The Commercial Negotiation (L4M5)

The question requires more detailed answer, it is an example of probing question.

Probing questions are typically follow-up questions, and aim to elicit more detailed information on the back of the answer elicited from the open questions. Probing question are also useful to check that the supplier fully understand their offering, as well as your needs, can also be used to communicate to the suppliers that you know this category well.

LO 3, AC 3.3

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.

Open questions begin with “how,” “what,” “why,” etc., and are designed to encourage detailed responses. The supplier’s questions are open-ended and aim to gather comprehensive feedback, which can inform better mutual understanding and potential deal improvements.

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

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.

Integrative negotiation focuses on collaboration, transparency, and the pursuit of shared benefits. It emphasizes mutual problem-solving and long-term value creation rather than short-term wins.