Behavioral Dimensions of Internal Auditing: An Exploratory Survey of Internal Auditors

Mortimer A. Dittenhofer, PhD, CIA, CGFM

Sridhar Ramamoorti, PhD, CIA, CPA, CFE
Douglas E. Ziegenfuss, PhD, CIA, CPA, CFE
R. Luke Evans, MA
The Institute of Internal Auditors-Research Foundation

Disclosure

Copyright © 2011 by The Institute of Internal Auditors Research Foundation (IIARF), 247
Maitland Avenue, Altamonte Springs, Florida 32701-4201. All rights reserved. No part of this
publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any
means — electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise — without prior written
permission of the publisher.

The IIARF publishes this document for informational and educational purposes. This document
is intended to provide information, but is not a substitute for legal or accounting advice. The
IIARF does not provide such advice and makes no warranty as to any legal or accounting
results through its publication of this document. When legal or accounting issues arise,
professional assistance should be sought and retained.

The Institute of Internal Auditors’ (IIA’s) International Professional Practices Framework (IPPF)
comprises the full range of existing and developing practice guidance for the profession. The
IPPF provides guidance to internal auditors globally and paves the way to world-class internal
auditing.

The mission of The IIARF is to expand knowledge and understanding of internal auditing by
providing relevant research and educational products to advance the profession globally.
The IIA and The IIARF work in partnership with researchers from around the globe who conduct
valuable studies on critical issues affecting today’s business world. Much of the content
presented in their final reports is a result of IIARF-funded research and prepared as a service to

The Foundation and the internal audit profession. Expressed opinions, interpretations, or points
of view represent a consensus of the researchers and do not necessarily reflect or represent the
official position or policies of The IIA or The IIARF.
ISBN 978-0-89413-705-1
02/11
First Printing

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Mortimer A. Dittenhofer, PhD, CIA, CGFM, is an Emeritus Professor of Accounting at Florida

International University, Miami, Florida. Before retiring, he was the director of the School of
Accounting at Florida International University and a research fellow of The Institute of Internal
Auditors (IIA). He earned a B.A. in economics from Macalester College, St. Paul, Minnesota,
MBA from Northwestern University, and PhD in business administration from American
University in Washington, D.C.

Dittenhofer also taught at American University, Georgetown University, George Washington

University, Catholic University, and DePaul University in Chicago. He practiced internal auditing
at the former Atomic Energy Commission, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the General Accounting Office
(GAO). At the GAO, he chaired the work group that developed the first edition of the world-
renowned Government Audit Standards (the Yellow Book). He was a two-term member of the
committee that developed The IIA’s International Standards for the Professional Practice of
Internal Auditing.

He is well known for shepherding the publication of the IIA-sponsored textbook, Sawyer’s
Internal Auditing, 5th Edition, published in 2003. He also edited a two-volume annual
government auditing and accounting update reference series and is co-editor of The IIA’s three
case study collections on ethics. Dittenhofer received The IIA’s prestigious Bradford Cadmus
Memorial Award in 1985, the Leon R. Radde Distinguished Educator of the Year Award in 1989,
and was the second recipient of The IIA’s Lifetime Achievement Award in 2002.

Sridhar (Sri”) Ramamoorti, PhD, CIA, CPA, CFE, is a principal of Infogix Advisory Services,
Infogix, Inc., a software-based information controls company and professional services provider
for governance, risk, and compliance (GRC), continuous controls monitoring (CCM), and
forensic accounting. He is a contributing editor to Sarbanes- Oxley Section 404for Small,
Publicly-Held Companies (CCH/Wolters Kluwer, 2009) and a co-author of The Audit Committee
Handbook (5th edition, John Wiley, 2010). He earned a bachelor of commerce degree from
Bombay University, India, and holds MAcc. and PhD (quantitative psychology) degrees from
The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio. After completing his PhD, he was on the
accountancy faculty at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for a few years.

Until recently, Ramamoorti was a partner in the National Corporate Governance Group of Grant
Thornton LLP in Chicago. He led the firm’s thought leadership initiatives in corporate
governance and accountability, advising on Sarbanes-Oxley, professional standards and other
technical matters, assisting with global client pursuits, delivering board and audit committee
briefings, promoting university faculty relations, and
mentoring younger professionals. A core member of the Grant Thornton authoring team for the
2009 COSO Guidance on Monitoring Internal Control Systems (see www.coso.org), he is also a
co-author on the well-received textbook Internal Auditing: Assurance and Consulting Services
(2nd edition, 2009), published by The IIA, that has been translated into Spanish and Japanese.

Before joining Grant Thornton, Ramamoorti worked at Ernst & Young (EY) in the Fraud
Investigation and Dispute Services (FIDS) practice and was in-house EY faculty for fraud
awareness training of Ernst & Young partners and principals nationally. He spearheaded the
development of an EY proprietary litigation risk management simulation model that attained
“patent pending” status with the U.S. Patent Office. Subsequently, he was also the Sarbanes-
Oxley advisor for the EY National Advisory Practices in North America. Earlier in his career, he
was a principal in the Professional Standards Group of Arthur Andersen, where he consulted on
generally accepted auditing standards, represented the firm on the AICPA Financial Instruments
Task Force that produced SAS 92: Auditing Derivatives, Hedging Activities, and Investments in
Securities, and served as a key liaison in the multimillion-dollar Andersen-MIT research
collaboration.

He has published extensively in research and professional journals such as Management

Science, European Management Journal, Research in Accounting Ethics, International Journal
of Accounting, Issues in Accounting Education, Advances in International Accounting, Journal of
Information Systems, Internal Auditor, Journal of Government Financial Management, White
Paper, and Financial Executive. He co-authored Using Neural Networks for Risk Assessment in
Internal Auditing (1998) and co-edited Research Opportunities in Internal Auditing (2003), both
published by The Institute of Internal Auditors Research Foundation (IIARF). He is the recipient
of many teaching excellence awards and prestigious research grants.
Ramamoorti was originally trained as a chartered accountant from India, and holds numerous
U.S. professional certifications. Active in the profession, he is on the Board of Directors of
Ascend, Institute for Business and Professional Ethics (IBPE), Information Integrity Coalition
(IIC), and the Board of Governors of The IIA’s Chicago Chapter. He serves as vice-president
(Practice) of two sections of the American Accounting Association and is a member The IIA’s
Global Ethics Committee. Currently co-chairman of The IIA’s Global 2010 Common Body of
Knowledge (CBOK) study, he is a past chairman of the Academy for Government Accountability
(2005-2008) and a member of the Board of Trustees of The IIA Research Foundation (2002-
2008). A frequent speaker at academic and professional conferences, he has made
presentations in the United States, Brazil, Canada, France, India, Japan, the Netherlands,
Qatar, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates

Douglas E. Ziegenfuss, PhD, CIA, CPA, is professor and chair of the Accounting Department at
Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, where he teaches courses in auditing and
coordinates the Internal Auditing Enforced Program. He holds a B.A. in philosophy/history from
Mount Saint Mary’s College (magna cum laude), an M.S. in accounting from American
University, and a PhD in accounting from Virginia Commonwealth University, along with
numerous professional certifications.

His expertise includes operational, fraud, and information technology auditing, as well as
corporate governance and professional ethics. He has authored or co-authored three books and
25 articles on audit-related subjects. He regularly presents programs on audit management,
fraud, and quality management issues in numerous locations across the U.S. as well as
internationally in Hong Kong, Mexico City, Paris, Toronto, and Australia. He has eight years of
auditing experience in the public utility and waste management industries.

Ziegenfuss received The IIA’s prestigious Leon R. Radde Distinguished Educator of the Year
Award in 1996. The Virginia Society of Certified Public Accountants recognized him as their
“Outstanding Accounting Educator” in 1997, and the Association of Government Accountants
also recognized him in 2000 as one of the most influential chapter members during its first 50
years for starting a student chapter. From 2005 to 2009, Virginia Business designated
Ziegenfuss a “Super CPA” educator.

His service to the auditing profession includes national board membership on The IIA’s Board of
Research and Education Advisors and as a trustee and secretary of The IIARF. Before that he
served as vice chair of The IIA’s Academic Relations Committee. Ziegenfuss has served on the
board of The IIA’s Tidewater Chapter and is a former chapter president. He also chaired the
1997 IIA Mid-Atlantic Conference.

R. Luke Evans, MA, provides project coordination services for not-for-profit organizations as an
independent professional living in the Boston, Massachusetts area. He holds a B.B.A. in
accounting from the University of Toledo and an M.A. in educational policy and leadership
(focused on business administration curricula) at The Ohio State University.

Upon earning his bachelor’s degree, Evans served on the audit staff at Price Waterhouse & Co.
and later developed a public accounting practice serving small business clientele. Eventually he
expanded his experience into commercial credit analysis and lending at the Huntington National
Bank and BancOhio National Bank in their small business divisions.
Following several years in business, he entered graduate school at The Ohio State University to
study the teaching of ethics in business administration curricula, earning his master’s degree.
He continued with doctoral study into the contemporary moral and political philosophies that
underlie curriculum practices in higher education, satisfying his coursework and comprehensive
exam requirements. He then entered higher education administration at Ohio State, after which
he returned to post-graduate study to pursue human resource development at the University of
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. While at Illinois, he collaborated with Sridhar Ramamoorti on a
paper titled “Strategies for Effective Learning: Insights of Research and Scholarship in Business
Education,” which was presented at DePaul University.

PROLOGUE

Contemporary internal auditing — as an integral part of a complex web of relationships within an

organization — involves significant social interaction with auditees. Auditor/auditee interactions
occur in organizational settings that consist of both face-to- face and written communication.
Internal auditing is very much a “relationship and communications business.”

The nature, scope, and extent of auditor/auditee interactions lie at the core of internal audit
assurance activities. Most internal audit practitioners would agree that mastering interpersonal
and communication skills, often called “soft skills,” is among the most important skills that
successful internal audit professionals need. Soft skills typically include the ability to share
information, make persuasive arguments, negotiate agreements, and demonstrate passion for
change, while simultaneously understanding different roles and responsibilities, empathizing
with others, acting with integrity, and relating well with others from all levels of the organization.
To employ all these skills effectively in everyday situations, internal auditors need to have high
degrees of emotional and social intelligence.

Individual and social behavioral disciplines such as psychology, social psychology, sociology,
communications, behavioral economics, and cultural anthropology seek to provide
understanding and insight on the nature of such soft skill interactions among people in various
social and cultural settings. For a few decades now, the behavioral dimensions of internal
auditing have received little systematic exploration in the auditing literature. Given that
behavioral considerations carry so much importance in the day-to¬day practice of internal
auditing, the authors conducted an online exploratory survey to examine some of the current
thinking of many internal auditors on this important topic.

Anyone harboring any doubts about the importance of this subject to internal auditing should
consult Summary of the Common Body of Knowledge 2006 (CBOK) by The Institute of Internal
Auditors Research Foundation (IIARF) and read the section on internal auditor skills. This
section identifies a list of typical behavioral skill sets considered important to the audit staff,
senior supervisors, and audit managers. The authors of CBOK 2006 state, “Practitioners
consider almost all of the behavioral skills listed to be important to [the performance of] their
work at their current position....”

In the spirit of The IIARF’s 2003 Research Opportunities in Internal Auditing (ROIA), this survey
on the “behavioral dimensions of the internal auditor” also seeks to make important
contributions to the current understanding of interpersonal communications and other general
behavioral “aspects” in the internal audit profession.
Audit internal kontemporer - sebagai bagian integral dari jaringan hubungan yang kompleks
dalam suatu organisasi - melibatkan interaksi sosial yang signifikan dengan pihak yang diaudit.
Interaksi auditor / auditee terjadi dalam pengaturan organisasi yang terdiri dari komunikasi tatap
muka dan tertulis. Audit internal sangat “bisnis hubungan dan komunikasi”.

Sifat, ruang lingkup, dan tingkat interaksi auditor / pihak yang diaudit merupakan inti dari
kegiatan assurance audit internal. Sebagian besar praktisi audit internal akan setuju bahwa
penguasaan keterampilan interpersonal dan komunikasi, sering disebut "soft skill,"
adalah di antara keterampilan yang paling penting yang dibutuhkan oleh profesional audit
internal yang sukses. Soft skill biasanya mencakup kemampuan untuk berbagi informasi,
membuat argumen persuasif, menegosiasikan perjanjian, dan menunjukkan hasrat untuk
perubahan, sementara secara bersamaan memahami peran dan tanggung jawab yang
berbeda, berempati dengan orang lain, bertindak dengan integritas, dan berhubungan
baik dengan orang lain dari semua tingkatan organisasi . Untuk menggunakan semua
keterampilan ini secara efektif dalam situasi sehari-hari, auditor internal perlu memiliki
kecerdasan emosi dan sosial yang tinggi.

Disiplin perilaku individu dan sosial seperti psikologi, psikologi sosial, sosiologi, komunikasi,
ekonomi perilaku, dan antropologi budaya berusaha untuk memberikan pemahaman dan
wawasan tentang sifat interaksi soft skill seperti itu di antara orang-orang dalam berbagai
pengaturan sosial dan budaya. Selama beberapa dekade sekarang, dimensi perilaku audit
internal telah menerima sedikit eksplorasi sistematis dalam literatur audit.

Mengingat bahwa pertimbangan perilaku sangat penting dalam praktik audit internal sehari-hari,
penulis melakukan survei eksplorasi online untuk memeriksa beberapa pemikiran saat ini dari
banyak auditor internal tentang topik penting ini.

Siapa pun yang menyimpan keraguan tentang pentingnya subjek ini untuk audit internal harus
berkonsultasi dengan Ringkasan dari Common Body of Knowledge 2006 (CBOK) oleh The
Institute of Internal Auditor Research Foundation (IIARF) dan membaca bagian tentang
keterampilan auditor internal. Bagian ini mengidentifikasi daftar seperangkat keterampilan
perilaku khas yang dianggap penting bagi staf audit, penyelia senior, dan manajer audit. Para
penulis CBOK 2006 menyatakan, "Praktisi menganggap hampir semua keterampilan perilaku
yang tercantum penting untuk [kinerja] pekerjaan mereka di posisi mereka saat ini ...."

Dalam semangat The 2003 Peluang Penelitian IIARF di Audit Internal (ROIA), survei ini pada
"dimensi perilaku auditor internal" juga berusaha untuk memberikan kontribusi penting
untuk pemahaman saat ini tentang komunikasi antarpribadi dan "aspek" perilaku umum
lainnya di profesi audit internal.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank the reviewers of the Board of Research and Education Advisors (BREA)
who undertook the review of this report, along with the staff of The Institute of Internal Auditors
Research Foundation (IIARF) for their patient understanding of the vagaries associated with
author life events over the course of the project.

We especially wish to acknowledge the valuable contributions of Sowmya Anand, PhD, for her
administration and compilation of the survey data into tables from which we discuss the results,
conclusions, and recommendations. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

We conducted this survey of internal auditors to identify behavioral areas, issues, and
techniques that may apply toward improving the performance of their responsibilities. For
purposes of this study, we defined “behavioral” in terms of psychology and sociology as the
study of human behavior toward understanding human thought and action. In doing this, we
identified areas first in the literature and next in the field where behavioral issues affect auditor
performance. We identified the following areas, issues, and techniques affecting internal
auditors:
• Internal Auditor Background with Behavioral Subjects
• Internal Auditor Confidence with Behavioral Dimensions
• Role Self-perception and Role Conflict
• Communication
• Interviewing Practices
• Conflict Resolution and Overcoming Hostility
• Management of Change and Consultancy
• Perceived Responsibility to Management

We then administered a web-based questionnaire to internal auditors over The Institute of

Internal Auditors’ (IIA’s) Global Audit Information Network (GAIN), which contained names of
more than 7,000 internal auditors. Two invitational requests were sent, which yielded 913
usable responses.

We discuss all the topics together in the first section of results using analysis of variance
(ANOVA) and separately in the second section using measures of central tendency. Afterward,
we offer recommendations and conclusions as to how internal auditors should proceed. In
general, we found that some internal auditors have not fully recognized the importance of these
behavioral issues and the corresponding opportunities they represent. Further, we recommend
a strategic ongoing focus on the behavioral dimensions through combinations of publications,
conference sessions, and continuing education at regional and local levels. 

Kami melakukan survei auditor internal ini untuk mengidentifikasi area perilaku, masalah,
dan teknik yang dapat diterapkan untuk meningkatkan kinerja tanggung jawab mereka.
Untuk tujuan penelitian ini, kami mendefinisikan "perilaku" dalam hal psikologi dan
sosiologi sebagai studi perilaku manusia untuk memahami pemikiran dan tindakan
manusia. Dalam melakukan ini, kami mengidentifikasi area pertama dalam literatur dan
berikutnya di bidang di mana masalah perilaku mempengaruhi kinerja auditor. Kami
mengidentifikasi area, masalah, dan teknik berikut yang memengaruhi auditor internal:
• Latar Belakang Auditor Internal dengan Subjek Perilaku
• Keyakinan Auditor Internal dengan Dimensi Perilaku
• Peran Persepsi diri dan Konflik Peran
• Komunikasi
• Praktik Wawancara
• Resolusi Konflik dan Mengatasi Permusuhan
• Manajemen Perubahan dan Konsultasi
• Persepsi Tanggung Jawab kepada Manajemen

Kami kemudian memberikan kuesioner berbasis web kepada auditor internal di atas The Global
of Internal Auditor '(IIA) Global Audit Information Network (GAIN), yang berisi nama-nama lebih
dari 7.000 auditor internal. Dua permintaan undangan telah dikirim, yang menghasilkan 913
tanggapan yang dapat digunakan.
Kami membahas semua topik bersama-sama di bagian pertama hasil menggunakan analisis
varian (ANOVA) dan secara terpisah di bagian kedua menggunakan langkah-langkah
kecenderungan sentral. Setelah itu, kami menawarkan rekomendasi dan kesimpulan tentang
bagaimana auditor internal harus melanjutkan. Secara umum, kami menemukan bahwa
beberapa auditor internal belum sepenuhnya menyadari pentingnya masalah perilaku ini dan
peluang terkait yang mereka wakili. Lebih lanjut, kami merekomendasikan fokus strategis yang
berkelanjutan pada dimensi perilaku melalui kombinasi publikasi, sesi konferensi, dan
pendidikan berkelanjutan di tingkat regional dan lokal.

INTRODUCTION
While developing the proposal for the behavioral dimensions project, it seemed important that
we not only gather information published previously on behavior in the field of internal auditing
but also obtain related information directly from internal auditors indicative as to what they are
thinking, feeling, and actually experiencing in the internal audit field.

The philosophy of a behavioral approach is not unusual in internal auditing. Although employed
by most internal auditors, it is not yet considered to be generally accepted by the profession.
Therefore, there is interest in indications of the attitudes of internal auditors toward the basic
procedural and philosophical foundations of the behavioral approach. Moreover, there is also
interest in how successful were the internal auditors who used behavioral approaches in the
application of this philosophy and how comfortable they were with their application.

We believed that an exploratory survey of internal auditors to obtain insight on the above
information could accomplish three purposes. First, it might indicate the current status of the
application of behavioral approaches; second, indicate the degree of effectiveness of some of
these approaches toward providing useful and viable internal audit outcomes; and third,
possibly identify areas for further attention to improve effectiveness of some of these
approaches in their application.
We believe that current information on the status of acceptance and indications of the success
or failure of aspects of the behavioral approaches could help develop more effective methods
for their use. Moreover, one of the interests of the behavioral approach has been and is to
create a closer relationship between the internal auditor and auditee to develop a more
cooperative audit operation. We also thought the survey would better illustrate this interest.

Saat mengembangkan proposal untuk proyek dimensi perilaku, tampaknya penting bahwa kita
tidak hanya mengumpulkan informasi yang diterbitkan sebelumnya tentang perilaku di bidang
audit internal tetapi juga memperoleh informasi terkait langsung dari auditor internal yang
indikatif untuk apa yang mereka pikirkan, rasakan, dan sebenarnya mengalami di bidang
audit internal.

Filosofi pendekatan perilaku tidak biasa dalam audit internal. Meskipun dipekerjakan oleh
sebagian besar auditor internal, itu belum dianggap diterima secara umum oleh profesi. Oleh
karena itu, ada minat dalam indikasi sikap auditor internal terhadap fondasi prosedural
dan filosofis dasar dari pendekatan perilaku. Selain itu, ada juga minat pada seberapa
sukses auditor internal yang menggunakan pendekatan perilaku dalam penerapan
filosofi ini dan seberapa nyaman mereka dengan aplikasi mereka.

Kami percaya bahwa survei eksplorasi auditor internal untuk memperoleh wawasan
tentang informasi di atas dapat mencapai tiga tujuan. Pertama, ini mungkin
mengindikasikan status saat ini dari penerapan pendekatan perilaku; kedua, tunjukkan
tingkat keefektifan dari beberapa pendekatan ini untuk memberikan hasil audit internal
yang berguna dan layak; dan ketiga, mungkin mengidentifikasi bidang-bidang yang perlu
diperhatikan lebih lanjut untuk meningkatkan efektivitas beberapa pendekatan ini dalam
penerapannya.

Kami percaya bahwa informasi terkini tentang status penerimaan dan indikasi keberhasilan atau
kegagalan aspek pendekatan perilaku dapat membantu mengembangkan metode yang lebih
efektif untuk penggunaannya. Selain itu, salah satu kepentingan dari pendekatan perilaku telah
dan adalah untuk menciptakan hubungan yang lebih erat antara auditor internal dan pihak yang
diaudit untuk mengembangkan operasi audit yang lebih kooperatif. Kami juga berpikir survei
akan lebih menggambarkan minat ini.

An Exploratory Study
This study explores the views held by internal auditors on the behavioral dimensions of internal
auditing as a starting point on this broad and complex subject. As such, it should be considered
more exploratory, or nonscientific, rather than a full scientific study. A full scientific survey
would have required many additional procedures or methods regarding testing of questions for
content validity, random selection, non-response bias, and so forth to bring the study up to the
canons of scientific research.

The additional procedures and methods would have allowed us to generalize our results to the
broad population from which the respondents came and to interpret their responses with
stronger confidence. Moreover, they would have allowed for a “completely open review and
[replication, capable] verification by other interested scholars.” For instance, had we been able
to randomly select a sample from the population of internal auditors, assure adequate
demographic representation in our sample, e-mail the invitation to respond only to those
members selected for our sample, and receive a sufficient response rate from across our
sample, then we would have been able to generalize our results to the broad population of
internal auditors with confidence. Due to limited resources, however, we were unable to fulfill all
necessary procedures or methods for a full scientific study and, thus, were able to generalize
only to those individuals who responded to this survey rather than the whole field. Similar
exploratory studies, however, have merit in that they often shed light on new areas of interest as
well as serve as valuable starting points for future scientific survey and case study research.
Penelitian ini mengeksplorasi pandangan yang dimiliki oleh auditor internal tentang dimensi
perilaku audit internal sebagai titik awal pada subjek yang luas dan kompleks ini. Dengan
demikian, itu harus dianggap lebih eksploratif, atau tidak ilmiah, daripada studi ilmiah penuh.
Sebuah survei ilmiah penuh akan membutuhkan banyak prosedur atau metode tambahan
mengenai pengujian pertanyaan untuk validitas konten, pemilihan acak, bias non-respons, dan
sebagainya untuk membawa studi ke kanon penelitian ilmiah.

Prosedur dan metode tambahan akan memungkinkan kami untuk menggeneralisasi hasil kami
ke populasi luas dari mana responden datang dan untuk menafsirkan tanggapan mereka
dengan keyakinan yang lebih kuat. Selain itu, mereka akan memungkinkan untuk "tinjauan
sepenuhnya terbuka dan [replikasi, mampu] verifikasi oleh para sarjana tertarik lainnya."
Misalnya, jika kita dapat secara acak memilih sampel dari populasi auditor internal, memastikan
perwakilan demografis yang memadai di kami sampel, kirim email undangan untuk menanggapi
hanya anggota yang dipilih untuk sampel kami, dan menerima tingkat respons yang memadai
dari seluruh sampel kami, maka kami akan dapat menggeneralisasi hasil kami ke populasi luas
auditor internal dengan keyakinan. Namun, karena sumber daya yang terbatas, kami tidak
dapat memenuhi semua prosedur atau metode yang diperlukan untuk studi ilmiah penuh dan,
dengan demikian, hanya dapat menggeneralisasi orang-orang yang menanggapi survei ini
daripada seluruh bidang. Namun, studi eksplorasi serupa memiliki manfaat karena mereka
sering menjelaskan bidang-bidang baru yang menarik serta berfungsi sebagai titik awal yang
berharga untuk survei ilmiah dan penelitian studi kasus di masa depan.

Survey Structure
We conducted an online survey of internal auditors to gather information on their training in,
attitudes toward, and usage of various behavioral techniques. First, we drafted a questionnaire
comprising various statements and questions with regard to the constructs presented in the
original proposal for this report (discussed in the following section, Areas of Data Collection).
Next, the statements and questions developed by the authors were finalized based on reviewer
comments at The IIARF and The IIA’s Global Audit Information Network (GAIN). Finally, the
questionnaire was organized into several sections that measured various facets of behavioral
aspects of internal auditors in the field. An e-mail inviting responses that contained a link to the
questionnaire on The IIA’s website was then sent to prospective respondents.

RESEARCH METHODS

Data Collection and Validation

The questionnaire was programmed for web-based administration by the GAIN staff. The e-mail
inviting response to the survey was sent out on January 25, 2006, to approximately 7,000
internal auditors who were in the GAIN database; a link to the survey was embedded in the e-
mail. After two weeks of fielding the questionnaire, 378 responses were obtained. Soon after, a
reminder e-mail was sent to those who had not responded to the survey, yielding an additional
535 responses.

After four weeks of data collection, the total sample size was 913, a response rate of
approximately 13 percent. The data file was set up and analyzed using SPSS (Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences). Variables in the data file were labeled and tables of
frequencies were obtained for all variables; this served as a check of whether the data were
properly coded and whether missing values were correctly assigned.

Areas of Data Collection

Data collection covered areas related to behavioral aspects typically encountered by internal
auditors during the course of their engagement. These areas focused on internal auditor:
• Confidence to engage in various behavioral aspects of practice.
• Roles and the social demands that accompany these roles in various internal audit
situations.
• Interviewing and communication approaches and techniques.
• Practices and techniques used to resolve conflict and deal with client hostility.
• Engagement in activities related to change management, in particular helping the
client deal with change, especially in consultancy aspects of internal auditing.
• Perceptions of degrees of responsibility they believe they hold toward different levels
of management and stakeholders.

In addition, data collection included respondent background associated with education and
training in the social and behavioral disciplines and respondent demographics (gender, age
range, formal education, length of experience, and organizational position).

Data Analysis
Data analysis consisted of inferential and descriptive statistics. Inferential statistics involved the
use of analysis of variance (ANOVA), which looked at how internal auditor demographics
related to typical social and behavioral activities as experienced in practice. Descriptive
statistics focused on discerning patterns among frequencies of data responses as reported on a
five-point Likert scale and expressed as percentages for each of the questions in the survey
areas. The combination of inferential and descriptive analyses helped us develop a more
realistic picture in many areas of the behavioral aspects of internal auditing as practiced today.
Insights revealed on important points could have important implications for future research that
are intended to guide members as the profession grows in the coming decades.

Respondent Demographics
The demographic data reported in the following charts provide a fuller description of our
respondents in terms of (a) gender, (b) age, (c) education level, (d) experience in the internal
audit activity, and (e) position in the organization.
SURVEY RESULTS — INFERENTIAL STATISTICS (ANOVA)

Though this project is exploratory in that it is studying an important subject in internal auditing
that has had little prior attention, we thought it appropriate to apply a test measure in addition to
the rather rudimentary measures of central tendency used in the following section on survey
results. It was decided to use Simple Regression and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tests of
significance as a technique to augment the interpretations that have been made.

We have explored the relationships between certain key study variables and possible
explanatory variables. First, we reviewed the survey instrument and selected eight study
variables that correspond to important sections of this report: Level of (Internal Auditor)
Confidence, Roles, Communication, Interviewing, Neutralizing Change (Management of
Change), Consulting, People Issues (Conflict Resolution), and Overcoming Hostility. Next, we
selected possible explanatory variables: Gender, Age, Training in Behavioral Methods, Audit
Staff Size, Education, Years of Experience in Internal Auditing, Professional Level = Manager,
Audit Director, Chief Audit Executive (CAE), and Other. We constructed these variables by
computing the average response for the bank of questions included in each study variable in the
survey instrument. A similar procedure was followed for the possible explanatory variables,
except that the question concerning level had to be broken down into separate dummy variables
(e.g., audit manager, audit director, CAE, etc.) for further analysis.
Simple regressions were computed using one of the eight study variables as the dependent
variable and all of the explanatory variables as the independent variables. None of the resulting
eight regressions were statistically significant. Next, we repeated the process using Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) tests of significance and successfully produced eight statistically significant
results that are summarized in Table 1.

Study Variables

The results are interesting. For instance, gender is negatively related to level of confidence. This
means that men were reported to have a higher level of confidence with respect to their role as
internal auditors. Likewise, older workers are inclined to have a higher level of confidence as
internal auditors than younger workers. Managers, directors, and CAEs tend to have higher
levels of confidence than other respondents. Finally, those auditors who have training in
behavioral methods seem to have a higher level of confidence than those who do not have the
training. Other interesting results follow:
• Women, more experienced audit managers, and other audit staff were more likely to
perceive a role conflict between how they viewed their roles and how their auditees viewed
the auditor’s role.
• Women, more experienced internal auditors, audit directors, and internal auditors who had
received behavioral training are apt to use more diverse communications methods than
other respondents.
• Women, older internal auditors, audit directors, and those who had received behavioral
training more often used methods to neutralize the auditee’s resistance to change than other
respondents.
• Men and respondents from larger audit staffs were more comfortable in their role as
consultants than other respondents.
• Women, those respondents from larger audit staffs, audit managers, and audit directors
used more diverse interviewing techniques than other respondents.
• Respondents from larger audit functions, respondents with higher educational levels, audit
directors, CAEs, and those respondents with behavioral methods training often use more
diverse “people oriented” methods to reduce conflict with their auditees than other
respondents.
• Older respondents, respondents from larger internal audit functions, CAEs, and those with
behavioral methods training felt stronger about the effectiveness of hostility-reducing
methods than other respondents.

Explanatory Variables
We can also discuss these findings in terms of the possible explanatory variables. For instance,
men have a higher level of confidence in their role as internal auditors and tend to believe more
strongly in the consultancy role for internal auditors than women respondents. However, women
respondents experience greater role conflict, use more diverse methods to neutralize auditee
resistance to change, and use more diverse interviewing techniques than men.

Some additional findings follow:

• More experienced workers had higher levels of confidence. They also used more
diverse methods to neutralize auditee resistance to change and to overcome auditee
hostility.
• Internal auditors on larger staffs used more diverse communication techniques,
believed more strongly that internal auditors have a consultancy role, used more
diverse interviewing techniques, used more “people oriented” behavioral methods,
and more firmly believed in the effectiveness of hostility-reducing techniques.
• Surprisingly, educational level only related to one study variable — the use of
“people oriented” behavioral methods to resolve conflict problems.
• Years of internal audit experience only related to one study variable — the level of
confidence.
• On the other hand, the respondent’s organizational level — whether as an audit
manager, audit director, or CAE — was significantly related to all the study variables.

Those respondents who had completed training in behavioral methods had higher levels of
confidence in their role as internal auditors, used more diverse methods of communication, used
more diverse methods of neutralizing auditees’ resistance to change, used more diverse
communication, interviewing, “people oriented” behavioral methods in conflict resolution, and
felt more strongly about the effectiveness of methods to overcome auditee hostility.

SURVEY RESULTS — DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

This section covers survey results from respondents covering the behavioral aspects within the
internal audit activity using normative measures of central tendency.
Internal Auditor Background with Behavioral Subjects
One can presume that internal auditors have taken basic academic coursework related to
behavioral relationships covered by requirements or electives for their bachelor’s degree,
especially since this degree is typically a basic requirement to become an internal auditor today.
As for studying behavioral relationships within the context of the internal audit function though,
this is another matter — only 23 percent of the respondents indicated having done so.

Our inquiry into internal auditor background relating to these behavioral relationships has two
facets: (1) their level of interest in studying behavioral relationships and (2) their belief in the
usefulness of seeking additional guidance on behavioral relationships. Most respondents
seemed interested in studying behavioral relationships and were willing to gain additional
guidance on this subject to some degree. Table 2 reflects these replies.

As to respondent level of interest in the study of behavioral relationships, those “Moderately

Interested” and “Very Interested” were almost equally divided. Likewise, as to their belief in the
usefulness of additional guidance on behavioral relationships in internal auditing, the same can
be said but with a somewhat higher response for those respondents who are “Very Interested.”
These attitudes seem to indicate a split on the importance that most respondents place on
behavioral relationships in the course of their professional work. A secondary analysis was
conducted on these two response categories by the respondent’s level of experience in the
internal audit activity, which is reflected in Table 3. This analysis indicated some interesting
patterns that might be worthy of further inquiry when it comes to establishing continuing
education courses for internal auditors.
As indicated in Table 3, a complementary pattern of correspondence between the responses
appears to exist between interest in the study of behavioral relationships and beliefs in the
usefulness of receiving additional guidance. Those internal auditors with 1 - 2 and 11 - 15 years
of experience tend to have a more moderate interest in studying behavioral relationships while
indicating a level interest in receiving further guidance. On the other hand, new internal auditors
with less than one year of experience and mid¬career internal auditors seem to possess a level
interest in studying behavioral relationships while indicating a stronger interest in receiving
further guidance. In addition, for respondents with 15 or more years of experience, the
directionality shifts somewhat from “Moderately Interested” to “Very Interested” when it comes to
beliefs in the usefulness of receiving further guidance. These data patterns seem to suggest
that where an internal auditor resides in his or her career is an important influence on his or her
interest in behavioral dimensions.

The foregoing has implications for professional development. Continuing education courses on
behavioral relationships in the internal audit activity could be designed to meet the specific
needs of entry-level professionals and another set of needs for mid¬career professionals. In
addition, specialized courses for internal auditors with 15 or more years of experience could be
offered in seminar format to promote spirited dialogue, discussion, and debate as this group
would likely comprise audit directors and CAEs who have significant knowledge and experience
in the field.

Internal Auditor Confidence with Behavioral Dimensions

Respondents were asked for their ratings of confidence in their abilities to handle various
situations involving relationship building with auditees, colleagues, and superiors. Confidence
refers to a person’s beliefs in his or her own ability to achieve desired outcomes, and typically
this construct has been measured by assessing an individual’s perceived capability of
performing various tasks that are relevant to achieving the desired outcome of choice.
According to Bandura, as most people realistically strive to achieve in a few selected areas
rather than in all areas, they tend to express beliefs that support their confidence to perform in
specific areas. Perceived self-confidence often correlates with one’s performance in the area of
interest; thus, those high in perceived self¬confidence in a given area also tend to perform well
in that area. In keeping with this conception of confidence, this section measured respondent
confidence in the areas relating to behavioral issues in internal auditing.
The results present an optimistic view of respondent confidence in handling the behavioral
dimensions of most internal audit situations. While optimistic, it should be realized that the
results presented reflected viewpoints of the respondents and not that of auditees. This
optimism may not be shared between the two groups.
For this study, respondent confidence in the handling of behavioral dimensions can be
understood over three broad areas:
• Basic social abilities (Tables 4 and 5).
• Relationships of influence and persuasion (Tables 4 and 5).
• Relationships that include ethical concerns (Tables 6 and 7).

Basic Social Abilities

Respondents indicated with relatively high confidence their basic social abilities to maintain
cordial relations, build trust, communicate effectively, and objectively consider both sides (see
Table 4). Fifty-six to 61 percent of respondents reported that they were “Very Confident” (blue
column) and, notably, another 20 to 27 percent of respondents reported they were “Extremely
Confident” (rose column). Indeed, the combination of these two columns provides some
optimism regarding the basic social abilities of internal auditors. But there still remains the 16 to
20 percent of respondents who indicated they were only “Moderately Confident” (green column)
and the 9 to 16 percent who were only “Slightly Confident.” So it seems likely that there is plenty
of room to improve the basic social abilities of many internal auditors.

Relationships of Influence and Persuasion

Regarding relationships of influence and persuasion (see Table 4), respondent confidence in
obtaining auditee cooperation, discussing sensitive issues, and handling conflict decreased
some with noticeable increases in the “Moderately Confident” column, along with a dip in the
“Extremely Confident” column. Shifts in responses were most noticeable in the area of handling
conflict, though overall confidence still remained high.
The abilities highlighted in blue (see Table 5) seem to indicate that internal auditors become
confident as they gain more experience in internal auditing. The two abilities highlighted in rose
suggest that confidence remains relatively level despite one’s experience, perhaps because
these abilities might have been relatively established before entering the profession.

Relationships That Include Ethical Concerns

In areas that often include ethical concerns (see Table 6), the responses seem to speak well of
the respondents’ self-perceptions in such matters. For the areas of handling inappropriate
questions from auditees and colleagues, again respondents indicated high confidence when
inappropriate questions came from the auditee (46 percent “Very Confident” and 38 percent
“Extremely Confident”) and when the questions came from colleagues (47 percent “Very
Confident” and 39 percent “Extremely Confident”). But slippage was evident when the
inappropriate questions came from a supervisor (39 percent “Very Confident” and 30 percent
“Extremely Confident”), most likely due to the sensitivity of the relationship’s inherent power,
though this overall measure still remains somewhat high when the two measures are combined.
Moreover, the confidence level for “staff’ is weakest as indicated in Table 7, which is what one
would typically expect.
Overall, respondents appear to be quite confident in these three broad areas of behavioral
dimensions, which speak to a positive foundation for advancing understanding in other areas of
the behavioral dimensions in internal auditing.

Role Self-perception and Role Conflict

The term “roles” can be described as norms associated with specific positions held by
individuals in groups or broader society. These norms depict how one can expect someone in a
specific position to behave or not behave. Thus, roles are important in that they dictate
behavior, and, as situations change, people can switch roles, and therefore behaviors, many
times in a day. Therefore, this section focused on the roles of the internal auditor. Respondents
answered questions on how they perceived themselves and how they thought others might
perceive them in their role as an internal auditor. Responses to these questions could yield
important insights into behavioral demands on internal auditors (see Table 8).

Internal auditors see themselves in many roles. Some roles relate to work on the job and to
outside professional activities. On the other hand, the auditee also sees the internal auditor in a
series of roles in the workplace or professional settings, typically not in a beneficent role as
internal auditors often visualize themselves. Internal auditors also visualize themselves in
various roles of expertise.

Probably one of the reasons for some disharmony in this area between the internal auditor and
the auditee is that the internal auditor and auditee assume different roles in an audit situation.
The different role behaviors assumed likely account for the differences in the conceptual
visualizations of the auditor’s role held by him or her and that of the same roles held by the
auditee (at least in the internal auditor’s belief). Internal auditor self¬perceptions of their roles
and how they perceive auditee expectations of these roles stem from auditor/auditee contacts
and discussions through audit engagements that are framed as pictures in the auditor’s mind,
resulting from auditee comments and attitudes over time. These perceptions of internal audit
roles are reflected in Table 8.

Respondent self-perceptions of roles along with the expectations presumably held by auditees
can be quite different, as indicated in Table 8. For instance, several respondent self-perceptions
indicated a moderate belief in a role while their corresponding perceptions of auditee
expectations were much lower. And a couple of self-perceptions by respondents indicated just
the opposite — respondents did not perceive themselves as having a dominant role while
perceiving the auditee might believe that they ought to. Finally, there are respondent self-
perceptions where they seemed in sync with their perception of auditee expectations of their
roles. The first two areas raise interesting questions that are discussed further below.

High Self-perception of Role While Perceiving Low Auditee Expectation

• With “technical” and “financial” expertise, 46 percent and 53 percent of respondents

respectively believe they have this expertise. Yet only 1 percent of respondents in both areas
believe that auditees possessed this expectation of them. Do auditees consider internal
auditors to lack expertise because they are typically more focused on efficient methods or
better controls, seemingly not too concerned with broader technical and financial operations?
• With “fraud detection” expertise, differences in respondent self-perception of roles are a
surprise. While 47 percent of respondents have the self-perception that they possess this
expertise, only 1 percent considers that auditees think internal auditors possess fraud
detection expertise. This could bear some further inquiry. Why do respondents suppose that
auditees do not believe them to be experts in fraud detection? Internal auditors should be
and many probably are.
• With “risk-controls” expertise, differences in self-perception are also a surprise. While 89
percent of respondents consider themselves to possess this expertise, only 24 percent
suppose that auditees have this expectation of internal auditors. Why do the respondents feel
that auditees tend to believe they are not aware of risks? Is this true? The auditors believe
they are risk oriented; why do they believe that the auditees do not concur?
• With “consultant,” differences in self-perception are also great. Respondents’ self-perceptions
are strong at 82 percent but their perception of auditee expectations of this role is only about
half as strong at 42 percent. Do internal auditors believe they have more to offer than the
auditee is willing to accept?

Low Self-perception of Role While Perceiving High Auditee Expectation

• Only 37 percent of respondents believe they have “change management” expertise.
However, 73 percent of respondents seem to think that auditees expect internal auditors to
possess this expertise. This tends to indicate that “change management” and all its
complexity is becoming an increasingly emergent role for internal auditors to fill, perhaps
through auditee consultation.
• The “police officer” role is understandable. Since time immemorial, auditors have been
compared to the “police.” While 11 percent of respondents see themselves in this role, 39
percent believe that auditees hold this expectation. This is unfortunate because auditors are
concerned with resolving problems — not with arrest and punishment. If true, more
convincing work needs to be done with auditees to clarify this aspect.

This entire area of internal auditor roles is important for promoting harmonious relationships
between the internal auditor and the auditee. Also, it can assist in developing a cooperative
environment. Thus, efforts should be made to ensure that auditees are fully aware of the
internal auditors’ areas of responsibility and the expertise available on the internal audit staff.

These perceptual indications by the internal auditor perhaps raise more questions than
answers. Probably one of the reasons for frequent disharmony between the internal auditor and
the auditee is the auditor’s conceptual visualization of his or her role as contrasting with that of
the auditee’s visualization of the auditor’s role. Our interest lies with those roles where the
auditor’s self-perception differs by a relatively large margin from the perception he or she
receives from the auditee. Most notably, many internal auditors believe they have several forms
of expertise — technical, IT, finance, fraud detection, risk/control, and consultancy — yet they
apparently believe that, in the auditee’s eyes, they lack this expertise. On the other hand, many
internal auditors are under the impression that the auditee believes internal auditors perform in
the role of “police officer” and “change management expert” more than they think they do or
ought to do.

These conceptual positions perhaps arise from auditor/auditee interactions over the course of
the audit involving auditee comments and attitudes expressed during discussions that are then
formed as a result in the auditor’s mind. Because many psychological, sociological, and perhaps
cultural factors are operating here, further study using case study research methods might be
an excellent approach to understanding these auditee role perceptions on a deeper or finer
scale.

Conditions Potentially Involving Role Conflict

We asked internal auditors to respond to a series of questions regarding certain conditions
where potential role conflict might result in the internal audit process (see Table 9).

Respondent replies from Table 9 are discussed in terms of the caveats that internal auditors
and the profession as a whole need to bear in mind as they conduct internal audits:

• In question #1, about 18 percent of internal auditors said they were required to perform audit
work that should be done differently “Often” and “Always,” with 54 percent reporting
 “Occasionally.” This seems to imply that, in most instances, auditors need to be alert to
these pressures to determine that the internal audit process conforms to principles of sound
auditing practice.
• In question #2, about 10 percent of respondents believed they were “Often” and almost
“Always” working under incompatible auditing policies and guidelines, with another 25
percent experiencing this situation “Occasionally.” This problem could be serious and a
possible indication of conflicting audit issues. These situations should be carefully explored
using case study methods to reach a deeper understanding of the problems.
• In question #3, about only 2 percent of respondents felt compelled “Often” and “Always” to
violate an internal or external audit rule or policy to carry out the audit assignment, with
another 8 percent experiencing this exposure “Occasionally.” But, while relatively small,
percentage wise, this situation could be serious if members of management, especially
senior members, are exerting pressures to cover situations that could increase long-term
risk to the organization. This situation also warrants being studied more at a deeper level.
• In question #4, about 48 percent of respondents indicated they work “Often” and “Always”
with two or more groups who think and operate differently and another 30 percent who work
in this situation “Occasionally.” Thus, the potential for incompatible requests and/or
directions could not only cause confusion in the audit process but also could, in some cases,
modify or reduce the basic audit objective. Moreover, it could result in more difficulty to gain
auditee and management acceptance of the final audit product.
• In question #5, about 13 percent of respondents revealed that they have “Often” and
“Always” received incompatible requests from others or units during the course of the audit,
with another 31 percent who experienced these requests “Occasionally.” Thus, the internal
auditor needs to be prepared to guard against potential threats to the integrity of the audit
process and results that exist in a fair number of cases.
• In question #6, about 20 percent of respondents indicated that they “Often” and “Always”
perform audit work acceptable to some but not to others, with about 39 percent reporting
this experience “Occasionally.” This point reinforces the political reality in formal
organizations that internal auditors need to be prepared to defend the quality of their work.
• In question #7, about 84 percent of respondents reported that they “Often” and “Always”
perform work suited to their values.

This last point seems quite important in that it is likely these values can serve to form the moral
and ethical foundation for internal auditors to garner sufficient strength to address the caveats
described in the previous six points. The result would no doubt be an improved internal audit
product. The above unusual situations could be productive areas for a study group.

Balasan responden dari Tabel 9 dibahas dalam hal peringatan bahwa auditor internal dan
profesi secara keseluruhan perlu diingat ketika mereka melakukan audit internal:

 Dalam pertanyaan # 1, sekitar 18 persen dari auditor internal mengatakan bahwa

mereka diharuskan untuk melakukan pekerjaan audit yang harus dilakukan secara
berbeda "Sering" dan "Selalu," dengan 54 persen melaporkan "Kadang-kadang." Ini
tampaknya menyiratkan bahwa, dalam banyak kasus, auditor harus waspada terhadap
tekanan-tekanan ini untuk menentukan bahwa proses audit internal sesuai dengan
prinsip-prinsip praktik audit yang baik.
 Dalam pertanyaan # 2, sekitar 10 persen responden percaya bahwa mereka "Sering"
dan hampir "Selalu" bekerja di bawah kebijakan dan pedoman audit yang tidak
kompatibel, dengan 25 persen lainnya mengalami situasi ini "Kadang-kadang." Masalah
ini bisa serius dan indikasi yang memungkinkan. masalah audit yang saling
 bertentangan. Situasi ini harus ditelusuri dengan hati-hati menggunakan metode studi
kasus untuk mencapai pemahaman yang lebih dalam tentang masalah.
 Dalam pertanyaan # 3, sekitar hanya 2 persen responden merasa terdorong "Sering"
dan "Selalu" untuk melanggar aturan audit internal atau eksternal atau kebijakan untuk
melaksanakan penugasan audit, dengan 8 persen lainnya mengalami paparan ini
"Kadang-kadang." Tetapi , walaupun relatif kecil, berdasarkan persentase, situasi ini
dapat menjadi serius jika anggota manajemen, terutama anggota senior, memberikan
tekanan untuk mencakup situasi yang dapat meningkatkan risiko jangka panjang bagi
organisasi. Situasi ini juga menjamin dipelajari lebih banyak pada level yang lebih
dalam.
 Dalam pertanyaan # 4, sekitar 48 persen responden menyatakan mereka bekerja
"Sering" dan "Selalu" dengan dua atau lebih kelompok yang berpikir dan beroperasi
secara berbeda dan 30 persen lainnya yang bekerja dalam situasi ini "Kadang-kadang."
Dengan demikian, potensi ketidakcocokan permintaan dan / atau arahan tidak hanya
dapat menyebabkan kebingungan dalam proses audit tetapi juga, dalam beberapa
kasus, dapat memodifikasi atau mengurangi tujuan audit dasar. Selain itu, dapat
mengakibatkan lebih banyak kesulitan untuk mendapatkan diaudit dan manajemen
penerimaan produk audit akhir.
 Dalam pertanyaan # 5, sekitar 13 persen responden mengungkapkan bahwa mereka
“Sering” dan “Selalu” menerima permintaan yang tidak kompatibel dari orang lain atau
unit selama audit, dengan 31 persen lainnya yang mengalami permintaan ini “Kadang-
kadang.” Dengan demikian, auditor internal perlu dipersiapkan untuk berjaga-jaga
terhadap potensi ancaman terhadap integritas proses audit dan hasil yang ada dalam
sejumlah kasus yang adil.
 Dalam pertanyaan # 6, sekitar 20 persen responden mengindikasikan bahwa mereka
"Sering" dan "Selalu" melakukan pekerjaan audit yang dapat diterima oleh sebagian
orang tetapi tidak bagi orang lain, dengan sekitar 39 persen melaporkan pengalaman ini
"Kadang-kadang." Poin ini memperkuat realitas politik dalam organisasi formal yang
perlu disiapkan oleh auditor internal untuk mempertahankan kualitas pekerjaan mereka.
 Dalam pertanyaan # 7, sekitar 84 persen responden melaporkan bahwa mereka “Sering”
dan “Selalu” melakukan pekerjaan yang sesuai dengan nilai-nilai mereka.

Poin terakhir ini tampaknya cukup penting karena kemungkinan nilai-nilai ini dapat berfungsi
untuk membentuk landasan moral dan etika bagi auditor internal untuk mendapatkan kekuatan
yang cukup untuk mengatasi peringatan yang dijelaskan dalam enam poin sebelumnya.
Hasilnya tidak diragukan lagi akan menjadi produk audit internal yang ditingkatkan. Situasi yang
tidak biasa di atas dapat menjadi area yang produktif untuk kelompok studi.

Communication Practices

In this section of research, we were interested in the communication practices between the
internal auditor and the auditee during the course of the audit. Thus, the communication
practices of interest here are essentially those related to the internal audit process and not so
much the formal reporting to the audit committee or the board (or less acceptable reporting lines
to the chief executive officer [CEO], or worse, the chief financial officer [CFO]). The term
“communication” can include any type — verbal, written, procedural, and so on.

Internal auditors were asked about the degree to which they employed various communication
practices regarding subjects typically encountered in audit situations with auditees. These
communications practices include asking about ethical matters, using persuasion to bring an
auditee into agreement, discussing potential auditee involvement in the audit, seeking
consensus with an auditee, reviewing (and discussing) audit results, and requesting
suggestions from the auditee. The questions provide only a broad sampling of situations in
which communication practices occur during the internal audit process. But the responses to
these questions have the potential to indicate where communication practices might need more
attention, which are summarized in Table 10. This focused attention on communication could
serve as yet another approach to improve the quality of the internal audit process.

Praktik Komunikasi

Pada bagian penelitian ini, kami tertarik pada praktik komunikasi antara auditor internal dan
pihak yang diaudit selama audit. Dengan demikian, praktik komunikasi yang menarik di sini
pada dasarnya adalah yang terkait dengan proses audit internal dan tidak begitu banyak
pelaporan formal kepada komite audit atau dewan (atau jalur pelaporan kurang dapat diterima
oleh chief executive officer [CEO], atau lebih buruk, chief financial officer [CFO]). Istilah
"komunikasi" dapat mencakup semua jenis - verbal, tertulis, prosedural, dan sebagainya.

Auditor internal ditanya tentang sejauh mana mereka menggunakan berbagai praktik
komunikasi mengenai subyek yang biasanya ditemui dalam situasi audit dengan pihak yang
diaudit. Praktik komunikasi ini termasuk menanyakan tentang masalah etika, menggunakan
persuasi untuk membawa pihak yang diaudit ke dalam perjanjian, membahas potensi
keterlibatan pihak yang diaudit dalam audit, mencari konsensus dengan pihak yang diaudit,
mengkaji (dan mendiskusikan) hasil audit, dan meminta saran dari pihak yang diaudit.
Pertanyaan-pertanyaan hanya memberikan contoh luas situasi di mana praktik komunikasi
terjadi selama proses audit internal. Tetapi tanggapan terhadap pertanyaan-pertanyaan ini
memiliki potensi untuk menunjukkan di mana praktik komunikasi mungkin perlu lebih banyak
perhatian, yang dirangkum dalam Tabel 10. Perhatian yang terfokus pada komunikasi ini dapat
menjadi pendekatan lain untuk meningkatkan kualitas proses audit internal.
1. Asking About Ethical Matters
Internal auditors are often in an excellent position to observe evidence that unethical practices
have occurred, both internally within the organization and/or externally relative to customers,
vendors, financial institutions, government agencies, or society. Moreover, it is not uncommon
for auditees to experience moral dilemmas when ethical matters arise. Therefore, we asked
internal auditors about their experience relative to asking the auditee about seeking assistance
when faced with these ethical matters (see Table 10).
Given the importance of ethics to the underlying quality of any organization, especially after the
events that led to the passage of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the survey responses
on this question were expected to be more toward “Always” and “Often.” The respondents,
however, indicated only 5 percent “Always” and 21 percent “Often,” compared with 33 percent
“Occasionally,” 28 percent “Rarely,” and 11 percent “Never.” Possibly the respondents did not
ask this question per se — but they may not have brought up questions on ethical matters at all,
except perhaps only after discovering ethical exceptions during the audit. Understandably,
ethical discussions are sensitive, yet when auditors raise such questions on ethical matters,
there is the possibility they could be raising the level of ethical consciousness in the eyes of the
auditee. By doing so, internal auditors, it would seem, are in a position to indirectly influence
and possibly persuade the auditee to think and act more proactively about ethical matters in the
course of their daily activities.

For the next four communication practices (see Table 10, Practices 2 - 5), we asked internal
auditors about the frequency of the use of four basic objectives of communication during the
conduct of the internal audit process. Briefly, these four basic objectives of communication are
to: 
• Bring auditee (into agreement with) auditor’s point of view.
• Reach agreement in basic audit objectives with auditee.
• Discuss areas where the auditee can perform some aspects of the audit.
• Achieve consensus on the standards of measurement in the audit process.
These four objectives are in addition to the provision of specific information relative to the
internal audit process that is useful for the presentation of audit findings.

2. Using Persuasion to Bring the Auditee (into agreement with) the Auditor’s Point of
View
We asked internal auditors to indicate the amount of times they use persuasive communication
techniques to bring auditees into agreement with their position. Respondents indicated 6
percent “Always” and 43 percent “Often” — about 50 percent of the respondents using this
communication technique frequently — with another 39 percent indicating “Occasionally.” Could
it be that internal auditors might not always consider “their point of view” to be necessarily the
best? While 50 percent use this communication practice, there are the remaining 50 percent,
most of whom only use this practice occasionally. Perhaps this latter 50 percent might consist of
a group that is more open-minded, respecting the view that auditees perhaps know their
operations better than the internal auditors, who should respect this fact by being astute
listeners. Those who did not try to persuade were almost evenly divided between auditors with
bachelor’s degrees and those with advanced degrees. Surprising? Also surprising is that those
who did not try to persuade were almost equally divided as to organizational level: staff,
managers, and directors.

1. Bertanya Tentang Masalah Etis

Auditor internal sering dalam posisi yang sangat baik untuk mengamati bukti bahwa praktik-
praktik tidak etis telah terjadi, baik secara internal di dalam organisasi dan / atau secara
eksternal relatif terhadap pelanggan, vendor, lembaga keuangan, lembaga pemerintah, atau
masyarakat. Selain itu, tidak jarang bagi orang yang diaudit mengalami dilema moral ketika
masalah etika muncul. Oleh karena itu, kami bertanya kepada auditor internal tentang
pengalaman mereka dibandingkan dengan menanyakan kepada auditee tentang mencari
bantuan ketika dihadapkan dengan masalah etika ini (lihat Tabel 10).
Mengingat pentingnya etika terhadap kualitas yang mendasari organisasi mana pun, terutama
setelah peristiwa yang menyebabkan berlalunya Undang-Undang Sarbanes-Oxley AS tahun
2002, respons survei tentang pertanyaan ini diharapkan lebih mengarah pada "Selalu" dan
"Sering kali". . ”Namun, responden hanya mengindikasikan 5 persen“ Selalu ”dan 21 persen“
Sering, ”dibandingkan dengan 33 persen“ Kadang-kadang, ”28 persen“ Jarang, ”dan 11 persen“
Tidak pernah. ”Mungkin responden tidak menanyakan pertanyaan ini per se - tetapi mereka
mungkin tidak mengajukan pertanyaan tentang masalah etika sama sekali, kecuali mungkin
hanya setelah menemukan pengecualian etika selama audit. Dapat dimengerti, diskusi etis
sensitif, namun ketika auditor mengajukan pertanyaan tentang masalah etika, ada kemungkinan
mereka dapat meningkatkan tingkat kesadaran etis di mata pihak yang diaudit. Dengan
demikian, auditor internal, tampaknya, berada dalam posisi untuk mempengaruhi secara tidak
langsung dan mungkin membujuk pihak yang diaudit untuk berpikir dan bertindak lebih proaktif
tentang masalah etika dalam kegiatan sehari-hari mereka.

Untuk empat praktik komunikasi berikutnya (lihat Tabel 10, Praktik 2 - 5), kami bertanya kepada
auditor internal tentang frekuensi penggunaan empat tujuan dasar komunikasi selama
pelaksanaan proses audit internal. Secara singkat, empat tujuan dasar komunikasi ini adalah
untuk:
 Bawa orang yang diaudit (setuju dengan) sudut pandang auditor.
 Mencapai kesepakatan dalam tujuan audit dasar dengan auditee.
 Diskusikan area di mana pihak yang diaudit dapat melakukan beberapa aspek audit.
 Mencapai konsensus tentang standar pengukuran dalam proses audit.
Keempat tujuan ini selain pemberian informasi spesifik relatif terhadap proses audit internal
yang berguna untuk penyajian temuan audit.

2. Menggunakan Persuasi untuk Membawa Auditee (ke dalam perjanjian dengan) Sudut
Pandang Auditor
Kami meminta auditor internal untuk menunjukkan berapa kali mereka menggunakan teknik
komunikasi persuasif untuk membuat pihak yang diaudit setuju dengan posisi mereka.
Responden menunjukkan 6 persen "Selalu" dan 43 persen "Sering" - sekitar 50 persen
 responden sering menggunakan teknik komunikasi ini - dengan 39 persen lainnya
menunjukkan "Kadang-kadang." Mungkinkah bahwa auditor internal mungkin tidak selalu
mempertimbangkan "sudut pandang mereka" ”Untuk menjadi yang terbaik? Sementara 50
persen menggunakan praktik komunikasi ini, ada 50 persen sisanya, yang sebagian besar
hanya menggunakan praktik ini sesekali. Mungkin 50 persen terakhir ini mungkin terdiri dari
kelompok yang lebih berpikiran terbuka, menghormati pandangan bahwa auditee mungkin
tahu operasi mereka lebih baik daripada auditor internal, yang harus menghargai fakta ini
dengan menjadi pendengar yang cerdik. Mereka yang tidak mencoba membujuk hampir
terbagi rata antara auditor dengan gelar sarjana dan mereka yang memiliki gelar sarjana.
Mengejutkan? Yang juga mengejutkan adalah bahwa mereka yang tidak mencoba
membujuk hampir terbagi sama rata pada tingkat organisasi: staf, manajer, dan direktur.

3. Discussing Basic Audit Objectives with the Auditee

We asked internal auditors to indicate the frequency with which they discussed the basic
objectives of the audit with the auditee (along with asking for suggestions). Respondents
reported 45 percent “Always” and another 37 percent “Often” — about 82 percent total as highly
using this communication practice — with another 13 percent “Occasionally.” In the interest of
developing a cooperative attitude, the internal auditor may ask for suggestions as to audit
content and methods. This approach is progressive — the auditor can be guided by these
suggestions, when appropriate.

4. Discussing Potential Auditee Involvement in the Audit

We asked internal auditors to indicate the extent to which they discussed areas where the
auditee could perform some aspects of the audit. Here the results from respondents were
dispersed more broadly, with only 5 percent stating they discuss this “Always” and 18 percent
“Often,” with 31 percent stating “Occasionally” and 29 percent “Rarely.” It is suspected that the
nature and purpose of the audit and other circumstances surrounding the audit can determine
how often an internal auditor might engage in this practice with the auditee. However,
experience has shown that the auditee can perform many audit tests and, under supervision
and review, can develop findings that are useful and usually beyond auditee dispute. However,
the identities of those who did not attempt to encourage auditee participation in the audit are
illustrated in Table 11.

3. Membahas Tujuan Audit Dasar dengan Auditee

Kami meminta auditor internal untuk menunjukkan frekuensi mereka mendiskusikan tujuan
dasar audit dengan pihak yang diaudit (bersama dengan meminta saran). Responden
melaporkan 45 persen "Selalu" dan 37 persen lainnya "Sering" - sekitar 82 persen total
menggunakan praktik komunikasi ini - dengan 13 persen lainnya "Kadang-kadang." Demi
mengembangkan sikap kerja sama, auditor internal dapat meminta saran untuk mengaudit
konten dan metode. Pendekatan ini progresif - auditor dapat dipandu oleh saran-saran ini,
jika sesuai.

4. Membahas Potensi Keterlibatan Auditee dalam Audit

Kami meminta auditor internal untuk menunjukkan sejauh mana mereka membahas area di
mana pihak yang diaudit dapat melakukan beberapa aspek audit. Di sini, hasil dari
responden tersebar lebih luas, dengan hanya 5 persen menyatakan mereka membahas ini
"Selalu" dan 18 persen "Sering," dengan 31 persen menyatakan "Kadang-kadang" dan 29
persen "Jarang." Diperkirakan bahwa sifat dan tujuan audit dan keadaan lain di sekitar audit
dapat menentukan seberapa sering auditor internal dapat terlibat dalam praktik ini dengan
pihak yang diaudit. Namun, pengalaman telah menunjukkan bahwa pihak yang diaudit dapat
melakukan banyak tes audit dan, di bawah pengawasan dan tinjauan, dapat
 mengembangkan temuan yang berguna dan biasanya di luar sengketa pihak yang diaudit.
Namun, identitas mereka yang tidak berusaha mendorong partisipasi pihak yang diaudit
dalam audit diilustrasikan dalam Tabel 11.

This substantial lack of interest in auditee participation is unfortunate from a professional and
financial point of view. Participation can result in increased auditee acceptance of the audit
results and provide more depth to the audit examination.

5. Seeking Consensus with the Auditee

Finally, we asked internal auditors to indicate how often they seek to achieve consensus with
the auditee on the standards of measurement to be used in the audit. Here, respondents
indicated 17 percent “Always” and 36 percent “Often” use this practice, with 25 percent
indicating that they “Occasionally” used it, 15 percent “Rarely,” and 5 percent “Never.” Again,
the responses are rather dispersed. This distribution is surprising, especially with the 20 percent
who indicated that they “Rarely” and “Never” use this practice. The agreement between auditor
and auditee as to the “standards of measurement” to be used in the evaluation of auditee
performance should be a fundamental requirement for obvious reasons. There should be
discussions about standards for evaluation to gain acceptance of the audit’s results in the
auditee’s mind. Experience seems to indicate that preliminary discussion of standards usually
will gain auditee acceptance — and under some circumstances, the auditor’s standards may be
unrealistic or inappropriate. This element of the audit is important. A further analysis of those not
seeking consensus on the standards of measurement is presented in Table 12.

Kurangnya minat dalam partisipasi auditee ini sangat disayangkan dari sudut pandang
profesional dan finansial. Partisipasi dapat menghasilkan peningkatan penerimaan auditee atas
hasil audit dan memberikan kedalaman pemeriksaan audit.

5. Mencari Konsensus dengan Auditee

Akhirnya, kami meminta auditor internal untuk menunjukkan seberapa sering mereka
berusaha untuk mencapai konsensus dengan pihak yang diaudit mengenai standar
pengukuran yang akan digunakan dalam audit. Di sini, responden mengindikasikan 17
persen "Selalu" dan 36 persen "Sering" menggunakan praktik ini, dengan 25 persen
menunjukkan bahwa mereka "Kadang-kadang" menggunakannya, 15 persen "Jarang," dan 5
persen "Tidak pernah." Sekali lagi, responsnya agak tersebar. Distribusi ini mengejutkan,
terutama dengan 20 persen yang mengindikasikan bahwa mereka "Jarang" dan "Tidak
Pernah" menggunakan praktik ini. Perjanjian antara auditor dan pihak yang diaudit tentang
"standar pengukuran" yang akan digunakan dalam evaluasi kinerja pihak yang diaudit harus
menjadi persyaratan mendasar karena alasan yang jelas. Harus ada diskusi tentang standar
untuk evaluasi untuk mendapatkan penerimaan hasil audit dalam benak auditee.
Pengalaman tampaknya menunjukkan bahwa diskusi awal tentang standar biasanya akan
mendapatkan penerimaan auditee - dan dalam beberapa keadaan, standar auditor mungkin
 tidak realistis atau tidak pantas. Unsur audit ini penting. Analisis lebih lanjut dari mereka yang
tidak mencari konsensus tentang standar pengukuran disajikan pada Tabel 12.

This distribution seems really surprising. One might expect that not seeking consensus would
be higher for those auditors with less formal education and who work at lower levels of the
organization. Instead, responses are relatively even across education and position levels, and
the position of director is higher than the manager and staff levels.

6. Reviewing (and Discussing) Audit Results

The final two communication practices (Table 10, Practices 6 - 7) have broader implications for
the conduct of the audit than the previous four. These communication practices occur at the
audit’s conclusion, thus all previous communication from its preliminary stages throughout the
conduct of the audit come together here. If done well, there should be no surprises between the
internal auditor and auditee, hopefully setting the stage for a positive audit conclusion and
effective implementation of recommendations for improvement.

Almost 56 percent of respondents indicated that they “Always” engage in this communication
practice, with another 36 percent indicating “Often” for a total of 92 percent. We should not be
too surprised from these results because this communication practice is standard procedure in
most internal audits. Given the high frequency of this practice, however, experience has shown
that it is prudent that the internal auditor’s ongoing communication with the auditee as the audit
progresses be such that when the time comes to review the total findings and discuss auditee
proposals, there are no surprises. This practice can go a long way toward building confidence
and trust with the auditee.

7. Requesting Suggestions from the Auditee

Finally, internal auditors were asked about the practice of requesting suggestions from auditees.
About 43 percent of the respondents indicated they “Always” use this method, with another 38
percent indicating “Occasionally,” for a total of 81 percent at the high frequency end. Again,
experience has shown that asking the auditee to identify other areas that should be reviewed
can bring the auditee into the audit process as an active participant with the hope that the
auditor and auditee will come together with a single objective — “continuous improvement.”

Interviewing Practices

Interviewing is one of the most important activities in the preliminary stage of the audit process.
It follows the initial research aspect of the audit — sometimes referred to as “reading into the
audit” and the “walk through” or physical inspection — and leads to the construction of the audit
program. Thus, if properly performed, interviewing can be immensely productive.
Distribusi ini tampaknya sangat mengejutkan. Orang mungkin berharap bahwa tidak mencari
konsensus akan lebih tinggi untuk auditor dengan pendidikan formal yang kurang dan yang
bekerja di tingkat yang lebih rendah dari organisasi. Sebaliknya, responsnya relatif merata di
seluruh tingkat pendidikan dan posisi, dan posisi direktur lebih tinggi daripada tingkat manajer
dan staf.

6. Meninjau (dan Membahas) Hasil Audit

Dua praktik komunikasi terakhir (Tabel 10, Praktik 6 - 7) memiliki implikasi yang lebih luas
untuk pelaksanaan audit dibandingkan empat praktik sebelumnya. Praktik komunikasi ini
terjadi pada kesimpulan audit, sehingga semua komunikasi sebelumnya dari tahap awal
sepanjang pelaksanaan audit datang bersama di sini. Jika dilakukan dengan baik,
seharusnya tidak ada kejutan antara auditor internal dan pihak yang diaudit, semoga
menetapkan tahapan untuk kesimpulan audit positif dan penerapan rekomendasi yang efektif
untuk perbaikan.

Hampir 56 persen responden menunjukkan bahwa mereka "Selalu" terlibat dalam praktik
komunikasi ini, dengan 36 persen lainnya menunjukkan "Sering" dengan total 92 persen. Kita
tidak boleh terlalu terkejut dengan hasil ini karena praktik komunikasi ini adalah prosedur
standar di sebagian besar audit internal. Mengingat frekuensi tinggi praktik ini, bagaimanapun,
pengalaman telah menunjukkan bahwa adalah bijaksana bahwa komunikasi berkelanjutan
auditor internal dengan auditee ketika audit berlangsung sedemikian rupa sehingga ketika tiba
saatnya untuk meninjau total temuan dan membahas proposal auditee, tidak ada kejutan.
Praktek ini bisa sangat membantu membangun kepercayaan dan kepercayaan dengan pihak
yang diaudit.

7. Meminta Saran dari Auditee

Akhirnya, auditor internal ditanyai tentang praktik meminta saran dari pihak yang diaudit.
Sekitar 43 persen responden menyatakan bahwa mereka "Selalu" menggunakan metode ini,
dengan 38 persen lainnya menunjukkan "Kadang-kadang," dengan total 81 persen pada
akhir frekuensi tinggi. Sekali lagi, pengalaman menunjukkan bahwa meminta pihak yang
diaudit untuk mengidentifikasi bidang-bidang lain yang harus ditinjau dapat membawa pihak
yang diaudit ke dalam proses audit sebagai peserta aktif dengan harapan bahwa auditor dan
pihak yang diaudit akan datang bersama dengan satu tujuan tunggal - “perbaikan
berkelanjutan.”

Praktek Wawancara

Wawancara adalah salah satu kegiatan terpenting dalam tahap awal proses audit. Ini mengikuti
aspek penelitian awal audit - kadang-kadang disebut sebagai "membaca ke dalam audit" dan
"berjalan melalui" atau inspeksi fisik - dan mengarah pada pembangunan program audit. Jadi,
jika dilakukan dengan benar, wawancara bisa sangat produktif.

In the process of interviewing, many specialists in the conversational arts have suggested that
interviewers use what are called “people-type questions” as a way of “breaking the ice” and
developing useful background information. In the context of the audit process, examples of
people-type questions that follow can be used to start the flow of information from the
interviewee:
• What tasks do you perform?
• What tasks does your immediate supervisor perform?
• What tasks do the people under your supervision perform?
• When you want a job done in a hurry, to whom do you turn?
• Who do you contact if you believe your job could be done more efficiently?
• Who do you contact if you believe that there are ethical problems?
• Who do you contact if there might be improper activities taking place?

The list is not exhaustive but readers will observe that the questions become more complex as
the series proceeds.

In this section of research, we were interested in the interviewing practices conducted between
the internal auditor and the auditee before conducting the audit. For survey purposes, we
identified four practices as to the content of interviews and thought it important to learn how
internal auditors viewed their usefulness (see Table 13).

Dalam proses wawancara, banyak spesialis dalam seni percakapan telah menyarankan bahwa
pewawancara menggunakan apa yang disebut "pertanyaan tipe orang" sebagai cara
"memecahkan kebekuan" dan mengembangkan informasi latar belakang yang bermanfaat.
Dalam konteks proses audit, contoh pertanyaan tipe orang yang mengikuti dapat digunakan
untuk memulai aliran informasi dari orang yang diwawancarai:
• Tugas apa yang Anda lakukan?
• Tugas apa yang dilakukan penyelia langsung Anda?
• Tugas apa yang dilakukan orang-orang di bawah pengawasan Anda?
• Ketika Anda ingin pekerjaan dilakukan dengan tergesa-gesa, kepada siapa Anda berpaling?
• Siapa yang Anda hubungi jika Anda yakin pekerjaan Anda dapat dilakukan dengan lebih
efisien?
• Siapa yang Anda hubungi jika Anda yakin ada masalah etika?
• Siapa yang Anda hubungi jika mungkin ada kegiatan tidak pantas yang terjadi?

Daftar ini tidak lengkap tetapi pembaca akan mengamati bahwa pertanyaan menjadi lebih
kompleks saat seri berlanjut.

Pada bagian penelitian ini, kami tertarik pada praktik wawancara yang dilakukan antara auditor
internal dan pihak yang diaudit sebelum melakukan audit. Untuk tujuan survei, kami
mengidentifikasi empat praktik mengenai isi wawancara dan menganggap penting untuk
mempelajari bagaimana auditor internal memandang kegunaannya (lihat Tabel 13).
Survey responses for these interviewing practices are discussed below.

1. To Focus Attention on Important Issues

Of the respondents, 47 percent indicated “Extremely Useful” followed by 42 percent “Very
Useful” for this area — with a total of 89 percent for these two categories. Interviewing for this
purpose seems to be well accepted by the respondents and perhaps by internal auditors in
general. Experience would seem to indicate that the benefits of focusing on important issues
would serve to reduce overall risk to the quality of the audit process.

2. To Defuse Emotional Reactions

Of the respondents, 30 percent selected “Extremely Useful” and 42 percent “Very Useful” on
this point, for a total of 72 percent. However, another 17 percent indicated “Moderately Useful.”
A relatively small percentage of respondents do not use it. A large majority of respondents
consider this important, though not as high as the previous practice. Experience seems to
indicate that the benefits of this practice would help promote a cordial atmosphere with the
auditee conducive to conducting a constructive audit outcome.

3. To Persuade Interviewees of the Soundness of the Questions Asked

Of the respondents, 17 percent chose “Extremely Useful,” 33 percent “Very Useful,” and 25
percent “Moderately Useful.” Respondents seem less inclined to consider this practice as useful
as the first two practices, though still useful. During the preparatory stages of the internal audit
process, the auditee might have questions about why the internal auditor believes certain audit
questions should be asked. So it seems important for the internal auditor to be able to persuade
the auditee of the soundness of these questions to gain the auditee’s cooperation during the
audit process.

4. To Facilitate Negotiation
Of the respondents, 24 percent indicated interviewing as “Extremely Useful,” 41 percent as
“Very Useful,” and 19 percent as “Moderately Useful” to facilitate negotiations, similar to the
distribution in #3 above. Interpretation of responses here seems to center on the usefulness of
facilitating negotiation on points of difference that arise with the auditee during the interview
process. Success here also points toward gaining the cooperation of the auditee so that the
audit proceeds positively and constructively.

Respons survei untuk praktik wawancara ini dibahas di bawah ini.

1. Untuk Memusatkan Perhatian pada Masalah-Masalah Penting

Dari responden, 47 persen menunjukkan "Sangat Berguna" diikuti oleh 42 persen "Sangat
Berguna" untuk daerah ini - dengan total 89 persen untuk dua kategori ini. Wawancara untuk
tujuan ini tampaknya diterima dengan baik oleh responden dan mungkin oleh auditor internal
pada umumnya. Pengalaman tampaknya menunjukkan bahwa manfaat dari fokus pada
masalah-masalah penting akan berfungsi untuk mengurangi risiko keseluruhan terhadap
kualitas proses audit.

2. Meredakan Reaksi Emosional

Dari responden, 30 persen memilih "Sangat Berguna" dan 42 persen "Sangat Berguna" pada
titik ini, dengan total 72 persen. Namun, 17 persen lainnya menunjukkan "Cukup Berguna."
Persentase responden yang relatif kecil tidak menggunakannya. Sebagian besar responden
menganggap ini penting, meskipun tidak setinggi praktik sebelumnya. Pengalaman
tampaknya menunjukkan bahwa manfaat dari praktik ini akan membantu mempromosikan
atmosfer yang ramah dengan pihak yang diaudit kondusif untuk melakukan hasil audit yang
konstruktif.

3. Untuk meyakinkan orang yang diwawancarai tentang Tingkat Kesehatan Pertanyaan yang
Diajukan
Dari responden, 17 persen memilih "Sangat Berguna," 33 persen "Sangat Berguna," dan 25
persen "Cukup Berguna." Responden tampaknya kurang cenderung menganggap praktik ini
bermanfaat seperti dua praktik pertama, meskipun masih bermanfaat. Selama tahap
persiapan dari proses audit internal, auditee mungkin memiliki pertanyaan tentang mengapa
auditor internal percaya pertanyaan audit tertentu harus ditanyakan. Jadi sepertinya penting
bagi auditor internal untuk dapat membujuk pihak yang diaudit tentang kesehatan
pertanyaan-pertanyaan ini untuk mendapatkan kerja sama pihak yang diaudit selama proses
audit.

4. Untuk Memfasilitasi Negosiasi

Dari responden, 24 persen mengindikasikan wawancara sebagai "Sangat Berguna," 41
persen sebagai "Sangat Berguna," dan 19 persen sebagai "Cukup Berguna" untuk
memfasilitasi negosiasi, mirip dengan distribusi di # 3 di atas. Interpretasi tanggapan di sini
tampaknya berpusat pada kegunaan memfasilitasi negosiasi pada titik perbedaan yang
timbul dengan pihak yang diaudit selama proses wawancara. Keberhasilan di sini juga
menunjuk ke arah mendapatkan kerja sama pihak yang diaudit sehingga audit berlangsung
secara positif dan konstruktif.

Overall, the above responses to the four intentions of interviewing tend to direct attention to the
importance of developing and maintaining these interviewing skills. By doing so, the auditor is
more enabled, especially in the preliminary stages of the audit process, to promote quality and
reduce risk in conducting the internal audit.

Conflict Resolution
It is conventional wisdom that conflict is present in most organizations, showing itself in varying
degrees and sometimes between organizational units relative to (1) the methods of performance
of activities, (2) “turf’ problems — areas of responsibility, (3) competition for scarce resources,
and (4) differences in personal and professional values, attitudes, and beliefs.
Conflict is also often a natural byproduct of the internal audit process. Thus, managing conflict is
a primary responsibility of the internal auditor. The profession has long examined the problem
and, over time, a series of anecdotal approaches has evolved. We included these approaches
in the survey, hoping to see how the respondents viewed their use and effectiveness. Table 14
summarizes the responses.

Secara keseluruhan, tanggapan di atas untuk empat niat wawancara cenderung mengarahkan
perhatian pada pentingnya mengembangkan dan mempertahankan keterampilan wawancara
ini. Dengan demikian, auditor lebih dimungkinkan, terutama pada tahap awal proses audit,
untuk meningkatkan kualitas dan mengurangi risiko dalam melakukan audit internal.

Resolusi konflik
Ini adalah kebijaksanaan konvensional bahwa konflik hadir di sebagian besar organisasi,
menunjukkan dirinya dalam tingkat yang berbeda-beda dan kadang-kadang antara unit
organisasi relatif terhadap (1) metode kinerja kegiatan, (2) masalah “wilayah” - bidang tanggung
jawab, (3) persaingan untuk sumber daya yang langka, dan (4) perbedaan dalam nilai, sikap,
dan kepercayaan pribadi dan profesional.
Konflik juga sering merupakan produk sampingan alami dari proses audit internal. Dengan
demikian, mengelola konflik adalah tanggung jawab utama auditor internal. Profesi telah lama
memeriksa masalah dan, seiring waktu, serangkaian pendekatan anekdotal telah berkembang.
Kami memasukkan pendekatan ini dalam survei, berharap untuk melihat bagaimana responden
memandang penggunaan dan efektivitasnya. Tabel 14 merangkum tanggapan.

1. Concentrate on People Issues

Regarding approaches that concentrate on people issues, respondents indicated that 20
percent of the time — a fairly large percentage — they did not use this approach. Of those who
did, about 77 percent considered it effective but in varying degrees in a somewhat normal curve
— 9 percent considered it “Not at All Effective,” 17 percent only “Slightly Effective,” 29 percent
“Moderately Effective,” 17 percent “Very Effective,” and 5 percent “Extremely Effective.”
Perhaps much might depend on how respondents interpreted this approach given the highly
analytical nature of the internal audit profession.

2. Separate Individuals from the Context of Conflict

This approach — identifying issues rather than people — seems to resonate strongly with
respondents. About 86 percent of respondents considered this approach to be either “Extremely
Effective” or “Very Effective.” This approach seems to have the
effect of directing discussions discretely to points held more objectively and away from those
that might pose as threats to one’s personal and professional reputation.

3. Consider the Other Side of the Conflict

Similarly, about 82 percent of respondents believed that consideration of the other side of
conflict were either “Very Effective” or “Extremely Effective.” This approach has the advantage
of giving the auditee the opportunity to be heard (or listened to) and respected, thus perhaps
injecting a sense of fairness into the audit process.

4. Involve the Auditee in Resolution

For involving the auditee in resolution of conflict, about 89 percent considered this approach to
be either “Extremely Effective” or “Very Effective.” This approach has the effect of creating a
partnering or collegial context to achieve a positive audit outcome, thus possibly reducing risk of
conflict in the internal audit process.

5. Discuss Emotions Openly, Including Stakes and Reputations

Similar to approach #1, 20 percent of respondents indicated that they did not use this approach.
Again, this is a fairly large percentage. Of those who did, about 71 percent considered it
effective in varying degrees — approximately 5 percent considered it “Not at All Effective,” 15
percent considered it only “Slightly Effective,” 27 percent “Moderately Effective,” 20 percent
“Very Effective,” and 9 percent “Extremely Effective,” a somewhat normal curve. Again, perhaps
much might depend on how respondents interpreted this approach given the highly analytical
nature of the internal audit profession.

6. Communicate, Listen, and Try to Comprehend

As for this approach, about 93 percent of the respondents considered it to be either “Very
Effective” or “Extremely Effective.” Given the virtual universal quality of this approach, it would
seem that it could be used in conjunction with all other approaches. And given its broad
acceptance by respondents, one might also wonder if it could improve their success with other
approaches.

7. Avoid Accusatory or Inflammatory Comments

Similarly, almost the converse to the approach in #6, to avoid accusatory or inflammatory
comments, about 91 percent of respondents considered this approach to be either “Very
Effective” or “Extremely Effective.”
Resolving conflict is probably one of the most important aspects of the internal audit process.
The internal auditor is most effective when he or she can resolve conflict or, better yet, avoid it
altogether. The auditee is more likely to accept the audit results as a constructive part of the
management process, something to be sought after as an operational asset for good
management.
1. Berkonsentrasi pada Masalah Orang
Mengenai pendekatan yang berkonsentrasi pada masalah orang, responden menunjukkan
bahwa 20 persen dari waktu - persentase yang cukup besar - mereka tidak menggunakan
pendekatan ini. Dari mereka yang melakukannya, sekitar 77 persen menganggapnya efektif
tetapi dalam berbagai derajat dalam kurva yang agak normal - 9 persen menganggapnya
"Tidak Sama sekali Efektif," hanya 17 persen "Sedikit Efektif," 29 persen "Cukup Efektif," 17
persen " Sangat Efektif, ”dan 5 persen“ Sangat Efektif. ”Mungkin banyak yang mungkin
bergantung pada bagaimana responden menafsirkan pendekatan ini mengingat sifat analitis
profesi audit internal yang sangat analitis.

2. Pisahkan Individu dari Konteks Konflik

Pendekatan ini - mengidentifikasi masalah daripada orang - tampaknya beresonansi kuat
dengan responden. Sekitar 86 persen responden menganggap pendekatan ini sebagai
"Sangat Efektif" atau "Sangat Efektif." Pendekatan ini tampaknya memiliki efek mengarahkan
diskusi secara diam-diam ke poin-poin yang diadakan dengan lebih obyektif dan jauh dari
hal-hal yang dapat menimbulkan ancaman bagi reputasi pribadi dan profesional seseorang.

3. Pertimbangkan Sisi Lain dari Konflik

Demikian pula, sekitar 82 persen responden percaya bahwa pertimbangan pihak lain dari
konflik adalah “Sangat Efektif” atau “Sangat Efektif.” Pendekatan ini memiliki keuntungan
memberikan kesempatan kepada pihak yang diaudit untuk didengar (atau didengarkan) dan
dihormati, jadi mungkin menyuntikkan rasa keadilan ke dalam proses audit.

4. Libatkan Auditee dalam Resolusi

Untuk melibatkan auditee dalam penyelesaian konflik, sekitar 89 persen menganggap
pendekatan ini sebagai "Sangat Efektif" atau "Sangat Efektif." Pendekatan ini memiliki efek
menciptakan konteks kemitraan atau kolegial untuk mencapai hasil audit positif, sehingga
mungkin mengurangi risiko konflik dalam proses audit internal.

5. Diskusikan Emosi Secara Terbuka, Termasuk Pasak dan Reputasi

Mirip dengan pendekatan # 1, 20 persen responden menunjukkan bahwa mereka tidak
menggunakan pendekatan ini. Sekali lagi, ini adalah persentase yang cukup besar. Dari
mereka yang melakukannya, sekitar 71 persen menganggapnya efektif dalam berbagai
tingkat - sekitar 5 persen menganggapnya "Tidak Sama sekali Efektif," 15 persen
menganggapnya hanya "Sedikit Efektif," 27 persen "Cukup Efektif," 20 persen "Sangat
Efektif, ”Dan 9 persen“ Sangat Efektif, ”kurva yang agak normal. Sekali lagi, mungkin banyak
yang tergantung pada bagaimana responden menafsirkan pendekatan ini mengingat sifat
analitis profesi audit yang sangat tinggi.

6. Berkomunikasi, Mendengarkan, dan Mencoba Memahami

Adapun pendekatan ini, sekitar 93 persen responden menganggapnya sebagai "Sangat
Efektif" atau "Sangat Efektif." Mengingat kualitas universal virtual dari pendekatan ini,
tampaknya itu dapat digunakan dalam hubungannya dengan semua pendekatan lain. Dan
mengingat penerimaannya yang luas oleh responden, orang mungkin juga bertanya-tanya
apakah itu dapat meningkatkan keberhasilan mereka dengan pendekatan lain.

7. Hindari Komentar Menuduh atau Radang

Demikian pula, hampir kebalikan dari pendekatan di # 6, untuk menghindari komentar
menuduh atau menghasut, sekitar 91 persen responden menganggap pendekatan ini
sebagai "Sangat Efektif" atau "Sangat Efektif."
 Menyelesaikan konflik mungkin merupakan salah satu aspek terpenting dari proses audit
internal. Auditor internal paling efektif ketika ia dapat menyelesaikan konflik atau, lebih baik,
menghindarinya sama sekali. Pihak yang diaudit lebih mungkin menerima hasil audit sebagai
bagian konstruktif dari proses manajemen, sesuatu yang harus dicari sebagai aset
operasional untuk manajemen yang baik.

Overcoming Hostility
Unfortunately, internal auditors sometimes experience a deep-seated antagonism or hostility,
either expressed or unexpressed, toward the internal audit process itself. In a general sense, no
one likes to be investigated or audited. The very concept of an audit implies that the auditor
must find some questionable items to justify his or her activity. Also, most auditees are aware of
some activities that could be improved and are apprehensive that the auditors will find them
before they, the auditees, have had a chance to improve them themselves.

When internal auditors do come up with findings or areas of activities that could be improved,
the auditee might object. In some cases, the auditee’s objection is supported — the auditor’s
position may be inappropriate. For instance, the imposition of a new control might reduce risk or
result in a more efficient operation but the impact on costs may be unacceptable. In many
cases, though, disagreement may be simply related to some principle, content, method, time,
amount, procedure, or other reason. Often, such disagreements need to be resolved by
beginning with approaches discussed in the previous section on conflict resolution.

Internal auditors, however, are bound to run into some deep-seated antagonism or hostility in
some audits. While an internal auditor presents his or her points of view reasonably and
logically, the auditee may sometimes remain adamant, unhearing, unconvinced, and completely
negative, or simply refuse to engage in any discussion. These confrontations happen now and
again — people are people. It is a closed-minded syndrome and there is no master key. Hostility
to the audit process per se is a difficult attitude to overcome. Thus, it becomes important for the
internal auditor to maintain an open mind since the resolution of deep-seated antagonism or
hostility requires additional effort and skill. The alternative to early resolution, of course, is to
publish the audit report as the auditor sees it and allow the auditee object by conference or
correspondence. Resolution, however, before the issuance of the audit report is always most
desirable.

We were interested in asking internal auditors about their approaches to reduce deep- seated
antagonism or hostility during the course of the audit. Their responses are summarized in Table
15.

Mengatasi Permusuhan
Sayangnya, auditor internal kadang-kadang mengalami permusuhan atau permusuhan yang
mendalam, baik yang diungkapkan atau tidak diungkapkan, terhadap proses audit internal itu
sendiri. Secara umum, tidak ada yang suka diselidiki atau diaudit. Konsep audit menyiratkan
bahwa auditor harus menemukan beberapa item yang dipertanyakan untuk membenarkan
kegiatannya. Juga, sebagian besar pihak yang diaudit mengetahui beberapa kegiatan yang
dapat ditingkatkan dan khawatir bahwa auditor akan menemukannya sebelum mereka, pihak
yang diaudit, memiliki kesempatan untuk memperbaikinya sendiri.

Ketika auditor internal menemukan temuan atau bidang kegiatan yang dapat ditingkatkan,
auditee mungkin keberatan. Dalam beberapa kasus, keberatan pihak yang diaudit didukung -
posisi auditor mungkin tidak tepat. Misalnya, pengenaan kontrol baru dapat mengurangi risiko
atau menghasilkan operasi yang lebih efisien tetapi dampak pada biaya mungkin tidak dapat
diterima. Namun, dalam banyak kasus, ketidaksepakatan mungkin hanya terkait dengan
beberapa prinsip, isi, metode, waktu, jumlah, prosedur, atau alasan lainnya. Seringkali,
perselisihan seperti itu perlu diselesaikan dengan memulai dengan pendekatan yang dibahas
pada bagian sebelumnya tentang resolusi konflik.

Auditor internal, bagaimanapun, terikat dengan beberapa pertentangan mendalam atau

permusuhan dalam beberapa audit. Sementara auditor internal menyajikan pandangannya
secara wajar dan logis, pihak yang diaudit terkadang tetap bersikukuh, tidak mendengar, tidak
yakin, dan benar-benar negatif, atau hanya menolak untuk terlibat dalam diskusi apa pun.
Konfrontasi ini terjadi berulang-ulang - manusia adalah manusia. Ini adalah sindrom berpikiran
tertutup dan tidak ada kunci utama. Permusuhan terhadap proses audit itu sendiri adalah sikap
yang sulit untuk diatasi. Dengan demikian, menjadi penting bagi auditor internal untuk
mempertahankan pikiran terbuka karena penyelesaian pertentangan atau permusuhan yang
mendalam membutuhkan upaya dan keterampilan tambahan. Alternatif untuk resolusi awal,
tentu saja, adalah dengan mempublikasikan laporan audit sebagaimana auditor melihatnya dan
mengizinkan objek yang diaudit melalui konferensi atau korespondensi. Resolusi,
bagaimanapun, sebelum penerbitan laporan audit selalu paling diinginkan.

Kami tertarik untuk bertanya kepada auditor internal tentang pendekatan mereka untuk
mengurangi antagonisme mendalam atau permusuhan selama audit. Respons mereka
dirangkum dalam Tabel 15.

Survey respondents apparently have had some success in the resolution of adverse attitudes
using the above approaches. The shaded responses in 10 of the 12 approaches appear to be
what one would normally expect from those who are generally successful with overcoming
hostility. In all of these approaches, there was an approximate normal curve from “Moderately”
to “Extremely Effective,” with the mode being “Very Effective.” The curve tails were minor. The
approach in #12 — try to resolve conflict involving values — yielded an almost flat distribution,
with a modest mode somewhere between “Occasionally” at 27 percent and “Often” at 26
percent. This distribution did not seem to say much and the question might have suffered from
unfortunate wording. The approach that did not resemble a normal curve was #3 — do not rely
on logic. The distribution was highly unusual and might also have been due to unfortunate
wording. The meaning intended, “do not over rely on logic,” perhaps might have yielded different
results.
Thus, with the exception of the two approaches above, the overall responses for the remaining
approaches to resolve deep-seated antagonism or hostility with modes under the category “Very
Effective” were quite encouraging.

Management of Change

If there is a consistent thread of audit-induced concern running through the mind of the auditee,
it is “change.” In most every audit, the report is replete with many recommendations for change.
In the minds of most auditees, change is not popular. In many cases, it is “uncomfortable in the
least and feared in the most.” There are a number of reasons for this rejection of change
resulting from the audit process. Some are:
• Ego. It indicates that the auditee was not performing properly.
• Cost. The change, even for control improvement, may cost more than the potential
savings.
• Performance. The auditee and associated units and their staffs will have to revise
their operations and learn new ones.
• Relationship. There will have to be new relationships with both horizontal and vertical
organizations with which the auditee functions.
• Intellectual. The auditee and staff will have to modify their thinking to accept the
philosophy of the new process.
• Unknown. Generally, this is a fear of unknown results affecting areas other than
those above.

Because of these influences, often the concept of change is not very popular and the internal
auditor must try to alleviate some of the auditee’s fears and apprehensions. This procedure has
resulted in the development of approaches to resolve auditee resistance to change. The survey
reviewed a number of these approaches, summarized in Table 16.

Responden survei tampaknya memiliki beberapa keberhasilan dalam penyelesaian sikap buruk
menggunakan pendekatan di atas. Respon berbayang dalam 10 dari 12 pendekatan tampaknya
menjadi apa yang biasanya diharapkan dari mereka yang umumnya berhasil mengatasi
permusuhan. Dalam semua pendekatan ini, ada perkiraan kurva normal dari “Sedang” hingga
“Sangat Efektif,” dengan mode “Sangat Efektif.” Ekor kurva kecil. Pendekatan di # 12 - mencoba
untuk menyelesaikan konflik yang melibatkan nilai-nilai - menghasilkan distribusi yang hampir
datar, dengan mode sederhana di suatu tempat antara "Kadang-kadang" pada 27 persen dan
"Sering" pada 26 persen. Distribusi ini tampaknya tidak banyak bicara dan pertanyaannya
mungkin menderita karena kata-kata yang tidak menguntungkan. Pendekatan yang tidak
menyerupai kurva normal adalah # 3 - jangan mengandalkan logika. Distribusi ini sangat tidak
biasa dan mungkin juga karena kata-kata yang tidak menguntungkan. Makna yang
dimaksudkan, "jangan terlalu mengandalkan logika," mungkin mungkin menghasilkan hasil yang
berbeda.

Dengan demikian, dengan pengecualian dari dua pendekatan di atas, respon keseluruhan
untuk pendekatan yang tersisa untuk menyelesaikan permusuhan yang mendalam atau
permusuhan dengan mode di bawah kategori "Sangat Efektif" cukup menggembirakan.

Manajemen Perubahan

Jika ada benang merah konsisten kekhawatiran yang disebabkan oleh audit yang mengalir
dalam benak pihak yang diaudit, itu adalah "perubahan." Di sebagian besar setiap audit,
laporan itu penuh dengan banyak rekomendasi untuk perubahan. Dalam benak sebagian besar
orang yang diaudit, perubahan itu tidak populer. Dalam banyak kasus, itu "paling tidak nyaman
dan paling ditakuti." Ada beberapa alasan untuk penolakan perubahan yang dihasilkan dari
proses audit. Beberapa di antaranya adalah:
 Ego. Ini menunjukkan bahwa pihak yang diaudit tidak berkinerja dengan baik.
 Biaya. Perubahan, bahkan untuk perbaikan kontrol, mungkin lebih mahal daripada
penghematan potensial.
 Kinerja. Pihak yang diaudit dan unit terkait serta staf mereka harus merevisi operasi
mereka dan mempelajari yang baru.
 Hubungan. Harus ada hubungan baru dengan organisasi horisontal dan vertikal dengan
siapa fungsi auditee.
 Intelektual. Pihak yang diaudit dan staf harus mengubah pemikiran mereka untuk
menerima filosofi dari proses baru.
 Tidak dikenal. Secara umum, ini adalah ketakutan akan hasil yang tidak diketahui yang
mempengaruhi area selain yang di atas.

Karena pengaruh-pengaruh ini, seringkali konsep perubahan tidak terlalu populer dan auditor
internal harus berusaha meringankan sebagian ketakutan dan kekhawatiran pihak yang diaudit.
Prosedur ini telah menghasilkan pengembangan pendekatan untuk menyelesaikan resistensi
auditee terhadap perubahan. Survei tersebut meninjau sejumlah pendekatan ini, yang diringkas
dalam Tabel 16.

1. Try to Neutralize Fear

About 79 percent of respondents indicated they used this approach “Occasionally” or “Often,”
with a mode of 47 percent indicating “Often.” Only about 9 percent reported they “Always”
employed this approach. On the other end, another 9 percent used this approach “Rarely” or
“Never.” These data seem to indicate a high degree of success with this approach.

2. Describing Positive Results of Change

About 89 percent of the respondents employed this approach “Often” or “Always,” with a mode
of 55 percent under “Often.” Again, these data seemed to indicate a high degree of success with
this approach.
3. Trying to Resolve the Ego Aspects of Accepting Change
This distribution of respondent choices approximated a normal curve with a mode of 36 percent
under “Occasionally.” This is an effective psychological approach and should be used more
often. Because of its psychological nature, however, the internal auditor might tend to refrain
from using it. The ego is strong, yet an imaginative approach such as suggesting that change is
the auditee’s independent action to a degree and that it is an “improvement” rather than a
“change” perhaps could help to defuse hesitancy to accept change.

4. Neutralizing Bureaucratic Aspects

About 74 percent of the respondents indicated that they employ this approach, with
“Occasionally” or “Often” almost equally divided between the two. This approach requires the
internal auditor to research the bureaucratic impact that changes can have and develop ways to
neutralize or reduce their impact. Accordingly, the internal auditor needs to develop a broad
knowledge of the vertical and horizontal impacts of the change and be ready to identify methods
that will accommodate and promote these changes.

5. Identifying the Cost Benefits of Change

About 83 percent of the respondents indicated that they use this approach “Often” or “Always,”
with a mode of 48 percent under “Often” and another 12 percent under “Occasionally.” This
method is the second most frequently used, compared with the more general approach
“describing positive results of change,” probably because of its positive management aspects.

Consultancy
The conduct of internal auditing typically consists of two professional areas: assurance services
(attestation auditing) and consulting services. Assurance services pertain to conducting
organizationally independent assessments of financial and operational procedures and results
as to compliance with organizational policy on governance, risk management, and control.
Consulting services relate to the internal auditor providing advice as to adding value and
improving functions relative to governance, risk management, and control, but without directive
authority. In some cases, assurance engagements contain consulting-like activity where the
internal auditor finds problems and, as a result of analytical work, identifies methods to resolve
them.

The questions in this section of the survey were intended to determine whether the internal
auditor fully understands the consulting aspect established by The IIA and identifying the
methods being used. Statistical responses from these questions are summarized in Table 17
and discussed with particular reference to the shaded areas in the table.

1. Cobalah Menetralkan Ketakutan

Sekitar 79 persen responden mengindikasikan bahwa mereka menggunakan pendekatan ini
"Kadang-kadang" atau "Sering," dengan mode 47 persen yang menunjukkan "Sering."
Hanya sekitar 9 persen yang melaporkan bahwa mereka "Selalu" menggunakan pendekatan
ini. Di sisi lain, 9 persen lainnya menggunakan pendekatan ini "Jarang" atau "Tidak pernah."
Data ini tampaknya menunjukkan tingkat keberhasilan yang tinggi dengan pendekatan ini.

2. Menjelaskan Hasil Positif Perubahan

Sekitar 89 persen responden menggunakan pendekatan ini "Sering" atau "Selalu," dengan
mode 55 persen di bawah "Sering." Sekali lagi, data ini tampaknya menunjukkan tingkat
keberhasilan yang tinggi dengan pendekatan ini.

3. Mencoba Menyelesaikan Aspek Ego dari Menerima Perubahan

 Distribusi pilihan responden ini mendekati kurva normal dengan mode 36 persen di bawah
"Kadang-kadang." Ini adalah pendekatan psikologis yang efektif dan harus digunakan lebih
sering. Karena sifat psikologisnya, auditor internal mungkin cenderung menahan diri untuk
tidak menggunakannya. Ego itu kuat, namun pendekatan imajinatif seperti menyarankan
bahwa perubahan adalah tindakan independen yang diaudit sampai taraf tertentu dan bahwa
itu adalah "peningkatan" daripada "perubahan" mungkin bisa membantu meredakan
keraguan untuk menerima perubahan.

4. Menetralkan Aspek Birokrasi

Sekitar 74 persen responden mengindikasikan bahwa mereka menggunakan pendekatan ini,
dengan “Kadang-kadang” atau “Sering” hampir terbagi rata di antara keduanya. Pendekatan
ini membutuhkan auditor internal untuk meneliti dampak birokrasi yang dapat dimiliki oleh
perubahan dan mengembangkan cara untuk menetralisir atau mengurangi dampaknya. Oleh
karena itu, auditor internal perlu mengembangkan pengetahuan yang luas tentang dampak
perubahan vertikal dan horizontal dan siap mengidentifikasi metode yang akan
mengakomodasi dan mempromosikan perubahan ini.

5. Mengidentifikasi Manfaat Perubahan Biaya

Sekitar 83 persen responden mengindikasikan bahwa mereka menggunakan pendekatan ini
“Sering” atau “Selalu,” dengan mode 48 persen di bawah “Sering” dan 12 persen lainnya di
bawah “Kadang-kadang.” Metode ini adalah yang kedua paling sering digunakan,
dibandingkan dengan pendekatan yang lebih umum "menggambarkan hasil positif dari
perubahan," mungkin karena aspek manajemen positifnya.

Konsultasi
Pelaksanaan audit internal biasanya terdiri dari dua bidang profesional: layanan penjaminan
(audit pengesahan) dan layanan konsultasi. Layanan jaminan berkaitan dengan melakukan
penilaian independen secara organisasional atas prosedur dan hasil keuangan dan operasional
untuk kepatuhan terhadap kebijakan organisasi tentang tata kelola, manajemen risiko, dan
kontrol. Layanan konsultasi berkaitan dengan auditor internal yang memberikan saran untuk
menambah nilai dan meningkatkan fungsi relatif terhadap tata kelola, manajemen risiko, dan
kontrol, tetapi tanpa wewenang direktif. Dalam beberapa kasus, keterlibatan jaminan
mengandung aktivitas seperti konsultasi di mana auditor internal menemukan masalah dan,
sebagai akibat dari pekerjaan analitis, mengidentifikasi metode untuk menyelesaikannya.

Pertanyaan-pertanyaan di bagian survei ini dimaksudkan untuk menentukan apakah auditor

internal sepenuhnya memahami aspek konsultasi yang ditetapkan oleh The IIA dan
mengidentifikasi metode yang digunakan. Respons statistik dari pertanyaan-pertanyaan ini
dirangkum dalam Tabel 17 dan didiskusikan dengan referensi khusus pada area yang diarsir
dalam tabel.
1. Does the Internal Auditor Have a Consultancy Responsibility?
Respondents seemed to indicate strongly their support of this point. About 88 percent of
respondents indicated either “Probably” or “Definitely,” with a mode of 50 percent under
“Definitely” believing they have a consultancy responsibility. These replies seem to indicate a
strong affirmative viewpoint toward the consulting function by internal auditors. It is not,
however, a responsibility in an attestation audit, unless corrective action by the auditee would
be appropriate.

2. Should the Auditee Comply with Recommendations Related to the Auditor’s

Consultancy?
Respondents seem less strongly inclined to support this point on auditee compliance with the
auditor’s consultancy recommendations. About 85 percent indicated either “Probably” or “Not
Sure,” with a mode of 65 percent under “Probably.” The 65 percent response seems to support
the view that the auditee should comply. However, compliance should be only with management
approval or when management so directs, not simply when the internal auditor recommends, as
responses under “Definitely” would imply. The internal auditor has no directive authority over the
auditee in consultancy engagements. Compliance should occur when management and the
auditee, in their judgment, deem it appropriate under the particular circumstances, but not solely
based upon internal auditor recommendations.

3. Are Consultancy Recommendations Comparable to a Management Directive?

On this question, respondents were spread over the possible choices. Unlike the previous
question that presumes some auditee discretion, this question presumes otherwise. About 53
percent of respondents indicated either “Probably Not” or “Definitely Not,” with a low mode of 30
percent for “Probably Not.” Yet, 22 percent still indicated “Probably” and another 14 percent are
“Not Sure.” As stated above, internal auditors have no directive authority in consultancy
engagements. Some prompt clarification appears to be needed in this area. Even though 67
percent of respondents are not sure, or believe “Probably Not” or “Definitely Not,” 33 percent
appear to be unclear on this point.

4. Can the Auditee Negotiate a Degree of Conformance to Consultancy

Recommendations?
Respondents seem quite inclined to support this point. About 77 percent indicated either
“Definitely” or “Probably,” with a mode of 49 percent under “Probably.” This decision as to
degree of conformance, however, is not an internal audit decision. The degree of conformance
is a management and auditee decision. While it is assumed that the auditor makes an objective
judgment as to the recommended change that is in the best interest of the organization’s well-
being, there could be elements of negotiation as to auditor recommendations, perhaps more in
the manner of implementation.

5. Should the Internal Auditor Work Jointly with the Auditee in a Consultancy
Function?
Respondents seem strongly inclined to support this point. About 82 percent indicated either
“Definitely” or “Probably,” with a mode of 50 percent under “Definitely” that auditors should work
jointly with auditees in the consultancy function. Internal auditors are not omniscient — the
auditee may have ideas on how the operation can be improved, often injecting a dose of reality
into the recommendation. If so, auditee assistance should be sought and acknowledged. Here
the respondents were leaning in the right direction. This is the optimum method.

6. Should the Internal Auditor Query the Auditee as to Areas Where Operations
Might Be Improved?
Respondents were strongly inclined to support this point. About 93 percent indicated either
“Definitely” or “Probably,” with a mode of 68 percent under “Definitely” to query the auditee as to
where operations could be improved. Here, again, auditor agreement to do so seems
appropriate. The internal auditor, however, needs to give the auditee appropriate credit should
the auditor report areas where operations might be improved that had been initially suggested
by the auditee.

7. Should the Internal Auditor Identify Areas Where Operations Might Be Improved?
Respondents, again, were strongly inclined to support this point. About 91 percent indicated
either “Definitely” or “Probably,” with a mode of 64 percent under “Definitely” to identify areas
where operations could be improved. Here the respondents concurred in this obvious answer.

This is one of the primary objectives of the audit process.

As can be readily observed, some instructional work appears to be needed in areas related to
degree of compliance with internal auditor recommendations during a consulting engagement
(as compared to an attestation engagement) as revealed in questions 2 through 4.
Perceived Responsibility to Management
The placement of the internal audit activity in an organization usually defines the lines of
authority, responsibility, and reporting. Early on, internal auditing was considered an operational
function and placed in the financial area or under a comptroller. The “new look” places the
internal audit activity directly under the audit committee of the board of directors; however, it
usually is also located in an administrative area for general administration purposes. The activity
also may provide audit reports on an information basis to operational executives such as the
CEO and the CFO.
We asked the respondents to identify the degree of responsibility that they believed they had to
the various levels of management in their organizations and stakeholders. The responses are
summarized in Table 18.

1. Apakah Auditor Internal Memiliki Tanggung Jawab Konsultansi?

Responden tampaknya menunjukkan dukungan mereka terhadap hal ini. Sekitar 88 persen
responden mengindikasikan "Mungkin" atau "Pasti," dengan mode 50 persen di bawah
"Pasti" percaya bahwa mereka memiliki tanggung jawab konsultasi. Balasan ini tampaknya
menunjukkan sudut pandang afirmatif yang kuat terhadap fungsi konsultasi oleh auditor
internal. Namun, ini bukan tanggung jawab dalam audit pengesahan, kecuali jika tindakan
korektif yang diaudit akan sesuai.

2. Haruskah Auditee Mematuhi Rekomendasi yang Terkait dengan Konsultasi Auditor?

Responden tampaknya kurang kuat untuk mendukung poin ini pada kepatuhan auditee
dengan rekomendasi konsultasi auditor. Sekitar 85 persen mengindikasikan "Kemungkinan"
atau "Tidak Yakin," dengan mode 65 persen di bawah "Mungkin." Respons 65 persen
tampaknya mendukung pandangan bahwa pihak yang diaudit harus mematuhi. Namun,
kepatuhan harus hanya dengan persetujuan manajemen atau ketika manajemen
mengarahkan, bukan hanya ketika auditor internal merekomendasikan, karena tanggapan di
bawah "Pasti" akan menyiratkan. Auditor internal tidak memiliki wewenang arahan atas
auditee dalam keterlibatan konsultasi. Kepatuhan harus terjadi ketika manajemen dan pihak
yang diaudit, dalam penilaian mereka, menganggapnya sesuai dalam keadaan tertentu,
tetapi tidak hanya berdasarkan rekomendasi auditor internal.

3. Apakah Rekomendasi Konsultasi Sebanding dengan Arahan Manajemen?

Pada pertanyaan ini, responden tersebar di pilihan yang mungkin. Berbeda dengan
pertanyaan sebelumnya yang mengandaikan beberapa kebijakan auditee, pertanyaan ini
mengandaikan sebaliknya. Sekitar 53 persen responden mengindikasikan "Kemungkinan
Tidak" atau "Pasti Tidak," dengan mode rendah 30 persen untuk "Mungkin Tidak." Namun,
22 persen masih menunjukkan "Mungkin" dan 14 persen lainnya "Tidak Pasti." dinyatakan di
atas, auditor internal tidak memiliki wewenang direktif dalam keterlibatan konsultasi.
Beberapa klarifikasi yang cepat tampaknya diperlukan di bidang ini. Meskipun 67 persen
responden tidak yakin, atau percaya "Mungkin Tidak" atau "Pasti Tidak," 33 persen
tampaknya tidak jelas dalam hal ini.

4. Dapatkah Auditee menegosiasikan Tingkat Kesesuaian dengan Rekomendasi Konsultasi?

Responden agaknya cenderung mendukung hal ini. Sekitar 77 persen menunjukkan "Pasti"
atau "Mungkin," dengan mode 49 persen di bawah "Mungkin." Keputusan ini untuk tingkat
kesesuaian, bagaimanapun, bukan merupakan keputusan audit internal. Tingkat kesesuaian
adalah keputusan manajemen dan pihak yang diaudit. Sementara diasumsikan bahwa
auditor membuat penilaian obyektif mengenai perubahan yang direkomendasikan yang
merupakan kepentingan terbaik bagi kesejahteraan organisasi, mungkin ada elemen
negosiasi mengenai rekomendasi auditor, mungkin lebih pada cara penerapannya.
5. Haruskah Auditor Internal Bekerja Bersama dengan Auditee dalam Fungsi Konsultasi?
Responden tampaknya sangat mendukung hal ini. Sekitar 82 persen mengindikasikan
"Pasti" atau "Mungkin," dengan mode 50 persen di bawah "Pasti" bahwa auditor harus
bekerja bersama dengan pihak yang diaudit dalam fungsi konsultasi. Auditor internal tidak
mahatahu - auditee mungkin memiliki ide tentang bagaimana operasi dapat ditingkatkan,
sering menyuntikkan dosis kenyataan ke dalam rekomendasi. Jika demikian, bantuan pihak
yang diaudit harus dicari dan diakui. Di sini para responden condong ke arah yang benar. Ini
adalah metode yang optimal.

6. Haruskah Auditor Internal Meminta Auditee tentang Wilayah-Wilayah Dimana Operasi

Mungkin Akan Lebih Baik?
Responden sangat cenderung mendukung hal ini. Sekitar 93 persen menunjukkan "Pasti"
atau "Mungkin," dengan mode 68 persen di bawah "Pasti" untuk menanyakan pihak yang
diaudit tentang di mana operasi dapat ditingkatkan. Di sini, sekali lagi, persetujuan auditor
untuk melakukannya tampaknya tepat. Auditor internal, bagaimanapun, perlu memberikan
auditee kredit yang sesuai seandainya auditor melaporkan area-area di mana operasi
mungkin ditingkatkan yang semula disarankan oleh auditee.

7. Haruskah Auditor Internal Mengidentifikasi Area-Wilayah Di Mana Operasi Mungkin Akan

Ditingkatkan? Responden, sekali lagi, sangat cenderung mendukung hal ini. Sekitar 91
persen mengindikasikan “Pasti” atau “Mungkin,” dengan mode 64 persen di bawah “Pasti”
untuk mengidentifikasi area di mana operasi dapat ditingkatkan. Di sini responden setuju
dengan jawaban yang jelas ini.

Ini adalah salah satu tujuan utama dari proses audit.

Seperti yang dapat diamati dengan mudah, beberapa pekerjaan instruksional tampaknya
diperlukan di bidang-bidang yang berkaitan dengan tingkat kepatuhan dengan rekomendasi
auditor internal selama perikatan konsultasi (dibandingkan dengan perikatan pengesahan)
sebagaimana diungkapkan dalam pertanyaan 2 hingga 4.

Persepsi Tanggung Jawab kepada Manajemen

Penempatan kegiatan audit internal dalam suatu organisasi biasanya mendefinisikan garis
wewenang, tanggung jawab, dan pelaporan. Awalnya, audit internal dianggap sebagai fungsi
operasional dan ditempatkan di bidang keuangan atau di bawah pengawas keuangan.
"Tampilan baru" menempatkan aktivitas audit internal langsung di bawah komite audit dewan
direksi; Namun, biasanya juga terletak di wilayah administrasi untuk keperluan administrasi
umum. Kegiatan ini juga dapat memberikan laporan audit berdasarkan informasi kepada
eksekutif operasional seperti CEO dan CFO.
Kami meminta responden untuk mengidentifikasi tingkat tanggung jawab yang mereka yakini
mereka miliki terhadap berbagai tingkat manajemen dalam organisasi dan pemangku
kepentingan mereka. Responsnya dirangkum dalam Tabel 18.
As might be expected, the respondents selected the audit committee as the function to which
they believe their degree of responsibility is “Extremely Responsible” at 74 percent, followed by
the board of directors at 47 percent. But when combined with responses under “Very
Responsible,” the percentages become more striking, as illustrated in the chart below.

Seperti yang mungkin diharapkan, para responden memilih komite audit sebagai fungsi yang
mereka yakini tingkat tanggung jawab mereka “Sangat Bertanggung Jawab” sebesar 74 persen,
diikuti oleh dewan direksi sebesar 47 persen. Tetapi ketika dikombinasikan dengan respons di
bawah "Sangat Bertanggung Jawab," persentase menjadi lebih mencolok, seperti yang
diilustrasikan dalam bagan di bawah ini.

This selection is reasonable and in accordance with current internal audit philosophy. It should
also be noted that the highest degree of responsibility is to the audit committee, and through it,
to the board of directors.
As for the two executives, CEO and CFO, respondents indicated their degree of responsibility
with modes almost evenly split, though nevertheless still high when combined.
Pilihan ini masuk akal dan sesuai dengan filosofi audit internal saat ini. Perlu juga dicatat bahwa
tingkat tanggung jawab tertinggi adalah kepada komite audit, dan melaluinya, kepada dewan
direksi.
Sedangkan untuk dua eksekutif, CEO dan CFO, responden menunjukkan tingkat tanggung
jawab mereka dengan mode hampir merata, meskipun demikian masih tinggi ketika
digabungkan.

The responses in the chart above represent what one would expect for more traditional
responses to lines of responsibility. While still strong, the indications are not as strong as the
combined responses to the audit committee and board of directors.

As for beliefs regarding the degree of responsibility to auditees, 89 percent of respondents

indicated “Moderately Responsible” to “Extremely Responsible,” with a mode of 43 percent
under “Very Responsible.” The basic audit objective is normally the improvement of the
auditee’s operation, and the internal auditor is responsible for assisting with the overall objective
— the enhancement of the organization’s operations.

It was encouraging to see respondent interest in the internal auditor’s degree of responsibility to
“society” as 84 percent indicated “Moderately Responsible” to “Extremely Responsible,” with a
mode of 38 percent under “Very Responsible,” perhaps held not as a legal but a moral
responsibility. This truly seems to be a positive leap forward in internal audit philosophy.

Summary and Implications

The behavioral concepts or dimensions of internal auditing transform what has been traditionally
considered an aggressive adversarial relationship into a cooperative effort to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of the organization’s operations. The auditee often views the
internal auditor as an expert in “fixing things,” eliminating unnecessary activities and resolving
problems. Thus, the background, education, and broad experience of internal auditors can
provide genuine opportunities for managers to gain valuable assistance in the performance of
their management responsibilities.

Where are these behavioral advantages located and where might the problems be? Following in
summary form are some of the internal audit areas explored and studied from a behavioral
perspective in this study:
• While most respondents possessed previous coursework in behavioral relationships, only
about one quarter received such instruction within the context of internal auditing.
Moreover, respondents also indicated a strong interest in learning more about behavioral
relationships in internal auditing. Thus opportunities to present more continuing education
offerings in this area seem to exist for The IIA and its chapters.
• Respondents appeared quite confident in their social ability and relationships of influence
and persuasion and those relationships relating to ethical concerns. The implication here
is that most respondents perceived themselves as being competent in these areas.
• The various roles that internal auditors play and the stress that can result were explored.
First, focus was directed toward the auditor’s (a) high self-perception of particular roles while
perceiving low auditee expectations of these roles and (b) their low self-perception of other roles
while perceiving high auditee expectations of these roles. Second, focus was aimed at the
degree of role conflict experienced by internal auditors during the course of the audit.

Perceived auditee expectations seem to derive from nonverbal or implicit communication

received from the auditee during the course of the audit. Respondent data in the first section
appears to indicate where internal auditors could do more to win over the auditee, namely in the
areas of technical, financial, fraud detection, risk/control, and consultant expertise. Could this be
an area of poor public relations? In the second section, data seem to indicate where auditee
need is increasing and where fear can be reduced; namely, change management expertise and
being viewed as a “police officer.”

The second focus on role conflict was analyzed in terms of caveats that internal auditors need
to keep in mind to avoid threats to the integrity of the internal audit process. One positive point
was that a strong majority of respondents often or always perform their work in a manner that
suits their values.

Respons dalam bagan di atas menunjukkan apa yang diharapkan seseorang untuk respons
yang lebih tradisional terhadap garis tanggung jawab. Meski masih kuat, indikasinya tidak
sekuat respons gabungan terhadap komite audit dan dewan direksi.

Adapun keyakinan mengenai tingkat tanggung jawab kepada pihak yang diaudit, 89 persen
responden menunjukkan "Cukup Bertanggung Jawab" ke "Sangat Bertanggung Jawab,"
dengan mode 43 persen di bawah "Sangat Bertanggung Jawab." Tujuan audit dasar biasanya
adalah peningkatan operasi pihak yang diaudit. , dan auditor internal bertanggung jawab untuk
membantu dengan tujuan keseluruhan - peningkatan operasi organisasi.

Sangat menggembirakan melihat minat responden terhadap tingkat tanggung jawab auditor
internal terhadap "masyarakat" karena 84 persen mengindikasikan "Cukup Bertanggung Jawab"
menjadi "Sangat Bertanggung Jawab," dengan mode 38 persen di bawah "Sangat Bertanggung
Jawab," mungkin dianggap tidak sah tetapi tanggung jawab moral. Ini benar-benar tampaknya
menjadi lompatan positif dalam filosofi audit internal.

Ringkasan dan Implikasi

Konsep perilaku atau dimensi audit internal mengubah apa yang secara tradisional dianggap
sebagai hubungan permusuhan yang agresif menjadi upaya kerja sama untuk meningkatkan
efisiensi dan efektivitas operasi organisasi. Auditee sering memandang auditor internal sebagai
ahli dalam “memperbaiki hal-hal,” menghilangkan kegiatan yang tidak perlu dan menyelesaikan
masalah. Dengan demikian, latar belakang, pendidikan, dan pengalaman luas auditor internal
dapat memberikan peluang nyata bagi manajer untuk mendapatkan bantuan berharga dalam
kinerja tanggung jawab manajemen mereka.

Di mana keunggulan perilaku ini berada dan di mana mungkin masalahnya? Berikut dalam
bentuk ringkasan adalah beberapa area audit internal dieksplorasi dan dipelajari dari perspektif
perilaku dalam penelitian ini:
 Sementara sebagian besar responden memiliki kursus sebelumnya dalam hubungan
perilaku, hanya sekitar seperempat yang menerima instruksi tersebut dalam konteks
audit internal. Selain itu, responden juga menunjukkan minat yang kuat untuk belajar
lebih banyak tentang hubungan perilaku dalam audit internal. Dengan demikian peluang
 untuk menyajikan lebih banyak penawaran pendidikan berkelanjutan di bidang ini
tampaknya ada untuk The IIA dan bab-babnya.
 Responden tampak cukup percaya diri dalam kemampuan sosial mereka dan hubungan
pengaruh dan persuasi dan hubungan yang berkaitan dengan masalah etika.
Implikasinya di sini adalah bahwa sebagian besar responden menganggap diri mereka
kompeten di bidang ini.
 Berbagai peran yang dimainkan oleh auditor internal dan tekanan yang dapat dihasilkan
dieksplorasi.

Pertama, fokus diarahkan pada auditor (a) persepsi diri yang tinggi tentang peran tertentu
sambil mempersepsikan harapan auditee yang rendah dari peran ini dan (b) persepsi diri yang
rendah dari peran lain sementara mempersepsikan harapan auditee yang tinggi tentang peran
ini. Kedua, fokus ditujukan pada tingkat konflik peran yang dialami oleh auditor internal selama
audit.

Harapan auditee yang dirasakan tampaknya berasal dari komunikasi nonverbal atau implisit
yang diterima dari auditee selama audit. Data responden pada bagian pertama muncul untuk
menunjukkan di mana auditor internal dapat berbuat lebih banyak untuk memenangkan auditee,
yaitu di bidang teknis, keuangan, deteksi penipuan, risiko / kontrol, dan keahlian konsultan.
Mungkinkah ini bidang hubungan masyarakat yang buruk? Di bagian kedua, data tampaknya
mengindikasikan di mana kebutuhan pihak yang diaudit meningkat dan di mana rasa takut
dapat dikurangi; yaitu, mengubah keahlian manajemen dan dipandang sebagai "petugas polisi."

Fokus kedua pada konflik peran dianalisis dalam hal peringatan bahwa auditor internal perlu
diingat untuk menghindari ancaman terhadap integritas proses audit internal. Satu poin positif
adalah bahwa mayoritas responden yang kuat sering atau selalu melakukan pekerjaan mereka
dengan cara yang sesuai dengan nilai-nilai mereka.

Role perception differences and role conflict impact the auditor/auditee relationship. Again,
some important opportunities appear to exist for continuing education offerings by The IIA and
its chapters in this area.
• The communication practices between internal auditor and auditee were analyzed related to
basic objectives: ethical matters, typical communication practices during the course of the
audit, and then at audit conclusion. Responses over the areas tended to be what one would
expect, except perhaps to the question regarding ethical matters whose responses
appeared somewhat diffused.
• Interviewing practices by the internal auditor were analyzed with regard to effective
methods. Overall, respondents tended to direct attention to the importance of developing
and maintaining these skills to maintain the quality of the audit process.
• Conflict resolution is probably one of the most important aspects of the internal audit
process. Differences commonly arise between the internal auditor and auditee regarding
methods of performance, areas of responsibility, competition for scarce resources, or
professional values, attitudes, and beliefs, to name some common areas. So, using
approaches that can effectively diffuse conflict in such situations is important to preserve the
overall effectiveness of the audit.

Respondents indicated that avoiding accusatory or inflammatory comments and listening,

communicating, and trying to comprehend the auditee’s point of view were the most effective
approaches. On the other hand, concentrating on people issues and discussing emotions
openly, including stakes and reputations, received mixed responses.
• As a result of the inquiring nature of the audit process itself, at times the auditee will hold
and sometimes express hostility toward the internal auditor. The survey inquired into 12
common approaches, with respondent results indicating an approximate normal curve from
“Moderately Effective” through “Extremely Effective,” with the mode as “Very Effective” on 10
of the 12 approaches. Thus, with the exception of two approaches with mixed results, the
responses to the remaining 10 approaches were quite encouraging.
• The management of change in thinking and operations that is imposed on the auditee has
always been an important and sometimes difficult process. Change is not popular and, in
many cases, it is “uncomfortable in the least and feared the most.” To overcome resistance
to change, indentifying positive results from the change and cost benefits or service
improvements of change were approaches considered most effective by respondents. Three
other approaches produced mixed results.
• The conduct of the internal auditors usually consists of two professional services: assurance
(attestation auditing) services and consultancy. The questions in this section were intended
to determine internal auditor understanding of consultancy as established by The IIA and
aspects of approaches commonly used. Of the seven questions asked, respondents
answered either “Probably” or “Definitely” to five of them. But to the question regarding
whether the auditee should comply with consultancy recommendations, 65 percent of
respondents answered “Probably,” with another 20 percent “Not Sure.” And to the question
regarding whether consultancy recommendations were comparable to a management
directive, results were diffuse, clearly indicating confusion among respondents on the issue
of directive authority.
• The placement of internal auditing in an organization usually defines the line of authority,
responsibility, and reporting of the function. Respondents indicated to the extent of 74
percent that internal auditors are “Extremely Responsible” to the audit committee but hold
that their responsibility is evenly split between “Very Responsible” and “Extremely
Responsible” to both the CEO and CFO. What was especially encouraging though was the
high responsibility held by the respondents toward the auditee and society, held perhaps not
as a legal but a moral responsibility.

Perbedaan persepsi peran dan konflik peran berdampak pada hubungan auditor / auditee.
Sekali lagi, beberapa peluang penting tampaknya ada untuk melanjutkan penawaran
pendidikan oleh The IIA dan bab-babnya di bidang ini.
 Praktik komunikasi antara auditor internal dan pihak yang diaudit dianalisis terkait
dengan tujuan dasar: masalah etika, praktik komunikasi tipikal selama audit, dan
kemudian pada kesimpulan audit. Tanggapan atas bidang-bidang itu cenderung seperti
apa yang diharapkan seseorang, kecuali mungkin pertanyaan tentang masalah etis yang
tanggapannya agak tersebar.
 Praktik wawancara oleh auditor internal dianalisis sehubungan dengan metode yang
efektif. Secara keseluruhan, responden cenderung mengarahkan perhatian pada
pentingnya mengembangkan dan mempertahankan keterampilan ini untuk menjaga
kualitas proses audit.
 Resolusi konflik mungkin merupakan salah satu aspek terpenting dari proses audit
internal. Perbedaan biasanya timbul antara auditor internal dan pihak yang diaudit
mengenai metode kinerja, bidang tanggung jawab, persaingan untuk sumber daya yang
langka, atau nilai-nilai profesional, sikap, dan kepercayaan, untuk menyebutkan
beberapa bidang umum. Jadi, menggunakan pendekatan yang secara efektif dapat
meredakan konflik dalam situasi seperti itu penting untuk menjaga efektivitas audit
secara keseluruhan.
Responden mengindikasikan bahwa menghindari komentar menuduh atau menghasut dan
mendengarkan, berkomunikasi, dan mencoba memahami sudut pandang auditee adalah
pendekatan yang paling efektif. Di sisi lain, berkonsentrasi pada masalah orang dan membahas
emosi secara terbuka, termasuk taruhan dan reputasi, mendapat tanggapan beragam.

 Sebagai hasil dari sifat ingin tahu dari proses audit itu sendiri, kadang-kadang pihak
yang diaudit akan memegang dan kadang-kadang menyatakan permusuhan terhadap
auditor internal. Survei menanyakan 12 pendekatan umum, dengan hasil responden
menunjukkan perkiraan kurva normal dari “Cukup Efektif” hingga “Sangat Efektif,”
dengan mode “Sangat Efektif” pada 10 dari 12 pendekatan. Jadi, dengan pengecualian
dua pendekatan dengan hasil yang beragam, tanggapan terhadap 10 pendekatan yang
tersisa cukup menggembirakan.
 Manajemen perubahan dalam pemikiran dan operasi yang dibebankan pada pihak yang
diaudit selalu menjadi proses yang penting dan terkadang sulit. Perubahan tidak populer
dan, dalam banyak kasus, "paling tidak nyaman dan paling ditakuti." Untuk mengatasi
resistensi terhadap perubahan, mengidentifikasi hasil positif dari perubahan dan
manfaat biaya atau perbaikan layanan dari perubahan adalah pendekatan yang
dianggap paling efektif oleh responden. . Tiga pendekatan lain menghasilkan hasil yang
beragam.
 Perilaku auditor internal biasanya terdiri dari dua layanan profesional: layanan
assurance (pengesahan audit) dan konsultasi. Pertanyaan-pertanyaan dalam bagian ini
dimaksudkan untuk menentukan pemahaman auditor internal tentang konsultasi
sebagaimana ditetapkan oleh The IIA dan aspek pendekatan yang biasa digunakan.
Dari tujuh pertanyaan yang diajukan, responden menjawab "Mungkin" atau "Pasti" untuk
lima dari mereka. Tetapi untuk pertanyaan mengenai apakah pihak yang diaudit harus
mematuhi rekomendasi konsultasi, 65 persen responden menjawab “Mungkin,” dengan
20 persen lainnya “Tidak Yakin.” Dan untuk pertanyaan mengenai apakah rekomendasi
konsultasi dapat dibandingkan dengan arahan manajemen, hasilnya beragam, jelas
menunjukkan kebingungan di antara responden tentang masalah otoritas direktif.
 Penempatan audit internal dalam suatu organisasi biasanya mendefinisikan garis
wewenang, tanggung jawab, dan pelaporan fungsi. Responden menunjukkan sejauh 74
persen bahwa auditor internal "Sangat Bertanggung Jawab" kepada komite audit tetapi
berpendapat bahwa tanggung jawab mereka dibagi secara merata antara "Sangat
Bertanggung Jawab" dan "Sangat Bertanggung Jawab" baik untuk CEO dan CFO.
Namun yang paling menggembirakan adalah tanggung jawab tinggi yang dipegang oleh
responden terhadap auditee dan masyarakat, mungkin diadakan bukan sebagai
tanggung jawab hukum tetapi moral.

It would appear that most of the important behavioral areas of internal auditing have been
identified and covered thus far. There may be some other behavioral aspects of the internal
auditing process that could be explored and strengthened.

Implications
Some divergence between the conditions reported by respondents and the principles espoused
by The IIA became evident. The following situations might be reviewed for possible remedial
activity, in order of perceived importance:
• There appeared to be confusion among internal auditors as to whether their
recommendations, either oral or written in the audit report, had the authority of a
management directive. If the internal auditor is confused on this point, unnecessary tensions
 could arise between the internal auditor and auditee that could adversely affect the outcome
of the internal audit process.
• A sizeable group of internal auditors seem to believe they were responsible to both the CEO
and the CFO and, in many cases, apparently in addition to the audit committee. This
apparent problem has the potential of serving too many masters, thus creating potential
problems that could threaten transparency and accountability.
• About 25 percent of respondents indicated that it was not important to assure that the auditee
was in agreement as to the measures and standards to be used in the audit. Without such
agreement, auditee nonacceptance of audit results increases dramatically, thus potentially
increasing auditee hostility toward the audit process in general and threatening its outcome.
• There was only mild approval of having the auditee participate in some aspects of the audit
fieldwork. Some modest auditee participation might not only increase the efficiency of the
audit but also help create a nonadversarial teamwork approach toward a constructive
outcome of the audit process that serves the long¬term best interests of the auditee, the
internal auditor, and the organization.
• In the area of “management of change,” there appears to be some reluctance on the part of
respondents to resolve the “ego aspects” related to change and the “bureaucratic changes
that would result.” Given the deeper psychological nature of this point, internal auditors might
lack confidence in this area.
• Respondents apparently perceive that auditees do not consider them to possess sufficient
expertise in technical, financial, fraud detection, and risk/control. This point needs further
exploration and analysis, because it is essential that auditees have confidence in the internal
auditor’s ability in these key areas if the outcome of the audit process is to be effective.
• Relative to resolving conflicts, the responses indicated that the internal auditors did not see a
great deal of effectiveness in concentrating on people issues and discussing emotions
openly, including stakes and reputations. Again, the deeper psychological nature of this point
might leave internal auditors lacking confidence to pursue this.
• It appears that respondents in many cases did not try to assist auditees in the resolution of
ethical problems.
• Almost 90 percent of the respondents indicated that little attention in staff meetings was
directed to behavioral relationships. Also, almost 90 percent of the internal audit
organizations did not encourage staff to become knowledgeable in behavioral relationships.
This could lead internal auditors to believe that the organization might not value these
relationships highly (which might be true in some organizations).

Other than the above, the responses were generally positive and appeared to indicate a
progressive attitude toward the behavioral dimensions or aspects of internal auditing.

Tampaknya sebagian besar area perilaku penting audit internal telah diidentifikasi dan dibahas
sejauh ini. Mungkin ada beberapa aspek perilaku lain dari proses audit internal yang dapat
dieksplorasi dan diperkuat.

Implikasi
Beberapa perbedaan antara kondisi yang dilaporkan oleh responden dan prinsip-prinsip yang
dianut oleh The IIA menjadi jelas. Situasi berikut mungkin ditinjau untuk kemungkinan kegiatan
perbaikan, dalam rangka kepentingan yang dirasakan:
 Tampaknya ada kebingungan di antara auditor internal, apakah rekomendasi mereka,
baik lisan maupun tertulis dalam laporan audit, memiliki wewenang arahan manajemen.
Jika auditor internal bingung mengenai hal ini, ketegangan yang tidak perlu dapat
muncul antara auditor internal dan pihak yang diaudit yang dapat mempengaruhi hasil
dari proses audit internal.
  Sekelompok auditor internal yang cukup besar tampaknya percaya bahwa mereka
bertanggung jawab kepada CEO dan CFO dan, dalam banyak kasus, tampaknya di
samping komite audit. Masalah nyata ini berpotensi melayani terlalu banyak tuan,
sehingga menciptakan potensi masalah yang dapat mengancam transparansi dan
akuntabilitas.
 Sekitar 25 persen responden mengindikasikan bahwa tidak penting untuk memastikan
bahwa pihak yang diaudit sepakat mengenai langkah-langkah dan standar yang akan
digunakan dalam audit. Tanpa kesepakatan semacam itu, ketidaksesuaian pihak yang
diaudit atas hasil audit meningkat secara dramatis, sehingga berpotensi meningkatkan
permusuhan pihak yang diaudit terhadap proses audit secara umum dan mengancam
hasilnya.
 Hanya ada sedikit persetujuan agar auditee berpartisipasi dalam beberapa aspek
pekerjaan lapangan audit. Beberapa partisipasi auditee sederhana mungkin tidak hanya
meningkatkan efisiensi audit tetapi juga membantu menciptakan pendekatan kerja tim
yang tidak bertentangan terhadap hasil konstruktif dari proses audit yang melayani
kepentingan jangka panjang terbaik dari pihak yang diaudit, auditor internal, dan
organisasi.
 Di bidang "manajemen perubahan," tampaknya ada keengganan pada sebagian
responden untuk menyelesaikan "aspek ego" terkait dengan perubahan dan "perubahan
birokrasi yang akan dihasilkan." Mengingat sifat psikologis yang lebih dalam dari titik ini ,
auditor internal mungkin kurang percaya diri dalam bidang ini.
 Responden tampaknya menganggap bahwa pihak yang diaudit tidak menganggap
mereka memiliki keahlian yang cukup dalam teknis, keuangan, deteksi penipuan, dan
risiko / kontrol. Poin ini membutuhkan eksplorasi dan analisis lebih lanjut, karena penting
bahwa pihak yang diaudit memiliki kepercayaan pada kemampuan auditor internal
dalam bidang-bidang utama ini jika hasil dari proses audit harus efektif.
 Sehubungan dengan penyelesaian konflik, tanggapan menunjukkan bahwa auditor
internal tidak melihat banyak keefektifan dalam berkonsentrasi pada masalah orang dan
membahas emosi secara terbuka, termasuk taruhan dan reputasi. Sekali lagi, sifat
psikologis yang lebih dalam dari titik ini mungkin meninggalkan auditor internal kurang
percaya diri untuk mengejar ini.
 Tampaknya responden dalam banyak kasus tidak mencoba membantu pihak yang
diaudit dalam penyelesaian masalah etika.
 Hampir 90 persen responden mengindikasikan bahwa sedikit perhatian dalam rapat staf
diarahkan pada hubungan perilaku. Juga, hampir 90 persen dari organisasi audit internal
tidak mendorong staf untuk menjadi berpengetahuan luas dalam hubungan perilaku. Ini
dapat membuat auditor internal percaya bahwa organisasi mungkin tidak menghargai
hubungan ini dengan sangat tinggi (yang mungkin benar di beberapa organisasi).

Selain yang di atas, tanggapan umumnya positif dan muncul untuk menunjukkan sikap progresif
terhadap dimensi perilaku atau aspek audit internal.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The behavioral dimensions shape and influence how well a profession’s membership applies its
technical methods, regardless of the profession. Moreover, when any profession falls short of its
obligations, its failings seem to lie within the scope of the behavioral dimensions. For instance,
many issues of corporate governance emerging in the aftermath of the Wall Street financial
crisis of 2008 appear to have their roots in behavioral considerations. As an integral part of the
infrastructure of corporate governance in organizations, internal auditors who emphasize
behavioral perspectives can play a vital role. Thus, it would seem prudent for the leadership of
any profession to focus ongoing attention to the behavioral dimensions that underlie its
respective technical practice.

The behavioral dimensions of internal auditing, of course, go beyond the perceptions of internal
auditors as individuals even though the internal auditor likely functions as the central actor in the
internal audit process. There is also the role of the internal audit team along with the associated
pressures from its management. Then, too, there is the role of the auditees along with the
associated pressures from their management. Moreover, there are the consultative roles of the
internal auditor who serve internal clients at their request. Roles are more than individual; they
are also social and cultural, and therefore quite complex. This point argues for a comprehensive
professional development program that includes all aspects of the behavioral dimensions — an
undertaking too broad for a single study or report. Therefore, it is our recommendation that The
IIA and its chapters directly address the behavioral dimensions of internal auditing within
strategically focused and coordinated programs not only through traditional publication, but also
in proactive conference sessions and continuing education offerings on local and regional
levels.

Publications on the behavioral dimensions in general will remain an excellent place to begin
one’s professional development. The IIA, of course, has published books and articles on
aspects of behavioral dimensions, demonstrating its ongoing leadership. But a formal
publication series on various aspects of the behavioral dimensions of internal auditing might
provide a more coherent and organized focus. In addition, conference sessions on behavioral
dimensions can provide opportunity for members to discuss behavioral issues or aspects in
face-to-face settings. And structured continuing education offerings that allow behavioral issues
or aspects to be discussed with sufficient give and take can facilitate deeper insights into
effective strategies to improve practice. Publications, conference sessions, and continuing
education offerings can focus on both (a) stand-alone behavioral topics for more in-depth
understanding and (b) integrated topics — technical practice along with its related behavioral
aspects — for more emphasis on successful application.

Perhaps some still believe that internal auditing can be performed without behavioral
considerations. Yes, it can and presumably has been so practiced. Yet, as the data from survey
responses indicate, most in the profession seem to accept the conventional wisdom that the
practice of internal auditing can be more effective for the auditor, auditee, and organization
when the behavioral dimensions are employed as a foundation for the application of internal
audit techniques. Nevertheless, there are still those who have not fully recognized the
importance of these behavioral issues and the corresponding opportunities they represent. This
relatively new perspective of placing greater importance on the behavioral dimensions brings
the internal auditor and auditee closer together in the process of providing greater value for the
organization and, in a greater sense, for society itself.

KESIMPULAN DAN REKOMENDASI

Dimensi perilaku membentuk dan memengaruhi seberapa baik keanggotaan suatu profesi
menerapkan metode teknisnya, apa pun profesi itu. Selain itu, ketika profesi apa pun gagal
memenuhi kewajibannya, kegagalannya tampaknya terletak dalam ruang lingkup dimensi
perilaku. Misalnya, banyak masalah tata kelola perusahaan yang muncul setelah krisis
keuangan Wall Street 2008 tampaknya memiliki akar dalam pertimbangan perilaku. Sebagai
bagian integral dari infrastruktur tata kelola perusahaan dalam organisasi, auditor internal yang
menekankan perspektif perilaku dapat memainkan peran penting. Dengan demikian, akan
tampak bijaksana bagi kepemimpinan profesi apa pun untuk memusatkan perhatian
berkelanjutan pada dimensi perilaku yang mendasari praktik teknis masing-masing.

Dimensi perilaku audit internal, tentu saja, melampaui persepsi auditor internal sebagai individu
meskipun auditor internal cenderung berfungsi sebagai aktor utama dalam proses audit internal.
Ada juga peran tim audit internal bersama dengan tekanan terkait dari manajemennya.
Kemudian, juga, ada peran pihak yang diaudit bersama dengan tekanan terkait dari manajemen
mereka. Selain itu, ada peran konsultatif auditor internal yang melayani klien internal atas
permintaan mereka. Peran lebih dari individu; mereka juga sosial dan budaya, dan karenanya
cukup kompleks. Poin ini berpendapat untuk program pengembangan profesional yang
komprehensif yang mencakup semua aspek dari dimensi perilaku - suatu usaha yang terlalu
luas untuk satu studi atau laporan. Oleh karena itu, rekomendasi kami bahwa IIA dan bab-
babnya secara langsung membahas dimensi perilaku audit internal dalam program yang fokus
dan terkoordinasi tidak hanya melalui publikasi tradisional, tetapi juga dalam sesi konferensi
proaktif dan penawaran pendidikan berkelanjutan di tingkat lokal dan regional.

Publikasi pada dimensi perilaku secara umum akan tetap menjadi tempat yang sangat baik
untuk memulai pengembangan profesional seseorang. IIA, tentu saja, telah menerbitkan buku
dan artikel tentang aspek dimensi perilaku, menunjukkan kepemimpinannya yang
berkelanjutan. Tetapi serangkaian publikasi formal tentang berbagai aspek dimensi perilaku
audit internal mungkin memberikan fokus yang lebih koheren dan terorganisir. Selain itu, sesi
konferensi tentang dimensi perilaku dapat memberikan kesempatan bagi anggota untuk
membahas masalah atau aspek perilaku dalam pengaturan tatap muka. Dan penawaran
pendidikan berkelanjutan yang terstruktur yang memungkinkan masalah atau aspek perilaku
dibahas dengan cukup memberi dan menerima dapat memfasilitasi wawasan yang lebih dalam
tentang strategi yang efektif untuk meningkatkan praktik. Publikasi, sesi konferensi, dan
penawaran pendidikan berkelanjutan dapat fokus pada (a) topik perilaku yang berdiri sendiri
untuk pemahaman yang lebih mendalam dan (b) topik terintegrasi - praktik teknis bersama
dengan aspek perilaku terkait - untuk lebih menekankan pada aplikasi yang sukses.

Mungkin beberapa orang masih percaya bahwa audit internal dapat dilakukan tanpa
pertimbangan perilaku. Ya, itu bisa dan mungkin sudah dipraktekkan. Namun, seperti yang
ditunjukkan oleh data dari tanggapan survei, sebagian besar dalam profesi tampaknya
menerima kebijaksanaan konvensional bahwa praktik audit internal dapat lebih efektif bagi
auditor, pihak yang diaudit, dan organisasi ketika dimensi perilaku digunakan sebagai dasar
untuk aplikasi tersebut. teknik audit internal. Namun demikian, masih ada mereka yang belum
sepenuhnya menyadari pentingnya masalah perilaku ini dan peluang yang sesuai yang mereka
wakili. Perspektif yang relatif baru ini menempatkan kepentingan yang lebih besar pada dimensi
perilaku membawa auditor dan auditee internal lebih dekat bersama dalam proses memberikan
nilai yang lebih besar bagi organisasi dan, dalam arti yang lebih besar, untuk masyarakat itu
sendiri.

EPILOGUE

The prologue of this report states that the survey relative to the “behavioral dimensions of the
internal auditor... seeks to make important contributions to the current understanding of
interpersonal communications and other behavioral ‘aspects’ in the internal audit profession.”

In our opinion, the survey accomplished this objective by identifying the behavioral dimensions
of basic areas, issues, and techniques that affect internal auditors in the field. From the data,
observed trends assisted in suggesting recommendations and conclusions as to how internal
auditors should function by recognizing the importance of these behavioral issues and the
corresponding opportunities presented. These trends also assisted the authors in their
development of a guide published separately for internal auditors in the field on the behavioral
dimensions of internal auditing.

In addition to the basic behavioral dimensions experienced herein by internal auditors, more
attention could be directed “to prevent, deter, and detect” malfeasance (fraudulent behavior) at
executive levels where losses generated can significantly outweigh those at lower levels (e.g.,
as indicated by current reports such as the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the
Treadway Commission’s [COSO’s] 2010 Fraudulent Financial Reporting 1998-2007 and ACFE’s
2010 Report to the Nation). Since it seems likely that malfeasance has its roots in misfeasance
(improper or unlawful performance of something lawful) and nonfeasance (failure to perform
official or lawful obligations), perhaps internal auditors will need to direct more attention to these
inappropriate behaviors at the executive level.

The authors therefore reiterate the recommendations in the Executive Summary for a “strategic
ongoing focus on the behavioral dimensions through combinations of publications, conference
sessions, and continuing education” at all levels. 

APPENDIX
GENERAL INFORMATION TO ALL SURVEY RECIPIENTS

This survey is being administered to collect information on the behavioral aspects of internal
auditing. This survey is part of an IIA Research Foundation funded study being conducted by a
team composed of three professionals who have practitioner as well as academic backgrounds.
The questions in this survey ask information about your experiences in dealing with “people”
issues (in our survey we refer to these issues collectively as “behavioral relationships”) during
audits, including approaches that you commonly use in these situations. Therefore, we would
like you to answer the survey with reference to your audit experiences.

Completing the survey will take approximately 30 minutes of your time. Please answer all
questions. The question form has been designed so that you can indicate your responses by
either checking the box next to a response option, by typing in your response, or by using pull
down menus to indicate your response. After you are finished marking your responses, please
be sure to save the document and e-mail it to <ncreatore@theiia.org>

Participation in this survey is voluntary. We assure you that the information you provide will be
completely confidential and will only be reported as group data. Please indicate if you would like
to receive a link to the online executive summary of the completed study; we will also try to
secure you the author discount of 40 percent if you wish to purchase the hardcopy published
version of the full study.

EPILOG

Prolog laporan ini menyatakan bahwa survei tersebut relatif terhadap "dimensi perilaku auditor
internal ... berupaya memberikan kontribusi penting pada pemahaman terkini tentang
komunikasi antarpribadi dan 'aspek' perilaku lainnya dalam profesi audit internal."

Menurut pendapat kami, survei mencapai tujuan ini dengan mengidentifikasi dimensi perilaku
bidang dasar, masalah, dan teknik yang mempengaruhi auditor internal di lapangan. Dari data,
tren yang diamati membantu dalam menyarankan rekomendasi dan kesimpulan tentang
bagaimana auditor internal harus berfungsi dengan mengakui pentingnya masalah perilaku ini
dan peluang yang sesuai disajikan. Tren ini juga membantu penulis dalam pengembangan
pedoman yang diterbitkan secara terpisah untuk auditor internal di lapangan tentang dimensi
perilaku audit internal.

Selain dimensi perilaku dasar yang dialami di sini oleh auditor internal, lebih banyak perhatian
dapat diarahkan "untuk mencegah, menghalangi, dan mendeteksi" penyimpangan (perilaku
curang) di tingkat eksekutif di mana kerugian yang dihasilkan dapat secara signifikan lebih
besar daripada yang berada di level yang lebih rendah (misalnya, seperti yang ditunjukkan oleh
laporan saat ini seperti Komite Organisasi Sponsoring dari [COSO] 2010 Fraudulent Financial
Reporting Treadway Commission 1998 19987 dan ACFE 2010 Report to the Nation). Karena
nampaknya pelecehan berakar pada penyimpangan (kinerja yang tidak pantas atau melanggar
hukum dari sesuatu yang sah) dan nonfasan (kegagalan untuk melakukan kewajiban resmi atau
hukum), mungkin auditor internal perlu mengarahkan lebih banyak perhatian pada perilaku yang
tidak pantas ini di tingkat eksekutif.

Oleh karena itu penulis mengulangi rekomendasi dalam Ringkasan Eksekutif untuk "fokus
strategis yang berkelanjutan pada dimensi perilaku melalui kombinasi publikasi, sesi konferensi,
dan pendidikan berkelanjutan" di semua tingkatan.

LAMPIRAN
INFORMASI UMUM UNTUK SEMUA PENERIMA SURVEI

Survei ini diberikan untuk mengumpulkan informasi tentang aspek perilaku audit internal. Survei
ini adalah bagian dari studi yang didanai IIA Research Foundation yang dilakukan oleh tim yang
terdiri dari tiga profesional yang memiliki latar belakang praktisi dan akademis.
Pertanyaan-pertanyaan dalam survei ini menanyakan informasi tentang pengalaman Anda
dalam menangani masalah "orang" (dalam survei kami, kami menyebut masalah ini secara
kolektif sebagai "hubungan perilaku") selama audit, termasuk pendekatan yang biasa Anda
gunakan dalam situasi ini. Karena itu, kami ingin Anda menjawab survei dengan mengacu pada
pengalaman audit Anda.

Menyelesaikan survei akan memakan waktu sekitar 30 menit dari waktu Anda. Harap jawab
semua pertanyaan. Formulir pertanyaan telah dirancang sedemikian rupa sehingga Anda dapat
menunjukkan respons Anda dengan mencentang kotak di sebelah opsi respons, dengan
mengetikkan respons Anda, atau dengan menggunakan menu pull down untuk menunjukkan
respons Anda. Setelah Anda selesai menandai respons Anda, pastikan untuk menyimpan
dokumen dan mengirimkannya melalui email ke <ncreatore@theiia.org>

Partisipasi dalam survei ini bersifat sukarela. Kami menjamin Anda bahwa informasi yang Anda
berikan akan sepenuhnya rahasia dan hanya akan dilaporkan sebagai data grup. Harap
tunjukkan jika Anda ingin menerima tautan ke ringkasan eksekutif online dari studi yang telah
selesai; kami juga akan mencoba untuk memberi Anda diskon penulis sebesar 40 persen jika
Anda ingin membeli versi lengkap dari studi lengkap yang telah diterbitkan.

If you have any questions regarding this survey, please contact Dr. Sowmya Anand at (614)
292-3640, email: anand.13@osu.edu.
Thank you for your participation in this project.
Mortimer Dittenhofer, PhD, CIA Sridhar Ramamoorti, PhD, CIA, CFSA Sowmya Anand, PhD

Figure 1
Initial Cover Letter (January 25, 2006)
INSOURCED ORGANIZATIONAL INTERNAL AUDITOR
SURVEY RESPONDENTS
(wave two, after securing initial response from insourced internal auditors)

We sincerely appreciate your participating in this survey that is part of an IIA Research
Foundation funded study, “Behavioral Dimensions of Internal Auditing.” Two of the authors of
this study have been members of The IIA organization collectively for more than 70 years, and
are convinced that it takes much more than mere technical competence to succeed as a
contemporary internal auditor in a global professional environment. That is why we also have a
well- trained social psychology researcher on the research team. By means of this study we
intend to help internal audit practitioners and academics update and enhance their
understanding of the behavioral foundations of the internal audit profession. As in everyday life,
successful internal audit professionals are those simultaneously scoring high on the intelligence
quotient (IQ) as well as emotional quotient (EQ). Our goal is to contribute to internal auditor
professionalism, make them more effective and successful in their value-adding contributions to
organizations, and thus raise the profile of individual internal auditors as well as the internal
audit profession worldwide.

It is critical that we gather the “self-insight” of insourced internal auditor survey participants, but
we must also seek to understand how internal audit clients perceive us (after all, they are the
customers and users of internal audit services). Hence, we request you to provide us with the e-
mail address of your audit committee chairman to see if he/she could get one or even two
clients of your services over the past year to respond to a different survey. Please note that we
are doing this solely to obtain independent, objective feedback about the internal audit function
and its value-adding contributions within organizations. All responses will remain confidential
and will be reported only as aggregated data in the final study.

By participating in this survey you are helping advance the global internal audit profession. We
are grateful for your participation without which such surveys would simply not be possible. If
you are interested in learning more about how your input got baked into the overall survey
responses and how the study itself turned out, as noted earlier, we will be happy to provide you
with an author discount of 40 percent on the published hardcopy version of the full study.

Kami sangat menghargai partisipasi Anda dalam survei ini yang merupakan bagian dari studi
yang didanai IIA Research Foundation, "Dimensi Perilaku Audit Internal." Dua penulis penelitian
ini telah menjadi anggota organisasi IIA secara kolektif selama lebih dari 70 tahun, dan yakin
bahwa dibutuhkan lebih dari sekadar kompetensi teknis untuk berhasil sebagai auditor internal
kontemporer dalam lingkungan profesional global. Itulah sebabnya kami juga memiliki peneliti
psikologi sosial yang terlatih di tim peneliti. Melalui penelitian ini kami bermaksud untuk
membantu praktisi audit internal dan akademisi memperbarui dan meningkatkan pemahaman
mereka tentang dasar perilaku profesi audit internal. Seperti dalam kehidupan sehari-hari,
profesional audit internal yang sukses adalah mereka yang secara simultan mencetak skor
tinggi pada intelligence quotient (IQ) serta quotient emosional (EQ). Tujuan kami adalah untuk
berkontribusi pada profesionalisme auditor internal, menjadikannya lebih efektif dan sukses
dalam kontribusi nilai tambah mereka bagi organisasi, dan dengan demikian meningkatkan
profil auditor internal individual serta profesi audit internal di seluruh dunia.

Sangat penting bagi kami untuk mengumpulkan "wawasan-diri" dari para peserta survei auditor
internal yang diinsuransikan, tetapi kami juga harus berusaha memahami bagaimana klien audit
internal memandang kami (setelah semua, mereka adalah pelanggan dan pengguna layanan
audit internal). Oleh karena itu, kami meminta Anda untuk memberikan alamat email ketua
komite audit Anda kepada kami untuk melihat apakah dia bisa mendapatkan satu atau bahkan
dua klien layanan Anda selama setahun terakhir untuk menanggapi survei yang berbeda. Harap
perhatikan bahwa kami melakukan ini semata-mata untuk mendapatkan umpan balik yang
objektif dan independen tentang fungsi audit internal dan kontribusi nilai tambahnya dalam
organisasi. Semua tanggapan akan tetap rahasia dan hanya akan dilaporkan sebagai data
teragregasi dalam studi akhir.

Dengan berpartisipasi dalam survei ini, Anda membantu memajukan profesi audit internal
global. Kami berterima kasih atas partisipasi Anda yang tanpanya survei seperti itu tidak
mungkin dilakukan. Jika Anda tertarik untuk mempelajari lebih lanjut tentang bagaimana input
Anda dimasukkan ke dalam keseluruhan respons survei dan bagaimana penelitian itu sendiri
ternyata, seperti disebutkan sebelumnya, kami akan dengan senang hati memberi Anda diskon
40 persen kepada penulis pada versi hardcopy yang diterbitkan studi lengkap