Pass the CIPS Commercial Negotiation L4M5 Questions and answers with ValidTests

Variable pricing can lead to budgeting challenges and financial uncertainty over a 12-month period. While variable pricing may allow flexibility, it complicates financial planning and forecasting. For predictable budgeting and reduced financial risk, fixed pricing is typically preferred in such contract durations, aligning with CIPS recommendations on pricing models in contract management.

Persistent late payment of the supplier’s invoices (A) and Unequal sharing of gains, risks, and costs with the supplier (B) are potential sources of conflict as they create dissatisfaction and imbalance in the relationship. According to CIPS materials:

Late payments (A) can strain the supplier’s cash flow, affecting their operational stability and leading to mistrust in the buyer.

Unequal sharing of gains, risks, and costs (B) can result in one party feeling exploited or unfairly treated, which undermines the collaborative spirit essential for long-term partnerships.

In contrast, requesting early supplier involvement, planning visits, or setting delivery dates are typically part of constructive relationship management practices and do not inherently lead to conflict.

A push approach typically involves exerting authority or power (1) with the party being influenced generally aware of the influence process (3). This method involves overtly directing or persuading the other party, often through explicit information or directives, as per CIPS’s understanding of push influence techniques.

According to the book 'Influencing: Skills and techniques for business success' by Fiona Dent and Mike Brent, there are two major influencing styles. Push tends to be directive. It tells, and is clear and resolute, but needs to be employed in situations where firmness is required because of difficulties that exist or weakness is evident. Pull is more participatory and collaborative. It seeks to incorporate everyone’s perspective. It can appear wishy-washy if not skilfully employed. That approach should be followed which is most likely to secure commitment and not mere compliance.

The two divisions can be further divided into four style categories: directive; persuasive reasoning; collaborative – team oriented, people oriented to inspire them with a vision. The directive style relies on your expertise and reputation being respected by others, and where there really does seem to be one answer. It is "I" driven whereas persuasive reasoning is more "we" and issue driven. Directive styles can make the user appear as "a bull in a china shop"; persuasive reasoning can be portrayed as tough guy.

Collaborative influencing takes the "we" element further and seeks to mobilise everyone’s ideas in a journey of discovery. It may have the flavour of "I’m your best friend", which may not go down too well. Visioning style is concerned to stir people’s emotions in support of achieving an objective. This last one has been used by demagogues to stir people’s hearts and minds for evil purposes as well as good.

A useful table offers the benefits, problems, words and body language associated with each style along with advice on when to use and when to avoid each. Cases and exercises illustrate these styles.

Empathy comes in for extended treatment with the definition of "standing in the other's shoes". This does not necessarily happen just intuitively, and therefore before a specific influencing effort there should be an intense effort to think about the other person or persons and to sense what it might feel like to be them – their hopes, fears, concerns, what turns them on, what turns them off, where are they coming from.

Hammad’s approach of presenting facts, figures, and justifications aligns with the Push persuasion method. The Push strategy involves directly presenting information, data, and logical arguments to convince the other party of a certain outcome. In this scenario, Hammad is using objective evidence to influence the supplier towards agreeing to a discount, which is characteristic of the Push method, as per CIPS guidance on negotiation tactics.

There are multiple sources of divergent positions that can arise in situations where money is exchange for goods and services. There are 2 different types of sources. Those that arise from the content or subject matter of the negotiation (what is being negotiated) and those that arise from the process of negotiation (how it is being negotiated).

Sources of divergent position - the content of negotiation:

Table Description automatically generated

Cultural differences are the source of conflict in the process of negotiation.

Requisition is an internal document raised by user or store to communicate to procurement the need to buy the product or service specified. This is merely a internal document.

Framework arrangement is a rather loose set-up, without any legal standing. It usually occurs when an organisation has decided for itself to limit the number of suppliers it is willing to work with and, through a purely internal process, sets up an approved list of such suppliers.

LO 1, AC 1.1

Bargaining is the negotiation stage where tradeables are typically introduced and discussed. During this phase, both parties exchange offers and concessions, using tradeables such as lead times and order quantities to find a mutually acceptable agreement. This aligns with CIPS's guidance on the stages of negotiation.