In my work as an ombuds (now for more than 30 years), I have provided services physically on site “brick and mortar” programs, provided remote support services to programs located in entirely different states, and served via a professional services contract as the ombuds responsible for providing global ombuds support. Based on this range of experience, what I have learned is that, to be effective, an ombuds must always be embedded. As I use the term, embedded does not necessarily mean one has to be directly employed by the organization, nor does it necessarily mean that one has to work on site. What it does mean is that one must be deeply familiar with the organization they serve.To be deeply familiar with the organization the ombuds serves requires deep knowledge of the organization, its purpose, its culture, and the panoply of other support services available to the constituents the ombuds serves. Embeddedness is part of the spectrum of ombuds competencies, not the mechanism by which the ombuds provides the services. [Emphasis in original.]
The full post is worth a read. (BizExTeam Blog.)
Related posts: Albuquerque Realtors Launch Ombuds Program; IFFOR Names Ombuds; University of Oregon Appoints First Ombuds; IOA Updates Standards of Practice; 2024 Year in Review: Five Big Stories (Debate Continues Over Embedded vs Outsourced Ombuds); IOA Posts Agenda for 2025 Annual Conference in Florida; Article Examines Collateral and Outsourced Ombuds Through Lens of IOA Ethical Standards.
Thanks Tom for sharing this blog post, and Bruce for writing this blog post. It really takes the current conversation by the lapels and shifts it into a different frame (very Ombuds of you).
ReplyDeleteHere are my thoughts, same comments as posted on the full blog post site, for those of us that like to philosophize and ponder issues that would perplex many not in the Ombuds field (and even those that are), but that in the end, hopefully advance our practice and perhaps even the profession (or, with a nod to a conversation from years past, are we only "professionals")?
***
Thanks for your blog Bruce and sharing this different way of looking at how the profession has framed the conversation. As it’s been said, not by me so I can’t take credit, words don’t have any meaning but the meaning we give those words and here you’ve given us a nice distinction of what a truly effective, and “embedded” (dare I even say outsourced) Ombuds could mean. As Ombuds we sometimes, collectively, forget the needs of the institutions we serve because we’re so focused on the individual challenges people bring to us and their (don’t get me wrong) very important needs. In other words, we Ombuds sometimes forget that what has been considered a “traditionally embedded” Ombuds, an Ombuds that has been defined as one that is physically on-site (and hopefully full-time), is not a model that will serve the needs of every organization. Having been an “outsourced’ Ombuds myself the non-profit I served was made up (at the time) of only 300 or so individuals. It would not have made practical sense, or economic sense, for that organization to have hired a full-time, or even part-time, Ombuds. What they needed was someone that could be a conflict coach, and help guide individuals with strategies and options (including offering mediation) that might help the people of that particular organization manage their conflicts more effectively. Individuals there didn’t care whether or not I was “embedded” or not but ultimately whether I provided a confidential space for them to have a conversation unlike any other resource (management, HR, ethics, etc.). In short, they needed someone that could meet their individual needs (and the organization had their needs met too in keeping the costs to hire manageable). What they needed were Ombuds services, and those were the services that were provided. Whether the individual is internal (or outsourced) the service doesn’t change. AS ALWAYS, OPINIONS, VIEWS, COMMENTS, MISSTEPS, ETC. ARE MY OWN AND NOT OF THE PARTICULAR INSTITUTIONS I MAY BE WORKING WITH OR ASSOCIATED WITH.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Bruce,
ReplyDeleteI agree that effective long-term engagement with organizational stakeholders (or “embeddedness” as you define it) is key to success as an ombuds. However, I think we are losing sight of a few important realities:
1) The design and structure of an ombuds position are extremely important. This is because the ability of an ombuds to be effectively engaged with their organization is highly dependent on the structure and design of the role. Can an individual be effective and well engaged with their organization even if they are in a poorly designed, disempowered position? In theory, yes, but it would be much easier and more probable for the same individual to be effective if their position was better structured.
2) We are not distinguishing between an externally contracted ombuds and the outsourced model. In the outsourced model that is being most heavily promoted, the organization contracts with a corporate business entity that then subcontracts with individual practitioners.
3) The promotion of outsourcing within our field is undercutting the ability of ombuds to engage effectively with our organizations. Outsourced positions are not structured to be well-engaged with their organizations, and they devalue the credibility of the ombuds role for the rest of us.
4) An ombuds is a person not a business. The outsourced model involves a corporate business entity effectively serving in the ombuds role. This represents a radical departure from any existing ombuds model. It raises questions and concerns that have yet even to be articulated, much less considered seriously, because we are not distinguishing it from an externally contracted individual ombuds.
5) I think many of us are conflating the services we provide with the role we serve in. Providing conflict coaching services does not mean we are serving as an ombuds. By defining ourselves by the tools we use, we are allowing our role to be redefined and watered down. Howard Gadlin warned us of this trend more than a decade ago. (See https://ioa.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/JIOA_Articles/JIOA_Vol5_Issue_1.pdf)
What are we doing folks? We talk about “demonstrating our value,” “being valued as professionals,” “getting a seat at the table,” and “engaging with leadership,” and yet we are outsourcing ourselves? How can we expect to be respected by others if we do not respect ourselves?
Thoughtful and enlightening discussion.
ReplyDelete