This is strange: it seems as though intent refers to "what you really want out of the negotiation, deep down", whereas the goal is the specific concession one wants from their opponent in the negotiation.
But then, how could it be advisable to ignore, or possible to change, that intent? It seems like, at best, a recipe for "winning" without getting anything that matters out of it, despite the stipulations at the end.
Good question! There’s a lot I didn’t go into here to keep it brief / readable. Maybe this is me misunderstanding your point but the post says specifically NOT to avoid your intent. My point is that you can know what you want out of it at an object level without being honest with yourself about deeper psychological stuff driving you during the negotiation.
It’s true that you could get a win without getting what you want. This isn’t exactly the failure mode I see though. The real scenario is actually that you get less of what you want at object level because you’re trying to get something else that’s abstract / personal (like vengeance in the example), that makes you less effective during the negotiation process itself.
It’s not that knowing what you want out of it is bad, and also the canonical advice about knowing what you want isn’t bad, nor that people say “ignore your intent“. It’s more that I haven’t seen this point treated directly as a key factor in successful negotiation.
In terms of changing intent, this is a really good question. The advice I’d generally give is something simple but not easy like “be careful how you act on intent“. The idea is not to completely rid yourself of distracting / unconstructive intent. That’s usually too hard to do during a process. The approach is to try to 1) notice what it is in the first place, 2) notice when it’s misaligned with your goals 3) pay attention to how it might be effecting your actions out of alignment with those goals 4) reconsider actions from this intent when they’re misaligned with your goals.
Hm... to clarify this, maybe I should just ask outright: *is* the woman in your example acting misguidedly, and if so, why?
My intuition would be to say that, if she wants vengeance deep down, then that's what she *should* try to aim for in her negotiations, not restitution. (Although this leaves open the question of whether refusing the payouts is good tactics in service of that intent.)
If I'm understanding you right, it seems like you think it is misguided to prioritize her intent over the nomonal goal of the negotiation, although I'm not clear on the reasons why. (In fact, I kind of assumed your goals would be entirely beholden to your intentions.)
Is it just a matter of stipulation here that goals are the thing that matter, maybe? Or am I just not getting the setup here?
In her telling, restitution is the primary goal. Desire for vengeance was a quiet thing she admitted with some pressing.
Interesting point re: vengeance as a goal vs intent, but vengeance isn't a specific or achievable enough goal in this case to be useful for negotiation. For one thing, the opponent isn't going to pay anyways, an insurance company is. So hurting the other party monetarily isn't really going to achieve vengeance.
More psychologically, she wants an outcome that isn't really achievable vis a vis a long court battle. Maybe the deeper desire beyond vengeance is something like "getting relief from feeling betrayed" and vengeance is instrumental to that. The court proceedings have actually been psychologically torturous FOR HER.
All this to say, the woman in the story (true story by the way), is letting the desire for vengeance (or whatever is beneath that) cloud her judgement with regard to her object-level goal of restitution. They are misaligned.
Since the case hasn't happened, I can't honestly tell you if it's going to pan out. But having reviewed it myself, I don't think the expected value is on her side here. Regardless of win or lose, being pushed to 2028 is counter to her object goal of "get money sooner rather than later", and I don't think years of court depositions are going to give her any vengeance or relief sadly.
This is strange: it seems as though intent refers to "what you really want out of the negotiation, deep down", whereas the goal is the specific concession one wants from their opponent in the negotiation.
But then, how could it be advisable to ignore, or possible to change, that intent? It seems like, at best, a recipe for "winning" without getting anything that matters out of it, despite the stipulations at the end.
Good question! There’s a lot I didn’t go into here to keep it brief / readable. Maybe this is me misunderstanding your point but the post says specifically NOT to avoid your intent. My point is that you can know what you want out of it at an object level without being honest with yourself about deeper psychological stuff driving you during the negotiation.
It’s true that you could get a win without getting what you want. This isn’t exactly the failure mode I see though. The real scenario is actually that you get less of what you want at object level because you’re trying to get something else that’s abstract / personal (like vengeance in the example), that makes you less effective during the negotiation process itself.
It’s not that knowing what you want out of it is bad, and also the canonical advice about knowing what you want isn’t bad, nor that people say “ignore your intent“. It’s more that I haven’t seen this point treated directly as a key factor in successful negotiation.
In terms of changing intent, this is a really good question. The advice I’d generally give is something simple but not easy like “be careful how you act on intent“. The idea is not to completely rid yourself of distracting / unconstructive intent. That’s usually too hard to do during a process. The approach is to try to 1) notice what it is in the first place, 2) notice when it’s misaligned with your goals 3) pay attention to how it might be effecting your actions out of alignment with those goals 4) reconsider actions from this intent when they’re misaligned with your goals.
Hm... to clarify this, maybe I should just ask outright: *is* the woman in your example acting misguidedly, and if so, why?
My intuition would be to say that, if she wants vengeance deep down, then that's what she *should* try to aim for in her negotiations, not restitution. (Although this leaves open the question of whether refusing the payouts is good tactics in service of that intent.)
If I'm understanding you right, it seems like you think it is misguided to prioritize her intent over the nomonal goal of the negotiation, although I'm not clear on the reasons why. (In fact, I kind of assumed your goals would be entirely beholden to your intentions.)
Is it just a matter of stipulation here that goals are the thing that matter, maybe? Or am I just not getting the setup here?
I love these questions! thanks for engaging.
In her telling, restitution is the primary goal. Desire for vengeance was a quiet thing she admitted with some pressing.
Interesting point re: vengeance as a goal vs intent, but vengeance isn't a specific or achievable enough goal in this case to be useful for negotiation. For one thing, the opponent isn't going to pay anyways, an insurance company is. So hurting the other party monetarily isn't really going to achieve vengeance.
More psychologically, she wants an outcome that isn't really achievable vis a vis a long court battle. Maybe the deeper desire beyond vengeance is something like "getting relief from feeling betrayed" and vengeance is instrumental to that. The court proceedings have actually been psychologically torturous FOR HER.
All this to say, the woman in the story (true story by the way), is letting the desire for vengeance (or whatever is beneath that) cloud her judgement with regard to her object-level goal of restitution. They are misaligned.
Since the case hasn't happened, I can't honestly tell you if it's going to pan out. But having reviewed it myself, I don't think the expected value is on her side here. Regardless of win or lose, being pushed to 2028 is counter to her object goal of "get money sooner rather than later", and I don't think years of court depositions are going to give her any vengeance or relief sadly.