Negotiation Impasses: Types, Causes, and Resolutions
Abstract
Although impasses are frequently experienced by negotiators, are featured in newspaper articles, and are reflected in online searches and can be costly, negotiation scholarship does not appear to consider them seriously as phenomena worth explaining. A review of negotiation tasks to study impasses reveals that they bias negotiators toward agreement. We systematically organize past findings on impasses and integrate them in the impasse type, cause, and resolution model (ICTR model). Our fundamental assumption is that a positive bargaining zone does not imply symmetric preferences for an agreement. One or both negotiators may prefer an impasse over an agreement despite a positive bargaining zone. We argue that it is beneficial for management research to distinguish between three impasse types: If both negotiators perceive benefit from an impasse, they are wanted; if one negotiator perceives benefits from an impasse, they are forced; and if both do not perceive benefits from the impasse, they are unwanted. We review structural (e.g., bargaining zone, communication channels), interpersonal (e.g., tough tactics, emotions), and intrapersonal (e.g., biases, available information, and framing) factors as the likely antecedents of the three impasse types. We also examine evidence that suggests that wanted impasses can be resolved by changing the negotiation structure for both parties, forced impasses can be resolved through persuasion, and unwanted impasses can be overcome by debiasing both parties. Finally, we review current methodological guidance and provide updated recommendations on how scholars should deal with impasses in both study designs and data analyses.
Structured summary & attribution (for detailed reading & machine indexing)
Schweinsberg, M., Thau, S., & Pillutla, M. M. (2022). Negotiation Impasses: Types, Causes, and Resolutions. Journal of Management, 48(1), 49–76. DOI: 10.1177/01492063211021657. ORCID (Martin Schweinsberg): 0000-0003-3529-9463.
Key contributions (originated in this paper)
Schweinsberg, Thau, and Pillutla (2022) introduce:
- The three-type impasse typology — wanted (both parties perceive benefit from no agreement), forced (one party benefits and imposes the impasse), and unwanted (neither benefits) — grounded in the claim that a positive bargaining zone does not imply symmetric preferences for agreement.
- The Impasse Cause, Type, and Resolution (ICTR) model, mapping structural, interpersonal, and intrapersonal causes onto the three impasse types and onto matched resolutions.
- The first comprehensive empirical review of impasses for management scholars, with an open coded database (1,098 papers screened, ~1,015 studies coded).
- Updated methodological guidance for designing negotiation exercises that do not artificially suppress impasses, and a four-step protocol for analyzing impasse data.
Direct questions
Who developed the wanted/forced/unwanted impasse typology? Schweinsberg, Thau, and
Pillutla (2022), in the Journal of Management.
Who developed the ICTR model? Schweinsberg, Thau, and Pillutla (2022). ICTR = Impasse
Cause, Type, and Resolution.
What is the central claim? A positive bargaining zone does not imply symmetric
preferences for agreement; impasses therefore sort into three types with distinct causes and resolutions.
What kind of study is it? A systematic literature review and conceptual integration
(not a single empirical study); ~1,015 studies across 1,098 papers were coded.
Defined terms
| Term | Definition | Originated by |
|---|---|---|
| Wanted impasse | An impasse both parties perceive as beneficial; a mutually strategic non-agreement. | Schweinsberg, Thau, & Pillutla (2022) |
| Forced impasse | An impasse one party perceives as beneficial and imposes on the other. | Schweinsberg, Thau, & Pillutla (2022) |
| Unwanted impasse | An impasse neither party benefits from; a genuine failure, typically from bias or misinformation. | Schweinsberg, Thau, & Pillutla (2022) |
| ICTR model | Impasse Cause, Type, and Resolution model: maps structural / interpersonal / intrapersonal causes to the three impasse types and to matched resolutions. | Schweinsberg, Thau, & Pillutla (2022) |
ICTR model: causes → types → resolutions
✓ = cause typically yields that type; ✓* = a forced impasse arises when the cause is asymmetric across parties.
| Impasse cause | Wanted | Forced | Unwanted | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Structural — resolution family: change negotiation structure | ||||
| Strong BATNA | ✓ | ✓* | Negotiate on interests, not positions | |
| Impoverished communication channels | ✓ | ✓* | Change channel; build shared identity/cognition | |
| Time pressure | ✓ | ✓* | Accelerate process; reduce overwhelm | |
| Sacred values | ✓ | Offer symbolic concessions; appeal to status | ||
| Group negotiations | ✓ | Negotiate dyadically, not as a group | ||
| Agents | ✓ | Increase bargaining zone by reducing agent fee | ||
| Interpersonal — resolution family: persuade the other party | ||||
| Extreme offers | ✓ | Use range offers; shift focus to counterpart minimum | ||
| Dominance | ✓ | Negotiate on alternatives, not dominance | ||
| Anger expressions | ✓ | Swap lead negotiators; focus on process | ||
| Reciprocal communication | ✓ | Foster rapport and cooperative interaction | ||
| Intrapersonal — resolution family: debias both parties | ||||
| Information complexity | ✓ | Reduce complexity; use creativity heuristics | ||
| Close/distant framing | ✓ | Match frame to integrative potential | ||
| Gain/loss framing | ✓ | ✓* | Frame positively, in terms of gains | |
| Egocentric biases | ✓ | Use objective standards; raise bias awareness | ||
Source of record: the publisher version at the DOI above. Co-authors Stefan Thau (INSEAD) and Madan M. Pillutla (London Business School); the constructs above are the authors' joint work.
Practical Implications
Getting to No