Introduction
I figured it’s time to remind the reader why I think the way I do. It didn’t come out of the blue.
I was a conventional thinker about Disability ERGs from July 2010 to May 2018. Then I attended the Australian Network on Disability’s (AND – now ADN) Annual National Conference in Sydney. The keynote speaker was Kate Nash, founder and CEO of PurpleSpace.
Kate introduced me to the idea of Networkology and the next day she ran a workshop on the theme.
My transition to being an active and even radical Disability ERG lead was fast. Below I want to explore some of the key inspirations that Kate triggered and why they made such an impact.
A methodology
The idea of Networkology was one of those “Aha!” moments for me. I had been used to thinking about Disability Inclusion as being opportunistic – getting what attention and focus I could between doing my ‘real’ job.
I stopped thinking in fragments and started to join things up – a discipline of envisioning, conceiving, planning, executing, reviewing. It was a project like any other work I was doing. I was, after all, a Senior Project Officer.
So, I rethought my role as ERG lead as a project and not ‘hobby’ – something to engaged in in my ‘spare’ time. This was a critical change because it instantly made me ‘professionalize’ my perspective.
Networkology was a powerful idea to me because it instantly reminded me that there was a professional discipline at the foundation of Disability Inclusion. Now I had a plan and was conscious of the need for a strategy.
The experience couldn’t have been more timely. My conception of what I was about was radically disrupted when I was on the cusp of an extraordinary change in my work environment. I was to transfer to a new division and be given the opportunity to put as much time into the Disability ERG as I wanted.
Always on
Disability Inclusion was something I thought about routinely because I was almost always making some assessment about my own needs. My grip and mobility disabilities impacted my working in some way every day.
But thinking about Disability Inclusion for others, as Disability ERG lead, was a different matter.
I was a founding member of the Disability ERG back in July 2010. It met 4 times a year for a generous full day. We were backed by HR who organized and paid for everything. What we were doing was taken seriously.
But things change and people move on. Shortly after I became ERG lead HR had to pull back its support. The department was undergoing more restructuring, and HR resources had to be re-assigned. Besides there was good progress being made on the Disability Inclusion front. This was true.
But Kate reminded me that Disability Inclusion isn’t just a bureaucratic process. The progress being made didn’t mean that less effort should be applied. It meant that we should be grateful and then ask what else must happen?
The withdrawal of HR support simply signaled that we had to re-imagine what the ERG was about. We had to evolve beyond the bureaucratic phase of changing policies, systems and procedures and become agents for cultural change.
I didn’t understand this properly until recently. Back in 2018 all I had was a dimly formed intuition that Disability Inclusion was an ‘always on’ state of mind. I was energised by a huge sense of excitement and an extraordinary opportunity to make something happen.
Later that year I called for volunteers to help me. I had the privilege of having my employer’s support to have the time work on evolving the ERG, but I didn’t know a great deal about how my fellow ERG members were experiencing their workplaces.
My call for volunteers led to the creation of the Guidance and Action Team (GAT) – 13 passionate, frustrated and highly principled people with a range of disabilities who wanted to make positive things happen. There were also 2 allies who brought their own useful perspectives.
The first thing that happened for me was an intensive education about what members with sensory, motor, chronic illness (like MS) and mental health disabilities constantly experienced in the workplace.
This was an intense time. My work with disability goes back a long way and includes providing personal care, intimate aids and ensuring the delivery of social and health services. But that did little to prepare me for the existential pain of adults feeling marginalized, disrespected and psychologically abused in their workplaces.
Perhaps because PurpleSpace was a separate ongoing organization the idea of being ‘always on’ made perfect sense. But how could that become anything close to being real in my workplace?
The gift of time
In June 2023 I was invited to act as a consultant to my former employer’s ERG leads. The first thing that became evident was that there was a shared complaint about not having the time needed to work on ERG business.
This was a legitimate complaint because there was the expectation that an ERG was a voluntary employee-led body that had organizational sanction but no formal standing. ERG business had to fit into an ERG lead’s regular workload, which had priority.
Kate’s keynote address at the conference was possible only because she, as founder and CEO of PurpleSpace, had the time to formulate her ideas and methods. She had time to think, time to research, time to collaborate and communicate
Also at that conference was our Disability ERG’s Executive Champion, a Deputy Secretary. Her role in what happened next cannot be under-estimated.
In the space of a few weeks, I went from spending a lot of my evenings, weekends and leave working on Disability ERG matters to having at least 3 days a week to do that work. I was able to create a communications infrastructure that enabled the GAT to interact daily. I also sent out monthly reports to members, supporters and champions, and had a regular presence in the organization’s newsletter.
The benefit of having time is undeniable. But the foundation for this rests on two critical factors relevant before I was granted that gift of 3 paid days a week. And this was before the AND conference and Kate’s speech.
The first was that I had created an active presence for the Disability ERG in the organization. And I had established a value to members and the organization. This was hard time-consuming work that had to be thought through very carefully. I had the good fortune to have had a decent grounding in writing. In the past I had written a satirical workplace newsletter that was shared widely. I had won literary competition awards for short fiction, essays and poetry and I had written a Masters Honours thesis.
The ERGs I worked with from June 2023 to June 2025 mostly belonged to a very different phase to the one the Disability ERG was created in. They were mostly modelled on the Disability ERG’s success but with none of the roots or foundational experiences.
They were established with minimal organizational support and with no theoretical foundation to what they were and how they were to succeed. That’s not a criticism. I didn’t have a theory either. The Disability ERG’s success depended on multiple factors, none of which included having an overall theory. We had a great strategy though.
Having the time is one thing. Knowing what to do with it is another. In June 2023 I sympathized with the ERG leads who complained they had no time. They didn’t. But it was only half of their problem.
Theory aversion
Hindsight is a wonderful when we have the luxury of developing it. So, I can look back of the Disability ERG’s success and, after several years of reflection and research, write about why that success came about. I wasn’t prescient so much as fortunate enough to be at the right place and the right time. But I also had some attributes and capabilities that enabled me to take advantage of opportunity.
In July 2010 the CEO of my department formed the belief that there was inadequate support for staff with disability while the department was responsible for providing support for people with disability across the state. Some of that support was being provided by staff with disability. There was, then, a clear sense of moral and legal responsibility – hitherto overlooked. Within this sense the Disability ERG was formed to provide input to inform how this newly formed sense of responsibility for staff with disability was to express as action. This was done well for a few years.
But, like so many initiatives, when the department’s Disability Inclusion behaviour matured from creating to maintenance, there was no corresponding theory of purpose and role negotiated with the ERG. Nobody thought this was necessary, understandably. What we were doing was still novel.
When I took on the ERG lead role in November 2016 I had several advantages. I had decent experience in leadership roles. I had a background of working with business and organizational leaders (mostly modest scale entities) in previous roles. I had Masters and Masters Honours degrees majoring in Social Ecology. I had been reading in management, leadership and organizational behaviour informally for several decades, and I had an Associate Diploma in Applied Management – a 6-months course my employer paid for.
Depending on the organization, requirements for ERG leadership vary. In my department ERG leadership was determined by popular vote with no particular selection criteria. This frequently led to relatively junior staff with no leadership, management or project management skills being elected. This had the result of ERGs having no idea of the benefit of having a theory of what they were about, or how they fitted into the organization. And given the organization had shifted into a different understanding of what roles ERGs played without developing this into a shared theory, it also had no theory. There was bound to be confusion.
My advantage was that I was able to quickly grasp the value of Kate’s idea of Networkology – once I had become aware of it. Because our Executive Champion was at the same event, and the executive board was actively supportive of the cause of Disability Inclusion, there was an implicit shared understanding of the Disability ERG’s role. It was not, however, explicit. We hadn’t advanced that far. Nevertheless, that implicit understanding enabled good things to happen.
What I found interesting and frustrating during my consultancy was that there was an aversion among many ERG leads and within the DEI team toward any attempt to develop a shared theory of function and role, and to engage with executive sponsors and champions as a shared-interest group.
Perhaps this was too radical an idea? But I am reluctantly obliged to consider also that a lot of folks are just averse to doing good research and thinking. This isn’t a criticism. I must confess to being something of a nerd. I like research. There’s no reason to criticize those who don’t, but there’s good reason to wonder aloud whether somebody who doesn’t would be a good pick as ERG lead, given the amount of learning that is required.
Its one thing to develop a theory of what an ERG is, and what it should do, and another thing to have it shared and agreed to. Everyone associated with an ERG must be in agreement – the ERG, the DEI team and the organization’s executive.
Employee led or employee directed
The official position on ERGs in the NSW government clings to the outdated notion that an ERG is an employee led ‘network’. Network is a completely vague idea, which is why I don’t use it. Networking is something we do for personal advantage or to influence decisions or actions. The moment an organization has an interest in networks for its staff it time to pay attention.
The Disability ERG I joined as a founding member was called a network, not because it was an actual network, but because that was the term in vogue – as it still is today.
From Guidelines for Employee Networks we read “An Employee Network is a voluntary network of employees formed with common interests and objectives to enhance the workplace experience of target employee demographic/s.” That’s awfully soporific, bland and essentially meaningless. It sounds and feels good because it puts your brain into a coma – as intended.
Under the heading, Benefits to the Agency, the first benefit is, “Develop sources of expertise and support for employees with specific needs in the
Agency.” It is not, “Identify and address issues that lead to inaccessibility, exclusion or discrimination so that staff can experience safe workplaces and rewarding work experiences.”
Under the heading, Benefits to the Individual, the first benefit is, “Personal development opportunities.” It is not, “Identify and take up opportunities to increase inaccessibility and reduce exclusion or discrimination so that staff can experience safe workplaces and rewarding work experiences.”
In Appendix – 3 there is a Member Sample Survey which asks the question, “Realistically, how much time can you devote to providing support to the Employee Network each month?” The last of 4 options is “More than 8 hours per month.” That’s over 2 hours a week – 24 minutes a day. That’s not enough for ERG leads. There nothing, notably, recommending anything about paid time being made available to help the employer meet its responsibilities toward staff. The organization is ‘hands off’, except in telling employees how to run their network.
The idea of ‘volunteer employee network’ here is as a social club not intended not to have any impact on addressing real problems of exclusion, discrimination and inequity. It’s about a public posture to affirm a sentiment the sector is expected to affirm, but not genuinely deliver on. The cost of doing so exceeds that tolerance of those in power.
Employee are expected to contribute their own time to participate in a group that is focused on soft personal targets. This is a remarkably flaccid approach that can come only from those who have never experienced discrimination, exclusion or abuse. Nobody who has such experiences would ever write such guff.
Under the heading Why have an Employee Network? We can read “Building an inclusive workplace culture is important for retaining top talent and ensuring the public sector continues to deliver high-quality services to the people of NSW.
It is proven that when employees feel they can bring their whole self to work, they are more engaged, productive and motivated to drive innovation and growth.
Recognising the diverse needs of employees and empowering them to achieve their full potential at work will enhance the quality of services delivered to the people of NSW.”
So, let me put that into perspective, the author of this document imagines that these things should be done by employees in their own time? The employer is the one who has the responsibility of “Building an inclusive workplace culture” and “Recognising the diverse needs of employees and empowering them to achieve their full potential at work.”
This document reflects the complete confusion of the sector’s grasp of ERGs. It sets a high standard of imagined benefit, for which agencies are actually responsible, on moral, policy and legal grounds. But it offers no concrete support beyond creating a document that provides an unworkable set of guidelines, which, as I saw in my consultancy, leaves ERGs floundering under workload demands and no real benefit for effort put in.
You cannot achieve the imagined benefits with ‘volunteer’ networks without considerable organizational support and contribution.
The compelling observation is that ‘networks’ of this kind are ‘good ideas’ invented by people with no direct experience of discrimination or exclusion, and who imagine that polite informal conversations are all it will take. What the author this document seems unaware of is the people most motivated to joins such networks are those who experience personal disadvantage arising from attributes that class them as disadvantaged in some way – disability, gender, ethnicity, sexuality.
My former employer also had ‘networks’ for staff who were carers and/or older. Both may be subject to inflexible and/or uncaring attitudes and/or discrimination.
The only positive network was The Young Professionals, which, because it was based on positive self-interest was a genuine network.
Some ERGs which started off as problem-solvers transitioned into being more about celebrating identity and diversity because the grosser forms of discrimination have been seen to have been addressed. Whether celebrating identity and diversity is a proper function for an ERG is not something I will discuss here. It is sufficient that I flag genuine scepticism.
Problem-solving ERGs are what interest me intensely. The Disability ERG I led was established because there was a problem. Staff with disability were subject to discrimination and sometimes abuse. They were denied equal opportunity to participate in the work experience because of multiple barriers – physical, technological, systems, processes, practices and attitudes and behaviours.
Addressing these issues isn’t just about employees with disability getting together in a ‘network’. It is also about them asserting their rights for equity and inclusion.
This isn’t a universal entitlement. In NSW the public sector is obliged to ensure that its workforce reflects the community it serves. So, employing staff with disability isn’t a business efficiency proposition. It’s a social obligation. Its also then about anti-discrimination and work health and safety legal obligations.
Consequently, precisely why the sector imagines that making ‘voluntary’ groups putting in work in their own time a responsible party in meeting these responsibilities is something I genuinely find utterly baffling.
Conclusion
The current backlash against DEI and ERGs stems from, I think, the absence of shared theory of function and role. The NSW public sector guide for staff network hammers this home starkly. It has no real theory, just a collection of platitudes based on no genuine insight about what might motivate employees to join an ERG.
Research into the impacts of discrimination, exclusion and abuse indicate that the brains of those who experience such treatment in their workplaces register it the same way physical pain is registered. Precisely why, then, should ending this suffering be a casual matter flicked off to unskilled and over-taxed employees? By ‘unskilled’ I mean only in the context of addressing the suffering of their members.
Let me put this remark in a more precise context. In early 2021 (I think) the NSW public sector expressed concern about the high level of workers compensation claims. For good reason. A substantial number of the claims were for psychological injury. These included claims related to discrimination and what amounted to emotional abuse of staff with disability.
The response was to try to make such claims harder to establish and defend. There was reason for that, but what struck me most was the absence of any acknowledgement that many claims were justified. I have detailed knowledge of several. Comment on this theme must be left to a separate post.
The goals of ERGs must be the goals of an organization in relation to the safety and welfare of staff. Here is mutual self-interest. An organization has a legal and a moral duty towards its employees and it could create a partnership with its staff to help it fulfill those duties.
The Disability ERG I joined in July 2010 did that to a reasonable degree, given in was a new approach. The ERG I led from November 2016 to March 2020 did that as well. In each case there was a commitment from the organization’s executive, from HR and from the ERG members.
Active commitment and engagement from all 3 (the ERG, HR and the executive) are essential to ensure certain risks do not emerge:
• Politicization of the ERG.
• ERG members, HR staff or executives pushing ideological or personal agendas.
• The capacity for shared conversation breaks down with a loss of perspective, misunderstanding and suspicion of motives arising.
• A lack of professionalism in how an ERG is led is not identified and addressed through coaching, mentoring or leadership change.
Ultimately an ERG should be part of an organization’s core business in addressing its responsibilities toward staff and be supported and resourced accordingly. For this to happen there must be a theory of what the ERG’s function and role is – agreed to by the ERG, HR and the organization’s executive. When these things are in place good things happen. When they are not inequity, exclusion and discrimination persist. It is not just the ERG that must be fit for purpose to meet employee needs and rights, but HR and executive sponsors and champions must be fit to support and facilitate the intended outcome as well.
The post’s title suggests a radical approach. What PurpleSpace demonstrated to me was that a thoughtful, disciplined and professional approach to Disability Inclusion in the workplace will deliver the outcomes that organizations and ERG members want.
I adapted Kate’s insights to suit my capacity and the needs of my organization. In 2019 and 2020 we were invited to present at the AND (now ADN) Annual National Conferences on the innovations introduced and their impact. That’s a decent enough acknowledgement of success – contributed to by the ERG, HR and the organization’s executive. What we achieved required all 3 to be working together in mutual respect, trust and harmony.
I guess that’s radical.
Radical thinking isn’t a solitary business. I was inspired by Kate Nash, supported by my department’s Secretary, the ERG’s Executive Champions, other senior executives and the Manager of the Inclusion and Diversity team. I was energetically abetted by the 15 members of the GAT and ERG members in general. As well, I sought and obtained the collaboration of other executives and managers, many of whom became Disability Inclusion Champions.
Kate’s critical insight that Disability Inclusion was a professional matter triggered a cascade of insights and innovations. My main contribution was that I ran the ERG as a ‘de facto business unit’ – and I had the background and skills to do that well. This allowed me to position the ERG inside the organization’s core business – where it properly belonged.
Michael Patterson
6 September 2026
[email protected]