Why “Resolutions” Don’t Work in Negotiations

In negotiations, resolutions sound attractive. They promise closure, harmony, and a clean ending. But in practice, resolutions often fail—and sometimes make outcomes worse.

Here’s why.

1. Negotiations are dynamic, not static

A resolution assumes the problem is fixed and fully understood. Negotiations rarely are. Interests evolve, new information emerges, and power shifts. Locking parties into a “final” resolution too early ignores the reality that negotiations are living processes, not one-time events.

2. Resolutions focus on positions, not interests

Most resolutions are framed around what each side agrees to, not why they need it. When underlying interests remain unaddressed, agreements become fragile. The moment circumstances change, the resolution collapses.

3. They create false closure

A signed resolution gives the illusion that the issue is settled. In reality, unresolved concerns resurface later as non-compliance, renegotiation, or conflict escalation. Closure on paper does not equal commitment in practice.

4. Resolutions discourage adaptability

Good negotiations leave room for adjustment. Rigid resolutions reduce flexibility and make future collaboration harder. When parties feel trapped by a deal that no longer fits, trust erodes quickly.

5. Power imbalances get frozen in

Resolutions often reflect the power dynamics of the moment—not fairness or sustainability. When weaker parties later gain leverage, they are far more likely to challenge or abandon the agreement.

What works instead? Successful negotiations prioritize:

• Ongoing alignment rather than finality
• Mechanisms for review and adjustment
• Clear understanding of interests, not just outcomes
• Processes that manage change, not deny it

The best negotiations don’t end with a resolution. They end with a framework for continued cooperation.