Workplace Incivility as Modern Sexual Prejudice

Depósito de investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla https://idus.us.es/ This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Sage in Journal of Interpersonal Violence, available at https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515621 Workplace incivility as sexual prejudice 1 Donatella Di Marco, Helge Hoel, Alicia Arenas, & Lourdes Munduate Journal of Interpersonal Violence (First Published December 23, 2015) https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515621083 Workplace incivility as modern sexual prejudice Abstract Although discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation is prohibited by law in many countries, negative prejudices against LG people, as a stigmatized minority, might be internalized by coworkers, being a source of a modern and subtle form of discrimination. Results from 39 in-depth semi-structured interviews with LG employees show that they are victims of workplace incivility which is manifested through jokes, use of language, stereotypes, and intrusive behaviors. Such acts are barely recognizable as a form of discrimination, due to the absence of any reference to sexual orientation, and for this reason it is more difficult to act against them at an organizational level. This is the first study that demonstrates how workplace incivility towards LG employees can be an expression of a subtle form of discrimination. It shows that discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation has not disappeared; it has simply changed its manifestations. Contributions and implications of the study are discussed from a theoretical and a practical perspective. Keywords: LG; Workplace incivility; Modern discrimination; Modern sexual prejudice; Inclusive organizations. Workplace incivility as sexual prejudice 2 Workplace incivility as modern sexual prejudice “For them those were jokes; for me those weren’t” (David) “Language, the loaded weapon” (Adrian) Over recent decades, researchers have focused on a multitude of forms of mistreatment in the workplace that often overlap in their manifestations (Aquino & Thau, 2009; Barling, Dupré, & Kelloway, 2009), analyzing behaviors whose instigators, frequency, severity, and the degree of ambiguity may vary. Workplace harassment (Richman et al., 1999), bullying (Einarsen, 2000; Hoel, Rayner, & Cooper, 1999), workplace incivility (Andersson & Pearson, 1999), abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000), ostracism (Robinson, O’Reilly, & Wang, 2013; Williams, 2007), are just some of the constructs studied, perpetrated by means of acts which range from psychological acts of mistreatment to physical assault. Most of these acts fall under the label of deviant behavior because they violate organizational norms, although, sometimes, mistreatment is carried out in pursuit of organizational goals (e.g., to punish or get rid of an employee) (Beale & Hoel, 2011; Ferris, Zinko, Brouerc, Buckley, & Harvey, 2007). Many of these acts may also be labeled as aggression as they aim to harm a potential victim, although in some cases, such as workplace incivility, such intent is less clear (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). In some cases aggressive mistreatments also enter the realm of violence, causing physical harm to the victim (e.g., physical assault) (Barling et al., 2009). Although physical and psychological forms of mistreatment, with a clear intent to harm the victim, are worthy of attention (e.g., Dupré & Barling, 2006; Hershcovis & Barling, 2010), research has demonstrated that the more wrongdoers’ intent is ambiguous, the more recipients might interpret such acts as hostile (Raver & Barling, 2007). Individual minor or less severe acts (e.g., rudeness or “forgetting” to include a colleague in a social event), whose intent to harm is unclear, may pass unobserved; however, their cumulative effect may produce negative outcomes equaling or even surpassing the effect of more dramatic events and escalate into more severe forms of aggression Workplace incivility as sexual prejudice 3 (e.g., Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001; Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2011; Penney & Spector, 2005). Bearing in mind the perceived harmful aspect of minor acts, Andersson and Pearson (1999), in their study of workplace incivility, drew attention to uncivil behaviors at work, defined as low intensity acts, which violate the norms for respectful behaviors established in a specific setting, and whose intent to harm is ambiguous. Research into workplace incivility also consistently suggests that uncivil acts might be addressed more frequently toward employees who belong to protected class, such as ethnic minorities and women (e.g., Cortina, 2008; Cortina, Kabat-Farr, Leskinen, Huerta, & Magley 2013). Such “selective incivility” may therefore represent a contemporary instrument to express prejudice against protected groups, although those involved are often not conscious of the process (Cortina, 2008). In fact, according to past studies, prejudices, in terms of negative attitudes towards protected groups, have not disappeared from the workplace (Dovidio, 2001; Herek & McLemore, 2013), despite being condemned by society, forbidden by law and prohibited by organizations. Thus, they still survive in the memory of many employees, becoming implicit, but with their consequences still identifiable, affecting people and organizations alike (Dovidio, 2001; Dovidio, Gaertner, Kawakami, & Hodson, 2002; Jones, Peddie, Gilrane, King, & Gray, 2013). The aim of this article is to analyze to what extent Lesbian and Gay (LG) employees are victims of those acts which enter the realm of workplace incivility; moreover, we want to analyze such events through the lens of the theoretical framework of modern discrimination (Cortina, 2008), identifying those acts which are the expression of negative stereotypes and prejudices against LG employees (Herek & McLemore, 2013), hence expressions of modern sexual prejudice. In terms of structure, we will start by reviewing separately the literature about workplace incivility and modern discrimination, in order to link them with sexual prejudice in a third section. In a fourth section, we will present the method applied, while results will be presented and discussed at the end of the article. Workplace incivility as sexual prejudice 4 Workplace incivility Workplace incivility is defined as low intensity acts, which violate the norms of respectful behaviors established in a specific setting, and whose intent to harm is ambiguous (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Lower levels of formality required at work, work intensification and communication mediated by new technology are together seen to be responsible for the breakdown of “polite niceties” (Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000, p.128), bringing about more scope for workplace incivility. Although several studies (e.g., Pearson, Andersson, & Wegner, 2001; Cortina, Kabat-Farr, Leskinen, Huerta, & Magley, 2013) have tried to establish the range of actions which people generally consider to be uncivil in the work setting, it is not easy to identify all of them because “workplace incivility is not an objective phenomenon; it reflects people’s interpretation of how actions make them feel” (Porath & Pearson, 2010, p. 64). Being rude, not acknowledging the opinion of a colleague, ignoring or excluding somebody, denigrating someone or making jokes at other colleagues’ expense, interrupting co-workers, or being sarcastic: these are just some behaviors which are associated with workplace incivility (Pearson et al., 2001; Cortina et al., 2013). The multiple interpretations that it is possible to attribute to such behaviors are the sources of ambiguity (e.g., wrongdoers’ ignorance, tiredness, or workload). Incivility and its potential harmful impact are not fully understandable without adopting a social interactionist perspective (e.g., Andersson & Pearson, 1999). In fact, workplace incivility is not a single event, but rather part of a wider process that involves target, wrongdoer and potential witnesses, the consequence of which might be a conflict escalation. Uncivil behaviors might further trigger a spiral of actions end reactions, where the target may wish to reciprocate and engage in retaliatory actions against the original wrongdoer or third persons (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Lim, Cortina, & Magley, 2008), who, in turn, might also retaliate. Incivility is, therefore, contagious and might gradually affect the entire organization by shaping an uncivil environment (Andersson & Workplace incivility as sexual prejudice 5 Pearson, 1999). Nevertheless, since the intention to harm is often ambiguous, people targeted might decide not to enter into the spiral of incivility, attributing to the perpetrator’s behavior a harmless state (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). In any case, it has been revealed that incivility produces negative consequences at a personal level (e.g., less satisfaction, diminished well-being, desire to reciprocate) (Cortina et al., 2001; Ferguson, 2012; Lim et al., 2008; Pearson et al., 2001), and at the organizational level (e.g., reduced job performance; negative organizational climate) (e.g., Penney & Spector, 2005; Porath & Pearson, 2010). However, although workplace incivility has mostly been studied as “general incivility”, recent research has increasingly focused on uncivil acts which are directed against employees who belong to minorities or protected groups. Therefore, in such cases workplace incivility might be considered “selective”, instrumental for expressing negative attitudes (Cortina, 2008), and potentially discriminatory, as we discuss in the following section. Selective incivility and modern discrimination According to past studies, prejudices, in terms of negative attitudes towards protected groups, have not disappeared (Deitch et al., 2003; Dovidio, 2001; Fiske & Dupree, 2015; Herek & McLemore, 2013), even in contexts where they are condemned by society and prohibited by law. To explain how prejudices towards protected groups still persist, although openly deplored, it is necessary to explore psychological processes which take place at the cognitive and affective level. According to Dovidio (2001), throughout people’s lives, their expressed or explicit attitudes change in line with the rules of the environment within which they act. However, the original attitudes have not necessarily disappeared, but they might have been stored in the memory, becoming implicit; thus, dual attitudes (explicit and implicit) co-exist within the same person. For instance, people may grow up in a Catholic environment, where values associated with the institution of family are strongly respected, considering divorce as a deviance. Over the course of time, their explicit attitudes towards divorce and divorced people might change, due to the secondary socialization taking place at school or within their group; nevertheless, the original attitude might be retained in the memory, becoming Workplace incivility as sexual prejudice 6 implicit, affecting their behaviors not consciously. In fact, while explicit attitudes are easily controlled, “implicit attitudes influence responses that are more difficult to monitor and control (e.g. some non-verbal behaviors) or responses that people do not view as indicative of their attitude and thus do not try to control” (Dovidio, 2001, p. 840). Therefore, people who store implicit negative attitudes against specific social groups could display, perhaps unconsciously, modern (Cortina, 2008) and subtle forms of discrimination (e.g., Jones et al., 2013) which are barely recognizable due to the absence of any reference to social categories (Dovidio et al., 2002). In this respect, symbolic racism (McConahay & Hough, 1976) or modern sexism (Swim, Hyers, Cohen, & Ferguson, 2001), microaggressions (Sue, Capodilupo, Torino, & Bucceri, 2007) are just some constructs which recognize modern forms of discrimination at work which share the common trait of subtlety (Jones et al., 2013). Modern discrimination is perpetrated by people who are often unable to recognize the discriminatory side of their actions, and who explain their behavior by blaming the other party – e.g., women and black people get exactly what they deserve and they are guilty of being overambitious- (e.g., Cortina, 2008; Cortina et al., 2013). Therefore, these people are seen to act in a discriminatory manner when there exists another reason that could justify their behavior, in order to maintain their egalitarian identity towards themselves and others. With some exceptions (Cortina et al., 2013), research on modern discrimination remains theorydriven, focusing on the development of a coherent theoretical framework, with little empirical evidence emerging. Consequently, it is difficult to recognize when mistreatments against people who belong to protected groups are influenced by prejudices. Moreover, if one supposes that negative attitudes are responsible for modern discrimination against protected groups, it is impossible to determine when this is being carried out not consciously. The few empirical studies on modern discrimination which exist suggest that workplace incivility might be instrumental for perpetrating modern discrimination in organizations, due to the ambiguity Workplace incivility as sexual prejudice 7 characterizing its manifestations (Cortina, 2008). Past research, in fact, suggests that female employees are victims of incivility more than males (Cortina et al., 2001) and this finding is even stronger when gender intersects with race (women of Color reported higher levels of incivility) (Cortina et al., 2013). Although selective incivility as modern discrimination at work has focused on a few social protected groups, such as women, black people and older employees, Cortina (2008) suggested that it can be applied to other socially stigmatized groups, such as LG employees. In the following section, we explain why workplace incivility towards LG people might be an expression of modern forms of discrimination. Workplace incivility as modern sexual prejudice Historically, non-heterosexual people have often been victims of discriminatory acts. For many years they were punished and stigmatized for not observing heteronormative rules (e.g., Warner, 1991), with heterosexual people’s affective models established as the sole acceptable mode of being, and with anyone not expressing their sexuality in accordance with this labeled as deviant at the social and legal levels. However, over the last few decades, attitudes towards lesbian and gay people have changed in many Western countries. Sexual prejudice, understood as “a negative attitude toward an individual based on her or his membership in a group defined by sexual attractions, behaviors, or orientation” (Herek & McLemore, 2013, p. 312), has been condemned. Despite this, LG employees are still victims of discriminatory acts. In a survey carried out by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2013), which includes also bisexual (B) and transgender (T) people, 19% of LGBT employees perceived themselves as having been discriminated against in the workplace in the previous year, due to their sexual orientation/identity. Therefore, despite the fact that many countries have promoted new legislative frameworks against discrimination on ground of sexual orientation, and many organizations have adopted antidiscriminatory policies (Cook & Glass, 2014; Githens, 2011), LG employees still appear to be victims of discriminatory acts (Jewell & Morrison, 2010). Anti-discriminatory legislative Workplace incivility as sexual prejudice 8 frameworks have focused on “old-fashioned” forms of discrimination or formal discrimination (e.g., promotion and recruitment) (Hebl, Bigazzi, Mannix, & Dovidio, 2002; Jones et al., 2013). However, the contemporary social undesirability of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation may have transformed the way in which people display their negative attitudes against LG people, still extant at implicit and explicit levels (Hebl et al., 2002). Sexual prejudice might be expressed in the form of uncivil behaviors which, as we have seen, due to their nature can easily be ascribed to other causes, thus generating uncertainty about the real motivation behind them. In other words, these acts might be an expression of modern discrimination. The aim of this article is to explore the experience of LG employees through the perspective of workplace incivility and the theoretical framework of modern discrimination. Method Data collection and participants To assess the experience of workplace incivility of LG employees, 39 in-depth semi-structured interviews were carried out in Spain with people who were either employed, or had been in employment within the last six months. All participants identified themselves as LG. The choice of interviews as qualitative method was motivated by the exploratory nature of the study and the sensitivity of the issue being discussed. In fact, people might be resistant to talk openly about sensitive subjects, because of their potentially embarrassing or threatening nature (Jehn & Jonsen, 2010), and the assignation of sexuality to the private domain (e.g., Herek, 1996) to the extent that LG people have been victims of historical stigmatization. Interviews allow for such limitations to be overcome, generating trust within the relationship between interviewee and interviewer and enriching the amount and the depth of information obtained (King, 2004a). Altogether1, 24 lesbians and 15 gay men participated; the mean age was almost 36 years; the mean tenure was approximately 6 years (69.61 months). Participants were all in employment at the time of the interview and came from a range of sectors and occupations including the public sector; Workplace incivility as sexual prejudice 15 colleague explained the reaction of a couple of her friends when they discovered that their daughter is lesbian. Instead, the colleague told that she had “accepted” such situation: “[…] [My colleague] […] understood […] the girl being a lesbian, these things happen and she had no problems with it. I was listening to what she was telling me <she laughs> That´s what I found so odd, it was like a sign of…not even empathy, it’s some sort of sympathy, it is the same as saying […] I don´t exactly accept you, but I want to make clear I am a good citizen and as such I tolerate you for what you are […] There are those people who try to be sympathetic in such matters but fail to understand that I am exactly the same as them. It is like, I don’t know, as if that would put me at a disadvantage. And, then “In society you are placed at a disadvantage but don´t worry because I am with you, or at least I am not going to create problems for you.” (Dorleta, L) Although the colleague tries to maintain a tolerant self-image by offering her support, she is unable to put herself in Dorleta’s shoes. Being lesbian is something that “might happen” and if it does then it is necessary to “cope” with it and finally accept the situation. In line with this, Dorleta’s colleague builds her tolerant self-image on the bases of the concepts of inequality and disadvantage. Dorleta’s co-worker may not be conscious about the subtle and discriminatory nature of her expressions. However, due to the ambiguity and subtlety of her words, it is reasonable to think that this would be an example of modern discrimination. Data about disclosure processes at work could also provide examples of modern discrimination. People who present themselves as “liberal” and “open minded” are often the same people who force their LG colleagues to carry out a forced segmentation, appealing to them not to talk openly about their personal life at work, as is evident in the following case: Workplace incivility as sexual prejudice 16 “She said “I don’t mind, I haven’t any problem with this, but I will not tell the director anything.” She’s the human resources manager.” (Marta, L) Marta’s human resources manager offers “protection”, referring implicitly to the director’s discriminatory reactions. However, Marta perceived that her colleague used the director as a shield because she feels uncomfortable talking about Marta’s personal life which remains a taboo within the organization. Therefore, whilst Marta’s colleague constructed her own tolerant image, her behavior externalized negative attitudes and sexual prejudice. Stereotyping The interviews also revealed another important issue associated with the stereotypical image people have of LG people, in terms of femininity and beauty. LG employees often witness negative comments or insults toward themselves, co-workers or clients that fit the stereotypical image many heterosexuals have of LG people. Inés, for example, told about negative labels, such as “dyke”, used by her boss about female clients whose image does not match the traditional Spanish feminine standards of beauty (“short hair, wearing a tracksuit, looking, let’s say, less feminine”). Since Inés’ looks do not correspond to the stereotypical lesbian described above, her boss might feel more free to express such comments. Again we observe a process of dissociation between the insult, on the one hand, and the sexual orientation of LG employees present at that moment, on the other. Even if Inés believes that such comments do not refer to her, it makes her boss’s sexual prejudices visible. Moreover, it generates a negative climate for Inés because her perception leads to the belief that being lesbian is accepted as long as she keeps a low profile, in terms of visibility, without going beyond certain limits (Pharr, 1997). Stereotypical images of LG people are still widespread in Spanish society and are the subject of jokes and denigration as Sara told us. Openly derogatory and uncivil, Sara’s colleague imitates in her presence the stereotypical image many heterosexual people have of gay men, in terms of Workplace incivility as sexual prejudice 17 exaggerating mannerisms, for example the intonation of the voice. Sara has not publicly disclosed her sexual orientation at work, but she was still considered to be a lesbian from the time she was hired. Sara is, therefore, unable to identify whether her colleague’s behavior was meant to harm her because of her sexual orientation; but then, Sara explains how such stereotypes shaped the social interaction with her co-workers: “A lot of times they get it wrong, so they greet one person [another woman] giving her two kisses and then I get a slap on the back and it’s like…let’s get this right, I am a woman.” (Sara, L) Since Sara might appear to fit the stereotypical image of a lesbian, people seem not to know how to behave in her presence. She suggests that her colleagues do not treat her as a woman but, using the words of another participant, more like a “half guy”. Sara’s sexual orientation creates confusion among her co-workers, being unable to assign a “label” to her in line with the traditional binarism of femininity/masculinity. Such different treatment on the basis of negative attitudes and stereotypes might be an example of modern discrimination. Sexualization of LG employees and intrusive questions Incivility against LG employees can materialize through unusual questions or behaviors which breach the boundaries of what is considered appropriate in the workplace, focusing on personal or even intimate issues, thus considered a form of harassment. Such behaviors can result from the sexualization of discourses which involve non-heterosexual people, and which view same-sex relationships in primarily sexual terms (Herek, 1996). Moreover, we also observe the sexual objectification of LG people, especially women. In the following quotation Alicia, who at that time had not disclosed her sexual orientation at work, tells what happened when she went to the local fiesta together with her partner, where she was spotted by a colleague: Workplace incivility as sexual prejudice 18 “[…] When I went to work a colleague, a mechanic (when I worked at a car dealers) came and said to me in a lewd and insinuating way “I saw you last weekend, you were very wrapped up in a special [girl] friend, am I right? Why don’t you introduce her to me and you come along too?” as if seeing us had aroused him. And I found it very unpleasant because it was an intrusion into my private life, a presumption that because I like women I like sex with anyone. I found it very offensive. […] those weeks there were very unpleasant, he was always looking at me, finding excuses to be close to me, and talked a whole load of garbage to me…” (Alicia, L) In this case, being lesbian has been seen as being open to any sexual practices. By knowing her sexual orientation, Alicia’s co-worker breaks the rules of appropriateness established in the workplace, crossing boundaries that Alicia had built between work and personal domains, and starting to harass her. Moreover, the choice of words used by her co-worker devalues her relationship to her partner. Alicia’s partner is just “una amiguita” that is a “special friend”, focusing on the sexual aspect of Alicia’s relationship. The behavior of Alicia’s colleague is, no doubt, overtly uncivil and discriminatory, and easily identifiable. Nevertheless, such sexual objectification of LG people can be carried out in more subtle terms. In the next quotation, Inés tells of her frustration and, at the same time, her astonishment at her boss’s questions about private issues, such as sexual practices: “He asks me personal questions that I was not going to answer. I may find it funny because, as I say, it is so absurd that he is trying to persuade me to tell him what I do in bed. He has gone that far. Well, I am not telling him but I find it funny, I find such an absurd situation funny. But we go from that extreme to me saying “I want to get married” to be told “What for?” or “So you love her so much that you want to have a family with her. Wouldn´t you rather do that with a man?” (Inés, L) Workplace incivility as sexual prejudice 19 Although her boss’s questions could be seen as a reflection of a liberal and non-prejudiced mind, they can equally be considered a way of invading her intimate sphere; a sexual objectification of Inés’ personal life. In fact, when she tries to share with the same person her long-term plans with her partner (e.g., building a family) she feels rejected. In this case, by asking why she does not want to create a (real) family with a man, who traditionally has played a central role in Spanish families, her relationship with her female partner is devalued. Furthermore, the boss’s intrusion into her sex-life could reveal sexual prejudice; although in a subtle and less obvious form. “Involuntary” ostracism One way to manifest workplace incivility is through ostracism, defined as the omission of actions to involve organizational members when it is considered appropriate according to social norms (Robinson et al., 2013). Although ostracism has been studied as a specific form of workplace mistreatment (Robinson et al., 2013), past studies of workplace incivility have recognized exclusion as an uncivil act (e.g., Cortina et al., 2001; Pearson et al., 2001). Ostracism is based on inaction, albeit in some cases it may alternate with active uncivil behaviors, and generates ambiguity because the intent of wrongdoers is often unclear. LG employees interviewed have experienced ostracism; in some cases as a clear manifestation of discrimination on grounds of their sexual orientation, as explained in the following quotation: “[…] there was something that really surprised me. There was a girl, still one of my subordinates today, and she married her husband about two years ago and I was surprised when the wedding date arrived and she invited everyone but me, […] we have a good relationship, I am not at all an authoritarian person, on the contrary, I try to promote good vibes and no arguments, don't I? But funnily enough I didn´t get invited. Then obviously colleagues were surprised, […] it´s only natural that it makes me feel uneasy because it singles me out as the only one not to be invited, that really is something that makes you feel different […] that makes you say, why did she do that?” (Jorge, G) Workplace incivility as sexual prejudice 20 Whilst Jorge’s colleague tried to justify her decision, saying that she thought that he was not going to participate and for this reason she did not invite him, Jorge finds it difficult to make sense of her decision given their seemingly good relationship. Instead, he thinks she was motivated by having to invite his partner; in other words, by having a same sex couple in an event as public as a wedding, a time which traditionally has represented values associated with family, religion and gender roles, and where Jorge’s colleague’s whole family would have been present. Rejection might be another uncivil act which demonstrates sexual prejudice towards LG employees. In fact, heterosexual co-workers might distance themselves from LG colleagues after disclosure of their non-heterosexuality. Violeta tells about her colleague’s reaction to her disclosure – a colleague she thought she was building a friendship with: “[...] She said “Oh sorry then; I’m boring you [talking about her boyfriend]; and I said “No, you are talking about your boyfriend, your problems and, as a fellow human being, I can give you advice too, but I can’t tell you the same story. I empathize with you” [....] There was no rejection, but we grew apart, it was something along the lines of “Ok, you are of no use to me” or something along these lines.” (Violeta, L) For Violeta’s colleague being lesbian is perceived as an obstacle to create a deeper friendship. She thinks that Violeta might not be interested in, or able to listen to her personal problems. She is considered inadequate and being silently excluded; therefore, being subtly discriminated against. Silent treatment is also a common way of ostracizing LG employees. Avoiding a person might be a way of escaping from a conflicting or embarrassing situation (Robinson et al., 2013). Elisa tells that many of her colleagues refrain from direct conversations about her personal life and she thinks that Workplace incivility as sexual prejudice 21 one of the possible causes is her sexual orientation; in order to escape they avoid any conversation with her or engage in conversations that she does not feel are “natural”. As a result, Elisa becomes the victim of a forced segmentation of her personal life at work: her co-workers do not ask about her personal life and she does not feel comfortable talking about it: “If I am put on the spot and asked do you feel discriminated against? I don’t, but if I stop to think about it, I feel that I am different, I am different because [communication between Elisa and her colleagues] is not natural and because people do not ask me questions [about her personal life] in a natural manner and I don´t talk about it. I don´t know the reason why […] I just know it is different.” (Elisa, L) Elisa rejects the idea of being discriminated by her co-workers but at the same time she feels that the treatment that she receives is different; she feels that in the eyes of her colleagues she is different. Inaction, such as being given the silent treatment, generates ambiguity because the target is not totally sure about any intention to cause harm on the part of wrongdoers, and their behaviors can be attributed to several causes and are, therefore, difficult to challenge. Work-related incivility Another set of uncivil behaviors are those directly related to one’s work. Lack of promotion opportunities, excessive criticisms about work outcomes and excessive workload, or indeed no work at all, are all forms of mistreatment identified by LG employees, in line with past studies (e.g., Di Martino, Hoel, & Cooper, 2003). However, even among this group of behaviors, it is possible to differentiate between overt forms of discrimination and more subtle ones. In terms of overt discrimination, Alberto tells about a promised promotion that never happened: Workplace incivility as sexual prejudice 22 “I start looking around me and I see colleagues that started later than me starting to become managers, deputies and I see that this does not happen to me, the moment never comes, you know? […] When in a month or so [after the company tried to fire him] I am sent to another office, which happens to be the union president´s office, who is the one defending me, and I have been working for him for six years. So I am sent there, I get a position, but an administrative one. I am not taken on as a manager, or deputy as I had been promised. That is when I realized that I had lost everything in the sense of all the professional development that I had been promised […]” (Alberto, G) After an attempt to fire him, Alberto was sent to a “secure” environment, an office where people who worked had no part in the attempts to dismiss him. However, there was no possibility of promotion because the higher positions were all filled. Transfer to a safe environment is, in a certain way, a punishment for being allowed back to work after the initial decision to fire him. Such a discriminatory act was recognized by Alberto after many years. Discussion The study’s goal is to identify uncivil acts aimed at LG employees, highlighting those behaviors that are an expression of internalized negative stereotypes and prejudices, hence a form of modern discrimination. In doing so, we extend the knowledge of modern discrimination to include a protected group that past research had considered, namely LG employees. The results show that LG employees experience several forms of uncivil acts, highlighting the difficulty in recognizing workplace incivility as modern discrimination, due to its subtlety. Moreover, it has been confirmed that only a fine line separates an uncivil act from modern discrimination and the risk of confusing both is, therefore, high, increasing the negative consequences for LG employees who experienced such treatments. Several theoretical frameworks attempt to explain subtle discrimination (e.g., incivility, microaggressions, etc). However, the framework of workplace incivility was chosen due to the interactional aspect which characterizes this construct as incivility does not emerge from a single Workplace incivility as sexual prejudice 23 interaction but is the result of a series of repeated uncivil interactions. Although the range of mistreatments experienced by Spanish LG employees varies in terms of severity and degree of perceived intention to harm, there exists a group of frequent experiences which appear to fall within a “grey zone” because they may not be easily identified as mistreatment by the recipient, but at the same time are perceived as a lack of respect, and therefore correspond to incivility. Uncivil acts experienced by LG employees were often associated with negative attitudes linked to sexual stigma. In some cases, such uncivil acts can be recognized as a form of discrimination; a channel through which colleagues are seen to externalize modern sexual prejudices. Moreover, when such behaviors generate uncertainty about the real motivation behind such acts, they can be conceptualized in terms of modern discrimination. Our data demonstrated that insults and jokes are a channel for transmitting modern sexual prejudice. We observed that jokes and commonly used derogatory terms (e.g., the word “maricón”) are always addressed to gay men, while “lesbians pass unnoticed”, as expressed by a participant, seemingly being less visible when society externalizes negative attitudes through jokes. However, this does not express a higher level of respect toward lesbians, it simply reflects the lesser visibility of Spanish lesbians in the past (e.g., Robbins, 2003). Humor can be a shield to mask modern forms of discrimination and often wrongdoers appeared unaware of the discriminatory nature of their jokes. But humor is also a coping strategy applied by LGs, an instrument to deflect or reduce the impact of sexual prejudice experienced on a daily basis through inappropriate comments and jokes (Ford et al., 2004). The externalization of prejudices and negative attitudes through humor and language might suggest that sexual prejudice is today a secondary problem. It is important to stress the context within which this research was carried out. The recent history of Spain has been characterized by persecution of non-heterosexual people, which reached its peak during General Franco’s dictatorship (1936-1975). During that time, LG people were considered deviant and brutally punished by law. Following Franco’s dictatorship post-1975 Spain embarked Workplace incivility as sexual prejudice 24 upon a deep transformation in terms of acquisition of civil and social rights, including e.g., divorce, abortion, which also included LG people. However, the presence of such modern sexual prejudice in today's Spain highlights the discrepancy that exists between the liberal image that the country aims to project through its legal framework and the realities on the ground. Incivility might represent the subtle end of one extreme of the well-known continuum of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation; while at the other extreme, overt forms of discrimination, such as physical threats, still exist. Workplace incivility as an expression of acts of modern sexual prejudice might also be responsible for several consequences. Due to their ambiguity, people involved (LG employees and witnesses) are less prone to react and challenge the behavior in question. In fact, according to past studies (e.g., Ryan & Wessel, 2012) only when wrongdoers’ intent to harm is quite clear do witnesses offer their support to their LG co-workers and raise their voice to defend them. Also, when LG employees are not directly involved as victims but they witness uncivil acts against other LG colleagues or LG clients, a climate of disrespect and incivility is transmitted, affecting indirectly LGs’ well-being and job satisfaction. Moreover, workplace incivility as modern sexual prejudice might have repercussions for LG people’s disclosure of their sexual orientation at work, in two different ways: LG employees who witness uncivil acts against other LG people might decide not to disclose their sexual orientation at work, because they feel unsafe in their environment, or coworkers might use the disclosure itself to express sexual prejudices and discriminate against LG employees. In fact, co-workers might ignore the intent of LG people to integrate their personal life at work, avoiding talking about personal issues, resulting in a forced segmentation of LG employees’ personal and work life; or they might force LG colleagues, who do not wish to do so, to disclose their sexual orientation, asking private and intrusive questions. In both cases, LG employees’ decisions are not respected, resulting in negative consequences for the LG person. Workplace incivility as sexual prejudice 31 Raver, J.L., & Barling, J. (2007). Workplace aggression and conflict: constructs, commonalities, and challenges for future inquiry. In C.K.W. De Drew & M.J. Gelfand (Eds.), The Psychology Of Conflict And Conflict Management In Organizations (pp. 211-244), London: Psychology Press. Richman, J.A., Rospenda, K.M., Nawyn, S.J., Flaherty, J.A., Fendrich, M., Drum, M.L., & Johnson, T.P. (1999). Sexual harassment and generalized workplace abuse among university employees: prevalence and mental health correlates. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 358–363. Robbins, J. (2003). The (in)visible lesbian: The contradictory representations of female homoeroticism in contemporary Spain. Journal of Lesbians Studies, 7, 107-131. Robinson, S.L., O’Reilly, J., & Wang, W. (2013). Invisible at work: An integrated model of workplace ostracism. Journal of Management, 39, 203-231. Ryan, A.M., & Wessel, J.L. (2012). Sexual orientation harassment in the workplace: When do observers intervene? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 488-509. Stockdale, M.S., Bisom-Rapp, S., O’Connor, M., & Gutek, B.A., (2004). Coming to terms with zero tolerance sexual harassment policies. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 4, 65-78. Sue, D.W, Capodilupo, C.M., Torino, G.C., & Bucceri, J.M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life. American Psychologist, 62, 271-286. Swim, J.K., Hyers, L.L., Cohen, L.L., & Ferguson, M.J. (2001). Everyday sexism: Evidence for its incidence, nature, and psychological impact from three daily diary studies. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 31–53. Tepper, B.J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. The Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178–190. Warner, M. (1991). Introduction: Fear of a Queer Planet. Social Text, 29, 3-17. Workplace incivility as sexual prejudice 32 Williams, C.L., Kilanski, K.K., & Muller, C. (2014). Corporate diversity programs and gender inequality in the oil and gas industry. Work and Occupations, 41, 440-476. Williams, K.D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425–452. Woodford, M.R., Howell, M.L., Kulick, A., & Silverschanz, P. (2013). ''That's so gay'': Heterosexual male undergraduates and the perpetuation of sexual orientation microaggressions on campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 416-435. Worthen, M.G.F. (2013). An argument for separate analysis of attitude toward lesbian, gay, bisexual men, bisexual women, MtF and FtM trasgender individuals. Sex Roles, 68, 703-723. Footnotes 1 Although we called just for lesbian and gay people, one bisexual woman and one Female to Male transsexual were interviewed. We decided not to include these interviews in the analyses since previous studies have demonstrated that bisexuality and transexuality might be perceived by heterosexuals in a different way and might trigger distinct processes due to their specificities (e.g., Law, Martinez, Ruggs, Hebl, & Akers; 2011; Worthen, 2013). 2 The total number of interviews does not include the pilot.