Lived experiences of sexual minorities in their achievement of leadership and psychosocial well-being in organizational settings

The study addresses the underrepresentation of LGBTQIA+ individuals in leadership, despite 7–15% of the population identifying with this community. Prior work documents a “gay glass ceiling,” heterosexism and heteronormativity in workplaces, and minority stress processes that expose sexual minorities to prejudice, discrimination, vigilance, internalized stigma, and fewer opportunities. Decisions to disclose LGBTQIA+ identity at work depend on perceived organizational climate and safety; disclosure can improve job satisfaction and affective commitment but may invite risk in hostile contexts. The paper situates Brazil and Portugal: both have legal advances against discrimination, yet evidence shows persistent workplace discrimination and underrepresentation of LGBTQIA+ leaders. Additional barriers include gendered leadership stereotypes, status beliefs, internalized stigma, and systemic heteronormativity; intersectionality (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender) can compound marginalization. The concept of queer leadership is introduced as leadership that makes LGBTQIA+ identities visible, challenges heteronormative organizational practices, and promotes inclusive and socially just environments. The research gap concerns lived experiences of LGBTQIA+ leaders in Portugal and Brazil and their psychosocial well-being. The study aims to explore leadership and identity development processes, organizational contexts, and implications for health and well-being, comparing both countries.

Key literature highlights: gay glass ceiling effects and bias in perceived leadership effectiveness for gay/lesbian leaders; minority stress theory describing stigma-related stressors and health impacts; disclosure at work linked to higher satisfaction and lower anxiety, moderated by climate; structural heterosexism and modern forms of discrimination (overt and covert microaggressions); intersectionality increasing vulnerability (e.g., racial minorities, women, trans people); queer leadership/activism integrating identity and leadership to disrupt heteronormativity; mixed evidence on market effects of LGBTQIA+ leadership, with some studies showing firm value benefits; contextual specifics in Brazil (legal protections alongside high violence and underrepresentation) and Portugal (EU protections, but continued discrimination and closet re-entry). This body of work motivates a qualitative, contextualized exploration of LGBTQIA+ leaders’ narratives in Portugal and Brazil focusing on identity management, organizational climate, and psychosocial outcomes.

Design: Qualitative content/thematic analysis of electronic interviews, following COREQ principles. Inductive, predominantly semantic thematic analysis per Braun and Clarke; codebook developed to ensure consistency; MAXQDA v24 used for coding; IBM SPSS v29 and Excel 365 used for descriptive analyses. Ethics: Anonymity, confidentiality, informed consent assured; ethics approval: University of Beira Interior (CE-UBI-Pj-2024-022-ID2212). Participants and sampling: Convenience sample of adults (≥18) who self-identified as LGBTQIA+, resided in Portugal or Brazil, and were or had been in organizational leadership roles. Data collection Sep 26–Nov 24, 2023. Of 54 respondents, 45 met criteria. Country: Portugal n=24 (53.3%), Brazil n=21 (46.7%). Age range 21–63 (mean ≈39.42, SD=10.32). Gender identity: 23 women (51.1%), 21 men (46.7%), 1 nonbinary (2.2%); 6 trans (13.3%). Sexual orientation: gay 31.1%, bisexual/pansexual 31.1%, lesbian 24.4%, heterosexual 13.3%. Most lived in big cities (64.4%) and reported average SES (37.8%). Employment: 42.2% employees; 44.4% managers; 68.9% in private sector; 77.3% tertiary sector. Workload mean ≈39.47 h/week (SD=19.73); leadership experience mean ≈6.89 years (SD=8.56); self-rated performance satisfaction mean ≈7.63/10 (SD=2.11). Instruments: (1) Sociodemographic questionnaire (age, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status, education, residence, SES, professional status, leadership role and tenure, employment relationship, shifts, weekly hours, organization type/sector/size, and 1–10 performance satisfaction). (2) Electronic interview with eight open-ended questions covering career trajectory, organizational climate, visibility/respect/discrimination, challenges and coping, health/well-being impacts, intersectionality, extraprofessional demands, and additional comments. Procedures: Recruitment via mailing lists and social media posts/groups; ~300 direct contact requests; response rate ~20%. Microsoft Forms used for consent and data collection. Analysis: Thematic analysis steps: familiarization, initial coding, theme search, review, definition/naming, and reporting. Inductive approach with a codebook to balance reliability and reflective analysis; inclusion of illustrative participant quotes.

- Eleven recurring themes identified: LGBTQIA+ negativity; Health impacts; LGBTQIA+ identity (out/in closet; activism); Impact of LGBTQIA+ identity on leadership (organizational engagement/disengagement); Intersectionality (gender, age, race/ethnicity); Organizational climate (friendly/hostile); Professional development (promotion, labor transition, professional breakup, corporate communication); Personal characteristics (emotional intelligence, professionalism); Social support (support/lack of support); Coping strategies (emotion-focused, problem-focused, other); Inspirational leadership (role model). - LGBTQIA+ negativity was most frequent. Modern negativity (overt and covert discrimination, jokes/microaggressions) was more often reported in Brazil (modern negativity counts: PT=16, BR=41) alongside structural heterosexism. Some reported absence of negativity (PT=33, BR=25), often in inclusive teams or organizations with explicit D&I policies. - Health impacts: equally frequent across countries (PT=25, BR=25), including anxiety, depression, stress, burnout, somatic symptoms, workaholism; many sought psychological support. - LGBTQIA+ identity management: Out of the closet frequently reported (PT=29, BR=26); In the closet also common (PT=18, BR=16) via avoidance/counterfeiting due to client context, perceived risks, or privacy norms; activism present (PT=5, BR=7). - Impact on leadership: Many described organizational engagement of LGBTQIA+ identity (e.g., integrating identity into leadership, affirmative policies, visibility and empowerment). Some reported disengagement, asserting sexuality was irrelevant to work (“liberal homophobia” dynamic). - Intersectionality: Gender issues commonly cited (PT=11, BR=20), with sexism in male-dominated sectors; age issues included both ageism toward older leaders and credibility challenges for younger leaders (PT age=5, BR=4); race/ethnicity concerns reported more in Brazil (PT=2, BR=9), including racism/xenophobia. - Organizational climate: More often perceived as friendly/collaborative (PT=24, BR=25) than hostile (PT=11, BR=4). Hostility included insufficient support (e.g., during COVID-19) and competitive contexts even among LGBTQIA+ leaders. - Professional development: Promotions via performance and tenure (PT=6, BR=14); labor transitions (PT=2, BR=4); professional breakups/terminations often linked to harassment or retaliation (PT=1, BR=8); corporate communication used to address discrimination and raise visibility (PT=25, BR=12), including invoking legislation, training, and open dialogues. - Personal characteristics: Emotional intelligence emphasized (PT=19, BR=20); professionalism traits (responsibility, perfectionism, determination) cited (PT=20, BR=9). - Social support: Predominantly present (PT=15, BR=16) from family, partners, community; some reported lack of support (PT=8, BR=4) and isolation. - Coping: Emotion-focused strategies were most common (PT=13, BR=3), including acceptance and positive reinterpretation; problem-focused coping also used (PT=8, BR=3) via planning and action. - Inspirational leadership: Many felt they served as role models (PT=9, BR=9), balancing visibility responsibility and personal authenticity.

Findings confirm persistent heterosexism and modern negativity toward LGBTQIA+ leaders, with Brazilian participants reporting more frequent covert/overt discrimination and greater career disruptions. Despite this, many experienced generally friendly organizational climates, which, along with strong social support, may buffer minority stress impacts. Health consequences were salient and comparable across countries, underscoring the transnational nature of stigma-related stress. Identity management varied: substantial numbers were out, often leveraging visibility to challenge heteronormativity and enact queer leadership practices, while others remained closeted due to safety, client context, or privacy norms. Engagement of LGBTQIA+ identity in leadership aligned with authentic leadership narratives and empowerment; disengagement statements highlighted a perceived separation between identity and professional competence. Intersectional challenges were prominent, especially sexism and racism in Brazil, reflecting broader socio-political contexts and underrepresentation. Portuguese participants more often emphasized professionalism and used a broader repertoire of coping (emotion- and problem-focused) and communicative strategies to promote inclusion and visibility. Brazilian participants highlighted emotional intelligence and sometimes disengagement coping but also active communication to address workplace issues. Overall, the results extend minority stress and queer leadership frameworks by detailing how LGBTQIA+ leaders in different Lusophone contexts negotiate identity, lead inclusively, and safeguard well-being.

LGBTQIA+ leaders in Portugal and Brazil share experiences of discrimination alongside generally positive organizational climates and strong social support. Many integrate LGBTQIA+ identity into leadership to challenge heteronormativity and serve as role models, while others strategically remain less visible. Psychological impacts are significant across contexts, validating minority stress theory. Differences emerged: Portuguese participants more often reported absence of negativity, professionalism, and diversified coping and communication for visibility; Brazilian participants reported more intersectional (gender, race) adversities, career transitions/breaks, and emotional intelligence-driven coping with active communication. The study helps fill the gap on LGBTQIA+ leadership experiences in Lusophone contexts and offers insights for policy and organizational practice to enhance inclusion and leader well-being. Future research should examine specific psychopathology and health trajectories longitudinally, and focus more on ethnic-racial minority leaders (notably in Portugal), further elaborating queer leadership practices and their organizational impacts.

- Online, self-administered electronic interviews limited opportunities for probing/clarification. - Convenience sampling limits representativeness and generalizability; likely participation bias toward those willing to share qualitative narratives. - Cross-sectional design with insufficient longitudinal data to evaluate changes over time. - Potential homogeneity in personality profiles and perspectives due to recruitment channels; limited access to divergent experiences.