University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Understanding queer leadership in corporate America

(USC Thesis Other)

Understanding queer leadership in corporate America

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Understanding Queer Leadership in Corporate America
by
Jay Prewitt-Cruz
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2023
Copyright 2023 James Oliver Prewitt-Cruz
Queer Leadership ii

Acknowledgements
I have learned that a journey like this is not completed alone. There are many people whom
one must lean on throughout this process. Thank you to Dr. Nicole Maccalla for your support
throughout this process. Dr. Ott and Dr. Kim, my committee members, and my professors at
Rossier, thank you so much. You both inspired this work in multiple ways. Dr. Ott helped to shape
the leadership ideas for this research, and Dr. Kim helped me be a better scientist.
The Rossier community has been spectacular in building community and support; I know
I chose the right program. Thank you, Dr. Brandon Kyle, and the USC Lambda Alumni
Association. My cohort has been a constant source of support and inspiration. I want to specifically
thank four of the Fab Five: Dr. Jerry Washington, Dr. Zachary Barricklow, Dr. Wanda Cooper,
and Dr. Kim Hartmann. There is no way I could have accomplished this without your support,
guidance, grief counseling, and celebrations of success. I look forward to deepening our
scholarship and our friendship.
None of this would have been possible if not for my recovery family. I want to
acknowledge the people who sponsored me through this journey. They kept me connected to my
higher power and directed me back to the sunlight of the spirit when I was out of gas. I am so
grateful to you both.
To my partner Kamil, who I met, fell in love with, and married during this process. Thank
you for being the answer to my prayers. To my sister Rhonda, thank you for not giving up on me.
I love you. To my ancestors: Elder Jonas Oliver Prewitt, taught to read from secondhand books on
the plantation where our family was enslaved; Lula Maull Hall and Florence Nalls Prewitt, who
locked a song in my heart with unconditional love; my father, James, the most gentle and honest
man I’ve ever known; and my mom, Joanna, I finally did it, you always knew I would.
Queer Leadership iii

Abstract
The number of Americans identifying as queer continues to rise annually, leading many
American corporations to institute policies protecting queer workers. Federal and local
governments have enacted laws to expand rights of queer individuals. However, representation
of queer leaders in corporate America remains disproportionately low. This study investigates
experiences of queer leaders within for-profit business organizations and identifies
heteronormative barriers impeding career advancement. The theoretical and conceptual
frameworks for this qualitative study are based on the Burke-Litwin change model and the
concept of heteronormativity. The University of Southern California Lambda Alumni
Association was used as the setting for obtaining a purposeful sample of queer leaders striving
for career advancement. Individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven queer
leaders based on the study’s research questions. Data was thematically coded and analyzed,
elucidating themes and generating practice recommendations. Findings indicate that although
there is progress in rendering queer leaders more visible, heteronormative barriers persist,
impacting their authentic expression and necessitating concealment in specific business
organizational locations. The intersection of race and queer identity complicates career
advancement and corporate professionalism ideals. Corporate America should train upper
echelon and first-line leaders on creating conditions for belonging; identifying and eliminating
cultural leadership archetypes upholding heteronormativity; finding external support for queer
leaders in organizations without support structures; and increasing support for Employee
Resource Groups; and increasing queer leadership visibility through programs and development
groups avoiding tokenization.

Queer Leadership iv

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ii
Abstract iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 1
Background of the Problem 3
LGBTQIA+ to Queer 4
Purpose and Context of the Study 5
Research Questions 7
Importance of the Study 7
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology 9
Definitions 11
Organization of the Dissertation 13
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 14
Corporate Queer Equity Impacting Queer Leadership 14
Current State of DEI on Queer Equality Efficacy 14
The Need for Queer Equity in Businesses 16
What Business Leadership Needs to Do 17
Queer Work Life 19
Queer Bias at Work 20
Importance of Authenticity 22
Problems Leading While Queer 23
The Steady Rise of Queerdom 24
Implications for Research in Queer Leadership 26
Conceptual Framework 26
External Heteronormativity Influencing the Internal Feedback Loop 29
Summary 32
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 33
Research Questions 33
Methodological Design 33
Research Setting 35
The Researcher 35
Data Sources 37
Biodata Survey 37
Instrumentation – Biodata Survey 37
Data Collection Procedures – Biodata Survey 38
Data Analysis – Biodata Survey 39
Sample – Biodata Survey 39
Qualitative Semi-Structured Interviews 42
Instrumentation - Interviews 43
Interview Participants 44
Data Collection Procedures - Interviews 45
Data Analysis - Interviews 46
Queer Leadership v

Credibility and Trustworthiness 46
Ethics 47
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS 48
Queer Leader Visibility and Authentic Expression of Identity 50
Conservative Gay Perspectives of Concealment 58
Embodying Corporate Professionalism as a Queer Leader 62
Transformational Barriers with Peers and Leaders 70
Transactional Barriers Inside and Outside of the Organization 75
External Client Interactions 76
Summary 77
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS 79
Discussion of Findings 79
Impact of Heteronormativity using The Burke-Litwin Model 79
Visibility and Sponsorship 80
Continuing Concealment and The Struggle for Authenticity at Work 82
Embodying Corporate Professionalism 84
Recommendations for Practice 86
Limitations and Delimitations 91
Future Research 92
Conclusion 94
References 95
Appendix A: Email to Board with Link to Biodata Survey 106
Appendix B: Biodata Survey Protocol 107
Appendix C: Social Media Advertisement for Biodata Survey 113
Appendix D: Interview Protocol 114
Appendix E: Interview Information Sheet 117
Appendix F: Codebook 118

Queer Leadership vi

List of Tables
Table 1. Terms and Definitions .....................................................................................................11
Table 2. Uses of “heteronormativity” and a theoretical framework from Marchia & Sommer
(2019) ............................................................................................................................................27

Table 3. Data Sources ....................................................................................................................34

Table 4. Biodata Survey Results Leadership Categories ...............................................................42

Table 5. Semi-Structured Interview Participant Information ........................................................45

Table 6. Summary of Findings on Understanding Queer Leadership in Corporate America .......49

Queer Leadership vii

List of Figures
Figure 1. Burke-Litwin model: Transformational Factors from Burke (2018) .............................29
Figure 2. Burke-Litwin Model: Transactional Factors from Burke (2018) ..................................29
Figure 3. Biodata Survey Respondent Sexual Orientation ............................................................40
Figure 4. Biodata Survey Respondent Gender Identity .................................................................41
Figure 5. Biodata Survey Respondent Industries ...........................................................................41
Figure 6. Biodata Survey Respondent Identified Barriers .............................................................48

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
A 2021 poll conducted by the Gallup organization found that 5.6% of the United States
population identified as LGBTQIA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, intersex,
asexual, and other identities), rising steadily since 2012 (Jones, 2021). The first opportunity for
Gallup poll respondents to identify their specific gender identity and sexual orientation occurred
in 2020 (Jones, 2021). From 2021 to 2022, the number of LGBTQIA+ individuals increased by
1.5%, reaching 7.1% of the total U.S. population, and estimates suggest this number will
continue to rise (Jones, 2022). Further, surveys conducted in 2022 show that 20% of Generation
Z and 10% of Millennials identified as LGBTQIA+ (Jones, 2022). In response to this growing
population, organizations have rushed to create policies and programs to protect LGBTQIA+
individuals from discrimination, with the Supreme Court of the United States affirming and
codifying these efforts (Tayar, 2017; McKendall, 2021).
Reputational rankings are used to measure the efficacy of existing diversity programs that
impact the lives of LGBTQIA+ workers. Unfortunately, many large corporations score highly on
these rankings but have failed to achieve the desired progress for queer equity (Tayar, 2017).
Despite an increasing number of people openly identifying as LGBTQIA+, the Human Rights
Campaign's (HRC) “A Workplace Divided” report illuminates the current state of the workplace,
demonstrating that many LGBTQIA+ employees rely on concealment to survive. In a probability
sample of 804 LGBTQIA+ respondents, 46% are closeted at work (Fidas & Cooper, 2018). The
report also found that out of 811 straight respondents, half reported not knowing any coworkers
who were out at work (Fidas & Cooper, 2018). Additionally, 20% of LGBTQIA+ respondents
feel their employers overlooked them for job opportunities (Fidas & Cooper, 2018).
Queer Leadership 2

Data from McKinsey & Company show the impact of this oversight on queer leaders'
ability to obtain leadership roles within organizations. McKinsey reports that in corporate
America, LGBTQIA+ women account for 2.3% of entry-level employees and 1.6% of
management; LGBTQIA+ men represent 3.1% of entry-level employees and 2.8% of
management (Ellsworth et al., 2020). The representation of queer workers and leaders in
corporations is significantly lower than that of the LGBTQIA+ population in the United States
(Ellsworth et al., 2020; Jones, 2022). Furthermore, LGBTQIA+ representation in leadership
decreases as seniority levels increase, with LGBTQIA+ women accounting for 1.2% of senior
managers/directors, 0.7% of vice presidents, and 0.6% as senior vice presidents or C-suite
executives (Ellsworth et al., 2020). LGBTQIA+ men fare better, but are still below average, with
3.0% in senior management, 1.9% as vice presidents, and 2.9% as senior vice president or C-
suite executives (Ellsworth et al., 2020). Moreover, existing studies do not account for non-
binary or genderqueer workers who do not identify as men or women. Additionally, businesses
often measure diversity through race and sex, with limited data on sexual orientation and gender
identity, representing gaps in the literature (Hunt et al., 2018).
Although some studies have addressed bias in hiring queer people and the travails they
face after joining the workforce (Bryson, 2017; Carpenter et al., 2020; Cech & Rothwell, 2020;
Fidas & Cooper, 2018; King et al., 2017; Moss-Racusin & Rabasco, 2018), significant gaps still
exist in the scholarship regarding barriers for queer people to become leaders who are currently
working in organizations. These barriers may perpetuate discrimination and fall through the
cracks of rankings, diversity initiatives, and policy (Tayar, 2017). Identifying these gaps is
complicated by inherent queer bias in business schools, leadership texts, and frameworks
(Rumens, 2016; Ferry, 2018). This intrinsic bias presents challenges for queer individuals
Queer Leadership 3

attempting to model professional behavior successfully. For employees, excelling in business
school and exemplifying leadership principles and frameworks can enhance visibility within the
business organizational leadership and contribute to career development (Amstutz et al., 2020).
This dissertation investigates the disproportionately low numbers of queer people in leadership
positions within corporate America. This study examines the experiences of queer leaders in
corporate America and identifies barriers that stand in the way of their career advancement.
Background of the Problem
The idea of achieving equality for people who do not identify as heterosexual is a recent
phenomenon, with government and private organizations having only recently developed and
implemented policies and practices to protect equal rights regardless of gender identity or sexual
orientation. Throughout history, various organizations, including the medical community in the
United States, the U.S. government, and American Psychiatric Association (APA), exhibited bias
toward the LGBTQIA+ community (Arriola, 1995). For example, the medical community once
deemed homosexuality and identification with sex other than birth assignment as mental
disorders associated with deviant behavior to be corrected and punished through sodomy and
decency laws (Arriola, 1995). During the mid-century Red Scare, homosexuality was further
stigmatized as anti-American, casting queer people as threats to a free society (Faderman, 2015).
It is worth noting that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) listed homosexuality as a
pathological disorder in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM) until 1973 (Drescher, 2015).
The removal of homosexuality from the list of disorders occurred a few years after the Stonewall
riots, which garnered national attention to the plight of queer people and started the movement
for queer rights (Drescher, 2015).
Queer Leadership 4

Employment policies such as the Federal Employee Loyalty Program empowered
discrimination against queer people in the federal government and influenced other non-
governmental employers to do the same (Faderman, 2015). The Defense of Marriage Act was
passed in 1996, protecting heterosexual unions. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act
protecting queer people in the workplace never gained enough traction in Congress to become
law and finally died in committee in 2003 (Faderman, 2015). After many acts of grassroots
activism born of Stonewall, two seminal actions of the Supreme Court amplified and codified
LGBTQ rights: Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, creating marriage equality, and Bostick v. Clayton
County in 2020, affirming that people who are LGBTQIA+ are members of the protected class of
citizens in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Fidas & Cooper, 2014; McKendall, 2021). Considering
the significant time span from 1964 to 2020, organizations that have based their anti-
discrimination policies in the Civil Rights Act have only recently embarked on efforts to promote
equality for queer individuals, paralleling the progress made for other protected classes over the
past 58 years. Despite the recent strides toward equality through policy changes and
organizational diversity initiatives, a notable deficiency persists in opportunities for queer leaders
to advance their careers within corporate America (Ellsworth et al., 2020). This study explores
the persistent barriers that queer leaders encounter, even in the presence of policy protections and
diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
LGBTQIA+ to Queer
For the purposes of this dissertation, “queer” is employed as an inclusive term to
encompass individuals who identify as LGBTQIA+. Discerned from anecdotal evidence, such as
conversations and interactions with friends and colleagues in the LGBTQIA+ community, this
choice may generate controversy. The use of an umbrella term to encompass a diverse range of
Queer Leadership 5

identities, each distinct and unique, could be perceived as potentially erasing individual
experiences, particularly if one subgroup dominates the narrative. This research does not intend
to disregard or erase anyone's identity. Rather, its purpose is to identify gaps within business
environments where individuals who do not conform to the traditional notions of cisgender and
heterosexual may encounter discrimination and bias. The concept of heteronormativity, which
serves as a guiding conceptual lens in this study, provides a name to the invisible power structure
that oppresses all members of LGBTQIA+ under the normalization of heterosexuality and binary
gender (i.e., the binary categorization of men and women) within our society (Hertz et al., 2015).
This paper uses queer within the context of the expanding canon of queer theory in
academia. The first mention of the phrase “queer theory” can be traced to Teresa de Lauretis
(1991) in her article titled “Queer Theory: Lesbian and Gay Sexualities.” It has since evolved
and developed within academia, stemming from the sense of normalization of specific identities
over others and building upon a previously laid foundation of feminist theory (Watson, 2005).
Queer theory is closely associated with liberal political influences that push for equality, applied
in many academic and organizational domains (Watson, 2005). While queer theory is not a
specific theoretical or conceptual framework employed in this paper, it guides the scholarly
discourse of the referenced works. Queer coalesces bias against all identities in LGBTQIA+
thoroughly and concisely.
Purpose and Context of the Study
This study seeks to learn the current experiences of queer professionals working within
corporate America and striving for career advancement. Specifically, the study explores the
barriers queer professionals face in becoming leaders, even with affirming organizational policy,
state and local statutes, and their recognition as a protected class under the Civil Rights Act by
Queer Leadership 6

the Supreme Court of the United States. Existing research extensively addresses discrimination
against queer people in hiring practices and as employees in contrast to straight peers who
present as heterosexual (Bryson, 2017; Carpenter et al., 2020; Cech & Rothwell, 2020; Fidas &
Cooper, 2018; King et al., 2017; Moss-Racusin & Rabasco, 2018). However, apart from
documenting and confirming fears that being openly queer at work will pose and the resulting
problems (Fidas & Cooper, 2018), there is limited research on queer professionals' pathways to
obtaining leadership positions within their chosen realm. This is problematic because most
business cultures operate under the assumption of heteronormativity, reflecting the organization's
dominant culture. Within a business, various subcultures may exhibit bias that may be more
present or pervasive than in other business units, thus requiring tailored solutions.
The participants in this study are "out" as queer at work, meaning they do not consistently
use concealment to mask their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression to
conform to a heteronormative standard (Fidas & Cooper, 2014). A purposeful sample of
individuals who are in the process of, or desire promotion, career advancement, or leadership
development and are full-time employees in corporate America and who are currently members
of the Lamba Alumni Association of The University of Southern California (USC) were
recruited for this study. USC is a large, private research university ranked among the top 20
institutions in the United States, situated in Southern California. Within the broader USC Alumni
Association, the USC Lambda Alumni Association is an official affinity group. The
organization’s mission is to “connect LGBTQ+ alumni to the university and each other to create
an enriching and supportive community, award scholarships to deserving USC students, and
promote education and increased visibility for LGBTQ+ students and alumni” (USC Alumni
Association, n.d.).
Queer Leadership 7

The participants in this study represented diverse professional backgrounds. A short
biodata survey was administered to potential candidates to determine eligibility for participation
in the study. Utilizing a qualitative study design with semi-structured interviews, common
themes and experiences were identified from seven selected participants. These narratives were
used to illustrate perceived barriers that persist with anti-discrimination laws, organizational
policy, and codes of conduct within participants' current and past organizations. USC Lambda
Alumni Association was chosen as the recruitment site to identify a purposeful sample of queer
professionals currently engaged in career development who matriculated from a top twenty
university as ranked by U.S. News and World Report (2022). The USC Lambda Alumni
Association offered access to participants with experience in a variety of industries, broadening
the depth of study. Alumni Associations are also a repository of career-motivated individuals
who have or are blazing a path toward furthering their careers.
Research Questions
This study examines the experiences of queer leaders in corporate America and identify
barriers that stand in the way of their career advancement. The research questions guiding the
study are:
1. What are the experiences of queer professionals seeking career advancement within
business organizations?
2. Where do queer professionals experience heteronormative barriers that may impede their
process of career advancement within their organization?
Importance of the Study
Being inauthentic in the workplace has several impacts on queer human capital. These
include a lowered sense of well-being and dissonance between the employee and the
Queer Leadership 8

organization, which weakens an employee’s faith in the mission and dedication to their work
(Capell et al., 2018; Henderson et al., 2018). In addition, even those out in the workplace report
heightened levels of real and perceived discrimination (Hodson et al., 2018). Further, they feel
less supported by leadership than their peers perceived as heteronormative (Livingston et al.,
2019; Cech & Rothwell, 2020). Even though clear and specific organizational policies and codes
of conduct exist in most businesses, discrimination against people who identify as queer persists
(Cech & Rothwell, 2020). Within the many machinations of a business, queer people must be
hypervigilant about their presentation within different organizational components to counter the
individual bias of workgroups or leaders (King et al., 2017).
A 2020 Gallup study, which identified the increasing number of people identifying as
queer, also found that younger generations identify more as queer than older generations, with
Generation Z exhibiting higher rates of identifying as queer compared to Millennials and
Generation X (Jones, 2022). This trend means that not only are more people coming out as
queer, but the generations who replace the retiring workforce will more likely identify as queer.
This upward trajectory in queer identification has been on a steady increase for the last decade
(Jones, 2022). Also, the younger generations display more intrinsic motivation in their approach
to work and the company they choose to work within (Mahmoud et al., 2020). Technology has
also made it easier for those unhappy with their companies to share their stories with peers and
the media as they seek out other opportunities where they feel their needs are better met
(Mahmoud et al., 2020). To stay competitive for top talent and relevant to the current workforce,
businesses must ensure that the experiences of queer human capital are compliant with anti-
discrimination laws and policies, while also fostering environments where they can thrive. This
study's findings hold the potential to guide businesses in shaping policies and practices that
Queer Leadership 9

create nurturing environments for queer leaders to emerge and ultimately address the problem of
the underrepresentation of queer professionals in leadership positions in corporate America.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The Burke-Litwin change model, used as the theoretical lens for the problem of practice
at hand, examines how organizations are affected by the external environment and where
interactions occur within the internal organizational environment (Burke, 2018). The model
demonstrates influence as a feedback loop, starting with the external environment influencing the
internal organization (Burke, 2018). The model illustrates how influence flows through the
organization, differentiated by transformational and transactional factors (Burke, 2018).
Transformational components include leadership, management, mission and strategy, structure,
and organizational culture (Burke, 2018). The transformational aspects of the model influence
the transactional factors that govern the organization’s local and day-to-day operations and tasks,
as well as employee performance and motivation (Burke, 2018). The loops are multidirectional,
showing the complexity of change, how it occurs, and where it occurs within an organization
(Burke, 2018).
The Burke-Litwin model considers the cyclical nature of internal and external
environments, then delves into how those considerations are processed through an organization
to create change (Burke, 2018). This study aims to examine the experiences of queer leaders in
corporate America and identify barriers that stand in the way of their career advancement. A
framework that works within the complexities of business culture can expose the barriers queer
professionals face to career progression. Using this lens to assess participant feedback can
provide valuable insights to businesses regarding the specific areas within their transformational
Queer Leadership 10

and transactional practices where these barriers may be hindering the career advancement of
queer individuals.
The concept of heteronormativity is also essential for this study because it is the invisible
power structure that normalizes heterosexuality and binary gender (men and women) in our
society (Herz & Johansson, 2015). Heteronormativity creates a bias that is masked behind the
idea of appropriateness and takes for granted that presentation and behavior within organizations
are based on characteristics that mimic heterosexuals who have been the dominant actors in
society (Amstutz et al., 2020). The concept of heteronormativity also reflects the dominant idea
that has isolated gender identity to a binary categorization of masculine and feminine determined
by genitalia recognized at birth (Amstutz et al., 2020). This idea is not unique to heterosexual-
dominated spaces. Conforming to an environment influenced by state, medical, and cultural
oppression has created a homonormative culture within gay and lesbian spaces, usually
predominately White (Rosenberg, 2017). This oppression created a stereotype or character trope
of what it means to be gay, and this idea has gained traction within well-intentioned
organizations seeking to create equitable space (Rosenberg, 2017). The stereotype is a limited
view of the LGBTQIA+ spectrum and reinforces heteronormativity, rather than dismantling the
power dynamics that initially contributed to the issue. It also ignores the ever-burgeoning
BTQIA+ identities recently recognized by Gallup, reflecting the growing diversity of queerdom
in the United States.
The research methodology comprises semi-structured interviews conducted with USC
Lambda Alumni Association members, who are employed as full-time professionals across
various industries within corporate America. The deliberate selection of participants representing
a diverse spectrum of industries was intended to isolate common areas where the nature and
Queer Leadership 11

location of heteronormative barriers, affecting career advancement for queer people, manifest
either in the transformational or transactional portions of the Burke-Litwin model. The selected
participants are established leaders spanning different career phases and are actively seeking to
advance their careers within their organizations. Findings derived from the interviews can guide
corporate America on identifying and eliminating barriers for career advancement of queer
professionals.
Definitions
This dissertation uses the following terms throughout the study. Defining these terms
brings consensus and continuity to concepts that uncover and illuminate the problem of the lack
of queer leaders in businesses.
Table 1
Terms and Definitions
Theoretical Framework Term
Authenticity The expression of a person’s true self regarding their sexual
orientation and gender identity at work without fear of reprisal
due to discrimination or negative judgment and without having
to adjust their presentation to a heteronormative culture (Clair et
al., 2005).

Binary Gender A normative concept of gender identity that is limited to being a
man or a woman with corresponding male or female genitalia
(Thorne, 2019).

Career Advancement Progression within a profession through increased visibility,
responsibilities, recognition, skills, and compensation. It may
include promotions, lateral moves to more challenging roles, or
significant projects, often facilitated by mentors or sponsors
who provide guidance and access to opportunities. (Randel et
al., 2021).

Concealment The act of changing one’s authentic behavior for a specific
audience to hide or minimize aspects of identity that the
audience might find unacceptable or disagreeable (Ragins et al.,
2007).
Queer Leadership 12

Corporation “An association of employers and employees in a basic industry
or of members of a profession organized as an organ of political
representation in a corporative state” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.).
Heteronormativity The invisible power structure that normalizes heterosexuality
and binary gender (men and women) in our society (Herz &
Johansson, 2015).

Leader Someone with formal authority and followers within an
organization, often aligned with management, possesses specific
skills and competencies, and uses their influence to motivate
and create positive results, accomplishing organizational goals
(Prewitt, 2003).

Leadership Development

Organizational programs and processes that identify employees
who possess the necessary skills for leadership, foster an
environment for leadership skill development, and improve the
skills of current leaders to meet the needs of the organization's
future (Kirchner & Akdere, 2014).

Non-Binary Gender identification that does not align with a binary sense of
gender (i.e., man and woman). Gender can present as an
androgynous expression, incorporating both tenets of man and
woman identities, shifting expressively from one identity to
another, or identifying with more than just the gender binary
(Thorne et al., 2019).

Out Living openly and authentically without concealment at work
regarding sexual orientation or gender identity that is not
heteronormative (Ragins et al., 2007).

Professional A widely used term usually referring to cultural norms, mores,
and expectations of an individual working in a specific field
(Scanlon, 2011).

Role Model A person who is admired for their accomplishments and has
characteristics that people want to emulate, often because of
shared identities or backgrounds (Hewitt, 2013).

Sponsor A leader who recognizes talent in an individual and takes a
vested interest in assisting that person in advancing their career
through advocacy and leadership development (Hewitt, 2013).

Transgender A blanket term describing people whose gender identity and
expression do not align with their assigned sex at birth and do
Queer Leadership 13

not conform to normative expectations of that assignment (Fidas
& Cooper, 2014).

Queer A blanket term, once a slur but reclaimed by the community,
identifying people who do not identify as or fit within the
normative social construct of heterosexual, usually referring to
LGBTQIA+ identities, and often closely associated with fluid
ideas of gender (Fidas & Cooper, 2014).

Visibility The state of having a person’s identity, presence, and ideas
recognized in a business setting. Visibility is usually a
prerequisite for career advancement and promotional
opportunities (Amstutz et al., 2020).

Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter One includes an introduction to
the research topic and problem of practice, the background of the problem, the study’s purpose
with associated research questions, the theoretical and conceptual frameworks guiding the
research, and a glossary of terms that help to understand the study’s vocabulary. Chapter Two
reviews the associated literature that supports the problem of practice and builds an argument for
further research while highlighting conflicts in scholarship and gaps that necessitate additional
scholarship. Chapter Three gives an in-depth overview of the study methodology to guide the
qualitative investigation and the attributes used to measure qualified study participants from the
USC Lambda Alumni Association. Chapter Four includes the creation process for the selection
pre-survey protocol, the survey instrument that guides the semi-structured interviews with seven
qualified participants from the association. Results from the interviews are thematically coded
and categorized. Chapter Five discusses the results found in the research cross-referenced by
existing literature and the theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Limitations of the study,
recommendations gleaned from the research, and suggestions for additional research are
discussed.
Queer Leadership 14

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Corporate Queer Equity Impacting Queer Leadership
To begin the exploration of removing barriers to queer leadership within corporate
America, an examination of literature explains the current state of equity programs and why they
have not fixed the gap between equity and bias (Fidas & Cooper, 2018). The section then makes
a case for the necessity of queer equity. It explores not only the advantages of harnessing queer
human capital and establishing pathways for queer leadership, but also highlights the tangible
benefits it brings to corporations. Furthermore, it underscores the responsibility placed on current
business leaders, shedding light on the administrative and mitigating roles they play in bringing
about necessary changes to corporate America. These changes have the potential to bolster
improved anti-discriminatory policies, eliminate barriers, and enhance the representation of
queer individuals in leadership roles within business organizations.
Current State of DEI on Queer Equality Efficacy
Although the process for achieving queer equity in the United States has been slow, many
motivated organizations created policy and diversity management programs in efforts to reduce
bias, and several non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have created reputational rankings to
measure their effectiveness (Tayar, 2017). Firms that score highly on these rankings are better at
innovation and experience better overall business performance (Hossain et al., 2019). However,
even with improved innovation and performance measures, survey responses from queer human
capital, administered by the same organizations that issue organizational reputational rankings,
found that almost half of queer people are not out at work, and 20% feel they are not being
considered for job opportunities to advance their career because of their queerness (Fidas &
Cooper, 2018). Human resource management (HRM) initiatives in most of corporate America
Queer Leadership 15

concerning gender equality have been focused on White heterosexual women. However, in 2020,
the Supreme Court of the United States found the gender equality component of the Civil Rights
Act to be applicable to queer people as well (Johnson & Otto, 2019; McKendall, 2021). A better
understanding of gender identity bias (GIB) clarifies how gender has been understood in the past
and underscores the need to reexamine it to include all gender expressions beyond cisgender
women to actualize this updated perspective.
GIB explains how people who are transgender experience prejudice, stereotyping, related
violence, and discrimination because of their status as a gender minority and creates new context
for understanding gender bias outside of the cisgender norms usually associated with gender
equity (Moss-Racusin & Rabasco, 2018). GIB creates different outcomes for competent, highly
qualified transgender employees based on perception (Moss-Racusin & Rabasco, 2018). A study
using Amazon Mechanical Turk asked 251 randomly selected Americans to rank online job
applicants. The findings revealed that transgender applicants, despite demonstrating competence
equivalent to their cisgender counterparts, experienced reduced likeability and hireability (Moss-
Racusin & Rabasco, 2018). This research illuminates the myth of meritocracy within
organizations which posits talent alone is enough for success, while disregarding many other
factors, including GIB, that create disparate professional outcomes for human capital (McNamee
& Miller, 2009). Many corporations spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually on diversity,
equity, and inclusion (DEI) training to combat GIB and other forms of discrimination (Grossman
& Salas, 2011). However, there is a gap in transferring knowledge to employees from the
training course into daily practice due to poor training design, organizational culture, and the
overall work environment, thereby perpetuating limitations in career advancement for queer
individuals (Grossman & Salas, 2011).
Queer Leadership 16

The Need for Queer Equity in Businesses
Companies with solid protections for queer human capital see lower attrition rates due to
increased organizational loyalty (Conti et al., 2020). Organizations that go beyond protection and
build trust, especially between queer employees and their supervisors, empower queer workers to
reduce the concealment of authenticity, making the workplace a safe space for coming out and
being authentic (Capell et al., 2018). Being authentic at work entails the convergence of a queer
worker’s authentic self with their professional identity (Henderson et al., 2018). Evidence
suggests that when these two identities coexist, queer employees are more empathetic towards
and involved with their colleagues, and engage in actions that create transformational leadership;
their perception of their work environment is positive (Henderson et al., 2018). Further, Lloren &
Parini (2017) suggest that organizations that go beyond policy to create supportive, trust-based
environments have better outcomes for queer workers. Being out at work with only a queer-
affirming policy without support can negatively affect queer workers who experience higher
rates of adverse mental health problems in these environments (Lloren & Parini, 2017). To create
better environments for queer workers, businesses must understand how society interacts with
and reinforces binary and hypermasculine leadership frameworks that create bias.
Society has constructed a bodily and performance archetype of a leader, typically
depicted as White, heterosexual, male, and able-bodied (Muhr & Sullivan, 2013). Muhr &
Sullivan (2013) suggest that when a queer person is out at work or their appearance challenges
the notions of masculinity and hierarchy of binary gender, they are not inherently perceived as
leadership material. Companies must do more than make space or tolerate queer leaders, as
leadership inherently exhibits bias against other expressions of gender other than a dominant
masculine or more passive feminine standard (Muhr & Sullivan, 2013). The notion of queering
Queer Leadership 17

leadership in corporate America requires a critical examination of the heterosexual lens used to
judge leaders, in addition structural and cultural changes that allow queer professionals to thrive
in leadership without being negatively categorized and their careers stymied (Muhr & Sullivan,
2013). A qualitative study conducted by Rumens & Ozturk (2019) examined heteronormativity
within a sample of 21 gay, cisgender, male small-business owners in the United Kingdom. The
findings revealed that a prominent trait among respondents was the expression of masculinity,
which perpetuated the gender binary. These participants sought to be seen as a “family man” in
alignment with heteronormative discourse and eschewed femininity, whether it be in women or
other gay men, to normalize their identity as gay male entrepreneurs. The business case for
breaking down these systems of oppression that create barriers for queer leaders at work also
carries an ethical consideration. This consideration should carry as much weight as the non-
ethical considerations such as business performance, employee attrition, reputational harm,
lawsuits, fulfillment of diversity quotas, or aligning diversity with customer needs (Rhodes,
2017). The Harvard Business Review argues that businesses should do the work to create new
power structures, not only to better their companies, but also because it is the right thing to do,
instead of relying on overused, oversimplified ideas of DEI, which have historically proven
ineffective (Ely & Thomas, 2020). Those in leadership positions within corporate America
shoulder the responsibility of effecting substantial change in these power systems that perpetuate
inequality.
What Business Leadership Needs to Do
To effectively remove barriers for queer professionals, corporate leadership should
understand their roles as leaders well and be empowered to act within that role at the
organization (Harding et al., 2011; Barling & Frone, 2017). A 2011 queer theory qualitative
Queer Leadership 18

meta-analysis was executed for a 2010 mixed methods study from the United Kingdom
regarding leaders in various industries within 44 organizations with knowledge of leadership
development programs (Harding et al., 2011). The original study found that most participants,
almost all White heterosexual men and one White woman, could not quantify leadership and
relegated the idea to competencies and charismatic characteristics (Harding et al., 2011).
Findings suggested that companies should define leadership by examining the concept through
various lenses, especially concerning sex and gender, to identify potential biases (Harding et al.,
2011). After locating bias, refining what leadership means, and creating solutions, companies
must empower their leaders to actively create those changes locally within the organization, just
as they should with all leadership and managerial responsibilities (Harding et al., 2011; Barling
& Frone, 2017). In a randomized telephone survey that ran in the United States from 2008 to
2011, the National Survey of Work Stress and Health, 2,975 civilian workers were polled on
themes related to passive leadership, role ambiguity, conflict, psychological work fatigue, and
mental health (Barling & Frone, 2017). The study identified that passive leadership adversely
affects work environments, leading to detrimental consequences for human capital, including
increased fatigue and negative mental health outcomes (Barling & Frone, 2017). To prevent the
inadvertent perpetuation of heteronormativity and to align leadership with equity principles,
companies should establish clear and specific leadership competencies that align with their
business objectives, reducing ambiguity and empowering leaders to better serve their human
capital (Harding et al., 2011; Barling & Frone, 2017).
Analyzing the daily actions of corporate leaders in different segments of an organization
is vital to identifying barriers that queer professionals face in obtaining leadership positions and
being active participants in removing them. When examining critical leadership studies, Liu
Queer Leadership 19

(2017) suggests that leadership occurs in practice spatially between two individuals within a
larger society where power dynamics between people are often systematically disproportionate.
This is especially salient in corporate America with regards to healthy organizations and social
responsibility because the interactions between leaders and those they lead directly affect the
levels of well-being experienced by human capital (Wieneke et al., 2018). Examination and
reconsideration of how current leadership practices may be inadvertently creating dissonance for
queer professionals on their path to leadership are needed to shift the narrative and bridge the gap
between the percentage of queer Americans and their representation in corporate leadership
(Muhr & Sullivan, 2013; Jones, 2022). A study of 641 full-time workers from diverse
backgrounds and experiences within the United States, recruited through a commercial service,
found that when their direct leaders were empowered by their organization, leadership engaged
in more job crafting with their subordinates (Kim & Beehr, 2018). Job crafting refers to the act
of providing social resources for employees and allowing for more autonomy in challenging
situations (Kim & Beehr, 2018). As this engagement increased between leaders and their reports,
employee well-being increased, and employees found better career success (Kim & Beehr,
2018). Improving these practices through individual relationships between a leader and a worker
is paramount to improving the lives of queer professionals and developing queer leaders.
Queer Work Life
Work life for queer workers in corporate America presents distinctive issues stemming
from bias and the presence of barriers to queer leadership (Fidas & Cooper, 2018). The Human
Rights Campaign’s research found that almost half of the queer human capital in the workplace
feel that leadership accountability mechanisms within organizations are not as robust as they
should be to create welcoming work environments that would eliminate disparate outcomes for
Queer Leadership 20

queer people as opposed to their heteronormative counterparts (Fidas & Cooper, 2018). Without
these accountability measures, queer work life is fraught with bias that takes many forms
depending on the industry, the role, and the individual identification of queerness, necessitating
concealment and resulting in an entirely different set of adverse outcomes for corporate America
and queer human capital (Gacilo et al., 2017; Sawyer et al., 2016). Bias towards queer workers
could impact the diminishing percentages of queer leaders who can reach upper echelons of
corporate leadership (Ellsworth et al., 2020; Fine, 2017).
Queer Bias at Work
Though the queer experience in organizations is far from a monolith, bias and
discrimination towards all queer human capital are consistent. A Swedish study that sent job
applications with randomly assigned gender (male and female) and sexual orientation (gay and
lesbian) of the applicants to 4,000 employers from ten different occupation types, revealed the
presence of hiring discrimination against gay and lesbian applicants (Ahmed et al., 2013). The
bias increased when the gay or lesbian applicant applied for a job in a field dominated by
heterosexuals of the same gender, such as gay men applying for a job as an auto mechanic
(Ahmed et al., 2013). Further, Baker & Lucas (2017) emphasized that even after the hiring
process, workplace environments often pose threats to queer human dignity, even within
organizations that self-proclaim to be “gay-friendly.” A qualitative examination of 36 queer
working adults recruited through national LGBTQ interest groups in the United States found that
their dignity was under attack at work through disrespectful communication like slurs or off-
color jokes that delegitimized their sexual orientations, as well as career limitations imposed
upon them due to their gender expression or sexual orientation (Baker & Lucas, 2017). In some
vocations with higher safety risks, queer workers felt that their physical safety was at stake
Queer Leadership 21

because queer identification created separation between them and their peers, which put them in
harm’s way during their job duties (Baker & Lucas, 2017). The 2018 report “A Workplace
Divided” from the HRC Foundation’s Workplace Equality Program shares results from the
LGBTQ Workplace Climate Survey conducted on a probability-based sample of 804 queer
respondents and 811 non-queer respondents; these results found that only 54% of non-queer
respondents are comfortable working with a queer counterpart, 18% of queer workers received
inappropriate sexual comments, and 53% of queer workers experienced jokes directed at queer
people at work (Fidas & Cooper, 2018). Discrimination becomes more pronounced in multiple
ways when GIB affects gender minorities within the queer community. Examining individual
queer identities shows that transgender workers face extraordinary bias making their situations in
the workplace dire (Carpenter et al., 2020). The Center for Disease Control (CDC) annually
administers the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), a telephone survey
executed by state health departments that reaches many diverse respondents according to age,
gender, socioeconomic status, marital status, education, and employment status, and, since 2014,
has released data on gender and sexual orientation minorities (Carpenter et al., 2020). Out of
2,100 self-identified transgender respondents between 2014 and 2017, the BRFSS found that
they were less likely to make it to the job market, were more likely to be unemployed or to be
under-employed, more likely to live below poverty levels, and least likely to have obtained a
college education (Carpenter et al., 2020). There is no comprehensive data concerning the
transgender community and their work experiences (Sawyer et al., 2016). However, according to
the “Working for Inclusion” report, published by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (2017),
90% of transgender employees in the study had faced discrimination at work, and half of all
LGBTQ workers reported receiving lower wages than their straight counterparts. Additionally,
Queer Leadership 22

70% of respondents felt the need for concealment to keep their employment, contributing to
adverse outcomes for queer workers (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2017; Levitt & Ippolito,
2014). Being a gender minority at work creates an additional hazard to the already treacherous
environment for queer people. This discussion lays the foundation for why acceptance for an
individual’s authentic self is essential for achieving queer equity and greater opportunities for
queer leaders.
Importance of Authenticity
Being out and authentic as queer in the workplace comes with the possibility of
problematic repercussions for queer professionals. Queer individuals, especially those who
identify as transgender, often face inherent danger and a lack of safety in the workplace when
they cannot conceal their authentic selves, leading to questions about their competence and
making them vulnerable to potential acts of slander and bullying (Levitt & Ippolito, 2014). The
need for concealment of authenticity by queer professionals is a method of mitigating the effects
of stereotype threat. However, a meta-analysis of research on stereotype threat found that this
survival technique did not save the queer worker from the psychological effects of negative
thoughts and perceived discrimination that affects performance and mental health outcomes
(Lewis & Sekaquaptewa, 2016). The organization also feels the impact of this concealment by
missing out on the voice, opinion, and outlook of their queer employees, who do not feel
protected by policy and are affected by the perceived threat of bias and discrimination (Gacilo et
al., 2017). Workers and the organization receive positive results when corporations create space
for queer authenticity.
There are clear benefits for the organizations and queer workers when the work
environment nurtures and embraces authenticity of expression for gender and sexual orientation
Queer Leadership 23

minorities (Gacilo et al., 2017; Sawyer et al., 2016). A study of 136 transgender attendees of a
health issues-related conference in the United States asked participants about their experiences in
the workplace (Martinez et al., 2017). The study found a positive correlation between the ability
to be authentic and transition at work with higher job satisfaction and lower levels of perceived
discrimination (Martinez et al., 2017). Another study completed by Drydakis (2016) in the
United Kingdom surveyed workers recruited from trans affinity organizations, who were in the
process of or planning soon to undergo gender-affirming surgery. The study found that gender-
affirming surgery was correlated with positive mental health outcomes and life satisfaction
(Drydakis, 2016). Furthermore, it was found that, concerning their work lives, there was a
positive correlation between job satisfaction and gender-affirming surgery, suggesting a positive
correlation between mental health, life satisfaction, and job satisfaction (Drydakis, 2016). These
studies bolster support for organizations to create opportunities for the authenticity of queer
employees that increase well-being. Increased well-being can increase loyalty and faith in the
organization's mission and individual work product (Capell et al., 2018; Henderson et al., 2018).
Creating opportunities for queer authenticity creates a good foundation for queer leadership,
considering current queer leaders' conditions in their roles.
Problems Leading While Queer
When leadership and queer identities intersect in a heteronormative world, problems
inherently exist in doing the job (Chang & Bowring, 2017; Fine, 2017). A qualitative study of 18
Canadian queer leaders in public education reported that in a heteronormative context,
respondents felt there was an invisible force that othered them or made them feel they were being
treated inherently differently; this force made it complicated to confidently lead and relate to
their followers after disclosure of their orientation (Chang & Bowring, 2017). When leaders are
Queer Leadership 24

identified as queer, it can pose challenges in fully aligning with traditional leadership
frameworks (Fine, 2017). For example, in heteronormative environments, leading effectively in
an authentic leadership style may introduce dissonance in the leader-follower relationship, as
authenticity from a queer perspective may be misunderstood or perceived as foreign by followers
who view it through a heteronormative lens (Fine, 2017). The idea of being truly authentic is
called into question for a queer person who has had to conceal their identity over their lifetime in
multiple domains and different temporal spaces (Fine, 2017). Authenticity for queer human
capital at work and in leadership is an imperative issue for corporate America to tackle now
rather than later to meet the need of a growing population that identifies as queer and to also be
in lockstep with queerness as it expands politically and organizationally.
The Steady Rise of Queerdom
Data from the 2021 Gallup poll shows the sharp incline of queer identification in the
United States since 2012 as a numerical quantification of the increase of queer cultural capital
throughout Western society (Jones, 2021; Morris, 2018). Though heteronormativity is still the
dominant cultural capital, a 2018 qualitative study of 40 gay male undergraduate students
attending traditional universities found that respondents have an easier time coming out than in
the past and finding a community of queer people with whom they can relate (Morris, 2018).
This newfound cultural capital can be linked to the widespread recognition and acceptance of
pop culture icons like Harry Styles, Beyoncé Knowles-Carter, Britney Spears, and Lady Gaga, as
well as the popularity of television shows like RuPaul’s Drag Race (Morris, 2018). In a more
recent phenomenon, heterosexuals feel comfortable attending queer spaces, such as clubs, bars,
and events, and the heteronormative presence is changing both the queer space and the
heterosexual attendants (Bettani, 2015).
Queer Leadership 25

The decision by the Gallup organization to recognize the diversity of sexual orientation
and gender minorities demonstrates that queerness is a larger construct than just gay or straight,
another binary construct, and the recognition of this is changing the fabric of our culture (Jones,
2021; Lorber, 1993). Just as scientific genetic and biological observations evolve when studying
the human body and experience, society is increasingly recognizing and exploring the fact that
sex and gender are not static. The traditional characteristics of a stereotypical woman or man
(e.g. lactation, giving birth, appearance, physical strength) do not necessarily determine an
individual’s identity (Lorber, 1993). The rise of queer equality over the last few decades, the
interaction of queer culture affecting heteronormative spaces and vice versa, and the knowledge
of expansive gender expression have made fixed identities less common (Bettani, 2015). The
most common identification of queerness within the United States is bisexuality (Jones, 2021).
Gallup data also alerts organizations to the increasing prevalence of queerness as an
integral part of the millennial and Gen Z experience, with these two younger generations
comprising the largest segment of queer-identified individuals (Jones, 2021). This is important
for businesses that want to meet Western society's current and future human capital needs,
considering the upcoming generations of workers (Mahmoud et al., 2020). A quantitative online
survey conducted between 2017 and 2020 among 1,387 Canadian workers in the service sector,
distributed via LinkedIn and in certain human resource departments, revealed that Gen Z workers
are more likely to become unmotivated and think that intrinsic motivation is necessary, a trend
not as prevalent among Gen X and some Millennials (Mahmoud et al., 2020). To retain young,
talented workers in modern times, organizations must create work environments that allow
human capital to feel affirmed and build strong public brands that uphold the trending values of
the current society (Mahmoud et al., 2020). By disregarding the emerging cultural, generational,
Queer Leadership 26

and societal trends surrounding queer identities and failing to implement structural changes
aimed at fostering genuine queer equity for their human capital, organizations risk significant
consequences for both the present and the future.
Implications for Research in Queer Leadership
The lagging numbers of queer leaders in corporate America, in contrast to their
heteronormative counterparts, sound the alarm to a problem that needs to be resolved given the
increasing numbers of queer workers who are currently in or heading into the workforce
(Ellsworth et al., 2020; Jones, 2022). Current scholarship lacks research that tells the story of
queer workers that can facilitate change for queer human capital, especially potential and new
queer leaders facing a unique set of barriers (Worst & O’Shea, 2020). Though organizations and
advocacy groups have diversity programs that have been ranked and publicly praised, as well as
public and private policies prohibiting discrimination, there remains unstudied areas of bias
affecting queer workers still experiencing bias, which creates barriers to queer leadership (Tayar,
2017; Cech & Rothwell, 2020; Amstutz et al., 2020). A qualitative approach is needed to find out
how corporate policy and culture uphold power structures that predetermine queer bias and
restrict the path for queer leaders within the organizational culture and the influence of a
heteronormative society where these businesses exist and influence (Amstutz et al., 2020).
Conceptual Framework
Heteronormativity is the conceptual framework utilized in this study. It can be defined as
the invisible power structure that normalizes heterosexuality and binary gender (men and
women) in our society (Herz & Johansson, 2015). Heteronormativity was popularized in a 1991
article called “Fear of a Queer Planet” by Michael Warner (Marchia & Sommer, 2019). In the
article, Warner (1991) calls for a new framework for people who identify as lesbian and gay, also
Queer Leadership 27

referred to by Warner as queer, to theorize about the world around them to make visible the
invisible social heteronormativity that creates barriers. Throughout the years, heteronormativity
has been defined by scholarly literature in multiple ways and is observed to be trending in four
different categorical directions that meet the aims of the research:
• heterosexist-heteronormativity which is when the opposite of heterosexuality is deemed
unnatural and deviant from social norms;
• gendered-heteronormativity which relates to the privilege of the binary identity of men
and women;
• hegemonic-heteronormativity that upholds ideas of sexual desirability and hierarchy of
masculine and feminine archetypes; and
• cisnormative-heteronormativity which is the overlap of heterosexuality and cis-gendered
privilege and creates bias against gender identities that fall outside of this overlap
(Marchia & Sommer, 2019).
Though each definition points toward different expressions of queerness, just like the acronym
LGBTQIA+, in all cases, heteronormativity refers to the invisible power structure that oppresses
people who do not fit the socially normalized presentation of heterosexuality and binary gender
(Marchia & Sommer, 2019). Table 2 outlines the four categories of heteronormativity with the
associated theoretical influence.
Table 2
Uses of “heteronormativity” and a theoretical framework from Marchia & Sommer (2019)
Category Theoretical Framework Term
Sexuality Warner/Seidman, Foucault Heterosexist-
heteronormativity

Patriarchal gendered norms Rich Gendered-heteronormativity
Queer Leadership 28

Hegemonic masculinity or
idealized femininity
Butler Hegemonic-
heteronormativity

Gender and sexuality Rubin Cisnormative-
heteronormativity

Power matrix Interdisciplinary Contextual usage

Heteronormativity was born from a feminist framework that observes gender from the
standpoint of women being discriminated against in a male-dominated society (Ford et al., 2008).
A criticism of feminist theory is that all men and all women share similar experiences that can be
generalized to address gender inequality, ignoring not only queerness and transgender identities,
but also women of color, working-class women, and privileged White, middle-class,
heterosexual women (Ford et al., 2008). This criticism, along with the burgeoning political
movement for gay liberation, prompted the adoption of the concept of heteronormativity to
address these additional issues from a queer perspective that are created when pushing against
the grain of a heteronormative, White male standard (Ford et al., 2008). The conceptual frame of
heteronormativity works in conjunction with the Burke-Litwin theoretical framework to identify
common areas within the inner workings of corporate America where this power structure
maintains bias that affects the emergence of queer leaders who do not meet or conform to a
heteronormative ideal. This is important to locate because bias still exists despite policy changes
within organizations and government (Fidas & Cooper, 2018). The Burke-Litwin theoretical
framework that suggests a connection between the external forces outside of an organization
affecting the internal mechanisms is used as a consideration for examining heteronormativity in
corporate America (Burke, 2018).
Queer Leadership 29

External Heteronormativity Influencing the Internal Feedback Loop
A vital feature of the Burke-Litwin model is the influence of the external social
environment on transformational factors of an organization, such as leadership, organizational
culture, mission and strategy, and individual and organizational performance (Burke, 2018). In
turn, transformational factors influence an organization's transactional factors. The model is an
open system with the external environment as the input and individual and organizational
performance as the output, and the feedback loop is closed by connecting those two factors
(Burke, 2018). Figure 1 and Figure 2 illustrate the feedback loops of the transformational and
transactional components of the model.
Figure 1
Burke-Litwin Model: Transformational Factors from Burke (2018)

Figure 2
Burke-Litwin Model: Transactional Factors from Burke (2018)
Queer Leadership 30

The influence of heteronormative feedback from the surrounding society has an impact
on corporate America. An examination of relevant literature found that heteronormativity and the
othering of gender and sexual orientation minorities are ubiquitous in our modern society
through institutions and policies upheld locally in many forms from a spatial point of view
(Hubbard, 2008). Heteronormative presuppositions concerning norms for gender and sex are
ingrained into society through the observation of bodyscapes that connect to the need for
reproduction and understood social responsibilities that current modern society has aligned with
specific binary gender expression, which may or may not diverge from ancient understandings of
Queer Leadership 31

these arrangements (Gellar, 2009). A meta-analysis of a subset of participants from a 2015 study
of heterosexual adults from community-based organizations in the Midwest found that there are
also specific predictors of heteronormativity related to an individual’s gender, age, political
associations, race/ethnicity, income, and education levels, making the source of external
heteronormativity affecting organizations more complex (Habarth et al., 2020). Concerning
gender, education was correlated with lower heteronormativity in women but not necessarily for
men (Habarth et al., 2020). Instead of education, expressiveness, or commonly associated traits
of women, like helping others and creating communal spaces, were correlated with lower levels
of heteronormativity in men (Habarth et al., 2020). The opposite of expressiveness, or
instrumentality, more aggressive traits that appear more decisive or strongly independent, is a
strong determiner for higher levels of heteronormativity in men, and this has been evident in
public political discourse (Habarth et al., 2020; Stead et al., 2021).
The political role of heteronormativity in capitalist society must be addressed when
considering queer leadership, recognizing that significant political changes are needed to
diminish its influence (Nguyen, 2021). The 2016 U.S. presidential debates between Hillary
Clinton and Donald Trump provide an explicit example of this influence, as evidenced by Trump
undermining Clinton's political capital through hypermasculine leadership stereotypes with
authoritarian undertones (Stead et al., 2021). This example illustrates the dichotomy of
masculine and feminine leadership in society, with the masculine often dominating. It has
implications for gender expressions that do not fit the dominant hypermasculine archetype (Stead
et al., 2021). The power dynamics of binary gender, seen on stage during the debates and in
corporate America, marginalize any identity outside the binary (Worst & O’Shea, 2020). A
Queer Leadership 32

reimagined playing field that supports queer identities is needed to align with the evolving
demands of society.
Summary
This review of relevant literature explores the current state of queer equity in corporate
America that has created a vacuum creating barriers for queer human capital to thrive and
become leaders. Also, while there has been progress made in federal laws and corporate policies
concerning queer equity, the work experience for queer people demonstrates that not enough has
been done to create a nurturing environment and to eliminate barriers for queer human capital to
thrive. Along with changes to policy and culture, individual leaders must take ownership of
creating the necessary change to develop queer leaders and move the needle on queer equity
within their reach of influence. A surface-level remedy to solve queer bias in corporate America
does not suffice, as we have seen in the failure of DEI programs over the last two decades. A
deeper examination of the cultural and societal influences within corporate America that
perpetuate heteronormativity must be addressed to begin finding solutions that will create queer
equity to suit the needs of a changing demographic in the workforce and the cultural influence of
queer capital on modern society.

Queer Leadership 33

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This study examines the experiences of queer leaders in corporate America and identifies
barriers that stand in the way of their career advancement. The invisible influence of a
heteronormative dominant culture within a business may create dissonance between the queer
professional's path to leadership, policy goals, and diversity initiatives designed to close the
discrimination gap. In addition, the influence of heteronormativity could vary within individual
subcultures of an organization.
Research Questions
The research questions guiding this research are:
1. What are the experiences of queer professionals seeking career advancement within
business organizations?
2. Where do queer professionals experience heteronormative barriers that may impede the
process of career advancement within their organization?
Methodological Design
The research study used a qualitative semi-structured interview approach with one
quantitative biodata survey instrument method to determine qualified participants for the study.
The biodata survey was sent to members of the USC Lambda Alumni Association at large by
email. The association site administrators sent an email advertising the survey to the entire
association body. The biodata survey identified queer leaders who work in corporate America,
who are out as queer in the workplace, and whose employer has a policy prohibiting
discrimination against sexual orientation and gender identity. The survey also determined if
participants are in the process of career advancement, seeking to begin, or recently started the
Queer Leadership 34

leadership development process within the last two years, including but not limited to recent
promotions within their organization.
The qualitative research phase began after the biodata survey assessment results were
received and disaggregated. I selected a purposeful sample of seven (n=7) participants from the
survey for qualitative semi-structured interviews. This research chose purposeful instead of
random selection to find participants that meet the study's criteria concerning status at work and
leadership experience (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I contacted selected participants using the
contact information given during the survey to inform them of their selection and inquired if they
would continue the study by participating in the interview. The design of the interview protocol
answered the research questions, as shown in Table 3. It pushed the research to inform corporate
America on finding and eliminating barriers for queer human capital to become leaders. Data
was immediately and thematically sorted and coded for content analysis to memorialize results
as accurately as possible to inform this dissertation's results and discussion sections (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
Table 3
Data Sources
Research Questions Interview
RQ1: What are the experiences of queer
professionals seeking career advancement
within business organizations?

X
RQ2: Where do queer professionals
experience heteronormative barriers that may
impede the process of career advancement
within their organization?
X
Queer Leadership 35

Research Setting
I recorded all interviews virtually through Zoom, a video conference platform that has
become ubiquitous in the business world since the COVID-19 pandemic and likely accessible to
participants. USC is in a densely populated metropolis, spread over multiple towns, cities, and
municipalities, with alumni worldwide. The USC Lambda Alumni Association has over 3000
members and 24 directors on the governing board. Therefore, virtual interviews were preferred
over face-to-face interviews to overcome scheduling concerns and to avoid requiring travel. It
was a priority to make the interview process as convenient as possible for the busy full-time
professionals. I asked participants to choose a location and time for the video conference
interview that was convenient, secure, and comfortable for them and to ensure that they had the
space and time to answer questions frankly unimpeded by privacy concerns or interruptions.
the space and time to answer questions frankly unimpeded by privacy concerns or interruptions.
The Researcher
I am an educated Black, Zillennial, divorced, queer professional who identifies as non-
binary and pansexual with almost 20 years of corporate experience as an employee and leader. I
am currently completing a professional doctoral program and reside in Southern California. I
grew up lower middle class in the 1980s and 90s in the Deep South within a family and social
environment with deeply religious worldviews. This worldview was staunchly opposed to
queerness in any form and considered queer identification as divergent from God's will,
sometimes even seeing it as extreme satanic demon possession. As a child and adolescent, I
spent most of my life concealing my authenticity to ensure physical and psychological safety.
The coming out process to friends and selected family members as a bisexual cis-
gendered male began at the end of high school. The process continued as an undergraduate
Queer Leadership 36

student at a conservative, all-male, historically Black college (HBCU), also located in the Deep
South. Given the conservative nature of the college and my coming-of-age experiences, the
performance of my expression was heteronormative from a male perspective concerning binary
gender expression.
Even in environments where I did not choose to conceal but still did not disclose my
sexual orientation, there was an assumption of heterosexuality by those around me in the
workplace. My marriage to a straight, cisgender woman exacerbated this assumption. Our
separation and divorce were the catalysts for my discovery through conversation with peers,
friends, and family members that bi-erasure had created a vacuum allowing others to make
incorrect assumptions about my identity. Coming to terms with this fact led me to become very
vocal about disclosing my sexual orientation in all environments. I became active in queer
advocacy organizations to advocate for queer people nationally and in my backyard. I recently
came out as non-binary in 2020, and I am discovering my expression of authenticity as I walk
through life.
My potential bias can be two different mirror images. As an out queer professional, I
have experienced bias. Meanwhile, as an advocate, I have spent much time fighting against these
biases. As a masculine-presenting person whose gender expression aligned with my assigned sex
at birth for most of their professional career, I could potentially be biased toward the experiences
of sexual orientation and gender minorities that are not visibly masculine and those whose
gender expression does not align with social norms of binary gender and sex. Because of the
power construct of masculinity and heteronormativity, identifying as queer in straight spaces
does not relieve me of this potential bias. I mitigate this bias by administering the survey to all
queer members of the USC Lambda Alumni Association, without limiting the selection of
Queer Leadership 37

participants with my own expression of identity or authenticity. The interview protocol was peer-
reviewed and tested through a pilot run associated with a class assignment in the EdD program to
ensure that any biases and expectations that I may hold would not affect the participants' answers
and the resulting data set. I confined myself to the role of researcher and observer, being mindful
not to control or guide the interview due to my visible social identities that hold privilege and
can be persuasive or create intimidation that could affect the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As
the research process moved forward, I checked in by reflecting on my positionality and the
biases they create. This reflection helped inform me if these biases impeded obtaining unbiased
data.
Data Sources
Information derived from the biodata survey ultimately had a delimiting purpose for
obtaining the sample used in the qualitative semi-structured interviews. The following sections
outline the target population of the study and content details.
Biodata Survey
The method is a biodata survey instrument powered by Qualtrics XM and emailed to
USC Lambda Alumni Association members through a link to the Qualtrics XM survey. The
survey aimed to gather the respondent's demographic data and determine eligibility for the semi-
structured interviews. In addition, the survey results created a pool of participants for interview
selection.
Instrumentation – Biodata Survey
The survey consisted of 13 questions and was administered online by Qualtrics XM.
Appendix A includes the draft protocol. The demographic data identified was sexual orientation,
gender identity, professional title, industry, career advancement within the last two years, and
Queer Leadership 38

any known potentiality of future leaders through leadership development programs or leadership
talent pool listings over the previous two years. The questions obtained data that gave a snapshot
of the necessary information needed to determine a purposeful sample that would meet the
requirements of the semi-structured interview. The survey questions were fill-in-the-blank for
answers about sexual orientation, gender, professional title, and industry. Questions about age
and years in the role allowed the participant to choose the applicable number. All other questions
concerning leadership attainment and goals enabled the participant to select yes or no.
Data Collection Procedures – Biodata Survey
I recruited participants through the USC Lambda Alumni Association. The association's
executive director sent an email invitation (see Appendix A) to participate in the study to all
organization members during the Spring of 2023. The email invitation directed participants to a
biodata survey (see Appendix B) which required participants roughly five minutes to complete.
The survey asked respondents to give their sexual orientation, gender identity, whether they
worked full time in a professional role at a corporation in the United States, their organization’s
policy on discrimination, whether they are out at work, if they are in the process of career
advancement, whether they received career advancement, title, industry, and whether they felt
being out as queer created barriers to becoming a leader. All questions were designed to be
quickly answered and provided the necessary information to get a snapshot of queer leaders in
the program. Three reminders were sent, given the low number of respondents after each
recruitment invitation. The Association also ran advertisements for the survey on its social media
accounts, specifically Instagram, Facebook, and LinkedIn (see Appendix C). Respondents were
asked about their interest in participating in an interview and were notified that, if selected, they
would receive a $20 gift card to USC Bookstores.
Queer Leadership 39

Data Analysis – Biodata Survey
Data was captured on Qualtrics XM and disaggregated on Microsoft Excel, with data
stored on an encryption-protected cloud database accessible only by myself. Results from the
fill-in-the-blank questions were reviewed, grouped, and thematically coded to group industry of
work, sexual orientation, gender identity, and role within their organization. In addition, I noted
percentage counts and means to obtain descriptive statistics of the sample concerning
predominant identity types, roles, length of time within their roles, and whether they had
accepted leadership or became involved in leadership development opportunities.
Sample – Biodata Survey
I chose the school and affiliated association to obtain a purposeful sample because most
association members are queer college graduates working within their chosen careers. The
association at USC was specifically selected because of the selective nature of the school, ranked
27 by U.S. News and World Report (2022). I also am enrolled in the University of Southern
California as a doctoral candidate, which created convenience in terms of proximity and access.
The participants were selected to give as accurate data as possible about queer leaders who may
be experiencing barriers to leadership related to their identity and authenticity, the location of
those barriers, and how they interact with them through leadership development and the career
advancement process. Selection criteria included queer professionals who work within corporate
America and are in the process of career advancement within the last two years or obtained
career advancement within the previous two years. Out of the entire 3,000-person membership,
the survey received 25 verified responses, resulting in a .008% response rate.
Figures 3, 4, and 5 convey responses for the sexual orientation, gender identity, and
industry of survey respondents, respectively. Most survey respondents were cisgender men
Queer Leadership 40

(68%, n=17) and women (28%, n=7) who identified as gay (68%, n=17) or lesbian (20%, n=5).
To protect the confidentiality of survey respondents, industries were grouped into four headings:
Health, Welfare, and Education (HW&E); Business, Finance, and Legal (BF&L); Technology,
Design, and Transportation (TD&T); and Other. Although the distribution of respondents across
industries were generally even, it should be noted that HW&E stood out as the largest industry
category among survey respondents. Survey respondents were also grouped into two categories
respective to title or role within their organization: Executive and Senior Leadership, and Mid-
Level and Specialized Leadership. Table 4 shows that between the two categories, the
representation of those who were in the Executive and Senior Leadership was greater by one
respondent.
Figure 3
Biodata Survey Respondent Sexual Orientation

Queer Leadership 41

Figure 4
Biodata Survey Respondent Gender Identity

Figure 5
Biodata Survey Respondent Industries
Queer Leadership 42

Table 4
Biodata Survey Results Leadership Categories
Leadership Category Respondents
Executive & Senior Leadership 7
Mid-Level & Specialized Leadership 6
Unanswered by respondent 14

Qualitative Semi-Structured Interviews
The biodata survey results informed the selection of participants for the qualitative semi-
structured interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Seven participants expressed interest in
interviews, and all were selected to participate in the semi-structured interview process. The 45-
minute, semi-structured format with flexibly worded, open-ended questions allowed the
participants to share their experiences of work and leadership through the lens of their queer
identities and referenced their organizations' culture from different points of view within the
Queer Leadership 43

organization (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The participants' narration of the experience of potential
bias may help inform corporations on how to find barriers to leadership for queer professionals
and solutions for removing them.
Instrumentation - Interviews
The protocol included 19 semi-structured and open-ended interview questions aligned to
at least one research question. The protocol and research question alignment were peer-reviewed
in a classroom setting during coursework for the degree program (see Appendix D). Each
question was explicitly focused on the research questions to get the necessary data, while also
being sufficiently open-ended and thought-provoking to allow the participant to respond freely
and to dig deeper when recalling their experiences with the process of leadership within their
organization. Probes exist for specific questions to allow for a deeper dive into the topic,
allowing the participant to elucidate their experience with the subject. The questions were
grouped into critical categories of inquiry reflecting the conceptual and theoretical frameworks.
The initial questions clarified the participant's career history and reflected on their journey of
queer expression at work. Next, the protocol inquired about the participants’ career advancement
process, including visibility, how queerness impacted visibility, and how social and political
events affected this process. The following section inquired how the participants perceived their
authenticity, their role models, and how these elements interacted with the organizational culture
around them. After discussing authenticity, participants expressed how they navigated their
queer identity within different contexts at work, the barriers that exist because of this navigation,
and the complexities that may exist because of perceived professional standards within a
heteronormative work culture. Finally, their queer identity intersected with their leadership role,
illuminating how they interact in the workplace. I did not choose a more restricted, structured
Queer Leadership 44

protocol because the formality of the format and the lack of open-ended responses would have
likely limited information from the participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The semi-structured
protocol illuminated new ideas and unlocked previously unidentified barriers within corporate
America.
Interview Participants
I chose participants from the pool of biodata survey respondents. Participants met the
research study requirements if they identified as queer, were in a leadership role, and sought
career advancement. These included individuals selected for future promotional opportunities by
their supervisors or involved in organizational leadership development programs focused on
future promotional opportunities. A two-year window for receiving a promotion or potential for
promotion was used to give an accurate snapshot of the current leadership experiences for queer
leaders. Of the 25 respondents of the biodata survey, 28% (n=7) expressed interest in
participating in the interview process and later agreed to participate in the qualitative, semi-
structured interview.
Table 5 summarizes the participants’ sexual orientation, gender, race, industry, role,
participation in employee resource groups (ERG), leadership development groups, and whether
they have role models. All participants were cisgender males who identified as gay, and their
racial identity was composed of four White (57%), two Black (29%), and one Latino (14%).
Their industries touched different sectors, with three categorized as BF&L (42%), two in HW&E
(29%), and two in TD&T (29%). Three participants (43%) were in Executive & Senior
Leadership, while the other four (57%) were in a Mid-level and Specialized Leadership role.
Only two participants (29%) were currently active in an ERG, with one involved in the past. No
Queer Leadership 45

participant was presently in a company-sponsored leadership development group, but four (57%)
had past involvement before their current role.

Table 5
Semi-Structured Interview Participant Information
Participant Sexual
Orientation
Gender Race Industry Role ERG Leaders
hip Dev
Group
Role
Model
Participant
1
Gay Cis
Male
White BF&L E&SL Y N* N
Participant
2
Gay Cis
Male
Black HW&E M&SL N N* N
Participant
3
Gay Cis
Male
White TD&T E&SL N N* N
Participant
4
Gay Cis
Male
Black TD&T M&SL N N N
Participant
5
Gay Cis
Male
White BF&L M&SL N N N
Participant
6
Gay Cis
Male
White BF&L E&SL N* N* Y
Participant
7
Gay Cis
Male
Latino HW&E M&SL Y N Y
Note. * indicates that the respondent had participated in the activity in prior roles.

Data Collection Procedures - Interviews
Participants were contacted using the information supplied in response to the biodata
survey. The seven respondents were all contacted by email, and I scheduled appointments based
on their schedules at their convenience. All seven interviews took place on Zoom using the video
conference features and were recorded to preserve data integrity. deo conferencing was the
preferred method of interviewing for this research because of its convenience for participants.
Queer Leadership 46

The interviewer shared information about the study and requested consent for participation and
recording. Once study questions were addressed and permission was received, interviews were
conducted. Each interview process took between 35 and 45 minutes.
Interview videos were transcribed digitally through Happy Scribe and checked for
accuracy to confirm that the transcription was verbatim. I used the ATLAS.ti program to code
and organize the transcripts. All notes and interview recordings were stored on an encrypted and
password-protected cloud-based data storage platform.
Data Analysis - Interviews
As Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggest, data was collected through interviews, and
organizing and preparing the data for analysis began immediately. I created a priori codes from
the conceptual framework of heteronormativity and was guided by the research questions and the
Burke-Litwin theoretical framework, which directed this project. After I completed, transcribed,
and uploaded the interviews to ATLAS.ti, a mix of a priori and open coding was used to create
more connections within the data. Artificial intelligence built into the software helped identify
other possible coding relationships. Axial coding was then employed to form larger groups based
on data trends from the interview. I interpreted the data from that work, and themes emerged that
guided the findings and the recommendations for practice.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Merriam & Tisdell (2016) explain the trustworthiness of qualitative research as acting
ethically throughout the investigation, especially when it concerns how a study is conceptualized,
data is collected, and findings analyzed and presented. The Researcher section detailed my biases
from my experience as a queer individual and leader. As the researcher, I kept those biases front
of mind during the creation of this study to ensure that those biases would not influence the
Queer Leadership 47

methodology and execution of the research process. The interview protocol, peer-reviewed in a
classroom setting by my peers, was strictly followed. Probing questions were preformatted to
ensure that I did not allow my biases or expectations to sway the participant's response and, in
turn, affect the data. As I organized and analyzed data, I looked for variations in the data to help
me understand the story it told and did not allow confirmation bias to interfere with uncovering
novel themes that did not meet prior expectations (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The findings
include a wealth of descriptive data to give a rich understanding of the participant's experiences
to ensure better transferability of assumptions that can be applied to corporate America and
create better outcomes for queer leaders and their organizations (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Quasi-statistics were used judiciously in the recommendations to identify patterns of data and
better interpret what the data conveys.
Ethics
Participation in the study was voluntary, and participants reserved the right to opt out. I
maintained the participants' confidentiality and expressed this to participants in multiple ways,
including within the introduction of the biodata survey, in the email invitation for an interview
(Appendix E), and at the start of the video conference interview. All data was de-identified with
participants’ names to protect their identities. The research upheld de-identification and
confidentiality processes throughout the entire process. Data privacy was maintained through the
storage of information digitally on a cloud-based database that was encrypted and password
protected. I was the only person with access to that password. I used one computer to access this
information, and it was also password protected through VPN encryption. I stored the computer
in a locked location that is accessible to only me.

Queer Leadership 48

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The study examines the experiences of queer leaders in corporate America and identifies
barriers that stand in the way of their career advancement. One reason for this work being salient
and necessary tracks with the results of a question from the biodata survey administered to the
sample group of queer leaders. As noted in Figure 6, almost half (45%) of the biodata survey
respondents felt that being out has been a factor that created barriers to them being leaders within
their role in corporate America. The research findings in this section build on this finding
through rich examples given during the semi-structured interview that illuminate their
experiences through the lens of the research questions, the conceptual framework of
heteronormativity, and framed by the theoretical framework of the Burke-Litwin model. The
following sections representing the four themes include the findings of this study: Queer
Visibility and Authentic Expression of Identity; Embodying Corporate Professionalism as a
Queer leader; Transformational Barriers with Peers and Leaders; and Transactional Barriers
Inside and Outside of the Organization. Table 6 summarizes the five sections and key themes
discovered through the interviews.
Figure 6
Biodata Survey Respondent Identified Barriers

Queer Leadership 49

Table 6
Summary of Findings on Understanding Queer Leadership in Corporate America
Theme Research Question Description

Queer Leader Visibility and
Authentic Expression of
Identity

RQ1 Experiences of visibility for
queer leaders vary and are
interdependent on their unique
sense of authentic expression of
their queer identity. Queer
leaders often conceal aspects of
their presentation that conflict
with heteronormative culture.

Embodying Corporate
Professionalism as a Queer
Leader
RQ1 Queer leaders have mostly
positive experiences of
professionalism at work.
However, some misalignment
with expectations still exists due
to pockets of heteronormativity
within the organizational culture
and the intersectionality of
identities.
Queer Leadership 50

Transformational Barriers
with Peers and Leaders
RQ2 Heteronormative barriers that
affect career advancement are
more pronounced with senior
leadership than immediate,
direct leadership relationships
that are a safe harbor for queer
identity.

Transactional Barriers Inside
and Outside of the
Organization
RQ2 Heteronormative barriers that
affect career advancement exist
with interactions between
external clients and those who
manage client relationships
when the political or cultural
sensitivities of the external
environment are hostile to queer
identity, possibly affecting sales.

Queer Leader Visibility and Authentic Expression of Identity
Amstutz et al. (2020) define visibility as when an employee’s ideas are heard, and their
presence is acknowledged within an organization, which is especially important for workers who
identify with underrepresented groups less likely to be selected to contribute. Being heard and
having their presence felt are requirements for career advancement (Randel et al., 2021). All
participants felt visible at work as out queer leaders, but often with differing paths and behavioral
expectations. Most leaders felt their visibility was earned from their hard work and expertise in
their respective fields. Participant Four, a gay, Black man-identified person, extolled how his
upward progression within a straight male-dominated field was predicated on an above-average
work ethic and how that has earned him respect in his current role:
I'm also one of the people who are, I think, the work and the effort that I put in is
probably what gets me the most recognition in terms of that. I kind of consider myself a
Queer Leadership 51

very diligent and hard worker that I think along with the support of my management, that
can kind of give me that visibility and exposure. I think my work can speak for itself in
terms of success rates and things like that.
Participant Two also felt that his career trajectory and visibility were due to his efforts since
there were no sponsors to help him along the way. He stated, “I think part of it is everywhere that
I've gone or been hired, I have been hired based on merit. I haven't known anyone who's worked
there. No one has brought me along for the ride, anything like that.” Participant Seven also
mentioned that his efforts were rewarded with visibility at his organization:
So I think I strove for, but also was sought after as a result of my hard work. So where
I've been most successful is where I've had the opportunity to really work hard. And I
think that's a reflection of the organization bringing the most out in me and me rising to
the occasion.
The majority of queer leaders interviewed in this study, who all identified as man and
gay, did not perceive their queer identity to impede visibility for career advancement within their
current organizations. A few queer leaders expressed their understanding of systems of power
and how their visibility was connected to their man-identified, White privilege. Participant One,
who came out later in life and spent most of his career in a heterosexual relationship, stated, “I
presented how I thought it was supposed to present, as…a middle age married man.” Participant
Six has been out his entire career within his field and throughout his journey at his current
organization. However, even being out as gay for two decades within his industry, he
acknowledges the privilege of being a White, man-identified person has assisted him in being
visible throughout his process of career advancement:
Queer Leadership 52

I think even though I've been out, I'm a White man in a very patriarchal culture and with
a tremendous amount of privilege. And I don't think I appreciated that at the time. But I
think a lot of the sponsors and mentors that kind of pulled me up the ladder. They looked
like me, they thought like me. We worked in the same way.
Queer leaders are being sought to be more visible within organizations representing the
queer community. These opportunities can amplify queer voices. Participant One shared how his
visibility increased after he came out at work by being asked to participate in webinars for the
organization’s celebration of Pride Month. This was done with some trepidation since he has
recently come out in his personal and professional life. Participant One stated, “I basically came
out to the company on this webinar and just sharing my story that I shared with you.” Participant
One embraced the opportunity, which became a pivotal point for his leadership journey.
Participants were asked whether they had been or are currently in a leadership
development group within their organization designed to identify potential leadership, make
them more visible throughout the organization, and develop them for the possibility of
advancement into a promotional role. Though all felt visible, none were currently involved in a
leadership development group. As can be seen in Table 5, four out of seven (57%), Participants
One, Two, Three, and Six, had previously participated in development groups or programs at
previous organizations. Participant Four, who works in tech, and Participant Five, who works in
the legal field, advised that there were no leadership development programs at their current
organization. This demonstrates a lack of organizational structure that does not support queer
leaders in their development process. Participant Seven was unaware if these groups were
available at his organization. Participant Six was not involved due to the size of his organization.
Role Models and Their Impact on Queer Leaders
Queer Leadership 53

The participants were asked if they had any role models they could look to in their
organization or the past whom they could follow. Most of the participants, five out of seven
(71%), answered that they did not. Participant Two lamented, “No, there are no role models. I
feel like I am one of one.” Participant Three explained that the lack of a role model left him
feeling devoid of direction from time to time, affecting how he manages his identity at work. He
stated:
There is no one that I can view as kind of like a role model in that standpoint to have
those conversations with either in the workplace. Which makes it hard, right? Because
you really just kind of have to focus on the workpiece of it and have to leave a little bit of
your identity behind.
Participants Six and Seven were exceptions and did have role models they could look
towards in their organization and industry. Participant Six mentioned that being involved in
ERGs allowed him to find role models and connect with them substantially and beneficially. He
stated, “Oh, sure. They became mentors and friends. They gave me advice.” Participant Seven
explained how he had role models currently within his organization to lean on as a mentor and
sponsor. Moreover, this relationship has been reciprocated as they progress in their career
trajectories. The leadership of his organization openly identifies as queer. He stated, “We’ve
been mentors to each other more, so he to me, but vice versa, just being supportive of each
other…I was just promoted into a position three months ago, and my new manager is also gay,
by the way.”
The experiences of visibility with queer leaders show how merit, privilege, and
organizational culture combine and create unique paths toward career advancement. A lack of
role models has increased challenges in career advancement to give queer leaders support and
Queer Leadership 54

direction. The feeling of being “one of one” illuminates how heteronormativity can create
isolation and disconnection. Though not explicitly stated as a barrier by the participants, it is
worthy to note that none of the participants are currently active in leadership development groups
which could create more connection to the organization.
Authentic Expression of Queer Identity at Work
For out queer leaders navigating heteronormative work environments, visibility is
directly connected to their authentic expression of identity. This visibility includes being seen,
understood and recognized for ideas and accomplishments that affect career advancement
(Amstutz et al., 2020). Authenticity and visibility create a multifaceted experience that shapes
their careers as they navigate the complexities of corporate culture. The connection begs for an
in-depth exploration in the following sections illuminating how queer leaders negotiate their true
identities within organizations for visibility.
The experience of authenticity related to queer expression is personal to each participant.
Participants were first asked to define what it means from their perspective to be authentic at
work. Then, they were asked if they felt they could express themselves authentically at their
current organization. Participant One and Participant Four used the word “unfiltered” when
defining their sense of authenticity. Participant Four stated:
For me, it is unfiltered, truly. Like, I do not need to think twice about how I show up, as
long as I'm not being rude, disrespectful, and harmful and things [of] that sort. I get to be
me. I get to talk about my husband. I could talk about us buying a home.
Participant One stated, “I think it’s being unfiltered in the sense of, again, to be able to talk about
my boyfriend, being able to talk about what I am doing this weekend or the upcoming week.”
Participant Two felt similarly about speaking about personal lives and relationships but also
Queer Leadership 55

mentioned the organizational culture being open to their identity. Participant Two stated, “I think
it means being able to sort of follow whatever that institution's cultural norms are without feeling
out of place because I'm black or gay.”
Three participants mentioned the desire for their authenticity to be recognized as a norm
instead of the exception, but each had a different idea of what that means. Participant Three
stated:
I think authenticity to me is…like, not having to hide who I am but also not having to feel
like I need to announce who I am…I do feel that there needs to be a balance of separation
of that personal life in the workplace and kind of what that is. But authenticity to me is
that I feel comfortable and safe to be myself and not have to hide who I am and feel that
me hiding who I am is the only reason I can make progress or be successful in the
workplace…
Participant Seven stated:
So, to me, it's just being able to be comfortable interacting with your coworkers about
day-to-day. There's no requirement at work to share about your life. But [with] growth, I
think, [sharing personal life details with colleagues] happens sometimes. Leadership
opportunities happen because people are able to relate to you. They appreciate you in a
leadership capacity for being able to relate to them. And so being authentic and relatable
because being gay doesn't make me unrelatable.
Participant Five expressed his desire of authenticity being unremarkable without any celebration
or recognition:
But I would prefer that being gay is unremarkable versus something to be proud of or
something to highlight. Do you see what I'm saying? Like, I prefer just to be irrelevant.
Queer Leadership 56

And where I work, I like the fact that for the most part, or really entirely, it's irrelevant, I
guess the authenticity would be not having to think about it because it's irrelevant or
unremarkable.
Participant Six linked his definition of authenticity to values and living up to them in his day-to-
day life:
Extreme ownership, owning what you say and owning what you believe, and being
confident in kind of who you are and in your point of view. And I think when you really
own your values and kind of own what you believe, there are certain things where when
you're talking to someone about an issue, a business challenge, you could be swayed. But
there are certain things that are unshakable values …And I think being authentic is
keeping yourself aligned with those values.
Through the rich insight of the participants, their personal experiences demonstrate how
queer leaders define and experience the fabric of authenticity at work, highlighting the individual
nuance that separates and connects them. Their descriptions of being “unfiltered” and their desire
to normalize their lives demonstrate how heteronormativity in workplace culture has influenced
the pattern of their careers. The organizational environments for participants have not been free
of self-monitoring of their queer identity. The diversity of viewpoints, ranging from a desire for
assimilation to pushing for more advocacy, illuminates organizational culture that makes queer
leaders feel othered in different contexts and scenarios. The diversity of viewpoints is unified
through the desire for their queer identity to become commonplace and normative.
Need for Concealment of Authentic Queer Expression
People who are queer often engage in the act of concealment to avoid the potential
negative impact of not meeting a heteronormative cultural standard in the workplace and losing
Queer Leadership 57

visibility (King et al., 2017). The consistent process of concealing their authentic identity at work
has negative repercussions on the organization and the queer individual (Capell et al., 2018;
Henderson et al., 2018). Though five out of seven (71%) felt they could be mostly authentic at
work, all indicated acts of concealment through their responses concerning interactions at work
in their respective roles.
Participant One described a recognition of concealment presented to him through a 360-
review process initiated by a leadership coach. The survey for the review was answered by
selected peers and leaders within his organization. This experience was especially salient to him
because he is newly out at work and in his personal life:
And basically, the feedback came back, saying, “Really great, super smart, very smart
strategic, we just wish he would speak up more meetings.” And I think that's because,
and I was talking to my coach about it…and he's like that's not surprising, being, you
know, gay or queer, and in a company. You do pull back. You do kind of hold back
because you don't want visibility in a sense. So that's something I'm working on right
now.
Participant Three expressed that he never needed to suppress his queer identity. However, he
mentioned later in the interview that he would limit the amount of information or detail in certain
situations. Participant Three stated, “I think I make it very apparent that I am married to a man,
and that's out in the open. But I'm definitely probably not as open.” Participant Six expressed
being comfortable with his expression at work, but he still conceals aspects he thinks are
inappropriate for the work environment. His response was based on the idea that employees
should be able to bring their whole selves to the workplace:
Queer Leadership 58

But over the last couple of years, I really don't want to bring my whole self to work. I
mean, there are parts of myself that are not appropriate to bring to work. There are things
that probably shouldn't be talked about at work, and that's true for everyone.
Participant Seven shared that he feels comfortable overall, but, in certain situations
outside his team, he discovered he occasionally uses concealment. This occurs during
interactions with industrial workers he is responsible for leading and who work in the field. He
stated:
I can't really be…more enthusiastically gay as I am normally when I go out in the field.
And there is where the, you know, you would imagine [the] straight environment is
predominant...I would feel like I'm not exactly going to be myself over here. I'm not
going to be volunteering information. And when I've had to go out there to do a site visit,
for instance, because I'm overseeing a project…maybe there I'm not being myself as
much in that context.
Conservative Gay Perspectives of Concealment
Participants Five and Six identified as more politically conservative than what they
experienced with their queer peers inside and outside the work environment (Milburn, 2019).
This experience has created an alternate view of concealment of expression since their opinions
often do not coincide with the mainstream position of being queer at work, how it should be
expressed, and how the current political environment interacts with that free expression.
Participant Five shared his trepidation in expressing how he truly feels about political events that
may contradict the feeling of most of his queer colleagues. He stated, “And that's
uncomfortable…I don't usually want to undertake the social risk of pushing back on that
Queer Leadership 59

assumption because all of a sudden we have a conflict, maybe unless it was like an extraordinary
person who's fine with that.” Participant Six stated:
I feel like the gay community has turned its back on me… I am a Republican, and there is
a narrative in the gay community writ large today that basically tells me, as a gay
Republican, you do not belong here. We do not want your authentic self here. We don't
see you. You do not exist. You are not welcome here. And they basically tell me that I'm
a racist. They tell me that I'm a bad person, and I feel like it's a whole other closeting. I've
been put in another closet, and it breaks my heart because this is a community that I've
worked very hard for [obtaining] equality.
Participant Six also expressed that he feels his straight colleagues assume he agrees with left-
leaning policies, “I think also my straight colleagues just assume because I'm gay that I believe
all of those things. And if I'm close to them, I have to explain actually, I don't.”
Black Queer Leaders’ Experience of Race and Queer Expression
This study did not include intersectionality as an aim of the research through the biodata
survey or interview protocol. Intersectionality is when two or more demographic identities
combine to create a new, specific framework that cannot be separated (Crenshaw, 1989).
Intersectionality emerged prominently in the discussions with Participant Two and Participant
Four, both Black men. Participant Two shared his experience managing the process of career
advancement and visibility within his specific White female-dominated field:
I think it's the intersection of those two, and I'm very happy with who I am, but at the
same time I recognize that it can be seen as two disadvantages... So, I think for me, I do
kind of view it through that lens, but I view it through a lens of it's both of these things
working together... I mean, when I think about clinical research, it's not just being black
Queer Leadership 60

or being gay... I have struggled a little bit… it's that the intersection of these two issues…
And I do feel like there is a level of influence that I will not have or do not have despite
my position.
Participant Four explained how his ability to lead well had been impacted by how his Black
identity is perceived concurrently with his queer identity. Participant Four expressed his Black
and queer identity through the concept of “boldness.” The ability to speak up and speak out to
make their voice heard is seen as a detriment instead of a leadership trait. He has chosen not to
conceal this part of himself, which has made Participant Four feel that his leadership potential at
his organization and other past organizations is limited. He stated, “I think the authenticity part,
right? The personality part, the boldness part that has impacted me. I'm pretty sure if I wasn’t… I
would have been in a vice president role by now—maybe somebody's diversity officer role.”
Out Queer Leaders are Better Leaders
When queer leaders are more connected to their authentic expressions of self at work,
their perceptions of their organization are more favorable. They interact better with those they
lead and their colleagues (Henderson et al., 2018). The responses of most participants aligned
with the literature, reporting that being out and more authentic at work has empowered them to
be better leaders. When asked if he felt being out has affected his leadership, Participant One
responded, “Yes, and actually, it's increased my leadership.” After being a part of Pride events
throughout his organization, he found that his “visibility is increased since that time.” Participant
Three stated:
I think in terms of my leadership style, it's really made it so I've been able to be more
relatable…I think they realize that there's nothing that I'm hiding, and again, I think that
does relay in because there's often a lot of distrust in management that they're not getting
Queer Leadership 61

the full story... So I think just being open and honest, even about my personal life, has
helped with building those connections and personal connections as well.
Participant Six also experienced benefits within his organization and his industry. He
stated:
I think it's made me much more empathetic to other folks from other out groups[who]
feel like an outsider and to have to try to find ways to cover parts of yourself in order to
assimilate and fit in and to try to navigate some of that a big part of consulting and
professional services.
Participant Seven expressed his perspective of being out at work:
Leadership opportunities happen because people are able to relate to you. They
appreciate you in a leadership capacity for being able to relate to them. And so being
authentic and relatable, because being gay doesn't make me unrelatable. And it's
different. But you're still relatable…So, by being yourself and allowing people to look
into your life here and there, it can present not just growth in achieving higher positions,
but also a more sustainable existence in whatever, at whatever level you're in to be
pleasant and happy in your job on a day to day. Sometimes, if you're not yourself, it can
wear on you.
He further elaborates from the specific perspective of being able to lead well within his current
role at his organization:
I think it's interacted in a positive way. I've had opportunities to get to know more of my
coworkers. We've had fairs for our employee resources group…People know that I'm part
of a resource group, and so people come and introduce themselves, and I get to introduce
myself to others where if you're not stepping up, you might not have those opportunities.
Queer Leadership 62

And the more people you know, it helps, so in the leadership capacities that I've been in,
it just helps to be more visible and exposed.
The experiences of visibility for career advancement varied among all queer leaders
interviewed for this research. There was an overarching feeling that their hard work had not been
hidden under the power structure of heteronormative work environments while still
acknowledging the privilege that being cis-male and White has created advantages that might not
exist for gender non-conforming individuals. Even with their work being recognized, the lack of
role models was a factor that complicated the process of career advancement. This lack was
connected to heteronormative work environments where queer leaders are not always present.
The connection of visibility and authenticity of queer expression are tied together for queer
leaders who choose to be out at work, and all shared experiences when their expression of
authenticity seemed to misalign with a heteronormative culture and often acts of concealment
occurred, both consciously and unconsciously. For Black queer leaders, the reflection of
heteronormativity is seen in tandem with their expression of race, so their concept of visibility
must be seen through both lenses.
Embodying Corporate Professionalism as a Queer Leader
Being or acting professional is a term that is often bandied around very loosely to
describe the most desirable way to behave in corporate life. However, the term is not clearly
defined, can be used in multiple ways, and may have different values or meanings concerning the
norms, mores, and expectations within an organization, field, or industry (Scanlon, 2011).
Participants were asked to express their understanding of what it means to be a professional
within their organizations. Responses reflected their perception of their organization and their
values surrounding the concept. Each leader expounds upon their professional definition to give
Queer Leadership 63

meaning and depth to their answers and exploration. Heteronormativity is found to exist within
specific professional contexts as external expectations of binary gender infiltrate workplace
culture. Intersectionality of race and political identity interplay with versions of the professional
concept created within work environments. The section ends with an exploration of ERGs and
how they can create connectivity for queer leaders to concepts of professionalism within
corporations.
Participant One described professionalism as directly related to how an associate can
make another associate feel through interactions. He stated, “I think within our company it's
about professionalism, being prepared, coming in with the right attitude. You know, we're really
focusing now on more and more just trying to make sure others are heard within the
organization.” Participant Three also described professionalism in terms of an associate’s effect
on others combined with accountability. He stated:
Even if you have two of the exact same people in the workplace, everybody's going to
have different perspectives and ideas…to remain professional is to always hear those
ideas, make sure that everyone feels heard and seen, and never make it feel like anyone's
being dismissed or kind of put to the side and not being truly heard…Another part for me
is to not allow those that are not professional to get away without being professional. So,
I think holding each other accountable is a big thing so, whether that's accountable in
terms of your attitude and behavior or your work itself...
Completed work was an idea that was common in response to the participants' reflections on
what it means to be professional. Participant Four stated:
We emphasize a lot on getting shit done…Owning what it is that you have to do and getting it
done, and collaborating with your colleagues in a way that always moves the needle on
Queer Leadership 64

getting shit done. I think that's how this organization defines professionalism, because I
see people sort of, in terms of personalities, show up very differently. So I think they're
really accepting and inclusive of what that looks like. But it's about, at the end of the day,
are you getting stuff done?
Participant Two also felt that the idea of professionalism was through accomplishing completed
work, but with less focus on acceptance, inclusion, or personal respect and more focus on mutual
respect with colleagues:
To be professional, you are fulfilling the roles of the responsibilities of your role. You are
accountable for the things you're responsible for. You are at least somewhat of an
effective communicator, not just with your team but with other teams…it means that you
can be presentable and eloquent in front of clients. You may need to be able to defend
yourself in front of clients. It means that you are sensitive to deadlines, you are detail-
oriented.
Participant Six expressed professional accountability to colleagues with a guiding inner
value system that aligns with organizational values as the mode of expression, including
moderation of emotion:
I think being professional is being conscientious. Kind of doing what you say you're
going to do, being consistent, being on time, turning on your video camera when you
have a video meeting. You have to kind of look and behave a certain way and show up a
certain way because they're showing you the same respect. For me, that's how I view kind
of being professional in this kind of hybrid remote context…it's behaving with integrity.
It's telling the truth. It's giving your 100%. And if something is wrong…you speak up,
and you say something. Those are all part of being a professional and moderate.
Queer Leadership 65

The moderation of emotional connection was more pronounced in the response from Participant
Five, with an expectation that personal matters should rarely interfere with professional life:
I would say it's understanding and prioritizing. Like the reason we're associating with
each other, which is for the benefit of the clients and to carry on an organization within
the bounds of the law and the ethical rules to make money and serve the clients and to
avoid bringing in other problems and issues that would impact that unless necessary and
not burdening other people unnecessarily with considerations irrelevant to that objective
and distracting from it excessively with personal concerns.
Participant Seven expressed how his definition of being professional reached beyond the
borders of the organization by considering the impact of one’s actions on their colleagues and
how it affects them in a personal way at home as well as at the workplace:
So, to be a professional is being aware of how to meet the challenges of building up your
team, bringing out the best of them in them. And as I'm in my role, working with a team
that I need to bring the best out of or just take care of because I need to make sure that
their well-being is sustainable. Because it's not just about getting them to produce but
getting my team to also live a healthy life. And as a result, yes, everybody's thriving, and
we're getting the job done.
Queer Leaders' Experience of Corporate Culture Through Professionalism
Heteronormativity, the invisible power structure prevalent in our society that can create
oppression towards queer expression that behaves outside of heterosexuality or the idea of binary
gender as men or women, is a key concept for this research (Herz & Johansson, 2015). Given
heteronormativity as the prevalent power structure, questions asked during the interview
challenged the participants to reflect on the dissonance caused by heteronormativity during their
Queer Leadership 66

professional life that may be moving in a different direction from their queer identity.
Participants Three and Seven felt that their understanding of being professional at work aligned
with their queer identity.
A few participants who recognized misalignment mentioned the prevalence of sports
references in personal interactions at work and incorporated them into business relationships and
meetings, creating a disconnect between them and most of their colleagues. Participant One
stated:
Oh, I think it’s part of our culture of the company... here's a through line of sports, like a
stupid amount of like sports, like golf, like you have to golf if you really want to get
promoted… I don't golf.
He described a work event based on sports that left him feeling isolated. He stated, “all the
analogies were sports-related… I did not connect with that at all does not reach me in any way.
In fact, it turns me off.”
Participant Four felt that, in his role as a DEI practitioner, his colleagues’ expectations of
being professional were misaligned with the purpose of his role and his expression of queerness.
Participant Four stated:
My expression of queerness is my directness. And I think that is the part that … could be
suppressed or that people might look at and go, “why are you talking like that?” Or,
“Why are you so direct? Why aren't you beating around the bush like the rest of us?”
Whereas though, our community, this queer community, is very out there, out proud and
loud. So, we do everything that same way again because we've had to. And I think…my
entire career [I] have gotten feedback…like, “Hey, so how do we soften that?” I'm like,
soften it? I'm like, child, this is it! You all want this work done. This is it!
Queer Leadership 67

Participant Two’s response connected to his intersectionality of being Black and queer and the
communication expectations within his organization. He stated:
I think just the communication piece. I think, again, I am a person who prefers to be
direct and get to the heart of the problem so we can solve it and move on. But I get the
impression here that it's better to be less direct, or someone might go crying to your boss,
literally.
Participants Five and Six both responded to the idea of their queer identity and
professionalism through their lens as politically conservative-leaning gay men who are going
against the grain of a left-leaning queer majority and how it affects how they show up.
Participant Five stated:
To me, honestly, the biggest impediment that I would [have], other than putting some sort
of barrier between me and clients because they have personal hang-ups, is that I have a
fear that if I'm an out homosexual, I'm never quite sure what I'm signing up for in terms
of other people's expectations.
Participant Six is actively learning how to navigate this disparity, wondering, “will I have the
integrity to stand up to those folks who are part of my community, or do I just keep my mouth
shut and just keep going along?”
Employee Resource Groups and Queer Leadership Empowerment
ERGs are voluntary employee groups created within an organization to be a resource to a
specific demographic of employees. They are intended to increase inclusion in the work
environment that is aligned with the organization's mission and goals (Kaplan et al., 2009). The
increased inclusion and engagement of employees within certain underrepresented groups, like
queer employees, can mitigate the effects of cultural heteronormativity and provide opportunities
Queer Leadership 68

for career advancement. Participants were asked about their participation in ERGs to determine if
the groups assisted them in connecting professionally and growing as queer leaders within their
organization. Five out of seven (71%) participants are not currently participating in an ERG, and
four out of seven (57%) have not participated in the past due to the lack of availability within
their organization.
Concerning those who have not participated, Participant Four has not participated in an
ERG, even though he has helped to create them in the past as a DEI professional and has been
exposed to them many times. He did not feel comfortable in these groups because his
intersectionality of identities was usually at odds with the other group participants. He stated:
I have spun up many ERG affinity group programs but have never participated in any of
them…I never felt connected to the groups because, in some way, the group found some
way to express their sense of discrimination against some aspect of my identity. So
whether it was going to the black ERG and black being heteronormativity and things that
came up couldn't fit in there, [or] you go into the queer space, and it's usually
predominantly White men, and it's like, no can't fit in there…And so I've never found a
space for a community that I felt uniquely where I could be my authentic self, that I didn't
have to be just black or just queer…Or just anything. I could be my full intersectional
self, 100%.
Participant Two lamented not having one available currently or in the past during his career,
stating, “There really haven’t been any affinity groups. I think I would have tried to be involved
if there were…” Participant Three also had a desire that an ERG could have helped his career
advancement in the past, stating, “…had there been more access to those, I would have taken
advantage of it at a bigger company just because it gives you more exposure to coworkers who
Queer Leadership 69

are like-minded or have similar values.” Participant Six is not currently participating in an ERG,
but that is because of his top role in a small organization. He mentioned the prominent role these
groups played in his development as a leader, bringing him to where he is today. Before he left
his previous organization, he was a prominent leader in queer ERGs.
Concerning two out of seven (29%) participants, Participant One described how working
with the LGBTQIA+ ERG has been challenging given the overall conservative nature of the
insurance industry. The concept of an ERG is new to this company, and the LGBTQIA+ focused
group is only the second group after a women-focused group was established. He stated, “The
Pride [ERG] has been far more challenging, just because, you know, creating a safe space for
people to self-identify, especially in the insurance industry. It's very conservative.” The problems
with the group relate to how they feel they should act within the organization, and that problem
does not exist in other ERGs. He stated:
[the group members try to decide] What sort of interest do you like? How do we
approach this?... It's different, like with women. It's more for them. It was about
mentorship. And for our group, we really haven't come across exactly what that means
yet. We've had some opportunities to meet with leaders within other companies. And so,
we're looking at it.
Participant Seven is part of a newly created ERG for LGBTQIA+ associates and was very
proud to be a part of the group and the work they want to accomplish. He stated:
I'm proud of that. Being able to be a part of an employee resource group…It was
established a year ago, and I've been on taking part since then, trying to just make
knowledge possible, give opportunities for people to just be aware that we're there, and
we're creating…a knowledge base of terms and giving an opportunity for allies to take
Queer Leadership 70

part and be comfortable with the fact that there's a gay community within our profession,
at our company.
The concept of professionalism for queer leaders is different and individual for each
participant, encompassing factors such as their impact on colleagues’ feelings, their
accountability, and their ability to excel in their work. All these experiences of being
professional have shaped how queer leaders experience heteronormativity within their
organization or industry and inform their process of career development. Heteronormativity is
significantly pronounced when metaphors and expectations like sports or familial interactions
with children are introduced into the work environment, creating isolation for queer leaders who
do not have the same interests or familial expectations. Intersectionality is a factor concerning
race and queer expression that complicates the heteronormative bar of professionalism. In many
cases, the effects of heteronormativity on career advancement have been mitigated through queer
leaders' participation in ERGs.
Transformational Barriers with Peers and Leaders
The Burke-Litwin model refers to transformational factors within an organization as
orchestrated by those who have the title and influence to create change (Burke, 2018). All
participants hold leadership positions within their organizations. Their interactions with their
peers and those they report to can affect the organization's mission, strategy, culture, and
performance, with the external environment informing their actions (Burke, 2018). Following the
model, the participants were asked questions to illuminate where heteronormativity may exist
within their transformational practice that creates barriers to their career advancement.
The Burke-Litwin model guided the interview protocol questions and sought to
illuminate the nature of relationships within transactional, transformational, or external systems.
Queer Leadership 71

Understanding these relationships demonstrate similarities within the business culture that affect
queer leaders throughout corporate America.
Direct leadership, or the reporting manager for the participant, appeared to be a
supportive relationship that did not create heteronormative barriers for six out of seven (86%)
participants, regardless of title, level of seniority, or industry. Participant One stated:
…and he's fantastic, like he's super supportive. He's the one that got signed off for me to
hire this executive coach. Very much interested in what's happening in my life. And you
know, on a personal level. So, I'm very fortunate. That's the most important one.
Participant Three remarked, “oh, yeah.” Participant Four stated, “I've never felt like ever in my
career, not in this current situation, ever felt like I had to hide who I was. I've been very lucky in
my queer journey and my experiences.” Participant Five works in an environment with mostly
gay peers, so being gay does not stand out as much to his leadership. For Participant Six, his
immediate colleagues are also his direct leadership, and he advised that he has had no problem,
remarking, “No, never.” Participant Seven was recently promoted, and his new direct leader is
gay, stating, “I'm definitely comfortable.”
The one exception to this was Participant Two, who felt a heteronormative barrier within
his entire organization, primarily composed of White women. He is the gender minority within
this organization as a man, and he is the only Black leader, with most of his leadership being
White. Participant Two stated:
Leadership perspective and higher, I would say I do navigate it slightly differently. And
not…that I think my boss is in any way discriminated against me or has displayed any
kind of negative attitude about anyone in the gay community. But at the same time, I'm
trying to think, have I heard her mention any gay friends or sister, brother? I have no
Queer Leadership 72

idea… And so I just get the impression that our lives are very different, and she's one of
the ones who's about to get married. And especially on my team right now, there's a lot of
excitement about…[out of] 21 people… there are five women who are getting married,
one of them in a couple of weeks…I would assume they'd be just as happy for me if I was
like…“me and [his longtime partner] are getting married.” But will they even know how
to navigate that? I don't think so.
The way he interacts very carefully with his direct manager is the same way he interacts with his
peers. His behavior has been influenced not only by direct experiences with his team and boss
but also by his experiences with similar teams and leadership at other companies in the past.
Participant Two stated, “And I'm thinking about my last job in particular where I had one of
those eight managers really try to get me fired. I'm very careful about what I say and how I say to
pretty much everyone.”
Heteronormative Barriers in Senior Leadership
Though connection with direct management was perceived as free from heteronormative
barriers, problems were observed with their senior leadership interactions. Participant Three felt
navigating their queerness was more fraught with potential perils concerning senior leaders.
Heteronormativity with senior leaders is something he has seen as a trend throughout his career
that has improved but still affects his current relationships with senior leadership:
…when I was dealing with upper management, I would tend to be less open about it and
kind of dial back a little bit just because I think it was ingrained in me, especially also
because of the first place [I worked], I wasn't fully out until much later…As I've gotten
on and I've been open and out at the start of these positions, I find myself doing that
less…[but] I don't really feel I am maybe as open as I would be with my team when I
Queer Leadership 73

present to our COO or anything like that. So, I would say that C suite level, I tend to
maybe not be as open, but I think I make it very apparent that I am married to a man, and
that's out in the open. I was speaking to another current VP who's in a different kind of
affinity group. He's Asian Pacific. And he was like, “one of the big things that I think that
I can relate to you is that it's not often you see people like yourself on these VPs and
these C suites.”
The queer leader's interactions with their C-suite evolved over time, influenced by their past
experiences. They learned that expressing their queerness can sometimes be perceived
negatively, prompting them to adjust their approach to ensure that it doesn't hinder their career
advancement. This phenomenon has not only been observed by queer leaders but has also been
noted by straight leaders.
Participant One shared experiences managing relationships with the C-suite on issues
important to him as a queer leader. He explained how controversy within the organization
regarding gender-affirming medical benefits for transgender employees created a stir that had to
be closely managed by senior leadership. Participant One told his boss:
This seems like something we should be promoting to our [LGBTQIA+ ERG] saying this
is fantastic!...and [his boss] said “Don’t! There’s enough visibility on it. We don’t need to
ruffle feathers”. And that’s where I’m like…you can’t have it both ways.
In this scenario, queer leadership negotiated their personal interactions within their own ERG not
to cause a possibly fickle C-suite from backing down on a decision that positively affected queer
employees, lowering morale, and increasing doubt within the queer leader, impacting how they
lead.
Queer Leadership 74

Another leader shared their experience with senior partners who are the top leaders
within their organization's hierarchy. Relationships with these partners are based on personal
relationships and the trust built over time. Participant Five felt that being out posed a risk that
could limit his career advancement if this relationship soured due to heteronormative prejudice.
He stated:
[Being] promoted in general at a firm is quite a personal decision. Like, the partners have
to trust you and think you’re a good business generator. But the relationships are
important. So, there were a few, maybe more old school [senior partners] who I was
concerned that our relationship may change if that was disclosed…also knowing that the
official position of the firm was “oh, no, we’re gay friendly. We’d love to have more
check marks on the form.”
The queer leader believed that there could be a misalignment between the firm's public position
and the personal sensitivities of the organization's leaders because of heteronormativity within
the senior leadership ranks. This created a perceived barrier to his journey through career
advancement when he decided to come out at work.
The Burke-Litwin model helps to give us a framework to observe where
heteronormativity is at work within corporations through the lived experiences of queer leaders
that create barriers to career advancement through interconnected systems and related influences
(Burke, 2018). Though more research is needed, there appears to be a pattern of the
transformational relationships that hover closer to the individual leader acting more positively
overall, with some exceptions that can occur through intersectionality, industry, and the specific
organizational makeup. Conversely, relationships with senior or executive leadership at the top
Queer Leadership 75

of an organization appear to have more perils or perceived disconnect related to their queer
identity.
Transactional Barriers Inside and Outside of the Organization
The following responses relate to the Burke-Litwin model concerning transactional
interactions the participants experienced that are informed by heteronormativity and have created
barriers as they move toward career advancement. Burke describes transactional factors as day-
to-day operations with the requisite change being “continuous improvement, evolutionary, and
selective rather than sweeping” (2018). These factors include management practices, work unit
climate, individual needs, values, performance, and skills and abilities (Burke, 2018).
Interactions with Sales Professionals
Sales professionals within an organization often have a closer relationship with the
customer and their value systems than internal leadership. Given the political environment of
those sales professionals and their customers in certain areas, heteronormativity can be a
foundation for their interactions. This can become a barrier for queer leaders who are out and
have meaningful interactions with sales teams, the economic engine of the organization.
Participant One has struggled in his interactions with sales professionals who work in
conservative areas and with their industry also being traditionally conservative. One example
was a post for National Coming Out Day that was put on their public-facing website, which
upset several producers. Participant One stated, “I had two salespeople in the organization, one
directly and one indirectly, ask me to take down the post, with the rationale that we ensure
church-based organizations. They’re going to find this political.” This stand-off between
Participant One and the sales team went to the C-Suite, who decided to keep the post. Since that
Queer Leadership 76

point, their relationship has had much tension. Participant One stated, “And we're fine, but he's
the kind of person he doesn't want to socialize with me, and I don't socialize with them.”
External Client Interactions
Similar to sales teams who work within localities whose demographics lean conservative,
external client work also has similar heteronormative perils that must be navigated to maintain
relationships. If those relationships fail, so do the career implications for the queer leader who
manages those relationships. As a client-facing leader at a consulting firm, Participant Six
explained how he used concealment to ensure he did not make a move that would hamper his
career ambitions. He stated:
If I'm working for a big manufacturing company in the Midwest, the Bible Belt, and
someone asks me about my wedding ring, that we're making small talk, and he said, “oh,
how does your wife like that you travel so much?” I said, “oh, she doesn't seem to mind.”
And I just left it there…If I had decided to go the other way, if I had kind of said, well,
you know, I'm going to educate this person, or I'm going to show him that there are queer
people everywhere, sure, he would have been polite, and he would have said, “Oh, that's
great...” But I know for a fact that it would have harmed the project. There would have
been a thousand other little ways that I would have probably been punished, and the
project would have been under a different level of scrutiny.
Participant Five, a leader in the legal field, also managed client relationships differently to
generate deals and new business. These relationships are essential to manage as he works
directly under named partners. He stated, “Career advancement would be…networking and
obtaining clients and building good will with existing clients and making sure they like
Queer Leadership 77

you…[referring to being queer] I don’t often lead with it in case people think that’s like off
foot…”
The Burke-Litwin model begins and terminates the feedback loop through individual and
organizational performance (Burke, 2018). The performance of queer leaders and their
interactions with external clients and professionals who directly interacted with those external
demands experienced transactional barriers related to the heteronormative social environment.
Queer identity expression could negatively impact a queer leader’s career advancement process
due to impasses with these entities that directly relate to the company's financial bottom line
through sales efforts.
Summary
Queer leaders have varied experiences within corporate America, which track their own
identities, experiences, gender and sexual orientation expression, industry, and organization and
have an effect on their career advancement. They all made it to their leadership positions through
hard work and determination. Even though it was not apparent to all in the same way, their queer
experiences may have made that journey more complicated than their heteronormative peers due
to the heteronormativity of workplace cultures. While there were mostly no role models for the
leaders to emulate, a few had significant experiences with people who helped to inform them on
how to be visible in the advancement process. All the queer leaders interviewed had some
experiences where their authenticity had to be concealed. However, that experience was varied
and not initially recognized as an act of concealment. Black queer leaders had a more
complicated experience due to the intersectionality of their race and expression of their sexual
orientation than was not noted by White or Latino participants and acknowledged by one White
participant. Conservative queer leaders’ experience of concealment was in response to their
Queer Leadership 78

perceived reception of hostility from the queer community and the culture created over the last
decade or so. Most queer leaders in this study expressed that being out enhanced their leadership
skills, aligning with existing literature. Their embodiment of professionalism, viewed through the
lens of both their personal identities and their organizations, resonated with their experiences as
gay men, particularly highlighting the significance of intersectionality for Black gay men.
Overall, transformational barriers with leader peers and their direct leadership were not
perceived to be barriers to most of the participants. On the contrary, these relationships were
predominantly viewed as positive and supportive. However, it's worth noting that an exception
existed in the case of one participant who found themselves to be both a sexual and racial
minority within a predominantly White female group. For this individual, apprehensions were
rooted in past experiences within a similar demographic and industry rather than solely within
the organization. Conversely, interactions with senior leadership continue to be closely
scrutinized by queer leaders to safeguard their career trajectories due to the perceived presence of
heteronormative tendencies within these higher echelons of leadership. Transactional interactions
have created problems for participants, mostly outside their direct work groups. Notably, two
distinct areas emerged as potential sources of these barriers: interactions with sales professionals
and interactions with third-party clients of their respective organizations. Both groups often
reflect the individual demographic they serve, which can be heteronormative and be sources of
potential or actualized conflict for out queer leaders. Locations of heteronormative barriers were
identified through the interviews and interpreted through the Burke-Litwin theoretical
framework.

Queer Leadership 79

CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS
The primary objective of this study was to examine the experiences of queer leaders in
corporate America and identify barriers that stand in the way of their career advancement. A
casual onlooker might anticipate diverse backgrounds among LGBTQIA+ leaders in corporate
America due to differences in sexual orientation, gender identities, and related expressions.
However, this research revealed that even within a specific category of queer identity, such as
gay cis men, there were noticeable differences in experiences. It is important to underscore that
the research focus on this narrower subset of the queer spectrum was not a deliberate choice but
rather a consequence of limited responses received from the USC Alumni Association, the
selected source for research participants. The following discussion notes those differences and,
most importantly, finds threads of commonality applicable to queer leaders facing the pressure of
heteronormativity. These threads are woven into recommendations to corporate America for
increasing queer leadership using Burke-Litwin as a guide for the approach and the locality of
focus within an organization.
Discussion of Findings
The following section is an analysis of the research findings. The discussion is centered
on how the findings align with the conceptual framework of heteronormativity and the
theoretical framework of Burke-Litwin that seeks out the locations and interactions within an
organization.
Impact of Heteronormativity using The Burke-Litwin Model
An important consideration that guided this research was the prevalence of organizational
policy combined with state and federal regulations that express the mandate of eliminating
discrimination towards queer people at work. Existing literature underscores that despite the
Queer Leadership 80

implementation of such policies, persistent challenges continue to affect queer employees,
particularly when they endeavor to progress in their careers. These data show that all of the queer
leaders interviewed had experienced the force of heteronormativity in some form in their current
roles and in the careers that led up to this point. Even considering the intersectionality of
identities that emerged, all were still affected by heteronormativity. Corporations are large and
often complex in structure and culture, confounding the process of identifying where these
pockets of heteronormativity exist. The Burke-Litwin model was used as a theoretical framework
guiding the development of the interview protocol to illuminate the locations of
heteronormativity within the dimensions of a corporation and how the external environment
affects those dimensions (Burke, 2018).
Visibility and Authentic Expression
Visibility and Sponsorship
Queer leaders interviewed in this study felt overall positive about their visibility for
career advancement concerning their queer identity within their prospective organizations. This
is a greater rate than the findings from Fidas & Cooper (2018), who report that 20% of queer
workers feel they are not being considered for advancement opportunities because of their queer
expression. The presentation of heteronormative male gender identity may be why results track
better for this research group and not for the larger, more diverse pool of respondents used by the
Human Rights Campaign to gather their data. GIB is a principle coined by Moss-Racusin &
Rabasco (2018) that identifies the presence of bias when people do not fit within the
heteronormative, binary gender norms of our society, specifically transgender or non-binary
identities. The literature informs that people who are transgender are facing unprecedented levels
of discrimination and often never make it to the job market due to a lack of support and
Queer Leadership 81

education (Carpenter et al., 2020). All the participants interviewed for this research fit within the
binary identity of the cis male, even though they openly identified as gay. Being male can also
account for the lack of perceived barriers towards visibility, as the archetype for leadership in our
society that influences our corporations is a White, heterosexual, non-disabled male (Muhr &
Sullivan, 2013). Identities that challenge masculinity are excluded from the perception of what a
leader is supposed to be (Muhr & Sullivan, 2013). Participant Six recognized this as a reason his
career advancement had been smooth, even though he had been out for many years. Another
possible consideration is the opportunities queer leaders receive due to the increased presence of
Pride initiatives within organizations that are pushing more queer leaders into the spotlight.
Seventy-one percent (n=5) of queer leaders interviewed felt they had no role model to
emulate and possibly use as a resource to propel their career advancement process. Participants
lamented this point because this lack made their path forward more difficult. Conversely, the two
queer leaders who did have role models extolled the benefits they received through observing
their path and forming relationships that had a direct impact on shaping their current careers.
Role models are essential because they reshape the narrative of possibility in career
advancement, helping to oppose heteronormativity and the White cis-male archetype of the
corporate leader (Sealy & Singh, 2008). When role models become sponsors, they invest in an
individual based on trust that benefits the recipient’s career path and propel them forward within
an organization, opening doors and breaking boundaries (Hewlett, 2013). More role models for
potential queer leaders could help to reduce the impact of heteronormativity and remove barriers
that restrict career advancement.
Queer Leadership 82

Continuing Concealment and The Struggle for Authenticity at Work
Fine (2017) suggests that the idea of being authentic for queer people is not an easy
question to answer based on the acts of concealment most queer people have been forced to
engage in throughout their lives for safety and opportunity, and this confounds the principles of
specific leadership styles, especially authentic leadership. The research findings are aligned with
this idea. Each participant reported acts of concealment at different points while in their role,
with two participants not recognizing they were engaging in concealment acts until it was
highlighted by someone else. Participant One was recently alerted to how he engaged in
concealment through a leadership coaching process. Participant Seven had revelations that
occurred through questions asked during this interview about how he might change his behavior
in different work groups within his organization. The ability to be authentic in the workplace for
queer leaders continues to be a problem, though less pronounced than the effect would be before
our modern era, where people who are LGBTQIA+ are more accepted than it has been in the
past. The idea of how to be authentic at work varied between everyone, and two leaders who
were politically aligned with conservative thought felt that the amount of authenticity should be
more limited in scope in deference to the organization's culture.
Within a relatively homogeneous sampling of gay cis men, three different stories
emerged concerning authenticity related to intersectional identity. Through their responses to
questions focused on being a queer leader at work, Black gay men respondents made it very clear
that their Black and queer identities were so intertwined that it was difficult or impossible to
discern bias against their two identities received from coworkers. These leaders felt that speaking
their minds freely without additional filtering would disrupt the emotions of White coworkers,
limiting their career advancement opportunities.
Queer Leadership 83

This effect was more pronounced with the Black, queer leader who worked as a gender
minority within an environment and industry mostly composed of White women, the second
group to emerge. This Black, queer leader learned lessons from negative experiences in the past
that he should never truly be himself freely while in this environment. Though much of the
principles of queer theory are based on the foundational work created through feminist
theoretical work (de Lauretis, 1991), the shared fight against patriarchal archetypes was not
enough to mitigate the factor of race. The third narrative related to intersectional identity
concerned politically conservative queer leadership navigating the left-leaning queer community.
The biggest issue faced by this group was finding their place in an increasingly politically
divided world where political capital for people who identify as LGBTQIA+ is increasing and
more vocal due to recent legislative losses.
The Out-Leader Effectiveness Bump
Despite discrimination and heteronormativity affecting queer leaders in their daily roles,
there was consistent agreement that being out as queer at work has made them better leaders and
increased their self-efficacy. The leaders felt more confident in their authenticity, making them
feel like they could relate and empathize more with the people they lead. The notion of empathy
and connectivity being a factor in queer leaders being better at their job aligns with the literature.
The affirming environments created by gay leaders have made them excel in their roles over the
years (Snyder, 2006). Fassinger et al. (2010) suggest that a new idea of LGBT leadership would
align well with a modern leader who can lead through uncertainty by attaching to a learning style
instead of the cis male archetype of a leader who always knows what to do, leads without
questioning, and only expects responses of acquiescence.
Queer Leadership 84

Embodying Corporate Professionalism
Like the concept of authenticity, corporate professionalism is also a nebulous term, but
unlike authenticity, being professional is an unspoken requirement for corporate behavior and
leadership competency. Each queer leader was allowed to define what professional meant to
them in their specific role at their organization and then asked if that definition aligned with their
queer identity. When authentic identity overlaps with professional identity, there are pronounced
positive effects for the organization and individuals (Henderson et al., 2018). This overlap is
sometimes tricky since sexual identity and vague, localized definitions of professional do not
always line up for queer people and create dilemmas for how to be seen in the workplace
(Rumens & Kerfoot, 2009). Queer leaders generally held positive perceptions of their
professional lives and the expectations set within their organizations. None of their definitions
included considerations of how they physically present themselves and the potential
incongruities that might arise, possibly because they conform to the conventional, binary
understanding of gender. Given these positive connotations, most queer leaders felt that
expectations of being professional at their organization did overlap with their queer identity. The
exceptions to this were when traits of the majority identity, or White heterosexual cis men,
became part of the fabric of professional life. A typical example was the prevalence of sports
references that became essential to conducting, not just when present as water cooler talk.
Not all queer leaders were part of ERGs, but most of those who are or have been involved
with ERGs in the past have generally positive impressions of them. ERGs have been conduits for
queer leaders to interact more broadly within their organization, network, build community, and
share their message with their colleagues. Their responses aligned with how ERGs are intended
to operate within corporations (Green, 2018). The exception to this was the Black queer leader,
Queer Leadership 85

where the intersectionality of his queer and racial identity kept him from feeling accepted by
either individual group. This is another example of the intersectionality of Black identity and
queer identity being hard to separate and creating dissonance with other groups. The Latino
queer leader did not express this intersectionality of race and sexual orientation as a problem for
him, and he fully involved himself in ERGs in an edifying way.
The Corporate Sandwich of Leadership Heteronormativity
The Burke-Litwin model was created by a need to take an older model used to measure
organizational climate linked to physiological and organizational variables further and uncover
the individual locations and interactions where change can be applied (Burke, 2018). In this
research, the psychological variable is the concept of heteronormativity. The findings indicate
that the places where heteronormativity exists the most are in transformational interactions with
senior leaders and C-suite higher in rank than queer leaders and transactional internations with
sales professionals, external clients, and industrial workers lower in rank than queer leaders.
The transformational and transactional interactions between peers and direct management
are overwhelmingly positive and foster a sense of affirmation and connection for the queer
professionals in the study. The upper echelons of leadership appear to reflect the more traditional
archetypes of leadership that mimic heteronormativity and masculinity, creating a need for queer
leaders to conceal themselves during interactions (Sealy & Singh, 2008). Below them on an
organizational chart, those associates working industrial or blue-collar jobs create an
environment where queer leaders need to truncate their expression to be perceived as
heteronormative and not lose credibility. The literature aligns with this finding concerning
research showing discrimination against gay or lesbian applicants applying to jobs dominated by
heterosexuals of the same gender, like nurses or auto mechanics (Ahmed et al., 2013). This can
Queer Leadership 86

be expanded to include third-party clients, sales professionals, and the customers they serve in
areas where heteronormative standards are strictly embraced. The pattern of heteronormativity
has created a sandwich for queer leaders. There is a middle ground where they feel affirmed and
free to be authentic, but stepping in either direction toward those two extremes is fraught with
barriers queer leaders must manage. The barriers they face can affect their career advancement if
they cannot navigate these two worlds successfully as a leader.
Recommendations for Practice
The research pool was not limited to a specific industry or organization to provide a
broader understanding of queer leadership, allowing for recommendations applicable to all for-
profit businesses operating in the United States with relatively complex structures seeking ways
to support and nurture queer leaders. Given the findings, some suggestions can be made for
corporate practice to help remove barriers to career advancement for queer leaders. There are no
panaceas for the problem, primarily due to the vast and intricate nature of heteronormativity
ingrained in our society and our fundamental perceptions of leadership, compounded by
intersecting identities. The recommendations serve as starting points for discussions and
initiatives within an organization to address this challenge, with a focus on local organizational
contexts, assuming that protective policies are already in place.
Recommendation 1: Belonging Work with Senior Leadership and Front-Line Employees
People at the top of the organizational chart and who lead transformational efforts are not
immune from unintentionally biased behavior. Literature written by professional organizations
discusses the need for belonging to exist at the top, which is not always the focus of C-Suite
associates. Author and president and CEO of The Energy Project, Tony Schwartz (2018),
Queer Leadership 87

lamented that senior leaders are often focused on creating policy. However, not enough work is
being put in to change their behaviors and outcomes for development (Schwartz, 2018). A
mindset change must occur with top leaders to create substantive change (Schwartz, 2018).
Training senior leaders to foster belonging within their purview with follow-up and
accountability is imperative for organizational mindset change. The drag created on human
capital within organizations that struggle with belonging affects the individual worker and the
business. When senior leaders take belonging more seriously, starting with self-awareness and
understanding of privilege, the C-Suite and senior leaders could experience a bump in
performance like the mid-level queer leaders did when they came out and connected to their
authenticity (Gonzales, 2023).
The need to address the heteronormative sandwich found in the lives of queer leaders will
also necessitate more belonging training with front-line employees who are associates and not
part of leadership and engage in transactional functions of the organization. It is important to
note that as much as a change is desired for queer workers, environments that foster belonging
bring everyone into the conversation without alienating them. Belonging can open
communication channels on issues fraught with political hot spots, like how queer leaders from
this research found themselves during conversations with sales professionals and clients in the
field (Gonzales, 2023). When belonging works within an organization, there is also a jump in job
performance, fewer call-offs for sick days, and reduced turnover (Gonzales, 2023).
Belonging is a problem rooted in organizational culture more than any other factor, like
leadership behaviors, personal relationships, organizational purpose, or the nature of the work
(Schwartz et al., 2020). Unfortunately, 13% of organizations say they are ready to meet the
future with this necessary skill set (Schwartz et al., 2020). From the findings in this research, the
Queer Leadership 88

culture change within corporate America starts at the top levels and first-line levels of an
organization’s hierarchy. Belonging stands out from traditional DEI work and is defined by
Deloitte as fostering environments that create comfort, connection, and contribution (Schwartz et
al., 2020). Leaders who have succeeded in creating belonging become proficient in inclusive
leadership skills, which gives them the awareness to identify and neutralize their biases
(Schwartz et al., 2020).
Recommendation 2: Directly Challenge Heteronormativity in Executive Presence
Corporations should formally review leadership practices, habits, and norms to determine
if their leadership culture is unintentionally excluding people who do not fit a heteronormative
standard within an organization that is unbiased and not institutionalized within their field or
industry. An executive presence is a fundamental component of being visible for career
advancement. However, archetypes of leadership that American society and its corporations have
followed are often based on being heteronormative, White, male, and able-bodied, which
excludes queer leaders and the rest of Americans who do not fit into those categories (Evan,
2019; Muhr & Sullivan, 2013). Passive changes in leadership training will not address these
systematic issues that plague the foundations of the perceptions of leadership. Queer theory can
help corporations look deeply into their culture and leadership practices and eliminate
exclusionary practices or principles hidden within daily transformational interactions. The word
queer, recently reclaimed by the LGBTQIA+ community, signals a challenge to the status quo
(Evan, 2019). Findings should be implemented throughout the organization by incorporating the
changes within already established leadership principles and behaviors using a proven change
model appropriate for the specific organization.
Queer Leadership 89

Recommendation 3: Find Support for Queer Leaders Outside of the Organization
Queer leaders who do not have role models found that their former and current paths
toward career advancement have been made more difficult because of not having a road map or
mentor. Role models and sponsors are essential for a successful path through corporate
leadership (Hewitt, 2013; Sealy & Singh, 2008). Through such healthy relationships, Participant
One found excellent insight into his process as a newly out queer leader within his conservative
insurance organization, which helped him develop as a leader and learn to navigate his work
world successfully. His direct leader offered this support, who granted Participant One access to
a leadership coach to help him develop. All organizations may not have the people resources to
meet the challenges of supporting and developing queer leaders, and that is a problem if the
organization wants to retain top talent. Organizations must seek out solutions to help develop
their queer talent that specifically meets their needs; a one-size-fits-all approach does not meet
the moment. There are a multitude of consulting firms that have support for queer leaders. There
are also organizations other than consulting firms like Out Leadership that focus on developing
senior-level executives that could be a resource for an organization and queer leadership talent.
Recommendation 4: Create or Increase Funding and Participation for ERGs
Participants actively engaged in ERGs have reported experiencing significant value
related to their queer identity, community engagement, and overall sense of belonging within the
organization. Through 20 years of experience as a corporate leader, I found that ERGs create
successful outcomes for organizations they have worked for and the human capital they have led
or coached. It has been found that ERGs create spaces for learning different identities, incubating
leadership, and creating better leaders within the organization, not just for queer people but for
Queer Leadership 90

all minoritized identities that have historically been excluded from the White, heteronormative,
patriarchal norms that still exist in a society that affects organizations (Green, 2018). Creating
these groups could foster suitable environments that can remove barriers for queer leaders and
allow them to flourish. If an organization is considering removing or reducing funding for ERGs,
the recommendation is to maintain or consider increasing funding. Where the need exists, ERGs
should consider the intersectionality of identities and either create groups that cater to those with
multiple identities or allow for more dialogue and discussion within the specific affinity group
about these intersections.
Recommendation 5: Create Queer Visibility without Tokenism
In 2023, queer visibility faced a tumultuous period marked by a series of nationwide
backlashes from various communities, causing several corporations that typically offered robust
support for Pride month to retract their endorsement, withdraw support, and discontinue
associated merchandise (Holman & Cresswell, 2023). This support was already in question by
many queer groups who bewailed the corporatizing of Pride and wondered if the support given
was just a show and not genuine support of queer people or queer human rights. Corporations
can start by working internally to create change for queer workers. Specifically with queer
leaders, corporations should make visibility for queer leaders part of their development
initiatives. Developing queer people in organizations to be leaders is a sustainable way to
commit support to the community that meets the idea of corporate responsibility and changes
lives and opinions. Queer leaders in this research found visibility during Pride events helpful to
their careers, but this support should be considered year-round and executed more strategically.
Queer Leadership 91

The visibility of queer leaders should be an institutional component of a corporation's leadership
development plan that is executed relentlessly for the entire organization.
Limitations and Delimitations
The study's primary limitation is the participant group of queer alumni who are associated
with the Lambda Alumni at USC. I chose USC because of its reputation and the Lambda
Association because of the volume of queer leaders. While attempts were made to be more
reflective of the LGBTQIA+ population, the resulting sample consisted entirely of gay, cis men.
This subset is not perfectly representative of the totality of queer leaders. There were limitations
in experiences since the only respondents to the survey who were interested in being interviewed
were gay cis men. The voices of transgender, lesbian, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming
people working in corporate America were unfortunately not heard in this research. The study's
methodology focused on creating a diverse pool where trends can be found across participants
selected through the criteria of the biodata survey.
Another limitation is the differences in the intersectionality of race, ethnicity, ability, and
age of queer leaders within corporate America. This research could not account for this because
of the small sample size. The sample population was 3,000 individuals, but responses were only
received by less than 1% (n=25), and the respondents who agreed to be interviewed were all gay
cis men. The full range of voices was not captured, and these stories could not influence the
results of this research.
Delimiting factors of this study include variations in experience within individual
industries within corporate America and significant corporate cultures. Findings are not industry-
specific, and there may be essential differences in experience based on industry. Another
delimitation is the concept of heteronormativity being central to the study, considering its impact
Queer Leadership 92

on all queer people and how it relates to career advancement. This study does not focus findings
on each unique group within the LGBTQIA+ with an understanding that the concept of
heteronormativity affects all aspects of queerness and seeks to examine the joint impact on all
queer leaders.
Future Research
Due to the limitations of the responses received from the recruitment organization chosen
for this study, there were regretted omissions of voices within the queer spectrum other than gay,
cis men. Additional research begins with broadening that scope and including the stories of queer
leaders outside of the social gender binary. Finding these individuals may be challenging since
becoming a leader depends heavily on visibility. That visibility is assisted when a person’s
gender expression does not conflict with heteronormative standards and could explain this
research sample’s positive view of their own visibility. Future researchers would do well to find
an organization with a more diverse population, allowing for more varied stories and
experiences. An organization whose primary goal is to mentor, create connections, sponsor, and
create pathways within corporations could take on this research and execute findings in real-
time, changing the lives of not only queer workers but also the corporations that are the fabric of
American society.
Though every queer leader experienced heteronormativity, each is unique and has their
own set of experiences. These voices represent many subsets of the LGBTQIA+ perspective that
are not always congruent. In a larger sense, this gap represents the divide between older, more
established gay voices and the emerging queer understanding of identity and expression.
Potential queer leaders need established queer leaders to help pull them up since the community
requires role models and sponsors. Bridging the gap to find commonality in these experiences
Queer Leadership 93

will be paramount to creating solutions that support the whole. Belonging is important work
because it brings in the individual's voice and allows their personal experiences to be heard and
thrive.
A common theme emerged in this study that bridged the contrasting expressions of
authenticity among participants. On one end, conservative voices advocated assimilation, while
on the other, more liberal voices emphasized representation and visibility. However, both sides
yearned for a future where queerness becomes unremarkable, and individuals can be their
authentic selves without the fear of exclusion or the repercussions of heteronormativity. There is
a need to explore what it truly means for a queer individual to express their genuine identity
considering a broader spectrum of queer expressions that may bring variations that warrant more
examination and comprehension. Understanding these variations is vital for elucidating the
implications of queer leadership in the context of corporate America.
Another excellent starting point for future research is starting with potential leaders who
are in the process of making themselves visible. This younger group of queer professionals may
give an additional perspective on what that process currently looks like and the barriers they
face. This research only included leaders who were previously leaders and have been in the
process of career advancement for some time. Identifying the earlier barriers for queer
individuals who want to move up in corporate America helps inform businesses on how to begin
the leadership incubation process earlier. This is important because Generation Z represents a
young demographic full of individual producers that need to be molded into the leaders that will
push the American economy forward. Evidence could be found that the process for incubating
leaders and preparing organizations to receive these new groups begins in college recruitment
and outreach.
Queer Leadership 94

Conclusion
The tide of queer-identified individuals is already here, and the expectation is that the
number of people identifying as queer will only increase as time progresses (Jones, 2022). The
old archetypes of leadership that have permeated organizations need to be reconsidered if
corporations want to lead this new generation effectively and prepare them to be leaders
themselves (Muhr & Sullivan, 2013). Although corporate policy and reputational rankings are
valuable, this research seeks to go further and identify solutions that address the gaps faced by
emerging queer leaders. Findings show that policy has not eliminated the problem for queer
leaders. These identified experiences and the barriers are an integral part of the path forward
toward, offering insights to corporations on how to cultivate environments that enable queer
leaders to flourish and integrate successfully within organizations. In turn, corporations can
foster better leaders who are more focused and empathetic, who are engaged in the process of
learning and adapting, and who can guide their organizations into a future that will not be
restricted by the constraints of heteronormativity intertwined with patriarchy (Fassinger et al.,
2010; Snyder, 2006). Creating pathways for queer leadership through examining what it means
to be authentic, professional, or to have executive presence can be great foundational work for
preparing organizations to meet the demands of Generation Z, who are intrinsically motivated by
how they perceive work and where they choose to work (Mahmoud et al., 2020).

Queer Leadership 95

References
Ahmed, A., Anderson, L., & Hammarstedt, M. (2013). Are gay men and lesbians discriminated
against in the hiring process? Southern Economic Journal, 79(3), 565-585.
https://doi.org/10.4284/0038-4038-2011.317
Amstutz, N., Nussbaumer, M., & Vöhringer, H. (2020). Disciplined discourses: the logic of
appropriateness in discourses on organizational gender equity policies. Gender, Work,
and Organization, 28, 215-230. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12541
Arriola, E. (1995). Faeries, marimachas, queers, and lezzies: the construction of homosexuality
before the 1969 Stonewall riots. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 5(1), 33–77.
Baker, S., & Lucas, K. (2017). Is it safe to bring myself to work? Understanding LGBTQ
experiences of workplace dignity. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 34, 133-
148.
Barling, J., & Frone, M. (2017). If only my leader would just do something! Passive leadership
undermines employee well-being through role stressors and psychological resource
depletion. Stress and Health, 33, 211-222. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2697
Crenshaw K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique
of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of
Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167.
Bettani, S. (2015). Straight subjectivities in homonormative spaces: Moving towards a new,
'dynamic' heteronormativity? Gender, Place, and Culture, 22(2), 239-254.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2013.855713
Bryson, A. (2017). Pay equity after the Equality Act 2010: Does sexual orientation still matter?
Work, Employment, and Society, 31(3), 483-500.
Queer Leadership 96

Burke, W. (2018). Organization Change: Theory & Practice. Sage Publications, Inc.
Capell, B., Tzafrir, S., Enosh, G., & Dolan, S. (2018). Explaining sexual minorities’ disclosure:
The role of trust embedded in organizational practices. Organization Studies, 39(7), 947-
973.
Cech, E., & Rothwell, W. (2020). LGBT workplace inequality in the federal workforce:
Intersectional processes, organizational contexts, and turnover considerations. ILR
Review, 73(1), 25-60.
Carpenter, C., Eppink, S., & Gonzales, G. (2020). Transgender status, gender identity, and
socioeconomic outcomes in the United States. ILR Review, 73(3), 573-599.
Chang, J., & Bowring, M. (2017). The perceived impact of sexual orientation on the ability of
queer leaders to relate to followers. Leadership, 113(3), 285-300.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715015586215
Clair, J., Beatty, J., & MacLean, T. (2005). Out of sight but not out of mind: Managing invisible
social identities in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 78-95.
Conti, R., Kacperczyk, O., & Valentini, G. (2020). Institutional protection of minority employees
and entrepreneurship: Evidence from the LGBT Employment Non-Discrimination Acts.
Strategic Management Journal, 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3340
de Lauretis, T. (1991). Queer theory: lesbian and gay sexualities. Differences: A Journal of
Feminist Cultural Studies, 3(2), 3-18.
Drescher, J. (2015). Out of DSM: Depathologizing homosexuality. Behavioral Sciences,
5(4):565-575. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs5040565
Drydakis, N. (2016). Trans employees, transitioning, and job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 98, 1-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.09.003
Queer Leadership 97

Ellsworth, D., Mendy, A., & Sullivan, G. (2020, June 23). How the LGBTQ+ community fares
in the workplace. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-
insights/diversity-and-inclusion/how-the-lgbtq-plus-community-fares-in-the-workplace
Ely, R., & Thomas, D. (2020, November-December). Getting serious about diversity: Enough
already with the business case. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2020/11/getting-serious-about-diversity-enough-already-with-the-
business-case
Evan, R. (2019). Queering executive presence. Journal of Critical Thought and Praxis, 8(2), 1-
16. https://doi.org/10.31274/jctp.8205
Faderman, L. (2015). The Gay Revolution: The Story of the Struggle. Simon & Schuster.
Fassinger, R. E., Shullman, S. L., & Stevenson, M. R. (2010). Toward an affirmative lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender leadership paradigm. The American Psychologist, 65(3),
201–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018597
Ferry, N. (2018). It’s a family business!: Leadership texts as technologies heteronormativity.
Leadership, 14(6), 603-621.
Fidas, D., & Cooper, L. (2018). A workplace divided: Understanding the climate for LGBTQ
workers nationwide. Human Rights Campaign Foundation.
https://www.hrc.org/resources/a-workplace-divided-understanding-the-climate-for-lgbtq-
workers-nationwide
Fidas, D. & Cooper, L. (2014). The cost of the closet and the rewards of inclusion: Why the
workplace environment for LGBT people matters to employers. Human Rights Campaign
Foundation.
https://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Cost_of_the_Closet_May2014.pdf
Queer Leadership 98

Fine, L. (2017). Gender and sexual minorities’ practice and embodiment of authentic leadership:
Challenges and opportunities. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 19(4) 378-392.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422317728734
Ford, J., Harding, N. & Learmonth, M. (2008). Queering leadership. Leadership as Identity, 91-
92.
Gacilo, J., Steinheider, B., Stone, T., Hoffmeister, V., Jawahar, I. & Garrett, T. (2017). The
double-edged sword of having a unique perspective: Feelings of discrimination and
perceived career advantages among LGBT employees. Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion:
An International Journal, 37(3), 298-312. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-03-2017-0060
Gellar, P. (2009). Bodyscapes, biology, and heteronormativity. American Anthropologist, 111(4),
504-516. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1433.2009.01159.x
Gonzales, M. (2023). Why belonging matters. Society for Human Resource Management, Spring
2023. http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/trade-
journals/whybelonging-matters/docview/2807105394/se-2?accountid=14749
Green, W. (2018). Employee resource groups as learning communities. Equality, Diversity, and
Inclusion: An International Journal, 37(7), 634-648. https://doi.org/10.108/EDI-11-2016-
0085
Grossman, R. & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2).
Habarth, J. M., Makhoulian, S. C., Nelson, J. C., Todd, C. D., & Trafalis, S. (2019). Beyond
simple differences: Moderators of gender differences in heteronormativity. Journal of
homosexuality, 67:6, 740-767. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2018.1557955
Queer Leadership 99

Harding, N., Lee, H., Ford, J. & Learmonth, M. (2011). Leadership and charisma: A desire that
cannot speak its name? Human Relations, 64(7), 927-949.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726710393367
Henderson, M., Simon, K. & Henicheck, J. (2018). The relationship between sexuality-
professional identity integration and leadership in the workplace. Psychology of Sexual
Orientation and Gender Diversity, 5(3), 338-351.
Herz, M & Johansson, T. (2015). The normativity of the concept of heteronormativity. Journal
of Homosexuality, 62(8), 1009-1020.
Hewlett S. A. (2013). Forget a mentor find a sponsor the new way to fast-track your career.
Harvard Business Review Press.
Hodson, J., Jackson, S., Cukier, W., & Holmes, M. (2018). Between the corporation and the
closet: Ethically researching LGBTQ+ identities in the workplace. Equality, Diversity,
and Inclusion: An International Journal, 37(3), 283-297.
Holman, J., & Creswell, J. (2023, May 25). Brands embracing Pride Month confront a volatile
political climate. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/25/business/target-pride-lgbtq-companies-backlash
Hossain, M., Atif, M., Ahmed, A., & Mia, L. (2020). Do LGBT workplace diversity policies
create value for firms?. Journal of Business Ethics, 167, 775-791.
Hubbard, P. (2008). Here, there, everywhere: The ubiquitous geographies of heteronormativity.
Geography Compass, 2(3), 640-658. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2008.00096.x
Hunt, V., Prince, S., Dixon-Fyle, S. & Yee, L. (2018). Delivering through diversity. McKinsey &
Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/people-and-organizational-
performance/our-insights/delivering-through-diversity
Queer Leadership 100

Johnson, C. & Otto, K. (2019). Better Together: A model for women and LGBTQ equality in the
workplace. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(272).
Jones, J. (2021, February 24). LGBT Identification Rises to 5.6%in Latest U.S. Estimate. Gallup.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/329708/lgbt-identification-rises-latest-estimate.aspx
Jones, J. (2022, February 17). LGBT Identification in U.S. Ticks Up to 7.1%. Gallup.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/389792/lgbt-identification-ticks-up.aspx
Kim, M. & Beehr, T. (2018). Can empowering leaders affect subordinates’ well-being and
careers because they encourage subordinates’ job crafting behaviors? Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 25(2), 184-196.
https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518177277
King, E., Mohr, J., Peddie, C., Jones, K., & Kendra, M. (2017). Predictors of identity
management: An exploratory experience-sampling study of lesbian, gay, and bisexual
workers. Journal of Management, 43(2), 476-502.
Kirchner, M. & Akdere, M. (2014). Leadership development programs: An integrated review of
literature. The Journal of Knowledge Economy & Knowledge Management, 6, 137-146.
Lambda Alumni Association. (n.d.). USC Alumni. Retrieved from
https://alumni.usc.edu/lambda/
Levitt, H. & Ippolito, M. (2014). Being transgender: Navigating minority stressors and
Developing authentic self-presentation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(1), 46-64.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313501644
Lewis, N. & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2016). Beyond test performance: A broader view of stereotype
threat. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 40-43.
Queer Leadership 101

Liu, H. (2017). Reimagining ethical leadership as a relational, contextual and political practice.
Leadership, 13(3), 343-367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715015593414
Livingston, N., Berke, D, Ruben, M. & Matza, A. (2019). Experiences of trauma, discrimination,
microaggressions, and minority stress among trauma-exposed LGBT veterans:
Unexpected findings and unresolved service gaps. American Psychological Association,
11(7), 695-703.
Lloren, A. & Parini, L. (2016). How LGBT-supportive workplace policies shape the experience
of lesbian, gay men, and bisexual employees. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 14,
289-299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-016-0253-x
Lorber, J. (1993). Believing is seeing: Biology as ideology. Gender & Society, 7(4), 568-581.
Mahmoud, A., Fuxman, L., Mohr, I. & Reisel, W. (2020). “We aren’t your reincarnation!”
workplace motivation across X, Y, and Z generations. International Journal of
Manpower, 42(1), 193-209. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-09-2019-0448
Marchia, J & Sommer, J. (2019). (Re)defining heteronormativity. Sexualities, 22(3), 267-295.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460717741801
Martinez, L., Sawyer, K., Thoroughgood, C., Ruggs, E. & Smith, N. (2017). The importance of
being “Me”: The relation between authentic identity expression and transgender
employees’ work-related attitudes and experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology,
102(2), 215-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000168
McKendall, M. (2021). Sexual orientation and transgendered status now protected from
discrimination in the workplace: The Bostick decision, Seidman Business Review: 27(1),
23-24. https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/sbr/vol27/iss1/9
McNamee, S. & Miller, R. (2009). The Meritocracy Myth. Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Queer Leadership 102

Merriam, S. & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation.
Jossey-Bass.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.) Corporation. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corporation.
Milburn, K. (2019). Generation Left. John Wiley & Sons.
Morris, M. (2018). “Gay capital” in gay student friendship networks: An intersectional analysis
of class, masculinity, and decreased homophobia. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 35(9), 1183-1204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517705737
Moss-Racusin, C. & Rabasco, H. (2018). Reducing gender identity bias through imagined
intergroup contact. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48, 457-474.
Muhr, S. & Sullivan, K. (2013). ‘‘None so queer as folk’’: Gendered expectations and
transgressive bodies in leadership. Leadership, 9(3), 416-435.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715013485857
Nguyen, D. (2021). The political economy of heteronormativity. Review of Radical Political
Economics, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/04866134211011269
Prewitt, V. (2003). Leadership development for learning organizations. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 24(2), 58-61.
Ragins, B. R., Singh, R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2007). Making the invisible visible: Fear and
disclosure of sexual orientation at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1103-
1118.
Randel, A., Galvin, B., Gibson, C. & Batts, S. (2021). Increasing career advancement
opportunities through sponsorship: An identity-based model with illustrative application
Queer Leadership 103

to cross-race mentorship of African Americans. Group & Organization Management,
46(1), 105-142.
Rhodes, C. (2017). Ethical Praxis and the Business Case for LGBT Diversity: Political Insights
from Judith Butler and Emmanuel Levinas. Gender, Work, and Organization, 24(5).
https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12168
Rosenberg, R. (2017). The whiteness of gay urban belonging: Criminalizing LGBTQ youth of
color in queer spaces of care. Urban Geography, 38(1), 137-148.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2016.1239498
Rumens, N. (2016). Towards queering the business school: A research agenda for advancing
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans perspectives and issues. Gender, Work, & Organization,
23(1).
Rumens, N. & Kerfoot, D. (2009). Gay men at work: (Re)constructing the self as professional.
Human Relations, 62(5), 763-786. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709103457
Rumens, N. & Ozturk, M. (2019). Heteronormativity and the (re)construction of gay male
entrepreneurial identities. International Small Business Journal: Researching
Entrepreneurship, 37(7), 671-688. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242619846609
Sawyer, K., Thoroughgood, C. & Webster, J. (2016). Queering the gender binary: Understanding
Transgender workplace experiences. Sexual Orientation and Transgender Issues in
Organizations: Global Perspectives on LGBT Workforce Diversity, 21-42.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4.
Scanlon, L. (Ed.). (2011). Becoming a professional: An interdisciplinary analysis of professional
learning. In Lifelong Learning Book Series (Vol. 16, p. 14). Springer.
Queer Leadership 104

Sealy, R., & Singh, V. (2008). The importance of role models in the development of leaders’
professional identities. In Leadership perspectives: Knowledge into action, (pp. 208-222).
London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Snyder, K. (2006). The G Quotient: Why Gay Executives are Excelling as Leaders…And What
Every Manager Needs to Know. Jossey-Bass.
Stead, V., Elliott, C., & Gardiner, R. A. (2021). Leadership legitimacy and the mobilization of
capital(s): Disrupting politics and reproducing heteronormativity. Leadership, 17(6), 693-
714. https://doi.org/10.1177/17427150211018314
Schwartz, J., Denny, B., Mallon, D., Durme, Y., Hauptmann, Yan, R., & Poynton, S. (2020, May
14). Belonging: From Comfort to Connection to Contribution. Deloitte Insights.
https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/focus/human-capital-
trends/2020/creating-a-culture-of-belonging.html
Schwartz, T. (2018, July 25). Leaders Focus Too Much on Changing Policies, and Not Enough
on Changing Minds. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/06/leaders-focus-
too-much-on-changing-policies-and-not-enough-on-changing-minds
Tayar, M. (2017). Ranking LGBT inclusion: Diversity ranking systems as institutional
archetypes. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 34, 198-210.
https://doi.org/10.1002/CJS.1433
Thorne, N., Yip, A., Bouman, W., Marshall, E., & Arcelus, J. (2019). The terminology of
identities between, outside and beyond the gender binary – A systematic review.
International Journal of Transgenderism, 20(2-3), 138-154.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2019.1640654
Queer Leadership 105

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (2017). Working for inclusion: Time for congress to enact
Federal legislation to address workplace discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender Americans. (Briefing Report).
https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/docs/LGBT_Employment_Discrimination2017.pdf
U.S. News & World Report. (n.d.). 2022 Best National Universities.
https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities
Warner, M. (1991). Fear of a queer planet. Social Text, 29(1991), 3-17.
Watson, K. (2005). Queer theory. Group Analysis, 38(1), 81-85.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0533316405049370
Wieneke, K., Schaepe, K., Egginton, J., Jenkins, S., Block, N., Riley, B., Sifuentes, L. & Clark,
M. (2018). The supervisor’s perceived role in employee well-being: Results from Mayo
Clinic. American Journal of Health Promotion, 33(2), 300-311.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0890117118784860
Worst, S. & O’Shea, S. (2020). From Chess to Queergaming: ‘Play’ing with and disrupting
heteronormative assumptions in the performance of gender and sexual orientation.
Human Resource Development International, 23(5), 519-541.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2020.1764822

Queer Leadership 106

Appendix A: Email to Board with Link to Biodata Survey

Queer Leadership 107

Appendix B: Biodata Survey Protocol
Queer Leadership Survey

Start of Block: Default Question Block

Q1 What is your sexual orientation?
o Pansexual (1)
o Asexual (2)
o Bisexual (3)
o Gay (4)
o Lesbian (5)
o Questioning (6)
o Straight (7)
o Other (8) __________________________________________________

Queer Leadership 108

Q2 What is your gender identity?
o Trans Man (1)
o Trans Woman (2)
o Cisgender Man (3)
o Cisgender Woman (4)
o Intersex (5)
o Non-Binary (6)
o Gender Queer (7)
o Gender Fluid (8)
o Gender Non-Conforming (9)
o Other (10) __________________________________________________

Q3 Do you work full time in a professional role at a corporation located within the United States?
o No (1)
o Yes (2)

Queer Leadership 109

Q4 Does your business/ corporation have organizational policy that prohibits discrimination towards
sexual orientation and/or gender identity?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)

Q5 Are you out at work regarding your sexual orientation?
o No (1)
o Yes (2)

Q6 Are you out at work regarding your gender identity?
o No (1)
o Yes (2)

Q7 Are you currently, or within the last two years been, in the process of seeking career advancement
(e.g., promotion to leadership, advancement to next level of leadership, talent identification, inclusion in
leadership development groups)?
o No (1)
o Yes (2)

Queer Leadership 110

Q8 Within the last two years have you formally advanced within your career (e.g., promotion to
leadership, advancement to next level of leadership, talent identification, inclusion in leadership
development groups)?
o No (1)
o Yes (2)

Page Break

Queer Leadership 111

Q9 What is your current title at your organization?
________________________________________________________________

Q10 What is your professional industry?
________________________________________________________________

Q11 Do you feel that being out at work as queer has been a factor that created barriers for you becoming a
leader within your organization?
o No, it has not been a factor (1)
o Somewhat a factor (2)
o Yes, it has been a factor (3)

Q12 Would you be interested in participating in a 60-90-minute interview regarding your experience
seeking career advancement and the disproportionately low level of queer leaders in corporate America?
o No (1)
o Yes (2)

Skip To: End of Survey If Would you be interested in participating in a 60-90-minute interview regarding your
experience se... = No

Queer Leadership 112

Q13 If you answered yes to the previous question, please enter your best contact information. If selected,
the researcher will contact you to schedule the interview.
________________________________________________________________

End of Block: Default Question Block

Queer Leadership 113

Appendix C: Social Media Advertisement for Biodata Survey

Queer Leadership 114

Appendix D: Interview Protocol
Preamble:
My name is Jay Prewitt, and I am a doctoral candidate at USC’s Rossier School of Education.
I am very grateful that you have taken time out of your busy schedule to take part in this
interview for my research study. I want you to know what this study is about and what to expect.
The study explores the absence of queer leaders in corporate America and seeks to obtain the
experiences of queer professionals in the process career advancement within their business
organization, understand the interaction of queerness and business culture, and illuminate
barriers queer professionals face that impede the process of career advancement. Before we
begin the interview, please review the Information Sheet with me. It was sent to it you in
advance by email and is also currently in the chat feature of our zoom call. I will ask you a series
of questions related to the study and, with your permission, your responses will be recorded by
audio and video using the Zoom recording feature. After the interview is complete, the audio and
video recording will be transcribed via my professional, password protected Zoom account and
saved on a password protected cloud-based service. If you do not feel comfortable being
recorded by video, there is an option to only record the audio. Please know that your survey
responses are confidential. Also, your personal identification and any information that may be
identifiable to you and your organization will be kept strictly confidential. When the data is
coded, pseudonyms will be used in place of your real name and actual institution and all
recordings will be destroyed after data is collected. Understand that participation in this study is
totally voluntary. You may also choose to not answer individual questions. You retain the power
to conclude the interview whenever you deem necessary at any point. Are there any questions
about the process or the study before we begin the interview? Do I have your permission to
participate in the interview portion of the study? Do I have your permission to record the
interview?

1. Please tell me about your professional background and your journey as a professional?

2. I have your sexual orientation and gender as _________ from the initial biodata survey. Will
you tell me in your own words about your queer identity?
• Are you fully out at work or are there parts of your identity you choose not to express at
work?

3. What has your career advancement process looked like?
• Probe: How were you sought out for career advancement, if at all? How did you make
yourself visible to leadership for opportunity, if at all?

4. How has being out affected your journey to leadership, if at all?

5. How have current events during your career affected your expression of gender and/or sexual
authenticity (protest, social justice issues, legislation news, election results)?
• Probe: give an example?

6. What do your role models look like in your industry, if any?
Queer Leadership 115

• Probe: If yes, who were they? Did they share personal commonalities with you? If no,
what would you have needed in a role model?

7. What does authenticity in the workplace look like to you? Sound like? Feel like?
• Probe: How do you believe it looks differently for your straight colleagues? How has this
manifested in your organization’s culture? Are there implicit norms that everyone
follows?

8. If you participated in affinity groups/organizational sponsored groups that promote diversity,
how, if at all, did participation in these groups help your development path?

9. Are you currently involved in or been invited to participate in leadership identification,
potential talent, or leadership development groups, mentor programs, or roles within your
organization?
• If so, what was the group or role?

10. How has your queerness seemed to conflict with organizational culture that conforms to a
heteronormative standard, if at all?
• Probe: When? Where? Who?

11. How have you had to navigate your queerness differently in work groups or with leaders
outside of your team and hierarchy?
• Probe: Where and with who?

12. Tell me about navigating your queerness specifically with your colleagues within your work
group. How did that process differ from experiences with your direct leader?

13. Has navigating your queerness felt differently with your direct manager than with other
leadership?
• Probe: If so, how?

14. How do you think being even more authentic in your expression of gender identity and/or
sexual orientation would have changed your leadership journey?
• Probe: What were the barriers to being your authentic self?

15. What does it mean to be professional in your organization?
• Probe: What parts of being professional in your organization feel natural and good, what
parts feel counterintuitive or restrictive given your expression of queer authenticity?

16. What do you think has been your biggest barrier to being visible to leadership, for
development as a leader?

17. What parts of your queerness have you, if ever, restrained, withheld, or redacted to be able to
be visible for advancement?
Queer Leadership 116

• Have you had to alter your presentation of self to conform to heteronormative standards
to be visible?

18. Have you obtained a leadership level position at your organization? If so, tell me about how
your queer identify has interacted with your ability to lead well?
• Have these interactions been attached to heteronormative culture within your
organization?

19. What did I miss about your leadership journey as a queer professional that you would like to
express?

Queer Leadership 117

Appendix E: Interview Information Sheet
Queer Leadership Interview Information Sheet

My name is Jay Prewitt, and I am a doctoral candidate at USC’s Rossier School of Education.
I am very grateful that you have taken time out of your busy schedule to take part in this
interview for my research study. I want you to know what this study is about and what to expect.
The study explores the absence of queer leaders in corporate America and seeks to obtain the
experiences of queer professionals in the process career advancement within their business
organization, understand the interaction of queerness and business culture, and illuminate
barriers queer professionals face that impede the process of career advancement. Before we
begin the interview, please review the Information Sheet with me. It was sent to it you in
advance by email and is also currently in the chat feature of our zoom call. I will ask you a series
of questions related to the study and, with your permission, your responses will be recorded by
audio and video using the Zoom recording feature. After the interview is complete, the audio and
video recording will be transcribed via my professional, password protected Zoom account and
saved on a password protected cloud-based service. If you do not feel comfortable being
recorded by video, there is an option to only record the audio. Please know that your survey
responses are confidential. Also, your personal identification and any information that may be
identifiable to you and your organization will be kept strictly confidential. When the data is
coded, pseudonyms will be used in place of your real name and actual institution and all
recordings will be destroyed after data is collected. Understand that participation in this study is
totally voluntary. You may also choose to not answer individual questions. You retain the power
to conclude the interview whenever you deem necessary at any point.

Queer Leadership 118

Appendix F: Codebook
Code Description Example from Data

Ability to Lead Leader refers to their ability to
lead related to their queer
expression.
“It builds a much more community
of trust within the team that you
kind of all trust each other with
information, whether that's personal
or work related. So, I think in terms
of my leadership style, it's really
made it so I've been able to be more
relatable.”
Authenticity Leader explains their experiences
with authenticity of queer identity
at work.
Because I think for me, my ”
expression of queerness is my
directness.”
Authenticity
Definition
Leader defines what authenticity
means within their organization.
“So, to me, it's just being able to be
comfortable interacting with your
coworkers about day to day.”
Authenticity:
Values
Leader refers to authenticity as it
relates to individual value
systems.
“But there are certain things that are
unshakable values that you just are
core that you believe. And I think
being authentic is keeping yourself
aligned to those values.”
Belonging Leader refers to experiences when
they do not feel they belong due
to heteronormativity.
“That did not reach me at all. and
I'm right there with them, saying I
did not connect with that at all does
not reach me in any way. In fact, it
turns me off.”
Career
Advancement
Leader refers to their path through
career advancement.
would say each of the places that ”I
I spent several years, there was
always a goal for me to advance
and move up and not necessarily
become a CEO, but at least showing
a clear progression.”
Career
Advancement:
Barriers
Leader refers to heteronormative
barriers to career advancement.
”So when you look around and
that's what you see in leadership
positions, there's a certain way of
doing things that at this company
that I can't say.”
Coming Out Leader refers to their coming out
process at work.
“I came out about two years ago at
work.”
Concealment Leader refers to acts of
concealment of queer identity due
to heteronormativity.
”I would feel like I'm not exactly
going to be myself over here. I'm
not going to be volunteering
information.”
Queer Leadership 119

Corporate culture Leader discusses heteronormative
experiences with their
organization’s unique culture.
“So it's an important part of the
culture of the company, so that
development opportunity helped to
set you up in more ways than was
probably expected.”
DEI Leader references DEI initiatives
within their organization or
industry.
“But he did say to me, and I never
forgot, he said every company is
going to say that they are diverse
and say that they are committed to
diversity and a lot of that is window
dressing.”
Direct Leadership
Interactions
Leader explains the nature of the
relationship with their direct,
administrative leader.
“I think where I'm currently at, yes,
I definitely think that my boss has
been a big advocate for kind of
pulling us together.”
Direct Report
Interactions
Leader explains interactions with
their people who report directly,
administratively to them.
“And so that's where I'm again
trying to show up healthier for
myself and the people around me,
including the people that I'm leading
and working with directly.”
Employee
Resource Groups:
Current
Leader describes their experiences
with ERGs in their current role.
“It was established a year ago, and
I've been on taking part since then,
trying to just make knowledge
possible, give opportunities for
people to just be aware that we're
there and we're creating sort of like
a knowledge base.”
Employee
Resource Groups:
Past
Leader describes their experiences
with ERGs prior to their current
role.
“…all of us together, which was
really amazing and incredible just to
see how different [the environment
for queer people has evolved within
ERGs] from when I joined…”
External Social
Forces: Current
Events
Leader refers to how external
current events related queer civil
rights affect their work
environment.
“But I feel that now and maybe this
is truncating, there's a certain
amount of sensitivity that I have to
have, I feel, because I realize that
now things are points of contention.
It's sort of like the whole social
media makes everything something
that people can argue about, and so
that could get into the workplace.”
External Social
Forces: Business
Market Political
Climate
Leader refers to political climates
within target markets for their
organizational sales.
There’s a through-line of like
Christianity, you know? And I think
that’s where we get some of these
sales.
Queer Leadership 120

External Team
Interactions:
Clients
Leader refers to heteronormative
interactions with external, third
part clients.
“Have I been out with all of my
clients? No. Because if I were out
with all of my clients, it would have
actually hampered and made me less
effective at the client.”
External Team
Interactions: Sales
Leader refers to heteronormative
interactions with sales teams
within the leader’s organization.
“They went to the CEO, said, ‘We
need to get rid of this.’”
Intersectionality:
Black Identity
Leader expresses how their Black
identity interacts with their queer
identity at work.
”The idea of being black and gay,
…I think the authenticity part, right.
The personality part, the boldness
part that has impacted me.”
Intersectionality:
Conservative
Identity
Leader expresses experiences of
being politically conservative as a
queer person at work.
“The cases are raised because
people are upset about the decision
and assume that as a gay person, I
am likewise upset by the decision
and think it means something bad
got you. And I am not upset about
the decision…”
Intersectionality:
Gender Identity
Leader expresses how their gender
identity interacted with their queer
identity at work.
“When I think about people that I've
worked with in this industry, it's
kind of an army of white women”
Intersectionality:
Professional
Leader refers to their experiences
with professionalism and
intersections of identities.
I am a person who prefers to be
direct and get to the hardware
problem so we can solve it and
move on. But I get the impression
here that it's better to be less direct
or someone might go crying to your
literally. boss,
Mentorship Leader refers to a mentor and the
effect their presence had on their
career advancement.
“Oh, sure. They became friends and
mentors. They gave me advice.”
Physical
Presentation
Leader refers to how their
physical presentation relates to
heteronormativity at work.
”I still kind of wear the same thing,
and some, you know I'm not it just
it is what I am at this point. I’m not
wearing anything that’s going to
stand out too much.”
Privilege Leader refers to their knowledge
of privilege they possess at work.
a white man in a very I'm ”
patriarchal culture and with a
tremendous amount of privilege.
And I don't think I appreciated that
at the time.”
Queer Leadership 121

Professional:
Accountability
Leader refers to professionalism
from the standpoint of personal
accountability.
“To be professional, you are
fulfilling the roles of the
responsibilities of your role. You are
accountable for the things you're
responsible for.”
Professional
Definition
Leader defines what professional
means for their organization.
“I think within our company it's
about professionalism is being
prepared. Coming in with the right
attitude.”
Professional
Development
Groups
Leader refers to their participation
with professional development
groups within their organization.
“And it's a 12-month program. You
meet four times a month.”
Role Model Leader refers to whether they had
a role model and their experiences
with the role model.
“No, there are no role models. I feel
like I am one of one.”
Senior Leadership
Interactions
Leader refers to heteronormative
interactions with their senior
leadership.
“So, I don't really feel I am maybe
as open as I would be with my team
when I present to our COO or
anything like that.”
Team Interactions Leader refers to heteronormative
interactions with lateral colleagues
within their work teams.
“No, it's managed in different
perspective from the sense that I
don't have to cover, I don't have to
be mindful of my identities because
most of the people I'm working with
usually share my identities.”
Visibility Leader refers to their visibility for
career advancement and
interactions with
heteronormativity.
“I kind of consider myself a very
diligent and hard worker that I think,
along with the support of my
management that can kind of give
me that visibility and exposure. I
think my work can speak for itself in
terms of success rates and things
like that.”

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The number of Americans identifying as queer continues to rise annually, leading many American corporations to institute policies protecting queer workers. Federal and local governments have enacted laws to expand rights of queer individuals. However, representation of queer leaders in corporate America remains disproportionately low. This study investigates experiences of queer leaders within for-profit business organizations and identifies heteronormative barriers impeding career advancement. The theoretical and conceptual frameworks for this qualitative study are based on the Burke-Litwin change model and the concept of heteronormativity. The University of Southern California Lambda Alumni Association was used as the setting for obtaining a purposeful sample of queer leaders striving for career advancement. Individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven queer leaders based on the study’s research questions. Data was thematically coded and analyzed, elucidating themes and generating practice recommendations. Findings indicate that although there is progress in rendering queer leaders more visible, heteronormative barriers persist, impacting their authentic expression and necessitating concealment in specific business organizational locations. The intersection of race and queer identity complicates career advancement and corporate professionalism ideals. Corporate America should train upper echelon and first-line leaders on creating conditions for belonging; identifying and eliminating cultural leadership archetypes upholding heteronormativity; finding external support for queer leaders in organizations without support structures; and increasing support for Employee Resource Groups; and increasing queer leadership visibility through programs and development groups avoiding tokenization.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An examination of the impact of diversity initiatives and their supporting roles on organizational culture: an experiential study from the perspective of diversity personnel

PDF

Leadership development and Black pentecostal pastors: understanding the supports needed to enhance their leadership development and ministry effectiveness

PDF

The role of executives’ knowledge and motivation in enabling organizational supports for diversity, equity, and inclusion

PDF

Toxic leadership's impact on Black officers within the United States Army

PDF

Facilitators for the advancement of Hispanic/Latinx employees in corporate security

PDF

Leadership psychological safety: exploring its development and relationship with leader-member exchange theory

PDF

"We belong": women of color in technology (WOCT)

PDF

The underrepresentation of Latinas as K−12 school district superintendents: an evaluation study

PDF

The underrepresentation of African American women in corporate leadership roles

PDF

Racial and gender gaps in executive management: a retrospective examination of the problem cause and strategies to address disparities

PDF

The role of organizational leaders in creating sustainable diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in the workplace

PDF

A path to K-12 educational equity: the practice of adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset

PDF

Beyond commitments: a qualitative examination of the persistent disparities faced by Black women in executive leadership roles post the 2020 crisis and beyond

PDF

Leading from the margins: an intersectional qualitative analysis of the leadership experiences of Black mothers

PDF

Black brilliance in leadership: increasing the number of Black women in the senior executive service

PDF

Addressing the challenges of employee retention: a qualitative analysis of job satisfaction and perceptions of advancement by marginalized women in the insurance industry

PDF

Canaries in the mine: centering the voices of Black women DEI practitioners in a period of DEI resistance

PDF

Navigating race, gender, and responsibility: a gap analysis of the underrepresentation of Black women in foreign service leadership positions

PDF

The exploration of lived experiences of Black women directors in student affairs who led others during COVID-19

PDF

Barriers to gender equity in K-12 educational leadership: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Prewitt, James Oliver, Jr. (author)

Core Title Understanding queer leadership in corporate America

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-12

Publication Date 09/11/2023

Defense Date 09/01/2023

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag authenticity,belonging,business management,career advancement,corporate america,corporation,diversity,equity,equity & inclusion,executive presence,heteronormativity,inclusion & belonging,intersectionality,leadership,leadership studies,LGBTQIA+,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational change,professionalism,Queer,queer leaders,queer leadership,role models,sponsorship,visibility

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kim, Esther (committee chair), Macalla, Nicole (committee member), Ott, Maria (committee member)

Creator Email jaipe3000@gmail.com,joprewit@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113305041

Unique identifier UC113305041

Identifier etd-PrewittJam-12356.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-PrewittJam-12356

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Prewitt, James Oliver, Jr.

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230911-usctheses-batch-1095 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu