LGBTQ Employee Groups: Who Are They Good For? How Are They Organized?

LGBTQ employees seek workplace change through formal and informal groups. Some groups emphasize broader social change and others focus on organizational performance. We provide the social and historical background of these groups and provide a framework for understanding their goals and aims. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) employee groups provide an organized platform from which employees can advocate for changes within their employing organizations and provide a space for social support. We provide a social and historical background on LGBTQ employee groups and provide a framework for understanding different approaches to organizing these groups. These groups vary in their approaches to organizing and in their focus on bringing broader social change or emphasis on improving professional conditions for their members and/or improving the effectiveness of the employing organization. Social and Historical Background of LGBTQ Employee Groups Raeburn (2004) provides an analysis of the significant growth of formal, organized LGB employee networks in the U.S. from 1978 to 1998. The number of networks in Fortune 1000 companies (i.e., the top 1000 publicly-traded U.S. companies, based on revenue) grew from two in 1980 to 69 in 1998. This growth came in spurts, instead of being gradual. Raeburn explains that the fluctuating growth of these groups corresponds to the larger political environments of each period and to the grassroots and national mobilization efforts in the larger LGBTQ community. For example, with the rise of the New Right in the early 1980s, no new employee networks were started from 1981 to 1985. In the years that saw Bill Clinton come into the presidency, the number of networks went from 10 in 1989 to 50 in 1994. As employee groups were formed, many needed to justify their existence if they sought official organizational recognition. Employer-recognized groups are usually expected to help create competitive advantage or improve organizational effectiveness. Therefore, these groups must balance their activist agendas with the need to contribute to the organization. This balancing act can be understood through Fenwick’s (2004) call for seeking “small wins” within organizations and through Meyerson and Scully’s (1995) idea of “tempered radicalism. ” These ideas help us to understand how activists sustain their motivation when making slow progress and how these individuals serve both the needs of their employers and fulfill their drive for social justice. However, other groups exist without employer recognition, either because they are informal and unstructured or because their goals are incompatible with the employer’s goals. In examining the role of employee activists in securing partner benefits, Raeburn (2004) found that the corporate executives she spoke with downplayed or ignored the role of employee activists in securing partner benefits, even though the evidence showed otherwise. She found that for-profit companies emphasize making these decisions because they make “good business 6 As of February 2007, the Human Rights Campaign database (www.hrc.org) lists 144 employee groups in Fortune 1000 companies. Learning In Community: Proceedings of the joint international conference of the Adult Education Research Conference (AERC) (48th National Conference) and the Canadian Association for the Study of Adult Education (CASAE)/l'Association Canadienne pour l'Etude de l'Education des Adultes (ACEEA) (26th National Conference). Edited by Laura Servage and Tara Fenwick (June 2007)