Conflict is common in organisations and in procurement, where competing priorities, supplier issues, and internal pressures often clash. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Model identifies five different approaches managers may use to handle conflict, depending on the situation and the desired outcome.

The first approach is Competing (high concern for task, low concern for people). Here the manager asserts their own position to achieve quick results, even at the expense of relationships. For example, a procurement manager may insist on enforcing compliance with tendering rules despite stakeholder resistance. This is effective in crises but can harm morale if overused.

The second is Accommodating (low concern for task, high concern for people). In this style, the manager prioritises relationships by giving way to the other party's needs. For instance, a procurement manager might accept a stakeholder's preferred supplier to maintain goodwill, even if it is not the cheapest option. This preserves harmony but risks poor business outcomes if used too often.

The third approach is Avoiding (low concern for both task and people). Here, the manager withdraws from the conflict or postpones action. This may be appropriate when the issue is minor or when emotions are high, giving time for reflection. However, in procurement, avoiding conflict with a poor-performing supplier may worsen problems over time.

The fourth is Collaborating (high concern for both task and people). This involves working with others to find win-win solutions. For example, a procurement manager may work with finance and operations to balance cost, quality, and sustainability objectives in supplier selection. This is often the most effective approach but requires time and trust.

Finally, Compromising (medium concern for task and people) involves each side giving up something to reach a middle ground. For instance, a procurement manager may agree to split supplier contracts between two stakeholders' preferences. This provides quick solutions but may leave all parties partially dissatisfied.

Conclusion:

A procurement manager can approach conflict through competing, accommodating, avoiding, collaborating, or compromising. Each has strengths and weaknesses. The best managers adapt their style depending on the importance of the issue, the urgency of the decision, and the relationships involved. In procurement, collaboration often delivers the most sustainable results, but flexibility across all five approaches is key.

A bureaucratic management style is based on the theories of Max Weber, who described bureaucracy as a structured, rule-based and hierarchical way of organising work. In this style, managers rely heavily on formal rules, policies and procedures to direct employee behaviour. Decision-making authority follows a clear chain of command, and employees are expected to follow established processes without deviation. Job roles are highly specialised and responsibilities are clearly defined. The emphasis is on order, consistency and compliance rather than flexibility or creativity.

This approach is often seen in government departments, regulatory bodies, or large organisations where compliance, accountability and control are critical. For example, in procurement and supply, bureaucratic management may be applied in highly regulated environments such as public sector purchasing, where adherence to policies, legal frameworks and audit requirements is essential.

Advantages of the bureaucratic style include:

Clarity and consistency: clear rules and procedures mean employees know exactly what is expected of them.

Fairness and equality: decisions are made based on rules, not personal favouritism, reducing bias.

Accountability and control: strong documentation and audit trails improve transparency.

Efficiency in routine tasks: structured processes can streamline repetitive, transactional work (e.g., purchase-to-pay).

Disadvantages include:

Inflexibility: rigid rules make it difficult to adapt to change or unique situations.

Low motivation: workers may feel disempowered or demoralised by lack of autonomy.

Slow decision-making: multiple levels of approval can create delays.

Stifled innovation: focus on compliance discourages creativity and proactive problem-solving.

In conclusion, the bureaucratic management style is effective where consistency, compliance and control are needed, such as in regulated procurement activities. However, it can be limiting in dynamic environments where flexibility, innovation and speed of decision-making are essential. Successful managers may therefore adopt bureaucratic methods for governance but balance them with more adaptive styles for strategic and innovative work.

Stakeholders can exert influence over procurement decisions in different ways. French and Raven identified five types of power that stakeholders may hold. Each has different implications for how procurement interacts with them.

1. Legitimate Power:

This comes from a stakeholder's formal position or authority. For example, a Finance Director may require procurement to comply with budgetary controls. Procurement must respect legitimate authority but can also influence decisions by providing evidence and business cases.

2. Reward Power:

This is based on the ability to provide benefits or incentives. For example, senior management may reward the procurement team with recognition or bonuses for achieving savings. Procurement can use this positively by demonstrating performance and aligning with organisational goals.

3. Coercive Power:

This is the power to punish or impose sanctions. For instance, a project manager may pressure procurement to prioritise their project by threatening escalation if deadlines are missed. Procurement must manage this carefully, balancing demands with fairness and compliance.

4. Expert Power:

This arises from specialist knowledge or skills. For example, a procurement professional with strong knowledge of supplier markets holds expert power, which can influence strategic decisions. Conversely, technical departments may hold expert power in specifying product requirements, requiring procurement to collaborate closely.

5. Referent Power:

This is based on personal relationships, respect, or charism

a. For example, a well-liked senior stakeholder may influence procurement decisions even without formal authority. Procurement must manage these situations by maintaining objectivity while leveraging strong relationships to gain support.

Comparison of Interaction with Procurement:

Legitimate power often requires compliance, while procurement may respond with process adherence and evidence-based justification.

Reward power creates motivation for procurement, but risks short-term focus if overused.

Coercive power can create conflict and stress; procurement must use negotiation and diplomacy to manage.

Expert power can be collaborative, as procurement and stakeholders share knowledge to improve outcomes.

Referent power relies on trust and relationships, which procurement can use to build coalitions and support for initiatives.

Conclusion:

The five types of power -- legitimate, reward, coercive, expert, and referent -- shape how stakeholders interact with procurement. Understanding these power bases enables procurement professionals to adapt their approach, whether through compliance, persuasion, collaboration, or relationship-building. This ensures stakeholder management supports both procurement objectives and organisational goals.

A heterogeneous or diverse workforce refers to a group of employees with varied characteristics, backgrounds, and perspectives. Diversity can relate to visible differences such as age, gender, ethnicity, or disability, as well as invisible factors like personality, values, experiences, and thinking styles. A diverse workforce is valuable because it brings multiple perspectives, creativity, and innovation, which can improve decision-making and problem-solving. However, it can also create challenges in communication, conflict management, and team cohesion if not managed effectively.

In procurement and supply management, diversity can mean having team members from different professional disciplines, cultural backgrounds, or experience levels. This mix can lead to better supplier negotiations, innovation in category strategies, and greater sensitivity to global ethical standards. For managers, the challenge lies in understanding and leveraging individual differences to build cohesive, high-performing teams.

One useful personality model for understanding team members is the Big Five Personality Traits (OCEAN model). This model is widely accepted in psychology and provides a framework for identifying personality differences across five dimensions:

Openness to Experience -- measures creativity, curiosity, and willingness to try new things. In procurement, high openness could support innovation in supplier strategies.

Conscientiousness -- relates to organisation, responsibility, and dependability. A conscientious buyer is likely to follow compliance rules and deliver accurate work.

Extraversion -- reflects sociability, assertiveness, and energy. Extroverts may excel in supplier negotiations and stakeholder engagement.

Agreeableness -- indicates cooperation, empathy, and trust. Highly agreeable individuals may be effective in collaboration but could avoid conflict even when necessary.

Neuroticism (Emotional Stability) -- refers to sensitivity to stress and emotional control. Low neuroticism (high stability) is ideal in high-pressure procurement negotiations.

By applying this model, a manager can gain insights into the personalities of their team, allocate roles effectively, and provide tailored support. For example, a procurement leader may assign highly conscientious individuals to compliance-heavy processes, while extroverts may be placed in supplier-facing roles.

The use of the Big Five also helps managers balance team dynamics, identify potential conflict, and design training or coaching interventions. Understanding personality traits supports motivation strategies (e.g., Herzberg, Maslow), builds stronger communication, and enhances trust within diverse teams.

In conclusion, a heterogeneous workforce brings significant benefits but requires skilful management to harness its potential. The Big Five Personality Traits provide a structured and evidence-based tool for understanding individuals, enabling managers to lead diverse teams more effectively and align strengths with organisational goals.

Group Conformity (10 marks):

Group conformity refers to the tendency of individuals to align their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours with the norms of the group to which they belong. People conform because they want acceptance, fear rejection, or assume the group's judgement is correct. Conformity ensures cohesion and cooperation but may limit creativity. For example, in procurement, a junior buyer may adopt the team's approach to negotiations, even if they personally believe another method could achieve better results.

Groupthink and its Effects (15 marks):

'Groupthink', a term developed by Irving Janis, occurs when the desire for consensus overrides realistic appraisal of alternatives. Members suppress doubts, ignore risks, and fail to voice disagreements to maintain harmony. This can seriously affect group behaviour in several ways:

Illusion of invulnerability -- Groups may become overconfident and underestimate risks. For example, a procurement team might agree to single-source a supplier without considering supply chain risks.

Suppression of dissent -- Members may withhold concerns to avoid conflict. This stifles creativity and prevents better solutions from being considered.

Pressure for uniformity -- Individuals may feel obliged to agree even when they disagree. A buyer may stay silent when senior managers push for a supplier contract, even if they know the supplier has performance issues.

Biased decision-making -- Groups may ignore warning signs or alternative perspectives, leading to flawed decisions. In procurement, this could mean overlooking ethical issues in a supplier relationship to maintain harmony with stakeholders.

Reduced accountability -- Responsibility is shared across the group, so individuals may feel less accountable for poor decisions.

Groupthink can therefore lead to poor decision-making, increased risk, and lost opportunities. It is particularly dangerous in high-stakes environments like procurement, where mistakes in supplier selection or contract negotiation can damage cost, quality, and reputation.

Conclusion:

Group conformity means individuals adapt to group norms to gain acceptance, while groupthink is a negative consequence where consensus is prioritised over critical evaluation. For managers, recognising the risk of groupthink is vital. By encouraging open discussion, appointing a ''devil's advocate,'' and welcoming diverse views, leaders can ensure group decisions are both inclusive and effective.