Very few lab personnel would say they enjoy someone watching over their shoulder while they run a test or a mock inspection. Even fewer enjoy being questioned about a quality management system that perhaps even they find confusing.
It’s understandable that assessments can cause you and your team to feel stressed, and they may lead to difficult or uncomfortable conversations. However, when you thoughtfully and openly approach these kinds of conversations with composure, and foster an environment for constructive conversations, both laboratory staff and the assessor can work as a team towards a shared goal: ensuring compliance and continuous improvement. Beginning with a mutual purpose—such as a desire for accuracy and quality—can immediately shift the tone from adversarial to collaborative (Patterson et al.).
Remember that assessments are an opportunity to improve your organization, and constructive outlooks can lead to constructive outcomes.
Clarity in Communication
One of the most useful strategies for navigating difficult conversations during an assessment is “contrasting,” a strategy described in Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High. To use this method, clarify your intent before responding to concerns using a “do” or “don’t” statement.
For example, saying, “I don’t disagree with you, I just want to ensure we both interpret the requirement the same way,” can lower defenses and keep the dialogue productive. Or perhaps you might say something like, “I do understand the importance of this part of the requirement, but I’m not sure how it applies to this scenario.”
Assessors and conformity assessment body (CAB) personnel often come from different perspectives, and it’s vital to “explore others’ paths”—a tool that encourages listening to the assessor’s reasoning before responding. This not only demonstrates professionalism but also shows you are engaged and willing to work toward a resolution without conflict (Patterson et al.).
Aligning Perspectives
Another strategy described in Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most is the “What Happened?” method. This strategy is especially relevant as assessment nonconformances often stem from differences in interpretation of policies, procedures, or records. During a disagreement, start by seeking to understand the assessor’s reasoning behind their decisions. Ask follow-up or open-ended questions to ensure both you and the assessor are on the same page and then parrot back their points to confirm your understanding of them.
Something else to keep in mind is the “Identity” conversation—how perceived criticism can affect your sense of competence or credibility. Remember that being assessed is not personal, and when potential nonconformances are identified, it is not to criticize the CAB’s reputation but to find and correct potential gaps. Recognizing this can help you respond with poise rather than defensiveness. Expressing feelings appropriately—without placing blame—can foster a respectful exchange.
Ultimately, assessments are not just evaluations or audits or someone to look over your shoulder—they’re opportunities for a 3rd party technical expert to help identify areas of improvement. Using the “contrasting” technique, the “What Happened?” strategy, and remembering the “Identity” conversation, CABs can transform difficult assessment conversations into constructive dialogues. This includes staying grounded in facts, recognizing and managing emotions, and keeping the bigger picture in mind. Whether the issue is a misunderstood procedure or a documentation gap, your ability to communicate with clarity, curiosity, and professionalism will ensure that even difficult assessment conversations contribute to stronger systems, better relationships, and a more robust quality culture.
Works Cited
Patterson, Kerry, et al. Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes are High. 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, 2012.
Stone, Douglas, et al. Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most. Revised ed., Penguin Books, 2010.