MAKING A DECISION, ANALYZING THE SITUATION AND WHEN “WANT” RUNS AHEAD OF EVERYTHING ELSE.

The saying “Your perspective depends on where you sit” holds true.

We use this simple truth with our students to illustrate the differences in interests between people in various positions within a business organization. These differing interests lead to positional conflicts. For instance, divisions focused on the market prioritize flexibility and the ability to adapt product offerings based on market needs. In contrast, production departments prefer stability in manufacturing processes; once things are fine-tuned, they’d rather avoid constant adjustments.

At Media-Key, our company encounters these dynamics regularly when working on corporate orders. But yesterday, I experienced a real-life situation that highlighted how different strategies and life stances can lead people to interpret the same situation or even the same news very differently. Not just differently—diametrically opposite! It’s like seeing a complete reversal, where “wants” shape interpretations, rather than interpretations forming based on unbiased analysis.

Three women—two of whom have been friends for many years—are currently in evacuation abroad, and each has made different decisions regarding the near future.

One of the friends decided to stay in the country where she evacuated, bringing along her whole family, including her parents and children. She traveled back to Ukraine to get documents, came back, and started saying that things were really bad, that there was no point in waiting for positive changes. She was ready to naturalize and started learning the language of her new country. She supported her views with interpretations of news she read on various online channels.

The second friend also went back home to pick up warmer clothes from the same city. She decided that she would be moving back. She said things were good at home and that the end of the crisis was near. “Besides, there’s nothing threatening at home now,” she added. And she even referenced news articles to back her views, saying that they could be interpreted that way.

The third woman visited the same city during the same period to check on her relatives. She returned feeling down. “The city is different, the people are strangers. There are no familiar locals left, just displaced people. I have nothing against them, but they aren’t my people.” In the parking lot of her building, there were few cars; the elevators were empty, the building half-abandoned. People had left. She feels she must return because of her family business that sustains them, but when? She doesn’t know. And, she added, the news even hints at worsening conditions for the time being. So she waits, hoping for the time when she can return home.

Watching and listening to all three, I realized how easily we can become captive to our own desires and decisions. The subject is the same, the news is the same, but each person’s stance dictates a different interpretation, one that aligns with and reinforces the validity of the decision each has made.

On the surface, it seems simple and logical. You have yourself, your interests, and an analysis of the situation in which your interests might be fulfilled. You analyze, assess how well the current situation matches your interests, and decide your next move.

Then I stumbled upon a simple realization—every meta-position and reflective analysis becomes nullified if what I want eclipses the actual situation. But then, what is the “actual situation”? It’s still only our perception—how we understand it, how we see it.

“Oh, it’s easy to deceive me… I’m happy to be deceived myself!”

So how can we distinguish the “wheat from the chaff,” separating outcomes clouded by personal desires from those that accurately reflect reality?

It’s essential to understand if my self-determination—my “wants”—emerged from analyzing the situation or if, conversely, my “wants” shaped and determined my interpretation of that analysis.

For the graduates of our school, this is understood and, I hope, strictly followed: remember that the Analysis of the situation (the current state of things) comes first, followed by Self-determination (what I want). For everyone else, let me explain with an example.

Even if I really want to sunbathe on the beach, I first analyze the situation—I check the weather. Then I decide if I “want” to be on the beach and go accordingly. If it’s raining, I can only sunbathe in a tanning salon, not at the beach.

The opposite scenario would be that I “want” sunshine and head to the beach regardless of the weather forecast, hoping the forecast is wrong and the sun will come out. The result is obvious.

So: we understand our interests. We analyze the situation in which these interests can be met. Based on the analysis, we determine to what extent the current situation aligns with our interests and then decide what we want for our future. Only after this do we create the circumstances that would allow our vision to become reality; we plan, and we act. Then, we observe, analyze, and assess the situation that our actions have created.

I hope that keeping our “wants” in check and understanding the sequence of actions will allow us all to make well-informed decisions!

Take care of yourselves! Stay mindful!

Tatyana Budantsova