L4M5 Exam Dumps - Commercial Negotiation

Integrative negotiation seeks joint value creation. Collaboration builds trust and open exchange, while problem solving identifies creative tradeables that satisfy both sides. Coercion and risk transfer belong to adversarial, distributive strategies, where one side gains at the expense of the other. Persuasion can play a role, but without collaboration, it leans toward manipulation rather than true win-win. In practice, integrative approaches require willingness to share data, listen actively, and seek long-term alignment.

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.

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.

For a private healthcare IT project, Senior Management (strategic decision-makers) and Software support developers (technical implementers) are the primary stakeholders. The general public and pharmaceutical suppliers are external parties not directly affected by the IT project outcomes. Identifying true stakeholders ensures effective engagement, reduces resistance, and aligns negotiation priorities with those who influence or are impacted by the decision. Misidentifying stakeholders risks ignoring critical voices, undermining project success and negotiation alignment.

Other stakeholders, including directors, IT, and finance departments, often have an interest in procurement negotiations, particularly when the contract impacts strategic objectives, IT infrastructure, or organizational operations. This broader stakeholder involvement aligns with CIPS’s emphasis on inclusive stakeholder management in procurement to ensure well-rounded decision-making.

This statement reflects shared goals and mutual benefit, hallmarks of integrative negotiation. Unlike adversarial or distributive (win-lose) strategies, integrative approaches seek joint value and collaboration. The language of partnership (“we are in this together”) signals alignment and cooperative intent. Lose-lose outcomes, by contrast, occur when both sides compromise excessively or fail to reach creative solutions. Integrative strategies foster long-term partnerships where value is maximised for both.