for building an inclusive organisational infrastructure could be practically approached by shifting organisational language. Gender binary language has been criticised by the managers who alternatively recommended either to de-gender artefacts like paperwork, and organisational infrastructures, if gender is needless, or to expand to a more gender-inclusive conversation through additional options. The review of policies and data collection for organisational purposes are significant steps to increase the inclusion of TGD employees. Plus, a contextualised approach of gender-neutral and gender-inclusive language adapted to the overall organisational communication and workplace interactions could have beneficial impacts on TGD inclusion. Such linguistic changes are in agreement with Ciuk et al. (2022) who recommend thinking beyond the binary and attaining ongoing individual-, group- and organisational-level inclusion actions.

Second, an increasingly safe psychological environment can be achieved by strengthening interpersonal relationships with leaders and team members. The organisational culture may have to be addressed by improving the visibility of TGD identities and support mechanisms for employee voice, via mentoring programmes or implementing support networks. The provision of support groups is one proposal by Varshney (2022) to increase the psychological safety of TGD employees in the workplace. Other suggested actions for managers include the insurance of inclusive restroom arrangements, a general sensitisation about TGD matters among employees via educational tools, as well as potential medical benefits including health insurance. Specifically for the relationship between leaders and TGD workers, diversity-oriented or transformational leadership can positively affect TGD employees’ motivation due to its inherent individualised considerations included in a shared vision of organisational goals (Henderson et al., 2009: 519). From the perspective of relationships with team members, Kim et al. (2021: 672) highlight the significance of leadership as role models and their impact on reinforcing supportive social norms in the workplace that nurture constructive team building and an inclusive work culture.

Finally, to support an achievable diverse impression-fit management, implementing gender affirmation guidelines and work flexibility increases the potential of diverse gender expressions to flourish in the workplace. A specific gender affirmation policy can be supportive in the case of individual gender affirmation in the workplace (Elias et al., 2017), and has educational implications for all organisational staff members. Internal agency policies could set the tone about gender expressions via dress code, free bathroom choice, pronoun guidelines and the general inclusion of transgender and gender diversity into the organisational culture. If the occupation allows, the flexibility of work arrangements such as the management of time, task, resources and location is beneficial for the inclusion of TGD employees. Thus, such approach could increase their work engagement (Goldberg et al., 2021), as well as productivity, to navigate through the cisnormative gender binary in the organisational space until the inclusive organisational infrastructure, safe psychological environment and diverse impression-fit management is achieved. Approaching a task by sending an email rather than discussing and talking over the phone might allow the TGD employee to introduce their gender identity via pronouns in the signature block. Hence, the risk of being misgendered based on gender-stereotypical assumptions about the person’s voice could be decreased. This is merely possible within a work environment and organisational culture that values flexibility, autonomy and diversity.

6.3. Limitation and future research

The research has its limitations due to the geographical location and the Western conceptualisation of gender identity and expression. Future research could focus on explicit industry or geographic areas to explore the influence of managerial actions on the inclusion of TGD employees. Moreover, the validity and reliability of the open-ended, photo-elicit questionnaire could be questioned due to the hermeneutic of photography including the explicitness of image interpretation (Hagedorn, 1994). Therefore, potential future research could explore the interpretation of the images regarding gender diversity further. Nevertheless, the current research questions the gender-stereotypical and cisnormative assumptions embedded in organisational structures and work environments and introduces a potential managerial approach to increase the inclusion of TGD employees.

7. Conclusion

Based on the understanding of work experiences for TGD employees and the perspectives of managers, three areas of influence for managers could be identified: building an inclusive organisational infrastructure, fostering a safe psychological environment and supporting diverse impression-fit management in the workplace. Managers can influence these aspects by first applying a balanced approach of gender-neutral and gender-inclusive language to undo cisnormative gender binary norms and refine gender diversity. Second, a diversity-orientated or transformational leadership style can increase the level of safety for TGD employees as it allows open discussions about considering individual needs to achieve organisational goals. Third, managers need to be conscious of their responsibility as a behavioural role model as they will shape the organisational and team culture. The influence on organisational and team culture due to inclusive initiatives and change of language can extend the otherwise limiting cisnormative gender binary norms regarding impression-fit management. Such actions by managers can have a positive impact on the inclusion of TGD and all other employees in the workplace.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I thank Dr Victor Sojo Monzon (Guest Editor-in-Chief) for the guidance and the two anonymous reviewers for comments that greatly improved the manuscript.

Final transcript accepted 13 May 2023 by Victor Sojo Monzon (AE Special Issue).

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: The author received an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship from the Australian Government to undertake their PhD.

ORCID iD

Robin C Ladwig

References

Alvesson

Spicer

(2012) Critical leadership studies: The case for critical performativity. Human Relations 65: 367–390.

Aptsiauri

(2020) A brief analysis on culture and etiquette in modern business relations: Basics, importance and comparison. Journal of WTO and China 10: 123–128.

Arham

Norizan

Azhari

, et al. (2022) Speak up! Factors contributing towards employee voice behaviour. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 12: 1065–1074.

Austin

Papciak

Lovins

(2022) Gender euphoria: A grounded theory exploration of experiencing gender affirmation. Psychology & Sexuality 13: 1406–1426.

Bass

(1999) Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 8: 9–32.

Bates

Thomas

Timming

(2020) Employment discrimination against gender diverse individuals in Western Australia. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 40: 273–289.

Bell

King

(2010) The elephant in the room: Critical management studies conferences as a site of body pedagogics. Management Learning 41: 429–442.

Bizjak

(2019) ‘Lost in transition’: Some preliminary considerations on voicing transgender and gender non-conforming discrimination in the workplace. Puntoorg International Journal 4: 49–56.

Butler

(2006) Gender Trouble. Abingdon: Routledge.

10.

Butler

Delaney

Spoelstra

(2018) Risky business: Reflections on critical performativity in practice. Organization 25: 428–445.

11.

Cabantous

Gond

Harding

, et al. (2016) Critical essay: Reconsidering critical performativity. Human Relations 69: 197–213.

12.

Charmaz

(2017) The power of constructivist grounded theory for critical inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry 23: 34–45.

13.

Cheung

Leemaqz

Wong

, et al. (2020) Non-binary and binary gender identity in Australian trans and gender diverse individuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior 49: 2673–2681.

14.

Chung

(2020) The relationship between workplace ostracism, TMX, task interdependence, and task performance: A moderated mediation model. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17: 4432.

15.

Cinque

Nyberg

(2020) Theatre’s radical potential: A study of critical performativity. Culture and Organization 27: 115–131.

16.

Ciuk

Śliwa

Harzing

A-W

(2022) Implementing the equality, diversity, and inclusion agenda in multinational companies: A framework for the management of (linguistic) diversity. Human Resource Management Journal. Epub ahead of print 16 December. DOI: 10.1111/1748-8583.12487.

17.

Collins

McFadden

Rocco

, et al. (2015) The problem of transgender marginalization and exclusion: Critical actions for human resource development. Human Resource Development Review 14: 205–226.

18.

Connell

(2010) Doing, undoing, or redoing gender? Learning from the workplace experiences of transpeople. Gender & Society 24: 31–55.

19.

Cunliffe

Coupland

(2012) From hero to villain to hero: Making experience sensible through embodied narrative sensemaking. Human Relations 65: 63–88.

20.

Dale

(2005) Building a social materiality: Spatial and embodied politics in organizational control. Organization 12: 649–678.

21.

Darwin

(2020) Challenging the cisgender/transgender binary: Nonbinary people and the transgender label. Gender & Society 34: 357–380.

22.

Dienesch

Liden

(1986) Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review 11: 618–634.

23.

Dray

Smith

Kostecki

, et al. (2020) Moving beyond the gender binary: Examining workplace perceptions of nonbinary and transgender employees. Gender, Work and Organization 27: 1181–1191.

24.

Elias

Johnson

Ovando

, et al. (2017) Improving transgender policy for a more equitable workplace. Journal of Public Management & Social Policy 24: 53–81.

25.

Ferrary

Déo

(2022) Gender diversity and firm performance: When diversity at middle management and staff levels matter. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. Epub ahead of print 12 July 2022. DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2022.2093121.

26.

Fleming

Banerjee

(2016) When performativity fails: Implications for critical management studies. Human Relations 69: 257–276.

27.

Fournier

Grey

(2000) At the critical moment: Conditions and prospects for critical management studies. Human Relations 53: 7–32.

28.

Goldberg

Matsuno

Beemyn

(2021) ‘I want to be safe . . . and I also want a job’: Career considerations and decision-making among transgender graduate students. The Counseling Psychologist 49: 1147–1187.

29.

Green

Dikmen

(2022) Narratives of project risk management: From scientific rationality to the discursive nature of identity work. Project Management Journal 53: 608–624.

30.

Hadley

(2019) Critical grounded theory. In: Bryant

Charmaz

(eds) The Sage Handbook of Current Developments in Grounded Theory. New York: Sage, pp. 564–592.

31.

Hagedorn

(1994) Hermeneutic photography: An innovative esthetic technique for generating data in nursing research. Advances in Nursing Science 17: 44–50.

32.

Heilman

(1983) Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in Organizational Behavior 5: 269–298.

33.

Heilman

Caleo

(2018) Combatting gender discrimination: A lack of fit framework. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 21: 725–744.

34.

Henderson

Liden

Glibkowski

, et al. (2009) LMX differentiation: A multilevel review and examination of its antecedents and outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly 20: 517–534.

35.

Hergenrather

Rhodes

Cowan

, et al. (2009) Photovoice as community-based participatory research: A qualitative review. American Journal of Health Behavior 33: 686–698.

36.

Hogan

Coote

(2014) Organizational culture, innovation, and performance: A test of Schein’s model. Journal of Business Research 67: 1609–1621.

37.

Huffman

Mills

Howes

, et al. (2020) Workplace support and affirming behaviors: Moving toward a transgender, gender diverse, and non-binary friendly workplace. International Journal of Transgender Health 22: 225–242.

38.

Kalendra

Cook

(2017) Implementing organisational change using action research in two Australian organisations. ALAR: Action Learning and Action Research Journal 23: 71–102.

39.

Kim

Atwater

Jolly

, et al. (2021) Supportive leadership and job performance: Contributions of supportive climate, team-member exchange (TMX), and group-mean TMX. Journal of Business Research 134: 661–674.

40.

King

Horrocks

(2010) Interviews in Qualitative Research. New York: Sage.

41.

Köllen

(2019) Diversity management: A critical review and agenda for the future. Journal of Management Inquiry 30: 259–272.

42.

Ladwig

(2022) The influence of the normative gender binary in diversity management: Including gender diversity in human resources. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 16: 607–612. https://publications.waset.org/10012758/the-influence-of-the-normative-gender-binary-in-diversity-management-including-gender-diversity-in-human-resources

43.

Leary

(2001) Psychology of impression management. In: Smelser

Baltes

(eds) International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 7245–7248.

44.

Lee

Tao

J-YQ

, et al. (2021) Enhancing employees’ knowledge sharing through diversity-oriented leadership and strategic internal communication during the COVID-19 outbreak. Journal of Knowledge Management 25: 1526–1549.

45.

Lefebvre

Domene

(2020) Workplace experiences of transgender individuals: A scoping review. Asia Pacific Career Development Journal 3: 2–30, http://AsiaPacificCDA.org/Resources/APCDJ/A0003_1_01.pdf

46.

Leppel

(2020) Labor force status of transgender individuals. In: Zimmermann

(ed.) Handbook of Labor, Human Resources and Population Economics. New York: Springer, pp. 1–16.

47.

Levitt

(2021) Essentials of Critical-constructivist Grounded Theory Research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

48.

Liu

Loi

Lam

(2011) Linking organizational identification and employee performance in teams: The moderating role of team-member exchange. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 22: 3187–3201.

49.

McGrath

(2016) Organisational structure. In: Cross

Carbery

(eds) Organisational Behaviour. London: Red Globe Press, pp. 252–283.

50.

Mizock

Riley

Yuen

, et al. (2018) Transphobia in the workplace: A qualitative study of employment stigma. Stigma and Health 3: 275–282.

51.

Monro

(2019) Non-binary and genderqueer: An overview of the field. International Journal of Transgenderism 20: 126–131.

52.

Morrison

Milliken

(2000) Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review 25: 706–725.

53.

Moulin

Souza

Parker

(2020) Practices of freedom and the disruption of binary genders: Thinking with trans. Organization 29: 67–82.

54.

Narayanan

Nadarajah

(2022) Person-organisation fit, employee voice, and knowledge productivity: The moderating role of perceived voice opportunity. Knowledge Management Research & Practice. Epub ahead of print 28 November. DOI: 10.1080/14778238.2022.2150579.

55.

Nentwich

Ozbilgin

Tatli

(2015) Change agency as performance and embeddedness: Exploring the possibilities and limits of Butler and Bourdieu. Culture and Organization 21: 235–250.

56.

O’Shea

(2020) Working at gender? An autoethnography. Gender, Work and Organization 27: 1438–1449.

57.

Ozturk

Tatli

(2016) Gender identity inclusion in the workplace: Broadening diversity management research and practice through the case of transgender employees in the UK. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 27: 781–802.

58.

Parker

(2009) Photo-elicitation: An ethno-historical accounting and management research prospect. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 22: 1111–1129.

59.

Parker

(2017) Antagonism, accommodation and agonism in critical management studies: Alternative organizations as allies. Human Relations 70: 1366–1387.

60.

Poggio

(2006) Outline of a theory of gender practices. Gender, Work, and Organization 13: 225–233.

61.

Pullen

Harding

Phillips

(2017) Introduction: Feminist and queer politics in critical management studies. In: Pullen

Harding

Phillips

(eds) Feminists and Queer Theorists Debate the Future of Critical Management Studies, Vol. 3. Bingley: Emerald Publishing.

62.

Riach

Rumens

Tyler

(2014) Un/doing chrononormativity: Negotiating ageing, gender and sexuality in organizational life. Organization Studies 35: 1677–1698.

63.

Rumens

(2017) Queering lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender identities in human resource development and management education contexts. Management Learning 48: 227–242.

64.

Salter

Sasso

(2022) The positive experiences associated with coming out at work. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 41: 224–240.

65.

Schaefer

Wickert

(2016) On the potential of progressive performativity: Definitional purity, re-engagement and empirical points of departure. Human Relations 69: 215–224.

66.

Schein

(2004) Organizational Culture and Leadership (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

67.

Schilt

Lagos

(2017) The development of transgender studies in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 43: 425–443.

68.

Spicer

Alvesson

Kärreman

(2009) Critical performativity: The unfinished business of critical management studies. Human Relations 62: 537–560.

69.

Timming

(2019) Gender fluidity at work: Is sexual dimorphism an advantage in the labor market? In: Timming

(ed.) Human Resource Management and Evolutionary Psychology: Exploring the Biological Foundations of Managing People at Work. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 56–73.

70.

Um-e-Rubbab

Naqvi

SMMR

(2022) Impact of team voice on employee voice behavior: Role of felt obligation for constructive change and supervisor expectations for voice. Evidence-based HRM. Epub ahead of print 11 October. DOI: 10.1108/EBHRM-10-2021-0225.

71.

Varshney

(2022) ‘We look before and after, and pine for what is not’: Interview narratives of the transgender workforce. A qualitative study. Psychological Studies 67: 583–593.

72.

Zimmerman

West

(1987) Doing gender. Gender & Society 1: 125–151.