'LGBTI' – or the alternatives 'LGBTIQ' or 'LGBTI+' – are clumsy and sometimes confusing acronyms that also irritate some people. “Gender diverse” is a simpler alternative term that some may prefer to use.
 
A case study of the LGBTI inclusion initiatives of Ernst and Young (EY) was presented at the Australian Human Resources Institute's 2017 Inclusion and Diversity Conference.

Initial research and business case

Heather Geary, Oceania diversity & inclusiveness leader, said that EY’s research revealed the following statistics:

• About 62% of Generation Y university graduates who were “out” while studying went “back into the closet” when they entered the workforce.
• Employees who were not “out” at work were about 70% more likely to leave an employer within the first three years than employees who were “out”.

EY’s annual climate survey contains questions that ask (anonymously) whether employees who identify as gay are “in” or “out”. Those who are “out” were on average 11% more engaged, 27% more likely to feel their contribution was valued, 24% more likely to stay and 15% more satisfied with their jobs, plus 24% more of them reported seeing initiatives taken to make positive changes to work and the workplace.

Six  per cent of employees declined to answer the first question, but EY policy is not to force anyone to “come out”. 

Geary said that EY found proof that it obtained extra business through either its LGBTI network connections and/or by providing evidence of the initiatives it took. It included these findings in the business case for further funding and initiatives.

Setting up roles and responsibilities

EY adopted the branding of “unity”. The structure had to take into account a skew in emphasis and resourcing towards its head office against the need to include small numbers of employees in remote locations.

It was set up as follows:

• Leadership team of 5-10 partners. Its role included mentoring network team members.
• Diversity and inclusion function team of three people, whose role included strategy, budgets, resourcing and seeking sponsorships.
• Employee network team of 10-20 partners, responsible for allocating resources, arranging events, mentoring and training, and communications.
• Employee network groups. Comprising more than 1000 employees altogether, who participate in programs, represent LGBTI issues in work discussions and when necessary call out inappropriate behaviour. The groups are not just LGBTI-based, the diversity issue may be gender, religion, ethnicity, etc instead.

The strategy has three main objectives:

1. Create a sustainable inclusive culture that promotes “bringing your whole self to work”.
2. Open support for employees.
3. Celebrating events and successes.

KPIs for the strategy relate to engagement levels, connections established, membership of network groups, communications, feedback received, participation in events and revenue generated. The results are included in business cases.

Policies updated

EY reviewed all its HR/employment policies to make them LGBTI-compliant.

This included the following:

• replacing mention of “spouses” with a broader term
• adoption and IVF added to parental leave provisions
• domestic violence leave policy made gender-neutral – note also that threatening to “out” someone can be an extra weapon
• increased support for same-sex relationships
• new policies added, including a transgender transitioning policy
• a mobility team does risk assessments for LGBTI people before they decide whether to accept overseas assignments, as some countries are comparatively “unsafe” for them. Final decision is left to the employee
• monitoring the impact of policies on engagement via climate surveys

Training and learning initiatives

EY placed high emphasis on training and education for LGBTI inclusion.

This included the following:

• a do-it-yourself 60-90 minute awareness kit, using videos
• an “inclusive leadership” component in development courses
• external mentoring and buddying arrangements
• video-based insider/outsider training. Contents include team-led bias discussions, use of relatable character examples, examples of both inclusive and non-inclusive interactions at the workplace, demonstration of potential consequences of non-inclusion, when to follow-up and when to ignore issues, follow-up discussions of key questions – the latter related to participants’ own work experiences and work team dynamic wherever possible

Conversation guidelines

Guidelines to assist the conversations above were issued. They covered: create a “brave zone” for people to speak up, respect confidentiality, listen in order to clearly understand, cut each other some slack and assume intentions are positive, identify commonalities and shared meaning, show empathy and allow time for reflection before exploring differences. 

Handling conflict between LGBTI issues and cultural/faith issues

This is an area where strong beliefs are held (by both sides) and can lead to emotion and conflict if ignored.

Geary said the organisation approach must be to emphasise the need for respectful coexistence, and once again learn when to tackle issues and when to ignore them. The conversational guidelines above are recommended here as well.

For example, don’t say “Let’s agree not to talk about this”. Instead, say “We want to respect all views, it makes us stronger. But always be respectful and not violate our values. We can disagree without being disagreeable and disrespectful”. 

Another potential barrier is the view that “private life is private”. Ultimately, this has to be an individual decision and not forced, but emphasise the benefits of “bringing your whole self to work”. Outside work, people may mix mainly with members of their own demographic group, but it is much harder to confine themselves in this way at a workplace.

Further information about the  conference is available from AHRI.