logo-newlogo-newlogo-newlogo-new
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Audit Trail Academy
  • Advisory Services
  • Books
✕
  • Home
  • Chambers on Internal Audit
  • Uncategorized
  • Are Internal Auditors to Blame When Boards Are in the Dark?

Are Internal Auditors to Blame When Boards Are in the Dark?

Follow the Leaders in 2023
January 9, 2023
Do Performance Bonuses Impair Internal Auditors’ Independence and Objectivity?
January 24, 2023
January 16, 2023

Over the years, I have spoken to countless board members about their roles and expectations for internal auditors. Most are complimentary of the internal auditors in the organizations they oversee. They often refer to the auditors as their “eyes and ears,” and stress how much they depend on the internal audit department.

But there is one expectation by board members that causes me concern: They often emphasize that they look to internal auditors to help them avoid surprises.

I can’t help but cringe when I hear that, especially in an era of risks that seem to emerge out of thin air and catch everyone by surprise. Even when an issue might be foreseeable, it’s important to note that, while internal auditors can audit anything, they cannot audit everything.

Just look to the shocking number of damaging corporate scandals from the past decade: Toshiba’s accounting debacle, Volkswagen’s dieselgate, Wells Fargo’s fake accounts, Carillion’s collapse, Nissan’s CEO salary fiasco.

Proponents of good governance — investors, regulators, compliance and risk managers, and providers of independent assurance — have been deeply troubled by those high-profile incidents. What’s more, the governance failures of those mature and highly sophisticated corporations had a common and troubling subplot: In every case, the boards were largely in the dark about significant flaws in risk-management and culture that eroded shareholder value.

In their wake is a question that I refer to as the five scariest words in the English language for our profession: “Where were the internal auditors?” In response, I often ask (under my breath), “Where was the board?”

A boardroom should be filled with highly skilled individuals who have deep business acumen, a willingness to challenge management, and a healthy dose of professional skepticism. A boardroom shouldn’t be lined with potted plants dependent solely on internal auditors and external auditors as a source of light.

I have given a lot of thought to this issue. When a major corporate failure catches board members totally by surprise, there are at least three possible reasons:

Board members have their heads in the sand. The modern board member’s job is increasingly complex and time-consuming amid a risk landscape that is dynamic, technology-driven, and fast-paced. The era of a board focusing primarily on financials is no more. This new reality is driving calls for change to the typical board profile, to make its members more diverse, tech-savvy, and younger.

But diversity of experience and youthful perspective alone cannot address a more basic problem: Boards that fail to critically question information brought to them by executive management may never get a complete and accurate picture of risk and risk management. Too often, board members lack an appropriate level of professional skepticism.

A significant contributor to that shortcoming is the way many — if not most — executives end up on boards. Too many are either hand-picked by the chairman/CEO or they have some other preexisting connection to the organization, CEO, or fellow board member. For too long, the path to the boardroom has been less about what you know than who you know. That cozy arrangement makes for boards that may feel beholden to management and, therefore, less likely to ask probing questions.

The C-suite practices “don’t ask, don’t tell.” An IIA report in 2020 looked at how boards, executive management, and internal audit rated 11 key risks in terms of risk-management maturity. It found that boards viewed their organization’s ability to manage risk more optimistically than the C-suite.

That was quite telling. When the board consistently rates risk-management capabilities at a higher level than those working in the trenches, so to speak, it suggests that management isn’t being fully transparent. 

That is understandable, if not excusable. Executives who have limited face time with boards that gather only two or four times a year must cover a great deal of information at those meetings. It is not surprising, then, that some risks may not be conveyed as thoroughly as they should be. But frankly, I believe it is more likely that executive management takes these limited opportunities to put its best foot forward and downplay the negatives.

The CAE doesn’t speak up. As the lone voice providing independent assurance on risk management, internal audit has an obligation to speak up when boards are not getting a complete, timely, and accurate picture. 

Of course, that is easier said than done. Often, internal audit is not in a position to evaluate information going to the board. Indeed, various studies show that CAEs rarely address with either the board or management the completeness and timeliness of information being submitted to the board. Internal audit must do better.

This exercise demonstrates two things: The question that we should be asking is not, “Where was the board?” It should be, “Who is at fault for the board’s skewed view on risk management?” The answer is clear: The board, executive management, and internal audit each has some culpability.

The solution should be equally clear: Accountability and transparency around an organization’s risk-management efforts are vital for proper understanding and alignment among the board, executive management, and internal audit. Anything less is an unacceptable threat to good governance.   As always, I look forward to

Share

Related posts

January 31, 2023

Recent Advice on Hiring Internal Auditor’s You Can ‘Trust’ Is Misdirected


Read more
January 24, 2023

Do Performance Bonuses Impair Internal Auditors’ Independence and Objectivity?


Read more
January 9, 2023

Follow the Leaders in 2023


Read more

1 Comment

  1. Charles Schrock says:
    January 16, 2023 at 7:39 pm

    Richard – terrific article. Having also been a CAE and (briefly) a CRO, I have no quibble about your article. My experiences with my Boards have always been great. But I agree that many board members’ first instinct is to nod their heads in concurrence when a new strategy or proposal is being presented. Skepticism is typically not the first instinct. And nobody wants a contrarian board that constantly throws up speedbumps. But there is an appropriate level of business acumen that should always be displayed. For example – perhaps there’s a proposal to start a new advertising program and it will increase spending on advertising 10x. Rather than accept “We think this is a great opportunity”, perhaps they should be asking “Exactly what will we be getting for this 10x increase in funding? And how will you monitor its effectiveness?”. That’s straightforward. As a former CAE, one of the things I always included in my audits is validation that the associated data provided to the c-suite and the board relating to the area under review is both accurate and truthful. I always felt it’s important to assure that everyone understands and is committed to fulfilling their responsibilities – including the board.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

What’s Trending

01-31-23

Recent Advice on Hiring Internal Auditor’s You Can ‘Trust’ Is Misdirected


01-24-23

Do Performance Bonuses Impair Internal Auditors’ Independence and Objectivity?


01-16-23

Are Internal Auditors to Blame When Boards Are in the Dark?


Read More

Archive

  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009

Contact Us

PO Box 1441
New Smyrna Beach, FL 32170

+1-407-463-9389
rchambers@richardchambers.com

About AuditBeacon.com

AuditBeacon.com is a resource center for internal auditors and risk professionals from around the world. In addition to more than 500 blogs authored by Richard Chambers, the site includes links to news and insights on internal audit and other information that illuminates the value of this important profession. AuditBeacon.com is provided as a service by Richard F. Chambers and Associates, LLC.

Copyright © 2023 Richard F. Chambers & Associates. All Rights Reserved.
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Audit Trail Academy
  • Advisory Services
  • Books