What do you do when an auditee says "No thank you"

Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#32
Nothing really requires auditee's to provide time to the auditor. For the auditee to invest their time they need to share an interest in the audit objective.
Most auditees have no way of knowing if the outcome of an audit will be beneficial from a business perspective or not. Given a choice, 99.9256% of auditees would say take a hike "no, thank you, we've already talked too much" to an auditor. They HAVE to make time for an auditor. Hopefully, with the understanding that the outcome of an audit will be value added for the organization. Either we like it or not, auditing has a large psychological component. Auditors have the elusive "power", which sometimes get misused.

Based on what I understand the scenario, it was a clear "power play". The auditee was using his organizational clout to (attempt to) intimidate an auditor. We can discuss all the tactful and diplomatic ways of attempting to regain control of the situation. Jennifer is an experienced, mature, knowledgeable & value-added auditor. I am sure she can find ways to diffuse the situation. But since this was the first time she was involved with this group/site, I am sure this individual was simply trying to bully his way out of an audit. Why? Very likely because the process he is responsible for is not as robust as he would like it to be. Maybe, Jennifer was getting close to establishing a significant process gap and he attempted to "close the audit" before that objective evidence came to light.
 
#33
To me one way for the auditee to get interested is to understand that the audit isn't being done for free and for his organization to impress that small tid bit upon folks
Maybe Jennifer can shed some light, but I'll wager the cost of this part of the audit (program) isn't coming out of this guy's budget! It's free as far as he's concerned and we all know that free doesn't mean 'something for nothing'...
 

Randy

Super Moderator
#34
Maybe Jennifer can shed some light, but I'll wager the cost of this part of the audit (program) isn't coming out of this guy's budget! It's free as far as he's concerned and we all know that free doesn't mean 'something for nothing'...
You're probably right, I was thinking along the lines of 3rd party stuff...Hey Jennifer, just say thanks and move on....(Of course in your mind you could be telling him to pack sand)
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#35
They have nothing to do with control of documents... the questions have to do with the auditee's "we talked about enough already" attitude.:cool:
Thanks for the clarification. I don't believe, however, that asking such questions would trigger an epiphany on the auditee's mind about the purpose of the audit. Actually, I believe, it would probably backfire since the auditee would perceive these questions as rhetorical ones that have nothing to do with the real world.
 

Wes Bucey

Quite Involved in Discussions
#36
To me one way for the auditee to get interested is to understand that the audit isn't being done for free and for his organization to impress that small tid bit upon folks
"Thank you for the time you've spent with me already - it sounds like you're really busy. Since I'm auditing the process, and not you personally, I'll continue the audit with the document users and others involved in their control. We can verify that the users needs are being met, and that the process is truly effective. By the way, who is your backup when you're not here to handle document-related issues? That would be a good person to start with..."
Better have your resume up to date and an offer if an internal auditor uses such tactics...
Are you reading something into this that I'm not seeing?
Steve: I think the person Jennifer encountered wasn't a peer, but someone higher up in management. Since they are already unsupportive, it could become highly controversial/risky to say such things - as an internal auditor - to such a person, particularly the aspect of the 'back up'...it could be perceived as 'rubbing salt..."

Just my honest opinion...
My perception was that the person felt they had "wasted enough time" on the audit and wanted to move on to something they considered more important. The dialog I wrote gives the person an "out", but also says that the audit is important enough to be finished anyway. A busy member of management shouldn't mind if I go talk to someone else to meet the audit objectives.

If there is fear I'd be fired for trying to complete an audit in my organization, I should probably already have my resume polished and the new job feelers out. Granted, I wasn't there and couldn't see/feel any underlying motives that weren't stated. I think only Jennifer could make that call.
Most auditees have no way of knowing if the outcome of an audit will be beneficial from a business perspective or not. Given a choice, 99.9256% of auditees would say take a hike "no, thank you, we've already talked too much" to an auditor. They HAVE to make time for an auditor. Hopefully, with the understanding that the outcome of an audit will be value added for the organization. Either we like it or not, auditing has a large psychological component. Auditors have the elusive "power", which sometimes get misused.

Based on what I understand the scenario, it was a clear "power play". The auditee was using his organizational clout to (attempt to) intimidate an auditor. We can discuss all the tactful and diplomatic ways of attempting to regain control of the situation. Jennifer is an experienced, mature, knowledgeable & value-added auditor. I am sure she can find ways to diffuse the situation. But since this was the first time she was involved with this group/site, I am sure this individual was simply trying to bully his way out of an audit. Why? Very likely because the process he is responsible for is not as robust as he would like it to be. Maybe, Jennifer was getting close to establishing a significant process gap and he attempted to "close the audit" before that objective evidence came to light.
Maybe Jennifer can shed some light, but I'll wager the cost of this part of the audit (program) isn't coming out of this guy's budget! It's free as far as he's concerned and we all know that free doesn't mean 'something for nothing'...
You're probably right, I was thinking along the lines of 3rd party stuff...Hey Jennifer, just say thanks and move on....(Of course in your mind you could be telling him to pack sand)
I see TWO important points here:

  1. This is definitely a power play by the auditee. By his action/inaction, he says to Jennifer, "This whole internal audit process is a threat to my power and authority over my 'silo.' As the symbol of that threat, I am resisting you."
  2. In this issue, the auditee KNOWS his silo is not being billed directly, so he doesn't care who pays or how much as long as it is not reflected on the accounts of his silo.
Both Steve (Howste) and Randy are channeling "3rd party auditor" thinking here. Such thinking is rarely applicable in internal audits because internal auditors often have lower rank and status than managers of departments under audit. In organizations where top managers abdicate power and authority, the propensity of silo creation is very prevalent. The managers of those departments then become more powerful than the top manager who is unwilling to take any action unless the silo becomes an obvious money loser.
 

Jen Kirley

Quality and Auditing Expert
Staff member
Admin
#37
Thank you all for such great input. :applause: :thanks:

We met again today for over an hour, and discussed why he should spend less than 1/4 that time on this subject. He simply didn't agree it was part of what his group should be audited against. (He didn't think it would have been appropriate to audit training in his department either :rolleyes:)

I think this is largely a symptom of support process people not being properly briefed on their roles and responsibilities in the QMS. Many months ago he had been given a list of elements his group was expected to be held responsible to, and 4.2.3 (as well as 6.2.2) wasn't among them. He felt like a victim of scope creep.

We agreed the matter will be "punted" to the guy overall in charge of audits; if it was decided we would cover this element, I would return and we'd finish. If it was decided to just drop the issue (which I expect) I will document the audit was unfinished and why. I did receive validation from the site's regular auditor, who showed up for a time and affirmed what I was going to some length to explain.

So it is. I'm just a visiting internal auditor, and pretty low on the totem pole though we've established I haven't overstepped my authority. Nothing personal - like Jim said, Just the facts Ma'am.
 
J

JaneB

#38
... internal auditors often have lower rank and status than managers of departments under audit. In organizations where top managers abdicate power and authority, the propensity of silo creation is very prevalent. The managers of those departments then become more powerful than the top manager who is unwilling to take any action unless the silo becomes an obvious money loser.
Important point, and too often overlooked.

Internal audits and external audits are not the same thing! In many, many ways. This thread has highlighted one of the ways in which they are not and cannot be the same, not least in the hierarchical differences.

There is almost always a disparity in status and power between the 'average' internal auditor and the 'average' manager of an area being audited. That alone can make for many tricky situations that need to be both approached and handled with care and diplomacy and an understanding of the dynamics of the internal policitcs of the situation. Anyone who ignores that does so at their peril. (And yes, I've made that mistake once or twice. Certainly learned from it!)

And attempting to act as though one had the standing, status and contractual mandate that an external auditor does when you are an internal auditor? Not a good idea. At all.
 

Wes Bucey

Quite Involved in Discussions
#40
My perception was that the person felt they had "wasted enough time" on the audit and wanted to move on to something they considered more important. The dialog I wrote gives the person an "out", but also says that the audit is important enough to be finished anyway. A busy member of management shouldn't mind if I go talk to someone else to meet the audit objectives.

If there is fear I'd be fired for trying to complete an audit in my organization, I should probably already have my resume polished and the new job feelers out. Granted, I wasn't there and couldn't see/feel any underlying motives that weren't stated. I think only Jennifer could make that call.
Just a wild guess, but based on my own experience with customers and suppliers when I was running a business and on dozens of consulting clients, I would bet dollars to doughnuts that most internal auditors do fear for their jobs if they alienate a department head. I also will bet that a thread seeking examples of reprisals against internal auditors by auditees would run the gamut from "job and wage freeze" right up to dismissal, often for some "trumped up charge" apparently divorced from internal auditor activity.

A satrap* running a silo in a slightly dysfunctional organization can be a fearsome creature to any rank and file employee.

satrap*
It is also used in modern times to refer (usually derogatorily) to the loyal subservient lieutenants or clients of some powerful figure (with equal imprecision also styled mogul, tycoon, or the like), in politics or business
Bottom line:
Despite language in Standards calling for "independence" of personnel engaging in quality functions, the reality is that many managers see audits (internal or external) as threats and will lash out directly or indirectly to eliminate that threat. The lowly internal auditor who validates the threat is real by issuing an N/C should fear possible reprisal when encountering overt resistance from a department manager, especially if the auditee has superior rank, but most of these guys are savvy enough to disguise the TRUE reason when they launch the reprisal.

The inoculation:
I counsel organizations to make internal audit teams cross-functional, always including a management member of at least as high a rank as any department head undergoing the audit - stops most resistance before it can be offered. The audit TEAM issues findings over the signature of the highest ranked member.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
GStough Auditing Against Criteria Unfamiliar to Auditee - Yea or Nay? General Auditing Discussions 11
K Tips for Auditee Training ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
S Experiences as a female auditor / auditee Career and Occupation Discussions 36
S Why auditee names are not mentioned in Audit Report? General Auditing Discussions 2
L How to deal with resistance from auditee(s) Internal Auditing 20
somashekar Internal Audit without a person as auditee Internal Auditing 6
S Internal Audit Findings Summary Rewrite by an Auditee ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 10
F How to Calm a Nervous Auditee Internal Auditing 14
K Sending Audit Questions to the Auditee in Advance Internal Auditing 20
Howard Atkins What you as an auditee should know about your CB (Certification Body) Registrars and Notified Bodies 0
P What to do when an Auditee Falsifies or Cheated on Records Internal Auditing 6
A What do you do if you have the feeling that your auditee could be lying? Internal Auditing 58
M What to do when Auditee refuses to sign Audit Report General Auditing Discussions 91
J Auditee offered help with anything in nonconformities Internal Auditing 16
P Internal Audit Finding - Root Cause Analysis: Auditor or an Auditee Responsibility? Internal Auditing 24
B Could ISO 22000 auditee hold Auditor Responsible for subsequent safety breaches? Food Safety - ISO 22000, HACCP (21 CFR 120) 16
V Can the Management Representative represent top management as the sole auditee? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 14
L Corrective action following a wrong answer of the auditee ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 19
B Providing Auditee with Checklist prior to Audit General Auditing Discussions 48
M Auditee Evaluation of Auditors Example, Form or Template General Auditing Discussions 6
E Being IQA Team Leader and auditee - Auditor Independence General Auditing Discussions 9
Claes Gefvenberg The Ideal Auditee General Auditing Discussions 22
J Can I issue a NCR if the auditee did not comply what he is suppose to do? General Auditing Discussions 6
Marc GM says no more tailpipe emissions by 2035, carbon neutrality by 2040 World News 45
T What does AS9100 mean when it says you must establish a process to do X? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 24
Marc NASA Says Oregon Company Metals Fraud Caused $700 Million Satellite Failure - 2019 World News 16
B Our NB says that IEC 62304 is an ISO 14971 Requirement ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 1
shimonv 21 CFR 820.20(d) says: Each manufacturer shall establish a Quality Plan 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 4
J jwmuola says Hello Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 1
Marc FCC boss says he'll SHAME broadband firms for fibbing on speeds After Work and Weekend Discussion Topics 0
bobdoering Who says you can't calibrate a steel rule! Funny Stuff - Jokes and Humour 14
J Auditor says 5.6.3 should be discussed in Management Review Management Review Meetings and related Processes 62
Wes Bucey "Back Doors" to Encryption - NY times says NSA has them After Work and Weekend Discussion Topics 20
Wes Bucey A Headhunter says he has job hunt secrets Career and Occupation Discussions 7
O Is it an Assignable Cause only if the Control Chart says so? Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 16
S Auditor says a Minor Nonconformance will become a Major Nonconformance General Auditing Discussions 8
H 'You've got to find what you love,' Jobs says Career and Occupation Discussions 2
Marc Threat analyst says medical devices can be hacked remotely Other Medical Device and Orthopedic Related Topics 6
P Control of Monitoring and Measurement Devices - ISO 13485 Clause 7.6 says ... ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
J Quality Pros? Salaries on the Upswing, ASQ Salary Survey Says Career and Occupation Discussions 4
Stijloor IKEA US Says Thank You to All Its 12,400 Co-Workers World News 5
D Found Watch - Watch is "Element" and says "New York" Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 16
G Dangerous Act - Auditor says major nonconformance for safety (risk) issue Occupational Health & Safety Management Standards 21
C Calibration Laboratory Location - GMP says in a secure bonded area General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 5
Stijloor Ford Says It Made $2.7 Billion in 2009 World News 8
E FMEA Action Plan Threshold (RPN) - Auditor says Action Plan for an RPN > 84 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 21
J Modern man a wimp says anthropologist Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 0
bobdoering Wheeler is back again! He says it is the last volley! Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 7
J Immortality only 20 years away says scientist Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 20
P Attribute Control Chart in my Process - Black Belt says Not Appropriate Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 11

Similar threads

Top Bottom