Internal auditor conduct, unbecoming an auditor...

[juliov]

This internal auditor appears to have a personal animosity towards the other function, and is using the IA as a tool to harass which is contrary to what an IA is all about. Making this auditor understand this frankly is not possible due to the auditor's character. As an MR maybe there is a way to overule this auditor and fill in a report addressing improper behavior compromising the QMS integrity and continual improvement. Comments?

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

Making this auditor understand this frankly is not possible due to the auditor's character.

If it really is that bad, you are left with little choice, wouldn't you say? You will have to overrule him. Furthermore he seems to do more harm than good as an auditor: I would chop him from any further auditing.

/Claes

 

[AndyN]

The issue seems to be not just the 'fix' for the current situation - (do it yourself - close out whatever findings or the original nc and get on with your lives) but how someone could have been recruited into this role in the first place?
So, please take a look at your 'how to find an auditor' procedure and make sure you change it to read "don't accept volunteers, people with a chip on their shoulders etc............"

Seriously, like most organizations, the qualification process for auditors needs an overhaul. We expect them to do audits and help stimulate actions, but shouldn't we be a bit careful with whom we choose??

Andy

 

[Randy]

If I were still self employed you could hire me to come up and choke the living "S" out of him.

Or maybe just say this "Looky here stupid, apparently you've a problem that is impacting your relationship with this organization and that's causing us a problem, so we'll deal with ours and yours will be solved as well. Take a hike!"

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

So, please take a look at your 'how to find an auditor' procedure and make sure you change it to read "don't accept volunteers, people with a chip on their shoulders etc............"

That reminds me... How about a peek in the following old threds?

Anyone make "difficult" employees Internal Auditors?
HOW do you find your internal auditors?
WHERE do you find your internal auditors?

/Claes

 

[Coury Ferguson]

This internal auditor appears to have a personal animosity towards the other function, and is using the IA as a tool to harass which is contrary to what an IA is all about. Making this auditor understand this frankly is not possible due to the auditor's character. As an MR maybe there is a way to overule this auditor and fill in a report addressing improper behavior compromising the QMS integrity and continual improvement. Comments?

Then that explains it in pretty clear language.

The auditor is using the internal audit system to take actions against certain groups within the organization. In my opinion, that is out-of-bed with what the Internal Audit systems is for, to improve the Business functions. This misuse of the Internal Audit system is unacceptable to me. I would remove the authority that the Internal Auditor has been given and if this person worked directly for me, I would not hesitate to take the appropriate action within the Business structure.

There definitely appears to be a lack of understanding of what the Internal Audit is for, and a lack competency of this auditor.

Have you determine the "root cause" of this attitude? There could be some other underlying issue.

Use the "5 Whys" to see if you can determine the root cause.

1. Why does this auditor have this attitude? Start there and continue until you are unable to answer the "whys."


I have to ask this question to better understand the situation from a Training aspect and don't take this personally:

Who trained, qualified, verified, and validated the ability (competency) of this Auditor?

 

[juliov]

Thanks Coury, our internal auditors are trained in-house and honestly we put out a best effort to academically train our internal auditors by using the right course audit materials, standards, info, etc. However, you can never tell with certainty how a certain employee will perform a certain process as important as an internal audit, what I mean is how could we have known that this person basically carries " a chip on the shoulder" and would turn out to be detrimental to our audit function. We made a mistake, removing this auditor will be the next challenge,
Thanks,

 

[JRKH]

Very interesting posts on this one. Also somewhat disturbing. It's a tough situation.

My two cents.

I would recommend the following actions (some of which you have already have done.

1) Determine the reasons that the auditor feels the need for followup (to find something else)

2) If reasons are deemed insufficient by whoever is responsible for the audit program then explain this to auditor.

3) If auditor refuses to close out the findings inform him/her that they are being removed from the audit and placed on probation within the audit system.

4) Talk to other interested parties such as other internal auditors, managers etc. to determine if the person can be retrained or should be dismissed from the auditing system.

5) Review procedures and policies to determine how this situation was allowed to develop and make appropriate changes.

Good luck

James

 

[Coury Ferguson]

Thanks Coury, our internal auditors are trained in-house and honestly we put out a best effort to academically train our internal auditors by using the right course audit materials, standards, info, etc. However, you can never tell with certainty how a certain employee will perform a certain process as important as an internal audit, what I mean is how could we have known that this person basically carries " a chip on the shoulder" and would turn out to be detrimental to our audit function. We made a mistake, removing this auditor will be the next challenge,
Thanks,

Your welcome.

To respond to the question (in Blue Font):

You wouldn't have known that. However, this sort of falls under my training questions:

I have to ask this question to better understand the situation from a Training aspect and don't take this personally:

Who trained, qualified, verified, and validated the ability (competency) of this Auditor?

Verified and validated the ability (competency) of this auditor.

Did anyone go with this auditor during the verification and validation cycle of the competency of this auditor? Like as an observer (the lead auditor) that may have identified this attitude during the witnessing of the performance of this auditor.

Just a thought.

 

[fuzzy]

can you expand on the statement of "review effectiveness and closeout status"
Thanks,

I think you were asking me, so...for our CAR's we have an Access database which allows me issue, review replies, enter verification notes, and choose to close or keep open any CAR. So I have on occasion, closed CAR's without verification (employees departed, issue superceded, etc.) or closed specific action items for similar reasons. One feature we added that I like is that I determine which action items in the CAR we will verify, as I receive and approve / reject the reply. If I can't see a way to verify objectively, I don't try. In the end I have to answer for the choices I make in these regards.

Seems like you have worked out your solution to this matter. Good luck. I lead a group of 16 IA's and would not hesitate to remove a bad actor as you have described here.