I may have mentioned from time to time that I think the practice of auditing has gotten way out of hand. It has evolved from a comparison of how things are to how the organization's chieftans want them to be, and become a comparison of how things are to how the auditor wants them to be. It has become part best-practices review (which can be good, but usually isn't), and part witch hunt.
Now it appears that a third leg is being added to this axis of evil: inducement of generalized paranoia. The company for which I currently work is undergoing a Corporate Audit. It deserves that capitalization because apparently it is regarded by the managers in the organization with only slightly less glee than the arrival of the Spanish Inquisition -- and that only because they don't use the hot pincers so much any more, relying instead on pointed questions and sneering inferences. And lack of counsel: they now require people being audited to Come Alone, without benefit of assistance from people who know whats legal and whats not. Sort of like what might happen if John Ashcroft were responsible.
The organization is in a tizzy. As for me, I'm just keeping my head down. How nice it is to be an adult and feel that such actions are necessary.
4 comments:
Having survived an audit mainly on my own - our drunken accountant wasn't much help and not around when I was questioned anyway - I can comiserate with the managers. Things seem to have changed, my brother, the accountant says that now his clients need a lawyer but he, the accountant is not allowed to be present. So the lawyer has to constantly call him to find out what's what because he doesn't understand accounting. Governments are so screwed up.
Thats a given.
Actually, that's not fair. I work for a computer company that does work for some state government agencies. I am surprised at the quality of most of their people. Some live up to the image of 'could not get a job, so went to work for the state', but most really do try. What seems to be their problem is that they are given lots to do and conflicting instructions about how to do it or what the relative priorities are. Unfortunately for them, the concept of the bureacracy as an insulator against political winds does not seem to be the case.
The political winds blow in our corporation, too. I try (not hard, but I try) to understand why auditors are necessary, and sometimes I succeed -- but the overwhelming majority of the time, they seem simply to be driven by the need to find, find, find -- you almost get the sense that they won't get paid unless they find something. I suspect that they, in turn, are being told to dig as hard as they can so that the corporation's managers can say See? We tried! when unforeseen problems arise, and litigation ensues.
Nobody trusts. Nobody seems to be able to afford to. Or as Reagan was alleged to have said: Trust, but verify.
Politicians are screwing the people and can't be trusted so they figure we are all the same. So they audit, assuming you are guilty and they just have to find it. When we were audited, I demanded an end date (reasonable) co-operated totally and gave extra time then demanded my stuff back. The auditor objected but hadn't found anything (because there wasn't anything to find). But you just never know if you've made a mistake somewhere so it's still nerve-wracking.
Absolutely. There's always an error to be found, and the likelihood of that increases in the absence of defined, clear, and unchanging requirements. When what's required is partially documented and partially in the mind of the person who's looking, its impossible to be confident unless you've succumbed to paranoia yourself -- which is why the phrase 'just in case' repeatedly comes up in discussions of this type at my company.
Audits are necessary. Unchecked audits compromise the integrity of the process. There needs to be a fail-safe point in an audit -- "This Far, And No Further Without Proof Acceptable To A Disinterested Party". I accept that such a concept would be anathema to those who believe in exhaustive audits. Funny how they're usually not the ones getting personally audited.
The catch comes where there really is something to be found, and the person being audited is attempting to hide it. How far should the auditor be allowed to go?
Post a Comment