I just learned that my University is closing its Ombuds Office, to save resources in these tight times, and instead is spreading out its functions among various related offices (student complaints to Dean of Students Office; employee disputes to Human Resources, etc.). It seems to me that this economically-driven decision clearly undervalues dispute resolution. While those related offices are generally familiar with the subject matter of complaints, they are not trained in or equipped to use informal dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve these disputes in a quick, cost-efficient manner. Doesn’t seem so cost-effective a decision, in the long run, does it?
(ADR Prof Blog.)
Professor Gross is right on the money. The cost savings offered by Organizational Ombuds and other ADR programs is substantial. Unfortunately, only the costs are reflected in an organization's financial statement. The benefits--avoided litigation and improved climate--are hidden. The real mistake is assuming that other programs like HR, EEO, or EAP can fill in for an Ombuds. Although these programs may be familiar with the organization's culture, they cannot bring confidential, neutral, independent, and informal expertise to conflicts. Hopefully Ombuds programs will rebound with the economy and the growing acceptance of ADR.
Related post: Pace University Closing Ombuds Office.
While the Professor may be on the money, she, as many ombuds programs, remains to general. Decision makers need specific information on what they are getting from the program. Some may not need dollars and cents data. If the impact of the ombuds in addressing a pressing concern can be demonstrated, that may be enough.
ReplyDeleteAnd to your point Tom:
The real mistake is assuming that other programs like HR, EEO, or
EAP can fill in for an Ombuds. Although these programs may be
familiar with the organization's culture, they cannot bring
confidential, neutral, independent, and informal expertise to
conflicts.
While it is a truism that formal programs can not bring informality to the table, and the degree to which neutrality, confidentiality and independence may be delivered is also in question, we have no verifiable data that shows this core concepts lead to a mechanism of greater value than the formal alternatives. We do KNOW they create an alternative. We just do not know if it is a more valuable alternative.
Further as each of these concepts is challenging and contrary to the classic management thinking, it seems unlikely, without a strong verifiable argument, that leaders and managers will select the unusual and unknown of ombudsing, instead of the known entity of formal programs.
Solidifying and sharpening the answer to "what happens for the organization because you (ombuds) are here," is a key activity for all at this time, as it always has been.