“Woe upon us!” If you let me start off. Better have me for the optics of it all. We’re good to have, to show and to boast about. And maybe because someone should be watching, not from above but from within, behind the scenes, watching and taking observations but not writing and issuing them, rather keeping mum over them!
My fellow professional auditors, if this hits closer to home, the solace that I can offer is that we aren’t alone! We’re in the company of each other and our thoughts. That’s right we should have been in the company of our clients, but sadly that’s not the case.
Audit clients, unlike us, aren’t spending time and energy on getting to know their auditors (like we do when we’re making efforts to get to know our client). They don’t need to because they know us. Because the perception about us precedes us. Because we’re surely, unlike them, bad omen!
I mean we must be or what else it could be?
When it comes to how auditors are perceived, who seeks to go beyond? Being perceptive is knowing enough. No one then is concerned to experience us firsthand or seek to know about us. Even if our reputation is contrary to perception, we’re a prisoner of our perception.
Why have us then is the real question. Or more appropriately, why invest in us? Yeah, well, sometimes the investment not coming out of our clients’ own free will. We’re there taking the shoulders of statute or regulation with which the clients have to comply.
But sometimes, we’re there, because we’re desired. Now if this desire is about good optics or about copying and pasting from another entity or model or even if we’re someone dream is something imperative for us to know. But even that’s still different from what we make of it, or what we’re allowed to make of it.
And it’s all different from what the client eventually makes of us once we’re in. There’s difference between the purpose of having us onboard and utilizing us. Though those of us in because of the statute / regulation don’t need to be bothered about the expected utilization and how to go about it, the rest don’t have that comfort even.
But what we all know about is professional internal auditing approach and interventions. What we don’t know, however, is if we will be allowed to make those interventions! And here we’re all one! Because statute / regulations/ desires can get us in but can’t make the best out of us.
It’s because these can’t ensure that we’re able to start off. The impetus required to start us off is usually left with the clients / managements. To the group of people who are not really interested in having us around. Because like us, they too have a cost to the entity relationship; they too have been invested in. And that’s why they aren’t interested in an investment, that’s there to evaluate how they’re doing as an investment!
It’s a bit saddening that we’re not inquired after by those responsible for investing in us; either by statute or by desire. And it’s incomprehensible too! Because we should be held accountable. But holding us accountable means all other investments will also be held accountable. And auditing and accountability become synonyms when it comes to clients / managements dislike.
And every investment requires an assessment; both pre and post. Those who make a pre-assessment try to secure good talent and thus have better prospects for a good return over that investment. Those who don’t are just looking in to check their boxes with us; sort of ticking out their things to do list!
But the post assessment of return on investment is what everyone gets too eventually. Whether it’s peacetime or it is the time to decide divestments, the return on an investment is the most important question to be asked. Though divestment is not an option for those who have invested in internal auditing by virtue of statute, they’re always better off by securing the best possible talent and thus a good return on investment.
Now that it has been established that a good return on investment is indeed a requirement, my fellow auditors, you can once again get comfortable knowing that we aren’t alone in this. Our colleagues on the client side and management are all investments, and the entity needs a good return on all these investments.
But we, not being part of operations and being independent, are not considered integral and thus return on investment in us matters the entity the most. And that’s not a good reason to be considered important for measurement. Measurement of return on investment in us should matter the most because we’re the only independent function in an entity and also the only one focused on evaluating the entity’s pursuit of objectives, through its governance, risk management and control systems.
We’re there to ensure no one loses sight of those objectives for which all investments have been made, including us. And those deciding and making these investments should inquire after us! Whether their other investments are getting along with us or not! And the regulators should inquire after those amongst us who are there because of the statute or regulation!
But what if an entity has not invested in governance, risk management and control systems? And is not eager or is not even considering investing in these?
These domains define us. You don’t need them; you don’t need us.
And you don’t need any competition or a free market because you can’t compete at places where standards and frameworks for governance, risk management and controls are set and implemented.
You don’t need to worry about sustainability either, because your sustainability is leveraged through sacred coffers.
You keep the auditors away from those coffers too! That’s where it all starts and ends!
But with our own governance systems in place I have set sail even when I haven’t started.
Once I start off, it will be difficult to hold me off!
It’s going to be way deep!