You’ve read the framework (See part 1). You understand the relationship-process matrix. You know where your team sits on the spectrum.
But here’s the thing about frameworks: they’re excellent for diagnosis, less useful when someone from sales is standing in your office at 4:47pm on Friday demanding you set up a new vendor by Monday because they’ve already promised the client.
That’s not a process problem or a relationship deficit. That’s a people problem. And people problems require people solutions.
The stakeholders who bypass procurement aren’t a monolith. They’re not all doing it for the same reasons, and they’re not all responsive to the same interventions. The HIPPO who outranks you needs a different approach than the well-meaning technical expert who genuinely believes their requirements are too complex for procurement to understand.
This is the tactical companion to our strategic framework on maverick spend. If that piece helped you understand why bypass happens, this one helps you handle who makes it happen.
1. The HIPPO (Highest Paid Person’s Opinion)
2. The Smooth Talker
3. The “We’ve Always Done It This Way”
4. The Last-Minute Hero
5. The “I Didn’t Know“
6. The Budget Owne
7. The Technical Expert
8. The Gatekeeper
9. The Decentralised Maverick
10. The False Economist
11. The Innovator
Bonus: Repeat Procurement Policy Violations
Let’s meet the cast of characters every procurement professional knows intimately.
1. Executive Bypass in Procurement: The HIPPO (Highest Paid Person’s Opinion)
Who They Are
Senior executives. C-suite. People who outrank you by three or four levels. When they want something, they’re used to getting it. Quickly.
Their Logic
“I don’t have time for this. I need it now. We’ll sort out the paperwork later. Just make it happen.”
They’re not deliberately undermining procurement. They genuinely believe the rules don’t apply when the business is at stake. And to be fair, they’ve probably gotten away with this approach for years.
What They Do
Call the supplier directly. Negotiate terms on a golf course or over dinner. Shake hands on a deal. Then loop you in to “process the PO.” By the time you’re involved, you’re not negotiating-you’re administering a decision that’s already been made.
Why They’re Tricky
You can’t just say no. They have the authority to override you or go around you entirely. And if you escalate? You’re escalating to them or their peers. There’s no higher authority to appeal to.
Worse, sometimes they’re right. Sometimes the opportunity genuinely is time-critical, and your standard process would have killed the deal.
How to Handle Them: The “Fast Track for Genuine Urgency” Lever
Create a documented fast-track process specifically for executive-level urgency. But-and this is critical-build in accountability.
The framework:
- Allow the commitment: “We can move quickly on this. Here’s what I need from you by EOD to make it happen…”
- Document the exception: Email confirming the unique circumstances, timeline, and approval
- Post-completion review: 30 days later, brief retrospective-did the fast-track deliver the expected outcome? Was the urgency genuine?
The conversation: “I understand this needs to move quickly. We’ve got a fast-track process for exactly this situation. I’ll need [X, Y, Z] from you by [time] to make it happen. And just so we’re aligned, this bypasses our normal risk review, so I’ll document that you’ve approved accepting [specific risks] to hit this timeline. Sound good?”
What this does:
- Gives them the speed they want
- Creates accountability (they’re now on record accepting specific risks)
- Generates data on whether “urgent” was actually urgent
- Builds the case for either better planning or more procurement resources
The pattern to watch for: If the same executive uses the fast-track quarterly, it’s not urgency-it’s poor planning. That’s when you escalate with data: “We’ve fast-tracked six projects for the sales team this year. The pattern suggests we need earlier involvement in their deal cycles, not more exceptions.”
Common Mistake Procurement Makes: Quoting policy at them instead of offering solutions. The HIPPO doesn’t care about your process-they care about their outcome. Lead with “here’s how we can make this work” not “here’s why we can’t.”
2. The Smooth Talker: Sales and Business Development Stakeholders Who Bypass Procurement
Who They Are
Charismatic. Well-connected. Excellent at making bypass sound like collaboration. Often in sales, business development, or client-facing roles.
Their Logic
“I was just doing some initial market research.”
“This isn’t a commitment, just exploratory conversations.”
“I wanted to understand what’s available before involving procurement.”
It all sounds reasonable. Right up until you discover they’ve already negotiated pricing, agreed to terms, and the supplier thinks they’ve got a signed deal.
What They Do
Frame their end-run around procurement as “helping.” They’ve “pre-qualified” suppliers. They’ve “done your job for you” by narrowing down options. All you need to do is rubber-stamp their choice and process the paperwork.
Why They’re Tricky
They’re likeable. They’re good at their jobs. And they genuinely believe they’re being helpful. Calling them out feels like being the bad guy who doesn’t appreciate their initiative.
Plus, they’ve often built genuine relationships with suppliers that are valuable. Burning those relationships to enforce process feels counterproductive.
How to Handle Them: The “Commercial Authority Clarification” Lever
Make it crystal clear-early and publicly-who has commercial authority to commit the business.
The framework: Create a one-page “Who Can Commit the Business?” document:
- ✅ Procurement can commit to purchases within approved categories
- ✅ Department heads can approve requirements and budgets
- ❌ Individual contributors cannot bind the company commercially
- ❌ “Exploratory conversations” that include pricing or terms = negotiation (requires procurement)
The conversation: “I love that you’ve done the legwork on supplier options—that’s genuinely helpful. What I need to clarify though: any conversation that touches pricing, contract terms, or implementation timelines needs procurement involved. Not because we don’t trust your judgment, but because you’re not authorised to bind the company commercially. If a supplier thinks they’ve got a deal and we pull out, that’s a legal and reputational risk neither of us wants.”
The follow-up: When they do it anyway (and they will), escalate to their manager with a vendor email showing they discussed terms. Frame it as “protecting [Smooth Talker] from personal liability for unauthorised commitments.”
The pattern to watch for: If vendors keep coming back saying “but your guy already agreed to this,” you’ve got a repeat offender. At that point, you need their manager to reinforce the message.
Common Mistake Procurement Makes: Letting “soft skills” override governance. Being likeable doesn’t grant commercial authority. Reset boundaries professionally but firmly—charm isn’t a substitute for proper delegation.
3. Legacy Supplier Relationships and Process Resistance: The “We’ve Always Done It This Way”
Who They Are
Long-tenured staff who’ve been with the company since before modern procurement existed. Often in operations, facilities, or support functions.
Their Logic
“We’ve used this supplier for fifteen years. It works. Why would we change?”
They’re not being difficult. They genuinely cannot comprehend why involving procurement adds value. In their experience, it just adds steps.
What They Do
Continue using their preferred suppliers. Resist any attempt to evaluate alternatives. If forced into a procurement process, they’ll provide specs so narrow that only the incumbent can meet them. Or they’ll sabotage the transition: “We tried the new supplier and it didn’t work” (because they set it up to fail).
Why They’re Tricky
Sometimes they’re right. The incumbent relationship is valuable. The supplier does know the business intimately. And forcing change for the sake of process can genuinely damage something that works.
But you can’t know if it’s the best option without comparing. And “we’ve always done it this way” is how companies end up paying 30% over market rate for a decade.
How to Handle Them: The “Validate Then Verify” Lever
Don’t attack the relationship. Validate it first, then use benchmarking to either confirm it’s solid or expose the gaps.
The framework: Position procurement as protecting the relationship, not threatening it:
“I can see this supplier relationship is important and has delivered for years. What I want to make sure is that the commercial terms reflect that value. Let’s benchmark pricing against market to confirm we’re getting fair terms. If we are, great-we’ve got documentation to support staying with them. If we’re not, we can renegotiate from a stronger position.”
The conversation: “Help me understand what makes this supplier irreplaceable. What would we lose if we switched?”
Listen. Document their answer. Then:
“That’s valuable context. Here’s what I’d like to do: run a soft market test to see if anyone else can deliver [those specific things you just listed]. If they can’t, we know the incumbent is genuinely unique and we’ll document why. If they can, we use that as leverage to negotiate better terms with your current supplier. Either way, you win.”
The key insight: Most “unique” suppliers aren’t actually unique. But if you lead with “we’re replacing them,” you get resistance. If you lead with “we’re validating their value,” you get cooperation.
The pattern to watch for: If they refuse even soft market testing, the relationship isn’t about supplier performance-it’s about personal comfort or (occasionally) something darker like kickbacks.
4. Managing Urgent Procurement Requests and Crisis Buyers: The Last-Minute Hero
Who They Are
Always in crisis mode. Everything is urgent. Deadlines appear from nowhere. They thrive on adrenaline and expect you to as well.
Their Logic
“The client needs this by Monday. We don’t have time for your three-week procurement process. Just get it done.”
Sometimes the urgency is real. More often, it’s manufactured through poor planning or a desire to bypass process.
What They Do
Turn every request into a five-alarm fire. Frame procurement’s standard timeline as “the thing blocking the deal.” Create artificial deadlines to pressure you into shortcuts. If you push back, they’ll claim you’re preventing them from serving the client.
Why They’re Tricky
Real urgency and manufactured urgency look identical when you’re receiving the request. And if you treat genuine emergencies the same as fake ones, you lose credibility both ways.
Plus, sometimes bending the rules does save the day. Which reinforces their belief that process is the problem, not their planning.
How to Handle Them: The “Urgency Audit” Lever
Create a clear definition of genuine urgency, apply it consistently, and track the pattern.
The framework:
Genuine urgency criteria:
- Client deliverable with contractual penalty clause
- Regulatory/compliance deadline (not “we should have done this months ago”)
- Health and safety issue
- Signed executive authorization accepting the risks
If it meets criteria:
- Fast-track with compressed approval (4-hour SLA for initial review)
- Document why this qualified as urgent
- Post-completion review: did it deliver the expected outcome?
If it doesn’t meet criteria:
- Standard process applies
- Offer guidance on how to avoid this next time
- Document the request and the reason it didn’t qualify
The conversation: “Help me understand the urgency. What happens if this doesn’t happen by Monday? Is there a contractual penalty? Compliance deadline? Client commitment we’ll breach?”
If they can’t articulate specific consequences:
“Here’s what I can do: I can give you a preliminary answer by [realistic timeframe] and we can escalate if needed. What I can’t do is bypass risk review entirely without executive sign-off. If your director wants to approve that, I’ll move immediately.”
The key move: Make them do the escalation work if they claim it’s genuinely urgent. Don’t carry the water for manufactured crises.
The pattern to watch for: Track requests by department and by individual. If the same person has five “urgent” requests per quarter, they don’t have bad luck—they have bad planning. That’s when you escalate with data.
Common Mistake Procurement Makes: Rewarding poor planning with heroic effort. Every time you drop everything to handle their “emergency,” you’re teaching them that manufactured urgency works. Stop being the hero for their lack of planning.
5. The “I Didn’t Know”: Procurement Policy Awareness and Plausible Deniability
Who They Are
The plausible deniability expert. New hires (sometimes). Repeat offenders (more often).
Their Logic
“I didn’t know I needed to involve procurement.”
“No one told me about this process.”
“The policy wasn’t clear.”
All delivered with a perfectly straight face, despite having received the onboarding deck, three reminder emails, and a conversation about this exact issue two months ago.
What They Do
Bypass procurement, get caught, claim ignorance. If there are consequences, they act shocked and hurt that you’d suggest they did this deliberately. If there aren’t consequences, they file it away as “process optional if you claim you didn’t know.”
Why They’re Tricky
Sometimes they genuinely didn’t know (new hires, role changes, complex edge cases). Most times they did, but proving that makes you look petty.
And if you treat genuine ignorance the same as willful bypass, you destroy goodwill with people who were honestly confused.
How to Handle Them: The “Document and Escalate on Pattern” Lever
Give people the benefit of the doubt once. After that, it’s a pattern.
The framework:
First offense:
- Informal coaching
- “Here’s the process, here’s why it exists, here’s how to engage us next time”
- Document it for your records (not theirs)
- Fix the immediate issue
Second offense (within 12 months):
- Formal conversation with their manager CC’d
- “This is the second time, which suggests either the process isn’t clear or there’s a training gap. Let’s make sure [person] has what they need to comply.”
- Document it in their file
Third offense:
- Executive escalation
- “We’ve got a pattern of non-compliance. Here’s the data. This isn’t a training issue anymore.”
The conversation (first offense): “No worries, this happens. Let me show you how this should work. For future purchases, here’s the workflow…”
The conversation (second offense): “We talked about this in [month]. I want to make sure you’ve got the support you need to follow the process. Is there something blocking you from engaging procurement at the start?”
Listen for the answer. If it’s “I forgot,” that’s on them. If it’s “I tried but couldn’t figure out who to contact,” that’s on you.
The pattern to watch for: If someone’s been through this conversation three times, ignorance isn’t the issue. At that point, you’ve got willful non-compliance and you need consequences.
Common Mistake Procurement Makes: Re-explaining the process instead of simplifying it. If people keep claiming they “didn’t know,” your process is too complicated or too hidden. Make it visible, simple, and impossible to miss.
6. The Budget Owner: When Budget Authority Conflicts with Procurement Authority
Who They Are
Department heads or business unit leaders who control their own budget lines. CFO’s trusted lieutenants. People with financial authority who confuse that with commercial authority.
Their Logic
“I’m accountable for this budget and these results. Why do I need procurement’s permission to spend my own money?”
They’re not being unreasonable from their perspective. They are accountable for budget outcomes. They do have sign-off authority for expenditure. The distinction between “can approve the spend” and “can commit the company to contract terms” feels bureaucratic to them.
What They Do
Approve purchases directly. Sometimes sign contracts. Occasionally negotiate terms because “it’s my budget, I can get a better deal.” Then expect procurement to rubber-stamp it or “make it legal.”
Why They’re Tricky
They’re not wrong that they own the budget. They’re wrong that budget ownership equals commercial authority. But that’s a subtle distinction most finance people don’t care about.
And they often do have executive air cover. Try telling a business unit GM they can’t commit to a supplier when the CFO has given them budget discretion.
How to Handle Them: The “Personal Liability” Lever
Make it about what they’re personally on the hook for if it goes wrong.
The framework:
Separate budget approval (which they have) from commercial commitment (which they don’t):
“You absolutely have authority to approve the budget and the business case. What you don’t have is authority to bind the company to contract terms, IP provisions, data handling requirements, or liability clauses. If something goes wrong—data breach, IP dispute, supplier insolvency—you’re personally exposed because you signed a contract without authority.”
The conversation: “I’m not questioning your budget authority. I’m protecting you from personal liability. Here’s what I need: you approve the spend, I negotiate the commercial terms. That way, if the supplier underdelivers or we end up in a legal dispute, it’s the company’s problem, not yours personally.”
The key move: Show them the clauses they just agreed to:
“Are you comfortable being personally liable for [specific risk] if this goes wrong?”
Usually, they’re not. Once they see what they’ve actually signed, budget authority suddenly feels less comprehensive.
The pattern to watch for: If they keep doing it anyway, escalate to the CFO with a legal risk memo. Finance hates unauthorised legal exposure.
Common Mistake Procurement Makes: Arguing about authority instead of highlighting risk. Budget owners don’t care about org charts—they care about personal liability. Show them what they’ve signed, not what the policy says.
7. The Technical Expert: Managing Technical Stakeholders in IT and Engineering Procurement
Who They Are
IT specialists, engineers, data scientists, R&D staff-anyone with deep domain expertise that most people (including you) don’t have.
Their Logic
“This is highly specialised. Procurement won’t understand the technical requirements. You’ll just slow us down and probably get it wrong.”
Sometimes they’re right. The requirements are technical. But they weaponise complexity to avoid oversight.
What They Do
Write specs so narrow only one supplier can meet them. Claim requirements are “too technical” for procurement to evaluate. Refuse to explain in plain language because “if I have to explain it, you can’t assess it.” Present supplier selection as a technical decision, not a commercial one.
Why They’re Tricky
Sometimes they are right that you won’t understand the technical nuances. And if you pretend you do, you lose credibility immediately.
But commercial terms, risk allocation, and total cost of ownership don’t require technical expertise-they require procurement expertise. And they conflate the two deliberately.
How to Handle Them: The “Commercial Translator” Lever
Partner with them as the commercial translator. Your job isn’t to second-guess the tech-it’s to ensure the commercial terms protect the business.
The framework:
Acknowledge their expertise, carve out your lane:
“You’re the expert on what we need technically. I’m not going to question your spec. What I am going to do is make sure the commercial terms are solid: pricing benchmarked appropriately, IP provisions protect us, liability is capped appropriately, and we’ve got exit rights if the supplier underdelivers. Sound fair?”
The conversation: “Help me understand-at a high level-what you’re trying to achieve. I don’t need to understand the technical implementation, but I need to understand the business outcome so I can evaluate supplier proposals properly.”
Then:
“Great. So technically, you’ll assess whether they can deliver [outcome]. Commercially, I’ll assess pricing, risk allocation, and contract terms. We’ll both need to be comfortable to move forward.”
The key move: Split the evaluation:
- Technical assessment: Their call (but documented)
- Commercial assessment: Your call
If they push back: “If you want to own both, you need to be comfortable with personal liability for commercial risk. Are you?”
The pattern to watch for: If they refuse to explain even basic business outcomes, they’re either hiding something or they don’t actually understand it themselves.
Common Mistake Procurement Makes: Pretending to understand technical details you don’t. You’ll lose credibility instantly. Instead, acknowledge their expertise and carve out your commercial lane. You don’t need to understand the code to evaluate the contract.
8. The Gatekeeper: Single Points of Contact and Supplier Access Control
Who They Are
Long-tenured employees who’ve worked with the same suppliers for years, sometimes decades. They’ve become the single point of contact, and they guard that access fiercely.
Their Logic
“This supplier knows our business inside-out. They’ve never let us down. They’re basically family. Why would we risk changing?”
What They Do
Resist any supplier evaluation. Refuse to consider alternatives. If forced into a procurement-led sourcing event, they’ll sabotage it: “We tried the new supplier and it didn’t work” (because they set it up to fail).
They’ll escalate emotionally: “You’re destroying relationships that took years to build.”
Why They’re Tricky
The relationship often is valuable. The incumbent does know the business well. And trust built over years has genuine commercial value.
But you can’t confirm it’s the best arrangement without comparing. And “relationship” can’t be the only justification-especially if you’re paying 30% over market.
How to Handle Them: The “Relationship Protection” Lever
Don’t attack the relationship-validate it, then use benchmarking to either confirm it’s solid or create negotiating leverage.
The framework:
Position procurement as protecting the relationship by ensuring it’s sustainable and defensible:
“This is clearly a strong partnership, and that’s valuable. What I want to make sure is that the commercial terms reflect that value. If we’re paying a premium for relationship and service, that’s fine-but we need to be able to justify it. If we’re paying market rate for exceptional service, that’s a great deal. Let’s benchmark to find out which it is.”
The conversation: “Walk me through what makes this supplier irreplaceable. What specifically would we lose if we switched?”
Document their answer. Then:
“That’s valuable context. Here’s what I’d like to do: run a market test to see if others can deliver those same things. If they can’t, we’ve documented why the incumbent is genuinely unique. If they can, we use that as leverage to negotiate even better terms with your current supplier. Either way, the relationship gets stronger.”
The key insight: Frame competitive pressure as strengthening the relationship, not threatening it. Good suppliers want to know they’re competitively priced. Bad suppliers want to avoid scrutiny.
The pattern to watch for: If they refuse even soft market testing, or get defensive about pricing transparency, the relationship might not be about performance-it could be personal comfort, fear of change, or something darker.
Common Mistake Procurement Makes: Forcing change without acknowledging history. Don’t lead with “we’re replacing your supplier”-lead with “let’s validate this partnership is still delivering value.” Respect the relationship while verifying the terms.
9. The Decentralised Maverick: Regional and International Procurement Compliance Challenges
Who They Are
Staff in regional offices, international subsidiaries, or satellite locations operating with significant autonomy. Often in markets with genuinely different regulations, suppliers, or business practices.
Their Logic
“Head office doesn’t understand our local market. Regulations are different here. Suppliers are different. Culture is different. Those policies don’t apply to us.”
What They Do
Set up local supplier arrangements without HQ approval. Bypass central procurement entirely. Claim geographic or regulatory differences justify different rules. When challenged, they’ll cite “local expertise” and frame central procurement as out-of-touch.
Why They’re Tricky
Sometimes they are right about local nuances. Regulations are different. Supplier options are different. Central teams often don’t understand local markets well.
But “local differences” becomes a catch-all excuse for avoiding any governance. And when you’ve got 12 offices all claiming “we’re special,” you’ve got zero negotiating leverage and maximum risk exposure.
How to Handle Them: The “Local Flex Within Global Framework” Lever
Create clear categories: what’s globally non-negotiable vs. what can flex locally.
The framework:
Globally non-negotiable:
- Contract terms (liability, IP, termination rights)
- Insurance requirements
- Ethical sourcing standards
- Data protection/cybersecurity requirements
- Financial controls (approval thresholds, payment terms)
Locally flexible:
- Supplier selection (within approved categories)
- Pricing (benchmarked to local market rates)
- Service delivery models
- Payment methods/currency
The conversation: “I get that your market is different—that’s valuable local knowledge. What I need to make sure is that we’re protecting the company consistently across all locations. Here’s what’s non-negotiable globally [list]. Everything else, you’ve got flexibility as long as you can show it’s benchmarked appropriately for your market.”
The key move: Require local teams to benchmark and document their decisions. If they claim local pricing is higher, they need local market data to support it. If they claim the supplier is unique to their region, they need to demonstrate they’ve looked.
The documentation requirement:
- Supplier selection: “Why this supplier vs. alternatives?”
- Pricing: “How does this compare to local market rates?”
- Terms: “Have you used the global contract template?”
The pattern to watch for: If local teams consistently can’t provide benchmarking or documentation, they’re not operating with local expertise—they’re operating with local opacity.
Common Mistake Procurement Makes: Applying head office rules rigidly without acknowledging genuine local differences. Some markets are different. Create the framework for local flex, then enforce it. Don’t treat all regional pushback as excuses.
10. The False Economist: Price vs Total Cost of Ownership
Who They Are
Obsessed with headline price. Believes procurement “adds cost” through process overhead. Sees negotiation as a one-time event focused purely on unit price.
Often in finance, operations, or any budget-conscious role where they’re measured on short-term cost reduction.
Their Logic
“I can get it cheaper myself. Why do I need procurement involved when I’ve already negotiated a 15% discount?”
They genuinely believe they’re being commercially savvy. And sometimes they have negotiated a good headline price-but they’ve ignored total cost of ownership, risk allocation, payment terms, and strategic leverage.
What They Do
Go direct to suppliers claiming they can negotiate better deals. Commit based on headline savings without reviewing contract terms. Resist procurement involvement because “it’ll just slow things down and add cost.”
When procurement finds issues with their deal, they frame it as procurement being difficult rather than protective.
Why They’re Tricky
Sometimes they have found a lower price. And in that moment, procurement looks like the department that’s preventing a “good deal” from happening.
But headline price isn’t total cost. And one-off deals undermine strategic supplier relationships and negotiating leverage for bigger categories.
How to Handle Them: The “Total Cost Reframe” Lever
Don’t compete on ego-compete on evidence. Show them what they’re missing beyond the headline price.
The framework:
Total Cost Components:
- Unit price (what they negotiated)
- Payment terms (30 days vs. 90 days = working capital impact)
- Warranty/support (what’s actually covered?)
- Implementation/transition costs
- Risk exposure (liability caps, insurance requirements)
- Exit costs (what happens if we switch suppliers later?)
The conversation: “Great work getting that price down-that’s a solid headline number. Before we commit, let me make sure we’re comparing apples to apples on total cost. Walk me through: What are the payment terms? What’s covered under warranty? What happens if we need to exit this contract in 18 months?”
Usually, they haven’t asked these questions.
The key move: Frame procurement as improving their savings, not blocking them:
“You’ve negotiated £X off the unit price, which is excellent. If we can also improve payment terms and reduce risk exposure, we could turn that into £X+Y total value. Let me see what else we can get.”
Post-deal follow-up: When procurement involvement delivers additional value beyond their headline price, document it and share it with their manager. Build the case that procurement amplifies their good work, not blocks it.
The pattern to watch for: If they consistently resist total cost analysis or refuse to wait for contract review, they’re optimizing for the appearance of savings, not actual value.
Common Mistake Procurement Makes: Competing on ego instead of evidence. Don’t tell them they’re wrong-show them what they missed. Let the data speak, not your authority.
11. The Innovator: Procurement for R&D, Startups, and Emerging Technology
Who They Are
Product managers, R&D leads, tech innovators. People driving new initiatives who move fast and see procurement as “legacy process designed for legacy business.”
They’re often working with startups, niche vendors, or emerging technology where speed and flexibility matter more than established governance.
Their Logic
“We’re running a pilot. We need to move fast. The standard procurement process is designed for enterprise vendors, not startups. By the time we get through your process, the opportunity will be gone.”
And they’re partially right. Enterprise procurement processes aren’t designed for rapid experimentation.
What They Do
Engage startup suppliers directly. Sign trial agreements or POCs without procurement review. Treat pilots as “not real procurement” because there’s no long-term commitment yet.
Then, six months later, the pilot becomes business-critical and you’re stuck with whatever terms they agreed to.
Why They’re Tricky
Innovation does require speed. Experimentation does require flexibility. And if you apply full enterprise governance to a £5k three-month pilot, you’ll kill valuable innovation.
But “it’s just a pilot” becomes “the pilot was successful and now it’s in production” and suddenly you’ve got business-critical technology with no contract, no SLA, no security review, and no leverage.
How to Handle Them: The “Experimentation vs. Scale” Lever
Create a lightweight intake specifically for pilots and innovation, then draw a hard line between experimentation and production deployment.
The framework:
For pilots/trials (under £10k, <6 months):
- Simplified approval process (24-48 hour turnaround)
- Standard terms template (pre-approved for low-risk pilots)
- No full vendor vetting required
- Condition: If it goes to production, procurement re-engages with full process
For production deployment:
- Full procurement process applies
- Vendor vetting, security review, contract negotiation
- Clear SLAs and exit rights
- Executive sign-off on risk acceptance
The conversation: “I get that you need to move fast to test this. Here’s what I can do: we’ve got a fast-track pilot process that takes 48 hours. It covers the basics—liability protection, IP rights, data handling—without slowing you down. The trade-off is that if this pilot proves successful and you want to deploy at scale, we re-engage properly. Fair?”
The key boundary: Make it clear: pilots that become production deployments without procurement re-engagement get shut down until properly contracted. No exceptions.
Documentation requirement: Every pilot approval includes:
- Business case (what are we testing?)
- Success criteria (how will we know if it worked?)
- Timeline (when does the pilot end?)
- Scale trigger (what happens if we want to go to production?)
The pattern to watch for: If “pilots” consistently become production systems without procurement re-engagement, innovation is being weaponized to bypass governance.
Common Mistake Procurement Makes: Applying enterprise process to early-stage ideas. You’ll kill innovation and become the “department that blocks progress.” Instead, create guardrails, not gates—enable fast experimentation with clear boundaries for scale.
Bonus: Repeat Procurement Policy Violations
This isn’t a 12th type-it’s a pattern that overlays on top of any of the other eleven.
Who They Are
Anyone who repeatedly bypasses procurement despite knowing the rules. They’ve been through the conversation multiple times. They understand the process. They just don’t care.
Their Logic
“I’ll keep doing this until someone actually stops me. So far, the consequences have been minimal.”
They’re testing boundaries constantly. And if procurement’s response is just “another conversation,” they’ve learned there are no real consequences.
What They Do
Normalize non-compliance. Push until stopped. Rely on procurement fatigue-the hope that you’ll eventually give up and let them do what they want.
Why They’re Tricky
Sometimes they’re valuable to the business. High performers. Rainmakers. People leadership doesn’t want to upset.
So when you escalate, you’re the one who looks petty (“it’s just one purchase”) while they look productive (“I’m trying to serve the client”).
How to Handle Them: The “Pattern Documentation + Hard Stop” Lever
Stop negotiating. Stop explaining. Stop giving second chances. Move to enforcement.
The framework:
First offense: Informal coaching (documented for your records)
Second offense: Formal escalation to their manager
Third offense: Executive escalation + consequences
But Serial Offenders are already past strike three. So:
Immediate actions:
- Document the pattern (dates, purchases, amounts)
- Align with finance: “No PO, no payment” applies to all their future requests until pattern changes
- Align with leadership: Present data showing repeat behavior, not isolated incidents
- Enforce consistently: No more exceptions for this person, regardless of urgency
The conversation (with their executive sponsor): “[Name] has bypassed procurement six times in the past year despite multiple conversations. Here’s the data. This isn’t about one purchase-it’s about a pattern that creates risk exposure and undermines governance. What we need is [specific consequence]. If that’s not possible, I need to understand why procurement policies don’t apply to this person.”
The key insight: Serial Offenders don’t respond to education or relationship-building. They respond to consequences. Either enforce them, or accept that this person is exempt from your process (and document that exemption).
The pattern to watch for: If leadership won’t support consequences for Serial Offenders, you don’t have a stakeholder problem-you have a governance problem. Escalate to the exec team with data on risk exposure.
Common Mistake Procurement Makes: Treating every case as isolated. Three separate “one-time exceptions” is a pattern, not bad luck. Document it, name it, and demand accountability.
Maverick Spend Response Framework: Your Tactical Stakeholder Matrix
Not every stakeholder type needs the same approach. Here’s your quick reference:
| Stakeholder Type | Primary Motivation | Best Lever | Warning Sign |
| The HIPPO | Speed, authority | Fast-track process with accountability | Repeated “urgent” exceptions |
| The Smooth Talker | Relationship, autonomy | Commercial authority clarification | Vendors think deals are done |
| “Always Done It This Way” | Comfort, consistency | Validate then verify | Refuses market testing |
| The Last-Minute Hero | Drama, bypass | Urgency audit + pattern tracking | Everything is “urgent” |
| “I Didn’t Know” | Avoidance, convenience | Document and escalate on pattern | Third offense within 12 months |
| The Budget Owner | Budget accountability | Personal liability framing | Signs contracts directly |
| The Technical Expert | Technical purity | Commercial translator partnership | Won’t explain business outcomes |
| The Gatekeeper | Control, influence | Relationship protection framing | Sabotages alternatives |
| The Decentralised Maverick | Local autonomy | Global framework + local flex | Can’t provide local benchmarks |
| The Cost Cutter | Headline savings | Total cost reframe | Ignores contract terms |
| The Innovator | Speed to market | Experimentation vs. scale separation | Pilots become production |
Why Stakeholders Bypass Procurement: The Root Causes Behind All 11 Archetypes
Different motivations. Different tactics. But one common thread: they all think procurement makes their lives harder, not easier.
Your job isn’t to prove them wrong through enforcement. It’s to prove them wrong through delivery.
The stakeholders who bypass you aren’t the enemy. They’re your early warning system. They’re showing you exactly where your process creates friction, where your value isn’t visible, and where your positioning has failed.
Fix those things, and bypass drops. Not to zero-there will always be mavericks. But enough that you can focus on strategic value instead of constant firefighting.
Blended Maverick Behaviours: When Stakeholders Fit Multiple Archetypes
Here’s the thing nobody tells you: the same person can be multiple archetypes at once.
Your CFO might be:
- A HIPPO (senior authority who expects speed)
- A Budget Owner (confuses financial authority with commercial authority)
- A Cost Cutter (obsessed with headline price)
All in the same procurement bypass incident.
Your head of product might be:
- An Innovator (needs speed for new initiatives)
- A Technical Expert (believes requirements are too complex for procurement)
- A Smooth Talker (uses charm to justify bypass)
The archetypes aren’t mutually exclusive personality types. They’re behavior patterns that show up in different combinations depending on the situation.
What this means tactically:
Don’t pick one lever and assume it’ll work. Look for the dominant pattern in this specific situation, then adapt.
Example:
- When the CTO bypasses you on a startup pilot → treat them as The Innovator (offer fast-track pilot process)
- When the same CTO bypasses you on enterprise software → treat them as The Technical Expert (commercial translator approach)
- When they do it a third time → add Serial Offender overlay (enforce consequences, document pattern)
The archetypes help you diagnose the behaviour. Your experience tells you which combination you’re dealing with.
For a comprehensive assessment of where your procurement function sits on the maturity curve and which stakeholders are creating the most risk, contact Comprara for a Procurement Maturity Assessment.
