HEATHER Z. LYONS1, JEFFREY P. PRINCE2, AND BRADLEY R. BRENNER3
1Loyola University Maryland, Baltimore, MD
2University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA
3Therapy Group of DC, Washington, DC
The speed of social, political, and legal advancements in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community over the last 10 years has been breathtaking. Such changes would not have been imaginable 50 years ago when the modern LGBT rights movement began over clashes between patrons of the Stonewall Inn in New York City and local police. High‐profile court cases have secured the right for same‐sex couples to marry in the United States (e.g., Obergefell et al. vs. Hodges, 2015). Visibility of the LGBT community has greatly increased in popular culture and government (Ng, 2013). Transgender characters have leading roles in television shows, the number of out Olympians is at an all‐time high, gay men have been confirmed to some of the highest military positions in the United States, and several lesbians have been elected to lead major U.S. cities and to be a governor (Johnson, 2019; Kirchick, 2019). How these LGBT people have ascended to pinnacles of their respective careers is likely based on many factors that career counselors would recognize as key to vocational attainment: (a) a good fit between their interests and skills and respective careers, (b) formative experiences guiding their choices, (c) an enduring belief in their abilities, and (d) concordance between their values and that of the places where they work. Yet, their career development experiences, like other marginalized groups, are impacted by discrimination, negative stereotyping, and the lack of legal protections.
The literature pertaining to the career development of LGBT people has, however, progressed in fits and starts (Garriott, Fais, Frazier, Nisle, & Galluzzo, 2017). The first conceptual and practical articles emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s (Elliott, 1993; Hetherington, Hillerbrand, & Etringer, 1989), and increasingly sophisticated, empirical investigations began to follow within a decade (Bieschke & Matthews, 1996; Chung, 2001). Today, lesbian and gay issues appear increasingly in the career literature (e.g., Douglass, Velez, Conlin, Duffy, & England, 2017; Lyons, Velez, Mehta, & Neill, 2014; Rummell & Tokar, 2016). Nevertheless, the literature focusing on the array of theoretical and practical career issues encountered by the diversity of LGBT populations remains limited. There is no literature specifically relating to the career development or career counseling of bisexual individuals, and only recent developments devoted to that of transgender populations (e.g., Brewster, Velez, Mennicke, & Tebbe, 2014). Consequently, although many scholarly works, including this one, contain the term LGBT in their titles, the content of most has been focused primarily on lesbian and gay concerns, with limited attention to career issues specific to bisexual and transgender individuals.
This chapter highlights findings from the range of scholarly contributions that have informed our understanding and practice of career development and career counseling with LGBT people. First, major vocational theories are evaluated for their applicability to sexual minority populations; this is followed by a discussion of additional issues unique to the career development and career counseling of LGBT individuals. The intention of this chapter is to bring together theoretical and empirical work with practical recommendations to enable career professionals to work more effectively with sexual minority clients.
Before turning to the literature in this domain, it might be helpful to clarify terminology. Sexual orientation and sexual identity are terms that are frequently used when discussing LGBT individuals; these terms are not interchangeable. Simply put, sexual orientation refers to a person's attraction (emotional, sexual, spiritual) toward an individual of the same or different sex (Chung, Szymanski, & Markle, 2012). Sexual orientations can be described along a continuum of multiple dimensions of behavior, attraction, fantasy, and partner choice (van Anders, 2015) that can change over time (Hu, Xu, & Tornello, 2016; Mock & Eibach, 2012). Fully defining the nuances of sexual orientation is beyond the scope of this chapter, and there does not appear to be consensus on its definition in the literature (Salomaa & Matsick, 2018).
Sexual identity, by contrast, refers to the way in which people identify and represent themselves in social contexts in reference to their sexual orientation (e.g., identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, questioning, or heterosexual). Identities are fluid and socially constructed and might not be predictive of behaviors (Salomaa & Matsick, 2018). For simplicity, the term LGB will be used in this chapter to represent the range of sexual identities that are typically referenced in the career literature because most studies have used these categories rather than more complex terms.
Both sexual orientation and sexual identity are separate from gender identity, which refers to a person's internal identification as male, female, neither, or a combination of both (Budge & Moradi, 2018). Those who are cisgender identify with the biological sex assigned to them at birth. Whereas, the term transgender applies to a range of people whose gender identities are not the same as the biological sex assigned to them at birth or who do not identify within the gender binary (Budge & Moradi, 2018). Despite the common use of the term transgender in research, a variety of other terms such as “genderqueer” or “gender expansive” are often adopted by those who do not identify as cisgender (White, Moeller, Ivcevic, & Brackett, 2018).
Transgender (and cisgender) populations include individuals with a range of sexual orientations. The developmental and career concerns specific to transgender individuals can be quite different from those specific to LGB individuals; at the same time, LGBT populations as a group have a number of career experiences in common due to their shared marginalized status in heterosexual and cisgender dominant cultures. Consequently, this chapter uses the terms LGB or LGBT, depending on the groups being referenced, and includes a section that reviews the limited but growing vocational literature related to transgender career development and counseling.
Definitions aside, all LGBT individuals share experiences of stigma and marginalization that impact their career development in a variety of ways. At the same time, LGBT individuals develop strengths and experiences that enhance career development as a result of going through life with sexual minority status. The important question is, what factors have emerged in the literature to help us understand and work more effectively to promote the career development of LGBT individuals?
Over the past 25 years, scholarly contributions that apply theories of vocational psychology to LGBT populations have increased. This section draws attention to these writings, evaluates the relevance and usefulness of a number of current theories, and clusters this work into four theoretical categories: person–environment (P–E) fit, developmental, social learning/social cognitive, and the psychology of working theories. The extent of this literature remains limited, however, and significant future research in this domain is needed to fully evaluate the validity of using any extant career theory with sexual minority populations (Garriott et al., 2017).
The earliest publication to examine a theory of person–environment (P–E) fit for its relevance to sexual minority populations was an empirical study by Chung and Harmon (1994). This investigation was stimulated by the earlier work of Hetherington (1991), who proposed that influences on the career decision‐making of lesbians and gay men may be quite different than those for heterosexuals. Chung and Harmon used Holland's Self‐Directed Search (Holland, 1985) to evaluate how an individual's sexual orientation might impact measured interest patterns. They compared the interests of gay men with heterosexual men for each of Holland's six types and found that gay men demonstrated lower realistic and investigative interests and higher artistic and social interests. Their study highlighted the importance for counselors to consider the career aspirations and interest patterns of gay men, not only with respect to measured interests but also relative to environmental forces, such as stereotyping and homophobia, that influence expressed career goals and choices.
Another early contribution by Mobley and Slaney (1996) challenged the adequacy of Holland's theoretical assumptions (Holland, 1997; Nauta, Chapter 3, this volume) in accounting for the career behaviors of lesbians and gay men. They suggested expanding the working assumptions and principles of Holland's theory by using Cass's (1979) model of lesbian and gay identity development to capture the dual (i.e., career and sexual identity) developmental challenges faced by lesbian and gay individuals. They described how vocational measures that assess Holland's constructs are influenced not only by the level of one's career identity but also by the stage of one's sexual identity. For example, they postulated that younger lesbian and gay individuals may experience greater career indecision and lack of clarity in their career interests and values because of the simultaneous challenge of recognizing and integrating a marginalized sexual identity. Furthermore, they suggested that assessing Holland's construct of congruence for lesbian and gay clients, compared to heterosexual clients, requires counselors to address not only the role of vocational interests but also the significant influence of workplace climate (i.e., discrimination or support based on one's sexual minority status).
Early contributions such as these laid the groundwork for more sophisticated empirical investigations into the environmental and personal factors specific to LGBT populations that influence P–E fit. In fact, work that followed (Lyons, Brenner, & Fassinger, 2005; Lyons & O'Brien, 2006) indicates that theories of P–E fit may better account for the career behaviors and workplace experiences of sexual minority and other marginalized populations than of nonmarginalized populations when workplace climates are experienced as supportive (Velez & Moradi, 2012). However, when workplace climates are experienced as less affirming, the relationship between P–E fit and theorized outcomes such as job satisfaction appears to weaken (Lyons et al., 2014). In particular, the variable of workplace climate (whether discriminatory or supportive) appears to be a critical factor in assessing fit. According to Out & Equal Workplace Advocates (2017), up to 52.8% of LGB employees experience workplace discrimination. In a related vein, the Human Rights Campaign (2019) reported that 53% of LGB employees heard jokes about lesbian and gay people at work. Furthermore, federal sexual orientation discrimination cases are increasing (Equal Employment Opportunity, 2018).
An individual's decision to identify as LGBT in the workplace and the environmental response to this decision highlight important aspects of workplace characteristics. Disclosure—being out to their supervisors, colleagues, and clients—may result in increased physical (Mereish & Poteat, 2015) and mental health benefits (Pachankis, Cochran, & Mays, 2015; Ryan, Legate, Weinstein, & Rahman, 2017). At the same time, disclosure comes with the risks of overt and covert prejudice and homophobia (Pachankis et al., 2015), such as limited job advancement and stigmatization (Eliason, Streed, & Henne, 2018; Falzarano & Pizzi, 2015), but might also be related to greater job satisfaction when the work environment is affirming (Prati & Pietrantoni, 2014; Velez et al., 2013; Tatum, 2018). These findings highlight the importance of assessing contextual factors in the workplace. Interestingly, this research contrasts with the view that disclosure is uniformly a positive step for LGBT individuals; concealment actually may be a necessary and adaptive decision for individuals in hostile environments.
The theory of work adjustment (TWA; Dawis & Lofquist, 1984), a classic P–E fit theory, has been widely researched in relation to career choice and work adjustment (see Swanson & Schneider, Chapter 2, this volume). The basic tenets of the theory hold that P–E fit (in terms of match of person values to environment reinforcers and of person abilities to environment ability requirements) influences work adjustment. Although TWA was not designed to explain LGBT career development, researchers have extended it to this context. The line of reasoning has been that group‐specific cultural variables, such as those relevant to LGBT populations, influence P–E fit, which, in turn, influences job satisfaction, performance, and tenure. For example, workplace contextual variables related to LGBT status could be expected to produce different work experiences (e.g., encountering heterosexism versus LGBT supportive climates); such experiences could lead to individuals being more or less in correspondence with their environments and more or less satisfied with their jobs. Thus, when counseling LGBT clients on job/career choice and adjustment, a TWA approach might focus both on traditional (value, ability) fit dimensions and on the workplace climate specifically for LGBT workers. Counselors then can help clients identify aspects of work environments that are affirming or harmful to clients' job functioning and well‐being.
Prior to empirical tests of the theory, some authors predicted that P–E fit would play a minimal role in influencing workplace satisfaction and tenure of marginalized populations because of significant structural barriers to job opportunities and choices (Fassinger, 2001). In other words, given that marginalized individuals have limited access to the full array of employment options, they may not leave a job that is a bad fit for them because they perceive that they have limited alternatives. However, research evaluating TWA with marginalized populations has demonstrated the opposite (Lyons et al., 2005; Lyons & O'Brien, 2006). Lyons et al. (2005), for example, found that the importance of P–E fit for LGB workers was not overshadowed by discrimination. Instead, LGB workers' perceptions of P–E fit took on greater significance, compared to workers in general. They found that almost half of the variance in LGB employees' job satisfaction was attributable to how well they perceived fitting their current work environment. The authors suggested that perceived P–E fit may take on greater importance because the nature of LGB employees' stigmatized status may lead them to be more highly attuned to the culture of their work environments when making workplace decisions.
Velez and Moradi (2012) later confirmed the relevance of fit for LGB employees. Specifically, their research supported theoretically consistent links between P–E fit and job satisfaction (positive), P–E fit and turnover intentions (negative), and the negative relation between fit and turnover intentions through job satisfaction. As predicted by TWA's authors (Dawis, 1994; Dawis & Lofquist, 1993), Velez and Moradi found that fit mediated the relation between LGB supportive climates and outcomes specified in the theory. The presence of heterosexist discrimination was related to TWA outcome variables (i.e., job satisfaction and turnover intentions), but the role of heterosexist discrimination was reduced in the presence of supportive climates in tests of mediation.
However, updates to TWA investigations that followed reflect the wisdom in early postulations that the model might be most relevant for economically privileged groups. Testing TWA with an economically distressed sample, Lyons et al. (2014) found that only when workplace climates were moderately to highly supportive of LGB persons did the link between P–E fit and turnover intentions (i.e., stronger fit predicted less turnover intent) remain significant. When the environment was unsupportive, the relation of fit to turnover intentions did not hold, suggesting that economically distressed employees were willing to weather a poor sense of fit in order to remain employed, as Fassinger (2001) had predicted. This finding does not hold with better‐educated and higher‐income samples (i.e., climate does not serve as a moderator with these samples; Lyons et al., 2005; Lyons & O'Brien, 2006). This research has not yet been replicated but suggests the importance of measuring intersections in identity (particularly socioeconomic status and sexual identity) in future TWA tests.
Developmental theories have historically viewed career development as occurring within a broader social context in which a person's vocational identity and self‐concept develop over time, as an individual interacts with the environment (Hartung, Chapter 4, this volume; Savickas, Chapter 6, this volume; Super, 1990; Tiedeman & O'Hara, 1963). For LGBT individuals, the development of a vocational identity co‐occurs with the development of a sexual identity and both of these processes take place within a larger environmental context that is pervasively heterosexist and homophobic (Dispenza, Brown, & Chastain, 2016). Consequently, from a developmental perspective, LGBT individuals' formation of a vocational self‐concept should be greatly influenced by their awareness and integration of sexual identity and by the levels of social acceptance and discrimination present in their social and occupational environment.
Dunkle (1996) contributed an early publication that examined the use of Super's (1990) career development theory with LGB individuals. He hypothesized that the sexual identity development of LGB individuals has a significant influence on their career development. He outlined Super's stages of career development, along with the career implications for gay and lesbian individuals at each stage. For example, he hypothesized that gay and lesbian adolescents and young adults in Super's exploration stage might be managing early stages of sexual identity confusion at the same time and, consequently, experiencing high levels of psychological distress. This, in turn, might interfere with achieving vocational maturity. As another example, men and women who begin the coming out process in their 30s and 40s face the challenge of managing their sexual identity during Super's establishment stage. During this stage, individuals typically develop greater stability, commitment, and mastery of their careers. However, individuals who come out later in life, during the establishment stage, are confronted with the challenge of managing their sexual identity on the job. This might lead to changing careers and recycling (re‐exploring both self and environments) to find a different career that allows for fuller expression of one's identity.
Other authors (Belz, 1993; Hetherington, 1991; Prince, 1995) have also described how the coming‐out process can disrupt the typical course of career development. For example, Hetherington (1991) hypothesized a bottleneck effect wherein LGB individuals in the early stages of coming out might approach career developmental tasks at a slower pace because of the need to deal with competing demands associated with sexual identity development. Similarly, Gonsiorek (1988) and colleagues (Gonsiorek & Rudolph, 1991) proposed that many gay and lesbian adolescents develop a “false identity” based on the lack of nurturing support from peers and others for all aspects of their identity, instead of a true identity based on trust in their own self‐evaluations of their needs, values, and interests.
Other authors suggest that while identity interference is possible, some LGBT individuals report no or little conflict (Lyons, Brenner, & Lipman, 2010) and some describe experiences where the co‐occurrence of sexual and career identity development actually facilitate each other (Adams, 1997). In their investigation of career and identity interference in young adults under the age of 30, Lyons et al. (2010) found that the largest cluster of participants was comprised of those who reported low levels of sexual identity conflict (i.e., “sexual identity development interferes with my career planning”) and career identity conflict (i.e., “career planning has interfered with my sexual identity development”). Other clusters identified in this sample included a high career conflict cluster and a high sexual identity conflict cluster. No participants reported high levels of both career and sexual identity conflicts. A qualitative study by Adams (1997) suggested that, at least when choosing careers accepting of sexual minorities, sexual identity and career identity development can actually facilitate one another. White (2014) proposed that the use of three culturally specific coping skills might protect the career development process from the unique demands of sexual identity development for LGB young adults. These skills, therefore, might help predict instances when each domain of identity development is protected or facilitated. These skills include reducing exposure to marginalization, increasing contact with social and professional supports, and utilizing the resilience gained during the sexual identity development process.
Gottfredson's (2005) developmental theory of circumscription and compromise is another theory that might be usefully applied to understanding how LGB individuals develop career aspirations—in particular, how these aspirations may be shaped by perceptions of obstacles, such as discrimination and heterosexism. Croteau and colleagues (2000) and others (e.g., Chen & Keats, 2016; Rheineck, Wise, & Williams, 2016) proposed that gender‐role socialization influences the career development and occupational aspirations of gay and lesbian children differently than heterosexual children. They suggested that gay and lesbian children may internalize vocational stereotypes about gay men and lesbians that, in turn, constrict their perceptions about appropriate career options.
Schneider and Dimito (2010) also provided empirical support for the assertions of Croteau et al.. They found that individuals who had experienced the highest level of anti‐LGBT discrimination reported less satisfaction with their career choices, and they perceived fewer work options. They found that gay men and visible minorities were especially likely to be negatively affected by prior discrimination. Interestingly, they also found that lesbians were more likely than gay men to report that their sexual orientation was a positive force in opening up academic and career possibilities for them. The authors hypothesized that coming out as a lesbian may remove restrictive social expectations around gender, thereby freeing lesbian women to consider career paths viewed as less traditional by society.
The ability to pursue non‐traditional career paths might have an economic benefit for lesbian women. Research suggests a “lesbian wage premium” where lesbian wages outpace heterosexual women's earnings, despite equivalent wages when first entering the labor market. This premium does not exist for gay men who earn less than heterosexual men, a gap that is more pronounced for younger gay men and decreases with years in the labor market (Waite, 2015; Waite & Denier, 2015).
A number of investigations have identified social support as an important contextual variable that positively contributes to both sexual identity (Antebi‐Gruszka & Schrimshaw, 2018; Brandon‐Friedman & Kim, 2016; Fingerhut, 2018) and career development of LGB individuals (Fisher, Gushue, & Cerrone, 2011; Gottfried, Estrada, & Sublett, 2015; Schmidt & Nilsson, 2006; White, 2014). In particular, these studies have found family and community support to be especially useful career development resources for LGB persons. For example, in a study of college students, Schmidt, Miles, and Welsh (2011) found that social support served as a buffer against the negative impact of perceived discrimination on vocational decision‐making and college adjustment. They recommended that career counselors of college students focus on their clients' support network as a central consideration in counseling.
Over the past decade, a number of scholars have advanced our understanding of the complexity of sexual identity development (Chung et al., 2012; Rosario & Schrimshaw, 2013; Toomey, Anhalt, & Shramko, 2016). They have stressed the importance of cultural differences in the formation of an LGB identity. They have also questioned a basic assumption of earlier sexual identity models: that achieving an integrated and healthy identity is dependent on coming out socially and in the workplace. Research on the intersection of sexual identity development, race, and national origin has stressed that this is particularly pertinent for LGB individuals who are from cultures in which homosexuality is especially stigmatized (e.g., Quach, Todd, Hepp, & Mancini, 2013; Tillman‐Kelly, 2017). Clients from underrepresented populations, this research argues, delicately balance multiple identities when evaluating when and if to come out and to whom. For example, LGB people of color may choose different levels of disclosure to family members, friends, or colleagues to maintain harmony across a range of communities.
Similarly, there is an increasing trend among younger LGBT individuals to avoid labeling themselves in any setting because of the potential stigmatization and oversimplification such labels place on definitions of sexual identity (Bosse & Chiodo, 2016; Robertson, 2014). Fassinger and Arseneau (2007) expanded on this more complex conceptualization by drawing attention to the myriad between‐group and within‐group differences that exist among LGBT populations. For example, there are important between‐group differences in experiences that shape the work trajectories of these four sexual and gender minority groups. In addition, these influences are filtered through within‐group differences, such as class, race, and age. Furthermore, individual characteristics, such as personality, add an influence that is unique to each person. Fassinger and Arseneau (2007) suggest that counselors attend to all of these differences to avoid oversimplification and to sharpen the focus of counseling. More empirical work is clearly needed to support and refine current models of sexual identity development and to provide clearer guidance on the complex reciprocal influences of career and sexual identity development.
Several authors have advocated applying the constructs of Krumboltz's (1979) social learning theory of career decision‐making and social cognitive career theory (SCCT; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994, 2000) to LGB populations (Datti, 2009; Fisher et al., 2011; Harris, 2014; Morris & Lent, 2019; Rummell & Tokar, 2016; Tatum, 2018). Datti (2009), for example, presented a detailed map for using Krumboltz's theory to conceptualize the unique career‐related challenges of LGBT individuals. Krumboltz outlined four factors that influence individuals' career decisions: genetics, environmental conditions, learning experiences, and task approach skills. Datti emphasized that many of the environmental conditions and events that Krumboltz described as common contextual factors for heterosexual individuals may more intensely impact LGBT individuals. For example, geographic location and political climate affect all people, but these environmental conditions are particularly influential factors for sexual minority individuals.
At this time, federal legislation does not protect LGBT individuals from discrimination at work despite recent passage of the Equality Act in the U.S. House of Representatives (2019). While some 21 states and the District of Columbia prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (https://www.hrc.org/state-maps/employment), the Human Rights Campaign (n.d.) estimates that 50% of LGBT individuals live in states without protective legislation (https://www.hrc.org/blog/historic-house-of-representatives-passes-the-equality-act). When LGBT individuals are also people of color (Harris, 2014) or immigrants (Chen & Vollick, 2013), the role of context accumulates, as individuals work to prioritize identities in particular environments or face discrimination based on multiple aspects of identity.
Several authors have emphasized that SCCT is a particularly useful theory for understanding the process of career development and decision‐making for individuals from marginalized groups who encounter workplace and societal discrimination (e.g., Brown & Lent, 2017; Lent & Brown, 2017; Kantamneni, Dharmalingam, Orley, & Kanagasingam, 2018). Furthermore, the publication of the SCCT self‐management model (Lent & Brown, 2013) has broadened researchers' ability to consider the processes leading to career outcomes, which can include universal and also group‐specific behaviors such as sexual identity management at work (Tatum, Formica, & Brown, 2017).
Morrow and colleagues (1996) were among the first to demonstrate the value of applying SCCT to the career development of lesbian women and gay men. They described how societal influences such as stereotyping, nonsupport for emerging interests, and peer pressure can shape and truncate the range of academic and career interests of lesbian and gay individuals by influencing their self‐efficacy and outcome expectations. They also stressed how barriers such as prejudice and discrimination based on sexual orientation impede the translation of interests into academic and career goals and choices. They suggested, for example, that lesbian women and gay men, when anticipating oppression or discrimination in a particular domain, are less likely to develop an enduring interest in that domain, despite having high self‐efficacy. To put it simply, they wrote: “The crucial issue may not be, ‘Can I do it?’ but ‘What will happen if I do?’” (p. 141).
More recently, scholars have used the constructs of SCCT to describe how LGB workers choose sexual identity management strategies (Rummell & Tokar, 2016; Tatum, 2018). Sexual identity management refers to whether and how LGB individuals disclose their sexual identity at work. Chung (2001) developed a model of sexual identity management based on an earlier model that outlined strategies that LGB persons might use, depending on the level of risk and potential consequences of a workplace situation. Chung's five strategies, ranging along a continuum from most discreet to most transparent, include (1) acting (engaging in a heterosexual relationship to appear heterosexual), (2) passing (fabricating information to give the impression of being heterosexual), (3) covering (censuring information that would reveal an LGB identity), (4) implicitly out (behaving honestly without labeling oneself as LGB), and (5) explicitly out (openly stating that one is LGB).
Lidderdale and colleagues (2007) proposed using SCCT as a framework for understanding how LGB individuals learn about and choose among such approaches for managing identity in the workplace. Their model describes how socially learned self‐efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations interact with workplace contextual factors to determine which sexual identity management strategy an individual will choose to use at any particular time. For example, individuals would likely develop strong, positive self‐efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations regarding being out if they have a history of exposure to the value of diversity and to LGB role models who manage their identities openly. These individuals would then be more likely to choose identity management strategies that are open. Conversely, adverse learning experiences about being out may produce weaker self‐efficacy beliefs and strong negative outcome expectations (e.g., anticipated ridicule or discrimination), prompting choice of more cautious identity management strategies.
Empirical tests have largely confirmed individual links (e.g., Sabat, Trump, & King, 2014; Velez, Moradi, & Brewster, 2013) in the model of Lidderdale et al. (2007). Additionally, a more comprehensive test (Rummell & Tokar, 2016) resulted in confirmation of a modified model. Specifically, three direct pathways were added to Lidderdale's model: links from contextual influences to self‐efficacy, contextual influences to outcome expectations, and range of acceptable strategies to actual behaviors. Additionally, five pathways found to be non‐significant were removed from the model: links from learning experiences to self‐efficacy, learning experiences to outcome expectations, self‐efficacy to strategy intentions, self‐efficacy to actual identity management behaviors, and contextual influences to actual identity management behavior. Using SCCT's self‐management model (Lent & Brown, 2013), Tatum et al. (2017) tested a model that they proposed “builds on” Lidderdale et al.'s (2007) model (p. 110). Their test confirmed links between concealment motivation, workplace climate, self‐efficacy, outcome expectations, and disclosure status as suggested by Lidderdale et al.'s model.
Models of sexual identity management draw attention to the prevalence of various forms of formal and informal workplace discrimination and provide an understanding of the ways in which LGB individuals may cope with them. These models stress the ongoing daily choices that LGB individuals make to reveal or conceal sexual identity in response to potential discrimination in the workplace. They take into account the individual's other social and cultural identities and stress the variability of individual and cultural needs. They do not assume or promote one coping strategy as more desirable than another. Instead, they encourage exploration of the risks and benefits of various coping strategies that correspond with a particular individual's identity development and needs; they focus on the unique psychological processes and learning experiences of the individual. For example, choosing to be out in the workplace is not always an optimal choice (Dispenza et al., 2016; Sabat et al., 2014; Shih, Young, & Bucher, 2013); workers from cultures that are more group than individually focused (e.g., Racial and ethnic minority groups) and workers struggling with poverty may be less likely to experience high self‐efficacy or to anticipate positive outcomes from being out at work (Croteau, Anderson, & VanderWal, 2008; Schroth, 2018; Smith, Arguello, & Dentato, 2018). Still, some research fails to find between group differences (e.g., Racial and ethnic differences) in identity milestones like coming out (Martos, Nezhad, & Meyer, 2015).
An emerging body of literature has expanded the study of sexual identity management and workplace discrimination to the experiences and challenges faced by LGBT individuals in leadership positions (Fassinger, Shullman, & Stevenson, 2010; Goodman, Schell, Alexander, & Eidelman, 2008; Mohr & Fassinger, 2012). Fassinger and colleagues (2010), for example, proposed an innovative multidimensional model of LGBT leadership that addresses the interaction of identity disclosure, gender conformity, and workplace contextual factors. This model emphasizes the strengths that LGBT leaders often bring to organizations, such as tolerance of ambiguity, sensitivity to diverse employees, understanding of oppression, creativity, and willingness to take risks. At the same time, they point out how easily a hostile workplace climate can result from negative stereotypes or derogatory comments about LGB leaders from coworkers.
Lehavot and Lambert (2007), for example, found that participants rated lesbian and gay leaders most negatively when they behaved in ways that confirmed sexual identity stereotypes (i.e., gay men acting feminine, lesbians behaving in masculine ways). Thus, lesbian and gay leaders may be at greater risk for negative perceptions by followers when they behave in ways considered inappropriate for their gender. Furthermore, when lesbian and gay leaders are perceived as confirming positive stereotypes (e.g., gay men possessing better developed social skills than heterosexual men), those positive stereotypes did not relate to increased hirability (Neidlich & Steffens, 2015). Research with lesbian and gay leaders has focused on individuals who are out in the workplace. It is quite reasonable to assume, however, that many LGBT individuals who choose not to disclose their sexual identity at work also may avoid taking on leadership roles due to the risk and scrutiny that such visibility brings. Research on the leadership career paths of LGBT workers, whether out or not, is an exciting new area of the career development literature.
The psychology of working theory (PWT; Blustein, 2006: Duffy, Blustein, Diemer, & Autin, 2016) was developed to supplement existing career development theories by focusing on social, systemic, and other contextual factors responsible for predicting work outcomes. As is more fully described in Chapter 7 (Blustein & Duffy, this volume), this emphasis on context, along with economic resources, is intended to promote understanding of the work experiences of marginalized populations, particularly in their pursuit of “decent work.” Work that is labeled decent is thought to provide safe working conditions, access to health care, adequate compensation, time for rest, and fulfillment of values that align with those held by employees in other life spheres (Duffy et al., 2017; International Labor Organization, 2012).
Recognizing the unique contextual factors shaping the work experiences of LGBT employees, scholars have started to test the usefulness of the PWT for LGBT employees. Preliminary research (Douglass et al. 2017; Tebbe, Allan, & Bell, 2019) largely confirms the validity and applicability of the PWT for LGBT individuals. Specifically, the more marginalization reported by participants, the less likely they were to report engagement in decent work. Additionally, as with predominantly heterosexual samples, higher social class facilitated attainment of decent work. Douglass et al. (2017) also tested the mediators proposed in the PWT, work volition (i.e., perception of career decision‐making choice), and career adaptability (i.e., ability to respond successfully to changing work environments). The authors confirmed an indirect path between both marginalization and economic resources to decent work via work volition, suggesting that greater economic resources and a reduction in marginalization are linked to decent work because of the choice in career decision‐making available to LGBT employees.
However, tests of indirect relations using the other proposed mediator, career adaptability, were not confirmed. Indeed, authors of other tests of the PWT with marginalized populations have noted the need to refine the proposed indirect links from marginalization and economic resources to decent work through career adaptability given the lack of support for this pathway (e.g., Duffy et al., 2018). Other suggested refinements to the model include the addition of a direct path from work volition to emotional and vocational well‐being, elevating the role of work volition in the model. When tested with a transgender population, the addition of these direct paths improved model fit (Tebbe et al., 2019), consistent with findings from previous research (e.g., Douglass et al. 2017; Duffy, Diemer, Perry, Laurenzi, & Torrey, 2012).
Although the literature addressing career development and counseling of LGB persons has grown significantly, few publications have focused on using career assessment tools with LGB individuals. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development (Hansen, 1997) devoted a special issue to the topic of heterosexism and homophobia in psychological assessment, and the Journal of Career Assessment has published two articles on LGB career assessment (Chung, 2003; Prince, 1997b). However, little research has followed. A content analysis in the Journal of Career Assessment found that no articles focused on sexual orientation were published between 2005 and 2011 (2011 marked the end of the analysis period). Additionally, the authors noted that, despite a growing emphasis on multicultural awareness in the journal's special issues, an exception was a lack of focus on LGBT clients (Whiston, Rose, Peterson, & Nguyen, 2013). Another content review spanning the period between 2005 and 2015 found the neglect of articles focused on sexual orientation and gender identity to be a trend across career development journals (Garriott et al., 2017).
The most recent version of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, 2014) includes a new chapter, “Fairness in Testing.” While this chapter does not address sexual orientation in detail, one of the standards for fairness (Standard 3.17) does now list sexual orientation along with other aspects of cultural identity when discussing the importance of reporting available aggregate scores for subgroups during reporting. Despite this updated inclusion of sexual orientation in the Standards, empirical research and more comprehensive standards for career assessment with LGBT populations are needed. In the meantime, book chapters incorporating case studies and practical guidelines for using career assessments with sexual minority clients serve as helpful heuristics for counselors (e.g., Pope, 1992; Pope, Prince, & Mitchell, 2000; Prince & Potoczniak, 2012). However, given the advances in psychological assessment and diagnosis, these chapters would benefit from updates.
Sound career assessment requires assessment skills that are rooted in the counselor's self‐awareness and knowledge of the psychological, cultural, and environmental concerns that are specific to LGB individuals (Chung, 2003; Prince, 1997b). For example, Chung (2003) emphasized the need for counselors to consider how their worldview, particularly their attitudes and possible biases regarding homosexuality and bisexuality, might influence their selection and use of assessments. For example, a counselor with biased attitudes toward LGB individuals might use assessment results to inappropriately direct some LGB clients to more gender‐traditional careers by discounting scores on scales that are counter to gender expectations. He pointed out the need for counselors to increase their knowledge in a number of domains, such as sexual identity development, workplace discrimination, LGB relationships, and diversity within the LGB community, and to seek out consultation when needed.
Furthermore, it is critical to evaluate each potential assessment tool for bias before using it with LGBT clients. Widely used career assessment instruments do not include item content relevant to the specific career development experiences of LGB populations, and they have not been designed to assess theoretical constructs that speak to LGB career concerns (Prince 1997a, 1997b). Effective assessment therefore requires counselors to use supplemental strategies to address influences such as sexual identity development, identity management, workplace discrimination, and heterosexism. Regrettably, effectively adapting the assessment process to meet LGBT client needs is not always easy to do, given that clients' sexual and gender identity status may be invisible. Counselors need to routinely assume at first that all clients may be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. Furthermore, counselors need to consider routinely collecting intake information from clients regarding their sexual and gender identity so that relevant historical material (such as experiences with discrimination and stigma) can be explored and integrated into the assessment process.
Although some counselors may find it awkward to raise the question of sexual and gender identity status in the first interview, it is nevertheless important to gather this information. It is good practice, for example, to include items relating to sexual and gender identity on written intake forms that clients complete prior to the first interview. These forms routinely collect other demographic and historical information, such as ethnicity and education, that allows the counselor to form first impressions and guide the first interview. The absence of items on sexual and gender identity reinforces the invisibility of sexual and gender minorities; by omission, the form can relay the message that heterosexuality is assumed.
The literature addressing the work and career concerns of transgender individuals has increased over the past few years, helping to inform both researchers and practitioners. Pepper and Lorah (2008) were among the first to summarize common career and workplace issues faced by transgender individuals and to provide recommendations for career counselors. They emphasized the numerous and significant workplace challenges that transgender individuals confront, such as deciding whether to transition (i.e., begin dressing, behaving, or living as the new gender) in their current job and choosing how to deal with coworkers' prejudice and discrimination. Additional challenges include managing social isolation at work and facing high rates of underemployment (Schilt, 2006). More than a decade later, the workplace challenges recognized by Pepper and Lorah (2008) and Schilt (2006) are ones still experienced by transgender employees (e.g., American Psychological Association, 2015; Rheineck et al., 2016; Stirba, Goldstein, & Gentili, 2014).
Brewster et al. (2014) used a qualitative content analysis to better understand the workplace experiences of transgender people including both negative and affirming experiences. All participants noted some negative experiences. The authors identified a number of themes across interviews, including: (a) interpersonal conditions such as work allies and experiences with hostility, (b) intrapersonal factors such as participants' approach to work and psychological distress experienced at work, (c) systemic and organizational issues including the lack of available single‐stall bathrooms, and (d) logistics and planning such as knowing their rights at work. The results of this study also identified strategies that helped create a more affirming environment for transgender employees. These strategies included ones that placed the responsibility on transgender employees themselves for educating coworkers or “being flexible.” Strategies also included systemic ones such as the helpfulness of benefits offered by employers and legal protections.
Ruggs, Martinez, Hebl, and Law (2015) focused specifically on experiences of workplace discrimination for transgender employees and they identified both individual and organizational characteristics influencing discrimination. They found less stigmatization toward trans men than trans women. They also found that when employees reported having more supportive coworkers and workplace policies, they were less likely to report discrimination at work. Contrary to hypotheses, employees' openness about their identity (e.g., “At work, I tell people that I am gender variant if that comes up”) was unrelated to workplace discrimination. The authors attribute this lack of relation between openness and discrimination to the potential for openness to lead to different outcomes depending on the work environment and individual factors. Additionally, in some cases, transgender employees might be perceived as cisgender in their work environments and might not feel the need to reveal their gender identity history.
These studies highlight a number of factors that can inform career counselors working with transgender clients. Career counselors need to engage in realistic yet sensitive conversations with transgender clients about prejudice and discrimination and focus on helping them to build strong support networks. Counselors also need to obtain training or supervision to learn more about the legal and medical issues that influence the lives of transgender people. Finally, the growing literature in this area emphasizes the important role of workplace environment and the need for career professionals to advocate for strengthening laws and policies that support the recruitment and retention of qualified transgender workers.
The foundations of counselor competence with LGBT clients are in many ways similar to those that are recommended for other marginalized clients who endure stereotyping and stigmatization (Israel & Selvidge, 2003). For example, the multicultural counseling and social justice literature emphasizes the need for counselors to examine their privilege and biases, and to understand the cultural background, values, and stereotypes associated with their clients (Ratts, Singh, Nassar‐McMillan, Butler, & McCullough, 2016). Competent career counseling with LGBT clients requires these same efforts.
In addition, there are factors unique to working with LGB populations that need to be incorporated. For instance, addressing sexual orientation requires discussing sexuality, a particularly difficult topic for many people and one that polarizes religious groups and political parties. A counselor needs to determine for each client to what degree sexual orientation needs to become a primary, secondary, or even tertiary focus of counseling and to examine whose needs are driving that decision, the counselor's or the client's. For example, a lesbian college sophomore who presents with career indecision may or may not need or want to talk about her sexual orientation. On the one hand, a counselor needs to provide an affirmative environment for exploring the influence of sexual orientation so that the topic is not ignored due to discomfort. On the other hand, overemphasis and an exclusive focus on sexual orientation might lead to early termination if a client feels that her or his presenting career needs are being discounted or deferred.
Fortunately, a number of professional practice guidelines provide counselors with a valuable framework for working effectively and responsibly with LGB clients. Guidelines for psychological practice with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients (APA, 2012), for example, integrate information in areas such as assessment, identity, and diversity to help practitioners engage in affirmative practice. Similarly, the Association for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Issues in Counseling (2013) has published competencies for counseling LGBT clients, and these have been adopted by the American Counseling Association. These competencies assist counselors in examining their personal biases and values regarding LGBT clients and provide guidance in applying appropriate and effective interventions. Twelve among these competencies are specific to career development. Among other strategies, they recommend that competent counselors need to (a) understand that career assessments may not have been normed using LGBT samples, (b) explore ways in which government statutes, union contracts, and business policies do not protect LGBT workers from discrimination, (c) help LGBT clients make career choices that facilitate both identity formation and job satisfaction, (d) understand the impact of discrimination for LGBT individuals with multiple marginalized identities, (e) connect LGBT clients with sexual minority role models who can increase awareness of viable career options, and (f) advocate for and with LGBT individuals.
A social justice approach offers an additional framework that is useful for career counselors. This approach highlights the ways in which the social and political contexts of LGBT persons' lives (e.g., heterosexism, societal disapproval, and deprivation of fundamental human rights) interfere with healthy development (Meyer, 2003). The American Counseling Association's Advocacy Competencies (Toporek & Daniels, 2018) provide a detailed framework for counselors wanting to infuse social justice work into their counseling practice. These competencies identify ways in which counselors can engage in both individual counseling and community‐based work to help clients achieve optimal results. Furthermore, others (e.g., Astramovich, Chan, & Marasco, 2017) have articulated the steps in advocacy work with LGBT groups and strategies for evaluating the effectiveness of such interventions.
A recurring theme throughout the scholarly literature on LGBT career development is the need for counselors to implement an LGBT‐affirmative approach to counseling—one that emphasizes the strengths and benefits of LGBT identities, including intersections among various cultural identities, and one that supports an individual's flourishing in all areas of life while recognizing the impact of identity‐based injustices (Moradi & Budge, 2018; Singh & Dickey, 2017). This affirmation starts with the way career counselors raise awareness about and market their practices and ask for demographic information as part of the intake process (e.g., preferred pronouns, remaining gender‐neutral when asking about partners), moves to the work in therapy, and concludes with the possibility that affirmative care might go beyond the therapeutic relationship (e.g., advocating for clients in their workplaces, coordinating with other professionals involved in clients' care or employment).
At the same time, related to an LGBT‐affirmative approach, Fassinger (2017) encouraged practitioners to consider the following questions: “Affirmative therapy is affirmative of what, exactly, in terms of identities that are continually evolving?” (p. 21) and “How do we protect individuals from discrimination based on sexuality‐related categories and yet dismantle the very existence of those categories at the same time?” (p. 30). Given the potential conflicting usefulness of both affirming and also deconstructing identities, Fassinger proposed an approach informed by both Richardson (2012) and Savickas (2013) whereby practitioners would, in part, help clients question and construct life narrative in several life domains.
Another essential recommendation for career counselors is to become knowledgeable about the specific issues that are contextually salient in LGBT clients' lives (e.g., sexual identity management in the workplace, intersections among identities, discrimination). Counselors need to be informed so that they can work with clients to understand and address how these factors have influenced their career development and decision‐making, and how they may continue to do so in the future. The invisibility of sexual and gender identity can complicate such exploration. Clients may look for clues in the counselor's office or in the counselor's words or behaviors to determine if counselors are knowledgeable and supportive. Thus, it is incumbent on career counselors to demonstrate LGBT‐supportive behaviors, such as avoiding heterosexist language in communications with all clients and to create an LGBT‐affirmative physical environment.
It is also essential for counselors to use relevant career resources to help clients explore jobs and careers. Most traditional career resources and career libraries do not feature LGBT‐related material; this absence contributes to the stigmatization, invisibility, and isolation of LGBT individuals. Proactive efforts are required to ensure that career resources are expanded to include occupational data, job listings, and career information from LGBT‐positive sources such as local and national LGBT organizations and from employers that offer LGBT‐affirmative policies. For example, the Human Rights Campaign (www.hrc.org), the National LGBT Chamber of Commerce (www.nglcc.org), and Out & Equal Workplace Advocates (www.outandequal.org) produce an array of career resources specific to LGB populations. Using resources such as these not only provides LGBT clients with relevant information but also ensures that career counselors remain up‐to‐date on current work issues that impact the lives of LGBT clients.
Over the past 25 years, there have been important advances in understanding the unique career concerns of LGBT individuals. There have also been important societal changes, such as increasing recognition of domestic partnerships by employers and the federal legalization of marriage of same‐sex couples. Nevertheless, LGBT individuals continue to deal with contextual factors inherent in living and working in a heterosexual and cisgender dominant society, and we have yet to expand or develop career theories that adequately speak to these complexities. Still, the incredible diversity of cultural groups that make up LGBT populations presents unlimited opportunities; both scholars and career practitioners are in an ideal position to develop more effective interventions, to empower LGBT individuals to thrive at school and work, and to advocate for a more just society.