In the realm of negotiation, approaches can generally be categorized into two distinct styles: soft negotiation and hard negotiation. Each style embodies a unique philosophy toward reaching an agreement, influencing not only the negotiation process but also the outcome and the relationship between the parties involved.
Soft and hard negotiations reflect fundamentally different perspectives on what it means to "win" in a negotiation. A soft negotiator emphasizes relationship-building and cooperation, while a hard negotiator seeks victory through leverage and power. Understanding the nuances of both styles is essential for negotiators to choose the most effective approach based on the context and their objectives.
Soft vs. Hard Negotiations
1. Between Friends vs. Between Adversaries
Soft: Soft negotiation is often employed between friends, colleagues, or parties who value preserving the relationship. It operates on the assumption that the relationship is more important than any single deal, and both parties work toward an agreement that benefits everyone.
Hard: In contrast, hard negotiation is typically used between adversaries. The relationship is secondary to winning the negotiation. The hard negotiator views the other party as a competitor or obstacle, not as a partner, and is focused on maximizing their own gain.
2. Goal: Agreement vs. Victory
Soft: In a soft negotiation, the primary goal is reaching an agreement, even if it involves making concessions. The emphasis is on collaboration and ensuring that both parties walk away feeling satisfied, even if one party gives up more than planned.
Hard: The goal of hard negotiation is victory. For the hard negotiator, winning means extracting as much value as possible from the deal, often at the expense of the other party. The focus is on beating the opponent rather than finding a mutually beneficial solution.
3. Concessions to Build Relationships vs. Demanding Concessions as a Condition for a Relationship
Soft: Soft negotiators make concessions freely as a way to build or maintain relationships. They believe that compromise fosters trust and cooperation, which will benefit both parties in the long run.
Hard: Hard negotiators, on the other hand, view concessions as weaknesses. They demand concessions from the other party as a condition for continuing the relationship or the negotiation. For them, giving in is not a strategy for building relationships but a way to exert dominance.
4. Be Soft on People and Problem vs. Be Tough on People and Problem
Soft: A hallmark of soft negotiation is separating the people from the problem. Soft negotiators are empathetic, understanding that attacking the person can damage relationships. Instead, they focus on the issue at hand while maintaining a cooperative and respectful tone.
Hard: Hard negotiators adopt a combative stance toward both the people and the problem. They believe that being tough on the other party and the issue will give them the upper hand. Hard negotiators often use tactics that put pressure on their counterpart, aiming to overpower them both intellectually and emotionally.
5. Trust vs. Distrust
Soft: Trust is the foundation of soft negotiation. Soft negotiators approach the process with goodwill, assuming that the other party is also interested in achieving a fair and equitable agreement. This trust fosters open communication and mutual understanding.
Hard: In hard negotiation, distrust reigns. Hard negotiators assume that the other party is working against them, and they often act defensively. They are suspicious of offers and wary of sharing too much information, fearing that it will be used against them.
6. Change Position Easily vs. Dig In and Stay Put
Soft: Flexibility is key in soft negotiation. Soft negotiators are willing to change their positions if they believe it will lead to a better overall outcome for both sides. They adapt their stance to keep the negotiation moving toward an agreement.
Hard: Hard negotiators, on the other hand, dig in and hold firm to their initial position. They view changing positions as a sign of weakness and vulnerability, which could be exploited by the other party. Their goal is to push the other side to bend, rather than compromise themselves.
Soft: Soft negotiators make offers in the spirit of cooperation. Their proposals are aimed at finding a solution that benefits both parties, and they are open to counteroffers that may improve the deal for everyone involved.
Hard: In contrast, hard negotiators use threats as leverage to force the other party into compliance. Whether it’s a threat to walk away or to escalate the situation, hard negotiators rely on pressure tactics to extract concessions from the other side.
8. Disclose Bottom Line vs. Mislead About Bottom Line
Soft: In the interest of transparency and fairness, soft negotiators are more likely to disclose their bottom line. They believe that openness leads to trust and a quicker resolution.
Hard: Hard negotiators, however, often mislead or obscure their bottom line. By keeping the other party guessing about their true limits, they hope to gain an advantage and extract more favorable terms than they otherwise might.
9. Accept Losses for Agreement vs. Demand Gain for Agreement
Soft: A soft negotiator is willing to accept personal or organizational losses if it means reaching an agreement. The long-term benefits of maintaining a positive relationship and achieving peace are worth more than short-term gains.
Hard: Hard negotiators, however, demand gains as a prerequisite for any agreement. They view losses as unacceptable and focus on securing immediate, measurable benefits from the negotiation.
10. Search for an Answer for Them vs. Search for an Answer for You
Soft: In a soft negotiation, the goal is to find a solution that works for both sides. A soft negotiator actively searches for answers that satisfy the other party’s needs as much as their own, striving for a win-win outcome.
Hard: Hard negotiators, on the other hand, are singularly focused on finding a solution that benefits themselves. They are less concerned with the other party’s interests and more intent on securing the best possible deal for themselves.
11. Insist on Agreement vs. Insist on Position
Soft: For soft negotiators, agreement is the ultimate goal. They are willing to compromise on their position as long as it leads to an acceptable outcome for both sides. Flexibility and open-mindedness are key in reaching a solution.
Hard: Hard negotiators insist on holding firm to their position. They believe that conceding too much will weaken their standing, so they remain unyielding, forcing the other side to make all the adjustments.
12. Avoid Contest of Will vs. Win Contest of Will
Soft: Soft negotiators seek to avoid a contest of will, preferring to de-escalate tensions and focus on collaborative problem-solving. They view the negotiation as an opportunity to build rapport rather than a battle to be won.
Hard: Hard negotiators thrive on a contest of will. They frame the negotiation as a competition, where the side that is more determined, persistent, and resilient will come out on top. They view any signs of weakness from the other party as an advantage to be exploited.
13. Yield to Pressure vs. Apply Pressure
Soft: Soft negotiators are more likely to yield to pressure to maintain harmony. They value peace and resolution, even if it means sacrificing their own interests to some extent. For them, yielding is a way to avoid confrontation and preserve relationships.
Hard: Hard negotiators apply pressure constantly. Their strategy revolves around keeping the other party on the defensive and forcing them into difficult positions. By increasing pressure, hard negotiators hope to break the other side’s resolve and force them into agreement.
Conclusion
Both soft and hard negotiation styles have their merits and drawbacks, depending on the context, relationship dynamics, and desired outcomes. Soft negotiation tends to prioritize relationships and long-term collaboration, while hard negotiation focuses on immediate gains and assertive bargaining. Understanding the difference between these approaches enables negotiators to adapt their strategy based on the situation, ensuring the best possible outcomes for all parties involved.
In many scenarios, the ideal approach lies somewhere in between—a principled negotiation strategy that seeks to blend the strengths of both soft and hard tactics, focusing on both relationships and results.
