There continues to be a debate about the value of employee resource groups — known also as business resource groups or affinity groups — with a few firms exploring the idea of disbanding them in favor of multicultural groups. Some people think that ERGs have run their course and are no longer effective within organizations. In fact, there is even some concern that these groups inhibit the organization’s effort to bring different groups together, along with proposals to disband ERGS or replace ERGs with with multicultural groups that expand to specifically and definitively define a role for white men. White men have been invited to participate as long as ERGs have existed, but this change defines the seat, which is different and an important consideration.
It is true that organizations need to bring their people together, but it’s not clear that ERGs are thwarting this effort. In fact, these groups have for decades been the main entry point for having unifying conversations about the differences that separate us as individuals. Before we abandon ERGs, let’s consider the value they bring when leveraged fully.
ERGs provide a critical pathway for building inclusion by consistently keeping the conversation going. ERGs give employees a platform to finding their voice and support, which helps build a ready pipeline of diverse leaders. ERG activities communicate the importance of diversity and inclusion at a company because they are lived, fully expressed experiences that allow all employees to develop a practice of inclusion. Most leaders fully acknowledge that in our competitive environment, creating a space for innovation is critical. This is good news for D&I objectives. Innovation is created through new ideas and by bringing to the table people who have unique ideas. ERGs provide available structures to tap for new ideas, underscoring the value and the necessity of having diverse voices at the table. Having these voices fully engaged and empowered is the key, and ERGs have facilitated this empowerment for years and continue to do so. ERGs bring formal programming to organizations that enable us to confront and discuss issues that are important to parts of our communities.
For example, I've heard several of my fellow chief diversity officers describe how their African American ERGs brought forward discussions around police shootings of unarmed black men. Having that discussion and others changed the trust and thus the inclusion the employees experienced at those organizations. Dismantling the ERGs and/or changing the form so they are multicultural will not facilitate more of these conversations, but mute them.
These proposed approaches do not consider the dynamic of power that sits between ethnic groups in our society. That must be considered and accounted for when expecting these groups to effectively take on weighty topics. I do not believe that ERGs inhibit employees from coming together; the lack of desire to come together is the inhibitor. And ERGs will be one vehicle that helps us surmount that issue by keeping the conversations on the table that need to be on the table.
ERGs are a terrific high-potential program with diversity and inclusion built in. A recent conversation with an ERG member led her to share this reflection with me: “Getting involved in this work has meant so much to me. It’s work I am interested in and passionate about. I get to lead programs that make a difference, and that brings me a lot of satisfaction.” Most of our organization's ERG leaders share this same sentiment. This program gives the company a defined structure for identifying and developing leaders who often get overlooked so the company can prepare them for larger leadership roles within the firm, ensure their visibility and test their capability.
People self-select into ERGs versus being selected by leaders. This removes a bias that is hard to remove. The open model allows the organization to see a new breadth of talent just by having leaders identify themselves. It gives any company a great head start. Dismantling or reducing the number of groups reduces a company’s opportunity to see the impact of many leaders. The more groups, the more testing of talent the organization has, and the more opportunity employees have to find a place they feel good about in which to make a difference. Why would a company want to eliminate that altogether? Some companies have adopted models where leaders are chosen. However, there is still some opportunity to self-select to be seen or considered. That, we don't want to lose.
Inclusion is an important part of any leadership practice. As leaders are asked to develop and expand their leadership capabilities, inclusion must be an explicit part of it. ERG programming provides leaders great ground to practice. Every time there is a panel of executives talking about D&I, the participants build their understanding and in turn expand their leadership.
It’s hard to speak on the idea of inclusion and then do the opposite in practice. It’s easier to exclude if one never has to speak to how they include. ERGs and other sessions build leaders. They need these vehicles to learn and get clear about what they think about D&I. This helps them become better leaders of D&I. This is yet another reason why companies don’t want to shrink their capacity for D&I work by changing the ERG to a smaller, multicultural group.
Instead, companies should consider expanding their approach. If having a multicultural group provides a more welcomed vehicle for white men, then it should certainly be added. It is known and clear that D&I programs want and need the involvement of white men. But if the programming changes to accommodate them and their comfort while losing the comfort of the minority groups the programs were built for, it could be that we are yielding to the existing power structure and taking a huge step backward.
