Marjolein Dennissen

19 Introduction networks, ethnic minority networks can also fulfill a consultancy and information function. Most studies agree on the positive effects of ethnic minority networks for organizational relationships and community building. Although ethnic minority networks are seen to provide members with voice and opportunities to advise management, no significant impact on discrimination was reported. LGBT networks Along with the rise of societal gay rights movements, LGBT networks emerged in organizations in the 1970s. Studies on LGBT networks in organizations have emphasized how these networks can play a role in increasing inclusion by providing LGBT employees with voice and visibility (Bell et al., 2011; McNulty et al., 2018). For example, in their study on the evolvement of 111 LGBT networks in the US, Briscoe and Safford (2008, 2010) showed that while LGBT networks were initially set up to provide a welcoming, open environment for LGBT employees, these networks gradually developed a more activist agenda, advocating for LGBT rights by, for example, proposing policy changes for equal partner benefits, and maneuvering between employee- driven and employer-driven objectives (Briscoe & Safford, 2010). Likewise, Colgan and McKearney (2012) showed that an LGBT network can be seen as an “agency for change” (p. 368) by shaping and driving the organizational sexual orientation equality agenda. They explored the perceptions of 149 LGBT employees in 14 UK organizations and demonstrated that networks enabled them to raise their concerns about LGBT-related issues to managers. Respondents pointed to the network’s function to influence and evaluate policy development and implementation. LGBT networks were considered valuable for providing LGBT employees with a safe community to share their experiences and struggles, such as coming out in the workplace (Colgan & McKearney, 2012). Other authors have been more ambivalent about the function of LGBT networks as agencies for change. For example, Githens and Aragon (2009) distinguished between more activist-oriented networks that work explicitly for organizational change toward inclusion and acceptance and networks that focus more on creating a safe space, social support, and networking opportunities for members. The authors questioned whether LGBT networks can establish actual inclusion and acceptance in their organizations when they are also expected to contribute to the competitive advantage of organizations. They conclude that while LGBT networks can offer a safe space for LGBT employees, unions may be better equipped to pursue organizational change (Githens & Aragon, 2009). Furthermore, recent research by McFadden and Crowley-Henry (2017) on LGBT networks in Ireland showed some negative effects of LGBT networks in the workplace . Active involvement in LGBT networks heightens the visibility of LGBT members and could, therefore, increase perceived stigma and isolation of LGBT employees in heteronormative organizations (McFadden & Crowley-Henry, 2017). As such, LGBT networks and membership of these networks are seen as detrimental rather than helpful.