Many of the efforts made by organizations to deal with gender inequalities fail to have the desired impact. This is not only because these efforts are undermined by individu-als who disagree with them, nor because individuals do not perceive gender inequalities to be a problem. Rather, the issue is that gender equality practices may be embedded in an organizational context where other practices counteract gender equality. By means of a 17-month-long ethnographic study conducted at a technical university in Sweden, the interaction between gender equality practices and gender inequality practices has been identified. It is shown that gender equality practices are themselves based on either questionable assumptions (e.g., that increasing the number of women in senior roles will make a difference), or in an attempt to avoid blaming the victim, on reducing the salience of gendered categorization from which gendered inequali-ties can be adequately challenged. By focusing on the nexus of practices that move beyond equality work, two practices that undermine gender equality work have been identified, that is, a data-driven approach to change work and a pref-erence for simple solutions. The conclusion drawn alerts us to the fact that even practices that do not seem related to gender equality work can have an impact on the success or failure of the gender equality work of the organization. This in turn may imply that the institutionalized underpinnings of the organization need to be changed, for example, the belief that more data will help us to find more solutions, or that there are practices out there that can be implemented to wash away gender inequality.

It is common knowledge that an organization can stimulate (or kill) creativity among its employees through office design, with colors and playful toys numbering among the key ingredients believed to make people creative. What is less known is how these and other spatial qualities influence work. This study looks at the connection between the space and creative work, with the help of boundary work. Using ethnographic methods, this study reveals how people mobilize and set up creative spaces (agencing space), and how such space helps (or doesn’t) people to work creatively (spatial agencing). Four different creative spaces are analyzed: hackathons, design thinking workshops, an innovation room, and an innovation helpdesk. It is shown how these spaces for creation can make creative practices legitimate, how temporality creates a sense of urgency, and how messiness signals what is expected of people. Furthermore, it is also shown how boundary practices help people engage in creative work.