Introduction
Following on from my last post when I introduced the idea of the peer-to-peer model for ERG structures I want to knit together some key ideas drawn from a variety of sources. These are:
- PurpleSpace’s Networkology – the idea that’s there’s at least an intellectual discipline behind how an ERG operates.
- Impact Networks by David Ehrlichman
- Humanocracy by Gary Hamel & Michele Zanini
- The manager who said the R in ERG should stand for Reference and not Resource.
- A varied set of sources thinking about teams and responding to operational challenges.
Why the staff association model doesn’t work
Staff associations are fine for social clubs and sports teams. I don’t have it in for them. They are just not how you address organisational issues which have serious legal consequences.
In NSW, at the moment, there is a move to alter workers’ compensation legislation to make it harder for people claiming psychological injury to pursue their claims. I agree there is a need to address what seems to be an excess of claims. But I disagree with the proposed remedy.
Workplace induced psychological injury is a serious problem. So psychological distress caused by exclusion and discrimination must be understood as a work health and safety concern.
Back in 2011, as a member of a Disability ERG, I asked whether the exclusion experienced by staff with disabilities could be seen as a work health and safety issue and was promptly told it could not. The reaction was such that I decided not to press the matter. I had clearly touched a raw nerve.
Of course, the reaction was ridiculous. It was plainly a WHS matter. But admitting that it was would open a can of worms who would not be obedient to orders to get back in the can.
Ultimately fostering inclusion and psychological safety should be a whole of organization affair and integrated fully into an organization’s core business. It should be neither optional nor unskilled.
The function of an ERG should be to assist an organisation to end illegal discrimination and exclusion and to significantly reduce an organisation’s exposure to legal liability. The logic should be that the organisation is highly motivated to reduce its exposure, and the staff should be highly motivated to end their suffering. This should be a win-win. But it isn’t. There should be shared high motivation to achieve a common goal. But there isn’t. Why? As I have repeatedly asserted, answering this question has been a personal mission since early 2017. That’s 8 years ago. Still no answer? I am a bit thick? No. It’s complicated and I have needed to learn a lot.
So, here’s my present situation – why are organisations still okay with using a staff association model to address what should be an urgent staff welfare concern? Why think that a bunch of volunteer amateurs can be the magic solution to the puzzle that your own DEI teams haven’t been able to solve?
Time to move on
The peer-to-peer model is my present rough alternative. I say ‘rough’ because it hasn’t been trialled and refined. It is predicated on several critical notions.
The first is that organisations must move away from any assumption that an ERG is just for the subordinate ranks. It must be representative of the organisation and ensure that membership includes senior executives and senior managers. They can still be sponsors and champions, but they are members and not external extras doing the ERG a favour.
The second is that the ERGs must reflect contemporary methods. A project-based reference team can meet the needs of organisation and staff in the sense that it takes a professional approach to addressing the needs of the membership (ending exclusion and discrimination) and meeting the responsibilities of the organisation (eliminating exclusion and discrimination).
This is part of core business. It’s not an add-on or an extra. In the public sector it’s about conforming with legislation and following policy. Doing so is core business, not a nice thing to do when time and resources allow. Again, why do this with volunteer and amateur ERG members who are also time poor and unsupported by their managers and executives? It makes no sense, when you think about it deeply.
Conclusion
Below is my current version of the peer-to-peer model. It’s not a destination but a starting point. It’s something to trigger thinking about what might work best.
The peer-to-peer network model
Essential argument
Staff networks have been based on a traditional hierarchical and bureaucratic model. It is important to ask whether this fits current cultural, workplace and operational trends and needs.
A peer-to-peer network model is team-based with a capacity to be flexible, distributed and localized when doing so is advantageous. It also spreads the workload around. It diffuses the leadership burden in a way that enables adaptation to disruptions and the absences of key people.
It is a more dynamic and responsive operational model better suited to contemporary workplace realities – especially time poverty.
Basic structure
A Core Advisory Team. This is a team of subject matter experts specific to the network. It includes the sponsor and champions who bring higher level organizational expertise
At least 3 coordinators. Their job is to organize people and ensure an activity is well-run. But they don’t run the activity.
The Core Advisory Team (CAT) can be standing and relatively fixed or drawn from network members as required. Members can volunteer to participate in the CAT in an ongoing capacity or as needed.
Areas of expertise needed:
- Coordination and collaboration
- Organizational insights
- Maintenance of intranet site
- Communication
- Mentoring and coaching
- Special interests related to the network’s theme.
Features
- Takes a distributed network approach with an organising hub.
- Allows for member-initiated or requested activity at local or divisional level.
- Supports emergence of special interest-based action which might suit a specific division or business area.
- Enables the creation of SME sub-groups in particular divisions and enable division-based leadership so network can address multiple issues without taxing central leadership
- Fosters specific competences and capability-based leadership and action.
- The network can engage in whole-of-network action or division by division activity as best suits member needs.
- Primary administration demand is creation and maintenance of member demographics and mailing list.
- Communications maintenance can be done by a small SME team – Teams, intranet and email.
- CAT team engages in accountable professional activity that can be put on a CV as a credible element (this requires organization support to promote the status of networks).
- The sponsor and champions have no leadership or supervisory role. But are team peers with specific expertise. Engagement at this level will enhance their ability to perform their sponsor and champion roles. These roles might adopt a coaching or mentoring approach – rather than advisory or problem solving.
- All networks have a code of conduct that governs all activities.
- Organization recognises that members of CATs are engaging in professional development roles like any other role within the organization. CAT members are eligible to participate in any learning and development opportunities relevant to their network roles.
- Coordinator roles determined by competitive application.
- Other CAT roles are determined via EOI and assessed by coordinators and champions – but this is more about excluding applicants who do not meet selection criteria than selecting for superior capabilities. This approach creates a ‘talent pool’ that can supply issue or project specific CAT members.