Passionate dispassion

Someone who is actively involved in, or is managing, an activity is patently not independent of it. They may well make a conscious, rational and determined effort to be objective, dispassionately reviewing evidence etc., but their subconscious/emotional biases/prejudices and beliefs/value-systems will inevitably influence what they do. With the best will in the world, they will struggle to challenge and assess their past decisions and activities, especially if they were "certain" or "determined" or genuinely believed they were "doing the right thing". Furthermore, it is very hard for anyone to review the things they did not do, decisions they did not make or options they did not even consider. Mostly, they remain out of sight or out of the question.

In contrast, provided they are competent and diligent with sufficient support, access and time to engage, a truly independent person or team may spot issues or concerns that were previously unnoticed, disregarded or grudgingly accepted. Their knowledge, expertise and creative energy can lead to them framing and asking questions differently, perhaps making novel suggestions. They bring a fresh perspective, untainted by past involvement in the area. Aside from shining light on blind spots, independence can be particularly valuable where longstanding issues have become deeply ingrained into decision-making, working practices and culture, as in "We've always done it this way", "Change is pointless or impossible" or "That's just how it is". Challenging defaults, habits and no-brainers is all part of the fun.

However, there are costs and drawbacks to independence, and it's not always possible or as effective as I've indicated. We all have our off-days! Things don't always go to plan! Some longstanding issues really are intractable, even insoluble. Independents also have our blind spots, biases/prejudices, beliefs/value-systems, interests, concerns. Even objective fact-based 'hard evidence' needs to be gathered, tested/checked and interpreted/understood. Having not been there at the time, historical incidents and decisions can be tough to study and reassess, especially if the available records are lightweight, biased, untrustworthy or completely absent, and where the original context, business situation etc. was relevant (which it almost always is).

'Career auditors' and 'compliance auditors' without experience of working in the areas and situations they are auditing run a greater risk of asking truly dumb or irrelevant questions, misunderstanding or misinterpreting things, and making impactical suggestions. It's all very well pushing applicable laws, regs, standards, frameworks, models etc. in theory, but adapting and making them work in practice takes expertise, intuition and a health dose of pragmatism.