A leader, in my humble opinion, is someone who can influence others. That was the definition we had studied a few years earlier in high school and college anyway. Individuals such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln or Adolph Hitler came to mind as leaders whether their influence was positive or negative. I was quite sure that just because you had a particular title behind your name that did not make you a leader. I later found out not everyone was as passionate about that belief as I was. My personality type also greatly affects my outlook that those in leadership positions must earn my respect.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines manager and leader in the following words. A manager is defined as someone who handles, controls or directs. A leader is defined as someone who leads or guides, and to lead is to show the way, direct or inspire. While similar, the two definitions are also distinctly different. The first implies the individual is trying to externally control my actions while the second implies the individual is trying to internally inspire me to perform a certain action.

Currently, an individual in the position of manager is expected to perform the following functions: planning, through goal setting and implementation; organizing and assigning responsibilities; leading and motivating employees ; and controlling activities through monitoring and follow up. While managers must have the ability to lead to be effective, individuals in non-management audit positions, when entrusted, also have the opportunity to influence their organizations. This article will discuss leadership behaviors and responsibilities of audit managers and audit shops.

Leaders have particular characteristics and behaviors that make them good leaders. A characteristic is a feature that helps distinguish a person while a behavior is an action or reaction in response to a particular situation (American Heritage Dictionary). Characteristics, in general, are traits that are part of a person’s personality and cannot be changed. Behaviors, on the other hand, can be learned or taught over time. Characteristics of good leaders include being influential, motivated, ethical and having integrity and vision. Behaviors of a good leader include being: an active listener, respectful, a good communicator, self aware of own behaviors and those affecting others, trustworthy, honest, reliable, loyal, responsible, fair, caring, a good citizen, and having a positive attitude.

There are also actions that are consistent among good leaders. A good leader will see a need or something that needs to be fixed and get everyone on board to take action to fix the problem. In addition, the good leader empowers individuals trusting them to do the task at hand. The good leader sets the example and shows concern for all employees’ productivity.

It is impossible to be a good leader without the characteristics, behaviors and actions listed above. A leader does not have to have all of the qualities listed, but to some degree, must possess many of them. An individual does not necessarily have to be in a supervisory or management position to be a leader in his or her organization. Think about the influence government auditors have over their prospective organizations. Every audit report issued results in some type of change or improvement. A well-run audit shop can have an entire team of individuals exerting influence over the organization. However, if that audit shop is run by someone with less than desirable leadership skills, there may be only one person trying to act in a leadership capacity. Let’s look at two examples of audit shops.

In the first example, John is the Director of a medium size audit organization that he manages in the traditional way. John performs the managerial functions of planning, organizing and controlling; but, he is not a very good communicator. He has a great vision of things to accomplish, and seems to have a knack to know where to audit each year. John also runs a very tight ship, and every staff member knows what is expected of them. When staff turn in their audit work, he is not always respectful when review notes are written. He is also sometimes short tempered due to the stress of the job and is not aware of its impact on staff. In this particular organization, if there is something major to communicate, John takes care of the communication since the staff are not empowered to really run with any great ideas they may have. John feels it is his place to communicate to management since his position is the only one they will respect due to the title. He is not always trustworthy with personnel issues, and he likes to brag about his office’s audit accomplishments as his own. There is the perception that some staff seem to be treated better than others thus creating an atmosphere of favoritism.

In the second example, Mary is the Director of a medium size audit organizations that has more of a values based leadership approach to running the audit organization. She delegates as much work as possible to as many staff as possible. The secretary in the organization prepares the budget with her input. Mary has some vision, but knows how the audit shop runs at its best. The audit plan is prepared each year based on risk and input from staff that have been in the trenches and organizational management is asked if they know of any areas that are of particular risk this year. Auditors are given as much latitude as they are comfortable with in handling their audits and talking to management. Mary is very aware of her actions and how they may be perceived by individuals in the audit shop or in the governmental entity. She is honest, listens to staff and management, has the highest ethics, can be trusted to keep confidences in the work place and treats all employees as valued members of the organization.

Notice in the above two paragraphs, nothing was stated regarding how influential the Director is. Let’s analyze which organization will exert the most influence on a consistent basis.

The first problem is communication. One person can only go to so many meetings and switch gears so many times in a day. The first organization is limited as to how much communication will take place with management since John is the only one presenting the major findings. He does have the advantage of commanding respect due to his title. This is a definite advantage in certain organizations. He also has the disadvantage of not actually performing the audit work and may not be fully aware of all the details associated with the audited process. In addition, management in the first organization knows John is the only one presenting major findings and may incorrectly suspect the staff auditors do not have his respect. The auditees suspect the staff auditors are not necessarily empowered to do their jobs with this simple requirement. This may lead to some underlying problems in staff auditors performing their test work.

In comparison, Mary’s organization has several auditors communicating with management throughout the audit process. Management respects the audit organization as a whole and knows the auditors have full support from Mary. When discussing findings, the auditors can completely discuss as much or as little detail as necessary to get the finding fixed. Mary can spend her time providing support to staff when needed and can be confident that staff are taking care of everything else. This team approach will increase productivity in the organization.

The second problem is the approach to the audit plan. John knows exactly what to audit each year. No input is needed from management or staff. Mary has a more inclusive approach to preparing the audit plan. While both organizations may be equally successful in writing up and quantifying findings, Mary’s organization will have management buy-in to actually implement the recommendations. The managers will be more open to working with the auditors when the audit takes place and may actually go above and beyond to ensure problems are corrected instead of simply applying a surface fix to the problem.

The third problem is the attitude of the auditors as they approach their work. The auditors in John’s organization are externally motivated: they know exactly what is expected and how much authority they have. The auditors in Mary’s organization are internally motivated, that is, inspired to seek their own solutions. They have complete authority to perform their audits to the best of their ability. Through the simple act of delegation, Mary empowers the auditor to influence management as much as possible. If she is needed, she will exert influence through her title, but if that is not necessary, she can expend her resources where they are needed the most.

The fourth problem is the use of support staff. Since John does not trust his staff, support staff are not utilized to help with items such as proofreading reports or preparing budgets. Mary, on the other hand, trains and utilizes staff to increase productivity. They are given instructions and guidelines on how things should be done and can proofread reports for format and ease of reading. In addition, they prepare the draft of the departments’ budget. All of these items combined lead to better work product and increased productivity of the audit organization as a whole.

Finally, there is the overall work environment in the two organizations. The staff in John’s organization could be walking on pins and needles on a daily basis. They are not sure how stressed their boss is for the day which may affect his mood or temperament when they need to approach him or turn in their audit work. Mary, on the other hand, is more reserved and consistent in how she handles stress. She has consistently proven herself as someone who will listen and give each idea full consideration. If staff need her to keep something confidential, she will do so without question. Her ethics, integrity and honesty are dependable. Staff are very comfortable in their work environment which will make them more relaxed in the outsideof- the-box thinking that produces the recommendations necessary to really influence the organization.

In conclusion, the director of an audit organization is in a position to share his influence with staff or hold it tightly to his particular position. The most successful audit organizations will have employees that are empowered to influence management to the best of their abilities. Leadership characteristics, behaviors and actions are a must for every individual in the audit organization. Individuals who do not necessarily have these skills naturally can learn many of them. It is important for all employees in an audit organization from secretary to auditor to director to appropriately utilize their position to positively affect the government entity they are auditing. Which example does your organization more closely resemble? Would you rather work for a “manager” or a “leader”? Which would you rather be?