TDNet Discover

The purpose of this quantitative study was to compare transformative and inclusive leadership to the presence of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Queer, Intersex, Asexual, and other non-gender or sexuality confirming identities (LGBTQIA+) workplace discrimination by assessing LGBTQIA+ participant’s perception of workplace discrimination in a tri-fold dependent variable focused on issues or defective relationships between an employer and employee, a negative evaluation, or a denial of a promotion. LGBTQIA+ workplace discrimination was an important factor to consider with the rise of anti-inclusive workplaces and societal laws limiting LGBTQIA+ individuals' access to express and existence. Current scholarship in LGBTQIA+ research has examined the prevalence and need to further study discrimination in the wake of discriminatory laws and executive orders limiting LGBTQIA+ voice and increasing discrimination based on gender, sex, and sexuality (Associated Press, 2025; The White House, 2025a; The White House, 2025b). This study used a conceptual framework was built on the following three theories: intersectionality theory, queer theory, and critical social theory. For the utility of this study, the existence of inclusive and transformative leadership was defined as LGBTQIA+ individuals who had not reported sexual orientation-based discrimination from their employer or leader and had not experienced workplace discrimination. All individuals were recruited by Ilan Meyer as part of the Generations Study and self-identified as LGBTQIA+ ranging in ages of 18-80. Data was collected from Dr. Meyer, the original researcher, and utilized as secondary data analysis for the purposes of this study to analyze participant responses on a questionnaire regarding workplace perceptions and leadership. An Mann Whitney U and Kruskal Wallis was used to observe differences between the existence of hypothesis factors such as negative evaluation or not receiving a promotion and defective employee-employer relationships compared to sexual orientation. A post hoc test observing confidence intervals was utilized to further assess differences between groups within the tested factors. A p-value of less than 0.5 was observed for statistical significance on the Mann Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis test. Descriptive statistics regarding mean and standard deviations of values were used to assess individual participant response/values and comparisons between participant values and the standard deviation/mean values. Analysis of data revealed significant links between transgender and gender identity as self-perceived discriminatory markers in the workplace. Race was not found to be a significant factor linked to discrimination. This study was limited in the use of secondary datasets, the number of transgender and non-binary individual data, and the use of discrimination as an individualized factor. This quantitative study was able to provide a small portion and understanding of how transgender and non-binary individuals experienced workplace discrimination. Future avenues of research should focus investigating the regional breakdown of the parent study and significant discrimination areas, obtaining more transgender and nonbinary participants, and consider qualitative narratives of discrimination from the LGBTQIA+ community. Therefore, in a time period of increasing discrimination toward LGBTQIA+ individ