Although the guide was developed for IOI members, many of its principles will be familiar to Organizational Ombuds practitioners. A comparison with the IOA Standards of Practice reveals substantial overlap, along with some notable differences:
- Independence — Operating free from political, administrative, or external influence. This principle closely parallels the IOA's Independence standard.
- Impartiality — Conducting investigations fairly and avoiding conflicts of interest. This principle is consistent with the IOA's Impartiality standard.
- Integrity and Dignity — Using public authority solely for its intended purpose and maintaining professional conduct. Although not explicitly an IOA Standard, the principle resonates with IOA guidance and expectations regarding professionalism and ethical conduct.
- Neutrality — Remaining an objective arbiter rather than an advocate for one side. Although Organizational Ombuds are not decision makers, the principle is largely consistent with the rest of the IOA Impartiality Standards which emphasize impartiality and neutrality, particularly regarding fairness and organizational values.
- Transparency and Confidentiality — Balancing proactive communication with the public against strict data protection obligations. The principle shares the IOA's commitment to confidentiality but places greater emphasis on transparency and public accountability.
- Respect and Understanding — Ensuring accessible services, particularly for vulnerable and underrepresented groups. The principle highlights accessibility, cultural sensitivity, and service to vulnerable populations, which are are reflected in Ombuds Practices, but are not identified as a separate IOA Standard.
- Expertise and Responsibility — Commitment to continuous professional development and knowledge exchange. This principle is comparable to IOA expectations for continuing education, professional competence, and ongoing development, but not explicitly as a separate Standard.
For Organizational Ombuds, the most significant omission may be informality. Unlike the IOA Standards, the IOI guide does not identify informality as a foundational principle. This reflects the fact that many public-sector Ombudsman institutions conduct formal investigations and issue recommendations, functions that generally fall outside the Organizational Ombuds role. The guide's discussion of artificial intelligence may also attract attention, as it explicitly calls for AI tools to be used in a secure, transparent, and accountable manner while preserving human judgment. (Parliamentary Ombudsman Malta News.)
The use of AI creates interesting issues, insofar as it is hard to an envision any ombuds office having in-house capabilities, like some law firms do in order to allow for AI use yet maintain the attorney-client privilege. I understand that some universities have this as well; except, who has confidence in the confidentiality of ombuds data being uploaded to an institution's in-house AI system. Going out to Chat GPT, Gemini, and the rest would seem to be out of the question.
ReplyDeleteThank Tom, the IOI principles provide an interesting contrast to IOA principles. I would like to make an appeal to the organizational ombuds community to use the term “principle” when describing one or more of the four fundamental principles outlined in the IOA Code of Ethics (Independence, Impartiality, Informality, and Confidentiality) and “standards” when referring to one or more of the twenty-nine individual standards listed in the IOA Standards of Practice, which are organized around the four principles. I regularly hear colleagues using the term “standards” when referring to one of the four principles. It is imprecise, creates confusion, and detracts attention away from the more specific language of the actual twenty-nine standards.
ReplyDeleteGreat point, Andrew.
ReplyDelete