Ombuds’ corner: Impartiality, one of the Ombuds' values

In accordance with the Code of Ethics of the International Ombudsman Association, one of the main values of the Ombuds is his impartiality. In interceding in a misunderstanding or a conflict the Ombuds keeps in mind the interests of both parties as well as the interests of the Organization. The Ombuds does not take sides and does not favour one person over another. In resolving a conflict, he is required to contact all parties involved and to treat them equally.

People who contact the Ombuds often prefer him not to take any action and in particular not to contact anyone else. This desire must be fully respected so that the visitor remains completely in control of any developments regarding his/her case. In such cases, the Ombuds does not have the possibility to seek  the impressions of the other party involved in the conflict and cannot fulfil his role of mediator. His means of improving the situation are thus limited to listening to the person and trying to help him/her by discussing the various options that he/she may take on his/her own.

Joanna* comes to the Ombuds to complain that she has been treated unfairly by her entire hierarchy. Her perception is that they have all schemed against her and that she has no way of making herself heard or of finding out why she is being put under such pressure. She feels that they have all decided to get rid of her for a reason unknown to her, as her work is never openly criticised. She is convinced that she fulfils all the duties associated with her functions satisfactorily.

After having actively listened to her, alongside various alternatives involving taking action herself, the Ombuds offers to meet her supervisor to understand his view of the situation and to open the way for a common facilitated discussion with the Ombuds. Joanna immediately refuses, stating in no uncertain terms that she does not want anyone else to be contacted; she does not want anyone to know that she has come to the Ombuds as she is afraid that it may make the situation worse for her. The Ombuds can then only listen to her, try to coach her and suggest a few lines of action that she could take herself. This is a very useful first step but any possibility of mediating such a dispute is ruled out as the Ombuds does not have the permission to contact the other party to find out how he/she perceives the conflict. This means that he cannot have an impartial view of the situation and his help can only be limited. Let us recall that the job of the Ombuds, according to his mandate, is not to be Joanna’s advocate, but to help CERN and everyone associated with it in a neutral way.

What is going on here? Fear of retaliation? Retaliation against someone who has consulted the Ombuds is formally forbidden and may result in disciplinary action. Is it public knowledge in the group that its hierarchy does not like people to go to the Ombuds? Why? The Ombuds is there to help everyone and to improve life at CERN. The fact that someone is seeking to resolve a conflict with the Ombuds' help should be seen as a positive action for everyone and certainly not as an attack on supervisors or the management. A change of culture is needed to ensure that people approach conflicts positively, as this creates a possibility to resolve them. Any conflict that is pushed under the rug or avoided by running away or giving vague explanations will resurface one day or another and will then explode into an open dispute.

Conclusion:

Going to talk to the Ombuds should be seen in our Organization as a positive move towards an informal resolution of conflicts, which are inevitable. Meeting the Ombuds should be encouraged and should not be seen as an additional problem. Remember that the Ombuds is impartial; he is there to help supervisees and supervisors in a neutral, impartial, informal and confidential way. By going to the Ombuds very early on in a dispute or a misunderstanding, you actually protect everyone and the Organization against the escalation of destructive feelings, which are ultimately very detrimental to the efficiency of all the persons involved.

* Names and story are purely fictitious.

by Vincent Vuillemin