Managing audit resistance
The big issue over the government auditors’ reporting, which got the President so upset, requires sober discourse to deflate the high emotional temperature prevailing. Having been an external and internal auditor for years, I know the imperatives and perils of this job personally and professionally. The Commission on Audit (COA) reports gain either praise or opprobrium from partisans of the political divide.
Auditing is an independent appraisal activity designed to give feedback on the stewardship of limited resources of either public or private entities. Specifically, it assesses the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of safeguarding assets, compliance with rules and regulations, and adherence to administrative efficiency. It is a cross-functional review of organizational human and techno-structural elements that include leadership and management policies, systems, and procedures. It is also a benchmark of good corporate governance worldwide, embodied through public regulatory requirements.
External auditing and internal auditing apply the same principles, rules, and rigor to ensure the validity, accuracy, and reliability of the findings. The COA is the constitutionally mandated external auditor of all government branches and agencies. As such, it exercises wide latitude and discretion to do its job and insulate itself from pernicious political influences.
Auditing is naturally a “watchdog” role given the application of auditing standards, investigations, and meticulous review procedures. This could be exasperating, overwhelming, and seen as threatening to those being audited. Auditors are usually disliked, unwelcome, or hated as a “necessary evil” and their reports construed negatively, so their presence is overtly or silently resisted.
To manage resistance, both auditor and auditee must clearly understand their job requirements and descriptions. The adage “trabaho lang, walang personalan” goes out the window when an auditee perceives the audit as an affront to his or her person. Some people cannot be totally objective; they are naturally subjective, unable to distinguish work performance from personal idiosyncrasies. Thus, it is imperative for them to become more self-aware, mature, and secure about the requirements of work. If they don’t, their relationships could degenerate into unproductive behaviors ranging from arrogance to defensiveness, uncooperativeness, and frayed nerves.
In many business organizations, auditing is a welcome activity and is deemed a useful management partner. The auditors’ findings and suggestions are used to further strengthen internal controls, operational efficiency, and good governance. Thus, to become effective, auditors must resist the tag of “watchdogs” and becoming arrogant know-it-all experts. They must not be perceived as fault-finders but as partners in the continuous improvement process.
The auditees, on the other hand, must show confidence and keen knowledge about their jobs, recognizing the need for improvements. They must avoid being defensive, accept practical improvements, and be humble enough and ready to correct shortcomings.
To avoid a fault-finding tone, the auditors must listen and allow the auditees to discover their own lapses rather than pointedly and vigorously asserting such. The auditees’ cooperation is fostered when they become involved in the process and are committed to their resolution. In crafting the preliminary and the final reports, the comments, agreements, and the actions of auditees must be considered. It may well be crucial, under certain conditions, to focus instead on the good practices and strengths observed in the process, and not on on the lapses noted in a nitpicking tone.
By following these practical procedures, brickbats and harsh criticisms between the two camps may be minimized. Flagging does not become “flogging” and unwittingly destroying the reputation and image of people being hit. The top boss can consider such reports for further inquiries without being pissed off and emotional. Thus, any avowed goal of, for instance, tolerating “not a whiff of corruption” is seen as serious and credible. Other officials may also be able to sleep assured that their reputation and character have not been reduced to tatters.
The COA chair, Michael Aguinaldo, has said that constant meetings and exit interviews were conducted to enable due process in their work. In any case, public service is a public trust and requires public accountability. Officials entrusted with public office should not be too onion-skinned. The end goal is the same for all—service to the nation and people.
* * *
Dr. Cesar A. Mansibang is a professional business practitioner and professor. He was Senior Member of the Board and Vice President for Operations and Education of the Philippine Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
