The Ombuds Office assists faculty, students, staff, administrators, and sometimes... or others in managing and resolving campus-related conflicts and complaints. ... Ombuds Office 2014-2015 Annual Report

The Ombuds Office assists faculty, students, staff, administrators, and sometimes... or others in managing and resolving campus-related conflicts and complaints. ... Ombuds Office 2014-2015 Annual Report

Ombuds Office 2014-2015 Annual Report
Role: The Ombuds Office assists faculty, students, staff, administrators, and sometimes parents
or others in managing and resolving campus-related conflicts and complaints. For most faculty
and staff, these are interpersonal disputes. For most students and parents they are concerns
involving navigating the university bureaucracy (e.g., decisions, policies, practices). We also
provide workshops for the campus community about conflict-related topics. And, we provide
observations and comments for campus leaders; primarily about trends and systemic issues.
Standards of Practice: The Ombuds Office follows the Code of Ethics and Standards of
Practice of the International Ombudsman Association (IOA) see:
http://www.ombudsassociation.org/standards/Stds_Practice_1-07.pdf). The key elements of these
Ethics and Standards are:
Confidential: Visitors’ identities and the contents of their conversations will remain private. Only
with permission would Ombuds contact others at the university to help resolve a dispute. The
only exceptions to confidentiality are disclosures of imminent harm to self or others.
Informal: The Ombuds Office has no decision-making authority and maintains no records (other
than statistical data). Ombuds Office staff members do not participate in formal procedures. Use
of the office is strictly voluntary.
Neutral/Impartial: Ombuds maintain no personal stake in the outcome of any dispute. The
Ombuds Office does not advocate for individuals.
Independent: Ombuds exercise autonomy regarding their responsibilities. The Director of the
Ombuds Office reports to the Provost for administrative purposes only.
Not an “Office of Notice:” Following the recommendations of the International Ombudsman
Association (IOA) and the requirements for ombudsmen with the Certified Organizational
Ombudsman Practitioner® designation, the Ombuds Office is not authorized to accept notice of
claims against the University about issues such as allegations of harassment or discrimination.
Allegations are not investigated by the Ombuds Office. Instead, the office functions as a
confidential resource for visitors to discuss their concerns and consider options for addressing
them. When individuals who visit the Ombuds Office want to make the University aware of their
concerns, they are given options to do that, (e.g., contact an administrator or offices with
investigative authority).
1
About This Annual Report . . .
Time Period: The case and outreach data referenced in this report covers the time period of July
1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. However, because this Report is being written in December of
2015 and because several very significant transitions (especially staff changes) have occurred
between July 1, 2015 and December of 2015, these events will be described, as well.
Ombuds Office Staff Transitions:
In 2015 many changes occurred on the Ombuds Office team, including changes in the Director,
Associate Ombuds, Faculty Ombuds, and Administrative Assistant.
Director: After 25 years in the Ombuds Office (23 as Director), Tom Sebok will retire as
Director of the Ombuds Office effective December 31, 2015. In a national search Kirsi Aulin,
the Director of the Office of the Ombuds at UC Santa Barbara, was selected to serve as the new
Director, effective January 15, 2016. In the fall of 2015, Sebok wrote an article about some of
his most significant experiences as an Ombuds in an article called “Reflections of a Last Year
Ombudsman” published in the online Journal of the California Caucus of College and
University Ombuds (see:
http://journal.calcaucus.com/uploads/3/3/6/1/3361353/2015_journal_final.pdf, pp 8-21). His
“History of the University of Colorado Boulder Ombuds Office” will soon appear on the
Ombuds Office website (www.colorado.edu/Ombuds), as well.
Associate Ombuds: In mid-September of 2015, Associate Ombuds Jessica Kuchta-Miller left to
assume a new position as Washington University’s first Staff Ombuds. In her brief time in the
office Kuchta-Miller established herself as a first-rate organizational Ombuds professional and
will almost certainly continue to make lasting contributions to the field. Kirsi Aulin will select a
new Associate Ombuds as one of her first responsibilities upon assuming the Director role.
Faculty Ombuds: After four years of service, Professor Emerita Emily Calhoun of the CU Law
School, retired from her Faculty Ombuds position at the conclusion of the May 2015 semester.
Professor Calhoun had served as Faculty Ombuds for the final three years of her phased
retirement from the CU Law School plus an additional year after her retirement from there. As
an experienced mediator prior to working in the Ombuds Office, Calhoun assisted hundreds of
individual faculty members, collaborated frequently with former Faculty Ombuds Lee Potts,
helped orient Professor Jerry Hauser during his first year as Faculty Ombuds, coordinated a
roundtable discussion with mid-level academic administrators in 2014, and led the effort to assist
an entire academic department that had experienced significant difficulties. Once again, the
Ombuds Office was extremely fortunate to have had the services of such a talented individual.
As of this writing, a search is underway and appears nearing completion for Calhoun’s
replacement.
Administrative Assistant: Effective January 1, 2016, our outstanding Administrative Assistant,
Natasha Scholze, will leave the Ombuds Office to assume a new position in the Office of the
Chancellor assisting in events planning.
2
Contents of this Report: The report provides information about the number of contacts with
various constituent groups, the number and kinds of issues they presented, and the kinds of
assistance provided by Ombuds Office. It also describes:
•
•
•
Outreach and workshop activities during the 2014-2015 academic year;
Contributions of CU Boulder Ombuds staff to the burgeoning organizational ombudsman
profession; and
Observations and recommendations
Constituents: The Ombuds Office assists every constituent group at the University – across all
divisions.
Classification of Issues
The CU Boulder Ombuds Office uses the classification system developed by the International
Ombudsman Association (IOA) to label the reasons constituents have contact with any
organizational Ombuds office. This system includes nine broad categories (see below) and over
80 subcategories used to classify issues, questions, and concerns. Although visitors may raise
many issues in discussions, only the issues for which options are discussed are counted in our
data. The IOA categories and descriptions appear in Appendix B of this report.
Contacts with University Community Members
Total: The combined number of case and outreach contacts over the period covered by this
Report was 1154. Of these, 517 occurred via case work (including “Information Contacts” – see
below) and 640 were contacted via outreach activities (i.e., workshops, fairs, presentations, etc.).
The majority of this report will describe details about case-related work. Details about Outreach
Activities appear in Appendix A.
Information Contacts
In assisting these individuals we contacted an additional 94 individuals for relevant information
about policies, procedures, etc. These contacts are not a part of the totals we directly assisted
below. Experience has shown that contacting these individuals often serves to remind them of
our presence. Not surprisingly, some of them later initiate a request for our help and/or refer
others to the office for assistance.
Who Did the Ombuds Office Assist?
Ombuds Office staff members assisted 423 constituents with 1526 separate issues. Details
about the number of staff, faculty, students, and parents/others and the number of issues with
which we assisted them appear below.
3
Number of Constituents and Issues
Constituents
Staff
Faculty
Students
Parents/Others/Not Selected
Number of People
150
97
146
30
423
Issues
544
675
294
13
1526
What Concerns Brought People to the Ombuds Office?
Note: The Ombuds Office does not formally investigate concerns or make determinations of who
is right or wrong, etc. Issues are best viewed as uninvestigated allegations or simply perceptions
of those involved. And, almost by definition, in conflict situations, those perceptions often vary.
Many visitors presented multiple issues (which is why the number of “issues” (1526) is greater
than the number of people assisted (423). As was the case in previous years, over 55% of all
issues presented involved conflicts in interpersonal relationships. Within all interpersonal
relationship conflicts, 69% were in “Evaluative Relationships” (i.e., relationships in which one
party evaluates the work or performance of another such as supervisors and employees or
professors and students) and 31% percent involved Peers/Colleagues in which no evaluative
component. The remaining 45% were “system” issues concerning decisions, actions, or services
involving within the University bureaucracy. Of these, the most common (over 30%) was in the
category of Career Progression and Development.” The chart below provides a visual
representation of issues presented by visitors to the Ombuds Office.
Constituent Issues: 2014-15
Compensation and Benefits
Evaluative Relationships
Peer/Colleague Relationships
Career Progression and Development
Legal, Regulatory, Financial, and
Compliance
Safety, Health, and Physical Environment
Services/Administrative Issues
Organizational, Strategic, and MissionRelated
Values, Ethics, and Standards
Total
Staff
Students
16
229
160
91
6
218
259
14
0
135
58
25
0
0
0
1
22
582
477
131
14
10
13
0
37
6
22
4
9
2
47
0
11
12
89
131
19
0
1
151
5
544
14
294
0
13
25
1526
6
675
Parents/Others
Total
# of
Issues
Faculty
4
The following is a breakdown of these concerns by Staff, Faculty, and Students – the largest
constituent groups for whom the Ombuds Office provides assistance.
Staff (544 Issues):
1.
Peer and Colleague Relationships (259 issues)
Description: Questions, concerns, issues, or inquiries involving peers or colleagues who
do not have an evaluative relationship (e.g., two staff members within the same
department). The most frequent examples included issues of communication,
cooperation, and/or respect.
2.
Evaluative Relationships (218 issues)
Description: Questions, concerns, issues, or inquiries arising between people in
evaluative relationships (i.e., supervisor-employee). Common concerns included:
problems in communication, departmental climate issues, perceptions of disrespect, and
consultations with administrators or supervisors about conflict among their supervisees.
Faculty (675 Issues):
1. Evaluative Relationships (229 issues)
Description: Questions, concerns, issues, or inquiries arising between people in
evaluative relationships (i.e., chair-faculty). The most frequent concerns included:
performance expectations, communication issues, and respect.
2. Peer and Colleague Relationships (160 issues)
Description: Questions, concerns, issues, or inquiries involving peers or colleagues who
do not have a formal evaluative relationship (e.g., two faculty members within the same
department or on the same research team). While reasons for disputes varied widely, the
common threads were faculty members who expressed concerns about communication
and/or respect with colleagues.
3. Organizational, Strategic, and Mission-Related (131 issues)
Description: Questions, concerns, issues or inquiries that relate to a whole department –
not just affecting one or a few individuals.
Students (294 Issues):
Evaluative Relationships (135 issues)
1. Description: Questions, concerns, issues, or inquiries arising between people in
evaluative relationships (i.e., faculty-student). The most common situations included
5
disputes over grading and, to a much lesser extent, problems with communication and/or
respect.
2. Peer and Relationships (58 issues)
Description: Questions, concerns, issues, or inquiries involving peers who do not have an
evaluative relationship (e.g., students working together in a student organization or on a
group project in a class). The most frequent examples included issues of communication
and respect.
3. Services and Administrative Concerns (47 issues)
Description: Questions, concerns, issues, or inquiries about services or administrative
offices. Common examples included academic or administrative decisions and, to a much
lesser extent, quality of services and responsiveness or timeliness.
Gender: Almost 65% of those initiating contact with the Ombuds Office to ask for assistance
were females, 34% were male, and less than one percent was transgendered or unknown.
“Focus of Concern”
The majority of those requesting Ombuds Office assistance expressed concerns about the actions
of other people. We refer to these “others” as the “Focus of Concern.” In these matters
involving interpersonal disputes:
•
Faculty members reported having problems with 61 other faculty members, 19 staff
members, eight students;
•
Staff members reported having problems with 115 other staff members, 13 faculty
members, and seven students; and
•
Students reported having problems with 64 faculty members, 20 staff members, and 25
other students.
Thus, Faculty members were the Focus of Concern for 138 people, Staff members were the
Focus of Concern for 154 people, and Students were the Focus of Concern for 35 people.
Administrative Divisions
The Ombuds Office assisted constituents whose conflicts and concerns involve various campus
administrative divisions as follows:
Provost’s Area (total): 355 people (including Academic Affairs, Student Affairs, VC Research,
and ODECE)
Senior VC and CFO Area (total): 49 people (including Administration and Sr. VC/CFO areas)
6
a) Chancellor or System Administration: 16 people (including matters involving the
Alumni Association, Athletics, Foundation, Office of Institutional Equity and
Compliance, or Office of the Chancellor).
Faculty
Staff
Students
Parents/Other/Not
Selected
Provost
91
110
138
25
Sr. VC/CFO
4
27
6
2
Chancellor/System
2
13
1
1
Unknown
0
0
1
2
Totals
97
150
146
30
355
49
16
3
423
Constituents by Divisions
16
30
49
355
Provost
Sr VC/CFO
Chancellor
Others
Note: While, theoretically, all constituents served by the Ombuds Office might be viewed as
“under” the Chancellor, in this Report only those constituents in departments reporting directly
to the Chancellor – separate from reports through the Provost and Senior Vice Chancellor/CFO are counted in the “Chancellor” category.
Assistance Provided by the Ombuds Office:
Note: Often the assistance provided by Ombuds Office staff members consists of only one or two
hours of discussion with an individual visitor seeking our help. However, in some cases,
multiple discussions are required, many more people may become involved (sometimes half a
dozen or more), and much more time is involved, as well. A multi-party case can easily involve
40 or more hours of our time.
7
The following types of assistance were made available to everyone who requested help from the
Ombuds Office. The majority of those we assisted utilized only individual consultations (often
involving multiple interactions) but many received additional forms of assistance, as well. We
provided more than one form of assistance for a number of people.
Individual Consultation (423 people): Individual consultations were provided to everyone
who asked for our help and to everyone we contacted with permission. We listened to peoples’
concerns and engaged them in discussions designed to help them clarify their goals, and identify
and choose among various informal, formal, and administrative options to address their
concerns. We provided a safe place for them to “think out loud” about whether and/or how to
effectively communicate with another person (or people). And we often provided information
about strategies that tend to work well - and ones that don’t – for managing difficult
conversations.
For those with concerns about university bureaucracy (e.g., decisions, policies, rules,
requirements, etc.), we helped them get information to navigate the bureaucracy effectively.
Sometimes we helped people understand policies or procedures or what we understood was
likely to be important to those reviewing their requests or circumstances and helped them explore
options for presenting their concerns. In some cases, we provided feedback about draft written
correspondence (e.g., petitions or appeals) for improved clarity, organization, brevity, and/or
tact.
Department/Unit Consultation (31 people): Met with multiple individuals in a single
department or unit to gather information about group dynamics, experiences, perceptions, etc.
prior to assisting an entire unit in managing or resolving group conflicts.
Contacted Person/Office (25 people): We contacted individuals or offices in two different
circumstances: 1) to serve as “shuttle diplomats,” which often included exploring the concerns or
perspectives of those we called and/or their possible interest in mediation or 2) to gather
information about policies, procedures, expectations, etc. from people not involved in the
situation. In the first situation those called are offered Ombuds Office assistance. In the second,
they are asked to provide information that allows Ombuds Office staff to better assist visitors
requesting our help.
Mediation/Facilitation (54 people): We provided a structured mediation between two parties or
group facilitation for larger groups. Mediation requires separate meetings with the disputing
parties prior to mediation session(s). Typically, it takes two or three mediation sessions to reach
resolution on issues. Facilitation is provided for group discussions, retreats, and other meetings
to assist groups in identifying issues and making decisions.
Encouraged Visitor to refer others to Ombuds Office (24 people): Sometimes visitors primarily those in leadership or supervisory roles - come to the Ombuds Office to discuss
concerns related to the conflict or disputes of others. In addition to helping these visitors
consider their own options for assisting in these matters, we often conveyed the willingness for
them to refer those about whom they expressed concerns to the Ombuds Office.
8
Referral (60 people): Often - and usually in addition to receiving help from the Ombuds Office
- visitors are referred to other resources for assistance. Classified staff members who want to
pursue a formal grievance, for example, are referred to the Office of Labor Relations. As the
Ombuds Office is not an office of notice, those wishing to put the university on notice about
illegal harassment or discrimination are referred to the Office of Institutional Equity and
Compliance. Or, in cases where the alleged offending party is a student, such referrals are made
to the Office of Student Conduct. Staff members from these offices also refer people to the
Ombuds Office, usually when formal actions are not possible or appropriate and alternative
options are needed to manage or resolve conflicts.
Discussion
Since the first Ombudsman was appointed at the University of Colorado Boulder (1972) to assist
students in dealing with perceived bureaucratic unfairness, the Ombuds role on the CU Boulder
campus (and nation-wide) has evolved substantially. Services were expanded in 1985 to all
constituencies within the University community. Due in large part to the emergence of Ombuds
professional organizations (with codes of ethics and standards of practice), we who are now
called “organizational Ombuds” still assist individuals with navigating the bureaucracy, but we
also help very often with interpersonal and group conflict management issues. In fact, the
primary reason faculty and staff contact the office now is for help with interpersonal disputes.
Most of these occur within “Evaluative Relationships” (i.e., involving power differences) and a
smaller number within “Peer and Colleague Relationships.” Together, these two categories
account for about 69% of our casework. And, the majority of individuals seeking our help report
experiencing interpersonal disputes with someone who evaluates their work (i.e., they are
typically in the “low power” position). This, of course, means the stakes are often quite high for
these individuals – and often higher than they are for the individual with whom they have
conflict (e.g., a graduate student and her/his thesis advisor, an instructor and her/his chair, a staff
member and her/his supervisor). Those most often initiating requests for help report feeling
fearful about trying to address the problem.
As has been true for more than a decade, the services of the Ombuds Office have been used more
by staff and faculty (59%) than by students (35%). Both the amount of use and the kinds of
concerns for which faculty and staff seek help suggests there is a large and continuing need for
the services provided by the office. Faculty and staff visitors to our office tend to bring multiple
issues (97 Faculty members brought 675 issues and 150 Staff brought 544 issues). Student
concerns tend to be much more narrowly focused (146 students brought 294 issues).
There is very likely still an unmet need among students for Ombuds Office services. Many
students report not being aware of our office until someone referred them; usually within only a
few days before they make appointments to see us. We have made strides in the past year in
gaining the attention of students. We did a major revision of our website, enhanced our
Facebook presence, added a new Twitter feed, developed new student-focused videos and
brochures, and attached magnets to residence hall refrigerators. We believe this strategy will be
an especially effective way to reach students. We would like to better establish the office as a
“go-to” campus resource for any conflict/communication-related concerns. An example of one
9
such recent effort, available on the Office’s Facebook page, can be viewed here:
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikkTmgLz3IA).
Some visitors asked for Ombuds Office help before they attempt any other method of addressing
their concerns because they wanted to carefully identify and consider all their options before
deciding what to do. However, many – especially those with system-related concerns - came
after being unable to resolve their concerns through direct, administrative, or formal channels.
And, sometimes their attempts to resolve the problem at the appropriate level of the organization
resulted in their having secondary complaints to the Ombuds Office about a lack of
responsiveness. Ombuds Office staff members frequently hear, “You are the first person who has
listened to me.” Regardless of the outcome, for some this, alone, was perceived to be a valuable
service. And it seemed to “humanize” the University for them.
“Conflict” versus “Conduct”
The campus’ first Director of Faculty Relations, John Frazee, once observed that many
department chairs seemed to conflate the terms “conflict” and “conduct.” While “conflict” is an
umbrella term covering any kind of disagreement or difference between individuals, only a small
proportion of conflict involves issues of (mis)conduct. Unfortunately, one common allegation
we have heard about since 1990 when the current Director was hired (as Associate Ombudsman)
is an abuse of formal or informal power widely known as “bullying.” And, in speaking with
Ombuds colleagues around the US and the world, it is very clear that the University of Colorado
Boulder is not at all unique among institutions of higher education in experiencing this
phenomenon.
Bullying
In 2014-2015, the Ombuds Office staff spoke with 39 different people about concerns regarding
alleged bullying. (Note: Given the Ombuds Office’s neutral role, this number may also include
people who were accused of bullying. According to one definition (see:
http://www.workplacebullying.org/individuals/problem/definition/) this is “. . . repeated, healthharming mistreatment of one or more persons (the targets) by one or more perpetrators. It is
abusive conduct that is: a) threatening, humiliating, or intimidating, or b) work interference —
sabotage — which prevents work from getting done, or c) verbal abuse.”
The range of behaviors that people perceive as “bullying” can include lower level “microaggressions” (e.g., “the silent treatment,” eye-rolling, interrupting, audible sighs, etc.)
experienced over some period of time to overt forms of aggression (e.g., yelling, threatening,
making hyper-critical or demeaning comments in the presence of others). The more subtle forms
can have insidious, undermining effects and send the message, “You are not welcome here” or
even, “You are not safe here.” And when these behaviors are engaged in by those with
institutional authority (the most common allegation we hear), it often elicits fear or even dread in
self-described “targets.” Left unchecked, these lower level behaviors can erode unit norms,
resulting in more overt and hostile behaviors being seen as “acceptable.”
10
Most people experiencing what they consider “bullying” typically just want it to stop. The
Ombuds Office sometimes assists these individuals in considering whether and/or how they
might initiate conversations designed to set limits on the conduct of those they believe are
bullying them. We have developed a list of options, pros, and cons we share with individuals
who perceive they are targets of bullying. In a few cases we have even attempted mediation
between people who feel bullied and those they accuse of bullying them. But, as this online
essay (http://www.workplacebullying.org/2010/12/08/sebok-restorative-justice/) explains,
alleged bullying is difficult to mediate and success depends on a number of critical variables; not
the least of which is an alleged bully’s willingness to acknowledge his own behavior, learn how
it affected the other person(s), agree to change future behaviors, and even find ways to make
amends.
Two other strategies we have employed to assist members of the campus community with this
problem are: 1) engaging members of departments in setting their own group norms and 2)
helping bystanders consider a wide range of options to either interrupt or follow up after
witnessing bullying. Both of these approaches seem potentially valuable in making a positive
difference in limiting this behavior. There is even specialized coaching help available for those
who engage in these behaviors (see: http://www.bosswhispering.com/). This, too, holds out
significant promise.
In 2012, psychologist Laura Crawshaw, author of Taming the Abrasive Manager, and Kirsi
Aulin (incoming Director of the CU Boulder Ombuds Office) teamed up to create an
organization that eventually became known as the Consortium on Abrasive Conduct in Higher
Education (CACHE). This group of Ombuds, Human Resources professionals, researchers, and
administrators has dedicated itself to exploring “promising practices” for colleges and
universities seeking solutions to the problem of “abrasive conduct” in higher education
(Crawshaw and others in this group eschew the term “bullying”). These practices can be viewed
at: http://www.cacheconsortium.org/. Staff and faculty from the CU Boulder Ombuds Office
have attended and presented the first three CACHE meetings, including the meeting in June of
2015 at the Harvard Law School.
Systemic Problem
Bullying is not just a problem of individuals acting badly. It is a systemic problem. And, almost
always, it needs a systemic solution. It is unlikely to abate unless individuals with administrative
authority recognize it and make clear “we don’t do that here.” However, conveying this message
requires both consciousness and courage. And people experiencing or observing need to feel
safe taking this issue to management. Otherwise, it will very likely continue. And, depending
on the circumstances – especially who is involved, cherished values (e.g., academic freedom,
tenure), can sometimes conflict with administrators’ ability to address this problem by using their
(often limited) authority to address it. For our faculty, the Boulder Faculty Assembly’s
“Professional Rights and Duties” document (see:
http://www.colorado.edu/bfa/sites/default/files/attached-files/PRDJanuary16_2013.pdf) is one
hopeful starting point. It specifies “expected” conduct, including the expectation that faculty
members will, “. . . treat others (students, colleagues, and staff members) with understanding,
dignity, and respect . . .” and department chairs are expected to hold faculty members responsible
11
for following this expectation. However, there is very limited training for chairs about even
“garden variety” conflict; let alone specialized training about how to effectively set limits on
their colleagues’ inappropriate behavior.
At CU Boulder, chairs may request the help of the Director of Faculty Relations in investigating
and recommending actions to administrators for dealing with this problem. While this appears to
parallel the use of the Office of Institutional Equity and Compliance (OIEC) for investigating
and making recommendations about harassment or discrimination, it has not been used nearly as
much as the OIEC investigation team. And, unlike matters involving protected class harassment
or discrimination, there is no law or campus policy specifically prohibiting bullying (unless it
involves allegations of protected class harassment, etc.). This, of course, leads to the question,
“Should we have a policy?”
One of four categories of “Promising Practices” on the CACHE website is “Policies.” The
CACHE group almost unanimously seems to believe that having a policy - with an investigative
component – is necessary but not sufficient to impact this problem. A few other universities
have developed policies. At Oregon State University (OSU), for example, allegations of
bullying are investigated by the same office charged with investigating allegations of protected
class harassment. In a recent conversation with Sue Theiss, the Director of the Ombuds Office
there, she explained that, since the OSU policy was implemented:
1. Many more people across the campus seem to be aware of the problem;
2. Additional staff members were needed (and eventually hired) to conduct
investigations because bullying investigations have taken more time than was
anticipated;
3. Many people in vulnerable groups (e.g., graduate students) who believe they are
experiencing bullying at the hands of, say, faculty advisors still hesitate to make
formal complaints;* and
4. The number of individuals who ask for help with the problem from the Ombuds
Office has increased.
*One attendee in a fall 2015 meeting of graduate program administrators at CU Boulder described
the effects of making such a complaint on a graduate student as “career suicide.”
In December 2014, the CU Boulder Staff Council passed a resolution encouraging the
administration to explore creating such a policy for CU Boulder. According to the current Chair
of the CU System Staff Council, CU’s new Vice President for Human Resources (HR) has asked
all the campus HR departments to review current policies that might address bullying.
12
Organizational Culture and Climate Issues
Over the past several years, Ombuds Office team members have given increasing attention to the
role and potential influence of organizational culture (i.e., “how we do things around here”)
within departments. And, this is particularly true with respect to departmental norms for
managing conflict. New faculty or staff quickly learn “how things are done around here” in order
to assimilate – especially with respect to how conflict is handled. All departments, of course,
have “conflict norms” but these are almost never developed in a conscious manner and rarely do
all departmental members have an opportunity to help write them. We have now assisted
numerous departments in developing their own “Conflict Communication Protocols.”
Developing these “protocols” can help empower department members to proactively develop
their own group norms for dealing with conflicts. The approach we use, initially developed by
Larry Hoover, a now retired UC Davis mediator, engages participants in a collaborative process
to consider and answer a series of specific questions about how they will handle future conflicts
when they arise within their departments. A follow-up study in one department of 40 people
suggested most people were using the new protocol and that it was helpful. Anecdotal feedback
from other departments suggests similar results.
Administrative Concerns
Approximately 35% of Ombuds Office cases involve administrative concerns. These are about
things like: seemingly arbitrary administrative decisions, rigid or ineffective bureaucracy, or
unfairly or differentially applied policies or procedures, etc. These often require that we assist
visitors in understanding and/or navigating various formal policies, procedures, or offices at the
University. Sometimes that assistance requires that we help visitors consider how they might
approach offices or decision-makers to make requests. This is a service whose value is often
unrecognized. Simply telling visitors “go to the x office and file a petition,” assumes they
understand what those evaluating such a petition will consider important and that they have the
skills to communicate effectively about their circumstances in written form. In our experience,
many visitors often need help with one or both of these things. In fact, success for those with
these kinds of concerns often begins with understanding the formal and informal rules of the
system. Often, Ombuds Office staff members’ familiarity with the campus culture, policies, and
our access to key people are quite valuable for these visitors.
Workshops
In the past year we have offered several workshops (multiple times) which help various members
of the university community to learn skills and strategies for dealing with conflict. We made
presentations to the LEAP program. And, we have presented numerous other workshops which
have often resulted in additional requests for and referrals to the office for assistance. This
outreach has become a larger part of our work in recent years. We believe these workshops are
of much value to those who attend them. A few examples include the following:
We have offered a workshop called “Promoting a Respectful Workplace” several times in the
past year through the auspices of the Department of Organizational and Employee Development
13
and with significant promotional support from Boulder Staff Council. These workshops have
been filled to capacity and evaluation feedback has been consistently outstanding.
A workshop – this one for supervisors – has been offered several times in the past year on the
topic of “Dealing with Conflict Among or Between Your Direct Reports.” These have also been
offered through the auspices of the Department of Organizational and Employee Development.
Some researchers have suggested that when low level “micro-aggressions” are left unchecked,
they tend to become the norm and, eventually, degrade the organizational climate. This
workshop helps supervisors to recognize the difference between “conflict” and “conduct” issues
and to develop skills and strategies appropriate for dealing with either. Again, the evaluation
feedback for this workshop has been consistently outstanding.
A workshop called “Assessing Whether and How to Address Workplace Conflict,” is part of
Organizational and Employee Development’s “Highly Effective Manager” training series. This
fast-paced course assists supervisors in clarifying and communicating their own expectations,
understanding various conflict-related roles they will likely be called upon to play as supervisors,
and better understanding the criteria for playing each of these roles. It also presents a few key
skills for managing challenging kinds of conflicts when they arise among those they supervise.
Program Reviews
In the 2013-14 academic year the Ombuds Office was evaluated as part of the Administrative
Prioritization Project. In the past year and-a-half we went through two additional reviews. One
was conducted by Pacifica Human Communications and the other was an Academic Planning
and Review Committee (ARPAC) review.
Pacifica Human Communications
In the summer of 2014 the Ombuds Office hired Pacifica Human Communications to undertake a
separate program review. Pacifica had undertaken some of the largest “return on investment”
investigations ever conducted on organizational Ombuds offices. Given the small budget
available for this program review, as well as data limitations of both the Ombuds Office and
other University offices, Pacifica concluded, “With limited information concerning only two
components of the OO contribution (Productivity and Training), for only a third of the
population it serves, it is an extremely conservative estimate to state the Ombuds Office returns
more than $350,000 of value to the University of Colorado Boulder.” (Pacifica Human
Communications, LLC. © 2014).
Moreover, despite the limitations of time and money for this effort, Pacifica was able to offer a
number of potentially valuable recommendations. Some that seemed particularly insightful
included:
•
•
•
•
Adopt a charter
Position the Ombuds Office with at least a dotted line to the Chancellor
Initiate creation of an Advisory Board for the Ombuds Office with a focus on being
aligned, embedded, and integrated (AEI) and effectiveness
Collect data to align with the categories in the HR Dashboard
14
•
•
•
Clarify that Faculty Ombuds work in the Ombuds Office and are not a separate entity
Create opportunities to list or introduce the Ombuds Office as a resource
Meet semi-annually or annually with all Department Heads, Faculty and Staff, as well as
student organizations
On the questions of “importance to the University of Colorado Boulder” and the “internal
demand” among various constituencies (from the Administrative Prioritization Project), some of
Pacifica’s recommendations seem particularly salient: 1) create an advisory board and 2) meet
semi-annually or annually with key decision-makers (or stakeholders). These ideas appear to
deserve serious consideration.
Academic Review and Planning Committee (ARPAC)
In late 2014 and early 2015, as one of seven non-academic departments reporting to the Provost,
the Ombuds Office took part in yet another program review. This one was called the Academic
Review and Planning program review. According to the website, “As with other reviews, the
goal is to discover what these offices do well and what they can do better, what they need to do
that they are not currently doing and what they should stop doing. The review provides an
opportunity to ask questions about the organization of the division, how it relates to the rest of
the campus, and how it contributes to the overall campus mission. The review gives the faculty a
chance to reflect upon the campus’ academic administration and how it can be improved”
(http://arp.colorado.edu/my-pages/15/15aa).
The process began with a Self-Study. The next steps of the review process involved meeting
with two Internal Reviewers, Rebecca Maloy, Associate Professor from the College of Music
and Jennifer Kneivel, Associate Professor from the Libraries early in 2015. These reviewers
noted a number of areas for attention or improvement. After the External Reviewers’ visit, the
final ARPAC report is likely to include recommendations about the need for:
•
… contiguous space for all Ombuds Office employees (rather than a separate space for
Faculty Ombuds) to promote “professional debriefing and informal mentoring;"
•
… the provost and CU lobbyist to confirm the support of the university president and
support Ombuds in collaborating with Ombuds colleagues elsewhere in Colorado to
pursue a state shield law for Ombuds;
•
… better compensation for Faculty Ombuds.
Observations and Recommendations for Campus Administrators
1. Unusually high turnover rates and/or excessive use of sick and vacation leave within
departments or units are often indicators of problems. Top administrators often have
little or no idea (sometimes for years) about when this is occurring. Likely, this occurs
because they are so busy trying to manage so many different initiatives and problems that
they rely primarily on information provided by their direct reports about what is
happening within units under their supervision. And those individuals providing this
information may, themselves, lack accurate or complete information. And, in some
15
cases, they may not even want campus leaders to know about problems. While overreliance on these individuals can be efficient, it also risks leaving campus leaders with an
incomplete, inaccurate, or even distorted view of what is really happening for an
unnecessarily long time.
Recommendations:
•
Set warning flags within the human resources management system to provide
campus leaders with more timely information about departments experiencing
unusually high turnover or excessive sick and/or vacation leave.
•
Use exit interviews and/or exit surveys and provide training for those gathering
this data on “best practices” for eliciting this data from departing employees to
increase the likelihood they will provide candid responses.
•
Use either 360 degree or upward feedback in order to gather more complete
information than is available using only a “top-down” evaluation system.
•
Engage the assistance of the Organizational and Employee Development staff
(even if it means hiring additional staff for that department) to help with
providing exit interviews, 360 degree or upward feedback, and, if needed,
organizational development assessment, interventions, and/or training.
•
Encourage campus leaders who evidence limited skills in addressing “people
problems” (e.g., misconduct, unmet expectations, broken promises) to make use
of the Ombuds Office or provide them with executive coaching opportunities in
cases where it appears they might benefit from such coaching.
2. There appears to be a lack of information about how frequently departmental grade
appeals processes are utilized and how well they are working:
•
For many years the campus had no formal grade appeal process at all. When
those procedures were finally implemented, the existence of formal grade appeal
procedures conveyed the message that the university cares about both academic
freedom for faculty and fairness in grading for students. However, there has been
no evaluation of how well formal grade appeals procedures are working. How
often are formal grade appeals successful? How do students perceive the way
they were treated in the process? How well do chairs and faculty members view
the way the process is working?
•
When the Honor Council determines that a student accused of cheating did not
cheat, what happens when the faculty member insists on administering an
academic penalty? Students have the option to request the help of a chair in
brokering a satisfactory resolution. If the chair is unable to broker a satisfactory
resolution the student can then appeal to an ad hoc departmental committee of
16
faculty members. But faculty members are under no obligation to change a grade
they perceive to be fair – even if a chair or ad hoc committee recommends it.
What happens in this case? In theory the matter can be decided upon by a dean
(who has the legal authority to change a student’s grade, but not to direct a faculty
member to do so). Does this ever happen? How often? How do all the
participants in the process feel about the fairness of both the process and the
outcome?
Recommendation: Encourage academic departments to gather information about how
frequently formal grade appeals are used and ask all participants to provide evaluative
feedback about their experiences. Make adjustments in the process if they appear to
be needed.
3. Many academic administrators (especially department chairs) often find themselves in the
uncomfortable position of fielding complaints from students, staff, and faculty about
allegedly bad behavior of their faculty colleagues. Some chairs believe individuals
should simply “work things out” on their own and don’t investigate strategies for dealing
with conflict and inappropriate conduct. Over the past five years, both through the
auspices of the Office of Faculty Relations and the Leadership Education for
Advancement and Promotion (LEAP) program, more workshops have been offered to
assist chairs in improving their skills and expanding their strategies for dealing with these
kinds of concerns. Continue and, if possible, expand these workshop offerings.
Recommendations:
•
Encourage the use of available campus resources (especially Faculty Ombuds
and/or Director of Faculty Relations) to assist chairs in dealing with the full range
of conflict-related issues.
•
Provide specialized coaching to assist department chairs in improving their
repertoire of conflict management skills
4. A few universities in the US (and many others internationally) have developed anti-
bullying policies. Any such policy would need to clearly define “workplace bullying” to
assist individuals in clarifying problem behavior so they can focus on options best suited
to the issue. This would also help minimize over use of “bullying” accusations, which
tend to escalate conflict. It would also help ensure that when actual bullying does occur,
the significant harms that it causes (research suggests harms are likely more frequent and
more significant that the harms suffered by victims of sexual harassment) can be
appropriately addressed. And, a policy would need to define a procedure for formally
investigating such claims, and protect the rights of all parties involved (including
academic freedom). Policies about harassment and discrimination followed by
appropriate training have educated members of the campus community about this topic
and provided a formal mechanism for dealing with these problems when they occur. We
believe a similar policy and training about workplace bullying could have a similar
impact on that problem.
17
Recommendation: Engage appropriate stakeholders (e.g., Office of University Counsel,
Office of Institutional Equity and Compliance, Ombuds Office, Employee Relations,
representatives of faculty, staff, and student governance groups) in discussions about
whether and/or how to best implement a university policy clearly defining, prohibiting,
and when appropriate, investigating allegations of “bullying.”
In Closing . . .
The Ombuds Office staff has no authority to investigate or sanction anyone. So, we start with
the assumption that the issues visitors present to us are ones they honestly believe to be actual
problems. The number of referrals and requests for Ombuds Office assistance, the
responsiveness from members of the university community we contact with permission for help,
and the various review processes involving the Ombuds Office in the past several years suggest
the Ombuds Office enjoys a favorable reputation on campus. Services benefit many individuals
and the work appears to improve the climate of the university in numerous ways each year. If the
Ombuds Office did not exist, it is likely that many more people would try to involve
administrators and/or use formal options to address their concerns. Some problems would likely
fester and might erupt in unexpected and potentially destructive or embarrassing ways. The
university gains much good will by providing Ombuds Office services to help individuals
informally manage and resolve interpersonal and administrative problems. The continuing
support of the Office of the Provost in performing this challenging and rewarding work is
enormously appreciated.
Appendix A
Outreach:
The Ombuds Office had 640 contacts via 26 different outreach activities in 2014-2015. These
activities include workshops, lectures, and presentations for faculty, staff, and students about
various conflict-related topics. It also includes participation in various fairs for particular
constituents (e.g., RA’s, parents, new faculty).
All of these are proactive efforts designed to assist participants in learning about conflict
generally and often, to learn conflict-related skills. All of these efforts promote awareness of
Ombuds Office services. In fact, many workshop participants make appointments later to visit
the office or refer others to do so. And, hopefully, the workshops provide valuable tools to help
constituents better manage their own conflicts.
18
Outreach Data 2014-2015
Date:
Division:
Workshop
# of
Attendees:
7/14
Student Affairs
Parent Fairs
30
7/30/14
Conflict Mgmt. for Leaders
22
8/21/14
Provost
8/22/14
Student Affairs
9/2/14
Provost
Promoting a Respectful
Workplace
Stampede Leadership
Camp
Conflict Management in the
Classroom
GLBTQ Student Leaders
Workshop
PACS Class
26
8/16/14
VC
Administration
VC
Administration
Student Affairs
10/14/14
System
CU Diversity Summit
24
11/7/14
Respectful Workplace
30
11/8/14
VC
Administration
Student Affairs
40
11/11/14
ODECE
11/12/14
ODECE
11/12/14
Provost
CU GOLD Leadership
Conference
CU Boulder Diversity
Summit
CU Boulder Diversity
Summit
LEAP Workshop
1/7/15
VC
Administration
Provost
Highly Effective Manager
16
Law School Alternative
Careers Panel Discussion
FSAP/OO Seminar
15
Respectful Workplace
17
A&S Advising Presentation
34
Respectful Workplace
12
FSAP/OO Seminar
16
UMC Facilitation
31
7/30/14
3/5/15
3/10/15
4/8/15
4/13/15
4/20/15
4/29/15
5/5/15
VC
Administration
VC
Administration
Provost
VC
Administration
VC
Administration
Student Affairs
140
20
18
34
3
5
12
18
19
5/15/15
Student Affairs
RHA Training
3
5/18/15
Respectful Workplace
37
Highly Effective Manager
12
6/4/15
VC
Administration
VC
Administration
VC Research
Respectful Workplace
7
6/29/15
Student Affairs
New Student Resource
Fair
18
6/3/15
640
20