Bridging Generations: The Crucial Role of Defined Standards & Requirements in Evolving Internal Audit Practices

In the world of Internal Auditing, standing at the junction of age and experience at 35 with 15 years of practice is a rare and intriguing position. It's a combination that not only highlights the scarcity of such profiles in the profession but also, paradoxically, has been a point of contention throughout my career. This unique intersection of age and expertise places me and others like me in a pivotal role, tasked with bridging the generational gap that exists within our field. This gap is not merely a matter of years; it represents a divergence in methodologies, philosophies, and even lifestyles that invariably influence professional practices.

The Internal Audit profession, much like any other, is evolving, a fact underscored by the recent issuance of the new global standards, including the first topical requirements drafts. This development has elicited a broad spectrum of reactions, ranging from staunch opposition to wholehearted support. The issuance of these standards marks a critical juncture, reflecting a shift towards more structured and defined practices within the profession.

One of the more contentious points revolves around the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) setting forth detailed requirements that some fear may cross the boundary from guidance to overly prescriptive "parental instructions." From a personal standpoint, valuing individuality and the creative process, I understand the reluctance to embrace a framework that might seem restrictive. The initial reaction for many, myself included, is resistance to the idea of being told how to execute our professional duties with such specificity.

However, reflecting on my experiences, I recognize the necessity for a more defined framework. I have witnessed firsthand the detrimental effects of practitioners who, lacking certification or a foundational understanding of internal auditing, misrepresent their expertise. These individuals offer subpar services, claim adherence to standards they do not understand, and, in some cases, assume leadership roles in internal auditing without the requisite qualifications. This scenario not only undermines the integrity of our profession but also poses significant risks to organizations that unknowingly entrust them with critical auditing functions.

Moreover, the challenge is not limited to malpractice by unqualified practitioners; it extends to the newer generation of auditors. Eager to excel and advance in their careers, they find themselves overwhelmed by complex assignments without the necessary support, guidance, or resources. This lack of clarity and support can lead to reliance on inadequate or incorrect information, potentially compromising the quality and effectiveness of their audits.

From this perspective, the introduction of more detailed and binding requirements by the IIA can be seen not as a constraint but as a necessary evolution to protect and enhance the profession. Such standards serve to deter malpractice by setting clear expectations and providing a solid foundation upon which both new and seasoned auditors can build their practices. They ensure that the profession is accessible only to those who are genuinely qualified, thereby preserving its integrity and reputation.

In essence, while the inclination to resist prescriptive requirements is understandable, the broader perspective reveals the benefits they offer. They act as a safeguard against the dilution of professional standards and empower auditors to perform their duties effectively, ultimately benefiting the profession, its practitioners, clients, and the public at large.

As we move forward, it is crucial that we engage with the process of refining these requirements. The comment window provided by the IIA is an invaluable opportunity for professionals from diverse backgrounds to contribute their insights and suggestions. By collectively reviewing and enhancing the technical aspects of these requirements, we can ensure that the final standards not only uphold the principles of internal auditing but also add tangible value to all stakeholders involved. In doing so, we embrace the responsibility to uphold the standards of our profession and ensure its continued relevance and effectiveness in an ever-changing business landscape.

The question of whether the debate over new requirements reveals a generational divide within our profession is a pertinent one. In my experience, I've observed a clear pattern: younger practitioners or those with fewer years in the field tend to welcome these changes with open arms, seeing them as an opportunity for growth and improvement. Conversely, while many seasoned veterans also support the new standards, there's a noticeable trend of skepticism among a segment of the more experienced demographic. This skepticism spans various geographic regions, hinting at a broader, demographic-based reluctance to change. This observation isn't to diminish the value of their extensive experience but to highlight the diverse perspectives that enrich our profession.

In navigating these divergent views, my advice to all involved is to adopt an open-minded approach. Rather than attempting to see the situation from another's standpoint, I encourage a 'barefoot journey'—stepping out of our preconceived notions and biases to truly embrace the potential of these new standards. Let's approach these changes with curiosity and openness, exploring how they can enhance our practice and profession as a whole.

It's important to note that the opinions and perspectives I've shared in this article are purely my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) or any other organization with which I may be associated. As we move forward, it's crucial that we, as a community of internal audit professionals, engage in constructive dialogue, share our insights, and work collaboratively towards the continuous improvement and evolution of our profession.