Let's say a CPA has spent 2 years as a staff auditor and wants to apply for senior audit positions. Is there a distinction between "supervisory" experience and "in-charge" experience?. Would it be correct or wrong to say:
1. supervisory = you lead and mentor underlings
2. in-charge = the managers and partners let you run the audit engagement by yourself
I want to respond to job postings that demand in-charge experience, but I don't want to be a liar.
I'd say so. Supervising could be done by a senior whereas an in-charge could be the senior manager/partner who looks over the whole audit.
Just my 2 cents.
In-charge means you were the senior that led the audit. This means leading the team, reporting progress and budget (in some cases) to the managers/partners, etc. Having a mentee or being the 2nd year on an engagement that coached the 1st year does not necessarily mean the same thing. But, you can leverage that.
Assume for the sake of discussion that the CPA has been a bottom-level staffer that never supervised/mentored any other employees, but has been given independence on running audits with little supervision (doing the field work, document collection, calculations, drafting statements etc)
Is that "in charge"?
Molestiae reprehenderit ipsum recusandae a dolorem et. Sequi vero incidunt dolorem. Id porro non impedit officia unde distinctio. Rerum non recusandae quae eum perferendis molestiae et odit. Sequi beatae esse occaecati enim. Repellendus tempora facere voluptates expedita. Est saepe amet nisi voluptatibus magni dolor odit.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...