Scandinavian Journal of Management (2013) 29, 78—86
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : h t t p : / / w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / s c a m a n
Juggling difference and sameness: Rethinking
strategies for diversity in organizations
Halleh Ghorashi a,1, Ida Sabelis b,*
a
Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1081c, 1081 HV Amsterdam,
The Netherlands
b
Department of Organization Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1081c,
1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
KEYWORDS
(Managing) diversity;
Inclusiveness;
Contiguity;
Strategic essentialism;
Time—space
Summary In this era of omnipresent diversity, we face paradoxical outcomes from practices,
policies and the management of diversity in organizations. On the one hand, diversity is supposed
to be adopted in terms of social justice and inclusiveness: embracing all talent and reaching out to
diverse groups that traditionally were not part of the core of organizations. On the other hand,
broad societal discourses of otherness are emerging, which severely limit chances for the
inclusion of ‘others’. We propose to re-theorize and contextualize these phenomena; we aim
to discuss alternative approaches of dealing with diversity by connecting strategic essentialism,
contiguity, and space/time relations to exemplify the often hidden workings of the power
dimensions involved.
# 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Managing diversity: essentializing sameness
and difference
Towards the end of the previous century the issue of diversity in
organizations gained a prominent place in both academic and
societal debates. Yet, management of diversity appears to be
‘‘a Herculean task, requiring much more than managerial
enthusiasm, optimism, and good intentions’’ (Prasad & Mills,
1997, p. 5). The taken for granted privilege of dominant groups
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 20 5986711; fax: +31 20 5986860.
E-mail addresses: h.ghorashi@vu.nl (H. Ghorashi),
i.sabelis@vu.nl (I. Sabelis).
1
Tel.: +31 20 5986778; fax: +31 20 5986860.
(mostly white and male) in organizations makes it almost
impossible to value the contribution of women and ethnic
minorities (due Billing & Sundin, 2006; Prasad & Mills, 1997),
rendering them ‘space invaders’ in the organizational realm
(Puwar, 2004) and excluding them from top positions (Essed,
2002). This raises the question of whether or not diversity
(management) programmes are merely concealing enduring
patterns of exclusion (Prasad & Mills, 1997, pp. 14—15) on the
individual level as well as on an institutional or a managerial
one. A joint rise in inclusive diversity programmes in organizations and a societal discourse of excluding ‘others’ (that
cannot help but influence work contexts), implies that interest
in and scepticism of diversity programmes may be growing at a
similar pace. Within the discussions over the past decades
concerning diversity issues in organizations (Essed, 2002; Liff &
Wajcman, 1996; Zanoni, 2011; Zanoni & Janssens, 2003), we
0956-5221/$ — see front matter # 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2012.11.002
Juggling difference and sameness: Rethinking strategies for diversity in organizations
particularly note a struggle in relation to sameness and difference. Holvino and Kamp (2009, p. 398) refer to this struggle
as the ‘sameness—difference’ dilemma, in which diversity is
either assimilated or essentialized. Both render diversity invisible but not ‘dealt with’. This makes diversity a risk instead of
an option, a hidden and ongoing force of exclusion that could
emerge in unintended guises and at unexpected times.
Ely and Thomas (2001) presented three paradigms in
dealing with diversity in organizations. The first focuses on
the ways in which discrimination as the source of exclusion in
organizations needs to be tackled. Yet, the solution provided
was to assimilate the difference into sameness by introducing
‘colour blind policies’ (2001, p. 247). The second paradigm
discussed by these authors celebrates diversity to seek access
to a more diverse clientele and customers. Within this paradigm difference is included, yet somewhat marginalized
within organizations as it solely serves the purpose of promotion to a diverse group of clientele or customers. An example
of this is ethnic marketing, which uses people of colour to
promote products. Both paradigms are essentialist in their
approach; they either essentialize sameness (first paradigm)
or difference (second paradigm). The third paradigm, which
is the most promising, stresses the need for diversity as a
process, as ‘ongoing learning’ in order to overcome or deal
with exclusion. This process includes contextual notions such
as: the historical development of diversity, organizational
culture as symbolically representing diversity (or the lack
thereof), and the ongoing and dialectic relationships
between individual experiences and intentions, group level
translation of these and the organizational—institutional
outcomes of diversity and diversity management in everyday
practices.
Essentialism has a reifying quality to it. Identity components (such as gender, ethnicity, and class) are necessarily
seen as static, fixed, timeless, and barely changeable. This
position has influenced the debates on diversity from which
we draw when looking at the current development of diversity. Essentialism does not allow for contextual and situational ways, in which individual members of groups shape and
re-shape their (ethnic, cultural, gender) identity through
interactions with other individuals over time. It also renders
invisible the need for rethinking concepts of difference vis-àvis current practices of cooperation, experimentation, and
change inside and outside organizations. Ultimately, this
leads to a lack of focus on the possibility of hybrid positioning
in organizations, by which individual members always combine elements from various available (among others cultural
and ethnic) resources and repertoires, either strategically
(cf. Koot, 1997), or in order to structurally and politically
develop ‘the organization as a better place for all its members’ (cf. Cox, 1993). The latter refers to the definition of
diversity in organizations, in which ethnicity, gender, class
background, and other identity issues are related to what
presents itself as endlessly unfolding processes of inclusion
and exclusion that are forever infused with power and politics (Acker, 2006) and that are hard to grasp or to measure.
These processes are tricky in the sense that they are usually
felt or sensed rather than collectively observable or assessable. We therefore propose to focus on what we may call a
balancing act between sameness and difference in striving
for inclusion in organizations. With this we may develop an
approach to diversity that goes beyond essentialism and that
79
pays tribute to process (i.e. ongoing change) and power
relations. We contend that it is through the situative use
of sameness and difference that human interaction in and
beyond organizations can be understood. With this dynamic
balance as our point of departure, we build our argument.
First we present what we consider limitations of current
diversity practices; then we address power issues surrounding
these practices; and finally, we propose alternative ways to
juggle diversity in organizations.
Managing diversity backfires
With the publication of the Workforce 2000 Report in 1987,
which showed the growing heterogeneous mix of the future
labour market, the necessity to include others in organizations became more salient, both for policy makers and in
organizations (Zanoni, Janssens, Benschop, & Nkomo, 2010).
The concept of diversity1 developed as an overarching perspective to combine the problems of ethnicity, gender, and
other levels of exclusion. Implied here was the assumption
that organizations would (have to) change when others
entered. The question is not if this is so, but when and
especially how change will come about. At the time, the
concern seemed to be more with explaining the advantages
and the necessity of ‘diversity’ than with the organizational
requirements. Either organizations would change more or
less automatically (Loden & Rosener, 1991, pp. 24—27), or
diversity would become a managerial responsibility (Thomas,
1991). Metaphors such as the ‘tossed salad’ (Loden & Rosener,
1991) or the ‘blooming tree with deep (different) roots’
(Thomas, 1991) were used to promote the idea that the
organization could develop into a ‘better place for all of
its members’ (Cox, 1993).
However, as it turned out in the early 1990s, the interest in
diversity only emerged when economic benefits explicitly
became part of the argument; this also changed the discourse
of diversity into managing diversity, including the implication
that the mere presence of ‘others’ would require managerial
intervention (Cox, 1993; Thomas, 1991). The economic benefit argument also stressed the idea of diversity producing
‘added value’ via the inclusion of as many cultural differences as possible. As argued elsewhere (Sabelis, 1996), the
culturalist view indeed allows for the empowerment of
otherness, but only if there is a direct, preferably measurable
benefit for the organization. In turn, this points to a collective attitude in which the willingness for organizational
change is not the starting point for diversity programmes.
Indeed, as Liff and Wajcman (1996) argued, diversity from
this angle develops into a business case. This does not serve
to sensitize organizational members to the goals of adopting
diversity, i.e. promoting and developing equality in organizations. In fact, including the cultural other from an economic
1
We explicitly address the Dutch/West European situation here. In
the Netherlands, diversity grew in the 1980s out of the ‘anti’-sexism/
racism action groups, largely coming forth from the women’s movement. One of the early exponents of this movement (and an early
active member of Kantharos) was Philomena Essed who already in
1984 wrote her dissertation on racism drawing parallels to other
forms of exclusion (see Essed, 1991).
80
perspective ultimately serves to exploit otherness and
enhance the image of the organization irrespective of how
diversity is being dealt with in its daily practices. Showcasing
corporate efforts to include others often pushes the question
of power to the background (Prasad in Prasad, Pringle, &
Konrad, 2006, p. 7). In this way inclusion of others becomes
‘‘a precarious one, for they never exist, they are allowed to
exist’’ (Hage in Cavanaugh, 1997, p. 43).
Translating the business approach to the level of diversity
practices, the focus is on developing instruments to reduce
institutional exclusion or bias by presenting perceived or
assumed advantages of what others can offer. Instruments
involved can be affirmative action programmes and cultural
consciousness-raising trainings. The problem here is that,
ironically, the initial dynamic quality of diversity is rendered
static because of the ways organizations work: via co-option,
i.e. the inclusion or assimilation of ‘others’ into standardized
organizational habits and procedures in which others are
perceived and treated as ‘soon-to-be-the-same’, or as
‘exceptional members’. As Joan Acker argues, diversity programmes in this tradition have developed into static measures and sets of regulations, rendering them ‘‘mere
bureaucratic paper shuffling in most organizations, undermined by a lack of outside enforcement and inside activism
and by legal attack by white men claiming reverse discrimination’’ (Acker, 2006, p. 456). In fact, this kind of instrumental and limited inclusion of others can be considered to
have failed for several reasons.
First, diversity as a notion ends up being handled mostly on
the institutional, or the organizational level. This implies
that measures have become solid or rigid, thus restricting
improvisation or creative adaptation. Second, the approach
avoids any (individual) activism or critique that originally fed
the enthusiasm and passion to search for different solutions
to gaining equality. And third, despite the different foci with
respect to the causes of exclusion, the proposed approaches
tackle the issue of diversity in a short-term manner. There is
no attention for the meaning of diversity for organizations as
a whole from a long-term, and a bottom-up, practice-based
perspective. Obviously, affirmative action was invented as a
temporary measure, promoting ‘other’ groups to catch up (in
numbers) in order to develop a diverse workforce.
As Kanter (1977) has shown, when the number of minorities within an organization is relatively small, they are
treated as tokens. Tokens become highly visible and are often
seen as representative of their groups rather than as individuals. Following this path, Benschop and Doorewaard (1998)
argue that tokens often carry a heavy burden. Because of
their visibility, they are not supposed to make mistakes and
have to work hard to reverse a set image by presenting ‘the’
good example. In summary, when a member of the organization is seen as a token, this magnifies the problem of continuously explaining and justifying one’s role and position as
other. Being an object of diversity measurements therefore
can be quite unattractive over time.
Another problem with temporary policies that develop
into rigid rules and regulations is that ‘others’ entering an
organization through target group policies encounter negative signals from within the organization, despite instrumental attempts such as courses, and training (Ghorashi & van
Tilburg, 2006; Glastra, Meerman, Schedler, & de Vries, 2000).
Therefore, even if the target group policies lead to the
H. Ghorashi, I. Sabelis
desired increase of ethnic minorities, their circulation within
the organization is often not realized. In addition, they are
not prevented from leaving the organization. While affirmative action is necessary to give different groups equal
chances to find work, it can only be successful if it is placed
within a long-term perspective with an integral approach to
diversity (Cox, 1993). This implies ongoing attention, not only
to the position of others in the organization, but also to the
cultural and structural changes implied by the processes that
pervade it. Siebers, Verweel, and de Ruijter (2002) make a
distinction between a limited and a broad approach to
managing diversity. The limited approach to managing diversity is one that primarily focuses on human resources and
personnel management. The broader perspective refers to an
integral approach to diversity with the focus on all levels
within organizations and including interaction with societal
forces as well as internal struggles, encounters, and hybrid
solutions. In order to develop a long-term analysis of processes of inclusion and exclusion, we need to adopt this
integral approach to observe and trace processes of power,
cultural interaction, and incremental change at all levels;
organizational culture (mission, vision, norm and values,
symbols/rituals, etc.), structure (rules and regulations, promotion plans, policies), informal networks (social movements, subcultures), inter-group relations, and individual
performances (Cox, 1993; Zanoni, Nilsson, Janssens, & Wahlin, 2010). This prevents the emergence of blind spots in
understanding how the cultural, structural (managerial),
individual, and informal processes produce and reinforce
taken-for-granted power processes. The production and reinforcement of old and new habits of exclusion and isolation
along the lines of ethnicity, gender, class, age, and other
dimensions, are mainly a case of power dynamics. This then
gives new meaning to the importance of ‘outside enforcement and inside activism’ (Acker, 2006) as essential, but
usually not valued very much when it comes to organizational
policies.
Inspired by critical diversity literature (Dick & Cassell,
2002; Ostendorp & Steyaert, 2009; Zanoni, Janssens, et al.,
2010), in this study we explicitly address the relationship
between the power dynamics underlying diversity management and the effects of essentialist constructions of otherness in organizations.
Power in context
While the initial focus of the literature on diversity and
inclusion in organizations shifted from a social justice
approach to a more managerial one, since the mid-1990s
we have witnessed a move towards a more critical approach
(Foldy, 2002; Prasad & Mills, 1997; Zanoni, Janssens, et al.,
2010). This approach places the notion of power at the centre
of discussions about diversity in organizations. In these studies we observe, generally, two approaches of power: a
critical or domination approach versus a Foucauldian2 or
2
Although we realize that Foucault’s definition of power has had
different translations in various studies, here we follow the most
dominant definition which is used in the critical studies mentioned in
the text.
Juggling difference and sameness: Rethinking strategies for diversity in organizations
discursive approach (Foldy, 2002; Hardy & Clegg, 1999). The
critical approach was first inspired by Marx, later by Gramsci
and has heavily influenced contemporary organization and
management studies, in which power is mainly seen and
approached as domination. While Marx approached domination as class-based and visible suppression related to the
means of production, Gramsci’s focus was on invisible and
taken-for-granted processes of domination, or hegemonies.
It is then assumed that a dominant group consolidates its
hegemony through creating systems of ideas and practices
referred to as common sense (Foldy, 2002, p. 95). The
fundamental aspect of the critical approach is that power
is seen as the cause of injustice and suppression — be it
manifest or latent — and calls for resistance. Additionally,
ruling groups (for example managers in organizations) have
the power to impose their interests because of their position
within the hierarchical structures; this enables the elite (or
managers) to maintain their position of dominance (Foldy,
2002, p. 95; Hardy & Clegg, 1999, p. 629). In this way, critical
or domination theory became a fundament for various kinds
of emancipatory movements outside and inside organizations
(Alvesson and Willmott, 2003, pp. 15, 16).
Foucauldian or discursive power is not about the domination or resistance of groups, but about routinization, formalization, and legalization of everyday practices. Power is
thus no longer a manipulative resource but a web of relations, or structures of dominance, normalizing the actions of
dominant and subordinate groups alike. Because of that the
escape routes for both groups are bounded (Hardy & Clegg,
1999; Hardy & O’Sullivan, 1998), which also limits the scope
of analysis and change for scholars altogether. A major
difference between the Foucauldian and critical approaches
of power — as we defined it above — is that in Foucauldian
understanding power is omni-present, locating the power of
dominance within the discourse itself and not in the hands of
a dominant group, be it men, societal elite, or managers. If
certain groups see power as domination, even if considered
routinized in hegemonic terms; and assuming that there are
powerful and subordinate groups, strategies to resist the
impact of power seem more tangible and observable. A
discursive approach to power implies a different approach
to tackling the sources of inequality in organizations. This is
the main point of our article, and it is our reason for emphasizing discursive power. What is the basis of resistance when
power is everywhere as assumed by the Foucauldian
approach? How could one still discern power structures when
those structures work through us and are not imposed on us
by elite groups? To say it differently, what is left of agency
when we are complicit in the processes of our own domination? This parallels the problem faced by feminist scholars in
their struggle against systematic processes of exclusion: what
happens to emancipation and liberation when there are no
bad guys to blame? Opponents would then argue: ‘‘the
Foucauldian attack on agency removes the possibility of using
power for particular objectives, especially the possibility of
the powerless achieving empowerment’’ (Hardy & Clegg,
1999, p. 381).
Some scholars have analyzed the impact of societal and
organizational discourses on structural sources of inequality
in organizations (Dick & Cassell, 2002; Siebers, 2010; Zanoni
& Janssens, 2003). Others have coined the differences
between discursive and material sources of power in
81
organizations and the spaces for micro-emancipation within
those structures of dominance (Boogaard & Roggeband,
2010; Van Laer & Janssens, 2011; Zanoni & Janssens,
2007). Our aim in this article however is to bring this discussion one step further by mainly focusing on conditions of
change within discursive spaces instead of analyzing the
structures of dominance or providing examples of agency
or micro-emancipation. We rather discuss conditions that
enable negotiation of positions in a situative balance
between difference and sameness through reflecting on
the impact of normalizing power of dominant discourses
in organizations. In doing this, we are particularly inspired
by the struggle of feminist scholars to find conditions for
emancipation within discursive spaces.
Oseen (1997), for example, combines the theories of
Irigaray and Foucault. For her the major question is: how
can the specific experiences of women be captured through
Irigaray’s theories without essentializing?; and how can Foucault’s theory be adapted without forgetting those specific
experiences? These questions illustrate the kind of juggling
act between difference and sameness that is the core concern of this article. For us the precise question is: how can
conditions for engagement and inclusion of cultural others be
created without essentializing cultural differences, and
thereby running the risk of fixing people’s (identity) position?
Oseen demonstrates how, in the discourses that imply a fixed
state of otherness (i.e. in gender relations), power relations
provide a context in which the other is implicitly, and continuously denounced and seen as lacking (see also Prasad &
Prasad, 2002). Going back to what we presented at the
beginning of this article, both the sameness and the difference paradigms place the other in a hierarchical power
relation. The other needs to be either assimilated into, or
marginalized within the organization. In both situations the
other is implicitly and inescapably placed in an inferior
position as seen from the dominant organizational discourse.
Through the pervasive and encompassing character of
discursive power, organizational and linguistic structures
enhance difference, as power always implies hierarchical
positioning of the majority self and the minority others.
When considering others as cultural group members for
example, we tend to ascribe certain characteristics to every
group member. This then prevents us from looking at individuals in their context, from accepting different interpretations of culture, from cultures changing over time, and most
importantly, from questioning our own repertoires with
regard to cultural (ex)change. In organizational settings
we are included, involved, and implied in processes of dealing with sameness and difference all the time. Implicitly, we
depart from sameness when approaching others as continuous group members. By not being aware of the inherent,
often hidden hierarchies in categorizing, we reinforce their
power and (un)consciously, even unintentionally, strengthen
existing power structures.
How can we gain practice-oriented guidance from these
ideas? One of the first problems is that when accepting the
pervasiveness of power, we are immediately confronted with
the fact that organizations as systems are evasive when it
comes to criticizing the very roots of their power and hierarchy. Oseen introduced the concept of contiguity (1997, p.
55) to find a way out of the pervasiveness of power relations.
Contiguity implies the conscious and continuous use of a
82
non-hierarchical view on difference: ‘difference side by side,
without sameness as the norm or the anchor by which difference is constituted’ (idem). Her ultimate argument is for a
conscious inclusion of others into non-hierarchical relationships, which in turn requires a constant, and probably longterm, struggle for establishing relational power forms: ‘capillary-like networks, allegiances, alliances, enabling contiguous relations among people who are indefinitely variable’
(Oseen, 1997, p. 78). This means constant attention to
implicit (taken-for-granted) power relations and a balancing
act between approaching differences in a non-hierarchical
manner without essentializing otherness.
Including others
Including others, instead of assimilating or marginalizing
them, requires reflection upon the self and what is taken
for granted from that position. Taking this as a starting point
means we need to engage in an ongoing balancing act with both
the same and the other in a manner in which the dynamic
(dialectic) connection between the two does not a priori
depart from a hierarchical relationship. Contiguity, as promoted by Oseen, requires new space/s for experimenting with
the notion of diversity in organizations. It helps us ‘‘to construct an Other as distinct from the Other of the same’’ (Oseen,
1997, p. 63). Although contiguity as a concept and what Oseen
refers to as ‘strategic essentialism’ (Oseen, 1997, p. 63)
suggests some level of essentialization, it also provides us
with possibilities to move beyond essentialism. It helps us
foster the awareness of directionality, strategy, and the inherent power alignments in the process (Oseen, 1997). Strategic
essentialism has been part of long-term discussions within
feminist scholarship that seeks to recognize claims on certain
interventions in relationship to gender inequalities while
simultaneously remaining aware of the danger of the reification of categories (Nicholson, 2000). In this way we believe
that strategic essentialism offers a chance to relate the
necessary focus on short-term diversity interventions with a
high number of ever-occurring inequalities in organizations.
Awareness of the temporary and situative (Rosa, 2005) nature
of this strategy makes it possible to prevent reification and
renewed rigidity of those categories. We contend that a lack of
focus on tackling inequalities in organizations is as harmful as
reification. The option of strategic essentialism enables us to
note difference through the various ways that history is embodied and enacted by individuals and, over time, confirmed
through regulations and habits. By explicitly emphasizing the
strategic aspect, the concept opens up possibilities for situative, changeable, and ongoing choices in dealing with cultural
difference on an everyday basis. The temporary quality inherent in this approach serves to further bring about a focus on
action, flexibility, and impermanence.
Although our approach of diversity and otherness in this
paper is broader than cultural diversity, we use the example
of cultural diversity to show how certain differences at times
become more salient than others. It is specifically these
differences that deserve our special attention in terms of
inclusion (see also Prasad et al., 2006, p. 2). Strategic
essentialism helps us to bring the specific focus needed to
address the normalizing power of dominant discourses resulting in long-term sources of severe exclusion. This point brings
us to the cultural others with an Islamic background who
H. Ghorashi, I. Sabelis
currently are in danger of becoming excluded most severely
because of the growing dominance of a culturalist discourse
in Europe. Stolcke (1995) refers to this culturalist discourse
with the core of dichotomization of cultures, which is based
on a homogeneous, static, coherent, and rooted notion of
culture. Within this discourse cultural others are not only
considered as different but also as lacking (Ghorashi, 2010).
Within this discourse migrants with an Islamic background are
constructed as absolute ‘space invaders’ (Puwar, 2004) who
do not belong to the nation but who are tolerated as residents
(Moghissi & Ghorashi, 2010; Parekh, 2006). Siebers (2010)
powerfully shows the impact of anti-immigrant, in particularly anti-Muslim discourse in the Netherlands on minority
employees within Dutch organizations:
Yes, I feel accepted by my colleagues, but you never know
what they think. After all these things that happened
lately [the public events discussed earlier], I feel that
colleagues avoid talking to me about these things. After
events like the murder of Theo van Gogh I feel rejected. (A
Morocco-born employee in Siebers, 2010, p. 485)
This quote shows the subtlety of the ways through which
the dominance of the culturalist discourse informs the normalization of specific processes of exclusion. It also shows the
doubleness of feeling included and excluded at the same
time. Both aspects of normalization (subtleness and doubleness) are also mentioned by Van Laer and Janssens (2011).
The authors argue that the manifestations of this process of
normalization include asking individuals to ‘confess’ their
invisible difference, or to compliment them as individuals
while criticizing their group. These acts of either subjecting
individuals to confession or making them individual exceptions, maintain the norm and are disempowering for minority
groups in organizations. To make the tacit impact of this
discursive power visible, the mentioned focus on salient
differences is necessary. Strategic essentialism provides possibilities here, yet possibilities with an edge.
As discussed, adapting the culturalist discourse, emphasizing the added value of the culturally other, is ineffective
because of the power of the normalization of negative connotations within the present dominant discourse (Ghorashi,
2007). Boogaard and Roggeband (2010) show that when ‘‘one
identity is deployed by employees to gain advantage over
others, they end up reproducing structures that generate
inequality not only along that identity, but also along one that
disadvantages them’’ (2010, p. 63). Along the same line of
reasoning, we see the possible shortcomings of strategic
essentialism in that it could reinforce the present inclination
to categorize cultures as fixed and ultimately resistant to the
kind of temporary essentialism that is explicitly situative. An
example here is that most members of minority groups do not
feel a sense of belonging to the organizations they are part of
because of the persistent fixation on them as being different
(Ghorashi & van Tilburg, 2006; Van Laer & Janssens, 2011).
The fixation on difference and/or fixed categorisation of
cultures frustrates labour relations along with lowering the
motivation and sense of belonging. Siebers’ (2009) study in
various organizations shows a similar pattern:
Categorization frustrates minority employees’ aim to become recognized as a good colleague since they are
flocked into an opposing category. Also their quest for
Juggling difference and sameness: Rethinking strategies for diversity in organizations
recognition for their individuality is frustrated by categorization since it identifies them as representatives of an
opposing category. (Siebers, 2009, p. 81)
Nevertheless, without this focus on salient differences we
fear that organizational policies for change become too
diffuse to tackle the sources of exclusion requiring urgent
attention. During various conversations within organizations
and with members of civil society organizations, individuals
from various minority groups who had witnessed the change
of policy from target group to general diversity mentioned
their concerns. They shared that under target group policies
they were merely seen as absolute others who needed to be
helped and accommodated.3 However, via diversity policies
they had become invisible altogether, since diversity ‘‘is
about everybody’’, as they told us. For us the on-going
experiment is to find a stance between the necessity of
the attention for a specific diversity category and yet being
aware of the possibility for it to become fixed. Simultaneously, we realize the need to address the chosen category
in the context of the situations that it is presented.
Keeping an eye open to the effects of fixation on difference within organizations means a continuous struggle to go
beyond essentialism. This is even more the case when strategic essentialism is chosen as a diversity strategy. The main
challenge would be to recognize otherness while making
space for individual experiences beyond categorisations.
For us the major issue to be considered is how to start an
encounter which includes differences and excludes reified
categorisations. This kind of approach to difference means
beginning from the situation in the here-and-now instead of
from a preset cultural understanding, yet having in mind that
in the present culturalist (discursive) space we (both people
from majority and minority groups) are culturally positioned.
Creating space in organizational and communicative settings
always entails taking ‘time out’ as well. Then, adapting
contiguity means starting with the awareness of hierarchies
of cultural difference, yet choosing to create conditions for
encounters based on openness and curiosity (see also Tennekes, 1994). For a more sustainable encounter with the
other, especially in the power-laden context of organizations, another strategic aspect should be involved, which the
philosopher de Boer and Tamara (1993) considers a prerequisite for intercultural dialogue. Inspired by other philosophers he writes about epochè: a temporary suspension of the
truth of one’s own judgement. One cannot listen to another
person without temporarily putting a question mark over
one’s own convictions. This does not involve casting doubt
on one’s own ideas; rather, it involves creating a common
space and time in which individuals can listen to each other
and grow closer. In de Boer’s view, without suspension (and a
time out), discussion is pointless; without conviction, there is
nothing at stake. Through this strategy, contiguity helps to
reflect upon the hierarchical foundation of cultural difference embedded with the dominant discourse. Epochè
3
Both authors are engaged scholars who are active participants
within the Dutch public space. They provide a variety of lectures for
profit and non-profit organizations and participate in panel discussions. This enables them to contact a broad range of groups and
include these informal conversations.
83
enables the openness necessary to listen. The position of
the other is not approached as a deviation from the norm but
as a possible positioning within the discursive space and
outside the time of the routine (or action) currently at hand.
Janssens and Steyaert (2001) suggest a similar tactic, following Serres, which is ‘to step aside’ meaning stepping into the
margins of power in order to create space for the voice of the
other and one’s own voice from the perspective of difference. ‘Taking a step aside’ enables individuals to temporarily
create a space emptied of convictions and judgments that are
informed by the normalization power of the discourse. This
generates unexpected new connections of perspectives.
These conditions bring us to ‘alterity’, which involves
approaching the other from the position of the other (Janssens & Steyaert, 2001). This is the necessary condition to
enable connections between (cultural) positioning within
discursive spaces without being completely subjected to
the hierarchical orders of self or other imposed through
the normalizing power of dominant discourses. Through stepping aside, alterity is facilitated, meaning that a space is
created to listen to the story of the other from his or her own
position in a more comprehensive manner. This brings the
listener closer to the perspective of the other, creating
possibilities of connection through points of identification
with parts of the story. Through this connecting and shifting
of positions, sameness is created through space for difference and not in spite of or instead of difference. The assumption here is that a process of distancing from ‘the center’ as a
tacit command in contiguity could create novel ways of and
space for relating to the other; novel ways that bring difference and sameness in balancing situative movements. By
giving away one’s position, one that at the same time ‘gives
way’ (Janssens & Steyaert, 2001, p. 106), one does not have
to protect or defend one’s space. Constantly ‘giving a/way’
creates a movement which prevents people from becoming
‘tied’ to positions of power (Serres in Janssens & Steyaert,
2001, p. 106). Constantly stepping aside is like dancing; and
dance becomes the metaphor not only for giving way, but also
for creating a new meeting ground devoid of the antagonisms
of power (see also Ghorashi & Wels, 2009).
The conditions mentioned above show that for finding the
balance between sameness and difference, creating space —
and taking time — seems the option most likely to create the
necessary foundation for unexpected connections of cultural
encounters beyond the defining (and limiting) power of
dominant discourses. This does not mean that these conditions will erase inequalities within organizations, instead it
implies alternative ways to approach these inequalities. In
everyday practices, relationships of similarity and difference
are made through a somewhat unreflective process of ‘discursive positioning’ producing ‘categorical alternatives’
(Ybema et al., 2009, p. 307). Contiguity, epochè, and alterity
enable connections that are based on necessary reflection on
discursive positioning to create empathy and changing perspectives. In this way encounters are not dictated by unreflective categories of difference, but enhanced by the
situative act of changing alterity through negotiations of
the positions of difference. Through this, what we call dance
of perspectives, new opportunities are created for the production and construction of alternative and shared meanings
and new options of encounter. This means that not only
subject positions but also organizational choices could be
84
negotiated in a spatial—temporal realm which is not solely
defined by dominant discourses of othering. It is a realm, a
niche in space and time, where narrations come together
from positions of difference to negotiate constructions of
common goals and shared meanings that are more lasting
than the pre-assumed meanings provoked by an essentialist,
fragmented and unreliable knowledge (see also Collins,
1991). Creating this option enables what Johnson and
Duberely (2003, p. 1290) refer to as ‘epistemic reflexivity’
through which ‘‘social constructions in-use could arrive
democratically rather than as the outcome of power play’’.
Adapting these strategies on the level of individual, group,
and organizational interactions and creating combinations
with what we earlier referred to as an integral approach of
diversity, are the basic conditions to create a sustainable,
continuous management of diversity in organizations.
Conclusion: a dance of perspectives
An approach that promotes stepping aside and making room for
negotiation and reflexivity can be criticized as naive in these
times of managerial prominence, also in organization studies.
In these times of globalisation and worldwide crises, who cares
about encounters between the ‘self and the other’? However,
departing from the historical development of diversity, into
diversity management, followed by explicit attention to power
dimensions in the debate, brought us to the conclusion that
critical positions do not necessarily provide guidance for
everyday practices in organizations. Stressing the inherent
‘economic benefit’, as promoted in the 1990s, has invited
diversity management to become a rather rigid, essentialist,
procedure driven issue. This has not produced new potential,
or visible benefits while the social justice motive gradually
faded (from a managerial perspective at least).
We argued that managing diversity in organizations in a
sustainable manner starts with unravelling and re-examining
power structures (Dick & Cassell, 2002; Ostendorp &
Steyaert, 2009; Zanoni, Janssens, et al., 2010). As Foldy
(2002, p. 109) rightfully argues ‘‘diversity programmes that
downplay or ignore issues of dominance or subordination
cannot succeed in making even superficial changes in organizations; they are sidestepping the elephant in the room.’’
This means that new ways of managing diversity involve
renewed and active engagement with the sources of exclusion which are constructed through domination of salient
discourses in overlapping spaces, between the different
layers in an organization, for instance, but also via diverse
interests, or conditions for (non) involvement. This engagement entails both a long term, durable perspective on dealing with issues of inequality and exclusion and a short term,
active focus to create and maintain the necessary reflexivity
for capturing the momentum to disturb the normalizing,
normative foundations of hierarchical power positions of self
and other as the fundamental entities of organizational life.
In this article we again presented the importance of
looking at discursive power. We argued that we need to
include that power in our analysis to review the sameness—difference dilemma in managing diversity. As mentioned above this article is strongly inspired by the critical
studies in organization which have shown the subtle ways
that hegemonic and discursive power structures (re)produce
H. Ghorashi, I. Sabelis
inequalities in organizations even when inclusion is assumed
(Prasad & Mills, 1997; Van Laer & Janssens, 2011). We also
discussed some critical studies that have suggested an integral approach of diversity in organizations including power
analysis as an essential step in changing organizational patterns of exclusion (Cox, 1993; Siebers et al., 2002; Zanoni,
Nilsson, et al., 2010). Some other studies have shown the
differentiated forms of agency and layeredness of inclusion
and exclusion (Boogaard & Roggeband, 2010; Zanoni & Janssens, 2007). Yet, in our article we added a new element to
these insights by borrowing from feminist scholars’ passion
for activism. We provided some necessary conditions for
engagement within organizations to enable inclusion of difference without essentializing it. These conditions could
stimulate reviving the forgotten passionate activism within
organizations in which all actors claim their own role in
changing the structures of inequality. The first step to realize
this claim is the willingness to start a process of reflection on
one’s taken for granted positioning within the dominant
discourses. The conditions to enable it are epoché, contiguity
and alterity as described above. Reaching the situative balance of sameness and difference can only be possible through
recurrent negotiation of positions to create shared meanings
free from power plays. This requires continuous reflection on
the impact of normalization in everyday practices. To include
others in the organization, images of the self and its inherent
normativity (e.g. of the norm employee) need to be uncovered and rethought. To start this process we argued that
strategic essentialism could serve as a strategy for making
differences matter. Yet to make it durable we believe more is
needed. A ‘dance of perspectives’ initiated by strategic
essentialism should enable reflection on the normalized
structures of exclusion throughout all levels of organizational
thinking and practice. This implies a constant search for, and
claim of temporal niches for reflection to create non-norm
based negotiation of positions to foster shared meanings and
to plan common goals.
The proposed approach of diversity, including the ongoing
challenge of discursive positionings and thus reflection over
ever-changing power relations, helps to facilitate a dance of
perspectives because it considers individuals as active agents
who re/negotiate their multiple identities to create new
meanings. When individuals embrace this option in relation
to their multiple identities, it enables them to make unorthodox interspaces for encounters and connection. Moreover, it
enhances the capacity for learning and coping with the
unexpected effects of rigid essentialist positions by the mere
fact that these are implied in the action. In other words, what
interests us are the situations and realms in which individuals
interact and the ways in which they engage and negotiate
with varieties of discourses as opposed to the ways that
cultures a priori inform the actions of individuals.
In this sense we need to make room for new approaches to
diversity in organizations, in which there is space for understanding individual choices and practices through the ways
these are, or become, positioned in the intersection of
various societal and organizational discourses. To do this
we need to rethink the conditions that enable experimenting
with ethnic and other strategically used (or exploited)
boundaries in organizations, allowing new mixtures and
hybrid positioning, along with in-between spaces and times
to figure out ‘what is going on’ when cultural differences are
Juggling difference and sameness: Rethinking strategies for diversity in organizations
at stake. While stressing managerial interests may prevent
genuine change and slow the pace (tempo) of bringing about
inclusiveness at work, contiguity, carving out space and time,
and practicing alterity should enable connections based on
reflection and a new discursive positioning to create empathy
and change of perspectives.
References
Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in
organizations. Gender & Society, 20, 441—464.
Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (2003). Introduction. In M. Alvessson &
H. Willmott (Eds.), Studying Management Critically (pp. 1—22).
London: Sage.
Benschop, Y., & Doorewaard, H. (1998). Covered by equality: The
gender subtext of organizations. Organization Studies, 19(5),
787—807.
Boogaard, B., & Roggeband, C. (2010). Paradoxes of intersectionality: Theorizing inequality in the Dutch police force through
structure and agency. Organization, 17(1), 53—75.
due Billing, Y. d., & Sundin, E. (2006). From managing equality to
managing diversity. A critical Scandinavian perspective on gender
and workplace diversity. In A. M. Konrad, P. Prasad, & J. K. Pringle
(Eds.), Handbook of workplace diversity. London: Sage Publications. pp. 95—121.
de Boer, T., & Tamara, A. (1993). Awater en andere verhalen over
subjectiviteit. Amsterdam: Boom.
Cavanaugh, M. J. (1997). (In)corporating the other? Managing the
politics of workplace difference. In P. Prasad, A. J. Mills, M.
Elmes, & A. Prasad (Eds.), Managing the organizational melting
pot: Dilemmas of workplace diversity. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications. pp. 31—54.
Collins, P. H. (1991). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge.
Cox, T., Jr. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations. San Francisco:
Berret-Koehler Publishers.
Dick, P., & Cassell, C. (2002). Barriers to managing diversity in a UK
constabulary: The role of discourse. Journal of Management
Studies, 39(7), 953—976.
Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The
effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and
outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 229—273.
Essed, P. (1991). Understanding everyday racism: An interdisciplinary theory. London: Sage Publishers. [Orig. Dissertation 1984,
Alledaags Racisme, Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Sara.].
Essed, P. (2002). Cloning cultural homogeneity while talking diversity: Old wines in new bottles in Dutch work organizations? Transforming Anthropology, 11(1), 2—12.
Foldy, E. G. (2002). ‘Managing’ diversity: Identity and power in organisations. In I. Aaltio & A. J. Mills (Eds.), Gender, identity and the
culture of organizations (pp. 92—112). London: Routledge.
Ghorashi, H. (2007). The paradoxes of cultural diversity within
organizations. The International Journal of Diversity in Organizations, Communities & Nations, 7(5), 223—229.
Ghorashi, H. (2010). From absolute invisibility to extreme visibility:
Emancipation trajectory of migrant women in the Netherlands.
Feminist Review, 94, 75—92.
Ghorashi, H., & van Tilburg, M. (2006). When is my Dutch good
enough? Experiences of refugee women with Dutch labour organisations. Journal of International Migration and Integration,
7(1), 51—70.
Ghorashi, H., & Wels, H. (2009). Beyond complicity: A plea for
engaged ethnography. In S. Ybema, D. Yanow, H. Wels, & F.
Kamsteeg (Eds.), Organizational ethnography. Studying the
complexities of everyday organizational life. London: Sage.
pp. 231—253.
85
Glastra, F., Meerman, M., Schedler, P., & de Vries, S. (2000). Broadening the scope of diversity management: Strategic implications
in the case of the Netherlands. Industrial Relations, 55(4), 698—
724.
Hardy, C., & Leiba-O’Sullivan, S. (1998). The power behind empowerment: Implications for research and practice. Human Relations,
51(4), 451—483.
Hardy, C., & Clegg, S. R. (1999 [1996]). Some dare call it power. In S.
R. Clegg & C. Hardy (Eds.), Studying organization: Theory &
method. London: Sage Publications. pp. 368—387.
Holvino, E., & Kamp, A. (2009). Diversity management: Are we
moving in the right direction? Reflections from both sides of
the North Atlantic. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25,
395—403.
Janssens, M., & Steyaert, C. (2001). Meerstemmigheid: Organiseren
met verschil. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
Johnson, P., & Duberely, J. (2003). Reflexivity in management research. Journal of Management Studies, 40(5), 1279—1303.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York:
Basic Books.
Koot, W. (1997). The strategic use of ethnicity in contemporary
organizations. In S. Sackman (Ed.), Cultural complexity in organizations. London: Sage. pp. 315—339.
Loden, M., & Rosener, J. B. (1991). Workforce America!: Managing
employee diversity as a vital resource. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Liff, S., & Wajcman, J. (1996). ‘Sameness’ and ‘difference’ revisited:
Which way forward for equal opportunity initiatives? Journal of
Management Studies, 33(1), 79—94.
Moghissi, H., & Ghorashi, H. (2010). Muslim diaspora in the west:
Negotiating gender home and belonging. Surrey: Ashgate.
Nicholson, L. (2000). Gender. In A. M. Jaggar & I. M. Young (Eds.), A
comparison to feminist philosophy. Massachusetts: Blackwell. pp.
289—298.
Oseen, C. (1997). The sexually specific subject and the dilemma of
difference: Rethinking the different in the construction of the
nonhierarchical workplace. In P. Prasad, A. J. Mills, M. Elmes, & A.
Prasad (Eds.), Managing the organizational melting pot: Dilemmas of workplace diversity. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
pp. 54—80.
Ostendorp, A., & Steyaert, C. (2009). How difference can differences
be(come)? Interpretative repertoires of diversity concepts in
Swiss-based organizations. Scandinavian Journal of Management,
25, 374—384.
Parekh, B. (2006). Europe, liberalism and the ‘Muslim question’. In T.
Modood, A. Triadafyllidou, & R. Zapata-Barrero (Eds.), Multiculturalism, muslims and citizenship: A European approach. London:
Routledge. pp. 179—204.
Prasad, P., & Mills, A. J. (1997). From showcase to shadow: Understanding the dilemmas of managing workplace diversity. In P.
Prasad, A. Mills, M. Elmes, & A. Prasad (Eds.), Managing the
organizational melting pot: Dilemmas of workplace diversity.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. pp. 3—28.
Prasad, A., & Prasad, P. (2002). Otherness at large: Identity and
difference in the new globalized organizational landscape. In I.
Aaltio & A. J. Mills (Eds.), Gender, identity and culture of organizations. London, New York: Routledge. pp. 57—71.
Prasad, P., Pringle, J. K., & Konrad, A. M. (2006). Examining the
contours of workplace diversity: Concepts, contexts and challenges. In A. M. Konrad, P. Prasad, & J. K. Pringle (Eds.), Handbook
of workplace diversity. London: Sage Publications. pp.1—23.
Puwar, N. (2004). Thinking about making a difference. The British
Journal of Politics and International Relations, 6(1), 65—80.
Rosa, H. (2005). Beschleunigung die veränderung der zeitstrukturen
in der moderne. Acceleration — changing time structures in
modernity]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Sabelis, I. (1996). Temporal paradoxes-working with cultural diversity in organizations. In W. Koot, I. Sabelis, & S. Ybema
(Eds.), Contradictions in context. Puzzling over paradoxes in
86
contemporary organizations. Amsterdam: VU University Press.
pp. 171—192.
Siebers, H., Verweel, P., & de Ruijter, A. (2002). Management van
diversiteit in arbeidsorganisaties. Diversity management in work
organizations]. Utrecht: Lemma.
Siebers, H. (2009). Struggles for recognition: The politics of racioethnic identity among Dutch national tax administrators. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25, 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.
Stolcke, V. (1995). Talking culture: New boundaries, new rhetorics of
exclusion in Europe. Current Anthropology, 36(1), 1—24.
Tennekes, J. (1994). Communicatie en cultuurverschil [Communication and cultural difference]. M&O, Tijdschrift voor organisatiekunde en sociaal beleid, 48(2), 130—144.
Thomas, R. R. (1991). Beyond race and gender: Unleashing the power
of your total work force by managing diversity. New York: Amacom.
Van Laer, K., & Janssens, M. (2011). Ethnic minority professionals’
experiences with subtle discrimination in the workplace. Human
Relations, 64(9), 1203—1227.
H. Ghorashi, I. Sabelis
Ybema, S., Keenoy, T., Oswick, C., Beverungen, A., Ellis, N., &
Sabelis, I. (2009). Articulating identities. Human Relations,
62(3), 299—322.
Zanoni, P. (2011). Diversity in the lean automobile factory: Doing
class through gender disability and age. Organization, 18(1),
105—127.
Zanoni, P., & Janssens, M. (2003). Deconstructing difference: The
rhetoric of human resource managers’ diversity discourses. Organization Studies, 25(1), 55—74.
Zanoni, P., & Janssens, M. (2007). Minority employees engaging with
(diversity) management: An analysis of control, agency, and microemancipation. Journal of Management Studies, 44(8), 1371—1397.
Zanoni, P., Janssens, M., Benschop, Y., & Nkomo, S. (2010a). Guest
editorial: Unpacking diversity grasping inequality: Rethinking
difference through critical perspectives. Organization, 17(1),
9—29.
Zanoni, P., Nilsson, A., Janssens, M., & Wahlin, N. (2010b). Towards
sustainable diversity in organizations: Lessons from good diversity
management practices. In M. Janssens, M. Bechtoldt, A. de
Ruijter, D. Pinelli, G. Prarolo, & V. Stenius (Eds.), The sustainability of cultural diversity: Nations, cities and organizations.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. pp. 261—281.