Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This paper aims to uncover blind spots in research on employee communication regarding LGBT+ to provide guidance for future research. To this end, we conducted a scoping review following the PRISMA-guidelines. A systematic literature search in four databases yielded 3,055 records. Our final sample included 164 publications reporting on 178 quantitative studies (207,181 participants and 3,740 organizations). We extracted information regarding publication details, the content of the record, and the sample from eligible records. Blind spots relate to lacking research (a) outside the U.S., (b) in communication journals, (c) from strong author networks, (d) regarding single LGBT+ dimensions and intersectionality, (e) regarding less obvious forms of employee communication, (f) regarding longitudinal, experimental, research synthesizing, and observational approaches, (g) on other variables than job satisfaction, well-being, or commitment, and (h) on communication theories including LGBT+. For research in the field to thrive, we provide guidance for tackling these blind spots.

Keywords

LGBT+employee communication scoping review workplace discrimination employee well-being

Introduction

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or other non-heterosexual and/or non-cisgender (i.e., LGBT+) employees encounter both negative and positive communications at their workplace affecting their work behaviors and well-being. However, only recently organizational scholars have begun conducting research on this minority group (Anteby & Anderson, 2014). Researchers in the field of employee communication attempt to echo these endeavors and pursue research on LGBT+ employee communication. However, starting research without a solid literature base can lead to similar research ideas, where unilateral research questions are examined with undifferentiated methods. This prevents research from thriving, as scholars examine the same research ideas using similar methods. Quantitative research in particular could fall into this trap, as the hypotheses-testing approach is less open than the hypotheses-generating approach of qualitative research. Thus, the emerging field of LGBT+ employee communication needs a comprehensive, systematically derived synthesis of past quantitative research endeavors in order to uncover current blind spots and provide a clear guidance for future research.

Here, we provide such a synthesis by presenting the results of a large scoping review (k = 178 eligible quantitative studies) on LGBT+ employee communication and elucidating current blind spots within the field. Scoping reviews represent a form of evidence synthesis, which summarizes (a) types of evidence, (b) research methods, and (c) key characteristics or factors of research (Munn et al., 2018). Scoping reviews are thus the method of choice when aiming to identify broad research gaps in emerging or established research fields (Munn et al., 2018). This sets them apart from other evidence syntheses, such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which aim to provide a broad understanding of specific research results and effect estimates (Page et al., 2021; Shamseer et al., 2015).

In our scoping review, we chart the current field of LGBT+ employee communication by providing a comprehensive overview of study characteristics (i.e., country of data collection, publication outlets, and most prominent authors), variables studied over time, methodological approaches applied, and theoretical frameworks used. Based on this information, this study lays an evidence-based foundation for future research by uncovering blind spots in the existing evidence base and making concrete recommendations for the field. In doing so, we are contributing to the advancement and potential transformation of the field of LGBT+ employee communication.

Literature Review

LGBT+ in the Workplace: How LGBT+ Is Communicated

Over eight million employees identify as LGBT+ in the United States (The Williams Institute, 2021) forming a rather large and also vulnerable minority group. Thus, a challenge for companies is to provide a save work environment for these employees, in order to be economically successful. Crucial areas regarding LGBT+ employee communication include disclosure/concealment of LGBT+ identities, discrimination of LGBT+ identities, and organizational LGBT+ policies.

Disclosure/Concealment of LGBT+ Identities

Unlike some other stigmas (e.g., ethnicity), an LGBT+ identity is a concealable stigma that can be hidden until it is disclosed to others (Goffman, 1963; Pachankis, 2007). Global estimates show that 83% of sexual minorities conceal their orientation from most people (Pachankis & Bränström, 2019). When it comes to LGBT+ employees, the majority globally consider it important to disclose their sexual orientation and/or gender identity (Deloitte, 2023). However, less than half are out to all co-workers, one-third are out to some co-workers, and about 15% are not disclosing their LGBT+ identity at all in the workplace. Reasons for non-disclosure include fear of discrimination and being treated differently, while about one-fifth also reported concerns about personal safety.

Disclosing at work is positively associated with an LGBT+ friendly workplace climate, while concealing is positively related to an LGBT+ unfriendly climate (Reed & Leuty, 2016; Tatum et al., 2017). Furthermore, disclosing is positively associated with experiences of discrimination (Corrington et al., 2019; Reed & Leuty, 2016); however, concealing is also positively related to workplace discrimination (Corrington et al., 2019; Dhanani et al., 2024; Reed & Leuty, 2016). This reveals a double-edged sword, as both disclosure and concealing increase discrimination experiences of LGBT+ employees.

Discrimination of LGBT+ Identities

Surveys conducted in the United States (The Williams Institute, 2021), Canada (Statistic Canada, 2021), and the European Union (FRA - European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2020) reveal that many LGBT+ employees report experiencing workplace discrimination. Discrimination often takes the form of communicative actions by superiors and/or co-workers toward LGBT+ employees. This includes (a) negative comments, slurs, or jokes, (b) microaggressions, (c) harassment, (d) obscene or sexually explicit comments, and (e) pressure to play along or participate in sexual discussions, humor, or actions (Deloitte, 2023; McKinsey & Company, 2020; The Williams Institute, 2021).

Over two decades ago, studies demonstrated that workplace discrimination adversely affects both organizations and LGBT+ employees. Gay and lesbian employees experiencing discrimination tend to show higher turnover intentions and lower levels of organizational commitment, organizational-based self-esteem, and job satisfaction (Button, 2001; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001). Furthermore, discrimination experiences at work are linked to increased levels of psychological distress and health-related problems among LGBT+ employees (Velez et al., 2013).

Individual and organizational measures can counteract discrimination and enhance employees’ well-being. Although not conducted in the field of communications, the systematic review by Mara et al. (2021) highlights various strategies employed by LGBT+ employees to address workplace discrimination. This includes engaging in communicative behaviors such as planning responses to discrimination and seeking support from friends, family, services, or organizational decision-makers. Moreover, LGBT+ employees, particularly those from Gen Z and Millennials, actively seek out employers with more inclusive climates and advocate for initiatives promoting inclusion (Deloitte, 2023). At the organizational level, diversity training programs and ally networks have been identified as effective in improving the well-being of LGBT+ employees (Perales, 2022).

Organizational LGBT+ Policies

Organizations foster inclusive organizational climates by directly supporting and protecting LGBT+ employees through communicative behaviors. For instance, they implement anti-discrimination policies that explicitly include sexual orientation and gender identity (Human Rights Campaign Foundation, 2022). Organizations sometimes also sponsor Pride events for their LGBT+ employees (McKinsey & Company, 2020). However, terms like pinkwashing and rainbow-washing have emerged to describe organizations that use policies and initiatives solely for marketing or impression management purposes. This can range from policy measures without genuine intentions to organizational practices that contradict these measures (e.g., by not providing an inclusive workplace for LGBT+ employees; Rice, 2022).

LGBT+ Employee Communication and Work Outcomes: What It Is and What Has Been Found

As reviewed above, disclosure/concealment, discrimination of LGBT+ identities, and LGBT+ policies are communicative behaviors that occur in organizations. Employee communication encompasses all communicative and informative processes within an organization, with organizational members addressing or communicating themselves in their roles as (potential) employees (Einwiller et al., 2021b). These members span from top managers to employees across all hierarchical levels. Some instances of external communication, such as recruiting communication, employer branding, and external employee activism, also fall under the umbrella of employee communication. Moreover, employee communication can manifest in various forms, including controlled or uncontrolled, formal or informal, one-sided or dialog-oriented, and personal or mediated.

Research demonstrates that effective employee communication fosters a positive work environment, enhances employee engagement, and facilitates organizational success (Einwiller et al., 2021a). Employees who express satisfaction with their organization’s communication show higher work engagement and perceive their employer as more attractive (Špoljarić & Tkalac Verčič, 2022; Tkalac Verčič, 2021; Tkalac Verčič et al., 2023). Leaders’ use of motivating language is positively associated with employees’ organizational identification (Mayfield et al., 2021; Yue et al., 2021). Investing in strategies to improve employee communication is therefore essential for organizations seeking to optimize work outcomes and foster a positive working environment.

The Emerging Field of LGBT+ Employee Communication: What We Know So Far and Which Blind Spots Need to be Addressed

LGBT+ employee communication is an emerging field that is characterized by a surge of research interest that has not yet been systematically summarized. We believe that this is preventing the field from moving forward. Our aim is therefore to identify new research directions and recommendations by reviewing what has already been published. This scoping review addresses the following overall research question:

RQ: What has been published in quantitative research about employee communication regarding LGBT+?

The answers to this research question will highlight blind spots to be addressed in future research. For LGBT+ employee communication, we expect possible blind spots to emerge due to (a) countries of data collection, (b) publication outlets, (c) clusters of authors, (d) LGBT+ identity dimensions, (e) forms of communication, (f) methodological approaches, (g) key variables, and (h) theories. The following paragraphs show how these blind spots may look like for LGBT+ employee communication and which research questions need to be asked to reveal them.

Blind Spots Regarding Country of Data Collection

Acceptance of LGBT+ people and identities varies from country to country, with many non-Western countries considered less accepting (McCarthy, 2023). In 2020, 68 countries criminalized consensual same-sex activities while another 81 countries protected LGBT+ employees by labor laws (ILGA World, 2020). According to an Ipsos (2021) report, few people in Malaysia, Turkey, India, and Mexico want to disclose their LGBT+ identity. As it is more difficult to conduct studies in non-Western countries than, for example, in the United States or Europe, geographical blind spots may arise. Without studying non-Western countries, legal and cultural differences are neglected. Thus, it is important to know, where studies on LGBT+ employee communication were conducted, leading to the first auxiliary research question:

RQ1: In which countries are data on LGBT+ employee communication collected?

Blind Spots Regarding Publication Outlets

LGBT+ employee communication falls into several areas of research. Among others, studies can be published in management, psychology, or diversity journals as well as communication journals. Scanning the (International) Journal of Business Communication for LGBT+, revealed that only five publications mention sexual orientation or gender minorities in their title, abstract, or keywords (Chory et al., 2022; Eger, 2021; Horan & Chory, 2013; Minei et al., 2023; Thorson & McBride, 2023). Considering that the journal was founded in 1963, there could be a blind spot regarding LGBT+ employee communication in this and other communication journals. Neglecting LGBT+ in journals aimed at communication researchers and practitioners would leave out a vulnerable group of employees and their specific needs in employee communication. Therefore, to identify in which publication outlets LGBT+ employee communication has appeared so far, the second auxiliary research question asks:

RQ2: Which publication outlets are used for publishing studies on LGBT+ communication?

Blind Spots Regarding Clusters of Authors

For research to thrive it is vital that researchers build a network of scholars working together. Cooperation with diverse people allows to incorporate different viewpoints with various theoretical and methodological approaches. Established research groups should also be interconnected in order to advance research. If many single authors cover a research area or if research groups are unconnected, interesting questions might remain unresearched. Consequently, to uncover the structure of (co-)authorship and draw inferences from it, we pose the third auxiliary research question:

RQ3: Which clusters of authors are the most prominent in the area of LGBT+ employee communication?

Blind Spots Regarding LGBT+ Identity Dimensions

Non-heterosexual and non-cis gender employees face different experiences than heterosexual and cis-gender employees. However, the experiences and therefore the needs of people with different sexual orientations and gender identities also differ. For example, gay men face more negative attitudes than lesbian women (Bettinsoli et al., 2020) and bisexual men experience anti-bisexual prejudice from both heterosexual and homosexual persons (Sarno et al., 2020). If single dimensions of LGBT+ remain unaddressed, this could obscure important differences between groups. Furthermore, legislation regarding LGBT+ in the workplace has changed over time, with 81 countries now protecting LGBT+ employees through labor law (ILGA World, 2020). Also, the acceptance of LGBT+ rights in the United States increased over time (Gallup, 2023) and people born 1997 or later identify themselves more often on the bisexual/pansexual spectrum than people born earlier (Ipsos, 2021). Research should look into these legal and societal changes as they affect employee communication substantially. Thus, the fourth auxiliary research question reads:

RQ4: Which LGBT+ dimensions are studied in employee communication over time?

Blind Spots Regarding Forms of Communication

Employee communication comprises all forms of communication within an organization and specific forms of externally directed communication (Einwiller et al., 2021b). Three of the five articles addressing LGBT+ in the (International) Journal of Business Communication, however, dealt with the same form of communication, workplace romances (Chory et al., 2022; Horan & Chory, 2013; Thorson & McBride, 2023). A systematic review (Maji et al., 2024) and a meta-analysis (Webster et al., 2018) on LGBT+ employees focused on rather obvious forms of communication, such as disclosure/concealment, discrimination, LGBT+ policies, and social support in the workplace. Advancing the field of LGBT+ employee communication, however, requires addressing the full spectrum of communication forms. Identifying which forms of employee communication have been frequently studied over time could reveal over-studied forms, but also blind spots in the research. This leads to the fifth auxiliary research question:

RQ5: Which forms of employee communication are studied over time in research on LGBT+ employee communication?

Blind Spots Regarding Methodological Approaches

Quantitative research can be manifold, with cross-sectional or longitudinal surveys, experiments, physiological measures, and meta-analyses. Failing to use the variety of methodological approaches could reproduce artefacts (e.g., spurious correlations found in surveys could be uncovered by experiments). Furthermore, internal and external validity as well as the possibility to make causal inferences vary according to the methodological approach. This makes the use of different methodological approaches essential for research. Accordingly, the sixth auxiliary research question tries to identify shortages in methodological variety by asking:

RQ6: Which methodological approaches are used in LGBT+ employee communication?

Blind Spots Regarding Key Variables

A wide range of variables predict successful employee communication, and successfully implemented employee communication also predicts a wide range of employees’ attitudes and behaviors (Einwiller et al., 2021a). This also applies to the area of LGBT+ employee communication. If many studies include similar variables, the results found can be aggregated in meta-analyses providing a strong research evidence. If researchers employ similar research questions and methodological approaches repeatedly, they diminish the diversity of variables examined, thus leading to one-sided and unidimensional research. This limitation ultimately impedes the advancement of the research field. Examining variables used in research can reveal both possibilities for future meta-analyses and variables that have been neglected. Therefore, the seventh auxiliary research question asks:

RQ7: Which key variables are used in LGBT+ employee communication research?

Blind Spots Regarding Theories

Theories are the bases of research fields in social sciences, such as psychology or management. Accordingly, the field of (employee) communication draws on many different theories that are specific to it. Studies on LGBT+ employee communication should adopt and apply these specific communication theories in order to advance this research field. However, LGBT+ employee communication is a cross-sectional area that encompasses several other fields of research such as psychology, management, and diversity in addition to communication science. To determine whether communication theories are sufficiently represented in LGBT+ employee communication, an overview of the theories used is required. The eighth auxiliary research question is therefore:

RQ8: Which key theoretical frameworks are used in LGBT+ employee communication research?

Method

Study Protocol and Registration

The review follows the PRISMA-ScR guidelines for scoping reviews (Tricco et al., 2018). The PRISMA-ScR guidelines consist of 20 essential reporting items (e.g., title, objectives, and eligibility criteria). Authors should adhere to these items within the conceptualization, conductance, and reporting of scoping reviews to facilitate transparent, rigorous, and complete reporting. Furthermore, we also adhered to the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews where applicable (Page et al., 2021). A study protocol was preregistered on the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9W7QP) on December 23, 2022. We developed a standardized coding scheme (i.e., an Excel-file) in which the coders noted the extracted data for further analysis (e.g., authors, year of publication, and sample size). After pretesting the coding scheme among the pair of coders, amendments were made to the study protocol on March 03, 2023. Amendments concerned (a) the correction and additional information about automatic deduplication of initial search results from databases, (b) the eligibility of samples including both for-profit and other organizations, (c) the eligibility of research on potential future employees, (d) the eligibility of only quantitative studies, as we also found a vast amount of qualitative and theoretical work which could not be coded within a reasonable timeframe, (e) the omission of searching reference lists of eligible records (i.e., backward search), and (f) the revision of the coding process (i.e., first author with more expertise completes the coding scheme and second author reviews the entries). In the course of a conference submission a further amendment was made on September 25, 2023. Here, (a) the title was specified and (b) the research questions were expanded, combined, and reformulated to better structure the paper. A rationale was provided for all amendments.

Eligibility Criteria

Population

Eligible records focused on employees working in organizations. Employees are people who are paid by an organization to work for it. We considered records that focused on (a) the communication by organizations with their (potential future) employees or (b) the communication by employees within and outside the organization.

Concept

Eligible records addressed employee communication (Einwiller et al., 2021b). This is any written, verbal, or non-verbal communication inside an organization related to LGBT+. These include, among other forms of employee communication, discrimination, disclosure, concealment, and organizational policies. Also, eligible were records containing any written, verbal, or non-verbal communication of employees regarding their organizations’ LGBT+ agenda (i.e., communication directed outside of their organization). Not eligible were records focusing on communication from an organization directed to anyone outside the organization (except for job seekers and future employees). Furthermore, records were not eligible if LGBT+ employees communicated about other topics than LGBT+. If a record addressed other areas as well (e.g., corporate communication and marketing), we included only the part on employee communication.

Context

Eligible records included for-profit organizations. However, records including samples of employees from for-profit and other organizations are also eligible. We immediately excluded research related only to governmental or nonprofit organizations, however, if the organization type was unclear, we included the records.

Publication Type and Status

Eligible records were all published literature such as (peer-reviewed) journal articles and book chapters, and gray literature such as dissertations, research reports, and conference presentations. However, we excluded master theses and books.

Study Design, Publication Year, and Language

We included quantitative research of all years published either in German or English. If a record reported on quantitative research and other research, we only considered the quantitative part.

Information Sources and Search

We searched the databases Communication and Mass Media Complete (via EBSCOHost), Communication Abstracts (via EBSCOHost), PsycINFO (via EBSCOHost), Web of Science (Core Collection), and Scopus (in the areas Social Sciences, Psychology, and Business, Management and Accounting) for eligible records on January 13, 2023. Search strings consisted of combinations of keywords and corresponding synonyms regarding (1) LGBT+, (2) communication, and (3) organization from the literature. We found appropriate keywords regarding LGBT+ in systematic and scoping reviews (Lee et al., 2016; Siegel et al., 2022), which we further adapted and expanded for the current study. Furthermore, for keywords related to communication and organization, we consulted recent edited books on employee communication (Einwiller et al., 2021a; Men & Tkalac Verčič, 2021) and adopted and expanded them where necessary. We used the following keywords (piloted through extensive preliminary searches):

LGBT+

(LGB* OR queer OR “sexual minorit*” OR lesbian* OR gay* OR bisexual* OR transgender* OR transsex* OR intersex* OR “sexual orientation” OR homosexual* OR GLB* OR “diverse gender ident*” OR “sexual identity” OR “sexual preference” OR “same sex attract*” OR “gender minorit*” OR homophobia OR transphobia OR “non binary” OR genderfluid OR genderqueer OR “gender non conforming” OR “sexual divers*”).

Communication

(communication OR policies OR “mission statement” OR climate OR culture OR voice OR disclosure OR “internal public relation*” OR “internal PR” OR harass* OR “discriminatory behavior” OR listening OR “code of conduct” OR “internal social media” OR “social intranet” OR “internal CSR” OR conversation OR “coming out”).

Organization

(organization* OR company OR companies OR corporate OR workplace OR employe* OR staff OR “human resource*” OR personnel OR workforce OR “work team” OR coworker OR colleague OR enterprise)

Keywords related to LGBT+ in the title, along with keywords related to communication and organization in the title, abstract, or keywords of records, ensured a sufficiently broad search scope. We created search strings for each database (see Supplemental Material A) and validated them against a set of prespecified papers. For this purpose, we searched for 17 eligible and predefined papers (see Supplemental Material B) in the databases. Of these papers, 12 were available in EBSCOHost, 13 in Web of Science, and 14 in Scopus. The suggested search strings resulted in (a) 1,612 hits in EBSCOHost (i.e., Communication and Mass Media Complete, Communication Abstracts, PsycINFO; 1,556 remained after automatic deduplication on export), (b) 1,315 in Web of Science, and (c) 1,808 in Scopus. The search of the respective databases found all records available. However, two records from this pilot search—a journal article and a book chapter—were not available in any of the databases. Thus, we also examined 52 records from the journal Case Studies in Strategic Communication. The journal ceased to exist and is not indexed in the databases but contains a predefined record (Ciszek, 2016). Furthermore, we included the edited book Coming out of the closet: Exploring LGBT issues in strategic communication with theory and research (Tindall & Waters, 2013) which contains an eligible chapter (Waters, 2013).

Data Items

In total, we retrieved 3,055 items from the literature search after deduplication (Bramer et al., 2016) and adding records from the discontinued journal and the anthology. Two coders (IW, MS) checked the titles and abstracts against the prespecified eligibility criteria. Two joint coding sessions with 10 records ensured a common understanding of the eligibility criteria and prevented systematic coder bias. After each joint coding session, random samples of 100 records underwent individual coding by the coders. This process determined whether interrater-reliability exceeded the established threshold of .75. After the first joint coding session, the agreement rate was 86% (Brennan-Prediger Kappa = .72), necessitating another joint coding session. After the second joint coding session, the agreement rate was 96% (Brennan-Prediger Kappa = .92), which is considered sufficient to proceed with individual coding of the split data set. The two coders discussed and subsequently coded jointly records with discrepancies in coding. We advanced ambiguous records (e.g., it is unclear from title and abstract whether the record is eligible) to the full text stage. After checking titles and abstracts, we excluded 2,611 records and sought 444 for retrieval. However, despite our best efforts, we could not retrieve 14 records (see Supplemental Material C), leaving 430 records for further assessment and coding of the content.

The two initial coders (IW and MS) extracted and coded the content of eligible records (see below for details). To ensure consistency, the two coders retrieved the information of ten records separately and compared and discussed their results. Then, the first coder, who has more expertise in employee communication and is therefore the more valid coder, retrieved the content of the record, and the second author reviewed and validated the entries. The individual percentages of agreement for each aspect of coded information ranged from 76% for form of employee communication to 100% for year of publication. The average agreement for the 29 coded aspects was 92% (SD = 0.05). For discrepant cases, the two coders discussed their solutions in detail and reached unanimous agreement on the coding. Thus, all discrepancies were resolved.

Synthesis of Results

From eligible records, the two coders noted information regarding publication details, the content of the record, and the sample in the coding scheme. Publication details included authors, year of publication, title, and publication type (e.g., journal, book chapters, and dissertations). The content of the record encompassed the country of data collection, the addressed non-heterosexual orientation or gender identity (e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans* which also included non-binary, gender fluid etc.), and the form of employee communication (e.g., concealment, disclosure, and discrimination). We used the keywords from our systematic literature search (Einwiller et al., 2021a; Lee et al., 2016; Men & Tkalac Verčič, 2021; Siegel et al., 2022) to group the different forms of employment communication. However, some forms of discriminatory communication (e.g., harassment, slurs, and micro-aggressions) have been grouped under the term discrimination. These forms often co-occur, are difficult to separate, and are often examined together (e.g., within the commonly used WHEQ and Workplace Heterosexist Experiences Questionnaire; Waldo, 1999). Additional information of the record’s content included the methodological approach (e.g., survey, aggregated firm data, experiment, and meta-analysis) and the variables used as predictor variables, moderating/mediating variables, and/or outcome variables. To identify applied theoretical frameworks, the two coders searched the abstract, introduction section, and the theoretical background for the keywords (a) theory, (b) model, (c) framework, and (d) perspective. When these keywords appeared, the coders noted the theoretical framework with the indicated source. If no source information was provided, the framework was noted with the addition n.r. (i.e., no reference). This search strategy was applied to ensure objectivity in coding: Coders might notice known theories even though they are not referred to as a theory (e.g., through well-known in-text citations) while they would not code theories unknown to them. Sample information included sample size, participants’ age, participants’ gender, participants’ sexual orientation, participants’ education, type of organization, size of organization, and industry of organization. Furthermore, coding included a brief summary for each record. The extracted data is available on Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/jepwk/files/osfstorage/64ec679c918d2d15b2e3ee00).

Results

Selection of Source of Evidence

We assessed 430 full texts, of which we excluded 212 that reported on qualitative or theoretical research and 54 that did not meet other eligibility criteria (e.g., books, research exclusively in not-for profit organizations, not in German or English). The final dataset contains 164 publications reporting on 178 quantitative studies. Figure 1 presents the study selection process using the PRISMA flow chart, and Supplemental Material D lists the analyzed publications. The units of analysis are either the publications or the studies reported in them. In the remainder of the text, we always specify the unit of analysis.

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow chart of identifying eligible publications and studies.

Characteristics of Source of Evidence

The 154 studies reporting on participants examined a total of 207,181 participants (M = 1,345.33, SD = 5,875.05), while 10 studies reported on a total of 3,740 organizations (M = 374.00, SD = 476.44). Another 13 studies used 57,910 firm year observations (M = 4,454.62, SD = 2,524.04). One study examined 69 LGBT+ support groups and one meta-analysis included 27 empirical studies (here counted as one study).

Studies involving participants had an unweighted mean gender breakdown of 54.26% men, 54.81% women, and 27.08% trans* participants. In three studies involving participants, the gender of the participants was not reported. The breakdown for the unweighted mean sexual orientation is 55.66% heterosexual, 48.75% gay, 40.09% lesbian, 21.47% bisexual, 11.52% other minority sexual orientations, and 2.46% did not answer. However, some studies only reported that the participants were lesbian/gay or LGBT+, having a breakdown of 56.92% and 50.58%, respectively. Further 19 studies did not indicate the sexual orientation of participants. These unweighted means do not sum to 100% because some studies used male-only, female-only, or gender minority-only samples, and some studies conflated gender identity and sexual orientation. We used the unweighted means as they reflect the studies used, rather than the weighted means based on the sample sizes of the studies. Participants unweighted mean age was 35.13 years (SD = 5.87); however, 17 studies that contained participants did not contain information on participants’ age.

Most studies did not provide information on the organizational type, size of the organization, or the industry in which the organization operates (n = 119, n = 137, and n = 97, respectively); however, in some cases this information was not applicable (e.g., vignette studies; n = 4, n = 5, and n = 5, respectively). In 36 studies the organization type included different organizational types (i.e., mixed), and 19 studies analyzed for-profit organizations. The breakdown for organizational size is 32 mixed, 2 large, 1 medium, and 1 medium and large, and the breakdown for the industry is 69 mixed, 2 retail, and finance, hospitality, law, STEM (i.e., Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), and veterinary one each.

Answers to Auxiliary Research Questions

Countries of Data Collection

Almost all of the 164 publications (n = 162) indicated the country or countries of data collection. If the countries of all studies are added together, the total number of countries is 214; however, if each country is counted once, there are only 43 different countries. Most studies collected their data within the United States (n = 133, 62%). Other countries with more than two studies are the United Kingdom (n = 10), Canada (n = 8), Germany (n = 6), Australia (n = 5), and the Netherlands (n = 3). Almost all studies were conducted in the global North, with the exception of two studies conducted in China, two studies conducted in Taiwan, and one study conducted in Thailand (for information about the classification, see Global North Countries, 2023).

Publication Outlets

The 164 publications were primarily published in journals (n = 127), all of which were peer-reviewed. However, they also contained 5 book chapters and 32 records of gray literature—all dissertations. The distribution for journal articles is more or less even across 80 different journals. The most frequent journal outlets include the Journal of Vocational Behavior (n = 9), Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity (n = 6), and the Journal of Homosexuality (n = 6). As Table 1 shows, the most common journals focus specifically on topics related to diversity, management, and psychology, but not communications. Only the journals—Journal of Business Communication and Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications, and Conflict— directly relate to communication studies.

Table 1.

Frequencies of Publications by Journal.

Journal	n
Journal of Vocational Behavior	9
Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity	6
Journal of Homosexuality	6
Equality Diversity and Inclusion	5
Journal of Applied Psychology	5
Journal of Career Assessment	5
Journal of Counseling Psychology	4
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal	4
Human Resource Management	3
Total	47

Note. Only journals with at least three publications are included.

Authors

A total of 410 authors, including 341 different authors, authored the 164 publications; however, only 15 authors account for at least 3 publications, while 326 were co-authors in fewer than 3 publications. P. Jiraporn, S. Treepongkaruna, and M. Hebl have authored the maximum amount of five publications. All five publications by P. Jiraporn and S. Treepongkaruna, however, were co-authored by these two scholars (Chintrakarn et al., 2020; Kyaw, Treepongkaruna, & Jiraporn, 2021; Kyaw, Chindasombatcharoen, et al., 2021; Kyaw et al., 2022; Padungsaksawasdi et al., 2023), while M. Hebl published within a research network consisting of 11 different co-authors (Corrington et al., 2019; Griffith & Hebl, 2002; Hebl et al., 2012; Law et al., 2011; Martinez et al., 2017). Regarding research networks, ten of the 15 authors with at least three publications have published jointly, indicating five collaborating research groups. These research groups, however, mostly work independently of each other, indicated by only two interlinking publications. Five of the 15 most published authors, however, are without a strong research group (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Authors’ networks.

LGBT+ Dimensions Over Time

Figure 3 demonstrates that the first quantitative study on employee communication regarding an LGBT+ dimension (i.e., lesbian) was published in 1982 (Schneider, 1982). Since then, the frequency of publications increased continuously over time, culminating in 24 publications in 2022. In 2023, already two records were published by mid-January.

Figure 3.

Frequency and linear trend of addressed LGBT+ dimensions over time.

Of the 164 publications, most addressed either both lesbian and gay orientations or only one of those orientations (i.e., LG; n = 54), followed by publications on LGBT+ which also include other sexual and gender minorities (n = 50). Publications focusing on non-heterosexual orientations in general were less frequent (i.e., LGB; n = 43). Publications on trans* identities (including non-binary, gender fluid etc.; n = 14) and bisexuality were rather infrequent (n = 3).

Figure 3 shows the development of addressed sexual orientations and gender identities in employee communication studies over time. Publications examining lesbian and gay (LG) orientations started in 1982 and have been fairly consistent in frequency over time. Research on only sexual minorities (i.e., LGB) started in 2002 and shows just a small increase in frequency over the years. The first quantitative research on LGBT+ was published in 2004. The frequency of publications regarding LGBT+ increased continuously over time resulting in a maximum of 10 publications in 2022. Furthermore, publications on trans* identities only began in 2011 with a peak of four publications in 2022. Bisexuality is a rather new research topic with the first study in 2013.

Employee Communication Forms

The 164 publications contained in total 23 different forms (with 340 observations) of employee communication; however, most forms were addressed in only a few publications (e.g., relationship among employees: n = 1, job application: n = 3, and intervention of bystanders: n = 4). The most common forms are disclosing one’s LGBT+ identity (n = 90), inclusive climate (n = 67), discrimination (n = 62), LGBT+ supportive policies (n = 52), and concealing one’s LGBT+ identity (n = 27).

The number of publications on most forms of communication increased noticeably over time, with only studies on concealment remaining relatively stable. Publications first addressed disclosure and discrimination, however, research on all other frequent forms began in 1996 (see Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Frequency and linear trend of addressed form of communication over time.

Methodological Approaches

Almost three-quarters of the 178 studies used surveys as a methodological approach (n = 130). Of these, three reported psychometric studies for scale development (Holman et al., 2019; Liddle et al., 2004; Rivero-Díaz et al., 2021) and two used longitudinal data (King et al., 2017; Williamson et al., 2017). The studies reported on experimental data and aggregated data from companies in 24 and 21 studies, respectively, while only 1 study each conducted meta-analyses, used physiological measures, or carried out randomized control studies.

Key Variables

All survey studies combined used a total of 949 variables as dependent, independent, or/and moderator/mediator variables. Of these variables 448 were classified as unique. Variables most often used to measure employee communication regarding LGBT+ were disclosure (n = 69), discrimination (n = 42), inclusive climate (n = 30), and concealment (n = 17). When excluding variables on forms of communication regarding sexual orientation and gender identity, and only using variables studied at least ten times, only six key variables remain. The most frequent variables were job satisfaction (n = 43), different forms of psychological well-being (n = 28), organizational commitment (n = 14), turnover intention (n = 12), internalized homophobia (n = 11), and life satisfaction (n = 11).

Experiments used a total of 163 variables, with 142 classified as unique. The manipulation of harassment’s target sexual orientation/gender identity in a vignette (n = 3) and disclosure (n = 3) were the most common variables related to LGBT+ employee communication. However, a single publication presented the three vignette studies (Mezzapelle & Reiman, 2021). When excluding communication forms and LGBT+ identities from the unique variables used, no clear key variables became apparent. The most frequently studied variables were state with anti-discriminating laws vs. state without anti-discriminating laws (n = 4) and hirability (n = 3).

Research on aggregated company data used a total of 114 variables—76 unique—as predictor, moderator/mediator, or outcome variables. All studies with aggregate company data (n = 21), used as a form of employee communication regarding LGBT+ the Corporate Equality Index (CEI) from the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, which measures LGBT+ equality in the workplace (for more information on the CEI, see Human Rights Campaign Foundation, 2023). When excluding employee communication and LGBT+, the most frequently examined variables were percent of female board directors (n = 6), existence of CSR activities (n = 5), and liberalism of CEO (n = 3), also indicating no key variables.

Key Theoretical Frameworks

All publications had an introductory and/or theoretical section. However, a search for the keywords theory, model, framework, and perspective in these sections revealed no clear theoretical framework in 32 publications (i.e., 20%). These publications rather presented empirical research findings than referring to established theories. However, the remaining publications reported 243 different theoretical frameworks, with eight theories referenced at least ten times (see Table 2). The three most prevalent theoretical frameworks were Development of LGBT Identity Model (n = 35), Minority Stress Theory (n = 26), and Stigma Theory (n = 18). All of them are LGBT+ specific and are independent of workplaces. They are also unrelated to communication, industrial/organizational psychology, or management. The Development of LGBT Identity Model encompasses a range of theories related to the development of various sexual and gender minority identities. The main authors of this approach were (a) Cass (1979, 1984), focusing on the development of gay identities, (b) McCarn and Fassinger (1996), focusing on the development of lesbian identities, and (c) Troiden (1989), focusing on the development of lesbian/gay identities. The Minority Stress Theory’s primary authors were Meyer (1995, 2003), Waldo (1999), and Brooks (1981). The main source for the Stigma Theory was Goffman (1963).

Table 2.

Frequencies of Key Theoretical Frameworks in Publications.

Theory	n	Sources referenced in publications
Development of LGBT identity model	35	Boccone (2016); Brown (1995); Budge (2014); Chapman and Brannock (1987); Coleman (1982, 1987); Cass (1979, 1984); DeMontflores and Schultz (1978); Devor (2004); Fassinger (1991, 1996); Fassinger and Miller (1996); Helms (1990); Klesse (2018); Lee (1977); Malyon (1982); McCam and Fassinger (1991); McDonald (1982); Minton and McDonald (1984); Mohr and Fassinger (2000); Ponse (1978); Sophie (1985/1986); Troiden (1979, 1989); n.r.
Minority stress theory	26	Brooks (1981); DiPlacido (1998); Holman (2018); Kimmel and Mahalik (2005); Lazarus and Folkman (1984); Meyer (1993, 1995, 2003, 2014); Waldo (1999)
Stigma theory	18	Beatty and Kirby (2006); Bohan (1996); Crocker et al. (1988); Dipboye et al. (in press); Goffman (1963, 1974); Hebl and Kleck (2002); Herek (1998); Jones et al. (1984); Ragins & Cornwell, 2001; n.r.
Social cognitive career theory	12	Astin (1984); Gottfredson (1981); Lent and Brown (2006, 2013); Lent et al. (1994, 2000); Lent and Hackett (1994); Lidderdale et al. (2007)
Workplace disclosure model	11	Bowen and Blackmon (2003); Button (2001); Chaudoir and Fisher (2010); Clair et el. (2005); Jones and King (2014); Mamman (1996); Ragins (2008); Ragins et al. (2007)
Workplace sexual identity management model	11	Griffin (1992); Lent et al. (1994); Lidderdale et al. (2007); Woods (1993); n.r.
Social identity theory	10	Ashforth and Mael (1989); Ellemers and Haslam (2012); Hall et al. (1970); Hogg and Abrams (1988, 1999); Hogg and Terry (2000); Miscenko and Day (2015); Tajfel (1972, 1974, 1978); Tajfel and Turner (1979, 1986); Turner et al. (1987); n.r.
Social cognitive theory	10	Bandura (1986, 1989, 1991, 1997, 2001, 2002)
Total	133

Note. Only theories referenced in at least 10 publications are included; theoretical frameworks with multiple references were counted only once per publication; comparable theoretical frameworks from different authors were combined into a single one; n.r. indicates that no reference was made.

Discussion

The present scoping review aimed to elucidate blind spots and provide guidance for future research in employee communication regarding LGBT+. For this purpose, we synthesized 164 publications reporting 178 quantitative studies regarding what has already been published in the field (e.g., country of data collection, publication outlets, authors, and key variables).

The majority of research has been conducted in the United States (62%). Diversity, management, and psychology journals published most of these research items (66%) and most authors authored less than three publications within this field (80%). Publications in the field of LGBT+ employee communication increased in recent years, making LGBT+ a hot topic in the current literature. However, only five forms of employee communication have been examined more than 25 times, namely disclosure, discrimination, inclusive culture, organizational policies, and concealment. Researchers predominantly used surveys as their empirical approach with job satisfaction, aspects of psychological well-being, or organizational commitment as key variables. The central theoretical frameworks regard LGBT+ identities . These theories are: Development of LGBT Identity Model, Minority Stress Theory, and Stigma Theory. The application of workplace theories is largely missing.

Previous research on employee communication has demonstrated that discrimination against LGBT+ employees negatively impacts their organizational commitment, job satisfaction (Button, 2001; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001), and psychological well-being (Velez et al., 2013). Thus, disclosing or concealing (i.e., actively hiding) one’s sexual or gender identity at the workplace—which is a further form of employee communication—is an essential but difficult decision. The present scoping review demonstrates that these forms of employee communication and their outcomes have been extensively studied, while other forms of employee communication have been neglected. Taken together, our findings point to several substantial blind spots in research on LGBT+ employee communication. To advance the research field, these blind spots need to be addressed. The following paragraphs provide guidance for future research based on the answers to our auxiliary research questions.

Countries of Data Collection

There are global differences in culture and laws for LGBT+ individuals (ILGA World, 2020), necessitating research beyond the United States. This applies in particular for the Global South. Comparing results from different countries could shed light on what cultural and economic factors are related to LGBT+ employee communication in general or specific to certain cultures/countries.

Publication Outlets

It is surprising that LGBT+ employee communication research is predominantly published in diversity, management, and psychology journals rather than in communication journals. Communication journals, especially those that focus on employees and the workplace, should address LGBT+ issues to enrich this body of research with theoretical frameworks, research designs, and research questions with an explicit focus on communication.

Authors

Most publications are single-authored. Furthermore, the five-author networks found were largely unrelated. However, strong and interconnected research groups are better able to develop multifaceted research ideas and use varying methodological approaches. Thus, to advance the field of LGBT+ employee communications, researchers should work together to pool their interests, ideas, and skills.

LGBT+ Dimensions

Most of the studies examined treated LGB(T+) employees as a homogenous group. However, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and employees identifying with other sexual or gender minorities have different needs and challenges in the workplace (Deloitte, 2023). For example, gay managers face different stereotypes than lesbian managers (Liberman & Golom, 2015), which might influence how they are treated in the workplace. Furthermore, intersectionality should be considered in future studies, as intersecting privileged and/or marginalized identities may shape different experiences in the workplace (Cech & Rothwell, 2020). For example, both their gender and their sexual orientation may subject lesbian and bisexual women to discrimination within the workplace. For trans* women, these experiences of discrimination might intersect with those based on a transgender identity. Therefore, researchers should study these individual and intersectional groups in order to uncover specific discrimination and/or communication needs (cf. Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016).

Forms of Employee Communication

Research to date has focused primarily on five forms of employee communication (i.e., disclosure, discrimination, inclusive culture, organizational policies, and concealment), while neglecting other forms of employee communication (e.g., LGBT+ support groups and internal and external employee activism/voice). For example, we could not locate a single publication in which employees communicate with others about LGBT+ issues concerning their organization (e.g., external employee activism). For research on LGBT+ employee communication to thrive, it needs to open up to new forms of employee communication.

Methodological Approaches

Since mostly cross-sectional surveys have been conducted, researchers should engage in longitudinal and experimental research. This could derive some assertions about temporal precedence (e.g., time-sampling via smartphones) or causality. Surveys often use variables that are easy to study because of the existence of pre-established scales (e.g., job satisfaction, psychological well-being, and organizational commitment). Meta-analyses could synthesize these results to corroborate previous findings. One good example is Webster et al.’s (2018) meta-analyses, which examined workplace support for LGBT+ employees. Finally, the use of less intervening quantitative methodological approaches (e.g., quantitative observations) might allow, for example, to minimize socially desirable responses or uncover related aspects.

Key Variables

Surveys focused on only a few predictor and outcome variables (i.e., job satisfaction and well-being). Thus, scholars should use other predicting and outcome variables to advance future research. For example, research to date often lacks data on the type, size, or industry of the organization. However, communication within the organization depends on the number of employees communicating with each other (González-Cruz et al., 2020) and the type of organization (Suh & Battaglio, 2022). Thus, these variables could also affect employee communication regarding LGBT+ and warrant closer examination.

Key Theoretical Frameworks

The key theories within this field relate to LGBT+ identities rather than to communication and the workplace. However, communication theories also require further theoretical development in the area of (sexual and gender) minorities. Only Bandura’s (1986) Social Cognitive Theory—which is often used in communication studies—received ten references. Yet, applying additional theories regularly used in communication studies to the field of LGBT+ employee communication could be fruitful. Table 3 provides an overview of the discussed results, including guidance for future research.

Table 3.

Overview of Results, Interpretation, and Guidance for Future Research.

Auxiliary research questions	Findings	Interpretation and guidance for future research
In which countries are data on LGBT+ employee communication collected?	United States (n = 133)Other (n = 29)Missing information (n = 2)	The vast majority of studies was conducted in the United States; however, legislation and cultural background might differ globally. Thus, studies should be conducted outside the United States to shed light on cultural and economic differences in LGBT+ employee communication.
Which publication outlets are used for publishing studies on LGBT+ communication?	Journal articles (n = 127, including only two journals on communication)*Journal of Vocational Behavior (n = 9)*Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity (n = 6)*Journal of Homosexuality (n = 6)Book chapters (n = 5)Dissertations (n = 32)	Most of the publications were found in journals. The journals’ foci were mostly on diversity, management, and psychology. Thus, journals on communication at the workplace should address LGBT+ issues.
Which authors are the most prominent in the area of LGBT+ employee communication?	P. Jiraporn (n = 5)S. Treepongkaruna (n = 5)M. Hebl (n = 5)Three or more publications: 15 authorsLess than three publications: 326 authorsFive mostly non-connected research groups	Most authors published only a few records independent of other authors. Thus, to promote quantitative research on LGBT+ employee communication, strong and interconnected research groups should be established.
Which LGBT+ dimensions are studied in employee communication over time?	L, G, or LG (n = 54)LGBT+ (n = 50)LGB (n = 43)Trans* (n = 14)Bisexuality (n = 3)First publication on L in 1982Publications on LGB, LGBT+, and trans* increased over time	The different LGB(T+) dimensions were rather studied together than separately. This implies that LGBT+ employees are seen as a homogenous group; however, needs and challenges could differ within those dimensions. Additionally, further demographics (e.g., gender and race) could also influence these needs and challenges. Thus, the dimensions should be examined individually, while also addressing intersectionality.
Which forms of employee communication are studied over time in research on LGBT+ employee communication?	disclosing (n = 90)inclusive climate (n = 67)discrimination (n = 62)LGBT+ supportive policies (n = 52)concealing (n = 27)23 different formsAll increasing over time	Although a total of 23 different forms of employee communication was found in the publications, most focused on only five different forms. Thus, less researched forms of employee communication should also be examined.
Which methodological approaches are used in LGBT+ employee communication?	Survey (n = 130, including two longitudinal)Experiment (n = 24)Aggregated data from companies (Corporate Equality Index, n = 21)Meta-analyses (n = 1)Physiological measures (n = 1)Randomized control studies (n = 1)	The vast majority of studies used cross-sectional surveys. Thus, experiments, longitudinal research, meta-analyses, and quantitative observations are required.
Which key variables are used in LGBT+ employee communication research?	Employee communication:Disclosure (n = 69)Discrimination (n = 42)Inclusive climate (n = 30)Aside from LGBT+ and employee communication items:Job satisfaction (n = 43)Psychological well-being (n = 28)	So far, only a handful of key variables were used in survey research. Thus, further predictor, outcome, and mediating variables should be explored.
Which key theoretical frameworks are used in LGBT+ employee communication research?	Development of LGBT Identity Model (n = 35)Minority Stress Theory (n = 26)Stigma Theory (n = 18)	The key theoretical frameworks reported are LGBT+ specific without relating to theories in the field of communication. Thus, communication theories should be further developed including (LGBT+) minorities.

Note. The basis are 164 publications, 341 authors’ names, 340 observations of communication forms, 178 studies, 448 variables in surveys, and 243 theoretical frameworks.

The limitations of the present scoping review concern the full texts that could not be retrieved, the language restrictions, the search strategy for the theoretical frameworks, and the restriction to quantitative research. We could not find 14 full texts, thus we did not include their information in the study’s analyses. However, our scoping review examined a large database of 164 full texts reporting on 178 studies, which allows to answer the research questions and provide guidance for future research.

The restriction of coding only English or German language records could influence the results and thus the uncovered blind spot regarding studied countries. The international databases used, however, require English versions of titles and abstracts in addition to non-English ones. Nevertheless, our search yielded only 11 records in other languages, so our interpretation of the results should remain unaffected.

Searching for keywords in the introduction and in the theoretical sections of the full texts provides only a rough overview of key theoretical frameworks. Reading through each full text in detail for theoretical frameworks, however, is beyond the scope of the present study. This would require a finer-grained analysis than typically conducted within a scoping review. The chosen search strategy, however, allows to identify the main theoretical frameworks used.

This review examined quantitative research on LGBT+ employee communication. Thus, our uncovered blind spot regarding missing author networks could be biased. A network analysis of authors of theoretical, qualitative, and quantitative research could address this limitation. Furthermore, future scoping reviews examining qualitative research could provide a more holistic perspective on the interplay of different forms of communication.

Conclusion

LGBT+ employee communication is an emerging topic, which should be addressed by communication scholars through multifaceted approaches. This would broaden the empirical and theoretical foundation and help improve communication practice, thereby benefiting organizations and society as a whole. Scrutinizing the blind spots uncovered would improve the theoretical knowledge of the field, initiate further research, and inform communication practice. With a broad knowledge of LGBT+ employee communication, HR and communication practitioners can better address the specific communication needs of LGBT+ employees which fosters a safe work environment. A climate of inclusion and openness promotes job satisfaction (Jiang et al., 2019; Punnakitikashem et al., 2019; Tatum, 2018) and thus benefits LGBT+ employees and organizations. Organization’s LGBT+ initiatives could attract the younger generation in particular, who are more attentive to workplaces that offer an LGBT+ inclusive climate (Deloitte, 2023). Furthermore, heterosexual and cis-gendered employees could also benefit from such a save working climate. As employees also take their experiences at work home with them, this can also lead to greater openness and integration outside the workplace. This would increase the general acceptance of LGBT+ people and thus have a positive impact on society.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-job-10.1177_23294884241255620 – Supplemental material for Blind Spots in Employee Communication Research Regarding LGBT+ and Guidance for Future Research: A Scoping Review of Quantitative Research

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-job-10.1177_23294884241255620 for Blind Spots in Employee Communication Research Regarding LGBT+ and Guidance for Future Research: A Scoping Review of Quantitative Research by Ingrid Wahl, Magdalena Siegel and Sabine Einwiller in International Journal of Business Communication

Footnotes

Author Note

We declare that this manuscript is original and that is not under consideration or published elsewhere.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Ingrid Wahl

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Ingrid Wahl is a senior researcher in the Corporate Communication Research Group at the Department of Communication at the University of Vienna. Among her research interests are internal communication, cooperation in social dilemmas, work psychology, diversity, distance learning, and teleworking.

Magdalena Siegel is an early career researcher at the Clinical Child Psychology Research Group at the Faculty of Psychology at the University of Vienna. Her research is concerned with structural and individual determinants of sexual and gender minority health and relationships, with a focus on applying research synthesis methods and meta science.

Sabine Einwiller is the Professor of Public Relations Research at the University of Vienna, Austria, Department of Communication where she heads the Corporate Communication Research Group. Her main research areas comprise employee communication, CSR communication, corporate reputation management, and the effects of negative publicity and complaining.

References

Anteby

Anderson

(2014). The shifting landscape of LGBT organizational research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2014.08.001

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.

Bettinsoli

M. L.

Suppes

Napier

J. L.

(2020). Predictors of attitudes toward gay men and lesbian women in 23 countries. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(5), 697–708. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619887785

Bramer

W. M.

Giustini

de Jonge

G. B.

Holland

Bekhuis

(2016). De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 104(3), 240–243. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2016.24

Brooks

V. R.

(1981). Minority stress and lesbian women. Lexington Books.

Button

S. B.

(2001). Organizational efforts to affirm sexual diversity: A cross-level examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.17

Cass

V. C.

(1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality, 4(3), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v04n03_01

Cass

V. C.

(1984). Homosexual identity formation: Testing a theoretical model. The Journal of Sex Research, 20(2), 143–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498409551214

Cech

E. A.

Rothwell

W. R.

(2020). LGBT workplace inequality in the federal workforce: Intersectional processes, organizational contexts, and turnover considerations. ILR Review, 73(1), 25–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793919843508

10.

Chintrakarn

Treepongkaruna

Jiraporn

Lee

S. M.

(2020). Do LGBT-supportive corporate policies improve credit ratings? An instrumental-variable analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 162, 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4009-9

11.

Chory

R. M.

Mainiero

Horan

S. M.

(2022). Workplace romance and career reputation effects across industries. International Journal of Business Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884221100800

12.

Ciszek

(2016). A corporate coming out: Crisis communication and engagement with LGBT publics. Case Studies in Strategic Communication, 5(1), 72–98. https://cssc-ojs-utexas.tdl.org/cssc/article/view/155

13.

Corrington

Nittrouer

C. L.

Trump-Steele

R. C. E.

Hebl

(2019). Letting him B: A study on the intersection of gender and sexual orientation in the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 113, 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.10.005

14.

Deloitte. (2023). Deloitte Global 2023 LGBT+ Inclusion @ Work. Deloitte. https://www.deloitte.com/global/en/issues/work/content/lgbt-at-work.html

15.

Dhanani

L. Y.

Totton

R. R.

Hall

T. K.

Pham

C. T.

(2024). Visible but hidden: An intersectional examination of identity management among sexual minority employees. Journal of Management, 50(3), 949–978. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063221121787

16.

Eger

E. K.

(2021). Co-constructing organizational identity and culture with those we serve: An ethnography of a transgender nonprofit organization communicating family identity and identification. International Journal of Business Communication, 58(2), 254–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488419893738

17.

Einwiller

Sackmann

S. A.

Zerfaß

(Eds.). (2021a). Handbuch Mitarbeiterkommunikation: Interne Kommunikation in Unternehmen [Handbook employee communication: Internal communication in organizations]. Springer Gabler.

18.

Einwiller

Sackmann

S. A.

Zerfaß

(2021b). Mitarbeiterkommunikation: Gegenstand, Bereiche und Entwicklungen [Employee communication: Subject, areas and developments]. In Einwiller

Sackmann

Zerfaß

(Hrsg.), Handbuch Mitarbeiterkommunikation: Interne Kommunikation in Unternehmen [Handbook employee communication: Internal communication in companies] (S. 3–26). Springer Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-23152-1_1

19.

Else-Quest

N. M.

Hyde

J. S.

(2016). Intersectionality in quantitative psychological research: II. Methods and techniques. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(3), 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316647953

20.

FRA - European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2020). EU-LGBTI II: A long way to go for LGBTI equality. https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2020-lgbti-equality-1_en.pdf

21.

Gallup. (2023). LGBTQ+ rights. Retrieved September 29, 2023, from https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/Gay-Lesbian-Rights.aspx

22.

Global North Countries. (2023). Retrieved August 8, 2023, from https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/global-north-countries

23.

Goffman

(1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Simon and Schuster.

24.

González-Cruz

T. F.

Botella-Carrubi

Martínez-Fuentes

C. M.

(2020). The effect of firm complexity and founding team size on agile internal communication in startups. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 16(3), 1101–1121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00633-1

25.

Griffith

K. H.

Hebl

M. R.

(2002). The disclosure dilemma for gay men and lesbians: “Coming out” at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1191–1199. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1191

26.

Hebl

M. R.

Tonidandel

Ruggs

E. N.

(2012). The impact of like-mentors for gay/lesbian employees. Human Performance, 25(1), 52–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2011.631645

27.

Holman

E. G.

Fish

J. N.

Oswald

R. F.

Goldberg

(2019). Reconsidering the LGBT Climate Inventory: Understanding support and hostility for LGBTQ employees in the workplace. Journal of Career Assessment, 27(3), 544–559. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072718788324

28.

Horan

S. M.

Chory

R. M.

(2013). Relational implications of gay and lesbian workplace romances: Understanding trust, deception, and credibility. The Journal of Business Communication, 50(2), 170–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943612474993

29.

Human Rights Campaign Foundation. (2022). Corporate equality index 2022: Rating workplaces on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer equality. https://reports.hrc.org/corporate-equality-index-2022?_ga=2.207374288.292149664.1669718333-1893847428.1669718333

30.

Human Rights Campaign Foundation. (2023). The 2022 Corporate Equality Index. Retrieved August, 2023, from https://www.hrc.org/resources/corporate-equality-index

31.

ILGA World. (2020). State-sponsored homophobia: Global legislation overview update. https://ilga.org/downloads/ILGA_World_State_Sponsored_Homophobia_report_global_legislation_overview_update_December_2020.pdf

32.

Ipsos. (2021). LGBT+ pride 2021 global survey: A 27-country Ipsos survey. https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2021-06/LGBT%20Pride%202021%20Global%20Survey%20Report_6.pdf

33.

Jiang

Wang

(2019). Open workplace climate and LGB employees’ psychological experiences: The roles of self-concealment and self-acceptance. Journal of Employment Counseling, 56(1), 2–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/joec.12099

34.

King

E. B.

Mohr

J. J.

Peddie

C. I.

Jones

K. P.

Kendra

(2017). Predictors of identity management: An exploratory experience-sampling study of lesbian, gay, and bisexual workers. Journal of Management, 43(2), 476–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314539350

35.

Kyaw

Chindasombatcharoen

Jiraporn

Treepongkaruna

(2021). Do co-opted boards strategically choose LGBT-supportive policies? International Review of Financial Analysis, 73, 101651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2020.101651

36.

Kyaw

Treepongkaruna

Jiraporn

(2021). Stakeholder engagement and firms’ innovation: Evidence from LGBT-supportive policies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(4), 1285–1298. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2150

37.

Kyaw

Treepongkaruna

Jiraporn

Padungsaksawasdi

(2022). Does board gender diversity improve the welfare of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender employees? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(1), 200–210. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2196

38.

Law

C. L.

Martinez

L. R.

Ruggs

E. N.

Hebl

M. R.

Akers

(2011). Trans-parency in the workplace: How the experiences of transsexual employees can be improved. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(3), 710–723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.03.018

39.

Lee

J. G. L.

Ylioja

Lackey

(2016). Identifying lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender search terminology: A systematic review of health systematic reviews. PLoS ONE, 11(5), e0156210. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156210

40.

Liberman

B. E.

Golom

F. D.

(2015). Think manager, think male? Heterosexuals’ stereotypes of gay and lesbian managers. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 34(7), 566–578. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-01-2015-0005

41.

Liddle

B. J.

Luzzo

D. A.

Hauenstein

A. L.

Schuck

(2004). Construction and validation of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered climate inventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 12(1), 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072703257722

42.

Maji

Yadav

Gupta

(2024). LGBTQ+ in workplace: A systematic review and reconsideration. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 43(2), 313–360. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-02-2022-0049

43.

Mara

L.-C.

Ginieis

Brunet-Icart

(2021). Strategies for coping with LGBT discrimination at work: A systematic literature review. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 18(2), 339–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-020-00462-w

44.

Martinez

L. R.

Hebl

M. R.

Smith

N. A.

Sabat

I. E.

(2017). Standing up and speaking out against prejudice toward gay men in the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 103, 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.08.001

45.

Mayfield

Walker

(2021). Leader communication and follower identity: How leader motivating language shapes organizational identification through cultural knowledge and fit. International Journal of Business Communication, 58(2), 221–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488420979285

46.

McCarn

S. R.

Fassinger

R. E.

(1996). Revisioning sexual minority identity formation: A new model of lesbian identity and its implications for counseling and research. The Counseling Psychologist, 24(3), 508–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000096243011

47.

McCarthy

(2023). Majority worldwide now say their area is good for gay people. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/507518/majority-worldwide-say-area-good-gay-people.aspx

48.

McKinsey & Company. (2020). How the LGBTQ+ community fares in the workplace. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/how-the-lgbtq-plus-community-fares-in-the-workplace#download/%2F~%2Fmedia%2Fmckinsey%2Ffeatured%20insights%2Fdiversity%20and%20inclusion%2Fhow%20the%20lgbtq%20plus%20community%20fares%20in%20the%20workplace%2Fhow-the-lgbtq-community-fares-in-the-workplace-v4.pdf%3FshouldIndex%3Dfalse

49.

Men

L. R.

Tkalac Verčič

(Hrsg.). (2021). Current trends and issues in internal communication: Theory and practice. Palgrave Macmillan. https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-78213-9

50.

Meyer

I. H.

(1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36(1), 38–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/2137286

51.

Meyer

I. H.

(2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674

52.

Mezzapelle

J. L.

Reiman

A.-K.

(2021). How do people perceive sexual harassment targeting transgender women, lesbians, and straight cisgender women? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 28(3), 644–660. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000361

53.

Minei

E. M.

Hastings

S. O.

Warren

(2023). LGBTQ+ sensemaking: The mental load of identifying workplace allies. International Journal of Business Communication, 60(3), 823–843. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488420965667

54.

Munn

Peters

M. D. J.

Stern

Tufanaru

McArthur

Aromataris

(2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

55.

Pachankis

J. E.

(2007). The psychological implications of concealing a stigma: A cognitive-affective-behavioral model. Psychological Bulletin, 133(2), 328–345. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.2.328

56.

Pachankis

J. E.

Bränström

(2019). How many sexual minorities are hidden? Projecting the size of the global closet with implications for policy and public health. PLoS ONE, 14(6), e0218084. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218084

57.

Padungsaksawasdi

Treepongkaruna

Jiraporn

(2023). LGBT-supportive corporate policies, risk aversion and mitigation and economic policy uncertainty. Review of Behavioral Finance, 15(2), 240–256. https://doi.org/10.1108/RBF-10-2021-0211

58.

Page

M. J.

McKenzie

J. E.

Bossuyt

P. M.

Boutron

Hoffmann

T. C.

Mulrow

C. D.

Shamseer

Tetzlaff

J. M.

Akl

E. A.

Brennan

S. E.

Chou

Glanville

Grimshaw

J. M.

Hróbjartsson

Lalu

M. M.

Loder

E. W.

Mayo-Wilson

McDonald

. . . Moher

(2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

59.

Perales

(2022). Improving the wellbeing of LGBTQ+ employees: Do workplace diversity training and ally networks make a difference? Preventive Medicine, 161, 107113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107113

60.

Punnakitikashem

Maimun

Rakthin

(2019). Supportive factors of job and life satisfaction: Empirical evidence from disclosed lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) workforce in Thailand. Journal of Management and Organization, 25(5), 711–730. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2017.32

61.

Ragins

B. R.

Cornwell

J. M.

(2001). Pink triangles: Antecedents and consequences of perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1244–1261. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1244

62.

Reed

Leuty

M. E.

(2016). The role of individual differences and situational variables in the use of workplace sexual identity management strategies. Journal of Homosexuality, 63(7), 985–1017. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2015.1117900

63.

Rice

(2022, August 17). Rainbow-washing [SSRN Scholarly Paper]. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4193059

64.

Rivero-Díaz

M. L.

Agulló-Tomás

Llosa

J. A.

(2021). Adaptation and validation of the LGBTCI to the Spanish LGBT working population. Journal of Career Assessment, 29(3), 422–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072720982339

65.

Sarno

E. L.

Newcomb

M. E.

Feinstein

B. A.

Mustanski

(2020). Bisexual men’s experiences with discrimination, internalized binegativity, and identity affirmation: Differences by partner gender. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(5), 1783–1798. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01712-z

66.

Schneider

B. E.

(1982). Consciousness about sexual harassment among heterosexual and lesbian women workers. Journal of Social Issues, 38(4), 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1982.tb01911.x

67.

Siegel

Legler

Neziraj

Goldberg

A. E.

Zemp

(2022). Minority stress and positive identity aspects in members of LGBTQ+ parent families: Literature review and a study protocol for a mixed-methods evidence synthesis. Children, 9(9), 1364. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9091364

68.

Shamseer

Moher

Clarke

Ghersi

Liberati

Petticrew

Shekelle

Stewart

L. A.

& the PRISMA-P Group. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and explanation. BMJ, 349, g7647. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647

69.

Špoljarić

Tkalac Verčič

(2022). Internal communication satisfaction and employee engagement as determinants of the employer brand. Journal of Communication Management, 26(1), 130–148. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-01-2021-0011

70.

Statistic Canada. (2021). A statistical portrait of Canada’s diverse LGBTQ2+ communities. The Daily. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/daily-quotidien/210615/dq210615a-eng.pdf?st=ifw-Bq7-

71.

Suh

Battaglio

(2022). Assessing the mediating effect of internal communication on strategic human resource management and perceived performance: An intersectoral comparison. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 42(3), 464–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X21994185

72.

Tatum

A. K.

(2018). Workplace climate and satisfaction in sexual minority populations: An application of social cognitive career theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65(5), 618–628. (2018-30918-001). https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000292

73.

Tatum

A. K.

Formica

L. J.

Brown

S. D.

(2017). Testing a social cognitive model of workplace sexual identity management. Journal of Career Assessment, 25(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072716659712

74.

Thorson

A. R.

McBride

M. C.

(2023). Self-monitoring and other non-indicators of developing a work–spouse relationship: Implications for affective organizational commitment. International Journal of Business Communication, 60(3), 1000–1020. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488420977893

75.

Tindall

N. T. J.

Waters

R. D.

(Hrsg.). (2013). Coming out of the closet: Exploring LGBT issues in strategic communication with theory and research. Peter Lang. https://repository.usfca.edu/read_books/16

76.

Tkalac Verčič

(2021). The impact of employee engagement, organisational support and employer branding on internal communication satisfaction. Public Relations Review, 47(1), 102009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102009

77.

Tkalac Verčič

Galić

Žnidar

(2023). The relationship of internal communication satisfaction with employee engagement and employer attractiveness: Testing the joint mediating effect of the social exchange quality indicators. International Journal of Business Communication, 60(4), 1313–1340. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884211053839

78.

Tricco

A. C.

Lillie

Zarin

O’Brien

K. K.

Colquhoun

Levac

Moher

Peters

M. D.

Horsley

Weeks

. . . Straus

S. E.

(2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

79.

Troiden

R. R.

(1989). The formation of homosexual identities. Journal of Homosexuality, 17(1–2), 43–74. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v17n01_02

80.

Velez

B. L.

Moradi

Brewster

M. E.

(2013). Testing the tenets of minority stress theory in workplace contexts. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 532–542. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033346

81.

Waldo

C. R.

(1999). Working in a majority context: A structural model of heterosexism as minority stress in the workplace. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 218–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.46.2.218

82.

Waters

R. D.

(2013). Harassment in the workplace. Violence, ambivalence, and derision experienced by LGBT strategic communicators. In Tindall

N. T. J.

Waters

R. D.

(Hrsg.), Coming out of the closet: Exploring LGBT issues in strategic communication with theory and research (pp. 7–23). Peter Lang.

83.

Webster

J. R.

Adams

G. A.

Maranto

C. L.

Sawyer

Thoroughgood

(2018). Workplace contextual supports for LGBT employees: A review, meta-analysis, and agenda for future research. Human Resource Management, 57(1), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21873

84.

The Williams Institute (2021). LGBT people’s experiences of workplace discrimination and harassment. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Workplace-Discrimination-Sep-2021.pdf

85.

Williamson

R. L.

Beiler-May

Locklear

L. R.

Clark

M. A.

(2017). Bringing home what I′m hiding at work: The impact of sexual orientation disclosure at work for same-sex couples. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 103, 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.08.005

86.

Yue

C. A.

Men

L. R.

Ferguson

M. A.

(2021). Examining the effects of internal communication and emotional culture on employees’ organizational identification. International Journal of Business Communication, 58(2), 169–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488420914066

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.

0.00 MB

0.08 MB