I’ve been working recently on a project for the International Ombuds Association to gather information on how organizational ombuds programs can measure their effectiveness. The project has involved conversations with many experienced ombuds and, as a result, I’ve concluded that my thinking about the role of an ombuds is somewhat different than many other practitioners.

Over my years of organizational ombuds work, I have seen many programs thrive and a number that have been cancelled or relegated to a minimal role. My recent conversations prompted me to reflect on some of the factors that may contribute to the success of a program that might be missing from some of the programs that have floundered. I certainly don’t hold the golden tablets of how organizational ombuds programs should project themselves, but want to share some thoughts based on my experience and personal perspective. This article is based on highlights from a chapter on the “strategic role of an ombuds” in my upcoming ombuds handbook.

In the book chapter, I share my view that the role of the organizational ombuds within the organization is more extensive and complex than it is often summarily described. Some descriptions paint the ombuds is a specialized and perhaps more versatile and skilled mediator and conflict resolution specialist, that serves as a conflict resolution resource within the organization. While it’s definitely true that the ombuds invariably provides conflict resolution support, in my view this is only one portion of the work of a strategically-oriented ombuds. The risk of the ombuds being defined primarily as a conflict resolution service is that, in larger organizations, there are typically many other resources providing similar services, e.g., in HR, Mediation Centers, students conflict resolution programs, etc. So, when resources become constrained, the organization naturally looks to eliminate redundancies and, because ombuds programs are typically smaller, they can present as low hanging fruit.

In my view, an effective ombuds serves roles above and beyond the conflict resolution function. (In my book I used the metaphor of a three-legged stool to illustrate my point. For this article, I use another illustration.) As I see it, the ombuds provides important support involving conflict resolution, but that support is but a small part of the strategic ombuds’ overall work focus – even in serving visitors.

Essentially, the ombuds provides an adaptable, flexible, and skilled set of services to the organization in three types of service focus. Each service focus feeds, enables, and supports the other. Together, they enable the ombuds to become a truly strategic resource within their organization. The service focus triangle, below, illustrates the synergy and connectedness of the service types, which together, result in a full service, ombuds with high strategic value to their organization.

The Strategic Services Triangle illustrates the connectedness of the service types:

 

1. Visitor Support: Serving constituents. Providing trusted, empathetic, adaptable, knowledgeable support to the individuals and groups using the ombuds program. These functions are fundamental and essential to the effectiveness of the ombuds program. The ombuds must build and maintain excellent credibility with program constituents. Serving as the premier resource and first point of contact when a stakeholder is unsure of their options and resources, and providing excellent follow through is fundamental to the continued existence of the ombuds program. A part of this work may be helping the visitor develop strategies to address workplace conflict concerns and the ombuds will likely provide support in this regard. But, to limit the description of the work of the ombuds to conflict resolution overlooks all the other support that an ombuds provides in working directly with visitors/stakeholders. Other work invariably includes working with groups to help the group explore ways that they can, themselves, optimize their work patterns. It will also include offering a safe, non-judgmental, and confidential place for people to explore their concerns and develop their own options and approaches for addressing them – regardless of whether the issue involves conflict or something completely different. And it often involves working with constituents in a training and educational role to help the workforce expand its own communication and conflict awareness and avoidance skills.
2. Management Situation Support: Serving as a coach and safe sounding board for leaders and managers. The ombuds sometimes runs the risk of being perceived as a resource that is available only to one set of constituents. While it may be true that an ombuds may be created to serve only students, or only faculty, or staff, etc., it is also invariably true that the ombuds is working with many others who have control over the decisions, systems, and responses to particular situations affecting those constituents. In every context where I have served as an in-house organizational ombuds (such as at a large National Laboratory, and a several premier AAU Universities), although the initial surge of program users were rank and file workers, invariably, as the program matured and developed, a disproportionate number of leaders and managers became program users and beneficiaries. The modern workplace can be a scary and uncertain place to be a manager. It often does not take long for individual leaders and managers to realize that the ombuds offers an incredible opportunity for a safe space to explore options and alternatives to individual situations, as well as exploring options for chronic organizational conflict or dysfunction. Individual leaders soon realize that, for every one individual case that they encounter as a manager, the ombuds has encountered countless similar situations and helped countless others explore options for similar concerns. In complex high-risk and/or high profile concerns, the ombuds offers important context and balance to the options shared with a leader. By design, the ombuds provides the organization and its management with the most adaptable, broad-spectrum service within the organization’s risk management system. The organization’s lawyers, for example, are bound by the attorney’s canon of ethics to provide zealous advocacy on behalf of the greater organization as their “client.” They seek to  avoid any potential compromise the best interest of that client and generally provide advice that is intended to minimize the risk of exposure of the client-organization. This is often why, for example, an organization’s in-house counsel will be uncomfortable with confidential channels for reporting concerns – they can feel a loss of control. And because of the focus on zealous advocacy for the “client,” it can also mean that exploring a wider range of options that might provide for a more balanced and fair long-term result are not presented, if these are seen as less than zealous advocacy or if they may require the conscious assumption of some risk that the attorney feels can be avoided or minimized.  It can mean that the interests of other constituents beyond the greater corporate entity are not fairly considered, leading managers and even executives to sometimes feel that they’ve been “thrown under the bus.” For victims of workplace abuses it can lead to feeling a sense of “institutional betrayal” and victim blaming. As a confidential, independent, impartial, and informal resource, the Ombuds can work with individuals within the organization to help them evaluate the risks and the advantages and disadvantages of  a range of resolution approaches. Some of the options may involve assuming some risk in balance to an outcome that is perceived more broadly as “fair,” and not just those that ostensibly minimize risk to the larger entity. The ombuds approach enables people to find solutions that  that work for them individually and to feel ownership of their chosen path. This more balanced approach can help all individuals involved to find acceptable outcomes and, in the long run, can actually result in a more effective overall risk management result. When victims and individuals sense that they have reached an outcome of their own choosing that is acceptable to them, the risk of escalating the issue into a formal process or litigation is exponentially decreased.
3. Strategic Organizational Support: Empowering Organizational Excellence through information. An affective ombuds works with large numbers of individuals and a large range of issues that they bring forward. The ombuds has the benefit of being able to “stand back from the picture” and evaluate the patterns and themes brought forward by what they have worked with. The root causes of recurrent issues can become evident through the patterns the ombuds can observe. As a result, the strategic ombuds becomes a go-to resource and safe, confidential sounding board for executive leadership – perhaps even in a broader and more balanced way then the organization’s legal counsel, as discussed above. This does not me that the ombuds makes specific recommendations or in any way co-opt or interfere with the important role and relationship of legal counsel or other important advisors and resources.  These resources and especially legal counsel play an important role in helping leadership understand the boundaries and the risk inherent to the options being considered.  I note that in the illustration above I reference “System and Policy Changes.” It is important to clarify the ombuds  enables appropriate management authorities to make system and policy improvements, but does so by sharing insights and information, not by becoming a stakeholder in any specific policy changes together with other resources and advice. If the ombuds were engage in policy and decision-making, this would result in the ombuds not being perceived as neutral, impartial, or independent. Policy making is the exclusive preview of the organization’s management. However, with the benefit of the trends and themes, and compelling examples that the ombuds observes, they can provide information to management that can help enable effective management policy development  and decision-making.

This discussion and the “services triangle” don’t discuss all sorts of other services that the ombuds often provides, such as training programs, library resources, employee orientations and many others. But, all of these services generally fit somewhere in the services triangle. As the ombuds gains experience in working within the organization, the three service types typically come into balance. When an ombuds gains more value as a strategic, risk management resource, the program more readily distinguishes itself from other programs that have a more limited focus by virtue of their formal structure or their limited scope (such as only mediation or conflict resolution work). This lends greater resilience to the ombuds program and can better enable it to demonstrate its unique value to the organization as an important risk management resource. When the ombuds can readily point to examples of their strategic support, the program is less likely to be viewed as a redundant and expendable service.

In closing, a final illustration of the thought . . .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

©Bruce J. MacAllister, J.D., 2025