An extensive body of research has documented the relationship between sexual orientation and income, but only a few studies have examined the effects of sexual orientation on workplace authority. This article investigates the probability of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people having (high-level) workplace authority and the effects of occupational gender segregation. It analyses four waves of data from the German Socio-Economic Panel study (N=37,288 heterosexual and N=739 LGB observations). The results show that gay and bisexual men do not differ from heterosexual men in their probability of having workplace authority, but they have a lower probability of attaining high-level authority. Lesbian and bisexual women have a higher probability than heterosexual women of having workplace authority, but no advantages in attaining high-level authority. These insights into occupational segregation suggest that gay and bisexual men experience similar levels of disadvantages across occupations, whereas lesbian and bisexual women have an advantage in female-dominated occupations.
AhmedAMAldenLHammarstedtM (2011) Sexual orientation and occupational rank. Economics Bulletin31(3): 2422–2433.
2.
AksoyCGCarpenterCFrankJHuffmanML (2019) Gay glass ceilings: sexual orientation and workplace authority in the UK. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization159: 167–180.
3.
Al KhajehEH (2018) Impact of leadership styles on organizational performance. Journal of Human Resources Management Research2018: 687849.
4.
AlabdulhadiASchynsBStaudiglLF (2017) Implicit leadership theory. In: Leadership and Change for the Health Professional, London: Open University Press, 20–36.
5.
AntecolHJongASteinbergerM (2008) The sexual orientation wage gap: the role of occupational sorting and human capital. ILR Review61(4): 518–543.
6.
AntonakisJBendahanSJacquartLLaliveR (2010) On making causal claims: a review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly21(6): 1086–1120.
7.
AyoubPMGarretsonJ (2017) Getting the message out: media context and global changes in attitudes toward homosexuality. Comparative Political Studies50(8): 1055–1085.
8.
BadgettMLCarpenterCSSansoneD (2021) LGBTQ economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives35(2): 141–170.
9.
BarrantesRJEatonAA (2018) Sexual orientation and leadership suitability: how being a gay man affects perceptions of fit in gender-stereotyped positions. Sex Roles79(9–10): 549–564.
10.
BaumleAKComptonDRPostonDL (2009) Same-Sex Partners. The Demography of Sexual Orientation. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
11.
BestHWolfC (2015) Logistic regression. In: BestHWolfC (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Regression Analysis and Causal Inference. London: SAGE, 153–172.
12.
BlashillAJPowlishtaKK (2009) Gay stereotypes: the use of sexual orientation as a cue for gender-related attributes. Sex Roles61(11–12): 783–793.
13.
BridgesSMannS (2019) Sexual orientation, legal partnerships and wages in Britain. Work, Employment and Society33(6): 1020–1038.
14.
ClarkeHMArnoldKA (2018) The influence of sexual orientation on the perceived fit of male applicants for both male- and female-typed jobs. Frontiers in Psychology9: 656.
15.
CummingsGLeeHMacgregorTDaveyMWongCPaulL, et al. (2008) Factors contributing to nursing leadership: a systematic review. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy13(4): 240–248.
16.
Cygan-RehmK (2011) Between here and there: Immigrant fertility patterns in Germany. Bavarian Graduate Program in Economics (BGPE) Discussion Paper No. 109 October.
17.
DahrendorfR (1990) Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
18.
de VriesLFischerMKasprowskiDKrohMKühneSRichterD, et al. (2020) LGBTQI* people on the labor market: highly educated, frequently discriminated against. DIW Weekly Report10(36): 375–383.
19.
de VriesLFischerMKrohMKühneSRichterD (2021) Design, Nonresponse, and Weighting in the 2019 Sample Q (Queer) of the Socio-Economic Panel. SOEP Survey Papers 940: Series C – Data DocumentationsBerlin: DIW/SOEP.
20.
DevicientiFGrinzaEManelloAVannoniD (2019) What are the benefits of having more female leaders? Evidence from the use of part-time work in Italy. ILR Review72(4): 897–926.
21.
DrydakisN (2021) Sexual orientation and earnings: a meta-analysis 2012–2020. Journal of Population Economics35: 409–440.
22.
EaglyAHKarauSJ (2002) Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review109(3): 573–598.
FassingerREShullmanSLStevensonMR (2010) Toward an affirmative lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender leadership paradigm. The American Psychologist65(3): 201–215.
25.
FinniganR (2020) Rainbow-collar jobs? Occupational segregation by sexual orientation in the United States. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World6: 1–17.
26.
FischerMKrohMde VriesLKasprowskiDKühneSRichterD, et al. (2022) Sexual and Gender Minority (SGM) research meets household panel surveys: research potentials of the German Socio-Economic Panel and its boost sample of SGM households. European Sociological Review38(2): 321–335.
GiesselmannMWindzioM (2012) Regressionsmodelle zur Analyse von Paneldaten. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
30.
GoebelJGrabkaMMLiebigSKrohMRichterDSchröderC, et al. (2019) The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP). Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik239(2): 345–360.
31.
HolstEFriedrichM (2016) Women’s likelihood of holding a senior management position is considerably lower than men’s – especially in the financial sector. DIW Economic Bulletin6(37): 449–460.
HuffmanMLCohenPN (2004) Occupational segregation and the gender gap in workplace authority: national versus local labor markets. Sociological Forum19(1): 121–147.
34.
HultinM (2003) Some take the glass escalator, some hit the glass ceiling?Work and Occupations30(1): 30–61.
35.
KasprowskiDFischerMChenXde VriesLKrohMKühneS, et al. (2021) LGBTQI* people in Germany face staggering health disparities. DIW Weekly Report5–6: 41–50.
36.
KiteMEDeauxK (1987) Gender belief systems: homosexuality and the implicit inversion theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly11(1): 83–96.
37.
KoenigAMEaglyAHMitchellAARistikariT (2011) Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin137(4): 616–642.
38.
KrausVYonayYP (2000) The effect of occupational sex composition on the gender gap in workplace authority. Social Science Research29(4): 583–605.
39.
KrohMKühneSKippCRichterD (2017) Income, social support networks, life satisfaction: lesbians, gays, and bisexuals in Germany. DIW Weekly Report33–35: 335–345.
40.
KühneSKrohMRichterD (2019) Comparing self-reported and partnership-inferred sexual orientation in household surveys. Journal of Official Statistics35(4): 777–805.
41.
LewisNM (2009) Mental health in sexual minorities: recent indicators, trends, and their relationships to place in North America and Europe. Health & Place15(4): 1029–1045.
42.
MadanchianMHusseinNNoordinFTaherdoostH (2017) Leadership effectiveness measurement and its effect on organization outcomes. Procedia Engineering181: 1043–1048.
43.
MarshalMPDietzLJFriedmanMSStallRSmithHAMcGinleyJ, et al. (2011) Suicidality and depression disparities between sexual minority and heterosexual youth: a meta-analytic review. The Journal of Adolescent Health49(2): 115–123.
44.
MeyerIH (2003) Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin129(5): 674–697.
45.
NeumarkD (2018) Experimental research on labor market discrimination. Journal of Economic Literature56(3): 799–866.
46.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2019) Society at a Glance 2019. OECD Social Indicators. A Spotlight on LGBT People. Paris: OECD.
47.
PögeKDennertGKoppeUGüldenringAMatthigackEBRommelA (2020) Die gesundheitliche Lage von lesbischen, schwulen, bisexuellen sowie trans- und intergeschlechtlichen Menschen. Journal of Health Monitoring5(S1): 2–30.
48.
PringleJK (2008) Gender in management: theorizing gender as heterogender. British Journal of Management19(s1): S110–S119.
49.
SchiemanSSchaferMHMcIvorM (2013) The rewards of authority in the workplace: do gender and age matter?Sociological Perspectives56(1): 75–96.
50.
SchröderM (2016) How income inequality influences life satisfaction: hybrid effects evidence from the German SOEP. European Sociological Review32(2): 307–320.
51.
SchynsBRiggioRE (2019) Implicit leadership theories. In: FarazmandA (ed.) Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Cham: Springer, 1–7.
52.
SOEP Group (2018) SOEP-Core v33.1 – PPFAD.SOEP Survey Papers 487: Series D – Variable Descriptions and Coding. Berlin: DIW Berlin/SOEP.
53.
StojmenovskaD (2019) Management gender composition and the gender pay gap: evidence from British panel data. Gender, Work & Organization26(5): 738–764.
UenoKPeña-TalamantesAERoachTA (2013) Sexual orientation and occupational attainment. Work and Occupations40(1): 3–36.
56.
ValfortMA (2017) LGBTI in OECD countries. OECD social, employment and migration working papers No. 198, OECD. June.
57.
van HekMvan der LippeT (2019) Are female managers agents of change or cogs in the machine? An assessment with three-level manager–employee linked data. European Sociological Review35(3): 316–331.
58.
WangGSteffensenDSPerrewéPLFerrisGRJordanSL (2022) Does leader same-sex sexual orientation matter to leadership effectiveness? A four-study model-testing investigation. Journal of Business and Psychology37: 557–580.
59.
WilliamsCL (1992) The glass escalator: hidden advantages for men in the ‘female’ professions. Social Problems39(3): 253–267.
60.
WolfWCFligsteinND (1979) Sex and authority in the workplace: the causes of sexual inequality. American Sociological Review44(2): 235–252.
61.
YuklG (2008) How leaders influence organizational effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly19(6): 708–722.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
