Receipt date: 10/01/2023 / Revision date: 09/03/2023 / Acceptance date: 10/05/2023

Introduction

The globalization process has accentuated inequalities in many areas, one of them being the labor market and its dynamics (Burín, et al. 2007). Included in this phenomenon, there has been exclusion of all minority groups, and particularly of members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual, Transvestite, and Intersexual community [LGBTI+] and other non-normative (Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, CIDH, 2015) Sexual Orientation and/or Gender Identities [SOGI] (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía [INEGI], 2022) who cannot aspire to equal labor conditions such as those offered to people with normative gender identity and orientation. 

In Mexico, the results of the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination Survey, ENDOSIG for its Spanish acronym, (Comisión Nacional para Prevenir la Discriminación [CONAPRED] & Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos [CNDH], 2019), also demonstrate the prevalence of discrimination in employment for this specific group, as one out of every two people surveyed is not open about their SOGI at their workplace and had stopped attending to work related activities fearing being discriminated. Three out of four, or up to 75% of the surveyed people, feared being discriminated for reasons that normative SOGI people do not ponder, such as fully express their gender identity, giving public affection to their partners or sharing their SOGI with their coworkers or supervisors. 

Another glance of discrimination is shown in the results of the Sexual Diversity and Gender National Survey, known by its abbreviation ENDISEG, where 28.1% of LGBTI+ community answered that in the last 12 months, they had suffered at least once, one of the following: unequal treatment on labor rights, benefits or promotions, offensive commentaries or have been teased in their work areas (INEGI, 2022). And if we dig deeper, discrimination in labor areas is suffered differently between SOGIs. For example, 41% of trans people surveyed by Labor inclusion and diversity alliance non-governmental organization (Alianza por la Diversidad e Inclusión Laboral [ADIL], 2018), nevertheless having a bachelor’s degree, showed the less work experience all SOGIs, and the same goes to non-binary people.

Even when the companies come from countries where inclusive legislation exists and their inclusive policies are included in their sustainability reports worldwide, in Mexico the effectiveness of these policies is questionable and in many times the application of these policies is not measured in their local sustainability reports (Vázquez et al., 2020). 

In this sense, and in general, inclusion can be considered as a necessary strategy for the reduction of discrimination of any vulnerable population. The concept of inclusion has different meanings; in a broad sense it focuses on the social relations, processes and institutions that encourage the integration of certain groups and the exclusion of others (Haan, 2000).

Inclusive organizations present advantages over those that deny integration and talent conservation for reasons of discrimination based on their gender, beliefs, sexual preferences, disability, age, race, or health situation (Ocaña, 2018).

Work motivation, on the other hand, is an indicator of well-being within the work environment and is influenced (among other factors), by interpersonal relationships, violence, and discrimination at work, as well as unequal opportunities, permanence, and development in the organization; work stress and broad personality expression (Buddel, 2011; Powers, 2008). 

In Mexico, legislation towards inclusion is only halfway (Vázquez, et al., 2021). Legislation in a national level explicitly prohibit workplace discrimination on hiring, recruitment, access to employer-provided training, promotions, demotions, terminations, and equal payment based on sexual orientation. But it does not provide the same rights on regard of prohibition of indirect discrimination or retaliation for reporting workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. Furthermore, neither of the previous rights are granted by the existing legislation based on gender identity. (World Policy Analysis Center [WPC] 2022) 

A survey made by the Victims Attention Executive Commission and Rainbow Foundation in México in 2018 showed that one of every 6 participants considered that their SOGI was an obstacle to access any job, 43% of the participants had suffer from harassment and 78% argued that labor discrimination had impacted their professional and personal development. Also, this study revealed that the most common discrimination behaviors towards LGBTI+ community from their employees are unnecessary health diagnosis, unequal roughness in the selection process, unequal payment regard of having the same position, less development opportunities, actions driven to ascertain their sexual orientation, and physical or verbal aggression (Comisión Estatal de Víctimas & Fundación Arcoíris, 2019).

The state of Nuevo León represents the strongest state in economic terms, and the most industrialized in the country (Real Estate Market & LifeStyle, 2018); good quality of life prevails, providing access to health and education services. However, its capital city appears with a rating of CC (low), placing it as a partially open city for the LGBTI+ community (Miller & Parker, 2018). In addition, the results of the ENDOSIG 2018, place the entity as a frontrunner in terms of discrimination towards sexual minorities (CONAPRED & CNDH, 2018). 

To close the gap between the legislation development on basis of sexual orientation and on gender identity (WPC. 2022), and to pair economic growth with social inclusion (Vázquez, 2022), it is necessary to talk about the differences between the inclusion policies and their implementation, in a subnational and institutional level. 

It therefore becomes imperative to generate scientific knowledge on the impact of developing policies and practices of inclusion, diversity, and prevention of discrimination within organizations and their impact on the motivation of LGBTI+ employees, which in turn influences labor productivity. As a starting point, this study aims to develop a methodology that allows for a comparison between organizations: those that have had more experience in the implementation of inclusion policies and practices and have reached sufficient maturity, versus important companies in the State of Nuevo Leon that are at the earlier stages of opening to LGBTI+ minorities.

The events that marked the beginning of movements for the modern rights of sexual minorities served as a catalyst for the creation of groups who sought the recognition of rights for individuals regardless of their gender, sexual preference, gender identity or gender expression. 

One of the first groups created is the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Intersex Association, back in 1978 in the United Kingdom, which was formed as a federation of local and national organizations dedicated to achieving equal rights worldwide (International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Intersex Association [ILGA], 2017). Separately, in the United Kingdom, Stonewall emerged in 1989, whose work has been fundamental in protecting the rights of the LGBTI+ community ranging from universal marriage, adoption, labor equality and non-discrimination.  In the case of the trans community, TGEU or Transgender Europe is recognized, founded in 2005 in Berlin, Germany that works in conjunction with the European Union, ILGA and more than 112 organizations with a mission to support a voice for the trans community and to be a platform that advocates for trans rights and justice (Transgender Europe [TGEU], 2018).

The advocacy focusses of movements fighting for the rights of sexual minorities has traditionally been on healthcare rights, gender identity, non-discrimination, and equal marriage, while a focus on equality in the workplace would not become visible until recently, with the participation in the18th March for Diversity of a group of companies forming a collective called Pride Connection. The purpose of Pride Connection was to share experiences and strengthen best practices for an inclusive and diverse work environment, prevent discrimination, attract allies, and raise awareness about the inclusion of LGBTI+ minorities. In this area, various groups have created methodologies to measure the degree of policies and practices of inclusion and non-discrimination of minorities in different areas. 

The organizations ILGA, Rainbow Europe, WPC and TGEU analyze the legislation of each country, supported by a network of activists, organizations and local associations that provide information; these studies focus directly on the efforts of the governments of countries around the world to protect sexual minorities from acts of discrimination and violence. They do not measure the degree of motivation of populations or their perception of the degree of discrimination, or recognition and exercise of their human rights (ILGA, 2019; International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Intersex Association- Europe [ILGA-Europe], 2019; TGEU, 2018). In these measurements, protection from labor discrimination is included. 

The Open for Business organization (Miller & Parker, 2018); on the other hand, has developed several studies and reports under the premise that diverse and inclusive cities are more competitive because they promote innovation, attract highly skilled talent, and have companies with high business growth rates. The organization performs an evaluation to analyze how inclusive a city is, including 23 parameters that address social, economic, and legal factors in various aspects of competitiveness, national competitiveness, cultural values, and governance. 

The measurement of labor inclusion and non-discrimination at work was fundamentally driven by organizations that work in the pursuit of recognition and effectiveness of sexual minorities rights. The main objective of these evaluations is to put inequality in the spotlight (labor, legal and social discrimination oriented towards LGBTI+ community is still a mayor cultural and structural problem) and to establish a roadmap to address the gaps of social and economic growth within the community and determine affirmative actions towards equality.

Stonewall (2018), for example, has developed a Global Workplace Equality Index that is yearly reviewed and issued in a report on the best employers for the LGBTI+ population (Top Global Employers). The methodology of this study includes the voluntary submission by each employing organization of evidence of its performance in implementing LGBTI+ inclusion and diversity policies and practices (Stonewall, 2018). The evidence includes the areas of policy, training, management team engagement, leadership, monitoring, procurement, community involvement and understanding of the local context, global mobility, and additional in-country activities, which are evaluated and considered as variables in the index.  The index is a tool that helps organizations navigate from a situational diagnosis and move towards LGBTI+ employee equity at work and beyond (Stonewall, 2015). 

Human Rights Campaign (2019), on the other hand, evaluates the protection of employees through policies regarding sexual orientation, gender identity and expression. Important variables measured include the equivalence of health insurance for all individuals, support for a culture of inclusion and corporate social responsibility; conditions for gender transition, work climate surveys, establishment of a diversity committee or group of LGBTI+ employees, efforts to demonstrate commitment and extend actions outside the organization and existence of cases or complaints of discrimination against employees. It is noticeable that Stonewall and Human Rights Campaign recognize the importance of policies first, then inclusion and diversity practices, staff training, affirmative action to level the playing field and means to address any rights violations. 

In Mexico, governmental efforts have had a progressive improvement in the visibilization of this phenomenon, institutions such as INEGI, CONAPRED and CNDH have developed surveys to measure discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity such as ENADIS (INEGI, 2018), ENDOSIG (CONAPRED & CNDH, 2019) and ENDISEG (INEGI, 2022). Non-governmental organizations also have also shed a light in the specifics of SOGI labor discrimination, ADIL, Rainbow Foundation and the governmental organization Victims Attention Executive Committee developed surveys to measure labor assets, diversity among workspaces and a national diagnosis of labor rights and discrimination of LGBTI+ community in Mexico (Comisión Estatal de Víctimas & Fundación Arcoíris, 2019). 

The Sexual Diversity and Gender National Survey, ENDISEG, led by INEGI in the year 2021, was driven with a methodology of stratified and cluster sampling, surveying up to 44,189 participants and representing up to 97.2 million people. The survey was applied with a hybrid questionnaire, face to face for questions that were less sensitive and a pre-recorded and interactive audio interview for the more sensitive questions (INEGI, 2022). Within the survey the results showed sociodemographic statistics such as total population nationally and in a subnational level, age, labor situation, school assistance and educational level, marriage, co-living situation, disability, and health care access. It also showed aspects of their childhood, sexuality, mental health and more significant for our investigation social rejection at work. Another effort to reach sub represented groups (such as pansexual, asexual and gender fluid people) was made by making this survey accessible in a webpage, where people could answer voluntarily (INEGI, 2022). 

For the case of the National Survey on Discrimination, ENADIS, the methodology was through the application of an electronic questionnaire collected face-to-face by interview (INEGI, 2018) with subjects selected by probability sampling (INEGI, 2018). Included in the survey, are the prevalence of discrimination, or perception of having been discriminated against in the last year, unjustified denial of their rights, prevalence of discrimination based on sexual orientation, perception of respect for their rights, openness to diversity, values, and attitudes towards same-sex couples.

The Survey on Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, ENDOSIG, on the other hand had a different methodology, making a questionnaire throughout an electronic tool on the website of both CONAPRED and CNDH. The sample was not selected, but rather responses were received according to the volunteers to participate and there was a large concentration of responses in Mexico City and the young and educated population that has more access to social networks and internet, thus the survey had a considerable bias (CONAPRED & CNDH, 2019). It is noteworthy that this survey already collects data on the prevalence of discrimination at work and the consequences of this reflected in fear. The questionnaire surveys for, among others, life stage at which people self-identified in terms of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, perception of the degree of respect for their rights, hostile social context, unjustified denial of their rights, discriminatory experiences at work, fear of suffering discrimination, suicidal ideation or attempt because of discrimination (CONAPRED & CNDH, 2019).

Another effort to measure the impact of inclusion in business was made by ADIL. Back in 2014, ADIL made their first national survey on homophobia in labor which led to know very important aspects of the LGBTI+ community such as occupation, income, main economic activity, labor discrimination, harassment, complaint of labor harassment and intimidation. In 2015 another survey was led by ADIL, putting the spotlight in labor inclusion and diversity, and showing the perception LGBTI+ people on the inclusive policies of their employees, productivity, sense of belonging and a comparison to other excluded group withing the enterprise. The survey made by ADIL 2018 made a specific effort to answer the main questions that employers are making on regard of improving their inclusive strategies. The specific objectives of this recent survey were to know labor assets of the working age LGBTI+ population their working situation, labor experience, academic formation, income, and its segmentation. 

This surveys have thriven a significant impact on social awareness and a massive call to action. The increasing participation of organizations, awareness of the economic and social impact of SOGI based discrimination and the legal improvements have been noted throughout the nation. (HRC, 2019).

Therefore, to dig deeper into this phenomenon and shed a light of it in the local spectrum, the objective of this study is to evaluate the non-causal correlation between inclusive policy implementation in companies in Nuevo León, Mexico, and their employee’s motivation.

Method

Design. Considering the prerequisites for establishment of causal links and the plausibility of the results, the experimental design was carried out as described by Hernández Sampieri (2014). Questionnaires are used as non-experimental cross-sectional research used to establish correlational-causal relationships. The research started from a quantitative approach, based on data collection and its statistical analysis for the establishment of conclusions of the study. 

As a first methodological step, a pilot questionnaire was developed and applied to employees working in the selected organizations; the evaluation criteria for labor inclusion were determined based on the identified variables and the possible responses were weighted. Once the feedback from the pilot questionnaire was received, the questions initially formulated were adapted to facilitate understanding and coherence, as well as to eliminate possible questions that could represent a bias in the results.

Study group. Access to members of the LGBTI+ population was made through contacts with civil and industrial organizations such as Mexican Federation of LGBTTI Companies, LGBTI+ Mexican Coalition, ExploraT, GESS, Pride Connection, Litiga, Curch of the Metropolitan Community, Transamor and Diversitas. Obtaining a database of participants working in 54 different companies (table 1). Of all the contacts established, only participants whose company operated in the state of Nuevo León were selected (52).

Table 1.
Organizations in which the instrument was applied in an alphabetical other.

Organizations
Adidas	Grupo Posadas	Mondelez Kraft
Alsea	Grupo Soriana	Municipio de la Ciudad de Monterrey
Aluregio SA	HEB	Nemak
Atos	Heineken	Nestlé
Automotris	Henkel	Ocesa
Banamex	Herbax	Pepsi Co
BAT British American To	herdez	Pfizer
BCG	Home depot	Polaroid
Beiersdoff	ITESM	Schneider Electric
Carone	J&J	SEP
Christus Muguerza	Kraft Heinz	Teleflex
Cristian Torres Nutriólogo	La Ventana	Ternium
Danone	Lancome	Torogia
Dante Quintana	LCG Imagen y Comunicación SA de CV	Toyota
Experts Environmental Consultants	LEGO	Uber
FEMSA	Lixil Group	Vidusa
Ferrero	Lixil Water Technology Americas	Walmart
General Electric	Lola
Grainger	L´Oreal
Grupo Idesa	Maditrex Forwarding
Grupo Modelo	Mattel

As the research focuses on the identification of two types of companies (those that have incorporated in their policies, practices, and strategies to encourage labor inclusion of sexual minorities, and those that have not yet made much progress in this regard), to categorize the companies in the study, the policies, and practices of companies with operations in the State of Nuevo León were reviewed, resulting in a control group. The initial control group is composed of employees of two companies that have openly declared a policy of inclusion, diversity, and non-discrimination, as well as advanced practices in their implementation (Accenture and General Electric). 

The study group - Group B – is integrated by workers from different companies in the State of Nuevo León, where inclusion, diversity and non-discrimination policies have not been implemented, or at least, the degree of implementation of their practices to increase the inclusion of sexual minorities has not been as high as that of the companies to which the people in the control group belong.

The functions performed by the participants of both groups within their respective organizations are varied, ranging from internal diversity or LGBTI+ association, LGBTI+ employee in another area, management, human resources, recruitment, social responsibility or sustainability, public relations, marketing, and legal department.

Respondents' ages ranged from 18 to 50 years old and identified themselves as male, female, transgender male or transgender female with homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, queer, or gender fluid sexual preferences.

Instrument. Two instruments were applied to each of the individuals interviewed. Anonymity was crucial in terms of the application of the instrument, despite the application through LGBTI+ labor recognition organizations, their SOGI was kept secret and a significant part of the subjects find out of the survey and answered it through a snowball sampling effect. In the first questionnaire on labor inclusion of sexual minorities, the items were focused on the actions taken by the employer to promote labor inclusion. This instrument will be used to measure the degree of implementation of such plans and programs. In a second stage, the "Labor Motivation Questionnaire" will be used to measure the degree of labor motivation of the employees interviewed.

In the case of the development of the instrument for the measurement of work motivation, Maslow (1943), McClelland's & Burnham (2003), Alderfer (1972) and Herzberg (1968) theories of necessity were used as a basis for the formulation of the items. 

The variable "degree of labor inclusion" of the organizations is described in this work as all actions aimed at achieving labor equality, improvement in working conditions and non-discrimination for homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, transgender, transvestite and intersex persons. The variable “degree of labor inclusion” is composed of the following dimensions:

Policies and action plans for the inclusion of sexual minorities, equal employment opportunity, egalitarian training and development plan, and organizational communication regarding LGBTI+ issues. 

Policies and action plans for inclusion of sexual minorities, known in Results section as “Policies”, measured perception of the participants of the level of publicity of these policies in webpages, sustainability reports, publicity campaigns or merch documentation and the implementation of gender equality, non-discrimination, and inclusive action plans such as equal labor opportunities for people with non-normative SOGIs. Equal employment opportunities, referred hereby as “Employment”, assessed human resources processes of selection and hiring, promotion, equal salaries, benefits such as gender equity capacitation, training in LGBTI+ rights and obligations, inclusive language, and technique trainings for productivity improvement for trans people. Egalitarian training and development plan, which can be found in Results section as “Development”, included constant training, non-discriminatory policies explained and teach since the hiring process, the existence of committees or groups who can evaluate, intervene, and reaffirm the porpoise of the action plan, process complaints in this matter and take empowerment effective actions toward LGBTI+ employees. Organizational communication regarding LGBTI+ issues dimension, assess working environment, inside and outside communicational efforts, the existence of pathways to present complains, complaints and recommendations, and protects victims from harassment on regard their SOGI; this variable was referred as “Communication”.

Each of the dimensions of this variable is included in the research instrument through five questions that, depending on the answer, could acquire a value from 1 to 5. 

The variable “employee motivation” has five dimensions that are explored in this study through a quantitative assessment: interest in the task performed (Task), sense of achievement and appreciation (Self-realization), interpersonal relationships (Belonging), ability to express his or her opinion (Influence) and sense of recognition for the tasks (Recognition). The instrument evaluates the extent of the variable through five questions that, depending on the answer, can acquire a value from 1 to 5.

This questionnaire survey resulted in decisions that led to the construction of the pilot instrument. This pilot instrument was applied to 27 volunteers to obtain feedback; among the comments received, the opinion was that the items were too long, with confirmation bias or containing two or more questions per item. Once the final instrument was obtained, a letter of informed consent was signed by each of the participants before the application of the instrument.

Data analysis. The method of validation consisted in the application of the survey on a pilot group to determine its applicability and validity and calculate initial reliability and validity. Feedback was also received during the application regarding the vocabulary and the syntaxis of the questions.

With the purpose to relate the actual data obtained from the instruments to the construct, using an evaluation scale to reflect the incidence presented, the statistical analysis was firstly submitted to a measurement of internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, using the IBM SPSS v.26 statistical package. A value equal or greater than 0.7 on this scale, indicate the coherence of the answers given by DeVellis & Thorpe (2021).

Subsequently, an exploration of the data was carried out through descriptive statistics, in order to detect the composition of the sampled groups in terms of age, sex, sexual preference, country of origin of the employing organizations of the study subjects, religion, marital status and the presence of children in the family. This exploration was carried out through the calculation of measures of central tendency and variability.

Once this information was obtained, a k-means cluster analysis was performed to form two groups, allowing the formation of a group of organizations with good inclusion policies for LGBTI+ employees, as well as a group composed of those organizations with inclusion policies implemented to a lesser degree. 

To the groups resulting from the cluster analysis, a single factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed, in order to detect if there exists any significant difference between the motivation of both groups, considering as significant a p-value of ≤ 0.05a value greater than 0.70 as the minimum acceptable threshold. 

In concordance with this intention, the correlation between the independent variables that comprise labor inclusion and the dependent variables that account for staff motivation was calculated in conjunction with its significance degree and assumed the be the strength of the relationship between variables.

Results

The resulting Pearson correlation between inclusion and motivation variables were found to be 0.242 (p > 0.005) and therefore considered as not significant. This result can be explained by the multi-factorial causality of the labor motivation variable, it also suggests that the correlation rather than being significant, it is positive, it may not have a strong Pearson correlation coefficient because of this multifactorial motivation variable but it gives a startup to analyze how motivation dimensions can impact and correlate to the organization efforts on inclusive policies. 

In order to give the instrument deeper analysis, each dimension of the inclusive variable was analyzed with the general level of motivation, showing non-significant results, secondly the motivation was torn in its five dimensions and each dimension was paired with the general level of inclusiveness, showing a significant result only in one of its elements. Thirdly the Pearson Correlation analysis was made with the general resulting level of inclusion and the level of the motivation. 

The evaluation of every element of motivation, resulted in only one element with a significant correlation (recognition) of 0.307 (p< 0.005), indicating that LGBTI+ employees may perceive themselves as less recognized in companies with lower degree of inclusion policies and programs, and therefore less motivated.

As shown in Table 2, Group A has clearly a larger degree of inclusion of LGBTI+ minority group in all axes: implementation of policies, equal job opportunities, development for employees, and communication actions. The mean values for all four variables were at least four times bigger than compared to Group B. The biggest gap is observed in the variable related to the development opportunities for LGBTI+ employees. The Pearson’s Correlation results between the four variables of inclusion and level of motivation is in general were non-significant, with a weak correlation value. However, the highest positive correlation coefficient was seen in equal employment opportunities and communication. 

Table 2

Correlation of inclusion variables per study group and degree of motivation. 

		Variable
		Policies e	Employment e	Development e	Communication e
Group A a	Mean	12.19	13.12	12.12	11.73
	N	26	26	26	26
	Std. Deviation	2.333	2.251	1.633	2.051
Group B b	Mean	2.18	3.39	0.68	2.00
	N	28	28	28	28
	Std. Deviation	2.195	3.843	1.278	2.037
Motivation c		0.215	0.277*	0.205	0.234*
p d		0.051	0.011	0.063	0.033

Then, to get further analysis, the variable of inclusion was torn in its four dimensions and each one of them was analyzed with the general level of inclusion. The Table 3 demonstrates the correlation between the five elements of motivation: task, influence, belonging, self-realization, and recognition, to the total degree of inclusion in Groups A and B. Results show only a moderate significant correlation in the element “Recognition” with the level of 0.307 (p< 0.005), coefficient higher than 0.25 and also higher by one half than each correlation level of belonging and self-realization (both 0.203), and twice the level of the element of task which was 0.145.

Table 3

Correlation between variables of motivation and the observed level of inclusion 

		Variable
		Task e	Influece e	Belonging e	Self-realization e	Recognition e
Group A a	M	23.31	22.81	24.19	23.38	22.84
	Std. deviation	2.363	3.073	1.497	2.368	2.853
Group B b	Mean	22.68	21.57	22.71	22.07	20.39
	Std. deviation	3.772	4.392	4.171	4.413	4.947
Inclusion c		0.145	0.211	0.203	0.203	0.307**
p d		0.189	0.054	0.64	0.64	0.005

Pearson correlation between the implementation of inclusion policies and the level of motivation was verified. Table 4 shows a result of 0.242, which is non-significant, given the coefficient lower than 0.25 though a bilateral significance (p value) lower than 0.05. 

Table 4

Correlation between degree of inclusion and level of motivation.

		Inclusion policies	Motivation
Inclusion policies	Pearson’s Correlation	1	0.242*
	Sig. (bilateral)		0.027
	N	84	83

Notes: Observed correlation between the degree of implementation of inclusion policies within a company and the observed level of motivation of employees.

* p < .05. ** p < .01

Group A is comprised by two major employers, which countries of origin are United Stated of America and Ireland. Group B includes companies with head offices in a variety of countries: France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands and United States of America. Figure 1 shows the results in the degree of inclusion based on the origin of the companies that participated in the study. 

Figure 1. 

Mean degree of inclusion, per country of origin.

As shown in Vazquez, et. Al. (2020) transnational companies have weak concordance between their origin country legislative efforts towards the elimination of SOGIs labor discrimination, and the implementation of SOGIs inclusiveness policies within the subsidiaries that operate in Mexico. 

Another notation for figure 1 is found in the deviation standards between the degree of motivation of companies which origin country is Mexico and United States (excluding Group A, General Electric which is above average) compared with France, Italy, Japan, Luxemburg, and Netherlands.

Figure 2 shows the dispersion of individuals’ motivation against degree of inclusion perceived by employees in their organizations. A broader dispersion is observed in Group B compared to Group A. Although there are employees fully motivated in both groups, more individual have a lower degree of motivation in Group B. 

Figure 2. 

Resulting motivation per degree of inclusion policies in the organization.

Recognition was the motivation element with the highest correlation with organizational degree of LGBTI+ inclusion. The Figure 3 shows the dispersion between individuals’ recognition level compared to the degree of total inclusion (including four dimensions). 

Figure 3.

Perception of recognition by employees working in organizations with varying levels of implementation of inclusion policies.

 

Discussion and conclusions

Finally, Group A responses to their perception on how their organizations have implemented inclusion policies and programs were in average in 49 points, which is close to half of the possible points in the measuring methodology. These companies openly communicate their diversity and inclusion policies, but still have not been able to permeate to all their LGBTI+ employees. Group B responses were considerably low compared to Group A with an average of 8 points. Even this study does not represent a statistically sound sample of employers, the results show that a wide range of companies in Nuevo Leon, Mexico, have not implemented diversity programs that prevent LGBTI+ discrimination and promotes inclusion. 

In general, Mexican companies are less inclusive than foreign organization with subsidiaries in Mexico (Vazquez, et al. 2022), as can be seen in the Figure 4. Companies with head offices in countries with a longer history in LGBTI+ rights, such as Ireland, USA, Netherlands or Luxembourg, are perceived as more inclusive by the responding employees. That is especially observable in companies based in Anglo-Saxon countries, which have a high degree of protection for these minorities as observed by ILGA (2019) and ILGA Europe (2019).

Motivation in the workplace, being a multi-factorial issue, its correlation to inclusion programs implementation was studied. The results from Pearson correlation between inclusion and motivation variables were found in 0.242, which means correlation, thus being positive, is not significant. When considering every element of motivation, the only one with a significant correlation was recognition. This means that LGBTI+ employees may perceive themselves as less recognized in companies with lower degree of inclusion policies and programs. As stated by Miller & Parker (2018), a more inclusive environment attracts talent, and the result of this study confirms that recognition, an influencing variable for employees’ retention is influenced by the inclusion degree of organizations.  On the other hand, the specific elements of inclusion that correlate more to motivation are equal employment opportunities (Employment) as well as increasing communication (Communication) efforts to increase awareness of all employees. 

In conclusion, there are much to do in terms of LGBTI+ inclusion in organizations in Nuevo Leon, Mexico, which is congruent with results from ENADIS (INEGI, 2018), ENDOSIG (CONAPRED & CNDH, 2019) and ENDISEG (INEGI, 2021) surveys. Since no single organization was perceived by employees to have more than 65 out of 100 points of the inclusion scale, considering the policies and programs for LGBTI+ diversity and inclusion. Even most companies were found to have a non-discrimination policy, the main focus may be to effectively hire individual from these minorities and extensively communicate the inclusion policies and programs throughout their organizations as well as externally. One good reason for that is the effect these actions have in employees’ recognition, and therefore their permanence and growth in the organization.

References

Alderfer, C. P. (1972). Existence, relatedness, and growth: Human needs in organizational settings. Free Press. ISBN: 978-00-2900-3909

Alianza por la Diversidad e Inclusión Laboral. (2018). Encuesta sobre Diversidad y Talento LGBT 2018, https://adilmexico.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/ResultadosEncuestaDivyTalLGBTADIL2018-1.pdf 

Arias, F. G. (2012) ElProyecto de Investigación. Introducción a la Metodología Científica (6^th ed.). Episteme. ISBN: 980-07-8529-9

Burin, M., Jiménez Guzmán, M. & Meler, I. (comps.). (2007). Precariedad laboral y crisis de la masculinidad: impacto sobre las relaciones de género. UCES. ISBN: 978-987-98351-3-5

Buddel, N. A. (2011). Queering the Workplace. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 23, 1, 131–146, https://doi.org/10.1080/10538720.2010.530176 

Comisión Ejecutiva de Atención a Víctimas, & Fundación Arcoíris. (2019). Diagnóstico nacional sobre la discriminación hacia personas LGBTI en México. Gobierno de México, https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/459448/Diagn_sticoNacionalTrabajo_CEAV_OK.pdf

Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. (2015). Violencia contra Personas Lesbianas, Gay, Bisexuales, Trans e Intersex en América. Organización de los Estados Americanos, http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/informes/pdfs/violenciapersonaslgbti.pdf 

Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos. (2023). ¿Cuáles son los Derechos Humanos? Gobierno de México, https://www.cndh.org.mx/derechos-humanos/cuales-son-los-derechos-humanos 

Comisión Nacional para la Prevención de la Discriminación. (2015, December 3). Discriminación y desempleo, principales problemáticas de personas con discapacidad. Consejo Nacional Para Prevenir La Discriminación, http://www.conapred.org.mx/index.php?contenido=noticias&id=5773&id_opcion=&op=447

Comisión Nacional para la Prevención de la Discriminación, & Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos. (2019). Encuesta sobre Discriminación por Motivos de Orientación Sexual e Identidad de Género 2018,  https://www.conapred.org.mx/userfiles/files/ENDOSIG%20141218%20%281%29.pdf 

Haan, A. D. (2000, December). Debates on social exclusion in the South: what have they contributed to our understanding of deprivation. Uppingham Conference, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238691385_Debates_on_social_exclusion_in_the_South_what_have_they_contributed_to_our_understanding_of_deprivation 

DeVellis, R. F., & Thorpe, C. T. (2021). Scale Development. Theory and Applications. (5^th ed.) SAGE Publications. ISBN: 9781544379333

Herzberg, F. I. (1968). One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees? Harvard Business Review, 65, January-February. 

Human Rights Campaign Foundation. (2019). Corporate Equality Index 2019: Rating Workplaces on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Equality, https://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/CEI-2019-FullReport.pdf 

The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association. (2017, October 19). The history of ILGA (1978- 2012). ILGA World, https://ilga.org/ilga-history

The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association. (2019). Maps - Sexual Orientation Laws,  https://www.ilga-europe.org/rainboweurope/2019 

The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association-Europe. (2019, May 13). Rainbow Europe Map and index 2019. ILGA-Europe, https://ilga-europe.org/report/rainbow-europe-2019/ 

Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. (2018). Encuesta Nacional sobre Discriminación 2017. Gobierno de México, https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/enadis/2017/ 

Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. (2022). Encuesta Nacional sobre Diversidad Sexual y de Género 2021. Gobierno de México, https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/endiseg/2021/ 

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396,  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346 

McClelland, D. C., & Burnham, D. H. (2003). Power is the great motivator. 1976. Harvard business review, 81(1), 117-126.

Miller, J., & Parker, L. (2018). Open for Business: Strengthening the economic case, https://www.pgaction.org/inclusion/pdf/resources/Open-for-Business.pdf 

Ocaña, C. (2018, June 29). Diversidad e inclusión, clave para los negocios. Forbes, https://www.forbes.com.mx/diversidad-e-inclusion-clave-para-los-negocios/ 

Powers, B. (2008). The Impact of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Workplace Issues on Productivity. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 4(4), 79–90, https://doi.org/10.1300/J041v04n04_05 

Real Estate Market & Lifestyle. (2018, February 1). Monterrey, potencia económica en expansión. Real Estate Market & Lifestyle, 58–69.

Sampieri, R. H., Collado, C. F., & Lucio, P. B. (2014). Metodología de la Investigación (6^th ed.). McGraw-Hill. ISBN: 978-1-4562-2396-0

Stonewall. (2015, June 10). Stonewall’s history. Stonewall, https://www.stonewall.org.uk/stonewalls-history 

Stonewall. (2018, July). Top Global Employers 2018. Stonewall, https://www.stonewall.org.uk/resources/top-global-employers-2018 

Transgender Europe. (2018, December 7). About us. TGEU. https://tgeu.org/about-us/ 

Vázquez, J. C. (2021). Inclusión en Latinoamérica. Una reflexión sobre la invisibilización de la comunidad LGBTI+. Oikos Polis, 6(1), 42–74, http://www.scielo.org.bo/scielo.php?pid=S241522502021000100042&script=sci_arttext#aff1 

Vázquez, J. C. (2022). La inclusión como elemento determinante de la pobreza en personas del colectivo LGBTI+ en México. CIENCIA Ergo Sum, 29(2), https://doi.org/10.30878/ces.v29n2a2 

Vázquez, J. C., Amézquita, J. A., & Rocha, N. (2020). Una aproximación a las políticas laborales sobre identidad de género en multinacionales en México. Revista Perspectiva Empresarial, 8(1), 86–100,  https://doi.org/10.16967/23898186.689 

World Policy Analysis Center. (2015). Sexual orientation & gender identity: A new province of law for India. Universal Law Publishing, https://www.worldpolicycenter.org/topics/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/policies