%20(1).jpg)
Many articles and sources offer metrics for evaluating ERG programs, but often these recommendations lack practical experience and insight. Consequently, the most valuable metrics—those that truly illustrate an ERG program’s impact and success—are frequently overlooked.
During ERG Leader Conversations and our recent ERG engagement tour, it became clear that many ERG leaders struggle with identifying which metrics to prioritize. This confusion can hinder the ability to measure success effectively. This article aims to clarify the essential metrics, providing a structured approach to better assess your ERG program’s performance. Here, we rank the key ERG metrics from best to worst, ensuring you focus on what truly matters for your program’s success.
What it is: The percentage of your ERG members actively participating in either live events (virtual or in-person) or asynchronous activities.
Explaining the Ranking: This metric is the gold standard because it truly tells a story. Simply put, ERGs are community builders, and this metric provides a clear, unbiased snapshot of how well you’re doing in that role.
Are people engaging with the things you’re doing? What percentage of your members are actively involved? If you’re only engaging 3% or 10% of your membership throughout the year, it’s a clear signal that there’s room for improvement. Low engagement indicates that your activities and events may not be impactful or relevant to your members’ needs.
Tracking member engagement score helps you understand and demonstrate the effectiveness of your ERG’s initiatives. It provides concrete data to show executives and stakeholders how well you’re connecting with your community and where there are opportunities to increase your impact.
What it is: Asking members to rate how impactful the ERG program is towards their sense of belonging, typically on an annual basis.
Explaining the Ranking: This metric is crucial because it goes beyond the usual “Would you recommend this to a friend?” question, which doesn’t make much sense in a work context. The focus here is on measuring how the ERG program enhances members’ sense of belonging and overall employee experience. It’s important to ask the right questions that matter, instead of wasting the limited attention you get from your members on generic surveys. By asking them to rate how the program has improved their sense of belonging, you provide executives with direct insights into the program’s impact on employee experience.
Additionally, you can expand this to include specific goals members joined for, such as professional development. By collecting these goals and personalizing the survey to ask if those goals have been met, you get even more precise data. This approach, though requiring advanced polling, paints a clearer picture of how well the ERG is meeting individual members’ needs.
What it is: The percentage of people within your communication channel actively engaging over a given period, likely 30 days.
Explaining the Ranking: The channel engagement score is a vital metric because it measures actual engagement within your communication channels, not just membership numbers. Many ERGs mistakenly believe that having a large number of members equates to success. However, without active engagement, large memberships don’t necessarily indicate effectiveness.
For example, the women’s ERG often receives a lot of attention due to its size, but that doesn’t always translate into active participation. This score looks at how many members are using emojis, posting, and interacting with the content, giving a clear picture of actual engagement.
This metric is essential because it provides a reality check. It helps you understand if your content and activities resonate with your members. If engagement is low, it might indicate that the content isn’t relevant or engaging enough. On the flip side, high engagement suggests that your strategies are working. By regularly testing and measuring what works, you can refine your approach, ensuring your communications are effective and engaging.
What it is: A ratio calculator for appropriate reactions to the number of members and appropriate posts to the number of members within a communication channel.
Why it’s #4: The communication channel index is a crucial metric, especially for platforms like Microsoft Teams, which don’t provide detailed engagement data. Unlike the channel engagement score that directly counts posts and reactions, this index offers a way to understand engagement even when you lack those specific numbers.
In essence, the communication channel index helps fill the data gap, providing insights into how well your communications are performing. It allows you to adjust strategies to boost engagement, ensuring your messages are seen and acted upon by the community.
What it is: The percentage of members who attended at least one event over the year.
Explaining the Ranking: If only the same few people are attending every event, it indicates that the ERG is only meeting the needs of a specific subset of members. To avoid this, you need to offer a variety of programming that appeals to different interests and needs within your ERG.
Aiming for at least 50% of members to attend at least one event annually is a good starting goal. This ensures that your events are engaging a wider audience and not just catering to a select few. Collecting this data throughout the year provides a clear picture of your program’s overall engagement and helps identify areas for improvement to make your events more inclusive and appealing to a larger portion of your membership.
What it is: Member engagement score broken down into specific segments, such as departments.
Explaining the Ranking: Segmented engagement metrics offer a detailed view of how different groups within the company are engaging with the ERG program. This goes beyond the general member engagement score and looks at specific segments, like the IT department, to see how many of its members are participating in ERG activities.
This breakdown is crucial because it provides insights into the cultural dynamics and engagement levels within different parts of the organization. By identifying which segments are highly engaged and which are not, you can pinpoint areas for improvement and tailor your strategies accordingly. Communicating these segmented insights to executives not only highlights your wins but also transparently shows areas that need attention, making it a powerful tool for driving program effectiveness and overall organizational culture.
What it is: The percentage of the company that has participated in any ERG programming, not just members.
Explaining the Ranking: Workforce participation percentage measures the overall reach of the ERG program within the company. It’s not just about how many people are ERG program members but also about how many employees have engaged with ERG activities, such as attending events or participating in initiatives. This metric is crucial for understanding the broader impact of the ERG program and its inclusivity.
Knowing this percentage can help identify areas where the program is thriving and where it might need more focus. It also opens up opportunities to address engagement pain points and enhance the program’s effectiveness. Having this data on hand is valuable for demonstrating the ERG program’s reach and influence within the company to executives and stakeholders.
What it is: Comparing company engagement scores from ERG members to non-ERG members.
Explaining the Ranking: The engagement survey correlation metric compares the engagement scores of ERG program members to those of non-ERG program members within the company. This isn’t about expecting one group to score higher than the other; it’s more about understanding the broader picture. If ERG program members score lower, it might point to deeper company culture issues that need addressing. On the flip side, if they score higher, it can indicate that the ERG program is positively impacting its members’ engagement.
This metric is valuable because it helps tell the story behind the numbers. Executives will want to understand these correlations, and as a program manager, you need to frame this information accurately. It’s not an end-all-be-all metric but provides essential context for broader employee engagement and DEIB efforts. Having this data can be incredibly useful for identifying trends and addressing areas that need improvement, making it a good metric to keep in your toolkit.
What it is: The percentage of ERG leaders who complete their monthly tasks.
Explaining the Ranking: The monthly checklist completion rate is a vital input metric that tracks the efficiency and consistency of ERG program operations. This involves breaking down essential tasks into manageable steps, like putting events on calendars, designing flyers, creating slide decks, and selecting hosts. By ensuring that these tasks are itemized and tracked, ERG leaders can systematically address all necessary duties. Achieving a 100% completion rate each month indicates that the program is being run smoothly and efficiently. It also helps identify recurring gaps or tasks that are frequently missed, allowing program managers to refine processes and improve overall functionality. This metric not only keeps ERG program activities on track but also provides a clear, measurable indicator of operational success to share with executives.
What it is: The percentage of the budget used over a specific period.
Explaining the Ranking: Tracking how effectively the ERG budget is utilized is crucial. Many ERGs don’t spend their entire budget, often because they track spending annually rather than quarterly. By moving to a quarterly tracking system, ERGs can ensure more consistent budget utilization. For example, if you have a $4,000 annual budget, aim to use $1,000 per quarter. This approach ensures that resources are actively being used to engage members and support ERG activities. It holds ERGs accountable for using their allocated funds effectively, making it a valuable metric for monitoring program efficiency and impact.
What it is: The percentage of new ERG leaders who successfully hit their input metrics during their onboarding period.
Explaining the Ranking: The onboarding success rate is a key accountability metric for ERG program managers, reflecting how well new leaders are integrated and prepared for their roles. This metric measures the percentage of newly onboarded ERG leaders who successfully meet their input metrics within a specified period, typically three to six months. If 15 new leads are onboarded and three struggle after six months, the success rate would be 80%. Aiming for at least a 75% success rate is a good benchmark. This metric highlights the effectiveness of the onboarding process and identifies areas for improvement to ensure new leaders are well-equipped to succeed in their roles.
What it is: The percentage of your ERG program’s members who have attended more than one event or activity.
Explaining the Ranking: This metric is crucial because it shows deeper engagement and commitment from your members. If people are coming back for more, it indicates that your events and activities are resonating with them and providing value. Repeat attendance means that members are finding your program worthwhile enough to participate multiple times. It’s a strong indicator of satisfaction and relevance, which are key to building a vibrant and active community.
By tracking the percentage of repeat attenders, you can gauge the effectiveness of your programming and identify what keeps members coming back. This insight allows you to refine and improve your offerings, ensuring they continue to meet the needs and interests of your community.
What it is: The percentage of channel members who have opened your communication channel in the past 30 days.
Explaining the Ranking: This metric tracks how many members are actively checking the communication channel, indicating if they find it valuable enough to open regularly. If members aren’t opening the channel, they’re likely not engaging with its content. High active membership suggests that the channel is offering worthwhile content. However, if members feel spammed—especially with frequent @here mentions—they may mute notifications, leading to lower engagement. Ensuring valuable and relevant content helps maintain high active membership and overall engagement.
What it is: The post-to-member ratio within your communication channel.
Explaining the Ranking: The channel post index measures how actively members are posting within the communication channel. While overall engagement scores are useful, understanding the post-to-member ratio provides deeper insights into the quality of engagement. Are members just reacting to content, or are they actively contributing and starting conversations? This metric is valuable because getting members to post requires more effort and indicates a higher level of engagement. It’s stronger than just measuring reactions, as it reflects members’ willingness to invest time and thought into their contributions. This helps identify whether the content is inspiring meaningful interactions and what can be improved to boost active participation.
What it is: The reaction-to-member ratio within your communication channel.
Explaining the Ranking: The channel reaction index measures how engaged members are through their reactions, such as emojis, to posts in the communication channel. You might find that while overall engagement appears high, it’s primarily driven by reactions rather than more in-depth interactions. Striking a balance between different types of engagement—such as comments and discussions versus simple reactions—can help create a more dynamic and interactive community. This index helps identify areas where you can enhance member participation and engagement.
What it is: An NPS rating from your stakeholders on their experience working with the ERG program.
Explaining the Ranking: Stakeholder satisfaction measures how well stakeholders feel about collaborating with the ERG program. This metric is a good indicator of the program’s structure and governance, showing whether everything is running smoothly. A high stakeholder satisfaction score signals to executives that the ERG program is well-managed and effective. It’s a key metric for demonstrating the program’s strength and reliability in community-building efforts.
What it is: The percentage of members who have received direct outreach from ERG leaders.
Explaining the Ranking: The member outreach rate measures how effectively your ERG program connects with its members. This metric is crucial for community building, as it helps understand members’ needs and ensures their goals are being met. Outreach can be done through direct messages, regular check-ins, or even brief touch bases for smaller organizations. The key is to consistently reach out and engage with members, gathering feedback and ideas to improve the ERG’s offerings. Whether it’s a campaign to reach a quarter of your members each quarter or more personalized interactions, regular outreach shows a commitment to listening and adapting to members’ needs.
What it is: The engagement rate for individual events.
Explaining the Ranking: The single event engagement score is a key metric that measures how engaged members are at a specific event. It’s a good indicator of the event’s success and the quality of the content provided. Aiming to engage around 10 percent of your members at each event is a solid goal. Consistently achieving this level of engagement shows executives that the ERG is delivering valuable and relevant content.
What it is: The number of collaborations and recommendations made by the ERG to internal business units.
Explaining the Ranking: This metric shows how much the ERG program is influencing company policies and practices. It counts the number of times ERGs have worked with internal teams on things like suggesting policy changes, removing outdated dress codes, or pushing for gender-neutral restrooms. While some companies might prefer their DEIB teams to handle these tasks, it’s still super valuable for the ERG program to have a say in making the workplace better. These efforts can really improve the overall work environment and highlight the ERG program’s role in creating a more inclusive culture. However, its importance might vary depending on the organization.
What it is: The total number of members in your ERG.
Explaining the Ranking: While many might rank member count as a top metric, it’s actually one of the least important for assessing the success of an ERG program. Focusing on sheer growth can lead to questionable practices, such as aggressively inviting the entire company to join or even mandatorily subscribing employees. These tactics can dilute the quality and engagement of the ERG program. The goal isn’t to have every employee in an ERG, as some people simply aren’t interested in community building at work and prefer to focus on their tasks. Instead, it’s more important to understand membership trends and reasons behind growth or decline, without making member count the central metric.
What it is: The raw number of people attending specific events.
Explaining the Ranking: Tracking the number of attendees provides a raw count of participation, but this number can fluctuate based on the size of the ERG, the company, and other factors. Focusing solely on boosting attendance numbers can lead to practices that may not be in the best interest of the ERG program’s goals. It’s important to remember that smaller events can be just as valuable if they engage a diverse segment of members. Ideally, aim for about 10 percent of your members to attend each event, rotating through different segments of your community to ensure broad engagement. This approach ensures meaningful participation without overemphasizing raw attendance figures.
What it is: Members’ ratings on how much an event contributed to their goals.
Explaining the Ranking: Event NPS measures how much attendees felt an event helped them achieve their goals for joining the ERG. While it’s useful to gather feedback on event satisfaction, this metric is often biased. Attendees who stay until the end of an event are likely those who enjoyed it, skewing the results positively. Additionally, members tend to be kind in their ratings, recognizing the volunteer effort behind the event, even if it didn’t fully resonate with them. Therefore, while it provides some insights, the inherent bias limits its reliability as a primary success metric.
What it is: The percentage of ERG leadership roles that are open at a given time.
Explaining the Ranking: Measuring the percentage of open ERG program leadership roles at a consistent time each year is a valuable metric. It provides insights into the stability and effectiveness of the ERG program’s leadership structure. To ensure accuracy and avoid manipulation, this should be tracked consistently, even if the results aren’t always favorable. Ideally, having 80 percent or more of these volunteer leadership roles filled is solid. This metric can be paired with onboarding success rates to show how well new leaders are integrated and retained. This combined data can give executives a clear picture of the health and sustainability of the ERG program’s leadership.
What it Is: The total number of volunteer hours contributed by ERG members.
Explaining the Ranking: Tracking the total number of volunteer hours contributed by ERG members is a meaningful metric, especially when those hours are related to ERG activities. This metric reflects the commitment and community involvement of the ERG members. It’s important to focus on volunteer hours directly tied to ERG initiatives rather than general volunteer work, as the latter can dilute the relevance of the metric. Companies are increasingly valuing their give-back programs, making this a useful and strong metric to showcase the ERG program’s impact and contribution to the community. It highlights the collective effort and engagement of the ERG members in meaningful activities.
What it is: The amount of money raised for scholarships by the ERG.
Explaining the Ranking: ERG-led scholarship programs are a great initiative, and tracking the fundraising amount for these scholarships can be a valuable metric. It provides a tangible measure of the ERG program’s impact and community involvement. Knowing how much was raised and how many individuals were sponsored can resonate more deeply than general donations to external organizations. This metric is particularly relevant if the scholarship aligns with the company’s industry, such as an education company supporting student scholarships or a gaming company funding scholarships for students in gaming-related fields. It allows the company to highlight meaningful contributions and talk about the specific impact of their support, making it a more compelling and relevant metric.
What it is: The number of employee referrals from ERG members.
Explaining the Ranking: This metric indicates the ERG program’s influence on attracting talent but is not solely indicative of ERG program success. It shows that members are willing to recommend the company to their network. High referral rates suggest positive member experiences.
What it is: The percentage of ERG members who received promotions.
Explaining the Ranking: Promotion rates are not directly controlled by ERG programs. While a high promotion rate among ERG program members might be leveraged to highlight the program’s impact, it’s essential to recognize that promotions are typically determined by individual managers and not by ERG program involvement. If ERG leaders or members get promoted, it can be a positive signal, but this metric can be misleading due to the numerous factors influencing promotions, such as personal relationships with managers and individual performance. Therefore, relying on promotion rates to gauge ERG program success can be problematic and should be approached with caution.
What it is: The percentage of ERG members who remain with the company.
Explaining the Ranking: Retention rates or turnover rates among ERG members are not reliable indicators of an ERG program’s success or failure. Many factors influence an employee’s decision to stay or leave a company, and ERG programs primarily aim to enhance the work experience rather than directly impacting retention. While it might be interesting to observe any correlation between ERG program membership and retention, accurately measuring this would require extensive data and long-term analysis, making it impractical. The complexity and multitude of influencing factors make this metric less meaningful in evaluating ERG program effectiveness.
What it is: The percentage of meetings attended by executive sponsors.
Explaining the Ranking: Regular attendance by sponsors indicates support but doesn’t directly measure member engagement or program impact. It’s useful for showing executive involvement but needs to be paired with engagement metrics. Consistent sponsor attendance can enhance program credibility.
What it is: The percentage of members participating in mentorship programs.
Explaining the Ranking: If your ERG program includes a mentorship initiative, tracking participation is crucial. Setting a target, such as aiming for 10 percent of members to participate, helps in evaluating the program’s reach and effectiveness. This approach applies not just to mentorship but to any ERG program. Establish clear participation goals for all initiatives and measure whether these goals are met. Starting with a benchmark like 10 percent participation provides a tangible target to strive for and helps in assessing the overall engagement and success of the ERG’s offerings.
What it is: Engagement metrics for the ERG’s social media presence.
Explaining the Ranking: Social media metrics are more about visibility than engagement and don’t directly measure program success. They can indicate reach and awareness but need to be supplemented with deeper internal engagement data. High social media engagement can boost visibility and interest in ERG activities.
What it is: The percentage of senior managers, directors, or above who participate in ERG activities.
Explaining the Ranking: Leadership participation is a valuable segmented engagement metric that tracks the involvement of senior leadership in ERG program activities. This metric provides insights into the program’s influence and support at higher organizational levels. While high leadership participation can signal strong endorsement and integration of ERG program initiatives within the company culture, it’s not an end-all metric. The identifying community for the supported ERG may not necessarily sit in leadership positions, so while their participation is noteworthy, it should be considered alongside broader engagement metrics.
What it is: The percentage of members opening ERG newsletters.
Explaining the Ranking: Newsletters are a one-way communication tool, and open rates don’t measure member engagement or feedback. While useful for tracking interest, they don’t provide insights into deeper member interactions. Aim to balance newsletters with interactive communication channels.
What it is: The number of diverse suppliers introduced by the ERG.
Explaining the Ranking: This metric is particularly relevant if your company has a supplier diversity team or initiative. Measuring the raw number of these introductions highlights the ERG program’s contribution in this area. While it may not be the primary focus of the ERG program, it’s a good metric to have in your back pocket.
What it is: The number of collaborative initiatives between ERGs.
Explaining the Ranking: Collaboration is beneficial but not a primary indicator of success. It shows the ability to work together but doesn’t measure individual ERG effectiveness. Use it as a secondary metric to support broader engagement goals.
What it is: The percentage of members completing self-identification surveys.
Explaining the Ranking: If your company is running a self ID campaign, ERGs can play a crucial role in promoting its importance. By explaining how self ID data can help craft better programming and understand opportunities, ERGs can encourage more employees to participate. It’s not a make-or-break metric, but it’s beneficial to track and leverage ERGs to boost participation and awareness.
What it is: The number of ERG members participating in learning and development programs.
Explaining the Ranking: This metric shows how many members are involved in learning and development activities, but it doesn’t necessarily reflect the success of the ERG program. Participation can vary widely based on individual interest and availability. While it’s good to know, it shouldn’t be a primary focus when evaluating the ERG program’s impact.
What it is: The attendance rate at professional development workshops.
Explaining the Ranking: Not everyone’s going to participate in every workshop, even if they’re beneficial. Attendance can be influenced by many factors like personal schedules and interest levels. It’s a nice-to-have metric but doesn’t paint a complete picture of ERG program success.
What it is: The percentage of ERG members participating in leadership training programs.
Explaining the Ranking: Leadership training is important, but participation alone doesn’t indicate the success of the ERG program. It can be useful to track, especially if the ERGs promote these programs, but it’s not the main measure of success. It’s more about individual development than collective ERG program impact.
What it is: The cost of each ERG event divided by the number of participants.
Explaining the Ranking: This metric looks at the budget spent per event participant, which can be insightful for budget planning. However, it doesn’t necessarily reflect the quality or impact of the event. Sometimes smaller, more intimate events can be more impactful despite higher costs per participant.
What it is: The percentage of members that completed a program feedback form.
Explaining the Ranking: This metric measures how many members completed feedback forms for ERG programs. It’s useful for understanding member satisfaction and program effectiveness. While showing a high Net Promoter Score (NPS) for belonging is valuable, if only 10 percent of members provided feedback, it may raise questions for executives. However, if you can say that 85 percent of members rated the program as a 9 or 10 for helping them meet their goals, it tells a much stronger story. This metric helps validate the success of the programs and provides actionable insights for future improvements.
What it is: The percentage of ERG members who attend conferences.
Explaining the Ranking: Not all ERG program members can attend conferences due to budget constraints and other factors. This metric can help justify budget increases if used correctly. However, it’s not a strong standalone indicator of ERG program success.
What it is: The number of speaking engagements at industry conferences by ERG members.
Explaining the Ranking: This metric tracks how many ERG program members speak at conferences, but it needs to be relevant to the ERG program’s mission. Ideally, these should be ERG-specific or diversity-related conferences. If members are speaking at unrelated conferences, it doesn’t reflect the ERG program’s impact. Executives might question the relevance of this metric if it doesn’t directly tie back to the ERG program’s goals. Additionally, speaking engagements should be on behalf of the company and related to the ERG program’s purpose, not just personal achievements. This metric is nice to have for storytelling, but it doesn’t provide strong insights into the ERG’s success.
What it is: The number of new ERGs established.
Explaining the Ranking: The number of new ERGs is more about strategic planning than a measure of success. Deciding which ERGs are needed and when they should be implemented should be part of the overall strategy set by ERG program managers. This metric reflects the execution of that strategy rather than the success of the ERG program. While it might not be a primary indicator of success, executives might still be interested in knowing this information. It’s a useful metric for strategic discussions, but not for assessing the impact or success of the ERG program.
What it is: The number of times customers mention ERGs.
Explaining the Ranking: This is an interesting metric but not very common. It’s good if customers or partners recognize the ERG program’s efforts, but it’s not a core measure of success.
What it is: The participation rate of CEOs and executives in ERG events.
Explaining the Ranking: While senior leader support is a concern for many ERG programs, but their attendance alone doesn’t measure the ERG program’s impact. This metric should be combined with engagement and feedback metrics. It’s a sign of support but not a direct indicator of success.
What it is: The number of customer-facing experiences ERGs participate in.
Explaining the Ranking: While I’m not a huge fan of ERG programs heavily interacting in customer-facing activities, there are some instances where this can be beneficial. For example, ERGs can lead work at major events such as Hubspot’s INBOUND, Zoom’s Zoomtopia, Asana’s Work Innovation Summit, or Salesforce’s Dreamforce. Participation in these events can help build community among ERG members and showcase their contributions. However, this should not be a primary focus for ERG programs and the metric would likely be just one event per year. It’s more of a nice-to-have metric that can be useful for certain contexts and a good way to highlight the ERG program’s impact externally.
What it is: Feedback from ERG members on company products and services.
Explaining the Ranking: This is more relevant for diversity initiatives than ERG programs. ERG members might not always be the target audience for feedback. Focus on internal engagement metrics to avoid diluting the ERG program’s purpose.
What it is: The number of customers referred by ERG members.
Explaining the Ranking: Turning ERG programs into sales tools isn’t their purpose. This metric can misalign with the core goal of community building. It’s intentionally ranked low to keep the focus on member engagement.
What it is: The number of new business ideas submitted by ERG members.
Explaining the Ranking: Innovation is not the primary purpose of ERG programs. Expecting members who joined for community and support to focus on business innovation doesn’t make sense. While it might be a nice-to-have during specific events like an ERG hackathon, it’s not a general ERG program goal. This metric is more aligned with broader employee engagement initiatives rather than the core mission of ERG programs.
What it is: The number of awards received by ERGs or their members.
Explaining the Ranking: While awards can provide some recognition and highlight individual achievements, they are not a reliable metric for measuring the effectiveness of an ERG program. Awards are often influenced by external factors and biases, and they don’t necessarily reflect the overall success or impact of the ERG program.
What it is: The number of high potential employees in the ERG.
Explaining the Ranking: Tracking the number of high potential employees within ERGs might seem useful, but it doesn’t directly correlate with ERG program success. There are many factors at play, including potential biases in identifying high potential employees. While it could provide some insights, it’s not a reliable metric for measuring the effectiveness of an ERG program. This metric could tell a story, but it shouldn’t be used as a primary indicator of success.
What it is: The percentage of ERG members participating in external leadership programs.
Explaining the Ranking: Participation in external leadership programs, like getting an MBA, is more about individual career goals and less about the ERG program’s success. Whether or not ERG program members are using their budget or tuition reimbursement for these programs doesn’t provide actionable insights into the ERG’ programs effectiveness. While it might be useful information for the learning and development team to tailor their offerings, it doesn’t serve as a strong indicator of the ERG program’s overall success.
What it is: The number of times executives present at ERG events.
Explaining the Ranking: This metric can be confusing and isn’t a clear indicator of ERG program success. It’s unclear why executives would frequently present within an ERG program context, and this metric doesn’t offer much value. Perhaps a goal could be set for executives to present once a year, but this shouldn’t be a primary focus. The raw number of executive presentations does not effectively measure an ERG program’s effectiveness or impact.
What it is: The number of external awards received by ERGs.
Explaining the Ranking: External awards can be biased and don’t always reflect best practices. They’re more about recognition than real success. Use this metric as a supplement, not a primary indicator.
What it is: The frequency of member logins to ERG platforms.
Explaining the Ranking: This metric is similar to the channel active membership score, but even less informative. Just because members click on the platform doesn’t mean they are truly engaged. Login activity alone is not a sufficient measure of success. To truly gauge the effectiveness of an ERG program, you need to look at deeper levels of engagement and interaction, not just logins. A successful ERG program requires more meaningful metrics beyond basic login activity.
What it is: The percentage of members completing their profiles in ERG systems.
Explaining the Ranking: Profile completion doesn’t indicate engagement or program success. Many factors can influence this, and it offers little value. Use cautiously and focus on more impactful metrics.
What it is: The percentage of ERG members in external diversity associations.
Explaining the Ranking: Many factors, including cost and personal interest, influence this metric. It’s not a direct indicator of ERG program success.
What it is: The number of ERG members serving on non-profit boards.
Explaining the Ranking: This is uncommon and doesn’t directly relate to ERG program success. Many factors influence this metric, making it less valuable.
What it is: The number of times ERGs present to various business units.
Explaining the Ranking: This metric suggests that the more an ERG program integrates into business activities, the more successful it is. However, this isn’t necessarily true. Focusing too much on business presentations can derail the ERG program from its true purpose, which is to build and support the community. Success for ERG programs should be measured by their impact on community engagement and member support, not by how often they present to business units.
What it is: The total number of promotional materials produced.
Explaining the Ranking: Just because you’re promoting more doesn’t necessarily mean you’re promoting better. This metric essentially tracks the number of promotional posts, but quantity doesn’t equate to quality. Promotional communications often focus on pushing events and activities rather than engaging with the community. This approach can lead to low engagement because it doesn’t foster a sense of community; it merely promotes what you want from your members. To be successful, ERG program communications should provide real value to members, and simply increasing the number of promotional materials doesn’t achieve that goal.
What it is: The number of diverse marketing activities conducted.
Explaining the Ranking: This responsibility typically falls to the diversity team or, even better, a diversity marketing consultant who can provide informed recommendations based on the current climate, the company’s stance, and existing opportunities. In this context, more is not necessarily better. In fact, increasing diverse marketing activities without proper alignment can be risky and costly. The incorporation of “diversity” into marketing should be done thoughtfully and strategically. Assuming that an untrained volunteer has the final say on best practices and can speak for their entire community is very dangerous.
What it is: The total budget allocated to ERGs.
Explaining the Ranking: The funding amount should not be used as a metric to determine ERG program success because ERGs don’t set their own budgets. Evaluating success based on funding allocation doesn’t make sense. If an ERG program has to raise its own funds, it indicates a larger issue within the company. Providing adequate funding, such as a minimum of $1,000 per ERG per year, should be a baseline responsibility of the organization. The focus should be on how effectively the funds are utilized, not the amount itself.
What it is: The number of collaborations with external organizations.
Explaining the Ranking: These collaborations can sometimes be misaligned with the business’s overall strategy and objectives. A mispositioned customer-facing effort can damage the business’s bottom line far more than a successful one can help it. External partnerships are not the primary focus of ERG programs, and increasing these efforts can be risky. For several companies, focusing too much on external-facing activities has proven to be a slippery slope, where more partnerships can actually be detrimental rather than beneficial.
What it is: The number of initiatives aimed at influencing government policy.
Explaining the Ranking: This can be highly divisive and derail the ERG program’s primary focus on community building. It’s often outside the scope of an ERG program’s intended purpose. Use it cautiously to avoid shifting focus.
What it is: The number of ERGs that have formal bylaws and role descriptions.
Explaining the Ranking: This metric isn’t a useful indicator of ERG program success because having bylaws and role descriptions should be a standard requirement set program-wide, not on an ERG-by-ERG basis. It’s the program manager’s job to ensure that all ERGs have these foundational elements. Measuring this metric doesn’t reflect the effectiveness of individual ERGs but rather the program manager’s ability to implement these basics across the board. It’s unreasonable to expect volunteer ERG leads to create these bylaws and role descriptions on their own; this foundational work should be managed at the program level.
What it is: The number of members on ERG committees or on an ERG’s Leadership Team.
Explaining the Ranking: When it comes to ERG committees, more Leaders aren’t always better. In fact, I’ve often seen that larger committees can be less effective. A smaller, leaner team is usually more efficient and impactful than a large one that might look impressive but doesn’t get much done. Quality over quantity is key here. It’s important to ensure that the team is focused and productive rather than big just for the sake of appearances.
What it is: An assessment of the ERG’s development.
Explaining the Ranking: Assessments can be biased and misleading. They often don’t reflect the true state of the ERG program. Using a simple model (such as The ERG Movement Model 😉) for evaluation rather than relying on assessment scores.
What it is: Metrics related to the specific pillars of the ERG.
Explaining the Ranking: This is often too vague and can lead to misdirected efforts. Clear, specific metrics are needed to accurately measure success. Avoid overly broad metrics that don’t provide actionable insights.
Getting a handle on the right metrics is key to really understanding the success and impact of your ERG program. By zeroing in on the most valuable and actionable metrics, you can make sure your efforts are boosting employee engagement and building a stronger, more inclusive community at work. This ranking gives you a clear guide to measure what truly matters, helping you drive meaningful progress and show the real value of your ERG initiatives. Remember, the goal is to create a vibrant, engaged community that resonates with all members and supports their growth both professionally and personally.
.svg)
.svg)