Celebrating the “Invisible”: The Role of Organizational Diversity Approaches on Attracting and Retaining LGBTQ + Talent

Abstract

Abstract Organizations vary in diversity approaches. Some recognize and celebrate group differences (identity consciousness), while others deem these differences unimportant and deemphasize them (identity blindness). Research on diversity approaches’ impact on workplace perceptions and experiences of marginalized groups has grown but focuses mainly on “visible” groups (e.g., racial minorities, women) while largely overlooking the potential impact on “invisible” groups (e.g., LGBTQ + individuals). Integrating the diversity approaches paradigm with signaling and identity safety theory, this research addresses this oversight. Three pre-registered studies (N total = 1318) investigate whether LGBTQ + individuals prefer identity-conscious organizations for employment because they perceive this approach as a signal of safety and acceptance for their identity. Findings reveal that identity consciousness (vs. identity blindness) is associated with increased attraction towards organizations among prospective (Studies 1 and 2) and lower turnover intentions among incumbent (Study 3) LGBTQ + workers. Identity safety (measured through employees’ sense of authenticity, belonging, and justice) mediates these relationships. Exploratory analyses indicate that, compared to their cisgender counterparts, transgender participants generally report more negative workplace experiences and expectations (Studies 1–3). Furthermore, there is suggestive evidence that transgender individuals who publicly disclose their identity may exhibit an even more positive response towards diversity-conscious organizations. We discuss the implications of these findings and conclude that identity consciousness signals and creates an identity-safe working environment for LGBTQ + individuals, improves their workplace experiences, and enhances organizations’ ability to attract and retain LGBTQ + talent.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 14 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.