Having worked the majority of my career in FMCG, I’ve seen countless negotiation tactics used by suppliers, vendors and retailers to exert what they believe to be power. Often, these approaches are actually about force – low-level tactics aimed at imposing power over others; however, true power is different. It comes from a higher awareness, embracing collaboration and seeking ‘power with’ rather than ‘power over’. The concept of power versus force, made popular by David
id R. Hawkins, emphasises that real power is constructive. It influences positively, operating from a broader, more compassionate perspective. For organisations to shift from force to true power, they need to raise both emotional intelligence and the culture around negotiation.
Those who understand this new negotiation playbook – one that creates value rather than destroys it – will fare the best. They’ll build stronger negotiation cultures, achieve better alignment with stakeholders and, ultimately, drive more sustainable profits. Here’s a breakdown of how power differs from force in negotiations and why only those committed to creating real value will thrive.
1. Power builds trust; force breeds resistance
In any negotiation scenario, having options is a source of power because it gives you the flexibility to propose solutions that benefit everyone involved. This freedom of choice allows you to take a ‘power-with’ approach, which builds trust and fosters collaborative thinking.
When organisations misuse their options to push for one-sided gains – leveraging their alternatives to pressure the other party – they’ve traded power for force. Force, in this case, exploits the other side’s lack of options, creating resentment rather than trust. If a brand pressures a smaller supplier for steep discounts simply because they can, they risk weakening the partnership over time, as the supplier feels exploited rather than valued.
2. Power leverages strengths; force exploits weaknesses
True power focuses on amplifying strengths, not weaknesses. For instance, a brand with market influence can use its reach to support supplier growth, encouraging loyalty and reliability by aligning business objectives. Power here means thinking strategically, creating mutual benefits that elevate both parties.
In contrast, force seeks to capitalise on short-term advantages by pressing on the other side’s vulnerabilities. For example, pushing aggressively for price cuts without considering the other party’s limitations might yield immediate savings, but it often leads to unintended consequences, such as reduced product quality or compromised service. These issues ultimately ripple back to affect both parties, diminishing value for the end consumer and eroding trust.
Leveraging power involves negotiating from a place of stability and focusing on long-term growth. This means recognising each other’s strengths and constraints to arrive at sustainable solutions, ensuring a robust, resilient partnership.
3. Power is collaborative; force is confrontational
Aligning with partners – be it suppliers, manufacturers or retailers – is critical to creating value across the supply chain. A power-based negotiation approach involves bringing the other party into the discussion, understanding their constraints, and working toward a shared mission of delivering value to consumers.
On the other hand, force is inherently confrontational. How often do we see suppliers threaten to stop supply, or retailers threaten to strip products off shelves? These confrontational tactics reveal a breakdown in alignment, where each side sees the other as an obstacle rather than a partner. When egos lead with coercive force, collaboration falters, and both businesses – and their consumers – ultimately lose out.
4. Power creates sustainable relationships; force causes burnout
Sustainability relies on building relationships that withstand pressures and adapt to change. Power fosters these relationships by remaining adaptable and focused on growth, especially when unexpected challenges arise. A brand that collaborates with a supplier to overcome disruptions in the supply chain, for example, demonstrates power in creating a resilient, mutually beneficial relationship.
Force, however, wears relationships down. Constant pressure to meet unreasonable demands without flexibility leads to burnout, turnover and instability. When brands overburden suppliers with unrealistic terms, they risk supplier attrition and even public backlash. Force creates unsustainable dynamics, whereas power fosters long-term success by prioritising relationships and long-term results over short-term gains.
In today’s business landscape, a shift from force to power in negotiation is not only idealistic but necessary to create sustainable value. Unless we elevate our awareness in both business and life, we risk remaining trapped in a cycle where leverage is used as coercive force rather than as a tool for mutual benefit and long-term relationships.