Marjolein Dennissen

113 Diversity killjoys? By observing how collective networking is actually done “in the heat of the moment” (Berger, 2015, p. 40), I shed light on the role of emotion in diversity networking practices (such as appealing to organizational responsibility and shaping organizational policies). The collective use of emotion supports network members in bringing their message across. As collectives, diversity networks can expose and denounce structural inequalities and being grassroots initiatives they can have transformative potential (Benschop et al., 2015; Bettencourt et al., 1996). By engaging in diversity networking practices, diversity networks can contribute to “piecemeal change” (Scully & Segal, 2002, p. 126) in organizations, by supporting their members against the perceived lack of support within the organization, and by challenging the organization to address malpractices of discrimination and exclusion. Within diversity networks members can create a space wherein members can challenge organizational norms, processes of othering and exclusion, and hegemonic organizational discourses. Thinking strategically about how to address issues of organizational inequality with the organizational management, diversity networks can gain momentum for change. Providing support, calling upon management to take their responsibility and advocating policy changes, might not lead to radical changes, but can nonetheless lead to small wins (Benschop & Verloo, 2011; Meyerson & Fletcher, 2000), and “local, fragmented changes and opportunistic moments” (Scully & Segal, 2002, p. 161). This means that the “battle” of diversity networks for organizational equality is about inches, not about miles. Balancing between feel-good diversity and diversity killjoy The second contribution pertains to a more comprehensive insight in how diversity networks maneuver in a complex and power-laden organizational context. Despite the possibilities of diversity networks to stimulate organizational change, their diversity networking practices do not always live up to their (transformative) potential. My analysis revealed the sociopolitical processes that diversity networks collectively engage in when they network for equality and showed that engaging in diversity networking practices can also perpetuate the status quo. Diversity networking practices can (re)produce organizational and societal norms and discourses, contributing to organizational processes that maintain inequalities rather than challenging them. Previous studies suggest that diversity networks as collectives are valuable in representing employee voice and to getting organizational equality on the managerial agenda (Bell et al., 2011; Scully & Segal, 2002). However, this study showed that although diversity networks are able to get the attention of management and create opportunities to discuss diversity- and inequality-related issues, presence and voice alone is not enough to stimulate equality. Networking for change is a complex, political endeavor (Nicolini, 2009; Scully & Segal, 2002) and entails problematizing dominant ways of thinking and organizing (Wahl & Holgersson, 2003). In a power-laden organizational context, this involves a meticulous balancing act (Colgan & McKearney, 2012) where diversity networks have to keep an attuned relationship to power to