The treatment of Hashim Amla by South African cricket is a national shame. The lack of jubilation shown for the form, of arguably our best batsmen is a chilling reminder of the deeply entrenched double standards which permeate our divided society. The media lead Amla-abuse has been going on for some time but has culminated in the response to Sundays rather sad declaration by Graeme Smith when Amla was a mere 24 runs short of Smiths own, all time South African test record.
As usual, cricketing strategy, and a deep understanding of the nature of test cricket have been used in Smiths defense. A simple glance at the record books serves to unsettle that argument. Only two members on the South African top 10 test score list have been not –out. The first, being Daryl Cullinan, who was the record holder at the time. The second is Amla. Why were Gary Kirsten (3) and Graeme Smith(1) not required to declare 20 runs earlier? Where was the now common plea from the commentators for Amla to be allowed the unique opportunity of entering the hall of fame?
That said, Amla has himself conceded that he was aware of the impending declaration and did not feel that he could reach the milestone without risking his wicket. A comment, definitely intended to defend his captain from the imminent outrage amongst the few Amla fans, and to be expected from the now famous ascetic image of the talented man.
So if Amla’s word is to be taken at face value, Smith is innocent of accusations of selfishness, and Amla made the best score that he was capable of given the match circumstances. But what of the media?
The media response has left much to be desired. Even if my shaky argument built on static figures which ignore the intricacies that contribute to a test match experience have been refuted by Amla himself. A particular article in a prominent internet media outlet provided further depressing evidence, to add to the commentator’s silence, of the media's double standards.
The author, quite rightly, aimed to commend the over criticised Hashim Amla for his rise to prominence by labelling him an unsung hero. He went on to provide evidence of Amlas plight by highlighting his largely uncelebrated 16 half centuries and average of 47, especially when compared to the grace offered to AB De Villiers and JP Duminy in the face of some erratic form. The article aimed to celebrate a rising star.
Sadly, the author, being an unsuspecting victim of a Freudian subconscious prejudice couldn’t help but open the article by feeling heart broken at witnessing Jacque Kallis fall just short of his double century. No mention was thought necessary for Amla, who fell short of the South African all time record by a similar amount. Why is such a personal, emotional, heart wrenching response to an individual’s plight not reserved for Amla? Why is Amla honoured for failing, while Kallis’s is lamented?
Perhaps in the media’s eye, Amla is not an unsung hero, but rather an unwanted specimen.
All said, this probably wont affect Amla. He will go on to cement his place in the South African national team, lure lucrative IPL contracts and earn the respect he deserves. And perhaps he will progress from a thorn in the critics side to a rose in the publics eye.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Origins of Man/Templates
As an articles clerk, I have spent many an hour mulling over my seeming cosmic insignificance. Upon one of these pondering journeys, I became alerted to the peculiar lack of auditing-history during my eight years of study as a CA in waiting. Doctors in training are taught about Alexander Flemming, credited with the discovery of penicillin, and lawyers spend hours studying important cases that have shaped their field. By contrast, never, in my entire degree or training programme has a single mention been made of the first accounting standard or the developments that resulted in the testing methods we take for granted.
Perhaps the sensitive, love-hate, relationship between auditors and their work is a pre-cursor to the desire for ignorance on behalf of the many practitioners. And that this ignorance of the historic origin of the profession is in fact a motivational desire to minimise cognitive dissonance with regards to the arbitrary nature of many auditing practises. And perhaps this rant is just be the result of my own self-loathing at not being a world changing scientist or life-saving doctor.
So, instead of this eternal mulling, I decided to embark on brief investigation of the subject. The result was the discovery that the auditing profession in its lucrative, present day, guardian of society role is a relatively modern development. Prior to the industrial revolution, and its separation of ownership and management, the demand for auditors was limited to a simple external review of accounts and mainly focused on government treasuries, as a fraud and theft deterrent.
It was only after the rapid industrialisation of the 19th century that the auditing profession in its modern guile began to take shape. A particular case, held in the late 19th century, commonly referred to as the ‘London and General Bank case’ is popularly credited with the introduction of the concept of haphazard testing, which translated, permits the auditor to employ sampling should it not be economically feasible to examine all transactions. Despite this form of testing being considered a limitation of the modern day audit, it has been a wonderful development in terms of understanding and concluding on seemingly incomprehensible entities.
In the following century, the concepts have remained the same. Sampling is still employed. And selections are made. However, development has taken place in the use of templates. Templates are tools, which remove individuality and introduce conformity into an area of the profession which is particularly subject to human error and therefore risk. But, where do these templates come from?
We know what they do, how to apply them, and that they are frequently updated. Sometimes, when the new template reduces testing requirements, the updates are applauded. And, at other times, when more strenuous documentation is required, we sneer. However, when I presented the question of their origin, to a number of my peers, I was met with a range of responses from blank stares to amused chuckles. But no answers, just a momentary pause; and then the resumption of the previously engaged regularly-performed, possibly template-assisted, task at hand.
In our modern, democratic society, championed for its willingness to question and prove, this willingness to follow appears as a contradiction. But, this modern society, is also one championed on convenience: Pieces of paper which prove our competence. Qualifications which define us. Professions, not accomplishments, which elevate our status.
And so it appears, that perhaps like the CA’s salary, the origin of the template is not a question for our closed-knit group of payslip chasers. Perhaps in this sub-society of ours, material pursuits and social interaction have replaced the need for introspection and discovery. Perhaps the natural human desire to create has been replaced by the sub-human desire to just be.
For, even if creativity is stifled, individuality is ignored and satisfaction is reduced to a carnal concept; the audit will go on. The schedules will be agreed and the invoices ticked. Exceptions will be reconciled and reported, and a new day will come.
But, what will come of us....?
Perhaps the sensitive, love-hate, relationship between auditors and their work is a pre-cursor to the desire for ignorance on behalf of the many practitioners. And that this ignorance of the historic origin of the profession is in fact a motivational desire to minimise cognitive dissonance with regards to the arbitrary nature of many auditing practises. And perhaps this rant is just be the result of my own self-loathing at not being a world changing scientist or life-saving doctor.
So, instead of this eternal mulling, I decided to embark on brief investigation of the subject. The result was the discovery that the auditing profession in its lucrative, present day, guardian of society role is a relatively modern development. Prior to the industrial revolution, and its separation of ownership and management, the demand for auditors was limited to a simple external review of accounts and mainly focused on government treasuries, as a fraud and theft deterrent.
It was only after the rapid industrialisation of the 19th century that the auditing profession in its modern guile began to take shape. A particular case, held in the late 19th century, commonly referred to as the ‘London and General Bank case’ is popularly credited with the introduction of the concept of haphazard testing, which translated, permits the auditor to employ sampling should it not be economically feasible to examine all transactions. Despite this form of testing being considered a limitation of the modern day audit, it has been a wonderful development in terms of understanding and concluding on seemingly incomprehensible entities.
In the following century, the concepts have remained the same. Sampling is still employed. And selections are made. However, development has taken place in the use of templates. Templates are tools, which remove individuality and introduce conformity into an area of the profession which is particularly subject to human error and therefore risk. But, where do these templates come from?
We know what they do, how to apply them, and that they are frequently updated. Sometimes, when the new template reduces testing requirements, the updates are applauded. And, at other times, when more strenuous documentation is required, we sneer. However, when I presented the question of their origin, to a number of my peers, I was met with a range of responses from blank stares to amused chuckles. But no answers, just a momentary pause; and then the resumption of the previously engaged regularly-performed, possibly template-assisted, task at hand.
In our modern, democratic society, championed for its willingness to question and prove, this willingness to follow appears as a contradiction. But, this modern society, is also one championed on convenience: Pieces of paper which prove our competence. Qualifications which define us. Professions, not accomplishments, which elevate our status.
And so it appears, that perhaps like the CA’s salary, the origin of the template is not a question for our closed-knit group of payslip chasers. Perhaps in this sub-society of ours, material pursuits and social interaction have replaced the need for introspection and discovery. Perhaps the natural human desire to create has been replaced by the sub-human desire to just be.
For, even if creativity is stifled, individuality is ignored and satisfaction is reduced to a carnal concept; the audit will go on. The schedules will be agreed and the invoices ticked. Exceptions will be reconciled and reported, and a new day will come.
But, what will come of us....?
Monday, September 14, 2009
The Holy Template
As an auditor, articled at a big 4 multinational, I have had, what I know understand, to have been a unique insight into arguably the most important and inevitably controversial profession of recent times. Auditing remains the backbone of the financial markets. Even cynical observers who are quick to comment about the actual relevance and efficiency of the service provided, paradoxically maintain a reverent belief in the deterrent and detective capability of auditors as the guardians of published financial-market information. Similarly auditors themselves are placed in the precarious and uncomfortable position of having to balance society’s expectations with the inevitable logistic nightmare and associated shortfalls involved in providing assurance on the financial results of a corporate entity which retails enough processed meat to circumvent Africa.
The auditors response to this conundrum, is a direct result of this internal conflict. A battle between the rational need to investigate, question and doubt versus the mechanical tendency to do as has always been done; and get it done. So, much like the religious person who embraces faith, when faced with a dichotomy as pervasive as that of evolution vs creation, the average auditor turns too towards a heart-wrenching faith that serves to reconcile this seeming contradiction between society’s external expectations and their own insider knowledge. However, unlike the all encompassing and non-specified (materially) faith of a religious observer, the faith of an auditor has a specific direction and focus. The auditor’s faith, like that of an idolater, has a material manifestation in ‘the template.’
The template ‘leads him not into temptation.’ It is a testing guide. A shining light. A path, through the minefield of society’s expectations and the inevitable logistical considerations’.
The template, like a holy book, is revealed to the auditor via the firms internet system. Downloaded onto his laptop and into his mind as a pillow onto which his conscience may rest. Described less frivolously: a template is a testing aid which indicates the extent of work deemed necessary, by the template maker, in order to obtain reasonable assurance over a specific type of account or a specific control. It is often, a macro-fuelled spreadsheet which determines audit sample sizes based on the nature of an account, its value and the client materiality.
However, this is merely the official definition. In reality this template, pervades the auditors’ consciousness much more whole heartedly than a mere aid. Like the master of his mind, the template harnesses his mental capacity and replaces it with a set of rigid and pre-defined guidelines. Guidelines which, regardless of circumstance or situation, are never subject to change.
To most, this rigidity may appear peculiar, or even render the template obsolete. The auditor however, embraces this rigidity as a pillar on which to lean, and yields from it a comfort surpassed not even by the glow of a warm hearth on a cold winter’s night.
And therein is where the contradiction lies. For this comfort is not real. It is predominantly the result of the human response to familiarity. Familiarity with the template. Faith which has grown out of repetition and habit. For what is real, cannot be contradicted. And, contradictions have been noted. Evidenced, by the many publicised scandals and countless others instances of uncertainty which remain the private knowledge of the auditor.
With time, these contradictions inevitably have an emotional effect on the average auditor. These failures of faith, result in feelings of insignificance, expose shortcomings and force introspection. These template-less moments, expose a corporate world too large and cumbersome for the mere auditor to comprehend. Fortunately, through a human-psychological response to uncertainty, this lack of confidence is restored and reconciled via a process of rationalisation and justification. And with that the concept of human error is introduced – ‘Perhaps the template was misapplied or misunderstood, or not followed at all’ – ‘That’s not our job anyway.’
And yet, as this template-questioning, world wondering occurs, the fortunate auditor receives help from a place least expected. For, before his tears have dried, a miracle is about to occur: The template is to be tweaked!
The tweaked template, like the first sunshine of spring, is a ray of hope. Ammunition to be deployed, faith-restored, on these seemingly impossible journeys that will undoubtedly be conquered: with ease, and a bit of overtime. And so, this walking paradox continues on his way. Laptop in hand and pencil behind the ear, confidently defying rational odds on his quest for ‘reasonable assurance.’
The auditors response to this conundrum, is a direct result of this internal conflict. A battle between the rational need to investigate, question and doubt versus the mechanical tendency to do as has always been done; and get it done. So, much like the religious person who embraces faith, when faced with a dichotomy as pervasive as that of evolution vs creation, the average auditor turns too towards a heart-wrenching faith that serves to reconcile this seeming contradiction between society’s external expectations and their own insider knowledge. However, unlike the all encompassing and non-specified (materially) faith of a religious observer, the faith of an auditor has a specific direction and focus. The auditor’s faith, like that of an idolater, has a material manifestation in ‘the template.’
The template ‘leads him not into temptation.’ It is a testing guide. A shining light. A path, through the minefield of society’s expectations and the inevitable logistical considerations’.
The template, like a holy book, is revealed to the auditor via the firms internet system. Downloaded onto his laptop and into his mind as a pillow onto which his conscience may rest. Described less frivolously: a template is a testing aid which indicates the extent of work deemed necessary, by the template maker, in order to obtain reasonable assurance over a specific type of account or a specific control. It is often, a macro-fuelled spreadsheet which determines audit sample sizes based on the nature of an account, its value and the client materiality.
However, this is merely the official definition. In reality this template, pervades the auditors’ consciousness much more whole heartedly than a mere aid. Like the master of his mind, the template harnesses his mental capacity and replaces it with a set of rigid and pre-defined guidelines. Guidelines which, regardless of circumstance or situation, are never subject to change.
To most, this rigidity may appear peculiar, or even render the template obsolete. The auditor however, embraces this rigidity as a pillar on which to lean, and yields from it a comfort surpassed not even by the glow of a warm hearth on a cold winter’s night.
And therein is where the contradiction lies. For this comfort is not real. It is predominantly the result of the human response to familiarity. Familiarity with the template. Faith which has grown out of repetition and habit. For what is real, cannot be contradicted. And, contradictions have been noted. Evidenced, by the many publicised scandals and countless others instances of uncertainty which remain the private knowledge of the auditor.
With time, these contradictions inevitably have an emotional effect on the average auditor. These failures of faith, result in feelings of insignificance, expose shortcomings and force introspection. These template-less moments, expose a corporate world too large and cumbersome for the mere auditor to comprehend. Fortunately, through a human-psychological response to uncertainty, this lack of confidence is restored and reconciled via a process of rationalisation and justification. And with that the concept of human error is introduced – ‘Perhaps the template was misapplied or misunderstood, or not followed at all’ – ‘That’s not our job anyway.’
And yet, as this template-questioning, world wondering occurs, the fortunate auditor receives help from a place least expected. For, before his tears have dried, a miracle is about to occur: The template is to be tweaked!
The tweaked template, like the first sunshine of spring, is a ray of hope. Ammunition to be deployed, faith-restored, on these seemingly impossible journeys that will undoubtedly be conquered: with ease, and a bit of overtime. And so, this walking paradox continues on his way. Laptop in hand and pencil behind the ear, confidently defying rational odds on his quest for ‘reasonable assurance.’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)