1. EMPLOYEE NETWORK GROUPS: SOME BACKGROUND RESEARCH Dr Etlyn Kenny, Birkbeck, University of London Professor Rob Briner, University of Bath

2. Aim of presentation  To present some academic literature on employee network in order to contextualise our study/wider discussion  Give participants opportunity to comment/inform presenters if they are aware of other research on employee network groups

3. Defining employee networks/resource groups (Friedman, 1996)  “associations of minority...employees that exist within organizations”  Intra-organizational hence distinguishable from professional networks and associations (e.g. Society of Black Lawyers; National Black Police Association)  Mostly refers to those formed on the basis of ‘social identity’  Self-organised – not run by management  Public entity, formally organized

4. Employee networks  Started in the 1970s (Friedman, 1996)  Increased in prevalence in US corporations in past 30 years (Friedman & Craig, 2004)  Developed in response to need to ‘manage diversity’ in organizations (Friedman & Holtom, 2002; Friedman et al, 1998)  Across public and private sector within the UK  Groups for employees aligned to different identities

5. Aims and purposes of employee networks  Support the career development of members through social support, information, networking, and development activities (Friedman et al, 1998; Friedman & Holtom, 2002)  Organizational change (Friedman, 1996; Friedman et al, 1998; Scully & Segal, 2002)  Community activities (Friedman, 1996) PR/Corporate social responsibility

6. Research on (minority ethnic) employee networks  Effectiveness of minority ethnic employee networks for providing social support and promoting career optimism (Friedman et al, 1998)  Provide access to mentors (Friedman et al, 1998)  Reduce turnover by promoting increased embeddedness within the organization (Friedman & Holtom, 2002)

7. Research on (minority ethnic) employee networks  Those joining minority ethnic networks tend to have a higher level of ethnic identity (Friedman & Craig, 2004)  People join due for positive (what they might potentially gain) reasons rather than negative (dissatisfaction with the organization) (Friedman & Craig, 2004)  They provide more benefits for managerial than non-managerial employees (Friedman & Holtom, 2002)

8. Research on (Minority Ethnic) Networks  Little evidence of networks creating wider organizational change (Friedman et al, 1998)  Little evidence of widespread backlash (Friedman et al, 1998)

9. The ‘logic’ of employee networks (Friedman, 1996)  Separate to integrate  Allows women and minorities to learn about each other’s existence  Facilitates the development of more ‘weak ties’  Enhance the availability of mentoring and peer support (‘strong ties’), and access to information  Increase ability for individual to become socialised into organization  Encourage integration in the mainstream  Often ‘open to all’

10. But... (Friedman, 1996)  Setting up such networks still viewed by some as controversial  Sign that social identity ‘counts’ within that organization  Forming group may be ‘evidence of disloyalty’ (Childs, 1992, p. 195)  Some minorities may refuse to join as it increases the salience of that identity within the organization  Risk of reinforcing separation rather than inclusion

11. Minority ethnic networks in the UK  Much of the debate/research around minority ethnic groups couched within US historical racial and legal context, and diversity agenda

12. Minority ethnic employee networks in the UK  Government Departments  Various local authorities  Police forces  Education (some FE colleges, some HE institutions)  Private sector organizations