Why Tone Is So Important for Internal Auditors
Richard Chambers, CIA, CGAP, CCSA, CRMA, shares his personal reflections and insights on the internal audit profession.
You’ve heard: “It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it.” Well, in internal auditing, I’d say it’s a combination of both. What we say in our audit reports most certainly matters. The reports must be clear, concise, and accurate. But it’s the way we communicate that will determine how our findings and recommendations are received — I call it “tone.”
Have you ever sent an email that others misread as harsh or curt? Early in my internal audit career, I actually had someone tell me, after reading a draft of an audit: “I agree with the recommendations, but I disagree with all of the findings.” In other words, he agreed that there were issues that needed to be addressed, and he was willing to fix the problems, but it was the critical nature, or tone, of my report that caused him to push back.
Most people have a difficult time conveying empathy and warmth in writing, and this is especially true in audit reports. It is fascinating to me how often, even when we keep audited activity officials informed of results throughout the course of an audit, that the same officials will read the written draft report and react as if they’ve been ambushed.
What we perceive as objective recommendations for improvement may evoke fear and anger among those being audited, who may feel as if their successes and good works are being neglected by a process designed to highlight flaws and vulnerabilities. Sometimes it’s just their own personal pride and integrity they feel is being attacked, but usually they are reading through a filter of, “How will the boss, or board, react when they read how my organization or operations are being described?”
It goes back to what I said in an earlier blog about human nature: People like to be recognized for their accomplishments. As internal auditors, if we’re not careful, we can fall into the trap of measuring our success quantitatively by the number of findings or recommendations we are able to generate. But how much more effective could we be if we focused instead on motivating those we audit to act on our findings to the betterment of the organization?
Put yourself in the shoes of those we audit and you begin to understand what I’m talking about. We may think we have treated a person fairly, but we’re talking about emotions here. Emotion and perception are not things we talk about very often, but they can have a significant effect on how an audit report is received.
As you look over your audit report, ask yourself how you would feel if those things were being said about your organization or your work. How are your written words going to be perceived? Is your report simply an accounting of everything wrong in the organization, or did you make an effort to recognize things you observed that were done well? Does the overall tone convey the true quality of the organization in a fair and balanced way?
Instead of obsessing about outputs (quantity of findings and recommendations) we need to monitor outcomes (the short-term and long-term impact of our work). If you change the way you measure the success of an audit from outputs to outcomes, you’re likely to find that it will influence the way you write. A good audit executive is a change agent, not the chief of police. At the end of the day, I think we will be judged by our ability to improve the organization, and to do that, we can’t afford to be “tone” deaf.
Posted on Mar 11, 2013 by Richard Chambers
Share This Article:
Entries
Richard: The problem you raise is an important one but one that I think warrants further analysis.
Over my 30+ years in the profession I have seen thousands of well-intending internal audit departments struggle with how to deliver the news that they have decided that "controls" are "ineffective" or "inadequate" or "in need of improvement" but not create what you reference above as "push back" . This traditional IA paradigm has the unintended consequence that internal auditors, in reality, are making decisions that are, or should be, management's responsibility. A primary role of audit should be to ensure that senior management and the board are aware of the signifcant residual risk status areas, including the potential consequences if one or more key strategic or potentiall value eroding objectives is not achieved and options available to reduce the residual/retained risk position.
Relations with auditees improve enormously in my experience when internal audit quit giving subjective opinions on what they think constitutes "effective" or "adequate" and focus on ensuring there is awareness and conscious acceptance of residual risk status up to and including the board.
The business case for the need for this paradigm shift will be laid out in an IIA Canada webinar on Board Oversight of Management's Risk Appetite and Tolerance on March 27th. It's free to all IIA members. Details can be found at:
http://www.theiia.org/chapters/pubdocs/501/March27.13_Board_Oversight_of_Management_s_Risk_Appetite_and_Tolerance.pdf