You may download a copy of this report here. Document may be viewed in Acrobat Reader.

OUR MISSION

 

The Staff Ombuds Office advocates for fairness, equity, justice, and humane treatment in the workplace.  From these principles, the Staff Ombuds Office offers a confidential, impartial, objective, informal alternative for resolution of work-related concerns for staff, student employees, and managers of staff.

 

This mission, which guides all our endeavors, derives from UC Berkeley's Administrative Vision.   To accomplish this mission, we work at many different levels:

 

 

 

 

Working at all these levels, we provide staff employees and those who interact with them, including faculty and managers, with the tools they need to resolve work-related problems coÓnstructively.  Our overarching goal is to promote fairness, equity, justice, and humane treatment.

 

 

OPERATING PRINCIPLES

 

As mentioned in our mission statement, essential principles of the Staff Ombuds Office are independence, impartiality, confidentiality, and informality.  These four principles are consistent with the principles of the University and College Ombuds Association and The Ombudsman Association. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A UNIQUE ROLE

 

While bearing some similarity to and often collaborating with other offices, the Ombuds role is truly unique:


Our primary activities in support of constructive approaches to dealing with workplace conflict are:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MAJOR ACTIVITIES

 

Advising and Mediating:  Between fiscal years 2002 and 2004 we advised 874 individuals, the majority of whom were seen more than once.  This represents a 12% increase over the previous reporting period.  Working with these individuals often involved contacting several others in order to assess the situation thoroughly and facilitate resolution.  We also conducted 44 mediation sessions involving 83 individuals, including two-person and multi-party sessions. Mediations entail extensive preparation of the parties.

 

Training:  We offered fifty-one workshops on a variety of topics, including Resolving Conflicts, Civility: Respect in Action, E-Mail Civility, Managing and Mediating Conflict for Supervisors and Managers, Dealing With Difficult Situations and Behavior in the Workplace, as well as segments on conflict resolution for the Leadership Development Program and the Supervisory Development Lab.  Several unique workshops were developed based on an assessment of the specific needs of particular departments.

 

Consulting:  We met with staff organizations and served on several campus committees, not as regular, voting members, but in order to give and receive information regarding the campus climate and to assure fair process and the inclusion of many voices.   

 

 

WHO USES OUR SERVICES?

 

Job Groups:  50% of our visitors are staff in non-supervisory positions, 43% are supervisors/managers, and the remaining 6% are unknown/other (such as members of the public).  Almost all of these visitors were in career staff positions; fewer than 5% were in probationary, limited status, or contract positions. Approximately 4% of our visitors were non-Senate academics, some of whom were referred to our office by the Academic Senate Ombuds.  Although the numbers are small, the academic cases tend to be particularly complex.  In terms of major campus job group categories, the distribution is as follows:


 


Race and Gender:  The racial and gender distribution of users of our services has remained fairly steady, and is fairly close to the campus workforce distribution.  The number whose racial designation is unknown (largely due to phone appointments) has remained at 12%.  51% of those whose racial designation is known were White (down from 56%), 17% were Black (up from 14%), 9% were Asian (down from 12%), 10% were Hispanic (up from 5%), and 1% were American Indian (holding steady).  The gender distribution is 75% female and 25% male, a figure which has remained quite steady over the years.                                                                   

                       

 


 


 

 

 


WHAT CONCERNS DO PEOPLE BRING?

 

Nature of the Relationships:  78% of the problems brought to our attention concern relationships between employees and their supervisors or others in management.  This is down from 85% during the previous reporting period.  22% of the problems concern relationships with someone at approximately the same level within the work unit (up from 13%), and 13% concern relationships with people outside the work unit (no change).  (Totals exceed 100% because people sometimes present multiple relationship issues.)  More same-level conflict could be due to a competitive atmosphere brought about by organizational uncertainty, reorganizations, increased workloads, and competition for limited resources.

 

Sources of Conflict:  We no longer keep statistics on how many situations involve breakdowns in communication, because over the years we have found that the vast majority of cases were caused or exacerbated by communication problems.  Thus, we consider Communication to be a "given" -- a primary area invariably needing to be addressed when attempting to resolve conflicts.

 

Treatment/Civility remains the top category among other sources of conflict described by employees.  72% of situations involved concerns about Treatment/Civility, 33% concerned Work Styles, 24% revolved around Structure/Organization, 13% were about Performance Evaluation, 13% concerned Job Status, 8% were about Corrective Action/Discipline, and 6% alleged Discrimination.   Each other category of conflict (Compensation, Workload, Layoff, Flexible Work Arrangements, Ethics, Health/Safety, Selection, Reprisal) involved fewer than 5% of cases. (Totals exceed 100% because people often bring multiple issues.)

*Of the 6% of cases alleging discrimination, Race was the primary concern (42% of the Discrimination category, down from 48% in the past report).  The next most frequent category was discrimination based on Gender (30%, up from 28% in the last report).  Discrimination concerns regarding Disability/Health increased

from 6% to 13% in the Discrimination category.  Allegations of other forms of discrimination, such as Sexual Orientation, Age, Religion, National Origin, together comprised 21% of the Discrimination category. (Totals exceed 100% because people may allege multiple bases of discrimination.)

 

 

 

MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS

 

 

Training:  Being fully staffed with Margo Wesley (Director/Ombudsperson), Carmen McKines (Ombudsperson) and Michele Bernal (Asst. Ombudsperson/Analyst) has allowed us to greatly increase the number of training sessions conducted over the past 2 years: from 37 in the previous reporting period up to 51 (a 38% increase), with a corresponding increase in the total number of participants--931, up from 855 (a 9% increase).

 

There has been a tremendous increase in the number of requests for conflict management training tailor-made to the needs of individual departments.  Themes of civility in general and civility in use of e-mail were the most popular requests.  The satisfaction rating of employee participants in our trainings averaged 8.96 out of a possible 10.

 

 

Influencing the Campus Climate:   The Staff Ombuds Office influences systemic change in many ways, including:



In support of these change efforts, we met with several staff organizations, the Chancellor's Staff Advisory Committee, and a number of management groups to share input, broaden perspectives, and identify potential options for resolving systemic problems and moving in new directions.  We also participated on several committees and task forces aimed at improving the campus climate.  We are not voting members of committees because acting as such might compromise Ombuds independence and impartiality; however, we have influenced systemic change by providing insights on problem areas, opening up perspectives, serving as a sounding board, and offering suggestions in support of fair, inclusive, and effective processes for bringing about improvement.

 

 

 

 

TRENDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 

 

Selection and Training of Supervisors:   An ongoing systemic problem is inadequate selection and training of supervisors.   Effective supervision is always essential to attainment of the institution's goals, but it takes on even greater importance when resources are severely limited, as they have been during this reporting period.   Placing people in supervisory positions who lack the aptitude for, and experience in, supervising, and who then receive little or no training, can lead to a multitiude of problems.  Conversely, greater attention to the selection and training of supervisors can make a tremendous difference to the ability of the campus to recruit, develop, and retain motivated staff.  

 

Cultural Sensitivities in the Face of Change:  One trend we have noticed during this period relates to heightened cultural sensitivities between supervisors and employees as departments reorganize and try to bring about change.  These play out in two common ways:  1) some supervisors brought in from the outside report that employees seem stuck in outdated methods and are resistant to change; and 2) some employees report that new supervisors seem to have prematurely decided what needs to be done, and to be dismissive of their experience and knowledge.   We recommend that workshops be offered in effective methods for bringing about change, including approaches to dealing respectfully with the inevitable stresses associated with change.   A team effort by the Staff Ombuds Office, the Office of Human Resources, and CARE Services might be very effective in this regard.   We also recommend that workshops be offered on effective communication, including communication in the face of differing perspectives, experiences, and values.

 

Workload:  Another major concern is workload, especially workload increases resulting from reorganizations and reductions in resources.  Employees should not be required to do more with less--yet it is not always easy for supervisors to determine fair distribution of workloads, nor is it easy for work groups to develop streamlined ways of operating.  We recommend that the campus provide more resources for helping departments assess whether work is distributed fairly and effectively.   Organizational development training would be particularly helpful.

 

Recognition and Equity:  Often, complaints about excessive workload or inadequate compensation mask other, deeper problems--such as feelings of not being recognized or perceptions of favoritism.  We recommend that all supervisors pay closer attention to assuring that whatever they do is fair in both appearance and reality.  For example, criteria for significant decisions should be fair and should be communicated clearly; and when feasible, employees should be given an opportunity to provide recommendations regarding the development of criteria.   We also recommend that, in the absence of resources for significant

 

 

financial rewards, supervisors pay particular attention to providing other forms of recognition.  What these forms of recognition might be should be based on significant input from employees.

 

Finally, it is imperative that campus leaders model the values they espouse.     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Text: Margo Wesley

Data: Michele J. Bernal