Spinning in circles. Following the practices of non-performativity of a diversity committee Open Access

The question of how to create change towards (gender) equality, diversity and inclusion has become increasingly important for both organizations and organizational scholars. Previous research has suggested various measures to address organizational (in)equality and diversity, such as diversity training (Dobbin and Kalev, 2016; Lombardo and Mergaert, 2013); gender action plans (Bergqvist et al., 2013; Tzanakou and Pearce, 2019), and diversity networks (Dennissen, 2020; Villesèche et al., 2022). These studies show mixed results: although small steps are made, many studies point to the superficial effects or even negative consequences of diversity interventions (Leslie, 2019; Saba et al., 2021). There is, however, some consensus amongst scholars on the importance of organizational responsibility for change to be successful (Holck, 2016; Kalev et al., 2006; Roos et al., 2020). Organizational responsibility can take on various forms, but is frequently set up in the form of a diversity committee. Diversity committees seem to be a popular practice in organizations (Dobbin and Kalev, 2013, 2015; Kalev et al., 2006), but we still know little about the functioning of diversity committees. Research on other diversity measures has shown that the mere presence of a diversity initiative does not automatically translate to organizational change (Ahmed, 2007; Dean, 2018). Consequently, there exists a need to critically explore the functioning of diversity committees to understand how they can contribute to changing organizational norms, practices and inequalities.

This paper aims to contribute to filling the gap in theorizing on diversity committees through an in-depth analysis of one diversity committee in the Dutch military, inspired by a practice-based approach (Janssens and Steyaert, 2019; Nicolini, 2009a). This helps us to understand why the committee, despite its exemplary reputation in the organization, does not contribute to meaningful organizational change. Insights from a practice-based approach allow us to show how the committee and its members have ended up in a routine of habitual sayings and doings. Through careful analysis of observations of diversity committee meetings and interviews with its members, we identify three practices: rethinking, non-prioritizing, and making diversity palatable. We also show how these are situated in a particular organizational context. Overall, our analysis illustrates that the committee’s diversity work is non-performative (Ahmed, 2012): although the committee is ineffective, its presence gives an illusion of change. The committee’s existence therefore makes it possible for the organization to do nothing regarding diversity change. This paper extends theories on diversity committees and non-performative diversity work by showing how a committee and its practices can constrain change. For diversity committees to counter inequalities at work, we need to consider how power, knowledge and accountability are organized.

Although progress to more equal organizations is slow, studies on diversity interventions do highlight one promising way to create organizational change: assigning organizational responsibility (Holck, 2016; Kalev et al., 2006; Roos et al., 2020). This organizational responsibility is frequently set up in the form of a diversity committee or task force (Dobbin and Kalev, 2015, 2022). However, little empirical research is done on the functioning of diversity committees and we still know little about how they contribute to meaningful diversity change. The vast majority of existing studies focus on outlining “best practices” for diversity committees (e.g. Kolluru et al., 2023; Lingras et al., 2023). Most of these studies build on Leon and Williams (2016), who study ten diversity committees in research institutions and point to five conditions for committees to be effective. According to them, committees need: (1) a clear definition of diversity and what this entails in their organization, (2) a distinct role and responsibility, (3) a defined scope (including who they report to), (4) to have members from different groups and parts of the organization, and (5) to be clearly established either permanently or temporarily.

In this paper, we take a more critical perspective on the functioning of a diversity committee to study the power, politics and privilege involved in trying to create organizational change (Kornau et al., 2023; Nkomo et al., 2019; Zanoni et al., 2010). This allows us to look at the doings of the committee (Risberg and Corvellec, 2022). Previous studies have also provided insights into the power, politics and privilege involved in doing diversity work. People who are made responsible for diversity often hold weak institutional positions (Anderson, 2019; Benschop and Verloo, 2006), granting them little power to create change through a diversity committee. Doing diversity work can have negative career consequences; some people refrain from joining diversity committees for this reason (Fisher and Roper, 2015; Smith and Roberts, 2007). Support from organizational leadership is crucial to create change (Singletary et al., 2021), and senior management should grant a diversity committee adequate resources and the authority to decide on initiatives (Risberg, 2012).

Research on other diversity initiatives has shown that the presence of such an initiative does not automatically translate to organizational change (Ahmed, 2007; Dean, 2018; Dover et al., 2020). For example, diversity initiatives can serve as smokescreen (Bourabain, 2023) or may be used by organizations to “peacock how equal they are” (Yarrow and Johnston, 2023, p. 769). Ahmed (2012) uses the concept of non-performativity to analyze how organizational statements of commitment to diversity change do not necessarily result in said commitment or in change. Ahmed argues that practices are non-performative when they do not produce the effects that they name. Within organizations, statements of commitment are often seen as proof that an organization is indeed committed to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), regardless of actual change efforts. These statements are thus non-performative: uttering commitment to diversity comes to stand in for creating diversity change. We employ Ahmed’s conceptualization of non-performativity to understand a diversity committee’s functioning and contributions to organizational change.

To study this diversity committee, we draw on insights from a practice-based approach. An initial review of our data showed that the diversity committee was stuck in a routine, and that its members habitually practiced similar doings and sayings. Studying practices is exceedingly useful to explore these habits and routines to better understand how the committee functions and why it can(not) create meaningful organizational change. A practice-based approach centers practices as the object of study. It thus focuses on people’s everyday doings and sayings, and how these are related to other practices, the organizational context and history (Nicolini and Monteiro, 2017). In doing so, it takes materiality and embodiment seriously, and analyzes the role of artifacts, the body and the material structure (Nicolini, 2009a). Furthermore, practices are not seen as a static object but as an ongoing production and accomplishment (Feldman and Orlikowski, 2011; Nicolini, 2009b); they are performances that only exist to the extent that they are reproduced (Nicolini, 2009b, 2017). Inspired by these insights from a practice-based approach, we decided to zoom in on the doings and sayings of the committee.

An emerging stream of literature draws on a practice-based approach to study diversity work (Dennissen, 2020; Janssens and Steyaert, 2020; O'Learly and Sandberg, 2017). However, in most diversity research, the term “practice” is used as everyday term (Janssens and Steyaert, 2020); diversity networks or diversity training can be termed “diversity practices” without necessarily referring to the theoretical underpinning of a practice-based approach. Although some studies mention the practices of diversity committees, these tend to discuss “best practices”. Studying diversity work “as practice” entails a distinctive approach, which centers the day-to-day performance of diversity work (Janssens and Steyaert, 2019; O'Learly and Sandberg, 2017). In doing so, researching diversity from a practice lens adds to the study of organizational change towards diversity and equality (Gagnon et al., 2022), as a further explanation of the specific organizational practices and their interconnectedness helps to understand the slow pace of change and could direct us to what needs to be done to change these practices.

Overall, research suggests that committees are a popular way to structure organizational responsibility for diversity. However, we know little about the functioning of these committees and critical perspectives on how committees contribute to organizational change are lacking. In this paper, we aim to contribute to filling this gap by studying the practices of one diversity committee in a specific organizational context: the Dutch military.

This paper is based on a qualitative study of a diversity committee in the Dutch military. We zoom in on the practices of this diversity committee, while simultaneously taking the broader organizational context into account. The Dutch military is an interesting case when it comes to DEI. Despite a lack of diversity in terms of personnel and a prevailing assimilation culture (Andriessen et al., 2017), recent years have witnessed a surge in DEI policy initiatives, backed by support from top leadership. The study focuses on one of the four military branches. To maintain confidentiality, specific branch details are omitted.

We choose to study this particular military branch’s diversity committee because it was regarded as exemplary for DEI efforts within the Dutch military. Initially established as a temporary project group in 2017, it transitioned into a permanent committee in early 2019. Comprising members from three different sections of the military branch - the staff, the education center, and the center for operations – attendance varied between six to sixteen members, with a majority being women in non-military roles, and only occasionally non-white members. Members attended mostly out of personal interest in the subject, as their organizational roles were not, or only marginally, related to diversity. The committee was chaired by the chief of staff but, if they could not attend, meetings would sometimes be chaired by someone else. While meetings were supposed to occur every six weeks, they often faced scheduling difficulties and cancellations, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, shifting to online sessions via Microsoft Teams. Committee agendas were primarily set by the chair, often in collaboration with Sylvia, a committee member who was a civilian employee within the organization with extensive experience with diversity-related work. Meetings mainly focused on generating potential plans (see Table 1), such as organizing a Diversity Day, implementing gender quotas, enhancing diversity in selection boards, and integrating diversity into the curriculum. Despite this, the committee did not manage to organize any activities or effect any change in the time period it was observed.

This qualitative study is based on observations of committee meetings, supplemented with interviews with committee members, and a limited number of artefacts. From September 2019 to April 2021, the first author observed all committee meetings (see Table 1). Notes were taken to record discussions and participants’ contributions. During meetings, the first author did not make any comments and acted solely as an observer. Additionally, sixteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with committee members, both those that attended meetings and those that were invited but (often) did not join. Topics discussed included their perspectives on diversity, their involvement in the committee and their experiences. Interviews lasted between thirty and ninety minutes, and were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Names used in this study are fictional to protect participants’ anonymity.

Between September 2019 and March 2020, the first author observed four in-person committee meetings. Because of COVID-19, meetings shifted online from June 2020 onwards, initially less frequent but with increased participation and fewer absences. Interviews started in March 2020 and ended in November 2020, and were mainly conducted via telephone or online platforms due to pandemic restrictions.

Observational and interview data were analyzed to understand how this military branch addresses diversity and inclusion. Initially focused on exploring the diversity committee’s work, our research shifted towards examining what was hindering change. Drawing on insights from a practice-based approach (Janssens and Steyaert, 2020; Nicolini, 2017), we analyzed materiality, discourse and embodiment as these elements shape organizational practices (see Table 2).

The initial data analysis involved repeated reading and open coding, generating diverse codes reflecting various aspects of meetings and interviews, such as support, attendance, resistance, and uncertainty. In the subsequent phase, patterns and connections among codes were sought, some specific to the committee and others to the broader organization. We were inspired by Nicolini’s zooming in and out approach (Nicolini, 2009a, b); we focused on the immediate actions and expressions while considering materiality, discourse, and embodiment. Three committee practices emerged: rethinking, non-prioritizing, and making diversity palatable. Zooming out revealed their interconnectedness with the particular organizational context.

In this section, we describe three practices of the diversity committee that constrain its efforts to create organizational change and illustrate how these practices are interconnected with the organizational context.

The first practice we observe is “rethinking”: the tendency by committee members to continually question what they do and reconsider what they should be doing. Our observations show that, in nearly every meeting, committee members returned to similar topics and questions. We identify four ways in which the practice of rethinking becomes visible, by questioning: (1) the committee’s role, goal, and mandate, (2) what diversity means, (3) whether diversity is still an issue, and (4) whether the committee has enough information to act.

First, members question the role, goal, and mandate of the committee. While most meetings focused on creating an action plan, discussions often deviated towards the process and the committee’s position in the organization. In February 2019, the organization’s highest council signed a memo to permanently establish the diversity committee. This memo stated that the committee’s goal was “to adopt plans and oversee progress”; it also specified that the committee would report back to this highest council. Yet our observations show that attendees were unsure what they were allowed to do, which was complicated by the military hierarchy in which decision making is mainly in the hands of high-ranking employees (see practice of non-prioritizing) Both in meetings ^[1] and interviews, members indicated that they felt the committee had no clear vision or goal, and that they were unsure what they wanted to accomplish. High absence and turnover in committee membership reinforced this perceived unclarity (see practice of non-prioritizing). Members frequently asked whether the committee had an advisory role or if they could develop their own plans ^[2]. For instance, in December 2019, a member (man, military employee) wondered whether the committee “even has the power to make decisions.” In an interview, a member who frequently attended the meetings (woman, civilian employee) lamented the lack of clear goals and said: “each meeting we backtrack to [questions of] ‘what are we going to do’ and ‘what is our role’”. Overall, and despite the memo outlining their mandate, committee members did not know to what extent they had the power to formulate and execute plans, if they needed prior approval and whose approval that would be.

Second, the practice of rethinking manifests through questioning what diversity means. Committee members grappled with understanding the scope of diversity and which groups they were supposed to focus on ^[3]. Some suggested prioritizing women as the “easiest” (woman, military employee) group to target, while others advocated for a broader focus, emphasizing “we are all humans” (woman, military employee) ^[4]. These discussions often circled back to a statement of commitment from early 2019 ^[5], in which the organization commits itself to:

The statement did not include a definition of diversity, nor did it mention the committee’s role. Regardless, members drew on this statement – by referring to it and reading it aloud – to gain insight into the committee’s role ^[6]. Members did not use any other documents to guide their work. Consequently, discussions were disrupted by questions about what diversity and inclusion actually meant ^[7]. In September 2019, the chair (man, military employee) said: “We’ve said to each other: ‘D&I [diversity and inclusion] is important’, but D&I means everything and nothing simultaneously”. Because of this uncertainty, conversations about plans were often interrupted by renewed questioning of whether a plan fell under the (undefined) scope of diversity and inclusion, or whether a certain idea was really what they should focus on. Interviewees were also asked to define diversity and inclusion. Some stated that it meant that the organization should be accepting towards people who are different, while others argued that valuing and using people’s talents and qualities could improve the organization. One interviewee (man, military employee) said: “It’s not that we think that women or Moroccans are pitiful […] We desperately need them. So it’s a business issue”. Another (woman, civilian employee) claimed: “I see it [diversity] as giving consideration to everyone in your organization”. These varied, and sometimes vague, answers show that there was not one shared perspective on what diversity and inclusion meant.

Third, members question whether diversity is still an issue in the organization. When plans for specific minority groups were discussed, members would question whether it was necessary to focus on this group ^[8]. During a discussion on Coming Out Day ^[9], someone (man, military employee) said: “I highly question how much of a topic this is. I have multiple homosexual colleagues, it’s never been an issue”. Instead of relying on studies on this topic, members based their input on their own feelings and opinions. One interviewee (woman, military employee) stated:

The tendency to reason from their own feelings might be exacerbated by members’ lack of knowledge regarding diversity, as most interviewees indicated that they had hardly any or no knowledge on the topic. By questioning whether diversity is still an issue, discussions about concrete plans were derailed.

Last, we observe rethinking through members questioning whether the committee has access to sufficient information. Whenever a suggestion or plan was proposed, people wondered whether they knew enough to act ^[10]. In December 2019, someone (woman, military employee) said: “Are things really this bad or do we just think this is the case?” Members often argued that they needed more information (e.g. the number of women in specific ranks) or that it might be necessary to conduct a survey first. If a member would point to existing studies (e.g. Andriessen et al., 2017), these were often disregarded – because they did not address the exact question members wanted answered. After meetings and during interviews, some members expressed frustration about how requests for information were made again and again. One interviewee (woman, civilian employee) said: “Everybody gets away with doing nothing, except for pushing for a new study here and there. But all those studies, they’re just not being used!”

The practice of rethinking shows how committee members repeatedly question various aspects of the committee and its role, which impedes creating organizational change. Discursively, the practice centers on uncertainty. Members try to refrain from formulating definitive statements about the committee’s role, its mandate, or its plans. This is similar to the “reflection paralysis” shown by Eriksson-Zetterquist and Styhre (2008), who demonstrate how a group working on an equality program can have the tendency to infinitely reflect on the problem, while having difficulty developing concrete plans. We see that this discursive uncertainty is reinforced by (a lack of) materiality. Members practice rethinking at least in part because they are not provided with documents that clearly outline the committee’s goal or a definition of diversity. They hang onto the one artefact available – the statement of commitment – although it does not provide clarity. Additionally, most members seem unaware of other documents, such as research reports on diversity in the organization or the memo which established the committee’s mandate. While these documents could play a role, in the practice of rethinking they might as well not exist. Moreover, although members do request more studies, as Benschop (2011) argues, pushing for additional research can be a way to avoid action while upholding an image of dedication to diversity change. Furthermore, no one is tasked with taking notes during meetings and no minutes were shared. Consequently, there are no documents to prevent continuously having the same discussion. When members do make definitive statements, these are based in the embodied dimension, as they draw on their own feelings and experiences. Frustration also plays an important role; members express frustration at the lack of information, uncertainty, and lack of progress. Overall, while the practice of rethinking is based in uncertainty and a lack of knowledge about diversity and inclusion, how it is practiced “permits” members to not create change. Instead, they stay in a perpetual state of rethinking what they do and what they should be doing.

The practice of rethinking is influenced by the organizational context. First, military hierarchy restricts committee members from making definitive decisions. In this hierarchy, employees in civilian and lower ranked military jobs are expected to rely on higher ranked individuals to decide. However, these people often do not show up to meetings (see practice of non-prioritizing). Therefore, the people who might be able to break the committee out of the rethinking stand-still are not present. Additionally, senior management of this military branch is not outspoken about diversity, which complicates developing the committee’s goals. Furthermore, the organizational rules include a job rotation system that requires military personnel to change jobs every three years. Membership of the committee was generally not linked to individuals but to positions, thus nearly every committee meeting would include new members. Consequently, every meeting presented an opportunity for new members to rethink what had been discussed before.

The second practice we observe is “non-prioritizing diversity”. Our observations show that despite people saying that diversity and inclusion are a priority, their doings show differently. The practice of non-prioritizing became visible in three ways, by: (1) non-attendance and high turnover, (2) diversity being a side task, and (3) shifting responsibility.

First, non-prioritizing manifests by non-attendance and high turnover during meetings. As the agenda included a list of expected attendees, both absences and turnover could be observed. Attendance fluctuated highly, frequently only half of the invitees would show up ^[11]. Most regular attendees worked in non-military roles for the staff section which, in the military hierarchy, are positions with less status and decision-making power. Conversely, those in more powerful positions were regularly absent ^[12]. Diversity and inclusion was officially a “management responsibility”. It was assigned to the military line managers: the deputy commander of the organization and the deputy commanders of the subdivisions. They were invited to the committee meetings but never attended. Commanders or deputies would sometimes send a replacement, but those often did not attend or would send their own replacements. Non-attendance or attending meetings by proxy was not common for other types of committees or meetings in this military branch. Certain subdivisions (such as the center for operations) went without representation for more than half of the observed meetings ^[13]. Many interviewees expressed frustration regarding this non-attendance and other appointments or meetings taking priority over the diversity committee. One interviewee (man, military employee) said:

Meetings often started with people expressing annoyance at the high number of absentees. This was discussed in multiple meetings ^[14] and most interviews, and attendees would sigh or throw their hands up in desperation during these conversations. Among those who did frequently attend, there was a shared sentiment, expressed in interviews and during meetings, that people did not consider the diversity committee to be important. In December 2019, one attendee (woman, military employee) said: “It’s not a priority, it’s always in 10th place. People will cancel and go to a different meeting”. However, these discussions were countered by references to the statement of commitment and diversity as management responsibility, as this was perceived as proof that the organization did consider diversity important. The sense of non-commitment was exacerbated by the committee’s high turnover. Nearly every meeting included new members ^[15], at least in part because of the job rotation system. Furthermore, the committee’s chair changed every few months, both due to people changing jobs and because it was uncertain which department should be responsible for the committee – human resource (HR), the social safety department, or the general staff division. Overall, non-attendance and high turnover led to a lack of continuity. The composition of the committee differed nearly every meeting. Consequently, each meeting included new members who were unfamiliar with the topic and with what had been previously discussed.

Second, we observe non-prioritizing in members only attending as a side task. Because the organization wanted the three subdivisions and certain departments (such as HR and communications) represented in the committee, specific people were assigned to attend. Most of the people actively involved in the committee indicated that they were somewhat interested in the topic. Nonetheless, their official job descriptions did not include diversity and inclusion, and no one in the organization was specifically tasked with the topic. In January 2020, the chair (woman, military employee) said: “The committee should contribute to a goal, and developing that is quite difficult and a lot of work. I do think that’s an area of concern, as I only see people here who do it as an additional job”. Attending meetings was thus something members did as an “extra” task. They did not get time assigned to attend meetings or develop plans. While this was spotlighted as a problem, no one pushed for change.

Last, non-prioritizing manifests by shifting responsibility, especially towards one member of the committee. As mentioned above, diversity and inclusion was officially a management responsibility and assigned to the deputy commander. However, it became clear in both interviews and meetings that most committee members saw one person, Sylvia, as carrying the main responsibility. Sylvia had a civilian background, working for the general staff division. She had become a member of the diversity committee because her official job was seen as somewhat adjacent to diversity and inclusion. Committee members saw her as the “driving force” behind the committee, yet she had a different perspective:

The image of Sylvia as a driving force was also visible during meetings. Members often turned to her for questions or assumed that she would take responsibility for finding out information or for planning a meeting ^[16]. During interviews, when members did not know how to answer a question (e.g. regarding the committee’s budget or mandate), they would suggest the interviewer ask Sylvia. Sylvia was seen as the organization’s personification of diversity work. This might have been influenced by her involvement with the committee from the start and her being one of the only constant members. Yet, as she indicated, making her the committee’s driving force meant that others could push responsibility towards her and away from themselves. This shifting of responsibility thus absolved members of the need to actively engage.

The practice of non-prioritizing shows how the priority and responsibility for diversity change are pushed around the organization. Discursively, responsibility for diversity and the committee is placed at the organization’s highest level. Members emphasize that diversity is a management responsibility and that the highest council has committed itself to diversity change through the material artefact of the statement of commitment. This creates a fantasy image (Ahmed, 2007) in which the organization is committed to diversity, which is contradicted by the doings of people in senior management. Despite being officially responsible, those in management positions do not involve themselves with the diversity committee. Instead, someone in a civilian role with little organizational power is made into the personification of diversity work. Other studies have shown that senior management commitment is essential (Benschop and Verloo, 2006; Bleijenbergh, 2018; Kelan and Wratil, 2018) and that it is problematic if ownership for change lies with those with little power (Kirton and Greene, 2019; Peterson, 2015). Additionally, all participants in the committee are volunteers which results in diversity itself being seen as a side task (Risberg, 2010). Although committee members both verbally and non-verbally express frustration regarding the lack of involvement of those in powerful positions, they keep bumping into the discursive and material dimensions according to which responsibility was assigned appropriately. Furthermore, the committee does not have a budget and no time is allocated to members, although these are important resources (Pitts, 2007). This reflects the lack of priority for diversity. Without a material dimension to ground the priority for diversity change, the committee has nothing tangible to fall back on.

The practice of non-prioritizing is influenced by the organizational context. First, as with the practice of rethinking, military hierarchy means that the committee depends on those in high positions. Although the practice of non-prioritizing shows that these people are not involved with diversity work, because attendees are lower in rank they cannot problematize the non-involvement of their superiors. Furthermore, outside of the committee, diversity is contested (see practice of making diversity palatable). Despite some attention from senior management, the topic receives vocal resistance from some employees and is considered unimportant by many.

The third practice we observe is “making diversity palatable”. While the first two practices shed light on why the committee had difficulties formulating plans and executing ideas, the third practice centers on the content of what was discussed. It refers to the tendency to make diversity change as non-threatening as possible. Our findings show that making diversity palatable is practiced in three ways, by: (1) employing business case arguments, (2) using replacement terms for diversity, and (3) propagating a “happy diversity” discourse.

First, diversity change is framed through business case arguments. When discussing the importance of diversity, the committee’s focus was almost exclusively on the idea that a more diverse workforce would improve the organization’s functioning. In December 2019, someone (woman, military employee) said: “For me too, it [diversity] only becomes important once people can no longer do their job. […] For a brigade commander it’s simply easier if he has a homogenous group”. In meetings and interviews the need for diversity was almost always centered on business case arguments ^[17]. Members highlighted improving operational effectiveness as main reason to want diversity change. They also anticipated that people would only accept diversity change if there were clear organizational advantages.

Second, making diversity palatable manifests by using more obscure terms as a substitute for diversity. Specifically, members sometimes opted for stating that the organization needed to focus on “people’s qualities and talents” instead of on “diversity and inclusion”. In June 2020, someone (woman, military employee) said:

The need to use a different term than diversity was brought up during meetings ^[18] and interviews. Although the committee hoped to organize a “Diversity Day”, they wanted to do so without explicitly naming the theme. Interviewees argued that diversity is “a word people dislike” (man, military employee) and “a term that leads to discussion” (woman, civilian employee), or that they were “weary to mention diversity and inclusion” (man, military employee). By using terms such as “qualities and talents”, committee members felt they made the topic more acceptable. They argued that “diversity and inclusion” agitated people, that it made it too big a deal, and that the term might lead to resistance.

Last, diversity is made palatable by focusing on positives while shying away from difficult topics. During meetings, members were encouraged to talk about things that were going well. In September 2019, the chair (man, military employee) said: “I would like to try to refrain from talking about obstacles. We can easily convince each other that it’s not going to be successful, but I’m convinced that it’s all going to work out”. Members encouraged each other to focus on the proponents of diversity instead of on resistance ^[19]. They propagated a “happy diversity” story, which is especially visible in the plans the committee did and did not carry out. The only idea that came to fruition was a booklet to celebrate the 40-year anniversary of women being accepted into the military branch, published in 2019. During meetings members referred to this as something positive and concrete they had achieved. However, in interviews they were more critical about its impact. This booklet celebrated diversity already present in the organization and did not address any remaining barriers faced by women or other minority groups. Additionally, our observations show that the committee shied away from discussing more sensitive topics, especially inequality and racism. When members did bring up these topics, they were quickly dismissed ^[20]. A striking example occurred in November 2019, when a member (civilian employee) said she was upset the training center was planning to include Black Pete ^[21] in their Saint Nicholas celebration. She argued that if the organization truly considered diversity important it would not allow employees to use blackface. However, the majority of the committee disagreed. They claimed that banning Black Pete would lead to resistance and commotion. Members argued that it would be better to let the discussion play out organically, because: “talking about it with each other is more important than [changing] the actual rules” (man, military employee). Only two members (both women and civilian employees) were clearly in favor of banning Black Pete. One of them stated that the discussion left her wondering, “what am I still doing here [in this committee]?” Eventually, the chair (man, military employee) stated that he felt it was not up to the committee to make a decision. A week later, committee members received an email that the chair had spoken with the deputy commander, who had decided to forbid employees from dressing up as Black Pete for Saint Nicholas celebrations. This example illustrates how the committee refrained from making decisions on topics that they felt would lead to resistance. Most members preferred focusing on the positive side of diversity change. By not engaging with more difficult issues, the “happy diversity” discourse remained intact.

The practice of making diversity palatable shows how the committee frames diversity in a positive, non-threatening and beneficial light. This has consequences for the type of diversity change the committee can create. As mentioned above, the committee lacks documents that clearly define diversity, which facilitates the discursive move to obscure, palatable language. The statement of commitment further aids the move from “diversity” to “talents and qualities” by specifically mentioning the importance of using employees’ talents. Notably, diversity is already a “replacement term” (Ahmed, 2012, p. 52), as it substitutes earlier terms such as equal opportunities and anti-racism. Diversity is argued to have more institutional appeal as it allows organizations to conceal systemic inequalities, which earlier terms could not do (Nkomo et al., 2019). Our analysis shows a move towards even more palatable language by focusing on “talents and qualities”. Consequently, the committee’s focus shifts further away from structural inequalities and discrimination, towards an emphasis on individuals’ personalities and other personal characteristics. As Bourabain (2023, p. 186) also argues: “by not calling the problem by its name – that is, by not calling it sexism or racism – change can be kept superficial”. Using business case arguments for diversity change can have a similar effect, as it reproduces power relations in organizations, and prevents long-term structural change (Adamson et al., 2021). Furthermore, we observe that almost all committee members are white. As the organization is predominantly white, this might not be surprising. Yet the lack of representation of non-white employees was not a topic of discussion in diversity committee meetings. Moreover, as the example of Black Pete illustrates, most members did not consider the experiences or feelings of colleagues of color. Instead, they emotionally engaged with trying to avoid the resistance of white employees. This illustrates committee members’ privilege and “white innocence” regarding organizational inequalities, both in not knowing and in not wanting to know about racial inequalities (Wekker, 2016). Members’ privilege and worries about resistance affected what kind of plans they proposed and how they framed diversity change. Although the practice of making diversity palatable might make the topic acceptable for the organizational majority, we argue that it will not tackle the root causes of organizational inequality present in the Dutch military and (at most) will only lead to superficial change.

When zooming out, the practice of making diversity palatable is linked with the organization’s perception of diversity. While the Minister of Defense has been outspoken about the need to create a more inclusive culture and to recruit from traditionally underrepresented groups, the senior management of this military branch did not present a clear message on diversity. This offered the committee room to define diversity as they saw fit. Additionally, diversity is a contested topic in the military (Andriessen et al., 2017; Holmberg and Alvinius, 2024), and the general employee sentiment towards the topic is one of unimportance and even fatigue. As a result, committee members felt they should be careful in their wording. They propagated a happy diversity discourse in hopes of getting as much people on board as possible. This practice is closely connected with the practice of rethinking. The lack of a clear mandate or role for the committee simplified pushing off difficult decisions or changes, while the lack of a clear definition of diversity facilitated the move towards more palatable language.

This paper contributes to studies on the role of diversity committees and diversity work by studying the practices of one diversity committee. By using this approach, we extend existing theories in two ways. First, despite influential studies claiming diversity committees as exceedingly effective (Dobbin and Kalev, 2013, 2015; Kalev et al., 2006), merely creating a diversity committee is not sufficient to change organizational norms, practices and inequalities. Our analysis shows how a committee’s practices can constrain its potential for action. Rethinking keeps the diversity committee stuck in uncertainty. Non-prioritizing means many members do not show up for meetings, which results in a lack of power for decision-making. Making diversity palatable allows the committee to refrain from discussing possibilities for change that would meaningfully contribute to equality and diversity. Consequently, our findings support other research on diversity committees (Leon and Williams, 2016; Risberg, 2012; Singletary et al., 2021) which argues that they can only be effective when certain conditions are met. We further develop these insights by showing what happens when a committee is installed without taking these conditions into account. The committee in our case is not merely ineffective; its members get stuck in a continuous loop in which they try to be effective but cannot because these conditions are unmet. Insights from a practice-based approach (Dennissen, 2020; Janssens and Steyaert, 2020; O'Learly and Sandberg, 2017) allowed us to both untangle the materiality, embodiment and discourse in these three practices, and to relate these practices to the organizational context. In their interplay, this creates an impasse. The committee thus keeps spinning in circles; it routinely goes through the motions without producing meaningful organizational change.

As a second insight, we argue that having a diversity committee can make it possible for an organization to do nothing regarding diversity change. Although our data shows that the diversity committee did not organize any D&I activity and did not contribute to meaningful change, within the organization it had the reputation of being exemplary. By extension, the military branch to which the committee belonged was also seen as being exemplary regarding diversity change. Consequently, we argue that the diversity committee’s existence masks its inaction. In line with Ahmed (2004, 2006, 2012), we see the diversity committee as non-performative. Instead of contributing to change, the committee’s existence hinders change. The committee’s exemplary reputation combined with its lack of action, means that its presence creates an illusion of change. The committee itself projects the image that the organization is diverse and inclusive, which releases the organization of its obligation to do(additional) diversity work. This illusion of change thus makes it possible for the organization to do nothing regarding diversity work. The existence of the committee also obscures remaining organizational inequalities, as it gives the impression that these inequalities are taken care of. Consequently, there is no incentive to alter the committee’s practices and no incentive for others in the organization to do diversity work. The non-performativity of the diversity committee creates nothingness and results in no (meaningful) change. In Ahmed’s research (2004, 2012), and in studies by others (e.g. Kimura, 2014; Phipps and McDonnell, 2022), non-performativity in diversity work is mainly used to understand the limited impact of statements of commitment and other speech acts (see Jackson (2018) for an exception). We extend theories on non-performativity in diversity work by showing that this concept is not only applicable to diversity work sayings but can also be applied to diversity work doings, such as a diversity committee. Inspired by insights from a practice-based approach, we move beyond a sole focus on speech acts and show that it is the interplay between the discursive, material and embodied dimensions that ultimately result in the non-performativity of the committee. Although some authors (Dean, 2018; Prescha, 2021; Squire et al., 2019) argue that organizations intentionally draft non-performative diversity speech acts, we do not claim that the diversity committee was meant to be non-performative. Nonetheless, its presence and reputation allow the organization to defer all diversity work to the committee. Because the committee is ineffective and its existence disguises the need for doing additional diversity work, it hinders change and maintains organizational inequalities. We do not consider these practices of non-performativity unique for our case or for diversity committees only. Our findings have implications for doing diversity work in general and connect with the upcoming field of literature on the unintended consequences and ambiguity of diversity interventions (Leslie, 2019; Risberg and Corvellec, 2022).

We do not propose that it would be better for organizations to not employ diversity committees at all. Instead, we argue that it matters how diversity committees are set up. Organizations need to be vigilant to avoid having a committee be non-performative; they are counter-productive as they hinder diversity change. Consequently, organizations should monitor their committees to be able to recognize when it is spinning in circles and hindering change. We argue that for diversity committees to counter the practices we have observed and to tackle inequalities at work, knowledge, power, and accountability have to be practiced differently.

First, to counter practices of rethinking and making diversity palatable, organizations should consider the knowledge a diversity committee needs to make well-informed decisions. Two types of knowledge are essential: about the committee’s role and about diversity itself. Organizations need to ensure that members have access to this knowledge. Particularly, committee members should be either selected based on their knowledge of diversity or should be offered training on this topic, as a lack of knowledge hinders change (Ozturk et al., 2024; Utoft, 2021). Furthermore, our study shows that organizations need to clearly define diversity (Leon and Williams, 2016) and document the committee’s focus, to avoid both discussions straying into widely different directions and toning down plans in anticipation of resistance. To create continuity and prevent organizational forgetting (Van den Brink, 2020), practices have to be organized for anchoring knowledge about diversity and the committee in the organization itself and not only in its most committed members.

Second, to offset all three practices, organizations need to mobilize their power structures to ensure that these support the diversity committee. Specifically, committees need a formal and explicit mandate that is clearly documented (Leon and Williams, 2016; Risberg, 2012). We add to this that top management should be outspoken not only in their support of diversity in general (De Vries, 2015; Kelan and Wratil, 2018), but also explicitly in support of the committee’s mandate. The committee’s chair needs to be in a position of power that enables them to enforce this mandate. Moreover, members should be formally assigned to a role in the committee, as this grants them legitimate time (Risberg, 2012) to do committee work and power to contribute to committee decisions. Lastly, change agents with sufficient organizational power and knowledge might be able to intervene if a committee does become non-performative.

Third, the practice of non-prioritizing points to the importance for organizations to consider what is needed to hold diversity committee members accountable. Lacking commitment and accountability are prevalent reasons for failure in diversity initiatives (Holck, 2016; Kelan and Wratil, 2018). Our study suggests that clear task assignment and reporting structures help overcome this. Committee members should not be volunteers; their involvement needs to be part of their formal tasks. Moreover, it matters who is made responsible and accountable for a diversity committee’s success. While it may sound good on paper to make someone high in rank accountable for diversity change, if this person does not have sufficient time, their involvement will not have the desired effect. To counter this, it might be better to assign the task to someone who is willing and able to put in the necessary work. However, this might unintentionally send a message to the organization that the topic is not important. Organizations need to carefully consider and balance these two points when deciding who to assign responsibility to.

Finally, while these conditions should improve the functioning of a diversity committee, organizations should refrain from delegating all of the responsibility for diversity change to one committee. Diversity work should be an integral part of any organization, not a mere side task (Bleijenbergh et al., 2010; Risberg, 2012). A diversity committee can fulfill an essential role but its existence does not absolve the rest of the organization from the responsibility of dealing with diversity change.