I've been pushing #Google to create an Ombudsman (nowadays, more properly "Ombudsperson") role or team for many years. I've consistently hit a brick wall, with Google offering various explanations for why they refuse to take this crucial customer service step.
However, one day years ago, I was sitting in the office of a Google executive at MTV (you know he's an executive because he HAS his own office), pushing this concept as usual, when he asked me if I was volunteering for the position.
I thought about it for a few seconds and given the totality of my life situation at the time, I said no.
While he probably was only asking me the question rhetorically, I frequently regret that I didn't answer in the affirmative.
@lauren meh, I figure most of the time such positions are symbolic only with little actual impact.
So either the occupant of the position realizes that and sets their expectations accordingly, or they get really really frustrated.
Neither does any good.
@volkris Wrong. Or at least, not always wrong. The key is how the role is DEFINED and made OPERATIONAL. In some organizations, it's defined and operated in a way with results as you describe. In others, it's defined and operated in a way that does genuine good. The devil, as always, is in the details.
@lauren I mean you're not saying anything different from what I said.
Yeah, it's possible that somebody would care about what the position came up with. But as made operational, plenty of organizations would just ignore it.
Like you said, the key is how the role is defined and made operational, and so often the role will be defined and made operational in an immediately nullified way.
