Journal of IOA Mary Rowe Special Issue: Her Guidance on Visitor Options

The Journal of the International Ombuds Association is releasing a series of articles for a special issue highlighting the work of Mary Rowe. (She is widely credited as a pioneer in the Ombuds field after establishing the office at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1980. Rowe was a founding member and the first President of the Corporate Ombudsman Association, a predecessor to IOA. She coined the term “zero-barrier office” to describe the Ombuds' role and also introduced the terms “micro-inequities” and "micro-affirmations.”) Rowe contributed the first two articles, which focus on one of the defining types of Ombuds work: identifying options for visitors.

The first article is "Consider Generic Options When Complainants and Bystanders Are Fearful." Here is the abstract:

Organizational ombuds usually offer a choice of different options to constituents who call the office with a concern. In serious cases, ombuds might offer formal options such as filing a formal grievance. In addition, the ombuds can offer informal options, such as helping a visitor deal directly with their concern or offering to facilitate discussion with those involved. However, aggrieved persons and proactive bystanders often are very fearful about anyone knowing they have complained. In this situation, a “generic” approach—that focuses on an issue without naming anyone—can help to address the issues involved rather than the individuals. This can be done in ways that shield the privacy of the complainant. In addition to helping individuals, generic options serve affinity groups and the organization by supporting needed systemic improvements. This article discusses how organizational ombuds and other complaint handlers can use generic approaches in their work.

Here is the abstract for the second article, "Helping Hesitant Bystanders Identify Their Options: A Checklist with Examples and Ideas to Consider":

Organizational Bystanders sometimes act heroically in emergencies. Less well known are the bystanders who act very effectively, in quiet ways, in reaction to (potentially) unacceptable behavior. In addition, many bystanders (and bystanders of bystanders) consider action, but hesitate. There are many reasons why hesitation is understandable and may be appropriate. However, in many situations, hesitation can turn into effective action. Drawing on examples from ombuds practice, this article aims to assist organizational ombuds in helping hesitant bystanders identify and evaluate their options. The article includes a checklist of questions for hesitant bystanders that ombuds may find useful—and adds to the literature about why bystanders do or do not decide to act after learning of unacceptable behavior. The checklist may also be useful to those engaged in training programs for bystanders and others who provide support to hesitant bystanders.

(JIOA Special Issue.)

Related posts: Mary Rowe, MIT Ombuds, to Retire; Year-Long Study of U.S. Federal Ombuds Launches; Mary Rowe on Microinequities and Ombuds; Negotiation Journal Opens Access for Mary Rowe's Articles; (Guest Post) Mary Rowe Comments on the Proposed IOA Bylaws; MIT Digitizes Mary Rowe's Papers; Special Issue of JIOA Explores Gender Discrimination.