Irina Alexander

A speaker I know recently shared a story that perfectly illustrates what happens when leaders don't communicate during a crisis.

She was on a WestJet flight from Atlanta to Calgary. They lined up on the runway. Started accelerating. They were going about 100 miles an hour when the brakes came on. Hard. The takeoff was aborted.

And then... silence. Five full minutes of complete silence.

Finally, the pilot came on. "Oh yeah, we had to abort takeoff because the caution button came on. We're just going to taxi, look at things, and be on our way."

No acknowledgment of how jarring that was. No explanation. No reassurance.

About 30 minutes later, they're taxiing to another runway. Suddenly: *Bing.* "Flight attendants, please prepare for takeoff."

Zero conversation with passengers. Zero explanation. Zero reassurance that whatever caused the abort had been fixed.

The flight made it to Calgary. Everything was fine. But that's not the point.

When something goes wrong, people need three things:
Acknowledgment: "I know that was scary. I know you're wondering what happened."
Explanation: "Here's what we know. Here's what we're doing."
Reassurance: "Here's why it's safe to proceed."

The pilot didn't do any of those things. And in the absence of information, people assume the worst.

Even though the flight landed safely, that speaker spent the entire time wondering if the problem had been fixed or if they were just hoping for the best.

This applies to every leader. A project behind schedule. An unhappy client. A product that isn't working. Whatever the crisis, your team is looking to you for information. If you don't give it, they'll fill in the gaps themselves with assumptions that are always worse than reality.

Silence doesn't protect people. It creates anxiety.

Your employees are sitting in their version of that plane right now. Something unexpected happened. They're looking at each other wondering what's going on.

Don't leave them in silence.

Full post: https://motivaction.academy/post/communication-during-crisis

𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗺 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵.
We've all heard it. We nod. We agree. Maybe we even share it. But how many of us have actually sat down and mapped who those five people are?

A friend called recently. Someone she hadn't been close to in years had named her as executor in their will. Without asking. Without even telling her until after the paperwork was done. "We used to be close," she said. "But that was years ago. We barely talk now. And she thinks I'm still her person?"

That's the misalignment problem. What you think the relationship is versus what it actually is. What they think the relationship is versus what you think it is.

There's a framework for this. HORS. Hierarchy of Relationships. Four concentric circles: Core, Friends, Peers, Acquaintances.

Most people can visualize this immediately. They get the concept. But when you actually start filling in names, things get uncomfortable. You realize the person you thought was in your core group is actually a peer. Or the person you've been treating like an acquaintance is someone you actually trust at a friend level.

The clarity comes when you ask two questions for each person:
What must they do for me?
What must they never do to/for me?

Those two questions define the boundaries. In your core group, the "must do" list is short but significant. Show up when it matters. Tell me the truth even when it's hard. Protect my confidence.

In your friend group, the lists shift. The expectations are different. Peers have even clearer boundaries. And acquaintances? The boundaries are the widest. When you try to treat a peer like core, or expect core-level support from a friend, the relationship breaks down.

Here's the exercise: Think about your communities. Work. Family. Social groups. For each community, list the 1-4 people who are most influential to you. Not the people you like most. The people who actually shape how you think, feel, and show up.

Place them in the HORS map. Be honest. Not aspirational. Where they actually are. Then ask the two questions for each person. If you can't answer clearly, the relationship probably isn't as defined as you think.

The hard part isn't mapping the circles. It's what you do after. Because once you see where people actually are, you have to decide: Is this where they should be? And here's what makes people uncomfortable: Once you know where someone is in your map, do they know where they are?

Clarity isn't unkind. It's the kindest thing you can do. Because it lets both people know where they stand.

You are the sum of the five people you spend the most time with. But if you don't know who those five people are, you're letting it happen by default instead of by design.

Full post: https://motivaction.academy/post/you-are-the-sum-of-five-people

Just tell me no.

I was scrolling LinkedIn this morning and saw a post from someone I've been trying to reach for months. It triggered me.

Not because they posted. Because they had time to post on LinkedIn but not time to send a ten-second email answering the question I've been asking since December. Is it a no? Is it not the right time? Are you still interested?

Just tell me.

We've been in contact with this corporate client for over a year. Fortune 500 company. Europe-based. Conversations with VPs, decision-makers, multiple departments. They wanted management training. They wanted to partner with us to support first responder training in their community.

The conversations were good. The interest seemed real. And then it went silent. Not silent like "we're thinking about it." Silent like nobody's replying to emails.

So I copied a high-level person who originally brought us in. Within 30 minutes, I got a reply. "Oh, we've been busy. Let's bring this person in for a decision. We'll circle back in December."

Since December, I've followed up. Two emails. Three emails. Polite. Professional. "Just let me know. If now is not the right time, I'll stop bothering you."

No answer.

Here's what's frustrating: You have time to post on LinkedIn. You have time to engage with content. You have time to manage your professional brand.

But you don't have 30 seconds to send an email that says, "Now is not a good time."
When I ask people to just tell me no, I'm not asking for an explanation. I'm asking for closure.

Because when you don't reply, I don't know if you're still thinking about it. So I follow up. I don't know if the email got lost. So I follow up again. I don't know if something changed internally. So I reach out to someone else.

All of that could be avoided with one email. "Thanks for your patience. We've decided not to move forward right now."

That's it. Ten seconds.

But instead, silence.

I get it. Sending a no feels awkward. But ghosting burns the bridge. A clear no is respectful. It closes the loop. And it leaves the door open for the future if things change.

If I stopped replying to a client, it would be unprofessional. If I didn't follow up on a commitment, it would reflect poorly on my business. But somehow, when it's the buyer side, it's acceptable.

"We've been busy." "Things got hectic." Valid reasons for a delay. Not valid reasons for complete silence.

I started saying it out loud in the first conversation: "If we're not the right fit, you won't hurt our feelings by telling us that. But I truly appreciate the courtesy of a reply."

Most people nod. They agree. And then half of them still go silent.

Professional courtesy isn't just about being polite in meetings. It's about following through. Respecting people's time. Closing loops instead of leaving them open.

It's about sending the email that says, "Thanks, but no."

I can handle a no. What I can't handle is silence.

Full post: https://motivaction.academy/post/just-tell-me-

Would you hire a personal trainer who never stepped in a gym?

My least favorite coaches are business coaches who never owned a business other than their coaching business.

To me, it's like hiring a personal trainer who never stepped foot in the gym. Someone who took online courses, got certified, and started telling other people how to build muscle and lose weight.

Would you trust that person to guide your fitness journey? Probably not. So why do we accept this in business coaching?

The coaching industry is unregulated. Anyone can call themselves a coach. Anyone can create a program. Anyone can promise results they've never delivered for themselves, let alone for clients.

Here's what really gets me: There are franchises where you can buy a business coaching franchise without ever running a business. You pay the fee. You get the materials. You get the script. And suddenly, you're a "business coach."

You're teaching people how to scale revenue when you've never scaled revenue. You're advising on hiring and leadership when you've never built a team. You're consulting on operations when you've never actually operationalized anything.

I truly disagree with that.

I've been running businesses since I was 21 (2009), when I opened my first brick-and-mortar. I've been coaching since 2020. And here's what I think qualifies someone to coach business owners: Experience. Real, messy, in-the-trenches experience.

I know what it's like to sign a lease when you're not sure you can make rent. I know what it's like to hire your first employee and realize you have no idea what you're doing. I know what it's like to manage cash flow when revenue is unpredictable.

That's what gives me credibility when I sit across from a business owner and say, "Here's what I'd do." Not a certification. Not a franchise system. Experience.

Here's the gap: Theory doesn't prepare you for reality. When you've never had to make payroll when the bank account is running low, you don't know what that pressure feels like. And you can't coach someone through it if you've never lived it.

If you're a business owner looking for a coach, don't just ask about certifications. Ask about experience. Don't just ask what frameworks they use. Ask what businesses they've built. Don't just ask for testimonials. Ask about their failures and what they learned.

The best coaches aren't the ones who memorized the playbook. They're the ones who wrote it through trial and error, through success and failure, through years of actually doing the work.

Business owners don't need more theory. They need real guidance from people who've actually done the work.

Full post: https://motivaction.academy/post/i-dont-trust-business-coaches

"𝗜 𝘄𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗜'𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝟮𝟬 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗴𝗼."

We've been brought into law enforcement academies to teach emotional resilience and self-mastery to new recruits.

The logic makes sense: catch them early and build the foundation before the trauma accumulates. But the most impactful feedback isn't coming from the recruits. It’s coming from the 15-year veterans sitting in the back of the room.

A Training Sergeant with a major police department and twenty years in law enforcement recently shared his perspective. After bringing the C.A.R.E.S. Program into their Basic Peace Officer Course and Advanced Officer Training Academy, he wrote: "On a personal note, after 20 years in law enforcement, I can say without hesitation that I wish I had received this type of training early in my career. The tools and perspectives provided through the C.A.R.E.S. Program would have significantly enhanced my ability to manage stress, build stronger relationships, and lead more effectively."

Twenty years. And he’s saying he wishes he’d had these tools from day one. We’ve taught many classes over the last few years, and the pattern repeats. Career officers in leadership roles—veterans with 15-20 years on the job—say the same thing: "This would have made a dramatic difference in my career if I'd had it earlier."

Academies are bringing us in because they see the crisis. Recruitment is down, dropouts are increasing, and burnout is at an all-time high. The numbers are staggering: 85% of first responders report mental health symptoms, and PTSD rates are five times higher than in civilians. Yet, only 35% actually use available resources.

So they're asking: What if we taught emotional regulation before the first traumatic call? What if we built resilience before the chronic exposure started? The recruits get it.

They report better stress management and a stronger sense of balance early on. But here’s what the academies didn’t expect: The veterans are leaning in.

In Advanced Officer Training and Crisis Intervention sessions, experienced officers aren't just checking a box—they are recognizing the value for themselves. When a 20-year veteran says "I wish I'd had this earlier," they are really saying: I've been white-knuckling stress for two decades. The nights I couldn't sleep and the relationships I damaged... there were tools for that, and nobody taught them to me. If you're bringing this training into your academy, don't stop at the recruits. They eventually have to work alongside the veterans. The officers who have been doing this for 10, 15, or 20 years need this just as much—maybe more. You don't wait until you're in a shootout to learn how to fire your weapon. You train before you need it. Mental resilience should be no different.

Full post: https://motivaction.academy/post/i-wish-id-had-this-training-earlier

Who the f**k are you?

We walked into our first first responder training room, and you could feel it. The looks. The crossed arms. The body language that said exactly what they were thinking.

You're not one of us. You don't know what we're going through. And you sure as hell don't know what it's like to do this job.

They didn't say it out loud. But we heard it anyway.

And here's the thing: they were right.

We're not in your world, and we're not going to pretend that we are. We won't claim to know what it's like to wear the uniform or face what you face daily.

But here's what we do know: We've worked with individuals facing burnout, PTSD, depression, trauma, and the weight of cumulative stress. Including first responders.

We know what happens when high-pressure work goes unprocessed. We know what chronic stress does to relationships, decision-making, and long-term health.
And here's the difference: We don't teach you how to do your job. You already have phenomenal training.

You don't need to be a police officer to know how to shoot a gun. You don't need to be an EMS professional to know first aid. And we don't need to be first responders to know the weight of the work. The corrosion that destroys people's lives when it goes unaddressed.

What we teach: How to regulate and communicate internally and externally. How to recognize stress before it takes control. How to reset your mindset before emotions drive decisions. How to leave work at work without needing to numb out.

One of the reasons our trainings are received so well? We say out loud what you're thinking about us. We don't hide behind who we're not. We name the elephant in the room.

The numbers: 85% of first responders battle mental health symptoms. PTSD/depression rates 5x higher than civilians. Su***de rates higher than line-of-duty deaths. Yet only 35% use mental health resources.

It's not a lack of toughness. It's that traditional culture emphasized endurance over awareness. Where asking for help is seen as weakness. Where wellness training is deprioritized, underutilized, underfunded, or ineffective.

In the beginning, everyone said how great our training was. But nobody wanted to pay for it. We found a private donor to cover a significant portion. That didn't move the needle either.

What worked? The 30-minute workshops. Short sessions where first responders could see what we actually do. Not theory. Actual tools they could apply immediately.
Those small sessions built trust. One room at a time.

You train before you need it for everything else. You don't wait until you're in a shootout to learn how to fire your weapon.

Mental resilience should be the same.

Full post: https://motivaction.academy/post/who-the-f**k-are-you

We didn't win. We didn't lose. Nobody won.

We placed a bid for a government contract. A leadership retreat. Our bread and butter.

Results were posted. But there were no results. Just a list of everyone who submitted quotes.

I emailed to ask who won. The response: They changed their mind. Nobody won. No award status.

Which sent me into a spiral about wasted resources.

For our quick quote, we invested about 15 hours of work. At a conservative internal cost of $100/hour, that's $1,500 in labor for us alone.

We weren't the only ones. At least 10 other bidders. If each invested similar time, that's $15,000 in private sector resources on a solicitation that resulted in no contract.

Government side? Conservatively 20-30 hours of staff time at $40/hour loaded cost. Another $800-$1,200 in taxpayer money.

This one quick quote that got canceled cost roughly $16,000-$17,000 in combined wasted resources.

So I tried to find data. Official government tracking of how often solicitations get canceled. How much money is wasted.

There is none. The government doesn't track this.

But here's what we can estimate:

An estimated 500,000-700,000 solicitations are issued annually across federal, state, and local government. If 10% get canceled (conservative estimate based on industry experience), that's 50,000-70,000 canceled bids per year.

Government side: At an average of $7,000 in staff time per solicitation, that's $350M-$490M in wasted government labor annually.

Private sector side: Average of 30 vendors per bid × 40 hours prep × $75/hour = $90,000 per canceled bid. At 50,000-70,000 canceled bids, that's $4.5B-$6.3B in private sector time wasted.

Combined: roughly $5-6 billion per year. For bids that produced zero.

The honest caveat: These are working estimates. The actual number could be higher.
And nobody in government is required to report it.

And when you question the inefficiency, people take it personally. "We're doing it by the rules we were given."

But nobody ever questions the rules.

Change doesn't start with blame. It starts with curiosity.

What if we asked: Why did this solicitation get canceled? What could we have known earlier?

What if we tracked: How much time and money is being spent on solicitations that never result in awards?

What if we measured: What is the actual cost of this process, and is there a way to reduce it?

These aren't revolutionary questions. They're basic efficiency questions. The kind any business would ask.

But government doesn't operate like a business.

And maybe that's the problem.

Full post: https://motivaction.academy/post/we-didnt-win-we-didnt-lose-nobody-won

The one pattern I've seen across every business client in the last year, from 5 employees to 20 locations:

They wait too long to fire people.

Not for technical skills. For character.

Here's what happens:

They know the person isn't working. They know there's a flaw. But it's not a skill issue, it's attitude, communication, how they treat people.

So they wait. They hope it gets better. They give another chance. And another.

Meanwhile, the team is watching. And wondering why this person is still here.

Because here's what the team knows: The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.

Every day that person stays, the message is: This behavior is acceptable here.

My position: Hire slow, fire fast, but only for character.

If someone has a skill gap, invest in them. Train them. Be patient with the learning curve.

But if someone has a character flaw that misaligns with your values? If they treat people poorly? If they create a toxic environment?

That's not something you can train away. And waiting won't make it better.

And every single business owner who finally makes the decision says: "I should have done this six months ago."

Every time.

So here's the question: If this person quit tomorrow, would you feel relieved?

If the answer is yes, you already know what you need to do.

You're just waiting for permission. Or for it to get bad enough that you don't have a choice.

But you do have a choice. And the longer you wait, the more it's costing you.

Full post: https://motivaction.academy/post/hire-slow-fire-fast

Nobody taught me these in school. I learned them through bad decisions, blown relationships, and being absolutely certain I was right when I was absolutely wrong.

Six principles that govern how humans behave under pressure:

**Murphy's Law (1949):** Anything that can go wrong will. The leaders who are never surprised planned for failure.

**Parkinson's Law (1955):** Work expands to fill the time you give it. The question isn't how much time you have. It's how much time it actually requires.

**Pareto Principle (1896):** 20% of what you do produces 80% of your results. You already know what your 20% is. And you're still spending most of your time on everything else.

**Dunning-Kruger Effect (1999):** The less you know, the more confident you feel. The most dangerous person in any room is the one who is certain.

**Hanlon's Razor (1980):** Never attribute to malice what can be explained simpler. Most people aren't against you. They're not thinking about you at all.

**Occam's Razor (14th century):** The simplest explanation is usually right. We love complexity. We mistake it for intelligence.

None of these require more information. They require honesty. They require the willingness to look at what's actually happening instead of what's comfortable to believe.

You don't need more information. You need to stop avoiding what you already know.

Full post: https://motivaction.academy/post/the-six-laws-nobody-taught-you

𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗮 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂'𝗿𝗲 𝗹𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴.

You tell yourself camera anxiety is a confidence problem. It's not.
It's your nervous system encountering something unfamiliar and treating it like a threat.

Here's the neuroscience:

When you watch yourself speak, your brain activates the Default Mode Network—the system responsible for how you construct your identity.

You're not just watching a video. You're updating who you believe you are. And if the person on screen doesn't match the person you think you are, your nervous system panics.

But your nervous system can learn. It learns through repetition, not perfection.

The Mere Exposure Effect (documented by psychologist Robert Zajonc, 1968): The more your nervous system encounters something, the safer it becomes.

Repeated exposure reduces amygdala reactivity. The threat response quiets. The prefrontal cortex strengthens.

Your body stops treating the camera like danger. And starts treating it like data.

So the work isn't to get it right once. The work is to show up again and again until your body stops treating visibility as danger.

When your body stops resisting you—you stop performing. And you start communicating.

And communication is what leads. Not perfectly. Consistently.

Full post: https://motivaction.academy/post/your-camera-knows-youre-lying