In the field of internal auditing, where attention to detail and logical reasoning are vital, it is important to distinguish between being reasonable and being excessively rational. Rationality is commonly associated with objective decision-making based on data and logic. However, reasonableness encompasses a broader perspective that acknowledges the influence of human behavior and subjective factors. In his book “The Psychology of Money,” author Morgan Housel emphasizes the importance of reasonableness over pure rationality in financial matters. This article explores the implications of this concept within the context of internal auditing and explains why internal auditors benefit from embracing reasonableness in their approach.
The Limitations of Pure Rationality
Rationality, defined as the ability to reason logically and objectively, is unquestionably crucial in the field of internal auditing. Auditors are responsible for evaluating financial information, assessing risks, and providing recommendations based on sound judgment. However, pursuing pure rationality disregards the reality of human behavior and decision-making.
Human beings are not purely rational creatures; our decisions and actions are influenced by emotions, biases, and subjective interpretations. Ignoring these psychological aspects can result in a narrow and incomplete understanding of the complex systems and dynamics within organizations. By solely relying on rationality, auditors risk overlooking critical nuances and failing to comprehend the underlying motivations that drive behaviors within the audited entities.
The Power of Reasonableness
Reasonableness encompasses a more holistic approach that recognizes the limitations of rationality and incorporates an understanding of human psychology. It involves taking subjective factors into account, such as intuition, empathy, and the recognition of behavioral patterns. Reasonableness acknowledges that decisions and actions are influenced by both rational and emotional factors, and seeks to strike a balance between the two.
Internal auditors who adopt a reasonable mindset are better equipped to understand the broader context in which their work is conducted. They can grasp the intricacies of organizational dynamics, recognize the impact of cultural factors, and empathize with the individuals involved. This enables auditors to consider a wider range of possibilities, assess risks more accurately, and provide recommendations that are more relevant and effective.
The Role of Cognitive Biases
Cognitive biases, deeply ingrained patterns of thinking that can skew judgment and decision-making, are prevalent in all areas of life, including auditing. An excessively rational approach can inadvertently overlook or dismiss these biases, leading to flawed assessments and inadequate risk management.
Internal auditors who embrace reasonableness understand that cognitive biases are an inherent part of human nature. By being aware of these biases, auditors can actively mitigate their impact on decision-making processes. They can challenge assumptions, encourage diverse perspectives, and foster an environment that promotes open dialogue and critical thinking. Reasonableness allows auditors to confront their own biases and those of others, resulting in more objective and comprehensive audits.
The Long-Term View
Another key aspect where reasonableness outshines pure rationality is in taking a long-term perspective. Rationality often prioritizes short-term gains or immediate cost savings, neglecting the potential long-term consequences. This can lead to decisions that undermine the sustainability and resilience of organizations.
Reasonableness encourages auditors to consider the long-term implications of their recommendations. It emphasizes the importance of fostering trust, maintaining stakeholder relationships, and promoting ethical behavior. By focusing on these broader objectives, auditors can contribute to the overall stability and success of the audited entity, going beyond mere compliance and financial metrics.

Leave a Reply