Embedded Diversity: A Critical Ethnographic Study of the Structural Tensions of Organizing Diversity

Holck, Lotte Doctoral Thesis Embedded Diversity: A Critical Ethnographic Study of the Structural Tensions of Organizing Diversity PhD Series, No. 16.2015 Provided in Cooperation with: Copenhagen Business School (CBS) Suggested Citation: Holck, Lotte (2015) : Embedded Diversity: A Critical Ethnographic Study of the Structural Tensions of Organizing Diversity, PhD Series, No. 16.2015, ISBN 9788793339156, Copenhagen Business School (CBS), Frederiksberg, https://hdl.handle.net/10398/9149 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/208934 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ EMBEDDED DIVERSITY: A CRITICAL ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY OF THE STRUCTURAL TENSIONS OF ORGANIZING DIVERSITY Lotte Holck PhD School in Organisation and Management Studies PhD Series 16.2015 PhD Series 16-2015 EMBEDDED DIVERSITY: A CRITICAL ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY OF THE STRUCTURAL TENSIONS OF ORGANIZING DIVERSITY COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL SOLBJERG PLADS 3 DK-2000 FREDERIKSBERG DANMARK WWW.CBS.DK ISSN 0906-6934 Print ISBN: 978-87-93339-14-9 Online ISBN: 978-87-93339-15-6 1 Embedded Diversity: A critical ethnographic study of the structural tensions of organizing diversity Lotte Holck PhD dissertation submitted April 2015 to the Doctoral School of Organisation and Management Studies, Copenhagen Business School Supervisors: Associate Professor, Sara Louise Muhr, Copenhagen Business School Associate Professor, Per Darmer, Copenhagen Business School Doctoral School of Organisation and Management Studies Lotte Holck Titel: Embedded Diversity: A critical ethnographic study of the structural tensions of organizing diversity 1st edition 2015 PhD Series 16-2015 © The Author ISSN 0906-6934 Print ISBN: 978-87-93339-14-9 Online ISBN: 978-87-93339-15-6 The Doctoral School of Organisation and Management Studies (OMS) is an interdisciplinary research environment at Copenhagen Business School for PhD students working on theoretical and empirical themes related to the organisation and management of private, public and voluntary organizations. All rights reserved. No parts of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. 3 CONTENTS .........................................................................................................................3 PREFACE ..........................................................................................................................11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS …..........................................................................................13 1 Introduction ……............................................................................................................15 The setting …………………...…………..…………………………………………..15 An empirical embedded study …….............................................................................21 Counterintuitive patterns in focus …....……………………………..……………...22 Comparative analysis: The starting point ………………………………………....25 Identifying shortcoming within contemporary diversity research ...………………...27 Main research question …...........................................................................................32 Contribution ................................................................................................................33 Outline of the dissertation ...........................................................................................36 Figure 1: An embedded study of diversity.................................................................36 2 Research on diversity and its management ……..……………..………...…………..43 Diversity research between diversity management and critical research ..................43 Business case or social justice ……………...………………………………..…..….44 When a concept travels: Diversity in a Danish setting ……………..........................49 Diversity management to put migrants to work ...………..…...……………...…….49 Danish Diversity management and social responsibility: taking care of the weak ..50 The minority voices and agency: Social justice and class …....................................53 3 To study embedded diversity ……................................................................................56 Positioning my study in a structure-agency relation ……….……………..................56 Organizational theory on structure and form .……………..……...............................58 4 Table 1: My approach to organizing diversity ……………………….......…..…..65 4 Method and research sites …….....................................................................................67 Social constructivism and critical ethnography ..........................................................68 Table 2: Ostensive and performative organizations ………………………...……70 Intervention-based critical ethnography ......................................................................71 From traditional to critical ethnography …………………………...........……….73 Who am I? Reflexivity and critical ethnography …………...………………….....…75 Reformative and affirmative research ……….…………………………...……....77 Explorative research as ‘tempered radical’ ………………………………...…....79 Research design ………………………….....................................................................81 Research sites …......…………………...........................................................................82 Agency ........................................................................................................................82 Diversity Policy …………………………...............................................................84 My fieldwork in Agency …………………..………………………………...….....85 Fastfood .......................................................................................................................87 Diversity Policy .......................................................................................................88 My fieldwork in Fastfood ........................................................................................88 Reflections on intervention-based research …………………………………............90 Use of case study and comparison …………………………………………………..90 Participant engaging methods .................................................................................. ..92 Vignette 1: Interventions in Agency ……………………………............................92 Vignette 2: Interventions in Fastfood ……………………………………...…..…93 Consultant-researcher between power and social relation …………………….…….93 The consultant-researcher: useful idiot or tempered radical .........……...…….......96 Ethics and the cost of emancipation ............................................................................99 5 5 Identity, diversity and Diversity Management: On theoretical connections, assumptions and implications for practice ………………………………………..….101 Abstract …....................................................................................................................101 Keywords .....................................................................................................................102 Introduction ................................................................................................................102 Linking diversity and diversity literature ..................................................................104 Coherent and unified identities - Social Identity Theory ......................................104 SIT perspective in diversity research …………………….......................................105 Critique of SIT inspired diversity scholarship …………........................................106 Floating identities ……………………………………………………………….….108 Critical perspectives in diversity literature – social justice for minorities and the less privileged ……………………………................................................................109 Critique of the critical perspective ……………………….......................................111 Fragmented and becoming identities – a post-structural perspective ……………...112 Post-structural perspectives in diversity research – transgressing binaries ........113 Critique of the post-structural perspective ...........................................................116 Concluding comments: Implications and directions for diversity research and diversity management practices ...……………………………....………………….117 Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................120 References ……............................................................................................................120 6 From affirmative to transformative diversity management – On how the logics of the welfare model obstruct ethnic diversity in the Danish workforce ........................130 Abstract ……………………………………………………..…………..........………130 Keywords ……………………………………………………….……………………131 Introduction ………………………………………………………............................135 6 The welfare logics of equality and solidarity ............................................................135 Equality as sameness .……...................................................................................135 Solidarity as social responsibility ………………….……………........................136 Parity of participation through combining recognition and redistribution …….…..138 Methodology ……………………………………..……………...…………………..140 Research site ………………….................................................................................141 Data collection ……………………..........................................................................141 Analytical strategy ………………………………....................................................143 Table 1: Coding of employee stories from Fastfood ……………….…………....143 Findings ………………………………………...……………………….....................145 Equality as sameness – and difference ………………..............................................145 Solidarity as social responsibility – and difference..………….................................149 Concluding discussion: Reintroducing the value of difference into diversity management ………………………………………………………………………….153 Table 2: Affirmative and transformative diversity initiatives …………….......…155 References ...................................................................................................................157 7 Unequal by structure ……………………………………………….………………..163 Abstract ………………………………........................................................................163 Keywords ………………………….............................................................................163 Introduction ………………….....................................................................................164 Structurally assessing workplace diversity: Renewing the agenda ...........................166 On the bureaucratic and post-bureaucratic forms …….......................................167 Navigating the tension of accelerating differentiation and integration …...…….168 Navigating the tension formal and informal hierarchies ………………………..170 Research design ……………………………………………………….…………..…172 7 Research site ………………….................................................................................173 Fieldwork in Agency …………………….............................................................174 Table 4: Overview of interviewees in Agency ………………………...………....175 Analytical strategy ………………………………....................................................176 Findings ………………………………………………………………..……..............178 Escalating differentiation to tackle situational complexity ………………………...178 Integration measures of formal-informal hierarchy..………….................................181 The rise of elite peers ……………………….……………………...........................184 Continuous hierarchical positioning and peer competition .................................186 Concluding discussion ……………………………………………………………….188 Implications for practice ……………………………………………………...…190 References ....................................................................................................................193 8 Spatially embedded inequality: Exploring structure, agency, and ethnic minority strategies to navigate organizational opportunity structures .....................................198 Abstract ………………………....................................................................................198 Keywords ………………………….............................................................................198 Introduction …………………………………………………….................................199 Theoretical background …………………………………….....................................202 The enabling and constraining properties of the organizational space ………...204 Spatial constraints in the materialization of power and embodiment ………......206 Minority employees’ strategies: The enabling capacity of the workspace ….…..208 Figure 1: Structure and agency in a spatial perspective …………………..……209 Method, research site, and data analysis …………………………………………..209 Research site .……………………………................................................................210 Data collection …………………..............................................................................211 14 and showing me new paths to follow. And a warm greeting to Laurence Romani for inspiring talks and future prospects beyond the PhD study. I also have to give deep thanks to all the members of the Diversity@CBS for support and interest. This also goes for all the members of the HRM group at IOA for sharing their knowledge and making me feel like a HRM scholar too. Thanks to the international diversity community that I have the privilege to consider myself a part of. All the researchers who have read and commented on my work and inspired me with their own at international conferences: Equal is not Enough 2015, EGOS 2014, EDI 2014, Sustainability in a Scandinavian Context 2013 and several Diversity conferences and workshops at CBS in 2013-14. Last but not least thanks to my patient family: Thomas, Bjørk, Sophus, Jeppe, Vincent and Leonard. Thanks for making our stay in San Diego utterly memorable. Thanks to my parents, my sibling, their kids and all my loving friends for interest, help and comfort along the way. 15 1. INTRODUCTION This dissertation consists of a collection of articles aimed at critically exploring how diversity and its management are organized in two Danish organizations. The articles are based on a critical ethnographic study of the links among diversity, diversity management and the structural setting, including the greater historical-societal structures, the organizations’ structural setup and their spatial structures. Throughout the dissertation, I focus on how this structural setting simultaneously enables and constrains the local organization of diversity. This structural focus also grants the possibility to explore how structural conditions facilitate or restrain employee agency, and enables me to suggest locally relevant and progressive ways of organizing diversity. In this chapter, I provide a detailed introduction to the topic of organizing diversity and position my study within contemporary diversity research. In addition, I introduce the case organizations and the main research question, and I outline this study’s contributions. I end the chapter with an overview of the rest of the dissertation. The setting Ethnic diversity is increasing on the Danish labor market. However, citizens with minority background are often employed in positions for which they are overqualified. These minorities are overrepresented in low-skilled and temporary jobs, underrepresented in management positions, and more likely than members of the majority ethnic group to face unemployment (e.g., Andersen et al., 2015; Ejrnæs, 2006, 2012; Ortlieb & Sieben, 2014; Rennison, 2009; Siim, 2013). These macro trends tend to reflect the micro situation evident in organizations – even those organizations committed to egalitarian values and diversity (Acker, 2006, 2012; Boxenbaum, 2006; Holck & Muhr, 2015; Holvino & Kamp, 2009; Kamp & Hagedorn-Rasmussen, 2004; Larsen, 2011; Rennison, 2009; Risberg & Søderberg, 2008; Siim, 2013; Tomlinson et al., 2013; Van den Brink et al., 2010). 16 In the Danish labor market in general and in specific organizations, ethnic minorities suffer from structural inequalities of misrecognition and maldistribution, a trend initially recognized Fraser (1998; Fraser & Honneth, 2003). In terms of misrecognition, minorities experience a lack of acknowledgement of their professional skills and abilities in the labor market, and they are often forced to take jobs characterized by little possibility of advancement (status impairment). This leads to maldistribution, as minorities fill low-paid or even unpaid jobs in the lowest echelons of the organizational hierarchy, at least when they first enter the labor market (class impairment). Therefore, the organization of diversity is not only than a matter of ensuring recognition by promoting the status of minority employees in the organization (i.e., valuing a broad variety of competencies and identities). It is also a matter of compensating for the inequalities between the majority and minorities in the organizational hierarchy, which reflect the broader societal significance of class and deeply rooted, enduring stratification (Noon, 2010; Prasad, 2006; Scully & Blake-Beard, 2006; Zanoni, 2011). The combination of misrecognition and maldistribution restricts minorities’ opportunities to participate on par with their fellow citizens (Acker, 2006; Berrey, 2014; Crowley, 2014; Fraser, 1998; Janssens & Zanoni, 2014). In this dissertation, I use the terms ‘diversity’ and ‘workforce diversity’ to refer to ethnic diversity among employees in an organizations. ‘Diversity management’ is defined as the policies, activities and practices that relate to the management of ethnic diversity among employees. Such policies are typically articulated by human resource (HR) officers and managers. This ‘ethnification’ of diversity reflects the ongoing political and business debate in Denmark in which diversity and its management are linked to the efficient and progressive integration of an increasingly ethnically diverse labor force at the organizational level (see Chapter 2). 17 Workforce diversity at the organizational level is often neutrally referred to as ‘the composition of work units (work group, organization, occupation, establishment or firm) in terms of the cultural or demographic characteristics that are salient and symbolically meaningful in the relationships among group members.’ (DiTomaso et al., 2007: 474) However, I interpret ‘salient and symbolically meaningful’ in relation to dynamics of power. In other words, what Mamman et al. (2012) refer to as a ‘low status minority’ can apply to any category of employee, irrespective of such elements as gender, ethnicity, nation, sexuality, physical ability, and other factors deemed relevant (Ashcraft, 2011). The salience or relevance of the status of any category of employees depends on the historical and societal setting (Mamman et al., 2012). In a Danish setting the term diversity management (in Danish ‘mangfoldighedsledelse’) is usually used for ethnic diversity, whereas gender, age, physical ability etc. are explicitly used when talking about ‘nonethnic’ diversity. When I use the terms organizing diversity and diversity management, I also refer to ethnic diversity due to this Danish legacy (Boxenbaum, 2006; Holck 2013; Risberg & Søderberg, 2008). In addition when associating diversity with ethnic minorities, this is both a reference to the numerical representation in the organizations and to employees’ experiences of position in the organizational hierarchy in line with Mamman et al.’s (2012) argument. This study is inspired by critical diversity research on race and gender, and has a critical, reformative aim (e.g., Acker, 2006, 2009, 2012; Ashcraft, 2001, 2006; 2011; Ahonen et al., 2014; Ariss et al., 2012; Calás et al., 2012; Calás & Smirchic, 1999; Litvin, 1997, 2002; Lorbiecki & Jack, 2000; Mamman et al., 2012; Muhr & Salem, 2013; Nkomo, 1992; Oswick & Noon, 2014; Perriton, 2009; Siebers, 2009, 2010; Tomlinson & Schwabenland, 2010; Van Laer & Janssens, 2011, 2014; Zanoni, 2011; Zanoni & Janssen, 2004, 2007). However, my ambition is modest. I attempt to instantiate a small, local rebellion, or what 18 Alvesson and Willmott (1992) term ‘micro-emancipation’, by pragmatically intervening in local debates on diversity to illuminate oppressive, ‘dark’ practices in my case organizations. I do so by adopting a critical ethnographic methodology, which involves interventions and participative engagement when undertaking research as a means to prompt changes in the organizations under scrutiny. As a ‘tempered radical’ (Meyerson, 2001, Meyerson & Scully, 1995) my study has a dual agenda: radical to challenge status quo to advance an emancipatory agenda but tempered because I seek ‘moderation’ and collaboration (Jones & Stablein, 2006). In other words, I aim to help business and diversity objectives work in tandem. This involves adoption of a pragmatic approach of engaging with the concerns and problems raised by practitioners while exploring the potential for liberation though the critical-constructive questioning of current practices and ongoing discourse on diversity and its management (Spicer et al., 2009). Therefore, the intention of my research is to encourage collective reflection on more progressive and emancipatory ways of organizing diversity among organizational members and among the diversityresearch community at large (Alvesson & Spicer, 2012; Bartunek, 2007; Deetz, 2008; Janssens & Zanoni, 2014; Ghorashi & Ponzoni, 2014; Ghorashi & Sabelis, 2013; King & Learmonth, 2015; Spicer et al., 2009). I explore the micro-processes of organizational diversity in light of broader societal discourses and structural activities that target corporate diversity work. This entwinement of the greater societal structural properties and micro-relations at the corporate level can be grasped through the concept of embedded diversity. ‘Embeddedness’ highlights the need to explore diversity processes in their localized and situated organizational settings, where they intersect with other everyday organizing processes. The fact that this study explores diversity processes within the organizational setting is one of its main contributions. This study analyzes both how 1) broader structural inequalities inform and affect local diversity 19 processes by conditioning the status, class and agency of (ethnic minority) employees, and 2) how diversity processes intersect and interact with the everyday performance of core organizational matters, such as task distribution and coordination (Vikkelsø, 2015). My intent is to tease out ways of remedying some of the local effects of larger structural inequalities by intervening in the practical reality of organizing diversity: to ‘actively search for new emancipating ways of organizing’ and ‘examine how inclusive organizational environments for minorities can be achieved through a variety of organizational practices beyond classical, HR diversity management initiatives’ (Zanoni et al., 2010: 19-20). The purpose of exploring how diversity processes intersect and interact with the everyday performance of organizational core matters is related to a key term in the title: organizing diversity. In using the term ‘organizing diversity’, I distinguish my approach from conventional notions of diversity management. This is based on two main arguments. First, while diversity management refers to an intentional and deliberate set of managerial activities and practices aimed at increasing diversity in the workforce to promote amicable, productive working relationships (Jonsen et al., 2011), some of the (managerial) organizational practices that I scrutinize – the organization of the daily task distribution and performance monitoring (by means of lines of authority, collaborative patterns, personnel decisions, etc.) have unintended consequences for diversity relations. Such everyday organizing practices do not explicitly fall under the ‘diversity management’ label. As such I scrutinize how the interplay between the deliberate diversity management practices and their intended and unintended consequences, and the ordinary everyday organizing practices together make up the conditions enabling and constraining organizing diversity at organizational level. This area has received little attention in the extant diversity management research, which is predominantly occupied with deliberate 20 prescriptive and universal principles for managing diversity based on large-sale secondary data sources. Second, my use of the term ‘organizing diversity’ reflects my ambition to move beyond conventional, generalized HR diversity management practices to suggest alternative diversity practices. When I write about organizing diversity, I refer to managerial and collegial practices that – intentionally or unintentionally – relate to employees’ ethnic backgrounds related to matters such as distribution of privilege and status in the organization. I discuss how these practices affect power relations, cooperation and socializing patterns, all of which are vital to the organization of daily work. At times, I also discuss ‘inclusion’, which is a way of actively valuing employee differences (such as demographic differences) and using them constructively in all aspects of organizational life – from business issues to the organizational climate (Ortlieb & Sieben, 2014; Oswick & Noon, 2014; Shore et al., 2011). When I refer to ‘emancipatory organizations’, I include such matters as ‘classical’ structural considerations of power, like the re-distribution related to horizontal and vertical segregation. I also include the more conventional markers of ethnic equality advanced in the gender and diversity literature, such as valuing multiple forms of employee knowledge, skills and competencies, and accommodating multiple identities in the workplace instead of requiring assimilation into the dominant, majority culture (Acker, 2006, 2009; Janssens & Zanoni, 2014; Van Laer & Janssens, 2011, 2014; Zanoni & Janssens, 2007). A final key term in the title is structural tensions, which refers to how the local organizing of diversity and its management gives rise to several structural tensions in the quest to redress structural micro-inequalities. In other words, I tackle the ambivalent notion of diversity in a societal frame that favors sameness, and in organizational settings in which the majority’s norms and competences are often viewed as the tacit standard, which affects 21 the distribution of tasks, promotions and collaborative patterns (e.g., Ahonen et al., 2014; Ariss et al., 2012; Klarsfeld et al., 2012; Ostendorp & Steyaert, 2009; Oswick & Noon, 2014; Siebers, 2010; Van Laer & Janssens, 2011, 2014; Verbeek & Groeneveld, 2012). In my articles, some of these structurally induced tensions and their intersections with the processes of organizing diversity are explored, guided by organizational theory on structure and form. An empirically embedded study The exploration of more emancipatory ways of organizing diversity was my ambition from the start, although my agenda has changed slightly over time. I originally set out to advance knowledge and understanding of how ‘best practice’ organizations in Denmark deal with diversity and its management. Prior to beginning my PhD, I worked as a diversity consultant. In that position, I dealt with diversity values, goals and practices in a wide variety of public and private Danish organizations. This work left me intrigued by the difficulties many Danish corporations encounter in their efforts to promote a diverse workforce. With the intention of identifying successful organizational practices of dealing with diversity, I chose two organizations renowned for their diversity work in terms of diversity in their workforces, their communication on diversity values and activities, and their public images. Both companies seemed to have found ways of successfully working with employee differences and, as such, offered fertile ground for the study of best practices in diversity management. I initially believed that the decision to focus on a private organization and a public organization would enhance the relative generalizability of my research (Stake, 2013; Yin, 2013). However, over the course of my longitudinal ethnographic fieldwork, I understood that both organizations struggled with a wide array of diversity-related tensions and problems. Moreover, the continuous comparison and mirroring of the two case 22 organizations led me toward the intersection between the organizational structures that guided the daily performance of core organizational tasks and their ways of organizing diversity. In other words, my focus shifted towards how their structural setups created very different organizational spaces in which diversity processes could unfold. The comparison was limited by differences in the two organizations’ structural aspects of core tasks, job functions, work processes and professional profiles, which created different patterns of motivation and collaboration in the two organizations. Nevertheless, I found the comparison compelling and interesting in relation to three key structural properties: the societal setting, the organizational setup, and spatial design and spatial routines. Counter-intuitive and contradictory patterns in focus My comparison of the two focal organizations over the course of two years highlighted a counter-intuitive pattern, which has significantly shaped the key concerns and tensions raised in my collection of articles. The machine-bureaucratic private Fastfood1 progressively consolidated its position as a ‘best’ case for diversity management in Denmark through its diversity focus, high rates of employee satisfaction, and the employment of a relatively high number of women and ethnic minorities in leading positions. In contrast, the post-bureaucratic, team-based Agency was increasingly haunted by poor employee satisfaction, with almost 30% of its employees reporting experiences with harassment and bullying in the workplace, much of which was associated with such issues as language, skin color and ethnicity (employee satisfaction report, September 2014). This counter-intuitive pattern contradicts most critical diversity research, which describes bureaucratically organized organizations, such as Fastfood, as the very incarnation of 1 In order to protect the organizations’ identities, all organization names have been changed. 23 inequality. The same stream of research suggests that post-bureaucratic, democratic and more collaborative organizations, such as Agency, should naturally advance more egalitarian ways of organizing diversity (see Acker, 2006; Crowley, 2014; Dai, 2014; D’Enbeau & Buzzanell, 2013; Kalev, 2009; Kalev et al., 2006; Konrad et al., 2005; Noon, 2007, 2010; Oswick & Noon, 2014; Prasad, 2006; Tatli & Özbilgin, 2012; Tran et al., 2010; Van den Brink et al., 2010; Van den Brink & Benschop, 2012; Zanoni & Janssens, 2004, 2007; Zanoni, 2011). A small but growing number of critical scholars question the idea that a collaborative, flat and informal organizational form in itself gives rise to equality through its structural setup alone (e.g., Meyer & Vallas, 2015; Ollilainen & Calasanti, 2007; Parsons et al., 2012; Śliwa & Johansson, 2014; Vallas, 2003; Varman & Chakrabarti, 2004). My intention is to generate a more open-minded approach to crafting emancipatory organizations that moves beyond the stylized typologies that dominate diversity scholarship. I suggest that practitioners and researchers must pay attention to the enabling and constraining features that every organizational structural setup may imbue (e.g., Ashcraft, 2001, 2006; Battilana & Lee, 2014; Battilana & Dorado, 2010; Pache & Santos, 2013; Zanoni & Janssens, 2014). The two case organizations do have some similarities. They are both service providers, and they embrace the same ambition of utilizing diversity to enhance organizational learning and the ability to serve a wide variety of customers (Thomas & Ely, 1996). However, the means by which they pursue these ambitions and their ways of organizing their diverse workforces differ. In fact, my observations indicate that their organizational setups, their ways of organizing core tasks and work flows, their means of coordination and control, their manner of dealing with their environments and organizational situations, and their spatial designs all significantly affect their ability to work with diversity. In an organization characterized by an free-seating open office space and an organic, flexible and team-based structure, like Agency, the organization of diversity must be different than 30 (2011) identify two gaps between the researcher and the practitioner. The first relates to levels of analysis – most diversity research has been conducted on the team and individual levels, rather than on the organizational level (DiTomaso et al., 2007). The second is linked to context – most diversity studies have been carried out in controlled, crosssectional environments and have introduced artificial situations. These include, for example, lab studies using student samples (e.g., Stahl et al., 2010). Ivancevich and Gilbert (2000) report that most researchers remain outside the organizational flow and activities, and instead rely on archival data, surveys and secondary databases as primary data sources. These authors therefore conclude that researchers make too broad assumptions, and that they cannot capture the complexities or the fabric of organizational life. This artificial, non-situated approach leads to a third shortcoming – the general paucity of empirical research based on experimentation, or on the curious, improvisational, playful and exciting use of active participative methods that give rise to relevant implications for organizational practitioners. Most research either provides generalized diversity management prescriptions that might seem irrelevant for practitioners and even prove counterproductive to resolving diversity-related problems, or takes the form of critical, deconstructive studies that fail to help practitioners or to bring about the progressive change that critical researchers preach (Ahonen et al., 2014; Alvesson & Spicer, 2012; Bartunek, 2007; King & Learmonth, 2015; Spicer et al., 2009). In particular, critical diversity research has thus far failed to articulate practical implications despite the crucial role played by practitioners in designing, implementing and monitoring diversity policies and practices (for exceptions, see Ahmed, 2007; Boxenbaum, 2006; Janssens & Zanoni, 2014; Ortlieb & Sieben, 2013; Tatli, 2011; Tatli & Özbilgin, 2009). This is partly due to the inherent restraints of the critical perspective, which is limited by a predominantly deconstructive stance in which the researcher refrains from involving with a managerial, utilitarian and de-politicized perspective of mainstream diversity management that has 31 hitherto informed diversity practitioners (Bartunek, 2007; Cunliffe, 2003; Holck et al., forthcoming; King & Learmonth, 2015; Spicer et al., 2009). However, this distancing or disdain for management as a practice may result in a reluctance to take a strong stance or undertake empirical experiments. Indeed, while critical work has considerably enriched debates about diversity and inequality in organizations, such scholarship must directly engage with practice if it is to fulfill its emancipatory aspirations. These three shortcomings – and the empirical puzzles arising from my initial comparison of the two case organizations – call for experimental and situated empirical investigations of diversity in the organizational setting. I respond to this call with critical ethnographic studies theoretically informed by a fusion of diversity research with organizational theory on structure and form. My intention is to situate and contextualize organizational diversity practices and problems, as they only become meaningful when interpreted as embedded in their organizational setting. In this regard, I join the group of diversity scholars who critically examine the intersection between micro-structure oriented research dealing with the organizational setup and the organizing diversity. This group is predominantly made up of feminist organizational scholars and sociologists exploring inequality in organizations (e.g., Acker, 1990, 2006, 2012; Ashcraft, 2001, 2006, 2012; Benschop & Van den Brink, 2012; Boogaard & Roggeband, 2009; Calás & Smircich, 1999; Crowley, 2014; Dai, 2014; D’Enbeau & Buzzanell, 2013; Due Billing, 2005; Ferguson 1984; Janssens & Zanoni, 2014; Kalev, 2009; Martin, 1990; Meyer & Vallas, 2015; Meyerson & Fletcher, 2000; Meyerson & Scully, 1995; Meyerson, 2001; Muhr, 2014; Muhr & Sullivan, 2013; Ollilainen & Calasanti, 2007; Omamovic, 2009; Ortlieb & Sieben, 2014; Parsons et al., 2012; Risberg & Just, 2014; Śliwa & Johansson, 2014; Staunæs & Søndergaard, 2007; Tatli & Özbilgin, 2012; Tatli, 2011; Vallas, 2003; Vallas & Cummings 2014; Zanoni & Janssens, 2007; Zanoni, 2011). 32 Main research question This study aims to address the three identified shortcomings of the extant critical and mainstream diversity management research: (1) a de-contextualized and generalized approach to diversity and its management, including a shortage of empirical investigations of diversity in its organizational setting; (2) an insufficient focus on minority agency (how minorities make sense of and enact diversity) and opportunities for individual agency to alter unfavorable organization structures; and (3) the lack of experimental, engaged fieldwork aimed at helping practitioners develop more emancipatory ways of organizing diversity. These shortcomings, which are the raison d’être for this research, are all reflexively explored in an empirically grounded, analysis of the organization of diversity in the two case organizations. Given this background, I ask my main research question: How do the greater historical-societal setting, the organizational setup and spatial structures both enable and constrain organizing diversity in the two case organizations, and what are the implications for the management of diversity and employee agency? This research question focuses on the links among the structural setting, including the broader social-historical structures, the organizational structure, the spatial structure and spatial routines, and diversity and its management in the two case organizations. I focus on how the structural setting intersects with the local organization of diversity. More specifically, I explore how structural conditions facilitate or restrain employees’ microagency, and I use that analysis to suggest locally relevant implications for practice. Through critical ethnographic organizational grounded research, I highlight empirical contradictions and counterintuitive patterns while addressing the shortcomings of contemporary diversity research. This participative, immersive method allows me to explore alternative and experimenting ways of empirically investigating diversity in its 33 organizational setting. Furthermore, intervention-based methods enable me to engage in diversity related processes and give back to the case organizations while uncovering implications that are relevant for the local practitioners. Specific elements of the main research questions are answered in the collection of articles that constitute the dissertation. However, the main research question is dealt with in the concluding section, in which I draw on the findings extracted from the four explorative articles. In addition, my conclusions reflect on the benefits and drawbacks of applying situated, active ethnographic research methods to organizational diversity, and on implications for practitioners. Contribution My main contribution lies in the fact that I redress the abovementioned shortcomings by transcending the boundaries of a social-psychological approach in which atomized individuals in a de-contextualized setting serve as the unit of analysis. This allows me to demonstrate how interpretations of diversity-related problems and the development of practical solutions must be grounded in a sound assessment and understanding of the structural and personnel conditions in the organization under scrutiny. First, I adopt an organizational-sociological approach to diversity. This allows me to explore how the greater societal-historical structures affect the production and reproduction of (ethnic) inequality at the corporate level. This approach addresses the call for diversity researchers to situate and contextualize their studies. I suggest that an approach sensitive to the broader social, cultural and historical structures within which the local organization of diversity is embedded will provide access to key insights into ways of influencing – and potentially challenging and transforming – the local diversity climate in favor or more emancipative practices (Ariss et al., 2012; Boehm et al., 2013; Ghorashi & 34 van Tilburg, 2006; Özbilgin et al., 2011; Tomlinson et al., 2013). Diversity practices only become meaningful when they are interpreted as responses to and reflections of greater structural circumstances. They do not arise in a vacuum but are path-dependent and situated in time and space (Tatli, 2011). I adopt this approach in the second article, which is entitled ‘From affirmative to transformative diversity management – On how the logics of the welfare model obstruct ethnic diversity in the Danish workforce’. Second, I trace the role played by the formal trappings of organizational set-up and spatial structures by uncovering how organizational structures repress or constrain the diversity that manifests in structural inequality. I do so by studying how inequality is structurally embedded in post-bureaucratic features of adaptability and informality. However, I do not attempt to promote any ‘one best way’ of organizing diversity. Instead, I suggest a complexity-sensitive conceptualization of organizing diversity in which the degree of structure is situationally adjusted to the need for emancipative practices. As such, my aim is to highlight the need to expand the scope of diversity research to include a situated, structural approach that moves beyond stylized typologies. In addition, I argue that diversity researchers and practitioners must pay more attention to the constraining and enabling potentialities of every organizational structure and form. This approach is adopted in the third article, which is entitled ‘Unequal by structure’. I further more explore the structural dimension of space that is often not granted much attention within diversity research. I argue that a focus on spatial structures and employee spatial practices can grant insights into the more tacit and subtle working of power, privilege and disadvantage in an organizational setting aligned with Acker’s (2006, 2011) notion of substructures of inequality. Such a perspective can help to account for the tenacity of inequality – even in organizations committed to values of equality and diversity. This is dealt with in article four, which is entitled ‘Spatially embedded 35 inequality: Exploring structure, agency, and ethnic minority strategies to navigate organizational opportunity structures’. Third, article four also investigates how minority employees as agents, rather than passive receptacles of control, engage in more or less compliant behaviors that may create space for their own micro-emancipation and, thereby, lead to more emancipatory ways of organizing diversity. In this perspective, minority employees are viewed as reflexive agents capable of acting upon the structural conditions they face (Ariss et al., 2012; Alvesson & Willmott, 1992; Boogaard & Roggeband, 2009; Janssens & Zanoni, 2014; Ortlieb & Sieben, 2014). Although this might seem contradictory to my structural perspective, it serves to emphasize organizational structure as both a product of agency and productive of agency. The two are entwined, such that a focus on organizational structures necessitates a focus on agency (Archer, 2003; Giddens, 1984). Finally, I make a methodological contribution, as I explore the benefits and drawbacks of utilizing intervention-based critical ethnography for studies of diversity in the organizational setting. Critical ethnography rests on the researchers’ active engagement in the organization under scrutiny. It allows for experimental fieldwork and enables the researcher to suggest practical implications. These implications can be affirmative, as they involve suggestions for practical solutions to issues raised by organizational members. They can simultaneously be subversive, as the researcher critically engages with organizational members by problematizing ways of organizing diversity. In this manner, the researcher attempts to change the terms of the debate on the long term (King & Learmonth, 2015). 36 Outline of the dissertation This PhD dissertation is a collection of articles. This means that the dissertation consists of two main parts; first a synopsis (chapter 1-4 + 9) containing chapters that each focus on particular aspects of the study as is usually the case in the monograph format; and second, four analytical chapters (chapter 5-7) comprising journal articles in various stages of the publication process. Given this format I grant that some repetition appears in the dissertation which is a byproduct of the chosen form. Figure 1 illustrates the outline of my dissertation. It is a so-called multi-level analysis assessing the entwinement and interplay between micro and macro with the organization level as the analytical point of departure and focal point of attention. Theoretically these levels will be explored theoretically informed by organizational-sociological theory on structure, form, space and agency, and then research on main-stream diversity management and critical diversity research. Moreover the analysis is be grounded in an empirical analysis of two case organizations by means of intervention-based critical ethnographic study, dealt with in chapter four. Figure 1: An embedded study of diversity in the organizational setting Literature review of diversity research (article one) one ) Historical-societal setting (article two) Structural tensions of organizing diversity (article three) Spatial-material structures and microemancipative agency (article four) 37 Even though the articles are presented as single-case studies, they nevertheless originally emerged from, and are based on a comparison between the two case organizations. The comparison has mainly been used as a method to create empirical puzzlements to trigger the different topics under scrutiny in the articles (apart from article one which is a literature review). The comparison is not documented in the articles favoring the clarity of argumentation and depth of data by only involving one organization. The articles are presented as single-case studies to deepen and unfold the enabling and constraining aspects of structure in relation to organizing diversity at organizational level. For each article I have chosen to explore a particular topic of interest arising from a comparison; in this regards I have selected the case organization that most vigorously pinpoints the puzzle or striking feature arising from the comparison. The research has been split up in separate articles dealing with particular structural features. However, this is out of analytical considerations: a main insight from doing this research is that studying embedded diversity involves bringing all the structural aspect into consideration simultaneously drawing up a fine grained and highly complex organizational landscape in which diversity processes and practices are nested. Interesting aspects of the comparison in relation to the answer of my main research question will be included in the concluding discussion of this synopsis. Chapter one is the present introduction to the dissertation. In chapter two ‘Research on diversity and its management’ I position my study within diversity research at large drawing up the polarized two main strands of respectively critical research and more mainstream diversity management, and in a Danish context. The purpose of this chapter is to further explore and ground the shortcoming of current diversity research identified above. This chapter draws on and supplement the literature review article presented in chapter five ‘Article one: Identity, diversity and diversity management. On theoretical connections, assumptions and implications for practice’. Overlap between these two 38 chapters cannot be avoided as both chapters contain a literature review of diversity research, but I intend to show very distinct aspects of the research literature: Chapter five (Article one) draws up the frontiers of research of diversity and its management by examining the relationship between the identity and diversity literature. This is done to discuss how a better understanding of the theoretical connections between the two can inform both diversity research and diversity practitioners. Chapter two provides an overview of what diversity research is about by describing predominant streams of research existing within the field. This is done to show distinct and competing theoretical positions of what we talk about when we talk about diversity and its management in organizations, and to demonstrate how my approach both challenges and adds to these predominant strands of diversity research. Chapter three ‘To study embedded diversity’ provides the wider structural framework for the study. Here I present the main theoretical concepts apart from diversity: First the structural-agency relation drawing in particular on Archer’s approach (1982, 1996, 2003), and then organizational theory on structure and form in particular informed med contingency theory as coined by Lawrence and Lorsch (1967, 1986). This provides the theoretical lens to analyze and explore diversity within a structurally informed organizational framework. Again the theoretical considerations partly overlap with discussion in respectively chapter five, six and seven. But more importantly this chapter informs and positions the three empirically grounded articles (article two, three and four) to illustrate why their combination is important and compelling to thoroughly explore distinct level and layers of embedded diversity that matters when inquiring to understanding what goes on when organizing diversity at company level. In chapter four ‘Method and research sites’ I present the methods of data collection and analysis, and I describe the process through which the study’s theoretical and 39 methodological development emerged. I focus on critical ethnography as a method to ask new, different questions to diversity as a research field and as an organizational phenomenon – with implications for practice. This chapter also contains a detailed presentation of my two case organizations to thoroughly embed the study’s observations and derivations about diversity practices in respectively Agency and Fastfood. I reflect on the techniques of data generation especially the use of interventions. This method gives rich insights but also have research drawbacks, as I illustrate in two vignettes on the different research methods applied leading to unexpected and counter-intuitive results. Finally I discuss the ethical challenges of prompting change and challenging the organization of diversity while studying the very same practices. In chapter five, six, seven and eight, I present the three main analytical chapters in the form of journal articles. As mentioned in the preface, the articles are in different stages of preparation for publication. More importantly, the articles are presented as independent contributions to diversity research as each of them raises distinct questions, connects to different bodies of literature, and employs distinct analytical concepts. Each article contains a theoretical contribution while three of articles additionally contain an empirical contribution – to the field of diversity. Together with methodological contribution dealt with in chapter 4 on participative engagement, each article contains the main contribution of this dissertation. In chapter five is the article ‘Identity, diversity and diversity management: On theoretical connections, assumptions and implications for practice’ co-authored by Sara Louise Muhr and Florence Villeseche. This article has a theoretical contribution and provides valuable insights into the theoretical connections between identity and diversity literature that have so far not been reviewed systematically. Our work foregrounds how important it is for diversity scholars to consider identity underpinnings of diversity research to help further 46 (Embrick, 2011: 545). According to Embrick, the increasing vagueness of the definition of diversity with the broadening of the term, also becomes a minimization or neglect of issues pertaining to racial/ethnical or gender diversity: By increasing the number of categories of people that fall under the umbrella of diversity, companies are able to effectively escape close examination of racial and gender inequalities that might occur in their workplace. As long as no one brings it up, it can be ignored…The diversity ideology emerged in the late 1960s that has helped corporations become increasingly sophisticated in their ability to portray themselves as supporters of racial and gender equality, while simultaneously they make no real substantial changes in their policies and practices to create real changes in the racial and gender composition of their workplace. (Embrick 2011:544-5). The business case aims at demonstrating diversity as a strategic asset of the business focusing on the uniqueness potential of different members, while sidestepping the inequality and power dimension of the organization. However, the minority groups are still predominantly perceived as different from those representing the norm; and ‘classified and categorized’ according to race, ethnicity, gender, and age and to a lesser degree class, sexual preferences, education and disabilities (Risberg & Søderberg, 2008: 427). The difficulties of grappling with the issue of ‘valuing difference’, and the tendency to combine ‘difference’ with otherwise marginalized groups on the labor market has led to a critique of diversity management as reinforcing stereotypes of especially ethnic minorities and women in a corporate setting (Syed & Özbilgin, 2009; Tatli & Özbilgin, 2012; Zanoni et al., 2010). The calculative dimension of the diversity business case also brings along a representative logic of ‘counting’ difference, which again can lead to stereotypical categorizations of employees and essentializing of difference. Others again criticize diversity management as a means to gloss over and ‘dissolve differences’ in pursuit of harmonious corporate integration and profitability by integrating a wider variety of 47 categories (Kamp & Holvino, 2009; Loerbiecki & Jack, 2009; Noon, 2007; Tatli & Özbilgin, 2012; Tomlinson & Schwabenland, 2010). The coexistence of inclinations to simultaneously dissolve and highlight, and to individualize and essentializing differences along social identity groups, brings together two conflicting logics when dealing with diversity both underpinning mainstream diversity management and the critical diversity research. The critical line of diversity literature has in particular focused on deconstructing and de-essentializing the notion of diversity to demonstrate how demographic categories and identities are not to be seen as static and fixed, but as socially constructs under constant redefinition, influenced by competing discourses and existing structures of power, and as varying according to the national/societal setting (Holck et al., forthcoming; Knoppers et al., 2014; Lorbiecki & Jack, 2009; Van Laer & Janssens, 2011; Zanoni & Janssens, 2004). The quest that underpins much critical diversity literature is to bring back in the question of social justice. This is done to ‘unmask’ power dynamics by illustrating how diversity management is a managerial practice of control by defining minority employees in fixed, essential groups with negative connotations (see also Boogaard & Roggeband 2009; Ghorashi & Sabelis, 2013; Janssens & Zanoni, 2014; Litvin, 1997, 2002; Noon, 2007; Roberson, 2006; Roberson & Stevens, 2006; Simon & Oakes, 2006; Tatli & Özbilgin, 2012; 2011; Zanoni et al., 2010). Once categorized in essentialist stereotypical categories they are then more easily controlled and managed. The two directions within diversity research point to how the act of intervening to craft a more egalitarian organization is navigating between the ‘Scylla and Charybdis’ of, on the one hand the use of essentialist ‘stereotypical’ demographic categories, and on the other individualistic, de-politicized categories (Tomlinson & Schwabenland, 2010; Noon, 2007; Kamp & Hagedorn-Rasmussen, 2004). In practice this has led to an oscillation between 48 ‘colorblind’ diversity policies in the quest to overcome resistance and then ‘identity conscious’ to further social justice (Holck et al., 2015; Tran et al., 2010). As Ghorashi and Sabelis (2013) argue, without the recognition of salient differences that matters in the context organizational policies for change become too diffuse to tackle the sources of exclusion requiring urgent attention: While target group policies like AA and EEO make historically disadvantaged groups seem as ‘absolute others who needed to be helped and accommodated’, then the more individualized diversity management policies render them ‘invisible altogether’ (Ibid. 83). This highlights the difficulties of finding an adequate balanced method for the attention to a specific diversity category and yet avoiding the fixation. This literature overview underscores some the identified shortcomings of a polarization between critical and main stream diversity research segmenting the research in silos: I argue that this is unfruitful when working to craft more emancipatory organizations – here practitioners could benefit from the attempt to align critical thinking with practical implications for scrutinizing local diversity related problems. What is more, the literature review demonstrates how both strands ‘suffer’ from a highly abstract and generalized research often times coupled with strong politicized standpoints around issues on matters such as essentialized/de-essentialized notions on identity associated with social justice or business imperative. Interestingly the same polarization do not manifest on practitioner level as the moral imperative of social justice can go hand in hand with the business case of enhanced performance. This is at least the situation in Denmark making up one of the characteristics of the particular Danish variant of diversity management. 49 WHEN A CONCEPT TRAVELS: DIVERSITY IN A DANISH SETTING When a North American managerial concept like diversity management diffuses across the globe, it will be translated, dis-embedded and re-embedded to fit the receiving society (Boxenbaum, 2006). And for good reasons since some concepts might seem so foreign that they need a translation (Sahlin & Wedlin, 2008; Waldorff et al., 2013); this is the case with diversity management as it stems from a totally different historical frame (a post-colonial society) and draws on a business logic of valuing differences that not hitherto has been dominant in Denmark (Boxenbaum, 2006; Holvino, 2008; Hübinette, 2011; Kamp & Hagedorn-Rasmussen, 2004; Kamp & Holvino, 2009; Muhr, 2012; Risberg & Søderberg, 2008; Romani et al., forthcoming; Zanoni & Janssens, 2007). Diversity management to put migrants to work Diversity management was taken up in a particular socio-historical moment (at the beginning of this millennium), when Denmark had very little experience of immigration suddenly faced the prospect of becoming a multiethnic society (Boxenbaum, 2006; Holvino & Kamp, 2009). Denmark is characterized by a protective yet exclusive labor market in which mono-cultural organizations are the rule (Cox, 1991). The historical and current exclusion of (especially low-skilled) ethnic minorities from the labor market results from the unique combination of low-skilled historical migration, a highly protective labor legislation and high labor costs, and a generous welfare system as well as a national identity based on Danish language. By the end of the last millennium, approximately one third of the non-western residents in Denmark were unemployed, and progressive NGOs, business and political forces were alarmed. In this situation diversity management came in handy as the means to integrate ethnic minorities into the labor market4. The variant of 4 According to Danish Statics, in 2014 there are 653.031 citizens with immigrants and descendant background living in Denmark, out of which 140.000 are active on the labor market. The employment rate among immigrants and descendants peaked in 2008 with 57 % The 50 diversity management that eventually emerged that focused primarily on difference in terms of ethnicity, but was integrated with the strong discourse on ‘the social responsibility of the firm’ (Boxenbaum, 2006; Holck 2013; Kamp & Hagedorn-Rasmussen, 2004; Risberg & Søderberg, 2008). Hence the term diversity management (in Danish ‘mangfoldighedsledelse’) is usually used for ethnic diversity, whereas gender, age and disability are explicitly used when talking about ‘non-ethnic’ diversity. Danish Diversity management and social responsibility: taking care of the weak The moral obligation of corporations to care about ‘vulnerable groups at the labor market’ is essentially a Danish discourse (Holck & Muhr, 2015; Holvino & Kamp, 2009; Rennison, 2009; Romani et al., forthcoming). Social responsibility in Denmark is conceived of as the firms’ moral obligation to care about vulnerable groups at the labor market by recruiting and including them in the organization (Rennison, 2009; Risberg & Søderberg, 2008). A particular Danish variant has been coined integrating diversity with an inclusive labour market ideology prescribing that it is possible to tackle differences by being inclusive and tolerant, and by securing labour market access for marginalized groups including ethnic minorities (Boxenbaum, 2006; Hagedorn Rasmussen & Kamp, 2004; Holck, 2013a; Holvino & Kamp, 2009). The Danish variant of diversity management as fused with social responsibility supported by a tradition of active labour market policies; state subsidized active labour market measures such as language and training positions, flexible and light jobs, and protective employment positions especially targeting ethnic minorities and other marginalized groups5. number has thus fallen by 35 % In 2014 the employment rate was 49,9 % for ethnic minorities compared to an employment rate 73 % among citizens with ‘Danish origin’. Since 2008 the number of non-Western immigrants and descendants outside the labor force has increased by 39,600 – equivalent to an increase by 43 %. 5 Another supportive structure is a system of ’Flexicurity’ making it easier for employers to sack people, but supplemented by a government policy providing support and training for the unemployed through public investment in human capital of the universal welfare state. 51 In organizations, the Danish collaborative model gives individuals at all levels a voice through collaborative HRM practices (what can be termed ‘collaborative diversity practices’) and the companies have developed their diversity policies and practices in relation to union constraint. This collaborative approach has a noticeable imprint of trade unions and Danish corporation are obliged to take into account the union channel (Gooderham et al., 2013: 164-165; Romani et al., forthcoming). This system of ’collaborative HRM’ is supposed to simultaneously fulfil the needs of the firm and the needs of the employees in a harmonious way: A consensus-oriented approach co-ordinates the mutual expectations and goals which supposedly stimulates employee commitment and motivation. This cooperative model draws on some of the same ethical values as those embedded in diversity, namely employee experience of fairness, job enrichment and employee participation promoting the satisfaction of belongingness needs of the employees following the inclusive organization model (Shore et al., 2011: 1265). But by the same token, the very same values can serve as a stumbling block for diversity work, as they embrace a tradition of consensus and equality of treatment suitable for a more homogeneous group of employees (ibid: 1276). As Boxenbaum (2007: 942) underlines, the dominant Nordic homogeneity including the values of equality and democratic principles, potentially conflict with the principles of diversity management (citing a diversity professional): ’In a Danish context, we are used to a homogeneous society… you cannot talk about people being different, then you cannot talk about treating them differently… we are trained to “equalize”. Consequently diversity management in Denmark tends to position ethnic minorities as a weak group; a group in need of development in order to fit the labor market requirements defined by majority skills and capabilities as the standard (Holck & Muhr, 2015; Holvino 52 & Kamp 2009; Kamp & Hagedorn-Rasmussen, 2004). Hence ethnic minorities are categorized as a group lacking adequate skills to be redressed by means of assimilation. This has led to a rather ambiguous translation of diversity management, which is furthered by the concepts’ foreignness to a Danish business environment (see Boxenbaum, 2007; Campbell 2007; Holck, 2013; Omamovic, 2009; Vallentin & Murillo, 2012). The original North American focus on an individualized approach encourages difference and to treat employees differently. Simultaneously, it rests on a voluntary action of the corporation. In many ways, this clashes with the corporative collective aspect of the Danish labour market. The latter combines a general sensitivity to equal (homogeneous) treatment and strong negotiated collaborative economy (Holck & Muhr, 2015). Thus Danish corporations, when applying diversity management, have to navigate between collectivistic and individualistic aspirations, the Danish history of corporatism and a predominant societal discourse on equality, itself leaning on the universal welfare state model. These constraints, references and practices are in sharp contrast to the more individualistic and neo-liberal contribution of diversity management of a US conceptualization. Diversity management in a Danish context is then less about capitalizing on and valuing human capital differences (a business imperative) but about eventually creating equal possibilities (a moral imperative); ethnic minorities are recruited because the corporations feel ethical committed to demonstrate their good corporate citizenship not to access valuable different competencies and skills held by minority candidates (Aguilera et al., 2007; Cambell, 2007). But the moral imperative is paradoxically combined with business case arguments: Kamp and Hagedorn-Rasmussen (2004: 532) emphasize how diversity management in Denmark has evolved as ‘a story of how to obtain both equality and business success; it depicts a win-win situation where these two perspectives are united.’ 53 The particular Danish translation might not only be unfavorable: As Barmes and Ashtiany (2003:284) argue ‘paradoxically the business benefits of diversity may in fact depend on non-economic justifications being given space’. Merging the moral and business rationales through re-inscribing utilitarian arguments within organizational commitment to social justice is not an easy endeavor and challenges the Danish variant. Drawing on the core idea of corporate social responsibility that companies should align business and social goals (cf. Aguilera et al., 2007; Matten & Moon, 2008; Vallentin & Murillo, 2012; Vermaut & Zanoni, 2014), the simultaneous articulation of the contradiction between an instrumental business case for diversity and its emancipatory potential for minority employees might help push forward more equality-fostering diversity management practices in organizations; to bring in social justice not only by recognizing but also adequately rewarding differences through redistributive measures as equal pay and permanent, high status positions. The minority voices and agency: Social justice and class Social justice by means of both redistribution and recognition takes us back to Fraser’s (1998) and the omission of critical diversity scholars predominantly to frame difference as a matter of recognition and status while not giving attention to how to develop adequate means to rectify matters of redistribution and class (e.g. Acker, 2006, 2012; Berrey, 2014; Crowley, 2013, 2014; Holvino, 2010; Kalev, 2009; Kalev et al., 2006). The dimension of class is aligned with and inscribed in notion of power and structure, in assessing how structural-contextual factors play a key role in triggering or diminishing exclusion/inclusion patterns. There are two predominant interpretations of class: One is conceptualizing class at the macro-level of society. Here citizens/individuals are grouped in different classes on the grounds of income, property and power and hence perceived as a specific type of social stratification (Scully & Blake-Beard, 2006; Zanoni, 2011). There is 54 generally a great resentment to use the concept of class associated with feudal societies: However, research underpins how economic inequality is escalating in Denmark and especially ethnic minorities with non-western background are prone to end up in the lower class due to lower activity rates, strong overrepresentation in unemployment, and jobs in low-income, insecure industries (Andersen et al., 2015; Ejrnæs, 2006, 2012) 6. A second interpretation of class is within traditional labour process theory which critical diversity research on race and gender predominantly takes it outset in. This is grounded in perception of class as the exploitative relation between capital and labor resulting in their distinct positions in the capitalist mode of production (Zanoni, 2011). Drawing on classical Marxism the dimension of class inevitable brings in the aspects of conflict between the managerial/exploitive class attempting to control while the employees/exploited class tries to find ways to resist this control, to the fore of analysis; when talking class, conflict is always brewing and can surface at any time in the organization (Berrey, 2014; Crowley, 2014; Kalev, 2009). The concept of class challenges the picture of diversity as harmonious (especially prevalent within mainstream studies) as class emphasizes constraints and control rather than choice and legitimate authority in relation to managing minority employees (Scully & Blake-Beard, 2006). In my analysis, bringing in a class dimension is a way to make explicit the power dynamics at stake when working with difference in organizations (Mamman et al., 2012); hence highlighting the inevitable majority/minority power relations intersecting with distinction between provisional/permanent staff associated with corporate social responsibility activities and the inclusive labor market model. Most mainstream diversity research implicitly assumes all members consider transformation to inclusion as a 6 In 2012 than one third (37, 3 %) of immigrants with non-Western were to be characterized as belonging to the lowest ‘sub-class’ while 0,6 % belongs to the upper class. Comparatively only 12,6 % with native Danish background are found in the lowest sub-class while 3,0 % are in the upper class (Andersen et al., 2015). 55 harmonious ‘win-win’ situation. This is questioned by proponents of critical diversity bringing up the aspect of power and resistance in group-related interests, distribution of privilege and struggles over scarce resources. Combining recognition/status with redistribution/class within a critical diversity perspective brings the more subtle power relation to the fore of the analysis: the micro-politics of manipulating distribution of privilege and status in favor of own interest, and struggles over scarce resources (Benschop & van den Brink, 2012; Daya, 2014; Dobusch, 2014; Ortlieb & Sieben, 2013; Qin et al., 2014; Van den Brink et al., 2010). The combination of class and status combined with social justice (and the business case) can make a poignant entry of the mobilization of change in organizations to make them more inclusive and just places to work – which brings in the issue of agency (Scully & Blake-Beard, 2006). Agency can be seen as the individual’s power and influence to affect changes in their work-life which is permitted and legitimized in their position in the webs of social and economic relations (Tatli & Özbilgin, 2012). The element of microemancipative agency inevitable involves a clarification of the structure-agency relations. In this study I propose a conceptualization where structure both enables and constrains agency as proposed by Giddens (1984) and Archer (1996, 2003, 1982/2010). This is obviously a structure-agency relation that is of main concern in relation to my main research question. 62 The main research question is inspired by ‘the use of dissonance’ when tempering of the tensions inherent in organizing diversity. In this endeavor Lawrence and Lorsch’s (1986: 161) structural notion of coordination through combining adequate differentiation and requisite integration to tackle interand intra-organizational complexity, is very useful: Each of these techniques seems to carry with it a thrust in one of two directions – either toward greater order, systematization, routinization, and predictability, or towards greater openness, sharing, creativity, and individual initiative. One thrust is to tighten the organization; the other, to loosen it up. Central to this thinking is that the balancing act does not rely on something that can be theoretically deduced as a matter of linear causality or metaphysically framed, echoed in the split between positivist diversity management literature, and then the critical diversity literature. In this perspective the organization of diversity is a ‘practical discipline focused upon the effective, efficient, and responsible arrangement and management of organizations.’ (du Gay & Vikkelsø, 2013: 256) The balancing out of an increasing differentiation by means of enhanced integration seems like a valid approach to organizing diversity: Even more so, as this study argues that a diverse workforce increases the need for requisite integration. Apart from more conventional differentiation related to tasks, functions, sections and teams aimed at adjusting to environmental complexity, workforce diversity adds to the internal complexity related to such elements as e.g. ethnicity, gender, culture, language, personality, age, work experience and professional background (Ashcraft, 2011). Therefore, the escalating differentiation of the organization’s external (inter-organizational) and internal (intraorganizational) environments, brings about a need for a more varied set of integration methods to promote unity of effort: Viable organization of the future will need to establish and integrate the work of organization units that can cope with even more varied sub-environments. The 63 differentiation of these units will be more extreme. Concurrently, the problems of integration will be more complex. Great ingenuity will be needed to evolve new kind of integrative methods. (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1986: 238) Without requisite integration methods, the organization will slowly dissolve (Vikkelsø, 2015). Methods of requisite integration endow certain potentialities in organizational members’ actions that bring about at least some degree of routinized, predictable actions – a predictability that helps employees pick a course of action for tackling situational complexity (Pentland et al., 2012). Applying contingency thinking to organizing workforce diversity directs the attention towards a structural focus on coordination of effort by means of a set of varied integrative methods to tackle the implications of increasing (workforce) differentiation. As differentiation increases fuelled by different profiles in relation diversity composition of members, new and more advanced mechanisms and methods of integration have to be developed. It is exactly these seeds of differentiation and the necessary varied set of integration mechanisms in order to coordinate the common effort of the diverse organization that I explore in this dissertation. Hence contingency thinking can enrich diversity research, by exploring and nuancing the necessity of structurally embedded coordination mechanisms as there is ‘no best way’ but only local, situated albeit temporary solutions. These solutions necessitates a thorough organizational assessment in order to develop a ‘good fit’ between an organization’s inner arrangement, its core tasks, the differentiated personal capacities and dispositions necessary to fulfill its purpose and meet the demands of the environment – complicated by an increasing intra-organizational differentiation of a diverse workforce. Apart from a differentiation perspective, the aim of this research is also to advance the proposition of more nuanced, detailed, and situational-specific integration mechanisms in 64 my two case organizations; to adequately tackle the increasing differentiation fuelled their diverse workforce, performance of diverse tasks, in a structural, material, and temporal complex environment. This is not to promote another ‘Procrustean bed’ that instrumentally prescribes the ‘right’ way to tackle the organizing diversity. In this quest it is important not to lose sight of the fact that the when dealing with diversity, the organization still has to perform its core tasks and work towards a common purpose, as it is these core tasks that diversity related encounters and interactions center around. This advocates for bringing ‘work’ (back) into diversity research and hence to base it on a more thorough assessment of the organization in order to adequately ‘situate’ the organization of diversity (Vikkelsø, 2015). Table 1 summarizes my approach to organizing diversity vis-á-vis critical and mainstream diversity management research. Table 1: My approach to organizing diversity vis-á-vis critical diversity and mainstream diversity management Position on diversity Main assumption Objective Main concepts Activities and methods Main limitations Critical diversity resear ch Diversity as social justice Critical/ reformist Socially indignation/ Emancipatory organizations Diversity as matter of recognition of historical groupbased structural inequalities and their redistributive consequences (class and status) To redress structural inequalities to ensure ethnical equality and fairness Diversity as social status/recognition of historically disadvantaged groups Social stratification, social class – labor process theory - and critical studies of race and gender Moral imperative and an inclusive labour market as the responsibility of business citizens Obligation/Human rights focus AA/EEO, antidiscrimination legislation and quotas Post equity strategies targeting the substructures of power, hierarchy and the p ower to define norms and values Distance to practice limited by a predominantly deconstructive stance whilst keeping away from the managerial, utilitarian and depoliticized perspective of mainstream diversity management. Refraining from helping practition ers and hence to bring on the progressive change that critical researchers preach Mainstream diversity management Diversity as business case Realist/depoliticized Managerialis m / utilitarian Diversity as matter of recognition and valorizing of individual differences To ensure optimal utilization of human capital and enhanced performance/ profitability Diversity as a wide variety of individual characteristic and traits to enhance performance Human capital utilization/ Diversity management Business imperative and utilitarianism. Performance and growth Voluntarism/Market focus Formal HRM procedures: Objective and predefined criteria for selection, development and retention Training Dedicated mentoring and network Prescriptive and decontextualized diversity management activities to alleviate minority experiences of disadvantage on the basis of cognitive and individualized insights to alter majority biased behavior. These prescriptions might seem irrelevant for practitioners and even prove counterproductive to solve local diversity related issues Organizing diversity Diversity as social justice and business case Situated critical perspective based on empirically embedded research Diversity as a matter of critically assessing local conditions for organizing diversity in more emancipatory ways To ensure parity of participation for all employees in the organization Diversity as a matter of social justice combining status/recognition and class/redistribution Appropriate differentiation and requisite integration in constant adjustment of structures to tackle organizing diversity Spatial-material properties manifesting microinequalities and triggering emancipatory agency Critical assessment of how the greater historical-societal structures, the organizational setup and spatial structure enable and constrain organizing diversity Transparent procedures and collectively formulated principles that are enforceable and open to contest Studying diversity in its empirical setting will only have limited implication predominantly for the local situation. Hence it will not lead to the grand revolution but point to aspects of repression in the local situation: The study illuminates some of the dark, repressive sides of organizing diversity and highlight possible routes to crafting more emancipatory organizations leading to a general leaning. 67 4. METHOD AND RESEARCH SITES So how do I develop an appropriate research strategy that can connect my main research question and my theory in a set of research methodologies that enable me; (1) to ask new and different questions to the diversity field to address the identified shortcomings i.e. the lack of contextualizing and situating diversity in its empirical, organizational setting? Furthermore I inquire how the structural setting enables and constrains organizing diversity in my two case organizations informed by theory of structure-agency and organizational theory on structure and form? (2) And how do I design a research template that allows me to engage with practitioners? My answer to these two questions is to apply an engaging and participative methodology that further more allows me to bridge the ‘gap’ between theory and practice. These ambitions I combine in intervention-based critical ethnology (Duberley & Johnson, 2011; Madison, 2011; Watson, 2011). A critical reading of the organizational setting gives me the possibility to reveal deep structures of asymmetric relations of power and control, to invoke the moral imperative of critical research to try and shift the balance of power in organizations in favor of currently marginalized groups. Ethnology is characterized by a close relationship with the setting which gives me the possibility to actively but pragmatically intervene and engage in a progressive dialogue on diversity and its management in my two case organizations to encourage more emancipatory ways of organizing diversity (Alvesson et al., 2011; Benschop & Van den Brink, 2012; Fairhurst & Grant, 2010; Madison, 2011; Meyerson & Kolb, 2000; Nentwich, 2006; Risberg & Just, 2014; Spicer et al., 2009; Staunæs & Søndergaard, 2007). My research can be positioned within the interpretative science: I do not postulate any kind of validity or fundamental truth – the empirical material is but my construction and stories of my experiences while in the field. This is why this methodological section is so 68 important as to create transparency into how the data that forms the basis of my analysis has been collected and constructed by me and my interaction with the organizations under scrutiny. According to Justesen and Mik-Meyer (2010), interpretive research addresses at least three criteria of quality: First a high degree of pellucidity when it comes to choice of research design and analytical methods applied to demonstrate the premises of the research. This is to give the readers a foundation on which to base their assessment of the study to account for a degree of trustworthiness and reliability. Second to demonstrate a diversity of methods in a compelling study that contributes with relevant and interesting knowledge in relation to a defined target group. Third a criterion of reflexivity and to engage in self-critical interpretations of my own predispositions and assumptions – personally, theoretically or otherwise – related to my consistent effort to tease out alternative constructions and reinterpretations of my data (Alvesson et al., 2008, 2011) and in sharing these reflections with the reader (Justesen & Mik-Meyer, 2010). Reflexivity is an ongoing process and accomplishment throughout the research process; not only to challenge conventional thinking and but also as ‘reflection in action’: ‘On-the-spot surfacing, criticizing, restructuring, and testing of intuitive understanding of experienced phenomena’ as reflexive conversation with participants in the organizational setting (Schön in Darmer & Thomsen, 2010: 485). This methodological section serves to elaborate on and live up to the three criteria for quality research within interpretative science as coined by Justesen and Mik-Meyer (2010). Social constructivism and critical ethnography To characterize the philosophical assumptions and foundations of all critical ethnographers is an impossible task. Nevertheless, most of the so-called critical ethnographers confess to doing ‘intensive empirical investigations of every day, lived cultural reality.’ (Foley, 2002: 472). These empirical investigations are often founded on a social constructivist 69 assumption that people make their social and cultural worlds at the same time these worlds make them (Gioia, 2003, 2006). Reality is not seen as some objectifiable truth waiting to be uncovered (through evidence-based positivistic scientific inquiry). Rather, there are multiple realities that compete for truth and legitimacy (Fairhurst & Grant, 2010: 174): such meanings are produced and reproduced on an ongoing basis creating ‘structures that are both stable and yet open to change as interactions evolve over time.’ Gioia argues that even though we act as if these structures are real it does not change ‘the fact that they are intersubjectively produced enterprises.’ (Gioia, 2003: 189) Social constructivist inspired research is then first and foremost a study of how we as actors actively construct a reality that we then have to cope with – exploring how things become socially constructed (Cunliffe, 2008; Robichaud et al., 2013). All cultural groups produce an intersubjective reality which is both ‘inherited’ and continually constructed and reconstructed as it is lived or practiced – echoing Archers morphogenetic circle (Archer, 1996). ‘It is a distinct, lived historical tradition ‘objectified’ through structuring practices (laws, public politics, cultural conventions).’ (Foley, 2002: 472). The reflexive researcher tap into this historical, socially constructed reality in a partial, provisional sense through experimental encounters with (organizational) members who live by these social constructions of reality that emerges in the moment (Cunliffe, 2008). A social constructivist inspiration has implications for studying diversity in an organizational setting. A key assumption is that organizational structures are always in the making, and a matter of continuous enactment by reflexive agents. And so is diversity: a relational, emerging, negotiated, forever contested and ever shifting phenomenon that I only give a temporary, ‘snapshot’ description of in my research. It is demonstrative of how organizing of diversity was dealt with in that particular organization at a particular time and among a certain group of members. My findings would inevitable be different in another time and place depending on location, situation and composition of 70 participants/organizational employees. As such organizational structure and agency are closely entwined in a temporary ever emerging relation. In fact perceiving organizational actors as reflexive agents makes it impossible to operate with a linear causality as within realism. Instead structures are seen as enabling and constraining in relation to reflexive organizational members who can both sidestep or change their structural circumstances (Esmark et al., 2005). According to Czarniawska (2008: 6) constructivist organizational scholars then need to focus on the performative rather than the ostensive definitions of organizations; ‘how organizations are performed, not how they appear’. Table 2 Ostensive and performative definitions of an organization (Czarniawska 2008: 7) Ostensive Definitions Performative definition An organization is a distinctive unit with properties like those of physical objects (large, small integrated). Actors act in an organization, which exists independently of their actions. Researchers can describe an organization better than the actors can. There can be only one correct description of an organization. The purpose of the research is to formulate principles A definition of an organization arises from social perceptions that change with the context. Actors constantly construct an o rganization through their actions and their interpretations of what they themselves and the others are doing. Knowledge of an organization resides in the first place with the actors; observers may have knowledge about an organization, which does not result from any privileged access to reality. There can be many descriptions of the same organization that can be compared according to pragmatic or esthetic criteria. The purpose of research is to capture and describe practices. Table 2 illustrates the difference between an ostensive and performative perception of organizations: The left column follows the percepts of the natural sciences methodologies (realism), where organizations are seen as distinct objects and the researcher’s task is to 71 discover their attributes in order to formulate principles determining their formation. The right column illustrates the interpretative tradition of social constructivist studies based on the key assumption of organizations as (re-)constructed through actions that means enacted in and by actors and their interpretations of what they believe they – and their colleagues – are doing. Here the object of the study is to explore how organizations are constructed combined with capturing the complexity that characterizes their genesis; to describe their complexity and ambiguity with as many facets as possible (Justesen & Mik-Meyer, 2010). The objective of constructivist committed researchers are to describe practice not to prescribe principles for organizing (Czarniawska, 2008; Robichaud et al, 2013). As the organizational ‘reality’ is under permanently under construction, it makes no sense to look for ‘the essence’ in a stable, permanent form. This is why I refer to the verb organizing – underlining the processual and emerging aspect of the continuous construction of the social entity we call an organization (Czarniawska, 2008; Weick, 1979, 2001): filled with contradictory demands, ambiguous acts endowed with power and emotions. As such there is no causal linear link – but a transformative one – between input/gestures to manage diversity and then outcome/employee responses in the continuous emerging structuring process that we call an organization (Stacey & Griffin, 2005). This is what I grasp in structure as a matter of balancing integration and differentiation in an ever emerging form inspired by Lawrence and Lorsch (1967, 1986). Even though some position Lawrence and Lorsch within a realist realm, my use and interpretations of their work focus on their emphasis on differentiation and organizational structures as an ever emerging activity not committed any ‘one best way’ prescriptive principle for organizing. Intervention-based critical ethnography Critical ethnography rests on political-ethical and action-based philosophy that allows application of multiple and experimental fieldwork methods. First, ethnographic fieldwork 78 more practical knowledge on ‘how to make diversity work’ (a very practical but also broad ambition). My consultant background gave me a particular approach and point of access to do research in relation to this study: Transforming from consultant to researcher gave me prior knowledge of the two case organizations as part of my ‘luggage’ together with prior reflections on which I based my research. My access point to the organizations (in Agency; a chief consultant and section manager, and in Fastfood; the head of and a diversity consultant in the HR department) and their motivation for cooperating with me together with our ongoing discussion of my findings ‘tainted’ my research questions, the methods applied and my subsequent interpretations of fieldwork data. As such the notion of coconstructed research is meaningful in my study. My consultant background also made intervention-based methods more straight forward and less disruptive when engaging with the two organizations. In fact the organizations entered the collaboration with the expectation of consultancy on my behalf and as a follow-up on our previous collaboration. But as a researcher, they allowed me to alternate between more or less passive observation/interview phases and then highly active roles of presenting findings and facilitating seminars. My research is inspired by Spicer et al.’s (2009) notion of ‘critical performativity’ believing that research needs to have an element of new knowledge as well as to be practically oriented. Critical performativity involves active, subversive but also affirmative intervention into (management) discourse and practice, to move beyond the cynical distance that often pervades critical scholars. That is to recognize how critique must ‘involve an affirmative movement along-side the negative movement’ to create new more liberating ways of organizing (Spicer et al., 2009: 538). Another major source of inspiration to the activist stance is Meyerson and Kolb’s (2000) seminal article on how to transform critical feminism of ‘armchair theorizing’ into active 79 research to prompt changes in organizations in favor of more gender equality. As a critical performative ‘out of the armchair’ researcher, I assumed the role of ‘bridge maker’ between critical interpretations – playing devil’s advocate – and then engaging in the practical problems and concerns raised by the participants as an empathetic partner. On the one hand I tried to refrain from ‘watering down’ research by insisting on a critical edge through asking troublesome questions and bringing participants into troublesome situations to trigger collective reflections on experiences related to status, hierarchy and power relations linked to issues of workforce diversity. On the other hand, I wanted to make my findings ‘digestible’ and practical to practitioners by relating them to concerns and problems raised by practitioners – and predominantly being critical when invited to. The method is to relate closely to every day practices ‘to locate points within the practices with liberating potential’ though critical-constructive questioning that expands the horizon (Spicer et al., 2009: 546). As such the critical researcher must be pragmatic towards the kind of change you can activate and have to settle on piecemeal, incremental local changes of micro-emancipation. Explorative research as ‘tempered radical’ In my research I combine consultancy with research into a hybrid or hyphenated position of a consultant-researcher role (Czarniawska, 2001; Katisiafica et al., 2011). As Gertsen and Zølner (2012) argue this kind of collaborative approach seeks to bridge the alleged theory-practice gap which does not make the researcher’s job easier: A main challenge of collaborative research is to accommodate the different interests of the scholars on the one hand and practitioners on the other (Gilmore & Kenny, 2015). While the latter is ‘likely to require practical insight and solutions to concrete problems, the academic community is more focused on methodological consistency, quality of data and theoretical relevance.’ (Zølner & Gertsen 2013: 2-3) The researcher looks for deeper theoretical and empirical 80 understanding of a social phenomenon, when the practitioners prefer something they can apply in their daily work; some kind of guidelines for action or the like. My approach was dialogic as I intervened to help to put words on problematic practices (Shotter, 2010): by participating aware of the local ‘language’ and priorities, and hence giving advice that was recognizable to the organizational practitioners (King & Learmonth, 2015). As such I applied to the virtue of prudence or practical wisdom (phronesis) to suggest solutions to the problem at hand involving the ‘art of judgment’ i.e. theoretically informed practical insight in what can be done in a given situation. The dual agenda of exploring organizational alternatives to facilitate bottom-up changes combined with awareness of local practical concerns are core to tempered radicalism as proposed by Meyerson (2001). As a tempered radical, the researcher operates with a dual agenda of wanting to achieve a liberating change in the organization by adopting nonthreatening more pragmatic change practices by minimizing explicit references to the ‘radical rhetoric’ of social indignation, justice and discrimination. As such my study can be seen as tempered radicalism with a dual agenda to advance equality and at the same time increase organizational effectivity – making business and social justice objectives work in tandem (Meyerson, 2001). My critical engagement involved suggesting small steps of micro-emancipation (like changing task distribution and collaborative practices in one section in Agency) or larger changes (more local freedom and space of maneuver for discretionary agency at restaurant level in Fastfood). However, most of my interventions were problematization of current practices by posing different kind of questions to target change of the terms of the debate; to trigger transformative agency on the long term (Hibbert & Cunliffe, 2013; Learmonth et al., 2012). As a tempered radical, my dual agenda called for a collaborative research process which involved both critique and cooperation making critical ethnography an appropriate choice. 81 Collaborative research does not allow for a more passive or ‘objective’ way of researching diversity: In many ways I embodied an ‘other’ position: On the one hand, I was too engaged to assume a ‘non-biased’, objective stance and my proposals were not prescriptively ‘ready to implement’ to fit in among mainstream diversity management scholars. On the other, I required too ‘dirty hands’ as I proposed not only social justice promoting but also more managerial-utilitarian inspired changes in the organizations under scrutiny to fit among critical diversity scholars. This is my methodological contribution to the diversity field: to demonstrate the potentialities and drawbacks of doing empirically embedded diversity research in situ by means of critical ethnography and criticalpragmatic interventions as a consultant-researcher. Before I go on to reflect more in-depth on the methods I have applied in my interventions informed by critical ethnography, I will draw up the two sites of research as well as my research design and methods applied in my two case organizations. This will give the necessary background information to critically assess the organizational implications of the methods I have used, the kind of impact my research have had on my case organizations as well as the ethical consequences of this kind of study. RESEARCH DESIGN Ethnographic fieldwork draws on a wide range of data-generation methods (van Maanen, 2011) to gain deep insight. This allowed me to apply different, situationally ‘suitable’ datageneration techniques to acknowledge the two companies’ differences – hence reflecting the multi-methodological approach of critical ethnography to grasp the complexity of diversity activities and practices in my two case organizations. However, data generation predominantly fell into the categories of participant observations, semi-structured individual and group interviews, and interventions. 82 The study draws on an iterative design in which research questions are formulated and reformulated throughout the fieldwork phase, thereby creating space for empirical material to affect the research process and results. The fairly open approach meant that the researcher was not restricted to a rigid interview protocol. After an exploratory phase, findings and understandings from the initial observations and interviews in both of the companies were organized in emergent themes, which were then used as inputs in new interviews, both in terms of questions asked and in respondent selection. Therefore, the emerging understanding of the companies affected the lines of inquiry (Alvesson, 2010). Moreover, findings in one organization were mirrored and ‘tested’ in the other. Data analysis was guided by a constant comparative method in which intraand inter-case differences and similarities in the two companies were highlighted in relation to consistencies and, in particular, variations in organizational practices. An iterative method was applied that oscillated between fieldwork observations and interviews, consulting theory, and data coding in order to condensate meaning, and generate new theoretical and empirical questions. When processing the data, the researcher translated the interviews into English. From field diaries, observations, interviews and interventions a number of significant events, telling experiences and ‘confessional tales’ (van Maanen, 2011; Zhang & Spicer, 2013) were constructed to exemplify how Agency’s and Fastfood’s structural setups intersected with organizing diversity. The research sites Agency Agency is a municipal center that service local international businesses and entrepreneurs. The core tasks of Agency fall within advice-giving, courses for entrepreneurs and developing input to the municipal business profile through political/strategic work. It was founded in 2008 with eight employees. When this study’s fieldwork began in May 2012, it 83 had just been merged with another unit, moved to another department, and the number of employees had more than doubled from about 30 to 85 people. In September 2013, the centers size was cut down to 35 employees and an internal restructuration was initiated. It was never implemented as a municipal election (November 2013) brought about restructurations affecting Agency. By the time my fieldwork ended in May 2014, Agency was undergoing yet another merger doubling the size under a new name and department. Agency successfully applies the municipal diversity and equality policy as staff composition reflects the composition of the municipality’s citizens. In this regard, organizational members differ according to age, gender, ethnicity, language skills, and cultural experiences, and they vary from autodidact entrepreneurs over administrative to masters of predominantly political sciences and humanities. The culture evokes an entrepreneurial spirit in an open-plan office space, which is characterized by little formality and few rules. Managers have discretion in decisions on task allocation, promotion, recruitment, and members’ participation in various tasks. But employees also have discretion when performing their specialized mostly project-based work in teams. The organization has historically been relative small and informal with a flat hierarchy (at least so it is described by the employees) with a CEO and two to three middle managers according to the varying size. The constant restructuration means that Agency is in constant ‘identity crises. Hence the organization embarked on several identity processes during my fieldwork: First of all an ‘organizational identity’ formulation process involving a seminar for the whole center where diversity was formulated as one of the key values (December 2012). In addition, an external consultancy was hired to remedy the low employee satisfaction rates detected in continuous work environment reports. The process was called ‘Attractive Workplace’ and involved a process at managerial and later on organizational level with several seminars 84 (January to June 2013). Finally I was involved in several section seminars that I organized together with a group of employees and their section manager. This culminated in a two day workshop and three follow up meetings (March to July 2013). Diversity policy According to their homepage the strategic task of Agency is to: ‘… improve the service for entrepreneurs and business in the city, and make it easier for companies to get in touch with the right municipal staff.’ (webtext my translation) Diversity is not specifically mentioned on the website and in other official communication, but an annual report from 2011 mention ‘Culture and Diversity’, stating that Agency forms part of the city internationalization strategy and work to ‘… ensure the international branding of the city as open and tolerant where quality of life and growth are well-matched, providing advice, improving the framework conditions for businesses and enhancing the international competitiveness of the city.’ (My translation) Thus diversity has to a certain extent been translated as globalization and internationalization by Agency. Where diversity is most evident is in the recruitment policy: From their instantiation in 2008 Agency has recruited with respect to diversity among its employees: The first eight employees were different according to ethnical background, working experiences and professional background. Some of these ‘veterans’ (their own wording) are still in the organization, most of them have a strong voice due to their experiences, history of shaping the organization and are often referred to as the carriers of culture. Officially Agency recruits directly on the basis of applicants’ qualifications, where language skills and international experience are qualifying as Agency strives to reflect the demographics of the citizens and customer base. 85 Most of the newly recruited employees in Agency are in temporary training positions due to the active labor market policy of the municipality assuring that the municipal entities live up to the corporate social responsibility preached when communicating with the local private business. The training positions are substituted financially by the government and can be a great opportunity in times of job shortage and youth unemployment, since highly skilled people will apply for these training positions at a very little cost while boosting the image of the Agency as social responsible and international in its profile. Hence differences within the employees are enhanced by different working contracts; a mix of permanent staff and temporary training position with respectively long and short time tenure. My fieldwork in Agency The bulk of the empirical data was collected during a nine-month period during which the researcher occupied a desk in Agency twice a week (November 2012-July 2013). My field work consists of four primary sources: Ethnographic observations of participants made in multiple, routine meeting forums, such as center, department, team, and management meetings. In addition, a series of job interviews, two center workshops, and ad-hoc social gatherings were observed. These daily observations were reflected in a fieldwork diary that makes up a significant part of my data. Open-ended interviews were guided by the initial participant-observations: This includes semi-structured interviews with 18 members (employees and managers lasting from 30 to 120 min.) asking participants to describe their perception of the working place in relation to the free seating situation, everyday spatial routines, the work culture, diversity and the cooperative environment including information sharing, distribution of tasks, decision- 86 making processes, and socializing etc. The interviews included visual methods as members were asked to draw maps of their spatial routines and seating habits. Open-ended interviews opened up for personal reflections, and the sharing of feelings on change, task distribution, and career patterns. All interviews were recorded. Four ‘core respondents’: My long time fieldwork gave me the possibility to follow four employees closely. This includes job talks, development interviews, and continuous interview situations with me as well as in their everyday working situation cooperating with co-workers. I was engaged in continuous conversation with the four core respondent encouraged by their own wish for private talks and reflections during the course of my fieldwork. They are all anonymous and given other names. The case stories have great importance to my research since these stories weave in and out of my analysis. The case stories – together with significant incidents – are drawn upon in the quest for illustrating central paradoxes and dynamics when working with diversity in Agency. The core members were also used to record reflections during and after the intensive period of field work. I still regularly meet up with them outside their workplace. Interventions The members took interest in the researcher as a ‘cognizant outsider’, and some even used the study as a warrant for action (Ashcraft, 1999). Interventions gave the possibility to test the reliability of data and the researchers’ presumptions through presentations, seminars facilitated by the researcher, participation in debates, informal talks and reflections in response to members’ requests, as well as two written reports. Interventions culminated in a three-day seminar and two concurrent follow-up seminars on collaborative patterns and inclusion in one section on their (the section management’s) request. Most of the interventions were recorded. 87 This particular combination of methods offered insights into important aspects of organizing diversity in Agency. The participant observations and interventions provided insight into how members dealt with change, as well as an overview of how informality and blurred lines of authority affected cooperation and socialization patterns. All the participants and the organization have been granted full anonymity. Appendix 1 shows an overview of my fieldwork in Agency. Fastfood Fastfood is multinational private restaurant chain that has restaurants all over Denmark and a main office consisting of communication, economic, administrative departments together with a HR office. It is the main office that has been my access point and main collaborative partner. Fastfood is a highly specialized and standardized production company with uniform global standards that apply locally in a formalized, centralized hierarchy and transparent personnel politics that spell out criteria for recruitment, promotion, and performance. Fastfood is an officially recognized champion of diversity in Denmark and has won numerous awards and prizes on this account. Fastfood’s focus on bottom-line gains rests on a strong belief that staff diversity improves earnings by allowing staff to acquire the skills needed to service diverse customers. The staff composition echoes this belief in relation to ethnicity and gender. For example, 16 % crew and 13 % managers have an ethnic minority background; 52 % crew and 49 % managers are women; and 2 % crew members are disabled. The exception in terms of diversity is age as 90 % of crew members are between 15 and 23 years old. Some employees have refugee, immigrant, or expatriate backgrounds, and the organization is frequently used to gain access the mainstream labor market (recognized by the organization’s members as a ‘rebound to society’ function). 94 This was definitely not my experience in the field: Resting on a relational framework where research is a jointly produced outcome co-created by research participants, the researcher, and the relationship between them, this situation deconstructs the researcher’s sole authority (Michailova et al., 2014). The impact of co-construction and impossibility to ‘steer’ the research process are central in my research process, which were vital experiences of organizational dynamics revelatory to power relations. But the consultantresearcher position gave me a complicated political and social role entanglement which included inclusive and excluding situations; I was persistently assumed to be affiliated with certain subcultures or fragmentations in the organization which infringed the acceptability of my findings (Burkitt, 2012; Donnelly et al., 2013; Humphrey, 2007; King et al., 2013). To do interventions you have to build high-trust relations to significant, well positioned actors capable to set the organizational agenda. However the ‘terms of the game’ were different in the two organizations. In a post-bureaucratic, political organization like Agency, successful change rests upon teaming up with the ‘right’ supporters together with timing and persistence (March, 1994). As such I had to navigate not only the formal but especially the informal hierarchy of elite peer characterizing the post-bureaucratic form (explored in Article three ‘Unequal by structure’) – to team up with the rights agents to embark on ‘cooperative resistance’. In the post-bureaucracy official leaders allow dissenters to demonstrate they have power not only ‘to accept imperative commands but also to innovate and transform these, in a goaloriented way, through cooperative resistance.’ (Courpasson & Clegg, 2012: 57) These aspirations draw on the post-bureaucratic values of dialogue, empowerment and deliberation and acts of dissent become part of the official channels to change (Sløk, 2009). However, not everyone can resist: the right to contest is premised on expert knowledge, personal credibility and legitimization by formal authorities to impose temporary visions of improving performance, service or costs – staying within the 95 boundaries and reinforcing the dominant productive logic to be a valid contester (Courpasson et al., 2012). As such the post-bureaucratic organization becomes a political space (polyarchy) and acts of resistance are perceived as acts of power, fixing the internal political power balances. Cooperative resistance is used as career or status enhancers by organizational members (Courpasson & Clegg, 2012: 73). This means that my interventions became part of a complex internal political game of signaling position, alliances, status and power - either by joining or opposing the process of ‘cooperative resistance’. This added additional layers of politics to my research making the process increasingly difficult to manage which included the actual impact and outcome of the interventions. My experiences were very different in Fastfood where the legitimacy from the official hierarchy was the only path to change; using the logics of rules and rationalization. As such my research was dependent on a (asymmetrical) companionship based on the requesting party’s sense of necessity related to my research dictating the research premises. This is also what Staunæs and Søndergaard (2007) refer to as collaborative tango where the leading dance partner is the case organization and the one being led is the researcher. The consultant-researcher: useful idiot or tempered radical? Issues of political entanglement and power games in the organization are linked to the discussion on the genuine impact of intervention-based research which is central to this study. Here the aspect of practical relevance becomes important in relation to what kind of change processes get triggered by the research interventions, and with what consequences? (Benschop & Van den Brink, 2012; Carr & Hancock, 2006; Humphrey, 2007; Meyerson & Kolb, 2000; Schwarz & Stensaker, 2014; Shotter, 2010; Weick, 2011; Weick & Quinn, 1999) Interventions should not only be applied to generate ‘rich and rigorous’ data 96 (Cunliffe & Coupland, 2011; Davis, 2010; Hibbert et al., 2014), they should also produce more enduring transformative consequences igniting collective reflexivity among organizational participants (Cunliffe, 2010; Shore, 2010). Engaging in relational reflexivity though interventions should be to the mutual benefit; critically interrogating taken-forgranted organizational practices of the participants; and critically questioning conventional disciplined thinking of the researcher. Interventions potentially enhances the relevance of research findings for practitioners (Bartunek, 2007; Deertz, 2008; Shotter, 2010); but along with longtime immersion comes along organizational relational experiences and encounters with unintended consequences that has to be tactically maneuvered – which is both an enabling and constraining endeavor for the researcher. Fine (1994) goes on to argue that the power relationship between researcher and researched is asymmetrical because we (as researchers) observe, analyze, and represent the lives of others, we colonize (speak for and construct their identities) and distance them by writing their voices out of our research and treat them as generalized abstractions whilst losing the subjects. However rich and detailed data depends on the maintenance of positive relationships, and these relations are in no way possible to strategically manage or control when it comes to the outcome of interactions – rather the opposite (Reeves, 2010). Perceiving power as a characteristic of all human relations, researcher and participants simultaneously enable and constrain each other’s actions: I was involved in a constant power-negotiations of my position and range of action – driven by my need to maintain close contact to obtain rich data – which turned out to be a (oftentimes unconscious) mechanism for participants to gain power in both of my case organizations. These power-negotiations gave way for exploring different positioning possibilities as a consultant-researcher (Czarniawska, 2001): One of the most troublesome but also interesting positions I explored was when doing seminars in Agency: In these situations I 97 predominantly took up the position as consultant whilst struggling to keep in charge of events – embodying a troublesome identity. This involved coordination and legitimation by the planning committee and to convince the participants – especially section manager and ‘dominant’ elite employees – to participate and take seriously my interventions. I did not hold the status and authority of an outside consultant recruited, bought and paid to do consultancy work. Even though the organizational members claimed to favor me since; ‘you know the organization and do not employ a prescriptive framework like an external consultant’ it was difficult for me to keep them on the track. What is more, whenever difficult conversational themes emerged and anxiety rose, the section manager would intervene to take over the conversation or steer it in another direction (Stacey & Griffin, 2005). Interventions brought along unanticipated consequences: Researchers doing longitudinal fieldwork in organizations often run the risk of finding themselves involved in the political struggles and conflicts of participants (Naima Mikkelsen, 2013). I was increasingly symbolically ‘used’ to make (il-) legitimize certain agendas: The CEO in Agency made use of my presence at center and management meetings to make statements or jokes on diversity. This again provoked employees’ counter-act to demonstrate resistance. I was used as an excuse to put diversity at the agenda to defy the top management critical stance towards diversity and exhibit hypocrisy, giving impetus to the seminars. For instance during an interview the respondent reflected: ‘Before the interview I was thinking whether I should mention ethnicity at all. Usually I try to avoid the subject, but I was thinking ‘this is a necessity. She (the researcher, ed.) needs to hear about these things’. Apparently she wanted to reflect on her experiences – not as much in consideration of my research – but to convey a message to the management through my findings. 98 In Fastfood, the clear distinction between doing research when in the restaurant and advice-giving in the HR office initially made my navigation of both situations seemingly clear cut and frictionless – but this situation changed along the way: Doing focal interviews with crew and restaurant management on sensitive issues (with the consent of the HR office) like decision-making, information sharing, power distance, and internal respect and tolerance, these topics gave rise to critical and ‘laded’ debates making it difficult for me to keep a professional distance as the situation invited empathy. Travelling from restaurant to restaurant carrying examples, illustrative stories, and suggestions, I increasingly embodied a consulting role qua my growing inside knowledge on the gesture of participants. The HR office had chosen the restaurants I was to visit and this often sparked off local sensemaking about the ‘actual’ intent of my visit a recurrent theme. Even though participants were to be kept anonymous, this situation started to inflict on the ethics of my research. To navigate this troublesome researcher-consultant role combined with its increasingly ‘tarnished’ ethics, I tried to do doublethink: To embark on constructive ignorance in the moment bracketing one role in order to go on and absolve myself from the need to resolve their entanglement, as well as the inherent conflict produced by maintaining connections between them (El-Sawad et al., 2004). But acting like researcher in the restaurants and consultant in the HR office proved to be rather difficult as well as not expected by restaurant managers and crew: They were used to internal Fastfood consultants and navigated fluently how to convey a message to the HR through me – playing the game using me to voice frustrations and dissatisfaction. In both of my case organizations I increasingly incarnated a ‘message’ girl and the political implications of my presence grew – contrary to my intentions – making my consultantresearcher role increasing troublesome to the advancement and detriment of my intervention efforts: In Fastfood I was seen as passing on intentions from HR qua the questions I asked collectively formulated with the HR officials, and vice versa conveying 99 messages to the HR office in answers from crew and restaurant managers. Likewise in Agency I embodied a playing brick in their internal power game between management and employees, and between different collegial fractions. Accordingly, my role was constantly negotiated by the response from my participants which reflects the social construction of research (Stacey & Griffin, 2005). On the one hand, their political use of my role as consultant-researcher facilitated ’making the familiar strange’ and avoiding ‘being one of them’ giving way for critical distance to reflect and problematize beneficial to the research (Ybema & Kamsteg, 2009): This gave rich insides and cues on the power relations and taboos surrounding diversity when unpacking the meanings and interpreting situations. On the other hand, a sizable degree of control over what came out of the research cooperation was passed over to the participants in both organizations, making the situation increasingly difficult to navigate – for me and the participants Ethics and the cost of emancipation The mayor challenge when doing a critical performative research – that involves a criticalaffirmative stance – is captured in the ambiguous situation of caring for the actors’ view while trying to challenge them. Spicer et al. (2009: 548) emphasize that arrogance is one risk while the other is accepting and legitimizing the current social order. Meyerson and Kolb (2000: 568-9) add another prevalent risk of losing the critical (gender) aspect of a dual agenda based on their experiences with applying feminist critique as a ‘way to generate alternative organizing possibilities that could further the goal of gender equity and at the same time help organizations be more effective. Emancipatory change-oriented processes are not ‘free of charge’ and involve a trade-off between certain gains and losses… Awareness of the anti-emancipatory potential in all good suggestions and prescriptions encourages deeper reflection of how seemingly humanistic ideas lend themselves to ideological usage. (Alvesson & Willmott, 1992: 447) 100 An anti-emancipatory potential runs through all projects, even those with the best intentions, preceded by careful reflection: The dynamics and dialectics of emancipation mean that an idea, or an intended practice, can be subverted in its practical application. Even if the intervention begins by opening up understanding or facilitating reflection, it can end up locking people into certain, fixed, unreflective thinking (Willmott, 1991). The dark side of critical ethnographic research must be acknowledged which was a lesson learnt from both of my organizations: In Agency Aya illustrates how confronting the distribution of privilege and disadvantage in the organization often comes at a personal cost. Doing so she apparently shifted the security of a tight social network based on a predefined practical-representative position for high-prestigious, but alienating tasks – giving her more foes than friends in the organization (which I reflect on in Article four). As such her example reconfirmed rather than challenged a task distribution perpetuating what some employees’ experienced as unequal opportunity structures. In Fastfood it could be argued that I helped to create a certain air of ‘humanistic management’ in an environment that could be otherwise characterized by employees’ alienation by means of inhumane, mechanistic control (Fleming & Sturdy, 2011). However, my ambition was never to enhance the total sum of happiness in the organization pursuing a ‘happiness ethic’ (Darmer & Thomsen, 2010). My ambition was more of an ‘ethic of duty’ to give back to the organization through intervening through critical participation – despite a latent danger of triggering non-ethical or non-emancipatory subsequent practices. 101 Identity, diversity and diversity management: On theoretical connections, assumptions and implications for practice Abstract Purpose: We examine the relationship between the identity and diversity literatures and discuss how a better understanding of the theoretical connections between the two informs both diversity research and diversity management practices. Design/methodology/approach: Literature review followed by a discussion of the theoretical and practical consequences of connecting the identity and diversity literatures. Findings: We inform future research in three ways. First, by showing how definitions of identity influence diversity theorizing in specific ways. Second, we explore how such definitions entail distinct foci regarding how diversity should be analyzed and interventions actioned. Third, we discuss how theoretical coherence between definitions of identity and diversity perspectives – as well as knowledge about a perspective’s advantages and limitations – is crucial for successful diversity management research and practice. Research limitations/implications: We argue for a better understanding of differences, overlaps and limits of different identity perspectives, and for a stronger engagement with practice. Practical implications: Our work can encourage policy makers, diversity and HR managers to question their own practices and assumptions leading to more theoretical informed diversity management practices. Originality/value: The theoretical connections between identity and diversity literature have so far not been reviewed systematically. Our work foregrounds how important it is for diversity scholars to consider identity underpinnings of diversity research to help further develop the field within and beyond the three streams we discuss. Keywords Identity, diversity, diversity management, HR diversity practices. 102 Paper type Literature review Introduction Diversity scholarship has for many years discussed the way we perceive, treat and manage people’s differences such as demographic differences in the work force, behavioral differences between and among cultural groups, as well as the intersection of such differences (see for example Holvino and Kamp 2009; Ghorashi and Sabelis 2013; Jonsen et al., 2013; Janssens and Zanoni, 2014). As these differences are ascribed to an individual – or a group of individuals – diversity theory is linked to the way individuals are perceived and constructed by themselves and others. Such a construction and perception of the self has been the focus of the interdisciplinary research field on identity. Identity theories aim at understanding how we seek to answer the existential questions “who am I?” and “how should I act?” (see for example Alvesson et al., 2008). Identity can be considered as construction of the self that rests on an alteration, or ‘otherness’ construction: “Who am I not and how am I different? How am I different and from who? How am I similar and from who?” (Czarniawska, 2007, p. 4). Thus, dealing with the issue of diversity is always closely linked to individuals experiencing their own identity as ‘being different or not’ in a particular context. Moreover, identity construction does not happen in an arbitrary vacuum. When constructing their identity, individuals draw on social identities and/or discourses available in their social environment. This shapes how they act and how they interpret events (Kenny et al., 2011; Toyoki and Brown, 2014; 2013; Roberson, 2006; Weick et al., 2005). Hence, identity and identification are central concepts when aiming to understand diversity. 103 Whether diversity or ‘difference’ are defined in essentialist terms (considering specific individual traits or socio-demographic groups as the basis for diversity and/or identity definition) or whether identities and diversity are viewed as socially constructed in specific and dynamic contexts (Tatli and Özbilgin, 2012) thus has important implications. Diversity and identity literatures are profoundly intertwined in ways often not explicitly acknowledged by diversity scholars, especially within the diversity management literature, i.e. the part of the diversity literature explicitly concerned with the practical application of how differences are and should be managed in organizations, and to what ends (e.g. Holvino and Kamp, 2009; Tatli and Özbilgin, 2012). In practice, the presumptions about identity with which HR, middle managers and other diversity managers approach matters of diversity have practical implications regarding the definition of who is the target group of diversity interventions, on which criteria of sameness/difference distinctions these interventions are based, and whether ‘the business case’ or social justice/moral intentions guide the rationales behind diversity interventions (Tomlinson and Schwabenland, 2010; Oswick & Noon, 2014; Kamp and Hagedorn, 2004). We suggest that, while authors and practitioners may have specific positions on how they view diversity or engage with data from organizations that developed diversity policies based on certain assumptions about identity, these identity positions and assumptions are rarely addressed frontally. We suggest that this lack has led to a fragmented diversity literature that address the issue of diversity in organizations from different identity perspectives, and with different aims. Furthermore, we see the relative absence of acknowledgement of identity theory underpinnings and the presence of these ‘fault lines’ as preventing a more fruitful dialogue across diversity perspectives, but also between researchers and practitioners. The paper is structured as follows: We start by introducing identity theory and detailing three overarching perspectives, their translation and 110 In a critical perspective, organizational discourses such as the one on “diversity management” are considered to favor the normalizing of truth claims and other forms of organizational indoctrination by organizing everyday conduct of the members (Fleming and Spicer, 2014; Muhr et al., 2013). In this way, the progressive rhetoric behind diversity management is ‘unveiled’ as not only imbuing a positive organizational endeavor empowering allegedly disadvantaged ‘minority groups’ and enhancing productivity (see for example Thomas and Ely, 1996). Lorbiecki and Jack (2000) also argue that the management of diversity discourse presents managers as “the privileged subject who sees diversity as an object to be managed” (p. 23), creating two separate groups of those who manage and those who are diverse. In a similar vein, Janssens and Zanoni (2005) explore how the discourse on management of diversity equips managers with a great deal of authority in creating their version of diversity and how they situate it in a productive logic. The focus on emerging and varying categories of differences that we see in the critical perspective is also recognized under the label of intersectionality. The main goal of the intersectional approach within the critical perspective is to analyze multiple identities in order to “avoid reducing [for example] ethnic minority employees to mere representatives of a stigmatized social group” (Janssens and Zanoni, 2014, p. 317), which risks reproducing the inequality institutionalized in broader society. Some post-colonial inspired work also fall under this category of critically informed diversity research. Inspired by postcolonial theory, organizational diversity scholars have investigated the difficulties encountered by employees of non-western ethnic origins when seeking to develop legitimate and respected work identities within the dominant Western social and political formations, which dominate capitalist organizations (e.g. Calás et al., 2012; Jack and Westwood, 2006; Muhr and Salem, 2014; Banerjee, 2000; Banerjee and Linstead, 2001; Westwood and Jack, 2007). 111 Critique of the critical perspective Scholarship adopting the critical perspective is still rather young and emergent and thus holds great promise, but also has limitations. To start with, although existing critical contributions to the diversity literature have successfully helped understanding the shortcomings of SIT and essentialist, de-politicized categorizations, such streams have yet to develop solid empirical work mobilizing these theoretical insights; critical scholars themselves have pointed out this challenge (Lewis, 2009; Tatli and Özbilgin, 2012). For example, Tatli and Özbilgin acknowledge that limitations of the application of emic perspectives in empirical research are due to both convenience and legitimacy of the inquiry: “there is a strong tradition of using established categories of difference in analyses, whereas starting with an exploration of relations of power, leading to identification of salient categories, may yield surprising strands of differences, but leave the researcher in unchartered territory” (2012, p.189). In addition, as power is often considered to be located primarily outside of individual reach, i.e. in structures, context, or discourse, then another kind of ‘fixing’ of the subject positions is produced. Excessive (structural) determinism, and/or the vision that specific groups hold power, underplays (dominated) individual agency. For example, critical research, with its emancipatory aims, has tended to reify managers as being powerful and other employees as powerless, or to assume that bureaucracy is necessarily detrimental to the objective of developing egalitarian, inclusive and democratic organizations, and that power is necessarily repressive; such views have been critiqued in both theoretical and empirical work (see for example Courpasson and Clegg, 2012; Ekman, 2013; Fleming and Spicer, 2014; Holck, 2014). Thus, critical diversity literature has at times lacked a ‘selfcritical’ edge. Also, while this approach has allowed for the development of attention to power differences and intersectionality in specific contexts, movement between different contexts/discourses/intersectionalities for single individuals is rendered difficult by a 112 dialectical view of structure and agency (Calás et al., 2012). Finally, the critical perspective can be limited exactly for its focus on critique – sometimes for the sake of critique – and the limited attention to empirical work aiming at developing practical tools and recommendations. Fragmented and becoming identities - A post-structural perspective A post-structural perspective often implies a shift to talking about ‘the self’ or to subjectivity instead of identity, to point to how our sense of ‘who we are’ is shaped by the power relationships we are subject to or subjects of, as emphasized by for example Foucault (Loacker, 2013; Loacker and Muhr, 2009; Staunæs, 2003). For Foucault, discourses create normalizing standards of behavior in relation to which individuals perform their identities (Fleming and Spicer, 2014). Normalizing discourses thus produce certain ‘truths’ in our everyday lives, which inform our understanding of the ‘way things should be’. This means that the concept of identity itself is considered as a form of subjugation. Through a post-structural, discursive lens, the SIT perspective of identity as centered, autonomous, and unitary – an essence or ‘being’ – is exchanged with a perception of identity as fluid, in constant ‘becoming’ and radically decentered (Ahonen et al., 2014; Tsoukas and Chia, 2002). Identity is, in the post-structural perspective, seen as fragmented by a variety of nested, overlapping identities, external influences, and levels of consciousness. This constant external influence on the formation of self implies that “a fragmented self constantly fluctuates among diverse and changing identities, pulled by issues and events to focus on one aspect of the self rather than the other – temporarily” (Martin 1992, p. 156). This perception aligns with Mead’s (1934) conception of the individual as a ‘parliament’ of selves’. In this sense, people must renegotiate powerful and at times oppressive discourses, 113 as identity is “constantly open and available to be negotiated and re-negotiated, defined and redefined” as the everyday self emerges out of the reflexive social interaction with others – claiming a discursively constructed rather than an essential self (Tracy and Trethewey, 2005, p. 169). Further, compared to other perspectives on power, it is seen as not possessed but only as exercised, which relativizes the vision of certain groups as rather powerless under given structural conditions. Several studies underline how employees are not only passive receptacles of managerial disciplining discourses – but can, as agents, reflect and act upon such discourses in more of less compliant ways, thus creating opportunities for microemancipation and spaces of resistance (Alvesson and Willmott, 2002; Zanoni and Janssens, 2007). Studies in this vein have shown how subjectification can be mobilized through a wide range of systems in contemporary organizations, with the result that the very identities of organizational members are enlisted to achieve certain political ends, such as productivity and efficiency. This kind of thinking has informed research exploring the mutually constituting relationship between power and identity (e.g. Ashcraft, 2006; Gagnon and Collinson, 2014; Nicholson and Carroll, 2012; Scott, 2010; Toyoki and Brown, 2014; Tracy and Trethewey, 2005). Also, feminist philosophers in part drawing on Foucault, such as Butler (1990; 1993), Irigaray (2002), Grosz (2004) and Braidotti (2002) have insisted on seeing the subject as that which in essence is multiple, fragmented, and only temporarily integrated and rendered stable. Post-structural perspectives in diversity research – transgressing binaries Perceiving diversity as something constructed by ideological intervention and management of meaning – and differences as constructed and governed to produce desired managerial 114 effects – renders diversity and its management a contested site of discursive struggles (Ahonen et al., 2014). This leans on a post-structuralist understanding of identity and of the phenomenon of diversity, emphasizing how diversity is, on the one hand, articulated, staged and performed by the employees and, on the other, enforced upon, attributed to employees and articulated in the process of social relating and casting (Czarniawska and Hoepfl, 2002; Down and Reveley, 2009). Specialist discourses have an important role, and diversity management practices themselves should be understood as a form of ‘truth regime’ that constitutes the self and the other in specific ways (Ahonen, 2014). Diversity can therefore be used for divergent purposes, such as an idea, a taxonomical tool, or a mechanism for disciplining identities. The very idea that diversity management can work as an unbiased mechanism seeking social justice is naïve and even at times unethical (Muhr, 2008). Rather, in order to resist the subjugating power of diversity, it becomes the main objective to “unmask ‘hidden’ contexts and ‘invisible’ power relations” (Ahonen et al., 2014, p. 270) and questioning established structures of domination and subordination (Meriläinen et al., 2009). Poststructural approaches to diversity therefore often argue for an un-categorical approach (Muhr, 2008), or at least one in which the categories are rethought as events, actions, and encounters between bodies, i.e. relational existence as becoming rather than as being (Puar, 2012). In such a post-structural critique of diversity, researchers have proposed to view diversity from a transgressive point of view where the transgression of binaries is at the center (see for example Muhr and Rehn, 2014; Pullen, 2006; Muhr, 2011; Philips et al., 2013). In response to the post-structural critique of diversity management, feminist and queer theories have been used to highlight the ‘contingent foundations’ of gendered and sexual subjectivities (Butler, 1990; 1993), and in so doing, they forward a political project aimed 115 at opening up restrictive, dualistic notions of embodiment to a wider multiplicity of sexed, gendered, or sexual being(s). Post-structural writings on gender in organization studies (drawing on Butler, but also Cixous or Kristeva) have emphasized a transgressive, multiple or fluid way of seeing gender, one which is positioned to break with gender essentialism in organization studies (e.g. Borgerson and Rehn, 2004; Linstead and Pullen, 2006; Muhr, 2012; Muhr and Rehn, 2014; Pullen, 2006). Muhr and Sullivan’s (2013) study of a transgendered manager for example clearly shows how co-workers – despite being supportive and generally very tolerant – change their expectations to the manager’s abilities and skills after her change in gender appearance from man to woman. Such research aims at destabilizing our common sense, normalized understanding of gender (Muhr and Sullivan, 2013) or ethnic minority employees (Janssens and Zanoni, 2014; Ghorashi and Sabelis, 2013; Tatli and Özbilgin, 2009). Destabilization is achieved by broadening norms, which offer multiple positioning that are less hierarchical in value and transgresses the normal hierarchical relationship between, for example, gender and ethnicities/origins. This kind of disruption therefore makes space for individual experience beyond the usual diversity categorization. In this way, the poststructural perspective criticizes the SIT perspective for being managerial and the critical perspective for being blinded in its search for social justice. Also, the post-structural perspective stresses that researchers should not only be critical towards the diversity practices under scrutiny, but also to their very own framing and comprehension of this, including the blind spots and bounded paths their approach brings about. 116 Critique of the post-structural perspective Some of the critique that has been raised towards the post-structural perspective on identity and diversity is actually in line with the critique towards the SIT perspective. Critics point out that in the more austere, ‘deterministic’ versions of post-structuralism, the individual has no autonomy in ‘identity creation’ but is the subject of ‘hegemonic’ discourses shaping and imposing certain identities. This leads to the overemphasizing of the ‘fragility’ of the self and its vulnerability to the power of discourse, in what Alvesson and Kärreman (2011) term a ‘muscular discourse’, “… associating identity as tightly intertwined with and a product of the operations of power offering a hard-to-resist template” (Alvesson, 2010, p. 207) rendering actors’ identities ‘colonized and cloned’ (Gagnon and Collinson, 2014) or formed as ‘gingerbread’ or ‘McSelves’, i.e. generic identity molds that each “elects to fit itself into” (Scott, 2010, p. 219). It has also been argued that individuals have a certain degree of agency, voluntarism and choice that is inherent in every power relation, meaning that actors do not experience the mortifying “loss of self through institutionalization” but “willingly discard the old selves in the hope to find something better” (Scott, 2010, p. 219) – within a limited range of possible identities, however. This approach can be seen as an unfruitful decoupling or disconnection of discourse (what is said) and practice (what is done) (Alvesson and Kärreman, 2011, p. 1125). Moreover, Foucault’s work, for example, does not let us clearly locate domination, including domination in gender relations: he has on the one hand claimed that individuals are constituted by power relations, but he has argued against their constitution by relations such as the domination of one group by another. That is, his account makes room only for abstract individuals, not women, men, or workers (Hartsock, 1990, p. 169). This means that for example the feminist identity risks being lost under the discursive turn of poststructuralism (Calás et al., 2012). 117 Concluding comments: Implications and directions for diversity research and diversity management practices Our reading of diversity literature through the lens of identity has allowed us to outline three broad ways of defining and tackling diversity management. These are: 1) a perspective grounded in Social Identity Theory (SIT) and similar streams of literature, 2) a perspective that is critical of SIT and that emphasizes the social/structural embeddedness of identity work, identity construction and power dynamics, and 3) a perspective grounded in post-structuralist approaches to identity, where the concept of identity itself is seen as a form of subjugation. From this classification, we propose to discuss more specifically what the implications are for future diversity research, and for the development of diversity management. If diversity categories are seen as fixed and unified, diversity management will focus on managing not the individuals, but the groups individuals identify or are associated with. This approach is arguably the most prevalent one in today’s organizations (Tatli and Özbilgin, 2012), notably through the popularization of the ‘business case’ for diversity. Indeed, it simplifies HR work by tailoring practices to whole groups rather than individuals, and simplifies the justification of diversity policies, as group identification and assignation is seen as based on objective differences rather than on power differentials and constraint. Also, the ‘business case’ promotes an apolitical, power-void perception of diversity as individualized and a matter of personal skills and talents (Tomlinson and Schwabenland, 2010; Oswick & Noon, 2014). However, the difficulty of identifying which categories are relevant and important in a particular context makes it difficult to develop actionable tools for practice (Tatli and Özbilgin, 2012). For diversity scholars in all perspectives, in particular in critical and post-structuralistoriented work, this calls for a stronger engagement with everyday practice in order to be 118 able to complement or supplement diversity management tools grounded in SIT, and enter into a closer dialogue with diversity policy makers, diversity and HR managers. Indeed, while the contribution of critical work has considerably enriched debates about diversity and diversity policies and practices in organizations, such scholarship has to frontally engage with practice, in order to fulfill its emancipatory aspirations and to be able to appraise the depth and breath of change required within and beyond organizations to develop more democratic, inclusive and equal workplaces. Then, as we have seen, the post-structuralist perspective has been critical of SIT perspective for its ‘managerialism’, and of critical work for its blindness to other possible power states than the ones recurrently identified. However, this distancing, or even disdain for management as a practice, and for policy making following managerial(ist) injunctions, can mean that there is a reluctance to take strong stances and experiment empirically. Also, these approaches are rather remote from the concerns of organizations, which are looking for ways to administer the ‘now’ and tend to function in an ethos of performance and data-driven human resources management, i.e. a measurable numerical and representative approach to diversity management. Second, we highlight that the three theoretical perspectives fulfill different agendas. As a consequence, the three outlined perspectives are not necessarily to be hierarchized, but rather to be seen as a continuum of perspectives on the perception and construction of the self and of how individuals can be considered and managed in an organizational context. We have shown how SIT has inspired practices such as diversity management and has triggered the development of a critical literature that is itself also critical of extreme versions of post-structuralist perspectives on diversity. However, one could also highlight the partial overlap, or continuity between different perspectives. Indeed, SIT acknowledges a relational dimension in identity formation, thus making it a socially situated act, paving 119 the way for literature discussing both inward and outward facing identity work (Watson, 2008), and critical work considering how power and inequalities infuse this relational process. Similarly, discourse is considered as an essential element of identity and diversity debates in both critical and poststructuralist work. Finally, extreme versions of poststructuralism have been criticized for diluting the existence of recurrent discrimination against specific groups of individuals and thus overplaying the capacity of the individual to transcend existing states of power. For practice, this co-existence of different identity perspectives and the fact that they constitute a continuum also means that diversity managers can develop interests into how economic expectations can be met while developing a higher sensibility to the forces at play in a given context, and try to integrate them into local diversity policy development and implementation, thus participating to integrating diversity in the organizational identity (Cole and Salimath, 2013). In addition, this review can encourage policy makers and (HR) managers to question the development and implementation of popular ‘topdown’ practices, for example, quotas or internal groups and network targeted at a supposed homogeneous group. Relatedly, our review can also encourage practitioners to question their own assumptions, and reflect on the extend to which individuals perform and embody an identity that is imposed on them by the organizational discourse itself rather than a core and fixed self-identity. As Ghorashi and Sabelis (2013) wisely advise, “the main challenge is to recognize otherness while making space for individual experiences beyond categorizations” (p. 83). Hence, destabilization of identity categories constitutes in itself a political act (Butler, 1990) and acquiring greater awareness of the political and powerstructural implications of the complex entanglement of identity and diversity is a first step to strategically open up for possibilities for more situated, changeable, and ongoing choices when dealing with differences on an everyday basis (Janssens and Zanoni, 2014). 126 Muhr, S.L. (2008), “Othering diversity: A Levinasian analysis of diversity management”, International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 176189. Muhr, S.L. (2011), “Caught in the gendered machine: On the masculine and feminine in cyborg leadership”, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 337-357. Muhr, S.L., Pedersen, M. and Alvesson, M. (2013), "Workload, aspiration and fun: Problems of balancing self-exploitation and self-exploration in work life", Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 37, pp. 193-220. Muhr, S.L. and Rehn, Alf (2014), “On gendered technologies and cyborg writing”, Gender, Work and Organization, available at ‘on-line first’. Muhr, S.L. and Salem, A. (2014), “Spectres of colonialism: Illusionary equality and the forgetting of history in a Swedish organization”, Management and Organizational History, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 62-76. Muhr, S.L. and Sullivan, K. (2013), “”None so queer as folk”: Gendered expectations and transgressive bodies in leadership”, Leadership, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 416-435. Nicholson, H. and Carroll, B. (2013), “Identity undoing and power relations in leadership development”, Human Relations, Vol. 66 No. 9, pp. 1225-1248. Nkomo, S. (1992), “The emperor has no clothes: Rewriting race into organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 487-513. Oliver, P., Marwell, G., and Ruy T. (1985), “A theory of the Critical Mass. I. Interdependence, Group Heterogeneity, and the production of Collective Action”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 552-56. Oswick, C., & Noon, M. (2014), “Discourses of diversity, equality and inclusion: trenchant formulations or transient fashions?”, British Journal of Management, Vol 25 No. 1, pp.2339. Pettigrew, T. (1986), “The intergroup contact hypothesis reconsidered”, in Hewstone, M. and Brown, R. (Ed.), Contact and Conflict in Intergroup Encounters, Basil Blackwell, London, pp. 353-390. 127 Puar, J.K. (2012), “I would rather be a cyborg than a goddess: Becoming-intersectional in assemblage theory”, Philosophia, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 49-66. Pullen, A. (2006), “Gendering the research self: Social practice and corporeal multiplicity in the writing of organizational research”, Gender, Work & Organization, vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 277–298. Ramarajan, L. (2014), “Past, Present and Future Research on Multiple Identities: Toward an Intrapersonal Network Approach”, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 589–659. Roberson, Q.M. (2006), “Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp.212-236. Shore, L.M., Randel, A.E., Chung, B.G., Dean, M.A., Ehrhart, K.H. and Singh, G. (2011), “Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 1262-1289. Shore, L.M., Chung-Herrera, B.G., Dean, M.A., Ehrhart, K.H., Jung, D.I., Randel, A.E. and Singh, G. (2009), “Diversity in organizations: Where are we now and where are we going?”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 117-133. Simon, B. and Oakes, P. (2006), “Beyond dependence: An identity approach to social power and domination”, Human Relations, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 105-139. Staunæs, D. (2003), “Where has all the subjects gone? Bringing together the concepts or intersectionality and subjectification”, NORA, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 101-110. Sveningsson, S. and Alvesson, M. (2003), “Managing managerial identities: Organizational fragmentation, discourse and identity struggle”, Human Relations, Vol. 56 No. 10, pp. 1163-1193. Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1985), “The social identity theory of intergroup behavior”, in Worchel, S. and Austion, W.G. (Ed.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (2nd ed), NelsonHall, Chicago, pp. 7-24. Tatli, A. and Özbilgin, M. (2012), “An emic approach to intersectional study of diversity at work: A Bourdieuan framing”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 180-200. 128 Tatli, A. and Özbilgin, M. (2009), “Understanding diversity managers’ role in organizational change: Towards a conceptual framework”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 244-258. Thibaut, J.W. and Kelley, H.H. (1959), The Social Psychology of Groups, Wiley, New York. Thomas, D. and Ely, R. (1996), “Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing diversity”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 September-October, pp. 79-90. Tomlinson, F. and Schwabenland, C. (2010), “Reconciling competing discourses of diversity? The UK non-profit sector between social justice and the business case”, Organization, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 101-121. Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567-582. Toyoki, S. and Brown, A.D. (2014), “Stigma, identity and power: Managing stigmatized identities through discourse”, Human Relations, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 161-176. Tran, V., Gracia-Prieto, P. and Schneider, S. (2010), “The role of social identity, appraisal, and emotion in determining responses to diversity management”, Human Relations, Vol. 64 No 2, pp.161-176. Turner, J.C., Brown, R.J. and Tajfel, H. (1979), “Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favouritism”, European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 187-204. Van Laer, K. and Janssens, M. (2011), “Ethnic minority professionals’ experience with subtle discrimination in the workplace”, Human Relations, Vol. 64 No. 9, pp. 1203-1227. van Tilburg, W.A.P. and Igou, E.R. (2011), “On boredom and social identity: A pragmatic meaning-regulation approach”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 37 No. 12, pp. 1679-1691. Watson, T. J. (2008), “Managing Identity: Identity Work, Personal Predicaments and Structural Circumstances”, Organization, Vol. 15, No 1, pp. 121–143. Weber, K. and Glynn, M.A. (2006), “Making sense with institutions: Context, thought and action in Karl Weick’s theory”, Organization Studies, Vol. 27 No. 11, pp. 1639-1660. 129 Weber, B., Wittchen, M. and Hertel, G. (2009), “Gendered ways to motivate gains in groups”, Sex Roles, Vol. 60, pp. 731-744. Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M. and Obstfeld, D. (2005), “Organizing and the process of sensemaking”, Organization Science, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 409-421. Westwood, R. and Jack, G. (2007), “Manifesto for a post-colonial international business and management studies”, Critical Perspectives on International Business, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 246-265. Ybema, S., Keenoy, T., Oswick, C., Beverungen, A., Ellis, N. and Sabelis, I. (2009), “Articulating identities”, Human Relations, 62(3), pp. 299-322. Zanoni, P. and Janssens, M. (2007), “Minority employees engaging with (diversity) management: An analysis of control, agency, and micro-emancipation”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 44 No. 8, pp. 1371-1397. Zanoni, P., Janssens, M., Benschop, Y. and Nkomo, S. (2010), “Unpacking diversity, grasping inequality. Rethinking difference through critical perspectives”, Organization, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 9-29. 130 5. From affirmative to transformative diversity management – On how the logics of the welfare model obstructs ethnic diversity in the Danish workforce Abstract Diversity management was originally coined as an American concept resting on a logic of ‘difference’. Due to only recent waves of immigration, diversity management is a new phenomenon in Denmark. Here, it is merged with the Danish universal welfare model’s logics of equality as sameness and solidarity as social responsibility. Drawing on narrative analysis of 94 employees’ stories on difference, we show how these logics, rather than a respect for difference, turns diversity management into a corporate ambiguous practice where differences become assimilated and marginalized rather than valued and respected. Paradoxically, the historically important welfare values obstruct successful labor market integration. We conclude by suggesting that in order to conduct more successful – transformative – diversity management, we need to reintroduce difference into the welfare logics. Key words: Assimilation, difference, diversity management, ethnic minorities, redistribution, recognition, welfare. 131 Introduction Occasioned by increasing work force mobility, migration and internationalization of education curricula, the national, cultural and professional differences of employees are getting more common in organizations – in Denmark as in the rest of the world. Denmark as well as the other Scandinavian countries, however differs from most other Western countries because of its fairly short history of demographic diversity. Whereas most other Western countries because of migration, immigration, colonization7 or continuous rivalry have had diverse populations for centuries, Denmark (and the other Scandinavian countries) has only, during the past 50 years, experienced a demographic change (Anttonen et al., 2012; Larsen, 2011; Lauring, 2009; Rennison, 2009; Siim, 2013). Once a fairly homogenous population with only a small minority group of Germans in Southern Denmark, this situation has been significantly modified since the first Turkish ‘foreign workers’ arrived due to labor shortages in the booming 1960s of post-war economic growth8 (Ejrnæs, 2006, 2012). From the 1980s onwards, there has been an influx of immigrants and refugees from the world’s hotspots, and more recently from the mid2000s, there has been a small but growing presence of expatriates in the Danish labor market9. Due to the relative short experience with a diverse population – and workforce – diversity management was first introduced in the Danish business context at the turn of the millennium, when it was mentioned in a Danish newspaper in 2000 (Berlingske Tidende cf. Boxenbaum, 2006). Since then it has appeared more frequently both in media, and in 7 Denmark is however to be considered among the colonial countries with 200 years of colonialism – especially of Greenland. 8 They were originally called ‘foreign’ or ‘guest’ workers as they were supposed to return to Turkey after some years of working in Denmark. Most did not return, but brought their families instead, and citizens descending from Turkey now make up the largest ethnical minority group in Denmark, followed by Poland, Germany, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Somalia, Iran and Romania. 11, 2 pct of the population in Denmark have immigrant background, out of which 2,7 pct. are descendants. 3,9 pct. of Western and 7,2 pct of nonWestern decent. 9 In 2013 56,000 people immigrated to Denmark, which is the highest number ever. Two out of three came from EU countries or Western countries like the United States, Norway and Poland. 132 the political and management arena (Kamp & Hagedorn-Rasmussen, 2004; Holvino & Kamp, 2009; Lauring, 2009; Risberg & Søderberg, 2008). When diversity management hit the political and business agenda, it was received as a relevant solution to several labor market problems at that time, which are still predominant: High unemployment rates among a growing number of immigrants and their descendants from mostly non-western countries, combined with an ageing population, and a declining number of people within the labor force10. In addition, the 00s introduced a debate on the low number of women in top management positions and boards that further added to the debate of diversity. Still, however, the term diversity management (in Danish ‘mangfoldighedsledelse’) is usually used for ethnic diversity, whereas gender is explicitly used when talking about gender diversity. When we use the term ‘diversity management’ in this paper, we therefore also refer to ethnic diversity. These labor market problems fuelled a public debate on how to deal efficiently and progressively with the integration of an increasingly diverse labor force leading to a particular Danish variant of diversity management fused with an inclusive labor market policy, as we will return to below. When an (American) managerial concept like diversity management diffuses across the globe, it will be translated to fit the receiving society (Sahlin & Wedlin, 2008; Waldorff et al., 2013). For ideas, customs and practices to travel they must first be dis-embedded and then re-embedded in the place they land, and their translocation or transplantation will be particularized according to the local circumstances and hence local variations will be produced (Czarniawska, 2008, p. 93). This is also the case with diversity management that originates from a totally different historical frame of a post-colonial society and draws on a business logic of difference and voluntarism that not hitherto has been dominant in 10 According to Danish Statics 653.031 citizens with immigrant background and their descendants live in Denmark in 2014, out of which 140.000 are active on the labor market. In 2014 the employment rate among immigrants and descendants was 50 pct. compared to an employment rate of 73 pct. among citizens with ethnic Danish background (Denmark’s Statistics). 133 Scandinavia (Boxenbaum, 2006; Calás et al., 2009; Kamp & Hagedorn-Rasmussen, 2004; Holvino & Kamp, 2009; Muhr & Salem, 2013; Risberg & Søderberg, 2008). In analyzing the local Danish translation of diversity management, this article responds to the recent call for a higher awareness of the historical-temporal ‘situation’ of corporate diversity work (Boogaard & Roggeband, 2010; Ghorashi & van Tilburg, 2006; Janssens & Zanoni, 2014; Ostendorp & Steyart, 2009; Özbilgin & Tatli, 2011; Siebers, 2009; Tatli et al., 2012). The argument is that in order to gain more insights into ways of influencing and potentially transforming the local diversity climate, an approach sensitive to the larger social, cultural and historical structures within which the diversity practices are embedded has to be appropriated (Boehm et al., 2013; Ghorashi & Sabelis, 2013; Holvino & Kamp, 2009; Noon, 2007; Oswick & Noon, 2014; Zanoni et al., 2010). Thus local diversity practices only become meaningful when interpreted in response to and as a reflection of larger societal discourses, as they do not happen in a vacuum, but are situated in time and space as ‘path-dependent and shaped by the regulatory context’ (Tatli et al., 2012, p. 295). We argue that a translation has taken place in which Danish corporations have fitted the logic of diversity management to a Danish labor market situation – a high unemployment rate among ethnic minorities – together with the historical welfare logics of equality as sameness and solidarity as social responsibility (Aguilera et al., 2007; Anttonen & Sipilä, 2012; Klarsfeld, 2009; Lindeberg et al., 2013; Risberg & Søderberg, 2009; Waldorff et al., 2013). But this translation has led to affirmative diversity management practices rather than transformative (Fraser & Honneth, 2003) and allocated a precarious position to ethnic minorities in Danish organizations. This precarious, marginalized position of ethnic minority employees in organizations dominated by the ethnic majority norms and values is a predominant theme among critical diversity research (Ariss et al., 2013; Van Laer & Janssens, 2011, 2014), which has mainly 134 been analyzed related to minority experiences of discrimination (Klarsfeld, 2009; Ostendorp & Steyaert, 2009; Siebers, 2009; Van Laer & Janssens, 2011, 2014) or as a result of generalized societal discourses on immigration with a focus on deconstructing different elements of these discourses (Boxenbaum, 2006; Omanović, 2009, 2013; Oswick & Noon, 2014; Tatli, 2011; Zanoni & Janssens, 2004). This article contributes to critical diversity research, first by broadening the contextual scope inquiring how the predominant welfare logics of equality and solidarity both enable and constrain organizing workforce diversity at corporate level, and second how these logics are translated and dealt with on a daily basis by analyzing employees’ accounts of diversity related experiences and incidents in the work setting. The article is structured as follows. First, we show how the Danish welfare model and its logics of equality and solidarity clash with the original core values of difference and voluntarism of diversity management. Drawing on Fraser (Fraser, 1998; Fraser & Honneth, 2003) we show how a local low standing of minorities might be seen as a consequence of structural inequalities. Next this is empirically examined in 94 employee stories on diversity in the Danish subsidiary of ‘Fastfood’, which is a prizewinning prototype of diversity driven business. Here we trace the logics of equality and solidarity in employee stories on diversity management and perceptions of difference. This is followed by a concluding discussion of how the translation of diversity management into a Danish context because of the goal of social responsibility turns into affirmative diversity management, but also how the logic of equality as sameness renders equality impossible. We conclude by suggesting that in order to conduct more successful diversity management – transformative in Fraser’s terminology – we need to reintroduce difference into the old welfare logics of equality as sameness and solidarity as social responsibility. 135 The welfare logics of equality and solidarity Equality as sameness Our fundamental question when organizing workforce diversity in a Danish context is how to value difference in a context where sameness is key to equality. As Gullestad (1992) has pointed to, this focus on sameness comes from the fact that Scandinavian countries were culturally homogeneous until immigration from outside Europe began in the late 60s. This focus on homogeneity and sameness is further associated with a unique contemporary Scandinavian value system, which core principle is that it is possible for the state to institute legislation to ensure redistribution and equality for all citizens (Anttonen, 1998). The notion of equality and redistribution are therefore strongly linked, but with a strong linkage also between equality and alikeness or sameness as the basis for redistribution. In fact there is no clear distinction between equality and sameness like in English, as the distinction is blurred in the Scandinavian languages where the term lig means both being equal and being alike (Larsen, 2011). This welfare logic of equality as sameness is important to understand how contemporary Danish society is structured and practiced as community (Jöhncke, 2007). A fundamental idea is that the societal goods must be redistributed to create welfare and equality for all; in fact it can be argued that it is through redistribution that the sense of community arises. This implies an understanding of that people can be different but not too culturally different to be considered fully integrated members of ‘the Danish family’ (‘familien Danmark’), which is a predominant metaphor for the Danish population (Rytter, 2007). Especially refugees, immigrants and their descendants have been singled out as a group particularly socially problematic and integration-demanding because of their foreign origin (Jöhncke, 2007; Kamp & Hagedorn-Rasmussen, 2004; Larsen, 2011). When this categorization is combined with the logic of equality as sameness based on national kinship it functions as an exclusionary force marking ethnic minorities as fundamentally 142 employee’ in seven restaurants, which allowed for participant observations and semistructured interviews during breaks with crew members and managers at all levels. In total, 30 such interviews were undertaken, each lasting from 15 to 45 min. The second period (May-October 2012) included 27 group interviews with crew, middleand restaurant managers in 9 restaurants, with each interview lasting from 30 to 70 minutes. All interviews were recorded and observations were written in daily notes making up a comprehensive fieldwork diary. A third separate study drew on a narrative approach based on 94 anonymous stories from employees from all of the restaurants (spring 2012). This narrative study makes up the primary data source in this article. During a period of nine weeks employees from all restaurants were encouraged to write up a story of a how they experience and tackle differences at their workplace. 94 short and long stories were collected. 50 of the stories were written by men and 44 by women. 52 of the narrators were between 15 to 19 years, 26 between 20 to 24 years, 13 between 25 to 35 years, and only 3 narrators were older than 40 years old. 33 of the narrators were in a managerial position (restaurant – and shift manager, and 1. and 2. assistant). 61 were crew members; 49 in a part time position out of which 27 was under 18 years old. 82 of the respondents had ethnic majority background and 12 had minority background (only crew members); four from the middle east, two from Scandinavia, two from Asia and four in the category ‘other’. The narrators were encouraged to give their story a title, which is mentioned in the analysis. All respondents participated on a voluntary basis, they are anonymous, and were knowledgeable about the methods applied including observations prior to the visit of the researcher. The choice to use the narrative material as primary source of data was due to the quality of granting unique insights into employee perceptions of and construction of diversity encounters. The stories are spontaneous, self-selected, and non-restrained by an interview situation which can be flawed by personal chemistry, leading questions and/or the 143 respondents trying to give ‘satisfying’ answers. In addition they take their outset in everyday work situations, and are therefore not abstract but serve to concretize and make practical diversity perceptions and experiences. The narrative study is supplemented by the additional data that serve to inform and contribute to a rich understanding of the context in which the stories are written from. Analytical strategy We analyzed our data in the tradition of narrative research (Czarniawska, 2004) and coding procedure developed by Strauss & Corbin (1990). In a first reading, the stories were divided into two main categories respectively manager and crew stories, and again into majority or minority stories according to the ethnic background of the narrator. These were again subdivided into stories relating to diversity as ethnic differences or a more varied conceptualization of difference; including personality, educational background, interests, age etc., and distinguishing these stories as predominantly positive or negative valorization of difference. Finally they were subdivided into stories relating to difference as a matter of professional competences and performance (valorizing difference as business case) or as a matter social responsibility, for overview of coding see table 2. Table 2: Coding of employee stories from ‘Fastfood’ No. of stories Category of employees in ’Fastfood’ together with main plot of story 33 Manager-stories: One main office, 13 restaurantand 13 shift managers, one 2. and five 1. Assistants 23 Manager stories: Positive valorization of ethnic difference combined with social responsibility attitude (two stories includes a reference to mental and physically handicapped employees) 3 Manager stories: Positive valorization of difference in broad terminology (incl. personality traits and interests) combined with social responsibility attitude 7 Manager Stories: Positive valorization of differences combined with non-managerial attitude (as the narrators own managerial position is not a theme this group might include part time 144 employed lower ranking managers identifying themselves equally as managers and crew). 49 Majority crew 11 Majority crew: Positive valorization of ethnic difference combined with social responsibility attitude 10 Majority crew: Negative valorization of ethnic difference (i.e. language and cultural problems) 28 Majority crew: Positive valorization of difference in broad terminology (incl. personality traits and interests) 3 Majority crew: Positive valorization of difference explicitly relating to mental and physical handicapped employees combined with social responsibility attitude 12 Minority crew 2 Minority crew: Positive valorization of own difference (language skills) 10 Minority crew: Positive valorization of difference in broad terminology (incl. personality traits and interests) Next step was a reading based on reducing and abstracting the empirical data through selective coding; we were going through the individual stories looking for important patterns and key themes aligned with the two welfare logics of equality as sameness and solidarity as social responsibility, to detect whether and how they were informing perceptions on differences. Finally we compared the different themes in the stories, and grouped these in similar and divergent perceptions. The coding of the data was to uncover the emerging themes related to the following two questions: 1) How is ‘equality as sameness’ defined? What factors does it consist of? And 2) How is ‘solidarity as social responsibility’ defined? What factors does it consist of? Below we will present the findings in two sections, 1) one showing how the logic of ‘equality as sameness’ is foundational for how diversity is defined, but also how it is constantly interrupted by the underlying notion of difference, and 2) another showing how the logic ‘solidarity as social responsibility’ is equally permeated by a notion of difference. As such the two logics of the welfare model are constantly interrupted – and rendered impossible – by tales of differences. 145 Findings Equality as sameness - and difference Analyzing the stories on difference in ‘Fastfood’, a significant pattern emerges: More than half of the majority stories (44 stories) generalize about specific ethnic skills in an overtly positive (respectively 23 manager and 11 crew stories) or in a negative manner (10 crew stories). 10 manager and 31 majority crew stories link differences to more broadly defined characteristics as differences in personality and interests, or physical/mental handicaps (41 in all). They demonstrate how the bulk of majority managers link differences predominantly to ethnic differences while the bulk of majority crew has a more broadly defined perception of what makes up differences. The equality as sameness logic comes out in the stories as the positive managerial stories often describe minority employees as the picture-perfect employees often linked to their assumed struggle to become ‘just like us’. An example is a manager story with the title ‘Smiling sunbeam’ about his Vietnamese employee, who the manager compliments because he eventually takes on ‘a Danish way of life and is the perfect employee’. A similar manager story is about ‘The happy Somalian’ who eventually achieves recognition from his colleagues by learning ‘Danish work place values like arriving on time. He has become part of the social community and participates in spare time activities like playing football and Facebook – just like the other colleagues’. However this narrative is constantly interrupted by a returning notion of difference, which ultimately render ‘equality as sameness’ impossible. Stories written by crewmembers with majority background show this: Roughly half of these stories (28 stories) link differences to non-ethnic related characteristics. Typical examples are stories like ‘We help each other’, ‘We are all different’, and ‘Customer complaints and we all react differently’. They all share the same plot of how crewmembers’ different personalities are to the benefit of 146 collaboration and socializing. The other half (22 stories) explicitly link differences to stories of ethnic minority colleagues. 11 of these stories are positive, and like the managerial stories, they attach certain general assumed ‘ethnic’ characteristics to minority colleagues like being exceptionally happy and entertaining in stories like ‘Singing and dancing in the kitchen’, or ‘The Thai dance’: I was carrying trays to the backroom. Here I meet Dang beating two red clamps while dancing real funny. He said: “This is how we dance in Thailand”. Things like this give a lot of positive energy and make me laugh.’ These stories ‘ethnify’ minorities as exceptionally exotic, happy colleagues. Another predominant plot is how they relate to personal development and growth when confronted with ethnic differences at work: An example is the story ’Making friends with 2. generation immigrants’ in which the narrator recounts about making friends at work with local ethnic minority youths that he ‘would usually avoid’. In ‘People with another background’ the narrator reflects on how he learned that things can be ‘perceived as racist in another culture’ by working in a multi-cultural setting. In a similar vein is the story ‘Arch-type Ahmed’: First time I met Ahmed, he was a real ‘Ahmed type’; a well-built Lebanese in a black BMW, grease-hair and an accent that rhymed loudly on Libanon and dishes directed towards Mecca. Oh no, I thought. But Ahmed turned out to be one of the friendliest, well-meaning and dedicated colleagues I have ever met. Talking to Ahmed during the more quiet closing hours gives me a chance to get a glimpse into a different world under the surface of what I thought was my own. I learn just about as much about myself, as I do about Ahmed. These stories all share the plot of how the narrator learn and grow as a person to be more tolerant and including when working in a multi-ethnic environment. Hence the narrators only relate to personal development and enlarged sense of community, not to professionalization like better service or enhanced performance due to differences. They moreover take their outset in stereotypic initial perception of ethnic minorities that they 147 then claim to challenge whilst upholding yet another stereotype about the exceptional colleague. Like the majority manager stories, ‘developmental tales’ draw on and make manifest ethnic minority colleagues as characterized by group features – not as unique persons with individual qualities, interests and personalities first and foremost. The last bulk of majority crew stories (10) links differences to ethnic minorities as being problematic with a negative impact on performance and social relations. These stories relate to incidents of lack of communication due to language difficulties and/or cultural barriers. The stories have titles like ‘My silent team’, ‘Noise on the line’, ‘Conflict problem’, or ‘Cultural differences’: I was working with a new Indian employee. I asked several times if he needed help but he only replied ‘no’. Then my boss pulls me aside and explains that in the culture from where he originates it is shameful to ask for help. It is perceived as a failure. So part of the job is to understand and accept other cultures. What is remarkable about this story is how the narrator does not even consider the possibility that the ‘Indian employee’ did not need any help. As he is an ‘Indian employee’ it is taken for granted that he is in need of help from majority employees and needs to adjust to Danish work place norms. In a similar vein, an employee tells a story of ‘The man who wouldn’t touch bacon’ because he was a Muslim. The story goes on that the ‘Muslim’ would not touch the button ‘bacon’ when serving customers at the counter. Accordingly colleagues had to do this, which slowed down the work process. At last the ‘Muslim’ learned that touching a button named ‘bacon’ did not signify touching pork meat. Other majority crew stories relate to different cultures as inherently patriarchal as the story ‘Professional and personal respect’: In our restaurant we employ people with another language background to strengthen their Danish skills. Due to their other language background, their religion is also different and rubs off on their perception of girls working here. They have no private respect for girls and this influences their professional respect for female colleagues. 148 These negative majority crew stories – like the positive stories – all share two significant features: First, they show how ethnic minority colleagues need to conform to majority workplace norms in order to perform, that is confirming the ‘equality as sameness’ logic. However they also show how difference keeps creeping in as all the stories ascribed with certain stereotypic group characteristics that differentiate ethnic minorities from the majority and maintaining an us/them division. They differentiate, however, in whether the story has a happy ending; the positive story of the exceptional minority employee, or the language and cultural differences lingers on; in the negative story about the problematic cultural differences. Our findings suggest that the local translation of diversity management as ‘equality as sameness’ is in ‘Fastfood’ constantly interrupted by an underlying notion of difference, which makes equality impossible. Here, employee perceptions distinguishing between ‘us and them’ based on minority/majority differences combined with a perception of majority culture being superior is prevalent. This is especially significant when considering how the vast group of managers explicitly link differences to ethnic minority employees (23 stories) characterized by exaggerated positive qualities. Minority members are on the one hand recognized by demonstrating overtly positive characteristics compared to the average majority member by insisting on their differences – in being exceptionally devoted, hardworking and loyal. On the other, managers naturalize own majority norms when describing successful integration when minorities become ‘just like us’. Hence diversity management is then translated into a ‘panoptican’ practice of disciplining, re-socializing, and monitoring minority employees to assimilate to Danish work place culture and what is perceived as acceptable minority behavior. This picture is somewhat echoed in majority crew members’ perceptions on difference. Roughly half explicitly link differences to ethnic minorities with more or less positive 149 implications: Minority colleagues are tolerated and included as exotic ‘others’ mostly due to their over-enthusiastic behavior or as being an exotic ingredient ‘spicing up’ the workplace as exceptionally happy, smiling and dancing colleagues. Or they are seen as problematic due to the lack of adequate Danish skills or a significantly different cultural background. The other half of majority crew members (and managers) that link difference to more varied aspects like personality traits, might partly be explained by lack of local exposure to ethnic diversity: While some restaurants located in the big cities in Denmark employ a large number of employees with ethnic minority background, others in more rural areas are characterized by ethnic homogeneity. This bears witness to the restaurants’ attempt to mirror the composition of local citizens among their employees. Solidarity as social responsibility – and difference Most of the stories on differences written by managers are essentially stories on corporate social responsibility initiatives taken by the work place (26 out of a total of 33). These manager stories are roughly repeating the same story plot; how the manager takes on the risk of recruiting a disadvantaged person predominantly with refugee and immigrant background – lacking Danish skills and adequate knowledge about Danish workplace culture. After intensive training and parenting by the manager, all the stories have a happy ending with the minority employee eventually adjusting to meet the demands of the work place as their language skills are upgraded together with their professional competences. This is presented as to the mutual benefit; the minority employee might eventually gain a permanent position together with the work place building a more inclusive and tolerant culture. These stories have titles like ‘Under the wings of Fastfood’, ‘Room for everybody’ ‘Fastfood becomes your family’, ‘Everybody can be part of the team’, ‘It is worth it’, ‘Patience pays off’, ‘A new beginning in Denmark’, ‘Integration in a strange country’, and 150 ‘Do a difference’ – just to mention a few. This kind of win-win procurement is summed up in the managerial tale entitled ‘This gives life content’: Years ago I recruited a girl from Morocco in my restaurant. She did not know a word of Danish. I took the chance and employed her. It turned out to be a fantastic experience for her and for me. The kind of gratitude she shows me I cannot explain. Every day she gives me a big hug. This is an experience that tells me how in ‘Fastfood’ we do not only make a difference in people’s professional life – but in their personal life too. This is an example of an arch-typical developmental tale based on everyday experiences of restaurant managers, as many of the minority crewmembers enter the organizations on an active labor market scheme for long time unemployed or as part of a language training program or to be accustomed with ‘Danish workplace culture’. This is also the plot in a managerial story about the recruitment of a trainee from Cuba ‘From alcohol to work’; the Cuban used to be an alcoholic but through intensive training, nurturing and personal backup from the manager, he is eventually integrated in the workplace community, quits drinking and ends up a ‘top motivated’ employee. Another archetypical story is ‘Smiling sunbeam’ on the recruitment of an employee from Vietnam: He impresses me enormously. He started up in a training position with no Danish skills at all. Later he was employed on a wage subsidy scheme. When he first started it was difficult to communicate with him due to his bad Danish. A difficult childhood made him rather introvert. But we were keen on teaching him Danish and helping him to open up. Now he works more consistent than most of the employees and fight every minute to ensure top performance. Last year he was awarded employee of the year and is a certified trainer. Everybody loves him because of his big smile and positive attitude. He is taking on a Danish way of life and is the perfect employee. The managerial stories all share the common theme describing minorities in positive but still inferior ways in need of help from patient majority managers, which have the empathy and resources to take on the responsibility of both the professional and personal 151 ‘upgrading’. The stories often have a paternalistic twist of ‘how they [minorities] need to be kept in place’ as cited from the manager story with the title ‘Diversity and development of the individuals’. These stories describe minorities as unruly, uncivilized kids that have to be cultivated and disciplined by a parental managerial authority to their own advantage. This managerial perception of on-boarding as a kind of ‘bringing up’ new employees might be adequate to most newly recruited majority employees who are predominantly youngsters with no prior education or labor market experiences. But most of the minority newcomers with refugee and immigrant background are in fact older and have prior training and labor market experiences predominantly from other countries, which make the paternalistic attitude seem odd and skewed. When diversity management is founded on a principle of social responsibility, then newly appointed ethnic minority members are positioned in provisional and publicly funded positions, giving them a lower status than majority members in permanent positions. This is an inherently unequal power relation positioning minorities in a weak position in need of help from a tolerant and benevolent majority manager or supervisor who can help the minority member unfold his or her potential. What is more, an unequal hierarchy is established disadvantaging minority employees to the detriment of the valuation of their unique competences. Hence the thinking behind corporate social responsibility fosters inferior ways of perceiving and treating minority employees. This is also illustrated in the next story by a manager about his experience of employing minority crew in training positions: They start up in the kitchen where they get to know Danes. They have a tendency to use their spare time with others from their home country. We offer them a Danish community, which means a lot to them… we have plenty of these stories that illustrate what we are able to do in ‘Fastfood’. We do not judge people in advance, but leave room for everybody. Our talented managers and employees can turn the most miserable fates into success stories. 254 multiperspektiv, og dette multiperspektiv er samtidigt formativt for den teoretiske og metodiske tilgang der anvendes i afhandlingen. Den anden artikel fokuserer på samspillet mellem diversitet i den organisatoriske sammenhæng og den større historiske og samfundsmæssige kontekst. I artiklen analyseres hvordan de større historiske og samfundsmæssige strukturer udfolder sig på organisatorisk niveau, og hvordan mikro og makro niveau er indlejret i hinanden. Artiklens omdrejningspunkt er analysen af, hvordan den større historiske og samfundsmæssige kontekst både muliggør og begrænser organisering af diversitet på virksomhedsniveau. Der er ikke tale om en generalisering af effekten eller betydningen af den samfundsmæssige og historiske sammenhæng, men alene en undersøgelse af, hvordan den udfolder sig i en bestemt organisatorisk sammenhæng på et givent tidspunkt. Den tredje artikel udfordrer den hovedantagelse inden for kritisk diversitetsforskning, at bureaukratiet inkarnerer ulighed mens postbureaukratiske teambaserede organisationsformer ses som mere fordrende for lighed. I modsætning til denne antagelse viser artiklen i et empirisk studie, at det netop er de særlige postbureaukratiske træk ved case-organisationen, der hindrer lighed og organiseringen af diversitet. Intentionen med artiklen er således at forstyrre uproduktive, teoretisk baserede kausale sammenhænge mellem en særlig strukturel form og så organisationens evne til at skabe lige forudsætninger for medarbejderne. I artiklen argumenterer jeg for, at enhver organisatorisk struktur og form vil indebære både mulighedsskabende og begrænsende potentialer og elementer, som praktikere må tage i betragtning. Derfor er det nødvendigt med en strukturel agenda, der udvider den nuværende diversitetsforskning fokus til at omfatte et situeret perspektiv der når hinsides stiliserede typologier og teoretiske antagelser. Det foreslås, at dette gøres ved at forankre forskningen i empiriske studier i organisationer, 255 som udforsker det lokale samspil mellem det strukturelt set-up, diversitet og organisationens emancipatoriske ambitioner. Den fjerde artikel udfolder et aspekt ved organisatoriske strukturer, nemlig rumlige strukturer, som sjældent får meget opmærksomhed inden for diversitetsforskningen. Teoretisk og empirisk analyserer jeg hvordan et eksplicit fokus på rumlige strukturer giver et værdifuldt indblik i mere subtile virkemåder af relationel magt, privilegier og begrænsninger, der ligger indlejret i organisatorisk substrukturel ulighed. I artiklen argumenteres for, at en rumlig tilgang kan synliggøre sammenhængen mellem struktur og handling. Den rumlige tilgang giver mulighed for at undersøge hvordan organisatorisk substrukturel ulighed på samme tid stabiliseres og forandres gennem medarbejderes rumlige praksisser. Den organisatoriske substrukturelle ulighed er således ikke kun påtvungen, men bliver også aktivt understøttet og forstærket gennem medarbejdernes handlinger. Studiet giver praktikere blik for den situerede, indlejrede kvalitet ved arbejdspladsdiversitet, og for behovet for at udvikle et bredere spektre af HRM praksisser, der adresserer de mere subtile, rumligt forankrede former for ulighed. Ud fra disse resultater konkluderer jeg, at hovedindsigten for denne afhandling er et behov for at studere og praktisere indlejret diversitet, hvor de strukturelle aspekter tages i betragtning. Dette for at optegne det finmaskede, komplekse organisatoriske landskab, som diversitetsprocesser og praksisser er indlejret i. Jeg foreslår begrebet ’organisering af diversitet’ for at understrege organisationen og organiseringsprocessen som omdrejningspunkt og genstand for fokus for forskning af diversitet i praksis. Dertil at denne forståelse for organisatorisk diversitet som indlejret i organisationens strukturer kan bane vejen for at udvikle metoder og praksisser, der kan ændre organisationen til fordel for emancipatorisk organisering, hvor medarbejdere kan deltage på lige fod og frit udfolde deres unikke kompetencer og identiteter. Således bidrager denne afhandling til 256 diversitetsforskningen ved at tilskynde til et multiperspektiv, der samler et polariseret forskningsfelt. Multiperspektivet handler om at fremme både kritisk og praktisk orienteret forskning. Dertil foreslår jeg interventionsbaseret kritisk etnografi som en metode til at udforske den strukturelle spænding forbundet med at organisere diversitet. 257 REFERENCES Acker, J. (1990) Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations. Gender & Society, 4, 139-158. Acker, J. (2006) Inequality regimes Class, Gender and Race in Organizations. Gender & Society, 20(4), 441-464 Acker, J. (2009) From glass ceiling to inequality regimes. Sociologie du travail,51(2), 199-217. Acker, J. (2012) Gendered organizations and intersectionality: Problems and possibilities. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 31(3), 214-224. Adler, P. (2012) The Sociological Ambivalence of Bureaucracy: From Weber via Gouldner to Marx. Organization Science, 23 (1), 244–266. Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007) Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of management review, 32(3), 836-863. Ahmed, S. (2007) The language of diversity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(2), 235-256. Ahonen, A, Häikiö, L & Stefánson, K (2012) Welfare State, Universalism and Diversity. Edward Elgar. Ahonen P, Tienari J, Meriläinen S & Pullen A (2014) Hidden contexts and invisible power relations: A Foucauldian reading of diversity research. Human Relations 67(3), 263-286. Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (1992) On the idea of emancipation in management and organization studies. Academy of Management Review,17(3), 432-464. Alvesson, M. & Kärreman, D. (2007) Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory development. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1265-1281. Alvesson, M., Hardy, C., & Harley, B. (2008) Reflecting on reflexivity: Reflexive textual practices in organization and management theory. Journal of management studies, 45(3), 480-501. Alvesson, M., Bridgman, T., & Willmott, H. (Eds.) (2011) The Oxford handbook of critical management studies. Oxford University Press Online. 258 Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2011) Decolonializing discourse: Critical reflections on organizational discourse analysis. Human Relations, 64(9), 1121-1146. Alvesson, M. & Sandberg, J. (2011) Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247-271. Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2012) Critical leadership studies: The case for critical performativity. Human Relations, 65(3), 367-390. Alvesson, M. & Sandberg, J. (2013) Has management studies lost its way? Ideas for more imaginative and innovative research. Journal of Management Studies, 50(1), 128-152. Alvesson, M. (2010) Self-doubters, strugglers, storytellers, surfers and others: Images of self-identities in organization studies. Human Relations, 63(2), 193-217. Andersen, J. G., Andersen, L., Olsen, L., Ploug, N., & Sabiers, S. E. (2015) Klassekamp fra oven: Den danske samfundsmodel under pres. Gyldendal A/S. Archer, M. (1982) Morphogenesis versus structuration: On combining structure and action. British Journal of Sociology, 33(4), 455-438. Archer, M. (1996) Social integration and system integration: Developing the distinction. Sociology, 30(4), 679-699. Archer, M. (2003) Structure, Agency and the Internal Conversation. Cambridge University Press. Archer, M. (2007) Making Our Way Through the World. Human Reflexivity and Social Mobility. Cambridge University Press. Argyris, C. S., & Schön, D. (1996) Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley. Ariss, A., Koall, I., Özbilgin, M., & Suutari, V. (2012) Careers of skilled migrants: towards a theoretical and methodological expansion. Journal of Management Development, 31(2), 92-101. Ashcraft, K.L. (1999) Managing maternity leave: a qualitative analysis of temporary executive succession. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 1-34. Ashcraft, K.L. (2001) Organized Dissonance: Feminist Bureaucracy as Hybrid Form. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1301-1322. 259 Ashcraft KL (2006) Feminist-Bureaucratic Control And Other Adversarial Allies: Extending Organized Dissonance to the Practice of ‘New’ Forms. Communication Monographs, 73(1), 55-86. Ashcraft, KL (2011) Gender and Diversity: Other ways to ‘Make a Difference’. In Alvesson, M., T. Bridgman & H. Willmott (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Critical Management Studies, Oxford Handbooks Online. Ashcraft, KL (2013) The Glass Slipper: Incorporating’ Occupational Identity in Management Studies. Academy of Management Review, Amr-10. Ashcraft, K. L., Kuhn, T. R., & Cooren, F. (2009) Constitutional Amendments: “Materializing” Organizational Communication. The academy of management annals, 3(1), 1-64. Barak, M. E. M. (2013) Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace. Sage. Barker, J. (1993) Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408 – 437. Bartunek, J. M. (2007) Academic-practitioner collaboration need not require joint or relevant research: Toward a relational scholarship of integration. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1323-1333. Battilana, J. & Lee, M. (2014) Advancing research on Hybrid Organizing – Insights fr4om the study of Social Enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397441. Battilana, J. & Dorado, S. (2010) Building sustainable hybrid organizations: the case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419– 1440. Becker, M. C. (2004) Organizational routines: a review of the literature.Industrial and corporate change, 13(4), 643-678. Belhoste, N. & Monin, P. (2013) Constructing differences in a cross-cultural context: National distance, social differentiation or functional distinction. Human Relations, 66(12), 1529-1561. Bendick, M. Jr, Egan, M.L. & Lanier, L. (2010) The business case for diversity and the perverse practice of matching employees to customers. Personnel Review, 39(4), 468-486. 260 Benschop, Y. & Brink, M.V.D. (2013) Power and resistance in gender equality strategies: Comparing quotas and small wins. Paper presented at Diversity Conference, February 1st, Frederiksberg, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark. Berrey, E. (2014) Breaking Glass Ceilings, Ignoring Dirty Floors: The Culture and Class Bias of Diversity Management. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(2) 347–370. Boehm, S. A., Kunze, F. & Bruch, H. (2013) Spotlight on age-diversity climate: The impact of age-inclusive HR practices on firm-level outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 67(3), 667-704. Boogaard, B. & Roggeband, C. (2009) Paradoxes of intersectionality: Theorizing inequality in the Dutch Police Force through structure and agency. Organization, 17(1), 53-75. Boxenbaum, E. (2006) Lost in Translation The Making of Danish Diversity Management. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(7), 939-948. Burkitt, I. (2012) Emotional Reflexivity. Feeling, Emotion and Imagination in Reflexive Dialogues. Sociology, 46(3), 458-472. Burnes, B., & Cooke, B. (2012) Review Article: The past, present and future of organization development: Taking the long view. Human Relations, 65(11), 1395-1429. Burns, T. & Stalker, G. M. (1961) The management of innovation. London: Tavistock. Byrkjeflot, H., & du Gay, P. (2012) Bureaucracy: An Idea Whose Time has Come (Again)? Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 35, 85-109. Byrne, D. E. (1971) The Attraction Paradigm, Academic Press, New York. Calás, M. B., & Smircich, L. (1999) Past postmodernism? Reflections and tentative directions. Academy of management review, 24(4), 649-672. Calás, M.B., Ou, H. And Smircich, L. (2012) Woman’ on the move: Mobile subjectivities after intersectionality. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 32(8), 708-731. Campbell, J. L. (2007) Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of management Review, 32(3), 946-967. 261 Carr, A.N. & Hancock, P. (2006) Space and time in organizational change management. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19(5), 545-557. Clegg, S. (2011) Under Reconstruction: Modern Bureaucracies. In: Clegg S, Harris M and Höpfler H (Eds): Managing Modernity. Beyond Bureaucracy. Oxford. Cohen, M. D. (2012) Perceiving and Remembering Routine Action: Fundamental MicroLevel Origins. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1383-1388. Cohen, M. D. (2007) Reading Dewey: Reflections on the study of routine. Organization Studies, 28(5), 773-786. Courpasson, D., & Clegg, S. (2006) Dissolving the iron cages? Tocqueville, Michels, bureaucracy and the perpetuation of elite power, Organization, 13(3): 319-343. Courpasson, D., & Clegg, S. (2012) The polyarchic bureaucracy: Cooperative resistance in the workplace and the construction of a new political structure of organizations. Research in the sociology of Organizations, 34, 55-79. Courpasson, D., Dany, F., & Clegg, S. (2012) Resisters at work: Generating productive resistance in the workplace. Organization Science, 23(3), 801-819. Cox, T. (1993) Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research & Practice, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco. Crowley M (2013) Gender, the Labor Process and Dignity at Work. Social Forces, 91(4), 1209–1238 Crowley, M. (2014) Class, Control, and Relational Indignity. American Behavioral Scientist, 2014, 58(3), 416-434. Cunliffe, A. L. (2004) On becoming a critically reflexive practitioner. Journal of Management Education, 28(4), 407-426. Cunliffe, A. L. (2003) Reflexive inquiry in organizational research: Questions and possibilities. Human Relations, 56(8), 983-1003. Cunliffe, A. L. (2008) Orientations to social constructionism: Relationally responsive social constructionism and its implications for knowledge and learning. Management Learning, 39(2), 123-139. 262 Cunliffe, A. L., & Karunanayake, G. (2013) Working Within Hyphen-Spaces in Ethnographic Research Implications for Research Identities and Practice. Organizational Research Methods, 16(3), 364-392. Curchod C, Patriotta G & Neysen N (2014) Categorization and identification: The identity work of ‘business sellers on eBay. Human Relations, 0018726713516376. Czarniawska, B. (2001) Is it possible to be a constructionist consultant? Management Learning, 32(2), 253-266. Czarniawska, B. (2005) Karl Weick: Concepts, style and reflection. The Sociological Review, 53(s1), 267-278. Czarniawska, B. (2006) A golden braid: Allport, Goffman, Weick. Organization Studies, 27(11), 1661-1674. Czarniawska, B. (2007) Negotiating selves. Gender. Working paper, Gothenburg Research Institute, Gothenburg University. Czarniawska, B. (2008) A theory of organizing. Edward Elgar Publishing. Dai, H. (2014) To Build an Extended Family: Feminist Organizational Design and Its Dilemmas in Women-led Non-Governmental Elder Homes in China. Social Forces, 92(3), 1115-1134. Darmer, P. & Nygaard, C. (2008) Paradigmer: Forståelse, anvendelse og begrænsning. In Voxted, S. (Ed) Valg der skaber viden – om samfundsvidenskabelie metoder. Academia. Darmer, P & Thomsen, J (2010) Refleksion. In Darmer, P., Jordansen, B., Madsen, J.A. & Thomsen, J. (Eds.) Paradigmer i praksis. Anvendelse af metoder til studier af organiseringsog ledelsesprocesser. Handelshøjskolens Forlag. Daya, P. (2014) Diversity and inclusion in an emerging market context. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 33(3), 293-308. Davies, C. A. (2008) Reflexive ethnography: A guide to researching selves and others. Routledge. Deetz, S. (2008) Engagement as co-generative theorizing. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36(3), 289-297. 263 D’Enbeau, S. & Buzzanell, P. (2013) Constructing a feminist organization’s identity in a competitive marketplace: The intersection of ideology, image, And culture. Human Relations, 66(11), 1447-1470. Diefenbach, T., & Sillince, J. A. (2011) Formal and informal hierarchy in different types of organization, Organization Studies, 32(11), 1515-1537. DiTomaso, N., Post, C., and Parks-Yancy, R. (2007) Workforce diversity and inequality: power, status, and numbers. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 473–501. Dobbin, F., Soohan, K. & Kalev, A. (2011) You Can’t Always Get What You Need: Organizational Determinants of Diversity Programs. American Sociological Review, 76(3), 386–411. Dobusch, L. (2014) How exclusive are inclusive organisations? Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 33(3), 220-234. Donnelly, P. F., Gabriel, Y. & Özkazanc-Pan, B. (2013) Guest editorial. Untold stories of the field and beyond: narrating the chaos. Qualitative Research in Organizational and Management, 8(1), 4-15. Du Gay, P. (2000) In Praise of Bureaucracy: Weber, organization, ethics. Thousand Oaks, Sage. Du Gay, P. (2008) Max Weber and the moral economy of office. Journal of Cultural Economy, 1(2): 129-144. Du Gay, P. (2011) ‘Without regard to persons’: Problems of Involvement and Attachment in ‘Post-Bureaucratic’ Public Management. In Clegg S, Harris M and Höpfler H (Eds) Managing Modernity. Beyond Bureaucracy. Oxford. Du Gay, P., & Vikkelsø, S. (2013) Exploitation, exploration and exaltation: Notes on a metaphysical (re) turn to ‘one best way of organizing’. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 37, 249-279. Du Gay, P., & Vikkelsø, S. (2014) What makes organization? Organizational Theory as a ’Practical Science’. In Adler, P. S., du Gay, P., Morgan, G., & Reed, M. (Eds.) Oxford Handbook of Sociology, Social Theory and Organization Studies: Contemporary Currents. Oxford University Press. 270 Larsen, B. R. (2011) Becoming Part of Welfare Scandinavia: Integration through the Spatial Dispersal of Newly Arrived Refugees in Denmark. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(2), 333-350. Lauring, J. (2005) Når Organisationen bliver mangfoldig. Om videndeling og interaktion i etnisk mangfoldige organisationer. Handelshøjskolen i Århus, Institut for Ledelse. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967) Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 1-47. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1986) Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration (Harvard Business School Classics). Learmonth, M., Lockett, A., & Dowd, K. (2012) Promoting scholarship that matters: the uselessness of useful research and the usefulness of useless research. British Journal of Management, 23(1), 35-44. Litvin, D. R. (1997) The discourse of diversity: From biology to management. Organization, 4(2), 187-209. Litvin, D.R. (2002) The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(3), 1771-1800. Lorbiecki, A. & Jack, G. (2000) Critical turns in the evolution of diversity management. British Journal of Management, 11(S1), S17-S31. Lückerath-Rovers, M. (2011) Women on boards and firm performance. Journal of Management & Governance, 17 (2), 491-509. Madison, D. S. (2011) Critical ethnography: Method, ethics, and performance. Sage Publications Inc. Mahadevan, J. (2011) Reflexive guidelines for writing organizational culture. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 6(2), 150-170. Mamman, A.A., Kamoche, K. & Bakuwa, R. (2012) Diversity, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship Behavior: An organizing framework. Human Resource Management Review, 22 (4), 285-302. March, J. G. (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science, 2(1), 71-87. 271 March, J. G. (1994) Limited rationality. In: A Primer on Decision Making - How Decisions Happen. New York: Free Press, 1-55. Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. Oxford University Press. Martin, P.Y. (1990) Rethinking feminist organizations. Gender and Society, 4, 182-206. Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008) “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: a conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of management review, 33(2), 404-424. McCall, L. (2005) The complexity of intersectionality. Signs, 30(3), 1771-1800. Melzer, S.V., Tomaskovic-Devey, D. & Jacobebbinghaus, P. (2015) First and second generation immigrants’ workplace earnings: A relational inequality approach. Paper presented at the Equal is not Enough Conference in Antwerpen, February, 5 2015. Meyer J. & Vallas, S. (2015) Diversity and Inequality Regimes at Work: The Multiple Faces of Worker Control. Paper presented at the Equal is not Enough Conference, Antwerp, Belgium 5th 2015 in Section 3, Panel 7: Organising & Performing Diversity approaches. Meyerson, D. E., & Fletcher, j. (2000) A modest manifesto for shattering the glass ceiling. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 126-136. Meyerson, D. E., & Kolb, D. M. (2000) ’Moving out of the armchair': developing a framework to bridge the gap between feminist theory and practice. Organization, 7(4), 553-571. Meyerson, D. (2001) Tempered Radicals: how people use difference to inspire change at work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Meyerson, D. E. & Scully, M. (1995). Tempered Radicalism and the Politics of Ambivalence and Change. Organizational Science, 6(6), 585-600. Michailova, S., Piekkari, R., Plakyiannaki, E., Ritvala, T., Michilove, I. & Salmi, A. (2014). Breaking the silence about exiting fieldwork: A relational approach and its implications for theorizing. Academy of Management Review, 39(2), 138-161. Minger, J. (2015) Helping business schools engage with real problems: The contribution of critical realism and systems thinking. European Journal of Operational Research, 242, 316–331 272 Mintzberg, H. (1993) Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations. Prentice-Hall. Mintzberg, H. (2005) Developing theory about theory development. In Smith, K. G. & Hitt, M.A. (Eds), Great minds in management: The process of theory development, Oxford University Press, 355-372. Muhr, S.L. (2014) Creating women initiatives without explicit diversity management practices, Paper presented at EGOS, Rotterdam, July, 2014. Muhr, S.L. & Salem, A. (2013) Spectres of colonialism: Illusionary equality and the forgetting of history in a Swedish organization. Management and Organizational History, 8(1), 62-76. Muhr, S.L. & Sullivan, K. (2013) ‘None so queer as folk’: Gendered expectations and transgressive bodies in leadership. Leadership, 9(3), 416-435. Muttarak, R., Hamill, H., Heath, A., & McCrudden, C. (2013) Does Affirmative Action Work? Evidence from the Operation of Fair Employment Legislation in Northern Ireland. Sociology, 47(3), 560-579. Naima Mikkelsen, E. (2013) A researcher's tale: how doing conflict research shapes research about conflict. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 8(1), 33-49. Nentwich, J. C. (2006) Changing gender: The discursive construction of equal opportunities, Gender, Work & Organization, 13(6), 499-521. Nkomo, S. (1992) The emperor has no clothes: Rewriting race into organizations. Academy of Management Review, 17(3), 487-513. Nicholson, H. and Carroll, B. (2013) Identity undoing and power relations in leadership development. Human Relations, 66(9), 1225-1248. Nishii, L. H., & Mayer, D. M. (2009) Do inclusive leaders help to reduce turnover in diverse groups? The moderating role of leader–member exchange in the diversity to turnover relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1412-. Noon, M. (2007) The fatal flaws of diversity and the business case for ethnic minorities. Work, Employment and Society, 21(4), 773–784. Noon, M. (2010) The shackled runner: time to rethink positive discrimination? Work, Employment & Society, 24(4), 728-739. 273 Næss, P. (2014) Critical Realism, Urban Planning and Urban Research.European Planning Studies, (ahead-of-print), 1-17. Ollilainen, M. & Calasanti, T. (2007) Metaphors at Work Maintaining the Salience of Gender in Self-Managing Teams. Gender & Society, 21(1), 5-27. Omanović, V. (2009) Diversity and its management as a dialectical process: Encountering Sweden and the US. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25(4), 352-362. Ortlieb, R., & Sieben, B. (2013) Diversity Strategies and Business Logic: Why Do Companies Employ Ethnic Minorities? Group & Organization Management, 1059601113497094. Ortlieb, R., & Sieben, B. (2014) The making of inclusion as structuration: empirical evidence of a multinational company. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 33(3), 235-248. Ostendorp, A., & Steyaert, C. (2009) How different can differences be (come)?: Interpretative repertoires of diversity concepts in Swiss-based organizations. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25(4), 374-384. Oswick, C., & Noon, M. (2014) Discourses of diversity, equality and inclusion: trenchant formulations or transient fashions? British Journal of Management, 25(1), 23-39. Özbilgin, M., & Tatli, A. (2011) Mapping out the field of equality and diversity: rise of individualism, Human Relations, 64(9), 1229-1253. Özbilgin, M., Beauregard, A., Tatli A., & Bell, M.P. (2011) Work-life, diversity and intersectionality: A critical review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(2), 177-198. Pache, A. & Santos, F. (2013) Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 9721001. Pache, A. & Santos, F. (2010) When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35, 455-476. 274 Parsons, D.B., Sanderson, K., Helms, J. & Mills, A.J. (2012) Organizational logic and feminist organizing: Stewardesses for women’s rights. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An international Journal, 31(3), 266-277. Pearce, W. B. (1995) A sailing guide for social constructionists. In W. Leeds-Hurwitz (ed) Social approaches to communication. New York: Guilford, 88-113 Pederson, M. & Muhr, .SL. (2014) Habit and Organization Studies. Unpublished paper presented at ‘New Sites in Organizational Studies’ November, 12 2014 Pentland, B. T., Hærem, T., & Hillison, D. (2011) The (N) ever-changing world: stability and change in organizational routines. Organization Science, 22(6), 1369-1383. Pentland, B. T., Feldman, M. S., Becker, M. C., & Liu, P. (2012) Dynamics of organizational routines: a generative model. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 14841508. Perriton, L. (2009) “We Don’t Want Complaining Women!” A Critical Analysis of the Business Case for Diversity. Management Communication Quarterly, 23(2), 218-243. Pettigrew, T. (1986) The intergroup contact hypothesis reconsidered. In Hewstone, M. And Brown, R. (Ed.), Contact and Conflict in Intergroup Encounters, Basil Blackwell, London, 353-390. Prasad, A. (2006) The jewel in the crown: Postcolonial theory and workplace diversity. In Konrad, A.M, P. Prasad & J.K. Pringle (Eds.) Handbook of workplace diversity. London: Sage, 121-144. Qin, J., Smyrnios, K. X., & Deng, L. (2014) An extended intervening process model: Diversity, group processes, and performance. Human Resource Development Review, 13(2), 133-157. Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009) Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance, Organization Science, 20(4), 685-695. Reed, M. (2011) The Post-Bureaucratic Organization And the Control Revolution. In Clegg, S., Harri,s M. and Höpfler, H. (Eds) Managing Modernity. Beyond Bureaucracy. Oxford. 275 Reeves, C. L. (2010). A difficult negotiation: Fieldwork relations with gatekeepers. Qualitative Research, 10, 315-331. Rennison, B.W. (2009). Kampen om integrationen: Diskurser om etnisk mangfoldighedsledelse. Hans Reitzels Forlag. Risberg, A. & Just, S.N. (2014) Ambiguities of diversity management – Employees’ ambiguous perceptions of diversity, Paper presented at EGOS, Rotterdam, July, 2014. Risberg, A., & Søderberg, A. M. (2008) Translating a management concept: diversity management in Denmark. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 23(6), 426441. Roberson, Q.M. (2006) disentangling the meaning of diversity and inclusion in organizations. Group and Organizational Management, 31, 213-236. Roberson, Q.M. & Stevens, C.K. (2006) Making sense of diversity in the workplace: Organizational justice and language abstraction in employees' accounts of diversityrelated incidents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 379-391. Robichaud, D., & Cooren, F. (Eds.) (2013) Organization and organizing: Materiality, agency and discourse. Routledge. Romani, L. Holck, L. Holgersson, C & Muhr, S.L (Forthcoming 2016), Diversity Management and the Scandinavian Model: Illustrations from Denmark and Sweden, in J.F Chanlat and M. Özbilgin (Eds.) Management & Diversity: Main constatations in different countries. London: Emerald. Rytter, M. (2007) ‘Familien Danmark’ og ’de fremmede’. Slægtskabsbilleder i dansk integrationspolitik. In Olwig, K.F. and Pærregaard, K. (Eds.) (2007): Integration: Antropologiske perspektiver. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanums Forlag Sabiers, S. E. & Larsen, H.B. (2014) De sociale klasser i Danmark 2012. Arbejderbevægelsens Erhvervsråd. Samaluk, B. (2014) Whiteness, ethnic privilege and migration: a Bourdieuan framework. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(4), 370-388. Schwarz, G. & Stensaker, I. (2014) Time to Take Off the Theoretical Straightjacket and (Re-) Introduce Phenomenon-Driven Research. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(4), 478-501. 276 Scott, S. (2010) Revisiting the Total Institution: Performative Regulation in the Reinventive Institution. Sociology, 44(2), 213–231. Scully, M. A., & Blake-Beard, S. (2006) Locating class in organisational diversity work. In Konrad, A. M., Prasad, P., & Pringle, J. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of workplace diversity. Sage. Shore, L., Randel, A.E., Chung, B.G., Dean, M.A., Ehrhart, K.H. & Singh, G. (2009) Diversity in organizations: Where are we now and where are we going? Human Resource Management Review, 19, 177-133. Shore, L., Randel, A.E., Chung, B.G., Dean, M.A., Ehrhart, K.H. & Singh, G. (2011) Inclusion and Diversity in Work Groups: A Review and Model for Future Research. Human Resource Management Review, 37(4), 1262-1289. Shotter, J. (2006) Understanding process from within: An argument for ‘withness’- thinking. Organization Studies, 27(4), 585-604. Shotter, J. (2009) Situated dialogic action research: Disclosing “beginnings” for innovative change in organizations. Organizational research methods, 13 (2), 268-285. Siebers, H. (2009) Struggles for recognition: The politics of racioethnic identity among Dutch national tax administrators. Scandinavian journal of management, 25(1), 73-84. Siebers, H. (2010) The impact of migrant-hostile discourse in the media and politics on racioethnic closure in career development in the Netherlands. International Sociology, 25(4), 475-500. Siim, B. (2013) Gender, diversity and migration: Challenges to Nordic welfare, gender politics and research. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 32(6), 615-628. Simon, B. & Oakes, P. (2006) Beyond dependence: An identity approach to social power and domination. Human Relations, 59(1), 105-139. Śliwa, M., & Johansson, M. (2014) The discourse of meritocracy contested/reproduced: Foreign women academics in UK business schools, Organization, 21(6), 821-843. Sløk, C. (2009) Disorganization as Religion: Managing the Danish National Evangelical Lutheran Church. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 16 (1-2), 51-64. Smith, S.R. (2014) Hybridity and Nonprofit Organizations: The Research Agenda. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(11), 1494-1508. 277 Soja, E.W. (1996) Third Space. Journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined places. Blackwell Publishers. Spicer, A., Alvesson, M. & Kärreman, D. (2009) Critical performativity: The unfinished business of critical management studies. Human relations, 62(4), 537-560. Stahl, G., Maznevski, M.L., Voigt, A., and Jonsen, K. (2010) Unravelling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: a meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(4), 690–709. Stacey, R. D., & Griffin, D. (Eds.) (2005) A complexity perspective on researching organizations: Taking experience seriously. Taylor & Francis. Stake, R. E. (2013) Multiple case study analysis. Guilford Press. Stark, D. (2009) The Sense of Dissonance. Accounts of Worth in Economic Life. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Staunæs, D. (2003) Where has all the subjects gone? Bringing together the concepts or intersectionality and subjectification. NORA, 11(2), 101-110. Staunæs, D. & Søndergaard, D.M. (2007) Nyttige resultater I en tangotid. Nordiske Udkast, 35(1), 6-25. Steinbugler, A. C., & Dias, J. J. (2006) Gender, race, and affirmative action operationalizing intersectionality in survey research. Gender & Society, 20(6), 805-825. Syed, J., & Özbilgin, M. (2009) A relational framework for international transfer of diversity management practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(12), 2435-2453. Syed, J., Mingers, J., & Murray, P. A. (2009) Beyond rigour and relevance: A critical realist approach to business education. Management Learning, 41 (1), 71-85. Tajfel, H. (1974) Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information, 13(2), 65-93. Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. (1985) The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel, S. And Austion, W.G. (Ed.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (2nd ed), Nelson-Hall, Chicago, 7-24. 278 Tatli, A. (2011) A multi-layered exploration of the diversity management field: diversity discourses, practices and practitioners in the UK. British Journal of Management, 22(2), 238-253. Tatli A & Özbilgin M. (2012) An Emic Approach to Intersectional study of Diversity at Work: A Bourdieuan Framing. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(2):180200. Tatli, A. & Özbilgin, M. (2009) Understanding diversity managers’ role in organizational change: Towards a conceptual framework. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 244-258. Thoelen, A., & Zanoni, P. (2012) ‘What’s new?’ The rhetoric construction of innovation by ethnically diverse creative entrepreneurs. Culture and Organization, DOI: 10.1080/14759551.2014.921819. Thomas, D. & Ely, R. (1996) Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing diversity. Harvard Business Review, 74, 79-90. Thomas, J. (1993) Doing Critical Ethnography. London: Sage. Tomlinson, J., Muzio, D., Sommerlad, H., Webley, L., & Duff, L. (2013) Structure, agency and career strategies of white women and black and minority ethnic individuals in the legal profession. human relations, 66(2), 245-269. Tomlinson, F. & Schwabenland, C. (2010) Reconciling competing discourses of diversity? The UK non-profit sector between social justice and the business case. Organization,17(1), 101-121. Toyoki, S. & Brown, A.D. (2014) Stigma, identity and power: Managing stigmatized identities through discourse. Human Relations, 64(2), 161-176. Tran V., Gracia-Prieto, P. & Schneider S. (2010) The role of social identity, appraisal, And emotion in determining responses to diversity management. Human Relations, 64(2), 161-176. Turner, J.C., Brown, R.J. & Tajfel, H. (1979) Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favouritism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9(2), 187-204. Turner, P. K. & Norwood, K. M. (2013) Body of Research: Impetus, Instrument, and Impediment. Qualitative Inquiry, 19(9), 696-711. 279 Vallas, S. P. (2003) Why teamwork fails: Obstacles to workplace change in four manufacturing plants. American Sociological Review, 223-250. Vallas, S. P. (2006) Empowerment Redux: Structure, Agency, and the Remaking of Managerial Authority. American Journal of Sociology, 111(6), 1677-1717. Vallas, S. P., & Cummins, E. (2014) Relational Models of Organizational Inequalities Emerging Approaches and Conceptual Dilemmas. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(2), 228-255. Vallentin, S., & Murillo, D. (2012) Governmentality and the politics of CSR. Organization, 1350508411426183. Van den Brink, M., Benschop, Y., & Jansen, W. (2010) Transparency in academic recruitment: a problematic tool for gender equality? Organization Studies, 31(11), 14591483. Van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2012) Slaying the Seven-Headed Dragon: The Quest for Gender Change in Academia. Gender, Work & Organization, 19(1), 71-92. Van Laer, K. & Janssens, M. (2011) Ethnic minority professionals’ experience with subtle discrimination in the workplace. Human Relations, 64(9): 1203-1227. Van Laer, K., & Janssens, M. (2014) Between the devil and the deep blue sea: Exploring the hybrid identity narratives of ethnic minority professionals. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30(2), 186-196. Van Maanen J (2011) Ethnography as Work: Some Rules of Engagement. Journal of Management Studies, 48(1), 218-234. Varman, R., & Chakrabarti, M. (2004) Contradictions of democracy in a workers cooperative’. Organization Studies, 25(2), 183-208. Verbeek, S. & Groeneveld, S. (2012) Do ‘hard’ diversity policies increase ethnic minority representation? An assessment of their (in) effectiveness using administrative data. Personnel Review, 41(5), 647-664. Vermaut, H., & Zanoni, P. (2013) You look for diversity management, you find CSR: Practices aligning business goals and minorities’ needs in Flemish SMEs. In KarataşÖzkan, M., Nicolopoulou, K., & Özbilgin, M. F. (Eds.) Corporate social responsibility and human resource management: a diversity perspective. Edward Elgar Publishing. 286 APPENDIX 2: OVERVIEW OF DATA AND FIELDWORK IN FASTFOOD Fieldwork in Fastfood is carried out over a period of two years. Below is an overview in a timeline indicating the different time periods for my different methods in the field. Notice that article two contains a table with data from my narrative research in Fastfood (Table 1: Overview of coding of employee stories from Fastfood including minority and majority status combined with major plot of story). Elements Data collected Dates First fieldwork phase Visit seven restaurants Semi-structured interviews with 30 employees at all levels in the restaurants Daily fieldwork dairy/notes All interviews are transcribed and coded The data are analyzed and drawn upon in an report for Fastfood May to Sept 2011 Second fieldwork phase Visit in 9 restaurant 27 semistructured group interviews with crew, middle managers and restaurant manager All interviews are transcribed and coded The data are analyzed and drawn into an internal report for Fastfood Narrative study 94 employee stories on difference and diversity encounters in their everyday work life All stories are self-authored and selfreflective tales voluntarily submitted (anonymously written) Official report and presentation of the data on a practitioner confer ence May 2013 (in cooperation with researcher at from CBS) Oct 2012 to Jan 2013 INTERVENTI ONS CONTENT DATES Meeting with HR Office Continuous meetings and dialogue with HR diversity officers in Fastfood’s main office 3 meetings presenting the three reports Approximately six informal briefing and dialogue meetings with diversity consultant (main access point to the organization): - to organize and plan fieldwork phases - to tell about impressions from the field - to discuss possible diversity related interventions/activities from the HRM main office May 2011 to June 2013 TITLER I PH.D.SERIEN: 2004 1. Martin Grieger Internet-based Electronic Marketplaces and Supply Chain Management 2. Thomas Basbøll LIKENESS A Philosophical Investigation 3. Morten Knudsen Beslutningens vaklen En systemteoretisk analyse of moderniseringen af et amtskommunalt sundhedsvæsen 1980-2000 4. Lars Bo Jeppesen Organizing Consumer Innovation A product development strategy that is based on online communities and allows some firms to benefit from a distributed process of innovation by consumers 5. Barbara Dragsted SEGMENTATION IN TRANSLATION AND TRANSLATION MEMORY SYSTEMS An empirical investigation of cognitive segmentation and effects of integrating a TM system into the translation process 6. Jeanet Hardis Sociale partnerskaber Et socialkonstruktivistisk casestudie af partnerskabsaktørers virkelighedsopfattelse mellem identitet og legitimitet 7. Henriette Hallberg Thygesen System Dynamics in Action 8. Carsten Mejer Plath Strategisk Økonomistyring 9. Annemette Kjærgaard Knowledge Management as Internal Corporate Venturing – a Field Study of the Rise and Fall of a Bottom-Up Process 10. Knut Arne Hovdal De profesjonelle i endring Norsk ph.d., ej til salg gennem Samfundslitteratur 11. Søren Jeppesen Environmental Practices and Greening Strategies in Small Manufacturing Enterprises in South Africa – A Critical Realist Approach 12. Lars Frode Frederiksen Industriel forskningsledelse – på sporet af mønstre og samarbejde i danske forskningsintensive virksomheder 13. Martin Jes Iversen The Governance of GN Great Nordic – in an age of strategic and structural transitions 1939-1988 14. Lars Pynt Andersen The Rhetorical Strategies of Danish TV Advertising A study of the first fifteen years with special emphasis on genre and irony 15. Jakob Rasmussen Business Perspectives on E-learning 16. Sof Thrane The Social and Economic Dynamics of Networks – a Weberian Analysis of Three Formalised Horizontal Networks 17. Lene Nielsen Engaging Personas and Narrative Scenarios – a study on how a usercentered approach influenced the perception of the design process in the e-business group at AstraZeneca 18. S.J Valstad Organisationsidentitet Norsk ph.d., ej til salg gennem Samfundslitteratur 19. Thomas Lyse Hansen Six Essays on Pricing and Weather risk in Energy Markets 20. Sabine Madsen Emerging Methods – An Interpretive Study of ISD Methods in Practice 21. Evis Sinani The Impact of Foreign Direct Investment on Efficiency, Productivity Growth and Trade: An Empirical Investigation 22. Bent Meier Sørensen Making Events Work Or, How to Multiply Your Crisis 23. Pernille Schnoor Brand Ethos Om troværdige brandog virksomhedsidentiteter i et retorisk og diskursteoretisk perspektiv 24. Sidsel Fabech Von welchem Österreich ist hier die Rede? Diskursive forhandlinger og magtkampe mellem rivaliserende nationale identitetskonstruktioner i østrigske pressediskurser 25. Klavs Odgaard Christensen Sprogpolitik og identitetsdannelse i flersprogede forbundsstater Et komparativt studie af Schweiz og Canada 26. Dana B. Minbaeva Human Resource Practices and Knowledge Transfer in Multinational Corporations 27. Holger Højlund Markedets politiske fornuft Et studie af velfærdens organisering i perioden 1990-2003 28. Christine Mølgaard Frandsen A.s erfaring Om mellemværendets praktik i en transformation af mennesket og subjektiviteten 29. Sine Nørholm Just The Constitution of Meaning – A Meaningful Constitution? Legitimacy, identity, and public opinion in the debate on the future of Europe 2005 1. Claus J. Varnes Managing product innovation through rules – The role of formal and structured methods in product development 2. Helle Hedegaard Hein Mellem konflikt og konsensus – Dialogudvikling på hospitalsklinikker 3. Axel Rosenø Customer Value Driven Product Innovation – A Study of Market Learning in New Product Development 4. Søren Buhl Pedersen Making space An outline of place branding 5. Camilla Funck Ellehave Differences that Matter An analysis of practices of gender and organizing in contemporary workplaces 6. Rigmor Madeleine Lond Styring af kommunale forvaltninger 7. Mette Aagaard Andreassen Supply Chain versus Supply Chain Benchmarking as a Means to Managing Supply Chains 8. Caroline Aggestam-Pontoppidan From an idea to a standard The UN and the global governance of accountants’ competence 9. Norsk ph.d. 10. Vivienne Heng Ker-ni An Experimental Field Study on the Effectiveness of Grocer Media Advertising Measuring Ad Recall and Recognition, Purchase Intentions and Short-Term Sales 11. Allan Mortensen Essays on the Pricing of Corporate Bonds and Credit Derivatives 12. Remo Stefano Chiari Figure che fanno conoscere Itinerario sull’idea del valore cognitivo e espressivo della metafora e di altri tropi da Aristotele e da Vico fino al cognitivismo contemporaneo 13. Anders McIlquham-Schmidt Strategic Planning and Corporate Performance An integrative research review and a meta-analysis of the strategic planning and corporate performance literature from 1956 to 2003 14. Jens Geersbro The TDF – PMI Case Making Sense of the Dynamics of Business Relationships and Networks 15 Mette Andersen Corporate Social Responsibility in Global Supply Chains Understanding the uniqueness of firm behaviour 16. Eva Boxenbaum Institutional Genesis: Micro – Dynamic Foundations of Institutional Change 17. Peter Lund-Thomsen Capacity Development, Environmental Justice NGOs, and Governance: The Case of South Africa 18. Signe Jarlov Konstruktioner af offentlig ledelse 19. Lars Stæhr Jensen Vocabulary Knowledge and Listening Comprehension in English as a Foreign Language An empirical study employing data elicited from Danish EFL learners 20. Christian Nielsen Essays on Business Reporting Production and consumption of strategic information in the market for information 21. Marianne Thejls Fischer Egos and Ethics of Management Consultants 22. Annie Bekke Kjær Performance management i Procesinnovation – belyst i et social-konstruktivistisk perspektiv 23. Suzanne Dee Pedersen GENTAGELSENS METAMORFOSE Om organisering af den kreative gøren i den kunstneriske arbejdspraksis 24. Benedikte Dorte Rosenbrink Revenue Management Økonomiske, konkurrencemæssige & organisatoriske konsekvenser 25. Thomas Riise Johansen Written Accounts and Verbal Accounts The Danish Case of Accounting and Accountability to Employees 26. Ann Fogelgren-Pedersen The Mobile Internet: Pioneering Users’ Adoption Decisions 27. Birgitte Rasmussen Ledelse i fællesskab – de tillidsvalgtes fornyende rolle 28. Gitte Thit Nielsen Remerger – skabende ledelseskræfter i fusion og opkøb 29. Carmine Gioia A MICROECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS 30. Ole Hinz Den effektive forandringsleder: pilot, pædagog eller politiker? Et studie i arbejdslederes meningstilskrivninger i forbindelse med vellykket gennemførelse af ledelsesinitierede forandringsprojekter 31. Kjell-Åge Gotvassli Et praksisbasert perspektiv på dynamiske læringsnettverk i toppidretten Norsk ph.d., ej til salg gennem Samfundslitteratur 32. Henriette Langstrup Nielsen Linking Healthcare An inquiry into the changing performances of web-based technology for asthma monitoring 33. Karin Tweddell Levinsen Virtuel Uddannelsespraksis Master i IKT og Læring – et casestudie i hvordan proaktiv proceshåndtering kan forbedre praksis i virtuelle læringsmiljøer 34. Anika Liversage Finding a Path Labour Market Life Stories of Immigrant Professionals 35. Kasper Elmquist Jørgensen Studier i samspillet mellem stat og erhvervsliv i Danmark under 1. verdenskrig 36. Finn Janning A DIFFERENT STORY Seduction, Conquest and Discovery 37. Patricia Ann Plackett Strategic Management of the Radical Innovation Process Leveraging Social Capital for Market Uncertainty Management 2006 1. Christian Vintergaard Early Phases of Corporate Venturing 2. Niels Rom-Poulsen Essays in Computational Finance 3. Tina Brandt Husman Organisational Capabilities, Competitive Advantage & ProjectBased Organisations The Case of Advertising and Creative Good Production 4. Mette Rosenkrands Johansen Practice at the top – how top managers mobilise and use non-financial performance measures 5. Eva Parum Corporate governance som strategisk kommunikationsog ledelsesværktøj 6. Susan Aagaard Petersen Culture’s Influence on Performance Management: The Case of a Danish Company in China 7. Thomas Nicolai Pedersen The Discursive Constitution of Organizational Governance – Between unity and differentiation The Case of the governance of environmental risks by World Bank environmental staff 8. Cynthia Selin Volatile Visions: Transactons in Anticipatory Knowledge 9. Jesper Banghøj Financial Accounting Information and Compensation in Danish Companies 10. Mikkel Lucas Overby Strategic Alliances in Emerging HighTech Markets: What’s the Difference and does it Matter? 11. Tine Aage External Information Acquisition of Industrial Districts and the Impact of Different Knowledge Creation Dimensions A case study of the Fashion and Design Branch of the Industrial District of Montebelluna, NE Italy 12. Mikkel Flyverbom Making the Global Information Society Governable On the Governmentality of MultiStakeholder Networks 13. Anette Grønning Personen bag Tilstedevær i e-mail som interaktionsform mellem kunde og medarbejder i dansk forsikringskontekst 14. Jørn Helder One Company – One Language? The NN-case 15. Lars Bjerregaard Mikkelsen Differing perceptions of customer value Development and application of a tool for mapping perceptions of customer value at both ends of customer-supplier dyads in industrial markets 16. Lise Granerud Exploring Learning Technological learning within small manufacturers in South Africa 17. Esben Rahbek Pedersen Between Hopes and Realities: Reflections on the Promises and Practices of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) 18. Ramona Samson The Cultural Integration Model and European Transformation. The Case of Romania 2007 1. Jakob Vestergaard Discipline in The Global Economy Panopticism and the Post-Washington Consensus 2. Heidi Lund Hansen Spaces for learning and working A qualitative study of change of work, management, vehicles of power and social practices in open offices 3. Sudhanshu Rai Exploring the internal dynamics of software development teams during user analysis A tension enabled Institutionalization Model; ”Where process becomes the objective” 4. Norsk ph.d. Ej til salg gennem Samfundslitteratur 5. Serden Ozcan EXPLORING HETEROGENEITY IN ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIONS AND OUTCOMES A Behavioural Perspective 6. Kim Sundtoft Hald Inter-organizational Performance Measurement and Management in Action – An Ethnography on the Construction of Management, Identity and Relationships 7. Tobias Lindeberg Evaluative Technologies Quality and the Multiplicity of Performance 8. Merete Wedell-Wedellsborg Den globale soldat Identitetsdannelse og identitetsledelse i multinationale militære organisationer 9. Lars Frederiksen Open Innovation Business Models Innovation in firm-hosted online user communities and inter-firm project ventures in the music industry – A collection of essays 10. Jonas Gabrielsen Retorisk toposlære – fra statisk ’sted’ til persuasiv aktivitet 11. Christian Moldt-Jørgensen Fra meningsløs til meningsfuld evaluering. Anvendelsen af studentertilfredshedsmålinger på de korte og mellemlange videregående uddannelser set fra et psykodynamisk systemperspektiv 12. Ping Gao Extending the application of actor-network theory Cases of innovation in the telecommunications industry 13. Peter Mejlby Frihed og fængsel, en del af den samme drøm? Et phronetisk baseret casestudie af frigørelsens og kontrollens sameksistens i værdibaseret ledelse! 14. Kristina Birch Statistical Modelling in Marketing 15. Signe Poulsen Sense and sensibility: The language of emotional appeals in insurance marketing 16. Anders Bjerre Trolle Essays on derivatives pricing and dynamic asset allocation 17. Peter Feldhütter Empirical Studies of Bond and Credit Markets 18. Jens Henrik Eggert Christensen Default and Recovery Risk Modeling and Estimation 19. Maria Theresa Larsen Academic Enterprise: A New Mission for Universities or a Contradiction in Terms? Four papers on the long-term implications of increasing industry involvement and commercialization in academia 20. Morten Wellendorf Postimplementering af teknologi i den offentlige forvaltning Analyser af en organisations kontinuerlige arbejde med informationsteknologi 21. Ekaterina Mhaanna Concept Relations for Terminological Process Analysis 22. Stefan Ring Thorbjørnsen Forsvaret i forandring Et studie i officerers kapabiliteter under påvirkning af omverdenens forandringspres mod øget styring og læring 23. Christa Breum Amhøj Det selvskabte medlemskab om managementstaten, dens styringsteknologier og indbyggere 24. Karoline Bromose Between Technological Turbulence and Operational Stability – An empirical case study of corporate venturing in TDC 25. Susanne Justesen Navigating the Paradoxes of Diversity in Innovation Practice – A Longitudinal study of six very different innovation processes – in practice 26. Luise Noring Henler Conceptualising successful supply chain partnerships – Viewing supply chain partnerships from an organisational culture perspective 27. Mark Mau Kampen om telefonen Det danske telefonvæsen under den tyske besættelse 1940-45 28. Jakob Halskov The semiautomatic expansion of existing terminological ontologies using knowledge patterns discovered on the WWW – an implementation and evaluation 29. Gergana Koleva European Policy Instruments Beyond Networks and Structure: The Innovative Medicines Initiative 30. Christian Geisler Asmussen Global Strategy and International Diversity: A Double-Edged Sword? 31. Christina Holm-Petersen Stolthed og fordom Kulturog identitetsarbejde ved skabelsen af en ny sengeafdeling gennem fusion 32. Hans Peter Olsen Hybrid Governance of Standardized States Causes and Contours of the Global Regulation of Government Auditing 33. Lars Bøge Sørensen Risk Management in the Supply Chain 34. Peter Aagaard Det unikkes dynamikker De institutionelle mulighedsbetingelser bag den individuelle udforskning i professionelt og frivilligt arbejde 35. Yun Mi Antorini Brand Community Innovation An Intrinsic Case Study of the Adult Fans of LEGO Community 36. Joachim Lynggaard Boll Labor Related Corporate Social Performance in Denmark Organizational and Institutional Perspectives 2008 1. Frederik Christian Vinten Essays on Private Equity 2. Jesper Clement Visual Influence of Packaging Design on In-Store Buying Decisions 3. Marius Brostrøm Kousgaard Tid til kvalitetsmåling? – Studier af indrulleringsprocesser i forbindelse med introduktionen af kliniske kvalitetsdatabaser i speciallægepraksissektoren 4. Irene Skovgaard Smith Management Consulting in Action Value creation and ambiguity in client-consultant relations 5. Anders Rom Management accounting and integrated information systems How to exploit the potential for management accounting of information technology 6. Marina Candi Aesthetic Design as an Element of Service Innovation in New Technologybased Firms 7. Morten Schnack Teknologi og tværfaglighed – en analyse af diskussionen omkring indførelse af EPJ på en hospitalsafdeling 8. Helene Balslev Clausen Juntos pero no revueltos – un estudio sobre emigrantes norteamericanos en un pueblo mexicano 9. Lise Justesen Kunsten at skrive revisionsrapporter. En beretning om forvaltningsrevisionens beretninger 10. Michael E. Hansen The politics of corporate responsibility: CSR and the governance of child labor and core labor rights in the 1990s 11. Anne Roepstorff Holdning for handling – en etnologisk undersøgelse af Virksomheders Sociale Ansvar/CSR 12. Claus Bajlum Essays on Credit Risk and Credit Derivatives 13. Anders Bojesen The Performative Power of Competence – an Inquiry into Subjectivity and Social Technologies at Work 14. Satu Reijonen Green and Fragile A Study on Markets and the Natural Environment 15. Ilduara Busta Corporate Governance in Banking A European Study 16. Kristian Anders Hvass A Boolean Analysis Predicting Industry Change: Innovation, Imitation & Business Models The Winning Hybrid: A case study of isomorphism in the airline industry 17. Trine Paludan De uvidende og de udviklingsparate Identitet som mulighed og restriktion blandt fabriksarbejdere på det aftayloriserede fabriksgulv 18. Kristian Jakobsen Foreign market entry in transition economies: Entry timing and mode choice 19. Jakob Elming Syntactic reordering in statistical machine translation 20. Lars Brømsøe Termansen Regional Computable General Equilibrium Models for Denmark Three papers laying the foundation for regional CGE models with agglomeration characteristics 21. Mia Reinholt The Motivational Foundations of Knowledge Sharing 22. Frederikke Krogh-Meibom The Co-Evolution of Institutions and Technology – A Neo-Institutional Understanding of Change Processes within the Business Press – the Case Study of Financial Times 23. Peter D. Ørberg Jensen OFFSHORING OF ADVANCED AND HIGH-VALUE TECHNICAL SERVICES: ANTECEDENTS, PROCESS DYNAMICS AND FIRMLEVEL IMPACTS 24. Pham Thi Song Hanh Functional Upgrading, Relational Capability and Export Performance of Vietnamese Wood Furniture Producers 25. Mads Vangkilde Why wait? An Exploration of first-mover advantages among Danish e-grocers through a resource perspective 26. Hubert Buch-Hansen Rethinking the History of European Level Merger Control A Critical Political Economy Perspective 2009 1. Vivian Lindhardsen From Independent Ratings to Communal Ratings: A Study of CWA Raters’ Decision-Making Behaviours 2. Guðrið Weihe Public-Private Partnerships: Meaning and Practice 3. Chris Nøkkentved Enabling Supply Networks with Collaborative Information Infrastructures An Empirical Investigation of Business Model Innovation in Supplier Relationship Management 4. Sara Louise Muhr Wound, Interrupted – On the Vulnerability of Diversity Management 5. Christine Sestoft Forbrugeradfærd i et Statsog Livsformsteoretisk perspektiv 6. Michael Pedersen Tune in, Breakdown, and Reboot: On the production of the stress-fit selfmanaging employee 7. Salla Lutz Position and Reposition in Networks – Exemplified by the Transformation of the Danish Pine Furniture Manufacturers 8. Jens Forssbæck Essays on market discipline in commercial and central banking 9. Tine Murphy Sense from Silence – A Basis for Organised Action How do Sensemaking Processes with Minimal Sharing Relate to the Reproduction of Organised Action? 10. Sara Malou Strandvad Inspirations for a new sociology of art: A sociomaterial study of development processes in the Danish film industry 11. Nicolaas Mouton On the evolution of social scientific metaphors: A cognitive-historical enquiry into the divergent trajectories of the idea that collective entities – states and societies, cities and corporations – are biological organisms. 12. Lars Andreas Knutsen Mobile Data Services: Shaping of user engagements 13. Nikolaos Theodoros Korfiatis Information Exchange and Behavior A Multi-method Inquiry on Online Communities 14. Jens Albæk Forestillinger om kvalitet og tværfaglighed på sygehuse – skabelse af forestillinger i lægeog plejegrupperne angående relevans af nye idéer om kvalitetsudvikling gennem tolkningsprocesser 15. Maja Lotz The Business of Co-Creation – and the Co-Creation of Business 16. Gitte P. Jakobsen Narrative Construction of Leader Identity in a Leader Development Program Context 17. Dorte Hermansen ”Living the brand” som en brandorienteret dialogisk praxis: Om udvikling af medarbejdernes brandorienterede dømmekraft 18. Aseem Kinra Supply Chain (logistics) Environmental Complexity 19. Michael Nørager How to manage SMEs through the transformation from non innovative to innovative? 20. Kristin Wallevik Corporate Governance in Family Firms The Norwegian Maritime Sector 21. Bo Hansen Hansen Beyond the Process Enriching Software Process Improvement with Knowledge Management 22. Annemette Skot-Hansen Franske adjektivisk afledte adverbier, der tager præpositionssyntagmer indledt med præpositionen à som argumenter En valensgrammatisk undersøgelse 23. Line Gry Knudsen Collaborative R&D Capabilities In Search of Micro-Foundations 8. Robert W. D. Veitch Access Decisions in a Partly-Digital World Comparing Digital Piracy and Legal Modes for Film and Music 9. Marie Mathiesen Making Strategy Work An Organizational Ethnography 10. Arisa Shollo The role of business intelligence in organizational decision-making 11. Mia Kaspersen The construction of social and environmental reporting 12. Marcus Møller Larsen The organizational design of offshoring 13. Mette Ohm Rørdam EU Law on Food Naming The prohibition against misleading names in an internal market context 14. Hans Peter Rasmussen GIV EN GED! Kan giver-idealtyper forklare støtte til velgørenhed og understøtte relationsopbygning? 15. Ruben Schachtenhaufen Fonetisk reduktion i dansk 16. Peter Koerver Schmidt Dansk CFC-beskatning I et internationalt og komparativt perspektiv 17. Morten Froholdt Strategi i den offentlige sektor En kortlægning af styringsmæssig kontekst, strategisk tilgang, samt anvendte redskaber og teknologier for udvalgte danske statslige styrelser 18. Annette Camilla Sjørup Cognitive effort in metaphor translation An eye-tracking and key-logging study 19. Tamara Stucchi The Internationalization of Emerging Market Firms: A Context-Specific Study 20. Thomas Lopdrup-Hjorth “Let’s Go Outside”: The Value of Co-Creation 21. Ana Alačovska Genre and Autonomy in Cultural Production The case of travel guidebook production 22. Marius Gudmand-Høyer Stemningssindssygdommenes historie i det 19. århundrede Omtydningen af melankolien og manien som bipolære stemningslidelser i dansk sammenhæng under hensyn til dannelsen af det moderne følelseslivs relative autonomi. En problematiseringsog erfaringsanalytisk undersøgelse 23. Lichen Alex Yu Fabricating an S&OP Process Circulating References and Matters of Concern 24. Esben Alfort The Expression of a Need Understanding search 25. Trine Pallesen Assembling Markets for Wind Power An Inquiry into the Making of Market Devices 26. Anders Koed Madsen Web-Visions Repurposing digital traces to organize social attention 27. Lærke Højgaard Christiansen BREWING ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSES TO INSTITUTIONAL LOGICS 28. Tommy Kjær Lassen EGENTLIG SELVLEDELSE En ledelsesfilosofisk afhandling om selvledelsens paradoksale dynamik og eksistentielle engagement 29. Morten Rossing Local Adaption and Meaning Creation in Performance Appraisal 30. Søren Obed Madsen Lederen som oversætter Et oversættelsesteoretisk perspektiv på strategisk arbejde 31. Thomas Høgenhaven Open Government Communities Does Design Affect Participation? 32. Kirstine Zinck Pedersen Failsafe Organizing? A Pragmatic Stance on Patient Safety 33. Anne Petersen Hverdagslogikker i psykiatrisk arbejde En institutionsetnografisk undersøgelse af hverdagen i psykiatriske organisationer 34. Didde Maria Humle Fortællinger om arbejde 35. Mark Holst-Mikkelsen Strategieksekvering i praksis – barrierer og muligheder! 36. Malek Maalouf Sustaining lean Strategies for dealing with organizational paradoxes 37. Nicolaj Tofte Brenneche Systemic Innovation In The Making The Social Productivity of Cartographic Crisis and Transitions in the Case of SEEIT 38. Morten Gylling The Structure of Discourse A Corpus-Based Cross-Linguistic Study 39. Binzhang YANG Urban Green Spaces for Quality Life - Case Study: the landscape architecture for people in Copenhagen 40. Michael Friis Pedersen Finance and Organization: The Implications for Whole Farm Risk Management 41. Even Fallan Issues on supply and demand for environmental accounting information 42. Ather Nawaz Website user experience A cross-cultural study of the relation between users´ cognitive style, context of use, and information architecture of local websites 43. Karin Beukel The Determinants for Creating Valuable Inventions 44. Arjan Markus External Knowledge Sourcing and Firm Innovation Essays on the Micro-Foundations of Firms’ Search for Innovation 2014 1. Solon Moreira Four Essays on Technology Licensing and Firm Innovation 2. Karin Strzeletz Ivertsen Partnership Drift in Innovation Processes A study of the Think City electric car development 3. Kathrine Hoffmann Pii Responsibility Flows in Patient-centred Prevention 4. Jane Bjørn Vedel Managing Strategic Research An empirical analysis of science-industry collaboration in a pharmaceutical company 5. Martin Gylling Processuel strategi i organisationer Monografi om dobbeltheden i tænkning af strategi, dels som vidensfelt i organisationsteori, dels som kunstnerisk tilgang til at skabe i erhvervsmæssig innovation 6. Linne Marie Lauesen Corporate Social Responsibility in the Water Sector: How Material Practices and their Symbolic and Physical Meanings Form a Colonising Logic 7. Maggie Qiuzhu Mei LEARNING TO INNOVATE: The role of ambidexterity, standard, and decision process 8. Inger Høedt-Rasmussen Developing Identity for Lawyers Towards Sustainable Lawyering 9. Sebastian Fux Essays on Return Predictability and Term Structure Modelling 10. Thorbjørn N. M. Lund-Poulsen Essays on Value Based Management 11. Oana Brindusa Albu Transparency in Organizing: A Performative Approach 12. Lena Olaison Entrepreneurship at the limits 13. Hanne Sørum DRESSED FOR WEB SUCCESS? An Empirical Study of Website Quality in the Public Sector 14. Lasse Folke Henriksen Knowing networks How experts shape transnational governance 15. Maria Halbinger Entrepreneurial Individuals Empirical Investigations into Entrepreneurial Activities of Hackers and Makers 16. Robert Spliid Kapitalfondenes metoder og kompetencer 17. Christiane Stelling Public-private partnerships & the need, development and management of trusting A processual and embedded exploration 18. Marta Gasparin Management of design as a translation process 19. Kåre Moberg Assessing the Impact of Entrepreneurship Education From ABC to PhD 20. Alexander Cole Distant neighbors Collective learning beyond the cluster 21. Martin Møller Boje Rasmussen Is Competitiveness a Question of Being Alike? How the United Kingdom, Germany and Denmark Came to Compete through their Knowledge Regimes from 1993 to 2007 22. Anders Ravn Sørensen Studies in central bank legitimacy, currency and national identity Four cases from Danish monetary history 23. Nina Bellak Can Language be Managed in International Business? Insights into Language Choice from a Case Study of Danish and Austrian Multinational Corporations (MNCs) 24. Rikke Kristine Nielsen Global Mindset as Managerial Meta-competence and Organizational Capability: Boundary-crossing Leadership Cooperation in the MNC The Case of ‘Group Mindset’ in Solar A/S. 25. Rasmus Koss Hartmann User Innovation inside government Towards a critically performative foundation for inquiry 26. Kristian Gylling Olesen Flertydig og emergerende ledelse i folkeskolen Et aktør-netværksteoretisk ledelsesstudie af politiske evalueringsreformers betydning for ledelse i den danske folkeskole 27. Troels Riis Larsen Kampen om Danmarks omdømme 1945-2010 Omdømmearbejde og omdømmepolitik 28. Klaus Majgaard Jagten på autenticitet i offentlig styring 29. Ming Hua Li Institutional Transition and Organizational Diversity: Differentiated internationalization strategies of emerging market state-owned enterprises 30. Sofie Blinkenberg Federspiel IT, organisation og digitalisering: Institutionelt arbejde i den kommunale digitaliseringsproces 31. Elvi Weinreich Hvilke offentlige ledere er der brug for når velfærdstænkningen flytter sig – er Diplomuddannelsens lederprofil svaret? 32. Ellen Mølgaard Korsager Self-conception and image of context in the growth of the firm – A Penrosian History of Fiberline Composites 33. Else Skjold The Daily Selection 34. Marie Louise Conradsen The Cancer Centre That Never Was The Organisation of Danish Cancer Research 1949-1992 35. Virgilio Failla Three Essays on the Dynamics of Entrepreneurs in the Labor Market 36. Nicky Nedergaard Brand-Based Innovation Relational Perspectives on Brand Logics and Design Innovation Strategies and Implementation 37. Mads Gjedsted Nielsen Essays in Real Estate Finance 38. Kristin Martina Brandl Process Perspectives on Service Offshoring 39. Mia Rosa Koss Hartmann In the gray zone With police in making space for creativity 40. Karen Ingerslev Healthcare Innovation under The Microscope Framing Boundaries of Wicked Problems 41. Tim Neerup Themsen Risk Management in large Danish public capital investment programmes 2015 1. Jakob Ion Wille Film som design Design af levende billeder i film og tv-serier 2. Christiane Mossin Interzones of Law and Metaphysics Hierarchies, Logics and Foundations of Social Order seen through the Prism of EU Social Rights 3. Thomas Tøth TRUSTWORTHINESS: ENABLING GLOBAL COLLABORATION An Ethnographic Study of Trust, Distance, Control, Culture and Boundary Spanning within Offshore Outsourcing of IT Services 4. Steven Højlund Evaluation Use in Evaluation Systems – The Case of the European Commission 5. Julia Kirch Kirkegaard AMBIGUOUS WINDS OF CHANGE – OR FIGHTING AGAINST WINDMILLS IN CHINESE WIND POWER A CONSTRUCTIVIST INQUIRY INTO CHINA’S PRAGMATICS OF GREEN MARKETISATION MAPPING CONTROVERSIES OVER A POTENTIAL TURN TO QUALITY IN CHINESE WIND POWER 6. Michelle Carol Antero A Multi-case Analysis of the Development of Enterprise Resource Planning Systems (ERP) Business Practices Morten Friis-Olivarius The Associative Nature of Creativity 7. Mathew Abraham New Cooperativism: A study of emerging producer organisations in India 8. Stine Hedegaard Sustainability-Focused Identity: Identity work performed to manage, negotiate and resolve barriers and tensions that arise in the process of constructing or ganizational identity in a sustainability context 9. Cecilie Glerup Organizing Science in Society – the conduct and justification of resposible research 10. Allan Salling Pedersen Implementering af ITIL® IT-governance - når best practice konflikter med kulturen Løsning af implementeringsproblemer gennem anvendelse af kendte CSF i et aktionsforskningsforløb. 11. Nihat Misir A Real Options Approach to Determining Power Prices 12. Mamdouh Medhat MEASURING AND PRICING THE RISK OF CORPORATE FAILURES 13. Rina Hansen Toward a Digital Strategy for Omnichannel Retailing 14. Eva Pallesen In the rhythm of welfare creation A relational processual investigation moving beyond the conceptual horizon of welfare management 15. Gouya Harirchi In Search of Opportunities: Three Essays on Global Linkages for Innovation 16. Lotte Holck Embedded Diversity: A critical ethnographic study of the structural tensions of organizing diversity TITLER I ATV PH.D.-SERIEN 1992 1. Niels Kornum Servicesamkørsel – organisation, økonomi og planlægningsmetode 1995 2. Verner Worm Nordiske virksomheder i Kina Kulturspecifikke interaktionsrelationer ved nordiske virksomhedsetableringer i Kina 1999 3. Mogens Bjerre Key Account Management of Complex Strategic Relationships An Empirical Study of the Fast Moving Consumer Goods Industry 2000 4. Lotte Darsø Innovation in the Making Interaction Research with heterogeneous Groups of Knowledge Workers creating new Knowledge and new Leads 2001 5. Peter Hobolt Jensen Managing Strategic Design Identities The case of the Lego Developer Network 2002 6. Peter Lohmann The Deleuzian Other of Organizational Change – Moving Perspectives of the Human 7. Anne Marie Jess Hansen To lead from a distance: The dynamic interplay between strategy and strategizing – A case study of the strategic management process 2003 8. Lotte Henriksen Videndeling – om organisatoriske og ledelsesmæssige udfordringer ved videndeling i praksis 9. Niels Christian Nickelsen Arrangements of Knowing: Coordinating Procedures Tools and Bodies in Industrial Production – a case study of the collective making of new products 2005 10. Carsten Ørts Hansen Konstruktion af ledelsesteknologier og effektivitet TITLER I DBA PH.D.-SERIEN 2007 1. Peter Kastrup-Misir Endeavoring to Understand Market Orientation – and the concomitant co-mutation of the researched, the re searcher, the research itself and the truth 2009 1. Torkild Leo Thellefsen Fundamental Signs and Significance effects A Semeiotic outline of Fundamental Signs, Significance-effects, Knowledge Profiling and their use in Knowledge Organization and Branding 2. Daniel Ronzani When Bits Learn to Walk Don’t Make Them Trip. Technological Innovation and the Role of Regulation by Law in Information Systems Research: the Case of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) 2010 1. Alexander Carnera Magten over livet og livet som magt Studier i den biopolitiske ambivalens