In Practice Dilemma #7: Breaking Up is Hard to Do
Dear In Practice,
As an ombuds, I am committed to being non-judgmental and accessible. I firmly believe these values are essential to my work. Still, there have been times when I’ve been faced with a situation where I felt continued services were no longer appropriate or productive.
In one case, the visitor, long after their initial concern was resolved, continued requesting weekly meetings to discuss a range of personal and work-related issues. After several meetings I noticed he would check his watch and excuse himself after 50 minutes. It was then that I began to suspect he was confusing our meetings with therapy.
Another situation involved a visitor who displayed what Bill Eddy would describe as a “high conflict behaviors.” During our conversations she was visibly frustrated with my impartiality, so much so that she complained about the “do-nothing” ombuds office to leadership. Still, she continued contacting the office and requesting meetings to discuss her latest issue.
Under what circumstances can I ethically discontinue services for a visitor who wants to continue utilizing the ombuds office? And how do I do so with the least negative impact to the visitor, my office, and my own sense of ethical duty?
We invite you to respond to this dilemma with your insights, perspective, and guidance. Responses - which must be under 250 words - can be submitted by email to [email protected]. Please provide your submission by Friday, March 28th for consideration. Submissions may be edited for length and clarity. In our next column we will share a sampling of your responses and again provide a space for public comment and discussion.
Thank you for sharing these very real and challenging dilemmas. Navigating visitor expectations while maintaining the integrity of the Ombuds role requires careful balance, patience, and clear communication. I am curious as to what the visitor’s perceptions are around the role of Ombuds. It seems from the account of your experience; there is confusion with being treated as a weekly therapy session and a need to do something. When I have been confronted with these visitor behaviors, I have pushed back with open ended questions. Here is how I might respond: • Help me understand what you might be looking for from the Ombuds Office. (seeking understanding) • I see that you are scheduling frequent weekly visits, what is it that you are hoping to resolve (within the scope of conflict) in our time together? (actively listen) • My role is to empower you to come up with solutions you feel you might be able to implement. I can coach and provide you with the tools. I am wondering what might be preventing you from addressing the conflict directly. (getting to the root) Techniques I may use: • Another effective technique is "naming the dynamic." gently and objectively identifying patterns or behaviors that are emerging in the conversation. By doing so, you help the visitor gain awareness of how they are engaging with their situation, the Ombuds, or with others. o It sounds like you want the Ombuds to make decisions and provide actions. What is preventing you from making decisions and moving to action? What are you most concerned about? (Conflict styles) o "I'm noticing that our conversations often circle back to the same challenge without identifying next steps. What do you think is keeping you from moving forward?"(encourage self reflection) • Maintain professional boundaries: reiterate the role of an Ombuds (impartiality). Ask the visitor if they have a support system that can fill the role of therapist (refer to EAP or an academic peer/ counseling office) or whether they have an ally that can support them in the way they are seeking. The approach of using open-ended questions to guide visitors toward self-reflection and empowerment is both insightful and aligned with the Ombuds’ intent of fostering independent problem-solving. Maintaining ethical standards, practicing active listening, and offering guidance within the Ombuds framework allow us to provide a space where visitors feel heard while also encouraging self-efficacy. Thank you for bringing attention to this important aspect of Ombuds work—it is a reminder of the delicate, yet necessary, balance we uphold in service to those navigating conflict.
A perspective that might help is to remind ourselves that as much as we remind our visitors that the services are voluntary (we can't force them or anyone to participate) that commitment to the engagement being voluntary also applies to us - the Ombuds. The how we discontinue service can vary. Once (I must confess) I did hang up on a visitor (I know, I know, mea culpa). After a couple of hours of going in circles it got to the point that they were not listening and kept talking over me and so I simply told them I was going to count backwards from 10 to 1 and hang up if they didn't stop talking. Rare I do this. 1 of 2 people I've had to abruptly disengage with. Sometimes, we just say have to say 'no' for our own professional and well-being. What might also help is that here in the scenario it indicates the person viewed the office as the "do-nothing" ombuds. They are absolutely right. As Ombuds we don't take action and so when there is a gap between expectations between the visitor and our services we most likely can't change that and so they need to go somewhere else. Why go to the doughnut shop when they want a bagel? In other words, we can't meet their needs.