No abstract

How human beings think about, talk about, and organize around sexuality is changing. Growing social legitimization for sexual minority relationships and a more fluid social understanding of sexual identities has shifted how we bound "normal" sexuality. In the workplace, these shifting norms affect employees of all sexual identities who must make sense of new policies and complex daily practices. This paper introduces the concept of co-sexuality, the push-and-pull process of communicatively organizing around sexuality. Using this concept, we take a grounded theory approach to exploring how employees of various sexualities and in different occupations understand "normal" sexuality and subsequently organize around it. Ultimately, participants described being silenced or silencing another to maintain sexual "norms" at work.

As employee preferences change and organizations adapt and transform as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, new research opportunities are present for HRD scholars interested in training and development, organizational behavior, job design, change management, the creation of healthy and productive workplaces, and more. In the face of new opportunities for research, we discuss the value of revisiting grounded theory methodology as a resource for generating theory in HRD contexts. As a methodology, grounded theory is a useful tool for exploring processes and building theory grounded in data. In this paper, we examine the potential of grounded theory to contribute meaningfully to the research and practice of HRD by discussing the historical development of grounded theory, the current state of grounded theory research in HRD, and the implications of grounded theory work on the future of HRD scholarship.

The organizational landscape is changing for sexual minorities in U.S. workplaces. A dramatic increase in organizational policy protections reflects a broader societal shift toward social acceptance of sexual diversity. However, as participant narratives demonstrate, discrimination and bias are still present in contemporary organizations. As such, sexual minority employees must manage their sexual identities in a changing environment that is rife with mixed messages. In this study, 20 employees from across the United States in a variety of occupations described policies and communication with coworkers as influential to their sexual identity management. Using the framework of the communication theory of identity, gaps between communal frame communication (organizational policy) and relational frame communication (coworker communication) resulted in mixed messages participants had to discursively navigate to manage their sexual identities. Implications for practitioners and scholars are discussed.

Gay bars have historically functioned as communal spaces for the LGBTQ+ community. Because of neoliberalism, LGBTQ+ acceptance continues to rise as “post-gay’’ discourses, coupled with the inclusion of heterosexual audiences, have repositioned gay bars as inclusive spaces. In this study, we explore how the meaning of “gay bar” is communicatively negotiated. Specifically, we employed a co-sexuality lens with spatiality to understand how the “gay bar brand” is constructed and perceived. We used ethnographic methods including observation, 25 semi-structured interviews, and documents at two gay bars in a Midwestern college town. We demonstrate how gay bars, through neoliberal branding, reopened the meaning of gay bars as spaces for “all” sexualities. Three tensions emerged: (1) who gay bars are for (queer or general communities); (2) sexual autonomy (contested meanings around “safety” and “being yourself”); and (3) viable marketing (tension between “community” and “commodification”). This study contributes to the literature on sexuality, space, and branding by moving beyond utopian depictions of gay bars. Instead, it encourages scholars to understand the bars as destabilized and contested queer spaces.