Negotiating Tips, Negotiation Strategies November 20, 2025
Impasse Resolution: How to Negotiate Through a DeadlockDeadlocks are some of the most challenging points in any negotiation, but they don’t have to mean failure. Instead, they can serve as valuable turning points. When talks stall, negotiators are forced to slow down, clarify priorities, and reframe the issues. These pauses often reveal new opportunities for collaboration and creative problem-solving.
Dr. Chester L. Karrass taught that negotiation is not a battle but a process. Seen through this lens, deadlocks become less of a roadblock and more of a signal that strategy must shift. With the right mindset—anchored in preparation, patience, and the ability to reframe—deadlocks can strengthen relationships, reveal hidden value, and produce stronger, more lasting agreements.
A deadlock in negotiation occurs when neither side is willing to make concessions or alter their position, leaving talks stuck. In these moments, the parties often circle around the same points without forward movement. Deadlocks may happen because of deeply conflicting interests, lack of trust, miscommunication, or simple stubbornness. While many people view a deadlock as failure, skilled negotiators see it differently. A deadlock is part of the natural rhythm of bargaining. It creates pressure, and pressure often paves the way for creative solutions once both sides are willing to explore alternatives.
Impasse resolution refers to the process of moving beyond this stuck point. It involves more than offering compromises—it requires reframing the negotiation space itself. The KARRASS philosophy emphasizes that negotiation is not a battle, but a process. Within that process, an impasse can serve as a signal that it is time to change tactics. Instead of pushing harder on the same issues, negotiators should pause, ask new questions, and look for overlooked opportunities. The question is not whether a deadlock will occur—it’s how you handle it when it does.
Deadlocks rarely appear out of nowhere. They are usually the result of unmet needs, unclear communication, or misaligned expectations. One party may feel that conceding undermines their long-term interests, while the other sees no reason to move forward without progress. Sometimes personalities clash, making “getting past no” more about managing emotions than about numbers or terms. By recognizing these underlying causes, you gain the ability to address them directly rather than fighting endlessly at the surface level.
Dr. Karrass often stressed that “the best negotiators are prepared.” Many deadlocks can be prevented through advance planning. Before entering discussions, strong negotiators define their reservation price, build a powerful BATNA, and anticipate sticking points. They ask themselves: What issues are most likely to trigger stalemate? How can I reframe them before talks begin? By preparing alternatives, setting priorities, and outlining fallback strategies, negotiators reduce the risk of impasse and increase their confidence when deadlocks arise.
Dr. Karrass taught that concessions should be traded, not given. When you face a deadlock, it is tempting to give something away just to keep the discussion alive. But doing so weakens your position and sets the wrong precedent. Instead, focus on reframing the discussion. Ask questions that shift attention from entrenched positions to underlying needs. Explore “what if” scenarios, introduce new variables, or bring in outside standards for fairness. Even silence—a pause at the right moment—can open the door for the other party to reconsider their stance. Getting past “no” is less about force and more about subtle redirection.
Breaking a deadlock requires strategy, creativity, and patience. Sometimes it means taking a break to let emotions cool. At other times, it means introducing new information or highlighting the costs of continued stalemate. Skilled negotiators often use impasse resolution techniques like summarizing agreed points to build momentum, or reframing issues in terms of mutual benefits rather than losses. Importantly, remember that deadlocks can be useful. They demonstrate to the other side that you will not concede easily and that progress will require effort. This realization often motivates movement.
Deadlocks are not always accidental; sometimes they are intentional. A skilled negotiator may use a deliberate deadlock to signal firmness, test the other side’s resolve, or buy time for reassessment. Strategic deadlocks remind counterparts that progress will not come cheaply. But this tactic requires balance—overusing deadlock risks damaging relationships or pushing the other party to walk away. The best negotiators know when to stand firm and when to pivot, trading deadlock for progress at the right moment.
In complex or high-stakes negotiations, formal procedures may help break impasses. Mediation, arbitration, or the use of neutral third-party facilitators can create space for dialogue when emotions run too hot. Structured approaches provide rules, timelines, and clear steps that encourage both sides to engage productively. While not always necessary, these procedures demonstrate the seriousness of finding resolution and can prevent prolonged stalemate from derailing the entire negotiation.
Effective negotiators use a variety of methods to move talks forward when things stall. Rather than relying on a single tactic, they combine approaches that address both the practical and psychological barriers at play.
One proven technique is to broaden the conversation by adding new issues to the table. By introducing more variables, you create opportunities for trade-offs that might not exist when the discussion is too narrow. For example, a business negotiation stuck on price might move forward once delivery schedules, service agreements, or long-term commitments are added. This expansion allows each side to get something they value, even if initial positions remain unchanged.
Dr. Karrass emphasized that concessions should be traded, not given. During a deadlock, resist the urge to make unilateral concessions just to ease tension. Instead, look for ways to exchange something of lower cost to you for something of higher value in return. This approach not only breaks the impasse but also reinforces that every movement in negotiation comes with a reciprocal step.
Deadlocks often occur because each side clings to its perspective. By bringing in external benchmarks—such as industry data, legal precedents, or independent expert assessments—you can reframe the debate around neutral standards. This removes some of the emotional charge from the disagreement and restores momentum through facts and fairness.
Sometimes the most effective resolution technique is not about strategy but about timing and tone. Taking a break, slowing the pace, or even deliberately changing the meeting environment can reduce defensiveness. A simple pause allows emotions to cool and gives each side time to reconsider entrenched positions.
Deadlocks are as much psychological as they are practical. When people feel cornered, they resist movement—even when concessions would benefit them. Effective negotiators understand this dynamic and work to lower defensiveness. Sometimes, showing empathy or simply acknowledging the difficulty of the situation can shift the atmosphere. At other times, deliberately slowing the pace helps each side reconsider. Negotiators who remain calm and composed, even when the other side is difficult, send a powerful signal: this is a process, not a battle, and resolution is possible.
Cultural backgrounds shape how negotiators perceive conflict and compromise. In some cultures, direct confrontation is acceptable, while in others, it is seen as damaging. A deadlock in one context may be expected, even respected, while in another, it might be viewed as a breakdown in trust. Recognizing these differences helps negotiators adapt their style, avoid misinterpretations, and apply the right impasse resolution techniques across cultural boundaries.
Deadlocks have shaped history, business, and labor relations. By studying how others broke—or failed to break—impasses, negotiators gain practical lessons on persistence and creativity.
During the Cold War, negotiations over nuclear arms limitations repeatedly reached deadlock. Both sides viewed concessions as threats to national security. Progress only came when negotiators expanded the scope of talks, linking arms reduction to economic cooperation and verification protocols. This illustrates how reframing the negotiation space can transform seemingly impossible conflicts.
Labor negotiations frequently end in strikes, a visible sign of deadlock. For example, prolonged disputes in the auto and airline industries have often ground operations to a halt. Resolutions typically emerged not from one side capitulating but from introducing new trade-offs—higher wages paired with productivity agreements, or short-term concessions balanced by long-term benefits. These cases highlight the value of strategic concession trading.
Corporate merger talks often stall when parties disagree on valuation. A notable example is when companies introduce independent audits or third-party fairness opinions to break through mistrust. By appealing to objective standards, both sides can move past suspicion and toward a shared framework for agreement.
International peace negotiations often provide the most dramatic examples of deadlock. In some cases, agreements only materialized after months—or even years—of impasse, broken by the introduction of neutral mediators or confidence-building measures. These examples reinforce the principle that persistence and outside facilitation can be critical in impasse resolution.
Leaving a deadlock unresolved carries heavy consequences. Business opportunities vanish, partnerships fracture, and reputations suffer. Stalled negotiations can cost both sides time, money, and trust. Worse, prolonged deadlocks may create bitterness that prevents future cooperation. Recognizing these costs is essential motivation for negotiators to keep pushing toward resolution, even when progress feels impossible.
Even after a deadlock is resolved, the work is not finished. Negotiators must rebuild trust and strengthen relationships so that future talks do not suffer from lingering tensions. This can mean acknowledging the difficulty of the process, celebrating the eventual resolution, and setting frameworks to prevent similar impasses in the future. Skilled negotiators view every deadlock not just as a challenge to overcome, but as an opportunity to build resilience in professional relationships.
It is crucial not to confuse deadlock with failure. A deadlock is simply one phase of the negotiation journey. It can even be strategic. By holding firm and allowing the other side to see that “easy wins” will not come, you may strengthen your position for later concessions and agreements. The key is to recognize that while you cannot always avoid deadlocks, you can always prepare for them. Preparation, patience, and creativity are what transform stalemates into stepping stones.
Deadlocks can feel like roadblocks, but they are often opportunities in disguise. They test resolve, clarify priorities, and force negotiators to dig deeper for solutions. The teachings of Dr. Karrass remind us that “in business as in life, you don’t get what you deserve—you get what you negotiate.” Getting past no requires discipline, strategic concessions, and the ability to reframe discussions when talks seem stuck. By treating deadlocks not as failures but as essential parts of the negotiation process, you position yourself to break through impasses and reach lasting agreements.
A deadlock occurs when both sides in a negotiation refuse to move from their positions, resulting in stalled progress. It often arises from conflicting interests, lack of trust, or miscommunication. Rather than signaling failure, a deadlock can be a natural phase of negotiation that pushes both parties to explore creative alternatives and reassess their priorities.
Impasse resolution is the process of overcoming a deadlock by reframing issues, introducing new variables, or shifting the discussion to mutual interests. It is not simply about making concessions, but about changing the dynamics of the conversation. Techniques like summarizing progress, appealing to objective standards, or taking a break can all help restore movement.
Getting past “no” requires patience, empathy, and strategic reframing. Instead of pushing harder, ask open-ended questions to uncover underlying needs. Highlight the costs of continued deadlock, or explore creative trade-offs that satisfy both sides. Remember that even silence can be a tool, giving the other party space to reconsider their stance without pressure.
Deadlocks typically happen when parties feel their core needs are threatened, or when miscommunication creates distrust. Sometimes the issue is less about the terms on the table and more about emotions or personalities. Recognizing the root cause of a deadlock is essential to addressing it directly and finding a pathway forward.
Techniques include expanding the issues under discussion, trading concessions strategically, appealing to objective standards, or reframing the negotiation in terms of shared benefits. Taking breaks, lowering the emotional temperature, and summarizing points of agreement are also effective ways to reset the discussion. The key is to remain calm, patient, and prepared to explore alternatives rather than forcing concessions.
More than 1.5 million people have trained with KARRASS over the last 55 years. Effective Negotiating® is designed to work for all job titles and job descriptions, for the world's largest companies and individual businesspeople.
Effective Negotiating® is offered In-Person in a city near you, or Live-Online from our Virtual Studios to your computer. See the complete schedule here.
EFFECTIVE NEGOTIATING® LIVE ONLINE
RELATED ARTICLES
Have questions or need assistance? Reach out to our team