Personal Revelation and Conflict in Organizational Settings: The Gay Individual as Social Perceiver of Power and Safety.
Abstract
This paper models the process by which individuals make decisions to reveal intimate details about themselves in the workplace. Specifically, I have outlined an approach to understanding and explaining how gay people make sense of the world around them, particularly with respect to coming out decisions in a range of organizational contexts, and how those around them respond to their coming out. This sense-making process is dominated by an analysis of the perceived power dynamics and conflicting relationships among actors in which the person deciding to reveal (self-revealer) processes available information to determine the possibility of being hurt by revealing either in that setting or in some context causally linked to that setting.
Personal Revelation and Conflict in Organizational Settings:
The Gay Individual as Social Perceiver of Power and Safety
"The current western concept of a gay man or a lesbian-a person who is fundamentally different in whom he or she loves, but in no other way-is a social construction." The Economist, January 6, 1996
All creatures, in some way, draw upon information from the world around them in order to respond appropriately and effectively. The individual in a social context is at virtually all times involved in some type of information processing. This is true whether the person is forming an impression of a new business colleague, attending class, shopping at the mall, flirting with someone, entering a crowded elevator, or conversing with a stranger. For all human beings, innate instinct alone is not sufficient for survival; social interaction requires some amount of self-conscious intentional efforts at cognitive processing which help the individual assess and explain his/her world (; Weick, 1995). This cognitive processing is an essential element of maintaining safety in a world in which, at any given moment, there may well be others present with potential power to harm the social perceiver. Thus, much of the processing becomes a self-preservation analysis of the power dynamics and conflicting relationships among actors within or connected to the social setting.
There are many avenues through which information comes to the individual. I have tried to outline general themes in the processes by which gay employees and their coworkers analyze and make sense of their surroundings and interactions.
Ever since the conceptualization of a "homosexual identity" in the late 19th century (Katz, 1995), bringing forth the "idea that homosexuals constitute a 'people' set apart from the society they live among , self-revelation for gay people has been an issue. As homosexuality has moved along a spectrum from sin to crime to illness to lifestyle, its visibility has always been a significant factor in social reactions to it (D'Emilio and Freedman, 1988). With changing views of being gay, attitudes toward being visible have changed dramatically. Revealing that you are gay, especially to others who are not gay is now seen by many as psychologically beneficial to the individual gay person (U.S. News & World Report, October 2, 1995). Being out, whether viewed positively or negatively, takes on enormous significance, both for the individual and the group.
I have tried to figure out a general personal revelation decision-making model that employees (and individuals in general in their life) use to interpret social situations and to make decisions about self-revelation and visibility in organizational contexts. For example, in a world where gay people often confront hostility and abuse, how is it then that they make decisions about their own visibility as gay people? First, I have provided an overview of the underpinnings of the gay person's worldview in the organizational context, focusing particularly on safety, and power concerns in a world generally perceived to be hostile ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
I have tried to figure out a general personal revelation decision-making model that employees (and individuals in general in their life) use to interpret social situations and to make decisions about self-revelation and visibility in organizational contexts. For example, in a world where gay people often confront hostility and abuse, how is it then that they make decisions about their own visibility as gay people? First, I have provided an overview of the underpinnings of the gay person's worldview in the organizational context, focusing particularly on safety, and power concerns in a world generally perceived to be hostile to gay people. I then present a research study of gay and lesbians in the workplace from which I have developed this model of self-revelation.
Self-Revelation in Organizations: Reasons for Revealing
"The fact that I'm gay doesn't hinder my on-the-job performance, so why conceal it anyway." Fahad (ex-student of FAST-NU)
People reveal information about themselves (sexual orientation, religious/political preferences, past experiences) for a number of reasons. Some individuals have a predisposition or a tendency to reveal and are, by nature, disclosers. This personality characteristic has been identified in individuals who have a tendency to self-disclose. The main questions, however, is: When do people disclose? How do people disclose? And why do people disclose. Derlaga (1984) suggests that individuals reveal information about themselves to increase intimacy and to influence the communication process. I have built on their model by examining the decision to self-disclose for gay individuals in the workplace.
Another reason people self-disclose (or choose not to) beyond the natural tendency and desire for intimacy, is to fit with the environment. This can be done for instrumental reasons, such as noted in the impression management literature, or in response to social norms. Ginzel, et al. (1993) suggests that when an organization faces threatening or stigmatizing events, the leaders attempt to manage the impressions of their "audience." In the same way, individuals with stigmatized identities will manage others' impressions of them based on their audience's expectations. In a later section, I have discussed the audience and situation in which the employee chooses to come out - if it is an audience that expects gayness or that rewards heterosexism - and how they influence the self-revelation decision and the audience reaction.
Finally, individuals may choose to reveal to have a consistent sense of self in their work and life realms. Theories of work/life balance suggest that a consistent identity across the various realms of one's life enhance satisfaction and well-being (Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992). In addition, research on work/life conflict illustrates that employees whose roles are similar in the workplace and in their personal life have less internal conflict. Psychologists suggest that ones' identity as a lesbian, gay, or bisexual is important to their work as well as other aspects of their life (D'Augelli & Patterson, 1995). Given the above, I believe that gay individuals will often be motivated to come out to promote a consistent sense of self and well-being.
Reasons to Not Reveal: Stigmas and Safety
"When I step out the room, I can hear chuckles at my back - it's sick. Right now I'm at and entry level position in my software house but I'm afraid, if the time comes, they (senior management) will prefer a straight, with same level of abilities, over me."
Despite the pressure to be "out," there are important, concrete reasons for people to remain invisible, to not self-reveal personal information. For example, gay people who are out bear the social stigma for themselves. Many individuals do not have the confidence or desire to be labeled in public when such consequences are involved
Gay people have experienced a long history of oppression as have others who reveal socially unacceptable characteristics of themselves such as mental illness or spouse abuse (e.g., D'Emilio, 1983; D'Emilio and Freedman, 1988). Lynching and gay bashing are today still prevalent. Studies still demonstrate high rates of societal disapproval of homosexuality (National Opinion Research Center, 1988) and, more specifically, organizational disapproval of homosexuality. Numerous personal accounts written by gay people present tales of hostility and abuse directed at people because they are gay (D'Emilio, 1992).
Gay people who do come out are subject to a host of discriminatory practices, including losing their jobs, being evicted from their homes, and receiving poor or inadequate social attention
In addition to workplace, legal, and social discrimination, gay people are confronted with the omnipresent threat of physical violence simply because they are gay. Gay men have often been harassed and brutalized by their relatives, co-workers, and schoolmates. The physical threats that gay people face are directly linked to visibility; staying in the closet is reinforced by both individual assaults and larger social forces. In a range of social contexts, from jobs to schools to families to the streets, gay people have justifiable fears of organizational discrimination, and physical violence.
Given an overwhelmingly hostile environment imbued with the power to act on that hostility, we can view gay peoples' visibility decision-making patterns characterized by two assumptions about the environment: (1) people often discriminate against individuals who reveal that they are gay (stigma), (2) gays who feel that revealing their homosexuality might hurt them or cause conflict in their work group are less likely to come out (safety).
Considerations for Self Revelation
After my discussions with gay individuals in Pakistan (though most of them were reluctant to share their ideas, except two of them) I have come to conclude that they consider two factors before making a decision of self revelation:
. Relative power of the receiver of information
2. Consequences in the work environment
Relative Power of the Receiver of Information
The more power the others have or the greater potential for impeding goal attainment, the more likely it is that the gay person will remain closeted. In this regard, gay person thinks in terms of assessing three variables.
Compatibility of Receiver of Information with Self-Revealer's Values
If the behavior of recipient of information is supportive the gay person is more likely to reveal his self.
Self-Revealer's Goals
If the primary is safety, the self-revealer will be less likely to reveal than if the primary goal is personal integrity or minimizing the physical and psychological effort that not-revealing or hiding requires.
Interaction Time
For the self-revealer in an organizational context, time is a crucial component of the power analysis. When a lengthy relationship/interaction is expected, the decision-maker will be more likely to reveal if the receiver is not dangerous or linked to dangerous others who may cause conflict and harm.
Consequences
If deciding to reveal improves interpersonal relationships this would indicate to most that it was the right decision. If, however, revealing brings harm (e.g., physical, financial, emotional), then some might argue that for that context, it was the wrong decision. Choosing not to reveal can also be a right or wrong decision, depending on the outcome and the decision-makers feelings and goals. If being closeted means that you remain safe from harm, then it may be classified as the right decision. If, instead, it forces you to expend great time and energy to remain invisible then it may be evaluated as a wrong decision.
The consequences, or cost, of coming out or staying closeted both involve the potential for conflict. As noted, many gay employees ideally would like to have a single identity of being gay, but don't feel comfortable in their current work environment. They may suffer internal conflict by staying closeted.
If the employee has assumed that the audience they are coming out to are compatible but are actually incorrect, there are many potential negative repercussions. If the receiver of the information has known the gay employee for a long time as a "heterosexual," they may feel betrayed and trust issues can be affected. This can increase conflict within the work environment. In addition, if the employee assumed that the receiver of the information was trustworthy and would hold their secret and this assumption is false, i.e., the receiver tells someone in power, betrayal, distrust, and conflict will ensue.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
In this paper, I have attempted to provide a model explaining how individuals make decisions about self-revelation in different organizational contexts. However, there is a need for more theory and research on the effects of the decision to reveal in organizations. This paper is a call for more examination and consideration of the lives of stigmatized people in organizational settings. Much has been written about employment policies that affect issues pertaining to discrimination on different basis. Significantly less, however, has been written about the daily lives and on-going decisions which confront all gay people within organizations which presume heterosexuality.
The assumptions of the model need to be assessed before we can adopt it with any level of confidence. Sexual orientation, alcoholism, and other stigmas in our society are often viewed as "sensitive issues" -- issues which people may be unwilling to discuss because of the threat of embarrassment, ridicule, or discrimination. A series of in-depth interviews with lesbian and gay people in organizational contexts is an appropriate starting point to test the model.
The model may also help guide those who set organizational policy to develop an environment where stigmatized people's safety concerns are minimized people can put less energy into concealing their identities and more energy into fully engaging in the organization and in the broader society at large.
REFERENCES
Weick, Karl E. 1995. The collapse of sense making in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38:628-652.
Katz, Jonathan. 1995. The Invention of Heterosexuality. New York: Dutton.
D'Emilio, John, & Estelle Freedman. 1988. Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America. New York: Harper & Row.
D'Emilio, John. 1983. Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of the Homosexual Minority in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
D'Emilio, John. 1992. Making Trouble: Essays on Gay History, Politics, and the University. New York: Routledge.
KAREN A. JEHN, & MARC L. OSTFIELD. 1998. Personal Revelation and Conflict in Organizational Settings
2
