Marjolein Dennissen

53 Networking for equality? and marginalized like women, ethnic minorities, LGBTs and disabled employees. The discourses of the young employee network do not construct a young age as a dimension of inequality. This is reflected in the discursive celebration of the young as the future glory of the organization, that is unparalleled by any other diversity network. For the other networks their minority status is obvious (Kelan, 2014) and to escape the disadvantages of this minority status and facilitate a wider belongingness to the organization, network board members include supportive majority members. Opening up membership implies a more legitimate position for these networks in the organization and serves to de-emphasize the relevance of difference, toning it down to something more palatable to the wider organization (Nkomo & Hoobler, 2014). Simultaneously, the contribution of the networks to group level equality is counteracted, when conformation to the majority culture prevails over challenging the lower status of minorities. Organizational level: inclusion, abilities and possibilities The third and last level of equality is the organizational level. The contribution of diversity networks at this level pertains to inclusion, i.e., the removal of obstacles to the full participation and contribution of employees to all formal and informal processes in the organization (Mor Barak, 2015; Roberson, 2006). Inclusive organizations give all employees a voice, a sense of belonging, access to information, have them take part in decision making, value their competencies and have them express multiple identities at work ( Janssens & Zanoni, 2014; Mor Barak & Cherin, 1998). My findings show that the board members of the disability network are the most vocal about inclusion as a value of their network. Drawing on a discourse of ability and possibilities, they challenge restrictive work practices and the narrow notion of a career. They construct their network as a center of expertise on disability issues, providing the organization with opportunities to learn how disabled people are able to contribute, focusing on strengths and qualities instead of deficiencies, and showing how the organization should adapt to disabled people rather than the other way around. My analysis shows how the discourse of normalization also refers to inclusion: by stressing it should be normal for their members to be hired and do their work, the board members of the ethnic minority network, the LGBT network and the disability network all see their networks to contribute to the inclusion of their social groups. Yet, as indicated by the tensions around visibility, the network board members of the ethnic minority network and the LGBT network seem to restrict inclusion to belongingness only and shy away from too strong claims to the difference and uniqueness of their members. Only when networks also address difference and the unique contributions of their members and foster their sense of belongingness to the organization (Shore et al., 2011), diversity networks contribute to inclusion on the organizational level. Overall, the presentation of diversity networks as valuable instruments for equality can only be partially supported by this study of five different diversity networks in a Dutch financial service organization. My findings show that diversity network board members tend to construct the value of their networks primarily in terms of individual career responsibility