Alessio Vinassa on How to Make Decisions Under Pressure

My view, as Alessio Vinassa, on how to make decisions under pressure is simple: examine the sequence between what happens and what you do. The event–interpretation–state–action–result model helps leaders separate facts from assumptions, recognise fear without obeying it, and choose a response they can test rather than defend.

How to make decisions under pressure using five steps

Better decisions begin by making the mental process behind them visible.

A difficult event does not arrive with a complete explanation attached. A customer delays payment, an investor postpones a meeting, or a product misses its target; your mind supplies the meaning, often before you notice.

That meaning influences your emotional state. Your state shapes your actions, and those actions contribute to the result you later treat as evidence.

1. Event: What happened that can be observed or verified?
2. Interpretation: What meaning am I assigning to it?
3. State: What emotional and physical condition is that interpretation creating?
4. Action: What am I about to do because of that condition?
5. Result: What did the action produce, and what should I learn?

This is a practical leadership model, not a claim that every decision follows a perfectly linear psychological sequence. Its value is that it exposes places where you can intervene.

In my work as an entrepreneur and investor at BlockTech Group, I care about the reasoning behind a decision as much as its presentation. A confident recommendation can still rest on an assumption nobody has checked.

The goal is not to eliminate fear. It is to prevent fear from becoming an unexamined instruction.

How do you separate facts from assumptions?

Describe the event in verifiable terms before deciding what it means.

Step 1: Identify the event without adding a verdict

Consider a hypothetical situation: a major customer has not paid an invoice due three days ago. That is an event; “we are losing the account” is an interpretation.

These statements demand different responses. An overdue invoice requires investigation and possibly collection measures, while a threatened account may require a commercial intervention.

Start with three questions:

• What do I know directly, and what have I only been told?
• What would another person be able to verify?
• What information is missing that could change the decision?

Precision is not administrative detail. It prevents the team from mobilising around a problem that has not yet been established.

Step 2: Examine the meaning you supplied

Once the facts are clear, write down your explanation separately. Then ask: What am I assuming, what else could explain this, and what evidence would change my mind?

The invoice might be delayed by an approval problem, a dispute, or financial distress. You do not need to assume the most reassuring explanation; you need to distinguish possibilities from conclusions.

At 22, after making my first million dollars, I was left with approximately €2,200 and a €180,000 payment due after two ventures failed. That experience gave me reasons to take financial warning signs seriously, but a past loss does not prove what a new event means.

Experience should sharpen questions, not make every explanation feel certain. This is why keeping confidence accountable to evidence matters under pressure.

How can leaders interrupt reactive decisions?

Identify the state driving your next move, then choose an action tied to an objective rather than emotional relief.

Step 3: Recognise your state

An interpretation such as “this customer is abandoning us” can create fear, anger, or urgency. That state may narrow your attention until confrontation feels like the only responsible response.

Ask yourself: What am I feeling, what am I being pushed to do, and does the situation require that speed? Also check simple conditions such as exhaustion or agitation before treating your current certainty as sound judgment.

You do not need to become completely calm before acting. You need enough awareness to stop confusing the intensity of a feeling with the strength of the evidence.

A brief pause can mean leaving an angry message unsent, asking a colleague to challenge your conclusion, or reviewing the underlying numbers. Where immediate containment is necessary, contain the risk first; do not use reflection as an excuse to ignore a live problem.

Step 4: Choose an action with a defined purpose

Return to the overdue invoice. An accusatory call may discharge frustration while damaging the relationship and producing little useful information.

A more disciplined first action could be to confirm receipt, establish whether there is a dispute, and request a payment date. In parallel, check the actual cash exposure rather than relying on either panic or reassurance.

Before acting, ask:

• What outcome am I trying to achieve?
• Am I reducing the business risk or only reducing my discomfort?
• What is the smallest useful action that preserves options?
• What evidence would justify escalation?

This is ownership, not passivity. It is also central to my advisory work on leadership and decision-making: strengthening the founder’s judgment rather than making the founder dependent on someone else’s answer.

How do results turn fear into strategy?

Results become strategically useful when you compare them with your expectations and update your assumptions.

Step 5: Review the result without defending yourself

Suppose the customer confirms an internal approval delay and provides a payment date. You have reduced uncertainty, but you have not yet received the money.

The next action should reflect that distinction. Record the commitment, monitor it, and define what happens if it is missed.

Ask: What happened after my action, which assumption was supported or weakened, and what should change next? A favourable result does not automatically validate the process, just as an unfavourable result does not automatically prove the decision was careless.

External conditions and other people’s choices still matter. Accountability means owning your reasoning and response, not pretending you control every outcome.

The result then becomes a new event, restarting the cycle with better information. This is where fear can become strategy: its warning is translated into a test, a response, and a review.

For a practical routine, use five lines before a consequential decision: the verified event, your interpretation, your state, your chosen action, and the result you expect. Afterward, replace the expected result with the observed one.

That discipline connects with what pressure reveals about leadership and the emphasis on clarity and ownership in No One Is Coming. The point is not more paperwork; it is fewer decisions made without understanding why.

Key takeaways

The five-step cycle creates opportunities to interrupt reaction before it becomes a costly commitment.

• Separate event from interpretation: a verified fact and its possible meaning are different things.
• Name your state: fear can signal a risk without proving your explanation.
• Choose purposeful action: pursue information, protection, or progress rather than emotional relief.
• Review and repeat: use results to update your thinking instead of defending your first conclusion.

FAQ

Use the cycle as a decision aid, not as a requirement to delay every response.

What is the event–interpretation–state–action–result model?

It is a five-step framework for examining how an event becomes a response and an outcome. Separating the steps helps leaders identify assumptions, recognise emotional influence, and learn from results.

Can this model help during an urgent business problem?

Yes, even a short check can distinguish an observed threat from an assumed one. Take necessary protective action immediately, then examine the assumptions behind broader or irreversible decisions.

Does making better decisions mean ignoring fear?

No; fear may direct attention toward a genuine exposure. The task is to investigate that exposure and select a proportionate response, rather than allowing the feeling alone to determine the action.