The Political Side of Auditing

There can be no doubt that politics are involved in internal auditing. Politics creep into all aspects of auditing, from developing the audit program, to verification of audit results. As auditors, we usually cannot control the politics involved, but we must be able to react to political pressures, influences and audit tampering. ISO 9001:2000 says that audits must be conducted in a manner that ensures objectivity. This is not an easy task when we face the political pressures associated with auditing. 

The first step in dealing with internal auditing politics is to accept that there is a political side to internal audits. Once we accept this fact, then we are well on our way of dealing with the political issues.

The second step is recognizing political influences and conflicts in our auditing activities. This takes more effort and some fundamental understandings. We tend to think of politics as negative in nature. It is important to note, however that political influences in internal auditing may be either positive or negative. The reasons for the politics are varied. Some individuals may want to make a name for themselves. Others feel pressured by management insistence that all audit results be perfect. Audit results are often part of a manager's performance evaluation and audits might place potential managerial bonuses at risk. However, not all political influences and tampering are devious and sinister in nature. Some might genuinely want to do their best to make the system work. Remember, not all are deliberately attempting to influence the audit or the auditor. Some might attempt to use politics to get a more favorable time slot for the audit, or perhaps to avoid an auditor the auditee doesn't think can audit objectively.

Let's look at a few categories of internal auditor politics, and they affect the audit and what we should do about them.

• Management Support
• Auditing Interference
• Auditee Behavior
• Post-audit Support

Management Support:

Top management sets the tone for the political atmosphere of internal auditing. Their approach to the entire QMS is observed and mirrored throughout the organization. Regardless of what their words say, Management determines policy with their actions. This is telegraphed to others and their behavior changes to match top management. If management has a good strong understanding of the QMS, and if top management fully supports and believes in the QMS, then others will likely do the same. This is the most critical part of politics. If top management is not behind the QMS, then auditing cannot be effective and auditors are just wasting their time. Although the primary task for ensuring management commitment is on top management and the Management Rep, we as auditors can do our part by not giving top management any reason to doubt the QMS.

Auditing Interference:

One of the most common negative political aspects of internal auditing is when someone interferes with the audit or audit process. Key auditees missing on the audit day is probably the largest violator. Hiding uncontrolled documents and forms is another method of introducing politics into the auditing process. But we must not over look such actions as auditor selection and audit scheduling. Auditors need to be selected based on ability, background and most of all - independence!

Auditee Behavior:

Sometimes the politics of auditee behavior can be quite amusing. Auditees telling you everything they think you want to hear can be humorous at times. Likewise auditees that absolutely refuse to cooperate can also seem funny. At the same time, both can also be frustrating and hurt the audit process. The auditee who refuses to answer questions, either through ignorance, or defiance makes the audit that much more difficult. Auditees that challenge every finding, or continually interrupt the audit for one reason or another waste valuable time and limit the audit effectiveness. If the auditor is viewed as a threat, the auditee behavior will reflect that threat. Saying things like: "I gotcha!", will do little to enhance the value of the auditor. If the auditee feels that the auditor is interested in working with them, not to "catch" them, they will behave accordingly (usually - we all know folks that just enjoy giving others a hard time. You undoubtedly know them long before the audit).

Post-audit Support:

Once the audit is finished, the problem of political tampering is still possible. Lack of corrective action, or perhaps auditee complaints about auditors can affect the auditor's abilities to complete the audit follow-up, or hamper future audits. Auditors are obligated to make nonconformances clear and understandable. I often say that nonconformances need three features. They must be understandable, actionable and unarguable. Having clear nonconformances will go far in cutting through the politics. Also, as I said earlier, make sure you do not give the auditee any reason to bring any issue about your audit to anyone.

How should we respond?

The first thing is to remain as much apolitical as possible. I would do no good to attempt to fight back with politics. In a political fight everyone gets dirty, and there is no winner. It tends to cause grudges and makes future audits much more difficult. Let it go and sleep well at night. I'm not saying just roll over and let folks walk on you! You must maintain the integrity of the audit! Present the facts (not supposition, ideas, or conjectures, but facts - you know the things that cannot be argued!)

The second step is to determine the root cause, or source, of the politics. There is a possibility that the political influence might not even know they are influencing the audit In cases where the influence might not be aware the politics involved, a kindly word might be all that is necessary. In other cases, a more direct route may be applicable. Still other cases, it may be necessary to take things up with top management. If top management is the cause, then let the battle occur at a higher level than you. When the internal audit is over, it is important that you be able to go home and sleep well at night.

Summary:

As much as we don't like to admit it, politics will always be a factor in internal auditing. As auditors we really have only two options. First is to get out. This may entail finding a reason (or telling the truth) to resign as an internal auditor (or perhaps change employers). The second option is to deal with it. Businesses large and small are in a constant political battle. The most important thing I could tell you is don't take it personally, do your job to the best of your ability and let others deal with the politics. We also must be careful that we are not part of the problem. Many internal auditors begin the audit with a personal agenda. We have our own politicking to do and are just a good as anyone. Internal auditors need to be like a camera. The camera makes no judgments, it just shows what is. If that is beautiful, then it is beautiful. If it is ugly, then it is ugly. In either case, we don't give the camera credit, or blame it. And that is how we need to be recognized.

As always...Good Auditing!

How do you show your support of your QMS? Where can you find little tokens of appreciation for all the work folks do to obtain and maintain registration? Visit SearchManufacturing.com's ISO resources page for links to banners, flags, etc. You can find them at:

http://www.searchmanufacturing.com/Manufacturing/Quality/iso.htm

Q – Is it advisable for an internal auditor to write a major nonconformance against executive management?

A –Talk about an explosive issue! Writing a nonconformance to executive management can be one of the most political things an internal auditor can become involved with. Here are some tips to remember. First, top management sets the political tone of the organization. If a nonconformance is warranted and top management is truly committed to the QMS, then writing a nonconformance should not be a big deal. However, if top management is disconnected from the QMS, then I would find a way to gracefully bow out of the internal audit program whether a nonconformance is warranted or not. 

top of page

www.nsf-isr.org

ISO 9001:2000 Clause 8.5.1 Continual Improvement

"The organization shall continually improve the effectiveness of the quality management system through the use of the quality policy, quality objectives, audit results, analysis of data, corrective and preventive actions and management review."

This requirement has several parts. The first is the organization shall continually improve. In order to do this, the organization needs to know what state it is in at the moment. You discover where you are through internal audits, analysis of data, corrective actions and management review. There is no specific mandated area for improvement other than the effectiveness of the QMS. There is also no mandated amount of improvement required. However, an effective QMS would, by nature, seek out areas for improvement and identify the necessary improvement values.

top of page

October 2001's question: 

You are auditing 4.14, Corrective and Preventive Actions. A Continuous Improvement Suggestion (Preventive Action) was initiated since the last audit (either surveillance or internal) that incorporated a new Customer Complaint Action (CCA). The CCA is designed to expedite the customer complaint resolution process. There is no procedure for this process by itself. The quality manager states that the CCA is governed by the 4.14 procedure, which was updated to include the CCA. In reviewing the updated procedure (that meets all 4.5 requirements), you notice the only change to the procedure was the inclusion of the CCA to the Reference Documents section. The body of the procedure does not mention the CCA, or its use.

The answer: 

At first glance, it appears that this is a fairly easy call; it is conforming. However, look a little deeper. There are two questions in this scenario. First, does the use of the CCA require a separate procedure? I think most of us would agree that it probable does not. The second question is does it need to be referenced in the body of the procedure? This is a little tougher. Without mentioning the CCA in the body of the procedure, how anyone know who is supposed to us it and when? That's one of the functions of a procedure. It is possible that those questions are handled in training, or on the form itself. Unless the auditee can convince me that there will never be a mistake because it is not the body, I would call this nonconforming.

 top of page

Way back when I was going through Lead Auditor training, we covered ISO 10011. One of the subjects covered by 10011 is auditor attributes. I must admit I occasionally struggle with things like; being thick skinned or not displaying my anger. I'm better now, thank you. But I learned about politics from slugging it our (not literally). At times I think I actually enjoyed the battles. But I would still be wound up when I got home and it affected my entire evening. Now, by the grace of God, I am much calmer. Let me tell you why….

I learned that my time on this planet is short. In the grand scheme of things we are but a vapor, a passing thought, a fleeting moment. Now scale that down to us. If I live to be 75, I will have witnessed 27,375 days. That equates to over 65,000 hours. An argument of say 8 hours (I'm including laying in bed thinking about what happened) constitutes an extremely small fraction of my life. Yet, the increased blood pressure does pose a genuine risk to my body. I learned to let it go. I learned to smile and agree. 

Now, in instances where there is a matter of right and wrong (the ethics thing), I am not afraid to say why I feel the way I do. But still defer to someone else's authority. In one case, I felt so strong that I was preparing to quit when the other person relented. The older I get, it seems it is easier for me to understand when to make a stand and when to shut up and sit down. I don't make waves unless it is absolutely necessary. I refuse to play politics, and neither should you.

Dave

...Good auditing!

Copyright notice: internal-auditor.com is fully protected under US and International copyright laws. Copying, or re-transmitting all, or any part of internal-auditor.com is expressly forbidden without prior written consent from Ruth Ellen Carey Communications.
internal-auditor.com is a publication of Ruth Ellen Carey Communications. 

Because this site uses information from many different sources, it must be pointed out that any advice, tips, information, etc., provided should be regarded as opinion and not fact! What works well for one company may be a disaster for another. Also, what one registrar, or auditor may allow, another may not. As always, reflect on what you read, see if it fits into your own quality system, and if it conflicts with your auditor...you've got to make a decision