Dear In Practice,

I’ve been an organizational ombuds for several years and demonstrating fidelity to the code of ethics is important to me. I am especially conscious of my duty to convey a sense of fairness and impartiality in the way I enact the role. At the same time, I have strong opinions and preferences about local and national political issues, and I care very much about upcoming elections. I believe I also have a duty to be civically engaged.

I would like to work on behalf of one of the candidates for local office as well as sign petitions regarding several referenda on the ballot. In addition, our local newspaper regularly publishes letters to the editor about important issues, and I want to contribute to the dialogues those letters elicit.

Undoubtedly there will be some people in the organization I work for who hold different opinions and preferences and I am concerned that these differences will affect their trust in my impartiality and fairness as ombuds. I would appreciate guidance and suggestions on how I might navigate this tension. 

Staying True to Ourselves

Ellen Goldstein, MA, COO, Director, UCSF Office of the Ombuds

This is a tricky situation – how do we practice impartiality while staying true to ourselves as activists in this highly polarized time? I face this regularly as an ombuds at a large academic medical center where divisive politics are sometimes a catalyst for ombuds office visits.

I walk the line between my professional self and my private self by being selective in how I engage in politics. I have not joined any activist organizations or facilitated political sessions in my institution. I know anything that is published or public (i.e. my social media presence) could be seen by anyone at my institution and impact conclusions about my office’s impartiality. I don’t write letters to the editor, and my one social media account is under a pseudonym, making it more difficult to search.

On the other hand, I regularly call my members of Congress, donate to efforts aligned with my values, and attend public demonstrations. I belong to political groups that address concerns I feel passionate about, although I don’t sign published letters.

Perhaps most important is my commitment to making myself available to be an effective impartial resource with visitors. I’m encouraged that people who hold opinions that differ from mine, or can be presumed to differ, are repeat visitors. They have experienced my commitment to being an effective thought partner – asking meaningful questions, brainstorming options, and talking in ways that may open space for a full range of perspectives to be considered. These moments confirm for me that my professional identity as an ombuds and my personal identity as someone who is engaged with public concerns are often complementary rather than competing.

Seek the Common Good

Craig Mousin, Distinguished Ombuds Emeritus

Throughout my career I frequently faced similar concerns about my outside community involvement. The text of IOA’s Code of Ethics seems to offer no wiggle room in defining “impartiality” because an ombuds “does not take sides or serve as an advocate for any person or entity.” One finds no language that limits this restriction to work. Conversely, neither does the text prohibit external engagement.

The vast variety of ombuds offices in corporate, governmental, and educational entities in rural and urban environments suggest that one’s location may predict whether one’s political  activity could easily be discovered by a visitor. Moreover, today we face a new kind of polarization, one characterized by Dr. Jennifer McCoy as “pernicious polarization,” a divide that stretches beyond ideology to a divide that critiques the other’s identity. We have reached a point where even the brand of coffee we drink may expose us to assumptions about our identity. Identity conflicts raise the greatest challenges. Thus, text and context suggest an ombuds can neither engage in political activities nor work for a candidate.

Yet, we are all human beings with lives centered in our communities. We care that they flourish. As we encourage visitors to become agents striving for healthy workplaces, our communities call us to help them thrive. I have argued that ombuds can advocate for justice without necessarily taking a position, by seeking fair procedures and due process. Why should ombuds abdicate that role in the most important part of their family’s life--their community?

One common denominator of successful ombuds is their ability to build and maintain trust that they are impartial advocates for justice within their organizations, despite arriving with histories which may include advocacy prior to donning the ombuds mantle. Navigating the workplace requires trusting relationships and ombuds who hold academic appointments must ensure some level of objectivity in the classroom despite deep personal beliefs. In that old adage that many of us break, we do schedule lunch with an HR staff member or a senior executive, in part to build relationships that will help address issues later on, but we rely on the trust we have built that if someone sees us, they will not immediately assume we have crossed the impartiality line.

For many ombuds, federal rules prohibit using an institution’s resources for political activity. Employers trust us not to campaign within the workplace, but do not restrain us from outside activity. I have elsewhere analogized ombuds’ work to that of a foreign diplomat suggesting that we are often a helpful stranger within our organization. Everyone knows the diplomat represents a nation, but once on foreign soil, must navigate representing a home nation while remaining open to the positions of the host nation. Trust must exist both between home and diplomat, as well as host and diplomat. As ombuds, we work for an organization, but we are as impartial to that entity as we are with the visitors who seek our wisdom. Visitors must trust that the entity that signs our paycheck does not control us. We are a stranger to both, but a helpful stranger for all concerned.

In The Dance of Opposites, Kenneth Cloke argues, “For mediators, this means dropping our pretense of objectivity, neutrality, expertise, and professional truth, admitting our humanity...and endeavoring to become omni-partial, or on both people’s sides at the same time….” (p. 128). Building trust within our organizations allows us to become political in our personal lives to protect our communities.

Perhaps the pernicious polarization of our times precludes the possibility of building such trust. That remains a risk, but this may also be the time when the training we have as ombuds makes us more effective and necessary in the political arena. If being an ombuds requires us to abdicate advocating for a better community for our family and friends, we simply resign to the bullies and behaviors that make our community more fragile. As ombuds we have always had to straddle difficult issues and build trust where others see polarization and conflict. Let us remain engaged in our communities and seek the common good.

We value the opportunity to engage with our membership on the dilemmas we face in our roles. Please let us know your perspective on this dilemma in the comment section below.