Richard Chambers writes about the complicated relationship between the audit committee and the CAE in his blogpost from 2 March, Audit committees are often uncomfortable pointing out to the CAE what internal audit could do better. Instead, they leave it to management to deliver the news, and the translation isn’t always pure
Relationships between audit committees and chief audit executives (CAEs) have become increasingly more complex as the risks facing organizations have become more diverse and dynamic. Indeed, audit committee members often comment that they are turning to internal audit more often for an expanding scope of assurance and advisory services.
But the relationship between the audit committee and the CAE is often complicated by personal dynamics and the awkwardness that comes with “constructive feedback.” As a result, I have often found that audit committees are uncomfortable pointing out to the CAE what internal audit could do better. Instead, they leave it to management to deliver the news, and the translation isn’t always pure. I first shared my view that some audit committee members keep their true views of internal audit bottled up back in 2014. The blog gained a lot of attention, and I was even invited by the National Association of Corporate Directors to discuss the list at an Audit Committee Forum.