Which negotiation strategy might lead to a stalemate?

Distributive bargaining is a negotiation strategy that typically focuses on a fixed resource or outcome, where one party's gain is another party's loss, leading to a win-lose situation. In this approach, each side tries to maximize their own share of the available resources, often resulting in competitive tactics. This zero-sum mindset can create tension and make it difficult for parties to reach a mutually agreeable solution, particularly when both parties are unwilling to compromise or make concessions.

When positions become entrenched and each party is fixated on claiming as much value as possible for themselves, it can lead to a stalemate. The inability to move beyond individual interests and the lack of collaboration can halt negotiations entirely, as neither side is willing to give in or find common ground.

In contrast, integrative bargaining seeks win-win solutions, collaborative bargaining emphasizes cooperation towards mutual goals, and mixed bargaining incorporates elements from both competitive and cooperative strategies. These approaches are more likely to foster communication and compromise, reducing the likelihood of a stalemate in negotiations.