Rethinking Employee Resource Groups: What is their actual purpose?
In today’s corporate landscape, Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) have become standard fixtures of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. These groups have also been at the centre of broader conversations about workplace inclusion approaches and effectiveness. Yet despite their widespread adoption, many organisations struggle to maintain sustainable ERGs that deliver meaningful impact. As a DEI coach working with dozens of practitioners tasked with extracting value from these groups – both for members and the organisation – I have insights to share about what truly makes ERGs effective.
The Purpose Paradox in Staff Networks
The most successful ERGs begin with crystal clarity about their purpose – a purpose that is regularly refined and revised by both participants and the organisation.
Yes, it’s that simple. However, this clarity shouldn’t take the form of a terms of reference document that takes eons to agree upon. How many years have been wasted arguing over word choice in documents that few people ever read!
The Fundamental Mismatch
Many ERGs suffer from a purpose paradox: they’re launched with ambitious working group and inclusion goals, but employees join primarily because they’re searching for social connection and belonging with others of similar backgrounds or experiences.
This isn’t necessarily a problem – unless the expectations, resources, and accountability structures don’t match the true purpose (and if no one actually knows what that purpose is).
When Good Intentions Lead to Burnout
The tension between organisational expectations and member motivations creates a cycle we see repeatedly:
Leadership announces ERGs with ambitious goals about transforming culture
Employees join seeking community and support
Without clarity, activities become scattered and inconsistent
Members feel pressured to deliver organisational change without proper resources
Participation wanes as enthusiasm gives way to confusion and burnout
The Connection-Working Group Spectrum
Rather than viewing ERGs through a one-size-fits-all lens, organisations would benefit from recognising a spectrum of group types:
Connection-Focused Staff Networks
Primary Purpose: Building community, reducing isolation, creating safe spaces
Key Activities: Social events, informal gatherings, peer support
Success Metrics: Member satisfaction, sense of belonging, retention rates
Resource Needs: Minimal budget, communication channels, occasional meeting space
Working Group-Oriented Employee Resource Groups
Primary Purpose: Driving organisational change, influencing policies, enhancing inclusion
Key Activities: Research, proposal development, leadership engagement, training
Success Metrics: Policy changes, representation improvements, cultural shifts
Resource Needs: Dedicated time, executive sponsorship, operational budget, formal authority
Case Example: Tailoring ERG Models
One global technology company I worked with struggled with ERG burnout until they separated their approach. They established “Community Circles” with minimal structure for peer connection, while creating separate “Inclusion Working Groups” with formal roles, compensated time, and direct access to leadership. Both flourished once their purposes were clarified and resources aligned accordingly.
When considering what your organisation needs, talk to your people and understand your DEI resourcing and governance structures. Take the time to get this right rather than heading straight into a call for expressions of interest to join a group with no clearly identified purpose.
A Better Path Forward in DEI Work
Organisations can dramatically improve the effectiveness of their diversity initiatives by acknowledging this distinction from the outset. Here’s how:
1. Honest Assessment of Organisational Readiness
Before launching ERGs, leadership must honestly evaluate their commitment level. Are they prepared to receive and act on feedback that might challenge existing norms? If not, a connection-focused network may be more appropriate than a working group that will ultimately face frustration.
2. Transparent Communication About Purpose
When recruiting ERG members, be explicit about whether the primary focus is community-building or change-making. This transparency attracts members with aligned expectations and reduces disappointment.
3. Matching Resources to Intended Impact
A social network requires different support than a working group tasked with organisational change. Budget, executive time, and institutional influence should align with stated objectives.
Equity in Expectations
There’s an equity issue embedded in ERG structures that often goes unaddressed: organisations frequently expect underrepresented employees to volunteer their time to educate the organisation and drive change. This places an unfair burden on these individuals who are already navigating additional challenges. It also assumes that because they have lived experience, they automatically have the knowledge and skills to create inclusive workplaces – this is not always true.
True equity requires compensating working group efforts – whether through formal role recognition, adjusted workloads, or direct compensation. Connection-focused networks may function well as volunteer efforts, but working group efforts demand institutional investment both financially and through education and training.
Measuring Success: Beyond Participation Numbers
Too often, ERGs are evaluated solely on membership numbers or event attendance. Effective measurement should align with purpose:
For Connection Networks:
Member satisfaction surveys (sense of belonging, psychological safety)
Retention rates among group members vs. non-members
Qualitative feedback about inclusion experience
For Working Groups:
Number of policy recommendations developed and implemented
Changes in representation metrics over time
Leadership awareness and understanding of key issues (measured before/after)
Concrete improvements in systems or practices
Coaching for Clarity
As a DEI coach, one of the most valuable services I provide is facilitating conversations that establish this clarity of purpose. These discussions should include:
Explicit naming of both organisational and individual motivations
Recognition of power dynamics that influence ERG formation and function
Agreement on decision-making authority and access to leadership
Clear articulation of available resources and support
Defined success metrics that match the group’s true purpose
Conclusion: Honouring Both Needs
Both connection and working group functions are valuable for supporting inclusive workplaces. The problem arises not from having either type of group, but from the mismatch between stated purpose and actual function.
By distinguishing between social networks and working groups, organisations can create more sustainable structures that honour employees’ need for community while also advancing meaningful change. When purpose, expectations, and resources align, both types of groups can thrive – and contribute significantly to creating workplaces where everyone can bring their authentic selves.
Taking Action: Three Steps to Start
Assess current state: Survey existing ERG members about their primary motivations for participation and what would make the groups more valuable.
Define your model: Explicitly decide if you’re creating connection spaces, change agents, or a hybrid model with clear boundaries.
Align resources: Ensure your investment matches your expectations—social groups need facilitation support; working groups need time, training, and influence.
The next time you consider launching or revitalising an ERG, start with this fundamental question: Are we creating a space for connection, a vehicle for change, or something in between? Your answer should shape everything that follows.
You may also like…
