Job Posting: Southern Methodist University
The private university in Dallas, Texas is seeking its first University Ombudsperson. The new position will serve faculty, staff, and more than 12,000 students practicing to IOA standards. The Ombuds will report to the Chief Diversity Officer and Senior Advisor to the University President for Cultural Intelligence Initiatives, Maria Dixon Hall, who championed the idea of an Ombuds when she was promoted to the position in August 2020.
Applicants must have "at least a Master’s Degree in Dispute Resolution, Organizational Effectiveness, Human Resource Management or other related field and have at least 3 years of active experience in an Ombuds role." In addition, the SMU Ombuds will be to obtain or be eligible for the Candidate for CO-OP designation by the IOA within 90 days of hire. No salary indicated. The deadline to apply is listed as "July 31, 2021." (SMU Posting.)
This is a growing trend that concerns me - the ombuds reporting to the Chief Diversity Officer rather than the President/Chancellor. Not all ombuds issues are around DEI, and placing the ombuds office lower in the hierarchy limits its legitimacy, reach and impact. It may even increase risk to the organization because members of the community will not think to reach out because they’re not identifying their issue as DEI. Issues, including DEI, will not be raised. Ruthy Kohorn Rosenberg
ReplyDeleteI agree that this is a trend and also share some concerns. One mitigating and possibly encouraging explanation could be the evolving role of Chief Diversity Officers. It seems to me that historically, these administrators were reactive and compliance driven. Now they are more broadly concerned with organizational wellbeing as it relates to racial, social, gender, and intersectional equity. Many CDO's are now separate from compliance. This appears to be the situation at SMU (Maria Dixon Hall is an organizational strategy and planning expert, and not a lawyer), so this feels less inappropriate. Nonetheless, I do worry if this important distinction would be overlooked at other institutions.
DeleteAs an Ombuds working out of the ODEI office since this Ombuds Office creation for the entire community- I've had no issues whatsoever. I've had three different ODEI Sr. VPs and each one has fully understood the role of the Ombuds. They have respected how I practice and the way I handle my team and work within the organization. My independence has allowed me to function in a manner that I can reach outside the ODEI office directly to the leadership whenever I need to without, engaging anyone in the ODEI office. Visitors do not seem to be intimidated by the fact that this office is under the ODEI Umbrella. I have found the ODEI office to be a positive place to work and as Tom so aptly states that the ODEI office is "... broadly concerned with organizational wellbeing..." which is why most visitors come to this Ombuds office. I do discuss my office's independence from the ODEI office during my introductory remarks. Open to hearing others concerns and issues.
ReplyDeleteI also began as an OO with a "special focus" on gender and race/color/nationality and religion...However my job also came a very explicit requirement to see *everyone* about *any work-related issue* ...and... I was a "designated neutral." My CEO and COO insisted on impartiality and no case records. So perhaps what matters most is whether the leadership lets the OO be completely separate and independent ....or whether the OO gets asked for their data and is expected to focus on DEIB and to contribute to all DEI initiatives etc..
ReplyDeleteOne way to help slow, and even reverse this trend, would be to accredit offices, and to deny accreditation to any office that does not report to the CEO, or above.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate Don's sharing of his experience--I'm glad it's working well at his school. At many places, reporting to the DEI office would greatly undermine the Ombuds office in at least two ways: as Ruthy mentioned, constituents are unlikely to view the Ombuds as a resource for matters unrelated to DEI. And more critically damaging, the DEI office (at least at my institution) is not viewed as a _trusted_, _stable_ or _impartial_ resource.
ReplyDeleteTo Tom's point that CDO roles are evolving, that seems as problematic as it is hopeful. Which visitors would share sensitive information with an office historically associated with compliance, contemporarily mired in the culture wars, and continually subject to changing emphases?