LGBTQ+ history month 2026 arrives at a moment of tension. Inclusion work is under greater scrutiny, public discourse is polarised, and many organisations are quietly asking if now is the time to ‘lower the volume’ on Pride or LGBTQ+ activities. They are moving with the political tide and abandoning sentiments of solidarity made years, sometimes just months, earlier.
The 2026 theme – science and innovation – offers a powerful counterpoint. It invites us to move beyond symbolism and sentiment and ask an evidence-based question: what does the data tell us about whether LGBTQ+ people can contribute and lead without having to hide? Innovation does not come from people who are busy managing risk to their own safety, which for many LGBTQ+ employees, particularly transgender and non-binary people, remains the case.
Across UK businesses, openly LGBTQ+ CEOs remain the exception rather than the norm. In the FTSE100 there are only a handful of openly LGBTQ+ chief executives (approximately 2, although this number may not be accurate), and visibility drops even further when we look at intersectional identities or trans representation.
This is not a pipeline issue. LGBTQ+ people are present across organisations, functions and levels. What senior-level invisibility reflects is a calculated caution. Leadership visibility matters, not because representation is symbolic, but because it acts as a cultural signal. When few people are out at the top, the message to everyone else is still clear: being yourself may still cost you.
From a science and innovation perspective, this matters deeply. Innovation relies on challenge, experimentation and dissent. Those behaviours require psychological safety, and psychological safety is fragile in cultures where success depends on careful self-editing.
One of the most persistent features of the LGBTQ+ workplace experience is covering – the conscious downplaying of identity to fit in dominant norms. Covering is often misunderstood as a personal choice, when in reality it is a rational adaptation to culture. According to a 2024 Deloitte study, 74% of workers say covering has negatively affected them in some way, including impacts on well being, focus, sense of self, performance, or commitment at work. The science is clear: when people are covering, cognitive load increases. Decision-making slows. Risk-taking drops. People contribute less in meetings and are less likely to challenge assumptions or raise concerns. Over time, this erodes learning, creativity and performance.
In 2026, organisations that treat covering as a personal resilience issue rather than a cultural design flaw are actively undermining their own capacity to innovate.
When we talk about the current political climate, it’s hard to ignore the devastating impact the cultural shift has had on trans and non-binary individuals, as well as trans and non-binary inclusion. As we enter 2026, a growing number of employers are quietly rolling back or narrowing trans-inclusive policies. It should be noted that this is rarely framed as opposition, more often it’s justified as ‘neutrality’ or ‘cautious’. This means that the risk is shifted away from the organisation and onto trans people themselves, as organisations stepping back from clear decisions leaves trans people to absorb the risk instead.
When expectations are unclear, people stay silent out of fear of ‘getting it wrong’, and colleagues withdraw when they see exclusion. One of the most damaging mistakes organisations make is encouraging visibility without first addressing culture. When people are praised for being ‘out and proud’ in environments that remain biased or unsafe, again, risk is shifted onto individuals and not systems.
If inclusion is to be treated as a serious driver of innovation, it must be measured with the same rigour as any other business priority.
Traditional metrics for LGBTQ+ inclusion, such as network memberships or training completion, tell us very little about lived experience. In 2026, impactful LGBTQ+ inclusion measurement focuses on risk, safety and outcomes – not activity.
Innovative organisations are asking:
In 2026, culture is no longer defined by leadership statements about LGBTQ+ inclusion; the removal of rainbow flags from company logos with the turn of the political tide has exposed many of those statements as hollow. Culture is defined by experiences and the stories people tell about what it’s like to be within an organisation as an LGBTQ+ person.
Leaders shape culture through what they reward and promote, what they challenge, who they listen to, and how they respond when discomfort arises. Inclusive leadership is not about awareness or empathy for LGBTQ+ people alone. It is about behaviour under pressure. When leaders default to safety, conformity or silence, they often teach others to do the same.
We’ve designed an inclusive leadership self-assessment to help you establish your leadership strengths and areas for improvement. If you’re ready to learn practical strategies to lead with confidence, fairness and inclusion, explore our inclusive leadership training, designed to help leaders promote a culture where difference is valued and every voice is heard and respected.
For more information on inclusive leadership, or to schedule a complimentary call with one of our consultants, please get in touch.