First of all, I want to defend inertia, which helps maintain order in the world. Inertia is the tendency of things to continue to stay where they are. Without inertia, your coffee cup might not be where you left it; neither would your car.

But inertia is also the sofa firmly planted in front of the television, with you on it. Organizations get dragged down by people, rules, inattention to changing conditions, and all the other vicissitudes of a group of humans trying to accomplish a complex task. I'm sure you can think of dozens of audits where the ultimate, deep down root cause of the findings was inertia. "Just didn't get around to it," the supervisor says in a candid moment.

So, just like physics, force can overcome inertia. Audit recommendations push organizations free from the inertia of past practices. I think about three kinds of forces in auditing: the force of law, the force of reason, and the social force.

There's no simpler and more compelling force for change than to state that current practices are illegal. Or a violation of the constitution or the rules, or some other strong mandate. Change will happen, though it may be just a change in the rule, if it was not a practical prohibition. Or if it's criminal, the force of the prosecuting attorney and all the reporters will help you ensure compliance with your recommendation.

The Force of Reason

Auditors most commonly use the force of persuasion. In these cases, conditions are not improper but they could be better. The elements of a finding are a tool to help us assemble all the facts to communicate the aspects of a problem. Large adverse consequences of the problem help compel change. The audit process ensures plenty of communication, and persuasion to take place, so that management can be engaged in the findings and strategies for improvement.

Persuasion has a second benefit for auditors. Careful development of a persuasive draft report with a tough quality control process, followed by open dialogue with management, can disclose errors that will protect us from a public loss of credibility. Audit reports should paint an accurate picture of the situation and if we have it wrong we also need to be open to persuasion.

Persuasion also moves the auditor into the background and highlights the reality of the situation. As a result, it's not the auditor telling management what to do, it's the logical conclusion of the analysis of the facts. Antagonism and conflict are reduced when the facts are the subject of discussion, not the auditors.

Social Force

When persuasion hasn't worked, or the problems are so severe, or you think management is a bunch of idiots...wait, scratch that last one. We should all have some internal standard to guide us when to use social forces to effect change. By social force I mean the degree of public pressure and, yes, discomfort that is inflicted on an organization, usually by reporters, officials, and the public. People might label some of the forces as "political" and they probably are. Politics is how governments choose among subjective options.

Some of you may indignantly state that an objective auditor does not consider these things, that the report speaks for itself. I think that is hypocrisy or at best, insensitivity. I've seen the full range of force used in audit reports, and I suspect the authors of the brute force reports say to themselves, "I write them tough on everyone and that shows I'm objective." But if they inflict equal pain on all organizations, deserving or not, where is the incentive to change? The observant manager thinks, "I'll get beaten whether it's a serious problem or not, so why should I do any more than get ready for the beating?"

And remember that if an audit inflicts punishment, it is usually followed by the reporters, politicians, editorial boards, bloggers calling for tars and feathers, and other community diversions. It is monkey-pile time for the department. There is often no shelter from or limit to the social forces, and long-term damage to the entire organization can result.

Minimum Force Necessary

Before the absolutists out there accuse me of endorsing only feel-good audit findings, let me state that we need to apply measured force to accomplish our fundamental objectives. My ultimate objective is to improve the performance of public agencies, which may be done with a gentle nudge or a blunt instrument, depending upon the circumstances.

If auditors find an innovative way for a bureau to accomplish its work, and the audit report really reflects more on our analytical abilities than the incompetence of their managers, why would we hold them up to ridicule? And if we conduct a follow-up review and find that the bureau reneged on the commitment it made to make improvements in its audit response, why would we not give them a good verbal thumping?

"Minimum force necessary" is a law enforcement guideline. Officers often operate within a "continuum of force," beginning with voice commands and escalating to deadly weapons (with the "melee" somewhere in between). The escalating actions of others, starting with resistance, help determine the officer's response. In the same way, auditors can react to the situation with a measured response. Here is another lesson though: the fear of force is often more effective than the actual use of social force.

So, what are the kinds of social forces and when would we use them? First, the Boss Auditor needs to approve any use of force, because he or she will be answerable for it. Second, the political and managerial context of your audit organization, as well as your past practices all need to be considered. Third, you need to predict the responsiveness of the auditee to the audit findings.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

Here is a list of situations encountered in our audits that I considered as we issued the report:

• Findings indicate a flagrant disregard for life and suffering
• Auditee expressed resistance to audit findings and recommendations
• Auditee was uncooperative during the audit
• Auditors found misrepresentation and deception by the auditee
• Auditee failed to implement prior recommendations, despite commitment to do so
• The audit was requested by the auditee
• The audit found a unique problem that is unlikely to ever recur
• The auditee is a small organization lacking the expertise and resources to spot the kinds of problems we found
• The finding is a small singular lapse in an otherwise well-managed operation
• The auditee began implementing recommendations prior to audit release

You can probably think of other situations to expand this list, and even combinations of factors may occur. There is nothing scientific about your evaluation of each situation - it is a subjective call on your part.

Force Continuum

So let's assume that the force of law is not applicable and the force of reason is clearly not working - what social forces can be called upon to get swift and enthusiastic change? Some of these strategies may not be appropriate to your organization or the situation, but they should give you a sense of the range of tools at the auditor's disposal.

• Audit tone and word choice - the English language gives us many word choices that can calm or incite others.
• Fear of force - you can always tone down a draft report, withdraw a draft scope impairment letter, or soften other strategies - depending upon attitude changes.
• Press release - Depending upon which element of the finding you emphasize, you can downplay or highlight problems - and quotes can convey the magnitude of the issue.
• Scope impairment letter - this seems like a trivial auditor action until you remember that post-Watergate adage - "The cover-up is generally worse than the crime." Reporters will join the hunt like a pack of hounds.
• Personal briefings up the chain of command - good communication is important, especially when things are not going well - top administrators don't like surprises.
• Reporter briefings - sometimes they miss the important stuff in the audit report and need a little assistance in understanding the consequences or various angles on the story.
• Personal briefings of electeds - the legislative officials often benefit from in-depth discussions of audit interactions and results. They can add oversight and pressure to ensure that recommendations get implemented.
• Follow-up - subsequent reports can remind everyone about the status of the recommendations, and the prospect of further accounts in the news.

If you remind yourself that you should only use the minimum force necessary you are likely to accomplish the most, and preserve the best long-term working relationships. And with practice and experience you will fall under another force - the force of habit.

Average user rating

Display 1 of 1 comments