The move is notable because JAMS is one of the best-known names in ADR and represents another major entrant into the growing market for outsourced Ombuds services. The company lists a panel of 21 providers whose backgrounds are heavily concentrated in law and dispute resolution, including attorneys, former judges, law professors, and academic deans, many of whom hold leadership or teaching positions at prominent ADR institutions. Although the group brings extensive experience in mediation, arbitration, and collaborative systems design, none of the publicly available biographies explicitly identify current or former service as an Organizational or Classical Ombuds. (JAMS News; JAMS Pathways Insights.)
Related posts: 2023 Year in Review: The Big Story; 2024 Year in Review (Debate Continues Over Embedded vs Outsourced Ombuds); American Arbitration Association Acquires Ombuds.org in Bid to Expand Online Services; Article Examines Collateral and Outsourced Ombuds Through Lens of IOA Ethical Standards; Emeritus Ombuds on Distinguishing Program Structure From Embeddedness.
Tick, tick, tick. That is the sound of time running out on in-house ombuds.
ReplyDeleteI suggest we focus on the issues that affect the integrity and development of the ombuds profession.
DeleteThe real threat is ombuds who do not practice to Standards. Whether it’s this provider who offers to "investigate complaints" or the selection of an in-house ombuds with no discernible ombuds experience, these initiatives often result in poorly structured programs that negatively affect us all.
What can we do about it? I suggest we engage and support each other more. I am always encouraged to hear stories of ombuds reaching out to new ombuds to welcome them to the community and asking how they can help. I know a number of principals at JAMS Pathways and will reach out to better understand how they plan to ombuds and their commitment to the SoPs.
I believe that the tide lifts all boats. Hopefully, we can prioritize supporting each other to enhance the profession we all care about.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI refuse to recognize these business entities selling ADR services as Ombuds. “Ombuds” is the title given to an individual who has been selected to serve in a role in which that individual exercises independent authority over an office that confidentially hears the concerns of constituents. An Ombuds is not a business enterprise. The term “Outsourced Ombuds” is an oxymoron. The ADR practitioners in this outsourced model do not have independent oversight because they are subcontracted by the business which contracts with the organization. Thus, they are not ombuds at all. What’s next? “Outsourced Inspector Generals?” “Outsourced University Deans” providing “Outsourced Dean Services?”
ReplyDeleteThe organizing principle underlying this outsourced business model appears to be corporate and economic growth. By serving as an “Ombuds Provider” (another oxymoron) for an unlimited number of organizations at once, outsourcing business executives are no longer shackled by the need to commit themselves to the needs of a single organization. I fear that financial interests seem to be overshadowing principles of best practice. This does not bode well for us as a field.
I have the honor of being the office holder of an Ombuds office in its fifty-eighth year. I take seriously that legacy. I have worked hard to learn the history and development of the role both at my institution and elsewhere to better understand how to best fulfill the duties of my role. So, it galls me when I see the hubris of business enterprises using the term “Ombuds,” to claim expertise, and to gain legitimacy to market their services, and to capitalize on the goodwill built up by our predecessors, without really understanding or respecting the Ombuds role.
The news that JAMS has added “Ombuds services” to its portfolio is the least surprising announcement all year. Ever since MWI launched its service, appointed themselves as spokespersons for our field (which conveniently allowed them to normalize and promote their outsourced model) it was only a matter of time before the big dogs showed up. If there is money to be made…
But JAMS should know better. They don’ t call their arbitrators “judges,” even though arbitrators adjudicate, and most of their arbitrators are retired judges. I wish JAMS and other ADR providers would show the same respect to Ombuds as they do to the judiciary and use a different term. Kudos to businesses like Bravely who have marketed their services without leveraging the Ombuds terminology.
As organizational ombuds we need to adjust to certain new realities. We need to recognize that there are alternate models offering ADR services that overlap with our work. We need to recognize that they may be gifted practitioners and that they have a right to sell their services. We need to be prepared to face competition, and commit to improving our own service.
We need to take these models seriously…
…But we don’t need to call them Ombuds.
With respect to your comment "have the honor of being the office holder of an Ombuds office in its fifty-eighth year," Thacker could have said the same. Higher-ed institutions tend towards mimetic isomorphism.As such, when a new shiny model of one type or another emerges, there tends to be a rush towards that model. Success and longlivedness is no protection.
DeleteAs for outsourced deans, you might be onto something there.
Andrew - I recognize that you have strongly held opinions, and I also recognize that, based on your comments, you misunderstand how we provide organizational ombuds services. I hope you will reconsider reaching out to schedule a time to discuss your concerns. Thanks.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete@Chuck The hiring of ombuds "with no discernable ombuds experience" is not necessarily a bad thing. If one has an extensive range of skills and experiences directly related to successful performance of ombuds duties it may well overcome lack of experience with an ombuds title.
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point that effective ombuds bring a range of skills and experiences, independent of their experience as an ombuds. At the same time, setting up an effective ombuds program requires a skill set and base of experience (including meeting with leadership and formal channels in advance, getting an IOA-compliant charter signed by the highest authority, ensuring that your reporting channels support your independence, having a suitable institutional home, etc.), to increase the likelihood that the program flourishes.
DeleteCan you say more about the idea that outsourced ombuds do not have independent oversight in the same way in-house ombuds do? I understand that outsourced ombuds are contracted and so have financial interests that could influence decisions, but couldn't you argue that ombuds who are employed by an organization have similar financial interests? Obviously there are important distinctions between those financial arrangements. I think it could be argued in some ways outsourced ombuds are more independent since they are actually outside the organization and might actually be less reliant on the organization financially (since they are just one of several/many organizations they serve). I could see some visitors being more comfortable reaching out to an outsourced ombuds due to these reasons. Are these differences really so drastic that they place them outside the definition of an ombuds? Perhaps, but I think it is hard to make that case when there are so many roles who use the term ombuds for wildly different roles - long-term care ombuds, journalist ombuds etc. I think it becomes even harder when you consider that organizational ombuds in particular took the term from classical ombuds who don't abide by IOA standards and who have accused organizational ombuds of co-opting the term.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the biggest concerns with the outsourced ombuds model are not definitional, but around effectiveness - it is harder for outsourced ombuds to be as effective due to their lack of embededness. We all know it is a challenge to build relationships and trust when setting up a new ombuds office, and outsourced ombuds have to do this with every new client. Furthermore, they may not be perceived as a "permanent" presence which could make it more challenging to engender trust in their services (though no ombuds office should take their permanence for granted).
One argument in favor of the outsourced model is that it makes ombuds services (or ADR services, if you prefer) available to smaller organizations who would otherwise not be able to justify the financial investment in a full-time or even half-time ombuds. So even organizations with 50 or fewer employees can still have some of those benefits. Obviously, those organizations are not the only ones who use the outsourced model, and are probably not the primary targets of outsourced ombuds organizations since those contracts are less lucrative. Another benefit is that organizations who are reluctant to fully commit to a full-time ombuds can test the waters with an outsourced ombuds contract, and this may allow them to move forward with committing to a full-time ombuds once they see the benefits.
On a side-note, I believe MWI is technically a non-profit. Is that right? Not sure how that works given the nature of their business model, but that could be a differentiator between MWI and JAMS.
Obviously, this is a high-stakes issue for our community because these new business models could lead/have led to fewer full-time organizational ombuds jobs. That is the real crux of the issue. As someone who wants to see more full-time organizational ombuds jobs (for the sake of the ombuds field and also the people in the organizations who would benefit from a full-time ombuds), not fewer, this is a major/existential challenge to overcome. However, due to the reasons above, I think focusing on demonstrating why full-time ombuds are actually a better investment (at least for organizations that are large enough to afford them) is the way to go.
ReplyDeleteIn the capitalist society we live in, the outsourced ombuds seems like an inevitability, but it shouldn't threaten the existence of full-time ombuds positions for organizations where that is clearly the best model. And while some friction between proponents of full-time ombuds and outsourced ombuds may seem inevitable as well, I don't think it needs to be overly hostile. I think many ombuds would be happy or willing to work in either model, though if I had to guess more probably prefer full-time positions. I think it is unfair to demonize those who find work in the outsourced ombuds side (not saying you are personally doing this, but I could see that happening). I don't see working as outsourced ombuds as a betrayal to the ombuds field, though some might feel differently.
Is this a zero-sum game? I think it is clearly competitive, but I would say no. I would say that perhaps outsourced ombuds have a niche that doesn't exclusively overlap with full-time organizational ombuds. Furthermore, perhaps collaboration is even possible if both camps could work together to "expand the pie" by increasing awareness and acceptance of both roles, leading to greater opportunities for both.
Thank you to the Interested Ombuds for raising these points. While the IOA has attempted to hold space for these discussions in the past, it never felt like we truly got to the crux of the matter.
ReplyDeleteTo introduce a few other perspectives:
• The Professional Pipeline: Developing a pipeline into the profession for early-career ombuds has been a long-standing issue. I think it compounds the frustration when outsourced ombuds treat the role as a retirement project—failing to pass the baton, continuing to take up space, and doing so under a setup that is far more favorable to them than to newcomers.
• In-Person vs. Virtual: As return-to-office mandates gain traction, more visitors are actively seeking in-person appointments, and many outsourced ombuds serve virtually.
• Job Security and Objectivity: Regarding how ombuds are paid, there is a critical political and optical distinction here. Firing or laying off an embedded ombuds makes a much bigger splash than simply choosing not to renew an outsourced contract. This structural job security is vital because it allows an embedded ombuds to be bolder in raising tough issues and challenging the status quo.
• Utilization: I would love to see concrete statistics around utilization, alongside true transparency on how cases are counted. As we know, counting practices are all over the place—some count a 10-visitor systemic issue as a single case, while others count repeat visitors every semester as entirely new cases. Research shows that when organizations move counseling services external by outsourcing them to EAP programs, utilization drops significantly. It becomes an "out of sight, out of mind" program, and the same risk applies here.
Finally, I would appreciate some clarification from Andrew regarding why outsourced ombuds lack the same independent oversight due to contracting that embedded ombuds have.
I want to briefly note why this comment presented a close editorial question.
DeleteOn one hand, it raises several important and substantive issues in organizational Ombuds practice, including pipeline development, service modality, job structure, and utilization metrics. These are legitimate areas of discussion that benefit from being aired in a professional forum.
On the other hand, parts of the comment move from institutional critique into generalized characterizations of practitioner motives and conduct. In particular, attributing intent to categories of Ombuds practitioners is where I had to pause, as this crosses into a level of generalization that I typically try to avoid publishing without stronger grounding.
Ultimately, I have published the comment because the underlying questions are important and contribute to the broader discussion, but I want readers to be aware of this tension between structural critique and group-level attribution that often arises in this debate.
Great observation about the need for structural job security as a foundation for boldness. That said, as someone coming from an institution that disregarded its own Ombuds charter in eliminating a role, I'm not sure embededness necessarily gets us there.
DeleteI'm frustrated that this post has become another forum for views on MWI.
ReplyDeleteWhile I have not spoken with Andrew about the concerns he has expressed, his concerns, whether he knows it or not, sit on two strong theoretical foundations--Human Capital Theory (Becker, 1964) (for which Becker was awarded a Nobel Prize in Economics) and Bourdieu's (1986) the Forms of Capital . Those who have an interest in getting past opinions, feelings, and marketing statements would do well to dive into the work of these scholars to REALLY understand the issue. Spence's (1973) Signaling Theory (for which he also was awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics) sheds light on why the purported benefits touted by providers of outsourced services (not just ombuds) are not to be relied upon when making outsourcing decisions. Reading Spence in conjunction with Becker is a good start for those who want to have a solid basis for understanding the concerns raised by people like Andrew. Suffice it to say, ad hominem attacks on those who have concerns about the outsourcing practice does not move this conversation forward in a productive way.
ReplyDeleteI am seeing many differing perspectives and genuine curiosity on this thread - which is encouraging and an indication of just how deeply we each care about this field.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if a different forum would lead to a deeper understanding of the different ways that we work as organizational ombuds? As we seek to strengthen and grow our profession ethically, I think it would be valuable to create a facilitated space for those who wish to explore this together. Maybe IOA can lead something? I am also thinking of putting something together for next year's conference, and if anyone else has thoughts on this, feel free to reach out to me at cdoran@mwi.org. Thanks.