Identify and Neutralize Negotiation Tactics and Tricks

Developed and industrialized countries of the world, along with economic, scientific, technological and industrial progress, have also achieved significant progress in the development of the science and technology of negotiation, especially foreign and international negotiations. Nowadays, in international relations, even at the level of simple internal relations with others, it is not enough just to have the right and to be a researcher, but also to know the negotiation strategies and tricks and ways to deal with them, as well as to negotiate the right well and principles. Self and showing the right seat on the negotiating table is a key factor in achieving the goal. 
Experience teaches us that in front of us in foreign negotiations sit people as negotiators, the vast majority of whom, in addition to their specialized fields, are proficient in the principles, techniques, strategies and tricks of negotiation, which unfortunately Some of them are bad and inappropriate solutions and in some cases, these bad solutions are the cause of strategies in negotiations. It is our duty to confront such negotiators armed with the weapon of negotiation to the highest level of international standards. In this article, we have tried to get acquainted with the solutions of tricks in the negotiation process and to provide ways to deal with these solutions and tricks.


Introduction
Everyone is negotiating, willingly or unwillingly. Negotiation is a fact of life. Every day, each person is discussing various issues. Negotiation is the exchange of communication to reach an agreement. Negotiation takes place when two or more people with different views come together and try. Agree on a topic. The subject can be exceptional events or an emerging relationship (Geiger, 2017). Future forecasting methods are various and based on different assumptions and serve various purposes. The COVID-19 crisis is taking an unprecedented scale (Parviznejad & Akhavan, 2021). The COVID-19 crisis is affecting consumer behaviour and thus the way in which marketing can be used . In such a situation, market negotiations are important for both hypermarkets and net markets to improve the best (Nahaei & Bahrami, 2021). Thus, negotiations play a major role in determining the state of markets and identifying their uncertainties , (Parviznejad & Bahrami, 2021).
It is safe to say that all commercial companies are interested in entering global markets in some way, but when negotiating with foreign parties, they find that they do not have the necessary capabilities in business negotiations. Having the necessary skills in trade negotiations with importers, foreign agents, initial purchases from manufacturers in other countries, as well as in cases of joint ventures with foreign parties is crucial. Therefore, one should be familiar with the principles and techniques of negotiations, and also the negotiator should be able to identify negotiation strategies and tricks and know the ways to deal with these tricks and strategies (Parvaneh, 1398).

Types of negotiation tactics
Although most negotiators report effective tactics after years of experience, those with less time at the negotiating table can also learn to use basic and relatively easy tactics. These basic tactics enable the novice negotiator to make reasonable progress in the negotiation, while at the same time developing more sophisticated skills that can only be acquired through continuous experience and practice. (Kiruthika et al, 2020)

Attack
One of the most important and valuable tactics in negotiation is to attack. Despite the fact that most negotiators theoretically agree with this statement, only a few know how to use this theory in real negotiations. In very simple terms, attacking means gaining the momentum and creating an obstacle for the opponent in order not to achieve it (Chatterjee, 2020).
To use this tactic effectively in negotiation, you must attack as soon as possible during the negotiation. However, as soon as possible means when you have the ability to take action to capture and maintain the force of the opponent. Timing is just as important as the techniques that are really needed to use tactics in negotiation. Focusing on your opponent's weaknesses in negotiation is a good offensive technique. This view forces your competitor to spend more time and attention on his weaknesses. (Both to prepare for participation in negotiations and in real meetings). Another useful method of attack is to pay attention to the type of language used by the competitor. When your competitor uses very harsh words to describe your position (products, services, and support verbally or through brochures and advertisements), you can use effective means of attack. To use this method, you must negotiate. Move the opponent to focus on the explicit words he or she uses (Mehrani & Eskandar, 2017).
The reciprocal tactics against overtaking an attack are as follows: • Attack in a stronger position.
• Give the opponent the opportunity to attack first for a short time and then temporarily seize the position before it can threaten you with serious damage.
Both of these tactics are very effective against negotiators who have little experience. A negotiator with little experience becomes vulnerable right after the attack situation arises. During this time, the inexperienced negotiator, who has the opportunity to attack, may be proud of his victory in gaining momentum and increase his confidence, while he is more likely to be vulnerable (Fisher, 1983).
An experienced negotiator often uses this period to gain position for attack. Techniques can be used to retrieve the attack position. For example, you can direct the negotiator to the weaknesses of an inexperienced negotiator and ask for more points (already planned by your negotiating opponent for positions during the negotiation) or he can be removed from the negotiating stage by using strong and aggressive language (Ryan & et al, 2021). There is a danger that we will lose the attack immediately after gaining the position. In addition to that risk, perhaps the most important risk that threatens to retake the offensive position is that the negotiator pursues this tactic in an unprofessional and unsuccessful manner. Many negotiators believe that overtaking an attack means taking a position of power, such as speaking loudly, banging on the table, and making controversial and impossible demands (Jianqing, 2014). While all of these techniques help an experienced negotiator gain or maintain an attack position, these practices usually do not help much for most negotiators. The reason is very simple. These techniques include overt and dramatic threats and disruption of negotiations. The negotiator who encounters these actions and behaviors usually reacts in the opposite direction. For example: • By showing resentment or by concluding negotiations if possible.
• Acting from a position of power, thus overcoming the negotiator who attacks in the first place.
• By staying calm and cautious. This will force the negotiator to stay calm and walk more cautiously.
• By shifting the negotiation direction to another where the more experienced negotiator can effectively retake the offensive position. A negotiator whose attempts to attack are unsuccessful is unlikely to emerge from this glorious process. This risk is directly related to the obvious and positive actions that the negotiator demonstrates in applying this tactic. If the negotiator acts only to gain a position of attack from a position of power, or to make his demands or threats out loud, but fails to do so, his opponent's individual power in the negotiation usually increases. The loss of prestige and the decline of the individual power of the negotiators in the negotiation can be seen in the next negotiation sessions. This makes the situation more difficult to negotiate if unsuccessful, so that he can no longer attack in the first place in subsequent meetings. If the negotiator's failed attempts are relatively obvious and do not involve threats that can not be effectively implemented, the adverse effects of long-term unsuccessful attempts to attack are usually less (Schaerer, 2020). As with most negotiation tactics, the effect of a failed action on the use of a tactic is usually not very serious, but if this tactic is used relatively delicately and a predetermined situation is provided, it is resorted to when it fails.
• 2.2. Surprise attack The surprise factor can be an effective tactic, and thus this factor should be present in the ammunition depot of any experienced negotiator. In any case, surprise (such as anger) should be used intentionally to achieve the best result and avoid potentially negative interactions (Morris, 2020). Although there are many definitions of surprise tactics, perhaps the best and most basic definition is: Any maneuver in the negotiation that causes sudden and unintended changes in the opponent. Perhaps the most effective reciprocal tactic against this tactic is to ignore it. This pre-planned reaction can have a devastating effect on an inexperienced negotiator who is convinced that the use of surprise tactics creates a lot of fluctuations in individual powers. By disregarding the effect of the surprise tactic, you disarm your opponent by neutralizing the effect he intended (Morris, 2020).

Using good and bad people: (positive person and negative person)
This tactic is used by interrogators and consultants. Where the other parties can use this tactic in pairs. In this case, two people play the role of rival for each other. The bad guy forces you to do something and the good guy (positive) helps you with the offer. In this case, if you accept the help, they have achieved their goal. Consultants usually use this technique (Lamm & et al, 2019).

Repetitive game of good man / bad man.
One form of stress that involves deception is the repetitive play of the good person / bad person. This technique appears in its most violent form in old detective films. The first policeman threatens the accused or a suspect suspected of committing many crimes, puts him under a dazzling light, pulls him back and forth, then breathes in and leaves the room. The second policeman (good person!) Then turns off the brightly lit light, compliments the suspected smoker, and apologizes for the violent policeman's behavior (the first bad person). He says he wants to control the violent person but will not be able to do so unless the suspect cooperates with him.
The suspect confesses and states what he knows. Similarly, in a negotiation, two people on one side of the negotiating table stage a verbal argument with each other. One takes a hard line: (These books are worth forty thousand Tomans. I am not willing to accept even less than one Toman). His colleague shows himself angry and finally breaks the silence and says: (Ahmad, you are talking irrationally, in addition to It's been two years since these books came into being, and even if they were not widely used, there is no denying that they were from two years ago). Then he turns his face to the other side and while trying to speak logically, he asks: (Can you pay 38,000 Tomans?) The score he has given is not significant and high, but it almost seems like a positive step (Schelling, 2015). The good guy / bad guy game is one of the forms of psychological staging in negotiations. If you follow this game, you will not fall into its trap. When a good person is playing his role, simply ask him the same question he asked the (bad person): Thank you for trying to be reasonable, but I still want to know why you think the price he says is a fair price. What is the basis of your calculations and principles? I am ready to accept four thousand dollars as long as you can convince me that this amount is a fair price (Schelling, 2015).

Possession of the meeting
Negotiation can be a stressful process. When you are under pressure from your peer and you try to make your situation look good, your anxiety about the outcome of the negotiation increases. Sometimes both sides may focus on an emotional position or think of another tactic as a threat. Never take on the issues raised in the negotiation, otherwise you will lose control of the situation. Focus on the topic of the meeting and, if necessary, reiterate your position. Avoid criticizing and never insulting people. If you have to compromise in some cases to prevent the negotiation from failing, add your terms to the suggestions received. In this way, you get a point (albeit a small one) for the points you lose. Be forwardlooking and know that tactics are effective in reaching an agreement (compromise).

Using Fait Accompli tactics (Fait Accompli)
This phrase is a French phrase that translates as (Fait Accompli) or (things are done). The phrase also refers to a tactic during negotiations that involves a bold move designed to put one side of the deal in the forefront. In negotiations, the person who successfully uses this tactic tells the other party (verbally or in practice) that he or she must either agree or disagree (Low, 2020). For example, the appliance marketing representative can give the buyer a standard contract form and say: This is a contract that we use and will not change. Even Ford has signed this contract form, or the marketer may say that this is our best price. If you do not agree to this price, you will lose a great opportunity.Instead, the buyer can use this tactic by saying: You see, if you do not agree with the $ 25,000 price, we will not trade. If you cannot reduce the price, forget about it at all.
The above examples mean that (either you make this deal on my terms or we cancel the negotiations) because of the determination, this tactic is related to the strategy of breaking the negotiations. However, this tactic (Fait Accompli) can be much more original and subtle. This tactic can be very useful in achieving the following goals. For this purpose, the party with the privilege of trading uses this tactic to force a weaker competitor to trade.
• Using time-consuming plans: In this case, the negotiator, who is in a weaker position, is afraid of not making a deal and that he may not really be given such a position for a long time. • Concluding matters: When no further negotiations are needed or the continuation of negotiations is not possible due to limited time. In any situation, this tactic is effective, because it always leaves the decision to the other party. (We have given you our best price offer. You can agree to it and finish the deal or you can disagree and lose all the points you have made up to this point) The side of this tactic It is always feared, the fear of business failure or disagreement, the fear of not being able to meet the company's goals, through the conclusion of negotiations, as planned. You can use this tactic as the last blow, that is, when victory is possible by performing one of these dramatic actions. You can also use this tactic successfully before the transaction, to force the other party to act or react. In this case, this tactic can be used to interrupt negotiations that do not pursue a specific goal or have reached a dead end (in such a situation, any action is better than no action). Finally, as mentioned above, this tactic can be effective in resolving deadlocks or breaking off negotiations. In this case, you paralyze the intention to continue the negotiations, either with an ultimatum or with the last offer that the other party will not agree with, or with an ultimatum to confront the rival tactics. (Fait Accompli). When both sides of the negotiation use this tactic at the same time, most of the negotiations come to a standstill (Ali, 2015). Like the surprise tactic, the best way to deal with this tactic is to ignore it. However, unlike the surprise tactic, this tactic requires at least some answers. Many negotiators act as follows. This tactic can be countered by creating temporary deadlocks in the negotiation (as mentioned above, this deadlock can be created by using this tactic, which has a neutralizing effect, or by other methods). This reciprocal tactic can be especially effective when used by a party to the transaction who has high individual negotiating power. The main danger in using this tactic is what to do if this tactic does not work. Because of this risk, you must have a place to retreat when using this tactic and provide a way to achieve it by preserving your reputation in advance. From a psychological point of view, maintaining one's reputation is very important (remember Maslow's needs).
However, this issue becomes important when you want to face your negotiating rival again in the future .
Another potential danger in this tactic is the feeling of hatred and disgust that may arise in your opponent. According to him, no one likes an ultimatum, and some negotiators lose interest, especially when confronted with the obvious use of this tactic. This danger cannot be avoided, and the reason for it is in part due to the reaction of the negotiating rival, which cannot be properly judged. However, this risk can be mitigated in several ways (Benson, 2017): • By recognizing the hatred that may arise in a person.
• Avoiding any action that may damage the respect of the other party.
• By using informal communication tactics, when it is to reduce the effects

Some common deceptive tactics
Deceptive tactics can be divided into three categories: deliberate deception, psychological warfare, and tactical pressure tactics. You have to be prepared to deal with all these types of tactics. The following lines describe specific types of deceptive tactics (Flyyn & Freiberg, 2018). First -deliberate deception: Perhaps the most common type of tactic based on deception at the heart of the facts is fraud in expressing the extent to which they have authority, or inverting their intentions. Second-False and false information: The oldest form of negotiation based on trickery is to consciously make false statements. The dangers of accepting untrue statements are enormous. What can you do?
Separate people from the problem. Avoid trusting someone else until you have enough reasons to trust them. This statement does not mean that you should call him a liar. On the contrary, it means trying to negotiate independently of trust. Do not let anyone else interpret your doubts about his or her statements as a personal attack. Do not expect the seller of a watch or car to give you a watch or car just by saying you have money in the bank. Just as a salesperson normally and normally investigates your credit. (Because there are many people who are not trustworthy). You can do the same for the other party's statements. Trying to clarify fact-finding statements reduces the incentive to cheat and reduces the risk of deception (Abramson, 2020).

False and fake information
The oldest form of fraudulent negotiation is to knowingly make untrue statements. In this technique, separate people from the problem. Avoid trusting someone else until you have enough reasons to trust them. This statement does not mean that you should call him a liar. On the contrary, it means trying to negotiate independently of trust. Do not let anyone else doubt your interpretation of his statements as a personal attack. Do not expect a car dealer to simply give you a watch or a car just by saying you have money in the bank, just as a car dealer will normally check your credit (because there are many people who can Do not trust). You can do the same with the other party's statements. Trying to clarify factual statements reduces the incentive to cheat and reduces the risk of deception (Abramson, 2020).

Delay to gain time
One tactic to gain time is to slow down the negotiation process. You can use this tactic when you do not want to respond immediately to the other party's suggestion. For this purpose, you can use the following tactics, without affecting the outcome of the negotiation: • Interrupt when the other person makes the offer, but he or she thinks you need more explanation.
• Answer each question with another. It never hurts to get more information. Pause from time to time under the pretext of consulting with other members of the group. This will be justified, especially if you have stated from the outset that you will need to consult with your superiors in order to make a decision (Abramson, 2020).

Interrupting negotiations
You must be willing and able to pause in order to achieve a specific goal or to determine your competitor's acceptance of that goal. If you are unable or unwilling to achieve your goals, you will not have good business negotiations at the beginning. In many cases, the only way to determine your competitor's level of flexibility on a particular issue is to deliberately cut off negotiations. Given the above and the situation of the negotiations, this strategy can be used in different ways. Politely request that the negotiations be suspended for four hours. Indicate that since no progress has been made, you would like the postponement to be postponed to next week, or you can firmly tell your opponent to leave the meeting, without mentioning the timing of future negotiations. When deciding to stop negotiations, you need to identify two tactics that have potential risks.
First, when your competitor threatens to interrupt a negotiation, he or she may meet with your coworkers and senior executives and convince them that despite his or her honesty and best offer, you are ruining the deal. Appliance marketers and resellers are particularly adept at enforcing the company's rules, whether formally or informally, to accomplish this. The best defense against this reciprocal tactic is to share this view with your co-workers before your opponent realizes it. In such environments, issues should be justified through senior executives and key members of each office who can influence the outcome of the negotiations.
Second, when you decide to temporarily block a negotiation, your competitor may confront you by threatening to prevent the negotiations from continuing forever. Negotiators who play a key role sometimes realize this threat by canceling hotel reservations or increasing the number of trips and the like.
The best defense against constant intermittent tactics is to ignore it. The winner is almost always with you. If that deal is worth doing, your competitor may pack up and leave the meeting, but they will come back like migratory swallows, and despite all this staging, it seems very likely that in the meantime, your competitor will participate. Or your company will fail, because there are a few more sessions left to negotiate. Although there are exceptions that need to be addressed in other ways, most of the time your competitor is not as willing to trade as you are, provided you represent the buyer. Another important point to note in this regard is the situation in which your competitor has the opportunity to replace your company with another company. When your opponent has no real choice (or at least no choice), the threat of a break in negotiations will not be the least risky for you. This threat will be most dangerous to you when your opponent has a chance to negotiate with you and negotiates with another competitor who meets all or part of his goals.

Suspicious and vague powers
The other party may pretend that you, like you, have full authority to compromise when this is not the case. After putting as much pressure on you as possible and reaching an agreement with you that you think is a final one, they just announce that they need to get someone else's approval and approval. The design of this technique and this technique is to give them the opportunity (to add another bite to the apple). This is a bad situation that should not be caught. If you are the only one who has the privilege to make a point, you are the only one who will give the point, not them. Do not assume that the other party's representatives have full authority simply because they are present at the negotiating table. An insurance claimant, attorney, or salesperson may act in a way that you think your flexibility will meet with the flexibility of the other party. You may later find that what you thought was a definite agreement is seen by the negotiator as merely a ground for further negotiations. Before embarking on any transaction, research the other party's authority and make it clear. It is very reasonable and legitimate to ask: How much authority do you have over these negotiations in particular? If the answer to this question is vague. You can say that you want to negotiate with someone who has real authority, or make it very clear that you, in turn, reserve the freedom of equal opportunity to reconsider any of the points in the contract.

Take control of the agenda
One of the other negotiation tactics is to prepare a formal agenda for each session of important negotiations. The agenda that your team prepares has many advantages.
First, the agenda forces you to consider your priorities and goals for the meeting. However, this study, in turn, cannot be considered a tactic, and its value is not overemphasized. In most cases, negotiators are only aware of the issues or issues they want to raise in a particular meeting. They think less about the order of the meeting or the psychological benefits that can be gained by posing problems in a particular way. The agenda allows the person to think about these issues before the formal discussion begins.
Second, the agenda strengthens your ability to take control of the negotiation session, thereby increasing your potential ability to achieve your team goals. Taking control of the meeting is almost always considered an important advantage, especially when it enables you to implement pre-planned strategies, or prevent you from being able to execute your competitor's plans. A carefully designed agenda enables you to address issues of importance given in a way that even solves outstanding issues. And reassured that important interrelated issues would be considered together.
Third, the agenda usually upsets the competitors' balance, because most negotiators do not have the skills to prepare the agenda, let alone offer a good agenda. When you surprise your opponent when unprepared, the agenda strengthens your ability to apply your strategies and undermines your competitor's efforts to apply different negotiation policies. As mentioned above, this psychological advantage enhances your ability to take control of the negotiation session.
Finally, the agenda can be used as an indirect way to present your issues among other issues in the meeting. Likewise, the agenda can be used as an accurate tool to apply or reinforce a particular negotiation strategy. Only setting the agenda and forcing the competitor to accept it will enable you to make the initial preparations for success. Your competitor directly or indirectly acknowledges that the issues you are considering are worth addressing. Regardless, specific language or agenda can be used to apply or reinforce specific strategies.

Dealing with deception and trickery
Skilled negotiators use body language to mislead the other party. Do not pay attention only to the physical symptoms of the body. Even a person who intends to be violent can smile. Someone who shows interest may actually be ready to attack. To get a general insight into the behavior of the reciprocal group, consider their body language individually and in groups. Even when you feel that the negotiation process is going well, be aware of the symptoms you are receiving.

Recognize negotiation tricks
During the negotiation, you will encounter tricks from the other side. It is common for the other party to do tricks to give you less points. In fact, negotiation tricks are practiced in such a way as to make you feel weak in achieving your desire, and thus reduce your resistance to the other party's desire (Brett & Mitchell, 2019). Of course, you may not be interested in such tricks, but you should be able to identify and neutralize them so that you do not stray from the main purpose of the negotiation and do not waste time. You need to practice to identify the other side's tactics. To identify and counter such tactics, without making gross mistakes, carefully monitor the other party and remember that there are usually three goals in implementing deceptive tactics: • Entertain you so that the other party can dominate the negotiation.
• Transfer the emphasis of negotiation to cases that end the transaction solely in favor of the other party. • Deceive your group by ending the negotiation ahead of time and before fully agreeing to the agreed terms.

Neutralize negotiation tricks
A good negotiator should be able to identify and counteract the common tricks and tactics used in negotiation. Identify and neutralize tricks that may cause serious damage in the negotiation.

Dealing with useless behaviors
Sudden and emotional behaviors on the part of those who attended the meeting changed the atmosphere of negotiation all at once. This outburst of emotion can indicate doubt, confusion, or violence, but the most common cause is the anger of a group member. Useless behaviors are a kind of negotiation trick that diverts the negotiation attention from the subject to a specific person. When this happens, see if it's a bargaining chip, or an unintentional one, and immediately get the discussion back on track. Remember that decisions can be made through negotiation. If you manage these situations well, they are less likely to repeat these tricks.

Facing tactical ambiguities
Sometimes, no matter how hard you try to be transparent, the other party insists on providing vague answers and incorrect and bottomless information. Be aware of the alternatives that people use for honest answers and ask for clear and precise answers; do not let the game get in the way (Nygren, 2017).
• Avoidance: Politicians are those groups that are well trained to express anything other than the right answer! When asking a question, do not accept marginal answers. When you are told that they are thinking about your topic and then responding to you, all you can really do is insist on setting a specific time. Ask, "When can I get an answer from you?" And then write the answer in front of the person. • Positive Comment Replaces Main Answer: Someone who does not want to answer your question may say something close to what you are looking for instead of an explicit answer. This technique is especially common when you are looking for a promise or commitment from the other person and the party does not want to go under it. Never accept a positive comment as the answer to your question and be in Egypt to get the real answer. • Anonymous pronouns: Notice pronouns like us, him and them. Pronouns can confuse you completely. During the negotiation, ask the other party to use certain names and correct names so that everything is clear. This prevents something called misconceptions from being raised later. Some people say that ambiguity is one of the characteristics of negotiation. But this shows that they are unprofessional.
What should be done if the negotiating party uses inappropriate tricks and tricks? Principled negotiation is good in every way, but what if the negotiator deceives you, or tries to distract you from the facts? Or if he raises his demands exponentially just when you are on the verge of reaching an agreement, what is the task? There are many tactics and tricks that people can use to get points from you. Everyone knows some of these tricks, tricks and tactics. The spectrum begins with lying and psychological abuse, and ends with various forms of pressure tactics. These tactics and tricks may help the person who engages in them to make significant use of the demands of the parties in the conflict, and to win in this conflict of demands. These tactics can be called deceptive bargaining (Lewicki & Hiam, 2006).
If people know that a deceptive bargaining tactic has been used against them, most people will try to respond in one of the following two ways. The standard response is that they do not try to deal with it, because the person sitting in the boat does not like to shake the boat. You can keep the other party in doubt and hesitation, or get angry and promise yourself that you will never deal with such people. In the beginning, you hope that you will be able to use your maximum power and remain silent in the face of deception. Most people choose this method. They hope that if they surrender this time, the other side will be satisfied and will not ask for more points. Sometimes this method is an effective answer, but often the adoption of this method fails.The second conventional response is reciprocity. If they adopt a hasty negotiation strategy, you will reciprocate the same strategy. If they try to deceive you, you do the same. If they threaten, you will reciprocate the threat. If they limit themselves to their position, you too, even more severely, confine yourself to the range of positions. Eventually one of the parties either surrenders or the negotiations are often interrupted.
These deceptive tactics are illegitimate and incorrect. Because they block the way to mutual compromise. These tactics are designed by only one party to use this method. It is assumed that the other side does not know these tactics or is expected to consciously tolerate these tactics. Deceptive bargaining tactics are one-sided proposals that relate to the negotiation method and the negotiation game method that the parties adopt against each other. To counter such tactics, you should try to correct the negotiation process and lead it to the right path by adopting a principled negotiation method.
When the other party uses trickery, do the following 3 things: • Know the tactics.
• Clearly state the issue.
• Question and negotiate the legitimacy and desirability of the tactic.

Maintain Excellence
Superiority means having power, the power by which you can influence the outcome of negotiations. When arguing, remind the other party what the consequences of rejecting your offer will be, and thus maintain a strong position against him. Provide an opportunity for the other party to easily change their position. By doing so, you strengthen existing relationships and prevent negotiations from reaching a dead end.

Conclusion
Due to its human nature, the discussion of negotiation is very complex and one should be familiar with its principles, techniques, solutions and tricks. In the present age, dialogue is the only logical solution to problems at various levels. Many wars and conflicts may have been caused by a lack of proper communication through dialogue. You can increase your bargaining power by choosing the right strategies that meet the motivational needs of your competitors. Learning and using negotiation techniques and strategies requires a deep understanding of the factors that motivate human behavior. The purpose of writing this article is to state that familiarity with these strategies and tricks is definitely needed and can be used as well as what actions can be done when faced with these strategies and tricks. Realizing these issues creates an obligation for us to think for a moment and see if we are familiar with the principles, techniques, strategies, and tricks of negotiation if we are the negotiator or the negotiator and in the larger dimension, the