What’s in a Pronoun: Exploring Gender Pronouns as an Organizational Identity-Safety cue among Sexual and Gender minorities

The inclusion of gender pronouns in the employee biography materials resulted in more positive organizational attitudes among both predominantly cisgender lesbian, gay, and bisexual participants and transgender and gender non-confirming participants, regardless of whether the inclusion of pronouns was required or optional. The inclusion of pronouns also increased perceptions of procedural fairness (treating employees with respect, being consistent with personnel policies, and being trustworthy), employee allyship, and manager allyship, all of which were positively related to organizational attitudes.

Experiment 1

• Participants who viewed employee materials with pronouns reported significantly more positive organizational attitudes than those who viewed employee materials without pronouns (mean difference: 0.55, p < .001, d = 0.75).

Experiment 2

• Participants who viewed employee materials with pronouns reported significantly more positive organizational attitudes than those who viewed employee materials without pronouns (mean difference: 0.33, p = .004, d = 0.43).
•  Participants who viewed employee materials with pronouns perceived significantly greater procedural fairness than those who viewed employee materials without pronouns (mean difference: 0.78, p < .001, d = 1.12).

Experiment 3

• Participants who viewed employee materials with pronouns, whether presented as required or optional, reported more positive organizational attitudes than those who viewed employee materials without pronouns, though the effect was insignificant. Participants in the two conditions with pronouns present did not differ.
• Participants who viewed employee materials with pronouns, whether presented as required (mean difference = 0.86, p < .001, d = 1.01) or optional (mean difference = 0.80, p < .001, d = 1.03), reported greater perceptions of procedural fairness than those who viewed employee materials without pronouns. Participants in the two conditions with pronouns present did not differ.
•  Participants who viewed employee materials with pronouns, whether presented as required (mean difference = 0.98, p < .001, d = 1.14) or optional (mean difference = 0.96, p < .001, d = 1.25), reported greater perceptions of employee allyship than those who viewed employee materials without pronouns. Participants in the two conditions with pronouns present did not differ.
• Participants who viewed employee materials with pronouns, whether presented as required (mean difference = 0.90, p < .001, d = 1.11) or optional (mean difference = 0.92, p < .001, d = 1.17), reported greater perceptions of manager allyship than those who viewed employee materials without pronouns. Participants in the two conditions with pronouns present did not differ.
• Participants who viewed employee materials with pronouns presented as required had higher estimates of LGBTQ+ representation (mean difference = 7.53, p = .013, d = 0.47) than those who viewed employee materials without pronouns. 
  • Participants who viewed employee materials with pronouns presented as optional and participants who viewed employee materials with pronouns absent did not differ.

These findings suggest that the inclusion of gender pronouns in organizational materials can serve as an effective identity-safety cue to LGBTQ+ employees, highlighting an easily-implemented strategy for addressing identity-safety concerns among sexual and gender minorities and for attracting LGBTQ+ employees. A multi-faceted approach to organizational diversity initiatives may also help identify if organizational policies, supervisors, or peers are most critical for promoting positive organizational attitudes. 

For Experiment 1, 106 lesbian, gay, or bisexual individuals were recruited via the CloudResearch platform and compensated $1.50 for their participation. Participants were presented with the homepage of a hypothetical consulting company and then randomly assigned to view one of two versions of, first, an employee's biography and, second, an interview with the employee, with her photo, email, and position listed on the screen. In one condition, the employee's gender pronouns, she/her/hers, were included in both steps, while, in the other, they were excluded. Afterward, participants responded to statements regarding organizational attraction, commitment, and trust using a 5-point scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

For Experiment 2, 172 transgender and gender non-conforming individuals were recruited via Prolific and compensated $1.59 for their participation. Participants engaged in the same procedure as Experiment 1, with a new measure included to assess participants' perception of the company as procedurally fair for sexual and gender minorities.

For Experiment 3, 167 different transgender and gender non-conforming individuals were recruited via Prolific and compensated $1.63 for their participation. Participants engaged in a similar procedure to Experiments 1 and 2, with one new element: after viewing the company homepage, participants were randomly assigned to view one of three versions of a "Company News" website. One version indicated that the inclusion of gender pronouns in employee biographies was required as of January 1st, the second indicated that the inclusion of gender pronouns was optional, and the last indicated that the inclusion of employees’ home departments in employee biographies was required as of January 1st. The employee biography site versions included the employee's department. Participants responded to statements regarding organizational attraction, commitment, and trust, and also completed a measure of procedural fairness, perceptions of company leadership as allies, and estimates of the percentage of LGBTQ+ company employees.

An internal meta-analysis was conducted to assess the robustness of the three experiments' findings.