Marjolein Dennissen

79 An intersectional analysis of diversity networks network members with multiple subordinate identities vocalize the need for intersectional perspectives, whereas network members with single subordinate identities tend to remain unaware of the privileges that go with their other identities. Network members with single subordinate identities eschew issues relating to other identity categories because they believe that these issues fall within the scope of other networks . Ethnic majority women of the women’s network, for example, suggested that issues relating to ethnicity “belong” with the ethnic minority network, further reducing their responsibility and involvement in this issue. Theorizing the simultaneous processes of privilege and disadvantage in diversity networks, helps to explain the ambiguous results from previous studies. The single category structure of diversity networks obscures the role of unmarked categories of privilege and reinforces the exclusionary effects of intersectional marginalization: the marginalization of people with multiple subordinate identities relative to those with single subordinate identities (Crenshaw, 1989). This sustains the taken-for-grantedness of privileged categories as well as the fixed and essentialist notions of disadvantaged categories (Pratto & Stewart, 2012; Tatli & Özbilgin, 2012). As Grillo (1995) pointed out, “in every set of [identity] categories there is not only subordination, but also its counterpart, privilege” (p. 18). My contribution to these insights is that the notion of structural intersectionality can challenge inequalities in single category diversity management practices by revealing subordination as well as hitherto silenced privileges. Political intersectionality: revealing the politics of preserving privilege Concerning my second contribution about the introduction of political intersectionality in diversity networks, I showed how diversity networks are hindered by a politics of preserving privilege rather than interrogating it. The intersectionality literature has used the notion of political intersectionality to examine the policies and political strategies of disadvantaged groups and social movements (Carastathis, 2013; Crenshaw, 1991; Verloo, 2006), but the theoretical elaboration in diversity management practices lags behind. It may seem that diversity networks are potential allies in combatting inequalities in organizations, yet their collaboration has been seriously understudied, with the exception of Scully (2009) and Colgan (2016) who highlight a few examples of networks working together. The concept of political intersectionality allows to highlight the rhetoric of beneficial collaboration and shows how actual collaboration between diversity networks is fraught with problems. I argue that the single category design of networks hinders collaboration to address diversity and inequality in organizations. My study has provided the first theoretical insights into how diversity networks take part in a reversed Oppression Olympics; instead of competing for the title of “most oppressed” (Hancock, 2007), networks emphasize that they have “added value” for their organizations. This illustrates the dominance of the business case rhetoric (Zanoni et al., 2010), that is invoked by each network separately. Political intersectionality reveals how the need to make a positive contribution to the organization forecloses the possibility to challenge systems of inequality in the organization.