Q & A Table of Contents
Impasse or Deadlock?
From: Robert, San Francisco, California
Question: What is the difference between an impasse and a deadlock?
Response: The dictionary says an impasse is a noun which
describes: “a situation in which no progress is possible,
especially because of disagreement; a deadlock” The same
dictionary says that ‘deadlock’ can also be a noun, but
goes on to say that deadlock can be used as a verb meaning
“to cause (a situation or opposing parties) to come to a
point where no progress can be made because of fundamental
disagreement”. In simple terms, when a discussion gets
deadlocked that can yield an impasse.
As a practical matter, the two words are used
interchangeably.
In negotiation, preventing deadlock or progressing beyond
an impasse can be important goals. The underlying goal of
negotiation is for parties to work collaboratively to find
better ways to do things, to trade information, to exchange
goods and/or services — or sometimes just to improve
relationships.
When there are issues about which there is fundamental
disagreement, negotiators have to determine whether it is
worthwhile continuing to negotiate with specific parties —
or try to solve things by working with different people or
organizations. This is called looking for your BATNA —
Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement.
Other approaches to dealing with negotiations that include
total disagreements include declaring some issues ‘off
limits’ and focusing on resolving issues that are less
controversial so that at least some of the problems between
the parties are removed from the overall situation.
Sometimes when parties resolve those smaller problems, and
when that resolution yields mutual gains, it sets the stage
for new rounds of negotiations to address tougher and
tougher issues. In international conflicts these
approaches are called ‘confidence-building measures’.
If you face fundamental disagreement you have to decide
whether you’ve chosen to negotiate with the wrong party,
whether the area of disagreement means any agreement with
the other party is impossible, and whether using
confidence-building measures is likely to yield long term
improvements in the relationship. In negotiation you
should forget about looking for common interests — they are
extremely rare — and instead look for complementary
interests. Look for resolutions that serve the different
interests of the different parties and bring about
agreements each one will willingly fulfill.
Good luck,
Steve
| 
