Content uploaded by Jiwon Suh
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jiwon Suh on Nov 11, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Research Article
Clark, A. F., Suh, J., & Bae, K. B. (2022). Protected, but not included? The role of workplace
inclusion for sexual and gender minorities in the federal service. Journal of Public
and Nonprofit Affairs, 8(3), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.20899/jpna.8.3.1–26
Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs
Online First
Protected, but Not Included? The Role of
Workplace Inclusion for Sexual and Gender
Minorities in the Federal Service
Anna Fountain Clark – Drake University
Jiwon Suh – The University of Texas at Arlington
Kwang Bin Bae – Dongguk University
The public workplace has traditionally been conceived of in heteronormative and
cisnormative terms, wherein heterosexuality, the gender binary, and opposite-sex
relationships are presumed and institutionalized in both word and deed. Recent policy
changes and public opinion shifts regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
individuals have placed an onus on employers to develop means to include sexual and
gender minorities in the overall organizational culture and improve LGBT individuals’
workplace experiences. Using multilevel data analysis, this study focuses on how LGBT
federal workers’ perceptions of inclusion at the agency, supervisory, and work unit
levels affect their job satisfaction. The results indicate that LGBT employees’ inclusion
perceptions play a moderating role between their sexual or gender minority identities
and individual job satisfaction. The findings suggest that interventions aimed at
developing an inclusive culture that reduces or eliminates traditional
heteronormativity and cisnormativity, both agency-wide and at separate
organizational levels, may improve job satisfaction among LGBT workers.
Keywords: Job Satisfaction, LGBT, Inclusion
Introduction
With its emphasis on diversity-minded recruitment, merit-based promotion and retention,
and color-blind performance evaluation, the United States federal personnel system might be
optimistically viewed as a model for 21st century public human resource management. Indeed,
in the myths perpetuated in public administration theories of the late 19th and 20th centuries,
such a system represents a sexless, rational, formal organizational system wherein value is
placed in the work performed and the roles played by personnel, not on the personal identities
or characteristics of those doing the work. The reality of the modern federal agency is more
nuanced, however, as the individuals who compose that system bring their own styles, biases,
and social tendencies to work, contributing to the formation of in-groups and out-groups
within the larger organizations.
The business case for diversity (Thomas, 1990) and the benefits of diversity management
(Pitts, 2009) have long been accepted, as has Sabharwal’s (2014) more recent argument that
performance is best enhanced via an inclusive work environment in which employees feel
valued, fairly treated, and able to influence organizational practices. The case of lesbian, gay,
Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs
2
bisexual, and transgender people’s (LGBT1) social and workplace inclusion is particularly
striking, as there exist two terms for LGBT individuals’ organizational reality—
heteronormativity and cisnormativity—that describe sexual and gender minorities’ relative
marginalization within the professional environment. Both terms effectively translate as the
exclusion of LGBT people from the ‘normal’ or majority group, whether in word or in deed,
while inclusion reflects disruption of hetero- and cis-normative practices and a move toward
welcoming sexual and gender minorities in the overall group culture. As the nation’s locus of
public policy, largest single employer,2 and cultural thought leader, the federal government
appears to have recognized its responsibility to model inclusion behaviors and has specifically
geared some of those to its LGBT employee population.
Numerous studies have examined workplace inclusion and LGBT experiences, but few have
examined the synergies that exist between workplace inclusivity and LGBT employees’
reaction to institutional attempts to include them in the overall workplace culture (Hur, 2020).
Therefore, this work considers the behaviors from which LGBT inclusion might result,
whether LGBT employees’ experiences of inclusion are consistent across several consecutive
years, and what effect such inclusion might have on employee satisfaction on the job. While
there have been a handful of studies that have assessed the effects of inclusion on employee
satisfaction, few have previously examined whether and how inclusivity demonstrated at
different organizational levels affects satisfaction. Thus, as of this writing, this is the first study
to assess whether actions taken by the federal agency, its supervisors, and its work units
moderate the relationship between LGBT identity and employee satisfaction.
Conceptual Framework: Heteronormativity and Cisnormativity as Exclusion
To better comprehend inclusion and its effects on LGBT individuals, we must first understand
the nature of their exclusion. Like members of other minority groups, sexual and gender
minorities experience the dominant culture through interactions with individuals, groups, and
institutions. While homophobia, understood as “a negative attitude toward an individual
based on her or his membership in a group defined by its members’ sexual attractions,
behaviors, or orientation” (Herek & McLemore, 2013, p. 312), is the more commonly
presumed, negative experience for LGBT individuals, homophobia falls short of explaining the
extent of LGBT exclusion from the social and cultural benefits afforded to the heterosexual
and cisgender majority. Rather, to fully appreciate the magnitude of LGBT individuals’
exclusion from equitable treatment, research must examine the systemically heteronormative
culture within which sexual and gender minorities operate. This approach necessitates use of
a queer theory lens and an explicit ‘queering’ of administrative activities; that is, it examines
agency-employer behavior and assesses the extent to which heterosexuality and cisgender
identities permeate personnel policy to the exclusion of LGBT-identified individuals.3
Heteronormativity, defined as the “belief system underlying institutionalized heterosexuality”
(Ingraham, 2006, p. 307), implicates the systemic structuring of society and the institutions
within it to legitimize and afford privilege to heterosexuality and heterosexual relationships
(Gusmano, 2010; Willis, 2009), while cisnormativity similarly privileges individuals who
identify as one of the two binary genders, male or female, assigned to the individual at birth
(Suárez et al., 2020). Both concepts rest on the premise that only two sexes, two genders, and
opposite-sex relationship are socially and culturally ‘normal’ (Giddings & Pringle, 2011), and
prescribe conventional ways for one to live their life (Jackson, 2006). In environments where
an individual is presupposed to be heterosexual and identified as either female or male,
heterosexual relationships and the gender binary are deemed normal, while non-conforming
relationships or gender identities are considered aberrant. In short, whether at work or in a
social setting, heteronormativity and cisnormativity translate to the cultural, interpersonal,
and/or institutional exclusion of LGBT people.
Protected, but Not Included?
3
Heteronormativity and preference for binary gender identities permeate workplace structures
and cultures (Angouri, 2015; Rumens, 2016). Much like legal structures that have historically
institutionalized heterosexuality and shaped the social order (Jackson, 2006), organizations
create their own heteronormative social orders, manifesting as organizational cultures that
define acceptable employee attitudes, identities, and behavior. LGBT individuals must
constantly negotiate the institutional norms, practices, and values implicit in hetero- and cis-
normative culture (Angouri, 2015; Rumens, 2016; Rumens & Broomfield, 2014; Ward &
Winstanley, 2003). Such negotiation often revolves around the disclosure of one’s LGBT
identity, either explicitly or implicitly, as well as the contexts in which such disclosure might
be made. This means, for instance, minding one’s pronoun usage when discussing their
partner or relationship, as well as conforming to gender norms in regard to dress and physical
presentation. Because of this ongoing identity management and regardless of their myriad
work-related skills, sexual and gender minorities are constantly reminded that because they
do not conform to such norms, they are not full members of their respective organizations.
Inclusion and LGBT Personnel in the U.S. Federal System
Before assessing the degree to which any population experiences inclusion in the workplace,
we must first consider the evolving definition and construction of the term ‘inclusion.’
Workplace inclusion has recently received notice as the inheritor and logical extension of
diversity and diversity management initiatives in the workplace (Hur, 2020; Pink-Harper et
al., 2017; Pitts, 2009; Sabharwal, 2014). The concept of inclusion has been described as
reflecting organizational engagement (Mor Barak & Cherin, 1998), cooperative work behaviors
with colleagues (Gasorek, 2000; Mor Barak & Cherin, 1998), and participation in decision
making (Davidson & Ferdman, 2002; Pelled et al., 1999; Sabharwal, 2014). Within the general
population, prior research evaluates individuals’ emotive experiences in the workplace and
suggests that employees perceive inclusion within their work environment when they feel that
they belong in their work group, are accepted by their supervisors and peers, and receive equal
treatment from superiors within the organization (Melton & Cunningham, 2014). To clarify
the meaning of inclusion as a workable construct, Shore et al. (2011) articulate two primary
themes under which these and other manifestations of workplace inclusion may be organized:
appreciation for uniqueness and sense of organizational belonging. Building on Ely and
Thomas’ (2001) argument, Shore et al. (2011) argue that inclusion simultaneously signifies the
fulfillment of a person’s need to belong while also being appreciated for the uniqueness they
bring to work.
Similar to prior conceptualizations of inclusion, the present study acknowledges that inclusion
manifests as a latent construct comprising “separate though interrelated dimensions”
(Andrews & Ashworth, 2015, p. 282) that may be difficult to parse out for analysis. Given the
multidimensional character of workplace inclusion, it may be demonstrated in a variety of
ways and at multiple organizational levels that collectively reflect the collaborative,
organization-wide work to create a culture that recognizes all employees’ individual
contributions (Priola et al., 2014; Willis, 2009). Ultimately, inclusion of diverse populations
into the agency culture requires holistic incorporation of inclusive practice at all organizational
levels. Inclusion feasibly cannot manifest the same way at all organizational levels; rather,
relationships between the employee and his or her agency, supervisors, and immediate work
unit will relay an inclusive message through varying means and methods.
Much like other facets of organizational culture, inclusion cannot be expected to develop
overnight. Rather, culture is a learned phenomenon that develops as groups adapt to
environmental changes, and is communicated by a variety of procedures, explicit rules, and
implicit norms developed by the group as it negotiates various challenges (Schein, 2010).
Inclusion-oriented culture implicates an integration-and-learning process wherein group
members acknowledge and recognize the value of individual differences within their diverse
Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs
4
body, and then integrate those differences into the whole (Shore et al., 2011). Given the
institutionalized nature of hetero- and cis-normativity, the disruption and eventual
dismantling of such organizational norms requires significant investment of time and energy
across all facets of agency life. Drivers of such change may come in a variety of shapes and
sizes, but, if successful, a culture supporting the inclusion of diverse individuals may evolve.
Within the U.S. federal personnel system, sexual and gender minorities historically have found
themselves on the receiving end of policies aimed at their delegitimization and elimination
from the employment ranks. Anti-LGBT rhetoric and paranoia surrounding LGBT individuals’
suitability for federal employment dominated LGBT-focused federal personnel policies into
the 21st century.4 Up to that point, limited federal-level legal protections existed for LGBT
workers, as no significant piece of legislation explicitly protected those with LGBT identities
from discriminatory actions in the workplace. Few federal-level actions were taken to address
sexual and gender minorities in the federal service until the late 1990s, and in fact, the most
visible activity targeting LGBT federal employees at the turn of the 21st century—the Defense
of Marriage Act of 1993 (DOMA) and President Clinton’s 1994 ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ (DADT)
directive—further entrenched heterosexual norms in the federal service. DOMA defined
marriage as existing between one man and one woman, thereby affording the rights and
privileges of legal marriage to only those engaged in heterosexual marriages. DOMA further
empowered the federal government, as an employer, to define significant terms, e.g., marriage,
dependent, and family, in exclusively hetero-oriented nomenclature, thereby denying
extension of federal benefits to LGBT employees’ families and households if they were formed
as the result of same-sex relationships. Meanwhile, though DADT eliminated the ban on LGBT
military service members, it made service members’ openness about their LGBT identities
punishable by expulsion from the military and loss of veteran benefits. In short, by explicitly
legitimizing only heterosexual orientation, binary gender identities, and opposite-sex
relationships and marriages, DOMA and DADT largely served to entrench the otherization of
LGBT individuals within the modern federal service.
Shifting cultural winds and political wills ushered President Obama into office in 2009, and
his administration quickly utilized executive actions to address and eliminate overt anti-LGBT
discrimination in the federal ranks. The Obama administration expanded access to spousal
benefits for federal employees’ same-sex domestic partners (Federman & Elias, 2017) and
reversed DADT during the president’s first term, and DOMA was later overturned by the
Supreme Court. In response to the Supreme Court’s finding in United States v. Windsor
(2013) which ended the prohibition on federal recognition of same-sex marriage, the
administration directed federal agencies to bring their programs in line with the decision and
demonstrated the federal government’s commitment, both socially and institutionally, to
combatting the heteronormativity previously built into public policy. Post-Windsor, federal
agencies immediately worked to extend federal benefits to LGBT employees and their spouses
that had not been previously offered. By way of Executive Order 13672 in 2014, the
administration also explicitly prohibited discrimination on the basis of LGBT identity and
extended employment protections for LGBT employees who worked in or applied for federal
contracting jobs.
Obama-era federal personnel guidance demonstrated the administrative state’s commitment
to inclusive workplace practices. In concert with President Obama’s Executive Order 13583
which articulated the administration’s commitment to diversity and inclusion, the U.S. Office
of Personnel Management (OPM) expressed the federal government’s commitment to
inclusive employment practices in its 2011 Government-Wide Diversity and Inclusion
Strategic Plan. OPM set out the federal government’s understanding of inclusion as “a culture
that connects each employee to the organization; encourages collaboration, flexibility, and
fairness; and leverages diversity throughout the organization so that all individuals are able to
participate and contribute to their full potential” (OPM, 2011, p. 5). OPM recommends an
intentional approach to developing an inclusive culture and explains to federal workers that
Protected, but Not Included?
5
“if [employees] do not intentionally, deliberately, and proactively include, [they] will
unintentionally exclude” (OPM, 2014, 2:50).
During the Obama administration, OPM unambiguously identified as one of its goals the
creation and maintenance of an inclusive organizational culture across federal agencies.
Consistent with the integration-and-learning perspective on organizational inclusion (see
Shore et al., 2011), OPM recognized the need to acknowledge and value differences among
people and then integrate them into organizational function. While OPM’s understanding of
inclusion was notably similar to Shore et al.’s (2011), its understanding of inclusion
represented a broader construction of the concept, drawing on the emotive experiences of
employees who are included or accepted in the workplace culture. Inclusion within the federal
personnel context emphasized affability, flexibility, and fairness to make employees feel
welcome and important to the agency (OPM, 2014). Agencies’ inclusive cultures were intended
to encourage employees to believe their whole identity belonged at work, their unique
contribution was valued by the employer, their perspective was considered, and they had a say
in what happens at work (OPM, 2014).
The Obama-era OPM demonstrated its proactive perspective on inclusion by explicitly
instructing agencies on inclusive personnel practices via memoranda, videos, and other
materials, and then measuring inclusion with the New IQ survey items in its annual Employee
Viewpoint Survey. Since 2012, OPM has used the New IQ, or inclusive intelligence quotient,
to measure inclusive intelligence, which OPM defines as “the intentional, deliberate, and
proactive acts that increase our group intelligence by making people feel they belong and are
uniquely valued” (OPM, 2014, 2:40). OPM’s recipe for inclusion includes five workplace habits
that encourage inclusion: fairness, openness, supportiveness, cooperativeness, empowerment.
OPM tracks the agency progress toward inclusion and encourages continued improvement,
thereby indicating its commitment to developing a stronger culture of inclusion.
Job Satisfaction, Inclusion, and the LGBT Experience
The present work contends that perceptions of inclusion in the federal workplace will enhance
the employee experience at work, and such a position is consistent with the dynamic reflected
in social exchange theory. Blau (1964) defines social exchange as “voluntary actions of
individuals that are motivated by the returns they are expected to bring and typically do in fact
bring from others” (p.93). Social exchange theory posits that “people should help those who
have helped them” and “people should not injure those who have helped them” (Gouldner,
1960, p. 171). After receiving benefit from their organization or being treated equitably with
other employees, employees will reciprocate these favors with positive work attitudes (Aryee
et al., 2002; Gould-Williams & Davies, 2005, p. 4). Thus, it may be argued that when LGBT
employees perceive inclusive organizational practices such as support from supervisors, the
equitable treatment received by coworkers, and development of inclusive personnel policies,
they will reciprocate these good turns with positive work attitudes. Hur (2020) recently used
social exchange theory to examine the synergies between workplace inclusivity and LGBT
employees’ reaction to institutional attempts to include them in the overall workplace culture,
testing the effects of different inclusive work environment practices on LGBT employee job
satisfaction and organizational commitment.
Job Satisfaction
The study ascribes to the definitions of job satisfaction that point to individuals’ affective
responses to their jobs (Kim, 2005), such as how favorably an employee feels toward their job
(Gruneberg, 1979), the degree to which a positive emotional state results from the work
experience (Locke, 1976; Locke & Henne, 1986), and the congruence between what employees
want or expect from their jobs and what they believe they receive from them (Wright & Davis,
Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs
6
2003). This work explores LGBT employees’ job satisfaction in the years immediately
following modifications to the federal personnel system to make it more inclusive of LGBT
employees and their families. While many potential factors may moderate the relationship
between job satisfaction and sexual or gender minority status (see, e.g., Aldén et al., 2020; Day
& Schoenrade, 1997; Jin & Park, 2016), the majority of the research on the subject suggests
that job satisfaction should be expected to vary with sexual orientation and gender identity
(Aldén et al., 2020; Hur, 2020). With few exceptions, and across national contexts, the
literature indicates that LGBT individuals report lower job satisfaction than heterosexual
employees.
Reports of employee job satisfaction have long been considered indicative of employees’
perceptions of their treatment at their employers’ hands. Given recent shifts in public opinion,
significant public policy changes, and federal court rulings recognizing LGBT rights, the
experiences of LGBT individuals in the workplace warrant examination. While job satisfaction
may be one of the most studied concepts in organizational research, the literature takes a
largely piecemeal approach to the topic (Cantarelli et al., 2016) and leaves significant room to
study the satisfaction of diverse subpopulations. Lewis and Pitts (2017) find that LGBT
individuals are less satisfied on the job than their heterosexual and cisgender colleagues within
the federal service. The authors attribute the LGBT-heterosexual difference in satisfaction to
a number of possible causes, including age, experience, and racial differences between the
LGBT and non-LGBT samples. However, in their study of federal security agency employees,
Federman and Elias (2017) find little difference between the experiences of LGBT and non-
LGBT persons. Several international studies have also examined the relationship between
LGBT identity and job satisfaction. In studies of Greek workers (Drydakis, 2015) and Canadian
workers (Leppel, 2014), job satisfaction has been found to vary with sexual orientation and
gender identity, and LGBT employees tend to report lower satisfaction than their heterosexual
and cisgender counterparts.
Inclusion
By its very definition, inclusion serves to encourage diffuse groups and individuals to be
recognized as belonging to the whole. Mor Barak’s (1999) conceptual model of organizational
inclusion provides that an individual’s sense of inclusion in the organizational system results
from the interplay between personal characteristics, organizational policy, and organizational
culture. Mor Barak also examines the role of inclusion as an independent variable on work
attitudes such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment, finding that differing
perceptions of supervisor, group, and organizational inclusion have relationships with
organizational satisfaction (Mor Barak, 1999). Findler et al. (2007) test a comprehensive
theory by analyzing the relationship between organizational variables and work attitudes such
as job satisfaction and organizational commitment, finding that both demographic
characteristics and organizational factors have relationships with job satisfaction and
organizational commitment.
For LGBT individuals, inclusion involves an additional facet: disruption of the hetero- and cis-
normativity that historically has relegated them to organizational out-groups. Inclusion’s
many dimensions, whether defined pursuant to OPM’s five habits of inclusion, Mor Barak’s
(1999) conceptual model, or Shore et al.’s (2011) theoretical framework, undermine and
ultimately delegitimize the hetero- and cis-normative structures, policies, and attitudes that
had prevented sexual and gender minorities’ full membership in the larger group. As those old
barriers come tumbling down at the hand of inclusive organizational practices and the
organization recognizes LGBT individuals’ value and fit within the overall culture, their
workplace attitudes will come to reflect such inclusion. The social exchange dynamic suggests
that a workplace that promotes an inclusive culture in which diverse individuals are met with
respect and a sense of belonging will foster job satisfaction levels among LGBT individuals
that rival the job satisfaction of those in the sexual majority.
Protected, but Not Included?
7
Given the “separate though interrelated dimensions” inherent in the inclusion construct
(Andrews & Ashworth, 2015, p. 282), it can be useful to assess the relationships between job
satisfaction and elements of inclusion identified in previous studies. Prior works largely
indicate that the various constituent elements of inclusion have positive ramifications for
LGBT job satisfaction. Pink-Harper et al. (2017) find that the presence of diversity culture
within a federal agency, as measured on a scale developed from three New IQ Index items,
predicts increased job satisfaction among LGBT employees. This diversity culture includes
diversity-promoting workplace programs and policies, supervisor support for a representative
workforce, and supervisors’ successful work with diverse employees. The construct
corresponds well to the inclusion framework defined by Shore and colleagues (2011), as it
speaks to employees’ uniqueness via policies and programs at the agency and supervisor level,
while it also implicates the belonging demonstrated by supervisors’ integration of employees’
differences into a functioning work unit. Likewise, Lewis and Pitts (2017) find that LGBT
federal employees concurrently experience lower job satisfaction than their heterosexual,
cisgender counterparts and lower perceptions of fairness at work.
Supervisor Level Inclusion
Agency supervisors and work unit leaders take active roles in stimulating employees’ sense of
inclusion (Buengeler et al., 2018). Supervisors directly convey inclusivity by instilling a sense
of belonging, respect, and value in their subordinates. For LGBT employees, in particular,
supervisors possess the ability to proactively demonstrate inclusivity by engaging in
supportive relationships (Willis, 2009) and providing LGBT people with a voice within the
organization to, for example, articulate dissatisfaction or contribute to decision making (Bell
et al., 2011; Dundon et al., 2005). Given that LGBT employees have traditionally been
dissuaded by the hetero- and cis-normative organizational culture from expressing their
individuality or fully participating in the decision-making processes available to those in the
majority group, supervisors’ invitations to completely engage in organizational life can convey
to those employees that they truly belong. Such inclusive supervisory behaviors, e.g., the
demonstration of respect for an employee regardless of their sexuality or gender identity,
respect for the employee’s work-life balance irrespective of their family composition, and
listening to and investing in the employee’s performance and personal opinion of the
workplace, will contribute to increased job satisfaction among sexual and gender minorities in
the federal workplace. Therefore, it is hypothesized:
H1: Supervisor-level inclusion practices will increase LGBT job satisfaction.
Work Unit Level Inclusion
Within the work unit, employees interact with their peers, colleagues, and supervisory staff in
a close environment and at a personal level. They become familiar with one another, share
details of their personal and family lives, and operate in concert with one another. In this
context, inclusion frequently comprises the equitable treatment received by a worker in the
unit, e.g., all workers, regardless of identity or personal characteristics, are evaluated on the
same scale, against the same measures, and in a fair way. As efforts are made within work units
to equitably include all members of the unit, regardless of identity or minority status, evidence
suggests that all workers benefit from such activities, resulting in a more inclusive workplace
climate in which LGBT workers may find themselves treated more favorably by their
heterosexual peers (Ng & Rumens, 2017; Pichler et al., 2017).
Of OPM’s five habits of inclusion, fairness is most frequently included and measured at the
work level and speaks to an employee’s perceptions of fairness in performance evaluation,
equity and appropriateness in the allocation of awards, and correct/suitable punishment or
sanction of poor performance. Evidence suggests that one’s job satisfaction can be expected to
increase as a sense of fairness, the significant element of work unit inclusion, develops within
Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs
8
the work unit (Choi & Rainey, 2014). Further, Lewis and Pitts (2017) find that significant,
statistical differences in fairness perceptions between LGBT and heterosexual employees
persist after controlling for a variety of demographic characteristics, and that lower levels of
fairness translate to lower levels of job satisfaction among LGBT workers. It is therefore
hypothesized:
H2: Work unit-level inclusion practices will increase LGBT job satisfaction.
Agency Level Inclusion
At the agency level, inclusion manifests as the disruption of agency procedures and policies
that conform to historical, hetero- and cis-normative standards. Agency policies provide the
standard for proper behavior in the workplace (Angouri, 2015) and enjoy positive
relationships to the creation and preservation of an organizational climate supportive of some
sexual minority groups, e.g., gay men (Tejeda, 2006). Development of inclusive personnel
policies and procedures places employees on equal footing, regardless of one’s identity,
orientation, or presumed minority status. Within the context of workplace regulations or
standards, in an inclusive agency there exists no disparate treatment of employee groups. With
regard to LGBT-identified individuals, the legitimacy of employees’ orientations, identities,
partnerships, or marriages is not judged based on their presumed gender or sex, nor that of
their spouse or partner; discrimination is not tolerated; diversity is promoted in hiring and
promotion processes; and employees who belong to cultural out-groups are eligible to be full
members of agency culture.
In the context of federal workers, President Obama’s pre-Windsor executive order that
directed federal benefits be provided to employees’ same-sex partners and their children
demonstrated the federal personnel system’s move to include LGBT workers and legitimized
their identities and partnerships. Such policies correspond to the ‘LGBT-supportive policies’
described by Pichler et al. (2017) and demonstrate the federal government’s commitment to
the equal treatment of LGBT personnel and their families. These moves further indicate the
government employer’s rejection of hetero- and cis-normative personnel policies and the
exclusion that naturally accompanies them. Once included as full and equal members of the
agency, LGBT employees should experience the benefits of that inclusion and are expected to
report greater satisfaction on the job. Based on the disruption of the traditional hetero- and
cis-normativity vis-à-vis inclusive workplace policies directed toward LGBT employees, it is
hypothesized:
H3: Agency-level inclusion practices will increase LGBT job satisfaction.
Data and Method
Research on LGBT experiences in public employment, and particularly the federal service, has
lagged, in part, due to a dearth of data on the subject (Lewis & Pitts, 2011). Large-scale
collections of public employee data have not routinely queried respondents’ sexual orientation
or gender identity until very recently, which has limited previous scholarly inquiries into LGBT
employees’ experiences at work. In 2012, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) began
incorporating a survey item on sexual and gender minority status in the Federal Employee
Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) which it administers annually to hundreds of thousands of federal
employees. For individual-level data, we use three years of FEVS data from 2013 to 2015,
conducted by OPM. Particularly, this study uses subsets of survey data including LGBT
demographics to examine the impacts of the different levels of inclusion factors on employees’
job satisfaction. OPM has published LGBT datasets for four years from 2012 to 2015 and we
excluded the year 2012 data due to missing information on employee racial identity. Since
Protected, but Not Included?
9
then, OPM has stopped publishing LGBT datasets, making these datasets the most recent
FEVS data that report the LGBT variable.
After excluding the respondents who selected ‘preferred not to identify’ for the survey question
of LGBT identification or those who did not respond to the question, the sample for each year
is approximately 300,000. To avoid mischaracterization of the data, best practice
recommends excluding respondents who answer Prefer Not to Say5 (Badgett, 2009). This
study also collected agency level of data. Agency-level data are derived from FedScope (Federal
Human Resources Data), also collected and distributed by OPM. Consequently, 36, 27, and 27
federal agencies are represented in the sample in 2013 to 2015, respectively.
Dependent Variable
Following previous studies (Choi, 2013; Pitts, 2009), a proxy index of overall job satisfaction
is measured using two items. For each question, all respondents were asked to answer the
extent of satisfaction with their job and organization with the following statements: (1)
‘Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your job?’, and (2) ‘Considering
everything, how satisfied are you with your organization?’ (Choi, 2013). The Cronbach’s alpha
for the job satisfaction index is .83 for the three years of data.
Independent Variables
For 2013–2015, the FEVS survey item read, ‘Do you consider yourself to be one or more of the
following? (mark as many as apply): Heterosexual/straight, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual,
Transgender, I Prefer Not to Say.’ To protect respondents’ identities, FEVS data report the
data in three categories: heterosexual/straight, a collapsed sexual and gender minority
variable labeled LGBT, and Prefer Not to Say. Based upon best practice recommendations to
exclude the respondents who select Prefer Not to Say (Badgett, 2009), our models utilize a
binary sexual and gender minority status variable where LGBT=1 and
heterosexual/straight=0.
The New IQ index consists of 20 items that are related to organizational inclusion. Given this
study’s core research question, the original 20 New IQ items were reviewed and those that
explicitly identify agency, supervisor, and work unit behaviors were identified based upon
their wording in the FEVS, lending face validity to their use as aggregate measures of each
construct. For example, several questions merely ask the respondents’ feeling about inclusion
and the others do not reference the respondents’ agency, work unit, or supervisors. Using
principal factor analysis with varimax rotation methods, we confirm that, in fact, those
isolated behaviors collectively measure what we believe they measure. Supervisor-level, work
unit-level, and agency-level inclusion variables are derived from 12 observed variables that
originate from the New IQ index constructed by OPM (U.S. Office of Personnel Management,
2015). Also, inspired by previous studies (Ng & Rumens, 2017; Pichler et al., 2017), two
additional variables were included for the work unit-level inclusion, leading to a total of 14
variables.
Supervisor-level inclusion refers to the employee perception of inclusive behaviors exhibited
by their superiors (Hoang et al., 2022). Six items were used to measure supervisor-level
inclusion: (a) my supervisor supports my need to balance work and other life issues; (b) my
supervisor is committed to a workforce representative of all segments of society; (c) my
supervisor provides me with constructive suggestions to improve my job performance; (d) my
supervisor listens to what I have to say; (e) my supervisor treats me with respect; and (f) in
the last six months, my supervisor has talked with me about my performance. The Cronbach’s
alpha for this measurement is 0.88 for all three years of data.
Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs
10
Work unit-level inclusion, which emphasizes the perceived inclusion in the employee work
unit (Choi & Rainey, 2014; Ng & Rumens, 2017; Pichler et al., 2017), was measured using five
items: (a) the people I work with cooperate to get the job done; (b) in my work unit, steps are
taken to deal with a poor performer who cannot or will not improve; (c) in my work unit,
differences in performance are recognized in a meaningful way; (d) awards in my work unit
depend on how well employees perform their jobs; and (e) employees in my work unit share
job knowledge with each other. The Cronbach’s alpha is 0.81 for all three years.
Finally, agency-level inclusion, which focuses on perceived inclusion at the organizational
level (Angouri, 2015; Pichler et al., 2017), consists of three items: (a) policies and programs
that promote diversity in the workplace; (b) arbitrary action, personal favoritism, and coercion
for partisan political purposes are not tolerated; and (c) prohibited personnel practices are not
tolerated. The Cronbach’s alpha for this measurement is 0.76 for all three years (See Appendix
A).
Table 1 reports the Cronbach’s alpha values of the three levels that are consistent across the
three years and between 0.76 and 0.88. Also, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) confirmed
the validity of the indices. The comparative fit index (CFI) is 0.950 and the root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA) is 0.079 for all three years, showing that the measurement
model fits the data (Hooper et al., 2008). These different levels of inclusion factors were tested
to analyze each inclusion factor’s effects on employee job satisfaction. For comparative
purposes, a single, predicted factor was constructed and used to analyze the summed effect of
all three levels of inclusion variables on job satisfaction. For this single, predicted factor, the
Cronbach’s alpha values are 0.90 for all three years.
Control Variables
The models include a number of controls for individual and organizational level
characteristics. Regarding individual characteristics, manager position (manager=1), BIPOC
(BIPOC=1; Black, Indigenous, and People of Color), gender (female=1), tenure (1=15 or more
years) and age (1=50 or older) are included as dummy variables. In addition, two
organizational-level characteristics are included to account for the relative diversity present in
each agency, which has been previously demonstrated to have important ramifications on the
inclusion-job satisfaction relationship in the literature (Cho & Sai, 2012; Hur, 2020). Agency-
level control variables are collected from FedScope which is managed by OPM. First, the
proportion of BIPOC employees in the agency was calculated by dividing the number of BIPOC
employees by the total number of employees in the agency. Using the same method, the second
variable, the proportion of female employees in the agency, was calculated that the number of
females was divided by the total number of employees in the agency. These two organizational-
level variables are critical for this study to control for the diversity management of agencies
because the proportions of BIPOC and females indicate the organizational demographic
diversity (Choi, 2009; Choi, 2013; Choi & Rainey, 2010; Ivancevich & Gilbert, 2000).
Model Specification
Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was applied to the pooled three years (2013 through
2015) of data to test the study’s hypotheses. Initially, we tested if HLM fits better than
regression models for all three years and the results suggest that adoption of a multilevel
model better explains the data. HLM provides more flexibility from which each agency has a
unique intercept, leading the models to avoid inaccurate results (Choi, 2013). As a result, we
adopt HLM with individual survey responses (Level 1) that are clustered within agencies (Level
2). The calculated intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) is 0.01; that is small but highly
significant (p<0.01), indicating that there are significant differences among agencies. Second,
diagnostic analysis (Collin test) uncovered no multicollinearity issues among the explanatory
variables. In particular, we find no collinearity issues among the supervisor-level, work unit-
Protected, but Not Included?
11
level, and agency-level inclusion practices. Lastly, following George and Pandey (2017) and
Fuller et al. (2016), potential issues derived from common source bias (CSB) were tested.
Harman’s one-factor test shows that the percent of covariances of the single factor is 54.5. The
result with the scale reliabilities (Cronbach’s α) of 78.7 indicate that Common Method
Variance (CMV) is low to generate CSB. Furthermore, the combined administrative data and
included interaction variables significantly reduce the possibility of CSB (Fuller et al., 2016).
1. HLM with the Predicted Aggregated Inclusion Factor
Level 1:
Level 2:
2. HLM with the Three Levels of Inclusion Factors
Level 1:
Level 2:
Findings
Table 1 summarizes the variables across the three years and reports the differences between
LGBT and non-LGBT employees. Overall, it shows that the average values of the responses to
the job satisfaction questions and the average values of all inclusion factors are consistent
across the three years. This overall pattern holds for both LGBT and non-LGBT subgroups. As
Table 1 indicates, the mean scores for LGBT employees on all measures of job satisfaction and
perceived inclusion are lower than those in non-LGBT employees, suggesting that different
perceptions on all key variables likely exist between LGBT and non-LGBT employee groups.
We also found that perceived inclusion at the agency level incrementally increases over time.
The mean values of all three levels of inclusion are 2.48, 2.50, and 2.52 in 2013, 2014, and
2015, respectively.6
Three percent of the survey respondents identified themselves as LGBT individuals, 43–44%
of the respondents have been working for the agency for 15 or more years, and 49–51% of their
age is 50 or more. Additionally, 19–21% of them responded that they are in manager positions.
Lastly, the percentages of BIPOC and female employees at the organizational level are similar
with the survey responses, indicating that FEVS survey represents the federal workforce. For
instance, 34% of the respondents are BIPOC and the average percent of BIPOC at the agency
level is either 36% or 37%. Overall, we found consistent trends of all the variables along with
consistent standard deviations across the three years.
HLM analysis (Table 2) illustrates the effect of the aggregated inclusion factor and the three
levels of inclusion on employee job satisfaction. First, while the aggregated inclusion is
significantly associated with job satisfaction in Model 1 and 2, the LGBT variable has a
significantly negative relationship with job satisfaction (p<0.001). More importantly, Model 2
indicates that LGBT employees who experience inclusion are more likely to be satisfied in their
jobs, as demonstrated by the significant relationship between the LGBT and inclusion
interaction term and the job satisfaction variable. Additionally, we found that the effects of
inclusion are significantly increased over time.
Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs
12
Table 1. Descriptive Analysis
2013
2014
2015
Variables
Mean
(s.d.)
Cronbach’s α
Mean
(s.d.)
Cronbach’s α
Mean
(s.d.)
Cronbach’s α
Scale
LGBT
n=8,815
n=9,386
n=10,535
Satisfaction
2.36 (0.76)
2.34 (0.77)
2.37 (0.76)
Inclusion (all 3 levels)
2.42 (0.51)
2.42 (0.51)
2.43 (0.51)
Supervisor-level Inclusion
2.61 (0.55)
2.62 (0.55)
2.63 (0.55)
Work Unit-level Inclusion
2.17 (0.61)
2.18 (0.61)
2.20 (0.61)
Agency-level Inclusion
2.39 (0.67)
2.37 (0.67)
2.38 (0.67)
Non-LGBT
n=279,003
n=285,616
n=307,991
Satisfaction
2.46 (0.71)
2.44 (0.72)
2.47 (0.71)
Inclusion (all 3 levels)
2.48 (0.48)
2.48 (0.49)
2.50 (0.48)
Supervisor-level Inclusion
2.66 (0.52)
2.67 (0.52)
2.68 (0.51)
Work Unit-level Inclusion
2.24 (0.59)
2.25 (0.60)
2.27 (0.60)
Agency-level Inclusion
2.46 (0.61)
2.46 (0.62)
2.47 (0.62)
Total
n=287,818
n=295,002
n=318,526
Satisfaction
2.46 (0.71)
0.83
2.44 (0.72)
0.83
2.46 (0.72)
0.83
2 items, Likert (1–3)
Inclusion (all 3 levels)
2.47 (0.49)
0.90
2.48 (0.49)
0.90
2.50 (0.48)
0.90
14 items, Likert (1–3)
Supervisor-level Inclusion
2.66 (0.52)
0.88
2.66 (0.52)
0.88
2.68 (0.51)
0.88
6 items, Likert (1–3)
Work Unit-level Inclusion
2.24 (0.59)
0.81
2.24 (0.60)
0.81
2.27 (0.60)
0.81
5 items, Likert (1–3)
Agency-level Inclusion
2.45 (0.62)
0.76
2.45 (0.62)
0.76
2.46 (0.62)
0.76
3 items, Likert (1–3)
Control Variables–Individual
LGBT
0.03 (0.17)
0.03 (0.18)
0.03 (0.18)
Dummy (1=LGBT)
Tenure 15 years or more
0.44 (0.50)
0.43 (0.50)
0.44 (0.50)
Dummy (1=15 or more)
Age 50 or older
0.49 (0.50)
0.51 (0.50)
0.51 (0.50)
Dummy (1=50 or older)
Manager
0.19 (0.40)
0.20 (0.40)
0.21 (0.41)
Dummy (1=manager position)
Protected, but Not Included?
13
BIPOC
0.34 (0.47)
0.34 (0.47)
0.34 (0.47)
Dummy (1=BIPOC)
Female
0.46 (0.50)
0.46 (0.50)
0.46 (0.50)
Dummy (1=female)
Control Variables–Org
% of BIPOC
0.36 (0.08)
0.36 (0.07)
0.37 (0.08)
Proportion
% of females
0.46 (0.13)
0.46 (0.13)
0.46 (0.13)
Proportion
Note. BIPOC=Black, Indigenous, and People of Color.
Table 2. HLM Analysis of All Employees
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
(b/se)
(b/se)
(b/se)
(b/se)
Inclusion
All three levels inclusion
0.664***
0.663***
(0.006)
(0.006)
Supervisor-level
0.240***
0.240***
(0.001)
(0.001)
Work unit-level
0.273***
0.272***
(0.001)
(0.001)
Agency-level
0.266***
0.265***
(0.001)
(0.001)
LGBT
–0.049***
–0.046***
–0.042***
–0.040***
(0.005)
(0.005)
(0.005)
(0.005)
Tenure 15 years or more
–0.036***
–0.036***
–0.037***
–0.037***
(0.002)
(0.002)
(0.002)
(0.002)
Age 50 or older
0.064***
0.064***
0.058***
0.058***
(0.002)
(0.002)
(0.002)
(0.002)
Manager
–0.024***
–0.024***
–0.054***
–0.054***
(0.002)
(0.002)
(0.002)
(0.002)
BIPOC
0.092***
0.092***
0.101***
0.101***
(0.002)
(0.002)
(0.002)
(0.002)
Female
0.082***
0.082***
0.086***
0.086***
(0.002)
(0.002)
(0.002)
(0.002)
Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs
14
Year (reference year: 2013)
2014
0.008**
0.008**
0.007**
0.007**
(0.002)
(0.002)
(0.002)
(0.002)
2015
0.011***
0.011***
0.009**
0.009**
(0.003)
(0.003)
(0.003)
(0.003)
Level 2
% of BIPOC
–0.254*
–0.254*
–0.217+
–0.217+
(0.113)
(0.113)
(0.114)
(0.114)
% of females
–0.014
–0.016
0.042
0.042
(0.109)
(0.109)
(0.116)
(0.116)
Interaction
LGBT * Inclusion
0.024***
(0.005)
LGBT * Supervisor-level
–0.013*
(0.006)
LGBT * Work unit-level
0.024**
(0.007)
LGBT * Agency-level
0.020**
(0.007)
Constant
0.066
0.067
0.023
0.023
(0.066)
(0.044)
(0.046)
(0.046)
Number of observations
626,137
626,137
626,137
626,137
Number of groups
36
36
36
36
Wald Chi-square
17961.89***
18033.33***
493075.10***
493151.61***
Note. + p<0.1, * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001
Protected, but Not Included?
15
Table 3. HLM Analysis of Non-Manager Position Employees
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
(b/se)
(b/se)
(b/se)
(b/se)
Inclusion
All three levels inclusion
0.661***
0.660***
(0.006)
(0.006)
Supervisor-level
0.230***
0.231***
(0.001)
(0.001)
Work unit-level
0.273***
0.273***
(0.001)
(0.002)
Agency-level
0.270***
0.269***
(0.001)
(0.001)
LGBT
–0.057***
–0.052***
–0.049***
–0.041***
(0.006)
(0.006)
(0.006)
(0.006)
Tenure 15 years or more
–0.038***
–0.038***
–0.037***
–0.037***
(0.002)
(0.002)
(0.002)
(0.002)
Age 50 or older
0.074***
0.074***
0.067***
0.067***
(0.002)
(0.002)
(0.002)
(0.002)
BIPOC
0.087***
0.087***
0.095***
0.095***
(0.002)
(0.002)
(0.002)
(0.002)
Female
0.081***
0.081***
0.087***
0.087***
(0.002)
(0.002)
(0.002)
(0.002)
Year (reference year: 2013)
2014
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.002
(0.002)
(0.003)
(0.003)
(0.003)
2015
0.004
0.004
0.002
0.002
(0.003)
(0.003)
(0.003)
(0.003)
Level 2
% of BIPOC
–0.187
–0.187
–0.143
–0.143
(0.121)
(0.121)
(0.122)
(0.122)
% of females
–0.083
–0.084
–0.034
–0.035
(0.117)
(0.117)
(0.122)
(0.122)
Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs
16
Interactions
LGBT * Inclusion
0.025***
(0.006)
LGBT * Supervisor-level
–0.012+
(0.007)
LGBT * Work unit-level
0.025**
(0.008)
LGBT * Agency-level
0.020**
(0.008)
Constant
0.075
0.076
0.032
0.032
(0.046)
(0.046)
(0.048)
(0.048)
Number of observations
476,248
476,248
476,248
476,248
Number of groups
36
36
36
36
Wald Chi-square
16434.55***
16494.79***
374065.35***
374122.80***
Note. + p<0.1, * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001
Models 3 and 4 in Table 2 illustrate the different effects of each inclusion level. Although all three levels of inclusion practices are positively
associated with employee job satisfaction, the results report that it is highly unlikely that LGBT employees’ job satisfaction is the same as non-
LGBT employees’ job satisfaction in the population. We also found that there is a negative effect of supervisor-level inclusion practices on LGBT
employees’ job satisfaction, indicating that the data do not support hypothesis 1. On the other hand, work unit-level inclusion and agency-level
inclusion have significantly positive relationships (p<0.01) with LGBT employees’ job satisfaction. These results confirm our hypotheses 2 and 3.
When testing supervisor-level inclusion, we ran the same models without respondents who are in a manager position. Table 3 reports interesting
findings that there is no significant increased effect of inclusion over time. Also, it shows that supervisor-level inclusion has a negative relationship
with LGBT employees’ job satisfaction, although the statistical significance became marginalized. These findings suggest that there might be
different perceptions of inclusion between managers and lower-level employees.
The findings concerning demographic variables show that the individual-level age 50 or older, BIPOC and female control variables have
significantly positive relationships with job satisfaction as shown in Tables 2 and 3. The results also show that managers and those whose tenure
year is 15 or more are significantly less satisfied with their job. It is worth noting that while the percentage of female employees is not associated
with job satisfaction, the percentage of BIPOC employees has a negative relationship with job satisfaction (Table 2).
Protected, but Not Included?
17
Discussion and Conclusion
The findings uncover real and significant differences between LGBT and heterosexual federal
employees relative to inclusion and job satisfaction. The findings reported in Table 1 indicate
that LGBT employees’ inclusion perceptions at the supervisor, work unit, and agency levels lag
those of non-LGBT employees. Comparison of the three inclusion measures demonstrates that
while the differences between the two employee groups marginally fluctuate across the three
years of data, LGBT employees consistently report lower perceptions of inclusion than those
in the majority group. These findings are consistent with prior works, e.g., Hur (2020), that
demonstrate that sexual and gender minorities will perceive lower inclusion levels than their
heterosexual counterparts. While not statistically confirmed, the substantial size of each
subsample suggests that the difference in the mean values for each inclusion index across the
three years is likely meaningful. Similarly, the findings indicate that sexual and gender
minorities in the federal workforce report their job satisfaction to be lower than their
heterosexual and cisgender counterparts. As demonstrated in Tables 2 and 3, identification as
a sexual or gender minority has a significant, negative relationship to global job satisfaction,
which comports with previous findings (e.g., Hur, 2020; Pink-Harper et al., 2017; Sabharwal
et al., 2019).
The results reported in Model 2 demonstrate that LGBT employees who report greater levels
of aggregated inclusion will enjoy greater job satisfaction, as the relationship between the
LGBT and inclusion interaction term and job satisfaction is statistically significant and the
impacts increase over time. Thus, consistent with prior work (e.g., Hur, 2020; Pink-Harper et
al., 2017), increased inclusion perceptions among LGBT employees enjoys a significant,
positive relationship with reported job satisfaction. Further, the relationship between the
aggregated inclusion factor and LGBT job satisfaction changes across the three years of the
study, gaining in both strength and statistical significance. Such changes in this relationship
might be attributed to the cumulative effect of federal efforts to build an inclusive culture;
however, based on the nature of the data, we interpret these findings with a degree of caution.
At minimum, the large sample sizes permit a measure confidence in this assertion and
demonstrate the need for continued research to ascertain the cumulative effects of
organizational inclusion culture on LGBT job satisfaction.
The relationships between the various levels of inclusion and job satisfaction for LGBT
individuals vary in strength and consistency. The results show that supervisor-level inclusion
and job satisfaction among LGBT employees does not possess a positive relationship over the
three years of data. In fact, it is opposite of the expected direction, suggesting that supervisor-
level inclusion’s effect on LGBT job satisfaction requires further study. On the other hand, we
found that work unit-level inclusion and agency-level inclusion have a positive impact on
LGBT employees’ job satisfaction. The variation in the relationships between job satisfaction
and the various levels of inclusion suggests that a sense of inclusivity develops in different
places, at different times, and for different reasons across an organization, rather than as a
result of a single training, policy shift, or other intervention. Lastly, as shown in Table 3, the
effects of inclusion for non-manager employees do not increase over the three years,
suggesting that these lower-level employees may perceive the organizational inclusion
practices differently.
Multiple implications arise from the findings of this study. First, using the concept of
heteronormativity and its counterpart, cisnormativity, as its theoretical framework, this work
offers a glimpse into the inclusion perceptions of sexual and gender minorities, an “invisible
population” frequently neglected in the literature (Priola et al., 2014, p. 488).
Heteronormativity and cisnormativity create cultural categories into which individuals may
be placed. Historically, a person has been sorted into the ‘in’ category as a heterosexual,
cisgender person who engages in opposite-sex relationships, while a person who identifies as
other than heterosexual or cisgender and/or engages in relationships that are not opposite-
Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs
18
sex in nature has been assigned to the ‘outside’ category. The results of this study suggest that
LGBT individuals—those who have historically been placed in the ‘outside’ category—continue
to perceive their federal agencies as less inclusive than do their majority-identity colleagues,
and that their perceptions have a real and negative effect on their overall job satisfaction. For
these and other marginalized groups, inclusion is not about blindness to difference or ignoring
variation from majority norms. Rather, inclusion reflects the acknowledgement of difference,
acceptance of those who are different, and the placement of equitable, real and tangible value,
either personal or institutional, on those differences (Shore et al., 2011). This means that
rather than attempt to fit LGBT individuals into normative categories, the inclusive federal
employer will acknowledge the legitimacy of and accept as full members those who do not
adhere to majority norms. As federal agency practice and policy disrupt and dismantle hetero-
and cis-normative cultures through initiatives aimed at inclusivity, the results of this study
suggest that LGBT employees will find greater satisfaction on the job.
Additional significance in this work is found in the cultural implications associated with the
ebb and flow of the relationship between LGBT employees’ sense of inclusion and their overall
job satisfaction. For LGBT employees, the aggregated inclusion factor predicts increased job
satisfaction across the three years studied, despite fluctuation in the relationship between job
satisfaction and the three inclusion levels that compose the whole. Thus, notwithstanding
weakness in inclusion perceptions at one or more organizational levels during the three-year
period, the overall effect on job satisfaction brought about by a sense of inclusion among LGBT
employees appears positive. We surmise that organizational progress comes in fits and starts
as agencies adopt new inclusive practices and policies, but that inclusivity also accrues over
time, and therefore must be closely monitored by agency leaders at the several agency levels
to ensure continued improvement. As Schein (2010) reminds us, organizational culture
reflects a set of attitudes, behaviors, and norms that evolve as organizational members face
challenges as a group. As inclusivity and its concurrent disruption of heteronormativity
permeate the culture, we may expect positive impacts on employees’ work attitudes and
satisfaction on the job.
Further, the punctuated, but generally positive, effect of inclusion on job satisfaction across
three organizational levels may occur as a result of significant administrative changes,
modifications in training protocols, or inclusion initiatives undertaken by the federal
employer, which in turn affect LGBT job satisfaction. For instance, the effect of agency-level
inclusion perceptions on job satisfaction may have resulted from high-profile policy changes,
such as Obama-era executive orders or federal court decisions like United States v. Windsor,
that demonstrate a shift in LGBT legitimacy and inclusion in society as a whole or in the federal
personnel system. Also, given that the FEVS data were collected during the latter half of the
Obama administration and the majority of employees had been employed in the federal service
for a number of years prior, we might surmise that the administration’s efforts to develop a
more inclusive culture by way of highly publicized personnel policy changes and broad
personnel training initiatives may have likely reached those respondents and affected their
perceptions. The present work provides a clear argument in favor of continued inclusion
efforts at the agency level, as well as a foundation for future research to better ascertain the
extent to which particular policy shifts or personnel programs affect perceptions of agency
inclusiveness.
Finally, the ability of supervisors and work units to create cultural change by way of
implementing training protocols and leading by example (Schraeder et al., 2005) suggests that
employers’ efforts to create an inclusive culture will accrue over time and have a cumulative,
positive effect on employees’ work experiences. In this sense, the findings that supervisor-level
inclusion has little to no impact on LGBT employees’ job satisfaction, and perhaps a slightly
negative effect, imply that work unit- or agency-level inclusion efforts may be more critical to
these employees than the inclusion practices experienced in the employee-supervisor
relationship. Future research ought to assess LGBT individuals’ positions on particular policy
Protected, but Not Included?
19
shifts and human capital initiatives, whether specific changes affect sexual and gender
minorities’ experience of inclusion more than others, and how such experiences impact
individual job attitudes.
While this study’s primary implications speak to the employee experience of employer
inclusion efforts in the public service, it also serves as a modest stride forward in public
administration research. Building on multiple important works (see, e.g., Federman & Elias,
2017; Lewis, 1997; Lewis & Pitts, 2011, 2017; Hur, 2020; Sabharwal et al., 2019), this work
continues to raise the visibility of LGBT individuals and their legitimacy as full members of
the public service and responds to Meyer and Millesen’s (2022) recent call to ‘queer up’ public
administration research. While queer theory has not yet been widely applied in public
administration scholarship, work in this area has increased in recent years, both in volume
and in rigor, and the move of Generation Z—widely known to be the most diverse generation
in the nation’s history—into the workforce suggests that this body of knowledge must continue
to grow.
From a pragmatic standpoint, as Larson (2022) argues, public administrators must be
equipped with the tools to manage a new generation of employees, and conversations like
those surrounding inclusion of LGBT employees must continue. As such, public employers
should continue their work to assess how ‘invisible,’ marginalized populations experience the
workplace and, using that information, continue developing a more inclusive environment for
all. In the case of LGBT individuals in the public workplace, the disruption of hetero- and cis-
normative institutional cultures extends far beyond flying the Pride flag on public buildings
every June. Rather, public managers must push their agencies to adopt sexual and gender
minority-inclusive personnel policies that communicate agency inclusion priorities. As Elias
and Colvin (2020) recommend for non-binary gender policies in federal workplaces, such
inclusive public personnel policies “should aim to be simple, timely, low cost, transparent, and
maintain the privacy” of sexual and gender minorities (p. 206). Further, such policies must be
grounded in fundamental public values like transparency and equity (Elias et al., 2018).
Additionally, public sector institutions, supervisors, and work units ought to actively foster
LGBT ally-ship among heterosexual and cisgender employees for the purpose of creating an
ever more inclusive institutional culture. These efforts might begin by raising awareness of
institutionalized language usage and the removal of blinders to traditional—but exclusionary—
workplace language, or perhaps encourage an appreciation for all employees’ identity
expression vis-à-vis their workplace attire, physical presentation, and chosen pronouns.
In addition to personnel policy modifications and encouragement of ally-ship, to be truly
inclusive as defined by Shore et al. (2011) and others, institutions must meet sexual and gender
minorities where they stand and not prescribe the traditional forms of identity, presentation,
or relationships expected within the dominant culture. After all, not all members of the queer
community identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. Thus, it is incumbent on the
inclusive organization to acknowledge identities not covered by the ‘LGBT’ moniker, recognize
the vastness of the queer community, and explore ways within the organization to culturally
legitimize the broad spectrum of sexual and gender identities that exist within its ranks.
Final Remarks and Recommendations for Future Research
Like any study, this one possesses limitations. The FEVS data utilized to investigate the
primary research question are limited, as they treat lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
identities as monolithic within the LGBT variable. While this treatment protects the identities
of those who self-identify as LGBT within the federal ranks, combining sexual and gender
minorities under a single heading obscures the differences between those minority individuals’
experiences, neglects other sexual and gender minority identities (see, Meyer & Millesen,
2022, for discussion of these identities), and fails to address the varying heterosexual attitudes
Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs
20
and institutional treatment toward each of those minority identities (Herek & McLemore,
2013). Similarly, the FEVS data do not parse out different racial, ethnic, or other minority
identities, so intersectional identity differences cannot be included in the analyses.
Additionally, intersectional analysis between LGBT identity and gender, which is reported in
the FEVS data as male or female, would further perpetuate the dominant gender binary to the
exclusion of those who identify somewhere else on the gender spectrum, e.g., nonbinary. While
this study mainly focuses on LGBT employees’ inclusion experiences and job satisfaction,
future research needs to delve into the differences among the various intersectional sub-
groups using more robust demographic data.
Additional limitations result from shortcomings in the data. For instance, the study would
benefit from objective measures of agency inclusivity practices; however, such data do not
exist for the population and years under study. Notwithstanding this limitation, we may still
benefit from analyzing respondents’ personal observations of the phenomenon. In the present
study, respondents’ reports of inclusive behaviors in their agencies, supervisors, and work
units provide valuable insight into their organizational and cultural realities. As Meier and
O’Toole (2013) remind us, survey items that query others’ observable behaviors, rather than
respondents’ self-reported attitudes or behaviors, appear to be less influenced by undue bias
associated with the survey items’ common source and may be considered legitimate, while also
being interpreted with a degree of caution. Also, we were able to use only three years of FEVS
data. Considering the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, incorporation of several more
years of data would have been beneficial as we might have been able to compare between
Obama and Trump administrations, but 2015 was the last year that FEVS reported LGBT
demographic information. Finally, multi-year, cross-sectional analyses fall short of tracing the
within-individual evolution of the relationship between inclusion and job satisfaction. Future
research ought to utilize panel data in order to better ascertain the longitudinal effects of
inclusion and inclusion culture on sexual and gender minorities, as well as other marginalized
populations.
Notes
1. While somewhat dated both in the literature and the American social context, the term
LGBT is used in this study to identify those individuals who identify as lesbian, gay,
bisexual, or transgender. This notation is consistent with the term’s construction in the
Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey data analyzed in this study, as well as the terminology
utilized by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and other federal agencies when
referring to sexual and gender minorities.
2. According to the Department of Labor (2021), the U.S. federal government is the nation’s
largest employer across all sectors; Wal-Mart is the nation’s largest private employer.
3. See Larson (2022) and Lee et al. (2008) for broader discussion of queer theory in public
administration.
4. For thorough accounts of LGBT individuals’ history in the federal personnel system,
including the various tactics used to vilify, intimidate, and purge employees from the
federal system, see Federman and Elias (2017), Lewis (1997), and Merit Systems
Protection Board (2014).
5. Badgett (2009) recommends excluding respondents who respond as “Prefer Not to Say” to
a demographic question about sexual orientation, as “Prefer Not to Say” respondents tend
to identify as heterosexual or LGBT at the same rate as the general population.
6. These findings are not reported in Table 1, as they are not used for the analyses.
Protected, but Not Included?
21
Disclosure Statement
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest that relate to the research,
authorship, or publication of this article.
References
Aldén, L., Hammarstedt, M., & Swahnberg, H. (2020). Sexual orientation and job
satisfaction: Survey-based evidence from Sweden. Journal of Labor Research, 41 (1–
2), 69–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12122-019-09297-w
Andrews, R., & Ashworth, R. (2015). Representation and inclusion in public organizations:
Evidence from the U.K. civil service. Public Administration Review, 75(2), 279–288.
https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12308
Angouri, J. (2015). Sexual identities in the workplace. In P. Whelehan, & A. Bolin (Eds.), The
International Encyclopedia of Human Sexuality. Wiley.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118896877.wbiehs454
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship
between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model.
Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 23(3), 267–285.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.138
Badgett, M. V. (2009). Best practices for asking questions about sexual orientation on
surveys. The Williams Institute.
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/smart-so-survey/
Bell, M. P., Özbilgin, M. F., Beauregard, T. A., & Sürgevil, O. (2011). Voice, silence, and
diversity in 21st century organizations: Strategies for inclusion of gay, lesbian,
bisexual, and transgender employees. Human Resource Management, 50(1), 131–
146. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20401
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Buengeler, C., Leroy, H., & De Stobbeleir, K. (2018). How leaders shape the impact of HR’s
diversity practices on employee inclusion. Human Resource Management Review,
28(3), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.02.005
Cantarelli, P., Belardinelli, P., & Belle, N. (2016). A meta-analysis of job satisfaction
correlates in the public administration literature. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 36(2), 115–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X15578534
Cho, Y. J., & Sai, N. (2012). Does organizational justice matter in the federal workplace?
Review of Public Personnel Administration, 33(3), 227–251.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X12458126
Choi, S. (2009). Diversity in the US federal government: Diversity management and
employee turnover in federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, 19(3), 603–630. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mun010
Choi, S. (2013). Demographic diversity of managers and employee job satisfaction: Empirical
analysis of the federal case. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 33(3), 275–
298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X12453054
Choi, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2010). Managing diversity in U.S. federal agencies: Effects of
diversity and diversity management on employee perceptions of organizational
performance. Public Administration Review, 70(1), 109–121.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02115.x
Choi, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2014). Organizational fairness and diversity management in public
organizations: Does fairness matter in managing diversity? Review of Public
Personnel Administration, 34(4), 307–331.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X13486489
Davidson, M. N., & Ferdman, B. M. (2002). Inclusion: What can I and my organization do
about it. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 39(4), 80–85.
Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs
22
https://www.siop.org/Portals/84/TIP/Archives/394.pdf?ver=2019-08-19-115723-
023
Day, N. E., & Schoenrade, P. (1997). Staying in the closet versus coming out: Relationships
between communication about sexual orientation and work attitudes. Personnel
Psychology, 50(1), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00904.x
Drydakis, N. (2015). Effect of sexual orientation on job satisfaction: Evidence from Greece.
Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 54(1), 162–187.
https://doi.org/10.1111/irel.12080
Dundon, T., Wilkinson, A., Marchington, M., & Ackers, P. (2005). The management of voice
in non‐union organisations: Managers’ perspectives. Employee Relations, 27(3),
307–319. https://doi.org/10.1108/01425450510591620
Elias, N., & Colvin, R. (2020). A third option: Understanding and assessing non-binary
gender policies in the United States. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 42(2), 191–211.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2019.1659046
Elias, N. M., Johnson, R. L., Ovando, D., & Ramirez, J. (2018). Improving transgender policy
for a more equitable workplace. Journal of Public Management & Social Policy,
24(2), 53–81. https://digitalscholarship.tsu.edu/jpmsp/vol24/iss2/7
Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity
perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 46(2), 229–273. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667087
Federman, P. S., & Elias, N. M. R. (2017). Beyond the lavender scare: LGBT and heterosexual
employees in the federal workplace. Public Integrity, 19(1), 22–40.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2016.1200410
Findler, L., Wind, L. H., & Mor Barak, M. E. (2007). The challenge of workforce management
in a global society: Modeling the relationship between diversity, inclusion,
organizational culture, and employee well-being, job satisfaction and organizational
commitment. Administration in Social Work, 31(3), 63–94.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J147v31n03_05
Fuller, C. M., Simmering, M. J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., & Babin, B. J. (2016). Common methods
variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3192–
3198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008
Gasorek, D. (2000). Inclusion at Dun & Bradstreet building a high-performance company.
Diversity Factor, 8(4), 25–25.
Giddings, L. S., & Pringle, J. K. (2011). Heteronormativity at work: Stories from two lesbian
academics. Women’s Studies Journal, 25(2), 91–100.
http://www.wsanz.org.nz/journal/docs/WSJNZ252GiddingsPringle91-100.pdf
George, B., & Pandey, S. K. (2017). We know the Yin—But where is the Yang? Toward a
balanced approach on common source bias in public administration scholarship.
Review of Public Personnel Administration, 37(2), 245–270.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X17698189
Gould-Williams, J., & Davies, F. (2005). Using social exchange theory to predict the effects
of HRM practice on employee outcomes: An analysis of public sector workers. Public
Management Review, 7(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/1471903042000339392
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American
Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623
Gruneberg, M. M. (1979). Understanding job satisfaction. Halsted Press.
Gusmano, B. (2010). Forms of resistance to the organization’s symbolic heteronormative
order. In G. Clarke, F. McQueen, M. Pnacekova, & S. Sahli (Eds.), Examining aspects
of sexuality and the self (pp. 31–43). Brill.
Herek, G. M., & McLemore, K. A. (2013). Sexual prejudice. Annual Review of Psychology,
64, 309–333. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143826
Hoang, T., Suh, J., & Sabharwal, M. (2022). Beyond a numbers game? Impact of diversity
and inclusion on the perception of organizational justice. Public Administration
Review, 82(3), 537–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13463
Protected, but Not Included?
23
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Evaluating model fit: A synthesis of the
structural equation modelling literature. In A. Brown (Ed.) Proceedings of the 7th
European Conference on research methodology for business and management
studies (pp. 195–200).
Hur, H. (2020). The role of inclusive work environment practices in promoting LGBT
employee job satisfaction and commitment. Public Money & Management, 40(6),
426–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2019.1681640
Ingraham, C. (2006). Thinking straight, acting bent. In K. Davis, M. Evans, & J. Lorber
(Eds.) Handbook of Gender and Women’s Studies, pp. 307–321.
https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848608023.n18
Ivancevich, J. M., & Gilbert, J. A. (2000). Diversity management: Time for a new approach.
Public Personnel Management, 29(1), 75–92.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009102600002900106
Jackson, S. (2006). Interchanges: Gender, sexuality and heterosexuality: The complexity
(and limits) of heteronormativity. Feminist Theory, 7(1), 105–121.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700106061462
Jin, M. H., & Park, J. (2016). Sexual minority and employee engagement: Implications for
job satisfaction. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 2(1), 3–14.
https://doi.org/10.20899/jpna.2.1.3-14
Kim, S. (2005). Gender differences in the job satisfaction of public employees: A study of
Seoul Metropolitan Government, Korea. Sex Roles, 52(9–10), 667–681.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-3734-6
Larson, S. J. (2022). Actions for queering American public administration. Administration &
Society, 54(1), 145–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211011937
Lee, H., Learmonth, M., & Harding, N. (2008). Queer(y)ing public administration. Public
Administration, 86(1), 149–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00707.x
Leppel, K. (2014). Does job satisfaction vary with sexual orientation? Industrial Relations: A
Journal of Economy and Society, 53(2), 169–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/irel.12053
Lewis, G. B. (1997). Lifting the ban on gays in the civil service: Federal policy toward gay and
lesbian employees since the Cold War. Public Administration Review, 57(5), 387–
395. https://doi.org/10.2307/3109985
Lewis, G. B., & Pitts, D. W. (2011). Representation of lesbians and gay men in federal, state,
and local bureaucracies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
21(1), 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mup030
Lewis, G. B., & Pitts, D. W. (2017). LGBT–heterosexual differences in perceptions of fair
treatment in the federal service. The American Review of Public Administration,
47(5), 574–587. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074015605378
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1343). Chicago,
IL: Rand McNally. .
Locke, E. A., & Henne, D. (1986). Work motivation theories. In C. L. Cooper, & I. T.
Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology,
1–35.
Meier, K. J., & O’Toole, L. J. (2013). Subjective organizational performance and
measurement error: Common source bias and spurious relationships. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(2), 429–456.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus057
Melton, E. N., & Cunningham, G. B. (2014). Who are the champions? Using a multilevel
model to examine perceptions of employee support for LGBT inclusion in sport
organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 28(2), 189–206.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2012-0086
Meyer, S., & Millesen, J. L. (2022). Queer up your work: Adding sexual orientation and
gender identity to public and nonprofit research. Journal of Public and Nonprofit
Affairs, 8(1), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.20899/jpna.8.1.145-156
Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs
24
Mor Barak, M. E. (1999). Beyond affirmative action: Toward a model of diversity and
organizational inclusion. Administration in Social Work, 23(3–4), 47–68.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J147v23n03_04
Mor Barak, M. E., & Cherin, D. A. (1998). A tool to expand organizational understanding of
workforce diversity: Exploring a measure of inclusion-exclusion. Administration in
Social Work, 22(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1300/J147v22n01_04
Ng, E. S., & Rumens, N. (2017). Diversity and inclusion for LGBT workers: Current issues
and new horizons for research. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 34(2),
109–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1443
Pelled, L., Ledford, G. E., Jr., & Albers Mohrman, S. (1999). Demographic dissimilarity and
workplace inclusion. Journal of Management Studies, 36(7), 1013–1031.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00168
Pichler, S., Ruggs, E., & Trau, R. (2017). Worker outcomes of LGBT-supportive policies: A
cross-level model. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal,
36(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-07-2016-0058
Pink‐Harper, S. A., Davis, R. S., & Burnside, R. (2017). “Justice for all”: An examination of
self‐identified LGBT job satisfaction in the US federal workforce. Canadian Journal
of Administrative Sciences, 34(2), 182–197. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1420
Pitts, D. (2009). Diversity management, job satisfaction, and performance: Evidence from
U.S. federal agencies. Public Administration Review, 69(2), 328–338.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.01977.x
Priola, V., Lasio, D., De Simone, S., & Serri, F. (2014). The sound of silence. Lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender discrimination in ‘inclusive organizations.’ British Journal
of Management, 25(3), 488–502. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12043
Rumens, N. (2016). Towards queering the business school: A research agenda for advancing
lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans perspectives and issues. Gender, Work and
Organization, 23(1), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12077
Rumens, N., & Broomfield, J. (2014) Gay men in the performing arts: Performing sexualities
within ‘gay-friendly’ work contexts. Organization, 21(3), 362–379.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508413519766
Sabharwal, M. (2014). Is diversity management sufficient? Organizational inclusion to
further performance. Public Personnel Management, 43(2), 197–217.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026014522202
Sabharwal, M., Levine, H., D’Agostino, M., & Nguyen, T. (2019). Inclusive work practices:
Turnover intentions among LGBT employees of the US federal government. The
American Review of Public Administration, 49(4), 482–494.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074018817376
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons.
Schraeder, M., Tears, R. S., & Jordan, M. H. (2005). Organizational culture in public sector
organizations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(6), 492–502.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730510617681
Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G.
(2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future
research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262–1289.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385943
Suárez, M. I., Marquez-Velarde, G., Glass, C., & Miller, G. H. (2020). Cis-normativity at
work: Exploring discrimination against US trans workers. Gender in Management:
An International Journal, 37(6), 716–731. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-06-2020-
0201
Tejeda, M. (2006). Non‐discrimination policies and sexual identity disclosure: Do they make
a difference in employee outcomes? Employee Rights and Responsibilities Journal,
18(1), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-005-9004-5
Thomas, R. R., Jr. (1990). From affirmative action to affirming diversity. Harvard Business
Review, 68(2), 107–117.
Protected, but Not Included?
25
U.S. Department of Labor (2021). Federal Employers.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/odep/program-areas/employers/federal-employment
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). (2014). Sexual orientation and the federal
workplace: Policy and perception.
https://www.mspb.gov/mspbsearch/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber=1026379&version=
1030388&application=ACROBAT
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). (2011). Government-wide diversity and
inclusion strategic plan. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/diversity-
equity-inclusion-and-accessibility/reports/governmentwidedistrategicplan.pdf
———. (2014, February 11). The new inclusion quotient [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXU2czYzfbI
———. (2015). Federal employee viewpoint survey results: Governmentwide management
report. https://www.opm.gov/fevs/reports/governmentwide-
reports/governmentwide-reports/governmentwide-management-report/2015/2015-
governmentwide-management-report.pdf
Ward, J., & Winstanley, D. (2003) The absent present: Negative space within discourse and
the construction of minority sexual identity in the workplace. Human Relations,
56(10), 1255–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267035610005
Willis, P. (2009). From exclusion to inclusion: Young queer workers’ negotiations of sexually
exclusive and inclusive spaces in Australian workplaces. Journal of Youth Studies,
12(6), 629–651. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676260902902689
Wright, B. E., & Davis, B. S. (2003). Job satisfaction in the public sector: The role of the work
environment. The American Review of Public Administration, 33(1), 70–90.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074002250254
Author Biographies
Anna Fountain Clark is an Assistant Professor of Public Administration in the College of
Business and Public Administration at Drake University. Her research interests include
diversity, equity, and inclusion in public and nonprofit organizations; public
entrepreneurship and innovation; and nonprofit management and leadership.
Jiwon Suh is an Assistant Professor of Public Affairs and Planning at the University of Texas
at Arlington. Her research includes organizational behavior, performance and accountability,
and HR management in the public and nonprofit sectors. She has published articles in several
journals including Public Administration Review, Review of Public Personnel
Administration, and Nonprofit Management & Leadership.
Kwang Bin Bae is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Public Administration at
Dongguk University, Seoul, Korea. His research interests are human resource management,
performance management, and nonprofit management.
Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs
26
Appendix A. Survey Questions
Variables
FEVS Survey Questions
Sources for
References
Job
Satisfaction
•Considering everything, how satisfied are you
with your job?
•Considering everything, how satisfied are you
with your organization?
Choi, 2013; Pitts,
2009
Supervisor
Level of
Inclusion
•My supervisor supports my need to balance work
and other life issues.
•My supervisor/team leader is committed to a
workforce representative of all segments of
society.
•My supervisor/team leader provides me with
constructive suggestions to improve my job
performance.
•My supervisor/team leader listens to what I have
to say.
•My supervisor/team leader treats me with respect.
•In the last six months, my supervisor/team leader
has talked with me about my performance.
Hoang et al., 2022;
OPM’s New
Inclusion Quotient;
Sabharwal et al.,
2019; Shore et al.,
2011.
Work Unit
Level of
Inclusion
•The people I work with cooperate to get the job
done.
•In my work unit, steps are taken to deal with a
poor performer who cannot or will not improve.
•In my work unit, differences in performance are
recognized in a meaningful way.
•Awards in my work unit depend on how well
employees perform their jobs.
•Employees in my work units share job knowledge
with each other.
Choi & Rainey,
2014; Ng &
Rumens, 2017;
OPM’s New
Inclusion Quotient;
Pichler et al., 2017
Agency
Level of
Inclusion
•Policies and programs promote diversity in the
workplace (for example, recruiting minorities and
women, training in awareness of diversity issues,
mentoring).
•Arbitrary action, personal favoritism and coercion
for partisan political purposes are not tolerated.
•Prohibited Personnel Practices (for example,
illegally discriminating for or against any
employee/applicant, obstructing a person’s right
to compete for employment, knowingly violating
veterans’ preference requirements) are not
tolerated.
Angouri, 2015;
OPM’s New
Inclusion Quotient;
Pichler et al., 2017
