Where has the auditor from hell gone?
No matter where in the world you are auditing, muses Dennis Darker, the role of the auditor hasn’t changed much over the years. It's the myths and attitudes surrounding the audit process that have U-turned drastically. No longer are audits seen as witch hunts with auditees suspicious of landing in trouble after a visit from an auditor. Here, he looks at how far the auditing industry has come in the last decade.
When asked to talk about cultural aspects of auditing in the UK I found it a little difficult. Clearly there are differences in approaches in other parts of the world, but the relationship between auditor and auditee is basically the same and is based on mutual respect. But has that always been the case in the UK? With this in mind I started to muse upon how it used to be in those early days when I was first exposed to 'the auditor'.
Those countries new to the auditing game should take note of the history of auditing in the UK. To say that some of the audits I witnessed were confrontational would be an understatement – there was blood on the carpet and if there wasn’t, the auditor saw that as failure. The auditor’s opinion was the law – he/she (normally a he) knew best. As long as you did as they said, everything would be fine. Disagree and battle commenced. No explanation was accepted if it didn’t fit into his/her mindset. It was from this background that the definitions of an auditor were developed.
Common sayings were bandied about, like: 'Arguing with an auditor is like wrestling with a pig in the mud; after a while you realize the pig is enjoying himself', or: 'An auditor is someone who enters the battlefield after the war is over and bayonets the wounded.'
No wonder our profession fell into disrepute and auditing and ISO 9001/2, in particular, became extremely unpopular. In mitigation of some auditors' behaviour, I also recollect several organizations training their staff on 'how to be an auditee'. Essentially, this went along the lines of: 'tell the auditor nothing – show them nothing and agree to nothing'.
"To say that some of the audits I witnessed were confrontational would be an understatement – there was blood on the carpet and if there wasn’t, the auditor saw that as failure."
With these paradigms in place it's easy to see why industry wasn't getting what it needed.
Am I exaggerating? Of course I am, and there have always been some excellent auditors around but, nonetheless, there is still a large grain of truth in what I have described and the fallout from those days is, to an extent, still with us.
The important question now is: have things changed? In general I would say yes. Auditing is now increasingly seen as a value added activity, carried out by professionals who treat auditees with respect and as partners in the improvement process. This style of auditing is reflected in the training that new auditors now receive and IRCA certified courses no longer accept that students should be placed in excessively stressful situations and confronted by argumentative and totally disruptive auditees during their audit role play simulations.
It is treated as a professional activity carried out by both auditor and auditee in a professional manner with the shared purpose of improving an organizations management system. It can be nothing less!
Are we at the stage where organizations are welcoming the auditors with open arms? I believe the evidence increasingly supports this and tales of the 'auditor from hell' are exceptions rather than the norm.
What, you may ask, has all this got to do with different cultures? Well nothing other than the simple message to those countries who are relatively new to management systems auditing.
Don't make the same mistakes as we in the UK made – the recovery process can be slow and painful.
About the author:
Dennis Darker is a Fellow of the Chartered Quality Institute (CQI).
 |
 Give us your opinions now in the Online Forums. |
