Marjolein Dennissen

52 The Herculean task of diversity networks members. Invoking a discourse of individual career responsibility, they emphasize that networks offer members useful tools for their careers. I have seen how the board members of the women’s network predominantly construct the value of their network along these lines as they see the network as a way to stimulate ambitious women to take responsibility for their professional career success. The ethnic minority network, and the LGBT network also refer to career development for their members, but they construct this in terms of the structural and cultural barriers that impede the upward mobility of members of these networks, not so much as individual responsibilities. Yet, I observed ambiguity in the struggle of the board members of the ethnic minority network and the LGBT network with the discourse of professionalism. They want to stretch the meaning to normalize the professionalism of culturally and sexually diverse employees, but do so without critically questioning the underlying white and heteronormative conceptions of that professionalism (Bell et al., 2011). In contrast, the board members of the disability network emphasize the responsibility of the organization to change the notion of career to incorporate a wider array of work hours and work practices. The disability network strives for individual network members with disabilities to change or develop the organization, whereas it is the other way around for the women’s network that seems to accept the organization and strives to change or develop the women. The emphasis on individual responsibility limits the contribution to equality and the individual level of equality becomes problematic when discourses of professionalism and individual choice prevail, without problematizing the gendered, classed and racialized connotations of career. Group level: visibility and normalization The second level of equality is the group level. Here the contribution of diversity networks lies in community building between employees with similar social identities. When networks bring their members together so that they can connect (Friedman, 1996, 1999), share experiences, and build social support and cohesion between them without having to conform to the majority culture (Colgan & McKearney, 2012), I see the contribution to equality at the group level. My findings show how community building is particularly valued by the board members of the ethnicminority network, the LGBT network and the disability network, as their members may be isolated inwork environments dominated by white, heterosexual and able-bodied colleagues. Yet, I observe that network leaders fear isolation when they are perceived as exclusive communities for ethnic minority, LGBT or disabled employees only. This reveals a tension between the discourse of visibility that the networks want to claim for their members and their discourses of normalization of their membership. Board members feel the need to increase the visibility of ethnic diversity, sexual diversity or disability in the organization, but fear the visibility of difference constructed as stigma, inequality and disadvantage at the same time. For example, the ethnic minority network does not want to give “the impression that it is only for foreigners”, and the LGBT network are cautious not to confirm stereotypes of “gays in pink underwear”. Young employees on the other hand, are not a traditional category of diversity and they are not othered