Free CIPS L4M5 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 3

The Win-Win approach is the most appropriate negotiation strategy in situations where collaboration and ongoing relationships are prioritized. In this case:

Achieving cost savings: The NHS aims to reduce expenses in order to reallocate funds to critical areas, making it essential that both parties work together to find cost-effective solutions.

Collaborative supplier relationship: Since Maria is working with a collaborative supplier, maintaining a positive relationship through mutual benefit is essential for continued cooperation.

Alignment with public service objectives: A Win-Win outcome aligns with the NHS's broader objectives of maximizing resources for patient care, as it ensures that savings are achieved without undermining the supplier’s commitment to quality service.

This approach aligns with CIPS guidelines for maintaining productive, ethical partnerships in procurement, especially in critical sectors like healthcare.

Integrative, interest-based negotiation can facilitate constructive, positive relationship and establish contracts between parties on a foundation of goodwill. It is important to note it can only facilitate these positive outcomes, it does not guarantee that the other party will not seek to be opportunistic at a later time during the life of the contract. Previous knowledge of the behaviours of the other party regarding honouring contractual and other commitments will be useful here in predicting long-term outcomes, not ensuring that they will not leverage their advantages.

There are many factors that can influence the balance of power in a negotiation. These factors are classified into 3 levels:

Macro level: STEEPLE framework: social, technological, economic, environment, political, legal and ethical

Micro level: Porter's five forces:

Diagram Description automatically generated

One-to-one buyer-supplier dynamics.

The question asks about the micro factors that increases supplier's bargaining power. Among 5 answers, only 2 are likely to increase buyer's power:

There are no close substitutes for rubber: the buyer has to buy rubber, not any other material.

Costs of changing suppliers are high: buyer entails a large barrier if they want to switch supplier.

Other answers cannot be correct because:

SRI sets up its own rubber plantation: Buyer secures its own supply

SRI's purchase amount makes significant proportion of supplier revenue: Suppliers are reliant on buyer. If the buyer stops buying from them, they can face serious cash flow problems

Rubber from different suppliers is virtually similar: undifferentiated product would shift the power balance towards buyer.

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

A shift in demand occurs when an influencing factor other than price changes. Those factors are:

- The income of buyers

- The tastes and preferences of buyers

- The prices of other goods and services, especially substitutes and complements

- Expectations of buyer about the future

In this question:

- 'Prices of complementary goods decrease' will lead to quantity demanded for that complements rising, then demand for consumer good will increase accordingly.

- 'Price of the consumer good decreases' will increase the quantity demanded for that good, but it will not shift the demand curve

- 'Customers' expectation of higher prices in the future': in this scenario, customers tend to buy more to store in present, which leads to demand curve shifting to the right

- 'Consumer tastes shift toward substitute products': Demand for substitutes will rise, so demand for that consumer good will decrease and the demand curve shifts to the left.

LO 2, AC 2.2

Integrative negotiation emphasises maximising joint outcomes and pursuing shared goals, moving beyond narrow self-interest. Unlike distributive negotiations, it does not focus on short-term wins or zero-sum positions. Instead, integrative strategies build sustainable value and strengthen partnerships. Maximising the other party’s outcome alone is more accommodative than integrative. Therefore, true integrative practice balances both parties’ interests for long-term gain.

Adversarial relationships typically lead to distributive (win–lose) negotiations, where each party seeks maximum gain at the other’s expense. Trust is low, information is withheld, and concessions are hard-fought. While it can deliver short-term wins, it risks damaging long-term relationships and may reduce overall value. Collaborative, integrative approaches are more sustainable, but adversarial conditions often prevent them. CIPS highlights the importance of recognising relationship dynamics before selecting negotiation style, as forcing integrative approaches in adversarial contexts may be unrealistic.

When facing a monopoly supplier, buyers must find creative ways to introduce leverage. Publicly exploring alternative solutions can create the perception of competition or a fallback plan, thus shifting bargaining power slightly toward the buyer.

Trust-destroying behaviours:

- Rumours of partnership or relationship breaking down

- Emotion-based assessment of performance

- Avoiding accountability, passing the blame to others

- General mood – resentment, distrust, frustration, etc

LO 1, AC 1.4