In a groundbreaking new study published in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, researchers have unveiled complex dynamics of workplace inclusion, specifically focusing on how a new co-worker’s sexual orientation and relationship status influence benevolent intentions from colleagues. This comprehensive research sheds light on subtle biases and micro-interactions that can shape social and professional experiences in organizational contexts, challenging assumptions about allonormativity and highlighting the nuanced role gender plays in social support and knowledge sharing at work.
The study primarily tested the hypothesis that women exhibit lower willingness to share knowledge with single-by-circumstance colleagues as compared to colleagues in committed relationships. Remarkably, this hypothesis was confirmed within female participants, who appeared reluctant to engage in knowledge exchange with single individuals, potentially influenced by prevailing societal stereotypes. These stereotypes, as prior research suggests, often depict single people as socially withdrawn or untrustworthy, especially in women who face stronger social pressures to maintain partnered statuses.
The implications of such subtle exclusions are critical. Knowledge sharing is a vital mechanism for social connection and workplace collaboration, and being excluded can reduce social safety cues—signals that engender feelings of belonging and acceptance. Although seemingly minor, these micro-practices may accumulate, resulting in measurable disadvantages for single individuals in terms of both psychological well-being and career progression. Recognizing such biases, especially in the subtleties of workplace culture, may be the crucial first step towards fostering genuine inclusion.
Interestingly, while allonormative beliefs – the assumption that happiness depends on being in a romantic relationship – were not broadly endorsed by participants, internalized gendered norms still appeared influential. Women seem particularly susceptible to these norms that favor coupled individuals, which could explain the stronger reluctance among female participants to share knowledge with single coworkers. This finding underscores the complexity with which societal expectations infiltrate professional settings, fostering environments where singlism—bias against single individuals—may go unnoticed yet impact organizational equity.
In a surprising deviation from expected patterns, sexual minority individuals often received more favorable treatment in certain contexts. Specifically, women reported a higher likelihood of sharing knowledge, expressing interest, and forming friendships with sexual minority men than with heterosexual men. This trend extends to asexual men as well, signaling that women’s workplace social behaviors may be influenced by perceived lower sexual threat and increased trustworthiness associated with sexual minority men.
The findings suggest a fascinating dynamic wherein women might anticipate more reciprocal and emotionally symmetrical relationships with sexual minority men compared to heterosexual men. Such expectations of reciprocity are fundamental to friendship and knowledge exchange, which are instrumental in shaping collaborative work environments. The data correlates these social behaviors with underlying perceptions about sexual orientation and the interpersonal safety it may represent in professional contexts.
Men displayed analogous patterns in their interactions, being more inclined to share and show interest toward lesbian women than heterosexual women. This mirrors existing research connecting heterosexual men’s comfort around lesbian women and a predisposition to form cross-gender friendships. Nonetheless, the mechanisms driving this support remain underexplored, meriting further investigation into how experiences of minority stress in sexual minority women might intersect with workplace privilege and social dynamics.
Complicating these reflections, male participants expressed a preference for befriending single-by-choice gay men over gay men in committed relationships. This divergence from conventional allonormativity could stem from heterosexist attitudes rather than simply relationship status. Single-by-choice gay men might display less overt same-gender affection, possibly masking their sexual orientation in ways that reduce perceived social threat among heterosexual male colleagues, ultimately influencing levels of support and social inclusion.
Such subtle distinctions between attitudes toward gay identity and specific expressions of same-gender affection reveal underlying tensions within workplace interactions. Prior studies have shown that heterosexual men can hold low prejudice toward gay individuals generally, yet react negatively to visible displays of same-gender affection. This nuance underlines the challenge in fostering truly inclusive workplaces, where acceptance must extend beyond identity labels to behaviors and relational expressions.
The implications for organizational intervention are significant. Education and training to increase awareness of unconscious bias, particularly those that are nuanced and not overtly hostile, could dramatically shift workplace climates. Encouraging perspective-taking and establishing clear, enforceable policies can reduce exclusionary behaviors and bolster support for sexual minority employees. Moreover, fostering meaningful interaction strategies centered on positive contact and collaboration can serve as powerful tools against prejudice.
Despite the robust insights offered by this study, limitations remain. The vignette-based methodology, while effective in controlled simulations, may not entirely capture the emotional intensity and complexity of real-life workplace interactions. The brief nature of scenarios used likely muted emotional responses, suggesting the need for complementary research employing qualitative techniques such as think-aloud protocols to hold deeper conversations around workplace emotions tied to sexual orientation and relationship status.
The research also faced demographic constraints, notably with insufficient representation of sexual and gender minority individuals, forestalling more nuanced analysis of their experiences and internalized attitudes. Addressing this gap calls for targeted recruitment in future studies, alongside broader inclusion of gender categories beyond binary identities to understand intersectional experiences of marginalization and privilege.
Notably, while effect sizes for many findings were small, their practical importance should not be dismissed. Microaggressions—those subtle, often unconscious interactions—accumulate over time, creating meaningful impact on individuals’ workplace experiences and psychological health. Recognizing and mitigating these daily behaviors is a critical step toward more equitable professional environments.
Self-report measures, while subject to potential social desirability biases, were somewhat mitigated by the vignette format and were bolstered by participant attention checks that confirmed engagement with the study materials. This methodological rigor restores confidence in the authenticity of the reported attitudes and intentions.
Ultimately, these findings illuminate critical facets of workplace social dynamics around sexual orientation and relationship status, offering a nuanced picture that transcends monolithic understandings of discrimination. Female participants’ lesser willingness to share knowledge with single individuals highlights subtle singlism, while men’s selective friendship patterns tie into broader social attitudes toward sexual minorities and heteronormativity.
Going forward, organizational initiatives must address these subtleties, promoting environments where both single and sexual minority employees experience genuine inclusion and support. This involves not merely policy change but culture transformation—an arduous yet essential journey that aligns with global goals for gender equality, reduced inequalities, and institutional accountability.
The intersectional nature of workplace favoritism, bias, and friendship described here opens new avenues for deeper exploration of how privilege and minority stress intersect, shaping the lived realities of contemporary employees. As such, organizations and scholars are called upon to refine methods to illuminate invisibilized forms of discrimination and devise practical, scalable solutions.
By revealing the often-overlooked role of relationship status and sexual orientation in workplace benevolence, this pioneering research sets a precedent for future inquiry. It invites a reevaluation of how interpersonal dynamics inform inclusion strategies and challenges all stakeholders to confront latent prejudices affecting knowledge flows, friendships, and ultimately, career success.
Subject of Research: Workplace benevolence and inclusion influenced by a co-worker’s sexual orientation and relationship status.
Article Title: Benevolent intentions towards a new co-worker depend on the co-worker’s sexual orientation and relationship status.
Article References:
Komlenac, N., Haller, M., Birke, J. et al. Benevolent intentions towards a new co-worker depend on the co-worker’s sexual orientation and relationship status. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 1697 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05963-w
Image Credits: AI Generated
