L4M5 Exam Dumps - Commercial Negotiation

Investors or shareholders who have high level of influence but low interest belong to 'Keep satisfied' quadrant of Mendelow's Stakeholder Matrix.

You may read 2 versions from L4M1 and L4M5 here:

Table Description automatically generated

LO 1, AC 1.1

Signs of trust in business relationships

• Mutually agreed and managed objectives

• Sharing information

• Managing conflict through joint problem solving

• On time delivery of products and services

• High-performance teams that feel empowered to get the job done

• Supplier welcomes opportunity to innovate

• Both parties share ideas and insight

• Clear criteria for decision making

LO 1, AC 1.4

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.

Hypothetical questions are used to explore options or scenarios without making commitments. This technique allows negotiators to understand the other party’s preferences and limitations by presenting hypothetical situations, as recommended in CIPS guidelines for negotiation questioning techniques.

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.

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. Thatapproach 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.