Power is not about the cards you hold
In negotiations, commentators often speak about one side “having all the cards”, “holding a strong hand”, or “playing their cards badly”. The language of card games has become a common shorthand for power and leverage — from business deals and workplace disputes to international diplomacy.
Yet the reality of negotiation power is far more complex. In practice, the ability to recognise which levers of power will be most effective and how to apply them skillfully is key.
Most Negotiators Underestimate Their Own Power
One of the most common mistakes in negotiation is that people underestimate their own negotiation power. This is because they focus almost entirely on their own pressures, risks, and constraints.
We know our own pressures intimately. We understand our deadlines, internal politics, budget limitations, and operational challenges. By contrast, the other side’s dilemmas can often be hidden, poorly understood, or ignored altogether.
As a result, negotiators frequently assume they are in a weaker position than they really are. Power is rarely determined simply by size, wealth, or formal authority. A smaller supplier may have enormous power if they control a critical product or capability. An employee may possess Power because replacing them would be disruptive and expensive. A small organisation or nation may hold significant influence because of geography, alliances, public opinion, or access to key resources.
Negotiation Power is fundamentally relational. It depends not merely on what one side has, but on what the other side needs, fears, values, or cannot easily replace.
This is why skilled negotiators spend significant time analysing the other side’s needs and worries. What pressures are they facing? What deadlines matter to them? What can our side offer that they value highly? What happens if negotiations fail? What realistic alternatives do they have?
The answers to these questions can reveal unexpected leverage.
The side that appears confident may privately be under intense pressure to reach agreement quickly. The organisation projecting strength may have fewer practical options than it appears. An aggressive approach could be a sign of desperation or trying to compensate for internal weakness. Skilled negotiators understand that power comes not just from ‘strength’ but also from insight.
The Danger of Bluffing
Whilst bluffing can work in poker, misleading statements, empty threats or other ruses don’t make for an effective negotiation strategy.
Many negotiators attempt to project strength they do not really possess. They threaten sanctions they cannot, or will not, implement. They claim to have alternatives that are weak or fictional. They imply support from stakeholders who are not genuinely committed or even absent from the field of play.
The central problem with bluffing is simple: what happens if the other side calls your bluff?
If you threaten to walk away, you must be prepared to walk away.
If you threaten litigation, escalation, termination, industrial action or any other sanction, you must have the capacity, the authority and the will to follow through, knowing that there will be tension and potentially conflict.
If you cannot or will not follow through, your credibility and power is immediately eroded and Power will shift towards the other side.
Skilled negotiators never make empty threats. They also test the other side’s appetite for conflict and the credibility of any sanctions raised.
Is the threatened action rational, affordable, politically sustainable and operationally possible for the other side? Once an empty threat is exposed, the balance of power can change rapidly.
The party whose bluff is exposed loses not only power and credibility but also authority and momentum. This often serves to embolden the other side, making them more confident, more demanding, and less willing to yield or compromise.
There is a critical difference between careful positioning and making threats you cannot sustain.
The Risks of Overconfidence
Overconfidence can be a costly error of judgement.
Negotiators who believe they possess overwhelming power can be attracted to an aggressive approach, leading them to be dismissive, inflexible and condescending towards their counter-party. They may falsely assume that the other side has no meaningful alternatives and will have no option but to concede.
Overconfidence and underestimating the resilience and adaptability of weaker opponents often go hand-in-hand. Paradoxically, excessive pressure often produces resistance, coalition-building, innovation or escalation.
Overconfidence can also destroy trust, harden positions, and cause negotiators to lose control of the process itself. Influential stakeholders may intervene, emotions escalate, and finding a way forward becomes harder.
But the longer-term dangers are even greater.
When there is excessive use of power, the other party adapts. They recruit allies, diversify customers/suppliers, secure political support, build alternative capabilities, or develop new strategies. In other words, abuse of power accelerates counter-strategies.
A dominant customer that relentlessly pressures a supplier may eventually encourage the supplier to seek alternative clients or reduce cooperation. A government or organisation that relies too heavily on coercion may strengthen resistance rather than weaken it.
The lesson is clear: possessing power is not the same as using it wisely.
Skilled negotiators exercise power carefully and strategically. Their objective is not to dominate the other side, but to secure sustainable outcomes while preserving credibility, relationships and future options.
Time — the Undervalued Power
Perhaps the most underestimated source of power in negotiation is time.
People often think of power as static, that one side has more power than the other. In reality, power often changes over time, sometimes unexpectedly, dramatically and by circumstances beyond either side’s control.
Time is an important factor to consider. “Who has more power today?” is an important question, but how power will shift over time and what factors may impact the balance of power in the future are also critical.
For example, a supplier may have significant negotiation power because they control a key resource, are a single source supplier and have plenty of other keen customers. The more aggressively that supplier exploits their market power, the more likely their power will be challenged and eroded over time.
Time gives the other side opportunities to respond and adapt, to seek allies, develop alternatives or to organise support. Of course, unforeseen and external events such as local or global disruptions, organisational change or business mergers can all change the landscape.
When the power balance is favourable, closing a deal expeditiously is often a good strategy. If the outcome is delayed, the risk of an adverse change in the power balance increases.
Many disputes illustrate this dynamic. A company facing industrial disruption may initially hold strong leverage because employees are financially vulnerable. But over time, unions may mobilise community or political support and start to shift the balance of power. A dominant litigant may initially overwhelm a smaller opponent, only to find that the other side eventually attracts investors, regulators, or public sympathy.
Time may also diminish the psychological pressure being experienced. Human beings adapt remarkably quickly to adversity. Conditions that initially seem intolerable gradually become manageable. Fear diminishes. Resistance becomes normalised and creative solutions emerge to alter the balance of power.
Prolonged conflict can also diminish the appetite for conflict by an apparently more powerful party. Stakeholders become impatient and internal unity becomes harder to maintain as the costs of conflict grow.
In summary, skilled negotiators pay close attention not just to the current power balance, but also to the potential dynamic and impact of their power changing over time.
It is essential to recognise the influence of time and its impact on one’s negotiation power.
An important truth
An important truth about negotiation: success depends not merely on what resources each party controls, but on how intelligently those resources are understood and used.
Many negotiators hold more power than they realise because they fail to understand the pressures facing the other side. Others weaken themselves by making empty threats or by overplaying their hand.
Negotiators also often fail to appreciate how quickly time can reshape the balance of power.
The most effective negotiators understand that power is rarely absolute or permanent. It is contextual, relational, and dynamic.
In the end, negotiation is not simply about “having the cards.”
It is about understanding which cards matter, how and when to use each element of your power, maintaining credibility and recognising when and how the power balance is changing. In short, the cards you hold are important, but how you play your cards ultimately determines the outcome.
The ability to negotiate is a skill. A skill that needs to be learnt and honed over time, and that will deliver outstanding returns on investment.