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:
- Change systems, processes and behaviours to eliminate systemic discrimination.
- Address individual suffering by staff with disability subject to discrimination and abuse because of their disability.
- 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?