Conference | Symposium

LGBTIQ+ Workplace Inclusion Symposium

• Jojanneke van der Toorn

Date

Tuesday 24 November 2026

Time

09:00 - 18:00 hour

Address

Academy Building
Rapenburg 73
2311 GJ Leiden

Room

Telders Auditorium

Join us for a day celebrating 10 years of the Chair in LGBTIQ+ Workplace Inclusion and the vibrant, growing community of scholars and practitioners advancing research and practice on LGBTIQ+ inclusion at work.

Organized by Prof.dr. Jojanneke van der Toorn in collaboration with Workplace Pride, including Academia@Workplace Pride and POC@Workplace Pride, the symposium brings together scholars and practitioners to share research, exchange ideas, and explore how research can inform more inclusive workplaces. Parts of the program will also be streamed, making the conversation accessible beyond those attending in person.

The program features:
· Research talks showcasing exciting work in the field
· Networking and exchange among scholars and practitioners
· Lunch and informal conversations
· An interactive session on intersectional policy design, exploring how workplace policies can better account for intersecting identities and experiences (limited spots)

Speakers and sessions

Sa-Kiera Hudson (University of California Berkeley)

Applying Intersectionality to Trait Expectations of Gay Men and Lesbian Women

Workplace discrimination, often rooted in stereotypes, is a significant driver of the economic disparities LGBTQ+ individuals experience compared to their straight, cisgender counterparts. Competence-related stereotypes in particular play an especially important role in shaping who gets hired, promoted, and ultimately advantaged in society. A longstanding framework for understanding stereotypes about gay men and lesbian women in particular is gender inversion theory, which proposes that gay men and lesbian women are perceived as having interests and preferences similar to those of straight women and men, respectively. An unexplored assumption within this framework is whether these perceived similarities also extend to competence. Across a series of studies, we show a divergence between descriptive and normative stereotypes, as gender inversion does not fully explain what traits people believe are desired of gay men and lesbian women. Instead, a broader pattern of status-based devaluation emerges. Gay men and lesbian women were perceived as relatively less competent and lower in status compared to straight men and women in general and across occupations and skills. Perceived incompetence was found both explicitly and implicitly and was especially strong among straight perceivers. I discuss the implications of these findings regarding gay men and lesbian women’s professional and societal marginalization.

Chenhao Zhou (Southampton University)

Heteroprofessionalism at Work: How Gender, Sexual Orientation, and their Expression Influence Perceived Professionalism

Despite efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion, biases against women and LGB+ employees persist in the workplace. Heteroprofessionalism, the workplace-specific institutionalization of heteronormativity, links professionalism to cis-heterosexual norms and subtly shapes perceptions of who fits the professional ideal. This research examines how gender, sexual orientation, gender expression, and identity disclosure shape perceived professionalism. In a first set of vignette studies, we examined whether sexual orientation disclosure affects perceptions of a gay male employee. Across two studies, employees who disclosed their sexual orientation were perceived as less professional than those who concealed it. This effect was stronger among participants with higher levels of heteronormative beliefs. Building on these findings, a factorial vignette experiment examined how multiple identity dimensions jointly influence perceived professionalism. We manipulated gender (woman, man), sexual orientation (heterosexual, bisexual, gay/lesbian), gender expression (feminine, gender-neutral, masculine), and sexual orientation disclosure (full disclosure, selective disclosure, full concealment) within fictitious employee profiles. A representative sample of 376 UK participants evaluated six randomized profiles on perceived professionalism. Results reveal significant biases against LGB employees, particularly those who fully disclose their sexual orientation. Men with feminine expressions faced harsher penalties, while women experienced more flexibility in expressing gender non-conforming traits. These findings demonstrate how intersecting norms around gender and sexuality shape perceptions of professionalism and sustain heteroprofessional workplace standards.

Caan Hollenbach (Fern Universität Hagen)

“I Don’t Want to Hide at Work” – Identity-Safe Work Contexts for LGBTQIA+ Individuals

What makes environments feel safe for LGBTQIA+ individuals, and which cues help to find such environments? We address these questions in our qualitative research. In an online survey, we collected data from 205 German-speaking LGBTQIA+ participants across different life domains. We analyzed what is needed for members of this group to feel that they belong, are treated fairly, and can authentically be themselves. Preliminary themes revolve around normativity, visibility, and responsibility. Additionally, we asked for social and environmental cues signaling either a threat to one’s LGBTQIA+ identity or an identity-safe context. We categorized these cues into different clusters extending existing frameworks, ranging from a group’s perceived diversity to the language used in interpersonal interactions. In our presentation, we outline overall results and focus on the data relevant to work contexts and employment. Our findings offer concrete information on the needs to be addressed and how organizations can be designed to convey their inclusiveness inside and outside their organization.

Amanda Klysing (Lund University)

D&I Branding among Swedish Private Organizations: What Values are Included and how are LGBTQ People Represented?

Diversity and inclusion (D&I) branding signals organizations’ values to prospective and current employees, describing how the organization conceptualizes D&I and what type of workplace they would like to have. Explicit mention of LGBTQ people within D&I brands can make the organization seem more attractive to current and prospective LGBTQ employees, provided the commitment is seen as genuine. While still a common practice among organizations, D&I branding has become an increasingly controversial topic and many organizations are rolling back their commitments to LGBTQ D&I. This study maps D&I branding on the websites of 452 larger Swedish private organizations, including definitions of diversity and the underlying values just to justify engaging with D&I efforts. D&I brands that included LGBTQ people were included in a deeper analysis of how LGBTQ D&I was positioned in relation to general D&I efforts. We found that a majority of organizations engaged in D&I branding, using roughly equal measures of “business case” and moral reasons for doing so and defining diversity in both demographic and general terms. 51 organizations meaningfully included LGBTQ people in their D&I brand, positioning inclusion of LGBTQ people as part of the organization’s responsibility to be a moral and progressive social actor. Using the results of this study, we would like to encourage practioners to consider how their communicated reasons for engaging with D&I matches the perceived values of the organization, how defining diversity more inclusively can sometimes lead to exclusion, and to work to position LGBTQ employees as a valuable talent pool rather than a moral obligation.  

Patricia Ciordaș (Eötvös Loránd University)

Motivations Underlying Allyship and Its Perception by the LGBTIQ+ Community

Public support can play an important role in advancing LGBTIQ+ rights. However, supporting disadvantaged groups is not a uniform process: people may be motivated by different psychological considerations, and their support may not always be perceived as equally genuine by members of the communities concerned. This talk examines LGBTIQ+ allyship from two complementary perspectives: what motivates advantaged-group members to offer support, and what makes that support appear credible. First, I present research conducted among cisgender, heterosexual participants in Hungary and the United States examining two pathways to supporting LGBTIQ+ rights. The findings distinguish a morality pathway, in which positive perceptions of the LGBTIQ+ community and empathy are associated with support, from an injustice pathway involving perceived inequality and anger. These motivations also differ according to political orientation and the particular rights being supported. Second, I examine how disadvantaged-group members evaluate allies whose engagement varies over time. Across four experimental studies, consistent participation was perceived as more internally motivated, trustworthy, and indicative of better allyship than decreasing or alternating participation. Together, these findings suggest that understanding allyship requires considering not only whether advantaged-group members express support, but also what motivates their support and whether they sustain it over time.

Erdem Meral (University of Amsterdam)

Biased or Uninformed? How Researcher Queerness Shapes Perceptions of Anti-Queer Bias Research

Researchers who study topics directly or indirectly relevant to their own experiences, such as issues affecting social groups to which they belong, are often perceived as more biased (though sometimes more informed) than those researching topics unrelated to their own experience. In this talk, I will present the results of three experiments examining how queer and straight researchers are perceived by the public when studying anti-queer bias or other topics. Our results showed that, when studying anti-queer bias, queer researchers were perceived as more biased, whereas straight researchers were perceived as less informed than comparable researchers studying other topics. These results suggest that a researcher’s queerness shape how they are perceived as a researcher when studying anti-queer bias, and that both queer and straight researchers are penalized for studying anti-queer bias. I will discuss the implications of these findings for advocacy efforts in organizations, such as queer employee research groups or diversity committees.

Interactive session on intersectional policy design

Co-designing Intersectional Inclusion: Community Voices and Policy Action 

Moderated by Alex Huang (Erasmus University Rotterdam) and Ingrid Mulder (Technical University Delft)

Many workplace inclusion initiatives focus on a single aspect of identity, such as gender or LGBTQ+ inclusion. Yet the intersectional realities of people often remain overlooked. For Queer People of Colour (QPOC), race, sexuality, gender, culture, and migration background intersect and shape their workplace experiences, creating challenges that are insufficiently addressed in existing policy frameworks. Advancing intersectional inclusion requires more than representation. It demands intentional engagement with perspectives that have historically been marginalized, overlooked, or rendered invisible within institutional settings. 

In this session, we introduce the key findings of the Workplace Pride POC Vision Paper (add link on the website) and further unpack what hinders workplace inclusion efforts and meaningful policy action. 

Participants will engage in a facilitated World Café organized around three themes emerging from the Vision Paper:

• Inclusive Leadership. What forms of leadership are needed to acknowledge and address intersectional experiences in the workplace?
• Community Voices. How can organizations foster meaningful belonging, solidarity, and mutual support without placing the burden of change on marginalized groups?
• Policy Action. What makes intersectional policies actionable, accountable, and effective in everyday organizational practice?

Through collaborative dialogue, participants will:

• Critically reflect on the tensions identified in the Vision Paper.
• Contribute perspectives from research, policy, professional practice, and lived experience.
• Identify opportunities, barriers, and enabling conditions for intersectional inclusion.
• Co-create a shared set of actionable policy recommendations to inform future organizational strategies and workplace policies.

Advancing intersectional inclusion requires intentional engagement with perspectives that have historically been marginalized or rendered invisible in institutional settings. This session provides a critical forum for enacting that necessary practice.

Program

Symposium (Livestream available)

09:00–09:30
Walk-in, coffee & tea

09:30–11:15
Welcome & research talks
· Welcome and introductions by Jojanneke van der Toorn (Leiden University)
· Research talks by Sa-Kiera Hudson (University of California, Berkeley), Chenhao Zhou (University of Southampton), and Caan Hollenbach (FernUniversität Hagen)

11:15–12:00
Coffee break
Coffee, tea & a snack

12:00–14:00:
Research talks & closing reflections
· Research talks by Amanda Klysing (Lund University), Patricia Ciordas (Eötvös Loránd University), and Erdem Meral (University of Amsterdam)
· Closing remarks and reflections on 10 years of the LGBTIQ+ Workplace Inclusion Chair by Michiel Kolman (Workplace Pride) and Jojanneke van der Toorn (Leiden University)

Joint Lunch

14:00–15:00
Vegetarian sandwiches & refreshments

Policy Design Session

15:00–17:00
Interactive session on intersectional policy design
Moderated by Alex Huang (Erasmus University Rotterdam) and Irene Mulder (Delft University of Technology)
In-person only; limited places available.

17:00–18:00
Drinks

Registration

The event is in-person but will be streamed and recorded for those not able to attend. Please register using the registration form. 

Organisers

This event is organised by Jojanneke van der Toorn in collaboration with Academia@WorkplacePride. We can be contacted at [e-mail].

Accessibility

We would like the symposium to be accessible to everyone. We hope the absence of a participation fee and the possibility to view a live stream contribute to this. Please note that the symposium location is wheelchair accessible. We will make sure to ask the speakers to articulate clearly. We very much welcome your suggestions for how we can be more inclusive.

Livestream

A livestream of plenary sessions will be made available below on the day of the symposium.