Transaction and development are the least inclusive areas of the real estate market, according to EG’s survey of almost 300 property professionals.
Some 51.4% of respondents rated transactions as the least LGBT inclusive, while 48% said development was the least inclusive.
And despite the rhetoric around diversity, particularly in terms of gender and sexuality, more than 81% of people that took part in the survey thought that not enough was being done to promote inclusion of the LGBT community.
“The real estate industry has been very slow to adapt to a changing world,” said one respondent. “Many companies give lip service to their diversity policies but do little in practice to stamp out inappropriate behaviour, language or engrained activities and social stereotyping.
“The work environment is very backward when compared with other industries where such behaviour not only would not be tolerated, but doesn’t even feature because they have moved on.
“What is really concerning is that because companies know they are under the spotlight, their decision-making and cultural difficulties have a gloss of acceptability, but in reality they have not moved on much.
“It starts from the top and many leaders are inept when it comes to addressing such issues in the workplace.”
Several respondents felt some of the policies around LGBT inclusion within the real estate sector were just tick-box exercises and tokenism.
More role models in the workplace, better leadership and more visible straight allies were highlighted as key to facilitating better inclusion.
SEE ALSO: Click here for more results from EG‘s inclusivity survey
“I can’t help thinking that it is a tick-box exercise for some of the most senior people. They do diversity now because our competitors do it, as opposed to wanting to tackle diversity,” said a respondent.
“For instance, at our network we are asked what we can take to the company to promote LGBT issues. I would like to hear from the company why they believe supporting LGBT diversity is important and for them to make it a more open environment.”
Encouragingly, however, the majority of respondents were out at work and with clients, and said they had never been discriminated against at work, work events or by clients because of their sexual orientation.
Some 77.7% also said that they believed their firm provided a safe place to come out.
One respondent said: “My current role is the first I have had where I have been encouraged to, and do, feel comfortable in being myself. Previously, being a woman in a ‘male’ profession has been hard enough without needing to add the label of lesbian on top of that.
“In my client role, colleagues are more interested in what I can do and achieve rather than seeking to label me.”
When it came to reasons people did not come out, or had not in the past, negative reactions from colleagues and clients and worries about the impact it may have on their career development ranked highly, alongside a lack visible role models.
Top reasons for not being out at work
■ Negative impact on career development
■ Negative reaction of colleagues
■ Lack of visible role models in the workplace
■ Negative reaction of clients
■ It isn’t anyone else’s business
■ Lack of support in the workplace
■ Poor company policies promoting inclusion
■ Lack of formal process for reporting abuse
“A key part of my role is to network with industry specifiers who can award us contracts,” said a respondent. “When networking I feel under pressure to be hyper-masculine and appear straight. As these specifiers are almost solely men and generally 15-30 years older than me, I feel that being out to them would damage my chances of winning work, impacting my career prospects and the prospects of the company as a whole.”
Another said: “I am not out to clients. This is partly because I want to completely separate my personal life from professional and that boundary is not something that I wish to cross with clients. I would also be concerned about the potential impact on business were I to experience a negative reaction to revealing my sexuality to a customer/client. I wouldn’t wish to put company performance in jeopardy.”
Despite the general feeling that more – albeit it not enough – was being done to promote inclusivity in the real estate sector, respondents still shared tales of grossly inappropriate behaviour, often from the top down:
Last week my line manager (an office director) openly said that she felt that Disney creating a lesbian character was not acceptable. She said: ‘What does that say to our children?’”
I am an APC assessor for the RICS and a member of the CAAV and I have encountered homophobic and transphobic views from fellow assessors and CAAV members who have assumed that I am straight and cisgender. I have reported these to both professional bodies but have not been informed of any further action.”
I was once forced to sit at a table full of women while the men gathered and spoke about manly things, drank whiskey and smoked cigars. Once they were drunk, I was invited over to entertain them as the office joke by performing extras for some of them.”
I was taken off a client because the client “didn’t like me”. On more information being sought it was because the client didn’t like gays. I was fine working for him until he found out I was gay.”
I was outed in October 2001 in the general office, at a location where I previously worked, after a colleague saw me buy a trans magazine at a newsagent. I was then ostracised by my colleagues, verbally abused and discriminated against when I reported the matter.”
So what more needs to be done to allow every person in real estate to be treated fairly?
“We need visible out people at all levels of seniority and responsibility. There can be a danger that just senior visibility leads to people thinking it is only in the upper tiers that people can be out,” said a respondent.
“Because of a lack of visibility across the business, some may think that it would be better to stay in as it could be career limiting at the beginning of someone’s career.”
For another respondent it was simpler even than that.
What we need, they said, was normalisation, an approach that recognises and publicises the fact that some people will be LGBT.
“Policies and processes are tick-box exercises, but hearts and minds are won by real examples and strong, positive leadership.”
Top reasons for feeling excluded
■ Accidental but inappropriate use of language
■ Assumptions made by colleagues regarding the gender/sexual orientation of partner
■ Activities that assume people conform to stereotypes around sexuality/gender
■ Over-emphasis on “family-friendly” working practices
And of course, the above applies not just to inclusion of the LGBT community in real estate, but inclusion of everyone, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, age, race, religion, colour, whatever.
Failing to deliver true diversity only really has one outcome.
“It means the sector is missing out on talented individuals who will look to different sectors for opportunities,” concluded one respondent. “It is primarily the sector that loses out and we should try harder to change it.”
To send feedback, e-mail Samantha.McClary@egi.co.uk or tweet @Samanthamcclary or @estatesgazette
