logo-newlogo-newlogo-newlogo-new
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Audit Trail Academy
  • Advisory Services
  • Books
✕
  • Home
  • Chambers on Internal Audit
  • Uncategorized
  • Internal Auditors Must Draw a Line Between Skepticism and Suspicion

Internal Auditors Must Draw a Line Between Skepticism and Suspicion

When Friction Erupts: 5 Ways Internal Auditors Can Mend Broken Fences
February 16, 2022
War in Europe: Why Geopolitical Risks Should Always Be on Internal Audit’s Radar
February 27, 2022
February 20, 2022

I have always enjoyed working with new internal auditors, in part because they so often see the world in black and white. “Should we do an audit?” “Should we issue a finding?” “Am I maintaining a healthy degree of professional skepticism?” For many new internal auditors, each of those questions points unerringly to a single yes-or-no answer. 

With experience, internal auditors’ horizons expand, and they start to see repercussions of our actions. The issue is not merely whether we should perform an audit, but whether there is enough risk to warrant one, how extensive an audit is justified, and how soon it is needed. Likewise, the issue is not merely whether to report a finding, but how significant the finding is and how strongly to word the condition, cause and effect. 

Experience is valuable in appropriately drawing the line between providing adequate professional skepticism and harboring unwarranted suspicions. Issues regarding skepticism can be emotionally charged, because they lie at the core of how we see ourselves as auditors. Professional skepticism means we take nothing for granted — that we continuously assess audit evidence and other information, and that we question what we see and hear. We take pride in never missing a clue or warning sign, and being alert for the hidden messages that some other internal auditor might miss. We are all aware that, without professional skepticism, we might fail as auditors.

So, why shouldn’t auditors be obsessively skeptical? The flip side is that it can hamper audit effectiveness. Take, for example, the case of the hyper-suspicious auditor who once worked for me. He always assumed new clients were “guilty of something,” and his job was to blow the whistle. I would constantly remind him of the quote from Irish author Ian Gibson: “A suspicious mind will find poison everywhere it looks.”

Unsurprisingly, my colleague’s working relationship with management, as well as with me, deteriorated. Managers were less than forthcoming during risk assessments and the audit engagement. The auditor’s nature of being overly suspicious eventually led to communications breakdowns and weak audit results.​

There’s a fine line between maintaining a healthy degree of professional skepticism and having an overly suspicious attitude. How we decide to draw that line says a lot about us – as auditors and as individuals.

​​​​​​For many internal auditors, our written goals might include partnership-with-management initiatives or other relationship-building practices. Unfortunately, maintaining professional skepticism means we can never turn a blind eye to the very leaders who would be our partners in these initiatives. In turn, management may become less likely to think of internal auditors as trusted advisors. It’s human nature to trust and confide in people who trust and confide in us — but also to distrust those whose (remarkably poor) judgment makes them suspicious of us. Is it any wonder, then, that taking a hard line on professional skepticism can potentially damage valuable working relationships?

Having a handle on an appropriate level of professional skepticism is critical to long-term internal audit success, but evaluating our own professional skepticism can be dismayingly subjective. One size does not fit all. Some auditors rely more on relationship building; others are more inclined to “dig out the truth” in hard facts. Every situation is unique, and the trick is not merely to decide how much skepticism is enough in general, but to draw the line so clearly that we exhibit just the right degree of professional skepticism in any given situation.

If only we could use a standardized rating system to assess our level of skepticism! Unfortunately, an accurate, flexible rating scale is not likely in the near future. Imagine a checklist with statements such as, “The interviewee seemed nervous and was sweating profusely. Deduct one skepticism point.” Or, “The sample size was statistically significant. Add three skepticism points.”

To me, the secret is simply to approach each situation with an open mind and to communicate in a way that demonstrates our underlying trust and confidence in management. We will always need to ask the hard questions, but we also need to use tact in deciding how and when to ask the questions.

Former U.S. President Ronald Reagan once said, “trust but verify.” At the time, Reagan was discussing ongoing relationships with a U.S. adversary. For auditors, “trust but verify” should be words to live by. We need to demonstrate trust in our co-workers, and we need to verify that our trust continues to be well-placed.​

Share

Related posts

January 24, 2023

Do Performance Bonuses Impair Internal Auditors’ Independence and Objectivity?


Read more
January 16, 2023

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


Read more
January 9, 2023

Follow the Leaders in 2023


Read more

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

What’s Trending

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?


01-09-23

Follow the Leaders in 2023


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