Free Practice Questions for CIPS L4M5 Exam

According to Thomas-Kilmann conflict model instrument, there are 5 conflict management styles:

In this scenario, the buyer's bargaining power is stronger than suppliers', and the relationship is transactional. Therefore, to get the most preferable outcome, the procurement professional can take an assertive approach, while he doesn't need to co-operate closely with these suppliers. Competing will be the most appropriate approach to negotiation in this scenario so that the buying organisation can get a better deal.

Foreign exchange rates impact import costs, profit margins, and overall turnover when transactions are conducted in foreign currencies. Understanding these fluctuations allows buyersto anticipate changes in purchasing costs, supporting informed decision-making, as highlighted in CIPS guidance on global procurement considerations.

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

Procurement can negotiate various aspects of a purchase requisition even without a formal value analysis. While value analysis can enhance cost-effectiveness, procurement professionals often negotiate on pricing, terms, and conditions to add value independently of value analysis, as per CIPS’s guidelines on procurement flexibility in negotiations.

Distributive approach to negotiation used when the interested parties are attempting to divide something up or distribute something of value, also known as zero-sum approach or win-lose. Commercial situations often demand a distributive bargaining approach, if the 'pie' is inherently of a fixed size. In this case, any conflicts must be resolved by sharing it.

In win-lose approach, a negotiator wants to maximise the value obtained in a single deal, the relationship with the other party is not important. Therefore, a strong party may win more than 50% of the metaphorical 'pie'.

It should not be assumed that win-win can be applied to all commercial negotiations, or that win-lose approaches are inherently inferior.

Using threats is generally inappropriate in strategic supplier negotiations where a long-term, trust-based relationship is required (C). Threatening tactics can damage the relationship and may result in resistance from the supplier. CIPS advocates for collaborative approaches in strategic relationships to foster mutual trust and achieve sustainable agreements.

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