Pillar Based ERG Leadership Structures being utilized as a governance structure for Employee Resource Group leadership is an example of a "pillar based leadership structures." However, models like this are not suitable for effective ERG leadership structures due to several reasons. In this article, we discuss why pillar based leadership models aren’t recommended using the ERG Movement’s 4 ERG Leadership Structure Assessment Questions.
Pillar Based leadership structures, as the name suggests, are organized into pillars. When utilizing the Pillar Based leadership structures, these pillars could be common DEI pillars, such as Workplace, Workforce, Commerce, Community. Each pillar is led by a "pillar lead" who is responsible for a range of responsibilities including events, communications, member engagement, projects, resource sharing, finance, and more. The generalist model of leadership assumes that each pillar lead should be able to handle all these tasks, regardless of their prior experience or expertise.
However, this generalist model has its drawbacks. First, it can be overwhelming for pillar leads to learn everything they need to know in order to perform their role effectively. Given that leading an ERG is already a voluntary role, it can be unrealistic to expect individuals to take on such a broad range of responsibilities. It is simply not a good use of their time to try and learn everything about every system and every process.
Additionally, a generalist model does not take advantage of the unique skills and expertise of each individual. In a specialist model, individuals could be matched with responsibilities that align with their strengths, allowing them to make the most meaningful impact. Furthermore, having a team of specialists would likely lead to more efficient and effective leadership, as each person would be able to focus on their area of expertise.
The generalist model of pillar based leadership structures is detrimental to ERG Program. A specialist model leads to more efficient and effective leadership.
When pillar based models are used in governance, it's not clear how the role of each leader contributes to the ERG year-round. This is likely due to the overwhelming number of responsibilities that ERG leaders are expected to manage. Companies that implement these models typically leave it up to the ERG leaders to decide how frequently they want to engage in each pillar. For example, they might focus on one pillar per quarter, or one per month.
If the ERG leaders were to adopt a pillar based model, for instance, and rotate through each pillar on a monthly basis, it would mean that the community leader would only be actively engaged in the ERG once every four months. During this time, the community leader is expected to execute their role, which consists of everything from communications to event planning, to finance.
However, it's been four months since they were last engaged, so they might not remember every process, and it's possible that there isn't adequate documentation in place to help them execute their role effectively. This can lead to confusion and burnout, especially if they have to ask for help and align with any new learnings or changes to the ERG strategy that have taken place during the four-month break.
Pillar based leadership structures lack accountability metrics that would allow each ERG Leader to define their success and measure their performance. The lack of consistency within each pillar makes it difficult to establish clear accountability metrics that would accurately reflect performance. As a result, the metrics that do exist often show gaps in performance, leading to a sense of shame or reluctance to share or be consistent with the metrics. This can make it harder for ERG Leaders to identify areas for improvement and make necessary changes.
Furthermore, the monthly rotating approach of focusing on one pillar at a time means that each leader is only activated three times a year. This makes it challenging to gain a comprehensive understanding of the ERG's performance and identify patterns or areas for improvement. The rotating approach also means that there are missed opportunities to learn and apply these learnings to future efforts. This lack of consistent data and learnings makes it impossible for ERG Leaders to accurately articulate their success on performance reviews.
Pillar based leadership structures do not have effective accountability metrics in place. The lack of consistency and rotating approach make it difficult to establish accurate performance metrics, leading to missed opportunities to learn and improve. As a result, ERG Leaders are unable to effectively articulate their success and measure their performance, making it challenging for the ERG to reach its goals.
Pillar based leadership structures are not effective in promoting collaboration amongst the leaders towards a common goal. The reason for this is that each pillar has its own distinct goal, which leads to silos within the ERG Leadership Team. This lack of communication and collaboration within the team can lead to increased confusion and lack of cohesion. The lack of a clear and unified goal means that the ERG is working towards four separate goals, each assigned to a different leader or team, instead of focusing on one major impact goal.
Moreover, the scale of the team can also affect productivity. When there are larger teams, the communication can break down even further and the different goals assigned to each pillar can become even more disconnected. The result is that leaders are more focused on their own goals and objectives, rather than working together to achieve a common goal.
Pillar based leadership structures do not promote collaboration amongst the leaders as they encourage silos and hinder communication. The existence of separate goals for each pillar can lead to confusion and lack of cohesion, making it harder for the ERG Leadership Team to work effectively towards a common goal.
Pillar Based ERG Leadership structures are not effective leadership structures for ERGs. The generalist model, combined with the overwhelming number of responsibilities, and the lack of clarity in the role of each leader, can lead to burnout, confusion, and a subpar user experience for ERG members.
.svg)
.svg)