Most of us can think clearly when we’re alone, at a desk, with time.

Clarity collapses when it’s public, high-stakes, and slightly hostile: a hearing, an appeal, a difficult meeting, a performance review, a call with someone who can say “yes” or “no” to something important.

Recently I was in that setting. I had a reasonable argument, some written submissions, and a kind decision-maker. I still walked away feeling I’d done less than I was capable of.

Not because I’m not analytical.

Because I wasn’t prepared for the combination of:

  • stress
  • time pressure
  • a formal environment
  • and another human actively pushing back.

This post is not about the case itself. It’s about what I learnt about thinking under pressure, and what I want to do differently next time. If it’s useful to you too, good.

I’ll structure this around three phases:

  1. Before: How to prepare when you don’t have much time
  2. During: How to think cleanly under fire
  3. After: How to learn without obsessing

1. Before: Preparation for busy people

“Next time I’ll prepare more” is vague and unhelpful. Most of us have jobs and lives that will always push against long, perfect preparation.

The question I now ask is:

If I only have 60–90 minutes to prepare, what will move the needle the most?

I’ve settled on four things.

1.1 Define the decision question in one line

Before touching any documents, write this on paper:

“The decision-maker has to decide X, based on Y.”

Examples:

  • “Does my employer extend this project / contract based on my explanation?”
  • “Does this panel find there was an error in how my case was handled?”
  • “Does this person agree to give me funding / approval?”

That one line stops you wandering. You’re not there to discuss fairness in the abstract or your life story. You’re there to help someone answer one question in your favour.

1.2 Reduce your case to two or three pillars

A “pillar” is a single, independent reason why the decision should go your way.

Write them as short sentences:

  • Pillar 1: The process relied on an assumption that isn’t true.
  • Pillar 2: My actual position was mis-stated or misunderstood.
  • Pillar 3: I acted reasonably based on the information provided.

You don’t need ten points. You need two or three strong ones that you can repeat without getting lost.

If a thought doesn’t support a pillar, it probably doesn’t belong in the hearing.

1.3 Write micro-scripts, not speeches

Full speeches fall apart the moment someone interrupts you.

Instead, for each pillar, prepare:

  • a one-sentence version, and
  • a three-sentence version.

Example:

One sentence: “My core point is that I was never given the key information I’m now being judged against.”

Three sentences: “The only communications I received were administrative and didn’t explain my rights or options. I was never told there was a specific time frame or process I had to follow. So when I’m now evaluated as if I knew that from the start, I don’t think that’s a fair basis.”These micro-scripts are like mental index cards. Under stress you can grab them and expand as needed.

1.4 Pre-write five hostile questions

This is the preparation that most directly improves “thinking speed” later.

Take ten minutes to write down the worst questions you might get, the ones that make your stomach tighten a little:

  • “Why didn’t you say this earlier?”
  • “Why did you wait so long to act?”
  • “Isn’t this just your opinion?”
  • “Even if that feels unfair, the rule is clear, isn’t it?”
  • “Are you asking us to rewrite the rules just for you?”

Then write short, structured answers. They don’t have to be perfect. The point is to have walked that path once before you’re on the spot.

2. During: Thinking cleanly under fire

Once you’re in the room (or on the video call), the game is different. You’re managing your own nervous system as much as the content.

Here are the habits I wish I’d had in place earlier.

2.1 Use a simple answer structure

A useful default:

Anchor → Reason → Link back

Example:

“No, that’s not an accurate description of what happened. The information I received only covered payment, not my rights or options. That’s why I’m saying the process, as it applied to me, wasn’t fair.”

You:

  • answer clearly,
  • give one reason,
  • and tie it back to a pillar.

It’s clean, and it prevents you from spiralling into long, scattered explanations.

2.2 Buy yourself thinking time on purpose

You are allowed to pause. You are allowed to ask for the question again.

Stock phrases:

  • “Could I have a moment to think about that?”
  • “If I’ve understood correctly, you’re asking whether… [restate]. In that case…”
  • “From my perspective, the key point is…”

Restating the question is not a weakness. It’s a legitimate technique and gives you two or three seconds to form a structured answer.

2.3 Challenge misstatements calmly

This is the bit I want to improve most.

In formal settings, people will sometimes:

  • summarise your position inaccurately, or
  • attribute a statement to you that you don’t recognise.

The instinct is often either to freeze or to launch into a long defence.

A cleaner approach is one sentence:

“With respect, I don’t accept that as an accurate summary of my position.”

Followed by a simple request:

“Could you point me to where, in my written material, I said that?”

Or:

“My position has consistently been X, not Y. May I clarify that briefly?”

You’re not being “aggressive”. You’re being precise about what you did and didn’t say.

If I go into another similar situation, I want one line written in front of me:

“If they put words in your mouth, ask them calmly where you said them.”

2.4 Keep a one-page “battle card”

Have a single sheet of paper in front of you with:

  • the decision question at the top
  • 2–3 pillars in bullet points
  • 2–3 stock phrases you want to remember

That page is an anchor when stress starts compressing your working memory.

3. After: learning without self-destruction

The predictable pattern after a difficult hearing, meeting, or presentation is:

  • replay everything,
  • spot ten better answers you “should have” given,
  • conclude you’re terrible under pressure.

That’s not learning. That’s self-attack disguised as analysis.

A better debrief is three questions on one page:

  1. What did I actually do well? (e.g. “I stayed polite”, “I didn’t freeze completely”, “I got the main point out at least once.”)

  2. Where did I get stuck? (e.g. “When they misquoted me, I didn’t challenge it.”)

  3. What pattern do I want to apply next time? (e.g. “If someone attributes a statement to me, I will ask them where I said it.”)

Turn one regret into one simple rule for the future. That’s enough.

Not about being “more aggressive”

I walked out of my own hearing thinking, “I should have been more aggressive.”

After sitting with it, I don’t think “aggressive” is the right word.

What I actually wanted was:

  • more precision (“that’s not what I said”),
  • more assertiveness (“could you show me where in my letter that appears?”), and
  • more structure under pressure.

You don’t need to raise your voice or dominate the room. You need to:

  • know your pillars,
  • protect your own words,
  • and keep bringing the discussion back to the real decision question.

That’s a skill set. It can be trained.

A simple template you can reuse

If you ever find yourself heading into a stressful, formal conversation, this is the minimal prep I’d now do, even with a busy week:

  1. Write the decision question in one line.
  2. List 2–3 pillars.
  3. For each pillar: write a one-sentence and three-sentence version.
  4. Write five hostile questions and short answers.

  5. Prepare two challenge lines:

    • “I don’t accept that characterisation of my position.”
    • “Could you point me to where I said that?”

Then take that single sheet in with you.

You won’t become a courtroom advocate overnight. But you will give your thinking a structure that survives contact with stress, formality, and another human pushing back.

That’s enough to change the experience from “I fell apart” to “I held my ground, and I know exactly what to improve next time.”