Why Procurement’s Biggest Battle Isn’t With Suppliers. It’s With Their Own Colleagues.
Industry veterans say enforcement creates compliance at best, never commitment. The shift from policing process to understanding pressure is where real influence begins.
Procurement professionals spend years mastering supplier negotiations, contract terms, and market intelligence. But according to a growing chorus of practitioners, the skill that determines success or failure has nothing to do with external vendors.
It’s the ability to win over internal stakeholders who would rather bypass procurement entirely.
“Most people don’t ignore procurement because they’re malicious,” observed Tom Mills, “Mavericks are usually impatient or just want to get it done. And the harder you push, the harder they resist.”
The observation sparked extensive debate among procurement leaders about why compliance-based approaches fail and what actually works to build internal influence.
The Enforcement Trap
Matthias Svetic, a German market communication advisor, framed the core problem. “Enforcement creates compliance at best. It never creates commitment. The shift from policing process to understanding pressure is where procurement professionals actually start building influence.”
He identified the prize for getting this right. “That influence is what gets you invited into conversations earlier, before the decision is already made and the supplier is already signed.”
Tomasz Tyras, a senior supply chain and operations expert, diagnosed why stakeholders bypass procurement in the first place. “Maverick spend is rarely a procurement problem first. It is usually a speed problem, a trust problem, or a usability problem. People bypass functions that arrive late, speak in policy, or add friction without reducing risk.”
Mark L. Robinson, who transitioned from USDA to private sector procurement, confirmed that policy itself can be the culprit. “Bad policy is one of the main reasons people try to bypass procurement. I saw a lot of that when I worked for USDA.”
Better Questions, Not Louder Enforcement
Mills proposed specific language shifts that change stakeholder dynamics.
Instead of “You should have involved procurement earlier,” try “What outcome were you hoping to achieve with this supplier?”
Instead of “Why didn’t you follow the process?” try “What pressures were you facing when you made that decision?”
“The wrong question triggers resistance,” Mills wrote. “The right one creates space for collaboration.”
Strahinja Jovanovic, a supply chain and inventory expert, illustrated how this plays out in practice. “Stakeholder bypasses procurement, orders direct. Procurement finds out. Enforcement: ‘You violated policy.’ The stakeholder goes quiet, the problem goes underground. Exploration: ‘What were you facing?’ opens why they bypassed, surfaces the real barrier.”
He warned about the downstream effects of enforcement. “Enforcement stops visible maverick spend but creates invisible workarounds.”
Hamilton Lindley, VP of Procurement, Compliance and Risk, added a caution about even well-intentioned questions. “The trap even good questions miss is that they still feel like interrogation if the person doesn’t feel heard first. You have to actually understand why they bypassed you before asking what they were trying to achieve.”
The Deal That Works
Leslie Dailey, a procurement and contracts leader, shared a practical approach that has delivered results. “I make deals with my leaders and stakeholders. You bring me in early, you be the expert and I will take care of the paperwork.”
The framing matters. “This lets them know I understand the pain points, and I understand their needs and urgency. This has been wildly successful for me.”
She identified a common complaint she addressed head-on. “One of the biggest issues I had heard before is we say no at the wrong time or too late in the game, so I flipped the script and they partner with me just to get it done.”
Mandeep Singh, who works in contract manufacturing, described his two-minute approach. “I’ll ask what deadline they’re protecting, then I’ll offer one concrete move that helps today, like locking the scope in one paragraph, getting the supplier to confirm dates in writing, or building a simple approval path so their request doesn’t bounce around.”
His insight: “Once they feel you’re reducing their stress, not adding to it, they stop bypassing procurement on their own.”
Understanding the Stakeholder Change Curve
Mills introduced a framework for meeting stakeholders where they are. “Not every stakeholder is ready to engage. Some are in: ‘I don’t need procurement.’ Others are in: ‘Maybe procurement could help.’ If they’re in pre-awareness, your role isn’t to enforce policy. It’s to build credibility and plant seeds.”
He identified quiet signs that stakeholders are opening up: involving procurement earlier in conversations, asking for input on supplier decisions, referencing procurement internally, shifting from bypassing to collaborating. “Those are all the signs of progress being made and you should see them as a win.”
Chantell L., founder and CEO of RenewedHER Procurement Group, captured the dynamic. “The biggest shift happens when the conversation moves from policing the process to understanding what the stakeholder is actually trying to solve. When people feel heard first, they’re far more open to seeing how procurement can help them get there.”
The Incentive Problem
Dr. Tobias Riehm, a market designer specializing in game theory and negotiation architectures, offered a structural perspective that went beyond communication skills.
“Resistance to procurement often isn’t just about communication or trust. It’s about incentives,” he wrote. “Many stakeholders operate in a different payoff structure: speed, technical performance, or internal KPIs may dominate cost optimization. From their perspective, bypassing procurement can therefore be a perfectly rational strategy.”
His prescription went further than relationship-building. “The most effective procurement organizations don’t just influence behavior. They redesign the incentive structure and the decision process so collaboration becomes the dominant strategy.”
The Mandate Question
Dr. Mario Büsch, a procurement strategist and advisor, raised a point about organizational support. “It is equally the responsibility of the procurement management team to work with the Board to establish and strengthen a clear mandate for procurement.”
Ashwin Nayak, a procurement professional, described the inherent tension. “Leadership expects procurement to manage gatekeeping priorities of compliance, savings, etc., which often are contrary to the dynamic goals of the internal stakeholders, often requiring agility and timelines as immediate as yesterday.”
Sarah McGillicuddy, a procurement consultant, distilled stakeholder engagement to two keys. “Listen to them, create opportunities and space to really listen, and deliver results. When you prove your value, stakeholders come to you with curiosity or conviction, not because they have to follow the rules.”
The Perception Problem
Michael Shields, Vice President of Procurement at Tropic, acknowledged an uncomfortable truth. “Admittedly our reputation in procurement isn’t always the best.”
He outlined a two-pronged solution. “We need to be improving how people perceive us. It’s tackling the problem from both sides. Improve the value we offer plus do a better job of helping people see it. In my experience, that’s a recipe for success.”
Magdalena Jimenez Carrillo, an indirect purchasing manager, described the daily reality. “Working in Procurement sometimes feels like being in permanent negotiation mode. And not just with suppliers. A big part of the job is the subtle, behind-the-scenes negotiation we do every day with our internal stakeholders.”
Mills confirmed this is the underestimated challenge. “The biggest underestimated challenge for procurement professionals is actually internal, not external. Not enough people talk about this.”
Where Trust Comes From
Chandranath Chakraborty, a senior procurement and transformation executive with experience at Disney, Nike, Unilever, and P&G, framed the stakes clearly. “When we lead with enforcement, we become a hurdle to be cleared. When we lead with curiosity, asking about the pressures a stakeholder is facing, we become an architect of their solution.”
He summarized the difference between compliance and trust. “Compliance might get the contract signed, but trust is what gets you invited to the meeting where the strategy is actually born.”
Nuha Luqman, who works in supply chain and procurement for energy ecosystems, offered a memorable formulation. “Procurement influence often grows through curiosity rather than control. The right question can open more doors than the strictest policy.”
Howard Richman, a global procurement transformation leader and co-author of “Procurement Confidential,” invoked a classic principle. “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.”
Tyras described what success looks like. “The turning point comes when procurement starts being seen not as control, but as a faster path to a better decision. In strong organizations, compliance is the outcome, not the opening line. The real win is when the business involves procurement early because it sees judgment, market intelligence, and problem-solving value there.”
Mills acknowledged that the transformation isn’t always one-directional. “Coaching a stakeholder into awareness takes time. The breakthrough often happens after the conversation ends. And sometimes, the mindset that changes most is procurement’s.”
Continue the discussion with procurement and supply chain professionals on Chain.NET.
 | A guest post by
|