Auditor-General: 'narrow interpretations' a leadership fail

By Harley Dennett

November 14, 2014

Too many public sector agencies have a “tick-and-flick” approach to meeting the expectations upon them with no follow up or assurance checking, a disappointed Auditor-General Ian McPhee has warned.

Speaking at a parliamentary hearing Wednesday on his recent audit of the Australian Electoral Commission, McPhee said institutional “narrow interpretation” of recommendations and priorities by managers was a problem seen in many agencies:

“It’s not good enough to just presume that because management has decided this will happen that it will happen. There needs to be appropriate follow up arrangements; there needs to be understanding amongst the managers in the organisation that it is their responsibility to ensure these things actually happen and take responsibility for checking that they have been.

“Narrow interpretation is a short-hand term that I use when something is agreed to be done, [but not checked] to make sure that is actioned and done in an appropriate way. And not only is it actioned in an appropriate way but having the desired impact as well. In some of the reports we do, it’s very obvious managers take a narrow view of their responsibility; don’t check with colleagues that the desired effect has taken place.”

Using the example of the AEC, which reported having implemented the recommendations of earlier audits yet done so poorly, McPhee said this was a case of ticking the box:

“Someone has probably said yes, we’ve done it, but not seriously assessing that the required action has been taken and the desired impact has been achieved.”

In some cases the AEC head office was blind to whether actions were taken or not, and never got feedback from the teams implementing the commitments the head office had made.

If a commitment or priority is important enough then the leadership should be getting regular feedback, McPhee says. It starts at the top, with the CEO and the governance body having procedures in place to inform themselves that in all significant areas the recommendations or government direction have been implemented.

McPhee says it takes discipline — more than he’s seen in many agencies to date — to make sure the governance arrangements are providing sufficient information with those charged, and to know where the soft spots in an organisation are, and where intervention is required. Leaders need to ensure priorities and commitments are understood across their organisations, he said:

“This is not easy work. This is about not only procedures and controls but there’s an important people element to all this as well and it goes to a leadership, how managers bring their people along.

“We want an army of risk managers; we just don’t want a risk-person in an organisation who is responsible, we want everyone to be tuned into our objectives, what we are trying to achieve, what our aspirations are and contributing strongly to that. That’s an important job for senior executives and there’s a procedural element which we ought to look at certainly, but we never ignore the important people issue and bringing people along with us.”

More at The Mandarin: AEC audit: they promised reform, but did very little

About the author
1 Comment
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rhys
Rhys
7 years ago

What a pity that an induction process is not mandatory for all public sector senior executive which covers of responsibilities such as this, and underlying benefits of a good audit function. I stress “good” audit function because a poor one only serves to assist in the deterioration of views on the value of audit (internal and external). One of the risks associated with having an outsourced audit internal audit function is that providers often “over-recommend”.
Every small thing is noted, and each has an assigned management action. They see this as the best way to demonstrate how much work has been done and to justify the expense. It does neither, and instead managers are faced with reports that are too long and a myriad of recommendations for which they must provide periodic status updates.
Among the large volume of material within reports that cross the desk of management is perhaps one or two findings and recommendations which are important and which must be addressed, since it represents a major risk in achieving an objective. However, the chances are that, if managers have been over-burdened with reports littered with small value findings and recommendations in the past, then they have already lost interest in a process that their previous experience has demonstrated has little value to them.
We (internal auditors) should recognise that our underlying purpose is to be a risk-management tool for senior executive and that means getting to the point quickly.

The Mandarin Premium

Insights & analysis that matter to you

Subscribe for only $5 a week

 

Get Premium Today