Marjolein Dennissen

108 The Herculean task of diversity networks it becomes the responsibility of historically marginalized employees to take care of diversity issues and to educate majority employees in the organization (cf. Ahmed, 2009; Lorde, 1984). On the other hand, I observe that diversity networks also take up this task themselves. This not only provides networks with legitimacy, members of diversity networks also consider it their responsibility to start and stimulate discussions about diversity in organizations. Moreover, their usefulness as diversity educators gives diversity networks legitimacy in the organization. This double claim to responsibility, imposed by management as well as taken up by networks themselves, exemplifies the political processes that take place in an organizational context. Engaging in the diversity networking practice of appealing to organizational responsibility shows how diversity networks maneuver in this organizational force field. By means of appealing to organizational responsibility, network members are able to share their frustrations and experiences of exclusion with organizational management, and call attention to the organizational processes and the organizational culture that causes them. The collective, emotional appeal is a significant aspect of this particular diversity networking practice. Without its collectivity, it would lose impact and voice, and both managers clearly react to this emotional appeal. I showed how appealing to organizational responsibility can be done in different ways and using different arguments. While the ethnic minority network would evade addressing thorny issues and focus on the “sexiness” and positive side of diversity, the LGBT network chooses to make a more confrontational appeal by addressing organizational inequalities with concrete and straightforward examples. In contrast to the feel-good ways of diversity as aspired by the ethnic minority network, I see LGBT network members addressing organizational processes that (re)produce structural inequalities, thereby taking up the role of diversity killjoys (cf. Ahmed, 2009). As collective diversity killjoys, diversity networks seem to be more successful in challenging the organization and stimulating organizational equality, then when drawing on a more palatable discourse of doing happy diversity (Ahmed, 2009; Hoobler, 2005; Prasad & Mills, 1997). Shaping organizational policies As a collective, diversity networks are able to use their knowledge and expertise to exert influence on the implementation and adaptation of organizational policies. Being a network allows members to gather information about the effects of these policies on employees, diversity and organizational equality, and to detect whether existing policies need adjustment or that other (new) policies are required. As such, diversity networks can fulfill a signaling function by checking whether the organization adheres to the policies they have made or call on the organization to account for it when they neglect to do so. Diversity networks can negotiate with the organization about the implementation or possible alteration of diversity and equality policies. I have called this diversity networking practice shaping organizational policies. I present an example of this diversity networking practice as observed in the disability network in Govt.