Gini Nelson’s Engaging Conflicts

Peter Adler is one of the conflict specialists I respect most. Earlier posts about his work are posted here and here. He has a new, particularly timely article at Mediate.com that bears reporting: 12 Questions for Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Barack Obama on “Eye-of-the-storm” Leadership.

These are Peter’s questions to the Presidential Candidates:

1. What Is Your History of Bringing People Together?
2. Who Are Your Best Examples of Leaders Who Brought People Together?
3. On Which Issues Will You Immediately Seek Bipartisan Support, and How Will You Get It?
4. Who Will You Have To Partner With To Achieve Your Objectives?
5. On Those Top Issues, How Will You Determine Whether You Compromise or Stand Firm?
6. How Specifically Will You Relate Differently With Countries At Odds With the U.S.?
7. What Specific Kinds of Arrangements Do You Think Can Be Brokered In the Middle East?
8. What Is Your Dominant Leadership Style, and Why Are You the Right Person At This Time?
9. What Is An Example Of Your Intellectual Flexibility, Your Ability To Shift Your Views In Response To New Information or Changing Conditions?
10. In What Ways Should America Change Its Role In the World, and How Will You Mobilize Americans To Support That Shift?
11. What Mistake Made By Previous Presidents Are You Most Eager To Avoid?
12. How Will You Handle That 3 A.M. Call?

Here’s Peter’s article.

            

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. His Introduction and point #1 are posted here, point #2 here, point #3 here, point #4 here, point #5 here, point #6 here, point #7 here, point #8 here, and point #9 here.

10.  Ombuds Provide Upward Feedback
In addition to facilitating resolutions of individual concerns, ombuds also act as catalysts for change in their organization.  Ombuds are uniquely positioned to notice patterns and related incidents as they are developing.  While protecting their visitors’ confidentiality, ombuds can alert their organization to concerns and problems that have not yet become formal.  For example, an ombuds may become aware that a newly-hired supervisor is bullying his employees.  The employees may be candid with the ombuds but too afraid to go to management or human resources.  By alerting the organization’s executives about the collective concerns, the alleged bullying can be investigated and addressed before the department becomes dysfunctional or crippled by attrition.

Surveys indicate that ombuds spend about a third of their time on systems change – working to improve conflict management systems of their organization.  Generally, ombuds provide upward feedback informally and discretely to key individuals.  Some ombuds produce periodic public reports with statistical information about visitors and highlight significant concerns.  (See, e.g., annual reports from the ombuds at Ryerson Unversity, United Nations, and Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.)  Whatever the format, feedback from the ombuds should be highly valued by the organization.  Attorneys should not expect, however, ombuds to provide more details which would compromise the confidentiality promised by the ombuds office.

            

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. His Introduction and point #1 are posted here, point #2 here, point #3 here, point #4 here, point #5 here, point #6 here, point #7 here, and point #8 here.

9. Ombuds Are Not Agents for Notice

Ombuds stress that they are cannot receive notice on behalf of their institution. Since ombuds are ethically bound to keep confidences, their knowledge is not imputed to their employer. According to the ABA, if an ombuds is functionally independent, impartial and confidential then:

(a) no one, including the entity in which the ombuds operates, should deem the ombuds to be an agent of any person or entity, other than the office of the ombuds, for purposes of receiving notice of alleged violations, and (b) communications made to the ombuds should not be imputed to anyone else, including the entity in which the ombuds acts …. (ABA Standards, p. 6.)

In addition to advising visitors that they cannot accept notice, many ombuds also operate under written protocol that clearly states this limitation (e.g., NASA’s ombuds program).

The benefit of this arrangement is that ombuds can assist visitors in deciding how to effectively raise their concerns formally if an informal resolution is unsuccessful or impractical. Ombuds often explain how to put their organization on notice by contacting another office and triggering an appropriate process. Visitors are thus empowered and better participate in a formal resolution.

Tom’s series will continue Wednesday.

            

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. His Introduction and point #1 are posted here, point #2 here, point #3 here, point #4 here, point #5 here, point #6 here, and point #7 here.

8. Ombuds Don’t Keep Records

To preserve confidentiality, ombuds do not create or maintain records for the organizations about individual cases. Notes taken during the course of working on a case that are intended only for the ombuds’ interim reference are routinely destroyed and are not kept past the conclusion of the case. Ombuds publicly and specifically advise visitors and prospective visitors that they have no record-keeping function. (See examples from Stanford University, United Technologies Corp., Putnam Investments, and the United Nations.) The Coalition of Federal Ombuds has concluded that ombuds’ notes from specific cases are exempt from the Federal Records Act. (See The Guide for Federal Employee Ombuds, Federal Guidance Note at p. 9.) Attorneys should therefore expect that efforts to compel production of ombuds’ case materials to be a fruitless exercise.

Tom’s series will continue soon.

            

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. His Introduction and point #1 are posted here, point #2 here, point #3 here, point #4 here, point #5 here, and point #6 here.

7. Ombuds are Increasing in Number

Naussau County in New York established the first classical ombudsman program in the United States in 1966. Shortly thereafter, organizational ombuds offices proliferated on college campuses. Currently, there are 201 active ombuds programs at U.S. colleges and universities according to a study conducted by Mary Newhart, a masters candidate at Cornell University, with 42% being established since 2000. In addition, many Federal agencies, companies and other organizations have created ombuds offices to manage conflict. Some programs have been established to prevent litigation or as part of settling a lawsuit. Growth in the private sector has been spurred because ombuds programs provide a confidential and anonymous reporting channel as required by Sarbanes-Oxley (while traditional compliance offices cannot).

In the past first year, the Ombuds Blog posted announcements of about 50 ombuds jobs, many at newly-created offices. The site also features links to 281 ombuds offices in corporations, higher education, government, health care, NGO’s and school districts. The International Ombudsman Association, the primary professional association for organizational ombuds, counts 331 full members (who adhere to IOA Standards of Practice and Code of Ethics). While ombuds are not yet widespread, their numbers will continue to expand with the implementation of alternative conflict management programs.

            

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. His Introduction and point #1 are posted here, point #2 here, point #3 here, and point #4 here.

5. Ombuds are Neutral and Impartial

To be credible and effective, ombuds operate independently and without interference. This independence is achieved primarily through organizational recognition and reporting structure. Ombuds should report administratively to the highest possible office and should have the endorsement of the chief executive.

In assessing whether an ombuds is independent in structure, function, and appearance, the following factors are important: whether anyone subject to the ombuds’s jurisdiction or anyone directly responsible for a person under the ombuds’s jurisdiction (a) can control or limit the ombuds’s performance of assigned duties or (b) can, for retaliatory purposes, (1) eliminate the office, (2) remove the ombuds, or (3) reduce the budget or resources of the office. (ABA, Standards for the Establishment and Operation of Ombuds Offices, p. 3.)

Ombuds also are vigilant about their neutrality. As with mediators, ombuds do not take sides in any conflict, dispute or issue. Ombuds do not advocate for any party in a dispute, nor do they default to defending their organization. Ombuds strive to consider the interests and concerns of all stakeholders in order to facilitate dialog and assist parties work toward fair and equitable resolutions. Therefore, ombuds generally shun any relationships within their organization that could create a conflict of interest. In light of their peculiar, self-imposed isolation, most ombuds consider themselves “inside outsiders.”

Tom’s series will continue later.

            

“[It’s key] to get professional conflict managers/mediators into key government elected positions and put them in charge of foreign relations and domestic security.” — Rey Carr

Engaging Conflicts Today interviews Rey Carr, Chief Executive Officer of Peer Resources, whose mission is to provide high quality training, superior educational resources, and practical consultation to persons who wish to establish or strengthen peer helping, peer support, peer mediation, peer referral, peer education, peer coaching, and mentor programs in schools, universities, communities, and corporations. He has a Ph.D. in metaphysics from the American Institute of Holistic Theology, a Master of Arts Degree in Clinical-School Psychology, and a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Psychology.

Rey’s interview is part of the Taking Peacemaking Public series at Engaging Conflicts Today. If you would like a copy of his interview, and are not signed up for the newsletter (which you can do in the sidebar on the right!), email me this week at engagingconflicts@gmail.com with Rey Carr in the subject line and I’ll email it to you.

            

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. His Introduction and point #1 are posted here, point #2 here, and point #3 here.

4. Ombuds Protect Their Independence

Independence is a central tenet of ombuds practice. To be credible and effective ombuds must be free from interference in the legitimate performance of their duties in fact and appearance. This independence is achieved primarily through organizational recognition, reporting structure, and neutrality. In addition, ombuds should not have any other responsibilities within their organization that would create a conflict of interest. Ombuds strive to operate independently of most administrative authorities and to report to the highest office possible. Ombuds are thus free to become involved in matters without concern for bureaucratic entanglement or restrictions.

Attorneys accustomed to hierarchical procedures and limited job descriptions may find the independence of ombuds discomforting. However, attorneys should realize that ombuds cannot provide their critical service if constrained by protocol or conflicts of interest.

Tom’s series will continue next week.

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. His Introduction and point #1 are posted here and point #2 here.

3. Ombuds Assert Their Communications are Privileged

Ombuds routinely advise that nothing revealed by the visitor, including the visitor’s identity, will be disclosed voluntarily to anyone outside the office without the visitor’s consent. (The only exception to this guarantee of confidentiality is if there is a threat of imminent harm, aka the Tarasoff exception.) Ombuds further assert that communications with visitors are privileged and that it is the ombuds who holds the privilege. Read more »

            

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. His Introduction and point #1 are posted here.

2. The ABA Has Endorsed Ombuds
The fundamental ethical guidelines for ombuds are the International Ombudsman Association’s (IOA) Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice. The first significant external commentary on ombuds practices came from the American Bar Association (ABA) in February 2004 when it issued “Standards for the Establishment and Operations of Ombuds Offices.” This marked the first time that another professional organization had examined and endorsed the role of ombuds. In response, IOA issued its own position paper in March 2006: “Guidance for Best Practices and Commentary on the American Bar Association Standards for the Establishment and Operation of Ombuds Offices.” The most significant difference between the IOA and ABA perspectives Read more »