Pass the CIPS CIPS Level 4 Diploma in Procurement and Supply L4M5 Questions and answers with CertsForce

Referent power is based on personal relationships and the respect or admiration one earns within an organization. Given Mike’s positive relationships and his rapport with team members and other departments, he is most likely to have referent power. This power type is influential in negotiation as people are more willing to work with someone they respect, as outlined in CIPS power dynamics in negotiation.

There are nine commonly used influence tactic:

1. Rational persuasion includes using facts, data, and logical arguments to try to convince others that your point of view is the best alternative. This is the most commonly applied influence tactic.

2. Legitimating

3. Personal appeals

4. Exchange

5. Ingratiation

6. Pressure refers to exerting undue influence on someone to do what you want or else something undesirable will occur.

7. Coalitions refer to a group of individuals working together toward a common goal to influence others.

8. Inspirational appeals

9. Consultation refers to the influence agent’s asking others for help in directly influencing or planning to influence another person or group.

In the scenario, there is a problem with demand forecasting and supply chain planning in Leitax. The new Supply chain director invites the stakeholders to a meeting to find the solution. She is using coalition tactics.

In order to break vicious cycle of blame, procurement will need to use their negotiation and conflict management skills, adopting a collaborative and integrative approach. Your first action should be to establish the facts that led to the situation where the relationship broke down. Most day-to-day relationship between buying organisations and suppliers do not of course involve procurement staff, so you will need to consult with your business partners internally to establish their point of view of where the issue and sources of conflict are. You should also contact the supplier and get their side of the story - this is particularly to when you have previously identified the supplier as critical or otherwise important to your operations. Ideally you will be able to apply principled negotiation here, separating the people from the issue, focusing on interests and not positions, and then looking for options of mutual benefits.

Using logic involves applying numerical data and factual evidence to support arguments in a negotiation. Logical reasoning appeals to objective analysis rather than emotional or coercive tactics and is effective in convincing the other party through structured, fact-based arguments, aligning with CIPS's guidance on logical negotiation techniques.

Integrative, interest-based negotiation can facilitate constructive, positive relationship and establish contracts between parties on a foundation of goodwill. It is important to note it can only facilitate these positive outcomes, it does not guarantee that the other party will not seek to be opportunistic at a later time during the life of the contract. Previous knowledge of the behaviours of the other party regarding honouring contractual and other commitments will be useful here in predicting long-term outcomes, not ensuring that they will not leverage their advantages.

Distributive negotiation carries several risks beyond justlosing out on value. These includedamaging supplier relationships,eroding trust, andreaching an impasse, where neither party can agree. This could result in delayed projects, increased costs, or supplier withdrawal.

“Distributive negotiation can lead to a breakdown in communication, impasses, and long-term relationship damage. The win-lose mindset can prevent collaborative problem-solving.”

(L4M5 Commercial Negotiation, 2nd edition, Section 3.5 - Risks of Distributive Approaches)

SMART is an acronym that you can use to guide your goal setting. SMART is an acronym that stands for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound

A student met this question in the L4M5 exam. SMART is mentioned primarily in L4M3 Commercial Contracting.

LO: Unknown, AC: Unknown

Competing is assertive and uncooperative, a power-oriented mode. When competing, an individual pursues his or her own concerns at the other person’s expense, using whatever power seems appropriate to win his or her position. Competing might mean standing up for your rights, defending a position you believe is correct, or simply trying to win. Competing will not allow long-term relationship to flourish.

Compromising is intermediate in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. When compromising, the objective is to find an expedient, mutually acceptable solution that partially satisfies both parties. Compromising falls on a middle ground between competing and accommodating, giving up more than competing but less than accommodating. Likewise, it addresses an issue more directly than avoiding but doesn’t explore it in as much depth as collaborating. Compromising might mean splitting the difference, exchanging concessions, or seeking a quick middle-ground position. It is a valid approach when long-term relationships are at stake and it is important to find some common ground on which to base an agreement. Both sides get something but not everything. Therefore, this is the most appropriate for this scenario.

Avoiding is unassertive and uncooperative. When avoiding, an individual does not immediately pursue his or her own concerns or those of the other person. He or she does not address the conflict. Avoiding might take the form of diplomatically sidestepping an issue, postponing an issue until a better time, or simply withdrawing from a threatening situation. In the scenario, both parties want to take the opportunity, then avoiding is not an appropriate solution.

Accommodating is unassertive and cooperative—the opposite of competing. When accommodating, an individual neglects his or her own concerns to satisfy the concerns of the other person; there is an element of self-sacrifice in this mode. Accommodating might take theform of selfless generosity or charity, obeying another person’s order when you would prefer not to, or yielding to another’s point of view. In the scenario, neither party shall concede all of their requirements, it is unnecessary to adopt this approach.

LO 1, AC 1.1

In the scenario, anyone who has concerns can join a meeting to raise their thoughts. The project team takes the stakeholders' ideas into account. This is known as coalition: A group of people or organisations come together and work collaboratively to achieve some goals. Specifically in this scenario, the goal is creating a high-quality and unified specification for an important project.

Trust is built through consistent communication (e.g., regular meetings) and fulfilling commitments (keeping promises). Coercion erodes trust, while mediation is reactive and not a foundational element of trust-building.