Gender Work Organization - 2020 - Dray - Moving Beyond The Gender Binary Examining Workplace Perceptions of Nonbinary

Received: 14 May 2019 Revised: 13 November 2019 Accepted: 15 April 2020
DOI: 10.1111/gwao.12455
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Moving beyond the gender binary: Examining

workplace perceptions of nonbinary and
transgender employees
Kelly K. Dray | Vaughn R. E. Smith | Toni P. Kostecki |

Isaac E. Sabat | Cassidy R. Thomson
Department of Psychological and Brain

Sciences, Texas A&M University, USA This study is one of the first to experimentally examine the
workplace prejudice faced by nonbinary employees, or
Correspondence
Kelly K. Dray, Department of Psychological
those who identify outside of the man/woman gender
and Brain Sciences, Texas A&M University, binary. Participants (N = 249) were presented with a
4235 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843, USA
vignette which included a description of a fictitious
Email: kellydray@tamu.edu
co-worker’s sex and gender identity, and asked to rate the
co-worker’s likeability and perceived job performance.
Results revealed that the assigned sex and the gender of
hypothetical employees interactively impacted interper-
sonal and workplace perceptions. For individuals assigned
male at birth, identifying as a man led to the most positive
ratings, followed by identifying as a transgender woman,
followed by identifying as a nonbinary person. This work
expands upon gender schema theory and highlights some of
the unexplored challenges faced by nonbinary and trans-
gender employees. We end with suggestions for future
research, such as incorporating qualitative data to highlight
the unique experiences of these gender minorities in
organizations.
KEYWORDS
gender identity, nonbinary, sex, transgender, workplace

discrimination
Gender Work Organ. 2020;27:1181–1191. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/gwao © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 1181
14680432, 2020, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gwao.12455 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [11/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1182 DRAY ET AL.
1 | I N T RO D UC T I O N
Gender within organizations is becoming more nuanced and diverse. A growing number of people in the labour
force identify as a gender outside of the gender binary. That is, a person may identify or express, via culture-
specific ‘masculine’ and/or ‘feminine’ behaviours, as a man, woman, neither, both or anywhere between (Richards
et al., 2016; West & Zimmerman, 1987). Relatedly, employees are identifying with genders that are different
from their sex assigned at birth which is a label based mostly on visible cues such as genitalia (i.e., ‘male’, ‘female’
or ‘intersex’; Meerwijk & Sevelius, 2017). These individuals often fall under the Transgender+ (T+) umbrella of
‘LGBT+’.
Gender identities within the T+ community include (but are not limited to): (i) trans men (i.e., men assigned
female at birth); (ii) trans women (i.e., women assigned male at birth); (iii) nonbinary individuals (i.e., those who
identify outside the man–woman binary; Davidson, 2016). Notably, there are a wide variety of identities subsumed
under the nonbinary umbrella (Gibson & Fernandez, 2018). For instance, within nonbinary identities, individuals can
identify as agender, genderfluid, gender neutral or trigender. Thus, we recognize that efforts to simplify gender into
a limited number of categories is problematic. However, in this study, we focus on these three broad categorizations
hoping that this initial experimental research on workplace discrimination toward nonbinary and transgender individ-
uals might lead to future studies examining more nuanced workplace discrimination toward specific nonbinary
identities.
While many organizations are becoming more tolerant and inclusive of T+ identities, not all workplaces protect
their T+ employees. Further, these individuals still do not receive protection at the federal level. Interpersonally, T+
individuals may experience intolerance, rejection, and other overt and/or subtle mistreatment from their colleagues
and supervisors. Indeed, it has been shown that 15–57 per cent of trans people experience workplace discrimina-
tion (Badgett, Lau, Sears, & Ho, 2007). Research has also shown that T+ individuals are liked less than their
cisgender colleagues (Gerhardstein & Anderson, 2010). Much of the backlash toward T+ individuals extends from
the harsh socio-political climate in the United States that continues to pathologize and demean T+ individuals. For
example, a recent proposal which was put forward by the Department of Health and Human Services to ‘redefine’
gender based on assigned sex at birth has the potential to invisibilize T+ identities. Many T+ individuals have been
physically assaulted and even murdered because of their T+ status. Indeed, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC)
website reports that at least 18 transgender individuals were killed in 2019 in the United States alone, and 26 were
killed in 2018 (Human Rights Campaign, n.d.). While their lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) contemporaries have
made significant strides over the last decade (e.g., marriage equality in 2015; Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015), T+ individ-
uals still struggle for support and representation. Even within the larger LGBT community, T+ individuals are often
stigmatized for being ‘too queer’ or ‘not queer enough’ (Wang-Jones, Hauson, Ferdman, Hattrup, & Lowman, 2018).
Indeed, research has shown that even gay and lesbian individuals show bias towards T+ individuals (Wang-Jones
et al., 2018).
One solution that is often suggested is for T+ individuals to merely hide or conceal their identities while at work.
This suggestion is problematic for a variety of reasons. First, research has shown that attempts to conceal a T+ iden-
tity leads to more negative workplace outcomes, including decreased job satisfaction and lower levels of perceived
organizational fit (Martinez, Sawyer, Thoroughgood, Ruggs, & Smith, 2017). For instance, a trans woman participant
commented on the difficulties of concealing, stating, ‘I’m just tired of not being authentic … Thinking, “I’m a liar. I’m a
fraud”’ (Martinez et al., 2017, p. 218). Second, T+ individuals often cannot and do not want to conceal their T+ status
(Meier & Labuski, 2013). Indeed, there is no ‘unified trans experience’. T+ people experience differing, individual
amounts of physical and/or social dysphoria (including no dysphoria at all; Carroll & Gilroy, 2001), and not every
trans person can or even desires to ‘pass’ as a cisgender person. Thus, it is of critical importance that researchers
begin to uncover and mitigate the interpersonal and job-related barriers that T+ individuals face while trying to be
their true selves at work. In the current study, we seek to contribute to the literature by examining interpersonal and
job-related perceptions of individuals with diverse gender identities. More specifically, we will examine how
DRAY ET AL. 1183
employees’ likeability as well as their perceived job performance differ as a result of their T+ status. In doing so, we
hope to expand the existing literature on the unique workplace barriers of T+ individuals.
Gender schema theory (Bem, 1981) proposes that individuals learn to expect certain characteristics and behav-
iours from certain genders through observing societal norms. For example, many individuals expect women to have
female anatomy and to act in stereotypically feminine ways (Aultman, 2014). This is because, as individuals learn,
they encode and organize new information in terms of schemas. Since our society is largely dominated by the man/-
woman dichotomy, most people build their gender schemas this way. When people act outside of others’ gender
schemas, they may face social backlash because they defy existing social norms and stereotypes about genders
(Adler, Kless, & Adler, 1992; Bem, 1981; Parrott, 2009). Even binary transgender people, who identify as men and
women, may experience social backlash when they reject the gender schema some have put them into based on their
assigned sex. Indeed, many T+ individuals report being ridiculed when others believe they are failing to act in accor-
dance with their assigned sex (Davidson, 2014). As such, nonbinary people, who frequently defy gender schemas
placed on them, likely face even worse mistreatment. This is because, while many trans men and trans women adhere
to binary rules by identifying and acting in accordance with their stated genders, nonbinary individuals identify and
often act outside of the gender binary, and are less able to fit into society’s views of gender as a result. Supporting
this notion, research has shown that nonbinary individuals experience more major (i.e., overt/extreme) and everyday
(i.e., less overt/subtle) discrimination than their binary transgender counterparts (Miller & Grollman, 2015; Singh,
Meng, & Hansen, 2014). For example, using the National Transgender Discrimination Survey, researchers have found
that nonbinary individuals who are ‘out’ at work are more likely to be denied a promotion compared to trans men and
trans women (Davidson, 2016). Nonbinary gender identities also tend to be delegitimized in workplaces. Specifically,
these individuals are more likely to be called by the incorrect pronouns and are ultimately forced into a binary gender
category (Fogarty & Zheng, 2018). One nonbinary individual assigned female at birth reported that their boss consis-
tently undermined their masculinity and suggested that their appearance was ‘unpalatable to customers’ (Fogarty &
Zheng, 2018, p. 93). In sum, the amount of backlash T+ people experience is likely dependent on the extent to which
they fit into others’ gender schemas. Thus, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1 There will be an interaction between assigned sex and gender such that cisgender employees will receive
the highest likeability ratings, followed by transgender individuals, followed by nonbinary employees.
Previous research has demonstrated that employees who are liked more also receive higher supervisor ratings,
suggesting a subsequent increase in occupational rewards (Barrick & Mount, 1991). The association between
likeability and perceived job performance is apparent across organizational research (Bolino, Varela, Bande, &
Turnley, 2006; Elmore & Wilkins, 1982; Kaplan, Petersen, & Samuels, 2007). Specifically, Hogan and Shelton (1998)
note that interpersonal relations and other such social skills help workers achieve occupational goals. As an exam-
ple, supervisors’ biases often influence ratings of subordinates’ job performance, impacting subordinates’ abilities to
advance in their careers (Dalton, Owen, & Todor, 1986; Heilman, 2001; Prendergast & Topel, 1993). Indeed, super-
visor ratings are frequently used to evaluate employees and are the bases for many decisions regarding personnel
decisions such as promotion and termination. As such, T+ individuals frequently experience more negative job out-
comes, especially when workplaces do not institute policies protecting them from discrimination (Tebbe, Allan, &
Bell, 2019). Based on existing evidence underscoring the association between likeability, perceived job performance
and the high levels of interpersonal negativity T+ individuals experience at work, we predict that sex and gender
combinations that elicit disliking will subsequently cause reduced job performance ratings (see Figure 1). Thus, we
propose:
Hypothesis 2 There will be a moderated mediation such that interactive effects of assigned sex and gender on likeability
will result in cisgender employees receiving the highest ratings of job performance, followed by transgender
employees, followed by nonbinary employees.
1184 DRAY ET AL.
FIGURE 1 Model of proposed conditional indirect effects
2 | METHOD
2.1 | Participants
A total of 249 participants were recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) and compensated $0.25, con-
sistent with the typical rate for a 15-minute study at the time of data collection. All participants were required to be
employed, US citizens and at least 18 years of age. The final sample varied in terms of age (M = 31.88, SD = 9.14),
gender (53.0 per cent women, 47.0 per cent men, 0 per cent nonbinary/prefer to self-identify) and race (70.7 per
cent White, 8.4 per cent Black, 7.6 per cent Asian, 6.4 per cent Multi/Biracial, 6.0 per cent Latinx/Hispanic and
0.80 per cent Native American). Of the participants, 81.4 per cent identified as heterosexual, 9 per cent preferred
not to answer, 5.2 per cent were bisexual, 2.1 per cent were lesbian, 2.1 per cent gay and 0.3 per cent of participants
had other sexualities.
2.2 | Procedure
Participants read a vignette about a fictitious co-worker named Alex who exhibited average levels of job
performance. This description of average job performance was based on prior research (Armenakis, Buckley, &
Bedeian, 1986; Finch, 1987). Participants were then presented with a randomized description of Alex’s assigned
sex (female, male) and gender (man, woman, nonbinary).1 A full description of these vignettes can be found in
the Appendix. After reading the vignette, participants answered a series of manipulation checks assessing if they
were able to recall Alex’s assigned sex at birth and gender identity. Those who failed to correctly answer
questions about Alex were removed from analyses in an effort to increase the internal validity of the study.
Afterwards, participants rated Alex in terms of his/her/their perceived likeability and expected job performance.
2.3 | Measures
2.3.1 | Liking scale
The target’s likeability was assessed using a three-item measure adapted from Liden and Maslyn (1998). Partici-
pants ranked statements on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Items for this scale
included ‘I like this co-worker very much’, ‘This co-worker is the kind of person I would like to have as my
friend’ and ‘This co-worker would be a lot of fun to work with’. This scale demonstrated adequate reliability
(α = 0.87).
DRAY ET AL. 1185
2.3.2 | Perceived job performance
Participants rated their impressions of the co-worker’s job performance using an 11-item scale (adapted from
Madera & Hebl, 2012) from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The items included statements such as
‘This co-worker deserved to be compensated well’. This scale also demonstrated adequate reliability (α = 0.91).
3 | RESULTS
In order to test the proposed interactions between sex and gender on perceived likeability, we analysed the results
of the survey using a two-way ANOVA in SPSS. Assigned sex included two levels (male, female) and gender identity
consisted of three levels (man, woman, nonbinary). We found a significant interaction between sex assigned at birth
and gender (F(4, 342) = 2.98, p = 0.02; see Figure 2), thus supporting our first hypothesis that likeability ratings
would be affected by interactions between known sex and gender.2 Tests of simple effects found that there were no
significant differences in likeability based on assigned sex (F(2, 342) = 1.76, p = 0.17) or gender identity (F
(2, 342) = 1.31, p = 0.27) alone.
In alignment with study expectations, for versions of the vignette where the target was assigned male at
birth, there was a trend such that cis men were liked the most, followed by trans women, followed by nonbinary
individuals. Surprisingly, in versions of the vignette where the target was known to be assigned female at birth,
nonbinary individuals were liked the most, followed by a cis women, followed by trans men. As such, nonbinary
people who were known to be assigned female at birth were liked the most, followed by cisgender individuals,
then trans women and trans men, and finally nonbinary people who were known to be assigned male at birth
(see Figure 2).
To assess our second hypothesis, we conducted a moderated mediation analysis using PROCESS model
7 (Hayes, 2013; see Table 1), which creates bootstrapped confidence intervals of the indirect effects at different
levels of the moderator. This analysis revealed that there was a significant moderated mediation effect of sex
assigned at birth and gender on job performance perceptions through perceptions of likeability (b = 0.34,
SE = 0.12, 95 per cent CI [0.12, 0.59]). Specifically, we found a significant indirect effect of assigned sex on job
performance ratings through likeability perceptions for nonbinary individuals (b = 0.33, SE = 0.13, 95 per cent CI
[0.08, 0.59]), but not for men (b = −0.22, SE = 0.14, 95 per cent CI [−0.51, 0.02]) or for women (β = 0.05,
SE = 0.09, 95 per cent CI [−0.13, 0.23]). Thus, differences in likeability ratings based on the target’s known
F I G U R E 2 Likeability as a function of
sex and gender identity
1186 DRAY ET AL.
TABLE 1 Moderated mediation analysis (PROCESS model 7)
Source Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.

a
Corrected model 6.42 5 1.28 2.19 0.056
Intercept 2736.95 1 2736.95 4677.19 0.00
Sex 0.28 1 0.28 0.47 0.49
Gender 0.60 2 0.30 0.51 0.60
Sex*Gender 5.18 2 2.59 4.43 0.01
Error 142.20 243 0.59
Total 2957.67 249
Corrected total 148.62 248
a
R-squared = 0.043 (adjusted R-squared = 0.024).
assigned sex and gender subsequently affected ratings of the target’s perceived job performance, supporting our
second hypothesis.
4 | DISCUSSION
Our results support the proposition that nonbinary and transgender employees experience workplace prejudice and
discrimination (Brewster, Velez, Mennicke, & Tebbe, 2014; Miller & Grollman, 2015). According to the results of this
vignette study, there was an interaction between employee assigned sex and gender on likeability, thus highlighting
the importance of examining gender discrimination beyond binary dichotomies. Indeed, while the main effects of
gender and sex on likeability were not significant, the interaction between both characteristics supported our first
prediction that employees with the same assigned sex and gender (cisgender) are liked more than binary transgender
co-workers, followed by those who are nonbinary.
As expected, cis men and cis women were rated higher on the likeability scale than trans men and trans women.
Further, nonbinary individuals who were assigned male at birth were liked less than every other group of people
(i.e., transgender men and women, cisgender men and women, and nonbinary people assigned female at birth). Sur-
prisingly, nonbinary people who were assigned female at birth were rated the most positively after cisgender men.
This could be due to the fact that these individuals may be perceived by their co-workers as distancing themselves
from femininity, which is an undervalued, undesirable trait within workplace contexts. Interestingly, nonbinary indi-
viduals assigned female at birth showed higher likeability ratings than transgender men (men assigned female at
birth). This may be the case because while both may be perceived as rejecting femininity, transgender men may be
seen as threatening the stereotypical views of gender and masculinity, while nonbinary persons may not be seen as a
threat in this way. Transgender men and women may also experience more negative outcomes given the unique,
negative stereotypes that they face (e.g., perceptions that they are predators trying to gain access to bathrooms of
the opposite sex or that they try to ‘trick’ cisgender people into sexual relationships; Browne, 2004).
The results also showed that the interaction between assigned sex and gender of an employee had a significant
impact on perceptions of the employee’s job performance through likeability. Interestingly, for nonbinary individuals,
being assigned male at birth elicited significantly worse job performance expectations through likeability compared
to being assigned female at birth. Again, this could possibly be due to the fact that nonbinary individuals assigned
male at birth may be perceived as devaluing their ‘innate’ masculinity and as highly feminine, thereby eliciting a nega-
tive response. Similarly, nonbinary employees who were assigned female at birth may be permitted greater flexibility
to deny typical cisgenderist norms than those assigned male at birth (Biernat, 1991; Denissen & Saguy, 2014). These
results make sense given that society devalues femininity (Holmes & Schnurr, 2006) and is more likely to punish men
for enacting feminine roles compared to women who enact masculine roles (Berdahl & Moon, 2013; Epstein, 1989).
DRAY ET AL. 1187
In sum, the results of our study lend general support for our second hypothesis and demonstrate that different com-
binations of assigned sex and gender can differentially bias workplace perceptions, especially for nonbinary
individuals.
4.1 | Theoretical implications
This study advances the literature on workplace gender discrimination as it is one of the first empirical studies com-
paring the experiences of nonbinary and transgender individuals in workplace contexts. These results have major
implications for gender research, as past work has almost exclusively examined the experiences of cisgender women.
This study also provides evidence for and expands upon gender schema theory (Bem, 1981) by showing that,
because nonbinary people identify and often act outside of the gender binary, others may develop negative percep-
tions of them due to their adherence to strict binary gendered norms. Future researchers should continue to decon-
struct current conceptualizations of gender in workplaces and expand the definition of gender beyond the
man/woman binary. Further, researchers should continue to examine how gender identity and expression affect
workplace discrimination and build more comprehensive models of gender discrimination. Doing so can help us bet-
ter understand how gender affects the workplace experiences of not only cisgender women, but also T+ individuals.
4.2 | Practical implications
These results have many implications for organizational leaders (i.e., individuals with high levels of power and influ-
ence within an organization), employees with diverse genders and supportive co-workers. For example, according to
our results, organizations should consider adopting policies that specifically protect nonbinary and transgender
employees from interpersonal and formal discrimination such as (i) specifically listing prejudice towards nonbinary
and transgender employees as inappropriate within anti-discrimination policies; (ii) incorporating a dress code that
does not differentiate between genders (e.g., encouraging all persons to wear dresses/skirts or pants); and
(iii) designating gender-neutral restrooms within organizations. Further, organizational leaders may help establish
social support networks for nonbinary and transgender people in order to foster positive interactions among
employees of different genders and prevent experiences of mistreatment and ostracism. These social support net-
works can be created by implementing mentorship programmes or internal social networks to increase nonbinary
and transgender employees’ number of professional and personal connections. Further, supportive co-workers could
help to remediate the biases faced by nonbinary and transgender employees by ensuring that they are invited to and
feel comfortable attending informal organizational events (e.g., lunch with co-workers), further enhancing these
forms of social support. Organizational initiatives such as these will likely help to demonstrate to transgender and
nonbinary employees that they are appreciated and valued within their place of work, and that they should feel safe
from the forms of stigmatization and prejudice that were uncovered by our study. Further, implementing policies
such as these will likely help teach employees with majority genders how to treat and support the struggles of their
gender diverse colleagues.
4.3 | Limitations and future directions
One of the major limitations of this study is that the assigned sex and gender variables were manipulated through
the use of vignettes. Thus, it is unclear whether or not our findings would transfer to actual workplace interactions.
While vignettes have been widely used in previous work (Finch, 1987; Jenkins, Bloor, Fischer, Berney, &
Neale, 2010; Rungtusanatham, Wallin, & Eckerd, 2011), and studies have shown that they provide a fair amount of
1188 DRAY ET AL.
external validity (Sleed, Durrheim, Kriel, Solomon, & Baxter, 2002), it is also possible that explicitly stating the gender
and sex of the employees described in the vignettes impacted our results. For example, because the vignette made
the sex and gender of the fictitious employee salient, it may be the case that the participants solely based their
likeability and perceived job performance ratings on these characteristics rather than the individual holistically. Spe-
cifically, future work may build upon this study by showing photos of gender diverse applicants to participants in
place of listing applicants’ sex and gender identities within vignettes. Similarly, future studies may also show rather
than describe the fictitious applicants’ work performance by providing participants with fictitious recommendation
letters or copies of past performance appraisals. Future researchers may also corroborate our findings by utilizing
mixed methods approaches. Incorporating qualitative data on the lived experience of gender diverse employees
would also be an important contribution to this research, especially given the difficulty of recruiting and the lack of
existing knowledge about these populations.
Another limitation of this study was our inability to examine the effects of gender expression (i.e., the appear-
ance of the target) or intersex categories. As clear definitions of ‘intersex’ and ‘gender expression’ were not provided
to participants, and many participants were not familiar with these terms, they failed to correctly categorize these
conditions. Future research should continue to try to examine how individuals perceive intersex people as well as
how they perceive those who express their genders differently than how they identify.
Relatedly, our study failed to examine genders other than man, woman and nonbinary. People with other stigma-
tized gender identities outside of these three categories likely also face unique forms of workplace discrimination.
Future research should attempt to uncover the barriers faced by all stigmatized gender identities, perhaps surveying
non-stigmatized co-workers to assess their perceptions of these different groups or by interviewing these groups
directly about their workplace experiences. Another limitation with our study is the potential for common method
bias, as our predictor and outcome variables were collected at the same time point and from the same source. Future
research should corroborate our findings by incorporating different sources of data to reduce this source of bias.
Also, future work should explore the potential boundary conditions of these relationships, such as differences in
how these gender diverse employees express their genders, the observers’ prior knowledge of or experience with
gender diverse employees and organizational policies pertaining to gender identity minorities.
5 | CO NC LUSIO N
In sum, our study is one of the first to empirically examine the hierarchy of workplace discrimination towards non-
binary and transgender employees. Specifically, this study demonstrates that transgender employees are viewed as
less likeable compared to their cisgender co-workers. Further, this study shows that nonbinary people who were
assigned male at birth are thought to have lower job performance through reduced perceptions of likeability com-
pared to men who were assigned male at birth (i.e., cisgender males). However, these biases did not exist for non-
binary employees who were assigned female at birth and women who were assigned female at birth (i.e., cisgender
females). The results of this study provide clear evidence for gender schema theory (Bem, 1981), and expand upon
this model by examining the experiences of individuals who do not identify within the man/woman gender binary.
These findings may be useful for highlighting unique barriers gender diverse persons experience in workplace con-
texts and encouraging workplace leaders (e.g., managers) to ensure nonbinary and transgender people have a safe
and inclusive working environment.
ACKNOWLEDGEMEN T
Kelly K. Dray and Vaughn E. Smith should be considered joint first author.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTING I NTE RESTS

No authors on this paper have conflicts of interest to declare.
DRAY ET AL. 1189
ORCID
Kelly K. Dray https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7977-525X
Toni P. Kostecki https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4399-4151
Isaac E. Sabat https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4104-5761
ENDNOTES
1
Our initial vignette included a ‘gender expression’ manipulation as well as an ‘intersex’ condition for target sex. These were
excluded from our analyses given that participants failed to correctly categorize these conditions and they did not elicit any
differences in outcomes.
2
These results did not change with the inclusion of participants’ gender identity, sexual orientation, race or level of sexism
as covariates within our model.
RE FE R ENC E S
Adler, P. A., Kless, S. J., & Adler, P. (1992). Socialization to gender roles: Popularity among elementary school boys and girls.
Sociology of Education, 65, 169–187. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112807
Armenakis, A. A., Buckley, M. R., & Bedeian, A. G. (1986). Survey research measurement issues in evaluating change: A
laboratory investigation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 10(2), 147–157.
Aultman, B. (2014). Cisgender. TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly, 1, 61–62.
Badgett, M. V., Lau, H., Sears, B., & Ho, D. (2007). Bias in the workplace: Consistent evidence of sexual orientation and gender
identity discrimination. Retrieved from The Williams Institute. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5h3731xr
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 44, 1–26.
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354
Berdahl, J. L., & Moon, S. H. (2013). Workplace mistreatment of middle class workers based on sex, parenthood, and
caregiving. Journal of Social Issues, 69, 341–366.
Biernat, M. (1991). Gender stereotypes and the relationship between masculinity and femininity: A developmental analysis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 351–365.
Bolino, M. C., Varela, J. A., Bande, B., & Turnley, W. H. (2006). The impact of impression-management tactics on supervisor
ratings of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 281–297.
Brewster, M. E., Velez, B. L., Mennicke, A., & Tebbe, E. (2014). Voices from beyond: A thematic content analysis
of transgender employees’ workplace experiences. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1, 159–169.
Browne, K. (2004). Genderism and the bathroom problem: (Re)materialising sexed sites, (re)creating sexed bodies. Gender,
Place & Culture, 11, 331–346.
Carroll, L., & Gilroy, P. J. (2001). Teaching ‘outside the box’: Incorporating queer theory in counselor education. The Journal
of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 40, 49–57.
Dalton, D. R., Owen, C., & Todor, W. D. (1986). Gender bias in workplace sanctions: A reassessment. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 126, 811–812.
Davidson, M. R. (2014). Development and validation of the Transgender Prejudice Scale (Unpublished master’s thesis). Belling-
ham, WA: Western Washington University.
Davidson, S. (2016). Gender inequality: Nonbinary transgender people in the workplace. Cogent Social Sciences, 2, 1–12.
Denissen, A. M., & Saguy, A. C. (2014). Gendered homophobia and the contradictions of workplace discrimination for
women in the building trades. Gender & Society, 28, 381–403.
Elmore, A. R., & Wilkins, R. D. (1982). Performance rating validity: The relationship of objective and subjective measures of
performance. Group and Organization Studies, 7, 485–496.
Epstein, C. F. (1989). Workplace boundaries: Conceptions and creations. Social Research, 56, 571–590.
Finch, J. (1987). The vignette technique in survey research. Sociology, 21, 105–114.
Fogarty, A. A., & Zheng, L. (2018). Just pick one! In Gender ambiguity in the workplace: Transgender and gender-diverse
discrimination (pp. 87–114). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger/ABC-CLIO.
Gerhardstein, K. R., & Anderson, V. N. (2010). There’s more than meets the eye: Facial appearance and evaluations of
transsexual people. Sex Roles, 62, 361–373.
Gibson, S., & Fernandez, J. (2018). Gender diversity and non-binary inclusion in the workplace the essential guide for employers.
London, UK: Jessica Kingsley.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Model templates for PROCESS for SPSS and SAS.
1190 DRAY ET AL.
Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational
ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657–674.
Hogan, R., & Shelton, D. (1998). A socioanalytic perspective on job performance. Human Performance, 11, 129–144.
Holmes, J., & Schnurr, S. (2006). ‘Doing femininity’ at work: More than just relational practice. Journal of SocioLinguistics, 10,
31–51.
Human Rights Campaign. (n.d.). Violence against the transgender community in 2019. Retrieved from https://www.hrc.org/
resources/violence-against-the-transgender-community-in-2019
Jenkins, N., Bloor, M., Fischer, J., Berney, L., & Neale, J. (2010). Putting it in context: The use of vignettes in qualitative inter-
viewing. Qualitative Research, 10, 175–198.
Kaplan, S. E., Petersen, M. J., & Samuels, J. A. (2007). Effects of subordinate likeability and balanced scorecard format on
performance-related judgments. Advances in Accounting, 23, 85–111.
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader–member exchange: An empirical assessment through
scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43–72.
Madera, J. M., & Hebl, M. R. (2012). Discrimination against facially stigmatized applicants in interviews: An eye-tracking and
face-to-face investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 317–330.
Martinez, L. R., Sawyer, K. B., Thoroughgood, C. N., Ruggs, E. N., & Smith, N. A. (2017). The importance of being ‘me’: The
relation between authentic identity expression and transgender employees’ work-related attitudes and experiences.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 215–226.
Meerwijk, E. L., & Sevelius, J. M. (2017). Transgender population size in the United States: A meta-regression of population-
based probability samples. American Journal of Public Health, 107, 1–8.
Meier, S. C., & Labuski, C. M. (2013). The demographics of the transgender population. In International handbook on the
demography of sexuality (pp. 289–327). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
Miller, L. R., & Grollman, E. A. (2015). The social costs of gender nonconformity for transgender adults: Implications for dis-
crimination and health. Sociological Forum, 30, 809–831.
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (2015).
Parrott, D. J. (2009). Aggression toward gay men as gender role enforcement: Effects of male role norms, sexual prejudice,
and masculine gender role stress. Journal of Personality, 77, 1137–1166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.
00577.x
Prendergast, C., & Topel, R. (1993). Discretion and bias in performance evaluation. European Economic Review, 37, 355–365.
Richards, C., Bouman, W. P., Seal, L., Barker, M. J., Nieder, T. O., & T’Sjoen, G. (2016). Non-binary or genderqueer genders.
International Review of Psychiatry, 28, 95–102. https://doi.org/10.3109/09540261.2015.1106446
Rungtusanatham, M., Wallin, C., & Eckerd, S. (2011). The vignette in a scenario-based role-playing experiment. Journal of
Supply Chain Management, 47, 9–16.
Singh, A. A., Meng, S. E., & Hansen, A. W. (2014). ‘I am my own gender’: Resilience strategies of trans youth. Journal of
Counseling & Development, 92, 208–218.
Sleed, M., Durrheim, K., Kriel, A., Solomon, V., & Baxter, V. (2002). The effectiveness of the vignette methodology: A com-
parison of written and video vignettes in eliciting responses about date rape. South Africa Journal of Psychology, 32,
21–28.
Tebbe, E. A., Allan, B. A., & Bell, H. L. (2019). Work and well-being in TGNC adults: The moderating effect of workplace pro-
tections. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 66(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000308
Wang-Jones, T. T. S., Hauson, A. O., Ferdman, B. M., Hattrup, K., & Lowman, R. L. (2018). Comparing implicit and explicit
attitudes of gay, straight, and non-monosexual groups toward transmen and transwomen. International Journal of Trans-
genderism, 19, 95–106.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1, 125–151.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHI ES
Kelly K. Dray, M.S. is a Ph.D. student in Industrial/Organizational Psychology at Texas A&M University. She has
conducted various projects that examine the development of allies in organizations, the best ways to confront
workplace sexism,and inclusion among women at work (particularly in STEM fields). This work has recently
appearedin Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal.
Vaughn R. E. Smith, B.S. was an undergraduate research assistant in Dr. Isaac Sabat's Industrial/Organizational
Psychology research lab at Texas A&M University while this research was being completed. They have since
graduated with a B.S. in Psychology.
DRAY ET AL. 1191
Toni P. Kostecki, B.A. is a Ph.D. student in Clinical Psychology at Texas A&M University. Her research focuses
on stressors LGBT couples face in- and outside of the workplace. Other areas of research include work-family
spillover, minority stress, and couple-based coping. This work has recently appeared in Annals ofBehavioral
Medicine.
Isaac E. Sabat, Ph.D. is an assistant professor at Texas A&M University and his program of research broadly
focuses on understanding and improving the working lives of stigmatized employees. He is particularly interested
in examining strategies in which these employees can engage, such as disclosing or acknowledging their identi-
ties, to effectively remediate the workplace obstacles that they face. He has conducted various interrelated pro-
jects that examine how the effectiveness of expressing one's identity is impacted by the extent to which stigmas
are previously known, visible, or discovered by others over time. This work has been published in outlets such as
Journal of Business and Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior, and Journal of Vocational Behavior.
Cassidy R. Thomson, B.S. was an undergraduate research assistant in Dr. Isaac Sabat's Industrial/Organizational
Psychology research lab at Texas A&M University while this research was being completed. She has since gradu-
ated with a B.S. in Psychology
How to cite this article: Dray KK, Smith VRE, Kostecki TP, Sabat IE, Thomson CR. Moving beyond the
gender binary: Examining workplace perceptions of nonbinary and transgender employees. Gender Work
Organ. 2020;27:1181–1191. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12455
APP E NDIX: Vignette
‘Imagine Alex is an employee at your current company. Alex is biologically {male/female/intersex}, identifies as {a
man/a woman/neither a man nor a woman}, and has {a feminine appearance/a masculine appearance/neither a mas-
culine nor feminine appearance}. Additionally, Alex has brown hair, brown eyes, and is right-handed. Alex graduated
from college and then worked in the field for five years before joining your company. According to your supervisor,
they have demonstrated a great degree of technical knowledge but have been passed over for regular promotions,
mostly due to their lack of managerial skills.’

Gender Work Organization - 2020 - Dray - Moving Beyond The Gender Binary Examining Workplace Perceptions of Nonbinary

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gender Work Organization - 2020 - Dray - Moving Beyond The Gender Binary Examining Workplace Perceptions of Nonbinary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received: 14 May 2019 Revised: 13 November 2019 Accepted: 15 April 2020

Moving beyond the gender binary: Examining

Kelly K. Dray | Vaughn R. E. Smith | Toni P. Kostecki |

Department of Psychological and Brain

gender identity, nonbinary, sex, transgender, workplace

FIGURE 1 Model of proposed conditional indirect effects

2.3.1 | Liking scale

2.3.2 | Perceived job performance

TABLE 1 Moderated mediation analysis (PROCESS model 7)

Source Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.

4.1 | Theoretical implications

4.2 | Practical implications

4.3 | Limitations and future directions

DECLARATION OF CONFLICTING I NTE RESTS

APP E NDIX: Vignette

You might also like