Emeritus Ombuds on Distinguishing Program Structure From Embeddedness

In a recent post on his blog, Bruce MacAllister examines the growing confusion in Ombuds discourse around the term “embedded,” particularly when it is used interchangeably to describe both an Ombuds program’s structural placement and an Ombuds’ depth of organizational fluency. 

Responding to commentary by Elizabeth Hill and Andrew Larratt-Smith, MacAllister proposes clearer conceptual separation: “structure” should refer to program design and placement (with its implications for independence, confidentiality, and impartiality), while “embeddedness” describes the Ombuds’ knowledge of, trust within, and effectiveness across the organization—regardless of whether the program is internal or external. 

Drawing on decades of experience across in-house, remote, and contracted Ombuds roles, MacAllister argues that structure and embeddedness are mutually dependent: strong organizational fluency cannot compensate for a poorly designed program, and sound structure alone is insufficient if the Ombuds lacks cultural awareness and credibility. He cautions against defining Ombuds programs narrowly by tools or tactics rather than strategic role, and suggests that current IOA Standards of Practice underemphasize embeddedness as a core concept. The article invites broader dialogue on how program design and practice together shape effective Ombuds work and is worth a read. (BizExTeam Blog.)

Related posts: 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; Emeritus Ombuds With a New Take on Embedded Services.