Incorporating a rainbow flag into a company’s website logo during Pride Month seems less meaningful to LGBTQ+ employees and customers than gestures of solidarity at other times of the year. Instead, timing – not just content – influences whether expressions of allyship are perceived as authentic.
This is according to a study – “When You Say It: How the Timing of LGBTQ+ Allyship Displays Shapes Evaluations of Organizations” by Michael W. White and James T. Carter – that was published in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process.
In six experiments of 3,000 people, LGBTQ+ participants consistently rated advocacy as more genuine when it was displayed outside of annual Pride Month celebrations in June, perceiving it to be motivated more by real values than corporate strategy. Those perceptions could influence stakeholders’ feelings of belonging or commitment to an organization, the researchers said.
Sensitivity to timing did not extend beyond the target audience, however. Straight, cisgender participants, including those of color, perceived the messages as equally authentic regardless of when they were issued, indicating there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach.
“The context of when a statement or display of allyship is made matters, not just what’s in the actual statement,” said co-author Carter. “There’s not one way to do LGBTQ+ allyship, but more importantly, there’s not only one time to do it. Celebrations of culture and community need not be relegated to one point in time but can be done in a more balanced way.”
Allyship research to date has focused on the content of messages, particularly those directed at people of color, but the LGBTQ+ community has been understudied in management research, the authors said. Through statements, ads and social media posts, companies may wish to explicitly express support for LGBTQ+ rights as a reflection of their values – or to avoid alienating a $1 trillion market globally.
“Not everyone thinks these allyship displays during designated celebration months are less authentic,” Carter said. “There’s something about your target identity being relevant to the perception of these allyship cues.”
The research does not imply that organizations should avoid expressing LGBTQ+ allyship during Pride Month, Carter said. Rather, they would reap greater rewards from consistent, year-round messaging more likely to be seen as reflecting core beliefs.
“These findings challenge the assumption that allyship efforts are universally well-received,” Carter said, “pushing allies to keep in mind that it is not just what and how you say something, but also when you say it.”
