If you have been in internal auditing for a few years, you’ve probably seen it happen. When you start your entrance conference, everything is going smoothly. You’ve prepared carefully for the meeting, and you have cordial relationships with your audit clients. Suddenly, however, your clients are frowning, and communications seem to have become a one-way street. It’s almost as if a door had closed. Management’s arms are crossed defensively, and they no longer seem to want to agree with anything you say. At times, you might not even be aware of why the change took place — you only know that the chance for open communications and sharing of ideas seems to be fading away.

I think internal auditing can be one of the most rewarding jobs on the planet. But let’s face it — no matter how good you are at your job, it’s not likely that people drop by your office each day just to tell you how much they loved your last audit. Still, there are unmistakable signs that your last audit was a big success. Here are a few of my favorite indicators that an internal audit report hit a home run.

I talk to quite a few members of the press in my travels for The Institute, and most of the time the questions are fairly similar. Recently, though, I was asked a new question: “Are you concerned that there is not enough transparency in internal auditing?” The reporter’s concern was that, with a few exceptions, corporate internal audit reports are not available to shareholders or other outside stakeholders. 

Let’s cut to the chase! The past decade has seen a rise in stature of the internal audit profession that is unparalleled in its history. Leading the way have been the men and women who led internal audit functions in enterprises around the world. In the past few years, I have had the privilege of getting to know many of them and the departments they lead. I am confident when I say that the overall caliber of chief audit executives (CAEs) in 2011 has never been stronger! 

I’ll never forget my seventh-grade English teacher telling us, “It’s not what you say but how you say it that counts.” Obviously she was exaggerating, but the point still stands: How we say things can make a difference. A well-written audit report should be a call to action, but a poorly written report can result in inappropriate action or in no action at all. In some cases, poor report writing can ruin working relationships or actively harm an auditor’s reputation. Little things can mean a lot, and at times, a minor change to how a recommendation is worded can make all the difference in how our suggestions are received.

There will be no false modesty in today’s blog. Let’s admit it: At most organizations, internal auditors are the unparalleled experts at internal controls. We work tirelessly to ensure management maintains up-to-date written policies and procedures. We encourage our audit clients to share ideas on best practices between different operating divisions. We promote good governance, advocate transparency, and, of course, extol the benefits of having internal audits. We know we are agents for positive change.

When I hear jokes about internal auditors, usually I can just laugh and blow it off. After all, there are plenty of jokes about doctors and lawyers and pointy-headed bosses, so why shouldn’t jokes be told about us? I attend quite a few audit conferences, and I’m used to the occasional joke about how internal auditors are heartless, or how we have dry personalities, or even how (dare I say it?) we "get in the way" when people are trying to do “productive” work. Once in a while, though, a joke strikes a little too close to home. 

I had an incredible experience today while preparing to unveil The IIA’s new Hall of Presidents. I was reflecting on the contributions made by The Institute’s past presidents, and it was literally overwhelming to realize just how much difference these eight individuals have made on internal auditing since Bradford Cadmus was appointed the first full-time managing director in 1947.

In my last blog post I discussed how often CAEs of small audit shops lament about the challenges of working with limited resources, and I expanded on three of six strategies I recommend for generating a “big impact” with a small staff. I’ve talked about the impact you can make by following the risk, leveraging the resources you do have, and benchmarking your success. But there are three more strategies that I’ve found can mean the difference between just another audit and making a lasting difference for the organization and a lasting impression on your stakeholders.

I often hear chief audit executives (CAEs) of small audit shops lament about the challenges of working with limited resources. In a way, I can sympathize. For most of my career, I worked in or led small audit shops. In fact, the first three years that I served as a CAE, I only had three or four full-time internal auditors on my staff. As my career progressed, however, I eventually found myself leading mammoth audit staffs of several hundred auditors. While it was nice to have all those resources to dedicate to the complex high-risk areas of the organization, I never felt quite as proud of our ability to generate “big-impact” audit results as I did with those smaller shops. In my last blog post, I discussed defining big-impact audits. But you may ask, “can we make a big impact with limited resources?”