Marjolein Dennissen

85 Diversity killjoys? Introduction Organizations are important sites where collective action to face the struggles for social justice and equality can be realized (Briscoe & Safford, 2008; Spicer & Böhm, 2007). An increasingly popular way to work towards organizational equality is the formation of collective in- company diversity networks (Benschop et al., 2015; Kaplan et al., 2009). In general, involvement in networks is associated with beneficial effects on one’s career, such as job opportunities (Burt, 2004; Granovetter, 1973), influence and status attainment (Mehra et al., 1998), resources (Bagilhole & Goode, 2001), and friendship and support (Gould & Penley, 1984; Ibarra, 1997). Based on these assumptions, diversity networks would present a strategy for more equality in organizations, focusing on the inclusion of historically marginalized employees with similar social identities (Foldy, 2002). However, the difference between the general networks to which aforementioned effects are attributed to and diversity networks is that the former are largely ego-networks leading to individual benefits, whereas the latter are diversity networks working as a collective for the diversity and inclusion of marginalized employees. The focus of this chapter is on these particular in-company diversity networks and how they, as networks, collectively advance equality in organizations. Previous studies on diversity networks provided some insights into their effects. Diversity networks are perceived to have a positive effect on the career advancement of members (Cross & Armstrong, 2008; O’Neil et al., 2011), diversity networks would provide their members with a safe space to share and exchange experiences (Friedman, 1996, 1999; Pini et al., 2004), and diversity networks would provide possibilities to drive the managerial agenda and advise about diversity-related issues (Colgan & McKearney, 2012; Gremmen & Benschop, 2013). Despite their contribution to knowledge about and insights into diversity networks, these studies present several important limitations. First, the majority of these studies seem to make diversity too easily "doable" (Prasad & Mills, 1997, p. 11). The politics of diversity within workplaces is complex, contextual and power-laden (Ahmed & Swan, 2006; Prasad & Mills, 1997), and accomplishing organizational equality by means of diversity networks is more complicated than simply creating a network (Bierema, 2005). Most studies tend to overlook that networking for equality in organizations is a complex, political endeavor (Nicolini, 2009; Scully & Segal, 2002) that involves power processes and micropolitics to further marginalized groups’ interests. Second, studies on diversity networks do not do justice to diversity networks as networks . Networks are dynamic, socially accomplished and maintained due to the actual networking behavior of people (Benschop 2009; Berger, 2015). Networks are the result of members’ network ing . This means that it is the actions of people and the interactions between them that influence and change both their networks and their organizations (Berger, 2015; Ibarra et al., 2005). Thus, there is a need to develop better insights into the processes of collective networking in diversity networks.