Marjolein Dennissen

22 The Herculean task of diversity networks The second subquestion addressed diversity networks through an intersectionality lens. Diversity networks are typical exemplars of present-day single category diversity management practices. Currently, most diversity management practices focus on single identity categories (i.e., women, ethnic minorities, LGBTs) without paying attention to the heterogeneity within these categories (Tatli & Özbilgin, 2012). Although research on intersectionality has flourished (Rodriguez, Holvino, Fletcher &Nkomo, 2016), this is not reflected in the literature on diversity management practices. Taking an intersectionality perspective on diversity networks, I examine how diversity networks, as single category diversity management practices, deal with the complex reality of multiple categories of difference. In this study, I drew on the work of Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989, 1991) and distinguished between structural intersectionality and political intersectionality. While structural intersectionality addresses the individual experiences of people at the intersections of multiple categories of difference, political intersectionality addresses the way how social identity groups organize themselves between two or more political agendas or movements (Crenshaw, 1991). I used the concept of structural intersectionality to analyze how individual network members deal with the single category structure of diversity networks. In addition, I used the concept of political intersectionality to explore the political strategies of diversity networks to build coalitions across single identity categories. 3. Which collective networking practices occur in diversity networks and how do these specific diversity networking practices potentially contribute to equality in organizations? The third and last subquestion focused on the processes of networking that diversity networks engage in: what are diversity networks actually doing and how do they network to advance organizational equality. The majority of studies on diversity networks have focused on the outcomes and benefits of these networks. How these outcomes materialize has received less attention. Networks are the result of the actual network behavior of people, or people’s networking (Berger, 2015; Ibarra, Kilduff, & Tsai, 2005; Manning, 2010). This means that the actions of people and the interactions between them influence and change both their networks and their organizations (Berger, 2015; Ibarra et al., 2005). Therefore, I adopted a practice- based approach (Gherardi, 2009; Janssens & Steyaert, 2019; Nicolini, 2009) that allowed me to specifically focus on what people actually say and do within diversity networks. Studying practices helps to uncover the unre exive and taken-for-granted patterns of activities and underlying norms that constitute social and organizational realities (Geiger, 2009; Nicolini, 2009). Drawing on practice-based studies, I developed the notion of diversity networking practices, which I defined as the collective sociopolitical actions of building, maintaining, and using relations in the workplace to advance organizational equality. Analyzing the diversity networking practices that occur in diversity networks can show how diversity networks are used, what diversity networks actually do when they do diversity work, and how processes of collective networking potentially contribute to equality in organizations.