Role of LGBTQIAPN+ people as agents of change in organizations

Organizações, Papel de Pessoas Lgbtqiapn+ como Agentes de Mudanças nas

doi:10.22167/2675-6528-202602628

September 29, 2026

Role of LGBTQIAPN+ people as agents of change in organizations

The Role of LGBTQIAPN+ People as Agents of Change in Organizations

Alison Miguel Frasson; Bruno Gomes Pereira

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202602628

Article derived from a Course Conclusion Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by Instituto Pecege for textual synthesis and organization.

Summary

The growing emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the organizational environment has driven companies to adopt more inclusive practices. In this context, the study aimed to analyze the perceptions and experiences of LGBTQIAPN+ individuals regarding their role as change agents in private organizations. A descriptive study was conducted, with a mixed approach (quantitative and qualitative), involving 30 professionals from medium and large private companies with DEI practices. The sampling was non-probabilistic by convenience, with approximately 90% of participants belonging to the LGBTQIAPN+ group. Data collection occurred through an online questionnaire, administered between September 29 and November 1, 2025. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analysis. The results indicated that 80% of participants recognized the existence of formal DEI policies in their organizations and witnessed positive changes driven by LGBTQIAPN+ individuals. However, qualitative reports highlighted the persistence of microaggressions, veiled prejudices, and limitations in consolidating inclusive environments. It was concluded that LGBTQIAPN+ individuals play a relevant role as organizational change agents, especially through affinity groups, although the effectiveness of these transformations depends on institutional commitment and the strengthening of diversity and inclusion practices.

Keywords: Diversity; Equity; Affinity groups; Inclusion; LGBTQIAPN.

1. Introduction

The last few decades have been marked by significant social transformations that have intensified debates on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the organizational environment. Contemporary companies face the challenge of balancing economic performance with social responsibility, driven by social pressures demanding greater representation and organizational justice (Deloitte, 2023; McKinsey; Company, 2023).

In this context, diversity transcends mere demographic composition, being recognized as a strategic element capable of fostering innovation, improving performance, and strengthening corporate sustainability. The effective integration of differences into organizational processes is crucial for generating learning and innovation (Thomas; Ely, 2001). Inclusion, in turn, is understood as the institutional capacity to value diverse identities, promoting a sense of belonging and active participation of employees (Mor Barak, 2016).

Academic literature indicates that organizations that invest in diversity and inclusion (D&I) tend to achieve superior results in terms of creativity, decision-making, and employee engagement. However, despite advances in the formalization of institutional policies, gaps persist between organizational discourse and the lived experiences of individuals in their daily work. This scenario is particularly relevant for the LGBTQIAPN+ population, a group that encompasses diverse sexual orientation and gender identities, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, pansexual, and non-binary individuals, and which has historically been the target of social exclusion and marginalization (Human Rights Campaign Foundation, 2022/2024).

Recent data corroborate this discrepancy. A survey by the Pew Research Center (2023) revealed that, despite the increase in diversity initiatives in companies, only about 32% of workers consider it extremely important to work in diverse environments. This highlights that the perception of the value of diversity is not yet uniform and that the mere existence of policies does not guarantee their effectiveness.

LGBTQIAPN+ individuals face specific challenges in the corporate environment, such as invisibility, discrimination, and microaggressions. Reports from the Human Rights Campaign Foundation (2025) demonstrate significant progress in the adoption of inclusive policies, with over 1,400 companies evaluated globally and many achieving maximum scores in inclusion practices. However, these advances coexist with persistent structural challenges, as 54% of workers report experiences of stigma or bias in organizational contexts where diversity initiatives are fragile (Human Rights Campaign Foundation, 2024).

Such experiences, although often adverse, can also become catalysts for organizational transformation, especially when channeled through structured mechanisms such as Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) (Welbourne et al., 2015). ERGs are configured as institutional spaces for collective articulation, aimed at promoting support, representativeness, and influence in strategic decisions. Studies indicate that these groups can act as vectors of cultural change, broadening debates on affirmative policies and the review of organizational practices (Frost, 2014).

Companies with consistent LGBTQIAPN+ inclusion policies demonstrate better financial performance and greater stability over time. Analyses from IMD Business School (2023) complement this view, indicating that organizations with greater maturity in diversity show better results in indicators such as organizational engagement and corporate resilience. Thus, organizational affinity groups are defined as collectives formed by employees who share common identities or interests, with the aim of promoting mutual support, professional development, and influence in organizational decisions (Welborne et al., 2015).

However, the formal existence of diversity policies does not, in itself, guarantee the consolidation of an inclusive culture. LGBTQIAPN+ individuals continue to face discrimination, microaggressions, and institutional barriers that are often not covered by formal policies (Flick, 2013). Organizational culture, as highlighted by Hicks (2018), must incorporate the principle of dignity as a central element of labor relations, preventing inclusion from being restricted to merely symbolic initiatives. Given this scenario, the present research is justified by the need to understand how minority LGBTQIAPN+ groups, who formally work in private organizations and have experience in environments with initiatives related to diversity and inclusion, such as institutional policies or affinity groups (Employee Resource Groups – ERGs), act as agents of change in medium and large private companies. The general objective of this research is to analyze perceptions, lived experiences, and concrete impacts reported by LGBTQIAPN+ individuals regarding their role as agents of transformation in private companies with already structured affinity groups, in order to (i) analyze the perception of safety and inclusion in the workplace; and (ii) evaluate the influence of these individuals in promoting organizational changes.

2. Material and Methods

The present research was methodologically characterized as a descriptive study, seeking to analyze the particularities of a specific sample of individuals and organizational phenomena, as outlined by Gil (2002). The central objective was to understand the perceptions and experiences of LGBTQIAPN+ individuals in relation to their performance as change agents in corporate environments.

Regarding the approach, the study employed a mixed design, combining quantitative and qualitative procedures. The quantitative aspect allowed for the measurement of participants’ perceptions through structured data, focusing on the analysis of frequencies and proportions. The qualitative approach, in turn, was used to deepen the understanding of the reported experiences, using open-ended questions.

The target audience consisted of professionals working in medium and large private organizations. Participant selection was carried out through non-probabilistic convenience sampling, without a prior definition of specific economic sectors. The main inclusion criterion was working in organizations that presented initiatives related to diversity and inclusion, such as institutional policies or affinity groups (Employee Resource Groups – ERGs).

The choice to include participants from different organizations was justified by the nature of the phenomenon investigated, which involves a minority group. Data collection in multiple organizational contexts aimed to broaden the scope and diversity of the experiences analyzed. Additionally, the researcher’s network of contacts was used for recruitment, a strategy that facilitated access to participants willing to share experiences on sensitive topics, such as gender identity and sexual orientation in the workplace.

The final sample consisted of 30 participants, of whom approximately 90% identified as part of the LGBTQIAPN+ community. The inclusion criteria established that individuals should (i) work in formal organizations; (ii) identify as part of the LGBTQIAPN+ community or as allies; and (iii) agree to voluntarily participate in the research. Individuals who did not meet these criteria were excluded.

Data collection was carried out through an online questionnaire, applied between September 29 and November 1, 2025. The instrument consisted of 18 questions, preceded by the Free and Informed Consent Form. Four questions were intended for the characterization of the participants and the organizational context, addressing belonging to minority groups, participation in ERGs, time of work in the organization, and existence of formal diversity and inclusion policies.

The questionnaire also included 11 closed-ended questions, with five-point rating scales, to measure aspects such as inclusion, psychological safety, participation, ERG performance, ally involvement, and organizational investment in diversity, equity, and inclusion. A closed-ended question, with “yes” or “no” alternatives and a discursive field, sought to identify the occurrence of positive changes. Finally, a discursive question was dedicated to reporting experiences of prejudice in the workplace and the measures adopted.

The development of the data collection instrument was based on the literature on organizational diversity and inclusion, psychological safety, affinity groups (ERGs), and diversity management. The contributions of authors such as Mor Barak (2016), Welbourne et al. (2015), Hicks (2018), Frost (2014), and Human Rights Campaign Foundation (2024) were considered, serving as the foundation for the construction of the questions and thematic axes.

For the data analysis, quantitative information was processed through simple descriptive statistics, with the calculation of percentages. The responses to the open-ended questions were submitted to the content analysis technique, according to the methodology proposed by Bardin (2011). This systematic and objective procedure allowed for the description of the content of the messages and the inference of knowledge about the conditions of production and reception of the reports.

The qualitative analysis process followed the stages of pre-analysis, material exploration, and results treatment, according to Bardin’s precepts (2011). Categorization was performed thematically, identifying recurring patterns related to inclusion experiences, perception of psychological safety, occurrence of microaggressions, and performance in affinity groups, always seeking to preserve the context and meaning of the participants’ statements.

Considering the sensitive nature of the data, which involves the experiences of LGBTQIAPN+ people in the organizational environment, a reflective stance was adopted during the analytical process. This approach, suggested by Bardin (2011), aimed to minimize interpretive biases and ensure greater rigor in the analysis of the collected information.

The research was submitted and approved by the Research Ethics Committee with Human Beings, under the Certificate of Presentation of Ethical Appreciation (CAAE) n° 88928525.60000.9927. This process ensured compliance with ethical guidelines and the protection of collected data. Due to the researcher’s contact network sampling and the application of the instrument to professionals from different organizations, a waiver was granted for the submission of a Co-participating Institution’s Letter of Agreement to the Ethics Committee.

3. Results and Discussion

This section details the research findings, interpreting them in light of the study problem and proposed objectives, as well as the literature that grounded the original Term Paper. The results are presented in a logical sequence that reflects the analysis categories employed, ranging from the characterization of participants to the evaluation of their perceptions on diversity policies, psychological safety, experiences of prejudice, the role of affinity groups, and the importance of allies. This approach aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of how LGBTQIAPN+ individuals act as change agents in private organizations, highlighting the progress and persistent challenges in building truly inclusive environments.

In general, the research revealed that, although organizations are formalizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, the effectiveness of these initiatives is still heterogeneous and depends on deeper institutional commitment. Participants, mostly belonging to the LGBTQIAPN+ community, recognize the transformative potential of their actions, especially through affinity groups. However, the persistence of microaggressions and the need for behavioral adaptation indicate that psychological safety and full inclusion are still significant challenges, even in environments that already have formal DEI structures.

Sample Characterization

The research involved the participation of 30 volunteers, of whom 2 were excluded for not belonging to the LGBTQIAPN+ community, resulting in a final sample of 28 participants, with approximately 90% identified as LGBTQIAPN+. The sample’s diversity encompassed different gender identities, sexual orientations, and ethnic-racial backgrounds, which enriched the analysis of organizational experiences. This composition is crucial for the study, as it allows for the capture of experiences directly related to the investigated theme, reinforcing the sample’s adequacy for the objective of analyzing the perceptions of LGBTQIAPN+ individuals as agents of change.

The plurality of identities in the sample contributes to a deeper understanding of the phenomenon of inclusion and diversity in the workplace, as highlighted by Gil (2002), who points out the relevance of different experiences in shaping perceptions. Mor Barak (2016) complements this view by arguing that diversity in organizations should be understood not only as numerical representation but as the integration of multiple perspectives. Thus, the composition of the sample favors an analysis of diversity as a complex organizational phenomenon, which goes beyond the mere presence of different groups.

Perception of Diversity and Inclusion Policies

The analysis of the perception regarding the existence of formal diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies in organizations revealed that 80% of participants indicated the presence of these policies in their workplaces. This data suggests that the majority of organizations represented in the survey have already adopted some level of formalization of diversity-related practices. The presence of formal policies is an indicator of diversity institutionalization, where organizations establish guidelines to meet social and regulatory demands, as pointed out by Frost (2014).

However, the existence of formal policies does not, in itself, guarantee their effective integration into organizational practices, potentially representing only an initial stage of maturity, as argued by Thomas and Ely (1996). This perspective is corroborated by more recent studies, including the Pew Research Center (2023), which indicate a discrepancy between the formalization of diversity initiatives and the workers’ perception of the value of these actions. The survey data, therefore, suggest that despite advances in formalization, there is still a long way to go for these policies to translate into concrete experiences of inclusion in the organizational daily life.

Complementarily, assessing the maturity level of affinity groups (Employee Resource Groups – ERGs) is fundamental, as these groups are important mechanisms for the operationalization of DEI policies. The results indicated that the majority of participants are part of organizations whose ERGs have a relatively short existence, with a predominance of groups with up to three years of operation. This suggests that, although affinity groups are present, many are still in the initial stages of development and structuring.

The low maturity of ERGs in the Brazilian context can be attributed to the recent evolution of diversity and inclusion agendas in the country. The institutionalization of practices aimed at the LGBTQIAPN+ population in organizations is still in the process of consolidation, especially outside large multinationals, according to the Human Rights Campaign Foundation (2022). This scenario contributes to the formation of more recent affinity groups, with less time for structuring and, consequently, less strategic organizational influence, as observed by Welbourne et al. (2015) in emerging economies.

The evolution of organizational inclusion occurs in stages, in which ERGs initially function as support spaces and, over time, can assume a more strategic role, according to Frost (2014). The research data corroborate this idea, indicating that many organizations are still in the initial phases of this process, which justifies the predominance of groups with shorter existence. Thus, the analysis of the results suggests that, despite advances in the implementation of DEI policies, the maturity of ERGs is still limited, reflecting the stage of development of these practices in the Brazilian organizational context, which demands continuous investments to strengthen their impact as agents of change.

The participants’ perception of the level of investment in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in their organizations was also analyzed, revealing a heterogeneous distribution of responses. This indicates that the institutionalization of DEI policies does not occur homogeneously in the organizations represented in the survey. This heterogeneity suggests that institutional commitment to promoting inclusive environments varies considerably, affecting the strategic prioritization given to diversity in the organizational context.

Perception of Psychological Safety and Inclusive Environment

The perception of psychological safety in the organizational environment is a crucial indicator of the effectiveness of diversity and inclusion policies for LGBTQIAPN+ individuals. This concept refers to the ability of individuals to express their identity, opinions, and experiences without fear of judgment, discrimination, or retaliation. The data revealed that only a portion of participants feel completely safe to be themselves at work, while a significant proportion reported partial or reduced levels of psychological safety, evidencing a non-uniform inclusion experience.

When assessing the safety of expressing identity, 50% of participants indicated full positive perception, but the others reported partial or contextual insecurity. Many respondents adopt strategies of omission or modulation of their own identity, such as avoiding talking about personal life or adjusting behaviors, which suggests that, although the environment is not explicitly exclusionary, it is not yet fully safe from a psychological point of view. This result indicates that, despite institutional advances, organizational culture faces challenges in consolidating truly inclusive environments.

From a theoretical point of view, psychological safety is central to organizational inclusion, as it is directly linked to the feeling of belonging and individual appreciation, according to Mor Barak (2016). Inclusive environments are those where individuals feel respected and encouraged to participate actively. The absence of this perception can lead to withdrawal behaviors, lower engagement, and reduced organizational performance. The inconsistency between the perception of progress in diversity policies and the need for individual adaptation suggests a “superficial inclusion”, where formal structures exist but are not fully incorporated into the culture.

The analysis can be deepened with the concept of dignity at work, according to Hicks (2018), who emphasizes recognition and respect as fundamental for identity security. When these elements are absent, individuals limit their expression, impacting the organizational climate. In the Brazilian context, data from the Human Rights Campaign Foundation (2024) corroborate that LGBTQIAPN+ people still hide their identity at work, even in organizations with formal policies. This highlights a gap between institutional discourse and the practical experience of employees, suggesting that psychological safety depends on the consolidation of an inclusive culture that allows for authentic identity expression.

Experiences of prejudice and microaggressions in the organizational environment

The analysis of experiences of prejudice and microaggressions in the organizational environment allowed for a deeper understanding of the inclusion and exclusion dynamics experienced by LGBTQIAPN+ people. Unlike explicit discrimination, microaggressions manifest in a subtle and often naturalized way, directly impacting individuals’ well-being and psychological safety. The qualitative reports showed that, despite 80% of participants indicating the existence of formal diversity policies, experiences of prejudice are still recurrent and complex in the organizational daily life.

Among the accounts, experiences of indirect embarrassment, invisibility, and inappropriate comments stood out. Examples include “I have heard jokes and comments that, although not directed at me, created an uncomfortable environment”, “I avoid commenting on my personal life to avoid opening myself up to judgment or invasive questions”, and “I realize I need to behave differently depending on the environment or the people I am working with”. These manifestations, although seemingly neutral, contribute to the reproduction of symbolic inequalities, a scenario corroborated by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation (2024), which points to the frequency of microaggressions even in organizations with formal inclusion policies.

Organizational inclusion, according to Mor Barak (2016), is not limited to the presence of diversity, but requires an environment where individuals feel valued and respected in their entirety. The persistence of microaggressions indicates failures in this process, showing that organizational culture has not yet fully incorporated the principles of inclusion. The impact of these experiences on individual behavior is significant, leading to the adoption of coping strategies, such as hiding one’s identity or modulating behaviors, which reinforces the relationship between subtle prejudice and low psychological safety.

Reports of prejudice could be categorized into three main types. Explicit prejudice included instances of deadnaming transgender individuals, direct homophobic comments, racism related to physical appearance, and institutional harassment. In some of these cases, institutional measures were taken, such as warnings, mandatory training, and even dismissals, indicating the existence of formal mechanisms for responding to discriminatory situations within some organizations.

The second category, microaggressions and veiled prejudice, encompassed expressions such as “you can be gay, just don’t look it” or derogatory comments made in jest. These cases often did not result in formal measures, which aligns with the literature on organizational culture and dignity (Hicks, 2018), reinforcing how symbolic violence manifests subtly, hindering institutional response. The third category was the absence of corrective measures, where some participants reported a lack of action by the organization in the face of discriminatory episodes, especially when direct managers were involved.

According to Hicks (2018), violations of dignity, even at a symbolic level, directly affect individuals’ sense of belonging. Tulshyan (2016) adds that structural inequalities persist even in environments with formal diversity policies. This category reveals gaps between formal policy and daily practice, highlighting the distinction between normative inclusion and experiential inclusion. Thus, the data analysis shows that, although there have been advances in the formalization of diversity policies, prejudice still manifests subtly in the organizational environment, reinforcing the need for deeper and more structural actions that promote effective changes in organizational culture.

Role of ERGs as agents of transformation

The analysis of the role of affinity groups (Employee Resource Groups – ERGs) sought to understand their contribution to the promotion of organizational changes, especially in the implementation of diversity and inclusion practices and in the transformation of culture. The perception of ERG efficiency showed a balanced distribution across response scales, with a positive trend, indicating that participants recognize these groups as relevant in the organizational context, although with variations in their effectiveness level.

Regarding the time dedicated to ERGs, 66.7% of participants indicated low availability for action. This data suggests that, although ERGs are perceived as important, they face structural limitations, possibly associated with workload overload, lack of formal incentives, or insufficient institutional recognition of these activities. However, data on the perception of organizational change showed that 80% of participants have witnessed positive transformations in their organizations driven by LGBTQIAPN+ individuals.

This result reinforces the idea that, despite structural limitations, initiatives focused on diversity, often driven by ERGs, have generated concrete impacts on the organizational environment. Among the examples cited are the creation of clearer inclusive policies, the implementation of affirmative action positions and diversity training, and a greater openness to discussing the topic in internal communication. These accounts indicate that, even if not always formally recognized, ERGs and the actions of LGBTQIAPN+ individuals exert direct influence on promoting organizational change.

According to Welbourne et al. (2015), ERGs have evolved from support spaces to strategic agents of organizational transformation, influencing internal policies and institutional practices. The relationship between the presented data shows that, even with limitations of time and structure, ERGs are perceived as efficient and associated with the occurrence of positive changes. This suggests that their impact is not necessarily conditioned by the volume of dedication, but by their capacity for mobilization, articulation, and influence within organizations.

The presence of structured ERGs also suggests that part of the organizations has a higher level of organizational maturity, as such groups are more common in medium and large companies. The qualitative reports indicate that structural changes, such as gender transition protocols and affirmative vacancies, often arose from the mobilization of LGBTQIAPN+ people and organized groups. Thus, ERGs demonstrate potential as instruments of cultural transformation, provided they receive the necessary institutional support to consolidate their performance and broaden their reach.

Importance of allies

The participation of allies in diversity initiatives was analyzed as a crucial factor for expanding the impact of organizational actions. The research revealed that 63.3% of participants considered the participation of allies in affinity groups extremely important. This statement is in line with Mor Barak’s (2016) perspective, which argues that building inclusive environments is directly related to the collective engagement of all members of the organization, not restricted only to minoritized groups.

The presence of allies significantly contributes to broadening the legitimacy of DEI initiatives, reducing the isolation of marginalized groups, and strengthening the institutional influence of ERGs. Furthermore, the actions of allies help reduce the emotional burden often placed on marginalized groups, promoting a greater balance in driving inclusion agendas. Thus, the involvement of allies proves fundamental for consolidating more inclusive organizational environments, as it contributes to expanding the responsibility for the diversity agenda, ceasing to be an exclusive attribution of LGBTQIAPN+ individuals.

However, the research results indicate that the allies’ performance still occurs in a limited and, in many cases, punctual manner, which highlights the need for greater collective engagement. For allies to effectively exercise their role, it is fundamental that organizations promote structured actions for awareness, training, and encouragement of active participation. Transforming support into concrete practices in the organizational daily life allows the allies’ performance to cease being merely symbolic and to consistently contribute to the construction of a more inclusive and sustainable organizational culture.

In summary, the research findings demonstrate that LGBTQIAPN+ individuals play a relevant role as agents of change in organizations, driving positive transformations through their involvement in affinity groups and collective mobilization. Although progress has been made in formalizing diversity and inclusion policies, the effectiveness of these initiatives is challenged by the persistence of microaggressions, the need for behavioral adaptation, and the limitation of psychological safety. The consolidation of a truly inclusive culture depends on strengthening ERGs, institutional support, and the active engagement of allies, ensuring that policies translate into authentic experiences of belonging and appreciation for all employees.

This section details the research findings, interpreting them in light of the study problem and proposed objectives, as well as the literature that grounded the original Term Paper. The results are presented in a logical sequence that reflects the analysis categories employed, ranging from the characterization of participants to the evaluation of their perceptions on diversity policies, psychological safety, experiences of prejudice, the role of affinity groups, and the importance of allies. This approach aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of how LGBTQIAPN+ individuals act as change agents in private organizations, highlighting the progress and persistent challenges in building truly inclusive environments.

In general, the research revealed that, although organizations are formalizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, the effectiveness of these initiatives is still heterogeneous and depends on deeper institutional commitment. Participants, mostly belonging to the LGBTQIAPN+ community, recognize the transformative potential of their actions, especially through affinity groups. However, the persistence of microaggressions and the need for behavioral adaptation indicate that psychological safety and full inclusion are still significant challenges, even in environments that already have formal DEI structures.

Sample Characterization

The research involved the participation of 30 volunteers, of whom 2 were excluded for not belonging to the LGBTQIAPN+ community, resulting in a final sample of 28 participants, with approximately 90% identified as LGBTQIAPN+. The sample’s diversity encompassed different gender identities, sexual orientations, and ethnic-racial backgrounds, which enriched the analysis of organizational experiences. This composition is crucial for the study, as it allows for the capture of experiences directly related to the investigated theme, reinforcing the sample’s adequacy for the objective of analyzing the perceptions of LGBTQIAPN+ individuals as agents of change.

The plurality of identities in the sample contributes to a deeper understanding of the phenomenon of inclusion and diversity in the workplace, as highlighted by Gil (2002), who points out the relevance of different experiences in shaping perceptions. Mor Barak (2016) complements this view by arguing that diversity in organizations should be understood not only as numerical representation but as the integration of multiple perspectives. Thus, the composition of the sample favors an analysis of diversity as a complex organizational phenomenon, which goes beyond the mere presence of different groups.

Perception of Diversity and Inclusion Policies

The analysis of the perception regarding the existence of formal diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies in organizations revealed that 80% of participants indicated the presence of these policies in their workplaces. This data suggests that the majority of organizations represented in the survey have already adopted some level of formalization of diversity-related practices. The presence of formal policies is an indicator of diversity institutionalization, where organizations establish guidelines to meet social and regulatory demands, as pointed out by Frost (2014).

However, the existence of formal policies does not, in itself, guarantee their effective integration into organizational practices, potentially representing only an initial stage of maturity, as argued by Thomas and Ely (1996). This perspective is corroborated by more recent studies, including the Pew Research Center (2023), which indicate a discrepancy between the formalization of diversity initiatives and the workers’ perception of the value of these actions. The survey data, therefore, suggest that despite advances in formalization, there is still a long way to go for these policies to translate into concrete experiences of inclusion in the organizational daily life.

Complementarily, assessing the maturity level of affinity groups (Employee Resource Groups – ERGs) is fundamental, as these groups are important mechanisms for the operationalization of DEI policies. The results indicated that the majority of participants are part of organizations whose ERGs have a relatively short existence, with a predominance of groups with up to three years of operation. This suggests that, although affinity groups are present, many are still in the initial stages of development and structuring.

The low maturity of ERGs in the Brazilian context can be attributed to the recent evolution of diversity and inclusion agendas in the country. The institutionalization of practices aimed at the LGBTQIAPN+ population in organizations is still in the process of consolidation, especially outside large multinationals, according to the Human Rights Campaign Foundation (2022). This scenario contributes to the formation of more recent affinity groups, with less time for structuring and, consequently, less strategic organizational influence, as observed by Welbourne et al. (2015) in emerging economies.

The evolution of organizational inclusion occurs in stages, in which ERGs initially function as support spaces and, over time, can assume a more strategic role, according to Frost (2014). The research data corroborate this idea, indicating that many organizations are still in the initial phases of this process, which justifies the predominance of groups with shorter existence. Thus, the analysis of the results suggests that, although there is progress in the implementation of DEI policies, the maturity of ERGs is still limited, reflecting the stage of development of these practices in the Brazilian organizational context, which demands continuous investments to strengthen their impact as agents of change.