No, Employee Resource Groups are Not Passé

Last month, Deloitte rocked the Diversity & Inclusion (D&I) circuit with a startling announcement: they're beginning to close down their employee groups focused on women, ethnic or racial minorities, and other diversity-themed groups. As noted in a Bloomberg Business Week article, the company is eliminating its women's group after more than two decades, and will be phasing out its other groups over the next year and a half.

As a former volunteer leader of one such group, and as a consultant and researcher focused on these groups, the announcement took me by surprise. If anything, these groups -- whether they're called Employee Resource Groups (ERGs), Business Resource Groups (BRGs), Affinity Groups, Employee Networks, or any other similar combination -- have been becoming more popular in recent years, not less. It's hard for me to fathom the idea that Deloitte would believe that these groups aren't adding value anymore.
Employee Resource Groups

For those who may not be familiar: ERGs (as I'll call them, for simplicity) are organizationally sponsored groups of employees, typically run under the guidance of the HR department or a Diversity & Inclusion office, but led by employees who are volunteering their time outside their "day job". In my consulting work, I like to describe ERGs as "grassroots, with guardrails", because they reflect the shared personality of their membership but still follow certain corporate or agency guidelines. Most large organizations have at least a few ERGs, with groups for women and ethnic or racial minorities being most common, but over the years this has expanded to ERGs for people with disabilities, military veterans, LGBT people, parents and caregivers, younger workers, and more. In short, they're on the rise, not fizzling out.
Engaging the Majority

Deloitte's argument is that ERGs can become insular, with only members of a certain demographic participating. For straight, white, able-bodied men, ERGs can feel like a "them" group, not an "us" group. Older white men, as one Deloitte leader noted, "need to be part of the conversation and advocate for women", for example... and that statement implies that they're not engaging with women's ERGs today. In my opinion, this is a symptom of poorly run ERGs, not a construct that's destined to be exclusive. If your senior executives (many of whom identify in the majority groups rather than the groups that ERGs tend to represent) aren't feeling like they are engaged with the ERGs, then that's a problem for which there is a solution -- and the solution isn't getting rid of ERGs.

As an example, years ago I hosted a networking reception for the LGBT ERG at my former employer. For weeks, I made a hard press at every senior leader I knew, trying to drum up attendance and make this a really big event. On the evening of the reception, a young gay coworker came up to me and remarked with awe that he had no idea there were so many LGBT executives at our company. When I shared that several of the leaders present were LGBT, but that many more were not, my colleague was initially perplexed and even a little upset. "Isn't this an event for LGBT people?" he asked me. I responded that it was great that we had several LGBT role models present, but challenged him to consider how great it was that these other senior executives had decided to spend their evening with us, because they cared about their LGBT teammates and wanted us to know that we had their support. Their message, as I shared it, was this: you can be LGBT and still have a successful career here, if you work hard and make an impact, just like every other employee.

Engaging the majority in ERG work doesn't need to be restricted to "executive sponsor" or guest speaker roles, either. Some of the most passionate and engaged volunteer leaders of an LGBT ERG that I previously worked with don't identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender; they're straight people who are committed to making the company a better place to work and our society a better place to live, and sometimes they work harder for those causes than many of the LGBT leaders I know (myself included). In short, if your senior leadership team isn't feeling included by your ERGs, then you're probably not engaging them effectively.
Inclusion Councils vs. ERGs

Deloitte's alternative is inclusion councils, which will give senior executives (who, again, tend to be fairly similar in terms of gender, ethnicity, etc.) more of an opportunity to participate in changing the diversity climate at the organization for the better. This is a great offering, and indeed, these kind of councils are not exactly a new concept. Most large organizations have a "Diversity & Inclusion" council of some sort, and many have multiple levels of councils. (At a previous employer, for instance, there's a Global Diversity & Inclusion Council of senior executives from each major division, and then each of those divisions has its own D&I council that helps implement the strategic guidance of the corporate-wide council.) These are great organizations, with the opportunity to make a real impact, but they're not a suitable replacement for ERGs.

First, vastly more people have the opportunity to participate in ERGs. Virtually every employee can participate in one -- or more -- of the ERGs at their organization. While Deloitte hasn't announced many specifics about these inclusion councils, they almost certainly won't be viable platforms for nearly as many participants. At many large organizations, anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of the employee population is involved with at least one ERG. When you consider the scope of very large organizations, with hundreds of thousands of employees, you can see just how many people ERGs can include. If Deloitte's inclusion councils are like similar councils that I've seen in organizations -- again, we don't have specifics yet -- then they probably have no more than 10-20 or so members on a council... Even if we assume dozens or even hundreds of councils (which seems unwieldy), that's just not providing an opportunity for very many people to directly engage.

Furthermore, an inclusion council quite simply doesn't have the resources to accomplish everything that ERGs can accomplish. Many organizations have areas of focus for their ERGs that revolve around helping to bring in diverse talent, supporting and developing those employees, creating an inclusive workplace culture, and contributing to business development and community partnerships with diverse customers and clients. An inclusion council can help with some of this, certainly, but it's unlikely that it can have the same impact across the board. One senior diversity leader at Deloitte is quoted as saying that will allow managers "to have a direct role in creating an environment that will keep employees of all backgrounds from leaving the company and help attract new talent." That's a great objective, but again, it doesn't come close to addressing all of the value proposition of ERGs today.

Perhaps most importantly, regardless of any potential flaws or limitations, the undeniable truth is this: when run effectively, ERGs can add significant value to their members, their leaders, the organization, customers or clients, and communities. In my opinion, it doesn't make sense to eliminate something that has been adding unique and meaningful value... and certainly not because some straight white men at the top of the organization are feeling left out.

To be blunt: the fact that you may not be feeling like ERGs are valuable to you is no reason to take them away from many other people who still find extraordinary value in the groups. And as my colleague and former teammate Erika Irish Brown wisely noted, eliminating ERGs potentially "caters to the status quo and comfort of senior leaders instead of the individuals these groups are meant to develop and support."
The Bottom Line

In many cases, ERGs have opportunities to be more open, more inclusive, and more impactful. Inclusion Councils, too, can add great value in certain specific areas, but they don't add value in the same way, or for as many people. The solution isn't to end one in favor of the other; it's to continue to refine and improve both.

Guest Contributor:
Kevin England, Ph.D. is an educator and researcher in the fields of Human Capital and Diversity & Inclusion, with a particular focus on Employee Resource Groups (ERGs). His doctoral dissertation focused on the experience of becoming an ERG leader, and he continues to research and consult about ERGs and other Diversity & Inclusion programs.