Beyond the Glass Closet: Unraveling Identity Management Practices of Turkish LGB Employees Under Neoconservative Pressures and Hegemonic Masculinity

Abstract

In Türkiye, working life operates within a hybrid structure in which modern production relations and traditional gender roles intertwine. The automotive sector, in particular, where hegemonic masculinity and conservative values are reproduced, creates a breeding ground for discriminatory practices and safety issues affecting LGB employees. This study aims to analyze the psychosocial and organizational mechanisms underlying LGB individuals’ decisions to disclose or conceal their identities in the context of neoconservative social pressure and industrial masculine culture in Türkiye. Using a qualitative research design grounded in the social constructivist paradigm, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 LGB individuals working at different levels of the sector. Data were analyzed using reflective thematic analysis. The findings revealed themes of controlled openness, emotional labor, defense mechanisms, organizational silence, micro-solidarity, and ordinary visibility. It was determined that identity management is experienced as “strategic risk management” rather than an act of liberation, that hierarchical advancement increases the “glass closet” effect, and that employees constantly exhaust their cognitive capacity in a state of “hyper-vigilance”. In conclusion, the study examines the divergence between multinational corporations’ global inclusion policies and local practices and explores the structural factors that sustain organizational silence.

1. Introduction

The research domain on coming out, defined as the process of revealing one’s deviation from heterosexual orientation and identity, has become increasingly popular in the last two decades (Sandler 2022). Existing studies have extensively studied various social institutions, such as the workplace (e.g., Browne 2014; Marrs and Staton 2016), family (e.g., Alonzo and Buttitta 2019; Savin-Williams 1989), religion (e.g., Ratcliff and Haltom 2021; Wilcox 2006) and formal education (e.g., Evans and Broido 1999; Sadowski 2016), in terms of their impact on shaping the coming-out processes of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual (LGB) individuals. In addition, many other studies have contributed to understanding why LGB individuals often come out and reveal their identities (to parents, siblings, and friends, e.g., Fankhanel 2010; Salvati et al. 2018). Additionally, there is a significant body of work on how LGB individuals build, manage, and reveal their identities during the coming-out process, which usually unfolds in multiple stages (e.g., Cass 1979; Coleman 1981; Troiden 1988). Despite the vast amount of work on coming out, most of the literature is disproportionately reliant on Western settings, disregarding non-Western ones where societal institutions are radically different and presumably much less tolerant of deviations from heterosexual orientations and identities (Perez 2005; Wilson 2008). While classical literature codes coming out as a ‘liberation’ and an ultimate destination, it is not clear how LGB employees manage their identities and make disclosure decisions under local societal/institutional pressures and hegemonic masculine industrial structures. Much less work exists on the interaction effects of workplace policy–practice gaps, collegial networks, and status hierarchies in non-Western settings, further complicating how coming-out processes unfold under additional pressures arising from nested institutions and formal structures.

To address the aforementioned shortcomings in research, this study analyzes the psychosocial and organizational mechanisms underlying the decisions of LGB individuals working in the Turkish automotive industry to come out or conceal their sexual orientation. We chose to focus on the Turkish automotive industry because it represents a rather extreme social setting characterized by dual pressures on LGB identities. On the one hand, the automotive industry is portrayed as an economic production site where hegemonic masculinity is prevalent and continuously reproduced at the industrial and political levels. Aside from the industry’s institutionalized regime, there is also a second layer of pressure exerted by the neoconservative politics of the Turkish government, through which sexual heteronormativity is upheld, and deviations from such orientation are both discursively and substantively sanctioned. In Türkiye, the ‘sacred family’ discourse limits the definition of an acceptable citizen to heterosexuality and has become an ‘institutional code of ethics’ in the public and industrial spheres (Akkan 2018). Heteronormative pressure in working life extends beyond the ‘sacred family’ discourse of the current political climate; it is profoundly rooted in Islamic gender norms that nourish this rhetoric and shape the silent consensus between colleagues and management. In addition, companies in the Turkish automotive industry are under transnational pressures to adopt anti-discriminatory workplace practices, increasing the likelihood that they will decouple their policies from practices and maintain a seemingly neutral order to endorse sexual minorities, while being silent on the prevalence of hegemonic work norms that advocate cisnormativity. In line with this objective, this study seeks to answer the following central research question: How do nested institutional pressures, driven by industrial hegemonic masculinity and neoconservative socio-political dynamics in Türkiye, shape the sexual identity management practices and coping strategies of LGB employees in the automotive sector?

The automotive industry is defined by machinery, power, speed, and technology. It is a field where hegemonic masculinity is reproduced every day. In this culture, which extends from the shop floor culture to the boardrooms, the assumed norm is heterosexuality. In this environment, homosexuality is coded not only as a different sexual orientation but also as an indicator of “weakness,” “femininity,” or “inadequacy” (Ozeren et al. 2016). Previous studies clearly show that LGB employees in the automotive industry fear that their professional competence will be questioned if they do not exhibit heteronormative masculine performance. This situation transforms the decision to come out from an individual choice into a strategic risk-management issue for career continuity (Ulaş-Kılıç et al. 2021).

While Stephen Meyer (S. Meyer 2016) and David Collinson (Collinson 1992) conceptualize the automotive production line as a ‘micro-power’ arena structured around technical competence and physical endurance, this study uncovers how these masculine power mechanisms intersect with Turkey’s neoconservative political climate. Another reason why LGB employees do not feel safe in the workplace and constantly postpone their decision to “come out” partially lies in the fact that Turkish legislation does not provide clear and explicit protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Although Articles 5 of the Labor Law and Article 10 of the Constitution regulate the principle of “equality,” the absence of explicit mention of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in these texts leaves ample room for arbitrary employer practices (Doğan 2015).

These practices, particularly in the public sector, create a climate of fear that sets a precedent for the private sector as well. The phrase “engaging in shameful and disgraceful acts of a nature and degree incompatible with the status of a civil servant,” found in Article 125 of the Civil Servants Law No. 657, has historically been used to justify the dismissal of gay civil servants (Doğan 2015). While operating in the private sector, the automotive industry tends to adopt a similar “moral” code due to its close ties with the state and its corporate conservatism. This situation makes LGB employees feel that their job security is hanging in the balance. Furthermore, compulsory military service for male citizens in Türkiye creates a systematic barrier for gay and bisexual male employees in the automotive industry. Exemption from military service can be granted based on a diagnosis of “psychosexual disorder”. Presenting this document during job applications exposes individuals to forced coming out (Doğan 2015; Çelebi 2018). This “failure report” stigma affects not only a person’s sexual orientation but also their place in the automotive industry hierarchy.

While the literature on workplace discrimination often focuses on the service industry or white-collar experiences (O’Neil et al. 2018), LGB experiences in manufacturing industries, such as the automotive industry, repeatedly coded as a “men’s job,” have largely remained invisible due to ‘neoconservative patriarchal’ pressures. Treating coming out as a cyclical and strategic process of continuous negotiation rather than an instantaneous act (Griffith and Hebl 2002; Ali and Barden 2015), the research analyzes this process at the intersection of Türkiye’s specific ‘semi-conservative’ social pressure and the industrial ‘rough manhood’ culture.

Using an interpretivist lens, our study examines how identities, workplace policy–practice gaps, and perceived disclosure risks are shaped by nested social and organizational structures. The analysis is organized around six key themes that emerged from semi-structured interviews with 15 LGB participants working at various levels in the automotive industry, using Braun and Clarke’s (2019) reflexive thematic analysis method: Controlled Openness, Emotional and Cognitive Labor, Defense Mechanisms, Organizational Silence and Tokenistic Inclusion, Micro-Solidarity, and Ordinary Visibility.

Findings suggest that the coming-out process for LGB employees in the Turkish automotive industry is strategically selective, with disclosure occurring at different times and to different people. The mode of continuous surveillance drains their energy as they experience constant liminality and fragmented identity. Contrary to findings in other contexts suggesting that managerial positions ease the disclosure process, managers in the Turkish automotive industry experienced more pressure and chose to conceal their identities. In addition, sex differences were found to either ease or hinder the coming-out process, as women secured better support from their colleagues. We chose to draw on existing theories, such as “Minority Stress Theory” and “Organizational Silence”, whenever necessary.

The next section details the research design and data analysis, followed by the key themes formulated from our qualitative research.

2. Theoretical Framework

Many studies conducted, especially in Western settings, portray the coming-out process as a predestined path to liberation, based on the presumption that multifaceted stress caused by minority identity and stigma aggravates the stress felt by LGB individuals, and therefore needs to be relieved by disclosure (Frost and Meyer 2023). The theoretical background of these studies is heavily influenced by Ilan Meyer’s Minority Stress Theory (I. H. Meyer 2003), which provides a robust framework for understanding the psychological burden of concealment and prejudice. Meyer’s explanations are built on the dual influences of distal and proximal stressors, with the former encompassing institutional and societal stressors such as regulations and everyday experiences of discrimination. Proximal stressors, on the other hand, are caused by internalized stigma by which LGB individuals learn to reject themselves, hide their identities, and develop continuous expectations of being stigmatized (I. H. Meyer 2003). Whereas Minority Stress Theory helps clarify societal and institutional influences on the coming-out process, we contend that it needs to be expanded on two fronts. First, the theory’s purely sexual-orientation-focused stress model remains insufficient to capture the class-based masculine performances stemming from the blue-collar/white-collar division within the automotive sector. Therefore, this study argues that expanding Meyer’s model (I. H. Meyer 2003) by linking it with R.W. Connell’s Hegemonic Masculinity (Connell [1995] 2005) is both a theoretical necessity and a core conceptual contribution of this paper. By doing so, we aim to bridge the gap between structural labor dynamics and identity-based stressors among minority groups. Second, based on the argument of institutional complexity, we argue that organizational policies and practices in the Turkish automotive industry tend to be decoupled. It is well documented that multinational enterprises have enacted anti-discriminatory norms and policies addressing employees from diverse sexual and ethnic backgrounds (Ciuk et al. 2023). However, the literature also reports a strong decoupling between practice implementation and policies when local affiliates of multinational enterprises face countervailing local institutional pressures stemming from societal expectations or noncompliant local regulations (Brandl et al. 2022; Brewster et al. 2008). Thus, not only does the adoption of anti-discriminatory policies matter in ameliorating minority stress stemming from societal stressors, but an in-depth understanding of ritual adoption and organizational silence is also required to assess whether and to what extent policy discourses are substantiated in practice.

In line with these theoretical considerations, we argue that the Turkish automotive industry serves as a “micro-power” arena in which technical competence is inextricably linked to physical endurance and “tough” hegemonic masculinity. Within this culture, Minority Stress acts as the initial catalyst for concealment; the pressure of neoconservative “sacred family” discourses and the lack of explicit legal protections against discrimination create a chronic state of “hyper-vigilance” and anxiety. This stress is further reinforced by Organizational Silence. In this structural environment, companies maintain a facade of “institutional neutrality” that effectively rewards the invisibility of LGB identities and treats sexual orientation as a “risk factor” to be managed rather than a human right to be protected. The nested interactions between social/institutional and industry-specific stressors reveal that, for LGB individuals in the Turkish automotive industry, coming out may not be a simple act of liberation. Instead, employees may need to continuously conceal or partially disclose their identities to survive in a hyper-masculine workplace. In the following section, we will introduce our method and data to reveal this non-linear process.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Paradigm and Design

Our research design uses an interpretivist lens and assumes that knowledge is constructed through individual perceptions and social interactions existing as an objective reality (Burr 2015). According to this ontological perspective, concepts such as sexual orientation, gender identity, and workplace norms are seen as fluid rather than static. They are interpreted as social constructs that are constantly reinforced within the hegemonic masculine culture of the automotive industry. Therefore, a qualitative research method was adopted to decipher the participants’ subjective experiences and the meanings they attribute to them (Creswell [1997] 2018). Given the limited empirical data on the experiences of sexual minorities in industrial structures and male-dominated organizations in Türkiye, an exploratory research design was employed to understand the phenomenon in its own context rather than to test cause-and-effect relationships between variables (Stebbins 2001).

3.2. Sample and Participant Profile

The study sample consists of self-identified LGB (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual) individuals who have worked for at least 1 year in companies operating in the automotive industry in Türkiye. Given the hidden and highly sensitive nature of the LGB population within the Turkish automotive industry, a combined purposive and snowball sampling approach was used to reach individuals with rich information relevant to the research purpose (Patton [1990] 2015). The sample size of 15 participants was guided by the principle of conceptual saturation in reflexive thematic analysis, in which data collection was concluded once internal thematic patterns became sufficiently rich and no new codes emerged.

The sample group shown in Table 1 consists of 15 participants working in different-sized companies (large international companies, suppliers, etc.) and in different hierarchical positions (blue-collar, white-collar, middle management, and upper management) within the sector. Participant diversity was considered to capture the heterogeneity of experiences within the sector and to ensure “maximum variation”. Nevertheless, we should note that, according to the OECD’s annual Labor Force Participation Rate data, Turkey has ranked at the very bottom of the list in the female category for many years (OECD Labour Force Participation Rate 2024). Consequently, the lower representation of female participants in our sample is not a mere artifact of a flawed sampling strategy; rather, it constitutes an intentional analytical point that mirrors the actual workforce composition of the Turkish automotive sector. By capturing this demographic imbalance, the study ensures an ecologically valid reflection of a deeply segregated manufacturing culture. For reasons of research ethics and participant safety (psychological and economic), all participants were given pseudonyms, and the names of the organizations were kept confidential (Damianakis and Woodford 2012).

Table 1. Participant Profile.

Participant ID	Sex/Sexual Orientation	Age–Age Band	Organization Scale	Role/Department	Years In Sector	Openness Status
P01	Male/Gay	25–30	Large-scale multinational company	Engineer/IT	6 years	Partially Open
P02	Male/Gay	25–30	Large-scale multinational company	Specialist/HR	4.5 years	Closeted
P03	Male/Gay	40–45	Large-scale multinational company	Manager/Production	18 years	Closeted
P04	Male/Gay	20–25	Large-scale multinational company	Engineer/Purchasing	1 year	Partially Open
P05	Male/Gay	30–35	Large-scale multinational company	Technician/Production	10 years	Closeted
P06	Male/Gay	25–30	Medium-scale supplier	Engineer/IT	6 years	Partially Open
P07	Male/Bisexual	30–35	Large-scale multinational company	Specialist/HR	8 years	Closeted
P08	Male/Gay	27	Large-scale multinational company	Technician/Production	6 years	Partially Open
P09	Male/Gay	29	Small-scale supplier	Engineer/IT	2 years	Partially Open
P10	Female/Lesbian	33	Large-scale supplier	Technician/Quality	10 years	Partially Open
P11	Male/Gay	35	Large-scale multinational company	Technician/Production	15 years	Closeted
P12	Female/Lesbian	31	Medium-scale supplier	Specialist/Logistics	5 years	Partially Open
P13	Male/Bisexual	25	Large-scale multinational company	Junior Specialist/HR	1 year	Partially Open
P14	Female/Bisexual	32	Small-scale supplier	Specialist/HR	7 years	Partially Open
P15	Male/Gay	28	Medium-scale supplier	Engineer/R&D	4 years	Partially Open

3.3. Data Collection Process

Before data collection, ethical approval was obtained from Istanbul Technical University Ethics Committee for Research on Humans in Social and Behavioral Sciences. A semi-structured interview technique was used as the data collection tool. This interview technique offers participants flexibility in self-expression while aiming to avoid deviation from the research focus (Kvale 2007). Interviews were conducted online or in person, taking into account participants’ privacy preferences and security concerns. Each interview lasted approximately 45 min, was audio-recorded, and then transcribed for analysis.

In alignment with the interpretivist paradigm, the researchers continuously engaged in reflexivity to examine their own positioning and potential biases regarding workplace discrimination. All semi-structured interviews were conducted by the first author. Given the researchers’ positioning outside the LGB and wider LGBTQ+ community, data collection and the subsequent co-construction of meaning were guided by a reflexive pragmatist approach, drawing upon Alvesson’s (2003) framework. We recognized from the outset that our outsider status could introduce a particular social distance, potentially leading participants to rely on institutionalized ‘cultural scripts’ or to engage in heightened ‘impression management’ during the initial stages of the interview. To manage these dynamics productively, the interviewer did not attempt to simulate insider status or falsely claim a shared lived experience; instead, our subjectivity was used as a transparent analytical tool. The interviewer engaged in an ongoing, multi-angled dialog, consciously moving between empathetic active listening and analytical probing. Rather than viewing our socio-political positioning as a bias to be suspended, we embraced it as an active interpretive resource that facilitated a critical deconstruction of the corporate policy–practice gap from a position of scholarly reflexivity. This critical distance also shaped our data analysis, ensuring that participant narratives were not taken as mere transparent reflections of reality but were systematically analyzed in light of the structural and macro-political pressures of the sector. A cross-sectional temporal design was used; all interviews were conducted within the same six-month period to ensure comparability while still capturing diverse workplace contexts (Saunders et al. [1996] 2019).

4. Data Analysis

The data from the semi-structured interviews were analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) Reflective Thematic Analysis. This method is ideal for revealing patterns and meanings of various personal narratives. “The term thematic discourse analysis is used to refer to a wide range of pattern-type analysis of data, ranging from thematic analysis within a social constructionist epistemology” (Braun and Clarke 2006). Subjectivity and depth are prioritized in this analysis to understand disclosure, sexual identity management, and workplace culture.

Before the analysis, all transcripts obtained from the interviews were translated into English to ensure integration with the existing literature. The translation was performed by the first author and subsequently cross-checked by the second author to ensure accuracy and consistency. In qualitative research, translation is not merely a linguistic process but also a reconstruction of cultural meaning. Therefore, instead of a word-for-word translation, a “conceptual equivalence” strategy was followed, prioritizing the transfer of meaning and context from the source to the target language (Temple and Young 2004). To operationalize conceptual equivalence without relying on a formal back-translation procedure, an iterative, two-stage collaborative review process was employed by the research team. First, the first author conducted the forward translation, highlighting culturally specific phrases, local organizational discourses, and latent meanings. Second, the second author independently audited the translated sentences against the original Turkish audio and transcripts to detect any loss of contextual nuance. Discrepancies between the two researchers regarding cultural or organizational meanings were resolved through peer debriefing until a full consensus on conceptual equivalence was established. For instance, translating localized workplace discourses reflecting ‘hegemonic masculinity’ required careful conceptual operationalization; expressions where participants described performing a tough, heterosexual male persona to avoid professional questioning on the shop floor were translated to align accurately with Connell’s ([1995] 2005) theoretical framework. Similarly, participant narratives involving ‘linguistic self-censorship’—such as strategically using gender-neutral terms like ‘arkadaşım’ (my friend) instead of ‘erkek arkadaşım’ (my boyfriend) to manage disclosure risks—were carefully analyzed during translation to ensure that the psychological tension and the exact strategic nuances of ‘controlled openness’ were fully preserved in the English manuscript.

In this study, NVivo 15.3.0 was used as a qualitative data analysis software. The following stages were carried out in the analysis:

4.1. Familiarizing with the Data

Transcripts of interviews with our participants were repeatedly read. This process is not merely a mechanical reading but an active process of interpretation that enables a deep understanding of the data (Nowell et al. 2017). Initial reflections were recorded as NVivo analytical memos.

4.2. Generating Initial Codes

Line-by-line explicit coding was performed to capture actions, emotions, and implicit meanings in the dataset. Saldaña ([2009] 2021) stated that “Epistemological questions address theories of knowing and an understanding of the phenomenon of interest”. Based on this interpretation, both semantic and latent codes were created. For example, a participant’s statement, “I change my partner’s gender when describing my weekend plans,” was coded as both “lying” (semantic) and a “deception strategy” (latent).

4.3. Searching for Themes

The generated codes were grouped by similarity and clustered into potential themes. By examining the relationships and patterns among the codes, a detailed codebook (539 lines) was created.

Contextual factors such as the hegemonic masculinity culture and workplace norms in the automotive industry served as a unifying axis in the thematization of codes (Willig [2008] 2017). This codebook was iteratively improved through comparisons across cases.

4.4. Reviewing Themes

To ensure the trustworthiness and rigor of the analytical process, data triangulation was performed by systematically cross-referencing verbatim transcripts with NVivo co-occurrence maps and analytical memos. The analysis results revealed relationships, cause-and-effect connections, and processes among the main themes. Furthermore, an analytic audit was conducted through peer debriefing sessions among the research team to refine the 539-line codebook and iteratively resolve any interpretive discrepancies. The homogeneity within and external heterogeneity of the identified themes were carefully checked. According to Patton ([1990] 2015), “the core meaning found through content analysis is patterns and themes”. When we take that into account, convergent and divergent patterns were clarified through comparisons across participants and organizational types. The NVivo “Cases” and “Case Classifications” tables were used to compare themes by participant characteristics. Themes supported by insufficient data were removed or merged.

To further demonstrate the validity of the refinement process during the thematic review, explicit analytical pathways were tracked to ensure internal homogeneity and external heterogeneity across cases. Below are specific exemplars illustrating the structural transitions from raw participant narratives to first-order codes, sub-codes, and our finalized overarching themes:

Exemplar 1:

Raw Participant Quote: “Instead of saying ‘my boyfriend’, I say ‘my friend’. It is an ordinary day for us, but at work, that sentence suddenly feels like ‘too much information’.” (P01)

First-Order Code: Habitual filtering of speech and behavior to prevent disclosure.

Sub-code/Pattern: Linguistic self-censorship.

Main Theme: Controlled Openness: A Strategic Struggle for Existence.

Exemplar 2:

Raw Participant Quote: “I am physically there, but absent from some conversations. It creates a sense of loneliness. You constantly filter your thoughts—‘What if I say this? How will it be perceived?’“ (P01)

First-Order Code: Continuous vigilance over language and expression across settings.

Sub-code/Pattern: Constant Filtering.

Main Theme: Emotional and Cognitive Labor: The Toll of the Invisible Burden.

Exemplar 3:

Raw Participant Quote: “Sometimes when I get home, I find myself thinking, ‘How many people did I lie to today?’“ (P04)

First-Order Code: Providing false information to conceal one’s identity.

Sub-code/Pattern: Lying.

Main Theme: Defense Mechanisms: Humor, Passing, and Lying.

Exemplar 4:

Raw Participant Quote: “Global companies are generally inclusive on paper, but in practice, implementation depends on local managers. And most of them prefer to just “not see it.” That’s a form of exclusion in itself.” (P03)

First-Order Code: Discrepancy between formal inclusion policies and everyday practice.

Sub-code/Pattern: Policy–Practice Gap.

Main Theme: Organizational Silence: Ignoring as a Corporate Practice.

4.5. Defining and Naming Themes

At this stage of the analysis, the essence of each theme was distilled, and its relationship to the main research question was clarified. As detailed in Table S1: Codebook, the six main themes that emerged from the analysis were: Controlled Openness, Emotional and Cognitive Labor, Defense Mechanisms, Organizational Silence and Tokenistic Inclusion, Micro-Solidarity, and Ordinary Visibility.

4.6. Producing the Report

The findings were mapped onto existing theoretical frameworks, such as Organizational Silence (Morrison and Milliken 2000), Stigma (Goffman [1963] 1990), and Emotional Labor (Hochschild [1983] 2012), resulting in a final academic narrative that engages with the existing literature.

5. Results

5.1. Controlled Openness: A Strategic Struggle for Existence

5.1.1. Management of Disclosure and Environmental Readiness

“Controlled openness” is among the most common and complex strategies adopted by LGB employees in the Turkish automotive sector. Positioned between the complete concealment and complete disclosure of sexual identity, this concept represents a situation that is constantly renegotiated depending on the context, the interlocutor, and the perceived level of risk. This term is theoretically linked to Griffith and Hebl’s Disclosure Process Model. This model accepts that coming out is a “process” rather than a “one-time event”. Griffith and Hebl (2002) stated that “much of the concealment of disclosure focuses on preventing negative reactions, the benefits of disclosures are predicted to occur only when positive reactions from coworkers occur” in their study. That explains why participants view every workplace interaction as a potential risk or opportunity, treating information as a strategic resource.

The “Environmental Readiness for Disclosure” factor is more decisive than an individual’s personal readiness in the automotive industry. Employees constantly assess their colleagues’ political views, religious beliefs, and adherence to masculine culture. Based on these analyses, they decide to whom, how much, and when to disclose their sexual identity. In our study, participant P15 described this situation as “strategic silence”. He mentioned, “I’m not hiding out of shame; I choose to remain silent to maintain balance”. The participant’s ‘strategic silence’ approach demonstrates that compromising one’s authenticity is a rational cost–benefit analysis and a ‘professional survival skill’ imposed by the corporate climate, rather than a personal weakness.

5.1.2. Information Control and Fragmented Identities

The controlled openness strategy causes employee identity fragmentation. The statement by participant P09, “I live in fragments, really”, best summarizes this situation. Performing different identities at work, on social media, with family, and even among close friends is a mechanism that threatens an individual’s integrity but also ensures their survival. As a result of this strategy, employees often develop tactics such as avoiding pronouns or using gender-neutral terms when referring to partners.

Our research findings show that sub-codes such as “implying” and “linguistic self-censorship” are frequently used by participants. For example, participant P01 chose to manage the truth without lying, but also without fully disclosing it, by saying, “Instead of saying ‘my boyfriend’, I say ‘my friend’. It is an ordinary day for us, but at work, that sentence suddenly feels like ‘too much information’”. This is a pragmatic bridge built between honesty and security. However, as participant P04 noted, “Even not saying it is stressful. Even if you don’t say a word, it drains your energy”. This statement proves that controlled openness is not a passive state but an active, energy-consuming action that requires constant vigilance.

5.2. Emotional and Cognitive Labor: The Toll of the Invisible Burden

5.2.1. The Mask of Professionalism and Internal Tension

If “Controlled Openness” is a strategy, then “Emotional and Cognitive Labor” is the price this strategy exacts from the individual. Hochschild’s ([1983] 2012) concept of emotional labor, developed for service-sector employees, is used in this research to describe the mental and emotional effort LGB employees expend to exist in a heteronormative workplace. LGB employees in the automotive sector not only perform the technical tasks in their job descriptions but also spend considerable time maintaining a “professional” (i.e., heterosexual or asexual) mask, constantly keeping their identities under control.

In the research notes, this theme is defined as “constant mental filtering and emotion regulation to conceal identity while maintaining a professional persona”. This process consists of sub-components such as “Constant Filtering”, “Cognitive Dissonance”, and “Emotional Strain”. P04’s striking statement, “My jaw literally aches from smiling… those smiles that aren’t real. I don’t think hiding so much of yourself at this age is healthy for anyone”, demonstrates that this labor has not only psychological but also somatic (bodily) effects. This pain reflects the dissonance in the body; it is physical evidence of the gap between internal reality and external performance.

5.2.2. Hyper-Vigilance

In connection with I. H. Meyer’s (2003) Minority Stress Theory, LGB workers in the automotive industry are in a chronic state of “hyper-vigilance”. This is the necessity of constantly scanning the environment for threats, evaluating every word and action in terms of potential exposure risk. P12 stated, “I’ve developed an instinct to avoid gendered words; I now do it without thinking”, indicating that this cognitive labor has become automated over time but remains a burden.

This automation does not mean the labor disappears; rather, it shows that the labor has become deeply ingrained in the personality and ‘naturalized’. Employees are forced to constantly dedicate a portion of their cognitive capacity, which they should be using to solve technical problems in the workplace, to identity management. When evaluated within the context of “Cognitive Load” theory, this reveals that LGB employees are at a disadvantageous starting point compared to their heterosexual colleagues, expending more mental energy to perform the same task.

5.3. Defense Mechanisms: Humor, Passing, and Lying

LGB employees have developed various “Defense Mechanisms” to counter heteronormative pressure and potential workplace discrimination. These mechanisms are directly related to Goffman’s ([1963] 1990) theories of stigma and impression management. The research data show that the most frequently used mechanisms are “Use of Humor”, “Passing”, “Lying”, “Silence”, and “Self-censorship”.

5.3.1. Humor: Shield and Mask

In male-dominated fields such as the automotive industry, humor is a fundamental tool for socialization. However, for LGB employees, humor is a twofold defense mechanism. On the one hand, as P15 stated, it is used as a shield to deflect questions or reduce tension: “Sometimes I’m just joking or deflecting questions”. On the other hand, laughing at or participating in homophobic jokes is a mask that allows the employee to be perceived as an “insider”.

However, this mask has a damaging effect on self-esteem in the long run, as it means participating in attacks on one’s own identity. This instrumentalization of humor can lead to the normalization and internalization of the violence the employee is exposed to (internalized stigma).

5.3.2. Passing and Hyper-Masculine Performance

“Passing” is a vital defense mechanism, especially for gay men working in blue-collar and production settings. P08 admited to consciously manipulating his bodily performance, stating, “I mostly work night shifts… the environment is very masculine. I generally behave masculinely; the way I talk, how I move, because if you don’t, people notice straight away”. This is Goffman’s strategy for the “discreditable” individual to blend into the “normal” majority by keeping their secret.

“Hegemonic Masculinity” in the automotive industry imposes not only a specific way of doing business but also a specific way of being. In such an environment, “passing” means not only concealing one’s sexual orientation but also actively performing the codes of tough, resilient, and heterosexual masculinity. In our interview, participant P07 stated, “In risky spaces, I act completely like a straight guy. I talk about my girlfriend, chat about football… in safer spaces, I’m a little more relaxed.” Despite being employed in large-scale multinational corporations, both participants, P07 and P08, utilized ‘passing’ as a defensive strategy and exhibited hyper-masculine performance, regardless of their specific sexual orientations.

5.3.3. Lying and Compulsory Heterosexuality

“Lying” is the most direct defense mechanism of all. It involves constructing a false heterosexual life. Participant P04’s question, “How many people did I lie to today?”, shows that lying has become part of the daily routine. Inventing a partner of the opposite sex when asked what they did over the weekend, or creating imaginary family responsibilities, are frequently used methods to deflect suspicion. This aligns with Rich’s (1980) concept of “Compulsory Heterosexuality”; the institutional context creates structural demands for heteronormative performance, which increase the cognitive load of LGB employees who engage in continuous identity management. The defense mechanism of lying employed by participant P04 stems from a multi-layered practice of resistance developed to evade the labels of ‘sin’ or ‘immorality’ imposed by societal and religious norms, thereby protecting the self against the risk of such stigmatization. This finding aligns with the arguments of Wilcox (2006) and Ratcliff and Haltom (2021), who suggest that deeply institutionalized religious norms and faith-based environments often restrict identity management practices, forcing sexual minorities to prioritize concealment and strategic deception over authenticity due to the acute fear of spiritual or moral condemnation within their communities.

5.4. Organizational Silence: Ignoring as a Corporate Practice

5.4.1. Institutionalization of Silence

“Organizational silence”, conceptualized by Morrison and Milliken (2000), is the situation where employees deliberately avoid expressing their opinions, concerns, or identities. About the organizational silence, Morrison and Milliken (2000) stated in their work that, “A troubling aspect of the dynamics that create and maintain silence is that they are hidden from view. It is like the tale of the emperor’s new clothes. Everyone understands that it is risky to speak the truth, but this fact itself is ‘undiscussable’, and few people know what to do to bring about change”. Although Morrison and Milliken (2000) define organizational silence as a barrier to institutional development, the Turkish automotive context reveals a more complex dynamic. Integrating Ahmed’s (2012) critique of “tokenistic practices” aligns with the organizational decoupling literature, which posits that global diversity protocols and local factory-floor practices operate independently of one another. In reality, this institutional silence functions as a mechanism of “silent exclusion”, where global diversity policies fail to penetrate the local factory floor’s deeply ingrained heteronormative culture. In the Turkish automotive sector, silence on LGB issues is not merely an individual choice but a corporate norm and management strategy. Our analyses show that this organizational silence construct sub-codes such as “Institutional Neutrality”, “Bisexual Erasure”, and “Rendered Invisible”.

Companies’ claims of remaining “neutral” on issues of sexual orientation and gender identity actually means silently endorsing the existing heteronormative order. The claim of corporate ‘neutrality’ functions as a hegemonic tool that preserves the existing status quo, deeply rooted in heteronormative and traditional religious values, thereby fostering an oppressive climate where employees succumb to organizational silence due to the fear of religious exclusion and marginalization. Here, the intersection of neoconservative politics and religious dogma mirrors what Ratcliff and Haltom (2021) identify as the constraining effect of religiosity on coming-out patterns. In the Turkish automotive context, faith-based societal expectations do not just remain outside the factory gates; they actively shape the implicit codes of conduct inside, reinforcing a structural silence where being closeted becomes the only viable mechanism to maintain moral legitimacy and professional respect. Participant P02’s experience illustrates how this silence has become institutionalized. Although he is an HR professional in a position to enforce diversity policies, he stated, “I’m completely hidden. I neither hint nor leave any clues”. This reveals the policy–practice gap between the organization’s official discourse and its actual culture.

5.4.2. Policy–Practice Gap

Turkish subsidiaries of multinational companies generally have comprehensive diversity and inclusion policies originating from their global headquarters. However, a “Policy–Practice Gap” arises when these policies are transferred to local factories and offices. As participant P10 pointed out, “The procedures exist, yes, but the spirit doesn’t”. Participant P06 similarly stated that “No one may discriminate directly, but there is such a thing as silent exclusion”, indicating that the protective nature of formal policies cannot prevent subtle forms of social exclusion.

This gap can lead to diversity policies becoming mere ‘tokenistic practices’, as noted by Ahmed (2012) in her study, who stated “I came to ask whether there is an investment in both law and policy as ‘performatives’: as if they do what they say, as if they bring something into existence”. Another participant echoes this sentiment by stating, “It’s like diversity is there because it would look bad if it wasn’t (P04).” Even though companies prohibit discrimination on paper, homophobic jokes, mockery, or heterosexist assumptions (the assumption that all employees are married and have children) persist within the organizational culture. This situation creates a “symbolic inclusion” for LGB employees, but in reality, it builds a wall of silence.

5.4.3. Managerial Silence and Risk

The silence of managers and leaders on this issue sends the message to employees that “this is not something to be discussed here”. Participant P03’s fear of “I could have lost a lot; respect, status, even the subtle forms of support… there’s a sharp line between being ‘that manager’ and being ‘that gay man’. I had to choose one” confirms that silence is a career protection tool. The organization rewards silence, while coding, speaking out, or being visible is a risk factor. This situation can be explained by Bowen and Blackmon’s (2003) “Spiral of Silence” theory: the non-expression of a minority’s ideas or identity creates the perception the identity has disappeared, which further deepens the silence.

5.4.4. Tokenism and Symbolic Inclusion

Ahmed’s (2012) “Tokenistic Practices” theory examines how companies’ diversity policies operate. Companies may claim to be inclusive by showcasing one or two “different” employees. However, the “silent exclusion” mentioned by participant P06 reveals the reality behind this facade. Within this tokenism, LGB employees struggle not to exist as “symbolic” figures.

5.5. Micro-Solidarity: Underground Networks and Safe Havens

5.5.1. Creating Alternative Public Spaces

Faced with the silence and hostility of the corporate structure, LGB employees are building “Micro-Solidarity” networks to survive. This theme is associated with Fraser’s (1990) concept of ‘Subaltern Counterpublics’ that she explained in her study as “This history records that members of subordinated social groups—women, workers, peoples of color, and gays and lesbians—have repeatedly found it advantageous to constitute alternative publics”. These networks are “emotional refuges” that operate through informal, trust-based, and often secret relationships. For instance, P01 manages the isolation of the automotive sector through external communities: “There is no internal support group… but I am a member of an external queer engineers’ community. Talking with them makes me feel ‘I am not alone’“.

Micro-solidarity creates small, safe areas within the organization. Participant P09 emphasizes the psychological buffer function of these networks, stating, “Finding safe connections reduces emotional exhaustion… with [my friend], I feel completely safe. Solidarity can be something as simple as a glance, a hand on your shoulder”. These forms of solidarity are often “off the record”; they are maintained through a glance, a coffee break chat, or private direct messages via social media.

5.5.2. Women’s Solidarity and Intersectional Alliances

One of the most interesting findings of the study is the natural alliance between LGB employees and female employees. P10 stated that when she accidentally posted a photo of herself with her partner in a workplace group, instead of the expected disaster, she encountered “women’s solidarity”, and the atmosphere “softened as women joined in.” P12 also confirmed this alliance, saying, “Women protect each other’s space more naturally”.

In a hyper-masculine environment like the automotive industry, women and LGB individuals share a similar marginalization as “others” outside of hegemonic masculinity. This shared fate creates a silent allyship. Female employees often function as “safe havens” for LGB employees and are at the center of micro-solidarity networks.

The emergence of ‘micro-solidarity’ networks within the sector aligns with Fraser’s (1990) concept of ‘subaltern counterpublics’, in which marginalized groups constitute alternative spaces for survival. In the hyper-masculine environment of the automotive industry, the intersectional alliance between LGB employees and female colleagues (e.g., P05, P10, P12, P13) serves as a psychological buffer. This “silent allyship” effectively challenges the exclusionary “man’s job” myth by creating informal “safe havens” that operate beyond the reach of formal corporate surveillance.

5.5.3. Peer Trust and Secure Connections

LGB employees constantly test their colleagues to determine whom they can come out to. Peer trust is fundamental to this process. P09 stated that finding “safe connections” reduces emotional exhaustion. These connections allow the employee somewhat to integrate their “fragmented” identity in the workplace. Being able to be open with even one person, to drop the mask in their presence, makes their existence in the workplace bearable.

5.6. Ordinary Visibility: A Horizon Beyond Disclosure

5.6.1. Normalization and Sense of Authenticity

“Ordinary Visibility” refers to the ultimate goal that LGB workers aim for: for identity to cease being a dramatic event of disclosure and become an ordinary part of everyday life. Theoretically associated with Goffman ([1963] 1990) and I. H. Meyer (2003), this theme is defined as “everyday authenticity without declaration”.

P13 provided an example of this normalization by saying, “I mentioned my ex-boyfriend casually, without much thought”. This is not a confession or a political stance, but simply part of a conversation. This kind of “banal activism” has the potential to create more effective cultural transformation than grand gestures or formal policies. Banal activism refers to individuals engaging in actions that require little effort within their daily routines to take a stand on social or political issues (Smith 2011). It circulates identity not as a subject of political conflict but as an ordinary reality. Thus, rather than confronting interlocutors’ prejudices directly, it erodes the heteronormative ground. This situation manifests, especially among younger generation employees, as a ‘natural presence’ rather than ‘strategic silence’.

5.6.2. The Impact of Hierarchy and Generational Differences

The data show that the controlled openness strategy differs by age and hierarchical position. Young participants and those new to the workforce (e.g., P13) tend to exhibit a more “casual” openness, while senior managers (e.g., P03) adopt a more ‘closed’ strategy to avoid losing respect and status. P13, by stating that he spoke about his ex-boyfriend “without much thought, in a casual way”, represents the new generation’s courage regarding normalization and the theme of “Generational Hope”.

On the contrary, participant P03, a production manager with 18 years of industry experience, emphasizes that the pressure to maintain visibility brought about by hierarchical advancement makes openness difficult, saying, “I could have lost so much; respect, status, even subtle forms of support.” In an industry where managers are evaluated not only on job performance but also on traditional roles such as “exemplary family man”, top-level positions can paradoxically require greater secrecy. This creates a “glass closet” for LGB employees, in addition to the concept of the “glass ceiling”; a transparent yet impassable barrier that everyone knows about but no one ever talks about.

6. Discussion

The interpretative architecture of this study was fundamentally shaped by the researchers’ positioning outside the LGB and wider LGBTQ+ community, reframing identity management as a strategic struggle for survival within Türkiye’s socio-political reality. Rather than treating this outsider status as a methodological barrier or attempting an impossible neopositivist detachment, the analysis was operationalized through Alvesson’s (2003) framework of Reflexive Pragmatism. Alvesson (2003) argues that interview accounts exist in a field of tensions between diverse logics, such as the communication of experiences, impression management, and political action. By embracing this reflexive pragmatist stance during data analysis, we systematically destabilized the romantic assumption that participant narratives are transparent, unmediated mirrors of an interior or an exterior reality. Our outsider positioning provided a critical interpretive distance that prompted us to analyze the text not merely for what was overtly stated, but for what was structurally omitted within the industry’s masculine structure. For instance, when participants engaged in passing or heavy linguistic self-censorship (such as changing partner pronouns or exhibiting hyper-masculine performances on the shop floor), an unreflective insider might intuitively normalize these everyday survival tactics. From our reflexive, pragmatic distance, however, these accounts were decoded as active sites of impression management and defensive maneuvers triggered by overarching socio-political and industrial hegemonic structures. Consequently, our positioning allowed us to view the interview scene itself as a ‘local accomplishment’ where participants continuously calculated the risks of disclosure. This approach ensured that the final themes developed such as Controlled Openness and Organizational Silence were not reduced to isolated psychological coping mechanisms but were rigorously unraveled as strategic micro-political struggles tailored to Türkiye’s contemporary neoconservative climate and manufacturing machismo.

The empirical findings of this study expand current understandings of workplace identity management by demonstrating that coming out in a non-Western, neoconservative context is a continuous, non-linear process of strategic risk management rather than an instantaneous act of personal liberation. When evaluated within the framework of Griffith and Hebl’s (2002) Disclosure Process Model, the decision to disclose or conceal sexual orientation emerges as a constantly updated trajectory, heavily contingent on “environmental readiness” rather than on individual willingness alone. In the Turkish automotive industry, this readiness is dictated by a rigid heteronormative order where hegemonic masculinity and state-supported “sacred family” discourses permeate the organizational culture, forcing employees to operate under chronic hyper-vigilance. This continuous surveillance exacts a severe somatic and psychological toll, validating and extending Hochschild’s ([1983] 2012) emotional labor and I. H. Meyer’s (2003) Minority Stress Theory. LGB employees dedicate a substantial portion of their cognitive capacity to maintaining a desexualized or falsely heterosexual mask, which places them at a systemic disadvantage compared to their heterosexual peers.

A pivotal theoretical contribution of this study lies in unraveling the “glass closet” effect, which paradoxically intensifies as individuals ascend the organizational hierarchy. While Western-centric literature often suggests that higher professional status and seniority grant employees greater autonomy and safety when coming out, our findings reveal the opposite trajectory in the Turkish industrial landscape. As employees transition from white-collar specialist roles into middle and upper management, the pressure to conform to traditional societal expectations—specifically, embodying the state-sanctioned role of the “exemplary family man”—becomes paramount. In strategic sectors like the automotive industry, which maintain close economic and political ties to the state, corporate conservatism aligns with nationalist heteronormativity. Consequently, top-level positions enforce stricter concealment, rendering managerial silence a critical career protection tool to preserve status, authority, and institutional respect. This specific intersection of state-supported traditionalism and corporate survival demands a revision of traditional career progression models for sexual minorities, proving that upward mobility can construct a transparent yet impassable barrier of enforced invisibility.

Furthermore, the study enriches the organizational resistance literature by capturing the nuanced dynamics of “micro-solidarity” through Fraser’s (1990) conceptual lens of “subaltern counterpublics”. Faced with institutionalized organizational silence and superficial “tokenistic inclusion” on paper, LGB employees construct alternative, informal networks that serve as psychological and emotional refuges. The most generative aspect of these subaltern spaces is the organic alliance formed between LGB workers and female colleagues. In a hyper-masculine environment historically structured around physical endurance and technical machismo, both women and LGB individuals are relegated to the status of structural “others” outside the dominant masculine archetype. This shared marginalization fosters a silent, intersectional allyship where female employees naturally safeguard and soften workplace spaces for their LGB peers. Rather than engaging in overt political resistance, these groups practice a form of “banal activism” through casual disclosures and everyday authenticity, which gradually erodes the corporate wall of silence far more effectively than top-down, decoupled global diversity policies.

7. Conclusions and Implications

This research provides a comprehensive analysis of the identity management practices of LGB individuals within the Turkish automotive industry, a sector defined by the intersection of industrial hegemonic masculinity and neoconservative socio-political pressures. By addressing the disproportionate reliance on Western-centric settings in the existing literature, the findings reveal that the process of coming out in non-Western contexts is far from a linear act of liberation. Instead, it serves as a form of strategic risk management where employees must continuously navigate the “glass closet” to preserve their professional existence. The research underscores how state-supported heteronormativity and the “sacred family” discourse permeate the organizational fabric, transforming identity disclosure into a calculated negotiation rather than a personal milestone. This research moves beyond a descriptive account of workplace experiences by synthesizing I. H. Meyer’s (2003) Minority Stress Theory with Connell’s ([1995] 2005) Hegemonic Masculinity to extend the Disclosure Process Model (Griffith and Hebl 2002) to a non-Western setting where intense societal and institutional pressures cause a decoupling of anti-discriminatory policies and practices. The findings conclude that coming out in non-Western industrial settings is not a linear act of liberation but a “strategic risk management” process. By identifying the unresolved tensions between global inclusion policies and local neoconservative pressures, this study provides a clear map of how “controlled openness”, defined as an iterative process whereby LGB individuals constantly assess when, to whom, and to what extent they disclose their identities, serves as a survival mechanism within the fortress of hegemonic masculinity.

A significant contribution of this research is the elucidation of the “glass closet” effect, which paradoxically intensifies as individuals ascend the organizational hierarchy. Contrary to Western findings where seniority might grant more autonomy, Turkish automotive managers experience heightened pressure to embody traditional masculine roles, such as the “exemplary family man”, thereby forcing stricter concealment of their identities to protect their status and reputation. Furthermore, the study highlights the debilitating cognitive and emotional labor required to maintain this facade. The state of “hyper-vigilance” identified among participants, evidenced by the somatic manifestation of psychological strain, demonstrates that identity management depletes the mental resources otherwise allocated to technical performance, placing LGB employees at a systematic disadvantage.

Structural barriers unique to the Turkish context, particularly the requirement for military service certificates, further complicate this landscape by inducing “forced coming out” through medical diagnoses that label non-heteronormative identities as disorders. Despite these pressures, the emergence of intersectional micro-solidarity, particularly between LGB individuals and female colleagues, suggests the presence of “subaltern counterpublics” that provide essential psychological buffers against an exclusionary culture. Even though others also refer to safety nets to ameliorate the burden of minority stress, it is the first time their operation in the Turkish setting is documented. Ultimately, while multinational corporations may offer inclusive policies on paper, a policy–practice gap remains, as local operations often revert to “tokenistic inclusion” or “silent exclusion”. Thus, the paper underscores that under conditions of transnational and local institutional conflict, pressures for compliance favor local ones, increasing the likelihood of ritual adoption of anti-discriminatory policies and paving the way for institutional neutrality that reifies cisnormativity.

The findings of this research highlight the need to foster an inclusive environment in the Turkish automotive sector through a dual-pronged approach that includes both institutional and legal reforms. At the organizational level, companies can benefit from bridging the policy–implementation gap by ensuring that global diversity and inclusion protocols are not merely symbolic gestures on paper but are actively enforced across all operational levels, from the production line to executive management. Breaking the cycle of managerial silence is equally critical; this can be achieved by providing relational competence training for leaders to prevent silence from being utilized as a strategic tool for career protection. Furthermore, the findings indicate that addressing heteronormative terminology in internal and external communications could potentially mitigate the exclusionary effects of the ‘man’s job’ archetype.

Beyond corporate boundaries, the findings suggest that the explicit inclusion of ‘sexual orientation’ in local labor laws could reduce corporate ambiguity and lower the observed hyper-vigilance among employees. The terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” could be explicitly incorporated into the principle of equality under Article 5 of the Labor Law and Article 10 of the Constitution to eliminate the legal ambiguities that currently facilitate arbitrary and discriminatory employer practices. Specific attention could also be paid to the systemic barriers created by military service certificates; legal mechanisms are necessary to ensure that these documents do not disclose sensitive medical diagnoses such as “psychosexual disorders” during the recruitment process, thereby preventing forced disclosure and subsequent discrimination. Finally, the public sector has the potential to set a standard for the private sector by eliminating the ambiguous “morality-based” dismissal clauses within the civil service regime, ensuring that state institutions do not provide a precedent for identity-based marginalization.

8. Limitations

Although this study provides valuable insights into the identity management practices of LGB employees within the Turkish automotive industry, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the study relies on a relatively small sample size of 15 participants. While this is consistent with qualitative research designs that prioritize depth over statistical generalization, the small sample size and the highly contextual nature of the qualitative analysis limit the generalizability of the findings to the broader Turkish workforce and to other industrial sectors. Second, the gender and identity composition of the sample presents a limitation. The participant profile is heavily skewed toward gay and bisexual men, with only three lesbian or bisexual female participants. Crucially, this distribution reflects an important analytical reality rather than a sampling failure, as it directly mirrors the actual demographic composition of the workforce in this deeply gender-segregated sector. However, it must be acknowledged that women’s structural underrepresentation within the industry inherently constrains the overall breadth of these findings, limiting the depth of a broader intersectional analysis across diverse gender identities. Furthermore, the complete absence of transgender and intersex voices in the study means that the findings primarily reflect LGB experiences, thereby leaving the unique intersectional challenges faced by the wider transgender and intersex community within this hyper-masculine sector unexplored, despite the broader “LGBTQ+” framing used in some parts of the text. Third, this research utilizes a cross-sectional temporal design, with all interviews conducted within a single six-month window. This approach captures a specific snapshot of experiences. However, it cannot account for longitudinal shifts in identity management or for how these practices evolve over a longer career trajectory under changing socio-political conditions. Finally, the geographic locations of the participating companies within Türkiye could not be specified. Because regional cultural dynamics, political climates, and industrial concentrations vary significantly across the country, the lack of geographic specificity limits a more granular understanding of how regional variations might influence organizational culture and local heteronormative pressures. Acknowledging these boundaries precisely states the scope of this study’s contributions and opens clear pathways for future research to investigate diverse identities, longitudinal changes, and broader geographic frameworks.