An ombudsperson is an independent neutral party appointed by an institution or organization to represent and defend the collective interests of a group served precisely by the institution and/or organization that appoints him/her. Ombuds investigate and resolve complaints about public and private organizations. They also encourage good practice in the way complaints are handled by organizations and government bodies.
Conceptually, an ombudsperson's office must reflect the values of the organization it serves. Also, the organization appointing an ombudsperson must be open to constructive self-criticism and change as there is very little use in appointing an ombudsperson if the organization is hostile to reform and change.
Rarely is an ombuds office structured or equipped to handle individual complaints or to resolve them as they come. The ombudsperson is not meant to be the first line of resort in a dispute resolution process because it is not his place to assign blame or provide redress on a case-per-case basis. Rather, the ombubs is interested in the nature of disputes with a view towards changing corporate or institutional policy from the very top. In this way, the ombuds is instrumental in resolving not a single grievance but thousands of similar grievances by bringing about structural policy changes. An ombuds eternally asks himself “what needs to be done to prevent this kind of dispute from arising again?”
An ombudsperson needs to be independent from the organization appointing him and establish an arms length relationship with the organization he or she serves.
For the ombuds to perform his/her duties diligently and responsibly, the appointing organization must make resources readily available so that the office is not perceived as slow and bureaucratic.
Additionally, the appointing organization must permit the ombuds to initiate investigations without unnecessary hindrance to ascertain processes, not with the goal of assigning guilt, but to make sound, fact-based recommendations on which management may change policy to cure negligence or improve processes.
The ombudsperson must write his findings and recommendation in the form of a formal report. This report must be public because it is the link between the organization and the group it serves. It lends legitimacy to the work of the ombuds and the intentions of the appointing organization. Without a public report, the endeavour would lack transparency and without transparency there can be no legitimacy.
Lastly, the ombudsperson must be accountable and, therefore, he/she must be the object of supervision. Supervisory/accountability mechanisms must be transparent and objective so as to not appear arbitrary in the eyes of the group being served by the ombudsman through the appointing organization.