Marjolein Dennissen

123 Discussion Collective diversity networking practices: The key role of diversity killjoys As presented in Chapter 4, I developed a practice-based perspective (Gherardi, 2009; Nicolini, 2009) to explore the networking practices that occur in diversity networks. I defined diversity networking practices as the collective sociopolitical actions of building, maintaining, and using relations in the workplace to advance organizational equality. Analyzing diversity networking practices, I was able to uncover the political processes of collective action that diversity networks engage in: what are diversity networks doing and how do they network to advance organizational equality. I identified and analyzed five diversity networking practices that were prevalent in the diversity networks in my research: undoing otherness, building alternative structures, organizing events, appealing to organizational responsibility, and shaping organizational policies. Engaging in diversity networking practices, diversity networks fulfill a twofold function. First, diversity networks are able to create structures of support, solidarity, and belonging for network members. Within diversity networks, members can create a space to challenge organizational norms of work and workers and undo processes of othering and exclusion. Second, diversity network members can use their diversity networks to negotiate, contest, and shape organizational policies and processes. By means of their collectivity, diversity networks can gain voice and are able to address inequalities in their organization with the organizational management. As collectives, diversity networks have the potential to reflect on implicit organizational practices and question certain tacit rules that sustain organizational inequalities. However, this does not necessarily mean that they exercise this potential. Although diversity networks are able to obtain the attention of management and create opportunities to discuss inequality-related issues, presence and voice alone are not enough to stimulate equality. Networking for change is a complex, political endeavor (Nicolini, 2009; Scully & Segal, 2002) that entails problematizing dominant ways of thinking and organizing (Wahl & Holgersson, 2003). My analysis showed that diversity networks shy away from addressing inequalities by drawing on more palatable discourses of happy diversity (Ahmed, 2009; Hoobler, 2005; Prasad & Mills, 1997). Omitting discussions about discrimination and exclusion in organizations and only emphasizing feel-good ways of diversity obscures the possibility of addressing and challenging organizational inequalities. By contrast, diversity networks that act as collective diversity killjoys – those that (dare to) address discrimination and exclusion and do not follow the happy diversity rhetoric – seem to be more successful in challenging the organization and, thus, contributing to equality in organizations.