Hello, my name is Roger Fisher, Quality/Safety Manager of a small 60 person company in Western Kentucky, USA. My boss, the president, requests to be able to perform internal audits. He has been trained and is willing. What are your thoughts on the President being an auditor? I would greatly appreciate any feedback.

Sincerely,

Roger Fisher

I had the same question several years ago and if you look you can find the replies in the forum that were sent to me. The president should audit because he is the president. It is his company and has the right to know how the quality management system is functioning. Provided that he audits in a professional manner there is nothing wrong with doing the audit.

Hello, my name is Roger Fisher, Quality/Safety Manager of a small 60 person company in Western Kentucky, USA. My boss, the president, requests to be able to perform internal audits. He has been trained and is willing. What are your thoughts on the President being an auditor? I would greatly appreciate any feedback.

Sincerely,

Roger Fisher

I think it is a great idea. Top Management involved. :applause: Just make sure the he/she doesn't audit their own work.

I wish someone in top management would do that where I work. I would think you will get all the support you need. My hats off to you.

Tell him to knock himself out if he really thinks his presence won't slant the findings.

I agree with Randy. My question is his ability to:

1. Obtain freely spoken and truthful remarks from people he audits. Does the culture support his receiving unbiased information?

2. Receive the information objectively. How would he process bad news on something he believes should be working or reflects negatively on someone he supports?

3. Connect the dots between areas he's familiar with and not familiar with. How good is he at recognizing performance strengths that affect each other across departments?

4. Empower others to solve the issues and monitor the progress with a minimum of interference.

I find a potential struggle in his performing this role given he's the one with ultimate hiring and firing power. Again, the culture management has built is the key to this idea succeeding.

Hello, my name is Roger Fisher, Quality/Safety Manager of a small 60 person company in Western Kentucky, USA. My boss, the president, requests to be able to perform internal audits. He has been trained and is willing. What are your thoughts on the President being an auditor? I would greatly appreciate any feedback.

Sincerely,

Roger Fisher

Just a thought from your friendly neighborhood devil's advocate: how can a CEO be considered an independent auditor if he's responsible for all of the company's processes?

8.2.2 .... Selection of auditors and conduct of audits shall ensure objectivity and impartiality of the audit process. Auditors shall not audit their own work.

There is no place in the 9001 standard that says that an auditor cannot audit any process in which they share any responsibility. If the boss can be objective, and impartial, (which is what we should be expecting from any internal auditor) then by all means let him audit. What a wonderful way to show management commitment to the process.

If the boss isn't being impartial and objective are you going to feel comfortable telling him that?

Another aspect to consider.

8.2.2 .... Selection of auditors and conduct of audits shall ensure objectivity and impartiality of the audit process. Auditors shall not audit their own work.

There is no place in the 9001 standard that says that an auditor cannot audit any process in which they share any responsibility. If the boss can be objective, and impartial, (which is what we should be expecting from any internal auditor) then by all means let him audit. What a wonderful way to show management commitment to the process.

I think that in some instances it might be impossible to insure objectivity and impartiality. it depends on the motives and general modus operandi of the CEO, and because there are an awful lot of them who can't be trusted, I'm not sure I like the idea as a general practice.

If the boss isn't being impartial and objective are you going to feel comfortable telling him that?

Another aspect to consider.

Well, if I can't trust him to do the right thing, I'm not going to work for him for long. I have, and will again if needed, tell someone from management that they are not impartial and/or objective. Actually, the CEO agreed with me and as part of the corrective action to improve this manager's skills and commitment he was sent to internal auditor classes. He soon changed his viewpoint on the whole "ISO" program and later became one of the best auditors that we had.

I think that in some instances it might be impossible to insure objectivity and impartiality. it depends on the motives and general modus operandi of the CEO, and because there are an awful lot of them who can't be trusted, I'm not sure I like the idea as a general practice.

All I can say to this is that most of the crooks aren't going to want to take the time because there are easier ways for them to wield their wicked motives and general modus operandi. I am so thankful that I work for a corporation that would not tolerate for long any CEO who could not be trusted.

I'm on the optimist side of the coin here.

1) If the boss wants to be an auditor, he's the boss so he should be an auditor. Who's to tell him "no"?
2) It shows great support for the audit system. If I was a customer of yours I'd think "hey - that's great buy in from upper management".

Using the logic that he's responsible for everything so he can't be impartial, I think, is faulty.
I'll bet he's not the process owner of every single process in the company, so he can audit those processes that he does not "own".

It's true that optimism has a place in this topic.

I recall reading a news story about CEOs who spent a week working amongst the front row line workers. One, in a hotel chain, realized how uncomfortable the uniforms were for housekeeping staff and had them replaced. Another realized his restaurant chain's kitchens really needed another sink, so he had them installed.

When auditing moves past compliance and into assessing performance, these opportunities can become plainer. If this person is inclined to go and objectively see for himself, it could be a really good thing.

It's true that optimism has a place in this topic.

It's important to be able to distinguish between optimism and delusions, though. I think it's a great thing for executives to experience being beaten over the head with their leadership failures firsthand. The problem is that an executive who will actually take the initiative to get involved at that level probably already knows what it feels like and won't need to.

There's a difference between executive involvement and leadership and being involved in internal auditing. The more I think about it, the less I like the idea. The auditors should be evaluating the 80% of process problems that only management can change, and providing information so that management can do its job. If management can't be content to allow truly objective evaluation, it won't matter much who does the auditing.

It's important to be able to distinguish between optimism and delusions, though. I think it's a great thing for executives to experience being beaten over the head with their leadership failures firsthand. The problem is that an executive who will actually take the initiative to get involved at that level probably already knows what it feels like and won't need to.

There's a difference between executive involvement and leadership and being involved in internal auditing. The more I think about it, the less I like the idea. The auditors should be evaluating the 80% of process problems that only management can change, and providing information so that management can do its job. If management can't be content to allow truly objective evaluation, it won't matter much who does the auditing.


but in a small 60 person company?
I consider that leading by example.

but in a small 60 person company?
I consider that leading by example.


It's an interesting premise. I would say try a couple audits and see how it goes. Remember, the format of the Chrysler Layered Audit actually requires participation by top management. So, the idea is not that radical.

Please, let us know how it worked out.

I think it's a great idea. He'll see first hand how the system is working without hearing about it from a second party. And he'll also see any area's that need work which will be a huge benefit. :applause:

I think it's a great idea. He'll see first hand how the system is working without hearing about it from a second party. And he'll also see any area's that need work which will be a huge benefit. :applause:

Which suggests that his "second party" (internal auditors) can't be trusted to provide accurate information, or if they can be trusted, that he can't be trusted to do anything with it. :(

It's important to be able to distinguish between optimism and delusions, though.

There's a difference between executive involvement and leadership and being involved in internal auditing. The more I think about it, the less I like the idea.

As always, good points Jim. I have been going back and forth on this. My dilemma would be similar to taking the college test and asking "Ok, what is the professor thinking?" My question is: Why does the Prez want to do this?

In the end, I might nod the head on it and say yes. I think my reasoning is not in the value of the audit findings, per se, but in the act of performing the audits. (ASIDE: I bet he/she could get their observations/NC's closed out):yes:


Several years back, the Prez of El Chico corporation prided himself on being able to effectively run the dishwasher station (and he could do it well, too. Cause/ effect here: Did he understand the imporatnce of that station prior to performing the work, or learned to understand the importance when he saw the whole restaurant stop because he wasn't doing it right? When did learning occur?


While there would be red flags in the back of my mind on this, I would still embrace it.


I think this is a good question. Hence, very valid points have been made on both sides.

Well, I'm not the pres, but one rung lower. I did internal audits and we just passed our audit yesterday! It was technically a surveillance audit. However, as I've posted in the past, I'm at a new company this year whose system should never have been registered in the first place so we basically had to re-implement the whole thing. Our quality manager quit in late summer, so I did basically 50% of re-engineering the system before I finally found a great person to fill the position.

So yes, I audited many of our processes. I'm not sure if my direct involvement in creating the processes, or my position in the company is a factor or not. When it's audit time, I want a real picture of what's happening. Are these processes working or not? As far as auditing and interviewing folks: they're aware, have their docs and records in order, etc. or they don't. Show me the evidence.


It should probably be noted, however, that coming from an engineering and quality background I'm the breed who realizes the quality system (business system) has a greater effect on the success of our company, and my career goals, than most other factors. I do think that anyone could be properly trained to conduct a valuable audit, even the president (unless his background is sales/marketing, maybe):notme:

Tym Tucker
Vice President, Operations
Cable Technologies, Inc.

Which suggests that his "second party" (internal auditors) can't be trusted to provide accurate information, or if they can be trusted, that he can't be trusted to do anything with it. :(

I don't think it suggests that at all.
I think it suggests a willingness to actively participate in important initiatives.

It really comes down knowing the individual, which we don't.

:shrug:

FWIW, here is another thread on this same topic:

http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=9396

We've also had topics on whether the president/CEO can be the management representative.

Discordian, I'm with you on thinking that a manager doing audits does not suggest that he doesn't trust his audit team.

Discordian, I'm with you on thinking that a manager doing audits does not suggest that he doesn't trust his audit team.

That's not what I said. Please read what I was responding to.

Which suggests that his "second party" (internal auditors) can't be trusted to provide accurate information, or if they can be trusted, that he can't be trusted to do anything with it. :(


No, I wouldn't interpret it that harshly. But, an executive will often see things from a different angle than regular auditors. I still think it would be an interesting experiment.

No, I wouldn't interpret it that harshly. But, an executive will often see things from a different angle than regular auditors. I still think it would be an interesting experiment.

Here's what I was commenting about:
He'll see first hand how the system is working without hearing about it from a second party.

So, if the second party is providing reliable information, why do I need to audit? Might it be a good thing for the Big Boss to tag along and observe? Maybe. But actually audit? Never.

I not only agree, but it is something I have counseled for years. I am a great supporter of "management by walking around." Internal auditing is just a more structured version of MBWA.

One thing I am sure of - the internal audit will get a MUCH more respectful reception at Management Review!:notme:

Here's what I was commenting about:


So, if the second party is providing reliable information, why do I need to audit? Might it be a good thing for the Big Boss to tag along and observe? Maybe. But actually audit? Never.


Even if it is reliable info, the executive will see things from a different perspective. And, if he is particpating, his presence has already affected the audit. So, if he is going to take the time anyway, why not let him try it?

Even if it is reliable info, the executive will see things from a different perspective. And, if he is particpating, his presence has already affected the audit. So, if he is going to take the time anyway, why not let him try it?

especially when we consider the OP was talking about a 60 person company.
I'm sure in that place the top guy knows everyone by name.

It might be a different story if Fred Hassan was on an audit team in Schering Plough's Union, NJ plant looking at incoming inspection. You bet the auditees would be scared poopless.

Even if it is reliable info, the executive will see things from a different perspective.
Sorry, Helmut, but I'm not following you. If you give the executive reliable information--the information necessary to make good decisions--what difference does it make if she sees things from a different perspective? In my experience, that's more likely to complicate things.

And, if he is particpating, his presence has already affected the audit.
My point exactly.

If the company president is available enough to the employees to receive suggestions and actually act on them then going through an audit does not prove anything. As far as showing that he understands what people do, even an auditor would find it difficult to say they understand a specific job just because they do an occasional audit of it. Collecting garbage for one sunny spring day does not give you an idea of what the job is like day in and day out.

I worked for a division vice president who was convinced he could relate to the employees by attending one of their improvement team meetings. What really happened was that when he spoke, they listened and did what he said. In discussing the event, he did not realize that his "examples" of how they could solve the problem were the only possibilities they considered. As I noted to him: When he talks, they consider him the CEO first and always. My vote is that it probably is not a useful activity for the CEO and the employees will not be as likely to freely express their comments during the audit.

Bill Pflanz

Which suggests that his "second party" (internal auditors) can't be trusted to provide accurate information, or if they can be trusted, that he can't be trusted to do anything with it. :(

I'm not suggesting that at all Jim.

Do you read books or do you have someone do it for you and explain what they read? Which would give you a better understanding of the book.

Hey, if he has the time, training and is willing to do it, what's the problem?:confused:

Do you read books or do you have someone do it for you and explain what they read? Which would give you a better understanding of the book.
It would depend on what information I expected the book to provide, and whether or not it would make sense in a given context for me to trust someone else to assimilate the information and tell me what I need to know.