7. When “Maybe” Doesn’t Mean Yes — and “No” Rarely Means No
- Ann Desseyn
- 2 days ago
- 2 min read
Auditors rely on clarity. But in multilingual environments, the simplest answers — yes and no — are often the least reliable.
Across cultures, binary replies serve different social functions. They signal politeness, acknowledgment, respect, agreement, avoidance, or simply “I have heard you.” The problem?Auditors tend to interpret them literally.
This disconnect makes ambiguous yes / no / maybe one of the most frequent sources of misunderstanding in global audits.
Why Yes/No Fails in Multilingual Contexts
Binary answers assume a shared communication style — something multilingual teams rarely have.
1. “Yes” often signals acknowledgment, not confirmation
In many cultures, saying “yes” shows that the speaker is listening. It does not guarantee that the requirement was met or even understood.
2. “No” is avoided to maintain harmony
Direct refusals or corrections may be considered rude, risky, or disrespectful. People choose softer, indirect responses — or avoid negative answers entirely.
3. Translators often soften responses further
Interpretation tends to lean toward politeness. A hesitant “hmm… not exactly” may become “yes, mostly,” even though those two meanings are nothing alike.
The result is a widening gap between what was said and what was meant.
Why This Is Dangerous in Auditing
Ambiguous yes/no responses can:
wrongly imply compliance
hide process deviations
distort the evidence trail
produce contradictory findings
mislead root cause analysis
trigger incorrect NCRs or overlook necessary ones
A single misplaced “yes” can shift an entire audit.
Examples Auditors See Every Day
These phrases often mask incomplete information:
“Yes, yes.” → I hear you; please continue.
“It should be fine.” → I hope it’s fine, but I’m not certain.
“Yes, we can do that.” → We want to cooperate, but we don’t actually do that now.
“Maybe yes.” → I don’t want to say no.
“It is possible.” → Possibly, but not currently compliant.
These statements can be misinterpreted as clear, confirmed responses when they are anything but.
Why Standard Audit Questioning Breaks Down
Audits that rely on closed questions (“Do you…?”, “Is this…?”, “Have you…?”) fail in high-context cultures because they do not reveal meaning — only politeness.
Without probing deeper, auditors walk away with apparent confirmation but no real evidence.
What Auditors Should Do Immediately
To remove ambiguity, auditors must replace binary questions with explicit confirmation steps.
1. Request explanation, not affirmation
Ask: “Tell me the requirement and how you meet it.” instead of: “Do you meet the requirement?”
2. Require demonstration
If someone answers “yes,” ask to see the record, the step, or the output.
3. Ask for the evidence used
This forces clarity and prevents polite yes/no behaviour from masking critical details.
The Insight
Binary answers don’t travel well across cultures. In multilingual audits, clarity emerges not from yes/no, but from explanation, demonstration, and evidence. Hidden Risk #7 reminds auditors that understanding begins where binary replies end.
