“The issue here is not that I need to come out and expect everyone to love the idea – after all, most heterosexuals don’t feel the need to declare their sexuality in the workplace. However, in a sense most heterosexuals do come out by talking about their families and significant others in their lives at the workplace. I cannot comfortably talk about my significant other without some people getting uncomfortable. I love this person in an infinite sense, and each time I hide the fact that I am gay, I feel like I am further perpetuating the myth that this is shameful. . . . I have been told countless times that I am a very straight-appearing and straight-acting person. This is as hurtful as telling an African-American person that she or he is very white-acting. How dare a person assume that one is more acceptable than the other?” (quote from a 33 year-old male). [1]
I knew a gay man a few years ago who thought about becoming an interior designer, a career in which I believe he would have excelled. Instead, he chose a job working on the pipeline. He soon tired of hearing frequent swearing and sexist remarks, and moved on a few months later to an equally dissatisfying job where he remained closeted. We never talked about his haphazard career choices, but I silently wondered if he was avoiding taking on a career where many people would assume he was gay. It was easy – and perhaps expected – to remain closeted in the jobs he sought and landed.
While many gay individuals would chose careers where they can be honest, others would want jobs where most would not suspect they are gay. It becomes a form of passing, which allows queer individuals to remain highly closeted. [2] Those who pass, deceive others into believing they are heterosexual. The other possible strategies include covering, which involves attempting to be seen as heterosexual, but not trying to fake heterosexuality. Being implicitly out involves being honest about one’s life, but not using the label of queer (remember I use the term queer to refer to all sexual minorities). The final strategy is being explicitly out, which involves directly telling other people one’s sexual identity.
The degree to which queer individuals disclose their sexual identities at work depends upon two factors: their developmental stage regarding identity formation and their perceived level of heterosexism in their work environment. These two factors play a significant role in the career development of queer individuals. [3] Let’s take a closer look.
First, regarding stages of identity development, Vivian Cass developed a theory in 1979 [4] and updated in 1996 [5] that is still frequently referenced in the literature. Her model was developed to apply to gay men and lesbian women – she did not include mention of other sexual minorities so the reader should view her model as an example of sexual identity development and not as an irrefutable truth (the same view should be taken toward all models, by the way. Models and theories are not the same as facts). Her model includes the following six stages:
1. Identity Confusion – Increased awareness of same-sex or bisexual thoughts, feelings, or behaviours. This creates confusion because these thoughts, feelings, or behaviours do not fit into a heterosexual mould.
2. Identity Comparison – Begin exploring the gay world, seeking out further information and contact with gay and lesbian people.
3. Identity Tolerance – Increased contact with gay and lesbian individuals, but still mostly identifying as heterosexual.
4. Identity Acceptance – Conflict begins to surface with heterosexual individuals while simultaneously developing increased comfort with the idea of being gay or lesbian. Most people at this stage continue to use passing as a management strategy.
5. Identity Pride – Strong pride in the gay/lesbian community. Possible immersion within the gay/lesbian culture with concomitant anger and isolation from heterosexuals.
6. Identity Synthesis – Acceptance of gay/lesbian culture and the heterosexual community. Growing appreciation that sexual identity is only part of one’s total identity.
As is true of stage models in general, the underlying assumption is that people must pass through the stages in a linear fashion, with some back and forth movement expected. Where one is at developmentally will significantly affect the outcome and process of career decision-making.
For example, individuals who are aware of their sexual minority identity but not accepting of it (e.g., stage 3 in the Cass model) would more likely pick a career choice that is less represented by queer individuals, such as so-called traditional “masculine” and “feminine” jobs, thus allowing them greater ability to remain closeted. Those in the identity pride stage desire significant contact with the queer community, and they are more likely to pick a career that allows them to self-disclose their sexual identity to others and perhaps one that is often chosen by others who are queer. A career choice made by those in the identity synthesis stage might also look different because they have not integrated their queer identity as only one part of their self-definition. The integrated queer individual in stage 6 in Cass’ model may be in the best place to pick a career on the basis of genuine career interest.
Second, besides identity development, the other factor affecting the career decisions of queer individuals is the perceived and actual work environment. Two researchers [6] suggested the following four levels of work environment heterosexism as applied to gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals (GLB):
1. Overt Discrimination – Work environment has both formal and informal policies that discriminate against GLB individuals. The Canadian military, for example, used to prevent GLB individuals from enlisting, and if later discovered to be GLB, would receive a discharge from continuing service.
2. Covert Discrimination – These work environments do not have a formal policy against hiring or firing GLB individuals, but there remains informal discrimination at the work setting. An open GLB person would not be hired or promoted by the employer or manager. The best example here is the “don’t tell” policy in the Unites States military.
3. Tolerance – These employers have formal anti-discrimination policies protecting those with different sexual orientations. They do not provide any additional support for GLB persons, such as insurance coverage for same-sex partners.
4. Affirmation – Work environment has formal anti-discrimination policy, and other forms of support for GLB employees. GLB employees are valued for their diversity. Some examples include having same-sex partner benefits, offering a GLB support group or club, and providing training for employees about sexual diversity.
It is a good idea to assess a potential work environment before pursuing employment there. Three practical methods include: (a) seek out resources that identity queer affirmative work environments; (b) talk with other queer people about their experience with a specific employer; and (c) if appropriate, ask the employer about support for open queer employees. [7]
If you deem the third choice to be appropriate, you might consider asking the following questions:
1. Do you have open [GAY, TRANSGENDERED, etc. – be specific and avoid using the word queer unless you already know that word is acceptable with the person with whom you are speaking] employees at your work? How do others, especially the management, receive them?
2. Do open [GAY, TRANSGENDERED, etc.] employees bring their partners to work socials?
3. At your employer’s Christmas party, do [GAY, TRANSGENDERED, etc.] individuals dance with their partners?
If you are considering disclosing your sexual identity at your current workplace, really take a careful look at the advantages and disadvantages of doing so. Ask yourself the following questions before you decide:
1. What level of work environment heterosexism (refer to the discussion above) does your employer model?
2. Are there any other queer individuals who have disclosed their identity there? What was their experience? How are they talked about and received by others?
3. Where are you at in your own identity development (refer to Cass’ model)? Are you strong enough to deal with the possible fallout from disclosing your sexual identity?

In some companies, it may appear safe to disclose your identity, but by doing so, you may risk being overlooked for further career advancement. I have heard this referred to as the “lavender ceiling,” [8] meaning the same thing that the “glass ceiling” means for women who are overlooked for promotion. I suspect you will find few queer individuals who have become presidents of oil companies, for example, and I wonder if we will ever see the day that a queer person could successfully get elected to become Prime Minister.
Does that mean that queer individuals should avoid going into certain careers because of who they are, where they are at in their career development, or the level of work environment heterosexism they are likely (or unlikely) to encounter? Given that career satisfaction is one of the most important factors that create happiness and provide meaning to a person’s life, I suggest not. Living your life with integrity can occur whether everyone knows your business or whether very few people do. Fewer and fewer people need to live closeted lives in Canada compared to the past, and it will likely get still easier in the future.
As you become more accepting and loving of yourself with whatever your sexual identity (i.e., you progress in your identity development), we can predict that others will also see more of what makes you who you are and less of what you are afraid they might see. You are but a flower still waiting to fully blossom – and your queer identity will become, eventually, just one of the many precious petals that define you.
Dr. Alderson is an associate professor of counselling psychology at the University of Calgary who specializes in gay and lesbian studies. He also maintains a private practice. He can be contacted by confidential email at alderson@ucalgary.ca, or by confidential voice mail at 605-5234.
References:
1. Sailer, D. D., Korschgen, A. J., & Lokken, J. M. (1994). Responding to the career needs of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. Journal of Career Planning and Employment, 54(3), 39-42. [quote from p. 40].
2. Croteau, J. M., Anderson, M. Z., Distefano, T. M., & Kampa-Kokesch, S. (2000). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual vocational psychology: Reviewing foundations and planning construction. In R. M. Perez, K. A. Debord, & K. J. Bieschke (Eds.), Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients (pp. 383-408). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. [quote from Griffin, as cited in this reference].
3. Chojnacki, J. T., & Gelberg, S. (1994). Toward a conceptualization of career counseling with gay/lesbian/bisexual persons. Journal of Career Development, 21, 3-10.
4. Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality, 4, 219-235.
5. Cass, V. (1996). Sexual orientation identity formation: A western phenomenon. In R. P. Cabaj & T. S. Stein (Eds.), Textbook of homosexuality and mental health (pp. 227-251). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
6. Chojnacki & Gelberg (1994).
7. Croteau, J. M., & Hedstrom, S. M. (1993). Integrating commonality and difference: The key to career counseling with lesbian women and gay men. The Career Development Quarterly, 41, 201-209.
8. Conklin, W. (2000). Employee resource groups: A foundation for support and change. Diversity Factor, 9(1), 12-25. Retrieved March 21, 2002 from Proquest database.