Does collegiality undermine independent thinking in internal audit?

Collegiality and teamwork are often regarded as essential to foster impartiality in decision-making, to enhance team engagement, and to improve work satisfaction. However, collegiality is sometimes viewed as a potential threat to authority and a hindrance to swift decision-making, particularly in crisis situations. Moreover, some argue that collegiality can encourage conformity, which paradoxically may erode the impartiality it aims to promote. This raises an important question: can collegiality harm independent thinking?

Collegiality in the context of internal audit (IA)

For a Chief Audit Executive (CAE), the need for independence is paramount. But does this mean a CAE must operate in isolation? Conversely, could working alone lead to bias or a lack of objectivity? In this article, I argue that while a CAE engages in numerous interactions during the audit process, these do not compromise the impartiality or objectivity of the audit work. Instead, such interactions strengthen the audit process.

Objectivity over impartiality in IA

In the field of IA, impartiality demands auditors remain neutral, treating all client contributions equally and without bias. Objectivity, on the other hand, emphasizes detachment and reliance on factual evidence. It involves a systematic approach grounded in observable and verifiable data.

The cornerstone of IA is evidence-based assessment, where "professional judgment" is exercised through measurable outcomes rather than subjective opinions or external pressures. In my view, objectivity—more than impartiality—is the defining expectation for a CAE.

Internal collaboration: a pillar of the IA process

The audit process is inherently collaborative. Most CAEs work with a team of skilled professionals who contribute to every stage of the audit. The audit process is a conversation. From the initial planning phase, such as an Audit Planning Meeting (APM), through to fieldwork and final reporting, constant dialogue and iterative adjustments are vital. I always thought that auditors invented the Agile approach even before the word exists! Even though the CAE ultimately owns the key messages and recommendations, the process is far from solitary.

Team discussions ensure that facts are thoroughly verified, evidence is cross-checked, and findings are critically analyzed. This collaborative approach minimizes subjectivity and personal bias. For this to be effective, the CAE must embody the qualities of a team player—listening, discussing, and leveraging collective expertise.

Collaboration with other assurance providers

In the financial services sector, the traditional silos between the second and third lines have largely been suppressed. Under the new GIAS 9.5 standard on coordination and reliance, the CAE is required to collaborate with internal and external assurance providers.

Second-line and “sister” functions like Risk and Compliance offer valuable insights and assessments that can inform and enhance IA's work. Regular dialogue with key stakeholders—such as the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO), Chief Risk Officer (CRO), and other first-line control owners (Chief Accountant, Chief Actuary, CIO, CTO, etc.) – enriches the CAE's understanding of the organization. Similarly, insights from external auditors contribute to a more comprehensive and balanced evaluation.

Building trust with the CEO, the leadership team, and the Audit Committee (AC)

A strong working relationship with the CEO and leadership team is critical for a CAE. These interactions serve as an important source of strategic and operational information. Rather than introducing bias or undermining objectivity, open communication ensures the CAE remains aligned with the organization’s priorities. Isolation, by contrast, risks disconnecting the CAE from crucial insights, which can weaken audit strategies.

The same principle applies to the AC. Regular touchpoints with the AC, particularly its Chair, build trust in the IA function and help the CAE refine and prioritize audit activities. Collegiality in this context does not compromise independence but rather strengthens the CAE’s role as a trusted advisor.

Collegiality as a strength, not a weakness

For a CAE, there may not be a collegiality with other C-executives in the traditional sense, but there are many echo chambers that make the internal audit work more robust and articulated, and ultimately value adding. It does not mean forming alliances or succumbing to groupthink. Instead, it reflects the dynamic interactions within the organization’s ecosystem.

Impartiality and objectivity are not achieved through isolation but are cultivated through an attitude that values collaboration without compromising professional detachment. This form of collegiality, when balanced appropriately, transforms into a key strength that drives the audit function’s value to the organization.

Independence is a mindset.