r Academy of Management Journal

2023, Vol. 66, No. 1, 222–247.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2020.0586

LOSING CONTROL: THE UNCERTAIN MANAGEMENT

OF CONCEALABLE STIGMAS WHEN WORK AND
SOCIAL MEDIA COLLIDE
LUCAS AMARAL LAURIANO
IESEG School of Management

THIAGO COACCI
Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG)

Scholars have typically portrayed employees’ management of concealable stigmas in

face-to-face encounters in which social groups are easily separable (e.g., friends, family,
and coworkers). This analytical predisposition overlooks the possible roles of social net-
work sites (SNSs) such as Facebook and Instagram. These online platforms enable a
cohabitation of different audiences—that is, a context collapse that allows a growing,
invisible audience to easily access information about one’s stigma. In our qualitative
analysis in a Latin American organization, we develop a model that documents the every-
day dynamics of context collapse among gay male employees. In a disclosure dilemma,
employees are uncertain about how to be a professional online and simultaneously keep
SNSs as platforms where they can show more relaxed versions of themselves. As a
response, most employees adopt mirroring, and attempt to reflect their face-to-face dis-
closure levels on SNSs. Some employees engage in destigmatization efforts online, and as
an outlier case we mapped an employee in collapse denial. Our study questions the estab-
lished idea of disclosure as a relatively controlled process in microinteractions. We also
nuance the assumption of SNSs as safe spaces and show the unintended impacts of con-
text collapse on the stigmatized.

I have nobody from the factory on my Instagram
because one of my colleagues, who is also gay, had a
public profile, and some other peers saw his pictures
and were commenting, “Look at what this faggot is
doing!” (Diego,1 Analyst at Globalcar)
1
All interviewee names are fictitious.
We would like to recognize the precise and extremely
constructive guidance from our editor, Heather Vough,
and the three reviewers throughout the revision process.
We are grateful for the comments we received on previous
versions of our article from Keith Brouthers, Susan Cooper,
Ignacio Duran, Michael Etter, Gabriela Gutierrez-Huerter
O, Tobias Hahn, Bryant Hudson, Dan K€arreman, Juliane
Reinecke, Thomas Roulet and Ute Stephan. Additionally,
we received helpful feedback from AOM Annual Meeting
participants (2020—GDO division, and Stigma PDW),
EGOS (2019—Subtheme 15: “Faking It”: Identity Work in
an Age of Exclusion), and the King’s Business School
SIME Seminar. Finally, we thank respondents from Glo-
balcar, who were brave enough to share their views and
everyday experiences at the organization.
222
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder's express
written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
Social network sites (SNSs), such as Instagram and
Facebook, are increasingly influencing everyday rela-
tions. At Globalcar (a pseudonym), the Latin Ameri-
can subsidiary of a multinational car manufacturer,
employees interact via these online platforms and
have access to parts of each other’s lives beyond the
organization’s walls. Managers also incentivize the
use of SNSs, realizing their potential as forums for
discussion and showcasing corporate projects. Diego,
however, does not feel comfortable allowing cowor-
kers to access his personal online profiles. In his
case, instead of increasing interactional opportuni-
ties between employees and superiors, SNSs have
become a concern. In the atmosphere of bigotry that
our initial quote illustrates, this employee, like many
others in the organization, attempts to limit or control
his online connections with peers to avoid further
stigmatization for being gay.
Defined as a discrediting attribute in a particular
context, stigma was initially related to noticeable
characteristics such as race, gender, or a physical
disorder (Goffman, 1963). Today, stigma encom-
passes less observable elements, including beliefs,
religions, diseases, pregnancy, and sexual orientation
2023 Lauriano and Coacci
(Jones & King, 2014). Stigma studies have extensively
explained how employees manage their stigmas at
work, traditionally assuming that different social
groups (e.g., family, friends, coworkers) can be easily
compartmentalized. As such, employees with con-
cealable stigmas can choose what, when, and how to
disclose information to each group through face-to-
face microinteractions that afford some control
(Collins, 1981; Goffman, 1959).
This analytical predisposition has sidelined possi-
ble impacts of SNSs on the daily management of con-
cealable stigmas at work. Whereas in face-to-face
interactions stigmas are disclosed to specific indivi-
duals on specific occasions, SNSs group multiple
audiences in a single virtual space—a situation known
as “context collapse” (Boyd, 2007). For instance, face-
to-face interactions allow people to reveal their sexu-
ality to close friends but conceal it from coworkers.
SNSs change the visibility and availability of this
information, as friends and coworkers share the same
space and have instant access to accumulated online
interactions, which may contain stigma-related infor-
mation. This motivated us to ask, how does the con-
text collapse caused by SNSs impact employees’
management of concealable stigmas?
To answer this, we conducted a qualitative case
study at Globalcar, using observations and interviews
with gay male employees. Researching how members
of the LGBTQIA12 community handle growing con-
text collapse is important because this remains an
underresearched group of stigmatized employees
(Anteby & Anderson, 2014; Ng & Rumens, 2017).
Additionally, despite the growth of diversity initia-
tives in organizations, cases of discrimination and
stigmatization based on sexual orientation still occur
frequently (Flory, Leibbrandt, Rott, & Stoddard, 2021;
Ozturk, 2011). Consequently, LGBTQIA1 employees
report worse workplace experiences and increased
turnover intentions (Cech & Rothwell, 2020).
We use insights from context collapse studies
(Leonardi & Vaast, 2017; Ollier-Malaterre, Rothbard, &
Berg, 2013) and social media studies on LGBTQIA1
individuals, and analyze the everyday types of context
collapse, the disclosure dilemma for gay employees,
and how they respond to it. We identify three
behaviors that detail how employees with con-
cealable stigmas navigate context collapse. First,
most employees adopt “mirroring,” meaning their
attempts to replicate face-to-face disclosure levels on
2
This is an evolving acronym that currently stands
for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer/
questioning, asexual.
223
SNSs. Second, some employees adopt “online des-
tigmatization efforts” by strategically revealing their
stigmas online to improve their work environment
(e.g., posting about LGBTQIA1 causes). Finally, we
introduce “collapse denial,” where employees see
online and face-to-face contexts as independent and
act accordingly, resulting in disparate behaviors at
work and on SNSs.
Our model contributes to literature on concealable
stigma management at work in two ways. First, exist-
ing research has assumed that concealing or reveal-
ing a stigma is a relatively controlled individual
decision (Clair, Beatty, & Maclean, 2005; Follmer,
Sabat, & Siuta, 2020; Jones & King, 2014). We set the
boundary conditions for this, as our analyses show
that, in a context collapse provoked by SNSs, employ-
ees generally cannot control to whom and when their
stigma is exposed. Second, we nuance the assumption
of SNSs as safe places. Work invades SNSs and
demands constant efforts from stigmatized employees
to create and maintain such spaces in context col-
lapse. Our study also contributes to literature on con-
text collapse at work (Treem & Leonardi, 2013; Vitak,
2012). We challenge the assumption that such col-
lapse leads to similar outcomes across different groups
of employees, and expand on the possible (unin-
tended) impacts of the phenomenon for employees
with concealable stigmas.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Managing Concealable Stigmas at Work and
LGBTQIA1 Employees
In the multifaceted process of managing a conceal-
able stigma, most studies have emphasized three main
aspects, usually solely considering face-to-face inter-
actions: the disclosure, its antecedents, and its conse-
quences (Jones & King, 2014; Ragins, 2008; Ragins &
Cornwell, 2001). Here, we relate these points to our
case and aspects relevant to LGBTQIA1 employees.
Regarding disclosure, employees’ behaviors sit on a
continuum between concealing or revealing their stig-
mas at work (Charoensap-Kelly, Mestayer, & Knight,
2020; Lindsey, King, Gilmer, Sabat, & Ahmad, 2020;
Ragins, 2008). When concealing, employees may try
to “pass” as nonstigmatized employees (Clair, Beatty,
& Maclean, 2005), often relying on a privileged
identity (e.g., White or professional) (Alvesson &
Robertson, 2016; Doldor & Atewologun, 2021). In
face-to-face encounters, employees might alter their
physical appearance, clothing, and mannerisms
(Woods & Harbeck, 1992; Woods & Lucas, 1994);
develop antisocial behaviors (Stenger & Roulet, 2018);
224 Academy of Management Journal
or even invent details about their lives to divert atten-
tion from, or disguise, a stigmatized identity (Clair
et al., 2005; Follmer et al., 2020; Jones & King, 2014).
Employees revealing concealable stigmas, however,
may do so in three main ways: signaling, normalizing,
and differentiating (Clair et al., 2005; Jones et al., 2016).
Signaling occurs when employees test the waters—
that is, speak or behave in ways that are commonly
associated with the stigma in specific situations to
observe others’ reactions (Clair et al., 2005; Jones &
King, 2014). Normalizing means either consciously
adopting behaviors attributed to stigmatized identi-
ties, such as freely talking about their same-sex part-
ners (Jones et al., 2016; Stenger & Roulet, 2018), or
emphasizing “normal” social behaviors (e.g., having
a long-term relationship, kids, routines). Finally, dif-
ferentiating entails enacting the specificities of the
stigma. For instance, LGBTQIA1 employees might
emphasize their sexuality to leverage their careers in
queer-friendly organizations (Burchiellaro, 2021).
Given the highly contextual nature of stigmas
(Goffman, 1963), employees often face a disclosure
dilemma when deciding whether and how to reveal
their stigmatized identities face-to-face (Creed &
Scully, 2000; Griffith & Hebl, 2002; Ragins & Corn-
well, 2001). In this sense, coming out is a continuous
process, as interactions with new colleagues might
pose additional dilemmas (Sedgwick, 2008). Extant
studies have implicitly or explicitly considered that
the stigmatized have considerable control over such
disclosure processes, and have mapped several ante-
cedents in the decisions to reveal or conceal a stigma
at work.
Individual preferences are central in the disclo-
sure process, including one’s centrality of being
LGBTQIA1, need for authenticity (Fletcher &
Everly, 2021), and self-validation (Harry, 1993).
Other influencing factors might include (antici-
pated) organizational support through antidiscrimi-
nation policies (Ragins & Cornwell, 2001), claims of
LGBTQIA1 friendliness (Burchiellaro, 2021), trust
in superiors (Capell, Tzafrir, Enosh, & Dolan, 2018),
industry-related normative expectations (Stenger &
Roulet, 2018; Styhre, Backman, & B€ orjesson, 2005),
and daily peer interactions (Jones et al., 2016), includ-
ing the workplace presence of other stigmatized col-
leagues (Ragins & Cornwell, 2001).
In more general terms, the disclosure dilemma for
LGBTQIA1 employees also includes the idea of het-
eronormativity, which is deeply embedded in West-
ern societies and regarded as a vital component of
professionalism in face-to-face interactions at work
(Grey, 1998; Rumens & Kerfoot, 2009; Speice, 2020).
February
Heteronormativity establishes a hierarchy between
forms of sexuality and imposes a semiparanoid vigi-
lance such that everything deviating from what is
“normal” can be controlled and punished, thereby
reinstating the norm (Butler, 2006). For many people,
heteronormativity creates a desire to conceal their
homosexuality and micromanage how they present
themselves in a continuous process of stigma manage-
ment (Butler, 2006; Woods & Harbeck, 1992; Woods &
Lucas, 1994).
Reflecting the difficulties of moving beyond het-
eronormativity, studies have varied considerably in
their accounts of possible consequences involved in
managing concealable stigmas at work. For instance,
diversity policies can positively impact employees’
performance, reinforcing to LGBTQIA1 employees
their organizations’ support (Colgan, Creegan, Mckear-
ney, & Wright, 2007; Lloren & Parini, 2017; Tejeda,
2006). Still, this practice is not widespread (Fidas &
Cooper, 2018), and even in LGBTQIA1-friendly orga-
nizations, heteronormativity seems to be pervasive, as
it might reinforce stereotypes of a “professional gay”
(Burchiellaro, 2021; Speice, 2020). This further mar-
ginalizes those who are “too gay” (Speice, 2020), and
means that those who strive to be authentic at work
(Fletcher & Everly, 2021; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001)
must attempt to comply with normative expectations
(Anteby & Occhiuto, 2020; Fleming & Sturdy, 2009).
As such, LGBTQIA1 individuals typically present a
“disclosure disconnect” in face-to-face interactions,
wherein they reveal their homosexuality only to
some, and to a different extent compared with other
life domains (Ragins, 2008: 195). Employees can thus
conceal their homosexuality at work but reveal it to
friends and family. However, this disconnect might
cause psychological stress, role confusion, and pres-
sure to reestablish congruence between domains
(Lindsey et al., 2020; Ragins, 2008). Revealing homo-
sexuality at work might therefore be beneficial to the
stigmatized (Fletcher & Everly, 2021; Lindsey et al.,
2020), bringing peace of mind, greater focus on job-
related tasks, and improvements in workplace rela-
tionships (Creed & Scully, 2000; Jones & King, 2014),
including with other LGBTQIA1 employees (Rumens,
2010).
Bringing the Online Perspective to Employees’
Management of Concealable Stigmas
Whereas studies on concealable stigmas at work
have thoroughly documented the disclosure process,
they have typically focused on face-to-face encoun-
ters, assuming that online interactions do not
2023 Lauriano and Coacci
significantly impact or change the way employees
manage their stigmas. However, SNSs agglomerate
different social groups in the same online environ-
ment in a context collapse (Boyd, 2008; Vitak, 2012).
This contrasts with the tradition of stigma studies
viewing social contexts as easily separable (Davis &
Jurgenson, 2014; Marwick & Boyd, 2011), in which
individuals move between roles with relative free-
dom (Goffman, 1963; Ragins, 2008). For instance,
one may be a gay activist and an employee, out as a
gay activist but closeted at work, thus taking a disclo-
sure disconnect perspective (Ragins, 2008). How
does this person behave when their workplace and
activist peers cohabit on Facebook and Instagram?
Does this impact the employee’s disclosure dilemma?
Accounts from concealable stigma studies have failed
to grasp these online interactions and possible reper-
cussions at work. The literature has portrayed beha-
viors that rely on ongoing microinteractions (Collins,
1981) aimed at concealing or coming out, whereas
those individual face-to-face encounters (Creed &
Scully, 2000) are replaced by a 24/7 display to broad,
invisible, online audiences in SNSs (Boyd, 2008;
Ollier-Malaterre et al., 2013).
Indeed, SNSs change the visibility of information
to others. By interacting online, individuals produce
considerable information about themselves (e.g., posts,
photos, likes, shares). Over time, such interactions gen-
erate a bricolage of cumulative information that was
not possible several decades ago. Moreover, growing
online audiences—including peers—might have in-
stantaneous and indefinite access to such informa-
tion. These factors are central in managing concealable
stigmas, as the idea of concealing opposes SNSs. Dol-
dor and Atewologun’s (2020: 19) case illustrates the
possible impacts of these changes—they argued that
being White allows Romanians “to opt into a generic
European identity that became unnoticed … in
the ‘melting pot’ of ‘cosmopolitan’, ‘international’
London-based working environments.” Even if this
is true, scanning a person’s Facebook page may raise
doubts about, or even demolish, that generic Euro-
pean identity, revealing the stigma and the employ-
ee’s overall strategy to dodge certain efforts involved
in stigma management. To overcome these theoreti-
cal limitations, we use studies on social media and
its impacts on individuals and organizations, a large
and eclectic body of work that we summarize as con-
text collapse studies (Boyd, 2008; Marwick & Boyd,
2011; Vitak, Crouse, & Larose, 2011).
In general terms, Davis and Jurgenson (2014) main-
tained that context collapse is not a given situation
but a confluence of “collisions” and “collusions.” On
225
the one hand, context collusions “are the purposeful,
intentional, bringing together of various contexts
and their related networks” (Davis & Jurgenson,
2014: 481)—for instance, when coworkers and fam-
ily members cohabit one’s Facebook profile, having
equal access to their statuses, updates, and photos.
Collusions are often beneficial and convenient, as
one can use SNSs’ affordances to reach broader audi-
ences at once. On the other hand, context collisions
are “those occasions in which contexts come together
without any effort on the part of the actor, and some-
times, unbeknownst to the actor, with potentially
chaotic results” (Davis & Jurgenson, 2014: 481)—for
example, when someone tweets about problems at
work, assuming that colleagues do not have access
to this information when in fact they do. These unex-
pected and unintentional situations might occur
because of individuals’ innocence, mistakes, confu-
sion on privacy configurations, or even others’ malev-
olent intentions (Davis & Jurgenson, 2014).
In this view, context collapse situations are dynamic
“joint products of architectural affordances, site-
specific normative structures, and agentic user
practices” (Davis & Jurgenson, 2014: 482). That is,
different SNSs allow organizations and employees
to interact in particular ways, bringing new opportu-
nities to broadcast information and possibly causing
problems when information is accidentally shared.
These interactions are influenced by both parties’
expectations and specific individual choices.
Studies have focused on different angles of con-
text collapse, reflecting the multitude of possibilities
involved in collusions and collisions. From an orga-
nizational perspective, we know how SNSs allow
organizations to exert influence and control audi-
ences online (Banghart, Etter, & Stohl, 2018; Flyver-
bom, Leonardi, Stohl, & Stohl, 2016; Stohl, Etter,
Banghart, & Woo, 2017). These studies have consid-
ered SNSs mostly as an external phenomenon that
organizations are attempting to harness (Leonardi &
Vaast, 2017; Treem & Leonardi, 2013) as they realize
SNSs’ diverse opportunities (Clark & Roberts, 2010;
Wilner, Christopoulos, & Alves, 2017).
From an individual, employee perspective, con-
text collapse studies have shown that SNSs allow
employees to communicate with friends and family
even during work hours, improving work–life bal-
ance and, consequently, job performance (Moqbel,
Nevo, & Kock, 2013). Likewise, SNSs can success-
fully integrate new employees (Koch, Gonzalez,
& Leidner, 2012), and provide new interactional
opportunities for organizational members (Ollier-
Malaterre et al., 2013; Vitak et al., 2011). However,
226 Academy of Management Journal
SNSs can also be problematic at work, becoming a
distraction (Stanko & Beckman, 2015; Vitak et al.,
2011) or an emotional echo chamber that amplifies
positive and negative workplace emotions (Toubiana
& Zietsma, 2017).
Regarding personal reasons for using SNSs, studies
have suggested self-verification or self-enhancement
as motives (Bareket-Bojmel, Moran, & Shahar, 2016;
Lee, 2020). This implies that we all carry out some
sort of personal branding (Vallas & Cummins, 2015)
and attempt to portray ourselves favorably to others.
Still, on SNSs, “others” are usually imagined audi-
ences, meaning we can only guess who will access our
online information (Marwick & Boyd, 2011). Based
on this assessment of possible online “spectators,”
employees define how to behave online, considering
the possibilities of being liked and respected by
peers (Ollier-Malaterre et al., 2013; Rothbard, Ramar-
ajan, Ollier-Malaterre, & Lee, 2022).
Whereas studies on context collapse at work have
often considered that the phenomenon is experi-
enced similarly across different employees (Leonardi
& Vaast, 2017; Treem & Leonardi, 2013), social media
studies on LGBTQIA1 individuals have emphasized
particular ways in which such individuals use SNSs.
Although this literature has typically not included
a work perspective, we know that SNSs allow
LGBTQIA1 individuals to share their experiences
and feelings, create bonds, and form a sense of commu-
nity (Cho, 2018; Hanckel, Vivienne, Byron, Robards, &
Churchill, 2019). These “online safe spaces” may offer
positive psychological consequences for LGBTQIA1
individuals (Gray, 2009; Gray & Scott, 2010; Hanckel
et al., 2019). However, they might also generate a
spiral of silence: As privacy settings are used to
segregate stigmatizing audiences online, dialogue
among groups that think differently does not occur
(Fox & Warber, 2015).
Furthermore, mainstream SNSs such as Facebook
and Instagram are designed to reveal information;
their “default publicness” (Cho, 2018) makes it hard
for an LGBTQIA1 individual to hide or have total
control over the content and audiences that have
access to their stigma. This level of access might out
even cautious SNS users (Duguay, 2016). In contrast,
some SNSs might facilitate anonymity, such as Tumblr
and Reddit, but they also require users to master com-
plicated configurations and adopt strategies that most
are unwilling or unable to use (Cho, 2018; Triggs,
Møller, & Neumayer, 2021).
In sum, studies on employees’ management of
concealable stigmas have disregarded the possible
impacts of SNSs. The literature on context collapse
February
and social media studies on LGBTQIA1 individuals
has highlighted general trends that serve as a starting
point to explore the specificities involved in how
gay male employees use SNSs. Despite the unequiv-
ocal value of past research, we were left with an
incomplete account that led us to ask, how does the
context collapse caused by SNSs impact employees’
management of concealable stigmas?
METHODS
Context: Latin America, Sexual Minorities,
and Globalcar
Given the growing acceptance of sexual minority
rights in Canada, Europe, and the United States, the
scenario we present may initially seem extreme.
However, it should be noted that LGBTQIA1 indivi-
duals are still marginalized to an alarming degree in
many parts of the world (Hadler & Symons, 2018).
The situation has in fact worsened in the last decade,
as evidenced by increasing homophobia and anti-
LGBTQIA1 legislation (Human Rights Watch, 2018;
Knight & Gall, 2020).
Latin American countries have seen some promis-
ing developments in LGBTQIA1 rights. Same-sex
marriage, for instance, is legal in Argentina, Brazil,
Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Uruguay (Fog-
gin, 2019). Other legislation has, for example, made
homophobia a crime in Brazil (“Majority in Brazil’s
top court,” 2019), and guaranteed transgender rights
in Argentina (Foggin, 2019). As such, some Latin
American countries have a higher acceptance rate
of same-sex relationships (e.g., include Brazil, 67%;
Mexico, 69%); these rates are close to those of more
developed countries (e.g., Japan, 68%) and higher
than the global median (52%) (Poushter & Kent,
2020). These advancements in rights contrast with
reactionary tendencies in Latin American society,
which are more apparent now than ever with the
region’s ascendancy of homophobic, conservative
politicians. Indeed, the area is still among the most
dangerous for LGBTQIA1 individuals (“#50YearsOf
Stonewall,” 2019).
The automotive industry adds more complexity to
the context of our case study because of its masculine
environment, which directly equates professionalism
with heteronormativity (Styhre et al., 2005; Walker,
Butland, & Connell, 2000). Our study’s setting is Glo-
balcar, a multinational car manufacturer subsidiary
and one of the biggest companies in its country, with
multiple operational subunits and factories nation-
wide. Globalcar’s sustainability department has
just launched diversity activities. Seeking to avoid
2023 Lauriano and Coacci 227

FIGURE 1
Our Data Collection and Analytical Approach
Observations: 480 hours of daily observations, including shadowing; participant observations: meetings in
17 departments; and informal gatherings such as coffee breaks, birthday parties, and corridor
conversations.
Data collection

Pilot interviews:
Formal interviews and social media: 18 interviews with
Two interviews with
gay employees; informal conversations online and in
gay employees at
person at the organization to clarify emergent topics.
Globalcar.
Data analysis

Rough contours of themes: Interviews Preliminary analyses: Writing and Formal analysis: Open coding and iteration
confirmed some of our hunches and reading fieldnotes; weekly discussions between social media, LGBTQIA+, and stigma
brought new tensions and questions to align information and focus next studies and our date to develop dimensions,
(e.g., understanding of professionalism) interviews. tensions and responses in a context collapse.
to be further explored
Reviewing theory
and literature

Development of core puzzle Returning to the literature: Constant

from our observations: comparison between our themes and theories,
Interest in studying refining our main concepts and shaping the
LGBTQIA+ employees in different aspects we mapped.
online and face-to-face
interactions.

controversy, its initial narrow focus was on promot- might experience. The main steps we took in our
ing women to leadership roles, leaving unchallenged research are summarized in Figure 1.3 In what fol-
the dynamics of stigmatization of other groups—such lows, we describe our process, highlighting the mea-
as gay employees. Thus, our research interest was sures we took to guarantee its trustworthiness
both an opportunity to advance our understanding of (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Shenton, 2004).
gay employees in a context collapse and an incentive Observations. To access the organization, I sent a
for the organization to broaden its scope of diversity letter to the human resources (HR) vice president in
actions. 2018, and was allocated to the sustainability depart-
ment from October 2018 to January 2019. Saul, the
Data Collection and Analytical Process sustainability manager, introduced me in the first
formal meeting with the team (20 employees),
Our qualitative study is based on observations and
explaining that I would be there for the next four
interviews at Globalcar. We adopted an inductive
months researching sustainability. As a former Glo-
and grounded approach, meaning that we did not
balcar employee (4.5 years tenure), I already had rel-
test theory but instead compared our everyday data
atively ready access to managers and peers.
sources to formulate theoretical explanations (Corbin
I participated in most usual organizational activities
& Strauss, 2008; Glaser & Strauss, 1967), intertwining
(Hammersley & Atkinson, 2019), including meetings,
data collection and analysis (Lincoln & Guba, 1985;
Shenton, 2004). Early in this process, we adopted conversations with managers, analyses of spread-
an insider–outsider perspective that allowed us to sheets, and helping with presentations. Addition-
highlight and contrast viewpoints (Louis & Bartunek, ally, informal conversations and gatherings revealed
1992). Whereas the main researcher (indicated by use coworker relationships and anecdotes that would
of first person [“I,” “my”] hereafter) was immersed in have been difficult to map if data collection had been
the field, the second author provided an external view limited to formal situations. I wrote daily accounts
of the case. He acted as a “devil’s advocate,” by ques- chronologically and organized them into a 200-page
tioning assumptions, premises, and initial conclu- Word document. Overall, I undertook 480 hours of
sions and counterbalancing the first author’s possible participant observation, adhering to Globalcar’s work-
prejudgments. Being Latin American gay men our- ing hours (Monday–Friday, 8 a.m.–5 p.m., excluding
selves further legitimizes our analysis (Anteby, 2013) holidays and breaks).
because we have a sense of the problems, challenges,
3
and behaviors that other LGBTQIA1 individuals Harrison and Rouse (2014) inspired us in this process.
228 Academy of Management Journal
As observations progressed, SNSs and minority
issues became more prevalent in my daily notes.
Diversity had been a divisive topic during the coun-
try’s recent presidential elections, and employees
often shared their opinions online and at work. The
growing role of SNSs in daily activities was also evi-
dent in conversations with managers, who often
mentioned online posts on diversity topics—a cen-
tral component in their sustainability plans.
Development of the core questions from our
observations. Realizing the growing importance of
diversity issues and SNSs, we started formulating
core research questions. Although we were initially
unsure about which specific theories or concepts to
use, we felt that online interactions currently receive
little attention in LGBTQIA1 organizational studies,
thus representing a research opportunity (Louis &
Bartunek, 1992).
Pilot interviews. To examine in depth the main
problems faced by gay employees in the workplace
and online, I interviewed two employees, Luciano
and Gabriel, exploring topics that had emerged dur-
ing corridor conversations and initial observations.
My previous experiences provided early familiarity
(Shenton, 2004) with the culture of the organization,
and both employees had already developed a trust-
ing relationship with me. Our questions were open
and broad: “What is the meaning of being gay in your
life?” “What do you think of diversity at Globalcar?”
and “Do you behave the same way online and at
work?” These interviews were instrumental in trigger-
ing snowball sampling (Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981), as
Luciano and Gabriel suggested other possible intervie-
wees with diverse views and perceptions that would
increase the credibility of our findings (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985; Shenton, 2004).
Rough contours of themes. The pilot interviews
revealed several unexpected and contradictory topics,
including the ambiguous perception of online and
face-to-face professionalism. Gabriel mentioned that
being gay does not affect his professionalism, while
Luciano argued that being a professional involves not
mentioning that he (or anyone else) is gay. “We are all
human beings, we’re all the same,” he stated. Both
men detailed strategies to conceal their stigmas both
online and in face-to-face interactions, as well as in
unexpected situations that made them change their
behaviors. Our initial informal conversations and
observations, combined with our knowledge of the
literature, helped us define the main problems and
topics we wanted to investigate further. We realized
that context collapse (Boyd, 2008; Vitak, 2012) could
be a valuable theoretical framing to interpret our
February
findings. However, we were unable to understand, at
this point, the nuances involved in context collapse
that led or motivated employees to respond in a par-
ticular way.
Formal interviews and social media. I conducted
20 formal interviews with 18 gay male employees
(Luciano and Gabriel were interviewed a second
time at the end of our in loco period). Appendix A
presents interviewee profiles. We prepared a semi-
structured interview protocol covering aspects includ-
ing behaviors across social groups; what, how, and
when employees concealed or revealed their stigmas
online and at work; and possible dilemmas therein.
Each interview lasted 60–120 minutes. All interviews
were in the participants’ native language, which I
also speak.
Given the sensitive subject of our study, I explic-
itly informed all potential participants that our dis-
cussions were confidential and would only be used
for research purposes. I provided this assurance
when the invitations were sent and reiterated it just
before starting the interviews. Although Globalcar’s
coordinator of diversity initiatives was aware of the
research, we did not widely advertise the study’s
focus on gay employees so as to avoid exposing our
informants. Consequently, my actions were partially
covert—a positive strategy in research on nonnorma-
tive behavior (Roulet, Gill, Stenger, & Gill, 2017).
Indeed, nine potential interviewees refused to par-
ticipate in the research for fear of exposure, thus reaf-
firming the topic’s sensitivity. As the interviews
took place, I conducted member checks (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985) with the diversity coordinator, who pro-
vided suggestions, insights, and additional informa-
tion (e.g., documents and presentations).
After the interviews, I had access to many of the
informants’ SNS profiles, because they spontane-
ously sent me friendship requests. Unlike face-
to-face observations and interviews, which are
relatively easy to describe through figures, online
interactions are multisited and boundaryless
(Akemu & Abdelnour, 2020). However, such online
interactions helped me to develop a more empathic
relationship with interviewees (Roulet, 2020), and
allowed us to later double-check specific situations
or new angles that we noticed in the data. Mario, for
instance, mentioned that he uses SNSs to promote
LGBTQIA1 causes; this was later confirmed in his
Instagram stories.
Finally, further face-to-face observations refined
our perceptions about gay employees’ daily struggles,
bringing even more nuances to our data. I later
visited Arnold, Antonio, Gabriel, Luciano, and Mario
2023 Lauriano and Coacci
informally in their departments to converse over cof-
fee or on a stroll. Furthermore, I shadowed Luciano
for around 16 hours over a month, observing how he
behaved around his peers.
Preliminary analyses. Concomitant with the
observations and interviews, our preliminary analyses
consisted of weekly debrief meetings (Shenton, 2004)
to discuss emerging findings, make necessary correc-
tions, and reflect upon our positionality (Haynes,
2012). We refined our questions and considered possi-
ble explanations for the situations I was observing in
the field. The attempts to find connections between
behaviors in face-to-face and online interactions
became central to our story. Although we had a good
overall idea of possible directions to take, we still
needed to clarify their nuances. At this point, we
defined the literature on concealable stigmas (Clair
et al., 2005; Jones & King, 2014) as our main theoreti-
cal lens, adopting its assumptions and terminology.
We continued the iterative process of observing,
interviewing, analyzing, and categorizing our data in
these initial stages until we reached the point of ana-
lytical depth (Braun & Clarke, 2021; O’Reilly, Paper,
& Marx, 2012) at which new examples in the inter-
views were reflected in our primary constructs and
did not change the way we perceived our case
overall.
Formal analysis and returning to the literature.
Having collected the necessary information and
developed the main ideas, we left the field and
started organizing our coding system using NVivo
software. We were initially interested in employees’
behaviors only, and we engaged in comparison (Glaser
& Strauss, 1967) of our cases and observations. In map-
ping behavioral patterns, we realized that employees’
actions were fraught with tensions caused by SNSs, as
employees frequently adapted to unexpected situa-
tions and explained their professional roles differently.
Hence, we traced back the dilemma involved in dis-
closing homosexuality and how context collapse man-
ifests in our case. We believed that a broader view of
the phenomenon would allow us to understand how
context collapse impacts stigma management.
After several rounds of coding and discussions,
we determined three broader analytical dimensions:
(a) types of context collapse, (b) possible tensions,
and (c) strategies to conceal or reveal stigmas in face-
to-face and online interactions. We then returned to
the literature to make sense of each dimension.
Davis and Jurgenson’s (2014) idea of context col-
lapse being incentivized (context collusions) or spon-
taneous (context collisions) helped us structure two
types of context collapse. As we contrasted these with
229
gay employees’ behavior, we were informed by social
media studies on LGBTQIA1 individuals (Hanckel
et al., 2019) and studies on professionalism as hetero-
normativity (Rumens & Kerfoot, 2009). We found that
online safe spaces and ideals of professionalism
became sources of uncertainty to gay male employ-
ees, presenting a disclosure dilemma. Finally, in
terms of employees’ responses to those tensions, we
compared our informants’ narratives and how they
behaved online and in face-to-face interactions, tri-
angulating their self-reported behavior, our observa-
tions, and conversations with other peers. We mapped
three patterns of behaviors that emerge as responses to
our previously defined disclosure dilemma. We pre-
sent our data structure, analytical rationale, and exam-
ples in Table 1.
We assembled our analytical categories several
times until we reached a cohesive and explanatory
graphic model. We then engaged in another round of
member checking (Shenton, 2004), presenting this
analysis to selected informants. This reassured us that
our main constructs reflected the everyday experi-
ences of being gay in a context collapse at Globalcar.
In writing up our accounts, we crafted descriptive
vignettes (Reay, Zafar, Monteiro, & Glaser, 2019) to
preserve our vivid experience in the organization.
Interviews and passages from our observations com-
plemented these.
CONCEALABLE STIGMA MANAGEMENT IN A
CONTEXT COLLAPSE
Our findings document the everyday dynamics of
the impact of context collapse on gay male employ-
ees’ management of concealable stigmas at Globalcar.
We found that SNSs significantly change gay employ-
ees’ control over who sees what and when online,
bringing new interactions, expectations, and dilem-
mas. Uncertain about the possible repercussions of
online interactions at work, our analysis reveals three
responses from gay employees: mirroring, online des-
tigmatization efforts, and collapse denial. We encap-
sulate our insights and the theoretical aspects of our
study in a model displayed in Figure 2.
Types of Context Collapse and the Disclosure
Dilemma for Gay Employees
Our analysis suggests that there are two main types
of context collapse at Globalcar. The first is bottom-up
context collisions at work, meaning the spontaneous
and taken-for-granted interactions between employees
that collapse online and face-to-face information—for
 TABLE 1
230
Rationale Illustrated by Exemplars from the Data
Types of Context Collapse Analytical Rationale Category
Colleague talking to Sara: “I saw your last post on Instagram, really cool.” Then they Statements and observations Bottom-up context
engaged in a conversation about the video she posted. Others joined, and they moved that show how taken for collisions at work
on to related topics. (Field notes) granted and expected
Joanne commenting on a colleague’s posts, showing me her cellphone, and pointing to the interactions and connections
post on the screen: “You can see his political positions by his posts on Facebook. I between employees have
don’t even reply to him anymore.” (Field notes) become, thus generating
The day after our visit to the Firemen School, Lauren commented: “I think other context collapse.
departments are jealous of us. They saw the pictures we posted on Facebook, and were
making jokes, like next time, make sure to invite us as well. But I think that’s actually
what Saul wanted, to make them jealous.” (Field notes)
“I don’t even know how colleagues found my profile. Maybe they looked up my name, but
many times they appeared to me as friendship suggestions as well.” (Luciano)
“I’m trying to make the team participate online, you know. I make comments, and then I Statements and observations Top-down context
comment with them that I commented, to see if they also get on board.” (Saul) that show stimuli to use collusions at work
“Managers were at the automotive saloon and wanted everybody to make live events on SNSs for work-related
LinkedIn.” (Francis) purposes, thus generating
“We won an award and then managers asked us to publish online, but we didn’t want to context collapse.
because we hadn’t received the award officially yet. But some managers were insisting
on posting on Facebook, Instagram. They want to share, but share what? Why?”
(Francis)

The Disclosure Dilemma for Employees with Concealable Stigmas Analytical Rationale Category
“The heteronormative environment at Globalcar was depressing me. I felt I was coming Statements and observations How can I be a
back to the closet and it was bringing memories from a past I would like to forget. So, I that highlight the dilemma of professional online
said ‘Fuck it’ and posted a picture of me and my boyfriend kissing each other.” (Ethan) maintaining online and keep SNSs as
“I had a blog, and I used to write a lot there, every day. Then, one colleague came to me information away from work. safe spaces?
and said, ‘Oh, I read your blog. You write a lot!’ It was out of nowhere, and he was not
Academy of Management Journal

even an asshole or anything like that, but this froze me in a way that I stopped writing
there.” (Diego)
“I don’t know how she got access to a picture with my boyfriend. I guess he tagged me, so
it became visible to her.” (Keaton)
“It was Friday night, and he was sending me messages on Facebook. Was it about work? Statements and observations
Because I’m not here to have this type of interactions. I’m a professional.” (Francis) that highlight the concerns
“Now, my Facebook is 100% closed. But if I were in a commercial department I’m not around online
sure, probably I’d need to use it to work. I guess it depends on the superior as well.” professionalism.
(Antonio)
“Now, I only use my profiles to publicize projects from work, so I’m sure I won’t have any
problems.” (Mario)
“Sometimes I think that he is not promoted because of his online positions. People do not
take him seriously at work.” (Arnold)
February
 TABLE 1
2023
(Continued)
Responses from Employees with Concealable Stigmas Analytical Rationale Category
“I’m pretty sure that one of my superiors is gay. There are pictures with a guy, always the Statements and observations Mirroring (dominant
same guy. But he still pretends it’s his friend in his online profile, and here he never that highlight the behavior)
talks about relationships, and even seems to toughen up. These were the mechanisms he reproduction of face-to-face
created to survive in this environment.” (Joseph) professionalism as
“I try to control myself here, not to have mannerisms, avoid gay slang … When I change heteronormativity on SNSs.
working teams, I look up their online profiles and block them before even meeting them
for the first time. I’d rather not be out here. The environment is not encouraging.”
(Robert)
“I change my partner’s name in conversations, and that’s why I grew a beard as well …
online I post only neutral pictures, and do not accept many people from work [so as]
not to have problems.” (Keaton)
“They saw on Instagram pictures of me with my boyfriend and were commenting, ‘He’s
gay, look at his pictures’ … When I was leaving the company I said, I’d like to apologize
for any problems I might have cause related to my performance, for the fact that I’m
gay.” (Joseph)
“And there are some cases that are very difficult to control. Laila, my friend, tags me on Statements and observations
pictures saying, ‘I love my gay friend.’ What do I do with that? Other people can see it. that highlight the constant
I’m so pissed when she does that. I have to think of ways to block this type of tagging.” efforts to keep online safe
(Antonio) spaces.
“I had some colleagues online, but then this problem happened [his colleague printed and
distributed a photo of him and his boyfriend from Facebook and showed to other
colleagues] and I blocked all profiles to everybody.” (Keaton)
“I changed little by little. It took me three years to accept colleagues from work online …
at work as well, it was little by little. When I saw I could push further, I’d change
something in a very subtle manner.” (Mario)
Lauriano and Coacci

“I had more reasons to hide in the past, but until today I’m a bit careful … some people
ask me ‘Why don’t you post more pictures of you and your boyfriend?’” (Omar)
“I told Clara [marketing manager] that I would interview Francis in a couple of days and Professionalism as Collapse denial (outlier
she commented, “I don’t trust him. He seems to be a different person here at work, heterosexuality at work, but behavior)
when you compare with what he posts online.”(Field notes) revealing stigmas online.
“I don’t refrain from posting online. The other day a colleague was talking about violence
against gays on Facebook. I commented saying, ‘I’ve never suffered any sort of violence,’
and he replied ‘That’s because you’re a heteronormative gay.’” (Francis)
“[Being gay] is such a small part of me. It doesn’t impact my professionalism. I’m not
getting married here. I’m not going to seduce anyone here … Everything that mixes
professional and personal I think is not good.” (Francis)
“I feel that I wasted so many years of good relationships here because I thought that being Strategic use of SNSs to Online destigmatization
gay was something that would harm me as a professional. Nowadays, I don’t think this normalize and differentiate. efforts (minor
anymore.” (Gabriel) behavior)
“It’s still difficult to post, we always think twice and don’t know who is going to see and
comment.” (Gabriel)
“I even use SNSs as an auxiliary tool to come out. I just post a picture about my
relationship, and I don’t need to say anything anymore at work. It’s there.” (Gabriel)
“I try to push the boundaries . . . I post a lot about political problems, LGBTQIA1 issues.
I have to use my voice to try to change something because I don’t feel that being gay
should make me less of a professional.” (Mario)
231
232 Academy of Management Journal February

FIGURE 2
Context Collapse Impacting Employees’ Management of Concealable Stigma
Emergence of social network sites

Context collapse

Type Type
Bottom-up context collisions Top-down context collisions
at work at work

Spontaneous and taken-for-granted Intentional stimuli to use SNSs for

interactions among employees that work-related purposes that
collapse online and face-to-face collapse online and face-to-face
contexts. contexts.

The disclosure dilemma

How can I be a professional online

and keep SNSs as safe spaces?

Responses from employees with concealable stigmas

Mirroring
(dominant behavior)
Uncertain about the repercussions of SNSs at work, employees attempt to replicate face-to-face
disclosure behaviors online.

Toward concealing Toward revealing

Characterized by:

The reproduction of face-to- Constant efforts to keep

face professionalism as online safe spaces.
heteronormativity on SNSs.

Collapse denial Online destigmatization efforts

(outlier behavior) (minor behavior)

The employee believes that the Tired of constant efforts to control

relationship between SNSs and work has their behaviors, employees put
not changed, generating a mismacth disproportional efforts into the strategic
between their online (revealing) and work use of SNSs to normalize and
(concealing) behavior. differentiate being gay at work.

instance, when colleagues add each other on SNSs
or discuss online posts at work. The second type of
context collapse is top-down context collusions at
work, meaning the intentional stimuli to use SNSs
for work-related purposes that collapse online and
face-to-face contexts, although guidelines on behav-
ing online are still unclear—for example, managers
might ask employees to use their SNS profiles
to publicize initiatives without further instruction.
The confluence of both types of collapse generates a
2023 Lauriano and Coacci
disclosure dilemma, as gay employees are unsure
how they should interact online, to both keep SNSs
as safe spaces and avoid harming their professional
image.
Bottom-Up Context Collisions at Work
Our data show the pervasiveness of unintentional
collisions in employees’ everyday interactions, when
they post about mundane and special occasions
in their lives online and refer to this content in face-
to-face conversations. Vignette 1 illustrates this
situation.
Vignette 1: Bottom-up context collisions at work
David has worked in the marketing department at
Globalcar for five years. When he was hired, collea-
gues quickly added him on social media. He explains
that there is an expectation, sometimes, to have col-
leagues as online contacts:
Lucy [marketing analyst], for example, sent a friend-
ship invitation to one of our colleagues on Facebook,
but he didn’t reply to her request. She was so pissed
that she withdrew her friendship request and kept
saying for days “Now, I’m the one who doesn’t want
to be friends with him anymore!”
What baffles David is that his peers naturally talk
about the information he posts online at work,
showing an unanticipated curiosity, especially
about Vanessa, a “fake” straight relationship he cre-
ated to hide his orientation from his colleagues. He
grumbles,
People were always asking me: “Did you travel with
Vanessa?” “Why didn’t I see her in your pictures
from this weekend on Facebook?” and sometimes I
replied: “What difference does it make in your life?
Why do you care?” I was really upset by those ques-
tions and tried to finish these chats as soon as possi-
ble. People are so curious here!
Before David arrives for our conversation, I remem-
ber that some of my previous informants suggested
him as a possible interviewee because he was in the
closet previously, but lately seems to have become
more open about his sexuality. My informants know
this because they are friends with him on Facebook or
follow him on Instagram. Consequently, they have
noticed that he has started posting pictures showing
and talking about his same-sex partner. David later
explains to me his failed strategy: “I created this
whole Vanessa story to see if people would stop ask-
ing me about my life, which clearly did not happen.
She indeed exists, we have pictures together on Face-
book and all, but she is just a good friend.”
233
Vignette 1 shows that discussing online content at
work is taken-for-granted, regular, and spontaneous
complement to face-to-face dialogues, which employ-
ees do not always perceive as positive. David, for
example, faces unexpected questions about parts of
his life that he does not want to share at work. Like-
wise, during our fieldwork, employees regularly
brought up topics, videos, and posts they saw on
SNSs, such as when colleagues commented on each
other’s Instagram posts or when they discovered speci-
fic activities happening elsewhere in the organization.
As these ordinary conversations occurred, cowor-
kers added each other on different platforms, expand-
ing their relationships to multiple SNSs, as highlighted
in Vignette 1. SNSs’ architectural affordances facili-
tate this growth by suggesting new friendships. For
instance, a user registers their phone number on a
particular SNS, and others who have this number
saved on their phones and use this SNS might
receive notifications about this possible contact. Fur-
thermore, when SNSs were part of the same eco-
nomic conglomerate (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, and
WhatsApp), merely adding or saving coworkers on
one platform triggered friendship suggestions on the
others. This happened to me and Luciano, while
Robert explained that he preemptively blocks collea-
gues to avoid this scenario.
Top-Down Context Collusions at Work
Our data also revealed a growing expectation for
employees to use SNSs for work, but with unclear
guidelines on online behavior. Unlike formal IT pro-
cedures and processes, SNSs are external to Global-
car. Employees can create their own profiles, and
only recently have managers realized the potential of
SNSs and asked employees to use them to publicize
corporate initiatives, causing collapse between online
and face-to-face contexts. Vignette 2 illustrates this.
Vignette 2: Top-down context collusions at work.
During a weekly staff meeting with Saul, the sustain-
ability manager, he is clearly excited about the oppor-
tunity to publicize information on his recently created
profiles. He comments,
I feel that we can’t wait for the organization to publi-
cize the project for us, because it can take a long time.
I’m already doing it on my Instagram and Facebook,
and I think it would be very nice if some of you com-
mented on my posts. You could also post on your
accounts, so we spread the word faster.
He then picks up his cellphone and proudly shows its
screen with one of his posts about the department’s
social project.
234 Academy of Management Journal
A few days later, I am talking to Francis, from the
marketing department, and bring up these new
demands from managers. Francis rolls his eyes and
replies,
It’s very confusing because managers seem not to fol-
low the strategy they create. They want to post on
Facebook because they want to share the content. But
they want to share the content with who? Who do
they have in their Facebook accounts that will be so
relevant for us?
He complains that although the organization wants
to make more of social media, managers often do not
know how to behave online, or even the reasons for
such engagement. The same occurs in daily activities
when managers incentivize the use of Facebook to dis-
cuss work-related topics. There is no clear guidance
on those interactions, as Sara, a sustainability analyst,
comments: “Saul created an Instagram profile to share
our social projects. I was not sure if I should comment,
like his posts, or add him as a friend. He’s trying so
hard to show off!”
Vignette 2 shows that in top-down context collu-
sions, managers use their profiles to publicize projects
to broad online audiences and expect employees to do
likewise. Indeed, demands for using SNSs to divulge
internal projects have never been higher, as David
explains:
Before, we had to go after managers to publicize pro-
jects. Now, it’s the opposite. They come with a lot of
demands. They want to share everything online. Man-
agers think that their posts will be a success, that
employees will become famous … but some projects
they want to publicize do not make sense. They are
too internal.
Managers are therefore determined to exploit these
new channels, in intentionally created context col-
lapse—even if it means following an unstructured
approach with unclear guidelines, as illustrated by
David’s comments and Sara’s confusion.
The Disclosure Dilemma for Gay Employees in a
Context Collapse
In our analysis, these different concomitant types
of context collapse offer opportunities for employees
and Globalcar, but simultaneously generate a disclo-
sure dilemma for gay employees. Bottom-up context
collisions at work provide conversational opportuni-
ties additional to face-to-face ones. Top-down con-
text collusions show managers’ new expectations
regarding the use of SNSs to advertise organizational
activities. As SNSs become more part of daily
February
activities and Globalcar becomes more present on
SNSs, gay employees need to decide how to behave.
While all employees reflect upon their online
behaviors to some extent (see Ollier-Malaterre et al.,
2013), our data indicate that this is more accentuated
in the case of employees with concealable stigmas,
as many gay employees are undermined as profes-
sionals just for being gay. In this context, letting peers
and superiors access information about their stig-
mas could mean harming their professional image.
As such, gay employees have significant concerns
about presenting themselves as professionals, often
linking professionalism to heteronormativity, as Rob-
ert explains:
Some people find it weird that I follow a heteronor-
mative behavior, which is a professional behavior,
right? … it’s just that I’m in an environment that
doesn’t allow me to be myself, while they’re in this
men’s club where they can do whatever they want.
Robert argues that to be validated as professional,
a gay employee needs to adopt heteronormative
behaviors. He thus controls his mannerisms, clothes,
tone of voice, and the information he offers about rela-
tionships, carefully crafting a “straight” version of
himself. However, in cases where employees cannot
or do not want to conceal their homosexuality at work,
there might be further consequences, as Arnold shares:
When I started working here, I was at the height of my
gayness, but I realized if I continued being too gay, I
would never be promoted here. Then, I became less
gay, and I was not promoted either [laughs]. Just kid-
ding, today I’m in a good position … but I am pretty
sure that I was not promoted to the place I applied to
before because I’m gay. The other candidate had no
experience, was masculine, religious, had a daughter,
you know.
Arnold maintains that professionalism as hetero-
normativity is directly connected to his career suc-
cess (or failure) at Globalcar, as his promotion was
impacted by the fact that he is gay. In this context,
we contend that the growth of work-related demands
and interactions with peers and superiors online
might aggravate concerns of presenting oneself
according to heteronormative behaviors. Posting pic-
tures with partners, indicating same-sex romantic
relationships, and liking and commenting on
LGBTQIA1 content, for example, clearly announce
homosexuality to a broad, invisible audience on
SNSs. Used as safe spaces by many gay employees,
SNSs are often environments where they can express
themselves in a more untailored manner, as Mario
illustrates:
2023
Twitter was always a bit underground at Globalcar
… so I used to use it as a space to talk more freely, to
be gayer, to express myself more. But then, my father
questioned me: “What if somebody from the company
sees your posts, aren’t you afraid?” After that, I’m not
sure if I should continue posting.
Although Mario does not conceal that he is gay at
Globalcar, he still feels pressured to behave in a par-
ticular way. He uses his Twitter profile as a safe
space to display relaxed versions of himself, but his
decision is fraught with uncertainty. In his view,
Twitter is not as frequently used as other SNSs by
Globalcar colleagues, but his father has reminded
him that this information is available to a broad,
invisible audience that includes peers and superiors.
Implicitly, his father was alluding to the harm that
showing homosexuality online might cause Mario’s
professional image.
Like Mario, many other gay male employees use
SNSs to express themselves more freely, and have to
decide whether and how to maintain such safe
spaces when work invades them. From our data,
Ethan frequently posts pictures with his partner on
Facebook. Since he started working at Globalcar, he
has often evaluated whether to post such content;
Diego thought his blog was a safe space where he
could communicate his views, until he realized his
colleague read his posts and then had to decide what
to do. Omar used to make comments about pop divas
on Facebook, until one of his posts went viral, and
coworkers were commenting on it. Since then, he
has been unsure how to behave.
Thus, although context collisions and collusions
are not negative or positive per se, they bring a dis-
closure dilemma for employees with concealable
stigmas, asking: “How can I be a professional online
and keep SNSs as safe spaces?” In the specific con-
text of gay male employees, the clash between the
ideals of professionalism as heteronormativity and
online safe spaces leads them to devise ways to con-
ciliate this tension at work.
RESPONSES FROM EMPLOYEES WITH
CONCEALABLE STIGMAS
In coping with the disclosure dilemma of how to
be a professional online and keep SNSs as safe
spaces, we found that gay employees perceive SNSs
and the idea of professionalism differently, reflected
in the three patterns of behavior we mapped: mirror-
ing, online destigmatization efforts, and collapse
denial.
Lauriano and Coacci 235
Mirroring
A dominant pattern mapped in our analysis is
mirroring—that is, attempts to replicate face-to-face
disclosure levels in SNSs, be it toward concealing or
revealing a stigma. Joseph introduces this behavior:
At the same time that I’m out, I don’t talk about it
with colleagues, only with those that cross the profes-
sional line … In social media, it is the same. I don’t
hide, but I don’t make it that explicit.
In this example, the employee mirrors his face-
to-face behaviors online, guided by his ideals of pro-
fessionalism and attempting to keep SNSs away
from those who are just colleagues. From previous
examples, Robert and Arnold adopt specific beha-
viors to conceal their stigmas, both at work and on
SNSs. Mario and Ethan are out at work and reveal
their homosexuality online. David and Gabriel used
to conceal that they are gay, but are now more open
about it, both at work and on SNSs.
We contend that employees adopt mirroring because
the possible repercussions of SNSs at work are still
uncertain. As such, the stigmatized employees cannot
regulate how others interact with online content (e.g.,
posts, shares, and comments), or even possible negative
consequences at work: colleagues meet fake relation-
ships with demands of “proof” (Vignette 1), Mario’s
father has warned him that others can see what he
posts, Diego’s and Omar’s colleagues read their posts.
From our data, Arnold believes that his colleague was
not promoted because of that colleague’s online posts;
and Robert, aware he cannot control how others
access information online, looked up and blocked his
colleagues’ profiles before starting a new position.
These collected examples highlight the uncer-
tainty and difficulty that employees face when asses-
sing how to behave, how others will react, and
possible repercussions of online content. In this con-
text, employees return to what they already know
and reproduce their face-to-face behaviors online,
seeking consistency in both domains. Antonio, for
example, knows that his superior does not want him
to be too gay, so he has adopted measures at work
and online to conceal his homosexuality:
I’m not 100% myself here … I can’t have different
haircuts, wear more extravagant clothes … My parents
keep telling me to butch it up at work so that I don’t
have any problems … My Instagram profile was pub-
lic before, but when I started working here, I set it pri-
vate, because I did not know how it was going to be.
Antonio has extended his face-to-face behaviors to
online platforms because of uncertainty around the
236 Academy of Management Journal
repercussions of online information (“I didn’t know
how it was going to be”). To seem professional,
he knows he must adopt heteronormative behaviors
and “butch it up”; he has reproduced this on SNSs,
setting his profiles to private. Vignettes 3 and 4 show
the case of Gabriel (mirroring toward concealing) and
Mario (mirroring toward revealing), followed by our
analysis of mirroring’s two main characteristics: (a)
the reproduction of face-to-face professionalism as
heteronormativity on SNSs, and (b) constant efforts to
keep online safe spaces.
Vignette 3: Mirroring toward concealing. Gabriel
often bragged about Paula, his girlfriend. He regu-
larly posted pictures of them together on Facebook
and Instagram. At work, he talked about her when
the subject turned to romantic relationships. How-
ever, nobody had ever seen her in person, and collea-
gues started suspecting that Paula was a man. A
quick scan of Gabriel’s Facebook was enough for his
colleagues to find Paul’s profile, a man who was con-
stantly present in Gabriel’s pictures—many of which
were only visible because Paul himself posted and
tagged Gabriel. Consequently, those pictures became
accessible to others, together with comments left by
their friends, such as “I love this couple.”
Since then, Gabriel’s fake relationship has become
a running joke when he is not around. One of his
colleagues has confessed that in the department’s
kitchen one day, Susan, their manager, arrived and
mentioned that Gabriel was in her room showing
pictures on Facebook from his last trip with Paula.
When she left, colleagues looked at each other, sup-
pressing smiles.
Reflecting on this episode, Gabriel comments, “I
never lied. I just omitted information. Everything
that I said really happened. I just changed the sex
and the name of my partner.” Gabriel not only con-
cealed his homosexuality but also constantly tried to
improve his methods, as he observed his techniques
were not working. For example, realizing that others
might see his pictures with Paul, when talking about
his trips with Susan he took the additional precaution
of showing his pictures only on his cellphone to con-
trol what she saw. Furthermore, he increasingly moni-
tors his Facebook and Instagram profiles, blocking
people, not accepting friendship requests, and moni-
toring people’s access to ensure that colleagues and
superiors do not see certain information.
Still, the contrast between his efforts and his col-
leagues’ knowledge is evident. He comments,
I had absurd levels of stress, always creating new lies,
hiding, afraid … When someone sent me a friendship
request, I was like ‘Fuck, what am I going to do?’ … I
February
thought that if I disclosed my sexuality I would be
judged, professional doors would close, and collea-
gues would be talking about me all the time.
Vignette 4: Mirroring toward revealing. Mario is
the gay employee at Globalcar that people first think
of. He was mentioned by many interviewees when I
asked them about peers who might also participate
in the research. Indeed, I notice that his appearance
is consistent with stereotypes of gay men: he arrives
for the interview wearing a floral shirt with stylish
pants and shoes, sporting a fashionable haircut.
On SNSs, where he frequently posts pictures with
his boyfriend, he also accepts peers and superiors.
Despite his apparent freedom to express himself, he
confesses that even today, he feels that he needs to
limit himself in specific moments, as he comments,
In some meetings with superiors, of course, I’m afraid
of being too gay, even if they know I’m gay. It’s bizarre
how this environment changes us. Even now, I am
almost whispering while talking to you. Talking
about being gay at Globalcar is so out of place that we
whisper.
Reflecting upon his online behavior, he com-
ments, “I feel that my experiences at work served as
a basis for my online behavior. As I was feeling more
secure professionally, I started accepting colleagues
online, posting more.” Over time, Mario has changed
his behavior, tending to reveal more of his sexuality
at work and online, although it took him three years
to accept online friendship requests from peers. He
concludes,
It was always a question of testing boundaries. Some-
times I was “too gay” and had to hold back, but little
by little I tried to push the frontiers so that I could be
myself. I feel that until I felt I was respected enough
as a professional, I needed to hold back considerably.
The Reproduction of Face-to-Face
Professionalism as Heteronormativity on SNSs
Vignettes 3 and 4 show that mirroring involves
employees reproducing their understanding of profes-
sionalism as heteronormativity online, be it to conceal
or reveal their stigmas. Gabriel hints that showing
homosexuality is not professional (“professional
doors would be closed”). Uncertain about the possi-
ble repercussions of his behaviors, he is consistent
across online and face-to-face interactions, using
SNSs to complement his heteronormative behaviors
at work. In Vignette 4, Mario shows that he is gay at
work and on SNSs. In his view, excelling in his job
performance allowed him to show more of his
2023 Lauriano and Coacci
sexuality. He mentions the need for professional
respect, and with good work results he has become
less concerned about maintaining heteronormative
behavior. However, he is still constrained by the
rooted ideas of professionalism associated with het-
eronormativity, adopting some more cautious beha-
viors. He thus uses contextual cues from face-to-face
interactions to guide his behavior online, mirroring
his ideas of professionalism on SNSs.
In between Gabriel and Mario, many others mirror
their behavior and, consequently, understand profes-
sionalism as different actions that allude to heteronor-
mativity. From previous examples, Arnold and Robert
modify their behavior to pass as straight through con-
tent control, privacy configurations, and segmentation
of audiences. Calvin and Oscar are closer to Mario’s
behavior, emphasizing that professionalism is not only
based on performing heteronormativity. Still, they
remain aware of possible problems, in both face-to-face
and online interactions. Calvin provides an example:
Others have to accept me the way I am, from the
moment I am a professional … but I would never
have a picture of me and my partner on my desk, and
I don’t say that I’m gay. If people ask me, I don’t lie
… Online, I do not create any special group, but I
don’t post much either, and would never post a pic-
ture kissing my partner, for example. A gay person
has always to be careful and prove more than others. I
don’t want to shine or be above anybody else, but if I
break this bottle, water is everywhere, and there is a
straight guy with an unbroken bottle, people will say
“he broke it because he is gay” … So, every gay per-
son has to change something [in their behavior].
Calvin is open about his sexuality at work, but
takes minor actions to control others’ face-to-face
and online perceptions (e.g., avoid talking and post-
ing pictures with his partner). Finally, he admits that
simply being gay requires cautious behavior, reveal-
ing traces of professionalism as heteronormativity.
Thus, in an uncertain scenario about SNSs’ work-
place repercussions, gay employees attempt to
reproduce online what they already understand as
professionalism to be consistent across domains.
However, as employees mirror different actions that
allude to heteronormativity, this produces distorted
images on SNSs, which colleagues can access. This
leads us to the second characteristic of mirroring.
Constant Efforts to Keep Safe Spaces
Vignettes 3 and 4 show that employees try to
maintain SNSs as safe spaces free from work. None-
theless, employees have little control over online
237
content and others’ reactions, demanding additional
efforts. Mirroring in this ambiguous scenario does
not resolve any uncertainties, and the metaphor of
mirroring can allude to the distorted images of fun-
house mirrors: what gay employees intend to disclose
might not be what mirroring produces, requiring fur-
ther efforts to achieve “less distorted fun-house
reflection” on SNSs. Gabriel, for instance, frequently
adjusts his online behavior (e.g., blocking peers, not
accepting friend requests from others, not posting con-
tent). Likewise, Mario mentions that he has “tested
boundaries.” He changed his behavior gradually,
using his experiences at Globalcar as a reference for
online behavior and revealing more of his sexuality
correspondingly. Still, he constantly tries to maintain
safe spaces (e.g., communicating via “underground”
SNSs).
Unlike in manageable face-to-face interactions, the
disclosure dilemma in a context collapse reveals
the difficulties faced when controlling stigma-related
information online. When a new feature, picture, com-
ment, or friendship request threatens to reveal their
homosexuality, the men change their behavior, or at
least assess the possible impacts, to manage the out-
come. Such measures are insufficient, as, for instance,
colleagues easily found out that Gabriel was hiding
his same-sex partner, ironically causing what he ini-
tially hoped to avoid: peers talking about him. Even
Mario has had to “hold back” in specific situations,
when he has felt he has revealed too much. Conse-
quently, both employees have frequently adjusted
their behavior to keep safe spaces. Travis also changed
his behavior as he started working in another subunit
at Globalcar:
In a previous department I worked for, I used to inter-
act with colleagues online, but then I changed func-
tions, and I don’t feel I could do that here, so I
changed configurations and set my profiles [to] pri-
vate. I usually don’t block people, but then a very
homophobic colleague sent me a message about a pic-
ture I posted with my friends saying “Where are the
women?” After that, I blocked him.
After assessing his new working environment, Tra-
vis decided to mirror toward concealing, and trans-
ferred his offline behavior—controlling his clothes,
voice, topic of conversations, and mannerisms—to
SNSs. Likewise, Oscar and Omar (mirroring toward
revealing) are careful about their behaviors, testing
the waters and, when necessary, taking a step back
and making their profiles private, or posting less often
to avoid overexposure. Keaton, who is in the closet
and has been working in the same subunit at Global-
car for 22 years, shares the following episode:
238 Academy of Management Journal
One year, I traveled with my boyfriend, who took pic-
tures of us together. He posted them and tagged me
on Facebook. A few days before returning to work, I
went to a local hairdresser and was approached by a
woman, who held out her phone to me and asked, “Is
that you in this picture?” To my surprise, a woman I
had never seen before was showing a picture of my
boyfriend and me hugging each other during our trip.
She explained that her husband also worked at Glo-
balcar and that my picture had been printed from
Facebook and circulated on the production line, thus
exposing my relationship. On my return to work, col-
leagues stared at me wherever I went in the factory.
I soon discovered that the colleague who sat next to
me was responsible for printing and circulating the
image.
Keaton had already taken measures to avoid
revealing his stigma online and keep his Facebook
profile a safe space. Nonetheless, his efforts were
insufficient: his boyfriend tagged him in a picture,
and it became available to others, reinforcing the
default publicness of SNSs, also demanding addi-
tional efforts to keep safe spaces. After this episode,
Keaton took even more measures online, such as
reviewing visibility permissions and friendships.
Thus, as SNSs are designed to show information, the
examples above show cases in which employees reveal
more than intended, or cannot control their peers’
access. Importantly, the online environment, with its
multitude of possibilities (e.g., different SNSs and pri-
vacy configurations), resists uniform treatment. Many
informants focus efforts on the more commonly used
Facebook and Instagram, rather than “underground”
platforms (as Mario describes Twitter).
Online Destigmatization Efforts
Some of the employees move beyond the idea of
mirroring on specific occasions, using SNSs as stra-
tegic tools to destigmatize their sexuality and show
that being professional and gay should not be mutu-
ally exclusive. Accordingly, they put dispropor-
tional effort into online posts and interactions, in a
behavior we label online destigmatization efforts. In
this sense, these employees still feel constrained at
work and online, but decide to accept the risks and
use SNSs to amplify their voices to change their
work environment.
Joseph, for example, recently decided to con-
sciously push his efforts even further. Although he
still constrains himself in certain face-to-face situa-
tions, he engages in discussions online. He uses his
SNSs to advocate against his stigma, create explana-
tory posts on Facebook, and share stories on Instagram
February
on diverse stigma-related topics (e.g., homosexual-
ity, obesity, and race). Other employees have acted
similarly in specific instances, such as when Harry
changed his profile picture to show support for
LGBTQIA1 causes, or when Gabriel began to believe
that his online posts were more significant than his
face-to-face behavior, even using posts to come out to
multiple invisible audiences at once. Ethan is another
example of an employee who has moved beyond the
normalization of stigma, as Vignette 5 illustrates.
Vignette 5: Online destigmatization efforts. Ethan
was hired one year ago to develop Globalcar’s new dig-
itization activities. He has previous experience in a
queer-friendly multinational, which leads to inevitable
comparisons:
I could be myself there. Everybody knew I was gay,
and it was not a problem. Here, it is as though I was
forced again into the closet … but I decided that in
my little office, I will be myself. Every time I receive
some good news at work, I play Pabllo Vittar [drag
queen superstar] out loud and clap my hands … Peo-
ple stare at me, and I don’t care. I need to feel well in
my own office … Then they say I’m exotic. It’s not
exotic. It’s gay. GAY!
Although he is out at Globalcar, he still feels con-
strained at the organization. Attempting to improve
the work environment, Ethan has decided to move
beyond his face-to-face behavior in SNSs, as he
explains, “Now I’m adopting a more activist posture,
not caring so much about what others will say. For
example, one of my latest pictures on Instagram is a
beautiful photo of my partner and me on the beach,
very girly. It’s a love letter, and it is there [online].”
Ethan is out at work and even distinguishes his
homosexuality from features that could mask it, such
as being “exotic.” His previous workplace showed
support for gay professionals. Globalcar feels rela-
tively constraining, and Ethan has decided to put
even more effort into online destigmatization. In our
analysis, we found that employees who exhibit such
behavior are still hesitant, trying to ascertain the best
approach on SNSs. Nonetheless, they feel the need
for change and realize that they are in privileged posi-
tions that allow them to pioneer such discussions
without worrying so much about negative profes-
sional repercussions (e.g., they are executives or have
job stability for different reasons).
Collapse Denial
A final behavior identified is collapse denial,
when employees do not consider that SNSs might
2023 Lauriano and Coacci
have provoked a context collapse at work, thus
presenting contrary face-to-face and online disclo-
sure levels. As an outlier case, Francis adopts this
behavior, as he is out on SNSs but not at Globalcar.
Given the tensions that this mismatch provokes, his
actions support why mirroring is dominant among
employees.
Francis acts in what he believes is a professional
manner at work—that is, adopting measures toward
heterosexuality and concealment of stigmas. He
explains, “I completely separate private and profes-
sional. I don’t talk about my affairs at work. Nobody
has anything to do with that.” However, he does not
transfer such worries to the online environment,
where he is usually open about his sexuality. During
the course of our conversation, he describes a trip
he made some years ago: “I was visiting a friend in
London, and there was this guy that I was talking to.
He was a photographer and took some semi-nude
pictures of me, which I posted on Facebook.” Francis
did not take any measures to limit the content of
his posts or who had access to his profile, nor did
he block peers or disregard their friend requests. On
the contrary, he continues to use SNSs daily for
work-related purposes, meaning his superiors and
colleagues have access to his semi-nude pictures or
any other content highlighting his homosexuality
online.
He thus sends one message in face-to-face interac-
tions and another online, which has not been well-
received by peers and superiors, as evidenced by
Susan’s comments: “I don’t like him because he
seems to be one person here and another outside. I
don’t know, I feel that there is something wrong with
him.” Our observations revealed that, like Susan,
other peers and superiors find it difficult to under-
stand why he has lied, omitted, or controlled his
speech and manner at work while overexposing his
stigmas on social media. Ethan even maintains that
Francis’s behaviors are a disservice to broader des-
tigmatization efforts: “It’s difficult to understand a
person like Francis because he ends up reproducing
prejudices, showing you can’t be gay here.”
From this perspective, one could argue that it
would be easier for such employees to fulfill the
growing demands of online professionalism if they
could use their SNSs for work-related purposes
without affecting what is perceived as professional-
ism at work. Still, because of the context collapse,
revealing a stigma online usually means revealing it
at work, as peers view and discuss this online infor-
mation. Hence, denying the collapse paradoxically
highlights it.
239
DISCUSSION
In this study, we investigated the impacts of con-
text collapse on employees’ management of conceal-
able stigmas. Our research focused on gay male
employees at Globalcar, and our findings showed
that context collapse is a confluence of collusions
and collisions that show the loss of control over
who sees what and when on SNSs. In a disclosure
dilemma, gay employees must both define how to be
a professional and keep SNSs as safe spaces. Uncer-
tain about the repercussions of online behavior at
work, we revealed that most gay employees returned
to what they already knew and attempted to be con-
sistent, mirroring their face-to-face disclosure levels
on SNSs. This behavior is based on the reproduction
of face-to-face professionalism as heteronormativity
on SNSs and constant efforts to keep online safe
spaces. Some employees realized that mirroring pro-
duces distorted images of themselves and, tired of
controlling their behavior, engaged in online destig-
matization. We also found an outlier case in which
the employee did not believe that online interactions
impacted work and, therefore, presented mismatched
disclosure behaviors on SNSs and face-to-face. Our
study contributes to the literature on concealable stig-
mas and context collapse at work.
Contributions to the Literature
From controlled to uncertain disclosure processes.
A core contribution of our study is to show that, with
the growing importance of SNSs in daily interac-
tions, disclosure management by employees with
concealable stigmas has become an uncertain process.
This contrasts with extant literature that has mostly
considered revealing or concealing stigma as an indi-
vidual, face-to-face, relatively controlled process.
Since Goffman’s (1963) seminal work, studies on
concealable stigmas have shown the importance of
information in the disclosure process. Concealing or
revealing a stigma essentially means communicating
(or not) details about one’s stigmatized characteris-
tics. In this sense, the author argued that ordinary
people share limited information about their lives in
microinteractions, as social groups are somewhat easy
to separate: individuals can interact with friends, fam-
ily, and coworkers at different instances, choosing
what, when, and how to disclose their stigma in face-
to-face interactions (Collins, 1981; Goffman, 1963).
To date, most stigma management literature (e.g.,
Chaudoir & Fisher, 2010; Doldor & Atewologun,
2021; Jones & King, 2014; Ragins, 2008; Stenger &
Roulet, 2018) has disregarded how SNSs shift the
240 Academy of Management Journal
availability of personal information and the effects
this has on disclosure. In a telling example, when
discussing how the concealment of a stigma may
affect task performance, Jones and King (2014: 1475)
argued that “a gay [male] employee who is conceal-
ing to a client must be cautious about referring to his
partner in conversation or having photographs of
his partner in plain sight in his office.” However,
the client could easily find the employee’s SNS pro-
files, filled with couple pictures or other information
that expresses homosexuality, thus acquiring stigma-
revealing information without the employee’s knowl-
edge. In Jones and King’s (2014) model, stigma-related
information seems to be acquired only face-to-face,
where the stigmatized individual has considerable
control over the type, timing, and means of disclosure.
As we have extensively argued and shown, SNSs radi-
cally alter the dynamics of publicly available informa-
tion, shifting the degree of control over disclosure.
Accordingly, choosing to reveal or conceal a stigma,
which is typically assumed to be a relatively straight-
forward decision (see Capell et al., 2018; Clair et al,
2005; Follmer et al., 2020), becomes uncertain. As
we discovered, in a context collapse, employees
face difficulties performing contextual cost–benefit
analysis that stimulates or discourages disclosure.
For instance, organizations and managers might not
know what to expect from employees using SNSs,
and there might be no explicit policies that guide
online behavior. Furthermore, the repercussions of
online interactions at work are highly unpredictable,
as employees need to consider growing, online, imag-
ined audiences that are difficult to grasp. In many
of our examples, employees were outed by peers,
friends reposting content, random posts, and interac-
tions with information that revealed homosexuality,
requiring continuous behavioral adaptations. Taken
together, these elements generate a great deal of
uncertainty, and most employees turn to their face-
to-face disclosure levels and attempt to replicate
them online.
Why, though, is mirroring a dominant response?
A possible explanation is that we all expect some
coherence between the settings we act in and our per-
formances (Goffman, 1959; Stets & Harrod, 2004),
meaning that we have socially constructed ideas
on how to behave in the work environment. Most
employees here presented the routinized behavior of
acting in face-to-face interactions according to differ-
ent levels of heteronormativity. As SNSs and work col-
lide, uncertainty hits (Alvesson, Ashcraft, & Thomas,
2008), triggering the disclosure decision process in
online platforms. Employees then attempt to reach
February
consistency in their performances across domains,
replicating their face-to-face ideals of professionalism
online.
Interestingly, SNSs mirror workplace behavioral
patterns, not those adopted in other domains. The
inconsistency between online and at-work represen-
tations seems potentially more problematic than
does inconsistency across other social contexts. This
shows the relative importance that these individuals
attach to work and the idea of professionalism.
Indeed, Rumens and Kerfoot (2009: 781) argued that
“within such work locales, identities that relate to
professionalism may be given primacy over sex-
uality.” Our study expands on this by showing how
professionalism as heteronormativity (Burchiellaro,
2021; Grey, 1998; Rumens & Kerfoot, 2009; Speice,
2020) unfolds in SNSs, primarily reflecting employ-
ees’ understanding of professionalism in face-to-face
interactions. Contrastingly, this mirroring does not
solve the uncertainty that SNSs create, as employees’
distorted images require constant efforts to keep such
online platforms as safe spaces that are free from
work. This leads us to our second core contribution.
Increased and continuous effort to maintain
online safe spaces. Another important insight con-
cerned the complexities involved in building and
maintaining safe spaces in online platforms when the
sphere of work is considered. As such, the invasion
of work into SNSs demands significant efforts from
employees, who must continuously monitor behaviors
in online and face-to-face interactions with colleagues.
This brings an additional nuance to the assumption in
the literature that SNSs are safe spaces.
Research has demonstrated how LGBTQIA1 peo-
ple use SNSs as safe spaces to meet similar people,
discuss their experiences, find sexual partners, and
express their authentic selves, free from the judg-
mental gaze of society (Gray, 2009; Gray & Scott,
2010; Hanckel et al., 2019). Reinforcing this, Lucero
(2017: 124) concluded that all participants in their
research “had a moderate degree of comfort using
social media to explore and express their gender and
sexual identity.” However, our findings suggest that
the construction and maintenance of such safe
spaces also demand the separation of audiences, the
nonsharing of information outside that microcosm,
and the use of anonymization strategies, such as
using assumed names or blurry photos. As we
showed with our analysis, such a clear context sepa-
ration online might not occur, thus considerably
complicating the management of safe spaces.
The disclosure dilemma articulated in our model
showed that gay employees face difficulties when
2023 Lauriano and Coacci
determining how much effort they should put into
controlling their online behavior. Ultimately, they
have no answer, and ideals of professionalism end
up dominating employees’ behaviors and pressuring
online safe spaces, which was reflected in their
responses. What were previously considered safe
spaces might become additional sources of stress, be
it because of the default publicness of SNSs or the
popularization of previously “underground” SNSs.
Thus, to maintain these spaces, employees engage in
continuous monitoring and behavioral adjustment,
considering both online and face-to-face interactions.
We are not claiming that safe spaces cannot exist.
Rather, our findings provide evidence that managing
such spaces might be harder than previously acknowl-
edged, especially when the two types of context col-
lapse are present. We did find some gay employees
who got to know each other and later became friends
via dating apps based on geo-localization. Nonethe-
less, contrary to typical expectations, what prevailed
in our analysis were not positive experiences of
community-building and authenticity but the difficul-
ties and efforts that SNSs provoke. One possible expla-
nation for the discrepancy in these results is the
methodological limitations of previous studies. For
example, studies have typically explored the behavior
of young people (Gray, 2009; Lucero, 2017), who
tend to disregard the sphere of work, or focus on spe-
cific “niche” SNSs, such as Reddit (Triggs et al.,
2021) or Tumblr (Cho, 2018), downplaying the impact
of context collapse at work. These different foci in the
literature suggest that the relationships between indi-
viduals and SNSs are highly contextual, which leads
to our third core contribution.
Unintended impacts of context collapse to
employees with concealable stigmas. The third
core contribution is to the research on context col-
lapse at work, and we expand on the possible (unin-
tended) impacts of a context collapse in the highly
contextual case of employees with concealable stig-
mas. This challenges the assumption that context
collapse at work leads to similar outcomes across
different groups of employees.
Previous studies have focused either on employ-
ees interacting online (Ollier-Malaterre et al., 2013;
Vitak, 2012) or on organizations structuring policies
and practices on SNSs (Stohl et al., 2017; Treem &
Leonardi, 2013), without problematizing such strate-
gies and behaviors to broader social logics of stigma-
tization, leaving open the question of the possible
effects for stigmatized employees. For instance,
Ollier-Malaterre et al. (2013) explained how SNSs
offer the opportunity for employees to increase their
241
liking and respect by revealing other sides of their
lives. Of course, employees with concealable stigmas
also seek to be liked and respected by peers and super-
iors online. However, when there is an increased prob-
ability that they are already disrespected and disliked
in face-to-face interactions, SNSs become an addi-
tional environment that pressures such employees.
Showing that one is a proud husband or goes on fam-
ily vacations might improve how coworkers see
straight colleagues, but the opposite might be true
for LGBTQIA1 employees. Consequently, the impli-
cations of sharing personal content online are different
for LGBTQIA1 employees than for the nonstigma-
tized employees in such work environments that
already reinforce stigmatization in face-to-face interac-
tions. Not only do employees risk losing such online
areas of community-building and support, but their
maintenance might mean the disregard of possible
implications at work (as in cases of collapse denial).
Indeed, by stepping back and structuring how the
dynamics of context collapse unfold in our case, we
found that the combination of (a) SNSs with default
publicness (Cho, 2018), (b) the expansion of hetero-
normativity to SNSs (Rumens & Kerfoot, 2009), and
(c) growing daily interactions referring to online con-
tent serve as a reminder to employees with conceal-
able stigmas that they should manage that part of
their lives. Gershon (2017: 139) alluded to this in
mentioning that many job seekers on LinkedIn are
uncomfortable with a great level of online publicity,
since some of them “are also trying to address other
social problems in which being too public on the inter-
net might lead to unwelcome social consequences in
their daily lives.” Certainly, most interactions and
initiatives that involved SNSs in our case were not
intended to be onerous for gay employees, yet they
were.
Understanding the possible implications from con-
text collisions and collusions online, some employees
engaged in online destigmatization efforts. They were
conscious of the perils offered by SNSs, but also of
the opportunities to allow broader destigmatization,
normalization, and differentiation of their sexualities
at work. This pattern of results is consistent with pre-
vious studies arguing that coming out is a political act
(Clair et al., 2005; Taylor & Raeburn, 1995), or a strate-
gic “deployment” of stigmas to advocate and educate
coworkers (Bernstein, 1997; Creed & Scully, 2000).
Still, our study expands on these employees’ strate-
gies to improve their workplace experiences, finding
that SNSs can serve as an auxiliary tool for activism.
Thus, context collapse at work is far from being
a phenomenon with similar outcomes across
242 Academy of Management Journal
employees. Even policies and practices adopted with
the best intentions might have unintended impacts
on LGBTQIA1 employees. Focusing on such indivi-
duals, we showed how SNSs are seen and appropri-
ated by them, how they live daily tensions, and how
they respond to accommodate these new online inter-
actions, which, ultimately, have become a problem
and trigger for engagement in efforts to improve their
workplace.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND
FUTURE WORK
Although most of our findings and analyses point
to negative aspects of the context collapse provoked
by SNSs, our study also offers some insights for orga-
nizations. To support employees with concealable
stigmas, organizations must recognize the repercus-
sions of spontaneous and incentivized online inter-
actions for such employees.
We presented preliminary findings of our research
to top managers at Globalcar after we left the field in
2018, emphasizing that nine possible interviewees
refused to participate because they feared problems
with colleagues and superiors. Since then, much
has changed in the organization. Globalcar invited
employees who engaged in online destigmatization
efforts to assemble a diversity committee. These
employees helped the organization understand the
daily problems they suffered (i.e., the disclosure
dilemma) emerging from different interactions (i.e.,
types of context collapse). Following actions to pro-
mote diversity, many employees who once mirrored
toward concealing, or even revealing, but remained
highly constrained by the work environment have
become more vocal about their sexuality online and
face-to-face.
Based on our findings, other organizations could
thus evaluate their relationships with SNSs, identi-
fying the platforms relevant to their activities. Fur-
thermore, as in the case of Globalcar, they could
identify individuals who are already attempting
to change the organization and develop practices
that stimulate a better work environment in the con-
text of both online and face-to-face interactions. For
instance, antidiscriminatory policies and human re-
sources training could cover online behavior, consid-
erably lessening some of the insecurities we observed
in employees with concealable stigmas. However, it
is vital to carefully consider these policies to avoid
reinforcing patterns of hetero- and cisnormativity
(Rumens, 2017) that might reproduce normative ex-
pectations based on gender (David, 2016).
February
Regarding future work, the highly contextual nature
of stigmas provides a rich field for research to capture
specific patterns and nuances that we could not with
our particular focus. As such, opportunities deriving
from ours can include audience features, organiza-
tional practices, and differences across SNSs. Con-
cerning audience features, we encourage future
research to expand our model to include lesbians,
bisexuals, and transgender people to reveal their
experiences. Variables such as race, religion, class,
or even cultural aspects (Cech & Rothwell, 2020;
Ghosh, 2015) are likely to impact the use of SNSs and
stigma management. Our study produced a more
general model of behavioral patterns, but future
investigation could address specific aspects that
lead individuals to engage in mirroring, online des-
tigmatization, and collapse denial.
Future research could examine specific organiza-
tional practices and the role of stigma, such as
the impacts of social media on hiring (Hartwell &
Campion, 2020; Korzynski, Mazurek, & Haenlein,
2020), or how COVID-19 altered the dynamics of the
use of SNSs for work-related purposes. In addition, our
findings suggest the increasing role of SNSs in renew-
ing understanding of the feedback loop (Chaudoir &
Fisher, 2010). Longitudinal studies could investigate
these ideas over time. Finally, differences across SNSs
and their affordances (Leonardi & Vaast, 2017) might
provide significant insights into stigma management.
CONCLUSION
In this study, we investigated the case of gay male
employees’ management of their concealable stig-
mas when SNSs provoke a context collapse. What
did we learn? First, the literature has assumed that
disclosure processes are relatively controlled indi-
vidual decisions, whereas we set the boundary con-
ditions for this. We showed that such processes
are uncertain in a context collapse, as employees
lose control of who sees what and when on SNSs.
Accordingly, most employees returned to what they
already knew, mirroring their face-to-face disclosure
levels online. Some employees engaged in online
destigmatization efforts, and an outlier case was
in collapse denial. Second, we nuanced the assump-
tion of SNSs as safe spaces: their creation and main-
tenance are more challenging tasks than previously
acknowledged. Finally, we advanced the under-
standing of the possible (unintended) impacts of
context collapse on marginalized employees. We
found that it further pressures them to behave in het-
eronormative ways and incentivize destigmatization
2023 Lauriano and Coacci
efforts. We hope that the current research will stimu-
late further investigation of this important and emerg-
ing area of study.
REFERENCES
#50YearsOfStonewall: Attacks against the LGBT1 commu-
nity in Latin America continue. 2019. OpenDemocracy.
Retrieved from https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/
democraciaabierta/50a~ nosstonewall-siguen-los-ataques-
a-la-comunidad-lgbt-en-america-latina-en/.
Akemu, O., & Abdelnour, S. 2020. Confronting the digital:
Doing ethnography in modern organizational settings.
Organizational Research Methods, 23: 296–321.
Alvesson, M., Ashcraft, K. L., & Thomas, R. 2008. Identity
matters: Reflections on the construction of identity
scholarship in organization studies. Organization, 15:
5–27.
Alvesson, M., & Robertson, M. 2016. Money matters: Teflo-
nic identity manoeuvring in the investment banking
sector. Organization Studies, 37: 7–34.
Anteby, M. 2013. Relaxing the taboo on telling our own
stories: Upholding professional distance and personal
involvement. Organization Science, 24: 1277–1290.
Anteby, M., & Anderson, C. 2014. The shifting landscape
of LGBT organizational research. Research in Organi-
zational Behavior, 34: 3–25.
Anteby, M., & Occhiuto, N. 2020. Stand-in labor and the
rising economy of self. Social Forces, 98: 1–24.
Banghart, S., Etter, M., & Stohl, C. 2018. Organizational
boundary regulation through social media policies.
Management Communication Quarterly, 32: 337–373.
Bareket-Bojmel, L., Moran, S., & Shahar, G. 2016. Strategic
self-presentation on Facebook: Personal motives and
audience response to online behavior. Computers in
Human Behavior, 55: 788–795.
Bernstein, M. 1997. Celebration and suppression: The stra-
tegic uses of identity by the lesbian and gay move-
ment. American Journal of Sociology, 103: 531–565.
Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. 1981. Snowball sampling pro-
blems and techniques of chain referral sampling.
Sociological Methods & Research, 10: 141–163.
Boyd, D. 2007. Why youth (heart) social network sites: The
role of networked publics in teenage social life. Youth,
identity and digital media. In D. Buckingham (Ed.),
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Boyd, D. M. 2008. Social network sites: The role of net-
worked publics. Digital Media, 7641: 119–142.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. 2021. To saturate or not to saturate?
Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for
243
thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qualita-
tive Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13:
201–216.
Burchiellaro, O. 2021. Queering control and inclusion in
the contemporary organization: On “LGBT-friendly
control” and the reproduction of (queer) value. Orga-
nization Studies, 42: 761–785.
Butler, J. 2006. Gender trouble: Feminism and the sub-
version of identity. New York, NY: Routledge.
Capell, B., Tzafrir, S. S., Enosh, G., & Dolan, S. L. 2018.
Explaining sexual minorities’ disclosure: The role of
trust embedded in organizational practices. Organiza-
tion Studies, 39: 947–973.
Cech, E. A., & Rothwell, W. R. 2020. LGBT workplace
inequality in the federal workforce: Intersectional pro-
cesses, organizational contexts, and turnover consid-
erations. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 73:
25–60.
Charoensap-Kelly, P., Mestayer, C. L., & Knight, G. B.
2020. To come out or not to come out: Minority reli-
gious identity self-disclosure in the United States
workplace. Management Communication Quarterly,
34: 213–250.
Chaudoir, S. R., & Fisher, J. D. 2010. The disclosure pro-
cesses model: Understanding disclosure decision
making and postdisclosure outcomes among people
living with a concealable stigmatized identity. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 136: 236–256.
Cho, A. 2018. Default publicness: Queer youth of color,
social media, and being outed by the machine. New
Media & Society, 20: 3183–3200.
Clair, J. A., Beatty, J. E., & Maclean, T. L. 2005. Out of sight
but not out of mind: Managing invisible social identi-
ties in the workplace. Academy of Management
Review, 30: 78–95.
Clark, L. A., & Roberts, S. J. 2010. Employer’s use of social
networking sites: A socially irresponsible practice.
Journal of Business Ethics, 95: 507–525.
Colgan, F., Creegan, C., Mckearney, A., & Wright, T. 2007.
Equality and diversity policies and practices at work:
Lesbian, gay and bisexual workers. Equal Opportuni-
ties International, 26: 590–609.
Collins, R. 1981. On the microfoundations of macrosociol-
ogy. American Journal of Sociology, 86: 984–1014.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. 2008. Basics of qualitative
research: Techniques and procedures for develop-
ing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Creed, W. E. D., & Scully, M. A. 2000. Songs of ourselves:
Employees’ deployment of social identity in work-
place encounters. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9:
391–412.
244 Academy of Management Journal
David, E. 2016. Outsourced heroes and queer incorpora-
tions. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies,
22: 381–408.
Davis, J. L., & Jurgenson, N. 2014. Context collapse: Theo-
rizing context collusions and collisions. Information
Communication and Society, 17: 476–485.
Doldor, E., & Atewologun, D. 2021. Why work it when you
can dodge it? Identity responses to ethnic stigma
among professionals. Human Relations, 74: 892–921.
Duguay, S. 2016. “He has a way gayer Facebook than I do”:
Investigating sexual identity disclosure and context
collapse on a social networking site. New Media &
Society, 18: 891–907.
Fidas, D., & Cooper, L. 2018. A workplace divided:
Understanding the climate for LGBTQ workers
nationwide. Retrieved from https://assets2.hrc.org/
files/assets/resources/AWorkplaceDivided-2018.pdf
Fleming, P., & Sturdy, A. 2009. “Just be yourself!”: Towards
neo-normative control in organisations? Employee
Relations, 31: 569–583.
Fletcher, L., & Everly, B. A. 2021. Perceived lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) supportive practices
and the life satisfaction of LGBT employees: The roles
of disclosure, authenticity at work, and identity cen-
trality. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 94: 485–508.
Flory, J. A., Leibbrandt, A., Rott, C., & Stoddard, O. 2021.
Increasing workplace diversity: Evidence from a
recruiting experiment at a Fortune 500 company.
Journal of Human Resources, 56: 73–92.
Flyverbom, M., Leonardi, P. M., Stohl, C., & Stohl, M. 2016.
The management of visibilities in the digital age. Inter-
national Journal of Communication, 10: 98–109.
Foggin, S. 2019, June 28. How progressive is LGBTQ rights
legislation in Latin America? Latin America Reports.
Follmer, K. B., Sabat, I. E., & Siuta, R. L. 2020. Disclosure
of stigmatized identities at work: An interdisciplinary
review and agenda for future research. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 41: 169–184.
Fox, J., & Warber, K. M. 2015. Queer identity management
and political self-expression on social networking
sites: A co-cultural approach to the spiral of silence.
Journal of Communication, 65: 79–100.
Gershon, I. 2017. Down and out in the new economy—
How people find (or don’t find) work today. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Ghosh, A. 2015. LGBTQ activist organizations as
“respectably queer” in India: Contesting a Western
view. Gender, Work and Organization, 22: 51–66.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. 1967. The discovery of
grounded theory. International Journal of Qualita-
tive Methods, 20: 227.
February
Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday
life. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Goffman, E. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the management of
spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gray, M. L. 2009. Negotiating identities/queering desires:
Coming out online and the remediation of the coming-
out story. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communi-
cation, 14: 1162–1189.
Gray, M. L., & Scott, D. T. 2010. Queer media studies in the
age of the e-invisibility. International Journal of
Communication, 5: 95–100.
Grey, C. 1998. On being a professional. Science, 23:
569–587.
Griffith, K. H., & Hebl, M. R. 2002. The disclosure dilemma
for gay men and lesbians: “Coming out” at work. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 87: 1191–1199.
Hadler, M., & Symons, J. 2018. World society divided:
Divergent trends in state responses to sexual minori-
ties and their reflection in public attitudes. Social
Forces, 96: 1721–1756.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. 2019. Ethnography
(4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hanckel, B., Vivienne, S., Byron, P., Robards, B., & Chur-
chill, B. 2019. “That’s not necessarily for them”:
LGBTIQ1 young people, social media platform affor-
dances and identity curation. Media Culture & Soci-
ety, 41: 1261–1278.
Harrison, S. H., & Rouse, E. D. 2014. Let’s dance! Elastic
coordination in creative group work: A qualitative
study of modern dancers. Academy of Management
Journal, 57: 1256–1283.
Harry, J. 1993. Being out. Journal of Homosexuality, 26:
25–40.
Hartwell, C. J., & Campion, M. A. 2020. Getting social in
selection: How social networking website content is
perceived and used in hiring. International Journal
of Selection and Assessment, 28: 1–16.
Haynes, K. 2012. Reflexivity in qualitative research. In G.
Symon & C. Cassell (Eds.), Qualitative organizational
research: Core methods and current challenges.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Human Rights Watch. 2018. No support Russia’s “gay
propaganda.” law imperils LGBT youth. Retrieved from
https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/12/12/no-support/
russias-gay-propaganda-law-imperils-lgbt-youth
Jones, K. P., & King, E. B. 2014. Managing concealable stig-
mas at work: A review and multilevel model. Journal
of Management, 40: 1466–1494.
Jones, K. P., et al. 2016. The baby bump: Managing a
dynamic stigma over time. Journal of Management,
42: 1530–1556.
Knight, K., & Gall, L. 2020. Hungary ends legal recognition for
transgender and intersex people. Human Rights Watch.
2023 Lauriano and Coacci
Koch, H., Gonzalez, E., & Leidner, D. 2012. Bridging the
work/social divide: The emotional response to organi-
zational social networking sites. European Journal of
Information Systems, 21: 699–717.
Korzynski, P., Mazurek, G., & Haenlein, M. 2020. Leverag-
ing employees as spokespeople in your HR strategy:
How company-related employee posts on social media
can help firms to attract new talent. European Man-
agement Journal, 38: 204–212.
Lee, Y. 2020. Motivations of employees’ communicative
behaviors on social media. Internet Research, 30:
971–994.
Leonardi, P. M., & Vaast, E. 2017. Social media and their
affordances for organizing: A review and agenda
for research. Academy of Management Annals, 11:
150–188.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry.
London, U.K.: SAGE Publications.
Lindsey, A., King, E., Gilmer, D., Sabat, I., & Ahmad, A.
2020. The benefits of identity integration across life
domains. Journal of Homosexuality, 67: 1164–1172.
Lloren, A., & Parini, L. 2017. How LGBT-supportive work-
place policies shape the experience of lesbian, gay
men, and bisexual employees. Sexuality Research &
Social Policy, 14: 289–299.
Louis, M. R., & Bartunek, J. M. 1992. Insider/outsider
research teams: Collaboration across diverse perspec-
tives. Journal of Management Inquiry, 1: 101–110.
Lucero, L. 2017. Safe spaces in online places: Social media
and LGBTQ youth. Multicultural Education Review,
9: 117–128.
Majority in Brazil’s top court to make homophobia and
transphobia crimes. 2019. BBC News.
Marwick, A. E., & Boyd, D. 2011. I tweet honestly, I tweet
passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and
the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13:
114–133.
Moqbel, M., Nevo, S., & Kock, N. 2013. Organizational
members’ use of social networking sites and job per-
formance: An exploratory study. Information Tech-
nology & People, 26: 240–264.
Ng, E. S., & Rumens, N. 2017. Diversity and inclusion for
LGBT workers: Current issues and new horizons
for research. Canadian Journal of Administrative
Sciences, 34: 109–120.
Ollier-Malaterre, A., Rothbard, N. P., & Berg, J. M. 2013.
When worlds collide in cyberspace: How boundary
work in online social networks impacts professional
relationships. Academy of Management Review, 38:
645–669.
245
O’Reilly, K., Paper, D., & Marx, S. 2012. Demystifying
grounded theory for business research. Organiza-
tional Research Methods, 15: 247–262.
Ozturk, M. B. 2011. Sexual orientation discrimination:
Exploring the experiences of lesbian, gay and bisexual
employees in Turkey. Human Relations, 64: 1099–
1118.
Poushter, J., & Kent, N. 2020, June 25. The global divide
on homosexuality persists. Pew Research Center.
Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/global/
2020/06/25/global-divide-on-homosexuality-persists/.
Ragins, B. 2008. Disclosure disconnects: Antecedents and
consequences of disclosing invisible stigmas across
life domains. Academy of Management Review, 33:
194–215.
Ragins, B. R., & Cornwell, J. M. 2001. Pink triangles: Ante-
cedents and consequences of perceived workplace
discrimination against gay and lesbian employees.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 1244–1261.
Reay, T., Zafar, A., Monteiro, P., & Glaser, V. 2019. Chapter
10 presenting findings from qualitative research: One
size does not fit all! Research in the Sociology of
Organizations, 59: 201–216.
Rothbard, N. P., Ramarajan, L., Ollier-Malaterre, A., & Lee,
S. S. 2022. OMG! My boss just friended me: How eva-
luations of colleagues’ disclosure, gender, and rank
shape personal/professional boundary blurring online.
Academy of Management Journal, 65: 35–65.
Roulet, T. J. 2020. The power of being divisive: Under-
standing negative social evaluations. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Roulet, T. J., Gill, M. J., Stenger, S., & Gill, D. J. 2017.
Reconsidering the value of covert research: The role of
ambiguous consent in participant observation. Orga-
nizational Research Methods, 20: 487–517.
Rumens, N. 2010. Workplace friendships between men:
Gay men’s perspectives and experiences. Human
Relations, 63: 1541–1562.
Rumens, N. 2017. Queer business: Queering organiza-
tion sexualities. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
Rumens, N., & Kerfoot, D. 2009. Gay men at work: (Re)con-
structing the self as professional. Human Relations,
62: 763–786.
Sedgwick, E. K. 2008. Epistemology of the closet. Berke-
ley, CA: University of California Press.
Shenton, A. K. 2004. Strategies for ensuring trustworthi-
ness in qualitative research projects. Education for
Information, 22: 63–75.
Speice, T. 2020. The “okay” gay guys: Developing hege-
monic sexuality as a tool to understand men’s
246 Academy of Management Journal
workplace identities. Journal of Homosexuality, 67:
1864–1880.
Stanko, T. L., & Beckman, C. M. 2015. Watching you
watching me: Boundary control and capturing atten-
tion in the context of ubiquitous technology use.
Academy of Management Journal, 58: 712–738.
Stenger, S., & Roulet, T. J. 2018. Pride against prejudice?
The stakes of concealment and disclosure of a stigma-
tized identity for gay and lesbian auditors. Work,
Employment and Society, 32: 257–273.
Stets, J. E., & Harrod, M. M. 2004. Verification across multi-
ple identities: The role of status. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 67: 155–171.
Stohl, C., Etter, M., Banghart, S., & Woo, D. J. 2017. Social
media policies: Implications for contemporary notions
of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business
Ethics, 142: 413–436.
Styhre, A., Backman, M., & B€
orjesson, S. 2005. The gen-
dered machine: Concept car development at Volvo car
corporation. Gender, Work and Organization, 12:
551–571.
Taylor, V., & Raeburn, N. C. 1995. Identity politics as high-
risk activism: Career consequences for lesbian, gay, and
bisexual sociologists, Social Problems. 42: 252–273.
Tejeda, M. J. 2006. Nondiscrimination policies and sexual
identity disclosure: Do they make a difference in
employee outcomes? Employee Responsibilities and
Rights Journal, 18: 45–59.
Toubiana, M., & Zietsma, C. 2017. The message is on the
wall? Emotions, social media and the dynamics of
institutional complexity. Academy of Management
Journal, 60: 922–953.
Treem, J. W., & Leonardi, P. M. 2013. Social media use in
organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility,
editability, persistence, and association. Annals of
the International Communication Association, 36:
143–189.
Triggs, A. H., Møller, K., & Neumayer, C. 2021. Context col-
lapse and anonymity among queer Reddit users. New
Media & Society, 23: 5–21.
Vallas, S. P., & Cummins, E. R. 2015. Personal branding
and identity norms in the popular business press:
February
Enterprise culture in an age of precarity. Organization
Studies, 36: 293–319.
Vitak, J. 2012. The impact of context collapse and privacy
on social network site disclosures. Journal of Broad-
casting & Electronic Media, 56: 451–470.
Vitak, J., Crouse, J., & Larose, R. 2011. Personal Internet use
at work: Understanding cyberslacking. Computers in
Human Behavior, 27: 1751–1759.
Walker, L., Butland, D., & Connell, R. 2000. Boys on the
road: Masculinities, car culture, and road safety edu-
cation. Journal of Men’s Studies, 8: 153–169.
Wilner, A., Christopoulos, T. P., & Alves, M. A. 2017. The
online unmanaged organization: Control and resis-
tance in a space with blurred boundaries. Journal of
Business Ethics, 141: 677–691.
Woods, J. D., & Lucas, J. H. 1994. The corporate closet:
The professional lives of gay men in America. New
York, NY: Free Press.
Woods, S. E., & Harbeck, K. M. 1992. Living in two worlds:
The identity management strategies used by lesbian
physical educators. Journal of Homosexuality, 22:
29–80.
Lucas Amaral Lauriano (l.amaral@ieseg.fr) is assistant
professor in the People, Organizations, and Negotiation
department at IESEG School of Management (Paris). He is
a member of the Lille Economics Management research
laboratory. He holds a PhD from King’s Business School,
King’s College London. His research interests include social
issues in management, sustainability implementation,
corporate misconduct, and employees’ negative evaluations.
Thiago Coacci (thiagocoacci@gmail.com) is a researcher
in the Center for the Study and Research on Women at the
Federal University of Minas Gerais (NEPEM/UFMG),
from where he received his PhD. His main research
interests are LGBTQIA1 social movements in the Global
South, and queer science and technology studies.
2023 Lauriano and Coacci 247

APPENDIX A

TABLE A1
Interviewees’ Profiles
No. Name (Pseudonym) Role Tenure (Years) Department Interview Length (Minutes)

1 Calvin Analyst 0.5 Human Resources 60

2 Keaton Analyst 22 Quality 70
3 Mario Analyst 8 Marketing 70
4 Diego Analyst 15 Production Line 70
5 Oscar Analyst 0.5 Purchasing 90
6 Antonio Analyst 0.8 Sales 100
7 Louis Coordinator 11 Quality 60
8 Robert Coordinator 9 Engineering 60
9 Francis Coordinator 6 Marketing 80
10 Travis Coordinator 12 Finance 80
11 Joseph Coordinator 0.5 Purchasing 80
12 Lucianoa Coordinator 5 Sales 50 and 90
13 Arnold Coordinator 8 Logistics 90
14 Omar Coordinator 5 Logistics 90
15 David Coordinator 5 Marketing 110
16 Harry Coordinator 2 Engineering 60
17 Ethan Executive 1 Marketing 105
18 Gabriela Executive 6 Sales 60 and 120

a
Interviewed twice.