Ten Things Lawyers Should Know About Ombuds, #1: Organizational Ombuds Are Different Than Classical Ombuds — EngagingConflicts.com
This is one of Guest Blogger Ombuds Thomas Kosakowski’s posts in his series “10 Things Lawyers Should Know About Ombuds”, part of the Engaging Conflict’s Taking Peacemaking Public series.
Introduction
Ombuds are dispute resolution professionals that work with individuals and organizations in conflict and crisis. (The terms “ombudsman” and “ombudsperson” are widely used, and “ombuds” is a common shorthand.) They work to resolve concerns and disputes long before the involvement of attorneys becomes necessary. It is therefore important for attorneys, whether providing advice on conflict management systems or litigating matters involving ombuds, to understand how ombuds work.
1. Organizational Ombuds Are Different Than Classical Ombuds
Ombuds fall into one of two main types. “Classical” ombuds generally are created by statute to receive and investigate complaints. (Classical ombuds are also known as “legislative” ombuds or, if located in the private sector, “executive” ombuds.) Classical ombuds are characterized [article Essential Characteristics of a Classical Ombudsman] by independence; impartiality and fairness; credibility of review process; and confidentiality. Classical ombuds are usually members of the United States Ombudsman Association (USOA). Classical ombuds can be found in regulatory agencies, social welfare systems, police and corrections departments, school districts, and long-term care facilities. Most of the ombuds offices outside of the United States are classical in nature.
“Organizational” ombuds, on the other hand, have a mandate to facilitate fair and equitable resolutions of concerns within an entity and act as an early warning mechanism for broad and systemic problems. Organizational ombuds are also confidential, independent and neutral, but unlike [article Similarity and Differences Between Public and Private Sector Ombudsmen] their classical colleagues, organizational ombuds are distinguished by their strict informality. Their primary professional entity is the International Ombudsman Association (IOA), although its membership is predominantly US-based. In addition, organizational ombuds are more commonly found in the private sector, especially higher education.
At first, the difference between classical and organizational ombuds and their formal versus informal mandate may seem slight. However, in practice this difference has a profound impact. Just as attorneys would not confuse an arbitrator and a mediator, they should not confuse classical and organizational ombuds. Indeed, the cases reflect the significant difference between these two types. Attorneys, therefore, should know at the outset whether they are dealing with a classical or organizational ombuds. Although ombuds are reluctant to disclose the details of a particular matter, they are more than willing to describe how their office operates.
The balance of this series will focus exclusively on organizational ombuds.
Tom’s series will continue tomorrow.
