communication skills Archives - Clover Hill Diaries

Social media gives us a choice between curiosity and cruelty

We do not have to solve world peace to start practising it

Yesterday, I put a post on our community Facebook page for a friend who had to find a new home for her little dog, Teddy.

She asked me to post it because she was petrified people would abuse her. That fear tells us something about social media before the comments even begin.

The truth was more complicated and it was also private. My friend had waited nine months to find accommodation. When they finally found somewhere to live, their circumstances meant she could not take Teddy with them. The landlord had not refused him. They were not looking for an excuse to give him away. They were making a painful decision after running out of other options.

We cannot ask children to practise peace if we do not model it

None of that was in the Facebook post because nobody should have to publish the details of their private life to avoid being abused by strangers. People could have asked a question before deciding they knew the story.

Some did. They wanted information that could help Teddy find the right family:

Is Teddy comfortable with children?
Does he get along with other animals?
Is he house trained?
Is he leash trained?
Is the yard fenced?
Can a prospective family meet Teddy and his owner?
Would a rescue organisation be able to help with the process?

One family said they were looking to adopt a dog and would like to meet him. Another person offered information about rescue organisations. Others tagged people who might be interested.

These comments moved the conversation forward. They gathered information, offered practical help and kept the focus on finding the right home for Teddy.

Then came the assumptions:

The landlord cannot refuse a pet.
The owner does not understand the rental laws.
This must be an excuse to get rid of the dog.
The owner should have found somewhere that accepted Teddy.
I could not legally rehome somebody else’s dog.

The landlord had not refused Teddy. My friend was not asking me to rehome him. I had posted on their behalf because I belonged to the Facebook group and I cared enough about them and Teddy to cop any abuse. It was also a chance to prove my community was compassionate.

People had created an entire story from information they did not have.

The cruellest comment suggested my friend was using her rental accommodation as an excuse to get rid of a beautiful dog. That person knew nothing about her circumstances, how long she had waited for accommodation or the decisions she had faced. She filled every gap with the worst possible explanation.

A few days earlier, I had spent 95 minutes with almost 100 young people at the Cowra World Peace Day Youth Forum. We practised curiosity, creativity, collaboration and communication.

I showed them a picture of a cat, a mouse and a flea. Each saw the same situation differently. The cat, the mouse and the flea had different information, different concerns and a different view of what was happening.

Then they met Pickles. The students could not discover Pickles’ story by guessing. They had to ask questions, listen to the answers and use each answer to decide what to ask next.

I also showed them someone pushing into a tuckshop line. At first, the person looked rude and entitled. Then the students learned she was collecting a first-aid kit for someone who had been injured.

The picture had not changed. The information had.

The Facebook discussion about Teddy became the same lesson played out among adults.

Some people saw a gap in the information and asked a question. Others saw the same gap and inserted an accusation.

The people who asked questions helped. They learned more about Teddy, offered advice, found possible families and identified safer ways to manage the adoption. The people who made assumptions added distress to someone already going through a painful time.

Every conversation is a chance to practise peace

Curiosity would not have required a long conversation. One question could have changed everything:

“Can you tell us more about the circumstances?”

That question leaves room for an answer. An accusation closes the door before the person has spoken.

I keep wondering what those young people in Cowra will do the next time they see something that looks wrong. Will they decide they already know the whole story? Or will they remember the cat, the mouse and the flea, Pickles and the person pushing into the tuckshop line?

Will they ask another question before they judge?

After reading the comments about Teddy, I hope they do.

Agriculture wanted better storytellers. Then we blew up the model that made them

I am about to spend World Peace Day talking to a group of 10 to 15 year olds about curiosity, critical thinking, communication and collaboration. Which is slightly confronting when you start looking around at how adults behave.

Before the workshop, the students will answer a short survey. They will answer the same questions afterwards. I am interested to see what changes, and I am also realistic enough to know they are unlikely to walk out several hours later transformed into world-class collaborators who calmly interrogate every assumption before breakfast.

That is because people do not change overnight. Oddly, we seem to forget this every time we organise a workshop.

How many times have you spent a day learning some marvellous new way of doing things, walked out thinking, “This is excellent” put the folder somewhere safe and carried on exactly as before? I have.

We have somehow developed a culture where learning is treated as an event. Book the facilitator, find the room, provide lunch, learn collaboration, home by four. Job done.

I learnt the limitations of that model the long way around.

When I came back into agriculture, people decided I did not look like the stereotype of someone they expected to see representing the industry. Apparently that was useful, so I was pushed out the front and into the media.

This was all very new to me, and I was not remotely comfortable with it, so I demanded training. Then more training. Then more training.

It took me about 15 years to feel comfortable.

The other day I gave a presentation and a number of people told me it was the best presentation they had ever seen.

They should have been at my first one.

It had 127 slides.

I wish I were exaggerating.

That experience changed the way I thought about developing other people. When I started the Young Farming Champions program, I wanted people to have what I had eventually learned I needed, time, repetition, feedback and somewhere safe to keep practising.

The Young Farming Champions model was built around ongoing development. Once you joined, you could remain part of the network for as long as you wanted, continuing to build your skills over time. During COVID, we ran workshops every month, so people could say, “I want to feel more comfortable doing this,” and we could focus on exactly that. We brought in outstanding Australian and international experts, then gave people repeated opportunities to practise, get feedback and keep improving.

That is how confidence grows.

Then agricultural bodies looked at what we were doing and decided they wanted something similar. The young people were already there. The Action4Agriculture team was already training them. What changed was the desire to have the program sit inside their own organisation.

This is where I became increasingly frustrated with the way institutions behave. We talk endlessly about collaboration, but the system often rewards the person who can point to something and say, “That was my idea. I built that. That was my result.”

Once that becomes the prize, curiosity becomes inconvenient.

Nobody asks, “Why is this working?” or “What could we add to what is already here?” The question becomes, “How do we create our own version?”

And that is how duplication starts to look like achievement.

The result can be beautifully efficient.

Train them on Saturday.

Face of the industry by Monday.

It is a wonderfully efficient system, provided human beings work like software updates.

Recently I have been spending time with collaboration specialist Stuart Waters, and he has been subtly dismantling several things I thought I knew. One of them is my GPS model.

I have used it for years. Goal. Problem. Solution. Where are we trying to go? What is getting in the way? What is the solution? Perfectly sensible.

Except Stuart pointed out something rather inconvenient.

If we knew the solution, we probably would not have the problem.

With complex problems, the solution is rarely sitting there politely waiting for someone clever enough to notice it. Stuart talks instead about steps, experiments, things we can try, learn from and adjust.

So perhaps GPS survives. Goal. Problem. Steps.

I rather like that. It removes the requirement to stride into every complicated situation carrying The Answer.

It also exposes another habit we have. We are often in an extraordinary hurry to solve the problem before we have worked out what the problem actually is. Something goes wrong and we deal with the bit we can see.

People are not collaborating. Students are dropping rubbish. A community is not engaging. A candidate loses an election.

Right. Fix that.

Except those things may be symptoms. The interesting questions sit underneath. Why is this happening? What assumptions are we making? Who knows something we don’t? Who sees the situation differently?

And the question I am finding increasingly important in some other work I am doing is this.

Have we actually spoken to the people most affected?

It is astonishing how often the answer appears to be no. Reports get written, programs get designed, conclusions get reached and entire narratives develop. Meanwhile, somebody sitting right in the middle of the experience is thinking, “You could have asked me.”

And then I am preparing to stand in front of children and put this on a screen.

Stay curious. Ask before you assume. Understand the problem before you solve it. Listen to learn. Share the thinking. Try something small. Learn what happens. Keep going.

The children are not the only people who could use the reminder.

I am also going to ask them something I have found unexpectedly difficult myself.

Who do you know who does this? Who stays curious when everyone else has already decided? Who asks another question? Who listens because they genuinely want to know the answer? Who can say, “I don’t know”? Who can discover something new and change their mind without behaving as though they have suffered a humiliating defeat?

I can think of a few people. Stuart is one.

What I notice when I talk to him is that having expertise has not made him less curious. Quite the opposite. He keeps asking questions. What is the actual dilemma? Who else sees this differently? What could we try? What might we learn?

Perhaps that is what expertise should look like.

Knowing enough to know that you probably don’t know everything.

There is another uncomfortable question sitting underneath my student workshop. We spend a great deal of time telling young people they will need curiosity, critical thinking, creativity, communication and collaboration to navigate the future.

Who are they watching do it now?

Because one workshop will not do it. Not for them. Not for us.

A workshop might introduce an idea. It might give us language for something we had never noticed before. It might even make us uncomfortable enough to rethink something.

Then comes Monday.

That is when the learning starts.

How Do We Select Team Players and Identify True Collaborators for Leadership Opportunities

Selecting the right individuals for leadership roles, scholarships, and other significant opportunities is a challenging yet crucial task. Over my 15 years on various selection panels, I’ve encountered a recurring challenge: differentiating between applicants seeking personal career enhancement and those genuinely driven by a desire to be part of a team that makes a difference. Here are some insights and tips on identifying true team players:

Understanding the Importance of Teamwork

Individual commitment to a group effort—that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work.” — Vince Lombardi

Teamwork is not just a buzzword; it’s a fundamental aspect of achieving collective success. As Helen Keller famously said, “Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much.” This quote encapsulates the essence of teamwork and the incredible potential that lies in collaborative efforts.

Key Qualities to Look For

Demonstrated History of Collaboration: Look for candidates who have a proven track record of working well in teams. This can be evidenced through their involvement in group projects, team sports, community service, or collaborative academic work.
Communication Skills: Effective team players are also excellent communicators. They listen actively, articulate their ideas clearly, and provide constructive feedback. During interviews, pay attention to how candidates interact with you and others.
Empathy and Respect: True collaborators respect diverse perspectives and show empathy towards their peers. They understand that every team member brings unique strengths and viewpoints, which can enhance the overall performance of the group.
Willingness to Share Credit: A strong indicator of a team player is their willingness to share credit for successes. Look for candidates who use “we” instead of “I” when discussing their achievements, indicating their recognition of collective efforts.
Problem-Solving Orientation: Team players are often solution-oriented and willing to go the extra mile to help their team succeed. They approach challenges with a collaborative mindset, seeking input from others and working together to find the best solutions.

“None of us is as smart as all of us.” — Ken Blanchard

Identifying Genuine Team Players

To identify candidates who genuinely want to be part of a team that makes a difference, consider the following strategies:

Behavioral Interviews: Ask candidates about past experiences where they worked in a team. Questions like, “Can you describe a time when you had to collaborate with others to achieve a goal?” can reveal much about their teamwork abilities.
Scenario-Based Questions: Present hypothetical scenarios that require teamwork to resolve. Observe how candidates propose to handle these situations and how they incorporate others’ input into their solutions.
References and Recommendations: Seek feedback from previous supervisors, mentors, or team members who can provide insights into the candidate’s ability to work collaboratively.
Group Activities: If possible, include group activities or projects as part of the selection process. This allows you to observe candidates in action and see how they interact with others in real-time.

Selecting individuals who are true team players requires a keen eye and thoughtful consideration. By focusing on their past behaviours, communication skills, empathy, and problem-solving abilities, you can identify candidates who are not only looking to advance their careers but are also committed to making a meaningful impact as part of a team. Remember, together, we can achieve so much more.

#Teamwork #Collaboration #Leadership #TeamPlayer #GroupEffort #Empathy #CommunicationSkills #ProblemSolving #TogetherWeAchieveMore #CommunityImpact #LeadershipOpportunities #SelectionProcess #TeamSuccess #BritishEnglish #MakingADifference #CollectiveEffort #WorkingTogether

Embracing Leadership Through Practice

I’ve spent a lifetime delving into the intricacies of leadership. I have attended courses, read the theories, written about them, appreciated role models and mentored others on the best practices. Yet, despite all this knowledge, I find it challenging to put these theories into practice in face-to-face interactions. It’s a humbling realisation that even after 60 years, change is arduous. This is why I am so committed to supporting young people to embed leadership skills into their everyday lives from the very start.

Why is it so important for young people to learn and practice these skills now? Because the earlier they start, the more ingrained these healthy behaviours will become. They won’t have to battle decades of ingrained responses; instead, they can develop a natural inclination towards constructive, positive interactions. They can become the leaders who instinctively know how to navigate crucial moments with grace and effectiveness.

For decades, social scientists have studied the flight or fight or freeze responses other phenomena seeking to explain our emotions and behaviour in crucial and sometimes frightening moments. Unfortunately, when these crucial moments come, we tend to act our worst. Our genetic and physical makeup, societal pressures, and a lack of healthy behaviour models all push us to act in self-defeating ways.

Understanding the science behind why we say the things we say can be transformative. It offers a pathway to healthier conversations, better relationships, and higher-performing teams. Yet, knowing the theory is only half the battle. The real challenge lies in the day-to-day practice, in those face-to-face moments where our instincts often betray us. It’s about building a bridge between knowledge and action, something that I continue to strive for and hope to instil in the younger generation.

Why is it so important for young people to learn and practice these skills now? Because the earlier they start, the more ingrained these healthy behaviours will become. They won’t have to battle decades of ingrained responses; instead, they can develop a natural inclination towards constructive, positive interactions. They can become the leaders who instinctively know how to navigate crucial moments with grace and effectiveness.

Supporting young people in this journey isn’t just about teaching them the theory. It’s about providing them with real-world opportunities to practice these skills, to make mistakes, and to learn from them. It’s about creating environments where healthy conversations and strong, supportive relationships are the norm. This is the legacy I hope to leave – not just a wealth of knowledge, but a generation of leaders who can put that knowledge into practice every single day.

#Leadership #YouthEmpowerment #CommunicationSkills #EmotionalIntelligence #TeamBuilding #SelfAwareness #HealthyConversations #PositiveInteractions #SupportYoungLeaders #TransformativeLeadership

How to Express Your Opinions Respectfully – A Guide for Assertive Communication

Updated October 2026

In May 2024, I shared an article by communications specialist Alex Reed about expressing opinions respectfully. It has become one of the most popular posts on my blog. Two years later, I’ve been revisiting that advice.

I’ve spent much of this year talking with people about leadership, community engagement and what happens when people with different opinions try to make decisions together. I’ve also had some fascinating conversations on Facebook with people whose opinions are very different from mine. Some have challenged my thinking and others have tested my patience.

I’ve discovered that some people would rather explain their opinions for the eleventh time than consider that someone might understand them perfectly well and disagree. And now I’m wondering how many of the arguments I’ve had on Facebook were with actual human beings.

According to Imperva’s 2026 Bad Bot Report, automated systems generated more than 53% of web traffic in 2025, with 40% of total traffic classified as malicious. The figures come from cybersecurity company Imperva’s research into website activity. They don’t tell us how many Facebook commenters are bots, but they raise an interesting question about who or what we are engaging with online.

So I’ve revisited Alex’s advice, added some lessons from my recent experiences, and questioned a couple of the original recommendations.

Know what you want from the conversation

Before you speak, write or comment, ask yourself what you are trying to achieve. Are you sharing information, challenging a claim, trying to persuade someone or genuinely curious about how another person arrived at an opinion you find difficult to understand?

Your purpose will influence how you approach the conversation. And if you’re hoping to change someone’s mind, consider how likely that is when you begin by telling them they’re an idiot.

Be clear and brief

Make your point early and choose words your audience understands. I’ve attended presentations where experts have spent considerable time explaining research, complete with detailed diagrams and impressive terminology. Sometimes the audience understands the information perfectly well. They simply disagree with the conclusions.

Repeating the explanation, with another diagram for good measure, rarely solves that problem. Ask people what they have understood before deciding what else to explain.

Speak for yourself

Alex’s original advice encouraged using phrases such as “I think”, “I feel” and “I believe” to make opinions less confrontational. These expressions can help when describing personal experiences or feelings, but you can also say, “The evidence shows…” or “Can you explain how you reached that conclusion?”

You can disagree strongly without making the disagreement personal. And when you have evidence to support your position, share it.

Listen to understand

Give people the opportunity to finish what they’re saying and read their entire comment before responding. Ask questions such as “What led you to that conclusion?”, “Where did you find that information?” or “Have you considered this evidence?”

You may discover that two people who appear to disagree are actually concerned about the same problem but favour different solutions. You may also discover that you have completely different values. Either discovery tells you something.

Be curious about people who disagree with you

Some of the most interesting conversations I’ve had have been with people whose opinions I strongly oppose. I’m particularly interested in how people I know and respect can reach conclusions that I find abhorrent.

What experiences influenced them? What information are they relying on? Have they considered the consequences of the policies or positions they support? Asking someone to explain their reasoning gives you more information than telling them they’re wrong. Of course, they may ask you to explain yours.

Understand the difference between disagreement and disrespect

You can challenge someone’s argument without attacking their intelligence, character or motives. Criticise the claim, question the evidence and explain the consequences.

If someone makes a statement about immigration, for example, ask how their proposal would affect industries that rely on migrant labour. If someone argues against a policy designed to protect children, ask what alternative protections they propose. Specific questions give people something specific to answer.

Choose your words carefully

The original advice recommended avoiding emotional language. I would qualify that. Some issues deserve an emotional response. Domestic violence, racism, discrimination and threats to people’s safety are hardly subjects about which we should be expected to feel indifferent.

But calling somebody an idiot rarely helps explain your position. Be as passionate as you like about the issue and give people evidence and reasons to consider alongside that passion.

Practise empathy

Try to understand what another person has experienced and what they fear losing. People may reach different political conclusions because their circumstances, opportunities and experiences have been very different. Understanding those experiences can explain their opinions. It doesn’t oblige you to agree with them.

Recognise when someone is trying to provoke you

This is an addition I wouldn’t have considered necessary in May 2024. Before responding to an unfamiliar account online, have a look at its profile and posting history. Does it appear to belong to a real person? Does it repeatedly post the same material? Does it engage with questions or simply respond with another provocative statement?

None of these signs proves an account is automated. Human beings can behave this way too. But if an account repeatedly ignores your questions and tries to provoke another argument, consider whether replying is achieving anything. Remember that other people may be reading the exchange, even if they never comment.

Give people time to respond

In a meeting, allow people to finish and ask for clarification before challenging a statement. Online, read your response before posting it. Have you answered what the person actually said? Have you checked the facts? Is your response likely to encourage a useful exchange?

Sometimes ten minutes away from the keyboard can save another hour of argument.

Know when to leave

Alex’s original article encouraged people to agree to disagree. It’s good advice. You can understand somebody’s position, disagree with every word and end the conversation.

You can also decide that somebody who repeatedly ignores your questions has had enough of your attention. And social media offers a rather convenient feature called the block button.

Remember that communication is a two-way responsibility

Much of the advice about respectful communication concentrates on the person speaking, but the person listening has responsibilities too. Are you prepared to consider evidence that contradicts your opinion? Are you asking questions because you want answers, or because you’re looking for another opportunity to explain yourself?

Can you recognise when somebody understands your argument but doesn’t accept it? And can you admit when somebody has given you information you hadn’t previously considered?

I’ve spent years encouraging young people to develop four skills: curiosity, creativity, collaboration and communication. I’m increasingly convinced that adults could benefit from practising them too.

The next time you encounter someone whose opinions are very different from yours, what would happen if you asked one more question before making your next statement? And how would you know when you’d asked enough?

What are your thoughts? Is this a masterclass in how to have a conversation?

This article revisits and expands on communication advice originally shared in May 2024 from communications specialist Alex Reed.

Source for bot statistics: Imperva, 2026 Bad Bot Report, Bad Bots in the Agentic Age.

How to Shift from Personal Attacks to Issue-Focused Discussions

“Transform your conversations: Learn how to move from personal attacks to productive, issue-focused discussions for more constructive and meaningful interactions.”

In our fast-paced digital world, conversations can quickly escalate into personal attacks, especially on social media where anonymity and physical distance make it easy to forget there’s a real person behind the screen. However, focusing on the issue rather than the person not only leads to more productive discussions but also helps maintain healthy relationships. Here’s how we can cultivate a more respectful and constructive dialogue.

Understanding Active Listening

Active listening is a key skill in transforming our conversations. It involves giving full attention to the speaker, understanding their message, and responding thoughtfully. By practicing active listening, we can foster a more respectful atmosphere where each person feels heard and valued, thereby reducing the likelihood of personal attacks.

The Importance of Constructive Communication

Educating ourselves and others on constructive communication is crucial. This includes using “I” statements that focus on our own experiences rather than making accusatory or generalized statements about others. For example, saying “I feel overlooked when my points are not considered” instead of “You never listen to me!” can shift the tone of the conversation.

Fostering Empathy

Empathy can dramatically change the way we interact with others. Trying to see the situation from another person’s perspective can reduce defensive reactions and help us focus on the real issues at hand. Empathy leads to understanding, and understanding opens the door to resolving conflicts.

Setting Clear Rules

In any environment, especially online, clear communication guidelines can help steer conversations towards issue-based discussions. Platforms that enforce these rules consistently create safer spaces for everyone involved, allowing for more meaningful exchanges.

The Role of Moderators

Online forums and discussion groups benefit greatly from moderators who can keep conversations on track. These individuals play a crucial role in guiding discussions back to the main issues and stepping in when personal attacks occur.

Encouraging Fact-based Discussions

Promoting discussions based on facts rather than opinions helps keep conversations objective. Encouraging participants to provide evidence for their claims can lead to more grounded and less emotionally charged discussions.

Focusing on the issue rather than the person is crucial for productive dialogue and maintaining positive relationships. By practicing active listening, fostering empathy, and following clear communication rules, we can transform our interactions into constructive and respectful exchanges. Implementing these strategies not only enhances our personal conversations but also improves the overall quality of discourse in any setting.

#ConstructiveDialogue #ActiveListening #EmpathyInConversations #HealthyDiscussions #CommunicationSkills #ResolveConflicts #FocusOnTheIssue

By adopting these strategies, we can all contribute to creating more respectful and productive environments, both online and in person, enhancing our interactions and understanding across various platforms and situations.

You can find all our posts on Digital Literacy here