Month: August 2026

Introduction
I have been recently looking at some NSW government programs and policies and was dismayed to see affirmations of zero tolerance of unkind and exclusive conduct expressed in a passive sentimental tone with vague, emotionally remote affirmations of what will be done.

These were written and approved by people engaging in an intellectual exercise calculated to win approval for saying a good thing. It’s good to disapprove of bullying, racism, sexism, sexual harassment and the exclusion of people with disabilities etc.

The sentiment is genuine in its general orientation and people are responding in various ways – sometimes with a passion – but often weakly and ineffectually.

I have had a few recent conversations with people who think I am being too harsh in my assessment. But I am not criticizing a moral failure, rather a cultural one and this is of vital importance because I argue that the next stage in our efforts to secure Disability Inclusion is a transition from the familiar social model to a novel cultural model.

The social model of disability has required the building of physical and system infrastructures. This is an ongoing action area. I have been a member of my local government’s Access Reference Group since July 2021 and have been impressed by the council’s commitment to Disability Inclusion. I have also discovered how much work is to be done to make our LGA more inclusive and accessible and the cost of getting it done. I am grateful that I live in a community in a nation where this matters enough to put real money and effort into making things happen.

A shift to a cultural model will require an investment in a different kind of infrastructure – a psychological one. This is also pertinent to a wide range of trends in our communities and organizations. Fortunately, there’s a lot of well-funded research being done. But we are largely lagging behind on the job of implementing the fruits of this research.

The situation is complex and the work to be done is challenging. We are making progress, but we would make more if we didn’t under-estimate the level of complexity and difficulty we face.

Below I want to explore some key themes.

Why is it so complex and difficult?
In sum, it’s because we are a bunch of humans trying to do stuff we haven’t done before. Complex, diverse, pluralistic and inclusive communities are novel. They are an evolutionary novelty thanks to the strength of humanist values that influence our culture for a few centuries. They are aspirational, and an aspiration.

We are still guided by psychological and neurological reflexes that were developed a very long time ago – and which suited us well to ways we lived tens of millennia ago. So, we have a tension between reflex and aspiration.

We have a reflex to be inclusive toward members of our in-group, and now we are expected to be inclusive of everyone. That’s an aspiration, and it’s hard to do without intentional effort.

We have a bias toward people who are like us or with whom we identify, and now we are expected not to be biased when we make decisions. That’s an aspiration, and it’s very hard to do without intentional effort.

The humanist values we have adopted put a burden of responsibility upon us. We must change our reflexive habits of beliefs, attitudes and behaviors so that we make those values a living reality in our communities and organizations.

To make such changes we must exert significant cognitive effort. Here’s a paradox of sorts. We are innately averse to cognitive effort – unless it is in response to a threat. We prefer an easy life. We are hardwired for it. Our brains are suited to minimal cognitive effort. This explains why, for 10s, even 100s of millennia, humans didn’t do an awful of ‘progressing’.

The ‘paradox’ is that now we benefit from the minority who not only don’t see cognitive effort as a threat response but positively get off on such effort. Next time you pick up your smart phone give thanks to them and capitalism – which brings the fruits of their strange behavior to all of us – and which makes exerting cognitive effort even less necessary.

But the cognitive downside is that we have now hit a point where our reflexive behaviors and the humanist values we have come to treasure have come to a tipping-point.

We need to transition into a different reflex mode if we want to continue to benefit from modes of belief, attitude and behaviour that guide the good things about our civilization.

Okay, so I have just identified a ‘threat’. Why so? Anti-woke sentiments that have been stirred up, increasingly on a global scale, expose a serious weakness in ‘progressive’ politics. This is a reliance on sentiment and moral argument which renders advocates for ‘wokeism’ inarticulate when defending their position against frustrated opponents who have been rehearsing and refining their counterargument for decades.

It is cognitively and emotionally easier to advocate from an emotional and moral position. That way you get the status you desire and the job you want. But it also entrenches failure to achieve compelling changes and leaves us with a trickle of successes – because doing better than that is impossible because we are facing a moral brick wall of denial.

The alternative is to ‘call a spade a spade’ in clear no BS terms that remain civil, respectful and professional. But this triggers a real problem for Disability Inclusion advocates and activists. It is generated by the power imbalance in organizations and communities, and the absence of a culture of genuine accountability at the top of many organizations and governments.

Saying you don’t tolerate discrimination or unkindness is like reciting a magical incantation with no actual magical powers. You can recite all you like – but in the end you must make the change yourself if you really mean what you say.

Change is hard
Organizational change so hard there are books on the subject, and admissions that most organizational change initiatives fail. My beef with Disability Inclusion efforts in organizations is that organizations and Disability ERGs imagine they can do what highly paid consultants and academic experts routinely fail to do – and with no particular insights or skills.

We don’t like change at the best of times, unless it promises less cognitive effort and more pleasure or reward. Not all desired changes are easy – especially aspirational ones. This is why we don’t talk about New Year’s resolutions anymore. This why, if we are serious about an aspirational change, we will seek out coaches or mentors or communities of like-minded devotees. We understand that these changes must demand our attention, and hence our cognitive and emotional effort.

There still must be a recognizable sense of threat to focus our attention and effort. The rights campaigns of the 1960s were responding to powerful sense of threat – the denial of equal rights. The outcome was a range of laws and policies upon which we now rely. But that was at least 56 years ago. The rights are secured (though some have been eroded), but the freedom and support to realise them has not been won by everyone. A right must be honoured and protected in deed, not just in word.

Conclusion
For very good and understandable reasons we are locked into beliefs, attitudes and behaviors that innately resist our efforts to transform good intentions into aspirational and beneficial actions.

There’s a reason why governments continue to spew passive avowals of intolerance for what is actually tolerated pretty well and make declarations of accountability for behaviors that are never held to account.

It isn’t a moral failing in the sense of supporting what is actually wrong so much as a failing in not staying up to date with what we really do know about behaviour in organizations and communities. We know why discrimination and bias occur. And we do know what to do in response.

And yet those paid by the public purse appear to believe that they have no duty to engage in greater intellectual effort and explore what contemporary science and philosophy can add to strengthening their assertions that they are honouring shared values and bringing about conforming changes.

This is a quote from a very current anti-racism post from the NSW government:
We all have a role to play in eradicating racism in our workplaces and ensuring a safe and healthy working environment. Everyone should have the resources and confidence to report instances of racism if they witness it and support colleagues who might experience it.

Pay attention to the language – disengaged, remote and passive:
• We all have a role – not play a role
• should have the resources – not must have
• if they witness – not when they witness
• who might experience – not who do experience.

Let me revise this a little:
We all play a role in eradicating racism in our workplaces and ensuring a safe and healthy working environment. Everyone will have the resources and confidence to report instances of racism when they witness it and support colleagues who experience it. See the difference?

My point is that here is a government website promoting anti-racism while undermining it in the same breath. This the most recent example of a mindset that has been undermining Disability Inclusion for years.

This kind of pretend caring is everywhere. It explains why changes haven’t moved at the pace desired. Governments serve their own interests (which is to look like they give a damn) and ‘advocates’ and ‘activists’ routinely fail to move the dial.

It isn’t that we don’t care, just that we don’t know how to do so in a genuinely effective way – and some want the status of being an advocate or an activist without bothering to put the effort into being good at the role.

Finally, I will rework that paragraph just a little more:
We all play a role in eradicating discrimination against staff with disabilities in our workplaces and ensuring a safe and healthy working environment. Everyone will have the resources and confidence to report instances of discrimination against staff with disabilities when they witness it and support colleagues who experience it. We have clear and accountable strategies and actions that will ensure that this happens.

You do deserve to understand why ‘Caring is more than saying that you do.’ Please do think deeply about this – and then do something.

Introduction
In answer to the title question, I think not – as we now understand them – and this may not be a bad thing. But that’s not to say that transitioning to a new way of advancing inclusion will be easy – or even doable.

I have recently had some despairing conversations with some ERG leads who are at the end of their terms or who are considering quitting. They do not paint a pretty picture. I hope this is only a local phenomenon, but, looking at trends and comments, I fear not.

Organizations are withdrawing support from ERGs – mostly for justifiable reasons, to be fair – but also for misguided motives. This is part of what I see as a general confusion that I first encountered back in June 2023 when I accepted a consultancy role with my former employer, mentoring its ERG leads. That was a disappointing and frustrating experience stretched over 2 years. The consultancy ended in June 2025. I was unaware of how bad the situation was – far worse than those who engaged me realized. I had to do a heap of research in a hurry and completely rethink how I could help.

Twelve months later and things are worse – but not for only bad reasons. By that I mean I think we are going through a necessary evolutionary crisis in thinking and behaving. My fear is that staff with disabilities who need effective and skilled advocacy will be ‘collateral damage’ in a larger philosophical and political shakeout.

Below I want to think through my reaction to the conversations I have been having.

Maybe ERGs just aren’t the right tool for the job?
Withdrawal of organizational support from ERGs reflects an inability of ERGs to make a compelling case for the support they say they need. When I began my consultancy the first thing I asked for was an ‘elevator pitch’ business case. Tell me in a minute why your ERG should be supported in the way you want. But there was neither clarity nor passion in answer that challenge. In fact, no ERG could answer without prompting and support – and even then, what I heard was hardly encouraging.

ERGs were seen as a good idea by everyone – the ERG leaders, the DEI team and the organization’s executive. But they weren’t talking to each other. There was no shared vision, no agreed passion or mission. When I asked what was the worst thing that would happen if an ERG ceased to exist the responses weren’t electrifying – not much, really. And this was despite the reality that members of some of the ERGs were experiencing real discrimination, disadvantage and harm.

For example, the NSW government has found it necessary to run an anti-racism campaign in the public sector. Why is this necessary in well-paid sophisticated organizations that deliver human services? How has this become an issue in organizations that have executive leaders aware of what is going on beneath them, DEI teams and ERGs? Why fund DEI teams or ERGs if you need to run an anti-racism campaign?

I still hear stories of discrimination and abuse that shouldn’t be happening. And the ERGs seem incapable of mounting an effective defence of their members in dire straits at work. Let me put this into perspective.

When I became lead of my Disability ERG in November 2016, I felt obliged, finally, to read its terms of reference – which were imposed, not negotiated. Once rule was that the ERG was not to engage in advocacy for individual members. Well, that was bullshit. What was the point of an ERG if it was rendered powerless to respond to a member’s plea for help against abusive and discriminatory conduct from managers or other staff?

I fully understood that there should be an injunction against direct intervention. But the fact of a plea for help demonstrated that whatever systems or processes were in place weren’t working. I could initiate inquiry into system/process failure. It wasn’t the ERG’s job to directly police individual inappropriate conduct, but we could red-flag it and demand it be addressed.

That approach takes a bit of canny, a lot of political nous and considerable determination. I got very good results. So, the first context for consideration is the capability of the ERG lead – and here we tear open a complex tangled can of worms. Below I identify the major worms we need to look at:
• What is the function of an ERG?
• What skills/capabilities are needed to ensure that that function can be realised – the ERGs leaders, the DEI team and the organization’s executive?

What is the function of an ERG?
ERGs presumably have a function everyone agrees on. Not actually. This was one thing that struck me about my consultancy. Neither the DEI team, which supported the establishment of ERGs on behalf of the organization, nor the ERGs had a defined and agreed idea of the ERG’s function beyond the vaguest terms – support, promote, facilitate – you know this foggy language that has no action-rooted foundation.

I was successful as a Disability ERG lead because I had three clear missions:

1. Change systems, processes and behaviours to eliminate systemic discrimination.
2. Address individual suffering by staff with disability subject to discrimination and abuse because of their disability.
3. Influence the organization’s culture to make it more inclusive.
   I met those mission intents – not as ‘job done’, but as ‘job started and underway’.

I have since refined my sense of the ERG’s function to be one of Collaborating, as a subject matter expert, with an organization to help it meet its legal responsibilities to staff with disabilities. That is intentionally a narrow definition. There is nothing political or social in it. If an organization wants to expand its definition, I have no objection. I would like to the additional of a ‘moral responsibility’, but that is subject to argument that could be fairly called political. I just want to define a minimal function rooted in law.

What are the skills/capabilities needed to achieve this?
Let’s start at the top. An organization’s executive must have a clear intellectual framework that incorporates a realistic grasp of the social/cultural environment, its legal and moral responsibilities and the practicalities of organizational governance and management to ensure its obligations are met.

It can’t/shouldn’t farm out that critical intelligence to people who are not qualified to provide advice and guide actions.

DEI teams are comprised of well-intentioned people, many of whom have a passion for equity and inclusion. But it’s rare to encounter a member of such a team who has a strong intellectual understanding – insight into organizational, social, group or individual psychology for example. Most have political and sentimental connections to the ideals and values – but on a professional level, they are frequently clueless, and sometimes obstructive of any effort to stimulate change. Being in a DEI team might be just where you landed to earn a wage and pay your mortgage. It doesn’t mean you are a devotee to the cause, even if you are genuinely in sympathy with it.

ERG leads are a mixed bunch. In some sensible organizations they are selected via a competitive recruitment process, because the roles are esteemed. But they are often a matter of membership vote. This has to be the most stupid form of leadership selection for this kind of organization.

An ERG whose details I won’t divulge held an election for a lead. It had over 200 members. There were no selection criteria or capabilities for candidates to meet. There were just pitches from self-identified candidates. There were 16 votes cast and the margin between the candidate who won, and a disastrous choice was a single vote. Not even political parties are that reckless in candidate selection – and we all know how that turns out.

The ERG leadership choice is critical. I was a founding member of a Disability ERG in 2010. Our inaugural Chair was a regional manager who was a wheelchair user. He was appointed. He had strong effective relationships with the organization’s executive. The Chair role seemed to be just about chairing meetings. That’s what we saw, and he did a great job. But he was followed by two Chairs with low organizational standing and little relevant leadership experience. They were elected by ‘popular’ vote. I stood in both elections and was rewarded with the ‘do nothing’ role of Deputy Chair at my second attempt. I got to be Chair because the incumbent departed to another department during a restructure.

What we didn’t see, in our inaugural Chair’s role, were all the ‘behind the scenes’ conversations he had with executives with whom he had already an established relationship. There was influence there that we didn’t see. I had a chat with him one morning about how he saw his role, because I was curious. The two Chairs who followed him had no such influence and the ERG’s influence significantly waned. We had less attention and fewer resources. The standing and the competence of the lead mattered. It took me maybe 18 months as ERG lead to fully understand this.

So, my point here is that Disability Inclusion is a matter of legal responsibility in the first instance, whether this about anti-discrimination law or work health and safety. In the second instance it is about competent roll out of policy. In the third instance it’s about effective delivery of subject matter expertise and advocacy. But none of this could happen without effective leadership – within the ERG, the DEI team or the organization’s executive. I was blessed with having the latter two, which allowed my own capabilities to shine.

This isn’t about armed camps in conflict, but about aligned and mutually dependent interest groups collaborating in common cause. But how often do you see that?

The ERG isn’t fit for purpose anymore
ERGs are modelled on a voluntary staff association notion in Australia. That was a well-intentioned but hopelessly naïve thought. It may have got things moving, but the idea didn’t evolve beyond that naïve initiation in so many instances.

Many of the early unanswered questions about how effective ERGs are have been answered – not perfectly, but sufficiently, so as we need to now ask different questions. What I see in the NSW public sector is a disengagement with the real challenges and a continual regurgitation of calmative platitudes. There is an absence of critical engagement with the notion of Disability Inclusion and ERGs as a vehicle for driving genuine change in the interests of staff with disability whose inclusion and safety needs have not been met.

I now understand that when a government talks about ERGs being ‘employee led’ it means a performative and decorative role, not empowerment to demand or drive changes. I missed that memo.

My time as Disability ERG lead triggered a series of changes that eliminated many system and process impediments. We were able to change the culture and raise the profile of Disability Inclusion – a theme taken up enthusiastically by many staff. What is left to be tackled in terms of systems and processes? I don’t know, but I do believe that people of goodwill are continuing to work through the wish list. But there isn’t a clear shared picture of what legal duty and moral duty demand. Not in the organization, not in HR, and not in the ERGs.

Why hasn’t this picture been crafted in a collaborative and consultative manner between the people whose interests are served and those who have the decision-making powers and a duty-of-care responsibilities? The answers I got tended to be about lack of time and opportunity. You can make both if you have a passion and determination – and a sense of responsibility.

An early question I asked in my consultancy was, “Why support this ERG?” Beyond the answer, “It is a good thing to do.” I wasn’t convinced by what I heard. That’s not a business case. Asking for support for ERGs should require a business case that is clear, credible and compelling. My background gives me a strong bias toward problem solving. How do we end suffering, which is very real?

What I found was that a lot of ERGs wanted to focus on ‘celebrating diversity’. They weren’t able to identify a problem to be solved other than that they didn’t have time to organise the ‘celebrations’ and do the administration needed to maintain the ERG. I was surprised and dismayed by the ERG leads who wanted their role to be fulltime. What was happening in the internal conversation? Were there no problems – inequities or injustices – to be addressed?

Celebrating diversity and inclusion is good to do, but does this merit an expectation of fulltime role as ERG lead?

To put this desire into perspective it is worthwhile getting a brief history lesson. In early 2018 I was restructured out of my role and was offered a role in another division whose Deputy Secretary was the Executive Disability ERG champion at the time. I was facilitated in my Chair role through being given remarkable liberty to do that role in paid time – because I was delivering results. Following another restructure, I was invited to move to another division and became a member of a team whose Executive Director was the Disability ERG’s new Executive Champion. I then had a role where I continued to have the liberty to devote a lot of time as Disability ERG lead as well as work on two areas that related to internal disability matters that impacted staff with disability in very significant ways. I got these opportunities because I was delivering results.

Three months after I left my ERG Chair role my successor was offered the change to go fulltime as Disability ERG Chair and take up other related roles. This was an interesting experiment and commitment – and it was the foundation of the myth that one could become a fulltime ERG lead. This was attractive to the leads at the time – but never realistic – and why that was the case was never explained to them.

I tell this story because it illustrated the utter paucity of understanding and communication among critical parties. This isn’t a criticism so much as an observation about how an organization can so utterly fail at internal communication, shared vision and agreed action on a matter all parties ostensibly agree is important.

But the key observation here must be that if an ERG isn’t delivering anticipated benefits to the organization or its members, perhaps it is no longer fit for purpose? During my consultancy I found that the ERGs who saw themselves as ‘problem solvers’ were keen to talk with me. Those who saw their function as primarily celebratory were not.

A key insight for me was an observation made by an acting DEI manager during my consultancy. They observed, in response to a report I had submitted, that maybe ERG shouldn’t be understood as an Employee Resource Group but as an Employee Reference Group. I had to look up the meaning of ‘reference group’. I am amazed how often I am unaware of great ideas, and I am grateful for the education. I am now a member of an Access Reference Group run by my very inclusive local government (have been so since July 2021 but changing our name to a ‘reference group’ didn’t happen until early 2026).

This is from australia.icomos.org:
Reference Groups
Generally, we use the term ‘Reference Group’ to refer to a group of eminent professionals with expertise in a given area that can be called on for opinions or advice on issues that arise from time to time. As a general rule, we divide these small, ad hoc subcommittees of members into Reference Groups – these are intended to include a core group of members, with specialist skills in a particular area, who are available and willing to provide advise or opinions to the Executive Committee. Reference Groups are ongoing, although membership will be refreshed at least every three years through a call for Expressions of Interest from members. Members will be selected based on demonstrated expertise and experience.

In contrast this discussion of ERGs from Wikipedia is quite a contrast:
Employee resource groups (also known as ERGs, affinity groups, business network groups, or business resource groups[1]) are groups of employees who join in their workplace based on shared characteristics or life experiences.[2] ERGs are generally based on providing support, enhancing career development, and contributing to personal development in the work environment. In the past, ERGs have traditionally been focused on personality traits or characteristics for underrepresented groups, for example women, sexual orientation, gender, etc. With the resurgence of ERGs in the workplace, ERGs are expanding to “interest-based” groups gathered around particular activities. Some of these include job responsibility, environmental advocacy, community service and volunteerism, and workplace wellness. Further, as an emerging facet of human resources and employee engagement in the business world, the existence of ERGs is important for reference and understanding in the world of business. Exploring the topic of employee resource groups can provide insightful information for business employees and young professionals seeking to understand a new business.

The key distinction is between subject matter expertise and personal ‘diversity’ attributes as primary distinguishing features of group membership. This has become especially pertinent in Disability Inclusion for two important reasons.

Identifying as a person with disability isn’t the point
As the appeal of identity politics grows, the relationship between identity and disadvantage becomes crucial. The success of the social model of disability has led to there being fewer and fewer physical, systemic or procedural impediments to inclusion in workplaces and the community in general in Australia for people with disabilities. In no way is the job done though.

Yes, a person in a wheelchair may indisputably have a disability but how is that necessarily relevant in a workplace which has addressed wheelchair accessibility? One of my former colleagues has bi-lateral lower limb prosthetics but how is his work performance impacted? I am not asserting an answer to either question. I am making the point about asking the question. A disability must be relevant to one’s ability to perform in a job for it to be pertinent to the theme of Disability Inclusion in a workplace – which is what this blog is about.

Being tone deaf or having no sense of taste are both legitimate disabilities. But unless you work as a singer or a chef, they are unlikely to impact your capacity to work or require accommodations or adjustments. I have been seeing a trend toward disability identity being a stronger attribute for leadership of a Disability ERG than any experience of the need for workplace accommodations or adjustments. I am also seeing a trend toward people who identify as having a disability using that identity to assert a capacity to act as an inclusion advocate. In a broader social sense, I have no issue with that. But in the context of workplaces where the issue is the need for workplace accommodations or adjustments this identity just isn’t sufficient. Hence the reference/resource distinction becomes vital.

I have mobility and grip disabilities that impact my ability to be included in ways a wheelchair user might not appreciate. Disabilities are neither uniform nor determinative in a work context. When I became a Disability ERG lead, I was mercilessly schooled by the blind and deaf members who rightly understood I was clueless about their needs.

Being a person with a disability doesn’t mean you experience exclusion because of your disability in every instance of life experience. Neither does it mean you automatically have the slightest clue about the exclusion realities and inclusion needs of your colleagues. And arguments about exclusion in a workplace because of having a disability are way more subtle than we appreciate.

For example, I know quite a few people with disabilities who are disliked because of their reaction to the discrimination they experience rather than anything directly about their disability. I am firmly on the side of those who are cranky because of what they have had to put up with. But, if you want to be an effective Disability Inclusion advocate or activist, the extent to which you can be effective is linked to your ability to rise above your personal feelings. Stay cranky, just use it to energise your passion, not shape it.

I recently was asked to react to a document put out by a group that wanted to create shared safe spaces for staff with disability to come together to talk about career development (and other things – to be fair). I had no issue at all with the idea. But I had a huge concern about it taking over an area that was focused on concern for workplace accommodations or adjustments – as if that was all a done deal. In a way this might have been fair enough, because a lot of those concerns have been addressed. But what remains substantially unresolved are entrenched biased and discriminatory attitudes toward staff with disabilities who don’t have the power or means to defend their rights or interests.

So, what people who have disabilities that don’t require workplace accommodations or adjustments don’t understand is that those who have those needs remain subject to discrimination and abuse. This is because changing policies, systems and procedures does not change attitudes, beliefs or behaviours.

We live in communities and cultures that have genuine goodwill and changes in legislation and policies have led to organizational behaviours which foster more inclusive behaviour. There’s a social evolutionary trend towards more inclusive and kinder behaviour, notwithstanding the current glitch. But this doesn’t mean that the job of Disability Inclusion advocacy is done.

Why intentional cultural evolution is the next big thing
One thing law enforcement tells us is that there’s a gap between what the law says and how people behave. Even most law-abiding communities have a minority of egregious offenders who persist in causing strife and harm.

We are, as individuals, tolerant of a certain amount of behaviour that offends us. In organizations this is reflected in the way we allow behaviours that would be individually morally offensive to us to pass without reaction or open comment. We would not behave that way…but.

One of the biggest problems organizations have is accountability. If you start demanding it, you will be subject to the same standard. And it can seem like disloyalty to hold a member of your own ‘in group’ accountable – and a threat, because they can do the same to you. This is a real problem in management and executive in-groups in organizations who will hold lower ranking staff members to account – but not their peers, and certainly not their superiors.

I am a huge fan of the Neuroleadership Institute (NLI) which uses neuroscience to help organizations to change their behaviour. One of their most recent formulations is GPA. This stands for Growth Mindset, Psychological Safety and Accountability. These are three organizational challenge areas that organizations must address if they want to be successful in this age. NLI has neuroscience and data-based strategies, methods and training to help organizations be successful.

In contrast the NSW public sector has a statement of values, one of which is ‘accountability’. In relation to this there is the statement, “Take responsibility for decisions and actions.” Aside from the fact that this is an insipid affirmation, there is nowhere any discussion of how this might happen against the innate psychological impulse we have to not do this at all.

The NSW public sector also has a Code of Conduct which articulates the required minimum standards of behaviour toward colleagues and members of the community. But violations of that Code of Conduct, which prohibits abusive or discriminatory conduct, are almost never policed. What is the point of requiring staff to sign a Code of Conduct document if those who violate it are not called to account? What is the point of declaring that ‘accountability’ is a primary value if it is never called upon except in extreme instances?

There are clear psychological insights that explain this paradox. It has a moral tinge to it, but it is psychological in nature. So, this isn’t an exercise in assigning blame. But there are also demonstrably effective strategies to break through this paradox – and the fact that they are either unknown or ignored should be a matter of concern for us all – especially in relation to the public sector.

The next stage beyond the social model of disability is the cultural model of inclusion which eliminates disabling beliefs, attitudes and behaviours from workplace cultures. But if we can’t/won’t uphold the contract we sign when we sign on to a Code of Conduct how is that going to happen? By osmosis? By some magical force of social evolution? If so, why do we need any kind of intentional change forms at all – like DEI teams, ERGs or government campaigns?

Enforcement doesn’t have to be about censure and punishment. It can be about learning (growth mindset) in a kind atmosphere (psychological safety). It does mean that you must put the cognitive effort in to behaving better. But surely that comes with the job and the culture you signed up to honour and support.

A Disability Reference Group might have a chance of being an antidote to the magical thinking of simply asserting an aspiration of accountability, as if doing so were sufficient to make it happen. But it needs serious backing by an executive leadership that believes what it says.

Conclusion
There are many reasons why ERGs don’t and can’t work as hoped. There are many reasons why organizations are weakening their support for ERGs. There are many reasons for organizations to back away from DEI. But a lack of goodwill isn’t one. Neither is a lack of good intent.

I am constantly hearing comments from former colleagues, and observations on organizational management from podcasts affirm that staff are overwhelmed by the demands on them. The observations on the quality of executive leadership and management are uniformly bleak. This isn’t an easy time to be running an organization or be working in one.

We have multiple demands on our attention and cognitive/emotional capacity from our personal lives as well as from work. Our capacity to be more aware of the needs of colleagues with disability is limited, and the last thing we want is to be accused of not caring.

This isn’t an environment for an Employee Resource Group. It’s the wrong kind of body now. An Employee Reference Group is way better suited. But an organization must be prepared to commit to the critical transformative change of holding discriminatory and abusive conduct to genuine account if the next stage of the transformation of our workplace culture is going to happen. It must commit to engaging with an Employee Reference Group as part of its core business activity to meet it legal and moral responsibilities. Without executive leadership commitment all else is futile. There is thus a business case to be put.

This is the tipping-point change that must be taken as the next stage of the ‘rights revolution’ of the 1960s. That tipping-point is the transition from ‘rights asserting’ to ‘rights honouring’. The argument is simple enough to assert, but, like the ‘rights asserting revolution’ it will take determined and skilled action to make it happen.

This includes a huge rethink about what Disability Inclusion is really about – your ego and sense of identity as a person with disability, or the welfare of the people whose interests you say you represent. Is it about disability as an identity or the unfulfilled hope of those seeking inclusion, access and freedom from bias, discrimination and abuse?

In 2026 our world is undergoing so many changes it is challenging to keep up with them. The rate of change shows no sign of abating. But this has been true for at least the past 25 years – way longer, but I am trying to be kind here. We can’t really use the rate of change or the level of demand on our need to adapt as an excuse. We make choices about how we use our waking hours. That’s not a judgement, just an observation. So, we chose between the options we have.

Commentators on the introduction of AI observe the importance of what they call ‘metacognition’, which is described as ‘thinking about thinking’. I have a less obscure way of describing it – self-reflection and self-awareness.

AI can make us stupid if we use it to do our thinking for us. Or it can make us smarter if we use it as a tool to help us think better. Personally, I have used AI in a very limited way, and I have no interest in going much beyond that. So, I am not promoting AI so much as the insight it has triggered from canny observers.

That insight is that AI is like any other functioning intelligence environment – like organizations, social media, or one’s culture and community. If we imbibe what we are fed with no reflective awareness, we can be made stupid because we absorb and accept uncritically what we are told is true. But if we engage in efforts at self-reflection and self-awareness, we have a chance of changing what we believe, imagine and how we behave.

It is a simple, but not an easy, prospect. It requires intentional focused effort. This is really why Disability Inclusion is so hard. It just requires more effort than those who identify as Disability Inclusion Advocates or Activists are apparently prepared dedicate. In reality, identifying as a Disability Inclusion Advocate or Activist matters more than actually delivering outcomes for the people who really need advocacy and activism.

In the end it comes down to this – is Disability Inclusion really the problem we think it is? To me it is because I continue to hear alarming and concerning tales of discrimination, bias and abuse in workplaces where it shouldn’t be happening. These reports are accompanied by confessions of powerlessness to defend and evidence of denial that these outrages continue to be perpetrated. It’s as if those who represent the interests of staff with disability lack the competence they need to perform their roles, or really don’t care, beyond their own identity and status as advocate or activist. Either way ERGs as we have known them are no longer fit for purpose (if they have ever been).

A transition to ERGs as Employee Reference Groups can unlock the evolutionary potential of the next stage of the ‘rights revolution’ – that of rights honouring. Are we up for it?

Introduction
I was checking my email this morning and opened one from LinkedIn because the subject line indicated it was about my former employer. It was announcing the launch of its 2026-2031 Belonging and Inclusion Strategy. I wanted to see what it said about disability. But the document wasn’t yet available to the public. I also wondered whether there was a report on its 2020-2025 strategy. Apparently not. I didn’t expect there would be.

I do not like these grand strategies because they give false expectations for, or, more realistically, they give no real hope to the people who are said to be the beneficiaries. Such strategies were routinely produced by my former employer, and the standard response was to sigh and never look at the things again.

Below I want to reflect on why these documents have no real value and why they add another level of peril to a climate of retreat from believing in the value of inclusion strategies. The ‘anti-woke’ dislike of inclusive policies could point to this strategy as something to scorn – for justifiable reasons.

Why we keep setting up targets for others to hit
I have been following the retreat for sympathy for inclusion with interest and alarm. While I don’t agree with most of the criticisms I can see why they are made. As I have argued in pasts posts I think many inclusion advocates have hit the limits of their imagination and capacity.

As inclusion has become accepted as a social value it has transformed from an edgy passion to a respectable position. The real change work done in the edgy passion stage has become more about affirming continuing ‘commitment’ to the values and ideals espoused than continuing the effort to drive change.

This isn’t a criticism. It’s just how things happen. An edgy passion is risky and challenging of authority – which is usually resisting the desired and just change. A respectable ‘commitment’ to the values and ideals is a safer conformist position held by people with zero interest in putting their situation at risk.

In The Better Angels of Our Nature Steven Pinker reminded me how fundamentally transformative the ‘rights revolution’ of the 1960s was. We won the right to be included, as a person with disability, in our community in ways not hitherto allowed or facilitated. But having a right acknowledged and having that right honoured are two very different things. We had a ‘rights acknowledgement’ revolution, but we haven’t had a ‘rights honouring’ revolution. That’s because the next stage is not a revolution, but an evolution. This requires a very different mindset and skillset.

But what has been happening has been wheel spinning as many inclusion advocates are stuck in the rights acknowledgement phase – relitigating and reaffirming. Inclusion plans are often the worst manifestation of this. They are a target for scorn and derision. And justly so.

Strategies are accountable action plans, not magical thinking
Public sector organisations are fond of writing strategies and plans but not following them. This is mostly because they are exercises in compliance with government policy – where the production of the strategy is the output and the outcome of the activity. In this case a government has affirmed its commitment to values, ideals and principles. This is a large return for a small investment (writing the strategy).

The 2020-2025 Strategy has a section early on that articulates “Our commitment to inclusion”. It says “Our leaders will”
• build their own and team inclusive leadership capability in order to value and actively sponsor inclusion and diversity in the workplace
• recognise the business need behind this commitment and its contribution to building stronger communities
• drive progress towards our inclusion and diversity goals in their workforce and across (the organisation) and develop performance goals and measures to track their team’s progress
• hold themselves and each other accountable for their inclusion and diversity progress and performance.

But there’s nothing about these ‘statements of will’ being accountable KPIs in employment contracts. And this is in a sector that proudly proclaims values which include:
Trust – We value the quality of our relationships and do what we say we will do
Accountability – We take responsibility for our decisions and actions
Integrity – Ethics are at the heart of all we do and we show courage by acting honestly, consistently and impartially.

Here I am not slamming my former employer, just pointing up the inherent contradictions in the gulf of difference between what is asserted and what is actual. The absence of accountability of statements of will as KPIs in contracts speaks volumes.

The rest of the strategy is likewise devoid of credible affirmations of accountability, so I won’t belabour the point. Musa Ai-Gharbi’s We Have Never Been Woke makes the bigger point. The purpose of these strategies is only superficially intended to convey benefits to the people who are described as the intended recipients of their positive outcomes. The real beneficiaries are those who commission them, those who write them and those who approve of them.

What is absent from the strategies is any ‘how to’ that shows how progress on implementation and evaluations of outcomes will be measured in terms of stages of implementation. The 2020-2025 Strategy had “Our success measures” but these were presumed outcomes. For example, the action – “using workforce diversity information to make evidence-based decisions about our people and initiatives“ has the related success measure – “our people feel safe to share diversity information” with no indication how that might be achieved. This has been an issue across the sector for many years and nobody I am aware of has come up with an effective strategy for dealing with the issue. It isn’t difficult. It needs a real commitment to action and actually doing something.

In the 2020-2025 Strategy there’s a section under the heading: Leading an inclusive culture that says, “We will focus on engaging and developing all leaders to role model values of service, trust, accountability, integrity and respect.” It goes on to say, “We will do this by:

1. embedding inclusive leadership across all levels of management to achieve improved long-term outcomes
2. promoting an inclusive, safe and harassment-free organisational culture where our people feel valued, respected and empowered to contribute, and there are safe, inclusive practices where complaints arise
3. developing a sustainable pipeline of diverse talent for senior leadership role”
   The problems with these statements should be obvious:
4. You can’t talk about “embedding inclusive leadership” without saying very clearly how that will happen. That’s a big job that would require focused, coordinated and planned action and monitoring over a sustained period.
5. Promoting anything isn’t a strategy. It leaves open non-compliance as a non-accountable option. You could say ‘implementing’ but then you’d have to say how and what measures you will put in place to monitor and evaluate.
6. The third statement is meaningless. How would you ‘develop’ such a ‘sustainable’ ‘pipeline’? How would it work? How long would it take? This is another case of something that would be demanding to create and develop in real life.

There’s little wonder there’s no ‘How’d we do on the 2020 – 2025 Strategy?’ report.

So why bother?
An anti-DEI critic might justly call the Strategy woke nonsense and argue that it’s a waste of time and money to produce such a document since it is full of language intent on seducing the mind into a hypnotised state of believing what is being read is meaningful.

When we ask ourselves why the Strategy was written we struggle with the notion that it was to ensure that those who are said to be its beneficiaries will actually experience a greater sense of belonging and a stronger sense of inclusion.

The most compelling argument is that the sense of ‘job done’ ends with the document being crafted, published and promoted. This is why we cannot find the kind of details about implementation and accountability a real strategy would have.

So, we must acknowledge that, even given this, the document has a value because if it wasn’t crafted the signal that the ideals and values it contains are good things would be absent.

Conclusion
This isn’t a useless or pointless document. But we must not mistake it for being what it is not – a blueprint for action. We are better off feeling good about belonging and inclusion than feeling nothing or feeling averse.

But here’s the hazard. Because the document is called a strategy, it appears to be. But it’s not. It is an affirmation of positive sentiments shared by the politicians, the executives and the managers (well most of them at least).

What it isn’t is a genuine ‘call to action’. This must be understood by the ‘woke’ who will mistake it for such a call and the ‘anti-woke’ who not only make the same mistake but also find the affirmation offensive.

The biggest danger with such a document is that might be substituted for a genuine ‘call to action’ by those who style themselves as Disability Inclusion activists or advocates who are trapped in affirmation of sentiment – the affirmation of rights – phase and who cannot transition to the ‘rights honouring’ evolutionary phase.

It does nothing to further the cause of Disability Inclusion in any concrete sense because it addresses none enduring impediments to genuine inclusion – predominantly the reluctance of senior leaders to genuinely hold managers and staff accountable for entrenched discriminatory and abusive attitudes. The kind of behavioural, attitudinal and cultural changes that are necessary are difficult to implement. They require sustained committed leadership over time. And they require sustained committed advocacy.

There’s a reason Disability ERGs were created in the first place. Organisations can’t make these changes unassisted. But that insight requires a genuine commitment to change from all parties. Instead, we are seeing performative affirmations of values and aspirations that are not a conduit for action, only ‘feel good’ sentiment. This weakens the spirit of Disability Inclusion and pins a target on our backs for the ‘anti-woke’ and other critics to aim at.

If the trend toward defunding and closing staff networks/ERGs continues and organizations decide to just leave things up to such as internal belonging and inclusion strategies, the evolution toward more inclusive work culture will continue its glacial pace. This will leave many staff with disabilities without real support or representation. We must remember that Disability ERGs were created for a sound reason. But they then often fell afoul of the same preference for affirmation of values that has no genuine operational intent behind it.

Disability Inclusion is a real ‘struggle’ to ensure affirmed rights are honoured and realised. This requires an operational strategy with teeth backed by an active assurance of accountability. The most critical insight is that a Disability ERG is performing a role that is part of an organization’s core business – ensuring that the organization can meet its legal responsibilities toward its staff. It is one thing to have a policy of increasing the diversity of staff to reflect the community being served. It is another thing entirely to ensure that good intent is backed up by active accountable measures to ensure staff safety. These measures are not optional and don’t need strategies. They need effective governance.

But things like Belonging and Inclusion Strategies blur this distinction completely. Organizations prefer to maintain the confusion – because it’s easier and cheaper. I learned this back in 2011 when, at a Disability ERG meeting, I asked HR staff whether Disability Inclusion might be covered under work health and safety responsibilities. There was an immediate chill in the room. I was assured it could not. But all my efforts to discover why this was thought to be true were met by immediate deflections to another subject.

The whole point of having a Belonging and Inclusion Strategy is that there is an evident need for one. This is because belonging and inclusion don’t come naturally or easy in all workplace situations. The result is people of ‘diverse attributes’ suffer – are harmed. There’s a reason that people who are covered by DEI policies are sometimes called ‘protected groups’. They are vulnerable to real harm – mostly psychological, but sometimes physical.

Whether organizations like it or not, this is a genuine work health safety concern. A substantial number of staff in the NSW public sector go off on workers compensation because of the psychological stress caused by discriminatory conduct.

As ERGs and DEI team are defunded, diminished or disbanded in favour of organizations addressing inclusion needs of their staff through their own culture the worst-case scenario is reliance on the likes of Belonging and Inclusion Strategies as an organization’s idea of a credible and effective solution to the problem they know they have.

We must surrender the seduction of the safe fog of affirmation that can make us feel so good – and the self-induced confusion that envelopes us. And we must remember those who aren’t feeling as good as we ‘encourage’, ‘promote’, ‘develop’, ‘improve’ and ‘strive’. But not actually do anything.

Reading We Have Never Been Woke will help. You can get it as a 3D book, an audiobook or an ebook. At the very least do read my earlier blog post – The limits of caring.