4 CommentsGeneral Activities and Topics

In a Linked in post discussing a recent call for submissions to the Journal of the International Ombuds Association, Ombuds Elizabeth Hill discusses the potential for confusion when ombuds use the same term to explore two separate equally important ombuds program concepts. I appreciate the potential for confusion when “embedded” is used to describe different, potentially overlapping concepts. While I may be overlooking issues Liz envisions are part of the dialogue, I suggest the way to avoid this confusion is “embedded” within Liz’s own post. Liz goes on to distinguish how I use embedded versus embedded as a reference to the “structural placement” of an ombuds program. For years, when I discuss the concept of placement of the program, I refer to how the program is “structured.” This post explores these two important concepts.

To begin, the dictionary (dictionary.com) indicates that the term “embedded” may be used in at least five different ways, including: 1.) Closely fitting an item into something; 2.) Incorporated as an essential characteristic; 3.) Being embedded within a unit or structure (such as a journalist in a military unit); 4.) Working closely with a group or being invited to participate as an expert; 5.) placing one resource into a larger resource, such as an embedded video. Thus, when we use embedded to discuss organizational placement as well as deep organizational fluency and knowledge, there is definitely potential for confusing application of the term. The dictionary defines “structured” as “having or manifesting a clearly defined structure or organization,” and defines “structure” as “arrangement of parts, elements, or constituents.”

This article explores the interconnectedness and program implications of how a program and its ombuds are “structured,” versus its degree of the ombuds “embeddedness.” The question of how an ombuds becomes “embedded,” that is becoming a facile, effective, knowledgeable, respected and trusted resource to serve the organization regardless of program structural placement applies universally regardless of how the program is structured. It could be a contracted external program or a program structurally “embedded” within the organization. “Structure,” as I use it, includes organizational placement, and other important related issues, such as structure’s implications relevant to the important IOA standards governing independence, impartiality, confidentiality, and even informality. The concepts of structure and embeddedness involve some fundamentally different questions and some overlapping questions.

Exploring how an ombuds program is “structured” has other implications. In his cogent comments to my original post on The Embedded Ombuds (https://bizexteam.com/index.php/2025/05/07/the-embedded-ombuds/), Andrew Larratt-Smith posed additional questions. He posited that “the design and structure of an ombuds position are extremely important.” He asked “Can an individual be effective and well engaged with their organization even if they are in a poorly designed and disempowered position?” As I see it, this question helps distinguish between the two concepts. It helps illustrate that “structure,” has far deeper and broader implications than where a program is placed on the organizational chart or indeed placed external to the organization. As Andrew Larratts-Smith also pointed out, the growth of the outsourced approach to providing ombuds services raises serious questions. He observes that “an ombuds is a person not a business.” I believe that each of these comments raise deeply fundamental questions regarding program “structure” and program “embeddedness (again, as I use the term).

The questions illustrate the reality that, for an ombuds to be effective, structure and embeddedness are mutually dependent. They are essentially the yin and yang of program design and operation. One can be organizationally fluent, and highly embedded, but if the program from which they operate is inherently disabled by poor structure, they cannot be fully effective. One can work from a well-structured ombuds platform, but if they are tone deaf to the culture, ignorant of their companion services, and a stranger to its managers and leaders, they are doomed to suboptimal performance.

A lot of the discussion within the ombuds community focuses on whether a business that provides contract ombuds services can be adequately embedded, achieve adequate embeddedness, and indeed be structured so that the individuals providing the services know the organization, appreciate its culture, and can be trusted and effective. Some believe that being structured outside of the organization means that ombuds is inherently limited. But this view ignores the reality of many of today’s workplaces and workspaces. While the concept of a brick-and-mortar office structure for ombuds service delivery is alive and well, many workplaces are themselves structured to be remote and contractor-driven. The workforces of many project teams and whole high-tech organizations are now fully distributed – often globally. A brick and mortar, embedded (in-house) program would be of no utility. One of my last major ombuds roles was with an international NGO. Its board members and operators were located in Paris, London, Los Angeles, Miami, Christchurch, and Melbourne.  It’s functional arms were distributed internationally. It would have been impossible to structure a program that was “in-house” as there was literally no “house.” Yet the Ombuds Program operated successfully through the entire twelve-year existence of the organization (which was designed to sunset). And, the effectiveness of the ombuds program was cited as a reason that the stakeholders concluded that the purposes of the organization had been fully realized and there was no need to continue beyond the basic term originally conceived. Whether there is an actual workplace or campus, or whether the work is performed in a virtual workplace, effective structure and embedding must always be considered.

Andrew Larratt-Smith also keenly observes that many in the ombuds field “are conflating the services we provide with the [ombuds role]” leading to a risk that we define ourselves by the tools we use, rather than by the larger role we play. In my experience, programs that allow themselves to be defined tactically by focusing on specific tools or a narrow service set, such as “workplace conflict resolution” (alone) are the programs that end up at greatest risk when resources become constrained. They are often viewed as redundant with similar programs in HR or elsewhere. Programs that define themselves strategically as a key risk management resource with deep knowledge of the organization and its “industry” find greater resilience. They are often viewed by executive leadership as of equal value and status to in-house counsel. These are the programs that are sustained. This is because it is impossible view them as redundant to other resources by, as Andrew points out, conflating some tools used with true program scope.

For several years, I served as co-chair of the IOA Standards of Practice Task Force, which, after years of benchmarking, drafting, revising, sharing, and incorporating input, ultimately resulted in the current IOA Standards of Practice. These Standards are not and should not be etched in stone, and are already under review. This depth of involvement with the Standards of Practice, gave me deep awareness of the current tenets of ombuds practice. Yet, as I have reflected on those fundamentals, I believe they overlook fundamental concepts that apply as deeply and broadly to the profession. True, concepts of independence, impartiality, and confidentiality are deeply tied to structure, but a structure focus creates a coherent paradigm by which these separate concepts can be collectively considered. The concept of effectively embedding an ombuds program (as I use the term) is completely overlooked by the current standards except by the farthest stretch of their interpretation. Thus, I encourage broad dialogue around these topics and thank Liz, Andrew,  and others for raising the important questions.

Comments (4)

  1. Andrew Larratt-Smith

    Reply

    Thanks for your gracious words Bruce,
    I appreciate your good faith efforts to engage around the concept of “embeddedness.” I agree that there is complexity that needs to be unpacked and explored about how organizational ombuds engage with their organizations. This discussion should include address both questions about the ombuds office structure and the competency of the practitioners within the office.
    However, I would strongly urge you to use a different term than “embedded.” In your 5/7/25 post you acknowledged that practitioners were using the term to draw distinctions between different types of office structures: “embedded” vs. contract. You critiqued that approach to argue that “embeddedness” is a competency. I spoke up about the importance of structure. You have graciously engaged with my comments and are exploring in good faith the relationship between “embeddedness” and structure.
    Nonetheless, in this process you have appropriated a term that others were using specifically to draw a structural distinction and have redefined it in such a way that it plasters over that same structural distinction. This is particularly a sensitive spot for many of us traditional organizational ombuds. We are already concerned that our terminology and standards are being leveraged, repurposed, and sometimes redefined in service of the financial interests of corporate business entities that are trying to gain legitimacy and market their services.
    I don’t think the term “embedded” entered common use in the ombuds lexicon until recently (last 5 or 10 years max) in response to the growth of the outsourced model as described above. However, there is some additional evidence of “embedded” being used specifically to describe structure.
    In a 2014 JIOA article, Andrea Schneck and John W. Zinsser define “embedment” as “the proper structural placement of an Ombuds program throughout the organization.” They use the term “integration” to describe “the many workable connections between an Ombuds program and those other functions in the organization” which strikes me as more similar to the way you are using “embeddedness.” They also use a third term “alignment” which “relates to the connection and commitment an Ombuds program has with the purpose or mission of the host organization.” (https://ioa.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/JIOA-14-V7-1_FINAL_0%20%281%29.pdf. See Endnote 9, p. 41). As intriguing as their framework is, they only touch on it briefly in their article, and I am not aware of anyone else picking it up and expanding on it.
    So, I agree in principle with your call to deepen the discussion of how organizational ombuds engage with their organizations. However, I would request that you honor the prior use of the term “embedded” to describe office structure by choosing a different term to address questions of competency. Also, I hope you can understand why a number of us, myself included, are skeptical that this conversation is being driven more out of the financial interests of business entities to be able to claim that their outsourced services are also “embedded” than it is about how we best strengthen our practice.
    Thanks again for your thoughtfulness Bruce and for considering my comments. I hope you will keep my perspective in mind as you present on the topic next week at the IOA conference.

    • Bruce MacAllister

      Reply

      Thank you for your thought-provoking and professionally shared insights! I genuinely appreciate that you took the time to challenge my approach and to offer additional perspectives on the subject. It is through this kind of dialogue that concepts emerge and ideas are refined.

      In your comments, you urge me to use a different term rather than “embedded.” I want to explain why I consciously chose the term and why I reframed the discussion in reaction to the rather polarizing and binary debate at the International Ombuds Association conference in Miami (regarding internal and external models of providing ombuds services).

      As the main post above notes, the term embedded is defined with five different applications (see paragraph 2., of the article). What I noted was that the first four of the five definitions of the term directly applied to how I elected to use it – “closely fitting into something,” “incorporated as an essential characteristic,” “working within a unit as an external (such as journalist [non-combatant] within a military unit),” and “working closely with a group or being invited as an expert.” Only the fifth use of the term ostensibly applies to organizational structure, i.e., placing “one resource into a larger resource.”

      During the discussion in Miami, I observed that “embedded” was being conflated with the term “internal,” in an apparent effort to leverage the qualitative connotations of embeddedness to suggest that internal placement is inherently superior. Given of the predominant dictionary definitions, I believe using the term embedded to refer to internal ombuds (i.e., those who are directly employed by their organization) carries an implied value judgment that, regardless of other factors (such poor reporting structure, mandatory reporting, limited access, or poor ombuds skills), the model is inherently superior. While you assert that I have appropriated the term, to the contrary, I believe that I have more accurately used the term. In fact I would encourage more precise and neutral framing when referring the internal ombuds approach.

      In my thirty years of ombuds work and ombuds program review, I have found that the assumption that internal placement is inherently superior is not automatically the case. I have seen any number of internal programs fail for a variety of reasons, but primarily for one of two reasons: either the ombuds failed to adequately engage (embed themselves, as I use the term) with the key stakeholders causing the program to lose trust and relevance, or the program was so poorly structured (as I use the term) that it was programmed to fail – either losing the confidence of the workforce, or of management, or both. My perspectives are informed by my experience within all three approaches – having served as an internal ombuds, a contract ombuds, and an outsourced provider of ombuds services.

      I acknowledge that the way I use the term is new to our community lexicon. You suggest “integration” is perhaps a better term to describe the concept, but I find its formal definitions do not capture the concept. Beyond using the term to refer to equality for racial, ethnic, or religious groups, “integration” is defined as ”(1.) combining or coordinating separate elements so as to provide a harmonious interrelated whole, and (2.) organized or structured so that constituent units function cooperatively.” While these terms come close, they fall short, given the Standards of Practice requirements for independence and impartiality. As defined, integration connotes working within the hierarchy and sharing their goals. Ombuds very openly work independently of the organization’s hierarchy and sometimes have to be the messenger that some function or goal is a problem.

      In contrast, for example, an “embedded” journalist in a combat unit is not part of that unit, but performs their independent duties within it. The embedded journalist, does not set mission priorities and may not even support the mission’s goals. No one expects the journalist to directly engage in combat. Similarly, the ombuds works within the organization, but independent to it. Thus, I selected the term embedded very deliberately.

      As someone with years of experience as a lawyer, mediator, ombuds, arbitrator and program auditor, I chose to reframe the discussion following the Miami conference. I believe this is an appropriate role and my right and perhaps even an obligation. You may, of course, reject my reframing. Only time will tell, whether it will gain traction, though I take it as a positive sign that the IOA chose to repost my blog with my permission.

      In your original post comment, you stated that “the promotion of outsourcing within our field [ombuds] is undercutting our [presumably internal ombuds] ability to engage effectively in our organizations” yet you offered no supporting evidence. You also shared the unsupported assumption that “outsourced positions are not structured to be well-engaged with their organization.” In my research and experience, however, I have found that – regardless of model— the critical success factors are adequate embedding and sound structure (as I use the terms). I’ve found that, in some settings, the organizations themselves deliberately chose the outsourced model because they perceive advantages. Examples include the CEO who preferred the model because they felt that no internal person could be viewed by the skeptical workforce as adequately independent, or the CEO who preferred the outsourced model because they believed that it actually better ensured supervision and quality service, as no one internal to the organization was qualified to evaluate and determine whether the ombuds was performing the role as required by the SOPs and sound structuring. But the terms of the contract had those commitments.

      I appreciate that you agree in principle with the need for deeper discussion and greater focus on how ombuds can enhance their effectiveness and quality of engagement. I am grateful that you challenge and add depth to the perspectives, prompting my own deeper reflection on the role of effective embedding and sound structure to avoid suboptimal results. Whether the term, as I use it, is embraced or rejected, I believe the primary goal is understanding the key engagement elements that distinguish a struggling program from effective and durable ones.

      Finally, in the larger context of my fairly long and deep involvement in the ombuds community, I see a larger issue looming, which has been largely ignored: the role of the Standards of Practice – or lack of a role. As a community, we continue to accept aberrant practice variants and structural deficiencies. For example, the person who introduced themselves to me as the Title IX Coordinator/Campus Ombuds. While our Standards of Practice articulate a sound model, over the years, our practice community has demonstrated that it values inclusivity (encouraging membership growth) over the exclusivity of requiring any compliance with the standards. Thus, the SOPs remain largely aspirational. Even after fifty years, essentially anyone may call themselves an ombuds and practice any way they like. Many question why ombuds cannot further “professionalize” the role, but my view is no professionalization will come without reasonable enforcement mechanisms, excluding invalid practice variants, and ensuring reasonable compliance in order to use the term ombuds. Until this day comes, all of our discussions are sort of academic.

  2. Chuck Doran

    Reply

    @Bruce – thank you for your article and comments. I especially appreciate your encouraging all of us to think critically about how we demonstrate our value as organizational ombuds.

    Regardless of where we are placed structurally in relation to the organizations we serve, I have learned that we have an opportunity to become embedded by building relationships with stakeholders and earning the trust of the visitors and organizations we serve. This leads to ombuds being recognized as an indispensable and unique resource. Ombuds who describe themselves as embedded without acknowledging that embeddedness is an earned state and something we continuously have to work at do a disservice to the profession and the organizations they serve.

    Your last point about the Standards of Practice being aspirational is critically important. I would like to see the IOA play a greater role in setting and enforcing accountability measures that uphold the SoPs. This will be a big step towards advancing our profession, IMHO.

    Thanks again for moving the conversation forward.

  3. Andrew Larratt-Smith

    Reply

    Thanks again for your thoughtfulness Bruce and Chuck and for taking the time to consider my perspective. It is clear to me that we have strong, and somewhat differing opinions on this topic. To me having disagreements, even heated ones, is healthier than the alternative – conflict constipation (my term), which I believe is far too common in our field. But it is important to me that I treat others respectfully. If you feel that I cross a line, please let me know. Also, I think it is valuable to have the conversation publicly because it is a matter of public concern to our field, but I would be happy to chat privately as well.
    I think one of the challenges in this discussion is the challenges of using single words as labels to describe more complex dynamics. You may be surprised to learn that I am not entirely comfortable with the term “embedded ombuds.” When I noticed colleagues using it a few years ago, I thought why the sudden need for this new qualifier? Of course, it was because it was being used to distinguish how our offices are structured differently from the emerging outsourced model, but it seemed disconcerting to apply a new qualifier to a structure that had been the default for over fifty years. My preferred term is “traditional organizational ombuds,” which recognizes that this longstanding default, without the need for qualifiers like “embedded” or “internal.”
    One of the reasons I don’t like the term “internal Ombuds” is that it creates confusion because the terms “internal” and “external” have traditionally been used to describe the nature of the constituents that different types of Ombuds serve. Organizational Ombuds typically serve internal constituents (e.g. employees) whereas Classical Ombuds typically serve external constituents (e.g. members of the public).
    Additionally, “internal” and even “embedded” frames the important issue as the binary distinction between those who are employed by their institution and those who are not. The terms “Internal” and “external,” lump the contract and outsourced models together under the same “external” term, which I think is unhelpful, since they are so different.
    In the contract model, the ombuds is not an employee of the organization but contracts directly with the organization and is still paid directly by the organization. While I do think the externally contracted ombuds model is not as robust as the traditional organizational ombuds structure, it does not seriously worry me. As I think you know, I am more concerned about the outsourced model, which interposes a corporate business entity as an intermediary between the organization and the practitioner. This represents a significant departure from the existing ombuds models that I am familiar with.
    Despite these misgivings about the use of the term “embedded,” I think it accurately describes the structure of the traditional organizational ombuds model where the ombuds is an employee of the organization and distinguishes it from the structure of the other models, where the ombuds is not an employee of the organization.
    Additionally, I believe the word has clear structural connotations. All the definitions of “embedded” you provided include the concept of locality and proximity, either physically or symbolically, which implies structure. Contrast this with a term like “engagement,” which denotes relationality and interaction without the structural implications of “embeddedness.” I agree that the term “embeddedness” has positive connotations that highlight the strengths and the potential of the traditional organizational ombuds structure, that arise from the proximity that comes with being an employee. However, simply being embedded as an employee does not automatically translate into effectiveness or engagement. I would agree that there are traditional organizational ombuds who are structurally embedded as employees but not very well engaged with their organizations. So, while generally positive, I don’t think it is inaccurate, deceptive, or misleading to use the term to distinguish practitioners who are employees versus those who are not.
    I don’t question your qualifications to question the use of the term, and I appreciate that you did so with good intentions. Nonetheless, I am still concerned that the effect was to redefine a term that people were using for a good reason.
    So, I would continue to urge you to use a different term. My preferred term for what you describe as “embeddedness” would be “engagement.” I cited the Schneck and Zinsser article to provide an example of the term “embedded” being used within the Ombuds literature more than a decade ago to describe structure, and that they proposed a framework that incorporated multiple terms. But I agree with your misgivings about the term “integration.”
    I agree that I did not provide supporting evidence for all of my assertions. I am not writing legal briefs but comments on a blog page that are already way too long. So, I am not going to cite chapter and verse for every assertion I make, but I think it is fair game to ask me to back up my comments.
    Let’s address my assertion that “outsourced positions are not structured to be well-engaged with their organization.” I will do so by providing a concrete example.
    My university’s new chancellor had his inauguration ceremony a few months ago. I was invited to sit on stage in my capacity as the University Ombuds with about 50 other dignitaries and campus officials.
    The invitation to sit onstage is a symbol of healthy organizational engagement. Of course, it is not the only or best measure of engagement. It does not mean that I have arrived as an Ombuds. I still have much work to do, and opportunities for improvement. My practice could collapse tomorrow and the office could be shuttered forever. There are no guarantees in life.
    Of course, I would like to think that this invitation in some way reflects the trust and relationships I have built with campus stakeholders over the years. However, I don’t think the invitation is primarily a reflection of me. Rather, it reflects the value my institution has in the Office of the Ombuds that dates to its founding almost sixty years ago, before I was even born. It reflects the stewardship of the role by my predecessors before me. It reflects recognition that the Office of the Ombuds plays an integral role in the life of the campus community.
    And here’s the simple truth: If I were a part-time, hourly, outsourced practitioner subcontracted through a third-party business entity, there is no way that I would be invited to sit on that stage, even if I were the world’s best practitioner.
    This is just one small example of the opportunities available to me because of my office structure. My level of engagement is not merely a function of my competency as a practitioner. The engagement ceiling for a traditional organizational ombuds in a well-structured office is simply much higher than that of a practitioner operating in the outsourced model. Are there exceptions and counter-examples? I am sure there are, but the reality is that as employees traditional organizational ombuds practitioners have an inside track to recognition and engagement opportunities that other models generally do not provide.
    I share many of your concerns about offices with structural deficiencies, and the emphasis on inclusivity at the expense of compliance with standards. I think we are at a moment of identity crisis as a field, which is why it is so important to engage in these kinds of discussions.
    As always, I appreciate your engagement!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *