Archive | Uncategorized RSS feed for this section

10 Internal Audit Thought Leaders of the Decade – Chambers – Blog – 2019

24 Dec

98F55EDC-CACF-4469-A778-EB0BC2B44BCE

Honored to be named one of the Top 10 Internal Audit Thought Leaders of the Decade. Thank you dear Richard Chambers and IIA-The Institute of Internal Auditors.

Richard Chambers, Blog, 23 December 2019: https://iaonline.theiia.org/blogs/chambers/2019/Pages/10-Internal-Audit-Thought-Leaders-of-the-Decade.aspx

Internal Auditor’s blogs reflect the personal views and opinions of the authors. These views may differ from policies and official statements of The Institute of Internal Auditors and its committees and from opinions endorsed by the bloggers’ employers or the editors of Internal Auditor.

10 Internal Audit Thought Leaders of the Decade

December 23, 2019

These last few weeks of the year, we are seeing a variety of Top 10 lists looking back over the decade. Not to be left out, I have one to share: My list of the Top 10 internal audit thought leaders of the decade.

As I started compiling this list a few days ago, I was struck by how many men and women were vocal and instructive in advancing the practice of internal audit around the world in the 2010s. The danger in compiling a list such as this is not in who gets included, but in offending an outstanding thought leader who might be left off. So, let me offer my apologies in advance.

My list is intended to acknowledge active contributions to advancing the profession through lectures, articles, publications, and social media over all or most of the past decade. There are several individuals who have made a remarkable emergence in very recent years. These include giants in the profession, such as Jenitha John, Nancy Haig, Hal Garyn, Dominique Vincenti, Laura Soileau, and many others. The value they bring to the profession goes without saying, and I fully anticipate some or all of them on future Top 10 lists.

It is also important to note that I have excluded IIA staff around the world from consideration. Despite the fact that they are not on this list, I will have enduring gratitude for the passion, enthusiasm, and profound contributions they are making to the profession.

I must stress that I do not always agree with all of the men and women who made my Top 10 list. In fact, with some of them, I often find myself taking an alternate point of view. But, they put their views out there for debate, and that counts a lot. So, with all of the disclaimers out of the way, here is my list in alphabetical order.

Todd Davies: Todd is the only Australian on the list. I am always inspired by his insightful articles and social media posts. Twitter: @ToddDavies

Jim DeLoach: Jim is the quintessential internal audit thought leader, and no list would be complete without him. Protiviti is fortunate that he is part of its team! Twitter: @Deloachjim

Theresa “Terry” Grafenstein: Terry is one of the most accomplished thought leaders in cybersecurity in our field. I am always in awe of how relatable she makes some of the most complex issues seem to her audiences.

Mike Jacka: Mike is the dean of The IIA’s bloggers. His posts often offer a light-hearted look at the challenges we face and the world around us. Twitter: @figre

Tim Leech: Every profession needs a Tim Leech, someone who is always challenging us to do better, and never shy about sharing a provocative point of view. I often vehemently disagree with Tim, but I must admit that I occasionally come around to seeing his point of view. Twitter@RiskOversight

Dr. Rainer Lenz: My favorite German thought leader, Rainer is often provocative, but always thoughtful in his point of view. Twitter: @Rainer_Lenz

Norman Marks: If I were ranking the list, Norman would be at or near the top. He is a tireless thought leader, whether speaking to internal audit conferences, authoring books, writing blogs, or simply sharing his views on social media. If you are not connected with Norman, I urge you to do so at once. Twitter: @normanmarks

Joseph McCafferty: Joe has emerged in the last half of this decade as a prolific internal audit thought leader. He could well be one of the giants in our profession in the 2020s. Twitter: @McCafOnAudit

Patty Miller: Another strong and consistent voice for the profession, Patty was a pioneer for women in internal audit leadership, first at Pacific Bell and Deloitte and then as a global chair of The IIA. She continues to shape internal audit leaders through her work with The IIA’s Vision University. Twitter: @p_k_miller

Paul Sobel: One of the true internal audit MVPs of the decade, Paul has chaired The IIA, the International Internal Audit Standards Board, and COSO. He is a prolific writer and speaker on all topics internal audit and risk management. He did all of that while serving as a CAE, and later CRO, of his company. Twitter: @paulsobel

Finally, I must emphasize that this is my personal list of influential thought leaders, not The IIA’s. I am sure I have left off some deserving individuals, and I welcome your thoughts on who should have been included.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Richard Chambers
Richard Chambers

Richard F. Chambers, CIA, QIAL, CGAP, CCSA, CRMA, is president and CEO of The IIA. In Chambers on the Profession, he shares his personal reflections and insights based on his 40 years of experience in the internal audit profession.

 

Most read paper 2017 – Thank you !

11 Dec

Lenz, R. and Hahn, U. (2015), A synthesis of empirical internal audit effectiveness literature pointing to new research opportunities, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 30 No. 1, 5-33

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/MAJ-08-2014-107

ECIIA 2017 in Basel

17 Mar

ECIIA 2017

I look forward to attending the forthcoming European Conference of the Institute of Internal Auditors (ECIIA) in Basel from September 20-22, 2017.

ECIIA Conference 2017

I plan to speak about:

SUCCESs – Simple, Unexpected, Concrete, Credible, Emotional, and Stories

SUCCESs

 

 

 

Fresh article about internal audit effectiveness – 50 downloads FREE

3 Feb

50-second-timer

Lenz, R., Sarens, G. & Hoos, F. (2017), Internal Audit Effectiveness: Multiple Case Study Research Involving Chief Audit Executives and Senior Management, EDPACS, 55:1, 1-17

50x FREE ACCESS to: LENZ, SARENS & HOOS (2017), EDPACS, 55:1, 1-17

Abstract

The focus of this study is the relationship between Chief Audit Executives (CAEs) and Senior Management (SM) and its relationship with internal audit (IA) effectiveness. The study reveals differences between more and less effective IA functions and offers explanations by studying organizational, personal, and interpersonal factors within the German corporate governance context. The findings show that the pattern of interaction between CAEs and SM are a key determinant of IA effectiveness. This study highlights the danger of viewing customer satisfaction as the key measure of IA effectiveness since in practice expectations can vary significantly and as sometimes very little may be demanded. Moreover, CAEs typically adjust to expectations, upward and downward. CAEs can drive the agenda as well. When it comes to personality factors, “Fingerspitzengefühl” and swimming in the organization characterize the successful internal auditor. IA designations for CAEs were not found to be of added value. At organizational level, the findings show that companies that are considered as “hidden champions” demand and benefit from effective IA practices.

Keywords: internal audit, effectiveness, organizational factors, personal factors, interpersonal factors.

 

Additional author information

Rainer Lenz, PhD, CIA, QIAL, CIIA, is a seasoned financial and audit executive with over twenty years of international experience in global organizations.

Gerrit Sarens, PhD, CIA, is full professor in audit and governance at the Louvain School of Management (Belgium). He is the author of several books and articles on internal audit.

Florian Hoos, PhD, is assistant professor in accounting and management control at HEC Paris (France). He has won numerous awards, including the nomination as one of the worldwide 40 best business school professors under 40.

 

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT LENZ, SARENS & HOOS (2017)

 

Tags: effectivenessInternal Auditinterpersonal factorsorganizational factorspersonal factors

Offense wins games, defense wins championships

4 Nov

 

offense-defense

Lyons, Sean (2016): Corporate Defense and the Value Preservation Imperative: Bulletproof Your Corporate Defense Program, Taylor & Francis Group, ISBN 978-1-4987-4228-3

https://www.crcpress.com/Corporate-Defense-and-the-Value-Preservation-Imperative-Bulletproof-Your/Lyons/p/book/9781498742283

sean-lyons-2016

Book review by Dr. Rainer Lenz, Frankfurt/Main, www.drrainerlenz.de

Offense wins games, defense wins championships

Sean Lyons published this new book in September 2016. I happily share my token of appreciation by providing a little book review. Sean introduces the terminology of “corporate defense”. His reference to the old sporting aphorism that “offense wins games, defense wins championships” is a helpful analogy. In order to win a football game the team has to score one more goal than the opponent. What seems to make good sense in sports, may work in business, too. Modern play seeks to incorporate offense (value creation) and defense (value protection) in all actors – with complementary roles. Sean is looking for the ideal mix between offense and defense, the “golden mean”, the healthy balance. Moreover, Sean diagnoses a defense deficit in many organizations. With that starting point, Sean views the Three-Lines-Of-Defense-Model (3LoD), the current paradigm, as part of the problem, not part of the solution. I fully concur with that. Viewing, for example, the genesis of major banks, the Deutsche Bank in Germany or Wells Fargo in the US may serve as prominent case studies, using that model, it seems that this model may have promoted a misleading sense of security. The model exclusively talks about defense. The model seems to ignore the human factor. The model seems to be an undue simplification. Consequently, the 3LoD-Model is not relevant in many organizations outside the banking sector. Time is ripe to overhaul the 3LoD-Model. I am fully on-board with that ambition. Having diagnosed the shortcomings of the 3LoD-Model, Sean suggests his five lines of corporate defense, (1) the operational line management, (2) tactical oversight functions, (3) independent internal assurance, (4) executive management, and (5) the board. Similarly, the draft King IV report on Corporate Governance for South Africa expands the 3LoD-Model to five lines of assurance. Sean offers a detailed roadmap to put such a system in place. That deserves much credit. The approach suggested may be perceived as theoretical in parts, it may be too complex for many, and it may only be relevant for very big organizations. I personally doubt that adding more lines of defense per se will be the best solution to address the fast evolving risk universe organizations are facing. Sean also acknowledges that consideration and advocates an integrated perspective, integrated thinking at the end of his book; rightfully so. I see the main value of Sean’s book in detailing the various elements of “corporate defense” (e.g. governance, risk, compliance, intelligence, security, resilience, controls, and assurance) and in demanding an integrated approach, also including the offense side of the corporate agenda in order to strengthen corporate governance. In doing so, Sean’s book may become a stepping stone for corporations introducing the role of a “Chief Governance Officer”. That role, however, may then compete in a way with the CEO, the Chief Executive Officer. Or, how do we have to think about that? I am curious to learn about companies that have put the “Corporate Defense Management and the Value Preservation Imperative” in place effectively. I am positive there is more interesting work forthcoming from Sean. And, I am keen on reading it.

Sharing online access to fresh article – up to 50 downloads

20 Oct

50-pdf

Up to 50 downloads free of charge

Sarens, G., Lenz, R. & Decaux, L. (2016) Insights Into Self-Images of Internal Auditors, EDPACS, 54:4, 1-18

EDPACS, 54:4, 1-18

manuscript_insights-into-self-images-of-internal-auditors_2016

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to critically analyze self-images of internal auditors in the light of the metaphors and short descriptions they give about their own role(s) in their organization. Worldwide data have been collected via a forum for internal auditors on LinkedIn where they were asked “If you were asked to write down a catch-line to sum up your role as internal auditors in your organization, what would it be?” The analysis distinguishes five clusters of self-images whereby some of these self-images could be self-inflicted pitfalls creating the wrong expectations and perceptions within the organization: (1) negative self-images that may create distance and form the basis of non-acceptance; (2) overly modest self-perceptions; (3) use of self-evident and empty words that could lead to marginalization in the eyes of internal auditors’ stakeholders; (4) overly ambitious claims, Superman-like, creating the basis for disappointment as internal auditors all too often over-promise and under-deliver. Eventually (5), we also find original and helpful self-images that point to positive characteristics and differences, which should help in creating a unique and sustainable identity, and also support internal audit’s pursuit of greater effectiveness. The analysis of how internal auditors view themselves may explain why some internal auditors are on a route to marginalization and disappointment, while others embark on a more promising path creating a positive, unique and sustainable identity as suggested by recent studies. Ultimately, we suggest that viewing internal auditors as farmers is a promising metaphor with which to position internal audit and strengthen its value proposition.

Keywords: Internal audit, self-images, metaphors, identity

Insights Into Self-Images of Internal Auditors

4 Jun

farmer-pic

Sarens, G., Lenz, R. & Decaux, L. (2016) Insights Into Self-Images of Internal Auditors, EDPACS, 54:4, 1-18

EDPACS, 54:4, 1-18

We need to be more like farmers.”

(Sharma, 2010, p. 37)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to critically analyze self-images of internal auditors in the light of the metaphors and short descriptions they give about their own role(s) in their organization. Worldwide data have been collected via a forum for internal auditors on LinkedIn where they were asked “If you were asked to write down a catch-line to sum up your role as internal auditors in your organization, what would it be?” The analysis distinguishes five clusters of self-images whereby some of these self-images could be self-inflicted pitfalls creating the wrong expectations and perceptions within the organization: (1) negative self-images that may create distance and form the basis of non-acceptance; (2) overly modest self-perceptions; (3) use of self-evident and empty words that could lead to marginalization in the eyes of internal auditors’ stakeholders; (4) overly ambitious claims, Superman-like, creating the basis for disappointment as internal auditors all too often over-promise and under-deliver. Eventually (5), we also find original and helpful self-images that point to positive characteristics and differences, which should help in creating a unique and sustainable identity, and also support internal audit’s pursuit of greater effectiveness. The analysis of how internal auditors view themselves may explain why some internal auditors are on a route to marginalization and disappointment, while others embark on a more promising path creating a positive, unique and sustainable identity as suggested by recent studies. Ultimately, we suggest that viewing internal auditors as farmers is a promising metaphor with which to position internal audit and strengthen its value proposition.