A few weeks ago, Audit International met with a self-described “introverted” business leader. This business leader confided to us that introverted individuals have a harder time climbing the corporate ladder. The individual went further in claiming that recent research shows that it is worst for women, as introverted women are seen as less assertive and lacking in leadership traits.

Conversely, the business leader pointed out that recent research also shows that introverted individuals actually make better leaders, but because they are not as assertive as their extroverted counterparts, they are not equally represented in leadership positions. That took a minute for us to reflect on. It was one of the most thought-provoking discussions we’ve had in recent weeks.
Curious by the proposition and wanting to see what statistics we could get on the topic ourselves, we set out to create several online polls. Initially, we just asked a simple question:

Do you consider yourself an introvert or an extrovert? Here are three things we learned from asking that and some follow-up questions:

People Do Not Like Binary Options on Personality Traits
In two separate polls across different platforms, we received similar feedback:

“No room for those who don’t fall into these binary groups?” was one of the first responses.

“Some people vary based on their environment,” and “I believe there should be space in between the two,” were two responses that quickly followed.

“Do you have a definition of introverts and extroverts?” was the last question.

Even when we tried to foolishly define the terms we were met with a big, “it depends.”

Lastly, we received the one-word response that took my approach in a different direction: “ambivert.”

The Power of the Ambivert
A full 70 to 80 percent of internal audit professionals considered themselves introverts when only given two choices on the introvert vs. extrovert spectrum. However, in follow-up polls, when the ambivert option was introduced, the results were different. Vastly different. Nearly half of the introverts from the initial polls now classified themselves as ambiverts. Ambiverts were now, in two separate polls, the largest group.

So, what does that mean?

Maybe we’re being foolish again, but here is our theory: Introverted ambiverts are those who usually keep to themselves and don’t brag about their accomplishments, but when the stars align and the spotlight is on them, they shine.

When Audit International first started in the internal audit profession, we worked with two introverted gentlemen. They generally kept to themselves in the day-to-day audit process. But, when they led projects, they had absolute killer instincts.

In that group, they audited the Latin America region, so depending on the country visited they would switch from English to Spanish or Portuguese and back to English with pure finesse. Audit clients would be at ease with their approach and communication style. Anyone who had only known them for that period would swear they were extroverted individuals. But they were not. They were ambiverts.

And that is the power of the ambivert: Killer instincts when it matters.

Extroverts Are Disproportionately Represented in Leadership Positions
Back to the business leader’s proposition that introverted individuals get the short end of the stick when it comes to leadership positions. Was that the case? Based on my poll results, yes.

Extroverts represented approximately one-fourth of the sample population of internal audit professionals. However, they represent one-third of those professionals in leadership positions. Introverts, excluding those with ambivert traits, represented over a third of the sample population of internal audit professionals, but only 10 percent of those in leadership positions. These statistics can be even more accentuated when it comes to female leaders.

A burning question then came to mind. Do extroverts make better leaders? Would that be the reason they are overrepresented in those positions?

Audit International set out to attempt to answer that by asking the community about their experience with their previous leaders. Were their best leaders introverts or extroverts? For this last poll, we purposefully left the ambivert option out.

The results? Extroverts were slightly at an advantage, 53 percent versus 47 percent. In other words, the “best” leader being an introvert or extrovert had close to the same likelihood as the flip of a coin.

How come we don’t have more introverted leaders if they are just as good as extrovert ones?

We don’t have any statistics there but, in my opinion, it’s likely because extroverts are seen as better communicators, and being a good communicator is a sought-out trait in effective leaders.

Should Introverts Lose all Hope?
No. Introverts in some circumstances may have an advantage over extroverts. Another reason is that in [internal audit], passion for the role is important to the impact that you can have on the organization. An introvert has to put a bit more effort into the work than an extrovert does, and I’ve seen several times where this translated to the level of commitment and effectiveness to the role.”
It might even be concluded that an introvert displays more active listening skills and empathy, which is also essential in leadership roles.

Audit International are specialists in the recruitment of Auditors and various Corporate Governance Professionals including Internal Audit, Cyber Security, Compliance, IT Audit, Data Analytics etc. across Europe and the US.

If you would like to reach out to discuss your current requirements, please feel free to reach us via any of the following:
Calling
– Switzerland 0041 4350 830 59 or
– US 001 917 508 5615
E-mail:
– info@audit-international.com

A new focus for Audit International and our clients is ESG. But there is one thing all of us are perhaps not considering as much : ESG’s impact on the workplace.

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) factors are changing how companies conduct business in many ways, including:

– New ESG or climate-related disclosure regulations to comply with, especially in Europe.
– The need to effectively identify and manage ESG risks (including compliance, financial, and reputational risks), and integrate them within the existing enterprise risk management framework.
– Bringing a host of environmental and social metrics at par with financial information, especially with regards to data quality. There is a growing need for investor-grade ESG data.
– Ensuring that ESG factors give you a competitive edge in attracting investors, customers, and talent.

But there’s another change brought by ESG that’s not getting enough attention: The effects on workplace interactions.

– Firms that ‘get ESG right’ understand that ESG isn’t the responsibility of only one person. You can’t simply appoint a Vice-President or Director of ESG, or just place ESG under the Chief Financial Officer or Chief Sustainability Officer.

– Also, different departments can no longer work in their own little world with occasional collaborative efforts across functions. The important changes brought by ESG will also bring fundamental changes to the workplace.

The ESG team :
ESG is a team sport. People from different departments will have to work together as part of a single team.

You may be in Finance, Legal, Risk, HR, EHS, Sustainability, Operations, IT, or Procurement, but now, in addition to your regular teams and colleagues, you will also be part of the ESG team.

And your company’s ESG team will play a critical role because strong ESG performance drives corporate performance.

This represents a significant shift because suddenly key employees will have to align with a new set of stakeholders. They will have to work together with colleagues they might not have worked with before, or even knew. Here’s a sample of the types of interactions to expect:

EHS will have to provide key metrics to Finance for combined financial and ESG (or non-financial) reports.
EHS will also have to show to Finance and auditors (internal or external) how they provide limited or reasonable assurance on the data.
Procurement will seek guidance from EHS and the Sustainability team on how to capture greenhouse gas emissions data to calculate Scope 3 emissions.
HR will be asked to provide more tangible metrics on DEIB to Finance for inclusion in the combined financial/ESG report.
Did you bring together key stakeholders across departments as part of your ESG strategy?

Have you recruited members of your ESG team yet? If this is a topic you are actively hiring for, then please get in touch with us here at Audit International to assist you with any hiring needs you may have.

Audit International are specialists in the recruitment of Auditors and various Corporate Governance Professionals including Internal Audit, Cyber Security, Compliance, IT Audit, Data Analytics etc across Europe and the US.

If you would like to reach out to discuss your current requirements, please feel free to reach us via any of the following:
Calling
– Switzerland 0041 4350 830 59 or
– US 001 917 508 5615
E-mail:
– info@audit-international.com”

Audit International now bring you the second part in this three part series – Having introduced the initial concepts of what is involved with auditing organizational culture in the first article of this three-part series, we now can begin the process of drilling down and more closely examining the first five of the top ten tips to conduct a culture audit.

Identify your cultural levers:
The first step to successfully conducting a cultural audit is to identify the daily management activities that occur throughout the organization – your cultural levers. These levers look to align the culture we desire with the day-to-day activities of everyone in the organization. If we understand what leaders focus on to deliver this alignment, then we have a starting point for identifying what to test to provide our opinion on the effectiveness of culture.

Cultural levers often vary from organization to organization, so you need to work with management to identify what is influencing behavior within your specific organization. However, there are areas that I would expect to see. Published value statements are significant and an indication of what should be happening. Leadership is also significant, not just at the top but cascading throughout the organization at all levels. In this context, the organization’s approach to people management is vital with the impact this has on encouraging the behaviors that are needed for success. However, culture goes much deeper and is present in the management of other resources, including areas such as customer engagement, complaints handling, supplier management, corporate responsibility, risk management structures and profile, and internal and external communication.

This may appear daunting, but a well-organized approach to assessing each lever can quickly identify areas that are not truly aligned with the espoused values; a clear indicator that desired culture is not operating as expected.

The next four tips examine these cultural levers more closely to illustrate what they mean and to help inform you about the questions you might want to consider testing in order to arrive at an opinion on the organization’s culture.

Reputation:
Employees watch what leaders and key individuals in organizations do and how they operate. They see the dissonance between what the organization is saying, both in its external and internal communication, and their lived experience of working there. Assessing whether there is alignment is a key aspect of any audit of culture. This is even more important given the increased focus over recent times on aspects of corporate and social responsibility and the push for Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) activity from investors. Acquisitions of ‘greenwashing’ in your communications can be hugely damaging. This means that it is important to pay attention to external reputation and its alignment with internal messaging and should be considered across all social media.

Leadership:
The third tip is all about the examination of leadership’s role in owning and managing the culture in the organization. In internal audit, we need to examine whether this is occurring both at design and operational effectiveness levels. We are there to check that the activities of leaders are aligned with the espoused values and are supporting the delivery of the business strategy. In our audit work we should be looking for a consistency of message and actual managerial behavior. Leaders play a pivotal role in managing the business such that there is consistency across activities and that they work toward delivering the required culture for success. To do this practically, we need to build audit programs that look for evidence of areas such as misalignment in leadership actions and customer-centric examples that manifest in the practical activities of front-line colleagues. Leadership should be able to clearly demonstrate actions that they have conducted that help move the organization closer to accurately living the culture and evidence-measurement activity that supports this.

In this context, during an audit, I would expect leaders to be able to articulate how they ensure the culture is embedded through their team’s day-to-day activities, including examples of how they role model the culture in their own activities and interactions. Interviews will form a significant part of assessing these. However, data analytics can also be used to examine areas such as communications from leaders over a period of time looking for references to culture.

Simply put, what you are looking to establish here is whether the fine words on a page have a living connection with reality and link through to a real impact on the delivery of the organization’s strategy.

People management:
This leads us to the next cultural lever – people management. The key here, as with all aspects of cultural audit, is alignment. Across the entire employee lifecycle the behaviors we need to exhibit for the business to be a success need to be front and center. This starts with the employment brand, which should signal to potential recruits what the organization’s values are and includes the testing of new recruits against this. Objectives need to be set not only about what is needed to be delivered in terms of financial results, for example, but also how these results will be achieved.

Performance management needs to be expertly conducted to explore the colleague’s contribution to delivering organizational success in the way we want it delivered. This should be a continual process and include ongoing dialogue, not just an annual form-filling event. Promotion decisions should clearly consider this aspect and signal to all colleagues how behaving in the right way counts for personal success.

In developing your audit program, you need to consider all aspects of the employee lifecycle: attraction, reward, management, development, and exiting colleagues. In reviewing all these aspects, you need to be cognizant as to where the controls are operated. In most organizations, while the Human Resources function is likely to have a key role in the design of many of the practices mentioned, the management of the risk and operation of the controls largely sits within the business units of the organization. That is the place you need to be testing reality, not just within the HR function.

Identify key processes and assess alignment:
Next, we move on to two heavily connected cultural levers: process and change. When reviewing your organization, a key step is to identify the processes that are critical to the management of the organization’s culture. From this, you can review whether their operation is consistent with the outlined culture. In this case, we mean the culture promoted not only to your employees but outside your organization through your brand and external image to customers and other important stakeholders.
Employees, in their scanning of the organizational environment, will spot processes that do not sit well with declared ideal behaviors and values, where potentially the organization is looking to put short-term gain before longer-term goals. If these exist, it sends a huge signal to customers and colleagues that leadership does not really mean what they say. Included in these key processes are likely to be many of the internal processes around people and supplier management, but, most significantly, processes around how you deal with customers and how you respond to their feedback and complaints.

Alongside this, consideration needs to be given to how the organization’s change programs identify how changes they are looking to enact to systems and processes promote the desired culture. Change programs are a key touch point where the organization can ensure that the culture is being reflected in operating practices. However, they can also be a point of risk. Delivering efficiencies, while at the same time undermining the desired culture, can create problems that are hugely difficult to unpack.

Next up, in the third and final installment of this article series, Audit International finish identifying and discussing the remaining top ten tips to audit culture and conclude the journey that set out to help you deliver cultural insights within your organization. We hope you’ll stick with us.

Audit International are specialists in the recruitment of Auditors and various Corporate Governance Professionals including Internal Audit, Cyber Security, Compliance, IT Audit, Data Analytics etc across Europe and the US.

If you would like to reach out to discuss your current requirements, please feel free to reach us via any of the following:
Calling
– Switzerland 0041 4350 830 59 or
– US 001 917 508 5615
E-mail:
– info@audit-international.com”

Let’s face it. Even here at Audit International, we understand Internal audit still suffers from some rather negative stereotypes. There are plenty of companies or units where internal auditors are not welcomed with open arms. Audit clients may view internal audit with suspicion, expecting a “gotcha” mentality or may feel like they are under surveillance.

Sure, it’s often undeserved and some of it comes with the territory, but we may even be perpetuating such negative views with the words we use. Words and phrases that internal auditors consider just a normal part of the profession’s vocabulary may actually be words that trigger negative reactions in our audit clients. And often, internal auditors don’t realize they are contributing to the hostility by using them.

Words matter and good internal auditors choose them carefully. But auditors are also as prone to using professional jargon as anyone. These are words that have become so commonplace that we might not think too much about what they really mean, especially to others. We all use them. Yet, how they might be interpreted may not be how we intended. So, what can we do about it?

Here are seven words that we should consider their meanings more closely and either use them more carefully or strike them from our vocabulary completely.

1. “Finding”
Most internal auditors call what we consider reportable (in writing and verbally) a “finding.” Think about that for a moment, though. It’s not as if the vast majority of our audit observations were hiding or lurking in some hard-to-discover, dark and foreboding place, and it took our best Indiana Jones skills to unearth them. Lo and behold, ah ha! We have a “finding.” The word relates a context of sleuthing and uncovering things that were hidden, perhaps intentionally.

So put yourself in the shoes of your audit clients. We come along and have all these “findings,” as if they weren’t doing their jobs and it took us to find these gems of reportable conditions. Worse yet, we are often reporting as “findings” what audit clients told us directly. How would you feel if someone walked through your house and told you at the end of their visit that they found the carpets needed vacuuming, the furniture needed to be dusted, and relayed a few other of their insufficient housekeeping “findings.” You’d likely be inclined to never invite them back.

Try using the words “observations,” “conclusions,” or “conditions,” rather than “findings.” You may find they work better in your organization. Audit clients will feel less like they are being accused of hiding information or that they didn’t see something that the auditors later uncovered.

2. “Weakness”
When we observe an issue, we also sometimes couch that issue by using another troubling word, “weakness.” We may not be able to avoid calling breakdowns in internal controls, as they relate to SOX-like work, “control weaknesses” if the controls are not working as they should (or at all). But we should avoid calling observations outside of controls “weaknesses,” if possible.

Think about it. You go into the manager’s office during an audit, and you say, “excuse me, if you have a few minutes I’d like to go over a few weaknesses that have come to our attention during our review of your area.” Expect immediate defensiveness. We might as well be criticizing their first-born by pointing out weaknesses in how the child looks or plays with others. The word connotes physical ineptitude and can strike a visceral blow to any manager’s ego.

Like weaknesses, “deficiencies” isn’t any better for all the same reasons. So, perhaps, try “opportunities,” or “matters for attention,” rather than “weaknesses.” Even “challenges” or “difficulties” will garner a better response from audit clients.

3. “Material”
While the term “material” has been part of auditing language forever and, although tough to really quantify, is an important and meaningful word. I mean, if it’s not material why look at it or consider it at all? We also have the SOX-related nomenclature of “material weaknesses” (which people want to avoid as best as possible). Look, if you tell someone something is “material” and it truly is agreed that it is “material,” that’s a big deal.

Yet when we tell someone who is the owner of something that we want to talk with them about a matter that is “material,” what would be the natural reaction of the person on the receiving end of that word? Disbelief, denial, and outright defensiveness are natural human reactions when told something is “material,” in a bad way, which affects them or their responsibilities. Think about being in the doctor’s office because you have not been feeling well. After a bit of consultation and tests, the doctor comes in the room and tells you that there is something “material” to discuss. You are likely to act with disbelief, denial, and defensiveness, naturally. The word conveys an urgency we might not intend. Do we really want our clients to react that way, now or in the future?

Note that “material” has an important legal context. The Securities and Exchange Commission defines “materiality” as anything a reasonable investor would deem relevant to their decisions about whether and how to invest. While it’s important to use this word carefully in this legal context, it’s also easy to adopt the word and use it outside this context, which can result in misusing it. Another problem with “material” is that it implies that everything else isn’t important or that other aspects of an audit client’s work are meaningless, which is not a great sentiment to convey.

So, perhaps, when you don’t really have to use the word “material” (or “significant” for that matter) in consultation or in writing, maybe consider some different language. Hey, there’s something important I want to run by you when you have a moment, and maybe we can write about the top matters for attention without calling them “material” (unless, of course, we must).

4. “Disclosed” or “Uncovered”

Like the word “finding,” the word “disclosed” (or the word “uncovered’) has a similar connotation. It’s as if the issue was hiding and no one knew about it or would ever find it without you, and your brilliance—the internal audit superhero with x-ray vision. OK, sometimes things were truly hidden, unintentionally or, worse yet, purposefully, and we did use our internal audit superpowers to uncover it and then we get to puff our chest and—cue music here—disclose it. But, come on, that’s rare.

Yet, we use the terminology all the time. For example, resulting from of our testing, it was disclosed that blah, blah, blah. Or, based on our review of the area, it was uncovered that yada, yada, yada. Now, if you’ve got sneaky and underhanded clients, who are going around hiding stuff from you that you truly uncovered and want to disclose to the world, then fine. But most clients don’t do that, and you want to collaborate with them in the future.

Imagine how you’d feel if the external team you hired to do your Quality Assurance Review (QAR) started telling everyone, verbally and in writing, what their work (and only their work) disclosed and uncovered in your internal audit department? How would you react to that? “Disclosed” implies that something was formerly a secret and now you are airing the dirty laundry out for the world to see.

So, maybe we need to back off the “disclosed” and “uncovered” language, at least a bit. Options might include, “along with management, we identified …,” “taking full stock of the evidence, it can be concluded that …,” “testing demonstrated that …,” or similar language. Just don’t use “revealed” instead. That’s just as bad.

5. “Entrance” and “Exit”
OK, you may need to bear with me a bit on this one.

We’re going to start an audit project, and our first meeting with the client is called, in many companies, an “entrance meeting.” Then, when we’ve concluded all our fieldwork, what do we call the last meeting with the client to wrap things up and ride off into the sunset to work on the audit report for weeks on end? The “exit meeting.” They are decent terms, descriptive of exactly what they are … our entrance (ugh, the auditors are here) and our exit (yes, they are leaving, let’s party).

Let me ask you this, though. Is this audit, the one you are doing an entrance into and an exit from, the first and last time you will ever see these folks? I sure hope you have an ongoing relationship and are interacting all year long, or at least on occasion. If that’s the case, there is no entrance and there is no exit because, like the song Hotel California, you may never leave. And, if you’ve done your relationship management right, they are happy about that.

The point is that “entrance” and “exit” are old-school terms from when we did things on a cyclical basis and may or may not come back. Back then, relationship-building was less important and audits had a fixed beginning and end. So, maybe we need to stop calling them “entrance meetings” and “exit meetings,” and just call them something else that isn’t so clinical and auditor sounding. Schedule your Project Introduction Meeting at the beginning and, maybe, your Project Wrap-Up Session at the end, or something like that. And, if you are well down the path of an agile implementation, all that entrance and exit stuff becomes moot anyway.

6. “Consulting”
Back in 1999, the Institute of Internal Auditors introduced the well-accepted and globally codified definition of Internal Auditing as: “An independent, objective assurance and consulting [emphasis added] activity designed to add value…” Back then, the word “consulting” was viewed positively. And, for internal audit to be positioned to not only provide assurance, but to also be viewed as a consultant? Well, to borrow a ’90s term, that would be “da bomb!”

But, somewhere along the way, the word “consulting” came to be viewed less positively, and we’ve started to insert the word advising to soften the term. Should we blame consultants for tarnishing a good word, and making people view consultants and, in turn, consulting, negatively? Perhaps, but that’s not the point.

We all want to be advisors, and the gold standard, the place to be, the coolest accolade, would be to be trusted and be an advisor. So, in our pursuit of being that vaulted trusted advisor, let’s drop the word consulting from our vocabulary, once and for all. Look, your clients might want to “consult” with you, but hopefully you are “advising” them.

7. “Satisfactory”
Often, we as auditors don’t want to overcommit, and use words that might get us into trouble later if something is determined to be different than our work concluded. There is just so much we can evaluate and then we must draw a conclusion and move on. So, we settle on words like “satisfactory,” even if things are notably better than the word implies. From an internal audit perspective, we are hedging out bets. We don’t want to be overly flowery with praise, and just conclude something is either “satisfactory,” “needs improvement,” or “unsatisfactory.”

Put yourself on the other side of the table. Let’s say, for instance, you’ve worked hard at something, gone the extra mile, and made sure it was done exceptionally well. Then, someone comes in, looks it over, and decides that things seem “satisfactory.” Ouch, gut punch! You put in a ton of effort, expected to get an “A” grade, and the professor gives you a “C.” That’s kind of deflating.

Let’s not forget that the word “satisfactory” means acceptable or good enough, but not outstanding or great. Yes, there are reasons to fall on the crutch of concluding, placing our highest auditor grade on something, that it is “satisfactory.” But, perhaps, if we can avoid it, we take the risk, rely on our work, and conclude that something better than a measly “satisfactory.” Don’t be afraid to say if something is exceptional, great, works well, or exceeds the requirement.

The Last Word
There is a lengthy list of good reasons, justifications, and rationalizations for why we use the words we do as internal auditors. Many of them have stood the test of time. Many are in use, and still exist, because we are hearing the world through our own ears, and not our clients’.

If we stop for a minute, and consider what these words sound like and what they actually mean, and the impressions they may leave on the ears of our clients who hear them, perhaps they are not the best words to use. Perceptions are reality, and if you want to change perceptions, maybe one way to do that is to change our vocabulary. In other words, say what you mean and mean what you say.

Audit International are specialists in the recruitment of Auditors and various Corporate Governance Professionals including Internal Audit, Cyber Security, Compliance, IT Audit, Data Analytics etc across Europe and the US.

If you would like to reach out to discuss your current requirements, please feel free to reach us via any of the following:
Calling
– Switzerland 0041 4350 830 59 or
– US 001 917 508 5615
E-mail:
– info@audit-international.com”

Audit International are stating the main Risks and Actions companies are putting on their 2023 internal audit plans. The past year concentrated attention and shone a spotlight on the increasing fragility of organizations. With a complex set of risks manifesting simultaneously, audit committees are prioritizing some of the most serious implications resulting from the ongoing war in Europe and a triple squeeze of supply chain, workforce and inflation pressures.

According to data from Gartner’s 2023 Audit Plan Hot Spots report, which identifies the key risks and recommended actions for Audit to benchmark their efforts against in the coming year, 81 percent of Chief Audit Executives polled have cyberthreats on their agenda to cover in audit activities over the next 12-18 months, with an additional 13 percent tentatively planning to do so. Even in a year with a high number of varied and seemingly imminent risks facing organizations, cyberthreats remained an agenda topping item for Audit Committees and senior executives as the drivers of the risk shifted from a generalized focus on inadequate security controls to specific need to prepare for highly sophisticated state-sponsored cyberthreats and new cyber breach disclosure requirements. Even as some risks remain perennial threats, shifting drivers can change the nature of the risk and need for updated mitigation and coverage plans.

Cyberthreats, however, are not the only vulnerability an organization faces in an increasingly fragile world. In developing this year’s report, the need for Audit to support their organizations through rethinking their approach to resilience in the face of growing fragility became evident as a key theme underlying several top organizational risks. These risks are generally under-covered in audit plans for 2023, in some cases less tangible and immediate than the category of risks that have been urgently prioritized as a result of the headline events of this year.

Resilience-related risks are manifesting with real world and high-velocity consequences all the same, and Audit needs to understand the risk indicators, urgency drivers and the right questions to ask the business to ensure that rethinking resiliency is on the agenda in 2023.

Below I review three such risks and strategies for Audit on how to approach them.

Climate Degradation
Nearly six in ten CAEs have no specific plans to provide assurance over climate degradation next year. This in and of itself is a key risk indicator for most organizations, as a failure to refresh business continuity plans related to climate risks puts an organization at higher risk for a key infrastructure failure and related loss of productivity among other risks.

While CAEs generally express limited confidence in their climate coverage plans, rethinking resilience means going beyond sustainability reports and identifying vulnerable assets. Audit departments need to incorporate in their plans the inevitability of increasingly severe weather events and mitigation strategies for the loss of key infrastructure, both their own and that of key third parties, such as suppliers.

Culture
Even more challenging for Audit is culture, traditionally a key source of resilience for many organizations that now is fraying under the weight of new working models (hybrid/remote), social and political polarization and a general lack of connection felt by employees who are reporting witnessed misconduct at rates 30 percent lower than pre-pandemic.

Despite such challenges, only 16 percent of CAEs are revisiting culture in light of shifting sociopolitical expectations of their workforce, investors and the media for next year, and just 10 percent report they are highly confident in providing assurance in this area. Internal Audit needs to push the business on reassessing how employee expectations and engagement are monitored in a hybrid and remote world, while policies related to political and social issues need to be formulated now and not in real time during a crisis.

Organizational Resilience
Ultimately, rethinking resilience means covering organizational resilience as a dedicated risk that is part of the audit coverage plan. Organizational resilience, broadly defined, is an organization’s ability to withstand shocks. This is likely to become ever more important in the face of new and ongoing geopolitical tensions, which can abruptly trigger a set of interconnected but differentiated risks to manifest simultaneously. While refreshing scenario planning and mitigating against change fatigue are necessary steps in this process, building true organizational resilience requires a view into the interconnected risks facing an organization and developing resilience-related initiatives across the enterprise.

With less than half of CAEs definitely planning to cover organizational resilience next year and just 32 percent highly confident in providing assurance specifically on matters of resilience, it’s clear there is more work to do in establishing this as a top audit priority. Chief Audit Executives can regain momentum by launching activities that encourage collaborative discussions between business units on interrelated risks and reviewing plans to address change fatigue within their organizations at a time when events over the past two years have likely dramatically diminished capacity in this area.

While these resilience-related risks feel less tangible and urgent than mitigating against “clear and imminent” dangers like supply chain vulnerabilities and state-sponsored cyberthreats, they are important and increasingly acute risks in their own right. Viewing them through the lens of rethinking what it means to be a truly resilient organization can be a useful framework for starting the right conversations within the Audit Committee and formulating effective coverage in next year’s audit plans.

Audit International are specialists in the recruitment of Auditors and various Corporate Governance Professionals including Internal Audit, Cyber Security, Compliance, IT Audit, Data Analytics etc across Europe and the US.

If you would like to reach out to discuss your current requirements, please feel free to reach us via any of the following:
Calling
– Switzerland 0041 4350 830 59 or
– US 001 917 508 5615
E-mail:
– info@audit-international.com”