Why Am I Always Putting Out Fires?

Audit Manager Series: #01

Four Fires

Daniel was managing four engagements that quarter: Meridian Retail, two weeks from signoff; Straits Components, midway through fieldwork; Horizon Logistics, only a week into fieldwork; and Cedar Manufacturing, awaiting the partner's final review. He had spent the past few weeks working late most nights, dealing with one problem after another. Just as he thought the following week might finally ease up, his phone rang at 8:40pm on a Sunday.

Partner: Daniel, I know it's late, but I need to move Reena onto a new listing engagement. It came in earlier than expected, and she's the only available senior with the right experience.

Daniel: She's my senior on Horizon. We only started fieldwork there last week, and it's just her and a new junior, Ken, on the job.

Partner: I know the timing is bad, but this client is the priority right now. Can Ken take over some of Reena's sections?

Daniel: Not really. He only just joined us, and the internal control testing is too complex for a junior to handle on his own.

Partner: That's why I need you out in the field, supervising him closely.

Daniel: But I'm scheduled to review Straits' working papers this week and finalise Meridian for signoff.

Partner: I know, and I'm sorry for the short notice. See what you can work out. Maybe borrow staff from another manager. We'll touch base again later in the week.

Daniel arrived early on Monday intending to sort out Horizon's staffing gap. Before he could even ask around for a spare senior, his senior on Straits messaged him. Farah, the audit junior on the engagement, had resigned over the weekend. There had been no notice, no handover, and fieldwork was only half complete.

At 11:00am, Horizon's financial controller called. She was unhappy, with more than a little sarcasm in her voice. Ken had asked her the same reconciliation question three times in two days.

"We don't have time to train your staff. He should already know this. If it continues, I'll raise it with your partner."

At 2:30pm, Daniel learnt from the partner's PA that Cedar's completed file was still sitting on the partner's desk, twelve days after submission. The reporting deadline was only five days away, two follow-up emails had gone unanswered, and he was due to update the CFO at 3:00pm. He had no real idea what he was going to tell her.

Four engagements. Four separate problems. All within a few hours.

If Daniel had ever wondered whether he could keep doing this job, today would have been the day.

What's Actually Going On

Most audit managers would recognise a day like this immediately.

Running only one or two engagements is rarely commercially viable unless those engagements are exceptionally large or high risk. Most managers oversee several engagements at the same time, sharing a limited pool of staff while competing for the partner's attention. That is not bad luck. It is how most audit firms are structured.

There is also a commercial reality behind it. Spreading the same fee income across more managers would mean thinner margins per manager, and firms tend to protect margins rather than add headcount. That is the commercial logic, even if the details vary firm to firm. Whether managers like it or not, the role has evolved around balancing several engagements at once.

It is worth saying this plainly because many managers quietly assume they are failing when days like this happen. They are not. Putting out fires is not a sign that Daniel is doing the job badly. It is part of the job itself.

That does not mean every fire should simply be accepted. It does mean managers should judge themselves by how they respond to problems, not by whether problems appear in the first place.

Why This Feels So Personal

Daniel's first instinct might be to treat a day like this as proof that he cannot keep up. But four live engagements will almost always produce overlapping disruption. Staff are transferred or resign without warning. Clients complain, fairly or not. Partners fall behind because they, too, are juggling several engagements.

What makes days like this so draining is not simply the number of problems. It is that none of them were on Daniel's plan when he arrived at work that morning. By the end of the day, he may feel as though he has achieved very little, even though he has spent hours removing obstacles so everyone else can continue doing theirs.

There is also a limit to how many of these fires one manager can realistically put out alone. The honest answer is some, not all. That means not every problem is a fair reflection of Daniel's competence. But managers are human. When several things go wrong at once, especially without enough resources to deal with them properly, feeling drained, discouraged or even resentful is a perfectly normal response.

Three Ways Managers Respond

When managers face days like this, they often respond in one of three ways.

The first is to blame themselves. Daniel absorbs every problem personally, works longer hours, tries to solve everything himself and slowly burns out.

The second is to blame everyone else: the staff, the partner, the firm or even the profession. The frustrations are often genuine, but this response gradually blinds him to what he can still influence. A manager who believes the whole system is against him eventually stops looking for what remains within his control.

The third response is the one worth developing. Daniel assesses each fire honestly, deals with what reasonably belongs to him, and escalates what does not, together with a recommendation for the partner. It is the only response that leaves him with something constructive to do instead of simply reacting to whatever happens next.

Before any of that, however, comes something much simpler. Daniel needs to calm himself down enough to think clearly, even just five minutes away from his desk. It sounds insignificant compared with four live problems, but a racing mind rarely makes good decisions. Good judgement begins only when panic settles.

What Daniel Can Actually Do

When the staffing gaps on Horizon and Straits appear, Daniel's first instinct may be to look for help from other managers. That usually works best when he has been willing to help them in the past. Managers tend to remember who stepped in when they were under pressure. If no one is available, the scheduling system becomes the fallback, even if it means waiting for someone to become free.

If waiting is the only realistic option, both the partner and the client need to know early. Delays are always easier to manage when expectations are adjusted before deadlines are missed. In the meantime, Daniel may need to supervise Ken more closely or temporarily take on some of Reena's work himself. Neither is an ideal solution, but both buy time while a longer-term staffing decision is made.

If Horizon and the new listing engagement report to different partners, both partners should know about the conflict. Staffing decisions affecting two engagements should not become Daniel's problem to absorb quietly. They are decisions for the partners to work through together. But for that to happen, the partners must know about it clearly and promptly.

At this point, the partner also needs to understand the impact of moving Reena. ISA 220 (Revised) makes the engagement partner responsible for the direction, supervision and quality of the engagement, including ensuring that sufficient resources remain available throughout the audit. ISQM 1 goes a step further. It requires the firm itself to have a system that ensures enough appropriately skilled people are available across all its engagements, not just this one. Daniel's responsibility is not to solve the staffing problem alone. It is to make sure the partner understands the consequences of the decision. And where the real issue is that the firm is stretched too thin across too many engagements, that is a pattern the partner should raise further up the organisation. Whether the partner ultimately acts on it, however, is not within Daniel's control.

A Partner's Perspective…

When I was an audit partner facing staffing issues like this, I'll be honest: part of me secretly wished my manager could simply make the problem disappear, especially when I was juggling ten or more engagements at once, including large listed company audits. But I also knew that whatever remained unresolved would eventually land back on my desk.

What I valued most from my managers wasn't that they solved every problem themselves. It was an honest assessment: how serious the issue was, what it could lead to, what risks were involved, and what they had already done to address it.

Anything affecting audit risk or reporting deadlines immediately became my priority, and I would step in to make sure the staffing issues were resolved within a reasonable timeframe.

I never expected my managers to be superhuman. What I wanted were managers who could stand alongside me like generals in the field: people who gave me an honest read of the situation, showed initiative, and brought real effort and resourcefulness to solving it. That, to me, is the kind of support a partner truly values.

Ken's situation deserves a different response. Before assuming the client is right, Daniel should first hear Ken's side of the story. Not every complaint reflects poor performance. Sometimes information received from the client was incomplete, resulting in repeated requests. Sometimes a junior simply needs more guidance while still learning how a client likes things done. If coaching is needed, that is part of Daniel's role. Helping Ken consolidate his questions before approaching the client again is likely to improve both the client's experience and Ken's confidence.

Cedar requires another kind of judgement. A file sitting with the partner for twelve days is not something Daniel should quietly wait out. A clear follow-up with a specific date is appropriate.

"Cedar Manufacturing's file has been with you for twelve days. The reporting deadline is five days away. I need your review by Thursday if we're to stay on schedule."

That is not criticism. It is a professional reminder about an engagement that both Daniel and the partner remain responsible for delivering. Keeping a brief dated record of the follow-up also protects Daniel if questions are raised later about why the deadline slipped.

As for the CFO, the honest update is usually the safest one: the file is complete and sitting with the partner for review, with a firm date now attached. That is a truer answer than pretending things are further along, and it does not put Daniel on the hook for someone else's delay.

Across all four engagements, Daniel keeps coming back to the same two questions: How urgent is this? How much will it affect the outcome?

Not every issue needs the partner's immediate attention. A junior who needs coaching can usually be managed directly. But staffing shortages, significant client relationship issues and genuine deadline risks should never become surprises for the partner.

That distinction is what gradually makes the role feel more manageable. Experience is not about preventing every fire. It is about recognising which ones belong to you, which ones belong with the partner, and acting before they grow larger.

Closing Reflection

The fires never completely disappear.

Managers often believe that with enough experience the interruptions will eventually stop. They rarely do. People still leave unexpectedly. Clients still complain. Partners still become overloaded. New engagements still arrive at inconvenient times.

What changes is not the number of fires, but the way an experienced manager responds to them.

Instead of asking, “Why is this happening to me again?”, experienced managers quietly ask different questions.

What is mine to deal with?
What needs the partner's attention?
Who else needs to know before this becomes a bigger problem?

Those questions do not eliminate the pressure, but they stop one difficult day from becoming several.

That is what allows audit managers to remain effective without trying to carry every engagement on their own.

 

Your Audit Mentor