Abstract
Orientation: Sexuality and gender diversity have gone unnoticed as an important area of scholarship, practice and policy within organisational work. This is based on heteronormative bias that goes unchallenged, reproducing a restrictive heterosexual or homosexual binary.
Research purpose: This study aimed to understand the workplace experiences of queer employees in corporate workplaces in South Africa.
Motivation of the study: Literature suggests that queer employees manage their sexuality with constant fear of discrimination. However, not much is known about queer employees within corporate workplaces in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.
Research approach/design and method: The study employed a qualitative research approach. A sample of 25 participants was selected through purposive sampling. Data were collected using face-to-face in-depth interviews and were analysed using thematic analysis.
Main findings: The participants experienced subtle rather than blatant forms of discrimination. This is because blatant discrimination, among other protected identity forms, is unlawful under South African anti-discriminatory legislation.
Practical/managerial implications: The study proposed fostering an authentic culture of inclusivity by integrating an all-encompassing diversity management policy into the strategic plans of corporate workplaces and educating employees on subtle discrimination.
Contribution/value-add: The study highlights a ‘blind spot’ in formal diversity efforts, showing that sexuality is often overlooked, creating a clear implementation gap between existing diversity management policies and the lived experiences of queer employees in corporate workplaces. This research advocates for the development of diversity programmes that are tailored to the needs of queer employees in corporate workplaces.
Keywords: workplace experiences; diversity; queer employees; culture of inclusivity; sexuality; gender; discrimination.
Introduction
Until the past few years, literature on diversity management within the field of Human Resource Management has given limited attention to sexual orientation as a form of diversity (Diale et al., 2023; Ntombela, 2020). Previous research within the field has paid particular attention to race, gender, ethnicity, disability and age as forms of diversity. This is largely because of South Africa’s deep-rooted history of racial ordering and discrimination, which is still deeply racialised and sexist (Dibobo et al., 2022). Furthermore, traditional diversity management in workplaces has primarily focused on overt characteristics that heavily convey meanings that are reproduced in daily interactions (Bell & Leopold, 2024; Cox, 2019). However, there has been a slight shift in the field where the focus has been on the review of covert differences such as disability (especially non-invisible ones), illness, religion, beliefs as well as sexuality, and the implications of carrying a difference not easily recognisable socially (Castrillón, 2024; Ecklund et al., 2024).
Research purpose
This study aimed at understanding how queer employees experience South African corporate workplaces.
Literature review
The South African context: Navigating queer identities in corporates
A frequent theme in South African literature on sexuality is the homophobic nature of African societies (Bhana et al., 2021). This is because of the belief that queer identities1 are a foreign influence, which deviates from the indigenous African values that are closely upheld and often used to justify discrimination (Ezeador & Okpara, 2024; O’Connell et al., 2024). Indigenous African values are not understood as a monolithic reality but rather as a set of cultural, moral, social and religious norms that are commonly presented as traditional or authentically African. Moreover, conservative religious belief systems have reinforced the framing of heterosexuality as ‘normative’ and socially legitimate, thus shaping what is widely regarded as culturally acceptable (Tamale, 2011). Despite having the world’s most advanced anti-discriminatory legislative framework, South African professional spaces continue to be contexts of discrimination based on sexual and gender identity (Brown, 2024). Scholarship reaffirms that despite the robust anti-discriminatory legislative framework, queer employees experience noticeable disparities between the legal ideals of equality and the day-to-day lived realities in both the public sector and the communities at large (Tucker, 2019). This article wishes to further investigate the discrimination of queer employees, particularly in corporate workplaces.
Diversity in the workplace
Diversity is understood as any salient attribute that distinguishes individuals during social interaction (Ferdman, 2017; Friday & Friday, 2003). This is often classified as ‘surface-level’ diversity, which includes visible or demographic traits such as race, gender, disability, language, culture and sexuality to mention a few. The queer community represents a vital component of this category because its members frequently navigate systemic marginalisation and underrepresentation (Cech & Waidzunas, 2021); their inclusion is necessary for diversity and to challenge traditional norms, advancing equity within organisations (Shore et al., 2011). Contemporary organisations are faced with intensified levels of diversity than before. This is largely because of the evolution of societies through processes such as mass migration, same-sex legislation, ageing population, changing career patterns and shifting generational lifestyles (Post et al., 2021). These differences affect the organisation’s human resource management practices, customer expectations, investor relations and strategy formulation (Mihaylova & Rietmann, 2025). While some corporates support and recognise diversity as a powerful resource, others have been resistant to meaningful change (Galvin, 2006). Organisations that value diversity, which have committed transformational leadership, have recognised that diversity is a strong resource that can be used to create a competitive edge (Lee & Shin, 2024; Hunt et al., 2020). This article wishes to advance literature in the field by redirecting the focus onto sexuality as a social diversity category, by making sure that queer employees are visible, protected and incorporated in the daily workplace activities.
Stigmatisation and discriminatory practices in corporate workplaces
The past two decades of work conducted internationally and locally on sexuality in the workplace indicate that queer employees continue to experience discrimination one way or another with limited organisational support (Sibande & Gobind, 2025). Modern scholarship shifts our understanding of workplace discrimination from a more simplistic interpretation to a more complex and multifaceted phenomenon shaped by context-specific experiences (Oliveira et al., 2024). Building on the earlier frameworks by Chung (2001) and Cavalier (2013), research emphasises that discrimination is not experienced in a linear or clear-cut fashion; way, intention, perception and actions all matter and shape its measurement and lived reality (Diale et al., 2023; Ng & Sears, 2020). Formal overt or institutional discrimination is explained as explicit discrimination rooted in institutional policies, rules or formal decision-making processes such as discriminatory promotion policies (Human Rights Watch, 2021). Informal, subtle or interpersonal discrimination is often less overt but equally damaging and affects interpersonal dynamics within the workplace. Moreover, experiences of discrimination can span from potential or anticipated, where people adapt their behaviour out of fear or expectation of bias, to encountered or actual discrimination which can be explained as direct experiences that may have occurred because of unfair treatment (Gordon et al., 2020). Perceived discrimination may be seen as an employee’s perception of their employer’s action, in this case, based on their sexual identity, while actual discrimination is discriminatory practices directed at queer employees (Sibande & Gobind, 2025). Employees may only react (turnover intentions, withdrawal and stress) to workplace discrimination based on their interpretation of that discriminatory practice (Triana et al., 2019). Thus, the crucial distinction between perceived and actual discrimination underscores the subjectivity of experiences of discrimination and significantly impacts queer employees’ well-being and workplace engagement (Wölk et al., 2025). Nonetheless, there is a scarcity of literature that explores actual workplace discrimination against queer employees in South African corporate workplaces, particularly studies providing organisational experiences across racial groups in the corporate sector (Tshisa & Van der Walt, 2021). However, what we know from literature is that perceived workplace discrimination may arise from queer employees experiencing differential treatment in terms of fair treatment when compared to their heterosexual counterparts, especially if their sexual identity is known (Fric, 2019). In the process of this study, it has been observed that some of the work done in the field is on the significance of the anticipated fear of discrimination of a sexual identity once it has been revealed in the workplace. This is because of the societal stigma attached to being queer. In the early work conducted by Goffman (1963), he repeatedly refers to queer employees as a ‘stigmatised group’ in the United States around the 1960s, when being queer was criminal and considered a psychiatric disorder (Kaplan, 2014). Similarly, in South Africa under the apartheid rule, being queer was criminal and punishable by imprisonment (Matetoa-Mohapi, 2021). According to Sears et al. (2021), discrimination at work and other labour market discriminations are the most prevalent type of discrimination experienced by many queer employees and job seekers, not only in South Africa but globally as well. Such discrimination may be both overt acts of bias (Sartore & Cunningham, 2009) and subtle and insidious (Newman et al., 2025) and affect the entire employment cycle in hiring, promotions, firing and regarding salary ranges when compared to their heterosexual colleagues. Discrimination in the workplace not only has economic disadvantages to queer employees but also impacts their psychological well-being, often making it difficult for them to advance in their careers (Ubisi et al., 2023).
Drawing from the aforementioned discussion, it is evident that discrimination is multifaceted. Queer employees experience multiple, intersecting forms of discrimination and stigma. These can include formal or virulent homophobia that manifests itself through prejudicial behaviour, treatment or practices, including being overlooked for hiring and promotion processes, being fired because of sexual orientation, a lack of access and distribution of resources or sabotaging of work and lower pay rates (Badgett et al., 2013). As a result, some queer employees, as a matter of necessity, remain ‘closeted’ because of the prevailing negative organisational and cultural factors (Tshisa & Van der Walt, 2021).
Theoretical framework
To guide the analysis of this study and to effectively capture the complexities of the workplace experiences of queer employees, two theories were used, namely Queer theory and the gendered organisations theory. However, before discussing the theoretical framework, it is necessary to clarify how the term ‘queer’ is used.
For the purpose of this article, the term ‘queer’ is utilised in two ways: firstly, as a theoretical lens using queer theory and secondly, as an inclusive umbrella category to encompass the diverse range of non-heterosexual identities represented by the participants, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and pansexual individuals. While remaining attentive to the distinct factors that shape the unique lived experiences and forms of marginalisation, the author adopts ‘queer’ both for its economy of language and its political utility. By grouping these identities under one term, this article emphasises a shared positionality of ‘otherness’ in relation to dominant heteronormative structures (Jagose, 1996; McCann & Monaghan, 2019). In addition, the term ‘queer’ has been reclaimed to align with contemporary South African discourse, which uses ‘queer’ to challenge binary classifications and address the intersectional nature of sexual and gender diversity (Msibi, 2011).
Queer theory was first introduced by Teresa de Lauretis and later developed by Judith Butler, Eve Sedgwick and David Halperin. In this study, queer theory provides a crucial foundation for understanding and centring queer experiences in corporate workplaces by challenging heteronormative systems, which keep in check the ‘normative’ relations of sex and gender binaries (Corlett et al., 2023). This theory helped to interrogate how workplaces, which are subsections of society, characterise certain behaviours to ‘other’ queer identities in the most subtle or institutionalised ways (Lee & Shin, 2024). Consequently, queer theory is well-suited for this study as it elevates the real voices from personal experiences of employees, which is also important for qualitative work. It also explains how subtle discrimination is woven into organisational culture and language.
Drawing from this foundation, the theory of gendered organisations is used to explain how workplaces are inherently gendered through their processes, policies and practices that reproduce gender ‘norms’ and power dynamics. Joan Acker first coined this theory in the 1990s to show how the distribution of power in workplaces is exercised through organisational logic and perpetuates gender inequalities in the positions that employees hold in the corporate hierarchy (Bates, 2022). Such structures systematically privilege ‘normative’ gender performances, alienating those who do not adhere to these institutional expectations (Acker, 1990; Ely & Meyerson, 2000). Using this theory to understand queer experiences, it demonstrates that discrimination stems from both individual prejudices and institutional norms (Connell, 2009). These institutional norms influence the communication styles, clothing standards, organisational culture and routines, which reinforce heteronormativity while marginalising queer employees (Benschop, 2009; Browne, 2014). Ultimately, such gendered spaces also create an environment that pressures queer employees to align, often leading to subtle forms of discrimination (Acker, 2006; Schilt & Lagos, 2017).
Research design
Qualitative research design was utilised to generate data as it aims to understand phenomena and subjective experiences within their natural contexts (Creswell & Proth, 2018). It is used to gain an in-depth understanding of the experiences and attitudes of people concerning a particular phenomenon. Qualitative research design was appropriate for this study as it allowed the researcher to understand individual ‘truths’ attached to the experiences of queer employees at work. Narrative enquiry was employed because this study is concerned with identity and identity construction. This type of methodology is suitable as individuals narratively construct and develop their identities through socially constructed narratives (Pino Gavidia & Adu, 2022).
Research methodology
This study was conducted in KwaZulu-Natal province, situated on the east coast of the country. The study specifically focused on queer employees employed in corporate workplaces across the province.
Sampling
The total sample comprised 24 participants who reported varying levels of disclosure of their sexual and/or gender identities at work. Out of the total sample, 15 participants had not disclosed their sexual identity to any of their colleagues. The sample included 16 black African employees, 3 Indian employees, 3 white employees and 2 mixed race employees. The age range spread from 20 years to 45 years, with a mean of 31 years. The distribution by gender was 68% male (17 individuals) and 32% female (eight individuals). A homogeneous type of purposive technique was used because all participants had to adhere to criteria, which included self-identifying as queer, being permanently employed in the private sector, and residing and working in KwaZulu-Natal. The second strategy used to recruit potential participants was the snowball sampling technique.
Data collection
Given the sensitivity of this study, ethical integrity in the research process was closely observed. In order for queer employees to feel comfortable sharing their workplace experiences, the environment needed to be secure, supportive and comfortable. The data collection tool employed needed to create an environment that would allow participants to freely disclose sensitive information regarding their workplace experiences without fear or discomfort. The tool also needed to be informal, allowing for casual one-on-one interaction, to foster trust with the researcher. The most widely accepted approach in narrative inquiry research is interviews. Narrative inquiry interviews differ from conventional, formal interviews as they focus on a ‘conversation’ between the researcher and participant in eliciting data. According to Sikes and Hall (2020), these interviews are ‘grounded conversations’ because they are largely concerned with establishing and maintaining rapport during interviews. Narrative inquiry interviews, unlike conventional interviews, are relational and focus on open-ended conversations to gain a deeper understanding of participants’ experiences (Finlay, 2024). Grounded conversations form a central data-gathering feature of this study. These conversations between participants were semi-structured and informal, allowing for editing and adjusting of questions in the light of the participants’ responses, while also probing interesting and important areas (Ruslin et al., 2022). In that way, the conversations were steered by the participant, thus levelling the power inequalities between the participant and researcher (Lima, 2023). Grounded conversations as a data collection tool worked well to meet the unique needs of the study.
Careful consideration was given to the location in which the in-depth interviews took place. Because of the sensitive nature of the study, the comfort and safety of the participants were prioritised, particularly when discussing personal or potentially stigmatised experiences (Creswell, 2013). As such, participants were given the opportunity to choose interview locations in which they felt at ease. All Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed by the author to ensure confidentiality and to protect participants’ identities.
| TABLE 1: Biographical information of the participants. |
Data analysis
Although narrative analysis is typically employed when using narrative inquiry, this was not the case for this study. A thematic analysis was deemed more appropriate to identify patterns and shared meanings across the group of participants (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2021). The analysis followed a hybrid approach, which integrated both deductive and inductive reasoning (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). To ensure methodological thoroughness, Braun and Clarke’s (2006, 2021) six-phase framework was utilised, facilitating a systematic movement from raw data to overarching themes. For data management, the researcher engaged in a multistage reduction process with the help of NVivo 8. Firstly, segments of the transcripts were highlighted that addressed the research objectives; secondly, the theoretical ‘lenses’ were applied to generate more nuanced codes; and finally, inductive codes to emerged to capture unique South African workplace realities.
Ethical considerations
Ethical clearance was obtained from the University of KwaZulu-Natal Human Research Ethics Committee (HSS/1210/016D). Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Participants were also assured that confidentiality and anonymity would be upheld through their responses in accordance with the Protection of Personal Information Act, 2013 (POPIA). As such, their real names were not disclosed, instead pseudonyms were assigned. To ensure emotional and psychological support for participants, appropriate measures were implemented. Participants were informed of their right to pause or withdraw at any time during the interview process. The researcher also monitored the emotional well-being of the participants during the interview process and, where necessary, referrals to support services were provided.
Results
The findings of the study indicated that participants experienced subtle forms of discrimination rather than blatant. This is because blatant discrimination against queer employees, among other protected identity forms, is prohibited, based on anti-discriminatory legislation in South Africa, particularly the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998. Despite some participants denying experiences of workplace discrimination, the study revealed ongoing, less visible incidents of subtle discrimination, often in the form of microaggressions in everyday interactions. This demonstrates that microaggressions are defined by minor, ambiguous acts that are not easily recognisable for those who are experiencing them (Gonzales et al., 2023). Furthermore, the absence of explicit references to sexual or gender identities makes these acts less recognisable, thus making them more difficult to address at an organisational level (Di Marco et al., 2018). Other participants were able to explicitly categorise their experiences of discrimination as subtle. The following are the key findings.
Subtle workplace incivility: Humour and jokes in a mocking manner
Inappropriate jokes and humour were used to disguise discriminatory remarks. Participants shared that some of the jokes referred to conventional gender roles and pronouns, including masculinity. Although some participants initially felt that the comments were harmless, the jokes were sarcastic and consistently repeated to portray negative attitudes towards queer identities, causing participants to interpret the acts as intentional and oppressive. For instance, Participant X indicated that her colleague addressed her as ‘sir’ even though she had made it clear that she prefers to be called ‘miss’:
‘She came in there and she said “excuse me, Sir” so I kept quiet. “Sorry, Sir” and that’s the first thing I always say when I get to a new place, do not call me sir or mister. It’s miss. So she was like “excuse me, sir” I knew that there was a sarcastic tone, she was just fooling around. “Excuse me, sir” and I kept quiet. Kept on calling me sir. And she was like, “you know what, you homosexual people are confused” and all that, in front of everyone. It not the first time, she always says it, this time she took it so far with the comment about that lesbian women are confused and all of that.’ (Participant X)
Although X found that it was initially a joke, it quickly became confrontational. Participant V observed that her colleague uses inappropriate pronouns when referring to her at work. Although the comment was not to her face, it was intended for her. Jokes were also passed to make inappropriate comments about gender roles:
‘For me it’s tricky because I have not come out to people that I’m transgender, people just know that I’m not straight that’s for sure. But even then you will hear those comments that are below the belt. Like the one time my colleague was asking if I was in the office, was asking this other girl we work with “is [participant’s name {excluded for confidentiality}] there” and she said “he, she, he, she is here.” Seriously? She doesn’t stutter; she was kept on saying “he, she, he, she” just to make a joke and a mockery of me.’ (Participant V)
Participant L also shared that he was once told jokingly that it was a ‘waste’ that he was ‘gay’ because he would have made a good husband one day.
Subtle discrimination: Heterosexist name-calling
Name-calling was also identified as another type of subtle discrimination experienced by participants, which was used to marginalise queer employees. Derogatory language and labels are used to normalise and sustain stereotypes and attitudes about queer identities (Hall & LaFrance, 2012). Heterosexist language is among the most frequently used pejorative terms, accompanying other categories such as racism, sexism, and phallocentrism that continue to marginalise queer employees (Galupo & Resnick, 2016). Like jokes, name-calling is harmful and negatively impacts queer people (Davis et al., 2021). Participant K shared that he overheard customers use derogatory labels to describe people who identify as ‘bisexual’ to staff in the presence of supervisors:
‘For me, it’s not so much my colleagues, but it’s some of the customers that we regularly work with, but I guess they influence each other – many of which do not agree with issues concerning LGBTI and publicly will say it. A colleague of mine who knows my story asked what they think of this whole thing. They then said it was the worst because it was unclean, because you are into both woman and men. Others even used the word “double adapter”… like that you are sexually promiscuous, that you want to explore with everyone at any given point. Which isn’t true.’ (Participant K)
Insensitive language or workplace incivility is used freely within the working environment (Page & Ngwenya, 2023). What we gather from the above is that the heterosexist names that are typically used to refer to participants were based on stereotypical misconceptions of queer identities. Participant N indicated that she is called ‘one of the stronger women’ at work:
‘They try to be very subtle about it but you can see that that’s where they are going with it but they know – especially the managers – they’ll say that “when we look at you we saw that you are one of the stronger females,” what does that imply? They’ll say that I am more like a man; they actually say that. It’s so mean. She likes to pick on me. Always.’ (Participant N)
The participants’ manager sees her as ‘mannish’ in appearance, which contributes to the ongoing discussion on gender-atypical appearance and sexual identities (Freeman et al., 2010; Paprzycka et al., 2022). Often, such cues are based on the flawed perceptions that women who self-identify as ‘lesbian’ aspire to be men or masculine because of their deviance to heterosexuality (Klysing et al., 2021).
Workplace ostracism: Isolation and rejection from colleagues
Data also suggest that subtle discrimination is experienced through workplace exclusion where fellow heterosexual colleagues have ignored, avoided or rejected their queer counterparts. It became apparent during the interviews that the behaviours of colleagues had shifted once their queer identities became known. This is because of the stigma attached to the queer sexual identities of participants. Participant ‘I’ mentioned that he had lost a good friend because of a rumour of having a love affair at work:
‘Yes I do, mixture of girls and guys, in fact I have two now because the other one and I are no longer friends … He just became distant. I think it had to do with the fact that people started speculating because we were always together during lunch break and we used to go home together, not together-together but I would catch a ride with him home because we stayed in the same area. So, people start suspecting that he was also gay or that we were dating. I think it hit him, I also felt it because I feel like I lost a genuine friendship … It’s one of those things that the elephant in the room but I think he knows. I hadn’t told him. Unless someone else at work told him and confirmed everything. I don’t know.’ (Participant I)
This perception came because he was spending a lot of time with his friend at work, as a result, some colleagues spread false rumours of a love affair between them. Participant A also shared how being queer is perceived negatively at work. She shared that some colleagues would distance themselves from her because of her queer sexual identity:
‘Some people, because of their religion, they make sure that just because you are a Muslim, I’m making an example because the people I’ve always had problems with are Muslim, so they don’t want to be associated with you, even sometimes we praying together at work, we holding hands. If the person had to hold my hand they go on the other side. I’ve had that a lot. They don’t hold my hand at all. But they don’t know that this is who I am and I can’t and won’t change. They saw me and the way that I am when they hired me, what has changed now?’ (Participant A)
Some will distance themselves from her because of their religious beliefs. The above comments suggest that participants who experience ostracism are physically present in the group but socially ignored by others. Although participants are physically visible to colleagues at work, they may feel socially invisible and marginalised, which can contribute to internalised homophobia, stress and depressive symptoms (Holman, 2018).
Discussion
Sexual prejudice experienced by participants in this study was predominantly subtle and therefore difficult to identify or directly link to overt discriminatory acts. Such prejudice commonly manifested through workplace humour and jokes that conveyed negative assumptions about queer sexual identities. Although often framed as harmless office banter, these behaviours contribute to an uncivil work environment and operate as micro-aggressive behaviour that undermines the dignity and compromises queer employees’ sense of belonging (Ford et al., 2013). Research on disparagement humour indicates that jokes are frequently used to trivialise prejudice and normalise hostility in ways that appear socially acceptable, thereby reducing the likelihood of challenge or sanction (Di Marco et al., 2018). Similarly, humour operates as a powerful mechanism through which prejudicial attitudes are communicated, justified, and masked, allowing discrimination to persist under the guise of collegiality or workplace banter (Ford et al., 2013). From a gendered organisations perspective, such practices are embedded within organisational cultures that privilege heterosexual norms, reinforcing hierarchies of power and legitimacy (Acker, 1990, 2006). Queer theory further highlights how humour functions as a regulatory practice that polices sexual difference and reinforces normative assumptions about professionalism and acceptability (Butler, 1990; Rumens, 2018). Within these power relations, heterosexual colleagues, who occupy the dominant social position, exercise symbolic power over queer employees, repeatedly positioning them as inferior or marginal, thus reinforcing unequal status relations in the workplace (Williams et al., 2003).
Heterosexist name-calling and derogatory labels represent a pervasive form of subtle discrimination embedded within everyday workplace interactions (Freeman et al., 2010). Like workplace humour, name-calling functions as a verbal microaggression that communicates exclusion, inferiority and normative expectations regarding sexuality and gender (Nadal et al., 2016). Drawing from gendered organisations theory, such practices are not incidental but are produced and sustained through organisational cultures that privilege heterosexuality as the normative standard, rendering queer identities as deviant or marginal (Acker, 2006). Research on microaggressions indicates that heterosexist language is frequently normalised and reproduced even in workplaces that have formal diversity and inclusion policies, thus suggesting a disconnect between institutional commitments and everyday practices (DeSon & Andover, 2024; Hong et al., 2016; Oliveira et al., 2024). Furthermore, queer theory further highlights that heterosexist name-calling operates as a regulatory mechanism that controls sexual difference through repeated routine behaviours, thus reinforcing heteronormative power relations (Butler, 1990; Perales et al., 2025). Although name-calling is a recognised form of subtle discrimination, it frequently goes unchallenged because it is framed as ‘ordinary’, thus its harmful impact is often overlooked (Platt & Lenzen, 2013; Sue, 2010).
Workplace ostracism, which is often defined as being ignored, excluded or avoided by colleagues, is another form of subtle discrimination embedded within heteronormative workplaces. Based on the gendered organisations theory, workplaces are not neutral spaces but are structured through gendered and heterosexist norms that privilege heterosexuality while marginalising queer sexual identities (Acker, 2006). Moreover, research indicates how ostracism has significant implications for well-being, with queer employees experiencing increased stress, emotional exhaustion and reduced job satisfaction (Holman et al., 2021). From a queer theoretical perspective, such exclusionary practices serve to reinforce normative assumptions about professionalism and belonging, as workplace behaviour is guided by dominant norms and expectations.
Practical implications
This article proposes that corporate workplaces need to prioritise creating a true and authentic culture of inclusivity and move beyond symbolic approaches. The study’s findings underscore the lack of sustained effort to attend to sexuality and gender identity, calling for more proactive and integrated diversity initiatives (Ntombela, 2020). According to Dobbin and Kalev (2016), meaningful diversity is impactful when managed as a complex, systematic and ongoing than a compliance-driven activity. It is imperative that organisations examine their human resource value chain so that they do not subtly exclude queer employees. Furthermore, in order to de-stigmatising queer identities, a comprehensive diversity policy is essential where it explicitly acknowledges sexual and gender identities so as to promote inclusive work environment (Mor Barak, 2020) Together with the structural interventions suggested, organisations should offer targeted workshops for queer employees to prepare them for the realities of the workplaces and equip them with strategies to effectively handle challenging workplace situations. Another way that diversity commitment can be meaningful is to encourage continuous learning and sensitisation initiatives that are focused on microaggressions and subtle discrimination. This is at the centre of effective organisational change.
Limitations of the study and suggestions for further study
Because this work contributes to the existing literature within a less-investigated domain in South African literature, much work remains. Limitations of the study do not undermine the value and impact of the work but rather create room for inquiry into corporate workplaces in South Africa. Firstly, this study was limited to one province. Although generalisation was not a priority in this study, it remains a limitation because the scope of the study limits the full development of the theory. There is a need to spread the study across provinces where the context is less conservative and see if the findings from this study will be replicated in other contexts. Secondly, this sample was made up of queer employees who had less than 10 years of working experience. Although this may not have been a serious challenge for the study, the information drawn from participants who had more than 10 years of experience could have been valuable, showing another perspective on how these participants managed their queer identities over time and the professional dynamics they navigated. Moreover, future research can explore whether age and years of experience can shape the workplace experiences of queer employees.
Conclusion
The study’s findings provide insight into the subtle forms of discrimination within corporate workplaces in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Findings revealed that queer employees did not experience overt acts of discrimination, instead participants described daily micro-aggressions, which were embedded in long-established conservative and heteronormative cultures in the workplace. This was affirmed by the significant number of participants who opted to conceal their sexual identity at work, as well as the non-inclusion of queer-related issues in diversity management policies. Participants related their lived experiences with subtle discrimination and how, at times, they felt unseen. They explained how diversity was mostly understood only in categories of race, gender and religion within diversity management policies, while issues of sexuality and gender identities were disregarded. This reveals the blind spot in organisations’ approaches to diversity. This article provides a profound comprehension of subtle discrimination in corporate workplaces by bringing into light the foundational power dynamics that generate it. In conclusion, the article illuminates the gap between formal inclusion and diversity commitments and the daily workplace realities, highlighting the critical need for responsive strategies that address the needs of queer employees.
Acknowledgements
This article includes content that overlaps with research originally conducted as part of Lungile Londiwe Ntombela’s doctoral thesis titled ‘Experiences and identity constructions of sexual and gender “non-normative” employees in corporate workplaces in KwaZulu-Natal’, submitted to the College of Law & Management Studies, Department of Management, IT and Governance, University of KwaZulu-Natal in 2020. The thesis was supervised by Professor TP Msibi. Portions of the data, analysis, and/or discussion have been revised, updated, and adapted for journal publication. The original thesis is publicly available at: https://researchspace.ukzn.ac.za/items/80f1cbf4-dec1-4a09-a7c4-5b1c5b584a2f. The author affirms that this submission complies with ethical standards for secondary publication, and appropriate acknowledgement has been made to the original work.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
CRediT authorship contribution
Lungile L. Ntombela: Conceptualisation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualisation. Vuyokazi N. Mtembu: Visualisation, Writing – review & editing. All authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication, and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Lungile L. Ntombela, upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings, and content.
References
Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124390004002002
Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender & Society, 20(4), 441–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243206289499
Badgett, M.V.L., Durso, L.E., & Schneebaum, A. (2013). The business impact of LGBT-supportive workplace policies. UCLA: The Williams Institute.
Bates, T. (2022). Rethinking how we work with Acker’s theory of gendered organizations: An abductive approach for feminist empirical research. Gender, Work & Organization, 29(4), 1041–1064. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12795
Bell, M.P., & Leopold, J. (2024). Diversity in organizations (5th ed.). Cengage.
Benschop, Y. (2009). Gender change, organizational change, and gender equality strategies. Gender, Work & Organization, 16(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2009.00438.x
Bhana, D., Janak, R., Pillay, D., & Ramrathan, L. (2021). Masculinity and violence: Gender, poverty and culture in a rural primary school in South Africa. International Journal of Educational Development, 87, 102509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2021.102509
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage.
Brown, A. (2024). From the margins to the mainstream: LGBTQ+ professionals lived experiences in the education workplace. African Journal of Career Development, 6(2), 156. https://doi.org/10.4102/ajcd.v6i2.156
Browne, K. (2014). Genderism and the bathroom problem: (Re)materialising sexed sites, (re)creating sexed bodies. Gender, Place & Culture, 21(6), 608–626.
Butler, J.P. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.
Castrillón, M.A. (2024). The management of visible and invisible diversity in organizations. Revista Científica Visión de Futuro, 28(2), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.36995/j.visiondefuturo.2024.28.02.001.en
Cavalier, E.S. (2013). Men at sport: Gay men’s experiences in the sport workplace. In M.A. Messner, D. Sabo, & J.E. Maguire (Eds.), Sport, masculinities and sexualities (pp. 62–82). Routledge.
Cech, E.A., & Waidzunas, T.J. (2021). Systemic inequalities for LGBTQ professionals in STEM. Science Advances, 7(3), eabe0933. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abe0933
Chung, Y.B. (2001). Work discrimination and coping strategies: Conceptual frameworks for counseling lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. Career Development Quarterly, 50(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2001.tb00887.x
Connell, R. (2009). Gender: In world perspective. Polity Press.
Corlett, S., Di Marco, D., Munduate, L., & Arenas, A. (2023). Manifestations and reinforcement of heteronormativity in the workplace: A systematic scoping review. Journal of Homosexuality, 70(12), 2714–2740. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2022.2074334
Cox, M.B. (2019). Working closets: Mapping queer professional discourses and why professional communication studies need queer rhetorics. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 33(1), 1050651918798691. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651918798691
Creswell, J.W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J.W., & Poth, C.N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
Davis, J.P., Tucker, J.S., Dunbar, M.S., Pedersen, E.R., & D’Amico, E.J. (2021). Effects of homophobic name-calling and verbal sexual harassment on substance use among young adults. Aggressive Behavior, 47(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21937
DeSon, J.J., & Andover, M.S. (2024). Microaggressions toward sexual and gender minority emerging adults: An updated systematic review of psychological correlates and outcomes and the role of intersectionality. LGBT health, 11(4), 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2023.0032
Di Marco, D., Hoel, H., Arenas, A., & Munduate, L. (2018). Workplace incivility as modern sexual prejudice. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(12), 1978–2004. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515621083
Diale, B.M., Brown, A., & Kagola, O. (2023). Gender diversity and sexual orientation in the South African workplace. African Journal of Career Development, 5(1), a103. https://doi.org/10.4102/ajcd.v5i1.103
Dibobo, K.C., Ngonyama-Ndou, T., & Mncwabe, S.H.P. (2022). Managing gender and racial diversity in the workplace. Journal of Contemporary Management, 19(2), 467–482. https://doi.org/10.35683/jcm21103.176
Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2016). Why diversity programs fail. Harvard Business Review, 94(7), 52–60.
Ecklund, E.H., Daniels, D., & Scheitle, C.P. (2024). Religion in a changing workplace. Oxford University Press.
Ely, R.J., & Meyerson, D.E. (2000). Theories of gender in organizations: A new approach to organizational analysis and change. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 103–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(00)22004-2
Ezeador, C.N., & Okpara, G.C. (2024). LGBT and African identity: A critical analysis. Crowther Journal of Arts and Humanities, 1(4), 76–87.
Ferdman, B.M. (2017). Paradoxes of inclusion: Understanding and managing the tensions of diversity and multiculturalism. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 53(2), 235–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886317702608
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107
Ford, T.E., Woodzicka, J.A., Triplett, S.R., & Kochersberger, A.O. (2013). Sexist humor and beliefs that justify societal sexism. Current Research in Social Psychology, 21(7), 64–81.
Finlay, L. (2024). Qualitative research: The “good,” the “bad,” the “ugly”. European Journal for Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy, 14, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.24377/EJQRP.article3104
Freeman, J.B., Johnson, K.L., Ambady, N., & Rule, N.O. (2010). Sexual orientation perception involves gendered facial cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(10), 1318–1331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210378755
Fric, K. (2019). How does being out at work relate to discrimination and unemployment of gays and lesbians? Journal for Labour Market Research, 53(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12651-019-0264-1
Friday, E., & Friday, S.S. (2003). Managing diversity using a strategic planned change approach. Journal of Management Development, 22, 863–880. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710310505467
Galupo, M.P., & Resnick, C.A. (2016). Experiences of LGBT microaggressions in the workplace: Implications for policy. In F.J. Badgett, M.P. Mallory, & J.M. Sears (Eds.), Sexual orientation and transgender issues in organizations: Global perspectives on LGBT workforce diversity (pp. 271–287). Springer International Publishing.
Galvin, T. (2006). Re-evaluating diversity: Reviving critical discourse in diversity research in organization studies. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2006(1), F1–F6. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2006.22898133
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Simon & Schuste.
Gonzales, H.M., Chai, K.N., & King, D.M. (2023). Racial microaggressions: Experiences among international students in Australia and its impact on stress and psychological wellbeing. Journal of Comparative and International Higher Education, 15(1), 148–168.
Gordon, A.M., Prather, A.A., Dover, T., Espino-Pérez, K., Small, P., & Major, B. (2020). Anticipated and experienced ethnic/racial discrimination and sleep: A longitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(12), 1724–1735. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220928859
Hall, J., & LaFrance, B. (2012). ‘That’s gay’: Sexual prejudice, gender identity, norms, and homophobic communication. Communication Quarterly, 60(1), 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2012.641833
Holman, E.G. (2018). Theoretical extensions of minority stress theory for sexual minority individuals in the workplace: A cross-contextual understanding of minority stress processes. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 10(1), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12246
Holman, E.G., Ogolsky, B.G., & Oswald, R.F. (2021). Concealment of a sexual minority identity in the workplace: The role of workplace climate and identity centrality. Journal of Homosexuality, 69(9), 1467–1484. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2021.1917219
Hong, J.S., Woodford, M.R., Long, L.D., & Renn, K.A. (2016). Ecological covariates of subtle and blatant heterosexist discrimination among LGBQ college students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(1), 117–131.
Human Rights Watch. (2021). South Africa: Tackling gender-based violence, inequality.
Hunt, D., Dixon-Fyle, S., Prince, S., & Dolan, K. (2020). Diversity wins: How inclusion matters. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/diversity-wins-how-inclusion-matters
Jagose, A. (1996). Queer theory: An introduction. New York University Press.
Kaplan, D.M. (2014). Career anchors and paths: The case of gay, lesbian, & bisexual workers. Human Resource Management Review, 24, 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.10.002
Klysing, A., Lindqvist, A., & Björklund, F. (2021). Stereotype content at the intersection of gender and sexual orientation. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 713839. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.713839
Koenig, A.L. (2019). Glossary of terms. In B. Macwilliam, B.T. Harris, D.G. Trottier and K. Long (Eds.), Creative arts therapies and the LGBTQ community: Theory and practice (pp. 255–266). Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Lee, J., & Shin, H. (2024). Effects of Inclusive leadership on the diversity climate and change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior. Behavioral Sciences, 14(6), 491. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14060491
Lima, A. (2023). Understanding narrative inquiry through life story interviews with former prisoners. Irish Educational Studies, 42(4), 775–786. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2023.2257673
Matetoa-Mohapi, J.M. (2021). Human rights violations and sodomy laws in Africa: A study of the discriminatory laws and inhumane legislation and its impact on the health and safety of the LGBTI community within the criminal justice cluster. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies, 77(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v77i2.6915
McCann, H., & Monaghan, S. (2019). Queer theory now: From foundations to futures. Red Globe Press.
Mihaylova, I., & Rietmann, K. (2025). Diversity, equity and inclusion at a crossroads: A scoping review of the characteristics of its workplace backlash. Journal of Sustainable Business, 10(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-025-00122-5
Mor Barak, M.E. (2020). Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace (4th ed.). Sage.
Msibi, T. (2011). The lies we have been told: On (homo)sexuality in Africa. Africa Today, 58(1), 55–77. https://doi.org/10.2979/africatoday.58.1.55
Nadal, K.L., Whitman, C.N., Davis, L.S., Erazo, T., & Davidoff, K.C. (2016). Microaggressions toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and genderqueer people: A review of the literature. Journal of Sex Research, 53, 488–508.
Newman, A., Chrispal, S., Dunwoodie, K., & Macaulay, L. (2025). Hidden bias, overt impact: A systematic review of the empirical literature on racial microaggressions at work. Journal of Business Ethics, 200, 753–772. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-025-05924-y
Ng, E.S., & Sears, G.J. (2020). Walking the talk on diversity: CEO beliefs, moral values, and the implementation of workplace diversity practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 164(3), 437–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4051-7
Ntombela, L.L. (2020). Experiences and identity constructions of sexual and gender ‘non-normative’ employees in corporate workplaces in KwaZulu-Natal. Doctoral thesis. University of KwaZulu-Natal.
O’Connell, S., Ghosh, D., & Reddy, V. (2024). When the rainbow is bittersweet: Reflections on being queer and Indian in Durban.
Oliveira, A., Pereira, H., & Alckmin-Carvalho, F. (2024). Occupational health, psychosocial risks and prevention factors in lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, intersex, asexual, and other populations: A narrative review. Societies, 14, 136. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc14080136
Page, T., & Mgwenya, J.J. (2023). Conformer or colluder? The human resource professional’s contribution to toxic leadership. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 21, 2123. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v21i0.2123
Paprzycka, E., Mianowska, E., & Walentynowicz-Moryl, K. (2022). What is (non-) feminine and what is (non-) masculine? Negative prescriptive gender stereotypes of young women in Poland-between change and return to traditional patterns. New Educational Review, 68(2), 92–103. https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.22.68.2.07
Perales, F., Campbell, A., & Elkin, N. (2025). Reproducing the hetero-masculine order at work: The sexual harassment of LGBTQ+ employees. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-025-01182-9
Phelan, S. (Ed.). (2020). Playing with fire: Queer politics, queer theories. Routledge.
Pino Gavidia, L.A., & Adu, J. (2022). Critical narrative inquiry: An examination of a methodological approach. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, 16094069221081594. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221081594
Platt, L.A., & Lenzen, A.L. (2013). Sexual orientation microaggressions and the experience of sexual minorities. Journal of Homosexuality, 60, 1011–1034.
Post, C., Muzio, D., Sarala, R., Wei, L., & Faems, D. (2021). Theorizing diversity in management studies: New perspectives and future directions. Journal of Management Studies, 58(8), 2003–2023. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12779
Rumens, N. (2018). Age and changing masculinities in gay-straight male workplace friendships. Journal of Gender Studies, 27(3), 260–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2017.1391074
Ruslin, R., Mashuri, S., Sarib, M., & Syam, H. (2022). Semi-structured interview: A methodological reflection on the development of a qualitative research instrument in educational studies. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME), 12(1), 22–29.
Sartore, M.L., & Cunningham, G.B. (2009). The lesbian stigma in the sport context: Implications for women of every sexual orientation. Quest, 61(3), 289–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2009.10483617
Schilt, K., & Lagos, D. (2017). ‘Bodies in time’: Transgender embodiment, deterritorialization, and the socio-temporal limits of gender. Gender & Society, 31(5), 665–690.
Sears, B., Mallory, C., Flores, A.R., & Conron, K. J. (2021). LGBT people’s experiences of workplace discrimination and harassment. Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law.
Shore, L.M., Randel, A.E., Chung, B.G., Dean, M.A., Ehrhart, K.H., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262–1289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385943
Sibande, X., & Gobind, J. (2025). Workplace experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and other employees in South Africa. African Journal of Career Development, 7(1), 174–188. https://doi.org/10.4102/AJCD.v7i1.174
Sikes, P., & Hall, M. (2020). Too close for comfort: Ethical considerations around safeguarding the emotional and mental wellbeing of researchers using auto/biographical approaches to investigate ‘sensitive’ topics. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 43(2), 163–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2019.1636025
Sue, D.W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. Wiley & Sons
Tamale, S. (Ed.). (2011). African sexualities: A reader. Pambazuka Press.
Triana, M.D.C., Jayasinghe, M., Pieper, J.R., Delgado, D.M., & Li, M. (2019). Perceived workplace gender discrimination and employee consequences: A meta-analysis and complementary studies considering country context. Journal of Management, 45(6), 2419–2447. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318776772
Tshisa, N., & Van der Walt, F. (2021). Discrimination challenges and psychological well-being of black African queer employees. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 47, a1835. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v47i0.1835
Tucker, A. (2019). What can homonationalism tell us about sexuality in South Africa? Exploring the relationships between biopolitics, necro politics, sexual exceptionalism and homonormativity. Journal of Gender Studies, 29(1), 88–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2019.1692192
Ubisi, L.M., Tsabedze, W., & Fourie, E. (2023). Intersections of gender and sexual diversity in the career trajectories of LGBTQIA+ individuals. African Journal of Career Development, 5(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.4102/ajcd.v5i1.81
Williams, D.R., Neighbors, H.W., & Jackson, J.S. (2003). Racial/ethnic discrimination and health: Findings from community studies. American Journal of Public Health, 93(2), 200–208. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.2.200
Wölk, J., Gerpott, F.H., & Kerschreiter, R. (2025). Three levels, two needs, one goal: Fostering an integrated sense of inclusion through inclusive leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 98(3), e70037. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12387
Footnote
1. Queer identities are understood as concepts that challenge fixed binaries of sexuality and gender. They encompass sexual orientations and gender identities that fall outside heterosexual and cisgender norms (Ed. Phelan, 2020).
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
