Unconscious Bias Training and Employee Resource Groups: Tools for Advancing Workplace Inclusion

· Updated on December 11, 2025

What is the purpose of unconscious bias training? Provide an example of how unconscious bias training can affect who gets to attend training or who is asked to participate in development activities. Do you think disbanding employee resource groups such as those for women, Hispanics, veterans, and other groups helps or hinders efforts to improve diversity and inclusion in the workplace? Explain why.

Mercari Publishes “Unconscious Bias Workshop” In-House Training Materials for Free | Mercari, Inc.

Paper For Above Instructions

Unconscious bias training and employee resource groups (ERGs) are two of the most widely used tools in modern diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) strategies. Yet both are debated: critics question whether bias training truly changes behavior and whether group-based ERGs divide employees rather than unite them. In this discussion, I’ll explain the purpose of unconscious bias training, give a concrete example of how bias can shape access to development opportunities, and argue that disbanding ERGs generally hinders, rather than helps, efforts to improve diversity and inclusion.

Purpose of Unconscious Bias Training

Unconscious bias training is designed to help people recognize and reduce automatic, unintentional judgments they make about others based on characteristics such as race, gender, age, or disability. These biases are shaped by culture and experience, and they can influence how we recruit, evaluate, and promote employees even when we explicitly believe in fairness. Continu+1

In organizations, the main goals of unconscious bias training are to:

  1. Increase awareness – Help employees understand what unconscious bias is, how it operates, and how it shows up in everyday decisions (hiring, performance reviews, task assignments). Traliant+1

  2. Improve decision-making – Show managers that bias can affect who is hired, promoted, or given stretch assignments, and provide strategies to make decisions more objective, such as structured interviews or standardized criteria. itd.com+1

  3. Support inclusive behaviors – Encourage individuals to slow down, question assumptions, and adopt more inclusive habits (e.g., inviting quieter voices into meetings, rotating opportunities). The Oxford Review - OR Briefings+1

Research shows that bias trainings can raise awareness and shift attitudes in the short term, especially when they involve interactive elements, real-world scenarios, and follow-up reinforcement rather than one-off lectures. RRApp+2Equality and Human Rights Commission+2 However, experts also warn that training alone—without structural changes like fair promotion systems or accountability—has limited impact on long-term behavior. Harvard Business Review+2The Guardian+2

In other words, unconscious bias training is best seen as one tool in a broader DEI strategy: it sets the foundation by changing awareness and norms, but it must be paired with concrete policy and process changes.

Example: Bias and Who Gets Development Opportunities

A powerful example of how unconscious bias training can affect development is the allocation of leadership programs or high-visibility training.

Imagine a company launching a prestigious leadership academy. Managers are asked to “nominate their top talent.” On paper, the process seems fair. But without awareness of bias, managers may unconsciously:

  • Think of “leadership potential” as matching the traits of people who have led before—often white, male, or from certain schools.

  • Overlook women, people of color, or employees with accents or quieter communication styles, assuming they are “not quite ready” or “not a culture fit.”

The result is that the same demographic group keeps getting nominated, gaining extra training, networking, and visibility. This compounds advantages over time: those selected become even more promotable, while others stagnate.

Where unconscious bias training helps:

Good training can make managers aware of patterns like “similar-to-me bias” and “affinity bias.” It can prompt them to ask:

  • “Who am I overlooking?”

  • “Have I given everyone on my team stretch assignments so I can fairly compare potential?”

  • “Am I relying on gut feelings instead of clear criteria?”

Organizations that combine training with structural safeguards—like written nomination criteria, diverse review panels, or open applications—are more likely to broaden access to development programs beyond the usual suspects. itd.com+1

Without such awareness and structures, bias can quietly determine who gets invited into “career-making” opportunities, even while the organization publicly claims to value diversity.

Disbanding ERGs: Help or Hindrance?

Employee resource groups (ERGs)—such as groups for women, Hispanic/Latinx employees, veterans, LGBTQ+ staff, or people with disabilities—are voluntary, employee-led communities that provide connection, advocacy, and professional development. Research indicates they can:

  • Foster a sense of belonging and psychological safety

  • Offer mentoring and leadership opportunities

  • Surface issues facing underrepresented groups

  • Support retention and engagement

For example, a recent analysis found that roughly two-thirds of employees felt ERGs effectively foster community and belonging. Taggd+2Chronus+2 Other studies highlight how ERGs help identify emerging leaders and provide safe spaces to discuss discrimination or barriers at work. Healthysure+1

Why disbanding ERGs usually hinders inclusion

Disbanding ERGs can send a strong message—intended or not—that the organization is stepping back from focused support for marginalized groups. This tends to hinder DEI efforts for several reasons:

  1. Loss of community and voice
    Underrepresented employees often experience isolation or stereotype threat. ERGs give them a space to share experiences and strategize responses. Removing these groups takes away one of the few formal channels where their concerns can be collectively heard and addressed. Chronus+2Culture Amp+2

  2. Reduced leadership pipelines
    Many ERG leaders use these roles to practice public speaking, project management, and influencing senior stakeholders. Organizations that disband ERGs remove a key leadership pipeline for women, people of color, and other marginalized groups—undercutting diversity at higher levels.

  3. Weaker feedback loop for DEI strategy
    ERGs often advise HR and leadership on inclusive policies, recruiting strategies, and cultural issues. Without ERGs, leaders may lose direct feedback from the communities most affected by their decisions, making DEI strategies less responsive and less effective.

  4. Perception of DEI “backsliding”
    High-profile companies that have reduced or cut DEI programs—while sometimes keeping ERGs—have faced criticism and concerns from employees about commitment to inclusion. Business Insider+2The Guardian+2 Fully disbanding ERGs would likely deepen the perception that diversity and inclusion are no longer priorities.

Responding to criticisms of ERGs

Critics sometimes argue that ERGs are divisive or exclusionary. In reality, best-practice ERGs are typically open to allies as well as members of the focal group and operate within non-discrimination rules. Recent guidance from regulators and DEI experts emphasizes making ERGs inclusive (for example, allowing anyone to attend events while still centering the experiences of the focus group). AP News+1

Instead of disbanding ERGs, organizations can improve them by:

  • Clarifying their purpose and alignment with business goals

  • Ensuring executive sponsorship and adequate resources

  • Encouraging ally participation

  • Using feedback from ERGs to inform policies, recruitment, and training

When managed well, ERGs are not a source of division but a bridge between underrepresented employees and the broader organization.

Conclusion

Unconscious bias training and ERGs serve different but complementary purposes. Bias training aims to reshape mindsets and everyday decisions by raising awareness of hidden assumptions and providing tools to make fairer judgments. When coupled with structural changes, it can reduce the impact of bias on who gets hired, promoted, or invited into high-value development opportunities. ERGs, on the other hand, create community, build leadership capacity, and act as a feedback channel to the organization about the lived experiences of diverse employees.

Disbanding ERGs would likely hinder workplace diversity and inclusion by weakening community, reducing leadership opportunities for underrepresented groups, and signaling a retreat from serious DEI efforts. A more constructive approach is to strengthen both unconscious bias training and ERGs, embedding them within a broader, data-driven DEI strategy that includes accountability, transparent processes, and continuous improvement.

References (10)

  1. Continu. “What Is Unconscious Bias Training?” Continu

  2. Traliant. “Why Unconscious Bias Training for Employees Is Essential.” Traliant

  3. Atewologun, D. et al. Unconscious Bias Training: An Assessment of the Evidence for Effectiveness. Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2018. Equality and Human Rights Commission

  4. RRAPP. “How Effective Is Unconscious Bias Training? A Comprehensive Evaluation of Recent Assessments.” RRApp

  5. Oxford Review. “Bias Training – Definition and Explanation.” The Oxford Review - OR Briefings

  6. Culture Plus Consulting. “Effective Unconscious Bias Training.” Culture Plus Consulting

  7. McKinsey & Company. “Effective Employee Resource Groups Are Key to Inclusion at Work.” McKinsey & Company

  8. Culture Amp. “The Role of Employee Resource Groups in Driving DEI.” Culture Amp

  9. Chronus. “How ERGs Create Belonging in the Workplace.” Chronus

  10. HealthySure. “Driving Transformation: The Remarkable Impact of Employee Resource Groups on Business Success.” Healthysure

← Back to blog