👀 I'm Changing How I Talk About ERGs

For the past year, there’s been an irony I haven’t been able to shake.

Even with leading The ERG Movement I’ve struggled with the definition of what an ERG actually is. Here’s the sentence you probably know:

Now before you read any further, pause.

What part of that sentence do you think I have a problem with?

If you guessed employee-led, you’re right.

The problem with calling ERGs employee-led

Let’s be honest. Employee-led sounds like a setup. And depending on how your program is structured, it may even raise some legal red flags, especially when ERGs start to cross into areas like workplace advocacy or influence on company operations.

But legal concerns aside, think about it.

If a company defines which ERGs can launch,

…sets the program-wide strategy,

…controls the budget,

…approves the programming,

…and decides what is in scope and out of scope…

…then how is that employee-led?

This phrase is holding us back

I talked about this during a portion of The ERG Recipe Tour…the video button below will take you to the exact part:

Why we still say employee-led even when it’s not true

The phrase still floats around because:

• It gives ERG leaders a sense of ownership, even if they do not have true decision-making power.

• It shifts accountability away from program managers when engagement or outcomes fall short.

• It is what most people are used to hearing, so it keeps things familiar.

…But familiar does not mean accurate. And it definitely does not mean helpful.

Why it’s okay that ERGs are no longer employee-led

This is not a bad thing. It is simply the reality of where we are in the ERG maturity curve.

Once ERGs became part of formal company strategy, once companies expected measurable ROI and began allocating real resources, the grassroots phase ended. Structure entered the chat. And that structure is not something to fear. It is what allows programs to scale, sustain, and actually deliver value.

We are no longer in the era of informal identity meetups. We are in a new stage that demands real operating models. That shift should be reflected in the language we use.

I actually have a client right now who, under the idea that their ERGs are employee-led, is really passionate about not wanting to micromanage. They’ll say, “We don’t want to micromanage them because they’re employee-led,” but in the same breath, they’ll say, “They still need to do X, Y, and Z… within these parameters… and follow this process.” And that completely contradicts itself.

But here’s the thing—it’s not just this one client. I hear this all the time on calls. People will say, “Well, we don’t want to take away the employee-led aspect of our ERGs,” and I have to say it plainly: It’s not employee-led anymore. That’s the reality.

And honestly, even just shifting that one piece of language changes everything. If we stop calling them employee-led, then suddenly it becomes clear that the responsibility for success doesn’t fall on the volunteers. It falls on the company. It falls on the person leading the ERG program. It becomes your program.

So if it’s broken, that’s not on the volunteer ERG leads who never signed up for this level of expectation. That’s on the person running the program. Removing “employee-led” from our vocabulary gives us permission to finally support ERGs the way they deserve to be supported.

What we should be saying instead

Here are some phrases I am leaning into:

• Company-governed, employee-powered culture initiatives

• Corporate community programs supported by employee volunteers

These may not sound as warm as employee-led, but they are far more honest. And clarity is what helps us build better programs.

To be honest, I even prefer how the UK refers to these groups as Employee Networks. Simple. Clear. Effective. Shoutout to Diversity in Tech for their definition: voluntary groups of colleagues with shared backgrounds or interests.

If anything is a BRG, it’s this

We have glamorized the term Business Resource Group without fully grappling with what it means.

If your program is funded by the company, governed by company policy, expected to show business impact, and operated by volunteers who follow company guidelines, then that’s your BRG in practice.

Long story short…

If you want your program to mature, stop pretending it is employee-led and start leading it as the structured company initiative it already is.

This is why you will see me using different language moving forward. I am not locking in one definition just yet, but I am done pretending that the old one makes sense.

Let me know your thoughts. I am curious what language resonates with you.

But from here on out, I am only using words and definitions that hold up under pressure.

Maceo

P.S. I’ve been gatekeeping this video on Visualizing ERG Data with $0 in Software Fees… it’s live now :)