Last Attempt L4M5 Questions

An adversarial relationship in purchasing and supply arises when identical or equivalent good or services are available from competing suppliers and buyers/sellers are trying to gain an advantage over each other. Low levels of trust are characteristic of adversarial relationships. The outcome when two organisations with adversarial negotiate is most likely to be win-lose.

Understanding where and with whom your supplier spends their money, or understanding the 'cost breakdowns' or 'price build-up' of the goods and services you purchase from the supplier, will help you know

where and when they can offer price concessions.

Cost information can be expressed with more impact through graphs that can be created using Excel and PowerPoint or other softwares. There are two commonly used models known as 'spend waterfall'

and 'spend tree'. Spend waterfall shows the build-up of costs, while the spend tree shows all the spends that an organisation makes.

There is no graph known as 'spend candlesticks'. Candlestick chart is a style of financial chart used to describe price movements of a security, derivative, or currency.

The aggregate expenditure model is a method of calculating GDP. The aggregate expenditure model focuses on the relationships between production (GDP) and planned spending: GDP = planned

spending = consumption + investment + government purchases + net exports.

Summarising what has been said is a key component of active listening, as it demonstrates understanding and engagement in the conversation. Active listening involves confirming and clarifying information, which helps build rapport and ensures accurate communication, as outlined in CIPS’s guidelines for effective negotiation communication.

A business negotiation agenda is a formal agreed upon list of goals to be achieved or items to be discussed in a particular order during a meeting or negotiation. Agendas can be formal and obvious, or informal and subtle in negotiations.

The agenda is one of the main structural elements of negotiation, in addition to such questions as site, identification of participants, and elements of timing. Together, they answer the who, what, when, and where questions. As with other aspects of negotiation, the agenda can be used either manipulatively to enhance leverage or to improve the prospects for agreement and the possibilities for mutual gain. In most cases, it will be used both ways, reflecting the nature of negotiation as a “mixed-motive” situation.

Although it can be instrumental to [research] volunteer as a sole source to write the agenda, in most cases it becomes a joint activity to construct a consensual basis for subsequent negotiation. In these situations, agenda-building becomes one of the pre-negotiation activities that set the tone for the relationship (Saunders, 1985). In other situations, the parties may engage in actual negotiation without a formal or written agenda. When this occurs, the risks and uncertainties may be high but the party who appreciates the importance of the informal agenda has a tremendous advantage.

Whether one plans it or not, during the course of negotiation the parties will discuss a finite set of issues in some sequence and from a particular perceptual framework. Consciousness of the universality and centrality of the agenda is prerequisite to guiding negotiation to a successful conclusion.