Report of the Office of the Ombudsman 1992-1995

A Three-Year Report by David J. DeLaura, University Ombudsman

During the 1992-93 academic year a total of 250 members of the University community came to the Ombudsman's office; 280 came in 1993- 94, and 268 in 1994-95. The cases are itemized here according to the issues involved in the complaint, the school of the University from which the complainant came, and the complainant's personnel category. As in all past years, job-related issues were the principal concern of those using the office. Such complaints range between 34% and 40% of all cases during these three years. The next most common categories comprise procedural irregularities in the workplace or in academic settings, accounting together for close to 40% of the cases. The remainder are distributed in relatively small numbers among a variety of headings. Employment, promotion, and procedural issues frequently involve angry harassment complaints between participants who are quite unequal in power.

The figures recorded here, however, although similar to those reported in recent years, do not reflect the magnitude and the serious implications of a good many recent cases. Because this is a time of institutional reassessment and change at Penn, we believe this is the right moment to open a discussion of what we see, on a daily basis, as "ailing" the University and the ways in which it conducts its business. Our concern about a detectable and disturbing slippage in what may be called the "personal climate" in recent years, prompts us to offer a more pointed statement than usual, focusing on complaints that usually arise from experiences that may be described as a hostile atmosphere in the workplace.

We have encountered a marked and pervasive increase in managerial irresponsibility--by which we mean the unwillingness of supervisors to intervene in a timely and appropriate way when disputes and grievances arise, or to be responsive to employees in harassment situations. Many fail to acknowledge that "management" extends beyond competence in one's primary responsibility, and must include the humane and equitable treatment of all employees.

Arbitrary and unpredictable behavior seems to be quite acceptable in some areas of the University. This climate of bad manners and incivility, of indifference to the feelings and rights of others, no doubt reflects widely noted changes in society at large. But our experience suggests that the conduct of a significant number of individuals, indeed of whole units, falls below the standard one expects today in enlightened business organizations.

Increasingly, at Penn, the ethos has ceased to be one of accountability, of doing "the right (and responsible) thing." Instead, managers frequently decline to "become involved"; some will persist in doing what they can get away with, or claim they have been "following policy," when in fact they have been manipulating policy to their own advantage. Others in effect now ask: "What is the minimum I must do to avoid legal action or dismissal?" Yelling and abusive behavior, along with disrespectful and sniping remarks, are obvious examples of misbehavior. More subtle is the instinct to turn the burden back on the complainant, saying: "What are you doing to bring this situation on yourself?" In the academic area, and especially dealing with women graduate students, highly variable and arbitrary and even offensive conduct is quite common. But it is important to stress that these passive or aggressive behaviors occur in many areas, and quite as acutely in the non-academic units of the University.

A distinct area of irresponsible behavior is the failure to attend to experience and qualifications in hiring. Some seem to get hired because they are relatives or friends, or on some other subjective basis. These are the very people who are treated preferentially, as loyal to oneself, thus adding to the adversarial relationship that some managers have with their other employees. We also urge employers to assess their needs carefully when they prepare a job description for hiring. In too many cases, the persons hired find what is expected of them to be very different from the posted description, and are told to "hang in there while we work things out."

Irresponsible management practices and inhumane treatment take a heavy toll on both productivity and morale. Our strong impression is that many competent and experienced employees are (in the words of one observer) "giving up hope in the workplace"; indeed, employees are losing health and sleep because of capricious and manipulative superiors. Another consequence is the high turnover of disgusted employees, including some of the ablest and most valuable, often in perennially troubled areas.

Some supervisors seem unaware that some employees are in legally protected categories. Increasingly the lack of timely and appropriate intervention, on the part of supervisors and other University officials, has become the subject of legal action, quite as much as the initial complaint of harassment or unfair treatment. At risk, in this new environment, are supervisors as well as the resources and good name of the University.

The goal of our office is to foster an environment in which job satisfaction is the rule, and where employees are encouraged to develop their professional skills. Our guiding principle is that managers, who after all set the standards of behavior, must not only pursue excellence in their work, but also ensure humane and fair treatment of all employees--not least, those who are most at risk and lack the means to protest against unequal and abusive conditions. Indeed, it serves no purpose to humiliate and belittle people, even when they misbehave.

For the most part, rules and policies are in place. And, it is important to note, there are units in the University directed by people who are competent and assume responsibility to make working at Penn a rewarding experience. But personnel policies are sometimes not well known, and often not followed conscientiously; and of course there are no general laws regulating humane and considerate behavior. Nevertheless, many managers seem not to realize that there is a new--and far more litigious--climate in employer/employee relations in the 1990s than in the past. As spectacular cases in public life have recently shown, conduct that was allowable--or "could be gotten away with"--five and certainly ten years ago, can no longer be defended.

The increase in inappropriate behavior--among near equals, and up and down the ladder of authority--strongly suggests that careful training should be given to all administrators, at every level, as they take office, as well as updates on emergent issues. Academic and non- academic officials need training in contemporary management practices and in changes in their legal rights and responsibilities.

We have already begun to consult with University officials on how to institute such training, appropriately, in the different units of the University. In the academic area, such training is needed for deans, chairs, and new faculty, as well as for graduate students acting as teaching assistants and fellows in student residences.

In this new climate of expectations, we are more convinced than ever of the importance of the Ombudsman's office, and the value of its unique independence: we report directly to the University community. The office is neutral and does not act as "advocate" for either party in a dispute; instead, we seek to ensure as fair a process, and outcome, as possible. We believe that an alert, informed, and good-faith approach to the problems we have raised here, problems of course shared by all large educational institutions now, will serve the interests of all parties-- supervisors, employees, and the University itself.

My colleague Dr. Gulbun O'Connor and I welcome your comments and suggestions about these concerns and initiatives. Most practically, anyone in the University community who would like to make use of the Office of the Ombudsman should feel free to call 898-8261 for an appointment.


Cases Handled by the Office of the Ombudsman 1992-95


Cases Handled During 92-93


A. Categorized by Issues Raised     No.:
   Employment Problems              75
Academic/Procedural 52
Procedural 49
Harassment 13
Miscellaneous 13
Personal 11
Promotion Problems 10
Academic 9
Academic Integrity 7
Student Services 5
General Services 3
Benefits 2
Illegal Activities 1

Total 250

B. Categorized by Affiliation No.: Undergraduates
SAS 27
Wharton 12
SEAS 5
CGS 3
Nursing 2
Wharton Evening 1

Subtotal 50

Graduate Students

SAS 18
GSFA 15
GSE 7
SEAS 5
Wharton (MBA) 5
Medicine (Ph.D) 3
CGS 2
Dental 2
Medicine 2
Nursing 1
Social Work 1
Law 1

Subtotal 62

A-1 Personnel 40

A-2 Personnel
Medicine 8
SAS 7
GSFA 6
Veterinary 3
Dental 1
GSE 1
Wharton 1

Subtotal 27

A-3 Personnel 49

A-5 Personnel 8

Alumni/ae 5

Others (parents, former students
or former employees) 9

Total 250


Cases Handled During 93-94

A. Categorized by Issues Raised No.:

Employment Problems 99
Procedural 55
Academic/Procedural 52
Miscellaneous 22
Academic 12
Harassment 9
Personal 9
Promotion Problems 7
School Based Financial Aid Problems 6
Benefits 4
Student Services 3
General Services 2

Total 280

B. Categorized by Affiliation No.:

Undergraduates
SAS 25
Wharton 9
SEAS 5
Wharton Evening 2
Nursing 1

Subtotal 42

Graduate Students
GSFA 20
SAS 13
GSE 10
Social Work 9
CGS 5
Medicine (Ph.D) 3
SEAS 3
Dental 1
Law 1
Nursing 1
Veterinary 1
Wharton-MBA 1

Subtotal 68

A-1 Personnel 53

A-2 Personnel
Medicine 10
GSFA 4
SAS 3
GSE 2
Dental 1
Law 1

Subtotal 21

A-3 Personnel 62

A-5 Personnel 6

Alumni/ae 6

Others (parents, former students
or former employees) 22

Total 280


Cases Handled During 94-95

A. Categorized by Issues Raised No.:

Employment Problems 108
Academic/Procedural 57
Procedural 49
Miscellaneous 18
Personal 12
Academic Integrity 7
Academic 5
General Services 5
Harassment 3
Student Services 3
Illegal Activities 1

Total 268

B. Categorized by Affiliation No.:

Undergraduates
SAS 27
Wharton 8
Nursing 3
SEAS 3
CGS 1
Wharton Evening 1

Subtotal 43

Graduate Students
SAS 15
GSE 8
Social Work 7
GSFA 5
Wharton (MBA) 5
Medicine 3
Dental 2
SEAS 2
Veterinary 2
Wharton (Ph.D) 2
CGS 1

Subtotal 52

A-1 Personnel 74

A-2 Personnel
Medicine 8
SAS 6
GSFA 3
Nursing 2
SEAS 2
Dental 1
GSE 1
Veterinary 1

Subtotal 24

A-3 Personnel 42

A-5 Personnel 10

Alumni/ae 9

Others (parents, former students
or former employees) 14

Total 268


Almanac

Tuesday, November 21, 1995
Volume 42 Number 13


Return to index for this issue.
Return to Almanac Homepage.