作为非官方的“内部审计自我反省月”的一部分，近期，我将重点推介以前发表的对内部审计自我检视的博客文章。自我反省的主题，与之前对外营销我们专业的任何努力一样重要。我们必须实事求是地认真审视我们做了什么，我们是如何做的，以及内部审计部门以外的人如何看待我们。在这篇博文中，我重点讨论说服的艺术，这一话题在以前的博文中关注过。
如果问及内部审计人员写审计报告的理由，有些人可能会说，这是为了沟通审计业务的目标、范围和结果；也有人可能会说，这是为了描述审计发现并提出改进建议。我认为，写内部审计报告的最终目标，不是描述我们的发现或提出改进建议，而是为了说服读者采取行动。
影响读者采取行动是必要的。然而，并不是所有的内部审计人员都能意识到，不同写作风格对实施乃至及时实施纠正措施有关键影响。报告的内容读者很轻易可以获知，但激励读者采取行动的因素是写作风格。例如，当年美国陆军作过一个测试，使用两个不同版本的业务邮件要求收件人执行相同的任务，结果显示，那些收到认真撰写并极具感染力邮件的收件人，在收到邮件当天就完成任务的概率是对照组的两倍。
在我作为内部审计人员的职业生涯中，我编写或编辑了数百份内部审计报告，其中一些是好的，另一些则可能需要进行新一轮的编辑，还有一些是受到挫折推到重来的。下面这些建议，可以帮助大家有效提升审计报告的影响力——它们不仅会改变报告阅读者的观念，而且会发出行动的号召，从而达到目的。
一、让报告变得更为简短
如果你看过司法部检察长(IG)关于联邦官员如何处理希拉里·克林顿(Hillary Clinton)在担任国务卿期间使用私人电子邮件服务器的调查报告，你就会发现它与一般的内部审计报告截然不同。它超过25万字的内容，而建议部分直到500页左右才开始。
我既不评论这份报告的调查发现，也不讨论与这一事件相关的政治。作为一名前检查官，我能体会到司法调查对细节的需要。审查的范围令人生畏，问题很复杂，业务的每个领域都充满了争议。但是，一定要尊重读者的需求，对于一个大型的IG调查适用的风格，可能并不适合于内部审计部门。花了整整一个晚上尝试阅读(也失败了)IG报告，让我想起了伟大的温斯顿·丘吉尔(Winston Churchill)的名言:“这份报告篇幅很长，可以使自己远离被阅读的风险。”
内部审计人员可以吸取的教训:(1)内部审计报告仅仅在满足利益相关者需求时才最有说服力；(2)如果我们用太多的信息漫灌读者，那报告的影响力就会变小。报告中的每个单词、每个观点甚至整个句子，如果不能直接说明问题，就应当考虑删掉它。
二、让报告变得更加平实
最好的内部审计报告是用更平实的词语来表达更繁杂的观点，而不是用更繁杂的词语表达更平实的观点。当我们使用清晰、直接和熟悉的语言时，我们的文章最有说服力。这并不意味着让我们的报告变得“肤浅”；平实的语言意味着清晰有效的沟通——与法律术语相反。正如我在之前的一篇博文《内部审计报告中不该说的十件事》中提到的。如果这十件事听起来让你印象深刻，意味着你的报告可能需要重写。
令人信服的证据表明，通俗易懂的语言更容易在更短的时间内被人阅读、理解和关注。1989年，美国海军对军官进行了一项调查，他们阅读的商务备忘录要么是简明平实，要么是官僚作风。结果显示，看到这份平实易懂备忘录的官员们:
明显有更高的理解力。
阅读时间减少了17%到23%。
觉得没必要再读一遍备忘录。
许多内部审计师使用Flesch-Reading Ease或Flesch-Kincaid等级测试等工具来确定他们的报告是否可读。这些测试可以在网上免费获得。如果你使用Microsoft Word准备报告，你也可以选择在检查完拼写和语法后显示有关阅读水平的信息。
内部审计人员可以吸取的教训：在营销材料中，很少看到官僚主义语言或法律术语，这是有原因的：平实的语言能更好地推销观点。即使你所有的利益相关者都有能力阅读和理解博士论文，这并不意味着他们想去读这类文章。如果你的文章既不浮夸，又没有不必要的繁复，更非充满了技术词汇，那么你的文章更有可能具有说服力。
三、让报告的重点更加突出
我们需要让忙碌的高管们更容易阅读、吸收并根据我们的工作成果采取行动。让报告变得更为简短是有帮助的，但我们还必须组织我们的报告，让最重要的观点脱颖而出。
消息样式的标题、副标题和标注框可以吸引他人注意到报告中最重要的信息。不要犹豫使用例子、表格、颜色、图表或图片来修饰和强调重要的问题。还可以考虑使用内容摘要、目录和/或索引来帮助读者轻松地在报告中找到信息。对于较长的报告，内容摘要是必不可少的。
内部审计人员可以吸取的教训：不同的利益相关者有不同的需求，我们需要帮助每个读者快速访问到他们需要的特定信息。如果关键信息被细节所淹没，我们的文章就不会有说服力。
四、不要忽视细节
曾经收到过包含拼写或语法错误的简历或商业计划书吗?对于发送这类邮件的个人或公司，你可能会三思而行。审计报告也是如此。如果文章中出现拼写错误、语法或标点符号错误，读者可能会觉得你不注重细节，更糟糕的是，他们会认为你对工作不够认真。哪怕只是一个小小的错误，都会对你的可信度造成负面影响。这可能不公平，但如果你的报告中有错误(粗心或其他)，你理性的论点可能会遭到质疑。
内部审计人员可以吸取的教训：注重细节。如果你因为忽略了最基本的东西而失去了信誉，你就很难有说服力。
五、语言更加客观公正
我们都试图不带偏见，但有时我们忽略了我们的话的含意。如果我们想让读者接受我们的想法，我们的语气需要客观——即使我们传达的是负面信息。
在《清晰、影响、速度：提交重要的审计报告》(Clarity, Impact, Speed: deliver Audit Reports That Matter)一书中，我的好朋友萨莉•卡特勒(Sally Cutler) 提供的以下几个例子，从管理层的角度来看，可能会显得不必要的偏见或负面影响:
偏见和更负面的表达:
审计客户未能编制文件以证明符合政策。
接受询问时，经理们对供应商核查过程给出了相互矛盾的解释。
无偏见和更积极的表达:
未能提供证明文件以证明该政策的符合性。
管理人员对供应商验证过程有不同的解释。
内部审计人员可以吸取的教训：我们无法通过让别人感到敌意或防御来说服别人。如果我们的报告看起来有偏见或不公平，客户很可能会忽视我们的存在。
六、记住5C法则
IIA的专题研究《编写审计报告》针对意见和建议描述了5C法则:
标准(Criteria应该是什么)。
条件(Condition当前实际状态如何)。
原因(Cause两者存在区别的原因)。
后果(Consequence当前条件的影响后果)。
纠正行动计划/建议(Corrective action plans/recommendations)。
即使你使用了5C法则，你的报告也可能没有说服力。但是如果没有这五个C，你成功的几率就会直线下降。你对潜在后果的描述尤其重要：一句表达严谨的“这将导致……后果”，表明谁将受益，他们将如何受益，以及为什么受益。通常，如果用面向业务的术语描述结果，使用可度量的元素和特定的时间框架，说服力就会增强。例如，当货币资金、安全或程序完整性受到威胁的时候，就应该按上面那种方式来说。
附赠品：《在你的报告中避免出现以下这五个单词》
失败的——例如，“管理层在充分评估和减轻风险方面是失败的。”简单地陈述情况而不明确责任。
不恰当的——例如，“管理部门设计和实施了不恰当的内部控制。”“不恰当”是一个会引起强烈分歧的形容词。我更喜欢描述现状，并将观察结果与适当的标准进行对比，而不是简单地把形容词强加到个人身上。
无效的——例如，“管理层的行动是无效的。”“无效”是另一个应该谨慎使用的形容词。这类措词将导致对报告最终文本的长期谈判，而不是鼓励迅速同意审计报告并执行纠正行动。
发现——例如，“我们发现……”这有些哗众取宠。我们能发现某事情，因为它本来就在那里。如果说我们发现了什么，那么重点就转移到了我们身上。它还带有一种高级的“嘲笑（gotcha）”的语气，并将别人的注意力吸引到审计人员身上，而不是当前的问题或所需采取的纠正措施。
似乎——例如，“It seems that…”在内部审计中，事情要么是，要么不是。含糊其辞的建议听起来像是直觉。回避具体情形可能会让你感觉更安全，但太多的限定词表明你无法自圆其说。
一如既往地期待着您的评论。
作者：理查德·钱伯斯
翻译：陈国华
源自2019年6月17日IIA官网
附英文原文：
Writing an Impactful Audit Report:6 Tips for Being More Persuasive
Richard Chambers June 17, 2019
As part of unofficial "Internal Audit Self-awareness Month," I am featuring blog posts from the past that focus on looking inward. This theme is just as vital as any effort to build awareness about our profession. We must take a realistic and hard look at what we do, how we do it, and how we are viewed by those outside of the internal audit function. This week, I'm featuring a previous post on the art of persuasion.
If you ask internal auditors why they write internal audit reports, some might answer that it's to communicate an engagement's objectives, scope, and results. Others might offer that it's to describe what the auditors found and to make recommendations for improvement. But the ultimate objective of internal audit reporting is not to describe what we found or to make recommendations for improvement. It should be to persuade readers to take action.
Impact is imperative, but not all internal auditors realize the difference that writing style can make to ensure corrective action is complete and timely. The content of a report informs readers, but I would argue that writing style is what motivates. For example, when the U.S. Army tested two versions of a business message asking readers to perform a specific task, those who received a well-written, "high impact" letter were twice as likely to comply with the memo on the day they received it.
During my career as an internal auditor, I wrote or edited hundreds of internal audit reports — some that were good, some that needed another round of edits, and some where I wanted to throw up my hands in frustration. Following are some recommendations that can help ensure your audit reports are effective — that they will not only change minds but will create a call to action that gets results.
1. Keep It Short
If you've taken a look at the U.S. Justice Department inspector general's (IG's) report on how federal officials handled the investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while secretary of state, you'll see it is strikingly different from the average internal audit report. It contains more than a quarter-million words, and the recommendations don't start until about page 500.
I am not opining on the report's findings or the politics still swirling around it. As a former IG, I can appreciate the need for detail. The scope of the review was daunting, the issues were complex, and every aspect of the engagement was surrounded by controversy. But it's always important to keep the readers in mind, and the style that works for a major IG investigation probably would be inappropriate for your internal audit department. Trying (and failing) to read the IG report in a single evening reminded me of the words of the great Winston Churchill, who said, "This report by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read."
The lessons for internal auditors: (1) Internal audit reports are most persuasive when they are tailored to our stakeholders' needs； and (2) if we overwhelm our readers with too much information, our reports will have less impact. If a word, idea, or sentence does not contribute directly to the point, consider eliminating it.
2. Keep It Simple
The best internal audit reports express big ideas in small words, never small ideas in big words. Our writing is most persuasive when we use clear, direct, and familiar language. This does not mean "dumbing down" our reports； it does mean clear and effective communication — the opposite of legalese. As I stated in a previous blog post, Ten Things Not to Say in an Internal Audit Report, if it sounds impressive, you probably need a rewrite.
There is compelling evidence that plain language is more likely to be read, understood, and heeded in much less time. In 1989, the U.S. Navy conducted a study of officers who read business memos written either in plain English or in a bureaucratic style. Officers who read the plain memo:
Had significantly higher comprehension.
Took 17% to 23% less time to read the memo.
Felt less need to reread the memo.
Many internal auditors use tools such as the Flesch Reading Ease or Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level tests to determine whether their reports are readable. Those tests are available online at no cost, or if you prepare your reports using Microsoft Word, you can choose to display information about reading level when you finish checking the spelling and grammar.
The lesson for internal auditors: There's a reason you rarely see bureaucratic language or legalese in marketing materials: Plain language sells ideas better. Even if all of your stakeholders are capable of reading and understanding a doctoral dissertation, that doesn't mean they will want to. Your writing is more likely to be persuasive if it is not pompous, unnecessarily complicated, or loaded with technical jargon.
3. Make Your Best Ideas Stand Out
We need to make it easy for busy executives to read, absorb, and act on the results of our work. Keeping things short and simple can help, but we also must organize our reports to make the most important ideas stand out.
Message-style headings, subheadings, and call-out boxes can bring attention to the most important information in your report. Don't hesitate to use examples, tables, color, charts, or pictures to clarify and add emphasis to important issues. Also consider using an executive summary, table of contents, and/or index to help the reader easily find information in your report. For longer reports, an executive summary is essential.
The lesson for internal auditors: Different stakeholders have different needs, so we need to help individual readers access the specific information they need. Our writing won't be persuasive if key messages are lost in the details.
4. Don't Neglect the Basics
Ever receive a resume or business proposal that contained spelling or grammatical errors? You probably thought twice about seriously considering the individual or company that sent it. The same goes for your audit report. If it contains misspellings or incorrect grammar or punctuation, readers may get the impression that you are not detail-oriented or, worse, careful about your work. Even a single error can adversely impact your credibility. It may not be fair, but if your report contains errors (careless or otherwise), your well-reasoned arguments may fall flat.
The lesson for internal auditors: Pay attention to details. It's difficult to be persuasive if you lose your credibility because you ignored the basics.
5. Consider the Implications
We all try to be unbiased, but sometimes we overlook the implication of our words. If we want readers to buy into our ideas, our tone needs to be objective — even when we deliver a negative message.
In Clarity, Impact, Speed: Delivering Audit Reports That Matter, my good friend Sally Cutler offers the following examples of writing that, from management's perspective, might seem unnecessarily biased or negative:
Biased and More Negative:
The unit was unable to produce documentation to demonstrate compliance with the policy.
When questioned, managers gave conflicting explanations of the vendor-verification process.
Unbiased and More Positive:
Documentation was not available to demonstrate compliance with the policy.
The managers had differing interpretations of the vendor-verification process.
The lesson for internal auditors: We rarely persuade by making someone feel hostile or defensive. If our report seems biased or unfair, the client is likely to tune us out.
6. Remember the Five C's
An IIA seminar, Audit Report Writing, describes five important components of observations and recommendations:
Criteria (what should be).
Condition (the current state).
Cause (the reason for the difference).
Consequence (effect).
Corrective action plans/recommendations.
Even if you use the five C's, your report might not be persuasive. Bu t without the five C's, your odds of success will plummet. Your description of potential consequences is particularly important: One written well is the "so what?" that nudges management toward action. It indicates who will benefit, how they will benefit, and why. Often, persuasiveness is enhanced if consequences are described in business-oriented terms, with measurable elements and specific time frames. If money, safety, or program integrity are at stake, for example, you should say so.
BONUS. Eliminate These Five Words From Your Reports
Failed — as in, "Management failed to adequately assess and mitigate risks." Simply state the condition without assigning blame.
Inadequate — as in, "Management designed and implemented inadequate internal controls." Inadequate is an adjectives that can elicit strong disagreement. I prefer to describe the condition and contrast the observation with appropriate criteria without attaching the adjective to individuals.
Ineffective – as in, "Management actions were ineffective." Ineffective is another adjective that should be used sparingly. Rather than encourage swift concurrence with the audit report and implementation of corrective actions, words such as ineffective will result in prolonged negotiations over the final wording of the report.
Found – as in, "We found … ." This is grandstanding. We find things because they are there. To say that we found something shifts the emphasis to us. It also carries a superior "gotcha" tone that draws attention to the auditor and not the problem at hand or the corrective action required.
Appears – as in, "It appears that … ." In internal audit, things are or they aren't. Weasel words can make solid recommendations sound like hunches. It may feel safer to avoid specifics, but too many qualifiers suggest you can't back up your facts.
As always, I look forward to your comments.
