logo-newlogo-newlogo-newlogo-new
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Audit Trail Academy
  • Advisory Services
  • Books
✕
  • Home
  • Chambers on Internal Audit
  • Internal Audit Stakeholder Relations
  • “When Management Goes Rogue” – How Should Internal Audit Respond?

“When Management Goes Rogue” – How Should Internal Audit Respond?

Four Strategic Risks Internal Audit Faces in the Decade Ahead
August 24, 2021
Great Internal Auditors Can “Read the Room” (even online)
September 7, 2021
August 29, 2021

When it comes to corporate governance, I believe there is one enduring lesson from the past two decades: When boards of directors fail in their oversight responsibility of risk management, the results can be disastrous.

Managing risks for an organization is a complex and often dynamic undertaking that requires strong coordination among the board, management, the chief risk officer and the internal audit function. Identifying and mitigating risks through a sound risk-based internal audit process benefits all organizations, from mom-and-pop businesses to Fortune 500 corporations.

Failure to do so invites almost guaranteed problems at some level of the organization. It also can present a profound dilemma for the organization’s internal auditors who serve both management and the board.

Clearly organizations must embrace risk in pursing their goals. The key is to understand how much risk they are willing to accept. Creating a clear articulation of an organization’s risk appetite — the amount of risk an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of value — is a widely recognized aspect of effective enterprise risk management (ERM). It is probably one of the most important interactions between the board and management. As COSO states in its 2017 ERM Framework update (Enterprise Risk Management: Integrating with Strategy and Performance):

“Every board has an oversight role, helping to support the creation of value in an entity and prevent its decline. Traditionally, enterprise risk management has played a strong supporting role at the board level. Now, boards are increasingly expected to provide oversight of enterprise risk management…The board’s risk oversight role may include…Reviewing, challenging, and concurring with management on: – Proposed strategy and risk appetite.”

I liken the board’s role on risk appetite to painting lanes on a highway. The board should essentially say to management, “Here are the lanes to follow. Stay within these lanes.”

But what happens when management intentionally veers from the established risk appetite and, worse, misleads the board about the real risks associated with a particular behavior or business strategy? What happens when management goes rogue?

As I acknowledged when I first wrote about this topic several years ago, at times, an organization can inadvertently swerve outside the risk appetite lanes. For example, a big challenge is managing risk across several business units. Let’s assume, for example, that an organization has delineated and clearly communicated its risk appetite to its staff, but business-unit owners take the maximum risk within that appetite. In aggregate, they may exceed the overall level of acceptable risk for the enterprise. Everything may be fine until it isn’t. An extraordinary event like the Covid-19 pandemic may bring about a worst case risk scenario in multiple business units, creating catastrophic consequences for the enterprise.

Clearly, internal audit must be vigilant in helping to provide assurance to management and the board on the overall effectiveness of risk management, and an eye should be kept on whether risks that are being taken are outside the acknowledged or agreed-upon risk appetite.

But that is not what I’m referring to when I describe management going rogue.

I’m talking about management deliberately taking on risks that are clearly beyond the established risk appetite, perhaps motivated by an incentive tied to short-term performance, or a more widespread toxic culture.

When management goes rogue, it is intentionally taking on a level of risk that has not been agreed upon by the board, or of which the board is not aware. Perhaps management is not telling the board, or it is misrepresenting how extensive the risks are. In those instances, internal audit is in a difficult position because it has an administrative reporting relationship to management and a functional reporting relationship to the board. Ultimately, however, internal audit has an obligation to the board to highlight any improper risks.

An internal auditor in this position faces a tough question. Do I blow the whistle, fully understanding that I’m likely to annoy the CEO and others — and that it could cost me my job?

The IIA’s International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), is very clear on this point: Standard 2600: Communicating the Acceptance of Risks states:

“When the chief audit executive concludes that management has accepted a level of risk that may be unacceptable to the organization, the chief audit executive must discuss the matter with senior management. If the chief audit executive determines that the matter has not been resolved, the chief audit executive must communicate the matter to the board.”

While the primary purpose of Standard 2600 is to address resolution of disagreements between internal audit and management over internal audit results, I believe that it also provides internal auditors with the mandate to ensure the board is aware of management actions involving “unacceptable” levels of risks.

I have always felt that conformance with this standard requires a degree of courage on the part of a CAE. After all, you might well be taking a point of disagreement with your administrative boss (the CEO or chief financial officer) to your functional boss (the board) for resolution. What I have always said to those who aspire to reach the top of their field is simple: If you don’t have courage — that is, if you are not willing to do what absolutely needs to be done under any circumstances — then don’t become a CAE. Don’t take on this role.

Clearly, any conclusion that management is operating outside established boundaries should be reached only after thorough examination. But once you’ve made such a conclusion, don’t let management dissuade you from making your case. You should also be prepared for possibility that the board will side with management. The board is the ultimate arbiter in these matters.

Also understand that every instance of rogue behavior may not be overt. It isn’t always black and white. They pay us for our judgment, as well. If all they need is for someone to tell them that something is black and white, you don’t need an internal auditor. A good software program or inspector can do that.

An internal auditor is capable of distinguishing additional shades.

As always, I encourage you to share your comments on this important topic.

Share

Related posts

February 13, 2023

When an Internal Audit Client Shows You Who They Are – Believe Them!


Read more
July 5, 2022

Winning Over Skeptical Internal Audit Clients: 5 Strategies To Remember


Read more
February 16, 2022

When Friction Erupts: 5 Ways Internal Auditors Can Mend Broken Fences


Read more

1 Comment

  1. Charles Schrock says:
    August 29, 2021 at 9:31 pm

    As you say – if you aren’t willing to do what needs to be done, don’t take on the CAE role. That part is quite simple. But to be more practical, this is the importance of cultivating mutual respect and familiarity with the Audit Committee members. These are typically outside directors who can step up and ask tough questions of management (if reasonably primed by the CAE). By putting in the relationship building in advance, the CAE can often effect change without confrontation.

    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