Having been an internal auditor for almost 50 years, I have had my shares of highs and lows. The vast majority of my clients have been respectful and appreciative of the insights our audits delivered. But there have been a handful of instances when the audit resolution process turned into a full blown “food fight.” My teams and I have been called “clueless,” “unprofessional,” end even “clowns” by frustrated recipients of unfavorable draft internal audit reports. I have had clients go around me and above me in efforts to quash unfavorable internal audit results. It would have been easy to lose my cool, but I learned early in my career that doubling down on poise and professionalism is the best response strategy.

Forging strong, effective relationships across the organization is foundational to the long-term success of internal auditors. Mutually respectful interactions with clients foster collaboration and drive improvements that ultimately benefit the organization. Yet, even in the most cooperative environments, internal auditors may find themselves on the receiving end of management’s frustration.

As I’ve noted before, when pushback escalates to hostility or retaliation, it can feel as though “the empire is striking back.” These moments test our resolve and professionalism. In my experience, disagreements between internal audit and management are not uncommon; they are a natural element of the audit process. When approached with professionalism, civility, and constructive dialogue, these disagreements can lead to better outcomes and strengthen trust in the internal audit function.

But when tensions rise and disputes turn contentious, internal auditors must work diligently to de-escalate the situation. Here are several scenarios you may encounter when management pushback turns into a more significant challenge, along with my recommendations for navigating these moments with poise and integrity.

1. Contentious Pushback on Audit Results

As I’ve cautioned many times, internal auditors must be prepared for pushback, particularly when audit findings reveal gross inefficiencies, compliance gaps, or fraud. These findings, however fairly presented, can provoke strong reactions.

In such instances, it’s critical to listen to the concerns raised by management and ensure that your findings have been presented objectively. However, presenting findings fairly does not mean sugarcoating the facts or softening the message to avoid conflict. Our credibility as internal auditors depends on our ability to articulate risks and consequences in a balanced, transparent manner.

Ideally, constructive dialogue and a willingness to explore reasonable adjustments can help diffuse management’s concerns. But if resolution remains elusive, internal auditors must be prepared to stand firm. Our role is not to win popularity contests but to ensure the organization has the information it needs to make informed decisions.

2. Name Calling and Personal Attacks

It goes without saying that it is never OK for an audit client to engage in personal attacks. On those rare occasions when it has happened, I didn’t tolerate it. If things got heated during a exit meeting for example, I usually called a “time out.” I learned from an early mentor that the best strategy in such instances is to adjourn the meeting. I might have said: “it looks like you have some very strong opinions about this audit, so we will regroup and schedule another meeting in the future.”

It can be futile to negotiate with someone’s whose emotions are in control. As a CAE, I would generally circle back after a truncated meeting to make clear that the client’s behavior was not acceptable. I also made it clear that any future engagement would have to be more constructive. I never had a client cross the line and hurl a personal insult of a racial, ethnic, or gender nature. If that had happened, it would have been “game off!” I would have refused to engage further, and would have followed company policies in dealing with the offender.

3. Escalation to Senior Leadership

Occasionally, disagreements with management over audit results may escalate to senior leadership or the audit committee. This can happen when an aggrieved executive bypasses established protocols in an effort to gain leverage.

Such scenarios can be challenging and, at times, blindsiding. When this occurs, my advice is to remain calm and focus on presenting the facts clearly and professionally. Avoid becoming defensive; let the quality of your work and the integrity of your process speak for themselves.

Ultimately, the audit committee may have to serve as the final authority in resolving disputes over audit findings. If the facts are on your side and your process is sound, you can approach these situations with confidence.

4. Retaliation Against Internal Auditors

The most concerning form of management pushback is retaliation. Retaliation undermines not only the audit function but also the ethical foundation of the organization. It can take many forms: budget cuts to the audit function, negative performance reviews targeting specific auditors, or even unfounded accusations of incompetence or misconduct.

Retaliation is never acceptable. Internal auditors must be prepared to defend their work and their integrity. This begins by ensuring that we operate from a position of strength—adhering to the highest ethical standards, maintaining meticulous documentation, and avoiding any behavior that could undermine our credibility.

As internal auditors, we must never compromise on professionalism or ethical conduct, even in the face of hostility. A reputation for integrity is our most valuable asset, and it is critical to navigating contentious situations.

A Human Response to Difficult News

It’s important to recognize that management’s negative reactions are often rooted in human nature. Behavioral psychologists note that anger and denial are natural responses to receiving bad news. As internal auditors, we must separate emotional reactions from the substance of the disagreement and remain patient and professional.

Sometimes, what seems like hostility may simply be a client processing the information or needing time to cool off. When this happens, it’s an opportunity to demonstrate empathy while reaffirming the objectivity and value of the audit process.

Most of the time, internal audit engagements lead to positive outcomes and professional interactions. However, the occasional pushback is inevitable. The measure of a great internal auditor is not the absence of disagreements but how they respond to those moments.