Three Actions that help you hit your EDI targets

By Rina Goldenberg Lynch

Last week, we spoke about how to set realistic, impactful targets.  Today, I want to share three actions that will ensure that targets are duly socialised and seen in the right context.  These actions may seem self-evident, but as we know, the devil is always in the details and execution.  Anything from the wording used to the frequency with which we engage in these actions will have a great impact on the success of our Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) strategy, including making sure that everyone sees these targets as a help rather than a hindrance.

Action 1:  Understanding and communicating the business case for EDI
Yes, that old chestnut again.

In this iteration, what we’re after is to ensure that leaders are fully engaged with the EDI strategy, and communicate it with confidence and authenticity.  To do so will require each leader’s and manager’s understanding of the business case for EDI as it pertains to their department or team.

Understanding the business case, however, is only the first step. What’s even more important is to speak about the business case that confirms the understanding and belief that EDI is an important part of the business agenda.

Thinking about how we portray EDI as leaders will make a huge difference. EDI should not be another item on the list to turn to, once all the business items have been discussed. If a leader innocuously says ‘OK, now that business matters are out of the way, let’s talk Diversity and Inclusion’ they set the tone for the topic as something that is tangential to the main event, a side show or a warm-up act, and therefore not imperative to the business. And we know that is not true.

Another example of where organisations fall foul of this is when, at business conferences, EDI related conversations take place alongside the main agenda, or before or after the conference.  It’s also the case when EDI events are attended only by those for whom EDI is seen as most relevant – women and members of other underrepresented groups in the workplace. More leaders and people with wider influence need to attend these events, to reassert the importance of the topic of conversation.

Leaders who say that they understand the business case need to show over and over again that they really do – not just with words that say they do, but also with words that don’t say they don’t!

Action 2:  Making talent management processes more transparent and objective.
We know that bias creeps into every single talent management process such as recruitment, onboarding, development and progression.  We know this because the percentage of members of underrepresented groups in each of these processes does not reflect pool of all candidates available for each of them.

In our last blog, I talked about identifying the level of seniority, for instance, at which women become stuck. This is the so-called Marzipan layer – senior enough to have had a successful career but so sticky that progression beyond this level is difficult.

Once this sticking point is identified, it’s important to understand what part of the process is responsible for it:  is it that the attributes of leadership beyond this level – networking, being outspoken, have gravitas –  favour the dominant type (e.g., white, educated men)? Or that the requirements for progression require the type of experience that members of underrepresented groups find difficult to obtain, because progression and visibility opportunities often present themselves informally (often also due to societal and other biases)?

When we start looking for the bias that has (inadvertently) crept into the process – and let’s face it, this is more often than not the reason for the lack of progression of any given group of people – it is surprisingly easy to identify the bias and to correct it.  One way is to review all written feedback given to employees and look for patterns of feedback for members of an underrepresented group.  Women, for instance, are often judged on their attributes and personality rather than their skills, or are discussed in terms of experience rather than potential, unlike most men. Look for wording that evidences this bias, words that make it sound like the person doesn’t have enough gravitas, influence, a large enough network, or words that describe a lack of experience like needs more time or could use more mentoring/sponsorship or needs to know the product lines better. Compare this wording against written feedback given to the dominant group to see whether it’s even-keeled or showcases a bias.

Many ways in which to identify and correct the most common biases in the workplace are set out in the book Bias Interrupted by Joan C. Williams.  There are even more ideas and resources in the Inclusion Nudges Guidebook by Lisa Kepinski and Tinna C Nielsen, to name but two of many resources on this topic.  Implementing some of these changes will make a remarkable difference to bringing fairness and objectivity to the process in question.

Action 3:  Measuring Inclusion
Measuring Inclusion is something that needs to be done in more than one way.
Once a correction is implemented, for instance, it becomes important to set a target on the relevant process so as to measure its success.  That should be done for every correction or measure implemented to correct a systemic bias.

It is also important, however, to get a sense for how inclusive the culture of a team, department or organisation is.  This can be done with surveys, which many organisations already have.  Even better, however, is the exercise of listening groups, where a trained facilitator or coach (internal or external) asks open questions and probes further into the answers, and measures the results against the views of a control group.

The results from these types of qualitative listening exercises are surprisingly revealing and can inspire specific actions to address whatever other Inclusion shortcomings become apparent.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that addressing EDI like any other business challenge will yield effective change.  I am, however, always surprised when people say to me, referring to an incident: how do we change this kind of thinking or behaviour? The answer isn’t rocket science; we are all equipped to come up with the right solutions, and there are many resources out there that can help.  The issue, I believe, is in the way we see EDI; as something that’s unfamiliar and requires skills and expertise we do not possess, or is the responsibility of Human Resources of People & Culture departments, or is discounted as a ‘soft’ skills issue, not as significant as hard business skills.  This is of course where we come full circle and start at the very top with Action #1: the old chestnut.

Setting Diversity Targets: The Good, the Bad and the Impactful

By Rina Goldenberg Lynch

Targets are controversial.  Those in favour of them often say what gets measured gets done, while others might say that setting targets skirts the issue of creating greater diversity and inclusion by focusing on the numbers rather than inclusive leadership, inclusive behaviours and genuinely impactful initiatives.

We agree with all of the above.

Confused? Let me explain.

We think that setting targets can be tremendously helpful if we use them as a measure of our progress to become more inclusive.  In other words, when targets are linked to an impactful initiative, they provide a useful measure by which we can gauge the success of our EDI efforts. But we also know that there is little or no value in setting targets without attaching them to a purposeful set of actions designed to improve Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion.

How to set impactful Diversity targets
Read on for some suggestions for setting sensible, realistic targets that measure how inclusive your organisation is becoming. These are targets set on a big Diversity dimension, such as female graduate candidates or the percentage of women at leadership level.  They are the targets that you would encounter most often in company’s press releases about their commitment to Diversity and Inclusion.

To set these targets in a meaningful way requires some due diligence, which might begin with the two questions below. What is required then is identifying which specific initiatives to put in place, with appropriate and achievable targets.

1. Which is the most underrepresented group in your company?

This might be women if you are in a STEM environment.  It might, however, be ethnicity if you are in the Third or Public Sectors.

Identifying the biggest underrepresented group in your organisation can also be a useful exercise in understanding your target market. How different are your clients, customers, or users from your employee population? Where is this gap the biggest?

Alternatively, if you are looking at growing your market share, you may wish to look beyond the representation of your current customers to those you wish to attract. What is the biggest gap between the representation of the additional market opportunity and your employee population?

2. Where in your career ladder is the underrepresented group missing or dropping off?

Once you’ve identified which underrepresented group you wish to attract or retain, it’s time to identify where the biggest hole is for this group in your employee life cycle.  Is it in attracting candidates from this group?  Perhaps it’s in the actual hiring process?  Or are you managing quite well in hiring people from the underrepresented group, but failing to keep them over a certain period of time? Or is your company unable to progress them beyond a certain level?

Finding the process that creates the biggest obstacle to building the desired level of representation will help you identify the right measures to turn things around.

3. Employ impactful measures to address the challenge. 

As stated above, targets are most impactful when they measure the success of a specific initiative.  So, having identified the specific challenge you face, it is time to develop an initiative that addresses it.  Here are two examples of companies who generated their own ideas and solutions to their individual challenges:

One client, having identified that they were unsuccessful at attracting female engineering graduates to their company, started partnering with women’s engineering networks at several learning institutions.  They started sending female representatives to university fairs and sending ambassadors to talk about their company’s efforts to improve the representation of female graduates, clearly stating their reasons for doing so.  It worked.

Another client, having recognised that women were not being promoted beyond a certain level of seniority, introduced a sponsorship programme which pairs many of its senior leaders with emerging female leaders to ensure they get the visibility and opportunities that might typically be reserved (inadvertently) for male colleagues. This has also been highly effective.

4. Identify the right target.

Once the specific measure is instituted, care must be taken to set realistic expectations for the impact the measure will have. By what percentage does the company expect the targeted underrepresented group to grow in the identified area? (This will depend on the usual percentage of the target group in the identified area, as well as the impact of external market forces.) What is the usual percentage of female graduates in your pool? What is the sector average for this measure? What is the lowest and the highest percentage of this range?

Having taken the answers to all these questions into account, it becomes easier to set a more realistic target to measure the success of the relevant initiative. Even then, targets may need to be periodically revisited – based on their success or failure – and adjusted accordingly.

When it comes to setting big targets, doing a bit of thinking and planning in advance will always yield more meaningful results.

There are, of course, other types of targets to consider, including so called ‘no more than’ targets for specific teams where, instead of identifying a target percentage for a specific type of person (for instance, women), the emphasis shifts to having no more than a certain percentage of a specific type of person (for instance, men).

Finally, you will also want to consider how widely to set the targets. Is one common target appropriate for the entire company globally, region by region, office by office or even department by department? We know that, although average figures might make certain targets look favourable, when looking more closely, Diversity might not have really been achieved in areas where it would be more difficult (e.g., technical vs administrative, front office vs back office).

Whatever you decide to do about targets, following Nancy Kline’s advice (included above as our quote for the week) will ensure successful implementation.

Is Fixing the Diversity Deficit the Right Approach to EDI?

By Rina Goldenberg Lynch

Stage 3 of the Diversity Journey Roadmap© is where leaders recognise a lack of Diversity, see that it is a problem for the organisation and want to ‘fix it’. This is a positive step forward from just appearing to be doing something about it, as in the previous ‘Window Dressing’ stage of the journey, but there are also pitfalls in this stage.

It’s not easy to create genuine change, or to be an ally, especially if you don’t know how to go about it without appearing patronising. This is because leaders’ actions can be prone to missteps and misinterpretation if they are taken without a real understanding of how it feels to be excluded, undervalued or misunderstood in your workplace because you are different from those in its dominant group. It is reasonably straightforward to understand that a workplace should allow everyone to thrive and meet their potential, as nicely summarised in this quote from the CIPD:

‘Promoting and delivering EDI in the workplace is an essential aspect of good people management. To reap the benefits of EDI, it’s about creating working environments and cultures where every individual can feel safe, a sense of belonging and is empowered to achieve their full potential.’
CIPD
 
Needless to say, it’s much harder to achieve these Diversity goals than it is to describe them.
 
The first problem with fixing the problem
Leaders setting out to increase inclusion in their workplace are always well-intentioned, but they can inadvertently become ‘knights in shining armour’ without realising that this means they are approaching Diversity from an angle that is difficult to ‘sell’. ‘Fixing’ Diversity is a noble aspiration – after all, we all want to do the right thing and work in an environment that is reflective of society at large, in a workplace that is fair and respectful to all. But if this remains the main motivation for diversifying the workplace, it may fail to deliver the desired result.  This is because, when it comes down to making business decisions, decision makers will prioritise what they believe is a more important business result to their desire to be inclusive. Here’s an example of what I mean: Imagine you’re hiring to fill a role on your team.  Your team is made up of five men and one woman, and you’re keen to hire another woman to improve the gender split in the team.  You’ve instructed HR accordingly and they have provided a roster of capable candidates including men and women.  Interviews are progressing well and you’re down to 2 final candidates, both of whom are experienced enough to do the job.  One is a man and the other is a woman.  The interview panel is instructed to think about the gender balance on your team, but they also observe that the male candidate is an internal candidate who knows a few of the team members already and is better networked with some of the clients.  So, although gender balance is an important aspect of the hiring decision, you’re now faced with a male candidate who is marginally better suited to the job than the female candidate.  And, while you’re keen to fix the Diversity problem, you don’t want that to be the overarching factor of your hiring decisions, so you go for who you perceive to be the better candidate – the better fit for the team and the job, i.e. the man.
 
This is not a made up scenario.  Leaders and managers struggle with these kinds of choices almost every day.  Do we do what we believe will deliver the better business outcome or do we fix our Diversity problem?  Inevitably, the business result trumps the need to fix Diversity.
 
But only because we see Diversity as a problem, not an opportunity.  Were the question to be framed differently, e.g. which result will be better for business in the longer term,  this would require weighing up two different business opportunities instead of an opportunity on the one hand and a fix to a societal problem on the other.  In other words, if you’re out to fix the Diversity problem, chances are you’re not going to do it.
 
The second problem with fixing the problem

All this is before we even take into account that people of different demographic backgrounds don’t want or need to be ‘fixed’.  They are not the ‘damsel in distress’ of fairy tales waiting to be rescued.  People from underrepresented backgrounds are just as brilliant, clever and capable  – and just as fallible, human and ambitious – as everyone else. They don’t want favours from others; they don’t want a high-handed version of what might be perceived as ‘White Saviourism’  from those in the dominant groups within their workplace; what they want is recognition that they add just as much (if not more) value as others.  And they want an equitable opportunity to prove it, to be given a chance to progress and develop, perhaps  through taking on a big project to build their experience, to help them be promoted into a leadership role.

Aiming to ‘fix it’ might be a step in the right direction, but it is a step early on the Diversity Journey Roadmap©.  Recognising there is a problem to be solved is a good start. What makes it even better is to understand how the business and all its people will benefit from improved Equity, Diversity and Inclusion. Once the benefits are clear, it’s easier to get buy-in and bring genuine impact to your workplace’s Diversity strategy.

What Does Your Voice Say About You?

By Katie Davis

I grew up in rural Dorset, but I didn’t have what would be considered a stereotypical “west country” accent. My more neutral accent was primarily thanks to voice classes from an early age and an insistence from my mother that I speak “correctly”.

Aged 16, I found myself spending a year of Performing Arts education in the north, in Sunderland, but from the moment I stepped onto campus, I was deemed “posh” and potentially a snob because of the way I spoke.

In my first voice class, I sailed through what just happened to be Shakespeare, whilst my new peers “struggled” with their northern accents to get it sounding how the teacher, who was also from the north, wanted it to sound. Whilst I skipped through this class with ease, merely due to my accent, I felt a certain animosity from my peers; this made me uncomfortable and so I started emulating their accent, in order to fit in.

Pitching it right
We take it for granted that the voice we are presented with by a person is their natural voice, whereas it might in fact be created to maintain certain appearances. Whether we are conscious of it or not, there are many biases associated with the voice, not only a person’s accent but also something as minute as their pitch.

During a study conducted by the University of Stirling, it was discovered that people tend to change the pitch of their voice depending who they are talking to and how dominant they feel within the conversation:

“These changes in our speech may be conscious or unconscious but voice characteristics appear to be an important way to communicate social status. We found both men and women alter their pitch in response to people they think are dominant and prestigious.”

Other studies have also found that people with a deeper voice are considered more reliable and trustworthy. Here are two examples of people in the spotlight  who altered their voices to become more appealing to their listeners:

Liz Truss
Back in May of 2022, it was reported that the UK Foreign Secretary had been through vocal coaching, as she had lowered her voice, slowed down her delivery and improved her enunciation when delivering speeches. She was likened to Margaret Thatcher who had spoken in a similar manner and who was considered a hero to Truss.

A speech and language expert suggested that she had made these changes in her intonation, quality of voice and delivery because as a female in a position of power, she would potentially find it harder to be taken seriously and be able to lead in the way she wanted to. By lowering her voice, slowing her speech and increasing her volume, she could add more gravitas to her voice, so that no matter what she was saying, she would appear both confident and competent.

David Beckham
During his football career, the only thing that mattered was how many goals he could score for his team. However, towards the end of his professional football career, he opted to have elocution lessons.

He began to consider what his career would look like after he could no longer play professionally and he had been mocked in the past for his “rough” accent and the fairly high pitch of his voice. Therefore, he underwent intensive voice coaching to improve his accent and deepen his voice, because he believed it would get him more work when his sports career was over.

The voice for the job?
In the years since my performing days, I have maintained my normal voice, which has a naturally low tone, and when I went into teaching, I was even told that I was offered one job due to my voice and the accent with which I speak. I feel somewhat ashamed that I might have taken a role from someone more qualified than me, simply because of the way that I speak.

Overall, I believe I have been fortunate to have the voice and accent that I do, and it has often worked to my advantage, whether I was conscious of it or not. However, this does not mean that I agree with the bias against voices that we all have, however unconsciously.

We shouldn’t have to change ourselves, the way we look or sound, in order to attain the goals we set out for ourselves. Whilst many organisations are operating more inclusive recruitment processes, aiming to create more diverse teams by offering anonymous applications, does this extend to interviews, where people could still be judged for their appearances or the tone of their voice?

Are we doing enough?

How to Move Beyond…

By Rina Goldenberg Lynch

This month, we have been looking at the second stage of the Diversity Journey Roadmap©, where organisations understand the need to be seen to value EDI, but haven’t yet taken steps to effect real change.

The question then is, how can we move on from this ‘window dressing’ to the next steps, recognising that a lack of Diversity is a real problem and implementing measures to increase it? One of the problems often associated with this stage is that we don’t always know when we are using initiatives that look good but don’t have much impact. For example, my blog last week explored three popular initiatives that are subscribed to with the very best intentions but turn out not to be effective EDI interventions. We need to do better than this to bring about real progress.

Moving on to Effective EDI Interventions
In order to move away from ‘window dressing’ and bring about real change in your organisation, it’s a good idea to begin by asking the following three questions:

1. What are we trying to achieve with Diversity? 
The difference between where you are now (Window Dressing) and the next stage is that you’re currently looking at EDI as something you have to do, perhaps due to pressure from employees, colleagues or suppliers.

As soon as you realise, however, that you want to embrace EDI because you’re missing out, that’s when you’ll be able to progress.  To do this, you’ll want to ask yourself the question: How is improved diversity going to support my organisation’s mission and vision?  After all, doing Diversity for the sake of Diversity is an exercise in wasted resources.

Understanding how greater Diversity among your employees and leaders will support you in achieving your company’s mission and vision will allow you to determine your EDI ambition, your EDI True North.  And that will give you something concrete to aim towards; it will not only address pressure points from the various stakeholders, it will also set wheels in motion to improve your business for the future.

2. Where are we now?
Once you know what you want to achieve with improved diversity, having set that EDI True North for your organisation, you’ll want to find out where you are now relative to your freshly articulated EDI ambition.  There are a number of ways in which you could go about this.  One example is a qualitative analysis of inclusion within the organisation.

Our Inclusion Diagnostic©, for example, takes a close look at the level of inclusion in a company through a series of safe space focus groups in which we ask employees some difficult questions.

The outcome of the Inclusion Diagnostic is a clear understanding of the state of inclusion at the company.  It highlights where the sticky points are and allows you to focus resources where they’re most needed.

When it comes to digging deeper, we offer a word of caution:  Leaders might be surprised – possibly shocked – at what is uncovered. In one organisation, for instance, when we conducted our Diagnostic to explore the problem of an enduring lack of female progression, the results included accounts of experiences that pointed to a work culture full of unconscious bias, blind spots and microaggressions.   While this shocked and embarrassed the leadership, however, it gave them the insights they needed in order to know what needed to change.

3. What are the priority areas?
A thorough diagnostic will identify which areas might need immediate attention, which areas will have the biggest impact, and which areas will require the least or the most investment.  In the example above, for instance, we identified clear themes of behaviours and processes that made it more difficult for women to be valued in the same way as their male colleagues.  We then quickly prioritised the challenges that needed to be addressed to improve inclusion.  A process was ultimately put into place that made it easier for women to be promoted and allowed the organisation to reap the benefits of greater Diversity in their senior teams.

Having identified your priority areas for action from the diagnostic work, the next step is to propose a strategy and a set of initiatives to resolve the biases and obstacles to inclusion that you now know about.   I recommend aiming to set a 3-year strategy for EDI. This will give you time to invest, act and see real change. Setting targets with short-term deadlines can be dispiriting as you may not see dramatic results immediately.  That said, there tend to be several ‘quick wins’ – simple resolutions to identified problems that were previously not noticed (for instance a lack of design for members of underrepresented groups, such as not enough toilets or ill-fitting uniforms or a lack of feminine hygiene products) that, once implemented, will convey a welcome message that change is on its way.

Answering these three questions before you embark on new EDI initiatives will help to ensure that your actions are well-targeted, properly funded and more likely to bring about meaningful and valuable change. This will ensure that whatever initiatives are implemented, they won’t just look good, they will bring you closer to your EDI ambition. That ambition in turn will deliver the Diversity benefit that supports the mission and vision of the organisation.

Three Popular Window Dressing Initiatives Disguised as Impactful EDI Interventions

By Rina Goldenberg Lynch

This month, we’re talking about the second stage on the Diversity Journey Roadmap© – Window Dressing. When it comes to EDI, I don’t meet a lot of people who willingly invest in programmes and initiatives as a box-ticking exercise. Every person we work with is genuinely keen to ensure that progress is made on their EDI journey. But watch out for pitfalls: there are so many initiatives that are subscribed to with the very best intentions that turn out to be not much more than Window Dressing. Has your organisation fallen victim to them?

Three popular window dressing initiatives disguised as EDI interventions.
The three initiatives set out below might not seem like Window Dressing – and indeed have some merit in bringing awareness of EDI. That said, none of these initiatives does much to shift the needle on EDI – culture or numbers.

  1. Participating in Diversity-Related Awards Events

We all love a glamorous event that honours our rising stars, star performers and influencers.  Indeed, recognition for doing something well is an amazing boost to one’s career – and perhaps even brand.  In other words, they’re great window dressers!  But how impactful are awards events in progressing EDI for organisations?  As studies suggest, awards and recognition might have a short-term impact on motivation and behaviour.  But more must be done to harness real change.  The pitfall?  When an organisation spends a hefty budget on recognition and reward through award events, it often fails to invest in other, more meaningful initiatives that engage a broader audience within the organisation.  Getting people to recognise that change is needed when they might feel everything is already working well is a major undertaking.  Would an award recognising the top underrepresented performers in the organisation be able to deliver on this undertaking?

When contemplating participation in a diversity-related awards event, ask yourself these three questions:

1.  Does the event advance your EDI strategy or move you closer to your EDI ambition?

2. If you invest in the event, will there be enough resources left for other initiatives that have greater impact on advancing your EDI strategy/ambition?

3.  How will the event be perceived by those not impacted by it?

Thinking through the answers to these questions will, at the very least, allow you to put in place complementary plans to bring about the desired outcome.

  1. Appearing on Benchmarking Lists

Similarly, if you’re putting in place initiatives to achieve placement on a benchmarking list, you may find yourself going down a very narrow path that may not deliver the greatest impact for your EDI strategy relative to invested resources.  It might be a great boost to one’s brand recognition to be part of a list of the Top 50 Employers for women or Stonewall’s list of top employers.  That said,  might this be more of a marketing exercise?  And if it is, I wonder whether it  would have the desired marketing outcome.

When people want to find out about the culture of the company, they are much less likely to be swayed by benchmarking lists than the views of former and current colleagues.  They’re more likely to peruse Glassdoor indexes or similar, and discuss EDI at interviews.

Unless your EDI budget is as deep as your marketing budget, I recommend investing in more impactful initiatives that look at it from all the necessary angles.

  1. Setting Ambitious Targets

Companies love making public statements about their aim to achieve a greater level of representation.  In my experience, however, unless this exercise has been thought through carefully, it becomes a knee-jerk reaction or a concession to public pressure, without the understanding of how realistic the targets might be and what it takes to achieve them.  In my decade of experience in the EDI space, I have known many organisations to set lofty targets only to later extend them out or concede that they haven’t been met.

Setting ambitious targets doesn’t amount to much more than showing a desire to address a diversity-related challenge in the organisation.  But, to do this in a way that achieves results, each target ought to be based on data of where the organisation is and where it wants to be on a specific measurement, with a well-developed plan of how to achieve it.  For instance, if a target is set on increasing the number of female graduates hired into the organisation, it’s important to set out the precise steps needed to achieve this target, including a definition of what is achievable on an annual basis.

Without this forethought, setting targets on increasing representation in a company can have the opposite effect of highlighting how unprepared the organisation is to make the appropriate investments, or worse, that the target is simply a façade.

When it comes to choosing the right EDI initiatives, there is a danger that initiatives that are aimed at making a public statement will fall short of creating the necessary impact.  Getting EDI right is a complicated endeavour even when it is done well, so to spend time and resources on initiatives that have a low rate of return on EDI investment is something best avoided.

5 Tips for Creating An Impactful Employee Resource Group

By Inge Woudstra

Employee Resource Groups (ERGs), also known as staff networks, can make a powerful contribution to an inclusive workplace. ERGs usually begin with a group of enthusiastic, passionate people who are keen to offer support to their community and advocate for change. Over time, disappointment can set in, if there have been plenty of events and people have enjoyed themselves, but the impact on diversity metrics in the organisation is non-existent and team members are feeling overworked and discouraged.

Needless to say, that is a disappointing scenario, as ERGs can make a real difference to diversity, equity and inclusion in organisations and are often a vital part of a good EDI infrastructure.

McKinsey’s insights show us that effective ERGs can help boost feelings of inclusion for traditionally underrepresented segments of workers, improve the attraction and retention of employees who identify with these segments, and increase representation of diverse talent in line with the organization’s EDI strategy.

How to make an ERG work for you
Here are five things you can do to create a successful voluntary employee resource group:

1. Set a clear vision and strategy to give focus and manage expectations
When setting up an ERG, think about what you are aiming to achieve and what benefits members will get from it. That way, you can set achievable aims, all work together to the same aim and communicate clearly to HR, EDI and senior leadership what you are about. Potential members will also know what they can expect, and what is expected of them. This avoids future disappointment. One member of an ERG group for women stated, ‘I joined to meet other women, and feel supported; instead the group has now been opened to men and we mainly advocate for equity to senior leaders. I am disappointed about the lack of social events’.

2. Set a realistic remit to help you stay motivated
When thinking about your strategy, be realistic about what is achievable. Consider resources available, people and budget, alignment with EDI mission and expectations of your organisation, and current connections into senior leadership, EDI people and HR. Then decide what is possible within the current set-up, and which direction you would like to develop in future. For example, offering sponsorship opportunities requires access to senior leadership and advocating for equity in recruitment and progression requires close alignment with HR.

‘In the past we wanted to do too much. Now we have set a much more modest objective, that aligns with the EDI mission of our organisation. This means we could also set clear objectives and now all our volunteers can see the result of their efforts, and we have noticed a real change in motivation of volunteers as a result.’

3. Agree the terms of engagement to manage expectations and amplify impact
Some ERGs are set up by leadership to function as a focus group and provide feedback. Other ERGs are set up by volunteers to provide a community for like-minded people or to advocate for change in the organisation. Make sure you discuss your ERG’s role within the organisation and agree the support that’s required.  The role can depend on the maturity of EDI in your organisation and where you are on your EDI journey. When EDI isn’t high on the agenda, a support or campaigning role is quite appropriate. When EDI is already a strategic target, close alignment with the EDI ambition of the organisation is vital, as is a clear agreement on the respective remits of HR, the EDI team and the ERG.

‘We set up a mentoring programme, and training programmes to advance careers of women. Now men have complained to HR that similar opportunities aren’t offered to them. We then opened up our ERG to all staff, including men, but it became too big for us, and it led to a lot of friction with HR. Our programmes are now integrated in the L&D strategy and offered to all and have even more impact.’

4. Plan for succession to ensure continuity
Even the most enthusiastic founders of an ERG acquire other priorities, or move on. Plan for succession from the start, by involving a wider range of people in the leadership of the ERG and actively recruiting people to organise an event or a subcommittee. New members are essential to keep enthusiasm high, keep a steady influx of new ideas and stay relevant to current staff. Help new members integrate, stay in touch with them and encourage them to step up to an active role.

‘After 3 years of running the group, I realised it was always the same people stepping up. We had been very successful and had grown quickly. Meanwhile, my workload from the day job had increased and I just couldn’t fit it in anymore. I was exhausted and needed support. We should have started earlier, but we then made a concerted effort to engage more people in leading activities and that gave me the chance to eventually step back.’

5. Ensure you are rewarded
Many people do start an ERG voluntarily and in their own time, which is laudable. However, if this is you and your ERG is offering a valuable resource to the organisation and/or taking up your work time, it’s worth discussing it with your line manager and leadership and seeking to reflect your ERG role in your work objectives.

‘My manager resented I was often away for meetings of our network. Leadership really valued my contribution, but I had a negative review from my direct manager, colleagues resented my absences and I eventually had to move teams. My contribution to the organisation wasn’t acknowledged. With my new manager I discussed my internal role, and we formalised the hours I could spend on it and how it would be evaluated and remunerated which worked much better.’

ERGs can make a real difference to equity, diversity and inclusion in organisations and provide vital support for people, but they are only impactful and fun to lead if they function well. These five tips should help your ERG get off to a good start and continue to thrive and have a positive impact.

The Uncomfortable Truth About Women’s Careers After Babies

Guest post by Jessica Heagren

I was the youngest director in the FTSE100 company I worked for. I had worked my butt off for years! I worked in a heavily male-dominated environment in Financial Services and was a member of an all-male leadership team. I had a voice at the table!

One day I was presenting to the Big Board and I was asked what it was like to be a talented female in our organisation.

“Do you want my honest answer?” I asked.

Honesty often leads to great things
I proceeded to explain how tough it was, constantly having to back yourself and fighting constant condescension. I shared that, with no role models to look up to, it was hard to see how the next five years of my life would play out. I knew I wanted to start a family but I couldn’t see a way of keeping my career and doing that.

My honest answer led to my setting up the Diversity and Inclusion committee. I led the Gender & Working Families strand for the remainder of my time there.

When I had my first daughter a few years later, I tried going back to work, but as the only member of the team on a flexible working arrangement I just couldn’t make it work well. I lost my voice, I couldn’t speak out and my confidence was destroyed.

I left when I fell pregnant with my second daughter a year later.

I kept meeting women who had also lost their careers as a result of having children and was infuriated by it. So in 2020 I set up a platform to help women find part time or flexible work doing what they did before, to try and keep those skills in the workplace.

Proving what’s happening
In recent years I’ve found that more businesses are asking how to retain more women. They’re starting to recognise how many leave within the first two years of having children.

But until now, I’ve only ever had the anecdotal evidence, never the data.

In the summer of 2022, we surveyed almost a thousand women in pursuit of that data. We called the survey Careers After Babies: The Uncomfortable Truth. The findings were, as expected, deeply concerning.

The key findings 
The narrative that has surrounded women for years is that they don’t want to return to work after they have children. We found that 98% of women want to work after they have children.

The set-up of most workplaces makes working alongside having a family incredibly difficult. 85% of our surveyed mothers left the full-time workforce within 3 years of having their first child. 19% left altogether.

Even more distressingly, we found a 36% drop off at management level after women have children and a 44% increase in admin and entry level roles. Women are leaving their well-paid (and hard-earned) senior roles because they are not afforded the flexibility they need. They are then returning to the workforce in lesser-skilled, and therefore lower-paid roles, as that’s the only way they can see to combine work and parenting.

It’s taking upwards of ten years for women’s careers to recover. They may as well start again… which is sadly what most women are being forced to do.

Why is this happening?
Too few mothers are content with their work-life balance and they are not earning enough to afford extortionately priced childcare.

Businesses are not providing what parents need in order for them to be able to earn what they need and be parents. Line managers are not adequately trained and women aren’t being supported when they return from maternity leave.

We are working to an outdated model. Work has not kept up with society.

The business case for change is clear. There is a lack of women in leadership positions – just 4% of FTSE250 CEOs are women; just 1p in every £1 of capital investment is going to female founders; there is missed opportunity of a 10% increase in GDP for the UK economy; and the gender pay gap that is even at age 30 by grows to 14.9% ten years later.

What can we do about it?
We cannot keep allowing women to have to abandon their careers – not when so many families need two incomes to operate in this world. 74% of families have two working parents.

At That Works For Me we have built a needs-based model to assess businesses against and we are helping them get better. We’re working with some of the biggest brands in the UK to create the Careers After Babies accreditation. It’s no tick box exercise. It’s about transformation and commitment to being a better employer for working parents.

As much as I’m disheartened by the results of our report, the impact of Careers After Babies has been amazing and we are genuinely helping businesses be better. We’re also working with the best change-makers in the industry to all pull in the same direction.

This is the beginning of the revolution!

Jessica Heagren held a range of Director positions in UK insurance giant DLG. After finding, like many women, that combining a senior career in a financial services corporate with a young family just didn’t work, she co-founded That Works For Me. You can contact Jessica via the website or on LinkedIn.  The Careers After Babies report is available to download.