Marjolein Dennissen

114 The Herculean task of diversity networks lever resources and management support, but without coopting the goal of changing power relations (Scully & Segal, 2002). Diversity networks are often obliged to “adopt a strategic pose in the presence of the powerful” (Scott, 1990 as cited in Ybema & Horvers, 2017, p. 1237), because they are made responsible for diversity and equality in the workplace. On the one hand, this task is (subtly) imposed on them by the management. On the other hand, diversity networks take up this task themselves, as it provides them with legitimacy in the organization. My analysis showed that this has consequences for the balancing act that diversity networks have to perform. Being (made) responsible, diversity networks often police themselves and want to show their organizational value and positive contribution. In the short term, it would seem in their best interest to go along with organizational and managerial discourses that uphold a rhetoric of neoliberalism and happy diversity. However, in doing so, diversity networks evade thorny issues and highlight the sexiness and positive side of diversity. As such, diversity becomes a politics of feeling good (Ahmed, 2009). By emphasizing feel-good ways of diversity, discussions about organizational inequalities are eschewed, and, as a consequence, also the possibility to address and change them. In contrast, I have also seen how diversity networks do address organizational processes that cause inequalities. Drawing on Sara Ahmed’s concept of the feminist killjoy , I have termed diversity networks who (dare to) address organizational inequalities to be diversity killjoys , as they do not follow the happy diversity rhetoric (Ahmed, 2009; Hoobler, 2005; Prasad & Mills, 1997). Although it might seem strategically less appealing, being collective diversity killjoys, allows diversity networks to address structural barriers and the political struggle to change those barriers. Remarkably, it seems that diversity networks in Govt take up the role of diversity killjoys, while the diversity networks in Finance follow the happy diversity rhetoric. In Govt, diversity networks are initiated by employees with the drive to actually change the organization, displaying a willingness to address thorny issues such as discrimination and inequality. In Finance, diversity networks focus more on the importance of making a positive contribution to the organization and emphasizing the added value of their diversity networks. These organizational differences point towards an impact of organizational context on how diversity networks work. A more systematic comparative study in different organizational settings would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the role of organizational context on diversity management. I conclude that using a practice lens to the study of diversity networks is a fruitful approach to identify the collective actions of diversity networks. I gained a deeper understanding of the various ways in which diversity networks advance (or hamper) equality in the workplace. Because they occur in a collective, engaging in diversity networking practices provide diversity networks with the possibilities to support network members as well as to challenge the organization and its management on diversity and inequality. Nevertheless, diversity networks also shy away from addressing inequalities and draw on a more palatable discourse of doing happy diversity (Ahmed, 2009; Hoobler, 2005; Prasad & Mills, 1997). Yet, doing happy