It depends on the definition of an organisational culture audit.  What we see is that most culture audits are based on a predefined norm, with a fixed scope, and a regular audit report with  findings and a judgement. Behavioural Auditing in our definition is a very open, inductive approach to study organisational culture, with no pre-defined norms, no judgement (of the auditors) but with the intention to influence the socio-psychological climate and the organisational culture.
With a BA we investigate mental models and drivers. We offer those involved insight into why they do what they do and think what they think. This insight leads to sustainable changes in behaviour and culture.

We discourage measuring culture in a quantitative way, with the use of surveys. These methods are not suitable if you intend reflection and a deeper understanding of the way people think, feel and do. Mental models are mostly implicit until you get them to the surface by talking about them in a reflective conversation. Human drivers are hard to measure in a quantitative way. Furthermore, it is hard to make a reliable survey, that measures what you intend to measure. Surveys often suffer from a lack of validity. A lot of research is done in this field, and the way questions are stated is a better prediction of the outcomes, than the opinion of the respondent.
To get good substance for quality and trustworthiness, we rely on the quality standards of qualitative research. We use strategic sampling, aiming for maximal variation in perspectives, related to the research question and we use advanced interview techniques. Furthermore we make sure we have triangulation of sources per function. We rely on the saturation principle, used in social sciences.

It is very important to tell and show how carefully and solid the design of the audit is, on forehand. At the start of a behavioral audit, we provide a detailed explanation of what a behavioral audit entails and what they can expect. We explain in the validation workshop the theory on perspectives, mental models and drivers. We shape the validation workshop in a way that suits the context and the narrative and invite the participants to listen, ask questions, and be curious for perspectives that challenge their owns.
We experience often that the perspectives of other organisation members do not match with management’s perspectives. This sometimes evokes strong emotions, and that is part of the process if you want to see a change in decisions and behaviours.

During the validation workshop, we ask the participants what the narrative means to them. We supervise this process very carefully. If the customer wishes, we will adopt the attribution of meaning by those involved as an audit opinion in our final report.

It feels like there is a whole world behind this question, but to answer short: We feel (and research on learning, psychological safety and innovation suggests) that deviant voices and diverse opinions are mostly a valuable source for a different way of looking at problems, that shaped room for improvement and innovation (but not in all cases) If we would hear such a statement in a Behavioural Audit, we would try to dig deeper into what the statement means to the one expressing this and why it is important, with non-directive questions.

We try to make sure we include all perspectives relevant to the research questions in the selection of participants (micro-cultures are mostly a bundle of shared opinions, values and mental models)
The sum (and variety \ differences) of all these micro-cultures give the most valuable insights, we make that tangible, bring it to the surface so people can talk about it, give meaning and change their minds.

We do not directly do this through our judgements and opinions. But as indicated above, it can be part of the provision of the meaning of the participants during the validation workshop.

We recommend behavioural auditing when you need deep insights and an understanding of a complex matter that involves humans. Behavioural Auditing is the ultimate way of performing root cause analysis. Change is the only constant. In heavily changing environments, human needs, drives and mental models are more visible, challenged, under pressure, and come to the surface easier, but the culture is always present. In some cases, it might be sensible to investigate the culture, before making major changes like implementing a new strategy.

If that comes out of the conversations, and that is what is going on, it will show in the narrative. In the dialogue during the validation workshop, the new insights that arise in the narrative lead to a reduction of resistance and more understanding of each other's motives and drives.

It depends on the context and the research question. In general, we often opt for face-to-face interviews with members of (senior) management. Usually, we invite operational responsible staff for a focus group. An essential advantage of focus groups is that the risk level that participants accept in a focus group is higher than in individual interviews. This effect is less when it comes to (senior) management.

We recommend behavioural auditing when you need deep insights and an understanding of a complex matter that involves humans. Behavioural Auditing is the ultimate way of performing root cause analysis. We’ve audited a wide variety of topics, like:  Are we a learning organisation? Are our values lived? Is our culture-change programme effective? How do people view Internal Audit? What are the lessons learned of an IT implementation? Why are incidents not reported? Do we have a culture of psychological safety? Relationship of trust between the board and the work council.

We recommend doing a Behavioural Audit as presented, designed as a single audit and not mixing up Behavioural Auditing with norm-based audits.

When you want to add behavioural aspects to your regular audits, we recommend you use Integrated People and Process Auditing (IPPA). We provide a tool online stacked with behavioural aspects, operationalized with audit variables, interview questions and observation schemes. (https://www.behaviouralauditing.nl/licenties/).  We advise using 2-3 behavioural aspects per regular audit, and selecting the behaviour that is most key in the process under review.

It depends on context and question. If no changes occurred, it is most interesting to find out why? Most behaviour has a function and people trying to maintain the status quo is perfectly human. The question is: is that status quo servant to the goals the organisation wants to achieve?
In our practice, we almost always see changes in behaviour and culture. After all, the new insights lead to a change in mental models and motives and, therefore, to behavioural change.

We are curious as to why ask this question, as it contains some underlying assumptions. In what we know, no one was fired as a result of these behavioural audits.

We do provide this as part of our training. Please get in touch if you are interested to follow a training Behavioural Auditing in English ( 8. 15. 22 November 2023, see (www.behaviouralauditing.nl).

Mostly 8-10 weeks, depending on the agendas of the respondents and sponsor of the audit. In most cases, we can do a behavioural audit in 200-220 hours in total.

We don’t strive for consistency, we strive for high-quality reflective conversations that give insights in mental models, assumptions and drives of people. We provide training in interviewing skills and feedback after every interview. Furthermore, we record, transcribe and code all interviews and perform peered reviews in coding and selecting the data.

There is no rule of thumb as to scope. It depends on the question, the context and the complexity.
During the validation workshop, the participants give meaning to the narrative. They, therefore, decide whether there is a reason for the change. Our experience is that even the slightest omissions in the narrative for those involved are reason to reject the current situation and the wish to change.

We use open questions (what can you tell us about…?) and non-directive questions in order to follow the mind trail of the other. Our favourite questions are: Can you tell me more? Why is that important to you? What do you mean exactly? Hmm hmm… and silence. Furthermore, most interesting answers follow after a good hypothetical question or well-timed turbo-questions.

As stated earlier, it concerns reflective, inquisitive conversations. We use various conversation models for this. One of these is the so-called four-face conversation model with the following phasing and questions:
1. Exploring phase.
What exactly happened? Who was present? How did he react? What did you say?
Etc.
2. Diagnosis phase.
Why did you think this happened?
What brings you to this thought?
Etc.
3. Evaluation phase.
How important is this for you?
Etc.
4. Speculation and confrontation phase.
Could it have been otherwise?
Why is that alternative not chosen?
Etc.

We are not sure how to interpret this question. Retaliation of whom, on whom? We try to underline that perspectives differ, and that is ok. More important, the variance in perspectives gives valuable insights for improvement and innovations.

Interviewing, in the sense of reflective conversations in a neutral, genuine interested way. Other skills are qualitative data-analysis, storytelling and facilitating dialogues.

We use grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss) and code the outcomes in 3 stages, open coding for data reduction, axial coding to form concepts and selective coding to form theory. Than we use the two-column format of Learning History.

Yes, the way we interview Is completely different from what is taught in most audit education, so it requires training, practice and feedback.

It is never too late. The culture is there, as the sum of mental models, including their dominance and variance. We see culture as the collective programming of the mind that is characteristic of the members of an organisation. (Inspired by Hofstede).
The collection of relatively uniform and enduring values, beliefs, customs, traditions and practices that are shared by organisation’s members, learned by the new recruits and transmitted from one generation of employees to the next (Schein).

We generally don’t review company policies, we investigate what people think about these policies, in relation to the subject of audit.

We advise to set up a team with at least 2 auditors, one auditor who is familiar with the company and knows the way and someone who knows the method of Behavioural Auditing through and through.

We don’t use benchmarks or starting points. We only provide insight in the current state of the culture.

We gather data in two phases. The results are analysed after phase 1. In phase 2, the provisional results of phase 1 are validated and falsified.
During the validation workshop, the narrative is validated. We ask the participants if they recognise the story and if we have understood the context correctly.

We don’t and we try to keep away from audit follow-up. You can’t measure change in mental models and interaction patterns in a formal way. It mostly takes time to change. Procedural actions can be taken up in the audit follow-up, but those are hardly ever the most important outcomes of the Behavioural Audit.
Often the narrative is discussed a half or a whole year later with the question of whether the content is still valid or changes have occurred.

We work based on the belief that all humans we involve in our studies are precisely that: humans. Humans who want to be heard, seen and valued. Of course, we adapt our way of inviting,  interviewing and approaching people in accordance to local customs. We consider cultural differences on forehand and when shaping the validation workshop.

If we go by the current standards, it says Internal auditing is an independent, objective assurance and consulting activity designed to add value and improve an organisation's operations.
We have a well-designed audit process and data analysis, making the outcomes for 99% reproducible. We rather use the words ‘neutral’ and ‘sound’, as common in social sciences and qualitative research, instead of independent and objective. But the mindset and effect are the same: giving valuable insights by providing neutral and sound research.
In practise, it depends on our client how to label a behavioural audit in terms of IPPF. But several clients passed the IIA quality assessment, including their behavioural audits, under current standards.

It depends on the context, and both options occur.