Angus McIntosh may be one of the most eloquent speakers on procurement specific negotiation I've spoken to. We cover a ton of content on procurement specific negotiation in this episode and talk about how less than half the outcomes of negotiations are determined by the predictable factors like relative power and relationship history and the rest is actually about situation awareness and control (control of the self and control of the process).
Mark: Angus, thank you so much for joining us.
Angus: My pleasure, Mark.
Mark: Awesome! So, I really appreciate you sparing up a time. I’ve already introduced you to the listeners today. You are a world-name I would say in negotiation specifically when it comes to procurement and the discipline of procurement. You’re now based in Hamburg and you’re the Associate Director of Total Negotiation, which is a UK consultancy focused on negotiation. But you have an education in physics strangely enough so maybe you could give us some background from how you went from an education in physics to a career in procurement and negotiation.
Angus: Yeah, basically physics was one of my favorite subjects when I was in school. I think most people are not really equipped when you leave school and you have to make that choice of what you want to study to know what you want to do as a career for the rest of your life and I certainly wasn’t. So, I suppose I went up to study a subject that I loved at school at that time just incredibly fascinating. I didn’t regret that choice but I mean as I went through my university career, I start to think about different things I can do with my life. I went on a kind of a business awareness workshop and I thought I actually wanted to be a scientist, assuming I had the talent to be scientist, which is part of the question. But rather than becoming a scientist, I thought it could be much more interesting to go into a career in business and commerce and explore that so that’s what I did.
Mark: Right on, that’s great. And do you think the physics education has helped you in that career?
Angus: Undoubtedly. I mean I think any education can, to be honest. I mean I also at that stage, I considered law. I considered economics and in the end, I went to physics which was my favorite but I think either physics or almost any other helps you in different ways and physics in particular taught me how to think logically in frameworks and systems and anybody who knows this, that’s how pursue those things. And I think it created that strength and helped me to develop that and I used those few kind of analytical skills and the framing skills that you learned from physics many times in my career since then.
Mark: Right on. That’s great. Yeah, I find a lot of people who come from an engineering or physics background have excellent analytical framework skills that they can understand procurement business negotiations with and they can use those same frameworks and apply them to a multitude of different situations. I mean it’s awesome to see people from science background coming into business and I think it really strengthens their ability to do well in business.
So, your background – you spent a lot of years at Mars and then you went on to be the CPO at Beiersdorf and now you’re a total negotiation. And you’ve mentioned in the past that companies typically spend up to 70% of their revenue with suppliers. In your experience, how much attention do companies give to the business and negotiation skills needed to spend that money well?
Angus: Well, I think over the last 20 years, there has been an enormous shift to the way companies approach that external spend and in a vast majority of big companies, it’s now done professionally and the departments have grown up in most companies. Of course, there’s still this wide spectrum of development, the states of development of procurement organizations and procurement professionalism in those companies. But I think, as I said, most big companies are now working up to the need to management – minimum to manage that professionally with good process and good practice.
I think where the big gap still is in even around things like negotiation skills, there’s a lot of things taking place in companies and procurement around distance and technology and how to get processes more efficient. I think that still has a long way to travel as well. But I think one of the basic disciplines that's almost in danger of becoming a bit neglected is how companies focus on those massive categories that have a fundamental impact on the business and how well those are negotiated. Maybe they may not even be managed by procurement but by a specialist function. Nevertheless they represent the 3rd party expenditure and an enormous opportunity to add value to the company if they’re done better.
So, I don’t so much look at this now from the point of view of procurement as a department or subdivision of the company, but much more as a business activity. And I think that business activity is been increasingly professionalized as I say but the one thing I think the companies could do and perhaps are neglecting today is how they can better negotiate and apply negotiation skills and disciplines particularly to those categories, few categories, and the ability to make or break the business model. I mean make or break the business.
Mark: Interesting. So, do you think the reason that companies are in danger of neglecting negotiation as a discipline is because they’re too focused on process and technology and relying too much on that aspect of it rather than the soft skills of negotiation?
Angus: Absolutely. I think that is increasingly happening. I think company will have tens of thousands of suppliers or hundreds of thousands if not millions of transactions annually. So quite understandably, they’re investing a lot of money to make that whole process more transparent and more efficient both for procurement and for the requisitioning department. So, that is an enormous process efficiency opportunity and with that comes a lot of transactional control, excellent spend data which then gives you insights that you create more value that you can get after that.
So, I think there is rightly a huge focus on process and technology but if I listen to the debate within the procurement function right now, either the press or the events I attend, that technology and process discussion is completely dominant and I don’t hear nearly as much about how outstanding procurement strategy and execution can really add value to the company through these really big large commercial negotiations, highly-complex, multidimensional involving in many, many decisions about how you structure your approach to the supply market.
Those kinds of things, companies are focusing on that so I think it’s getting a bit lost within the procurement profession and will be boosted in my view. Does that make sense?
Mark: It totally made sense. I 100% agree with you. I think, like you said, rightfully so there’s been a big focus on technology in improving the efficiency within procurement organizations and I think that that definitely needs to be there but what I found is that there seems to be a focus away from the soft skills that are required to deliver that additional value that negotiation provides.
You mentioned in the past that less than half of the outcome of a negotiation is determined by predictable factors like relative power and relationship history. What is the rest determined by?
Angus: I think it’s determined by the quality of preparation and execution of the negotiation process by how you carry that out. Now that could be an auction or tender process or it could be a face-to-face negotiation. This is a mistake that I’ve made many times in my career as well is assuming given the relative positions or power of the two companies either that all of the good situation lies with the customer or lies with the supplier or whatever. Making the assumptions about that based on the superficial facts of the situation I think is a big mistake. And it means that we don’t apply enough effort to the negotiation preparation and enough skill to the negotiation itself.
Mark: Right, so let’s dive into that a little bit because I find that negotiation preparation is, in my mind, the most important part of negotiation; how you prepare, what you prepare, the questions that you’re going to ask, how are you going to ask those questions, the role playing that you do prior to the negotiation happening. All of that is so important and so critical to delivering on a good negotiation or coming to a win or what you would consider to be a win. What part of the negotiation preparation process do you think is most important for people to pay attention to?
Angus: I think in procurement, this is one of the areas in which I want procurement negotiation to really think about the needs of procurement situation. I think there is a huge amount of negotiation skills which are generic in any negotiation situation but I think procurement people have an enormous opportunity to make those negotiation skills relevant to their own professional situation. In particular, what I mean is think about what you’re trying to achieve with your sourcing strategy.
So, if you’re approaching a category that has an enormous impact on a company’s financials, you need to approach that in the competitive process. How are you going to organize yourself in that sourcing market for competitive advantage? Because if you’re not delivering a competitive advantage, your competitors are going to enjoy that advantage. So you go play the game smartly in that category. How are you going to approach the category? How do you segment the supply chain? At what points do you connect with the market? Etc. Those disciplines are within procurement.
But then as a result of having that strategy clear assuming it is, how do you translate that into the right negotiation strategy and the right approach. I think that’s absolutely critical so make sure that your negotiation and the way you approach it is the servant of your strategy and of course your strategy in turn needs to be the servant of your business objectives. That kind of goes with our saying. But thinking about how the negotiation really serves the need of your strategy, and don’t take a simplistic view of I mean for example, win-win.
I think one of the questions you asked me which is what’s my attitude to win-win, and I read some books recently. I just read a book by Jim Camp called, "Start with No". I think you know that book. He tries to dismantle the whole sort of art of negotiation and win-win kind of orthodoxy. I’m not quite in the same position here but I do think it’s a simplistic way to look at big negotiations particularly in my view in procurement. What we need to do as procurement professionals is be very clear, as I said, about how we approach the sourcing market whether it’s a strategic market or whether we’d want to minimize effort and keep things efficient.
If it’s the strategic category then it’s tempting to default to a kind of win-win approach, and there’s nothing wrong with that except I think win-win as I said just now is a little bit a simplistic terminology. For me, it boils down to two things; it boils down to how you create value with the supplier in those kinds of negotiations. It just boils down through exploration and through looking at the possibilities that you can create in the conversation and then how you created that value and then in the end how you divide that value.
Something that I hear too often is if we’re in those kind of strategic discussions exploratory co-creational kind of discussions with the suppliers, is that we should pay a lot of attention to how we create that value and not pay attention to how we divide it. And I think that’s fundamental mistake because surely more value that we’ve created more value there is at stake in the negotiation, the more important it is. Not only do we create it but we get at least our fair share with that value.
So, I prefer to use those two terms how you create value and how you divide it.
Mark: Interesting. Yeah I know, I think that’s a great approach then I think that it’s pretty refreshing to hear a different perspective on how a negotiation should be – and we talked about expanding the pie and dividing the pie in classical negotiation terms. I mean how we create value and how we divide value is definitely probably a more appropriate way to look at the end of a negotiation who wins and who loses versus win-win. And I think it’s really refreshing to hear procurement pro or a negotiation pro speak in those terms. I tend to agree with you. I think that’s definitely the right approach.
When you’re thinking about different negotiation techniques or strategies that you’re going to be using, are you partial to any type of negotiation technique? Is there something that you default to when you’re in the midst of - let’s just say for example you’ve received an offer, what do you do next? Is there a specific technique that you’d default to?
Angus: I mean I think to answer your question in exactly the terms that you’ve asked if I’ve received an offer then reflect on it calmly and if necessary take some time out to consider it. So, I think I try to suppress the impulse to respond to it too quickly so I think that’s something - some people can analyze all the consequences of the position or an offer instantly. I don’t pretend to be one of those people. So I’m not at all embarrassed about taking some time to process it, even if that means taking a break within negotiation meeting itself. So, that’s something that I’m completely happy with doing.
Mark: Yeah. I find that a lot of people tend to rush negotiations and they focus a lot on trying to get the deal done quickly rather than trying to get the deal done properly. And they feel like if they don’t respond to an offer then, for whatever reason, they can’t take time out or they can’t pause and reflect or they can’t say “You know what? I’m going to have to come back to you. I’m going to get feedback from my team on this.” Or whatever it may be. There seems to be this kind of pervasive thought process that people can’t take the time that they need and one of the things that I try to tell people is take all the time that you need. Take that time to step back. Take the time to think about what you’ve been offered. Take the time to think about whether or not it actually meets your needs, whether it fits your negotiation framework because if you make a snap decision and a snap judgment on an offer without thinking about it, I mean nine times out of 10, you’re going to come to a worse result than you would have had you put some thought into it.
Angus: Right. I think that’s exactly right.
Mark: Yeah, exactly. Okay, cool. Switching gears a little bit, I think it would be really interesting for the listeners to hear a story around a negotiation failure that you may have had early on in your career and what you learned from that negotiation failure.
Angus: So many to choose from. There’s one that I was thinking about that question, one that really stood out. I can’t tell you which employer and what sector but an important supplier of a technical commodity that was required to operate our factories more than one factory and the supplier was one of the number that supplier of several factories. And I was the CPO, I wasn’t the buyer but I was called in a panic one evening by the buyer who had been operating a tender, a multi-factory tender for the supply of this item in which this particular supplier had been taking on was the incumbent part of the business and had taken part on this process on the full transparency etc.
Then the buyer called them through the phone and result of which and part of which was the loss of a proportion of that supply not all of it. In which point, the supplier turned around and said “Well, in that case, I'm going to immediately discontinue the supply to all of your factories of all items.” And within an hour, the buyer was receiving phone calls from the inbound logistics departments of that factory saying that the supplier was refusing to deliver. This was very much just an 'in-time' item.
So this was, for me, a completely unprecedented situation. I mean that in itself you can say somehow in the process, this has been a failure to get to that point. Well, that’s not actually the main point of my story. So, clearly there’d been some kind of breakdown or failure or misunderstanding in the process to get to that point. This was a real supply crisis.
And so what we did was we kind of suspended the decision temporarily and I took the time the next day or the day after to fly down to different part of Europe, fly down to meet the supplier and the owner of the business who was making you know in this particular phase. I was new to the situation. I was highly-confident that I can establish a kind of fresh start with the supplier and understand what his issues were. And what I found was what was clearly the build-up of an enormous amount of frustration that had accumulated over time for whatever reason, and I made no judgment about whether that was justified frustration or not. But the fact was there was a lot of frustration that for whatever reason, we hadn’t heard or understood.
And this is now boiled over in terms of the result of this tender, and I tried to press the reset button on this relationship and get things to where we started. And I couldn’t get anywhere with it at all. So with the results that I came away and we temporarily suspended the result of that tender. We then set about qualifying alternative to that particular supplier and as soon we were ready, we kicked him out across the entire network because I was in prepared to work with a supplier that was as volatile as that. And I think the way I look at that today is a completely mutual failure on my part and also the part of the supplier. I mean there was clearly some failure in the build up to that situation but then the situation having a reason, I and the supplier failed to resolve it and the result was they lost a little volume and we lost a very competitive supplier.
So, I think what to take out to that, I think one of the big things was the way that ego and emotion was blinding both of us in that situation and we both find it very difficult to back down. I was enormously frustrated that they were putting our business in that situation and that was a very big project I am thinking at that time. So, that was quite a failure I think.
Mark: That’s a super interesting story. I mean looking back on that, would you approach that situation differently today?
Angus: I mean, of course, obviously. I mean I think, obviously one would like not to get into that situation in the first place. So, having a better understanding and better management of that supplier relationship all the way through, but let’s just say we’re in that situation again, yeah I think so. I think on reflection, I made one visit down there and for me that was a significant gesture. I’m not jumping into categories and jumping into supplier relationships everyday as the CPO.
So, for me, it was significant gesture but it was rebuffed and I think I took that no for an answer. I think what I would do now is just to invest a little bit more heavily, go down there five times if necessary and really find a way to work it through. That wasn’t easy. It wasn’t a comfortable relationship at all. It was never going to be warm but those are the ones sometimes where you just have to over invest. And can I guarantee that if I'd have done that, the outcome would have been different? Not at all. But hand in heart. I can’t say, today, that I exhausted every ounce of patience that I had.
Mark: Right. I find that whenever I reflect on negotiations that I’ve had in the past especially where I’ve bombed in a negotiation and there’s been a complete failure, my first response and I find this is true for a lot of people who work in negotiation because negotiation is an emotional – I mean we can’t escape it right, it’s an emotional discipline and it’s intimate and at the end of the day, you’re dealing with people. You’re not dealing with machines. It’s not just the supplier. It’s not just a procurement person. They are people and so when I reflect, I often find myself and other people find themselves going “Yeah, the supplier or the procurement person or whatever side of the table you’re on, it was their fault.”
And at least to the people that I train, not enough self-reflection on what could I have done differently, what could I have done to approach the situation differently. And I think a good discipline to have as a negotiation person is to on every successful and unsuccessful negotiation that you have is take a tally of how you did and reflect on the situation, understand where you did well and where you didn’t do well and what you can do to improve that situation later on because I find that if you can shorten the time to learning a new skill, that’s a great way to shorten that time.
You don’t make as many mistakes in the future, you don’t repeat as many mistakes and in that way, you get up to speed on new negotiations a lot faster so I totally agree with you. That’s definitely something that I think a lot of people should pay more attention to.
In the past, you’ve said you need to go beyond the obvious in order to win best value and service from suppliers. What do you mean by go beyond the obvious?
Angus: I mean think smartly about the category and understand the category inside out. If you look at procurement as simply as sourcing process whereby you have an internal requirement and an external market and you simply approach that market with an RFP , understand who can deliver against your expectation and then tender it or negotiate it, that’s the right process for a lot of fairly mundane categories, but it’s not the right process for categories who have a fundamental impact on your business.
So, what I mean by go beyond the obvious is look at that market, look at how your competitors source in that market. What are your relative advantages and disadvantages and how can you organize your demand in that market either to how you cast it or distribute it or how you segment the value chain and at what point you contract the value chain and how you do it, whether you go global or local or whether you look for multiple points of supply and what is your security competition or whether you concentrate your volume because you want to drive up your volume within individual suppliers, whether you bundle or unbundle – the kinds of contract terms of that you write. But look deeply.
What I’m saying is nothing new because this is just the right discipline of strategic sourcing but I think too often, we don’t go deep enough. We don’t understand how to play the best game with that marketplace and with our competitors in the marketplace, because as I said, sourcing is a competitive game. I mean suppliers have a certain amount of investment available. They have a certain part of concessions and effort that they can invest with different customers. And I want to win the biggest share of that favor for me and for my business as I can. I’m going to approach the market smartly.
So, I hope I answered your question. But I’m ready to deconstruct your approach to the market and work in how to create a competitive advantage.
Mark: Yeah, that’s excellent advice. I find as procurement people, we get stuck. We seem to get stuck in process and this could even reflect to the self-reflection comment that we talked about earlier is we don’t reflect on our processes. And are we following the right process and should we be deconstructing everything and looking at a different way to do things to make it better, faster, cheaper than before. Well, I totally agree with you, going beyond the obvious is I think something that a lot of people need to take better advantage of.
Angus: For the right categories – I mean like so much on procurement it’s not one-size-fits-all. You need to invest that in the right places.
Mark: Yeah 100%. I mean looking back, you’ve had a very successful career and a lot of the listeners that are listening in on our podcast are young procurement professionals, young sales professionals and upcoming negotiation professionals in general. If you are going to give them or yourself at 30 years old advice, what advice would you give and why?
Angus: Okay. So, I think the first thing – I mean this would be advice I would give to myself so your listeners can jot for themselves if it has any application to them but certainly it would to me at that age. The first thing is it’s not about you and your status or you kind of face in the process and it’s not about you in the sense of how clever you can be. Nobody cares how clever you think you are. It’s about the relationship with the supplier. It’s about the business issues and it’s about getting the result that you need for the business. And so this applies to the story I told you few minutes ago with the case that I was dealing when I’m 30 would not happened. It was a case where I think probably personalized issues. So that’s the first thing, it’s not about you.
Second one is it’s more on the table of what you think. We can talk in a minute about some of the learnings I’ve had about how to find what some on the table when you think potential maybe exhausted but this even where there’s a little bit of tension in the relationship, there’s probably more on the table than you think.
And the third one would be in that relationship, in that supplier relationship in the negotiation or contacts, there’s something you’re missing. I don’t know what it is and you don’t know what it is but there’s something you’re missing, so go and listen for it. Look for it and go and listen for it. And there will be something there in the supplier’s business, in the competitor’s business, in the way you’re operating together, in their business plans for the future, in changes taking place in the market. There’ll be something that you are missing which you can use. Those would be my three things.
Mark: Excellent, so let’s dive into your second piece of advice there where you said there’s value on the table, more value than you think there is. How do you find that value?
Angus: The way I’ve chosen, somewhat this is disruption. I think you have to disrupt the rules of the game. Now, that sounds aggressive. It’s not necessarily. It’s really about changing your approach in unexpected ways. That’s really what I’m talking about. Change your approach in unexpected ways.
I was talking to a client recently who has an extremely well-established sourcing process for a particular category, very, very business-critical category, with a very, very regular and predictable rhythm. The same KPIs, the same processes, etc – they expect to deliver incremental value at each round of this process. This process runs more than once per year. And of course, the suppliers have completely learned how to anticipate that process if not to play it and they're suffering from dimensions returns and understandably that’s what’s going to happen. Either because the returns really are diminishing or because everybody becomes habituated to the process that it's lost the power to surprise.
So, that client has to change something. I’ve experienced this myself a big category I was sourcing or one of my team is sourcing, one of CPO roles, which we believed had completely exhausted potential. There was one we’ve been approaching very professionally for a long time with a particular negotiation methodology and we completely disrupted that. We changed the way we carried ourselves. We changed the way we behaved and in that particular instance, we moved to a bid summit approach. It’s not a revolution in procurement terms but it was not how we had approached that category ever before. The suppliers were a bit disturbed by it. We treated them with respectfully for the whole process but we treated them with a little bit more distance and that’s not what we were used to either. And we treated them with a little bit more formality with the process and a little bit more distant as I said. And it yielded at 7%, 8%, 9%, 10% that we didn’t just believe was there.
And then I could go to another examples where if you really shift the approach and change what your suppliers are expecting from you either in terms of behavior or in terms of process or timing or something or technology. And if you move from a traditionally negotiation approach to E auction approach, it’s well evident that in almost every case, you’ll get an incremental percentage after that. Probably, I strongly believe as well, when you’ve been doing that for five years and you move back and try doing that. If you’re negotiating at a country level, negotiate regionally or global. If you’ve been negotiating globally, break it back and go to country. Change something. Disrupt something and there’ll be some value there. Now, don’t do it randomly. You need to have – I’m not saying any change is good but generally but not far off that actually. Not far off that. Just particularly where you’re kind of exhausted, you think you've got exhausted in a category or relationship, change something or break them all.
That’s different from saying you’ll hear some procurement professional say “Auction in everything.” And that’s right. The evidence that they point to if the incremental save is what you get when you first take a commodity into an E auction but that’s actually true, but I don’t believe it’s intrinsicly the E auction that is delivering that. It's disruption is delivering that. So disrupt. Does that make sense?
Mark: It totally makes sense. And this goes back to our comment earlier about getting stuck in our process. Being flexible enough to reflect on your own processes and disrupt those processes is going to deliver results. And I mean the examples that you’ve given are I mean it’s so clear that when you approach something - what was that quote? There’s a quote that says if you do something way over and over again and expect different results, then that’s the definition of insanity. I think that’s what it is.
Mark: I mean you have to do something differently to get different results. And I think that you’re absolutely right. You’re absolutely right. Like I said earlier, there are a lot of salespeople that listen in and they are interested in how to better approach procurement organization. So, if you are going to give advice to a salesperson selling into a procurement organization, what would that advice be?
Angus: Yeah, I think a couple of things. I mean I think it depends to some extent what kind of category you’re operating in. So, you’ll be aware and most of your listeners will be aware but you look at procurement in terms of direct – I’m not saying direct commodities. And to put it simply, direct commodities are those where the procurement person is really a decision-maker and the owner of the supply into the business typically physical materials and things like that, and indirect as well as some other stakeholder or what the demand over in the business. And I think the approach is different for those. I think many suppliers are probably selling into indirect procurement organizations, services, consultancy, technology, and those kinds of areas. There’s another decision-maker of the business or the procurement person. And that then brings me to another situation to my first kind of golden rule which is don’t try to marginalize or exclude the procurement person from the process by subverting the process through inappropriate kind of contact with the demand. You have to respect the role of procurement people that were given the job to do by the organization or a mandate to act by the organization and nothing will irritate them more than a supplier that’s trying to circumvent the processes and go around them to the rest of the business which will invert relationships with the business model. So, that’s particularly relevant for indirect commodities and will get you to a trouble with procurement organizations and the processes.
The other thing and this would apply to both types of procurement I think, is understand what are the pain points of the procurement people from sales. So, what are the KPIs that they’re wrestling with or they’re tasked with. It’s absolutely right. The right starting point of your discussion with any buyer is what are the needs of the business, but there’s always a subtext to that conversation which is what are the needs of the individual in that situation as well.
Procurement people have their own target or KPIs, process evaluation systems and etc. and they have their own way of looking it – categories and they have their own way of looking at suppliers. And the more you can understand that and at a minimum talk their language or preferably even package your offer in a way which not only appeals to business but is also directly attractive to the procurement person that’s place to that particular pressures, the more successful you’ll be.
One other piece of advice I wrote here is if you’re continuously dealing with procurement, maybe go to a procurement event. Go to a procurement industry conference and listen to how procurement people think, talk and act – the kind of things they say about their suppliers. When you go to 500 procurement people in a room, what’s the culture, what are the issues that they deal with, what are the concerns that are on them. You get yourself into that world.
Mark: Yeah, excellent feedback. I heard someone say the other day, I was listening to Anthony Iannarino who is a sales guy based out of the States and he does a lot of podcasts, conferences, he’s written a couple of books. He keeps saying that sales is more complex than it used to be. You’re not just selling to one person anymore. When you’re selling into an organization, you’re selling to a multiple different people. You’re selling to end-user of the service or the product that you’re selling. You’re selling to the buyer, the procurement person who’s buying that product or service. You’re selling to the business itself in terms of efficiency that they gain or the product effectiveness or the quality or anything like that. So, there’s a multitude of people and stakeholders that you’re selling into. Now, it’s not just about selling into one person anymore.
Angus: That’s right. That’s exactly what I’m saying.
Mark: I want to be very respectful of your time, Angus. You’ve spent a lot of time today. So, thank you so much for doing that. I know you’re a busy guy. If people want to find out more about you and what you’re doing, where they can find out more about who you are and what services you’re offering now?
Angus: Couple of ways, I mean first of all, I’m on LinkedIn and I’m pretty easy to find Angus McIntosh, put that in and negotiation, you’ll find me very quickly. Second, you can approach me through Total Negotiation which is the business I’m working with to develop our approach to procurement negotiation, totalnegotiation.com and you can get me or call me through there as well. But give me a call directly on LinkedIn and I’d be happy to have a chat to whoever gets in touch with me and what I’d like to do if people are interested is maybe ask you a couple of penetrating questions about your teams, your negotiations skills and see if we can see where you stand and whether there are some opportunities to improve. I’d be very happy to invest a little time with anybody who gets in touch with me that way.
Mark: Awesome! Thank you so much. Okay, so for the listeners, you know where to find Angus now. I’m going to put that in the show notes. Again, Angus, thank you so much for spending the time with myself and the listeners today. The knowledge that you’ve given us is more about procurement negotiation and negotiation itself has been super valuable. Again, for the listeners, the show notes will have a complete transcription of today’s conversation so if you get lost and you need to reference anything further on, just check the show notes.
Thanks so much for joining us everyone. Have a great day.
FREE UPDATES BY EMAIL