A major limitation in implementing a management audit, therefore, is related to the selection of audit personnel. The auditors, of course, must be competent in background, experience, and professional ability. But in addition, they must demonstrate an ability to deal successfully with human relations problems. In other words, they must be able to objectively appraise the actions of others without generating undue suspicions and, thereby, adding to a set of already strained conditions. As already noted, the natural feeling of someone being audited is one of defensiveness; i.e., the auditors are working for the boss who is “out to get me.” This attitude must be avoided. To do so, the better auditors will establish a pre-audit condition expressing their willingness to discuss their evaluation with the affected personnel before it is reported to higher management. In many cases this will evolve into a negotiation-discussion process whereby those concerned begin to view the audit as a way in which weaknesses may be pinpointed and their performances (and rewards) improved. Finally, essential to the success of the audit is a willingness by those being audited to accept change. Too many in management positions, particularly those who have risen through the ranks, feel that the current way of doing business is good enough. They may be allowed to retain this belief only if the audit supports their contentions with facts. Rarely will this be the case, and even if it were, the “good enough syndrome” will eventually destroy all desires for continual improvement. The audit is designed to pinpoint strengths and weaknesses in the firm’s operations. It is up to management at all levels to implement rewards or corrective action. If no action is taken in response to the auditor’s findings, then the effort has been wasted.
