Are staff networks too divisive?

We're joined by the wonderful Emily this month as we talk about all things staff networks! With the rollbacks on D&I, networks are often one area of scrutiny, so let's bring their value to life.

Articles discussed this month are:
"Back in Style: The Rise and Rise of Employee-Led Resource Groups"
"The Undoing of Employee Resource Groups" 

If you have a question for us, then you can submit it through this form.

Music used is:
Who Do You Think I Think You Are? by Mini Vandals

Transcript

H: Hello and welcome back to another episode of D&I Digest. I'm Henry, I use he/they pronouns and this month we are joined by a guest from one of our colleague networks. So Emily, would you like to introduce yourself?

E: Hello, certainly. So my name's Emily and I use she/her pronouns and I am the Resident Wellbeing and Involvement Officer at Anchor.

H: Smashing. So we both work at Anchor, which is an organisation which specialises in housing and care for over 55s. This month, hence,  Emily being dragged into this episode, we're going to be talking about colleague networks.  And you might have heard them called ESG's sometimes, Employee Support Groups,  Affinity Groups,  Business Support Groups. There's a whole  array of acronyms  that are around.  But we're gonna be talking about them and thinking about some of the benefits they bring, as well as potentially some of the drawbacks. So, at Anchor, we have five networks for our colleagues and Emily is the chair of our EnABLE Network which supports colleagues with disabilities, neurodivergent conditions and long-term health conditions. So, let's start pretty broad. Why did you want to get involved in the networks and particularly as chair? 

E: So I live with dyslexia. I've known I was dyslexic since I was 12 and I  first-hand understand how important it is to have the right support in place at work and obviously peer support as well, which is really important. It can be quite isolating sometimes if you struggle and you don't really see anybody else struggling with things that you do.  And that quite often is not the case. Like once you're with the right people and the right groups, eh it's so, so important for just being seen and heard as who you are and being able to turn up and  bring your best, and I think employee networks are a brilliant way for that. So that's why I joined. For Chair, I was in the network. It was going well. I had lots of big feelings and big thoughts and big dreams, you know, about making things better for everyone. So I thought, "You know what? Let's give it a go. If I can lead the ship then I will!"

H: Super love to hear it! And I know this is obviously still pretty early into being Chair, but has it made a difference to the way that you're working or  has being in the network made a difference to the way that you work?

E: Yeah, both to be honest so being in the network has  absolutely made me realize like where I stand and what I can ask for as to, you know, things like reasonable adjustments, and understanding like my protections and things around being diagnosed with a neurodivergence, which is super, super important. 

H: And just advocate for yourself, I guess.

E: Yeah, absolutely. Help me advocate for myself for sure. I mean, I'm really blessed. I've got a wonderful team who all really embrace me exactly as I am, which is lovely. But, you know, it's helped me understand  what I can ask for and what I can actually do, because  I think a common misconception is that  you automatically know what you need. 

H: Yeah.

E: And quite often you don't until it happens. So that's a really good thing and obviously I feel like I've learned so much in my role, in my career at Anchor, I'm coming up to 10 years. I've seen lots of things change, lots of things grow, lots of things like shrinking to the back and actually, knowing what I know, I thought another reason for being Chair was I can sort of hopefully bring back the things that work and abolish the things that don't!

H: Yeah, definitely. It's constantly moving machine, isn't it?

E: Absolutely. 

H: We've just re-jigged the way that our networks work so we've kind of already instigated a bit of change around it so like it's a nice opportunity for things to kind of go "Oh hang on we've been doing this for a good long chunk of time now- why? Is it still working? Does it not anymore?" And kind of have those check-in points so yeah, really helpful.

E: Yeah, I agree. think the change is brilliant as well I think it's really re-engaged people and already I'm trying to get people involved: asking what they want to see, what they want to do, what they want to bring to the table themselves, I wanted to move like a  nice big  group together rather than sort of "I say we do."

H: Yeah and that's like part of the  appeal of networks as well isn't it is the fact that it's very much kind of a by-and-for people like it's not because the business says we need one therefore, it's actually people have asked for one and that's why it exists.

E: Absolutely, yeah.

H: You were saying it's there for peer support, it's there to be a bit of a critical friend to organizations as well, to kind of influence policy changes or culture changes.

E: Absolutely, so important.

H: All sorts of things. 

MUSIC

H: Our first article today is from HR magazine back in February 2025 called "Back in Style, the Rise and Rise of Employee-Led Resource Groups." So this article starts off with a quotation from a man called Darren Cassidy, is president of the US tech firm Xerox,  who actually launched the first Black employee network in the midst of New York's civil rights riots in 1964, so a well-established network!

E: Yeah!

H: And basically he says, "The safe space our nearly dozen global ERGs allow for  is our way of creating an inclusive organisation.  They challenge us to ensure real change happens."  And the article says that ERGs often take an inclusion first rather than a diverse first approach,  meaning essentially that they don't focus on quotas and targets and kind of making sure that they've got X number of  people with X protected characteristic,  but it allows  them to create an inclusive environment,  which then kind of allows diversity to follow naturally. So a few points in there, I guess. Firstly, what do you think of the term that they use, "safe space," and particularly in regards to network groups?

E:  Yeah, I think safe spaces are really important because I think  to see real change or to get real action, we have to really understand how people feel, you know, without fear of reprimand, or being made to feel an inch big. You know, I think safe space - creating them, everything around it is super, super important. If people don't feel confident or they don't have the trust that what they're going to say, which you could be pretty vulnerable, you know, not everybody's always out and proud in whatever scenario that may be. So it's important that we do create those spaces to allow people to actually come and have real conversations, to make real change.

H: Yeah, definitely. And you see some cases where networks like their memberships are private. Like they're not shared at all, the only people who know everybody in that network is the chair or the leader of that kind of group. Yeah, I think what you're saying around people can only be honest if they've enabled that space to be honest.

E: Absolutely.

H: Yeah, I think unless you just want it as a bit of a peer support social group, which you know some places do and that's fine. It's definitely good to have that established approach. 

E: I think it's vital, absolutely.
H: And also because they say  that they take an inclusion first rather than  diverse first approach so they kind of use that  idea of a safe space being used in like opposition to having targets in place. Are they compatible?

E: Do you know, when I first read the article it kind of made me think "Ooh" that was my initial reaction. I didn't really know how I felt about it but now I've kind of processed it and thought about it in a bit more detail.  I actually think that's quite good. 

H: Okay yeah.

E: Yeah, I mean don't get me wrong that's not to sort of minimize targets to underrepresented group or minorities to you know we want to see these people we want these people in a room of course we do, but I think by doing it this way we're allowing the space to be created for them like it like it literally says for them to come through. Because you might have five or six people that don't fit into the demographic of what you're looking for.

H: Yeah.

E: And then you, you know, you turn them away, but they might be friends with 10, 15 people that are exactly what you're looking for. You know, as silly as that sounds. That's obviously very low level thinking, but yeah, I really like it actually.

H: Yeah.

E: Yeah. They're still important, but you know. 

H: Because I definitely have the same reaction to you. I kind of read it and was like, "oh,"  and then yeah, the more I've thought about it, the more I'm like, "Oh no, no, okay, fair enough."

E: Yeah, I see where we're going with this.
H: And I think it allows for that kind of space, like you say I guess, like allyship as well like it allows people to kind of have to think outside of their own experiences. Also it's not isolating someone to just one protected characteristic.

E: Absolutely yeah.

H: Cause, I mean it broadens out, it labels like their intersectional thinking as well.

E: I agree, yeah.

H: There's a word that I really like which is cognitive diversity.

E: Yeah. 

H: And I've probably  gone on many a spiel about this, but like it's also kind of the opposite to that of like you can have a room full of, I don't know, disabled people, people with health conditions, and they all think exactly the same way, which is not  inclusion at all. So it kind of allows for both angles of it, which I really like. Yeah.

E: I think one other thing that I'd like to add, and we might touch on this later, I'm not too sure, but I think  when we have targets, I think that requires a certain level of diagnosis. 

H: Yeah, that's a really good point. Yeah. 

E: And I just think, you know, for me,  I'm currently going through investigations for ADHD. I'm  quite sure it's there,  you know, but like does that make my experience any less valid? Because a doctor in a room somewhere hasn't said that. You know, obviously people  do a lot of research. People have got lived experience, which is exactly valid. And I think sometimes if we put specific, strict targets, we're not being inclusive to those people that may need the support just as much as somebody with a piece of paper.

H: Yeah, completely. And I think in different contexts as well, like there's often that discussion around  bisexual people in straight relationships and like you say, I've had anecdotally a lot of people go, well I don't really think I'll fit in the rainbow network and I'm like, no,  if you identify that way then you're in.

E: Absolutely.

H: All that is required. Same with like people from mixed heritages. Again, there's just kind of loads of, like you said, like entry requirements which obviously are not required but targets might imply that they are.

E: Absolutely yeah, might make people feel like not valid and you know I think the irony of it is that you know trying to be inclusive and not putting people in boxes and you know, be very open and like let's not have a label on that if people don't want it. Targets can sometimes  make you have that label, put you in that box, whatever that may be and that sometimes can be actually-

H: Quite rigid.

E: Yeah, the opposite of what we want to do.

H: Yeah  and another thing which you kind of mentioned there, and it's a criticism of networks that I've heard in person a few times. But it's the idea that  in splitting people up into networks, we're kind of dividing communities as opposed to bringing them together.  I've got many a thought about this but I've talked enough  in various episodes so-
E: Do know what? My gut reaction is that I don't particularly agree.

H: I don't.

E: No, yeah. I think, you know, as a chair actually the other chairs of networks have been super supportive, super kind. I know within Anchor that our networks collaborate. I mean, we have literally got a network that is exclusively for allies, which cover  allyship in  all of the areas that we're doing in our separate networks, which is wonderful.  But it kind of bounces back to that safe space. I think especially with more vulnerable subjects or vulnerable things, you know, I think people do need to be with like-minded people and I think we do need to create that space  for people to be able to  come and  be able to talk safely and freely about how they feel and what they're experiencing. But I think our networks work well together and I think there is a need for separate spaces but you know not to say that we've barricaded each other off and never talk again. 

H: Well yeah exactly and that's where my disagreement with that kind of statement has come is like no one's saying that you can't join it's just an explicit space for  x, y, or z group of people. And I mean by law networks can't be  exclusionary, you can't do that. So these spaces exist to make a group of people comfortable at the end of the day and if they are wanted and needed and required then they'll exist.

E: Yeah.

H: That's kind of it really!

E: I agree. Absolutely. It's not as if we're just locking people in a room and throwing away a key.

H: Yeah exactly. You must identify in this way, otherwise!

E: Don't ever speak to somebody else on another network! Not how it works.

H: Yeah, and also like, if they only worked in silos, nothing would happen because actually there are so many times as well where all four of the specific networks has kind of come to the D&I team and been like, "We want to look at this" and it's been exactly the same thing. We're like, cool, great, wonderful, work together! 

E: Brilliant. The whole point is education as well isn't it? Education, awareness - I mean not the whole point, it's a huge point - and I think like we're all well and good educating but we're just educating like-minded people in a room.

H: Yeah, you gotta reach outside of that.

E: Yeah, we've got to branch out and like you said, like what better way to do it than engage people that are really there to make a change.

H: Yeah, completely. So some of the appeals of ERGs and networks as we've probably already mentioned now, according to the article, are their ability to get on and do stuff - direct quotation, loved it - because they're they're led by passion rather than by big company PR led initiatives and those big organisation wide PR driven things often fail to draw the same engagement which we've kind of mentioned already. There's also the idea that network groups are great ways to challenge an organisation, and share their lived experiences to identify gaps in organisational resources. The article also points out some research done in 2023 and I really like all of these little stats that go in here. But this research basically said that nearly two-thirds of staff said that ERGs contribute to psychological safety. The presence of a network make staff trust leaders and co-workers more, and it helps them feel more connected to company culture.

E: Do you know what? Like I can only speak from my personal experience of course  being on a network. I would absolutely agree. We've got a senior sponsor who is way up there, lovely, lovely person, really engaged in the network, really cares. The get-on-and-do, the ability to make change I definitely think it's there. But I always try to approach these kind of conversations with a balanced mind I think because, like you mentioned passion is a huge thing for a lot of people and it can be so disheartening, especially when you're in a big company, we have a lot of loopholes and things to overcome, but that doesn't mean that it's not gonna happen, and yeah. I do agree, yeah.

H: Yeah. I think it's interesting the phrasing of "the presence of a network makes staff trust leaders more." I was kind of looking at that for a while being like, I wonder why? Because  just having a network doesn't necessarily mean that they're listened to. I'd hope they are!

E: Yes!

H: And like you say, in a lot of contexts, they've got a senior sponsor somewhere to kind of make sure that they are listened to and advocated for. But yeah, I think it was just, I don't know, little flags started waving going, why?

E: Yeah, to be fair, you're giving me food for thought as we go, and I'm thinking actually, I agree with it with my personal experience, but maybe there is an element of it being a bit of a sweeping statement, because I know that sometimes, know, especially in the climate of the world at the moment, that D &I, anything to do with that can be sometimes thought as a tick box, you know, and that can be internal as well which can be really disheartening so I think it's hard to say I think you've got to go with your own personal experience and your own personal company but I do think like if you are in a situation where you feel that way then we have to look at ways in changing that, and why they're not engaged and what are the barriers?

H: Yeah completely and that actually leads on really nicely to the next point which is some criticisms of colleague networks that the article points out and one of them and I loved again the phrasing of this is, "colleague networks can become divisive grumble hubs" which I think is a word that I'm absolutely gonna use.

E: A grumble hub.

H: That's becoming my vocabulary. But networks can focus too much on kind of one particular agenda and get a bit of a bee in a bonnet about it. Another is that organizations might rely on network groups as being the D&I strategy, which again leads to kind of an issues-led rather than an identity-led approach. And another point, which I think is kind of what we were mentioning as well, is that  often network leaders are often leaned on beyond their capacity to drive structural change, because at the end of the day they're one person, with a day job usually.  And people are asked to kind of do work because of their identity rather than because of their skill sets. I think there are, like, criticisms, valid criticisms of networks.

E: Yeah, yeah.

H: I do think though it really depends on how they're run, and that's what it comes down to. Of course those things are going to be problems if you let them become problems.

E: I agree, yeah. I think if you're starting a meeting and the right people are not in the room, then that's not going to make big change. And I don't think that's right. So I think that's really valid.  And again, yeah, I  see what you're saying about like the senior leaders or the sponsors  just because they're involved in something doesn't mean that they have the exact skills set again, but I think this is where having, again, the right people in the room. You know, the SLT can maybe open a few doors that we  might not be able to.

H: Yeah completely and get into rooms that we can't.

E: Yeah exactly and that's kind of the point, yeah you know, but like I think the expectation that to carry the work and make the change is not on them and I think that's really important too we have to do the groundwork.

H: And as well like a lot of it comes down to setting those expectations. 

E: Of course. 

H: Ages ago we had an episode around creating safe spaces  and there was a huge part of that conversation that was essentially like you've got to set rules for engagement.

E: Yeah.

H: It's like chairing at any meeting if it starts  deteriorating into  going over and over the same point or just becoming very negative about it, there's always going to be a point where  someone has to go, okay we've done that now,  what are we going to do about it? So  I think they're valid criticisms of colleague networks but I do think they are very easy traps to avoid as well, with some, hopefully, common sense.

E: I agree and I don't think that narrative should be used as a scapegoat to not have them.

H: Agreed.

E: I completely think if we start going into that territory then we need to be looking at the  formatting and why and understanding the barriers rather than-

H: Just axing them.

E: - labeling them grumble hubs and moving on with your day.

H: Yeah, completely agree and I think that is often the case, like where criticism is used to shut it down and you do also have to wonder why the big group for minoritised communities are the ones that people are going for in these situations. So yeah, I definitely agree with that.

E: I think for me as well, like, this is why it's really important that I really want to be aware of like what we're actually achieving, you know, using data, so we can always remind ourselves like how far we've come when we are working on projects like this was here, might not be at the finish post, but we're here.

H: We're getting somewhere, yeah.

E: Yeah yeah I think that's super important to maybe try stay out of the  grumble hub!

H: Yeah and that's an interesting because I mentioned before that we've kind of rejigged our networks a little bit and one of the new things that we've implemented is like a data lead on the committee.

E: Fabulous.

H: Which I've never been a data nerd but I am I'm so excited for this because I think is exactly what you're saying.

E: I love me some data.

H: Truly! It gives you a really nice case to be like look these networks are valuable and the people in these networks are valuable and giving that kind of quantifiable number to potentially someone who doesn't really vibe all that well with the D &I agenda. I think making it numerical, making it narrative as well, can kind of  really help legitimize some of these things and help motivate  members of the network as well.  everybody wants to think they're being part of something useful, if they can see that  then that's more motivation.

E: Exactly and I think this whole  battle that a lot of people are facing, particularly D&I at the moment about the trying to downtread things, I think - it's so unbelievably frustrating - but this is exactly why we need to do these types of things. Like  the people that are out there moaning need to realise that literally every human being on this planet falls under a protective characteristic in some way, shape or form. So like if you are, you are directly impacting yourself, like, and  just having a bit of empathy and understanding and education around what you're potentially pushing to the corner is vital.

H: And yeah, think there's often this kind of push against them because, you know, we're trying to actively include everybody all the time and it's like, well actually part of D&I is that equity point. You've got to realise that we're not all starting from the same place. 

E: Exactly.

H: So we need to meet people where they are and that does involve splitting people up separately sometimes because actually that's really helpful. The work that networks do very, very rarely, and I would gamble on saying never, is only going to impact that  Like none of these inclusion initiatives are ever just for one group of people. The benefit is multifaceted.

E: Exactly. And this is the thing, isn't it? Like I think, you know, with subjects such as like reasonable adjustments, like it's sometimes like you say the words and you get the subtle eye roll, you know, when in actual fact, a reasonable adjustment is usually so transferable to literally everybody. You're like, you know, if you're on a really big call, and your reasonable adjustment is please send me a follow-up email because I have working memory problems. You know, I think everybody would actually really appreciate that and that's literally what a reasonable adjustment can look like.

H: Exactly. And another criticism I guess that I actually really wanted to discuss with you is the concept of allies and including allies in a particular space. So the article kind of mentions that networks can often be quite closed shops. So, for example, only letting in people who identify with a particular characteristic in when allies might be what are really needed.  And  again, I've kind of heard  networks being called divisive because  they're only open for  LGBTQ people or people  with disabilities or anything like that. So yeahwhat are your thoughts around kind of protected spaces versus inclusive spaces versus like allies? Where do you land?

E: I think it's down to the individual groups.

H: Yeah.

E: I think that is definitely something that can't just be a blanket approach. 

H: 100%

E: I had this conversation with the network the other day, and I was like, what do we think about this? And actually, the people in my network, the committee, are all for having allies, which is brilliant. I think that's great.  But then I think  in certain spaces, maybe the Rainbow Network might rightly feel that actually that's probably more of a space that needs to be a bit safer, a bit smaller. I think, again, it depends on the vulnerability, and I think the subject matter is really important. So I am completely on the fence about it. I think it's a great idea at Anchor where we've got Inclusive Ambassadors which kind of help everybody but from their own space because I think  allyship is wonderful but we have to be super careful that we are not raising our voices above the people we're trying to help.

H: I really really like the phrasing of that, of like we've got the inclusive ambassadors in their own space and I think you put into words my feelings of it.  It's that kind of  knowing whether or not it's an overstep and actually having  their own network draws that boundary very nicely in that they are there if  help is required and needed and wanted  and they're there to offer it as they always do because they're wonderful group of people  but they're not  encroaching on spaces that  aren't designed for them. 

E: Completely valid.

H: You've given me very nice words to describe my feelings so thank you.

E: It's super important and I think to round that up, allyship is wonderful. And we need more you know across all spaces especially now, but we do that respectfully and we're not treading on people's toes.

H: Yeah 100%.

MUSIC

H: So our second article today is from August this year. I've gotten a nice chronological order to it. It's from a US-based magazine called the US Black Engineer and the article itself is called 'The Undoing of Employee Resource Groups', which sounds very dramatic. 

E: Yes.

H: And it's very important to note the context for this one because it's been published on the back of some of Trump's executive orders to roll back DEI initiatives. So it's talking about some of America's largest companies and them backing away from ERGs. So where the title sounds so dramatic, because it's in response to dramatic things. 

E: I was going to say, not Trump being dramatic! 

H: So this article says that while this kind of backing away from network groups is often portrayed as a compliance move, it's actually creating more problems than it solves (surprising nobody) because companies obviously will lose goodwill, But also, they'll lose institutional intelligence because ERGs often serve as early warning systems, peer support platforms, and community-facing ambassador programs, which I love the idea of it being an early warning system.

E: Yeah, that stuck out to me as well. 

H: Yeah, it's a nice phrase.

E: So true.

H: Yeah, really, really true as well. It's like going back to the idea of grumble hubs. Actually, if something's getting flagged in a safe, protected environment, you know that you can take that with some authority actually and and even if not, you can take it forward and investigate it a bit more.

E: Absolutely. What's the saying? There's no smoke without fire.

H: Yeah, yeah, exactly. And  I think as well in this context, talking about kind of protected characteristics, minorities or minoritised groups,  they're often going to be the people who feel it first. So, yeah, I think it was a really interesting phrase -

E: Yeah, I like it.

H: To be like a little siren going "Early warning." So yeah, the article also points out that getting rid of ERGs means that they're often replaced by informal exclusionary power networks. Your face said everything there, like, ugh.

E: Yeah, that's it.

H: So the examples that it gave are things like golf outings.

E: Wow, helpful.
H: I'm astounded that that appeals to people, I'll be honest, I don't like golf. Things like private dinners, executive club events, and basically all of those things where they're shaping decisions outside of public view and without  alternative pathways offered. It's kind of taking away decisions from recruitment and promotion as well as things like strategy  and it all becomes less transparent and a much more relationship based. So. Not ideal.
E: Yeah, it feels-  it feels very transactional. Which I do not like. And I just think like when we're looking at the points that are specifically listed in this article such as golf and private dinners you're already like excluding so many people yeah we've just thought and I think if we're not doing things transparently, why? That's the question for me like-

H: Yes. Couldn't agree more yeah.

E: I want to know why we're doing it in secret because you're taking it behind a closed door, that feels very suspicious!

H: Exactly and like you say, why?

E: Why?

H: Who's it benefiting? Especially with "informal exclusionary power networks" And I think that like it says it all doesn't it?

E: It sums it up.

H: Right? Like it's so much more relationship-based, and you've got to start asking why those voices are naturally the ones that have power and can be exclusionary. I think especially in this context of Trump getting rid of DEI initiatives, I think that's all more...  actually it's very transparent why this is happening, but I think in situations where that's not so apparent it's worthwhile thinking like so, why? Why is this happening? Why don't you want that to be publicised? Why don't you want to talk to your colleagues about this?

E: Yeah

H: It's always worth thinking because there's always going to be an answer.

E: Yeah, yeah and I think it's not going to be one that everyone wants to hear if it's behind closed doors.

H: Yeah. It's not gonna be one that particular groups of people want to hear and there's usually a reason for those as well.

E: Exactly, yeah, exactly.

H: I think if all of your trans colleagues are feeling, you know, on the back foot by something that is happening, there's probably a reason for that.

E: Exactly, yeah, yeah.

H: I think like this paragraph kind of goes on to say that the point of ERGs often is to provide informal coaching it provides networking opportunities, forums to raise concerns and test ideas. And also removing those isolates minoritised groups. It means that organisations are losing support for departments. We mentioned earlier that obviously networks don't function in isolation, on their own. They work so well because they work with HR. They work with  the finance team. They work with, I don't know, everybody because that's the point of them. And they augment and help all of those aspects.

E: Certainly.

H: Because again like if you've got an identity based group, the skills that are within that group are incredible. 

E: This is what gets me like, what would make you a successful entrepreneur? The passion, the knowledge, the experience, you know all these great wonderful attributes. This is the type of people that are exactly sat within these networks and the fact that they are being disregarded and not treated with potential that is so much there that it's unbelievable I find it infuriating if you just switch the narrative slightly, you know talking about an entrepreneur, wow amazing brilliant! Talking about a colleague network, oh, it's a grumble hub. 

H: As opposed to having legitimate concerns and raising queries and being a critical friend. Grumble Hub is very...

E: Some people don't like questions or feedback!

H: Yeah, that's a weighted fit, isn't it?  It's like the whole kind of argumentative women are referred to in a very different way to argumentative men. So like, the idea that we're labeling things as grumble hubs as opposed to critical thought hubs. exactly. And that's not to say that sometimes grumbling does happen,

E: Yeah, of course it does.

H: But it also happens in boardrooms. 

E: Exactly. I think as well like the grumble, you know, want for a better word, it sometimes can be useful as well because we're giving people a chance to talk about it and actually through people maybe starting off with a bit of a grumble can often be a seed for things to grow and to actually realise that "Oh I have the same grumble" "Oh, wait so do I," "So do I," "So do I, oh here we go."

H: What do we all have in common?

E: Yeah look at this plant grow you know.

H: Yeah yeah exactly that so lots of early warning signs and some quite late warning signs happening in this article as well.

E: Do you think it's appropriate to wear a t-shirt saying "The early warning sign"?

H: Oh yeah definitely! So the article says in place of ERGs in this context within America at the time, lots of people are moving towards external networking events like conferences, and some companies are opting for rebranding over removal which I know we've mentioned in a previous episode.

E: Yeah.

H: To conclude the article, say that dismantling ERGs doesn't just remove a support structure,  it undoes decades of learned experience.  Companies that walk away from inclusion infrastructure may soon find themselves scrambling to rebuild it. 

E: And it will serve them right. Is my opinion on that. Yeah, I think it's appalling, actually. I think,you know, conferences, wow, yeah, brilliant, but they should be in surplus. They're not instead of. I think it's so important that we you know jumping right back you know we're talking about safe spaces and the importance of it- privatising it, it's dehumanising it.

H: Yeah

E: Taking the human element out of it and putting a lot of people in a room, you know, once a year, twice a year, you're not going to get the same results. it's not fair you know it's just not the place to be.

H: Yeah and you think about lots of conferences as well a lot of them are very expensive to attend.

E: Exactly yeah!
H: So who do you think's gonna be attending them?

E:  Exactly

H: The CEOs, the SLT and all of the people who are already able to get to those echelons of companies. 

E: The top privatising them and taking them out of people's safe space and the hubs that we've created and putting them in this big corporate private setting is just diluting them.

H: Yeah. The last thing that I wanted to kind of mention on this was literally just to do with that last sentence because I really, really love the phrasing of inclusion infrastructure because I think a lot of the time and especially in this current climate, D&I is very much seen as a nice to have a tag on to your desk because things like networks especially are mostly an add-on to your day job. Like it's a voluntary thing. Often there's some kind of like compensation but it's often the reward comes from being involved in it a lot of the time. So to kind of phrase it as infrastructure as in like these are the skeletons that are holding your company together is a really nice way of saying it.

E: Yeah, it's validating.

H: And it also kind of really proves the fact that you can't just take it out because it's still gonna be there.

E: Yeah, it's like Jenga, it's gonna crumble!

H: Yeah, 100%

E: It's gonna collapsse!

H: Yeah, I really like the use of the word infrastructure there because it shows just how integral it is to everything that we do.
E: And building on what you said, about compensation and whatever people get, nine times out of 10, you know, people are not getting much. And I think we all have a lived experience of, you know, most of us: We all go to work in some capacity, I guess. We're in the cost of living, times are hard, you know, we've all got added stress that we just do not need in life at the moment. The world, the finances, everything that's going on. And these people are coming into work and given even more than that's being asked. It shows that they care and there's power in that.

H: Yes.

E: You know, so to actually back it up, like you say, with a powerful, strongly worded statement, like, you know, using the language, like infrastructure and things, because the language is so important. You know, I think we're in a bit of a time where we've kind of demonising D&A a little bit, you know? Certain political parties in other parts of the world,  particularly are really on that bandwagon. You know, for me,  know, like this is a time where we have to be really, really intentional and really thoughtful about how we speak and what words that we use. And so I agree with you. That's a bloomin' brilliant statement. 

MUSIC

H: So Emily, thank you for joining us for this episode of D&I Digest. It's been really wonderful to have you on board and really nice to hear some different voices as well. Not me though, you're stuck with me. But yeah, thank you so much for joining us, it's been great.

E: Aw, thank you for having me. It's been a pleasure and I love to talk so I'll be back!

H: Go away, join your colleague networks if your organization has them. If they don't, ask why and instigate them yourselves.

E: Get them in the infrastructure!

H: We love it.  But yeah, no, it's really, really valuable tool to have and also a really nice thing to be a part of.

E: Of course, yeah,

H: So yeah, this has been a really timely, appropriate conversation, really interesting one. And remember that you can follow us on our website and on social media,  and we really hope that you'll come back and listen in next month. So, it's bye from me.

E: And ciao from me! 

H: Bye! 

E: Bye!