The public university in Birmingham is hiring its next University Ombudsperson. The full-time professional will serve neutral and impartial dispute resolution practitioner at UAB for nearly 24,000 stakeholders, including faculty, staff, mentored graduate students, and postdoctoral fellows (but not the UAB medical campus). The Ombuds reports jointly to the Provost and CHRO. The search will fill a position recently vacated by the first University Ombuds, Alicia Booker. Applicants must have a master's degree in a related field and five years of related experience or a bachelor's degree and seven years of related experience. Relevant experience in higher education, an advanced degree combined with relevant dispute resolution training, Ombuds experience, and CO-OP certification are preferred. No salary or application deadline are indicated. Note that the search is being coordinated by an outside consultant, which may indicate a change in approach from prior postings, which were handled by UAB internal recruiters. (UAB Ombuds Prospectus.)
An ombuds reporting to the Chief Human Resources Officer? Ha! No wonder Alicia left. Nothing screams "independence" like having the CHRO do your evaluation.
This seems like an unfairly personal assumption. Comment on the structure all day, but maybe leave theories about individuals and their motivations out of it? Or let them speak for themselves if they choose to.
Reporting to HR (or a DEIB VP as seems to be the trend lately) is always a recipe for disaster. Even reporting to the Provost is not good either. The reason is simply that there will be a perception that the Ombudsman is in the pocket of those respective leaders.
Prob with accreditation is that many O offices already have a problematic reporting relationship. I would speculate that it is actually the exception for an O not to report to diversity, HR, legal or some other office that is less than optimal. Then there's the confidentiality problem for accreditation where Os are all over the place with when confidentiality has to be broken in situations involving Title IX, financial harm at some companies, potential crimes being committed, child abuse and on and on.
Personally, I don't have a huge problem with these kind of reporting relationships. It's really a matter of how much control is exerted by the supervisor. I once worked at an office that reported to general counsel. (Yes, I can hear your quick inhale.) But in practice, general counsel was protective and very hands off. They visited the ombuds office only once during the 15 years I was there. At the same time, they made sure we were shielded from subpoenas, litigation holds, and mandatory reporting requirements. For many organizations reporting lines simply reflect the bandwidth and interest of the c-suite leaders.
Besides, once you get to a high enough level, any supervisor has formal duties. I mean, if you report to the president, don't they have ultimate responsibility for notice, formal investigations, decision-making, etc.?
I expect the highest leaders in an organization to have enough bandwidth to be interested in hearing a few times a year about trends. It’s actually in their best interest. I worry that HR especially may be interested in ‘protecting’ higher ups from hearing about what is actually going on, even unconsciously. It’s a huge conflict of interest.
Perception is all. My experience at multiple institutions is that the trust level of HR is minimal and that would taint the perception of the office’s independence whether the independence is real or not. Reporting to the Provost works if the constituents are faculty. If constituents include staff and students, reporting needs to be higher.
"Prob with accreditation is that many O offices already have a problematic reporting relationship. I would speculate that it is actually the exception for an O not to report to diversity, HR, legal or some other office that is less than optimal. Then there's the confidentiality problem for accreditation where Os are all over the place with when confidentiality has to be broken in situations involving Title IX, financial harm at some companies, potential crimes being committed, child abuse and on and on."
Precisely! And this is EXACTLY why IOA needs to start accrediting ombuds offices and denying accreditation to the ones with these issues. Instead of cowering in the corner and, in effect, saying "please, please, please just have an office somewhere." If ombuds make clear that such deficiencies are NOT acceptable we will provide a lever which the ombuds in those sub-optimal situations can use to help move their leadership. Right now, the position that "different places have different reporting relationships, degrees or confidentiality, etc. and it is all good; do whatever you want" weakens us all.
Do you actually think that not having accreditation will make a difference to most institutions, though? I'm skeptical that it would have the amount of weight that this comment and those like it seem to believe.
Just like coop certification. That made Ombuds all practice the same. The failure of that initiative resulted in a dilution of the certification because now IOA created the "candidate" category so they could accommodate sub-optimal practicing Ombuds. Will it be the same with office accreditation? Probably. Waste of resources.
An ombuds reporting to the Chief Human Resources Officer? Ha! No wonder Alicia left. Nothing screams "independence" like having the CHRO do your evaluation.
ReplyDeleteThis seems like an unfairly personal assumption. Comment on the structure all day, but maybe leave theories about individuals and their motivations out of it? Or let them speak for themselves if they choose to.
Delete+1
DeleteReporting to HR (or a DEIB VP as seems to be the trend lately) is always a recipe for disaster. Even reporting to the Provost is not good either. The reason is simply that there will be a perception that the Ombudsman is in the pocket of those respective leaders.
ReplyDeleteIOA needs to offer office accreditation and then withold it from offices that have such a reporting relationship.
ReplyDeleteProb with accreditation is that many O offices already have a problematic reporting relationship. I would speculate that it is actually the exception for an O not to report to diversity, HR, legal or some other office that is less than optimal. Then there's the confidentiality problem for accreditation where Os are all over the place with when confidentiality has to be broken in situations involving Title IX, financial harm at some companies, potential crimes being committed, child abuse and on and on.
DeletePersonally, I don't have a huge problem with these kind of reporting relationships. It's really a matter of how much control is exerted by the supervisor. I once worked at an office that reported to general counsel. (Yes, I can hear your quick inhale.) But in practice, general counsel was protective and very hands off. They visited the ombuds office only once during the 15 years I was there. At the same time, they made sure we were shielded from subpoenas, litigation holds, and mandatory reporting requirements. For many organizations reporting lines simply reflect the bandwidth and interest of the c-suite leaders.
ReplyDeleteBesides, once you get to a high enough level, any supervisor has formal duties. I mean, if you report to the president, don't they have ultimate responsibility for notice, formal investigations, decision-making, etc.?
DeleteI expect the highest leaders in an organization to have enough bandwidth to be interested in hearing a few times a year about trends. It’s actually in their best interest. I worry that HR especially may be interested in ‘protecting’ higher ups from hearing about what is actually going on, even unconsciously. It’s a huge conflict of interest.
DeletePerception is all. My experience at multiple institutions is that the trust level of HR is minimal and that would taint the perception of the office’s independence whether the independence is real or not. Reporting to the Provost works if the constituents are faculty. If constituents include staff and students, reporting needs to be higher.
ReplyDelete"Prob with accreditation is that many O offices already have a problematic reporting relationship. I would speculate that it is actually the exception for an O not to report to diversity, HR, legal or some other office that is less than optimal. Then there's the confidentiality problem for accreditation where Os are all over the place with when confidentiality has to be broken in situations involving Title IX, financial harm at some companies, potential crimes being committed, child abuse and on and on."
ReplyDeletePrecisely! And this is EXACTLY why IOA needs to start accrediting ombuds offices and denying accreditation to the ones with these issues. Instead of cowering in the corner and, in effect, saying "please, please, please just have an office somewhere." If ombuds make clear that such deficiencies are NOT acceptable we will provide a lever which the ombuds in those sub-optimal situations can use to help move their leadership. Right now, the position that "different places have different reporting relationships, degrees or confidentiality, etc. and it is all good; do whatever you want" weakens us all.
Do you actually think that not having accreditation will make a difference to most institutions, though? I'm skeptical that it would have the amount of weight that this comment and those like it seem to believe.
DeleteJust like coop certification. That made Ombuds all practice the same. The failure of that initiative resulted in a dilution of the certification because now IOA created the "candidate" category so they could accommodate sub-optimal practicing Ombuds. Will it be the same with office accreditation? Probably. Waste of resources.
ReplyDelete