logo-newlogo-newlogo-newlogo-new
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Audit Trail Academy
  • Advisory Services
  • Books
✕
  • Home
  • Chambers on Internal Audit
  • Internal Audit Communications
  • Internal Auditors: It’s What You Say – AND How You Say It!

Internal Auditors: It’s What You Say – AND How You Say It!

Courageous Internal Auditors Are Storm Chasers
July 18, 2021
Workpaper Retention Presents Internal Audit With Its Own Compliance Risks
August 8, 2021
July 26, 2021

We live in a world today where the words we choose are more important than ever. An insensitive comment made today is likely to elicit a much different response than the same choice of words would have garnered just a few years ago. People are sometimes rightly offended by the actual words that are used, but other times it is the unintentional tone used in delivery that elicits a negative reaction. For those of us who are career internal auditors, we understand that tone in our communications is vitally important.

As the old saying goes: “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 — it is often referred to as “tone.”

Purdue University’s Online Writing Lab offers guidance on tone in business writing. As the Lab notes: “Tone in writing refers to the writer’s attitude toward the reader and the subject of the message. The overall tone of a written message affects the reader just as one’s tone of voice affects the listener in everyday exchanges.” In other words – we know what we meant to say, but that may not be what the reader infers.

Early in my internal audit career, I actually had someone tell me, after reading a draft of an audit report I had written – “I agree with your recommendations, but I disagree with all of your 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) management will read a 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 a blog on human nature several years ago: 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 human 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.

Over the years, I have offered guidance in my books and blogs on words to avoid in internal audit reports. The choice of words that convey a negative tone are countless, but there are five words that I absolutely banished from internal audit reports when I was a CAE:

Failed – as in “management failed to adequately assess and mitigate risks.” Simply stating the condition without assigning blame is much more likely to result in corrective action and preserve our relationship with management the next time we audit their area.

Neglected – a word we should avoid because it also assigns blame. It may well be that a condition exists because management neglected a key risk, but our objective shouldn’t be to point fingers. It should be to elicit action in the future.

Inadequate – “Management designed and implemented inadequate internal controls.” Inadequate is one of those adjectives that can elicit a strong disagreement from management officials if the word is used to describe their actions. I prefer to describe the condition and contrast the observation with appropriate criteria without attaching the adjective to individuals. If I do use the word “inadequate,” I use it to describe the controls and not the actions of management. 

Ineffective – “Management actions were ineffective.” Ineffective is another adjective that should be used sparingly. The word will often elicit a defensive response on the part of management. Rather than encourage swift concurrence with the audit report and implementation of corrective actions, words such as “ineffective” will result in prolonged negotiations over the final wording of the report. The result can be a deterioration of relationships with management and additional exposure or losses accruing from the delays in implementing corrective measures.

Violated – we often discover lack of adherence (violations) to policies, regulations or statutes during the course of our audits. I have had more success in motivating management to swiftly address a condition when I chose phrases such as “Our analysis disclosed that airline travel policies 32% of the expense reports examined” rather than “We found violations of airline travel policies in 32% of the expense reports we examined.”

As you contemplate your own audit reports, ask yourself how you would feel/react if those words were being used to describe your organization or your work. How are your written words going to be perceived?

Beyond the choice of words, you should be cognizant of the overall tone of the report. 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.

I welcome your thoughts.

Share

Related posts

January 2, 2023

Six Tips for Internal Auditors When Delivering “Bad News”


Read more
August 24, 2022

Internal Auditors Must Sometimes Break The Rules to Ask The “Right Questions”


Read more
July 11, 2022

Internal Audit and the Endangered Art of Tact and Diplomacy​​


Read more

4 Comments

  1. Let’s talk about audit reporting | Norman Marks on Governance, Risk Management, and Audit says:
    July 26, 2021 at 5:10 pm

    […] His latest is Internal Auditors: It’s What You Say – AND How You Say It! […]

    Reply
  2. Norman Marks says:
    July 26, 2021 at 5:20 pm

    Richard, please see https://normanmarks.wordpress.com/2021/07/26/lets-talk-about-audit-reporting/

    Reply
  3. Let’s talk about audit reporting - RISK OWNER by RISK-ACADEMY says:
    July 26, 2021 at 5:50 pm

    […] His latest is Internal Auditors: It’s What You Say – AND How You Say It! […]

    Reply
  4. Thomas Wilson says:
    August 5, 2021 at 11:36 pm

    Agree that violation is a horrible word – but you suggested “Our analysis disclosed that airline travel policies 32% of the expense reports examined” – if I read that I wouldn’t know what it meant – might be a word or 2 (“not met”?) missing?

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

What’s Trending

03-20-23

New Report Reveals Surprising Insights from Internal Audit Executives


03-13-23

New IIA Report Is a Timely Benchmarking Resource for Internal Auditors


03-02-23

6 Things Audit Committee Members Often Won’t Say to Internal Audit


Read More

Archive

  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • 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