ANÁLISIS DAFO: DEBILIDADES:

There have been few case studies of sexual minorities in specific work organisations, with exceptions being a study of the experiences of LGB workers in 16 public, private and voluntary sector organisations, known for their good practice in relation to sexual orientation (Colgan et al., 2006; 2007a; 2009) and Ward and Winstanley’s (2003; 2004;

39

2005; 2006) and Ward’s (2008) investigations of the police and fire service, civil service and banking. The male-dominated culture of the fire service (Ward and Winstanley, 2006) was characterised as one of hegemonic masculinity in which a particular form of male, sexualised “banter” is a normal part of everyday interaction (Baigent, 2001). Ward and Winstanley revealed an acceptance by heterosexual employees of gay sexuality “as long as it’s not flaunted in front of them” (2006: 208), highlighting the commonly-held view that homosexuality should be a private matter. In contrast, Fleming’s (2007) study of an Australian call centre is an unusual example of an organisational culture that encouraged displays of sexuality – including gay male sexuality. ‘Sunray’ was known for its gay-friendly atmosphere, consistent with its general message of fun and ebullience, with many out gay men in the workforce. However, management support for overt displays of a particular form of gay sexuality had some contradictory effects: among some heterosexual employees anti-management feeling was expressed in the form of homophobia, and a view that “to ‘succeed’ at Sunray you are basically gay” (Fleming, 2007: 250). Thus hostility towards the management culture of fun was vocalised through negative views of extroverted gay men, who were associated with the organisational ethos. This, for Fleming, highlights the multileveled nature of power and resistance, showing that management control is identified with the encouragement of a particular form of sexuality (giving expression to a gay identity that in other organisations would be a minority or hidden form of

sexuality), leading to resistance to management being expressed in homophobic terms. There were also gendered power dimensions in this culture of sexuality. Expression of both heterosexual and gay sexuality was encouraged, but some women felt

uncomfortable with such a sexualised workplace, finding some of the men ‘sleazy’ and referring to aspects of organisational life as a ‘meat market’ (2007: 249). I also noted that the forms of encouraged sexuality are predominantly male – there is no mention of lesbian sexuality – and heterosexual sexuality is primarily described in terms of

opportunities for men to flirt with women, rather than as an expression by women of their sexuality. Thus the gendered dimension of the expression of sexuality in this workplace is only partially explored, and further attention to gendered experience may have highlighted additional relations of power.

Similarly, Ward and Winstanley’s (2006) study of the fire service suffers from a lack of explicit discussion of how gendered power relations differentiate the experience of

40

lesbians and gay men, despite recognising the highly masculinised organisational culture. An example of male colleagues taking bets on who would be the first to sleep with a lesbian firefighter was interpreted as “a positive example of the inclusion of a lesbian firefighter through banter” (ibid: 215), which I feel neglects the gendered power relations involved when a female firefighter joins a male-dominated watch and the accommodation she must make to this masculine environment.

A tendency within studies of lesbians and gay men to subsume or ignore lesbian experience has been noted by others (Wilton, 1995) and I suggest that greater attention to gender differences in the experiences of gay men and lesbians in such male-

dominated occupations would enable, for example, examination of the view held by some that it is easier to be a lesbian than a gay man in jobs such as the fire service (Wright, 2008) and the police (Burke, 1993).

One response for work organisations wishing to become ‘gay friendly’ is the establishment of a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) network or group (Colgan et al., 2006; Stonewall, 2005). Such groups serve a range of functions,

including opportunities for socialising and networking with LGBT colleagues; support for those experiencing discrimination and harassment; and influencing and monitoring organisational policy. Some in Colgan et al’s (2006) study, though, felt that the

networks were not sufficiently representative of black and ethnic minority and disabled workers and those in manual occupations, while lesbians highlighted that they were dominated by gay men and their concerns (Colgan et al., 2008). Groups were also thought to be insufficiently accessible to those not out at work, particularly those in manual and frontline occupations (Bond et al., 2009).

Some trade unions have well-established LGBT support networks (Bairstow, 2007; LRD, 2003), particularly in the public sector (Colgan, 1999; Humphrey, 1999). In some unionised employers trade union LGBT groups co-exist with networks established by employers, although trade union representatives perceived employer-organised groups to be aimed primarily towards male, professional and managerial workers (Colgan et al., 2006). My research on the fire service (Wright, 2005) examined lesbians’ and

heterosexual women’s participation in trade union and other support groups for LGBT members and women, but found no clear difference between lesbian and heterosexual women in propensity to participate, instead finding that age and length of service were more likely indicators of strategies of seeking support. This raises the question of

41

whether differences exist in lesbian and heterosexual women’s participation in support networks, about which there appears to be little research, although there is some discussion by Colgan and Ledwith (2000).