‘Organizational culture and identity’ are vital in organizational identification (M. R. Mills & Bettis, 2006). Work is an essential human activity; psychologically, socially, physically, and economically (Vredenburgh & Shea-VanFossen, 2009). Organizational structure specifies the existence of various departments, job functions and, to a certain extent, the hierarchical status of a person by virtue of their position. Due to the differentiation in job functions and educational backgrounds, people define themselves, for example, through the place of employment or professional affiliations. By identifying with the organization, people in the organization achieve their psychological needs such as self-actualization and affiliation; on the other
…show more content…
Usually, internal audit reports from the Quality Assurance Departments are tabled at management meetings or at Board of Directors meetings whilst the reports from the Internal Audit Departments are tabled to the Audit Committee. These differing organizational and reporting structures may have the potential to create barriers to organizational excellence and impede the effectiveness of corporate governance. One such barrier has been identified as dysfunctional organizational politics, which have evolved from self-interest and a focus, among others, on rewards and influence, and need attention for its dissolution (Vredenburgh & Shea-VanFossen, 2009). Self-interest and focus of the two separate audit teams should be resolved by management and the Board of Directors if the organization is committed to pursue customer satisfaction and good corporate governance. Combined assurance in internal audit activities may also act to reduce the barriers towards good corporate governance. Even if, combined assurance and collaborations are not widely practiced, a certain degree of reliance by the Internal Audit Department on the review reports by departments such as the Quality Assurance Department would have been …show more content…
In strategic performance measurement, organizational culture is important (Franco & Bourne, 2003). Accountability for the performance measures falls on the managers, who ‘will furnish accurate and relevant information about the performance and stewardship’ (Al Athmay, 2008). Most corporations use balanced scorecard (Kaplan & Norton, 1996; Niven, 2008), key performance indicators (Waal, 2007), and customer satisfaction (E. U. Bond, III & Fink, 2001; Feciková, 2004; Knouse, Carson, Carson, & Heady, 2009), apart from financial performance, as measures. In practice, these measures and the related processes that yield these measures are usually reviewed by the internal auditors as part of performance audit (Al Athmay, 2008; A. Chambers, 2006; Raaum & Morgan, 2001). Since overall organizational performance is said to rely on the sense of belonging to the organization, the perception that internal auditors have given value add services would be perceived through the acceptance of other departments, as process owners, of their audit
Usually, internal audit reports from the Quality Assurance Departments are tabled at management meetings or at Board of Directors meetings whilst the reports from the Internal Audit Departments are tabled to the Audit Committee. These differing organizational and reporting structures may have the potential to create barriers to organizational excellence and impede the effectiveness of corporate governance. One such barrier has been identified as dysfunctional organizational politics, which have evolved from self-interest and a focus, among others, on rewards and influence, and need attention for its dissolution (Vredenburgh & Shea-VanFossen, 2009). Self-interest and focus of the two separate audit teams should be resolved by management and the Board of Directors if the organization is committed to pursue customer satisfaction and good corporate governance. Combined assurance in internal audit activities may also act to reduce the barriers towards good corporate governance. Even if, combined assurance and collaborations are not widely practiced, a certain degree of reliance by the Internal Audit Department on the review reports by departments such as the Quality Assurance Department would have been …show more content…
In strategic performance measurement, organizational culture is important (Franco & Bourne, 2003). Accountability for the performance measures falls on the managers, who ‘will furnish accurate and relevant information about the performance and stewardship’ (Al Athmay, 2008). Most corporations use balanced scorecard (Kaplan & Norton, 1996; Niven, 2008), key performance indicators (Waal, 2007), and customer satisfaction (E. U. Bond, III & Fink, 2001; Feciková, 2004; Knouse, Carson, Carson, & Heady, 2009), apart from financial performance, as measures. In practice, these measures and the related processes that yield these measures are usually reviewed by the internal auditors as part of performance audit (Al Athmay, 2008; A. Chambers, 2006; Raaum & Morgan, 2001). Since overall organizational performance is said to rely on the sense of belonging to the organization, the perception that internal auditors have given value add services would be perceived through the acceptance of other departments, as process owners, of their audit