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 DV I S O R S P R O G R A M

Confidential, Impartial, Independent, InformalExplore Solutions…

Annual Report2

01

0

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

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:

C Y 2 0 1 0

Annual Report

CRS | Conflict Resolution system

Annual Report

O M B U D S S E R V I C E Sand Respectful Workplace Advisors Program

This report reviews the work of the World Bank Group’s Ombuds Services office and the Respectful

Workplace Advisors Program during 2010.

This report was prepared by Katie Wood with contribution from Connie Bernard, Tanisha McGill and

Odile Rheaume.

I I I

TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S

List of Acronyms & Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Section 1: Ombuds Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

OMB Caseload and Visitor Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6OMB Caseload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Third Ombudsman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Visitor Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Issues, Trends and Institutional Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11OMB Visitor Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Institutional Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11New Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Updates on 2009 Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Visitor Evaluations of OMB’s Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Exit Survey Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Dimensions of Evaluation and Analysis of Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Survey Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Section 2: The Respectful Workplace Advisors Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Program Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

RWA Caseload, Visitor Characteristics and Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Characteristics of Staff Who Consult RWAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

RWA Needs and Challenges Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Discussion of Selected Challenges from the Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Recent Developments in the RWA Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Value-Added/Impact of Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Annex 1: Definitions of Issue Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Annex 2: Issues Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

I 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

CD Country Director

CM Country Manager

CO Country Office

CRS Conflict Resolution System

CY Calendar Year

EAP East Asia and Pacific

EBC Ethics and Business Conduct

ECA Europe and Central Asia

ED Executive Director

ETT/ETC Extended Term Temporary/Consultant

FAC Finance, Administrative and Corporate Units

FY Fiscal Year

G Grade

GEF Global Environment Facility

GSD General Services Department

HR Human Resources

IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

ICSID International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

IEG Independent Evaluation Group

IFC International Finance Corporation

IOA International Ombudsman Association

IJS Internal Justice System

JPA Junior Professional Associate

LEG Legal

MEF Mediation Services

MIGA Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency

MLT Matrix Leadership Team

OMB Ombuds Services

RWA Respectful Workplace Advisors

SAR South Asia

SPA Special Assignment

SSA/CR Sub-Saharan Africa/Caribbean

STT/STC Short Term Temporary/Consultant

VP Vice President

VPU Vice-Presidential Unit

WBG World Bank Group

1

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

The World Bank Group’s (WBG) Ombuds

Services Office (OMB) has three func-

tions—to help staff and managers resolve

workplace problems, to alert management to

trends and issues that should be addressed to

improve the working environment, and to admin-

ister the Respectful Workplace Advisors (RWA)

Program. The key characteristics of the office are

confidentiality, impartiality, independence and

informality.

Ombuds Services

Numbers and CharacteristicsOmbuds Services had the highest caseload in

the history of the office this year with 458 new

visitors to the office. Staff based outside Wash-

ington, men, short-term consultants and tem-

poraries (STC/STT), and International Finance

Corporation (IFC) staff continue to be among

the most under-represented groups. However,

significant increases in usage can be seen for

country office (CO) and IFC staff in 2010. Term

staff usage also increased substantially this year.

The office is in the process of recruiting a third

Ombudsman to be based in Bangkok to help

manage the increasing caseload and be avail-

able to CO staff.

Issues, Trends and Institutional IssuesThe distribution of issues in 2010 was divided

about evenly between respectful workplace

issues and human resources (HR) process issues.

The single most frequently raised issue was again

management skills and behaviors, followed again

by performance evaluation. OMB is in the process

of breaking down the broad management skills

category to identify more specific problem areas

for managers to help target training.

Three new institutional issues were identified this

year:

Trust fund and partnership governance. Trust

fund management, both single and multi-donor,

is a complex practice from which many prob-

lems have arisen including different expectations

among partners on how staff are selected and

managed, conflicts among governing board mem-

bers on strategic direction, uneven applications of

quality control mechanisms to project selection

and development, and lack of clarity around con-

flict resolution processes pertaining to trust fund

decisions. Axel van Trotsenburg is currently head-

ing a group to take a look at partnership and trust

fund management.

Authorship and attribution. Issues surround-

ing proper credit for work, either in the form of

authorship or acknowledgement have been raised

by a number of visitors. OMB recommends that

the WBG adopt guidelines for determining and

giving appropriate credit to staff that fairly reflect

each individual’s contribution, regardless of con-

tract status or administrative location.

Non-confirmation and probation policies. The

non-confirmation policy for term staff prevents

any individual who is non-confirmed from ever

working for the Bank again. This policy has the

effect of forcing staff, particularly those early in

their careers, faced with possible non-confirma-

tion (due to a bad fit, change in management/

strategic direction, etc.) into resignation. In doing

so, staff effectively forfeit their chance to success-

fully utilize the Internal Justice System (IJS) since

they left voluntarily. OMB recommends that non-

confirmation not be a bar to future employment.

Updates on issues from 2009 include:

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 0

2

Budget and workload. This issue continues to be a

challenge and is leading to unfair treatment of some

staff as well as negatively impacting work-life bal-

ance. OMB casework over the last year points to

a particular burden being borne on administrative

and client support (ACS) staff who are expected to

work overtime with no overtime pay. Other staff

have also been negatively affected by pressure to

reduce travel costs by lengthening missions. Man-

agers need to communicate that budget reductions

should not be made at the expense of work-life

balance or fair treatment of staff.

Contractor employees. Issues surrounding treat-

ment and vulnerabilities of contractor employ-

ees, particularly those working in countries with

weak or unenforced labor laws and high unem-

ployment, were discussed last year. The main

issues arise from inadequacies in contract super-

vision, compensation and benefits packages, and

the lack of a safe feedback mechanism for con-

tractor employees who feel they are being treated

unfairly either by WBG employees or by the con-

tractor. The General Services Department (GSD)

established a Contingent Labor Working Group to

benchmark and develop guidelines for manage-

ment of contracts with outside contractors. How-

ever, more attention should be paid to contract

supervision and feedback mechanisms as well as

reputational risk associated with the Bank Group’s

relationship to these employees.

Recruitment, reassignment and promotion pro-

cesses. There continues to be broad distrust in the

fairness and transparency of recruitment, reas-

signment and promotion processes as well as

confusion around the role of the Sector Boards.

Recent issues include extension of closing dates

for job advertisements without a general notifi-

cation, selection criteria that change during the

review process, lack of feedback from interview

panels to unsuccessful short-listed applicants, and

varying practices and lack of clarity around ref-

erence checking. The recently established Matrix

Leadership Team has been looking more gener-

ally into the terms of reference for Sector Boards,

but more needs to be done to ensure transparent,

well thought out and uniform practices are being

followed and communicated to staff.

Term contracts. OMB continues to receive many

complaints on the negative aspects of term con-

tracts. Many staff face difficulty getting a mortgage,

particularly in the country offices. The instability

it creates for families moving from abroad is also

challenging for staff. Hiring managers need to be

aware of the risks people are taking and clarify

possible downsides. As a matter of good practice,

managers should use longer-term contracts when

hiring staff from overseas and provide written

notice that a contract will not be extended at least

six months prior to the end date as is done in IFC.

Service FeedbackIn order to monitor its performance and continue to

improve the services provided, OMB uses an anon-

ymous “exit survey” to get feedback from visitors.

In 2010, OMB received 125 responses indicating

performance on process objectives (confidential-

ity, impartiality, knowledge, respectful treatment,

etc.) and the utility of consulting the office. Feed-

back on process objectives remains positive with

an 89 percent average positive response rate. Posi-

tive response rates on the utility of the office and

whether visitors would consult OMB again or rec-

ommend it to others remain similar to last year at

about two thirds and four fifths, respectively.

Respectful Workplace Advisors (RWA) Program

The RWA Program is an important resource for

staff facing workplace issues, especially in the

country offices. RWAs are trained to listen confi-

dentially to colleagues’ concerns, help them iden-

tify options, provide information on policies and

procedures, and refer them to other resources for

further help. RWAs are nominated by staff in their

unit and perform the role in addition to their reg-

ular responsibilities.

The number of RWA contacts increased by about

23 percent in 2010 reaching 423. The majority of

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

3

RWA contacts (86 percent) are country office staff.

Women, part 2 staff and grade level A-D (GA-GD)

staff are also over-represented groups among

RWA contacts. About two thirds of issues raised

by staff who consulted RWAs in 2010 involved

respectful workplace issues, while about one

quarter of issues involved HR process issues. For

CO-based visitors the most frequently raised issue

was again interpersonal conflicts, while for Wash-

ington-based staff it was again management skills

and behavior.

Nominations for new RWAs were conducted in

the East Asia and Pacific (EAP), South Asia (SAR),

and Europe and Central Asia (ECA) regions in

2010 with three training sessions being held in

Singapore and Zagreb. Sixty-three new RWAs and

16 mid-term participants were trained reflect-

ing a seven percent increase in the total num-

ber of RWAs. The launch of the e-learning course

in 2010 has helped improve the effectiveness of

training.

This year RWAs were asked to complete a survey

expressing their biggest needs and challenges—

feedback included difficulty in managing visitor

expectations, getting staff to utilize the service,

and mastering skills required to perform the func-

tion successfully. In response to this feedback,

the RWA Team developed a Case and Tip of the

Month to help RWAs stay in practice and modified

the training to allow more time for role-playing

and actual case practice.

The report also highlights the value added of the

program, including serving as an initial point of

contact and gateway to the IJS and the function of

the RWA to meet with the Vice President/Country

Director/Country Manager (VP/CD/CM) to discuss

general issue trends in the office.

5

S E C T I O N 1 : O M B U D S S E R V I C E S

6

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

The office saw 458 new visitors1 in 2010—the

highest caseload in OMB history. This represents

a 33 percent increase over last year’s number of

new visitors and a 48 percent increase compared

to an annual average of approximately 309 visi-

tors during the 2006–2009 period (see Graph 1).

Possible explanations include greater awareness

of the Conflict Resolution System (CRS) and a

challenging year with a decreasing budget and

increasing workload. While most categories of

staff increased proportionately relative to the

overall increase seen in OMB visitors, significant

increases can be seen among CO, term and IFC

staff (see Table 1).

In addition to a steep increase in visitors in 2010,

the number of Ombudsman2 interventions also

peaked this year with 151 interventions or about

33 percent of cases—compared to an average

of 25 percent of cases over the last four years

(see Table 2). An Ombudsman may intervene on

behalf of a visitor in some cases only if explicitly

requested to do so by the visitor and the Ombuds-

man agrees that intervention is appropriate. The

most frequent type of intervention is when an

Ombudsman speaks to a visitor’s manager, fol-

lowed by Ombudsman communication with HR.

Third Ombudsman

With the steady increase in the number of visi-

tors over the last few years and the continuous

challenge of improving services to country offices,

the office is currently in the process of recruit-

ing a third Ombudsman. The new Ombudsman

is expected to be on board by the end of 2011

and will spend some time in Washington getting

oriented before relocating to Bangkok. This will

enable the office to handle the expanding caseload

and provide better service to the COs. EAP has the

highest percentage of CO-located staff with 74.2

percent of International Bank for Reconstruction

and Development (IBRD) net staff in the field, fol-

lowed by SAR with 70 percent and AFR with 64.6

percent. Locating the third Ombudsman in Bang-

kok should provide a broad reach to these regions

and greatly reduce many of the challenges associ-

ated with global communication. With Ombuds-

man in two different time zones, the service will

now be available to staff in all time zones at any

time, making phone calls and video conferencing

easier for staff located in EAP, SAR and AFR. The

third Ombudsman will also be capable of more

frequent regional travel so face-to-face visits will

be possible more often for CO-based staff in these 2006 2007

Number of visitors

2008 20102009

GRAPH 1 OMB Caseload – CY10

1 “Visitor” is the term used by organizational ombuds offices to describe those who consult the service.2 Ombudsman is a singular and plural term of Swedish origin. “Man” refers to the responsibility to serve “the people” and does not signify singular/plural or gender.

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

7

regions. The Ombudsman take several trips each

year to explain the role of the CRS/IJS services to

Bank and IFC country offices and to afford staff an

opportunity to meet personally with an Ombuds-

man. In 2010 approximately 20 percent of cases

were the result of the Ombudsman’s mission travel

to 26 countries—a testament to the importance of

having a physical presence in the field.

Visitor Characteristics

The profile of OMB’s new visitors during 2010

changed slightly from last year (see Graph 2). CO-

based staff, men and part 2 staff are still under-

represented, but the difference in usage between

CO-based staff and staff based in Washington

Table 1 Change in OMB Utilization from 2009 to 2010 by Demographic Category*

Characteristic 2009 value 2010 value Delta

Washington 1.27 1.15 –9.4%

CO 0.61 0.79 29.5%

Women 1.25 1.18 –5.6%

Men 0.74 0.80 8.1%

Part 1 1.16 1.23 6.0%

Part 2 0.90 0.86 –4.4%

GA-GD 1.02 0.76 –25.5%

GE+ 0.99 1.09 10.1%

Sub-Saharan Africa/Caribbean (SSA/CR) 1.08 0.85 –21.3%

non SSA/CR 0.99 1.03 4.0%

Open-ended 1.60 1.61 0.6%

Term** 0.82 1.06 29.2%

Extended Term 0.92 0.97 5.4%

STC/STT (40+ days)*** 0.28 0.30 7.1%

Regions .98 0.97 –1.0%

Networks and Other Operational Units 1.23 0.96 –21.9%

Finance, Administrative and Corporate Units (FAC)**** 1.29 1.29 0.0%

IFC 0.62 0.81 30.6%

* The 2009 and 2010 values represent the ratio of the percentage of OMB visitors in each category to the percentage of WBG staff in each group. The ratio of 1 indicates that the percentage of OMB visitors in a particular group is equal to the percent that group represents among all WBG staff. Groups with a ratio greater than 1 are over-represented; groups with a ratio of less than 1 are under-represented.**Includes coterminous staff***WBG FY10 data used as an approximation for CY10 data****Includes Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) and Global Environment Facility (GEF) staff

Table 2 Ombudsman Interventions – CY10

Ethics & Business Conduct (EBC) 1

HR 33

Integrity Vice Presidency (INT) 2

Legal 1

Manager 83

Medical Services 5

Other 10

Other CRS Services 2

Party Involved 2

Personal & Work Stress 3

Staff 3

Staff Association 5

Third Party 1

TOTAL 151

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 0

8

continued to decrease compared to previous

years. The gap between men and women and

part1/part 2 staff remains about the same as pre-

vious years. GA-GD and SSA/CR staff usage fell

this year; however, lower usage in these groups

is expected as the majority of OMB visitors are

located in Washington, and only 21 percent of

Washington-based staff are GA-GD and 10 per-

cent are SSA/CR.

Utilization of Ombuds Services also varies among

employment types (see Graph 3). As in the past,

Ratio of OMB% to WBG%*

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50W

ashi

ngto

n-ba

sed

CO

-bas

ed

Wom

en

Men

Part

1

Part

2

GA-

GD

GE+

SSA/

CR

non

SSA/

CR

GRAPH 2 Characteristics of New OMB Visitors Compared to WBG Staff – CY10

Open-ended Term* Extended Term Other** STC/STT (40+ days)***

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

Ratio of OMB% to WBG%

GRAPH 3 Employment Types of New OMB Visitors Compared to WBG Staff – CY10

*Includes coterminous staff**Includes Special Assignments (SPA), Executive Director (ED) advisors, and Junior Professional Associates (JPA)***WBG FY10 data used as an approximation for CY10

* Shows the ratio of the percentage of OMB visitors in each category to the percentage of WBG staff in each group. The ratio of 1 indicates that the percentage of OMB visitors in a particular group is equal to the percent that group represents among all WBG staff. Groups with a ratio greater than 1 are over-represented; groups with a ratio of less than 1 are under-represented.

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

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Regions Networks FAC* IFC

Ratio of OMB% to WBG%

GRAPH 4 OMB Utilization by Unit Type* Compared to WBG Staff – CY10

*Includes MIGA and GEF visitors

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Regions Networks FAC* IFC

CO ratio Washington ratio

GRAPH 5 OMB Utilization by Unit Type* and Location Compared to WBG Staff – CY10

*Includes MIGA and GEF visitors

open-ended/regular staff were significantly

over-represented in 2010, while STC/STTs were

the most proportionately under-represented.

This may be due to the difference in security

of employment between the two employment

types as well as differences in knowledge about

OMB between short-term and long-term staff.

Usage among term and extended term staff

increased slightly compared to last year.

The unit type in which staff work in the World

Bank Group may also affect their likelihood of

consulting OMB (see Graph 4). Network usage

dropped considerably from last year while MIGA

and GEF’s share of visitors increased by half. IFC

staff continue to consult OMB proportionately

less than other WBG staff although this differ-

ence decreased compared to the last few years.

Percentage of staff in the field was considered as

a possible explanation for IFC’s under-represen-

tation, however further analysis shows that the

percentage of staff located in the field does not

appear to affect OMB usage (see Graph 5). In

fact, the percentage of IFC country office visitors

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 0

1 0

is proportionate to the percentage of IFC staff

in the field while IFC visitors in Washington are

under-represented compared to the percentage

of IFC staff in Washington. While the reasons

for this difference are not clear, other possible

explanations include more new staff with less

knowledge of the CRS/IJS and a feeling of dis-

connect between IFC and the Bank. One idea

OMB is considering is providing services from

an office space in the IFC building on a weekly

basis to help raise awareness and provide IFC

staff with a physical presence.

1 1

I S S U E S , T R E N D S A N D I N S T I T U T I O N A L I S S U E S

OMB Visitor Issues

In line with the increase in visitors in 2010, the

number of issues raised also increased by about

30 percent. For the most part, the distribution

of issues3 raised by visitors in 2010 was con-

sistent with previous years, particularly among

Washington-based visitors (see Table 34). Nota-

ble changes in the distribution of issues for CO-

based staff this year include an 11 percentage

point decrease in the respectful workplace issues

category and a combined 10 percentage point

increase in benefits and salaries. The most fre-

quently raised issue for Washington-based visi-

tors and overall was again management skills (18

percent), followed by performance (14 percent).

Among CO-based visitors, interpersonal conflict

was the most prevalent issue with 12 percent,

followed closely by benefits and management

skills.

Management skills and behaviors has consistently

been the most frequently raised issue since the

office started producing reports in 2005. In look-

ing at the types of issues that come up frequently

in this category, OMB has identified several main

sub-categories that would help break up this cat-

egory and provide a clearer sense of the types of

behaviors that are problematic and/or skills that

are lacking. Some possible areas for sub-catego-

ries include lack of communication/transparency,

lack of respect/rudeness, violations of confidenti-

ality/integrity, favoritism/equity of treatment, and

lack of career development support. OMB is in

the process of finalizing the new sub-categories

and will begin using them in 2012. To address

the issue of untagged managers discussed in last

year’s report, OMB will also start tracking whether

the issue brought is with a tagged or untagged

manager. This data should help target areas for

manager training.

There are also many managerial behaviors that

may be offensive to staff without managers even

being aware. Since it is the impact, not the intent,

of the behavior that is important, it would be

helpful for these issues to be brought to man-

agers’ attention. Examples of these behaviors

include jokes/humor with sexual, national, racial,

religious or gender connotations; teasing; per-

sonal remarks on physical appearance, clothing,

personality, etc.; not greeting staff; and exclusion

from relevant distribution lists.

Institutional Issues

One of OMB’s mandates is to monitor emerging

trends and issues that need to be addressed to

improve the working environment in the Bank

Group. When patterns in issues are observed

by the Ombudsman, they highlight the issues to

management and other relevant parties and work

to develop solutions. The Ombudsman periodi-

cally meet with the President, IFC’s Executive Vice

President, Managing Directors, Bank and IFC HR

management teams and other senior managers to

discuss such issues.

This section highlights a few new issues which

have been observed in the Ombudsman casework

in 2010 and provides updates on the progress

3 The Ombudsman categorize the concerns raised by visitors using a list of issues adopted by all the units of the Conflict Resolution System (CRS) in 2004. Definitions of issues can be seen in Annex 1.4 In 2010, the misconduct category formerly containing harassment, discrimination and retaliation was broken down to reflect the frequency of each issue separately. Additionally, benefits were moved from the Other Issues category to the HR Process Issues category accounting for part of the increase in the HR Process Issues category.

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 0

1 2

made on some issues raised in the past. OMB is

not the unique identifier of these issues; the Staff

Association, HR and/or management are working

on a number of them.

New Issues

Authorship and Attribution. The Ombuds

office has a number of cases each year which

have to do with perceptions of unfairness

regarding authorship and attribution. In fact,

practices vary from unit to unit, and there are

differing perceptions on the part of team leaders

and managers regarding what is a fair approach.

The lack of clarity creates dissatisfaction for

some staff and a reputational risk for the insti-

tution—for example, one WBG consultant who

is a university professor indicated that he had

begun discouraging his students from taking

WBG internships because of problems previ-

ous interns had encountered in this regard. Most

academic and research institutions maintain pro-

tocols on authorship.

Table 3 New OMB Visitors’ Issues – CY10*

Washington-Based Visitors

Country Office-Based Visitors TOTAL

# % # % # %

HR Process Issues 212 42% 114 52% 326 45%

Entering employment 15 3% 16 7% 31 4%

Reassignment and selection process 23 5% 7 3% 30 4%

Performance 78 16% 21 10% 99 14%

Promotion 24 5% 11 5% 35 5%

Benefits 21 4% 24 11% 45 6%

Salaries 9 2% 13 6% 22 3%

Ending employment 42 8% 22 10% 64 9%

Respectful Workplace Issues 241 48% 72 33% 313 44%

Management skills and behaviors 105 21% 24 11% 129 18%

Interpersonal conflicts 49 10% 27 12% 76 11%

Alleged harassment 40 8% 8 4% 48 7%

Alleged discrimination 10 2% 3 1% 13 2%

Alleged retaliation 3 1% 3 1% 6 1%

Other misconduct 34 7% 7 3% 41 6%

Conflict of Interest 6 1% 3 1% 9 1%

Other Issues 40 8% 31 14% 71 10%

Policy 8 2% 10 5% 18 3%

Compliance issues 2 0% 0 0% 2 0%

Domestic issues 6 1% 3 1% 9 1%

Quality of operations 10 2% 8 4% 18 3%

Other 14 3% 10 5% 24 3%

Total 499 100% 220 100% 719 100%

*8 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 I N S T I T U T I O N A L I S S U E S

1 3

Recommendation: We recommend that the

WBG adopt some principles and guidelines for

authorship and attribution. To this end, a work-

ing group has been formed with representatives

from different vice-presidencies to develop these

guidelines. The main principle of the guidelines

would be fair reflection of each individual’s con-

tribution regardless of contract status or adminis-

trative location.

Non-Confirmation and Probation Policies. When staff are hired they remain on probation

(typically one year, extendable to two (Staff

Rule 4.02 (01))) until they are confirmed, non-

confirmed, or in cases of shorter term contracts

(one-two years), the contract expires. If a man-

ager wishes to discharge someone before the

contract expires, the manager can initiate a for-

mal non-confirmation process which would

need to be justified by inadequate performance,

including interim performance evaluations and

opportunities to improve and would prohibit

the staff member from working for the WBG in

the future (Staff Rule 4.08 (05)). Alternatively,

the staff member may be encouraged to resign

by HR or management to avoid non-confirma-

tion and its negative future effects, particularly

staff early in their careers. In recent OMB cases, a

bad fit or a change in management direction may

result in a decision not to confirm and early ter-

mination for strategic reasons essentially forcing

staff into resignation in order to circumvent the

non-confirmation policy. Staff may choose this

option even when the use of CRS services would

be helpful to them because they do not want to

get the non-confirmation and then run the risk

of an unsuccessful outcome in Mediation (MEF)

or Peer Review Services (PRS). However, resig-

nation greatly limits the ability of the staff mem-

ber to use the CRS since they left voluntarily. In

FY10, approximately 25 percent of all resigna-

tions were by staff who had not yet been con-

firmed, although there is no data on the reasons

(see Table 4). In contrast, the number of exits

due to non-confirmation is extremely low indi-

cating that resignation may sometimes be used to

circumvent the non-confirmation policy.

A secondary issue is the inconsistency between

shorter term contracts (one-two years) and the

length of the probation period. With the use

of short term contracts on the rise, a probation

period which can be extended up to 2 years is

excessive for such short contracts and leads to

needless paperwork and administration. Often

times, probation periods are drawn out by default

if the manager forgets or is too busy to do the

confirmation creating an unnecessary sense of job

insecurity. This has negative implications for G-4

visa holders who may be uncertain about moving

their families before they are confirmed, particu-

larly when coupled with the uncertainties around

contract renewal.

Recommendations:

➤ Non-confirmation should not be a bar to future

employment

➤ To avoid administrative delays, electronic sys-

tems should be adjusted so that confirmation

for term contract up to two years takes place

automatically at six months unless manager

objects

Trust Fund and Partnership Governance. The

WBG has been a leader in the development of

trust funds and multi-donor partnership arrange-

ments, which have become important instru-

ments for donor coordination and for expanding

funding for priority development issues. In FY10,

about 23 percent of Bank staff had all or part of

Table 4 WBG Net Staff Exits: FY09-FY11 Q2

WBG Net Staff Exits FY09 FY10FY11 Q1–2

Resignation* 245 275 161

of which were not confirmed at time of exit 58 64 29

End of Contract 40 35 23

of which were not confirmed at time of exit 6 5 3

Termination – Non-Confirmation of Appointment 4 3 —

*Does not include Early Out Resignations.

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 0

1 4

their salaries funded from trust funds, and almost

20 percent of supervision, 35 percent of eco-

nomic and sector work and 53 percent of techni-

cal assistance were financed with Bank-executed

trust funds. Due to the complex nature of trust

funds and partnership programs, management of

these instruments has sometimes been problem-

atic. The Independent Evaluation Group (IEG)

has done an excellent evaluation of these issues

in its report “Building a Coalition for Change”.

Some of the issues which have arisen in OMB

include:

➤ Different expectations among partners on how

staff are selected and managed;

➤ Conflicts among partners on strategic direction

and different interpretations of relevant rules;

➤ Uneven applications of Bank quality standards

to project selection and development;

➤ Resentment of Bank’s role from some donors;

different understanding about whether Bank’s

rules are binding;

➤ Lack of clarity around conflict resolution pro-

cesses for issues between Bank and non-Bank

staff;

➤ Perceived conflict of interest around the role of

the WB as both partner and executing agency.

Recommendation: A cross-VPU group led by

Axel van Trotsenburg is working to improve some

of the challenges associated with trust fund man-

agement; specifically, harmonization of Bank-

executed trust funds. The Partnership Program

Management Framework to be delivered in FY12

will seek to address issues around lack of clar-

ity about applicability of Bank administrative rules

and conflicts of interest among multiple WB roles

within partnerships programs. It would be pru-

dent for the group to expand its focus to address

the other issues discussed above in order to pro-

vide a comprehensive review of trust fund and

partnership governance.

Updates on 2009 Issues

There has been mixed progress on issues raised in

previous reports. We highlight the status of some

of these issues below. A complete summary of all

the issues and recommendations from 2009 can

be seen in Annex 2.

Resource Constraints and Increased Work-load. Resource constraints coupled with increased

workload continue to detract from work-life bal-

ance and lead to unfair treatment of some staff.

There have been a number of reports that tight-

ened budgets are leading staff to pressure ACS

staff to work unpaid overtime, especially in the

country offices. Data confirms that there has been

no reported increase in overtime payments for

GA-GD staff. Some regions are encouraging staff

to take long missions (4–6 weeks) to reduce travel

costs, with a corresponding negative impact on

home life. Hours of lost leave peaked in the 2010

leave year reaching almost 200,000 hours—66

percent above the average of the previous four

years.

The need to make rapid downward adjustments

in outlays while complying with staff rules on

terminations is also leading to suboptimal deci-

sions in some cases, for example, blanket morato-

ria on travel in some operational units. Early out

packages have already increased by 50 percent

in FY10 compared to the previous year. HR con-

tinues to be highly constrained by resource avail-

ability which limits the number of change issues it

can take on as well as the support it can provide

to the institution overall. Senior managers should

send clear messages that budget reductions are

not to be made at the expense of work/life bal-

ance or by requiring ACS staff to work unpaid

overtime.

Contractor Employees. Last year’s report dis-

cussed issues surrounding treatment and vulnera-

bilities of contractor employees, particularly those

working in countries with weak or unenforced

labor laws and high unemployment. The main

issues arise from inadequacies in contract super-

I S S U E S , T R E N D S A N D I N S T I T U T I O N A L I S S U E S

1 5

vision, compensation and benefits packages, and

the lack of a safe feedback mechanism for con-

tractor employees who feel they are being treated

unfairly either by WBG employees or by the con-

tractor.

Some of the concerns raised by contractor employ-

ees in country offices include:

➤ Contractor will terminate employees who raise

questions about unfair treatment;

➤ Contractor is not compensating employees in

accordance with national law and/or contract

provisions, or is intentionally cheating employ-

ees;

➤ Contractor employees forced to work unpaid

overtime consistently;

➤ In one CO, children used for office cleaning at

night (since rectified);

➤ WBG staff ask contractor employees to run

personal errands;

➤ No health insurance, or health insurance which

providers don’t accept.

GSD established a Contingent Labor Working

Group to benchmark and develop guidelines for

management of contracts with outside contractors.

The focus of this guidance is to ensure the WBG

is protected against potential claims that individu-

als who are employed by companies contracted

to the WBG are effectively WBG staff. However,

feedback from country office visits suggests that

more attention needs to be paid to practicalities of

contract supervision and feedback mechanisms as

well as reputational risk associated with the Bank

Group’s relationship to these employees. It would

be helpful if GSD could address these questions

in its training guidelines. Enlisting operational and

HR perspectives would be valuable before final-

izing these guidelines. GSD and particularly COs

should also communicate safe ways for contract

employees to raise concerns (suggestion boxes,

encouragement to speak with RWAs, GSD, etc.).

To the extent possible, CMs or their delegates

should occasionally meet with contract employ-

ees to hear concerns.

Perceptions of Unfairness in Recruitment, Reassignment and Promotion Processes. As

reported last year, there appears to be broad dis-

trust in the fairness and transparency of recruit-

ment, reassignment and promotion processes as

well as confusion around the role of Bank Sec-

tor Boards in HR matters. A reduction in career

growth opportunities in the last few years may

have worsened this perception. The Matrix Lead-

ership Team (MLT) formed by the Reform Sec-

retariat has starting looking at some issues

surrounding Sector Boards; however, the issues

seen in OMB are outside the realm of the MLT’s

focus. While complete satisfaction with selection

processes is hard to achieve, the perception of

unfairness appears to be aggravated by the fol-

lowing practices:

➤ Extension of closing dates for job advertise-

ments without a general notification. The hir-

ing manager may solicit additional applicants

after a job advertisement is closed. While this

may have the effect of strengthening the candi-

date list, it gives the appearance that the addi-

tional candidates are favored. A better process

would be to announce the extension of the

closing date in Job World.

➤ Selection criteria that change during the review

process. We have seen some complaints that

the criteria used for selection are different from

the ones set out in the job description. The

process would benefit from more thought at

the outset in the quality of the job description

and the selection criteria.

➤ Lack of feedback from Interview Panel to

unsuccessful short-listed applicants. Practices

vary—some hiring managers do this consci-

entiously; others less so. Making the decision

process transparent by providing feedback

would help eliminate negative perceptions. It

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 0

1 6

is also important for career development as it

enables managers to show strong staff they are

valued even if they didn’t get a particular job

and helps staff improve.

➤ Varying practices and lack of clarity around

reference checking. The timing and process for

checking references should be spelled out for

each posted job.

In order to promote consistent, transparent pro-

cesses, OMB recommends that HR establish clear

guidelines for short-listing and interview commit-

tees. Support from Human Resources Officers and

Human Resource Account Managers would also

be helpful in ensuring that proper application of

guidelines is being followed across VPUs.

Terms of Employment. There continue to be

complaints from staff on term contracts of two

years or less. Many feel that term contracts are

overkill and that existing exit policies are suf-

ficient and note that in the private sector term

contracts are not commonly used. Persistent com-

plaints continue to arise on the difficulties of get-

ting mortgages with a term contract, particularly

in the country offices. Many complaints could be

avoided if there were clearer communications at

the time people are hired; in a number of cases

staff have moved families from one continent to

another and enrolled children in school because

they are confident that their initial term contract

will be extended. Hiring managers need to be

aware of the risks people are taking and clarify

possible downsides. As a matter of good practice,

managers should make use of longer-term con-

tracts (four-five years) when hiring staff who will

be facing a cross-continent move with their fami-

lies. Bank mangers should also provide written

notice that a contract will not be extended at least

six months prior to the end date as is the practice

in IFC (see Guidelines: Term Contracts and Con-

version to Open-Ended). Managers should also

renew as early as possible if performance and

funding are not issues. The good news is that 86.2

percent of term contracts for WBG net staff end-

ing in FY10 were extended.

Inconsistencies in the application of term con-

tracts have also been observed across the insti-

tution, although the practice seems to be more

consistent in IFC. For example, some managers

look directly to term contracts when budget con-

straints create a need to downsize rather than

performance. Some managers view the use of dif-

ferent contract types as a progression (i.e.; from

STC to ETC to Term). Others use one year con-

tracts consistently and renew as necessary pro-

viding limited job security. In other cases, STCs

are performing essentially the same job as longer

term staff but with differences in benefits and job

security. This can lead to frustration and tension

between staff.

Given the controversies around the widespread

use of term contracts, it would be helpful to eval-

uate the pros and cons in FY12 or FY13. Addi-

tionally, clear guidelines for managers on the

intended use of term appointments would be

very useful.

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

Exit Survey Responses

As part of OMB’s efforts to assess and enhance its

performance, visitors are asked to provide feed-

back by anonymously completing a hard copy or

on-line exit survey once their case is resolved or

when they have not come back to the office for

some time.

In 2010, 549 exit surveys were mailed, with 125

replies received by February 9, 2011—a response

rate of 23 percent. Although the response rate is

a slight increase from last year, it is still relatively

low compared to previous years and other orga-

nizations’ survey response rates, typically ranging

from 25–33 percent. In the 2009 Annual Report,

OMB identified measures to address the low

response rate including requesting feedback on

a timelier basis and developing a web-based sur-

vey. Although the response rate remained simi-

lar to last year, the actual number of surveys sent

and received nearly tripled compared to previ-

ous years—125 received compared to an average

of 42 over the last three years. This increase is a

result of both an increased caseload as well as

decreasing the time cases remain open.

OMB anticipated that a higher portion of respon-

dents would utilize the web-based survey; in par-

ticular visitors from country offices who in the

past would have to mail the questionnaire at

their own expense. While only 18 percent of total

respondents provided feedback on-line—half of

CO respondents used the online survey com-

pared to only 13 percent of Washington-based

respondents. Additionally, higher percentages

of male and GA-GD staff used the online survey

compared to the paper survey indicating that the

online version may target different groups of staff.

To continue to increase the response rate, OMB

will need to make further improvements to its

exit survey process. A significant portion of exit

surveys were sent out in the latter part of 2010

which may be a contributing factor in the low

response rate. Rather than sending surveys out in

semi-annual batches, surveys will be sent out as

cases close decreasing the lag time between a vis-

itor’s contact with the office and the time the sur-

vey is received and also allowing sufficient time

for surveys to be received back and included in

the analysis.

The profile of respondents is more or less con-

sistent with the profile of OMB visitors with one

exception—the percentage of country offices

respondents (15 percent) continues to be low

compared to the percentage of OMB visitors from

country offices (33 percent).

Dimensions of Evaluation and Analysis of Responses

The questionnaire targets two key areas of OMB’s

performance—process objectives (confidentiality,

impartiality, respectful treatment, etc.) and meet-

ing visitor’s needs. It also gathers data on whether

visitors would consult OMB again or recommend

the office to colleagues.

Process Objectives. OMB continues to receive

positive responses about its processes5, in partic-

ular in the areas of treating visitors respectfully,

maintaining confidentiality and being accessible

(see Table 5). The average percentage of positive

responses for 2010 remains constant at the 2009

level of 89 percent, a slight decrease compared to

earlier years.

5 Most of the exit survey questions use a 5-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 0

1 8

Meeting Visitors’ Needs. Exit survey respon-

dents were asked about the utility of consulting

Ombuds Services. While the percentage of posi-

tive responses increased for fulfilling the reasons

for using Ombuds Services, some respondents

felt that the information or advice provided was

not helpful in the decision-making process (see

Table 6). As it is difficult to pinpoint the exact

cause of the less positive responses, OMB can

assume that some situations are more complex in

nature and that some visitors may feel dissatisfied

with the neutral role of the office. The Ombuds-

man will continue to explain and educate staff

and visitors about the services and how the office

operates. We hope that with more clarification to

visitors on the role of the office, we can better

manage visitors’ expectations.

Respondents were also asked if they experienced

any additional benefits from using OMB’s services

other than addressing their issues as well as “what

worked best in Ombuds Services?” Forty-nine per-

cent indicated that there were other benefits—an

increase from last year, but moderately lower than

numbers in previous years. Some of the write in

comments included:

➤ Peace of mind

➤ Feeling supported and understood

➤ Helped to put issue in perspective

➤ Helped to let off steam

Seventy-five percent of respondents provided

written feedback on “what worked best”, and the

top four responses were:

Table 5 Quality of Services Provided by Ombuds Services – CY10

Survey Questions

Percentages of Positive Responses

2009* N=38

2010** N=125

Did the administrative staff in Ombuds Services treat you with respect? 100% 98%

Did the Ombudsman treat you with respect? 97% 97%

To what extent do you feel that the Ombudsman was impartial in the handling of your case? 91% 87%

Did the Ombudsman maintain appropriate confidentiality? 91% 98%

Did the Ombudsman appear to be knowledgeable about the issues involved in your situation? 74% 79%

Was the advice/information provided to you clear? 82% 81%

Was access to Ombuds Services easy and convenient? 93% 92%

Did Ombuds Services clearly explain its role and guiding principles? 86% 85%

* Exit surveys analyzed in March 2010** Exit surveys analyzed in February 2011

Table 6 Utility of Consulting Ombuds Services – CY10

Survey Questions

Percentages of Positive Responses

2009* N=38

2010** N=125

Overall, did you feel your reasons for going to Ombuds Services were fulfilled? 58% 63%

Did the information or advice provided help you decide what you wanted to

do about your issue?

70% 66%

* Exit surveys analyzed in March 2010** Exit surveys analyzed in February 2011

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

➤ Having a safe, impartial place to turn for advice

and knowledge on Bank polices

➤ The confidentiality

➤ The character of the Ombudsman

➤ The accessibility of the service

Consistent with earlier years, seven percent of

respondents indicated that consulting OMB had

negative repercussions for them. The most fre-

quent write-in comments providing an explana-

tion of these repercussions included:

➤ Feeling retaliated against

➤ Managers expressing displeasure that OMB

had been consulted

➤ Feelings of being alienated

Whether a visitor is likely to consult OMB again

or recommend it to others provides a final indica-

tion of satisfaction with its services. While there is

no significant difference from last year’s response

in using OMB again, respondents have a positive

position in recommending OMB to others (see

Table 7).

Survey Design

This year, the survey design was changed so

that responses could be analyzed by year closed

as well as separately according to the year in

which they were opened (initial contact with

the office). Graph 6 shows the average response

rate for cases closed in 2010 for the questions

asked in Tables 5, 6 and 7 organized by the

year of initial contact with the office. Respon-

dents from cases that began in 2008 were con-

siderably less favorable than cases that began in

2009 or 2010. One possible explanation for this

is case duration—cases lasting over a year may

be more difficult or involve more complicated

issues. Thus, the longer a case remains open,

the less favorable the feedback may be. Another

possible explanation is a change in the quality

of service over time although it may be too early

to form conclusions at this time. Going forward,

OMB’s goal is to continue development in the

way trends are monitored by further refining

our feedback process and maintaining a consis-

tent practice. We hope that with more regular

feedback responses, we will be able to monitor

trends more effectively.

Table 7 Likelihood of Consulting Ombuds Services Again or Recommending it to Others – CY10

Survey Questions

Percentages of Positive Responses

2009* N=38

2010** N=125

Would you consider using Ombuds Services again? 81% 78%

Would you recommend Ombuds Services to others? 74% 82%

* Exit surveys analyzed in March 2010** Exit surveys analyzed in February 2011

40%

60%

80%

100%

2008 2009 2010

Process Objectives Meeting Visitors' Needs Using OMB again/recommending to others

GRAPH 6 Distribution of Responses by Year of Initial Contact with OMB – CY08-CY10

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, administered by OMB,

is an important source of support for staff

who face workplace issues, especially in

offices outside Washington. RWAs are peer vol-

unteers nominated by their colleagues through

a secret ballot managed by OMB. OMB screens

the nominees and vets them with HR. After each

selected nominee has accepted the nomination,

advises the VP/CD/CM of those with the most

nominations for ratification.6

The role of the RWA is to be available confiden-

tially to colleagues to listen to their concerns,

provide perspective on problems, give basic infor-

mation about relevant policies and procedures,

identify options a colleague might consider, and

refer colleagues to other resources such as man-

agement, HR and the Bank Group’s Conflict Res-

olution/Internal Justice System (CRS/IJS). Their

goal is to help staff help themselves by listening

and providing problem-solving guidance. 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. RWAs are expected to

meet with the VP/CD/CM periodically to commu-

nicate trends, without discussing individual cases.

The RWA Program is required in Bank and IFC

offices outside Washington with 15+ staff, and

participation for Bank VPUs in Washington is

optional. Washington-based IFC units, GEF, ICSID

and MIGA are not currently participating in the

program.

6 Sometimes the objective of achieving diversity, in terms of gender and grade level, is also taken into account in selecting RWAs. No man-ager has ever objected to the RWAs recommended to them.

2 3

R W A C A S E LO A D , V I S I T O R C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S A N D I S S U E S

Characteristics of Staff Who Consult RWAs

The number of RWA contacts7 has increased steadily

over the years with the total number of contacts

reaching 423 in 2010—a 23 percent increase over

the previous year (see Graph 7). Possible explana-

tions for the increase include more outreach from

the CRS and the RWAs to staff about the program,

the program becoming more established and well-

known, an increase in the number of RWAs and

scope of the program, more support from manage-

ment on the use of the CRS services, and greater

challenges in the institution.

Given that approximately 94 percent of RWAs

are located in the country offices, the majority

of contacts with RWAs continue to be by staff in

the country offices (see Graph 8). The number of

country office contacts increased for both RWA

and OMB, but the percentage of country office

visitors remains much higher for RWA (86 per-

cent) than for OMB (32 percent). As in previous

years, women were proportionately over-repre-

sented among those who consulted RWAs. This

over-representation is consistent with OMB data,

but the discrepancy between men and women

is slightly greater among RWA visitors. In con-

7 RWAs are asked to record contacts with colleagues about issues brought to their attention. No names or information that could identify a staff member and/or any involved parties is collected, only basic issue and demographic characteristics.

Ratio of RWA% to WBG%

0.0

3.0

Washington-based

CO-based Women Men Part 1 Part 2 GA-GD GE+

1.0

2.0

GRAPH 8 Characteristics of RWA Contacts – CY10

2006 2007

Number of RWA visitors

2008 20102009

0

200

400

600

GRAPH 7 RWA Contacts – CY10

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 0

2 4

Table 8 New RWA Visitors’ Issues – CY10

Washington-Based Visitors

Country Office-Based Visitors TOTAL

# % # % # %

HR Process Issues 20 34% 84 23% 104 25%

Entering employment 0 0% 6 2% 6 1%

Reassignment and selection process 5 9% 4 1% 9 2%

Performance 9 16% 28 8% 37 9%

Promotion 2 3% 12 3% 14 3%

Salaries 2 3% 15 4% 17 4%

Benefits 0 0% 9 2% 9 2%

Ending employment 2 3% 10 3% 12 3%

Respectful Workplace Issues 36 62% 227 62% 263 62%

Management skills and behaviors 12 21% 55 15% 67 16%

Interpersonal conflicts 14 24% 76 21% 90 21%

Alleged harassment 7 12% 40 11% 47 11%

Alleged discrimination 1 2% 3 1% 4 1%

Alleged retaliation 0 0% 2 1% 2 0%

Other misconduct 2 3% 51 14% 53 13%

Conflict of Interest 0 0% 2 1% 2 0%

Other Issues 2 3% 52 14% 54 12%

Policy 0 0% 5 1% 5 1%

Domestic issues 1 2% 6 2% 7 2%

Quality of operations 0 0% 23 6% 23 5%

Other 1 2% 18 5% 19 4%

Total 58 100% 365 100% 423 100%

trast to the OMB visitor profile, Part 2 staff and

GA-GD staff also continue to be over-represented

groups. The over-representation among part 2 is

likely due to the fact that 83 percent of country

office staff are from part 2 countries.

Issues

Respectful workplace issues continue to be the

most prominent among RWA visitors with inter-

personal conflicts being the single most frequently

raised issue for both CO-based and Washington-

based staff, followed by management skills and

behavior (see Table 88). There is a slight shift in

the Washington-based issue distribution from 2009

increasing the number of HR process issues and

decreasing the number of respectful workplace

issues and other issues, while the country office

distribution remains very similar to last year. Com-

pared to OMB, the distribution of issues among

HR and respectful workplace issues is vastly dif-

ferent—RWAs were contacted much more fre-

quently (62 percent) about respectful workplace

8 In 2010, the misconduct category formerly containing harassment, discrimination and retaliation was broken down to reflect the frequency of each issue separately. Additionally, benefits were moved from the Other Issues category to the HR Process Issues category accounting for part of the increase in the HR Process Issues category.

R W A C A S E L O A D , V I S I T O R C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S A N D I S S U E S

2 5

issues than OMB (44 percent) and less frequently

about HR process issues (25 percent compared

to 45 percent). A possible explanation for this is

that RWAs are seen as being more helpful as a

sounding board for relational type issues that fall

in the respectful workplace category while OMB

may be seen as having more knowledge about HR

processes, greater access to HR policy informa-

tion and resources, and the ability to intervene if

explicitly requested.

Updates

Nominations and Scope of the Program. The

focus for 2010 was on EAP, SAR and ECA with new

nominations being launched in these regions result-

ing in 72 new RWAs being selected—compared to

51 in 2009. From 2009 to 2010 the overall number of

RWAs increased by seven percent with a total of 191

RWAs at the end of 2010. Over half of this increase

came from IFC who is becoming increasingly more

involved with the program (see Table 9). Although

the program is optional in Washington, there have

also been increasing requests from Washington-

based IBRD VPUs for RWAs so we expect the pro-

gram will continue to grow over the next year. We

will also look into increasing the number of RWAs

in some country offices as requested. Additionally,

we expect expansion as a result of increasing coun-

try office size leading to more eligible offices (those

with 15+ staff) and placing RWAs in the remaining

five percent of eligible country offices that don’t yet

have RWAs.

Training. Newly selected RWAs are required to

attend a mandatory four-day basic training course

before they can take on the role. Roughly halfway

through their four-year terms, they are expected

to attend a three-day mid-term training. Two basic

and one midterm training sessions were held this

year in Singapore and Croatia (see Table 10). A

total of 76 RWAs were trained; 60 of them were

newly selected RWAs.

In 2010, an e-learning module was launched that

must be completed before attending the basic

training session. Since the launch of the module,

facilitators have noticed a significant difference in

the effectiveness of the face-to-face training ses-

sions. After completing the e-learning, new RWAs

come to training with a base understanding of the

program and their role as well as a familiarity with

Bank Group policies and resources which enables

participants to hit the ground running. This allows

for the RWA Basic Training to go more in depth

providing RWAs the opportunity to get the most

out of the face-to-face time they have with the

RWA Program Team. The module is posted on the

RWA website for the RWAs to have as a reference

tool in case they need a refresher on any infor-

mation.

Feedback is requested from participants after

each training, and as in previous years, the train-

ing was rated very positively. Participants eval-

uate the training on four key areas of learning

using a five-point rating scale where five is the

most positive response (see Table 11).

Newsletter and Book Review. Newsletters are

being published more regularly with two editions

Table 9 Numbers of RWAs – CY10

Outside Washington

Dates Washington IBRD IFC Total

As of January 1, 2010 15 135 28 178

Terms ended during 2010 4 45 10 59

Selected during 2010 1 54 17 72

As of December 31, 2010 12 144 35 191

Table 10 RWA Training Sessions – CY10

Location Type RWAs non-RWAs Total

Singapore, Singapore Basic 30 1 31

Zagreb, Croatia Basic 30 2 32

Mid-Term 16 0 16

Total 76 3 79

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 0

2 6

First, the number of RWA contacts with the RWA

Program Team has greatly increased putting the

team in a better position to monitor and guide

actions taken by RWAs. Coaching from the

Ombudsman and the RWA Program Team is avail-

able and encouraged for RWAs at any time, and

this message has been reinforced during training.

The increased utilization of this resource indicates

that the RWAs are taking the time to seek help

when uncertain. Questions have been asked on

clarification of the RWA role, specifically on main-

taining neutrality, as well as on Staff Rules, poli-

cies, referrals, etc.

Several new initiatives also provide more train-

ing and information to the RWAs. The e-learn-

ing course added another layer of training, while

the Case and Tip of the Month (discussed below)

provide RWAs with on-going practice. Updating

the RWA website and providing more materials

and resources was reported as being very useful.

Thus, the RWAs are becoming increasingly more

secure and supported in their roles.

annually. These newsletters keep RWAs and man-

agement abreast of issues and developments and

provide information on conflict resolution and

resources. The book, Taming the Conflict Dragon,

by Alexander Hiam was reviewed this year and

distributed to all RWAs. Some RWAs have reported

circulating the books on conflict related topics

around the office.

Quality Control Improvements. As discussed

in last year’s report, the infrequent use of skills

learned at training makes

it challenging to maintain

the skills needed to per-

form the function well.

Given the confidential

guidance RWAs provide

to staff, the RWA Program

Team is unable to get

feedback on their services

since the names of staff

contacts are unknown to

the team. Monitoring per-

formance in this area is

difficult, but there have

been a few indications of

progress in 2010.

Table 11 RWA Training Feedback – CY10

Area of Evaluation

Singapore Basic N=30

Zagreb Basic N=32

Zagreb Midterm

N=15

I have a clear understanding of the role. 4.6 4.4 4.4

I have a clear understanding and can explain to others the WBG’s policies and

procedures on building an ethical and respectful work environment.

4.1 4.1 3.7

I know how to apply specific helping skills to assist a staff member who believes s/he

has been the recipient of disrespectful behaviors.

4.3 4.2 3.9

I know who or where to go for help to assist someone who believes s/he has been the

recipient of disrespectful or unethical behaviors.

4.5 4.3 4.3

Average 4.4 4.2 4.1

“I just want to thank you for all the guidance, which

I received both on the phone and via email. It was quite

an experience. Though our office has no big challenges

for an RWA, at least not now, I think the role of the RWA

was significant on those rare cases that we faced.”

RWA, Anonymous

2 7

R W A N E E D S A N D C H A L L E N G E S S U R V E Y

In March 2010, a survey was conducted to get

feedback from the RWAs on what challenges they

were facing with their role and what the RWA

Program Team could do to help them be more

effective.

Discussion of Selected Challenges from the Survey

Managing Visitor Expectations. One of the

biggest challenges mentioned in the RWA survey

responses discussed above was the difficulty in

managing visitor expectations. The issue of role

clarity was reported on last year, and the RWAs

and CRS teams were encouraged to do more out-

reach through staff briefings to raise awareness

about the role but the challenge remains. Due

to this misperception around the RWA role, staff

tend to nominate colleagues they view as advo-

cates, and many RWAs find themselves in situa-

tions where their colleagues expect them to take

action and intervene on their behalf. Many staff

also view the role of the RWA almost as a “law

enforcement” type role—someone to report mis-

conduct to with the expectation that the RWA can

do something about it. However, RWAs do not

have the mandate to intervene. The limits of the

RWA role are there to protect the RWA and the

staff member from unintended consequences. If

the staff member is not aware of these limitations

at the outset, they may become disappointed or

frustrated putting the RWA in a challenging posi-

tion.

To help alleviate this frustration, we need to

ensure that all staff understand that RWAs are

there as a confidential, impartial resource to help

talk through issues or answer policy questions,

but cannot engage in mediation, speak to any-

one on their behalf or take the issue to a higher

level. If the staff member would like to take the

issue further, the RWA can refer the staff mem-

ber to other resources that may be able to help.

RWAs are encouraged to meet with new staff to

explain their role and other CRS/IJS resources, but

they cannot be solely responsible for educating all

new staff. It would be helpful for new staff includ-

ing STCs to be given information on the CRS dur-

ing orientation or upon entry to the Bank to help

lessen confusion around the RWA role and all

CRS services. As the program continues to grow

and staff become more familiar with the role, this

issue will become less of a challenge.

Getting Staff to Utilize RWAs and Other Resources. Getting staff to use the resources

available to them and feel safe in doing so was

another challenge expressed by the RWAs in the

survey. Often staff members do not come to them

to discuss workplace issues even when RWAs

know a staff member is

experiencing a work-

related issue. There are

many possible reasons

for this—fear, gender,

culture, feeling that it

won’t help, personality

type, language barrier,

limited knowledge of

available resources—and

it is difficult to discern

the reason most of the

time and thus, to develop

a targeted solution.

Lack of knowledge and

understanding about the

RWA role and the CRS/

IJS may contribute to

staff fear of using the

services—for example,

“It has made quite a difference in my life, listening and helping people in diverse ways and confidentially. I have been encouraged to hear colleagues come back and say to me “What a blessing it was talking to you. It was just like taking off one ton of stone from my shoulder”. I hope I can be groomed more to be of great support and enhance this great mission of the Bank in a work environment free of stress and harassment.”

RWA, Anonymous

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 0

2 8

there may be uncertainty about the level of con-

fidentiality or perceptions that confidentiality can

be compromised. There may also be uncertainty

around the level of formality and what it means

to contact each service. These uncertainties may

make staff hesitant to raise issues for fear of what

will happen as a result (escalation, who will find

out, retaliation).

Additionally, some country office staff who speak

only the local language may find it difficult to

understand information about the services or com-

municate with CRS/IJS staff to raise an issue. We

are seeing that many in this position rely on their

RWA to act as a translator. This puts the RWA in a

difficult position as it is hard to maintain neutral-

ity when you are speaking on behalf of another

individual. The recommended solution is for staff

to bring a trusted third party to translate for them.

However, many are not aware of this option or

don’t have a trusted third party and may feel they

don’t have an avenue open to them due to the

language barrier.

Culturally, the concept of an RWA or CRS/IJS can

be challenging. One new RWA told us: “There

are mystified reactions about the program since

the concept is new to the unit culturally, socially

and professionally. The CM has been very sup-

portive in engaging staff in better understanding

the role of the RWA.” In small country offices,

bringing an issue to the CRS/IJS can often be

Table 12 RWA Needs and Challenges Survey—Summary of Results

What would make you a more effective RWA? Management support

More training

Case practice

More awareness of RWA role/services

Experience sharing/network

What have been the most challenging

aspects of serving as an RWA?

Active listening

Staying neutral

Managing expectations

Time for outreach/listening

Getting people to come

What value has the RWA program brought to

your office?

Helps bring issues to management’s attention

Makes people conscious of their behavior thereby creating a more respectful

work environment

Staff are comforted & empowered knowing there is someone they can turn to

for help

Acceptance that conflicts require addressing has created a more open

environment to discuss issues early before they escalate

A contact point to Washington & IJS resources

What topics, if any, from the initial RWA

training would you like a “refresher” on or

covered in more depth in the mid-term

training?

Listening skills

Role playing; real case practice

Understanding of CRS services and other resources/referral points

Bank/HR policies

Understanding conflict

What were the barriers/challenges to

attending training?

Time constraints; balancing workload

Budget

Scheduling conflicts

Management value given to RWA program

R W A N E E D S A N D C H A L L E N G E S S U R V E Y

2 9

seen as being disloyal to one’s colleagues or

“office family”.

These barriers to using the CRS/IJS services pres-

ent a challenge for the institution overall. This is

an area where the role of Senior Management is

extremely important in promoting the use of the

services and ensuring that staff feel safe using

them.

Demand for the Program, Budget and Train-ing. As discussed above, the RWA Program has

grown and is expected to grow even more over

the next few years. While the increase in demand

for RWAs is positive, the cost of training additional

RWAs also increases, both for the VPUs and for

OMB. Training costs are shared between Ombuds

Services and the participating VPUs. OMB funds

the cost of delivering the training (consultants,

travel, facility fees, etc.). In IBRD COs, the VPUs

are responsible for the travel and subsistence

costs of sending their RWAs to training thus the

more RWAs a VPU has, the higher the cost to the

VPU. For Washington-based VPUs that choose to

participate, the cost to the VPU is $1800/RWA for

training in addition to any travel and subsistence

costs. Survey feedback from RWAs indicates that

budget constraints sometimes prevent them from

attending training. In the current budget climate,

VPUs need to ensure they have enough finan-

cial resources set aside early for RWAs who need

training. Since the program is required in country

offices with 15+ staff, it is important that funding

be made available for RWAs to attend the training

they need to perform their function successfully.

The institution is advocating for e-learning to

replace face-to-face training sessions whenever

possible as one way to cut training and travel

costs. However, the highly interactive training for-

mat and need for the RWAs to practice skills, par-

ticipate in role-playing with case studies, and get

feedback from facilitators does not allow for an

e-learning only, or even video conference deliv-

eries. A face-to-face training session is neces-

sary to adequately teach the skills required of an

RWA, and feedback from participants shows that

RWAs feel they need even more time for train-

ing. In 2010, to help reduce costs, the RWA Team

adjusted the training’s agenda to reduce the length

of the training by almost a half day, eliminating an

entire evening. This was made possible in part by

creating an e-learning to help maximize partici-

pants’ training experience.

Recent Developments in the RWA Program

A number of developments occurred this year in

response to feedback provided in the survey:

Case and Tip of the Month. One of the issues

that emerged from the Needs and Challenges sur-

vey was the need for more practice in the role

with realistic cases and issues. In response to

this, a Case of the Month was developed to allow

RWAs to test their knowledge on how to handle

different types of cases on a monthly basis. Each

month the RWAs are sent an email containing a

practical case scenario

with answer choices for

them to select the correct

approach for an RWA to

take in handling the case

together with a rationale

for the correct response.

Another area RWAs iden-

tified needing help with

was mastering difficult

skills required to per-

form the RWA role such

as remaining neutral and

being an active listener.

A Tip of the Month was

developed to help meet

this need by focusing on

a different skill or piece

of advice each month

for the RWA to keep in

mind when helping col-

leagues. The Tip of the

Month is included in the

Unfortunately, the RWA ser-vices may be under-utilized because not all staff realize that help is available and that going to an RWA could make a difference. Even though RWAs do not have the power—and should not have the power—of investigation and reso-lution, they are a valuable resource as they are trained to provide neutral advice and are also positioned to point staff to other options avail-able to them depending on the issue.

Wang Jun, Lead Financial Sector

Specialist & Former RWA, China

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 0

3 0

monthly email to RWAs and posted along with the

Case of the Month on the RWA website. Receiving

these items each month not only gives the RWAs

a monthly skill refresher and a chance to practice,

but also provides another resource for them to

refer back to as the old cases and tips are archived

on the website.

Training Modifications. Training materials

are updated regularly to improve the quality of

trainings and focus on

needs identified for RWAs

to better perform their

role. A couple of impor-

tant improvements were

made to the training ses-

sions this year based on

feedback and requests

from RWAs. More time

was allotted for role-play-

ing with case scenarios to

practice performing the

RWA role. The session

on conflict competency

was revised to present

the RWAs with a simpler,

more usable model to

work with to understand

conflict. A resource folder

was also developed with

information on relevant

Bank Group resources so

that the RWAs have easy

access to this informa-

tion after they leave train-

ing. In addition, feedback

from participants was

requested on a session by

session basis this year as

well as feedback on the training as whole to get

more specific feedback on how each session can

be improved.

New Activity Form System. RWAs are required

to gather some general data about issues that are

brought to them in quarterly activity forms. No

names or information that could identify a staff

member and/or any involved parties is collected,

only basic issue and demographic characteris-

tics. Based on feedback from the RWAs on the

difficulty using the old system, a new web-based

system was developed to make submitting their

activities easier. The new system is faster and

more user-friendly.

Participation increased slightly in 2010, perhaps

due to the new system, but is still lower than

we would like. This may be due to a problem of

perception. Although no identifying information

is shared with OMB in the activity forms, some

RWAs and staff feel that they should not “report”

issues to OMB. It is important for staff and RWAs

to understand that informing OMB of the issues

on which they are consulted does not compro-

mise confidentiality as it is completely anony-

mous and seen only by OMB.

Additionally, if the types of issues staff deal with

are not known to OMB, addressing and making

progress with workplace issues in general will not

be possible. The activity forms help the Ombuds-

man in their discussions with Management when

reporting on institutional issues in general and

are a particularly important source of information

for country office issues. The information in the

activity forms also helps the RWA Program Team

design and improve training to better address the

real problems staff are currently facing.

Value-Added/Impact of Program

The RWA Survey asked RWAs to describe what

value the RWA Program has brought to their

offices. The following discussions are based on

their responses.

IJS Outreach. RWAs are an essential gateway to

the CRS/IJS services for staff, particularly in the

country offices. Many staff in the country offices

feel very distant from Washington (where all

other conflict resolution resources are housed),

may have little or no information on the services

and don’t know where to go with an issue. Hav-

Serving as an RWA was one of the best things that

happened to me during my career at the World

Bank Group…The training I received as an RWA has,

I believe, made me a better person than I was before

this experience. I could have avoided many unnecessary

mistakes over the years had I been exposed to

the training earlier. The awareness of this knowledge has brought me great benefit

in dealing with myself and others in work and in life

and will continue to do so in the rest of my life.

Wang Jun, Lead Financial Sector

Specialist & Former RWA, China

R W A N E E D S A N D C H A L L E N G E S S U R V E Y

3 1

to their VP/CD/CM’s

attention as extremely

helpful in improving the

work environment, par-

ticularly since RWAs are

limited in their ability to

take action on issues. Often times, management is

not aware of the general issues their staff are fac-

ing due to a somewhat natural disconnect between

staff and management arising from differences in

roles. Staff may not have access to or be hesitant to

approach a manager with an issue, but having an

RWA to bring broad issues in the office to the VP/

CD/CM’s attention (without identifying anyone or

providing information that might point to a spe-

cific staff member) on a

quarterly basis helps pro-

mote better understand-

ing between staff and

managers. These meet-

ings give VP/CD/CMs an

opportunity to address

issues they may not have

otherwise been aware of

thereby creating a better

work environment.

ing RWAs in their office provides them with an

easy first step contact point to guide them to other

resources if needed. The number of RWA referrals

to other CRS/IJS services, HR and management

has increased over the years (see Table 13).

Every year in Washington, an IJS Day is held to

raise awareness about the IJS services. The IJS

offices distribute informational materials, host

interactive games about the services, and have

representatives present to answer questions staff

members may have. There have been many dis-

cussions as to how to involve the country offices

more fully in this event, and the RWAs are a nat-

ural resource for this. This year the VP/CD/CMs

were asked to show their staff a short video on

the IJS and have the RWA(s) present to answer

questions. This video was posted on the CRS

website. We also plan to develop a trivia game on

the IJS for the RWAs to play with their colleagues

next year.

Quarterly Meetings with VP/CD/CMs. Another

important value of the RWA Program is the function

of RWAs to discuss issue trends to VP/CD/CM. Many

RWAs have cited the ability to bring general issues

Table 13 Referrals by RWAs to Other Resources – CY10

OMB MEF PRS EBC HR Management Total

2010 56 16 3 14 39 84 212

2009 44 6 1 6 30 73 160

2008 44 5 0 5 29 60 143

2007 20 9 0 6 29 55 119

“I would like to thank the office for the improvement shown in the way we relate to each other. Also, to congratu-late the Country Manager for the support he has given us in the discharge of our duties.”

RWA, Anonymous

“I never thought I would be so busy but feel good about being helpful!”

RWA, Anonymous

3 3

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 & Selection Process Re-entry and external assignment/leave without pay (LWOP) concerns. Job-posting, short-listing,

interview process and selection.

Performance Includes performance evaluations, Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), 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 (MAS), 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 & 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, or sexual

orientation.

Retaliation Harm done to an individual in retribution for raising good faith concerns in the workplace.

Conflict of Interest A situation where 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 someone else, such as the

Bank Group.

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.

Misconduct Allegations of misconduct including abuse of authority, corruption, fraud, false reporting,

kickbacks, bribes, misuse of Bank assets, misuse of Bank information system, and other violations

of ethics code as well as those who have been accused of wrong-doing.

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 0

3 4

Annex 2 Issues Matrix

Issue Recommendation Update

Budget and Workload

Greater lending volume and

increased workload, during a time of

constrained resources and institutional

change

Ensure that HR has adequate resources

to play a leadership role and help keep

staff informed on process and timing of

change processes

HR still highly constrained by resource

availability which limits number of change

issues it can take on. Budget constraints

still affect larger institution with pressure on

maintenance of WB values.

Recruitment, Reassignment & Promotion Processes

Confusion around the role of the

Sector Boards

Lack of consistency and transparency

around selection and promotion

criteria and decisions

Lack of feedback to unsuccessful

candidates

Perception of arbitrary or unfair

processes and decisions

Sector Boards 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 (i.e.,

from competitive to strategic assignment)

Confusion around role of SBs in HR matters

still exists.

Feedback still often perfunctory or

nonexistent. Particular problem for short

list panels; challenge for HR when large

number of applicants.

Process for candidates for senior posts

(GH+) is more rigorous based on tightened

HRSLO processes.

Treatment of Contractor Employees in Country Offices

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

don’t have a conflict resolution system

and they are often unaware of the

WBG CRS

Compensation and benefits

packages set according to local

labor market conditions leaving

contractors in some countries without

adequate insurance coverage

A team with Operations, GSD, LEG,

HR and CRS should develop a more

comprehensive policy on treatment of

contractor employees that addresses:

Contract design and supervision

Orientation and information on WBG

including CRS/IJS

Guidance for COs on managing

contractor employees

GSD has established Contingent Labor

Working Group to benchmark and develop

guidelines for management of contracts

with outside contractors. Results expected

mid 2011. The orientation is to protect the

Bank from legal actions; however, more

attention needs to be paid to practicalities

of contract supervision and performance

management as well as reputational

risk issues. Enlisting operational and HR

perspectives would be valuable before

finalizing guidelines.

Management Skills & Behavior

Lack of training and management

skills of untagged managers who

supervise vulnerable junior staff, ACS

staff and consultants

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

Training programs cut back for budget

reasons. An alternative lower cost

way to approach these issues would

be development of on-line training

for untagged managers on such

issues as performance management,

delegation, career development, conflict

management, respectful workplace.

(continued on next page)

A N N E X E S

3 5

Annex 2 Issues Matrix

Issue Recommendation Update

Terms of Employment

Increased use of shorter term

contracts leading to greater sense

of job insecurity among staff and

consultants

Greater amount of time required by

staff to secure their next contract

STCs and some CO ETCs aren’t

eligible for orientation and don’t have

access to Bank systems they need to

be effective

Continued monitoring of the impact

of the increased use of shorter term

contracts on recruitment competitiveness

Inclusion of a more specific definition of

“reasonable notice” 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.

Continued concerns from staff on term

contracts, esp. 1–2 years around difficulty

of getting mortgages or loans, and less

stability for families. Some managers

indicate term contracts have reduced

competitiveness for WBG. HR notes that

86.2% of term contracts ending this

year were extended. Recommend fuller

evaluation of pros and cons of term

contract use in FY12.

New HR website has relevant information

(emergency, CRS, values, health services,

etc.) for new staff by appointment type.

Retaliation

General fear of retaliation for using

the CRS/IJS among staff

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

Ombudsman need 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.

(continued)

the photo from left to right: Swinitha Osuri, Tanisha McGill, Odile Rheaume, Meggy Savady, Thomas Zgambo, and Constance Bernard

Contacts: Internal Web Page: http://ombudsman Internal Email: Ombudsman@worldbank.org External Email: wbgombuds@gmail.com 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

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

1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20433, USAT: 202.458.1056 E: Ombudsman@worldbank.org