Marjolein Dennissen

120 The Herculean task of diversity networks The first level of organizational equality distinguished is the individual level that pertains to the contribution of diversity networks to members’ individual career development. My analysis shows that diversity network board members draw on discourses of individual career responsibility and professionalism by emphasizing the value of networks in providing their members with useful tools to advance their careers. The second level of equality is the group level wherein the contribution of diversity networks is the community building between employees with similar social identities. According to the network board members, diversity networks can provide their members with a safe space in which they can share experiences without having to conform to the majority culture. Community building is particularly valued by the board members of the ethnic minority network, the LGBT network, and the disability network because their members may be isolated in organizations dominated by white, heterosexual, and able-bodied colleagues. The third and final level of equality is the organizational level, which pertains to inclusion. Inclusive organizations provide all employees with a voice, a sense of belonging, and access to information; allow participation in decision making; value their competencies; and have them express multiple identities at work (Dobusch, 2014; Mor Barak, 2015; Roberson, 2006; Shore, Cleveland & Sanchez, 2018). For example, the board members of the disability network draw on a discourse of ability and possibilities and challenge restrictive work practices and the narrow notion of a career. In addition, the board members of the ethnic minority network, the LGBT network, and the disability network stress that it should be normal for their members to be hired and do their work, thereby highlighting the network’s contribution to the inclusion of their social groups. By capturing the board members’ constructions of the value of their diversity networks on multiple levels of organizational equality, I was able to uncover the ambiguities and contradictions in the legitimating discourses. On the individual level, discourses of professionalism and individual choice prevailed. The emphasis on individual responsibility limits the contribution to equality as the gendered, classed, and racialized connotations of career remain unchallenged. On the group level, the board members fear isolation and stigma when they are perceived as exclusive communities for ethnic minority, LGBT, or disabled employees only. Opening up membership may imply a more legitimate position for these networks in the organization, but it also serves to counteract the safe space for marginalized employees. Thus, the contribution of the networks to group level equality is limited when conformation to the majority culture prevails over challenging the lower status of minority employees. Lastly, on the organizational level, only the board members of the disability network tended to discursively challenge organizational processes and practices. However, together with the board members of the ethnic minority network and the LGBT network, they too shied away from strongly emphasizing difference of their members. Diversity networks can only contribute to equality on the organizational level when they also address issues of difference, as well as organizational processes that sustain these differences.