Enjoy.

You probably know the room: PM wants speed, Sales wants the customer promise protected, Operations wants stability, Finance wants control, and procurement is asked to “align” without being given much room to shape the decision.

In that kind of meeting, pushing harder is often the wrong first move. The better move is to understand what each person is protecting, then make the trade-off easier to discuss.

Procurement is often blamed for resistance even when it is pointing to a real constraint. That happens because the concern arrives as a function position: supplier risk, policy, sourcing discipline, contract exposure.

The other functions hear something else. They hear delay, loss of control, extra work, or a threat to a promise already made.

Deloitte’s 2025 CPO survey found that siloed ways of working were the top barrier to procurement value delivery, named by 57% of surveyed CPOs. ([Deloitte], 2025)

That is not only an operating model issue. It is a diplomacy issue.

A CPO does not win difficult internal situations by proving that procurement is right first. That may be necessary, but it is rarely enough.

The harder task is to make the other side feel that the concern helps them protect their own outcome.

A sales leader may not care about supplier concentration in abstract terms. But they will care if the preferred supplier cannot support the promised launch date. Engineering may not care about sourcing optionality in procurement language. But they will care if a design choice creates a qualification path that slows the project later.

This is where influence starts before persuasion.

Harvard Business School Online describes influence without formal authority as coming partly from expertise, relationships, and understanding how the organisation works. ([Harvard Business School Online], 2019) HBR’s cross-functional leadership guidance makes a similar practical point: leading across silos requires seeing the bigger picture and investing in the right relationships. ([Harvard Business Review], 2024)

For procurement, this means the stakeholder map cannot stop at names and departments.

A better map asks:

Who owns the decision?
Who carries the consequence?
Who is publicly committed already?
Who can validate the concern without making it sound like procurement resistance?
Who will lose time, budget, authority, or face if the decision is reopened?

That is the diplomatic layer.

Rob Turner’s Deliveroo interview is useful here because he does not describe procurement influence as a slogan. He says that when he joined, procurement was “not the trusted partner the business needed it to be,” and that his work was to rebuild reputation, become a problem solver, and deliver. ([Procurement Magazine], 2025) He also lists one practical rule: “Don’t talk about procurement in procurement language.” ([Procurement Magazine], 2025)

That sentence is close to the heart of this episode.

Diplomacy does not mean softening the facts. It means choosing the form in which the facts can travel.

A weak version sounds like this:

“We cannot support this supplier decision.”

A better version is:

“If we go with this supplier, I see three risks: qualification time, capacity at ramp-up, and contract leverage. I suggest we check those within 48 hours before the decision is final.”

The second version still protects procurement’s concern. But it does not force the other side to defend itself immediately.

John Cully’s Amey interview gives the other side of the same skill. He says he works closely with executive teams, business units, and the supply chain to position procurement as a strategic enabler. ([Procurement Magazine], 2026) He also points to “a clear mandate from the top” and executive support for supply chain excellence. ([Procurement Magazine], 2026)

That kind of mandate helps. But most procurement leaders do not get it automatically. They earn it by becoming easier to trust in difficult rooms.

They do not start with the procurement ask. They start with the other function’s pressure.

They use questions before positions: “What has already been promised?” “Where is the timeline fixed?” “Which assumption is hardest to reopen?” “What would make this decision unsafe later?”

They separate people from constraints. The supplier path may be weak without the engineering manager being wrong. The customer promise may be risky without Sales being reckless.

They build coalitions quietly. One validating voice from Finance, Operations, Quality, or Engineering can carry more weight than another procurement escalation.

They make the next step small. A 48-hour check, one supplier call, one cost-risk note, or one qualification review is often easier to accept than a formal objection.

In BCG’s “First 100 Days Playbook” released in cw19, digital and AI-powered solutions were identified as a key milestone for new CPOs and executives as early as their second month on the job; use cases cited included the analysis of contract clauses, the monitoring of supplier risks, and guided negotiation preparation.

I will be moderating a closed webinar presenting a prototype of a procurement AI agent designed for procurement tasks: rapid spend and supplier analysis, contract clause analysis, supplier risk monitoring, negotiation preparation, and support for procurement reporting. The agent will be put to the test by the private group, including an open discussion and Q&A session.

Procurement influence grows when the CPO makes hard facts easier for other functions to hear.

I read every single message, and past posts already shaped this space. Reach out to me and tell me what you’re up to and the path you’ve chosen and please share your thoughts about our journey on you preferred platform. CPO Path is free, help me keep it that way.

Did this resonate with you?

👍 aaaaaaaaa👎

ProcWee™ and CPO Path are built from my work in procurement practice, not from theory alone. I work as an interim procurement manager and advisor, and I use these newsletters to share the patterns, risks, and leadership questions that show up in real organizations.

If you are facing a critical procurement project, a difficult internal situation, or a career-relevant leadership question, there are two ways to engage.

The initial consultation is designed to clarify the situation, identify the real constraint, and assess whether I can help meaningfully. If there is a fit, we can discuss a follow-up program or project-based support after the call.

Quick wins to implement today:

Automate your emails into scheduled tasks without AI

Conduct better interviews with predictable results

Deloitte. (2025, August 19). Procurement at the Tipping Point: Deloitte’s 2025 Chief Procurement Officer Survey Reveals the Pressure and Promise of Technology Disruption. Retrieved from https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/about/press-room/2025-chief-procurement-officer-survey.html

Harvard Business Review. (2024, January 16). Become a Better Cross-Functional Leader. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/tip/2024/01/become-a-better-cross-functional-leader

Harvard Business School Online. (2019, October 24). How to Influence Without Authority in the Workplace. Retrieved from https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/influence-without-authority

Procurement Magazine. (2025, September 15). The Procurement Interview: Rob Turner, CPO at Deliveroo. Retrieved from https://procurementmag.com/news/the-procurement-interview-rob-turner-cpo-deliveroo

Procurement Magazine. (2026, January 7). The Procurement Interview: John Cully. Retrieved from https://procurementmag.com/news/the-procurement-interview-john-cully

Thank you for reading,

Pascal Hecker | Editor-In-Chief, CPO Path.