Free Practice Questions for CIPS L4M5 Exam

The zone of possible agreement (ZOPA) or bargaining range is considered an area where two or more negotiating parties may find common ground. It is this area where parties will often compromise and strike a deal. In order for negotiating parties to find a settlement or reach an agreement, they must work towards a common goal and seek an area that incorporates at least some of each party's ideas.

The zone of proximal development refers to the difference between what a learner can do without help and what he or she can achieve with guidance and encouragement from a skilled partner.

There is no Walk away area. Walk away point is a position from which you cannot concede any more ground and must walk away/decline a deal.

Best alternative to a negotiated agreement is a fallback or backstop position if the negotiation fails to result in an agreement/no deal is agreed.

LO 1, AC 1.2

Tradeables—variables such as price, delivery, quality, and payment terms—are introduced in the bargaining stage of negotiations. This is the phase where both parties test positions, make concessions, and trade issues to create acceptable packages. Proposing and opening are earlier stages focused on setting out agendas and clarifying needs, while closure comes after tradeables are resolved. Introducing tradeables too early can weaken leverage, and leaving them too late risks deadlock. Bargaining ensures the structured exchange of concessions while protecting the overall bargaining mix.

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.

In 1959, French and Raven described five bases of power:

1. Legitimate – This comes from the belief that a person has the formal right to make demands, and to expect others to be compliant and obedient.

2. Reward – This results from one person's ability to compensate another for compliance.

3. Expert – This is based on a person's high levels of skill and knowledge.

4. Referent – This is the result of a person's perceived attractiveness, worthiness and right to others' respect.

5. Coercive – This comes from the belief that a person can punish others for noncompliance.

Six years later, Raven added an extra power base:

6. Informational – This results from a person's ability to control the information that others need to accomplish something.

In the scenario, Neville attracts and keeps good relationship with his colleagues not because of neither position nor reward nor coercion. He has good skills and kindness, which increase his charisma. His source of power is referent power.

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.

In the study guide, CIPS lists 5 stages of an negotiation:

The opening phase: confirm understanding and get the issues on the table. At this stage, both parties should check agenda, authority and create atmosphere conducive to agreement

The testing phase is an information gathering stage where the hypothesis and assumptions you have made in the planning stage can be tested and confirmed or disconfirmed

The proposing phase: Both sides may start making tentative proposals regarding their offering.

The bargaining phase: Both parties trade concessions; the preliminary stages are over and proposals move from being tentative and general to being more definite and specific.

The agreement and closing phase: both parties should seek agreement or if TOP does not have the final authority, some sort of acknowledgement of what key terms are should be sought.

In a Win/Win or integrative negotiation approach, the goal is to achieve mutual benefit, which is characterized by a collaborative environment. According to CIPS principles on integrative negotiation:

Collaboration (A): Actively working together enables both parties to find solutions that maximize joint gains and address the needs of both sides.

Problem solving (B): Focusing on problem-solving allows both parties to address the issues at hand rather than competing over positions, facilitating a solution that satisfies both parties' needs.

By emphasizing collaboration and problem-solving, the organization increases the likelihood of a successful, sustainable agreement that respects both parties' interests.

A distributive approach is appropriate when multiple suppliers offer similar products, as this competitive environment allows the buyer to focus on maximizing their position rather than building long-term partnerships. CIPS suggests that a distributive or competitive approach is best used in non-critical purchases or when supplier dependency is low, as is the case here.

In the opening phase, parties should confirm understanding and get the issues on the table.

The testing phase is an information gathering stage where the hypothesis and assumption you have made in the planning stage can be tested or confirmed or disproved.

Opening questions (those that start with 'what', 'how', 'why') are used at the opening and testing stages to uncover needs and underlying motives, and to allow the buyer to get a feel of what is in store in the negotiation.

Probing questions are also useful to check that the supplier fully understand their offering, as well as your needs, and can also be used to communicate to the supplier that you know this category well. These questions are typically useful at the opening and testing stages.