I’ve been sitting with a pattern I keep seeing in conversations with ERG Program Managers. It shows up in Q&As, coaching calls, and behind-the-scenes strategy work. And once you see it, you can’t unsee it.
ERG programs want consistency, sustainability, and less chaos — but the way we’re trying to get there is often working against us.
If this month is about Blueprinting Success, then we have to be honest about what actually breaks the blueprint.
Most ERG programs aren’t struggling because people don’t care. They’re struggling because the system asks volunteers to operate without a clear design.
And we’ve been calling that “development.”
Blueprinting starts with acknowledging that consistency is a systems problem
When an ERG program feels inconsistent, the default explanation is usually people-focused.
“Our leads are too junior.”
“They’re stretched thin.”
“They’re not committed enough.”
But here’s the truth. Consistency is not determined by how senior your leads are. It’s determined by how efficient your system is.
Junior leaders can be incredibly effective when the structure around them is clear. Senior leaders can struggle just as much when expectations are vague and processes live in people’s heads instead of on paper.
If the system is strong, people succeed inside it. If the system is weak, no amount of motivation will fix it.
Which brings us to structure — and why we’ve misunderstood it
This is where the “development” conversation usually goes sideways.
We’ve convinced ourselves that ERG leads building their own structures, defining their own roles, and figuring everything out as they go is some kind of growth opportunity. But that’s not development — that’s ambiguity.
Having volunteers create their own structure and backfill their own roles is basically the equivalent of hiring a new employee and saying, “Figure it out. This will be great development for you.” That’s silly in a full-time job. It’s even worse when people are volunteering their time. Clarity is kindness.
And part of the tension here comes from history. Many ERGs were self-governed for a long time, and now programs are moving toward company-governed models. That transition requires real change management. Leaders want more support and sustainability without losing the heart of the community.
That’s the balance blueprinting is meant to solve.
Structure isn’t about control. It’s about support.
Blueprinting also requires a mindset shift for Program Managers
This is the quiet but critical part.
When you’re designing governance, role structures, or documentation, the question isn’t “What’s easiest for me to manage?”
The question is “What makes this easiest for volunteer leaders to execute?”
If your structure saves you time but costs them energy, it will eventually break. The goal of blueprinting is low lift for ERG leads — because when their experience improves, the entire program becomes more sustainable.
And yes, governing takes time. But governing is part of the job. Even a few focused hours a week spent building clarity, documentation, and repeatable processes pays off exponentially over time.
Leaving the hardest parts to volunteers doesn’t reduce work. It just redistributes it.
This is where blueprinting actually lands
Blueprinting success isn’t about adding more rules or more oversight.
It’s about clearly defined role structures so leaders know what’s expected.
It’s about documented processes so execution doesn’t depend on memory or tenure.
It’s about systems that make consistency possible regardless of who is in the role.
When those pieces are in place, you don’t need to chase motivation. You don’t need to over-communicate. You don’t need to rebuild every year. The blueprint does the heavy lifting.
