The Miseducation of Employee Resource Groups

Listen to me read the article and add some context here ⬇️.

Let’s kick things off with some hot takes:

1️⃣ I don’t believe in the Affinity Group ERG (Employee Resource Group) to BRG (Business Resource Group) model.

2️⃣ I don’t think ERGs should be focused on generating business revenue or consulting for business units.

3️⃣ I don’t believe the diversity department is the best home for ERGs.

If these truths were universally understood, the ERG space would be in a much healthier state. With universal clarity, we could exchange ideas more effectively, creating impactful initiatives across ERG programs. Software that actually solves problems instead of just band-aiding them would emerge. Metrics would be clear and easily identifiable, allowing us to confidently communicate our progress.

The miseducation of ERGs began with the notion that ERGs needed to do more, that their actual purpose—community building—wasn’t enough. Not the external, non-profit, local kind of community, but the internal, connection-building kind of community within an organization.

This miseducation happened when non-community builders started to own ERGs. While the DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) industry is dealing with its own challenges, this conversation is necessary. The miseducation of ERGs isn’t entirely on the DEI industry, though my frustrations with it are real. As a grassroots program, ERGs had no formal home for the longest time. They lacked a parent team to take ownership.

As employees joined ERGs and budgets were allocated or increased, someone had to take ownership. Ideally, this would have fallen under employee engagement or someone who understood community building—someone who valued belonging and engagement within a company. However, the overload on employee engagement teams left ERGs without an official program manager until DEI entered the picture, especially around 2020.

DEI was more than willing to own ERGs, despite being overloaded and lacking expertise in community building. It’s almost like the DEI industry adopted ERGs, but unlike parenting, handling ERGs isn’t subjective—it requires specific expertise.

Really, the only diversity-related aspects of ERGs were the communities they supported, which often consisted of underrepresented groups. ERGs, fundamentally, are about engaging employees and should sit under engagement programs.

DEI professionals weren’t experts in community building, but they could pretend to be with well-positioned books, articles, quotes, and statistics. This is where the real miseducation of ERGs began, and why I don’t entirely blame the DEI industry. When ERGs became more prominent, DEI folks scrambled for resources, cementing three myths into ERG law: 1) ERGs should transition to BRGs, 2) ERGs should generate revenue, and 3) ERGs should be managed by the diversity department.

These myths spread like wildfire. Pillar models, BRGs, and DEI became the language of ERGs. DEI professionals naturally gravitated towards managing ERGs, seeing them as extensions of their diversity efforts. ERG certifications further pushed these beliefs.

Enter the big guns: ERG software. Pricey tech cemented these flawed ideologies, perpetuated by those who read about ERGs online rather than experienced successful ERG management firsthand. Many ERG software solutions were built on shaky foundations, lacking clear metrics and purpose.

By 2022, confusion, burnout, and disorganization were rampant. DEI folks realized the resources weren’t enough, the software didn’t make sense, and the “experts” were also confused. The foundation of the ERG space crumbled, leading to more disorganization and burnout.

While some DEI professionals were bamboozled, some didn’t care. They minimized the ERGs programming to food, flags, and fun, pushing their own agendas. ERGs, at their core, are about community, but they were pressured to be more. DEI leaders required ERGs to support DEI pillars, often sidelining community-building efforts.

This concept of BRGs—a more advanced ERG impacting the business—arose from DEI’s desire for business impact. ERGs were pressured to consult on business matters they weren’t equipped for, leading to misguided initiatives and burnout.

ERG leaders, passionate about their communities, were often exploited. They were burdened with consulting tasks, becoming tokens for business needs without true investment in expert advice. This led to a detrimental cycle, with ERG leaders taking on unpaid labor to support business goals, driven by DEI’s misguided requirements.

So, what do we do when we realize an entire industry has been miseducated, exploited, and left disorganized? Two years ago, I faced this question when I learned about the miseducation of ERGs. I’m not alone in seeing it; others recognize the issue but may feel trapped by their roles and reputations.

ERGs aren’t about generating revenue or consulting on business matters—they’re about building community. ERGs intersect with professional development, learning, and social good, but their primary purpose remains community building.

The BRG model, pushing ERGs to impact the business, is flawed. It’s driven by DEI leaders seeking advocacy for their own OKRs, often sidelining true community engagement.

What do you do when you find out an industry that you care for deeply has been misled, exploited, and taken for granted? What do you do when you see DEI leaders say their ERGs must impact the business, burdening ERG leaders with extra work on top of their day jobs without compensation? What do you do when ERG consultants declare ERGs synonymous with diversity, or when teams admit they don’t know what to measure after years of existence?

What do you do when an entire industry, one with such untapped potential, is deeply miseducated?

The ERG Homegirl

#TheERGMovement