ERG leadership teams make a considerable number of decisions on behalf of their members. They establish priorities, develop programming, determine how resources are used, and decide which opportunities deserve attention. Much of that work happens in planning meetings with a relatively small group of people.
Of course, that makes sense. Someone has to be responsible for moving the work forward, and ERG leaders are often the people most familiar with the group's history and current commitments.
There is an interesting dynamic, though, when the people doing most of the work are also the people making most of the decisions about what comes next.
Highly involved members naturally develop a particular perspective on the ERG. They understand the effort required to organize an event, the challenges of coordinating volunteers, and the realities of working within organizational constraints. Their experience gives them useful insight into what the group can reasonably accomplish.
Members who participate less frequently may see the ERG quite differently.
Someone who attends only a few events each year may have a clear sense of which experiences are worth making time for. A newer member may notice barriers to participation that longtime members have learned to work around. Others may have interests or needs that have never surfaced in a leadership meeting because they haven't had an opportunity to contribute to those conversations.
These perspectives can be especially useful when ERGs are establishing priorities for another year.
The challenge is that the people most likely to respond to a request for input are often the people who are already engaged. An open invitation to share ideas may generate feedback from familiar voices, while members who are less connected to the group remain largely absent from the conversation.
How an ERG gathers input can influence whose perspectives become part of its planning.
Some members may be comfortable sharing ideas during a meeting. Others may prefer to respond privately or take time to consider a question before answering. Providing different opportunities to contribute can help leaders hear from people whose experiences with the ERG are less visible.
It can also be useful to pay attention to what members are already communicating through their participation. Which experiences draw people back? Where do newer members seem to find their place? Are there groups of employees who express interest in the ERG but rarely become involved?
These observations can help leadership teams understand how their plans are being experienced beyond the people responsible for carrying them out.
As ERGs prepare for 2027, there is an opportunity to examine how priorities are established and whose experiences inform those decisions. Leadership teams will still need to weigh competing interests and make choices within the capacity available to them. A broader understanding of the membership gives them more to work with when making those choices.
The people who participate most visibly already have a place in those conversations. It's worth considering who else might have something useful to contribute.