Marjolein Dennissen

17 Introduction organizational echelons (Benschop et al., 2015; Kaplan, Sabin & Smaller-Swift , 2009). Since the 1970s, diversity networks have proliferated in organizations as a popular instrument for diversity management, initiated both top-down by managers and bottom-up by employees themselves. Many different types of diversity networks exist in organizations, including gender, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, religion, age, or disability. However, the existent literature mainly focuses on women’s networks, ethnic minority networks, and LGBT networks. To my knowledge, no literature is currently available on diversity networks related to other diversity categories. In this section, I present the state-of-the-art in the existing literature. Women’s networks Most studies on organizational diversity networks are (qualitative) case studies of women’s networks, predominantly conducted in Western countries. The study of Pini, Brown and Ryan (2004) on an Australian women’s network for local government leaders highlighted the benefits for women as a group. This women’s network was shown to contribute to gaining support, fostering a collective identity, and decreasing feelings of isolation. Likewise, in their study on 20 women managers in Ireland, Cross and Armstrong (2008) found that women’s networks are perceived as offering women access to information, professional learning strategies, and opportunities for upward career development. O’Neil, Hopkins and Sullivan (2011) studied the perceptions of 21 members of a women´s network of a multinational company in the US. The majority of network members expected the network to have positive effects on their career opportunities and advancement because a women’s network would allegedly enhance the visibility of women in the organization, as well as stimulate members’ leadership skills and confidence (O’Neil et al., 2011). In addition, research by Gremmen and Benschop (2013) on women’s networks in eight Dutch organizations suggest that a women’s network could fulfill a consultancy function by advising their organization about diversity-related issues. However, the literature on women’s networks also points to the negative effects of those networks. Opponents see women’s networks as detrimental for women’s career development. Women who join a women’s network are seen as complainers who need help or are unable “to make it on their own” (Bierema, 2005; Gremmen & Benschop, 2011; Vinnicombe, Singh & Kumra, 2004). In Pini et al.’s study (2004), respondents who disapproved women’s networks were keen on claiming a gender-neutral standpoint. According to these critics, a women’s network would conflict with equality as it excludes men. In her research of a women’s network at a US Fortune 500 company, Bierema (2005) found that the women’s network was often the object of ridicule, resulting in women’s reluctance to actively participate in activities. Moreover, it caused members to eschew addressing structural inequality issues such as male privilege in the organization. In doing so, the members (re)produced the male-dominated power structures instead of countering them. This eventually led to the disbandment of the network.