Background: Despite progress in global campaigns supporting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex, asexual, and other (+) (LGBTQIA+) rights, many LGBTQIA+ employees continue to face discrimination, harassment and violence, especially in countries where same-sex relationships remain criminalised. In South Africa, although legal protections exist, societal and workplace challenges persist, particularly in industries such as telecommunications.

Objectives: This study explored the lived workplace experiences of LGBTQIA+ employees in South African telecommunications companies, examining how organisational culture shaped inclusion and whether diversity and inclusion initiatives effectively supported them.

Methods: A mixed-methods approach, grounded in queer theory and institutional theory, was used. Phase one involved reflective diaries with participants, followed by in-depth interviews. Phase two employed thematic analysis to identify patterns in participant experiences.

Results: Findings revealed ongoing challenges, including discrimination, harassment and limited organisational support. Some participants resigned as a coping mechanism. Trust and psychological safety were significant. The industry’s reluctance to engage in the research also highlighted broader issues of openness and inclusion.

Conclusion: The study provides empirical insights into the experiences of LGBTQIA+ employees in South Africa, highlighting systemic barriers to inclusion and organisational challenges in supporting diversity.

Contribution: This research offers a conceptual framework informed by queer and institutional theory for understanding workplace inclusion. It contributes to Management, Business Ethics, and Sociology literature and provides recommendations for creating safer, more inclusive organisational environments, with a call for further research across other sectors.

Keywords: diversity; experiences; inclusion; organisational culture; workplace; LGBTQIA+; South Africa.

Introduction

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, asexual, and queer individuals, as well as those questioning their sexual orientation or gender identity (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex, asexual, and other [+] [LGBTQIA+]), form a diverse and multifaceted community. Their identities intersect across various dimensions, including gender, social affiliations, gender expression, sexual orientation, professional roles and ethnicity, contributing to the complexity of their lived experiences (Gates & Viggiani, 2014; Paisley & Tayar, 2016). Despite this diversity, LGBTQIA+ individuals often face unique and persistent challenges in different societal domains, including education, social settings and the workplace (Subhrajit, 2014). Members of this community frequently encounter discrimination, judgement, harassment, violence and bullying because of their gender identity and sexual orientation (Mavhandu-Mudzusi, 2014; Ricciardo et al., 2021). Although the LGBTQIA+ community constitutes a significant portion of the global population, it remains one of the most under-represented and least studied groups in workplace research (Ng & Rumens, 2017; Ozeren, 2014).

The persistence of societal norms that reinforce heterosexuality and the gender binary exacerbates discrimination against LGBTQIA+ individuals (Mackay, 2021). These dominant frameworks devalue non-heteronormative identities, contributing to systemic marginalisation and exclusion in professional and social environments (Goshorn et al., 2022). In many parts of the world, particularly in Africa, institutionalised homophobia remains deeply entrenched. Legal restrictions against homosexuality exist in three out of five African countries, criminalising any public expression of non-heteronormative gender or sexual identities (Pichon & Kourchoudian, 2019). For example, in Cameroon, individuals can face up to 5 years of imprisonment for engaging in same-sex relationships (Maidment, 2021). Such legal and societal constraints force many LGBTQIA+ individuals to conceal their identities out of fear of severe repercussions, including imprisonment, violence or social ostracisation.

Given the broader experiences of LGBTQIA+ individuals in society, prejudice against LGBTQIA+ employees in the workplace remains a significant concern. This discrimination manifests in various forms, including hiring bias, wage disparities, limited career advancement opportunities and exclusionary organisational cultures (Badgett et al., 2021; Tilcsik, 2011). Studies have shown that LGBTQIA+ individuals are more likely to experience workplace harassment and microaggressions, contributing to stress, reduced job satisfaction and lower productivity (Brewster et al., 2019; Lyons et al., 2020). Bias is particularly pronounced in industries where traditional gender norms are strongly enforced, such as law enforcement, engineering and finance (Ozeren, 2014). While organisational policies promoting diversity, equity and inclusion have been found to mitigate some disparities, research suggests that without a broader cultural shift towards acceptance, formal policies alone may not be sufficient to eliminate deeply ingrained biases (Hebl et al., 2002; Kaplan et al., 2022).

Literature review on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex, asexual, and other (+)

Workplace discrimination against LGBTQIA+ individuals has significant negative consequences, affecting their physical and emotional well-being as well as their professional outcomes (DeSouza et al., 2017). Many choose to conceal their sexual orientation or gender identity to avoid harassment, exclusion or discrimination (Dau & Strauss, 2016). Microaggressions and ostracism are common experiences, largely rooted in societal norms that privilege heterosexuality and cisgender identities while marginalising those who do not conform (Ng & Rumens, 2017; Subhrajit, 2014; Tshisa & Van der Walt, 2022). In several African nations, LGBTQIA+ identities are often denied or ignored, with dominant religious beliefs, particularly within Christianity, reinforcing stigma and discrimination (Matsúmunyane & Hlalele, 2019).

Heterosexual employees often remain unaware of the discrimination faced by their LGBTQIA+ colleagues. A study by Benjamin and Reygan (2016) found that none of the heterosexual participants recognised the challenges encountered by LGBTQIA+ employees, suggesting that those unaffected by discrimination may not acknowledge its existence. Heterosexual employees generally experience a more favourable work environment, while LGBTQIA+ employees frequently lack protections against exclusion and discrimination (Luiz & Terziev, 2022; Tshisa & Van der Walt, 2022).

Despite increasing support for LGBTQIA+ rights over the past two decades, workplace discrimination persists. Many organisations have incorporated equality initiatives into their diversity management strategies (Hossain et al., 2020). However, legal and societal barriers remain; the United Nations condemn discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, yet several countries still impose severe penalties, including imprisonment and even the death penalty, for LGBTQIA+ individuals (Bhandari, 2023; ILGA, 2023). A survey by Afrobarometer found that African respondents exhibited greater tolerance towards individuals with different religious beliefs than towards LGBTQIA+ individuals, indicating persistent societal biases that extend into the workplace (Dulani et al., 2016).

While progress has been made in the recognition of LGBTQIA+ rights globally and in parts of Africa, homosexuality remains illegal in over 30 African countries (Bhandari, 2023). According to the ILGA (2023) review, same-sex relationships carry severe legal consequences, including the death penalty in three countries and imprisonment in numerous others. Nonetheless, some African governments have passed anti-discrimination laws, with South Africa, Botswana, Mauritius, Mozambique and Seychelles implementing legal protections for LGBTQIA+ individuals (Matebeni, 2023).

The global visibility of LGBTQIA+ rights does not necessarily translate into freedom from violence and discrimination. Recent legislative developments in Uganda and Kenya illustrate continued institutionalised oppression. Uganda’s 2023 Anti-Homosexuality Bill imposes severe penalties, including the death penalty and life imprisonment for LGBTQIA+ individuals (Bhandari, 2023; Matebeni, 2023). In Kenya, although the Supreme Court overturned a government ban on registering a National Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, systemic discrimination remains widespread (Woensdregt & Van Stapele, 2023).

In South Africa, despite the constitutional protections established in 1994, significant discrimination against LGBTQIA+ individuals remains widespread. Studies have shown that, despite the legal framework, LGBTQIA+ workers continue to experience discrimination in the workplace, with negative impacts on their well-being and professional advancement (Dhatemwa, 2014; Pearce et al., 2016; Terra et al., 2021). This persistent workplace discrimination manifests in various forms, such as harassment, exclusion from key opportunities and unequal treatment, which often leads to reduced job satisfaction and performance. Furthermore, such negative experiences contribute to a broader culture of silence and fear, preventing individuals from fully embracing their identities at work (Webster et al., 2018). These challenges illustrate that while legal protections exist, social and organisational norms often hinder the effective implementation of these protections, perpetuating an environment of inequality and bias. Benjamin (2016) state that younger LGBTQIA+ individuals from townships encounter heightened levels of homophobia, further illustrating the gap between policy and lived experiences. This observation underscores the disconnect between legal protections on paper and the harsh realities faced by marginalised groups. These individuals, particularly from lower socio-economic backgrounds, often find themselves more vulnerable to discrimination and violence, both in public and workplace settings.

The effectiveness of workplace diversity and inclusion depends not only on formal policies but also on organisational culture and leadership. As Webster et al. (2018) highlight, anti-discrimination policies are a critical first step in signalling the values of an organisation, but the policies alone are not enough. To be truly effective, they must be supported by a diverse and inclusive climate where employees feel safe and valued. This includes having clear reporting channels for discrimination, visible allyship from leadership, and an environment where inclusion is not just a policy but a lived reality. Furthermore, supportive workplace relationships, such as employee networks and advocacy groups, are essential in fostering a more inclusive and supportive environment for LGBTQIA+ individuals (Tshisa & Van der Walt, 2022).

Tshisa and Van der Walt (2022) further found that the workplace experiences of LGBTQIA+ employees were mixed; some reported positive and inclusive environments, while others faced ongoing exclusion and discrimination. This disparity underscores the need for a deeper commitment to inclusivity. It is not enough for policies to simply exist on paper; active efforts must be made by employers to cultivate an environment that truly values diversity and fosters inclusion. Employers play a pivotal role in shaping workplace dynamics by not only enforcing policies but also creating an atmosphere where diversity, equity and inclusion are promoted consistently at all levels. This involves encouraging open dialogue, providing support networks, and leading by example to ensure that LGBTQIA+ employees are both protected and valued within their organisations.

Workplace cultures that implicitly favour heterosexual and cisgender employees often limit networking opportunities and mentorship for LGBTQIA+ workers, creating additional barriers to advancement (Tshisa & Van der Walt, 2022; Webster et al., 2018). Research suggests that LGBTQIA+ employees are under-represented in leadership roles, not because of a lack of capability but because of exclusionary practices and workplace biases (Cech & Rothwell, 2019; Ng & Rumens, 2017). These biases manifest in various ways, including a lack of sponsorship from senior leaders, reduced access to high-profile projects, and implicit assumptions that LGBTQIA+ individuals do not fit conventional leadership roles. In addition, fear of discrimination or negative perceptions may discourage LGBTQIA+ employees from openly pursuing leadership roles, further exacerbating their under-representation. To counteract these systemic barriers, organisations must implement equitable promotion structures, mentorship programmes and leadership training initiatives that actively include LGBTQIA+ employees, ensuring fair and transparent pathways for career progression.

Research problem

Despite progress in advancing human rights relating to gender and sexual diversity, LGBTQIA+ individuals continue to experience widespread discrimination, stigma and exclusion in workplaces globally and in South Africa (Sears et al., 2021; Subhrajit, 2014). Although existing scholarship has examined LGBTQIA+ workplace experiences in various sectors internationally, there has been limited empirical attention to the South African telecommunications industry, despite its economic significance and large, diverse workforce. The telecommunications sector is one of the country’s largest economic contributors through investment, employment creation and taxation, while also underpinning broader social and economic development through communication services and connectivity (The World Bank Group, 2021). Its scale means that it employs a wide cross-section of the population, including LGBTQIA+ individuals, yet little is known about how organisational cultures, policies and practices in this industry shape their workplace experiences.

The central problem, therefore, is the absence of sector-specific evidence on the workplace inclusion of LGBTQIA+ employees in South Africa’s telecommunications industry. Addressing this gap is critical to advancing diversity and inclusion in one of the country’s most influential sectors. Accordingly, this study investigated the workplace experiences of LGBTQIA+ employees in the South African telecommunications industry through a mixed-methods approach, guided by queer theory and institutional theory.

Research methodology

This study was guided by the following research question: How do diversity, inclusion, and organisational culture shape the workplace experiences of LGBTQIA+ employees in South Africa’s telecommunications industry, and to what extent is reasonable accommodation effectively implemented? To address this question, the study adopted a mixed qualitative research methodology. This approach was selected to facilitate an in-depth exploration of the lived experiences of LGBTQIA+ employees, capturing the nuances of how they navigate their workplace environments. By employing a mixed qualitative methodology, the study ensured a rich and multidimensional perspective on workplace dynamics.

The research was conducted in two distinct phases, incorporating multiple data collection methods to enhance the depth and reliability of findings. A non-probability sampling method, specifically snowball sampling, was employed to recruit participants. The researcher initially identified and invited participants from a social group to which they had access. The participants were asked to refer other individuals from their networks who met the study’s inclusion criteria (identified as LGBTQIA+ and employed in South Africa). Notably, participants were drawn from different telecommunications companies rather than a single organisation, ensuring that the findings reflect experiences across the sector rather than the culture of one organisation. This approach facilitated access to a broader pool of participants while leveraging existing social connections to enhance recruitment. In the first phase, five participants were purposively selected to maintain reflective diaries, allowing them to document their workplace experiences, perceptions and interactions. This method provided rich, self-reported insights into the day-to-day realities of LGBTQIA+ employees and enabled an introspective analysis of their evolving thoughts and emotions.

In the second phase, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 participants, including the reflective diary participants, allowing for a more interactive and detailed exploration of themes emerging from the diary entries. The interviews provided an opportunity for participants to elaborate on their experiences, clarify their perspectives, and discuss broader workplace dynamics that may not have been fully captured in written reflections.

Thematic analysis was conducted following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase framework. Firstly, the researchers familiarised themselves with the data by transcribing interviews, reading reflective diaries and repeatedly reviewing both sources. Secondly, initial codes were generated inductively, capturing meaningful features of the data relevant to the research question. Thirdly, codes were collated and grouped into potential themes across both interviews and diary entries. Fourthly, these candidate themes were reviewed in relation to the coded extracts and the entire dataset, ensuring internal coherence and distinction across themes. Fifthly, the themes were refined, clearly defined and named to capture their core essence. Finally, the findings were reported with supporting extracts from the data.

To integrate the two data sources, interview and diary transcripts were initially coded separately and later merged into a single coding framework. This ensured that patterns unique to each data source were captured while also identifying areas of overlap. For participants who contributed both interviews and diaries, their entries were cross-referenced to ensure consistency and to capture the richness of their perspectives across formats.

Thematic analysis of both reflective diaries and semi-structured interviews produced overlapping but distinct insights. Across the two data sources, five core themes were identified: (1) inclusive policies and practices, (2) discrimination and harassment, (3) workplace culture, (4) support networks, and (5) intersectionality.

Inclusive policies and practices

Participants emphasised the importance of formal organisational policies that explicitly recognise LGBTQIA+ employees and provide clear protections against discrimination. Both diary and interview data revealed that while some organisations had progressive policies in place, gaps often remained in consistent implementation:

Discrimination and harassment

Discrimination emerged as a persistent challenge, particularly in subtle or unreported forms. Participants described experiences of ridicule, exclusion and stereotyping, often left unaddressed by management:

Workplace (organisational) culture

Workplace culture was consistently identified as shaping LGBTQIA+ experiences, either reinforcing exclusion or fostering inclusion. Several participants described how leadership attitudes influenced whether policies translated into daily practice:

Support networks

For many participants, informal and formal support networks provided critical spaces of safety and affirmation. These networks often mitigated the negative effects of discrimination and helped to build resilience:

Intersectionality

Participants’ experiences were shaped by intersecting identities such as race, gender and class, which compounded marginalisation. For example, black LGBTQIA+ employees often reported layered experiences of both racial and sexual prejudice:

Conceptual framework

In examining the workplace experiences of LGBTQIA+ employees, the study’s conceptual framework was informed by both queer theory and institutional theory. Integrating these theoretical perspectives provided a comprehensive approach to understanding the complexities of these experiences. By drawing on key concepts from both theories, the researcher developed a holistic perspective on LGBTQIA+ employees’ workplace dynamics. Queer theory’s emphasis on deconstructing societal norms and recognising diverse identities complements institutional theory’s focus on structural forces and organisational practices (Minton, 1997) and complements institutional theory’s examination of structural forces and organisational practices (Cox, 2022). By incorporating key concepts from both theories, the researcher achieved a holistic perspective on how workplace environments shape the experiences of LGBTQIA+ employees. Together, these theories offered a conceptual foundation for analysing and improving workplace diversity, inclusivity and well-being.

Figure 1 is particularly significant as it visually represents the theoretical lens applied to examine workplace diversity and inclusion while capturing the lived experiences of LGBTQIA+ employees. The interplay between the two theories can be likened to the relationship between a tennis ball and a racquet. Queer theory serves as the overarching framework (the racquet), shaping the discourse on diversity management, while institutional theory (the tennis ball) represents the evolving and dynamic processes that influence how diverse individuals navigate and are managed within workplace structures.

These interconnected concepts formed the basis for analysing how LGBTQIA+ employees navigate their workplace experiences and whether they are reasonably accommodated:

Findings and discussions

The data collected from reflective diaries and interviews revealed that while some progress has been made, significant challenges remain, and diversity and inclusion measures in the workplace continue to be unmet. The study highlighted that LGBTQIA+ employees are confronted with discrimination and exclusion on a daily basis, with some resigning in an attempt to escape harassment and abuse.

One participant explained that although he consistently met his performance targets, he was denied a salary increase for three consecutive years. When he questioned this, his manager, described as openly homophobic, threatened to make his life ‘a living hell’ if he did not resign.

Several participants recounted similar experiences of verbal abuse, mockery and shaming in the workplace. Many reported that HR departments and management failed to intervene or hold perpetrators accountable, thereby perpetuating a culture of discrimination.

Participants also described being overlooked for promotions, salary increases and recognition despite strong performance. These accounts suggest that LGBTQIA+ employees face not only direct discrimination but also systemic barriers to career advancement.

While a minority of participants shared positive experiences of inclusive workplaces where they felt valued equally to their heterosexual colleagues, the majority emphasised ongoing exclusion, harassment and lack of meaningful support.

South Africa has made notable progress in promoting LGBTQIA+ rights through its progressive legal frameworks and constitution. It was among the first countries to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in its Constitution, and it has enacted several supportive laws, such as the Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 (Republic of South Africa, 1997), the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 (Republic of South Africa, 1998), and the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (Republic of South Africa, 2000).

Despite these robust legal foundations, participants’ accounts reveal that the implementation and effectiveness of these policies in workplaces vary significantly. Some organisations have comprehensive diversity and inclusion policies in place, but others lag behind, and enforcement remains inconsistent. This aligns with previous scholarship showing that workplace policies alone are insufficient without active monitoring, leadership commitment and accountability structures (Tshisa & Van der Walt, 2022).

The findings of this study suggest that while formal protections exist, LGBTQIA+ employees often continue to conceal their identities for fear of discrimination, harassment or exclusion. Participants’ experiences reinforce earlier research highlighting the persistence of systemic barriers and microaggressions that undermine workplace equality (Sears et al., 2021; Subhrajit, 2014).

Moreover, participants’ perceptions that some organisations adopt policies ‘just to be seen as inclusive’ highlight the gap between public commitments and lived realities. This supports arguments in the broader literature that symbolic compliance does little to advance genuine workplace inclusion without sustained organisational culture change (Hebl et al., 2002; Kaplan et al., 2022).

Recommendations

The study’s findings have broader implications for promoting diversity and inclusion within the workplace. By highlighting the lived experiences of LGBTQIA+ employees and the influence of organisational culture on their professional lives, this research underscores the importance of cultivating workplaces that not only recognise but actively celebrate diversity, equity and inclusion for all. The insights offered can catalyse change by informing the development and implementation of practical policies and strategies that directly support LGBTQIA+ employees’ well-being, reasonable accommodation and career progression. In doing so, the research aims to contribute to a more inclusive society, one where diversity, equity and inclusion are not just aspirational values, but are embedded in everyday organisational practice, allowing all individuals the opportunity to thrive professionally.

Based on the findings of this study, several recommendations are proposed to enhance the workplace experiences of LGBTQIA+ employees in South African organisations. These recommendations are directed at both industry practitioners and researchers, aiming to address systemic discrimination, bridge the gap between policy and practice, foster an inclusive organisational culture, and implement proactive inclusion measures. While organisations must take concrete steps to create safe and equitable workplaces, researchers should continue to explore effective strategies and interventions that can drive meaningful change. To enhance diversity, inclusion and support for LGBTQIA+ employees in the workplace, organisations should develop and implement clear anti-discrimination policies that explicitly protect LGBTQIA+ employees. These policies should be effectively communicated, consistently enforced, and outline strict disciplinary measures against discrimination and harassment. Regular workplace assessments through surveys and focus groups should also be conducted to evaluate diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, ensuring that feedback from LGBTQIA+ employees informs meaningful action plans. Additionally, supporting LGBTQIA+ employee networks and allyship groups can create a sense of community and provide valuable advocacy platforms, reinforcing an inclusive organisational culture.

Promoting a diverse and inclusive workplace culture requires ongoing efforts, including diversity training programmes, awareness campaigns and events that celebrate LGBTQIA+ employees. Leadership training on LGBTQIA+ inclusivity, unconscious bias and allyship is essential for fostering a supportive environment and ensuring long-term cultural change. Furthermore, organisations should establish confidential and accessible reporting mechanisms for discrimination and harassment, providing LGBTQIA+ employees with a safe avenue to report violations. These measures, informed by institutional and queer theory, contribute to breaking down structural barriers and creating workplaces that respect and empower all employees.

Future research should expand the understanding of LGBTQIA+ workplace experiences by exploring diverse organisational contexts and interventions. Comparative studies across different industries and organisational types can provide valuable insights into how contextual factors shape inclusivity, allowing for the identification of best practices and culturally specific strategies. Additionally, investigating the effectiveness of diversity training programmes, inclusive policy implementation, and LGBTQIA+ employee resource groups can provide evidence-based recommendations for improving workplace diversity and inclusion efforts. Adopting an intersectional approach is also essential to understanding how multiple aspects of identity, such as race, ethnicity, gender, age and disability, interact and influence the workplace experiences of LGBTQIA+ employees. Expanding the scope of populations studied, particularly under-represented groups within the LGBTQIA+ community, such as non-binary, genderqueer and transgender individuals, can further enrich the discourse on workplace inclusivity.

Longitudinal studies would be beneficial in tracking how LGBTQIA+ workplace experiences evolve over time in response to shifting policies and societal attitudes. Additionally, incorporating quantitative and mixed-methods research approaches would enhance the validity and generalisability of findings, complementing qualitative insights with statistical analysis. Policy analysis should also be prioritised to assess how national and local legal frameworks impact workplace diversity and inclusion, helping to identify effective legislative approaches. Finally, future research should focus on the mental health and overall well-being of LGBTQIA+ employees, examining how workplace environments contribute to stress, job satisfaction and psychological resilience. By addressing these research areas, scholars can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of LGBTQIA+ workplace experiences, ultimately supporting the development of inclusive, equitable and supportive work environments.

Conclusion

In conclusion, substantial strides have been made in advancing diversity, inclusion and equity for LGBTQIA+ individuals, particularly in a workplace environment. Organisational culture plays a pivotal role in cultivating an environment that is free from discrimination, harassment and the exclusion of LGBTQIA+ employees. While the treatment of LGBTQIA+ individuals remains uneven across regions, with some areas, such as parts of Africa, lagging in progress, there are nonetheless significant and encouraging movements in numerous countries committed to combating discrimination and exclusion. Although many organisations have implemented policies designed to enhance the diversity, inclusion and equity of LGBTQIA+ employees, the pace of policy execution remains slow. Nonetheless, there is an increasing commitment within organisations to embrace diversity, ensuring reasonable accommodations for LGBTQIA+ employees.

This study has offered a thorough examination of the workplace experiences of LGBTQIA+ employees, revealing the challenges and opportunities they face in diverse organisational contexts. Through methods such as reflective diary journaling and semi-structured interviews, key themes have emerged relating to the importance of diversity and inclusion, the influence of organisational culture, the need for reasonable accommodation and the strategies employed by LGBTQIA+ employees to navigate their work environments. The findings underscore the ongoing necessity for more robust diversity and inclusion policies to support the well-being and career advancement of LGBTQIA+ individuals in the workplace.

In addition, this research has highlighted the utility of queer theory and institutional theory as conceptual frameworks for understanding the complexities of LGBTQIA+ employees’ experiences. Queer theory has illuminated the fluid and dynamic nature of sexual orientation and gender identities, while institutional theory has provided a valuable lens through which to examine these experiences within the broader context of organisational structures and cultures. Together, these frameworks offered a nuanced perspective, reinforcing the multifaceted nature of workplace inclusivity and emphasising the critical role of organisational practices in fostering a supportive and positive environment for LGBTQIA+ employees.

Ethical consideration

The research was conducted in line with the ethical considerations and guidelines of the Human Research Ethics Committee (Non-Medical) at the University of the Witwatersrand. An ethics clearance certificate with protocol number H22/11/81 was obtained from the University of the Witwatersrand Human Research Ethics Committee before conducting the research.

The researcher obtained written consent from the research participants before they took part in the study. The participants were taken through the research process, explaining that their participation was voluntary and that there would be no compensation for their participation. The participants were provided with detailed information about the study’s purpose, procedures, potential risks and benefits. This information was communicated both in writing and verbally to ensure understanding. Confidentiality and anonymity were maintained and guaranteed; if there was a need to mention a name or organisation details, pseudonyms would be used. The findings were reported in a manner that ensured the individual participants could not be identified, maintaining their confidentiality.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable feedback and discussions provided by participants at the 7th International Conference on Gender Research, held on 25–26 April 2024, in Barcelona, Spain, hosted by the Universitat Autonoma De Barcelona. This article was peer-reviewed as part of the conference proceedings, and the insightful comments and suggestions received during this review process significantly contributed to refining our research. This work benefited from the insightful comments and suggestions received during the conference sessions. Special thanks are due to all the conference participants for their encouragement and constructive critique. The support and networking opportunities provided by the conference were instrumental in advancing this study.

The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.

Xolile Sibande: Conceptualisation, data curation, investigation, methodology, project administration, visualisation, writing - review & editing. Jenika Gobind: Funding acquisition, supervision, validation. All authors reviewed the article, approved the final version for submission and publication, and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings, and content.

References

Badgett, M.V.L., Durso, L.E., Kastanis, A., & Mallory, C. (2021). The business impact of LGBT-supportive workplace policies. The Williams Institute.

Benjamin, N. (2016). PRIDE at work: A study on discrimination at work on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in South Africa. Labour Research Service.

Benjamin, N., & Reygan, F. (2016). PRIDE at work: A study on discrimination at work on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in South Africa. Labour Research Service (LRS).

Bhandari, A. (2023, April 21). Uganda’s anti-gay bill is the latest and worst to target LGBTQ Africans. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/graphics/UGANDA-LGBT/movakykrjva/

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brewster, M.E., Velez, B.L., DeBlaere, C., & Moradi, B. (2019). Navigating the workplace: The experiences of transgender and gender diverse employees. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 66(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000392

Cech, E.A., & Rothwell, W.R. (2019). LGBT workplace inequality in the federal workforce: Intersectional processes, organizational contexts, and turnover considerations. ILR Review, 72(1), 25–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793919843508

Cox, T. (2022, September 07). Brownkutschenkovargo. Retrieved from https://brownkutschenkovargo.weebly.com/theories-of-managing-diversity.html

Dau, D., & Strauss, P. (2016). The experience of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans students at the University of Western Australia. The University of Western Australia.

DeSouza, E.R., Wesselmann, E.D., & Ispas, D. (2017). Workplace discrimination against sexual minorities: Subtle and not-so-subtle. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 34(2), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1438

Dhatemwa, M.M. (2014). Unveiling a paradox: The persisting discrimination against black LGBT workers amidst progressive policies in South Africa. Master’s research paper, International Institute of Social Studies, Erasmus University.

Dulani, B., Sambo, G., & Dionne, Y.K. (2016). Good neighbours? Africans express high levels of tolerance for many, but not for all. Afrobarometer. Retrieved from http://www.afrobarometer.org

Gates, T.G., & Viggiani, P.A. (2014). Understanding lesbian, gay, and bisexual worker stigmatization: A review of the literature. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 34(7–8), 359–374. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-07-2013-0077

Goshorn, J.R., Mason, W.N., & Sperandio, K.R. (2022). Does meaning-in-life or self-compassion influence LGBTQ+ identity or outness? Journal of LGBTQ Issues in Counseling, 16(4), 368–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/26924951.2022.2093309

Hebl, M.R., Foster, J.B., Mannix, L.M., & Dovidio, J.F. (2002). Formal and interpersonal discrimination: A field study of bias toward homosexual applicants. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 815–825. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202289010

Hossain, M., Atif, M., Ahmed, A., & Mia, L. (2020). Do LGBT workplace diversity policies create value for firms? Journal of Business Ethics, 164(4), 775–791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04158-z

ILGA. (2023). Legal frameworks | Criminalisation of consensual same-sex sexual acts. ILGA Database World. Retrieved from https://database.ilga.org/criminalisation-consensual-same-sex-sexual-acts

Kaplan, S.A., McCay-Peet, L., Dodge, E.E., & Wasylyshyn, K.M. (2022). Examining the effectiveness of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies in the workplace: A systematic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(2), 315–332.

Luiz, J.M., & Terziev, V. (2022). Axes and fluidity of oppression in the workplace: Intersectionality of race, gender, and sexuality. Organization, 31(2), 295–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084221098252

Lyons, B.J., Wessel, J.L., Ghumman, S., Ryan, A.M., & Kim, S. (2020). Applying models of workplace discrimination to the LGBTQ+ experience. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 13(2), 275–302.

Mackay, A. (2021). LGBTQI+ allyship in academia. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 2, 451–452. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00185-5

Maidment, A. (2021). ‘Leaving my tribe in Cameroon was the only way I could live openly as a lesbian’: Influencer Bandy Kiki on rising above death threats to be the LGBT+ advocate she is today, viewed n.d., from https://www.inkl.com/news/leaving-my-tribe-in-cameroon-was-the-only-way-i-could-live-openly-as-a-lesbian-influencer-bandy-kiki-on-rising-above-death-threats-to-be-the-lgbt-advocate-she-is-today

Matebeni, Z. (2023). Being queer in Africa: The state of LGBTIQ+ rights across the continent. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/being-queer-in-africa-the-state-of-lgbtiq-rights-across-the-continent-205306

Matsúmunyane, K., & Hlalele, D. (2019). Culture, religion and sexual diversity in Lesotho. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 54(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021909618824351

Mavhandu-Mudzusi, A.H. (2014). Experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex students regarding sports participation in a South African rural-based university. African Journal for Physical, Health Education, Recreation and Dance, 20(2), 710–720. https://doi.org/10.25159/2520-5293/38

Minton, H.L. (1997). Queer theory: Historical roots and implications for psychology. Theory & Psychology, 7(3), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354397073003

Ng, E.S., & Rumens, N. (2017). Diversity and inclusion for LGBT workers: Current issues and new horizons for research. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 34(2), 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1443

Ozeren, E. (2014). Sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace: A systematic review of literature. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 1203–1215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.613

Paisley, V., & Tayar, M. (2016). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) expatriates: An intersectionality perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(7), 766–780. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1111249

Pearce, J., Gardiner, V., Cumming-Potvin, W., & Martino, W. (2016). Supporting gender and sexual diversity in high schools: Building conversations for LGBTQI human rights in the English classroom. Young and Well Cooperative Research Centre.

Pichon, E., & Kourchoudian, G. (2019). LGBTI in Africa: Widespread discrimination against people with non-conforming sexual orientations and gender identities. European Parliamentary Research Service.

Republic of South Africa. (1997). Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997. Government Gazette.

Republic of South Africa. (1998). Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998. Government Gazette.

Republic of South Africa. (2000). Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000. Government Gazette.

Ricciardo, A., Rogers, S.L., Puttick, S.D., Skead, N., Tarrant, S., & Thomas, M. (2021). Understanding, promoting, and supporting LGBTQI+ diversity in legal education. The Law Teacher, 55(4), 367–387.

Sears, B., Mallory, C., Flores, A.R., & Conron, K.J. (2021). LGBT people’s experiences of workplace discrimination and harassment. The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. Retrieved from https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Workplace-Discrimination-Sep-2021.pdf

Subhrajit, C. (2014). Problems faced by LGBT people in the mainstream society: Some recommendations. International Journal of Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(6), 317–331.

Terra, T., Schafer, J.L., Pan, P.M., Costa, A.B., Caye, A., Gadelha, A., Miguel, E., Bressanm R.A., Rohde, L.A., & Salum, G.A. (2021). Mental health conditions in lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and asexual youth in Brazil: A call for action. Journal of Affective Disorders, 298(Pt A), 190–193. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.24.21259474

The World Bank Group. (2021, November 11). Annual report 2021 (English summary). Retrieved from https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/cd05d27f0203b90751fcfe7145cd5a3d-0330122021/original/EDS05-Annual-Report-2021-English-Summary.pdf

Tilcsik, A. (2011). Pride and prejudice: Employment discrimination against openly gay men in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 117(2), 586–626. https://doi.org/10.1086/661653

Tshisa, N., & Van der Walt, F. (2022). Emotional well-being of black African queer employees in the workplace. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, a2043. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v20i0.2043

Webster, J.R., Adams, G.A., Maranto, C.L., & Sawyer, K. (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

Woensdregt, L., & Van Stapele, N. (2023). Queerphobia in Kenya: A supreme court ruling on gay rights triggers a new wave of anger against the LGBTIQ+ community. Vrije Universiteit.

Original Research

Workplace experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and other employees in South Africa

Xolile Sibande, Jenika Gobind

Abstract

Introduction

Literature review on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex, asexual, and other (+)

Research problem

Research methodology

Inclusive policies and practices

Discrimination and harassment

Workplace (organisational) culture

Support networks

Intersectionality

Conceptual framework

Findings and discussions

Recommendations

Conclusion

Ethical consideration

Acknowledgements

Competing interests

CRediT authorship contribution

Funding information

Data availability

Disclaimer

References