Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
O M B U D S S E R V I C E S a n d R E S P E C T F U L W O R K P L A C E
A D V I S O R S P R O G R A M
Confidential, Impartial, Independent, InformalExplore Solutions…
Annual Report
THE WORLD BANK GROUP1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20433, USAT: 202.458.1056 E: [email protected]
20
13
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Thomas ZgamboOmbudsman
Constance BernardOmbudsman
David TalbotOmbudsman
Odile RheaumeRWA Program Administrator
Tanisha McGillSr. Program Assistant
Meggy SavadyProgram Assistant
Christian BergaraET Temporary
Ombuds ServicesConfidential, Impartial, Independent, Informal
The World Bank Group’s Ombuds Services (OMB) office has three major functions:
1. To help staff and managers resolve workplace problems 2. To alert management to trends and issues that should be addressed to improve the working environment and
make recommendations for change in policy or practice3. To administer the Respectful Workplace Advisors (RWA) Program
Key Characteristics
ConfidentialUnder Staff Rule 9.02 and the office’s professional standards, communications with Ombuds Services are private and absolutely confidential. An Ombudsman does not divulge any information told to him or her that might reveal a staff member’s identity, unless authorized by the staff member (except if there appears to be imminent risk of serious harm). It is a safe place for staff to discuss any conflict, concern or dispute outside formal communication channels, without fear of retaliation.
ImpartialAn Ombudsman is impartial and does not serve as an advocate for a particular point of view or for any of the parties involved. The office strives for solutions that are consistent with fairness and respectful treatment.
IndependentOmbuds Services is not part of the formal organizational structure. Each Ombudsman is appointed by the President on the advice of staff selected by the Staff Association. An Ombudsman is not subject to annual performance reviews, receives a nominal salary increase, serves a five-year term which may be renewed one time and may not accept a position elsewhere in the World Bank Group for a period of two years after completing their term.
InformalOmbuds Services is focused on problem-solving and encourages informal resolution of problems at the lowest level possible in a way that minimizes harm to relationships. Contacting Ombuds Services is not the same as reporting an issue to the organization and does not place the WBG “on notice”. The office does not register complaints, perform investigations, or keep formal records for the Bank Group, but an Ombudsman can provide advice about the Bank Group’s formal grievance system.
How Can We Help?The office’s objective is to facilitate resolution to workplace issues. An Ombudsman does not make decisions or mandate actions, and the staff member remains in full control of any actions that would be specific to him/her.
An Ombudsman can:• Hold confidential discussions to listen to staff’s concerns or inquiries • Analyze the facts of a given situation and provide an impartial perspective on the issue(s)• Help identify and evaluate options for the staff to consider• Help staff decide which option makes the most sense • Provide advice on how to implement the selected option(s)• Coach staff on how to deal with the problem directly • Provide informal intervention, only if requested by staff• Provide information on policies and procedures • Explain other available resources and refer staff to other units in the WBG that may help
Contacts: Internal Web Page: http://ombudsman Internal Email: [email protected] External Email: [email protected] Appointments: Call 202-458-1056 (collect calls accepted)
An Ombudsman can call staff at home, at night or during the weekend, providing added assurance of confidentiality and privacy. Offsite visits are also possible.
Ombudsman: Thomas Zgambo 202-473-3043 Ombudsman: Constance Bernard 202-458-5175 Ombudsman: David Talbot 66-2-686-8338 (Bangkok, Thailand)
All categories of current and former WBG staff and consultants—including those from International Finance Corporation (IFC), Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), Global Environment Facility (GEF) and International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)—are welcome to consult OMB regarding any work related issue.
THE OMBUDS SERVICES TEAM
CRS | Conflict Resolution System
O M B U D S S E R V I C E S and Respectful Workplace Advisors Program
Annual Repor t F Y 2 0 1 3
This report reviews the work of the World Bank Group’s Ombuds Services office and the Respectful
Workplace Advisors Program during the fiscal year 2013.
i i i
TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S
List of Acronyms & Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Section 1: Ombuds Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
OMB Caseload and Visitor Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8OMB Caseload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Ombuds Interventions and Resources Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Issues, Trends, and OMB Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13OMB Visitor Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Change Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Visitor Evaluations of OMB’s Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Feedback Survey Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Dimensions of Evaluation and Analysis of Reponses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Section 2: The Respectful Workplace Advisors (RWA) Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Program Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
RWA Caseload, Visitor Demographics, and Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Characteristics of Staff Who Consult RWAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Issue Types Reported to RWAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Program Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Fiscal 2013 Program Achievements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Value Added/Impact of Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
RWA Program – Some Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Annex 1: Definitions of Issue Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Annex 2: Issues Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Annex 3: Respectful Workplace Advisors (RWA) Program – Terms of Reference . . . . . . . . 39Annex 4: Respectful Workplace Advisors (RWA) Program – Program Objectives . . . . . . . . 40Annex 5: Standards of Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
O M B U D S S E R V I C E S | A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 3
i v
List of Figures and TablesFigure 1: OMB Caseload, FY13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8Figure 2: New OMB Visitors Compared with WBG Staff, FY13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Figure 3: Employment Types of New OMB Visitors Compared
with WBG Staff, FY13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10Figure 4: OMB Utilization by Unit Type Compared with WBG Staff, FY13 . . . . . . . . . . . .10Figure 5: OMB Utilization by Unit Type and Location Compared
with WBG Staff, FY12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11Figure 6: Management Skills and Behaviors Subcategories for
Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15Figure 7: RWA Contacts, FY06–FY13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23Figure 8: Characteristics of WBG Staff and RWA Visitors, FY13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23Figure 9: Origination of RWA Contacts, FY13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24Figure 10: Referrals from RWAs, FY13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27Figure 11: Referrals from RWAs, FY12 and FY13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28Table 1: Change in OMB Utilization from FY12 to FY13 by
Demographic Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Table 2: Resource Utilization Frequency, FY12–13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11Table 3: New OMB Visitors’ Issues, FY13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14Table 4: Quality of Services Provided by Ombuds Services, FY13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18Table 5: Utility of Consulting Ombuds Services, FY13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18Table 6: Likelihood of Consulting Ombuds Services Again or
Recommending it to Others, FY13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19Table 7: New RWA Visitors’ Issues, FY13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25Table 8: Number of RWAs, FY13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25Table 9: RWA Demographics, FY13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26Table 10: RWA Training Sessions, FY13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26Table 11: RWA Training Feedback, FY13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26Table 12: RWA Program Evaluation Recommendation Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29Table 13: Outgoing RWAs, FY13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
v
L I S T O F A C R O N Y M S & A B B R E V I A T I O N S
ACS Administrative and Client Support Staff
AFR Africa
CO Country Office
CRS Conflict Resolution System
DEC Development Economics
EAP East Asia and Pacific
EBC Office of Ethics and Business Conduct
ECA Europe and Central Asia
EXT External Affairs
FAC Finance, Administrative, and Corporate Units
EXT External Affairs
FAC Finance, Administrative, and Corporate Units
FY Fiscal Year
GA–GD Grade A–D
GE+ Grade E and above
GEF Global Environment Facility
GSD General Services Department
HR Human Resources
IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
ICSID International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes
IFC International Finance Corporation
IJS Internal Justice System
LAC Latin America and Caribbean
LEG Legal (Vice Presidency)
MEF Office of Mediation Services
MNA Middle East and North Africa
MIGA Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency
OMB Ombuds Services
OPCS Operations Policy and Country Services
OPE Overall Performance Evaluation
OPS Operations Policy and Strategy Group
O M B U D S S E R V I C E S | A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 3
v i
PEP Performance Evaluation Plan
PREM Poverty Reduction and Economic Management
PRS Peer Review Services
RWA Respectful Workplace Advisors
SAR South Asia
SB Sector Board
SRI Salary Review Increase
SSA/CR Sub-Saharan Africa/Caribbean
STT/STC Short-Term Temporary/Consultant
VP Vice President
VPU Vice Presidential Unit
1
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y
Ombuds Services (OMB) and the Respectful
Workplace Advisors (RWA) Program aim to help
any Bank Group employee address any kind of
workplace issue, in a confidential and informal
way. The Ombuds office provides training, sup-
port, and back-up to the RWAs, who are volunteer
staff chosen by peers and located primarily in the
country offices (COs). This annual report summa-
rizes usage patterns, issues raised and observed
for both programs, and OMB exit survey data.
OMBUDSMAN SERVICES
The main accomplishments for the OMB office in
fiscal 2013 were a substantial increase in the partic-
ipation of CO staff, indicating successful outreach
efforts; strongly positive exit survey results; and
timely response to the increased volume of staff
using Ombuds Services.
Service Usage. During fiscal 2013 reporting
period, OMB saw 578 new visitors, a 28 percent
increase from the annual average of 452 new visi-
tors between fiscal 2009 and fiscal 2012. As in the
past, certain groups—CO-based staff, men, Part
2, and GA-GD staff—continue to be underrepre-
sented among OMB visitors. For reasons that are
not clear, usage by staff from Sub-Saharan Africa
and the Caribbean (SSA/CR) dropped by nearly
half (48 percent). Historically, SSA/CR staff have
been underrepresented, with fiscal 2011 and fiscal
2012 being outliers, so this decline may represent
a reversion to previous patterns.
Usage by type of employment remained roughly
similar to past trends. Open-ended and regu-
lar staff continued to be overrepresented in fis-
cal 2013, while the remaining appointment types
were underrepresented. The exception was staff
with term contracts, who were overrepresented,
contrary to expectations. Staff with term appoint-
ments showed the largest increase in usage com-
pared with last fiscal year, perhaps owing to the
17 percent increase in the number of staff with a
term appointment. OMB data show that among
term staff visitors, contract renewal was the sin-
gle most frequently raised issue related to Human
Resources (HR) processes.
Staff in different administrative locations may be
more or less likely to use Ombuds services. For
example, visits by staff from region, network, and
Finance, Administrative, and Corporate (FAC) units
decreased in fiscal 2013. Overall usage by IFC staff
increased by 15 percent, although they continue to
be slightly underrepresented. IFC CO-based usage
increased by 31 percent this year and accounted for
70 percent of IFC’s total usage. A possible reason
for this rise may be greater awareness owing to the
increased number of IFC RWAs in the COs as well
as the presence of an ombudsman in Bangkok.
Little change was seen in usage by Washington-
based IFC staff. The higher usage by Washington-
based network and FAC units most likely occurs
because of the larger numbers of these staff groups
in Washington.
Ombudsman Interventions. An ombudsman
may intervene when explicitly requested to do so
by a visitor, if the ombudsman agrees that inter-
vention is appropriate. An intervention does not
necessarily indicate that the management is in con-
flict with an individual in its unit. OMB frequently
works in partnership with other units, especially
HR, the Office of Ethics and Business Conduct
(EBC), and other Conflict Resolution System (CRS)
units, to resolve problems. The most frequent type
of intervention is speaking with a visitor’s manager,
followed by communication with HR. The number
of interventions decreased from 191 in fiscal 2012
to 143 or about 26 percent of cases in fiscal 2013,
O M B U D S S E R V I C E S | A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 3
2
for reasons that are not entirely clear. One may be
that many visitors use the ombudsman as a sound-
ing board or information source, and prefer that no
intervention take place. The trend may also reflect
somewhat greater concerns about retaliation for
using the service.
Country Office Outreach. Outreach to CO staff
has been a priority for OMB for the past six to
seven years. Regular visits to COs give OMB impor-
tant opportunities to meet with management and
staff in person, inform staff about the resources
available through the Internal Justice System (IJS),
and gain a better sense of the challenges staff face
in different COs. To support this objective, in fis-
cal 2013 David Talbot was relocated to the Bank’s
CO in Bangkok, with the mandate of expand-
ing OMB’s reach to COs. These efforts have been
largely successful, in that the representation of CO
staff among visitors to OMB is almost 100 percent
proportional to their share of all staff.
OMB Service Standards. To monitor perfor-
mance and continue to improve services, OMB
uses an anonymous survey to gather feedback
from visitors. To further improve internal pro-
cesses and services provided to visitors, in fis-
cal 2013 OMB developed service standards and
criteria for tracking, measuring, reporting, and
evaluating the results. The service standards
include many process objectives that are not mea-
sured by the anonymous exit survey—allowing
OMB to expand the process of internal review
and improvement. After the new data system is
adopted and the practicality of monitoring the ser-
vice standards assessed, OMB expects to moni-
tor these standards electronically and publish data
about its performance relative to service standards
on its website.
OMB Visitor Issues. OMB tracks the type of
issues that visitors raise in order to spot trends
and concerns of interest to the World Bank Group
(WBG). In fiscal 2013, HR management issues
were the type raised most frequently, at 36 percent.
Within this type, performance evaluation was the
most commonly raised concern. Some examples:
Staff complained about lack of feedback during
the year, early decisions on salary review increases
(SRIs) before feedback has been received and
considered, and decisions to place a staff mem-
ber in an Opportunity to Improve program (OTI)
without previous feedback on performance. Neg-
ative feedback that is shrouded in confidential-
ity was a source of frustration for a number of
visitors. There was confusion about the relation-
ship between the Overall Performance Evaluation
(OPE) ratings and the SRI. Another concern that
was frequently mentioned was the transparency of
promotions, selections, assignments, and reassign-
ments. Visitors perceived these processes as often
unfair and unduly influenced by both personal
relationships and the existence of unannounced
preferred candidates.
The second most frequently raised type of issue
was management skills and behaviors, at 32 per-
cent. Respectful treatment ranks among the high-
est overall concerns at 9 percent, followed by
supervisory effectiveness at 6 percent. Respect-
ful treatment was also an issue frequently raised
by CO-based visitors. In particular, visitors raised
concerns about managers who are not consulta-
tive and who are perceived to humiliate and ver-
bally abuse staff. Although respectful treatment
was the issue most frequently raised, supervisory
effectiveness and trust/integrity saw the largest
increase since fiscal 2012. This development may
have resulted in part from ongoing change pro-
cesses which of necessity delay some decisions or
make it difficult for supervisors to meet expecta-
tions created earlier.
Change Initiatives. Fiscal 2013 saw senior man-
agement initiate an intensive process of staff
engagement and input across the WBG to bring
about important and far-reaching changes needed
to make the WBG more effective in its effort to
end extreme poverty and boost shared prosperity.
The implementation began early in fiscal 2014 as
the Senior Management Team made decisions that
involved more than 40 specific proposals associ-
ated with eight working groups: Operationalizing
WBG Goals; One WBG; Client Impact & Results;
E x E c u t i v E S u M M A R Y
3
Risk & Accountability; Knowledge & Solutions;
Global Footprint; People & Talent; and Leader-
ship, Values & Culture.
Judging by the issues raised with the Ombuds
office so far, staff appear to be in broad agree-
ment with the objectives of the proposed reforms.
They have also provided positive feedback on the
process approach, which enabled many staff to
participate or give feedback in the working group
discussions. Some of the proposed changes are
likely to help address some concerns routinely
raised by visitors to OMB, particularly those asso-
ciated with People & Talent and Leadership,
Values & Culture. There remains some general
confusion about the timing and implementation,
and uncertainties at the individual level regarding
strategic focus and job security. OMB visitors have
little understanding of the WBG’s overall finan-
cial situation and its impact on the reform deci-
sions. It would be difficult to overcommunicate
with staff about decisions and time lines. Because
staff will first seek clarity from line managers, it is
especially important that line managers be well
informed and encouraged to communicate about
the change process.
Recommendations. Many of the concerns raised
by OMB visitors can be addressed through the
change agenda that is emerging with regard to
talent management. The agenda, which is based
on extensive benchmarking and informed by dis-
cussions preceding the reform process, focuses
on upping the WBG’s game with regard to tal-
ent recruitment and management. The thinking
is to put the manager in the driver’s seat and to
hold him or her accountable for talent acquisi-
tion. Streamlining selection, integrating talent
review with strategic staffing, better career plan-
ning, and developing stronger pipeline processes
are important elements. Because many staff have
lost confidence in the fairness and rationality of
selection for positions and promotions, commu-
nication about management intentions regarding
hiring and selection processes would be help-
ful. In particular, transparency in the selection
of global practice managers will signal manage-
ment’s commitment to expeditious, fair, and com-
petence-based selection processes.
The concerns raised by staff about performance
management are quite consistent over time.
Although no changes will produce uniform satis-
faction with the fairness of the process, four main
areas need to be improved:
1. Confidential feedback by peers and managers,
which tends to create confusion and under-
mine team relationships. In general, IFC prac-
tices tend to be more direct and transparent
and may provide a useful model for other parts
of the Bank.
2. Lack of communication during the review year
about performance issues, which results in sur-
prises when OPEs and/or Performance Evalua-
tion Plans (PEPs) are discussed.
3. Clarification of the relationship between OPE
ratings and SRIs.
4. Clarity about the role of the Opportunity to
Improve (OTI), which staff now perceive as a
prelude to termination.
OMB Feedback Survey Data. As part of OMB’s
efforts to assess and enhance its performance,
visitors are asked to provide feedback by anony-
mously completing a hard-copy or online survey
after their case is resolved or when they have not
come back to the office for some time. To pro-
tect visitors’ confidentiality, the survey with the
web address is mailed to the individual’s home,
not sent through the WBG’s interoffice mail. Over
the last few years, OMB has been attempting to
improve the timeliness, coverage, and response
rate of these exit surveys with some success in
timeliness and coverage; however, response rates
continue to be disappointing. For fiscal 2013, of
the 307 feedback surveys mailed, 44 replies were
received by July 12, 2013—a response rate of
14 percent. The office is continuing to explore
ways to improve the response rate.
The questionnaire targets two key areas of OMB’s
performance: process objectives (confidentiality,
impartiality, respectful treatment, and so forth)
O M B U D S S E R V I C E S | A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 3
4
and the meeting of visitors’ needs. It also gathers
data on whether visitors would consult OMB
again and whether they would recommend the
office to colleagues. OMB continues to receive
positive responses about its processes, in partic-
ular for treating visitors respectfully and main-
taining confidentiality. The average percentage of
positive responses for fiscal 2013 was 94 percent,
an increase of two percentage points compared
with the previous reporting period. Of particular
note to this positive trend was a significant rise
in positive perceptions of ombudsman impartial-
ity, from 78 percent to 93 percent. This represents
a 15 percentage point increase from fiscal 2012 and
a 6 percentage point increase from the 87 percent
reported in fiscal 2011.
Exit survey respondents were asked about the
utility of consulting OMB. The percentage of pos-
itive responses increased this year for both areas:
“fulfilling the reasons for using OMB” increased
by one percentage point and “providing helpful
information or advice” increased by nine percent-
age points. OMB would like to see more prog-
ress and will continue to educate staff and visitors
about OMB services.
Respondents were asked if they experienced any
benefits from using OMB’s services other than
addressing their issues; they were also asked,
“What worked best in OMB?” Sixty-three percent
indicated that there were other benefits, including
gaining peace of mind and confidence; feeling
supported and understood; and gaining insight
into WBG policies and procedures. With regard
to what worked best, the top three responses
were
➤ Having a confidential and professional place
to turn for advice and knowledge about Bank
polices
➤ The character of the ombudsman
➤ The accessibility of the service
This year, 14 percent of the respondents indicated
that consulting OMB had negative repercussions
for them. The most frequent write-in explanations
of these experiences included
➤ Feeling bullied and retaliated against
➤ Feeling that managers expressed displeasure
that OMB had been consulted
➤ Feeling viewed as a troublemaker
Whether a visitor is likely to consult OMB again or
recommend it to others provides a final indication
of satisfaction with its services. Visitors gave posi-
tive responses for both items, although somewhat
less so with regard to using the service again.
RESPECTFUL WORKPLACE ADVISORS PROGRAM
The number of contacts with RWAs has been sta-
ble over the last three years, reaching 535 for fis-
cal 2013. The majority of those who contact RWAs
(74 percent) are CO staff. Women, Part 2 staff, and
Grade A–D (GA–GD) staff are overrepresented.
Forty-four percent of issues raised by staff who
consulted RWAs involved respectful workplace
concerns, while 25 percent involved HR process
issues. As in the past, for CO-based visitors the
issue most frequently raised was interpersonal
conflicts, while for Washington-based staff it was
management skills and behavior.
Nominations for new RWAs were conducted
mainly in two Regions in fiscal 2013: Europe and
Central Asia, and Latin America and Caribbean.
They were followed by five training sessions, held
in Zagreb, Bangkok, and Washington. The total
number of RWAs as of June 30, 2013, was 209—a
record high. Thirty-nine new RWAs attended the
basic training, and 40 RWAs attended the midterm
training this year. The RWA training team contin-
ues to receive very positive overall ratings; for the
fiscal 2013 sessions the average was 4.89 out of
5.00, which compares favorably with the WBG’s
overall average rating of 4.45 for the 10 top learn-
ing activities in the fiscal 2012 training evaluation.
E x E c u t i v E S u M M A R Y
5
This year, the RWA Program achieved many objec-
tives. RWAs made 540 referrals to the IJS and
other services, strengthening their status as criti-
cal local resources. The number of presentations
that involve RWAs as one of the partners of the IJS
continues to increase. RWAs are also increasingly
included in new staff orientation in their locations.
In an effort to partner better with our stakeholders,
the RWA team intentionally increased opportuni-
ties to meet with HR teams, Learning Coordinators,
the VP HR, and the change reform groups. The
RWA Program has now become an integral part of
the Conflict Resolution System (CRS), and RWAs
are increasingly involved in CRS activities.
Following up on last year’s independent eval-
uation of the RWA Program, most of the rec-
ommendations were accepted and have been
implemented, such as increasing awareness of the
program with HR staff and the Learning Board.
We have also developed and implemented stan-
dards of practice for the RWAs. We expect to have
addressed the rest of the accepted recommenda-
tions by the end of fiscal 2015.
Some of the program’s challenges continue to be
the heavy administrative demands of the nomina-
tion process and the inability to take full advan-
tage of the rich data in the RWA Activity Forms.
7
S E C T I O N I : O M B U D S S E R V I C E S
8
341 374
484
608 578
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Number of visitors
Fiscal year
Figure 1 OMB Caseload, FY13
O M B C A S E LO A D A N D V I S I T O R P R O F I L E
OMB Caseload
During fiscal 2013, OMB saw 578 new visitors1
(figure 1), a 28 percent increase over the annual
average of 452 visitors between fiscal 2009 and
fiscal 2012.
The profile of OMB’s new visitors in fiscal 2013 is
similar to that in fiscal 2012 (figure 2). As in the
past, CO-based staff, men, Part 2, and GA–GD staff
remain underrepresented. One important change,
however, is usage in SSA/CR, which dropped by
nearly half (48 percent) compared with last year.
Historically, SSA/CR staff have been an underrep-
resented group, with fiscal 2011 and fiscal 2012
being outliers, so this decline may represent a
reversion to previous patterns. In addition, the
high population of extended-term employment
and extended-term consultants in these Regions
represents a higher percentage of staff who have
not attended a New Staff Orientation (NSO) and
may be unaware of OMB’s services.2
Usage based on type of employment also
remained roughly similar to past trends (figure 3).
Open-ended and regular staff continued to be sig-
nificantly overrepresented in fiscal 2013. Staff with
term contracts were also overrepresented, con-
trary to expectations, while the remaining appoint-
ment types were underrepresented. Though this is
not the first time that term staff have been over-
represented, it is the highest representation of
this group since 1999. This increase may reflect
that term staff are now better represented in IJS
outreach platforms and are more aware of ser-
vice eligibility. OMB data shows that among term
staff visitors, renewal of contract was the single
most frequently raised type of HR process issue.
Term appointment types also showed the largest
increase in usage compared with last fiscal year.
This could be due to the 17 percent increase in
the number of staff holding this appointment type.
The unit type may also affect the likelihood that
staff will consult OMB (figure 4). Representa-
tion of staff from region, network, and FAC units
decreased this year. Overall usage by IFC staff
increased by 15 percent, although IFC continues
to be mildly underrepresented. Usage by IFC CO-
based staff increased by 31 percent this year and
accounted for over half (70 percent) of all usage by
1 “Visitor” is the term used by organizational ombuds offices to describe those who consult the service.HR process issues are not neces-sarily managed by HR.2 Staff holding open-ended, term, and extended-term temporary or consultant appointments are eligible to attend the Human Resources Leadership and Staff Development three-day NSO, provided that they are new to the Bank or have been in the Bank for less than six months. This policy also applies to STC/STTs, even when they have been converted to a different appointment type. Because STC/STTs are not eligible to attend an NSO and many STC/STTs will have worked in the Bank six months or longer before converting to a differ-ent employment type, a good portion of staff will miss the opportunity to hear the information presented at the NSO on Bank operations, including the project cycle and the IJS services.
O M B c A S E l O A d A n d v i S i t O R P R O f i l E
9
Table 1 Change in OMB Utilization from FY12 to FY13 by Demographic Category
Characteristic FY12 FY13 Change (%)
Washington 1.08 1.05 –2.8
country offices 0.89 0.94 5.6
Women 1.10 1.20 9.1
Men 0.89 0.78 –12.4
Part 1 1.10 1.22 10.9
Part 2 0.94 0.86 –8.5
GA–Gd 0.89 0.81 –9.0
GE+ 1.04 1.07 2.9
SSA/cR 1.27 0.66 –48.0
non SSA/cR 0.95 1.06 11.6
Open-ended 1.76 1.74 –1.1
terma 0.93 1.53 64.5
Extended-term temporaries and consultants 0.75 0.88 17.3
Short-term temporaries and consultants (40+ days) 0.33 0.27 –18.2
Regions 1.11 1.11 0.0
networks and Other Operational units 1.08 1.08 0.0
finance, Administrative, and corporate units (fAc)b 1.10 0.98 –10.9
ifc 0.69 0.80 15.9
note: GA–Gd = Grade A through d. GE+ = Grade E and above. SSA/cR = Sub-Saharan Africa/caribbean. fAc = finance, Administrative, and corporate units.the 2012 and 2013 values represent the ratio of the percentage of OMB visitors in each category to the percentage of WBG staff. A ratio of 1 indicates that the percentage of OMB visitors in a particular group is equal to the share of that group among all WBG staff. Groups with a ratio greater than 1 are overrepre-sented; groups with a ratio of less than 1 are underrepresented.a includes coterminous staff.b includes Multilateral investment Guarantee Agency (MiGA) and Global Environment facility (GEf) staff.
Ratio
of O
MB
Visit
ors
to W
BG s
taff
OMB Visitors Demographics
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
Wa
shin
gto
n-b
ase
d
CO
-ba
sed
Wo
me
n
Me
n
Part
1
Part
2
GA-
GD
GE+
SSA/
CR
non
SSA/
CR
Figure 2 New OMB Visitors Compared with WBG Staff, FY13 (ratio of OMB visitors to WBG staff, in percent)
note: A ratio of 1 indicates that the percentage of OMB visitors in a particular group is equal to the percentage that group represents as a share of all WBG staff. Groups with a ratio greater than 1 are overrepresented; groups with a ratio of less than 1 are underrepresented.
O M B U D S S E R V I C E S | A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 3
1 0
Ombuds Interventions and Resources Used
An ombudsman may intervene when explicitly
requested to do so by a visitor, if the ombudsman
agrees that intervention is appropriate. An inter-
vention does not necessarily indicate that the man-
agement is in conflict with an individual in its unit.
IFC staff. This rise may be a result of greater aware-
ness owing to the higher number of IFC RWAs in
the COs and to having an ombudsman in the field.
Little change was seen in usage by Washington-
based IFC staff. The higher use by staff in Wash-
ington-based network and FAC units is most likely
due to their larger numbers, given that nearly half
of IFC staff members are based in COs (figure 5).
Open-ended Term* Extended Term Other** STC/STT (40+ days)0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
Ratio
of O
MB
Visit
ors
to W
BG s
taff
Appoinment type
Figure 3 Employment Types of New OMB Visitors Compared with WBG Staff, FY13 (ratio of OMB visitors to WBG staff)
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
Ratio
of O
MB
Visit
ors
to W
BG s
taff
Unit type
Regions Networks* FAC** IFC
Figure 4OMB Utilization by Unit Type Compared with WBG Staff, FY13 (ratio of OMB visitors to WBG staff)
note: A ratio of 1 indicates that the percentage of OMB visitors in a particular group is equal to the percentage that group represents as a share of all WBG staff. Groups with a ratio greater than 1 are overrepresented; groups with a ratio of less than 1 are underrepre-sented. Stc/Stt = short-term consultant or temporary.* includes coterminous staff. ** includes Special Assignments, Executive director advisors, and Junior Professional Associates.
note: A ratio of 1 indicates that the percentage of OMB visitors in a particular group is equal to the percentage that group represents as a share of all WBG staff. Groups with a ratio greater than 1 are overrepresented; groups with a ratio of less than 1 are underrepre-sented. * includes other operational units.** includes MiGA and GEf.
O M B c A S E l O A d A n d v i S i t O R P R O f i l E
1 1
raising workplace concerns either directly during
the CO visit or later over the phone. In keeping
with this objective, David Talbot was relocated to
the Bank’s CO in Bangkok in fiscal 2013, with the
mandate of expanding OMB’s reach to COs.
OMB frequently works in partnership with other
units, especially HR, EBC, and other CRS units, to
resolve problems. The most frequent type of inter-
vention is speaking with a visitor’s manager, fol-
lowed by communication with HR. The number
of interventions decreased from 191 in fiscal 2012
to 143, or about 26 percent of cases, in fiscal 2013
(table 2). The reasons for the decrease are not
clear. It may indicate a trend such as greater reli-
ance on coaching of staff to resolve issues, as well
as visitors who seek guidance as a sounding board.
According to OMB’s feedback survey respondents,
having the opportunity to be heard ranked as one
of the top reasons visitors contacted the OMB.
Recent Developments
Country Outreach . Outreach to CO staff has
always been a priority for OMB. Regular visits
to COs give OMB important opportunities to
meet with management and staff in person, give
presentations to staff on the resources available
through the IJS, and gain a better sense of the
unique needs and challenges staff face in COs.
Meeting with staff in person during visits to COs
helps staff feel more comfortable and confident in
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
Ratio
of C
O a
nd H
Q O
MB
Visit
ors
Unit type by locationRegions Networks* FAC** IFC
CO HQ
Figure 5OMB Utilization by Unit Type and Location Compared with WBG Staff, FY12 (ratio of shares of staff to WBG staff)
Table 2 Resource Utilization Frequency, FY12–13
Unit FY12 FY13
Ethics and Business conduct 7 5
Human Resources 45 27
integrity vice Presidency 1 1
legal 3 3
Manager 98 71
Medical Services 3 3
Other 6 7
Other conflict Resolution System services 10 5
Party involved 3 5
Personal and Work Stress counseling unit 1 3
Staff 2 2
Staff Association 10 6
third party 2 5
Total 191 143
note: A ratio of 1 indicates that the percentage of OMB visitors in a particular group is equal to the percentage that group represents as a share of all WBG staff. Groups with a ratio greater than 1 are overrepresented; groups with a ratio of less than 1 are underrepre-sented. * includes other operational units.** includes MiGA and GEf.
O M B U D S S E R V I C E S | A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 3
1 2
Talbot’s move to the field has increased the effi-
ciency and frequency of OMB travel to COs partic-
ularly in the East Asia Pacific Region (EAP)—which
has the second highest percentage of Bank staff
based in COs, at 60 percent—and the South Asia
Region (SAR)—which has the highest percent-
age, at 62 percent. Talbot’s presence in Bangkok
also allows OMB to schedule telephone calls with
CO staff at times more convenient for them. Staff
may prefer to speak about sensitive issues during
a lunch break or from home. Being located in a
time zone that is 11 or 12 hours ahead of Wash-
ington allow Talbot greater flexibility to meet staff
scheduling needs and makes it easier for CO staff
to reach out to OMB.
Fiscal 2013 statistics for SAR and EAP reflect the
benefits of this location. Approximately 16 percent
of all cases and 42 percent of CO-based cases were
the result of the ombudsman’s mission travel. Of
those, EAP and SAR together are the source of 69
percent of this population and 29 percent of all CO-
based cases. The combined caseload from these
two regions increased by 20 percent. The casel-
oad from EAP alone tripled in fiscal 2013. These
increases likely reflect easier access to an ombuds-
man and an increase in OMB outreach (visits in the
EAP Region tripled in fiscal 2013), allowing staff to
meet one on one with an ombudsman and learn
more about OMB and the IJS in general.
OMB Service Standards . To monitor performance
and continue to improve services, OMB uses an
anonymous survey to gather feedback from visitors.
To further improve internal processes and services
provided to visitors, in fiscal 2013 OMB developed
service standards and criteria for tracking, measur-
ing, reporting, and evaluating the results of these
surveys. The service standards include many pro-
cess objectives that are not measured by the anon-
ymous exit survey, allowing OMB to expand the
process of internal review and improvement. After
the new data system is adopted, OMB expects to
monitor these standards electronically and publish
data on its performance relative to the service stan-
dards on its website.
1 3
I S S U E S , T R E N D S , A N D O M B O B S E R VAT I O N S
OMB Visitor Issues
OMB tracks the types of issues raised by visitors
in order to spot trends and concerns of interest to
the World Bank Group. In fiscal 2013, HR man-
agement issues were the type most frequently
raised, at 36 percent.3 Within this group,4 perfor-
mance evaluation was the most commonly raised
concern. As indicated in last year’s report, some
of the problems that staff reported include gaps
in communication, unclear criteria for measuring
contributions, and lack of clarity about the OPE
management review, OPE ratings, and SRI pro-
cesses. Some examples: Staff complained about
lack of feedback during the year, early decisions
on SRIs before they had received and considered
feedback, and sudden decisions to place a staff
member on an OTI without previous discussion
of performance issues. Negative feedback that is
shrouded in confidentiality was a source of frustra-
tion for a number of visitors. There was confusion
about the relationship between the OPE ratings
and the SRI. Another concern that was frequently
mentioned was the transparency of promotions,
selections, assignments, and reassignments. Staff
perceived that these processes are often unfair
and are unduly influenced by both personal rela-
tionships and the existence of unannounced pre-
ferred candidates.
The second most frequently raised group was man-
agement skills and behaviors, at 32 percent. In fis-
cal 2011, OMB looked at the types of issues most
often bought forward and identified six subcatego-
ries that would help break down the group and
provide a clearer sense of the types of behaviors
that are problematic and the skills that are lack-
ing. These subcategories are (1) career develop-
ment, (2) communication/transparency, (3) equity
of treatment, (4) respectful treatment, (5) supervi-
sory effectiveness, and (6) trust/integrity. Respect-
ful treatment ranks among the highest overall
concerns at 9 percent, followed by supervisory
effectiveness at 6 percent. Respectful treatment
was also an issue frequently raised by CO-based
visitors (table 3). In particular, visitors raised con-
cerns about managers who are not consultative
and who are perceived to humiliate and verbally
abuse staff. Although respectful treatment was the
issue most frequently raised, supervisory effective-
ness and trust/integrity saw the largest increase
compared with fiscal 2012 (figure 6). This devel-
opment may result in part from ongoing change
processes which of necessity delay some decisions
or make it difficult for supervisors to meet expecta-
tions created earlier.
There were no major differences in the types of
issues raised by Washington-based staff and coun-
try-based staff, with two exceptions. CO-based
staff were much more likely to raise concerns
about interpersonal conflicts, which may reflect the
fact that such staff often work for longer periods
of time with smaller work groups. CO-based staff
are less likely to raise issues about promotion or
reassignment, which may reflect the more limited
opportunities available to staff based in COs.
Change Initiatives
The past year saw senior management initiate
an intensive process of staff engagement and
input across the WBG to bring about important
and far-reaching changes needed to make the
WBG more effective in its effort to end extreme
3 HR process issues are not necessarily managed by HR.4 “Group” refers to the five main issue categories: HR Process Issues, Respectful Workplace Issues, Management Skills and Behaviors, Con-flict of Interest, and Other Issues.
O M B U D S S E R V I C E S | A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 3
1 4
poverty and boost shared prosperity. President
Kim concluded, “It was clear from staff input that
there are myriad obstacles—some cultural, some
procedural—to doing our best work and achiev-
ing our full potential.” The implementation stage
began early in fiscal 2014 as the Senior Manage-
ment Team made decisions that involved more
than 40 specific proposals associated with eight
working groups: Operationalizing WBG Goals;
One WBG; Client Impact & Results; Risk &
Table 3 New OMB Visitors’ Issues, FY13
Issue
Washington-Based Visitors CO-Based Visitors Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number
HR Type Issues 206 41 92 27 298
Benefits 20 4 27 8 47
Ending employment 40 8 12 4 52
Entering employment 18 4 5 1 23
Performance 56 10 16 5 72
Promotion 15 3 8 2 23
Reassignment and selection process 43 9 11 3 54
Salaries 14 3 13 4 27
Respectful Workplace 77 15 49 15 126
discrimination 14 3 0 14
Harassment 19 4 9 3 28
interpersonal conflicts 21 3 25 7 46
Misconduct 13 3 9 3 22
Retaliation 10 2 6 2 16
Management Skills & Behaviors 159 32 105 31 264
career development 20 4 24 7 44
communication/transparency 17 3 19 6 36
Equity of treatment 26 5 4 1 30
Respectful treatment 7 1 33 10 40
Supervisory effectiveness 39 8 19 6 58
trust/integrity 28 6 6 2 34
Other 22 4 0 0 22
Conflict of Interest 3 1 13 4 16
conflict of interest 3 1 13 4 16
Other 52 11 77 23 129
domestic issues 0 1 0 1
Other 43 9 45 13 88
Policy 8 2 25 7 33
Quality of operations 1 0 6 3 7
Total 497 100 336 100 833
note: twenty issues were from visitors from unknown locations and were not included in this table.
i S S u E S , t R E n d S , A n d O M B O B S E R v A t i O n S
1 5
Accountability; Knowledge & Solutions; Global
Footprint; People & Talent; and Leadership, Val-
ues & Culture.
Based on the issues raised with the Ombuds
office so far, there appears to be broad under-
standing and agreement with the objectives of the
proposed reforms. There is positive feedback on
the process approach, which enabled many staff
to participate or provide feedback in the work-
ing group discussions. The proposed changes
should help address some of the concerns rou-
tinely raised by visitors to OMB, particularly those
associated with People & Talent and Leadership,
Values & Culture. Some confusion remains about
the timing and implementation, along with uncer-
tainties at the individual level regarding strategic
focus and job security. Staff have little under-
standing of the WBG’s overall financial situation
and its impact on the reform decisions. It would
be difficult to overcommunicate with staff about
decisions and time lines. Because staff will first
seek clarity from line managers, it is especially
important that line managers be well informed
and encouraged to communicate about the
change process.
HR Integration . Integration of the IFC and World
Bank HR teams was one of the first accomplish-
ments of the reform process and was largely com-
pleted in fiscal 2013. Reasons for the integration
include leveraging resources more effectively to
support clients and stakeholders who are increas-
ingly engaging across institutional boundaries.
Seven WBG Centers of Expertise will design and
manage HR programs:
➤ Compensation and Benefits
➤ Employment Policy and Employee Relations
➤ Leadership and Management Development
➤ Performance and Rewards
➤ Staff Development and Learning
➤ Talent Acquisition
➤ Talent Management and Mobility
Recommendations
Talent. Many of the concerns raised by visi-
tors can be addressed by the change agenda
emerging from the People & Talent and Talent
Management & Mobility groups. The emerging
agenda, which is based on extensive bench-
Num
be
r of I
ssue
s
Ca
ree
r D
eve
lop
me
nt
Co
mm
unic
atio
n/Tra
nsp
are
ncy
Equi
ty o
f Tre
atm
ent
Oth
er
Resp
ec
mul
Tre
atm
ent
Sup
erv
isory
Ef
fec
tive
ness
Trust
/Inte
grit
y
Management Skills and Behaviors subcategories
23
20
20
22
19
17
18
11
4
26
812
0744
32
39
24
26
18
28
7
7
622
58
FY12 HQ FY12 CO FY13 HQ FY13 CO
Figure 6 Management Skills anad Behaviors Subcategories for Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013
O M B U D S S E R V I C E S | A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 3
1 6
marking and informed by discussions preced-
ing the reform process, focuses on upping our
game with regard to talent recruitment and man-
agement. The thinking is to put the manager in
the driver’s seat and to hold him/her account-
able for talent acquisition. Streamlining selection,
integrating talent review with strategic staffing,
better career planning, and developing stron-
ger pipeline processes are important elements.
Because many staff have lost confidence in the
fairness and rationality of selection for positions
and promotions, communication about manage-
ment intentions regarding hiring and selection
processes would be helpful.
Performance Management. The concerns
raised by staff with regard to performance man-
agement outlined in the first paragraph of this
section have been quite consistent over time.
Although no change will result in uniform satis-
faction with the fairness of the process, four main
areas need to be improved:
1. Confidential feedback on the part of peers and
other managers, which tends to create confu-
sion and undermine team relationships. In gen-
eral, IFC practices tend to be more direct and
transparent and may provide a useful model
for other parts of the WBG.
2. Lack of communication during the review year
about performance issues, resulting in a sur-
prise OPE.
3. Clarification of the relationship between OPE
ratings and SRIs.
4. Clarity about the role of OTIs, which staff now
perceive as a prelude to termination.
Previously Raised Issues
The OMB Annual Report has raised a number
of issues in the past. Two bear mention again
because they continue to be a source of staff
concerns. For a summary of issues raised in past
reports, please see annex 2.
Short-Term Consultants, Junior Professional Officers, and Junior Professional Associates. STCs continue to be underrepresented among
RWA and OMB visitors relative to their numbers;
many do not have information about the IJS. Situ-
ations in which they are pressured to work with-
out a contract or without compensation continue
to arise, as do situations in which they perceive
they have not been given professional credit for
their work. STCs also constitute a pool from which
many term staff are recruited; practice is inconsis-
tent with regard to the selection processes.
Governance in Bank-Executed Trust Funds. Problems concerning the governance of some
Bank-executed Trust Funds continue to arise.
The Ombuds office repeats the recommendation
that a working group should review the experi-
ence to date on governance and draw conclu-
sions on best practice with the aim of providing
consistent approaches for the design of Trust
Funds in the future.
1 7
V I S I T O R E VA L U AT I O N S O F O M B ’ S S E R V I C E S
Feedback Survey Responses
As part of OMB’s efforts to assess and enhance
its performance, visitors are asked to provide
feedback by anonymously completing a hard-
copy or online feedback survey after their case
is resolved or when they have not come back to
the office for some time. To protect visitors’ con-
fidentiality, the survey with the web address is
mailed to the individual’s home, not sent through
the WBG’s interoffice mail. Over the last few
years, OMB has been attempting to improve the
timeliness, coverage, and response rate of exit
surveys with some success in timeliness and cov-
erage; however, response rates continue to be
disappointing.
For fiscal 2013, the response rate fell again. Of
the 307 feedback surveys mailed, 44 replies were
received by July 12, 2013—a response rate of
14 percent, compared with 19 percent for the
687 surveys sent during the 18 months ending
June 2012. The decline occurred despite success-
ful efforts to send surveys more promptly and
despite the availability of the web-based alterna-
tive. One contributing factor to consider is that
participation from COs has increased, and interna-
tional mailing addresses are often incomplete and
mail delivery unreliable. In fact, just 3 percent of
CO-based survey recipients responded to the sur-
vey. Only 10 percent of all respondents provided
feedback online, all of them Washington-based,
further supporting the theory that CO-based sur-
vey recipients may not receive the survey at all.
Last year’s report identified three areas to improve
OMB’s follow-up and case closure practices and to
address the low survey response rate. These areas
include refining the design of the survey, imple-
menting an electronic-based feedback request sys-
tem (which would require systematic gathering of
personal email addresses), and enhancing current
systems to provide more rigorous and standard-
ized monitoring of follow-up and case closing.
Refinement of the survey design was completed
last year, and the new survey continues to be sent
to Ombuds Services visitors. Further work and sys-
tem design in the other two areas are under way
and the improvements are expected to be in place
by fiscal 2015. This combination of system and
process changes should allow OMB to capture
and monitor a broader array of data and trends.
Dimensions of Evaluation and Analysis of Reponses
The questionnaire targets two key areas of OMB’s
performance: process objectives (confidentiality,
impartiality, respectful treatment, and so forth)
and the meeting of visitors’ needs. It also gath-
ers data on whether visitors would consult OMB
again and whether they would recommend the
office to colleagues.
Process Objectives. OMB continues to receive
positive responses about its processes, in par-
ticular in the areas of treating visitors respect-
fully and maintaining confidentiality (table 4).
The average percentage of positive responses for
fiscal 2013 was 94 percent,5 an increase of two
percentage points compared with the previous
reporting period.
Of particular note to this positive trend was a sig-
nificant rise in positive perceptions of ombuds-
man impartiality, from 78 percent to 93 percent.
This represents a 15 percentage point increase
from fiscal 2012 and a 6 percentage point increase
from the 87 percent recorded in fiscal 2011.
5 Most of the exit survey questions use a five-point scale for responses. Responses of 4 or 5 are considered positive.
O M B U D S S E R V I C E S | A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 3
1 8
Meeting Visitors’ Needs. Exit survey respon-
dents were asked about the utility of consult-
ing OMB. The percentage of positive responses
increased for both areas: fulfilling the reasons for
using OMB increased by 1 percentage point and
providing helpful information or advice increased
by 9 percentage points (table 5). Though there
was an increase in these areas, OMB would like
to see more progress and will continue to explain
and educate staff and visitors about the services
and how the office operates.
Respondents were asked if they experienced any
additional benefits from using OMB’s services
other than addressing their issues; they were also
asked, “What worked best in OMB?” Sixty-three
percent indicated that there were other benefits.
Some of the write-in comments included
➤ Gaining peace of mind and confidence
➤ Feeling supported and understood
➤ Gaining insight into World Bank procedures
and policies
Eighty-four percent of respondents provided writ-
ten feedback on “what worked best.” The top
three responses were as follows:
➤ Having a confidential and professional place
to turn for advice and knowledge about Bank
polices
➤ The character of the ombudsman
➤ The accessibility of the service
This year, 14 percent of respondents indicated that
consulting OMB had negative repercussions for
them. This is an increase of eight percentage points
Table 4 Quality of Services Provided by Ombuds Services, FY13
Survey Questions
Percentages of Positive Responses
FY12N = 118
FY13N = 44
did the administrative staff in Ombuds Services treat you with respect? 100 98
did the ombudsman treat you with respect? 99 98
to what extent do you feel that the ombudsman was impartial in the
handling of your case?
78 93
did the ombudsman maintain appropriate confidentiality? 97 98
did the ombudsman appear to be knowledgeable about the issues
involved in your situation?
88 86
Was the advice/information provided to you clear? 84 93
Was access to Ombuds Services easy and convenient? 97 93
did Ombuds Services clearly explain its role and guiding principles? 89 93
Table 5 Utility of Consulting Ombuds Services, FY13
Survey Questions
Percentages of Positive Responses
FY12N = 118
FY13N = 44
Overall, did you feel your reasons for going to Ombuds Services were
fulfilled?
72 73
did the information or advice provided help you decide what you wanted
to do about your issue?
70 79
v i S i t O R E v A l u A t i O n S O f O M B ’ S S E R v i c E S
1 9
from last year despite a 1 percent decrease in the
number of respondents. The most frequent write-in
comments explaining these repercussions included
➤ Feeling bullied and retaliated against
➤ Feeling that managers expressed displeasure
that OMB had been consulted
➤ Feeling of being viewed as a trouble maker
These statistics may suggest that visitors were
dealing with more egregious issues and asked to
have the involved parties brought in to resolve
the issue. They may also suggest that the WBG
has more work to do in addressing issues of retal-
iation against those who use the IJS services and
helping all staff, including managers, change their
perspective on the IJS.
Whether a visitor is likely to consult OMB again
or recommend it to others provides a final indi-
cation of satisfaction with its services. Visitors
were positive about recommending OMB to oth-
ers but were less positive about using OMB again
(table 6). Written comments on this topic were not
provided. Some possible reasons for those less
positive responses include expectations that an
individual would not need the services because
he or she is leaving the WBG and disappointment
that the ombudsman did not take an advocate
role in addressing their concerns.
Table 6 Likelihood of Consulting Ombuds Services Again or Recommending It to Others, FY13
Survey Questions
Percentages of Positive Responses
FY12N = 118
FY13N = 44
Would you consider using Ombuds Services again? 82 77
Would you recommend Ombuds Services to others? 84 80
2 1
S E C T I O N 2 : T H E R E S P E C T F U L
W O R K P L A C E A D V I S O R S P R O G R A M
2 2
P R O G R A M C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S
The RWA Program is one of a range of infor-
mal services available to staff within the
IJS of the World Bank Group. It supports
the WBG’s commitment to fostering a positive
workplace in which all staff can work together
with openness and trust, in ways that demonstrate
respect and value differences.
The role of the RWAs is to provide an informal,
confidential, trustworthy, and readily accessi-
ble source of early assistance for staff who have
questions or concerns about a respectful work-
place or who want information about where to
seek assistance. Issues might include interper-
sonal conflicts, unfair treatment, harassment,
disrespectful and unethical behaviors, perfor-
mance, misconduct, and other
workplace stresses. RWAs are
expected to brief management
on general trends related to
a respectful workplace while
maintaining strict confidentiality
as per Staff Rule 9.02 (see RWA Program Terms of
Reference, annex 3).
The RWA Program, administered by OMB, is an
important source of support for staff who face
workplace issues, especially in offices outside
Washington, DC. RWAs are peer volunteers nomi-
nated to a four-year term by their colleagues (see
the RWA Program objectives in annex 4).
RWAs do not intervene directly to help resolve
issues, as this could affect others’ perceptions of
their neutrality as well as working relationships
with colleagues and managers (see the RWA Pro-
gram Standards of Practice in annex 5).
The RWA Program is required in Bank and IFC offices
outside Washington, DC, that have more than 15 staff
members, but participation by Bank vice presidential
units (VPUs) in Washington, DC, is optional. Wash-
ington, DC–based IFC units, ICSID, MIGA, and GEF
do not currently participate in the program.
The goal of the RWA is to help staff help themselves by listening and providing problem-solving guidance.
2 3
R W A C A S E LO A D , V I S I T O R D E M O G R A P H I C S , A N D I S S U E S
Characteristics of Staff Who Consult RWAs
The number of RWA contacts has held its current
tendency over the last three years, with the total
number of contacts reaching 535 for fiscal 2013, a
slight decrease (5 percent) over the previous year
(figure 7), and a 65 percent increase over the past
four years. The stability of the number of contacts
for the last three years is assumed to be caused by
the ongoing and steady effort by the RWA admin-
istrative team to reach out to RWAs regularly and
more frequently. The increased support provided
to RWAs helps them gain confidence and skills to
empower others, and in turn encourages a more
respectful workplace.
Given that approximately 86 percent of RWAs
are located in COs, the majority of contacts with
RWAs continue to be by staff located in those loca-
tions (figures 8 and 9). The share of visitors from
COs remains much higher for RWAs (74 percent)
than for OMB (40 percent). As in previous years,
women were proportionately overrepresented
among those who consulted RWAs, at 73 percent
of RWA contacts, compared with 62 percent for
OMB. In contrast to the OMB visitor profile, Part
2 staff and GA-GD staff also continue to be over-
represented among those who contact RWAs. The
overrepresentation among Part 2 staff is likely due
to the fact that 82 percent of country office staff
are from Part 2 countries.
2006
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2007 2008 2009
Num
be
r of C
ont
ac
ts
2010 201320122011
97
230 233
325
408
517
564535
Fiscal year
Figure 7 RWA Contacts, FY06–FY13
Perc
ent
ag
e o
f RW
A vi
sito
rs to
WBG
sta
ff
RWA visitors demographics
Washington-based
CO-based Women Men Part 1 GA-GDPart 2 GE+
57%
75%
26%
56%
25%
44%
62%
81%
38%
19%
48%
27%
52%
73%
43%
74%
WBG Staff RWA Visitors
Figure 8 Characteristics of WBG Staff and RWA Visitors, FY13
O M B U D S S E R V I C E S | A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 3
2 4
workplace category, while OMB may be seen as
being more knowledgeable about HR processes,
having greater access to HR policy information
and resources, and being able to intervene if
requested.
Program Updates
Nominations and Program Scope. An increase
in demand for the RWA Program has been evident
in Bank units in Washington, resulting in 30 RWAs
there, the highest number so far for the program
in Washington. As a result of staff movements in
fiscal 2013, 36 new RWAs were nominated (see
table 8 for fiscal 2013 RWA numbers). Another 31
completed their four-year term or left the organi-
zation and were replaced. Now that about 96 per-
cent of all eligible COs have RWAs, it is expected
that the program will continue to grow at much
slower rate for the next few years.
Demographics of RWAs. GE+ staff and women
were overrepresented in the RWA ranks (table 9).
Training. Newly selected RWAs are required to
attend a four-day basic training before they can take
on the role. Roughly halfway through their four-
year term, RWAs are expected to attend a three-
Issue Types Reported to RWAs
As shown in table 7, respectful workplace issues
(44 percent)—which include issues of interper-
sonal conflicts, alleged discrimination, alleged
harassment, alleged retaliation, and other mis-
conduct—continue to be the most prominent
concern among RWA visitors, with interper-
sonal conflicts being the single issue most fre-
quently raised by CO-based staff (22 percent).
For Washington-based staff, management skills
and behaviors is the most frequently cited issue
(24 percent). Although the distribution of types
of issues shows similarities to the distribution in
last year’s report, there is a slight increase in the
Washington-based issue distribution resulting in
23 more issues of interpersonal conflicts (7 per-
cent), and a significant decrease in management
skills and behavior issues (16 percent). Compared
with the distribution at OMB, the distribution of
HR process and respectful workplace issues is
vastly different—RWAs were contacted much
more frequently (44 percent) about respectful
workplace issues than was OMB (15 percent)
and less frequently about HR process issues
(25 percent compared with 36 percent). A pos-
sible explanation for this is that RWAs are seen
as being more helpful as a sounding board for
relationship-type issues that fall in the respectful
note: chart shows the ratio of the percentage of RWA visitors in each category to the percentage of WBG staff in each group. A ratio of 1 indicates that the percentage of RWA visitors in a particular group is equal to the percentage that group represents among all WBG staff. Groups with a ratio greater than 1 are overrepresented; groups with a ratio of less than 1 are underrepresented.
Ratio
of R
WA
Visit
ors
% to
WBG
Sta
ff %
RWA visitors demographics
Washington-based
CO-based Women Men Part 1 GA-GDPart 2 GE+
1.74
1.41
0.56
1.32
1.75
0.74
0.480.45
Figure 9 Origination of RWA Contacts, FY13 (ratio of RWA visitors to WBG staff)
R W A c A S E l O A d , v i S i t O R d E M O G R A P H i c S , A n d i S S u E S
2 5
Five training sessions were held in fiscal 2013,
in Croatia, Thailand, and Washington (table 10).
Seventy-nine RWAs were trained: 39 attended the
Table 8 Number of RWAs, FY13
Dates
Outside Washington
Bank (Washington) Bank IFC Total
As of June 30, 2012 25 130 49 204
terms ended during fY12 9 13 9 31
Selected during fY12 14 14 8 36
As of June 30, 2013 30 131 48 209
day training session. The basic training focuses on
the role of the RWA, the influence of behaviors on
culture and values, WBG policies and procedures,
communication and helper skills, conflict dynam-
ics, in-depth information about the IJS, and ave-
nues of assistance for staff. The midterm training
provides more advanced helper skills and knowl-
edge building, but more importantly, a chance for
RWAs to share experiences and work on more
challenging conflict cases. Both training sessions
concentrate on the opportunity for RWAs to prac-
tice through role playing and case studies, expe-
riential learning, and exchanges with other RWAs.
Table 7 New RWA Visitors’ Issues, FY13
Issue Type
Washington-Based VisitorsCO–Based
Visitors Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
HR process 40 29 95 24 135 25
Benefits 1 1 9 2 10 2
compensation 4 3 13 3 17 3
Ending employment 3 2 22 6 25 5
Entering employment 3 2 3 1 6 1
Performance 15 11 28 7 43 8
Promotion 9 7 13 3 22 4
Reassignment and selection process 5 4 7 2 12 2
Management skills and behavior 33 24 55 14 88 16
Respectful workplace issues 49 36 184 46 233 44
Alleged discrimination 3 2 6 2 9 2
Alleged harassment 8 6 35 9 43 8
Alleged retaliation 0 0 4 1 4 1
interpersonal conflicts 23 17 86 22 109 20
Other alleged misconduct 15 11 53 13 68 13
Conflict of interest 3 2 8 2 11 2
Other issues 13 9 55 14 68 13
domestic issue 4 3 15 4 19 4
Other (try not to use) 5 4 19 5 24 4
Physical work environment 2 1 9 2 11 2
Policy 1 1 6 2 7 1
Quality of operations 1 1 6 2 7 1
Total 138 100 397 100 535 100
O M B U D S S E R V I C E S | A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 3
2 6
basic training, and 40 fulfilled the required mid-
term training. Three IJS colleagues and one HR
Business Partner also attended the basic train-
ing sessions. Between fiscal 2008 and fiscal 2013,
the RWA Program trained 473 RWAs and 19 non-
RWAs, an average of 82 per year.
Feedback is requested from participants after
each training session, and as in previous years,
the training was rated very positively. Participants
evaluate the training on key areas of learning
using a 1–5 rating scale, where 5 is the most posi-
tive response (table 11).
It is worth noting that the overall rating of all the
face-to-face RWA training in fiscal 2013 averaged
4.89 for a second year, compared with the Staff
Learning average rating in fiscal 2012 of 3.2, with
the 10 top learning activities at 4.45.
The RWA training team continues to see the ben-
efits of having RWAs complete the RWA Basic
e-Learning. The RWAs are required to get a passing
score of 80 percent or higher. This exercise brings
participants to a higher level of engagement, thus
allowing the RWA team to go more in-depth during
the face-to-face training. The RWA team also con-
tinues to partner closely with the offices of Ethics
and Business Conduct, HR, and other services to
ensure that the training material is up-to-date and
the content validated by the subject matter experts.
Table 10 RWA Training Sessions, FY1
Location Type RWAs Non-RWAs Total
Zagreb, croatia Basic 15 2 17
Midterm 15 0 15
Bangkok, thailand Midterm 16 0 16
Annapolis, Md, uSA Basic 20 2 22
Midterm 9 0 9
Total 75 4 79
Table 9 RWA Demographics, FY13
Gender Grade Group
Female Male ACS GE+
Bank 91 69 36 124
ifc 31 18 9 40
total 122 87 45 164
Share (%) 58 42 22 78
note: AcS = Administrative and clerical Support Staff.
Table 11 RWA Training Feedback, FY13
Area of Evaluation Zagreb Bangkok Annapolis
To what extent did the training help you achieve the fol-lowing learning objectives?
BasicN = 17
MidtermN = 15
MidtermN = 16
BasicN = 22
MidtermN = 9
identify the role and responsibilities of the RWA 5 4.86 5 4.9 4.89
increase awareness of culture and personal values’ influence
on behavior
4.75 4.33 4.73 4.65 4.56
increase awareness of conflict dynamics and how to deal with
them more effectively
4.31 4.47 4.73 4.5 4.78
identify WBG policies and procedures on building ethical and
respectful work environment
4.44 4.33 4.53 4.55 4.75
identify people and resources to use to assist someone who
believes s/he has been the recipient of disrespectful behaviors
4.69 4.73 4.87 4.8 4.78
Apply specific helping skills to assist a staff member who
believes s/he has been the recipient of disrespectful behaviors
4.56 4.6 4.6 4.65 4.89
Average 4.63 4.55 4.74 4.68 4.78
Rate the overall quality of the training 4.75 4.87 4.93 4.7 4.89
2 7
F I S C A L 2 0 1 3 P R O G R A M A C H I E V E M E N T S
Value Added/Impact of Program
A number of developments occurred this year that
expanded the reach of the RWAs.
Critical Local Resource. RWAs are an essential
gateway to the IJS services for staff, particularly in
the COs. Many staff in the COs feel very distant
from Washington, DC (where the majority of con-
flict resolution resources are housed), may have
little or no information on the services, and may
not know where to go with an issue. Having RWAs
in their office addresses these needs. In fiscal 2013,
RWAs made 540 referrals to IJS and other services
(figure 10). The number of RWA referrals to other
IJS services, HR, and management increased from
fiscal 2012 to fiscal 2013 (figure 11).
Outreach. In both Washington and the COs, RWAs
have continued to participate in IJS Day activities.
The number of presentations to staff by RWAs has
also increased.
More meetings with HR, Learning Coordina-tors, VP HR, and Change Reform groups. The
RWA team has stepped up the frequency of meet-
ings with corporate stakeholders. In fiscal 2013, a
meeting took place with the Bank’s HR SVP, Sean
McGrath, and his leadership team. A meeting was
also held with Dorothy Berry, the IFC’s HR and
Administration VP. The results of the 2012 RWA
Program Evaluation were discussed with the HR
client service teams and the Learning Board. A
meeting was also held with the Leadership, Values
& Culture change group to discuss how the eval-
uation results could inform the change process.
Inclusion of RWAs’ Sector Managers. In an
effort to get more support for RWAs to attend
training or functions, the RWA team is now includ-
ing the RWAs’ sector managers in announcements
about their role and training opportunities.
Management,
166, 31%
Tribunal, 1, 0%
Peer Review Services, 4, 1%Ethics & Business
Conduct, 21, 4%
Staff Association,
31, 6%
Medition
Services, 37, 7%
Human Resources, 65, 12%
Other, 44, 8%
Ombuds Services,
133, 24%
Counseling,
38, 7%
RWA Program Integration into the IJS. In a
2004 report of the evaluation of the Anti-Harass-
ment Advisors (AHA) Program, a predecessor of
the RWA Program, a recommendation was made
to “Regard and publicize the AHA Program as one
of the core CRS services.” It is very clear today
that full integration of the RWA Program into the
CRS/IJS has been realized. The following list of
activities demonstrates the level of integration:
➤ RWAs are a critical part of the local (CO)
resources.
➤ RWAs participate in NSO in the COs.
➤ RWAs have periodic meetings with country
managers and directors and other CO heads.
➤ RWAs are an integral part of IJS Day activities.
➤ RWAs are a part of the CO outreach activi-
ties with visiting staff from the Staff Associa-
tion, Peer Review Services, Office of Ethics and
Business Conduct and OMB.
➤ The RWA Program partners with other IJS
offices to develop e-learning materials.
➤ RWA Program networking efforts are being
emulated by other IJS offices; examples
Figure 10 Referrals from RWAs, FY13
O M B U D S S E R V I C E S | A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 3
2 8
include case of the month, tips of the month,
and newsletter format.
➤ The RWA training program has been requested
by management in some regions and by VPUs
in Washington.
➤ VPUs in Washington continue to request RWAs
for their units.
➤ As a program (office), the RWAs have more
staff contacts than any other IJS resource
except OMB.
➤ The RWA Program submits annual program
overview reports like other IJS offices.
External Inquires about the RWA Program. In fiscal 2013, requests for information on the
RWA Program were received from several interna-
Other
Staff Association
Counseling
Management
Human Resources
Ethics and Business Conduct
Peer Review Services
Mediation Services
Ombuds Services
2500
4548
31353838
5765
147166
197
13398
2437
48
2421
50 100 150 200
FY13W
BG re
sour
ce
sFY12
Figure 11 Referrals from RWAs, Difference from FY11 to FY12
tional organizations. Among them were the World
Health Organization, the World Food Program,
the Institutes of Medicine, the Food and Agricul-
ture Organization, the World Intellectual Property
Organization, the United Nations Office for Proj-
ect Services, and the African Development Bank.
They requested both the program documents and
the training materials. Five of these organizations
patterned programs after the WBG’s RWA program.
RWA Program Evaluation Follow-Up. The
2012 RWA Program evaluation report has several
recommendations aimed at enhancing the pro-
gram. Table 12 lists the recommendations and the
actions taken to address them. Some of the activi-
ties are ongoing.
f i S c A l 2 0 1 3 P R O G R A M A c H i E v E M E n t S
2 9
Tab
le 1
2R
WA
Pro
gra
m E
valu
ati
on
Rec
om
me
nda
tio
n Im
ple
me
nta
tio
n
Rec
om
me
nda
tions
by
Eva
lua
tors
Resp
ons
ible
St
ake
hold
er(
s)Im
ple
me
nta
tion
De
cis
ion
Ant
icip
ate
d
Out
co
me
sA
ctiv
itie
sSt
atu
s
Ma
nag
em
ent
sho
uld
be
mo
re v
isib
le to
the
sta
ff in
the
ir su
pp
ort
of t
he R
WA
Pro
gra
m a
nd
the
ir e
nco
ura
ge
me
nt o
f sta
ff to
use
it.
OM
B, M
ana
ge
me
nt
and
Hum
an
Reso
urc
es
OM
B ha
s se
t up
reg
ula
r me
etin
gs
with
all
HR
tea
ms
to d
isse
min
ate
eva
lua
tion
find
ing
s,
rec
om
me
nda
tions
,
and
ge
nera
l tre
nds.
• in
cre
ase
d
aw
are
ness
of R
WA
Pro
gra
m
• St
aff
use
RW
As
• St
aff
are
mo
re
kno
wle
dg
ea
ble
• M
ana
ge
rs e
nsur
e
RWAs
atte
nd
train
ing
• n
om
ina
tions
are
ea
sier a
nd fa
ste
r
• M
ore
Ac
tivity
form
s fro
m R
WAs
Me
et w
ith a
ll H
R
tea
ms
Me
et w
ith l
ea
rnin
g
Boa
rd
Me
t with
Se
an
Mc
Gra
th, 3
/28/
13;
do
roth
y Be
rry,
5/10
/13;
iJc
, 6/1
8/13
;
EcA/
Mn
A, 6
/20/
13;
HRn
W, 7
/9/1
3;
lea
rnin
g B
oa
rd,
7/9/
13
Pend
ing
: EAP
/SAR
Exp
lore
with
HR
and
ma
nag
em
ent
why
a lo
we
r pe
rce
nta
ge
of H
R st
aff
surv
eye
d
ind
ica
ted
tha
t the
wo
rk e
nviro
nme
nt w
as
go
od
or e
xce
llent
.
OM
B, M
ana
ge
me
nt
& H
uma
n Re
sour
ce
s
disc
uss
find
ing
s
with
ea
ch
vP H
R,
HR
tea
ms,
and
iJS
co
llea
gue
s, p
lus
foc
us G
roup
.
• Be
tter
und
ers
tand
ing
of H
R Bu
sine
ss
Partn
ers
’ vie
ws
of t
he w
ork
env
ironm
ent
(whe
re R
WAs
are
pre
sent
)
• in
cre
ase
d m
ora
le
Sam
e a
s
ab
ove
—d
iscus
sed
at
ea
ch
me
etin
g
disc
usse
d a
t
me
etin
gs
ab
ove
find
a w
ay
of c
om
mun
ica
ting
the
pro
gra
m’s
be
nefit
s to
sta
ff a
nd th
e o
rga
niza
tion.
OM
B•
Ana
lyze
eva
lua
tion
to fi
nd
be
nefit
s.
• c
ond
uct S
taff
Asso
cia
tion
surv
ey.
• Su
rve
y RW
As
ab
out
be
nefit
s.
• c
olle
ct
ane
cd
ote
s a
nd
test
imo
nie
s fro
m
RWAs
.
• Be
tter
und
ers
tand
ing
of
pro
gra
m’s
be
nefit
s
• G
rea
ter u
se o
f
RWAs
by
sta
ff
• G
rea
ter s
upp
ort
for t
he p
rog
ram
to b
e d
ete
rmin
ed
no
t sta
rted
(con
tinue
d o
n ne
xt p
ag
e)
O M B U D S S E R V I C E S | A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 3
3 0
Tab
le 1
2R
WA
Pro
gra
m E
valu
ati
on
Rec
om
me
nda
tio
n Im
ple
me
nta
tio
n
Rec
om
me
nda
tions
by
Eva
lua
tors
Resp
ons
ible
St
ake
hold
er(
s)Im
ple
me
nta
tion
De
cis
ion
Ant
icip
ate
d
Out
co
me
sA
ctiv
itie
sSt
atu
s
Enc
our
ag
e th
e R
WAs
to b
e m
ore
pro
ac
tive
in b
riefin
g h
ea
ds
of o
ffic
es
ab
out
the
pro
gra
m a
nd it
s b
ene
fits
to th
e s
taff
and
the
org
ani
zatio
n.a
OM
B, R
WAs
, and
hea
ds
of o
ffic
es
• M
oni
tor a
nd
enc
our
ag
e R
WAs
to b
rief h
ea
ds
of
offi
ce
s a
t tra
inin
g
and
in re
gul
ar
co
mm
unic
atio
n.
• O
MB
will
enc
our
ag
e
hea
ds
of o
ffic
es
to s
che
dul
e
me
etin
gs
with
RWAs
.
• in
cre
ase
d
out
rea
ch
and
und
ers
tand
ing
of
the
pro
gra
m
• M
ana
ge
rs a
re
kno
wle
dg
ea
ble
ab
out
the
RW
A
Pro
gra
m
• in
cre
ase
d
co
mm
unic
atio
n
be
twe
en
RWAs
and
he
ad
s o
f
offi
ce
s
Ema
il to
he
ad
s
of o
ffic
es
dur
ing
cur
rent
ong
oin
g
co
mm
unic
atio
ns
Add
reg
ula
r
rem
ind
ers
to h
ea
ds
of o
ffic
es
Ong
oin
g
de
sign
and
imp
lem
ent
a m
oni
torin
g a
nd
eva
lua
tion
pla
n th
at c
ap
ture
s
1. s
take
hold
er s
atis
fac
tion
da
ta o
n a
reg
ula
r
ba
sis
2. t
he p
rog
ram
’s e
ffec
tive
ness
and
util
ity
OM
B•
Send
pe
riod
ic
yea
rly s
urve
y to
all
sta
keho
lde
rs (1
0
que
stio
ns).
• c
ons
ide
r usin
g e
xit
surv
ey
for u
sers
.
• Pe
riod
ica
lly
eva
lua
te th
e
pro
gra
m.
• M
ore
ac
cur
ate
ass
ess
me
nt o
f
pro
gra
m im
pa
ct
• n
ee
ds
of u
sers
ide
ntifi
ed
• Ab
ility
to m
ea
sure
pro
gre
ss o
ver t
ime
usin
g th
e c
urre
nt
eva
lua
tion
as
a
be
nchm
ark
ne
ed
s to
be
ass
ess
ed
fY15
–fY1
6
inc
rea
se th
e p
rog
ram
’s e
nga
ge
me
nt w
ith H
R
sta
ff to
imp
rove
aw
are
ness
in th
is g
roup
.
OM
BSe
t up
reg
ula
r
me
etin
gs
with
the
HR
tea
m, a
nd in
vite
one
or t
wo
HR
sta
ff to
atte
nd e
ac
h b
asic
train
ing
se
ssio
n.
Ge
t inc
rea
sed
sup
po
rt fo
r the
nom
ina
tion
pro
ce
ss.
• G
rea
ter
aw
are
ness
of a
nd
sup
po
rt fo
r the
pro
gra
m, a
nd
pa
rtne
rshi
p w
ith
RWAs
• Ef
fec
tive
nom
ina
tion
pro
ce
ss
• Po
sitiv
e im
pre
ssio
n
of t
he p
rog
ram
One
or t
wo
HR
Busin
ess
Pa
rtne
rs a
re
invi
ted
to a
ttend
the
ba
sic tr
ain
ing
.
in f
Y12
and
fY1
3,
a to
tal o
f 8 H
R
Sta
ff a
ttend
ed
. fo
r
fY14
, 6 H
R St
aff
are
exp
ec
ted
to a
ttend
.
(con
tinue
d)
(con
tinue
d o
n ne
xt p
ag
e)
f i S c A l 2 0 1 3 P R O G R A M A c H i E v E M E n t S
3 1
Tab
le 1
2R
WA
Pro
gra
m E
valu
ati
on
Rec
om
me
nda
tio
n Im
ple
me
nta
tio
n
Rec
om
me
nda
tions
by
Eva
lua
tors
Resp
ons
ible
St
ake
hold
er(
s)Im
ple
me
nta
tion
De
cis
ion
Ant
icip
ate
d
Out
co
me
sA
ctiv
itie
sSt
atu
s
inc
rea
se o
vera
ll c
om
mun
ica
tion
and
ed
uca
tion
ab
out
the
RW
A’s
role
and
resp
ons
ibilit
ies.
OM
B, R
WAs
, iJS
sta
ffin
cre
ase
out
rea
ch
co
mm
unic
atio
n
to h
elp
sta
ff b
ette
r
und
ers
tand
the
RWA
role
and
resp
ons
ibilit
ies,
spe
cifi
ca
lly
ad
dre
ssin
g w
hat t
he
resp
ons
ibilit
ies
do
no
t
inc
lud
e (m
ed
iatio
n,
inte
rve
ntio
n, e
tc.).
• Be
tter
und
ers
tand
ing
of R
WA
resp
ons
ibilit
ies
and
the
rea
sons
of t
he
limita
tions
• Re
co
gni
tion
tha
t
RWAs
are
a g
oo
d
reso
urc
e
• in
cre
ase
d tr
ust
• M
ana
ge
rs
exp
ress
es
sup
po
rt
Ong
oin
g o
utre
ac
h
by
all
OM
B, R
WA,
and
iJS
sta
ff d
urin
g
pre
sent
atio
ns a
bo
ut
the
RW
A Pr
og
ram
and
iJS
serv
ice
s
Revi
ew
fre
que
ncy
and
mo
da
litie
s o
f RW
A
in-s
erv
ice
tra
inin
g o
pp
ortu
nitie
s a
nd in
vite
ma
nag
em
ent
and
HR
sta
ff to
atte
nd tr
ain
ing
.
OM
BPa
rtne
r with
le
arn
ing
co
ord
ina
tors
to
ad
dre
ss a
dd
itio
nal
train
ing
(virt
ual)
and
skills
ne
ed
s fo
r RW
As.
invi
te n
on-
RWAs
to
atte
nd (H
R, iJ
S).
• M
ore
skil
ls fo
r
RWAs
, HR,
and
iJS
Sta
ff
• M
ore
effe
ctiv
e
ma
nag
em
ent
of
co
nflic
t ac
ross
all
gro
ups
OM
B w
ill a
sse
ss
reso
urc
es
ava
ilab
ility.
fY15
Exa
min
e a
nd re
co
nsid
er t
he ro
le a
nd
resp
ons
ibilit
ies
of t
he R
WAs
with
resp
ec
t to
be
ing
pro
ac
tive.
RWA
Pro
gra
mO
MB
will
not
imp
lem
ent
this
rec
om
me
nda
tion
as
oth
er i
JS s
erv
ice
s
fulfi
ll th
is fu
nctio
n.
the
RW
A ro
le s
houl
d
rem
ain
the
sa
me.
n/A
n/A
n/A
Ado
pt s
tand
ard
s o
f pra
ctic
e fo
r the
pro
gra
m
to il
lum
ina
te th
e p
rinc
iple
s o
n w
hic
h it
op
era
tes
and
as
a s
et o
f pe
rform
anc
e
ind
ica
tors
for f
utur
e e
valu
atio
ns.
RWA
Pro
gra
m, R
WAs
Ado
pt s
tand
ard
s o
f
pra
ctic
e.
inc
rea
sed
und
ers
tand
ing
of t
he ro
le a
nd
resp
ons
ibilit
ies
of
RWAs
Writ
ten
and
pub
lishe
d o
n w
eb
site
co
mp
lete
d
not
e: iJ
c =
inte
rna
l Jus
tice
co
unc
il a
nd H
RnW
= H
uma
n Re
sour
ce
s n
etw
ork
.a H
ea
ds
of o
ffic
es
inc
lud
es
vic
e p
resid
ent
s, c
oun
try d
irec
tors
, re
gio
nal d
irec
tors
, co
untry
ma
nag
ers
, ge
nera
l ma
nag
ers
, HR
ne
two
rk v
ice
-pre
side
ncie
s, a
nd in
tern
al J
ustic
e c
oun
cil
and
he
ad
le
ad
ers
of a
cO
or v
ice
pre
side
ncy.
(con
tinue
d)
O M B U D S S E R V I C E S | A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 3
3 2
R W A P R O G R A M – S O M E C H A L L E N G E S
In 2005, the RWA Program streamlined and
strengthened the RWA nomination process in an
effort to nominate RWAs who have the right char-
acteristics for the role and avoid conflicts of inter-
ests with their professional functions. The RWA
team designed a confidential voting system that
is independent from management to ensure that
nominations are sent directly to the team. In addi-
tion, the team started to partner with HR Busi-
ness Partners to ensure that the top nominees are
indeed the right people to serve as RWAs. With
a stronger system came increased administra-
tion. Currently, nominating RWAs is a lengthy and
administratively burdensome process. Sometimes,
because of high administrative overhead, it can
take two to six months, and a thousand emails to
nominate 30 RWAs.
The current nomination process consists of sev-
eral steps, starting with email exchanges with the
CO/VPU management team to evaluate needs
after which the RWA team initiates a selection pro-
cess. The team works with HR to create a list of
eligible staff to populate the candidates’ slate for
that office. Staff who hold managerial, resources/
finance management, Staff Association, or HR
responsibilities are not eligible as their roles may
cause a conflict of interest. When the list is final-
ized, the team provides the CO/VPU management
team with a draft communication to launch the
process. Staff is asked to nominate up to three
people they trust and respect, people they would
go to if they wanted to discuss a workplace issue
confidentially. This is done through a secure,
electronic, secret ballot. The RWA team moni-
tors the progress of the nominations and iden-
tifies the staff members who received the most
votes. The team follows up with a basic back-
ground check to ensure their suitability for the
role; this includes vetting the proposed selec-
tions with HR. The RWA team then checks with
the selected staff for their willingness to serve as
RWAs before requesting final clearance by their
country manager or vice president. The selection
of RWAs is then announced by the country man-
ager or vice president.
Adding to the administrative burden of the nom-
ination process is the challenge of bringing the
RWAs to training. Because the trainee population
is very small, the program offers training twice a
year and rotates between WBG Regions to mitigate
travel costs. Funding of training is done through
a partnership between the Regions and OMB: the
Regions cover the cost of transportation, hotel, and
subsistence for their RWAs while the RWA Program
covers the delivery of the training (conference
fees) and many meals. Note that for Washington
IBRD RWAs, because the program is optional, the
VPU is charged a training fee of $1,800 for each
attendee to help defray administrative costs.
Each step in the nomination takes time as the
Team works with different stakeholders through
the process. Missions and other work pressures
often delay the process further, and multiple
reminders must be sent out by the country man-
ager or vice president. The nominees must attend
training before they can serve in the role. The
RWA team strives to match the nomination cycle
with the training cycle but is not always able to do
so because the nomination cycle tends to be elas-
tic and is not always in sync with training cycles
in the Region. Often, the Region is unable to allo-
cate extra funds for an RWA to attend training in
another Region, which leaves the office without
a RWA.
In the hope of accelerating the selection process,
the program is considering a pilot of a hybrid pro-
R W A P R O G R A M – S O M E c H A l l E n G E S
3 3
cess, eliminating the need for the country man-
ager to launch the nomination process. The RWA
team would send the launch email directly to
staff, monitor the responses and progress, and
send the reminders. The rest of the nomination
process would still involve all stakeholders. We
hope that this change will help us select RWAs
more quickly while maintaining the integrity of
the process. We plan to start this pilot for the EAP
and SAR Regions at the end of 2013.
The characteristics of an RWA remain the same:
someone who provides an informal, confidential,
trustworthy, and accessible source staff can come
to with questions or concerns about a respect-
ful workplace or to get information about where
to seek assistance. An RWA does not intervene,
investigate, mediate, or participate in resolving
issues. The RWA is not an advocate for staff or
management.
RWA Activity Forms. RWAs are a vital part of the
WBG’s CRS. They are often the first point of con-
tact for staff, especially in COs. To take advantage
of this information source, OMB collects confiden-
tial and anonymous data on the workplace issues
that the RWAs observe. The data are aggregated at
a very high level (HQ and CO), and shared only
in the aggregate or thematically so as to protect
the identities of the RWAs’ visitors.
The RWAs’ Activity Forms demonstrate the value
RWAs provide and allows the organization to
understand and address issues that staff struggle
with. For the program, the Activity Forms are the
quantitative “performance indicators” to verify
that the RWAs were utilized and to keep infor-
mation on the kind of issues that staff are deal-
ing with.
Keeping track of RWA activities has four objec-
tives:
➤ Understand the types of issues coming to an
RWA
➤ Discuss general trends and issues with senior
management
➤ Enhance training for all RWAs
➤ Determine the effectiveness of the RWA Program
Unfortunately, because the administration of the
program is labor intensive and administratively
burdensome, the rich data from the RWA Activ-
ity Forms do not get sufficient attention. The time
available for analysis, evaluation of the program’s
impact, program outreach, and other communica-
tions has been constrained by the time required
to run the program. Putting better technology sys-
tems in place would give us a tool to better ana-
lyze the data we collect. That would enable us to
provide the organization with invaluable informa-
tion that would help in understanding the issues
and situations so that they can be addressed.
Although RWAs are required to send their Activity
Forms on a quarterly basis, about 20–25 percent of
them do not comply because of their travel and/
or heavy workload. Given that the RWA role is a
volunteer one, it is difficult to impose compliance.
Having a system that would remind RWAs to send
in their Activity Forms could improve submis-
sion rates and demonstrate RWAs’ real contribu-
tion to the CRS. In addition, although the Activity
Forms’ data are anonymous, RWAs have indicated
that they underreport issues because of the strong
emphasis on the informality and anonymity of the
process. Staff do not always feel comfortable with
RWA “reporting” the types of issues they discuss
with them.
Acknowledgment of outgoing RWAs. This year,
31 RWAs completed their terms, moved to other
jobs, or left the organization. The RWA team wants
to thank them for having served as a Respect-
ful Workplace Advisor. The time and effort they
put into this important role is much appreciated.
We want to express our thanks and gratitude for
their role in making the work environment more
respectful and for helping staff address issues they
were facing.
O M B U D S S E R V I C E S | A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 3
3 4
Outgoing RWAs wrote:
“It was a real honor to be part of the Ombuds
Service and CRS. During my assignment as RWA
for my office, I benefited a lot from the carefully
designed training programs and the exchange of
experience with the colleagues from other offices.
It added a lot to my knowledge and enriched my
personal skills. I remain indebted to the team for
the continuous advice and support. It had a great
impact on my capabilities in this field.”
“Working as an RWA was ‘payback’ for me. I have
benefited from support from very good people in
Table 13 Outgoing RWAs, FY13
VPU Name Country
iBRd – AfR dixon n. Wlehbo liberia
iBRd – AfR Patrice Joachim nirina Rakotoniaina Madagascar
iBRd – AfR lungiswa thandiwe Gxaba South Africa
iBRd – AfR Patricia Palale Zambia
iBRd – cSR cidalia Brocca Brazil
iBRd – EcA Marina Bakanova Belarus
iBRd – EcA iaroslav Baclajanschi Moldova
iBRd – Ext diana Ya-Wai chung united States
iBRd – Ext valerie Hufbauer united States
iBRd – iAd Archana Gupta Gregersen united States
iBRd – iAd Elizabeth A. logan united States
iBRd – int Maria constancia Mallo united States
iBRd – int Simon Robertson united States
iBRd – lAc Susana i. Perez Bolivia
iBRd – lAc david tuchschneider Bolivia
iBRd – lAc cesar Armando leon Juarez Guatemala
iBRd – lAc Michael J. Goldberg united States
iBRd – lAc Monique Pelloux Patron united States
iBRd – MnA Abdulla Omar Haroon Yemen, Rep.
iBRd – MnA Samra Shaibani Yemen, Rep.
iBRd – OPc Jeanette Murry united States
iBRd – SAR Preeti Kudesia india
ifc – iAl carlos Augusto Klink Brazil
ifc – iAl farida lasida Adji indonesia
ifc – iAl Hernan Pareja Peru
ifc – iAl Malavika Pillai india
ifc – iAP Sayed tarek Kamal Bangladesh
ifc – iAP Patricia c. Wycoco Philippines
ifc – iBA Mehita Sylla South Africa
ifc – iff Eugenia vargas torres colombia
ifc – iff clara ugarte Perrin Peru
R W A P R O G R A M – S O M E c H A l l E n G E S
3 5
various challenging aspects of my life, so I am
really glad that I could also impact on the lives of
others. However, more importantly, I really appre-
ciate the confidence placed in me by the staff as
their RWA. It has been an exciting experience.
Thanks also to the Ombuds family for the usual
guidance, inputs and support, and also, to the
CMU for listening to the advice as necessary.”
“Serving as an RWA has been quite interesting, ful-
filling, and pleasurable. The opportunity to just lis-
ten and guide staff to assess their situations and
think through their options has been awesome,
especially when the process leads to amicable solu-
tions. It was humbling to imagine the level of trust
staff placed in me that made them to keep coming
for guidance.
I have learned a great deal in the process. My lis-
tening skills have been sharpened; I have gained
conflict resolution skills and considerable knowl-
edge of institutional sources of information and
support, including the Internal Justice System. I
am glad to have played a role in support of the
Bank’s policy that ensures that staff work in a
respectful workplace free of harassment, discrimi-
nation, and intimidation.”
“It was a pleasure having served as RWA during
these four last years and I really learned a lot from
this experience. Thank you also for your availabil-
ity each time I need your support.”
“Working as a RWA was one of the greatest plea-
sures I had in the Bank.”
“It was very nice to be able to support staff and
make a contribution to the nice working environ-
ment that we enjoy at the [blank] office.”
“It was a wonderful learning experience and I
hope I contributed in a sense to build a safer work-
place in country office.”
One staff member who used a RWA wrote:
“I would like to thank you for your time and energy
helping us addressing any concerns about the work-
place in your role as RWA. It was not easy to give us
priority to listen to our problems on top of your busy
schedule and assignment in your sector. You were
able to show your real self, while serving as RWA
and assist so many of us during our difficult time. I
really appreciate it very much. I hope you will keep
on advising informally the new RWAs on board.”
A N N E X E S
Annex 1 Definitions of Issue Categories
Issue Category Definition
Entering Employment used to capture information regarding terms of a “contract” and
interpretation of those terms
Reassignment and Selection
Process
Re-entry and external assignment/leave without pay concerns; job
posting, short-listing, interview process, and selection
Performance includes performance evaluations, Opportunity to improve programs,
or any issue concerning performance emanating from staff member or
supervisor
Promotion clearance by Sector Board, management recommendation/approval
Salaries including salary review increase (SRi) and job grading/description
Benefits Application of benefits policies including medical, home leave,
education, disability, relocation, pension, and other benefits issues
Ending Employment Historically referred to as “termination,” redundancies, mutually agreed
separation, or separation for cause
Policy criticism of existing policy, recommendation for new or changed policy
Interpersonal Conflicts cultural misunderstandings and any other communication problems
Management Skills and Behaviors includes a supervisor’s deficiencies in people management skills and
behavior that is perceived to be destructive, disrespectful, or otherwise
problematic
Harassment Any unwelcome verbal or physical behavior that interferes with work or
creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment
Discrimination the unjustifiable differentiation between individuals or groups within staff:
discrimination can be based on one or more characteristics, including
but not limited to race, caste, color, culture, ethnic background,
religion, age, gender, disability, marital status, political views, and sexual
orientation.
Retaliation Harm done to an individual in retribution for raising good faith concerns in
the workplace
Conflict of Interest A situation in which an individual faces conflicting or dual loyalties: it can
arise when personal best interests are, or appear to be, in conflict with the
person’s duties to another party, such as the WBG.
Quality of Operations Application of WBG quality standards regarding professional decisions
Domestic Issues child support, domestic abuse, divorce, G-5 domestic employees
Compliance Issues Personal legal obligations, investigation, personnel record
A N N E X E S
3 7
(continued on next page)
Annex 2 Issues Matrix
Issue Recommendation Update
Recruitment, Reassignment, and Promotion Processes
• confusion about the role of the
Sector Boards (SBs).
• lack of consistency and
transparency about selection
and promotion criteria and
decisions
• lack of feedback to unsuccessful
candidates
• Perception of arbitrary or unfair
processes and decisions
• frequent perception of pro forma
processes where candidate has
already been selected
• SBs should harmonize and communicate
processes and criteria used for decision
making.
• SBs and interview panels should clearly
identify who will provide feedback to
unsuccessful candidates.
• Managers should avoid sudden changes
in direction in selection processes (for
example, from competitive to strategic
assignment, or downgrading of positions).
• confusion about the role of SBs in HR matters
still exists.
• feedback is still often perfunctory or
nonexistent. this is a particular problem for
short-list panels and a challenge for managers
when faced with a large number of applicants.
Treatment of Contractor Employees in COs
• contractor employees have
few or no options if they feel
they are mistreated or wish to
report a perceived contract
violation—many of their
employers do not have a cRS
and they are often unaware of
the WBG cRS.
• compensation and benefits
packages are set according to
local labor market conditions,
leaving contractors in some
countries without adequate
insurance coverage.
• improve contract design and supervision
(General Services department, GSd).
• Provide information on WBG including
RWA and OMB role for contractor
employees (managers, GSd).
• Guide cOs on managing contractor
employees so as to take into account
the Bank’s reputational risk as well as legal
risks.
• GSd has established a hotline for contract
employees who have concerns about possible
contract violations. However, most contract
employees in fragile states do not have access
to a telephone, nor do they have English
language skills.
• the reputational risk that WBG will not hear
about contract violations or mistreatment of
staff is particularly high in postconflict countries.
no action yet on this matter.
Guidelines for Authorship and Attribution
• A number of junior staff or
consultants complain each year
about more senior staff taking
credit for their work.
• there is a lack of training and
management skills for untagged
managers who supervise
vulnerable junior staff, AcS staff,
and consultants.
• Provide guidelines to staff that clarify Bank
policy on claiming authorship and on
attribution.
• untagged managers should go through
leadership development programs
before being permitted to hire or
manage staff and consultants.
• use already developed ifc courses
as a basis to develop a cost effective
e-learning course for untagged
managers.
• A task force consisting of representatives from
dEc, PREM, Ext, OPcS, lEG, and EBc has
recommended appropriate language (see
annex 3). Still pending.
O M B U D S S E R V I C E S | A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 3
3 8
Annex 2 Issues Matrix
Issue Recommendation Update
Terms of Employment
• increased use of shorter-term
contracts is leading to a greater
sense of job insecurity among
staff and consultants.
• increased number of concerns
raised this year about nonrenewal
of contracts.
• Stcs and some cO Etcs are
not eligible for orientation and
do not have access to Bank
systems they need in order to be
effective.
• Stcs asked to work without
contract; afraid to complain
because they are seeking future
employment.
• continue monitoring the impact of the
increased use of shorter-term contracts
on recruitment competitiveness.
• A more specific definition of “reasonable
notice” should be included if a contract is
to be interrupted or not renewed.
• All consultants should receive orientation
information (on Bank values/mission
and the cRS/iJS) as well as access to
necessary Bank systems.
• training and sanctions for ttls, managers
who permit individuals to work without a
contract.
• Six-month notice policy for nonrenewal of
contract initiated fY14.
• the new HR website has relevant information
(emergency, cRS, values, health services, etc.)
for new staff, by appointment type.
• no action taken to date.
Retaliation
• Among staff, there is a general
fear of retaliation for using the
cRS/iJS.
• Several staff have dropped
pursuit of an issue after being
warned by managers or other
staff that using the services could
damage their career.
• Exit survey data suggest
that some staff believe they
have experienced retaliatory
measures.
• OMB needs to emphasize to
management the importance of
encouraging staff to use cRS services.
• Orientation and training segments on
cRS should explain how these services
can be useful to management and
communicate that the institution sees the
cRS as a recommended and legitimate
resource.
• training in conflict competency should
be mainstreamed to staff and managers.
• this will always remain a concern to a
certain extent. Managers need to provide
more leadership; cRS can do a better job
by emphasizing the role of cRS services in
management training and other opportunities.
• Recommendations stand.
note: dEc = development Economics. PREM = Poverty Reduction and Economic Management. Ext = External Affairs. OPcS = Operations Policy and country Services. lEG = legal. EBc = Ethics and Business conduct.
(continued)
A N N E X E S
3 9
Annex 3: Respectful Workplace Advisors (RWA) Program – Terms of Reference
The World Bank Group recognizes the right of
every staff member to be treated fairly, with respect
and dignity, and to work in a respectful workplace
free of harassment, discrimination, and intimida-
tion. To support this policy, the Bank Group has
set up several avenues through which individuals
can seek advice and assistance or to register a com-
plaint. One of the informal avenues of assistance is
the Respectful Workplace Advisors (RWA) Program.
RWAs are a network of peer volunteers in World
Bank Group country offices and in some work
units in Washington, DC. RWAs are nominated by
staff members in their offices and serve four-year
terms. The goal of the RWA is to help colleagues
help themselves by listening and providing prob-
lem-solving guidance in confidence. The program
is administered by the Ombuds Services.
The role of the RWA is to provide
1. An informal, confidential, trustworthy, and readily accessible source of early assistance
for staff who have questions or concerns regard-
ing a respectful workplace or who want infor-
mation about where to seek assistance. Issues
might include interpersonal conflicts, unfair
treatment, harassment, disrespectful and uneth-
ical behaviors, employment or performance,
misconduct, and other workplace stresses
2. Briefs to management about general respect-
ful workplace trends while maintaining con-
fidentiality.
In fulfilling this role, the responsibilities of RWAs are to
➤ Serve as a confidential sounding board for staff
➤ Listen and help colleagues assess their situa-
tions and think through their options
➤ Help colleagues help themselves by listening
and providing problem-solving guidance in
confidence
➤ Coach colleagues in conflict resolution skills,
when appropriate, to enable them to help
themselves in the future
➤ Guide colleagues to appropriate institutional
sources of information and support, including
the IJS
➤ Provide colleagues with information about rel-
evant policies and procedures
➤ Model the WBG Code of Conduct and other
organizational statements of standards and
values
➤ Ensure colleagues understand how to contact
them confidentially
➤ Respond to requests for assistance promptly
➤ Meet with the country manager, country direc-
tor, or vice president periodically to discuss
trends and the general office environment
without providing information about specific
cases or divulging the names of staff involved
➤ Give periodic presentations to all staff in the
office or unit as well as briefings to new staff
on their RWA role
➤ Send quarterly confidential Activity Forms
to Ombuds Services on the types of issues
brought to their attention, with no information
that could identify a staff member, in order to
safeguard absolute confidentiality
RWAs DO NOT intervene, investigate, medi-ate, or participate in resolving issues . They
do not represent staff or carry a staff member’s
issue to a higher authority. They do not choose a
course of action for staff members.
At all times RWAs must follow the RWA Standards of Practice, by being confiden-tial, respectful, ethical, informal, trust-worthy, independent, impartial, and competent . (The RWA Standards of Practice and RWA contact details can be found on the RWA website.)
O M B U D S S E R V I C E S | A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 3
4 0
Annex 4: Respectful Workplace Advisors Program – Program Objectives
The RWA Program is one of a range of informal
services available to staff within the IJS of the
World Bank Group. This program supports the
World Bank Group’s commitment to fostering a
positive and motivating workplace environment
in which all staff can work together with openness
and trust, in ways that demonstrate respect and
value differences. All workplace issues regarding
respectful and ethical behaviors and other sources
of stress at work will be taken seriously.
RWA Program Responsibilities
The responsibilities of the RWA Program are to
build capacity within the WBG by the following:
1. Raising awareness about respectful and ethical behaviors at the World Bank Group
through
a. Regular program communications
b. Updated presentations to staff and manage-
ment
c. Regular reports on RWA Program activities
2. Contributing to the informal resources available to staff by ensuring that
a. All staff have information available to
enable easy and early access to RWAs
b. All eligible COs have RWAs
3. Facilitating the nomination and selec-tion of appropriate staff to the RWA role by
ensuring that
a. WBG staff nominated to be an RWA do not
have other commitments that might lead to
a conflict of interest
b. Nomination and selection processes are fair
and understood by staff
4. Training nominated colleagues to an effec-tive standard to meet their RWA responsibili-
ties so that all RWAs have
a. A basic understanding of the dynamics of
a culturally diverse environment and work-
place problems, including various forms of
disrespectful and unethical behaviors
b. A comprehensive awareness of the World
Bank Group’s policies and procedures on
appropriate behaviors and for addressing
conflict
c. Familiarity with the services of the different
units within the IJS
d. The ability to perform basic helping func-
tions such as active listening
e. An understanding of their roles and respon-
sibilities, including how to handle and
respond to workplace problems and how to
refer staff members to appropriate resources
in the Bank Group
5. Adhering to the RWA Standards of Practice
by ensuring the program is organized, effi-
cient, visible, accessible, competent, of high
quality, coordinated, effective, and impactful.
(The RWA Standards of Practice can be found
on the RWA website.)
6. Ensuring that the process of providing assistance through the program is also voluntary, accessible, informal, effective, empowering, and satisfactory .
A N N E X E S
4 1
Annex 5: Standards of Practice
The Respectful Workplace Advisors Program: Standard of Practices
These are standards of practice for the RWA Pro-
gram. The standards include
1. Standards of Conduct for RWAs
2. Standards for the process by which RWA assis-
tance is provided
3. Standards for the RWA Program itself
I. RWA StandardsThe RWA shall be:
➤ Confidential
• Holds all communication with those who
consult him or her in strict confidence as
per Staff Rule 9.02
• Keeps no official records that identify indi-
viduals who may have consulted him or her
• Prepares informal Activity Forms in a man-
ner that protects the confidentiality and
anonymity of individuals
• Provides feedback, such as trends, to man-
agement in a way that protects the ano-
nymity of staff who use the service
• Does not provide notice to nor accept
notice on behalf of the organization
➤ Respectful and Ethical
• Acts in a professional, dignified, and
respectful manner to all, particularly to col-
leagues who consult with him or her
• Acts with integrity and honesty
➤ Neutral and Independent
• Does not take sides; is equitable, unbiased,
fair, and just in the performance of RWA
responsibilities
• Does not have an interest in or advocate
for a particular outcome or resolution
• Does not make decisions, intervene in dis-
putes, advocate for individuals, investigate,
adjudicate, mediate, or represent individu-
als or issues
• Holds no position that might compromise
his or her impartiality and neutrality
• Does not report to line management in his or
her RWA role
➤ Informal
• Does not make decisions, mandate policies,
or adjudicate issues for the organization in
his or her RWA role
• Does not participate in any investigations as
an RWA
• Functions on an informal basis by such means
as listening, providing information about
resources, identifying and reframing issues,
helping to develop a range of responsible
options and, when possible, helps people
develop ways to solve problems themselves
➤ Exemplary and Trustworthy
• Models the appropriate management and
resolution of their own disputes, and treats
colleagues with respect and integrity
• Adheres to the parameters of their role and
responsibilities
• Is honest, reliable, and honorable in his or
her dealings with colleagues
➤ Competent
• Participates in all appropriate program train-
ing
• Seeks to learn relevant knowledge and skills
in order to provide quality service
• Understands the role and responsibilities
of the RWA in order to effectively help col-
leagues address conflict and encourage a
respectful work environment
II. Process StandardsThe process of providing RWA assistance shall be
➤ Voluntary
• Use of the program is voluntary.
• Staff must be able to understand the RWA
process and the options available to them,
and give voluntary and informed consent to
any resolution reached.
• Staff who consult RWAs are informed of
other available options and are free to
choose those that best meet their needs.
➤ Accessible and Informal
• The program is available to all staff.
• Assistance is available when needed.
• RWAs are easy to contact and respond in a
timely manner to requests for assistance.
• Assistance is provided in an open and acces-
sible manner.
O M B U D S S E R V I C E S | A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 3
4 2
➤ Effective
• Staff who consult RWAs are enabled to
resolve their disputes themselves.
• Staff who consult RWAs are enabled to
resolve their disputes informally whenever
appropriate.
• Staff are enabled to consider and select
options that meet their interests.
• Staff who consult RWAs are enabled to
resolve their disputes early and at the most
appropriate level.
• Staff who consult RWAs are enabled to reach
resolutions that suit their individual circum-
stances and with which they are satisfied.
➤ Empowering and Satisfactory
• Staff who consult RWAs have the opportu-
nity to acquire useful information.
• Staff who consult RWAs have the opportu-
nity to learn basic dispute resolution and
communication skills.
• Staff who consult RWAs are satisfied with the
RWA process.
• Staff who consult RWAs recommend the pro-
gram to others.
➤ Non-Retaliatory
• Retaliation by a staff member against any
person who uses the services of a RWA is
expressly prohibited and shall result in pro-
ceedings under Staff Rules 03.00.
III. Program StandardsThe RWA Program shall be
➤ Organized and Efficient
• The program’s design and process are con-
sistent with the program’s objectives and
WBG’s code of conduct.
• The program complements other WBG dis-
pute resolution avenues.
• There is sufficient staff to effectively admin-
ister the program and RWAs to provide assis-
tance to staff who need the services.
• The responsibilities of the program’s admin-
istrator are clearly delineated and are consis-
tent with the program’s mission.
• Staff have an opportunity to provide feed-
back regarding program operations.
• The program’s budget is managed prudently.
• The costs of dispute resolution to the orga-
nization and to the individual are minimized.
➤ Visible and Accessible
• Staff are aware of the program, understand
the program’s purpose, and have at least a
basic understanding of the RWA’s role.
• Program operations, accomplishments, and
progress are regularly communicated.
• Staff know how to access the program.
• It is easy to access the program.
➤ Competent
• The RWAs have sufficient skills and training
to fulfill their role.
• OMB staff develop, guide, and support the
RWAs.
➤ High-Quality
• Standards are set for the program, services,
and any training program.
• Evaluation is periodically conducted to main-
tain program quality.
➤ Coordinated
• The program coordinates its efforts with
other staff resources, particularly the IJS,
management, and HR staff.
• Participants are informed of other resources
and referred as appropriate.
• The program strives for an optimum num-
ber of participants by ensuring that staff are
aware of and understand the program and
trust and respect the RWAs.
• Systemic issues are identified and brought to
management’s attention.
• Compliance with the organization’s standards
of behavior is heightened.
• The program models best practices and con-
tinues to be a leader in the field of dispute
resolution.
• Retaliation for use of the program is pre-
vented when possible and addressed if
needed.
• Management support at all levels is built and
sustained.
• Staff support is cultivated and sustained.
• The program contributes to the overall well-
being of the organization and individual staff
members.
Thomas ZgamboOmbudsman
Constance BernardOmbudsman
David TalbotOmbudsman
Odile RheaumeRWA Program Administrator
Tanisha McGillSr. Program Assistant
Meggy SavadyProgram Assistant
Christian BergaraET Temporary
Ombuds ServicesConfidential, Impartial, Independent, Informal
The World Bank Group’s Ombuds Services (OMB) office has three major functions:
1. To help staff and managers resolve workplace problems 2. To alert management to trends and issues that should be addressed to improve the working environment and
make recommendations for change in policy or practice3. To administer the Respectful Workplace Advisors (RWA) Program
Key Characteristics
ConfidentialUnder Staff Rule 9.02 and the office’s professional standards, communications with Ombuds Services are private and absolutely confidential. An Ombudsman does not divulge any information told to him or her that might reveal a staff member’s identity, unless authorized by the staff member (except if there appears to be imminent risk of serious harm). It is a safe place for staff to discuss any conflict, concern or dispute outside formal communication channels, without fear of retaliation.
ImpartialAn Ombudsman is impartial and does not serve as an advocate for a particular point of view or for any of the parties involved. The office strives for solutions that are consistent with fairness and respectful treatment.
IndependentOmbuds Services is not part of the formal organizational structure. Each Ombudsman is appointed by the President on the advice of staff selected by the Staff Association. An Ombudsman is not subject to annual performance reviews, receives a nominal salary increase, serves a five-year term which may be renewed one time and may not accept a position elsewhere in the World Bank Group for a period of two years after completing their term.
InformalOmbuds Services is focused on problem-solving and encourages informal resolution of problems at the lowest level possible in a way that minimizes harm to relationships. Contacting Ombuds Services is not the same as reporting an issue to the organization and does not place the WBG “on notice”. The office does not register complaints, perform investigations, or keep formal records for the Bank Group, but an Ombudsman can provide advice about the Bank Group’s formal grievance system.
How Can We Help?The office’s objective is to facilitate resolution to workplace issues. An Ombudsman does not make decisions or mandate actions, and the staff member remains in full control of any actions that would be specific to him/her.
An Ombudsman can:• Hold confidential discussions to listen to staff’s concerns or inquiries • Analyze the facts of a given situation and provide an impartial perspective on the issue(s)• Help identify and evaluate options for the staff to consider• Help staff decide which option makes the most sense • Provide advice on how to implement the selected option(s)• Coach staff on how to deal with the problem directly • Provide informal intervention, only if requested by staff• Provide information on policies and procedures • Explain other available resources and refer staff to other units in the WBG that may help
Contacts: Internal Web Page: http://ombudsman Internal Email: [email protected] External Email: [email protected] Appointments: Call 202-458-1056 (collect calls accepted)
An Ombudsman can call staff at home, at night or during the weekend, providing added assurance of confidentiality and privacy. Offsite visits are also possible.
Ombudsman: Thomas Zgambo 202-473-3043 Ombudsman: Constance Bernard 202-458-5175 Ombudsman: David Talbot 66-2-686-8338 (Bangkok, Thailand)
All categories of current and former WBG staff and consultants—including those from International Finance Corporation (IFC), Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), Global Environment Facility (GEF) and International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)—are welcome to consult OMB regarding any work related issue.
THE OMBUDS SERVICES TEAM
O M B U D S S E R V I C E S a n d R E S P E C T F U L W O R K P L A C E
A D V I S O R S P R O G R A M
Confidential, Impartial, Independent, InformalExplore Solutions…
Annual Report
THE WORLD BANK GROUP1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20433, USAT: 202.458.1056 E: [email protected]
20
13
