Written by Kymber Waltmunson,
“Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across.” This is the message of Sun Zsu in his 6th century BC work, The Art of War. In auditing, the golden bridge we build crosses the river of resistance, resentment, and frustration and leads to positive organizational change: efficient, effective, economical, and equitable government. In this article I revisit my first career as a psychotherapist to review techniques that may make us more successful auditors.
When I use the term “consultative auditing” I am referring to the tone and approach to a fully independent audit, not to consulting activities. Consultative auditing is respectful, collegial, honest, and motivating. The consultative audit approach can only enhance your independent, standard-compliant audit.
The most effective auditors do not simply report on conditions observed; they help to create conditions that result in organizational improvement without compromising audit principles. Understanding some basic Transactional Analysis (TA) concepts and techniques can help us to do this more effectively. TA is an approach to human beings and relationships initially developed by Eric Berne and expanded upon by others.
World View
The way we look at the world is the foundation of TA theory. In TA, the most effective way of operating is to assume the basic goodness and positive intent in others. For example, when an audit customer fails to provide a key document the healthy way to interpret this is that it was overlooked rather than intentionally hidden. TA theory states that we can choose how to interpret the world around us and by doing so can significantly impact the course of events.
Taking the previous example further, imagine the difference in response and impact on the tone of the audit when you say, “Thank you so much for gathering all of this data for us, I know that you are incredibly busy. I noticed that ‘x document’ got missed. Can I swing by and pick it up later?” Or the opposite impact of, “Local law requires you to provide all documents to the auditor. If you don’t provide me with ‘x document’ within 24 hours I will begin the subpoena process.”
Taking the positive perspective does not eliminate professional skepticism. These two world filters can coexist. Skepticism requires that we ask enough questions, gather enough supporting data, and see the whole picture. It does not oblige us to label the audited group as devious liars intentionally misusing taxpayers’ hard earned dollars.
‘Atta Girl/Boy
A second key idea of TA is “strokes.” Strokes are all forms of interpersonal recognition and can be positive or negative. Positive strokes can range from looking someone in the eye to saying, “good job!” Negative strokes can range from being ignored when we say, “good morning” to being physically attacked.
We must acknowledge, as auditors, that all human beings, including our audit customers, need positive strokes to thrive. Many people believe that part of being a grown-up is being able to do your best with no recognition.
There has been media attention to the profile of the Generation X workforce recently identifying the need for positive reinforcement as a unique attribute of this new, young worker. When examined honestly, however, the fact is that all human beings perform better and are more contented when there is an environment of positive strokes.
Positive recognition in the audit environment may come from auditors during meetings, conversations in the hall, or in audit reports. As we move through our audit work ensuring that there are more positive than negative strokes in your interactions will make audit work more successful.
The semantics and tone of audit reports, the balance of positive and negative strokes, is critical to creating an environment that is conducive to improvement. There are endless ways to communicate a finding. The auditor should work to choose language that motivates audit customers to act by recognizing strengths and positioning audit customers to leverage those strengths to address the recommendations we make. The following chart compares “classic” audit language to motivating language:
| Motivating Language | Classic Audit Language | Comparison |
| Officers write detailed, thorough reports , and treat victims res pectfully but it is not clear that advocates are cons is tently notified. | Victim advocates are not consistently notified. | This wording recognizes the audit customer’s strengths in the area examined. |
| Setting specific goals and monitoring performance would help the city improve key cleanliness conditions and improve satisfaction. | Program goals and performance measures have not been developed. | This language points to the direction the audit customer should go and minimizes language that may be chafing. |
| The county is working toward sufficient planning for continuity of government operations. | County continuity of operations planning is insufficient. | There are usually many shades of grey in implementation of best practices. This wording recognizes that the audit customer has done some work, but has further to go. |
| Within constraints, opportunities may exist for more cost-efficient staffing. | Staffing is not cost efficient. | This wording acknowledges complexity and policy decisions involved. Management will build internal capacity by analyzing further. |
Audit reports generate energy. We can help direct audit energy toward further developing positive practices in the organization or we can expect the audit customer to use audit energy to criticize and challenge the audit report.
Audit Drama
One TA tool developed by Stephen Karpman, the drama triangle, represents a psychological dynamic that feeds into itself creating power plays, bad politics, and general chaos. There are three points on the drama triangle: the Persecutor, the Rescuer, and the Victim. Instead of playing out these dynamics, auditors can choose ways of communicating with audit customers that have positive results.
The Persecutor sees the world through an unconscious, “I can make you feel bad” filter. The Rescuer has the opposite, “I can make you feel good” filter. Finally, the Victim is powerless sufferer who believes that they can be made good or bad by one of the other positions. Both auditors and audit customers can fit into any of these three categories and can switch roles quickly creating detrimental drama.
The most typical auditor approach is the Persecutor. When an auditor chooses the Persecutor role unless the audit customer is a highly emotionally stable organization they will likely react in one of two ways:
- The audit customer will react as Victim and sink into a “poor me” stance. This will stifle their
motivation and ability to create positive change. - The audit customer will react from as Persecutor and attack the auditor. They might try to paint the auditor as incompetent or work to poke holes in any recommendations made instead of working to improve their processes.
The way to avoid drama in auditing is to choose not to rescue, persecute, or be the victim in communications with audit customers. In addition, if the audit customer chooses a persecutor role to communicate with the auditor, auditors can decide not to follow the gut reaction to fight back. To be effective, auditors must take a deep breath and take the high road every time.
Auditor as Parent
Although few auditors would consider audit customers their children, parenting styles are a tool to evaluate audit approaches. Just as parents hope to raise smart and successful children, most auditors hope that their audit customers run smart and successful organizations. In parenting literature core styles of parenting include authoritarian and authoritative. Each approach elicits predictable behavior from children and will elicit the same predictable results with audit customers.
The authoritarian auditor has high expectations of conformity and compliance to rules and directions.
Authoritarian auditors expect much of their audit customers but do not explain the rules or provide tools to succeed. The auditor attempts to control an audit customer’s behavior and attitudes, stressing the importance of obedience to authority and discouraging discussion. Auditors who use this method often deal with the auditee very firmly.
Authoritarian results: Those audited with this style tend to be less responsive, more distrustful and withholding, and have lower achievement.
The authoritative auditor has high expectations of compliance to rules and directions, an open dialogue about them, and a customer-centered approach characterized by positive affect. Authoritative auditors encourage the audit customer to be independent and successful. The authoritative auditor operates on the belief that both the audit customer and the auditor have certain desires and that the needs of both are important.
Authoritative results: These audit customers are self-reliant, become self-controlled, and are more independent and successful.
When does a consultative approach not make sense?
The choice of audit approach is not black or white; for each audit there is a point along the continuum of consultative methodology that makes sense. Occasionally, acting in a consultative manner could make the auditor vulnerable and decrease the value of the audit.
For instance, one should always consider whether consultative activities will impair or appear to impair independence in the current project or in future audit work. Consultative auditing requires clear, consistent boundaries.
There are times when an audit customer comes into the process very aggressive and withholding and your attempts to shift the tone are unsuccessful. In this case, being too consultative could simply provide the audit customer ammunition to shoot down audit recommendations at the last minute and give them tools to render the audit ineffective politically or otherwise.
In closing…
When auditors act to support positive organizational change, back away from harsh pronouncements, and provide tools for success we leave one route available to our customers: the golden bridge.