On the Frontlines: Managing Change Fatigue

However, there is another angle to examine when it comes to audit fatigue, and that is, who do we audit? This angle takes into consideration the change fatigue of the audit client and asks: To what extent should the internal auditor consider the organizational dynamics affecting the client and its impact on the effectiveness of the audit?

The value of an audit is largely defined by its impact, mostly through recommendations to remediate deficiencies or to reinforce controls, for example. While good in principle, these improvements can become a problem when individuals and organizations are already subject to constant or frequent changes, such as new processes, technologies, leadership changes, or organizational restructuring. More change because of an audit can generate or contribute to the disengagement, resistance, or even burnout of the client, and ultimately miss its target of contributing to positive change.

Before and during the audit, there is value in evaluating the client environment. I suggest four simple questions to get a sense of the nature of the change fatigue experienced by the audit client:

• Are employees expected to adapt continuously? The auditor might be confronted by the audit client’s emotional fatigue, punctuated by expressions of anxiety, stress, exhaustion, and frustration, provoked by constant change. When employees perceive change as a constant, it can reduce their sense of job security and predictability, leading to stress.
• Are employees subject to frequent upskilling or relearning? If required to constantly learn new systems and processes, or adapt to different workflows, individuals can feel overwhelmed. This can be mentally draining and reduce cognitive capacity over time. This is cognitive fatigue.
• Have previous changes been successful and supported? If not, the trust in leadership may erode, and skepticism about future initiatives may increase. The auditor may be confronted with psychological resistance to further shifts. This can also apply to past audits; when past audits have had little impact because of feeble leadership support, the new audit team can expect serious headwinds!
• Is the audited area experiencing reduced productivity or absenteeism? These behaviors are a defense mechanism against the perceived instability of the organization. This behavioral fatigue leads to passive resistance and opposition to new initiatives.

Many auditors, including myself, can be tempted to go for the “perfect” recommendation or solution for an identified problem. But the reality is that an audit is contextual, and absolute answers and advice are not necessarily the ones that work and have the highest impact. Showing emotional intelligence and taking a pragmatic approach, albeit less ambitious in terms of transformation for the client, might well be more effective than a dogmatic approach.

Practically speaking, the auditor might want to ask these three questions about proposed changes:

• Radical or incremental? In the change context of my audit client, should I propose incremental changes rather than radical ones? Maybe achieving a progressive reduction of the risk is better than advocating for a radical move with a higher chance of failure.
• Sequential or parallel? My client already fights on multiple frontlines. Are the changes recommended by audit overlapping? Can we discuss the deadlines and the schedule for the implementation of audit changes in the bigger context of the client transformation? I may want my client to have adequate time to adjust, without fatigue.
• Internal or external? My audit client may feel overwhelmed if he is not given the right tools, training, or support to adapt to changes. As an auditor, I need to consider this context of inadequate support or lack of resources when formulating the audit recommendation, with not only the “what” needs to be done, but also a view on “how” my client could handle the remediation.

The Importance of Clear Communication

When the purpose and benefits of changes are not clearly communicated by the auditor, employees may feel left in the dark, which increases resistance. The auditor needs to clearly communicate audit findings and recommendations for changes, ensuring that transitions are supported by a logical rationale, sufficient resources, and a realistic pace.

All auditors mean well and work hard to formulate the best remediation solutions to an issue. This good work might be in vain if organizational dynamics and change fatigue are not assessed and factored into the audit conclusions. It is often the case that less is more for higher impact.