Marjolein Dennissen

94 The Herculean task of diversity networks organizational culture in which they can be seen as diverging from the (often invisible and taken for granted) white, male, heterosexual and able-bodied organizational norm (Acker, 2006; Prasad & Prasad, 2002). Representations of difference occur within organizations and are sustained through organizational processes and everyday interactions (Hearn, 1996; Prasad & Prasad, 2002; Pullen & Simpson, 2009). Employees with historically marginalized social identities can be made the other when they are under-represented, unheard or unnoticed (Hearn, 1996). Thus, otherness refers to the status or experience of being an outsider (Özbilgin & Woodward, 2004; Wekker & Lutz, 2001). I observe that within the context of diversity networks, this otherness of members can be reduced. Therefore, I refer to the reduction of otherness in diversity networks as undoing otherness . Undoing otherness is a specific diversity networking practice that is collectively done among network members themselves. This diversity networking practice illustrates how important a diversity network can be for its members. I present an example of undoing otherness as observed in a monthly meeting of the LGBT network in Govt. During these monthly meetings, (board) members of the network discuss organizational developments, events and possibly other issues at hand. These meetings are normally attended by 15-20 members, and start with a round along the attendees how they are doing and whether they have any work-related updates: During the information-round, Ethan tells a personal story about him not feeling safe at work at the moment; he was told for instance that an LGBT network does not fit within his particular work environment. He becomes emotional and starts to cry when telling his story. Another member gets up to give him a hug and asks if the network can do anything for him. Other members react with outrage and disbelief: “that is why we [the network] are here” and “it is the biggest misconception [within this organization] that ‘we do not have any problems, because we do not have gays’’’. Another network member shares a similar experience in which he felt a similar disapproval. Other comments that are made are: “It is not about you, it is about the culture [of the organization]”, “many colleagues encounter problems when they are coming out”, and “call on our network, for example to give a presentation”. Ethan sighs: “it is a lonely battle”. Another member reacts with: “..and then again it is not. It must be made clear that much more is wrong, there is something structurally wrong [in the organization]”. [Observation LGBT network - Govt] This first part of this excerpt illustrates how otherness is constructed. Ethan gives an account of what occurred in his daily work environment. By specifically addressing that an LGBT network does not fit within the organization, a distinction is made based on sexual identities. Heterosexuality is still seen as the norm in organizations and homosexuality is regarded as disruptive because it flouts the assumptions of heterosexuality (Acker, 2006; Muñoz & Thomas, 2006; Savenije, 2015). Consequently, LGBT employees are constructed as outsiders, as