Marjolein Dennissen

13 Introduction have started to organize their formal commitment to manage their diverse workforce effectively (Nkomo & Hoobler, 2014; Prasad & Mills, 1997). Diversity management refers to a variety of programs, policies, activities, practices, and other processes or efforts designed, developed, implemented, and employed by organizations to deal with the widespread, enormously varied effects of multiple identities in the workplace (Nkomo & Hoobler, 2014; Yang & Konrad, 2011). With a focus on the removal of barriers to employment and career development, the objectives of diversity management was initially intended to attract, recruit, hire, and retain employees from diverse demographic backgrounds (Nkomo & Hoobler, 2014; Prasad & Mills, 1997; Yang & Konrad, 2011), as well as counter discrimination and inequalities to promote change toward a more inclusive culture (Benschop, 2011; Hoobler 2005). Nowadays, diversity management has become an umbrella term that encompasses a broad notion of diversity. Although the term diversity was first used to indicate differences and inequalities between social groups based on categories such as gender, race, and class, the broad notion shifted the emphasis to include a wide variety of individual differences between employees (Benschop, 2011; Prasad & Mills, 1997). Due to the broadening of the concept of diversity, a less threatening and less controversial dominant diversity paradigm emerged in organizations. The main idea of this paradigm is that organizations can benefit from having a diverse workforce. A diverse workforce would allegedly enhance business performance, provide competitive advantage and contribute to the bottom line. As a result, an instrumental, business case perspective on diversity in organizations prevails (Litvin, 2006; Zanoni et al., 2010). As a consequence of this shift, the practice of diversity management in organizations has become detached from the histories of the struggles for equality (Nkomo & Hoobler, 2015). While the positive effects of a diverse workforce and the value of individual differences are emphasized, disadvantages, exclusion and disparities are downplayed. Diversity management has become an apolitical, strategic enterprise in many organizations, leaving inequality as the elephant in the room (Benschop, 2011; Nkomo & Hoobler, 2015; Prasad & Mills, 1997). Diversity management is criticized for its “dilution of diversity” (Linnehan & Konrad, 1999, p. 400) and “upbeat naivité” (Prasad & Mills, 1997, p. 5) due to the way tensions, conflicts, and dilemmas are eschewed. In doing so, it is no longer clear that organizational diversity management is a complex endeavor, a Herculean task that requires much more than “managerial enthusiasm, optimism, and good intentions” (Prasad & Mills, 1997, p. 5). As Prasad and Mills (1997, p. 18) point out: “Any framing of the notion of diversity needs to take into account the demographic characteristics of those in positions of power (white males), the often silenced voices of the Other (i.e., women, people of color, the aged, etc.) and the multitude of political interactions between dominant and non-dominant groups within organizations.”