Content area
Full text
ABSTRACT
Queer theory is a relatively new theoretical approach in organizational discourse that we think can uncover power relations and normative and hierarchical processes in diversity management discourse. 'Heteronormativity' and 'performativity', core concepts of queer theory, critique categorization and fixed identities and thereby problematize and broaden perspectives on current diversity management discourse, especially those associated with organizational constructions of diversity dimensions. In this article, we focus on the discursive and intersectional construction of subject positions and identities within organizations by drawing upon a queer theoretical framework to analyze three companies' codes of conduct that claim to create an inclusive work environment. The deconstructive analysis of these discursive artifacts emphasizes the intersectional power dynamics of and between the categories of sex, gender and sexuality, and can be taken as a point of departure for questioning the heteronormative arrangements of diversity management practices.
Keywords: heteronormativity, diversity, differences, identity, categorization
DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT AS STARTING POINT
Important economic, demographic, social, cultural and legal changes have triggered diversity management to become a significant topic in organizational theory (see e.g. Becker & Seidel 2006; Bendl, Hanappi-Egger & Hofmann 2004; Koall, Bruchhagen & Höher 2007; Konrad, Pushkala & Pringle 2006; Prasad, Mills, Elmes & Prasad 1997; Sepehri 2002) and practice (Engel & Hofmann 2004; European Commission 2005; Trinkfass & Enders 2006; Wolff 2006). Although theoretical framings of diversity management have become more complex, the term 'diversity' is usually conceptualized along different demographic dimensions, which are considered fixed and establish social and functional differences between individuals or groups. Moreover, the constructions and applications of diversity dimensions (e.g. gender, age, 'race', religion, sexual orientation, dis/ability) are seldom questioned or scrutinized.1 As this article shows, treating diversity dimensions as fixed contributes to the development of certain identity constructions and ignores intersectional effects (as social phenomena) among the dimensions and the fluidity of these constructions. In addition, the increasing discursive use of the terms 'diversity' and 'dimensions' instead of 'differences' and 'categories' seems to conceal the related and underlying social re-construction of power relations. Consequently, diversity management research and practices fail to question processes of categorization and power structures. This discursive process contrasts, however, with frequent claims in literature and practice that consider diversity management an organizational change tool to create an inclusive work environment....